[Spoiler Alert] About the endings

[Silariell]

They copied the false sense of urgency from Fallout 4, which was an issue people often pointed out.
They copied horrible endings of Mass Effect 3, where Shepard dies in every ending. Which was controversial and people hated it.
They copied the faux-mmo feeling of Dragon Age Inquisition, with random junk loot everywhere with a nonsensical crafting system. Which was something people disliked.
They copied the roleplaying system of Telltale games, where your choices appear to make a difference, to a point where even the game claims it does, but all options lead to the same events. Which was something people criticized often.

Y'know what this makes me think of? Duke Nukem forever. A game that took 12 years to make, and that you can -tell- which parts were made when because they try to mimic certain trends of games from those 12 years, almost like when you cut a tree and can count the rings.

CP77 kind of has that. It started development the same year as far cry 3, and the devs likely played all these games you'd mentioned and took at least some inspiration from them. It's just too bad they didn't have the time to take a bigger look at their project and learn from the mistakes others made before it was too late... ;/

 

[MeinChurro]

Yeah I know that focusing on one end with DLC is really iffy, but I would like the idea of extending it and finishing V's potential story by your decision not by games.

Maybe I can explain again. They do an after msq DLC. We have to settle on these endings. Which means some iffy writing tricks. AT BEST, I think they can add a mid-game DLC, add a new ending, and slightly revise endings like your favored Nomad one, ME3 style. However, we would probably be locked into mid-game DLCs because of the other endings, again unless they want to do those iffy writing tricks.

 

[AKANexus]

Just like people who thought it would be always night time because it is called the "Night City", I think CD Project Red misunderstood the core concepts of Cyberpunk.

They must have thought nothing good or happy can happen in this setting. Which is blatantly untrue, but here we are.

Cyberpunk isn't about being a hero, it is about surviving, but even that option has taken away from us. Each romance ends badly, each story has a dark end to it and each ending in turn is terrible. It didn't need to be this way, in a role playing game there should have been the possibility for a decent enough ending.

Cyberpunk 2020 pen and paper game usually ends with most players dying, but survival is a possibility at least. Good things have a possibility of happening if you play your cards just right. Difficult, yes, but possibility is there. Endings like we have in Cyberpunk 2077 happens when people misunderstand these concepts and think it is so artsy and clever to have all bad endings.

Now where's that guy that kept insisting Cyberpunk stories always end bad?

 

[Simuxas]

Maybe I can explain again. They do an after msq DLC. We have to settle on these endings. Which means some iffy writing tricks. AT BEST, I think they can add a mid-game DLC, add a new ending, and slightly revise endings like your favored Nomad one. However, we would probably be locked into mid-game DLC because of the other endings, again unless they want to do some iffy writing tricks.

That was our first way of fixing it, giving us additional missions that gives additional endings where V lives.

 

[GreyRaconteur]

I don't mind crafting stuff, it is after all futuristic setting where everyone has some implants. But other points yeah kinda iffy.

Post automatically merged: Dec 16, 2020

Good, it needs to grow.

Word. I want nothing more than for this to be largest thread on this forum. Spill it over into reddit and YouTube. The only way this'll have any chance of changing is if enough players talk about it.

Not saying that the devs aren't already aware of this and are waiting for the other shoe to drop after the mess of the console versions are finally sorted. But, have to think this ending will get some kind of press.

 

[thewarsend]

I don't mind crafting stuff, it is after all futuristic setting where everyone has some implants. But other points yeah kinda iffy.

Normally I actually like having a crafting system, it is just that the way it is done in CP77 is not great. It is just incredibly grindy.

Y'know what this makes me think of? Duke Nukem forever. A game that took 12 years to make, and that you can -tell- which parts were made when because they try to mimic certain trends of games from those 12 years, almost like when you cut a tree and can count the rings.

CP77 kind of has that. It started development the same year as far cry 3, and the devs likely played all these games you'd mentioned and took at least some inspiration from them. It's just too bad they didn't have the time to take a bigger look at their project and learn from the mistakes others made before it was too late... ;/

I was thinking this. It is like they took absolutely no lessons from the mistakes other devs made at all.

Now where's that guy that kept insisting Cyberpunk stories always end bad?

What do you mean?

 

[AKANexus]

If even Bioware noticed they messed up Mass Effect enough to bring Shepard's universe back from the ashes, how come CDPR didn't learn that RGB endings for RPGs are a shot in the foot????

 

[Simuxas]

Word. I want nothing more than for this to be largest thread on this forum. Spill it over into reddit and YouTube. The only way this'll have any chance of changing is if enough players talk about it.

Not saying that the devs aren't already aware of this and are waiting for the other shoe to drop after the mess of the console versions are finally sorted. But, have to think this ending will get some kind of press.

Just need a response of them that they will fix this when they will be done with technical issues first.

 

[Retro-_-]

Now where's that guy that kept insisting Cyberpunk stories always end bad?

to quote Cyberpunk "You cant save the world, only yourself"

That aged well

 

[GreyRaconteur]

If even Bioware noticed they messed up Mass Effect enough to bring Shepard's universe back from the ashes, how come CDPR didn't learn that RGB endings for RPGs are a shot in the foot????

I can't say I'm shocked that they're going back to the Shepard well because, that's probably what they should've done to begin with.

That said, I'm one of those weird people that actually liked Andromeda. Game had potential, even if that was already a tire fire.

 

[Shemgrave]

I can only echo some of the spot-on sentiments already made here; the endings felt depressive and unsatisfying to me, considering how much I fell in love with V and all of the characters. I was genuinely shocked when I realized that V would die no matter what. Hell, I was very surprised that there was no way for him and Johnny to share a body, too. Huge disappointment, especially considering I loved the game so fucking much. It was on track to becoming my favorite game ever -- but that's been majorly stifled by the endings, and now... I dunno. I just don't know how to feel.

 

[thewarsend]

to quote Cyberpunk "You cant save the world, only yourself"

That aged well

They should change that to "You can't even save yourself because we will not give you the option."

 

[MeinChurro]

That was our first way of fixing it, giving us additional missions that gives additional endings where V lives.

Yeah, I was one of them who talked about this before, several times. I was just trying to offer further context on why DLC in this game would be just.. jank. No matter what, because of these butchered endings.

Word. I want nothing more than for this to be largest thread on this forum. Spill it over into reddit and YouTube. The only way this'll have any chance of changing is if enough players talk about it.

Not saying that the devs aren't already aware of this and are waiting for the other shoe to drop after the mess of the console versions are finally sorted. But, have to think this ending will get some kind of press.

Do you think YouTubers will actually admit their, "RPG OF THE DECADE" reviews were wrong? Not only do I feel lied to by cdpr, I think these YouTubers lied to their audiences.

 

[Retro-_-]

Maybe I can explain again. They do an after msq DLC. We have to settle on these endings. Which means some iffy writing tricks. AT BEST, I think they can add a mid-game DLC, add a new ending, and slightly revise endings like your favored Nomad one, ME3 style. However, we would probably be locked into mid-game DLCs because of the other endings, again unless they want to do those iffy writing tricks.

I think Simuxas narrowed down a viable and cohesive change to endings by extending the Panam ending where you return on borrowed time with the conundrum 'who am I?'. Now I will admit I am utterly biased as a Panam Stan, but even looking from a straight storytelling perspective, it makes sense.

Mid DLC would be novel if they could blend it in without altering the main story and breaking it.

 

[Millionaires]

There was only one ending I liked.

Spoiler

When you let Jonny handle the mission and let Johnny have the body. The ending with the kid and guitar is lovely.

However, V dying completely shuts down any future DLC as he. Is. Dead. This means that there will be no additions to the story after the campaign, this means that all DLC will either be early game (which is just as bad as the end) or mid-game. Also, why not a way to stabilise the shard so that V and Johnny co-exist? Why are the endings all final? Who wrote this and thought that writing the story into a corner was a good idea? Open ambiguity and allowing for a personalised take is a good idea. Allow the reader – or player – to create their own ‘ending’.

This is a take on the Hero Has Cancer trope. It is a trope no one likes. It is lazy writing to kill off the character and force the story to close. I learned to deal with this on my very first writing project.

 

[Retro-_-]

They should change that to "You can't even save yourself because we will not give you the option."

"You can't save the world, only... oh, actually no. You can't save yourself. Forget it. Scrap that. In fact, you can't even save this game... Good luck"

 

[Simuxas]

I think Simuxas narrowed down a viable and cohesive change to endings by extending the Panam ending where you return on borrowed time with the conundrum 'who am I?'. Now I will admit I am utterly biased as a Panam Stan, but even looking from a straight storytelling perspective, it makes sense.

Mid DLC would be novel if they could blend it in without altering the main story and breaking it.

Mid story DLC would only work if it add alternative endings, because why do more stuff you are in a race against time.

 

[Retro-_-]

There was only one ending I liked.

Spoiler

When you let Jonny handle the mission and let Johnny have the body. The ending with the kid and guitar is lovely.

However, V dying completely shuts down any future DLC as he. Is. Dead. This means that there will be no additions to the story after the campaign, this means that all DLC will either be early game (which is just as bad as the end) or mid-game. Also, why not a way to stabilise the shard so that V and Johnny co-exist? Why are the endings all final? Who wrote this and thought that writing the story into a corner was a good idea? Open ambiguity and allowing for a personalised take is a good idea. Allow the reader – or player – to create their own ‘ending’.

This is a take on the Hero Has Cancer trope. It is a trope no one likes. It is lazy writing to kill off the character and force the story to close. I learned to deal with this on my very first writing project.

Commented further up, the only logical continuation with death is the Panam ending. And whilst that suits me fine, I can see how that narrows others options, herding them into an ending/DLC they may not have chosen

 

[MeinChurro]

I think Simuxas narrowed down a viable and cohesive change to endings by extending the Panam ending where you return on borrowed time with the conundrum 'who am I?'. Now I will admit I am utterly biased as a Panam Stan, but even looking from a straight storytelling perspective, it makes sense.

Mid DLC would be novel if they could blend it in without altering the main story and breaking it.

The only time that ending would ever even apply to me, or rather, make sense, is if I am playing a male nomad who intends on romancing Panam. It doesn't really fit the RP of my other characters. I don't want to be railroaded again into what the supposed community has chosen as "the best ending" (which it's not) become objectively "the best ending". If they want to settle on the survival of copied V, they need to incorporate the other endings as well.

 

[thewarsend]

"You can't save the world, only... oh, actually no. You can't save yourself. Forget it. Scrap that. In fact, you can't even save this game... Good luck"

Yeah, they gave us that quote about saving ourselves and then proceded to make a game about trying to save ourselves and failing misrably at it.