[Spoiler Alert] About the endings

[Simuxas]

[...] What god damn journey? There was no journey, the focus of the story was on finding a cure and not about the journey or the time V got left to spend wisely. None of the main story we do has anything to with the journey. We gain nothing in the story, we learn nothing it was all about survival at any cost.

People bringing RDR and RDR2 really don't get either of the stories did they. Both of RDR stories worked because the stories were about a bad person becoming a better one before his time runs out, like Arthur Morgan. And Mafia is that way because it is linear game from 2001. Even if MC in RDR dies, people still get to have their revenge with follow up characters to feel better, it is not like they die, story ends, game loads you to last save.

Post automatically merged: Jan 18, 2021

Did you ever see Blade Runner? Deckard doesn't clean up the city, stop the pollution, reform the LAPD, stop Tyrell. He just flees into an uncertain future with Rachel. Same goes for Neuromancer. Same goes for most hardboiled fiction and film noirs cyberpunk derives from. Same goes for the cyberpunk RPG the game is based on.

And V can always join Alt beyond the Blackwall. That and Johnny getting the body to start over and start a real revolution is probably the most cyberpunk ending.

I don't think you got the idea of Bladerunner and even then the ending in Bladerunner is far superior to what we got in this mess.

 

[Eakani]

The thing is...

If you are told you are going to die, are you really going to care about a new car, finding what happened to Evelyn, starting a romance, doing pointless missions for Panam....NOPE...V might as well headed to the beach and sipped on wine until death came. It really makes doing anything else pointless as another poster said in another thread.

Yep, the Story is totally contradicting to an open world game, would have worked better in a none open world game.

Considering that we have just a couple of weeks left, after Act1, my V would have died 3 times befor i finished the game (Exploring here, wait another 24 hours there, box fights, races and so on) I mean, i was waiting 3 weeks in front of shops, because i didn't know the legendary schemes are bugged.

 

[acakomandos]

Why the focus on the ending itself and not the journey of getting there?

I also feel that calling all six "sad" is a bit of a stretch. The nomad endings are fairly positive and make you look towards the future and what you do with the hand you've been dealt by fate.

The cyberpunk genre itself is a dystopian futuristic world. Not unicorns and rainbows.

I appreciate this is subjective and it won't be everyone's cup of tea.

A Founding Father of Cyberpunk Isn't Surprised By Its Comeback

Mike Pondsmith, who wrote the tabletop RPG that inspired 'Cyberpunk 2077,' explains why the genre feels vital in 2020.

www.wired.com

“The stakes have to be something that involves the player. You can’t just say, ‘The world is craptastic and you can’t do anything about it.’ No. You don’t have to save the world, but you need to be able to save your mother or the apartment you and your friends live in. You need to make sure your neighborhood isn’t rolled over by the boostergangs.”


“The thing that I love about cyberpunk inherently is that it's about paying attention, and dealing with things. If you use the technology and your knowledge right, you can make it better.

Fahter of Cyberpunk genre. So no not unicorns and rainbows but SAVING YOURSELF. Not dying after 6 months due to some bs

 

[JohanLindh]

The only similarity is in how both Shepard and V are fated to die; the difference is the former had two previous games with the developers lauding the importance of player agency, saying how the story was a collaboration between the players and developers, promising hundreds of endings and no "bespoke door 1, 2, 3" endings, then delivering an RGB ending and crying about how it's always been their choice alone and people should "respect their artistic vision"; the latter had eight years of hype (which is a mistake, certainly), but didn't promise that V would have an option to survive or simply play the same cutscene with three different colors regardless of what choices you made.

To be clear, I'm not saying it's wrong to dislike the endings, given the choice I'd also like to see a happier one, but I'm just arguing there's a huge difference an unexpected ending we don't like and an unexpected ending that goes against every marketing material and direction of two previous games, then having the developers shit on you while telling you to smile.

Well rou're right, and my comparison to ME:3 is not really fair. ME:3 was a humongous screw up. In so many ways...

The thing is, at least for me, that when I shut down after finishing a game, what remains with me is the question of "Was it worth it?". It does not matter if the ending is happy or sad. For instance, I "knew" that Booker DeWitt would die in the end even before I started playing. And not from reading reviews or getting knowledge beforehand. It was inevitable after having played Bioshock 1 and 2 (and I can still hear Elizbeth saying "Here Booker, catch!" when I hear the sound of flipping a coin).
And in that case the ending was perfect, not bad but sad.

CDPR did not market CP2077 as the next gen "shoot and loot", they based it on one of the greatest pnp rpgs ever made. My expectations was a RPG on par with the Witcher series (do I leave the elves in the tower to burn or try to rescue them?).
They did not come close to meet my expectations in this regard, which I'm willing to admit is equally my fault since the Witcher series sets an extremely high standard.

Well enough of this, I'm repeating myself. Think I've said all there is to say, just wanted to reply to your comment.

 

[I_Willenbrock_I]

[...] What god damn journey? There was no journey, the focus of the story was on finding a cure and not about the journey or the time V got left to spend wisely. None of the main story we do has anything to with the journey. We gain nothing in the story, we learn nothing it was all about survival at any cost.

People bringing RDR and RDR2 really don't get either of the stories did they. Both of RDR stories worked because the stories were about a bad person becoming a better one before his time runs out, like Arthur Morgan. And Mafia is that way because it is linear game from 2001. Even if MC in RDR dies, people still get to have their revenge with follow up characters to feel better, it is not like they die, story ends, game loads you to last save.

Post automatically merged: Jan 18, 2021

I don't think you got the idea of Bladerunner and even then the ending in Bladerunner is far superior to what we got in this mess.

RDR and RDR2 were redemption arcs. A doomed character gets the chance to make a difference in the world, beforethe bell tolls.

Cyberpunk is a story about survival, because while the situation is dire, we are being told that we have a chance to safe our existence. We actually can safe out existence, until the retcon hits five minutes before the credits roll.

V has no chance to redeem her/himself, no chance to take revenge, beciae there is nobody to take revenge on, because the game does not even have an antagonist - except the situation we are in. The only knowledge or realisation V can take away from the journey is that the game was rigged from the start, you shall not question the status quo and that the bank always wins.

This is so anti cyberpunk, it's almost comical.

 

[Yllana_Ardais]

When it comes to choices and consequences, CP doesn't just not reach Witcher 3 or Bioware levels, it does not even reach AA levels like Greedfall. That was a neat little game with an interesting world, characters and choices that really mattered and the endings were very different depending on who you managed to befriend and antagonize etc. It's not really rocket science.

 

[Shaamaan]

Since the argument is brought up a number of times that the journey is more important than the destination.

I've played mediocre games that had some really good and satisfying endings that made me think higher of them. Likewise, I've played pretty good games which then drop the ball during the last act and it leaves a bad taste in my mouth, lowering the perceived score. Of course, it's all subjective - someone else might disagree, and that's completely fine.

Ultimately, the ending has to be SATISFYING. It doesn't need to be good, but it needs to fit. Granted, if you're going for a number of endings, it would be nice to have a bit of a range to them too, not all being a variation of the same thing. But that's just me.

 

[I_Willenbrock_I]

Since the argument is brought up a number of times that the journey is more important than the destination.

I've played mediocre games that had some really good and satisfying endings that made me think higher of them. Likewise, I've played pretty good games which then drop the ball during the last act and it leaves a bad taste in my mouth, lowering the perceived score. Of course, it's all subjective - someone else might disagree, and that's completely fine.

Ultimately, the ending has to be SATISFYING. It doesn't need to be good, but it needs to fit. Granted, if you're going for a number of endings, it would be nice to have a bit of a range to them too, not all being a variation of the same thing. But that's just me.

The argument is simply not true, because we go on a journey to reach the destination.
No journey without a destination.

Both factors are tied together but a solid and satisfying conclusion can uplift a mediocre journey and a unsatisfying ending can tarnish a good journey. The ending is the conclusion and if the conclusion is lacking, everything is lacking.

When the journey is hard but worth it, you don't ask yourself if the journey was worth the effort.

IIn the case of cyberpunk, V should have invested all the money in bookers and booze and then pop the Johnny pill while sitting on the beach.

 

[warner11]

I totally understand the reaction of some people wanting a positive ending for V when they argue that this is entertainment and so should at least be an option.

however it’s worth remembering that cyberpunk as a genre doesn’t do happy endings. There’s a futility to all the anti heroes and their attempts to make a difference.

“many cyberpunk protagonists are manipulated, placed in situations where they have little or no choice, and although they might see things through, they do not necessarily come out any further ahead than they previously were.”

someone argued above that not have a redemption arc was anti cyberpunk??? I could not disagree more. In fact I struggle to think of a true cyberpunk story that has a traditionally happy ending?

in many ways the endings are on genre. If you don’t like them I’d question if you really like cyberpunk as a genre at all?

if there was a “happy” ending it could just be that V survives but ends up back where he started - rock bottom and just another Gonk in NC.

 

[cyths]

Ahhhh.

 

[nadsh]

V has no chance to redeem her/himself, no chance to take revenge, beciae there is nobody to take revenge on, because the game does not even have an antagonist - except the situation we are in.

The antagonist is death and it wins

however it’s worth remembering that cyberpunk as a genre doesn’t do happy endings. There’s a futility to all the anti heroes and their attempts to make a difference.

That's really not a thing, but it's been argued to death over 750 pages already so I'll pass

 

[Eakani]

No matter how hard you try, you will lose. That's the message CP77 tells us.

We fail so many times, that's not a great journey too.

 

[acakomandos]

I posted Pondsmiths interwiev

I totally understand the reaction of some people wanting a positive ending for V when they argue that this is entertainment and so should at least be an option.

however it’s worth remembering that cyberpunk as a genre doesn’t do happy endings. There’s a futility to all the anti heroes and their attempts to make a difference.

“many cyberpunk protagonists are manipulated, placed in situations where they have little or no choice, and although they might see things through, they do not necessarily come out any further ahead than they previously were.”

someone argued above that not have a redemption arc was anti cyberpunk??? I could not disagree more. In fact I struggle to think of a true cyberpunk story that has a traditionally happy ending?

in many ways the endings are on genre. If you don’t like them I’d question if you really like cyberpunk as a genre at all?

if there was a “happy” ending it could just be that V survives but ends up back where he started - rock bottom and just another Gonk in NC.

In a world where people are feeling increasingly powerless, Pondsmith sees the message of hope inherent in the cyberpunk genre

A Founding Father of Cyberpunk Isn't Surprised By Its Comeback

Mike Pondsmith, who wrote the tabletop RPG that inspired 'Cyberpunk 2077,' explains why the genre feels vital in 2020.

www.wired.com

Not true. read

“The stakes have to be something that involves the player. You can’t just say, ‘The world is craptastic and you can’t do anything about it.’ No. You don’t have to save the world, but you need to be able to save your mother or the apartment you and your friends live in. You need to make sure your neighborhood isn’t rolled over by the boostergangs.”


“The thing that I love about cyberpunk inherently is that it's about paying attention, and dealing with things. If you use the technology and your knowledge right, you can make it better.

 

[BigRock22]

Yep, come join us. We are a therapy group of sorts

Post automatically merged: Jan 18, 2021

I mostly agree with you but this I don't understand, even when it has been echoed by other posters before. What is it that you see in the endings that fits the cyberpunk genre in particular?. I mean, I can see how to connect the dots when speaking about the cyberspace ending, but not the other ones. This is besides that I don't think there's one fitting "theme" for every cyberpunk universe, let alone that I celebrate trying different things and approaches not conventionally accepted in genres in the name of experimenting.

What I was thinking about was the digitisation of the psyche and whether or not that truly meets the definition of death. If you take Altered Carbon for example they change sleeves like they change clothes. Does that make the characters dead or not? The CP2077 endings leave a lot for interpretation. For all we know the solution to V's problem is finding a different body to take over.

 

[I_Willenbrock_I]

The antagonist is death and it wins

Absolutely but it's pretty hard to get revenge on death.

 

[acakomandos]

God damit guys Cyberpunk genre dosent mean its all dark and edgy ffs. Just read article

A Founding Father of Cyberpunk Isn't Surprised By Its Comeback

Mike Pondsmith, who wrote the tabletop RPG that inspired 'Cyberpunk 2077,' explains why the genre feels vital in 2020.

www.wired.com

 

[I_Willenbrock_I]

Whenever somebody brings up the "Cyberpunk (genre) does not know happy endings." I ask the question how many cyberpunk stories they have consumed.
I usually don't get an answer....

Most conclusions in cyberpunk stories I consumed, are either about the transformation of the MC, enlightenment, getting out of the job alive, leaving the corporate world, transcendence... change.

When one of the MCs died, it was for a cause or part of a redemption arc.

Vs death is just useless. Nothing positive can be learned from it.

 

[acakomandos]

Whenever somebody brings up the "Cyberpunk (genre) does not know happy endings." I ask the question how many cyberpunk stories they have consumed.
I usually don't get an answer....

I am really getting tired of that "argument"

 

[nadsh]

Absolutely but it's pretty hard to get revenge on death.

That's why the point was to avoid it

 

[Simuxas]

I totally understand the reaction of some people wanting a positive ending for V when they argue that this is entertainment and so should at least be an option.

however it’s worth remembering that cyberpunk as a genre doesn’t do happy endings. There’s a futility to all the anti heroes and their attempts to make a difference.

“many cyberpunk protagonists are manipulated, placed in situations where they have little or no choice, and although they might see things through, they do not necessarily come out any further ahead than they previously were.”

someone argued above that not have a redemption arc was anti cyberpunk??? I could not disagree more. In fact I struggle to think of a true cyberpunk story that has a traditionally happy ending?

in many ways the endings are on genre. If you don’t like them I’d question if you really like cyberpunk as a genre at all?

if there was a “happy” ending it could just be that V survives but ends up back where he started - rock bottom and just another Gonk in NC.

I think you don't really get the idea of Cyberpunk, but I'm not gonna repeat myself for like 100th time. Nobody wants a ride to the sunshine and happiness land ending even though we pretty much got one of those nonsenses.

We wanted good written endings that do not crap all over Cyberpunk lore. Most of us just wants an ending where V survives without plot cancer and Johnny in their head. Does not matter if it goes back to being same merc, because V as character already gained knowledge that dealing with big shots is a bad idea and story could go differently after that.