[Spoiler Alert] About the endings

+

Do you want more RPGs with happy endings?


  • Total voters
    1,647

Yeah sure, let's cherry pick some more:

Untitled.jpg
Untitled2.jpg
Untitled5.jpg
Untitled3.jpg


Just in case it's confusing:

Untitled4.jpg
 
[...]

As for the linearity of the game it's back to the same old circular argument where the option of not going down certain roads that ultimately influence the endings based on the main character's motivations is not a real option hence why it's linear.

But in this case The Witcher 3 is linear as well because whatever you do you still fight Eredin at the end an no amount of options change that, likewise with the other main story beats, yeah you can chose the order in which you do them but ultimately you have to visit Velen, Novigrad and Skellige that ultimately leads to the assault on Kaer Morhen.

Yes you can change minor details that influence the state of the world in the end, which is the case in Cyberpunk as well.
 
[...]

As for the linearity of the game it's back to the same old circular argument where the option of not going down certain roads that ultimately influence the endings based on the main character's motivations is not a real option hence why it's linear.

But in this case The Witcher 3 is linear as well because whatever you do you still fight Eredin at the end an no amount of options change that, likewise with the other main story beats, yeah you can chose the order in which you do them but ultimately you have to visit Velen, Novigrad and Skellige that ultimately leads to the assault on Kaer Morhen.

Yes you can change minor details that influence the state of the world in the end, which is the case in Cyberpunk as well.
Can anybody cite a videogame that uses non-linear stories? I mean a linear story presents the events in a chronological order, you can create branches based on player actions/dialogs and even those branches might not intersect at all at any point but the narrative is still linear. A non-linear story should present the events in an out-of-order sequence,without a cause/effect (i.e. you might play the ending 1st,without knowing anything about the rest of the story); i´ve only saw non-linear storytelling in some books,movies...
 
Can anybody cite a videogame that uses non-linear stories? I mean a linear story presents the events in a chronological order, you can create branches based on player actions/dialogs and even those branches might not intersect at all at any point but the narrative is still linear. A non-linear story should present the events in an out-of-order sequence,without a cause/effect (i.e. you might play the ending 1st,without knowing anything about the rest of the story); i´ve only saw non-linear storytelling in some books,movies...
"Non linear" here tends to be used to indicate a story with multiple branches and choices leading to very different outcomes. I've never seen any post wishing for an out of order story
 
My view in terms of perceived linearity would be the wider game (excluding endings) Cyberpunk is worse than TW3 if not linear. For example If you compare a character like Meredith stout to Keira Metz. Both characters can have a one night stand, both characters can die. I would argue there's more to Keira's story and it's extremely rewarding platonic or not with experienced & seen conclusions. At best you can say the dark Meredith folowup is a secret few will experience and there's no followup on the brighter path.

As for the endings they are extremely static. Yes there are seven so technically its non linear. However in TW3 Geralt's fate is result of personal choices you make, Ciri's fate is down to multiple choices you make, the political & side character ramifications can be varied depending on the various choices you make. In Cyberpunk you choose who you want to risk in a rooftop mission and the game then statically correlates/re-writes your personal character & fate around that atrocious variable and the political ramification of that mission choice.
 
what i see as non-linear as example
first december thoughts when i did all endings
v chooses hani > flatlines yori and hani > v loads alt > alt flatlines taki, oda and heli > v chooses pani/city/bus/cyberspace
 
My view in terms of perceived linearity would be the wider game (excluding endings) Cyberpunk is worse than TW3 if not linear. For example If you compare a character like Meredith stout to Keira Metz. Both characters can have a one night stand, both characters can die. I would argue there's more to Keira's story and it's extremely rewarding platonic or not with experienced & seen conclusions. At best you can say the dark Meredith folowup is a secret few will experience and there's no followup on the brighter path.

I agree with this, I think Meredith's story and by extent Gilchrist could have been expanded upon and it would have added a lot to the overall narrative especially the corpo lifepath.

As for the endings they are extremely static. Yes there are seven so technically its non linear. However in TW3 Geralt's fate is result of personal choices you make, Ciri's fate is down to multiple choices you make, the political & side character ramifications can be varied depending on the various choices you make. In Cyberpunk you choose who you want to risk in a rooftop mission and the game then statically correlates/re-writes your personal character & fate around that atrocious variable and the political ramification of that mission choice.

Now this is not entirely true, because based on the consequences of V's actions there are multiple faiths for the main characters (Panam, Judy, Maiko, Saul, Rogue, Johnny, River, Kerry) that ultimately lead to you being locked out of endings all together and lose your relationship with the characters that take part in the endings as well.

