Ultimate Villain suggestion

+
I suppose there doesn't need to be one main villain but I think tat least one main objective is required, otherwise there isn't really an ending, the game just peters out. Eredin wasn't a great villain but defeating him wasn't the real objective, that was saving Ciri, it's just that one required the other.

There could be one big bag without sacrificing the, "save yourself, not the world." ethos. It's a matter of having a villain that has for some initially unknown reason decided that V needs to be eliminated, requiring V to save his/herself by bringing about this villain's downfall. It wouldn't even need to be based on any vendetta; the villain wouldn't need more than a periphery knowledge of V's existence.

My idea of how this could work is that the scavengers in the demo (during what we presume is a representation of a short early mission) are one of several groups being organised by a mysterious group or entity and V, by carrying out what seems to be a fairly innocuous job, has become embroiled in a much larger plot.
 
I don't think they should be repetitive. It's easy to write many competitive characters with varied interests and personalities, but all of whom are willing to let the ends justify the means.

Also, there are several good stories without a villain to center on. The Last of Us doesn't really have a central villain. TW3 has Eredin, but as mentioned in the OP, he's not really a central character or particularly strong villain. I think several smaller competing bad guys can work. The world becomes more complex and interesting that way. At least IMO. Don't get me wrong, I think having villains for quest-lines is very important ... I'm just not sold on some central "big bad" character pulling all the strings.

One problem is how to do this without making it feel like a cyberpunk Scooby Do or creating a narrative that feels disjointed. Even in media that have pulled it off well, like X-Files, it's still been heavily criticized as a "villain of the week" formula that detracts heavily from a cohesive story.

At the end of the day, whether or not that actually works may come down purely to personal preference.
 
I suppose there doesn't need to be one main villain but I think tat least one main objective is required, otherwise there isn't really an ending, the game just peters out. Eredin wasn't a great villain but defeating him wasn't the real objective, that was saving Ciri, it's just that one required the other.

There could be one big bag without sacrificing the, "save yourself, not the world." ethos. It's a matter of having a villain that has for some initially unknown reason decided that V needs to be eliminated, requiring V to save his/herself by bringing about this villain's downfall. It wouldn't even need to be based on any vendetta; the villain wouldn't need more than a periphery knowledge of V's existence.

My idea of how this could work is that the scavengers in the demo (during what we presume is a representation of a short early mission) are one of several groups being organised by a mysterious group or entity and V, by carrying out what seems to be a fairly innocuous job, has become embroiled in a much larger plot.
I'd prefer a "save yourself" like GTA4, where you start working with the big fish in the business but then things start to become too dangerous and you cannot leave easily and unharmed. Or something less obvious like you need to save yourself from the evil path you have taken, or from too many enhancements that make you cyberpsychotic or even better something that has never been seen before (at least in videogames). E.g. RDR2 story is something unique in its way.

Or all of those, just different possible paths according to your decisions.

P.S. I don't want to fight a classic corpo villain, I want to be one of them (I work for big pharma IRL :ROFLMAO:).
 
It would be neat if, in the end, inspite of your best efforts you notice that the biggest "villain" in NC was you yourself in the vanity ridden attempt to become a "name" to remember...

Well, you did.
Now consider the trail of corpses you've left behind where everyone is a relative/kin of someone, the dismay you've caused for others, the cars stolen and wrecked, the infrastructure destroyed, the doublecrosses committed, the businesses you've probably destroyed in getting rid of those in the way of your pursuit....

Inspite of your likely good meaning efforts, you are a harbinger of mayhem and destruction and chaos. What ever "villainous" characters you killed, someone will always take their place and be twice the "villain". It is not likely that everyone you kill are loners... families destroyed by you... a cause for vengeance and increased violent behavior.

You have made no difference, except for the worse for many, many people. But you got your "name" and "legend". Now revel in it, but don't wash the blood off your hands.
 
I'd love it only if no morale is thought: I did that and now I'm free to feel bad for that, don't care or even be excited for my power and superiority (like a classical corpo villain).

(I'm not a psycho, I just don't want a game to teach me what's wrong or right, I'm too old for that and it'll be an 18+ game, so IN THEORY no kids should play it (they will anyway, we all know))
 
Whatever they do, spare us world-ending scenarios and a giant beam in the sky.
I was about to say, "After you deal with organizational bosses the game could shift to a situation where the space colonies decide to threaten Earth with their mass drivers and try to take over," but I can see where you're going with that. It's very cliche.
 
I'm with Rawls here - I don't need one specific villain.

I'd prefer maybe several organisations or conflicting situations to be the threat. These could be dealt with in different ways leaving you with NPC's as allies, neutrals or enemies depending on choices you make. The city and the various powerplays and self-interested groups in it should be the threat to your survival. The fact their interests might clash with yours is the 'villain'.

Also, when I say ally, I include even temporary ones, like a 'the enemy of my enemy' kinda thing. I'd like areas of grey where you might work with people you don't trust or who may have previously wanted you dead in order to survive the final parts of the story. Sure, they might want you dead again after all the credits roll but that'd be a story for another day...or expansion ;)

What I don't need is a huge guy in a tux with an atomic arm and a rocket launcher sitting in a luxury suite at the top of a Streets of Rage type skyscraper :)

EDIT: Having now read all the comments it seems there are more than a handful who feel the same. I reckon CDPR probably do too actually, which would be cool.
 
The world of cyberpunk is not so cliche as to be black or white. its more true too life where everyone is a shade of gray.. I would hate too see a character who does evil things just because he believes he is evil and its the bad guy thing too do.. you have to understand human nature. people do things for real reasons, for real motivations, for real choices misguided or not. Its the human experience and no matter how Virtuous people like too believe they are.
no one is above it, for all of us are sinners and let he who is with out sin cast the first stone.

For one mans Vilian is another mans hero . and the difference is only a matter of perspective.
 
In my own cyberpunk Night City campaign i'm running currently, I have multiple grades of Villains involved. But the one that is giving my players the most trouble is a team called "The Odd Couple". One of the team members is a hacker named TheRatPack. He has hacked into the cellphone companies and is using his backdoor into their accounts and mainframe - to do other less than nice things. The nasty thing about cell phones is that they're everywhere. They have GPS tracking potential, and even if they didn't have that, multiple towers can pinpoint the general location of any given individual based upon signal strength along with bearings. Tap into the system and you can send bogus text messages, recover text messages, determine where people are, etc.

TheRatPack was tasked to take out Fiona Hayes due to an investigation she was running - after it was discovered that she had hired a Continental Investigations Agency to find out what was happening to a retrovirus vaccination that was proving to be less than effective.

Long story short, the Odd Couple are generally called in to clean up messes and make it so that certain activities never see the light of day. Granted, the use of a LAW rocket to attempt an Assassination against Fiona Hayes may look flashy and even call the feds down on them, but they know what they're doing. If everyone is focused on catching the Odd Couple (of which Half of that team is now out of commission due to a shot to the heart - REO MEATWAGON actually made it to the site of the gunfight within 2 minutes - a record for them!

In any event, I want the Villains to be SCARY not because of how evil or devious they are per se. I want them to be dangerous because of the things they can do that will shock people into realizing, that Technology isn't always the dream and the rainbow's end that the corporations might want you to believe.

Then there is Biotechna - a small corporation with a big backer that finally figured out how to slow aging down. Problem is, after doing just that, they shut the project down, killed the researchers - and then erased all evidence they ever existed. They will KILL anyone and their families - just to keep from getting into the eye of the public again. Why?

Then there is research and development into Notochord transplants being done on Primates. PETA not-withstanding, it appears that this kind of research taking place in countries without qualms about human ethical responsibilities. The question sometimes should be "Not whether we can do it, but whether we SHOULD do it" kind of thing.

But by far? One need only watch THE BLACK MIRROR or THE BLACK LIST and think "The use of brain implant technology may be more of a Pandora's Box situation than anything else. But that's just me.
 
I don't think they should be repetitive. It's easy to write many competitive characters with varied interests and personalities, but all of whom are willing to let the ends justify the means.

Also, there are several good stories without a villain to center on. The Last of Us doesn't really have a central villain. TW3 has Eredin, but as mentioned in the OP, he's not really a central character or particularly strong villain. I think several smaller competing bad guys can work. The world becomes more complex and interesting that way. At least IMO. Don't get me wrong, I think having villains for quest-lines is very important ... I'm just not sold on some central "big bad" character pulling all the strings.

Like I said, I don't disagree with you, but IMO, the story in Witcher is not very strong, since Eredin is not a complex villain.
That's why you see players wonder off to play gwent and side quests, because the main quest is not that captivating.
That's not saying TW3 is bad, the side quests are still very fun, I am sure the side quest in Cyberpunk 2077 will be lots of fun too, but the main quest story line needs to be unique to make the game forever memorable.

So you are right, there is no need for a ultimate villain per se, but it's difficult to write a great story without one.
The Last of US indeed didn't have a ultimate villain, but the story is very well written, so it doesn't need one, not many stories like that around.

Ultimately, I want a great story line, like Last of US and Bioshock infinite, with great story and awesome twist ending, these games will never fade away in my heart.
The game play for Fallout 4 is meh, but making one of the ultimate villain be the son we are searching for, who turn out to be older than us because we cyro slept too long, that was a great twist, and these play twist will always be remembered, too bad they didn't make that encounter more dramatic to make the game more memorable.

I played the Witcher 1, 2 and 3, honestly I can barely remember the stories in 1 and 2 now, that's my concern for Cyberpunk 2077.
I know the gameplay will be awesome, but having a mind blowing story will make the game epic and legendary.
 
That's why you see players wonder off to play gwent and side quests, because the main quest is not that captivating.
We'll just agree to disagree here. Eredin is not especially intriguing ... but I mean I think that's appropriate. How much is Geralt going to want to learn about Eredin's sob story when his goal is to abduct, exploit, and most likely kill Geralt's adopted daughter? Not much. They are diametrically opposed. There's not much to talk about given who the PC is and who Eredin is. But, just because the villain is not super interesting doesn't mean the story isn't captivating.

Quite the contrary, I find the central narrative about a world weary wanderer rekindling his once abandoned relationships, helping his daughter become her own person
and in the process rescuing her and saving the world (if you choose the paternalistic options, you get the bad ending)
, and concluding with
retiring with you loved one or continuing to walk the path on your own
, is very captivating.

My only point was, you don't have to have a "big bad" to have a great story. It made sense in the context of TW3, given that they were trying to tell a story specifically revolving around the characters Geralt and Ciri. Something more complex and nuanced than that is more interesting in my opinion for CP2077.
 
That's why you see players wonder off to play gwent and side quests, because the main quest is not that captivating.
That happens due to the fact that the game gives you levels for everything and you need to pair them if you don't want to be killed by some random bandit in a level 27 quest when you are in early game. So we stop following the main quest because we need to level and gear up. Main quest is absolutely fine, some side quests are better (bloody baron uber alles), but it's still good.
 
That happens due to the fact that the game gives you levels for everything and you need to pair them if you don't want to be killed by some random bandit in a level 27 quest when you are in early game. So we stop following the main quest because we need to level and gear up. Main quest is absolutely fine, some side quests are better (bloody baron uber alles), but it's still good.

TW3 have a fine story, but not great and certainly not epic.
The character development is epic, but not the story IMO.
I'll probably remember the story about Geralt saving Ciri from the wild hunt, but beyond that, not too much to talk about.
Saving the world theme is kinda cliche too for open world game.

Maybe I am asking for too much, I don't know, but you know a epic story when you see one, and you can hardly forget about great twist ending.
 
TW3 have a fine story, but not great and certainly not epic.
The character development is epic, but not the story IMO.
I'll probably remember the story about Geralt saving Ciri from the wild hunt, but beyond that, not too much to talk about.
Saving the world theme is kinda cliche too for open world game.

Maybe I am asking for too much, I don't know, but you know a epic story when you see one, and you can hardly forget about great twist ending.
I may agree wth everything (with a more optimistic approach) but the charachter development. No character evolve in TW3, they are all extremely static. I don't consider it a flaw since they come directly from books and it's fair they stick to sapkowski's design.
 
I may agree wth everything (with a more optimistic approach) but the charachter development. No character evolve in TW3, they are all extremely static. I don't consider it a flaw since they come directly from books and it's fair they stick to sapkowski's design.

I agree, but what I actually mean is the characters are memorable, you won't forget main characters in the Witcher series, but you can easily forget about the story.
As I did with Withcer 1 and 2, I like those game and the characters, but the story faded.
Post automatically merged:

We'll just agree to disagree here. Eredin is not especially intriguing ... but I mean I think that's appropriate. How much is Geralt going to want to learn about Eredin's sob story when his goal is to abduct, exploit, and most likely kill Geralt's adopted daughter? Not much. They are diametrically opposed. There's not much to talk about given who the PC is and who Eredin is. But, just because the villain is not super interesting doesn't mean the story isn't captivating.

Quite the contrary, I find the central narrative about a world weary wanderer rekindling his once abandoned relationships, helping his daughter become her own person
and in the process rescuing her and saving the world (if you choose the paternalistic options, you get the bad ending)
, and concluding with
retiring with you loved one or continuing to walk the path on your own
, is very captivating.

My only point was, you don't have to have a "big bad" to have a great story. It made sense in the context of TW3, given that they were trying to tell a story specifically revolving around the characters Geralt and Ciri. Something more complex and nuanced than that is more interesting in my opinion for CP2077.

The witcher world and the main characters are created beautifully, you won't forget about Geralt, Triss, Ciri and some other characters.
However, the main story is good, but not epic, in my opinon, that's my only point really, and I really think they can put more time in that direction, I have no doubt in their ability to make the gameplay amazing, whether it is combat, driving or other system.
They already demonstrate their ability of creating good gameplay system in TW3.
 
Last edited:
I am always intrigued by peoples motivations and reasons for do things. and I think its a factor too consider when story telling .. If you cant sell a characters motivations you cant sell the story.
Like the when George Lucas made the prequil trilogy for Star Wars, eveyone saw how he tried too sell the motivation for Anikan Skywalker to turn to the dark side too go into the jedi temple and kill children all because he had dreams of a future that his girl friend was going to die. now I get what he was going for, but I ultimatly feel he failed in his execution of selling me that story. and he mostly failed because he had so much story bloat that he was trying too cram it all in three movies. and so what audiance got was a summary of his starwars story instead of telling a good story.
 
I want villains I can relate to. Not evil for the sake of being evil, but greedy, short-sighted, deeply flawed villains that do either what they think is best, or what benefits them the most. People that would be the protagonist of their own story, but happens to become the antagonists of V's.

Would be cool if you would get to know some of the villains (wouldn't even have to befriend them, just see them enough that you can sympathize with them to some degree).

But then again, I'm the sort of person that always want bittersweet endings. Life is nuanced, and I like my video games the same way.
 
A ton of good ideas here. I'd like to see a corporate villain that came from a rougher, more violent place. The perfect 2077 villain would be one that almost resembles a version of V that made different choices. Like he/she was playing his/her own RPG before our game started. Some of the AI ideas here are also fun, but I think an Agent Smith-esque, body-jumping AI would be the perfect henchman for a more human ultimate villain. Maybe an entire enemy type could stem from one artificial being that ties back to some ruthless mastermind who knows the Night City streets as well as you do.

Honestly anything works as long as they don't go with some generic mustache twirler.
 
Top Bottom