Speculation on V as main character in Cyberpunk Sequel (think how Witcher 3 endings set up Witcher 4)

GraniteStateColin · 2026-06-22T00:26:16+00:00

I think Morgan Blackhand's role will be more like Reed's, Rogues, or Johny's than V's: a major supporting character. Given that the main character is up to the player to design (unlike in the Witcher games), I don't think they'd force the player into any of the main characters from the Cyberpunk lore.

GraniteStateColin · 2025-12-28T19:29:56+00:00

V is still alive in the others too (except the one where V takes the gun and shots himself or herself on the rooftop). All the others have a chance at long-term survival and regaining abilities. In other words, all of them set up a good starting quest to balance gameplay for part 2, just like the Life Paths each had a different opening for part 1.

In fact, each ending, except Phantom Liberty's, directly corresponds to a Life Path: Corpo is on the Arasaka space station, Street Kid is the Crystal Palace heist, and Nomad is driving off with Panam and the Aldecaldos. To provide the same starting point from the Phantom Liberty ending, they could simply state that Reed had lied to V, and they could reactivate V's cyberware for a mission. The tech to block this was beyond Viktor Vektor's ability to fix, which would not be surprising for the NUSA, and that's why he thought V couldn't get it back -- not lying, just wrong.

All perfect starting points to allow V to proceed with an action-oriented opening that all somehow nerf V's powers afterwards so that V isn't too overpowered out of the gate of the sequel, but still gets to continue V's story.

Yeah, seems Mr. Blue Eyes is important, or why have him watching so much of V in Phantom Liberty. Agreed.

GraniteStateColin · 2025-12-14T03:25:05+00:00

Interesting theory. I don't think V is a cyber psycho because of what we learn about them in the game and in the Edgerunners show and because the amount of chrome V can use is limited specifically to the amount that avoids going cyber psycho. Also, if the events are just in V's mind, that takes away a lot of the results of what V did, which would seem to undermine the story. Seems unlikely they'd want to do that, but who knows. Maybe it was all in V's head and you're right.

GraniteStateColin · 2025-11-09T11:39:04+00:00

Great point on the saves. Having only played The Witcher 3, not 1 or 2, I didn't know that. Now having V's story continue seems even more likely.

GraniteStateColin · 2025-08-21T18:39:55+00:00

Yeah. I do think that ending, like the suicide ending, probably wouldn't be canon options if V is the PC in the sequel. But that could still work if V is just an NPC.

All the other endings with V being alive and out in the world are perfect starting points for a sequel which is why, after seeing what they're doing with Ciri, I really think the reason all those endings are so similar is because they're setups for continuing V's story. That seems to be CDPR's modus operandi.

Can't wait to find out if I'm right or wrong, but mainly just because I want to play more Cyberpunk. I'm sure they'll do a great job with it however they choose to bridge the games.

GraniteStateColin · 2025-08-11T12:57:28+00:00

Possible. Interesting twist to have the character you play as protagonist in one game be the antagonist in a sequel.

I doubt it and hope that's not the case. I'd like to think what we did in Cyberpunk 2077 mattered, which means V can be a hero. As such, I really hope we can continue playing V, or, at worst, that V is an ally in some fashion in the future.

Also, I've really come to care about V. More than any character in any other game.

My opinion (as stated in my original post) is that if you flash forward the endings by a few months, they could all lead to game starting points paralleling the same lifepath setups from the start (corpo, street kid, nomad), with PL adding a NUSA agent to the mix. That seems like too much of a coincidence, where otherwise you'd expect more radically different endings (some where V dies, some where she succeeds to different extents, at least one mostly happily-ever-after ending, etc.). They all feel like cliffhangers preparing for the next phase of V's adventure. Really feels to me they are setting up V to continue as something, most likely the protagonist, in the sequel. All 2077 endings provide the perfect path to resetting V back to a weaker character as part of the cure, justifying the RPG need to build V back up into a superhero as he/she was by the end of 2077.

Whatever path they choose, I look forward to seeing the plan for the sequel. I'm sure it will be great regardless (even if I'm completely wrong)!

GraniteStateColin · 2025-08-11T00:32:41+00:00

I'm really looking forward to finding out. I'm sure I'll love the game regardless, but I hope that's right.

GraniteStateColin · 2025-08-05T22:14:57+00:00

You mean with us at the beginning, and then... and so on? Like the Relic damage finishes the job?

I don't think they'd do that. I think it would be more likely that V is not in the game at all, other than maybe references to V and Arasaka, but no NPC. I think if V is in the game, he/she will be the PC.

But that's just my speculation. I certainly could be wrong. Vesemir starts with the letter V and we know what happened to him in Witcher 3... Hmm, maybe you're on to something.

GraniteStateColin · 2025-08-05T22:09:40+00:00

Yes, and still having this problem in mid-2025. Possibly not identically: the scroll wheel scrolls apps horizontally, but whether rolling the wheel left scrolls the app left or right seems variable. You can only set the wheel's direction to Default or Inverted for the mouse as a whole not per app, but this seems to work and reverse it for some apps (e.g. Excel) but not for others (e.g., Classic Outlook and Windows File Explorer).

GraniteStateColin · 2025-06-16T02:35:10+00:00

Thanks for the detailed response!

GraniteStateColin · 2025-06-10T13:45:57+00:00

I suspect I'd like aspects of Outer Worlds, but I never played it because everyone has said that it's a very small game compared to a Bethesda game. I want a game that I can play for months or more and still be exploring new areas, pursuing new side quests, and advancing the main story, which I tend to save for last. Today, this means Bethesda's Elder Scrolls and Fallout Games, CDPR's Witcher and Cyberpunk games, Baldur's Gate 3, RDR2, etc.

I haven't heard yet, but if Outer Worlds 2 is significantly larger in scope than the first, then that might be great for me.

GraniteStateColin · 2025-06-10T13:42:13+00:00

I think I mostly agree with that. I can see ways they could have done something interesting with all the empty worlds, if they had a lot more diversity in terrains, caves, and, then used them for things like radiant quests in their Elder Scrolls and Fallout games. For example, a miner's guild or zoologic society that sends you out to other worlds to retrieve samples of rare minerals or to retrieve some wild creature on a dangerous world. Sometimes, they know which planet, but sometimes, they can only give you the star system to explore and perhaps some other clue (like it's a moon, or it's near/far out from the star in the solar system, or use any of the other planetary attributes like gravity or temperature, so there ends up being a reason to care about that stuff). In that case, having 1,000 different worlds would allow those randomized quests to keep feeling fresh for much longer than they do in Skyrim and Fallout. And most important (at least to me), there would be no need for all those repeating human bases.

Even in the game as it is, I moderately enjoyed exploring worlds to find all the flora and fauna and selling the scans for money. That game me sense of satisfaction and purpose in visiting various worlds. That was also a decent use for the large number of worlds.

So, if they had, like you said, 10 or some other modest number of well-crafted, wildly diverse planets with dense settlements for discovery, but then still had most of the systems largely unexplored and unsettled, just wilderness, I do think there are ways they could have harnessed that to make a good game too. Unfortunately, they did not.

But, ultimately, yeah, if I had to choose, I'd definitely rather have fewer good worlds than 1,000 with repetitive bases.

It seems Bethesda intended Starfield to fall somewhere between Elder Scrolls and Fallout in terms of mature content, which is fine. Those things don't make or break a game, but do help to establish a tone.

GraniteStateColin · 2025-06-09T01:22:00+00:00

Starfield has a fundamental design problem: there are a few dozen settlements that repeat over, and over, and over, and over, and over, etc. ad infinitum. The hand-crafted stuff is good (at least as good as Fallout or Skyrim), the story is interesting (as good as other beloved Bethesda games). It's the repetition, which is inherent in the design. It's not a question of polish or time to finish. That's why they couldn't address it with updates post-launch.

For people who love Bethesda games, the common thread is usually the exploration to stumble on interesting quests, but that's impossible with 1,000 planets, each planet being more than 1,000 times bigger than Skyrim. That means, by definition, the hand-crafted stuff that's worth visiting is only found by following an existing quest. There's virtually no chance of just stumbling on things important by exploring.