While there are multiple side quests that influence the state of the world in The Witcher (which is somewhat true for Cyberpunk as well depending on the endings available) there are very few choices that influence the epilogues you get with or without Ciri.

https://www.ign.com/wikis/the-witcher-3-wild-hunt/Endings#Character_Endings

Now I do agree that the faith of the world and the characters gets neatly wrapped up in The Witcher 3 (which was not the case in The Witcher 1 and 2), it was the finale of Geralt's journey after all.

Like I've previously mentioned, it would suck if Cyberpunk 2077 was a one and done experience and we don't get any closure for any of the plot points left open but this we do not know and it's all speculative.

I also don't see the point of jumping to any conclusions as of yet.

Don't mistake this for me claiming that Cyberpunk is equally as expansive as The Witcher 3 narratively wise, it's not, it takes a different approach which is of a more personal nature to the character of V and their relationship with the cast that feels like it's the first part of a larger story which hopefully gets expanded upon in the future.

As it stands it's not an equal to The Witcher 3 when it comes to the sheer volume of well written stories and consequences, but it does have it's own strengths when it comes to the narrative and the character design which is on par with CDPR's other work.
Post automatically merged:

v chooses hani > flatlines yori and hani > v loads alt > alt flatlines taki, oda and heli > v chooses pani/city/bus/cyberspace

Which sounds great and I would have loved such a branching option in every ending but I don't believe it was feasible based on what CDPR was trying to narratively achieve - all speculation on my part based on the open endings.

And it also wasn't the case in any of their previous games, so I really don't see why people expect an Obsidian Games experience out of a CDPR game, it was never implied to be even remotely comparable to a cRPG or any of Obsidian's other work.
 
Last edited:
"Non linear" here tends to be used to indicate a story with multiple branches and choices leading to very different outcomes. I've never seen any post wishing for an out of order story
Thanks, I was just checking.
But then, I guess that we can agreee that the game has at least one event that leads to very different outcomes (I´m not sure if there is a minimum number of points that makes a non-linear story,because then we will discuss how many points of branching makes a"non-linear" story):
You decide if you put a bullet in your head and die (I´m looking at you,CDPR lead story designer: don´t use the old trick of making this cannon for a follow-up saying that V faked his/her death kidnapping a hobo that went to a complete body modification including DNA to match V and then V can come back for vengeance/redemption. I repeat DON´T) or you can choose to don´t put a bullet in your head and then you can choose between 1 or multiple different outcomes with some variations.

And then, I think we can discuss again whether the endings are good/bad/dissapointing/evil. And personally, I think that the endings are good based in the world that is depicted in the game and the "happy" ending with the Nomands is a happy ending in the Cyberpunk universe depicted in the game or if the endings should be judged based on the player perception of our own reality (I hope nobody is living in a Cyberpunk dystopia).

v chooses hani > flatlines yori and hani > v loads alt > alt flatlines taki, oda and heli > v chooses pani/city/bus/cyberspace
This for me its not linear vs non-linear, is that the game designer didn´t provided you for all the possible options/combinations that one can think from v choose hani -->...->end;which I don´t think is possible at all (AI Dungeon perhaps is able to do something like that?,I did try but not in deep) is kind of interactive storytelling/procedural story generation. The "v chooses pani/city/bus/cyberspace" actually you can do, if you don´t put a bullet in your head. But since there is a branching point they don´t intersect (which I thought it was what many people wanted as non-linear).
 
It's cool everyone can define non-linear a little bit differently lol I see non-linear as meaning an "all roads lead to Rome" kind of situation. I think it takes a lot of skill to take a person from A to B, but B breaks into B1 and B2, but both of those have to lead to C in a way that feels natural.

I'd be more happy with less endings, but actually feeling like I could take different paths to get there. I was mocked earlier in this thread for liking the ending to DA:I because no matter what you end up fighting and beating the main big bad, but you could choose multiple branches to get there and it felt worth it to go back and choose other options to see how that played out. In CP77 it felt like your choices weren't "go with mages or templars, does this person die or do these people" it felt like "do this mission or don't do this mission." Even in Mass Effect's horrendously bad choose-a-color endings, who you chose to help or didn't choose to help mattered to the cinematic. All that matters in CP is who you call, and if you did the content rather than opting out of hours of the game, you can call them. All of the branching takes place at the very end right before the Point of No Return. It took a lot of replay value out of the game for me.
 
the game designer didn´t provided you for all the possible options
its strange cos it lies on the surface
they already implemented kill/nokill mechanics but then decided to canceled it
they already has cutscenes which they could use for different outcomes
just change voice lines and some minor actions a little
i don't believe that my thoughts are unique
 
its strange cos it lies on the surface
they already implemented kill/nokill mechanics but then decided to canceled it
they already has cutscenes which they could use for different outcomes
just change voice lines and some minor actions a little
i don't believe that my thoughts are unique

They're not really which is why I thought of a similar thing when V got axed by their LI's in the Arasaka ending, I just think from a continuity perspective it would be a nightmare to incorporate all the different variations in a sequel or any sort of expansion of the main narrative.
 



be cyberspaced by alt/mikoshi or doomed by 6 months in city/desert is linear as soma ending without post-credits scene
tones are different but the core is the same

doesn't really matter what genre you put into a box for your marketing.

defining rpg by one facet of the ending, doesn't really make sense. Especially since most rpgs have even less variation in endings than cyberpunk.

1) a story is about way more than the last 3 pages
2) endings doesn't determine rpg genre, or linearity.

street fighter ii has like 13 endings, is it a great rpg?

If cyberpunk added 1 dialog at the end, where V can choose 4 more different choices. does that make it an rpg?

3)even within the endings, you have
1)suicide
2)become soul prisoned at arasaka
3)become net based AI, Johnny Silverhand revives
4)find a nomad family
a)find love with panam
b)love ain't important
c)help Judy escape night city
5)go on a space heist
6)Leave Arasaka on your own terms.

those are all extremely different endings, I mean you could always take any games ending and reduce it to, protagonist lives, protagonist dies, and state every game has two endings. That type of reduction doesn't make real sense if you are looking at how stories can change/be different.
 
It's cool everyone can define non-linear a little bit differently lol I see non-linear as meaning an "all roads lead to Rome" kind of situation.
Completely agree, is why I asked 1st
I'd be more happy with less endings, but actually feeling like I could take different paths to get there.
All that matters in CP is who you call, and if you did the content rather than opting out of hours of the game, you can call them. All of the branching takes place at the very end right before the Point of No Return. It took a lot of replay value out of the game for me.
Nothing that I cannot understand, I also thought it was a little bit weird game decision and actually with what is in place they could have created "branching" that closes other branches (I don´t know like going to the vodoo boys path,closes Panam or stuff like that). I only can thing that they wanted a method so people can see all the endings,without replaying all from the start (pure speculation). It can be that we don´t see that again in gaming story.
they already implemented kill/nokill mechanics but then decided to canceled it
they already has cutscenes which they could use for different outcomes
just change voice lines and some minor actions a little
Don´t know, I could have decided to seduce Adam Smasher to convince him to kill Yorinobu, then betray him and marry Hanako to rule Arasaka. Its really exponential growth based on degree of freedom,at some point you need to put a limit. I can only think about AI Dungeon, that is text based and still didn´t test how much branching capability has.
 
Can anybody cite a videogame that uses non-linear stories?
Generally when people refer to CP as linear they're saying the narrative itself is a single, straight line for 98% of the game. You begin with the prologue, perform tasks building up to the Heist, do the Heist, open up the Hellman/Evelyn/Hanako side-arcs and eventually end up at the Hanako side-arc as the path forward. From there you reach the point of no return and finally the rooftop. Almost all of these events occur in order. The only time you deviate from the main path is the Hellman/Evelyn side-arc and the side content itself.

Technically, it's not 100% linear because at the point of no return you are presented with distinct branches. Shoot yourself in the face and end the game. Further pursue the Hanako arc to reach a different ending. This last one can branch off and lead to Temperance. If you perform the character side-arcs then you open up the other three endings. Or the Sun, Star and "secret" pathway. If memory serves, all of these have the optional sub-branch leading to Temperance.

The gameplay itself is, for the most part, non-linear. In the sense you can do much of the content in any order.

Now, one could argue there aren't many non-linear "stories" in the context of the gameplay definition above. That would imply the events of the story itself have no consistent order. The beginning is the end and the end is the beginning (Yay, a Dark reference <-- Pro tip, watch the seasons and episodes of this in reverse order as a cure for boredom). It could also be argued assigning this meaning to the, "CP is linear.", claim is a bit silly. For obvious reasons.

It'd probably be far less confusing if people said CP lacks meaningful branches within the main narrative, or independent paths through the entirety of the game to reach distinct conclusions, instead of calling it "non-linear".

An example of meaningful branches would be if the endings concept occured throughout the game. Say, tracking down Hellman lets you skip the Hanako arc completely and leads to a distinct conclusion. Something along the lines of having multiple distinct "stories" in parallel, with choices leading to the consequence of which path you travel at any given time. Another example would be if there were distinct paths through the game based on lifepath selection.

In fairness, if you look at the content in it's completeness you could argue it does this due to the non-linear gameplay. The validity of this would depend on whether you viewed the character side-arcs as part of the main narrative or isolated mini-narratives related to it. Likewise, you could mentally construct pre-determined paths based on lifepath selection.

After pondering this game and TW3 I actually think CP is extremely similar. The biggest difference with CP is it expanded the scope of the non-linear gameplay and the way it handles the endings. In TW3 the ending experiences slight shifts or modifications. in CP the ending itself changes. Even if all the final results share similarities across many of the endings.

I think the main issue with CP is less to do with the way it was structured. It has much more to do with the fact the main narrative is incredibly short in comparison and the presentation left a lot of potential on the table. To clarify each below....

The main narrative in TW3 was longer. I think because of this it was more impactful. Furthermore, in my opinion the whole "2 weeks to live" concept is not very interesting in the first place. I've seen this concept used in other entertainment before and don't think it's a solid basis for an extensive, compelling narrative. It places too many time constraints on the storytelling. Perhaps these two together are why it didn't impress me quite as much.

The second area is a reference to the "interactive" storytelling. The whole freeform dialogue system is very different from the cinematic system in TW3. Frankly, I was a bigger fan of the TW3 approach. In my opinion it's better suited to the strengths of CDPR. Counter-intuitively, being able to look, move around or get trapped in a crouch animation mid-dialogue didn't engage me with the content more. It did the opposite.

Lastly, I'd stress all of the above is my opinion.
 
Can anybody cite a videogame that uses non-linear stories? I mean a linear story presents the events in a chronological order, you can create branches based on player actions/dialogs and even those branches might not intersect at all at any point but the narrative is still linear. A non-linear story should present the events in an out-of-order sequence,without a cause/effect (i.e. you might play the ending 1st,without knowing anything about the rest of the story); i´ve only saw non-linear storytelling in some books,movies...

Fallout 2 did that, New Vegas too in some extend.

For it, you need an "open story" :
- find the eden garden.
- take the coin to it's owner.

Those main quests aren't pressing, it's a goal like "become a rockstar".

You start the game, and since you don't have a leash past the tutorial, depending on where you go and the order you play the quest, the whole story can change in some extent (you'll already know some people, or some story npc will like or hate you for having worked wich some people).

At first, Cyberpunk was said to aim for those kind of open stories.

Vampire bloodline also fits in this, the main goal is there, but depending on how you play, the whole game may be different and leads on different endings, like, you could also let V not give a single fuck about that ship and find it cool to hang with silverhand... Why not ?

The last Call of Cthulhu game was also non linear somehow, you had lots of different endings depending on how you investigated, could be short, or you could dive into madness and join the cult, with everything in between.

Cyberpunk could've easily did that but choices doesn't matter in the end, and you're forced on the "arasaka's chip" rail which gives you a tight goal and deadline...

You can't really wiggles around when you're dying.

Had been the Arasaka chip been the end goal (with different construct on the chip depending on how you played), Silverhand in your head in the last part of the story etc...

The game would've be way less pressuring and could've open a lots of different path.
 
It's cool everyone can define non-linear a little bit differently lol I see non-linear as meaning an "all roads lead to Rome" kind of situation. I think it takes a lot of skill to take a person from A to B, but B breaks into B1 and B2, but both of those have to lead to C in a way that feels natural.

I'd be more happy with less endings, but actually feeling like I could take different paths to get there. I was mocked earlier in this thread for liking the ending to DA:I because no matter what you end up fighting and beating the main big bad, but you could choose multiple branches to get there and it felt worth it to go back and choose other options to see how that played out. In CP77 it felt like your choices weren't "go with mages or templars, does this person die or do these people" it felt like "do this mission or don't do this mission." Even in Mass Effect's horrendously bad choose-a-color endings, who you chose to help or didn't choose to help mattered to the cinematic. All that matters in CP is who you call, and if you did the content rather than opting out of hours of the game, you can call them. All of the branching takes place at the very end right before the Point of No Return. It took a lot of replay value out of the game for me.

the problem I have with the opting out of hours theory, is you aren't opting out of anything, you can play the game multiple times.

the main difference is the game doesn't set up that many exclusive options.
they could have;
1)not unlocked any major side missions until after you complete 2 leads and half of takamura plot
2) had you select which faction you were siding with
made you have to choose between
Johnny side missions and ending,
panams side missions and ending or
takamura's, last mission and ending.

does that all of sudden make your choices better? even though you literally have more choices in the actual game? That makes the game more linear in that there is less possible difference in a characters journey.

and you are still choosing to do content or not do content. (missing out)
you can only resolve this by starting again, the same choice you can make in 2077, except in cyberpunk you get to make the decision, rather than have the game tell you, you can only associate with one faction.


I say the game is more RPG because the player is the one that chooses which stories and paths are exclusive instead of the game structure. You can choose to be a corpo who befriends Johnny, then sells him out to Arasaka, instead of one path where you hate Johnny and kill him in the ending. You can be a nomad who helped the aldecados, but decided NC and the merc life is your real life. instead of a straight line of lost nomad, befriends aldecados and runs away with them.
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom