next »

[ProgramGamer]

W.D. Gaster

[gimymblert]

It's the puppet from fnaf

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=waKwjiWw-kw? click for more

[ProgramGamer]

I changed my mind. The Dreemurr family has the best music.

[gimymblert]

[ProgramGamer]

I would agree that, within Undertale's possibility space, there is the possibility of it being the most violent game of the year. Thing is, you would need to only consider the genocide run for that to be true. The game kind of balances itself with each playthrough variation, and ends up being the most diverse in terms of theme and storyline.

[FrankieSmileShow]

Haven't looked too much into the w.d. gaster stuff because I didn't play a murder run yet and I'm trying not to get spoiled too much before I do, but what I've heard makes it seem pretty deliberate:

Finding out its stuff doesn't involve high level registry stuff or messing with the executable, but just editing some values in a human-readable text file. Not even encoded or in hex values etc, and the values are labeled too, something they didn't need to be! On the other hand some "more important" stuff IS saved separately in the registry to prevent editing them as easily as the other stuff. Although I suppose its possible it was things that were not quite done and meant to be finished and switched on in a later patch, thus why it would be activated by just changing some lines in a file somewhere. My guess is that it is deliberate tho, fits the games' meta bits about saving and reloading and stuff. But who knows, once a game gets meta enough it becomes hard to tell what weirdness is intended or not.

[gimymblert]

one comment

outsideclock 59 minutes ago
 +TheLPRnetwork
"but what other game does that? and still becomes successful as it is?"

It really is a matter of timing and the current cultural and political climate. Critical theory is big right now. People call themselves Feminists, Social Justice Warriors... ect. But really they are Marxists, and while this game might not be overtly Marxist. It definitely has the themes of "You're evil, and you oppress."

The reason this game is so popular. And ad populace fallacy I'll have you know. IS because people have unrefined taste in art due to cultural kitsch. And the afore mentioned ideology the game pushes.

" i...i... i can't think of a good way to respond to this...."

So you can't counter a criticism. So you're done. This is the undertale fan base in a nut shell. I'm a little kid, but people don't love the game enough. So instead of countering a legitimate observation I will bow out but imply that I'm right.

 

[LucasMaxBros]

Ugh indeed.

Though I will give the person one thing; they said it has the themes of "You're evil, and you oppress."

I sort of agree with that to a degree. In the beginning of the game, you get to name your character. YOUR character. Yes it says the Fallen child and we learn later on the person we're playing as is actually Frisk UNLESS you of course do genocide in which case you still get your name. The game tricks you into naming the evil character, and most likely the player will name it after themselves.

It feels like the game is stating that you're evil, no matter which path you try and choose. It was a slap in the face to me when I got to the end, learning about the character you named and that this entire time you we're playing someone who wasn't actually you and that the character you ACTUALLY named was evil... what's the point? Wouldn't the game have been completely fine if the character you played as just had your name? I suppose it would have to do with the whole Asriel backstory so that the game made you feel like you had SOME connection to him (even though realistically, Frisk has nothing to do with Asriel), but that leads back to my first complaint.

I don't think it's Toby's intention though (I hope). It's the reason I was unsatisfied with the Final Boss/ending. The whole thing could have been handled better. Why not have the character you play as still keep their name then have Asriel confuse you for their human sibling instead of confusing the player about why there's another person who has the same name as them for most of the game? I don't know. I'm trying not to look too deeply into it, but I don't understand the intent, plus this is Undertale we're talking about here.

 

[FrankieSmileShow]

I think the intent of that is pretty obvious. Its a good twist that makes sense for how the game was made.
It doesn't really need to be much more than that.

I think its obvious that the intended experience here was, playing the game as a normal RPG first, killing lots of people. Then by the end, the ending teaches you that this was a mistake, with Sans revealing what EXP and Love really means and all that, and Flowey makes you pinkie swear that youll give nonviolence a shot, so you feel bad and play it again imposing a special rule on yourself not to kill anyone or anything, which makes the game much more difficult so it works as a continuation of the first playthrough, and you get the game's "true" ending, which is clearly meant to be seen only after seeing the "neutral" ending too.

So from that perspective, the character of the first playthrough, you, WAS an aggressor. You played the game as one. The character of the second play-through was not, and this is where you learn about Frisk's real name, distancing yourself from those actions in the first playthrough which ended with you still presuming you were playing as "FRANKIE" or "LUCASMAXBROS" etc. It works very well for this. A twist based on playing the game twice, getting a reveal on you that re-contextualizes your actions in your first playthrough. And then you can decide whether to see what happens if you let stuff get reaaally dark and you get to learn whatever happens in that genocide playthrough that I still didn't do yet.

Slap in the face, cmon. Its just a good twist, no need to get melodramatic. It just doesnt work as well if you went for pacifist on your first playthrough. If you just mess it up by killing Toriel by mistake then your second playthrough is pretty dull, basically all the same until the end... That was my experience, and I think the experience of most people I asked. If that is as common as it seems, that is probably the game's biggest flaw!

On that note, Its too bad that the game is so popular that its very difficult to play it without knowing that you are "supposed" to play through it without hurting anyone. It seems like the game's experience is much better if you come to that realization at the end of your neutral run!
Even the game's tagline is "A game where no one needs to get hurt". Maybe the emphasis on that was a bit of a mistake... but then again, it was a pretty good draw for the game, so that was probably the right call.

Or maybe the mistake was making flowey so intensely smug after you kill Toriel. That made for a great tone setter moment before the title crash immediately after, but it really solidifies your resolve to not kill anyone else just to prove him wrong. Not that I know how that could be fixed though, it would be a hard line to walk.

[Pfotegeist]

one comment

outsideclock 59 minutes ago
 +TheLPRnetwork
"but what other game does that? and still becomes successful as it is?"

It really is a matter of timing and the current cultural and political climate. Critical theory is big right now. People call themselves Feminists, Social Justice Warriors... ect. But really they are Marxists, and while this game might not be overtly Marxist. It definitely has the themes of "You're evil, and you oppress."

The reason this game is so popular. And ad populace fallacy I'll have you know. IS because people have unrefined taste in art due to cultural kitsch. And the afore mentioned ideology the game pushes.

" i...i... i can't think of a good way to respond to this...."

So you can't counter a criticism. So you're done. This is the undertale fan base in a nut shell. I'm a little kid, but people don't love the game enough. So instead of countering a legitimate observation I will bow out but imply that I'm right.

 

I heard an explanation of this recently. Teenagers.

[LucasMaxBros]

I never harmed anything. Ever. And you never need to do a second playthrough. Just reload the save at the Neutral end (only if you killed nothing though).

Now with a Neutral run that DID have the player killing at least one monster, being called an Aggressor is debatable. Most people will try absolutely NOT to be aggressive their first playthrough blind or not. I have seen and heard some people who did neutral first blind intentionally(As in they'll kill when they feel like it), and I've never heard anyone doing genocide their first time blind due to how to start the genocide run.

I said it was a slap in the face cause it felt like despite the players accomplishments, no matter as good as they are, they'll basically get degraded from the pure-hearted protagonist who just saved the day and befriended everyone... to this child who was evil and hated humanity. But for what reason? I didn't do anything bad! Mind you, I was certainly not completely blind, but even if I was completely blind, my ultimate intentions are for good. If I had the choice I would Mercy or Spare. The game tells you many times in the beginning how to Mercy/Spare. So I don't see how the game expects you to be killing everything you see, even on your first run blind.


I just don't find the twist to be good or necessary. And your explanation doesn't really make it any better. You're still being demoted regardless of your actions.

[gimymblert]

BTW it's teh first game where people seems to find the pacifist run easier and funnier than the geno run unlike typical game. He made non fighting interaction much better and made avoidance actually fun. I hope that's the part that get generalized into common game design.

[Dragonmaw]

I never harmed anything. Ever. And you never need to do a second playthrough. Just reload the save at the Neutral end (only if you killed nothing though).

Now with a Neutral run that DID have the player killing at least one monster, being called an Aggressor is debatable. Most people will try absolutely NOT to be aggressive their first playthrough blind or not. I have seen and heard some people who did neutral first blind intentionally(As in they'll kill when they feel like it), and I've never heard anyone doing genocide their first time blind due to how to start the genocide run.

I said it was a slap in the face cause it felt like despite the players accomplishments, no matter as good as they are, they'll basically get degraded from the pure-hearted protagonist who just saved the day and befriended everyone... to this child who was evil and hated humanity. But for what reason? I didn't do anything bad! Mind you, I was certainly not completely blind, but even if I was completely blind, my ultimate intentions are for good. If I had the choice I would Mercy or Spare. The game tells you many times in the beginning how to Mercy/Spare. So I don't see how the game expects you to be killing everything you see, even on your first run blind.


I just don't find the twist to be good or necessary. And your explanation doesn't really make it any better. You're still being demoted regardless of your actions.

Except that, in the Genocide ending, you (the player) are attacked by Chara, which casts this entire interpretation of yours out the window, as you are not Chara OR Frisk, but rather the third mediating force.

Really, you're naming the dark impulses that possess Frisk at the start of the journey, and through your mediating influence, he'll either give in completely (Genocide), give in partially (Neutral), or resist completely (Pacifist).

There's a lot of conflation of CHara with the player, but it's pretty clear that both Frisk AND Chara are intended to be separate characters with their own motivations, as well as metaphors as to how all people can be good or evil.[/quote]

[gimymblert]

The conflation I made at least is allegorical, they can be different while being the same as its a meta narrative on falling into a depression and fighting against the tendency of different level of consciousness (ie asriel, chara, frisk, flowey) such as anger, guilt, self harm, self loathing, etc and the action to grow out of it, hence why time is such an important element, as an allegory of reflection on onseself

[SirNiko]

I think its obvious that the intended experience here was, playing the game as a normal RPG first, killing lots of people.

I think this is backwards in both intent and practice.

The game description ("The RPG game where you don't have to destroy anyone.") and the boring nature of the attack command compared to "Act" both push you to be more pacifist than destructive. Some players might be tempted to kill a few monsters for XP, but since the game tends to the easy side (except for the final boss) there's no incentive to do so. Only the fight with Toriel is an exception, since it isn't clear that you can spare her (which I think is intentional to force the majority of players, who will be mostly pacifist, to get at least one kill).

It's only when you attempt a genocide run that the game reverses your expectations. Suddenly you're cast as a horrific murderer whom the NPCs fear. That's where the irony shows, as you're playing the game as an ordinary JRPG where you use attack against everything you meet and gain lots of levels despite the fact you've already demonstrated you don't need them to beat the game. It's in sharp contrast to the very fun game you just played where you went out of your way to kill NPCs even though it resulted in a handicap of levels.

[LucasMaxBros]

True that you are a third and different entity compared to Frisk and Chara, but you won't know that until the end of the game(And doing both routes). And in the end the "Chara" character (or whom ever you name it after, though I speak from naming them after yourself) is still named after you regardless of which route you take.

I think it's a fine twist for the Genocide route but not the Pacifist route. In Genocide, you've murdered everyone and have become so despicable that the "protagonist" kills you like as if your sins had consumed you. In Pacifist, your name is rejected in the end and the protagonist reveals themselves to be Frisk and your name is only applied to the evil character. That doesn't sound fitting for someone who just saved and befriended everyone. Sure Frisk was influenced by you, but you go 99% of the game thinking it's you until the game states otherwise and then says that you actually named the evildoer. I just don't get the point of having Frisk being named Frisk instead of your name. It could've worked with your name. Because I am NOT Frisk. I do not need to be Frisk to commit Mercy or Good.

We also have no clue about Frisk's motivations. Why did they go to Mt.Ebott? Why did they want to go home? It's never explained which is why I am again confused as to why they are a separate entity in the first place.

[Dragonmaw]

Naming a person doesn't make them you, though.

[gimymblert]

cf mgs2

[FrankieSmileShow]

Alright let me try and formulate that differently...
This is how I see the basic concept of how you relate to the playable character, and how/why I think it works in Undertale.
Its pretty long winded, sorry. A better writer could probably get all of this through in fewer words:

So as I understand it, in a video game, there's three big options to how the player relates to the playable actor, the protagonist.

One, you have the playable character as an avatar for the protagonist. It is a puppet you are using to interact with the world. The protagonist is either yourself, or you playing the role of an in-world character, and you make decisions based on your own whims when you play, which may or may not be affected by what you think the world expects from that character, or maybe just based on how you as a person would act in the game's situations. This is the Western RPG kind of interaction, that comes directly from tabletop role-playing. I suppose this could be split into two between you playing yourself or you playing a character, but I'll leave em together as one for the purpose of this explanation here.

Two, you have a pre-defined protagonist, where you don't really have options as a player. You are just along for the ride. That character has a personality, they are just your vehicle to experience the world and meet new characters from. That characters' personality may or may not match yours, or might have no personality at all. The important part is that you arnt really expressing your personality here at all, the game doesn't try to be an outlet for this. This is the same sort of storytelling other media tells their narrative with. Classic JRPG approach.

Three, the player is some meta outsider entity just experimenting in that world without a character in mind. The protagonist is an avatar of yours, but the player is not making decisions based on theme, feelings or agency, but more on whims or to experiment with the world's limits and boundaries, to see what can happen. You are experimenting and playing as if it was more of a sandbox as opposed as being an inhabitant of the world. This is a very purely video game sort of approach, though I suppose it can happen in tabletop too. This is what happens when you trap a Sim between four walls or remove the ladder from the Pool in The Sims, or cause them to burn their house down to see what happens if everyone dies in a fire at the same time. This is chaotic evil, you are a god being playing with a toy, which would be truly evil, but luckily its just a video game, so its cool. Dont behave like that in real life tho, that probably gets you either in jail or in the hospital.


So this is how I perceive Undertale's game sequence relates to these basic types of player-to-protagonist interactions:

On your initial playthrough, you are type one. You don't know anything about the world, but the protagonist is in the same boat, looks very generic, and you are prompted to enter your name when you start playing and have no reason to believe this isn't meant to be you. So in effect, it is you, as far as this playthrough is concerned. Whatever happens here is based on your own whims, and the game will react in some ways to how you act in it. You might be violent, might be more pacifist etc. But the game looking like a generic RPG with all the trappings and mechanics to fit, and giving you a system of experience and levels, you are meant to kill enemies every once in a while, and maybe a boss or two. I think some of you seem to disagree with this part, but I think this is very obvious.


On your second playthrough, you are type two. Its the playthrough meant to be pacifist, one where your decisions are always the "same", as you are following those instructions from the ending of the first. You are playing the game the way "Frisk" would live it. Its no longer your story, its now the story of a real character, who is an innocent child who would never hurt anyone, as opposed to an outsider mindlessly following game conventions. Now your actions are compatible with being those of this actual child that fits into the actual game world, so the kid gets a name. This is the real, "canon" story, the only narrative that has more or less no variation in the big lines.


Now, if you get curious and decide to see how deep the rabbit hole goes on the other end of the spectrum, you can decide to try and murder everybody in a third playthrough, in type three. At that point Frisk is just a mindless puppet being manipulated by your gamer whims to see more of what can happen. Again, I didn't play this yet, but I presume thats more or less how it goes, no need to be a wizard to figure this out.


So basically, in this game, the player themselves is supposed to have a character arc. For that character arc to "work" the game makes some assumptions about how you will play, which may or may not be correct. If you play differently from this, the game doesn't work quite as well, but was obviously built to stretch and fit most of those cases. Depending on how much you play the game, that character arc has a different ending.


So here is the game's sequence again, but from the perspective of your own intended character arc as you play it:
You start the game as someone who plays RPGs without questioning what it means to kill monsters to get stronger. All you want is to accumulate power. The game's overall design, retro aesthetic, exp, levels and random encounters are meant to trick you into doing this.
The game also gives you plenty of little hints to make that reveal more meaningful, so it doesn't feel like you were entirely tricked, like it was still a little bit your fault: the characters are sympathetic, Toriel taught you to talk things out, frogs told you to try sparing monsters, etc. But still, you wanted some EXP and Levels, and surely those mechanics wern't put in the game just for you to ignore them, right? If you played pacifist on your first time through like I did, I think that you arguably didn't get to live the game's intended arc entirely. Luckily the game is really good tho so its not like it was all a waste or anything, but its clear the ending has a lot more impact if you learn actual compassion from it, from having made a mistake and genuinely regretting it!

So if you are lucky and played the game in the best possible way on your first go, you kill a few enemies every now and then. Maybe you even kill a lot of em, because getting levels pushes some fun RPG buttons and you can tell it makes you stronger, and that's satisfying.
Then the game reveals all of this as being pretty evil. Sans tells you what's what.
If you dont take that lesson at heart, you kill Flowey at the end, you didn't learn anything or don't care. You will probably stop playing now and move on.
If you learned your lesson, you spare Flowey's life at the end, and he suggests you try to be more compassionate when you play again. You end the game as an aggressor, but one who might have learned a lesson and might just try compassion next time, if only to show Flowey that you can do it, that it can be done.


So then you start a pacifist run and you realize the game was actually more fun that way. You make more friends, it's generally more enjoyable, pleasant, less mindless and even more challenging. The game actually makes you enjoy being a pacifist, it feels less like a restriction and almost like a reward in itself. After seeing things get so grim last time, the world is a much more pleasant place. In addition, in playing a more "real" character as opposed to one motivated by basic gameplay mechanics, you also symbolically let your playable character be "themselves", a more real human being. You now learn that character actually had a name of their own and is distinct from you. You were an evil monster before, led by a lust for power and seeing your power numbers go up, but you learned compassion, and decided to let Frisk live their own life. This is a good ending for almost everyone involved, and this is where you are meant to stop playing and move on...

Then, you may or may not learn about another way to play the game, the genocide run. Again, I don't really know what happens there, but its not too difficult to guess how it relates to the player arc, seeing how Flowey pleads you not to reset the game if you turn it on again after a pacifist clear:
You have the option to "cancel" your good ending and go back to playing, with a very different goal this time... If you do this, you didn't learn compassion after all, you tossed it aside. It was all just a game...You just want to see what happens, like a child burning ants with a magnifying glass. Frisk is now even more of a puppet than in your initial playthrough, you are in complete control now. This is the bad ending. One that you apparently in some way can never walk back from, though I don't know what that means exactly yet.


whew what an embarrassingly long post.....

[ProgramGamer]

I agree with all of this.

The Genocide run even confirms your speculations about it's motivations. BTW it's ok to watch a genocide run on Youtube or something.