Not when every ending out of the 6 (was it six?) available ones is depressing. Same bullshit as in a certain other series.
Not when every ending out of the 6 (was it six?) available ones is depressing. Same bullshit as in a certain other series.
If we wanna stick to the apparent Cyberpunk tropes, that would be too much of a power fantasy. And I am fine with lack of grandiose endings. Or grandiose endings that ends with our demise. I just want closure.
If theres indeed cut content, surely it's possible now that the game is out that they'll add the rest of content? If there's any that got cut?
And our point is that bittersweet endings are fine. But you need closure. In many of the endings, you aren't provided that. And some above say and prove it too that good endings do have a place in Cyberpunk and it's a valid request to have them. Even if it's only 1 endings.
Who want's to stick to the apparent cyberpunk tropes? We got told over years our choices matter, that we can influence how our story goes. Turns out we can't influence anything aside from the colour of our hairs and our gender. Thats it. How is that even an RPG? Fixing endings or adding new ones is either coming our way or CDP loses alot of its fanbase.
More people are finishing the game and realizing what a bullshit ending it has. This thread will keep growing.
I agree but this was not what was argued at me
My OP in this thread was me stating my oppinion on bad endings and how I like them and even said this was a selling point for me. I have had so many of you jump on me for that alone as you struggle frantically to change my mind and agree with some herd mentality that I need a happy ending or it sucks.
Fuck it. I'm done mods please ban me
I never jumped at it. I always say you can have your bad endings, they should just give us something too.
I don't mind tropes. I don't mind sticking to source material. And I don't mind telling my V that he has 6 month left even after everything. What I personally mind is that I cannot interact and say goodbye to my loved ones and cannot spend my last 6 months to make a drink named after myself in the Afterlife.
That is my case. But I fully support people who want a happy ending.
It's just all such a letdown after the excellent writing in the Witcher series. Imagine what they might have done to the Witcher if Andrzej Sapkowski had not kept an eye on them.
I don't know what you mean by the last sentence. Only in advance (in case if I understand you correctly):
That is at least 2000 years old and goes back on the "Germanic" (Roman understanding for us: Everybody north of the Alps/not from the Greek/Roman culture zone) pantheon. The milky-way looks for people who live so high up north on the plante like a "snake" and is after sun and moon the most moving object, as now during winter that long beam becomes a circle. And on its left side we find the star-constellation of Orion, they presented as a guy who bend this "snake"/"dragon".
So old is that metaphore. We can suspect based on more archeological findings (that are not always direct linked) that this pantheon is at least 5000 years old. And even in modern European religions, folklore, cultures you will still find that.
It progressed of course, as everything changes, develops etc.
But even Wagner in 1850 let his hero slay a dragon who is a transformed giant who took the shape of a dragon as the biggest threat possible.
Please - jump down - I try to answer you two simultaniously.^^ Concering "victory conditions" etc. So that I don't have to write everything twice. Thank you.
Don't mind, I can read you.
Maybe I say some things wrong now - as you meant something different. So, please, give me some leeway. My problem is that you call that "opinion" and I am not arguing what is in the game - I talked about the "what if" scenario. Now I finished the game. So let me please get Moncada (s.a) here with us and try to get us all on the same page.
We talked about - what if - V can not overcome the problem of the chip in his/her head.
IF that would have been the case, it would turn Johnny into the main-character.
This is not opinion or a question of perception that is science.
We humans tell stories in a pattern we call a 3-act system.
It sounds simplified, but it is brillant in its simplicity as it is pragmatic:
First Act: - Introduction of characters and topic
Second Act: - Confrontation of character with the topic
Third Act: - Outcome of the confrontation
In Cyberpunk:
First Act: - This is V next to others incl. Johnny. Topic is "survival" aka "to overcome death".
"Overcome" in all meanings of the word (you can arrange yourself with death, get a new perception onto death
- this is overcoming as well).
The dragon (the biggest threat possible) is the chip in his/her head that stands for
unnatural immenent death (that conflicts with survival = our topic)
Second Act: Confrontation of V with the chip (in subtext: survival more subtext: Survive in NC etc.).
Third Act: What results out of that confrontation?
IF now - IF(!) V would have no chance to kill the dragon/get rid of the chip and survive -
it would be automatically Johnny's story, as he is the only character who survives
(in cyberspace or in body - does not matter as survival is the topic and you two are on that journey).
Again has nothing to do with opinion or perception. That is logic.
As otherwise the story would be: This is V, he/she wants to survive, got a bullet in his/her head and died. End of story.
This is why you want the hero to meet the victory conditions, because if she/he does not , - you
tell the story of a random Joe/Jane. The heroes are allowed to die (think Braveheart - classic epic -
but the topic of Braveheart is "resitance" against a foreign rule and Wallace achieves this, even by his death -
so he wins and on top of that gets back with the love of his life; that is bonus - like as if V ends his/her suffering - like it happens in the Panam-ending).
BUT NOT if death or survival is your topic. As otherwise your main protagonist is no hero.
Crank f.e. if someobdy ever wondered why the character blinks at the end. That's why.
As otherwise he is a guy like V who tries to survive and dies. He needs to win as otherwise he is random Joe.
No matter how uber-human he was in the 2nd act, he needs to succeed.
As otherwise your message would be: Even the uber-human fails. And that translates to: No need trying.
I called (as such stories exist) that "bad" writing (in hyphons) - because on the meta-level,
you make random Joe/Jane hero as the moment you gonna tell any story the audience and you do an
unspoken contract. People might not know how that works or are not even aware about, "why they
like a hero or not" - but this is hardcoded into our species.
This is biology and would reach to far here.
But this is why a Polish can write stories and people in China (not the same culture, language, race, history - nothing in common) can understand them and vice versa. It is in our species.
Now - my problem with this random Joe/Jane as a "fake-"hero is, that they are cheap role-models to justify
bad things in our RL, as it is very easy then to become a hero.
That is why I put a value on that. Nothing to do with dialog, complexity of story, what happens to the characters etc.
I saw the ending now - and V can kill the dragon and - as I said before I would have been surprised if no writer of a team of up to 10 would have not realized that they are missing out a 3rd act. Just by chance - that was very impossible.
But we talked about - what if not. And if the Panam-Ending would not exist - Johnny would be the hero of the story.
But I just played it and saw: V can get rid of the chip / or the death of the chip ... It is open end - and yes - you suffer, suffer, suffer as everything is cynical (what I think about I wrote on page 1115) and grey- but that is a legit story.
Three act - system and very American (that is about how the character develops here V or Johnny).
End of talking to you guys^^ - that is what I meant and now on a more random name level:
I understand why some people feel betrayed.
But I do not think the problem comes with the endings, it is with the beginning.
Because it is not black/white enough, that Night-City is V's worse place to be at.
As it is so grey and cynical - specifically with a Nomad-story-line - you miss that you are
playing an Escape Room or Escape from Hell (there was once an old movie Escape from NewYork).
As even with the happy ending your Nomad story-line goes: "You are the country-boy/girl going into the
big city and survived by not making it and now you are back on the country-side."
What is missing - is at the beginning for the street-kid and nomad version - that they do not want
to be in Night City.
If there would be more: Night City is hell. You do not want to be here. And your entering is only
step one to get away... Every ending would be a win.
As even if you become the king of hell or end up in cyber-space -- you win.
But as it is so greyed out and cynical - you might fall for the false conclusion that you play
here MadMax or Ghost in the Shell - you do not - you play Escape from New York or an Escape Room.
THAT this city is hell is in the sub-line/sub-text somehow somewhere, but it is easy to miss, as V with Jackie
go in via "Let's climb up the food-chain and we have no university degree so let's merc" there is basically zero controversy for V to not make it in the city or that the city is "bad".
But that is why your actions (some critize this) do not have any important impact onto the city, as you do not change
hell - hell changes you.
That's Nietzsche.
Do I like it? No. Specifically for a game I see missed oppertunities without giving up on that
"escape hell" concept/character motivation, but they did not ask me in advance - it is their game and for some that
might be cool and they are happy.
For the corps-life-path it is a perfect story-line.
For others Night-City presents itself to "cool", as it is a fictional place, you want to explore. Even if all is grey - then it is not realistic as there is no controversy.
If that would be a RL-slum in Liberia or Somalia you 100% would get the message faster across that this town is hell.
But we only know that such slums in Liberia or Somalia are worse - because we do now better living (here reality is black and white and not grey). In a fictional Night City - that is all grey - you don't know if that is Atlantic City/Beverly Hills of planet earth and you accept the world like it presents itself to you.
SoI think the problem of the people who think "we need more happy endings" is because they think they play Jojimbo/MadMax or Ghost in the Shell or "the lone rider changes the world".
You do not. You play: Escape the Escape-Room/hell/prison/whatever...
And if you change your perception to that - I bet you will understand why they came up with these endings and why they make sense.
You rise to the king of hell (kinda escape) - you end up in nirvana - or you run to a better place or you give up and kill yourself.
All legit endings - three are actually positive - if we say: To become "King of Night City" is good. You made it to the head of the mafia. Congrats.
Personally I am no fan of such stuff (as you have to advertise the city, but on the other hand that is hell), but it is legit story-telling and the ends are legit.
I still suspect/hope that there might be an unknown ending - if you have lesser corruption
of Johnny and your body - but that might be to white for that Cyberpunk world as it is not cynical
and grey enough or one if you have done all side-quests/ended all gang-activity- that something magical happens...
Just mention this to people who want to test this.. as this is not my game I expected something
different (that might be hidden somewhere, but if - it is to well hidden for me).
But that mistake is on me and not on CDPR's game.
From a writing perception that story-line is legit incl. its endings. I could only think of these two more endings if they are not already in game that are in line with that story-arch and something I would consider "positive".
Everything else is not that game, as your motivation is "escape" Night City or "hell".
#reachcyber-nirvana #becomeitsdevil #keepsearchingforparadise
Hashtag "changetheworld" missing, undiscovered or on conflict with universe/not intended.
That would be - IF - that does not exist - my major problem.
Actually I only wanted to report some bugs I found - so please by that thread activity - excuse me, if I might be unavailable in the future. It is no arrogance - it is just time.
I am on your side. I am fine with sad endings as long as it is justified. I didn't feel that was the case in my ending. I have presented my arguement plenty in several threads in detail. I'm just tired to repeat it.
But you also have to accept other people's sentiment and emotions. Lot of people, including me left depressed after the endings. And that is not fun, no matter how you try to justify the endings. And people deserve to be rewarded for ther effort in the game and look back at it with fondness. Esepcially if you want people to replay and reexperince your game/story.
Post automatically merged:
I personally believe the original books are mediocre. I think the game has expanded and improved on the source material a lot.
Andrzej Sapkowski was not involved in Witcher games in any way, apart from selling them license for peanuts, in fact he was so jealous of games sucess that he was suing them for royalties, which they settled out of court.
Last edited:
I am with you, but I was pretty sure Sapkowski wanted grimdark endings too and disliked the video games.
If I want grim darkness I´ll switch on my TV and watch the news! There is viruses, war and all the bad stuff all the time. If not even games turn out happy anymore, than thats a real shame.
I think the license contract regulates what is ok and what is not. Like when you license the Marvel IP you cannot suddenly turn Hulk into a blue space dwarf.
Post automatically merged:
After 2020 I really would have liked a good game to end the year. And not a broken mess with a depressing story.
What you wrote makes 100% and rings true to a lot of my own unrealised feelings.I don't know what you mean by the last sentence. Only in advance (in case if I understand you correctly):
That is at least 2000 years old and goes back on the "Germanic" (Roman understanding for us: Everybody north of the Alps/not from the Greek/Roman culture zone) pantheon. The milky-way looks for people who live so high up north on the plante like a "snake" and is after sun and moon the most moving object, as now during winter that long beam becomes a circle. And on its left side we find the star-constellation of Orion, they presented as a guy who bend this "snake"/"dragon".
So old is that metaphore. We can suspect based on more archeological findings (that are not always direct linked) that this pantheon is at least 5000 years old. And even in modern European religions, folklore, cultures you will still find that.
It progressed of course, as everything changes, develops etc.
But even Wagner in 1850 let his hero slay a dragon who is a transformed giant who took the shape of a dragon as the biggest threat possible.
Please - jump down - I try to answer you two simultaniously.^^ Concering "victory conditions" etc. So that I don't have to write everything twice. Thank you.
Don't mind, I can read you.
So let me please get Moncada (s.a) here with us and try to get us all on the same page.
We talked about - what if - V can not overcome the problem of the chip in his/her head.
IF that would have been the case, it would turn Johnny into the main-character.
This is not opinion or a question of perception that is science.
We humans tell stories in a pattern we call a 3-act system.
It sounds simplified, but it is brillant in its simplicity as it is pragmatic:
First Act: - Introduction of characters and topic
Second Act: - Confrontation of character with the topic
Third Act: - Outcome of the confrontation
In Cyberpunk:
First Act: - This is V next to others incl. Johnny. Topic is "survival" aka "to overcome death".
"Overcome" in all meanings of the word (you can arrange yourself with death, get a new perception onto death
- this is overcoming as well).
The dragon (the biggest threat possible) is the chip in his/her head that stands for
unnatural immenent death (that conflicts with survival = our topic)
Second Act: Confrontation of V with the chip (in subtext: survival more subtext: Survive in NC etc.).
Third Act: What results out of that confrontation?
IF now - IF(!) V would have no chance to kill the dragon/get rid of the chip and survive -
it would be automatically Johnny's story, as he is the only character who survives
(in cyberspace or in body - does not matter as survival is the topic and you two are on that journey).
Again has nothing to do with opinion or perception. That is logic.
As otherwise the story would be: This is V, he/she wants to survive, got a bullet in his/her head and died. End of story.
This is why you want the hero to meet the victory conditions, because if she/he does not , - you
tell the story of a random Joe/Jane. The heroes are allowed to die (think Braveheart - classic epic -
but the topic of Braveheart is "resitance" against a foreign rule and Wallace achieves this, even by his death -
so he wins and on top of that gets back with the love of his life; that is bonus - like as if V ends his/her suffering - like it happens in the Panam-ending).
BUT NOT if death or survival is your topic. As otherwise your main protagonist is no hero.
Crank f.e. if someobdy ever wondered why the character blinks at the end. That's why.
As otherwise he is a guy like V who tries to survive and dies. He needs to win as otherwise he is random Joe.
No matter how uber-human he was in the 2nd act, he needs to succeed.
As otherwise your message would be: Even the uber-human fails. And that translates to: No need trying.
I called (as such stories exist) that "bad" writing (in hyphons) - because on the meta-level,
you make random Joe/Jane hero as the moment you gonna tell any story the audience and you do an
unspoken contract. People might not know how that works or are not even aware about, "why they
like a hero or not" - but this is hardcoded into our species.
This is biology and would reach to far here.
But this is why a Polish can write stories and people in China (not the same culture, language, race, history - nothing in common) can understand them and vice versa. It is in our species.
Now - my problem with this random Joe/Jane as a "fake-"hero is, that they are cheap role-models to justify
bad things in our RL, as it is very easy then to become a hero.
That is why I put a value on that. Nothing to do with dialog, complexity of story, what happens to the characters etc.
I saw the ending now - and V can kill the dragon and - as I said before I would have been surprised if no writer of a team of up to 10 would have not realized that they are missing out a 3rd act. Just by chance - that was very impossible.
But we talked about - what if not. And if the Panam-Ending would not exist - Johnny would be the hero of the story.
But I just played it and saw: V can get rid of the chip / or the death of the chip ... It is open end - and yes - you suffer, suffer, suffer as everything is cynical (what I think about I wrote on page 1115) and grey- but that is a legit story.
Three act - system and very American (that is about how the character develops here V or Johnny).
End of talking to you guys^^ - that is what I meant and now on a more random name level:
I understand why some people feel betrayed.
But I do not think the problem comes with the endings, it is with the beginning.
Because it is not black/white enough, that Night-City is V's worse place to be at.
As it is so grey and cynical - specifically with a Nomad-story-line - you miss that you are
playing an Escape Room or Escape from Hell (there was once an old movie Escape from NewYork).
As even with the happy ending your Nomad story-line goes: "You are the country-boy/girl going into the
big city and survived by not making it and now you are back on the country-side."
What is missing - is at the beginning for the street-kid and nomad version - that they do not want
to be in Night City.
If there would be more: Night City is hell. You do not want to be here. And your entering is only
step one to get away... Every ending would be a win.
As even if you become the king of hell or end up in cyber-space -- you win.
But as it is so greyed out and cynical - you might fall for the false conclusion that you play
here MadMax or Ghost in the Shell - you do not - you play Escape from New York or an Escape Room.
THAT this city is hell is in the sub-line/sub-text somehow somewhere, but it is easy to miss, as V with Jackie
go in via "Let's climb up the food-chain and we have no university degree so let's merc" there is basically zero controversy for V to not make it in the city or that the city is "bad".
But that is why your actions (some critize this) do not have any important impact onto the city, as you do not change
hell - hell changes you.
That's Nietzsche.
Do I like it? No. Specifically for a game I see missed oppertunities without giving up on that
"escape hell" concept/character motivation, but they did not ask me in advance - it is their game and for some that
might be cool and they are happy.
For the corps-life-path it is a perfect story-line.
For others Night-City presents itself to "cool", as it is a fictional place, you want to explore. Even if all is grey - then it is not realistic as there is no controversy.
If that would be a RL-slum in Liberia or Somalia you 100% would get the message faster across that this town is hell.
But we only know that such slums in Liberia or Somalia are worse - because we do now better living (here reality is black and white and not grey). In a fictional Night City - that is all grey - you don't know if that is Atlantic City/Beverly Hills of planet earth and you accept the world like it presents itself to you.
SoI think the problem of the people who think "we need more happy endings" is because they think they play Jojimbo/MadMax or Ghost in the Shell or "the lone rider changes the world".
You do not. You play: Escape the Escape-Room/hell/prison/whatever...
And if you change your perception to that - I bet you will understand why they came up with these endings and why they make sense.
You rise to the king of hell (kinda escape) - you end up in nirvana - or you run to a better place or you give up and kill yourself.
All legit endings - three are actually positive - if we say: To become "King of Night City" is good. You made it to the head of the mafia. Congrats.
Personally I am no fan of such stuff (as you have to advertise the city, but on the other hand that is hell), but it is legit story-telling and the ends are legit.
I still suspect/hope that there might be an unknown ending - if you have lesser corruption
of Johnny and your body - but that might be to white for that Cyberpunk world as it is not cynical
and grey enough or one if you have done all side-quests/ended all gang-activity- that something magical happens...
Just mention this to people who want to test this.. as this is not my game I expected something
different (that might be hidden somewhere, but if - it is to well hidden for me).
But that mistake is on me and not on CDPR's game.
From a writing perception that story-line is legit incl. its endings. I could only think of these two more endings if they are not already in game that are in line with that story-arch and something I would consider "positive".
Everything else is not that game, as your motivation is "escape" Night City or "hell".
#reachcyber-nirvana #becomeitsdevil #keepsearchingforparadise
Hashtag "changetheworld" missing, undiscovered or on conflict with universe/not intended.
That would be - IF - that does not exist - my major problem.
Actually I only wanted to report some bugs I found - so please by that thread activity - excuse me, if I might be unavailable in the future. It is no arrogance - it is just time.
I would also add that in Street kid path you actually went off to another city to find a better life but ended up in Night City again. Also empowering the impression that it's not that bad here after all.
There are rumors about the game having a compltely different plan for the game story before Jhonny was added as Keanu. More along the line of exploring cyberpsychosis and what it means to be human.
It is clear that the story feels confused about what it wants to be.
Post automatically merged:
It's a fact that the author actually hates the games.