Ludonarrative dissonance

+
Honesty, that's the same for nearly every open world rpg game out there.

Fallout 4: your son is missing, you want to save him and avenge your wife. But there you go, killing deathclaws and exploring the Wasteland like you're some kind of tourist.

Skyrim: you witnessed a dragon, which everyone believed to be extincts. Better tell about that to someone important as fast as possible, before dragons start setting everything ablaze!... Oh, wait, is that an ancient Dwemer ruin i see in the distance...? Well, i really need a pair of Dwemer boots to match my torso...
I can't comment on the Witcher as I've never played it. As for FO4 and Skyrim, even though I think the urgency of those plots don't compare to this one, I have the choice in those games of acknowledging the urgency, rushing down the main story, and then continuing to enjoy the open world aspect AFTER the plot has been resolved, in a world where you are no longer searching for your son or trying to prevent a dragon apocalypse. Cyberpunk, on the other hand...
 
I love CP77 in many ways. But its pacing and urgency are my biggest criticism to it.
The fact that the whole city opens up after the time bomb sets off. Not only that but almost every mission with a secondary character is set on a short-term time schedule (lets meet tonight, tomorrow at dawn, Panam with an urgent matter "come quick",...).
The game would be greatly improved for me if they allowed us to explore the city/some gigs before the lockdown and if on most of these secondary character missions they found a more vague date and ask US to call them when we can go meet them.
It's true, a lot of RPGs have urgency one way or another, TW3 also had it, we were chasing Yen and when we find her we are chasing Ciri. Yet with cyberpunk the urgency is not only more immediate (dying, losing personality) but it has specific dates which quickly become meaningless and contributes a bit to "not caring" about the urgency ultimately.
Also the argument that other rpgs do it should be a pointer to innovation (here, we can set ourselves apart in this regard and set a new realistic goal for future games). In the one hand Cyberpunk can be so realistic at times that some gamey elements appear to be more flawed than in other games. But this aspect, in my opinion, was handled really "I don't care. Say it happens tomorrow..." time is of no consequence.
 
Mm hm. Just follow the main story and the game is wrapped up in a few hours. And from the perspective of the narrative, it makes sense to take the most direct choices towards the primary objective.

Well, yes really. It's frequently cited by people as a reason they didn't like the game or the storyline.

What you are talking about is not a dissonance between gameplay and the narrative. This is a dissonance between how you as a person/charachter believe you should approach the situation, and things you want to do in the game.

You as a player are built to be a part of the narrative. The game world is designed so that you can express the role of the character you created. The problem is you're always playing the role of a hyper focused character who has no interests/motivation other than the quickest and shortest means of survival(and meta knowledge of which things matter). The narrative reason for helping an assault in progress, is that the V you are roleplaying doesn't like watching people get robbed/killed next to them. The reason to go visit Mama Welles and help Pepe is because the V you are playing cares about these people. The reason to find all the grafitti is because its weird and you are curious what Misty can make of it. The reason to do side gigs is because you need money, reputation, and connections to have a better chance of succeeding.

In a real RPG, every facet of the world is not tied to the "main story" because the player/charachters may not approach things in the same way. This is not poor narrative design, this is good narrative design for an RPG. A player may be RPing a character who prioritizes Judy over their own life. A character may not rush to follow an Arasaka plan for survival because they don't trust/hate Arasaka. A character may be the type not to want to go into a life and death situation with a powerful corporation until they are as unkillable as possible.

The game design and the narrative does not expect you to do anything that doesn't make sense to you. an RPG is a collaborative narrative experience. The game world does a decent job for a videogame of making room for the player to express V's character as they see it. In an RPG it would actually be poor game and narrative design if every content in the game is tied to one narrative.

IMO the biggest causes of ludo narrative dissonance in the game is the features which make it a better game/narrative for the majority of players. Things like scaling mission difficulty to your level, general low difficulty encounters, a journal which labels content as main stories, side stories and gigs.

but these things allow most players to find the narrative with less exploration, complete content without having to be well prepared, Which overall helps more players enjoy the game/narrative than it hurts, mostly because the player can choose to ignore that and play the game/story as if that doesn't exist
Post automatically merged:

I can't comment on the Witcher as I've never played it. As for FO4 and Skyrim, even though I think the urgency of those plots don't compare to this one, I have the choice in those games of acknowledging the urgency, rushing down the main story, and then continuing to enjoy the open world aspect AFTER the plot has been resolved, in a world where you are no longer searching for your son or trying to prevent a dragon apocalypse. Cyberpunk, on the other hand...

I think part of the point and the nature of a cyberpunk world, and the game's theme, Is that you have to live your life at the same time as saving your life, because your life is always in danger. There isn't going to be time to do things at your leisure, unless you get used to the damoclean sword over your head.
 
Last edited:
I think part of the point and the nature of a cyberpunk world, and the game's theme, Is that you have to live your life at the same time as saving your life, because your life is always in danger. There isn't going to be time to do things at your leisure, unless you get used to the damoclean sword over your head.


Maybe, but there is a difference between living your life with a gun easily accessible and a ticking bomb in yourself, that you have (or at least may have) the means to disarm, but choose to go do something else, because.....:)
 
Maybe, but there is a difference between living your life with a gun easily accessible and a ticking bomb in yourself, that you have (or at least may have) the means to disarm, but choose to go do something else, because.....:)

cyberpunk's societal death pressure for survival isn't only being killed in the streets.


And I think many of you guys have a perception of the situation you are in that isn't accurate.
1) there is nothing that is guaranteed to solve your problem. in fact its suggested that there may be no solution.
2)V has no idea what things need to be done and which are dead ends. The only reason the player knows, is because the game labels things
3)people facing possible impending death IRL do not stop trying to live life or only do things designed to elongate their lives.

Chadwick Bozeman(black panther actor) was fighting cancer while filming movies, marrying a woman he loves, doing various activism. Kids fighting cancer want to go to Disney world. Soldiers in war, smoke, drink, have sex, plan for futures that may never come. Steve Jobs resisted surgery. This not uncommon at all. The idea that the possibility of death would make people only act in one specific way is directly contraverted by tons of IRL information.
 
Last edited:
1) there is nothing that is guaranteed to solve your problem. in fact its suggested that there may be no solution.

True....but it still feel strange that when you are told the creator (or at least the lead scientist) for the implant that is killing you, can be grabbed in one day and only in that time frame and you decide to do something else, it feels weird.
2)V has no idea what things need to be done and which are dead ends. The only reason the player knows, is because the game labels things
V kinda does:)

And forgive me, but I will ignore the rest. You are right that V very well might be suicidal, in which case everything works perfectly:) But all in all I still believe(and hope they don't choose this route for expansions) that the main quest is unnecessarily restrictive, considering how much content Night City has:)
 
I think games in general have narrative pacing issues, as inevitably the player is working towards a goal, usually with a degree of urgency, i.e., save the universe, punch nasty person, e.t.c, but also the player can and will stop their very important task to get proverbial cats out of trees with almost no ramifications. (Unless it's Bioware, then the cat will help you fight the last boss, with a better weapon than yours.)

Honestly I think CP should have scrapped the sandbox 'Act' framing structure and gone for a more linear progression, so the urgency could have gone from 'Ooh V's looking Peaky' to 'What Flavour of Dead Would You Like' smoother. Act 2 felt like it was the natural point for faffing about with gigs, but looking back, I wonder if the majority are designed to be left for Act 3, like it was finally hitting V that this was it, and they're scrambling to try and get the most out of their time left
 
True....but it still feel strange that when you are told the creator (or at least the lead scientist) for the implant that is killing you, can be grabbed in one day and only in that time frame and you decide to do something else, it feels weird.

V kinda does:)


And forgive me, but I will ignore the rest. You are right that V very well might be suicidal, in which case everything works perfectly:) But all in all I still believe(and hope they don't choose this route for expansions) that the main quest is unnecessarily restrictive, considering how much content Night City has:)

If it doesnt make sense to you to do something else between two specific missions, don't do it, But that is not the whole game. (don't think that quest tells you what day is the day he is being moved, but if it does, then do it that day)

And you didnt understand what I was saying, its not that these people irl are suicidal, its that you still have to live life, in whatever way you think is best, even while actively trying to survive. Trying to survive and doing other things are rarely mutually exclusive in the game.

There are literally days between people contacting you. There are some untrustworthy people trying to get you to do what they want, with vague promises with no real info (takemura/arasaka) And there is the real fact that doing gigs increases your chance of success. Money and Experience = Power. Play this game, on the hardest difficulty, Hardcore(no continues) and tell me there is no point in doing gigs/getting money/improving your skills/items. Tell me that putting yourself unprepared into situations you can't run from is the most logical means of surviving, most people will be dead way before the relic kills them.


Then there is the fact that people don't lose their whole way of being when facing possible death. Why would someone play in rock band the day before going into life and death situation? Maybe because tomorrow they are going into a life and death situation? Why pursue romance? maybe because of pleasure? Why stop that guy from killing that guy, maybe because you don't like doing nothing while you can prevent it?
Post automatically merged:

I think games in general have narrative pacing issues, as inevitably the player is working towards a goal, usually with a degree of urgency, i.e., save the universe, punch nasty person, e.t.c, but also the player can and will stop their very important task to get proverbial cats out of trees with almost no ramifications. (Unless it's Bioware, then the cat will help you fight the last boss, with a better weapon than yours.)

Honestly I think CP should have scrapped the sandbox 'Act' framing structure and gone for a more linear progression, so the urgency could have gone from 'Ooh V's looking Peaky' to 'What Flavour of Dead Would You Like' smoother. Act 2 felt like it was the natural point for faffing about with gigs, but looking back, I wonder if the majority are designed to be left for Act 3, like it was finally hitting V that this was it, and they're scrambling to try and get the most out of their time left

its mostly up to the player, except act 1, first couple playthroughs, I rarely did much in act 3. However, if you beat the game fast, and return to before talking to hanako, most of the content would be in act 3.
 
If it doesnt make sense to you to do something else between two specific missions, don't do it, But that is not the whole game. (don't think that quest tells you what day is the day he is being moved, but if it does, then do it that day)

And you didnt understand what I was saying, its not that these people irl are suicidal, its that you still have to live life, in whatever way you think is best, even while actively trying to survive. Trying to survive and doing other things are rarely mutually exclusive in the game.

There are literally days between people contacting you. There are some untrustworthy people trying to get you to do what they want, with vague promises with no real info (takemura/arasaka) And there is the real fact that doing gigs increases your chance of success. Money and Experience = Power. Play this game, on the hardest difficulty, Hardcore(no continues) and tell me there is no point in doing gigs/getting money/improving your skills/items. Tell me that putting yourself unprepared into situations you can't run from is the most logical means of surviving, most people will be dead way before the relic kills them.


Then there is the fact that people don't lose their whole way of being when facing possible death. Why would someone play in rock band the day before going into life and death situation? Maybe because tomorrow they are going into a life and death situation? Why pursue romance? maybe because of pleasure? Why stop that guy from killing that guy, maybe because you don't like doing nothing while you can prevent it?
Post automatically merged:



its mostly up to the player, except act 1, first couple playthroughs, I rarely did much in act 3. However, if you beat the game fast, and return to before talking to hanako, most of the content would be in act 3.

...I wonder if you (general you not you specifically) are able to do 100% of side content without completely headcanoning the main quest.....

I don't believe you have as much time between the MQ missions, as you think:)
 
What you are talking about is not a dissonance between gameplay and the narrative. This is a dissonance between how you as a person/charachter believe you should approach the situation, and things you want to do in the game.
No, there's a dissonance between the gameplay and the narrative.

The narrative: the MC is dying and needs to find a solution as quickly as possible.
The gameplay: Here is a NCPD dispatch that pays $100.

What I want to do is beside the point. I mean, excuse me for wanting to do some open world exploration in an open world game, but it really has no bearing on the core discontinuity between what the narrative tells us and what the gameplay invites or enables us to do.

I mean, come on. If you're going to take the time to dump these walls of text on people you could at least take a couple minutes to think about your argument and check for consistency. Just a friendly tip for engaging in discourse.
 
No, there's a dissonance between the gameplay and the narrative.

