Delete this thread

+
Status
Not open for further replies.
Here's the problem: V is a character to. Your character simply swapped models with V and looks out of place.
Yeah but it sounds like you're complaint is you're given customization options and ownership over "V" while the game is insisting V be represented a certain way. In a way where it conflicts with that customization and ownership. I understand the root complaint. I simply question whether cutting out the CC is the best solution.

The way I see it any type of customization or choice relating to a player character in a RPG serves a singular purpose. It allows the player to define the role. Visual, audio, gameplay areas like choices/consequences and quest options, whatever. Ultimately this is why those options add value. For a CC It's a two step process. The first step is having the options. The second step is incorporating those options into the game in a meaningful way. If you don't feel step two was handled well the ideal solution for me is to improve step two. It's not removing step one, thereby rendering step two irrelevant.
 
Story doesn't view these characters in any particular way. To use TW3 as an example: Ciri comments on Geralt's scar, Yennefer on his beard, dozens of other characters do the same regarding his white hair and cat eyes. Cyberpunk and V doesn't have that.
As for sound of his/her voice and appropriate face, well, nothing in the world can ever look as fitting as these:
View attachment 11232787

Default V is still a glorified model swap of the real thing.
It's funny, because for frenchs, it's those who are appropriate... Character creator required :D
Elias_Changuel.png
Julie_Dray.jpg
 
Yet, the player will feel detached from the story and V, because of a glorified model swap.
I already explained how its the opposite but okay,

Its how literature works. The author creates a character and has an image of it in their mind. The reader has to rely on written descriptions which are never as complete as a picture. So the reader creates an image of said character in their mind. The most obvious examples of this are movies, where the director chooses an actor for a role based on how they think that character should look. All you have to do is pick a popular book and look up fan art for it and you will see how different people imagine characters.

Even someone like Andrej Sapkowski accepts how other people have their own image in their mind of what a certain character looks like and said the following in regards to the Witcher TV series: "I strongly believe in the freedom of the artist and his artistic expression. I rarely interfere. And very rarely try to impose my view on another artist.” and as such “I was more than happy with Henry Cavill’s appearance as the Witcher.” He added, “He’s a real professional. Just as Viggo Mortensen gave his face to Aragorn in Lord of the Rings, so Henry gave his to Geralt — and it shall be forever so.”
Although the game probably based itself on Wiedzim from 2001 while the TV series used the game as basis of what Geralt should look like and the author allows them to bring that artistic vision into their works.

You think that, because the beginning of V's story is set and V has a voice, that the player shouldnt be deciding what V looks like. You think that if part of V's story is decided by someone else, then whatever the character looks like should be decided by them aswell. Considering the amount of agency a player really has in Cyberpunk 2077, the real question should be why they bothered to voice V, why they bothered to define V so much instead of just giving the player a blank slate. They could have used those resources for other things.
 
This is exactly what I'm trying to tell everyone. The custom character doesn't have any place in the story as V is the protagonist, who has their own personality traits. It's not immersive to see a different character model there when these were the two optional characters that the marketing established.
View attachment 11232772
With respect, but you pretty much bash everyone for not agreeing with you view and who believes the CC does have a place in the game.
Comments such as "your V is weird", "Its just a modelswap" or "V is not you" hold as much value as the opposite side of that coin.
Let me make you an example: you say V is an established character and as such CP77 should not have a CC because of that, the very next thing you do is highlight both the advertised (presumably) both the male and female V's.
You're not gonna tell me that a genderswapped V is allowed, for sake of it being advertized. But at the same time not when you do something equal via a CC?
I've argued before, and I say again: so long as there' s no direct correlation to how the protagonist looks, then making a character via CC 'works just fine'.

And I've still not seen any argument that would persuade me to think differently about the good and added value of a CC.


P.s. I hope this post is not modded out. What I wanted to show is the somewhat double standard here.
 
Last edited:
I disagree, but I do like to see a game in which the character is randomly generated like in Rust for example. This way you feel like a unique person, playing your own unique adventure.
 
With respect, but you pretty much bash everyone for not agreeing with you view and who believes the CC does have a place in the game.
Comments such as "your V is weird", "Its just a modelswap" or "V is not you" hold as much value as the opposite side of that coin.
Let me make you an example: you say V is an established character and as such CP77 should not have a CC because of that, the very next thing you do is highlight both the advertised (presumably) both the male and female V's.
You're not gonna tell me that a genderswapped V is allowed, for sake of it being advertized. But at the same time not when you do something equal via a CC?
I've argued before, and I say again: so long as there' s no direct correlation to how the protagonist looks, then making a character via CC 'works just fine'.

And I've still not seen any argument that would persuade me to think differently about the good and added value of a CC.


P.s. I hope this post is not modded out. What I wanted to show is the somewhat double standard here.
But you are right though.

He started the topic with 'this is my opinion', which I can respect. But then went into 'you are wrong' mode. You cant have a discussion or share perspectives if one side is unwilling to see other people's view or rejects them out of hand. And plenty of people have shared their view that they prefer to be able to customize V and feel more connected or more immersed that way.

The problem is that he went from his preference into 'marketing V is canon', when evidence is lacking. First off, if there is no character creation, which one is canonical V, male or female? It cant be both, one is the correct one. Just as there is only male Geralt or one male Henry in KCD, or female Ellie in TloU or female Lara in Tomb Raider. So his position that marketing V is canonical V already makes no sense.

Then there is the fact that character customization is a feature reported upon(leaked) well before the E3 2018 demo when they presented marketing V. But here again we bump into the problem that deveoped through the topic. The topic began with his opinion of what canon V should be and (d)evolved into 'character creation is wrong, anything you make is a model swap'. But it isnt, because the developers never made a canonical V. If you turn on the game and do nothing in the character creation screen, you get a completely different V. You cannot create the V which he suggests is the correct one, because the developers never intended for that V to be the players model(some people have come close, but noone has made an actual copy).
The developers want you to create the V you prefer, that is their design. You may not like that choice, but you cant say it isnt valid. The developers want you to decide what your own V looks like, that is their vision. You can disagree but that is how the game is. Marketing V is clearly just that, the V that marekting came up with to make some marketing material. Marketing V isnt anywhere ingame. A V you created is never a model swap, because it doesnt replace anything. I now notice that I repeating some things, sorry, its just because its important.

He can have his opinion, but its just that, his opinion. Other arguments have already been countered and saying 'that makes no sense' or 'these two are V'(no, pick, one, it cant be both) when someone explains that creating a character increases immersion, isnt an argument at all.

Now, is there a way to disable notifications from this thread?
 
I didn't feel detached one bit in my playthroughs. I was a corpo, a nomad, and a street kid V. If anything I feel more attached because the funny blue hair goof I created is what I wanted him to be.
It's a yes and no sort of deal for me. I don't think it's accurate to say the player was given zero opportunity for ownership over the player character in CP. There are a lot of examples throughout the game where the player is given those opportunities. II also think there are examples in the game where the execution in this realm leaves a lot to be desired. It's a mixed bag.
Let me make you an example: you say V is an established character and as such CP77 should not have a CC because of that, the very next thing you do is highlight both the advertised (presumably) both the male and female V's.
It's a head scratcher for me because the option to open up the CC, leave the default setup as it is and select "finished" exists. If someone thought the game denied them ownership of the character, in spite of the CC being there, they could simply go with what the game provides as a default option. Others might feel the CC is giving them ownership, even if it's really an illusion, and find benefits from it.

The other angle is even if V is always V it's not outside the realm of possibility for V to have long vs short hair. Long and short hair V can both be V. This is part of what impressed about TW3. Geralt is a completely pre-defined character. However, there are choices presented to the player where either option could fit that defined character. Geralt might stick with the Witcher code, stay out of politics and say "no" when asked to help deal with Radovid. He also might make an exception because the behaviors of Radovid are dangerous for those around him.

Basically, I don't think it's true to say a pre-defined character offers zero ability to "roleplay" that character as a player wishes. It is certainly possible to drive a pre-defined character in different directions if the options presented are handled well.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom