So what is actually cyberpunk 2020/2077 about?

[BaalNergal]

Spoiler: TL;DR Blah blah blah Choose carefully.

Mass Effect's Andromeda problem wasnt politics related, it was game quality related. Bioware has been on the progressive slant from ME 1. Dragon Age was on the backburner because of Anthem.

battlefield's been pissing off people with its black soldiers and women since BF3.

Bioware wasn't that progressive, overall. They pretty much limited themselves to gay and lesbian sex, up until the very last one. And that one, character creation became an issue and one of the points which sunk it.

In any case, the point should be made that those are bad examples because the argument wasn't that the larger audience wouldn't care, but instead that the larger audience would like it in every single example. Which, up until the last, happened.

Every option is a side. Neutral is a side. Everything is a judgement passed, even avoiding it. again, sides are complex, there isnt always just two sides. sometiimes there's infinite sides.

A total lack of involvement, even to the point of not even stating you are choosing to be uninvolved, cannot be a side. If you are not part of the conversation at all, you cannot be on one of the sides taking part in the discussion. You can be an uninvolved observer without it being a side. To think otherwise falls back into the fallacy of forcing people into sides.

That still boils down to "choosing to acknowledge it" or "choosing not to" though. Of course it would be legt to the player to choose to explore it in game. no one's asking for a story quest where you get reassignment surgery.

That boils down to the developer not choosing either option, but passing the choice onto someone else.

That's a side. if you're aware of it and choose to willfully ignore it, it's a side. saying an issue doesn matter to you so much that you literally dont think about it says a lot about how you actually feel about an issue.

its irrelevant in this case anyways, as choosing to act like gender identity is so far out of their minds that they dont ever think about it is essentially saying that they dont care about a particular group of people.

I don't think about if I'd like to be murdered at all, in any way, at any point of the day. That does not mean I have decided not to care. I am simply not considering the possibility someone will decide to end my life or if I would prefer it.

Do I care if my neighbor is Muslim? No; I do not think about it or bother myself with any aspect of her religion. If she is wearing a head covering, the most thought I give to it is to appreciate the artistry given to it. But, at the same time, that does not mean I do not care about her; anyone who tried to harm her would find out she has a very dangerous friend. Nor would I consider it if she chose to change her religion; it still is not something I will think about.

It is that simple. No choice involved. No active decision. Just simply not doing. And I know that is a difficult concept to grasp; it took me awhile to accept it when I was first exposed to it.

More like just nothing, because picking extreme examples of stupid people has no bearing on the validity of exploring the base idea in game.

do you even know any trans people? because what you described REALLY isn't a thing.

The examples I picked are very, very far from extreme examples of human stupidity on this issue. This is an issue where people get assaulted and murdered. This is an issue where people intentionally set out to destroy the lives of others just because of pronoun arguments. Making dumb medical choices and playing games with bathrooms are not even remotely close to extreme examples.

The trans people I know share my distaste for both sides of the discussion on this issue. They told me they keep finding their voices drowned out by those who actively speak for them. So I speak only of the overall discussion, of which they are a minority involvement at best. Because, seriously, I doubt the majority of those defending trans people are trans themselves.

Then the solution is really bloody simple: don't engage in tokenism. it's not hard. and let's be real. the trans gaming community isn't large enough (or cared about enough to be frank. ) to make a dent in CD Projekt's sales. let's not pretend that that's an issue here. if ANYONE is going to get pissed enough to "matter" its gonna be transphobes.

They don't matter either way. the dev is big enough to weather controversy like that.

What counts as tokenism, though? Is it the African American support character? The main character being the only bisexual in the game? The lack of everyone outside the player character having same-sex relationships? A female main character?

The problem with "don't engage in tokenism" is that tokenism varies massively in what people mean, and even many of those who use the term frequently have a nebulous definition of it. Metroid is a great example of this, having been accused by both sides of the debate of tokenism in varying ways for having Samus as a woman.

So, tell me, how can you avoid tokenism when there's no clear definition of what tokenism is?

Yes, trans people do get angry at being misrepresented. Remember all of the media that had trans people as the villains? And keep in mind CP2077 is a video game where the main characters will be criminals, so there is the problematic argument of "trans person as a villain" that is potentially present from character creation if trans options are included and the character isn't handled properly in the early missions. So, the idea that someone criticizing the portrayal of trans people in a game automatically being transphobia is extremely problematic.

the fact that CD Projekt sold a pretty overtly feminist game that explored race and class issues in very progressive ways should probably clue you into the fact that they either know their audience, or are comfortable making artistic stands on certain values.