The narrative: the MC is dying and needs to find a solution as quickly as possible.
The gameplay: Here is a NCPD dispatch that pays $100.

What I want to do is beside the point. I mean, excuse me for wanting to do some open world exploration in an open world game, but it really has no bearing on the core discontinuity between what the narrative tells us and what the gameplay invites or enables us to do.

I mean, come on. If you're going to take the time to dump these walls of text on people you could at least take a couple minutes to think about your argument and check for consistency. Just a friendly tip for engaging in discourse.
Man there's no need for that. No need for paternizing. I have dificulties with the pacing of the game, I don't agree with some choices and would change some things around but there were some very good points in what s(he) said. To me that comes from someone without any problems with discourse.
 
Man there's no need for that. No need for paternizing. I have dificulties with the pacing of the game, I don't agree with some choices and would change some things around but there were some very good points in what s(he) said. To me that comes from someone without any problems with discourse.
The term you're looking for is "patronizing" (see what I did there?)

If you think the points were good, then feel free to make a clear argument as to why.
 
I can't comment on the Witcher as I've never played it. As for FO4 and Skyrim, even though I think the urgency of those plots don't compare to this one, I have the choice in those games of acknowledging the urgency, rushing down the main story, and then continuing to enjoy the open world aspect AFTER the plot has been resolved, in a world where you are no longer searching for your son or trying to prevent a dragon apocalypse. Cyberpunk, on the other hand...
... you know you're going to die and lose the will to continue playing?
On my previous playthrough, by the end Goro tells me it's too late (duno why I payed more attention to this than previously), the Relic took over and all will come to an end, V has 6 months to live. I thought, well.. can I rush the main story, ignore all side quests, hustles and focus on helping Hanako helping me before it's too late? So, I started a new game, rushed everything and.. no joy, Takemura message is still the same, it's too late.
For a while I believed there was a way to get to the end without V's scripted fate. I have not discarded the possibility of getting to the end without the scripted dark fate but thought of approaching the game in another way, I know V is going to die in 6 months, what can I take off NC during this period?
Say in real life, let's imagine you have a terminal disease, are you going to surrender and stop fighting and hunting for a way out? I don't think I would.
I have managed to help Hanako and Goro with Arasaka with barely any street cred but unfortunately they could not help me but I still have my street credit to work on and thugs to take care of and things I still want to try, and that's what I'm going to do, take advantage of the 6 months I have left in NC and who knows maybe something unexpected might pop up that changes what we know the end will be.
If you ever moved from one city to another, to another country.. 6 months is a lot of time, a lot of things can happen... I wouldn't be surprised if we see CDPR releasing more content 6 months after the initial release in December 2020.
I have about 900 hours gameplay, that's barely a month in game time ;)
 
...I wonder if you (general you not you specifically) are able to do 100% of side content without completely headcanoning the main quest.....

I don't believe you have as much time between the MQ missions, as you think:)

doing 100% of side content on one character, role playing wise would mean your character is extremely concerned with doing side content. It would be like visiting every restaraunt in Manhattan. Not impossible, but not something you do unless you have a specific desire to do so.

the side content can be 100%Ed, but its not an expectation of game design that every or most players do it. Like collecting every car.

Also, headcannon is part of the design of this game. V has no fixed character most of the decisions in this game are about the player expressing who V is as a character, that they decided on their own. You literally write V's backstory and current story.
 
Last edited:
... you know you're going to die and lose the will to continue playing?
Yes

But more relevantly, you never even play the V that gets that joke of an ending. You only ever play the game as V with a couple week life expectancy. What fucking lunatic would agree to a ride along with a psycho zealot for an entire day with that over their heads. I can't enjoy any side content because of that dissonance.
 
No, there's a dissonance between the gameplay and the narrative.

The narrative: the MC is dying and needs to find a solution as quickly as possible.
The gameplay: Here is a NCPD dispatch that pays $100.

What I want to do is beside the point. I mean, excuse me for wanting to do some open world exploration in an open world game, but it really has no bearing on the core discontinuity between what the narrative tells us and what the gameplay invites or enables us to do.

I mean, come on. If you're going to take the time to dump these walls of text on people you could at least take a couple minutes to think about your argument and check for consistency. Just a friendly tip for engaging in discourse.

nothing I said is inconsistent.

What you are describing is not a dissonance between game design and narrative. You want the game to justify an action narratively that is not what the game is designed to do.

The side gigs and assaults are there to represent all the mercenary jobs that exist in night city, for all types of V. Just like getting all the cars, or seeing every place that exists in the game. seeing every food vendor, Its perfectly fine to do so, but why would the narrative be designed around an action that would mostly be motivated by a specific interest of the player?

Thats a player/charachter motivation, not a main plot narrative motivation.

To be clear, what I am saying is, the main plot has no requirement to encourage the player to do ALL the side missions or explore every facet of the world. That doesn't mean players cannot, or should not do it, but that is not something the main narrative, nor the gameplay specifically encourage.

This represents a player desire for completionism, which is totally fine, and fair, depending on who your V character is it can even make sense. But the main narrative, and general gameplay is not designed around players taking this approach.
 
Last edited:
nothing I said is inconsistent.

What you are describing is not a dissonance between game design and narrative. You want the game to justify an action narratively that is not what the game is designed to do.
Why not?

The side gigs and assaults are there to represent all the mercenary jobs that exist in night city, for all types of V.
Obviously.

Just like getting all the cars, or seeing every place that exists in the game. seeing every food vendor, Its perfectly fine to do so, but why would the narrative be designed around an action that would mostly be motivated by a specific interest of the player?
Because not being designed that way results in the dissonance that is the subject of this thread.

Thats a player/charachter motivation, not a main plot narrative motivation.
Yes, and the point of the thread is that narrative motivation clashes with player motivation. Which is the subject of the thread.

To be clear, what I am saying is, the main plot has no requirement to encourage the player to do ALL the side missions or explore every facet of the world. That doesn't mean players cannot, or should not do it, but that is not something the main narrative, nor the gameplay specifically encourage.
No, but when the main narrative actively discourages the player from engaging in other aspects of the game (by making those actions narratively illogical), narrative dissonance is created. You haven't explained why this isn't the case.

This represents a player desire for completionism, which is totally fine, and fair, depending on who your V character is it can even make sense. But the main narrative, and general gameplay is not designed around players taking this approach.
This is not a question of completionism. From a narrative point of view, engaging in an entire category of content in the game is incongruous with the premise of the narrative. Just repeating over and over that it's fine is not an argument.
 
Last edited:
Why not?


Obviously.


Because not being designed that way results in the dissonance that is the subject of this thread.


Yes, and the point of the thread is that narrative motivation clashes with player motivation. Which is the subject of the thread.


No, but when the main narrative actively discourages the player from engaging in other aspects of the game (by making those actions narratively illogical), narrative dissonance is created. You haven't explained why this isn't the case.


This is not a question of completionism. From a narrative point of view, engaging in an entire category of content in the game is incongruous with the premise of the narrative. Just repeating over and over that this is the case is not an argument.

Ludo narrative dissonance(the subject if thread) is dissonance between the game design, and the narrative design.

you are describing a dissonance between what you want the game design to be and what the game is designed to be. The game does not present doing 100% gigs and assault as required, in fact it presents them as optional. The game does not present doing the Main story as soon as possible as the right way to play the game. (it in fact suggests the opposite)

narrative motivation and player motivation clashing is not always bad game/narrative design. Player motivation is different for each player.

creating tension between character motivation and other narrative motivations is generally a key to interesting storytelling. The game design and narrative design want that tension to exist in this game. The conflict between what V is told to do to survive and what V wants to do with their life is a central theme of the narrative.

You are ignoring the part of the narrative that the player provides(this is an RPG), And other Narratives presented in game. The player creates V's history, their values, who they are as a person. Some narratives reject that the main purpose of V's life should be only survival.


that aside, you are also exagerating, what category of content is completely incongruous? you can likely do 60-70% of the side jobs with the narrative pauses. You can also do different gigs in different playthroughs with the time between the narrative if you wish.

You can do the whole of Watson before meeting Evelyn. There is no narrative rush to meet her. You can do gigs between story missions, hence the I'll call you back parts. There is narrative justification for doing any gig, money.
 
Top Bottom