To be fair, greed-fueled self-fulfilling destruction is a huge staple of the cyberpunk genre.
...maybe I'm being unfair on the writers because perhaps their intention was to make some 'dark' ending for V no matter what. However if that's the case then really he's not the MC of this cyberpunk universe he's just some generic NPC...
How does that make V not the MC? You can still be the protagonist and get screwed over.
I feel like you're being pretty nitpicky here, and expecting things that weren't the main point. I didn't pay too much attention to all the marketing, and while role playing was an element, I always thought of Cyberpunk 2077 as 'cyberpunk GTA, with shiny graphics, and roleplaying elements.' Yeah, they claimed an immersive world, and it does seem like they fell short of their promises, but I wouldn't really blame the writing specifically for that.
Branching narratives and true 'choices matter' games can be pretty tricky to pull off. I don't have too much of an issue with these games, although some do it worse than others (you mentioned Mass Effect 3 which was pretty legendary in its issues there), but for the most part 'choices matter' doesn't make it that high up the list for my issues with modern games.
Video games in general on built on illusion, of course some choices are going to be somewhat smoke and mirrors. The other issue is, within a single playthrough it often feels fine, and I do think that should be the primary design goal.
Main Rant: If writers want to start killing off the protagonists of game stories, then they should have the balls to make new protagonists to continue the story overall rather than milking the same story endlessly that just isn't that interesting.
If this is about Phantom Liberty, they've said that's their first and last 2077 DLC. Whether or not they stick to that remains to be seen, but considering I think they're moving to a new engine going forward, they don't seem to want to do too much with 2077.
We'll see if 'Cyberpunk 2' or whatever introduces a new main character, or shoves V back in.
To posit a scenario that I would have written for a story like this. I would have given the player an entire option to ditch the chip and not insert it into your brain. That would have been really interesting...
But that's a core point of the whole thing and, as someone else has mentioned, there were reasons for it. Not every game is supposed to be some open-ended, everything is on the table thing. You want good writing, but then you also want huge branches, which just makes everything harder to manage. Nothing wrong with tighter narratives and specific immutable story elements.
In conclusion, I get what you're saying, and in some instances the frustration is warranted, but I think you're asking for things that were never intended anyway, and would sometimes be wholly impractical.
The last RPG I played where it felt my decisions mattered in the end were The Witcher 3 and the one where it felt they mattered the most was Fallout New Vegas. The latter made me REALLY consider my options and even made me cheese a few things (getting to NoVac early though a hidden canyon than through Nipton to get Boone then go to Nipton so he kills legion there and I get a headstart on his story).
A lot of western writers are scared to give the player a 'good ending' in these kinds of games since they think it's a reward for their greed. They find it hard to write with nuance, that you can do bad actions but still get a good ending. So long as writers in the west are like this, I don't hold much hope for any future Bethesda game or any RPGs from major studios. I'm expecting the next GTA to have a 4 ending than a 5 deathwish ending.
Even Fallout New Vegas kind of fell a little short since they had to cut so much of the game apart to make their deadline. The entire Caesar's Legion story line and ending was totally deleted.
Cyberpunk 2077 isn't an RPG in fact they even actively dumped the label after launch, it's a cyberpunk action game with a basic stat and perks system. I don't think the writing was every particularly good myself but you should understand a major thing in this setting in particular is that almost nobody makes it out and often gets fucked hard. In fact a major reason you see such actions is between sociopaths and folks that barely survived a betrayal, people are poised to strike first in most situations. This is also a setting that had a gang of modded clowns that tortured people to death or insanity that was dominant for like almost three decades, so stop overthinking it. It's not a serious setting. If you want more significant choices just play the tabletop with friends, though also there you should realize in setting your group is merely the protagonists not the main characters.
Maybe a hybrid-RPG? Like Deus Ex. It does have a lot of ImmSim elements too. I'm curious how you define RPGs, because Cyberpunk has most of the essential elements we see in other games of the genre. (especially old CRPGs based on tabletops - where a "basic stat and perks system" was the sum of role-playing - except in those you didn't always have a predefined character so it was more your creation) Personally I doubt CDPR wiped the "RPG" label from all advertising in some attempt to avoid false advertising charges, or because people were complaining about them taking out RPG features. It was a cynical ploy by marketing execs (dumb women) to appeal to mainstream console gamers and make us imagine an epic cinematic action experience with Keanu Reeves, instead of a game for "nerdy" tabletop role-players.
I also like to send this long-ass essay to people who make this argument and ask their opinion on the guy's points. You're probably not all that interested but maybe someone else here will take me up on the offer. I think he made a compelling case that Cyberpunk is actually more of an RPG than the Witcher. (can't totally speak to the accuracy because I only played parts of Witcher 1 and 3 long ago, and he could be downplaying strengths of those games, but apparently he's a fan)
One person in the comments made a good counterpoint though: that how well an RPG with a fixed story is received depends on how connected people felt to the character they were forced to play as. It was hard for most people to connect to V, for the reasons u/Lethn identified. Though unlike Lethn I'm pretty sure the impression of V as "a miserable, greedy fuck who wanted to have it all" is exactly what the writers intended. At least in the beginning. Through your choices you can redeem him somewhat and get "slightly less bad" endings.
The entire chip is why you are alive. Fat bastard executes you because you failed the heist. He has hired muscle to make sure that you cannot do anything to him.
Also Adam Smasher noticed that V was in that room so you had the worst thing chasing you in cyberpunk lore until the moment you were given a new inspection hole. Fat guy reports you dead and Smasher backs off as there is nothing to slaughter.
This is an underappreciated take. Whether you killed the old man or not, Smasher was going to tear up the entire city to find you, haul you back for questioning, and he would not have been gentle. They only need the information in your head.
A scenario in which V escapes, doesn't get reported dead, etc is going to have Smasher stalking you like Mr. X.
However, you'd still have the chip generally on hand
V put the chip in because it was the only way to protect it from rapid degeneration. Dying while having it in is what activated Silverhand. Without that chip, fat nigga kills V after the heist, no revival. Say what you want about the story, you're probably right, but don't skimp out on important facts.
There's a degree you have to accept that the main story will be forced on you, and in Cyberpunk's case, it's the chip. Now the real "choices matter" bullshit is morality. I believe that's something that has come up with Baldur's Gate 3 players. You want to absolutely loathe certain NPCs that enter your camp without permission, some even trying to kill others in your camp, and no matter how you feel about it, the game won't let you reject them.
The only thing V knew about the chip is that he would get a huge payday if he delivered it intact, and that his best friend died to get it.
The only way he would ever make the choice to not slot it in is if he knew the end of the story, which he doesn't. If you want to talk about "muh immersion" then how would that make any sense at all?
and force you into the main branch story even if you don't put the chip in.
It still seems at cross purposes that you demand better writing, but also want to completely branch away from the main narrative. I don't think there's anything wrong with a story element that's set in stone. Not every game wants a loose narrative, or is set up to accept it.
The best example of "choices matter" in an RPG I have seen in a long time was Triangle Strategy. The game often presents incredibly different options for dealing with situations that will influence the rest of the game. Not just the ending, but the entire path there, how people respond to you, and even often the resources you have that determine which characters you not only unlock but are viably able to be used (due to extremely limited upgrades and the game's difficulty requiring high synergy between characters unlocked by those upgrades).
One example is a map where you can use a "Defense System" which burns down the entire village's houses to slow down an enemy that is way stronger than you. But if you do that, those villagers have nowhere to live and cannot support you and you come across as a far more "win at any cost" person to future encounters. You can just fight them straight on, and the game rewards you heavily for it. But its not just a dialogue option you pick, its an active choice mid fight you have to make. You can even start out thinking you are hot shit and will easily be the hero who doesn't use it, only to get overwhelmed and have to make the hard choice to do so in the end.
Most people dismissed the game because some localizers injected some "all dialogue is gender neutral at all times" wokeness, but then missed that its also a game where you can openly discuss and argue with people that the Not-Jews not only deserve all the oppression they receive for their past actions, but that keeping them in a literal concentration camp is the correct choice and you won't be changing that.
It also shows the strength and flaws of democracy. As often the game will sit you down with a major choice and allows all your characters to "vote" in what you will go with. Some are hardlined based on their principles, some just don't care, others depend entirely on prior choices you've made effecting their outlook on both the war and you. The game element comes in that you must then argue with each one their case and try to convince them to come around to your side, which isn't always that easy to do.
So you can find that a choice you made hours ago and many chapters prior has just been the deciding factor in a character voting against You, forcing you into a path you didn't want and further influencing the game as it unfolds. Meaning your choice back then not only mattered immensely, but also your choice not to explore (expanding your knowledge of history, politics, and current news) left you too ignorant to argue your point properly.
I'll say, if you aren't a "New Game +++" type of guy buy it on discount. Its designed to be played at least 3-4 times to see the full spectrum of the major choices, so its probably sub 15 hours even on a first playthrough. Especially if you are really good at SRPGs.
I buy almost everything on discount anyway, but I'll definitely keep that in mind. Thanks for the warning.
I play some games a bunch, many others I never finish. I do like that style of tactics, though. Finished Final Fantasy Tactics back in the day, finished Fell Seal. I should got back to that, never played the DLC.
Its certainly the "hardest" of the Tactics type games I've ever played (not counting meme hard modes in games like Fire Emblem), simply because you cannot out level the enemies ever and your options are limited to what upgrades you picked out of a small list across a few guys. If you don't get how certain characters synergize and play carefully, you just get rolled.
Synergies in that specific characters set each other up for more powerful attacks, which are essential in taking down as many enemies as possible per turn as the damage you receive will overwhelm you quickly otherwise.
A simple one is using wind magic to turn the enemies facing away from you, allowing a stronger unit to come up and get the guaranteed crit from behind. Or setting up fire walls to funnel enemies into a tankier guy while they get plunked down. An insane one is summoning ice spikes with one mage, then melting it with a fire mage, before using the lightning mage on the puddles to inflict massive damage across a huge area.
Its less needing a specific comp and more needing to know how to maximize what comp you choose, and possibly if they contribute enough to what you are trying to accomplish. A character might be fine enough and crucial to certain setups, but not for your own and thereby not worth using.
Perhaps I'm not giving the writers enough credit and this is supposed to be a social commentary on the consequences of greed in a cyberpunk universe however I don't think these woke writers are capable of that much subtlety. It feels like the choice matter games are all fake, at the end of the day you can't just say no and walk or fight out of a situation which would hugely impress me.
To posit a scenario that I would have written for a story like this. I would have given the player an entire option to ditch the chip and not insert it into your brain. That would have been really interesting, you could even make it the way more difficult option to survive through because of all the factions wanting you dead. However, you'd still have the chip generally on hand and you wouldn't need to worry about terminal illness. Carrying the chip around would be like having a live grenade in your pocket.
I mean the far cry writer manage to keep the option in their iteration of walking away, so the standard should not be that high.
I mean the far cry writer manage to keep the option in their iteration of walking away, so the standard should not be that high.
I've just been looking at spoilers for Phantom Liberty. Funnily enough, it looks like it actually does something similar to Far Cry 4, where you can intentionally finish the story right at the beginning. In the opening mission, you can sit back, let the President of the NUSA die instead of rushing to save her, and the story ends then and there with the implication that it was probably for the best that you didn't get involved.
Little known?, its been talked alot about it, It had its moments sure, but i still can not get over the section where you are forced to do some stuff in order to progress the plot. (see the phosphorus part)
A game that is now delisted and cannot be gotten official anymore (bloody copyright) Alpha Protocol is suppose to have good options in its story flow chart.
If you have options based on morality, you can't force someone to do them to progress the game, like you said.
Maybe if you're in a scifi or fantasy setting where the action/consequences are not immediately obvious by the name, and you have it happen very early so that in the future when given the option you can choose whether or not too, but otherwise it's a subversive, trashy strategy that just makes me hate you for forcing me to do it.
There were no choices. The game gives you two mututally exclusive options and then berates you for not knowing the second one exists because in a video game you've been conditioned to not expect it. Except when it gives you no option at all and still berates you.
It also considers the "evil" choice to be shooting the civilians who just chased down, beat, and then lynched your comrade. Who you had to listen to his horrific and terrifying final moments over the radio.
But you are still the "bad guy" for shooting them, because its only "evil" to kill people when you are White. Sand Niggers are just poor idiots who are victims of misunderstandings and circumstance! But not you, for some reason you can't claim that. You are just evil for daring to...try and help.
The blaze of glory part was the entire Arasaka run. Taking on an outlandishly dangerous mission against the most dangerous corporation in the game universe as an amateur seeking not just a payday, but legend status in Night City.
Slotting the chip wasn't even dangerous. They even lay that out. The chip really does nothing, except presumably on some level you might be able to converse with who is on it, but it was only because of the bullet in the head that the chip began rebuilding your brain, but modeling it after Johnny.
The decision to slot the chip was desperation to save the payday. If you left with nothing you'd be a nobody. If you stole Arasaka's most precious secret, you'd be a legend.
Even when Jackie is first shot, the reaction of both of you is the save the chip, because it was the glory you both wanted. Every single starting scenario has you starting as a complete nobody in a city of nobodies (yes even the corporate one, because you're basically cancelled and erased). You were never going to survive Night City and were doomed to struggle and die amongst all the other schlubs. The best to hope for was to leap at a chance, like a promise of a fat payday.
That's like, basically what everything motivating characters in cyberpunk games is about.
Did they actually bill it that way or was that player hype? I kind of recall actually not hearing a lot of anything about the game except for one video which I don't think sold anything the game wasn't.
I feel the same way about Star Citizen, I'm pretty sure most of the hype I saw was invented by the players when the whole game is a money-laundering Radiant Quest simulator.
I remember people in forums being like "I'm going to be the captain of a cruise liner, and other players will ride around onboard and go to the casino and watch movies and converse!"
Like yeah that's what people want to do in a fucking space game, you retard, sit on your ship and "converse".
So you're a pussy who wouldn't have even started the heist in the first place?
Dude, the character you're "role-playing as" is a cold blooded killer who is shown killing random people for a payday. Yeah, he's gonna balk at slotting a chip that his buddy just slotted and had nothing happen to him.
I'm starting to think you didn't really pay much attention to what was happening in the beginning of the game.
To be fair, greed-fueled self-fulfilling destruction is a huge staple of the cyberpunk genre.
How does that make V not the MC? You can still be the protagonist and get screwed over.
I feel like you're being pretty nitpicky here, and expecting things that weren't the main point. I didn't pay too much attention to all the marketing, and while role playing was an element, I always thought of Cyberpunk 2077 as 'cyberpunk GTA, with shiny graphics, and roleplaying elements.' Yeah, they claimed an immersive world, and it does seem like they fell short of their promises, but I wouldn't really blame the writing specifically for that.
Branching narratives and true 'choices matter' games can be pretty tricky to pull off. I don't have too much of an issue with these games, although some do it worse than others (you mentioned Mass Effect 3 which was pretty legendary in its issues there), but for the most part 'choices matter' doesn't make it that high up the list for my issues with modern games.
Video games in general on built on illusion, of course some choices are going to be somewhat smoke and mirrors. The other issue is, within a single playthrough it often feels fine, and I do think that should be the primary design goal.
If this is about Phantom Liberty, they've said that's their first and last 2077 DLC. Whether or not they stick to that remains to be seen, but considering I think they're moving to a new engine going forward, they don't seem to want to do too much with 2077.
We'll see if 'Cyberpunk 2' or whatever introduces a new main character, or shoves V back in.
But that's a core point of the whole thing and, as someone else has mentioned, there were reasons for it. Not every game is supposed to be some open-ended, everything is on the table thing. You want good writing, but then you also want huge branches, which just makes everything harder to manage. Nothing wrong with tighter narratives and specific immutable story elements.
In conclusion, I get what you're saying, and in some instances the frustration is warranted, but I think you're asking for things that were never intended anyway, and would sometimes be wholly impractical.
The last RPG I played where it felt my decisions mattered in the end were The Witcher 3 and the one where it felt they mattered the most was Fallout New Vegas. The latter made me REALLY consider my options and even made me cheese a few things (getting to NoVac early though a hidden canyon than through Nipton to get Boone then go to Nipton so he kills legion there and I get a headstart on his story).
A lot of western writers are scared to give the player a 'good ending' in these kinds of games since they think it's a reward for their greed. They find it hard to write with nuance, that you can do bad actions but still get a good ending. So long as writers in the west are like this, I don't hold much hope for any future Bethesda game or any RPGs from major studios. I'm expecting the next GTA to have a 4 ending than a 5 deathwish ending.
Even Fallout New Vegas kind of fell a little short since they had to cut so much of the game apart to make their deadline. The entire Caesar's Legion story line and ending was totally deleted.
Cyberpunk 2077 isn't an RPG in fact they even actively dumped the label after launch, it's a cyberpunk action game with a basic stat and perks system. I don't think the writing was every particularly good myself but you should understand a major thing in this setting in particular is that almost nobody makes it out and often gets fucked hard. In fact a major reason you see such actions is between sociopaths and folks that barely survived a betrayal, people are poised to strike first in most situations. This is also a setting that had a gang of modded clowns that tortured people to death or insanity that was dominant for like almost three decades, so stop overthinking it. It's not a serious setting. If you want more significant choices just play the tabletop with friends, though also there you should realize in setting your group is merely the protagonists not the main characters.
Maybe a hybrid-RPG? Like Deus Ex. It does have a lot of ImmSim elements too. I'm curious how you define RPGs, because Cyberpunk has most of the essential elements we see in other games of the genre. (especially old CRPGs based on tabletops - where a "basic stat and perks system" was the sum of role-playing - except in those you didn't always have a predefined character so it was more your creation) Personally I doubt CDPR wiped the "RPG" label from all advertising in some attempt to avoid false advertising charges, or because people were complaining about them taking out RPG features. It was a cynical ploy by marketing execs (dumb women) to appeal to mainstream console gamers and make us imagine an epic cinematic action experience with Keanu Reeves, instead of a game for "nerdy" tabletop role-players.
I also like to send this long-ass essay to people who make this argument and ask their opinion on the guy's points. You're probably not all that interested but maybe someone else here will take me up on the offer. I think he made a compelling case that Cyberpunk is actually more of an RPG than the Witcher. (can't totally speak to the accuracy because I only played parts of Witcher 1 and 3 long ago, and he could be downplaying strengths of those games, but apparently he's a fan)
One person in the comments made a good counterpoint though: that how well an RPG with a fixed story is received depends on how connected people felt to the character they were forced to play as. It was hard for most people to connect to V, for the reasons u/Lethn identified. Though unlike Lethn I'm pretty sure the impression of V as "a miserable, greedy fuck who wanted to have it all" is exactly what the writers intended. At least in the beginning. Through your choices you can redeem him somewhat and get "slightly less bad" endings.
The entire chip is why you are alive. Fat bastard executes you because you failed the heist. He has hired muscle to make sure that you cannot do anything to him.
Also Adam Smasher noticed that V was in that room so you had the worst thing chasing you in cyberpunk lore until the moment you were given a new inspection hole. Fat guy reports you dead and Smasher backs off as there is nothing to slaughter.
This is an underappreciated take. Whether you killed the old man or not, Smasher was going to tear up the entire city to find you, haul you back for questioning, and he would not have been gentle. They only need the information in your head.
A scenario in which V escapes, doesn't get reported dead, etc is going to have Smasher stalking you like Mr. X.
That would actually be quite the fun mod having a practically near immortal Smasher hunting you 24/7
V put the chip in because it was the only way to protect it from rapid degeneration. Dying while having it in is what activated Silverhand. Without that chip, fat nigga kills V after the heist, no revival. Say what you want about the story, you're probably right, but don't skimp out on important facts.
There's a degree you have to accept that the main story will be forced on you, and in Cyberpunk's case, it's the chip. Now the real "choices matter" bullshit is morality. I believe that's something that has come up with Baldur's Gate 3 players. You want to absolutely loathe certain NPCs that enter your camp without permission, some even trying to kill others in your camp, and no matter how you feel about it, the game won't let you reject them.
Those two things are not at all comparable.
The only thing V knew about the chip is that he would get a huge payday if he delivered it intact, and that his best friend died to get it.
The only way he would ever make the choice to not slot it in is if he knew the end of the story, which he doesn't. If you want to talk about "muh immersion" then how would that make any sense at all?
It still seems at cross purposes that you demand better writing, but also want to completely branch away from the main narrative. I don't think there's anything wrong with a story element that's set in stone. Not every game wants a loose narrative, or is set up to accept it.
The best example of "choices matter" in an RPG I have seen in a long time was Triangle Strategy. The game often presents incredibly different options for dealing with situations that will influence the rest of the game. Not just the ending, but the entire path there, how people respond to you, and even often the resources you have that determine which characters you not only unlock but are viably able to be used (due to extremely limited upgrades and the game's difficulty requiring high synergy between characters unlocked by those upgrades).
One example is a map where you can use a "Defense System" which burns down the entire village's houses to slow down an enemy that is way stronger than you. But if you do that, those villagers have nowhere to live and cannot support you and you come across as a far more "win at any cost" person to future encounters. You can just fight them straight on, and the game rewards you heavily for it. But its not just a dialogue option you pick, its an active choice mid fight you have to make. You can even start out thinking you are hot shit and will easily be the hero who doesn't use it, only to get overwhelmed and have to make the hard choice to do so in the end.
Most people dismissed the game because some localizers injected some "all dialogue is gender neutral at all times" wokeness, but then missed that its also a game where you can openly discuss and argue with people that the Not-Jews not only deserve all the oppression they receive for their past actions, but that keeping them in a literal concentration camp is the correct choice and you won't be changing that.
It also shows the strength and flaws of democracy. As often the game will sit you down with a major choice and allows all your characters to "vote" in what you will go with. Some are hardlined based on their principles, some just don't care, others depend entirely on prior choices you've made effecting their outlook on both the war and you. The game element comes in that you must then argue with each one their case and try to convince them to come around to your side, which isn't always that easy to do.
So you can find that a choice you made hours ago and many chapters prior has just been the deciding factor in a character voting against You, forcing you into a path you didn't want and further influencing the game as it unfolds. Meaning your choice back then not only mattered immensely, but also your choice not to explore (expanding your knowledge of history, politics, and current news) left you too ignorant to argue your point properly.
Alright, you just sold me on the game. Wishlisted.
I'll say, if you aren't a "New Game +++" type of guy buy it on discount. Its designed to be played at least 3-4 times to see the full spectrum of the major choices, so its probably sub 15 hours even on a first playthrough. Especially if you are really good at SRPGs.
I buy almost everything on discount anyway, but I'll definitely keep that in mind. Thanks for the warning.
I play some games a bunch, many others I never finish. I do like that style of tactics, though. Finished Final Fantasy Tactics back in the day, finished Fell Seal. I should got back to that, never played the DLC.
Its certainly the "hardest" of the Tactics type games I've ever played (not counting meme hard modes in games like Fire Emblem), simply because you cannot out level the enemies ever and your options are limited to what upgrades you picked out of a small list across a few guys. If you don't get how certain characters synergize and play carefully, you just get rolled.
I like difficult games.
When you say synergies, though, do you have to use very specific builds or comps?
Synergies in that specific characters set each other up for more powerful attacks, which are essential in taking down as many enemies as possible per turn as the damage you receive will overwhelm you quickly otherwise.
A simple one is using wind magic to turn the enemies facing away from you, allowing a stronger unit to come up and get the guaranteed crit from behind. Or setting up fire walls to funnel enemies into a tankier guy while they get plunked down. An insane one is summoning ice spikes with one mage, then melting it with a fire mage, before using the lightning mage on the puddles to inflict massive damage across a huge area.
Its less needing a specific comp and more needing to know how to maximize what comp you choose, and possibly if they contribute enough to what you are trying to accomplish. A character might be fine enough and crucial to certain setups, but not for your own and thereby not worth using.
