There is a chance of the lore having big changes to appeal to a wider audience

[Sardukhar]

I got to post the source.

Don't say the part I edited out, thanks. Unnecessary and unfriendly. Not cool.

 

[BjornTheBandit]

MadqueenShow kofeiiniturpa

Spoiler

(I hope you have read what I said before Sard edited it, kofe)

Marcin Iwinski says at 8:05: "we're not creating a retro world because we don't think it would be believable to a younger audience"

Iwinski is right, Blade Runner 2049 took a retro futuristic approach and look at what happened, it was a failure in the box office (even though it was a great movie).

To be fair, the fanbase for Blade Runner is even more of a stickler than the CP2020 one, so they would have been burned at the stake if they hadnt

 

[kofeiiniturpa]

Edit, I read it Lisbeth_Salander

Clearly not out of my ass afterall. That's not the only one either (the source I mean). Trust my memory. It hasn't failed yet.

And anyway, I sometimes leave my sources out so you kids can get your spotlight.

 

[Lisbeth_Salander]

To be fair, the fanbase for Blade Runner is even more of a stickler than the CP2020 one, so they would have been burned at the stake if they hadnt

Oh yeah, they pleased the true Blade Runner fanbase and the movie bombed. Alright, so let's say the guys behind Blade Runner 2049, "cared" about the movie's fanbase, the final result doens't change!

The guys behind BR2049 cared about the original fanbase, therefore what they made scared the hell out of the majority of people.
If CDPR focus A LOT in the original CP2020, perhaps the result will be the same...no wonder why Iwinski said that "CDPR won't do a retro game because they don't want to scare younger audiences".

Iwinski predicted way back in 2012 that younger audiences don't like things retro. I dare to say right here and right now that if Iwinski was behind Blade Runner 2049, then perhaps the movie wouldn't be a box office disaster. As a game developer CEO he understands movies' demographics better than those behind BR2049.

What the hell does this all means? Maybe Cyberpunk 2077 won't be a disaster because it is in good hands.

 

[Lisbeth_Salander]

Edit, I read it Lisbeth_Salander

Clearly not out of my ass afterall. That's not the only one either (the source I mean). Trust my memory. It hasn't failed yet.

And anyway, I sometimes leave my sources out so you kids can get your spotlight.

LMAO XDDDDD

 

[kofeiiniturpa]

EDIT - Bah, nevermind. This isn't a Bladerunner thread.

 

[Sardukhar]

EDIT - Bah, nevermind. This isn't a Bladerunner thread.

Mmm...it isn't, that's true, but it is about Lore changes to satisfy a wider audience. BR 2049 vs BR 1 is a good subject for this discussion. It's fine.

BR 2049 didn't have a retro problem per se, it had a length issue and a reaaaalllllyyyy long hold frame or introspective pan issue, a character that was interesting but not dynamic and a last act that was fuzzy.

Oh and I found it oddly sterile? At least compared to 1. Which is unfair - so many comparisons to 1 that serve neither movie well.

Also Harrison Ford was kinda passive in that last act and that didn't sit too well with me or, I would guess, a lot of other people.

Like it's predecessor, I think it will find it's audience over time, but it will be a certain science fiction fan and not a wider release audience.

Cyberpunk 2020 audience is also highly...refined... and I think CDPR is trying to attract not only us but also the rest of the world. Which is fine - a great story should be shared with all. If they have to compromise my needs to create their vision, that's understandable.

The fan can be the most selfish creature.

That said, if they give us teleporters and (mostly) laser guns and force fields...grrrrrr...

 

[kofeiiniturpa]

Mmm...it isn't, that's true, but it is about Lore changes to satisfy a wider audience. BR 2049 vs BR 1 is a good subject for this discussion. It's fine.

Ok.

Yeah, the length and pacing I mentioned as the movies alleged problems before editing it all away.

I don't mind either. I specifically like long movies and more.... slower and throughtful pacing that attempt to take a more indepth and possibly even artistic approach to their subjects.

That said, I haven't seen the movie yet so I can't comment further. But I don't think 80's scifi would drive people off. There was that Far Cry expansion... what was it.... Blood Dragon?... that was apparently a good success. Not because it's 80's aesthetic (not wholly), but it certainly didn't "drive people away".

80's scifi is pretty campy today, so there'd be some inherent humor relief to it, and it might not be taken quite as seriously as when you have laser accurate depiction of future according to now than according to the 80's or 50's or what ever. But I do not think it'd be a dealbreaker. That comes from the game being bad at what it does; any aspect of it, be it writing or gameplay or art.

 

[Sardukhar]

80's scifi is pretty campy today,

I think it would be a mistake, because Cyberpunk 2020 wasn't about the 80s, it was about the Dark Future as seen from Now.

Well, back then, now was 1989. Now it's 2017.

When I got into Cpunk, we weren't all "Cool! So retro and chrome!" It was, "Cool! Near future and edgy street world!"

The latter is the important part about Cyberpunk. The 80s thing is just when it first firmed into a PnP version that CDPR is basing their game off. Really not that important.

 

[kofeiiniturpa]

I think it would be a mistake, because Cyberpunk 2020 wasn't about the 80s

Oh, I understood it. It was about the future as envisioned in the 80's, not 80's in 2020. That's how I always took it.

I can also see the continuum there, that now it's probably going to be more future as envisioned in 2010's. That follows the pattern.

And no, I didn't look at 2020 through it's artistic style. I really didn't. It was all gameplay and cool scifi. All this talk is "in hindsight" with the realization that it won't be the way it was anymore. Had they not specifically said that "No, it's not going to look like it used to", I don't think I would've even noticed to make a comment.

Looking back, I think there was quite some charm in the roughness and style of how things used to be, and more so combined with 80's fashio ideas. I do think it's a bit shame they'll not embrace it. Modern scifi tends to be a bit too.... close to home and kinda lame on the outset.

 

[Suhiira]

I mean, that's all true what you're writing there, but I miss what it tries to actually say - in case it isn't meant to just point out ancient people would think our TV's are real[SUP]tm[/SUP] magic while I, a child of the 80's, might think a holographic TV screen in science fiction is already a bit boring a concept.

What I suppose I mean to say is that the tech in scifi today lacks the sort of "wonder of new" because we've gone so much forward since 80's and 90's already and ours is now thematically so close to those contraptions in a lot of new scifi, that it often (too often) seems... "unimaginative and boring".

Pretty much.
Most folks look for a "Wow" factor in Sci Fi. But that's not really the point of Science FICTION, tho it often is in Science FANTASY.

We've come to expect life altering changes. The very idea that people could travel faster then a horse could gallop, fly, instantly communicate with others across the world, have the knowledge of sages at their fingertips, go to the moon, are all pretty "wow" to most of human history. But what's "wow" to us?

 

[kofeiiniturpa]

But what's "wow" to us?

That's the big question.

I don't think having internet wired to your brain and videofeed straight to your eyes so you can make a video call to someone so you can check a website together without any external devices creates much "good vibrations" in fiction anymore in the same way the idea of a mere palmsized cellphone did 30 years ago.

I guess that's why I would've rather held on to the 80's aesthetic and ideals of scifi. It's not "realistic" anymore, but it's interesting.

Science FICTION, tho it often is in Science FANTASY

I've normally taken science fantasy to mean something like mixing regular fantasy concepts with their scifi counterparts, like Star Wars. Shadowrun is an odd mix of it where the scifi seems pretty normal hi-tech scifi but then you have the elves and magic and it's just weird.

 

[Suhiira]

Some people think folks will want to replace body parts because they'll offer some advantage.
Probably the same one that were convinced the latest VR craze would revolutionize home computing/games.
Didn't happen, won't happen; till it gets a LOT cheaper, less finicky (i.e. demanding the user have some technical expertise), more comfortable to wear/use for more then an hour or so.

But hey ... they said the same thing about the horseless carriage and eventually it caught on.

 

[4meg]

I think what made cyberpunk so interesting in the 80s wasn't so much the technology itself, but the way it was applied. In those stories the characters took the tech for granted it was so cheap and common. While there was still high end gear (Ono-Sendai Cyberdeck 7s, Japanese vs. Russian implants, etc.) most of it was so cheap it was throw away. We aren't there yet. CP2077 has the opportunity to show us how we could apply our current and future tech in new and interesting ways. Regardless of the aesthetic, it can still have the wow factor we're all looking for I think.

 

[SigilFey]

I imagine lore changes will happen as a matter of simple evolution. Back in the '80s, the whole concept of "cyberpunk" was brand new. Plus, campy pretty much defined the '80s -- role-playing games, music, fashion, movies, TV, decor. Trying to maintain faithful to that is like trying to make bell-bottom jeans read as the height of fashion to a modern audience. It's only ever going to appeal to a niche audience, and it will leave the vast majority of people rolling their eyes and taking a pass. Better bet is to re-qualify the overall thing to a suit the evolution of society as a whole. Like the new trend toward dark, gritty looking super-hero costumes in modern films. It just suits the mentality of modern lean toward realism better than Superman's "strong-man underwear" or Batman's "bright grey tights".

The same could be said of the lore (which I have almost no knowledge of). Any change that's made will likely be done to better suit a narrative approach, add a twist, or justify the inclusion of something really surprising.

 

[Suhiira]

I think what made cyberpunk so interesting in the 80s wasn't so much the technology itself, but the way it was applied. In those stories the characters took the tech for granted it was so cheap and common.

Here I think you've hit the nail on the head.
CP2020 wasn't about the tech but how people used it. They used it to spy on, control, and placate the masses while the privileged elite did whatever they damn well pleased. Meanwhile a small segment of society asserted (often violently and "of course" illegally) and that the masses could/should benefit from it as well not be slaves to it.
Sound familiar?

Hint ... 1984.

Back in the '80s, the whole concept of "cyberpunk" was brand new. Plus, campy pretty much defined the '80s -- role-playing games, music, fashion, movies, TV, decor. Trying to maintain faithful to that is like trying to make bell-bottom jeans read as the height of fashion to a modern audience.

I recall the 60's being a lot more "campy" then the 80's.

 

[4meg]

Here I think you've hit the nail on the head.
CP2020 wasn't about the tech but how people used it. They used it to spy on, control, and placate the masses while the privileged elite did whatever they damn well pleased. Meanwhile a small segment of society asserted (often violently and "of course" illegally) and that the masses could/should benefit from it as well not be slaves to it.
Sound familiar?

Hint ... 1984.

1984 certainly, but we've become indentured to communication companies with contracts that lock you in while you're paying off your latest device. While we're living la vida cyberpunk in some ways (mostly bad), we don't yet have techies churning out cheap knock-offs to circumvent this. Yet.