I was hoping the DLC story wasn't with Silverhand

+
Status
Not open for further replies.
V doesn't beat the dragon, get the girl, and live happily ever after. V still dies. Because what V is primarily is a medium for Johnny to finish his story.
I guess beating one of the strongest people in their world and severely crippling Arasaka can't be in any way, shape or form considered as "beating the dragon". Panam or Judy don't count as "getting the girl" either, I guess.
I'm a noob when it comes to tabletop, so feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the whole point of Silverhand's character that he doesn't want to retire and live as a normal human? That he wants to go down guns blazing, fighting for what he believes in and becoming a legend - an ending that he gets in most cases?
And if your theory about Cyberpunk 2077 being Johnny's story first and foremost is true, than he actually can win, truly and absolutely. As a matter of fact, he can get it pretty good - mess up Arasaka and walk into the sunset practically unscratched.
 
Well that's your mistake there, because it's not a standalone story. When taken in context with everything that it's based on, it is a story about Silverhand. If it was just a story about V 'trying to survive NC' then 1. Silverhand wouldn't be required, and 2. it would be a pretty crappy story.
You could cut out Silverhand though. It's not as if Silverhand specifically has to be on the Relic for V's story to function.
Cyberpunk, the genre, has never been about 'just surviving'. It's very much about the futility of resisting the inevitable, or otherwise being powerless to stop it. Cyberpunk isn't about surviving anything. It's about being defeated, and the relentless crush of a dark future. Always has been, and this game is no different. There are no heroes, no happy endings. V doesn't beat the dragon, get the girl, and live happily ever after. V still dies. Because what V is primarily is a medium for Johnny to finish his story.
Again, Silverhand is unnecessary for all of this to play out. Johnny doesn't need to be there. None of the specific characters in the narrative need to be there. Funnily enough, V doesn't either. V could be just about anyone.

Against my better judgement.... I'd note, at conceptual level it's not really my cup of tea for an interactive video game. The idea the story must be about what you've listed in your post here. The characters involved must be placed into a neat little box where they fight against the machine, try to survive, etc. and are destined to be squashed. The notion the protagonist, regardless of whom it is, must fail. It's inflexible and a bit predictable.

I'd put it directly beside a typical full blown power fantasy. The character begins as some pleb and steadily progresses to god tier to then slap the big bad out of it's saddle and save the day. It's on rails. There is no wiggle room to deviate.

No, I am not saying CDPR shouldn't have made a Cyberpunk game either. Nor am I saying it's a "bad" concept. I'm saying a book, movie or TV series requires some level of freedom to be translated to an interactive video game. The messages in "the story" can be properly conveyed without taking draconian measures to ensure it reaches a predetermined conclusion. Liberties can and should be made to translate it to this very different medium.
And yes, there are elements of the story that are about V, but again, you are confusing plot for story. The biochip slowly killing V is a plot element, not story. It is a motivating factor and a driving force for the story, but not the story itself. It is, quite literally, the Infinity Gems for Cyberpunk, except unlike in the MCU, it serves a narrative purpose as well, but isn't in and of itself the story. It is the plot. The catalyst upon which the narrative reaction occurs to produce the final chapter about Johnny Silverhand.
The trouble I have here is it could be either one. It's possible for the narrative to be about V with Johnny serving as a mechanism to reinforce it all. It's also possible it is intended to be about Johnny with V serving as a mechanism to drive it all forward.

If it's about any character I prefer to view it as both. Both of these stories have a concurrent position in the game. I'm not sure it matters anyway though. If the story was intended to be about Johnny then so what? Was it an interesting story and did it satisfy? It doesn't matter which character was supposed to be at the center of it all.
 
Well that's your mistake there, because it's not a standalone story. When taken in context with everything that it's based on, it is a story about Silverhand. If it was just a story about V 'trying to survive NC' then 1. Silverhand wouldn't be required, and 2. it would be a pretty crappy story. Cyberpunk, the genre, has never been about 'just surviving'. It's very much about the futility of resisting the inevitable, or otherwise being powerless to stop it. Cyberpunk isn't about surviving anything. It's about being defeated, and the relentless crush of a dark future. Always has been, and this game is no different. There are no heroes, no happy endings. V doesn't beat the dragon, get the girl, and live happily ever after. V still dies. Because what V is primarily is a medium for Johnny to finish his story.

And yes, there are elements of the story that are about V, but again, you are confusing plot for story. The biochip slowly killing V is a plot element, not story. It is a motivating factor and a driving force for the story, but not the story itself. It is, quite literally, the Infinity Gems for Cyberpunk, except unlike in the MCU, it serves a narrative purpose as well, but isn't in and of itself the story. It is the plot. The catalyst upon which the narrative reaction occurs to produce the final chapter about Johnny Silverhand.

Everyone wants to believe that they are the hero of the story that they are in. That's why people want it to be about V, because that makes it about you. But this isn't that kind of RPG, and never has been, not even the tabletop game. V is a protagonist, it's true, but more than they, V is a conduit through which the story is told to the player, and through which the player determines what direction the story goes in.

You cannot simply dismiss the relevance of the story told in the tabletop game especially considering that Pondsmith himself, the creator of the entire franchise, has in no uncertain terms made it very clear that it is 100% relevant. So, I'm sorry, but if we're talking about CP77, then we're talking about the tabletop game as well. They are like time and space - one depends on the other, and vice versa.

This honestly just comes across as gatekeeping. First off, no one is trying to invalidate the tabletop game. For everyone who's into that, cool - hopefully you get an enhanced experience when you play CP77. I mean, you've just said, "when taken in context..." - okay, cool, good for you - but the point is you don't have to. Who are you to tell people they can't appreciate the game without that context? Do you seriously think CDPR intended for this game to ONLY cater to fans of the tabletop game? That it can't also be enjoyed purely on its own? Obviously they made this game so that it could be enjoyed as a standalone thing. That is not the same as saying "it has nothing to do with the tabletop". Literally no one said that.
 
I guess beating one of the strongest people in their world and severely crippling Arasaka can't be in any way, shape or form considered as "beating the dragon". Panam or Judy don't count as "getting the girl" either, I guess.
I'm a noob when it comes to tabletop, so feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the whole point of Silverhand's character that he doesn't want to retire and live as a normal human? That he wants to go down guns blazing, fighting for what he believes in and becoming a legend - an ending that he gets in most cases?
And if your theory about Cyberpunk 2077 being Johnny's story first and foremost is true, than he actually can win, truly and absolutely. As a matter of fact, he can get it pretty good - mess up Arasaka and walk into the sunset practically unscratched.
You're conflating 'winning' with heroism. My point is that there are no heroes. Especially Johnny, who killed any number of thousands of people as a result of nuking Arasaka tower, not just Arasaka themselves. And not just people who died from the bomb, but the fallout in the years following as well. It's important to remember that despite the fact that Arasaka can be considered an 'awful' company, the people who work for them are still just regular people, and Johnny Silverhand is accurately categorised as a terrorist.

You could say they 'beat the dragon' but because it's cyberpunk, it's important to remember that the dragon was responsible for the lives and well being of a lot of people and without the dragon, those people die. In your typical hero narrative, the dragon is evil, plain and simple, but cyberpunk, the genre, is morally ambiguous on purpose. By beating the dragon, you also beat a lot of hungry kids. Besides which, I was quite clearly speaking metaphorically in relation to the typical hero story. Whether or not V 'gets the girl' is entirely up to the player's choices more than as a result of narrative function, but V is not a hero, and neither is Silverhand.

Post automatically merged:

This honestly just comes across as gatekeeping.
'Gatekeeping' is not a synonym for wrong. Just because you don't personally like the ideas I'm putting forth doesn't make them either gatekeeping or wrong. I have done nothing but explain a very simple narrative principle that you can find in literally every single piece of narrative fiction - the difference between plot and story. Everyone keeps justifying this as a story about V using the plot, but no one has yet to explain it using the story.

As for 'literally no one said that', you literally did when you tried to disconnect the game from the tabletop in an attempt to dismiss its relevance because, once again, you don't like my explanations. They make you uncomfortable. Which is the point of the game. It's SUPPOSED to make you uncomfortable, from the moment V gets a bullet in the brain. The idea that you, by proxy of V, are not the most important thing in the story is also meant to make you uncomfortable. Welcome to the cyberpunk genre.

People absolutely can appreciate the game without the context of the tabletop game but whether you like it or not, the narrative of the tabletop game continues in this game. Both of those are true, so when you say that 'we're not talking about the tabletop game, we're talking about CP77 as a standalone', that would matter if we were talking about game mechanics, since CP77 makes a few key changes such as doing away with your humanity score. But if we're talking about the story, one simple cannot exist without the other. They are narratively interdependent.

