[Spoiler Alert] About the endings

+

Do you want more RPGs with happy endings?


  • Total voters
    1,647
I also can't create that level of cinematic execution for 25 different potential scenarios for just that one situation. I mean, do people have any idea how much time it would take to write that dialogue, revise, rehearse, and record those scenes, edit them into the game...and for a game that's going to include scenes like that from beginning to end? If people are expecting that level of cinematic delivery with 10x the options of how to respond, dream on. Someday, maybe, but doing that in today's world would cost (literally!) hundreds upon hundreds of millions of dollars, a production team of thousands, and probably 10+ years to develop. We're talking Starship Citizen levels of ambition. Layers the like of which have never been attempted before and are utterly out of reasonable reach for the modern industry and technology. (Laudable goal and vision, surely, but realism will come knocking every day.)
And yes, i think many do not really realize the work to be done, to have the same story but with much more choices :(
(possible but with an extremely long delay (probably too long in view of the current hardware evolution) and a game at a prohibitive price)
And then I can listen to players complain about my game having too much reading and not enough action. (Which I can cheekily prove by counting the number of members that will actually read this post to this point on just my fingers and toes.)
I read everything :D
 

Guest 4412420

Guest
I don't understand why some people think that those of us who wanted more variety in dialogue options were expecting 10-20 options or for the developers to take every mood/motivation under the sun into consideration. Literally 1 or 2 would have sufficed.

I can't talk about the Star ending, but in the Sun ending, for the most part there are 3 dialogue options to choose from and V sounds depressed in all of them. Making 1 out of 3 options be something other than "I'm dying" isn't a herculean task.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
If not, I need to remove those elements and focus on a non-cinematic approach. If I try to create scenes like this:
...I can't do that based on a bunch of random, happenstance elements. I can't create a connection between Judy and Evelyn like that unless I specifically build it. I can't create a moment like that with nuanced dialogue unless the specifically crafted story leads up to that moment. I don't create that level of emotional drive and connection between the characters unless I establish clear motivations. That requires a specifically established narrative arc.
Going to keep this short on the chance that your last response to me was a blanket "I'm done responding" instead of just to that one post.

What you've actually done is shown a small example of why so many people are taken aback by the current endings, because you're right, there's a lot that's specifically built there... between Judy and Evelyn, but the root of this entire conversation about these endings is the character of V, not the character of the people that surround V. V can respond from anything from surprisingly dismissive to sympathetic.

And this is what I'm talking about when I'm saying players "create" a V that doesn't match with the ending. It's not imaginary. After this scene, you've developed "your" V a little more: are you the asshole who's going to try to say "well, to be fair..." when Judy calls the NCPD, or are you going to echo her frustration? While this scene alone doesn't present a perfect example for me to use, it's these kinds of decisions you can make that bring a character to the way you play V that is miraculously not forcibly contradicted by the rest of the game... up until the endings.
 
I can't talk about the Star ending because it's the only one I didn't try, but in the Sun ending, for the most part there are 3 dialogue options to chose from and V sounds depressed in all of them. Having 1 out of 3 options to be something other than "I'm dying" isn't a herculean task.
Yes, but in this case, they didn't want an very optimistic ending.
And it's not as if they could say about the description of the game "warning ! no happy ending here" :)
(A bit as if in GOT, if you said: I don't like it because everyone dies...)

In my opinion, hope for a solution throughout the game and that in the end, no there is none. it makes the scene between V, johnny and Alt in Mikoshi even stronger :cry:
A daring choice, but a very good choice (for me) :)
 
Last edited:
better to spend time for additional variations or at least text chat with li and friends
then creating a bunch of pointless emails for bluejunk activities

i watched pawel stream and was annoyed
he spend several minutes explaining how they used stickers to explain detailed story of garage
meanwhile badlands sheriff drives a car with a few mm clearance
 
Last edited:
In my opinion, hope for a solution throughout the game and that in the end, no there is none. it makes the scene between V, johnny and Alt in Mikoshi even stronger :cry:
A daring choice, but a very good choice (for me) :)
I feel the exact opposite. If I'm going to die anyway what do I care what goes on to happen to Alt or Johnny? The only thing I wanted to do in Mikoshi is find some way to lash out and hurt Alt in some way for her failure, but even that couldn't be adequately expressed.
 
I feel the exact opposite. If I'm going to die anyway what do I care what goes on to happen to Alt or Johnny? The only thing I wanted to do in Mikoshi is find some way to lash out and hurt Alt in some way for her failure, but even that couldn't be adequately expressed.
hurt Alt ? for what ?
Because you insert the relic in your brain, you receive a bullet by Dexter, the relic attack your brain, you take aggressive medecine ?
She has nothing to do with what happens to V :)
And johnny, he never ask you to put the relic in your head and even less to Saburo to put him on it :)

Edit: And happily for you (or maybe not), Panam don't react as you. Yet you told her that you were sure that Mitch and Scorpion were okay and that you were going to find them alive. Unfortunatly, Scorpion is dead but you can always romance her or be her friend. Between accepting to help and succeeding, there is a small difference ;)
 
Last edited:
hurt Alt ? for what ?
Because you insert the relic in your brain, you receive a bullet by Dexter, the relic attack your brain, you take aggressive medecine ?
She has nothing to do with what happens to V :)
And johnny, he never ask you to put the relic in your head and even less to Saburo to put him on it :)

Edit: And happily for you (or maybe not), Panam don't react as you. Yet you told her that you were sure that Mitch and Scorpion were okay and that you were going to find them alive. Unfortunatly, Scorpion is dead but you can always romance her or be her friend. Between accepting to help and succeeding, there is a small difference ;)
The circumstances are different, but Panam would've been justified to lash out.

Edit: not because V says they're okay, but that the whole thing is a result of Panam doing something for V.
 
The Star is plenty optimistic. Why isn't that one more grim if there are no happy endings then?

More optimistic, maybe.
When V said to Panam that everything will be fine (by going to cough up blood just before), for me it's just to reassure hitself and her :(
(and Misty, it's just tarot cards. who believes in these things ? :D)
Objectively, there is very little (more likely none) chance that everything will go well and that V live rather long than the 6 months :cry:
(but it's the impression that i have according to what the story/game suggests to me)
 
Going to keep this short on the chance that your last response to me was a blanket "I'm done responding" instead of just to that one post.

What you've actually done is shown a small example of why so many people are taken aback by the current endings, because you're right, there's a lot that's specifically built there... between Judy and Evelyn, but the root of this entire conversation about these endings is the character of V, not the character of the people that surround V. V can respond from anything from surprisingly dismissive to sympathetic.

And this is what I'm talking about when I'm saying players "create" a V that doesn't match with the ending. It's not imaginary. After this scene, you've developed "your" V a little more: are you the asshole who's going to try to say "well, to be fair..." when Judy calls the NCPD, or are you going to echo her frustration? While this scene alone doesn't present a perfect example for me to use, it's these kinds of decisions you can make that bring a character to the way you play V that is miraculously not forcibly contradicted by the rest of the game... up until the endings.

Sorry to disappoint, but this is a discussion I can have for literally years. I have, actually -- Writing, Literature, and Theatre is what I do for living. I love it!

What I've actually done is used a single, signature example of how rising action is necessary to create scenes driven by established characters exploring an established theme, then deliver them successfully through cinematic presentation. A single example is not the be-all-and end-all of an argument. It is a single example used to highlight the particular point being discussed. The focus of my argument has nothing to do that particular scene. This applies to any such scenes in this game, other games, in books, or in film. It was an example.

In this case, I specifically chose something that was not about V, Johnny, and the main theme because I have already addressed that numerous times (in detail) and wanted to highlight how even smaller, non-central scenes can be utterly reliant on the established characters and the prior narrative arc. That's what qualifies the action and allows it to resonate with an audience. Players can now vest themselves in the experience, suspend their disbelief, and engage in the scene at an emotional level. And the reason for that is because players have had the characters of Judy, Evelyn, and Woodman, their motivations, and their experiences well established and explored by the carefully structured plot up to that point. Storytelling.

That effect simply won't happen without a specifically crafted narrative arc.

Let's challenge the process. Let's take that scene again. Let's pretend that the game is more open-ended, offering more interpretive motivations, and more sandbox play. The player is never required to meet either Judy, Evelyn, or Woodman. There is no guarantee their characters will be established. We'll never be able to deliver that scene. We won't be able to deliver a scene like that with other characters about other parts of the plot, either. Or, we will be able to deliver only scenes that the player has chosen to engage in. Well, then, since there's no guarantee that the player will follow any particular chain, there's no guarantee that the player will ever see any cinematics like this.

OR -- if we just deliver them anyway -- the player will have little no context to qualify such an intense, dramatic scene. Comments that follow would be:

- "Where the hell did this scene even come from?"
- "I just met this Judy character, and now I'm carrying her dead friend's body to a bed -- wtf!?"
- "Woah, the cutscenes in this game are so over-the-top and cringy!"
- "The story in this game is all over the place; there's basically no pacing at all."


Etc.

^ This is focus of my argument. If the presentation of a game is going to rely on cinematic delivery of narrative, then that narrative arc must be clearly established (for whatever theme my game is about. Can't tell a gripping story without a strong theme. I can kiss dramatic action goodbye if I try.) Player agency will now necessarily be limited to the framework of that narrative. If not, we're right back to either:
1.) I'll have to make individual playthroughs shorter in order to allow more narrative arcs with qualified conclusions.
Or...
2.) I'll have to forego cinematic presentation and deliver the narrative through other means (written text, visual storytelling, emergent storytelling, etc.) to ensure more player agency.

My argument is not that there is no way to deliver a game with more choices. My argument is that I cannot deliver more choices if I also intend to include a gripping narrative arc delivered cinematically. As I said the very first time I addressed this consideration:
If I canceled cinematics -- all of the dialogue scenes with scripted blocking and voice work -- I suddenly blow the lid off what can be insinuated through the gameplay and left wholly up to player interpretation.

It's totally possible to deliver more open gameplay...but that isn't the type of game that CDPR has ever made. Their games have always created strong narrative arcs and very cinematic presentation of the story.

Also, please remember, I sympathize and largely agree with players' desires to have a more sandbox Cyberpunk experience in the future. (Just because I loved the story [including the endings :p ] it doesn't mean I'm against a less-restrictive approach to the narrative!) The main purpose of my argument is to try to offer an alternative approach to that end, one that I believe will reach more ears. One that argues for an alternative approach to the gameplay, instead of arguing against a very well-crafted and rather impactful story.
 
Last edited:
(This is actually not only a response for you, as several others have also voiced similar arguments above. So, addressing this idea in general: )

Yes! You're all correct! It is 100% possible to develop a "narrative" without needing established characters, etc. But there is a big difference between developing passive, narrative elements...

...

...and developing a narrative arc, one that involves established, detailed characters and scenes that build dramatic action over the progression of rising action, ultimately reaching a climax that resolves a main theme. Like would be done for a novel or a film. Cinematically.

Let me try to explain again (and I swear to the gods that I'm trying not to mire this in too much detail):
  • Dark Souls is probably the best example I can think of for this type of passive narrative. DS definitely has a narrative. A thick narrative. But it doesn't have a narrative arc. It uses primarily visual storytelling. The world itself, the shapes used, the architecture of buildings, the color palette, the exaggerated designs of many weapons and armor, the non-sequitur environments, the subtle clues you can find here and there like the locations of dead bodies or where certain enemies appear...they're all telling a story and delivering world lore without words. Writing and dialogue is sparse, and almost never directly informative. It loads on the exposition when characters do speak. It gives the player spooky hints as to how the world works with expository item descriptions.
    • Here we go! Some key ideas here. Sparse dialogue. Non sequitur. Most importantly: exposition/expository. This is not something that can be used to create characters, scenes, and an overall narrative arc that is delivered cinematically. It must be used instead of an established narrative arc. The whole reason Dark Souls is so open to interpretation and the gameplay is so open-ended is because it does not have scenes of dialogue and clearly established characters with clear motivations and a clear pathway through the game that arrives at a clear resolution of a clearly established theme. The minute I start including motion-captured scenes of the main character or other NPCs acting out their motivations and plot devices, I start defining the world of Dark Souls for the player. I start exposing the motivations of different characters, establishing clear meanings for the environments, and creating a central theme that will drive the dramatic action of the story forward for the sake of the story. So that my resolution makes perfect sense at the end. The player will now know exactly what "Linking the Flame" will mean and what ushering in "The Age of Darkness" will mean. If I don't establish this...how can I make a cinematic scene? What will the characters talk about? What will the motivation be? What scene will follow? What arc am I establishing? If I try, it won't work. This is how you make bad narratives: characters that seemingly have no clear motivations and scenes that are little more than an exposition fountains.
Thus, if my goal is to have a narrative arc, and I wish to create a game that has dynamic, energy-filled cutscenes, with characters that are vibrant, diverse, and engaging with clear, believable motivations, all of which is delivered cinematically -- then I need to build what is necessary for effective, thematic, storytelling.

