Remove ads

Cyberpunk 2077: Rockerboy Keanu Silverhand

Reader mode
" Cyberpunk 2077 has been in development for at least six years and its team recently hit a major milestone: The entire game is playable from start to finish. It doesn't have all of the proper assets, playtesting or bug fixes in place, but seeing the story come together is a critical step in the development process, Borzymowski said. "
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

It's not always sunny in 'Cyberpunk 2077'

The game might be close to going Alpha.
 
Last edited:
SakSak said:
Umm.....to me, capitalism is nothing more or less, than an economic system based on private ownership of means of production in pursuit of financial profit.
Transform everyone corporation and company in the world into non-profit ones? Capitalism is dead.
A government seizes the means of production without changing anything else? Capitalism is dead.
Basically, if a government creates a bunch of corporations to produce goods and services, and then forces them to compete against one another using economic measuring points to determine efficiency in a market.... If the government owns those corporations (almost regardless of what form that government takes), Capitalism Is Still Dead because those means of production are not privately owned.

If you think an oligarchy is automatically capitalist, you must have a very weird definition of capitalism then.

EDIT: Perhaps my tone was needlessly antagonistic, and for that I apologize.
It's just that in my opinion there are and have been so many different forms of Capitalism being invented that the whole term is diluted of meaning if we are to take it in its widest definitions. If who owns the factories, presence of absence of profit or competitive market, or it even being an economic system or not are no longer indicators, then what is there that cannot be labelled a form of capitalism? And if almost anything can be labelled capitalism, what use is the label any more?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

o_O You're serious. OK then let's start from the most important part: Oligarchy is automatically Capitalist because Oligarchs will not commit to any form of economic structure other than Capitalism in Good Faith. Capitalism is nothing more or less than an economic system based on the private ownership of the means of production in pursuit of financial profit. I just don't think you fully realize what that means.

Transform everyone's corporations and companies into non-profit ones and Capitalism is dead? How? You do realize that even today and especially in the past non-profit corporations and companies were used to gain territory in places that would not allow for profit companies and corporations to enter for whatever reason. Today a lot of charities in the US serve as nothing more than methods of tax evasion and soft power for those that pay into them. Non-profit currently means just non-monetary profit. Plenty of these so called non-profits have found ways to gain profit in other things like market monopolies or slave trade or just soft power over the territory they work in. So no turning everything non-monetary profit would just have the Oligarchs abandon money as the measuring stick for profit.

A government seizes the means of production and Capitalism is dead because the government will make it's own corporations compete? You do realize that the Government itself is a type of Monopoly? What incentives does the government that seizes the means of production have to create competition in the way you think it will? There is a reason the Marx said that the workers need to seize the means of production and not the government. A government that seizes the means of production is just a Mega-Corporation (see Stalinism).

Your tone is matching mine. I am being antagonistic because I am tired of people pretending that Capitalism isn't Capitalism because it claims that it is a different system, but then executes that different system in Bad Faith so it could stay Capitalism. In an Oligarchy the factories are still owned by powerful individuals whether they call themselves magnates or ministers, there is always a presence of profit it just isn't always a monetary profit and the market is always competitive it is just a question of what is traded on the market itself, also Capitalism is always the economic system even if it is more abstract in some cases of Oligarchy than what we expect. The use of the label of Capitalism is to describe the reality of the system not it's claimed ideals.

Aranfan said:
Capitalism is an economic system marked by the dominance of wage labor, of people renting themselves out piecemeal to the authoritarian control of bosses.

How is that in any way anarchist?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

o_O This is serious too. OK then. Which definition of anarchy are we using here? Lack of hierarchy? Or voluntary association? Or something else? For a lack of hierarchy it is simple: The anarcho-capitalists are arguing for true anarchy in Bad Faith to remove the oversight of the current government and then keep their own authority. As for voluntary association in that case anarcho-capitalists are arguing for a modified version of the "bootstraps" myth where people will gather to work for wage labor for the chance to become the bosses. That latter one might even be done in Good Faith that allows the best and most skilled of a generation to be the bosses, but that won't make it any less a type of Capitalism and those that sink to the bottom are still in the end going to be the ones on whose backs the system is built.

Hakazin said:
If you define 'anarchist' as 'not having a government', I.E. wrongly. On both counts, as under an anarcho-capitalist system, using the previously-mentioned incorrect definition of anarchist, the time that it would take for the corporations involved to devolve into what would effectively be a series of feudalistic oligarchies would be impossible to measure in its speed. Businesses would, in effect, become the state in the event of the state's absence.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Correct, but as I mentioned above there is a voluntary association version of anarcho-capitalism as well.

Aranfan said:
I mean, we've seen that happen in India and Indonesia historically with the British and Dutch East India Companies.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Those two are actually the basis most authors draw on when writing Mega-Corporations.
 
Remove ads
Dmol8 said:
Those two are actually the basis most authors draw on when writing Mega-Corporations.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
What?

No, there's also, you know, American corporate company towns of the 19th and early 20th century, and most importantly, the Japanese keiretsu and zaibatsu corporations of the post-war era, which had a massive influence on American authors writing in the seventies as examples of "scarily efficient modern companies that have incredible influence over their workers and society to the point of acting outside the influence of government".

Where are you even getting all these claims from, my dude?
 
Last edited:
Fernandel said:
What?

No, there's also, you know, American corporate company towns of the 19th and early 20th century, and most importantly, the Japanese keiretsu and Korean zaibatsu corporations of the post-war era, which had a massive influence on American authors writing in the seventies as examples of "scarily efficient modern companies that have incredible influence over their workers and society to the point of acting outside the influence of government".

Where are you even getting all these claims from, my dude?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

From the fact that both the keiretsu and the zaibatsu were styled on the organizations that were built up by the Japanese when they westernized in late 19th/early 20th century and the ideas for governance of those organizations the Japanese took straight from the British and Dutch East India Companies. So when I say that they are the basis most authors draw on when writing Mega-Corporations I mean they are the basis for the real life corporations that inspired those authors.

Does that clarify it?
 
Dmol8 said:
From the fact that both the keiretsu and the zaibatsu were styled on the organizations that were built up by the Japanese when they westernized in late 19th/early 20th century and the ideas for governance of those organizations the Japanese took straight from the British and Dutch East India Companies. So when I say that they are the basis most authors draw on when writing Mega-Corporations I mean they are the basis for the real life corporations that inspired those authors.

Does that clarify it?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Yeah, because it was really kinda misleading before.

Also, bluntly, I'm not sure that's a chain of causation that actually exists.
 
Fernandel said:
Yeah, because it was really kinda misleading before.

Also, bluntly, I'm not sure that's a chain of causation that actually exists.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

I'm tired right now and it is almost time for me to sleep since I'm an early bird. You can find the connection between the British East India Company and the Japanese government of the time by looking up who the Japanese invited to serve as their foreign advisors in their modernization and then look up the history of said advisors and where they worked before they advised the Japanese. Let me know what you find as I'm sleepy right now and it's been a while since I've read about the Japanese and their East Asian colonies in the early 20th century.
 
Dmol8 said:
I'm tired right now and it is almost time for me to sleep since I'm an early bird. You can find the connection between the British East India Company and the Japanese government of the time by looking up who the Japanese invited to serve as their foreign advisors in their modernization and then look up the history of said advisors and where they worked before they advised the Japanese. Let me know what you find as I'm sleepy right now and it's been a while since I've read about the Japanese and their East Asian colonies in the early 20th century.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I don't need to find anything, I already know an essential fact: namely, that the organisational structures of the Japanese keiretsu is actually fairly unique when compared to Anglo-American or European corporate structures, relying on an heavily interconnected network of suppliers that the lead companies slowly bind into their business models until they cannot throw off their overlord, shaking off the costs to their individual specialist suppliers and keeping the profit of selling the finally assembled products for themselves.

Meanwhile, the EITC was heavily dependent on private investment and share ownership/buying/selling to raise capital, used trade and later violence to break open previously inaccessible markets for their products, was heavily concerned with acquiring "specie" (i.e. precious metals) due to the silver/gold standard, focussed on trading already manufactured goods (spice, porcelain, tea, etc.) and used a network of independent contractors to circumvent restrictions on their activity.

Like, sure, you can probably compare the EITC and the Japanese keiretsu and notice some similarities. They are also separated by, what, a century, two world wars, and several revolutions in production management and technology? At minimum.

I have a hard time believing the claim that the idea of the megacorporation in the cyberpunk genre is specifically influenced by the idea of the EITC. I think the influences of the popular culture, and more importantly the popular impressions and popular fears of the time in the 1970s/80s, were far more important.
 
Last edited:
Fernandel said:
I don't need to find anything, I already know an essential fact: namely, that the organisational structures of the Japanese keiretsu is actually fairly unique when compared to Anglo-American or European corporate structures, relying on an heavily interconnected network of suppliers that the lead companies slowly bind into their business models until they cannot throw off their overlord, shaking off the costs to their individual specialist suppliers and keeping the profit of selling the finally assembled products for themselves.

Meanwhile, the EITC was heavily dependent on private investment and share ownership/buying/selling to raise capital, used trade and later violence to break open previously inaccessible markets for their products, was heavily concerned with acquiring "specie" (i.e. precious metals) due to the silver/gold standard, focussed on trading already manufactured goods (spice, porcelain, tea, etc.) and used a network of independent contractors to circumvent restrictions on their activity.

Like, sure, you can probably compare the EITC and the Japanese keiretsu and notice some similarities. They are also separated by, what, a century, two world wars, and several revolutions in production management and technology? At minimum.

I have a hard time believing the claim that the idea of the megacorporation in the cyberpunk genre is specifically influenced by the idea of the EITC. I think the influences of the popular culture, and more importantly the popular impressions and popular fears of the time in the 1970s/80s, were far more important.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Yes and no. The popular impressions and fears of the 70/80 and the whole we are now living in a version of the Brave New World Dystopia was and is what makes up the meat of the Cyberpunk genre, but the bones are built on the legacy of the EITC.

The organization of the Japanese keiretsu you describe of relying on a heavily interconnected network of suppliers that the main company slowly binds to themselves so that they can't trow off their overlords is a business model whose theory was pioneered by the people working in the EITC in the 19th century as a means of raising their profit that never got implemented by them, but was absorbed, developed and is still in use by the Japanese (look up Konami and it's spat with Kojima's new studio) today.

So yes for the writing of the genre of Cyberpunk it matters more the corporate climate and culture of the 70s/80s Japan and Korea. For deconstructing Cyberpunk it is more important that the EITC and the attempted Brave New World Dystopia of the 70s/80s are understood. Also deconstruction the Noir genre that underpins Cyberpunk.
 
Dmol8 said:
Snip
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Basically, this is a whole post of exactly what I was criticizing in the first place, combined with a good load of No True Scotsman fallacy.

"because I am tired of people pretending that Capitalism isn't Capitalism because it claims that it is a different system, but then executes that different system in Bad Faith so it could stay Capitalism"

So basically, any system can be described as being Capitalism, simply masquerading as some other system that has been executed in 'Bad Faith'.
And of course, any other system can be described as being executed in Bad Faith simply because it doesn't meet your criteria for a 'True' execution of the system.

Essentially, you have declared all systems and all governments to be Capitalists. Well, on your definitions, you might even be correct.
I simply contend that your definition of Capitalism is functionally useless.

EDIT:
ctulhuslp said:
The gameplay thing kinda feels like more of "GTA with cyberpunk aethetics but not thematics".
Eh.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Unfortunately, yeah so far.
I just hope what we were showed today was more of a 'vertical slice' and not truly representative of the final product. I am hoping some of the Witcher series genius leaked into this project as well.
 
Last edited:
I like it, but I'm not super enamored, but I'm willing to think there's more to it than what was shown.
 
I'm not sure why we're discussing the keiretsu when they're just a reorganized and "pragmatic" Zaibatsu of the past, and not really the inspiration for Cyberpunks. It's ironically the pre-defeat Zaibatu that almost all writers, be they American or Japanese or European or other East Asians, draw inspiration from.
 
So far, so Deus Ex (assuming the gameplay video isn't lying). Though I'm not quite seeing game of century materiel yet, I'm down for just blundering around a cool future city talking to people and get into the occasional gunfight, with an acceptable color palette to boot.

One big factor in my enjoyment is actually going to be how robust the stealth is and how much leeway you get for breaking into buildings and robbing people blind. That was the best part of Mankind Divided for me, just how many opportunities there were to run around acting like a cybernetic raccoon person wandering through a maze of tunnels, alleys, and bachelor apartments.

Though one thing I'll say against the aesthetic is that it feels a bit too clean to me?
 
Last edited:
Someone actually asked about stealth and they were pretty upfront that it's not intended to be a modern Deus Ex in that regard. Like it's an action RPG in the style of the Witcher, where you do not always have to use violent means to solve your problems, but generally speaking the action gameplay is violent. Like you're a kick down doors shoot in face kind of person, not a Solid Snake or Adem Jensen. With that in mind comparisons to Grand Theft Auto aren't unfair, and I'm more or less okay with that. Cyberpunk, the game, is violent. There's a distinct 'life is cheap' feeling to it that you see in aesthetically similar works like Battle Angel Alita. While that feeling is itself kind of cheap, it's not invalid.

I don't think the gameplay represents something revolutionary or particularly exotic. I don't think it really has to be, either. It's enough that it's a shoot em up RPG in an aesthetically interesting and visually dense world. And it is that. The setting is really characterful, making really good use of the 80s neon cyberpunk vapourwave thing and its slightly grungy cyborg aesthetic. I dig it.

also that jacket is just stupidly cool
 
Reveen said:
So far, so Deus Ex (assuming the gameplay video isn't lying). Though I'm not quite seeing game of century materiel yet, I'm down for just blundering around a cool future city talking to people and get into the occasional gunfight, with an acceptable color palette to boot.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

I think Fallout 4 comes to mind to some degree (and I like fallout 4), I think a whole lot of my enjoyement might hinge on its ability to have a good atmosphere and so far I'm a bit "meh" about it
 
If the alpha looks like a okay Action RPG with fun atmospherics and pretty good dialogue (in my uneducated opinion), I'm willing to wait for the finished game to pass any sort of judgement.
 
I can't wait for a 5000 words essay by @mj12 about all the things I miss and the tiny lore details in this massive 45 minute video. :V

I'm not a fan of the dialogue. It's Mass Effect/Fallout 4 levels of vague and that shit always sucks. When the PC drew their gun at the meeting, I thought it was going full combat mode. That lack of clarity has no place in modern RPGs.

Shooting looks, well, fine. I mean, mantis cyber claws aside, it doesn't seem all that impressive. What is impressive is the context of a big ass building with multiple routes and NPCs in it. I'm still also hoping for a third person viewpoint so I can see my character (the character sheet doesn't count).

If I can't have cat droids I'm not playing this game.

Btw, is that power armor at the end because the speaker only calls it an exoskeleton.
 
My favourite part was when V was brushing her teeth lol

It's very easy for these life is cheap cyberpunk settings to just end up as grotesque tableaus, see Altered Carbon, but they still floss in the dead end future and that makes it a lot more believable to me as a setting.
 
If the character creation screen is representative then it seems like you either can't choose between different personalities and voices or it's hidden or a little indirect in the character creation. Which to me would be kind of a shame. I mean, the sassy vulgar action girl character type is fine, but I'd love if you could play someone who sounds and acts hilariously unsuited to being a brutal cyberpunk murderperson.

It would be awesome if you could play one of those people who sound like they're asking a question whatever they say, but that's stacking the wish list too high and too specific.

Ford Prefect said:
Someone actually asked about stealth and they were pretty upfront that it's not intended to be a modern Deus Ex in that regard. Like it's an action RPG in the style of the Witcher, where you do not always have to use violent means to solve your problems, but generally speaking the action gameplay is violent.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

I mean, as long as whatever stealth there is gives me room to ghost enemies a bit to brutally murder them, isn't fidgety as shit, and I get a lot of opportunities for petty thievery I'm fine. It's honeycombed level design with plenty of traversal options I'm hoping for.

Hykal94 said:
Shooting looks, well, fine. I mean, mantis cyber claws aside, it doesn't seem all that impressive.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

It looks like it has projectiles instead of hitscan and bullet penetration, that's enough for me to make me pretty happy assuming that there isn't too much bullet sponge enemy crap going on.

I do prefer gun effects and sounds to have more oomph to them, but that's a minority taste I guess.
 
Last edited:
TL; DR: Having watched two-thirds of the video, I'm seeing a lot of very impressive style, and the promise of substance...but no actual substance as of yet.

Given that all we have is a carefully manufactured video, this could just as easily be a linear shooter with occasional semi-open segments in the style of Metro: Last Light as an open-world RPG.

The video cheats a little by encouraging the viewer to imagine alternative possibilities, without showing them. And this questline as seen clearly has an expected route for the player to take, even if branches become available.

Not seeing much in the way of RPG-ness, other than the implants? The implants themselves are cool, but I'm not really seeing anything in the way of meaningful skill trees or unique dialogue options.

Speaking of dialogue options, there don't seem to be too many of them.

V's gun looks and feels good. That's a plus, I guess.

I am entirely okay with V being a mostly pre-established character. It allows for focus and character in the dialogue options, as opposed to largely bland dialogue for a player-insert PC.
 
Reveen said:
If the character creation screen is representative then it seems like you either can't choose between different personalities and voices or it's hidden or a little indirect in the character creation. Which to me would be kind of a shame. I mean, the sassy vulgar action girl character type is fine, but I'd love if you could play someone who sounds and acts hilariously unsuited to being a brutal cyberpunk murderperson.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

I have to play lawful good at least once

Mechasaurian said:
I am entirely okay with V being a mostly pre-established character. It allows for focus and character in the dialogue options, as opposed to largely bland dialogue for a player-insert PC.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

I don't know most of the dialogue seem to be "Yes/no/question"

It's not exactly encouraging that you still had to go to the gunfight even if you took what should have been the pacifist option, but it does make sense in context
 
Last edited:
Reader mode
You must login or register to reply here.
Remove ads
Back
Top