...I read the opening that argues the only \"right choice\" in an encounter is Spare, so there\'s nothing to think about, right after complaining about having to solve a dialogue puzzle to make that option eligible, and I just... I realize I\'m not changing anyone\'s minds, but good God, that\'s a contradiction in terms I can\'t parse at all.
Um, are you talking about my comparison to a multiple choice question? If so I think you misunderstood. I meant that being a pacifist in every encounter is the right answer while every other option is inherently pointless. It\'s not a moral decision in the slightest. You don\'t get to ponder if the monster violently swinging an axe at your soul is worthy of your sympathy because the solution the game wants you to approach is \"spare it anyway\".
For an indie game, I think Undertale is pretty good, but it does get eyerollingly heavy-handed at times. I feel like it aimed for “violence isn’t the answer”, missed a few miles, and landed in “if someone is trying to hurt and/or kill you, you have to bend over backwards to accommodate them and never, ever try to defend yourself”. And yeah, the monsters do come across as Unintentionally Unsympathetic: even if you go full Pacifist route, you still get the same random encounters and boss fights as on Neutral. Meaning, even if you are nice to everybody you meet and never hurt anyone, everyone and their mother are still attacking you on sight. (Also, it’s been a while since I’ve played the game but… did anyone ever actually, you know, apologized for trying to kill you? Anyone at all?)
I feel like it would’ve been better if your in-game actions affected the encounters and/or if there was a better middle ground between Kill Em All and being everyone’s punching bag. Off the top of my head, how about this change to mechanics?
To win the battle you can either act nonviolently and spare the monster (Pacifist), beat the monster into submission and then spare them (Neutral), or beat the monster and kill them (Genocide). And then actually have your actions affect the following encounters.
For example, on Neutral everybody thinks you are a jerk, many NP Cs refuse to talk to you, and random encounters are either monsters attacking you for being such a jerk or running away in fear, so you can actually skip some encounters.
On Pacifist, everyone is friendly, you have a lot more interaction with NP Cs and most random encounters are replaced with monsters just wishing to chat or play with you instead of fight. There are still some fights, but afterwards the monster that attacked you actually apologizes for their actions.
On Genocide, every interaction with an NPC or a random encounter turns into a battle. Monsters can’t run away from you, so there’s a lot more fighting, and since the monsters are fighting to survive, they are also stronger than in Neutral.
Which basically makes Pacifist the most story-driven, Genocide the most combat-heavy, and Neutral the fastest route, and the same encounter on different paths can look like:
Pacifist: The monster wants to play. You had a lot of fun and they shared some candy with you.
Neutral: The monster looks afraid of you. They ran away and left a few coins behind.
Genocide: The monster is terrified. They tried to escape but you chased them down. With nowhere to run, they attempt to fight back.
Wow...that legit sounds SO much BETTER and sounds like the kind of game I would play!
I think some of the people who criticize the monsters for being Unintentionally Unsympathetic have valid points, although it does seem as though the critics have started coming out of the woodwork on this site lately. However, regardless of what level of sympathy you have for the monsters, you have the option to resolve your conflicts with them without anyone from either side having to die, as Toriel shows you while escorting you around the Ruins. The question is whether you take the more difficult route of nonviolence, or whether you take the easy way out, which gets progressively easier the more you take it.
Regarding the monsters, it\'s possible that their history may not have been entirely true, but they were forced underground by the humans, and some of the humans who fell down were implied to have killed some monsters, so it\'s not as though their animosity toward humans is entirely baseless.
Regarding Andariel\'s proposed changes, I personally feel as though the game does a good enough job of showing the consequences of your actions. On Pacifist, every monster besides those in the random encounters and bosses is friendly, and you can speak with some of the monsters you successfully spared. On Neutral, some of the monsters you killed will be noticeably absent, and there are some certain lines calling you out for their deaths. On Genocide, you force the monsters to flee the one safe haven they have left, and leave them on the brink of destruction in the endings to aborted Genocide runs.
Speaking of Genocide, its requirement for grinding is meant to signify that for the player character, this is no longer about survival, but about killing every monster they can. I get where you\'re coming from when it comes to discouraging the player from pursuing certain storylines (especially since some of the most memorable parts are on Genocide), but just because you can do something doesn\'t mean you should.
Essentially, Pacifist is about staying true to principles of nonviolence even when it\'s difficult, Neutral is about compromising sometimes, and Genocide is about giving in and killing everyone you can. You don\'t have to go the Pacifist route if you don\'t want to; you can kill every boss monster and every random encounter you need to if you believe that sending monsterkind further into despair is an acceptable price to pay for escaping the underground, if not the right thing to do. Of course, the monsters, who happen to be the only ones who comment on your decision, don\'t have to like what you choose.
Also, since Papyrus and Toriel won’t try to kill you, you can absolutely do a playthrough where you only kill the people trying to kill you and still get a good ending.
@Valiona
I get what you\'re saying but it doesn\'t make sense to hold the player to some principals of nonviolence while every other monster is free to attack a child unprovoked. It\'s very unfair, even. The monsters aren\'t given the responsibility to \"do the right thing\" and killing a monster is meant to be the worst thing ever while killing a child barely results in even a slap on the wrist, it\'s turning the other direction and claiming you saw nothing.
Also I never liked that phrase, \"just because you can do something doesn\'t mean you should\". I mean we\'re talking about a route that a dev programmed into the game. Like I\'ve said before, why add it if the point is not to play it? And I might give the game the benefit of the doubt on that regard if the end result wasn\'t a permanent bad ending that you can\'t get rid of (at least not in any easy sense, like an in-game option or button input). So what\'s the point? Just because you can play a route that\'s readily available in a game doesn\'t mean you should? Is that supposed to be the takeaway?
- Also I never liked that phrase, "just because you can do something doesn't mean you should". I mean we're talking about a route that a dev programmed into the game.
Meanwhile I never understood this complaint. Isn't that rather nihilistic and amoral to a certain extent? We are free to do what we want but there are things we shouldn't. In a similar way you want freedom and choice in a video game but complain when there's, not even that much repercutions, but repudiation for them. One point that Valiona left out is that while a genoside run is easy, that only applies to random encounters. At first it will be the same for bosses but as you go on, they'll get progressively harder, with the hardest boss being on the genocide run. You're not just choosing the easy way out, you're actively going out of your way to be evil, then complain there's a negative to choosing it.
Nihilistic? Amoral? None of the above. Again, we\'re talking about content in a video game? Are we not allowed to enjoy the content the developer puts into their work? I mean they clearly want people to play the game. Why add to it when the point after the fact is for players NOT to see it all? I\'m not against the idea of there being consequences even in a video game, but the outcome of it leading to a permanent bad ending is something I don\'t agree with. Yes, give me all the bad endings but at least allow me to learn my lesson and do something different. You\'re essentially penalizing player curiosity. And it\'s quite asinine given you\'re supposed to forgive and befriend every monster and they can get away with murder.
I feel like there's a conflation of reality and fiction here. It's not morally wrong in and of itself to do the genocide route; Undertale is just fiction.
"Isn't that the point of a game? The enjoyment?" If you see games as a broader form of art than just sources of fun, no. Maybe the point of the genocide route is to have a bad time. Not all art makes you feel happy.
I don't think you're being completely fair to the monsters. They don't see Frisk as just another child, but like a dangerous alien. More likely Brandon Breyer than Clark Kent, though. The paranoia isn't unfounded either, considering Frisk is physically capable of killing every monster even at 0 EXP, including their strongest warrior who can suplex boulders. And the monsters do have to realize they're wrong and stop attacking you. Asgore is their leader who declared war on humans, and by your own admission he's still somewhat sympathetic.
I think the game's biggest shortcoming is the disparity in pathos. While the monsters killed are mourned, the game doesn't make much of a deal of the lives (or deaths) of Frisk. The game could have explored the difference between player and player character more. I suspect Deltarune is going for that, but I don't feel it's succeeded (yet).
Speaking of which, if you want to try a game that highlights the distinction between player and player character, try Oneshot (the Steam version). It's sometimes tedious, depressing, and esoterically puzzling, but I like the ludonarrative story even more than Undertale.
"Many games have good music, so Undertale having good music is nothing to applaud; it should be expected." I'm confused by the thrust of this sentence. People DO rightly applaud other games for good music, so why shouldn't they do the same for Undertale? It doesn't make it special, but it should still be applauded.
I understand there's a mood to be had with the No Mercy run but I still think things like a permanent bad ending are flat out bad design.
Is it really alright to just excuse the monsters in such a manner? Even when Frisk does nothing, he's still being attacked (and possibly killed). Can't really use the "dangerous alien" analogy in that regard. And I consider Asgore more sympathetic because he shows regret for his actions, something none of the other monsters do. So it's not hard to single him out.
And not only does the game seem to not care about poor Frisk who has to die over and again and cater to the whims of these monsters who are more than willing to put his life in danger, there are also the previously deceased children. In the best ending, the monsters responsible for their deaths live on the surface happily while the mourning families and friends of those children have probably long since given up hope of ever seeing them again.
My point about the music is that I notice people REALLY get into it like they've never heard good music before. I'm saying the soundtrack is competent but a tad overpraised. To me, good music is more of a given.
Umm, besides what Ninja said, there is also another good explanation behind the monster \"attacks\" gameplay:
1.-) Each and every time a monster appears the game says \"[Name of the monster] draws near\". This means that monsters aren\'t attacking, they just got close because they got curious when they saw Frisk.
2.-) They haven\'t seen humans for a long time. They don\'t remember or even know how one looks like. For all we know when they see Frisk what they could be thinking is that they are seeing a fellow monster.
3.-) If the Librarby is to be believed then how monsterkind plays is by throwing magic at each other. It just so happens that humans are weak to this.
What all of this means is that during a monster encounter what happened is that a monster noticed Frisk, drew close and then tried to play with Frisk accidentally killing her.
Be clearer, then. I think good music shouldn\'t be taken for granted.
\"Even when Frisk does nothing, he\'s still being attacked (and possibly killed). Can\'t really use the \"dangerous alien\" analogy in that regard.\" Why not? They know little about humans, except that they\'re far stronger, they\'re (supposedly) incapable of love, hope, and compassion, and that they\'re at war with them, which again, was Asgore\'s fault.
I guess the permanence is a tough one to crack. That said, Undertale\'s resulting massive success is hard to argue with. But is popularity everything?
Let me be clear, I'm not saying it's amoral to kill fictional characters, I'm saying it's weird to play a game for choice and consequences then complain about the consequences of your choice. You talk about learning from your mistakes, which you can do, but as I said, it's not easy to complete a genocide run, it can't be done by mistake and the game repeatedly tells you it remembers your choices.
As for the monsters attacking Fisk, that's a Gameplay And Story Segregation. If you notice, most of the monsters aren't attacking you, they're just doing their thing, some don't even hurt you and others even heal you. Aaron just flexes; Vegetoid is trying to get you to eat vegetables; Whimsun can be spared right away and he doesn't technically attack you; Shyren doesn't even know you're behind her while she sings, etc.
@megagutsman
I never took what the library said to face value because many of the monsters talk. Mostly to each other. You never see any example of this method of communication and it's mostly used as a weapon.
And I can concede that some monsters aren't malicious in what they do, but others are and they do wish harm to humans; yet the game treats them as one in the same. And if monster magic is so dangerous to humans, even accidentally, then it's no wonder they're now underground, separate from humans.
And Dragon Quest also does the "[monster] draws near" thing and those monsters attack you so...excuse me if I don't see your point.
@Ninja 857142 Because what danger is a human wandering about, minding their own business? And I'm using Undyne pursuing you as an example. Even when you save the Monster Child in front of her, that barely registers.
And thinking on it, she should be the least likely to behave in such a manner considering she apparently watching anime, and her chasing down a child with intent to kill is something a villain would do.
@marcellX
I have no problems with choices and consequences but I keep saying that 1. while I don't mind getting a bad ending because of something I do, I don't appreciate getting stuck with a bad ending just because I was curious and 2. the monsters should have their own consequences as well and not be able to get away with murder or deserve some modicum of sympathy after threatening a child.
And I'm only referring to the monsters that do mean you harm.
Feigning innocence? Playing the long game? Earning trust through deception? Who knows, the point is that monsters (at least those who try to kill you) believe humans are dangerous and inherently evil. And to be clear, I'm not exonerating them completely, but they're at least understandable.
Can't say I felt too strongly about Undyne either way, aside from her brutal and drawn-out death scene (and even then, I felt more horrified pity for her than actual guilt). Even then, though, when I tried to spare her and plead enough times, I recall the prompt indicating that she has some uncertainties about what she's doing, even if she doesn't stop.
On reflection, I partly agree with you on the dead children. Partly. I place the blame for it chiefly on Asgore, since it's his leadership and declaration to destroy all humans that came to the underground which caused their deaths. For all we know, he killed them all directly. So it makes sense he'd be the one to feel remorse.
However, it is still jarring that everyone gets such a happy ending anyways. Like, apparently humans and monsters get along so easily? Just like that? After killing each other and near-war? Perhaps the ending was too optimistic.
Yeah that's what they believe, but it's still off. I mean imagine a lost and scared child searching for a way back home and they're set upon by a monster that thinks they're the dangerous and proceeds to attack. Who would be the more sympathetic one? Heck, flip the situation around and it's the same thing.
I especially agree with how jarring the happy ending with everyone living on the surface together is. I mean all it took was a child falling in, who just wanted to go home but had to force themselves to deal with monster attacks and making friends with everyone with no incentive whatsoever? It kinda makes everything else pointless, huh? The backstory, the war, the children that HAD to die...I guess a bittersweet ending was uncalled for. And all I'm thinking is "Just wait until a monster kills someone by flexing in front of them".
(Actually, how did the monsters even know that human souls could break the barrier...?)
\"You never see any example of this method of communication and it\'s mostly used as a weapon.\"
Um, I said that monsterkind uses magic to play, not to communicate. Basically, think how Pokemon play-fight.
\"...then it\'s no wonder they\'re now underground, separate from humans.\"
Dude, that is a terrible logic. So simply because they could kill us then they deserve to be trapped inside a barrier with no way out? Even if they didn\'t want to kill humans? What a paranoid way of thinking.
Besides, just as monsterkind has a way to kill us, we have something that they are weak to: Killing Intent. Should we be trapped behind another barrier then?.
\"...and her chasing down a child with intent to kill is something a villain would do.\"
However, a race trapping another race behind a barrier with no way out is something that only villains would do. So, from Undyne\'s point of view, we are the villains here.
\"And I\'m only referring to the monsters that do mean you harm.\"
But this then disqualifies nearly all monsterkind save for 4 characters and all of them have a reason for doing what they are doing:
- Undyne: She\'s overly loyal to her kingdom and king to a fault, so of course she wants to get the last soul required to break the barrier. She\'s basically operating under the logic \"for the good of the majority\".
- Mettaton: Started as a ruse devised by Alphys so Frisk would consider her as her heroine but then Mettaton modified the plan because he wanted to escape the barrier and protect the humans from Asgore.
- Flowey: He\'s outright a villain at this point thanks to all the time he passed without emotions. He basically became a psycopath.
- Sans: He\'s trying to stop you because you became like Flowey and are a danger to both monsterkind and humankind.
If you think any other monster fits this description then explain why they fit.
\"Um, I said that monsterkind uses magic to play, not to communicate.\"
My point is that we need to be shown these things, not told. Again, every instance of magic being used is as a weapon.
\"Dude, that is a terrible logic. So simply because they could kill us then they deserve to be trapped inside a barrier with no way out? Even if they didn\'t want to kill humans? What a paranoid way of thinking.\"
I\'d say the point was to isolate them from humans. The backstory to the conflict between humans and monsters implies something happened to jeopardise the peace between them, and I surmise it was the fact that monsters become destructive beings when they come into contact with human souls, which probably resulted in a mass tragedy for the humans. The concerning part is where it says \"the humans feared our power\', which presents a rather dismissive attitude towards the incident itself, showing that the monsters didn\'t really care about the consequences and assumed the humans overreacted or something.
\"Killing intent.\"
I also don\'t buy that since it\'s never demonstrated in the game. The fight with Toriel where you can accidentally kill her being an example.