Post automatically merged:

You could cut out Silverhand though. It's not as if Silverhand specifically has to be on the Relic for V's story to function.
Which is my point exactly, because if this was a story about V, that would be relevant. But because it's a story about Johnny, then Johnny is kinda central to the narrative. V is the one you can remove and replace, which is exactly what is intended, because now V is a blank slate that anyone can shape and customise into their own character in order to play the game any way they choose, and make choices that determine Johnny's fate. Again, V is a conduit through which the player accesses the narrative and makes those choices. You can't remove V, the blank slate, but you can replace V the character with any other version that any other player chooses.
 
Last edited:
You're conflating 'winning' with heroism. My point is that there are no heroes. Especially Johnny, who killed any number of thousands of people as a result of nuking Arasaka tower, not just Arasaka themselves. And not just people who died from the bomb, but the fallout in the years following as well. It's important to remember that despite the fact that Arasaka can be considered an 'awful' company, the people who work for them are still just regular people, and Johnny Silverhand is accurately categorised as a terrorist.
Hero is subjective. Good, bad and awful are subjective too.
Which is my point exactly, because if this was a story about V, that would be relevant. But because it's a story about Johnny, then Johnny is kinda central to the narrative. V is the one you can remove and replace, which is exactly what is intended, because now V is a blank slate that anyone can shape and customise into their own character in order to play the game any way they choose, and make choices that determine Johnny's fate. Again, V is a conduit through which the player accesses the narrative and makes those choices. You can't remove V, the blank slate, but you can replace V the character with any other version that any other player chooses.
I'm not challenging your point about V. I just think it could be argued it applies equally to Johnny. He's as much of a vessel for "the story" as V. "The story" seems less concerned with the constituent parts. Details can be shifted around, characters changed, etc. and the story doesn't miss a beat.
 
Hero is subjective. Good, bad and awful are subjective too.

I'm not challenging your point about V. I just think it could be argued it applies equally to Johnny. He's as much of a vessel for "the story" as V. "The story" seems less concerned with the constituent parts. Details can be shifted around, characters changed, etc. and the story doesn't miss a beat.
When you're talking about the character of a story identified as the hero of it, no, hero is not subjective. It is defined by the story. This is why there are no heroes in a cyberpunk narrative, because it doesn't define heroics. Also, heroics are not defined by morality, but by sacrifice, so even in terms of reality, heroes are not subjective. In any given conflict in the real world, there are heroes on both sides, even if both sides are unjustifiably waging said conflict.

And no, I never said anything about anyone being a vessel. I said 'conduit'. Big difference. There is also no way the story works without Silverhand, because it follows from his story so far as established by the tabletop game.
 
You're conflating 'winning' with heroism. My point is that there are no heroes. Especially Johnny, who killed any number of thousands of people as a result of nuking Arasaka tower, not just Arasaka themselves.
First of all, If you imply that there can be absolutely no heroes in Cyberpunk world in general, I strongly disagree. One of my favorite characters in the game is River Ward, who is as heroic as it gets. If you mean "no heroes as main characters", then, coincidentally, V can be played as an empathetic and kind person, who tries to help people as much as they can. Probably, not a pure type of hero, but a heroically inclined character.
Secondly, I never said that Johnny is a hero in a moral sense, far from it. He is a huge piece of shit, actually, who ruins everything he touches and causes huge amounts of suffering. However, his moral character has nothing to with what I was saying. You said, that Johnny is the main focus of this story, that the Cyberpunk is about being defeated, crushed by dark future and that there are no happy endings. This is absolutely not true, because:
a) Silverhand doesn't care about traditional happy endings anyway, he wants to see his enemies burn and his ideas enduring - which he does get in most outcomes. In his world view, he doesn't get defeated at all, he achieves a lot of things he dreamed about;
b) Silverhand unambiguously CAN avoid being defeated and crushed in a literal sense - he can beat Arasaka and get away with it. He can not only '"just survive", he can successfully overcome "the inevitable".
Post automatically merged:

Edit: I've read your next comment:
Also, heroics are not defined by morality, but by sacrifice, so even in terms of reality, heroes are not subjective. In any given conflict in the real world, there are heroes on both sides, even if both sides are unjustifiably waging said conflict.
And boy oh boy, did you just accidentally define Silverhand as a hero? Because he is absolutely willing to sacrifice himself for what he believes as right and for the people he cares about.
 
Last edited:
First of all, If you imply that there can be absolutely no heroes in Cyberpunk world in general, I strongly disagree. One of my favorite characters in the game is River Ward, who is as heroic as it gets. If you mean "no heroes as main characters", then, coincidentally, V can be played as an empathetic and kind person, who tries to help people as much as they can. Probably, not a pure type of hero, but a heroically inclined character.
Secondly, I never said that Johnny is a hero in a moral sense, far from it. He is a huge piece of shit, actually, who ruins everything he touches and causes huge amounts of suffering. However, his moral character has nothing to with what I was saying. You said, that Johnny is the main focus of this story, that the Cyberpunk is about being defeated, crushed by dark future and that there are no happy endings. This is absolutely not true, because:
a) Silverhand doesn't care about traditional happy endings anyway, he wants to see his enemies burn and his ideas enduring - which he does get in most outcomes. In his world view, he doesn't get defeated at all, he achieves a lot of things he dreamed about;
b) Silverhand unambiguously CAN avoid being defeated and crushed in a literal sense - he can beat Arasaka and get away with it. He can not only '"just survive", he can successfully overcome "the inevitable".
Post automatically merged:

Edit: I've read your next comment:

And boy oh boy, did you just accidentally define Silverhand as a hero? Because he is absolutely willing to sacrifice himself for what he believes as right and for the people he cares about.

I didn't imply there can't be any heroes. I said there aren't any. There can be heroes, but the story isn't a hero story.

Your suggestion that "V can be played as kind and empathetic" is fine but does not a hero make. V doesn't sacrifice anything to help anyone, nor does V do much to help anyone that doesn't also then benefit V in return. There are exceptions, but they are not a factor of the overarching primary narrative. Nor does River qualify as a hero. There is nothing morally ambiguous in the definition of heroics and no, I never suggested Silverhand was a hero. Sacrificing yourself for what you believe is right doesn't mean you are sacrificing yourself for what is right. However, more notably, 'sacrificing' other people for what you think is right, which is what Johnny does, definitely makes you more of a villain. Silverhand does want to see his enemies burn. And he doesn't really care who else burns along with them, either. Not a hero. And no, he cannot overcome the inevitable at all.

He is very much already dead throughout the entire game. The Johnny you are experiencing is an engram of his mind. It's not the actual Silverhand.

You twisted my comment about morality vs sacrifice into something it wasn't. If you want me to write an essay about what kind of sacrifice we're talking about here, I can, but I figured it would be self-evident to anyone with a modicum of critical faculty. Silverhand isn't sacrificing anything 'for what he believes in', either, though. He's already dead and the person he's 'willing' to sacrifice for the sake of his personal vendetta and sense of self importance is V. This is where my point about this story being about him comes into play, because throughout the game, Johnny changes and becomes less narcissistic and self important. He grows fond of and learns to respect V, and in the end, they are almost one and the same person. It's no longer about sacrifice, but accepting the inevitable. Accepting that they're both already dead, and they have to make the most of it, and decide who it is they're both willing to put in danger for their final assault on Arasaka, if anyone at all. This is Johnny's character development at play, the culmination of everything he's learned from V as a person, and precisely what makes V his anti-paragon, but not the main character of the primary narrative arc about Johnny Silverhand.

In other words, V is both, at the same time, Johnny's final nemesis and friend. She makes this point very clearly and in no uncertain terms during one of the Tapeworm events when she has a go at Johnny for being a narcissist and his desperate need for a nemesis - I'm the one making all the decisions about both of us and there's nothing you can do about it.

But again, Johnny is very much already dead. He didn't die for a noble cause, either. He died planting a bomb that would result in thousands of innocent people being killed, thousands more dying a slow painful death from radiation, and Arasaka remaining the most powerful megacorporation in the world. Again, a realisation that his engram points out to V in the Ballad of Buck Ravers side quest. He is not a hero, nor was he ever trying to be. He had a vendetta, one that might have been inspired from honest intentions, but was twisted into a personal problem. He died because he was a narcissistic twat and tried to pick a fight with his 'nemesis', Adam Smasher, who basically soaked up all the rounds Johnny fired at him from his Malorian and a Militech SMG, and then proceeded to cut him in half with a shotgun. He didn't sacrifice himself. He won a Darwin Award. Big difference.
 
Last edited:
I didn't imply there can't be any heroes
I suppose the "definition" of a "hero" can vary.
Words which came from Mike Pondsmith :
So I'm sitting there in a room four time this size, explained to everybody what constitutes a cyberpunk thing such as
In Cyberpunk you don't save the world. You save yourself. You save the people around you. It's a very personal thing. If you save the world you'd be a hero.
In fact, his definition is very "large". There is no hero in Cyberpunk because the world can't be saved...
But I assume that you can save people and be at some point a hero (River can be a kind of hero). I imagine for Randy, V is a hero, no doubt^^
 
I suppose the "definition" of a "hero" can vary.
Words which came from Mike Pondsmith :

In fact, his definition is very "large". There is no hero in Cyberpunk because the world can't be saved...
But I assume that you can save people and be at some point a hero (River can be a kind of hero). I imagine for Randy, V is a hero, no doubt^^
You're absolutely correct, and I was about to allude to Pondsmith's presentation if the argument started going around in circles. There absolutely are moments of heroism in the narrative, that's true, but in the overarching story, which Pondsmith points out, it's a story primarily about saving yourself. Sometimes, this creates a dissonance when you have to decide between saving yourself, and someone you love. On the subject of another thread, when Evelyn Parker 'kills herself' there's an argument to be had that she was saving herself as well as those close to her, knowing full well that the VDBs would be coming for her and, perhaps in her mind, she was protecting V by keeping her in the dark about them, and her secret goes with her to the grave as a result. It's all for nothing though, as most sacrifices in NC are, because V and Judy still find out about the VDBs. It's also a bit of foreshadowing for V's choices at the end of the game, and there again lies an argument for V's suicide ending actually being the most noble, as she has chosen the lives of those she loves over her own. Instead of saving herself, she chooses to save them by no refusing to put them in the kind of danger that a raid on Arasaka would bring. And I know what people are going to say - "but she can also just go solo with Johnny, and also the people who actually die aren't that close to V". That's fine, but from V's non-diegetic point of view, she doesn't know that.

And yes, I've reverted to referring to V as she because it's how I play her. I prefer her voice acting. Male V sounds like he's been gargling a cat. No offence to the actor intended, of course. It's just very flat, emotionless, and forcefully gruff to the point of sounding fake to me. Anyway, getting off topic.

It's important to remember that this is the dark future, and the game does a great job of presenting that, especially when you consider those small thrills you get from rescuing Randy, and riding the rollercoaster. The rollercoaster is an especially good example, something so mundane to us even to the point of being boring, but in this game, it's something special, because it's a small moment of reprieve juxtaposed against the eternal abyss that life in Night City can be.

There is another cyberpunk story that helps highlight the issue of whom the story is about. Blade Runner. Both movies present a protagonist but neither is about them. The first is actually about the antagonist, and Rachel. The sequel is about Deckard's daughter. This is a pretty common theme in cyberpunk storytelling, as well, but these are just two more examples of it. Understanding it constitutes understanding the difference between plot and story, in part, and also being able to identify thematically relevant plot points and how they relate to the story being told. In the case of Cyberpunk 2077, we see the conclusion of Johnny's story. We do also see a story about V, but because it's one the player gets to write themselves, it's a background story to the primary narrative, which is about Johnny.

This is at least in part thanks to a woefully designed disassociation between sidequests and the main story, which is one of the things that disappointed me most about the game, not the least of which because it fails to focus the main story, but also because it disrupts the sense of urgency the player is meant to have. But anyway, enough essaying. I'm actually getting distracted here and need to get back to work.
 
Last edited:
You twisted my comment about morality vs sacrifice into something it wasn't. If you want me to write an essay about what kind of sacrifice we're talking about here, I can, but I figured it would be self-evident to anyone with a modicum of critical faculty.
Ahh, the passive-agressive jabs, love them. This realization, that you've argued yourself into a corner and can't really weasel out of this - stings, doesn't it? But anyway, back to what you actually said

[...]
V doesn't sacrifice anything to help anyone, nor does V do much to help anyone that doesn't also then benefit V in return. There are exceptions, but they are not a factor of the overarching primary narrative.
[...]
One of the main possible conclusions to V's story is V voluntarily giving their body away, so that Johnny could live. This is a definition of self-sacrifice, which is integral to the main plot.
But let's not stop at that and dig deeper. V doesn't have to risk their life in attempts to save Goro, the benefits are pretty vague at best - they can do it anyway. V doesn't have to spend what little time they left in attempts to help Panam or Judy, for example, considering that both of this routes involve V risking their lives - they do it anyway. V doesn't have to storm Arasaka by themselves, considering that doing it alone is a death wish - they can do it anyway, because they don't want to endanger others.
Nor does River qualify as a hero.
River is willing to catch a psycho and save people, even if it will cost him his own life. So yeah, I require an elaboration on your part.
He is very much already dead throughout the entire game. The Johnny you are experiencing is an engram of his mind. It's not the actual Silverhand.
Irrelevant. Engram, hallucination, ghost - it doesn't matter, he is a defined personality with agency in the narrative. I can call him Silverhand's engram, if that makes you feel better, but that's besides the point.
(Some of it was written before your edit, so it may be redundant, but I still feel the need to reiterate this points)
The point is, that as story progresses, not only Silverhand (or his engram) is willing to selflessly sacrifice himself for V, his and V final battle against Arasaka go almost perfectly well: they don't endanger any innocents, don't blow up an atom bomb in the middle of a huge city - and even the sacrifices that V's friends can make are avoidable, when Silverhand HIMSELF says that it's tough to decide which of your friend you are willing to send to death and that's its a better option to do it by themselves.
And, to top it all off, Silverhand('s engram) is willing to through his second chance at life away in order to let V, his friend, live. No matter what other definition of "hero" you'll come up with next, this action is selfless and even noble.
So yeah, Silverhand('s endgram)'s "character arc", that you talk so much about, is that he goes from being a terrorist and a villain, to slowly and gradually becoming a better person - and finishing his story as a hero. Go figure.

P.S. Also, your point about "Real Johnny is dead" kinda goes against your overall "This is a continuation of tabletop" - because under that condition, it's anything but. If "real Johnny" is dead, then "Engram Johnny" can't in any way conclude his arc - after all, he is a completely separate entity.
 
Last edited:
As a reminder: please refrain from making personal attacks or participating in personal skirmishes. Neither has any place on this forum.
Everyone is required to always treat others with kindness and respect, as per the
forum rules.

Some content removed.
 
[...]
One of the main possible conclusions to V's story is V voluntarily giving their body away, so that Johnny could live. This is a definition of self-sacrifice, which is integral to the main plot.
It isn't a sacrifice if you know you're already dying anyway. This wasn't a sacrifice. This is V giving up. This is defeatism. Defeatism isn't sacrifice.
But let's not stop at that and dig deeper. V doesn't have to risk their life in attempts to save Goro, the benefits are pretty vague at best - they can do it anyway.
This isn't digging deep, this is picking at minutiae. The benefits are quite clear, and it is in V's best interest if V wants to get Arasaka's help removing the chip to save Goro's life. The only reason you might not save him is if you listen to Johnny telling you to save yourself, and subsequently him, and let Goro die. I'll refrain from explaining the thematic relevance of this point and see if you can divine it on your own.
V doesn't have to storm Arasaka by themselves, considering that doing it alone is a death wish - they can do it anyway, because they don't want to endanger others.
Not an act of heroism so much as it is an act of pride, which plays out in the finale after the fact. This ending is V's becoming a legend ending, the ending where V gets to do the one thing they came to Night City for in the first place - become a legend. It isn't about saving anyone. it's about showing off. There is certainly an element of not endangering anyone, but thematically, this plays out much more heroically in the suicide ending.
River is willing to catch a psycho and save people, even if it will cost him his own life. So yeah, I require an elaboration on your part.
River is blinded by his attachment to the kid. He's not thinking clearly, and is looking for revenge. He wants to kill the bastard that did it. This is not sacrifice. It is not heroic. Does it feel heroic? Yes, and sure, you could call the whole thing an act of heroism. But again, minutiae. We're deviating from the overarching story, the primary narrative, to reach for sidequests to make a point that's not relevant to the main story.

As for the last part, we're going off the quote train rails here so I'm going to just address it without quoting it. You're basically saying things I've already said, but you're missing the point. It absolutely does matter if Johnny is the real Johnny or in the context of whether or not the story is about Johnny, which is the point you seem to be trying to divert from in order to win a gotcha. You have yet to say anything in contention about the story being about Johnny and that last paragraph, you have made a point that I don't think you've realised you've made. Johnny has a character arc, and yes, by the end of it, he's changed.

V doesn't. V levels up, and makes new friend, but V is the same person they were at the beginning and end of the story. Johnny is not. The fact that it's V that changes Johnny makes my point for me - V is an anti-paragon to Johnny's character arc. That makes the story about Johnny. Go figure.

But the fact that Johnny is already dead absolutely is relevant. As a chip in V's head, he doesn't have any agency at all. He can convince V to do things, sure, but that's the best he can hope for, relying entirely on V's agency to get even an ounce of his own. Any 'sacrifice' he's making as an engram is one that V has to choose to make as well, which means it will and can never be Johnny's sacrifice.
 
Last edited:
[...]
It isn't a sacrifice if you know you're already dying anyway. This wasn't a sacrifice. This is V giving up. This is defeatism. Defeatism isn't sacrifice.
First of all, you don't know that death is an absolute certainty under that outcome. Like @AikoHayashi point out, there is obviously a chance for a possible more positive outcome.
Second of all... What? Realizing your own mortality and voluntarily giving your body, so that your friend can live, is not a courageous and heroic thing to do? Desperately clinging for what is, in your opinion, a lost cause is a better outcome?
The benefits are quite clear, and it is in V's best interest if V wants to get Arasaka's help removing the chip to save Goro's life.
Yeah, I'm sure that a wanted exile, who was blamed for Saburu's death is a great asset in V's quest to salvation. So great, in fact, that you can get a Corpo ending with or without him anyway.
Not an act of heroism so much as it is an act of pride, which plays out in the finale after the fact. This ending is V's becoming a legend ending, the ending where V gets to do the one thing they came to Night City for in the first place - become a legend. It isn't about saving anyone. it's about showing off. There is certainly an element of not endangering anyone, but thematically, this plays out much more heroically in the suicide ending.
First of all, not true, Johnny literally pushes V to take this route by reminding them of their friends.
Second of all, V becomes a legend anyway, just like Johnny did, despite the fact that Johnny did most his wild things accompanied by a bunch of other people. So even if pride is at play, it hardly is THAT relevant.
This isn't digging deep, this is picking at minutiae
In Panam's case, this is a "minutiae" that feeds directly into the main story in more ways than one.

So, let's go point by point.
He is very much already dead throughout the entire game. The Johnny you are experiencing is an engram of his mind. It's not the actual Silverhand.
But again, Johnny is very much already dead.
It absolutely does matter if Johnny is the real Johnny
Johnny has a character arc, and yes, by the end of it, he's changed.
"Johnny is dead. This story is about his engram. It absolutely does matter if it's real Johnny. But everything that engram (not real) Johnny goes through is part of his character arc". So does it matter that it is his engram or does it not?
 
Last edited:
Well, it's a sacrifice because there's hope for V. At least for my V. I like Johnny, but I prefer to give my V another shot.
There's no 'hope' for V because V's ending is left ambiguous on purpose. If there is another entry into the Cyberpunk narrative, either by way of an update to the tabletop game or a new video game, it will no doubt be about all that new power that a very dangerous AI once known as Alt Cunningham just accrued from Arasaka. V's narrative purpose has been fulfilled, and the character is no longer needed. I think people are a little bit spoiled by games like Mass Effect where you get the same character from start to finish, but you should think of Cyberpunk as more like KOTOR or Fallout - each game is going to have a new character for you to play as. This was especially true for the tabletop game since your character would often come to a very grisly end, making V an exception to the rule of PCs in the genre, one that actually manages to survive somewhat.

But even if I accept your point and headcanon, what is the sacrifice for exactly? It is self-serving - once again, V is trying to save themselves. There's an argument to be made that destroying Mikoshi also saves a lot of people, but that's not really what happens, is it. Alt Cunningham now possesses the 'souls' of everyone that was trapped there. Someone got something out of it. So for whom or what was the 'sacrifice' for?

As a small but not at all insubstantial example of true heroism, a mother of three living in poverty might be able to afford to feed her children, but she would have to go hungry herself. By making that sacrifice for the sake of innocent children, she has committed an act of self-sacrifice with no self-interest. Contrast that with your narrative - V's sacrifice is for V's self-interest... so is it even a sacrifice?
 
But even if I accept your point and headcanon, what is the sacrifice for exactly? It is self-serving
FOR WHOM? For WHOM it's self-serving?!
How is giving up a potential chance of salvation for your friend's benefit is self-serving?!
As a small but not at all insubstantial example of true heroism, a mother of three living in poverty might be able to afford to feed her children, but she would have to go hungry herself. By making that sacrifice for the sake of innocent children, she has committed an act of self-sacrifice with no self-interest.
I suggest reading "The Selfish Gene" by Dawkins - because you actually can argue that protecting your own genes (three of your children at that), who can continue your blood-line, is partially self-serving act.
 
snip
I'm not doing the quote train thing with you, dude. It's infuriating. One thing at a time, in small posts, and we can chat. Otherwise, I have nothing to prove to you. Your misunderstanding of the narrative isn't really my problem. I'm trying to help provide narrative perspective, because I'm actually a little disappointed at how poorly the game itself presents it. It ends up disassociating too much from the central narrative as a result of poorly integrated side-questing and the like, and as a result, it absolutely does lead to some confusion. For example, using River again, V's experience with River is, indeed, a story about V, and a story about her relationship with River. But it is not integral to the primary narrative and as a result, not relevant to it. But people insist on associating them because they occur in the same milieu. So while it's fair to say that the GAME is about V, the story, the central narrative around which the game is constructed, is about Johnny.

I try to avoid doing this but I'm old, and I've been into cyberpunk ever since before it was even declared its own genre let alone a sub-genre of sci-fi. I'm also autistic, and not very good at explaining things all the time, so if you are indeed failing to understand something I'm trying to explain, then that might be on me, and I need to know so I can try to clarify. But cyberpunk has been my thing since the 80s. I know the themes, the ins and outs of the genre, and I also understand that a lot of people tend to struggle to reconcile them with what they might be used to as a result of being spoiled by other forms of popular fiction. For example: one of the criticisms I saw for this game was that there were 'no flying cars' that the player could drive. This is the result of confusion between science fiction, and cyberpunk. Sci fi presents us with the potential of what technology could do for us, while cyberpunk presents us with the potential of what it could do to us.

In my experience, most of these misunderstandings arise from people expecting the genre to be like something they're more familiar with, which is precisely why I try to explain how and why it's not. I'm legitimately trying to help. That's all. And I want to have this discussion, but I'd like to get off the quote train. It's too much to handle. One thing at a time.
 
Last edited:
FOR WHOM? For WHOM it's self-serving?!
How is giving up a potential chance of salvation for your friend's benefit is self-serving?!

I suggest reading "The Selfish Gene" by Dawkins - because you actually can argue that protecting your own genes (three of your children at that), who can continue your blood-line, is partially self-serving act.
I always found idiotic this thing about genes. You're more related to your brother or sister than to your children...gene-wise. Plus after few generation your genes participation is close to none. Next dream about immortality.
 
FOR WHOM? For WHOM it's self-serving?!
How is giving up a potential chance of salvation for your friend's benefit is self-serving?!

I suggest reading "The Selfish Gene" by Dawkins - because you actually can argue that protecting your own genes (three of your children at that), who can continue your blood-line, is partially self-serving act.
On that note, that's one of the themes of cyberpunk, to point out that by virtue of there being no true altruism, there is no heroism. While we can actually see true altruism in the real world through any number of examples (such as if the children are adopted, or a small village experiencing famine), there are arguments to be made for the reality that most of the things people do, even the seemingly 'noble' sacrifices they make, almost always serve some kind of self interest. Maybe you donated to a charity and now you get to think very highly of yourself for it - well, that in and of itself is a reward for your charity. At the end of the day, we've got little more to go on than results, and as a personal rule, I like to think that by leaving things better than you found them, regardless of motivation, you've done good.

That being said, narrative heroism is actually pretty well defined, and in this case, not putting your friends lives at risk is less an act of sacrifice and more an act of 'becoming a legend'. If V succeeds, V's reward is becoming great, getting a mansion, taking over the afterlife, etc etc, and doesn't have to share the glory. If they fail, well they're dying anyway so again, not really a sacrifice.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom