CDPR on Cyberpunk 2077 backlash

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT
 

Fieldy409:

Smithnikov:

Fieldy409:
To me this is just stupid artifical controversy on both sides to get clicks. A few articles designed to trigger fanboys because that pulls clicks vs a bunch of youtubers defending it against the evil SJW hordes because its great fodder to get clicks from their anti-sjw audience.

I wonder how many alt righters praising Pondsmith also caught "If you want to do something brave against racism, tell your racist uncle at Thanksgiving to shut up!"

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.

image

Honestly, CD Projekt Red missing the point of Cyberpunk is my biggest fear for the game.

and so far, everything I've read about it seems to confirm my fears.

altnameJag:
A lot of Cyberpunk is good at ideas but bad at execution.

Because yeah, a cybereye that just simulates normal vision that you installed because your normal eye got fucked up should barely have any cost at all, if any.

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.

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.

undeadsuitor:
Honestly, CD Projekt Red missing the point of Cyberpunk is my biggest fear for the game.

and so far, everything I've read about it seems to confirm my fears.

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.

Gethsemani:
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.

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.

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.

Gethsemani:
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.

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.

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. Motherfucker, nine out of ten cyberpunk stories are Paradise Lost, except global corporations are the snake and robot dicks are the apple.

Eacaraxe:

Gethsemani:
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.

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.

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. Motherfucker, 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!):

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.

Eacaraxe:

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.

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).

Gethsemani:
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...

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.

Fieldy409:

Smithnikov:

Fieldy409:
To me this is just stupid artifical controversy on both sides to get clicks. A few articles designed to trigger fanboys because that pulls clicks vs a bunch of youtubers defending it against the evil SJW hordes because its great fodder to get clicks from their anti-sjw audience.

I wonder how many alt righters praising Pondsmith also caught "If you want to do something brave against racism, tell your racist uncle at Thanksgiving to shut up!"

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.

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.

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.

Casual Shinji:

undeadsuitor:
Honestly, CD Projekt Red missing the point of Cyberpunk is my biggest fear for the game.

and so far, everything I've read about it seems to confirm my fears.

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.

A lot of it is just that whatever meaning or deeper thought cyberpunk tries to establish looks pretty papered over in the game. The voodoo boys, originally a scathing indictment on culture appropriation are now real Haitians, the obscene capitalistic sex sells advertisements are indistinguishable from how almost every female npc anyways, regardless of class, the dev talk about how society is completely open to complex gender identity is just talk when comparing it to the world we've seen

Cyberpunk, like wolfenstien, is one of those things where it became provocative and edgy by merely standing still. Shooting Nazis is edgy because we've decided they're good people. And amoral bigoted billionaires who push poor people into camps and use them as scape goats can't be bad because we elected one as president.

I have no doubt that by the end of the game, they're going to try and establish that the bottom class of people starving to death and stealing/killing to survive just one more day, and the billionaire led megacorporations that keep them that way and have led to the deaths of millions of people, are just as bad as each other. Because grey!

undeadsuitor:

I have no doubt that by the end of the game, they're going to try and establish that the bottom class of people starving to death and stealing/killing to survive just one more day, and the billionaire led megacorporations that keep them that way and have led to the deaths of millions of people, are just as bad as each other. Because grey!

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.

Smithnikov:

undeadsuitor:

I have no doubt that by the end of the game, they're going to try and establish that the bottom class of people starving to death and stealing/killing to survive just one more day, and the billionaire led megacorporations that keep them that way and have led to the deaths of millions of people, are just as bad as each other. Because grey!

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.

Self preservation is certainly higher than lining your pockets at the expense of everyone else.

Someone robbing a store to get food for their starving kid isn't a good person, but it's more understandable and noble than say...inflating the cost of medicine by 5000% to make billions causing the deaths of millions

They aren't equal

undeadsuitor:

Self preservation is certainly higher than lining your pockets at the expense of everyone else.

Implying poor people won't victimize someone for a reason OTHER than self preservation.

Someone robbing a store to get food for their starving kid isn't a good person, but it's more understandable and noble than say...inflating the cost of medicine by 5000% to make billions causing the deaths of millions

They aren't equal

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.

Smithnikov:

undeadsuitor:

Self preservation is certainly higher than lining your pockets at the expense of everyone else.

Implying poor people won't victimize someone for a reason OTHER than self preservation.

Someone robbing a store to get food for their starving kid isn't a good person, but it's more understandable and noble than say...inflating the cost of medicine by 5000% to make billions causing the deaths of millions

They aren't equal

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.

Honestly if leatherface was killing hedge fund managers, pharmaceutical company execs, and like....Harvey Weinstein

I probably would yeah

Smithnikov:

undeadsuitor:

Self preservation is certainly higher than lining your pockets at the expense of everyone else.

Implying poor people won't victimize someone for a reason OTHER than self preservation.

Someone robbing a store to get food for their starving kid isn't a good person, but it's more understandable and noble than say...inflating the cost of medicine by 5000% to make billions causing the deaths of millions

They aren't equal

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?

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.

TheVampwizimp:

Smithnikov:

undeadsuitor:

Self preservation is certainly higher than lining your pockets at the expense of everyone else.

Implying poor people won't victimize someone for a reason OTHER than self preservation.

Someone robbing a store to get food for their starving kid isn't a good person, but it's more understandable and noble than say...inflating the cost of medicine by 5000% to make billions causing the deaths of millions

They aren't equal

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?

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.

However, it isn't.

Eacaraxe:
Motherfucker, nine out of ten cyberpunk stories are Paradise Lost, except global corporations are the snake and robot dicks are the apple.

That accounts for the men, but what's the women's motivation?

Kwak:

Eacaraxe:
Motherfucker, nine out of ten cyberpunk stories are Paradise Lost, except global corporations are the snake and robot dicks are the apple.

That accounts for the men, but what's the women's motivation?

Also robot dicks.

Gethsemani:

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).

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.

Smithnikov:

Gethsemani:

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).

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.

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.

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.

altnameJag:
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.

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?

Also robot dicks.

It's robot dicks all the way down.

Smithnikov:

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.

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.

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.

Gethsemani:

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.

*SIGH* I know i"m staying in the TTRPG here, but the Humanity mechanic is to discourage EXCESS, not stop you from going chrome at all.
Yes, cyberware really is cool and empowering, but you overdo it, and you will pay the price. Success is found in the happy medium, being able to balance your meat and your metal.

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.

Eh, I found that more as a good side effect. I think it would have been included in the RPG regardless just because, again, it make sense from a psychological viewpoint that loading yourself down with electronics and weapons in place of your flesh is going to royally mess with your perceptions.

Gethsemani:
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.

You can, and they do. It's the definition of a Faustian bargain, with shades of Hobson's choices in that one cannot live in depicted societies without at least some degree of augmentation (later SR editions, for example, had RFID implantation as the default for SIN's if I remember right).

Eacaraxe:

Gethsemani:
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.

You can, and they do. It's the definition of a Faustian bargain, with shades of Hobson's choices in that one cannot live in depicted societies without at least some degree of augmentation (later SR editions, for example, had RFID implantation as the default for SIN's if I remember right).

It also doesn't have an inherent humanity cost. Chipped or no, it doesn't degrade your "able to empathize with people and be a regular person" stat.

Then again, SR doesn't have a humanity cost for sex changes unless you're going for hot-swappable genitals or vibrating 2ft thundercocks. And the cost for those is so negligible that only full mages give a shit.

altnameJag:
It also doesn't have an inherent humanity cost. Chipped or no, it doesn't degrade your "able to empathize with people and be a regular person" stat.

Then again, SR doesn't have a humanity cost for sex changes unless you're going for hot-swappable genitals or vibrating 2ft thundercocks. And the cost for those is so negligible that only full mages give a shit.

The last SR edition I have is 4th, and I want to say in that SIN implants had an Essence cost, either 0.01 or 0.05. But, also if I remember right, that was because it was optional and really only of use for deckers and riggers, for the purposes of spoofing/hacking SIN's and for PAN security. Practically no one else had a use for it, and in most cases it was a liability. But, 4th had a lot of weird shit in it being a transitional edition, in terms of game mechanics and in adapting the setting to be sufficiently sci-fi in post-smartphone real world.

And indeed, PA's being able to kit out almost as much as street sam's, especially if they went the bioware route, was a real shock to me when I picked the game back up for the brief time I did.

TheVampwizimp:

Smithnikov:

undeadsuitor:

Self preservation is certainly higher than lining your pockets at the expense of everyone else.

Implying poor people won't victimize someone for a reason OTHER than self preservation.

Someone robbing a store to get food for their starving kid isn't a good person, but it's more understandable and noble than say...inflating the cost of medicine by 5000% to make billions causing the deaths of millions

They aren't equal

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?

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.

That's a common romantic image but not entirely accurate. The Revolution got a lot of its muscle through starving peasants but its leadership was mostly of the upper class. Robespiere wasn't at all a hobo before the revolution but an accomplished lawyer and pretty much any revolutionary leader came from that circle. Lawyers, merchants, industrialists. All the upper class that weren't part of the nobility and rather annoyed about not having their rights despite their wealth starting to eclipse the nobility.

Nor where the nobles the inept dimwits who just wanted the peasants to eat cake that we often see them as.

The slaughter of people en masse was by no means necessary. The Revolution had already made great progress without it. The king already agreed to a constitutional monarchy, the nobles and priests already had their powers decreased and the commoners already became the dominant class long before any of the purges happened.

Hades:

TheVampwizimp:

Smithnikov:

Implying poor people won't victimize someone for a reason OTHER than self preservation.

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?

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.

That's a common romantic image but not entirely accurate. The Revolution got a lot of its muscle through starving peasants but its leadership was mostly of the upper class. Robespiere wasn't at all a hobo before the revolution but an accomplished lawyer and pretty much any revolutionary leader came from that circle. Lawyers, merchants, industrialists. All the upper class that weren't part of the nobility and rather annoyed about not having their rights despite their wealth starting to eclipse the nobility.

Nor where the nobles the inept dimwits who just wanted the peasants to eat cake that we often see them as.

The slaughter of people en masse was by no means necessary. The Revolution had already made great progress without it. The king already agreed to a constitutional monarchy, the nobles and priests already had their powers decreased and the commoners already became the dominant class long before any of the purges happened.

Didn't they also functionally have a civil war between the Revolutionary Government and Loyalist Forces or did they invent that for an episode of the Scarlet Pimpernel?

Hades:

That's a common romantic image but not entirely accurate. The Revolution got a lot of its muscle through starving peasants but its leadership was mostly of the upper class. Robespiere wasn't at all a hobo before the revolution but an accomplished lawyer and pretty much any revolutionary leader came from that circle. Lawyers, merchants, industrialists. All the upper class that weren't part of the nobility and rather annoyed about not having their rights despite their wealth starting to eclipse the nobility. [...]
The slaughter of people en masse was by no means necessary. The Revolution had already made great progress without it. The king already agreed to a constitutional monarchy, the nobles and priests already had their powers decreased and the commoners already became the dominant class long before any of the purges happened.

In the 18th century French society, a lawyer was distinctly middle class. Upper middle class, but middle class (to use modern terms). In large parts the French society of 1789 was still bound by the social mores of the feudal era, in that peasants, commoners, priests and nobility were distinct classes on an ascending scale. The priests and nobility had rights integral to their position that even the wealthiest of merchants could never get, which is why they didn't really consider class based on wealth. An impoverished baron was still the better of the richest, most well educated and connected merchant or business owner by virtue of being nobility. That's were a lot of the commoners resentment came from, that they in many cases eclipsed the waning aristocracy but were limited by archaic laws and social mores.

With that being said, you are totally right that Robespierre's reign of terror was completely unnecessary. The people didn't want what the king and aristocracy were ready to give (which was a continuation, if diminished, of the old system), but the thousands of people that were executed, especially those who weren't of noble birth were senseless collateral damage, were so because of bloodlust and a misguided desire for payback.

Gordon_4:

Didn?t they also functionally have a civil war between the Revolutionary Government and Loyalist Forces or did they invent that for an episode of the Scarlet Pimpernel?

There was a lot of infighting in the French Republic between 1789 and 1799, both between revolutionaries and monarchists and among the revolutionaries themselves. Some of it amounted to pretty much open warfare. The actual field battles between monarchist forces and revolutionary armies (often defected armies of the King) tend to be overlooked in favor of the more rousing images of the storming of the Bastille and Versailles.

I'm catching up. Just gonna touch on a few points here:

hanselthecaretaker:
What I'm wondering is why there never seemed to be nearly as much complaining about The Witcher 3, which is far more white-centric and less diverse. Maybe the gaming climate wasn't quite so sensitive yet back in 2015. But then again Gamergate was right around that time IIRC.

The Witcher series did receive a fair amount of criticism for being primarily white. It's understandable, because Poland is comprised of white people, but one of the things overlooked in The Witcher series, especially how CDPR's view of the world manifests, is that characters like Geralt and Ciri end up being outcasts as Witchers because they represent some of Poland's inherent racism against certain recessive genes (represented by the characters' eye color).

Admittedly, there could have been more done to better reflect a fantasy world where people of different colors and ethnic backgrounds were represented, but Poland itself is ethnically homogeneous, so it's understandable why the final product is as it is.

Abomination:
Not really seeing it, it's possible to criticize the more fantastical gender identities while still respecting peoples right to transition between standard gender identities.

The "attack helicopter" meme is transphobic. People can be what they feel they need to be and it doesn't need to be joked about and diminished by people who are already comfortable in their own skin. Don't use it here. It's not a joke. That's final.

Silentpony:
Its just SJW nonsense to sell articles and get Patreon supporters, ignore it.

Don't say this bullshit here. There's nothing wrong with wanting media to reflect the diversity of the real world. It's not "forced diversity," it's a reflection of the real world.

--

I saw someone mention the advertisement within the game's demo from the E3 show floor and I'd like to touch on that for a second.

Polygon posted a piece that had commentary from one of the developers and it's an understandable take, even though it's not one I necessarily agree with in execution.

The criticism stems from the idea that trans individuals, in the here and now, are demeaned, beaten, brutalized, killed, and often sexualized simply for being transgender. It's dehumanizing. The criticism levied against the ad within the game is that this depiction of a transgender person is dehumanizing because it remarks on transgender people being a thing in vogue, to derive pleasure from at a whim.

If the idea of being objectified and having your thoughts, emotions, hopes, dreams, etc. stripped from you and your human form is reduced to a piece of meat to be used upsets you, well, then maybe you can approach the point a little more clearly as to why this might be hurtful towards some people.

--

Overall good discussion. Don't let me catch some of y'all being casually transphobic again, because a) it sucks, and b) it's against our CoC and will likely result in an immediate ban. Reconsider your biases.

Kyle Gaddo:
If the idea of being objectified and having your thoughts, emotions, hopes, dreams, etc. stripped from you and your human form is reduced to a piece of meat to be used upsets you, well, then maybe you can approach the point a little more clearly as to why this might be hurtful towards some people.

Thank God pride month is over. Now that multi-nationals responsible for global human rights violations who do business in some of the worst places around the world for LGBTQ folks to live have put away their rainbow social media icons for the next eleven months, finally we can have a mature conversation about the appropriateness of advertising that objectifies trans bodies in a cyberpunk video game.

I don't take exception with this because I'm ignorant. I take exception with it because I'm not. I don't want to come off as rude, dismissive, or flippant, but context is king and those mentioned have an established track record of gross, borderline willful, ignorance of context and asinine pre-determined conclusions. The advertising in CB2077 is on the nose, quite deliberately and undeniably so, because it's supposed to be. It has to be.

And it strikes down to the beating heart of the entire genre: a cautionary tale of predatory capitalism, corporate greed, and naked self-interest run amok, and a call to action to avoid that future as best possible.

Eacaraxe:
Thank God pride month is over. Now that multi-nationals responsible for global human rights violations who do business in some of the worst places around the world for LGBTQ folks to live have put away their rainbow social media icons for the next eleven months, finally we can have a mature conversation about the appropriateness of advertising that objectifies trans bodies in a cyberpunk video game.

I don't take exception with this because I'm ignorant. I take exception with it because I'm not. I don't want to come off as rude, dismissive, or flippant, but context is king and those mentioned have an established track record of gross, borderline willful, ignorance of context and asinine pre-determined conclusions. The advertising in CB2077 is on the nose, quite deliberately and undeniably so, because it's supposed to be. It has to be.

And it strikes down to the beating heart of the entire genre: a cautionary tale of predatory capitalism, corporate greed, and naked self-interest run amok, and a call to action to avoid that future as best possible.

Context is going to matter a lot. I even made sure to link the Polygon article that allows a representative from CDPR the space to explain.

But what I need everyone to understand is that we currently lack a fair amount of context as far as Cyberpunk 2077 is concerned. The game doesn't exist to us yet. We don't see what CDPR sees. We only see what they show us, and if they show us 1% of the game and that 1% of the game contains what can be interpreted as a dehumanization of trans people, then that becomes representative of what the product might be. Not to mention the other tone-deaf instances by CDPR/GOG (which were mentioned in the thread earlier).

I agree that context matters. I'm still hopeful that Cyberpunk 2077 is a meaningful look at society and a fun game to boot. But you have to understand that their context as developers and our context as consumers, whether it be media or simply a purchaser, is worlds apart. CDPR and any eyes on them are essentially speaking different languages.

Kyle Gaddo:
Context is going to matter a lot...But you have to understand that their context as developers and our context as consumers, whether it be media or simply a purchaser, is worlds apart. CDPR and any eyes on them are essentially speaking different languages.

I hear you, and I understand the point. But, please understand where I'm coming from when I get ragey about this topic in particular.

From my perspective, there's no "can be interpreted" to it. The image is a straight up dehumanization of trans people, and precisely for that I can only hope it's a representative sample of what the end product might be. Make no mistake, I'm pro-LGBTQ acceptance and rights; that's why this is such a sticking point to me.

I looked at that image, and I saw the future of trans representation in the media sparing immediate, seismic shifts in how we perceive and represent HDP's. This is the nature of predatory capitalism boiled down to its basest, most atavistic, essence: the co-option and exploitation of minority identity for profit. Considering the phenomenon of corporate pride this is a transition well underway, and worse, gleefully normalized by corporatist forces within the LGBTQ rights movement and by corporations eager to whitewash problematic histories and ongoing practices.

Sidebar, but seriously, fuck Nike. Anyhoo...

That's going to be a real problem for trans acceptance moving forward. Look no further than last year's Victoria's Secret stupidity -- Ed Razek's case of verbal diarrhea was clearly over the line, as was Singer's professional conduct and direction in general. But the counter-position was, what? transgender participation, and therefore complicity, in nationally-televised meat marketing? Other lingerie companies -- ones that don't market upon a bedrock of sexual objectification -- including new companies and lines of, by, and for trans women (like Carmen Liu's), seem capable of navigating these waters just fine, and with little controversy outside far-right and TERF echo chambers. Despite this, VS is still the 900-pound gorilla of the lingerie industry, and that's certainly unlikely to change regardless how problematic the corporation's practices are.

But, relevant to CP2077, the question boils down to "what is punk"? At least to me, punk is about holding a mirror to society and shining a spotlight on its vilest traits and most uncomfortable truths, by deliberately embracing the degenerate and grotesque. The purpose is to shock and offend society onto a course of self-improvement. In this light, one can look at Upton Sinclair as a forefather of punk literature, as easily as one does look at Mary Shelley as the grandmother of punk and science fiction. Through that lens, I looked at that advertisement and breathed a huge sigh of relief, as that one image alone proved to me they get it.

Without trying to sound inflammatory, what the controversy represents to me is posers are being exposed to an honest-to-god punk message, likely the first of their lives, and it's making them mad they might have to confront an uncomfortable truth that corporations are enemies of the LGBTQ movement.

Kyle Gaddo:

Silentpony:
Its just SJW nonsense to sell articles and get Patreon supporters, ignore it.

Don't say this bullshit here. There's nothing wrong with wanting media to reflect the diversity of the real world. It's not "forced diversity," it's a reflection of the real world.

You're right. But it already IS a reflection of the real world. Its a reflection of Capitalism. If Trans people want to be part of the society, get ready for corporations to market to you.
And that' exactly what this was! A cyperpunk distopian advertisement for trans products.
The devs and writers themselves have come out saying these 'Its anti-Trans!' articles are a deliberate misinterpretation, misclassification, context-free take on the ad.

Or like when a journalist said CP77 was racists for shooting a Croatian gang named the Animals, 'cause it was just shooting black monkey men. And then the devs had to come out and say "No, the Animals are an ethnically diverse group that takes their name not from 1850s Southern American racial politics, but from literal animal kingdom animalistic traits, ie strength, ferocity, endurance"

It was all nonsense clickbait.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Posting on this forum is disabled.