I\'ve said enough about Undyne. She gets no sympathy from me. Even if she was following orders, not even hesitating on the idea of killing a young human makes her come off as a rather brutal character. Her ideals are notwithstanding because, saving the Monster Kid in front of her doesn\'t make her think twice about her actions. And after the fact, I\'m pretty sure she doesn\'t even apologize to the kid she tried to run through.
You know, I seem to recall Sans admitting he would have had no problem with ending a child\'s life if a better deal hadn\'t rolled around. And this is while you haven\'t done a thing wrong.
And there are other monsters who intend to kill humans as well. Dogamy and Dogaressa are an easy example off the top of my head.
My memory is foggy, but in general it seems hard to tell whether a monster is \"attacking\" you or \"interacting\" with you.
Hard to say what would happen if the situation was reversed. I don\'t think I\'d trust humankind with a dangerous alien child.
Personally, I think friendship and peace should be incentive in and of itself, so long as the consequences are worth it. Therein lies the rub.
All in all, I think Undertale is relatively great, but it shouldn\'t be. Big game developers are more focused on impressive graphics and comfort zones than bold new ludonarrative ideas. I haven\'t seen many games that take advantage of their interactive nature quite as much as Undertale. There\'s a few, like OneShot, but they\'re the exceptions.
Haven\'t played OFF, though. Maybe I\'ll try it.
I guess I would like Undertale more if it just went in another direction. I do like the premise, truly I do, but I think it should have stuck to \"RPG but you don\'t kill enemies\" than...what it ended up as, pointing fingers at how people play rather than presenting a full alternative.
You want an RPG with no violence? Omit the violence. But don\'t make it look like we have a choice when only one choice seems to matter and you punish players for making a different choice.
Actually, the ideas Andariel presented would probably make the game so much more enjoyable to play.
Well, I would appreciate games with more honest morality than \"Don\'t kill ANYONE.\" A good goal, not a great path.
However, for my playthrough at least, I feel like \"choice\" is the wrong word. I only killed a few monsters in my first playthrough, but I didn\'t real feel guilty, more frustrated and depressed that I wasn\'t smart or prepared enough to save them and reach a happy ending.
But then, the game gave me a second chance.
I could find a happy ending. It wasn\'t about choice, morality, or violence, it was about second chances, grace, and hope.
Of course, since I didn\'t do genocide and just looked up a Let\'s Play, my takeaways will probably be very different. I\'d guess that genocide players, depending on how their mind works, will either think \"Wow, my actions do have consequences!\" or \"This permanent bad ending mechanic ruined the game\'s good graces!\" or \"Eh, it\'s just a video game, I\'ll just rewrite its files and only think about the happy bits.\"
As to your original question, why the game is so popular, I suspect it\'s in part because Toby Fox is a master of trolling and leading on his fans. This video![](\"https://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/external_link.gif\")
sums it up well.
\"My point is that we need to be shown these things, not told.\"
The game is showing them to you, all you need to do is pay attention. There are \"attacks\" whose descriptions sound more like games or tricks than outright attacks. Just from the top of my mind we have the carrot enemy simply trying to get Frisk to eat healthy, Napstablook not meaning for his tears to harm Frisk and Woshua simply trying to clean her. So is not \"every instance\".
\"...and I surmise it was the fact that monsters become destructive beings when they come into contact with human souls, which probably resulted in a mass tragedy for the humans.\"
The problem with this argument is that you lack evidence. There\'s no evidence that a monster growing drunk with power after absorbing a human soul was the cause behind the first monster/human war.
However, I am ready to admit that the reason why you lack evidence is because Toby Fox himself hasn\'t told us what started the war. That is still a big blank that we have behind the Undertale lore.
\"...showing that the monsters didn\'t really care about the consequences and assumed the humans overreacted or something.\"
Of course they will think that humans overreacted, monsterkind is trapped behind a barrier for the rest of eternity. Tell me of somebody that would accept to pass eternity trapped behind some walls and I will show you a liar.
\"I also don\'t buy that since it\'s never demonstrated in the game.\"
It actually is, that is the entire point behind the Genocide route. In said route what couldn\'t be older than a 10 years old kid is killing with ease the entirety of monsterkind (or at least those that couldn\'t escape in time), this entire route shows how pathetically weak monsterkind is to killing intent.
This actually puts both races on the same level, so one race deciding to lock the other one behind a barrier thanks to fear does look a little bit paranoid.
\"...not even hesitating on the idea of killing a young human makes her come off as a rather brutal character.\"
Why? She has a tough decision in front of her. You have to remember that there was no way for Undyne to know that not killing Frisk would mean freeing monsterkind from the barrier. Her options were either let Frisk go and monster stay put behind a barrier forever or kill her and free monsterkind from the barrier. None of her options were good.
Just answer me this: Is it fine for monsterkind to spend the rest of eternity trapped behind a wall like prisoners simply because they committed the sin of being born a monster?.
\"...saving the Monster Kid in front of her doesn\'t make her think twice about her actions.\"
It actually does, she says as much in one of her phone convos. And prior to you saying that they don\'t count am gonna tell you that they do because all of them are canonical and we\'re are talking about her characterization, so sources like this one are more than valid.
\"And after the fact, I\'m pretty sure she doesn\'t even apologize to the kid she tried to run through.\"
Actually, she does. Twice, even. Once during her own date and again during the Pacifist epilogue.
\"You know, I seem to recall Sans admitting he would have had no problem with ending a child\'s life if a better deal hadn\'t rolled around.\"
Sans can see the fourth wall. Not to the level of Dead Pool, but close. Is more like he knows about the different timelines (something he admits during his own boss battle). All he is trying here is to scare Frisk into not doing a Genocide Route. It is up to the player how effective this tactic really is.
\"Dogamy and Dogaressa are an easy example off the top of my head.\"
They are dogs and all dogs in fiction are overtly loyal. Why would they betray their kingdom? And more so when they have no good reason to do so and a lot to win (the freedom of all monsterkind) by remaining loyal.
But did that happy ending feel natural? Or did you feel like you were just being led to that outcome?
I\'ve seen a lot of guesses for this game\'s popularity, from having meme-like humor that easily attracts the attention of internet-goers, to riding the coattails of Mother, using cheap gimmicks or people being easily impressed and forgetting that various aspects of Undertale are handled in better games.
@megagutsman
"The game is showing them to you, all you need to do is pay attention. There are "attacks" whose descriptions sound more like games or tricks than outright attacks."
The fact that it harms you is the problem. Which is why I feel that explanation is BS and was probably added at the last minute. If Vegetoid just wants you feed you, why do its other attacks harm you?
"The problem with this argument is that you lack evidence. There's no evidence that a monster growing drunk with power after absorbing a human soul was the cause behind the first monster/human war."
Like I said, I can only surmise that. Based on two things in fact. One, the game flat out tells us that a monster becomes a dangerous being when it absorbs a human soul and two, Asriel's backstory.
"Of course they will think that humans overreacted, monsterkind is trapped behind a barrier for the rest of eternity. Tell me of somebody that would accept to pass eternity trapped behind some walls and I will show you a liar."
Excuse me for how this will sound, but are the monsters suffering? Like, at all? They have food, electricity, cellphone reception, vegetation, access to a form of entertainment found in a certain nation, WEATHER...all underground somehow. They have a society. And not in one instance does it look like they're suffering or in danger. They seem to have adapted well.
"It actually is, that is the entire point behind the Genocide route."
I like how you bypassed my example with Toriel. Most players wouldn't want to kill her, yet the game seems you egg you on in such a way that they resort to a certain hint a frog gives. Then, oops! Scripted critical hit and Toriel is dead. Now tell me, where was the killing intent?
"Why? She has a tough decision in front of her. You have to remember that there was no way for Undyne to know that not killing Frisk would mean freeing monsterkind from the barrier."
Tough? Hardly. She seemed more than eager to doggedly pursue a child, chucking an endless supply of tridents at them. She seemed willing to consider the life of a child expendable enough not to care.
"Actually, she does. Twice, even. Once during her own date and again during the Pacifist epilogue."
From what I can recall, she's still quite hostile and reluctant, only giving in once Papyrus strokes her ego. Not sure if that counts. You sure she actually apologizes?
"Sans can see the fourth wall. Not to the level of Dead Pool, but close. Is more like he knows about the different timelines (something he admits during his own boss battle). All he is trying here is to scare Frisk into not doing a Genocide Route. It is up to the player how effective this tactic really is."
I know that's a thing but I find it silly nonetheless. At least when Bravely Default had a character that knew of the fourth wall, it makes sense as said character is a god. With Sans, it makes no sense. There's literally nothing special about the dude. At. All. He is practically useless and pointless for most of the story. And if he knows of the timelines (for whatever reason), why threaten a child who hasn't even come close to doing anything bad? How does telling someone "hey, I'm only letting you live because I shared jokes with a stranger and they made me promise" do any good? They'd be scared that you would end up killing them anyway, if a better deal rolls by, then probably kill you and other suspicious looking monsters just to be safe. Frankly, it's counterintuitive, which betrays the whole "knowing the timelines" bit. And it also doesn't play out well considering the guy does nothing as a precaution during the No Mercy run anyway.
I said it before and I'll say it again. Sans is a good-for-nothing.
\"But did that happy ending feel natural? Or did you feel like you were just being led to that outcome?\"
Yes and yes. Again, \"choice\" wasn\'t the theme of my experience.
As you said. You got a \"second chance\". But only because the game gave it to you in order to get the best and only ending. It goes back to my issue with the game only having one choice that matters with the illusion of freedom.
Is that wrong? Games are often designed around the illusion of freedom. I don\'t know if free will exists, or even exactly how to define it. But that\'s another massive can of worms.
Okay, prior I say anything else I just want to ask you something: No matter what anybody says you will continue to hate Undertale, right? You want to hate the game, right?.
Anyhow, that is all I have to ask you prior. Am just curious because it looks to me like you are adamant in wanting to hate Undertale no matter what.
\"If Vegetoid just wants you feed you, why do its other attacks harm you?\"
Simple, because is magical. No matter what the intention was, magic will always harm humans.
\"Which is why I feel that explanation is BS...\"
Nope, it isn\'t. That you don\'t want to accept it is another thing entirely but the explanation exists.
\"...and was probably added at the last minute.\"
Evidence for this argument needed. Heck, seeing how that explanation is pivotal for the reasoning behind the human/monster war (humans fearing monsters because of a [as of today still undisclosed] incident) and monsters ending up trapped behind the barrier I would say that the explanation wasn\'t created at the last second. Unless you are trying to argue that the entire story was haphazardly rewritten at the last minute, in which case I am really curious to know your evidence behind that argument.
\"One, the game flat out tells us that a monster becomes a dangerous being when it absorbs a human soul...\"
And humans could also become overly dangerous if they started killing monsters as well. So is not like one is stronger than the other, is more like both are equally strong but one could surpass the other under specific conditions.
Tell me, seeing how monsters could also be killed with ease by humans (I mean, an small child was strong enough to kill boss monsters even if she hasn\'t killed at all and this was her first fight [as can be seen with her fight against Asgore]), would it have been fine for them to be the ones to trap the entirety of humanity behind a barrier simply because they were fearing for their lives?.
\"...and two, Asriel\'s backstory.\"
This actually goes against your argument. This scene shows that humans are strong enough to kill a monster with ease, so shouldn\'t it be the monsters the ones that fear for their lives and not humans? Heck, it even paints humans as assholes that don\'t care about hearing explanations and will simply kill monsters if even one reason is given to them (seeing how they tried to kill Asriel without letting him explain himself first).
\"They have food, electricity, cellphone reception, vegetation, access to a form of entertainment found in a certain nation, WEATHER...all underground somehow. They have a society. And not in one instance does it look like they\'re suffering or in danger. They seem to have adapted well.\"
Okay, this tells me that I am talking with somebody that has never lived in a third world country. I can relate with what the monsters went trough because it is something I myself am still living through. Yeah, we both had food, electricity, entertainment, vegetation and even weather, yet it still isn\'t humane to force a group to spend their lives trapped somewhere against their will, no matter how much you want to sugarcoat it. We both still wanted to escape and finally be free.
\"yet the game seems you egg you on in such a way that they resort to a certain hint a frog gives.\"
Oh yeah, the game eggs you on to kill her by giving her a tragic backstory and making her one of the sweetest characters ever (so much so that the entire fanbase nicknamed her \"Goat Mom\"). How couldn\'t I see that.
Also, only somebody really impatient would resort to trying to hit her seeing how it only takes 4 turns for her to start talking. Heck, freaking Rangu, somebody clumsy that tends to miss this kinds of hints, quickly understood how not to kill her. If he could then why not anybody else?.
\"Now tell me, where was the killing intent?\"
Simple, in the excitement of the situation. Believe it or not, we humans have something called \"adrenaline\" that will make us stronger in this kind of situations. What happened was that Frisk was doing more damage than she though she was doing and then managed to hit a weak spot by mere fluke. It can happen.
\"She seemed willing to consider the life of a child expendable enough not to care.\"
Of course she though so, after all, for her, it was either the kid escapes or her entire kingdom escapes.
Let me put you in situation: Lets say that Saw kidnapped you, your loved ones and a random kid from a country you nor your loved ones know the language of (the same applies to the kid) and were all put inside an inescapable building divided in two sides. Both sides get food, electricity, vegetation, entertainment created by Saw and weather. Saw told the girl that if she managed to get to the other side of the building without dying (because he told her that you and everybody you love are dangerous) then everybody would leave. He told you and your loved ones that he had sent a kid to your side of the building so only she could escape, however, if you kill her then both you and your loved ones would escape. Tell me, what would you do? Risk potentially passing the rest of your life trapped inside the building for the sake of the kid? or would you sacrifice her so you could escape?. This is exactly the kind of situation Undyne was going through.
\"...she\'s still quite hostile and reluctant, only giving in once Papyrus strokes her ego.\"
Nope, she was just acting tough because she has an ego. And are you trying to say that she should have had a radical change from one point to the other? That wouldn\'t be realistic, much less good writing.
\"You sure she actually apologizes?\"
Yes, yes she does.
\"There\'s literally nothing special about the dude. At. All.\"
Of course not, if you don\'t pay attention to the finer details. He was a scientist and even worked together with both Alphys and Gaster. Heck, he even admits in the Genocide Route that he had been investigating already about timelines thanks to the deja vus he had been having lately (deja vus caused by the time resets Flowey did). He had good reason to know about the timelines.
\"How does telling someone \"hey, I\'m only letting you live because I shared jokes with a stranger and they made me promise\" do any good?\"
Simple, because if he scares her then she may decide not to do a Genocide Route after. Of course, not everybody thinks alike, so meanwhile this could be a good challenge for some, it may be a good enough excuse to not do said route. This is why I said that his tactic changes depending on the player.
Something else you don\'t know is that this game divides the playable character (\"Frisk\") from the player (either you, me or whoever is playing). This is part of a bigger theory that I don\'t want to explain. However, if you are curious, it is called the \"Chara Narrator Theory\".
I wouldn\'t say \"wrong\" but moreso...misleading...?
@megagutsman
\"No matter what anybody says you will continue to hate Undertale, right? You want to hate the game, right?\"
Would it surprise you if I told you I initially liked the game at first? I thought it was well made and I still do. But the novelty wore off after the first hour or so when I decided to stop and think about what I was playing, as well as analyze the narrative I was experiencing. I made it a point to mention that I saw the premise as promising for a reason, but even while I was enjoying the game, a few things rubbed me the wrong way and I continued to play, all while wishing things were done a tad differently, one aspect being having YOU show mercy to the monsters that instigate the conflict. And I\'m considering the encounters as such because that\'s how Toriel describes them. It only got worse from there, from the trickery during the Toriel fight to the backstory of monsters and humans that contained very suspicous wording. My view of the game went from interest to disappoint to sheer disdain, especially when it came to the No Mercy route and its message that apparently something is wrong with you if you want to enjoy a game you paid for and put time into to the fullest.
So no, I didn\'t want to feel this way about the game. Playing the game led me to how I feel now.
\" Simple, because is magical. No matter what the intention was, magic will always harm humans.\"
And then I have to ask if these monsters are incapable of realizing that they\'re causing this child pain. That makes them quite dangerous, even if not deliberately.
\"Nope, it isn\'t. That you don\'t want to accept it is another thing entirely but the explanation exists.\"
Because again, if it\'s a form of communication, why do monsters otherwise talk? Why is every other instance of a monster using magic is as a weapon? They even hurt EACH OTHER when they don\'t mean to. That\'s why I have my suspicions about the validity of such an explanation.
