the reason i feel so strongly about this is that not only do i not feel it was a problem, i feel that in treating it as one you miss out on one of the best aspects of the story
the reason i feel so strongly about this is that not only do i not feel it was a problem, i feel that in treating it as one you miss out on one of the best aspects of the story
like, without that, the game... doesn't really resonate with me. Asriel/Flowey's struggle was by far and away the most potent and well constructed component part of the story for me, and I found it intensely, debilitatingly relatable. so the idea of it being the awkward result of tying up loose ends rings very hollow to me.
Honestly thinking back to the previous discussion, i think a big part of it was that to you, Kex, 'Kill or be killed' was a more interesting motivation than 'i just miss having someone i cared about', and the latter undermined the former.
Whereas to me, the two motivations seemed directly related to one another, and the latter seemed the more interesting as it humanized (awkward term in an UT context, i know) the character
i could speculate that this relates to different elements of the game resonating with each of us more strongly, but that feels a bit presumptuous
No, it's a reasonable enough speculation
Specifically it is the fact that Flowey's "kill or be killed" posturing was just that- posturing-and he's really just someone scared of emotional pain is immensely complete and compelling as a character motivation
However "I miss my friend" is contingent on a certain degree of understanding of Chara that we just don't have. Is Asriel reasonable to project Chara onto Frisk? If so, why does it take Asriel until the very end of the game to start doing this, and why doesn't it come up at all in the neutral run? Was Asriel's fixation with Chara unhealthy even before Asriel became Flowey? Was Chara intentionally manipulating him?
Some of these and further questions are fine for speculation purposes but when you have so many it just leads to something of a muddled, inconsistent character.
Plus, did he- as Flowey- adopt the "kill others so you won't become close to them" mindset as a rejection of his unhealthy attachment to Chara, out of sadness over Chara's death, or because of an eternity of repetition? These motivations aren't completely conflicting but they do conflict to some extent.
It just raises so many questions and it's not so much ambiguity as it is confusion over character motivation.
And the thing that kills me is that because I have to so thoroughly explain myself a million times over I'm giving off the impression that this is anything more than a minor quibble I have in a game in otherwise loved
Because I *do* get why the relationship between Asriel and Chara resonates so deeply, and I do find that particular interpretation immensely compelling, but it is reliant on conjecture that could very well go in the other way.
specifically, the conflicting, frantic nature of Flowey/Asriel's reasoning rung very true to me. I know what it's like to have 5 or 6 different ways you are trying to justify how you feel, all of which are incompatible, and you know it, but they are all equally true. the unreal, "soulless" feeling, desperately clawing, trying to find feelings that arent there, and making them up to fill the hole and discarding them. it's not bad storytelling, it's a wonderful and wholly accurate way of conveying a mental state that is absolutely horrid and makes absolutely no sense.
Flowey says, on the genocide route, that he "didn't recognize" Frisk as Chara at first. Presumably, he begins to project his memories of Chara onto Frisk while watching them over the course of the game.
i believe it's left open-ended whether Chara manipulated Asriel on purpose, but my feeling is it's heavily hinted that they did.
i guess i feel here that a lot *is* left open-ended, but certain interpretations seem to fit better with what we know of the characters and are clearly more satisfying, so there's no reason not to preference them, and certainly no reason to presume that the ending is flawed or confused as opposed to subtle and ambiguous.
specifically, the conflicting, frantic nature of Flowey/Asriel's reasoning rung very true to me. I know what it's like to have 5 or 6 different ways you are trying to justify how you feel, all of which are incompatible, and you know it, but they are all equally true. the unreal, "soulless" feeling, desperately clawing, trying to find feelings that arent there, and making them up to fill the hole and discarding them. it's not bad storytelling, it's a wonderful and wholly accurate way of conveying a mental state that is absolutely horrid and makes absolutely no sense.
really, i have never had a piece of media reflect my lived experiences as strongly as this, and that's why i loved it so much.
specifically, the conflicting, frantic nature of Flowey/Asriel's reasoning rung very true to me. I know what it's like to have 5 or 6 different ways you are trying to justify how you feel, all of which are incompatible, and you know it, but they are all equally true. the unreal, "soulless" feeling, desperately clawing, trying to find feelings that arent there, and making them up to fill the hole and discarding them. it's not bad storytelling, it's a wonderful and wholly accurate way of conveying a mental state that is absolutely horrid and makes absolutely no sense.
This post is v. good and hits the nail on the head i think wrt inconsistencies in Flowey's actions.
"I lash out because I had my friend taken away from me, and I am only partially aware that our relationship was just a bit toxic and this friend was leading me to a dangerous place" is a very compelling motivation, but it is expressed in the margins of the last two hours of an eight hour game and it's layered on top of a motivation that is not only already complete on its own but is also significantly simpler and is expressed and elaborated on over the duration of the entire game and is put front and center.
and, i do get how that would seem nonsensical to someone who hasn't experienced it, because it's just so alien to how normal brains do brain things. and i'm sorry that you didn't like it, and that's totally ok, but I want you to understand why i liked it, maybe because I think it could help you understand me a little better?
Like the motivation itself works but I don't have the lived experience that would allow me to emotionally understand what Asriel is doing on an intuitive level and the game- in my own experience- did not provide me the tools to create that empathy.
basically, for me the two most important things in Undertale are:
1. the slow reveal of flowey/asriel's story
2. the story of a community overcoming traumatic loss
there is the third, most obvious plot strand, having to do with nonviolence and yadda yadda but... that didn't matter all that much to me, so i didnt care all that much when it kinda got stomped over.
and, i do get how that would seem nonsensical to someone who hasn't experienced it, because it's just so alien to how normal brains do brain things.
One of the most powerful things media can do is to create this empathy. Without a background in the kinds of life experiences you've had the alien-ness of what Asriel was doing remained alien, because for me the game did not provide the tools with which I could intimately feel his struggle. That is what my issue was.
though i will say, whether or not the text gives you the right tools to do that depends on the person, because different people need different things for that.
It creates a character who will make sense to someone who already has a background in what the character is going through but for myself- who doesn't have that background- it started out alien and remained alien. I can pinpoint numerous reasons why this is so but that's where my issue lies. I *like* when a game can make an unfamiliar experience familiar, and the expression of that experience is so obviously compelling to people who "get it" on their own that it bugs me that this aspect mainly works under that pretense and is just an oddity otherwise.
The main idea that resonated with me about Undertale was the idea that people can be better than their base emotions. They can transcend them and try to understand one another, as opposed to hating one another for the most inane reasons.
That's a huge part of why the Discourse about it around here has left me so distraught.
i don't feel i have that lived experience that would allow me to relate directly to Asriel
however, to me, Flowey's motives, while initially straightforward-seeming, were completely alien and bizarre without the knowledge that the character had undergone a traumatic set of experiences, been adversely influenced by another character, and was deeply conflicted on the inside
i don't feel i have that lived experience that would allow me to relate directly to Asriel
however, to me, Flowey's motives, while initially straightforward-seeming, were completely alien and bizarre without the knowledge that the character had undergone a traumatic set of experiences, been adversely influenced by another character, and was deeply conflicted on the inside
A pacifist player will undoubtedly endure pain and annoyance in order to remain a pacifist
The decision to spare or kill Flowey is a reflection of Flowey's beliefs- the player can spare him for some cheap satisfaction at the cost of proving him right (when he is so obviously wrong) or the player can deny themselves the satisfaction and risk pain but with benefit of having done right.
i don't feel i have that lived experience that would allow me to relate directly to Asriel
however, to me, Flowey's motives, while initially straightforward-seeming, were completely alien and bizarre without the knowledge that the character had undergone a traumatic set of experiences, been adversely influenced by another character, and was deeply conflicted on the inside
A pacifist player will undoubtedly endure pain and annoyance in order to remain a pacifist
The decision to spare or kill Flowey is a reflection of Flowey's beliefs- the player can spare him for some cheap satisfaction at the cost of proving him right (when he is so obviously wrong) or the player can deny themselves the satisfaction and risk pain but with benefit of having done right.
i got this, and i don't feel that the true ending undermines it, not at all. i feel it's a very important part of the story, just not the final word.
