Is Cyperpunk 2077 a political game?

[Restlessdingo32]

The question is if that was the artists intention. As art is a form of communication it always tells or illustrates the receiver something. In the case of Stargate the shows creates might have experienced the influence of religion or cults on people and they express this experience by creating this "illustration". I think it is way more interesting and also more persuasive as to use words.

That question is what I am getting at. CP2077 has political themes to it, no question. I don't think those themes exist to make political statements applicable to existing times. They use those elements to open up interesting storytelling opportunities isolated to the fictional setting of the creative work. So I suppose my answer would be no.

 

[PepeSmug]

Nah. The story game makes use of cultural and political issues as narrative devices, but it stops short of any kind of commentary, other than "look how horrible everything is".

 

[LUDEO]

Nah. The story game makes use of cultural and political issues as narrative devices, but it stops short of any kind of commentary, other than "look how horrible everything is".

I also focuses on this argument in my video. I totally agree with your point of view here and I was also thinking about the alternative the game offers to this hypercapitalistic society. First of all the punk criticism towards the free market and profit obsession is definetly nothing hidden or secret. However stating that it is horrible can definetly be defined as a commentary. The different endings of the game also add to this idea because there is no ending in which V remains in hypercapitalistic Night City. Most players agree that the Aldecaldos ending is closest to a happy ending in which the player joins the real opposite of Night City. I feel that the developers show the desired alternative with this ending.

 

[Didacgomez]

At the moment that devs decided to put some themes and not others,they are making a political statement even if not telling you directly:strikes suppressed by force,immigrant detention camps,border patrol killing immigrants,a container full of illegal immigrants with a dead girl, belgium and netherlands flooded causing a refugee crisis(watch tv news)...its just that they dont put you in bold the message

 

[KeldornOfLatria]

The Witcher games were more political than CP 2077, in my eyes. And here's why:

*SPOILERS for Witcher 1, which you should play*

In Witcher 1 the three options to side with Scoia'tael, the Flaming Rose or especially being "neutral" was greatly written and being discussed by Geralt and other characters. And none of it was black and white.
Yavinn as the Scoia'tael leader was right in his goals but arrogant and a terrorist in his methods.
Siegfried was a morally good guy in a more and more politically compromised and totalitarian movement.
And being neutral felt easy at the beginning, just staying out of it all, but Geralt had people whom he cared about: Triss, Shani, Alvin (paradoxically), Dandelion, Zoltan, the other Witchers (up until Ciri in W3) – and just couldn't stay out of it, because people are caught up in politics and if you like them, you get caught up, too. Staying neutral then feels bad, when a friend depends on you.

*early game SPOILERS for CP2077*

In CP2077 you play as V whose sole motivation is at first, getting rich and famous, and then saving his ass. Yes, you can make friends and that's why Jackie is for some the best character – and the game loses focus after he dies.
The new focus is Johnny, whose political views and real motivations are hidden behind bullshit and you have to actively search them. So, in a way, he's just Yaevinn, but not as tightly written. (Imagine if Johnny was just an option in a net of cool characters like Yaevinn in W1...)

All the other friend characters have the same arc: Realizing that Night City is not for them. River is a frustrated cop. Panam doesn't want to be in Night City from the start. Judy realizes she can't change anything in NC and goes away. And Kerry doesn't count, since he's rich and protected and his "change" to a rebel reborn is only a mid-life crisis which doesn't have an impact on the City, just on his mental well-being.

So in conclusion I think: Even if Cyberpunk's themes are more overtly political, the writing fails to engage me as a player in them. I choose to, because it's the game mechanic in "Triple A RPGs with choices"(TM).
In W1 you make choices based on your sympathy towards characters and slowly these choices bleed into bigger political questions and you realize: It's been political all along. And that's great writing because that's how life works.

This got longer than I thought, so, thanks for reading.

 

[Bartinga2077]

"IS CYPERPUNK 2077 A POLITICAL GAME?"

Depends what you make of it. To me it isn't. It's just a game that uses real life happenings and ways of living, both undisputed and disputed as entertainment. There is certainly a lot of room for discussion, especially how this game came to be, but not of a political magnitude.

 

[Ayinde_Palmer]

I am surprised that so many people think cyberpunk has no intentionality with its political nature. Writers rarely write anything by mistake, they don't make a setting with nothing to say.

Also, as I said before, its weird to say something has to pick a side to be political, because most people's political perspective doesn't align with a side. And there are many perspectives on any political issue, regardless of whatever the people in power say.

anyhow the creator believes the world of cyberpunk is inherently political. Being that cyberpunk 2077 is set in the same world, and same continuity, also exploring similar issues, I think its clear that it has an intention.

Cyberpunk creator Mike Pondsmith says 'everything is political,' including his game

"A big part of what Cyberpunk talks about is the disparities of power and how technology readdresses that."

www.pcgamer.com

 

[Didacgomez]

+ the fact Mike Pondsmith acted as consultant during the project
PS: funny enough that he forgets Cyberpunk 3.0 fiasco (was an interesting setting imho),is like deus ex invisible war that nobody remembers

 

[Restlessdingo32]

I am surprised that so many people think cyberpunk has no intentionality with its political nature. Writers rarely write anything by mistake, they don't make a setting with nothing to say.

There is a difference between building a setting with a "political nature" and exploring political themes vs building a game to intentionally support or bring down an existing political viewpoint. Games tend to do the former.

anyhow the creator believes the world of cyberpunk is inherently political. Being that cyberpunk 2077 is set in the same world, and same continuity, also exploring similar issues, I think its clear that it has an intention.

He said it's political but not in the sense many would think. It's not as if the purpose is to present a message and say, "This is how you should view this.". It's purpose is to present an issue and say, "This is interesting to think about.".

What could happen if all this fancy tech was available to modify human bodies? Cybernetic arms, eyes, legs, etc. What could happen if corps gained massive, unchecked power? How could views of your typical citizen shift if they were thrust into a dystopian world?

These sort of questions and the way they're presented is very different from telling people they should stop buying things because the evil corpos are selling it.

 

[Darkibone]

I am surprised that so many people think cyberpunk has no intentionality with its political nature.

Well, there is this quote from Paweł Sasko, the Lead Quest Designer for Cyberpunk 2077:
“For me, the most important thing is that our game is a closed work and it is not a political statement, a political thesis.” (as translated by Google)

anyhow the creator believes the world of cyberpunk is inherently political.

I can certainly see the argument that is being made. And you can define "political" like that.
But I simply disagree that that yields a useful term, because if everything concerning humans is political, no human activity can be apolitical.

And just because Pondsmith argues that way does not make it true. Appeal to Authority and all that.
But the same goes for Paweł Sasko, which is why I think both were kept out of this discussion for so long...

 

[Aenima1]

I am surprised that so many people think cyberpunk has no intentionality with its political nature. Writers rarely write anything by mistake, they don't make a setting with nothing to say.

Also, as I said before, its weird to say something has to pick a side to be political, because most people's political perspective doesn't align with a side. And there are many perspectives on any political issue, regardless of whatever the people in power say.

anyhow the creator believes the world of cyberpunk is inherently political. Being that cyberpunk 2077 is set in the same world, and same continuity, also exploring similar issues, I think its clear that it has an intention.

Cyberpunk creator Mike Pondsmith says 'everything is political,' including his game

"A big part of what Cyberpunk talks about is the disparities of power and how technology readdresses that."

www.pcgamer.com

Just to clarify, I think you misunderstood my earlier comments. I'll try to reword it sorry.

I do agree that any writer would be fully aware of any intent they have with their work and its meaning.
Im in agreement with several people in the thread including yourself.
Definitely the writers in this story will be aware of the meaning, especially since its the cyberpunk world that pondsmith originally created.
And also agreed that something can be political without being about politics, or conversely, it can be about politics without being overtly political.


My original comment was something different entirely - That on a basic level, any work of fiction that is about people, or society, would by default have some sort of politics in it. Intentional or otherwise. (Even if only mentioned in passing. Or it's just implied.)

If there's a society, then there is politics. The two things are pretty much inseparable.


_

Hoping that helps explain what I'm babbling about.

 

[Darkibone]

Just to illustrate the distinction I am trying to make:
In many countries around the world, political activies and publications are protected by law.

But playing Cyberpunk, either the videogame or the pen&paper, does not fall under these protections.
Neither do discussions about either (at least in the political sense).
It's all considered entertainment.

I mean, could you imagine a speech about politics falling under an "M Rating", like the game?
That would result in quite the uproar.

Thats why I find it weird to call this a "political game", even if technically there is some merit to that.

 

[Ayinde_Palmer]

There is a difference between building a setting with a "political nature" and exploring political themes vs building a game to intentionally support or bring down an existing political viewpoint. Games tend to do the former.



He said it's political but not in the sense many would think. It's not as if the purpose is to present a message and say, "This is how you should view this.". It's purpose is to present an issue and say, "This is interesting to think about.".

What could happen if all this fancy tech was available to modify human bodies? Cybernetic arms, eyes, legs, etc. What could happen if corps gained massive, unchecked power? How could views of your typical citizen shift if they were thrust into a dystopian world?

These sort of questions and the way they're presented is very different from telling people they should stop buying things because the evil corpos are selling it.

but where did the idea of something being political come to mean it should neatly follow a pre existing group? Lets say you want to explore a society where corporations dominate politics. that doesn't mean your perspective lines up with pro or anti capitalists in the world. But that also doesn't mean you have nothing to say at all about the issue.

so I don't exactly disagree, I just don't understand why people only accept some thing as being political if it falls into some specific political ideology they are aware of.

I mean it might be just semantics, but also seems like some people want to negate whatever political ideas or questions some one is presenting, unless it aligns with a "side", or because they don't want to consider these ideas/questions

 

[Didacgomez]

Funny thing is that on release day there was already people posting on youtube that the game promoted "communism" because a shard explains how balcanized usa ended up with trauma team while neosoviet union has state sponsored universal healthcare...
It looks like that devs decided to put vodoo boys and the in-game background of why they are in the city just because they felt they couldn't justify an african descendant gang in a game in california(hello bloods & crips) and that they decided that Netherlands and Belgium should go under the sea because they disliked their food?A political statement should be I guess a quest where you kill people that signed global warming treaties and protocols?

 

[Ayinde_Palmer]

Well, there is this quote from Paweł Sasko, the Lead Quest Designer for Cyberpunk 2077:
“For me, the most important thing is that our game is a closed work and it is not a political statement, a political thesis.” (as translated by Google)


I can certainly see the argument that is being made. And you can define "political" like that.
But I simply disagree that that yields a useful term, because if everything concerning humans is political, no human activity can be apolitical.

And just because Pondsmith argues that way does not make it true. Appeal to Authority and all that.
But the same goes for Paweł Sasko, which is why I think both were kept out of this discussion for so long...

In this case I'm not really presenting this as only an appeal to authority, I'm presenting it as the intentionality of the creation was part of the question. People are saying their was no intent to explore political issues, its just required to tell a story, he says specifically this was no accident.

Also just because something is not a political thesis does not mean its apolitical. It Also doesn't make sense to me to say something exploring known political issues is not political unless it makes a definitive thesis statement. That implies that a discussion about a thing is only really about that thing if people take clear pre existing sides.

And I disagree that something has to be primarily created for the purpose of promoting an agenda to be considered political. Stories are about more than one thing many times. You can write a romance novel that is an adventure that still involves political themes


The other thing thats interesting, is that people really want to avoid the concept of something being "political" Like its dangerous to even think about politics. I mean I get why, people tend to disengage if it disagrees with whatever philosophies they hold, and this is a product for anyone. And many conflicts arise due to political views. But you aren't really going to be able to interact with humans much without having to engage with their political views, even if they try not to. Its going to color most of their interactions, even subconsciously.

 

[Yllana_Ardais]

Actually what I always liked about SF is that you can play around with so many different sociological, political, technological, philophical ect concepts. You can create a completely foreign society and contemplate what this might have to do with your thoughts about your society and its people. It opens up new ways of thinking about your own life, regardless of the political or socio-econiomic system depicted in the product having a direct real world equivalent.

Now I think Cyberpunk stories in general deal usually more with sociological and philosphical topics than with political ones (as in, a group of people openly discussing and influencing topics and situations that concern them all as a group). The reasons that the Cyberpunk worlds have become the way they are are partially policial (the goverments getting more and more privatised, lack of checks and balances, ignorance of climate change and political solutions for social topics etc), but the topics these stories directly deal with and their creators seem to be most interested in are mostly socioeconomic and philosphical (how does human society evolve when cybernetics are a thing, what is a soul, should AIs have the same rights as people, how does human society evolve in a some kind of neo-anarchic context, when privatization runs rampant, what can an individual even contribute to a society like this? etc). And of course they also use it as a backdrop to tell a fascinating story about interesting people living in this world.

I realize it's difficult to impossible to separate sociology from politics (my last example surely is also political), but I kind of think, many Cyberpunk stories or at least their main charcters are politically rather quietist. Meaning, they live in a world shaped by poltical and socioeconomic forces as does everyone, they are aware of it, but personally, they just want to live their life without trying to change the big picture. V surely doesn't have a political agenda. Johnny does. He wants to change the system, albeit by questionable means.

The question is, why are we even discussing this? Is it because for some people "politics" has become some kind of dirty word, depicting "the left" vs "the right", black vs white and the are kind of sick of it and don't want anything of this rather simplistic "us vs them" in their "entertainment"? If this is the case, I kind of understand, but I also think political/sociological/philosphical topics should definitely be part of a game for adults, they should make you want to think about your own understanding of the world around you and your society - but it should be done in a nuanced way.

 

[hulkman2456]

Now whether that lines up to what current people's politics are is another question. That said, I think its unrealistic to have any believable world somehow be devoid of politics.

I think the difference is having political elements. But more that the story cares about it in that sense. I see the Corpo VS people as just good VS evil. I don't care about any potential underlying bits. Because one thing is bad, one thing is good. So I don't see it as politics. If the subject is soley about the underlying details. Than it's a political piece. It's the same when they try to have the conversation weather engrams are the soul. Or did you really die. I don't believe in the soul, afterlife etc. Engram is a 100% transfer (or copied in Saburo's case) of your brain. End of story. Your meat dies, you live on. If you want me to believe of this soul. Find me a ghost.

Because if you want to start discussing the soul aspect. We now have to look at EVERYTHING. Do body parts count? What is the level of body changes till you aren't you anymore. If you say you are you, when you replace a leg. What is stopping you from saying "I am me. Inside this computer/chip."

Post automatically merged: Mar 11, 2021

Is it because for some people "politics" has become some kind of dirty word, depicting "the left" vs "the right", black vs white and the are kind of sick of it and don't want anything of this rather simplistic "us vs them" in their "entertainment"?

It's been abused and loads of people are sick of it. So if something crosses the line. Or the story is damaged. Meaning, not being about the story. And some random crap. On top of ruining logic, goodbye X.

Example: There's an episode of Batwoman that clearly states that. As long as you are gay. You are allowed to break the law. Endanger peoples lives aboard a train. And leak a persons credit card information over time square size video monitors. She never brought this person in. And willingly let her go. Than they brought her back into the show. Like nothing happened.

Catwoman has done a lot of positive philanthropic causes throughout the characters life. But she also has stolen ,gotten people injured/2nd degree killed, and went after them for revenge. Batman has 100% put her in jail. When ever she's caught. She serves time, til her parole.

 

[Night_City_Native]

Yes.

The genre itself is inherently political and the world Mike Pondsmith created is no different. It takes a rather dim view (a justified one, IMO) on unrestrained capitalism for example.

When "gamers" complain that some game is political they aren't really bothered that the game had a political point of view, they're rather bothered that it didn't align with their own. They're fragile and best ignored.

 

[Hoplite_22]

it's more neon liberal than cyberpunk, but yeah, because even a thought experiment about power structures is still about power structures, it doesn't have to answer the questions it asks, although in and of it's self that is a political position.

 

[CS554]

There is a stupid NCPD assault in progress that is quite political in my opinion (and actually historically it happened in several countries in the past, probably in some countries still nowadays):

There is a strike in a factory and to break the strike, the company sold to Militech. Militech declared the strike illegal and will treat all the strikers as terrorists. You can find the shard where the Militech grunt ask for permission to open fire because strikers don´t retreat and the background information explaining why there is a bunch of workers beeing killed by Militech.

Of course, if you play like good old Doom you can ignore the political statement (or warning of where uncontrolled capitalism can lead,again).

It's nod to the cyberpunk genre literature and it's Noir element and very roots where that came from, real life experience of early Noir author Dashiell Hammett who used to work at Pinkerton operative.

Around 1917, Hammett was sent to Montana, where he infiltrated the ranks of striking copper miners. He and other Pinkertons were apparently offered $5, 000, a bloody fortune at the time, to help kill Frank Little, the Wobbly (Industrial Workers of the World) leader organizing the miners. Little was lynched from a Butte train trestle without Hammett's help.

Individual people rights and people right to form unions and demonstrate their will are matters of law and philosophy. Individual rights, citizenship I guess goes back at least to Plato and the Republic (375 BC).

Cyberpunk as genre has always been about presenting scenarios. Perhaps something that Walter Jon Williams wrote in Hardwired (1986) could be seen as commentary of certain domestic things pressed by Ronald Reagan but it's all irrelevant as it's very subtle and doesn't really mean anything to younger generations. To add works from Gibson and Sterling real common thread has always been that the governments power has diminished. Via that power of people and democratic process has also diminished. If we talk about politics at some point we should talk about party politics and in cyberpunk that doesn't matter as it's corpos calling the shots anyway, oligarchy but people don't mind as they are mostly interested about entertainment anyway LOL.

It's good that game makes people think, but it's really not political work per se but philosophy. It doesn't tell people what to think allowing anybody to make their own conclusions.