\"Tell me, seeing how monsters could also be killed with ease by humans (I mean, an small child was strong enough to kill boss monsters even if she hasn\'t killed at all and this was her first fight [as can be seen with her fight against Asgore]), would it have been fine for them to be the ones to trap the entirety of humanity behind a barrier simply because they were fearing for their lives?\"
Neither. I don\'t remember congratulating the humans for making the decision to separate themselves from the monster race, but considering the circumstances, it would seem that was their last resort to keep the rest of humanity safe. I cannot call them the assholes in that regard.
\"This actually goes against your argument. This scene shows that humans are strong enough to kill a monster with ease, so shouldn\'t it be the monsters the ones that fear for their lives and not humans?\"
Actually, it goes with my argument. Asriel wasn\'t killed because he was a monster. He was killed because he was carrying a human corpse, and to the other humans he could\'ve transformed at any moment. That\'s why I have that theory on what started the war.
\"Oh yeah, the game eggs you on to kill her by giving her a tragic backstory and making her one of the sweetest characters ever (so much so that the entire fanbase nicknamed her \"Goat Mom\"). How couldn\'t I see that.\"
Yes. The game eggs you on by telling you that talking won\'t work and attempts to spare her will only result in increasing ellipses, which has led most players into thinking their attempta aren\'t working so they try to whittle her down. So I guess you can talk to the people who thought to utilize advice from a seemingly helpful NPC instead of hitting an option 20 times that didn\'t appear to work the first 4 times. Also, a few things about Toriel; wasn\'t it her fault that Asgore is doing what he\'s doing while she hides away branding him the villain? I don\'t really see her as very endearing when she\'s trying to forcefully adopt a child (who probably has a mother of their own worried sick) to replace the children she lost. So the fanbase calling her Goat Mom is more in the creepy Stockholm Syndrome territory than anything else.
\"Simple, in the excitement of the situation. Believe it or not, we humans have something called \"adrenaline\" that will make us stronger in this kind of situations.\"
Evidence for this argument needed. Not sure how well it meshes since after killing her, the game calls you out on this claiming you wanted to kill her in the first place. It doesn\'t give you the benefit of the doubt and suggest that maybe you went too far or got too excited in the moment. Also, correct me if I\'m incorrect but I\'m pretty sure you can\'t kill Asgore when you fight him and he\'s left at 1 HP. Wouldn\'t an all out fight against the king of monsters garner more adrenaline than Miss Mimiga But With Horns trying to stop you from leaving her home?
\"Tell me, what would you do? Risk potentially passing the rest of your life trapped inside the building for the sake of the kid? or would you sacrifice her so you could escape?\"
Dude, I would stay there. Even the thought of killing a child doesn\'t set right with me and I know I will feel that guilt for the rest of my life. And I\'m sure my loved ones will be sorely ashamed of me for even committing such an act.
\"And are you trying to say that she should have had a radical change from one point to the other? That wouldn\'t be realistic, much less good writing.\"
Considering she goes from trying to kill you to \"anime is real\", it wouldn\'t be the least jarring thing in Undertale...
\"Simple, because if he scares her then she may decide not to do a Genocide Route after. Of course, not everybody thinks alike, so meanwhile this could be a good challenge for some, it may be a good enough excuse to not do said route. This is why I said that his tactic changes depending on the player.\"
Um, no, no that still doesn\'t make sense. Remember that the scene happens while Frisk hasn\'t done anything wrong. And it ends up giving a bad impression of Sans. If all it took for him to not kill this child was sharing jokes with a stranger, what better deal could there be for him to renege?
\"Something else you don\'t know is that this game divides the playable character (\"Frisk\") from the player (either you, me or whoever is playing).\"
I know, and that manner of fourth wall breaking brings with it its own set of narrative issues. Who are we then? In the No Mercy run, we are apparently an evil force that just wants to level up, but that\'s only if we kill everything. What if we don\'t? Then suddenly it\'s all Frisk\'s benevolent doing. It contradicts itself. Again, I have to lean to Bravely Default for doing this better, as you, the player are meant to be a celestial being from another dimension, watching things unfold and assisting the party. Your presence is even foreshadowed by one of the antagonists and it comes full circle rather than switching the roles around for the sake of convenience.
\"Would it surprise you if I told you I initially liked the game at first?\"
Yes, I actually would be. Because nothing you have said till now gives that impression.
\"...one aspect being having YOU show mercy to the monsters that instigate the conflict.\"
Problem is that, as I have explained prior, none of the minor monsters instigate any kind of conflict to begin with, is just how you want to see things.
\"And I\'m considering the encounters as such because that\'s how Toriel describes them.\"
Somebody that shouldn\'t be 100% trusted thanks to her biases making her think that all monsters want to kill humans (the reason why she got Sans to help her).
\"...to the backstory of monsters and humans that contained very suspicous wording.\"
What \"suspicious wording\"? Is just your headcanon that makes it suspicious.
\"...especially when it came to the No Mercy route and its message that apparently something is wrong with you if you want to enjoy a game you paid for and put time into to the fullest.\"
I mean, seeing how many people also enjoyed Spec Ops: The Line (another game with a similar message), I would say that Toby actually did a good thing and you may be part of a minority.
\"And then I have to ask if these monsters are incapable of realizing that they\'re causing this child pain.\"
Of course they are, is been years (probably even a century or two) since the last human fell into the underground. Most monsters wouldn\'t be able to recognize a human from another monster.
\"Because again, if it\'s a form of communication, why do monsters otherwise talk?\"
Because it isn\'t a form of communication, why do you continue to equal it with one?.
\"Why is every other instance of a monster using magic is as a weapon?\"
Is not only used as a weapon, it is also used for everyday activities as well. For example, that is how Toriel cooks her pies, by using her own fire.
\"...it would seem that was their last resort to keep the rest of humanity safe. I cannot call them the assholes in that regard.\"
Problem is that there\'s no good reason for why they would decide to trap monsters behind a barrier to begin with. There\'s no evidence behind this supposed \"monster attack\" that made humans decide to take such drastic action.
\"He was killed because he was carrying a human corpse, and to the other humans he could\'ve transformed at any moment.\"
No, he was killed because he was a monster carrying a human corpse. Even worse, nobody wanted to hear his side of the story prior, otherwise the villagers would have known that Chara died by poisoning, not murdered by monsters.
Had the positions being switched then am sure the human villagers would have heard human Asriel out. This is why I say they were assholes.
\"The game eggs you on by telling you that talking won\'t work and attempts to spare her will only result in increasing ellipses, which has led most players into thinking their attempta aren\'t working so they try to whittle her down.\"
However, your attacks do so little damage to her, that she would have started speaking by the time you reach close to killing her, so the most logical thing to do would be to start hitting the Spare button now to see if she has new dialogue.
\"wasn\'t it her fault that Asgore is doing what he\'s doing while she hides away branding him the villain?\"
Nope, you have it backwards. Is him doing what he\'s doing what made her severe her ties with him and decide to move to the Ruins.
And prior you say anything, the game does paint Asgore in the wrong here, going so far to paint him as an idiot that took a rash decision in a moment of weakness and then didn\'t have the strength to take it back.
\"I don\'t really see her as very endearing when she\'s trying to forcefully adopt a child (who probably has a mother of their own worried sick) to replace the children she lost.\"
Welcome to the world of PTSD, are you new here?. Toriel suffers of PTSD thanks to her loss and a way people with that same PTSD deal with the situation is by searching for a replacement. Why else do you think the trope \"Replacement Goldfish\" exists?.
Besides, the game lets you decide to have Frisk stay with her, so either Frisk\'s parents are dead or she doesn\'t care much about them.
\"So the fanbase calling her Goat Mom is more in the creepy Stockholm Syndrome territory than anything else.\"
Oh yeah, call us creeps, that wont fly in a bad way at all and wont make the fanbase consider you an asshole either.
\"...the game calls you out on this claiming you wanted to kill her in the first place.\"
The game not, Flowey, a character that tends to lie and who cannot nor shouldn\'t be believed 100% of the time. He is like Ouma from Danganronpa V3.
\"...and suggest that maybe you went too far or got too excited in the moment.\"
This proves my point. Excitement can indeed make you stronger than you think you are. I myslef have hit people stronger than I wanted to by mistake.
\"Wouldn\'t an all out fight against the king of monsters garner more adrenaline than Miss Mimiga But With Horns trying to stop you from leaving her home?\"
Dude, you are missing the context here. Toriel is Frisk first major fight and there\'s no evidence that would suggest that Frisk has experience fighting prior, so is understandable that a fluke like this could happen. However, Asgore is fought at the end and by then Frisk should have learned a little bit of self control, making it possible for her to leave him with 1HP.
\"Dude, I would stay there.\"
Good for you, yet not everybody would do the same as you and nobody (except for Saw) would be in the wrong here. What I hope you noticed with my little experiment is that Undyne\'s situation is a matter of morals, so is more complex than you are giving it credit for being.
\"And I\'m sure my loved ones will be sorely ashamed of me for even committing such an act.\"
Oh, I wouldn\'t be so sure of that. They could be quite different than you think they are in moments of duress like the one I came up with. People are complex, after all.
\"Considering she goes from trying to kill you to \"anime is real\",...\"
One thing talks about her moral code and the other simply talks about her beliefs, I don\'t see how both couldn\'t be true of her at the same time. As I said prior, people are complex, I have met bikers that quite enjoy MLP, just to give you one example.
\"If all it took for him to not kill this child was sharing jokes with a stranger, what better deal could there be for him to renege?\"
Simple that he\'s kind, so he wanted to give Frisk the benefit of the doubt. It also helps that he, being lazy, saw this as a good enough excuse to do nothing and watch.
\"It contradicts itself.\"
No, it doesn\'t. You just think it does because you don\'t know the \"Chara is the Narrator\" theory. said theory posits that the playable character is actually formed by three entities:
- Frisk, the PC and the one that would execute all the actions.
- Chara, the one the save file is named after, the narrator and the one that actually brings the knowledge of the underground into the equation.
- The player, the one that brings the moral code and takes all the decisions.
This would mean that depending on the players decision Chara is modified into either a demonic entity that wants to see the world burn or a benign entity that wants to protect both Frisk and the monsters.
The theory is actually longer and more complex, however, put bluntly, I am too lazy to explain it fully. I would suggest for you to read more about it prior to replying so we are on the same channel here.
"Yes, I actually would be. Because nothing you have said till now gives that impression."
Yeah, it's called changing perspectives and not allowing my initial awe to cloud any criticisms I may end up with. Not saying my end result is a given but personally, I just ended up seeing a lot of flaws and problems with the game that keep it from being a "masterpiece".
"Problem is that, as I have explained prior, none of the minor monsters instigate any kind of conflict to begin with, is just how you want to see things."
I think I acknowledged that before. But there are still other monsters who have no qualms about harming a child.
"What "suspicious wording"? Is just your headcanon that makes it suspicious."
I've also explained this.
"I would say that Toby actually did a good thing and you may be part of a minority."
What's the "good thing" exactly? Misconstruing why people do certain things in video games?
"Of course they are, is been years (probably even a century or two) since the last human fell into the underground. Most monsters wouldn't be able to recognize a human from another monster."
Sorry, what does that have to do with noticing something's in pain?
"Because it isn't a form of communication, why do you continue to equal it with one?"
Because the game very much implies it, claiming that humans won't know the joys of expressing themselves to others with magical projectiles as one would with a greeting card.
"Problem is that there's no good reason for why they would decide to trap monsters behind a barrier to begin with. There's no evidence behind this supposed "monster attack" that made humans decide to take such drastic action."
Um, you mean apart from monsters being able to absorb human souls? You don't think that's cause for humans to be concerned? Especially when it ends up changing monsters for the worst?
"No, he was killed because he was a monster carrying a human corpse. Even worse, nobody wanted to hear his side of the story prior, otherwise the villagers would have known that Chara died by poisoning, not murdered by monsters."
Yes, I just said that. And again the humans might have thought he already absorbed the child's soul and could transform at any moment and become a threat. It probably doesn't matter how one dies as the soul is freed all the same.
"Nope, you have it backwards. Is him doing what he's doing what made her severe her ties with him and decide to move to the Ruins."
But she does call him out on not having the spine to go to the surface to obtain souls. What I'm saying is that she could have done better.
"Welcome to the world of PTSD, are you new here?. Toriel suffers of PTSD thanks to her loss and a way people with that same PTSD deal with the situation is by searching for a replacement. Why else do you think the trope "Replacement Goldfish" exists?."
Does PTSD lead you to try and adopt probably someone else's child?
"This proves my point. Excitement can indeed make you stronger than you think you are. I myslef have hit people stronger than I wanted to by mistake."
What? No, I'm saying while the game accuses you of wanting to kill Toriel all along, it never suggests that maybe it was an accident or that you got excited in the moment. (And yes, it's the game. That crit is scripted.)
"Dude, you are missing the context here. Toriel is Frisk first major fight and there's no evidence that would suggest that Frisk has experience fighting prior, so is understandable that a fluke like this could happen."
As opposed to every other encounter beforehand where attacking a monster before sparing them works without the need for scripted crits killing them? So what makes Toriel and Asgore any different? Hell, Asgore was HOPING for retribution. Most players likely didn't want to kill Toriel. My entire point is that "killing intent" is BS.
"Good for you, yet not everybody would do the same as you and nobody (except for Saw) would be in the wrong here. What I hope you noticed with my little experiment is that Undyne's situation is a matter of morals, so is more complex than you are giving it credit for being."
Except my morals would keep me from killing a child. What's Undyne's excuse?
"Oh, I wouldn't be so sure of that. They could be quite different than you think they are in moments of duress like the one I came up with. People are complex, after all."
I think I'd know my own family better than you, thank you very much.
"Simple that he's kind, so he wanted to give Frisk the benefit of the doubt. "
Kind people don't make threats to children.
"No, it doesn't. You just think it does because you don't know the "Chara is the Narrator" theory. said theory posits that the playable character is actually formed by three entities."
So why is Frisk credited with being good while YOUR name is solely relegated to a malevolent entity? If the child you play as is one and the same with us, then it wouldn't have a separate name from the one we enter. Which is why the whole thing contradicts itself, if only for the sake of contrived convenience. And frankly, it's quite obtuse.
\"But there are still other monsters who have no qualms about harming a child.\"
Like which ones?.
\"What\'s the \"good thing\" exactly?\"
That it give the player the freedom to be either good or evil and chastised them only if required. This is pretty similar to Spec Ops, but the only reason why I think it is better is because in Spec Ops there\'s no choice, you have to be evil and then the game chastises you for playing the game, the only way to be a pacifist in said game is by not buying the game. At least in Undertale there are three full-fleshed routes.
\"claiming that humans won\'t know the joys of expressing themselves to others with magical projectiles as one would with a greeting card.\"
Dude, that was only an example the writer of the book was giving about what monsters could do with magic, it doesn\'t mean that that is the only pacifist thing they can do with magic. Why are you taking everything in Undertale 100% literal?.
\"You don\'t think that\'s cause for humans to be concerned?\"
Nope, I don\'t think it is enough cause for concern, yet. You have a consequence (a monster killing a human and absorbing their soul) yet you are lacking a cause (why would a monster do this?), without that the argument that humanity should fear monsters sounds more like paranoia. Tell me: Seeing how anybody could be carrying a gun in real life and could decide to kill you for no good reason, do you fear everybody that you have around in the streets?.
\"And again the humans might have thought he already absorbed the child\'s soul and could transform at any moment and become a threat.\"
However, don\'t you think that Asriel deserved the humane right of being heard out? That, prior to being executed, somebody should have asked him for his side of the story? Am not even asking for him to be believed, mind you, only heard out. Yet what the game says is that Asriel was killed on the spot. Heck, he didn\'t even defend himself (even when Chara did really want to kill humans), so the villagers had ample opportunity to ask him, yet they didn\'t. That is why I consider the villagers assholes, because they treated Asriel, a monster, as a mere wild animal.
\"What I\'m saying is that she could have done better.\"
How? She already cut all ties with him and called him out. Were you expecting for her to beat him senseless? That wouldn\'t have been pacifist (what Toriel preaches about) because it wouldn\'t have been either required (because Asgore is already accepting his mistakes) nor useful at all.
