Thankfully CDPR are experienced in this field. Geralt is faced with those kinds of choices all the time in The Witcher series.
I do not agree.. If there are no evil in cyberpunk, then why do they call it "evil corporations".. Huh? There is evil in cyberpunk.. There is evil and natural.. People can't afford to be good.. Good people exist as well, but they die easily..
I do not agree.. If there are no evil in cyberpunk, then why do they call it "evil corporations".. Huh? There is evil in cyberpunk.. There is evil and natural.. People can't afford to be good.. Good people exist as well, but they die easily..
Wars has a very good point. There is evil, as evil as you can get. Torture, pointless cruelty, greed that destroys lives, murder for profit. You name it, Cyberpunk has lots of what we define as evil.
"The Future never looked so bad. But you can change it."
Good...good is what the cyberpunks try to be. Good-ish. And this is important, since running a game with a bunch of self-centered evil arseholes is, frankly, boring.
I think the important thing, and what I hope Wisdom was trying to say, was that there shouldn't be absolutes. No decision that's clearcut "Good" or "Evil". No individual that's so evil you wouldn't want to have a drink with him, no paragon of virtue.
But, as Chris said. CDPR. Not going to be a concern.
And I've been thinking of bringing up this example from TW2 for a while, this may be a good time to do it. Safe to read if you've played both Iorveth and Roche paths in TW2, or don't ever intend to play TW2. Otherwise, stay away. Major spoilers.
(The specific type of scenario isn't likely to come up in CP77, because of the whole Open World thing, but it's a good example of how CDPR don't get caught up in the whole Good vs Evil trap)
But, as Chris said. CDPR. Not going to be a concern.
And I've been thinking of bringing up this example from TW2 for a while, this may be a good time to do it. Safe to read if you've played both Iorveth and Roche paths in TW2, or don't ever intend to play TW2. Otherwise, stay away. Major spoilers.
(The specific type of scenario isn't likely to come up in CP77, because of the whole Open World thing, but it's a good example of how CDPR don't get caught up in the whole Good vs Evil trap)
At one point of the game, you need to make a decision about working with one of two NPCs. It's a pivotal decision, with major effects on what happens in the rest of the game. To experience the game to its fullest, you need to play twice, picking the "other" NPC on the second playthrough. A lot of players have a problem with this, as their own morality tells them that one NPC is clearly good and one isn't. Depending on that viewpoint, the reasoning goes...
"Roche is my bro, Iorveth is a terrorist. I can't support a terrorist".
"Iorveth is a freedom fighter, Roche tortures people on government orders, and supporting him will mean I have to side with the evil invading army in the next chapter. I can't do that."
Both are wrong. If you go with Iorveth, you still have minimal interaction with him in the next chapter, and are never expected to agree with his ideals. Instead, you're simply helping defend townspeople against an invading army, something you can feel good about, even though bad things do happen.
If you go with Roche, you find he's actively working AGAINST the invaders, not with them. Again, bad things happen because of your choice, but you can still feel you made the right decision.
You can't foresee the outcome of your actions. You can make an educated guess, but it may turn out to be completely false, in a way that makes perfect sense only with hindsight.
"Roche is my bro, Iorveth is a terrorist. I can't support a terrorist".
"Iorveth is a freedom fighter, Roche tortures people on government orders, and supporting him will mean I have to side with the evil invading army in the next chapter. I can't do that."
Both are wrong. If you go with Iorveth, you still have minimal interaction with him in the next chapter, and are never expected to agree with his ideals. Instead, you're simply helping defend townspeople against an invading army, something you can feel good about, even though bad things do happen.
If you go with Roche, you find he's actively working AGAINST the invaders, not with them. Again, bad things happen because of your choice, but you can still feel you made the right decision.
You can't foresee the outcome of your actions. You can make an educated guess, but it may turn out to be completely false, in a way that makes perfect sense only with hindsight.
Last edited:
As i agree with you, a part of me hated the choices with vague consequences on Witcher 2.. I mean, once or twice is fine, but the whole game? Whatever you choose, something bad happens and it gets old very fast..
I think it was OK because I was always comfortable with the choice. I never had to playthrough thinking ohshitohshit I wish I hadn't done that, nor did I ever have to listen to Geralt mouth words that nauseated me because he'd espoused some cause that I disapproved of or thought that he would have disapproved of.
It was also possibly because I'd gone straight from DA2 to the Witcher series, as DA2 dealt with grey morality the opposite way, by making you feel like shit whichever choice you made.
Yeah, DA2 is one of the main reasons why i hate choices with vague consequences.. If it doesn't always happen, then its fine, but if something bad and unexpected happens every single time you make a decision... like game is punishing you for everything you do.. i just dislike it very much.. I got that feeling more than a few times in Witcher 2.. It didn't ruin the game for me, but it still disliked it..
Oh, i bet.. I'm sure they will fix the problems we had with the DA2.. NOT..
I wont be able to play it anyway.. I will be gone..
Is it one year?
I never expected to say this, but you'll be missed. Yes, really.
And regarding DA:I, I'm avoiding EVERY trailer, announcement, promo, piece of hype until at least a couple of weeks after it's launched, because none of them have any credibility. But I actually hope it's a good game.
Last edited:
Aww, thanks.. I will miss you guys too..
And yes, it is one year.. Out of my life.. One, very long, excruciating year.. And i wont be paid for it because "it is my duty to my country".. For whatever reason.. It is like going to prison, without committing a crime, and everybody has to go.. Unless you are female.. Which is sexist by the way..It is too late for me because I've already watched a trailer.. It looks good, but than again, so did DA2.. They never show you the bad stuff.. Not until it is too late..
The only DA:I trailer that I did watch was a very early spoof one showing the death of Foltest. It's gone now, but the comments were pretty funny. The uploader was very prompt at deleting comments that pointed out the truth, so it lasted for months.
Yeah, i remember seeing that, some of the comments were really funny.. Especially the ones that claimed that the new DA game will be a crossover with Witcher games.. There was even an argument that the lazy writing will be so prominent in DAI, it will gain sentience and spread to the other similar games, only to suck the life out of those games.. It was hilarious..
I got sent to both Vietnam and Gulf I and I'm female.
No draft (at least in the US) no one HAS to go.
If you enlisted, well, ya signed on the dotted line and have no right to complain.
In my country, you do not enlist, you do not sign anything, and you have to go wherever they tell you to.. Everybody has to go after finishing your education, it is not optional.. (except if you are a female, if you are, you can enlist to be an officer, to become a military doctor or accountant or whatever) I have every right to complain.. You should avoid saying things like this on matters you have no knowledge about.. Have you considered i may have decent reasons to complain? Do you even know which country i am from? I didn't think so..
Also, are you talking about Vietnam war? That would make you over 60 years old.. Really?
#1 - I did specify "(at least in the US)" in my reply. Thus my comments do not, and can not, be applied universally.
#2 - I don't believe my reply in any way suggested that other nations ways of dealing with their soldiers was somehow better or worse.
#3 - While you may well have valid reasons to unhappy with required national service, and the fairly universal exclusion of females from military service (tho Israel does require them to serve), there is of course no way I, or anyone, can determine just how valid they are without knowing a lot of details that are unavailable.
#4 - I'm 57, Saigon fell in 1975 a year after I enlisted and I was involved in the evacuation.
If you're unhappy with your situation (which you obviously are) please don't take it out on me or others that have no control over it.
First, i have never asked you for your opinion and your knowledge on the matter seems to be lacking a great deal, yet you saw fit to tell me that i have no right to complain.. Second, lets see if i understand that correctly, you want to throw your opinions around but you don't want to be held responsible for them because you don't know the details.. Yet you still seems to think your opinion is important.. Well, i do know the details and you have no idea, I'm just saying.. Third, there are some bad things are happening in my country, that could possibly drag us down to war for no other reason than to cover up the governments corruption and we are already fighting terrorism.. Nothing is certain and i hope it doesn't happen but i can't shake this bad feeling i have... anyway.. All I'm saying is, your knowledge in US military doesn't apply to most other countries in the world.. And I'm sorry if i sounded rude, but you do not understand.. As you said, you can't understand, you know none of the details, so stop pretending you are the high authority on the matter..
You are my favorite evil fairy.. You know that..
'K. I think that we probably need to get back to the topic, or DA:I, or at least a change of subject.
