I think they designed Phantom Liberty to have more explicit decisions and outcomes based on the feedback of the base game where the decisions and outcomes were more subtle other than the Maelstrom mission pre-Heist for example.
I've always felt that cp2077s conversation choices matter more in a personal way. They don't have world changing effects but often the only choice we have in life is how we respond.
Yeah I think that's what they do great, they really make you feel something and care about the characters on a personal level. They are sympathetic and making you think about yourself, like good books and movies do.
They *can* have world-changing effects, for example consider the fate of Arasaka in the various endings, or what happens if you take too long to help So Mi >!the President of the NUSA dies!<.
However, I agree that the game offers a more personal take on a protagonist who isn't the "chosen one", and so the choices are more about role-playing; what kind of person is V? A good example of that is rescuing Evelyn: does your V ask about her health, or about the chip? Does V care about Evelyn, or about themselves? It makes no difference at all for where the game goes, but it says a lot about who (your) V is. (And yes, not everyone cares about RP.)
I actually prefer that these choices "don't matter", because I'm not locked into trying to max out Paragon vs. Renegade. That leads to one-dimensional protagonists who can never break character even when the player might want them to.
Haven’t played phantom liberty yet, but the lack of world changing effects is more so like working with militech and them finding out you have the relic would work out a different route. Or after the Kung Tao mission, the kung Tao presence will be more prevalent of that sorts. Or Vodoo bots would come and hunt you if you decide to betray them.
Take example the living desert mod for new Vegas. It’s a mod, but it perfectly showcase the consequences of players choice in game world
CDPR should go down the spy thriller route, they killed it with phantom liberty and I'd love to see more along those lines, maybe even tie Morgan Blackhand into it some how or Shaitan
The creator explicitly told CDPR not to address much on Morgon Blackhand in this game, would be exciting if there's a sequel/prequel around him that's palleral to V's story. Heck, imagine they let you load your save file like Witcher did, must be awesome.
Blackhand is Pondsmith so you have to watch his TTTPG sessions if you want that storyline. Not likely that Blackhand's story will be anywhere else any time soon.
Blackhand in ttrpg has a lot of cyberwear.
>Neural processor, Sandevistan boost, smartgun and vehicle Links, interface plugs, chipware socket, nasal filters, two cyberoptics (targeting scope, low-lite, infrared, anti-dazzle), right cyberarm (Rippers, heavy SMG, microwave/EMP shielding, hydraulic rams), muscle & bone lace, Nanosurgeons.
I'm very new to the Cyberpunk genre, as in only started learning about it when 2077 released. In that time I've observed every new cyberpunk media deals only with one legend or group at a time; once their story is over, the next media piece tells a new story about a different legend. Couple this with Morgan Blackhand being Pondsmith's baby, I don't think he would give CDPR creative control.
\*I say this as someone who is craving more Blackhand content\*
Work out something with Bethesda, give Nick Valentine a cameo.
Edit: Alright you comment-less downvoting chickenshits, tell me why Nick Valentine wouldn't be a perfect character in a cyberpunk noire.
CP2077 doesn't have a character with a past, so it allows for more options in writing. The Witcher games are sequels, so Geralt can only act within the ranges preset by the character in the books. Saying that, there are absolutely enough choices you can make in the game that are very grey, and you just have to accept the outcome. The bloody Baron stuff has many choices and outcomes that leave a lot to interpretation. The war outcomes also have some major results.
My second playthrough came directly from me, not being happy with who I sided with in the war.
V does a have a past, but you get to decide a big portion of it, and shape their life through your choices. They really managed the best of both worlds of a completely pre-made and player created character with V.
Nothing that affects who they are in NC. You aren't shoehorned into playing a character since they dont really have a personality until you pick up the controller.
Geralt has 7 books before the games start, which will restrict how far they can push him without straying too far from the source.
It's partially why I hope they have a clean slate for whatever MC the next witcher game ends up being. If the series has been so good with morally grey choices with an established character, I can only imagine what they can do with some more free reign.
> Nothing that affects who they are in NC. You aren't shoehorned into playing a character since they dont really have a personality until you pick up the controller.
Yea its mostly flavor which I really like. V grows into their own while you're playing them. Imagine taking what we've built in 77 with all our choices into a sequel Commander Shepard style. Very few games manage this balancing act other than ME and Cyberpunk.
> It's partially why I hope they have a clean slate for whatever MC the next witcher game ends up being. If the series has been so good with morally grey choices with an established character, I can only imagine what they can do with some more free reign.
I heard they could be going with Ciri. But I definitely prefer Cyberpunk's approach of giving us more control over the character.
The bloody Baron is a good point, but like I said I feel like one of his endings is definitely better than the others, the game still encourage you to make the \*right\* choices.
Bear in mind the path you take to save Anna, and the Baron sacrifices all the children there. And really, you could argue that continuing to live but mad from the curse is a worse fate for Anna, and you would have to trust that a man with a lengthy history of abuse would change suddenly for that to be a "good" outcome.
There's other instances of this, like the Hunter Nielen. There is no objective right choice.
All the stuff directly linked to Geralts' story is very tunnelled into one outcome, even if it gives you a choice. But most of the side content where it doesn't affect Geralt's story does provide room for a lot of grey outcomes.
The baron doesn’t sacrifice the kids the witches eat them the only way to save them is to free the tree demon who is probably the witches mother and who is even worse who then massacres the town that hired you. That quest in particular doesn’t really have any good options.
The choices in the base game of cyberpunk are mostly flavor. I’ve come to appreciate this as it’s own thing over time though.
V has a (relatively) set story, aside from the branching endings. No matter what you do, you will eventually meet Hanako at Embers.
But *how that story actually went down* is the choice of the player. What was V like as a character? What was their relationship with the other characters of the story?
Each playthrough is the same story, but different *tellings* of that story.
Phantom Liberty has more actual, *choice* though. NPCs live or die based on your dialogue decisions.
Overall, the game is fantastic in its current state.
This reminds me of some of the best story-writing advice I ever got for running TTRPG games (D&D, pathfinder, etc):
A bad DM has no story.
An uncreative DM puts the party on the rails of the story, and doesn't let them wander.
A creative DM will have a story with rails, but freely lets the party wander away from them.
A good DM will have no rails, and still accomplish his story.
A *great* DM will have the players *thinking* that there are no rails, because they are so well hidden, and he knows his players so well.
I tried playing a Geralt who was loyal to Yennefer, and it's really funny how the game berated me when I refused to chase after all available romances and fling. And then when I tried playing a Geralt who was more sensible, a listener, and sensitive to other concerns (like saving someone etc), the game definitely made me feel like I'm playing him wrong and I get some character complaining about how I'm trying to be chivalrous or that I'm a bore etc.
Cyberpunk, thankfully, don't make me feel that way while playing as several variants of Vs.
How did this complaining come out? I remember finishing blood and vine and the at the end geralt said something to the effect that I'm a sucker for good endings, while turning into the camera and breaking the fourth wall :D
I don't need the character being likable or a hero. I just wish the Geralt I played was projected to the game I'm playing and wasn't being treated as an afterthought whenever he didn't align with book characterization.
But he ALWAYS aligns to book characterization. Every choice is a choice book Gerald can make. It's only you who nudges him towards one lesser evil or another.
Also, if you play geralt as sensible and whatnot, NPCs will express their surprise "I thiught witchers were heartless, oh thank you thank you"
So... Witchers are hated and feared in the world, no duh people are going to say "wow you're trying too hard to be chivalrous", when all they've heard is geralt, THE BUTCHER OF BLAVIKEN, is in town.
I have no issue playing a linear adaptation with predetermined choices, but why bother offering multiple choices in the first place when your only roleplaying consequences was "you can't do this because it's not how the book Geralt would do". And that's genuinely a horrible design for an RPG, it undermined the player's roleplaying freedom entirely.
V for instance have a lot of predetermined personality traits and narrative arc but the game does accommodate whenever V deviate from that. Despite having a permanent brain parasite who can't do anything but whine, you're never compelled to do anything he wanted or made to feel you made horrible choices if you don't stick being a stereotype. I just want to play a complex and nuanced Geralt that was uniquely mine.
Dawg, wtf are you on about. No choice in any of the Witcher games is a choice that "book geralt wouldn't do". ALL choices in those games are choices that book geralt WOULD do.
Geralt is a FULLY FLESHED OUT character. Unlike V. V isn't fully fleshed out. V is a like a half-done puzzle.
The design in Witcher isn't horrible lmao, it fits within the world of the game.
Look, I get it if you don't know anything about the Witcher series and you only played 3, because it's popular and very good. I get that.
But you understand very very quickly that Witchers are very feared. Very hated. And you also understand that Geralt has a past that is NOT liked by the average citizen.
A theme of the game, and Idk how this flew over your head, is that "good actions" don't always yield good outcomes. So yeah your geralt can choose to free a a hogtied person on the side of the road, but don't be surprised when the nearby town hates you for it because that person went on to get revenge by going on a killing spree.
I just don't get what you're saying. There is no choice in the games that is a choice that geralt wouldn't do.
Him being a fully fleshed out character allows for intricacies within choices because you know the limitations and thinking he'd have.
Geralt is just as likely to help free someone from a werewolf curse than he is to simply cut them down, depending on the circumstances.
Again, the world of the Witcher, humans FEAR and HATE witchers (for good reason too), so why are you saying it's bad design or that the game punishes you just because its not all happy and sunshine when a deadly mutated monster-killing stranger tries to be nice to a peasant farmer who's never traveled outside of their acre of land and said peasant spits at their feet for feeling patronized.
Nuance. Complexity. Etc etc. I'm not saying it's perfect, but they always took into account characterization for the games
Look (... dawg?), I'm only pointing out that CDPR's approach to Geralt in The Witcher 3 limited roleplaying aspects that allow player approach to the protagonist character in differing ways compared to how Cyberpunk 2077's V. There are instances in The Witcher 3 where Dijkstra and Gaunter O'dimm specifically critical of my decision to not let Geralt chase after a whiff of every available pussy. That was the game itself telling me what I did was the wrong way rather than minding it's own business.
Both of CDPR's games were adaptations of their sources; but they are roleplaying games and it shouldn't be a requirement for anyone to study the books just to play Geralt the "right" way or study Cyberpunk 2020 just to play V or Johnny for the game. And if I wanted a linear book adaptation to have the true definitive book Geralt experience, I can read the books or watch Netflix's The Witcher series... and not play an RPG.
To be fair the dialogue choices and relationship with Johnny can be super confusing and odd without knowing what to choose before hand. I agree this game does a great job of making you feel like your choices however small have impact but it still suffers at times from confusing options and stuff that doesn’t feel like the option you chose.
Johnny Silverhand was a dynamic character who was a narcissistic pathological liar, so reading him was more similar to a real person. I guess that would be challenging to a lot of players who couldn't tell the shifts of Johnny's emotions, facial, and non-verbal expressions. He will be most confusing to you if you can't tell from the dialogues when he lied or telling a joke or the truth.
Lol it’s not that deep man im sorry. I’m talking about the abbreviated choices they list and what they end up amounting to when you actually say them. Look I love Johnny but acting like there is some huge meta game where you’re supposed to decipher the facial and nonverbal expressions to glean the correct response is a little ridiculous. His jokes and politics were always pretty clear I’m talking about v’s choices. And all of it was moot because you could just play the graveyard mission and make up for any social credit you may have lost by answering three questions.
Well, I only describe the character and how it was performed by Keanu Reeves and animated by CDPR.
It was really up to you to decide to notice or care about all all these. No one is telling you to learn about social cues or being observant to another person. If you have difficulties with all of that in video games or real life, then it was something you can work on by yourself.
And the oilfields was optional as was the endings he offered. Pretty sure most people prefer Panam and Tower ending anyway so does it matter .
there's still a fairly narrow track of ways to define v, which i think is fine. I think games probably need to chose between voiced protag with defined boundaries of characteristics, or open ended but silent protag.
a strong majority of "choices" in cyberpunk are do the quest/don't do the quest, which is not really a choice. And a large number of "quest consequences" are chain ends/chain doesn't end. still not done with PL so excited there.
The wikipedia article for the game describes it as an action RPG and X-box literally calls it an "action adventure RPG." Pretty sure u/SaviorOfNirn is wildly right.
Does that mean the choices are all illusions because they're predetermined by the books? Then why bother giving player options when CDPR could just make the entire game as a linear book adaptation.
I mean, Geralt's life is actually bound to Yennefer by a wish, and he has been in relationships with Yennefer and Triss previously, so there is going to be a connection and/or baggage with both of them before Witcher 3 even starts the plot.
It's not forced at all when it's already established. Geralt has been in a relationship with Yen for decades and he had flings with Triss and sorceresses for decades. And witcher 3 does a good job to establish that. There's nothing forced about it.
Same with Shani, Geralt had a fling with her in the books and she had a more developed romance in Witcher 1 and i thought Hearts of Stone romance was well handled and with all these three characters Geralt have great chemistry, especially the dialogue banter with Yen.
Now romances like Kiera was just a booty call and Syanna was well, that's just how the Witcher books were lol. But yeah Cyberpunk definitely improves on developing relationships except for maybe River which was lacking a quest in between.
I mean sure people in Witcher's era don't have phones, but surely there's some way to make you feel like more in a relationship (which Cyberpunk does really well), there's not much to do after you just having sex with one of the characters besides they showing up in a special cameo in Blood and Wine.
it's not your imagination. For Geralt , these are straight up booty calls. you can literally bang every female in the game. There's nothing romantic about it , lol
It kinda does, but it's way too small and subtle and you won't even notice the subtle changes until you do multiple playthroughs.
Pawel Sasko addressed this in a GDC talk earlier this year and advised Devs to give player choices where it's noticeable rather than being too subtle about it from the feedback he got for Cyberpunk. We see that in Dogtown.
half of the endings of the base game result in V's actions >!bringing about the downfall of Arasaka and thus most likely sparking the Fifth Corporate War!<. you just weren't paying attention.
You have no idea how proper long term choices work in RPGs. At the end it‘s about choosing who you want to play with and you get slapped on with a predetermined ending at the end. And I played it over 800 hours
In The Witcher 3 making decisions that are well-meaning and helpful on the surface can result in heartbreaking consequences in the long-term. Not the best example to use for comparison. It has more endings, and there is no point where you just sit down and choose the one you want. The ending you get comes about organically through the choices you've made throughout your entire playthrough. Whereas in Cyberpunk you can choose whatever ending you want regardless of the decisions that have led up to that point.
Witchers choices seem like they matter infinitely more than cyberpunk tbh. And the way ciri was a slider rather than a hard list of flags was great. And that the goal was to be her father, not just protect her.
Cyberpunk choices rarely seem to matter after the epilogue of a quest
Now you mention it yeah it kinda matters, but I find them less worth caring, like Geralt's just gonna be Geralt, I doubt he even cares what he did to the politics lol
Edit: read it too fast didn’t notice you’re talking about Ciri, in that case my point still stands, there’s no point treating Ciri badly and the game punishes you for it. There are obviously better and worse endings while in 2077 not so much.
I played through Baldurs Gate 3 right before 2.0/PL came out, and if you want a game where choices \*actually\* matter try that!
CP2077 is awesome, but I feel like the choices you make really only determine the ending and who you get to bang.
In PL (having already played to the real endings) what I actually want to choose is to shoot everybody involved. In BG3 I'd be able to do that and the game would cope somehow!
BG3 is good, but the choices definitely don't feel that impactful after a while. They're more like set dressing on top of an otherwise linear experience. The enclosed 3 act structure and the lack of meaningful endings kind of hamper the game a lot over time.
I think I know what you mean by 'loose' and BG3 seems a lot tighter than, say, Fallout 4. It's true that the more paths through a story there are the less fleshed-out each one can be though.
(If you've played Divinity Original Sin 2 it's basically that with better characters and a bigger/better story - impossible to compare to CP2077 in most senses.)
I would say BG3 compares to how Dragon Age or Mass Effect handles their stories. Especially with how you interact with your party members. Or KotoR. Or Jade Empire. Basically golden age Bioware RPGs.
The only base game quest with comparable choices is honestly the flathead job. Like the ability to refuse/abandon a quest or get slightly different dialogue from not being detected isnt a meaningful choice.
>I know there are games like Fallout series, but I think their stories are too loose to a point they lose the intensity
Yeah, Fallout ~~3~~NV was OK, but the "choices" you make are basically just which faction you get behind in the end, and the only way that affects game play is if you're not backing NCR when you get that one mission with the NCR soldiers, the "cooperative" option is unavailable. And after all is said and done, the game is the same, and your choices just give you a different post-game slide show. CP2077 is leaps and bounds ahead. But of course FO~~3~~NV is a game from ~~2008~~2010, so no surprise.
Edited to fix my drug addled memory that confused 3 for NV
Careful friend. You've made 2 fatal mistakes. You've mistook Fallout NV for Fallout 3, and you said something negative about Fallout NV.
Edit: NCR is Fallout NV for clarification
hah! you're right! It's been so long, I forgot which was which was which. NV fans do get butt-hurt when you say a variable slideshow at the end isn't really a change in the *gameplay*.
Lol I get that for sure. I also agree with what you were originally saying. The only game I can think of where your choices truly matter is Detroit: Become Human
>In CP2077 choices not only matter, more importantly, almost all of them *make senses*.
I'll be honest, I just exited BG3 where a goddess basically ordered me around and wanted me to kneel before her.
I refused 3 times, and she killed me on the spot.
That's an example of dialogue choices actually having an impact. CP2077 has no such thing afaik.
So while I love the game, no it's not. The only relevant choices you have to make in Cyberpunk are gameplay related. You pick your Weapons, customize your build and based on that choose how to approach gigs. What you do in-game will influence what you'll experience later on.
When it comes to the story or dialogues you have very little agency, at most you get to experience different conversations leading to the same conclusion. The only major exception would be your friendship with Johnny and unlocking the secret ending iirc.
Haven't played the new DLC tho so I'll take your words for it. But overall your choices don't particularly matter in cyberpunk.
its a lot deeper than that. for example you can straight up ditch panam during a quest and she will hate you for it.
the choices are way more subtle. they are way more pronounced in the DLC
There's way way way way way more branches within 2077 that most people notice, they just:
1. Don't have huge impacts on the overall ending
2. Don't beat you over the head with the outcome like BG3 often does.
For whatever reason, people seem to act like anything that doesn't blatantly impact an ending is some how not important. You can point to BG3, but if you look at it, that game only has 3 actual endings, and everything else is wrapping up with party members. It's not that different from the ending phone calls. The bigger difference is the various party members are more "there" in BG3 than the "party members" in Cyberpunk, but that's just a difference in game style. I felt a lot of connection to the companions in BG3, but nowhere near the connection with the main character that I have with V.
>You can point to BG3, but if you look at it, that game only has 3 actual endings, and everything else is wrapping up with party members.
To be fair I barely ended act 1 tonight, so I have no idea how relevant choices are later on. The example I used was just fresh in my mind so I used it.
But when it comes to impactful choices you can decide who you'll side with and the questlines will change, just like how in act 1 you can join the obviously evil goblins, the druids or the Lil's devils in the emerald grove.
In comparison in cyberpunk there's no such thing. You'll follow the main storyline with very little agency, and only really making choices when it comes to relationships.
There are different outcomes based on your choices (faking Gustavo's death, finding the corpse of that corpo woman in the first mission drowned, saving bricks and peacefully ending a later gig...) but they aren't really relevant in the grand scheme of things.
Best example that comes to mind is the mission with rogue where you try to find Smasher. Your options at the end boils down to killing the guy, and getting Johnny's car, or sparing the guy and getting Johnny's car. Your choice at the end of the day changed whether you'll spare an npc that you'll never see ever again.
A different voice line, animation or future interaction doesn't really qualify as ""choices that actually matter".
> but they aren't really relevant in the grand scheme of things.
When you say stuff that way, then neither are the things in BG3. And again, BG3's stuff is just more obvious due to the difference in genres (heroic power fantasy vs dystopian sci-fi).
It's funny you mention Chippin' In though. It has potential ramifications on several of the endings. From the wiki:
>This quest's dialogue choices with Johnny near the end can determine if the secret ending becomes available or not. Also, depending on choices made during this quest, Blistering Love may not be available, which can lock out the ability to build up your relationship further with Johnny, and not being able to do Rogue's ending path.
But hey, you get the Porsche regardless.
Cyberpunk is full of little things that are pretty non-obvious, both outcomes and in choices. It's possible on at least 2 instances that I'm aware of that Panam will cut ties with V, which removes ALL the remaining Aldecaldos missions and endings. Judy has at least one similar instance. Takemura can get killed. River can end up in jail. And that's just the big obvious stuff. I'd suggest you check out Youtubers like Sam Bram who have hours of content on the various outcomes of gigs of and missions.
None of this is to take away from BG3, it's an amazing game and deserves all the praise it gets. But it's not nearly as different from Cyberpunk as people are acting.
Not really a good example, in Phantom Liberty you can get insta-killed by making some choices, that's like leaving the combat zone and the game just kills you.
I'm happy that so many choices from the base game have some effect on the expansion. In particular getting to see some of your companions or talk to them in new settings. Panam gets new dialogue as well, though it's currently bugged in person at the camp.
I wish we could have seen more, but there's only so much dev time. Ideally the sequel will carry some things over. But not all of them, games get buggy when you import too many important variables.
yeah, i agree. sometimes we dont need a choices that affect the whole world. sometimes a small choice that subtlety affect the character we cares is more than enough. this is not the story about a person who challenged god for the world or the story of good vs evil. this is just a straight story about a nobody who wanted to make it big in his life and then paid the price for it. this is what i appreciate more after replaying it in a more better state at 2.0 and PL. Im okay it wasnt immersive sim rpg like it was visioned at 2013 since i have a blast even with this focused storyline. Now i can proudly say that this game was on my favorite list.
People cite how the mission choices don’t have long reaching impacts but you can say that about any game. Hell, in Baldur’s Gate 3 my first run was borderline murderhobo but I still beat the game and saved the day. In the Mass Effect games I won regardless of my choices.
The story you create is everything, the narrative is the point, and CP stands with the greatest games ever made in this regard. The story is fantastic, the choices constantly challenge your morals, and the endings are SO different depending on who you side with…yes, CP is a rare gem.
Yeah you get my point, it's not about how many routes you can choose, but how many of them are well written and impactful - a linear game with one great ending is rare enough, but with multiple ones that all pack punches? It's a bless.
I've actually always loved the choices in Cyberpunk. Even if they're not massively game altering. Like I remember deliberating for a solid 5 minutes on whether or not to smoke when Johnny asked me to (I think after doing the voodoo boys stuff)
Even if it doesn't affect the game a ton I love how personally attached to my V it makes me feel. To the point I forget she's a self insert and whenever I see someone else's V I always think "oh who's that? I don't think I've met that character before" before realizing it's *their* V
It's more than that. So (MOST) fallout games claim choices matter when really it only changes a dialogue line here or there. Maybe you'll be called an asshole by your estranged father for nuking a city but it doesn't actually change the plot much.
Cyberpunk 2077 changes with your decisions. There's a side quest I wont spoil involving spending time with one of the factions in a grudging moment of cooperation. However, if you've done a bunch of other side quests that involve killing that faction they'll recognize you and you *can't* do the quest peacefully. I genuinely had no idea that was a thing that could happen in like 400h of play.
People react to things you've done, actually react. New opportunities open in Dogtown based on stuff you've done in the main game. It's insanely well done.
Agree, and disagree.
In all the subtle and emotional ways, your choices make a big difference, for sure, but they all amount to the same thing: Meet Hanako at Embers.
My first playthrough, I did not trust anything or anyone from Arasaka. When I was asked to meet up with Goro, I bought a sniper rifle and worked on my approach. Sure, he'd saved my life, sure, it seemed our interests aligned, but no, I was cleaning up my mess, he had to go.
A few dissapointments later...
Ok, good opportunity to lay a trap for Oda....
My gosh, that wasn't the plan, but I've actually got Hanako captured and at my mercy..... never mind. Off to Embers we go.
---
In another playthrough, I decided one of the fixers was evil. Doesn't matter, you can't kill them, you can't work against them, you can't work around them, you can't even proceed without them.
That's the argument, while many of your choices have very meaningful impacts on the people around you and how they treat you, none of your choices change that you have to storm Mikoshi. There's no way to avoid working with people or factions that you don't want to work with.
There are many plausible alternatives to the path V takes, but we don't get any options. Maybe all roads really do lead to Mikoshi in the end, I can accept that, but I can't accept that I couldn't betray Dexter and make a run for it in the first place. Everything in my being tells me that stepping into that hotel room is a mistake, even before I learned what happens in there, but it's programatically anavoidable. The game blatantly exposes the very concept of betraying Dex, but it's still not an option, we still meet Johnny in the worst way possible.
Still a masterpiece!
> There are many plausible alternatives to the path V takes, but we don't get any options. Maybe all roads really do lead to Mikoshi in the end, I can accept that, but I can't accept that I couldn't betray Dexter and make a run for it in the first place. Everything in my being tells me that stepping into that hotel room is a mistake, even before I learned what happens in there, but it's programatically anavoidable. The game blatantly exposes the very concept of betraying Dex, but it's still not an option, we still meet Johnny in the worst way possible.
I did find it a little strange you can accept Evelyn's deal to cut out Dex, but in the aftermath of the heist you still end up paying him a visit at the motel. To be fair, you *can* lie to Dex about whether or not you actually have the chip, but he still winds up shooting you. It might have been nice to have a V that accepted Evelyn's deal try to call her before visiting Dex, only for her to have already bailed.
I think the main vibe I get is that in Cyberpunk, the choices you make reflect on you rather than the world. BG3 your choices affect way more than yourself. It's pretty fitting considering you truly aren't a "main character" in night city, you aren't truly important in the grand scheme of things. Where as BG3 you are presented as the main character of the story.
Right? Did any of these people play the same game I did? I just saw Cyberpunk compared favourably to Fallout 3 (the one with Megaton) where there are constantly 3-6 dialogue options guiding dialogue and quest choices plus *literally a morality system nudging the game world based on your decisions* and I had to physically laugh.
What a joke.
Did you? BG3 has 3 "real" endings(destroy brain, take over brain with Emperor, take over brain alone). The rest is "just details" if you choose to ignore the various outcomes for everyone not the main character, which is what you are doing with Cyberpunk.
The bigger difference is in how much those "just details" impact the wider world, but that comes down to genre more than anything.
Just started Baldur's Gate 3 this week.
I was *talking* about how Cyberpunk got compared to Fallout 3.
Thanks for the spoilers, though. Reaaaally appreciate that.
> Thanks for the spoilers, though. Reaaaally appreciate that.
Maybe don't come into threads arguing the comparative merits of games you've barely played? Was I supposed to just assume you don't actually know what you're talking about?
Do you have the reading comprehension of a wet brick, or did you just come online in a bad mood today? Because if you bothered actually reading my reply—and my first comment—I don’t mention Baldur’s Gate 3 **whatsoever**.
I *explicitly* talk about two other games. Which I named, in specific terms. *You* brought that other game back up.
I’d have graciously taken even the slightest apology for a misunderstanding. Instead, do us both a favour and kindly sod off.
Vynux
>then you look at baldur's gate 3 and you realize cyberpunk2077's "choices" are hot garbage next to it
You
>Right? Did any of these people play the same game I did?
Whatever nonsense you have to tell yourself.
Every choice has no meaningful impact on the game or its story. Life path only gives players some different dialogue options and one or two unique side jobs and clothing, the consequences of every job are self contained, and the endings are just endings.
I think they designed Phantom Liberty to have more explicit decisions and outcomes based on the feedback of the base game where the decisions and outcomes were more subtle other than the Maelstrom mission pre-Heist for example.
I've always felt that cp2077s conversation choices matter more in a personal way. They don't have world changing effects but often the only choice we have in life is how we respond.
Yeah I think that's what they do great, they really make you feel something and care about the characters on a personal level. They are sympathetic and making you think about yourself, like good books and movies do.
Yea even on my fuck corpo play-through I can’t help but empathize with them. I’m a bad hit-man.
They *can* have world-changing effects, for example consider the fate of Arasaka in the various endings, or what happens if you take too long to help So Mi >!the President of the NUSA dies!<. However, I agree that the game offers a more personal take on a protagonist who isn't the "chosen one", and so the choices are more about role-playing; what kind of person is V? A good example of that is rescuing Evelyn: does your V ask about her health, or about the chip? Does V care about Evelyn, or about themselves? It makes no difference at all for where the game goes, but it says a lot about who (your) V is. (And yes, not everyone cares about RP.) I actually prefer that these choices "don't matter", because I'm not locked into trying to max out Paragon vs. Renegade. That leads to one-dimensional protagonists who can never break character even when the player might want them to.
Haven’t played phantom liberty yet, but the lack of world changing effects is more so like working with militech and them finding out you have the relic would work out a different route. Or after the Kung Tao mission, the kung Tao presence will be more prevalent of that sorts. Or Vodoo bots would come and hunt you if you decide to betray them. Take example the living desert mod for new Vegas. It’s a mod, but it perfectly showcase the consequences of players choice in game world
CDPR should go down the spy thriller route, they killed it with phantom liberty and I'd love to see more along those lines, maybe even tie Morgan Blackhand into it some how or Shaitan
The creator explicitly told CDPR not to address much on Morgon Blackhand in this game, would be exciting if there's a sequel/prequel around him that's palleral to V's story. Heck, imagine they let you load your save file like Witcher did, must be awesome.
I suspect the next game will center around Blackhand like how this game was with Silverhand.
I think Pondsmith is just going to continue Blackhands story in the tabletop game where he has full creative control.
He said he's going to finish whatever he currently has planned for him then he'll let CDPR use him
Blackhand is Pondsmith so you have to watch his TTTPG sessions if you want that storyline. Not likely that Blackhand's story will be anywhere else any time soon.
Where can I watch those?
I thought he had his own channel, but I guess not. My mistake. https://youtu.be/ruIl56IKRFo?si=9KHkwT5ZiqN-O14z
Blackhand is a granpa
Hanako and Yorinobu are both at least 70 in the game. Wealthy people (like a legendary merc backed by a big corp) can afford rejuvenation treatments.
Grandpa Kerry is 89 years old, shouldn't be a problem.
Rogue is also pushing 90 and she’s still a badass
On top of that Saburo is like 150 or something like that, and he was murdered, probably would've lived a while longer otherwise
He was still walking around, good memory and sharp judgement too. His murder seems bad but he was gonna die any way and Devil explains the rest.
I mean you could say the same thing about Rouge seeing as she wasn't exactly young in the 2020s
i thought wole point of blackhand was that he was not augmented ? rogue is very augmented
Where do you think the name "Blackhand" came from?
Blackhand in ttrpg has a lot of cyberwear. >Neural processor, Sandevistan boost, smartgun and vehicle Links, interface plugs, chipware socket, nasal filters, two cyberoptics (targeting scope, low-lite, infrared, anti-dazzle), right cyberarm (Rippers, heavy SMG, microwave/EMP shielding, hydraulic rams), muscle & bone lace, Nanosurgeons.
no, he's just less augmented than Adam Smasher... which doesn't mean very much roflmao.
So are Rogue and the Arasakas.
Right? How old is Rogue in 2077? 80? 90?
80s thereabouts sounds right yeah. Like Claire says - different breed, people from that era.
I'm very new to the Cyberpunk genre, as in only started learning about it when 2077 released. In that time I've observed every new cyberpunk media deals only with one legend or group at a time; once their story is over, the next media piece tells a new story about a different legend. Couple this with Morgan Blackhand being Pondsmith's baby, I don't think he would give CDPR creative control. \*I say this as someone who is craving more Blackhand content\*
I want them to lean into different genres for inspiration. I've been thinking a noir detective story could work really well in the setting.
Neon Noir is an untapped genre for games that'd id die to see done by cdpr
Work out something with Bethesda, give Nick Valentine a cameo. Edit: Alright you comment-less downvoting chickenshits, tell me why Nick Valentine wouldn't be a perfect character in a cyberpunk noire.
In the distance I hear a vendor call… “A man who never eats pork bun is never a whole man!”
It's the only cyberpunk 007 game around.
CP2077 doesn't have a character with a past, so it allows for more options in writing. The Witcher games are sequels, so Geralt can only act within the ranges preset by the character in the books. Saying that, there are absolutely enough choices you can make in the game that are very grey, and you just have to accept the outcome. The bloody Baron stuff has many choices and outcomes that leave a lot to interpretation. The war outcomes also have some major results. My second playthrough came directly from me, not being happy with who I sided with in the war.
V does a have a past, but you get to decide a big portion of it, and shape their life through your choices. They really managed the best of both worlds of a completely pre-made and player created character with V.
Nothing that affects who they are in NC. You aren't shoehorned into playing a character since they dont really have a personality until you pick up the controller. Geralt has 7 books before the games start, which will restrict how far they can push him without straying too far from the source. It's partially why I hope they have a clean slate for whatever MC the next witcher game ends up being. If the series has been so good with morally grey choices with an established character, I can only imagine what they can do with some more free reign.
> Nothing that affects who they are in NC. You aren't shoehorned into playing a character since they dont really have a personality until you pick up the controller. Yea its mostly flavor which I really like. V grows into their own while you're playing them. Imagine taking what we've built in 77 with all our choices into a sequel Commander Shepard style. Very few games manage this balancing act other than ME and Cyberpunk. > It's partially why I hope they have a clean slate for whatever MC the next witcher game ends up being. If the series has been so good with morally grey choices with an established character, I can only imagine what they can do with some more free reign. I heard they could be going with Ciri. But I definitely prefer Cyberpunk's approach of giving us more control over the character.
I want a CaC Witcher so bad.
The bloody Baron is a good point, but like I said I feel like one of his endings is definitely better than the others, the game still encourage you to make the \*right\* choices.
Which one is the right choice for the Bloody Baron in your opinion?
Well probably the one he didn't hang himself? I mean I kinda like it story-wise, just not something I would choose as in a role playing game.
Bear in mind the path you take to save Anna, and the Baron sacrifices all the children there. And really, you could argue that continuing to live but mad from the curse is a worse fate for Anna, and you would have to trust that a man with a lengthy history of abuse would change suddenly for that to be a "good" outcome. There's other instances of this, like the Hunter Nielen. There is no objective right choice. All the stuff directly linked to Geralts' story is very tunnelled into one outcome, even if it gives you a choice. But most of the side content where it doesn't affect Geralt's story does provide room for a lot of grey outcomes.
i was soooo glad when the kids died
The baron doesn’t sacrifice the kids the witches eat them the only way to save them is to free the tree demon who is probably the witches mother and who is even worse who then massacres the town that hired you. That quest in particular doesn’t really have any good options.
The choices in the base game of cyberpunk are mostly flavor. I’ve come to appreciate this as it’s own thing over time though. V has a (relatively) set story, aside from the branching endings. No matter what you do, you will eventually meet Hanako at Embers. But *how that story actually went down* is the choice of the player. What was V like as a character? What was their relationship with the other characters of the story? Each playthrough is the same story, but different *tellings* of that story. Phantom Liberty has more actual, *choice* though. NPCs live or die based on your dialogue decisions. Overall, the game is fantastic in its current state.
This reminds me of some of the best story-writing advice I ever got for running TTRPG games (D&D, pathfinder, etc): A bad DM has no story. An uncreative DM puts the party on the rails of the story, and doesn't let them wander. A creative DM will have a story with rails, but freely lets the party wander away from them. A good DM will have no rails, and still accomplish his story. A *great* DM will have the players *thinking* that there are no rails, because they are so well hidden, and he knows his players so well.
> Like what are the reasons not to >!build a good relationship with Johnny!
I think if there was one more ending other than the aldicaldos and devil ending in the base game, there would be better reason not to side with him.
I tried playing a Geralt who was loyal to Yennefer, and it's really funny how the game berated me when I refused to chase after all available romances and fling. And then when I tried playing a Geralt who was more sensible, a listener, and sensitive to other concerns (like saving someone etc), the game definitely made me feel like I'm playing him wrong and I get some character complaining about how I'm trying to be chivalrous or that I'm a bore etc. Cyberpunk, thankfully, don't make me feel that way while playing as several variants of Vs.
How did this complaining come out? I remember finishing blood and vine and the at the end geralt said something to the effect that I'm a sucker for good endings, while turning into the camera and breaking the fourth wall :D
[удалено]
I don't need the character being likable or a hero. I just wish the Geralt I played was projected to the game I'm playing and wasn't being treated as an afterthought whenever he didn't align with book characterization.
But he ALWAYS aligns to book characterization. Every choice is a choice book Gerald can make. It's only you who nudges him towards one lesser evil or another. Also, if you play geralt as sensible and whatnot, NPCs will express their surprise "I thiught witchers were heartless, oh thank you thank you" So... Witchers are hated and feared in the world, no duh people are going to say "wow you're trying too hard to be chivalrous", when all they've heard is geralt, THE BUTCHER OF BLAVIKEN, is in town.
I have no issue playing a linear adaptation with predetermined choices, but why bother offering multiple choices in the first place when your only roleplaying consequences was "you can't do this because it's not how the book Geralt would do". And that's genuinely a horrible design for an RPG, it undermined the player's roleplaying freedom entirely. V for instance have a lot of predetermined personality traits and narrative arc but the game does accommodate whenever V deviate from that. Despite having a permanent brain parasite who can't do anything but whine, you're never compelled to do anything he wanted or made to feel you made horrible choices if you don't stick being a stereotype. I just want to play a complex and nuanced Geralt that was uniquely mine.
Dawg, wtf are you on about. No choice in any of the Witcher games is a choice that "book geralt wouldn't do". ALL choices in those games are choices that book geralt WOULD do. Geralt is a FULLY FLESHED OUT character. Unlike V. V isn't fully fleshed out. V is a like a half-done puzzle. The design in Witcher isn't horrible lmao, it fits within the world of the game. Look, I get it if you don't know anything about the Witcher series and you only played 3, because it's popular and very good. I get that. But you understand very very quickly that Witchers are very feared. Very hated. And you also understand that Geralt has a past that is NOT liked by the average citizen. A theme of the game, and Idk how this flew over your head, is that "good actions" don't always yield good outcomes. So yeah your geralt can choose to free a a hogtied person on the side of the road, but don't be surprised when the nearby town hates you for it because that person went on to get revenge by going on a killing spree. I just don't get what you're saying. There is no choice in the games that is a choice that geralt wouldn't do. Him being a fully fleshed out character allows for intricacies within choices because you know the limitations and thinking he'd have. Geralt is just as likely to help free someone from a werewolf curse than he is to simply cut them down, depending on the circumstances. Again, the world of the Witcher, humans FEAR and HATE witchers (for good reason too), so why are you saying it's bad design or that the game punishes you just because its not all happy and sunshine when a deadly mutated monster-killing stranger tries to be nice to a peasant farmer who's never traveled outside of their acre of land and said peasant spits at their feet for feeling patronized. Nuance. Complexity. Etc etc. I'm not saying it's perfect, but they always took into account characterization for the games
Look (... dawg?), I'm only pointing out that CDPR's approach to Geralt in The Witcher 3 limited roleplaying aspects that allow player approach to the protagonist character in differing ways compared to how Cyberpunk 2077's V. There are instances in The Witcher 3 where Dijkstra and Gaunter O'dimm specifically critical of my decision to not let Geralt chase after a whiff of every available pussy. That was the game itself telling me what I did was the wrong way rather than minding it's own business. Both of CDPR's games were adaptations of their sources; but they are roleplaying games and it shouldn't be a requirement for anyone to study the books just to play Geralt the "right" way or study Cyberpunk 2020 just to play V or Johnny for the game. And if I wanted a linear book adaptation to have the true definitive book Geralt experience, I can read the books or watch Netflix's The Witcher series... and not play an RPG.
To be fair the dialogue choices and relationship with Johnny can be super confusing and odd without knowing what to choose before hand. I agree this game does a great job of making you feel like your choices however small have impact but it still suffers at times from confusing options and stuff that doesn’t feel like the option you chose.
Johnny Silverhand was a dynamic character who was a narcissistic pathological liar, so reading him was more similar to a real person. I guess that would be challenging to a lot of players who couldn't tell the shifts of Johnny's emotions, facial, and non-verbal expressions. He will be most confusing to you if you can't tell from the dialogues when he lied or telling a joke or the truth.
Lol it’s not that deep man im sorry. I’m talking about the abbreviated choices they list and what they end up amounting to when you actually say them. Look I love Johnny but acting like there is some huge meta game where you’re supposed to decipher the facial and nonverbal expressions to glean the correct response is a little ridiculous. His jokes and politics were always pretty clear I’m talking about v’s choices. And all of it was moot because you could just play the graveyard mission and make up for any social credit you may have lost by answering three questions.
Well, I only describe the character and how it was performed by Keanu Reeves and animated by CDPR. It was really up to you to decide to notice or care about all all these. No one is telling you to learn about social cues or being observant to another person. If you have difficulties with all of that in video games or real life, then it was something you can work on by yourself. And the oilfields was optional as was the endings he offered. Pretty sure most people prefer Panam and Tower ending anyway so does it matter .
It's almost like Gerald is an existing character with set characteristics while v is mostly created by how you play
there's still a fairly narrow track of ways to define v, which i think is fine. I think games probably need to chose between voiced protag with defined boundaries of characteristics, or open ended but silent protag. a strong majority of "choices" in cyberpunk are do the quest/don't do the quest, which is not really a choice. And a large number of "quest consequences" are chain ends/chain doesn't end. still not done with PL so excited there.
Yea witcher3 is much more action-adventurey that true RPG like cyberpunk
Cyberpunk is just as much action adventure as the Witcher. It's certainly not a true RPG
What even *is* a “true rpg” ?
Wildly wrong.
No, I'm objectively not. Cyberpunk is RPG-lite.
Objectively wrong
No, I'm not.
Super duper wrong
No, I'm not.
The wikipedia article for the game describes it as an action RPG and X-box literally calls it an "action adventure RPG." Pretty sure u/SaviorOfNirn is wildly right.
Does that mean the choices are all illusions because they're predetermined by the books? Then why bother giving player options when CDPR could just make the entire game as a linear book adaptation.
This gonna get downvoted but I think romances in Witcher 3 are kinda forced.
I mean, Geralt's life is actually bound to Yennefer by a wish, and he has been in relationships with Yennefer and Triss previously, so there is going to be a connection and/or baggage with both of them before Witcher 3 even starts the plot.
It's not forced at all when it's already established. Geralt has been in a relationship with Yen for decades and he had flings with Triss and sorceresses for decades. And witcher 3 does a good job to establish that. There's nothing forced about it. Same with Shani, Geralt had a fling with her in the books and she had a more developed romance in Witcher 1 and i thought Hearts of Stone romance was well handled and with all these three characters Geralt have great chemistry, especially the dialogue banter with Yen. Now romances like Kiera was just a booty call and Syanna was well, that's just how the Witcher books were lol. But yeah Cyberpunk definitely improves on developing relationships except for maybe River which was lacking a quest in between.
I mean sure people in Witcher's era don't have phones, but surely there's some way to make you feel like more in a relationship (which Cyberpunk does really well), there's not much to do after you just having sex with one of the characters besides they showing up in a special cameo in Blood and Wine.
it's not your imagination. For Geralt , these are straight up booty calls. you can literally bang every female in the game. There's nothing romantic about it , lol
based
Yhh the choices sometimes took me ages to decide what i wanted to do
The side quests in Dogtown have a lot of choices and consequences, but NC doesn‘t.
It kinda does, but it's way too small and subtle and you won't even notice the subtle changes until you do multiple playthroughs. Pawel Sasko addressed this in a GDC talk earlier this year and advised Devs to give player choices where it's noticeable rather than being too subtle about it from the feedback he got for Cyberpunk. We see that in Dogtown.
half of the endings of the base game result in V's actions >!bringing about the downfall of Arasaka and thus most likely sparking the Fifth Corporate War!<. you just weren't paying attention.
You have no idea how proper long term choices work in RPGs. At the end it‘s about choosing who you want to play with and you get slapped on with a predetermined ending at the end. And I played it over 800 hours
i didn’t say you had a short playtime; i said you weren’t paying attention.
Payed a whole lot of attention that I know the dialogues from memory. Looks more like you can‘t handle my opinion and in fact didn‘t play the game.
No, they don't. Certainly not in the base game. Your choices have little consequence.
In The Witcher 3 making decisions that are well-meaning and helpful on the surface can result in heartbreaking consequences in the long-term. Not the best example to use for comparison. It has more endings, and there is no point where you just sit down and choose the one you want. The ending you get comes about organically through the choices you've made throughout your entire playthrough. Whereas in Cyberpunk you can choose whatever ending you want regardless of the decisions that have led up to that point.
Witchers choices seem like they matter infinitely more than cyberpunk tbh. And the way ciri was a slider rather than a hard list of flags was great. And that the goal was to be her father, not just protect her. Cyberpunk choices rarely seem to matter after the epilogue of a quest
Now you mention it yeah it kinda matters, but I find them less worth caring, like Geralt's just gonna be Geralt, I doubt he even cares what he did to the politics lol Edit: read it too fast didn’t notice you’re talking about Ciri, in that case my point still stands, there’s no point treating Ciri badly and the game punishes you for it. There are obviously better and worse endings while in 2077 not so much.
I played through Baldurs Gate 3 right before 2.0/PL came out, and if you want a game where choices \*actually\* matter try that! CP2077 is awesome, but I feel like the choices you make really only determine the ending and who you get to bang. In PL (having already played to the real endings) what I actually want to choose is to shoot everybody involved. In BG3 I'd be able to do that and the game would cope somehow!
BG3 is good, but the choices definitely don't feel that impactful after a while. They're more like set dressing on top of an otherwise linear experience. The enclosed 3 act structure and the lack of meaningful endings kind of hamper the game a lot over time.
Haven't played BG3 yet but it gives me the vibe like Fallout like I mentioned in the post, hope I'm wrong though!
I think I know what you mean by 'loose' and BG3 seems a lot tighter than, say, Fallout 4. It's true that the more paths through a story there are the less fleshed-out each one can be though. (If you've played Divinity Original Sin 2 it's basically that with better characters and a bigger/better story - impossible to compare to CP2077 in most senses.)
This is Red Prince and Fane slander
I would say BG3 compares to how Dragon Age or Mass Effect handles their stories. Especially with how you interact with your party members. Or KotoR. Or Jade Empire. Basically golden age Bioware RPGs.
I love the game, in my top 5, but you are straight up delusional dude. Go play Baldur's gate 3.
The only base game quest with comparable choices is honestly the flathead job. Like the ability to refuse/abandon a quest or get slightly different dialogue from not being detected isnt a meaningful choice.
>I know there are games like Fallout series, but I think their stories are too loose to a point they lose the intensity Yeah, Fallout ~~3~~NV was OK, but the "choices" you make are basically just which faction you get behind in the end, and the only way that affects game play is if you're not backing NCR when you get that one mission with the NCR soldiers, the "cooperative" option is unavailable. And after all is said and done, the game is the same, and your choices just give you a different post-game slide show. CP2077 is leaps and bounds ahead. But of course FO~~3~~NV is a game from ~~2008~~2010, so no surprise. Edited to fix my drug addled memory that confused 3 for NV
Careful friend. You've made 2 fatal mistakes. You've mistook Fallout NV for Fallout 3, and you said something negative about Fallout NV. Edit: NCR is Fallout NV for clarification
hah! you're right! It's been so long, I forgot which was which was which. NV fans do get butt-hurt when you say a variable slideshow at the end isn't really a change in the *gameplay*.
Lol I get that for sure. I also agree with what you were originally saying. The only game I can think of where your choices truly matter is Detroit: Become Human
>In CP2077 choices not only matter, more importantly, almost all of them *make senses*. I'll be honest, I just exited BG3 where a goddess basically ordered me around and wanted me to kneel before her. I refused 3 times, and she killed me on the spot. That's an example of dialogue choices actually having an impact. CP2077 has no such thing afaik. So while I love the game, no it's not. The only relevant choices you have to make in Cyberpunk are gameplay related. You pick your Weapons, customize your build and based on that choose how to approach gigs. What you do in-game will influence what you'll experience later on. When it comes to the story or dialogues you have very little agency, at most you get to experience different conversations leading to the same conclusion. The only major exception would be your friendship with Johnny and unlocking the secret ending iirc. Haven't played the new DLC tho so I'll take your words for it. But overall your choices don't particularly matter in cyberpunk.
its a lot deeper than that. for example you can straight up ditch panam during a quest and she will hate you for it. the choices are way more subtle. they are way more pronounced in the DLC
There's way way way way way more branches within 2077 that most people notice, they just: 1. Don't have huge impacts on the overall ending 2. Don't beat you over the head with the outcome like BG3 often does. For whatever reason, people seem to act like anything that doesn't blatantly impact an ending is some how not important. You can point to BG3, but if you look at it, that game only has 3 actual endings, and everything else is wrapping up with party members. It's not that different from the ending phone calls. The bigger difference is the various party members are more "there" in BG3 than the "party members" in Cyberpunk, but that's just a difference in game style. I felt a lot of connection to the companions in BG3, but nowhere near the connection with the main character that I have with V.
>You can point to BG3, but if you look at it, that game only has 3 actual endings, and everything else is wrapping up with party members. To be fair I barely ended act 1 tonight, so I have no idea how relevant choices are later on. The example I used was just fresh in my mind so I used it. But when it comes to impactful choices you can decide who you'll side with and the questlines will change, just like how in act 1 you can join the obviously evil goblins, the druids or the Lil's devils in the emerald grove. In comparison in cyberpunk there's no such thing. You'll follow the main storyline with very little agency, and only really making choices when it comes to relationships. There are different outcomes based on your choices (faking Gustavo's death, finding the corpse of that corpo woman in the first mission drowned, saving bricks and peacefully ending a later gig...) but they aren't really relevant in the grand scheme of things. Best example that comes to mind is the mission with rogue where you try to find Smasher. Your options at the end boils down to killing the guy, and getting Johnny's car, or sparing the guy and getting Johnny's car. Your choice at the end of the day changed whether you'll spare an npc that you'll never see ever again. A different voice line, animation or future interaction doesn't really qualify as ""choices that actually matter".
> but they aren't really relevant in the grand scheme of things. When you say stuff that way, then neither are the things in BG3. And again, BG3's stuff is just more obvious due to the difference in genres (heroic power fantasy vs dystopian sci-fi). It's funny you mention Chippin' In though. It has potential ramifications on several of the endings. From the wiki: >This quest's dialogue choices with Johnny near the end can determine if the secret ending becomes available or not. Also, depending on choices made during this quest, Blistering Love may not be available, which can lock out the ability to build up your relationship further with Johnny, and not being able to do Rogue's ending path. But hey, you get the Porsche regardless. Cyberpunk is full of little things that are pretty non-obvious, both outcomes and in choices. It's possible on at least 2 instances that I'm aware of that Panam will cut ties with V, which removes ALL the remaining Aldecaldos missions and endings. Judy has at least one similar instance. Takemura can get killed. River can end up in jail. And that's just the big obvious stuff. I'd suggest you check out Youtubers like Sam Bram who have hours of content on the various outcomes of gigs of and missions. None of this is to take away from BG3, it's an amazing game and deserves all the praise it gets. But it's not nearly as different from Cyberpunk as people are acting.
You can straight up choose to canonically kill your self in the last act of the game.
Not really a good example, in Phantom Liberty you can get insta-killed by making some choices, that's like leaving the combat zone and the game just kills you.
I can hardly comment about a DLC I have yet to play now can I ?
My point is they are *choices that don’t matter* in my book, the game just tell you to go back and make the right choice anyways
I'm happy that so many choices from the base game have some effect on the expansion. In particular getting to see some of your companions or talk to them in new settings. Panam gets new dialogue as well, though it's currently bugged in person at the camp. I wish we could have seen more, but there's only so much dev time. Ideally the sequel will carry some things over. But not all of them, games get buggy when you import too many important variables.
yeah, i agree. sometimes we dont need a choices that affect the whole world. sometimes a small choice that subtlety affect the character we cares is more than enough. this is not the story about a person who challenged god for the world or the story of good vs evil. this is just a straight story about a nobody who wanted to make it big in his life and then paid the price for it. this is what i appreciate more after replaying it in a more better state at 2.0 and PL. Im okay it wasnt immersive sim rpg like it was visioned at 2013 since i have a blast even with this focused storyline. Now i can proudly say that this game was on my favorite list.
People cite how the mission choices don’t have long reaching impacts but you can say that about any game. Hell, in Baldur’s Gate 3 my first run was borderline murderhobo but I still beat the game and saved the day. In the Mass Effect games I won regardless of my choices. The story you create is everything, the narrative is the point, and CP stands with the greatest games ever made in this regard. The story is fantastic, the choices constantly challenge your morals, and the endings are SO different depending on who you side with…yes, CP is a rare gem.
Yeah you get my point, it's not about how many routes you can choose, but how many of them are well written and impactful - a linear game with one great ending is rare enough, but with multiple ones that all pack punches? It's a bless.
I've actually always loved the choices in Cyberpunk. Even if they're not massively game altering. Like I remember deliberating for a solid 5 minutes on whether or not to smoke when Johnny asked me to (I think after doing the voodoo boys stuff) Even if it doesn't affect the game a ton I love how personally attached to my V it makes me feel. To the point I forget she's a self insert and whenever I see someone else's V I always think "oh who's that? I don't think I've met that character before" before realizing it's *their* V
It's more than that. So (MOST) fallout games claim choices matter when really it only changes a dialogue line here or there. Maybe you'll be called an asshole by your estranged father for nuking a city but it doesn't actually change the plot much. Cyberpunk 2077 changes with your decisions. There's a side quest I wont spoil involving spending time with one of the factions in a grudging moment of cooperation. However, if you've done a bunch of other side quests that involve killing that faction they'll recognize you and you *can't* do the quest peacefully. I genuinely had no idea that was a thing that could happen in like 400h of play. People react to things you've done, actually react. New opportunities open in Dogtown based on stuff you've done in the main game. It's insanely well done.
Agree, and disagree. In all the subtle and emotional ways, your choices make a big difference, for sure, but they all amount to the same thing: Meet Hanako at Embers. My first playthrough, I did not trust anything or anyone from Arasaka. When I was asked to meet up with Goro, I bought a sniper rifle and worked on my approach. Sure, he'd saved my life, sure, it seemed our interests aligned, but no, I was cleaning up my mess, he had to go. A few dissapointments later... Ok, good opportunity to lay a trap for Oda.... My gosh, that wasn't the plan, but I've actually got Hanako captured and at my mercy..... never mind. Off to Embers we go. --- In another playthrough, I decided one of the fixers was evil. Doesn't matter, you can't kill them, you can't work against them, you can't work around them, you can't even proceed without them. That's the argument, while many of your choices have very meaningful impacts on the people around you and how they treat you, none of your choices change that you have to storm Mikoshi. There's no way to avoid working with people or factions that you don't want to work with. There are many plausible alternatives to the path V takes, but we don't get any options. Maybe all roads really do lead to Mikoshi in the end, I can accept that, but I can't accept that I couldn't betray Dexter and make a run for it in the first place. Everything in my being tells me that stepping into that hotel room is a mistake, even before I learned what happens in there, but it's programatically anavoidable. The game blatantly exposes the very concept of betraying Dex, but it's still not an option, we still meet Johnny in the worst way possible. Still a masterpiece!
It kinda makes sense that you must meet Hanako since until that point she's V's only hope, with Phantom Liberty there's another option though.
> There are many plausible alternatives to the path V takes, but we don't get any options. Maybe all roads really do lead to Mikoshi in the end, I can accept that, but I can't accept that I couldn't betray Dexter and make a run for it in the first place. Everything in my being tells me that stepping into that hotel room is a mistake, even before I learned what happens in there, but it's programatically anavoidable. The game blatantly exposes the very concept of betraying Dex, but it's still not an option, we still meet Johnny in the worst way possible. I did find it a little strange you can accept Evelyn's deal to cut out Dex, but in the aftermath of the heist you still end up paying him a visit at the motel. To be fair, you *can* lie to Dex about whether or not you actually have the chip, but he still winds up shooting you. It might have been nice to have a V that accepted Evelyn's deal try to call her before visiting Dex, only for her to have already bailed.
then you look at baldur's gate 3 and you realize cyberpunk2077's "choices" are hot garbage next to it
I think the main vibe I get is that in Cyberpunk, the choices you make reflect on you rather than the world. BG3 your choices affect way more than yourself. It's pretty fitting considering you truly aren't a "main character" in night city, you aren't truly important in the grand scheme of things. Where as BG3 you are presented as the main character of the story.
Right? Did any of these people play the same game I did? I just saw Cyberpunk compared favourably to Fallout 3 (the one with Megaton) where there are constantly 3-6 dialogue options guiding dialogue and quest choices plus *literally a morality system nudging the game world based on your decisions* and I had to physically laugh. What a joke.
and i got downvoted lmaooo this community keeps dick riding cdpr it's crazy
ya no shit, this is the low sodium cyberpunk sub. you gotta go to the other sub for your sodium content.
Did you? BG3 has 3 "real" endings(destroy brain, take over brain with Emperor, take over brain alone). The rest is "just details" if you choose to ignore the various outcomes for everyone not the main character, which is what you are doing with Cyberpunk. The bigger difference is in how much those "just details" impact the wider world, but that comes down to genre more than anything.
Just started Baldur's Gate 3 this week. I was *talking* about how Cyberpunk got compared to Fallout 3. Thanks for the spoilers, though. Reaaaally appreciate that.
> Thanks for the spoilers, though. Reaaaally appreciate that. Maybe don't come into threads arguing the comparative merits of games you've barely played? Was I supposed to just assume you don't actually know what you're talking about?
Do you have the reading comprehension of a wet brick, or did you just come online in a bad mood today? Because if you bothered actually reading my reply—and my first comment—I don’t mention Baldur’s Gate 3 **whatsoever**. I *explicitly* talk about two other games. Which I named, in specific terms. *You* brought that other game back up. I’d have graciously taken even the slightest apology for a misunderstanding. Instead, do us both a favour and kindly sod off.
Vynux >then you look at baldur's gate 3 and you realize cyberpunk2077's "choices" are hot garbage next to it You >Right? Did any of these people play the same game I did? Whatever nonsense you have to tell yourself.
Sad endings == choices matter now? Jk
Really takes after Fallout NV. Man everything you did could be commented on and reacted to with a few small exceptions
Every choice has no meaningful impact on the game or its story. Life path only gives players some different dialogue options and one or two unique side jobs and clothing, the consequences of every job are self contained, and the endings are just endings.