I can't tell you how much I appreciate the support I've been getting on these videos. Coming home and seeing all these views/likes/subscribes was a real pleasure. Probably very normal for most content here on UA-cam, but this is barely a real UA-cam channel and I wasn't sure if anyone would still be interested in watching these. For anyone who likes these sorts of videos who sticks around, I've been working on a bunch of other videos - but the editing / the scripts have just been kicking my ass and I haven't been able to finish them yet. If you're interested, stay tuned.
I've seen a lot of different comments about the voice effects. Some people like it, some people hate it. I used to play around with different voice edits/sound edits, but this one is an old idea I had from before I even started making these sorts of videos. Since I already started making videos about Cyberpunk 2077, it just seemed very fitting for this game and for cyberpunk overall. The main reason I do this is because my actual reading/speaking voice sounds terrible and boring to listen to for 30-40+ minutes on-end. It's grown on me by this point, but it's not something I plan to do with every video. I have a bunch of new ones that'll just be me talking about things like Fallout, Cyberpunk Edgerunners, etc. that won't really have much to do with lore/fan theories/etc. so if you're still around you can check those out and see for yourself how it goes.
Great video and some great points. I think alot of people also miss the historical context of the genre too. We are talking of a period when where people were starting to see the natural end point of the 80s "deregulate everything, and greed is good" attitude that was taking over. This was also a decade when the Cold War was at it's bleakest point where being vapourized by mushroom clouds was a very real and constant threat. Violent crime rates were also peaking during this period in many major US cities. The reason the Japanese were often villains in American cyberpunk had alot to do with attitudes in the 80s that the Japanese would outdo the USA in hyper capitalist expansion and this was a very real concern until the Japanese crash in the 90s. Alot of aspects of punk in general was not about fixating on this bleak trajectory but railing against it and trying to make a change.
There's definitely an emphasis in these stories on characters actively trying to make a difference but also a futility in their efforts in the face of overwhelming odds and forces. Cyberpunk as a genre definitely takes a very believable and very grounded overview of the idea that a lot of these problems people fear are destroying society are really just inevitable outcomes of much larger systemic issues in society/with humanity. It's one of the reasons (I think anyways) why the genre is so popular and I think that's something that CP2077 managed to capture very well.
@@EyeofCenter There are certainly a few examples of "futility" but as the OP points out it is by far not the majority and not the case in most of the founding sources that arguably created the genre. Also I was pointing out that cyberpunk should not be seen in isolation from the more general punk movement of the same period. Punk in general was a middle finger to the doomer attitude.
@@certs743 The futility is subtle. And it's not necessarily unilateral. But it's definitely a part of cyberpunk fiction. Which is why I think so many people quickly assume that "happy endings are wrong for cyberpunk." No matter what V does in this game, there's no getting rid of Arasaka like Johnny wants. They're sent back to Japan and their stock plummets, but they were in that same exact position in 2020 leading into Cyberpunk RED and they'll be just fine. Just like in Hardwired, Neuromancer, or Ghost in the Shell (just the examples from the video). The actions of the main character ultimately only end up playing into much larger and more powerful agendas. There's very little they can actually do to change the world around them long-term. Because the governments, the corporations, and the world around them are all fueled by the very things that cause these sorts of problems to begin with. I'm not saying cyberpunk characters don't affect ANY change. They definitely do. And I do agree with you that the punk genre is an integral part of cyberpunk
@@EyeofCenter I think part of the issue with that is not so much a deliberate message or theme but a shortcoming of literature. Contemporary literature focuses on one or a small group of characters and things from their perspective. The formula itself makes it impossible to present a critique of systemic societal issues and present transformative change in a realistic manner. That ends up being a text book on political theory, not a novel. The literary formula makes it very very difficult to show systemic change without resorting to the "chosen one" trope.
@@certs743 That's definitely a part of it. The other part is that there are some things that won't change. For example, the endless cycle of exploitation fueled by want, greed, and consumerism is front and center throughout many of the story arcs of CP2077. This is a very real problem in real life. But as much as we might try and improve the situation for the people who fall victim to this, there's only so much that people can and WILL do. It's a problem that stems from a much larger issue with people and with society that's simply too widespread and too systemic to truly change in meaningful ways. In that regard, I think that CP2077 presents a very believable scenario. But at the same time, that's not to say that rebellion, activism, and consciousness doesn't have ANY impact on the world. In that regard - and in regards to the "Chosen One" trope - I feel like CP2077 did do a good job striking a balance. It's almost become a meme at this point that V is some "God-tier mercenary" but I still think that V's actions and V's impact on the setting is very believable. By playing a part in Arasaka's whole "Secure Your Soul" conspiracy, V and Johnny inadvertently DID upend a major worldwide conspiracy. But at the same time, they did it in a way that feels very believable. One person/one group very rarely has the power to directly changes the world, but their actions can very often set events/chains of actions into motion that that end up affecting SOME change. In this case, Arasaka's plan temporarily collapsing and the corporation packing up back to Japan all over again.
Honestly I really like the Nomad ending. It’s bleak, but it’s the only one that shows a group of regular people - not some elite crew of cybered up freaks - just a bunch of regular ass people, standing up to and defeating their would-be corpo masters. It isn’t a power fantasy for V, but a solidarity fantasy. Lots of them die, sure, but their deaths actually mean something. Other people will hear about the Nomad uprising and think “Huh. With enough people, even we could do that.”
That's a very true point. That's something that's a part of every cyberpunk story. That spirit to rebel and take up some sort of fight against "the powers that be." It's a little unoriginal by today's standards, but most cyberpunk stories do a good job of keeping it grounded and realistic.
It was the book that Mike Pondsmith largely used as inspiration for a lot of the Cyberpunk franchise. And arguably, the ending of that book is a lot like the Nomad ending of this game. The main characters ride off into the sunset richer than ever and an entire megacorporation is brought to its knees at least temporarily.
I dont care about happy endings, i care about consequences that make sense and good writing. No matter what happen it needs to be a proper journey with meaningful actions and consequences to the protagonist and i think the journey is more important than the destination. Look at the garbage that is episode 9 of star wars. Kylo went through an amazing building up and journey to become a true sith, he destroyed the lives of millions, killed his on tutor, father, mother and did all that for what ? For rey to make him turn sides after a fight ? Go fak yourself disney. I rather have an ending like in blade runner in which k dies and his dream are shattered he lost everything but in the end his journey made him human. Instead of a happy ending that meant nothing to the universe or character (fucking rey, finn and all that stupid crew) , k evolved, loved, fought over his ideals and instead of a robot, he died the best way he could wish, as a human that made a difference.
That's definitely true. And I think that's exactly what we get in CP2077. There might be one or two gripes we could focus on with this ending/that ending, but it's mostly very consistent and well-written.
It's the same with all bleak genres it's like love craft or war hammer they think because the way the setting is set up and because the original authors were like making a statement with their works about the bleakness that the whole genre has to go that way but we have lovectaftian dating sims where you can find true love beyond the stars now not everything has to adhear to the original purpose and people can find happiness in these bleak settings I mean look at most of V's friends in the cure ending they're mostly living happily Kerry's doing good Vic is running a legitimate operation Judy met the love of her life panam didn't really reply and I forgot about river cause everyone does v should be allowed to have a happy ending too if thats what the writers wanted
That's exactly the point I was trying to make. Personally, I don't mind V dying/ending up crippled/etc. I just don't agree with this very one-track minded train of thought that "happy endings" aren't allowed. I think that there's a very tortured and twisted notion of what a "happy ending" really is, because there are plenty of positive hopeful endings all across the entire cyberpunk genre. Even an ending where V rides off with the Nomads is still an ending where V lost everything just to find a new beginning. It still plays into the bleakness and the overwhelming forces at play in the setting. Nothing about this ending would betray the genre or the rest of the story when there are plenty of examples to the contrary.
Rivers ending is a pretty depressing one he sells off ncpd secrets to to trauma team (I think?) to pay for Randy’s Rehabilitation and is so ashamed with himself he can’t face V
That ending only came after Phantom Liberty. It wasn't anything like the original ending in the base game. And to be completely honest, that was something CDPR only came up with and inserted last-minute just to sell the fact that the world went to hell when V wasn't looking. But River aside, all the other characters still have very "happy" endings even after Phantom Liberty. That's not to say I think a positive ending is a must, but it proves that you can absolutely do them in cyberpunk stories. The proof is that they've been doing them before this game existed.
Funniest part of all are that even if You let Jonny to control body of Vi than You let it to basically AI based on redacted by Arasaka memories of Silverhand to which hinted more than enough clues through story... Those who tried to throw on table "happy ending" card just missing ENTIRE STORY in CP2077. So go replay it and found where You crapped up by Yourself. 😈 BTW "happiness" are too much subjective to be viable thesis. Because even Odyssey ended up with kind a "happy" ending... But is it so?😅
First of all, Johnny's memories being edited/damaged WAS played with in the game, but Johnny was Soulkilled way before they ever even started Secure Your Soul. This would have been ~50 years before they actually got the program to start collecting + editing "souls" up and running in the first place. Nothing we see in Johnny aside from delusional + self-aggrandizing flashbacks suggests Arasaka has done anything to Johnny besides MAYBE trying to mess with some of his memories. Saburo Arasaka himself outright says that he forgot Johnny even existed. Where are there any hints that Arasaka did anything nefarious to Johnny or implanted anything sinister? But more importantly, did you write this forgetting that most of the endings don't involve Johnny taking over V's body? Did YOU miss the rest of the entire game where most endings not only refuse to show V's death but outright tells you V has plenty of other chances to try and stay alive? Nothing in the game suggests that V can't have a more positive ending. So if anything, I think that YOU'RE the one who missed the "ENTIRE STORY" of CP2077. But to each their own, man.
Jackal was shooted on helicopter only in Johnny's memories. There no Blackhand in memories and about him Arasaka can't know. And some other mismatches on which pointed through game. Some of them You can know only if dive in actual story of tabletop game, but it supported by the CP2077 pointing on those mismatches. Alt pointing on some errors while talked about how her body died and add that after such a long time her identity kind a erased and resons why it is so. I don't straightly say that Silverhand engram was tweaked by Arasaka, but there are no consistency in his memories if talked about it with other characters. BTW Soulkiller actually separate engram of personality as it was done with Alt in controlled maner which was interrupted by Silverhand and then was done with him intentionally. So "50 years before"... Really? How the hell then Johnny ended up as engram? 50 years after it was mature enough for sell it as product and Vi fell victim of experimental chip with not perfect engram of Silverhand which actually supposed to be sold as well as it shown in Arasaka ending. In "legend" ending it also doesn't seem that Vi missed that jump, but it doesn't mean he survive because of pointing of time which he not contact some characters in messages. In nomads ending blood from nose when he sit on Basilisk with Panam clearly meant he'll be just fine(sarcasm). In Arasaka ending it was told straight ahead even if left behind scene. DLC I've not view so precisely so there I will not argue yeat, because my PC start to melt even when I've to thinking about run it and I've missed most streams on which it played and/or seen it too much fragmented... But Yorinobu clearly tried to cut tails anyway and ignoring it only while it doesn't bark.
You're only talking about those specific flashbacks and those specific memories. Everything else about Johnny is consistent enough that other characters can connect with him AS Johnny when he takes over. And what Alt did TO V was not the intention of Soulkiller. I don't know where this is coming from because I never said anything like that. Also, there's a difference betweeen just being an engram (which is what Soulkiller alone does to people) and then being altered by Arasaka. At the end of the game, you find a datashard that says the big secret of "Secure Your Soul" - NOT SOULKILLER - is that they're working on EDITING engrams to the point where they have complete control of the person. That's something they're only doing in 2077 with "Secure Your Soul." That was never in the books during the 2020 era and given that Saburo says he all but forgot Johnny existed, that's something that they're using on more important people by 2077. So once again, there's nothing here to truly suggest/prove that this is a "bad ending" because of Arasaka. And as for the V endings, once again all of what you're saying only proves that V is still dying AT THAT MOMENT. It doesn't change the fact that all those endings suggest that V has more left to do to try and survive. The possibility of a positive ending is still very real. And nothing in the game suggests it's not possible. And let's not forget that the Arasaka ending AND Alt Cunningham's comments about V dying were proven wrong by Phantom Liberty. So once again, a positive ending FOR V is still very much possible.
Don't often comment on videos, but I just wanted to say that while I don't think a happy ending is out of the question, I do think that 'no happy ending' for V in Cyberpunk 2077 is something that is a good thing. It sets a tone for the setting for people who are new to the genre and this being their first glimpse into it. This idea that you are inconsequential in the scheme of the setting is core. To that end, the fact that you are inconsequential and fighting that fact tooth and nail is also part of the setting. However, the only way to get a 'Happy Ending' is to sacrifice, and sacrifice a lot. Every single happy ending in the Cyberpunk game comes at a cost. Hell, I would argue that V being in the situation with the Relic that he is in is because both Jackie and V refused to sacrifice their dream. Look to Victor, he talks about the fact that you need to give things up in order to be happy, and once he realized that and came to terms with that, he was able to become happy with his lot in life. As for the Nomad ending and the Phantom Liberty Cure, you could argue that you do end up sacrificing enough. In lore there is a group of techno-elite Nomads that might be the one's Panam refers to when she says they're going to get you help. In the Phantom Liberty Cure, you end up sacrificing So Mi's dream of escaping on the pyre for your own survival. I think it comes down to the fact that people are missing the point, at least in my opinion. The stories in Cyberpunk settings are all about how much you are willing to sacrifice to simply punch back at your own insignificance. Throw enough behind the punch and you might actually earn something in return.
Very nice to see people still care enough to comment on these. And I get what you're saying. Personally though, I disagree that V has to die/end up crippled to make the point that you're addressing. First off, none of the actual endings to the game except for the suicide ending actually confirm V's death. In fact, the game goes out of its way to suggest that V could stay alive. But staying alive/intact doesn't mean that V is any more important or unique just for staying alive/staying intact. V's actions in and of themselves are still momentary and of very limited impact to the larger Cyberpunk universe. And even an ending where V rides off with the Nomads is still an ending where V lost everything just to find a new beginning. It still plays into the bleakness and the overwhelming forces at play in the setting. This is why they never had to show us V's actual death. Because the losses and the journey in and of themselves proves V has lost everything all the same whether he/she lives or dies.
I can't tell you how much I appreciate the support I've been getting on these videos. Coming home and seeing all these views/likes/subscribes was a real pleasure. Probably very normal for most content here on UA-cam, but this is barely a real UA-cam channel and I wasn't sure if anyone would still be interested in watching these. For anyone who likes these sorts of videos who sticks around, I've been working on a bunch of other videos - but the editing / the scripts have just been kicking my ass and I haven't been able to finish them yet. If you're interested, stay tuned.
So hard to understand what's with the Voice filter?
Dude for real.
I've seen a lot of different comments about the voice effects. Some people like it, some people hate it. I used to play around with different voice edits/sound edits, but this one is an old idea I had from before I even started making these sorts of videos. Since I already started making videos about Cyberpunk 2077, it just seemed very fitting for this game and for cyberpunk overall. The main reason I do this is because my actual reading/speaking voice sounds terrible and boring to listen to for 30-40+ minutes on-end.
It's grown on me by this point, but it's not something I plan to do with every video. I have a bunch of new ones that'll just be me talking about things like Fallout, Cyberpunk Edgerunners, etc. that won't really have much to do with lore/fan theories/etc. so if you're still around you can check those out and see for yourself how it goes.
bro i wanna watch this video but that voice filter is making it not happen
Great video and some great points.
I think alot of people also miss the historical context of the genre too. We are talking of a period when where people were starting to see the natural end point of the 80s "deregulate everything, and greed is good" attitude that was taking over. This was also a decade when the Cold War was at it's bleakest point where being vapourized by mushroom clouds was a very real and constant threat. Violent crime rates were also peaking during this period in many major US cities. The reason the Japanese were often villains in American cyberpunk had alot to do with attitudes in the 80s that the Japanese would outdo the USA in hyper capitalist expansion and this was a very real concern until the Japanese crash in the 90s.
Alot of aspects of punk in general was not about fixating on this bleak trajectory but railing against it and trying to make a change.
There's definitely an emphasis in these stories on characters actively trying to make a difference but also a futility in their efforts in the face of overwhelming odds and forces. Cyberpunk as a genre definitely takes a very believable and very grounded overview of the idea that a lot of these problems people fear are destroying society are really just inevitable outcomes of much larger systemic issues in society/with humanity. It's one of the reasons (I think anyways) why the genre is so popular and I think that's something that CP2077 managed to capture very well.
@@EyeofCenter There are certainly a few examples of "futility" but as the OP points out it is by far not the majority and not the case in most of the founding sources that arguably created the genre. Also I was pointing out that cyberpunk should not be seen in isolation from the more general punk movement of the same period. Punk in general was a middle finger to the doomer attitude.
@@certs743 The futility is subtle. And it's not necessarily unilateral. But it's definitely a part of cyberpunk fiction. Which is why I think so many people quickly assume that "happy endings are wrong for cyberpunk." No matter what V does in this game, there's no getting rid of Arasaka like Johnny wants. They're sent back to Japan and their stock plummets, but they were in that same exact position in 2020 leading into Cyberpunk RED and they'll be just fine. Just like in Hardwired, Neuromancer, or Ghost in the Shell (just the examples from the video). The actions of the main character ultimately only end up playing into much larger and more powerful agendas. There's very little they can actually do to change the world around them long-term. Because the governments, the corporations, and the world around them are all fueled by the very things that cause these sorts of problems to begin with.
I'm not saying cyberpunk characters don't affect ANY change. They definitely do. And I do agree with you that the punk genre is an integral part of cyberpunk
@@EyeofCenter I think part of the issue with that is not so much a deliberate message or theme but a shortcoming of literature. Contemporary literature focuses on one or a small group of characters and things from their perspective. The formula itself makes it impossible to present a critique of systemic societal issues and present transformative change in a realistic manner. That ends up being a text book on political theory, not a novel. The literary formula makes it very very difficult to show systemic change without resorting to the "chosen one" trope.
@@certs743 That's definitely a part of it. The other part is that there are some things that won't change. For example, the endless cycle of exploitation fueled by want, greed, and consumerism is front and center throughout many of the story arcs of CP2077. This is a very real problem in real life. But as much as we might try and improve the situation for the people who fall victim to this, there's only so much that people can and WILL do. It's a problem that stems from a much larger issue with people and with society that's simply too widespread and too systemic to truly change in meaningful ways. In that regard, I think that CP2077 presents a very believable scenario.
But at the same time, that's not to say that rebellion, activism, and consciousness doesn't have ANY impact on the world. In that regard - and in regards to the "Chosen One" trope - I feel like CP2077 did do a good job striking a balance. It's almost become a meme at this point that V is some "God-tier mercenary" but I still think that V's actions and V's impact on the setting is very believable. By playing a part in Arasaka's whole "Secure Your Soul" conspiracy, V and Johnny inadvertently DID upend a major worldwide conspiracy. But at the same time, they did it in a way that feels very believable. One person/one group very rarely has the power to directly changes the world, but their actions can very often set events/chains of actions into motion that that end up affecting SOME change. In this case, Arasaka's plan temporarily collapsing and the corporation packing up back to Japan all over again.
Honestly I really like the Nomad ending. It’s bleak, but it’s the only one that shows a group of regular people - not some elite crew of cybered up freaks - just a bunch of regular ass people, standing up to and defeating their would-be corpo masters. It isn’t a power fantasy for V, but a solidarity fantasy. Lots of them die, sure, but their deaths actually mean something. Other people will hear about the Nomad uprising and think “Huh. With enough people, even we could do that.”
That's a very true point. That's something that's a part of every cyberpunk story. That spirit to rebel and take up some sort of fight against "the powers that be." It's a little unoriginal by today's standards, but most cyberpunk stories do a good job of keeping it grounded and realistic.
Hot damn, nice to see Hard Wired came recommended by Roger Zelazny himself.
It was the book that Mike Pondsmith largely used as inspiration for a lot of the Cyberpunk franchise. And arguably, the ending of that book is a lot like the Nomad ending of this game. The main characters ride off into the sunset richer than ever and an entire megacorporation is brought to its knees at least temporarily.
I dont care about happy endings, i care about consequences that make sense and good writing. No matter what happen it needs to be a proper journey with meaningful actions and consequences to the protagonist and i think the journey is more important than the destination. Look at the garbage that is episode 9 of star wars. Kylo went through an amazing building up and journey to become a true sith, he destroyed the lives of millions, killed his on tutor, father, mother and did all that for what ? For rey to make him turn sides after a fight ? Go fak yourself disney. I rather have an ending like in blade runner in which k dies and his dream are shattered he lost everything but in the end his journey made him human. Instead of a happy ending that meant nothing to the universe or character (fucking rey, finn and all that stupid crew) , k evolved, loved, fought over his ideals and instead of a robot, he died the best way he could wish, as a human that made a difference.
That's definitely true. And I think that's exactly what we get in CP2077. There might be one or two gripes we could focus on with this ending/that ending, but it's mostly very consistent and well-written.
It's the same with all bleak genres it's like love craft or war hammer they think because the way the setting is set up and because the original authors were like making a statement with their works about the bleakness that the whole genre has to go that way but we have lovectaftian dating sims where you can find true love beyond the stars now not everything has to adhear to the original purpose and people can find happiness in these bleak settings I mean look at most of V's friends in the cure ending they're mostly living happily Kerry's doing good Vic is running a legitimate operation Judy met the love of her life panam didn't really reply and I forgot about river cause everyone does v should be allowed to have a happy ending too if thats what the writers wanted
That's exactly the point I was trying to make. Personally, I don't mind V dying/ending up crippled/etc. I just don't agree with this very one-track minded train of thought that "happy endings" aren't allowed. I think that there's a very tortured and twisted notion of what a "happy ending" really is, because there are plenty of positive hopeful endings all across the entire cyberpunk genre. Even an ending where V rides off with the Nomads is still an ending where V lost everything just to find a new beginning. It still plays into the bleakness and the overwhelming forces at play in the setting. Nothing about this ending would betray the genre or the rest of the story when there are plenty of examples to the contrary.
Rivers ending is a pretty depressing one he sells off ncpd secrets to to trauma team (I think?) to pay for Randy’s Rehabilitation and is so ashamed with himself he can’t face V
That ending only came after Phantom Liberty. It wasn't anything like the original ending in the base game. And to be completely honest, that was something CDPR only came up with and inserted last-minute just to sell the fact that the world went to hell when V wasn't looking. But River aside, all the other characters still have very "happy" endings even after Phantom Liberty. That's not to say I think a positive ending is a must, but it proves that you can absolutely do them in cyberpunk stories. The proof is that they've been doing them before this game existed.
Tbh PL ending is more like a preview for a next Cyberpunk story
Funniest part of all are that even if You let Jonny to control body of Vi than You let it to basically AI based on redacted by Arasaka memories of Silverhand to which hinted more than enough clues through story... Those who tried to throw on table "happy ending" card just missing ENTIRE STORY in CP2077. So go replay it and found where You crapped up by Yourself. 😈
BTW "happiness" are too much subjective to be viable thesis. Because even Odyssey ended up with kind a "happy" ending... But is it so?😅
First of all, Johnny's memories being edited/damaged WAS played with in the game, but Johnny was Soulkilled way before they ever even started Secure Your Soul. This would have been ~50 years before they actually got the program to start collecting + editing "souls" up and running in the first place. Nothing we see in Johnny aside from delusional + self-aggrandizing flashbacks suggests Arasaka has done anything to Johnny besides MAYBE trying to mess with some of his memories. Saburo Arasaka himself outright says that he forgot Johnny even existed. Where are there any hints that Arasaka did anything nefarious to Johnny or implanted anything sinister?
But more importantly, did you write this forgetting that most of the endings don't involve Johnny taking over V's body? Did YOU miss the rest of the entire game where most endings not only refuse to show V's death but outright tells you V has plenty of other chances to try and stay alive? Nothing in the game suggests that V can't have a more positive ending. So if anything, I think that YOU'RE the one who missed the "ENTIRE STORY" of CP2077. But to each their own, man.
Jackal was shooted on helicopter only in Johnny's memories. There no Blackhand in memories and about him Arasaka can't know. And some other mismatches on which pointed through game. Some of them You can know only if dive in actual story of tabletop game, but it supported by the CP2077 pointing on those mismatches. Alt pointing on some errors while talked about how her body died and add that after such a long time her identity kind a erased and resons why it is so. I don't straightly say that Silverhand engram was tweaked by Arasaka, but there are no consistency in his memories if talked about it with other characters. BTW Soulkiller actually separate engram of personality as it was done with Alt in controlled maner which was interrupted by Silverhand and then was done with him intentionally. So "50 years before"... Really? How the hell then Johnny ended up as engram? 50 years after it was mature enough for sell it as product and Vi fell victim of experimental chip with not perfect engram of Silverhand which actually supposed to be sold as well as it shown in Arasaka ending.
In "legend" ending it also doesn't seem that Vi missed that jump, but it doesn't mean he survive because of pointing of time which he not contact some characters in messages. In nomads ending blood from nose when he sit on Basilisk with Panam clearly meant he'll be just fine(sarcasm). In Arasaka ending it was told straight ahead even if left behind scene.
DLC I've not view so precisely so there I will not argue yeat, because my PC start to melt even when I've to thinking about run it and I've missed most streams on which it played and/or seen it too much fragmented... But Yorinobu clearly tried to cut tails anyway and ignoring it only while it doesn't bark.
You're only talking about those specific flashbacks and those specific memories. Everything else about Johnny is consistent enough that other characters can connect with him AS Johnny when he takes over. And what Alt did TO V was not the intention of Soulkiller. I don't know where this is coming from because I never said anything like that. Also, there's a difference betweeen just being an engram (which is what Soulkiller alone does to people) and then being altered by Arasaka. At the end of the game, you find a datashard that says the big secret of "Secure Your Soul" - NOT SOULKILLER - is that they're working on EDITING engrams to the point where they have complete control of the person. That's something they're only doing in 2077 with "Secure Your Soul." That was never in the books during the 2020 era and given that Saburo says he all but forgot Johnny existed, that's something that they're using on more important people by 2077. So once again, there's nothing here to truly suggest/prove that this is a "bad ending" because of Arasaka.
And as for the V endings, once again all of what you're saying only proves that V is still dying AT THAT MOMENT. It doesn't change the fact that all those endings suggest that V has more left to do to try and survive. The possibility of a positive ending is still very real. And nothing in the game suggests it's not possible. And let's not forget that the Arasaka ending AND Alt Cunningham's comments about V dying were proven wrong by Phantom Liberty. So once again, a positive ending FOR V is still very much possible.
Don't often comment on videos, but I just wanted to say that while I don't think a happy ending is out of the question, I do think that 'no happy ending' for V in Cyberpunk 2077 is something that is a good thing. It sets a tone for the setting for people who are new to the genre and this being their first glimpse into it. This idea that you are inconsequential in the scheme of the setting is core.
To that end, the fact that you are inconsequential and fighting that fact tooth and nail is also part of the setting. However, the only way to get a 'Happy Ending' is to sacrifice, and sacrifice a lot. Every single happy ending in the Cyberpunk game comes at a cost. Hell, I would argue that V being in the situation with the Relic that he is in is because both Jackie and V refused to sacrifice their dream.
Look to Victor, he talks about the fact that you need to give things up in order to be happy, and once he realized that and came to terms with that, he was able to become happy with his lot in life.
As for the Nomad ending and the Phantom Liberty Cure, you could argue that you do end up sacrificing enough. In lore there is a group of techno-elite Nomads that might be the one's Panam refers to when she says they're going to get you help. In the Phantom Liberty Cure, you end up sacrificing So Mi's dream of escaping on the pyre for your own survival.
I think it comes down to the fact that people are missing the point, at least in my opinion. The stories in Cyberpunk settings are all about how much you are willing to sacrifice to simply punch back at your own insignificance. Throw enough behind the punch and you might actually earn something in return.
Very nice to see people still care enough to comment on these. And I get what you're saying. Personally though, I disagree that V has to die/end up crippled to make the point that you're addressing. First off, none of the actual endings to the game except for the suicide ending actually confirm V's death. In fact, the game goes out of its way to suggest that V could stay alive. But staying alive/intact doesn't mean that V is any more important or unique just for staying alive/staying intact. V's actions in and of themselves are still momentary and of very limited impact to the larger Cyberpunk universe. And even an ending where V rides off with the Nomads is still an ending where V lost everything just to find a new beginning. It still plays into the bleakness and the overwhelming forces at play in the setting. This is why they never had to show us V's actual death. Because the losses and the journey in and of themselves proves V has lost everything all the same whether he/she lives or dies.
Yes
Maybe
No
However good your content is, if you sound like Stephen Hawking drowning int he bathtub ain't nobody gonna understand it.