It's not about adoration. It's about giving credit where it's due. DE might not be a great game but it is in fact a mature literary work. Putting CP on the same pedestal seems just wrong. CP shines as an aptly set visual story for easy consumption. It's overloaded with cool and extremely "watchable." But there is no philosophy in it. And it's so much better for it. Because any (further) attempts at being more than it is would just be pretentious.
I'm just opposed all those overinterpretations like "Look! There's Buddhist philosophy in CP" or "Look! There's debate on humanity, soul and sentience." No, there aren't. You want philosophy in SF, try Stanislaw Lem or Jacek Dukaj (both Polish authors, btw, the first one world famous as classic SF).
Last edited:
I think videogames in general are a really good case study as to what would happen to the, what we call, self when inserted in a different state of being, or let's say for the sake of argument, body - especially now with the advent of VR tech.
Would we still be the same us once unshackled from our societal norms, what we call ''ourselves as perceived by others''?
The more one connects to the videogame and the protagonist in general the more one can transcend for a while into this videogame world, immersion, and experience things as the protagonist rather than an outsider looking in.
Some games are more effective than others, some try really hard to achieve this but fail, while others don't try at all and succeed - but it also depends on the individual experiencing said videogames and their own ''baggage''.
This is the basis of everything Cyberpunk tries to achieve through it's narrative presentation, writing, themes, sound design etc. - which may or may not resonate with some people hence why the failure to understand where this ''overanalysing''/''overinterpretation'' comes from.
Basically some already formed a conclusion before they even analysed what is presented to them while others arrived to a conclusion after experiencing something tailored to them in a somewhat profound way - which is where the dichotomy comes from.
Or even better yet, taking one aspect and applying it to every other aspect, like let's say ... it's mechanics are poorly designed hence why the game itself is poorly designed and poorly thought out, hence why it can't possibly have anything to say since it's poorly designed and thought out, hence why people must be seeing things because it's poorly designed and thought out...
While in reality the focus of the design went into the narrative presentation mechanics, like the first person perspective cutscenes and audio design - the tension in some of the conversations is real and it's the culmination of everything, lighting, music, acting, animations etc.
Which bleeds into it's philosophical themes of Buddhism and the nature of the self - the process of awakening.
It's very clearly defined by the narrative, with the ''become a legend'', as set out by the oppressive environment of Night City, prologue where V and Jackie have a mundane goal to achieve which leads to the massive blunder that has V discovering what it means to be alive, to be themselves, to overcome themselves and society - to ultimately discover what they value the most and who they really are or strive to become.
It's quite an interesting narrative that can be experienced through different V archetypes and it's impressive in it's thematic cohesiveness.
Would we still be the same us once unshackled from our societal norms, what we call ''ourselves as perceived by others''?
The more one connects to the videogame and the protagonist in general the more one can transcend for a while into this videogame world, immersion, and experience things as the protagonist rather than an outsider looking in.
Some games are more effective than others, some try really hard to achieve this but fail, while others don't try at all and succeed - but it also depends on the individual experiencing said videogames and their own ''baggage''.
This is the basis of everything Cyberpunk tries to achieve through it's narrative presentation, writing, themes, sound design etc. - which may or may not resonate with some people hence why the failure to understand where this ''overanalysing''/''overinterpretation'' comes from.
Basically some already formed a conclusion before they even analysed what is presented to them while others arrived to a conclusion after experiencing something tailored to them in a somewhat profound way - which is where the dichotomy comes from.
Or even better yet, taking one aspect and applying it to every other aspect, like let's say ... it's mechanics are poorly designed hence why the game itself is poorly designed and poorly thought out, hence why it can't possibly have anything to say since it's poorly designed and thought out, hence why people must be seeing things because it's poorly designed and thought out...
While in reality the focus of the design went into the narrative presentation mechanics, like the first person perspective cutscenes and audio design - the tension in some of the conversations is real and it's the culmination of everything, lighting, music, acting, animations etc.
Which bleeds into it's philosophical themes of Buddhism and the nature of the self - the process of awakening.
It's very clearly defined by the narrative, with the ''become a legend'', as set out by the oppressive environment of Night City, prologue where V and Jackie have a mundane goal to achieve which leads to the massive blunder that has V discovering what it means to be alive, to be themselves, to overcome themselves and society - to ultimately discover what they value the most and who they really are or strive to become.
It's quite an interesting narrative that can be experienced through different V archetypes and it's impressive in it's thematic cohesiveness.
My objection to DE is that I consider it very, very badly written, adolescent, and ignorant of the very subjects regarding which it attempts to pontificate. These things are a matter of taste and people get very passionate that it is some kind of Nobel prize worthy piece of literature so I leave the topic largely alone.
It reads like an impossibly overwritten and implausibly verbose rejected novel. It is plain self-indulgent. And with essentially nothing in it except verbiage, if you do not consider the writing worthy of admiration, there is nothing else to admire.
But that is, again, a matter of taste. I'm not going to tell you not to like it or that your tastes are invalid. That would be silly.
Last edited:
I liked the game as an RPG and because of some of the characters, but I agree with this, on the whole, writing is much more often a "miss" than "hit".
So I really do respect what they were trying to do and that other people enjoyed it. I admire anything that tries to break moulds.
But I found it truly insufferable. Without the intervention that would have come from a publisher with a novel (which, at its core, would really have been a more appropriate medium), the writing just spreads all over the place like a disease. It never steps back to look at what it is trying to say, and so tries to say everything, indiscriminately and at length (with an English lit undergrad's infatuation with adjectives), without considering how that impacts on the delivery of the narrative. It needed the cold, detached eye of an editor.
Anyhoo, Cyberpunk...
:-D
I also love Lem, but I think you are missing the point in CP: the game doesn´t want to lecture you or force you to have a debate with anybody via dialogs. You can simply ignore all transhumanism, human rights, workers rights, health access... its fine, you can play the game and finish it. But if you engage following the stories associated with Gigs,side quests, read shards in NCPD locations... the game asks you to debate with yourself.
Apparently, many people didn´t engage in that internal debate (that is much more real than a 20000 words dialogue with a NPC that you happen to find that is a master of philosophy) so there is all this "surprise" about why calling the Nomads you end up in Star and calling Rogue you end in Sun.
I agree with this. On the whole I feel that if a narrative has literally to deliver its philosophy to you in a speech, it is going to feel much less emotionally and/or intellectually satisfying in its storytelling. That is particularly the case if you are in an audiovisual medium yet feel the need to drop down into didactic preaching to say what you want to say.
Improbable as it may sound, I feel Cyberpunk lands the way a very good novel or film lands, and I was not expecting that. The philosophy arrives at you by virtue of the storytelling. The philosophy *is not the story itself*, it is the conclusion the player is drawn to from the sum total of the thematic cues.
A game like Disco Elysium does not do that. It never shows. It tells, tells, tells, and even then its half-baked understanding of what it is talking about handicaps it.
EDIT: If you look at Blade Runner, the trick of the film is to throw in enough clues that, while you absorb a generic B-movie about killer robots, you nonetheless twig enough oddities that when a paper unicorn arrives at the end, you have a "holy s***" moment. But only if you pay some degree of attention.
In Steinbeck's East of Eden, while reading a narrative that is ostensibly linked to Cain and Abel and a serial killing brothel madam, you are nonetheless picking up enough that the meaning of a single word lands as a revelation. But only if you pay some degree of attention.
In Kieslowski's Three Colours film trilogy, narratives seemingly about small, personal stories take on a grander meaning by virtue of clues in the use of the eponymous three colours in the films' imagery, and the meanings of those colours to the French flag, lending the experience a much wider significance than the small events of the films' stories would suggest. But only if you pay some degree of attention.
None of those examples lecture. They allow and trust the spectator to absorb enough to deliver their message at a different level.
Last edited:
Never head of disco elysium but it sounds terrible, as does any lecture. CP's themes, should they be picked up on by the player, leave room for the player to try figure out for themselves, hence the genius. If it is failing to claim any 'awards' for that (awards = marketing so who tf cares besides the marketers) then one can only assume that the award-givers have missed that element of the game completely. Missed having to think for themselves. Imagine. Great thread OP, good to know some folk get it and can appreciate having to work a little with their heads. I LOVE being challenged to think and wonder. Guess there always will be folk who think Shadow of the Colossus is just a boring arena-battle game.
Disco Elysium has a lot of fans and clearly lands with a lot of people. It does have some great character work. One of the reasons I usually try not to discuss my personal take on it is that it clearly sucks in a lot of players in a unique way, and is genuinely trying to do things differently, so it deserves at least players to give it a go and make up their own minds.
Cheers, I'll have a nosey and see if it's on PS4. It's just one of a million games I've never heard of at the mo
Think this is one of the reasons i dont like the endings. The whole concept of "copying a soul" is just strange for me since i dont beleve in souls its just counciusness. And while i see alot of inspirations from diffrent religions/practices and so on it just doesnt make sense too me. Same with the whole tarrot stuff, i dont like it irl either so why should i accept it in a game?
Think the biggest problem i have with the story/endings is the lack of fufillment i feel after tho, always thought it reminded me of Me3 endings but i think its just i get the same feeling after. Like it was all pointless and unfufilling. If your gonna offer diffrent endings it should really have a variaty in outcomes. And i feel this game just doesnt. They all feel way too similar for me but im glad some ppl seem too like it. Its just not for me
Think the biggest problem i have with the story/endings is the lack of fufillment i feel after tho, always thought it reminded me of Me3 endings but i think its just i get the same feeling after. Like it was all pointless and unfufilling. If your gonna offer diffrent endings it should really have a variaty in outcomes. And i feel this game just doesnt. They all feel way too similar for me but im glad some ppl seem too like it. Its just not for me
Honestly I'm not a believer either, so souls and religions... But that just makes it interesting (maybe even more).
Like:
If our "consciousness" is just all of our memories and our experiences, that we faithfully copy these on a "digital storage".
- If we are just datas, maybe all the religions are wrong ?
- "I" am immortal ?
- "I" am also the copy ?
- Or something (maybe the soul) is lost in the process and it won't really be "me" ?
Or it's something else, as the monks say, what defines having a soul, is pain. If someone/engram is able to feel pain, then they can be considered to have a soul.
"Just thinking about it, my head hurts"
Last edited:
@northwold
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disco_Elysium => 5 major awards for narrative/story, several others awards and nominations. Afaik, CP has yet to receive a single award for anything (excluding over 100 pre-release awards for hype and trailers).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disco_Elysium => 5 major awards for narrative/story, several others awards and nominations. Afaik, CP has yet to receive a single award for anything (excluding over 100 pre-release awards for hype and trailers).
That's only part of it, the concept of the soul is only one perspective of the whole, in a more general sense, it means the self and how different people and different philosophies interpret that - consciousness, soul, self etc.
It is more to do with what happens if your copy isn't aware of the fact that it's a copy, or more in line with the notion of you waking up and learning that you've been killed and resurrected as a copy.
Does that diminish your sense of self, is it still you?
Does it ultimately matter as long as you're alive and able to contemplate these things?
I need a few really strong drinks to go further haha
.Depends on how you interpret it I suppose, for me personally it was more about the journey rather than the destination.
There is no fulfillment to be found in Night City, it keeps going on and on regardless of how much one struggles or tries to change it.
[...]
So one possible interpretation you can get from the philosophical meanderings is that the dying is less important than the way you live.
My preferred ending, narratively, is actually the short one (I know that it is profoundly unpopular), largely because of the motivations surrounding it: not to hurt others purely for the sake of oneself and to allow both selves within V (Johnny and V) consciously to choose and be aware of their last moment.
That to me may not be a happy ending, but it is very narratively appropriate in a game that questions what it is that makes consciousness and life worth having. In a sense (albeit the same sense as, say, Thelma and Louise), they win.
Regarding tarot and so on, I didn't feel that the game was saying "you must believe in tarot", more that it was presenting a number of different systems through which different people rationalise the idea of the self and our purpose in the world. You have everything from the fatalistic (tarot) to the transcendental (the guru monk), with other variants in between (Delamain, the Peralezes (how much of their self still remains if they are not in control of their own actions), the Relic itself, etc, etc).
Last edited:
Well the tarot thing is just a plot device. If it was real life it would probably be totaly wrong or very vague so it can be interpeted too be true. But the second it showed up i kinda got a bad taste in my mouth. The meditation sequence i kinda liked since it pretty much was the only "mission" in game that hade no stakes and was just V doing something(exept for the romances last quests). Wish we hade more stuff like that. Hopefully the DLC will flesh out the world more and hopefully add stuff thats not a gig or another ticking timebomb, might be hard too get right tho if the DLC is a pre endings thing. Really ruind the game for me pretty much since i rushed trough it first time too save my V, should have known the game was rigged from the start!
And yea i choose the fast ending too since atleast it feelt like V got too have a choice and wasent used by anybody in that ending. Ill probably do a real corpo playtrough this time since thats one way i wanted too go before the game released. shame your only really a corpo for 1 min in the start but. Id rather have one happy ending that dont leave me with existential dread after but like i said might just not be for me this game ^^
And yea i choose the fast ending too since atleast it feelt like V got too have a choice and wasent used by anybody in that ending. Ill probably do a real corpo playtrough this time since thats one way i wanted too go before the game released. shame your only really a corpo for 1 min in the start but. Id rather have one happy ending that dont leave me with existential dread after but like i said might just not be for me this game ^^
I do think they really shot themselves in the foot by implying the main quest was urgent AND putting a lot of what should have been fundamental main quest content into side quests. The combined effect is that you can play the quest from beginning to end so very, very quickly that nothing really sinks in!Well the tarot thing is just a plot device. If it was real life it would probably be totaly wrong or very vague so it can be interpeted too be true. But the second it showed up i kinda got a bad taste in my mouth. The meditation sequence i kinda liked since it pretty much was the only "mission" in game that hade no stakes and was just V doing something(exept for the romances last quests). Wish we hade more stuff like that. Hopefully the DLC will flesh out the world more and hopefully add stuff thats not a gig or another ticking timebomb, might be hard too get right tho if the DLC is a pre endings thing. Really ruind the game for me pretty much since i rushed trough it first time too save my V, should have known the game was rigged from the start!
And yea i choose the fast ending too since atleast it feelt like V got too have a choice and wasent used by anybody in that ending. Ill probably do a real corpo playtrough this time since thats one way i wanted too go before the game released. shame your only really a corpo for 1 min in the start but. Id rather have one happy ending that dont leave me with existential dread after but like i said might just not be for me this game ^^
I really wish we got to explore V's trauma or inner conflict in the story. The moment V looked at earth from the space station having a new self awareness should be explored more in DLC. A great game that explores inner conflict is Senuas Sacrifice.
What V felt looking at the earth.
What V felt looking at the earth.
Last edited: