. . . i feel kinda bad here because you do know your game design stuff and i know you've been right about plenty of game stuff in the past
but like, Undertale was an extremely important game to me, whereas if you cut out Asriel it'd be . . . i dunno, still a very cleverly written game with appealing characters and a lot of humour, but it'd have to end on a depressing note and the story would be a lot more basic and less interesting.
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
i took this as tragedy
see i suppose, i don't feel that Undertale's message can be boiled down to something simple like "making friends is good, everyone can be befriended". That's not true and it's not a very interesting message. It is an appealing idea that the game kind of floats, and then it tests it, challenges it, and dreams up a scenario in which it breaks down.
. . . i feel kinda bad here because you do know your game design stuff and i know you've been right about plenty of game stuff in the past
but like, Undertale was an extremely important game to me, whereas if you cut out Asriel it'd be . . . i dunno, still a very cleverly written game with appealing characters and a lot of humour, but it'd have to end on a depressing note and the story would be a lot more basic and less interesting.
I don't think Asriel was a bad character or someone who should be removed.
My theory is that most elements unique to the genocide/pacifist paths (read: Chara and Asriel's backstories) were added relatively late in the game's development, as was Flowey and Asriel being the same entity. I think that Toby noticed that two characters who were initially separate essentially had redundant roles in-game (as megalomaniacal killers) and combined them without altering their underlying motivations. This is obviously conjecture on my part but it would explain a lot of what I found incongruous
Speaking as someone who doesn't usually connect with unusual video games, I find it rather baffling that you seem to want to take the unusualness out of Undertale.
My theory is that most elements unique to the genocide/pacifist paths (read: Chara and Asriel's backstories) were added relatively late in the game's development, as was Flowey and Asriel being the same entity. I think that Toby noticed that two characters who were initially separate essentially had redundant roles in-game (as megalomaniacal killers) and combined them without altering their underlying motivations. This is obviously conjecture on my part but it would explain a lot of what I found incongruous
It's ambiguous how Flowey is left after Pacifist. It looks as though he still can't go back on his save, so the loop is presumably gone, but it's not clear that Flowey is in any way better off.
Though i felt there was an element of optimism there. It felt to me like *something* had changed, like maybe he did have the potential to learn something from his experiences, even if he'll never be the person he was again.
Man is a most complex simple creature: see what he weaves, and how base his reasons for doing so.
Flowey and Asriel have different motivations that are ultimately reflections of the same person: a sad, unstable, lonely child who doesn't know what to do.
They want different things at different times because being a kid is hard and weird and nothing is constant, especially if you're a flower/boss monster.
No, i don't think they're redundant. i think there's a very deliberate mirroring going on, which very deliberately ties itself to the different ways in which the game can be played.
Wait, how are Flowey's motives different from Asriel's, anyway? They're literally the same. They both want to keep fighting you, over and over and over.
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
i took this as tragedy
see i suppose, i don't feel that Undertale's message can be boiled down to something simple like "making friends is good, everyone can be befriended". That's not true and it's not a very interesting message. It is an appealing idea that the game kind of floats, and then it tests it, challenges it, and dreams up a scenario in which it breaks down.
You're very much reducing what I said, so I'll restate what I think the game's central conceit is:
"Attachment to others is often painful but leads to a lot more happiness, and while megalomanical posturing and detachment may make you feel more powerful it is an ultimately hollow exercise."
I don't think I have to go into detail as to the myriad ways the game expressed that moral. But at any rate it's saying something a lot more nuanced than "friends good"
i wasn't reducing what you said, i was zeroing in on an aspect of it (the emphasis on befriending)
But no, i don't think it's a simple message about attachment being good. Attachment makes monsters vulnerable, and makes the genocide route all the more painful. There are bad kinds of attachment.
Wait, how are Flowey's motives different from Asriel's, anyway? They're literally the same. They both want to keep fighting you, over and over and over.
Flower's motivation as expressed in the Neutral ending essentially amounts to "why bother being nice, you'll just allow people to hurt you"
Asriel's motivation is "I've tried being nice over the course of an eternity but I got bored and depressed"
I mean there's common ground in the sense that they're both sad and confused but that's not what I mean when I say their motivations are different.
i wasn't reducing what you said, i was zeroing in on an aspect of it (the emphasis on befriending)
But no, i don't think it's a simple message about attachment being good. Attachment makes monsters vulnerable, and makes the genocide route all the more painful. There are bad kinds of attachment.
How does it leave monsters vulnerable in any way that it doesn't leave the player vulnerable? Because again, that contributes to the point I was talking about- you HAVE to make yourself vulnerable and the reward of doing so (befriending Papyrus, Sans, Undyne, etc.) Is worth considerably more than not allowing yourself to be hurt in the first place.
Wait, how are Flowey's motives different from Asriel's, anyway? They're literally the same. They both want to keep fighting you, over and over and over.
Flower's motivation as expressed in the Neutral ending essentially amounts to "why bother being nice, you'll just allow people to hurt you"
Asriel's motivation is "I've tried being nice over the course of an eternity but I got bored and depressed"
I mean there's common ground in the sense that they're both sad and confused but that's not what I mean when I say their motivations are different.
Flowey is manipulative, so firstly all his dialogue should be read with that in mind. He's not necessarily entirely honest.
It's also entirely possible for a person to have conflicting feelings and impulses. i see nothing inconsistent about Flowey's motives being a cynical side that Asriel allowed to take control as a result of time and growing in bitterness.
i see nothing inconsistent about Flowey's motives being a cynical side that Asriel allowed to take control as a result of time and growing in bitterness.
i wasn't reducing what you said, i was zeroing in on an aspect of it (the emphasis on befriending)
But no, i don't think it's a simple message about attachment being good. Attachment makes monsters vulnerable, and makes the genocide route all the more painful. There are bad kinds of attachment.
How does it leave monsters vulnerable in any way that it doesn't leave the player vulnerable? Because again, that contributes to the point I was talking about- you HAVE to make yourself vulnerable and the reward of doing so (befriending Papyrus, Sans, Undyne, etc.) Is worth considerably more than not allowing yourself to be hurt in the first place.
Literally, if you attack monsters when they're ready to spare you, you catch them off guard and they die.
It's NOT different. If you don't have LV, you are more easily hurt. And if you care about the characters, the Genocide route is liable to be a lot more painful to you, the player, than if you didn't care about them.
It's not always rewarding, it's a risk. A risk with potentially awesome results, but which can also go disastrously wrong, as it did for Asriel.
Maybe conflicting was the wrong word; it's more that they're two different motivations serving to justify the same character action. It would be like if after Uncle Ben was killed Peter Parker had all his important realizations about great power and responsibility but then waited to actually do anything about it until Aunt May got killed too. Also for my own sake please read that analogy very very carefully before extending it I don't know if I can handle another debate over my choice of analogy
i wasn't reducing what you said, i was zeroing in on an aspect of it (the emphasis on befriending)
But no, i don't think it's a simple message about attachment being good. Attachment makes monsters vulnerable, and makes the genocide route all the more painful. There are bad kinds of attachment.
How does it leave monsters vulnerable in any way that it doesn't leave the player vulnerable? Because again, that contributes to the point I was talking about- you HAVE to make yourself vulnerable and the reward of doing so (befriending Papyrus, Sans, Undyne, etc.) Is worth considerably more than not allowing yourself to be hurt in the first place.
Literally, if you attack monsters when they're ready to spare you, you catch them off guard and they die.
It's NOT different. If you don't have LV, you are more easily hurt. And if you care about the characters, the Genocide route is liable to be a lot more painful to you, the player, than if you didn't care about them.
It's not always rewarding, it's a risk. A risk with potentially awesome results, but which can also go disastrously wrong, as it did for Asriel.
But I don't see how this contradicts what I said. Because the theme still stands either way.
Maybe conflicting was the wrong word; it's more that they're two different motivations serving to justify the same character action. It would be like if after Uncle Ben was killed Peter Parker had all his important realizations about great power and responsibility but then waited to actually do anything about it until Aunt May got killed too. Also for my own sake please read that analogy very very carefully before extending it I don't know if I can handle another debate over my choice of analogy
i see nothing wrong with multiple influences contributing to a single character action, tbh.
Like i suppose you're saying that it seems like he waited a long time before acting on his initial motivation, and that's weird? Well, that wasn't how i took it. i took it as rather that sowed the seed for something which took time to grow and which needed an extra push before it developed into action.
i wasn't reducing what you said, i was zeroing in on an aspect of it (the emphasis on befriending)
But no, i don't think it's a simple message about attachment being good. Attachment makes monsters vulnerable, and makes the genocide route all the more painful. There are bad kinds of attachment.
How does it leave monsters vulnerable in any way that it doesn't leave the player vulnerable? Because again, that contributes to the point I was talking about- you HAVE to make yourself vulnerable and the reward of doing so (befriending Papyrus, Sans, Undyne, etc.) Is worth considerably more than not allowing yourself to be hurt in the first place.
Literally, if you attack monsters when they're ready to spare you, you catch them off guard and they die.
It's NOT different. If you don't have LV, you are more easily hurt. And if you care about the characters, the Genocide route is liable to be a lot more painful to you, the player, than if you didn't care about them.
It's not always rewarding, it's a risk. A risk with potentially awesome results, but which can also go disastrously wrong, as it did for Asriel.
But I don't see how this contradicts what I said. Because the theme still stands either way.
Oh, the theme is still there, i'm not arguing with that. But it's not there in an uncomplicated sort of way that can brook no challenges. Asriel's fate is an exploration of the theme in a darker direction, not an abandonment of it.
Basically i'm saying it's a theme, not a unified message the game is trying to preach. Asriel's sufferings are definitely consistent with the mythos the game is built around, and involve the same ideas that the player's story involves. It's just that in Asriel's case, there wasn't a happy ending.
Also part of the issue with the dual motivations is that they don't really play off of each other?
If you spare Flowey at the end of a Neutral route you are implicitly /proving him wrong/ about his "kill or be killed" view of the world. But you aren't even touching the issue of the time loop. Meanwhile in the True Pacifist ending saving Asriel just necessitates showing him sympathy and giving him reprieve from the torturous cycle, but the complete character he was in the neutral route (someone who rejects others out of fear of being hurt) is essentially rendered a non-entity.
But i took it as more like, that was his surface motivation, the kill or be killed stuff, but that in itself was just an attempt to cling to the memory of a dead loved one, which is the real reason for his obsession with Frisk.
Like, kill or be killed is a mentality he adopted in imitation of Chara. Really, though, he was lonely and scared, and he wanted his friend back.
Also, of course, he's receptive to sympathy only when he has a soul.
Flowey is Asriel, but he's Asriel with an important part missing, so he can't accept your sympathy when he's a flower, physically, he can't. He can't even comprehend it.
just want to ask, where did it said that Chara wanted to destroy humanity? like, he was a misanthrope and wanted to take revenge towards their village, but he really only became genocidal after Asriel backed away from their plan to break the barrier and dying
and thinking about it they may have gotten those tendencies from observing Flowey kill everyone in a couple of his save states
If you spare Flowey at the end of a Neutral route you are implicitly /proving him wrong/ about his "kill or be killed" view of the world. But you aren't even touching the issue of the time loop. Meanwhile in the True Pacifist ending saving Asriel just necessitates showing him sympathy and giving him reprieve from the torturous cycle, but the complete character he was in the neutral route (someone who rejects others out of fear of being hurt) is essentially rendered a non-entity.
the true pacifist route is supposed to be a continuation of the neutral route though? indicated at the end of the credits on the latter when Flowey tells you what to do to get the former
And that ties back into my issues with Chara's character. Because ideally with this kind of stripping back of surface level motivations the underlying motivation is *more* developed and ties into the work's big ideas *more*, not less.
Which isn't an argument for removing the relationship between Chara and Asriel and Asriel and Flowey. I'm more concerned with the execution.
i don't believe it's ever stated at what point Chara became genocidal. It's said that they 'hated humanity', and that they intended to kill at least 6 humans. They *may* have been genocidal, but it's not a lot to go off.
Well, that was only without absorbing 6 human souls, mind. Which they may have only wanted to break the barrier, but it would have been sufficient to make them "the absolute god of hyperdeath".
i'm on the fence as regards Chara's motives at that point, if that wasn't clear. i don't feel there's sufficient information to be sure either way. Meaning it's open to interpretation, of course.
I'm still not seeing where you see Flowey's and Asriel's motivations differentiate
when Asriel was revived as Flowey, he found out he didn't have any emotions right after calling for Toriel and Asgore, and seeing them weep for him - he attempted to be nice to others and gradually became sociopathic after that, to where we meet him at the start of the game
when Asriel was reborn he gradually regains his emotions from all the souls he obtained within him
so the "I got bored and depressed" aspect was then morphed into the "why bother being nice, you'll just allow people to hurt you" aspect, and then both of them get intermingled as you defeat Omega Flowey and then fight Asriel
and speaking of Chara, has anyone heard of the "Chara as narrator" theory? it might shed some light into who Chara was and how they were involved in all the routes
Man is a most complex simple creature: see what he weaves, and how base his reasons for doing so.
I've said as much before, that Chara describes what you see. That the character is Chara, Frisk, and you as a little mind-body-soul trio.
However, I don't like the idea that Chara maintains the "goodness" on No Mercy, because if Chara describes the text boxes, then Chara also describes the red text boxes, and those are grim and sinister. I am still biased towards the "player culpability" explanation.
Even as a non-blank slate character, Chara's evilness is pretty over-played, at the end of a no-mercy, kill everything route, they're only responsible for 3 deaths, Asgore, Flowey, You.
it's kinda both in that regard, in the genocide route you help awaken more of Chara's darker thoughts of destroying everything while in the pacifist route you, well, pacify him and he stays as a guide
it's kinda both in that regard, in the genocide route you help awaken more of Chara's darker thoughts of destroying everything while in the pacifist route you, well, pacify him and he stays as a guide
Actually, considering Chara's perceived view of humanity, it's been said that by being Merciful, you're essentially showing them wrong, that their view of humans isn't all true.
Even as a non-blank slate character, Chara's evilness is pretty over-played, at the end of a no-mercy, kill everything route, they're only responsible for 3 deaths, Asgore, Flowey, You.
Killing everything else was your decision.
Mm, yes and no. Everything from Froggit to Sans, that's your choice. But there were plenty of monsters who didn't die, plus all the people on the surface. At the end of no mercy, you're given a choice: destroy the world and everyone in it, or refuse and Chara will destroy the world anyway. Either way, it's the most deaths caused by anyone in the whole game.
They also say "since when were you the one in control?", which is interesting. Is that directed at the player? i think it could equally be directed at Frisk.
am i like the only person who thought this game was pretty simple and didn't require a ton of thought to figure out??
I'm not trying to be all "lel I am zo much zmarter than u zilly peazants" but I thought the game's moral (what of one there was anyway) was pretty clear and I don't really understand all the arguing about it.
i'm not that interested in the moral. i don't feel it really had much of a moral beyond "friendship is sometimes hard, but can still be rewarding" and "just because you can do something doesn't mean you should". Pretty straightforward.
i'm talking about the characterization and the story, which are far more interesting and much more complex.
Comments
but like, Undertale was an extremely important game to me, whereas if you cut out Asriel it'd be . . . i dunno, still a very cleverly written game with appealing characters and a lot of humour, but it'd have to end on a depressing note and the story would be a lot more basic and less interesting.
see i suppose, i don't feel that Undertale's message can be boiled down to something simple like "making friends is good, everyone can be befriended". That's not true and it's not a very interesting message. It is an appealing idea that the game kind of floats, and then it tests it, challenges it, and dreams up a scenario in which it breaks down.
My theory is that most elements unique to the genocide/pacifist paths (read: Chara and Asriel's backstories) were added relatively late in the game's development, as was Flowey and Asriel being the same entity. I think that Toby noticed that two characters who were initially separate essentially had redundant roles in-game (as megalomaniacal killers) and combined them without altering their underlying motivations. This is obviously conjecture on my part but it would explain a lot of what I found incongruous
Though i felt there was an element of optimism there. It felt to me like *something* had changed, like maybe he did have the potential to learn something from his experiences, even if he'll never be the person he was again.
"Attachment to others is often painful but leads to a lot more happiness, and while megalomanical posturing and detachment may make you feel more powerful it is an ultimately hollow exercise."
I don't think I have to go into detail as to the myriad ways the game expressed that moral. But at any rate it's saying something a lot more nuanced than "friends good"
But no, i don't think it's a simple message about attachment being good. Attachment makes monsters vulnerable, and makes the genocide route all the more painful. There are bad kinds of attachment.
Asriel's motivation is "I've tried being nice over the course of an eternity but I got bored and depressed"
I mean there's common ground in the sense that they're both sad and confused but that's not what I mean when I say their motivations are different.
It's also entirely possible for a person to have conflicting feelings and impulses. i see nothing inconsistent about Flowey's motives being a cynical side that Asriel allowed to take control as a result of time and growing in bitterness.
It's NOT different. If you don't have LV, you are more easily hurt. And if you care about the characters, the Genocide route is liable to be a lot more painful to you, the player, than if you didn't care about them.
It's not always rewarding, it's a risk. A risk with potentially awesome results, but which can also go disastrously wrong, as it did for Asriel.
Also for my own sake please read that analogy very very carefully before extending it I don't know if I can handle another debate over my choice of analogy
i see nothing wrong with multiple influences contributing to a single character action, tbh.
Like i suppose you're saying that it seems like he waited a long time before acting on his initial motivation, and that's weird? Well, that wasn't how i took it. i took it as rather that sowed the seed for something which took time to grow and which needed an extra push before it developed into action.
Oh, the theme is still there, i'm not arguing with that. But it's not there in an uncomplicated sort of way that can brook no challenges. Asriel's fate is an exploration of the theme in a darker direction, not an abandonment of it.
Basically i'm saying it's a theme, not a unified message the game is trying to preach. Asriel's sufferings are definitely consistent with the mythos the game is built around, and involve the same ideas that the player's story involves. It's just that in Asriel's case, there wasn't a happy ending.
If you spare Flowey at the end of a Neutral route you are implicitly /proving him wrong/ about his "kill or be killed" view of the world. But you aren't even touching the issue of the time loop. Meanwhile in the True Pacifist ending saving Asriel just necessitates showing him sympathy and giving him reprieve from the torturous cycle, but the complete character he was in the neutral route (someone who rejects others out of fear of being hurt) is essentially rendered a non-entity.
But i took it as more like, that was his surface motivation, the kill or be killed stuff, but that in itself was just an attempt to cling to the memory of a dead loved one, which is the real reason for his obsession with Frisk.
Like, kill or be killed is a mentality he adopted in imitation of Chara. Really, though, he was lonely and scared, and he wanted his friend back.
Flowey is Asriel, but he's Asriel with an important part missing, so he can't accept your sympathy when he's a flower, physically, he can't. He can't even comprehend it.
Which isn't an argument for removing the relationship between Chara and Asriel and Asriel and Flowey. I'm more concerned with the execution.
i'm on the fence as regards Chara's motives at that point, if that wasn't clear. i don't feel there's sufficient information to be sure either way. Meaning it's open to interpretation, of course.
They also say "since when were you the one in control?", which is interesting. Is that directed at the player? i think it could equally be directed at Frisk.
i'm talking about the characterization and the story, which are far more interesting and much more complex.