By the way, also The Witcher 3 had a dark tone but we still had plenty of good endings...just saying.
Last edited:
I did personally like Johny in the end...... he was good to me and offered to go with Alt, he is even sad if V chooses to give him the body... the point is after playing the whole game to survive just to end up dying no matter what we do makes playing the whole game pointless to me since there is no reward or satisfaction at all for the player... also for a rpg where choices matter having all outcomes with V dying make it kind of kinetic in a way instead of rpg with choices.
I think they made a mistake by thinking all people will be happy with those endings, we are humans we make mistakes...
The point is if they are going to rectify this.
As for those that like those endings..... is okay and you are not forced to think like those of us that don't like it but don't be such entitled and small-minded people to tell other people they did good because for us they clearly did not.
I think they made a mistake by thinking all people will be happy with those endings, we are humans we make mistakes...
The point is if they are going to rectify this.
As for those that like those endings..... is okay and you are not forced to think like those of us that don't like it but don't be such entitled and small-minded people to tell other people they did good because for us they clearly did not.
In my opinion, the game is at it's core a story about how (and whether) one should achieve immortality.
What's the thing that V's looking for before the chip is installed? - Becoming a legend (her version of immortality).
What the thing that ends up being her death sentence? - A chip that purports to grant literal immortality, but which becomes twisted and ends up killing her.
What does she do once she has that death sentence? - It's up to the player and makes for some very interesting choices, but the death sentence to V's body is still there from the end of Act I.
I like that. Most of the endings are varying attempts at achieving immortality in a different way, or refusing to do so. That's very Cyberpunk.
CDPR has managed to upload Keanu Reeves' image on the internet. What if Cyberpunk is really just a work by a Keanu hater?
Is your opinion and I respect it bro but I don't share it and that is fine, as I said in the post above we all have different opinions just try to not sound like you are telling people that they are not understanding the game and those endings are actually good because that seems like you actually trying to force people into your own "view" of the game.
It -does- make for a good story with a lot of questions; However, RPG games with custom protagonist tend to have people grow attached to their characters over hours and hours of playtime. Just murdering a player's custom character for the sake of a railroaded story never feels good.
It can feel good in a pnp rpg because -your- actions lead to the character's death. A videogame is like a bad DM that just pushes the story toward where they want it to go, disregarding most of the players' wishes.
On that note, if they'd just made the game from Silverhand's perspective, it would feel a lot less like a slap in the face and a punch in the gut when V dies. If V was just <a body -you- had to decide if you wanted to keep alive or take>, that would've carried more impact -and- not made players sad that their own custom tailored character was railroaded into someone else's story.
I think you're trying to argue a different thing from what the issue is; The story does undoubtedly has depth and a lot of philosophical implications. But it also just feels bad, and often how something 'feels' is more important to a story than how it 'is'.
Last edited:
Totally fair, I'm not trying to say others have to like it. I just didn't think the representation that the whole game is about survival was entirely accurate. Thus my impressions on what I thought it was about (to me). I respect a different view.
except my V doesn't want that. its telling that Dexter never lets you answer what you prefer in that car ride.
my V is a down on her luck corporate bitch trying to get by. I explicitly criticize Jackie on route to the hotel for his blind obsession with "making it big". I tell the girl in the Clouds that "being the best" is pure fantasy. I am alone and dying and I just want to survive - as myself, not as a backup, not as a vessel for Johnny's hatered and ambitions. and, ultimately, I don't even have a chance to do so.
...Hmm no.
It's never stated that V wants to become a Legend. Jackie wants to become one, sure. But V? They just join him along the ride.
It's more a story about surviving Night City and it's adversities (I've played both as Nomad and Corpo, and both have decided to become merc for necessity, not for glory).
Someone put it best earlier on in this thread. This story would have made a better book than a game.
Post automatically merged:
Exactly. Becoming a legend and fulfilling Jackie's dream is one way to go about it, but V chastises Jackie while they are escaping. "Was it worth it?" This game is about V trying their hardest to survive, at it's core.
Agreed that there are multiple motivations V can choose (which is great!). My post above was my take on the character in my playthrough and the story it ended up painting. I was saying the whole game doesn't have to be about survival. There are other takes.
I also think a part of the issue is that this is 'the first game' in what I assume is going to be either a franchise or at least a few more DLC stories to come; Having our main character, our lens through which we consume that story, just die at the end doesn't feel like a good 'beginning'.
I get it, and on the fundamental level, I agree. however, since they've given us the option to decide on our motives, it would only be fair to honor our choices later. you can't invite a vegan to your barbeque and offer them salad only to then force them to eat a steak because it's what barbeques are all about, after all.
There are multiple motivations that players can give V during their role playing, sure, but in the end they all get scrapped away and apparently it doesn't matter anymore. It only matters that we NEED to care for being a Legend or for Johnny in a way or another, like story is trying to shove it down our throat. That's lazy writing or content that was cut to be on time with the third delayed release.
OK fair enough : that's the first time that I read a meaningful lecture of the story, and CDPR told us about the immortality theme many times. That's what I had in mind while mentioning "meaningful"
However, I think in practice the way it goes, the game feels like the message is spoiled by rushed sequences, odd game design choices ; even just thinking that this particular story was somehow the best pick up choice to start the franchise, there could be dozens of less bittersweet stories to tell, and still being cyberpunk.
It raises more questions for the future games or DLCs starting from this angle. Imagine many people will discover the cyberpunk genre with this, I can just feel bad for them, will they take for granted that all the cyberpunk stories end with apparently worthless endings / replay value ? (I said, apparently, please note well).
But in this scenario our choices did become null and void. After getting rid of Jhonny, accidentally helping Arasaka take back control and power, letting all of our friends down and in the end still die pointlessly, what did our struggle accomplish?
Last edited:
And how would one happy endings among all of those bad endings change that? You would still have your 6 sad and bad endings. What is bad in having one good one? I don't understand your perspective. We talk about multiple endings. Easy you can fit all possible scenarios there.
It's not about one proper endings. It's about players enjoyment from finishing game. If you have so many endings, yet you fail to include at least one that is clearly preferable by majority of people (researches show for movies and books that majority of people prefer good endings) - you fail as developer. You have multiple endings - there is no excuse to not include one that is good. You already have many of those that are bad.
Here's where my extra cynical (appropriate for a cyberpunk-bound world we live in) mind comes in:
They said no matter the DLCs, the main story was done and over with. All endings ensure V won't be a thing a year after in 2078. No ifs, no buts about it. V's gone, even beyond the "copy-original" debate, even copy will be gone.
So..... Something in my gut, a part of me that I hate, tells me that this whole thing was their GTA V, their RDR2...
Basically, a game purely made to promote the multiplayer mode that will launch in future and start printing money. Maybe they think Witcher should be where they put in their real single player efforts in, and this game is just a long term safe-money option for them when multiplayer launches.
Or maybe... maybe CDPR intends to just become another EA, Activision or Ubisoft. GOG.com's existence does hint at it.
So, what I'm saying is, they intentionally make sure by the end of all 7 endings, no trace of V OR Johnny remains in NC. So you can make a multiplayer mode tennable.
They said no matter the DLCs, the main story was done and over with. All endings ensure V won't be a thing a year after in 2078. No ifs, no buts about it. V's gone, even beyond the "copy-original" debate, even copy will be gone.
So..... Something in my gut, a part of me that I hate, tells me that this whole thing was their GTA V, their RDR2...
Basically, a game purely made to promote the multiplayer mode that will launch in future and start printing money. Maybe they think Witcher should be where they put in their real single player efforts in, and this game is just a long term safe-money option for them when multiplayer launches.
Or maybe... maybe CDPR intends to just become another EA, Activision or Ubisoft. GOG.com's existence does hint at it.
So, what I'm saying is, they intentionally make sure by the end of all 7 endings, no trace of V OR Johnny remains in NC. So you can make a multiplayer mode tennable.
But theres no choice - you saying things that would be on place in world where peope dont change. But during the whole story my vision of this game flipped couple times. V evolved with me during at also Johnny evolved. In my story V found friends, love alliances and allies - staying with it that he said at the beginning one doesnt mean if he would say it at the end.
But game didnt let us tell what we want - game told us we can't anything in irrational way. 6 months is way more than is needed to find solution of immunological dna conflict in that times.
All just looks like unended part of game, there are nothing after just things before. So it doesn't matter.
There's no endings that will remain there if they'll expand storyline as expanding game with just sidequests is fun as we after all know what will happen.