What game is this you're talking about? Because that does not match anything I've heard about the Witcher series or Gwent.

you're framing it as if the only two sides are explicit pro-trans people or conservatives so bigoted they'd boycott a game for an option. that's silly.

I'm framing it as how the loudest voices present the conversation and the media storm CDPR has to be wary of.

ghostbuster's did poorly because it was mediocre and no one asked for a reboot, not because the audience was "conservative". and for the record, we can stop using "conservative" as code for "transphobes" here.

What does Ghostbusters have to do with trans people? The movie was a female-cast remake of the original; that has nothing to do with trans people.

Also, calling the fanbase of Ghostbusters conservative isn't any codephrase; it's a result of someone doing the research and determining they are politically conservatives.

if a game as radically political as Wolfenstein 2 can sell 2 million copies (marketing to a PURE shooter crowd no less), i dont think adding pronouns is going to threaten this game. all that matters is if it fits their vision or not.

im not saying they have to include it. just that their decision IS signaling a side, and most of the excuses fielded for NOT doing it are pretty trivial.

Wolfenstein 2 is also doing poorly compared to COD:WWII, at least according to one measure. I would say the controversies have hurt the game, compared to its less-inclusive competitor. It's not even doing as well as Doom is.

A case of needing to know your audience before you sell a product to them. And the FPS crowd is notoriously fickle.

In any case, I'm not arguing for or against them choosing a side. I'm saying they have no choice, and they need to take control and make it clear, and cohesive with their audience, rather than let someone else do it for them and risk not liking the people they're suddenly allies with.

 

[Sardukhar]

Hey gang.

I can tell you Cyberpunk ISN'T about Political Correctness/Inclusiveness Wars. So although the current topic is interesting and quite civilized of you all, try to keep in mind that people who come to this thread are hoping to read up on what CPunk is about.

Not your take on Mass Effect or CDPR gender inclusiveness and pandering and sales.

Probably take that ( again, quite civilized so far) debate to the Hope.

 

[GinWashi]

A quote right from the cyberpunk 2020 rulebook

"The world of cyberpunk is a violent dangerous place, filled with people who'd love to rip your arm off and eat it. The traditional concepts of good and evil are replaced by the values of expedience---you do what you have to do to survive. If you can do some good along the way, great.

But don't count on it.

Cyberpunk characters are survivors in a tough grim faced world, faced with life and death choices. How they make these choices will have a lot to do with whether they end up as vicious animals roaming a ruined world, or retain something of their basic humanity,"

The three concepts you have to master are style over substance, attitude is everything, and live on the edge.

 

[Sardukhar]

The three concepts you have to master are style over substance, attitude is everything, and live on the edge.

You forgot Rule 4.

 

[jervi]

...try to keep in mind that people who come to this thread are hoping to read up on what CPunk is about.

Honestly, I think that the way this thread has gone is a great illustration of what (small-c) cyberpunk is all about, and since (large-C) Cyberpunk is is Mike Pondsmith and CDPR's interpretation of cyberpunk, the question "What's it all about?" has very similar answers whether for both. There are specific details that make CP2020/2077 different from other cyberpunk works, but it's still all about taking the really real world and extrapolating it to a near future that is an evolved (and somewhat exaggerated for dramatic purposes) version of the really real world.

Of course, you can't have cyberpunk without the cyber, what what is cyberware anyways? Look at how prosthetic limbs have evolved in the last few decades. Is it really all that preposterous to imagine that, at some point in the next decade or three, prosthetic technology will reach the point where it outperforms flesh by a wide enough margin that some may be tempted to replace perfectly healthy meat with something shiny and chrome just to get an edge in a hostile world? I think not.

But just as technology progresses, so too does society. And that's where the real cyberpunk is. In today's society, corporations have vastly greater power and wealth than they did half a century ago. In cyberpunk, that trend continues. The really real world has some times/places with HUGE gaps between the Haves and the Have-nots. Cyberpunk has that too. The ability to communicate globally in real-time to an audience as large as the entire population of the planet has lead to various factions forming as like-minded people from all corners of the world band together under a common banner, and in cyberpunk, that trend also continues. Real life is getting more political every day and tensions are rising as different demographics fear losing their place in the world. Cyberpunk is inherently political, though it's often more between corporations than governments, with enough activism/rebellion against both to qualify as "punk".

In short, cyberpunk is today only moreso. It takes reality and cranks it to 11. It takes current trends and advances them closer to their logical conclusion.

As for a more specific answer on what CP2077 will be about, I can only guess. Here's how I see it though. CP2020 is Mike Pondsmith's interpretation of cyberpunk, and CDPR is making CP2077 due to their love of CP2020, but they will inevitably add their own touches that make it more than just CP2020 set in a different year. CDPR respects the source material enough to make it a true collaborative effort with the man that gave them the inspiration for CP2077 in the first place, so I expect CP2077 to be more "greater than the sum of it's parts" than other games where the creator and publisher have a more antagonistic relationship. And that's about as far as I am willing to speculate at the moment.

 

[Suhiira]

No.

Oh?
Any may I ask why not?

(( Assuming your response was meant to be taken literally. ))

You forgot Rule 4.

Canada is the real hub of the Illuminati not Zurich?

 

[Sardukhar]

Oh?
Canada is the real hub of the Illuminati not Zurich?

Please Stay Where You Are. Cloak Division Will Be With You Shortly.

Spoiler

 

[xer21]

Bioware wasn't that progressive, overall. They pretty much limited themselves to gay and lesbian sex, up until the very last one. And that one, character creation became an issue and one of the points which sunk it.

Context matters. Compare to the mid to late 2000's gaming landscape. Depciting gay and lesbian relationships WAS very progressive, at the time. Bioware was really the first to feature it in a mainstream AAA game.

In any case, the point should be made that those are bad examples because the argument wasn't that the larger audience wouldn't care, but instead that the larger audience would like it in every single example. Which, up until the last, happened.

I was arguing that the larger audience wouldnt care, and thus make it inconsequential to the prospects of the game at large.


A total lack of involvement, even to the point of not even stating you are choosing to be uninvolved, cannot be a side.

That's an impossible state UNLESS you have NEVER known about it. knowing about something and choosing to ignore it is in itself a statement. as soon as you are aware of something, everything you do afterwards in regards to it, even not caring, is a choice.

If you are not part of the conversation at all, you cannot be on one of the sides taking part in the discussion.

Choosing not to participate is still taking a side.

You can be an uninvolved observer without it being a side. To think otherwise falls back into the fallacy of forcing people into sides.

It's not a fallacy though. An observer is still involved by the mere act of observation.



That boils down to the developer not choosing either option, but passing the choice onto someone else.

including it is acknowledging it, that's still taking a stance. Passing the choice onto someone else doesnt change the fact that they made a choice in regards to the issue.


I don't think about if I'd like to be murdered at all, in any way, at any point of the day. That does not mean I have decided not to care. I am simply not considering the possibility someone will decide to end my life or if I would prefer it.

False equivalency, that's not a debate.

Do I care if my neighbor is Muslim? No; I do not think about it or bother myself with any aspect of her religion. If she is wearing a head covering, the most thought I give to it is to appreciate the artistry given to it. But, at the same time, that does not mean I do not care about her; anyone who tried to harm her would find out she has a very dangerous friend. Nor would I consider it if she chose to change her religion; it still is not something I will think about.

not caring that she's muslim is a choice. you were presented with information, and you reacted to it. you chose that her religion wouldn't impact your personal behavior towards her. you could have chosen to have a negative reaction, like that you'd hate her for it, or that you're look at her more positiviely because of it, but instead you chose that you wouldnt change your behavior. That alone states a lot about how you view other people's beliefs, and whether you respect their independent choices in regards to religion. You may think it says nothing, but that choice is still a statement of your own belief system. Do you see what I'm getting at? You aren not ignorant of her religion, thus, it is something, that at some level, you have considered about her, even if the conclusion was that it doesnt change your behavior to her.

It is that simple. No choice involved. No active decision. Just simply not doing. And I know that is a difficult concept to grasp; it took me awhile to accept it when I was first exposed to it.

I think you're having more difficulty accepting the fact that even such tiny actions are in and of themselves really choices.


The examples I picked are very, very far from extreme examples of human stupidity on this issue. This is an issue where people get assaulted and murdered. This is an issue where people intentionally set out to destroy the lives of others just because of pronoun arguments. Making dumb medical choices and playing games with bathrooms are not even remotely close to extreme examples.

They're extreme in the context of the dicussion. people get assaulted and murderd as trans but it has nothing to do with their own choices, it has to do with outside bigotry. We were discussing the effects of people in the trans' community's OWN actions. on THAT end, yes, its an extreme, because most trans people arent going to fight their doctors on issues of medicine, and also doctors arent stupid anyways. That's like saying that bob marley is representative of Rastafarian people by refusing medical treatment. Yes, some rastafarian's do do that. Most dont though. its an extreme.

Im not even going to acknowledge the bathroom comment because its not relevant at all to this discussion.

The trans people I know share my distaste for both sides of the discussion on this issue. They told me they keep finding their voices drowned out by those who actively speak for them. So I speak only of the overall discussion, of which they are a minority involvement at best. Because, seriously, I doubt the majority of those defending trans people are trans themselves.

Forgive me if i take that idea with a massive grain of salt, for starters, given the irony of speaking up for trans people on their distate for the discussion. second, this isnt even about a developer trying to actively speak for them, its literally just about including an option. its not about CD Projekt crafting a narrative about the trans experience, its about whether they're going to acknowledge the idea in game. that's not the same as speaking in place for someone, its just extremely basic representation. Are bioware speaking for gay and lesbian people with their games? no, they're just including a representation of them. The article referenced isnt asking CD Projekt to become active advocates, its asking if they're going to be an option. You wouldnt get into a similar debate over the inclusion of other racial options within the game. This is literally the same thing.

and of course the majority of people defending trans people aren't trans, trans people make up a very small percentage of the world, but people interested in equal rights are a bit more numerous. There were, by necessity, more whites supporting black equality than black people during the civil rights movement. They needed to be just on the size of the population different. Does that make all those white people suddenly unwelcome in the discussion?

What counts as tokenism, though? Is it the African American support character? The main character being the only bisexual in the game? The lack of everyone outside the player character having same-sex relationships? A female main character?

The problem with "don't engage in tokenism" is that tokenism varies massively in what people mean, and even many of those who use the term frequently have a nebulous definition of it. Metroid is a great example of this, having been accused by both sides of the debate of tokenism in varying ways for having Samus as a woman.

So, tell me, how can you avoid tokenism when there's no clear definition of what tokenism is?

When the hell was Metroid accused of tokenism? what? Toeknism has a pretty clear definition. its about paying lipservice to diversity with tertiary characters. Samus cant be a token in her own game that she stars in.

here's a great, short article on the difference.

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/art...When-Minority-Characters-are-Not-Token-Additi

having an african american character isnt tokenism. having him in there by himself without taking the care to develop him as a character, to where he's black just to be black is tokenism. Giving people the option to, for themselves, make decisions in a character creator isn't tokenism.

TRUNCATED FOR SPACE

Part 2 below.

 

[xer21]

PART 2

Yes, trans people do get angry at being misrepresented. Remember all of the media that had trans people as the villains? And keep in mind CP2077 is a video game where the main characters will be criminals, so there is the problematic argument of "trans person as a villain" that is potentially present from character creation if trans options are included and the character isn't handled properly in the early missions. So, the idea that someone criticizing the portrayal of trans people in a game automatically being transphobia is extremely problematic.

Youre a criminal, but you're not a villian. that's some logical gymnastics you're doing there just to justify why something shouldnt be in the game.

i also never said someone criticizing the portrayal of trans people in a game was transphobic. i said people boycotting a game because of the presence of the option to be trans was. please don't twist my words.

What game is this you're talking about? Because that does not match anything I've heard about the Witcher series or Gwent.

If you havnet heard of it, that's fine, it wasnt exactly a hotly discussed part of the game or anything, but if you think about it, it is. I didnt read articles to decide this, it was just kinda really obvious.

-Geralt is a complex male character who eschews many elements of toxic masculinity. He's a man of compassion and empathy, and he has more reactions to challenges than just rage and violence. His interactions with the women of the game go beyond just romantic and he shows clear respect for them. He's allowed a full range of emotions, and the game allows him to be weak at points. He's by no means the solitary badass; the game shows all the support and explores healthy male relationships with both men and women. The game in general is pretty critical of toxic masculinity.
-The main and supporting women of the game are all fully realized characters with their own agency and independant motivations, even down to the Bloody Baron's wife and Keira Metz. Their decisions arent made solely in response to the actions of a man, and they solve their own problems and make their own decisions. It treats them as humans and adults and just as complex as the men in the game, and doesnt just pump up positives in an effort to make the sterotypical "strong female", it looks at their flaws too. They arent treated merely as sexual conquests for the player or just fan service, but they are portrayed as sexual, with their own desires and motivations.
-the game takes nuanced looks at domestic abuse and dischord, and instead of casting judgement on the people, instead shines a light on how systemically, certain toxic attitudes encourage it.
-The game twice inverts the trope of the male sexual conquest by having geralt be used sexually by women for their own selfish purposes.
-it explores what consittutes a healthy father/daughter relationship and the moral boils down to that a father should not be overly protective or commandeering and should allow his daughter to make her own choices and mistakes in life.
-The entire character arc of Olgierd is thematically about a man's struggle to express his emotions and the damages that causes.
-The game isnt even about Geralt, It's about Ciri. Asking the player to literally step aside to allow the woman to take control of her own narrative at the end of the game is very symbolic and a feminist move.


Its incredibly feminist on so many levels, it just doesnt shove it in your face overtly. If you arent familiar with feminist discussions beyond tumblr shouting, you might not even notice what they're doing but it's there. its by no means flawless, but it's certainly deep in the DNA of the game.

I'm framing it as how the loudest voices present the conversation and the media storm CDPR has to be wary of.



What does Ghostbusters have to do with trans people? The movie was a female-cast remake of the original; that has nothing to do with trans people.

Also, calling the fanbase of Ghostbusters conservative isn't any codephrase; it's a result of someone doing the research and determining they are politically conservatives.

i was combining multiple parts of the argument into one piece, ghostbusters has nothing to do with transpeople i just tacked on the codeword thing in the wrong place. it was supposed to be up a spot earlier. my bad.

if the thing to worry about is people boycotting a game based on the inclusion of trans options though, then yes, "conservative" is code for "transphobic" since the issue that got them upset is trans inclusion.



Wolfenstein 2 is also doing poorly compared to COD:WWII, at least according to one measure. I would say the controversies have hurt the game, compared to its less-inclusive competitor. It's not even doing as well as Doom is.

Its not competing with COD WWII though. you're comparing a wholly single player narrative driven shooter on its second entry with a multiplayer juggernaut that's been around for 15 years. they arent competing. CS Go doesnt compete with Far Cry 5, it competes with Overwatch.

Wolfenstein 2 is doing poorly compared to COD WW2, but that doesnt make it a flop. it sold around 2 million in 6 months. It's predecessor, over the course of 4 years, and with the added benefit of having been on two console generations, sold 3.5 million. it's doing fine. controversies probably lost them some sales but its still in line to do about as well as it's predecessor. Either way, the game turned a profit, and the point is that taking a hardcore political stance (and man, is Wolf 2 hardcore) by no means spells death to a game.

Doom is actually a competitor sure, but that game has also been out for over a year longer, is on an aditional platform, has multiplayer and has a map editor, so its not an fully one to one comparison. It should also be noted that well, Doom is kind of a better game.

A case of needing to know your audience before you sell a product to them. And the FPS crowd is notoriously fickle.

Well, Cyberpunk isnt being marketed solely to an FPS crowd. Its being marketed as an RPG which attracts a different crowd as well.

 

[Tree_Fox]

I want the story to be about transhumanism and its effects on society and what makes humans.. Human.

I also want to have themes of fight the power, you against the world, and exercise in futility.

Imagine at the end of Cyberpunk 2077 you get this awesome cutscene that shows, from our perspective, a major blow to the corporations. Only to realize that the corporations view your actions as a small setback.

 

[Maelcom404]

But then he goes on to say 'turn on your TV, it all came true'. Ehh...not really. Like not at all. I hope they can keep real world politics out of this. This is in fact exhibit A of why to keep real world politics out of your game.

It is actually, our "real" world is WAYYYYY closer to Cyberpunk 2020 than it was 40years ago (every proportion kept, obviously).

In the 80's you had some big monolithic corporations, but nothing close to the giants such as Apple or Googles from nowadays, you had the cold war that helped "stabilize" the world (there were basically two sides, nowadays it's grey everywhere), people and culture evolved a lot with the help of the internet.
Our technology made a crazy jump (back in the 70/80, having a VCR to watch movie at home was like Sci-fi, nowadays you have a freaking computer as a phone and don't even have to pay for movies anymore, heck you can even watch them before they get released).

You have two of the most "clichés" of the corporate roles as President (Macron / Trump).
I mean, Macron came on TV, and told that:
"There are people that succeed (meant like, corporate, rich and wealthy), and the other...well they're just nothing"

I mean, you wouldn't be surprised to hear Trump (given the character) sayin' something as dumb as this (just because you don't own a Rolex doesn't mean you're a waste of flesh).
That's actually the "mood" of our modern world, this is how the wealthy sees us, me, you.

We do have a world where terrorism and shooting became something to expect (it always existed, yup, but not to the extend we know now).

People gives themselves their own privacy to corporation via Internet (Facebook?).
Innovation is dead (I mean, movies are only remakes, games too, music runs in circles re-doing things from 30years ago), and not saying it in a "it was best before", just that... I mean look at Activition, EA, or developpers (since we're talking video game), you can clearly see that they're more interested in quick cash than doing some piece of art.

We live in a world where technology could make us live in a utopy (or, almost), but still, poverty is rampant, politcs focus on making money, migrants are dealt like some statistics (when, they're actually REAL people drowning and dying trying to escape wars, most often created by OUR way of working).

Corporation polute everything around the globe, but still, they ask US to pay for it.
Look at all the scandals around the world about corporate/politic corruption, how the "capitalism" deal with social idea (talk about giving people a decent healthcare and you're treated like the worst communist ever)

Etc...

I could give hundreds of example, but yeah, we're slowly drifting into a "dark future", from a 80 standard.
Do you think the transhumanists implants from secret google's lab are destined to you?
Haha, nope, unless you're wealthy, they just see us as their servants, we don't deserve to have our consiousness backed up on their servers.

I mean, THIS IS the core of the Cyberpunk, as a genre, and the game in itself.

Transhumanism, and stuff like that aren't even the core subject (where in Neuromancer or Hardwired or any classic Cyberpunk novel are they asking themselves if they push their humanity too far? Nowhere...).

I see and feel Cyberpunk, as a subversive (and political) way (some anarchist punk-rock put on paper) to criticize and pulls out some problems from our real world and extrapolate to 50years later.

I mean, read some 80's cyberpunk, not those braindead anime.
I mean some solid Norman Spinrad, Bruce Sterling, etc...
They were written in the 80's, back then it was scifi (so sure, it's hit & miss)
But... Shit, honnestly, read "Little Heroes" or "Island in the net" and you'll see some problem we're actually dealing with now (which was written 40years ago as "dark scifi"...)

Cyberpunk, it's basically, take our modern society as a whole (make money, more money, with less costs to make more money, don't give a fuck about poverty of the well-being of other people).

Watch movies such as Robocop, American Psycho, that's the spirit, this is how Cyberpunk works.

It's not about some metapsychic stuff, it's about "how our world would work if we push everything further, like 50years ago, but having everything gone wrong".

And we do have a lot of stuff gone wrong if we compare the fear frome the 80's to our present world.

Now wasn't trying to make some politic or anything, but Cyberpunk is "deeply" linked to our real world politic, it's kind of a shinny satire of how things can go wrong if we keep on pushing it down the drain.

 

[4meg]

It is actually, our "real" world is WAYYYYY closer to Cyberpunk 2020 than it was 40years ago (every proportion kept, obviously).

In the 80's you had some big monolithic corporations, but nothing close to the giants such as Apple or Googles from nowadays, you had the cold war that helped "stabilize" the world (there were basically two sides, nowadays it's grey everywhere), people and culture evolved a lot with the help of the internet.
Our technology made a crazy jump (back in the 70/80, having a VCR to watch movie at home was like Sci-fi, nowadays you have a freaking computer as a phone and don't even have to pay for movies anymore, heck you can even watch them before they get released).

You have two of the most "clichés" of the corporate roles as President (Macron / Trump).
I mean, Macron came on TV, and told that:
"There are people that succeed (meant like, corporate, rich and wealthy), and the other...well they're just nothing"

I mean, you wouldn't be surprised to hear Trump (given the character) sayin' something as dumb as this (just because you don't own a Rolex doesn't mean you're a waste of flesh).
That's actually the "mood" of our modern world, this is how the wealthy sees us, me, you.

We do have a world where terrorism and shooting became something to expect (it always existed, yup, but not to the extend we know now).

People gives themselves their own privacy to corporation via Internet (Facebook?).
Innovation is dead (I mean, movies are only remakes, games too, music runs in circles re-doing things from 30years ago), and not saying it in a "it was best before", just that... I mean look at Activition, EA, or developpers (since we're talking video game), you can clearly see that they're more interested in quick cash than doing some piece of art.

We live in a world where technology could make us live in a utopy (or, almost), but still, poverty is rampant,

And getting worse in fact. The so called middle-class is being pushed further and further towards poverty in their efforts to keep up with the wealthy.

politcs focus on making money, migrants are dealt like some statistics (when, they're actually REAL people drowning and dying trying to escape wars, most often created by OUR way of working).

Corporation polute everything around the globe, but still, they ask US to pay for it.
Look at all the scandals around the world about corporate/politic corruption, how the "capitalism" deal with social idea (talk about giving people a decent healthcare and you're treated like the worst communist ever)

Etc...

I could give hundreds of example, but yeah, we're slowly drifting into a "dark future", from a 80 standard.
Do you think the transhumanists implants from secret google's lab are destined to you?
Haha, nope, unless you're wealthy, they just see us as their servants, we don't deserve to have our consiousness backed up on their servers.

I mean, THIS IS the core of the Cyberpunk, as a genre, and the game in itself.

Transhumanism, and stuff like that aren't even the core subject (where in Neuromancer or Hardwired or any classic Cyberpunk novel are they asking themselves if they push their humanity too far? Nowhere...).

I see and feel Cyberpunk, as a subversive (and political) way (some anarchist punk-rock put on paper) to criticize and pulls out some problems from our real world and extrapolate to 50years later.

Likewise. Cyberpunk took the politics of the 80s, filtered through bleeding edge (then) technology, and twisted through the lens of capitalism taken to the nth degree. While we aren't at Rollerball levels of corporate oligarchism (yet), governments are rapidly losing their effectiveness as will of the people and are fast becoming military/police organizations with no restraint.

I mean, read some 80's cyberpunk, not those braindead anime.
I mean some solid Norman Spinrad, Bruce Sterling, etc...
They were written in the 80's, back then it was scifi (so sure, it's hit & miss)
But... Shit, honnestly, read "Little Heroes" or "Island in the net" and you'll see some problem we're actually dealing with now (which was written 40years ago as "dark scifi"...)

Cyberpunk, it's basically, take our modern society as a whole (make money, more money, with less costs to make more money, don't give a fuck about poverty of the well-being of other people).

Watch movies such as Robocop, American Psycho, that's the spirit, this is how Cyberpunk works.

It's not about some metapsychic stuff, it's about "how our world would work if we push everything further, like 50years ago, but having everything gone wrong".

And we do have a lot of stuff gone wrong if we compare the fear frome the 80's to our present world.

Now wasn't trying to make some politic or anything, but Cyberpunk is "deeply" linked to our real world politic, it's kind of a shinny satire of how things can go wrong if we keep on pushing it down the drain.

The cyberpunk world we read about hasn't been fully realized, we're closer than most people think. One of the reasons cyberpunk as a genre faded was that the stories were being outstripped by the reality of what those books were trying to predict.

 

[Maelcom404]

The cyberpunk world we read about hasn't been fully realized, we're closer than most people think. One of the reasons cyberpunk as a genre faded was that the stories were being outstripped by the reality of what those books were trying to predict.

Yes, and probably the fact that it was kinda overdone and became stale after a while (just like people can get bored about zombies or stuff like that).

But books like Altered Carbon, proved that you still can make a solid Cyberpunk story nowaday, it just needs the "pessimistic" mood and the bigger than life futuristic aspect.

Take the whole state of the world (rise of india/china economicaly), the space army, the mega corporation on the rise like Amazon, Google, etc. The whole crazyness of the extremism from today (from religious terrorists to ecologists strapping them to trees), the unstability of some part of the world, the first steps of cybernetics, the privacy problems on social media, the "norms" on social life (don't smoke, don't eat too much, don't, don't, don't) etc.
Push all of it further in 2100 in the worst way possible (keeping some common sense with a bit of imagination, even using event from the past to inspire you... history likes to repeat itself after all) and you'd have a pretty cool Cyberpunk setting.

 

[xer21]

It is actually, our "real" world is WAYYYYY closer to Cyberpunk 2020 than it was 40years ago (every proportion kept, obviously).

In the 80's you had some big monolithic corporations, but nothing close to the giants such as Apple or Googles from nowadays, you had the cold war that helped "stabilize" the world (there were basically two sides, nowadays it's grey everywhere), people and culture evolved a lot with the help of the internet.
Our technology made a crazy jump (back in the 70/80, having a VCR to watch movie at home was like Sci-fi, nowadays you have a freaking computer as a phone and don't even have to pay for movies anymore, heck you can even watch them before they get released).

You have two of the most "clichés" of the corporate roles as President (Macron / Trump).
I mean, Macron came on TV, and told that:
"There are people that succeed (meant like, corporate, rich and wealthy), and the other...well they're just nothing"

I mean, you wouldn't be surprised to hear Trump (given the character) sayin' something as dumb as this (just because you don't own a Rolex doesn't mean you're a waste of flesh).
That's actually the "mood" of our modern world, this is how the wealthy sees us, me, you.

We do have a world where terrorism and shooting became something to expect (it always existed, yup, but not to the extend we know now).

People gives themselves their own privacy to corporation via Internet (Facebook?).
Innovation is dead (I mean, movies are only remakes, games too, music runs in circles re-doing things from 30years ago), and not saying it in a "it was best before", just that... I mean look at Activition, EA, or developpers (since we're talking video game), you can clearly see that they're more interested in quick cash than doing some piece of art.

We live in a world where technology could make us live in a utopy (or, almost), but still, poverty is rampant, politcs focus on making money, migrants are dealt like some statistics (when, they're actually REAL people drowning and dying trying to escape wars, most often created by OUR way of working).

Corporation polute everything around the globe, but still, they ask US to pay for it.
Look at all the scandals around the world about corporate/politic corruption, how the "capitalism" deal with social idea (talk about giving people a decent healthcare and you're treated like the worst communist ever)

Etc...

I could give hundreds of example, but yeah, we're slowly drifting into a "dark future", from a 80 standard.
Do you think the transhumanists implants from secret google's lab are destined to you?
Haha, nope, unless you're wealthy, they just see us as their servants, we don't deserve to have our consiousness backed up on their servers.

I mean, THIS IS the core of the Cyberpunk, as a genre, and the game in itself.

Transhumanism, and stuff like that aren't even the core subject (where in Neuromancer or Hardwired or any classic Cyberpunk novel are they asking themselves if they push their humanity too far? Nowhere...).

I see and feel Cyberpunk, as a subversive (and political) way (some anarchist punk-rock put on paper) to criticize and pulls out some problems from our real world and extrapolate to 50years later.

I mean, read some 80's cyberpunk, not those braindead anime.
I mean some solid Norman Spinrad, Bruce Sterling, etc...
They were written in the 80's, back then it was scifi (so sure, it's hit & miss)
But... Shit, honnestly, read "Little Heroes" or "Island in the net" and you'll see some problem we're actually dealing with now (which was written 40years ago as "dark scifi"...)

Cyberpunk, it's basically, take our modern society as a whole (make money, more money, with less costs to make more money, don't give a fuck about poverty of the well-being of other people).

Watch movies such as Robocop, American Psycho, that's the spirit, this is how Cyberpunk works.

It's not about some metapsychic stuff, it's about "how our world would work if we push everything further, like 50years ago, but having everything gone wrong".

And we do have a lot of stuff gone wrong if we compare the fear frome the 80's to our present world.

Now wasn't trying to make some politic or anything, but Cyberpunk is "deeply" linked to our real world politic, it's kind of a shinny satire of how things can go wrong if we keep on pushing it down the drain.

i think the issue here is that someone you replied to might have a particular political bent that may or may not put stuff like that in a blindspot because, well, their party is actively pushing that agenda. So they wont see it, or wont see it as bad if they do see it.

 

[dimonicus92]

Also if you want questions about transhumanism you don't make a trailer about shooting and driving fast.

that's why they expected it from the journalists and not from the audience

 

[Maelcom404]

Also if you want questions about transhumanism you don't make a trailer about shooting and driving fast.

Doubt the game will revolve around Transhumanist questions (or at least, not in the way Deus Ex or Ghost In The Shell do it, like "is it good to do it?")
In Cyberpunk (the game), Implants and Augmentations became "mainstream", just like, your phone dies, you'll get another one and you probably also do have a Facebook account IRL and don't probably think much about privacy, private data or "heck, I can be traced with my phone!", it's just common and since everyone do it, you don't think much about it.

It's the same in Cyberpunk, Implants aren't allowed on kids (they can't link properly to cybernetics as they're still growing), but as an adult, most people put themselves some implants to help their everyday life, it's a common thing, as getting a piercing, plastic surgery or a Tattoo (some people do ugly and visible tattoo and regret it later, would probably be the same with implants haha, it was seen as a bad thing to wear tattoos some time ago, but nowadays it's almost shocking if you don't have any)

IMO, it's also a part of the charm of Cyberpunk, the world has evolved, the "future" is here, it's normal for everybody, but the view on the world (how it turned out, given all those tech advances) is maybe more interesting if we see it as "Ok, I've been upgraded, everyone can be whatever they want, what happens next?" than keeping on revolving around the question of "Is it wrong or right to upgrade myself?" (which has kinda be done to death lately), it's kinda like putting that question a notch up, like "ok, we got implants and crazy tech, now what? What would we do with something like that in our hands?", they're just a tool, right or wrong, I think trying to figure out about how people would use them is more interesting than trying to figure out if they're right or wrong in the first place (mostly that in Cyberpunk, it's so common, I doubt people do really care about that anymore, excepted for a bunch of anti-tech groups).

 

[Hoplite_22]

snipped for brevity

I didn't think it was, since i don't know anytthing about the story, it was a cheaky comment on one of the dev's being disappointed they didn't get any questions about that stuff from a trailer that had no prominent indication that the game would ever be about those things and was largely shooting and driving.

 

[GinWashi]

You forgot Rule 4.

Lead always has the right of way

 

[Rawls]

psssst Rule 4 in Cyberpunk (but not the forums) is Break the Rules.

 

[GinWashi]

psssst Rule 4 in Cyberpunk (but not the forums) is Break the Rules.

I always thought that was a given part of the third concept of live life on the edge. How can you live life on the edge if you are playing it safe by obeying all the rules.