Cyberpunk's 1.1 Patch Created A Game-Breaking Glitch
Takemura isn't doing so well after the latest Cyberpunk patch, and it's affecting game progression.
www.thegamer.com
Cyberpunk 2077 Review thread - Umm....
- Thread starter CriticalGaming
- Start date
www.thegamer.com
How deep can this rabbit wormhole go?Cyberpunk's 1.1 Patch Created A Game-Breaking Glitch
Takemura isn't doing so well after the latest Cyberpunk patch, and it's affecting game progression.
Well that’s up to CDPR, whom it would seem Can Dig Pit REally Deep.
Wow, that's the worst argument I think I've ever heard. Freakin' vampires, Nanomachines, Psycho Mantis, clones, FOXDIE, Metal Gears, parasites, cyborg ninjas...
But it's "realistic" because the people still look like people?
That's literally how they're treated in the context of the game world. Nobody gives a shit about the ads or their pervasiveness. It goes by as unquestioned and broadly accepted as bikini chick beer commercials were in the '80s and '90s. The only character I've seen or heard of that points any of it out as exploitative, is Judy.
No, you're just trying to employ contemporary real-world sensibilities diegetically.
You mean the mission where the guy's a Copt and no one seems to have noticed, because to figure it out you have to look around Zuleikha's home?
True, but i don't think that is actually bad. It fits the genre. Cyberpunk was always more about the fears and sensibilities of the time it was written than about the future.
If those ads manage to get a reaction out of the player for the shameless and boundless commercialisation of everything sexual and sensual than they have fullfilled their purpose.
Didn't notice the Tom's Diner stuff much as i used corpo background so my V might have known that anyway. But there were other occasions that really didn't work well with a corpo V, even consideing 6 month montage.
Try reading it next time.
Again, we are talking about character designs specifically. Quiet, the character, has a realistic design. She looks like a real woman. Enormous effort was put into making her as realistic as possible, including spending enormous amounts of money photographing the face of a real model and using mocap to capture the movements of a real person. There is an enormous, enormous commitment to realism in her character design that literally cost an absurd amount of money to create, because it was considered important.
The universe of the MGS games is a surreal universe. It's a universe where realistic things exist in intentional juxtaposition with bizarre or unreal things. So yes, you get things in that universe which are silly or unreal, but you also get things that are grounded and which resemble reality, in other words, things that are realistic. The point, if you had bothered to read, is where exactly the line is. Why is it important that a fictional woman's body is realistic, but not that her clothes are realistic? The answer, I'm afraid, is not as cerebral as anyone is trying to pretend.
Is that not kind of the point of cyberpunk?
Okay, but let me be a bit more direct about this than Geth was.
I don't look at that ad and see the commercialization of sexuality, I see a basic transphobic joke which we've heard over and over and over again. The only way I can see to make it more on the nose would be to have The Crying Game play whenever the ad comes up.
Trans women are already commodified a sexual objects. They're hugely overrepresented in porn and sex work, because there's a significant minority of cis people who are attracted specifically to trans women. Those people can sometimes be weird and gross but they do not see their own sexuality as a joke. They've gotten past the LOL WOMAN WITH PEE PEE stage, so I don't see how having an advert which centres specifically on that kind of incongruity is exploiting the sexuality of trans women. It's exploiting the fact that cis people think trans people existing is funny.
But in a society where trans people are normal enough to have mainstream commercial appeal, why would it be funny?
Last edited:
First, i don't think it is funny. I never even thought it was supposed to be funny.
Second, i didn't understand it as being about transwomen either. When Cyberpunk presents me with someone with a mostly female body type and a penis, my first assumption would be that the penis is an implant or graft. Which fits both the overcommersionalisation of sex stuff and the common body modification directions.
As for how transpeople are treated, we have a whole questline with a transwoman as companion (Claire).
The sexualized transsexual is a problem because it is a joke, or you are at least taking it as a joke which i dont think it is intended to be.
So the question is, do you want trans people included as equals in society and media or not? Because true acceptance means you get to be sexualized with everyone else. You get the be the butt of jokes like everyone else. You are included in all aspects of life like everyone else.
Writing off that inclusion as degrading in some way makes you look like a jerk and only discourages further inclusion in other projects. "Dont invite Liam over because all they do is ***** about how they arenever included while we try to include them."
The whole point in the Cyberpunk world is to showcase that everybody's bodies can be whatever they want and it is all gravy. Thus the advertising depicted the way it is. No one is off limits because everyone can be sold to equally.
How is that poor representation still?
Now that is a complaint i can agree with.
As for the Chromanticore ad, i still am sceptical that is supposed to be a transwoman instead of a ciswoman with a grafted penis. Did they say otherwise anywhere ? A cursory search only revealed that she seems to be popular with cosplayers for some reason.
Because the point of it being everywhere is that it has become a normal thing and therefore isn't brought up in conversation like it's something special. That's the whole idea of inclusion, being there without it being special. Or am i wrong? Because if I am, then it isn't equal representation and inclusion into society that you want, it's special treatment. Or worse, the trans community is afraid of being included because then they will run out of things to be victims about.
It's more like inviting a Vegan over to a party and having special vegan meals prepared for them so they can join you at the table. Meanwhile the vegan continues to nag you about being merely vegetarian. Or maybe a better example is having a dinner party in which everyone else is eating a normal meal, and you've gone out of the way to make a vegan meal so you friend can join you and all they do is complain about what you're eating. Rather than being happy that your group made concessions so that you could be included with the group, you can only focus on the things they are still not doing the way you want.
Be grateful that people are trying because they will continue to try, even if it isn't always "perfect". Complaining constantly is only going to turn people off from even trying.
But there is context. The context is the world itself. The universe that they are showcasing uses the ads as elements of the larger picture. Even if each individual aspect isn't directly addressed, it doesn't have to be. That's what makes world building good, when it's left for the player to piece the context together based on the rest of the world around them.
Of course if you continue to only ever see things as shitty, then I guess there is no helping you.
So, the advert isn't selling sexual services or cyber-penises or anything that would actually make sense with the image. It's selling soda (or some kind of drink). The relevance of the image is tied to the marketing slogan "mix it up", which is where the image comes in. The implication is that this person is "mixed up" by being a feminine figure with a cartoonish massive dong. Whether you find it funny or not, that is a joke. It's an old, boring joke.
I mean, that would be my assumption too. However, there's not many obvious reasons why a person would want to possess a cybernetic penis outside of the context of gender transition. If I had to do so, I would assume that the character in the advert would, in universe, be non-binary or genderqueer (hence the "mixing" of gendered characteristics implied). However, in reality a feminine person who has a penis is likely to be socially recognized as a trans woman. Hence the "joke", outside of its in-universe context, is at the expense of trans women.
I'm aware.
I have a trans friend who is playing the game and mostly enjoying it, and it's clear that the creators of the game did take some steps towards trans inclusion, so cookies for them. However, there are little things about trans inclusion in the game that still bother me. I'm going to go back to a point I made earlier that the most involved choice you make about your character's body is their genitals. If your principle move towards trans inclusivity is giving players control over their characters genitals and breasts, then the implicit assumption is that these are the things that matter in terms of expressing trans and non-binary identities. It's a weird, shallow, fetishistic view of trans bodies which doesn't exactly lend credence to the idea that the commercialization of those bodies, for example in this advert, is a purely an in-game or in-universe thing.
It's far, far better than nothing, but it's not enough to overlook the things which are weird and suspect.
Last edited:
What you are asking for is freedom beyond what the contores of the linear writing can play off. You forget that in order to add transgenderism upon the player character in more than physical ways, requires additional voice lines, additional story beats, and probably a completely different way of reacting to the events of the game as a whole.
As expansive as video games have become, there is a limit to the freedom that can be offered. A character like V is pre-written, it isn't the perfect representation of the player's avatar because there is a specific story trying to be told with specific characters and in order for that experience to be presented the way they want, personality freedom cannot be given to the player. That's why in games that offer true player freedom, the player character is mute, because that opens up the way that the player character can then react to things that are presented to them.
So yes in this case the character can only physically be trans. But that's a lot further than a lot of games. And hopefully more games will let you do this in the future, maybe even going further by letting you assign the voice you want as well, because it was mentioned earlier that the voice was tied only to body type which could have been an easy change to make.
I think you are falling into the idea that sexuality makes the person and that simply isn't the case. A person can be any number of things that have nothing to do with their gender or sexual desires. And much of a person's orientation is about as useless to other people as vegan's bragging about how cool they are being vegan. People don't care and it's not really something that needs to come up in normal conversation, which is why I've always been pretty vocal about sexuality not needing to come into play in a video game if there are no romantic reasons for it.
Let's use Overwatch as an example. Tracer, Soldier 76, and maybe the hamster are cannonically gay within the Overwatch story. But does that make them better characters? Does that have any impact on how they are viewed in the game? Does it bring about any moral questions to their actions? Does it mean anything within the game you are playing? The answer is no, or if you want to argue that it does, then it can only do so superficially.
However in Mass Effect 3, you can openly have Shepard be homosexual because it does present itself as a meaningful part of their personaliy within the game because the player can act on it. They can develop relationships for Shepard in anyway that they want, because the story is crafted around giving such a choice meaning.
I've praised other games for using LBGT characters in subtle ways, not because i don't want that kind of thing shoved in my face, but because i don't find a character's sexuality important. If I'm talking to a character about needed a car to get out of zombieland, the fact that they are gayer than a rainbow is meaningless. It's just asking another human for help, and what color they are and what kind of porn they like is completely irrelevant to the situation.
The same can be applied to Cyberpunk, because to me that "Mix It Up" ad, showcases the total freedom people have over there bodies in this world. Expression of the mind can also be expression of the body in almost any regards. And the rest of the NPC's showcase this as well. You see people all over the place that could be anything they want, and many have the modifications to show this. Now that's a sexualized ad sure, but there are many sexualized ads all over the place in this world, sex sells and the game showcases that to an extreme to make a point. But I don't believe that they are trying to pain trans-people as any kind of joke simply because they are trans. I believe it's just a commentary of true inclusion means trans-people get to be just as objectified as anyone else because in Cyberpunk you are more object than person quite literally because of all the cybernetic parts that people have installed into them.
America has a weird obsession with guns because our history and independence was largely decided on the freedom to own them and exercise the 2nd Amendment (the fact that it was 2nd only to free speech speaks for itself). While that may sound like dated reasoning, it’s ultimately a big part of our legacy and has simply become ingrained in our culture as a result. I’m all for more effective gun control but for that to really be possible, the same would have to apply for all the illegal instances of gun use. Which is about as unlikely as expecting a global zero tolerance initiative to be enforced across the board, regardless of military/civilian/terrorist status.
PoliceOne's Gun Control Survey: 11 key lessons from officers' perspectives
Never before has such a comprehensive survey of law enforcement officers’ opinions on gun control, gun violence, and gun rights been conducted
www.police1.com
The larger and more complex a society gets, the more vulnerable it becomes, and this is evidenced by the fact that these issues never used to be so pressing several generations ago. Now we’re being taught to hate cops in an age where civilian firearm ownership is increasingly under fire, and with increased public calls to defund the police, there doesn’t appear to be an upside for the law abiding citizen. Intangible values and a sense of community have become rather fragile and marginalized to a significant enough degree that personal responsibility and trust have declined in-tow. “A gun in the wrong hands” is a more relevant concern than perhaps ever, but what’s never mentioned is that’s still a minuscule percentage in the face of responsible gun ownership even today.