Concerns about Cyberpunk 2077: Phantom Liberty DLC

I haven't posted anything about Cyberpunk 2077 since December, 2020 (other than referencing it's highly successful animated spinoff, Cyberpunk: Edgerunners, which I enjoyed and wasn't crippled by ESG restrictions, as we'll discuss below). That doesn't mean I haven't written about it, but that I never got around to finishing my review (whose inchoate state is nowhere near my Last of Us Part II review). As for the experience, I really enjoyed the game at launch (you can watch that playthrough here) and I've re-played the game many times. As good as it is (the best RPG of the last few years), it's not as good as Witcher 3 (which I first played in 2016; I have a playthrough of it from two years ago posted).  When comparing the two I'm primarily talking about its story, since that's what matters to me most. Now that we're near the release of the game's one and only DLC (September 26) I'm interested to see what we're getting from CDPR beyond simply a gameplay overhaul. On the surface there are reasons to be concerned that no one seems to be discussing, so let's go over it.

Modern storytelling (film, TV, etc) has fallen into a political mire making it predictable and boring. CDPR accepts ESG scores because they want the funding associated with it (cf), so have restrictions imposed on how they want to make their games (if unfamiliar, this and this gives you some perspective--in essence, it's a soulless corporation using virtue signaling to deflect from how it makes its money). Now that we know our entertainment is tainted by ESG, the old chestnut about 'creative decisions' and 'looking for a new audience' is exposed as a lie: they have no choice, so there's nothing creative about it. The signs of this in Phantom Liberty are painfully obvious, even if the veneer is easier to disguise in this setting than something like the Witcher:

• Girl Boss (the president and presumably Songbird)
• Evil White Man (the leader of the evil faction)
• POC bad ass (Idris Elba and presumably Songbird)

If this was ten years ago these elements could have occurred organically and would be much less cliche, but we now know the marching orders CDPR gets by participating in ESG, so that's the 'why' of these choices (this is also clear in the base game). The absurdity of using this straightjacket can be seen in real world examples: OceanGate (of the missing submarine) didn’t want to hire any experienced “50 year old white guys” because they weren’t “inspirational”. Video games are less serious than subs, but it's still a ridiculous way to operate (is writer Pawel Sasko in danger of not being 'inspirational'?). On the creative side, the problem with adhering to this approach is there's no mystery or intrigue because good and bad are dictated by ethnicity, gender, and orientation. Can you make a palatable story with these restrictions?

The simple answer is 'yes, but', since Cyberpunk 2077 is a good game, but not a great game (with those flaws less obviously impacted by ESG). On the surface (the preview etc) the warning signs aren't as glaring as The Last of Us Part II or Rings of Power or She-Hulk. Some of that is helped because V isn't a pre-determined character (although clearly they used female-V for ESG reasons, albeit they've tweaked how they've shown her vs 2020--I still prefer the original version). Because V is the player, the majority of the player base (white men) aren't automatically denigrated and emasculated simply for existing--all that hatred can be safely directed towards the enemy faction (Woodman and Fingers are the most despicable characters in the base game, lest we forget, and the least sympathetic gang--Maelstrom--are anomalously white).

That aside, my guess is the writers of the DLC will make things ambiguous (otherwise their story has no weight). White man bad, yes, but there will be some sort of qualification (maybe he had an absent or violent father--which is very ESG--just like Jackie); Girl Boss is a bad ass, but there will be moral ambiguity (maybe she's unethical, like Elizabeth Peralez); POC bad ass is awesome, but he has issues (like Saul); and so on. That approach would match what we sometimes see in the base game (like with Claire). This is the only way to successfully navigate ESG restrictions and make it appealing to players. If I'm wrong about this ambiguity, the DLC will be a massive disappointment in terms of story.

Would I rather CDPR not involve themselves in this nonsense and just make creative decisions like they did in the Witcher franchise? Of course, but like the good capitalists they are, money matters more than ethics. One hopes the financial disasters that have afflicted Disney and others will encourage the company to change, but I have my doubts. BlackRock's Faustian bargain is simply too tempting not to take, whatever the risk (we know how they'd resolve Hearts of Stone, clearly). What I'm interested to see is how CDPR navigates this with the Witcher IP (both sequels and remakes)--I don't think they can make it work and clearly ignored those elements from the Netflix show in their update. In the meantime, let's hope the DLC is well done despite the restrictions.

This article was written by Peter Levi