If not, I need to remove those elements and focus on a non-cinematic approach. If I try to create scenes like this:
...I can't do that based on a bunch of random, happenstance elements. I can't create a connection between Judy and Evelyn like that unless I specifically build it. I can't create a moment like that with nuanced dialogue unless the specifically crafted story leads up to that moment. I don't create that level of emotional drive and connection between the characters unless I establish clear motivations. That requires a specifically established narrative arc.

I also can't create that level of cinematic execution for 25 different potential scenarios for just that one situation. I mean, do people have any idea how much time it would take to write that dialogue, revise, rehearse, and record those scenes, edit them into the game...and for a game that's going to include scenes like that from beginning to end? If people are expecting that level of cinematic delivery with 10x the options of how to respond, dream on. Someday, maybe, but doing that in today's world would cost (literally!) hundreds upon hundreds of millions of dollars, a production team of thousands, and probably 10+ years to develop. We're talking Starship Citizen levels of ambition. Layers the like of which have never been attempted before and are utterly out of reasonable reach for the modern industry and technology. (Laudable goal and vision, surely, but realism will come knocking every day.)

Thus, if I want that type of game, with that many options and potential pathways, I have three realistic approaches:

1.) A heavily branching narrative arc that will result in numerous pathways through the story, introducing numerous themes, and leading to numerous, varied conclusions...but each pathway from beginning to end will be extremely short. Perhaps complete playthroughs of 5-10 hours tops.

2.) I can skip the narrative arc altogether, allowing player agency to fill in the gaps. Like Dark Souls, I can certainly introduce narrative elements, but there will not be any central narrative arc. Just a bunch of lore and exposition that the player can discover and piece together on their own to come up with their own understanding of what everything must mean.

3.) I can sort get the best of both worlds and create a version of #1 with written text instead of cinematic cutscenes. (Kind of what Spiderweb Software does with their titles.) If I don't need to produce the cinematic cutscenes, I can get a lot more content into my game using just good old creative writing. And then I can listen to players complain about my game having too much reading and not enough action. (Which I can cheekily prove by counting the number of members that will actually read this post to this point on just my fingers and toes.)

you don't need a single writer/collaborator to create a narrative arc.

Also, going to logical extremes in this situation doesn't exactly translate well. because all narratives require the audience to accept/participate in the story. Every game even more so requires the players to participate in good faith. Some people aren't that good at this type of game admittedly. (RP collaborative story telling)

Now this game handles it decently, they have a basic narrative, that people can get just by following the MS alone. Then they have other narratives which can change the essence of the story, depending on how the player interacts with it. The most compelling version of the cyberpunk story requires the synergy of the player and the writer. The fact is V is not fleshed out, so what the player inserts as V's purpose (this isn't random, its seeded, based on human nature, and logical/emotional cues created by the writers. Its not random that some players put love as a focus, they built that in, and allow it to be the driving force of V's actions. But the player has to choose it, develop it, add to it.


So yes, the choice is to create many themes, which is the solution they chose for this game. The basic story is skeletal, and fits the vast majority of experience. Survival. No matter what the player's role/ motivation, survival is probably required. Then they develop themes that tie into that, giving flesh to the skeleton. Why does V want to survive? They pick a few common human motivations, fame, success, family, excitement, long life, justice, revenge. They seed the beginnings, middles, and ends of these stories.

It does lower story length, but let's be honest, its not really about how long the story is. if you do nothing but the bare minimum for most of the narratives, you are looking at probably a 20-30 hour game. Which is actually fine.

And yes, they definitely can't hit every beat, but some narratives were planned/executed better than others,
 
Who Said Video Games Make You Silly ? :D
Why does V want to survive? They pick a few common human motivations, fame, success, family, excitement, long life, justice, revenge. They seed the beginnings, middles, and ends of these stories.
It's possiby banal, but just for "not die," it's a good answer :)
(at the start with Jackie, he said "for to be a legend", "death is just the final touch"... but in Vic's clinic it's just "I don't want to die")
For the rest, sorry it's to complex for me :cry:
 
Last edited:
Sorry to disappoint, but this is a discussion I can have for literally years. I have, actually -- Writing, Literature, and Theatre is what I do for living. I love it!

What I've actually done is used a single, signature example of how rising action is necessary to create scenes driven by established characters exploring an established theme, then deliver them successfully through cinematic presentation. A single example is not the be-all-and end-all of an argument. It is a single example used to highlight the particular point being discussed. The focus of my argument has nothing to do that particular scene. This applies to any such scenes in this game, other games, in books, or in film. It was an example.

In this case, I specifically chose something that was not about V, Johnny, and the main theme because I have already addressed that numerous times (in detail) and wanted to highlight how even smaller, non-central scenes can be utterly reliant on the established characters and the prior narrative arc. That's what qualifies the action and allows it to resonate with an audience. Players can now vest themselves in the experience, suspend their disbelief, and engage in the scene at an emotional level. And the reason for that is because players have had the characters of Judy, Evelyn, and Woodman, their motivations, and their experiences well established and explored by the carefully structured plot up to that point. Storytelling.

That effect simply won't happen without a specifically crafted narrative arc.

Let's challenge the process. Let's take that scene again. Let's pretend that the game is more open-ended, offering more interpretive motivations, and more sandbox play. The player is never required to meet either Judy, Evelyn, or Woodman. There is no guarantee their characters will be established. We'll never be able to deliver that scene. We won't be able to deliver a scene like that with other characters about other parts of the plot, either. Or, we will be able to deliver only scenes that the player has chosen to engage in. Well, then, since there's no guarantee that the player will follow any particular chain, there's no guarantee that the player will ever see any cinematics like this.

OR -- if we just deliver them anyway -- the player will have little no context to qualify such an intense, dramatic scene. Comments that follow would be:

- "Where the hell did this scene even come from?"
- "I just met this Judy character, and now I'm carrying her dead friend's body to a bed -- wtf!?"
- "Woah, the cutscenes in this game are so over-the-top and cringy!"
- "The story in this game is all over the place; there's basically no pacing at all."


Etc.

^ This is focus of my argument. If the presentation of a game is going to rely on cinematic delivery of narrative, then that narrative arc must be clearly established (for whatever theme my game is about. Can't tell a gripping story without a strong theme. I can kiss dramatic action goodbye if I try.) Player agency will now necessarily be limited to the framework of that narrative. If not, we're right back to either:
1.) I'll have to make individual playthroughs shorter in order to allow more narrative arcs with qualified conclusions.
Or...
2.) I'll have to forego cinematic presentation and deliver the narrative through other means (written text, visual storytelling, emergent storytelling, etc.) to ensure more player agency.

My argument is not that there is no way to deliver a game with more choices. My argument is that I cannot deliver more choices if I also intend to include a gripping narrative arc delivered cinematically. As I said the very first time I addressed this consideration:


It's totally possible to deliver more open gameplay...but that isn't the type of game that CDPR has ever made. Their games have always created strong narrative arcs and very cinematic presentation of the story.

Also, please remember, I sympathize and largely agree with players' desires to have a more sandbox Cyberpunk experience in the future. (Just because I loved the story [including the endings :p ] it doesn't mean I'm against a less-restrictive approach to the narrative!) The main purpose of my argument is to try to offer an alternative approach to that end, one that I believe will reach more ears. One that argues for an alternative approach to the gameplay, instead of arguing against a very well-crafted and rather impactful story.

the problem is, you are assuming a player cannot create a story or fill in a story given options guiding them. A player is not a random entity. They are also trying to write a story, and they fill in the blanks given prompts.

How V interacts with the world is designed to create new and different dramatic tensions with the same events depending on how they played. And how they play, is often a result of the role they are consciously or subconsciously playing.

lets take Judy. depending on how the player plays, there can be like 6-7 different narrative arcs here for the Judy/V relationship. And many of them are gripping stories.

I think because you have studied a certain type of writing you are a bit focused on philosophies about narrative fiction that are not trueisms.

Its easier for a writer to control a narrative if they are the architect. But creating a narrative arc doesn't require one writer. And writing interactive fiction is a whole different type of writing. It may be anathema to a novelist, but I think the way to write gripping immersive interactive stories is not the same, but you can explore themes, challenge the character/player/writer to grow, or reject growth and create a gripping story in the process


By your standard, its not possible for multiple people to improvise a good story arc. But this is proven false, by many TTRpgs, collaborative fictions, and improv. I've been watching hitechlo.life cyberpunk red, and blackdicesociety dnd. Now doing it in a videogame is different, but it shows it is not impossible. A videogame has a lot more tools and planning to guide and direct the player character's RP.
 
Now doing it in a videogame is different, but it shows it is not impossible. A videogame has a lot more tools and planning to guide and direct the player character's RP.
Not impossible, your right ;)
It will take a lot more time to create (if we keep the quality what we have on CP), it would require a lot more investments and would certainly be sold at a very high price. Basically you would have to invest a lot for a game that would probably sell very little (at double the price of CP, not sure that many players would buy it). In my opinion, it's too risky as a bet :)

To use a basic example:
I prefer the choice of CDPR for Cyberpunk for romance (judy for example^^) to that of Bethesda for Fallout 4 (Piper). In Bethesda, where theoretically the player is "freer", well it's 3 lines of dialogue and the case is settled.
 
Last edited:
Who Said Video Games Make You Silly ? :D

It's possiby banal, but just for "not die," it's a good answer :)
(at the start, he could said for the fame... but in Vic's clinic it's just "I don't want to die")
For the rest, sorry it's to complex for me :cry:

Yes, and this was the plan. They chose the most basic, universal force to drive the action and create a barebones plot driven story for anyone to follow, even those that don't engage deeply with V as a character, or even the world at large. But its a motivation which by its very nature ties into most other motivations, because you need to live to achieve anything else. Some players develop a deep tie to Judy, and their survival is to make Judy happy. Others may explore the world, its disrepair, and feel a deep desire to use their life to rebel against the corps that dominate your life. Others may not realize until they hit mikoshi, that they would sacrifice what time they had left so a friend could carry on. And others might just be like, dammit I want to live.
 
Yes, and this was the plan. They chose the most basic, universal force to drive the action and create a barebones plot driven story for anyone to follow, even those that don't engage deeply with V as a character, or even the world at large. But its a motivation which by its very nature ties into most other motivations, because you need to live to achieve anything else. Some players develop a deep tie to Judy, and their survival is to make Judy happy. Others may explore the world, its disrepair, and feel a deep desire to use their life to rebel against the corps that dominate your life. Others may not realize until they hit mikoshi, that they would sacrifice what time they had left so a friend could carry on. And others might just be like, dammit I want to live.
I could agree, but it's not a game for that ;)
In Cyberpunk, it is the story of V wanted by CDPR and not the one that the player could/would invent. It's the base, around that you can explore, do what you want but it's always the CDPR's V story.
(it's just my impression, but it's seem true :D)
 
Not impossible, your right ;)
It will take a lot more time to create (if we keep the quality what we have on CP), it would require a lot more investments and would certainly be sold at a very high price. Basically you would have to invest a lot for a game that would probably sell very little (at double the price of CP, not sure that many players would buy it). In my opinion, it's too risky as a bet :)

to be honest, I think overall cyberpunk achieved this very well. Its not infinite, and some stories worked better than others. But they did create a very good RP experience given the limitations. Reading this forum proves it to me. So many different people created so many different stories, and it was so convincing that many of them believe that there was only really one story that could be told. So many different people have a different idea of who V really is. From an interactive storytelling standpoint this game is a huge success imo.

I think the biggest complaints narratively is that in most cases it did its job so well, that when it doesn't it sticks with people. Or for some they just don't like the final narrative choices.

And yeah, they did lose some who need a fixed narrative and find V to be unrevealed, and others who would prefer a totally open experience. But the game was a plus for 75% of people, and many of those said the narratives, immersion and characters were the best part. So I'd say they did it.
Post automatically merged:

I could agree, but it's not a game for that ;)
In Cyberpunk, it is the story of V wanted by CDPR and not the one that the player could invent.
(it's just my impression, but it's seem true :D)

its not one that is totally the player but its not really cdpr's story for V.
My V's story and your V's story is totally different, But its so subtle you wouldn't realize it until we compare. For example how did your V interact with the VDBs and why?
 
its not one that is totally the player but its not really cdpr's story for V.
My V's story and your V's story is totally different, But its so subtle you wouldn't realize it until we compare. For example how did your V interact with the VDBs and why?
I'm not a good example, I have the imagination of a goldfish :D
But I could answer.
In my first playtrought (so having no idea what happens next):
I chose to trust VDBs rather than Netwatch (thinking that Netwatch wanted to destroy VDBs). And after come back from the net, I just left (with a little squeaky phrase on them and Alt). No need to waste time with them (even if a mad desire to burn everything crossed my mind).

Edit :
except my V is more based on how the game described it to me. A little naive and dreamy.
Dex: "A friendship based on a bunch of eddies" (seriously, who would believe that ? :D)
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom