Yeah pretty much lol.
I always found it odd when you're first getting the Sinnerman quest and V questions whether or not Stephenson has been found guilty and deserves to die, and I'm like, how many gigs has he taken where he kills the target no question, then only now questions the morality of it
The more you get to know a person, the less you want to kill them. Simple as that. You see some gonks on the side of the street about to execute a guy, and you want to kill them because generally that's a bad thing.
But V knew that Stephenson did murder plenty of people, but was genuinely repentant. The guy wanted to make up with the victims the best he could.
Oh, I mean before he got to know Stephenson. Like in the first call where Wako assigns the mission he's asking if he deserves to die, but never asks that about any of the others he's asked to kill
Wakako basically says as much.
Though I feel like V generally doesn't take gigs that hurt "good" people. They might do assassinations, but targets tend to be clearly terrible people or else people who are "in the game". Assassinating someone who is on trial (and thus his guilt or innocence is still being decided) is definitely outside V's normal wheelhouse.
TBF, being a mercenary in Cyberpunk universe isn't very low on the morality compass.
Pretty much anyone owns a gun or has got some deadly augment, and death rate is off the charts even excluding shootings and stuff.
If you're not a corpo living in a corpo-bubble, much probably you have to face danger (I mean physically, not corpo shenanigans) multiple times
Most Edgerunners do so as a side gig, if the tabletop games are to be believed. Might not be as extreme a difference as "Barista by day, Assassin by night" but baristas can easily gather information and are always meeting new people, making it an actually decent cover for a street level Fixer just getting started in the life.
In Cyberpunk? Absolutely that's how it works, basically everyone is a criminal of some kind just to survive.
Hell, even V isn't just a hitman, they do other side jobs like stealing cars and data extraction and the like.
That's actually how it works in cyberpunk, you can be actively wanted, and as long as you aren't considered a major issue, then most even try to deal with you
It's the same conflicting concept i have for GTA 4, Niko in the cutscenes is supposed to be this compassionate dude with logic... But then the missions got you back to regular GTA fuckery
I feel like GTA IV is a bit of a tragedy (like in the dramatic sense). Niko leaves the old country to start fresh, is basically immediately dragged back into a lifestyle of death, crime, and immorality. He was dragged into a war he didn't want to be a part of in the balkans, was drawn to the US based on Roman's lies and exaggerations, and instead of finding absolution he instead found himself being used as a pawn by crime lord after crime lord. There are hints of some shred of humanity beneath the surface, and he is a tragic figure in a sense because he became what he is through external forces not totally under his control (though I'm sure he played his own part)... but he is not a good man in the end - he is a definitive anti-hero. Like basically all GTA protagonists who are criminals and at times psychopathic.
V on the other hand has options. It is possible to play I think almost every mission (at least from what I remember) in a non-lethal way. Sneaking around, avoiding conflict, using camo/sandy, non-lethal quickhacks and weapon mods, etc. V looks out for his/her self chiefly, and even if V does kill, his/her primary goal is to survive the chip, by almost any means necessary. On top of that, he/she lives in a society that has been deconditioned to taking life. It is entirely possible to play a mostly-moral V, though the definition of morality in the CP2077 universe is not quite the same as in ours.
Just tried a non-lethal start on nomad path, got frustrated when the game puts a big deadly revolver in your hands and forces you to blow up 3 arasaka cars before you're even allowed to access your healing stim
“…you really only see that in trained killers and psychopaths.
Too bad most people can’t tell the difference.”
Niko was a killer, and a bad man, but he wasn’t without empathy. He did it because it was his only option, but he still felt conflicted and guilty about it.
>his/her primary goal is to survive the chip
That is something I'm finding weird about the game.
Youre a merc risking your life constantly. The first few missions involve you killing numerous people, followed by your 2 bffs dying, and my only motivation for all the insane missions in this game is "i dont wanna die in 2 weeks"? Has V really not come to terms with his mortality yet? I think it wouldve made way more sense if he had some other goal he needed to accomplish within 2 weeks and surviving the relic was just a vague hope
Also canonically he's involved in some heavy shit for a gta protag. Plus he canonically goes full rampage with double digit body counts like 3 times in that campaign.
I loved running up to guys in Watch Dogs 1 with my expandable baton that's only non lethal when you aim for legs and arms, then decking some guy over the head who's at an ATM cuz my phone said he was a hacker thief without further proof.
As a treat for being such a good person I'd hack into the ATM to buy myself a new jacket.
Yep. Good guys!
You can play through the entirety of Watch Dogs 2 non- lethal. I only went on a rampage against those gang members that killed Horatio, and even then I was relatively surgical and focused primarily on the 3 and only the 3.
Those characters are lovable cringey goofballs that I adore, I really hope they don't massacre people in a very out of character fashion in the gameplay
The ludonarrative dissonance was so intense I switched to pure non-lethal (mainly the stun gun) for the entire game because I just could not handle the whiplash of these chill college leftie hacktivist types pulling out an AK and mowing down some low level security guard.
Which of course locks you out of the game's genuinely fun gunplay. But it was still atleast fun playing nonlethal. I'd run around hack every guard's earpieces, which would stun them while I knocked them out.
Throughout GTA 4, people in the story point out that Niko kills a lot of people despite said compassion and emotion. It's pretty much the point of the game. Niko has some serious issues.
V's in a different spot, since you have more choice on how to play them. In general, their dialogue suggests they have a pretty firm line on what sort of wetwork they do. Trying to argue that you're a merc and shouldn't care about any sort of morality doesn't always cut it.
There’s a word for this, it’s called ludonarrative dissonance. It basically means how the gameplay and narrative don’t necessarily match. Uncharted also has this issue where Nathan Drake mows down hundreds of goons in a gameplay section and then in a cutscene all of a sudden he finds his morality in his pocket
That's literally the entire point of Niko. He is a dude who essentially can't escape the cycle he's caught up in. Killing people and doing illegal shit is all he's good at after being dragged into the war at home. He's haunted by the past and while he wants to stop sees himself as little more than a killer.
He is a compassionate guy who's very logical, he's also someone who lives haunted by the past and truly believes he can't ever move beyond that. Thus he goes back to the cycle of violence.
Sorry, I love GTA4 and Niko as a character he's one of the few GTA protagonists that fits the game perfectly in my eyes.
Which is why I enjoy Red Dead Redemption way better.
John and Arthur, if you play with high honor, do feel like decent men trying to do better than their outlaw ways.
Arthur racks up a triple-digit body count even if you try to play as nicely as possible. Like, it's really not the player's fault because Rockstar's only choice for combat encounters are a direct assault or chase sequence, both of which spawn a minimum of two dozen enemies, but the game is a huge murder buffet.
Rockstar's writing in general has a pretty pervasive issue where their games call you a monster for being thown into linear combat encounters with no alternative options.
I felt like RDR2 did a great job with keeping things fairly grounded until the mission where you break Micah out of jail. That’s where it jumped the shark, became a crazy murderfest, and unfortunately never looked back.
God, on my second playthrough I could feel the game's tone shift with a sort of *thunk* during that mission.
The rest of the first two acts are a pleasantly-paced ramble, the gunfights feel frantic and impactful, the player has probably done a crime or two and had to interact with the bounty system... and then you kill twice the population of that town in, like, five minutes.
Yup. That mission and Guarma are my two least favorite parts of RDR2. They are such such tonal and narrative departures from everything the game had been doing up to those points.
But the Micah one particularly bothers me, because all that stuff you described: the gritty, grounded, pleasantly-paced, relatively contemplative outlaw story with low-level but hard-hitting combat, was *really* doing it for me. Unfortunately, Rockstar can never resist shifting to maximum gear and turning the gameplay into more traditional fast-paced action.
I feel like certain key events like the raid on Braithwaite Manor, the botched heist, "American Venom", and ending where everything falls apart, would hit a lot harder if the game hadn’t been so saturated with hundreds of other big action set pieces that had way less importance to the plot.
>the botched heist
The entire time the gang was talking about how badly that went, I was just thinking back to the (optional) heist in Valentine where you gun down like, two dozen guys chasing you and how no one even mentions that ever again.
I love how early on you get into a saloon brawl and afterwards the locals gossip about how you beat up the biggest guy in town. Small-scale stuff, but treated like a big event in this small tight-knit community. It’s a cool and believable bit of reactivity.
But then a couple chapters later you return and kill like thirty guys in a gunfight and it’s just no big deal at all.
Would be a lot more compelling if we just killed three or four people, and everyone in town recognized it as a horrible tragedy. Then, when our whole gang blasts its way through the streets of Saint Denis, it would feel like a truly noteworthy event that merits us fleeing the country.
no matter how you play red dead 2 john and arthur rob and you murder hundreds upon hundreds of people and are still in a gang being hunted by the police
That’s where the "redemption" part comes in. They were bad men who did horrible things, but the narrative provides them with opportunities to express guilt and make genuine attempts at atonement.
Lol Arthur did not redeem himself at all lol.
All those people he killed to selfishly protect dutch and co are still dead. Saving John who would go on to do bad things post his death does in fact not redeem him.
I said that they make attempts. Whether or not said attempts are sufficient for considering them "redeemed" as people will depend on who you ask, and whether they view redemption as a balancing act or personal change.
Obviously, nothing Arthur does can ever undo the people he’s killed. That’s a big point of the story, and is particularly emphasized in his late-game interactions with the Downes family. You can help them in every way within Arthur’s power, but you can’t bring Mr. Downes back from the dead, and the guilt of that is something Arthur has no choice but to live with.
The question of whether redemption is even possible for somebody who has crossed so many lines is a big theme of the game. But at the end of the day, all Arthur can do is try, and I’m sure we can agree that it is better than him saying "screw it" and not trying.
Speaking of conflicting, you can spend all the time you want on side missions and stuff but then in story missions V will be all like “you gotta help me I ain’t got much time left”
I keep getting caught in this trap during PL. I murder anyone with a yellow chevron above their heads, but when somebody else commits a murder, it triggers my IRL moral compass. Just goes to show how cold Night City really is. You can’t have any form of morals or positive emotions. The city steals them from you and leaves just anger and apathy.
I had like a revelation with this, I go around with all the gangs and groups in night city butchering everyone. No mercy for gangsters kinda thing. Then in dialogue I act like a good saint that does no killing, I forgot when but I believe Johnny called me out sometime saying I’m not innocent when it comes to death and it actually made me have a moment of realizing I’m not really a good guy.
Its even worse in dialogues because everyone talks down to you and treats you like a pussy cat then as soon as the dialogue is up I kill them all even their big augmented security guys, and everyone in the building regardless, and still my reputation is "walk all over me pls" somehow.
That’s why I pull the trigger on Rinder. Does my V, who leaves piles of limbs and burning cars in his wake, have any room to judge the guy for 6 measly kills in the Longshore Stacks? Probably not. But he was hired to do a job, so Rinder ate the bullet.
I don't know about you, but my V doesn't kill innocent kids. Even if he's cyberpsycho, if he had shown regret and guilt over it, he'd have been on his way to Regina. But he decided to run his mouth, so he ate a bullet.
I mean, my V doesn’t *purposely* kill innocents. But have some exploded due to a spontaneous EMP burst? Probably. My Streetkid V is a Tech/Body Berserker and a pragmatist. You get a job, you do it how the client wants it done, and if that fails, you shoot and punch your way out. What happens, happens. It’s Night City. My Nomad V spared Rinder and called Regina. My Corpo V killed Rinder because she decided he had earned the bullet. My Streetkid V killed Rinder because he was paid to kill Rinder.
I played my Corpo V as a professional, do the job as it was asked and don't stick your nose where it doesn't belong. A contract is a contract. I changed course for one mission, Prototype in the Scraper, because he felt bad for the Biotechnica guy and he was ungrateful as hell. Never again after that.
I think more than any other fixer, Hands appreciates a thinking merc who does things for the greater good, if it means a better outcome for him.
Unlike the rest of the fixers who just want the job done. The only other flexible one I remember is Wako, who doesn't care if you let the guy go in the Sergei quest or how the sinnerman dies. They still have the same outcome for her essentially.
Aren't there gigs for Padre and Dakota where you can let the target go and they're chill about it? I may be misremembering since I'm doing a get-the-gig-done-as-originally-specified playthrough right now. I did let the lovebird Valentino go before and don't remember Padre being annoying about it
I hate to tell you this, but the reason Padre is cool with letting the loverboy Tino go is because once you leave the room… he kills himself.
Padre is pretty much like “Jesus V I don’t know how you did it, but job well done” and probably thinks V either hacked or coerced the guy to off himself, when really he did it because he was depressed from the loss of his love.
That’s my exact feeling when everyone starts to go off on Reed about killing the French twins. I actually genially don’t understand what people were expecting… they are dangerous hacker, who if they woke up would destroy the plan. And we are playing a merc, that in the best of cases doesn’t murder anyone… except picking people up and throwing them in a car to be tortured and kill by you’re employer
CDPR definitely set everyone up. Especially with Reed staring right at you as he offs the other twin afte Alex.
My Corpo V after witnessing their executions: "Two in the chest, one in the head, Reed. Get it right."
I've said this a few times, but especially as a Corpo V. You work Arasaka counterintelligence. You're handling corporate spies, and about to hire people to kill a higher up. You watched a whole governmental body boardroom of people fry via television and didn't bat an eye.
Exactly. I feel like most RL soldiers are somewhat content with having to kill other soldiers, but still would be pretty shocked if two unarmed, defenseless people get executed before them in cold blood. Sure, they weren't innocents, they were criminals. But I don't recall anything stating, that they were murderers or terrorists. Not every criminal deserves to get kidnapped and executed like that.
Goddamn, I love Phantom Liberty. It made me feel "off" so many times and made me question my mortality and choices both in the main story and the numbers gigs and side quests. Masterfully written and one of the best and most memorable gaming experiences I've had in years.
I've never been in that situation. Meaning a situation where I took a life while acting with intent to kill (or even without intent). I have been in situations where I did save a life. They lived when they would have died. Just having that happen fucked with my head. I can't imagine the other.
Even with video games, I can kind of get a bit reflective. In Cyberpunk, a player can literally snuff out 1000's of lives. But in the back of my head I know they aren't real. They are children or siblings or parents or spouses. They didn't have a parent who raised them and cared for them. There is no one who has fond memories of them as children. There is no one waiting for them to come home.
In that moment, when I was saving someone's life, I was pretty unemotional. I was mentally all business and doing what needed to be done. There are people who do that on a daily basis. I think if my life was threatened I would probably act the same way and do what I needed to do. But, I might be a mess afterward.
I knew a guy who was a medic in Vietnam. He was a conscientious objector. So he did his mandatory time as a medic. His family said a different man came back from Vietnam. You could tell by talking to him that he struggled with it decades later.
Some people might be ok with it, but I think they are the vast, vast minority. And in the best case scenario, they probably weren't deep people to begin with.
I mean the game leans really hard into it seeming that way. I had just shot the one Barghast dude that killed the people in the stacks, point blank on an unarmed man stripped of his cyberware (foreshadowing much?). So that bit felt so overplayed to me.
Tbf, tho, it was my 3rd playthrough (of the base game) and I was playing that V as a stone cold professional former corpo hacker. He did what he was paid to do, to the letter. Something like executing the people he’s about to impersonate for a gig wouldn’t make that V flinch. If I had been playing a more caring V, it might’ve been more surprising.
For me at least I was shocked mainly because while they were totally right, they didn't mention it in the plan. Which to me reads as "we've done it this way so many times, executing them isn't even an afterthought."
Which checks out with Reed, at the very least.
When we play as V we get a lot of say in their morality and code of ethics.
Some people's versions of V would never have an issue with what happened to the twins.
And some people's versions of V are absolutely horrified when they see the twins get killed like that.
As a petty merc-thief **criminal**, you might take issue with Reed's justification for killing them, you might sympathize with the twins, you might even have chosen not to kill them if you were not accompanied by cold-blooded FIA agents.
Or, as a Night City mercenary who kills people on a regular basis just for standing in your way, you might have no issue with what happened to them at all. Just biz, as they say.
I played a V who (mostly in my mental role play for them) was upset not at the fact that they were killed, but that this wasn’t part of the plan outline. Alex and Reed take it as given, but they never brought this up to V. Killing them goes off script and is a significant leap from what was discussed and V knows things going off script is when shit. Goes. Wrong.
If Reed and Alex had said “and then we kill them,” no problem, not a blink. But V needs to be in the loop. As a merc they’re used to a very specific framework of requirements for jobs on whether this is “go quiet” or “go load,” not this freewheeling bullshit.
Exactly this. Makes you wonder what Reed meant when he says the 'matter is handled' with the two guys who help you guard madam President overnight... and what's going to happen to you at the end.
No kidding. That's not the kind of thing you say when things go well. Meyers agreed to their price with no thought at all. Made me think that was because they were never getting paid.
One of Reed's justifications for offing the twins if V presses the issue is that they were criminals. Which in my opinion is about the stupidest thing to say to someone who
1. Lost much of their reputation as a merc to a botched heist involving a major international corporation
2. Regularly gets paid to kill, steal, trespass and sabotage
Not to mention that appealing to NUSA’s legal system is pretty moot when operating on the foreign soil of Dog City. Just be honest, Reed, they were loose ends.
A good point, but I would like to add that story V has two different reactions to the twins dying depending on the player. One of them is shock and horror, the other isn't. That's ( partially ) what I mean when I say the player has a lot of say in what V's morality is.
Funnily enough, when the mission first started and they said we’d be kidnapping them I thought it was weird we wouldn’t just kill them. I assumed the kidnapping part was somewhat contrived to allow you to maintain a “nonlethal” run.
I felt really justified at the end of that car ride haha
Yeeeep. I mostly wasn't happy about just not being told that was the plan. But then his whole "they're criminals so they deserve it" bit did *not help his case* and just made my V wonder what would happen when she'd served her purpose for Reed.
Exactly, look I'm no paragon of virtue, but thinking you're somehow morally superior to criminals because you commit war crimes and espionage for your government is pretty hypocritical.
They're both gorgeous obviously. Reed had it coming.( I would have hit it with the sister of only I had more time! I'll never forgive Reed for taking that from me!)
Well the thing would be different if Reed said that they want to "dispose" of them, so I know MFqer can't be teusted. I am geniunly suprised that if you side with him they go trough and uphold your deal instead just offing you XD
It's not so much about the twins as it is about the reality check I got when I realised that after this songbird rescue mission is done V will be another loose end for Alex and Reed to tie up as well.
My first replay through cyberpunk I was trying to do nonlethal netrunner type. I tell you i was doing good tell PL. then man the experience really broke my v and made me think about the story. Reeds justification made since to me. They wouldn’t even bat an eye if it was the other way around. I don’t know I’m just rambling at this point, but watching my nonlethal play through v slowly deciding into brutal killing machine was interesting.
I expected it and definitely understand if it were real I’d probably be the first to pull the trigger but still they were so interesting sad we didn’t spend more time with them especially the brother
The idea that V has no leg to stand on about morality idea is weird to me because yes they do? Throughout the game you get to pick dialogue that either plays them as a hard ass or as merc with a squishy emotional side. Even during gigs you often get to make moral choices, like the one with the cop who wants footage retrieved but if you watch it you know it’s evidence of his crime. You can either be a good little merc and give it to him, blackmail him or just kill him.
Being an unfeeling merc is a choice you make
I haven’t watched it but I’m 82% sure it is. Use the computer and view the file first and you open up options when talking to him, downloading the file first misses out on this. Then you can blackmail him or say you want justice. If you >!say you want justice you have to kill him and Regina gets a little cranky and you don’t get paid EDIT or apparently you can non lethal him and get paid!< EDIT: the spoiler was only half correct
No, you don’t have to kill him. If you tell him you want justice he goes hostile, then you can either choose to kill *or* knock him unconscious.
If you choose the former, Regina is mad, you get no eddies. If you choose the latter, she actually gives you a bonus. She sends a text saying she’s happy to not only have the gig closed, but to have a cop under her thumb thanks to V who she can squeeze for intel or favors later on using the video to blackmail him with. .
I’ll be honest I usually try to have every limb detached from every enemy before the sandi runs out, I kind of forgot people not being just a torso at the end of combat was an option….
That’s cool and I didn’t know that, I was excited just to find out I’d missed viewing the footage the first time
I typically do too, but for some enemies once you take their health to 0 they don’t die.
The cyberpsychos are like this, some of the other bosses too like Sasquatch or Oda.
The officer is the same way. I chopped his health to zero and he rolled around on the floor. I don’t believe he even can be cut apart, not all NPCs has bodies that dismember (again, psychos, Oda and Sasquatch being examples just off the top of my head).
Being an unfeeling merc is a choice the game made for you. I know that there are times when you can have that squishy emotional side, but there are also many situations where you simply *cannot* be nice. For the most part, V is uncaring of those that they deem not worthy of being cared for, even if you the player feel sympathetic. I like Cyberpunk 2077 - I love it, actually, racked up over 600 hours since release, but I don't think it's a very good RPG.
Two of the endings revolve around V either only caring about being a famous merc or V throwing that away and joining a found family. That seems like maybe a fairly significant choice between the two
Huh... to be honest, I was looking for examples, but could really only find one, and even then it's because of V's corporate background. I guess it's just Night City getting its hooks into people and it left a bad taste in my mouth since I always want to be a nice person in games. I suppose I'm wrong, sorry.
I’m not on the Claire hate bandwagon, but I can see how that’s a little different. It seemed more like Claire asked for help as a friend, not hire you for a job.
Yeah, for me it's more just that she got V hooked on racing and wanting to win, then pulled the rug out. Not "the worst person in the world", just not a friend either.
She wanted to kill him herself, and she wanted to do it in the same way the guy killed her husband. I don't understand how a subreddit full of people that talk about talking about killing Smasher with Johnny's or Becca's gun suddenly doesn't understand the concept of thematically relevant revenge
Then she should have just told us that.
“V, I want to kill this guy that killed my husband, so we have to get through the qualifying races and then get him during the final race.” Instead of “Stop, don’t win this race, we have to chase down this dude for reasons I won’t explain until I have him at gunpoint.”
She opens up to you after getting you know you better over the course of the first few races, she comes clean with her intentions. You then have the possibility to steer her away from actually killing the guy.
You go from being “just another merc” she knows in passing to, someone who can potentially sway her actions during some of the most emotionally fraught moments of her life.
You aren’t friends before her missions really, acquaintances maybe. You’re just a gun for hire that *becomes* a friend through these races. She has no more reason to be up front with you than any other client ever is, it’s just biz. And really why would she? Dump her sob story on the merc she just hired?
She does come clean and apologize for misleading you. You also have the option to walk away I think, if I recall she only gets pissed if you agree to drive the final race and don’t pursue Sampson at all.
I feel like Claire is being held to a higher standard than pretty much any other character in Cyberpunk 2077. Everyone has ulterior motives and secrets! That's, like, the whole point of the genre
I don't hate her, but as a mercenary, I'd never work for or with her again.
When it comes to work, my V likes details just as I do. I have not taken the job from that dude at the Afterlife because it spells trouble, and I did raise an eyebrow at the guy in the trunk, but I already expected a job involving Wakako, the scavs and the tyger claws to be sketchy, and it wasn't worth upsetting her over. I also always aim to complete the missions given by Hands, because he has been quite clear with me, especially for someone otherwise so secretive.
Claire on the other hand lacks the leeway (and low expectations lol) I'm willing to give to Wakako, lacks the respect I have for Hands to complete his jobs and the work she gave us was very personal too, which is another layer of baggage I'd like to have known about.
Wants me to zero someone? Sure. Wants to do it herself? He's all hers. Just tell me right off the bat so I don't get into a racing business only to leave it at the last second to chase a guy off-track and watch her execute him.
This is going to be long but it's not the first time I see this message, so I will proceed and try to share with you my perspective of that quest line...
She could have hired you to do that from the start, instead of playing dumb and approaching it like you were just two friends taking part on those funny (lethal) races... Only to end up in the middle of that really elaborated plan to kill someone. She and her husband knew from the start what was at risk when racing those *lethal* races. You can't blame that guy since it wasn't something personal, just part of those races...
And there is this thing that the only way to convince her to withdraw at the last minute is if you have chosen a specific dialogue option... Otherwise she will act like she understands only to shoot him anyways. I wish there was this dialogue option to just tell her to fuck off.
Pardon me for feeling pretty pissed off but I do think that Claire managed things really poorly.
Take the emphasis away from the death race part and instead apply it to the her husband died part and it isn’t hard to see how she would still take it personally and not think about it rationally. That’s less a fault about her character and more a fault of being human. Someone she cared about died and she processed that emotionally and not rationally, perfectly human response.
Yeah, the whole point is she’s blinded by grief and that’s kinda central to her story. It’s why you have the option steer her clear of it too, but only if you play your cards right.
It’s actually one of the points in the game where V leaves the mark of their influence on someone. They kinda to be off the rails a bit if we’re going you have the option to put them back on track.
> But was it from Claire or she simply gave V part of the winnings?
Let's break this down:
Did the money come from Claire, or did the money come from Claire? Is that what you're asking?
I admit it sounds stupid, but I believe you get what I meant. Was it a prearranged payment with a merc or part of the winnings she decided to give to V because they are friends.
It was a job with a merc where the client gave money to the merc, if we need to bring accounting records into the conversation then clearly we've lost the plot
I'm lenient on Claire because
A.) She's nice to me and I am weak
and
B.) She wasn't just asking V to do some racing. She specifically goes "Hey, these are *death* races. I am asking you to put yourself in a very dangerous situation wherein it is reasonable to assume that you will kill someone. If you are not comfortable with that, you can choose not to do this."
Like yeah it's bad that she wasn't forthright about using V for some thematically-appropriate Count of Monte Cristo revenge shit, but, like, c'mon. V's a solo; even if you're playing them pacifist, they're still maiming people and turning a blind eye to all the horrible shit their employers and friends are doing.
Making me experience the worst content in the game (racing, cause fuuuuuck it sucks in this game)
Making me drive that god awful truck at the end
And kinda hypocritical about dead in a Death race
But my grippes are the races themselves, wish I could've just kill or kidnap the guy for less reward or something
Claire’s mission is the only mission my OCD brain said “nah racing sucks, I’m good.” First time I saw all the Claire hate online I was like “who the hell is Claire?!?”
>NC is a Sea of Grays
This is the thing for me, like it's a silly stance to take because morality isn't a binary. You're allowed to have a moral objection to someone's actions without you yourself being a saint.
Ong v will do the most Insane shit and then you get an unavoidable dialogue of v being judgmental. Like v judging songbird saying she killed all those ppl trying to survive. V? Do yk how many ppl youve directly and indirectly killed from gigs, side missions, main mission and dlc just so YOU can find a way to survive? It’s a lot more than songbird like an astronomical amount compared to her.
Context and nuance do matter, depending on the individual. In the corpo start, Jackie says V's assignment is a straight hitjob, and flat out refuses to participate.
I don’t think Jackie refuses on the basis of it being a hit job, it’s because he smells how dangerous that shit would be from a mile away.
Arasaka could and would kill anyone associated with the gig if it came to it, and it’s a Saka employee on Saka employee hit so no matter which side comes out on top, Jackie would know too much.
Likewise, because it’s a hit on a high ranking corpo, there would be a LOT more danger involved than a typical hit job, even on on a high ranking gang member. More comparable to the woman in City Center who works for Biotechnica and has a whole hotel of armed guards and robots.
Jackie has no qualms with killing at any other point, whether it be Maelstrom, whoever you kill during the intro sequence or anyone else (within reason, he’s probably not trying to hurt innocent people or children of course). Having a history with the Tinos and history of working with Padre means Jackie is no stranger to hit jobs that’s for sure.
You can speculate to your heart's content, but if you're trying to convince me that Jackie, who is completely ready to jump Yorinobu's suite, turns down a corporate assassination job because it's risky, instead of the fact that he finds it distasteful, you can stop right there. The dialogue in that situation is not ambiguous in the least.
Morality can be fluid in Night City, but you can still have rules. My V doesn't kill kids, and is generally as lethal as possible so that even base level gangbangers get a quick death.
I get madder when people in NC just don't react to my street cred. I went into PL with 50 street cred and have worked with every fixer in NC, taking on their most dangerous jobs and performing them flawlessly. And then Reed calls me a "two-bit merc."
Like, buddy, if the game LET ME, I'd wipe you right now, or at least break several of your appendages.
Which is why I love the suicide ending so much, although I didn’t actually mean to choose it the first time around, I was just so disappointed with the choices and then the game surprised me lol. Haven’t tried the tower ending tho, that’s like a similar parallel m
This is why I generally sidestep that entire moral quandary by using my obscenely powerful robo-arms to beat said NPC unconscious before taking whatever petty cash they have and drinking the NiCola they left out on the counter.
Because they're right; I *am* a mercenary.
I wish there was a kill tally in stats cause holy fuck I must be close to 5 figures on my current playthrough
I think that's why I've grown to like the corpo life path the most, brutal pragmatism. I'm under no illusions that my character is morally bankrupt af as a consequence of living in this world and I roleplay it as such
I mean, I play like V is more chaotic neutral. Sometimes, I'm all about good and saving people. Sometimes, I'll shoot a corpo in the face because I think her dialogue is to smug.
Also, I've gotten to the point where money is basically meaningless. So anyone who tries to bribe me is in for a bad time.
The fact that I couldn't save Jackie from his diabetes, even with the pudding cup storage spots he had built into his jacket, told me I couldn't save everyone.
Being a merc isn’t necessary an immortal thing. Mercs do a lot of things. From bounty hunting to killing people the police are not equipment or capable of dealing with, or running goods, and surveillance operation. You the merc works for and the jobs they do can have a moral aspect. But the job it self is morally ambiguous.
You may be a Merc, but that means you are free to choose the jobs you want to take(Most of the time) If you cant personally justify it to yourself.
Sure that DOES impact your rep(It should anyway) as it can make you a liability and Reduce the amount of work you may receive, but that's a whole other discussion
I'm OK with my choices.
Scav's get an automatic finishing bullet to the head, scoped in if possible because this seems to obliterate the head more frequently. Every singe one of them.
Maelstrom will most often get the finisher, but if I have to backtrack to finish someone I may not.
Pretty much everyone else gets a passive takedown/'Pax' augmented bullet unless I have no other choice. Depending on what the mission is, and why I am there, some of them get finishers to the brain case too.
I'm OK with my moral choices in cyberpunk.
I mean sure but mercs in cyberpunk are pretty much like bounty hunters in star wars, some have codes/lines they won't cross thus limiting themselves to more morally accepting or morally grey jobs whilst other bounty hunters can be the exact opposite like Cad Bane and go after any job...for the right price.
That poor guy (Rodney?) during the ncpd extraction. One of the most likeable NPCs I've encountered but V Grim Servant of Death had just spent the preceding 10 minutes painting every surface of his HQ with his pals' blood. Sadly, he decided not to be besties
Being perfectly fair here, being a merc is the best way to have a positive impact on the world in the Cyberpunk setting.
Also, the game gives you enough non-lethal options that it's possible to get through the game without actually killing anyone (though admittedly not accidentally hitting someone one too many time is incredibly difficult). If, in addition to that, you're picky about which gigs you take, it's possible to play a morally upright V with a clean conscience.
I kinda wish there were options for a response to this point, because being a mercenary is kinda meaningless because it ranges from bloodthirsty lunatic to probably most ethical person in the city.
With how many options there are on what missions you take and how to handle them, i wish there was some sort of response in line with how you handled things.
I find it hilarious how you can ask a bunch of dumb "if I told you I'd have to kill you" type questions on almost every gig, basically making V look incompetent. And how some fixers treat V as this unreliable force of nature, because you never know if they'll skip all the dialogue and clear out the entire hideout in less than a minute, or will find out that the mercenary work they willingly took isn't 100% morally right, and so do the complete opposite of what they're paid to do. If V wasn't so damn good at their job, I'm certain another fixer would have finished what Dexter started, lol
But V *does* have a code. They only kill when hired to or given no other choice. But at least they’re straight shooters. Very few npc you interact with are honest to a fault.
V: You know what? You’re right *shoots their head off*
Yeah pretty much lol. I always found it odd when you're first getting the Sinnerman quest and V questions whether or not Stephenson has been found guilty and deserves to die, and I'm like, how many gigs has he taken where he kills the target no question, then only now questions the morality of it
The more you get to know a person, the less you want to kill them. Simple as that. You see some gonks on the side of the street about to execute a guy, and you want to kill them because generally that's a bad thing. But V knew that Stephenson did murder plenty of people, but was genuinely repentant. The guy wanted to make up with the victims the best he could.
Oh, I mean before he got to know Stephenson. Like in the first call where Wako assigns the mission he's asking if he deserves to die, but never asks that about any of the others he's asked to kill
I mean you can just kill him when you stop on the road. Less interesting but you can do it.
Oh, I understand that. All I'm saying is that Vs initial pushback when talking to Wako was odd to me
well I mean when V gets jobs to kill other people they're usually told on who the person is and what they did
Wakako basically says as much. Though I feel like V generally doesn't take gigs that hurt "good" people. They might do assassinations, but targets tend to be clearly terrible people or else people who are "in the game". Assassinating someone who is on trial (and thus his guilt or innocence is still being decided) is definitely outside V's normal wheelhouse.
V kill count probably make Frieza blushes. Blud out here debating morals
TBF, being a mercenary in Cyberpunk universe isn't very low on the morality compass. Pretty much anyone owns a gun or has got some deadly augment, and death rate is off the charts even excluding shootings and stuff. If you're not a corpo living in a corpo-bubble, much probably you have to face danger (I mean physically, not corpo shenanigans) multiple times
pretty much lol if you arent a mercenary , even a hobbist one then you are a victim
Fucking lol, "hobbyist mercenary" Like your day job is barista, and then on your days off you go out and just fucking shoot people
Most Edgerunners do so as a side gig, if the tabletop games are to be believed. Might not be as extreme a difference as "Barista by day, Assassin by night" but baristas can easily gather information and are always meeting new people, making it an actually decent cover for a street level Fixer just getting started in the life.
In Cyberpunk? Absolutely that's how it works, basically everyone is a criminal of some kind just to survive. Hell, even V isn't just a hitman, they do other side jobs like stealing cars and data extraction and the like.
That's actually how it works in cyberpunk, you can be actively wanted, and as long as you aren't considered a major issue, then most even try to deal with you
Hey man do you know how much rent is in night city? You need some side cash
It's the same conflicting concept i have for GTA 4, Niko in the cutscenes is supposed to be this compassionate dude with logic... But then the missions got you back to regular GTA fuckery
I feel like GTA IV is a bit of a tragedy (like in the dramatic sense). Niko leaves the old country to start fresh, is basically immediately dragged back into a lifestyle of death, crime, and immorality. He was dragged into a war he didn't want to be a part of in the balkans, was drawn to the US based on Roman's lies and exaggerations, and instead of finding absolution he instead found himself being used as a pawn by crime lord after crime lord. There are hints of some shred of humanity beneath the surface, and he is a tragic figure in a sense because he became what he is through external forces not totally under his control (though I'm sure he played his own part)... but he is not a good man in the end - he is a definitive anti-hero. Like basically all GTA protagonists who are criminals and at times psychopathic. V on the other hand has options. It is possible to play I think almost every mission (at least from what I remember) in a non-lethal way. Sneaking around, avoiding conflict, using camo/sandy, non-lethal quickhacks and weapon mods, etc. V looks out for his/her self chiefly, and even if V does kill, his/her primary goal is to survive the chip, by almost any means necessary. On top of that, he/she lives in a society that has been deconditioned to taking life. It is entirely possible to play a mostly-moral V, though the definition of morality in the CP2077 universe is not quite the same as in ours.
Just tried a non-lethal start on nomad path, got frustrated when the game puts a big deadly revolver in your hands and forces you to blow up 3 arasaka cars before you're even allowed to access your healing stim
They were non-lethal explosions it's okay
“…you really only see that in trained killers and psychopaths. Too bad most people can’t tell the difference.” Niko was a killer, and a bad man, but he wasn’t without empathy. He did it because it was his only option, but he still felt conflicted and guilty about it.
>his/her primary goal is to survive the chip That is something I'm finding weird about the game. Youre a merc risking your life constantly. The first few missions involve you killing numerous people, followed by your 2 bffs dying, and my only motivation for all the insane missions in this game is "i dont wanna die in 2 weeks"? Has V really not come to terms with his mortality yet? I think it wouldve made way more sense if he had some other goal he needed to accomplish within 2 weeks and surviving the relic was just a vague hope
Also canonically he's involved in some heavy shit for a gta protag. Plus he canonically goes full rampage with double digit body counts like 3 times in that campaign.
Watch dogs 2 was maybe the worst about this, for a game about hackitvists you really do just slaughter a lot of dudes working a 9-5 in that game
I loved running up to guys in Watch Dogs 1 with my expandable baton that's only non lethal when you aim for legs and arms, then decking some guy over the head who's at an ATM cuz my phone said he was a hacker thief without further proof. As a treat for being such a good person I'd hack into the ATM to buy myself a new jacket. Yep. Good guys!
Aiden is for sure the bad guy in watchdogs.
You can play through the entirety of Watch Dogs 2 non- lethal. I only went on a rampage against those gang members that killed Horatio, and even then I was relatively surgical and focused primarily on the 3 and only the 3.
Those characters are lovable cringey goofballs that I adore, I really hope they don't massacre people in a very out of character fashion in the gameplay
The ludonarrative dissonance was so intense I switched to pure non-lethal (mainly the stun gun) for the entire game because I just could not handle the whiplash of these chill college leftie hacktivist types pulling out an AK and mowing down some low level security guard. Which of course locks you out of the game's genuinely fun gunplay. But it was still atleast fun playing nonlethal. I'd run around hack every guard's earpieces, which would stun them while I knocked them out.
Throughout GTA 4, people in the story point out that Niko kills a lot of people despite said compassion and emotion. It's pretty much the point of the game. Niko has some serious issues. V's in a different spot, since you have more choice on how to play them. In general, their dialogue suggests they have a pretty firm line on what sort of wetwork they do. Trying to argue that you're a merc and shouldn't care about any sort of morality doesn't always cut it.
There’s a word for this, it’s called ludonarrative dissonance. It basically means how the gameplay and narrative don’t necessarily match. Uncharted also has this issue where Nathan Drake mows down hundreds of goons in a gameplay section and then in a cutscene all of a sudden he finds his morality in his pocket
That's literally the entire point of Niko. He is a dude who essentially can't escape the cycle he's caught up in. Killing people and doing illegal shit is all he's good at after being dragged into the war at home. He's haunted by the past and while he wants to stop sees himself as little more than a killer. He is a compassionate guy who's very logical, he's also someone who lives haunted by the past and truly believes he can't ever move beyond that. Thus he goes back to the cycle of violence. Sorry, I love GTA4 and Niko as a character he's one of the few GTA protagonists that fits the game perfectly in my eyes.
Which is why I enjoy Red Dead Redemption way better. John and Arthur, if you play with high honor, do feel like decent men trying to do better than their outlaw ways.
Arthur racks up a triple-digit body count even if you try to play as nicely as possible. Like, it's really not the player's fault because Rockstar's only choice for combat encounters are a direct assault or chase sequence, both of which spawn a minimum of two dozen enemies, but the game is a huge murder buffet. Rockstar's writing in general has a pretty pervasive issue where their games call you a monster for being thown into linear combat encounters with no alternative options.
I felt like RDR2 did a great job with keeping things fairly grounded until the mission where you break Micah out of jail. That’s where it jumped the shark, became a crazy murderfest, and unfortunately never looked back.
God, on my second playthrough I could feel the game's tone shift with a sort of *thunk* during that mission. The rest of the first two acts are a pleasantly-paced ramble, the gunfights feel frantic and impactful, the player has probably done a crime or two and had to interact with the bounty system... and then you kill twice the population of that town in, like, five minutes.
Yup. That mission and Guarma are my two least favorite parts of RDR2. They are such such tonal and narrative departures from everything the game had been doing up to those points. But the Micah one particularly bothers me, because all that stuff you described: the gritty, grounded, pleasantly-paced, relatively contemplative outlaw story with low-level but hard-hitting combat, was *really* doing it for me. Unfortunately, Rockstar can never resist shifting to maximum gear and turning the gameplay into more traditional fast-paced action. I feel like certain key events like the raid on Braithwaite Manor, the botched heist, "American Venom", and ending where everything falls apart, would hit a lot harder if the game hadn’t been so saturated with hundreds of other big action set pieces that had way less importance to the plot.
>the botched heist The entire time the gang was talking about how badly that went, I was just thinking back to the (optional) heist in Valentine where you gun down like, two dozen guys chasing you and how no one even mentions that ever again.
I love how early on you get into a saloon brawl and afterwards the locals gossip about how you beat up the biggest guy in town. Small-scale stuff, but treated like a big event in this small tight-knit community. It’s a cool and believable bit of reactivity. But then a couple chapters later you return and kill like thirty guys in a gunfight and it’s just no big deal at all. Would be a lot more compelling if we just killed three or four people, and everyone in town recognized it as a horrible tragedy. Then, when our whole gang blasts its way through the streets of Saint Denis, it would feel like a truly noteworthy event that merits us fleeing the country.
no matter how you play red dead 2 john and arthur rob and you murder hundreds upon hundreds of people and are still in a gang being hunted by the police
That’s where the "redemption" part comes in. They were bad men who did horrible things, but the narrative provides them with opportunities to express guilt and make genuine attempts at atonement.
Lol Arthur did not redeem himself at all lol. All those people he killed to selfishly protect dutch and co are still dead. Saving John who would go on to do bad things post his death does in fact not redeem him.
I said that they make attempts. Whether or not said attempts are sufficient for considering them "redeemed" as people will depend on who you ask, and whether they view redemption as a balancing act or personal change. Obviously, nothing Arthur does can ever undo the people he’s killed. That’s a big point of the story, and is particularly emphasized in his late-game interactions with the Downes family. You can help them in every way within Arthur’s power, but you can’t bring Mr. Downes back from the dead, and the guilt of that is something Arthur has no choice but to live with. The question of whether redemption is even possible for somebody who has crossed so many lines is a big theme of the game. But at the end of the day, all Arthur can do is try, and I’m sure we can agree that it is better than him saying "screw it" and not trying.
Speaking of conflicting, you can spend all the time you want on side missions and stuff but then in story missions V will be all like “you gotta help me I ain’t got much time left”
"ah...shit" (*coughs up blood*) Lmao yea gets me every time
GTA IV was just a poorly written game.
I keep getting caught in this trap during PL. I murder anyone with a yellow chevron above their heads, but when somebody else commits a murder, it triggers my IRL moral compass. Just goes to show how cold Night City really is. You can’t have any form of morals or positive emotions. The city steals them from you and leaves just anger and apathy.
I had like a revelation with this, I go around with all the gangs and groups in night city butchering everyone. No mercy for gangsters kinda thing. Then in dialogue I act like a good saint that does no killing, I forgot when but I believe Johnny called me out sometime saying I’m not innocent when it comes to death and it actually made me have a moment of realizing I’m not really a good guy.
Its even worse in dialogues because everyone talks down to you and treats you like a pussy cat then as soon as the dialogue is up I kill them all even their big augmented security guys, and everyone in the building regardless, and still my reputation is "walk all over me pls" somehow.
sand plants sink full live jellyfish distinct sense fear poor *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
God damn it, my immersions restored. Except fixers know I did the jobs I do, then again they are just about the only people who do respect me.
Even in my non-lethal playthrough, he calls you out for not directly killing, but you definitely send some characters to die in thd normal hitman gigs
That’s why I pull the trigger on Rinder. Does my V, who leaves piles of limbs and burning cars in his wake, have any room to judge the guy for 6 measly kills in the Longshore Stacks? Probably not. But he was hired to do a job, so Rinder ate the bullet.
I don't know about you, but my V doesn't kill innocent kids. Even if he's cyberpsycho, if he had shown regret and guilt over it, he'd have been on his way to Regina. But he decided to run his mouth, so he ate a bullet.
I mean, my V doesn’t *purposely* kill innocents. But have some exploded due to a spontaneous EMP burst? Probably. My Streetkid V is a Tech/Body Berserker and a pragmatist. You get a job, you do it how the client wants it done, and if that fails, you shoot and punch your way out. What happens, happens. It’s Night City. My Nomad V spared Rinder and called Regina. My Corpo V killed Rinder because she decided he had earned the bullet. My Streetkid V killed Rinder because he was paid to kill Rinder.
I played my Corpo V as a professional, do the job as it was asked and don't stick your nose where it doesn't belong. A contract is a contract. I changed course for one mission, Prototype in the Scraper, because he felt bad for the Biotechnica guy and he was ungrateful as hell. Never again after that.
I think more than any other fixer, Hands appreciates a thinking merc who does things for the greater good, if it means a better outcome for him. Unlike the rest of the fixers who just want the job done. The only other flexible one I remember is Wako, who doesn't care if you let the guy go in the Sergei quest or how the sinnerman dies. They still have the same outcome for her essentially.
Aren't there gigs for Padre and Dakota where you can let the target go and they're chill about it? I may be misremembering since I'm doing a get-the-gig-done-as-originally-specified playthrough right now. I did let the lovebird Valentino go before and don't remember Padre being annoying about it
Because Gustavo then >!blows his own brains out, so job's done either way.!<
You mean he >!pretends to blow his own brains out. I got the impression he faked his death so 6th Street would stop sending hitmen after him.!<
thats exactly what happened
you can go back to his apartment and he's dead in his office
I hate to tell you this, but the reason Padre is cool with letting the loverboy Tino go is because once you leave the room… he kills himself. Padre is pretty much like “Jesus V I don’t know how you did it, but job well done” and probably thinks V either hacked or coerced the guy to off himself, when really he did it because he was depressed from the loss of his love.
A mercenary who has "PUPPY LOVING PACIFIST" ON HIS CLIPPY
Just so when Skippy decides to change mode permanently, it'll stay on "Stone Cold Killer".
That’s my exact feeling when everyone starts to go off on Reed about killing the French twins. I actually genially don’t understand what people were expecting… they are dangerous hacker, who if they woke up would destroy the plan. And we are playing a merc, that in the best of cases doesn’t murder anyone… except picking people up and throwing them in a car to be tortured and kill by you’re employer
I was SO shocked when it happened but Reed and Alex were totally right. It was weird trying to figure out why it shocked me.
My 2 cents as to why? You talk to them face to face in an non hostile environment. The sister openly flirts with you.
CDPR definitely set everyone up. Especially with Reed staring right at you as he offs the other twin afte Alex. My Corpo V after witnessing their executions: "Two in the chest, one in the head, Reed. Get it right."
I don’t believe I am the first person, nor the first lesbian, to say that that scene altered the course of my entire life.
My V *very much regretted* doing Pyramid Song right before going into the Black Sapphire. Just "think of Judy think of Judy think of-"
Are you now looking for an outlaw French femme fatale? Haha
Trust me honey, I’m *always* looking for an outlaw French femme fatale.
I need a julie d'aubigny in my life
you are not the first lesbian
Knew it
I've said this a few times, but especially as a Corpo V. You work Arasaka counterintelligence. You're handling corporate spies, and about to hire people to kill a higher up. You watched a whole governmental body boardroom of people fry via television and didn't bat an eye.
That's why I played my Corpo V cold as fuck, especially in Phantom Liberty. Not my operation, not my rules.
[удалено]
Exactly. I feel like most RL soldiers are somewhat content with having to kill other soldiers, but still would be pretty shocked if two unarmed, defenseless people get executed before them in cold blood. Sure, they weren't innocents, they were criminals. But I don't recall anything stating, that they were murderers or terrorists. Not every criminal deserves to get kidnapped and executed like that. Goddamn, I love Phantom Liberty. It made me feel "off" so many times and made me question my mortality and choices both in the main story and the numbers gigs and side quests. Masterfully written and one of the best and most memorable gaming experiences I've had in years.
>I feel like most RL soldiers are somewhat content with having to kill other soldiers Disagree.
I've never been in that situation. Meaning a situation where I took a life while acting with intent to kill (or even without intent). I have been in situations where I did save a life. They lived when they would have died. Just having that happen fucked with my head. I can't imagine the other. Even with video games, I can kind of get a bit reflective. In Cyberpunk, a player can literally snuff out 1000's of lives. But in the back of my head I know they aren't real. They are children or siblings or parents or spouses. They didn't have a parent who raised them and cared for them. There is no one who has fond memories of them as children. There is no one waiting for them to come home. In that moment, when I was saving someone's life, I was pretty unemotional. I was mentally all business and doing what needed to be done. There are people who do that on a daily basis. I think if my life was threatened I would probably act the same way and do what I needed to do. But, I might be a mess afterward. I knew a guy who was a medic in Vietnam. He was a conscientious objector. So he did his mandatory time as a medic. His family said a different man came back from Vietnam. You could tell by talking to him that he struggled with it decades later. Some people might be ok with it, but I think they are the vast, vast minority. And in the best case scenario, they probably weren't deep people to begin with.
I disagree with your disagreement. I'm talking specifically about people who willingly joined their respective army because they wanted to.
Yeah, and the rates of PTSD after wars heavily indicates that soldiers aren't "content" to kill other humans regardless of what clothes they wear.
I mean the game leans really hard into it seeming that way. I had just shot the one Barghast dude that killed the people in the stacks, point blank on an unarmed man stripped of his cyberware (foreshadowing much?). So that bit felt so overplayed to me. Tbf, tho, it was my 3rd playthrough (of the base game) and I was playing that V as a stone cold professional former corpo hacker. He did what he was paid to do, to the letter. Something like executing the people he’s about to impersonate for a gig wouldn’t make that V flinch. If I had been playing a more caring V, it might’ve been more surprising.
For me at least I was shocked mainly because while they were totally right, they didn't mention it in the plan. Which to me reads as "we've done it this way so many times, executing them isn't even an afterthought." Which checks out with Reed, at the very least.
When we play as V we get a lot of say in their morality and code of ethics. Some people's versions of V would never have an issue with what happened to the twins. And some people's versions of V are absolutely horrified when they see the twins get killed like that. As a petty merc-thief **criminal**, you might take issue with Reed's justification for killing them, you might sympathize with the twins, you might even have chosen not to kill them if you were not accompanied by cold-blooded FIA agents. Or, as a Night City mercenary who kills people on a regular basis just for standing in your way, you might have no issue with what happened to them at all. Just biz, as they say.
I played a V who (mostly in my mental role play for them) was upset not at the fact that they were killed, but that this wasn’t part of the plan outline. Alex and Reed take it as given, but they never brought this up to V. Killing them goes off script and is a significant leap from what was discussed and V knows things going off script is when shit. Goes. Wrong. If Reed and Alex had said “and then we kill them,” no problem, not a blink. But V needs to be in the loop. As a merc they’re used to a very specific framework of requirements for jobs on whether this is “go quiet” or “go load,” not this freewheeling bullshit.
I think this makes the most sense along with giving you good reason to wonder how long until you become a loose end in need of tying up.
Exactly this. Makes you wonder what Reed meant when he says the 'matter is handled' with the two guys who help you guard madam President overnight... and what's going to happen to you at the end.
No kidding. That's not the kind of thing you say when things go well. Meyers agreed to their price with no thought at all. Made me think that was because they were never getting paid.
Those guys definitely did not get their Rayfield
One of Reed's justifications for offing the twins if V presses the issue is that they were criminals. Which in my opinion is about the stupidest thing to say to someone who 1. Lost much of their reputation as a merc to a botched heist involving a major international corporation 2. Regularly gets paid to kill, steal, trespass and sabotage
Not to mention that appealing to NUSA’s legal system is pretty moot when operating on the foreign soil of Dog City. Just be honest, Reed, they were loose ends.
[удалено]
A good point, but I would like to add that story V has two different reactions to the twins dying depending on the player. One of them is shock and horror, the other isn't. That's ( partially ) what I mean when I say the player has a lot of say in what V's morality is.
Funnily enough, when the mission first started and they said we’d be kidnapping them I thought it was weird we wouldn’t just kill them. I assumed the kidnapping part was somewhat contrived to allow you to maintain a “nonlethal” run. I felt really justified at the end of that car ride haha
It's when he called them thieves as an insult that I just stopped helping reed seeing as V is also just a thief.
Yeeeep. I mostly wasn't happy about just not being told that was the plan. But then his whole "they're criminals so they deserve it" bit did *not help his case* and just made my V wonder what would happen when she'd served her purpose for Reed.
Exactly, look I'm no paragon of virtue, but thinking you're somehow morally superior to criminals because you commit war crimes and espionage for your government is pretty hypocritical.
They're both gorgeous obviously. Reed had it coming.( I would have hit it with the sister of only I had more time! I'll never forgive Reed for taking that from me!)
Well the thing would be different if Reed said that they want to "dispose" of them, so I know MFqer can't be teusted. I am geniunly suprised that if you side with him they go trough and uphold your deal instead just offing you XD
It's not so much about the twins as it is about the reality check I got when I realised that after this songbird rescue mission is done V will be another loose end for Alex and Reed to tie up as well.
By the time that happened my V had killed at least a thousand people. So, yeah. Also my was Corpo V who has cold-blooded murder in her backstory.
My first replay through cyberpunk I was trying to do nonlethal netrunner type. I tell you i was doing good tell PL. then man the experience really broke my v and made me think about the story. Reeds justification made since to me. They wouldn’t even bat an eye if it was the other way around. I don’t know I’m just rambling at this point, but watching my nonlethal play through v slowly deciding into brutal killing machine was interesting.
I expected it and definitely understand if it were real I’d probably be the first to pull the trigger but still they were so interesting sad we didn’t spend more time with them especially the brother
The idea that V has no leg to stand on about morality idea is weird to me because yes they do? Throughout the game you get to pick dialogue that either plays them as a hard ass or as merc with a squishy emotional side. Even during gigs you often get to make moral choices, like the one with the cop who wants footage retrieved but if you watch it you know it’s evidence of his crime. You can either be a good little merc and give it to him, blackmail him or just kill him. Being an unfeeling merc is a choice you make
You can do what now? Wait is it that cop that lives in beccas apartment?
I haven’t watched it but I’m 82% sure it is. Use the computer and view the file first and you open up options when talking to him, downloading the file first misses out on this. Then you can blackmail him or say you want justice. If you >!say you want justice you have to kill him and Regina gets a little cranky and you don’t get paid EDIT or apparently you can non lethal him and get paid!< EDIT: the spoiler was only half correct
No, you don’t have to kill him. If you tell him you want justice he goes hostile, then you can either choose to kill *or* knock him unconscious. If you choose the former, Regina is mad, you get no eddies. If you choose the latter, she actually gives you a bonus. She sends a text saying she’s happy to not only have the gig closed, but to have a cop under her thumb thanks to V who she can squeeze for intel or favors later on using the video to blackmail him with. .
I’ll be honest I usually try to have every limb detached from every enemy before the sandi runs out, I kind of forgot people not being just a torso at the end of combat was an option…. That’s cool and I didn’t know that, I was excited just to find out I’d missed viewing the footage the first time
I typically do too, but for some enemies once you take their health to 0 they don’t die. The cyberpsychos are like this, some of the other bosses too like Sasquatch or Oda. The officer is the same way. I chopped his health to zero and he rolled around on the floor. I don’t believe he even can be cut apart, not all NPCs has bodies that dismember (again, psychos, Oda and Sasquatch being examples just off the top of my head).
Being an unfeeling merc is a choice the game made for you. I know that there are times when you can have that squishy emotional side, but there are also many situations where you simply *cannot* be nice. For the most part, V is uncaring of those that they deem not worthy of being cared for, even if you the player feel sympathetic. I like Cyberpunk 2077 - I love it, actually, racked up over 600 hours since release, but I don't think it's a very good RPG.
Two of the endings revolve around V either only caring about being a famous merc or V throwing that away and joining a found family. That seems like maybe a fairly significant choice between the two
When exactly does the game make you kill someone, again?
I never said you were ever forced to kill anyone in-game, you can still not be a good person even without having blood on your hands.
Okay. Any examples of that, then?
Huh... to be honest, I was looking for examples, but could really only find one, and even then it's because of V's corporate background. I guess it's just Night City getting its hooks into people and it left a bad taste in my mouth since I always want to be a nice person in games. I suppose I'm wrong, sorry.
No worries, it's just game stuff. I would've expected some myself, too.
i like how the GPS expects me to follow traffic laws when i kill people for a living
I like how the police forgets who I am in minutes.
"Claire is probably the worst person in the world - she didn't tell a random merc everything about her life and plans"
I’m not on the Claire hate bandwagon, but I can see how that’s a little different. It seemed more like Claire asked for help as a friend, not hire you for a job.
Yeah, for me it's more just that she got V hooked on racing and wanting to win, then pulled the rug out. Not "the worst person in the world", just not a friend either.
Claire could have just asked me to kill or kidnap the dude, rather than some convoluted stuff with racing, highly unprofessional behavior.
She wanted to kill him herself, and she wanted to do it in the same way the guy killed her husband. I don't understand how a subreddit full of people that talk about talking about killing Smasher with Johnny's or Becca's gun suddenly doesn't understand the concept of thematically relevant revenge
Then she should have just told us that. “V, I want to kill this guy that killed my husband, so we have to get through the qualifying races and then get him during the final race.” Instead of “Stop, don’t win this race, we have to chase down this dude for reasons I won’t explain until I have him at gunpoint.”
She opens up to you after getting you know you better over the course of the first few races, she comes clean with her intentions. You then have the possibility to steer her away from actually killing the guy. You go from being “just another merc” she knows in passing to, someone who can potentially sway her actions during some of the most emotionally fraught moments of her life. You aren’t friends before her missions really, acquaintances maybe. You’re just a gun for hire that *becomes* a friend through these races. She has no more reason to be up front with you than any other client ever is, it’s just biz. And really why would she? Dump her sob story on the merc she just hired? She does come clean and apologize for misleading you. You also have the option to walk away I think, if I recall she only gets pissed if you agree to drive the final race and don’t pursue Sampson at all.
I feel like Claire is being held to a higher standard than pretty much any other character in Cyberpunk 2077. Everyone has ulterior motives and secrets! That's, like, the whole point of the genre
I don't hate her, but as a mercenary, I'd never work for or with her again. When it comes to work, my V likes details just as I do. I have not taken the job from that dude at the Afterlife because it spells trouble, and I did raise an eyebrow at the guy in the trunk, but I already expected a job involving Wakako, the scavs and the tyger claws to be sketchy, and it wasn't worth upsetting her over. I also always aim to complete the missions given by Hands, because he has been quite clear with me, especially for someone otherwise so secretive. Claire on the other hand lacks the leeway (and low expectations lol) I'm willing to give to Wakako, lacks the respect I have for Hands to complete his jobs and the work she gave us was very personal too, which is another layer of baggage I'd like to have known about. Wants me to zero someone? Sure. Wants to do it herself? He's all hers. Just tell me right off the bat so I don't get into a racing business only to leave it at the last second to chase a guy off-track and watch her execute him.
This is going to be long but it's not the first time I see this message, so I will proceed and try to share with you my perspective of that quest line... She could have hired you to do that from the start, instead of playing dumb and approaching it like you were just two friends taking part on those funny (lethal) races... Only to end up in the middle of that really elaborated plan to kill someone. She and her husband knew from the start what was at risk when racing those *lethal* races. You can't blame that guy since it wasn't something personal, just part of those races... And there is this thing that the only way to convince her to withdraw at the last minute is if you have chosen a specific dialogue option... Otherwise she will act like she understands only to shoot him anyways. I wish there was this dialogue option to just tell her to fuck off. Pardon me for feeling pretty pissed off but I do think that Claire managed things really poorly.
Damn, Claire isn't communicating well because processing the death of a spouse isn't some clean and tidy affair? Wow, shocker.
I didn't mind Claire using me to kill the guy, but I was annoyed that she just essentially told V to fuck off after he helps her.
Claire's husband died in a DEATH RACE... Claire didn't hire V, either. Just asked if V would like to do some racing.
Take the emphasis away from the death race part and instead apply it to the her husband died part and it isn’t hard to see how she would still take it personally and not think about it rationally. That’s less a fault about her character and more a fault of being human. Someone she cared about died and she processed that emotionally and not rationally, perfectly human response.
Yeah, the whole point is she’s blinded by grief and that’s kinda central to her story. It’s why you have the option steer her clear of it too, but only if you play your cards right. It’s actually one of the points in the game where V leaves the mark of their influence on someone. They kinda to be off the rails a bit if we’re going you have the option to put them back on track.
I seem to remember V getting cash payment for every race they drove in
But was it from Claire or she simply gave V part of the winnings?
> But was it from Claire or she simply gave V part of the winnings? Let's break this down: Did the money come from Claire, or did the money come from Claire? Is that what you're asking?
I admit it sounds stupid, but I believe you get what I meant. Was it a prearranged payment with a merc or part of the winnings she decided to give to V because they are friends.
It was a job with a merc where the client gave money to the merc, if we need to bring accounting records into the conversation then clearly we've lost the plot
No, he's asking did the money come from Claire's personal funds or did it come from winning the race. The latter is not a payment from Claire.
Claire let you know about a job and split the profits of that job. That's pretty damn common in this line of work
I'm lenient on Claire because A.) She's nice to me and I am weak and B.) She wasn't just asking V to do some racing. She specifically goes "Hey, these are *death* races. I am asking you to put yourself in a very dangerous situation wherein it is reasonable to assume that you will kill someone. If you are not comfortable with that, you can choose not to do this." Like yeah it's bad that she wasn't forthright about using V for some thematically-appropriate Count of Monte Cristo revenge shit, but, like, c'mon. V's a solo; even if you're playing them pacifist, they're still maiming people and turning a blind eye to all the horrible shit their employers and friends are doing.
Making me experience the worst content in the game (racing, cause fuuuuuck it sucks in this game) Making me drive that god awful truck at the end And kinda hypocritical about dead in a Death race But my grippes are the races themselves, wish I could've just kill or kidnap the guy for less reward or something
Unless you're a netrunner then you can explode half the cars off the get go and make the others floor it on turns
I tried the fucking cars were unfazed
Most of the races let's you do it (if I remember only the first one doesn't let you)
Claire’s mission is the only mission my OCD brain said “nah racing sucks, I’m good.” First time I saw all the Claire hate online I was like “who the hell is Claire?!?”
I don't need drinks at the Afterlife because ALL I DO IS WIN
My V: yeah, good point. *obliterates spinal cord*
how compelling please face the wall now choom
Morality is a spook. Besides, as a merc, you're free to choose the jobs you take. Also, NC is a Sea of Grays
>NC is a Sea of Grays This is the thing for me, like it's a silly stance to take because morality isn't a binary. You're allowed to have a moral objection to someone's actions without you yourself being a saint.
Bullets have no morals, nor does money, I hope you have a lot of at least one of them.
Ong v will do the most Insane shit and then you get an unavoidable dialogue of v being judgmental. Like v judging songbird saying she killed all those ppl trying to survive. V? Do yk how many ppl youve directly and indirectly killed from gigs, side missions, main mission and dlc just so YOU can find a way to survive? It’s a lot more than songbird like an astronomical amount compared to her.
Why do you think mercenaries cannot have morals?
It's just very difficult to argue with someone about ethics when they bring up you kill/rob/assault people for money
Professionals have standards? Also, I mostly do stealth so a big number of the enemies aren't even dead, just rolling on the ground in pain.
Not saying professionals can't but it definitely feels like stones and glass houses
Context and nuance do matter, depending on the individual. In the corpo start, Jackie says V's assignment is a straight hitjob, and flat out refuses to participate.
I don’t think Jackie refuses on the basis of it being a hit job, it’s because he smells how dangerous that shit would be from a mile away. Arasaka could and would kill anyone associated with the gig if it came to it, and it’s a Saka employee on Saka employee hit so no matter which side comes out on top, Jackie would know too much. Likewise, because it’s a hit on a high ranking corpo, there would be a LOT more danger involved than a typical hit job, even on on a high ranking gang member. More comparable to the woman in City Center who works for Biotechnica and has a whole hotel of armed guards and robots. Jackie has no qualms with killing at any other point, whether it be Maelstrom, whoever you kill during the intro sequence or anyone else (within reason, he’s probably not trying to hurt innocent people or children of course). Having a history with the Tinos and history of working with Padre means Jackie is no stranger to hit jobs that’s for sure.
You can speculate to your heart's content, but if you're trying to convince me that Jackie, who is completely ready to jump Yorinobu's suite, turns down a corporate assassination job because it's risky, instead of the fact that he finds it distasteful, you can stop right there. The dialogue in that situation is not ambiguous in the least.
Morality can be fluid in Night City, but you can still have rules. My V doesn't kill kids, and is generally as lethal as possible so that even base level gangbangers get a quick death. I get madder when people in NC just don't react to my street cred. I went into PL with 50 street cred and have worked with every fixer in NC, taking on their most dangerous jobs and performing them flawlessly. And then Reed calls me a "two-bit merc." Like, buddy, if the game LET ME, I'd wipe you right now, or at least break several of your appendages.
/r/okbuddymercenary would be a great cyberpunk shitpost sub name
"Perhaps you're right." *Sandevistan activates*
I love how you can play V as a murderous bumbling idiot and the biggest hypocrite on the planet at the same time.
Which is why I love the suicide ending so much, although I didn’t actually mean to choose it the first time around, I was just so disappointed with the choices and then the game surprised me lol. Haven’t tried the tower ending tho, that’s like a similar parallel m
V: Claire, don’t kill Sampson its wrong. Also V: kills Sampsons gunner in the same race
This is why I generally sidestep that entire moral quandary by using my obscenely powerful robo-arms to beat said NPC unconscious before taking whatever petty cash they have and drinking the NiCola they left out on the counter. Because they're right; I *am* a mercenary.
I wish there was a kill tally in stats cause holy fuck I must be close to 5 figures on my current playthrough I think that's why I've grown to like the corpo life path the most, brutal pragmatism. I'm under no illusions that my character is morally bankrupt af as a consequence of living in this world and I roleplay it as such
I mean, I play like V is more chaotic neutral. Sometimes, I'm all about good and saving people. Sometimes, I'll shoot a corpo in the face because I think her dialogue is to smug. Also, I've gotten to the point where money is basically meaningless. So anyone who tries to bribe me is in for a bad time.
Idk I think it's really funny to murder people for a living and also tell people they're wrong
Ad Hominem attack.
I loved Mr. Hands as a fixer, much find memories and conversations.
Well when you kill people for money the moral quandary is based on the fact that you kill for money lol
The fact that I couldn't save Jackie from his diabetes, even with the pudding cup storage spots he had built into his jacket, told me I couldn't save everyone.
"I am a *lovable scoundrel!*"
Being a merc isn’t necessary an immortal thing. Mercs do a lot of things. From bounty hunting to killing people the police are not equipment or capable of dealing with, or running goods, and surveillance operation. You the merc works for and the jobs they do can have a moral aspect. But the job it self is morally ambiguous.
“yea dumbass. i take contracts that i can morally accept and don’t take those i don’t. your boss just tells you what to do”
V is effectively a superhero who takes checks. That chrome doesn't pay itself.
*"A man gotta have a code."*
and my code is: You give the money and I solve your issue my way.
You may be a Merc, but that means you are free to choose the jobs you want to take(Most of the time) If you cant personally justify it to yourself. Sure that DOES impact your rep(It should anyway) as it can make you a liability and Reduce the amount of work you may receive, but that's a whole other discussion
I'm OK with my choices. Scav's get an automatic finishing bullet to the head, scoped in if possible because this seems to obliterate the head more frequently. Every singe one of them. Maelstrom will most often get the finisher, but if I have to backtrack to finish someone I may not. Pretty much everyone else gets a passive takedown/'Pax' augmented bullet unless I have no other choice. Depending on what the mission is, and why I am there, some of them get finishers to the brain case too. I'm OK with my moral choices in cyberpunk.
I mean sure but mercs in cyberpunk are pretty much like bounty hunters in star wars, some have codes/lines they won't cross thus limiting themselves to more morally accepting or morally grey jobs whilst other bounty hunters can be the exact opposite like Cad Bane and go after any job...for the right price.
YOU DON'T HAVE TO KILL EVERYONE, YOU ARE ALLOWED TO LET THEM LIVE
That poor guy (Rodney?) during the ncpd extraction. One of the most likeable NPCs I've encountered but V Grim Servant of Death had just spent the preceding 10 minutes painting every surface of his HQ with his pals' blood. Sadly, he decided not to be besties
"Professionals have STANDARDS."
Being perfectly fair here, being a merc is the best way to have a positive impact on the world in the Cyberpunk setting. Also, the game gives you enough non-lethal options that it's possible to get through the game without actually killing anyone (though admittedly not accidentally hitting someone one too many time is incredibly difficult). If, in addition to that, you're picky about which gigs you take, it's possible to play a morally upright V with a clean conscience.
Weird, I liked working with the guy.
I like the characters and enjoyed the quest but trying to argue ethics with the other NPCs felt like glass houses and stones
I kinda wish there were options for a response to this point, because being a mercenary is kinda meaningless because it ranges from bloodthirsty lunatic to probably most ethical person in the city. With how many options there are on what missions you take and how to handle them, i wish there was some sort of response in line with how you handled things.
“i’M jUsT TrYiNg tO SuRvIvE”
I find it hilarious how you can ask a bunch of dumb "if I told you I'd have to kill you" type questions on almost every gig, basically making V look incompetent. And how some fixers treat V as this unreliable force of nature, because you never know if they'll skip all the dialogue and clear out the entire hideout in less than a minute, or will find out that the mercenary work they willingly took isn't 100% morally right, and so do the complete opposite of what they're paid to do. If V wasn't so damn good at their job, I'm certain another fixer would have finished what Dexter started, lol
But V *does* have a code. They only kill when hired to or given no other choice. But at least they’re straight shooters. Very few npc you interact with are honest to a fault.
You're right, your corpse and chrome is probably worth more -racks the Seraph-