[Spoiler Alert] About the endings

[SaulTuk]

A reasonable question arises - why does the player need to play this?
The players, oddly enough, play in order to do something in the game. Unless the game is an online grinder.

Post automatically merged: Dec 31, 2020

Bioware thought so too. As a result, Andromeda and Anthem were buried by the players even before the release.

Yes, but what money they made for EA? I think good enough. Good enough to not make total ME3 remaster yet.

Post automatically merged: Dec 31, 2020

Oh i absolutely agree that the endings have to be logical and satisfying on their own and that optional content in the form of Dlcs and expansions should either introduce a new game mode where you can explore the games world without Johnny and the deathclock or a new act for V, where we get a new adventure and a cure.

I just wanted to point out that mid game DLCs/expansions don't make sense, if they don't have to add something to the game.
We don't have time and need to safe our brain. A massive 20h story line (implied by the blood and winencomment), that only adds another disappointment to V, because another read to solve the problem would make no sense, because the end of the new story would already be spoiled by the ending itself.

It would just be a waste of V's time...

On the contrary... if you change the endings, casual players don't really care for, why would changing them make them ask questions?
Or why would additional endings that take player agency and involvement into account piss them off? It would be another choice for them to explore.

So, to make sense, big DLC will be about some new guy! No more Johny, no more V, different story, unrelated to V's health problem.

 

[Barsenthor]

But even about Nier Automata i just won’t touch anything that has a Nier name on it after I beat their last installment.

why? Because it’s pointless from lore perspective.

 

[stndn]

It’s also leave a bad taste like you were cheated. Next time I see something with CDPR logo on it my first thought won’t be “how great TW3 was0 but how bad the endings of CP77 were.

How many other people have the same sentiment though? Even on /r/cyberpunkgame I don't see that much criticism towards the endings. Head to YouTube comments regarding the endings and it's a similar story.

 

[I_Willenbrock_I]

It’s also leave a bad taste like you were cheated. Next time I see something with CDPR logo on it my first thought won’t be “how great TW3 was0 but how bad the endings of CP77 were.

Showbiz is about emotions and here emotions are bad, and not a bad but with some message, but bad as being something opposite the the main game.

Look on the Nier Automata. Game is melancholic with sad endint yet people like this becouse it’s inline with the whole story and ending is a logical consequence of the whole story, it even can be interpreted as a happy ending for main characters.
CP77 is not like this; it contradicts it self many times and make endings pointless. In the Nier you could say that ending (the last ultimate one) was sad but it was not a pointless one and not the one.

I won’t preorder or do a day-1 buy any more of their products.
You need only 10-20% of your customers to do the same and with any major product and release you have a big problem.

Same with rdr2.
Arthur is a dead man walking and chasing a cure for his condition is not even a part of the story.
The fatalistic view on the game works, because of this.

In CP2077 however, our main mission is to find a cure. Even if we ignore the main missions play side missions only, we can't resolve the game without chasing the cure.

 

[lolic99]

What do you mean? There's plenty to do in the game. Personally I'm on my 2nd playthrough just to reexperience the side quests alone.

Can you play the game knowing that you will end up crap and have to kill your character?
My respect, apparently you don't care what to play at all.

 

[I_Willenbrock_I]

Yes, but what money they made for EA? I think good enough. Good enough to not make total ME3 remaster yet.

Post automatically merged: Dec 31, 2020

So, to make sense, big DLC will be about some new guy! No more Johny, no more V, different story, unrelated to V's health problem.

That would be even worse.

 

[stndn]

Can you play the game knowing that you will end up crap and have to kill your character?
My respect, apparently you don't care what to play at all.

Sure. It's about the journey and not the destination. And even then the endings are fairly ambiguous so I don't think V's story is definitively over. Hence I don't feel 'crap' at the end of the game.

 

[lolic99]

So, to make sense, big DLC will be about some new guy! No more Johny, no more V, different story, unrelated to V's health problem.

Yes, a new character to kill.
Hopefully CDPR have enough money to buy their own dlc, because no one who values their time will buy them.

 

[SaulTuk]

That would be even worse.

Why? I like Cyberpunk world, gameplay is not half-bad, the Night City are majestic and stylish, and CD Projekt proved they're good at creating believable NPC and interesting side stories.

 

[naddaya]

Same with rdr2.
Arthur is a dead man walking and chasing a cure for his condition is not even a part of the story.
The fatalistic view on the game works, because of this.

It also hits different because Arthur is a completely defined character, V isn't. We get to customize them and see everything through V's eyes, it's easier to get attached and see V's journey as our own.

 

[Barsenthor]

How many other people have the same sentiment though? Even on /r/cyberpunkgame I don't see that much criticism towards the endings. Head to YouTube comments regarding the endings and it's a similar story.

As I said mostly people think that this endings are cliffhangers for the expansions not a definitely closing V story arc ones.

I won’t be mad it this is the case tho I don’t like this since it’s a bad practice.

 

[lolic99]

Why? I like Cyberpunk world, gameplay is not half-bad, the Night City are majestic and stylish, and CD Projekt proved they're good at creating believable NPC and interesting side stories.

CD Projekt proved that they cannot even in mainstory.

 

[SaulTuk]

Yes, a new character to kill.
Hopefully CDPR have enough money to buy their own dlc, because no one who values their time will buy them.

Why kill it? And i will probably consider buying new standalone story. Cyberpunk, in my opinion, is not about one central hero and blah-blah-blah, it is big and intricate mosaic of a miriad small stories about small men. Side stories in CP77, like Sinnerman, Peralez arc and Panam/Judy/River stories are good enough, and would be even better without V's main plot. And, to be honest, i'm not so attached to V so much, but i do like the world and its small stories.

 

[I_Willenbrock_I]

How many other people have the same sentiment though? Even on /r/cyberpunkgame I don't see that much criticism towards the endings. Head to YouTube comments regarding the endings and it's a similar story.

This implies that bad story telling (contradictions etc) at the very end and introducing a useless plot device that is not only cheap but has sole the job to invoke negative emotions is ok, as long as people buy it?
Most people don't even finish games.

Post automatically merged: Dec 31, 2020

Why? I like Cyberpunk world, gameplay is not half-bad, the Night City are majestic and stylish, and CD Projekt proved they're good at creating believable NPC and interesting side stories.

Because it would cheapen the main plot and would fuck up the pacing even more.

 

[SaulTuk]

CD Projekt proved that they cannot even in mainstory.

Perhaps they couldn't handled main story, which doesn't correlate with ability to make good small stories. As for me, small stories of Cyberpunk 2077 are good.

Post automatically merged: Dec 31, 2020

This implies that bad story telling (contradictions etc) at the very end and introducing a useless plot device that is not only cheap but has sole the job to invoke negative emotions is ok, as long as people buy it?
Most people don't even finish games.

Post automatically merged: Dec 31, 2020

Because it would cheapen the main plot and would fuck up the pacing even more.

Forget about main plot, this is not the strong part of the game. It has great world and good small stories, which will become even better without false urgency to progress the main one.

 

[stndn]

Why kill it? And i will probably consider buying new standalone story. Cyberpunk, in my opinion, is not about one central hero and blah-blah-blah, it is big and intricate mosaic of a miriad small stories about small men. Side stories in CP77, like Sunnerman, Peralez arc and Panam/Judy/River stories are good enough, and would be even better without V's main plot. And, to be honest, i'm not so attached to V so much, but i do like the world and its small stories.

I agree with you but I think this is more of a logistical problem.

If you have a new character then CDPR will need to re-do all the relationships of existing characters with that new character. It would be weird if you just walk up to Panam or Judy as some new character.

Also consider this. Most of us invested a lot of hours into V and obtained legendary gear at the end of the game. It would be weird if we couldn't bring all of this into the post-game expansion.

This is probably best left for a sequel.

 

[I_Willenbrock_I]

Perhaps they couldn't handled main story, which doesn't correlate with ability to make good small stories. As for me, small stories of Cyberpunk 2077 are good.

Post automatically merged: Dec 31, 2020

Forget about main plot, this is not the strong part of the game. It has great world and good small stories, which will become even better without false urgency to progress the main one.

It's the reason most of us play the game...at all.

Ignoring the main plot in a story that focuses on the main plot is like ordering a steak, just to only eat the fries...

 

[stndn]

This implies that bad story telling (contradictions etc) at the very end and introducing a useless plot device that is not only cheap but has sole the job to invoke negative emotions is ok, as long as people buy it?

People in this thread don't like the games plot. Fair enough as it's a venting thread at it's core. But beyond this thread and in the grand scheme of things not everybody shares the same opinion.

 

[SaulTuk]

I agree with you but I think this is more of a logistical problem.

If you have a new character then CDPR will need to re-do all the relationships of existing characters with that new character. It would be weird if you just walk up to Panam or Judy as some new character.

Also consider this. Most of us invested a lot of hours into V and obtained legendary gear at the end of the game. It would be weird if we couldn't bring all of this into the post-game expansion.

This is probably best left for a sequel.

Completely new story deserves sequel, i agree. As for DLC, personally i don't believe we will get any which affect the main plot. At best, we get big side story during Act 2, totaly unrelated to ending. Probably even explore new locations, both within and without NC. As for bad ending, they may not be corrected properly without total game overhaul. So i would want a complete remaster, with cut content restoration and endings overhaul. Any plot DLC will be a cheap and unsufficient to me, adding assault to unjury.

 

[tRYSIS3]

Also consider this. Most of us invested a lot of hours into V and obtained legendary gear at the end of the game. It would be weird if we couldn't bring all of this into the post-game expansion.

Ironic considering that pretty much all of the items collected during the endings do not carry over to the game