Haven't played a CDPR game before this one and it was advertised as an RPG where you create V. Should've dug deeper and assumed all their games would be the same, I guess.
Every studio has their style. Not everyone likes every studio's approach. Nothing much left to say about that part; it's take take it or leave it, as you like, in the end.
No, V's backstory is intentionally vague and only colored by one of three starting situations you can choose from to massage V into the story -- being on the streets with Jackie is not a backstory, it's the connective tissue to give V a reason to be in the game. Even in RPGs with a character with no definition, like FO:NV, has to have some concessions just to get the game off the ground.
V is fundamentally different from Geralt. You choose V's background, gender, and entire physical appearance. V's background unrelated to the lifepath choice before the game started is almost never referenced, and never in an extremely meaningful way (the only one I can think of is when V tells River about the guys who've hit on her). V mentions being a legend a couple times, but the only thing pushing the story itself forward is survival. Very little of V's motivations are hard defined.
Yes and no. V is not completely defined, as Geralt is in The Witcher, but neither is V a blank slate to be filled in entirely based on player agency, like a Bethesda title. V is more like Cdr. Sheperd: you are your chosen backstory,
plus a commander in the Terran Alliance Military who is an officer on the Normandy and will face the challenges presented by that narrative as they are presented for the motivations and reasons that they are presented with. No getting away from that part. It is not a "sandbox" RPG. It is a
narrative RPG. Hence, trying to pretend that my Cdr. Sheperd was actually a pacifist that was forced into the military through manipulation and should now not be forced to fight during combat sequences...isn't going to work. Sorry if that's what someone was expecting, but that's not how the game was designed. (And we're right back to, "Take it, or leave it -- what's your pleasure?") That's not a flaw with the design -- it's a matter of subjective preference in the player.
Likewise, Cyberpunk clearly establishes that regardless of the chosen backstory, V and Jackie were climbing the lowest power ladders of Night City with a definitive goal. So V is an aspiring brave that's actively pursuing the goal of "making it to the big leagues" and "living forever" ( -- just like Cdr. Sheperd is an Alliance Military officer on board the Normandy with a mission whether they want it or not --) and the story goes from there.
At that point, you're right! Very few of V's actions are hard-defined. A
lot is open to interpretation. But they all fall within the framework of the classic "immortality" theme. It's totally possible for people to interpret that differently and validly...
...while
also being possible for people to lose focus of the theme altogether, get lost in the "semantics" of the non-linear, non-central parts of the larger game mechanics, and begin interpreting things that are invalidated by the narrative. Or, they might simply miss a detail, not recognize a detail, or just misunderstand what the narrative was clearly presenting. (That's not calling anyone out for a mistake like that. I do it all the time when I'm tired or distracted while playing a game.)
I'll agree that the some of the Lifepath choices could probably be expanded on. I chose Nomad, and I find the responses are very satisfying. And I think Nomad options pop up more often toward the later stages of the game, whereas Street Kid seems to be focused almost exclusively on the earlier stages. Never played Corpo past the intro section, so I can't speak to that. But the Lifepath choices do not negate the pathways and interpretations that V is able to engage in throughout all of the other options that
are presented, the way it affects relationships with other NPCs, and the pathways and scenes we receive throughout the rest of the game (Lifepaths aside).
Most people's playthroughs follow the obvious and hamfisted path, so I'm not surprised most people's are coherent. The problem comes back to what you said at the top of your post: they aren't pushing down on one scale at the expense of the other, they've slammed the hammer down on both and broken the whole damn contraption right at the end. It's obviously presented as a more open RPG in some aspects, like character creation and the relative lack of in-game hard defined character development for V, but at the same time they expect you to find something satisfying about the ridiculous moralizing that the ends offer. It all looks like it works smoothly if you've played the game exactly the way they anticipated, even though they allow you to play it other ways that stay coherent right up until the end.
You are essentially arguing that it's wrong to be attached to the character that you created and molded because the game is actually about it's "quality themes and symbolism". If that's what they wanted to convey, they should've made the protagonist Jack Cyberpunk and given the player as much agency as the Witcher. Whatever heavy handed "Night City bad" theme they wanted to hammer home with the endings falls flat because I don't care. But it's not just a shortcoming on my part, I don't care BECAUSE they've made a game where I can create and, to some extent, define a character such that this character is now what I care about in the game. I've gotten all of their symbolism out of "Wow! Real water for sale!" billboards that I don't need my character to be forced to side with the noble savages in order to understand that NC might not be the happiest place in the world.
In short: I fundamentally disagree with the idea that V is some predefined character whose motivations we need to align with instead of create. There are plenty of things in the game that allow you to make V your own in such a way that doesn't exist for a character like Geralt.
Hopefully, it's now clearer that I do not mean V is pre-defined the way Geralt is, or Cloud Strife, or protagonists from the Assassin's Creed series, or GTA series, etc. I mean there is a necessary narrative framework and clearly defined theme that is established. Setting those elements aside because we want to "imagine" some other meaning won't work here, as the definition is absolutely required for the narrative arcs and the cinematic presentation of the game.
If I canceled
cinematics -- all of the dialogue scenes with scripted blocking and voice work -- I suddenly blow the lid off what can be
insinuated through the gameplay and left wholly up to player interpretation. I can allow for many more branches through the game with a wider range of interesting scenarios. But on that same coin, I can't create a strong narrative with a lot of emotionally charged nuance and dramatic action. I'll have to keep story elements to a minimum and focus on gameplay mechanics to keep players invested. They'll need to fill in the gaps on their own.
For all the players shaking their heads about not having enough choice and the game robbing people of options and freedom, there are just as many players that will facepalm because the game is too nebulous and open-ended, with no clearly defined goals or any clue about what they're supposed to be doing.
Every balance will always exist somewhere in between. The people that like a particular balance will praise it. The people that dislike it will criticize it. If we shift the balance, the arguments will shift along with it. Games like TW3, with extremely widespread and arguably universal appeal, will be few and far between. And oftentimes, it's just luck. Things came together just so, for a wide audience that simply happened to be looking for exactly that type of thing, and it arrived at the perfect moment.
If I tried to release TW3 in 1985, it would have been instantly banned pretty much around the globe for outrageous levels of violence and indecent sexuality. CDPR would probably have landed in court. In 2045, we'll be listening to young generations complaining about how lame the graphics are and how clunky and inaccessible the gameplay is...not to mention the story, which is sooo campy and cringey.
For CP2077, it's a fantastic, narrative romp through a beautifully visualized world and a dark, gritty story which tends to end on a bittersweet-to-tragic note (...like pretty much all Cyberpunk-themed stories. That's why Blade Runner, Ghost in the Shell, Judge Dredd, and The Matrix are so well loved, right? All the happy endings.)
