It wasn't as buggy on PC but it was still a hollow shell of the game they promised. It was missing features and many of the rpg elements didn't work like some of the things in the skill tree. They promised some sort of insane GTA-New Vegas hybrid and it didn't do anything those games did. It lacked features GTA 3 had at launch (that wasn't a typo, the 20 year old ps2 game) and as for the new vegas style rpg depth I think the only thing that remotely came close to it was that one mission they demoed pre-release where you walk into the gang base and talk with the leader.
I don't follow marketing closely so I guess I also didn't have sky-high expectations. In general I feel like a game should be judged more for what it
is than what it isn't, though of course false advertisement is bad.
In any case, I'll readily admit that surely a major reason I don't mind many of these purported downgrades is because I personally
really don't care for GTA-style open world gameplay. I understand that its absence or greatly reduced scope would strongly affect the enjoyment of people who thought they'd be getting that in a Cyberpunk setting.
I do want to say though that while, as someone else mentioned, the quality of the non-mainline missions varied a lot, there was certainly more than one of them which allowed for more than one approach. And personally I though a decent number of them were really quite good.
All that said, I don't want to give the impression that I thought 2077 was the greatest thing ever. It's just a quite decent (and extremely pretty) game in my opinion. But that's not the kind of verdict that really gets people going on the internet