The ending is really sad! I wish it had been like Starfield, where there was no ending. Unfortunately, no matter how you look at it, V dies and you can't continue with other missions afterward; you can't get rid of Silverhand either. I think the studio could have thought ahead and released some more DLC for Cyberpunk 2027. What I find strange is that The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt is getting a huge update, but Cyberpunk 2027 isn't?
It's not really strange...
For now, it's rumors so until an official announcement by CDPR themself, we can't be sure.
But if it's true, it's likely to make a connexion to the upcoming The Witcher 4 and to be fair, in order to raise the hype for the next Witcher game.
And yes, endings are bittersweet, it's ok if it's not your thing
But you can't compare Cyberpunk and Starfield, because even if I like the game (+1K hours^^) in Starfield the ending(s) and the main story are kinda forgettable and a bit bland. On top of that, Starfield is a sandbox RPG in which you can spend your life in doing random stuff, unlike Cyberpunk (or TW3) which are story-driven RPG and which end after completing the main story.
Last edited:
I agree its sad but thats part of what makes the game awesome. its cyberpunk baby. thats how we do
Fundamentally, I agree with @Dunerider. We've already had this discussion in many places.
I would like to share a few thoughts on why I also consider a more positive ending for V to be appropriate:
1. The principle of hope as a narrative driver:
A world in which everything is doomed to fail runs the risk of becoming nihilistically redundant. It is only when a real escape is theoretically possible that failure in the other endings takes on its tragic weight.
If V manages to save his integrity and survive despite the corporations' overwhelming superiority, this highlights human resilience in the face of technological dehumanisation.
2. Escapism as psychological 'healing'
In everyday life, we often feel powerless in the face of global developments and current poly-crises. A video game that offers only death or loss of identity after more than 100 hours reflects this powerlessness rather than providing a sense of healing.
A positive ending can serve as an emotional 'refuge'. It enables players to experience hope and carry this positive energy into their everyday lives, albeit unconsciously. Here, escapism is not an escape from reality, but rather a way to recharge for it.
3. Narrative reward:
In Night City, you can become a legend. Usually, you have to die to do so. However, if the game system blocks every attempt at a happy ending, players are deprived of the ultimate reward for their gaming excellence.
A positive ending doesn't have to be easy. It could be tied to extremely difficult conditions, such as making certain moral decisions. This would make a positive ending a trophy that highlights the value of hope through effort.
4. A (very) little piece of post-cyberpunk -> 'hope' punk.
One interpretation of the genre suggests that pockets of happiness and hope can exist within corrupt systems without rejecting the dystopian approach entirely. Quite the contrary, reinforcement through contrasts.
No matter how many times I play through it, I always end up with the Aldecaldos because it leaves me with precisely that hope, and I can fill it with my own ideas. I would actually think it would be cool if this approach could be revisited to reward players after the magnificent Phantom Liberty with an additional positive ending for V, who prevailed against all odds and dangers. Scarred, exhausted, but alive.
And yes, I am a rather positive person, despite this currently very crazy world. Or perhaps precisely because of it.
I would like to share a few thoughts on why I also consider a more positive ending for V to be appropriate:
1. The principle of hope as a narrative driver:
A world in which everything is doomed to fail runs the risk of becoming nihilistically redundant. It is only when a real escape is theoretically possible that failure in the other endings takes on its tragic weight.
If V manages to save his integrity and survive despite the corporations' overwhelming superiority, this highlights human resilience in the face of technological dehumanisation.
2. Escapism as psychological 'healing'
In everyday life, we often feel powerless in the face of global developments and current poly-crises. A video game that offers only death or loss of identity after more than 100 hours reflects this powerlessness rather than providing a sense of healing.
A positive ending can serve as an emotional 'refuge'. It enables players to experience hope and carry this positive energy into their everyday lives, albeit unconsciously. Here, escapism is not an escape from reality, but rather a way to recharge for it.
3. Narrative reward:
In Night City, you can become a legend. Usually, you have to die to do so. However, if the game system blocks every attempt at a happy ending, players are deprived of the ultimate reward for their gaming excellence.
A positive ending doesn't have to be easy. It could be tied to extremely difficult conditions, such as making certain moral decisions. This would make a positive ending a trophy that highlights the value of hope through effort.
4. A (very) little piece of post-cyberpunk -> 'hope' punk.
One interpretation of the genre suggests that pockets of happiness and hope can exist within corrupt systems without rejecting the dystopian approach entirely. Quite the contrary, reinforcement through contrasts.
No matter how many times I play through it, I always end up with the Aldecaldos because it leaves me with precisely that hope, and I can fill it with my own ideas. I would actually think it would be cool if this approach could be revisited to reward players after the magnificent Phantom Liberty with an additional positive ending for V, who prevailed against all odds and dangers. Scarred, exhausted, but alive.
And yes, I am a rather positive person, despite this currently very crazy world. Or perhaps precisely because of it.
I still think it's about how you take it.
The secret sun ending allows me to dream of raiding the Crystal Palace, running it into the Earth, of course ejecting, and then moving to a tech body like Adam Smasher and becoming his successor in NC, except I'm a merc rather than a corpo dog.
The secret sun ending allows me to dream of raiding the Crystal Palace, running it into the Earth, of course ejecting, and then moving to a tech body like Adam Smasher and becoming his successor in NC, except I'm a merc rather than a corpo dog.
I simply find it more appealing when the ending is open; it allows for further exploration of the character's character and development. For example, Danny Trejo only plays villains in films, but only on the condition that the villain dies in the end. He wants to demonstrate that evil never wins. I also believe game developers have a social responsibility. They could have considered another approach where V doesn't die, but instead gets rid of Silverhand.
@MartineDee
Yep, or riding on a tank with your love beside you and as part of a new family into the sundown and a better future.
Yep, or riding on a tank with your love beside you and as part of a new family into the sundown and a better future.
Totally agree.
Last edited:
Honestly, I don't think they have, or even must have a social responsability. They simply have to tell the story they want to tell, that's the only thing about which they should think or care about. Nor they have to be sure the story they want to tell pleases everyone, which is impossible anyway.
Yes, responsibility would indeed be too broad a term. But... they could have considered the positive effect of a real victory as an additional option without compromising the current status quo in any way.
I have no problem with how the story is told and do not question artistic freedom. Otherwise, I wouldn't still be here half a decade after release, just starting another playthrough with DLSS 4.5, pathtracing, RR, FG, and nearly 80 mods.
But I still would have liked to see a real victory, even if it came at a high cost.
I have no problem with how the story is told and do not question artistic freedom. Otherwise, I wouldn't still be here half a decade after release, just starting another playthrough with DLSS 4.5, pathtracing, RR, FG, and nearly 80 mods.
But I still would have liked to see a real victory, even if it came at a high cost.
This not what Phantom Liberty ending is about? A victory at high cost?But I still would have liked to see a real victory, even if it came at a high cost.
V who manage to cheat the "unavoidable death" but with a high cost (physical and relationships)
"You can't have your cake and eat it" is the saying.
However, the question that keeps coming up is if that really has to be a zero sum game for V. One side argues strongly that it's the way cyberpunk is. Those of us (like me), who joined only from Cyberpunk 2077 don't enter the game with that outlook and may not look favorably upon conforming with it. Open ended endings cater somewhat for that audience.
It's not inherent to the genre.
There are more positive outlooks within the genre. For example the film Equilibrium ends with a positive note.
It is however indicative of the Cyberpunk IP, which exists over several time skips with the setting remaining constant - The oppressive dystopia ruled by corporations.
In fact, this is actually highlighted early into the game too. When you play as Johnny during his attack on Arasaka. Where the Arasaka tower gets literally nuked and the result is? Nothing. Arasaka still remained the most powerful corporation in the world, literally nothing came of it besides them capturing Johnny to test Soulkiller on.
You can say the same about The Devil ending too.
V gets to live, at the cost of their body (If you sign the contract), as well as directly aiding Arasaka themselves.
The Tower simply provides an alternate situation.
V gets to live, at the cost of their capabilities and relationships.
To be honest you can also say the same thing about The Star and The Sun if you shift the notion of "Victory" away from "V Lives" and towards "V gets to live their life to the end" whereby the cost is V's long term survival.
Temperance would be the only ending that might not be considered a "Victory" as it is based around V being replaced by Johnny. Which is the opposite goal to what the majority of the game was about. (But someone who really liked Johnny might still consider it a victory)
On a side note; I think The Tower was not well received because one of the costs (The relationships) made no sense. Going silent for 2 years makes literally everyone you know completely ditch you? Really?
It is if you've got, like, four months to live at the absolute maximum.
Post automatically merged:
Nothing will convince me that ending was anything other than a giant middle finger from the developer to anybody on here who complained about the original game not having an option for anything resembling a happy or hopeful ending.
Literally everything is worse than when you left it two years prior, all of your wealth is gone, and everybody acts HILARIOUSLY out of character to how they are written at every other point in the game.
Panam is BY FAR the worst.
Panam in one ending: "Oh yeah we're totally ride or die together. You want us to help you in a suicidal assault on Arasaka tower? Of course we'll help."
Panam in the tower ending: "You were in a coma for two years? Never speak to me again."
But pretty much every other character suffers from this to one extent or another. No matter what you did for them, saving their lives, saving their careers, saving their family members...nobody has any time for you. It's an utterly BS written ending almost certainly the result of some writer somewhere pouting at how many people didn't like all their bleak-dark angsty original endings and not having a way for V to live. "You want V to live so badly? FINE. How's this you ungrateful jerks? V gets to live!"
Last edited: