New Story DLC

+
If we keep talking about Mike Pondsmith and the lore, not sure he was really involved in the "gameplay" mechanic.
But,
For "info", the "sixth" skill tree, it was, like it's possible see in the 2018 gameplay video the attribute "strength", which most probably become very recently, a skill (Athletics) in the body attribute tree. So more than a "cut", it's more a "rework" ;)
View attachment 11315354
Yes, for various reasons some content were dropped (shortened or "cut"), but the story itself didn't really change in my opinion :)
I'm in the phone now,but in one video posted recently(a talk at university in response of a thread about why he was silent) he said he worked with CDPR with the mechanics because he worked in videogame development and knew what was not going to work...top of my head he said he discouraged flying vehicles to avoid the complexity of 3D displacement with physics and he mentioned the complexity of pen and paper attribute system + 10 archetypes so they went to the classless learn by doing.
 
I'm in the phone now,but in one video posted recently(a talk at university in response of a thread about why he was silent) he said he worked with CDPR with the mechanics because he worked in videogame development and knew what was not going to work...top of my head he said he discouraged flying vehicles to avoid the complexity of 3D displacement with physics and he mentioned the complexity of pen and paper attribute system + 10 archetypes so they went to the classless learn by doing.
Yep it's here ;)
(at the right time)
For those who want, there is something about "how in Cyberpunk, you can't be a hero" just before.
 
;)Fine
But unlike you, CDPR cared and still care about what Mike Pondsmith think...


same CDP of "it run well on old gen console", "our commitment to quality", 2 DLC... cough cough, no, only one, etc you mean?
Yes, I already know that they don't care about players but numbers.... ;) or at least, this "new" CDP, that one of market shares and deceiving trailers. Next time they can sell the game to Mike and be happy :D
 
Last edited:
Nope. But space opera does lean towards heroic journeys and cyberpunk leans towards tragedy. It's rooted in noir, which is a deeply pessimistic genre in general. It's not that the protagonist (including V) has to die, but they almost never get a happy ending.

Also, V isn't dead yet in several of the endings. The Star and Glory endings aren't tragedies. They're ambiguous. Certainly V's situation still looks desperate. But pretty much everyone who isn't a Corpo's life in this setting flirts on the edge of desperate all the time. I wouldn't be surprised if V's in "Cyberpunk 2078" or whatever they want to call it. I wouldn't be surprised if they're not in it either. But even if she doesn't die in the short term. She's still probably doomed to an at best ambiguous ending, because that's the nature of the genre.
I don't think the argument you're making is the one you think you are. 2/6 endings being ambiguous (still dying.. still told going to die. unless variable changes) does not make the endings ambiguous. Majority are Not. As continuing on from 6 divergent equals the endings are flavor. but not meaningful. There is ZERO, I repeat ZERO, 22K long threads on RDR2 forums about how the ending crashed and burned with RDR2's audience, and guess what - their protagonist dies.. no matter what you do!!! Its like the protagonist dying.. accomplishing things they set out to do.. made people have a positive reaction to the story while still sad. Huh - go figure.

Cyberpunk is like the original ending to A Fish Called Wands - until test audiences near universally said their ending was crap and change it now. No mater how artsy fartsy or edgy someone's preferred Coda is... maybe.. just maybe they and their supporters should get off of CDPRs high horse and any decision they made is "good" and listen to their audience. W3 is replayed more than CP77. Same company.. same genre.. one has replayability.. other had so many walk away from. John Cleese was wise enough to realize it needed to change and did so. Tongue in Cheek sure but he changed it.

RDR2's protag had a story.. ended in death but they did what they set out to do...
CDPR tortured the character and set before them the goal of surviving and retaining their personality and identity.. reaped from them and no matter what you do you're dead or broken.

Saddest part is CDPOR think their story is actually good... i'm sure they're right and we're wrong and Mass Effect 3's ending was a masterpiece and will serve them well stickling to their message.... ohhhhhhh
 
CDPR tortured the character and set before them the goal of surviving and retaining their personality and identity.. reaped from them and no matter what you do you're dead or broken.

I totally disagree about your assessment about where V ends in the Star Ending. I'll quote myself a bit rather than retype it all:

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

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

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

________________________________________________________________________________

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

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

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

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

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

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

__________________________________________________________________________________

Regardless of V's choices, it definitely has a story to tell. "Star" is realizing that the whole story the corporations are selling about the rat race and "becoming someone" is a lie being fed to the masses to keep the powerful wealthy. It's opting out of the rat race in exchange for a community and contentment. The "glory" ending sees V trying to continue to make it within that world, which shows grit, but seems unlikely to be successful in the long run for much more than raising some hell and making a name for oneself. The "devil" ending sees V trust the corporation - which does have the greatest chance at achieving some semblance of digitized immortality ... but at what cost ethically and metaphysically? The "Temperance" ending is somewhat like "Star," V again realizes that the allure is a lie, but in this one, gives her body to Johnny to do what he would with it and she opts out into Cyberspace with Alt. However that's a lonelier path than the Star by a wide margin.
Those are some pretty cool concepts for a video game to be exploring.
I don't expect the Story DLC to alter anything about the endings or the main thrust of the story.
 
Last edited:

Guest 4412420

Guest
I ranted about the endings many many times in the endings thread, but the idea that V is only able to realize that "becoming someone" is a lie that puts people on a self-destructive path in the Star ending and fails to realize that in other endings is a bit ridiculous. I'd like to clarify that I'm not saying you're wrong, but that I'm not of a fan of how the game chose to handle this.

I don't understand why wasn't V allowed to actually choose that for themselves. Why is it tied to a location, or people you ask for help? Mama Welles, Misty, Vik all three of these characters are living the quiet life. Yes, they recently suffered a devastating loss but it had nothing to do with a life they live, rather it was the unfortunate outcome of Jackie's decision to try and get to the top.

Quiet life is possible in Night City, but the game acts that it's somehow impossible for V, which is silly. Wouldn't these endings feel more rewarding if V was actually given the choice to realize this for themselves instead of being railroaded into a mindset based on how they chose to handle an unrelated problem? It would certainly feel like I was actually allowed to make a decision myself.

Themes are great, but the way CDPR chose to handle this particular theme is very flawed, in my opinion.

I was able to get that the whole idea of major leagues is a superficial and ultimately harmful lie but I'm stuck with an ending where my V is apparently dumb as bricks and failed to realize that too only because I don't care about Aldecaldos.

There are two lines of dialogue in the Sun ending to cling to that V then goes on to contradict in the space shuttle, so I do hope that CDPR will do something to improve the endings, because right now (to me) it's very unsatisfying and disappointing.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
All you have to do is look at other game endings. First one, and the most obvious that comes to mind, is Mass Effect. The endings we got there were absolutely horrible and it wasn't long before the community picked up their torches and pitchforks and hit Bioware like a brick wall. Angry forum posts, refund requests, some death threats and even a petition to change the endings.

And it worked, sort of. They eventually caved and gave us the "extended cut" endings which really, didn't change much other than to give us some more context. Or so we thought and 10 years later the newest Mass Effect teaser droped which confirmed the "destroy" ending as canon and that, though leaks, commander Shepard would be coming back, in what form nobody knows yet.

But Mass Effect 3 was the third game in a trilogy and Cyberpunk 2077 is a standalone game. They simple chose the year 2077 and ran with it, but it could of been anything. We could of just as easily got a game playing as Johnny Silverhand during his glory days and it could of ended with him getting soul killed, which would of lead perfectly into the game we got now being the second one in a Cyberpunk 2077 trilogy.

IF, and this is a big IF, if they decide down the road to make a SEQUEL to CP2077 they would be forced to pick a canon ending, which one that would be? thats anyone's guess. But after the disaster that was this game's launch, I wouldn't hold out hope for another Cyberpunk game for at least 5-6 years.

IF on the other hand this is the only Cyberpunk game they indend to make featuring V as a protagonist, they better give us the best story expansions they can make, with clear and defined impact on the game's ending, because I'm telling you right now, if I don't get an ending where V is sitting on a beach sipping cocktails with their love interest... I'm gonna write a verry angry letter!


God, I'd make a terrible writer.... I'd want to give all my characters a happy ending :(
 

Guest 3847602

Guest
First one, and the most obvious that comes to mind, is Mass Effect.
ME3 could only wish for the only thing wrong with its ending to be Shepard's death. :howdy:
It's not even close to being the only or even the main reason why so many people were pissed at BioWare.
Obvious plotholes, thematic inconsistencies, Trek-esque sci-fi descending into mysticism, rendering the entire setting unusable for future games, etc...
Any of these things individually would make the ending really, really bad even if Shepard got to survive and ride off into the sunset.

Cyberpunk 2077's ending had none of these problems.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I just want my gay sons to come back down to Earth from a successful casino heist, hug and kiss their sexy geriatric boyfriend, then go demand what that elusive Mr. Blue Eyes owes them.

PLEASE GIMME THAT! I WANT MY BOYS AND THEIR BOYFRIEND TO BE REUNITED!
 
IF, and this is a big IF, if they decide down the road to make a SEQUEL to CP2077 they would be forced to pick a canon ending, which one that would be? thats anyone's guess.
They've already done a three prologue opening in 2077. If they want to stick with V for 2078 (which would be a good idea IMO, I think most people liked the character), they could have a 4 prologue opening with each picking up where that V left off in the four main endings (Devil, Glory, Star, Temperance). Each one leads back to the same main quest with some flavor differences based on the chosen prologue. It would definitely be doable.

That seems much more likely in a sequel than in a Story DLC to me, for the reasons I stated several pages back. Making your customers buy an expansion in order to get the "happy ending" would be pretty rough.
 
They've already done a three prologue opening in 2077. If they want to stick with V for 2078 (which would be a good idea IMO, I think most people liked the character), they could have a 4 prologue opening with each picking up where that V left off in the four main endings (Devil, Glory, Star, Temperance). Each one leads back to the same main quest with some flavor differences based on the chosen prologue. It would definitely be doable.

That seems much more likely in a sequel than in a Story DLC to me, for the reasons I stated several pages back. Making your customers buy an expansion in order to get the "happy ending" would be pretty rough.
Normally I would agree with you, that's something I would expect from EA, not CDPR. But the damage has already been done, they ruined the game launch by release the game in an unfinished state, expansions that influence the endings would just be filling in the gaps at this point, I don't think we can avoid them.

And besides, there's ways they can make it up to us like free cosmetic DLC or discount on expansions or w/e.
Post automatically merged:

ME3 could only wish for the only thing wrong with its ending to be Shepard's death. :howdy:
It's not even close to being the only or even the main reason why so many people were pissed at BioWare.
Obvious plotholes, thematic inconsistencies, Trek-esque sci-fi descending into mysticism, rendering the entire setting unusable for future games, etc...
Any of these things individually would make the ending really, really bad even if Shepard got to survive and ride off into the sunset.

Cyberpunk 2077's ending had none of these problems.
Well if you believe the leaks out of Bioware, Shepard will make an appearance in the next Mass Effect game, god knows how and why, so there's that.

As for the CP2077 endings, its not that they're poorly done, they sound incomplete and scream sequel / expansion bait. Wether its the space casino or going to Arizona, you get the feeling there's more to the story to be told. Maybe I'm bias because I want closure for my characters, who knows.
 
Last edited:
I don't want to hijack this thread for a Mass Effect rant, but I seriously don't understand the issues with ME3's endings.
I find them fitting for the story being told and the conclusion it was taken to.
Destroy (Perfect Destroy), basically the same endings with the perfect version being added to make people see Shepard stand up out of the rubble. Basically the allied forces have more firpower dealing with reapers so they are better off, a few more poeple live (99% of which nobody cares)
Synthesis, Oh what a weird one this.
Control, easily my favourite and I even regard it as the 'good/happy'ending. shepard essentially remains alive, just not in a human form.

If anything, you should already blame ME1 for the Reapers, and their Super Saiyan Godform they were already given.
ME3 basically just did the Aliens to Alien step in a visual way.
There's millions of Reapers and they destroy the galaxy (sort of)
But we already knew this as early as ME1/2 if I recall.
Sovereign was clever enough to talk about himself as an 'I am' and 'we are' simultaneously, blurring the idea that Reapers could be a collective mind haboured in one vessel, or there being many. But as soon as Sovereign is defeated we are already worried about them still coming. so we knew right then and there.

Anyway, I'll leave that there becasue otherwise I end up with a post 10x as long again.

As for the Cyberpunk ending comparison. I have more 'problems' with the cyberpunk endings, specifically when going "The Star" route, and this has to do with the glaring cliffhanger in the form of "we'll find you something that saves you yet"
And all created by that one line about 'you've only got 6 months remaining'. I was fully convinced we would go on that quest.
And the game treats it as such... right up to where the screen fades to black and you're like... wait wut?!

Mass Effect (a campaign at least 4 times the length) it was glaringly obvious what was gonna happen. so you could have been aptly prepared for Shepards ultimate sacrifice.
 
Because you think that in ME1 and then in ME2, the endings don't "scream" sequel ?
So I agree with @Rawls, the endings are a good "openning" for a sequel :)
Not really compareble. Me was always planned as a triology (im guessing the main points were planned years in advance, it was reveled as a triology too) CP we just dont know yet. It might be planned for several games either linked or standalone.
 
Not really compareble. Me was always planned as a triology (im guessing the main points were planned years in advance, it was reveled as a triology too) CP we just dont know yet. It might be planned for several games either linked or standalone.
A little :)
Because Cyberpunk 2077 is some sort of sequel of all the previous Cyberpunk (Cyberpunk 2013, Cyberpunk 2020 and Cyberpunk Red) and if there is a sequel of Cyberpunk 2077 (I'm quite confident it will have a sequel), even without V, it will include all the events which happened.
 
I don't think the argument you're making is the one you think you are. 2/6 endings being ambiguous (still dying.. still told going to die. unless variable changes) does not make the endings ambiguous. Majority are Not. As continuing on from 6 divergent equals the endings are flavor. but not meaningful. There is ZERO, I repeat ZERO, 22K long threads on RDR2 forums about how the ending crashed and burned with RDR2's audience, and guess what - their protagonist dies.. no matter what you do!!! Its like the protagonist dying.. accomplishing things they set out to do.. made people have a positive reaction to the story while still sad. Huh - go figure.

Cyberpunk is like the original ending to A Fish Called Wands - until test audiences near universally said their ending was crap and change it now. No mater how artsy fartsy or edgy someone's preferred Coda is... maybe.. just maybe they and their supporters should get off of CDPRs high horse and any decision they made is "good" and listen to their audience. W3 is replayed more than CP77. Same company.. same genre.. one has replayability.. other had so many walk away from. John Cleese was wise enough to realize it needed to change and did so. Tongue in Cheek sure but he changed it.

RDR2's protag had a story.. ended in death but they did what they set out to do...
CDPR tortured the character and set before them the goal of surviving and retaining their personality and identity.. reaped from them and no matter what you do you're dead or broken.

Saddest part is CDPOR think their story is actually good... i'm sure they're right and we're wrong and Mass Effect 3's ending was a masterpiece and will serve them well stickling to their message.... ohhhhhhh
RDR2 is boring.
Cyberpunk is genre, if you don't like cyberpunk don't play game called Cyberpunk 2077. Hero who dies (or not) is not problem, as I said, if this kind of thing not making you happy with story, try to avoid genre.
 

Guest 4412420

Guest
That seems much more likely in a sequel than in a Story DLC to me, for the reasons I stated several pages back. Making your customers buy an expansion in order to get the "happy ending" would be pretty rough.
I think the reason why some of us are hankering for the expansion to give V some proper closure is because chances of a sequel featuring V as the protagonist are pretty low. I like V a lot and would love at least one more game with them at the helm, but I'm not very optimistic that will happen.

I agree that some of the current endings would make a fine starting point, but at the same time the Star ending is a bit of an outlier because it's the only ending where V leaves Night City. Would V come back to NC for a sequel or would it be set in Arizona to accommodate a single ending?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I think the reason why some of us are hankering for the expansion to give V some proper closure is because chances of a sequel featuring V as the protagonist are pretty low. I like V a lot and would love at least one more game with them at the helm, but I'm not very optimistic that will happen.

I agree that some of the current endings would make a fine starting point, but at the same time the Star ending is a bit of an outlier because it's the only ending where V leaves Night City. Would V come back to NC for a sequel or would it be set in Arizona to accommodate a single ending?
^This.
 
As for the Cyberpunk ending comparison. I have more 'problems' with the cyberpunk endings, specifically when going "The Star" route, and this has to do with the glaring cliffhanger in the form of "we'll find you something that saves you yet"
And all created by that one line about 'you've only got 6 months remaining'. I was fully convinced we would go on that quest.
And the game treats it as such... right up to where the screen fades to black and you're like... wait wut?!
The Sun is the same way. V starts making their way towards the Crystal Palace, gun in hand, ready to fuck shit up.....then credits. It was a figurative 'blue ball' moment that was quite irritating. lol.
 
Top Bottom