Thing is, the pacifist run, for all the hardships Frisk suffers, is still immensely rewarding. So like you say, Flowey is obviously wrong. The neutral ending offers no explanation for why he has such a fear of forming relationships.
I've learned to tolerate drama...except on the boat
Maybe this is simple and childish, but to me, the main message of the game is that you have to do the right thing and be good to others, which rewards itself
Comments
No, it's a reasonable enough speculation
Specifically it is the fact that Flowey's "kill or be killed" posturing was just that- posturing-and he's really just someone scared of emotional pain is immensely complete and compelling as a character motivation
However "I miss my friend" is contingent on a certain degree of understanding of Chara that we just don't have. Is Asriel reasonable to project Chara onto Frisk? If so, why does it take Asriel until the very end of the game to start doing this, and why doesn't it come up at all in the neutral run? Was Asriel's fixation with Chara unhealthy even before Asriel became Flowey? Was Chara intentionally manipulating him?
Some of these and further questions are fine for speculation purposes but when you have so many it just leads to something of a muddled, inconsistent character.
Plus, did he- as Flowey- adopt the "kill others so you won't become close to them" mindset as a rejection of his unhealthy attachment to Chara, out of sadness over Chara's death, or because of an eternity of repetition? These motivations aren't completely conflicting but they do conflict to some extent.
It just raises so many questions and it's not so much ambiguity as it is confusion over character motivation.
Because I *do* get why the relationship between Asriel and Chara resonates so deeply, and I do find that particular interpretation immensely compelling, but it is reliant on conjecture that could very well go in the other way.
i believe it's left open-ended whether Chara manipulated Asriel on purpose, but my feeling is it's heavily hinted that they did.
i guess i feel here that a lot *is* left open-ended, but certain interpretations seem to fit better with what we know of the characters and are clearly more satisfying, so there's no reason not to preference them, and certainly no reason to presume that the ending is flawed or confused as opposed to subtle and ambiguous.
That's a huge part of why the Discourse about it around here has left me so distraught.
however, to me, Flowey's motives, while initially straightforward-seeming, were completely alien and bizarre without the knowledge that the character had undergone a traumatic set of experiences, been adversely influenced by another character, and was deeply conflicted on the inside
The decision to spare or kill Flowey is a reflection of Flowey's beliefs- the player can spare him for some cheap satisfaction at the cost of proving him right (when he is so obviously wrong) or the player can deny themselves the satisfaction and risk pain but with benefit of having done right.
Seriously, that guy has some other dialogue that I don't remember but I remember thinking, "whoa, must go back to this after I understand more".
Like, isn't he the oldest character in the game, like, he remembers the war with humans, I think.
Thing is, the pacifist run, for all the hardships Frisk suffers, is still immensely rewarding. So like you say, Flowey is obviously wrong. The neutral ending offers no explanation for why he has such a fear of forming relationships.
It's subverted by the best neutral ending (fake pacifist ending, if you prefer), but reaffirmed by the true pacifist ending.
That is to say, the way those quirks werent demonized as can be the case in some media.
I know that one of the main themes is that you're not just destroying an enemy, you are ending a life, with all that entails, but still. :(
It would explain the repeated overbalancing, and the inability to hold an umbrella.
ninja'd
(They later admire Papyrus, and clearly are not a skeleton.)
Assassin poems, Poems that shoot
guns. Poems that wrestle cops into alleys
and take their weapons leaving them dead