Jackie Welles, for some gamers, is one of the most beloved videogame companions of all time: A solid dude of hidden depths whose fate was sealed the moment he crossed paths with V. He made enough of an impact that former PC Gamer writer Emma Matthews called him Cyberpunk 2077’s best character, and bemoaned the limited amount of time we got with him before, well, you know.
But not everyone agrees that we should’ve had more time to spend with Jackster—including Cyberpunk 2 creative Igor Sarzynski, who says Jackie might’ve been a great guy but he wasn’t really part of the story.
So would extending Act 1 (before the heist) in CP77 make the game better?
1. No it wouldn’t. It’s like saying we should spend more time on Tatooine with farmer Luke before he got involved with all this Jedi stuff.
(1/3)— @srznsk.bsky.social (@srznsk.bsky.social.bsky.social) 2026-01-05T23:48:58.222Z
He also rejected suggestions that Cyberpunk 2077’s Jackie-heavy prologue montage is built on cut content, saying CD Projekt “always planned it like this.”
“Is it enough time to bond with Jackie? For some it is, for some it isn’t,” Sarzynski wrote. “All things considered I think we struck a good balance.”
Watch On
Sarzynski’s thread naturally drew some replies from fans convinced that he’s wrong, and he made some equally interesting points in response, such as saying that most players need a specific, measurable goal to pursue in order to properly advance the game, which is why V has no progression in the game’s first act.
V also has no progression in Act 1 because the *actual* story – Terminal sickness, what do i do with the time i have left? What does it mean to live and to become immortal? – hasn’t started yet.
Yes, i’m saying this is all by design and Act 1 being longer would not benefit the main story.— @srznsk.bsky.social (@srznsk.bsky.social.bsky.social) 2026-01-05T23:48:58.258Z
He did acknowledge that the urgency of V’s situation was belied somewhat by the presence of side gigs, which enabled the character to horse around in Night City with no ill effects—something I felt acutely during my long, oft-diverted Cyberpunk 2077 playthrough.
“I don’t disagree with the ludonarrative dissonance between saving yourself and doing other shit,” Sarzynski wrote. “If I were to do it again, I’d contextualize gigs and side quests as escaping death in a different way—by creating your own legend. And maybe gate a specific ending behind doing enough side content.”
He also made the point that despite its open-world trappings, Cyberpunk 2077 is a narrative-driven game, and that’s what the majority of CD Projekt fans are looking for: “We’re not doing GTA, our games are much more story / character driven.”
i’m not saying it would be boring. i’m saying that it wouldn’t carry story-oriented players (and this is large part of our brand) for long. we’re not doing GTA, our games are much more story / character driven
— @srznsk.bsky.social (@srznsk.bsky.social.bsky.social) 2026-01-05T23:48:58.296Z
The discussion is entirely academic, but it also provides some interesting insights into what we might expect from Cyberpunk 2: When Sarzynski says “if I were to do it again,” after all, it can easily be construed as a gentle reminder that he effectively is doing it again. He’s also quite clear that regardless of whether suggestions are being made in good faith or otherwise, CD Projekt already has a pretty good idea of what it’s doing: “We won’t be doing ‘same story but with player feedback’,” he wrote in response to one follower, “so requests for specific structural changes to ’77 are not really relevant.”
