Endings are Mass Effect all over again, my hope is now on PL and mods

[gogman54321]

I'm probably a little late to this but I just finished it now for the first time, so straight to my main issue: Why do Sci-Fi writers seem to have this weird fascination with killing off the main character, bringing them back to life only to kill them off again?

Writing about both games now (Mass Effect, Cyberpunk 2077), by the time the ending comes around, I'm hundreds of hours in, have made a thousand choices big and small, but I don't get to save my own player characters life. This is most frustrating to me, because to me, there is no point to anything if my character dies in the end. Perhaps the only exception to this would be if my character could decide to give his own life for the greater good, which is not what happens here because both Shepard and V die, no matter what. You'd think that after hundreds of missions or gigs they'd deserve to at least stay alive, but no.

You might say: "But surely V gets to live on for another six months and in that time, he could figure something out that saves him.". That just doesn't cut it for me. The way it is presented, the chances that V somehow finds a cure seems like 0.00001%.

You also might say: "But get they get to live on,..", "in Cyberspace (CP), or as an AI (ME). This is also unsatisfying for me. I want my character to live , in the real word, in his own body.

A few more things that bug me about the endings (but not nearly as much as the killing off of the main character.):

• How V spends the remaining 6 months seems decided arbitrarily, especially in relation to V's love interest. Why, if Silverhand is given control for the final mission, does V stubbornly stay in NC, even if Judy, Panam move on? This is disappointing for players who value the romantic relationship and it is unforeseeable for the player. On the other hand, for players who want to stay in NC, stay a merc, they will be disappointed if V leaves with the Aldecaldos. This consequence (of doing the mission himself, without Silverhand) is also unforeseeable for the player in my opinion.
  The choice, who does the final mission (V or Silverhand) should have no impact on what V decides to do afterwards or the impact should be foreseeable for the player. Why can't V let Silverhand do the final mission but then leave with Panam or the other way around, do the final mission with Panam but then decide to stay in NC?
• The Arasaka ending is unnecessarily and illogically punishing and it seems that the game punishes the player for getting the 'bad' ending more than what the facts that the story sets up, would require. Logically, by the framework that the story sets up, V should be able to make a deal with Arasaka, refuse to upload to Mikoshi and then leave with Panam/Judy. There is no logical reason or explanation as to why this couldn't happen.
• Likewise, there is no reason for Silverhand to die (as far as you can consider a construct to be alive) during the Arasaka ending. V could have easily negotiated with Hanako that Silverhand be allowed to join Alt in cyberspace and made that a part of the deal or that a new body be found for him. It just feels like more needles punishment for choosing the "wrong" ending.

How I would have done it (don't know if that'd be better, I'm not a writer):

• Arasaka ending: Right after the board is convinced that the old guy is back, Hanako dies during the shootout. V still goes on to take out Yorinobu, but with Hanako dead, the old guy reneges on the deal and V dies. In this version, V might get to destroy/kill the old guy's construct in rage, but it turns out it was in vain because Arasaka had a backup of it. This would be the "bad" ending but at least war between Militech and Arasaka is averted and Rogue/Panam are alive..
• All the other endings: When V enters Mikoshi, Alt is attacked by a 'quarantine' protocol, by ICE or netrunners, something like that. She barely has time to do one thing: Either save V/Silverhand or destroy Mikoshi but she can't do both. The choice is V's or Silverhand's, whoever is in charge. If V destroys Mikoshi (blaze of glory ending), he'll die after 6 months, if he saves himself, he'll live.
• For the epilogue, whether V joins their love interest or becomes a 'legend of the Afterlife' in NC, would be up to the player.

Since the above is mostly negative, allow me to put things into perspective: CP is an absolutely great game as a whole and I hate the fact that I allowed myself to be dissuaded by reviews for so long and that I only now played it for the first time. The main theme among the negative reviews is that even if they fixed all the bugs, it still wouldn't be a good game because the story, because blahblabla. It is just not true. To me, CP is on the level with Mass Effect, but CP looks much better.

In Mass Effect, the ending is fixed by a mod. Haven't seen one for CP though but in PL they'll add another ending. I sure hope V gets to live in that one.

What about you? Do you care if the player character dies in the end? Or do you consider being 'in cyberspace' as being alive?

 

[LeKill3rFou]

Perhaps the only exception to this would be if my character could decide to give his own life for the greater good, which is not what happens here because both Shepard and V die, no matter what.

Not the case for V, but about Shepard I have to disagree... Shepard give his life to save the galaxy (if you don't consider saving the galaxy as a greater good, well not sure what to say^^)

Likewise, there is no reason for Silverhand to die (as far as you can consider a construct to be alive) during the Arasaka ending. V could have easily negotiated with Hanako that Silverhand be allowed to join Alt in cyberspace and made that a part of the deal or that a new body be found for him. It just feels like more needles punishment for choosing the "wrong" ending.

Well, this ending is not named "the Devil" ending. And the Arasaka's don't care about V and even less about Johnny. Saburo take his son body without any remorse, so about a poor merc and an "arasaka enemi"...

Anyway, I assume (maybe I'm wrong) you'll play Phantom Liberty, expansion which apparently will add another ending, maybe better for you (not sure how "happy" it will be, Cyberpunk tend to have bittersweet endings, but who know).

 

[jeffaubin24]

I couldn't disagree more, honestly. Mass Effect was a game all about being the hero and trying to save as many people as you can, deciding whether you're a good person or not, and how that affects the world around you. It made sense, with the lore and the themes explored by the game, to have an ending that was satisfying and allowed everyone to live happily ever after. The fact that Bioware didn't offer an ending like is the reason the endings were so disappointing.

Cyberpunk 2077 is a very, very different game. You are not a hero, and the world influences you a lot more than you influence it. Cyberpunk isn't about whether you can change the world or not, or about whether you're a do-gooder who makes things better and saves people or an asshole who ruins the lives of the people around him. Ultimately, Cyberpunk is mostly about free will in a city that will do everything to strip that away from you. Managing to go out on your own terms is enough of an accomplishment on its own, having a happy ending is pushing it too far and being unrealistic.

Having an ending where V gets the chip out, lives happily ever after and leaves everyone satisfied would've ruined the game in my opinion. It would've shown the devs didn't really understand the genre. I know it sucks to say, but if you want satisfactory endings that leave everyone happy, stay away from the Cyberpunk genre. It just doesn't fit.

 

[SpookyFX]

Having an ending where V gets the chip out, lives happily ever after and leaves everyone satisfied would've ruined the game in my opinion. It would've shown the devs didn't really understand the genre. I know it sucks to say, but if you want satisfactory endings that leave everyone happy, stay away from the Cyberpunk genre. It just doesn't fit.

I mostly agree that Cyberpunk genre is laser focused on the dystopia and struggle of the people's "lowlife and high tech". But even Horror movie genre sometimes have happy endings. There is room in the Genre for almost "everyone" as long as it is written and executed well.

 

[AikoHayashi]

I mostly agree that Cyberpunk genre is laser focused on the dystopia and struggle of the people's "lowlife and high tech". But even Horror movie genre sometimes have happy endings. There is room in the Genre for almost "everyone" as long as it is written and executed well.

indeed, I'm a huge fan of the cyberpunk genre, that's why I decided to play the game. From my experience, in this genre is not mandatory to kill the protagonist to make the story good. I guess nobody expects "they all lived happily forever", but more diverse outcomes would be great like V can find a real cure, but in exchange for something else. I hope that PL will offer something better.

 

[gogman54321]

Not the case for V, but about Shepard I have to disagree... Shepard give his life to save the galaxy (if you don't consider saving the galaxy as a greater good, well not sure what to say^^)

This is true but it is not a player choice. The choice is only between letting the bad guys (Reapers) win and die or to sacrifice themselves for the greater good (all other endings) and die. (Setting aside the rewritten Legendary Edition ending in which Shepard appears to be alive if a 'perfect' destroy ending is achieved.)

Anyway, I assume (maybe I'm wrong) you'll play Phantom Liberty, expansion which apparently will add another ending, maybe better for you (not sure how "happy" it will be, Cyberpunk tend to have bittersweet endings, but who know).

I will laugh (or cry?) if V dies in that ending too. But yes, I have pre-ordered it.

Having an ending where V gets the chip out, lives happily ever after and leaves everyone satisfied would've ruined the game in my opinion. It would've shown the devs didn't really understand the genre. I know it sucks to say, but if you want satisfactory endings that leave everyone happy, stay away from the Cyberpunk genre. It just doesn't fit.

I agree that an all around happy ending, in which everybody is saved and the bad guys are beaten, would not be fitting, given that everything is really depressing if you walk around in NC with your eyes open. But, I don't think it would ruin the game if in one of the endings, V would get to live (long term, not just six months, in a real body, in the real world). I would be okay with having to make sacrifices in order to live. The way I suggested it above, Panam or Rogue would still be dead, and Mikoshi is not destroyed. I can think of plenty of options

V lives but

• Silverhand dies
• or the love interest/friend dies (Panam, Judy, etc.)
• or Mikoshi is not destroyed
• or Yorinobu stays in charge and starts a world war between Arasaka and Militech
• or even a combination of those things.

Would that ruin the game?

 

[pliskards]

I thought the endings were fine.

I do think they should have included a 'good ending' given people's preferences and what they lean into with games. Most people like playing the good guy who triumphs, not the morally gray person that dies.

But I can also respect they were going for a 'grim future' and 'even if you win, you don't really win' type of message.

 

[jeffaubin24]

Yeah, an ending where V lives but something terrible happens could work. Although, in my opinion, it would have to be something that has lingering negative effects after the end. Someone dying during the final mission wouldn't really be enough, but maybe something like V accepting to send Silverhand back into Mikoshi or something like that. Something that still leaves you with a certain feeling of dread after it all ends.

Still, I'm not sure CDPR is gonna go for that. I feel like they've purposefully tried to make us feel like the story, and the game in general, wasn't about V at all. Starting with the fact they simply call him or her V instead of a full name, which makes the character more of a blank canvass. I don't think you're supposed to get attached to V as much as most players do, which is a testament to the great voice acting.

In any case, even if V lives, I don't think they should be back in the sequel.

 

[Bartinga2077]

V lives but

• Silverhand dies

Would that ruin the game?

You really want me to answer that?

 

[AvarageEnjoyer]

I know it sucks to say, but if you want satisfactory endings that leave everyone happy, stay away from the Cyberpunk genre. It just doesn't fit.

Hard disagree.
Neuromancer has a happy ending.
Johnny Mnemonic has a happy ending.
Ghost in the Shell has a some-what happy ending.
Altered Carbon has a happy ending.
Robocop has a happy ending.
So it's not exactly a genre requirement.

 

[AlienSpaceBats]

Hard disagree.
Neuromancer has a happy ending.
Johnny Mnemonic has a happy ending.
Ghost in the Shell has a some-what happy ending.
Altered Carbon has a happy ending.
Robocop has a happy ending.
So it's not exactly a genre requirement.

I'd love to know what Cyberpunk stuff people are familiar with where the outcome of the story is the death of the protagonist, I see this opinion everywhere and it's like it's parroting - because it rarely does. If anything, transcendence and transformation are stronger themes, and often bittersweet (Ghost in the Shell, Akira, Robocop) and from what I remember most William Gibson books have reasonably happy endings too.

Lack of a transformation/merge ending in CP2077 is about my only complaint with the story because the pieces are all there to make it work.

 

[wright1978]

I'm not sure i'd liken it quite to ME3. The issues seem rather different. I do think endings are bad

i'm very much not a fan of the spend the entire game trying to save yourself only for the ending to go, gotcha you fail!
My even bigger issue is the way the endings are structured and the lack of choice. You make a rooftop mission choice and you get a railroaded epilogue that can feel completely at odds with your choices over hundreds of hours. (Sun ending in particular for me) If you are going to pull a gotcha you are dying anyway surely i should be given some say in how V spends their remaining time not get a here's idiot and how who he/she has decided to be.

 

[0248991]

A few more things that bug me about the endings

How I would have done it

Hey,
I think that CDPR endings represent more of a general state of things, like a whole path V decided to walk.
More of full-blown standalone endings, with all the good and all the bad.

Meaning that if V joins the nomads, they will get to the tower and leave together - that's how they operate.
And if V decides to attack alone, it's really an all-in move - either (s)he will kill everyone and jack in, or get killed and die.

I think that your endings are against some of the themes of the game.
You can't defeat corpos without becoming one of them, and you can't be an all-powerful nomad.


That's why Panam or Judy leave V in the "best merc" ending, even if all of them are alive. It's just not where they wanna be.

 

[jeffaubin24]

Hard disagree.
Neuromancer has a happy ending.
Johnny Mnemonic has a happy ending.
Ghost in the Shell has a some-what happy ending.
Altered Carbon has a happy ending.
Robocop has a happy ending.
So it's not exactly a genre requirement.

I haven't seen some of those, but for those that I have, I definitely wouldn't say they have classic happy endings.

Neuromancer has a somewhat unclear and open-ended ending. I would even say some aspects of it are rather depressing. His real happy ending seems to be nothing but a simulation while his real word is still pretty bleak. However, he does get his central nervous system back, and gets rid of the poison, thus getting his free will back. That's what makes it a "happy" ending.

Ghost in the Shell is a special case. To me, it isn't really a story so much as a philosophical question in the form of a story. It gets us to think about that question, but ultimately doesn't answer it. I find the ending to be rather neutral : The central goal was achieved, but we have no idea whether the merger ends up being positive or not. It is very open-ended, and definitely not a "happy" ending in my opinion.

As for Altered Carbon, it also had a bittersweet ending. While I haven't read or seen Johnny Mnemonic, I think they have similar endings in the sense that they end with a sense of hope, while still letting you know that nothing is really fixed. You just have the chance to actually fix it now. As for the show, it didn't even an ending since it got cancelled. While Season 2 does end on a happy note, it was also a pretty horrible season which threw out pretty much all the themes of Season 1 and the books. I would say it is almost a non-cyberpunk story in a cyberpunk world.

In any case, the common denominator between pretty much all of these is the fight for free will. That's what these characters of fighting for, and V's fight is probably easiest to compare with Case in Neuromancer. Hell, even Escape From New York, which PL seems to be inspired from, has a character with a bomb in his head fighting to regain his free will. At the end of the day, I think that's what the game is about. For that reason, the Nomad ending, where you got the chip out, you took down Mikoshi and you get to live with your new family for a few months, is pretty much a "happy" ending as far as I'm concerned. Johnny did what he had to do. V did what they had to do. They both got to go out on their own terms while sending a big, fat f*ck you to those who put them in that situation in the first place. That is as good an ending as you get in Night City.

I'm not trying to say that Cyberpunk can only have bad or depressing endings, not at all. It just doesn't have fairytale endings, and V riding off into the sunset with his girlfriend and her big, happy family while having achieved everything he wanted to, is pretty much a fairytale ending. Having V live longer would also undermine what the story was about. It wasn't about saving V's life. It never was. It was about regaining V's free will.

 

[wright1978]

A few more things that bug me about the endings (but not nearly as much as the killing off of the main character.):

• How V spends the remaining 6 months seems decided arbitrarily, especially in relation to V's love interest. Why, if Silverhand is given control for the final mission, does V stubbornly stay in NC, even if Judy, Panam move on? This is disappointing for players who value the romantic relationship and it is unforeseeable for the player. On the other hand, for players who want to stay in NC, stay a merc, they will be disappointed if V leaves with the Aldecaldos. This consequence (of doing the mission himself, without Silverhand) is also unforeseeable for the player in my opinion.
  The choice, who does the final mission (V or Silverhand) should have no impact on what V decides to do afterwards or the impact should be foreseeable for the player. Why can't V let Silverhand do the final mission but then leave with Panam or the other way around, do the final mission with Panam but then decide to stay in NC?
• The Arasaka ending is unnecessarily and illogically punishing and it seems that the game punishes the player for getting the 'bad' ending more than what the facts that the story sets up, would require. Logically, by the framework that the story sets up, V should be able to make a deal with Arasaka, refuse to upload to Mikoshi and then leave with Panam/Judy. There is no logical reason or explanation as to why this couldn't happen.
• Likewise, there is no reason for Silverhand to die (as far as you can consider a construct to be alive) during the Arasaka ending. V could have easily negotiated with Hanako that Silverhand be allowed to join Alt in cyberspace and made that a part of the deal or that a new body be found for him. It just feels like more needles punishment for choosing the "wrong" ending.

...

In Mass Effect, the ending is fixed by a mod. Haven't seen one for CP though but in PL they'll add another ending. I sure hope V gets to live in that one.

What about you? Do you care if the player character dies in the end? Or do you consider being 'in cyberspace' as being alive?

For me the devil/arasaka ending is the obvious one for me where V should have survived but suffered consequences for selling out. Instead its more of a 'Nelson from the simpsons type of thing'

Personally for me i'm the opposite way round the fact that the player gets no proper say in how V spends the 6 months is the huge elephant in the room while the 6 month thing is very much something that bugs me.
If its all supposed to be about free will and how you live rather than survival why are so committed to shoehorned railroaded epilogues based off a who do you want to take with you in a fight.

As for the expansion i hope it offers an ending with more personal choice, that would make me want to go back in and play the game again. At the very least a non nomad ending where you can priortise the people you care about over being forced to become the afterlife bum.

 

[AvarageEnjoyer]

Having V live longer would also undermine what the story was about. It wasn't about saving V's life. It never was. It was about regaining V's free will.

That's definitely an interesting perspective, but the one with which I can't really agree, because:
1) The story is definitely about saving V's life. In the same way that LotR story is about defeating Sauron - sure, that isn't the sole theme or idea of that narrative, but it is the core conflict, around which everything revolves. So, unless we dabble in metaphysics, the key premise of the game is saving V, which largely remains unresolved as of now;
2) If we decide to dabble in metaphysics, the concept of "good ending" from the "search of free will" perspective become obsolete. V can't regain free will, because V never lost it in the first place. V putting bullet to their own head is as much of an expression of free will as riding into the sunset with nomads after blowing up Mikoshi. One can argue that giving yourself to Arasaka is also an act of free will. Hell, one can argue that the moment V said "I gotta do something about my condition", they won the battle for their free will.
Unless we define free will as an ability to choose the most lucrative outcome, which brings us back to "saving V's life" narrative in which case the game's endings, as of right now, are unclear and open-ended, in cases where they aren't simply of "pick your poison" variety.

 

[koalahugs]

StudioBinder does an excellent job of explaining what they think tends to work with audiences in terms of endings (this vid is about denouement specifically - the bit right after a climax - but it's applicable to endings generally I think).

They suggst 3 things often happen to make audiences really satisfied, but they're not necessary and it's one of those things you judge on a case by case basis. Those 3 things tend to be:

1. Conclude the main conflict
2. Provide resolution
3. Resonate the theme

That being said, you can do all 3 and audiences might still hate your film, conversely you can leave some of those things ambiguous and still have a mostly satisfied audience. All a bit subjective really.

Still, though, as a reflection exercise I think it's useful to consider when looking at why an ending was controversial or successful.

Some examples:

Mass Effect 3:
1. Concluded main conflict ✓
2. Lacked character resolution ✗
3. Resonated the theme ✓

Lacking character resolution isn't necessarily a bad thing depending on the story, but in the case of ME, that was always going to be a very hard thing to justify. The characters are what we were emotionally invested in, after hundreds of hours of conversations.

Avengers Endgame:
1. Concluded main conflict ✓
2. Provided character resolution ✓
3. Resonated the theme ✓

I included this example because I feel like too much of the discussion around this tends to get tunnel visioned on whether or not the protagonist lives or dies, without putting this into context and considering whether or not the ending stuck the landing, narratively speaking. Endgame overwhelmingly satisfied most audiences. It concluded the main conflict ✓, it resonated the theme ✓, and it provided character resolution ✓ (especially in the epilogue, giving substantial scenes for surviving characters to grieve, reflect, look forward, etc.).
If Mass Effect's ending focussed more on the characters, instead of a voice-over about the galaxy at large, it probably would've landed far, far better IMO.

In the case of Cyberpunk 2077 though, the protagonist's survival is intrinsicly tied to the main conflict of the story.

Each ending handles things differently:

Star Ending:
1. Didn't conclude main conflict ✗
2. Ambiguous character resolution ✗/✓
3. Resonated theme about family and hope? ✓

The conflict isn't concluded here because V's objective hasn't changed; only the obstacle has - the conflict is effectively ongoing.
There's resolution in the sense that she's with family now, but she lacks resolution regarding her actual problem, which most of the game focusses on.
The theme they choose to resonate is family and hope, but does that fit with 1 and 2? It feels a bit muddled on what they were trying to do here. If V had actually succeeded in curing her problem then this ending would've felt a lot more organic. She would actually have hope and she would actually be able to focus on being with family. It's my canon ending, but it feels a bit incongruent with itself.

Sun Ending:
1. Didn't conclude main conflict ✗
2. Ambiguous character resolution ✗/✓
3. Resonated theme about being a legend? Quest for immortality? Surviving against all odds? ?

This also felt a bit confused. The whole reason she goes to space is because she'd "do anything for even a slim chance of survival" (Mr Blue Eyes' words), and she's got "nothing more to gain but nothing left to lose" (her words). So she's not doing it to be a legend then? She's still just trying to get a cure? But thematically, the whole vibe is, "she's a legend now". So which is it then? I can't tell if they're trying to end the story on that note, or if they're saying, "to be continued".
It's maybe a good ending for players who opted to play the version of V who was obsessed with becoming a legend; but it didn't quite work for players like me who played the opposite version of V who was openly critical of that idea and was just trying to survive and be free and not let NC beat her.

Devil Ending:
1. Didn't conclude main conflict ✗
2. Ambiguous character resolution ✗/✓
3. Resonated the whole Icarus theme? ✓

THIS ONE IS INTERESTING. I actually think this ending is one of the few that actually worked ✓. Why? The theme; you flew too close to the sun and you got burned. This is the most Black Mirror ending out of the lot. That theme JUSTIFIES not concluding the main conflict. The resolution is a little clearer if you chose to go back to Earth because we get the sense that V recognises that she fucked up. If you chose Mikoshi, it's a little more vague... but again, it fits anyway. She's effectively chosen purgatory, and the whole point of purgatory is that you're stuck in limbo.
So this ending is a really good example of not doing all 3 things, but having a logical justification for it. A solid ending IMO, but definitely not my canon one, more of a cool bonus really.

Temperence Ending:
1. Concludes main conflict ✓
2. Strong character resolution for Johnny albeit ambiguous resolution for V ✓ / ?
3. Resonated redemption? ✓

This one basically ticks all the boxes, but it's a bit of a weird one simply because it's so focussed on Johnny instead of the protagonist. I do wonder if players of the tabletop click with this ending more. But for players like me who have played this game in isolation, this ending really just feels like a "bonus" ending more than anything else. BTW, it's also worth noting it's the one ending where V survives, but it's a phyrric victory.

Path of Least Resistance Ending:
1. Concludes main conflict ✓
2. Provides character resolution but I'm not sure it makes sense ?
3. Resonated Fatalism? Corpos always win? I'm honestly not sure ?

The problem I have with this is that, although I understand V not wanting anyone she cares about to get hurt, I don't understand why the idea of going solo doesn't pop up. To me this whole scene is just so out of character for both of them and just felt far too easy and lacking in conflict. Gets a shrug from me.

Anyway, if we get another ending where V actually survives, I just hope it'll be a satisfying ending above all else. I still have a feeling that V's story will continue in Orion in some form though. In any case I do think V deserves an ending where she survives and gets her life back, simply because why spend all of that time focussing on trying to do that?

EDIT: another thing that I think is worth bearing in mind is what themes in the game are most important to you? I think for me, survival, family, and hope, are the main ones - so V surviving, with those themes resonant, would probably be the ending that makes the most sense.

 

[jeffaubin24]

That's definitely an interesting perspective, but the one with which I can't really agree, because:
1) The story is definitely about saving V's life. In the same way that LotR story is about defeating Sauron - sure, that isn't the sole theme or idea of that narrative, but it is the core conflict, around which everything revolves. So, unless we dabble in metaphysics, the key premise of the game is saving V, which largely remains unresolved as of now;
2) If we decide to dabble in metaphysics, the concept of "good ending" from the "search of free will" perspective become obsolete. V can't regain free will, because V never lost it in the first place. V putting bullet to their own head is as much of an expression of free will as riding into the sunset with nomads after blowing up Mikoshi. One can argue that giving yourself to Arasaka is also an act of free will. Hell, one can argue that the moment V said "I gotta do something about my condition", they won the battle for their free will.
Unless we define free will as an ability to choose the most lucrative outcome, which brings us back to "saving V's life" narrative in which case the game's endings, as of right now, are unclear and open-ended, in cases where they aren't simply of "pick your poison" variety

Technically, the chip never kills you. It just slowly overwrites the brain so that Johnny's personality takes over. V's consciousness would remain, as you need to manually remove it like Alt does in the Temperance ending. V simply wouldn't have any control over what would be happening, and they would have lost their identity.

Of course, you could argue this is the same as dying. I would agree. But to me, this puts emphasis on the fact that V isn't fighting for their survival, but rather to stay themselves, to not be overwritten by lines of code that will completely change who they are. In other words, V wants to conserve their free will.

As for your second point, what I like about the Cyberpunk genre is the questions it poses about free will. And when you look at the works done in that genre, you understand that it is far from a black and white issue. Just because you can choose to do something, doesn't necessarily mean you have fee will. For example, if I lock you into a room with a gun, you can choose to shoot yourself or starve to death, but that doesn't mean you have free will. Cyberpunk likes to toy with the idea that a society where big corporations have access to pretty much every part of your life, you can be stripped away from your free will without even realizing it. You become brainwashed, and take the decisions the corpos want you to take. Free will becomes nothing more than an illusion.

Another common thing in the Cyberpunk genre is not actually answering the questions it raises about free will. I don't think Cyberpunk 2077 answers them either. As you said, any of the endings could be argued to be the result of free will. However, for me, this further proves the point that the story isn't about survival. Other than the suicide ending, every ending has V surviving. The differences about the endings aren't if V survives, it's how. If you live on as an AI, is it still you? Do you still have the same control over your actions? What about storing your engram in Arasaka's database? Are you really choosing this, or are you just falling prey to the schemes of the evil corporation? Is the only way to truly get your free will back to rip Johnn'ys consciousness from the chip, knowing that only gives you 6 months to live? We don't know the answers to any of these, and that's what makes it interesting for me.

Of course, I do believe V has lost their free will in the first place, or at least they are losing it. Their personality is being overwritten, which means V can never be sure if their choices are actually the result of free will or just the chip tipping the scales in one direction. This is especially apparent for me in the conversation with the doll.

 

[Rawls]

Why do Sci-Fi writers seem to have this weird fascination with killing off the main character, bringing them back to life only to kill them off again?

Well in the case of both Mass Effect and Cyberpunk specifically, it has mostly to do with the themes of the game.

Mass Effect 3 is all about sacrifice for the greater good. Shepard can save the entire galaxy in a number of different ways (but Control is super anti-thematic plus a little crazy and Synthesis and Destroy both have differing significant ethical considerations).

Cyberpunk is all about how "freedom" in this world is all just an illusion, and in the end the Corporations always win. Summarizing myself from long ago:

I really liked the themes of the game. It is (in my opinion) a rumination on consciousness, one's place in the world, and mortality / immortality ... with lots of thematic flavors involving class/corporate exploitation, and a cynical view of transhumanism. Quoting myself from a few other places:

Spoiler: SPOILERS

The original sin in the main plot is Saburo Arasaka wanting to essentially become immortal. That idea of "beating" death is literally his impulse the game is (in part) critiquing. The idea that when we try to play God and transcend mortality, it all goes awry. I think it's unlikely to be a coincidence that the one ending where V tries to survive at all cost by trusting Arasaka is - I think - by and large considered a less favorable ending for V. Acceptance of mortality is a healthy thing, even in video games. No matter what V does, her body can't live forever.

Making the player deal with that and still choose how to proceed knowing death (in some shape or form) is coming soon - that's very interesting to me. Not something that video games do a lot. Her death doesn't make the things V has done any less impactful. The protagonist doesn't have to survive for there to be meaning in the things they did and the story that's been told.

________________________________________________________________________________

It's more than that it's about the themes of the game. Yes it's part that life of an Edgerunner is inherently dangerous. However, more so it's:

(1) Obtaining every material thing you could want (glamour, sex, entertainment, mystery, neon lights, fashion, delicious synthetic food, easy money, adventure, weapons of all types, fame etc) is the allure that draws one into the city;
(2) Night City thrives makes this promise because those in power have realized they can exploit the masses by promising them whatever they want;
(3) So the powerful give the masses this, and in exchange they get a city where it's almost impossible for the most powerful to lose - here those with the power make the rules, a make the rules to benefit those with the power;
(4) One of the few benefits of this unregulated din of appealing to our every whim is that it has become a city of real innovations, meaning lots of progress in the way of cyberware, AI and etc;
(5) However, those enhancements haven't really made anyone's life better, people problems are all still there, and really if Cyberware has done anything, it's just amplified our foibles.

Said by me in another thread long before launch about the themes the game will explore:

By the time we get to 2077, MegaCorps manage every aspect of life from the top floors of their sky-scraping fortresses. The gangs rule the rest. The world of Cyberpunk 2077 presents a grim vision of the future. It's trying to say something about who has power and who doesn't, and why that is. In the world of Cyberpunk, it's the corporations in charge with everybody else scrounging to get by on the streets. It didn’t just happen overnight. It was the slow corruption of society, and now there’s a system to keep it in place. You have people that believe they should be the people at the top. The structures in place don’t allow true freedom, you’re just a slave of another kind. This world is a shining example of consumerism run rampant. No matter where you look, you’re pitched a product, an aspiration. Whether you’re riding the metro, brushing your teeth, or pissing in an alleyway, the glitter, vibrant color, and allure of it all sucks you in. Corporations are selling an unattainable dream and the masses are buying into it hook, line, and sinker. If you don’t think you’re one of the people that’s going to wind up on top, there is a seductive energy living on the streets still so rippling with texture and life.

There's also a cynical take on transhumanism. Technology did not liberate the people of Night City from their flesh, their foibles, or their failings. Tech advancement went hand in hand with the decay of society. Body augmentations invented to serve society simply multiplied the problems, and sometimes lead to mayhem on the streets. New inventions led to addictions, and poverty became an ever growing problem. Drugs, violence, and exclusion haven’t disappeared by 2077, as people stayed as they were for centuries – greedy, closed-minded and weak. The world is broken. Down here, where the streets are run by the drug-pushing gangs, tech hustlers, and illegal braindance slingers, is where decadence, sex and pop culture mix with violent crime, extreme poverty and the unattainable promise of the American Dream. It's this place were high tech and low life meet, that's the feel of Cyberpunk.

That's not a world where an Edgerunner who crossed a megacorp like Arasaka gets to make it away happily ever after. It's an unattainable promise after all.

__________________________________________________________________________________

Regardless of V's choices, the end definitely has a story to tell. "Star" is realizing that the whole story the corporations are selling about the rat race and "becoming someone" is a lie being fed to the masses to keep the powerful wealthy. It's opting out of the rat race in exchange for a community and contentment. The "glory" ending sees V trying to continue to make it within that world, which shows grit, but seems unlikely to be successful in the long run for much more than raising some hell and making a name for oneself. The "devil" ending sees V trust the corporation - which does have the greatest chance at achieving some semblance of digitized immortality ... but at what cost ethically and metaphysically? The "Temperance" ending is somewhat like "Star," V again realizes that the allure is a lie, but in this one, gives her body to Johnny to do what he would with it and she opts out into Cyberspace with Alt. However that's a lonelier path than the Star by a wide margin.

Those are some pretty cool concepts for a video game to be exploring.

While the endings of both the games are disfavored by many in their communities, I think they're both highly underrated personally and stay true to the themes present in the games. Then again, Mass Effect 3 is a top 5 game for me personally, and Cyberpunk 2077 is also very good - though not in the top 10.

 

[AvarageEnjoyer]

Technically, the chip never kills you. It just slowly overwrites the brain so that Johnny's personality takes over. V's consciousness would remain, as you need to manually remove it like Alt does in the Temperance ending. V simply wouldn't have any control over what would be happening, and they would have lost their identity.

It's an interesting perspective, but again, it goes against the in-game presentation. Silverhand's takeover isn't subtle, at no point in the game there is a real conflict of who is in charge between him and V (which is a huge shame and it can be a very interesting angle to explore), where one ends and another starts. Instead, the takeover is presented with physical symptoms of a disease - V gets headaches, seizures, cough. All of this evokes a physical reaction with a clear natural conclusion - V is hurt, V is in physical agony, something is destroying them and it needs to be stopped quickly.
In other words, it's hard to frame it as a fight for abstract concepts, when everything is grounding it in a physical reality. Again, you can say that fighting for survival is equivalent of fighting for free will, but in that case to maintain one you absolutely need to maintain the other, to maintain free will you need to survive, otherwise you have a gun in a locked room example.

@koalahugs has put it much more elegantly and eloquently then me, so I'll try to reframe it using a different example.

Imagine The Lion King, that ends with Simba never leaving Timon and Pumba and staying in their jungle. You can argue that it would thematically reflect the failure of living up to your parents expectations, of choosing your own destiny, of ending the cycle of violence and brining harmony to one's life - all of this is present in some form in the move as is, but such a conclusion would be a pretty bad one, because it would rob viewers of the proper resolution to the story. The story, that is about a young prince overcoming his grief and insecurity, overthrowing a traitorous tyrant and becoming an honorable ruler his people so desperately need. Same can apply here. You can say that CP 2077 is about V's attempts at finding their place in the world, finding inner peace, overcoming grief, fighting for free will, etc. - but the core narrative is till slightly different.