That sounds more like SmasherHumanity is overrated when I'm already 90% machine.
That sounds more like SmasherHumanity is overrated when I'm already 90% machine.
Probably Militech, with all that Make America Great Again, does not like woman on a leading positions very much. You know, traditional american values)Hopefully not entirely like stout.
That poor woman even needs to prove herself between the sheets.
They have forgotten somewhere during production that game doesn't have to be art, have message and all this other useless things. It just have to be FUN and makes players feel good. And when they beat it leave them with satisfied feeling. That's all, someting very basic and not requiring any overthinking. Why Dragon Quest serie has so many parts and pplz still love it? Cause it doesn't try to reinvent wheel, it's linear strory, but everyone know it will be and devs not tell players otherwise, it always have good ending and leave players feeling satisfied after beating final boss. They do it over and over again and it works. If they just don't it properly and didn't screw last act even that linear story we have now might actually be good, but it's not. It's not cause it lacks most important thing game must have: FEELING OF SATISFACTION. If game doesn't leave player with positive feelings it's failed game.
That sounds more like Smasher
Adam smash!That sounds more like Smasher
They can still make everyone happy. They just need to add two things to the game, a better ending where V doesn't have plot cancer and a new junk item "Razor Blades" so people that don't want a happy ending can have their V sit in a corner cutting themselves for the 6 months till they expire. That should satisfy everyone.Everyone woud. The sad ending just for sake of sad ending is as silly as yours demand for unicorns and rainbows.
Probably. She did not even order breakfast...Probably Militech, with all that Make America Great Again, does not like woman on a leading positions very much. You know, traditional american values)
She had other thing in mind. And in handProbably. She did not even order breakfast...
they can just have an armless, eyeless v. stripped for parts, mind completely gone sitting in a pool of piss on a mattress down an alley in the rain starving to death.They can still make everyone happy. They just need to add two things to the game, a better ending where V doesn't have plot cancer and a new junk item "Razor Blades" so people that don't want a happy ending can have their V sit in a corner cutting themselves for the 6 months till they expire. That should satisfy everyone.
There is big difference between 40k and Cyberpunk. Warhammer/40k is grim as hell but its also over the top epic, while they made Cyberpunk just edgy.While I totally am for peoples defending the actual endings we currently have, and I know I have no right to judge opinions, tastes or even ideologies, I can't understand why the main counter argument (most of the time) is... well it is "cyberpunk" death is inevitable it needs to be edgy, grim and dark, you just can't have a second chance... I mean while I understand most novels/games/movies are set in a dystopian low-life/high tech world, death is not and was never the main theme for cyberpunk, if I want grimdark stuff, I would go play/watch/read Warhammer stuff which is actually labeled as such. One simply need to read some of the genre pioneers to understand that it is so much more than that; Phil K, Brunner, Ballard, Gibson... etc.. I mean, it mainly draws its influence from punk subculture ( being 'misfits' against order/rebels) with anti-hero protagonists placed in dystopian's world controlled by megacorp filled with insane tech that grows exponentially fast... They (the "hero") will typically achieve their goals only for themselves/greed/egocentric instead of saving a world filled with unicorns a la disney by sacrificing themselves for the greater good of humanity. It does not mean the Hero will be in a better place after achieving his goals but where is it stated that death is or should be the main recurring theme.
"Characters are generally marginalized, alienated loners who lives on the edge of society in dystopic futures where daily lives are impacted by rapid tech changes, ubiquitous datasphere information and invasive modification of the human body
-- Lawrence Person"
V should've been the perfect anti-hero being able to survive against all odds by making the right choices even if it meant throwing everyone else under the bus, shaping that world eh. The death argument, I don't know, I don't get it.
Sure. Maybe she was getting some cigarettes.She had other thing in mind. And in hand
Actually V surviving and loving a life on the edge of being jumped by Arasaka would fit far better.While I totally am for peoples defending the actual endings we currently have, and I know I have no right to judge opinions, tastes or even ideologies, I can't understand why the main counter argument (most of the time) is... well it is "cyberpunk" death is inevitable it needs to be edgy, grim and dark, you just can't have a second chance... I mean while I understand most novels/games/movies are set in a dystopian low-life/high tech world, death is not and was never the main theme for cyberpunk, if I want grimdark stuff, I would go play/watch/read Warhammer stuff which is actually labeled as such. One simply need to read some of the genre pioneers to understand that it is so much more than that; Phil K, Brunner, Ballard, Gibson... etc.. I mean, it mainly draws its influence from punk subculture ( being 'misfits' against order/rebels) with anti-hero protagonists placed in dystopian's world controlled by megacorp filled with insane tech that grows exponentially fast... They (the "hero") will typically achieve their goals only for themselves/greed/egocentric instead of saving a world filled with unicorns a la disney by sacrificing themselves for the greater good of humanity. It does not mean the Hero will be in a better place after achieving his goals but where is it stated that death is or should be the main recurring theme.
"Characters are generally marginalized, alienated loners who lives on the edge of society in dystopic futures where daily lives are impacted by rapid tech changes, ubiquitous datasphere information and invasive modification of the human body
-- Lawrence Person"
V should've been the perfect anti-hero being able to survive against all odds by making the right choices even if it meant throwing everyone else under the bus, shaping that world eh. The death argument, I don't know, I don't get it.
Yes but I'm not here to play Mario Kart. I like Mario Kart. I read, write, and breathe cyberpunk (see my avatar) because I'm here to experience stories about class, privilege, capitalism, transhumanism, and noir criminal sensibility.
Post automatically merged:
I filled all of those slots for a reason! Sadly, no option for a Mr. Studd. Then again, that one quest makes me think those are overrated.
Cyberpunk stories in general rarelly ends badly. Heroes usually ends up bit better than they started. They aren't heroes and usually go through tough times through their adventure but at the end they end up on positive note. Cause it was never about fatalism to begin with, it was about pplz living in that crazy world. Even in PnP you will rarelly get totally bad ending, heroes might end up with just few eddies more than they had when started, but they are usually still bit better than when they begun.
In Cp77 not really, you end up worse than when you started so what's the point? And they turning V into marthyr while marthyr and cyberpunk are as far from each others as possible. In cyberpunk there are no heroes and marthyrs just pplz dealing with their own shit and trying to live as good as they can.
Maybe I'm missing something but I thought it was more like this: aboveOh and just a reminder for people in the thread:
* You live in Nomad --> for a short time
* You probably live in Legend --> for a short time
* Engram V is actually V not a personality less copy and so you live with Alt Cunningham or Arasaka too --> You live within cyberspace, indefinately I guess?
* Suicide --> this one is self explanatory
So you live in the majority of endings.
Maybe I'm missing something but I thought it was more like this: above
That´s why I defend that relationship ending all the time. You deal with your problems and the ones of your loved ones and try to live a life as good as possible with them. Like I said before, heroes are for fairytales. You can´t save an entire world, even if you wanted it.In cyberpunk there are no heroes and marthyrs just pplz dealing with their own shit and trying to live as good as they can.
That is not proven. V is as much alive in those endings as much as dead, actually its leaning more to the dead side with all that overexplanation and poor writing.
It is a shitty supposedly open ending that leans a lot more towards MC death.