[SPOILERS] End-Game And Suspicions About The First DLC

[taiwanluthiers]

It drops you before this point so you could see all the endings on the same save. In games like masseffect 2 or witcher 3 the ending was everytime the same with some smaller parts changed (in witcher 3 it was the epilogue and in mass effect some people may die or not die during the suicide mission). You could decide who dies in me2 by doing sidequests but if u did every sidequest then theoretically nobody dies so where's the point of playing it again, to make somebody die you would have to make the new save and don't complete some of the quests. In cp2077 making sidequests only allows you to choose different ending. Every ending is something else, we have 4 last missions that are completely different and took about 1,5h to complete each so it makes about 6h if u wanna do every last mission in the game . They put you back to point of no return so you could see them all.

Final Fantasy XV also dropped you off before the "point of no return" post game, actually "post game" is basically talking to his dog and having him reliving the memory of being in Lucious.

In one of their DLC they added a "versus" ending which is far happier, where Noctis doesn't die, and they found a way to get rid of the Starscourge for good, and he became king to rule in the land. I think big part of it was players complaining how much the ending of FFXV sucked. But the damage was done and they canceled like 3 or 4 DLC that they had planned which would have significantly expanded the lore and story.

That game, like Cyberpunk 2077 had much shorter main story (you could quick dash them in 6 hours basically) but a lot, I mean a lot of side quests. But most of that was filler fetch quests.

 

[UgzAube]

I agree

 

[Deathstruck92]

The endings correspond well to the cyberpunk universe and therefore it would not be illogical that they remain as such.

And Cyberpunk style is a dystopian genre in which the stories rarely end in "happy end" for the hero.

Not really. William Gibson (pretty much the forefather and co-creator of the cyberpunk genre) gave most of his protagonists a relatively happy (or at least satisfying) ending in his Sprawl Trilogy.

You wanna tell me Gibson knows less about a genre that he pretty much helped establish in the early 80s?

Besides, Mike Pondsmith himself said as well that CP is about saving yourself, not the world. Getting a conclusion where we actually manage to do that would still be well within the confines of cyberpunk IMHO.

EDIT: Also dystopic =/= grimdark

 

[UgzAube]

Not really. William Gibson (pretty much the forefather and co-creator of the cyberpunk genre) gave most of his protagonists a relatively happy (or at least satisfying) ending in his Sprawl Trilogy.

You wanna tell me Gibson knows less about a genre that he pretty much helped establish in the early 80s?

Besides, Mike Pondsmith himself said as well that CP is about saving yourself, not the world. Getting a conclusion where we actually manage to do that would still be well within the confines of cyberpunk IMHO.

EDIT: Also dystopic =/= grimdark

Thank you for the detail.

And no I wasn't saying that about Gibson, just a sad ending won't bother me.

Even I want to save V.

 

[kjiandan]

I think everyone has brought up interesting points (especially reminding us how ME2 and Final Fantasy handled expansion content...

Only point I would like to add is that CDPR have a Witcher game coming out once Cyberpunk's DLC, expansions, and multiplayer are completed - meaning Witcher will go into full production, maybe in the next 2 - 3 years. That means whatever stories the developers want to tell with Cyberpunk need to be completed by then. So, unlike some of the games mentioned, Cyberpunk does not have the guarantee of an immediate sequel to tie off any loose ending threads - many of which are laid out quite clearly in big side quests and the ending epilogues. This only makes me double down on the question as to why tease these areas and tie the lore so tightly around a corporate/AI war, and not follow through on it? Wouldn't it make more sense to take our battered protagonist and throw him/her into the fray to pick sides and play through the next adventure, now that the immediate threat of dying in 2 weeks is gone?

I'm just trying to think of it from a gameplay perspective because as fun, engaging, and immersive as the story is... it's still a game that needs to feel rewarding and fun. Can you imagine playing a mid-story expansion with some cool characters and stories and having a relic malfunction during the playthrough? That would feel like such a slap in the face! That would be like the game telling you, "Hey, reminder: you're DYING. Now go get rid of Johnny's engram because story-wise that's happening. Forget this expansion, it's not a cure or adds to the story we made, just a diversion."

I just can't see anyone at CDPR feeling that's okay to do.

 

[EuphoricM]

I think everyone has brought up interesting points (especially reminding us how ME2 and Final Fantasy handled expansion content...

For those of you who experienced the ME trilogy. Imagine the following sequence of events of ME1 and ME2:

CASE 1:
1) Get introduced to the Reapers
2) Defeat Saren
3) Receive your commendations for your actions to protect The Citadel from Saren
[ME1 ENDS & ME2 STARTS]
4) Be attacked in your ship by unknown enemy
5) Die by being burned to a crisp due to atmosphere entry and turning into a literally unrecognizable husk of carbonized meat.
6) Being magically revived by unexplained tech developed by Miranda from Cerberus

CASE 2:
Now let's use the same sequence but let's change one tiny detail:
1) Get introduced to the reapers
2) Defeat Saren
3) Receive your commendations for your actions to protect the citadel from Saren
4) Be attacked in your ship by unknown enemy
5) Die by being burned to a crisp due to atmosphere entry and turning into a literally unrecognizable husk of carbonized meat.
[ME1 ENDS & ME2 STARTS]
6) Being magically revived by unexplained tech developed by Miranda from Cerberus

It seems to me the story in Cyberpunk was handled more like Case 2 than Case 1, what do you think?. Back then, case 2 would've made the Bioware community go wild with rage, asking why are they killing my character just because?

 

[Eritros]

BTW, in all three lifepaths there is a shard about becoming an agent for NetWatch.

I hope they do not intend to leave us speculating about this "little" details until the next game, and they give us something in the post-MQ expansion.

 

[I_Willenbrock_I]

For those of you who experienced the ME trilogy. Imagine the following sequence of events of ME1 and ME2:

CASE 1:
1) Get introduced to the Reapers
2) Defeat Saren
3) Receive your commendations for your actions to protect The Citadel from Saren
[ME1 ENDS & ME2 STARTS]
4) Be attacked in your ship by unknown enemy
5) Die by being burned to a crisp due to atmosphere entry and turning into a literally unrecognizable husk of carbonized meat.
6) Being magically revived by unexplained tech developed by Miranda from Cerberus

CASE 2:
Now let's use the same sequence but let's change one tiny detail:
1) Get introduced to the reapers
2) Defeat Saren
3) Receive your commendations for your actions to protect the citadel from Saren
4) Be attacked in your ship by unknown enemy
5) Die by being burned to a crisp due to atmosphere entry and turning into a literally unrecognizable husk of carbonized meat.
[ME1 ENDS & ME2 STARTS]
6) Being magically revived by unexplained tech developed by Miranda from Cerberus

It seems to me the story in Cyberpunk was handled more like Case 2 than Case 1, what do you think?. Back then, case 2 would've made the Bioware community go wild with rage, asking why are they killing my character just because?

Bioware would have been roasted.

 

[xcuphra]

Bioware would have been roasted.

They were, thouroughly after the 3rd game

 

[I_Willenbrock_I]

They were, thouroughly after the 3rd game

And they never really recovered

 

[kjiandan]

And they never really recovered

I agree, but the abysmal ME3 ending (pre expansions) was mostly due to a troubled development and tight deadline (if you're interested, there's a really good Youtube series on the development of the Mass Effect franchise - Source).

Mass Effect 2 came out on January 26, 2010, with its last DLC coming out March 29, 2011, with Arrival. Mass Effect 3 came out March 6, 2012 - pretty much a year after Mass Effect 2's final DLC came out, meaning the team was split on both games until a year before release, which is far from ideal. I don't think it was ever possible for the ending to be as epic as players expected with that tight deadline and expectation to advance the gameplay and graphics, as a good sequel should do.

The point I'm trying to make with this is that we know Cyberpunk 2077 is going to have story expansions that - to quote CDPR themselves - will “take you even deeper into the world of Cyberpunk 2077, offering substantial, story-driven content that'll give you tough choices to make through impactful narratives that you won't soon forget." There's no burden of a sequel on the team's plate, since the base gameplay loop and technology is done. All they have to do is build off the foundation they've created.

I think EuphoricM's point might be accurate that the game ends where it does to pick up the pieces and finish off V's story in this game - it's not sequel bait.

 

[I_Willenbrock_I]

I agree, but the abysmal ME3 ending (pre expansions) was mostly due to a troubled development and tight deadline (if you're interested, there's a really good Youtube series on the development of the Mass Effect franchise - Source).

Mass Effect 2 came out on January 26, 2010, with its last DLC coming out March 29, 2011, with Arrival. Mass Effect 3 came out March 6, 2012 - pretty much a year after Mass Effect 2's final DLC came out, meaning the team was split on both games until a year before release, which is far from ideal. I don't think it was ever possible for the ending to be as epic as players expected with that tight deadline and expectation to advance the gameplay and graphics, as a good sequel should do.

The point I'm trying to make with this is that we know Cyberpunk 2077 is going to have story expansions that - to quote CDPR themselves - will “take you even deeper into the world of Cyberpunk 2077, offering substantial, story-driven content that'll give you tough choices to make through impactful narratives that you won't soon forget." There's no burden of a sequel on the team's plate, since the base gameplay loop and technology is done. All they have to do is build off the foundation they've created.

I think EuphoricM's point might be accurate that the game ends where it does to pick up the pieces and finish off V's story in this game - it's not sequel bait.

There is hope and there is then there is what we have atm.

If they sell us an expansion that continues the story, people will go crazy, because they told it that they shopped the full story.
Even if they are bringing post-credit content with V as the MC, the question stands why they need to kill (that's what happened) to get a proper build up? Several stories in the genre have done a far better job to "concince" protagonists to make a comeback. Blackmail, healing of a medical condition, money, extortion... there are enough possibilities that would be believable, in line with the lore and would not have destroyed the continuity of the narrative, by retconing technology at the 11th hour or destroying the build up of the plot and player agency.

 

[Eritros]

There is hope and there is then there is what we have atm.

If they sell us an expansion that continues the story, people will go crazy, because they told it that they shopped the full story.
Even if they are bringing post-credit content with V as the MC, the question stands why they need to kill (that's what happened) to get a proper build up? Several stories in the genre have done a far better job to "concince" protagonists to make a comeback. Blackmail, healing of a medical condition, money, extortion... there are enough possibilities that would be believable, in line with the lore and would not have destroyed the continuity of the narrative, by retconing technology at the 11th hour or destroying the build up of the plot and player agency.

You know what? I don't think they retconned the fact that Biotechnica is able to create clones.
If you go near their farms in an alley you can find a little scene in which there are three girls said to be pregnant (if I understood correctly), with experiments made by the italian company.

 

[I_Willenbrock_I]

You know what? I don't think they retconned the fact that Biotechnica is able to create clones.
If you go near their farms in an alley you can find a little scene in which there are three girls said to be pregnant (if I understood correctly), with experiments made by the italian company.

You know what they did not retcon as well? The fact that gene therapy and modification is actually wide spread in the world of cyberpunk. So Vs issue should not even be an issue.

Well. Then they might have retconed the fact that cloning humans is highly illegal.

And well. They did retcon the way the biochip works, because it was a cheap way to find a way to kill the MC and to make cyberspace at least worth a second thought.

 

[EuphoricM]

The point I'm trying to make with this is that we know Cyberpunk 2077 is going to have story expansions that - to quote CDPR themselves - will “take you even deeper into the world of Cyberpunk 2077, offering substantial, story-driven content that'll give you tough choices to make through impactful narratives that you won't soon forget." There's no burden of a sequel on the team's plate, since the base gameplay loop and technology is done. All they have to do is build off the foundation they've created.

I think EuphoricM's point might be accurate that the game ends where it does to pick up the pieces and finish off V's story in this game - it's not sequel bait.

Exactly. I wanna double down on explicitly saying that I feel the endings of CP77 are more or less a foundation for what's to come (expansions) in order to wrap it all up (hopefully). Don't think there will be a sequel or trilogy at all, like you said.

Also, with the comparison I wanted to point out how the same sequence of events can lead to both a satisfying conclusion or to a kick in the nuts depending on when you decide to cut it off for a while. In this case, I think CP77 should not have introduced, what we call humorously, "plot-cancer" at the end of the story. Look at it this way, imagine no plot cancer at the end. Expansion introduces the death clock again as a main plot driver at the beginning. It's upsetting, but not THAT upsetting IMO.

Also, I wanna give my hot take: I think plot inconsistencies tend to be ignored if the whole story ends up being a satisfying journey. Using my previous example, the reviving of Shepard it's a pretty Deux Ex Machina move from the writers, yet, back then, ME2 was a beloved instance of the franchise.

 

[I_Willenbrock_I]

Exactly. I wanna double down on explicitly saying that I feel the endings of CP77 are more or less a foundation for what's to come (expansions) in order to wrap it all up (hopefully). Don't think there will be a sequel or trilogy at all, like you said.

Also, with the comparison I wanted to point out how the same sequence of events can lead to both a satisfying conclusion or to a kick in the nuts depending on when you decide to cut it off for a while. In this case, I think CP77 should not have introduced, what we call humorously, "plot-cancer" at the end of the story. Look at it this way, imagine no plot cancer at the end. Expansion introduces the death clock again as a main plot driver at the beginning. It's upsetting, but not THAT upsetting IMO.

Also, I wanna give my hot take: I think plot inconsistencies tend to be ignored if the whole story ends up being a satisfying journey. Using my previous example, the reviving of Shepard it's a pretty Deux Ex Machina move from the writers, yet, back then, ME2 was a beloved instance of the franchise.

The core story of mass effect 2 was in fact shit. It was "the dirty dozen goes to space".

Why did we love the game? Because of the side characters, the missions, the decisions and how it all came together in the suicide mission.


Spoilers ahaid:
Did not update your railguns? Tough shit. Garrus will not even hit the ground. Subject zerondid not get the chance to nuke the facility but you decided to lead the second team? She will get taken away ne seeker swarms.
You took your sweet time after the abduction? Watch your crew being turned to paste.

Cause and effect. Something blatantly ignored in CP 2077.

I just hope they really bring a post-credit DLC with V as the MC. On the other hand, I would like to see the reaction of all the people who are basically counting on it.

 

[EuphoricM]

I just hope they really bring a post-credit DLC with V as the MC. On the other hand, I would like to see the reaction of all the people who are basically counting on it.

Let's go to dreamland for a while, what would your ideal DLC be like?, go wild

 

[I_Willenbrock_I]

Let's go to dreamland for a while, what would your ideal DLC be like?, go wild

I would like to see them rip off Neuromancer.

Don't be creative - get some shit done for a change.


I personally have lots of very interesting ideas floating around but they drift off from the games narrative.

 

[Motsie]

I think everyone has brought up interesting points (especially reminding us how ME2 and Final Fantasy handled expansion content...

Only point I would like to add is that CDPR have a Witcher game coming out once Cyberpunk's DLC, expansions, and multiplayer are completed - meaning Witcher will go into full production, maybe in the next 2 - 3 years. That means whatever stories the developers want to tell with Cyberpunk need to be completed by then. So, unlike some of the games mentioned, Cyberpunk does not have the guarantee of an immediate sequel to tie off any loose ending threads - many of which are laid out quite clearly in big side quests and the ending epilogues. This only makes me double down on the question as to why tease these areas and tie the lore so tightly around a corporate/AI war, and not follow through on it? Wouldn't it make more sense to take our battered protagonist and throw him/her into the fray to pick sides and play through the next adventure, now that the immediate threat of dying in 2 weeks is gone?

I'm just trying to think of it from a gameplay perspective because as fun, engaging, and immersive as the story is... it's still a game that needs to feel rewarding and fun. Can you imagine playing a mid-story expansion with some cool characters and stories and having a relic malfunction during the playthrough? That would feel like such a slap in the face! That would be like the game telling you, "Hey, reminder: you're DYING. Now go get rid of Johnny's engram because story-wise that's happening. Forget this expansion, it's not a cure or adds to the story we made, just a diversion."

I just can't see anyone at CDPR feeling that's okay to do.

The simple answer is that the gameplay designers don't care about the urgency of the story. For all they care, the migraines are a in-game reminder that V has a problem, but the actual progression of neural decay is tied to story points. Viktor said V had two weeks left? Maybe he wasn't completely accurate.

It was the same issue in Witcher 3. Even though Ciri was completely capable of handling herself, Geralt still needed to find her fast because of the Wild Hunt and the impending winter storm. Cyberpunk is slightly more urgent in this regard, but I don't think they care too much about whether it should take place before or after.

Cause and effect. Something blatantly ignored in CP 2077.

This is simply not true at all.

 

[I_Willenbrock_I]

This is simply not true at all.

Well. Pease show me what decisions except playing 2 additional story lines, one specific dialogues option and the decision what pill I swallow at the end, influenced Vs fate?