Grimes’ Role In Cyberpunk 2077 Sounds Amazing

15
Grimes’ Role In Cyberpunk 2077 Sounds Amazing
Image: Cyberpunk 2077 (CD Projekt Red)

People have been clamouring for Cyberpunk 2077‘s gritty, adult take on an open-world RPG. And if the tidbits revealed by artist Grimes are anything to go by, the developers are nailing the tone.

International pop star Grimes, who has a voice acting role in Cyberpunk 2077, spoke on a livestream about doing the voice acting for character called “Lizzy Wizzy” recently. After mentioning how the game will be “fucking good,” Grimes went into more detail about her appearance in the game.

Obviously, this qualifies as a spoiler, so back out if you want to stay completely in the dark. Grimes doesn’t have a pivotal role in the plot, so it’s not a huge spoiler overall, but the tone of her appearance is definitely an indication of where the game is headed.

cyberpunk 2077 grimes role
cyberpunk 2077 grimes role

“I haven’t played it, I saw someone play an hour of the game,” Grimes said in the livestream, which was recaptured on YouTube.

“The game is fantastic. I play a pop star, who, she committed suicide on stage and they had to quickly come and perform emergency surgery to replace her whole body with cybernetics while she was dead for an hour. And then she finished the show as a cyborg; one of the greatest pieces of performance art ever made.”

It’s the kind of gritty realism that echoes so much of what people loved about The Witcher 3, and it sounds like that’s exactly what we’ll get more of with Cyberpunk 2077. Suicide isn’t part of the existing Refused Classification guidelines, so there’s no concerns about what this might do from a classification standpoint. But if more of the game is in this vein, a ton of gamers are going to be very, very happy.

Comments

  • Suicide isn’t part of the existing Refused Classification guidelines…

    …but don’t worry. The Classification Board will no doubt find something that will put it in the RC basket.

    • They’re supporters of games more than most people know. They’re just very tightly bound by the guidelines – there’s no wriggle room for them. Thankfully, this particular scene doesn’t seem like it’ll be a problem.

      • I wish more people understood that. Every time we see an RC story, and have the board openly comment on it, its them playing the political game to try and get things changed for the better.

      • I have to disagree. They are bound by the guidelines but there is a ton of discretion in deciding whether a work falls into different categories. For instance, deciding whether drugs are used as ‘an incentive or reward’ in a game, or deciding whether something is ‘high impact’ or not. As far as I know, the board is not bound by its previous decisions. That is to say, every work can be assessed on its own merits and in the light of current societal standards. The guidelines are what they say they are, a guide.

        • From discussions with them directly, they don’t believe there is enough discretion available. That’s partially why they have pushed so hard publicly to get change – and done outreach with media like Kotaku Australia, the panel at PAX Aus last year and more public comments when games have been banned, to highlight that.

      • Are they really though? Last I heard the board was mostly older people that seemed more interested in red tape than gaming.

      • I’m with Zambayoshi on this one. I remember a the board interpreting the rules to ban the original “Risen” game.

        The reason the game was refused was:
        1. Incentivizing sex.
        Part way through the game, the character could end up sleeping with a woman (who iirc, was a prostitute) early-ish in the game. At the end of this encounter, the woman would explain the use of the game’s “charm person” scroll as a means to stop people from attacking the player if they accidentally damaged them. This was deemed as “incentivizing sex”, even though the player could not sleep with the character for additional rewards, and there was a plot reason for the characters to sleep together. The benefit came not as an incentive, but as part of the dialogue and of the character essentially providing advice to the player character (and mechanically serving as a tutorial).

        2. Incentivizing drug use.
        In the game it was potentially possible to acquire an object called a “weed reefer”, that when used/consumed, provided 23xp to the player for the first one they used, and then 3xp for any subsequent reefer. There were only a handful of these obtainable in the game, and the xp gain is negligible in terms of the amount of xp required to gain a level. Essentially, the scarcity of this item combined with it’s extremely small positive effect was considered “incentivizing drug use”, when the benefit was next to nil across the entire game. It was entirely possible to never find this item, and even if they did, it was entirely possible not to realize it could be used for even the minor benefit it provided (it just looked like yet another junk item to be sold).

        The classification board chose to interpret these items in the harshest possible way, even though far worse examples of these kinds of things exist in games that are rated M15+. There are other games as well where this kind of stuff is happened, but this one I just remember as being so galling and out of touch that it seemed like the classification board had wilfully misinterpreted the game just so they could ban it.

        So no, I really don’t believe that the classification board has the best interest of gamers/gaming at heart – they have just accepted that if a title is big enough in terms of perceived popularity, if they come down hard, the public backlash is going to be more harmful for them than if they let if through.

    • My bet’s on it getting through just fine, but if it will be pulled it won’t be for violence (self-inflicted or otherwise). If it was pulled it’d either be drugs or sex, which still baffles me – sure it’s fine to straight up murder 1000+ people just for fun, but if the the sex gets too realistic or the drugs look like fun that’s somehow too far.

      I don’t think that’s a classification thing, but rather a cultural thing. Somehow we’ve followed America’s fear of all things sex and love for all things violence and until the culture changes I doubt the Classification Board will.

  • “Grimes doesn’t have a pivotal role in the plot…”

    As one of the people who finds her pretty annoying, that made me breathe a huge sigh of relief.

Log in to comment on this story!