[Spoiler Alert] About the endings

+

Do you want more RPGs with happy endings?


  • Total voters
    1,647
I have several things that frustrate me about this game and I really hate the endings, but I'd also like to reiterate that despite how vitriolic I am towards the game in this thread, I did like most of the time I spent with it.

This is exactly it, I actually like the game a fair amount or I wouldn’t be here at all. I keep going through this cycle of starting up the game because I miss playing it and then shutting it down because I can’t get past the limited NPC (major NPC, not randoms on the street) interactions and the death (or death-adjacent) march to the endings. I didn’t care much about the bugs, I’ve played some truly horrible games in my day.
 
Funny thing is: with my post yesterday, where I firstly posted my assumption that some expected something very unusual (some are already tired of that since yesterday), I triggered some heavy reactions. But the question I asked in this post stays: was anything promised, from where is the expectation that the game will deliver endings that all players accept as fair? Since I wasn't part of the hype around that game I might have missed some CDPR statements.
Nobody's addressing it because it's kind of a weird question, almost like saying "Well where in the advertising did they say it'd be a good game hmmm?"

But I reference this quote from a dev a lot, and I think it has particular relevance since most people seem to think that the endings suggest that V might possibly find a cure in the future:

"So I don't want to spoil anything right now, but very satisfying story arc, right? You're going to see characters and you'll see them develop. You're going to see them go through conflicts and resolve those conflicts. It'll be a very rewarding ending. We're not withholding content, we're not withholding story for the future to try to, you know, monetize it or sell it in pieces or anything like that. You're going to get the whole, full value game here."
 
Nobody's addressing it because it's kind of a weird question, almost like saying "Well where in the advertising did they say it'd be a good game hmmm?"

But I reference this quote from a dev a lot, and I think it has particular relevance since most people seem to think that the endings suggest that V might possibly find a cure in the future:

"So I don't want to spoil anything right now, but very satisfying story arc, right? You're going to see characters and you'll see them develop. You're going to see them go through conflicts and resolve those conflicts. It'll be a very rewarding ending. We're not withholding content, we're not withholding story for the future to try to, you know, monetize it or sell it in pieces or anything like that. You're going to get the whole, full value game here."

wheres that quote from, I remember a video where its implied the endings aren't that positive.


ok I just found the article, it also says

"We are talking about expansions in the future. We want to make sure everything's complete, but we also want to build open worlds. I know when I was playing The Witcher 3 and I finished everything, I still want to know what everyone was up to. I think we're going to have opportunities like that as well for Cyberpunk 2077."


so they do have expansions planned, and they are probably planned to revisit the characters.

basically they imply the idea is similar in structure to the witcher, I didnt play that series, so other posters may have a better understanding of how the narrative continued through 3 games
 
Question is: what is it good for anymore?

If this is a genuine question, I think it's just people hanging out and discussing a game. That's what it's good for. It doesn't have to have an effect on what CDPR does next. Mass Effect 3 happened a decade ago and people still talk about/complain about the endings even though it won't change anything, but we also have to acknowledge that the complaints at the time led to the Extended Cut.

Also when you talk about these things, people share and swap things they noticed. Ayinde pointed out River could be feeling like V's a bit out of his league when he picks a fight, which could change the tone of the ending just a little bit. Dialogue that people missed that hints one thing or another is happening, shards with info in them, themes that they picked up others might not have. Maybe the convo goes in circles a bit, but the game is still relatively, in the grand scheme of things, fresh and people are salty about it. We're all just waiting for the news and posting keeps the game fresh in our heads while we do.
 
Nobody's addressing it because it's kind of a weird question, almost like saying "Well where in the advertising did they say it'd be a good game hmmm?"

But I reference this quote from a dev a lot, and I think it has particular relevance since most people seem to think that the endings suggest that V might possibly find a cure in the future:

"So I don't want to spoil anything right now, but very satisfying story arc, right? You're going to see characters and you'll see them develop. You're going to see them go through conflicts and resolve those conflicts. It'll be a very rewarding ending. We're not withholding content, we're not withholding story for the future to try to, you know, monetize it or sell it in pieces or anything like that. You're going to get the whole, full value game here."

Satisfying/rewarding aren't words i'd use to describe the ending.
It's a very curious quote too, regarding selling pieces of content. Is he/she blind to the fact their most successful game sold very popular pieces of story content? It's either incorrect or a hey we're not going to support this game in the fashion you'd expect based on past experience.

I also think that it's perfectly legitimate to point out how a game fails to meet the standards you'd expect, without having some need for a physical promise to nail it to. For example the devs reacted in TW3 regarding the romance feedback and delivered a fix not because they'd been caught in a lie but because they agreed that it didn't provide the experience they'd aimed for.
 
Satisfying/rewarding aren't words i'd use to describe the ending.
It's a very curious quote too, regarding selling pieces of content. Is he/she blind to the fact their most successful game sold very popular pieces of story content? It's either incorrect or a hey we're not going to support this game in the fashion you'd expect based on past experience.
I think he was trying to reassure people that the game is a full story itself, and that any DLC wouldn't be "required" to experience the full intended story of Cyberpunk 2077, which is actually more unfortunate as that means the non-endings were always intended to be endings.
 
I think he was trying to reassure people that the game is a full story itself, and that any DLC wouldn't be "required" to experience the full intended story of Cyberpunk 2077, which is actually more unfortunate as that means the non-endings were always intended to be endings.

Even if that's the caseI still find it a bizarre message that you shouldn't need to say. Probably just shows they had little confidence in the endings actually being found rewarding or satisfying by many.
 
Nobody's addressing it because it's kind of a weird question, almost like saying "Well where in the advertising did they say it'd be a good game hmmm?"

But I reference this quote from a dev a lot, and I think it has particular relevance since most people seem to think that the endings suggest that V might possibly find a cure in the future:

"So I don't want to spoil anything right now, but very satisfying story arc, right? You're going to see characters and you'll see them develop. You're going to see them go through conflicts and resolve those conflicts. It'll be a very rewarding ending. We're not withholding content, we're not withholding story for the future to try to, you know, monetize it or sell it in pieces or anything like that. You're going to get the whole, full value game here."

I now feel that it was a mistake to open the discussion with my post about player expectations. I triggered reactions I never wanted to trigger. Maybe I've hit some very special spot, maybe my English is to bad to express myself clearly, maybe my point is not developed enough at all, maybe a combination. In the end this leads to nothing fruitful, rather it lead to a point where someone implied something with my brain along the way. Since I'm not the person to endlessly try to make my point at any cost, I will "delta the fuck out", as Johnny might say, of this discussion and go on to another topic/thread/idea. Which of course does not mean that you have to stop at all.
 
I think you think this is a battle with a winner and loser, this is a discussion, a sharing of ideas.

No arguments here. When discussing what was said one should probably... do that though. The first part my post was questioning whether refusal to do so is deliberate or due to a communication gap.

ok, I see. You don't see what I see. Then let me explain what I mean, since this appears to be the key difference in our perspective.

The difference in our perspective is you're looking at it based on what the game provides and, to some extent, your own interpretation of it. I'm looking at it based on what the game could provide while leaving it completely open to interpretation.

Obviously, adding an additional choice in the endings would require adjustments to the content.

So basically, the choice of who V raids or doesn't raid arasaka with, directly creates the consequence where that group is the only real option given V's connections, knowledge, resources and time frame. This means V going with nomads means dying with family as Panam says in sun. This is why, for me its bit redundant to ask you if you want to struggle to survive or let go, again. The V in sun and star has already made that choice imo.

This is based entirely on your insistence the epilogues represent the only real option available to V for each respective ending. I could easily say the epilogues represent different ways for V to die in 6 months. Neither one of us would be right or wrong because those endings are ambiguous.

Funny thing is: with my post yesterday, where I firstly posted my assumption that some expected something very unusual (some are already tired of that since yesterday), I triggered some heavy reactions.

1 = The endings should have handled this differently.
2 = I wanted a Unicorn.

Your post got some of the reactions it did because 1 isn't equal to 2. A picture is worth 24 words and 4 numbers.
 

Guest 4412420

Guest
I think he was trying to reassure people that the game is a full story itself, and that any DLC wouldn't be "required" to experience the full intended story of Cyberpunk 2077, which is actually more unfortunate as that means the non-endings were always intended to be endings.
There are better ways to make open endings. They could have simply implied that in the endings where V lives they're not ready to give up yet and are determined to find some solution to their problem but then leave said solution or if V even finds one up to the player. Now, we're given very specific hints (Mr. Blue Eyes and Arizona) so, it's not surprising that people see these hints as a setup for future content and the endings as To Be Continued.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
There are better ways to make open endings. They could have simply implied that in the endings where V lives they're not ready to give up yet and are determined to find some solution to their problem but then leave said solution or if V even finds one up to the player. Now, we're given very specific hints (Mr. Blue Eyes and Arizona) so, it's not surprising that some of us see these hints as a setup for future content and the endings as To Be Continued.

in the full article, they acknowledge they have post release plans, they are saying that the game will be a complete experience, and that they aren't holding back content they will charge for, for this part of the story. But they also say they plan on expansions that will involve these characters. They compare their post launch plans to witcher series.
 
There are better ways to make open endings. They could have simply implied that in the endings where V lives they're not ready to give up yet and are determined to find some solution to their problem but then leave said solution or if V even finds one up to the player. Now, we're given very specific hints (Mr. Blue Eyes and Arizona) so, it's not surprising that people see these hints as a setup for future content and the endings as To Be Continued.

Yes, I was just thinking the same thing. The endings are not "anything might happen" open, in each one you can clearly say what V's next 2-3 steps are.

But I wouldn't expect 3 new missions for the 3 endings bearing in mind how they used the Sun twice.

Yeah if i was burned on the game completely i'd have uninstalled it by now. It's still there waiting in the hopes post game content will fix the mess. [...]

Waiting for DLC too, although not for post-ending stuff. Don't think it would "fix" anything, just fill in certain bits.

And then adding to the above: that would need creating new maps and probably teams of secondary characters, different ones for the 3 endings, so I'm not getting my hopes up.

I wouldn't mind completely unrelated stuff though, like a couple of new 2-3 hour questlines in NC. Seems very economical.
 
Waiting for DLC too, although not for post-ending stuff. Don't think it would "fix" anything, just fill in certain bits.

And then adding to the above: that would need creating new maps and probably teams of secondary characters, different ones for the 3 endings, so I'm not getting my hopes up.

I wouldn't mind completely unrelated stuff though, like a couple of new 2-3 hour questlines in NC. Seems very economical.
I think they could do a post game one the same way the main game starts; it wouldn't be too hard to come up with something that puts all 3 endings where V's alive on the same track, though it would be a dead end for anyone who yeeted V.

Post ending or even alternate ending stuff is really all I can get excited about, I think; I really don't think I could get excited about a new few hour adventure as everybody's favorite ticking time corpse. I'd be over the moon for something that provided an ending that actually put you back into the game instead of having you load a save where the relic reminds you you're dying every now and again.
 
I really want to experience the Crystal Palace heist. I mean, in theory, V could be asked to do the heist while in Arizona after the Star ending, or when they come back from the Arasaka space station too, right? The Devil version would be harder to justify, since V is damaged in a new and different way after removing the Relic, but they can handwave it.
 
I really want to experience the Crystal Palace heist. I mean, in theory, V could be asked to do the heist while in Arizona after the Star ending, or when they come back from the Arasaka space station too, right? The Devil version would be harder to justify, since V is damaged in a new and different way after removing the Relic, but they can handwave it.

Yeah...only as @Ayinde_Palmer mentioned earlier, the space heist is only possible if BE's people loot Arasaka and not the nomads, so there might be even more plot holes that way :) Speaking of "fixing" the endings...

Would love to do the heist if they can afford a new map.
 
The male love interests have less content and (debatably, I guess) shittier endings: Does this add more to their dimensions as characters and boost the narrative because they're not copy-pastes of the female love interests, in turn making the story feel more real and alive, or does it make people that chose male love interests feel like they were afterthoughts and is that fair?

True

The choice on the roof affects way more than just who you trust to handle your Johnny brain problems, making some people feel like the last part of the game is railroading you into a V personality you didn't choose (i.e. V hates Night City if you choose Nomads, even if that wasn't what was expressed through the game/V is miserable in Sun even if they keep their love interest or all they wanted through the game was to make it big)

Big true but dependent on how you play.

For The Sun? There is literally zero indication that Johnny handling the relic will lead to Afterlife V. Absolutely railroaded and misleading to the player. No argument from my end.

I think The Star and The Devil is more predictable though. Panam already talked about leaving Night City earlier in the game and she asks you to consider it before you have a seizure.

And she texts you something like "we'll do this one job and then we'll leave Night City for good". Not sure if you get it if you don't romance her though.


Can they fix these complaints with post-credit DLC? Adding new endings entirely? Should they not touch them at all?
Yes & no.

I can absolutely see them giving Kerry and River more time in the expansion (provided you romanced them and picked The Sun). I don't see them touching existing endings or adding more endings whatsoever. It'll probably just build upon what we currently have (likely The Sun & The Star IMO).
Post automatically merged:

Yeah...only as @Ayinde_Palmer mentioned earlier, the space heist is only possible if BE's people loot Arasaka and not the nomads, so there might be even more plot holes that way :) Speaking of "fixing" the endings...

I'm out of the loop on this but what if the nomads handed over the loot to BE's people? I haven't played in a while so i've forgotten all the details.
 
[...]
I'm out of the loop on this but what if the nomads handed over the loot to BE's people? I haven't played in a while so i've forgotten all the details.

Pretty sure the nomads take the loot with them across the Wall. Mitch/Panam/Cassidy say something like that they can't cross the Wall officially due to the loot that everyone would notice as Arasaka property. I guess that they will sell some of that, anyway.

As @Ayinde_Palmer correctly lays out here and somewhere else before, your choice on the rooftop has (temporarily) heavy influence to the balance of power between the various factions (Arasaka, Mr. BE's backing, Aldecaldos directly, others indirectly). So if CDPR will release a post-endings DLC and let the player start from the Star ending, the impulse will originate from the nomads since they have the contacts in Arizona and the resources from the Arasaka loot. Of course, Mr. BE could still play a (then different) role, especially if the DLC would mend the different endings into a single quest line (before splitting it up again, dependant on player's chioces).
 
Last edited:
Yeah...only as @Ayinde_Palmer mentioned earlier, the space heist is only possible if BE's people loot Arasaka and not the nomads, so there might be even more plot holes that way :) Speaking of "fixing" the endings...

Would love to do the heist if they can afford a new map.
According to the Cyberpunk lore, the Nomad Nations are allied with StormTech, a corporation developing all kinds of things, including cyberware, weaponry, biotech, and nanotech, to name a few. They also have facilities in Crystal Palace.

So linking them with Mr. Blue Eyes and Crystal Palace is a possibility.
 
if they want to get everyone eventually at Crystal palace, It could happen through other means. Arasaka has business there, and nomads as a whole have a lot of transportation infrastructure, they probably have connections to somebody who ships space flights.

That said, its possible crystal palace is just point A on a longer path, and somewhere else could be the convergence point.

its also possible every story is focused on a different bonus area, though, they don't seem to like separating content that much.
 
After all sloppy writing tropes like vague endings, dead end quests, killing off screen characters, time-lapse montage and Diabolus Ex Machina they can even make V clone by Arasaka\MBE and write off OG V in a backstory. It can’t get any worse.
 
Top Bottom