why put you back there at the end (possible spoiler)

[nemhook]

SO after completing the game and going through the credits, why not put us back in the open world with the main mission complete, leaves little hope that the dlc will be nothing more than some side quests.

why not end the game properly and put us in a city that has changed due to our actions, it's like nothing we have done amounts to anything. just seems extremely lazy.

it's not enough that you have 7 ending that pretty much end the same with the character having a few months to live?.

that's just my personal opinion.

 

[Icinix]

why not end the game properly and put us in a city that has changed due to our actions, it's like nothing we have done amounts to anything.

Night City needs to exist in much the same state for the MP portion they're building / potential sequels etc.

It's why most characters you interact with are gone by the end game and everyone ends up much the same same.

 

[VtheAstronaut]

Maybe they Fallout 3 it and bring V back in the DLC

 

[mbrto]

i think this would take away the huge emotional impact from the ending
and undermine the dark and serious tone thoughout the game

imho the story is a masterpiece and i hope there will be some blood&wine style dlc

 

[Techno_Core]

Yep. If they let us play the full main game with just a few weeks to live, surely we could enjoy it with a 6 month life expectancy.

 

[stndn]

Cause it's hard to redesign the city for 7 different endings. Plus it takes away the emotional impact. It'll probably be continued in DLC.

 

[Galerion90]

Because everything is written with Johnny in mind. There is a reason you are locked to Watson until you acquire Johnny. After the end he is gone one way or the other so the content cannot work as written anymore.

Im pretty sure it's that simple and nothing more.

 

[nemhook]

Night City needs to exist in much the same state for the MP portion they're building / potential sequels etc.

It's why most characters you interact with are gone by the end game and everyone ends up much the same same.

that doesn't make sense, since there are still a number of people still yet to die, and depending on the choice you pick some won't be involved, therefore they won't be making a DLC that takes into account your choice at the end.

Post automatically merged: Jan 1, 2021

Cause it's hard to redesign the city for 7 different endings. Plus it takes away the emotional impact. It'll probably be continued in DLC.

well they won't be making a DLC were you pick up the gun and shoot yourself, or you go it alone and die.

and the rest of the endings are pretty much the same.

 

[mbrto]

that doesn't make sense, since there are still a number of people still yet to die, and depending on the choice you pick some won't be involved, therefore they won't be making a DLC that takes into account your choice at the end.

Post automatically merged: Jan 1, 2021

well they won't be making a DLC were you pick up the gun and shoot yourself, or you go it alone and die.

and the rest of the endings are pretty much the same.

there IS and ending where you go in alone and die (the dying part is optional tho)
and that absolutely blew my mind

i was thinking, i have a silenced sniper rifle that can shoot through ANY wall. why cant i just storm saka tower myself?
and then johnny starts talking about how hard it is to decide, which of your friends get to die and told me to grab my hottest iron and to storm the front door.

having the exact same thought as johnny silverhand in context with the whole storyline is mindblowing
they did that on purpose and whoever came up with it is a fucking genious

 

[MojoBreaker]

DLC will not continue after endgame, what if i choose the worst ending and still want to play DLC. Simply forcing a particular ending to be met so dlc would continue is bad move, thats why endings in this game i really dont like.
DLC will probably be set before Point of no return
or play with entirely new character

 

[VtheAstronaut]

It just seems like devs will choose a canon ending and write with it in mind. At least thats what other multi ending games typically do.

 

[KyleBillheimer]

ENDGAME SPOILERS:
ENDGAME SPOILERS:
ENDGAME SPOILERS:

I want you to re-read what you just said.
"Why not end the game properly and put us in a city that has changed due to our actions, it's like nothing we have done amounts to anything. just seems extremely lazy"

First of all, some of these endings you end up in a completely different area, anywhere from outer space to Arizona. In these scenarios you're asking for an entirely different map, with new side missions, new characters.. new everything.

Second, in some of these endings you flat out die. Doesn't make sense for you to go through these endings, and come back to the city alive in the first place, let alone for anything to have changed after that point.

It just doesn't make sense for the majority of the endings in this game.
So if you wanted to go forward, and make it so that you lived out your last 6 months in Arizona, you're simultaneously telling them to recreate an entire new area for specific endings, and calling them lazy for not doing it. That's like going to the Witcher and saying "Woah. Didn't even double the map size? Didn't even triple the amount of items? Why can't I buy 96 different houses to live in? Why can't I start my own entire branch of Witchers and rule as their leader?"

You see what I'm getting at? You can *Literally* always add more. Just because someone doesn't, doesn't mean that they're lazy.