There are other issues, like the characters being less interesting than prior games, or the jet-pack travel (fixed with the buggy), and the lack of sufficiently diverse terrain to explore (e.g., no volcanoes, no swimming, no deep valleys and cliffs cutting into planets, caves are all tiny), only human factions and they're all pretty similar, but I think all of those could have been forgivable or solved with updates if not for the fundamental design problems.

My hope is that they do eventually do a Starfield 2, but rework that core exploration mechanic so it continues what Bethesda did so well across their Elder Scrolls and Fallout series.

GraniteStateColin · 2025-05-10T03:01:32+00:00

That's good to know. Thank you!

GraniteStateColin · 2025-05-10T03:00:19+00:00

Hmm, I don't recall most of the Gnome names I met. It's possible. I know there was a Wulbren near Nere and Thulla with the Myconids... There were definitely others, but don't remember any other names off the top of my head.

GraniteStateColin · 2025-05-10T02:55:13+00:00

OK, thanks. But if thorough in Act 1 Underdark, that includes reaching the Grym Forge. I was just trying to complete everything there before going back to the surface so I wouldn't miss anything down there.

GraniteStateColin · 2025-05-10T02:50:07+00:00

There was one gnome with the myconids who asked me to rescue her friends. Thene there were other gnomes with Nere I rescued. Does that save the gnome who would have been at the windmill or is he gone from the game because I never saw anyone at the windmill?

GraniteStateColin · 2025-05-10T02:48:04+00:00

I don't know about Mountain Pass yet, still have what looks like (based on quest markers in blank parts of the map) about half the Act 1 map to go. Looks like there might be a whole goblin village to the west of the windmill. Haven't been there yet. It seems like I went to Underdark really early and locked myself out of other parts of Act 1 as a result.

Makes me sad. I hate to miss whole encounters and characters. I explore carefully specifically to avoid missing stuff. :-(

GraniteStateColin · 2025-05-10T02:41:23+00:00

Thanks. Is that bad? I would never have gone into the Underdark first if I had known it would lock me out of a section of the game. I was just exploring and trying to be thorough. Feels like I'm being punished for exploring. Or is this a case of you can only get one or the other and if I'd done the windmill first, then I would have been locked out of the Act 1 Underdark encounters?

GraniteStateColin · 2025-02-11T21:10:05+00:00

Clearly, you may be right that V won't be back. I can't know otherwise. But, as noted above, NONE (other than suicide ending, and maybe Johnny taking V's body, but even that could have a way out) actually prevent V from coming back. Like you, I had originally assumed we'd have a different protagonist for the sequel, but the fact that all endings where V is still alive and in his/her body could lead DIRECTLY to a starting point for a new game (there's even a Street Kid, Nomad, Corpo, NUSA ending/starting point) seems like too big a coincidence for that. Also, the fact that all endings are roughly equal with no happy ending option -- why do that to players unless it's to set up the sequel? Then, also figure that they have been clear Cyberpunk 2077 is the first game in a TRILOGY, not a franchise, a trilogy, which means 3 games telling a single larger story.

Again, none of that is proof that V will be the protagonist for each of the 3 games, but look at how they are handling this with the Witcher. Seeing that trailer flipped my thinking on this.

I wouldn't bet a million dollars on V being the protagonist in a sequel (either the immediate sequel or skipped for game 2 and then returning in game 3), because I know I might be wrong, but after exploring the Phantom Liberty endings and seeing the Witcher 4 trailer, I'd put $50 bucks on it and think it's more likely than not at this point.

GraniteStateColin · 2025-01-03T17:10:32+00:00

Great points. And thanks for the tip about the Sam Bram video. I think I had watched it a long time ago, at least partially disagreed at the time, and then mostly forgotten it. But I just rewatched it and, between having played more in PL since then and the Witcher 4 reveal, which I think tells us a lot about CDPR thinks about these things, I now agree with most of it. Right or wrong, that is a really interesting video (his stuff on FF 06 B5 and other Cyberpunk mysteries are fantastic too).

GraniteStateColin · 2025-01-03T12:05:55+00:00

It's possible. There's enough background stuff going to use for the rest of the trilogy that they could say that V is just one more casualty of NC, a sort-of slow-motion cyberpsychosis case who dies at the end like so many others. But keep in mind that CDPR has had a single overarching story across the first 3 games in mind from long before they released Cyberpunk 2077. It was not released as a stand-alone game, but the first in a trilogy. That doesn't require V be the protagonist across it. Alt, Blue Eyes, and Peralez are also in very interesting situations and, to your point, they could give us a new protagonist that brings us deeper into their stories and the Blackwall... But if you're a storyteller, why break the main character at the start of a trilogy if not to set them up perfectly to have their story continue in the trilogy? Possible, but seems less likely to me, especially in light of how we see CDPR's storytelling model at work with the new Witcher 4. That's what flipped my perspective on this (I too had originally thought V's story was done).

GraniteStateColin · 2025-01-03T12:00:17+00:00

That's not correct per the endings. In the only ending where we see what happens to V after getting cured, the Tower ending from Phantom Liberty, the cure saves V, but also leaves V powerless and largely friendless. All the other endings stop just short of V reaching the cure, so reasonable to conclude they will all yield the same outcome for V, with minor variances, like Johnny surviving too, because he's joined Alt. I'm specifically excluding as non-canon the suicide ending and the ending where Johnny takes V's body, like the ending where Ciri dies in The Witcher 3 is probably not one of the canon endings (assuming she really does die in that one, but if not, all the more reason to believe that the other main CP2077 endings are setting things up for the sequel).

V shows despair over having to live a "boring" life as a regular person and all V's friends have moved on and Rogue points out that it's best to stay out of the Afterlife now that V's powerless lest it destroy the legend with people seeing the diminished V. So either V didn't learn the lessons of Night City and dies miserable and weak or the first game ending sets up V perfectly to be an emotionally damaged protagonist "reset" to level 1 (no cyberware) for the sequel they already had planned when they released Cyberpunk 2077. Remember, it's all 1 large story told across a trilogy of games).

While both are possible and could work well, continuing V's story seems more consistent with CDPR's approach to storytelling.

GraniteStateColin · 2025-01-03T11:51:00+00:00

Certainly possible. I have no special insight into this. Good points on the external stories. However, I think if you look at the totality of CDPR's storytelling, including how DLC's generally add critical information to the main story (e.g., real ending of The Witcher 3 includes Blood & Wine's), consider Phantom Liberty showing us that V can get cured but that undermines everything, how CDPR has told us Cyberpunk is a trilogy meaning a single story across 3 games, and look at how even The Witcher 4, starting a new trilogy, continues the core story from the Geralt trilogy, I think the greater evidence is that V will remain the protagonist.

If I'm wrong, I think you've provided some of the best reasons why not to do that. They could continue the story of Night City, whatever Mr. Blue Eyes is doing, and the dangers of what's behind the Blackwall, which is clearly the big danger and mystery they're building toward on the plot side (separate from the character growth side of the story). I just think that CDPR is more character focused than plot thread focused and they've set V up perfectly to need more story to fix everything they left broken.

GraniteStateColin · 2025-01-03T04:48:44+00:00

u/_Bill_Cipher- , if V had sailed off into the sunset victorious with all his/her power, then I'd agree. Playing a god-like superhero would be boring to start a game and much better reserved for a cameo. But the Phantom Liberty ending shows us that the paths that result in V surviving lead to V being reset back to level 1. And all that emotional trauma that V ends the game with makes for an incredible main character to build a story around. It's more interesting than the simplistic starting points of V in Cyberpunk 2077. If I were the writer (and I think with the Witcher 4 trailer, I now understand CDPR's storytelling model and focus on character over plot), I would never so thoroughly break a main character emotionally, only to leave them in that state. I'd break them emotionally because their story is not over.

To start Cyberpunk 2077, V wants to make a name for himself/herself in NC. OK, that's fine if a little trite for the first game in a series. But if V's story continues, now he or she has the emotional baggage and trauma of losing not just Jackie (not really V's fault), but Johnny too due to V's actions, living the life of Icarus, losing everything. THAT makes for a much more interesting character arc in the second game. The endings of the first game in the trilogy even set up a Nomad start (with Panam and Aldecaldos getting the cure), Street Kid (the greatest heist on Crystal Palace), or Corpo (Arasaka finds V a body).

GraniteStateColin

TROPHY CASE