I wouldn't say your point of view and yours, CS554 are very different overall; more the "deconstruct" term discussion so common in the arts world. I personally prefer reconstruct as a lot (most?) Ideas have been explored, we can ultimately find our authentic way of pondering upon and expressing them, inline with the available technology and influenced by it's contemporary society, culture, zeitgeist.
Not saying are views are wildly off, but "deconstructing" something like an established theme, genre, motif, trope, or aesthetic requires it to be re-imagined in a new way. When a piece simply utilizes existing elements, point for point, that's not "deconstructing" it. That's just using and honoring it.
A deconstruction of the "Quest For Immortality" would be something like the main character being immortal from the beginning. Or the main character being an AI that's not really alive anyway. Oh...wait...that's
Pinocchio...and
Peter and Wendy...and
I, Robot...and any story that deals with a divine being, fallen angel, demon, etc. being forced to become mortal. Been there, done that already, I guess. There may be
a fair few examples of actual deconstructions out there.
I don't think
Cyberpunk 2077 deconstructs anything. I think it very faithfully follows the conventions of the established theme in a way that brings really heavy weight and grit to just what the world of Cyberpunk could mean. A world that has truly chosen technology over humanity.
And I think it's fantastically told.
Damn. I can't really disagree with any of that. Jesus really IS in the toast...
I still don't think that works completely though because after the prologue that's no longer what the story is focussed on.
The prologue totally follows that arc, sure - they're shooting for immortality, they reach the proverbial fountain of youth, but then Jackie dies and V ends up with a couple weeks left. They could've done an epilogue right after that and rolled the credits then and there.
But they don't; instead the meat of the story begins and it's no longer about achieving immortality. The goal has completely changed. Now what's the point in doing that with your story if it's not going to make a significant difference? I mean, here's the timeline with a 6 month ending:
(Prologue) = quest for immortality --> jackie dies and V's lifespan is cut to a couple weeks (/prologue)
(Bulk of story) = quest to find a cure ---> ends up with 6 months instead (/bulk of story)
To me, that means V's practically ended up right back to where the main story started. And for what? What's the point then?
Has it? Changed? (I think this is the part that players really don't like, despite the beautifully slick way it's worked into the plot.)
Firstly, V "chooses" to grasp at immortality. Knowingly or unknowingly...for whatever reasons of their own...V chooses to accompany Jackie on the heist. They
choose to grab the bioshard. They
choose to install it. Here's the rub: it doesn't matter what their "intentions" were. The world doesn't care. The world isn't interested in whether or not everything is okay for poor, little V. The best of intentions don't mean jack-all. V inserted the chip. They inserted a "living" engram of Johnny Silverhand into the spinal tap at the base of their skull and uploaded it directly into their brain.
Case. Closed.
V's fate is now sealed. This is the magic of the story being told. V now has a limited amount of time to decide who they really are and what they really want. Their fleeting, remaining months will be spent proving who they really are to
themselves. This is the human condition. No matter the choice, though, V, as everyone has known them, is
dead. So...
Either way...death awaits...
but never glory.
(^ That's how it always works in the quest for immortality.)
I get to the part where Jackie mentions reaching the big leagues. Queue the eye roll. The big leagues, the tippy top. Yes Jackie. You do you.
YYYUUUP! I was the same.
Actually, for the sake of avoiding spoilers, let me just address all other concerns at once.
V (you) went on the heist. You got the biochip. You inserted it. You "played with the gods' toys"...and guess what happened? I don't think that people really understand what the theme is. Granted, it's evolved over the millennia, but the core focus remains the same:
We are mortal.
Mortals are not immortals.
To grasp at immortality -- wittingly or unwittingly -- is to unmake ourselves.
Call it "hubris", call it "pride", call it "lack of vision" -- call it whatever you may choose -- the simple fact is the same. Humans are limited, vulnerable realities. Grab at fire, and you'll get burned...even if you've never seen fire before. Poke a bear in the eye, and you'll get mauled...even if you have no idea what a bear is. Dive deeply enough into the ocean, and you'll drown...even if you're "
sure" you can hold your breath. Etc.
There have been many authors, philosophers, and mystics that have challenged this over the centuries since the first human came up with the idea for a pyramid.
They're all dead now.
It's questionable because the game does a poor job of sealing the deal for V specifically.
V is human.
Let's go with this explanation. A literary theme explored for thousands of years must be handled the same way, every time, without fail. Let's also assume this is the story in the game. It can still create the sense for the player they've been boxed into a corner. It's inherent to the arc, as you say. In an interactive video game with a partial focus in choices and consequences. Think about the decision to use such a story in such a game for a moment.
Why? That would be hideously boring. Hence, many pieces have explored the exact same theme from many different perspectives. Perspectives that span cultures, religions, and philosophies, but still retain the core message. That's what we refer to in literature as a "universal truth".
Why would I
not not choose something so well-established over thousands of years of learning and growth as a foundation for a new experience?
Personally, I don't think the game was about the quest for immortality because it wasn't definitively about any given theme. Instead the game provides a framework of many themes, each consistently explored at various points throughout the game, and offers the player opportunities to decide how they wish to view them. How they fit into the overall story. The main driving force of the story. It's not unquestionably about any one of those themes. It could be about any of them.
That's hard to get right. It's difficult to maintain direction with so many moving parts while also providing the flexibility for the player to decide what it means to them. No matter what you have to admire CDPR for trying. Unfortunately this is where it didn't work all the way throughout for me. At times it worked brilliantly. In others it didn't work at all. It may have worked brilliantly all the way through for some. That's great. I'm not one of them.
Well, here, I think you're hyper-focusing on our discussion. I will argue until I'm dark blue in the face that the main theme of Cyberpunk 2077 is "The Quest For Immortality". There's waaaaaay too much of the early and late game that focus exclusively on death, cheating death, and using what time we have left.
But stories this big do not focus on one and only one theme. That's something for short and short-short stories, one-act plays, short films, or video games that can be completed in 1-4 hours. If you're looking for brilliant examples of games with singular themes, check out
Far: Lone Sails,
The Stanley Parable, or
Another World. All games that track a single theme with moving precision from beginning to end.
Most bigger pieces, literature in whatever form, will highlight many themes -- just for the sake of variety and world-building. These things help to endear the world to the audience and develop a connection that will (hopefully) help the main theme to resonate more strongly. Those minor themes are meant to connect the audience to the medium, suspend disbelief, generate sympathy for character, and make the message of the major theme hit more powerfully.
But, as is also human condition, if I plop Shakespeare in front of an unexposed audience, they may well misinterpret it as Disney. (Bill was the "Disney"
of his time -- he was not Disney.)