And I can't agree with the people who compare RDR2 with CP2077 or ME3 with CP2077 in the sense of the endings:
[...]
And about RDR2, it was clear from the very beginnig what will happen, the game is not about choices. There is no feeling of responsibility for the protagonist's main choices or for his way of thinking through the game. I am not able to count minor decisions and moral system as making choices. It is not an RPG, but CP2077 seems to be one. I saw "98%" stuff, but I never calculated it, as probably many other people, and I have no intention in it even if it seems to be very real.
Moreover, you can play through the game without killing a lot of people, specific implants could allow you that. Small feature, slightly bugged, but make you feel more responsible for your playthrough as V. In RDR series I can't go through the game without killing.
Damn, maybe leaving the gang with your beloved one would be the better option, or getting somewhere warm and dry, but you are not given the option to make that decision.
Personally, I believe that great RPG game should give you options to take decisions which affect your final result in more ways than simply cosmetic changes.
Yes, this. And to add to the whole RDR2 comparison: The whole game is about bloody redemption. It's even in the title, who would suspect a happy end there? And that is how the story ends. It feels complete. Loose ends are tied up, there is closure.
In Cyberpunk, the whole story revolves around the question: "Is it better to burn out like the brightest star, or to simply fade away?". It was always said how choices matter in this
ROLEPLAYING GAME, so of course the player thinks he can at least find his own answer to that central question. You can never do that.
And in the end, well, there is no actual end. There are way too many open questions that are never answered: how does V live in the 6 remaining months, how did V become the "afterlife legend", will he find a cure in the end, who is Mr. Blue Eyes, what happens to side-character XY, will there be a new corporate war...
The story just does not feel complete in any way to me. There is a reason why open-ends are more of an artistic-indie game/movie/book kind of thing.
In my opinion, bad endings (or bittersweet ones) in the games with choices are: perfect for the critics, bad for the players and, I hope, disastrous for future sales
The problem is not that these endings exist, it is that there is no alternative. I guess you mean it that way, but better to clarify that again before someone bursts in here and says "that's the genre".
But I agree: The mainstream audience this game was targeted at, just tends to enjoy happy (or at least grey) endings more, and having the possibility to reach an ending like that, does not force anyone to go for it. If you want some very dystopian and sad end, go for it. There are zero reasons to be against more replay value, at least in my opinion.