Should there have been a third act?

[northwold]

CDPR could have nailed the game very differently.

Act 1. You start out rescuing Sandra Dorsett and get harassed by the scavs, but there is no lock-down of Watson. Jackie drives you home as he wants to borrow the car for a night out with Misty. You wake up the next morning, gets down to the foodstand and Jackie hands over the keys to the car, and you visit Vik for some new cyberware. The gameplay is that Jackie follows you around as you do the NCPD-quests, and the fixer-quests are opened up to you one by one (and not depending on your Street Cred). You won't see all of the yellow markers on the map, just one for each fixer, and all the blue icons for the NCPD-quests.

* * *

Act 2 starts after you've completed at minimum 10 quests for each fixer (you can do all of them if you want to) + all of the NCPD-quests (mandatory). The act starts when you get contacted by Dexter DeShawn at the Afterlife (as it's open to you from the beginning, he simply spawns in at a couch there with his dog). The trigger for this to happen is to talk to Rogue, after you've done a couple of quests for her (minimum 2 quests), and you ask specifically if she has some 'serious paying' quests. She mentions Dexter DeShawn has returned and refer to him. You contact him, and he is actually looking for talent (yours truly). So, you visit him the day after you've talked to him. He'll spawns onto a couch in the Afterlife. The meeting is short (of course) as he only mentions the need for the Flathead-bot (not mentioning what it is for). You do "The Pick-up" meeting the Maelstrom-gang and optionally helping Meredith Stout or that other guy. The quests ends as you deploy the Flathead in the secure room in the Afterlife and have a talk with Dex. Now he asks if V is willing to do a misison for him that pays way better than getting the spiderbot. V says yes or no, different outcomes.

If yes, the quest-line continues with "The Information", if no, he reluctantly muses about hiring somebody else, and he'll stay in touch (he'll wait a week before calling V, and this time the quest goes straight to "The Information").

So, V meets Evelyn and has a talk with her, and the brain-dance quest is done.
(Jackie is following a set routine: daytime at the El Coyote, evening with Misty at her workplace then back to his own place in Heywood during night).

The final part of Act 2 is "The Heist", and we all know what happens.

* * *

Act 3. V wakes up at the landfill and the player follows the various quests (trying to find Evelyn [the Judy-questline, trying to find Hellman [the Panam-questline], contacting Kerry when Johnny asks to 'borrow' your body [Kerry-questline+romance], when V is contacted by Peralez [River-questline].

You see what I did? I deploy all 4 romance-options at the same time. Of course Kerry's and River's questlines are a bit longer than what we got. In fact they should be just as well-written as Judy's and Panam's questlines.

So, we're following 4 different questlines at the same time, but for simplicity, Kerry and River are not main-characters, so their supporting roles should be interwoven in Judy's and Panam's questlines. In essence, you'll do Judy and Panam and get Kerry and River for free. Kerry could be interwoven with Judy's questline, while River is in a supporting role in Panam's quest. Could switch around if River is too good to get on the 'bad side' of MiliTech and crime in general. Kerry is a lot more 'fluid' when it comes to do 'illegal stuff'.

So the act ends after you've done both (or really, all 4 romance-options) questlines. Panam gets the Basilisk, while Judy takes a dive with V for the last time before she leaves Night City (or decide to stay with female V).

Act 4. V has gathered friend and allies, so it's time to get to Arasaka Tower and Mikoshi and fix the issue. The act consist of all the main endings, including the 'secret' (not so secret) ending.

* * *

As you can see, I've changed how the player interact in Night City, V gets to go to all places and gather experience, weapons/armor, materials and eddies before taking on the serious gig with Dexter DeShawn. And the two male love-interests are woven into the main-plot as supporting characters.

While this would work, the problem with a structure like this in audience terms is that anyone who doesn't want a pure action game would likely drop the game before your version of act 1 was even halfway through. (So, given that I prioritise story, I would have given up on your version and likely never come back, not least because I don't personally find the Jackie setup remotely interesting at any deep level. Without a tease of what's coming, and a tease delivered quickly, it wouldn't feel like the right game for me.)

I think that's partly the consequence of CP being slightly schizophrenic in trying to combine quite deep storytelling with a jump-in-jump-out action sensibility. If you're not careful, you will alienate one or the other type of player before the experience has really begun.

 

[LeKill3rFou]

While this would work, the problem with a structure like this in audience terms is that anyone who doesn't want a pure action game would likely drop the game before your version of act 1 was even halfway through.

I think that's partly the consequence of CP being slightly schizophrenic in trying to combine quite deep storytelling with a jump-in-jump-out action sensibility. If you're not careful, you will alienate one or the other type of player before the experience has really begun.

Also see "Cyberpunk 2077" screen after more than 5-6 hours of playing, it's surprising

Spoiler

 

[GogRelvas]

CDPR could have nailed the game very differently.

Act 1. You start out rescuing Sandra Dorsett and get harassed by the scavs, but there is no lock-down of Watson. Jackie drives you home as he wants to borrow the car for a night out with Misty. You wake up the next morning, gets down to the foodstand and Jackie hands over the keys to the car, and you visit Vik for some new cyberware. The gameplay is that Jackie follows you around as you do the NCPD-quests, and the fixer-quests are opened up to you one by one (and not depending on your Street Cred). You won't see all of the yellow markers on the map, just one for each fixer, and all the blue icons for the NCPD-quests.

* * *

Act 2 starts after you've completed at minimum 10 quests for each fixer (you can do all of them if you want to) + all of the NCPD-quests (mandatory). The act starts when you get contacted by Dexter DeShawn at the Afterlife (as it's open to you from the beginning, he simply spawns in at a couch there with his dog). The trigger for this to happen is to talk to Rogue, after you've done a couple of quests for her (minimum 2 quests), and you ask specifically if she has some 'serious paying' quests. She mentions Dexter DeShawn has returned and refer to him. You contact him, and he is actually looking for talent (yours truly). So, you visit him the day after you've talked to him. He'll spawns onto a couch in the Afterlife. The meeting is short (of course) as he only mentions the need for the Flathead-bot (not mentioning what it is for). You do "The Pick-up" meeting the Maelstrom-gang and optionally helping Meredith Stout or that other guy. The quests ends as you deploy the Flathead in the secure room in the Afterlife and have a talk with Dex. Now he asks if V is willing to do a misison for him that pays way better than getting the spiderbot. V says yes or no, different outcomes.

If yes, the quest-line continues with "The Information", if no, he reluctantly muses about hiring somebody else, and he'll stay in touch (he'll wait a week before calling V, and this time the quest goes straight to "The Information").

So, V meets Evelyn and has a talk with her, and the brain-dance quest is done.
(Jackie is following a set routine: daytime at the El Coyote, evening with Misty at her workplace then back to his own place in Heywood during night).

The final part of Act 2 is "The Heist", and we all know what happens.

* * *

Act 3. V wakes up at the landfill and the player follows the various quests (trying to find Evelyn [the Judy-questline, trying to find Hellman [the Panam-questline], contacting Kerry when Johnny asks to 'borrow' your body [Kerry-questline+romance], when V is contacted by Peralez [River-questline].

You see what I did? I deploy all 4 romance-options at the same time. Of course Kerry's and River's questlines are a bit longer than what we got. In fact they should be just as well-written as Judy's and Panam's questlines.

So, we're following 4 different questlines at the same time, but for simplicity, Kerry and River are not main-characters, so their supporting roles should be interwoven in Judy's and Panam's questlines. In essence, you'll do Judy and Panam and get Kerry and River for free. Kerry could be interwoven with Judy's questline, while River is in a supporting role in Panam's quest. Could switch around if River is too good to get on the 'bad side' of MiliTech and crime in general. Kerry is a lot more 'fluid' when it comes to do 'illegal stuff'.

So the act ends after you've done both (or really, all 4 romance-options) questlines. Panam gets the Basilisk, while Judy takes a dive with V for the last time before she leaves Night City (or decide to stay with female V).

Act 4. V has gathered friend and allies, so it's time to get to Arasaka Tower and Mikoshi and fix the issue. The act consist of all the main endings, including the 'secret' (not so secret) ending.

* * *

As you can see, I've changed how the player interact in Night City, V gets to go to all places and gather experience, weapons/armor, materials and eddies before taking on the serious gig with Dexter DeShawn. And the two male love-interests are woven into the main-plot as supporting characters.

I like a lot of things here

 

[NorseGraphics]

While I agree to an extent, there's not much story to entertain you if you're there for it than the small gigs. A lot of people want to progress the plot.

Maybe if you did more of the side missions in the first run or added more story to the fixers.

Post automatically merged: Jun 30, 2021

To be fair, the Heist succeeded.

The problem is actually the flaws in the execution. Because if they HAD succeeded, the Voodoo Boyz never intended to pay Evelyn or Dex.

You were always screwed.

They could have gone to NetWatch, as Yorinobu intended.

Post automatically merged: Jun 30, 2021

Not the same thing, Voodoo boys reserve the same treatment for all "rayons". A quick death
Netwatch is more nuanced, they killed the Voodoo Boys, but the malware does not affect V. So it is "less" worse and more targeted.
Anyway, the lesser evil, always remains an "evil"

Seems to me the persona the NetWatch agent displayed was that of somebody who liked to portray himself as a hero. But due to the connections with the corpo-world, there might be conflict of interest.

Another point is that what would they use the chip for? The VDB's wanted to contact Alt, and I wonder if NetWatch was going to try to lure Alt into a trap as they consider the rogue AI's a danger. So, they would very probably pay the price for the chip without stooping to the low level of the VDB's.

 

[LeKill3rFou]

Seems to me the persona the NetWatch agent displayed was that of somebody who liked to portray himself as a hero. But due to the connections with the corpo-world, there might be conflict of interest.

Another point is that what would they use the chip for? The VDB's wanted to contact Alt, and I wonder if NetWatch was going to try to lure Alt into a trap as they consider the rogue AI's a danger. So, they would very probably pay the price for the chip without stooping to the low level of the VDB's.

Yes, in my opinion, your right
Netwatch probably want to catch Alt (or even destroy her/it).
One question I ask myself : Would Netwatch actually pay ?
Evy, not so sure. A simple "sex" doll... probably not.
Yorinobu, maybe. it will still very risky with Saburo alive. Netwatch or not, Saburo wouldn't let that go.

 

[BigWezz69]

Yes absolutely, but the story would require restructuring, and not just stretched into 3 parts, new content required.

 

[NorseGraphics]

While this would work, the problem with a structure like this in audience terms is that anyone who doesn't want a pure action game would likely drop the game before your version of act 1 was even halfway through. (So, given that I prioritise story, I would have given up on your version and likely never come back, not least because I don't personally find the Jackie setup remotely interesting at any deep level. Without a tease of what's coming, and a tease delivered quickly, it wouldn't feel like the right game for me.)

I think that's partly the consequence of CP being slightly schizophrenic in trying to combine quite deep storytelling with a jump-in-jump-out action sensibility. If you're not careful, you will alienate one or the other type of player before the experience has really begun.

Act 1 felt short and pointless, Act 2 felt like the whole city opened up, but felt constrained due to the time-limit (max two weeks or something). You never get the feel to know the city as you're rushing from place to place, or you'll die!! The pacing is wrong and that's why I set up the sequence a bit different. When I said V should do some missions for all fixers during Act 1, it was to make the player feel familiarized with them. As it is now, it all comes out of the blue. The number of missions could be flexible to satiate the short-attention-span crowd. But the premise still stands.

 

[CTPhipps]

They could have gone to NetWatch, as Yorinobu intended.

Post automatically merged: Jun 30, 2021

Seems to me the persona the NetWatch agent displayed was that of somebody who liked to portray himself as a hero. But due to the connections with the corpo-world, there might be conflict of interest.

Another point is that what would they use the chip for? The VDB's wanted to contact Alt, and I wonder if NetWatch was going to try to lure Alt into a trap as they consider the rogue AI's a danger. So, they would very probably pay the price for the chip without stooping to the low level of the VDB's.

They could also plan to use it to sell immortality to their bosses instead of Arasaka.

One thing to note is that Netwatch IS betraying their partners themselves.

Because Yorinobu was ALLIED with Netwatch. They were cutting him out of their deal.

 

[northwold]

Act 1 felt short and pointless, Act 2 felt like the whole city opened up, but felt constrained due to the time-limit (max two weeks or something). You never get the feel to know the city as you're rushing from place to place, or you'll die!! The pacing is wrong and that's why I set up the sequence a bit different. When I said V should do some missions for all fixers during Act 1, it was to make the player feel familiarized with them. As it is now, it all comes out of the blue. The number of missions could be flexible to satiate the short-attention-span crowd. But the premise still stands.

It's interesting, Sasko talked in his livestream about how there was a conscious choice to create one mood and then deliberately catch the player unawares with the "main" vibe of the game.

So I think your version, if the game had been done that way, would have worked if the act 1 focus wasn't on gigs but custom side quests (so something less random and more narratively satisfying than gigs). Possibly, a quest story about finding out about and becoming involved in plans to steal the relic, rather than having it delivered on a plate by Dexter. That way, you'd have a bit more of a consistent narrative tone?

I think nomad gets reasonably close to getting act 1 right because it handles Jackie all the way from first meeting to exit. Corpo certainly didn't. (Haven't played street kid.)

 

[Spectral_Warrior]

My bad:

I think there's multiiple places you could take a third act assuming that the game is completed the same way as before. You would admittedly lose the endings but we're in hypothetical land anyway.

* Going after Yorinobu/Hanako: Now that you've successfully removed Johnny from your Brain, you can try to get revenge for Jackie or deal with the fact Arasaka may be after you (or at least one part of it). In the end you can maybe make peace with Yorinobu because, really, he's a guy who hates Arasaka too or take him down. Either way, there's a big chance that Arasaka wants you dead for destroying Mikoshi.

* Moving to your new apartment: It's a shame we don't get to use V's apartment except for a couple of the endings. It seems like it'd be awesome to actually give you some time to be at the heart of Night City and at the top of the business.

* Ally with Night Corp/Militech: If you have sufficiently pissed off Arasaka forever by your actions, it might be a cool idea to go after the help of one of the other corporations for protection. Night Corp is one that we could have used to follow up on the "brainwashing" plot and probably WILL be DLC but it would have been nice to include in the base game. Militech we've also had plenty of people complaining about having an Advertised Extra role.

* More role for your love interests: They all sort of roll out of the storyline at the end. It'd be nice to bring them back for the ending.

I like these ideas, but I'll point towards the elephant in the room if you dont mind: what of those that left NC?

 

[CTPhipps]

I like these ideas, but I'll point towards the elephant in the room if you dont mind: what of those that left NC?

Well obviously if you're adding another 20 hours to the game then you don't put the ending at the end of Act II. In the Aldecado ending, there's no reason to depart Night City or at least they aren't leaving immediately.

 

[bcraig6010]

CD Projekt Red said that they deliberately kept the game short because they wanted to avoid people not finishing the game like THE WITCHER 3. However, the main quest is something like 30 hours when there's a lot of video games that are at least 40 hours and that is considered a standard. In a very real way, I think the main quest of Cyberpunk 2077 is pretty damn short and also hurts for its breakneck pacing to an ending that has already been analyzed to death. It's also problematic because it is a game that has a hazy set of motivations for V in terms of side content.

In simple terms, V is dying for the majority of the game and there's no real reason for them to do the side content. Not even reasons that are justifiable in other games like Red Dead Redemption 2 where for 80% of the game you're trying to raise money for the gang and only at the end do you realize that money is worthless to you. It makes perfect sense before the Watson arc finishes because you and Jackie are trying to make money because you have your whole lives ahead of you but that's cut off at the end.

A part of me thinks a third act would have been really better for this game even if it utterly derailed the current endings. I'm inclined to think CDPR should have had V able to get his cure and then have the remainder of the story deal with Yorinobu and the consequences of their destruction of Arasaka's Mikaboshi project (or taking it over). After that, there's plenty of time for V to continue doing jobs as a cured Edgerunner and make their money.

What do you think?

Time.

Should it have had more content in main story. Absolutely.

But when they hired Reeves, and doubled his role AND made the switch to first person for everything.. all cutscenes not only had to be rewritten and animated for any johnny lines and animating.. but also to switch to first person - so you are redoing old work. Animating 1st person vs. third person. Anyone who understands camera work and actors knows its smokescreen to say first person camera is more immersive

Just see extended gameplay trailer from the E3..
T-bug is alive - and all scenes are in-game rendered in third person (elevator.. hook up in apartment.. etc.. etc) you get so much more feeling and emotion from V vs. just the voice. But then again if going to sentence them still to death and sliver of some vague hope - can have players getting connected to their V too much can we.

The flow was making a change late in the game then trying to first person to get as many scenes/cutscenes animated as well as incorporate johnny's bigger role.

I highly suspect plotlines were vastly changed or cut from the new storyline they had developed.

and... I agree, but it would be nice if you had mentioned that Arthur's goal was to save the gang - which he succeeded at. Even in his death. As living was not his goal, saving the gang and putting them aright again.

For those who doubt the camera immersion statement....

Watch the first meeting in Silence of the Lambs between Hannibal and Agent Starling.
Now just watch it from one of the two viewpoints.. and listen to the POC character only.
You will entirely miss out on.....
either Foster's acting OR Hopkins acting performance- Entirely
camera angles showing who is "winning" the tete-a-tete along the way.. when starling gets in a good line.. when Hannibal asserts his position over starling
close ups... OMG imagine watching the scene from only one of the two POVS, losing the others entire performance except voice.. and you have the camera in a mid-shot range and lose the close ups of Foster and Hopkins

now do the same thing for the "desert" scene in Inglorious Bastards or the "milk" scene.

gameplay - 1st person - absolutely.
motion pictures (cutscenes) done solely in the first person... (facepalm)

no director worth their salt does this. it removes so many tools in their toolbox for how to express the story and dialogue and visuals in their medium.

for the old timers here.....
Godfather... italian restaurant... entire scene done POV from Michael's position. Losing your cuts.. losing your closeups.. losing the acting of Pacino .. the hesitancy... the determination.. the anxiety.. its comes across in the performance

Apocalypse Now
instead of an angry first person V, upset they are dying and punching a mirror and getting upset at their new death sentence

Michael Sheen - his first scene.. and his drunken , violent, emoting of what hes going through and his state of mind being in Vietnam.

Which one gets it across better. 1st person or seeing the performance. Which is more immersive to the viewer/player getting inside the head of the characters on screen.

 

[CTPhipps]

Time.

Should it have had more content in main story. Absolutely.

But when they hired Reeves, and doubled his role AND made the switch to first person for everything.. all cutscenes not only had to be rewritten and animated for any johnny lines and animating.. but also to switch to first person - so you are redoing old work. Animating 1st person vs. third person. Anyone who understands camera work and actors knows its smokescreen to say first person camera is more immersive

Just see extended gameplay trailer from the E3..
T-bug is alive - and all scenes are in-game rendered in third person (elevator.. hook up in apartment.. etc.. etc) you get so much more feeling and emotion from V vs. just the voice. But then again if going to sentence them still to death and sliver of some vague hope - can have players getting connected to their V too much can we.

The flow was making a change late in the game then trying to first person to get as many scenes/cutscenes animated as well as incorporate johnny's bigger role.

I highly suspect plotlines were vastly changed or cut from the new storyline they had developed.

and... I agree, but it would be nice if you had mentioned that Arthur's goal was to save the gang - which he succeeded at. Even in his death. As living was not his goal, saving the gang and putting them aright again.

For those who doubt the camera immersion statement....

Watch the first meeting in Silence of the Lambs between Hannibal and Agent Starling.
Now just watch it from one of the two viewpoints.. and listen to the POC character only.
You will entirely miss out on.....
either Foster's acting OR Hopkins acting performance- Entirely
camera angles showing who is "winning" the tete-a-tete along the way.. when starling gets in a good line.. when Hannibal asserts his position over starling
close ups... OMG imagine watching the scene from only one of the two POVS, losing the others entire performance except voice.. and you have the camera in a mid-shot range and lose the close ups of Foster and Hopkins

now do the same thing for the "desert" scene in Inglorious Bastards or the "milk" scene.

gameplay - 1st person - absolutely.
motion pictures (cutscenes) done solely in the first person... (facepalm)

no director worth their salt does this. it removes so many tools in their toolbox for how to express the story and dialogue and visuals in their medium.

for the old timers here.....
Godfather... italian restaurant... entire scene done POV from Michael's position. Losing your cuts.. losing your closeups.. losing the acting of Pacino .. the hesitancy... the determination.. the anxiety.. its comes across in the performance

Apocalypse Now
instead of an angry first person V, upset they are dying and punching a mirror and getting upset at their new death sentence

Michael Sheen - his first scene.. and his drunken , violent, emoting of what hes going through and his state of mind being in Vietnam.

Which one gets it across better. 1st person or seeing the performance. Which is more immersive to the viewer/player getting inside the head of the characters on screen.

Honestly, the "blame Reeves for the lack of time" business is silly and doesn't make a whole lot of sense. All they did was added him to make commentary on side quests and that is not something that would significantly impact the storyline. Johnny making snarky remarks is not the reason no trains run on the tracks.

People have a lot of ideas about what is missing but there's no sign that I can see so far that there IS anything missing. People want there to be but it seems very clear that the slashing happened pretty early and its the fact they couldn't get the game working that was the big problem for the latter half of the game's development.

But that's just my opinion.

I will say that I do think a major part of the game's problem is the fact that in addition to not really doing the urgency well, the "save yourself" storyline is actually...not that interesting. V is a character that has a very primal need to live but I actually think the game does a poor job of implying any other motivations or things that they might be interested in.

To mention Arthur Morgan, he wants to save the gang but he also wants revenge on Micah and other unfinished business. What is V's unfinished business? What are their goals other than survive? Do they have any beliefs? Funnily you get a lot of options when you're crucifying a guy but very few actually about whether your V is an atheist or believer in an afterlife.

There's a lot of disconnect for V actually developing a character with intense emotions to anyone but Jackie (which makes sense) but Jackie is dead so your biggest tie to the character is gone by Act II.

 

[LeKill3rFou]

Time.

Should it have had more content in main story. Absolutely.

But when they hired Reeves, and doubled his role AND made the switch to first person for everything.. all cutscenes not only had to be rewritten and animated for any johnny lines and animating.. but also to switch to first person - so you are redoing old work. Animating 1st person vs. third person. Anyone who understands camera work and actors knows its smokescreen to say first person camera is more immersive

Just see extended gameplay trailer from the E3..
T-bug is alive - and all scenes are in-game rendered in third person (elevator.. hook up in apartment.. etc.. etc) you get so much more feeling and emotion from V vs. just the voice. But then again if going to sentence them still to death and sliver of some vague hope - can have players getting connected to their V too much can we.

The flow was making a change late in the game then trying to first person to get as many scenes/cutscenes animated as well as incorporate johnny's bigger role.

I highly suspect plotlines were vastly changed or cut from the new storyline they had developed.

and... I agree, but it would be nice if you had mentioned that Arthur's goal was to save the gang - which he succeeded at. Even in his death. As living was not his goal, saving the gang and putting them aright again.

For those who doubt the camera immersion statement....

Watch the first meeting in Silence of the Lambs between Hannibal and Agent Starling.
Now just watch it from one of the two viewpoints.. and listen to the POC character only.
You will entirely miss out on.....
either Foster's acting OR Hopkins acting performance- Entirely
camera angles showing who is "winning" the tete-a-tete along the way.. when starling gets in a good line.. when Hannibal asserts his position over starling
close ups... OMG imagine watching the scene from only one of the two POVS, losing the others entire performance except voice.. and you have the camera in a mid-shot range and lose the close ups of Foster and Hopkins

now do the same thing for the "desert" scene in Inglorious Bastards or the "milk" scene.

gameplay - 1st person - absolutely.
motion pictures (cutscenes) done solely in the first person... (facepalm)

no director worth their salt does this. it removes so many tools in their toolbox for how to express the story and dialogue and visuals in their medium.

for the old timers here.....
Godfather... italian restaurant... entire scene done POV from Michael's position. Losing your cuts.. losing your closeups.. losing the acting of Pacino .. the hesitancy... the determination.. the anxiety.. its comes across in the performance

Apocalypse Now
instead of an angry first person V, upset they are dying and punching a mirror and getting upset at their new death sentence

Michael Sheen - his first scene.. and his drunken , violent, emoting of what hes going through and his state of mind being in Vietnam.

Which one gets it across better. 1st person or seeing the performance. Which is more immersive to the viewer/player getting inside the head of the characters on screen.

I could agree, but the difference, it's when I play Cyberpunk in first person, I'm not watching a film, I'm in the film.
For me, that's make a real difference

No doubt for me, Cyberpunk in first person (with "cinematic" in first person) is the best
Conversely, I saw a film in the first person only not far ago (don't remember the title), it's the worst...

Imagine, a game in Scarface's world, Tony Montana in first person... could be awesome

 

[NorseGraphics]

Time.

Should it have had more content in main story. Absolutely.

But when they hired Reeves, and doubled his role AND made the switch to first person for everything.. all cutscenes not only had to be rewritten and animated for any johnny lines and animating.. but also to switch to first person - so you are redoing old work. Animating 1st person vs. third person. Anyone who understands camera work and actors knows its smokescreen to say first person camera is more immersive

Just see extended gameplay trailer from the E3..
T-bug is alive - and all scenes are in-game rendered in third person (elevator.. hook up in apartment.. etc.. etc) you get so much more feeling and emotion from V vs. just the voice. But then again if going to sentence them still to death and sliver of some vague hope - can have players getting connected to their V too much can we.

The flow was making a change late in the game then trying to first person to get as many scenes/cutscenes animated as well as incorporate johnny's bigger role.

I highly suspect plotlines were vastly changed or cut from the new storyline they had developed.

and... I agree, but it would be nice if you had mentioned that Arthur's goal was to save the gang - which he succeeded at. Even in his death. As living was not his goal, saving the gang and putting them aright again.

For those who doubt the camera immersion statement....

Watch the first meeting in Silence of the Lambs between Hannibal and Agent Starling.
Now just watch it from one of the two viewpoints.. and listen to the POC character only.
You will entirely miss out on.....
either Foster's acting OR Hopkins acting performance- Entirely
camera angles showing who is "winning" the tete-a-tete along the way.. when starling gets in a good line.. when Hannibal asserts his position over starling
close ups... OMG imagine watching the scene from only one of the two POVS, losing the others entire performance except voice.. and you have the camera in a mid-shot range and lose the close ups of Foster and Hopkins

now do the same thing for the "desert" scene in Inglorious Bastards or the "milk" scene.

gameplay - 1st person - absolutely.
motion pictures (cutscenes) done solely in the first person... (facepalm)

no director worth their salt does this. it removes so many tools in their toolbox for how to express the story and dialogue and visuals in their medium.

for the old timers here.....
Godfather... italian restaurant... entire scene done POV from Michael's position. Losing your cuts.. losing your closeups.. losing the acting of Pacino .. the hesitancy... the determination.. the anxiety.. its comes across in the performance

Apocalypse Now
instead of an angry first person V, upset they are dying and punching a mirror and getting upset at their new death sentence

Michael Sheen - his first scene.. and his drunken , violent, emoting of what hes going through and his state of mind being in Vietnam.

Which one gets it across better. 1st person or seeing the performance. Which is more immersive to the viewer/player getting inside the head of the characters on screen.

What they mean with immersion in first person view is they want the player to feel he/she is doing the act, not looking from outside onto themselves. Third-person acts are superior when it comes to other people's interaction, when you're an observer from outside. The main character in 3'rd person isn't the player.

 

[Draconifors]

Off-topic again. This is not FPP vs. TPP.

 

[northwold]

Honestly, the "blame Reeves for the lack of time" business is silly and doesn't make a whole lot of sense. All they did was added him to make commentary on side quests and that is not something that would significantly impact the storyline. Johnny making snarky remarks is not the reason no trains run on the tracks.

People have a lot of ideas about what is missing but there's no sign that I can see so far that there IS anything missing. People want there to be but it seems very clear that the slashing happened pretty early and its the fact they couldn't get the game working that was the big problem for the latter half of the game's development.

But that's just my opinion.

I will say that I do think a major part of the game's problem is the fact that in addition to not really doing the urgency well, the "save yourself" storyline is actually...not that interesting. V is a character that has a very primal need to live but I actually think the game does a poor job of implying any other motivations or things that they might be interested in.

To mention Arthur Morgan, he wants to save the gang but he also wants revenge on Micah and other unfinished business. What is V's unfinished business? What are their goals other than survive? Do they have any beliefs? Funnily you get a lot of options when you're crucifying a guy but very few actually about whether your V is an atheist or believer in an afterlife.

There's a lot of disconnect for V actually developing a character with intense emotions to anyone but Jackie (which makes sense) but Jackie is dead so your biggest tie to the character is gone by Act II.

I agree with this and the one time I did notice something that does seem to have been cut it has absolutely nothing to do with Johnny and seemingly nothing to do with the absence of a third act (which, as I've talked about above, I think you intend as something a little different from the normal use of the term "third act" and more as a further chapter of the story).

There is a single line Johnny utters, I think after Clouds, if you have massacred everyone there that the Claws will be p**sed and won't forget this. Well, nothing ever comes of that.

I can't think of anything else where a clear story intention was obviously not carried through.

It's interesting how V as a blank slate lands differently to different people. To me, I like that he's an everyman with vague and unarticulated goals because that is, well, a lot of us as human beings. The story forces him to confront questions on the nature of existence that people can go their whole lives without ever facing up to.

 

[LeKill3rFou]

There is a single line Johnny utters, I think after Clouds, if you have massacred everyone there that the Claws will be p**sed and won't forget this. Well, nothing ever comes of that.

I think it was fixed (in which version I don't know), but even before without killing anyone johnny was saying that...
"What are you talking about Johnny ? I didn't kill anyone and I haven't been detected..."

 

[Guest 3847602]

Honestly, the "blame Reeves for the lack of time" business is silly and doesn't make a whole lot of sense. All they did was added him to make commentary on side quests and that is not something that would significantly impact the storyline. Johnny making snarky remarks is not the reason no trains run on the tracks.

People have a lot of ideas about what is missing but there's no sign that I can see so far that there IS anything missing. People want there to be but it seems very clear that the slashing happened pretty early and its the fact they couldn't get the game working that was the big problem for the latter half of the game's development.

That's pretty much it. First it was Adam Badowski who came in and sabotaged the game some people imagined Cyberpunk will be. Now it's Keanu Reeves, it will be Gremilns next. In realty, this "dream game" never existed outside of their heads.

To mention Arthur Morgan, he wants to save the gang but he also wants revenge on Micah and other unfinished business. What is V's unfinished business? What are their goals other than survive? Do they have any beliefs? Funnily you get a lot of options when you're crucifying a guy but very few actually about whether your V is an atheist or believer in an afterlife.

Helping Judy, Panam, River and Kerry with their personal matters is similar to Arthur saving the gang - you're helping your friends, not trying to survive.
I agree about the unfinished business, it is the biggest missed opportunity about lifepaths. Not 3 separate storylines, it's completely unrealistic and this feature was never advertised as anything close to that, but establishing some conflict to be resolved later. That's exactly what those introductory missions should have been about.

 

[CTPhipps]

The funny thing is there are people V would want to kill but they all die without you.

Dex
Your creepy corpo boss
That wannabe fixer
The crooked sheriff

Its very anticlimatic and could have been done as side content.