Cyberpunk 2077 – Dev Explains The Creepy Children NPC Models In The Game! Plus A Legendary Discovery



Read more about Cyberpunk 2077➜ https://cyberpunk2077.mgn.tv

Cyberpunk 2077 News Updates – So why are all the children in Cyberpunk 2077 and Assassin’s Creed Valhalla a little…uhm…creepy? A developer lends some …

Source

24 thoughts on “Cyberpunk 2077 – Dev Explains The Creepy Children NPC Models In The Game! Plus A Legendary Discovery”

  1. I honestly don't think this game was made in 8 years, or even 5 years. Remember Johnny is a big part of the game. Keanu didn't come into conversations with CDPR until 2018. That's about 2 years of development. So my question is, what happened? Did they scrap a previous plan and focus on Johnny?

    Reply
  2. Children in Fallout 4 are fine! Children in Breath of the Wild are fine! CDPR said they would have 'amazing real-time AI systems allowing for an incredibly dynamic bustling city, setting a new standard in terms of visuals, complexity and depth', yet they couldn't be arsed to model a single child! What a truly disappointing last gen game it turned out to be…

    Reply
  3. "Execs" are not just a problem in the gaming industry. This is a general problem for large project development. "Execs" are almost always the reason development projects fail, especially those execs without ground level development experience themselves. Their expectations are often uninformed and unrealistic. They will browbeat dev teams to commit to unknowable deadlines, and even after that make major design changes without much regard to the consequences. I think consumers should separate in their minds the difference between "devs" and the executives that often force failure to occur.

    One of my worst examples: I once had a new Director of IT boss that decided to change the programming language of a successful almost complete project currently in beta testing (already with excited end user testers) that had been in development for a couple years, only because he himself was not familiar with that programming language when he was hired. We told him reprogramming the whole thing in "his" technology (Visual Basic LOL) would take 6 – 8 months, and he insisted it would only take 3 weeks. After 8 months with him periodically chastising us for taking over 3 weeks, I left that company for a more lucrative and supportive job. The rework was 95% complete and mostly only needed some UI touch up. He then hired contract VB programmers to finish up that didn't understand the complexity of the app/business (multi line insurance instant quoting in the field for agents) and it never got completed and the excited users got chumped. This guy eventually screwed up various mainframe systems bad because he also had unrealistic expectations about that work, and was eventually laid off after wasting several million dollars in time and failed projects (and prompted me and others to find a better employer). He had a genius level IQ and graduated top in his class at MIT with the full backing of the board and could argue up a storm, but thought he knew things he didn't. He got hired by selling the board of directors that no project should take longer than three weeks, which they ate up of course (back then those guys were severe tech luddites and didn't like how slow and expensive custom development is – probably hasn't changed much). Of course he couldn't deliver that, caused several projects to fail badly and cost the company millions, getting laid off after several years of damage. He probably went on to use that experience to get another IT Director job somewhere else, hopefully after learning something.

    Execs can think their "lets try this" idea is worth negating hundreds of people's full time work of months or even years, because they can, and or because they want to "make their mark". There is a time for design and mock up testing, then there is a time to commit for rubber to hit the road and execs often have no clue when they should stop changing things just because they have the power to do so. Very few "execs" are actually experts in the field they reside over and exponentially underestimate amounts of work required. I've seen projects where committees of leaders "design" an application over two whole years of weekly meetings, only to declare that the project is now "done" even though not one line of code had started. They had already taken up 80% of the allotted project timeline, deciding stupid things like what dropdown list boxes should look like (it was predetermined by their technology decision). The actual "doing it" part is not even considered to be significant in their minds. They don't understand the depth of their own cluelessness. Only an "exec" could spend two years of meetings designing an application, then expect it to be developed in just a month or two. This same programming tech was sold to the board as "no programming required", and it required a team of 10 programmers over a year to develop what they designed, and the same over 2 more years to finish the other two major application requirement areas that the two years of design meetings didn't even cover.

    Reply
  4. Indie game dev here. Nothing hard about making children or any characters of different proportions. I don't know what they're talking about. Sounds lazy to me.

    Edit: So it is laziness. Jesus.

    Reply

Leave a Comment