Well, Descartes thought there was a point to debating it... ;-)
That's what I find interesting (even weird) about Alt (if we can still call it that), is that about the soul and the possible loss of it (which is a very "human" reflexion) apart from the monks and a few humans (Joshua & Zuleikha) it is the only one that alludes to it (that's quite interesting for an AI). But on the side of Arasaka (Saburo, Goro and Hanako) the question does not even arise "nothing change" (and even for Johnny).
For me, the question still open and to the appreciation of the player
It isn't even down to interpretation. The NPCs repeatedly state that V's body dies (after giving false hope about chip removal procedure and then after successful removal of the chip saying V still dies because mumbo jumbo).
V meets the construct of Alt Cunningham in the matrix during the Voodoo Boys sequence, and it is made abundantly clear (including by the construct itself stating its not Alt) that the construct is not Alt Cunningham. Therefore the procedure does not result in V's mind remaining. There is nothing left, V just dies. Just by different terminology.
Death. Is. Hammered. Home. At. Every. Step.
Erm. The game at every step points out there are multiple views on that question. It's kind of the fundamental question the game is asking and it's for the player to choose. That's what makes it a thoughtful game.
I mentioned Descartes above because his view on the subject, known as dualism, is that soul and body are absolutely distinct (known as Cartesian dualism, hence the game band the Cartesian Duelists). In transcendental meditation the issue is of the spirit being allowed to reach an entirely different plane from the corporeal one inhabited by the body.
Scavs, Maelstrom, Cyberpsychos. The Peralezes who have the same bodies but consciousnesses that they no longer control. Johhny overwriting V. Delamain. Brendan. Lizzy Wizzy. Crucifixion. Joytoys. XBDs.
This isn't an issue the game keeps to itself.
Last edited:
No it doesn't. There are no interpretations. The game explicitly says that V is going to die at every turn. Please don't make me go dig up example screenshots cause I can't be arsed to care about this game anymore.
Get out of your headcanon and look what is actually said in the game.
V's body dies (if V keep his body), that's for sure.
But it's only Alt who said you "Therefore the procedure does not result in V's mind remaining".
- You can believe her/it ? Knowing it's an AI who have lost his humanity a long while ago and no longer care about any human...
- You also can believe Arasaka's opinion (Hanako, Saburo and Goro and even Johnny) who think nothing change, it still V.
- You can aslo believe the monks, who told you, if the engram can feel the pain, he have a soul (so V could keep his soul even in engram state).
No, some characters say that. Others disagree. It's then left to you to decide where the dividing line lies.
The funny thing is that Johnny Silverhand is actually someone who gives a perspective on it in Sinnerman that I agree with.
Johnny says, roughly, "By the time I'm a digital ghost, it's not really important to worry about it. Is it?"
Post automatically merged:
Well V dies at Mikoshi when they upload themselves.
The question is whether they get better.
Last edited:
Which is the foundation for one of the moments I hated most in this game, when Alt warns you about how fucking dire Soulkiller is and your only option is to bust out your best "let's gooo!"
She doesn't outright say that Soulkiller produces a copy, but it's weird that V doesn't ask for clarifications after hearing that it "changes everything" and "does exactly what it promises to do".
It could mean anything from "being an engram detached from a body will change you so much that you'll essentially be a different entity and won't feel human" to "your original consciousness will die but you're too dense to realize it lol".
I've talked far more than I want to about Soulkiller's implied effects, for this particular post all that matters is that Alt *is* unambiguous about the fact that using Soulkiller to "save" yourself has some kind of dire consequences. Then you can't express concern about that, move through the rest of the game as if it's a perfect solution, and then basically get gaslighted about the whole conversation when the only reference in the ending is "Hey you didn't ask if I wanted to use Soulkiller". Bonus points if you remembered Alt's warning about Soulkiller and opted for the ending that turned out to just be a punishment instead.
The way the endings are handled is not that different as talking with a taxi driver in LA in Vampire:Bloodlines I would say(its choose your faction and from this you get an epilogue).
In Vampire you die explicitely(well,you are undead already but you know) in 4 out of the 7 possible combinations, depending on your loyalty the only outcome is death.
To be fair, critics in-game are divided about Slavoj McAllister:
"he Cartesian Duelists premiered new songs "Cybernetic Soul," "Mind Is Freedom," and "Cogito Ergo Sum,"[1] which, as usual, have critics divided. Lyrically, the new singles touch on issues such as the internal struggle of body and mind, the limitations of our senses, and the search for absolute truths. Some critics consider the new material pseudointellectual drivel - others praise the band's fresh, innovative spin on the genre. "
I don't think the comparison fits. Yes they both have an end misison choice that triggers endings. However, bloodlines doesn't then invalidate your character choices with character epilogues based on a mission choice. I'd also argue that the nature of the mission choice is very different. In Cyberpunk it's more about who to potentially sacrifice.
Last edited:
if you play a Ventrue loyal to the Prince what happens?
A big boom. I'm not sure how that is invalidating though.
The fact that a choice(wanting to be prince's right hand) ends badly doesn't overwrite your character motivation.
That's completely different from ending/epilogue having your character ignoring your character motivations.
I think she is quite clear the transfer process isn't going to yield a 1 to 1 duplicate. Some of the content is going to get lost in the process. However, I think her comments on the significance of that lost content are largely based on her own perception (aka, it's called Soulkiller because the soul doesn't make the trip <-- Alt's personal rationalization).
To me it seems more accurate to say it constitutes a loss of some part of V if they choose to go through with it. As an arbitrary value, 70% of V gets transferred. 30% goes poof. Does this mean V is dead, gone or ceases to exist completely? I don't think so myself. If 70% of V makes the trip then 70% of V still exists. Yeah, the new V will be different but different and gone are not the same.
Well, I think it's implied V accepts the risks based on the previous decision to pursue it.
That's where the game arguably screws the pooch in many areas. A choice is made and various implications for what the character believes or thinks beyond that choice get tacked onto it. To me, for an RPG, that's a huge no-no. The player should never make choice A and have the game extrapolate it out to choice B. If choice A and B exist the player should be given ownership over both of them.
The real tragedy is I'd bet the writers would agree. I suspect they wanted to go further with it and flesh things out more to split a number of choices available to the player up into individual decisions. It was constructed as is because an extra year of development time didn't make the cut.
I'm not left with impression that Soulkiller is some defective product that can't do the advertised copying job.
Equally i don't see how AI Alt can know for a fact that something like a soul which is completely intangible/unmeasurable is lost in the process.
May just be the internal logic that she is built upon.
Equally i don't see how AI Alt can know for a fact that something like a soul which is completely intangible/unmeasurable is lost in the process.
May just be the internal logic that she is built upon.