I imagine that a sellout ending for a cyberpunk game could resemble how Marlo Stanfield's story ended in the Wire where they end up going straight with wealth and success but unfulfilled because at heart they're a gangster/netrunner, and 'winning' by entering the unfamiliar and unsatisfying corporate world comes at the cost of the fear and respect their name once commanded.

Remember that the player is buying this game for badass cyberpunk criminal action, and the protagonist will probably be reflective of that one way or the other. So the ending of gaining wealth and success probably wouldn't fit their character very well.
 
I imagine that a sellout ending for a cyberpunk game could resemble how Marlo Stanfield's story ended in the Wire where they end up going straight with wealth and success but unfulfilled because at heart they're a gangster/netrunner, and 'winning' by entering the unfamiliar and unsatisfying corporate world comes at the cost of the fear and respect their name once commanded.

Remember that the player is buying this game for badass cyberpunk criminal action, and the protagonist will probably be reflective of that one way or the other. So the ending of gaining wealth and success probably wouldn't fit their character very well.
Yeah but you could start on the corpo path and end in the same place, having built your way back to the top.
 
Add a side-quest where you need to approve a shipment of medicaments for a dying village, but approve a "shipment" of white phosphorus by mistake because you have been working for ninety-two hours in a row and your brain is barely capable of recognizing what words even mean.
 
Add a side-quest where you need to approve a shipment of medicaments for a dying village, but approve a "shipment" of white phosphorus by mistake because you have been working for ninety-two hours in a row and your brain is barely capable of recognizing what words even mean.
I'd love this, unironically.
 
Add a side-quest where you need to approve a shipment of medicaments for a dying village, but approve a "shipment" of white phosphorus by mistake because you have been working for ninety-two hours in a row and your brain is barely capable of recognizing what words even mean.
Hey, either way, they're no longer sick afterwards.
 
You can just say "I don't want there to be a valid corp path" without insisting that there is no way that a character can ever go down that route in the genre.

Like, stability is a rarity in the genre, and selling out to join into the corp is a valid way of getting it

It undercuts the theme of the genre if selling out leads to a qualitatively better and more stable life. It's essentially saying that selling out is both easy and the right thing to do. Joining the corporate world should be nigh on impossible for an outsider. You should be nothing more than a disposable tool that the corporation mismanages because they don't understand you really and they don't want to.

You don't get to rise up from the streets to the executive suite. Making that possible sends the opposite message of what cyberpunk is supposed to be. There is no path to the top, it is denied to you by dint of class and birth. You will never be more than a tool, and not one they particularly like or understand, in the corporate machine, disposable. And if you aren't disposed of, then that disposability comes into question and the people playing the game will get the message that, well, "what's so bad with corporations anyways? They seem to be doing right by me." And that is not what anyone should take away from a cyber punk setting. That is you just work with the corporations, things will turn out and your life really will be better. So knuckle under and toe the corporate line.


Personally, I think that taking the moral high road and fighting The Man rather than rebelling against him should be less rewarding in material terms.

If being good and just was easier and more materially rewarding, everyone would do it. Taking the moral high road isn't actually easy, and I think a game called "Cyberpunk" should reflect that.

You can get more money and bling.

If at the end the corporation has a bullet put in the back of your head because they've decided your position is redundant.

The ultimate cost for working for the corporations should be made entirely obvious. You have sold out to a system that does not care about your life, and so will terminate it if a spreadsheet indicates a minor uptick in profit for doing so.


Yeah, I don't think anything about a corp path is inherently anti-punk. Just makes it clear that doing so involves giving the boot to a number of people who really don't deserve it.

It should be viable but with very strong "you bastard" themes.

Only if, eventually, that boot comes down upon you as well. There should be no happy ending in the arms of the mega corp, no ability for the player to self delude their character made the right choice.


But seriously, that's exactly the kind of atmosphere it should have.

Too many gamers will get a big ol' stiffy sticking it to poor people. Especially if they're minorities.

No wiggle room, working for the corporations leads to a bad end. Not just ambiguous sadness.
 
Last edited:
I didn't realize you adhered to the corporate definition of "right" where actual monetary profit is all that matters, :V

You can get money and still have it be abundantly clear that you're doing wrong.

I don't want a game where a right wing individual can fantasize they're doing the right thing because fuck you got mine, and also they're only shooting black and hispanic people anyways.
 
It undercuts the theme of the genre if selling out leads to a qualitatively better and more stable life. It's essentially saying that selling out is both easy and the right thing to do.
If I assure myself a cushy and stable life through, say, a career of breaking up defenseless strikers with a grenade launcher, is that the right thing to do?
 
Last edited:
Honestly, stratigo the more you talk the less convincing your position becomes in my eyes. It is one thing to criticise the game because it isn't true enough to its setting but quite another to seemingly to want it to be little else but a vehicle for your own political agenda.
 
Remember that the player is buying this game for badass cyberpunk criminal action, and the protagonist will probably be reflective of that one way or the other. So the ending of gaining wealth and success probably wouldn't fit their character very well.

I mean isn't wealth and success what most criminals want? The main reason why people become criminals is because they strive for precisely those goals and just aren't able to achieve them via "normal" routes or find those routes to difficult. That is why the best way to combat crime is to provide those routes to success to more people...

In my opinion you are confusing a criminal with a revolutionary and those are some very different character archetypes and underlying motivations.
 
Would like to mention that there is a "sell out" option in Cyberpunk 2020, you can sell out to a corporation or join the military and get more money for buying equipment/cybernetics.
Military actually seems like more of a valid choice since one could do a 'Fellow soldiers in arms' deal. Cue hilarity as snooty corp troubleshooters come in and get chainsawed by the defenses they were supposed to deal with since they are VR soldiers who had to deal with hopped up gangers at most.


Edit: I wonder if it will be possible to doa mostly uncybered playstyle. I believe that you will be getting some via the story. But like Dishonored, if you stick to just that you can get a 'Mostly meat' achievement.
 
Last edited:
Honestly, stratigo the more you talk the less convincing your position becomes in my eyes. It is one thing to criticise the game because it isn't true enough to its setting but quite another to seemingly to want it to be little else but a vehicle for your own political agenda.

im not sure you know what "cyberpunk" is. like, wanting it to be "a vehicle for your own political agenda" when your agenda is "capitalism bad" is... completely, obviously, uncontroversial. its cyberpunk. like. thats what the word means.
 
im not sure you know what "cyberpunk" is. like, wanting it to be "a vehicle for your own political agenda" when your agenda is "capitalism bad" is... completely, obviously, uncontroversial. its cyberpunk. like. thats what the word means.
Apolitical Cyberpunk is like, "The megacorps dominate all life, and have reduced human existence into a series of commodified transactions, immiserating all of humanity for the sake of a marginal increase in profit. On the other hand, we can no longer imagine any other way of existing, so this tragedy must be treated as a morally neutral thing to be lived with, and not something which can and should be opposed."

Which is, honestly, an incredibly political take, but it's a political take that reflects the norms of our societies, so it's politics blend neatly into the background noise of day to day life and can be easily ignored- hence, 'apolitical'.
 
im not sure you know what "cyberpunk" is. like, wanting it to be "a vehicle for your own political agenda" when your agenda is "capitalism bad" is... completely, obviously, uncontroversial. its cyberpunk. like. thats what the word means.
As I've been trying to point out, you can have a path where you're a corporate sell out that still sends that message even if the player gets the expected payment for being a sell out. Because there are consequences beyond "got cash money".


Stratigo still rejected that on the basis of...some people might not accept the message or value those consequences. Which is always going to be the case? I'm not sure how it's even an argument. This hypothetical asshole isn't going to be accepting the message in any of the other paths either.
 
As I've been trying to point out, you can have a path where you're a corporate sell out that still sends that message even if the player gets the expected payment for being a sell out. Because there are consequences beyond "got cash money".


Stratigo still rejected that on the basis of...some people might not accept the message or value those consequences. Which is always going to be the case? I'm not sure how it's even an argument. This hypothetical asshole isn't going to be accepting the message in any of the other paths either.

I wasn't arguing with your point, though. I was arguing with people complaining about trying to make cyberpunk a vehicle for a political agenda.

You know, that thing that cyberpunk literally always has been.

I agree that they don't necessarily have to have the corporation betray you, but they shouldn't pull their punches on the awful impact the corps have on the average person. If you work for the corps, you should have to do some pretty abhorrent stuff for your paycheck, imo.
 
Too many gamers will get a big ol' stiffy sticking it to poor people. Especially if they're minorities.

No wiggle room, working for the corporations leads to a bad end. Not just ambiguous sadness.
So your argument is that they should tell a shallow empty story full of moralizing messages about not selling out because it makes right-wing people not like the game? What a shitty way to view art. To be honest, the truest punk message wouldn't be "corporations are pure evil and even trying to side with them will mean they kill you" but instead "selling out means that in the end you're totally alienated from others and the life of riches and hedonistic pleasures are empty and devoid of any friendship or trust" you know what actual punk art is about. Selling out isn't bad because the system will crush you, but that because it means being totally empty and lacking any real freedom of expression or passion. Just empty meaningless normality.
 
Only if, eventually, that boot comes down upon you as well. There should be no happy ending in the arms of the mega corp, no ability for the player to self delude their character made the right choice.
No, this mindset is entirely too uninteresting.

Living doesn't have to be a happy ending, if you live based on crushing innocents and perpetuating an exploitive system then that's by definition the opposite. There's no fundamental reason to mandate this beyond some kind of vacous moralism where characters can't be permitted to ever profit off of immorality.

I'd rather an ending where the PC doesn't get fucked over to really drive in how much of a bastard you've chosen to be.
 
Last edited:
Rule 2: Don’t Be Hateful: Fictional Hate Crimes are still Hateful.
I don't want a game where a right wing individual can fantasize they're doing the right thing because fuck you got mine, and also they're only shooting black and hispanic people anyways.
Fuck that shit. I should damn well be allowed to be an evil asshole in the game if I want. Being an evil asshole in games is fun. Why shouldn't I be allowed to have fun in this game?
 
Back
Top