I've learned to tolerate drama...except on the boat
I know there is more than one ending. I just wanted to know if I had to fight Flowey again if I reset the game, and thought I had been spoiled enough to peek in here.
I've come to the conclusion that as much as I /adore/ Undertale there are three dramatic elements that kinda weaken the experience for me, and I'll elaborate later if necessary:
1. Flowey being Asriel turns what was a complete, coherent character into something no more nuanced but quite a bit more confusing 2. The first child being evil undermines the tragedy of their and Asriel's deaths, and again adds unnecessary confusion 3. The underlying mechanics of the world (the barrier, magic, souls, Determination, monster dust) are much more elaborate than is necessary and are, again, needlessly confusing
I can dig all that stuff, and really like the direction in which they went in with Asriel's character, but I can kinda understand being disappointed that Frisk and Chara aren’t actually blank slates.
The First Child on all routes DID plan to kill all of humanity. They and Asriel were killed in the process of doing this, which in one sense undermines the sadness behind them being killed.
i agree on the second point, though i guess i wouldn't say it's clear whether the first child was really all that evil to begin with, or whether something went wrong. i felt the original story about Asriel and the human child was painfully sad, and the implication that the child was malicious kinda soured that a little for me
i would contend that the mechanics are just complicated enough, though - straightforward enough that they're easily comprehensible in theory, but complicated enough that they can have surprising consequences in practice.
As for Asriel, i disagree that it's no more nuanced, i feel it adds a whole new dimension to the character without contradicting any prior established aspect of his characterization (when one keeps said mechanics in mind, at least, along with the backstory). Flowey has arguably the most interesting arc of any character in the game, i think.
i think there is a good chunk of wiggle room with both of them, depending on how you look at things
With Chara, it depends on whether you consider the possible arcs separately or together. It is possible that, in a scenario where you only do neutral/pacifist that Chara was simply a deeply troubled kid who hated humanity, and it is only upon seeing/experiencing your actions in a genocide run that he develops into something out of a creepypasta.
With Frisk there's a lot more space for you to ponder, but i still havent sorted out all my thoughts with them so i'll hold my position here back.
Man is a most complex simple creature: see what he weaves, and how base his reasons for doing so.
See, Chara is a stupid kid who suffered a lot and grew bitter and hateful and made a rash, angry decision. Does that make you evil? No.
But when you play the game, Chara's no longer a kid. They're dead. A different state of existence, one infinitely more pliable to your actions. Chara adds context to what you do, and takes that context within themself. Good or ill, you're the one who makes Chara, present Chara, ghost Chara, to be what they become.
Okay, but that's what I'm saying is the problem, Chara being bitter and angry and genocidal *is exactly* what I think weakens some of the games dramatic arc, whether or not I use the word "evil."
I don't think that everything really needs to build into a strong central arc.
Like, I would be willing to concede that if you rejiggered the whole thing to address your complaints (well at least the ones that didnt involve things being confusing, because those are pretty YMMV, i definitely was not confused) it would be more cohesive and focused, but it would be a lot less interesting.
Thing is Chara (as a still-extant character, not backstory) to me is like a nasty little sour note that doesn't need to impact your play at all. On a pacifist run, their presence is only vaguely hinted at.
But without Chara existing, Flowey's motives vanish, and he becomes just a meanspirited asshole, as opposed to the complex and interesting antagonist he actually proves to be in the game.
What I'm saying is that it essentially creates two conflicting stories: Asriel as an innocent martyr/Chara as a cipher vs. Asriel as someone complicit in a scheme/Chara as a bitter, jaded genocide-doer. This contrast is never rectified or really even meaningfully addressed in the game. Especially because the latter is barely even alluded to; Chara and Asriel are introduced in the last hour and a half of the game, and the knowledge that Chara wanted to destroy humanity is easily missed (being established in a single line from Asriel if you go back to talk to him and a handful of tapes. Hell, I couldn't parse what was going on in the tapes /at all/ and the only thing I could take away was something something maybe I'm not actually playing as *playername* something something)
Tories and Asgore especially stick out to me because IIRC they don't mention Chara *at all* let alone that they were malevolent.
i felt the tapes were fairly self-explanatory, and the true ending cleared up any ambiguity there
Asriel isn't wholly innocent, he's someone who got messed up by a bad influence and a horrendous experience, and in the process lost the ability to feel love
His motivations as expressed in the Neutral ending (hurt others to prevent emotional attachment and pain as a result of said attachment) and his motivations as expressed in the other two (hurt others because I'm in a time loop and might as well) are conflicting on both a character motivation and thematic level- if the game is in many ways "about" how befriending and making attachments is worth the pain, then the fact that it created a space within its world (Flower's endless time loop) where this *isn't* true, where attachment/violent detachment *are* meaningless strikes me as a rather major contradiction
Comments
that said i didn't expect people to tell you off for playing it "wrong" or quiz you on whether you learned anything from it (the hell?)
I probably could've approached that better than I did, but that still bugged me.
really wasn't needed or called for dude
I just meant that it seemed like anonus kinda missed out on a lot of the stuff that is the most interesting about the game?
I didn't mean to be accusatory
I'm sorry.
I'll show myself out now.
1. Flowey being Asriel turns what was a complete, coherent character into something no more nuanced but quite a bit more confusing
2. The first child being evil undermines the tragedy of their and Asriel's deaths, and again adds unnecessary confusion
3. The underlying mechanics of the world (the barrier, magic, souls, Determination, monster dust) are much more elaborate than is necessary and are, again, needlessly confusing
i would contend that the mechanics are just complicated enough, though - straightforward enough that they're easily comprehensible in theory, but complicated enough that they can have surprising consequences in practice.
As for Asriel, i disagree that it's no more nuanced, i feel it adds a whole new dimension to the character without contradicting any prior established aspect of his characterization (when one keeps said mechanics in mind, at least, along with the backstory). Flowey has arguably the most interesting arc of any character in the game, i think.
this was a dumb moment, see below
i usually pay so little attention to Chara that i was forgetting, but that detail is important
But without Chara existing, Flowey's motives vanish, and he becomes just a meanspirited asshole, as opposed to the complex and interesting antagonist he actually proves to be in the game.
Tories and Asgore especially stick out to me because IIRC they don't mention Chara *at all* let alone that they were malevolent.
i felt the tapes were fairly self-explanatory, and the true ending cleared up any ambiguity there
Asriel isn't wholly innocent, he's someone who got messed up by a bad influence and a horrendous experience, and in the process lost the ability to feel love
His motivations as expressed in the Neutral ending (hurt others to prevent emotional attachment and pain as a result of said attachment) and his motivations as expressed in the other two (hurt others because I'm in a time loop and might as well) are conflicting on both a character motivation and thematic level- if the game is in many ways "about" how befriending and making attachments is worth the pain, then the fact that it created a space within its world (Flower's endless time loop) where this *isn't* true, where attachment/violent detachment *are* meaningless strikes me as a rather major contradiction