For anyone that played the witcher, there is a major moral decision you had to make in the main game. It had to do with essentially killing a monster baby (botchling), or saving it in order to find someone. In a sense, even this was censored. If you choose to attack/kill the monster, it turns into a larger creature. Regardless, the moral decisions seem to be in place here, particularly for the witcher as it reflects his character. These kind of decisions is what I love about the game.
Maybe in this game, you will have similar choices. We will see how far it goes. Maybe possibly to "Postal" levels. If you don't know what I'm talking about, take a look at the game and you will understand.
Regardless, having a forced moral compass will make the game not as fun, nor what it should be. If the game requires an AO rating, then so be it. It should require adult maturity to play it anyway, or at the very least adult supervision with a teenager. I don't think any kids should play this kind of game, unless of course, parents be parents, and play the game with them and educate them through it. Teach them right from wrong, so they know the choices in the game, are just that, a game. The problem with kids and morality today is, parents aren't being parents, and the game is the babysitter. With no direction for kids to learn, of course they turn out like they do.
Maybe in this game, you will have similar choices. We will see how far it goes. Maybe possibly to "Postal" levels. If you don't know what I'm talking about, take a look at the game and you will understand.
Regardless, having a forced moral compass will make the game not as fun, nor what it should be. If the game requires an AO rating, then so be it. It should require adult maturity to play it anyway, or at the very least adult supervision with a teenager. I don't think any kids should play this kind of game, unless of course, parents be parents, and play the game with them and educate them through it. Teach them right from wrong, so they know the choices in the game, are just that, a game. The problem with kids and morality today is, parents aren't being parents, and the game is the babysitter. With no direction for kids to learn, of course they turn out like they do.
Yet, you don't see any video games where you can kill children released in the United States after 2006. And that's the only change as far as content you see in video games.
Fine. Ham-to-ham combat. Loser must dance the Mamushka at Waterloo.
My basic opinion is that existing concepts should be explored to their fullest potential. There shouldn't be any artificial limitations placed on systems, they should be implemented to the greatest extent possible. Weapons should damage everything in the environment, every living thing. I think in order to prevent human life from becoming trivial, you have to simulate the physical and emotional impact of the violence. The physical impact of violence is gore, which plenty of games have, although not usually very realistic. The emotional impact is never explored properly. Soldiers are likely to have a more stoic response to being injured, civilians however should respond differently. There should also be practical consequences to your actions, killing an innocent person should result in the full force of the law, even killing a gang member should result in creating more enemies, all your actions should have consequences.
Last edited by a moderator:
I think we already have a thread that has the questions we'd like answered about the game. I wouldn't hold your breath though, CDPR have yet to get back to me about the use of spoons in Cyberpunk.
I didn't index the source, and could be mistaken, but I thought #3 was answered, you will often have the choice on how to resolve an issue and so avoid killing, but you won't be able to make it through the game without killing anyone.
Trying to find a source, but all I'm finding is the same sentiment on cyberware, so unless someone corroborates this take it with a grain of salt.
Trying to find a source, but all I'm finding is the same sentiment on cyberware, so unless someone corroborates this take it with a grain of salt.
Thank you. I did try to see if anyone has already asked these but I didn't find anything with a solid answer. tho is suspect the answer to each of them is a no...
Last edited:
No worries, we can't all always know all the answers. That's why we have the forums, to aggregate and share knowledge with each other.
Just found the source, an interview between Game Informer and Patrick Mills excerpt:
In an interview, CD Projekt Red quest designer Patrick Mills confirmed to Game Informer that, while you'll have a lot variety in your choices throughout Cyberpunk, your role within its world will make it impossible to always take a non-lethal approach. "You do play as a mercenary, so there are not non-violent solutions to all problems," he said. "It's not possible go through the game non-violently. You're a mercenary. Your job is violence."
*Link to Full Article Here*
1. will i be able to change the UI colors?
No information on this yet, sorry. It's a cool idea though!
2. will any of the NPCs change their clothes?
Important npcs will likely have a "signature outfit", but when it makes sense in the story, they will change their clothes. So yes
3. will it be possible to complete the main storyline without killing anything?
We try to add a lot of variety and choice to how we make our quests in the story and there will be cases where it is possible to spare someone, but you won't be able to get through the whole game without killing anyone.
No information on this yet, sorry. It's a cool idea though!
2. will any of the NPCs change their clothes?
Important npcs will likely have a "signature outfit", but when it makes sense in the story, they will change their clothes. So yes
3. will it be possible to complete the main storyline without killing anything?
We try to add a lot of variety and choice to how we make our quests in the story and there will be cases where it is possible to spare someone, but you won't be able to get through the whole game without killing anyone.
That could simply boil down to it always being incredibly rare. I mean, only a handful of games allowed this before 2006 despite how many were released. Few games include children, and fewer still allow attacking random people.
Now that I think about it, Dragon's Dogma allowed you to kill anyone, children included. Everyone respawns eventually (presumably to keep you from being locked out of certain quests), but they're still very much dead in the moment.
Okay, but there's only one Shatner, so one of us is going to be at a serious disadvantage.
Being able to buy something other than food and pay bills doesn't make one a middle class, even low-middle, whatever this pseudoterm means.
As far as roleplays go, that is kind of the whole thing with games in general. Fallout, Saints Row, Skyrim...etc. You are always roleplaying rather if you are a gunslinger, gangster, superhero or hacker. Only, Cyberpunk would be pretty massive as far as who the player is. Like Westworld, it is about throwing the guest into a world and learning who they are, truly.
I bet most combat is avoidable.
But there will be instances where the only option is the last resort of the incompetent (or unlucky), combat.
The fact everyone respawns is probably the only way they got away with it. I know that even series which previously allowed it, like Fallout, dropped it after that hearing. Even the Sims series removed what little content they had.
You... will always... be... at a... disadvantage!
Basically, "income just above poverty level." So, poor, but not poor enough to actually count as poor.
They do specifically call out your ability to attack unarmed villagers in the rating summary. It'd be kind of silly if respawning gave them a pass on the children and not the adults.
The change in developer likely had more to do with it considering that Oblivion released 9 days before that hearing, shares an engine with Fallout 3, and handled children in the exact same way. Also, I seem to remember reading that it was a conscious choice on their behalf because they were parents and simply didn't want to include it in their games, but I'm having trouble finding the source for that one.
Fine. If we're playing dirty, then I choose a reflective ham basted to a reflective sheen, knowing full well that he'll be mesmerized by his reflection until he starves to death.