I´m judging from my play experience, most people actually complain that "V is always a streetkid" not that "streetkid" was underdeveloped. I say, don´t look for streetkid,nomad,corpo plotlines because the plotline is V the merc and how is his/her story from low-level merc with Jackie to Devil/Sun/Star/Temperance/Suicide.
nomad path(path thats leads to an ending joining nomads)
Corp path (path leads to an ending joining the corporation)
afterlife path (path leading to join afterlife)
I would not say that is nomad,corpo and afterlife path.
I would say that is give up ambition to become a legend to find a new friend/family that you are missing (the 6 month timebomb you are not aware at that moment), easy way out at the cost of selling yourself (notice how is the straightforward path that requires less player effort, excluding suicide), continue your ambition of becoming a legend.
with Afterlife, you really only get closer to rogue, not really the organization, and you mostly help Johnny set his life straight, which leads to rogue helping you, for Johnny, then you become leader of mercenaries. The sun theme is apparently becoming immortal through achievement. It just ties together very poorly, the theme of the epilogue, the sidequests that lead to it, and the ending path missions barely match. The theme, or motivation one might have on this path is all over the place. and it loosely ties to the other themes developed earlier, and coincidently no real origin.
Agree that is immortality by achievement (still think is a suicide run and reference to Icarus myth). What I don´t agree, is that it seems that you see Mercs in Afterlife in the same way as Nomads. Afterlife is a fancy employment office for the best Mercs and where the best fixers can conduct business,when you step in with Dex you are already part of the Afterlife. You end in Afterlife "sun" ending because you decided to do things the Afterlife way : call Rogue or go alone . Calling Rogue is repeating what she already did in 2013 and 2023 and you know her position in NC; going solo with Johnny is trying to be the most badass guy/girl in town (Johnny says that directly in secret "you discovered what it means to be a legend?"-not exact words maybe-); both are equivalent (in Rogue, well somebody dies).
I could see V staying with Aldecaldos as a pretty natural progression of that choice if they risked their lives just to help V but it's a mutually beneficial arrangement.
Partially agree, V did stuff for them without reward-assuming, player is not trying to score with Panam- at all and risk for his/her life some Nomads do that for the same reason, others not. For sure joining Aldecaldos benefit the clan also (at least from Saul's point of view , but is not only whatever they get from the raid the clan if survives will be stronger-thats a big IF for them-).
Edit: I don't want 10 choices, but 2 would have been perfect. The Devil ending has two choices, why couldn't the Star (stay or leave with the nomads) and the Sun (reject or accept major leagues) also have two?
The two choices in Devil, are equivalent to the two choices in Mikoshi that branch into Sun/Star/Temperance (accept mortality-or humanity if you prefer- or the promise of immortality-become more than human or different than a human-).
The Star ending is as "fan service" as it can get. I agree that the basic story was written without romances in mind but I wouldn't discount them entirely. When you look at how male LIs are treated in general and the LIs who stay with V, only in the most hopeful ending also happen to be the favorites. (I don't mean this in an accusatory way, just not sure how to word it better).
I think we already discussed in the past, but just for the record : I completely agree, when factoring romance Kerry/River don´t get the same treatment in general and is even more clear in "star" (if any of my previous posts give another idea I apologize, I completely understand the issue when factoring romance and the different treatments of the different LIs).
I want to believe, that is the consequence of writing the story without LIs in mind + good character development that made the backgrounds of the characters well defined; when they added romance either they failed to recognize that-fan service by accident?- or it was no easy way to keep the themes (which I agree, that not everybody might like) they wanted to touch and change River and Kerry . I can imagine a "fix" for River, but for Kerry I don´t think is an easy character to change.
This should have been an actual decision, not something tied to an unrelated choice, and it wouldn't contradict anything as long as said decision is directly related to the narrative and it would be. The game handled this in a very binary and constricting way. V choosing quiet life (meaning no riches) but still staying in Night City is no more fan service than the Star ending already is.
Is an actual decision and completely related (from my point of view) based on who you call (or not in suicide and secret) and fits the narrative. That is handled the way that is handled, I might agree that it could have been done in a more branched way (like going with Panam after Hellman closes Rogue or something like that)-I don´t dislike as it is, but I see the complaints-.
I´m judging from my play experience, most people actually complain that "V is always a streetkid" not that "streetkid" was underdeveloped. I say, don´t look for streetkid,nomad,corpo plotlines because the plotline is V the merc and how is his/her story from low-level merc with Jackie to Devil/Sun/Star/Temperance/Suicide.
I would not say that is nomad,corpo and afterlife path.
I would say that is give up ambition to become a legend to find a new friend/family that you are missing (the 6 month timebomb you are not aware at that moment), easy way out at the cost of selling yourself (notice how is the straightforward path that requires less player effort, excluding suicide), continue your ambition of becoming a legend.
Agree that is immortality by achievement (still think is a suicide run and reference to Icarus myth). What I don´t agree, is that it seems that you see Mercs in Afterlife in the same way as Nomads. Afterlife is a fancy employment office for the best Mercs and where the best fixers can conduct business,when you step in with Dex you are already part of the Afterlife. You end in Afterlife "sun" ending because you decided to do things the Afterlife way : call Rogue or go alone . Calling Rogue is repeating what she already did in 2013 and 2023 and you know her position in NC; going solo with Johnny is trying to be the most badass guy/girl in town (Johnny says that directly in secret "you discovered what it means to be a legend?"-not exact words maybe-); both are equivalent (in Rogue, well somebody dies).
Partially agree, V did stuff for them without reward-assuming, player is not trying to score with Panam- at all and risk for his/her life some Nomads do that for the same reason, others not. For sure joining Aldecaldos benefit the clan also (at least from Saul's point of view , but is not only whatever they get from the raid the clan if survives will be stronger-thats a big IF for them-).
The two choices in Devil, are equivalent to the two choices in Mikoshi that branch into Sun/Star/Temperance (accept mortality-or humanity if you prefer- or the promise of immortality-become more than human or different than a human-).
I think we already discussed in the past, but just for the record : I completely agree, when factoring romance Kerry/River don´t get the same treatment in general and is even more clear in "star" (if any of my previous posts give another idea I apologize, I completely understand the issue when factoring romance and the different treatments of the different LIs).
I want to believe, that is the consequence of writing the story without LIs in mind + good character development that made the backgrounds of the characters well defined; when they added romance either they failed to recognize that-fan service by accident?- or it was no easy way to keep the themes (which I agree, that not everybody might like) they wanted to touch and change River and Kerry . I can imagine a "fix" for River, but for Kerry I don´t think is an easy character to change.
Is an actual decision and completely related (from my point of view) based on who you call (or not in suicide and secret) and fits the narrative. That is handled the way that is handled, I might agree that it could have been done in a more branched way (like going with Panam after Hellman closes Rogue or something like that)-I don´t dislike as it is, but I see the complaints-.
ok. I made a chart of the events that lead to sun devil and star endings, with their stated story motivations
any how, you see in star and devil the motivations are more consistent, the events leading to them are more directly tied.
The path to sun ending is mostly through exploring Johnny's relation ship, and doing Johnny things, but the ending chars motivation isn't based on anything Johnny related. The path involves using afterlife mercs, at points, but becoming a leader, or even a figure they respect is never developed. There are some loose connections with fame, but not V's fame. And V solos arasaka is impressive, but not really the mercs way of getting stuff done. Regardless the motives of helping Johnny connect very poorly to V's motives in the sun ending.
The motives of V in star/devil ending, directly line up with the motives of events that lead to that ending in contrast.
this is why some may not like star/devil or may feel the world screwed them. But they don't feel broadsided by the ending. Sun ending's motivations actually link closest to Heist V and Jackie's plans. But very little to Rogue/Johnny stuff, other than knowing/hiring famous mercs. And rogue/johnny is the gate to that epilogue
The only point with which I do not really agree. I have all 3 installed currently and never in any of those games (which I obviously like and played a bunch), I felt the same as in Cyberpunk. In terms of choices, yes maybe you're more free, but for me (writing / story / emotions), Cyberpunk is really above these three (and by far).
It is rather these three games that should be inspired by Cyberpunk and not the other way around.
But that's just humble opinion of a simple gamer, ignoring the art of writing
I wouldn't say any of those other games are necessarily better than Cyberpunk on the narrative or emotional impact sides of the coin either. Cyberpunk probably isn't even completely comparable to them because of various differences. Greedfall is pretty serious but a very different game. The Outer Worlds has a more comical vibe to it. Kingdom Come is probably the closest parallel of the three but still sn't a perfect fit. Open country side during the Medieval period is not dystopian city from the dark future.
My earlier post was claiming these other games did very well in terms of creating an extensive cinematic narrative while offering a healthy amount of player agency. With the player agency included at the proper time for the proper reason. I don't feel Cyberpunk did quite as well in this area.
It's not necessarily wrong to disagree with me here. Maybe the game really did deliver on that front for some people.
Edit : The only point that bothers me (like many I think) is that we are stuck on the path V is following when coming back from Mikoshi. It would have been nice to be able to have a choice at this precise moment. Like being able to remain merc in NC (alone or not), to leave with the aldecaldos (alone or not), to follow the path of glory (obviously alone).
Yeah, exactly. I have difficulty understanding why V cannot have a greater degree of control in those type of situations. They're important choices to paint the picture of your version of V.
So at least for me, a decision after mikoshi in sun or star that contradicts the narrative would have been an example of "fan service" and not a good example of story writting.
Would it actually contradict the narrative? All of themes I can think of being driven home in-game are sufficiently covered when V reaches the rooftop. A few minor, arguably insignificant details being changed would make it extremely easy to let V make this choice without contradicting anything. Hell, the decision is already in the game. You just can't make an independent decision on it. Instead the narrative takes control and tells you because you made one decision on the rooftop your V will make a second decision about NC.
This part is what I meant when I said the balance of the narrative taking control and the player being given agency is off. A narrative taking control of the events, other characters in the story, etc. to tell itself is one thing. The game taking control of the player character is another.
This, by the way, is exactly what happened in my longest playthrough. I was extremely friendly with the Nomads but picked team Johnny. My V wasn't looking for fame, glory, immortality, what have you. My V was done with NC. My V thought the only fate awaiting the denizens of NC was destruction. All of them. So if presented a choice between Blue Eyes and Crystal Palace vs bailing on NC with the Nomads my V would have said fuck it, let's get outta here. My V was also intending to leave because they knew Judy was done with the place.
Instead what happens? My V meets Blue Eyes and chases Crystal Palace for fame and glory. The conclusion of the Nomad arc was a bunch of text messages rolling in the credits. Judy pretty much broke it off with my V because they were running off to space and clammed up on the whole "lets talk about it" front. As a player I didn't have a say in any of this content in the moment. All those plans I had for my V above, based on the personality I mentally constructed for them, went poof. Gone.
If someone wants to believe this is a good way to handle this then by all means. Personally, I'd equate it to a GM putting a choice in front of my player character, assuming control of my character and making the decision for me.
The ultimate question is whether the Nomads needing the resources from the assault on Arasaka tower as a narrative element (desperation?) is necessary? Does Blue Eyes acquiring new intel leading to the Crystal Palace job when team Johnny is chosen need to exist? Should V be locked into nearly all secondary decisions in the ending because the rooftop decision insists on getting cute and going the thematic route?
My answer to all three questions would be no. I don't think any of these slices of content need to exist for the endings to deliver what they're trying to deliver. Especially not if they lead to the above described scenario. To me there is much more to be gained in terms of player agency by dispensing with those tiny details and thematic intentions. Compared to what may or may not get lost with the narrative in the process. Which, by the way, is almost nothing.
I think we already discussed in the past, but just for the record : I completely agree, when factoring romance Kerry/River don´t get the same treatment in general and is even more clear in "star" (if any of my previous posts give another idea I apologize, I completely understand the issue when factoring romance and the different treatments of the different LIs).
I want to believe, that is the consequence of writing the story without LIs in mind + good character development that made the backgrounds of the characters well defined; when they added romance either they failed to recognize that-fan service by accident?- or it was no easy way to keep the themes (which I agree, that not everybody might like) they wanted to touch and change River and Kerry . I can imagine a "fix" for River, but for Kerry I don´t think is an easy character to change.
No need for apologies, your previous posts didn't give any wrong impressions. I hope it was an accident too and that the developers didn't foresee how popular romances might become, but even so, no changes to the characters themselves were needed. Just more optimistic voicemails at the end and for River specifically the final conversation not to be so... confrontational.
Is an actual decision and completely related (from my point of view) based on who you call (or not in suicide and secret) and fits the narrative. That is handled the way that is handled, I might agree that it could have been done in a more branched way (like going with Panam after Hellman closes Rogue or something like that)-I don´t dislike as it is, but I see the complaints-.
The choice itself wouldn't be as big of a problem if during the endings V didn't act a certain way and we had at least some variety in dialogue options available. I still think this decision could have been handled better and that it should have been an actual choice not an outcome of a different one, but I guess we'll have to agree to disagree here.
The ultimate question is whether the Nomads needing the resources from the assault on Arasaka tower as a narrative element (desperation?) is necessary? Does Blue Eyes acquiring new intel leading to the Crystal Palace job when team Johnny is chosen need to exist? Should V be locked into nearly all secondary decisions in the ending because the rooftop decision insists on getting cute and going the thematic route?
I saw some people saying that Aldecaldos resources and the deal with Mr. Blue Eyes are needed in order to save V, and while these opinions are perfectly fine and valid, they hinge on hope that there's going to be a post-endings expansion. But what if there won't be? What if story-wise, this was the last time we got to see our V's? To me personally, none of the endings are satisfactory, but I could accept them as an expansion hook. But if they aren't, if that's how V's story ends, then they're even more disappointing.
Raiding Arasaka with Aldecaldos is a mutually beneficial arrangement. V gets to Mikoshi, the nomads gain resources. Because of this I don't agree that asking for their help should default to V staying with them. It makes sense for some V's but it shouldn't have been the only one outcome. And I wholeheartedly disagree that a single phone call should decide for you who your V becomes.
Edit: I don't want 10 choices, but 2 would have been perfect. The Devil ending has two choices, why couldn't the Star (stay or leave with the nomads) and the Sun (reject or accept major leagues) also have two?
The Star ending is as "fan service" as it can get. I agree that the basic story was written without romances in mind but I wouldn't discount them entirely. When you look at how male LIs are treated in general and the LIs who stay with V, only in the most hopeful ending also happen to be the favorites. (I don't mean this in an accusatory way, just not sure how to word it better).
And speaking of narrative. Even if you'd disregard Misty's tarot readings as mystical drivel, her parting words in both of these endings are a deliberate reflection of "quiet life vs blaze of glory" theme.
This should have been an actual decision, not something tied to an unrelated choice, and it wouldn't contradict anything as long as said decision is directly related to the narrative and it would be. The game handled this in a very binary and constricting way. V choosing quiet life (meaning no riches) but still staying in Night City is no more fan service than the Star ending already is.
Exactly. I chose the Sun ending just to stay with my LI. I didn't choose to be an asshole in that ending. Let me stay quiet in the city with my LI. Maybe I agree to the last gig as a chance to save my life, but let me choose my personality.
The choice itself wouldn't be as big of a problem if during the endings V didn't act a certain way and we had at least some variety in dialogue options available. I still think this decision could have been handled better and that it should have been an actual choice not an outcome of a different one, but I guess we'll have to agree to disagree here.
I saw some people saying that Aldecaldos resources and the deal with Mr. Blue Eyes are needed in order to save V, and while these opinions are perfectly fine and valid, they hinge on hope that there's going to be a post-endings expansion. But what if there won't be? What if story-wise, this was the last time we got to see our V's? To me personally, none of the endings are satisfactory, but I could accept them as an expansion hook. But if they aren't, if that's how V's story ends, then they're even more disappointing.
For me dialogue tweaks wouldn't stop ending being a big problem. For me the nonsense rooftop decision needs to be uncoupled from the subsequent life motivations. Though i've come to view the only feasible hope(for dlc) is that i'll be able to re-take the wheel of V's life post end and turn off the garbage railroaded path of life and relationship treatment they've been subjected to.
For me as a DLC hook it's poor. There's no reason imo why V has to be forced into these extremely rigid boxes to enable them to pick up the story as the plot cancer reason would be plot hook enough for explaining why any V could be drawn back.
What is, is a bad ending. A sad ending could be a good ending. This, it is not.
There is a difference between a good well thought through and well played out story and a bad one. This is not subjective.
If you enjoyed the game, good for you. It still does not make the story great, or even good.
That you like it and I don't kind of evens it out. It's all subjective. But objectively, the story and the way it's played out, it is really not good enough.
What is, is a bad ending. A sad ending could be a good ending. This, it is not.
There is a difference between a good well thought through and well played out story and a bad one. This is not subjective.
If you enjoyed the game, good for you. It still does not make the story great, or even good.
That you like it and I don't kind of evens it out. It's all subjective. But objectively, the story and the way it's played out, it is really not good enough.
any how, you see in star and devil the motivations are more consistent, the events leading to them are more directly tied.
The path to sun ending is mostly through exploring Johnny's relation ship, and doing Johnny things, but the ending chars motivation isn't based on anything Johnny related. The path involves using afterlife mercs, at points, but becoming a leader, or even a figure they respect is never developed. There are some loose connections with fame, but not V's fame. And V solos arasaka is impressive, but not really the mercs way of getting stuff done. Regardless the motives of helping Johnny connect very poorly to V's motives in the sun ending.
The motives of V in star/devil ending, directly line up with the motives of events that lead to that ending in contrast.
this is why some may not like star/devil or may feel the world screwed them. But they don't feel broadsided by the ending. Sun ending's motivations actually link closest to Heist V and Jackie's plans. But very little to Rogue/Johnny stuff, other than knowing/hiring famous mercs. And rogue/johnny is the gate to that epilogue
The path to sun ending is mostly through exploring Johnny's relation ship, and doing Johnny things, but the ending chars motivation isn't based on anything Johnny related.
Literally Johnny is a NC legend:
"Robert John Linder: Son of a bitch who never gave up. A legend among legends." with his own drink. How different is 2013 and 2023 Johnny raids from 2077 raid if you call Rogue?
Is not a matter of how things are done, is a matter of doing something spectacular that people will remember for the years to come (even if you die, like Johnny in 2023).
When choosing to call Rogue (and giving control to Johnny) or unlocking secret (and keeping V on control) V is deciding to follow "the legend" path. And for doing that, you had to do quests for the legend.
Would it actually contradict the narrative? All of themes I can think of being driven home in-game are sufficiently covered when V reaches the rooftop. A few minor, arguably insignificant details being changed would make it extremely easy to let V make this choice without contradicting anything. Hell, the decision is already in the game. You just can't make an independent decision on it. Instead the narrative takes control and tells you because you made one decision on the rooftop your V will make a second decision about NC.
But is not a second decision, the decision about NC is the rooftop I tried to explain why, from narrative point of view and in my opinion. Mikoshi is the branch to Temperance. V already decided whether to stay or leave NC and his/her condition after Mikoshi doesn´t seem worse-maybe better- than in the rooftop so why change his/her mind?
This part is what I meant when I said the balance of the narrative taking control and the player being given agency is off. A narrative taking control of the events, other characters in the story, etc. to tell itself is one thing. The game taking control of the player character is another.
This, by the way, is exactly what happened in my longest playthrough. I was extremely friendly with the Nomads but picked team Johnny. My V wasn't looking for fame, glory, immortality, what have you. My V was done with NC. My V thought the only fate awaiting the denizens of NC was destruction. All of them. So if presented a choice between Blue Eyes and Crystal Palace vs bailing on NC with the Nomads my V would have said fuck it, let's get outta here. My V was also intending to leave because they knew Judy was done with the place.
Instead what happens? My V meets Blue Eyes and chases Crystal Palace for fame and glory. The conclusion of the Nomad arc was a bunch of text messages rolling in the credits. Judy pretty much broke it off with my V because they were running off to space and clammed up on the whole "lets talk about it" front. As a player I didn't have a say in any of this content in the moment. All those plans I had for my V above, based on the personality I mentally constructed for them, went poof. Gone.
If someone wants to believe this is a good way to handle this then by all means. Personally, I'd equate it to a GM putting a choice in front of my player character, assuming control of my character and making the decision for me.
The ultimate question is whether the Nomads needing the resources from the assault on Arasaka tower as a narrative element (desperation?) is necessary? Does Blue Eyes acquiring new intel leading to the Crystal Palace job when team Johnny is chosen need to exist? Should V be locked into nearly all secondary decisions in the ending because the rooftop decision insists on getting cute and going the thematic route?
My answer to all three questions would be no. I don't think any of these slices of content need to exist for the endings to deliver what they're trying to deliver. Especially not if they lead to the above described scenario. To me there is much more to be gained in terms of player agency by dispensing with those tiny details and thematic intentions. Compared to what may or may not get lost with the narrative in the process. Which, by the way, is almost nothing.
I think that this falls into the "story driven" vs "player agency". I cannot really disagree with your points, because its really personal taste.
I would only point one think maybe : ". Personally, I'd equate it to a GM putting a choice in front of my player character, assuming control of my character and making the decision for me.", if a GM tells you "nah, you cannot shoot that NPC" indeed he is taking control of your character (I was carrying with me 10 different versions of NPCs needed for the story just in case when doing GM of CP2020 and several different bars in case my friends decided to redecorate one with explosives) and this is a verty valid complain in pen and paper, since this a computer RPG and there is no GM and they want to tell a story they are forced to put "control points": you cannot kill some NPCs, some decision force a direction.
Even in pen and paper, when you look at a campaign (not an individual session) more often than not the campaign is telling a story. There is a starting point and one or several outcomes; how you travel from start or end the player is pretty much free within character boundaries but you will not change a lot the outcomes (I mean classic DnD campaign is : Dragon/Demon/Wizard wants to take over the world will you brave adventurers step up for the challenge in promise of glory?-Shadowrun Dragonfall does something similar for example-)
The way that they implemented CP2077, for me doesn´t feel much different of a pen and paper campaign (freedom in character development, allies/friends/romances,how to solve problems(non-linear gameplay and multiple paths in almost every quest) but with well defined starting and end points.
I personally like, but I can understand your point of view also.
I saw only in video, because I ended in sun when "loner" and never romanced River/Kerry. But its true that the scene could have been directed in a different way and still they could have kept their ultimate meaning (I can imagine that somebody more invested in River might feel it even more crude that what I saw, but I completely agree).
The choice itself wouldn't be as big of a problem if during the endings V didn't act a certain way and we had at least some variety in dialogue options available. I still think this decision could have been handled better and that it should have been an actual choice not an outcome of a different one, but I guess we'll have to agree to disagree here.
I just wanted to say that even if it didn´t lead to different outcome, somebody pointed at "production cost of voice actors ...", I don´t really think that it would have been a problem to add some variety in dialogs that don´t force V to act in that certain way. For a project of this budget, recording few extra lines of a couple of voice actors would have not been an issue (even for some other parts of the game)-generating branching content would be another story-
For outcomes, yes agree to disagree.
For something to be called art, first it needs to be flawless.
Then it needs to fit the intended genre. Failing in building a guitar and calling it a sculpture does not make it so.
When ME3 got massive critique for it's ending, EA started calling it "art". And there is a lot of bad art out there...
Subjectiveness is for those that can't handle objectiveness. Or critique.
Chagall, Monét and van Gogh all created something new, an expressionistic way of painting. Each with a distinctive style.
I prefer Rembrandt, but that's because I admire his use of light and shadows. But some prefer Warhol. To each their own.
A good doctor cures his patients, a bad doesen't. Subjectivity is not applicable on everything and only valid from the view of ones self.
Is Cyberpunk 2077 good? No. If someone perceive it as such, good for them, it still doesn't change anything.
For something to be called art, first it needs to be flawless.
Then it needs to fit the intended genre. Failing in building a guitar and calling it a sculpture does not make it so.
When ME3 got massive critique for it's ending, EA started calling it "art". And there is a lot of bad art out there...
Subjectiveness is for those that can't handle objectiveness. Or critique.
Chagall, Monét and van Gogh all created something new, an expressionistic way of painting. Each with a distinctive style.
I prefer Rembrandt, but that's because I admire his use of light and shadows. But some prefer Warhol. To each their own.
A good doctor cures his patients, a bad doesen't. Subjectivity is not applicable on everything and only valid from the view of ones self.
Is Cyberpunk 2077 good? No. If someone perceive it as such, good for them, it still doesn't change anything.
Without wanting to play the troll, but i could said:
"Is Cyberpunk 2077 good? Yes. If someone perceive it as such, good for them, it still doesn't change anything."
It's just a matter of personal point of view. Nothing to do with a doctor who cures or not...
For me, all of his qualities erase its faults. For other players it is certainly not the case, and so much the better.
The motives of V in star/devil ending, directly line up with the motives of events that lead to that ending in contrast.
this is why some may not like star/devil or may feel the world screwed them. But they don't feel broadsided by the ending. Sun ending's motivations actually link closest to Heist V and Jackie's plans. But very little to Rogue/Johnny stuff, other than knowing/hiring famous mercs. And rogue/johnny is the gate to that epilogue
Ah! I came here ready to type but you've already summed it up perfectly. The Sun ending doesn't match the path you take to get to it.
Dex's question was simple - would you rather live all the life you have and grow old? Or die young in a blaze and be remembered? The quiet life answer grows in depth and meaning over the course of the story with the nomad family. It becomes more than just surviving and growing old. The ending fits the Panam/nomad story arc.
The blaze of glory answer never gets any deeper. It stays as shallow as Dex described it. But we walk Johnny's path to get it and Johnny shows you that it wasn't about glory for him - that's only the outsider's perspective. He rebelled for his convictions. The narcissistic side of him enjoyed it, but he didn't raid Arasaka twice for glory. He did it for Alt.
Blaze of glory changed in meaning for me as I played through Act 2 and 3, but when I get to the ending, it's wiped away. We return to our voice in Act I, like none of it ever happened. It made Act 3 feel like an unrelated tangent between the Heist and the epilogue.
Honestly, it's just the dialogue. Everything else in the Sun fits (Afterlife legend, risky final mission for a hope at a cure). None of the dialogue reflects any change in V after experiencing Act 3 (or even Act 2!), which is odd because it's the only way to unlock it. It feels like the wrong ending for what you play through to unlock it.
I can't find the Path of Glory journal description anymore, but I remember being chastised by Johnny in it. I followed his path and trusted him into Mikoshi (at his encouragement) and then he scolded me for it, so there's also that LOL.
But is not a second decision, the decision about NC is the rooftop I tried to explain why, from narrative point of view and in my opinion. Mikoshi is the branch to Temperance. V already decided whether to stay or leave NC and his/her condition after Mikoshi doesn´t seem worse-maybe better- than in the rooftop so why change his/her mind?
It is a second decision. At the rooftop V is presented a choice. KIll themselves or press onwards. If they press onwards they decide how they are going to do so. The Nomads (Star), Johnny and Rogue (Sun), just Johnny (secret ending) and Takemura/Hanako (Devil). Strictly speaking, we have two choices here already. Take note, V, or the character, makes choices here. The player "roleplaying", or assuming control of, V is presented those choices. Aka, the player has agency over the choices presented to their character.
Later, V is faced with a decision in Mikoshi. Keep the body with the expiration date or stay in Cyberland and hand it to Johnny. Alternatively, Johnny makes the decision with the player controlling him. This could be considered a third decision. Once again, in the first case V gets to choose and, by extension, the player gets to choose.
The second case would be questionable because the player is making decisions for Johnny, or a character they are not assuming the role of as the player. However, in this case it's an interactive choice because the player can make it. Thus, the player can shift to roleplaying Johnny on a dime, when the situation calls for it. This part is quite clever.
So let's say V keeps the body. We bypass Temperance. Moving along, at this point your roleplaying is over. As the player yu're at the end of the line for choices. You're in the epilogue. V is presented a choice in this epilogue. Do you stay in NC or say goodbye to it? Take note, V is presented this choice. The player is not. According to the narrative V has already made this decision.
Yes, I understand this is because the game was trying to extend certain themes through the endings. The remain or leave choice is coupled to the choice of ally. The entire complaint is I don't think it should have or needed to do so.
The second issue is I find it poor RPG ettiquite to present a choice to the player character without allowing the player to have ownership over it. The player is "playing" the character. Unless that character is somehow incapacitated or under an external influence then any decision offered to them should be provided to the player as well.
I would only point one think maybe : ". Personally, I'd equate it to a GM putting a choice in front of my player character, assuming control of my character and making the decision for me.", if a GM tells you "nah, you cannot shoot that NPC" indeed he is taking control of your character (I was carrying with me 10 different versions of NPCs needed for the story just in case when doing GM of CP2020 and several different bars in case my friends decided to redecorate one with explosives) and this is a verty valid complain in pen and paper, since this a computer RPG and there is no GM and they want to tell a story they are forced to put "control points": you cannot kill some NPCs, some decision force a direction.
Even in pen and paper, when you look at a campaign (not an individual session) more often than not the campaign is telling a story. There is a starting point and one or several outcomes; how you travel from start or end the player is pretty much free within character boundaries but you will not change a lot the outcomes (I mean classic DnD campaign is : Dragon/Demon/Wizard wants to take over the world will you brave adventurers step up for the challenge in promise of glory?-Shadowrun Dragonfall does something similar for example-)
The way that they implemented CP2077, for me doesn´t feel much different of a pen and paper campaign (freedom in character development, allies/friends/romances,how to solve problems(non-linear gameplay and multiple paths in almost every quest) but with well defined starting and end points.
It's a little different for a GM to label a NPC off-limits though. In that case the GM is telling you because of the way the environment (rules) are setup this particular NPC cannot die. The GM isn't making a decision for the player here. They are limiting the options available to the player. This is very different from temporarily assuming control of the character, one which is being "roleplayed", and making a decision on it's behalf.
You can try to pass this off as "video games are hard" but I can't bring myself to agree. I've played many video games where this was never done. If my character can pick I can too. If they cannot choose then neither can I. Never should the character I am playing be given a decision I can't make as the player. It's my character. Let me roleplay them how I wish, within reason, when the opportunities are available. Instead of using those opportunities to reinforce themes in a narrative because it's thought the player is too stupid to have grasped them by that point.
I didn't need this game to hand hold my character and say Nomads = family, Johnny = fame and glory, Arasaka = you got duped, etc. I spent all game being exposed to those themes. By the point of no return they were all dead horses being beaten even harder for no particular reason. If the only way to make this work is to commandeer my character temporarily then I am not a fan.
Thanks for the effort in putting in graphical way.
But still I cannot really understand this statement:
Literally Johnny is a NC legend:
"Robert John Linder: Son of a bitch who never gave up. A legend among legends." with his own drink. How different is 2013 and 2023 Johnny raids from 2077 raid if you call Rogue?
Is not a matter of how things are done, is a matter of doing something spectacular that people will remember for the years to come (even if you die, like Johnny in 2023).
When choosing to call Rogue (and giving control to Johnny) or unlocking secret (and keeping V on control) V is deciding to follow "the legend" path. And for doing that, you had to do quests for the legend.
But is not a second decision, the decision about NC is the rooftop I tried to explain why, from narrative point of view and in my opinion. Mikoshi is the branch to Temperance. V already decided whether to stay or leave NC and his/her condition after Mikoshi doesn´t seem worse-maybe better- than in the rooftop so why change his/her mind?
I think that this falls into the "story driven" vs "player agency". I cannot really disagree with your points, because its really personal taste.
I would only point one think maybe : ". Personally, I'd equate it to a GM putting a choice in front of my player character, assuming control of my character and making the decision for me.", if a GM tells you "nah, you cannot shoot that NPC" indeed he is taking control of your character (I was carrying with me 10 different versions of NPCs needed for the story just in case when doing GM of CP2020 and several different bars in case my friends decided to redecorate one with explosives) and this is a verty valid complain in pen and paper, since this a computer RPG and there is no GM and they want to tell a story they are forced to put "control points": you cannot kill some NPCs, some decision force a direction.
Even in pen and paper, when you look at a campaign (not an individual session) more often than not the campaign is telling a story. There is a starting point and one or several outcomes; how you travel from start or end the player is pretty much free within character boundaries but you will not change a lot the outcomes (I mean classic DnD campaign is : Dragon/Demon/Wizard wants to take over the world will you brave adventurers step up for the challenge in promise of glory?-Shadowrun Dragonfall does something similar for example-)
The way that they implemented CP2077, for me doesn´t feel much different of a pen and paper campaign (freedom in character development, allies/friends/romances,how to solve problems(non-linear gameplay and multiple paths in almost every quest) but with well defined starting and end points.
I personally like, but I can understand your point of view also.
I saw only in video, because I ended in sun when "loner" and never romanced River/Kerry. But its true that the scene could have been directed in a different way and still they could have kept their ultimate meaning (I can imagine that somebody more invested in River might feel it even more crude that what I saw, but I completely agree).
I just wanted to say that even if it didn´t lead to different outcome, somebody pointed at "production cost of voice actors ...", I don´t really think that it would have been a problem to add some variety in dialogs that don´t force V to act in that certain way. For a project of this budget, recording few extra lines of a couple of voice actors would have not been an issue (even for some other parts of the game)-generating branching content would be another story-
For outcomes, yes agree to disagree.
Ok, I get that you have a way of seeing things, it seems more like you are focused on the events, and associations.
But the flaw in the sun path is one of character motivation, and how player/V choices tie into the narrative.
Sun makes sense based on Concepts and somewhat on events. But not on charachter development/motivation/story.
Johnny is a legend, but Johnny's purpose was not being a legend. Johnny wouldn't logically run afterlife. Likewise a character who plays the sun ending,
is it reasonable to think they still want to be a legend?
Is it reasonable to think they would take over afterlife?
Does it tie into the character growth and themes that lead a player to unlock that ending?
The crux of The whole Johnny side story subplot, is being a legend isn't important. So whats the chance V, who experiences this story arc, or makes choices to do this type of content still wants to be a legend, or run afterlife? Will this story seem like the logical conclusion of someone reading this story?
Lets look at the progression.
V wants to be a successful mercenary(legend), V fails a big mission, losing everything, and everyone they value.
Turns out they got an entity(who is a legend) in their head and if nothing changes, they will die, or the entity will take over. V chooses to listen to the entity, and help the entity solve their regrets. Their regrets are, I treated my friends poorly, I never took the girl I liked/respected seriously, my best friend is suicidal, avenge who killed me, and wish I could play more music with the band. With a touch of survivor guilt for those who gave their lives for mine.
Then the entity helps V survive, with help from the entities friends. Is the logical end to this narrative, that V still wants to be a legend, and become the most powerful Fixer in town? Is it likely that a player/charachter who chooses to explore/experience the theme of regret, friendship, legendary life not being all its cracked up to be would actively seek these things?
These choices only makes sense if the point was that V learned nothing from their experience with the entity.
conversely, the choices that a Player/V made that lead to calling panam, line up very well with someone who feels a deep connection with panam. and identifies with her character arc of family being the most important thing. And does a bunch of things to help the aldecados.
Likewise someone who chooses to make a deal with Arasaka, will likely end up where they are in devil ending, saying the type of things you have the option to say/do there.
To me the sun ending makes sense as a sequence of events put V into that situation. But not really the I want to be a legend angle. And even event wise, it makes sense but its not explicit, Most players won't see a connection of why the choice to go with rogue/solo would lead them to having no logical alternative to becoming the leader of the afterlife.
However, V saying their goal is being a legend is not the only possible motivation they let V give voice to.
For something to be called art, first it needs to be flawless.
Then it needs to fit the intended genre. Failing in building a guitar and calling it a sculpture does not make it so.
When ME3 got massive critique for it's ending, EA started calling it "art". And there is a lot of bad art out there...
Subjectiveness is for those that can't handle objectiveness. Or critique.
Chagall, Monét and van Gogh all created something new, an expressionistic way of painting. Each with a distinctive style.
I prefer Rembrandt, but that's because I admire his use of light and shadows. But some prefer Warhol. To each their own.
A good doctor cures his patients, a bad doesen't. Subjectivity is not applicable on everything and only valid from the view of ones self.
Is Cyberpunk 2077 good? No. If someone perceive it as such, good for them, it still doesn't change anything.
art doesn't need to be, and is almost never flawless.
a doctor curing or not curing patients has nothing to do with how good they are. And good isn't a very descriptive term if you are trying to measure anything objective. Objectively you can say one doctor cured more people than another doctor. However some doctors care for incurable patients, are they a bad doctor?
something being "good" is not an objective quality. Objective things can be measured and represent facts.
Critiques always exist. Any art in existence has critiques.
Also van Gogh critiqued starry night, and thought it was a failure
Without wanting to play the troll, but i could said:
"Is Cyberpunk 2077 good? Yes. If someone perceive it as such, good for them, it still doesn't change anything."
Certainly not good for you, but for me, yes it's good game. Everything is a matter of perspective.
But if you think that those who are not of the same opinion as you, "lie". Honestly, it is useless to argue further
Execution - Buggy as ****. Remove the subjectiveness comparing it to other games.
Story - Inconsistent. Plot holes galore.
Narrative - Inconsistent. Alluded time limit without consequences.
Player agency on game outcome - No comment.
It's been argued to death in this thread, and elsewhere, that if you are willing to subjectively disregard the above the game could be quite enjoyable.
It still does not make it a good game...
Not sure i really see the value in trying to make a objective/subjective distinction. So much of our judgements are going to be influenced by our subjective preferences. I despise the simplistic/rigid railroaded ending mechanisms but i'm making a judgement of what i consider simplistic/rigid in doing that.
