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

[jeffaubin24]

I see your point. At the end of the day, the story of Cyberpunk is up to interpretation, and we could both be right. I do find it weird how the dialogue strongly implies the takeover is mental, and then V shows physical symptoms. How would the relic cause a problem in the lungs? Still, I disagree about there not being any conflict between V and Silverhand in terms of who is taking over. It's subtle, and they don't actually point it out, but it can be detected in the dialogue in certain scenes.

For example, in the conversation with the Doll, the doll will say a sentence clearly meant for Silverhand, and then follow it up with one clearly meant for V. The doll is reading parts of both their personalities, and is uncapable of knowing where one ends and the other one begins. V also shares a fear multiple times throughout the game that they aren't sure if the decisions they make are truly theirs. A few lines clearly seem to be inspired by Johnny's personality, but it's hard to tell because they are so intertwined by the end of the game.

While some themes would still be satisfied with this hypothetical Lion King ending, other major themes go completely ignored. First of all, as with your LotR example where the core conflict is defeating Sauron, the core conflict of the Lion King is defeating Scar. Also, the main theme of the movie IMO is Simba not being ready to lead. He can't live to the expectations of his parents, he can't bring harmony and end the violence because he isn't ready to lead. He isn't a lion by accident : Disney centered the movie on Simba's path to becoming a leader. Him never leaving the jungle would go completely against that, and thus would be a disastrous ending that doesn't respect the themes of the movie.

 

[gogman54321]

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

V really is a nobody it seems. I thought, especially towards the end, it would be really helpful if V at least had a nemesis (like Silverhand has Adam Smasher) but I could not think of anybody who could be a nemesis on the bad guy's side. Arasaka doesn't care about V (since they booted him, if corpo). This is weird because he stole their biochip and presumably they'd want it back. Even if they didn't want it back, wouldn't they try to get V just to make a point that one does not steal from Arasaka? Yorinobu does not know who V is. Smasher does not know who V is. They don't even notice V throughout the story.

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!

This is how I feel. And it goes back to what @koalahugs wrote too. It seemed to me the entire point of everything was that V tries to save his life. Only to be told in the end: 'Sorry, wasn't going to happen. Wrong people, wrong city, etc.'

I think, I would have been more content with the endings as they are, if the story had changed the main goal to something else at some point.
Say, early in the story, perhaps this happens: The first time V meets Alt, she tells him: 'You can't save yourself. You are going to die. Sorry. But! You can still help Silverhand, and you can help us get back at Arasaka and you can go out in a blaze of glory. Are you in, or out?'
I suppose, I would have accepted this and wouldn't have been disappointed in the end.

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.

This post is very well thought through. I also think that unlike CP, ME was never about Shepard surviving primarily. Shepard is perhaps irrelevant to the main theme. This is a problem for players like me, who want their guy to live. However, with ME, each ending sucks in its own way, on top of Shepard dying.
Destroy? Yes, but you also have to do a little genocide against the Geth and then kill EDI.
Control? Nope, this was not supposed to happen. Shepard's orders, given by Hacket, are to destroy them, not to appoint himself their leader!
Synthesis: Not even going to talk about that.

With CP, it is the other way around. The endings are mostly okay, except for the fact that V dies in all of them but V's survival for me was the main point of the story not a side show.

 

[jom81518]

I

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.

I think I'm starting to see in a general sense (games tv and film) the specific closure that people want when they say happy ending. Its not necessarily sunshine and roses like the end of an Adam Sandler comedy.

I think its more so people want the main character they sympathize with to be seen rewarded with the fruits of their labor. Bittersweet and sobering high cost victory stories also fit into this rather than having the ultimate price hanging over their head.

Its probably because outside of cyberpunk if we look at other contemporaries RDR2, TLOU2 for etc theres a prevailing sentiment that riding off into the sunset cheapens the grit of these conflict stories, that to fight/die/suffer is the only fitting end for a warrior's story to reconcile the reality of war and as the blunt instrument protagonist has served its purpose.

But I agree that goin out like a champ is just a key part of this genre as its bleakness is just the noir story tradition, just in a high tech setting.

So while not necessarily in cyberpunk but in other gritty fiction, I think the way to satisfy the hopeful consumer and realist consumer demands is to discover a purpose or duty mid story for the protagonist that logically extends beyond the main story. Thus extending their story lifespan by illustrating their utility and hinting at new things on the horizon.

Only problem is if it its good, people treat that as sequel bait rather than a true ending in its own right.

 

[Notserious80]

Well i kinda made this argument after the first time i came to the rooftop. I felt a surge of dread and got ME3 flashbacks even before i started the ending pretty much. Not that i consider the games similar or anything, it was just the same awful feeling as the RGB ending pre patches and DLC that i got. I hate when games gives you a choice of the ending. id rather have my actions up to that point dictate what ending i get.

The RGB endings are way diffrent then playing the end in Cp2077 tho so credit there. Alot in the game is left very unresolved and its just deppresing tho so, yea cyberpunk... i get what they were going for but still, i dont like it.

 

[Fujisteria]

Huh... weird. I don't remember the endings in CP2077 being multicolored...

 

[alittleLowkey]

V really is a nobody it seems. I thought, especially towards the end, it would be really helpful if V at least had a nemesis (like Silverhand has Adam Smasher) but I could not think of anybody who could be a nemesis on the bad guy's side. Arasaka doesn't care about V (since they booted him, if corpo). This is weird because he stole their biochip and presumably they'd want it back. Even if they didn't want it back, wouldn't they try to get V just to make a point that one does not steal from Arasaka? Yorinobu does not know who V is. Smasher does not know who V is. They don't even notice V throughout the story.

Smasher not knowing who V is fits the narrative, and it's also kind of satisfying having someone as legendary and mighty as him going down to an (in his eyes) nobody.

I would however have liked it if others slowly began to realise exactly how tough V is. Like Placide and the VB's should be shitting bricks after V starts moving them down.

 

[chadesh]

As the base game was written the original V will die and nothing could help them, but A copy of V could be saved kinda like lizzy wizzys love interest wanted to do to her. The fact that that quest line was even put in the game is a mega slap in the face to players. (carrot on a stick) that quest and other actual statements in the game show that V could have been saved from the get-go, but CDPR apparently wanted to give what they believe was a proper ending for the cyberpunk world.

There is also a different version of soul killer that don't kill the person being copied. V has the original prototype 2.0 version of the chip which hadn't been completely perfected. Saburo Arasaka has the current version (lets say version 2.5) that he uses on his son to take control of his empire.

Unfortunately to save V you will have to work with arasaka or the NUSA and each has their own issues and draw backs.

But the bottom line is neither has any reason to go above and beyond to save a nobody merc no matter what they have done. Also the only way V can live, is for original V to die.

Look at it this way. V is a powerful merc and has done allot in the time they came to NC. Put them back down to level 1 kills the original V or making them a construct also puts them back to level 1.

The original V no longer exists in either scenario.

when I did hanako ending and choosing to be put on a chip. I had a head cannon that someone raid mikoshi and took several engrams one being V and the group wanted to save the engrams from araska prison to give them a chance at a new life.

 

[CTPhipps]

V really is a nobody it seems. I thought, especially towards the end, it would be really helpful if V at least had a nemesis (like Silverhand has Adam Smasher) but I could not think of anybody who could be a nemesis on the bad guy's side. Arasaka doesn't care about V (since they booted him, if corpo). This is weird because he stole their biochip and presumably they'd want it back. Even if they didn't want it back, wouldn't they try to get V just to make a point that one does not steal from Arasaka? Yorinobu does not know who V is. Smasher does not know who V is. They don't even notice V throughout the story.

They may not know you at the beginning of the story story but they fucking sure know you at the end.