[Spoiler Alert] About the endings

+

Do you want more RPGs with happy endings?


  • Total voters
    1,647
I would not accept playing TTRPG with a GM that thinks killing the player characters is part of the fun, I would go home and boycott that GM's play sessions after that. Not only is it not fun, it is as I said by modern TTRPG standards a sign of grave incompetence on the GM's side.
Take a look at the ruleset,it was a free goodie with cp2077. There is a whole section about GM and the idea is not "kill your players because you can" the idea is "if the want a power fantasy they should not play this game, the GM should apply exactly the same tricks than the players" . So if your players steal other people houses, why you cannot receive the same treatment under the same rules? If you have a chance by the rules to do a headshot and kill an npc, npcs should be smart enough to try that and if they succeed the GM should not tweak (normally) the dice rolls.
I used to GM Cyberpunk a lot, and I've killed all my players in one session more than once and sometimes more than one time per session...nobody complained as long as it was fair.
 
Well taste is different; Odyssey is the only AC game I consider good, period. But i love RPGs and have a strong distaste for "Adventure games". Odyssey is basically Skyrim in Classical Greece (my favorite historical period) but with ship combat and good writing. (Also Melissanthi Mahut is my favorite voice actor, and I mean globally, not just in AC Odyssey). You didn't make the mistake of playing as the non-canon Alexios I hope? As per usual the male voice actor is much worse, just like in this game, Mass Effect, and dozens of others).

Anyway, I think I can stomach the Star Ending. The writing and concept of the plot is still both sadistic (both towards the player and V) and unimaginative, but at least I will be able to play the game once so I can get some of my money's worth out of it.

A big part of this of course is that I have a very easy time to quickly empathize with almost any RPG character. It usually takes me about 5 minutes to basically go "I have known X for 5 minutes and if anyone happens to (her) I will kill everyone in this room and then myself". At the same time I have seen so many posts, in so many forums about so many games where players go "Oh and why would I care about my character's child? I only saw it for 25 real life hours and I need at least 5 IRL years to start caring about anyone but myself").

I would not accept playing TTRPG with a GM that thinks killing the player characters is part of the fun, I would go home and boycott that GM's play sessions after that. Not only is it not fun, it is as I said by modern TTRPG standards a sign of grave incompetence on the GM's side.

A few questions tho: People talk about Misty's Tarot readings as "giving the player hope for V:s survival" and having watched this Let's Play I simply don't see it. Just like I thought the graffiti Tarot cards should have any significance it really don't look like it; to me it just look like a random collectible with made up "significance" when you can basically collect all of them. But maybe most players make the mistake of unlocking all endings for it's own sake and therefore getting all the cards? While the idea that you only get cards relevant to your decisions if you unlock fewer endings? I don't know, it just looks like another pointless collectible like the sex dolls in Saints Row 3 or the Sex cards from Witcher 1 all over again.
Point is... it doesn't seem like Misty's readings has anything to do with your choices at all, it's just random musings that covers all the endings. Aka just like IRL horoscopes or something. Much talk about nothing to make the person getting the reading "believe" the "mystic powers". Misty's just a charlatan, a caring one, but a charlatan nevertheless, as far as I can tell.

IS there a significance to the cards? DO they vary depending on path taken?
IS there a reason to look for the "graffiti" tarot cards other than to get XP?

(Also why are all AIs in all games smug self-important douchbags that need their power unplugged asap? Even just watching the Let's Play makes me want to do something drastic to her to take her down about 500 notches).
I never play male characters if I can avoid it, Odyssey should have been Cassandra only, as I find female protagonists to be far more interesting.

But I preferred Ezio's story, a seemingly simple revenge plot that turns into the discovery of the First Civilization. Back in those days the AC games were not only a historical open world, their plot had so much more purpose. My favourite era is the Italian Renaissance anyway, what I wouldn't give to experience that time with a female protagonist (yes female assassins/warriors would be even more rare/improbable in those times than in Ancient Greece, but being an assassin is a secret/illegal occupation anyway, so why not?).

The only things I truly liked from Odyssey were Cassandra and the more realistic depiction of the Battle of the Thermopylae, but I found the Ezio Trilogy to be superior story-wise (particularly Brotherhood which will always be peak AC to me), in both historical and present time sections.
 
@AvarageEnjoyer "Where did you got that from, may I wonder?"
The dying part from playing this ending at least 6 times. The Mr. Blue part is my personal speculation.

@LadyMiseryAli "Disagree with The Sun ending. There is NO proof that V dies because we don't see what happens afterward"
You see V's helmet opens and the face freezes. I call this death in space. Nothing that could happen after this would bring V back.


@LeKill3rFou "Hope it's not because of propulsion jets on the space suit"
Heheh, that's what I was thinking when playing this ending for the first time and started desperately to hit keys in order to speed up V's space walk. Unfortunately all player controls are disabled. As soon as you open the hatch the cinematics kicks in and all you can do is watch ;-)


Cheers Euclid
 
Last edited:

Guest 4412420

Guest
You see V's helmet opens and the face freezes. I call this death in space. Nothing that could happen after this would bring V back.
It doesn't open. V puts the helmet on in a shuttle and the HUD elements are clearly visible. You can literally see the light reflecting off the glass(?) part of the helmet throughout the entire cutscene.

I time-stamped the ending cutscene part.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
It doesn't open. V puts the helmet on in a shuttle and you can see the HUD is clearly visible. You can literally see the light reflecting off the glass(?) part of the helmet throughout the entire cutscene.

I time-stamped the ending cutscene part.
Not to mention that this would've been the most convoluted assassination attempt in history.
Let's assume that it's true. Then @Eucliddalexandria implies:
1) That someone (Mr. Blue) wants V dead;
2) Instead of, I don't know, hiring a gunman, they offer V an extremely risky job - a heist on a very well guarded place. In space;
3) And the killing part is supposed to happen because space suit lacks glass on helmet?
This is so contrived that it could only possibly be used in a James Bond movie, as a villain's plan designed specifically so that the hero would have a chance to escape.
 
The glass of the helmet is fine. I saw air is venting (the smoke in the vid's last few secs) but it could be thrusters. So, maybe my interpretation is wrong.

Cheers Euclid
 
The glass of the helmet is fine. I saw air is venting (the smoke in the vid's last few secs) but it could be thrusters. So, maybe my interpretation is wrong.

Cheers Euclid
As @larrackell and @LadyMiseryAli said, it's exactly the same as when V exit the ship a couple of seconds sooner. It's gaz thrusters to be able to move in space, there is no other way to move in the void of space (propulsing a gas in one way to be "pushed" in the opposite way. And it require several thrusters oriented in different directions to be able to move in the 3 axes) :)
You can see these thrusters in action at this moment to stabilize V when exit.
Capture d’écran 2022-12-15 à 17.23.24.jpg
 
Just had to get back to Fallout thing as I recalled something.

I played Fallout 3 and the ending... why is this on the list? I played Fallout New Vegas too and never finished, though I liked the world better.

And about genre. Fallout is Post-apocalyptic adventure set in alternative timeline. There was a corporation, Vault-Tech? key word, WAS. Then, yes there was miss use of technology as experiments in vaults, but that's all gone. Cyberpunk universes tend to be like Blade Runner universes, two steps from self destruction, even when there has been catastrophic event's like in Mike Pondsmith's cyberpunk universe, they came close during corporate wars, but no.

If you take just tech and corporations Flash Gordon would be cyberpunk because someone makes the tech.
 
Just replayed that part using a saved game just before talking to Mr Blue. The thrusters are at the back whilst the last few seconds the "smoke" is coming from the helmet area. It's ambiguous but I guess we want to "see" what we like to see ;-)

Cheers Euclid
 
Take a look at the ruleset,it was a free goodie with cp2077. There is a whole section about GM and the idea is not "kill your players because you can" the idea is "if the want a power fantasy they should not play this game, the GM should apply exactly the same tricks than the players" . So if your players steal other people houses, why you cannot receive the same treatment under the same rules? If you have a chance by the rules to do a headshot and kill an npc, npcs should be smart enough to try that and if they succeed the GM should not tweak (normally) the dice rolls.
I used to GM Cyberpunk a lot, and I've killed all my players in one session more than once and sometimes more than one time per session...nobody complained as long as it was fair.

Its the DMs discretion to tweak die rolls and I absolutely will if my success means hurting the player's enjoyment

I have no problem with character deaths when they feel earned, as in they are a result of the player's actions and decisions

But a random headshot from a no name npc in combat feels so unnecessarily brutal and narratively unfulfilling to me

Is this your general DM philosophy or is this just how you approach Cyberpunk?
 
It's ambiguous but I guess we want to "see" what we like to see ;-)

Cheers Euclid
Sure :)
But no doubt, gas come from just behind the helmet (from these thruters).
Thrusters are oriented to provide a diagonal push. Two right/left slightly oriented to the front to "brake" and turn and one right behind to push forward ;)

On a side note, sending someone in space just to "kill" him using an oxygen leak, seem quite expensive even in 2077. Above all, if this person is already dying, in terminal condition and if it's only matter of days/weeks (seem better and hugely cheaper to just "wait" until he die^^).
 
Its the DMs discretion to tweak die rolls and I absolutely will if my success means hurting the player's enjoyment

I have no problem with character deaths when they feel earned, as in they are a result of the player's actions and decisions

But a random headshot from a no name npc in combat feels so unnecessarily brutal and narratively unfulfilling to me

Is this your general DM philosophy or is this just how you approach Cyberpunk?
I don't play the tabletop but different people find different aspects important. I couldn't find that topic, but I read from LowSodiumCyberpunk Reddit how tabletop is popular among police and security personnel because headshots are lethal and no extra lives. Makes perfect sense to me.
 
Is this your general DM philosophy or is this just how you approach Cyberpunk?
in Cyberpunk the ruleset allows practically insta-klills even without dice rolling , in other games normally we used to do player consensus with GM but critical fails we used to find them funny (like a weapon exploding in your hands for example, maybe not insta kill but a serious wound). Don't see why is a problem, than the player cannot be a walking god of destruction by default... people comes up with more imaginative solutions if they know their characters are mortal.
Post automatically merged:

popular among police and security personnel
I'm not police or security personnel or ex-military, didn't even do the compulsory service because my promotion was the last one in my country and I took a study extension... so I avoided the service and ended up in "the reserve"... but I would say is the same why some people like tactical shooters or "immersive sims". There are other games, that I had 0 problems to be power fantasy (D&D for example, but characters tend to be boring at certain point).
 
Its the DMs discretion to tweak die rolls and I absolutely will if my success means hurting the player's enjoyment

I have no problem with character deaths when they feel earned, as in they are a result of the player's actions and decisions

But a random headshot from a no name npc in combat feels so unnecessarily brutal and narratively unfulfilling to me

Is this your general DM philosophy or is this just how you approach Cyberpunk?
The problem with a CRPG adaptation of any ruleset of course is that you trade an interactive game master who tweak the experience on the fly for their players with a reload function and maybe a difficulty setting. Which makes bad things worse (but unless you have a rather advanced difficulty algorithm in the background it is really the only way).

And to be clear here, there is a saying among DnD (and Pathfinder): If the DM asks "Are you SURE about that?" you are about to die. Stupidity can only be negotiated to a point. But this game has a writing that is not only not a power fantasy, but is deliberately making the player WORSE off at the end of the game than in the beginning of the game. Despite the player not making a single stupid choice. And again, I don't think this would fly in most TTRGPS outside of Cthulhu of course.

Anyway, I have decided to give this a try, see if I can stomach it all the way thru. The fact that you got all the side quests handed to you literally 5 minutes after getting your "you're gonna die in a little more than a week" moment makes almost comical, to be honest. I bet that without even trying I will spend more than two in-game weeks in act II, and as such proving the writers wrong :smart:
 
Last edited:
Anyway, I have decided to give this a try, see if I can stomach it all the way thru. The fact that you got all the side quests handed to you literally 5 minutes after getting your "you're gonna die in a little more than a week" moment makes almost comical, to be honest. I bet that without even trying I will spend more than two in-game weeks in act II, and as such proving the writers wrong :smart:
Vik says a couple of weeks, but he's not completely sure himself, so I headcanon the game as taking place in the span of a few months. There's no way in hell all that shit goes down in the span of a few weeks. lol.
 
Vik says a couple of weeks, but he's not completely sure himself, so I headcanon the game as taking place in the span of a few months. There's no way in hell all that shit goes down in the span of a few weeks. lol.
One of my main complaints about the game and the endings is that it's to little time to make sense. Immagine if instead of a couple of weeks Vik had said V has a couple of years. But then in the beginning of act 3 you take a rapid decline and Vic concludes that the problems are accelerating. That would make it more reasonble for V to be driven but not super desperate in act 2, and for act 3 to become extremely desperate.

Then in the end Alt could give a very large timespann instead of just 6 months. Say something like 6 months to 5 years, concluding it's impossible to know for sure.

That would make for a potentially bittersweet ending rather than a grimdark one.
 
I'm not police or security personnel or ex-military, didn't even do the compulsory service because my promotion was the last one in my country and I took a study extension... so I avoided the service and ended up in "the reserve"... but I would say is the same why some people like tactical shooters or "immersive sims". There are other games, that I had 0 problems to be power fantasy (D&D for example, but characters tend to be boring at certain point).
Not only ex-military, I forgot that Reddit topic there were people who post how they used to play Cyberpunk (2020?) when they had time off from their service.

We have mandatory military service here and yeah, if I were to play tabletop game it would be Cyberpunk Red, exactly because rules enable that even single stray bullet can kill you.
 
Oh, no-no, Mad Max isn't cyberpunk, i was just using it as an example of a depressive world with depressive message, but also a very action packed movie, that can be categorized as a power fantasy.
And you aren't confusing at all, we actually agree on many things. What I mean, however, is that despite being thought provoking and depressing, story can have a definitive optimistic conclusion. This concepts aren't necessarily mutually exclusive. Like, first Matrix movie is also cyberpunk, but it has a happy ending, despite having a lot of thought provoking ideas and concepts.
To be fair Ridley Scott, unlike the CDPR writing team.. knew better than to end the movie with Furiosa and Max dead or with barely any time to live. Walking into the sunset is open ended but isnt open ended grimdark. He knew better than to add sad and depressing coda to a sad and depressing setting.
 
Top Bottom