\"Does PTSD lead you to try and adopt probably someone else\'s child?\"
Yes, yes it could. Is not sane, mind you, yet it is still realistic. Is like the old saying goes: \"Sometimes reality is crazier than fiction\".
\"...I\'m saying while the game accuses you of wanting to kill Toriel all along,...\"
Again, this is said by Flowey, somebody that you really shouldn\'t take anything he says 100% literal. He even calls you on your hypocrisy if you managed to spare Toriel on your first try even when it is obvious that he is wrong. He is not somebody you should trust.
\"...it never suggests that maybe it was an accident or that you got excited in the moment.\"
And how could the game have suggested this?.
\"So what makes Toriel and Asgore any different?\"
That they are boss monsters so Toby Fox could know when they would happen, giving him the freedom of creating all the events he wanted in their fight to happen. Random encounters happen randomly, so Toby wouldn\'t be able to predict when they could happen, ergo, situations like this couldn\'t be created.
\"Hell, Asgore was HOPING for retribution.\"
Yet sometimes things don\'t go as we want them to go. And Frisk didn\'t want to kill him so she didn\'t.
\"Most players likely didn\'t want to kill Toriel.\"
Accidents can happen and in the heat of the situation adrenaline could kick in.
\"My entire point is that \"killing intent\" is BS.\"
You only think it is BS because you don\'t want to accept my explanations. This is why I asked you earlier if you were trying to hate Undertale for hate\'s sake. At this point I feel like I am talking to a brick wall.
\"What\'s Undyne\'s excuse?\"
Her own moral code. Like it or not, people (and monsters as well this time around) can have vastly different moral codes and that doesn\'t make anybody wrong. You just have to respect other\'s moral codes as others respect yours. I mean, who gave you the right to judge whose moral code is right and whose is wrong?.
\"Kind people don\'t make threats to children.\"
And what else could he do? Not do anything and risk Frisk going the same route Flowey went through?.
\"...while YOUR name is solely relegated to a malevolent entity?\"
What name? The name you have to enter at the beginning of the game? Because that isn\'t the PC\'s (Frisk) name, that is the name of the Fallen Child a.k.a Chara, in other words that is the name of the human kid both Asgore and Toriel lost that lead to Asgore finally wanting to break the barrier. This is something Asriel leaves abundantly clear during the Pacifist ending.
"Like which ones?"
I gave my example with the dogs. There's still Undyne. And Mettaton. And Muffet. And the odd encounter here and there of monsters who shoot rather dangerous looking magic at a child.
"That it give the player the freedom to be either good or evil and chastised them only if required."
You may need to define what you mean by freedom. There's still the matter of the permanent bad ending.
"Dude, that was only an example the writer of the book was giving about what monsters could do with magic, it doesn't mean that that is the only pacifist thing they can do with magic. Why are you taking everything in Undertale 100% literal?"
Didn't you say before that monsterkind uses magic to play and that's what they're doing in every encounter?
"Nope, I don't think it is enough cause for concern, yet. You have a consequence (a monster killing a human and absorbing their soul) yet you are lacking a cause (why would a monster do this?), without that the argument that humanity should fear monsters sounds more like paranoia."
If monsters and humans were already living together on the surface once upon a time, why would something like paranoia suddenly come up? It's too bad I only have to make guesses based on the game's own information, but it doesn't make sense to play the "humans are always prejudiced and fearful" card in this case given what we've seen monsters do. Everything that we know most likely points to an incident involving a human's soul and the game tells you what happens when a monster comes into contact with one, meaning the monsters themselves have knowledge of this phenomena.
"However, don't you think that Asriel deserved the humane right of being heard out? That, prior to being executed, somebody should have asked him for his side of the story?"
I get what you're saying, bur I feel you might be misunderstanding my reasoning. Assuming the humans also have knowledge of what happens to monsters when they've taken in a human soul, what would they even hear out? Again, to them, Asriel might have already absorbed a soul and was just moments away from transforming. So no, I can't say those humans were assholes in that regard. I'm only making the assumptions I am because of the circumstances involved. What we're already told through bits and pieces and the Asriel going to the village carrying a dead human and being attacked as opposed to him just strolling into town by himself and being attacked.
"How? She already cut all ties with him and called him out. Were you expecting for her to beat him senseless? That wouldn't have been pacifist (what Toriel preaches about) because it wouldn't have been either required (because Asgore is already accepting his mistakes) nor useful at all."
I like how I said "she could have done better" and you immediately go to domestic abuse. I mean she could've done something than just belittle him then run off when he went too far.
"Again, this is said by Flowey, somebody that you really shouldn't take anything he says 100% literal. He even calls you on your hypocrisy if you managed to spare Toriel on your first try even when it is obvious that he is wrong. He is not somebody you should trust."
Is Flowey also in control of the scripted crit? I mean if the player was free to just kill her to get berated by Flowey that would be one thing, but to have a scripted crit then have character chastise you for it is a different matter.
"And how could the game have suggested this?"
Uh, by suggesting that maybe you went too far or got too excited in the moment? Yo know, instead of going YOU WANTED TO KILL HER DIDN'T YOU. In any case, your adrenaline suggestion out of nowhere doesn't hold water.
"That they are boss monsters so Toby Fox could know when they would happen, giving him the freedom of creating all the events he wanted in their fight to happen. Random encounters happen randomly, so Toby wouldn't be able to predict when they could happen, ergo, situations like this couldn't be created."
Random, yes. But you'll still at least encounter one foe before facing Toriel. And why have an NPC give you hints on how to win encounters (a hint that works for every other encounter prior to this one boss) if they're infrequent?
"Yet sometimes things don't go as we want them to go. And Frisk didn't want to kill him so she didn't."
But Toriel was fair game...see this is why the "killing intent" BS is BS. And yes, it's because I'm not accepting your explanation. You're claiming things like adrenaline, I tell you that isn't made clear by the game and you ask me how the game could have made it clear. So you have NOTHING to base that reasoning on.
"Her own moral code. Like it or not, people (and monsters as well this time around) can have vastly different moral codes and that doesn't make anybody wrong."
Sorry, but someone with a moral code that leads them to think that hunting down a child like a game animal is just is a messed up sort. Undyne doesn't get a pass from me and the game is crazy for thinking I'll be sorry for killing her.
Good riddance.
"And what else could he do?"
Derp, I dunno, NOT tell a child he was more than eager to KILL them? Maybe? Mayhaps? If he's supposed to be preventing a disaster from happening that this child is involved in, why not GUIDE the child on their journey? Make sure things don't go wrong? How do you expect anything to go right when you tell a child you were going to kill them when you first met, then go "yup, that'll keep the from going on a murderous rampage later on". And if something DID go wrong, he'd be the one at fault for being absolutely and utterly stupid and useless.
"What name? The name you have to enter at the beginning of the game? Because that isn't the PC's (Frisk) name, that is the name of the Fallen Child a.k.a Chara, in other words that is the name of the human kid both Asgore and Toriel lost that lead to Asgore finally wanting to break the barrier."
Yes, I know. I'm asking why, your theory withstanding, are WE the evil child?
You know, when I first saw this review, before any comments were put on it. I knew it was going to be gold dust. Pure gold dust.
Nobody, but NOBODY, gets more pissed off if you don\'t much care for their game then Undertale fans. They really do remind one that the root form of Fan is \"Fanatic\".
Not surprising. This IS the fandom that straight up death threats Let\'s players for \"not getting the voices right\" or not doing 100% pacifist run because \"How fucking DARE YOU!?!?!?!\"
\"I gave my example with the dogs.\"
An example I already rebutted, so I wont repeat myself.
\"There\'s still Undyne.\"
That as you can see is highly debatable.
\"And Mettaton.\"
Somebody that was simply trying to save humankind by making it impossible for Asgore to get the last soul, after all, he did though that Asgore wanted to resume the old war.
\"And Muffet.\"
A hired sword that was doing this for money, ergo, she isn\'t supposed to be seen as good. Nonetheless, she easily relents if you simply eat anything made by spiders, something that is hinted as a solution with her connection to the spiders in the Ruins.
\"And the odd encounter here and there of monsters who shoot rather dangerous looking magic at a child.\"
Again, which ones? And please, don\'t say the dogs, you should be able to find better ones, after all, if random encounters were so terribly thought out as you said they were then you should have plenty examples.
\"You may need to define what you mean by freedom.\"
You know, the ability to decide how you will tackle every encounter you get into without the game forcing you in one way or another.
And no, the game doesn\'t force in any way, that\'s why there are so many different Neutral endings, so Toby could cover all bases.
\"There\'s still the matter of the permanent bad ending.\"
Actions have consequences, and sometimes said consequences are irreversible, that\'s why we always need to think things twice prior to taking any decision.
Besides, you are selling Frisk\'s soul (because the game has no way to reach for your real soul) to the devil. Of course the consequences here should have been more permanent. Doing otherwise would have made Chara\'s words during this ending lack weight. Also, doing this unlocks a different cutscene at the end of the Pacifist route, so this could be seen as extra content.
\"Didn\'t you say before that monsterkind uses magic to play and that\'s what they\'re doing in every encounter?\"
But I wasn\'t being 100% literal either. They do more with magic than just play and fight. Let me put it like this (and see if you finally understand): Have you ever read or watch Harry Potter? Because what wizardkind uses for in said franchise is the same thing monsterkind uses magic for.
\"why would something like paranoia suddenly come up?\"
I wouldn\'t be able to tell you because Toby Fox hasn\'t explained yet that part of the lore. Anything regarding the monster/human war (how it started, why, who started it, how it went, etc.) is a big blank, as of now. All we know is how it ended.
\"...given what we\'ve seen monsters do.\"
Oh yeah, being clumsy and sometimes trolls, yet friendly all of them (besides Flowey, of course).
\"...most likely points to an incident involving a human\'s soul...\"
How does it point to that? (besides that being what you want). What evidence do you have?. It could as likely have been a fearful and coward human king that started the war simply because he read once how monsters could absorb human souls and simply started the war to avoid something no sane monster would do.
\"what would they even hear out?\"
That Chara died a natural death (allergic poisoning) and all Asriel wanted to do was bury her below her favorite flowers. However, nowhere in the game is it stated that he was heard out.
That\'s why I will continue to believe that they were being assholes. The only way for you to change my mind would be by proving, with evidence, that Asriel was heard out but they simply didn\'t believe him.
\"...Asriel might have already absorbed a soul and was just moments away from transforming.\"
Yet, he never ever attacked, no matter how much he was beaten and simply escaped without harming even one person. Yeah, Asriel was out of control and was to be feared, alright.
\"I mean she could\'ve done something than just belittle him then run off when he went too far.\"
Is that what else could she have done here? She had already called him out (the game even implies that this hadn\'t been the first time she did so) and cut all ties with him. He even was accepting his mistakes. What else was there to be done?.
\"...but to have a scripted crit then have character chastise you for it is a different matter.\"
But that is how it is supposed to look like. As if somebody is chastising you for a mistake. Flowey is trying to annoy you here, so if you were irked that much by this scene then I would say that Flowey succeded.
\"Yo know, instead of going YOU WANTED TO KILL HER DIDN\'T YOU.\"
Said by a troll that simply wanted to bully you. You really shouldn\'t take anything Flowey says at face value. After all, he could have been venting, just think about it: Prior to Frisk appearing he was the one that could rewind time and it is implied that he did so after completing his own Genocide routes a lot, so he could have been reflecting himself on Frisk and chastising himself.
\"Random, yes. But you\'ll still at least encounter one foe before facing Toriel.\"
Problem is that by said encounter being random Toby runs the risk of these kinds of events repeating themselves till they become boring. The difference with an static encounter is that random encounters are random and you could end up doing the same event twice in a row. Tell me, how would this be better?
\"And why have an NPC give you hints on how to win encounters (a hint that works for every other encounter prior to this one boss) if they\'re infrequent?\"
To help new players that cannot decipher the ways to pacify monsters.
\"But Toriel was fair game...\"
No, she\'s not \"fair game\" her death is thanks to inexperience. As is hinted by the game, Frisk doesn\'t know how to fight so she shouldn\'t be able to control her own strength. By the time she reaches Asgore she should have become experienced enough to be able to avoid a situation like this from happening.
The problem is that you are comparing the two extremes of the story. I mean, you would think that this adventure would have helped her mature or am I wrong?.
\"So you have NOTHING to base that reasoning on.\"
Like you with your reasoning behind how the war started. Tell me, why is it fine for you to make baseless theories yet it is wrong for me to do the same?.
\"Undyne doesn\'t get a pass from me and the game is crazy for thinking I\'ll be sorry for killing her.\"
And nobody gets a pass from me when they think that they are free to judge somebody else\'s moral code. This right here makes me think that you might be a jerk in real life.
\"why not GUIDE the child on their journey?\"
Do you know about the \"butterfly effect\"? He is dealing with time travel here, so he needs to be careful on what he does, because any change could lead to a worse ending. And seeing how he himself cannot time travel then he needs to be extra careful because from his point of view any mistakes are final.
So he though it would be better for him to not do much and simply trust in Frisk. He just gave Frisk an ultimatum, just to e sure.
Besides, I think you are misunderstanding the character, by this point he has given up in ever escaping thanks to all the rewinds both Flowey and Frisk did. He himself believes that escaping the barrier is pointless, something he himself states in his boss fight.
\"he\'d be the one at fault for being absolutely and utterly stupid and useless.\"
Umm, why? He\'s so accustomed to rewinds happening that he thinks that no matter who dies, he will wake up next day with everybody alive again. He only acts when he thinks he\'s dealing with what could amount to a demon.
Basically, he has learned to rationalize death the same way the characters from Dragon Ball do.
\"I\'m asking why, your theory withstanding, are WE the evil child?\"
We aren\'t the evil child, we are a different entity entirely. This is left abundantly clear when you notice that Chara, the girl with the green shirt in front of you in the void of the Genocide ending, talks to you directly instead of talking to Frisk, Frisk might not even exist at this point.
Don\'t you have the choice to just beat the crap out of a monster until their name turns yellow? That seems to me like the game making the concession that yes, fighting back in self defense is justified, but that if you keep going on fighting someone even after you can cleary see you no longer need to, that\'s on you. That, coupled with the fact that you have to kill Asgore in a neutral route in order to get a Pacifist route (not to mention that Toby likely intended most players to kill a bunch of monsters on their first playthrough and get an okay ending before getting a better ending) makes me feel like the game does well enough with regards to keeping its moral choices reasonable.
Then again I love the game\'s characters, writing and humor, so OP and I probs come from very different places. And I am kinda bewildered by the sugestion that monsters did something to provoke the war. Like, the game\'s text is what it is; humans feared their power. Anything else is baseless speculation that you can\'t really build further arguments off of.
@megagutsman
"An example I already rebutted, so I wont repeat myself."
I don't really care about the loyalty excuse, they still tried to kill a child.
"Somebody that was simply trying to save humankind by making it impossible for Asgore to get the last soul, after all, he did though that Asgore wanted to resume the old war."
Again, still wanted to kill a child.
"A hired sword that was doing this for money, ergo, she isn't supposed to be seen as good. Nonetheless, she easily relents if you simply eat anything made by spiders, something that is hinted as a solution with her connection to the spiders in the Ruins."
Same response as above. But I'll give her credit for being one of the few bosses to actually spare the child she's attacking.
"You know, the ability to decide how you will tackle every encounter you get into without the game forcing you in one way or another."
Except it does. There's a good ending for a reason. Good endings are usually the best case scenario for a story.
"Actions have consequences, and sometimes said consequences are irreversible, that's why we always need to think things twice prior to taking any decision."
Yes, but this is a video game. Where we can experience a story in many ways without being punished for it. This goes against your freedom claim. If there's a punishment for what seems to be a free choice, then it's not so free, is it? Why would you want irreversible consequences like that in a video game? That's ridiculous. There's nothing wrong with wanting choices to matter but what if you want a clean slate? For that matter, why is it that the monsters are free to do whatever with little consequence while you end up being scrutinized for your actions? Guess actions don't have consequences when monsters are involved.
"But I wasn't being 100% literal either. They do more with magic than just play and fight."
I'm talking about the times you see them use their magic in-game. More often than not, it's as a harmful projectile.
"Oh yeah, being clumsy and sometimes trolls, yet friendly all of them (besides Flowey, of course)."
And harming eachother and a child with their magic, even by accident, or absorbing human souls to become all powerful gods...
"How does it point to that? (besides that being what you want). What evidence do you have?."
I've explained this already. The game says what happens when monsters absorb a human soul. Humans and monsters used to live peacefully until something happened. The humans killed Asriel as he was carrying a dead human. With those clues, I've given my deduction that a monster absorbing a human soul was what started the conflict. Honestly, the fact that the humans decided to seal away the monsters instead of outright obliterating them is also telling. No humans around, no souls to collect, no rampaging god monsters.
"That Chara died a natural death (allergic poisoning) and all Asriel wanted to do was bury her below her favorite flowers."
But that really doesn't follow. Again, this is going off of the possibility that they thought he could have absorbed a soul and was moments away from transforming. I can't even brand them as assholes even if they were being drastic because we really don't know their thought process. Would Asriel have been safe if he didn't have a dead human with him?
"Is that what else could she have done here? She had already called him out (the game even implies that this hadn't been the first time she did so) and cut all ties with him. He even was accepting his mistakes. What else was there to be done?"
Be by his side and support him like a loving wife would? Help him come up with an idea that isn't against his better nature?
"Said by a troll that simply wanted to bully you. You really shouldn't take anything Flowey says at face value. After all, he could have been venting, just think about it: Prior to Frisk appearing he was the one that could rewind time and it is implied that he did so after completing his own Genocide routes a lot, so he could have been reflecting himself on Frisk and chastising himself."
Uhh...keep in mind this is in response to me saying the game could make it clear that "adrenaline" was why Toriel is accidentally killed, as you so claimed.
"Problem is that by said encounter being random Toby runs the risk of these kinds of events repeating themselves till they become boring."
Sorry, I think I lost the particular point here. I'm saying that you can easily get into encounters where the frog's advice works, so why is the Toriel confrontation needlessly different? Why trick the player? If the advice was meant to help new players that cannot decipher the ways to pacify monsters, why suddenly pull the rug out and make it seem to some players they have to commit to said advice?
"No, she's not "fair game" her death is thanks to inexperience. As is hinted by the game, Frisk doesn't know how to fight so she shouldn't be able to control her own strength. By the time she reaches Asgore she should have become experienced enough to be able to avoid a situation like this from happening."
Again, applying the frog's strategy to every encounter before Toriel works out. So "inexperience" is still a poor excuse here.
"Like you with your reasoning behind how the war started. Tell me, why is it fine for you to make baseless theories yet it is wrong for me to do the same?.
I'm using information from the game itself. I'm piecing together what little story and text there is that could give some sort of clue to the past conflicts between humans and monsters. So tell me, where is the evidence to support "adrenaline" and "inexperience". To your credit, it's not a bad assumption, but I'd only accept that if there was such a fail state for every encounter until a certain point of the story.
"And nobody gets a pass from me when they think that they are free to judge somebody else's moral code. This right here makes me think that you might be a jerk in real life."
Sorry if I don't like child murderers.
"Do you know about the "butterfly effect"? He is dealing with time travel here, so he needs to be careful on what he does, because any change could lead to a worse ending."
That makes it an even worse idea to tell the kid "hey, you would've been dead (through no fault of your own) when we first met if my own needs weren't already satisfied". So once again, he'll be at fault if the kid did anything in reaction to such a terrifying revelation.
"We aren't the evil child, we are a different entity entirely. This is left abundantly clear when you notice that Chara, the girl with the green shirt in front of you in the void of the Genocide ending, talks to you directly instead of talking to Frisk, Frisk might not even exist at this point."
Again, why are the names we enter being used for this evil entity? Do you have a sufficient explanation?
@Nazo
"Don't you have the choice to just beat the crap out of a monster until their name turns yellow?"
Yeah. Admittedly that concept is good, I just wish there wasn't any trickery involved like in the Toriel fight. I also wish there was just more agency involved in such choices to spare or actually put down an attacking monster, as I do understand not all monsters are aggressive to a fault. It just bothers me when only one choice seems to matter and happens to be the more favored choice in the long run. Just makes the existence of other routes than Pacifist pointless. Even not being able to get a Pacifist ending off the bat to reward players who catch on (subtlety is NOT this game's strong suit after all) is also a small issue for me.
"And I am kinda bewildered by the sugestion that monsters did something to provoke the war. Like, the game's text is what it is; humans feared their power. Anything else is baseless speculation that you can't really build further arguments off of."
I did explain this. I'm basing it off of what little information the game gives and apply it to other tidbits. The whole "humans feared our power" sounds too dismissive to overlook as the end all be all and I'm not willing to chock it up to "it's all those damn humans' fault" as the conclusion. That's too one-sided for my taste. And in a situation like this, it seems to me that BOTH sides have their problems.
\"Excuse me for how this will sound, but are the monsters suffering? Like, at all? They have food, electricity, cellphone reception, vegetation, access to a form of entertainment found in a certain nation, WEATHER...all underground somehow. They have a society. And not in one instance does it look like they\'re suffering or in danger.\"
It\'s mentioned multiple times that the underground has a worsening overcrowding problem, and at least a few places are slowly decaying according to Onion-san. I wouldn\'t really say the underground has weather either, just a bunch of locations with different climates.
Re: Undyne, it seems as if whether you find her sympathetic depends on if you are able to see her perspective. She wants to be a hero. She wants her people to be free... and to do that, humans need to die. She\'s a Well-Intentioned Extremist; if the death of someone, even a child, will allow monsters to walk on the surface again, she\'ll do it. Speaking of:
\"[...]saving the Monster Kid in front of her doesn\'t make her think twice about her actions.\"
If that were the case, she would\'ve speared Frisk the moment they finished pulling Monster Kid up. But she doesn\'t — and given that she leaves them alone until Frisk is right about leave Waterfall, it seems like she had to psyche herself up again in order to go through with it.
Jawbreakers on sale for 99¢
I dunno, having it \"mentioned\" feels a lot less effective than actually seeing it.
As for Undyne, I guess I really can\'t see her perspective. Because unlike her, I would actually feel very conflicted if I had to murder a child. And her wanting to be a hero by doing so is even more disgusting. Her methods are more like that of a villain than a so-called hero of justice. And I shouldn\'t have to be guilt tripped if I so happen to kill her in return.
Ok, but Papyrus is still the best boi in the game.
Also, has no-one ever considered that some of the monsters would go a little...Cuckoo being buried underground for literal decades?
NOISE IS CALLING, PICK UP PHONE
Papyrus? Not too fond of him. His entire character is annoying. I don\'t usually mind the \"idiot with ego\" trope, but it\'s usually balanced by having said idiot get the opportunity to back up their boasting. As far as I can recall, this never happens with Papyrus so he\'s just another goofball who brings nothing new to the table.
Not trying to guilt trip, just saying it\'s a matter of perspective. You also didn\'t address my point about Undyne and Monster Kid...
Papyrus does have an opportunity to back up his boasting; his fight with Frisk, and he does it quite well in my opinion.
Jawbreakers on sale for 99¢
Ah, yes, Papyrus. The nicest character in Undertale. Who is considered such because where other characters *cough*Undyne*cough* would murder an innocent child, Papyrus would only beat up said child, knock them unconscious, and lock them up. Truly a paragon of virtue!
...So, I guess, monsters can be as violent as they want and the narrative will treat them as fully in the right, but heavens forbid a human will try to fight back. Self-defense is ~eeevil~
I do so hate double standarts.
@Jetty: Prior to replying to your comments I just want to ask you something: After reading your comment in Josh\'s recent video (Top 10 Mindfuck Bosses) it may me wonder: Mayhap the problem you have with Undertale is that you feel that the Bravely series deserves the popularity Undertale got? You see, what got me wondering was how much of a fan of the Bravely series you sounded like in that comment (plus your comments here) and seeing how Undertale was released roughly 5 months after the release of Bravely Second yet Undertale was the one that became overly popular then I feel like you wish that it would have been Bravely the one that got said popularity. Just a guess, though.
Now, back to your comments:
\"I don\'t really care about the loyalty excuse, they still tried to kill a child.\"
Then I say we reached an impasse in this part of the debate.
\"Again, still wanted to kill a child.\"
Another impasse.
\"But I\'ll give her credit for being one of the few bosses to actually spare the child she\'s attacking.\"
One of the few? I would say you have it backwards, there are few bosses that DON\'T want to kill Frisk. Everybody else does:
- Toriel: Doesn\'t kill Frisk but leaves Frisk with 1HP.
- Papyrus: Doesn\'t kill Frisk either and after 3 loses offers her the opportunity to skip his boss fight entirely.
- Muffet: You yourself explained this one.
- Asgore: He really doesn\'t want to kill Frisk yet he feels forced to do so because he promised his subjects that he would get the human souls required to break the barrier and is so much of a coward to retract said promise.
The only bosses that want to kill Frisk are Undyne (a divisive character), Mettaton (but as I said prior he only wanted to save mankind from Asgore), Sans (he\'s trying to stop a murderous Frisk that would end up killing everybody in the surface) and Flowey (a villain).
\"Except it does.\"
Except it doesn\'t. The game doesn\'t force you to hit the Spare button in each fight. That\'s why there are multiple endings, so no matter what choice you take, there\'s an ending for it.
What, would you have preferred for all endings to have credits? Wouldn\'t that have been jarring in the Genocide Route?. Or would you have preferred if the game lacked a Good ending at all?.
\"If there\'s a punishment for what seems to be a free choice, then it\'s not so free, is it?\"
You know, like in real life? You are free to decide to steal something from an store, you are free to decide to cheat in a test, you are free to decide to punch somebody in the face, yet all of this will end up with some kind of punishment coming for you (being thrown in jail, failing the test and being punched back, respectively). Why should it be different for games?.
\"Why would you want irreversible consequences like that in a video game?\"
So choices have something in stake. So there\'s some risk. Tell me, how are choices important if you can simply play the game again and change your decision?.
\"why is it that the monsters are free to do whatever with little consequence while you end up being scrutinized for your actions?\"
Because of context: What do monsters get from killing Frisk? Their freedom from the underground. What does Frisk get from killing monsters? Nothing at all!. So meanwhile both are in the wrong, only on of them (the monsters) have any good motive behind their actions.
\"I\'m talking about the times you see them use their magic in-game.\"
However, we are always on the move and spend very little time in towns, so there\'s no way for us to see what else monsters do with their magic. The only way I can think for Toby to show us this would be if he padded the game. Tell me: Would you be fine with padding if it means adding a bit more of worldbuilding?.
\"And harming eachother...\"
Example of when this happens. I cannot remember a monster harming another monster.
\"...and a child with their magic, even by accident,...\"
Because they are clumsy. Or what, would you react the same way if somebody hurt you somehow by accident?.
\"...or absorbing human souls to become all powerful gods...\"
You see, I noticed a pattern here: Your logic every time you use this argument is that since monsters CAN absorb human souls then they MUST absorb human souls. The problem with this argument is that the later isn\'t true, monsters have free will, so they can decide if they WANT to absorb human souls and as of this game only ONE (that we know of) have decided to do so, so I would say that it is a little bit paranoid to think that ALL monsters want to absorb human souls.
\"With those clues, I\'ve given my deduction that a monster absorbing a human soul was what started the conflict.\"
However, your theory falls apart because it requires big assumptions. Where is your evidence that a monster absorbed a human soul and started the war? Nowhere, that\'s just your theory. Again, as I just said, simply because a monster CAN absorb human souls doesn\'t mean they MUST nor that they WILL.
\"The humans killed Asriel as he was carrying a dead human.\"
And as I said prior, they did so meanwhile he wasn\'t being dangerous to them, so the self-defense excuse goes down the drain. They killed him based on a (wrong) assumption. And they didn\'t even decide to get his side of the story just to be sure that he wouldn\'t be innocent. Meanwhile all of that stands true then I have reason to call them assholes.
Besides, weren\'t you the one that is dissing Undyne for killing a child? So why is it different here? Isn\'t Asriel another child? Or what, are human children out of the table when it comes to (un)just murder, yet monster children are fair game?.
\"the fact that the humans decided to seal away the monsters instead of outright obliterating them is also telling.\"
Yeah, is telling of how high and almighty they feel they are over monsters.
\"Be by his side and support him like a loving wife would?\"
The problem is that by the time Asgore finally accepts his mistakes Toriel isn\'t a \"loving wife\" anymore. She\'s scorned. Tell me: Have you ever made a girlfriend angry? Because if you have then you should know that female anger can last a long time.
\"...keep in mind this is in response to me saying the game could make it clear that \"adrenaline\" was why Toriel is accidentally killed, as you so claimed.\"
So? The problem is? That is my rebuttal to your argument. Your argument is that the game chastises you for killing Toriel, how does the game do so? By having Flowey appear, yet Flowey is an known liar, so my argument is that the game isn\'t chastising you because Flowey is a troll.
\"so why is the Toriel confrontation needlessly different? Why trick the player?\"
Because bosses (and all monsters, really) in a pacifist run of this game become puzzle bosses. All the game does is take away the easy way out to force players into using their brains.
\"So \"inexperience\" is still a poor excuse here.\"
Gameplay and Story Segregation. I was giving you an in-story explanation for why it happens, yet your rebuttal only works for the gameplay.
\"So tell me, where is the evidence to support \"adrenaline\" and \"inexperience\".\"
And where is your evidence that a monster did kill a human, absorbed his soul and started the war? All you have are assumptions. Don\'t get me wrong, they aren\'t bad assumptions, the problem lies in the fact that either a human or a monster could have been the ones to start the war. Heck, wouldn\'t it be interesting that what started the war was plot made by both a human and a monster? After all, that would paint both sides as in the wrong.
\"but I\'d only accept that if there was such a fail state for every encounter until a certain point of the story.\"
But wouldn\'t that be annoying? Tell me, wouldn\'t you be annoyed if you had to see the same event three times in a row just for the sake of worldbuilding?.
\"Sorry if I don\'t like child murderers.\"
Yet, monster child murderers are fair game, I see.
\"So once again, he\'ll be at fault if the kid did anything in reaction to such a terrifying revelation.\"
However, doing otherwise wouldn\'t be right either because he would be taking free will out of her hands. So what else could he do?.
Besides, this would create a new problem, way too much hand-holding. Seeing how strong he is he would have made the game too easy.
\"why are the names we enter being used for this evil entity?\"
For a surprise. Notice that the only ones that use said name are the Narrator and Flowey, two beings with access to the code of the game, so it makes sense that they would know the name you chose.
\"...and happens to be the more favored choice in the long run.\"
How is one the more favored over the other? Because only one has credits?.
\"Even not being able to get a Pacifist ending off the bat to reward players who catch on (subtlety is NOT this game\'s strong suit after all) is also a small issue for me.\"
However, there\'s a good reason for why a Neutral run is required for the Pacifist ending: Toriel. You see, by the time Frisk starts her fight with Asgore, Toriel hasn\'t have enough time to gather everybody and catch up to Frisk. The best way Flowey has to slow Frisk down is by getting her to go through the Alphys date and to explore the True Lab. So by the time Frisk starts to fight Asgore, Toriel catches up to Frisk this time around.
\"The whole \"humans feared our power\" sounds too dismissive to overlook as the end all be all and I\'m not willing to chock it up to \"it\'s all those damn humans\' fault\" as the conclusion.\"
Yet you are willing to chock it up to \"it\'s all those damn monster\'s fault\" with little to no evidence behind why would a monster decide to absorb a human soul to begin with? Okay.
\"I dunno, having it \"mentioned\" feels a lot less effective than actually seeing it.\"
However, all you want shown instead of mentioned is so much that it would end up creating a ton of padding.
\"Her methods are more like that of a villain than a so-called hero of justice.\"
No, her methods are more like that of an anti-hero than those of a so-called villain.
\"...this never happens with Papyrus so he\'s just another goofball who brings nothing new to the table.\"
Actually, he does back it up. Not only he is stronger than Normal Undyne (both her own admission and his stats say so), but he also tries to help as much as he can (and by your own admission, he did help with starting Frisk\'s friendship with Undyne). Heck, he even spares Frisk in a Genocide route simply because he\'s that kind (and gullible).
You can fight back. The game literally has an option where you can beat the snot out of monsters (minus the bosses) and then spare them.
Jawbreakers on sale for 99¢
@Crossover-Enthusiast \"Not trying to guilt trip, just saying it\'s a matter of perspective. You also didn\'t address my point about Undyne and Monster Kid...\"
And again, I can\'t see her perspective. At the end of the day, Undyne is trying to murder a child. I\'m saying I shouldn\'t have to feel bad for killing her like the game wants me to be. And as far as the thing with the Monster Kid goes, Undyne just resumes her pursuit. It\'s not like she talks to you then and there asking why you saved the Monster Kid at all. To her, humans are still scum and expendable.
@megagutsman Well, I did mention that I\'ve played other games that better handled the sort of things Undertale is heavily praised for. In Bravely Second\'s case, it would be how it handled the fourth wall and how it integrated a New Game+ system to allow you to rexplore the story and redeem the villains. But that\'s just one aspect. I guess what I want are for games like this to get their due credit for their ideas instead of being compared to Undertale (which did end up happening in that video).
But anyway, on to the responses...
\"Then I say we reached an impasse in this part of the debate.\"
I mean if we have to ignore the \"they\'re trying to kill a child\" bit, I suppose we have.
\"One of the few? I would say you have it backwards, there are few bosses that DON\'T want to kill Frisk.\"
I mean Muffet is the one to stop the battle herself, without you having to spare her.
\"What, would you have preferred for all endings to have credits?\"
YES! That way it doesn\'t feel like only one choice in the entire game matters, you know, in a game that\'s attempting a morality system? There\'s no point in making routes if you only give closure to one of them. I mean Shadow the Hedgehog did better with this! If you\'re going to give us a choice, let us run with that choice, see the resolution then come back fresh and try something else. And no, it wouldn\'t be jarring because many games have credits for their bad endings.
\"You know, like in real life? You are free to decide to steal something from an store, you are free to decide to cheat in a test, you are free to decide to punch somebody in the face, yet all of this will end up with some kind of punishment coming for you (being thrown in jail, failing the test and being punched back, respectively). Why should it be different for games?\"
Because they\'re games. I mean if you want to experience real world consequences, there\'s the real world. Granted there\'s nothing wrong with a game teaching you a lesson but they\'re not permanent penalties. Like stealing from Kecleon\'s shop in Pokemon Mystery Dungeon. Yeah, he\'ll come after you and punish you for it, but I\'m pretty sure he\'ll let you be after that incident passes. It would suck if he kept chasing you every time you encountered him just because you stole from him one time.
\"Tell me, how are choices important if you can simply play the game again and change your decision?\"
That\'s the freedom of playing a video game. Whether those choices matter or not is up to me. I like the actual freedom of being able to change a mistake I make if I happen to make a wrong choice. Lemme make another game comparison. One game from the DS era I especially loved was Radiant Historia. It was a game about time travel and had an in-game timeline as well. But in the decisions you make to shape the future, you can make the wrong ones. And a bad ending will play out. But the game will still send you back to correct your errors. That just made it all the more fun to see what will happen with certain choices to see all the possibilities. Because the game gave me that freedom.
\"Because of context: What do monsters get from killing Frisk? Their freedom from the underground. What does Frisk get from killing monsters? Nothing at all!. So meanwhile both are in the wrong, only on of them (the monsters) have any good motive behind their actions.\"
It\'s frightening that that\'s the conclusion you come to. That the monsters get something beneficial from killing a child so they\'re exempt from any consequences thereof.
\"Because they are clumsy. Or what, would you react the same way if somebody hurt you somehow by accident?\"
I would expect someone who is hurting me to understand that I\'m in pain and stop, something most of the monsters don\'t seem to realize.
\"You see, I noticed a pattern here: Your logic every time you use this argument is that since monsters CAN absorb human souls then they MUST absorb human souls.\"
I\'m saying that a monster MUST have absorbed a human soul. It makes no sense to claim paranoia started the war when both races were comfortable coexisting in the past. Something big had to have changed that. That\'s why I theorize that a monster must have stolen a soul, became a beast of unfathomable power and caused mass chaos, resulting in the war and what happened with the monster race and Asriel. Now I\'m not saying anyone was right or wrong (except for the soul-stealing monster that ruined it for everyone else). But in a conflict like this, it\'s best to also try to understand the other side as well.
\"And as I said prior, they did so meanwhile he wasn\'t being dangerous to them, so the self-defense excuse goes down the drain. They killed him based on a (wrong) assumption. And they didn\'t even decide to get his side of the story just to be sure that he wouldn\'t be innocent.\"
And again, what side? I need to know why YOU think the humans attacked him because we\'re kinda missing eachother here. I\'m not resorting to \"humans are assholes\" because the game itself is giving me the clues to work with and it seems to tell me a bigger story as well as supply a reason for the humans\' actions. Oh, and it\'s different as opposed to Undyne because these humans didn\'t relentlessly pursue Asriel. He came to them, they thought he was a threat and attacked him. They seemed to let him alone long enough for him to make his way home but even then, we don\'t know if those humans possibly realized something was wrong or if they might have regretted going too far.
\"So? The problem is? That is my rebuttal to your argument. Your argument is that the game chastises you for killing Toriel, how does the game do so? By having Flowey appear, yet Flowey is an known liar, so my argument is that the game isn\'t chastising you because Flowey is a troll.\"
So...what happens in the game doesn\'t support your adrenaline suggestion. That\'s the problem. Flowey notwithstanding, the game still sets you up with a scripted crit that he jeers at you about. I have to repeat my point from earlier: Is Flowey also in control of the scripted crit? If the player was free to just kill her to get berated by Flowey that would be one thing, but to have a scripted crit then have character chastise you for it is a different matter.
\"Because bosses (and all monsters, really) in a pacifist run of this game become puzzle bosses. All the game does is take away the easy way out to force players into using their brains.\"
Use their brains...to select an option 20 times that didn\'t appear to work the first 4 as opposed to trying out an alternative method the game itself provides.
I\'m sorry, what?
\"Gameplay and Story Segregation. I was giving you an in-story explanation for why it happens, yet your rebuttal only works for the gameplay.\"
But again, attacking enemies and sparing them works for every other encounter. Your explanation still doesn\'t hold water.
\"But wouldn\'t that be annoying? Tell me, wouldn\'t you be annoyed if you had to see the same event three times in a row just for the sake of worldbuilding?\"
So you admit it\'s silly? I mean that\'s the only way your adrenaline and inexperience suggestions work, if it happens over a period if time as opposed to just ONE battle.
\"However, doing otherwise wouldn\'t be right either because he would be taking free will out of her hands. So what else could he do? Besides, this would create a new problem, way too much hand-holding. Seeing how strong he is he would have made the game too easy.\"
First off, what free will? You just said he\'s trying to prevent this kid from killing monsters, right? Joining him to ensure it doesn\'t happen is the least that good-for-nothing skeleton can do. Second, strong?! Pffhahahaha, I\'m pretty sure his stats are pitiful (except for only being able to dodge) and he fights by cheating. There is no strength in being that pitiful.
\"For a surprise. Notice that the only ones that use said name are the Narrator and Flowey, two beings with access to the code of the game, so it makes sense that they would know the name you chose.\"
Um. ... That\'s it? A surprise? So basically, there\'s no damn justifiable reason for us to be the evil entity. It\'s just for shock value. Figures.
\"How is one the more favored over the other? Because only one has credits?\"
Yes.
\"Yet you are willing to chock it up to \"it\'s all those damn monster\'s fault\".\"
More like A monster\'s fault.
\"However, all you want shown instead of mentioned is so much that it would end up creating a ton of padding.\"
If you\'re trying to sell me that something dire is happening, showing me hits more home than explaining it in text. That\'s why the phrase \"show don\'t tell\" is a thing.
\"No, her methods are more like that of an anti-hero than those of a so-called villain.\"
Hmm...hunting down a child that\'s minding their own business to chuck tridents at them from afar hoping one will skewer it doesn\'t sound anything close to what any sort of hero would do.
We\'re not the \"evil entity\"?? There\'s three characters; Frisk, who can change depending on the actions of the player, the player themselves, and Chara, who is given the name the player enters at the beginning of the game and is also implied to be changed by the player\'s actions, who congratulates you on slaughtering the underground before finishing off humanity themselves in the genocide route. They\'re the \"evil entity\".
Jawbreakers on sale for 99¢
Except you name it. And you\'ll most likely name it after yourself, wouldn\'t you? Because that\'s the assumption, isn\'t it? That\'s the intention.
\"I guess what I want are for games like this to get their due credit for their ideas instead of being compared to Undertale\"
You aren\'t understanding why Undertale became popular. It became popular not only for its use of a meta narrative (even when it did help), but it did so because it also had lovable characters with a lot of hearthwarming moments (just check the Hearthwarming section if you don\'t believe me), fun gameplay and incredible soundtrack, all of this coming from one of the smallest development teams to exist and that their Kick Starter campaign actually finished without being an scam (unlike most others in that site). Is because of all of those I just mentioned that it became popular. In contrast, the games you mentioned had a bigger budget and were being backed by AAA companies to boot, a certain level of quality was expected, ergo why they didn\'t become as popular, because the stakes were higher for them.
\"I mean if we have to ignore the \"they\'re trying to kill a child\"\"
I mean, if you are also doing the same with the Asriel situation then why shouldn\'t I do the same?.
\"I mean Muffet is the one to stop the battle herself, without you having to spare her.\"
But dude, the game doesn\'t need to force a battle to end to make it obvious that they are sparing Frisk. The game can (and does) easily make this apparent with character dialogue. Just taking the bosses into consideration only one (Flowey) has malignant intent behind their fight with, with everybody else having other motives like protection (of either Frisk [Toriel], their kingdom [Papyrus, Undyne, Muffet, Mettaton NEO, Asgore and Sans) or the rest of humanity [Undyne the Undying, Mettaton, Mettaton NEO and Sans]), a test of character (Toriel), as a job (Papyrus, Undyne and Muffet), etc.
\"That way it doesn\'t feel like only one choice in the entire game matters, you know, in a game that\'s attempting a morality system?\"
That\'s what you feel. However, I have never cared about credits and if I could have it my way, nothing would have credits, ever. I even go so far and turn off my console each and every time (unless the developers did something sneaky like adding credit scenes or making the game save the clear game save data after the credits). That\'s why I don\'t agree with this argument at all.
\"And no, it wouldn\'t be jarring because many games have credits for their bad endings.\"
Save that this is the only game that I know of that outright closes itself after it ends, so there\'s no spot where the credits could roll without it being jarring.
\"It would suck if he kept chasing you every time you encountered him just because you stole from him one time.\"
Yet it would make the game a little bit more realistic and would make stealing from them have more meaning and be more entertaining than it is right now.
\"I like the actual freedom of being able to change a mistake I make if I happen to make a wrong choice.\"
Then mistakes don\'t matter and choices become meaningless, after all, you can always reset if you don\'t like the outcome, so where are the stakes? And how do choices matter? You are basically a God at this point.
\"But the game will still send you back to correct your errors.\"
But as you might know, the game does so by letting Stocke travel back to a previous node, in other words, he time travels. The same cannot be said of Undertale because there is hardly any time travel there.
\"That the monsters get something beneficial from killing a child so they\'re exempt from any consequences thereof.\"
If that something beneficial is an end to their lives entrapped behind a barrier then yes, I do consider that a good trade. Besides, I love how you ignore that Frisk quite literally has no good incentive behind being evil and yet you don\'t condone her for that.
\"something most of the monsters don\'t seem to realize.\"
Again, this has to be chalked up to Gameplay and Story Segregation. Or, as I asked prior, would you be fine with an overly easy game were all you need to do is exploit their auto-spare event were every monster spares you instantly because you have 1HP?.
\"It makes no sense to claim paranoia started the war when both races were comfortable coexisting in the past.\"
However, it also doesn\'t make sense to claim that monster are the only ones that could start the war when humans can also become stronger by killing monsters ergo a human could have also be the one that started the war.
\"it\'s best to also try to understand the other side as well.\"
Yet you feel to notice the predicament monsters are in by being trapped behind a barrier. And prior you say anything about how it isn\'t that bad I want you to answer me this: Have you ever lived in a third world country? Because if you haven\'t then you really haven\'t experienced something as bad as the monsters have.
\"I need to know why YOU think the humans attacked him because we\'re kinda missing eachother here.\"
Because the game tells us as such. What the game says is that the second villagers discovered him they attacked him without remorse, is that simple. We weren\'t supposed to sympathize with the villagers at all.
I really cannot understand how you see this as an accident instead of what it truly was, an unfair lynching done to a poor innocent monster kid.
\"...because the game itself is giving me the clues to work with and it seems to tell me a bigger story as well as supply a reason for the humans\' actions.\"
What is this \"bigger story\" you are talking about? Where is the evidence that shows that the villagers bothered to hear Asriel out? Because without that you have no argument.
\"They seemed to let him alone long enough for him to make his way home...\"
Oh, so leaving a kid that is dying out thanks to all his wounds (inflicted by the villagers, mind you) is better... how, exactly? Have the villagers really been good and had all of this really happen because of a confusion then they would have tried to heal his wounds, yet what happened was that they left him to die after they got bored/exhausted of beating him. Yeah, said humans are paragons of justice.
\"Use their brains...to select an option 20 times that didn\'t appear to work the first 4 as opposed to trying out an alternative method the game itself provides.\"
This is the first puzzle boss, of course it will be easy. Or what? Did you expect for the game to ask the players to solve a complicated puzzle for the first boss?.
\"First off, what free will? You just said he\'s trying to prevent this kid from killing monsters, right?\"
Yet that is something that wont happen with 100% certainty, so the only way for him to make sure Frisk never kills any monster is to accompany her to see Asgore, taking all decsions for her.
\"I\'m pretty sure his stats are pitiful (except for only being able to dodge) and he fights by cheating.\"
What\'s your evidence behind this argument? Specially the part where he cheats.
\"...showing me hits more home than explaining it in text.\"
However, both text and outright being shown on-screen impact me in the same way (probably because I love reading so much), so this is a point I simply cannot agree with.
Besides, as I said prior, showing too much could lead to creating padding, so there are some things that are better relegated to text.
\"hunting down a child that\'s minding their own business to chuck tridents at them from afar hoping one will skewer it doesn\'t sound anything close to what any sort of hero would do.\"
\"Outright slaves innocent creatures using a ball that brainwashes them into fighting other wild animals, probably killing them, all so he can become the number one of a savage sport that could be equaled to cockfighting\" Red, the most popular character of Pokemon. You see, I can also play the game of ignoring the positives and exaggerating the negatives as well. Why don\'t you stop doing that? Because at this point it looks like you are doing it in purpose to hate Undertale.
What\'s your evidence behind this argument? Specially the part where he cheats.
(I\'m responding to both of you)
In terms of how monsters usually fight, Sans does cheat since he does stuff like dodging your attacks or attacking you while you\'re in the menus, though it\'s honestly justified considering the circumstances.
And his stats do indeed suck (he\'s called \"the weakest enemy\" for a reason, after all), but it\'s how he uses his powers that makes him formidable.
Jawbreakers on sale for 99¢
Crossover: And that\'s why I consider him the strongest, because he has a lot of power on the meta side. Basically, he\'s like Mob from Mob Psycho 100 (amazing anime/manga, by the way) in that both are weak physically but what could be called their psychic power is out of the scale.
Also, I wouldn\'t call Sans abilities \"cheating\" per se.
@megagutsman "You aren't understanding why Undertale became popular. It became popular not only for its use of a meta narrative (even when it did help), but it did so because it also had lovable characters with a lot of hearthwarming moments (just check the Hearthwarming section if you don't believe me), fun gameplay and incredible soundtrack, all of this coming from one of the smallest development teams to exist and that their Kick Starter campaign actually finished without being an scam (unlike most others in that site)."
Meh. I got more emotion out of Danganronpa V3 than I did out of Undertale. The overarching narrative keeps me from really caring about most of these characters. Like I could care less about any friendship between Papyrus and Undyne because the former has no qualms about locking a child up to hand them over to someone who would do them harm and the latter, well, we already discussed her at length. I guess the glaring issue of "the monsters are trying to kill children" keeps me from finding anything wholesome about them in the long run. And with the game's direction, it felt more like you were compelled to find these characters charming because the game wants you to rather than on your own. I just can't really understand the popularity outside of meme potential. Not to mention better games have been made by smaller groups (i.e. Cave Story) so while commendable, it's nothing too impressive for me anymore. And I gotta say that hearing people talk about how Undertale "changed their lives" or "made them better people" just baffles me.
"I mean, if you are also doing the same with the Asriel situation then why shouldn't I do the same?"
Well you did try to argue that because the monsters are getting something beneficial out of killing Frisk, then they're completely justified. I'm not taking sides in my case. I'm only trying to understand the side that isn't spoken for.
"But dude, the game doesn't need to force a battle to end to make it obvious that they are sparing Frisk."
Then why don't they stop fighting? Muffet could clearly end the fighting on her own accord. What's everyone else' excuse? There's a reason I'm giving credit to Muffet because it makes sense for the monster instigating the fight to be the one to spare you, not the other way around.
"That's why I don't agree with this argument at all."
I don't think your wanting to skip credits makes my point moot in any way...
"Yet it would make the game a little bit more realistic and would make stealing from them have more meaning and be more entertaining than it is right now."
I've seen playthroughs of people stealing from Kecleon's shop, getting demolished, and never doing it again for the rest of the game. Do you honestly think it'll make the game BETTER to have a powerful foe chase you every time you enter a dungeon because of one decision that you can easilt rectify?
"Then mistakes don't matter and choices become meaningless, after all, you can always reset if you don't like the outcome, so where are the stakes?"
Well, if I make a mistake and realize the outcome, then I learn something. Sure I can go back and change my decision but that's my choice to make or not. Heck, some games don't show the outcome of a choice until later on and maybe in a new game, we can pick something else. But the beauty of it is that we still have the freedom to experience these choices.
"But as you might know, the game does so by letting Stocke travel back to a previous node, in other words, he time travels. The same cannot be said of Undertale because there is hardly any time travel there."
But the point is that you can still make the mistakes, see it through, then try something different.
"If that something beneficial is an end to their lives entrapped behind a barrier then yes, I do consider that a good trade. Besides, I love how you ignore that Frisk quite literally has no good incentive behind being evil and yet you don't condone her for that."
What's the trade? I mean a trade means both sides get something. What does Frisk get? Death? Also I'm not saying he should be evil. I'm talking about a situation where he would be justified in killing a monster.
"Again, this has to be chalked up to Gameplay and Story Segregation. Or, as I asked prior, would you be fine with an overly easy game were all you need to do is exploit their auto-spare event were every monster spares you instantly because you have 1HP?"
Maybe some monsters couls act like that if they're actually benevolent enough. Otherwise, them continuing to act while hurting this child makes them come off as dangerously oblivious or flat out sadistic, right? Or they can act like Muffet and stop and end the battle when things get to a certain point. Like I said, having the monsters spare you makes much more sense than the other way around.
"However, it also doesn't make sense to claim that monster are the only ones that could start the war when humans can also become stronger by killing monsters ergo a human could have also be the one that started the war."
Again, I'm taking this from the information the game provides. If you still have a problem, blame the game for not being clear enough and presenting a one-sided backstory.
"Because the game tells us as such. What the game says is that the second villagers discovered him they attacked him without remorse, is that simple."
No, I mean WHY do you think the humans attacked him. What do you think their reason was.
"Oh, so leaving a kid that is dying out thanks to all his wounds (inflicted by the villagers, mind you) is better... how, exactly? Have the villagers really been good and had all of this really happen because of a confusion then they would have tried to heal his wounds, yet what happened was that they left him to die after they got bored/exhausted of beating him. Yeah, said humans are paragons of justice."
You're overblowing what I'm trying to say. I never once stated the humans were right in doing what they did but I'm trying to understand their point of view, again, based on what the game implies rather than branding them the assholes.
"This is the first puzzle boss, of course it will be easy. Or what? Did you expect for the game to ask the players to solve a complicated puzzle for the first boss?"
The equivalent of trying to push a square block into a triangle shaped hole before deciding to carve the block into a triangle just so it fits is acceptable to you?
"Yet that is something that wont happen with 100% certainty, so the only way for him to make sure Frisk never kills any monster is to accompany her to see Asgore, taking all decsions for her."
I know the game has to game, but storywise, it makes little sense to leave the kid to his own devices if you suspect he's going to cause mass genocide. Plus, if the kid wants to go home and you literally made a promise to a stranger to protect him (even though you were going to kill him yourself), wouldn't it behoove you to accompany him so he's safe?
"What's your evidence behind this argument? Specially the part where he cheats."
Crossover said it best. It's a nitpick I have since Sans is a boss meant for the purpose of you quitting the game, so his fight is a tad unorthodox (i.e. the poison). It's just something that rubbed me the wrong way because it's not meant to be a fair but challenging ordeal. And sure, it's justified but the encounter with him feels...cheap.
"However, both text and outright being shown on-screen impact me in the same way (probably because I love reading so much), so this is a point I simply cannot agree with. Besides, as I said prior, showing too much could lead to creating padding, so there are some things that are better relegated to text."
Agreed. But I didn't say "show but never tell" either. There needs to be a balance as you'll have padding anyway if you lean to one over the other.
"You see, I can also play the game of ignoring the positives and exaggerating the negatives as well. Why don't you stop doing that?"
Wow...your Pokemon analogy doesn't even compare to my summation of Undyne's direct actions in the game. You say I'm exaggerating, yet I'm not wrong. Oh, and the ones who enslave other Pokemon to use for their misdeeds are usually the antagonists of the games (i.e. Cyrus, Lysandre). Besides, what positives could I possibly see in a scenario where a character is hunting a child down like a game animal? I'll also ignore that final thing you said because it sounds like you're butthurt that I'm not falling head over heels for your precious game and that's not a good look.
“It’s a nitpick I have since Sans is a boss meant for the purpose of you quitting the game, so his fight is a tad unorthodox (i.e. the poison). It’s just something that rubbed me the wrong way because it’s not meant to be a fair but challenging ordeal. And sure, it’s justified but the encounter with him feels...cheap.”
I can tell you why it feels cheap. Because it’s lazy. Because it’s railroading. Because it’s the game designer saying “I don’t like the fact that you decided to go down this route I programmed. Stop it. And if you don’t stop, I’ll make you stop.”
I actually really like the Genocide route. It lacks the double standards that annoy me so much on Pacifist and it did a lot of things right, showing how scared of you everyone is, the once-vibrant world becoming dull and lifeless. But the fights with Undyne and Sans are easily the worst parts of this entire game.
How to explain… First, let’s look at one of my favorite scenes in Genocide: the prelude to the fight with Undyne aka trying to kill the Monster Kid. It’s great and does an amazing job of showing how much of a Complete Monster you are. Showing this kind and friendly child tremble in fear as you slowly advance on him, ready to murder him just like you have murdered everyone else. Showing him trying to stand his ground to protect others from you, despite being horrendously outclassed, while you only consider him an obstacle and a pitiful one at that. It’s a great scene. Quite an emotional punch that really drives home how low you have sunk.
(Although, while we are on the topic of child murder, why don’t we talk about how trying to murder a monster child on Genocide is rightfully treated as horrifying and reprehensible, but Undyne trying to murder a human child on Neutral/Pacifist is quickly swept under the rug by the narrative. “Oh, look, she likes anime! She is so fun and quirky! Attempted murder? Surely you jest!” Freaking double standards.)
But then comes the fight with Undyne. The fight I couldn’t actually finish because it was so freaking tough. I don’t have a good reaction time, so I physically couldn’t continue the game. In order to find out what happens next in the story, I had to go on You Tube and look for a playthrough. And the fight with Sans is supposed to be ten times worse!
To compare, the final boss on Neutral is fairly easy to beat. You flat-out can’t lose the final fight on Pacifist, and all the other bosses can be challenging but they are still fairly easy. But on Genocide, the only two fights that are actually fights instead of slaughter, are borderline-impossible to beat. It’s like if you bought a book with three stories in it, but while the first two were written normally, the third one was written in code and half the pages were glued together.
This is either creator favoritism or just bad game design. I’m sorry, but if you don’t like the protagonist of your game doing bad things, then either don’t program this route in the first place or try to dissuade the players by showing them the horrifying consequences of their actions. But, I guess, writing emotionally harrowing scenes requires effort. It’s so much easier to just put a boss on your path, dial up its stats, and allow it to cheat.
\"Because it’s the game designer saying “I don’t like the fact that you decided to go down this route I programmed. Stop it. And if you don’t stop, I’ll make you stop.”\"
You are right on the money with this and it just begs the question of \"why did you bother in the first place, then?\". You said you liked the No Mercy route because it hits home, but imagine making content in a game solely for the purpose of trying to penalize players for wanting to see said content.
\"Although, while we are on the topic of child murder, why don’t we talk about how trying to murder a monster child on Genocide is rightfully treated as horrifying and reprehensible, but Undyne trying to murder a human child on Neutral/Pacifist is quickly swept under the rug by the narrative. “Oh, look, she likes anime! She is so fun and quirky! Attempted murder? Surely you jest!” Freaking double standards.\"
This. So much.
What's up with overly critical reviews of Undertale, like this one, on this site attracting so many comments?
This one especially is on its way, potentially, hitting 100. Not that I disagree with the review (on the contrary I do) but wow. I mean, there's way too many overly long comments here.
^ *shrug*. I always try to keep my comments brief and to the point unless a long post is required.
Because that\'s the point. It\'s Sans.
And I love how you two are acting like Undyne just murders children in her free time and her hunting Frisk isn\'t just like, her job? Like a soldier in a war?
Jawbreakers on sale for 99¢
Jetty: Okay, am getting kinda bored of this \"debate\" so am gonna be straight and ask you this: No matter what I nor anybody else says you will continue hating Undertale, right? You simply don\'t want to give it a second chance, right?. In other words, my question would be: Am I wasting my time here with somebody that simply will never change his opinion on the game?.
@Crossover-Enthusiast
“Because that’s the point. It’s Sans.”
I feel like you misunderstand what my beef is with this particular fight.
If, for example, the Genocide route ended with a cutscene where Sans confronts Frisk/Chara/Player/whoever, mops the floor with them and kills them, I would have no issue with it because the story would be complete. But the way things are, we have a ridiculously unfair fight that stops the players (aside from the most skilled and stubborn ones) from finishing the story.
Imagine you are reading a book, but before you can finish it, somebody runs up to you, snatches the book from your hands, and runs away, forcing you to chase them down if you want to know how the story ends. That’s what it feels like!
And considering that fighting Sans and Undyne on Genocide is orders of magnitude tougher than fighting any other boss on Neutral/Pacifist, this comes across as unfair creator favoritism. What’s the point of putting a route in the game if you make it impossible to finish for 99% percent of the playerbase? What’s the point of creating a story if you then actively try to stop people from experiencing it?
Okay, not that I'm absolutely gaga over Undertale myself (I like it but I have a few niggling disagreements and I don't think it's an elder got tier game that shouldn't be criticized ever), but god fucking fuck are all these walls of text really necessary?
Self-serious autistic metalhead who goes by any pronouns. (avvie template source)
@megagutsman "No matter what I nor anybody else says you will continue hating Undertale, right? You simply don't want to give it a second chance, right?"
Was that your objective? To change my mind suddenly? You couldn't deal with the fact that there exists someone out there who might NOT like the same game as you? Hoo boy. Meanwhile, I'm just trying to make you see my perspective. I'm entitled to my viewpoints. But if you have to resort to "YOU JUST WANNA HATE THIS GAME" as a parting shot, even though I made it clear that I don't think the game is awful, just very disappointing, then maybe we should just stop because this is beginning to irk me as well.
@Dhiruxide Sorry, my guy, I'm just responding to other responses.
@Ayy Its Midnight Likewise with you. I'm just responding to what Megagutsman has been saying, so I do apologize for our back and forth.
\"I\'m just trying to make you see my perspective. I\'m entitled to my viewpoints.\"
This is what I have been trying to do as well, yet I feel like you have been trying to be contrarian for the sake of hating the game. However, if you do believe that you might accept my opinions then later I might reply to your comment. Till then.
I did say I would come back. However, even when I said that I would reply to your comment, re-reading this entire chain I noticed that we are stuck going back and forth with the same arguments. All am gonna say is that I don\'t agree at all with your points and consider that you are being way too harsh and over-analytical on this game. There are a lot of wonderful stories that break apart when you try to analyze them to the finer details, yet they are still beautiful (just check the Harry Potter Headscratcher section for an example). So I would say that you shouldn\'t analyze this story that much.
If I\'m experiencing a story that someone is trying to tell, then I\'m also free to analyze and scrutinize ir at every turn. Telling me I shouldn\'t is silly. No story is always perfect and there can exist loopholes and inconsistencies and other such errors that can keep it from being as such. Why ignore them? Even if you enjoy the overall story, you can still have your nitpicks.
However, a nitpick shouldn\'t, in any case, lower the enjoyment of a product somebody has. That\'s when, in my opinion, they stop being \"nitpicks\".
Well, that usually happens when one finds glaring faults in a story. Can\'t really blame a person for criticizing those faults.
My problem is that all your comments sound like you don\'t care about another point of view. Just take our differences with how we see Undyne as an example.
Sorry, but I\'m still not too comfortable with finding a justification for someome hunting down a child. Now you might not take issue with that because the game practically leads you into that realm of thinking, but if I\'m supposed to be trying to make friends with these monsters and feeling sympathetic for them, maybe don\'t write them threatening children, yeah?
\"but I\'m still not too comfortable with finding a justification for someome hunting down a child.\"
Yet villagers beating a monster child to near death based on a (wrong) assumption is fine with you, eh?.
\"...maybe don\'t write them threatening children, yeah?\"
But you still don\'t see their side, this kid\'s soul is the only thing that is separating them from freedom. Tell me, if you were in their position what would you do? Rot in the underground? Or take this opportunity and escape?.
And no, I don\'t agree with the \"but they have everything there, right?\" argument because I myself am experiencing a similar situation in my country (and that is a major reason why I identify with these monsters [specifically Undyne, seeing how she\'s fighting to free all her people]). In my country we have everything you mentioned a race should have to live a content life, yet all of it is on a mediocre level. So, when you say monsters should be content with what they have, is like you are telling me the same, do you know how insulting that sounds?.
Ugh, let's not do this again. For whatever reason you seem to not understand (nor want to understand) how both situations differ. You're trying to argue that the humans attacking a potentially dangerous monster holding a human corpse makes them assholes, but the monsters who would willingly spill the blood of an unassuming child who is minding their own business are fine and not in the wrong at all.
And I already answered your silly question when you used that Saw example. I will not, under any circumstance, murder a child even if it would benefit me. My own morality prevents me from even thinking of such a thing. So, where is that morality when it comes to the monsters? Clearly it doesn't matter to them who has to die, considering they've caused the deaths of other unfortunate children before and got away with it. But we're just supposed to ignore all of that, right? The monsters deserve their happy ending, right? Who cares about the families worried sick about their children?
There are too many damned double standards when it comes to discussions about this game, which is one reason I've come to kinda despise it over time.
But that\'s not really fun, y\'know? MST3K Mantra and all that.
Because they have to. They would not even be in this situation, and the fallen humans wouldn\'t of needed to die, if the humans hadn\'t sealed them underground at the end of the war.
Jawbreakers on sale for 99¢
\"For whatever reason you seem to not understand (nor want to understand) how both situations differ.\"
Because they aren\'t different. At all. Explain how they are if you are so sure they are.
\"You\'re trying to argue that the humans attacking a potentially dangerous monster holding a human corpse makes them assholes,...\"
No, what am saying is that humans deciding to instantly kill a child monster \"WITHOUT GETTING ALL THE INFO\" first is what makes them assholes. Or to put it clearly, is them \"ASSUMING\" what Asriel did prior to getting his \"SIDE OF THE STORY\" was what they did wrong.
As for why they should have cared to get all the info: To avoid beating an innocent monster child. Guess what happened because they didn\'t bother to get all the story first? They beat an innocent monster to death!.
\"...but the monsters who would willingly spill the blood of an unassuming child who is minding their own business are fine and not in the wrong at all.\"
The problem here is that you don\'t seem to understand the situation the monsters are going through: The monsters are barely surviving here, what they have can barely be called a life. Are you really saying that, because breaking the barrier requires killing humans to get their souls, that they shouldn\'t even bother and expend the rest of eternity behind the barrier?.
\"I will not, under any circumstance, murder a child even if it would benefit me. My own morality prevents me from even thinking of such a thing.\"
Are you sure? Lets test that, shall we?. Lets take my Saw example and make it meaner:
Every one of you (and by that I mean you and all your loved ones) were kidnapped by Saw and thrown on separate metal cages. All the cages contain the following: a vent through which air is recycled (so nobody will asphyxiate), an slit through which everybody gets water once a week and bread once every 15 days, an small table with a knife, a bed, a toilet and another door. Through that door is a hall containing a bunch of slits on each side through which each of your loved ones get their rations and a central door on the other extreme that takes to a room with better amenities (food from the best chefs, a Jacuzzi [with a sensor programed to only let the kid enter, anybody else will be electrocuted to death], a TV with all the channels and lots of videogames). Here is where a kid lives. Everybody has a bracelet (your\'s and your loved one\'s checks your every action, a sensor that will check where you are and send a signal to a bomb if you are inside the kids room longer than 2 minutes or if you have grabbed anything from said room, records everything you say and will send a signal to the same bomb Saw implanted on each and every one of you. The kid\'s will only check their heart rate to confirm if they are alive and will only open the door if the bracelet detects that either one week passed [and only the kid is in the room, closing the door the second the kid is on the other side] or that his hearth rate reached zero). The kid was told that he won a vacation to a resort for a week and even his family and friends were told where he would be, the only condition is that he should be taken there unconscious (yeah, just pretend he\'s an idiot). Saw told you and only you the following: \"You will have one week to kid the child, otherwise he will go and everybody else will stay forever. Oh, and don\'t even bother in doing anything funny (like trying to escape through the ventilation or cutting your bracelet arm off) because I will know and I will detonate your bombs in case you violate my rules\". If the kid escapes he will be told that his food had nanites (by that point they would already be in his blood) that will activate if he mentions anything about his little \"vacation\" to anybody, so there isn\'t a chance for rescue.
So, after explaining all that here\'s my question: Would you still spare the kid knowing that both you and your loved ones will pass the rest of their lives trapped in this place? Or would you sacrifice the kid for freedom?.
\"So, where is that morality when it comes to the monsters?\"
In the fact that they are so murderous only because they are desperate and want out of the barrier, that\'s where.
\"...considering they\'ve caused the deaths of other unfortunate children before and got away with it.\"
And here is yet another one of your assumptions. We don\'t know anything about those souls and that includes how they died. All that we know is that they fell when they were kids, yet anything else is a mystery. Heck, we don\'t even know if they killed monsters or not. So you are making a big assumption here.
\"The monsters deserve their happy ending, right?\"
After what could have been 100 years (minimum) behind said barrier? Then yes, I do say they deserve one.
\"Who cares about the families worried sick about their children?\"
And who cares about the monsters that are living crappy lives behind the barrier as well, right?.
\"There are too many damned double standards when it comes to discussions about this game,...\"
The pot calling the kettle black.
@Crossover-Enthusiast
Hey, speak for yourself. It can be fun taking a story apart, even if you do like it. We have You Tube channels literally dedicated to that sort of thing.
Also, all I have to go on are just bits and pieces the game provides, but considering that and the circumstances involved, I cannot fault the humans for doing what they could to protect their own. It\'s not like the humans WANTED a conflict to happen, at least not the way I see it.
@megagutsman I still don\'t want to engage in another Text Wall War with you, so I\'m just gonna lay out my responses as follows:
1. I explained many times how both were different, in my many, many responses to you. Even in the one you\'re replying to.
2. What info would the humans need? Let\'s assume they\'ve dealt with a monster that stole a human soul and something horrible happened as a result. How do you think it would look to them to see a monster entering their territory with a DEAD HUMAN in its arms? What do you suppose they would think? Perhaps look at this from THEIR perspective?
3. You are only assuming the monsters are suffering and I see none of it. Some say they\'re interested in seeing the surface, others are selling food or going to bars or are interested in things like anime and others are hyped for the destruction of humanity. If you want me to believe that suffering is happening, I need to SEE it. Why can other games effectively do this as opposed to Undertale?
4. Enough already with the fabricated scenarios where I have to kill a child to save my own skin. The fact that you\'re using that to serve a point that the monsters are just in killing multiple children is sick.
5. Everything else is just you foregoing any sort of reason to simply paint the monsters as innocent and deserving of sympathy, even brushing aside the children that died by their hands, just like the game wants you to. Yet it\'s undeserved and I refuse to give this biased narrative any benefit of the doubt.
\"What info would the humans need?\"
How Chara died? Why she died? Why did Asriel kill Chara? and maybe some others. And why wouldn\'t the villagers want to know the answers to said questions? After all, getting said answers would mean that they could avoid jumping to assumptions and kill what could be an innocent monster (you know, like they canonicaly did). Why else do you think we have trials and police investigations in our civilized society?.
\"How do you think it would look to them to see a monster entering their territory with a DEAD HUMAN in its arms? What do you suppose they would think? Perhaps look at this from THEIR perspective?\"
Problem with this entire argument is that you are basing it on an assumption (\"Let\'s assume they\'ve dealt...\" [your words, not mine]) so it lacks the appropriate evidence to hold on. Who is the monster that you mention? Who did he kill? Why? How?. You lack the evidence to answer said questions.
Also, you are ignoring an equally valid theory I brought up prior: A human being the possible one to kill first a monster (for reasons yet known to us) and that is what started the war. Of course, I cannot either 100% debunk your theory (because at the end of the day it could indeed end up being true) nor prove mine (because I lack info). The problem appears because the same applies to you, yet not only you want to ignore my theories but you wholeheartedly believe in yours like you had the evidence to prove them when you clearly don\'t. You know who you sound like? Like Mat Pat when he does one of his terrible theories.
\"If you want me to believe that suffering is happening, I need to SEE it.\"
Why? You do know that people can put a facade to hide their suffering, right?. Besides, prior you described how monsters have everything to have a good life (\"They have food, electricity, cellphone reception, vegetation, access to a form of entertainment found in a certain nation, WEATHER...all underground somehow.\") and I said that I relate to the monsters because what they are going through is how my country is right now, however I didn\'t go into detail because I thought it wasn\'t necessary yet now I see it was (and sorry if am breaking any rules by doing so, yet my current life-situation is a big reason why I personally love this game and identify with monsters like Undyne), so let me go point by point in how your points also affect me (save for weather because we humans cannot control the weather... ...yet):
-Food: Food is a lot more accessible in the capital of my country (were I live) than anywhere else in my country. I am lucky my parents help me find the food I will eat in the day. And not only the problem is finding it, but having money to pay for it is also pretty fricking hard as well. You see, inflation in our country is so bad that a cartoon of milk costs us what you would charge for one of those overly expensive sports cars (like a Ferrari, even) or a house in Malibu (No, am not making shit up, you can check if you don\'t believe me).
- Electricity: Nearly in the entirety of my country black outs are the norm. Is just in the part of the capital where I live that they become rarer.
- Cellphone: Not only our receipts are overly costly, but they barely function. As an example, sometimes messages arrive a day too late and communicating with others is nearly impossible.
- Vegetation: We have trash everywhere, even in the capital. Things aren\'t as bad yet but they can easily become worse.
- Entertaiment: Both TV Cable and internet is shit here, with the probability of both failing being high. Just to give you an example: Recently this year (around 3 months ago or so) I returned home after spending 3 months living in a friend\'s house because both my cable and internet had failed at the same time and all of that lasted 3 fricking months. Yeah, am lucky nothing else like that has happened again and that I usually have mediocre internet access, yet it could still happen to me any day now again.
As you could see, my own situation isn\'t as bad as the rest of my country is in, yet I myself can see and know how much of a hell hole my country is and I despise it to my very core. I want to flee my country and never look back. That is why I identify myself with the monsters (specially Undyne).
\"...even brushing aside the children that died by their hands,...\"
Evidence citation needed. We don\'t know how the kids died and seeing how Chara could die of natural causes I would say that the same could have happened to them.
\"Yet it\'s undeserved and I refuse to give this biased narrative any benefit of the doubt.\"
Unlike how you gave a benefit of the doubt to your biased narrative of the villagers and how the war started? Okay.
You guys are still going at it???
@megagutsman
1. Would it really matter how the child died? A dead human releases a soul anyway. And I have to make assumptions because the game only gives so much information. I\'m not pulling this out of nowhere, I\'m piecing together what the game says.
2. Did you really ask why I would rather want to see the suffering rather than being told the characters are suffering as I watch a \"quirky\" cutscene with them? Play any other game where a powerful antagonist is terrorizing the world and you will see scenes of people suffering. Even the Mario & Luigi games, for as goofy as they are, do this. Oh and I don\'t know why you keep comparing the resources the monsters have underground to wherever you\'re from. One doesn\'t invalidate the other.
3. I\'m not being biased in trying to see the other side\'s point of view. Because I\'d rather not fall for the old \"humans are assholes\" gambit that the game is trying to play. I\'m merely using deductive reasoning based on the game\'s own bits and pieces. But here you are still trying to make up excuses for the monsters wanting to kill a child.
Ugh...if we\'re going to go down this same rabbit hole again because I\'ll just be repeating myself over and again and you\'ll just keep up your thing...and this \"debate\" will never end.
This just seems to be a fundamental difference in perception here.
I can see how the game might have some double standards (making the monsters as sympathetic as possible while not examining the human\'s side, making them just look horrible in comparison, which does seem a little lazy imo) and how the monsters are just as murderous as Flick apparently is. On the other hand, I also see what the game is intending to do, and the fact that there\'s the option to defend yourself without killing anyone, which means that it\'s not just \"monsters good, humans bad\" with no shared standards.
Just seems to me like the major issue here is that both of you guys have vastly different interpretations of the work. Neither is objectively wrong- it\'s entirely possible to disagree here, especially since you have vastly different views on things. It\'s not the game itself, it\'s your own inability to truly understand each other.
IDK. All this over a game seems a little much. At this point you\'re just going in circles and getting a bit hostile.
Currently Working On: Incorruptible Pure Pureness
@War Jay 77 Honestly, I'm just getting tired of the back and forth...
And yet you both continue. Though I will admit, it\'s been pretty interesting seeing a back-and-forth from two people so dead-set in their beliefs.
Jawbreakers on sale for 99¢
@Jetty: Ya know, after reading Crossover and War\'s comments I have to say that I agree with them, we just have two totally different and opposite points of view of life as a whole. Meanwhile you yourself might have some struggles here and there you still had all the doors open and the sky is the limit for you. For me meanwhile, thanks to the situation my country is going through, I am severely limited on what I can do, so I hate what terrible life I was given and may even be a little bit jealous of anybody that was born outside of my country (Venezuela, if you were curious), but this has also taught me what true suffering is like and how to appreciate the little things in life, ergo, why I am less nitpicky about the games I play.
Um, no, my personal life really has no involvement in my opinion of the game. That\'s taking it a bit far. I\'d say War was definitely on point about perception and interpretation because I see a lot of people argue about that (much like we did).
Leave a Comment:
Five years later and I still don't get it...
It's been five years since this so-called "masterpiece" released and even now, I still find it very overrated and very mediocre; a game that did have potential and a promising, yet squandered premise.
As I said, the premise is promising. An RPG where you don't really kill enemies sounds interesting on the surface, but the execution is quite befuddling. Strange how one of the series Undertale is "inspired" by, Mother, can have encounters where enemies are merely defeated as opposed to outright killed and not raise such a fuss than the game summarized as "the friendly RPG where no one has to die". Instead, Undertale attempts to make it a moral choice, just without the understanding of how moral choices work. The best way I can describe it is a multiple choice problem. Lots of options but only one right answer and no "All of the Above". Likewise, the correct answer in every encounter is "spare". No thought or agency goes into such a decision, nothing to really get you wondering if you should actually kill the enemy that wants your head. And even if you do kill an enemy that does attack you, more often than not, the game will try to make you feel bad about doing so.
And therein lies a BIG problem. Why would I feel bad about killing a monster that's trying to kill me? Why is it suddenly the player's responsibility to show mercy? You're technically not even instigating these encounters. Why is it perfectly fine for a crazy fish woman to chase down a child with intent to maim them but WE have to feel bad because apparently a friend of hers is implied to have committed suicide in grief? It's a shame but it's not my problem. Many say this game is about consequences, but it's oddly lenient when it shouldn't be. What's worse is that you eventually come around to realizing that other children, like the one you're playing as, have met their fates amongst the monsters. We're not even talking hardened adult warriors or soldiers or ruthless people. CHILDREN. It boggles the mins how one can make a game where the life of a child is threatened by various characters but people still like said characters. If you want us to feel sorry for your monsters, maybe don't have them admit they would have harmed a child if a better deal hadn't rolled by (ahem, Sans...why do people like this good-for-nothing skeleton again?) or present us with a backstory that implies the monsters did something in the past that caused humans to want to seal them away in the first place while brushing it off with "they feared our power", clearly displaying how little the monsters have learned from their experience. The only character I can somewhat feel for is Asgore because the guy at least feels something of remorse. But that's not saying much because the rest of the main cast is awful by comparison. When people claim that this game is charming because of its characters, sorry, I don't see it.
That aside, as a game it's passable. The battle system, while unique, is too abstract to make heads or tails of. Is this kid ducking and weaving projectiles in real time? Why are the monsters aiming for your obvious weak point? The game tries to explain that this is a form of communcation for monsters, but I don't buy it. And again, having to spare the monsters makes no sense. I'd say it should be the other way around, but there are a few encounters where the enemy spares you instead. Too bad it only happens twice and never again. The more interesting mechanics are usually saves for boss battlea and after that they're forgotten about. I mean at least games like Mario & Luigi introduced new mechanics for you to get used to before you got to the real difficult showdowns, and persisted with them.
As a game focused on humor, Undertale REALLY overdoes it. The humor comes off as trying to hard and the randumbness factor and the insistence of being quirky every five seconds felt like the equivalent of shaking keys in front of an infant so you don't lose its attention. And many of the "jokes" don't hit home. I mean a tsundere plane? I don't get it. Thinking to the comparisons people make of the Mother series, it's like the only thing Mr. Fox took from the games was just the quirkiness and nothing else. Well that and outright copying aspects from the games (i.e. Temmies being Mr. Saturn expies and lifting a line from the Giygas fight to place in the game's discount version of the Giygas fight).
For me, everything goes downhill with the No Mercy route. Deliberately making the route boring because you hate grinding? What does that add to the experience? Why add content to the game that we're not supposed to explore? It just seems like a waste of time. Not for the player but for the developer. Not to memtion introducing a certain character that's apparently meant to represent a player's dark desire to get stronger. Sorry, but what? Seems Mr. Fox was a bit out of touch there. There's a reason for people to grind and get stronger in the first place: to clear a dungeon, defeat a boss, survive encounters or even to take down a superboss. But sure, just misconstrue all of that in the most dishonest way possible. And it doesn't even make sense in-universe. Leveling means nothing in Undertale since you can beat the game at Lv 1 (so much for it being an RPG...), so it's not a matter of getting stronger, it's simply the player's desire to see more of the game that you made. On that topic, why the jabs at completionism? Is it bad to want to see everything in a game that you invested time and money into? Is it bad to want to replay a game that they might enjoy? Isn't that the point of a game? The enjoyment? Why strip that from the player?
And if all that wasn't bad enough, when players slog through such a snorefest of a route they have to face Sans, the good-for-nothing skeleton as a final boss...who only has his infamous difficulty because it's in an effort to get you to stop playing. Also brilliant. It's bad enough that you can't lose the final boss "battles" of the other two routes, but now you cheapen the experience of what could be a fairly challenging encounter with THIS? And what is the player rewarded with after all of that nonsense? A permanent bad ending. Bravo. What was the point?
The only credit I can give the game is that the music is good, but that's the equivalent of a free space in a Bingo game. Many games have good music, so Undertale having good music is nothing to applaud; it should be expected.
So yeah, I still don't get the big deal around the game, even years later. Undertale feels like something that should've been relegated to "flavor of the month" status because I've honestly played better. I was more intrigued with games like OFF. Everything Undertale does that's even remotely interesting are eithrr things from the games it rips inspiration from or are done better in other games entirely. At least the demons in Shin Megami feel more unique than the 50 clones of the damned tsundere plane that all behave the same. Bravely Default was so much better at establishing the fourth wall in a way that actually enhanced the world rather than it doing so solely for the purpose of jabbing at the player. I won't say Undertale is a flat out HORRIBLE game, as on the contrary, it's well done. It's just a very bumpy ride that keeps it from being that great in my perspective.