Somebody is bitter about being corrected in the middle of his incel issues. Sorry that you were so very wrong about women always being the ones who defeat the villain.
Pretty much agree with you on all points here. The Netflix Daredevil show was a lot of fun and Vincent D'onofrio was superb in it. Jessica Jones season 1 was great (although I never did manage to get through the second season).
OTOH...we also had the dumpster fire that was Iron Fist from Netflix. Gross.
Except for, y'know, the first time Kingpin was defeated in the Netflix show it was by Daredevil, a dude. And Thanos himself was ultimately defeated by Iron Man, a dude.
The ending in question is absolute bull ****. SPOILER WARNING AHEAD!
... ...
YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED.
Look, you're going to have a lot of people make the argument that "it is the Cyberpunk genre, what do you expect" but that's crap. If there's no way to "win" by getting a halfway decent ending, then playing a "choice based" game itself is pretty damn pointless.
And the ending where you end up depowered and alone is the ultimate slap in the face to anyone who invested time and effort in the game in order to get an actual successful ending ala Witcher 3. (Another crapsack world where, yes, it is possible to get a good outcome. You have to work hard for it, but it is POSSIBLE.)
First off, most of the characters are written in the ending in such a way that it totally breaks the established characters. Take Panam for instance.
In one ending she openly is willing to sacrifice her lives and the lives of her clan to assault Arasaka Tower itself for the mere possibility that it might help you and provide a cure for you. Both she and the Aldecados recognize everything that you have done for them as V. They EXIST still because of V. They'd have been utterly wiped off the entire map if not for V's efforts...but then after you have been in a coma for two years (and you can literally tell them you were in a coma) you're persona non-grata? Those are not the same character. One is a character who the writers broke to try and justify how she acts in the ending.
Other things are similarly idiotic. Reed can't be bothered to let a few of your friends know that there were complications from surgery? Auto-payment on bills isn't a thing in the future? You don't have the option in the game to maybe ask a few questions about the risks of the surgery or give your closest friends a few more details?
That's just bad writing. That's bad writing to DICTATE as bad as possible of an ending and a lot of the other characters are similarly just...not themselves in this ending.
This ending is CDPR punishing the player for selling out Songbird and Johnny. Make one morally questionable decision and we'll make damn sure you end up as alone, as powerless and as pathetic as possible.
Seven? Eight? different endings and you can't have one good one no matter what you do. I have seen a lot of videos and a lot of articles like this one trying to justify that ending but really what it boils down to is insisting on making the players feel bad for making the "wrong" decision when nothing at all of the information you had at the time would make the opposite decision remotely logical.
BeefoTheBold's comments