I beg to differ, is very suspicious Viks and Misty team... being gentle,no selfish interests,well connected to NC underground, lending you money, manipulating with New Age stuff. Nibbles its just the bait that Misty uses to draw your attention...
There's no way they would ever kill Panam, she's a clear favorite among the developers. And taking her romance into account it would be unfair if she died, however, I agree that Mitch should have been the one to die. The Star ending is incredibly low stakes, the only characters that die are never given proper screen time or opportunities to interact with V on a more personal level (Saul), and so their deaths don't carry any kind of weight as a result. If Mitch died, it would have made the ending feel actually bittersweet.
There's also the secret ending where no one dies, but as soon as you reach the Afterlife it becomes clear that Rogue's story is meant to end with her dying because the game has no idea what to do with her in the secret ending. She washes her hands off everything, hoists all the responsibility upon V who's dying and has other things to worry about... because?
There's also the secret ending where no one dies, but as soon as you reach the Afterlife it becomes clear that Rogue's story is meant to end with her dying because the game has no idea what to do with her in the secret ending. She washes her hands off everything, hoists all the responsibility upon V who's dying and has other things to worry about... because?
Last edited by a moderator:
there is no real reason Saul or rogue has to die narratively. No one dies in Arasaka ending. Fact is Saul and rogue don't really die in a way that suggests it was bound to happen. They get one shorted by a sucker punch from smasher, who isn't even that tough after that. It also has little to do with choices made by V, natural risks in battle, errors or poor planning.Its very much a plot required death.
There is nothing particularly cheap about the panam ending. They die so the player feels like they paid a price, but the player is already paying a price no matter what, not only that, but the player has survived worse situations, and could actually solo the mission.
people are getting caught up in the concept of killing people "for stakes" and it doesn't add anything to the story to do that. Death should be a natural result of Events that lead up to them. not someone has to die to because drama, or some toll on success.
Now that you mention it, I agree on Rogue. One of the last things she says as your leaving to go to Saka tower is that she's going to miss the Afterlife. Clearly hinting that she enjoys being the boss.
But when you see her in the secret ending she says that the Afterlife is V's problem now, as though she's glad to be rid of it.
Eh I think they know why rogue is retiring, I can think of a number of reasons she might(most obvious is Johnny). But two month time skip for that ending, so most things that happen in it lack context.
I think that particular point is excusable since the endings are mutually exclusive. If you do the secret ending, Rogue's views aren't aired. It's a different story and we don't know what that Rogue wants.
I have my point of view for them. Their death sound to me, pretty "useful" for the story
Bobby & Teddy :
You can speak few times but you need to go speak with them, like with Teddy before save Saul. But for me, they die, because when Mitch go solo with Basilisk, we can really expect him to die too (like Panam said it). When you see Mitch come back at the end, it's a relief. They die for the "suspense", if I can said that.
Saul :
Without his death, Panam will never become the Aldecaldos "chief". Despite everything they say (and let it appear), there is too much difference between them. For me, I feel like it will never really work between them. And as many quoted, if Panam and Saul go their separate ways, it will be the end of the Aldecaldos. So Saul must die.
Rogue :
If Johnny returns from Mikoshi, he has no real reason to stay in Night City (he really, really lost everything). And if it's V who comes back, well there can only be one boss at AfterLife. So she must also die.
One problem with that... "Fear the reaper" ending... but hey, it's sound quite rare to do it in first playthrough without spoiler.
hence the little sentence:
Last edited:
I have my point of view for them. Their death sound to me, pretty "useful" for the story
Bobby & Teddy :
You can speak few times but you need to go speak with them, like with Teddy before save Saul. But for me, they die, because when Mitch go solo with Basilisk, we can really expect him to die too (like Panam said it). When you see Mitch come back at the end, it's a relief. They die for the "suspense", if I can said that.
Saul :
Without his death, Panam will never become the Aldecaldos "chief". Despite everything they say (and let it appear), there is too much difference between them. For me, I feel like it will never really work between them. And as many quoted, if Panam and Saul go their separate ways, it will be the end of the Aldecaldos. So Saul must die.
Rogue :
If Johnny returns from Mikoshi, he has no real reason to stay in Night City (he really, really lost everything). And if it's V who comes back, well there can only be one boss at AfterLife. So she must also die.
One problem with that... "Fear the reaper" ending... but hey, it's sound quite rare to do it in first playthrough without spoiler.
hence the little sentence:
yeah, but writing isn't supposed to obviously be about trying to position pieces. Also its questionable how much either of those things were needed. Saul had already decided to hand off leadership to panam's decisions, and the nomads long ago said that Saul only leads because they generally agree with him. His death puts more pressure on Panam, but thats not even really a part of this story. It might be part of her future story, but in that case there is no need to kill him now.
Also his death could have been done in a different way to add more to the narrative, but it isn't really handled that way, and using the same mechanism for rogue and Saul's death makes it clear its just a death tax.
As for Rogue, rogue leaves NC in either case, and if Johnny lives in V's body she is not happy about it. As for V being boss, there are numerous reasons Rogue would give up afterlife. People retire/hand off leadership without death all the time. This isn't a monarchy. The subtext of rogue's story is that Johnny reminds her who she was, who she used to be, and she likes that version of her self more. Old rogue hated fixers, conformity, etc.
The best reason story wise for rogues death might be her desire to face her past and make different choices, but the way they handled it and set it up, makes it clear they weren't going to do much developing that type of story. Her getting sucker punched takes that idea out of the frame.
Basically its clear they did it because someone semi important needs to die just because, And they didnt put much effort into developing their deaths with the other characters or even giving them unique deaths that made more sense for how and why the mission might lead to their deaths.
I don't agree with that (maybe I misunderstood), but :
When you speak with Mitch (after test the new Basilisk), Mitch clearly said that Saul don't want to leave the leadership to Panam and for Saul, the Arasaka assault is a way to stay there longer (and that is what worries Mitch).
In my opinion, every endings are "separate". For me, you can't explain one thing in one ending with an event/dialogs present in a other ending. And honestly, for me, Rogue must die to mark Johnny if he returns or leave room if V becomes the afterlife boss
My own personal issue with this aspect of the endings is how differently those deaths can affect people. In order to unlock the Sun ending you need to spend time with Rogue, we get to see a different and more human side to her, so naturally, some people might grow to like her, and thus they'll be affected by her death in some way.
The same can't be said about the Star ending. We're never given the chance to interact with Saul on the same level you can with Rogue. Even in a more private environment like the cabin in Riders on the Storm him and Panam argue about his decisions. It's always Saul the leader of the Bright family, we never really get to see Saul the person. The other nomads who die have even less relevance and I honestly don't remember their names. There's just no emotional impact because characters who kick the bucket lack connection to V or the player. Granted, Rogue's connection isn't exactly that strong either but at least it's there.
You're right that killing off characters solely for the stakes isn't a great way to add tension, but the Sun ending hints at Rogue's fate and even implies that Rogue herself knows she'll likely won't make it. Her death, to me at least, made sense.
Last edited by a moderator:
No one dies in arasaka ending because it's the comedy, ha ha you were so stupid to trust saka ending. I'm sure if that choice was successful they would have wanted to extract some cost.
Right now unfortunately we are in an era of where bleak is seen as deep imo. That's why they want to kill people for stakes, bait and switch the protagonists survival etc. I'd honestly prefer games took a Mass Effect approach to character death where it comes down to the choices you make.
To come back to the star ending, the one that I obviously know best
For me, all the deads have nothing to do with knowing them well, or even liking them. I think no one can really get attached to them (bobby/Teddy/Saul).
For Saul
The important point is "the futur of the Aldecaldos". All the "important" dialogues in the Aldecaldos camp the night before attacking Arasaka is about:
-Saul will probably never give up his place for Panam.
-Yes, Panam lives for the family. But will she have the shoulders to lead ?
Despite what Panam and Saul say and let people believe, nobody is fooled. It will be an impossible cohabitation and that it will end badly for the Aldecaldos if they do not get along. So one of the two has to "go" and obviously it is not Panam.
For other Aldecaldos
They die just because at one time you could said yourself:
"Damn, Teddy, Bobby and now probably Mitch... they're all gonna die... who will remain at the end...? maybe Johnny was right... what I trained them in... I'm so sorry Panam, all your family gonna die thanks to me..."
It's like that to make you feel some sort of culpability sentiment. Especially if you gave your word around the last beer in the camp that "nobody was going to die tomorrow, I promise".
This is what I call "Empathy". To feel sadness because Panam feels it (or will feel it). I'm not saying it's done well, that it works on everyone, but for me (the first time at least), it did it pretty well.
For me, all the deads have nothing to do with knowing them well, or even liking them. I think no one can really get attached to them (bobby/Teddy/Saul).
For Saul
The important point is "the futur of the Aldecaldos". All the "important" dialogues in the Aldecaldos camp the night before attacking Arasaka is about:
-Saul will probably never give up his place for Panam.
-Yes, Panam lives for the family. But will she have the shoulders to lead ?
Despite what Panam and Saul say and let people believe, nobody is fooled. It will be an impossible cohabitation and that it will end badly for the Aldecaldos if they do not get along. So one of the two has to "go" and obviously it is not Panam.
For other Aldecaldos
They die just because at one time you could said yourself:
"Damn, Teddy, Bobby and now probably Mitch... they're all gonna die... who will remain at the end...? maybe Johnny was right... what I trained them in... I'm so sorry Panam, all your family gonna die thanks to me..."
It's like that to make you feel some sort of culpability sentiment. Especially if you gave your word around the last beer in the camp that "nobody was going to die tomorrow, I promise".
This is what I call "Empathy". To feel sadness because Panam feels it (or will feel it). I'm not saying it's done well, that it works on everyone, but for me (the first time at least), it did it pretty well.
Last edited:
i remember the ME3 ending fiasco VERY well. i lived through it after all and trust me dawg it was a big confusing WTF moment when i got to the end for the very first time. i may not know a lick about the world of business or MBA's but i do know a thing or two about history and i can tell you so far that these "big boy" game companies have not expended much if not any energy at all into studying what actually went wrong with the "failed" games (eg. Mass Effect 3, Mass Effect Andromeda, Aliens Colonial Marines, Duke Nukem Forever, No Man's Sky, etc.) that wise man who said "those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it" remains true and true...
Its interesting to see, after all this time that this thread has existed, those percentages haven't moved too much even with the influx of votes. I guess people did want, or at least want the ability, to have a "good" ending. Or perhaps, just a better ending than the mediocre ones that are on offer.
Something I would like to know (not having specifically looked into the question) :
If the fact that in RDR2, Arthur and his horse died at the end, have generated so much debate on the need to have a "happy ending" ?
Ok, there is no choice in RDR2, but still, the main character that you played for the entire game dies (slowly and spitting blood... sound familiar, isn't it ?) and your adored horse too. Even if you can keep playing with John, that doesn't sound like a "happy ending" to me...
If the fact that in RDR2, Arthur and his horse died at the end, have generated so much debate on the need to have a "happy ending" ?
Ok, there is no choice in RDR2, but still, the main character that you played for the entire game dies (slowly and spitting blood... sound familiar, isn't it ?) and your adored horse too. Even if you can keep playing with John, that doesn't sound like a "happy ending" to me...
It's not a happy ending, but it is a good one, and one that's fitting of the very fleshed out character of Arthur whose motivations and personality are clearly understood and you have virtually no effect on them. Arthur's final moments and the aftermath of it on the people closest to him are also shown, handled with respect, and ultimately meaningful.
I'm sure many people who played Cyberpunk the way the devs obviously intended feel a similar way. As far as I'm concerned, though, there's 3 hamfisted main endings where you find out that all your work in the main storyline was for nothing, and that might as well conclude with this:
Speaking for myself here, it's about the structure of the main quest and predefined protagonist. Arthur is a fixed character, he knows he's going to die for a long part of the game and the main quest isn't a wild goose chase. There is no illusion about finding a cure, and the game was never marketed as a 'your choices matter' kind of game.
With CP77 there isn't a single defined V. And while I'm sure running off into the sunset with Panam or getting the grim Arasaka ending can be satisfying for some characters, I wanted to get a fitting ending for my V based on how I played her during the rest of the story.
Well there is a massive difference between V dying (off screen) and Arthur dying (on screen). Really, you play as V, but you play along with Arthur.
Yes the players characters die in both games, however RDR2 is almost a character study, we see Arthur trying his best for his friends and even strangers too depending on play style. He gets TB from beating a guy to death over a lousy debt, quite an evil dead, and by the end of the game, Arthur isn't collecting debt anymore since he hate it. Depending on play style, Arthur redeems himself, and ultimately gives what little life he has left to allow John to escape. A heroic and noble thing to do, so while sad, the player knew it was for a good cause, and the epilogue shows what Arthur's sacrifice meant to John and his family.
Arthur's story is about a bad person finding the good within himself and putting that forward into the world by helping others, even if that goes against Dutch's interests or orders. Arthur slowly deteriorates and dies in front of the players eyes, so the player has been their for the low's, the high's, and at Arthurs ending. I'm sure many people shed a tear when Arthur died as it was such a compelling character and arch.
V on the other hand .. well .. The problem is that CP77 wasn't a tight story, it was very loose, ie, the player decided who V was by having so much freedom. A better comparison to Arthur would be Geralt because they are defined by who they are and not necessarily by what they do, if anything, what they do is shaped by who they are. V is not like this, V is the player and that is emphasised by the first person view and lack of 3rd person cutscenes (yeah a couple exist but you get what I mean), so we aren't playing as V, we are playing as us.
TLDR: Arthur's story is one of redemption, he goes from being a savage to being a nicer guy how helps others and you get the pay off in the epilogue by seeing John's family survive and build a home for themselves. V's journey is dictated by the players actions (or lack of) and attempt to find a cure for themselves. V helps other's too, but her/his entire story revolves around helping themselves.
Personally I think V's story could have been so much better if V was attempting to save Jackie's life in some way, that way V would be doing everything in the power to do things for their friend and not themselves. Plus, if you could save Jackie, that would be awesome
ok
It was just about the "debate".
I don't really see a big difference (but that's my opinion).
For me, both stories are "sadly" good. Maybe a little more in Cyberpunk, because it's more of a character that we "embody"
That V dies at the end doesn't bother me. Knowing that during the whole game, everyone tells us that there is little/no chance of surviving (apart from Misty...). Basically, unless you believe in miracles, you had to suspect it...
PS : Nope, Jackie have to die (without the Relic), no question about that for me
As Alt says, V didn't do it all for nothing. By dint of perseverence, V has the choice to "choose" how it ends.
To take a slightly morbid example, sorry...
Let's imagine that it's been 30 years of smoking and my doctor tells me that I have 6 months to live... But there is a very very slim chance (as much to say almost none) that I will survive with an heavy treatment.
What will I choose ?
- The treatment by spending the time I have left, alone on a hospital bed, hoping "naively" that it will work (Devil).
- Selfishly doing everything I always dreamed of doing and regardless of the consequences (Sun).
- Spend the time that I have left with the people I love, like my family (Star).
For me, in Cyberpunk, that's the kind of choose you have with V. Not simply "V can or can't" survive
It was just about the "debate".
I don't really see a big difference (but that's my opinion).
For me, both stories are "sadly" good. Maybe a little more in Cyberpunk, because it's more of a character that we "embody"
That V dies at the end doesn't bother me. Knowing that during the whole game, everyone tells us that there is little/no chance of surviving (apart from Misty...). Basically, unless you believe in miracles, you had to suspect it...
PS : Nope, Jackie have to die (without the Relic), no question about that for me
For the choices matters in Cyberpunk. And I find it rather well done compared to just either V survives or V dies.
As Alt says, V didn't do it all for nothing. By dint of perseverence, V has the choice to "choose" how it ends.
To take a slightly morbid example, sorry...
Let's imagine that it's been 30 years of smoking and my doctor tells me that I have 6 months to live... But there is a very very slim chance (as much to say almost none) that I will survive with an heavy treatment.
What will I choose ?
- The treatment by spending the time I have left, alone on a hospital bed, hoping "naively" that it will work (Devil).
- Selfishly doing everything I always dreamed of doing and regardless of the consequences (Sun).
- Spend the time that I have left with the people I love, like my family (Star).
For me, in Cyberpunk, that's the kind of choose you have with V. Not simply "V can or can't" survive
Last edited: