- Status
"You can choose how you behave" (9:38)
Unless "V would not do that" of course.
"V is a Mercenary so that is the point of the character: to make money, to buy the gear." (11:16)
"Cyberpunk is a genre where the character does not have to or want to save the world" (15:24)
"So, the character does not have high flying goals, does not want to be a hero." (15:38)
Nothing new here, just confirmation that V definitely is a defined, third person character.
"You are small fries that tries not to drown" (16:00)
C2077 definition of small fries:
"We don't want to offend anyone. And not sugarcoat anything" (21:47)
Ain't possible, it's either one or the other.
Unless "V would not do that" of course.
"V is a Mercenary so that is the point of the character: to make money, to buy the gear." (11:16)
"Cyberpunk is a genre where the character does not have to or want to save the world" (15:24)
"So, the character does not have high flying goals, does not want to be a hero." (15:38)
Nothing new here, just confirmation that V definitely is a defined, third person character.
"You are small fries that tries not to drown" (16:00)
C2077 definition of small fries:
"We don't want to offend anyone. And not sugarcoat anything" (21:47)
Ain't possible, it's either one or the other.
"We don't want to offend anyone. And not sugarcoat anything": "We might use slurs, like the N-word and the F-word, but not for edginess." That's how I'd interpret it.
Yep. They will do things that create a great story and sustained, believable world setting. In the real world, never mind a darker version of it, ugly things happen to good people and mean words are said in earnest.
It means they are willing to risk offending people in pursuit of their story, but it is absolutely not the goal, and it's not meant to do so.
That's not accurate. You're embracing hyperbole and closing your mind to anything that doesn't fit your view.
There are limits to what V will and won't do and can and can't be. Like every other story ever. You can't be or do whatever you want in Bloodlines, in Torment, in GTA, in Saint's Row, in anything. In any PnP, up to and including the crazy open options of games like Nobilis which don't even have dice, you have limits and will do/won't do.
Some of those limits you establish yourself, within the wider system and world limits. Other limits are hard limits built in by the designers.
I have no idea what you thought Cyberpunk 2077 was going to be, or what you hope to possibly accomplish, especially at this late date, by railing on and on about things that are not going to change and that were never ever going to be what you wanted? Some kind of RPG where you can play the Role you create, without limits and wholly defined by you, mostly unaffected by the creator or Ref or other players?
That's in no way like Cyberpunk 2020, which of course is much more open, (Or less, actually, depending on the Ref) than any CRPG is going to be.
This doesn't seem to be the game for you, nor was it ever likely to be that game. Your purpose here is unclear to me.
It rare to see you this frustrated. I don’t believe even I have been able to agitate you this much.
Take it easy. Better days ahead.
Actually, there is a difference to me about a character being unable to do something just because there is no script for it in the game and a character being unable to do something because he don't want to.
And dev' clearly and repeatedly used V's preference as a justification for ingame action limitations and other things.
And in a game which tries (as C2077 is still a step in the right direction when it comes to roleplay possibilities) to let the player create his own character there is one hard limit not to cross to not autofail about that: what's inside the character's mind, how he feels and what he wants.
Without that it's not my character, it's the dev' one, hence my "defined, third person character": because he thinks and wants all by himself.
Last edited:
Seriously?
So you would be fine with not being able to become a hero or whatever if it was simply due to in-game limitations ("there is no script for it in the game"), but because the developers wanted to justify it in a way that would be more than just a simple "we're not letting you do that" and that also underlines roleplaying it's not acceptable?
That makes no sense. It's the same thing either way: you cannot do X because the game does not let you. How the developers present that is entirely irrelevant -- and in this case I daresay many people (would) appreciate the "in-character" reason.
You're making a mountain out of a molehill even disregarding the above. A few statements in no way form the full picture.
V has always been stated to be a mercenary, so that one isn't even anything new.
Totally.
After all even if one "wants" to become an hero doesn't mean he will forcibly have the opportunity.
Actually I agree with you, but I would agree with you too if you said to me that action adventure/light RPG is a more popular genre than roleplay heavy RPG.
What you do isn't forcibly what you are, what you wants or what you feel.
Don't misunderstand me: I still think the game will be great for many reasons (I can make you a list about why if you wants to), just not for it's ability to roleplay a created character.
Last edited:
Not sure what the purpose of this sentence is when I said nothing of the sort. Something existing ("doesn't want to" --> cannot) does not automatically mean the opposite is true. That also makes no sense.
Here you are ignoring the actual point I made, and focusing on the non-important part just to attempt to reinforce your own point (which isn't working).
Also not something I said. I'm seeing a pattern here.
What examples of videogames would you say have done the "My character is totally my own" right?
Like in "I can be whatever I want": None.
Like in "I can choose what's inside my character's head": Quite a lot of C-RPG and even more modern RPG. For example I was able to roleplay someone thinking of herself as a vampire slayer in Fallout 2 without the game or it's dev' telling me I cannot, and even funnier: I was still able to roleplay that same exact character forty years later in Fallout New Vegas, and again the game didn't blocked me to pretend that.
Last edited:
Dammit! I was JUST gonna post that, Gregski!
You see the Cruelty rating? Yikes.
And Pawel's reply:
I need to play that one some day. As far as I know it's the only RPG where your character can be an, ahem, adult film star
I want to see CDPR, Larian or current Bioware dare to put something like that in their games ...Oh wait, "Sexual exploitation", "Intense sexual relation aggravated by scene composition"? ...So, V can actually be a literal adult film star!? Eff yeah!
All joking aside, that's gonna be quite the balancing act, trying to make the game as mature as this rating implies without making it too edgelordy. It seems like tonewise they’re doing the same the did in The Witcher games but dialed a bit up, so perhaps it might not end up being too tasteless.
Last edited:
Amazing. Just amazing. Also, yes.
Although I am intimidated. Cruelty 18+ Suicide 16+...the hell kind of story is this gonna be? Did they think, what, "Bloody Baron. Good. But could be so much darker." ?!
Is it that much different or more extreme than TW3 with regard to those age groups? I don't recall seeing this kind of description for that game.
I don't remember seeing the TW3 rating particulars, but I wouldn't say it was super cruel and suicide-laden. Or at all, particularly. We could look it up though!
Blog about Parental Controls | ESRB Ratings
ESRB publishes blogs and articles to help parents and consumers better understand ratings, parental controls, tools for parents, and more.
www.esrb.org
Yeah nothing about horrible cruelty or suicide or, what's that line "illicit drug consumption and intense sexual relationship was aggravate by scene composition." !!!
Mitigation: Nothing.
Man. We are gonna have SO MANY forbidden images/gifs/videos here and on Discord and Steam. So many.
- Status