CDPR on Cyberpunk 2077 backlash

[Zykon TheLich_v1legacy]

As a long time player and GM, I can tell you that the Humanity loss doesn't become a problem until someone starts really overloading their body with more and more and more tech. Having a hearing aid, a pacemaker, or even a single limb won't affect your psyche, but having your entire body replaced with a weapon bristling frame aside from your brain and spinal cord...that fucks with your perceptions and psychologically does mess with you.

Sort of an aside, I always thought it odd that the basic form of cyber eye, cyber ear etc had a pretty high humanity cost. It just simulates natural vision or hearing. Lose an eye, replace it with a cyber version, doesn't seem too bad. Then you get add ons of targeting scopes, thermographs etc and there's virtually no cost at all.

 

[Dreiko_v1legacy]

These sort of critiques feel irrelevant though.

Say you have a game with a racist scene or a sexist joke...well...is that scene good though? Is the joke funny? Gimme something here. Just telling me you're offended or something is over your personal line is UTTERLY meaningless in this context cause that's just your feelings we're discussing now and how sensitive to this or that crude subjects you are.

And no, it doesn't make those scenes automatically bad if they're offensive to someone with X unspecified tolerance for those subjects. Something can be offensive to everyone and still simultaneously be a good specimen of itself, even.

It's usually the case that people calling things racist or sexist in games conduct themselves as though they're criticizing the game when in fact they're just commenting on their personal tolerance of it in not a dissimilar fashion to how someone may find a horror game too scary to finish. It's a valid reason not to finish a game but nobody would say a horror game being too scary is a bad thing just because some folks lacked the grit to deal with it. I posit to you that the grit one needs to laugh at sexist jokes and what have you is much the same. They're not for everyone and they're juuust fine being that way to boot.

By that definition any critique is irrelevant. Saying a game's graphics are terrible while someone else claims that it's how it was intended or adds to the charm. Or how a game controls clunky and stiff, but no that just makes it feel more real. But even that is at least an argument and invites conversation on the matter. What you're suggesting is that if it regards sexism or racism in fiction people should just shut up, because it's their problem being offended. And if you're offended your opinion is somehow invalid.

Even if people calling out racist or sexist elements in fiction is them revealing their own personal tolerance, what's wrong with taking their opinion into account? Sharing opinions is generally how we grow and gain new insights. Shutting people down because they dare be offended by something is how society stagnates.

The horror comparison makes no sense because fictional horror by itself doesn't create or perpetuate negative views of specific groups of people, fiction that glorifies racism, sexism, or transphobia does. But hey, let's say it makes even a shred of sense, than it's prefectly valid to criticize a piece of horror fiction for being too obnoxious, i.e. overly shocking in its depiction of its horror themes.

Ok good, this is the line I wanted to approach so I'm glad at this response.

When someone is sharing a critique of a game's gameplay or story or controls and so on, there's room to discuss things. Like say you find parrying in Sekiro too hard to time and keep dying but if you're told you can party ahead of time and just hold it to block in case you mess up or double tap it really fast you may find it easier to land so your opinion may change with new information. Same with a story, maybe you missed a part, maybe you didn't get the true ending, maybe you were tired so you skipped a side quest one day. There's room for discussion and we can potentially adjust your view with new information.

You just can't present new information like that to prove to someone that due to a thing they overlooked they were wrong to feel offended cause feelings are by definition not rational and facts don't sway them.

But do you know the best of all? All this time we're actually talking about the GAME. We're not psychoanalyzing you and trying to find why you feel this way or why you are offended. We're focusing on the game's elements and due to that our critique is valuable to games and will actually make them better. Your offense based critique is ignoring games and focusing on the larger society and is looking to fix the ills that cause society to produce offensive games. That's, again, wholly irrelevant.

Here's the difference between offense critique and other game element critique. Graphics have polygon counts and artists who have credentials working for them. Say someone doesn't like persona 5's highly acclaimed artstyle cause they just don't like anime aesthetic, it is not seen as a fault of the game, it is not seen as a blemish or a bad spot like you mentioned either. The art is just...itself and it can not be people's cup of tea without something having to be wrong about it or in need of changing.

Finally, horror games have an effect on me and that's why I picked em. I wasn't talking about jump scares or dumb gore and so on. What they do is for a lack of a better word creep me out. I jump at shadows and think paranoid thoughts and so on in real life for a while after playing a really good one like corpse party. It's prolly cause I like being immersed in my games so I enter the psychological space of the characters and end up scaring myself with weird thoughts that never occur to me normally. Now, how rational would it be to attribute that reaction to the game containing a fault within it. It's all me that's doing it. Same with things like racism and transphobia and so on. It's those people who are affected that are to blame. The game isn't doing anything.

Honestly, this is kinda funny considering how utterly unremarkable games like say, Witcher 3 are in the gameplay and graphics department

Literally nobody is praising it's combat or game mechanics. Witcher 3 gets held up on a pedestal for it's writing, bith dialog and stories


So clearly non-game stuff mattered back then. And Witcher 3's story was by and large, a cultural critique in fantasy drapings. What changed

I actually consider the story as a core part of most non-competitive games. Love stuff like VNs and so on. Thing is, people try to apply things from outside the game's story to it, which is what is non-game. If we're talking about the in world lore we can discuss anything and it'll be about the game so in that context it'll also be useful but the moment you jump from that context into that of the real world you've corrupted the discussion and lost the magic it once had, permanently.

Though that being said I enjoy the fantasy hunter themes and contextual dismemberment gameplay of the witcher 3 and the game's world is full of visually stunning areas and a lot of topographical details that feel handmade. Basically the opposite of skyrim's cookie cutter dungeons. It's kinda unfair to overlook this stuff just because the story is also great.


Take cyberpunk, to me any ill social or otherwise is explained by it being dystopic. Of course in a dystopia you'll have discrimination and bigotry and authoritarianism and a million other ills. Bad things happen in dystopias, it's why stories about them are compelling.

Complaining about these things is like complaining people fighting in a kungfu movie because clearly violence is abhorrent and what about the million ills that come from fighting in society and so on. You're kinda missing the point of the movie if you go down that reasoning path.

 

[Erttheking]

What?

Your talk about how queer identity is left-leaning propaganda. It puts things into context. And this claim made in the middle of pride month.

Also, the classic case of "most people think it's nonsense." Citation: I say so.

These sort of critiques feel irrelevant though.

They're not irrelevant just because you don't care. So I'd advise getting used to it. It's not going anywhere.

 

[Dreiko_v1legacy]

What?

Your talk about how queer identity is left-leaning propaganda. It puts things into context. And this claim made in the middle of pride month.

Also, the classic case of "most people think it's nonsense." Citation: I say so.

These sort of critiques feel irrelevant though.

They're not irrelevant just because you don't care. So I'd advise getting used to it. It's not going anywhere.

Not an issue of caring, it's just talking about a separate subject but going on as though it's about the original one hence irrelevant.

I'm all for having a conversation about these things when not talking about games. It just shouldn't usurp the conversation that was being had and suck out all the oxygen that ought to go to other components of the gaming experience simply because someone can't help but attach political significance to everything they encounter.

Complaining about these things is like complaining people fighting in a kungfu movie because clearly violence is abhorrent and what about the million ills that come from fighting in society and so on. You're kinda missing the point of the movie if you go down that reasoning path.

There's complaining about bad things in a dystopia, and there's rightfully pointing out that bigotry for shock value is nothing but literary empty calories

Cdprojekt red is doing nothing more with cyberpunk than ubisoft does with their games. Taking a boiler plate bland story and tacking on ripped from the headlines inch deep sensationalism they don't have to back up.

Yes, and the thing we call that is being lazy, not bigoted. I'm fine with calling games lazy but when you try to ascribe hate to them you've lost the plot.

 

[Erttheking]

Not an issue of caring, it's just talking about a separate subject but going on as though it's about the original one hence irrelevant.

I'm all for having a conversation about these things when not talking about games. It just shouldn't usurp the conversation that was being had and suck out all the oxygen that ought to go to other components of the gaming experience simply because someone can't help but attach political significance to everything they encounter.

You and I both know you dismiss any conversations like this out of hand. Because you seem determined to shield games you like from critical thinking.

Also, make a different thread if you don't like talking about 2077 politics instead of posting in every thread about politics to talk about how much you don't want to talk about politics. Also I find it kind of funny that you accuse this of dominating the conversation when anti-SJW reactionaries reliably rant ten times longer than Ess Jay Double-us do, and with about ten times as much numbers.

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

As a long time player and GM, I can tell you that the Humanity loss doesn't become a problem until someone starts really overloading their body with more and more and more tech. Having a hearing aid, a pacemaker, or even a single limb won't affect your psyche, but having your entire body replaced with a weapon bristling frame aside from your brain and spinal cord...that fucks with your perceptions and psychologically does mess with you.

Sort of an aside, I always thought it odd that the basic form of cyber eye, cyber ear etc had a pretty high humanity cost. It just simulates natural vision or hearing. Lose an eye, replace it with a cyber version, doesn't seem too bad. Then you get add ons of targeting scopes, thermographs etc and there's virtually no cost at all.

A lot of Cyberpunk is good at ideas but bad at execution.

Because yeah, a cybereye that just simulates normal vision that you installed because your normal eye got fucked up should barely have any cost at all, if any.

A cybereye that sees heat, included a targeting reticle for your gun, has a constant text encrypted feed from the home office, and was installed over a perfectly functional eye because your employer wanted you to be 10% better at shooting people, now *that* is some humanity loss.

 

[Fieldy409_v1legacy]

To me this is just stupid artifical controversy on both sides to get clicks. A few articles designed to trigger fanboys because that pulls clicks vs a bunch of youtubers defending it against the evil SJW hordes because its great fodder to get clicks from their anti-sjw audience.

I wonder how many alt righters praising Pondsmith also caught "If you want to do something brave against racism, tell your racist uncle at Thanksgiving to shut up!"

I've only seen a little of him but it seems like Cyberpunk is basically a massive critiscism of everything the alt-right loves, big corporations without regulations and tons of weapons turned the world into a hellhole.

 

[Gethsemani_v1legacy]

A lot of Cyberpunk is good at ideas but bad at execution.

Because yeah, a cybereye that just simulates normal vision that you installed because your normal eye got fucked up should barely have any cost at all, if any.

Depends on how Luddite you are, no? There's a case to be made that a cybernetic eye will not be exactly the same as a real human eye and that getting your vision through fiber wires clipped into your brain where your optic nerve used to be is the really bad part for your humanity. If we focus on the biological/physiological aspect of how cybernetics affect a human, then putting the cybereye in is much more invasive and "humanity dropping" then adding a microchip or software update to the cybereye to allow you IR vision.

Personally, I've always been torn on Humanity-systems in Cyberpunk games, because a lot of Cyberpunk is also positive to the transhumanist aspect of cybernetics. So you have a setting and theme that embraces the idea that humans can transcend their limitations, but gameplay systems that tells you that it is actually a bad idea. Cyberpunk 2077 seems to be walking straight into that trap, by apparently including the humanity system, but having every trailer and dev interview gush about how awesome all that cybertech is.

 

[Casual Shinji]

Honestly, CD Projekt Red missing the point of Cyberpunk is my biggest fear for the game.

and so far, everything I've read about it seems to confirm my fears.

If we're talking presenting us with a world that we would never want to live in, I'd say yes, because everything we've seen thus far screams wishfullfillment. There's flashy tech everywhere, and sexy cyborgs on every street corner. Not that there's too much wrong with that - if it's fun it's fun - but it does show how the cyperpunk genre is just this geek haven now instead of a dystopia. It may end up that The Witcher 3 is more of a dystopia than Cyberpunk 2077.

 

[KingsGambit_v1legacy]

Personally, I've always been torn on Humanity-systems in Cyberpunk games, because a lot of Cyberpunk is also positive to the transhumanist aspect of cybernetics. So you have a setting and theme that embraces the idea that humans can transcend their limitations, but gameplay systems that tells you that it is actually a bad idea. Cyberpunk 2077 seems to be walking straight into that trap, by apparently including the humanity system, but having every trailer and dev interview gush about how awesome all that cybertech is.

The main issue in that regard is that they've outright said that it isn't possible for V to become a "cyber-psycho". When people take their modification too far in that world, they lose the ability to feel empathy and relate to other people. The next step from their is to go "psycho", as presumably the 2013 teaser trailer demonstrated.

The 2018 gameplay demo showed a gang that modifies themselves extensively and we'll be seeing plenty of characters across the spectrum of how much cyberware their is. But at its core it's a video game and needs to be fun to play. And, since it's a player-driven RPG, going cyber-psycho isn't really an option as it simply wouldn't fit the story. Characters will undoubtedly react to V's choice of body augmentation tho and players will have lots of leeway in how they shape their character.

Dishonored had an issue with how it handled the non-lethal playthrus. While the game could be completed without killing anyone, of the 12 or so powers Corvo could get, he was unable to make use of greater than half of them in that case. As an aside, he couldn't unequip the sword either, which meant non-lethal players were stuck with a weapon they couldn't ever use and the left mouse-button did nothing all game. I point it out because while it's all well and good to discuss the merits and evils of the transhumanist aspect as you say, on the other hand...Mantis Blades are cool and let you stick to walls.

Deus Ex: HR talked about it a bit in story, but had no gameplay mechanics to reflect it. Adam was an aug, and that was that. Tho unlike Dishonored, he could pretty much use all the abilities in a non-lethal way. One last thought...Space Siege, a sci fi set game similar to Dungeon Siege, allowed the main character to "upgrade" themselves as they played. There were opportunities throughout the game to upgrade legs, arms, eyes, whatever, each of which gave only gameplay bonuses. But the story and characters changed if you upgraded and there were different endings depending on how much if any the player upgraded. I managed to complete it back in the day as fully human and got the "best" ending; it was actually quite well done. But I think 2077 will do all of it better, but still allow V access to some cool toys.

 

[Eacaraxe_v1legacy]

Cyberpunk 2077 seems to be walking straight into that trap, by apparently including the humanity system, but having every trailer and dev interview gush about how awesome all that cybertech is.

There was a comment on the RPGnet forums way back, that still gets thrown around from time to time. "Transhumanism is about how technology will allow people to overcome limitations and problems that, until now, have been endemic to human nature. Cyberpunk is about how technology won't", or something like it. The point being, dystopianism is the core of cyberpunk, and any contextualization or critique of cyberpunk that doesn't put dystopianism at the forefront fundamentally fails to understand the genre.

To put it another way, some twit a few weeks ago went off about developers' use of the words "sacred" and "profane" to describe the themes of cybernetic augmentation and nudity in the game. Something about a turducken of logical fallacies or something. If you've seen the quote, you know what I'm talking about, and if you understand the genre, how colossally stupid it was the person who wrote the tweets inferred and implicitly argued the genre lacks religious or mythological allegory. ************, nine out of ten cyberpunk stories are Paradise Lost, except global corporations are the snake and robot dicks are the apple.

 

[KingsGambit_v1legacy]

Cyberpunk 2077 seems to be walking straight into that trap, by apparently including the humanity system, but having every trailer and dev interview gush about how awesome all that cybertech is.

There was a comment on the RPGnet forums way back, that still gets thrown around from time to time. "Transhumanism is about how technology will allow people to overcome limitations and problems that, until now, have been endemic to human nature. Cyberpunk is about how technology won't", or something like it. The point being, dystopianism is the core of cyberpunk, and any contextualization or critique of cyberpunk that doesn't put dystopianism at the forefront fundamentally fails to understand the genre.

To put it another way, some twit a few weeks ago went off about developers' use of the words "sacred" and "profane" to describe the themes of cybernetic augmentation and nudity in the game. Something about a turducken of logical fallacies or something. If you've seen the quote, you know what I'm talking about, and if you understand the genre, how colossally stupid it was the person who wrote the tweets inferred and implicitly argued the genre lacks religious or mythological allegory. ************, nine out of ten cyberpunk stories are Paradise Lost, except global corporations are the snake and robot dicks are the apple.

They clearly didn't watch the opening of the DE:HR trailer (9 years ago this month!):

There was a great thread on these forums some years ago. Someone wrote a lengthy post on why/how the "punk" had been missing from so many so called steam/diesel/cyber punk games. I've tried to find it multiple times over the years, I even commented in it at the time but it's buried somewhere. Was one of the best discussions on the subject I remember reading.

 

[Gethsemani_v1legacy]

There was a comment on the RPGnet forums way back, that still gets thrown around from time to time. "Transhumanism is about how technology will allow people to overcome limitations and problems that, until now, have been endemic to human nature. Cyberpunk is about how technology won't", or something like it. The point being, dystopianism is the core of cyberpunk, and any contextualization or critique of cyberpunk that doesn't put dystopianism at the forefront fundamentally fails to understand the genre.

Absolutely. At the same time, a lot of cyberpunk is all about how technology gives the underdogs the edge they need to resist and fight back against the dystopian world they inhabit. Very seldom is the technology in itself bad, but rather the way that the corporations use it to monitor, oppress and exploit people is. That technology, when harnessed by the resourceful anti-heroes of cyberpunk, is the difference between impotent flailing at the system and actually being able to put up meaningful (if ultimately futile, this being cyberpunk and all) resistance. In that, cyberpunk is usually incredibly positive towards individual transhumanism, while being critical of corporate driven transhumanism (which is really just the anti-capitalist message all over again).

 

[Eacaraxe_v1legacy]

Absolutely. At the same time, a lot of cyberpunk is all about how technology gives the underdogs the edge they need to resist and fight back against the dystopian world they inhabit...

Or -- crazy thought -- people only reading into the genre for politics in the sisyphean pursuit of confirmation bias miss the real point. That is, in a world defined by the profane and grotesque, it is up to the individual to find meaning for themselves, and humanity can only be defined by one's capacity to empathize with and form connections to others. It's only been a recurring theme in science fiction since Mary Shelley wrote Frankenstein.

 

[Dreiko_v1legacy]

To me this is just stupid artifical controversy on both sides to get clicks. A few articles designed to trigger fanboys because that pulls clicks vs a bunch of youtubers defending it against the evil SJW hordes because its great fodder to get clicks from their anti-sjw audience.

I wonder how many alt righters praising Pondsmith also caught "If you want to do something brave against racism, tell your racist uncle at Thanksgiving to shut up!"

I've only seen a little of him but it seems like Cyberpunk is basically a massive critiscism of everything the alt-right loves, big corporations without regulations and tons of weapons turned the world into a hellhole.

This is kinda my point. You can disagree with the message of a game yet still enjoy it for its other traits. The alt right are being more mature in supporting the game despite their differences than a lot of people who refuse to do the same in other cases.

Of course, there's also the chance of them just missing those elements or just interpreting them differently and based on their displayed intelligence we can't discount that possibility but on a charitable interpretation I see this act as the one better for games.

I wonder how would you go for the "ethnostate" in CP though...maybe a country of all non-augmented people? Wouldn't they be the social underdogs though? And you can't be fully robotic cause you go mad. Ah well, I'm sure they'll find a way.