Is there room to tell a direct sequel to V's story?

[Razyen]

About good/bad endings. I think what they were trying to achieve was to let players choose what in every situation they have to loose something to gain something. Just like surrender to Arasaka for weak promise of survival, sacrifice personal life to achieve legend status in Rogue ending etc. If they would add one happy ending where everything goes great then I think all the other endings would be immediately considered as bad. Right now we can debate and think about whats best for our V in a given scenario and it works. Thats why I`m also sure that Phanton liberty will not bring anything significant about V`s fate.

Once again: that's not the point. @_@

I believe there is some underlying misunderstanding. We all understand this, here. CDPR's intentions with CP2077 endings are clear and glaring to anyone (or almost, I suppose) in this forum. That's not the point. The point is that the centerpiece of the game, the focal point of a hundred hours of gameplay is the attempt to save V's life and to find a cure for his/her condition. And the choice to make it impossible for ONE MISSION from the end and to focus the epilogue on the moral dilemma of "what to do with the time we've left" is... unhappy, inconsistent, so to speak.

If they really wanted to create a game and write a story about the value we give to our time and the meaning we give to our life, they should have focused the game itself on V's choices in this sense and not reserve the final mission only for such question. Instead, they spent most of the journey telling us about the search for a cure - a search that turns out to be fruitless and totally sterile. This is why many end up perceiving the choice of "Nocturne OP55N1" as frustrating and useless: because the feat they had launched into and in which they had invested tens and tens of hours and "emotions" was to save V's life. Something that apparently cannot be achieved, no matter what.

Don't misunderstand me: I loved the game. It's in my top ten ever. I liked the story, the atmosphere, the musics, the characters. I liked the infinity of philosophical ideas and reflections on life in general (the dolls at Clouds, Dexter, Delamain and so on), but to say that the sense and the meaning of the game are given by its only final mission or by two conversations with some buddhist monks - moreover on optional, secondary missions and therefore very negligible and easy to miss - is simply to say a falsehood.

Then, to each his own. Did you like it? Very good, cool! Happy for you, really. But please, guys, please: stop trying to explain us the meaning of the ending choice. We understand it perfectly. What we are discussing/critizing is execution, storytelling.

Well, I surrend.

 

[strangerr3]

Thank you for explaining me what was the point

I was trying to look more into mechanics of how they deisgned endings - which is why I dont think that one "good V alive" ending would fit well without reconstructing all the others (or majority of them), for reasons I explained.

I`m not a fan of play a game and have a single choice on a roof, which for me should blend more into whole playthrough, but unfortunately devs decided that this is better for most players which woudnt want to play whole game again just to see different ending.

 

[LadyMiseryAli]

I was cheerleading on this forum for DLC to be about (or allow the player to use) our V. But after hearing that there is no edge runners sequel I now doubt the probability.

If they are not going to make a sequel to a universally acclaimed "cartoon" * then they are unlikely to do it with the somewhat contentious "game" * .

* * No disrespect intended just trying to be realistic about what we are talking about.

Well, we don't know anything about the sequel. Hopefully they tell us something at some point next year...right now I wanna know more about Phantom Liberty. At least a plot...something other than the vagueness of the trailer.

 

[SpookyFX]

Well, we don't know anything about the sequel. Hopefully they tell us something at some point next year...right now I wanna know more about Phantom Liberty. At least a plot...something other than the vagueness of the trailer.

Oh right I forgot that our V actually IS in some "official additional content" ( Phantom Liberty ) .
woo hoo!
Or am I dreaming that? I need to go find where I read that.

Edit: sorry for the scatter brain, this month is my busiest time of year and I am working on only about 5 hours of sleep a day untill after Halloween.

 

[SigilFey]

It was said during investors call last month or two. Production cost was covered but didnt really make anything extra (which again, was planned from start). It was designed as boost for CP2077.

Ehhh...as of then. When a show is released on a network like this, it will continue to make money forever more into the future (unless the creators sign away their royalties...which I seriously doubt happened.) So, as of that meeting perhaps, Edgerunners only managed to make back its production costs. More to come. Hard-copy sales, reruns, merch, future products based on the Edgerunners IP...all of it stands to make continuous, ongoing profits.

 

[Andrew_Waples]

Well, we don't know anything about the sequel. Hopefully they tell us something at some point next year...right now I wanna know more about Phantom Liberty. At least a plot...something other than the vagueness of the trailer.

Well, we know it's a "spy thriller".

 

[CS554]

If they really wanted to create a game and write a story about the value we give to our time and the meaning we give to our life, they should have focused the game itself on V's choices in this sense and not reserve the final mission only for such question. Instead, they spent most of the journey telling us about the search for a cure - a search that turns out to be fruitless and totally sterile. This is why many end up perceiving the choice of "Nocturne OP55N1" as frustrating and useless: because the feat they had launched into and in which they had invested tens and tens of hours and "emotions" was to save V's life. Something that apparently cannot be achieved, no matter what.

That's subjective point of view. Nothing wrong with it, but subjective.

Even though, not in your part I included in quotes, you mention Dex and Delamain. What does Dex when V meets him the first time? For me it's funny how choices there reflect something else.

There are other things that build towards endings, say Rogue and Johnny for example. I saw Romeo and Juliet mentioned in this topic earlier. The Sun is take on if love can conquer all and no, if love interest is manipulating narcissist asshole, no it won't, nothing ever will.

Ton of things like this in the game.

 

[SigilFey]

If they really wanted to create a game and write a story about the value we give to our time and the meaning we give to our life, they should have focused the game itself on V's choices in this sense and not reserve the final mission only for such question. Instead, they spent most of the journey telling us about the search for a cure - a search that turns out to be fruitless and totally sterile. This is why many end up perceiving the choice of "Nocturne OP55N1" as frustrating and useless: because the feat they had launched into and in which they had invested tens and tens of hours and "emotions" was to save V's life. Something that apparently cannot be achieved, no matter what.

That's subjective point of view. Nothing wrong with it, but subjective.

Even though, not in your part I included in quotes, you mention Dex and Delamain. What does Dex when V meets him the first time? For me it's funny how choices there reflect something else.

There are other things that build towards endings, say Rogue and Johnny for example. I saw Romeo and Juliet mentioned in this topic earlier. The Sun is take on if love can conquer all and no, if love interest is manipulating narcissist asshole, no it won't, nothing ever will.

Ton of things like this in the game.

All opinions are subjective. That doesn't need to be said.

But people are still missing the main theme of the game that was clearly established, explored, and concluded. It's not a story about V's journey through an awesome sci-fi world and the meaning that the player chooses to apply to it. (It's not "The Elder Scrolls: Night City".)

The story is the classic "quest for immortality" and all of the classic themes that such entails. It's not an open-ended, sandbox adventure, letting people run amok in Pondsmith's Cyberpunk universe -- it's a very focused narrative centered on a defined protagonist, V, who grasps at immortality and pays the price every other literary character has ever paid going back to Ancient Sumerian writing. It's the story of mortals who believe that they can achieve the power of the gods, and the hard truth of what such a pursuit will mean:

- You cannot achieve divinity, because you're a mortal. That's hubris. The downfall of all "heroes" who overreach.

- You will pay an impossible price if you do actually grasp and hold the power of the divine: your humanity. For CP2077: humans are not immortal. Mortality is one of the most fundamental things that makes us human.

- It doesn't matter what your motivations are. It doesn't matter if you're a good person, or a vile one. If you reach for that sort of power, you are doomed. It's not the reasoning...it's the act itself. That's the fall.

Anyone that wants to argue, "No, that's not what the game is about, and that's not what's happening with V," is simply not processing the story. The delivery basically brow-beats the player with the theme from the first few moments of the game all the way through the heist. It then constantly revisits and restates the fact that there is no way for V to change his/her fate. It's sealed. Now, like all of the other literary characters throughout history that have appeared in this sort of narrative arc (--- from Gilgamesh, to Beowulf, to Jason's fate in Medea...from the tragic arc of Shakespeare's Macbeth, to the spiraling fall of Dr. Faustus...from Winzy in Shelley's The Mortal Immortal, to Rice's Louis in Interview With the Vampire...to Darth Frickin' Vader in whatever the latest, spinoff, television series is -- ) V follows precisely the same path, along the same themes, step by step, to exactly the same resolution (presented in various, extremely haunting [and wonderfully crafted!] forms depending on the ending a player receives).

Arguing against this is an exercise in futility. The sheer amount of recurring evidence that supports the classic arc is utterly overwhelming in the face of other "what if" scenarios that players may drum up in their minds. For every point that someone may present to support a different interpretation, I'll be able to find 5 points that completely disprove it. Effortlessly. Arguing that the game is not a retelling of the classic "quest for immortality" is like arguing that Star Wars is not about free will vs. destiny, or that Happy Gilmore is meant to be a mature social commentary, or that Animal Farm is not a satirical piece criticizing Stalin's rise to power.

The game presents "V":

• a young mercenary seeking his/her fortune in Night City (whether the player likes that or not).
• someone who teams up with Jackie to actively reach for the "major leagues" in order to become a legend (whether the player likes it or not).
• a person who knowingly pursues a shortcut to greatness, with or without misgivings (whether the player likes it or not).
• an individual that overreaches and seizes a power beyond anything they can control (whether the player likes it or not).
• a character that suffers a fatal fall, dooming themselves to a tragic arc (whether the player likes it or not).

This is the framework that the game takes place in -- much as the player will play "Geralt of Rivia" in The Witcher series: a brooding monster hunter with a golden heart that struggles to come to terms with his place in the world, and someone that loves the people he surrounds himself with fiercely (whether the player likes it or not).

None of that is really up for debate in any valid way. Arguing it is getting into tinfoil-hat territory. The delivery of the main theme in the game is crystal clear.


_______________



The valid and applicable argument is, "Was this the right direction to take the game?"

• Given that Cyberpunk has existed as a tabletop game with a passionate, cult following for over 30 years, was this the right focus for an adaptation to a video game?
• Recognizing that Cyberpunk 2020, which was obviously the foundation being built upon, achieved and sustained its popularity due to incredibly open-ended, player-driven interpretations...was it a good idea to focus the first, major video game around a pre-scripted narrative and a pre-defined player character?
• Was it a good idea to work within such overriding, classical themes, even though most of the existing player base of CP2020 had probably been interpreting their gameworlds very differently...for decades?

It was a risk. There are those of us (like myself) that loved the deeply crafted narrative that was created, recognizing and appreciating the classical themes right out of the gate, and thoroughly enjoying the unique delivery of an extremely well-known arc. Others would disagree, obviously. But trying to argue that the arc is not there, or the themes are something else, is just counterproductive to the criticism itself.

I had a similar issue with a group of students in one of my high school classes, recently. We were working on "media reviews" as an exercise in critical thinking. They offered a scathing review of Once Upon a Time in Hollywood, claiming that the movie was just terribly slow-paced, the characters made little to no sense, and the film was either inappropriate for no reason or just downright stupid and silly -- especially the ending. Well...after identifying that they were not familiar with the Hippie movement, recognized the name "Charles Manson" (but had no idea who he actually was), had never even heard of Sharon Tate before or her murder, and were completely unaware and uninformed of the social situations in Hollywood during that time period...it was understandable that they had that reaction. But that also completely invalidated their review. Their criticisms were grounded in an almost complete lack of understanding. They did not recognize their missing context, then simply assumed opinions based on ignorance. Even if I agreed with some of their points, the way they were presented was not qualified.

But please, guys, please: stop trying to explain us the meaning of the ending choice. We understand it perfectly.

I hope this clarifies that there is still more to consider. There is always more to consider. If anyone ever thinks otherwise...they're missing something.

 

[AvarageEnjoyer]

Anyone that wants to argue, "No, that's not what the game is about, and that's not what's happening with V," is simply not processing the story.

That's me. I'm arguing that that's not what the game is about and that's not what's happening with V:
a) Before the Heist, I don't remember a single hint, a single bit of info that would suggest that V is looking for immortality. Not before, not during, not after. Before retrieving the Relic, V just saw it as a big opportunity to become rich, the rest of the game V spent surviving;
b) It's not V, it's Saburo who is looking to become immortal - and he can succeed in it, provided V sides with Arasaka in the end;
c) There are characters who ascended to immortality and godhood even without Saburo - Alt is practically a god in cyberspace, Johnny is resurrected from the dead, Mr. Blue Eyes is Mephistopheles-esque figure with ambiguous motives and even more ambiguous capabilities, which are implied to be extremely vast. Even V themselves can achieve a digital immortality in a sense - and all of these characters are human as well.

I also find funny that we can compare a predetermined character with defined gender, looks, traits, allegiances, etc. - and then compare him to a, supposedly, much more ambiguous and less defined protagonist, only to come to the conclusion that they are, in fact, very comparable. We can even argue to which one allows more agency in their stories, which is... interesting, to say the least.

So, yeah, I'm afraid I had to reiterate what @Razyen said here: We get it. We get the idea of Icarus, of flying too close to the sun, of facing an existential crisis. The depth of a theme does not absolve the limits of execution. The knowledge of these preexisting themes might enrich a narrative experience, but it does not address the core issue we point out. The lack of agency can be explained by ideas and themes, but it cannot be excused, especially considering that:
1) such an approach won't work on a character with at least a bit of a muddled personality;
2) you can articulate same ideas, while giving options for different resolutions.


This is why I find examples of classical literature to be so obnoxious, when talking about RPGs and games with interactive stories. In a lot of cases, like you've already said, characters make mistakes or commit actions which lead to their downfall, which is supposed to convey a message. The limit of a book is that it is constant and unchangeable - mistakes that characters make cannot be fixed, Romeo and Juliet will always kill themselves, Victor Frankenstein will always abandon his creation, so on. It is NOT the case with video games. Mistakes of characters can and should be avoidable, it is an interactive medium - what's the point of limiting yourself to only one meaning and idea, when you can equally successfully convey multiple ones in a way that no book, show or movie will ever be able to?

 

[LeKill3rFou]

a) Before the Heist, I don't remember a single hint, a single bit of info that would suggest that V is looking for immortality. Not before, not during, not after. Before retrieving the Relic, V just saw it as a big opportunity to become rich, the rest of the game V spent surviving;

Not V personnaly, like @SigilFey said :

• a young mercenary seeking his/her fortune in Night City (whether the player likes that or not).
• someone who teams up with Jackie to actively reach for the "major leagues" in order to become a legend (whether the player likes it or not).
• a person who knowingly pursues a shortcut to greatness, with or without misgivings (whether the player likes it or not).

But if you watch the very first TV show in the elevator after "The Rescue" which is not here for no reason
Ziggy : "Now, I'd like us to talk about the most exclusive and highly sought-after implant on the market today, Arasaka Corp's "Relic".
But maybe we oughta make sure our fair audience is up to speed. Karina, what is the "Relic" exactly? In a word, if you could."
Karina : "In one word? I'd say... immortality."

Spoiler

So I would say that the theme is "set" from the start, even if V is not aware of it, nor she looking for it. But as @andrewdilley said well, "V try to cheat death" which is already a attempt to become immortal.

 

[AvarageEnjoyer]

Not V personnaly, like @SigilFey said :

Yeah, but it was preceded by

It's the story of mortals who believe that they can achieve the power of the gods, and the hard truth of what such a pursuit will mean:

- You cannot achieve divinity, because you're a mortal. That's hubris. The downfall of all "heroes" who overreach.

Which, like I said:
a) has nothing to do with V personally;
b) people, who this can be ascribed to, actually DO succeed, in one way or another.
Also, I wouldn't say that V tries to cheat death in a bigger way than any other human in his/her shoes would.

 

[SigilFey]

a) Before the Heist, I don't remember a single hint, a single bit of info that would suggest that V is looking for immortality. Not before, not during, not after. Before retrieving the Relic, V just saw it as a big opportunity to become rich, the rest of the game V spent surviving;

+ The montage leading into the city highlights "The City of Dreams" -- a place where you can become greater than the norm. "Legends are born here."

+ The whole first, tutorial quest is finding a woman who should be dead, but somehow survives. Trauma Team, providing a means of overcoming death. 10 levels of it. Guaranteed life. The elite. The rare few who will survive where the masses will perish. Cheating mortality. And you find Sandra Dorset in a tub of ice, basically flatlined. Emotionally scarred. Is it really worth it? That's what all the dialogue is about once she's found.

+ There are numerous (numerous) references to ..."make sure this city knows your name"..."make your mark"..."getting to the major leagues"..."rising above"..."never going back"..."others remembering your name"..."becoming a legend"..."secure your soul"...

+ You trade away parts of your humanity to achieve "superhuman" abilities.

+ On the very first meeting with Dexter, the very first question he asks you is: "Would you rather reach for the top and die in a blaze of glory, or give it all up and live humbly and quietly?" He begins and ends this signature sequence with the same question -- the same thought -- "reach for power...or accept your humanity?"

+ Countless quests are about seeking power, losing power, or dealing with victories or disasters in the pursuit of power.

+ You visit a bar literally named "The Afterlife" where the extended conversation you have upon entering is focused on ascending beyond the norm, about legendary figures who reached for and even achieved incredible things...but ultimately died.

I said 5, that's 7. This is what I mean about the story beating the players about the head and neck with it. The theme isn't "introduced" and "established"; it's tied to the player's face then lit on fire so that they're sure to notice.

b) It's not V, it's Saburo who is looking to become immortal - and he can succeed in it, provided V sides with Arasaka in the end;

It's V. If V was just interested in "living life", they would have chosen a lifestyle other than a mercenary. They don't. They pursue it. They revel in it. They actively try to rise in it. Sure...there are dialogue options where V tries to balance it a bit better than Jackie does -- but there's absolutley no valid way of saying: V is just a victim. They were forced to stay with Jackie and buy guns and take gigs from fixers and make tons of money trying to make names for themselves around Night City. They didn't have a choice...like...the literally thousands of other people wandering the streets of the same city doing...non-mercenary work. It's not V's fault...!


But yes -- you land on a very important detail in the overall storytelling: Saburo. Just because V makes the mistake of seeking power he can't control...that doesn't mean that others don't make the same mistake. Think about the literature. Think about all of the other stories. They're littered with characters that surround the main character, all of whom made the same mistake. All of whom fail as the main character watches, or have already failed before the main character arrives. Just like Saburo. He can't even control his own family. He can simply replace them. But he has power over the world?

Some no-name merc with a death wish ends up stealing the most vital technology Arasaka ever created after colluding for one day with a washed out fixer and whore. That's, of course, after his own son steals it and winds up strangling him with his bare hands in a hotel room.

Yup. Saburo Arasaka, Emperor of the Known World...wielding unfathomable powers.

c) There are characters who ascended to immortality and godhood even without Saburo - Alt is practically a god in cyberspace, Johnny is resurrected from the dead, Mr. Blue Eyes is Mephistopheles-esque figure with ambiguous motives and even more ambiguous capabilities, which are implied to be extremely vast. Even V themselves can achieve a digital immortality in a sense - and all of these characters are human as well.

This all supports the main theme of "quest for immortality". Johnny is the classic spiritual guide that will lead the main character to their ultimate realization that such power is an illusion, and will never be truly attainable. Mephistopheles, exactly. Plus, remember what the story clarifies: It's unclear what the engram tech actually does. Is it the person's soul...or just an amazingly sophisticated AI replacement.

Either way, it's not the same as the human soul it came from. People cannot be immortal. To try is to die...or to become something no longer human.

All of that is point for point from the classics. Right on the nose.

This is why I find examples of classical literature to be so obnoxious, when talking about RPGs and games with interactive stories. In a lot of cases, like you've already said, characters make mistakes or commit actions which lead to their downfall, which is supposed to convey a message. The limit of a book is that it is constant and unchangeable - mistakes that characters make cannot be fixed, Romeo and Juliet will always kill themselves, Victor Frankenstein will always abandon his creation, so on.

Correct. But really, really, really not wanting Romeo and Juliet to be a tragedy and wanting it to be a love story instead doesn't make one. There's not even a love story involved. It's just a couple of hormonal teenagers infatuated with one another led down a path of destruction by a really irresponsible friar playing a very dangerous game, thinking he could single-handedly manipulate two of the most powerful families in the city into a political headlock by sneaking a marriage through the cracks. Which worked out pretty much the way any sensible person would foresee, if you really think about it.

Players are dazzled by the why and wherefore of the wider game, I think. They're enjoying the fries, the onion rings, and the free milkshake...then claiming the burger is not the main course. Cyberpunk 2077 is a retelling of the quest for immortality. Enjoying the fries more doesn't change the fact that the main course is still the burger.

I also find funny that we can compare a predetermined character with defined gender, looks, traits, allegiances, etc. - and then compare him to a, supposedly, much more ambiguous and less defined protagonist, only to come to the conclusion that they are, in fact, very comparable. We can even argue to which one allows more agency in their stories, which is... interesting, to say the least.

[...] The depth of a theme does not absolve the limits of execution. The knowledge of these preexisting themes might enrich a narrative experience, but it does not address the core issue we point out. The lack of agency can be explained by ideas and themes, but it cannot be excused, especially considering that:
1) such an approach won't work on a character with at least a bit of a muddled personality;
2) you can articulate same ideas, while giving options for different resolutions.

This I can get behind. As much as I like the game, and as much as it is a fantastic re-imagining of the classic theme, that did very much come at the expense of player agency. I've said so before, and I'll argue it again now:

I think it was a mistake to take this approach as the first foray into the Cyberpunk universe. I think, perhaps, a much more sandbox experience, perhaps focused on several, shorter narratives that would end numerous different ways depending on player choice would have been better. Nothing would have stopped players from being a bleeding-heart paragon fighting for whatever good was left in the world, a smarmy opportunist playing the corporate games, or a masochistic ganger that just loved the sound of a body breaking. They could have played out their visions, rather than pursuing V's.

That was the crit, I think. If the CP2077 we have now were released as a, say, Cyberpunk 2077: Legends of Night City spin-off or expansion...I bet people would have been singing its praises. "First we get an open-world, sandbox that lets people live out their craziest Cyberpunk fantasies in one of the best gaming worlds ever created...and now CDPR has proven they're still some of the best storytellers in the world! Wait until you dive into the legendary adventure of V...!"

But if you watch the very first TV show in the elevator after "The Rescue" which is not here for no reason
Ziggy : "Now, I'd like us to talk about the most exclusive and highly sought-after implant on the market today, Arasaka Corp's "Relic".
But maybe we oughta make sure our fair audience is up to speed. Karina, what is the "Relic" exactly? In a word, if you could."
Karina : "In one word? I'd say... immortality."

I forgot about that one. You can actually catch that at the very start of the game if you just switch on the TV and let it play long enough. Or get lucky. There's even a dialogue line where V is talking to someone and says: "Oh, yeah...I heard about something like that on TV. They called it...save your soul...or something like that." I think it was Vik.

"In a word: 'Immortality.'"

(Yeah. That's not carving on the face of the moon or anything...)

So I would say that the theme is "set" from the start, even if V is not aware of it, nor she looking for it. But as @andrewdilley said well, "V try to cheat death" which is already a attempt to become immortal.

That's part and parcel of the classical theme, as well. It doesn't matter if someone wants to pursue it. It doesn't matter if they understand what they're doing. (They don't. None of them do.) It doesn't matter if they do it accidentally or in the heat of moment without thinking, much like V. It's just the simple fact that they do it -- they take the power in hand.

Done. Fate sealed. Don't touch the devil's sword.

Which, like I said:
a) has nothing to do with V personally;
b) people, who this can be ascribed to, actually DO succeed, in one way or another.
Also, I wouldn't say that V tries to cheat death in a bigger way than any other human in his/her shoes would.

...

He knowingly accepts the gig.
He risks his life several times trying to get ready for it.
He probably kills people to get there. Literally.
When the time comes, he grabs the chip and slots it -- purposefully trying to win.
^ How is this having nothing to do with him personally? How is this not hubris?

If V was humble, s/he would have taken Dexter's hint, said, "You know...you're right. I think I do wanna see 30. I'm ghosting," then gotten out of the damn car without listening to the job. Notice how none of V's reactions:

...even come close. See, if V had said, "I'm just looking for a simple life," then Dex would have said, "Nice talking with you, Mr. V. Sorry it was so short. You're a smart one. We're all through."

Short playthrough.

V is there because V wants it. V lives for it. V chose it. V is 100% a part of it. V may even think that it's possible to achieve it according to one's own terms. Ha. Hahaha... HAHAHAHAHAHAhahahaha!

 

[Razyen]

What we are discussing/critizing is execution, storytelling.

So, yeah, I'm afraid I had to reiterate what @Razyen said here: We get it. We get the idea of Icarus, of flying too close to the sun, of facing an existential crisis. The depth of a theme does not absolve the limits of execution.

At this point, I don't even know what to say anymore. It's not the message, it's the execution. It's not the message, it's the execution. It's not the message, it's the execution. It's not the message, it's the execution. It's not the message, it's the ex- oh, wait! What the...

This I can get behind. As much as I like the game, and as much as it is a fantastic re-imagining of the classic theme, that did very much come at the expense of player agency. I've said so before, and I'll argue it again now:

I think it was a mistake to take this approach as the first foray into the Cyberpunk universe. I think, perhaps, a much more sandbox experience, perhaps focused on several, shorter narratives that would end numerous different ways depending on player choice would have been better. Nothing would have stopped players from being a bleeding-heart paragon fighting for whatever good was left in the world, a smarmy opportunist playing the corporate games, or a masochistic ganger that just loved the sound of a body breaking. They could have played out their visions, rather than pursuing V's.

Which sounds insanely similar to...

If they really wanted to create a game and write a story about the value we give to our time and the meaning we give to our life, they should have focused the game itself on V's choices in this sense and not reserve the final mission only for such question.

And V's choices, of course, would have been those of the player. Once more, you are doing exactly what is unnecessary: you are explaining to us things that we have already understood all along.

What we keep telling you (apparently with very little success) is that if the game, instead of focusing on the material search for a cure (because MATERIALLY, on a PRACTICAL and PRAGMATIC level, V is looking for a cure - and that's not in question), had focused on V's choices in the face of the inevitability of his condition (aka: everything that follows "Nocturne OP55N1"), it would have conveyed its message a thousand times better and avoided to upset/annoy those who wanted to believe in the possibility of saving the life of the protagonist. "Nocturne OP55N1" should have been the *core* of the game (and again, again: I'm talking about GAMEPLAY), not its conclusion.

None of that is really up for debate in any valid way. Arguing it is getting into tinfoil-hat territory. The delivery of the main theme in the game is crystal clear.

Ah? What was this? Some kind of veiled insult to everyone in this forum who doesn't share your opinion? I mean, it wouldn't even be the first time, would it?

I hope this clarifies that there is still more to consider. There is always more to consider. If anyone ever thinks otherwise...they're missing something.

Ah, the irony! The irony!

I will not repeat all this any further, it would be redundant: whoever wants to understand, I am sure, will have understood. Props to you @AverageEnjoyer for the patience shown in continuing this discussion.

 

[Draconifors]

Please keep in mind that there is absolutely no reason to get hostile towards anyone.

 

[LeKill3rFou]

I forgot about that one. You can actually catch that at the very start of the game if you just switch on the TV and let it play long enough. Or get lucky. There's even a dialogue line where V is talking to someone and says: "Oh, yeah...I heard about something like that on TV. They called it...save your soul...or something like that." I think it was Vik.

"In a word: 'Immortality.'"

(Yeah. That's not carving on the face of the moon or anything...)

No written in big, but it's literally all over the place
I remember in the colombarium, there is a kid who ask to his father why his friend can still speaking/see to his (dead) mother thanks to the Relic, whereas him can't and have to content himself with mourn himself on her niche. And sadly, his father simply say, I'm sorry son... (i.e I can't afford, immortality is not for poor souls like us).

 

[AlienSpaceBats]

The act of arrogance and hubris on V and Jackie's part is well stated, I think T-Bug lays that out very clearly (albeit a little late).

Buuuut at least two quests include dialogue that (to me) blurred what the core of the story is. In Automatic Love V is told they are becoming something new, this comes up again in Don't Lose Your Mind. I seriously thought we were taking the route of personal transformation (and I don't mean a meditation on death being the final transformation), growth and attaining wisdom; becoming a new entity that was both V and Johnny. Post-heist things get quite existential. In numerous exchanges it is also hinted at that V and Johnny's consciousness are influencing each other.

"Not a single thing in this world isn't in the process of becoming something new. likewise, you." (Skye conversation)

"And to think you're transforming not unlike he just did" (after merging the Delamains)

There are two situations going on: dialogue also clearly states that V is "dying", which seems to simplify the situation of consciousness overwrite, given that certain dialogue indicates V and Johnny's personalities are influencing eachother (merging?)

At this point I don't know whether prior Cyberpunk works I previously enjoyed influenced what I wanted versus what the writers intended, but raises stick to beat a dead horse I'm still disappointed I didnt get my merge ending.

Players are dazzled by the why and wherefore of the wider game, I think. They're enjoying the fries, the onion rings, and the free milkshake...then claiming the burger is not the main course. Cyberpunk 2077 is a retelling of the quest for immortality. Enjoying the fries more doesn't change the fact that the main course is still the burger.

I got way too many fries, I think.

 

[AvarageEnjoyer]

+ The whole first, tutorial quest is finding a woman who should be dead, but somehow survives. Trauma Team, providing a means of overcoming death. 10 levels of it. Guaranteed life. The elite. The rare few who will survive where the masses will perish. Cheating mortality. And you find Sandra Dorset in a tub of ice, basically flatlined.

+ Countless quests are about seeking power, losing power, or dealing with victories or disasters in the pursuit of power.

There are also countless quests about helping others and brining horrible violent psychos to justice.
There are also quests about Vampires from Alpha Centauri and even a quest about a guy whos dick almost exploded.

It's V. If V was just interested in "living life", they would have chosen a lifestyle other than a mercenary. They don't. They pursue it. They revel in it. They actively try to rise in it. Sure...there are dialogue options where V tries to balance it a bit better than Jackie does -- but there's absolutley no valid way of saying: V is just a victim.
...
He knowingly accepts the gig.
He risks his life several times trying to get ready for it.

I'm afraid you are arguing against a point I didn't make:
1) I never said that mercenary's life is something V was forced into;
2) Being a mercenary in a city controlled by violent gangs, some of which horrifyingly so, and corporations, indifferent at best and malicious at worst, is hardly a lifestyle that is worth specific acknowledgement;
3) None of it has anything to do with desire for immortality. Money - yes, power - maybe, fame even, but they don't equate the godlike status.

When the time comes, he grabs the chip and slots it -- purposefully trying to win.

A chip that V takes from the hands of their dying friend, who asks them to keep it so that his death wouldn't be for nothing?

^ How is this having nothing to do with him personally? How is this not hubris?

Wikipedia definition: Hubris describes a personality quality of extreme or excessive pride or dangerous overconfidence, often in combination with (or synonymous with) arrogance.
Is V excessively prideful? Not really. They brag occasionally, but they usually back it up. Is V dangerously overconfident? Not really, during the heist they were pretty anxious about the whole thing and worrying that something might go wrong. Is V arrogant? Depends on how you play them, I guess.
V wants money and fame - a lot of ambitious young people do, especially capable ones. It's hardly their defining trait. But again, initially, you used hubris in conjunction with a quest of divinity - which, like I've already said, is not what V is after.
Even if we go with your interpretation, then not only V doesn't learn from their mistakes, but they actually do the same thing twice and SUCCEED in the end. Their "hubris" gets rewarded, their desire for fame is satiated, their enemies are defeated, they've become a legend Night City will remember for years to come. By your definition, they become, in a way, "immortal".

And yes, V has bitten more than they could chew - for which they had to pay dearly and spent the rest of the story untangling from this whole mess. None of contradicts the main points that me, @Razyen and others had raised.

 

[Shafir]

At a certain point, unfortunately, the discussion becomes tedious. Not to mention too much text in too short a time.

In the end, it once again boils down to refuting other perspectives and experiences with one's own, instead of considering them as an extension of possible perspectives and accepting them as such, even if they do not correspond to one's own.

From this point on, it is no longer about a discussion about the different perspectives, but - not always, but with increasing tendency - about refuting others.

I think that's a shame, especially when it comes to interpreting literature and film. I would like to see it more often boil down to "o.k., I understand you, but would like to add another perspective to this..." rather than "...you're wrong because my perspective is the right one...".

 

[SigilFey]

Which sounds insanely similar to...

Yes...I was agreeing with his argument. That's why I specifically prefaced it by saying, "This I can get behind."

When conducting a discussion, it's possible to agree with a person in one area while simultaneously disagreeing in another area. This would be an example of objective argumentation.

Ah? What was this? Some kind of veiled insult to everyone in this forum who doesn't share your opinion? I mean, it wouldn't even be the first time, would it?

No, this is identification of obvious misinterpretation by many, many players since the release of the game. When something follows:

• the same story structure and plot progression as similar classical pieces
• contains the same character archetypes as similar classical pieces
• delivers the same thematic arcs, along the same paths, to reach the same resolution as similar classical pieces
• and uses the same language, imagery, and concentration of literary devices as similar classical pieces

...then that story now becomes another example of that classical style. We see this constantly.

The Heroic Quest
Unrequited Love
Man vs. Nature
Coming of Age
Loss of Innocence
The Betrayal
The Journey Into the Unknown
Facing the Monster
Inner Darkness
Redemption
The Circle of Life
Loss of Identity
The Wheel of Fortune
The Ultimate Sacrifice
The Quest for Immortality

^ These are all major themes of literature that have been explored and re-explored over thousands of years of written and oral tradition across numerous cultures world-wide. There are hundreds of thousands of texts that focus on the same themes, characters, and plot elements, all while trying to re-imagine the stories themselves in ways that make them more relevant to the modern audience. This is the core of the literary Arts.

When a story so closely follows the traditions and thematic focus of a classical piece, it is categorized under that classical theme. The much more recent evolution of "genre" literature muddies the waters a bit for contemporary audiences, as it's possible deliver classical themes across multiple different genres. But they're two, totally different considerations.

Stories innovate on the actual theme itself. For example, the classic "Heroic Quest" involves:

• A hero that eagerly sets off to accomplish a seemingly impossible task.
• Their goal is often to attain an item of great and other-worldly power.
• They are offered guidance by a wise mentor of some sort.
• They journey into the wilds, and undergo a series of "deaths" and "rebirths" (metaphorically speaking). They suffer and fail, losing companions or parts of themselves, only to emerge both humbled and stronger for their suffering. They receive aid from numerous people along the way, often being saved from terrible fates by the good will of others. The aid and gifts they receive are what provide them a pathway forward.
• They finally arrive at their ultimate challenge and succeed at what was supposedly impossible.
• They return to their place of origin, now grown legendary, but more fully aware of their place in the wider world and grateful for the comforts of their home.

When Tolkien wrote The Lord of the Rings, he essentially twisted some key parts of the theme. It's a sort of reversal of the Heroic Quest, while adhering closely to its elements:

• The main character is not a "hero", but a simple person that wants nothing to do with glory or greatness. This fate is simply thrust upon them.
• They already hold the item of other-worldly power...and are seeking to destroy it.
• They are offered guidance by a wise mentor...

...and here the rest of the classical theme plays out exactly as would be comparable to other examples. But the idea of the "hero" in Tolkien's work being a Hobbit was a sentiment that registered far more readily with audiences of the time. It reflected the cultures that endured WWI and WWII. Common people being forced to accomplish incredible acts of heroism against legendary odds. (Tolkien was adamant that his work was not allegorical, and that's true. But it's impossible to ignore the impact of the world he lived in when considering the lens of his story, despite the lack of allegory.) <--- There are always details to be considered.

But his story is 100%, irrefutably and undeniably, a direct example of the classical Heroic Quest. To argue otherwise would be largely ridiculous. That's simply uninformed, lacking exposure and context, or being purposefully obtuse.

It's the same with the narrative delivered in Cyberpunk 2077. Let's itemize the key progression of The Quest for Immortality:

• The protagonist seeks renown and glory by testing themselves against the world. They are not satisfied with their station, and pursue ever greater knowledge and power.
• They eventually uncover a secret that would grant them supernatural ability and everlasting life, but are warned away from it.
• They encounter a mystical being that sets for them a series of tasks they must complete to achieve this power. By engaging in these tasks, they begin to suffer and/or realize that the tasks are impossible.
• They manage to seize the power for themselves, often as an act of challenge, thievery, betrayal, or dark pact.
• Once they attain it, things do not proceed the way they envisioned, and the supernatural being continues to torment them.
• Their lives begin to crumble. They will very often lose a treasured loved one, the price of the power they wield resulting in no joy from the immortality they have achieved.
• They are ultimately crushed by their power, willingly giving it up, or forced to endure their fate until their tragic end.

There are many stories that mix it up -- but that's the classic Quest for Immortality. If people want to argue that point, they're arguing against thousands of years of established literary tradition. It's not happening. I'm simply identifying the clearly established theme and how it's academically identified.

Arguing against this is the same as someone claiming that the food they just ate -- pasta with pomodoro sauce, meatballs, focaccia bread, caprese salad, and tiramisu for desert -- is not Italian food. It's just not. No way. Because they had coconut water to drink. This is clearly a Caribbean restaurant.

Erm...okay. Technically, that is an argument that someone can choose to make. If they want.

There are also countless quests about helping others and brining horrible violent psychos to justice.
There are also quests about Vampires from Alpha Centauri and even a quest about a guy who's dick almost exploded.

Yes, the main theme of a story is not its only theme. Minor themes are readily common and apparent. These don't deflect the main theme. (Same as the coconut water idea above.)

I'm afraid you are arguing against a point I didn't make:
1) I never said that mercenary's life is something V was forced into;
2) Being a mercenary in a city controlled by violent gangs, some of which horrifyingly so, and corporations, indifferent at best and malicious at worst, is hardly a lifestyle that is worth specific acknowledgement;
3) None of it has anything to do with desire for immortality. Money - yes, power - maybe, fame even, but they don't equate the godlike status.

Maybe I'm not understanding what you wrote:

Me:
"It's the story of mortals who believe that they can achieve the power of the gods, and the hard truth of what such a pursuit will mean:

"- You cannot achieve divinity, because you're a mortal. That's hubris. The downfall of all "heroes" who overreach."

You:
"Which, like I said:
"a) has nothing to do with V personally;
"b) people, who this can be ascribed to, actually DO succeed, in one way or another.
"Also, I wouldn't say that V tries to cheat death in a bigger way than any other human in his/her shoes would."

I'm discussing the fact that V actively pursues the Relic. S/he doesn't get dragged into it at gunpoint by Jackie and threatened with dismemberment at the hotel. V chooses to do it. Willingly. Actively. Passionately! S/he's super-excited about it when visiting Viktor for the chrome. And why? Everlasting fame and glory! Fast-track to the major leagues. They'll be living legends overnight! Wealthy beyond their wildest dreams!

How is this not hubris? How is V's personality not rash, naive, overconfident, and reckless? Hollywood super-hero movies, Disney/Hallmark specials, and network television series may depict characters "overcoming all odds to achieve total victory"...but what does that have to do with the much more sophisticated story being told here? Cyberpunk is specifically not those things. Pondsmith's core design.

A chip that V takes from the hands of their dying friend, who asks them to keep it so that his death wouldn't be for nothing?

V takes the chip and drops it on the ground. "Fuck this job. C'mon, choom -- I'm getting us outta here. Just keep your head down and we turn ourselves in. We got locked out of our rooms and got shot up by the drones. Let's go, Jackie! C'mon!"

^ That is what "not grasping at power" looks like.

Plugging the chip in and contacting Ev to figure out how they're gonna cash in despite everything that's happened -- that's trying to stay in the fight and win. That's...the desperation of a fool that didn't realize what losing would truly mean and is now caught with their pants down without a single idea of what to do except squeeze the trigger and pray.

Wikipedia definition: Hubris describes a personality quality of extreme or excessive pride or dangerous overconfidence, often in combination with (or synonymous with) arrogance.
Is V excessively prideful? Not really.

Hi. I'm a 20-something merc that's been doing street jobs for one of the poorest districts in Night City for, like, 6 months now.

Yeah, you're talking to a pro. You want me to infiltrate a Militech-guarded hotel dedicated to protecting the social elite and sneak into the penthouse of the son of Saburo Arasaka himself, remaining undetected and stealing proprietary tech from the most powerful megacorporation on the face of the planet?

You bet I'm in. Where do I sign up?

...

Yup. Just standing next to V is like basking in the wisdom of the ancients.

I think you're just not satisfied with the protagonist being essentially an impetuous youth with everything to learn about the world. Despite the fact that there are options to make V a "good person", that doesn't do anything to defeat the fact V is a dumb kid who bites off waaaaaay too much, then gets burned to a crisp for it. That's life. NC doesn't care if you're a good person. If you overreach, you die. The city doesn't care.

Tragic flaws for tragic characters are not something they're conscious of. A villain doesn't realize that they're a villain -- a villain thinks of themselves as a hero. A noble fool doesn't realize they're a fool -- they think they're doing the best that anyone can do. And impetuous braves don't realize that they're being played like a puppet on a string...they think "they got this".

 

[CS554]

But people are still missing the main theme of the game that was clearly established, explored, and concluded. It's not a story about V's journey through an awesome sci-fi world and the meaning that the player chooses to apply to it. (It's not "The Elder Scrolls: Night City".)

The story is the classic "quest for immortality" and all of the classic themes that such entails. It's not an open-ended, sandbox adventure, letting people run amok in Pondsmith's Cyberpunk universe -- it's a very focused narrative centered on a defined protagonist, V, who grasps at immortality and pays the price every other literary character has ever paid going back to Ancient Sumerian writing. It's the story of mortals who believe that they can achieve the power of the gods, and the hard truth of what such a pursuit will mean:

- You cannot achieve divinity, because you're a mortal. That's hubris. The downfall of all "heroes" who overreach.

- You will pay an impossible price if you do actually grasp and hold the power of the divine: your humanity. For CP2077: humans are not immortal. Mortality is one of the most fundamental things that makes us human.

- It doesn't matter what your motivations are. It doesn't matter if you're a good person, or a vile one. If you reach for that sort of power, you are doomed. It's not the reasoning...it's the act itself. That's the fall.

Anyone that wants to argue, "No, that's not what the game is about, and that's not what's happening with V," is simply not processing the story. The delivery basically brow-beats the player with the theme from the first few moments of the game all the way through the heist. It then constantly revisits and restates the fact that there is no way for V to change his/her fate. It's sealed. Now, like all of the other literary characters throughout history that have appeared in this sort of narrative arc (--- from Gilgamesh, to Beowulf, to Jason's fate in Medea...from the tragic arc of Shakespeare's Macbeth, to the spiraling fall of Dr. Faustus...from Winzy in Shelley's The Mortal Immortal, to Rice's Louis in Interview With the Vampire...to Darth Frickin' Vader in whatever the latest, spinoff, television series is -- ) V follows precisely the same path, along the same themes, step by step, to exactly the same resolution (presented in various, extremely haunting [and wonderfully crafted!] forms depending on the ending a player receives).

In Finnish Kalevala, Kullervo acquires mighty device, talking very sharp sword from highest of Gods to help him on his quest for revenge, that lust for revenge also consuming him while sword extends his ability. He then later returns to home, seeing it abandoned and realizing what he has done, asks from sword if it would drink his blood too, which it does.
(If CDPR wants to expand Skippy's story, that would be a good source for inspiration if they want to surprise players by something really fucking dark, something Hollywood won't touch with 10-foot pole anyway ). But anyway, these stories date back couple of thousand years. Point of story was told in the last poem, sung by other character. Don't neglect your kids, or they end up being fuck-ups, who even though might become dedicated and skilled at destruction to the point even Gods hearing them, in the end won't achieve anything that matters.

I only ever took one class covering classic stories from Greek era to modern times and it was decades ago. I was never interested about technique but what stories themselves told about culture they originated from. Why were they created? what purposes they served? In case of poems / songs collected in Kalevala, we had written language at 13th century, perhaps earlier but it wasn't until 16th century there was something that could be called comprehensive system.

I was also interested about how much influence stories can have on us. Why do we want to buy some story which is utterly silly to the point of saying 1 + 1 = 3? Such thing caused recession here in the late 80's happened not long before I read Neuromancer. So, beyond some very simple things or sometimes details, like the Devil ending, it felt like ancient Greek level horror story, and I looked up some things to refresh my menory about it later (Greek stuff) and for me it looks like it kinda is, so no wonder, I don't think of arch or structures. Yet even for me, things you mention in huge quotes below...

Arguing against this is an exercise in futility. The sheer amount of recurring evidence that supports the classic arc is utterly overwhelming in the face of other "what if" scenarios that players may drum up in their minds. For every point that someone may present to support a different interpretation, I'll be able to find 5 points that completely disprove it. Effortlessly. Arguing that the game is not a retelling of the classic "quest for immortality" is like arguing that Star Wars is not about free will vs. destiny, or that Happy Gilmore is meant to be a mature social commentary, or that Animal Farm is not a satirical piece criticizing Stalin's rise to power.

The game presents "V":

• a young mercenary seeking his/her fortune in Night City (whether the player likes that or not).
• someone who teams up with Jackie to actively reach for the "major leagues" in order to become a legend (whether the player likes it or not).
• a person who knowingly pursues a shortcut to greatness, with or without misgivings (whether the player likes it or not).
• an individual that overreaches and seizes a power beyond anything they can control (whether the player likes it or not).
• a character that suffers a fatal fall, dooming themselves to a tragic arc (whether the player likes it or not).

This is the framework that the game takes place in -- much as the player will play "Geralt of Rivia" in The Witcher series: a brooding monster hunter with a golden heart that struggles to come to terms with his place in the world, and someone that loves the people he surrounds himself with fiercely (whether the player likes it or not).

None of that is really up for debate in any valid way. Arguing it is getting into tinfoil-hat territory. The delivery of the main theme in the game is crystal clear.

_______________

+ The montage leading into the city highlights "The City of Dreams" -- a place where you can become greater than the norm. "Legends are born here."

+ The whole first, tutorial quest is finding a woman who should be dead, but somehow survives. Trauma Team, providing a means of overcoming death. 10 levels of it. Guaranteed life. The elite. The rare few who will survive where the masses will perish. Cheating mortality. And you find Sandra Dorset in a tub of ice, basically flatlined. Emotionally scarred. Is it really worth it? That's what all the dialogue is about once she's found.

+ There are numerous (numerous) references to ..."make sure this city knows your name"..."make your mark"..."getting to the major leagues"..."rising above"..."never going back"..."others remembering your name"..."becoming a legend"..."secure your soul"...

+ You trade away parts of your humanity to achieve "superhuman" abilities.

+ On the very first meeting with Dexter, the very first question he asks you is: "Would you rather reach for the top and die in a blaze of glory, or give it all up and live humbly and quietly?" He begins and ends this signature sequence with the same question -- the same thought -- "reach for power...or accept your humanity?"

+ Countless quests are about seeking power, losing power, or dealing with victories or disasters in the pursuit of power.

+ You visit a bar literally named "The Afterlife" where the extended conversation you have upon entering is focused on ascending beyond the norm, about legendary figures who reached for and even achieved incredible things...but ultimately died.

There's also that Afterlife is a former morgue and no living legends on the menu.

Like I wrote, I don't think of classical story lines as rules or even perceive them if I find product, book, movie, even video game gripping enough, yet I was able to pick up those ques. During my first playthrough I was constantly afraid that CDRP might go for some lame solution, but no, they sticked with their guns.

There is one variable, which is my familiarity with the cyberpunk genre but that doesn't change the fact that there are ques everywhere, like LeKillerFou pointed out, they are also keep appearing along the story.

The valid and applicable argument is, "Was this the right direction to take the game?"

• Given that Cyberpunk has existed as a tabletop game with a passionate, cult following for over 30 years, was this the right focus for an adaptation to a video game?
• Recognizing that Cyberpunk 2020, which was obviously the foundation being built upon, achieved and sustained its popularity due to incredibly open-ended, player-driven interpretations...was it a good idea to focus the first, major video game around a pre-scripted narrative and a pre-defined player character?
• Was it a good idea to work within such overriding, classical themes, even though most of the existing player base of CP2020 had probably been interpreting their gameworlds very differently...for decades?

It was a risk. There are those of us (like myself) that loved the deeply crafted narrative that was created, recognizing and appreciating the classical themes right out of the gate, and thoroughly enjoying the unique delivery of an extremely well-known arc. Others would disagree, obviously. But trying to argue that the arc is not there, or the themes are something else, is just counterproductive to the criticism itself.

It's not just video game or tabletop. Cyberpunk genre was antidote to Reagonomics, tech utopias, consumerism, for generation that at the time started to realize that these things, stories, if you really start to think about consequences are they but artificial constructs stuck in people's head and us would be first to pay the bill and then our children and then their children, long after Boomer generation had partied themselves to eternity. Stories were on bleak side, because it's really fucking difficult to make relevant commentary if things could be solved by laser pistol wielding hero, because that's not how real life works.

There's other thing. I think original authors had goals as authors. Gibson's Sprawl trilogy, Neuromancer, Count Zero and Mona Lisa Overdrive have some same characters but they are really stand alone works. Same goes for the Hardwired "series" by Williams. There's one character mentioned in the Voice of the Whirlwind from Hardwired. Thinking of Sterlings Islands if the Net, there never was any sequel, nor there needed to be, it's a slog to read through due it's pacing due that topics he covers in novel are presented as blocks of information and he explores some quite dark areas there which are part of the human condition. Shirley's City Come a-Walkin'...

Spoiler: well

sequel not possible due protagonist death.

. I bought Swanwick's Vacuum Flowers last year, but haven't read that yet, but anyway that's another stand alone.

There is counter example in neo-cyberpunk (recent) from Anna Mocikat. Her Behind Blue Eyes is a series with the same characters and I have love / relationship with that because she can write very flowing yet vivid way, that quality just isn't always present. But she has managed to make world work in very clever way and her observations are very grounded. Have not only read but also understood some of the classics, not limited to cyberpunk at all.

So was it a good idea?

Yes it was. There are lots of games released every year. There was this co-op shooter, focusing on grind that some were saying was the game CP 2077 was supposed to be. It had neon aesthetics, few sentences of "cyberpunk" for plot and I never played it and I honestly can't remember what's its name is. I have tried to check gaming sites at least couple of times in a month, I don't always remember to do that but I haven't seen it mentioned anywhere for months, I would recall its name if I saw news about it.

What would be the point for CDRP to make virtual cyberpunk theme park? How many actually play the game for that when there's less convoluted options available as they aren't cyberpunk, called GTA and I have understood, Saint's Row?

Who would remember CP 2077 after a year if it was your typical story? Were it sold 20 million+ if it were just standard story?

Not everyone is interested in stories, particularly stories that can have worthwhile IRL parallels. That said, not everyone is interested about virtual pets, apartments and that either.