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.Smithnikov said:
CDPR on Cyberpunk 2077 backlash
- Thread starter hanselthecaretaker
- Start date
Recommended Videos
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.altnameJag said:
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.
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.undeadsuitor said:
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.Gethsemani said:
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.
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.Gethsemani said:
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!):Eacaraxe said:
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.
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 said:
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.Gethsemani said:
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.Fieldy409 said:
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.
undeadsuitor said:
Because those people are still victimizing other people including each other. That is grey. A clan of Nomads who kidnap random people to eat them in ritualized cannibalism is just as deserving of the bullet as some Arasaka suit who ordered a Solo team to wipe out his rival's family.
Being downtrodden does not make you morally superior anymore than being rich does.
There's this puritanical notion about honorable poverty that still permeates culture. Obviously the one creating the conditions for the cannibals to need to be cannibals is worse. The important part is in not seeing the cannibals as heroic just because they're powerless and can't control their own destiny without having to resort to inhuman acts.
At best they're pitiable. The tendency to lionize people in such circumstances or to see them as noble is just as wrong as the notion of expecting noble honorable and polite poverty out of them.
At best they're pitiable. The tendency to lionize people in such circumstances or to see them as noble is just as wrong as the notion of expecting noble honorable and polite poverty out of them.
Implying poor people won't victimize someone for a reason OTHER than self preservation.undeadsuitor said:
And do you REALLY think in the cyberpunk genre that all low level street crime is done just to feed some poor Tiny Tim?
Again, being downtrodden doesn't make you less of a scumbag if you act like a scumbag. Humans can and will be dicks to each other regardless of income.
By your logic, we should have been cheering Leatherface in the Texas Chainsaw Massacre movies, since he was victimizing people from a higher income level.
Let's see... the French Revolution. A huge population of desperately poor people rose up against the elite ruling class that had abused and exploited them for decades, stormed the Bastille, built guillotines and executed thousands of people. Who is right and who is wrong?Smithnikov said:
Obviously slaughtering people en masse is morally indefensible. But it was practically necessary.
Obviously creating and enforcing a system wherein most of the population is kept in total destitution and used as nothing more than tools to churn out more wealth for the wealthy is morally indefensible. It is also practically unnecessary, and should always be fought against.
So, in this case I'm gonna side with the guillotiners.
If that was the only violence poor people engaged in, you'd have a point.TheVampwizimp said:
However, it isn't.
But at the same time, that tech is equally a crutch and just another avenue for the legitimate degenerate parts of the lower class to have one more tool to exploit their own. Ripperdocs, drug dealers, boostergangs, those aren't lovable anti-heroes, they're violent scum that victimize others. The Corporations aren't the only maggots in the pile, and a lot of people are forgetting that around here.Gethsemani said:
Hey, you gotta booster gang problem and the people that should be taking care of it aren't, then you need your own gang to defend your own. That gang's gonna need income and cyber themselves, and the cycle repeats.Smithnikov said:
All because it's not profitable for the Corp cops to take care of the problem, but it is profitable for the Corp to flood the streets with cheap cyber and designer drugs, and gives them an excuse to get that sweet, sweet public cash to run the Corp cops.
Think Iran-Contra, only run for profit instead of regime change.
You say that as if coffee, guns, oil, and yayo spring magically into existence straight from the luminiferous aether, ready for consumption, and no one stands to profit from controlling their trade. Far be it for me to allege the US was protecting the interests of its ruling class, and only the interests of its ruling class, during the Cold War era, but shit like Operation PBSUCCESS makes a whole lot more sense when you realize Allen Dulles was on United Fruit's board of directors. But that's an argument for another board.altnameJag said:
Granted it's Shadowrun and not CP2020, but wasn't it canonized Dunkelzahn was assassinated by a megacorp conspiracy because he ran on a platform of limiting corporate sovereignty, restoring power to the UCAS, and normalizing American-European relations?
It's robot dicks all the way down.
Sure, a core theme of cyberpunk is people being shitty to other people no matter who they are. My point was rather that cyberpunk as a genre is not cut and dried Luddite in its approach to technology. There are cyberpunk works that are Luddite and bemoan the evils of technology, just as there is cyberpunk that sees technology as the solution to the human and social problems of the setting and there's cyberpunk for all stances in between.Smithnikov said:
My extended point was that any given work of cyberpunk has to take a point somewhere on the scale of "Stone Age tech was too much"-Luddite to "The Singularity is my bae"-tech wank. You can't, like CP2020 or Shadowrun (to a lesser extent), tell the audience that all this tech is fucking rad yo! while also cramming in a game mechanic that's all about how bad tech is for you. Either you think the tech is cool and as such a positive or at least neutral force in the setting, or it is potentially soul crushing and as such is a negative force. It can't be cool and a tool to fight oppression and soul crushing evil at the same time (I suppose it can be, but then you're making a philosophical point about how despicable tools or tactics are sometimes justified, or not, and that needs to be a central tenet of the work, not an unintended dichotomy between different gameplay mechanics or setting and mechanics).
CP2077, so far, seems to be wanting to have the cake of awesome tech (ie. the Netrunner presentation) but also wants to eat it by talking about how bad or nefarious tech is (the repeated use of "profane"/"sacred" in interviews, the reveal trailer waaaay back when) and that's potentially really problematic. There are ways to get around this or solve it with various degrees of neatness, but the problem is built into the CP2020-franchise due to Humanity in the original RPG being a cheese limiter because all that tech was a munchkin's wet dream.