I'm extremely glad that we can agree on this. It really is infuriating.
I'm very glad that you are passionate about this genre, setting and lore. I also agree, that a game has a lot of interesting and complex things to say about human nature. And we can both agree, that the game can handle certain themes in a better way than it does currently. However, I also think that discussions like "you can't truly be altruistic and heroic", while interesting, are ultimately sophistry. It's the point when philosophy becomes detached from real world and practical applications, which is an aspect of it that I've always somewhat despised.
So let's just say that we agree on some things, disagree on others - and then leave it at that.
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.
It's not really about rationale behind it, its more about how microscopic chemical compounds can potentially dictate much larger concepts, while not having any idea about this concepts themselves. It's an interesting theory, I think - not the one I necessarily agree with.
However, I also think that discussions like "you can't truly be altruistic and heroic", while interesting, are ultimately sophistry. It's the point when philosophy becomes detached from real world and practical applications, which is an aspect of it that I've always somewhat despised.
It's not sophistry. It's one of the core themes and narrative motivations of the cyberpunk genre in general. So much so that the genre doesn't exist without it. The very question you despise is the same that the game and the genre is asking you to think about. Perhaps this generates some form of cognitive dissonance leading you to ignore the question so you can at least try to enjoy what's left of the game without having to delve too deeply into it, which would be understandable, but as a result of that, you miss a huge chunk of narrative relevance.
It can be both.
And "you can't truly be altruistic and heroic" isn't really a question - it's a statement. And it's not a new statement either, or a statement specific to cyberpunk genre. Film noir was built around this concept of morally ambiguous characters fighting against much worse adversaries with varying success.
Not to mention, there are much more interesting themes and ideas within this story. I, for one, hugely enjoyed it for it's blatant anti-capitalism, for it's questioning of consciousness, concept of being alive and sense of self, the transhumanistic aspect of what really makes us human, with a reminder, that even in an absolute corporate dystopia there is still a place for compassion, friendship, altruism and love. That there is still reason to stand up and fight for what you value - if not abstract concepts, then people. And this is only a fraction of concepts that this game tackles.
This story has layers and I think this layers are much more conceptually interesting, than an idea, that was already told, retold and discussed multiple times from at least 1940's.
It can be both.
And "you can't truly be altruistic and heroic" isn't really a question - it's a statement. And it's not a new statement either, or a statement specific to cyberpunk genre. Film noir was built around this concept of morally ambiguous characters fighting against much worse adversaries with varying success.
Not to mention, there are much more interesting themes and ideas within this story. I, for one, hugely enjoyed it for it's blatant anti-capitalism, for it's questioning of consciousness, concept of being alive and sense of self, the transhumanistic aspect of what really makes us human, with a reminder, that even in an absolute corporate dystopia there is still a place for compassion, friendship, altruism and love. That there is still reason to stand up and fight for what you value - if not abstract concepts, then people. And this is only a fraction of concepts that this game tackles.
This story has layers and I think this layers are much more conceptually interesting, than an idea, that was already told, retold and discussed multiple times from at least 1940's.
It's a question. The question is, can you truly be altruistic if everything is motivated by self-interest?
There are many themes in a cyberpunk story, all just as interesting as the next, depending on how you absorb them, and how your own life experiences have shaped your understanding of the world, because cyberpunk, the genre, is an emulation of a potential reality. Or at least, it's meant to be. One mistake people often make is thinking that cyberpunk is anti-capitalism. It isn't. Neither is this game. It is presenting an extreme, unregulated example of anarcho-capitalism, to some extent or another, but it doesn't say anything about whether it's good or bad. It leaves that entirely up to whomever is experiencing it. It doesn't take a position on anything, it only presents one potential version of where certain things can lead, but most prominently, its focus is on technology. As I said before, where sci-fi shows us what technology might do for us, cyberpunk shows us what it might do to us. Some excellent recent examples of this were Minority Report and The Island. Blade Runner takes a more philosophical approach with one specific type of technology but also presents a world run by megacorporations, and the complications that may arise from that.
Film noir, on the other hand, is a term used to describe stylised cynical crime dramas. The cyberpunk genre tries to steer clear of cynicism and instead tries to approach its themes critically. This is where they diverge completely. Film noir is completely cynical. Cyberpunk is critical. Whilst it's true that they both explore moral ambiguity, film noir does it in a way that presents 'moral good' as wasteful, while cyberpunk presents it as possible but costly.
This feeds back into the points on capitalism - everything has a price, even if the price isn't money. Whatever moral opinion you have of capitalism, it works precisely because everything has a cost. In a world where resources are finite, the functional necessity of capitalistic practice is as old as civilisation itself. You either grow your own food, the cost of which is the work you have to put in, or you pay someone to grow it for you, the price of which is purchasing power via some form of currency exchange or barter. Capitalism also facilitates peaceful competition. In a world where resources are finite, you either fight over them, or pay for them. These really are the only two options, which are represented by the two ways in which civilisation progresses and changes - violence, or compromise. Because resources are finite, there will always be competition over them, which is why in something like Star Trek, where replicators exist and resources are abundant, money is no longer required. That's the only way it works. When you don't have to exchange for labour and competition, then capitalism is no longer required. Let me repeat: this is not a moral position, but a pragmatic one.
Anyway, Cyberpunk doesn't oppose capitalism. It presents a version of it where the power is in the hands of the people who benefit most from it, and no one else. Night City is presented as a free city where business can operate unregulated by governments and bureaucracy. No one in the game rages against capitalism, either. They rail against the megacorps in control of everything, not just the money, but the resources, including access to health care and accommodation. This is a difference with a distinction that is worth noting.
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.
The point is you've said CP77 isn't about V... because it's part of a larger narrative, which according to you is about something else. That's like saying Dr Strange isn't about Dr Strange because there's a larger story going on about Space-Hitler or gem stones or whatever (I don't care). All I was trying to say was that regardless of whatever that "larger narrative" is, we're talking about CP77 specifically. That's all.
And yeah, your posts are very uncomfortable! Mainly because they come off as incredibly pretentious, pedantic, pseudo-intellectual, and pretty damn condescending. To the point where I think to myself, "god... I really hope I never end up like that." Because honestly there have been times where I've gotten into arguments on this forum and I'm wondering, "Why am I doing this? I feel like an asshole." @LeKill3rFou knows what I'm talking about - we've argued a lot - yet one of the things I admire about them is how relaxed and positive they are (sorry Fou for all my grumpiness). I would 100% prefer to be more like Fou and your posts have been a strong reminder of what I should avoid turning into :/
The thing with this DLC that scares me is that it could further enhanced the urgency paradox of the game... Why would I go do this side story when I am dying? I hope they will find a good way to justify this.
The point is you've said CP77 isn't about V... because it's part of a larger narrative, which according to you is about something else. That's like saying Dr Strange isn't about Dr Strange because there's a larger story going on about Space-Hitler or gem stones or whatever (I don't care). All I was trying to say was that regardless of whatever that "larger narrative" is, we're talking about CP77 specifically. That's all.
And yeah, your posts are very uncomfortable! Mainly because they come off as incredibly pretentious, pedantic, pseudo-intellectual, and pretty damn condescending. To the point where I think to myself, "god... I really hope I never end up like that." Because honestly there have been times where I've gotten into arguments on this forum and I'm wondering, "Why am I doing this? I feel like an asshole." @LeKill3rFou knows what I'm talking about - we've argued a lot - yet one of the things I admire about them is how relaxed and positive they are (sorry Fou for all my grumpiness). I would 100% prefer to be more like Fou and your posts have been a strong reminder of what I should avoid turning into :/
That's not the same thing, the game isn't called The adventures of V now is it? It's called Cyberpunk 2077. Dr Strange's movie is however called Dr Strange.
I would argue Night City is the protagonist of CP 2077
It can be both.
And "you can't truly be altruistic and heroic" isn't really a question - it's a statement. And it's not a new statement either, or a statement specific to cyberpunk genre. Film noir was built around this concept of morally ambiguous characters fighting against much worse adversaries with varying success.
Not to mention, there are much more interesting themes and ideas within this story. I, for one, hugely enjoyed it for it's blatant anti-capitalism, for it's questioning of consciousness, concept of being alive and sense of self, the transhumanistic aspect of what really makes us human, with a reminder, that even in an absolute corporate dystopia there is still a place for compassion, friendship, altruism and love. That there is still reason to stand up and fight for what you value - if not abstract concepts, then people. And this is only a fraction of concepts that this game tackles.
This story has layers and I think this layers are much more conceptually interesting, than an idea, that was already told, retold and discussed multiple times from at least 1940's.
None of these concepts originated from film, sometimes we forget that filming is relatively new technology. These ideas have been explored in literature for centuries, there is really no original source because they're all a collection of ideas built over years of evolution.
That said, the cyberpunk genre is an amalgamation of those ideas, born at a specific time during a unique series of human experiences. So he's very right in that by removing those themes, it would cease to be Cyberpunk. There is a balance however and I think CP2077 does that very well.
I've also seen the arguments about flying cars or comparisons to Deus Ex etc. It's those ideas that miss the mark of what cyberpunk is. Deus Ex is not a cyberpunk game, it's sci-fi. In fact this is arguably the first truly Cyberpunk game we've ever gotten.
In any video game, it's hard for an undefined character to be the main character. There's a difference between story-telling and video game functionality.
In TW3, Geralt was undeniably the main character, and there was little that the player could do to change the core of how Geralt was delivered through the narrative (the story-telling). We could nudge things around a little, like playing dress-up, how moody were were at any given moment, and choosing between big swings and fast swings...but Geralt was a character pre-defined by a lot of existing literature. Hence, he was definitely the "main character" -- from a narrative perspective.
In CP2077, V is still defined, but nowhere near to the same extent as Geralt. V is a lense through which we view and interact with the events of everyone else in the story. They're less defined than Geralt, to the point that someone can, for example, define the V's specific motivations for choosing their path through the arc. If I can't specifically define a character arc...that, by simple definition, cannot be the "main character".
The one and only character that will be a focal and integral part of the storyline, from the inciting event through to the resolution of the story, is Johnny. Every other character, including V, supports Johnny's arc. Hence, while I'd say V is definitely an anchor character an a protagonist, they are not themain character.
Consider The Usual Suspects. The main character is undeniably Virgil. There is a fantastic cast of "main characters", but they all support the character of Virgil, in the end. Keaton seems to be the main character for the bulk of the storyline, and we certainly seem to look at Virgil sitting in the background for most of it, but he's really not. He's the main character. CP2077 uses a similar structure. V is "Keaton": a relatable protagonist used as a medium to tell a much deeper story.
^ This is where I think a lot of players felt let down by the game. Rather than engaging in the fairly gripping story being told, they felt jaded because their actions "didn't seem to matter". Player actions do matter -- but not for V. For everyone else. V is an anchor character and a medium, not the main character.
_______________
If anything, I'd say that perhaps CDPR went a bit too far with what they were trying to accomplish. The storyline is extremely well-done, but it does create a lot of dissonance between a player and their chosen V, as this is a video game...not a film. If people sat in a theatre watching a narrative portrayal of V like any other character on the screen, I think the effect of the overall story would be a lot different.
What this approach did, in short, is rob players of their power fantasy and desire to interact with the world of Cyberpunk on their own terms. But it also told a great story.
Indeed. Common mistake is mixing up plot, save the world, get the girl with hero's journey, which goes back to Homer's Odyssey, (~ 1200 BC) where it was hero that was changed, not the world. What we can note, is that hero doesn't need to be flawless, because if hero is flawless to begin with, why would hero need to learn anything, change anyhow?
We skip thousands of years and come to Noir / Hard Boiled fiction, pulp fiction of it's era starting with Dashiel Hammett, who was then followed by Raymond Chandler and Mike Spillane. Nick (and Nora) from the Thin Man are cheery drunks, Sam Spade from the Maltase Falcon has a relationship with his P.I. partner's wife. These characters never were or were intended to be some sort of perfect human beings. Doesn't mean they don't achieve anything. I think what made these characters popular was that they were relatable. Due certain events in America, what comes to movies, Hays Code toned down what could be shown. In 1941 version of Maltase Falcon with Bogart and Astor had to remove most obvious references indicating that certain character was a homosexual, yet they kinda did it anyway. It's not huge leap to make that Film-Noir, while very popular, also was sort of counter culture versus perhaps very black and white presentation of ideals and moral and that description of anti-hero in American context is simply protagonist who isn't perfect shining example of say Christian values and / or whatever is politically correct in whatever era.
Like mentioned in topic, the cyberpunk didn't born in a vacuum and it loas a lot to Noir. Anyone who has seen Maltase Falcon can figure, if Sam Spade had a crew, sitting there with Fatman and plotting, or with Dex in the Afterlife... It's not direct homage by any means, but at the same time it's definitely there.
There's more to counter culture in cyberpunk. It was born when people had a lot of faith to technology solving all our problems and considering that say teachers, they could have seen propeller plane, jet plane, rocket to the moon and space shuttle at the same times as consumer electronics became cheaper and more devices became available, they had reason to do so. Science fiction also reflected that. Cyberpunk came around to ask questions like: How the hell are we supposed to actually achieve progress if we make wrong choices, do stupid things with that technology? What if this thing, that we can keep polluting our environment isn't an issue because of some future egg head will solve all that in the future anyway, what if that isn't actually sustainable?
Let's stop for a while and think. Presentation, appearances, there's only so much time, so what most of us would do? Tell all that or just say? Cyberpunk isn't about saving the world, but about saving yourself (if you are lucky).
Mike Pondsmith does these things, pulls cellphone from his pocket and wonders how many countries there are where all the components for that come from. What he is really talking about is very complicated supply lines, very complex societies and risks involved. This is bit funny as last time I brought up Tainter's Collapse of Complex Societies you were also in that conversation. Anyway, it's academic work, not an opinion piece. Author went to become professor at Utah.
It's kinda funny how people sometimes get the cellphone thing and then sometimes they don't. Pondsmith is quite experienced dealing with different situations but me, I'm just nobodyh and I can be a dick at times, and... well that would be true. Meaning, not holding my breath latter crowd from cellphone example writing the next Neuromancer.
What I think we are seeing in this topic, is trying to present idea as cyberpunk exist some sort of vacuum, which is simply untrue not only for cyberpunk but culture in general. I could argue Silverhand being presentation of Kurt Cobain and story being about Nirvana, but that wouldn't mean anything, even if I could (and I think I could) but being another subjective opinion, no matter how long walls of text I would use for trolling with that.
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.
Because honestly there have been times where I've gotten into arguments on this forum and I'm wondering, "Why am I doing this? I feel like an asshole." @LeKill3rFou knows what I'm talking about - we've argued a lot - yet one of the things I admire about them is how relaxed and positive they are (sorry Fou for all my grumpiness). I would 100% prefer to be more like Fou and your posts have been a strong reminder of what I should avoid turning into :/
If it feels like you are being trapped, it's because you are.
Trying to understand culture and philosophy based on niche in science fiction alone is attempt doomed to fail. Same can be said about not understanding, that subscribing to one school of philosophy doesn't make that but a member of that club, it doesn't become universal just because somebody, you, me anybody believes in it. Also, during time of our life, how we view our world often tends to change.
Back in the day I read Neuromancer and that started journey that had turned out to have some practical value. I had my own thoughts, then at one party discussing about those ended up getting crash course about Immanuel Kant.
Consider The Usual Suspects. The main character is undeniably Virgil. There is a fantastic cast of "main characters", but they all support the character of Virgil, in the end. Keaton seems to be the main character for the bulk of the storyline, and we certainly seem to look at Virgil sitting in the background for most of it, but he's really not. He's the main character. CP2077 uses a similar structure. V is "Keaton": a relatable protagonist used as a medium to tell a much deeper story.
You've made a good post and I feel like an asshole for what I'm about to do, but Usual Suspects is one of my favorite movies, so I have to butt in - it's Verbal. Verbal Kint.
Unless of course there was a director's cut that I've missed somehow...
In your defense, this is how we exit the realm of subjectivity. Creative works tend to fill in the blanks. They take these subjective concepts, pick one possible perspective and insist it's the correct one for the story. Usually by picking an interpretation fitting whatever they believe aligns with the widely held belief systems and perspectives of the time. But.... the reception is often a mixed bag because opinions differ.
That'd be why it's subjective. What qualifies as sacrifice? In this context it would be giving up something deemed valuable for something else deemed valuable. Value = subjective.
To use a game example, V can take their own life on the roof. One justification for this action by the game is it shields all of V's friends from further danger. This could be considered a sacrifice. V's friends are viewed as valuable. V's life is viewed as valuable. V is intentionally sacrificing one of these valuable elements to ensure the other is preserved. This could be considered heroic.
It's possible to think V is weak or cowardly here too. Throwing their life away for nothing. Taking the easy way out. Giving up. In which case, yes, it does not qualify as a sacrifice. In which case... not heroic.
A third possibility is to view V as worthless. You could say their friends are worthless. You could even say the entirety of humanity is a sourge on the universe and said universe would be better off without it. In which case, it's not worthless. It's less valuable. It has negative value. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder (well, technically it's perceived symmetry but.... yeah....).
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.
Meh, semantics. Tomato tomatoe. Perhaps my choice of words was poor. I'd like to think the point was clear.
A different concept frequently brought up with this game is the quest for immortality. The human strives to become immortal. These stories always play out the same. This human either fails when reaching for this goal, often in spectacular fashion, or they undergo some type of transformation, and become something non-human in the process. The underlying point is to illustrate the state of being human involves being mortal. There is no way to cheat your way out of it.
Slap any characters, circumstances, events, whatever into this story. So long as this basic premise is followed it works. The individual parts are not "the story". The story is the concept. The message it's trying to deliver. The finer details are a means to deliver it.
Let's try it this way... The CP 2077 game story isn't about Johnny because Johnny's story in the source material isn't about Johnny. "The story" is about the larger concepts and messages. Johnny is, as you say, a conduit for it.
^ This is where I think a lot of players felt let down by the game. Rather than engaging in the fairly gripping story being told, they felt jaded because their actions "didn't seem to matter". Player actions do matter -- but not for V. For everyone else. V is an anchor character and a medium, not the main character.
Honestly, it is part of why I didn't like it as much as some. It spent a lot of time presenting itself as an RPG where you create your character, set it up as you want, etc. A stark contrast with The Witcher. Then it devotes so much energy to dredging up characters and events from earlier content and the past lore. Instead of constructing a story from the ground up using a fresh take.
The end result was this feeling of a constant back and forth. One minute it seems like V is a centerpiece. The next it feels like they're tossed into the background. Back and forth, all throughout the game. It just came off as weirdly disconnected at various points. Even though I could see what they were trying to achieve. It didn't quite click for me.
First of all, I won't be getting on that quote train with you. You're taking that ride on your own, so if I miss anything... then you need to simplify. Secondly, there is a whole conversation here where I cover points you've 'challenged' here in more detail. For example, I have defined what sacrifice is, and what it isn't, and in fictional narratives, it is not as ambiguous as you're trying to make it out to be. I have also explained the difference between plot and story, and I made it quite clear that a story is never just about what, but also, who. It can be about more than one thing or one person at a time, but stories that are only about the what, and not the who, are crap stories precisely because the component of interpersonal drama that drives any conflict is completely absent. You cannot have a good story without people. Maybe you can have some kind of post-modernist artsy crap that people pretend to like so they can look sophisticated in front of their friends, but nobody actually enjoys those stories, because they are crap. And CP77 certainly isn't one of those.
The source material absolutely is about Johnny. It's also about a lot of other people, including Spider Murphy & Kei Arasaka, a story in which Spider tricks Kei into Soulkill-ering himself, ruining Saburo's plans for succession, which in turn leads to Relic 2.0 and Saburo's own plans to resurrect himself rather than let his incompetent offspring take over. Also an instrumental plot point to the story we get in Cyberpunk 2077, but since we're following the character arc of Johnny Silverhand, and not Spider Murphy, or V, then it's a story about Silverhand. That really is all there is to it.
People want this story to be about V because it means it's about them, to an extent, but V is a different character from person to person, which means so is that particular story. That's not to say that there isn't a story about V in the game, but that's just it, the distinction between the GAME and the STORY THE GAME IS BUILT AROUND is not one without a difference. The core narrative is about Johnny, with V serving as Johnny's anti-paragon. What is a paragon?
A paragon is a character that doesn't actually change. Superman, James Holden from The Expanse, etc. Instead, everyone else around that character is inspired by them, and they get the arc. In stories where Superman is evil, we don't see his change to evil as an arc in a part of the story, we see his change to evil as a prologue to the events, a short form expository story that leads to a story about how everyone else responds, reacts, and otherwise changes according to the new paradigm created by an evil Superman.
In CP77, we see Johnny change as a 'person'; even though it's not the real Johnny it is the only version of him left. We are told that the chip will change V to be more like Johnny over time but what we see instead is Johnny changing into a better person then he was, and learning from his mistakes. There is also an open question there about whether or not the real Johnny would have been able to change had he not been 'trapped' on the chip in V's head, had he been free with his own agency to do as he pleased, and maybe these were the only circumstances that he could have possibly changed, as a prisoner in someone else's mind. But I digress.
This might come across as disappointing to players who've not immersed themselves in the tabletop game and lore on which it is all based, and that I think is part of why people are getting it all wrong, but that's also to be expected. In the same way people were comparing it to GTA when it came out, and feeling let down as a result, I was comparing it to the only thing it needed to be better than - the tabletop game. And it excelled at that in most ways, failed in a few others. It could be that the different understanding comes from different experience, and that's all, but mine doesn't just come from experience. It comes from Pondsmith himself, as well. And I'll take the creator's understanding of the narrative over anyone else's headcanon every minute of every day of the week.
The point is you've said CP77 isn't about V... because it's part of a larger narrative, which according to you is about something else. That's like saying Dr Strange isn't about Dr Strange because there's a larger story going on about Space-Hitler or gem stones or whatever (I don't care). All I was trying to say was that regardless of whatever that "larger narrative" is, we're talking about CP77 specifically. That's all.
And yeah, your posts are very uncomfortable! Mainly because they come off as incredibly pretentious, pedantic, pseudo-intellectual, and pretty damn condescending. To the point where I think to myself, "god... I really hope I never end up like that." Because honestly there have been times where I've gotten into arguments on this forum and I'm wondering, "Why am I doing this? I feel like an asshole." @LeKill3rFou knows what I'm talking about - we've argued a lot - yet one of the things I admire about them is how relaxed and positive they are (sorry Fou for all my grumpiness). I would 100% prefer to be more like Fou and your posts have been a strong reminder of what I should avoid turning into :/
I'm just explaining things as I understand them, and as a writer. I'm bringing some degree of expertise to the table, and maybe you feel like I'm 'being pretentious' because it helps you justify a degree of cognitive dissonance where you don't want to let go of the things you think you know. This is normal, as is the feeling of pretentiousness you get from someone explaining things from a position of expertise. It reminds us of that kid in class who was always the first to put their hand up to answer a question, and they were always right. We justify our sense of inferiority to those people by pretending that actually, it's them with a sense of superiority and for that, they're a bad person.
What we miss from that is that maybe, no one is actually better or worse, but instead, maybe we just have something to learn.
I have been writing for a few decades but it's more of a hobby. I'm actually a pilot in real life. I have about 6000 hours in the Avro RJ85 hauling freight, but none in, for example, the 747. 747 pilots are definitely 'better' than me at flying that plane, while I'm better than them at flying mine.
And I'm almost certain that there are things you have a better grasp on than me, as well.
Anyway, long and short of it is I'm not trying to attack anyone or talk down to anyone. I am trying to explain how stories and storytelling works, especially within the framework of a video game where the game itself is not the story and especially in regards to the cyberpunk genre, because it's something I understand very well. There are any number of storytelling genres where I have no expertise of any kind at all and will utterly defer to someone that does in the same way that I'm riding the jumpseat of a 747, not the captain's.
First of all, I won't be getting on that quote train with you. You're taking that ride on your own, so if I miss anything... then you need to simplify. Secondly, there is a whole conversation here where I cover points you've 'challenged' here in more detail. For example, I have defined what sacrifice is, and what it isn't, and in fictional narratives, it is not as ambiguous as you're trying to make it out to be. I have also explained the difference between plot and story, and I made it quite clear that a story is never just about what, but also, who. It can be about more than one thing or one person at a time, but stories that are only about the what, and not the who, are crap stories precisely because the component of interpersonal drama that drives any conflict is completely absent. You cannot have a good story without people. Maybe you can have some kind of post-modernist artsy crap that people pretend to like so they can look sophisticated in front of their friends, but nobody actually enjoys those stories, because they are crap. And CP77 certainly isn't one of those.
The source material absolutely is about Johnny. It's also about a lot of other people, including Spider Murphy & Kei Arasaka, a story in which Spider tricks Kei into Soulkill-ering himself, ruining Saburo's plans for succession, which in turn leads to Relic 2.0 and Saburo's own plans to resurrect himself rather than let his incompetent offspring take over. Also an instrumental plot point to the story we get in Cyberpunk 2077, but since we're following the character arc of Johnny Silverhand, and not Spider Murphy, or V, then it's a story about Silverhand. That really is all there is to it.
People want this story to be about V because it means it's about them, to an extent, but V is a different character from person to person, which means so is that particular story. That's not to say that there isn't a story about V in the game, but that's just it, the distinction between the GAME and the STORY THE GAME IS BUILT AROUND is not one without a difference. The core narrative is about Johnny, with V serving as Johnny's anti-paragon. What is a paragon?
A paragon is a character that doesn't actually change. Superman, James Holden from The Expanse, etc. Instead, everyone else around that character is inspired by them, and they get the arc. In stories where Superman is evil, we don't see his change to evil as an arc in a part of the story, we see his change to evil as a prologue to the events, a short form expository story that leads to a story about how everyone else responds, reacts, and otherwise changes according to the new paradigm created by an evil Superman.
In CP77, we see Johnny change as a 'person'; even though it's not the real Johnny it is the only version of him left. We are told that the chip will change V to be more like Johnny over time but what we see instead is Johnny changing into a better person then he was, and learning from his mistakes. There is also an open question there about whether or not the real Johnny would have been able to change had he not been 'trapped' on the chip in V's head, had he been free with his own agency to do as he pleased, and maybe these were the only circumstances that he could have possibly changed, as a prisoner in someone else's mind. But I digress.
This might come across as disappointing to players who've not immersed themselves in the tabletop game and lore on which it is all based, and that I think is part of why people are getting it all wrong, but that's also to be expected. In the same way people were comparing it to GTA when it came out, and feeling let down as a result, I was comparing it to the only thing it needed to be better than - the tabletop game. And it excelled at that in most ways, failed in a few others. It could be that the different understanding comes from different experience, and that's all, but mine doesn't just come from experience. It comes from Pondsmith himself, as well. And I'll take the creator's understanding of the narrative over anyone else's headcanon every minute of every day of the week.
Post automatically merged:
I'm just explaining things as I understand them, and as a writer. I'm bringing some degree of expertise to the table, and maybe you feel like I'm 'being pretentious' because it helps you justify a degree of cognitive dissonance where you don't want to let go of the things you think you know. This is normal, as is the feeling of pretentiousness you get from someone explaining things from a position of expertise. It reminds us of that kid in class who was always the first to put their hand up to answer a question, and they were always right. We justify our sense of inferiority to those people by pretending that actually, it's them with a sense of superiority and for that, they're a bad person.
What we miss from that is that maybe, no one is actually better or worse, but instead, maybe we just have something to learn.
I have been writing for a few decades but it's more of a hobby. I'm actually a pilot in real life. I have about 6000 hours in the Avro RJ85 hauling freight, but none in, for example, the 747. 747 pilots are definitely 'better' than me at flying that plane, while I'm better than them at flying mine.
And I'm almost certain that there are things you have a better grasp on than me, as well.
Anyway, long and short of it is I'm not trying to attack anyone or talk down to anyone. I am trying to explain how stories and storytelling works, especially within the framework of a video game where the game itself is not the story and especially in regards to the cyberpunk genre, because it's something I understand very well. There are any number of storytelling genres where I have no expertise of any kind at all and will utterly defer to someone that does in the same way that I'm riding the jumpseat of a 747, not the captain's.
I think a lot of this push back comes from a known quantity being the face of the game. Celebrities being involved in games are historically disastrous and I suppose for some if Silverhand is the focus then they feel like Keanu is the protagonist and not them. I somewhat understand the apprehension but as attached.
That said, as attached as I was to each V is I created, I also believe we would be restricting the story by just making V the recurring lead. It would be Skyrim all over again. Granted, your character in CP2077 is far more fleshed out and actually has a voice (literally) but it would be far more interesting to either come back to V later or just have him/her talked about through Night City as one of the legends.
It's not sophistry. It's one of the core themes and narrative motivations of the cyberpunk genre in general. So much so that the genre doesn't exist without it. The very question you despise is the same that the game and the genre is asking you to think about. Perhaps this generates some form of cognitive dissonance leading you to ignore the question so you can at least try to enjoy what's left of the game without having to delve too deeply into it, which would be understandable, but as a result of that, you miss a huge chunk of narrative relevance.
Frankly, as someone who writes as well as reads cyberpunk, I think you frankly are making a very loose definition of the word.
Gibsonian cyberpunk protagonists are all selfish assholes.
But Hardwired, Robocop, and Max Headroom -- all inspirations for Cyberpunk 2020, have genuinely heroic protagonists. Flawed and sometimes selfish ones but heroic nonetheless.
I think a lot of this push back comes from a known quantity being the face of the game. Celebrities being involved in games are historically disastrous and I suppose for some if Silverhand is the focus then they feel like Keanu is the protagonist and not them. I somewhat understand the apprehension but as attached.
That said, as attached as I was to each V is I created, I also believe we would be restricting the story by just making V the recurring lead. It would be Skyrim all over again. Granted, your character in CP2077 is far more fleshed out and actually has a voice (literally) but it would be far more interesting to either come back to V later or just have him/her talked about through Night City as one of the legends.
One of the big things about this thread is the fact the argument seems to utterly dismiss the idea that there are MULTIPLE V's and the V's in each individual playthrough will vary on motivation due to your roleplaying game style. You can roleplay a V who is heroic, a V who is greedy, a V who is a psychopath, or a V who is anything inbetween.
You may have some restrictions but a Nomad V who gives to the homeless on the street and uses a Pax mod is a very different V from a Arasaka Corp who rejoins the company at the end.
Frankly, as someone who writes as well as reads cyberpunk, I think you frankly are making a very loose definition of the word.
Gibsonian cyberpunk protagonists are all selfish assholes.
But Hardwired, Robocop, and Max Headroom -- all inspirations for Cyberpunk 2020, have genuinely heroic protagonists. Flawed and sometimes selfish ones but heroic nonetheless.
So... this is going to seem confusing, but Robocop isn't cyberpunk.
It's a western. Everything from the music to the underlying themes. I remember writing an essay on this one at uni a long time ago, and it's part of what took me down the genre rabbit hole. There are a lot of genres and subgenres out there that can get very confusing, but are actually very well defined. Robocop is a western/sci-fi mashup, but its underlying themes make it primarily western in nature. Big iron on his hip, this music, they are the small touches that try to hint to the audience what it actually is.
If you're referring to Cowboy in Hardwired, he's not a hero. He does a few heroic things, but he does a few villainous things as well. Neither of which make him a hero or a villain. Now, to be fair, I haven't read this in a really long time but I do recall Cowboy taking out a medical transport just to sink some stock values for the sake of personal gain.
And Max Headroom is primarily satire, and the character also isn't 'heroic'. I haven't used a loose definition of the word, I am applying a very narrow one that is used to define narrative heroes across all genres.
So... this is going to seem confusing, but Robocop isn't cyberpunk.
It's a western. Everything from the music to the underlying themes. I remember writing an essay on this one at uni a long time ago, and it's part of what took me down the genre rabbit hole. There are a lot of genres and subgenres out there that can get very confusing, but are actually very well defined. Robocop is a western/sci-fi mashup, but its underlying themes make it primarily western in nature. Big iron on his hip, this music, they are the small touches that try to hint to the audience what it actually is.
If you're referring to Cowboy in Hardwired, he's not a hero. He does a few heroic things, but he does a few villainous things as well. Neither of which make him a hero or a villain. Now, to be fair, I haven't read this in a really long time but I do recall Cowboy taking out a medical transport just to sink some stock values for the sake of personal gain.
And Max Headroom is primarily satire, and the character also isn't 'heroic'. I haven't used a loose definition of the word, I am applying a very narrow one that is used to define narrative heroes across all genres.
I remember someone commenting that the Matrix wasn't cyberpunk because the protagonsist were heroic and it was set in the far future that was just pretending to be about a bunch of hackers versus crypto-fascists. A similar argument made about Ghost in the Shell due to the Major working for the government. Personally, I tend to take broad views of cyberpunk and go with, "gritty near future dystopian crime fiction."
I suspect we won't agree on this.
So I'll go with Mike Pondsmith that "You can't save the world but you can save yourself."
A cyberpunk game won't end with Johnny Mnemonic (who is a SHITTY person but does save the world) overthrowing the megacorps. It will more likely end with saving one or two people.
And that's enough.
Because cyberpunk is a descendant of noir fiction, which like the Spaghetti Western, was an influence on Sapkowski's witcher. Geralt doesn't save the world, he saves individual people and not always successfully.
It really depends on your definition of hero and how you're playing V.
V tries to save Evelyn and fails.
V DOES save River's nephew and does so seemingly out of pure altruism.
I remember someone commenting that the Matrix wasn't cyberpunk because the protagonsist were heroic and it was set in the far future that was just pretending to be about a bunch of hackers versus crypto-fascists. A similar argument made about Ghost in the Shell due to the Major working for the government. Personally, I tend to take broad views of cyberpunk and go with, "gritty near future dystopian crime fiction."
I suspect we won't agree on this.
So I'll go with Mike Pondsmith that "You can't save the world but you can save yourself."
A cyberpunk game won't end with Johnny Mnemonic (who is a SHITTY person but does save the world) overthrowing the megacorps. It will more likely end with saving one or two people.
And that's enough.
Because cyberpunk is a descendant of noir fiction, which like the Spaghetti Western, was an influence on Sapkowski's witcher. Geralt doesn't save the world, he saves individual people and not always successfully.
It really depends on your definition of hero and how you're playing V.
V tries to save Evelyn and fails.
V DOES save River's nephew and does so seemingly out of pure altruism.
Being a 'gritty dystopian future' does not alone define a cyberpunk narrative. There are thematic factors to consider as well, and The Matrix doesn't have them. It is not Cyberpunk. If we use 'gritty dystopian future' as the definition, then Star Wars is a cyberpunk. So is Slipstream and Borderlands and a wide variety of other stories that wouldn't otherwise be defined as cyberpunk. Likewise, saving people 'altruistically' doesn't define heroism, especially when the reason V saves Randy is up to the motivation of the player that is defining the character of V, and not V themselves.
The Matrix isn't Cyberpunk because the story isn't about a futile fight between regular powerless have-nots and the uber-powerful haves, amongst other things. It is a science fiction super hero story. The most powerful character in a cyberpunk story is never the protagonist, always the antagonist. Neo is a literal superhero. Meanwhile, in Cyberpunk 2077, there is no real villain. The city itself serves as the primary 'antagonist' while being completely morally neutral. In The Matrix, there is a clear villain, and a clear hero.
Now Ghost in the Shell is something I'm not familiar with, but the cyberpunk story isn't defined by which character the story follows. The genre is defined by the world, the themes, and the overarching narrative. What it is inspired by is completely irrelevant. Just about everything is inspired by the western genre to some degree or another, and it still doesn't matter. What defines it is what matters here, because despite its origins, cyberpunk is very much its own thing and is not at all ambiguously defined.
Genre is like language. It has its roots that help shape the meaning, but ultimately, it does evolve into its own very well defined thing. The Greeks had seven different words representing the various nuanced meanings of what we now just call 'love', for example, and in modern usage the meaning of the word is shaped entirely by the context it is used in, but it still encompasses all the original seven meanings.
Also, I really need to put a pin in this - rescuing Randy is a sidequest. It is not a part of the core narrative. It is, in fact, a juxtapositional element provided by the GAME, not the STORY, to provide perspective to the player. Just like riding the rollercoaster, it is a small moment of reprieve from the darkness, a tiny light against the very dark contrasting shadow of the overarching milieu. Or, in other words, the exception that proves the rule.
You say this as if you couldn't possibly be wrong, and frankly, I hate that. People unwilling to depart from their preconceived notions and consider alternatives to what they believe are inflexible and you would be right that at this point, we can simply stop discussing it, but not for your reasons, but because you're not worth having a conversation with if you aren't willing to bend on what you think you know.
The fact is, you brought it up, and have yet to justify it as a cyberpunk narrative. You just asserted that it is one as if it is self-evident. Meanwhile, I have challenged your implied proposition that it is and... what, we can just stop discussing it? I've explained precisely why you're wrong, and in no uncertain terms, about it being cyberpunk. If you have an alternative understanding then instead of getting mad, perhaps just try explaining why you think you're right.
The story does, indeed, satisfy a few of the themes of cyberpunk, especially the theme of what technology might do to us rather than, as sci fi usually presents, what it might do for us. However, there is a very clear hero and villain in The Matrix, which is where it loses any resemblance to a true cyberpunk narrative.
What you could call it is post-cyberpunk, because it envisions a future that has gone beyond the cyberpunk world where the man v machine /technology dichotomy, a central theme of cyberpunk, has been completely subverted. But as long as the overarching narrative is represented by a hero's journey, ie Neo, then it is not cyberpunk.
But sure, we can stop discussing it. Genre definition is quite off the rails for this particular thread anyway, but in future, if you're not willing to have a discussion about a topic because being told you're wrong about it might upset you, then don't bring it up.