I mean the far cry writer manage to keep the option in their iteration of walking away, so the standard should not be that high.
What is underail
I've just been looking at spoilers for Phantom Liberty. Funnily enough, it looks like it actually does something similar to Far Cry 4, where you can intentionally finish the story right at the beginning. In the opening mission, you can sit back, let the President of the NUSA die instead of rushing to save her, and the story ends then and there with the implication that it was probably for the best that you didn't get involved.
Of course you like SO:TL. Probably the most overrated of the “video games are art” set (because Gone Home isn’t a game).
Little known?, its been talked alot about it, It had its moments sure, but i still can not get over the section where you are forced to do some stuff in order to progress the plot. (see the phosphorus part)
A game that is now delisted and cannot be gotten official anymore (bloody copyright) Alpha Protocol is suppose to have good options in its story flow chart.
I found that the line was kinda insufferable.
Feel like a hero now? Except you forced me to do this to progress the game.
I liked alpha protocol, even for all of its buggy mess.
The Line is wildly overrated. It’s baby’s first subversive video game story, wrapped in a painfully mediocre gameplay shell.
If you have options based on morality, you can't force someone to do them to progress the game, like you said.
Maybe if you're in a scifi or fantasy setting where the action/consequences are not immediately obvious by the name, and you have it happen very early so that in the future when given the option you can choose whether or not too, but otherwise it's a subversive, trashy strategy that just makes me hate you for forcing me to do it.
There were no choices. The game gives you two mututally exclusive options and then berates you for not knowing the second one exists because in a video game you've been conditioned to not expect it. Except when it gives you no option at all and still berates you.
It also considers the "evil" choice to be shooting the civilians who just chased down, beat, and then lynched your comrade. Who you had to listen to his horrific and terrifying final moments over the radio.
But you are still the "bad guy" for shooting them, because its only "evil" to kill people when you are White. Sand Niggers are just poor idiots who are victims of misunderstandings and circumstance! But not you, for some reason you can't claim that. You are just evil for daring to...try and help.
I feel like you don't understand cyberpunk as a genre.
Dexter DeShawn literally lays it out for you in the first twenty minutes of the game: "Quiet life? Or blaze of glory?"
The blaze of glory part was the entire Arasaka run. Taking on an outlandishly dangerous mission against the most dangerous corporation in the game universe as an amateur seeking not just a payday, but legend status in Night City.
Slotting the chip wasn't even dangerous. They even lay that out. The chip really does nothing, except presumably on some level you might be able to converse with who is on it, but it was only because of the bullet in the head that the chip began rebuilding your brain, but modeling it after Johnny.
The decision to slot the chip was desperation to save the payday. If you left with nothing you'd be a nobody. If you stole Arasaka's most precious secret, you'd be a legend.
Even when Jackie is first shot, the reaction of both of you is the save the chip, because it was the glory you both wanted. Every single starting scenario has you starting as a complete nobody in a city of nobodies (yes even the corporate one, because you're basically cancelled and erased). You were never going to survive Night City and were doomed to struggle and die amongst all the other schlubs. The best to hope for was to leap at a chance, like a promise of a fat payday.
That's like, basically what everything motivating characters in cyberpunk games is about.
Did they actually bill it that way or was that player hype? I kind of recall actually not hearing a lot of anything about the game except for one video which I don't think sold anything the game wasn't.
I feel the same way about Star Citizen, I'm pretty sure most of the hype I saw was invented by the players when the whole game is a money-laundering Radiant Quest simulator.
I remember people in forums being like "I'm going to be the captain of a cruise liner, and other players will ride around onboard and go to the casino and watch movies and converse!"
Like yeah that's what people want to do in a fucking space game, you retard, sit on your ship and "converse".
That's real shit people were saying, no kidding.
So you're a pussy who wouldn't have even started the heist in the first place?
Dude, the character you're "role-playing as" is a cold blooded killer who is shown killing random people for a payday. Yeah, he's gonna balk at slotting a chip that his buddy just slotted and had nothing happen to him.
I'm starting to think you didn't really pay much attention to what was happening in the beginning of the game.