I'm quite optimistic because games are designed from the ground up around the camera perspective, so the choice to go first person heavily implies Cyberpunk 2077 will be its own distinct thing, rather than The Witcher 3 with sci-fi spices. Let the implications of that sink in for a second - any other publicly traded company would've milked the success of The Witcher 3 for the next decade. At this point it's as close as we can get to confirmation that CD Projekt have a genuine artistic vision in mind.

Of course the problem with someone having an artistic vision is it might not be your vision, but I'll take that risk a hundred times over rather than swallow one more mouthful of unfulfilling corporate popcorn.

I see no problem with this.

Deus Ex and its successors are all FPS and no one complained.

If you want a pen-and-paper RNG-heavy game similar to Cyberpunk, there's Shadowrun. I have Shadowrun:Dragonfall on Steam and never finished it because the RNG made the game suck and the cover system was unpredictable. Speaking of which, if cover is going to be a big part of the game then it might as well be an FPS or TPS.

RNG-heavy FPS generally doesn't work. I remember how infuriating the combat in Morrowind was when you could hit enemies repeatedly and "miss".

Well, there are a lot of reasons to not like the FPS perspective.

1. The camera is awful. It is never a true First Person perspective. The human eye is dynamic and we have peripheral vision. The camera field is awful. Nobody actually makes any effort to make a good first person perspective. You can have a character standing right next to you a foot away and the player won't know unless they turn the camera 90 degrees.

It is no different than putting a static camera on the car dash during a race - it is nothing like actually driving.

2. It limits combat. Combat in the Witcher series is great. Combat in the Batman Arkham games is great, same with Monster Hunter and Gears of War, Zelda Breath of the Wild. You can make a great combat systems in TPP. FPS is very limited. All FPP melee combat is awful.

3. The environment from FPS point of view. In FPS perspective you are always in a stupid angle with the environment. Because your hands are always on screen somehow your head is always 3 feet high at your waist when you walk up to things to interact with them.

4. The environment in general. In TPP you can sense the size and scope of the environment you are in, in FPS not so much. Scaling and jumping off peaks in Assasin's Creed, Breath of the Wild and Monster Hunter is awesome. Scaling a rock from FPP when all you can see is gray rock from 2 inches away sucks.

5. Jumping. Yeah, all platforming and jumping in FPP sucks. Again, TPP allows for so much more interaction with the environment/world for the player.

6. So in an RPG game in which I can customize my character with new gear and augmentation, I will never get to see him/her? Wow, great, so that awesome flame thrower I add to my left arm to roast the baddies I will never see in use. A waste.

And System Shock 2

Do you mean Detroit Become Human?
I have played only the demo. Well, doesn't seem to be bad, but.. it's very casual I'd say. May buy it some time in the future, however I'm not expecting much more than I can see in the demo. The story can be interesting but I wouldn't call it a game.
I was fooling about Cybepunk 2077 VN anyway. I was hoping for FPP and I will get that it seems.

Judging by the posts in this very thread, Deus Ex, System Shock, Unreal, Quake, Far Cry, Doom, The Elder Scrolls, No One Lives Forever, Metro, Stalker, BioShock, Wolfenstein, Half-Life, Prey etc. were all big mistakes ; p

But would they even be satisfied with Witcherpunk? I wouldn't have.

I just pointed out why people like TPP over FPP, I am not saying I know what CDPR is doing with FPP for CP 2077.

In every FPP game you move forward you see your hands. Stand up and walk. Then realize how high and where you have to place your hands for that to be FPP. Same with holding a weapon. Nobody moves holding a weapon in that manner.

As for making Doom, et all in TPP they would look just fine fine. I know this because Epic did Unreal and then made Gears of War and IMO it is a much better shooter game. Also, comparing an RPG like Skyrim and Fallout in FPP to the world I get in Breath of the Wild and The Witcher, it is not even close IMO to which turned out better. I will take TW3 and BotW every single day over Skyrim and Fallout.

^ This is really the problem though. This comment isn't aimed at you personally, but a lot of gamers are just being silly with "I'm going to pretend I know it must be bad years before it's even released without even seeing whether it actually fits the style of play..." Given CDPR are making design choices as to what actually fits their game, all "FPS Cyberpunk must be awful" people end up doing is complaining that 'Cyberpunk 2077 isn't Batman / Assassins Creed' and completely ignoring CDPR talking about it being closer to Deus Ex which worked flawlessly as FPP...

As for your points raised:-

- "It limits combat" - First of all, most games you listed are melee focussed (Batman, Witcher, etc). Ranged shooting is often much better in FPS's. Secondly, liking / disliking FPP melee is entirely subjective. I found Morrowind a little clunky, but then I've had zero problems with "FPS swords" from Thief & Shadow Warrior to Skyrim & Dishonored. I found Mass Effect's TPP shooting clunky as hell yet had no problem with Giants: Citizens Kabuto. It's all down to how a game implements it, not a one size fits all "rule".

- "Scaling and jumping off peaks like in Assassin's Creed". Maybe Cyberpunk 2077's style of play isn't as "platformy" as Assassins Creed, and as CDPR have repeatedly hinted, will be much more like Deus Ex (which also is nothing like Assassins Creed or any of the unrelated games you mentioned)...

- "Lack of peripheral vision" in FPS's is because a typical FOV of 80-90 has to fit flat-panel monitors regardless of viewpoint. Turn it up too high and you get a fisheye effect in ALL games. For that reason no games (FPP or TPP) has 170-180 degrees that matches 'real life' human vision either, they fake it by zooming out a little. What you then get is exactly the same FOV, but you only gain more in width by losing out on seeing fine detail for distant things (important for shooters) no different to zooming out a zoom lens on a camera.

- "You see your hands / gun at eye level" in FPS shooters because you typically aim a gun a lot higher than waist high. No idea what you've played but most FPS's I've played also don't show permanent "jazz hands" when you have a weapon holstered. Personally I find the overly dramatic movements of characters in some TPP games equally stupid, but at least I don't write any game off before actually seeing it.

- "As unrealistic as a camera on a car dash". Compared to the 'realism' of seeing the back of your own head or "Sky God view" in RTS / isometrics? No game genre has "100% xtreme realism" of anything. For counter-examples, see the multitude of TPP games where the camera starts bouncing around / flies through walls / rapidly zooms in / out when trying to look around in narrow corridors.

Really people just need to wait and see how the game actually plays rather than write it off years before its even released via endless projections of what they didn't like in other games. Just because Assassins Creed was platformy (and thus suited to TPP) doesn't mean Cyberlink 2077 will be anywhere near as platformy too or "need" TPP the same way (example - Deus Ex) or play like it was "Witcher 4" simply because it's by the same dev when it clearly doesn't look to be based around the sword-wielding medieval fantasy genre...

Edit : If I listened to everyone who "educated" me that "I wouldn't like x because of y" other games (eg, "stealth games must be 'better' as 3rd person so you'll probably hate Thief", "Portal has some jumping puzzles but is 1st person, you'll probably hate that too because everyone knows platformers = TPP", "there are driving sequences in NOLF, but since that's FPS and driving is better in TPP, cross that off your list too"), then I'd hardly have any games at all (and for those 3 games, the "advice" given by those who haven't played them and are just guessing about gameplay based on camera angle is as wrong as wrong can be...)

There have been some very good points raised about the FPS game vs other styles. I agree with nearly all of them, and one other one: expectations. All the video game releases I had seen to date, none had FPS. There were all similar to the Witcher's series format, so naturally when the FPS article came out, I was very disappointed. I am no fan of FPS, even though I have played them. Some love it. To each their own.

I will want to support the studio, as I am still hoping for a Witcher 4 someday, so while I will not purchase the game right away, or even pre-order it as I have with the Witcher series. Instead, I will wait a long while before purchasing it. Perhaps when it goes on sale.

With that said, I hope the game is even more successful than CDPR hopes it to be, and truly hope everyone enjoys the game.