Does the diverse world of Night City include people with disabilities?

+
I wouldn’t worry.

There were plenty of people who would be considered disabled in the trailer - the man in the mobility scooter in the scene with the punks parked on the no parking curb (and then at least one person in the foreground with a missing limb) and then in the basketball scene with the shooter having two metal legs and the woman to the left having metal arms.

What I find more interesting is how these augments will be perceived by others in the world. Obviously if you can’t pay you’ll have to go without, but are there certain levels of limb replacements for example?

If you claw and scrape, maybe you can get a bare-bones replacement, but more realistic, true-to-flesh prosthetics cost way more, and maybe people treat you better or worse depending on which you have.

What about people who go minimalistic on the cybernetic augmentations? How are they viewed by the rest of society? Are they considered strange, behind the times? Depending on how connected the city is, it might not be possible to interact with the city systems without some basic auguments. But maybe going without could also be a way to try and stay off the grid.

I could also see some people fetishising those who go without auguments, just as much as others might have a thing for those that go for a full-transformation package at a local ripper.
 
Last edited:
What about people who go minimalistic on the cybernetic augmentations? How are they viewed by the rest of society? Are they considered strange, behind the times? Depending on how connected the city is, it might not be possible to interact with the city systems without some basic arguments.

This is a very interesting point. So because people without augments might be unable to function in a city that wasn't built with them in mind, are they not disabled? Disability is a social construct, you're not 'disabled' because you're blind, or have to use a wheelchair for mobility, you're disabled because the society in which you exist wasn't designed for people with different needs.
 
This is a very interesting point. So because people without augments might be unable to function in a city that wasn't built with them in mind, are they not disabled? Disability is a social construct, you're not 'disabled' because you're blind, or have to use a wheelchair for mobility, you're disabled because the society in which you exist wasn't designed for people with different needs.

I love this! I was trying to think of how to articulate the fact that there will always be people with disabilities, and you nailed it on the head. The metamorphosis of what we view as being disabled to what that term means in 2077 would be fascinating. What changes? What doesn't? Does society learn from its mistakes?
 
That's assuming they can afford it...
One thing a lot of dystopian thinkers automatically assume about the future is that everything is expensive. This isn't even true nowadays— you can get entire computers better than one I had in 2005 that cost about as much as a corner store sandwich.
Indeed, people constantly forget that 3D printing is a thing!
The thing about 3D printed prosthetics as they currently exist is that they are much cheaper than the metallic stuff, sometimes by several orders of magnitude. The problem is that they are flimsier, so you need to print them more often. It's the same age old problem about shoes— the poor man buys a $10 pair of shoes every year while the rich man buys the $50 pair of shoes once a decade.

I say this because it's something that will change lives but will be completely overlooked right until it's actually a thing precisely because people want to go with the more dystopian possibility.

I love this! I was trying to think of how to articulate the fact that there will always be people with disabilities, and you nailed it on the head. The metamorphosis of what we view as being disabled to what that term means in 2077 would be fascinating. What changes? What doesn't? Does society learn from its mistakes?
I think that as time goes on, the definition of "disabled" begins changing entirely because a cold fact about the nature of Singularitarian advancements (even in a world that apparently hasn't undergone the Singularity) is that our already relatively level abilities— even considering things considered 'disabilities'— is about to be upended on a level not seen since the divide between our proto-primate ancestors.

I'm reminded of an autism awareness book I read once that said that, by the standards of telepathic flying aliens, all visiting humans are disabled. Because their world was not built for auditory bipeds, these human visitors require great help just existing, let alone doing anything productive.

Now imagine a society where your form is your choice. We sometimes hear about people who identify as other creatures— the joke is "I sexually identify as an attack helicopter", but there actually are some people who seriously do consider themselves, say, a wolf born in a human's body.
In a world where cybernetic and biological augmentations are a thing, what do you do to consider the person who has eschewed their human body for something entirely different?

In which case, society doesn't learn from its mistakes because it literally can't. The very nature of the human condition is changing. Humans as we are now could be considered disabled in 100 years because we think ten thousand times too slowly and can't perceive reality through twenty different eyes in real time.

My big problem with a lot of mainstream sci-fi and cyberpunk fiction today is that these questions are rarely asked, let alone explored, and usually when they are, they're just used as a backdrop for shooting guns and blowing stuff up, or as some cautionary moral suggesting that we ought to be happier with our fleshy romantic human limitations with absolutely no time to hear the follow-up complaints that being happy with your fleshy romantic human limitations didn't at all change the fact that people are becoming post-biological regardless, rendering whatever moral was attempted completely moot, if not undermined by itself.

I'm not saying CP2077 has to go out of its way to consider these viewpoints— if it did, the game would probably be a life simulator rather than a current gen RPG— but it'd be interesting to at least hint at the many questions morphological freedom coupled with physical and mental disabilities presents in a near-future setting.
 
Last edited:
One thing a lot of dystopian thinkers automatically assume about the future is that everything is expensive. This isn't even true nowadays— you can get entire computers better than one I had in 2005 that cost about as much as a corner store sandwich.
Indeed, people constantly forget that 3D printing is a thing!
The thing about 3D printed prosthetics as they currently exist is that they are much cheaper than the metallic stuff, sometimes by several orders of magnitude. The problem is that they are flimsier, so you need to print them more often. It's the same age old problem about shoes— the poor man buys a $10 pair of shoes every year while the rich man buys the $50 pair of shoes once a decade.

I say this because it's something that will change lives but will be completely overlooked right until it's actually a thing precisely because people want to go with the more dystopian possibility.

I wasn't really approaching it with the idea that things are astronomically expensive in 2077. With augs/cybernetics/etc becoming everyday purchases, the real question is if they're built in mind for a person with a disability? Would it cost more to make ones designed specifically for certain disabilities? If so, then the cost would be much higher than regularly purchasable augs. This is reflected in the costs of medical equipment currently, but it's based on the principles of supply/demand, so Cyberpunk 2077 would have similar occurrences assuming similar variables. Of course, this is based on the assumption that it'd take more than a couple lines of code to do augs that work for every type of disability. I can only speculate, but society so far doesn't design for disabilities usually.

Does this improve? Great! I'd love to end up finding some old files in the game that talk about it.

I'm not saying CP2077 has to go out of its way to consider these viewpoints— if it did, the game would probably be a life simulator rather than a current gen RPG— but it'd be interesting to at least hint at the many questions morphological freedom coupled with physical and mental disabilities presents in a near-future setting.

Yeah, I completely agree. My intent wasn't to imply that they need to do what I'm saying. It's CDPR's world and story. I'm on board either way.
 
I wasn't really approaching it with the idea that things are astronomically expensive in 2077. With augs/cybernetics/etc becoming everyday purchases, the real question is if they're built in mind for a person with a disability? Would it cost more to make ones designed specifically for certain disabilities? If so, then the cost would be much higher than regularly purchasable augs. This is reflected in the costs of medical equipment currently, but it's based on the principles of supply/demand, so Cyberpunk 2077 would have similar occurrences assuming similar variables. Of course, this is based on the assumption that it'd take more than a couple lines of code to do augs that work for every type of disability. I can only speculate, but society so far doesn't design for disabilities usually.

I think that if we have enough customization ability to make arms for people of varying builds in the first place, then whether a limb was lost to illness, injury, or purely elective reasons would have little/no impact in price since it's all semi-custom work anyways. Sensory 'ware might prove more expensive though. For instance, while many vision issues can be fixed with new eyeballs, many others are more a matter of the brain's ability to process visual information, like reconciling the slightly different images from each eye into a stereoscopic 3D picture. So certain disabilities would indeed cost more to repair than others, and cost could vary for teh same symptoms based on the cause.

In the end, I think supply and demand will play a huge role. If a popular elective piece of 'ware just happens to be the best solution for a particular disability, expect the costs to be identical. If it's a more esoteric piece of 'ware that is in low demand, price will go up. And also bear in mind that anything neurological is tricky enough to be expensive regardless of the health of the person getting the implant, so costs will (again) be comparable; replacing healthy or injured nerves isn't any easier/cheaper than replacing nerves damaged by illness.
 
In regards to availability respective to price, I have always thought it logical to assume a corporate dominated dystopian society would artificially limit the production of the best tech irrespective of resource availability, production cost and demand.

Otherwise it would seem to me to result in more of a perpetual climb towards a utopian society at odds with human nature where as cyberpunk (genre) as I have known it seems to me at war with all things human and at best in an alliance with the aspects of human nature that seeks it's own destruction.
 
Fixed that for you! :sneaky:

otvvjeulc53p.gif
 
Well... with my asthma, I'm currently - in real life - looking closely at the development of artificial lungs. If I could get some lungs that worked properly, I'd be pretty happy.

- Shane
 
I don't think I quite agree with that, like you said games like CDPR's are pretty big and rich and cover all kinds of stories and characters, which in turn means there's plenty of scope to explore all kinds of aspects of the world, it doesn't have to be through the main player character's arc at all. There's no shortage of people to work with to ensure that it doesn't fall into tokenism or pandering.

Although I don't think of myself as disabled it was still quite a thing for me to see some of my own issues represented in that sci fi anthology, that's not something I'm used to happening.

Personally I prefer to look at diversity as realism. Pretty jarringly unrealistic to watch a movie or play a game that consists of a uniform bunch of non-disabled white dudes, that's not the kind of escapism from real life that I'm looking for from entertainment.
I feel like this hits on a central theme in cyberpunk that I've never really seen explored (touched on in Mute, but barely, & a few futuristic movies will have the religious zealot who is a natural only fanatic), if you can choose to be anything, some people will choose to be themselves.

Aside from availability/price/etc, how many people will decide to not augment just because they don't want to, and how would different people react to that choice? Surely some would be supportive, some would probably just be confused/not wrap their head around it, would some, through some projected self loathing/guilt over excessive elective surgery or some other reason, find it abhorrent?

I agree that this can easily be an extension of the game's fully fleshed out/realistic world and discussion about augments and identity choice, and not some unrelated message PSA.
 
One thing a lot of dystopian thinkers automatically assume about the future is that everything is expensive. This isn't even true nowadays— you can get entire computers better than one I had in 2005 that cost about as much as a corner store sandwich.
the raw materials for something medical grade would be the barrier. THAT alone would always ensure a higher price compared to a computer.

with absolutely no time to hear the follow-up complaints that being happy with your fleshy romantic human limitations didn't at all change the fact that people are becoming post-biological regardless, rendering whatever moral was attempted completely moot, if not undermined by itself.
its probably not considered because most authors wont consider it because frankly, that idea of a future that open with modification is ideologically so far from where we are now that it wouldnt really work with an allegory that's meant to apply to our current selves.

. It's the same age old problem about shoes— the poor man buys a $10 pair of shoes every year while the rich man buys the $50 pair of shoes once a decade.

huh? OT but where you get shoes that last a decade? I need those.
 
I wouldn’t worry.

There were plenty of people who would be considered disabled in the trailer - the man in the mobility scooter in the scene with the punks parked on the no parking curb (and then at least one person in the foreground with a missing limb) and then in the basketball scene with the shooter having two metal legs and the woman to the left having metal arms.

What I find more interesting is how these augments will be perceived by others in the world. Obviously if you can’t pay you’ll have to go without, but are there certain levels of limb replacements for example?

If you claw and scrape, maybe you can get a bare-bones replacement, but more realistic, true-to-flesh prosthetics cost way more, and maybe people treat you better or worse depending on which you have.

What about people who go minimalistic on the cybernetic augmentations? How are they viewed by the rest of society? Are they considered strange, behind the times? Depending on rais connected the city is, it might not be possible to interact with the city systems without some basic auguments. But maybe going without could also be a way to try and stay off the grid.

I could also see some people fetishising those who go without auguments, just as much as others might have a thing for those that go for a full-transformation package at a local ripper.


Hi,


I am legally blind. I too was surprised to see disabled folk in the game demo,and was very heartened by it. I think CDPR will handle it well,however its done. I really loved how DX:Mankind Devided handled it,including character design. You raied many great ideas,I need to think about more.
 
Hi! I'm a gamer with a rare form of Muscular Dystrophy that requires the use of an electric wheelchair.

Like most of you, I'm super excited to explore Night City and experience the stories that CDPR are crafting. My only concern is that, like most other games, people with disabilities will be absent from the world. Even in a futuristic setting that offers the option of "fixing" your body through mods and cybernetics, there would be many who couldn't afford it or would decide not to be modded. Even now in our modern society, there's a perception that people with disabilities are "broken". I'd love having a side-story that explores identity and self-worth for a person with a disability in a society that values perfecting your body.

p.s. I mostly want to see futuristic wheelchairs.

Hi AieronKnight! Welcome on forums - glad to have you here :)

Yes, people with disabilities will be present in Cyberpunk 2077, but I'm afraid that at this point I cannot get into more details.
 
...
(In response to thread about post-biological society outmoding moral/philosophical/romantic reasons for sticking w/biological limitations -if I (EE) interpreted this right.)
its probably not considered because most authors wont consider it because frankly, that idea of a future that open with modification is ideologically so far from where we are now that it wouldnt really work with an allegory that's meant to apply to our current selves...

This is a great point for any genre that is "20-minutes into the future" like cyberpunk. The genre hinges on more of a real world connection than would be needed for far into the future genres.

From a realism perspective, even if the gestalt fully embraces transhumanism, not every individual will, and since these people would stand out it makes sense to intentionally represent them. There could be any number of reasons for it, the few times I've seen it explored it is usually an outright rejection of transhumanism with either negative connotation like some fringe religious belief OR positive connotation rooted in a technophobic/naturalist purity philosophy that the narrative will show to be the "right way". I think exploring the spectrum of reactions would be interesting, especially in an open world game where you wouldn't need to direct the story to look at these examples, they could just be in the world and available for dialog, maybe being involved in side quests but maybe not. Have examples showing not just acceptance vs. rejection but indifference, aestheticism, retro-fetishism, non-extreme philosophy, arbitrarily being contrarian to trends, biology advocates (who might augment but just with gene therapy & bioware), machine fanatics (who aren't just getting past biological limits but trying to become machine), examples of rejection/acceptance for less savory reasons as well as more benevolent ones, there is a wide spectrum rainbow of possibilities here.

In the real world we have people who grind their own flour using archaic tools. Some do this because they reject modern technology like the Amish, others do it because they think it is healthier and some do it as a part of "artisanal craftsmanship." Humans contemplate, and because of that we can (and do) rationalize anything. Many of us like to find our own path and will find reasons to do our own thing, others will carve out paths to sell books & mentorship to the previous group, & others still are happy to go down the common road but for subversive reasons.

The world is less binary than we like to make it, and a modern highly populated open world is an opportunity to think up droves of interesting atypical characters who's thinking are sound, flawed, or a mix of both. Not only is it a great way to add variety to the game's "cast" and tone, it allows you to explore novel pros/cons to any of its major themes, and showing deviations to the uniform culture will make the world seem more real.
 
Last edited:
This is a great point for any genre that is "20-minutes into the future" like cyberpunk. The genre hinges on more of a real world connection than would be needed for far into the future genres.

From a realism perspective, even if the gestalt fully embraces transhumanism, not every individual will, and since these people would stand out it makes sense to intentionally represent them. There could be any number of reasons for it, the few times I've seen it explored it is usually an outright rejection of transhumanism with either negative connotation like some fringe religious belief OR positive connotation rooted in a technophobic/naturalist purity philosophy that the narrative will show to be the "right way". I think exploring the spectrum of reactions would be interesting, especially in an open world game where you wouldn't need to direct the story to look at these examples, they could just be in the world and available for dialog, maybe being involved in side quests but maybe not. Have examples showing not just acceptance vs. rejection but indifference, aestheticism, retro-fetishism, non-extreme philosophy, arbitrarily being contrarian to trends, biology advocates (who might augment but just with gene therapy & bioware), machine fanatics (who aren't just getting past biological limits but trying to become machine), examples of rejection/acceptance for less savory reasons as well as more benevolent ones, there is a wide spectrum rainbow of possibilities here.

In the real world we have people who grind their own flour using archaic tools. Some do this because they reject modern technology like the Amish, others do it because they think it is healthier and some do it as a part of "artisanal craftsmanship." Humans contemplate, and because of that we can (and do) rationalize anything. Many of us like to find our own path and will find reasons to do our own thing, others will carve out paths to sell books & mentorship to the previous group, & others still are happy to go down the common road but for subversive reasons.

The world is less binary than we like to make it, and a modern highly populated open world is an opportunity to think up droves of interesting atypical characters who's thinking are sound, flawed, or a mix of both. Not only is it a great way to add variety to the game's "cast" and tone, it allows you to explore novel pros/cons to any of its major themes, and showing deviations to the uniform culture will make the world seem more real.
Yup.

Id go so far to say that its far enough from current realities that if its explored in fiction, its either window dressing (that is it serves to create the setting but isnt necessarily thematically important), the fiction is pure surface level stuff (that is its merely telling a story and not trying to explore other themes in depth. Nothing wrong with this) or youre delving into pure speculative, philosophical territory which isnt really the realm of fiction most people go for because it ends up being pretty esoteric.
 

Guest 4310777

Guest
Ages; pregnant woman, babies, children, teens, adults, elders, immortal. Bodytypes; fat, skinny, buff, synthetic, mechanical, genetically engineered. Disabilities; futuristic wheelchairs, prosthetic limbs, implants, exoskeletons, synthetic organs, drug dependence, mental illness. Races, animals, plants, robots, drones, holograms, artificial intelligence..

The more variety the better.
 
Yes, people with disabilities will be present in Cyberpunk 2077, but I'm afraid that at this point I cannot get into more details.
So ... in the world of CP2077 is being stupid considered a disability or merely an example of why Corp control is good for us?
 
Top Bottom