[Spoiler Alert] About the endings

+

Do you want more RPGs with happy endings?


  • Total voters
    1,647
Sorry to disappoint, but this is a discussion I can have for literally years. I have, actually -- Writing, Literature, and Theatre is what I do for living. I love it!

What I've actually done is used a single, signature example of how rising action is necessary to create scenes driven by established characters exploring an established theme, then deliver them successfully through cinematic presentation. A single example is not the be-all-and end-all of an argument. It is a single example used to highlight the particular point being discussed. The focus of my argument has nothing to do that particular scene. This applies to any such scenes in this game, other games, in books, or in film. It was an example.

In this case, I specifically chose something that was not about V, Johnny, and the main theme because I have already addressed that numerous times (in detail) and wanted to highlight how even smaller, non-central scenes can be utterly reliant on the established characters and the prior narrative arc. That's what qualifies the action and allows it to resonate with an audience. Players can now vest themselves in the experience, suspend their disbelief, and engage in the scene at an emotional level. And the reason for that is because players have had the characters of Judy, Evelyn, and Woodman, their motivations, and their experiences well established and explored by the carefully structured plot up to that point. Storytelling.

That effect simply won't happen without a specifically crafted narrative arc.

Let's challenge the process. Let's take that scene again. Let's pretend that the game is more open-ended, offering more interpretive motivations, and more sandbox play. The player is never required to meet either Judy, Evelyn, or Woodman. There is no guarantee their characters will be established. We'll never be able to deliver that scene. We won't be able to deliver a scene like that with other characters about other parts of the plot, either. Or, we will be able to deliver only scenes that the player has chosen to engage in. Well, then, since there's no guarantee that the player will follow any particular chain, there's no guarantee that the player will ever see any cinematics like this.

OR -- if we just deliver them anyway -- the player will have little no context to qualify such an intense, dramatic scene. Comments that follow would be:

- "Where the hell did this scene even come from?"
- "I just met this Judy character, and now I'm carrying her dead friend's body to a bed -- wtf!?"
- "Woah, the cutscenes in this game are so over-the-top and cringy!"
- "The story in this game is all over the place; there's basically no pacing at all."


Etc.

^ This is focus of my argument. If the presentation of a game is going to rely on cinematic delivery of narrative, then that narrative arc must be clearly established (for whatever theme my game is about. Can't tell a gripping story without a strong theme. I can kiss dramatic action goodbye if I try.) Player agency will now necessarily be limited to the framework of that narrative. If not, we're right back to either:
1.) I'll have to make individual playthroughs shorter in order to allow more narrative arcs with qualified conclusions.
Or...
2.) I'll have to forego cinematic presentation and deliver the narrative through other means (written text, visual storytelling, emergent storytelling, etc.) to ensure more player agency.

My argument is not that there is no way to deliver a game with more choices. My argument is that I cannot deliver more choices if I also intend to include a gripping narrative arc delivered cinematically. As I said the very first time I addressed this consideration:


It's totally possible to deliver more open gameplay...but that isn't the type of game that CDPR has ever made. Their games have always created strong narrative arcs and very cinematic presentation of the story.

Also, please remember, I sympathize and largely agree with players' desires to have a more sandbox Cyberpunk experience in the future. (Just because I loved the story [including the endings :p ] it doesn't mean I'm against a less-restrictive approach to the narrative!) The main purpose of my argument is to try to offer an alternative approach to that end, one that I believe will reach more ears. One that argues for an alternative approach to the gameplay, instead of arguing against a very well-crafted and rather impactful story.
I'm sorry to sound so dismissive of so much but I don't think this actually says anything about the meat of what I was trying to say. I think continuing to write about how cinematic scenes are necessarily at the cost of player agency and that this game isn't the "pure sandbox we all wish it was"... I don't know what you're trying to change anyone's mind here about because I think the ideas you're arguing against aren't actually expressed by the people posting here.

OR -- if we just deliver them anyway -- the player will have little no context to qualify such an intense, dramatic scene. Comments that follow would be:

- "Where the hell did this scene even come from?"
This was my reaction after Johnny says, "You don't want to hurt your friends, I get it, let's just YOLO this shit and see what happens" and I come out the other side a detached asshole seeking metaphorical immortality. If you could break it down percentage-wise, which part of that reaction is me just completely missing what was going on there and what part was the game not adequately explaining itself?


Though also as a side note, even if you were able to convince me that I totally made up everything about what you can control about V and was wrong about all of it, the 6-month ending is still going to be a (reverse?) deus ex machina on par with that Stephen King novel that ends with untelegraphed literal divine intervention. I'm not seeing "well crafted" or "impactful" there.

Edit: added the bit in the middle.
 
Last edited:
if you had a good relationship with Johnny, he doesn't want V to give up on life, And V doesn't want Johnny to die. in that case its a fight between who saves who. It was pretty confusing from the Johnny side, because the player controls Johnny instead of V.


As for the run, its not a suicide run, V intends to return.
I did get that they were both trying to save each other, and it may be my issues with some social cues, but I feel like it could have been more clear instead of just V calling Johnny a liar or asshole with no elaboration. A few extra words could have really clarified.

As far as V intending to return, it seemed like he thought that could be a possibility, but really it seemed like blue eyes tells you about the risks, especially on getting back and V gives off an intense feeling of yeah...that's not really a concern. I like my interpretation and it sits in my head-canon, but fully accept my interpretation might not be what was intended or what others got from it.
 
I did get that they were both trying to save each other, and it may be my issues with some social cues, but I feel like it could have been more clear instead of just V calling Johnny a liar or asshole with no elaboration. A few extra words could have really clarified.

As far as V intending to return, it seemed like he thought that could be a possibility, but really it seemed like blue eyes tells you about the risks, especially on getting back and V gives off an intense feeling of yeah...that's not really a concern. I like my interpretation and it sits in my head-canon, but fully accept my interpretation might not be what was intended or what others got from it.

I get what your saying, but my perspective is;

if V is needs to succeed at this mission to survive

then some one is like, this mission is dangerous, you might not survive, it is kinda not really a concern, as in If I fail this mission, I'm dead anyway.

also his line about, if this succeeds you'll be rich.

And V is like, its not about what I have to gain anymore(riches)

I got nothin to lose (because if I fail, I'm dead)

But I can see why people perceive it the way you did, I was more just saying. its not the only way that conversation can be percieved


and yeah, its a bit weird they didnt directly reference the hotel, and also there is overlap, because first V is angry and accusing about prognosis, then V shifts to angry about Johnny rejecting life. It makes sense that it would happen that way, but the transition could be a bit more explained.
 
you don't need a single writer/collaborator to create a narrative arc.

Hah -- i guess it's technically true. I can get Mike, John, or Harry off the street to write me a story, and I can tick off all the boxes on the checklist...but you're going to wind up with something like this:
1619029978379.png

...or this...
1619030020524.png

...or even this...
1619030224319.png


Once again, there's a difference between a "passive narrative" and an "established narrative arc". There's a difference between including some story elements, and creating a gripping and moving story.

Granted, it's been a huge debate in the gaming industry since the beginning. How much story is too much? Many games wind up flopping as games because they were too focused on trying to tell a story and not focused enough on being an enjoyable game to play. Other games spend so little effort on their story that the otherwise fun gameplay feels empty and flat. Some games have such an excellent story, that players don't mind otherwise flat and uninspired gameplay. Some games have only story. Some games have no story at all.

I think many people simply want the game to be something it's really not. I think what people wanted was an unintrusive narrative very open to interpretation -- not a carefully crafted narrative arc with heavy themes and defined resolution.

However, there's really not an example of that type of approach that I can think of. CDPR's games have tended to be quite narratively driven, and CP2077 was no different. So, my argument and opinion is unchanged. I don't see any major issues with the story being told or the endings. I can foresee massive issues if we were to try to introduce "happy" endings, and/or ending that deviated from the established themes.

But I fully understand why many players would prefer a completely different approach to the way the narrative (and, by direct association, the gameplay) is being handled, and they would prefer a different approach that offers far more player agency. Yet, I will say again, if that is the direction the game goes in the future, then the incredible cinematic scenes will almost certainly be extremely limited compared to what we saw in this game.


Now this game handles it decently, they have a basic narrative, that people can get just by following the MS alone. Then they have other narratives which can change the essence of the story, depending on how the player interacts with it. The most compelling version of the cyberpunk story requires the synergy of the player and the writer. The fact is V is not fleshed out, so what the player inserts as V's purpose (this isn't random, its seeded, based on human nature, and logical/emotional cues created by the writers. Its not random that some players put love as a focus, they built that in, and allow it to be the driving force of V's actions. But the player has to choose it, develop it, add to it.


So yes, the choice is to create many themes, which is the solution they chose for this game. The basic story is skeletal, and fits the vast majority of experience. Survival. No matter what the player's role/ motivation, survival is probably required. Then they develop themes that tie into that, giving flesh to the skeleton. Why does V want to survive? They pick a few common human motivations, fame, success, family, excitement, long life, justice, revenge. They seed the beginnings, middles, and ends of these stories.

It does lower story length, but let's be honest, its not really about how long the story is. if you do nothing but the bare minimum for most of the narratives, you are looking at probably a 20-30 hour game. Which is actually fine.

And yes, they definitely can't hit every beat, but some narratives were planned/executed better than others,

Which is why I suggested in my devil's advocate argument that it would have been, perhaps, a great idea to have no main plotline. Instead, the game could have focused on individual faction stories that could individually end all sorts of different ways entirely based on player choice. They could then all begin to culminate in a single "event" at the end of the content that would create a distinctive "endgame" situation based upon the choices, relationships, and results of the player's actions throughout their playthrough. It would also leave more of a possibility, I think, to introduce a seamless transition into ongoing, sandbox play, while players waited for the release of additional, story-based DLC.

That's a totally different approach to the game, however. A sort of disconnected series of short stories that all stand on their own, but all are part of the setup for a final, unifying climax.

Here's the thing, though. That obviously wasn't the developers' vision. So, if the goal is to change their minds for the future, then the arguments presented will need to reach the people that disagree -- not reinforce the people that already agree. (Like I said -- I like the game as-is just fine, but I'd be perfectly okay with fewer cinematics and more story / gameplay options.)

What I think, though, is that people expect the best of all worlds. Totally gripping narrative, and beautifully executed cinematic cutscenes, and extremely open-ended gameplay, and tons of player choice and consequence, and a gameplay resolution that created an exciting climax based on player agency exclusively. Again, someday, maybe. For now, it's a beautiful dream. The industry and technology are not capable of that yet.
 
Last edited:
CD Red in the past were able to deliver strong narrative whilst also delivering an experience that felt reflective of player choice, which is why i loved their earlier games. Cyberpunk at the very end decided to swerve away from imo, that ripping up any sense of being reflective of my character choices into a narrow, restrictive railroaded mess.
If that's a route they plan to aim for going forward i'll probably pass as choice is the element of video games that sets it over say film/tv for me.
 
My argument is not that there is no way to deliver a game with more choices. My argument is that I cannot deliver more choices if I also intend to include a gripping narrative arc delivered cinematically. As I said the very first time I addressed this consideration:
The trouble I have with this argument is it's been done before. Many times.

TW3 sticks out here. It has a very defined narrative to it. Ciri is missing, probably in danger, let's find her and protect her because she is functionally Geralt's adopted daughter. Sprinkle in the details for why Ciri is in danger, why she is missing, etc. Geralt himself was highly defined. He's a Witcher by trade and travels about hunting down everything with more than two legs whilst trying to stay the hell away from politics and plowing every sorceress in the land along the way. Sprinkle in some details further defining the Witcher profession, Geralt's past, etc. Toss in characters like Yen, BB, Cerys, Hjalmar, Vesemir, Lambert, Eskel, Zoltan, Dandelion, Radovid, Emhyr, etc. Fill in details there. The list goes on.

With all of this TW3 still manages to deliver a boatload of choices. The player can't radically alter the written narrative at every turn along the journey. They can shift it one way or another though. They can push specific portions in one or two different directions. At times in the main narrative, or the Ciri portion, to alter how Ciri perceives the world. At other times when it comes to the independent character arcs.

You can completely alter how Yen appears by observing certain rules in your dialogue interaction with her. Say foolish things or roam off point and she can be a bit snappy and bitchy. Stay on point and avoid saying stupid stuff and she takes on an entirely new light. I highly recommend people try this little exercise at some point. it's quite remarkable how different your perception of Yen can be based on exploring or not exploring specific optional dialogue.

All of those "choices" are written into the narrative. The writers have taken a single story and given freedom to nudge it here or there. It's a cinematic narrative but the player has some degree of control over it. The reason TW3 was successful is because it struck a very good balance in this sphere. Between what the narrative was trying to deliver and when and how the player could drive it in a certain direction. At least given how much of it was predefined.

Greedfall, The Outer Worlds, Kingdom Come... All of these games let the player make choices to receive independent consequences. To varying degrees. They also all have a defined narrative. Again, to varying degrees. Obviously, those games have varying levels of a "cinematic" narrative as well. Kingdom Come is quite heavy on it (many cinematic cutscenes/interactions). They're all RPG's with defined, well constructed narratives and player agency. Furthermore, the games in this short list strike a very good balance between the cinematic narrative and player agency given the way they've been built.

In CP you have a defined narrative. The lead up to the Heist, the fallout, searching for a solution to the Relic problem. It all leads to Hanako Arasaka. This leads to the endings. Each of which is it's own, independent pathway. After the point of no return the events of the story are not written in stone because there are multiple sets of events. The story, at this point, was written in a way where multiple "mini-stories" run in parallel. The themes in those mini-stories are, for the most part, consistent with the previous "written in stone" aspect of the narrative.

In CP you also have many independent character arcs. Jackie, Misty, Victor, Panam, Judy, Johnny, River, Kerry, Takemura, etc. The game provides a picture of these characters. All the intricate details of their personality and motivations. Why are they here? Where did they come from? Where are they going? Some of these are then tied into the endings. Do the Johnny or Panam character arc and you "unlock" two of those aforementioned parallel mini-stories as potential conclusions.

Perhaps some of the confusion is terminology is mixed up and, as a result, what is being said gets lost in the mix. When people say they wanted more choices in CP they mean to say they wanted more branching choices with weight to them. Words like non-linear or linear get thrown in there but, well, they're largely being misused. Those words tend to create all sorts of confusion about whether someone is speaking of a non-linear story (yes it's a real thing, tricky to get right and a bit niche though... frequent use of flashbacks is a strong example... bit of that with Johnny) or non-linear gameplay (CP does this one frequently). They're also disappointed the game didn't deliver more content in-line with the way the endings were handled. Portions of the story kind of segmented out and designed where there are multiple pathways done in parallel.

This disappointment carries over to the endings. I pick the Nomads to raid Arasaka tower so now the game events decide my V will leave NC and do so with their romantic interest. All of these "choices" are tied to a single decision. Why? What would the story lose if they were not tied together? What if my V could enlist the Nomads and the narrative was written such that they could independently decide whether to remain in or leave NC afterwards? What if the Nomads didn't gain or lose the ability to leave NC because at the last minute they earn "new resources"?

None of the depth or impact from those independent decisions would be lost if the story was written such that there were choices and consequences presented for each of them. The themes still work, the rest of the events still work, everything still works. My V decides they want to stick around in NC while the Nomads run off to wherever. Queue the breakup scene. Choice = stay in NC. Consequence = relationship is strained and kind of falls apart a bit. Instead of Choice = pick Johnny and Rogue since they've participated in this rodeo before and Consequence = V reaches Mikoshi, stays in NC and their relationship falls apart. What would be worse if I, as the player, could make such decisions independently?

This single aspect of the game is a prime example of the game snatching agency from the player when it should not be doing so. The balance between player choice and narrative control is upset. The game presents choices to the player but then the narrative is written in a way where the player cannot make them independently. At other points the player is given a choice but it's like... not important. Drown Woodman in a bucket of bleach on the spot or bronze bull him later with Judy (extremely violent picture, I know :)). What difference does it make?

The game is not doing this because merging a cinematic narrative with player agency together is impossible. It's doing it because providing the player these independent choices instead of tying them together would raise the production cost. It's more difficult to do so. It's more expensive to do so. It's more expensive and difficult to provide player agency. Particularly with a cinematic narrative.

Nobody was looking for 15 different ways to drive the narrative at 40 different pivot points within it. What they were looking for was a couple different ways to drive the narrative sprinkled throughout the game where it fit. Instead you play through this game and see many individual points where, from a design perspective, you're thinking "Hey, that looks like a great place to slap in a choice leading to a distinct consequence". Instead you play through the content one way then play it another and see the illusion on full display. Pick A or B and the same thing happens with minor dialogue adjustments.

Not once during TW3, Greedfall, The Outer Worlds or Kingdom Come did I engage with the content and have a similar thought process. I never asked why the narrative held control at point A and the game provided player agency at point B. I shouldn't be asking myself those type of questions mid playthrough.

Basically, I'm saying CP didn't quite deliver when it comes to striking a respectable balance between the cinematic narrative and player agency. If you think about it the game has about as much player agency as TW3. More in some cases and less in others. The gameplay is less linear compared to TW3. However, it's not about the amount of choices or the linearity of the gameplay. It's about where and how those choices are provided. It's about the overall experience and how it all fits together. This game, in my opinion, left a lot on the table in this area. Particularly with the endings.

The other area is how various pieces of content felt a bit rushed. Certain elements in the endings were setup as if the narrative wanted X, Y or Z to happen right now and forced it into the mix. Almost using the bare minimum amount of effort. We reached Mikoshi and have won, weee. Whoops, the DNA is busted and/or we forgot the human element. The problem here isn't snatching victory from the hands of the player. The problem is how it does so.

There are many ways to drive home themes of immortality, survival (what I think the central theme shifts to post Heist), legacy (what I'd consider drink names and best merc in the land, which is slightly different but sorta kinda related to immortality), the dystopian world, fighting against the tide of corps and losing (futility), etc. If one needs to shoehorn in events at the last second and create a sense of surprise to do so then one either lacked the creativity, talent, desire and/or time to go further with it.
I think many people simply want the game to be something it's really not. I think what people wanted was an unintrusive narrative very open to interpretation -- not a carefully crafted narrative arc with heavy themes and defined resolution.

However, there's really not an example of that type of approach that I can think of. CDPR's games have tended to be quite narratively driven, and CP2077 was no different. So, my argument and opinion is unchanged. I don't see any major issues with the story being told or the endings. I can foresee massive issues if we were to try to introduce "happy" endings, and/or ending that deviated from the established themes.

But I fully understand why many players would prefer a completely different approach to the way the narrative (and, by direct association, the gameplay) is being handled, and they would prefer a different approach that offers far more player agency. Yet, I will say again, if that is the direction the game goes in the future, then the incredible cinematic scenes will almost certainly be extremely limited compared to what we saw in this game.
I think this is where the confusion comes into play. Your posts are establishing different ways to construct a cinematic narrative and throw player agency into it. At least I assume this to be the goal. It implies people are put off by the process used to create CP. I don't think people are put off by the process used to create the game. They're put off with the delivery and execution.

Speaking for myself, this is the heart of my own issues. I don't feel the concepts at a mechanical level used to create this game are flawed. Well, not innately anyway. I'm claiming the execution and delivery was mismanaged and flawed. Perhaps this is a bold claim. I suppose I'm guilty as charged in this regard.
 
Greedfall, The Outer Worlds, Kingdom Come... All of these games let the player make choices to receive independent consequences. To varying degrees. They also all have a defined narrative. Again, to varying degrees. Obviously, those games have varying levels of a "cinematic" narrative as well. Kingdom Come is quite heavy on it (many cinematic cutscenes/interactions). They're all RPG's with defined, well constructed narratives and player agency. Furthermore, the games in this short list strike a very good balance between the cinematic narrative and player agency given the way they've been built.
The only point with which I do not really agree. I have all 3 installed currently and never in any of those games (which I obviously like and played a bunch), I felt the same as in Cyberpunk. In terms of choices, yes maybe you're more free, but for me (writing / story / emotions), Cyberpunk is really above these three (and by far).
It is rather these three games that should be inspired by Cyberpunk and not the other way around.

But that's just humble opinion of a simple gamer, ignoring the art of writing :D

Edit : The point that bothers me (like many I think) is that we are stuck on the path V is following when coming back from Mikoshi. It would have been nice to be able to have a choice at this precise moment. Like being able to remain merc in NC (alone or not), to leave with the aldecaldos (alone or not), to follow the path of glory (obviously alone).
 
Last edited:
Sometimes I think about the 6 months plot.

Didn't the writers think that being an engram wouldn't be difficult enough? Like, ok, players won't realise or they won't care, they will have their happy endings because they are not intelligent enough to see the philosophical issues of the old question, what is our identity?

All the endings are quite "bad" besides the 6 months plot.
 
The only point with which I do not really agree. I have all 3 installed currently and never in any of those games (which I obviously like and played a bunch), I felt the same as in Cyberpunk. In terms of choices, yes maybe you're more free, but for me (writing / story / emotions), Cyberpunk is really above these three (and by far).
It is rather these three games that should be inspired by Cyberpunk and not the other way around.

But that's just humble opinion of a simple gamer, ignoring the art of writing :D

Edit : The point that bothers me (like many I think) is that we are stuck on the path V is following when coming back from Mikoshi. It would have been nice to be able to have a choice at this precise moment. Like being able to remain merc in NC (alone or not), to leave with the aldecaldos (alone or not), to follow the path of glory (obviously alone).
The thing,is that the devil,star,sun endings is a two tier decision. You make a decision of mortality/immortality(or as @Ayinde_Palmer pointed can be read as humanity) in mikoshi or signing the contract or not with Arasaka.
The other decision is in the rooftop of who you call(or not) which sets who do you wanna be (the combination of pills and gun is linked to who you call). If you called Nomads,leading to Star if you choose to return to your body it only makes sense to leave with them imho. Disregarding romance(that i'm convinced was not considered when writing the story), if you are able to call Panam your V is almost an Aldecaldo already,the cerimony is just a formal adoption in the clan.
So at least for me, a decision after mikoshi in sun or star that contradicts the narrative would have been an example of "fan service" and not a good example of story writting.
 
The thing,is that the devil,star,sun endings is a two tier decision. You make a decision of mortality/immortality(or as @Ayinde_Palmer pointed can be read as humanity) in mikoshi or signing the contract or not with Arasaka.
The other decision is in the rooftop of who you call(or not) which sets who do you wanna be (the combination of pills and gun is linked to who you call). If you called Nomads,leading to Star if you choose to return to your body it only makes sense to leave with them imho. Disregarding romance(that i'm convinced was not considered when writing the story), if you are able to call Panam your V is almost an Aldecaldo already,the cerimony is just a formal adoption in the clan.
So at least for me, a decision after mikoshi in sun or star that contradicts the narrative would have been an example of "fan service" and not a good example of story writting.

well the first decision is who is your people/do you trust/faction
Aldecados

Johnny's people

Arasaka

Then secret is kinda special

because it can be self/johnny


The second choice is human or digital life
but in sun/star its narratively save Johnny or save self, alt presents it as an unlife

devil you also choose, but its weird, because its uncertain which path leads where. Arasaka claims they will give you a body.


Anyhow back to the point. For panam, aldecado is the natural progression of that storyline, and they would have to alter the flow a bit.
Arasaka is really clearly tied to the final narrative.

However for sun, taking over afterlife isn't as clear a connection. Seems like that plotline is missing a strong connection to afterlife/mercs you are at best an associate of Rogue, Maybe you became a legend, but its a much bigger leap. Secret leads in even less well. Its not exactly that it can't happen, but all the connections are missing, you kind of have to piece it together. it also appears to be a longer time skip.

All in all. I think street kid plotline got messed up, it doesn't connect well at many points. Its a bunch of loosely connected episodes without a cohesive theme. And its missing connective tissue and pacing. Things probably got juggled here.

As it is, secret ending could logically have a totally different ending where you aren't leader of afterlife and it would make as much narrative sense as being leader. Rogue ending is a pretty weak connection as well.

Id really like to know if streetkid plotline went as planned, did it seem cohesive on paper?
 
well the first decision is who is your people/do you trust/faction
Aldecados

Johnny's people

Arasaka

Then secret is kinda special

because it can be self/johnny


The second choice is human or digital life
but in sun/star its narratively save Johnny or save self, alt presents it as an unlife

devil you also choose, but its weird, because its uncertain which path leads where. Arasaka claims they will give you a body.


Anyhow back to the point. For panam, aldecado is the natural progression of that storyline, and they would have to alter the flow a bit.
Arasaka is really clearly tied to the final narrative.

However for sun, taking over afterlife isn't as clear a connection. Seems like that plotline is missing a strong connection to afterlife/mercs you are at best an associate of Rogue, Maybe you became a legend, but its a much bigger leap. Secret leads in even less well. Its not exactly that it can't happen, but all the connections are missing, you kind of have to piece it together. it also appears to be a longer time skip.

All in all. I think street kid plotline got messed up, it doesn't connect well at many points. Its a bunch of loosely connected episodes without a cohesive theme. And its missing connective tissue and pacing. Things probably got juggled here.

As it is, secret ending could logically have a totally different ending where you aren't leader of afterlife and it would make as much narrative sense as being leader. Rogue ending is a pretty weak connection as well.

Id really like to know if streetkid plotline went as planned, did it seem cohesive on paper?
For me, I actually liked the streetkid path quite a bit. Felt like I was a part of the city, and when I connected with Judy, it seems natural as we both know what the city is about. I think the Star Ending in this case works best since it can fit the narrative.
 
well the first decision is who is your people/do you trust/faction
Aldecados

Johnny's people

Arasaka

Then secret is kinda special

because it can be self/johnny


The second choice is human or digital life
but in sun/star its narratively save Johnny or save self, alt presents it as an unlife

devil you also choose, but its weird, because its uncertain which path leads where. Arasaka claims they will give you a body.


Anyhow back to the point. For panam, aldecado is the natural progression of that storyline, and they would have to alter the flow a bit.
Arasaka is really clearly tied to the final narrative.

However for sun, taking over afterlife isn't as clear a connection. Seems like that plotline is missing a strong connection to afterlife/mercs you are at best an associate of Rogue, Maybe you became a legend, but its a much bigger leap. Secret leads in even less well. Its not exactly that it can't happen, but all the connections are missing, you kind of have to piece it together. it also appears to be a longer time skip.

All in all. I think street kid plotline got messed up, it doesn't connect well at many points. Its a bunch of loosely connected episodes without a cohesive theme. And its missing connective tissue and pacing. Things probably got juggled here.

As it is, secret ending could logically have a totally different ending where you aren't leader of afterlife and it would make as much narrative sense as being leader. Rogue ending is a pretty weak connection as well.

Id really like to know if streetkid plotline went as planned, did it seem cohesive on paper?
Ahh,might be here why we don't see the same "coherence" in the narrative. I don't see a streetkid,nomad,corpo plotline... The intro in the lifepath sets V the Merc,as somebody that was forced to "reset" his/her previous life and is just trying to grow as Merc.
I don't think it was ever intended streetkid-->afterlife,corpo-->arasaka,nomad-->aldecaldo.
Ps:edited Merc is not the same as a streetkid
 
Last edited:
This disappointment carries over to the endings. I pick the Nomads to raid Arasaka tower so now the game events decide my V will leave NC and do so with their romantic interest. All of these "choices" are tied to a single decision. Why? What would the story lose if they were not tied together? What if my V could enlist the Nomads and the narrative was written such that they could independently decide whether to remain in or leave NC afterwards? What if the Nomads didn't gain or lose the ability to leave NC because at the last minute they earn "new resources"?

None of the depth or impact from those independent decisions would be lost if the story was written such that there were choices and consequences presented for each of them. The themes still work, the rest of the events still work, everything still works. My V decides they want to stick around in NC while the Nomads run off to wherever. Queue the breakup scene. Choice = stay in NC. Consequence = relationship is strained and kind of falls apart a bit. Instead of Choice = pick Johnny and Rogue since they've participated in this rodeo before and Consequence = V reaches Mikoshi, stays in NC and their relationship falls apart. What would be worse if I, as the player, could make such decisions independently?

This single aspect of the game is a prime example of the game snatching agency from the player when it should not be doing so. The balance between player choice and narrative control is upset. The game presents choices to the player but then the narrative is written in a way where the player cannot make them independently. At other points the player is given a choice but it's like... not important. Drown Woodman in a bucket of bleach on the spot or bronze bull him later with Judy (extremely violent picture, I know :)). What difference does it make?
Yeah i can sort of cope with the illusion of choice much of the main game presents even if i find it sub-standard compared to their previous products as i still feel like i can play a character through that.
Agency snatching at the end via tying everything to a single odd mission choice i simply can't stand.
I'm curious if agency snatching is a result of a mismanaged project where they were panicking and throwing simplistic garbage at the wall to see what ideas seemed cool, without taking the time to map out rewarding agency for the player in the endings or if snatching was someone's vision
If it's the former we may see issue addressed in post game DLC/ if its the former we probably won't see post game dlc at all.
 
I can foresee massive issues if we were to try to introduce "happy" endings, and/or ending that deviated from the established themes..

The overwhelming majority of opposition responses in this thread claim that there is a happy ending and that it's the Star -- I mean, for most people who are going to play this game, the ONLY thing that makes it a less-than-Disney ending is the inexplicable six months. Even then, most people interpret Panam's lines and Misty's tarot as meaning V will find a cure. Are these people undercutting the game for themselves?

Sometimes I think about the 6 months plot.

Didn't the writers think that being an engram wouldn't be difficult enough? Like, ok, players won't realise or they won't care, they will have their happy endings because they are not intelligent enough to see the philosophical issues of the old question, what is our identity?

All the endings are quite "bad" besides the 6 months plot.
This used to be my soapbox until I accepted that it's so glossed over in the actual endings, that they must've not meant for Alt's initial lines about it to amount to anything at all. Alt's warning that "everything changes" is just an unfired Chekhov's gun.

If it's the former we may see issue addressed in post game DLC/ if its the former we probably won't see post game dlc at all.
I'm still here because I want to be wrong, but I don't think they'll touch on the endings in DLC or even talk about them. On the extreme off chance they ever say anything about the endings, it's going to be the same point-missing self-reinforcement about artistic vision we've heard before.
 
The thing,is that the devil,star,sun endings is a two tier decision. You make a decision of mortality/immortality(or as @Ayinde_Palmer pointed can be read as humanity) in mikoshi or signing the contract or not with Arasaka.
The other decision is in the rooftop of who you call(or not) which sets who do you wanna be (the combination of pills and gun is linked to who you call). If you called Nomads,leading to Star if you choose to return to your body it only makes sense to leave with them imho. Disregarding romance(that i'm convinced was not considered when writing the story), if you are able to call Panam your V is almost an Aldecaldo already,the cerimony is just a formal adoption in the clan.
So at least for me, a decision after mikoshi in sun or star that contradicts the narrative would have been an example of "fan service" and not a good example of story writting.
Yep, but it's just what i would like :)
In some way : the roof would be more who you want for the final fight (or not for Arasaka / suicide) and then a choice for what you do for the rest of V's short life (or not if Johnny returns).

But I am largely satisfied with what is already there :)
 
Ahh,might be here why we don't see the same "coherence" in the narrative. I don't see a streetkid,nomad,corpo plotline... The intro in the lifepath sets V the Merc,as somebody that was forced to "reset" his/her previous life and is just trying to grow as Merc.
I don't think it was ever intended streetkid-->afterlife,corpo-->arasaka,nomad-->aldecaldo.
Ps:edited Merc is not the same as a streetkid

they said that each path would be developed, but that you could move around freely in an interview

but what i mean as "streetkid" would be the sequence of events that leads you from a streetkid origin to the sun ending. Even if you want to discount the origin, you could call it;

nomad path(path thats leads to an ending joining nomads)
Corp path (path leads to an ending joining the corporation)
afterlife path (path leading to join afterlife)

as you can see the afterlife path is the only one without a direct link to an origin, but even if that is a coincidence, its still the least developed one. with the poorest developed theme.

with nomad path, you build a relationship with panam, and the nomads which grows, your dialog and missions bring you closer to them, they induct you as a member and help you when you have nothing left and you join them. The theme throughout is finding a new family not driven by success, or money. You exemplify the type of person who becomes a nomad.

with corpo you get closer to Takemura, Set up a meeting with hanako, make a mutually beneficial arrangement, take Hanako from captive to overthrowing her brother and taking control of the company, and give up everything else to become a part of the company. The theme is success through aligning with power transactionally. This is the type of person who becomes a part of a corporation.


with Afterlife, you really only get closer to rogue, not really the organization, and you mostly help Johnny set his life straight, which leads to rogue helping you, for Johnny, then you become leader of mercenaries. The sun theme is apparently becoming immortal through achievement. It just ties together very poorly, the theme of the epilogue, the sidequests that lead to it, and the ending path missions barely match. The theme, or motivation one might have on this path is all over the place. and it loosely ties to the other themes developed earlier, and coincidently no real origin.
Post automatically merged:

For me, I actually liked the streetkid path quite a bit. Felt like I was a part of the city, and when I connected with Judy, it seems natural as we both know what the city is about. I think the Star Ending in this case works best since it can fit the narrative.

Streetkid as an origin works OK, but a streetkid plotline isn't developed that well. I used to think of Judy/Evelyn story as a streetkid type of story, but its mostly just a Judy/evelyn plotline, much like river's plotline is mostly just a river plotline. Its got some possible streetkid themes, but the main motivation is just wanting to help Judy.

Maybe they had a hard time figuring out/deciding what motivates a native NC character. If the Judy plotline is the center, then the motivation is to escape the city, but that kinda makes the nomad alliance just a means to an end.
 
Last edited:

Guest 4412420

Guest
The other decision is in the rooftop of who you call(or not) which sets who do you wanna be (the combination of pills and gun is linked to who you call). If you called Nomads,leading to Star if you choose to return to your body it only makes sense to leave with them imho. Disregarding romance(that i'm convinced was not considered when writing the story), if you are able to call Panam your V is almost an Aldecaldo already,the cerimony is just a formal adoption in the clan.
So at least for me, a decision after mikoshi in sun or star that contradicts the narrative would have been an example of "fan service" and not a good example of story writting.
Raiding Arasaka with Aldecaldos is a mutually beneficial arrangement. V gets to Mikoshi, the nomads gain resources. Because of this I don't agree that asking for their help should default to V staying with them. It makes sense for some V's but it shouldn't have been the only one outcome. And I wholeheartedly disagree that a single phone call should decide for you who your V becomes.

Edit: I don't want 10 choices, but 2 would have been perfect. The Devil ending has two choices, why couldn't the Star (stay or leave with the nomads) and the Sun (reject or accept major leagues) also have two?

The Star ending is as "fan service" as it can get. I agree that the basic story was written without romances in mind but I wouldn't discount them entirely. When you look at how male LIs are treated in general and the LIs who stay with V, only in the most hopeful ending also happen to be the favorites. (I don't mean this in an accusatory way, just not sure how to word it better).

And speaking of narrative. Even if you'd disregard Misty's tarot readings as mystical drivel, her parting words in both of these endings are a deliberate reflection of "quiet life vs blaze of glory" theme.
The Star: "Looks like you've got a good life ahead of you, out in the Badlands."
The Sun: "Babe... The world's gonna hear about you."
This should have been an actual decision, not something tied to an unrelated choice, and it wouldn't contradict anything as long as said decision is directly related to the narrative and it would be. The game handled this in a very binary and constricting way. V choosing quiet life (meaning no riches) but still staying in Night City is no more fan service than the Star ending already is.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The overwhelming majority of opposition responses in this thread claim that there is a happy ending and that it's the Star -- I mean, for most people who are going to play this game, the ONLY thing that makes it a less-than-Disney ending is the inexplicable six months. Even then, most people interpret Panam's lines and Misty's tarot as meaning V will find a cure. Are these people undercutting the game for themselves?


This used to be my soapbox until I accepted that it's so glossed over in the actual endings, that they must've not meant for Alt's initial lines about it to amount to anything at all. Alt's warning that "everything changes" is just an unfired Chekhov's gun.


I'm still here because I want to be wrong, but I don't think they'll touch on the endings in DLC or even talk about them. On the extreme off chance they ever say anything about the endings, it's going to be the same point-missing self-reinforcement about artistic vision we've heard before.

if there is an extension of the different endings each end becomes more acceptable but if CDPR leaves these endings unresolved then we should have had more choices regarding the "sun" ending and the "star" ending. Do not force V to become an aldecaldos and not force V to want to die alone in NC.
only the ending "devil" seems very well written to me if CDPR decides to abandon the character of V for future expansions.
on the other hand if the endings are extended then the linearities of each ending seem rather logical.
 
This used to be my soapbox until I accepted that it's so glossed over in the actual endings, that they must've not meant for Alt's initial lines about it to amount to anything at all. Alt's warning that "everything changes" is just an unfired Chekhov's gun.


I'm still here because I want to be wrong, but I don't think they'll touch on the endings in DLC or even talk about them. On the extreme off chance they ever say anything about the endings, it's going to be the same point-missing self-reinforcement about artistic vision we've heard before.
Yeah, the whole engram thing is glossed over. Misty says they are souls, so there's no discussion of the topic.

Unusally for me i'm more glass half full than empty in regardless feeling that they'll address the ending. Maybe just wishful thinking but i just don't see much else giving them a bounce in terms of expansions. I certainly have no intention of purchasing expansions unless picks up post ending and provides something that's actually rewarding for those that don't want to be a nomad.
 
Top Bottom