Cyberpunk 2077 is very much a disappointment in every sense other than the scope of the project. Every single aspect of it is a cheap, shallow rip-off. It adds nothing of value to anything, though enjoyable in the way Mortal Combat is. Still, Mortal Combat was far more ground-breaking and original - that about sums up how much of a "derivative work" Cyberpunk 2077 is.
What? It was a fantastic game that spent a lot of time ruminating on topics like transhumanism, sex, and corporate power. It let players explore heterosexual and homosexual romantic relationships in first person and uncensored. Character writing is for the most part top-notch. The universe is unfailingly coherent and incredibly fleshed out. Few games have moved me to the point of tears in the credits, but this one did.
If you're one of those folks inexplicably bitter about prerelease trailers then maybe I can understand your stance. But dismissing the monumental amount of effort that it has taken to deliver what some of us perceive as one of the highest works of art in the genre, is ridiculous.
Just as the Witcher games are basically fan fiction paying homage to Sapkowskis books, CP2077 needs to be seen as a homage to many classics of the cyberpunk genre. Neuromancer, Snow Crash, Blade Runner, Ghost in the Shell to name a few obvious ones (I also see a lot of Elysium in it, FWIW). The story CD Projekt synthesized based on the concepts of these works is very fitting and surprisingly consistent, IMO. And because it's a homage, criticizing the lack of original ideas in the plot/world misses what the creators apparently set out to do. What _can_ be criticized is that they fell short of their technical ambitions. And despite its flaws, I found the game to offer quite a remarkable experience.
Yes, it is of course based on the Cyberpunk TTRPG IP, which sets many world building aspects. However if compare the content of the Cyberpunk 2020 TTRPG guidebook with what is in 2077 you'll quickly notice the monumental difference in scope and how much the latter drew of these other works in ways obvious and subtle.
I'm with you 100% the game is a mess from a gameplay point of view but the story (and load of side stories) is fantastic if a little cognitive dissonance inducing when being constantly told "You're dying! Hurry do the thing!" Then spending 10 hours dicking about.
I definitely think CDRP had a lot of help world building from the source material (perhaps leaning on it too much) but I'd definitely buy a sequel, maybe not on launch though!
> "It was a fantastic game that spent a lot of time ruminating on topics like transhumanism, sex, and corporate power"
I can't say anything about C2077 because I haven't played it, I can just repeat what Gibson said about it. And he didn't play it either, he was just judging the trailer.
What I can say is to note the three things you mentioned, "transhumanism, sex and corporate power" are also explored in other highly derivative and uninspired works of cyberpunk-influenced fiction, like Altered Carbon. Boy, was I disappointed by that show [1]! It's completely shallow, uninterested in exploring the philosophical ramifications of the technology it introduces, and instead goes for flashy visuals, endless action and explosive gore. I watched season 1 because I wanted to know whodunnit -- it was disappointing -- and season 2 was unbearable.
Whether you agree with me or not that Altered Carbon on Netflix was garbage, at least you must concede using those cyberpunk tropes you mentioned is not enough to determine quality or complexity of the plot and/or message. They are just tools in a toolbox, and can be used to build something interesting or something utterly uninspired, just another "gritty" cyberpunk copycat.
---
[1] and from what my friends tell me, the book series is not fundamentally different. Only the details vary.
Richard K. Morgan's Altered Carbon books (as well as his Black Man, published as Thirteen in North America) are very angry and bleak in tone, from what I recall. (But they were not angry at technology itself, the way the characters of the Altered Carbon TV series were; in-universe characters weren't trying to eliminate the cortical stack in the books.) They also have some spectacular action sequences, which is probably why they were picked up for TV. They have some horrific tortures (both in VR and out of it), much worse than shown in the TV adaptation, which is why I haven't re-read them like I did Neuromancer.
I enjoyed the first season of Altered Carbon but I was really looking for something to scratch the Westworld itch while I was waiting for the next (disappointing) season to come out.
But as a fan of the genre I think that CP2077 did what it set out to do and then some. And while those points may be somewhat tired cliches -- and admittedly these are my favorite kinds of narratives so I don't really care -- the only pieces of any kind of media that made me truly feel like I was in the driver's seat roleplaying that experience was the original Neuromancer and Cyberpunk 2077. Not Rifts RPG, not Blade Runner, not The Ascent (and holy shit what a suprise blessing that game was), nor anything else.
Right, and I wouldn't want to generalize too much from that example, as I think parent commenter does.
One dimension of Cyberpunk as envisioned by William Gibson genuinely was explicitly aesthetic, in the way in which it was meant to be understood and experienced. So derivatives focusing on that aren't necessarily missing the point.
However, it's still certainly possible to reproduce those aesthetics in bad ways, or to lean on them to the exclusion of any deep message or story of any kind, etc. And it's certainly fair to criticize any given derivative for shallowness of vision. So, as a criticism of Cyberpunk 2077 it's perfectly appropriate, but I don't think execution of aesthetics in and of itself misses the point.
Point of correction: I'm trying to convey what Gibson said. If there's a generalization, it's not mine but his. The guy invented cyberpunk, so I think he has a right to holding very strong opinions about it.
I do tend to agree with Gibson, but I also like the aesthetic and I'm content reading and looking at cyberpunk, as long as it's not too lazy.
And my point was, and is, that I don't think he's making the point you seem to think he is making. And sure, he's got every right to be opinionated, but you're not quoting or citing anything (although I understand you're referencing a tweet of his re: Cyberpunk 2077 and are referencing an interview), so what we are working with here are extrapolations that you and I are attributing to him.
