[Spoiler Alert] About the endings

[pEestino]

When we are already bringing up Witcher (3):

Spoiler: maybe some people see this is a spoiler for the books, making this a spoiler just in case:

Has anyone here read the books? And how sad they end? How come CDPR can make happy and grey endings in that game possible, but people who defend the endings of Cyberpunk 2077 claim V has to die because it is the genre?

I think they fucked up at a good ending and wrongfully made it a soooorta grey ending.
Honestly I think grey endings in TW3 were the best even though I think I had happy ending not sure then we had B&W was 200% fanservice but good to end a trilogy but.. This is the first game so it can't end -that- badly, they said it's an IP they want to continue and they definetly should as it is unique and it was a niche before they brought it to the masses.

 

[JC_of_Cintra]

When we are already bringing up Witcher (3):

Spoiler: maybe some people see this is a spoiler for the books, making this a spoiler just in case:

Has anyone here read the books? And how sad they end? How come CDPR can make happy and grey endings in that game possible, but people who defend the endings of Cyberpunk 2077 claim V has to die because it is the genre?

Just mentioning an example

 

[SaulTuk]

Exatly. It fells hopeless. If ending stays like this I wont be replaying game again. Many people here connected to V, voice acting was perfect many people could feel emotions like fear, happines, sadness. Game punishes you on every step of the game- you romance too bad you will lose it now or very soon, whatever you do EVEN if you go solo throuh arisaka and suck Jhonnys dick to get it you die. It makes no sense to leave it like that. If you knew how it ended would you play it? If you knew you had no choise whould you invest time in other characters? Like Judy or Panam or River or any side quest? I would go for main story, die feel shitty and never look at it again

Arthur Morgan dies in every ending of Red Dead Redemption 2. Then you play as John, though. Who will die in 4 years in the end of Red Dead Redemption 1.

 

[Motsie]

Fiction has the luxury of assuming answers to philosophical problems for the sake of storytelling. In Star Trek, they're clearly meant to be the same people after they teleport. In Cyberpunk, the warnings from Alt and use of phrases like "copy" shows that it assumes the opposite.


I'd actually be fine with the continuation from those, since I could just choose the Arasaka one, even though the game clearly thinks less of you for doing so.

That's fine, I just interpret her warnings as intentionally ambiguous. Consciously, it changes nothing as far as the story and characters are concerned. Our perspective is just a continued existence of identity we've attributed to V. I'm completely at peace with that idea, but I understand why others are not.

I like this story, don't get me wrong, but I feel like the world of cyberpunk has complexities way beyond the abilities of the writers of this game to grasp. I've never considered CD Projekt Red's writing to be very 'deep' or thoughtful, but I really feel like they didn't even try to address any of the issues about the concepts of self or conciousness or corporate power or power structures or any of the themes that permeate through this world and opted to go for a very straightforward story with relationship aspects thrown in and a simple veneer of the world thrown over. This isn't a terrible thing, but it is how it is so I treated the game and these concepts the same way, with very little consideration.

For that reason in my mind the real V is chilling in Arizona with Panam looking for a way to prolong his life. I am happy with this, its simple.

I mean thematically it's the Iliad - the rage of Achilles. Do you continue to stay in Nightcity to cement yourself as a legend at the cost of your life, or do you retreat into a quiet, fulfilled life with family. A candle lit at both ends makes a beautiful light but lasts half as long.

It's incredibly frustrating that we don't really have any clues as to what the DLCs are going to be about (as we did with the Witcher), outside of the one character, Mr. Blue Eyes. Aka the Gaunter O'dimm stand in.

 

[pEestino]

I have thought that perhaps we don't grasp fully what they meant by these ending, first off we don't even have a canon ending, for one, secondly, well, I think they have a dev-ending with a vague follow-up story, they ought to if they want to continue CP, even the vaguest of ideas to drive the plot forward, or else they would risk to cripple their chances at a sequel. (which seems to be the case as things stand right now.)

 

[Arkei1]

Arthur Morgan dies in every ending of Red Dead Redemption 2. Then you play as John, though. Who will die in 4 years in the end of Red Dead Redemption 1.

Yes, but:

• RDR was never said to be an RPG where your choices matter - everyone was expecting a linear story. If this would have been said about Cyberpunk, people would not be as disappointed. If a game says your choices affect the world around you, you will assume that you have a chance to survive.
• RDR is not first person and you don't create your own character. This means you are not as attached and immersed in the world because it feels more like a movie. A cool western action movie, but still not as interactive.
• You can continue playing after the end

Those are the mains points, I think

 

[pEestino]

I mean thematically it's the Iliad - the rage of Achilles. Do you continue to stay in Nightcity to cement yourself as a legend at the cost of your life, or do you retreat into a quiet, fulfilled life with family. A candle lit at both ends makes a beautiful light but lasts half as long.

Hey both Achilles and Ulysses are remembered as legends even though one struggled on his way home and died of old age and the other went out with a bang, knowing fully that the siege of Troy would be his demise.
It might be the same here afterall.

 

[tRYSIS3]

Arthur Morgan dies in every ending of Red Dead Redemption 2. Then you play as John, though. Who will die in 4 years in the end of Red Dead Redemption 1.

Rdr2 is a linear story game not an RPG, maybe you don't know the difference? Also, thanks for the spoilers!

 

[pEestino]

• RDR is not first person and you don't create your own character. This means you are not as attached and immersed in the world because it feels more like a movie. A cool western action movie, but still not as interactive.

I must disagree with this point, you can't create Geralt and his story was one of the most fullfilling stories I've ever experienced, neither can you create Artyom from Metro.
Honestly games that allow vast customization options have usually sub-par choices as devs have to waste their time on making it seem as if your gender is respected (not in a political way but more like npcs acknowledging that you're female and not male & viceversa) or other things like this.
Not to mention you have to hire another woman/man to do who knows how many voicelines all over again rip.

 

[SaulTuk]

Yes, but:

• RDR was never said to be an RPG where your choices matter - everyone was expecting a linear story. If this would have been said about Cyberpunk, people would not be as disappointed. If a game says your choices affect the world around you, you will assume that you have a chance to survive.
• RDR is not first person and you don't create your own character. This means you are not as attached and immersed in the world because it feels more like a movie. A cool western action movie, but still not as interactive.
• You can continue playing after the end

Those are the mains points, I think

True, but in my opinion we should forget about promises and analyze Cyberpunk as it is, which is NOT an immersive RPG, but pretty linear action visual novel about pre-written character, V. And he is pre-written, because dialogue choice option are way to insignificant for a proper RPG.

 

[Buckadoz]

Arthur Morgan dies in every ending of Red Dead Redemption 2. Then you play as John, though. Who will die in 4 years in the end of Red Dead Redemption 1.

In addition to what others have said, I want to point out my favorite lines in gaming that I can remember:

"You've lost, my sick friend. You've lost."
"In the end, Micah, despite my best efforts to the contrary... it turns out I've won."

There's more closure and satisfaction behind that exchange than in any entire epilogue in this game.

 

[Arkei1]

I must disagree with this point, you can't create Geralt and his story was one of the most fullfilling stories I've ever experienced, neither can you create Artyom from Metro.
Honestly games that allow vast customization options have usually sub-par choices as devs have to waste their time on making it seem as if your gender is respected (not in a political way but more like npcs acknowledging that you're female and not male & viceversa) or other things like this.
Not to mention you have to hire another woman/man to do who knows how many voicelines all over again rip.

It's fine that you disagree, but most people seem to feel that way, since it is the reason for first person in Cyberpunk. It's what the developers said

 

[SaulTuk]

Rdr2 is a linear story game not an RPG, maybe you don't know the difference? Also, thanks for the spoilers!

Cyberpunk, frankly speaking, is not RPG either, it looks and plays like visual novel about pre-written character, V.

Post automatically merged: Dec 22, 2020

In addition to what others have said, I want to point out my favorite lines in gaming that I can remember:

"You've lost, my sick friend. You've lost."
"In the end, Micah, despite my best efforts to the contrary... it turns out I've won."

There's more closure and satisfaction behind that exchange than in any entire epilogue in this game.

Also true, because plot and drama in RDR 2 is way better than in CP77.

 

[Arkei1]

True, but in my opinion we should forget about promises and analyze Cyberpunk as it is, which is NOT an immersive RPG, but pretty linear action visual novel about pre-written character, V. And he is pre-written, because dialogue choice option are way to insignificant for a proper RPG.

V is pre-written, and that is totaly fine. Geralt was pre-written. But Cyberpunk is a huge step down from the impact of choices Witcher 3 had. And im going to critizise it for exactly that. It was repeated and repeated how choices mattered, and if it would just as much as in Witcher 3, I would be fine with that.

 

[SaulTuk]

V is pre-written, and that is totaly fine. Geralt was pre-written. But Cyberpunk is a huge step down from the impact of choices Witcher 3 had. And im going to critizise it for exactly that. It was repeated and repeated how choices mattered, and if it woud just as much as in Witcher 3, I would be fine with that.

That what happens when you listen to promises made and words spoken before the release. Personally i'm trying to remain deaf and blind and judge the game itself without any prejustices and expectations. That said, you have the point — CP77 is, indeed, a step down in comparison with W3.

 

[Buckadoz]

True, but in my opinion we should forget about promises and analyze Cyberpunk as it is, which is NOT an immersive RPG, but pretty linear action visual novel about pre-written character, V. And he is pre-written, because dialogue choice option are way to insignificant for a proper RPG.

I don't think it's fair to critics of a game to allow a game to say it's a different genre just because it was bad at the genre it attempted to be. This game was marketed as an RPG right up until they knew they had to cut a comical amount, and changed how they referred to it as a preemptive dodge.

 

[tRYSIS3]

Cyberpunk, frankly speaking, is not RPG either, it looks and plays like visual novel about pre-written character, V.

is that supposed to be an excuse for the bad endings? the whole game is lacking we know that

 

[SaulTuk]

I don't think it's fair to critics of a game to allow a game to say it's a different genre just because it was bad at the genre it attempted to be. This game was marketed as an RPG right up until they knew they had to cut a comical amount, and changed how they referred to it as a preemptive dodge.

It isn't fair at all, smokes and screens in hopeless attempt to defend the top-managers, investors and other stakeholders. Lie to protect the interests of capital. So meta.

Post automatically merged: Dec 22, 2020

is that supposed to be an excuse for the bad endings? the whole game is lacking we know that

Bad excuse indeed, but still, in visual novel there can be no different endings at all, because choices do not matters, only script. And if someone wouls write a book or make a movie in CP77 universe, bad ending would seem fitting for that world.

 

[Chronoid]

I swore I was never going to become a writer in the industry, as California is a degenerate hellscape that I ain't touching with a 40 foot pole. But I am this fucking close to applying to CDPR as a writer so I can fix any future messes. Maybe working in Eastern Europe wouldn't be as bad as LA. A shame the conjunction of spheres tonight didn't transport some damned hope for this industry.

 

[tRYSIS3]

Bad excuse indeed, but still, in visual novel there can be no different endings at all, because choices do not matters, only script. And if someone wouls write a book or make a movie in CP77 universe, bad ending would seem fitting for that world.

Well this game is neither a movie or novel, so I'm not sure why you are defending the bad ending