When I say the reader has to accept the premise, I don't mean they are required by law, i mean in order to enjoy any work of fiction, the reader has to choose to go along with the story. its a literary concept called the willing suspension of disbelief.
Basically, when it comes to critique, its kind of pointless to reject something at its premise. If someone hands you the script for terminator, but you are like this story isn't believable, you should write something like star trek, it just means you were never going to engage with their script. Its just not for you.
Suspension of disbelief is when you're in Middle Earth and there are Elves, Dwarves, Orcs and Goblins. It shouldn't be "The singularity is about to explode". My dislike of the CP narrative has nothing to do with suspending disbelief. A merc blindly walking into a very troubling set of circumstances via surrounding themselves with poor decision making, both in terms of choices by those around them and their own, is believable. It's also how up and coming mercs end up in a ditch and remain as relatively unknowns.
My critique isn't about the premise of the story. So you're two for two. In isolation the concepts of the Heist, the relic, all of the characters, and even V were not the disappointment. The criticism is directed at the execution.
In an action story, there is ultimately only two choices, the main character is either someone who accepts the call to action, or it is forced upon them. Because if the protagonist does neither, you won't have an action story. A character who avoids risk, is probably not going to be the center of a Pondsmith cyberpunk story.
Three for three. All risk isn't created equal. There is a fine line between "this is worth the risk" and "this is stupid". An edgerunner would willingly take on risk. It goes with the territory and job description. A successful one wouldn't engage in stupidity.
Its still unknown really if dex was going to screw over V no matter what. He never actually attempts to get the relic, and if you tell him you don't have it, he says good. If you say you do he never tries to get it from you. He also tells you when he thinks he is killing you, that its because he doesn't want to die. He has no particular reason to lie at that point. The reality is V was never supposed to be detected, no one signed up for a hot war with arasaka. V was a huge danger to everyone involved at that point, and although its clear dex made the wrong choice, it was not unreasonable. V literally has a high speed chase leading directly to his fixer's door. my point is its clear that dex wasn't ride or die for V. But we have no evidence to suggest he was going to kill V if everything went well.
No evidence? Were you paying attention? The game tosses a lot of little pieces of information in there foreshadowing the result of the Heist (drink names/blaze of glory, Evelyn convo, Dex convos, Judy commentary, etc.). It was all ambigious, yes. But if they were trying to frustrate with ambiguity then they didn't get everyone.
Besides, is necessity to complete "The Heist" before the whole city opens up really such a big deal?
Well, consider this.... The moment the world in CP opens up is the same point you are made aware your character has an extremely short expiration date. So when the game says "travel around, see the world, experience all the things" it also says "you're dying in two weeks if you don't fix this problem". Think about that for a minute or two.
Someone mentioned it would have fit better if "travel around, see the world, experience all the things" came up before the Heist. To me it's an astute observation. Instead of dropping extreme urgency on the player for most of the game, and right at the point when you're telling them to explore the world, delay it. First, offer an opportunity to explore the world. Then drop the urgency on them. It makes for much better pacing and logical consistency. It also offers validation for V performing the Heist in the first place. Instead of a 6 month montage, two jobs (Dorsett + Spider Bot) and a conversation with a doll in a club.
This is what I mean when I say games with strong narratives and open world often completely ignore getting the pairing right. Urgency in a story within such a game is fine if it's placed in the right time and place. The urgency vs open world conflict only comes up when this is not done properly. If you actually put more thought into what the hell you're doing and trying to achieve, and construct the game accordingly, this would be a far smaller issue.
I'm struggling to think of a worse game to skip dialogue on. I mean, it's kind of the whole point!!
Well, it's clear from various pieces of information the idea there was to be as inclusive as possible. Some people play "RPG's" like they're pure action games. Dialogue? Who needs it? And when enough money enters the equation, as is always the case, the goalposts shift from "commitment to quality" to "maximize sales as much as possible while minimizing costs as much as possible". Expand your audience to include everyone to do the former and cut corners left and right, while saying one thing and doing another, to do the latter.
Sadly, what ends up happening is the experience gets watered down for all involved....