Should there have been a third act?

+
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?
 
There is a third act technically, from Tapeworm to the epilogue. But yes, I completely agree.
 

Guest 3847602

Guest
I don't think it would have worked without reworking Act 1 and 2 and fleshing out Yorinobu some more. You'd have this big, dramatic moment that is the assault on Mikoshi followed by the game shifting focus on the conflict that the players are not invested in.
As for TW3, it's undoubtedly a great game with very good writing, but its main quest suffered from some unnecessary padding (meandering plot in Novigrad and weak final Act) while, at the same time, main villains were left without any characterization.
 
Personally I'd say no, not without an entirely different plot. There is a rock solid three act structure in the game, and the story being told is that of V and Johnny, not Mikoshi. I don't see how you can leap from that into a story about Arasaka without doing what Witcher 3 did and descending into total gibberish (W3 almost felt like they added the White Frost on the end with sellotape).

I do agree, though, that the choice to make so many quests optional can lead to the main quest moving too fast.

(In the absence of a point button "I agree with ooodrin"!)
 

"SHOULD THERE HAVE BEEN A THIRD ACT?''

Hm... Am a little indifferent about this one. would say, not really, because the story seems completed with multiple different endings to choose from. It's really up to CDPR what they want to do. They can always decide to progress it a little further if they want.
 
I've been over this several months back to death, I rather not re-awaken tens of pages, all of which were discussed (and probably still are) in the endings topic.
But my short answer: yes. there should have been, I furiosly believeit could have been designed already and there was ample setup for it in at least several endings.
Until that question gets answered in a canonical way, I'll keep using the merry-go-round of headcannon and alter my perception of it.
 
In my opinion, the endings fit better once you know all of them, because you can see what CDPR was going for. I think the biggest problem is not so much a lack of an extensive third act, but rather that all the parts of the ending are split into multiple endings. Everything should come together at the end, and thus in every ending you should at least have the notion that everything is going down at once.

And maybe the other major characters/factions/players need to be included in the ending regardless of which ending you choose.
 
Not sure if I understand right, but if it's about rebuilding some final parts of the plot, then sorry: no. A tale is a tale, it has been told already. Now what would be sweet is some additional story DLCs that could even go somewhere between the main plot events, extending some stuff etc. The conflict between V's rush for the cure and a huge pile of side missions is already there anyway, so no big harm in adding more. But "no" for changing the core of the story. That's at least my point of view :)
 
I don't think there should have ever been an Act 2. That's where the game was ruined for me. I think that Act 1 should have just gone on, and gradually expanded to open up new areas of the city and new people to work with / for, new things to do, cars to drive, et cetera.

But if CDPR had done that, too many people would have whinged, posted flaming rants about "story too short, only played 100 hours and want my money back, CDPR sux!" So, we got Act 2, aka, "Keanu on the brain".
 
The real problem for me is to have put "Acts" (anyway, I never pay attention) :)
Totally useless in my opinion, except to say that the Act 3 is too short...
 
Personally I'd say no, not without an entirely different plot. There is a rock solid three act structure in the game, and the story being told is that of V and Johnny, not Mikoshi. I don't see how you can leap from that into a story about Arasaka without doing what Witcher 3 did and descending into total gibberish (W3 almost felt like they added the White Frost on the end with sellotape).

I do agree, though, that the choice to make so many quests optional can lead to the main quest moving too fast.

(In the absence of a point button "I agree with ooodrin"!)

Eh, Johnny doesn't appear until Act II so it's not the story of Johnny Silverhand. ACT I is the story of V and Jackie.

Honestly, it's an entirely different game and motivations than Act II.
 
So on my first play, I felt compelled to follow the story prompts IMMEDIATELY. ('Go to Afterlife', OK!). So raced through the story, but also felt hassled by it, because there's a point where they come at you pretty quick - do I ignore Panam, or Goru, or Judy, or..? Then I got the clue that it didn't matter how long you keep them hanging, there is no consequence. So then, the side-gigs are more fun. But also then the story seems a bit of a side-track. There's HOURS of stuff to do in the game, but I think the management of it could be finessed.
 

Guest 3847602

Guest
Eh, Johnny doesn't appear until Act II so it's not the story of Johnny Silverhand.
How is Act 2 the story of Johnny Silverhand, though? The main plot points in Act 2 are:
- V and Judy searching for Evelyn
- V getting in contact with Voodoo Boys
- V trying to find Hellman with the help of Panam
- V and Takemura attempting to reach Hanako
It's a story about V trying to save his/her own life.
Point about Act 1 stands, it is a story about V, Jackie and the heist, but it's the same structure as in TW3:
The game starts with Geralt and Vesemir looking for Yennefer. Whoever was expecting the rest of the game to be centered around Geralt and Vesemir was bound to be deeply disappointed.
 
Eh, Johnny doesn't appear until Act II so it's not the story of Johnny Silverhand. ACT I is the story of V and Jackie.

Honestly, it's an entirely different game and motivations than Act II.
I think we may be talking about "acts" in a different way.

V is introduced and established in act 1 as a near-blank canvas innocent trying to walk a new path, introduced to this new world by Jackie. Act 1 concludes with V facing a life changing event. The character of V has been introduced, the audience have emotionally bonded with the world, the character of V suddenly has something at stake.

Act 2 then explores the impacts of that event on V, the relationship between V and Johnny and the attempts to fix it / uncover what the hell has happened.

Act 3 deals with the resolution of that saga.

In story terms, I don't see how the presence of Johnny in Act 1 would enhance it. Indeed, I think it plays better with V thrown that absolutely massive curveball that diverts his life path from generic merc who wants to be famous to something fundamentally unexpected.

But also in story terms, I can't see how Act 1 could have been intended to carry on, instead of being deliberate setup for Act 2. Jackie is a likable but generic character, so is V, and if nothing is at stake except being rich and famous, well, that's not (in my opinion) really a game with a compelling narrative at all. It's more of a random adventures action game. I mean, where are those two characters supposed to go, storywise? They got rich? In story terms, that's surely just a huge shrug. Why would anyone care?

So I do think the other quests could have been better integrated around that central story. But the central story has a very classical three act shape.
 
Last edited:
How is Act 2 the story of Johnny Silverhand, though? The main plot points in Act 2 are:
- V and Judy searching for Evelyn
- V getting in contact with Voodoo Boys
- V trying to find Hellman with the help of Panam
- V and Takemura attempting to reach Hanako
It's a story about V trying to save his/her own life.
Point about Act 1 stands, it is a story about V, Jackie and the heist, but it's the same structure as in TW3:
The game starts with Geralt and Vesemir looking for Yennefer. Whoever was expecting the rest of the game to be centered around Geralt and Vesemir was bound to be deeply disappointed.

Specifically, all of the story from Dex's execution in the junkyard to the Assault on Araska are born from the fact Johnny is in your head and you are trying to get him out.

This motivates everything except for sidecontent. I can buy V making time to help Judy (especially if they were friends with Evelyn), helping River because a fucking child molesting serial killer will motivate even a dying merc to make time to help, and Panam (because you can become good friends with her). Hell, even Kerry due to the bleedover from being Johnny's best friend.

Not so much making time to do 30 assassinations, 40 thefts, and however many kidnappings.
Post automatically merged:

But also in story terms, I can't see how Act 1 could have been intended to carry on, instead of being deliberate setup for Act 2. Jackie is a likable but generic character, so is V, and if nothing is at stake except being rich and famous, well, that's not (in my opinion) really a game with a compelling narrative at all. It's more of a random adventures action game. I mean, where are those two characters supposed to go, storywise? They got rich? In story terms, that's surely just a huge shrug. Why would anyone care?

So I do think the other quests could have been better integrated around that central story. But the central story has a very classical three act shape.

Storytelling wise, ACT I in Watson is something that isn't exactly EXCITING drama-wise but it is a coherent storyline from beginning to end. It's an extended heist movie and the motivations are consistent and understandable. Jackie and V are a pair of criminals that are looking to make it to the Big Time and they've been lured in for a "Big Score" that we know will go horribly wrong. The thing about this is that the side content of the game is consistent with the circumstances and the characters involved.

V does crime in Watson because V's motivations are, no matter their origin, to get rich and famous. They aspire to be a street samurai.

The issue becomes iffier with the ACT II and story of, "Save your life" with Johnny Silverhand as you are someone who has no pressing need for money because you're dying and that never really resolves. People have commented that Act I actually makes more sense as the entirety of the Cyberpunk 2077 game than the Act II part does. There's also an issue that maybe Act II should have been Act III. The time when V realizes being a street samurai is meaningless because all the money and fame mean shit fi you're dead.

A larger period of time when you can wander around doing nerc work would have helped. We also lack a villain in the game which is kind of interesting for such a noir storyline. Dex is killed at the end of Act I, denying us a chance to get back at our betrayer and Yorinobu remains a nebulous presence throughout the game that in all likelihood may not even know we exist. Which is funny when you think about it.
 
Last edited:
If there was a third act I would like it followed by a 4th act which would be just the final quest with a last chance save point so I can play the game until I was ready to finish. Pretty much as I do right now with the 3rd act
 
Specifically, all of the story from Dex's execution in the junkyard to the Assault on Araska are born from the fact Johnny is in your head and you are trying to get him out.

This motivates everything except for sidecontent. I can buy V making time to help Judy (especially if they were friends with Evelyn), helping River because a fucking child molesting serial killer will motivate even a dying merc to make time to help, and Panam (because you can become good friends with her). Hell, even Kerry due to the bleedover from being Johnny's best friend.

Not so much making time to do 30 assassinations, 40 thefts, and however many kidnappings.
Post automatically merged:



Storytelling wise, ACT I in Watson is something that isn't exactly EXCITING drama-wise but it is a coherent storyline from beginning to end. It's an extended heist movie and the motivations are consistent and understandable. Jackie and V are a pair of criminals that are looking to make it to the Big Time and they've been lured in for a "Big Score" that we know will go horribly wrong. The thing about this is that the side content of the game is consistent with the circumstances and the characters involved.

V does crime in Watson because V's motivations are, no matter their origin, to get rich and famous. They aspire to be a street samurai.

The issue becomes iffier with the ACT II and story of, "Save your life" with Johnny Silverhand as you are someone who has no pressing need for money because you're dying and that never really resolves. People have commented that Act I actually makes more sense as the entirety of the Cyberpunk 2077 game than the Act II part does. There's also an issue that maybe Act II should have been Act III. The time when V realizes being a street samurai is meaningless because all the money and fame mean shit fi you're dead.

A larger period of time when you can wander around doing nerc work would have helped. We also lack a villain in the game which is kind of interesting for such a noir storyline. Dex is killed at the end of Act I, denying us a chance to get back at our betrayer and Yorinobu remains a nebulous presence throughout the game that in all likelihood may not even know we exist. Which is funny when you think about it.
So I do see your point but, to my mind, I think this is basically a problem of how the main quest urgency was managed. I think instead of "you're about to kick the bucket", they needed to tell the player "this is a problem, and it might kick in in a week, a month, or a year, but you'll know when it's urgent". And then use the moment that brings up Embers as the urgency tell to the player (which is where act 3, in terms of pure story structure, starts (I don't know what the game actually labels as act 3's starting point, specifically)).

It isn't a huge dialogue change and would have made the world of difference in giving the player more licence to explore the world.

On top of that, I think the core character optional side quests really needed to be mandatory parts of the main quest.

I played it by exploring and doing a bit of everything because I'm used to the RPG conceit of "the world will end this afternoon if you don't play my main story but you're perfectly fine to go pick flowers for a month".

And the story landed impeccably. Probably the best storytelling of any game I've ever played, actually. But that came from playing it the opposite way from what the main quest is telling you.

Personally I don't care about having a villain because it's not that kind of story and, indeed, the moments when I thought the game's story was weakest were when it tried to present a big bad. Somehow, facing off against a mainly robot man felt significantly less impressive to me than the very weighty philosophical questions associated with the relic and what it is doing to V and Johnny. Arguably a recurring theme of the genre is that the conflicts are internal, that everyone, good or bad, is ultimately a cog in the machine. The Star ending also falls into that Michael Bayish trap of mindless man-on-man conflict and forgetting the big questions. But I can see how others might not feel the same way.

PS one of the reasons I'm maybe not understanding your use of the term act 3 is that, in classic three act structures, act 3 is simply the resolution of the tensions explored in act 2. It's supposed to be short because it just brings everything to a head and concludes things. If act 3 is very long, it generally suggests there is a problem somewhere along the line in the narrative structure. But equally, I don't understand, within the normal storytelling meaning of the term, how people can think act 3 is absent here.

Very, very broadly, the rule of thumb in movies is 30 mins max act 1, 60 mins act 2, 30 mins max act 3. A fairly recent example of a movie that goes seriously awry because it messes with that structure would be something like Passengers, which accidentally seems to have anything between four and six acts. It can be done, but it can cause problems with how a story lands because instead of things getting built, elaborated and resolved, things can start careering around between all those things and it's like watching a wayward shopping trolley (or an Elder Scrolls game...).
 
Last edited:
So I do see your point but, to my mind, I think this is basically a problem of how the main quest urgency was managed. I think instead of "you're about to kick the bucket", they needed to tell the player "this is a problem, and it might kick in in a week, a month, or a year, but you'll know when it's urgent". And then use the moment that brings up Embers as the urgency tell to the player (which is where act 3, in terms of pure story structure, starts (I don't know what the game actually labels as act 3's starting point, specifically)).

It isn't a huge dialogue change and would have made the world of difference in giving the player more licence to explore the world.

On top of that, I think the core character optional side quests really needed to be mandatory parts of the main quest.

I played it by exploring and doing a bit of everything because I'm used to the RPG conceit of "the world will end this afternoon if you don't play my main story but you're perfectly fine to go pick flowers for a month".

And the story landed impeccably. Probably the best storytelling of any game I've ever played, actually. But that came from playing it the opposite way from what the main quest is telling you.

Personally I don't care about having a villain because it's not that kind of story and, indeed, the moments when I thought the game's story was weakest were when it tried to present a big bad. Somehow, facing off against a mainly robot man felt significantly less impressive to me than the very weighty philosophical questions associated with the relic and what it is doing to V and Johnny. Arguably a recurring theme of the genre is that the conflicts are internal, that everyone, good or bad, is ultimately a cog in the machine. The Star ending also falls into that Michael Bayish trap of mindless man-on-man conflict and forgetting the big questions. But I can see how others might not feel the same way.

PS one of the reasons I'm maybe not understanding your use of the term act 3 is that, in classic three act structures, act 3 is simply the resolution of the tensions explored in act 2. It's supposed to be short because it just brings everything to a head and concludes things. If act 3 is very long, it generally suggests there is a problem somewhere along the line in the narrative structure. But equally, I don't understand, within the normal storytelling meaning of the term, how people can think act 3 is absent here.

Very, very broadly, the rule of thumb in movies is 30 mins max act 1, 60 mins act 2, 30 mins max act 3. A fairly recent example of a movie that goes seriously awry because it messes with that structure would be something like Passengers, which accidentally seems to have anything between four and six acts. It can be done, but it can cause problems with how a story lands because instead of things getting built, elaborated and resolved, things can start careering around between all those things and it's like watching a wayward shopping trolley (or an Elder Scrolls game...).
Don't mess with my elder scrolls! But yes I agree with you....I wish I was not denied the nice red button but in its absence I can quote your enter post!
....and now I am just being silly....ignore me:)
 
Don't mess with my elder scrolls! But yes I agree with you....I wish I was not denied the nice red button but in its absence I can quote your enter post!
....and now I am just being silly....ignore me:)
The Elder Scrolls games are great games, but, well, you don't buy them for the main quests... :-D
 

Guest 3847602

Guest
Specifically, all of the story from Dex's execution in the junkyard to the Assault on Araska are born from the fact Johnny is in your head and you are trying to get him out.
True, but that is still V's story. Johnny story would be something directly tied to his history, where his motives dictate course of events (which does exist in Act 2, but in the form of optional questchain).
This motivates everything except for sidecontent. I can buy V making time to help Judy (especially if they were friends with Evelyn), helping River because a fucking child molesting serial killer will motivate even a dying merc to make time to help, and Panam (because you can become good friends with her). Hell, even Kerry due to the bleedover from being Johnny's best friend.

Not so much making time to do 30 assassinations, 40 thefts, and however many kidnappings.
Yeah, I admit it was a mistake to give V such short life expectancy, and as @northwold said, keeping it more vague wouldn't have changed anything for the worse.
The way I justified V doing side activities is to apply Cyberpunk's internal logic instead of the real world's: "the greatest tragedy in Night City is to die and be forgotten", so V is trying to make sure the latter doesn't happen. That, and dying or not, V still needs money. Rogue, for instance. have no intention of handling you the information about Hellman for free.
 
Top Bottom