[Spoiler Alert] About the endings

+

Do you want more RPGs with happy endings?


  • Total voters
    1,647
Most of the talk I'm seeing is about the continuation of the story, which would be too much work to be given away for free
Well. You can technically alter the endings with a free dlc, who on their own open up the path to a next story line.

Let's say we get to heal our cancer/body problem, depending on our choices but the catch is that our help will be needed in the near future or we are biting a bullet.
 
I dont think there should be an ending where everythinnng fine and dandy, therer should be some kind of trade. Side withthe devil but survive and etf.
 
I have somewhat conflicting feelings about this topic.

To illustrate let me say that there is a difference between hating a villain because they're written so badly and hating a villain because they are written so well.

I do want a happy ending, because I'm invested in the characters and want them to do well. But I don't think I can consider it bad from an artistic perspective that they chose to commit to "there's no happy end in Cyberpunk".
 
Good to know. It'll definitely cut down on having to deal with people pretending the endings were something they weren't when the DLC come out.
Well, you haven't been able to respond to many of the points I mentioned earlier, but either way, I too am looking forward to hearing the reaction of those happy with the endings once they realize that there is no cure to be found in Arizona or in space for that matter
 
Nomad it is. :)
So far, only in dreams.
The nomad's ending looks like the beginning of a long search for a cure.
Post automatically merged:

I do want a happy ending, because I'm invested in the characters and want them to do well. But I don't think I can consider it bad from an artistic perspective that they chose to commit to "there's no happy end in Cyberpunk".
I would agree if it was written in large letters in the description of the game.
Instead of shit about replayability and player choices who are responsible for something.
It would save me my money.
 
Well. You can technically alter the endings with a free dlc, who on their own open up the path to a next story line.

Let's say we get to heal our cancer/body problem, depending on our choices but the catch is that our help will be needed in the near future or we are biting a bullet.
I just wanna play the game without having to deal with my character being sick, or Johnny's dumbass character. I don't care about the future of the story. I would love for the missing 50% of the story to be added back, but that's a different point
 
Well, you haven't been able to respond to many of the points I mentioned earlier, but either way, I too am looking forward to hearing the reaction of those happy with the endings once they realize that there is no cure to be found in Arizona or in space for that matter

What points are those? No, seriously, happy to respond to any you wish. It's a fast moving thread.
 
I have somewhat conflicting feelings about this topic.

To illustrate let me say that there is a difference between hating a villain because they're written so badly and hating a villain because they are written so well.

I do want a happy ending, because I'm invested in the characters and want them to do well. But I don't think I can consider it bad from an artistic perspective that they chose to commit to "there's no happy end in Cyberpunk".

To be fair. Living with the alterations already done to your brain in the engram endings plus living with the fact that so many people died so you can live and maybe nightmares about the engram and Johnny, while being on a suicide mission or abandoning your dreams is not really happy even after. Especially not in the world of cyberpunk, where we tipped the balance of power.

Even without terminal cancer.
 
I remember the ending to Witcher 3 Blood and Wine that I had. Saved everyone, was the hero of the hour and was ok with it. Then there was the other ending I later looked up, which was the opposite. Basically you screw everything up big time. Don't remember if there was something in between but just those endings would have sufficed. Or just three endings like Deus Ex, which were all meaningful and felt like you achieved something big, be it positive or negative. As for cyberpunk I just got depressed. The Nomad ending was kind of a happy ending for me but still confused about the overall story. Before cyberpunk I finished my Assassins Creed Odyssey playthrough and was surprised how well the ending was put together. Your decisions throughout the game influenced how much of your family is left at the end.
 
I want an ending where you’ve saved Takemura, Evelyn, Jackie, Rogue, Silverhand, V, Alt, Scorpion, etc. An ending where everyone lives, and because of that, V is cured, or there’s the hint that there’ll be a cure or some way to keep V from dying. At this point, it doesn’t matter what you do, right? Cause either way, V’s gonna die. Nothing changes.
I just want an ending where I save myself and my loved ones( River+his family or Judy for me). If I have to make sacrifices for that, so be it. Can´t save everyone anyway in a world like this, so that would be my choices.
 
I just want an ending where I save myself and my loved ones( River+his family or Judy for me). If I have to make sacrifices for that, so be it.

Fair, and there can be variations of that.

I mean, fuck. Johnny basically sacrificed himself for nothing in my ending. V is gonna die anyway, so what’d he give up his chance at life for?
 
I would agree if it was written in large letters in the description of the game.
Instead of shit about replayability and player choices who are responsible for something.
It would save me my money.

Well, I do agree there's a lack of replayability, but I think that's a separate topic from whether there should be the possibility of a happy end.
 
I have somewhat conflicting feelings about this topic.

To illustrate let me say that there is a difference between hating a villain because they're written so badly and hating a villain because they are written so well.

I do want a happy ending, because I'm invested in the characters and want them to do well. But I don't think I can consider it bad from an artistic perspective that they chose to commit to "there's no happy end in Cyberpunk".

Some people here like the endings, myself included, just not as endings :LOL:

There are other issues outside of the fact that they're bittersweet (some just bitter) - the pacing of Act 3 is off, players tend to rush the main story due to the perceived urgency and doing more light hearted side quests feels weird, V is sick and glitches out for half the game, the player's actions don't have much impact which can only end up being satisfying if it's the starting point for a continuation of the story, Alt is shady af and her plans for cyberspace will change the world yet we will know nothing about it, the endings open up more questions than they give answers or closure.
 
Still would die in the body at the end of the day, essentially, right? So Johnny’s bid at a new life still gets cut short and V’s choice to give him that life is for nothing.
I would never give him my body anyway. But hearing that he wouldn´t do anything useful just makes that decision even more right.
 
Well, I do agree there's a lack of replayability, but I think that's a separate topic from whether there should be the possibility of a happy end.
For many players, these are closely related things.
Why spend dozens of hours replaying the game if there is no satisfaction at the end and an oppressive feeling in the process?
This is no longer entertainment but a mockery.
 
Top Bottom