The more I think about it sadly, the more I believe survival was never intended in this game. I think it was just about, what we would do with our time given, what losses we could endure etc. Well if it was the case then well done, but for a game it is very sad. We all understand that we have to die at some point, RL or game, but for a game to really give the player a chance of everything only to rip everything away again is the most cruel thing. We all deserve our happy endings in games at least, because noone knows about now, what RL has still to give. And if boths the same, why bother playing such games anymore anyway. Don´t get me wrong, I´m still hoping for the better, just saying it could´ve been their motive to do as it is now.
Probably, but they messed up that trope.
Which is shameful, because examples and sources are constantly mentioned throughout the game. Hemingway's "For Whom the Bell tolls", which was Jackie's favourite book and Homer's "Odyssey", of which we find a copy in your room on the Arasaka station.
I already wrote about these examples in the past couple of days and to me it seems that the writers do not understand the content, instead twisting the moral of these pieces of world literature into some grimdark fanfic. Just look up my posts if you want to read the full rant, I will only sum it up briefly here:
In Hemingway the hero dies, but he makes a big difference and saves many of the people he cared for.
In Homer, the hero survives, he achieves his goal in the end, but at great cost to himself and others.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the Nomad or Space Heist endings I would have been perfectly fine with the "6 months to live" thing, once Johnny gets removed from my head (and hope for a resolution in the expansions). But the Soulkiller part ruined it, cause the original V dies upon entering Mikoshi and you have no way to change this.