Reviews VideoGame / Undertale

Okay, tell me, what would you have preffered? For the game to go the Spec Ops path were it pussies out and doesn\'t give the player an option when it comes to they outcome of their decissions? Were only being evil/good is the only path and then it even calls the player on their acts (acts that weren\'t avoidable because the game forcess the player to do them to progress its story)? Or if the Genocide route was completely cut out of the game, giving no real punishtment to players evil deeds? Not only that, but without the Genocide route, the main selling point of this game (that player input matters for the ending and that the player is a character in this world) would have been moot.

I personally would\'ve had the Geno Route be as pointless and boring as possible, and give the player no incentive whatsoever to actually go down that path, no unique bossfight, no unique dialogue that reveals more lore about the game, that sorta thing. Admittedly, the story might be somewhat negatively affected, but it would give the game a much better reason to call the player out on that.

\"I personally would\'ve had the Geno Route be as pointless and boring as possible,...\"

As it already is? I mean, if you love walking back and forth in an area for hours farming kills that\'s fine, but I find that nothing more than a boring chore, so for me the Genocide route is boring. Heck, besides the two boss fights, nothing interesting happens most of the time, so there is really no real incentive for me to go through that route.

\"Admittedly, the story might be somewhat negatively affected,...\"

Not only the story would be affected, the entire quality of the game would be affected. Just compare what we got in the Neutral and Pacifist routes with what you want the Genocide route to be like: The former two are stock-full of character development and lore; the later, besides player chastising, is barebones. The game would look unfinished, if you ask me, like if Toby Fox forgot to add something for the Genocide route.

It would also go against what Undertale was marketted as: Player Freedom. Making the Genocide route this barebones would make the game look like it is screaming that no player should ever take this route, that it is meaningless, in other words, it would have become an illusion of choice, the genocide route would have been added sorely because one was needed and Toby was following a list.

Besides, I find it interesting that you are criticising the game for giving you a choice and for said choice having its own set of lore for it, you know, basically how taking a choice works in Real Life as well?. There are those tough choices that will make you ponder later what would have happened had you taken the opposite choice. Heck, as you said in your own review, you can go through the Genocide route after doing a Pacifist route.

If anything, the only thing I agree with you with is that completing the Genocide route shouldn\'t taint all your other playthroughs permanently, but criticising the game for giving you a choice is going too far, in my opinion.

I totally agree with you. The game seems to want to believe you did what you did out of malice, rather than what would be the most logical conclusion (player hears of hidden route, decides to unlock it out of sheer interest), conveniently disregarding the fact that it\'s supposed to be a \"self-aware game\". Being presumptuous about player intent doesn\'t help things. And while I don\'t mind the basic concept of the Genocide route itself, it felt like there was no reason for it to exist, especially if the end goal was....not to play it? I mean otherwise, you get punished for it.

And it\'s clear there\'s an obvious right answer to what the game thinks are moral dilemmas, so having the additional options feels more like a waste of time.

\"The game seems to want to believe you did what you did out of malice, rather than what would be the most logical conclusion (player hears of hidden route, decides to unlock it out of sheer interest), conveniently disregarding the fact that it\'s supposed to be a \"self-aware game\".\"

Save for the fact that the game never disregards anything. The monsters don\'t care at all about your motivations, all they care about is that you are killing all of them. From their point of view, you are a psycopath monster that just ants to kill everybody, is it any wonder you will be villified?.

Also, the entire Genocid route is nothing more than a way to see the point of view of a mook in most RP Gs when a player is going for the 100%. I mean, what is motivating anybody to complete a game 100%? To try an achieve the best outcome for all the characters? or is it just a selfish desire to see everything? This is what the Genocide route explores.

\"Being presumptuous about player intent doesn\'t help things.\"

I wonder how the game pulls this one.

\"it felt like there was no reason for it to exist, especially if the end goal was....not to play it? I mean otherwise, you get punished for it.\"

This is exactly how I would describe Spec Ops: The Line and seeing how said game is critically acclaimed, well, you tell me. Was it really that devoid of meaning? At least this route is the opposite of a friendlier route. This is something Spec Ops cannot say it has.

\"so having the additional options feels more like a waste of time.\"

How so? More seeing how the additional option (the Genocide route) is what causes the moral dilemma. After all, if you take this route away then what differentiates the Pacifist route from any other RPG? Nothing. All three routes are intrinsically connected.

\"From their point of view, you are a psycopath monster that just [wants] to kill everybody, is it any wonder you will be villified?\"

In spite of how hypocritical that is from the game\'s standpoint (Undyne trying to kill a child is fine but killing the Monster Child is the worst thing ever?), the problem is the game\'s attempt to jab at the player for shock value. Things like completionism and grinding are what\'s villianized and it doesn\'t hold water at all. Why accuse the player of grinding only to see numbers go up and get stronger when the game can be beaten at Lv.1, making such a mechanic inherently meaningless?

\"How so? More seeing how the additional option (the Genocide route) is what causes the moral dilemma. After all, if you take this route away then what differentiates the Pacifist route from any other RPG? Nothing.\"

Except having a clear correct answer to a moral dilemma trivializes said moral dilemma. When all\'s said and done, only the Pacifist run really means anything and the game has the subtlety of a brick to the face when it comes to what it expects of the player (for crying out loud, the game\'s own TAGLINE gives it away). Why have the options when there is only one right answer?

\"In spite of how hypocritical that is from the game\'s standpoint\"

I think we have been here prior. Have we been here prior? Yes, we have been here prior.

\"Undyne trying to kill a child is fine but killing the Monster Child is the worst thing ever?\"

And you keep ignoring context. There\'s a major difference between what Undyne is trying to do and what Frisk (Genocide route) is trying to do: Selfishness. What Frisk does by killing monsters is totally selfish, at best it only helps herself. Meanwhile, by getting the 7th human soul, Undyne is helping the rest of Monsterkind escape the barrier. Her actions help more people than herself. So she isn\'t being selfish. Ergo, both situations cannot be compared. Unless you are saying, of course, that monsters should have resigned themselves to passing the rest of their existence behind the barrier? After all, killing humans is a no-no and that\'s the only way they can break the barrier.

\"Why accuse the player of grinding only to see numbers go up and get stronger when the game can be beaten at Lv.1, making such a mechanic inherently meaningless?\"

You yourself said why: Because gaining any levels at all isn\'t needed to beat this game. That means that the only reason, the only motivation behind a grinding sesion in this game would be a selfish one. And if there\'s one thing the game is vehemently against is a selfish person (or monster).

\"Why have the options when there is only one right answer?\"

Because otherwise it loses its second tagline (player freedom). It would become an illusion of choice because the player is forced to be friendly to be able to get an ending. If you take the Genocide route away then the player\'s action stop influencing the story of the game in any meaningful way.

I will ask: How would you have done the Genocide route? How would you have avoided to take player freedom away and forced the player down one path?.

\"And you keep ignoring context. There\'s a major difference between what Undyne is trying to do and what Frisk (Genocide route) is trying to do: Selfishness. What Frisk does by killing monsters is totally selfish, at best it only helps herself.\"

Yeah we\'ve been here before and my opinion hasn\'t changed. I\'m not going to give any benefit of the doubt to blatant child murderers. And in Undyne\'s case, she chases down a child while calling herself a hero (and humans evil) and her current actions are anything but heroic. And if the big takeaway is that killing monsters is a no-no, why are humans expendable instead? Simply because the monsters get more out of it? I\'d say the lot of them are pretty selfish in that regard.

\"You yourself said why: Because gaining any levels at all isn\'t needed to beat this game. That means that the only reason, the only motivation behind a grinding sesion in this game would be a selfish one.\"

Imagine you\'re playing a game that happens to have various routes in it. You hear of one you can unlock, but you have to go out of your way to attain it. Are you selfish for being interested in experiencing more content of a game you\'ve invested time and, most of all, money in?

\"Because otherwise it loses its second tagline (player freedom). It would become an illusion of choice because the player is forced to be friendly to be able to get an ending.\"

But there\'s basically no player freedom because only one choice is \"objectively right\". It\'s already an illusion of choice from the get-go.

\"I will ask: How would you have done the Genocide route? How would you have avoided to take player freedom away and forced the player down one path?\"

I\'ll preface this by statimg that freedom is moot if there is a punishment involved when acting upon said freedom and only one choice seems to matter. Anyway, to answer:

No Genocide route, period. It adds absolutely nothing to the game except to punish player agency and needlessly guilt trip. And Pacifist is evidently the preferred route anyway. If you want a happy, barebones RPG where no one has to die, then make a happy, barebones RPG where no one has to die. Honestly, I\'d change a LOT more but the topic is mostly about the Genocide route.

But if Genocide route is oh-so necessary, then 1. have it be more engaging! Let the player have fun wrecking shit. What\'s the point of a route where you\'re the villain if you can\'t get into the role? Then it hits harder when you realize what your \"fun\" led to. 2. No jabs at grinding or completionism, especially if you\'re going to deliberately miscontrue why players would do as such. 3. No permanent bad ending. This is what ruins the aspect of a free choice. I don\'t care about \"the consequences\", this is a video game, not real life. If you want real life, then turn the game off. The appeal of games comes in making a choice, seeing it through, then jumping back in, if you\'re so inclined, to try something else. And look, I have no issues with a bad ending per se; show me that I messed up, that\'s fine. Just don\'t stick me with a bad ending forever.

• I personally would've had the Geno Route be as pointless and boring as possible

• The game seems to want to believe you did what you did out of malice

I put these 2 together because they answer each other. The game is not saying you would only play a genocide run out of malice, but that you are actively choosing the crueler way to either know or experience the "rewards" (boss fights, etc.). If the genocide route was as kinker proposes, then only boderline psychopats that would go out of their way to play it out, well, malice.

\"And in Undyne\'s case, she chases down a child while calling herself a hero\"

Because, for monsterkind, she is indeed a hero. She is the reason why monsterkind will finally be able to break the barrier, finally returning to the surface. Why would she be treated as a villain? Only way this would be the case is if, for some reason, monsters breaking the barrier itself is a bad thing.

\"and humans evil\"

Because they are evil. Pay attention to the backstory. Humans, for no good reason, instigated the monster-human war and then trapped the monsters behind the barrier forevermore. Do you honestly still expect me to believe that humans are good? As if.

\"why are humans expendable instead?\"

They sow what they reaped. They were the ones that trapped the monsters behind the barrier for no good reason, is just fair that they are the ones that have to pay so monsters go free again.

\"I\'d say the lot of them are pretty selfish in that regard.\"

The same thing could be said about humans when they sealed the monsters behind the barrier.

\"Are you selfish for being interested in experiencing more content of a game you\'ve invested time and, most of all, money in?\"

Actually, yes, I would be. Being selfish just means that what you want will only impact yourself in a positive way, it might or might not impact others in a negative way, though. Thing is that being selfish, by itself, is not inherently bad. Is what you do with said selfishness that decides if you are good or bad.

\"It\'s already an illusion of choice from the get-go.\"

Sorry but no, its not. An Illusion of Choice entails that any choice the player takes will have close to no impact at all in the overall story of the game (example: The Starter choice in Pokemon). This is no the case for Undertale, at all. Both the Genocide route and the Pacifist route are starkly different.

\"I\'ll preface this by statimg that freedom is moot if there is a punishment involved when acting upon said freedom...\"

Yet, in Real Life, you are free to bully somebody, to steal or to kill yet all of those are met with punishment. Why should it be different in games?.

\"It adds absolutely nothing to the game...\"

Save for all the extra lore (mostly about Chara, Flowie, resetting and the power of Determination itself) that can only be seen in this route.

\"If you want a happy, barebones RPG where no one has to die, then make a happy, barebones RPG where no one has to die.\"

And this differentiates Undertale from any other happy-go-lucky RPG (like, say, Pokemon) how, exactly? If you take the Genocide route out then it becomes an RPG more of the lot.

\"Honestly, I\'d change a LOT more but the topic is mostly about the Genocide route.\"

I mean,if you wanna add those changes to the debate, do so. Might be entertaining to see what you would change.

\"1. have it be more engaging! Let the player have fun wrecking shit. What\'s the point of a route where you\'re the villain if you can\'t get into the role? Then it hits harder when you realize what your \"fun\" led to.\"

You aren\'t supposed to have fun playing the Genocide route, that is the entire gist of it. After all, unless you are a psycopath, you wouldn\'t have fun going on a manhunt in Real Life.

\"2. No jabs at grinding or completionism, especially if you\'re going to deliberately miscontrue why players would do as such.\"

So the player shouldn\'t be criticised for doing what amounts to a pretty terrible thing? Okay. You are killing every monster you see (for no good reason might I add?), why shouldn\'t you be criticised?.

\"I don\'t care about \"the consequences\", this is a video game, not real life.\"

However, without consequences choices aren\'t that interesting nor heavy. Consequences help showcase the severity of a choice and its impact both in the story and in the game.

\"Just don\'t stick me with a bad ending forever.\"

I mean, I kinda agree. This should happen only the first time you get a Pacifist route post Genocide route.

\"They sow what they reaped. They were the ones that trapped the monsters behind the barrier for no good reason, is just fair that they are the ones that have to pay so monsters go free again.\"

So...I really don\'t want to go into this topic since it has nothing to do with the original post, but the fact that you came to the reasoning that this means the monsters wanting to slaughter a random child is A-OK is reeeal messed up.

\"An Illusion of Choice entails that any choice the player takes will have close to no impact at all in the overall story of the game.\"

Exactly. What\'s the point of other options if there is just one correct answer?

\"You aren\'t supposed to have fun playing the Genocide route, that is the entire gist of it. After all, unless you are a psycopath, you wouldn\'t have fun going on a manhunt in Real Life.\"

Did you just argue that the VIDEO GAME isn\'t supposed to be fun and that one shouldn\'t be enjoying slaughtering things in REAL LIFE? You do realize the difference between a video game and real life, right?

\"So the player shouldn\'t be criticised for doing what amounts to a pretty terrible thing?\"

I\'m saying the jabs at a playstyle are pointless because you\'re criticizing how people enjoy video games based on your own gripes (i.e. Toby believing grinding is \"soulless\" in spite of the fact that there\'s a good reason people grind in games).

\"However, without consequences choices aren\'t that interesting nor heavy.\"

And please tell me what interesting or heavy choices there are in Undertale where the answer to every conflict, in spite of the circumstances involved, is SPARE, SPARE, SPARE?

\"but the fact that you came to the reasoning that this means the monsters wanting to slaughter a random child is A-OK is reeeal messed up.\"

And the fact that you are insinuating that the monsters deserve to pass the rest of eternity behind the barrier even when they don\'t deserve something like this is equally messed up.

\"What\'s the point of other options if there is just one correct answer?\"

Okay, you keep saying that there\'s only one correct answer but there isn\'t, but choices are equally as valid. Or are you saying this sorely because the Genocide route doesn\'t play the credits? Because the reason for that is because transitioning to the credits after the entire ending of the Genocide route would be jarring.

\"Did you just argue that the VIDEO GAME isn\'t supposed to be fun...\"

Yes, because the Genocide route isn\'t supposed to be fun, it is supposed to be a boring slog. Again, you are committing a genocide for no good reason, why should that be fun?.

\"I\'m saying the jabs at a playstyle are pointless because you\'re criticizing how people enjoy video games based on your own gripes\"

Then you tell me: How can the monsters criticize your actions without it coming like your playstyle is being criticized? Because it wouldn\'t fit that monsters would either not criticize you or that they would congratulate you for basically killing all of them for no good reason.

\"And please tell me what interesting or heavy choices there are in Undertale where the answer to every conflict, in spite of the circumstances involved, is SPARE, SPARE, SPARE?\"

You do know the Neutral route exists, right? Again, you aren\'t forced to spare any monster at all. This game does take into account nearly all possibilities a player could think of.

This actually strengthens both major endings because it makes deciding between being a psycopath or friendly even more important, ergo, if needed be, a punishment could strengthen said choice.

"And the fact that you are insinuating that the monsters deserve to pass the rest of eternity behind the barrier even when they don't deserve something like this is equally messed up."

So the monsters have apparently done nothing wrong, ergo they're free to murder children. Got it.

"Okay, you keep saying that there's only one correct answer but there isn't, but choices are equally as valid."

That is factually incorrect. Let's not forget the subtlety (or lack thereof) this game possesses. It WANTS you to be a full-on pacifist. The tagline? Toriel's battle tutorial? And why else would the Pacifist run conclude with the best possible ending?

"Yes, because the Genocide route isn't supposed to be fun, it is supposed to be a boring slog."

And that's what I call bad game design. And many will agree with me.

"Then you tell me: How can the monsters criticize your actions without it coming like your playstyle is being criticized?"

By criticizing the CHARACTER you play as? This is a ROLE PLAYING GAME, right?

"You do know the Neutral route exists, right?"

Yes. And I say it doesn't really have much of a purpose to exist either. What ruins it was the decision to implement a morality system into the game and it utterly fails at it by having an "objectively" correct choice without allowing any agency to see through other choices. It's either Pacifist for the best and most cheerful ending, Neutral but sorry try again or Genocide and whoops your save file is tainted forever. Yeah, sure does make the decision sooo important.

\"So the monsters have apparently done nothing wrong,...\"

Because they haven\'t. Who are the ones that instigated the Human-Monster war? Humans. Who sealed monsters behind a barrier? Humans. Who killed Asriel without good reason? You guessed it, humans. Humans are the villains in this story. That is a fact.

\"...ergo they\'re free to murder children. Got it.\"

This is yet another misunderstanding of yours. Monsters don\'t need children souls to break the barrier, all they need is human souls. The only reason why all the souls they have are children souls is because children would be the kind of people that would sneak their way into a prohibited area (like Mt. Ebott) and would end up falling to the underground. The monsters are just making do with what they have at hand.

Heck, the only reason why no monster has simply picked up a human soul and gone through the barrier to pick up the other 6 souls to break the barrier is because Asgore himself doesn\'t really want to kill humans, but he made a promise with the rest of monsterkind and now he feels that he cannot back down, so he\'s delaying the innevitable. However, notice how Toriel keeps criticising him for doing this and even broke up with him for this exact reason.

\"The tagline? Toriel\'s battle tutorial? And why else would the Pacifist run conclude with the best possible ending?\"

Yet, at the end of the day, it still isn\'t forcing you to go through the Pacifist route. There\'s quite literally nothing stopping you from being evil if that is what you want.

The tagline? It says that you can give monsters either Mercy or Hell. Toriel\'s battle tutorial? It can be ended violently as well with no much repercussions, so both are equally valid choices. And why does the Pacifist route end in such a high note? Because all monsters survived and finally managed to reach the surface, something they have wanted for hundreds of years. How could Toby weaken this ending without it looking like he forced himself to create a bittersweet ending for the sake of the Genocide route?.

\"And that\'s what I call bad game design. And many will agree with me.\"

I would usually agree with you, however, seeing the theme of this route, this feeling was intended. The message being, as obvious as it might be, that committing a genocide and other kind of atrocities is just plain wrong. That is why making this route any more fullfilling or entertaining would be wrong, because it would tarnish the message.

\"By criticizing the CHARACTER you play as?\"

And that is what happens. All throught the game, no matter which path you choose to go down, the only ones that talk to the player directly are: Flowey, Asriel and Chara. The first two being the same person and having a lot of Determination power; the later being a quasi-demon that possessed Frisk in the Genocide route. Nobody else talks tothe player directly at all.

If you felt insulted by what the monster said to Frisk, that is on you buddy.

\"And I say it doesn\'t really have much of a purpose to exist either.\"

So, all of those quasi-endings that show that Toby predicted everything any player would do in his game shouldn\'t exist either? Okay. The more you reply, the more it feels like you actually don\'t care at all about freedom of choice and just want to be taken by the hand down the Pacifist route.

\"...and it utterly fails at it by having an \"objectively\" correct choice without allowing any agency to see through other choices.\"

Again, wrong. I already explained why there\'s no \"objective\" route. As for player agency? That is on you. The game doesn\'t force you at all to go down the Pacifist route, so the agency is on you.

\"It\'s either Pacifist for the best and most cheerful ending,...\"

Because finally everything went the way monsters wanted it to go for once.

\"Neutral but sorry try again...\"

Because there\'s no way to solve the main problem (break the barrier) in any one of those endings, so said endings are bittersweet at best.

\"...or Genocide and whoops your save file is tainted forever.\"

Again, you were an asshole down that route so some punishment is more than required. More so seeing how you can cancel a Genocide route any time you want to, so you would have to be real scummy to see it through, ergo, you deserve the punishment.

\"Because they haven\'t. Who are the ones that instigated the Human-Monster war? Humans. Who sealed monsters behind a barrier? Humans. Who killed Asriel without good reason? You guessed it, humans. Humans are the villains in this story. That is a fact.\"

And this is the problem. One can only make inferences because the game spends more time showing one side of the conflict. Then the game also reveals what happens when a monster has a human soul, which may imply that that was that set off the war with them and humans and why humans sealed them away (you know, as opposed to obliterating them all). And with that thought, Asriel\'s backstory makes sense and is the only reasonable conclusion one can make (as we don\'t know the humans\' side and we don\'t know if he was killed because he was a monster or because he was holding a soulless corpse). Not to mention I am not quite fond of the \"humans are real monsters\" angle unless there\'s a proper payoff. Especially when we have to pardon the monsters for child murder and reward them with freedom. But this is still going off topic, so let\'s rest the issue.

\"The tagline? It says that you can give monsters either Mercy or Hell.\"

The tagline that says: \"The friendly RPG where no one has to die!\"

\"The more you reply, the more it feels like you actually don\'t care at all about freedom of choice and just want to be taken by the hand down the Pacifist route.\"

Because I don\'t take well to games attempting morality. They never do it well. It\'s either \"do this for a reward\" or \"do this because the developer obviously thinks this is the best choice as opposed to this other choice\". Rarely do you ever see an acceptable middle ground. And I do care about freedom of choice; that\'s what I\'ve been arguing for this whole time. I just don\'t enjoy when a game presents choices to me and it turns out one of those choices ruins my save file permanently.

Actually, you know what would have been a better story? If the monsters were driven underground not by a war, but by humans hunting them for their valuable body parts. Because at least then you can make a neat video game parallel (especially to series like Monster Hunter or any assorted RPG quest) you can excuse the monsters\' aggression, even against a child, they can actually be seen as sympathetic, you can reasonably call the humans out for being greedy (instead of being conflicted because of the fact that the monsters can steal their souls or indirectly harm them with magic), characters like Undyne will be justified in seeing them as evil monster slayers (and maybe remove the anime bit because that kind of creates a contradiction with her character) and most importantly, it would give the perfect explanation for why it\'s on you to show the monsters that you mean no harm!

\"Then the game also reveals what happens when a monster has a human soul, which may imply that that was that set off the war with them and humans and why humans sealed them away...\"

Sorry, but you lack evidence. The game never establishes this to be what started the war.

Heck, things are worse for you. The game gaves us evidence that the opposite could have also been true: A human absorbed a monster soul and went on a kiling spree. After all, this is what Frisk does during the Genocide route. So your fear argument isn\'t as strong because it applies to both sides. It just so happens that humans were the ones that crossed the line.

\"(you know, as opposed to obliterating them all)\"

Oh yeah, because it was kind out of humans to seal all monsters, no matter what, behind a barrier forevemore, right? because it was kind out of them to consider the fact that a being being born with extra eyes, fur, scales, fangs, wings, between others, as a sin by itself that deserves eternal imprisonment, right?. Sorry, but I don\'t agree, at all. This is what we could call \"racism\" (or speciesm, this time around). Seeing how humans decided that anything that wasn\'t human deserved to live their lives trapped behind a barrier, this is the only reasonable conclusion.

\"as we don\'t know the humans\' side and we don\'t know if he was killed because he was a monster or because he was holding a soulless corpse\"

Sorry, but we do know how Asriel died, Asriel himself told us as much: He went to the village to bury Chara, the villagers saw him and attacked him immediatelly without letting him explain himself at all. This is what a racist race would do, not a kindhearted race.

Oh, and don\'t even bother arguing that he simply didn\'t told us everything because then you would have to prove both that he didn\'t and why he would keep quiet like this.

\"Not to mention I am not quite fond of the \"humans are real monsters\" angle unless there\'s a proper payoff.\"

This doesn\'t matter. This is the way Toby Fox wrote the story.

\"Especially when we have to pardon the monsters for child murder and reward them with freedom.\"

So, are you saying that they deserve to be trapped forevermore behind the barrier? Okay.

\"It\'s either \"do this for a reward\"\"

And that is wrong how, exactly? Because I don\'t know about you, but I hate when a game asks me to put a lot of effort in something and then gives me no reward at all. So why is it wrong if a morality system rewards/punishes its players for their decissions?.

\"or \"do this because the developer obviously thinks this is the best choice as opposed to this other choice\".\"

Yet Toby Fox didn\'t do this at all. He gave every route (Pacifist, Neutral and Genocide) equal amount of content and importance.

\"Rarely do you ever see an acceptable middle ground.\"

And what would you call a middle ground?.

\"And I do care about freedom of choice; that\'s what I\'ve been arguing for this whole time.\"

Oh yeah, because arguing for freedom of choice entails arguing that 2/3 of Undertale should have been deleted and that everybody should have been forced down the Pacifist route, right? Sorry but no, thatis arguing for the illusion of choice, not for freedom of choice.

\" I just don\'t enjoy when a game presents choices to me and it turns out one of those choices ruins my save file permanently.\"

Only thing I can agree with, it shouldn\'t have been permanent. It should have happened only the first time or there should have been an easy way to defuse this punishment.

\"If the monsters were driven underground not by a war, but by humans hunting them for their valuable body parts.\"

So, you are saying that the game would have been better if the humans were irredeemable bastards instead of assholes that have the benefit of the doubt? After all, your theory has some merits to it. My problem with said argument are twofold:

- It hasn\'t been proven yet.

- You are basing your distaste for this game on this umproven theory of yours. That is something I simply disagree with and think nobody should do. A game should be judged by itself and we shouldn\'t care about any theories of ours when judging the game.

\"Because at least then you can make a neat video game parallel\"

But it is already a parallel. It is a parallel to the likes of Shin Megami or Dragon Quest were monsters cannot be redeemed.

\"they can actually be seen as sympathetic,...\"

Are they not already?!. Have you never felt the impotency of wanting to escape a bubble but being unable to do so? Of wanting to move to a better place but being stopped from doing so? Because I have, since I was born in my shithole of a country (Venezuela, if you forgot). I keep insisting that the monsters are the victims because I feel all their despair in my own skin. I can easily reflect on any one of those monsters thanks to both having similar lifestyles. This is why I cannot agree that being trapped forever behind a barrier isn\'t despairful enough, because for me, it is, big time.

\"characters like Undyne will be justified in seeing them as evil monster slayers\"

Isn\'t she already?! Humans removed freedom from the entirety of monsterkind, I would say that this is reason enough for her to act like she does.

\"and maybe remove the anime bit because that kind of creates a contradiction with her character\"

How so? Undertale happens in a world where monsters exist, where humans can use magic and where an airplane can think and talk by itself. I would say it already is like anime.

Besides, all Undyne knows about human society is outdated. She hasn\'t been in the surface for hundreds of years and all the info she has on human society comes from outdated anime and manga Alphys has. Undyne simply knows no better.

\"...and most importantly, it would give the perfect explanation for why it\'s on you to show the monsters that you mean no harm!\"

Oh yeah, because humans sealing them in a barrier isn\'t reason enough for monsters to distrust any human they see, right?.

"Sorry, but you lack evidence. The game never establishes this to be what started the war."

I made it clear that I'm assuming this based on what little information the game provides.

"The game gaves us evidence that the opposite could have also been true: A human absorbed a monster soul and went on a kiling spree."

Wait, where?

"Sorry, but we do know how Asriel died, Asriel himself told us as much: He went to the village to bury Chara, the villagers saw him and attacked him immediatelly without letting him explain himself at all."

Which is easy to explain if you consider the "monster stole a human soul and went on a rampage" idea. If we can assume the humans experienced that, how else would they react to a monster carrying a corpse? But again, I can only infer that because we don't really know what set those humans off: the monster itself or the fact that the monster had a dead body with it. So I think we should drop this discussion as well.

"So, are you saying that they deserve to be trapped forevermore behind the barrier? Okay."

Maybe not underground. I can agree that was drastic, but perhaps that was the only choice the humans had at the time. I can at least get the line of reasoning from a certain point of view:

• Monsters become dangerous when exposed to a human soul.
• Separate monsters from humans so they have no access to human souls.
• Seal them underground where no humans live.

"And that is wrong how, exactly? Because I don't know about you, but I hate when a game asks me to put a lot of effort in something and then gives me no reward at all."

If you only do a good deed simply for a reward, is that moral?

"So why is it wrong if a morality system rewards/punishes its players for their decissions?"

The problem comes with there being an obvious correct answer, as I've been saying. Morality is more complex than that!

"Yet Toby Fox didn't do this at all. He gave every route (Pacifist, Neutral and Genocide) equal amount of content and importance."

And yet, like kinker pointed out, you're demonized for trying to experience the Genocide content then punished for completing the route. What is the importance of a route if the idea is that people SHOULDN'T play it?

"And what would you call a middle ground?"

No blatant reward or punishment for a choice. Simply do something, see how it plays out then have the option to experience the story in any way you desire. If something bad happens, fine, get a bad ending but allow your players to continue to experience the game.

"Oh yeah, because arguing for freedom of choice entails arguing that 2/3 of Undertale should have been deleted and that everybody should have been forced down the Pacifist route, right? Sorry but no, thatis arguing for the illusion of choice, not for freedom of choice."

It seems like you're deliberately trying to misunderstand my point so I'll explain it and drop it: I take issue with only one route being the "correct" route while another is a "punishment" route, as that's what ruins the "freedom of choice" concept for me. You shouldn't be inclined nor disquaded from a path if a choice is free for you to make. The game already considers Pacifist the best route so why not cut out the middle man?

"Are they not already?!. Have you never felt the impotency of wanting to escape a bubble but being unable to do so?"

Obviously no, but even if I was I would be horrified if I had to murder multiple children in order to be free.

"Isn't she already?!"

No. Because nothing other than "humans sealed us" properly leads to the idea that the entire human race is evil. And you have the whole anime thing which raises its own issues: 1. A lot of anime have HUMAN protagonists, so it's very strange to hold on to the idea that every human is irredeemably evil after the fact, and 2. any character that attempts to hurt a child is usually a villianous one. Watching anime should have completely changed Undyne's character to begin with.

"Oh yeah, because humans sealing them in a barrier isn't reason enough for monsters to distrust any human they see, right?"

Not really. In my idea, monsters are endangered due to humans gleefully hunting them. In Undertale, the monsters are just...relocated. It's not like the humans are ruling over them or wiping out their kind or oppressing them. I mean sure maybe there will be some disdain but not enough to justify the perception that the entire race is evil and deserves eradication.

\"I made it clear that I\'m assuming this based on what little information the game provides.\"

Problem is that meanwhile you lack evidence, your arguments are weakened a lot. Again, you shouldn\'t base your entire judgement of a game on a theory of yours, more so if said theory lacks evidence.

\"Wait, where?\"

That was a theory. But hey, if you will count theories, so will I. Am playing under your rules, after all.

\"Which is easy to explain if you consider the \"monster stole a human soul and went on a rampage\" idea.\"

Sorry, but this is a weak argument. You lack evidence for this to be the case, something you yourself admitted.

\"So I think we should drop this discussion as well.\"

Why? Because is not working for you or something?.

\"but perhaps that was the only choice the humans had at the time.\"

You also lack evidence for this.

\"Monsters become dangerous when exposed to a human soul.\"

Humans also become dangerous when exposed to monster soul (example: Genocide route Frisk).

\"Separate monsters from humans so they have no access to human souls.\"

So, instead of learning to coexist in harmony they should stay far away from each other? Okay. This makes both races sound so pathetic, though, if they cannot learn something so basic as coexistence.

\"Seal them underground where no humans live.\"

Nope, sorry but I will never agree that this is a humanly outcome. There\'s no good reason to seal an entire species someplace for good.

\"If you only do a good deed simply for a reward, is that moral?\"

Morality is subjective. Let me give you three example of characters that have a gray morality: Senkuu Ichigami, Ryusui Nanami (both from Dr. Stone) and Arataka Reigen (from Mob Psycho 100). The 3 of them are good-natured characters, yet this wont stop them from always think about their main desire: Money for both Raigen and Ryusui and science for Senkuu. They will always ask for a payment after they do something.

\"but even if I was I would be horrified if I had to murder multiple children in order to be free.\"

So would I, but I would also do anything to escape my country. I would hate myself forever but at least I would be free. This is what is called \"being desperate\", something is obvious you don\'t know anything about. I actually envy you a little now.

\"Because nothing other than \"humans sealed us\" properly leads to the idea that the entire human race is evil.\"

And that is what they did. Really, I don\'t understand why you don\'t consider humans evil.

\"Watching anime should have completely changed Undyne\'s character to begin with.\"

True, this is an small plot hole. But you shouldn\'t let small holes like this one ruin the entire game.

\"It\'s not like the humans are ruling over them or wiping out their kind or oppressing them.\"

However, keeping them sealed behind the barrier is equally as inhuman in my opinion. Again, unless you have lived like I have, you wont know how it feels to want to escape like the monsters want to.

\"I mean sure maybe there will be some disdain but not enough to justify the perception that the entire race is evil and deserves eradication.\"

I could say the same thing about monsters.

"Again, you shouldn't base your entire judgement of a game on a theory of yours, more so if said theory lacks evidence."

AGAIN, I already admitted I don't have a lot to base my thoughts on concerning the matter but they at least make sense to me with the information given. And no, I'm not basing my dislike of the game on that singular theory. Come on, now you're being dishonest.

"Sorry, but this is a weak argument. You lack evidence for this to be the case, something you yourself admitted."

I explained where I got the idea from. Now I'm just getting annoyed because you're disregarding what I'm saying in order to keep your own opinions.

"Why? Because is not working for you or something?"

Because it's off topic and I'd rather not do a repeat of my review thread when we kept on for days.

"Humans also become dangerous when exposed to monster soul (example: Genocide route Frisk)."

So...when you surmise this based on something in the game that's fine but when I do it, it's not valid because I admit I don't have a lot of evidence?

"And that is what they did. Really, I don't understand why you don't consider humans evil."

Because that's shallow. And why is it fine for monsters to kill children for their own sake but humans sealing away (not killing) monsters to do the same "evil"?

"True, this is an small plot hole. But you shouldn't let small holes like this one ruin the entire game."

It ruins the character. And that's my point. I have more gripes with the game besides Undyne. And I already expressed as much in my review.

"However, keeping them sealed behind the barrier is equally as inhuman in my opinion."

And I already agreed this can be seen as drastic. But as I've already said, I can understand things from the humans' point of view as well.

"I could say the same thing about monsters."

I'm not calling the monsters evil. I just don't find them sympathetic in spite of their "plight". You might want to downplay the "killing children" conundrum, but it's front and center for me and the idea that I'm supposed to forgive that and let them get away with it and even REWARD them with friendship and freedom while the player is chastised and even forever punished is one of my biggest gripes with the game.

\"...but they at least make sense to me with the information given.\"

Might make sense to you, but you cannot deny they are weak arguments.

\"And no, I\'m not basing my dislike of the game on that singular theory. Come on, now you\'re being dishonest.\"

Am not being \"dishonest\", I just don\'t remember what you said in said review. Come on now, you really believed I would remember said review? As if, you are not that important.

\"I explained where I got the idea from.\"

Yeah, so? It is still weak.

\"Now I\'m just getting annoyed because you\'re disregarding what I\'m saying in order to keep your own opinions.\"

I do so because your arguments lack evidence, ergo, they are weak. Unlike you, I sorely base my opinion on any game on what the game itself gives me; you tend to base it on both what the game gives you and theories you make along the way.

\"it\'s not valid because I admit I don\'t have a lot of evidence?\"

Exactly. I work under the belief that \"evidence is everything\" so if you lack evidence, I wont take you as seriously.

\"And why is it fine for monsters to kill children for their own sake but humans sealing away (not killing) monsters to do the same \"evil\"?\"

Beause the former are the desperate actions of an species that were wronged big time and just want freedom; the later are the actions of a selfish species that only cares about themselves and that had no good reason to hurt the former.

\"It ruins the character. And that\'s my point.\"

Agree to disagree here.

\"I have more gripes with the game besides Undyne. And I already expressed as much in my review.\"

Could you remind me of those?.

\"I can understand things from the humans\' point of view as well.\"

I don\'t because I cannot see any good reason to seal an entire species begind a barrier. Mostly thanks to my own life experiences.

\"...but it\'s front and center for me and the idea that I\'m supposed to forgive that and let them get away with it and even REWARD them with friendship and freedom while the player is chastised and even forever punished is one of my biggest gripes with the game.\"

Yet again you ignore the context: Monsters are helping each other by killing those children, they will be able to break the barrier. Please, tell me: who does Frisk help (besides herself) by killing all the monsters?. One side is being selfless, the other is being selfish. There\'s no comparison.

You know what, let\'s put all the cards in the table: Seeing how 7 human souls are required to break the barrier, tell me: What should monsters do?

A.-) Kill 7 humans and finally break the barrier.

B.-) Don\'t kill any human and pass the rest of eternity sealed behind the barrier.

C.-) Something else (explain).

Gutsman, Jetty, the comments section of a third party review is not the place to have an argument, especially one that you\'ve had before.

Take it to P Ms or somewhere else, please.

I understand. I didn't want this to escalate anyway, as I merely wanted to agree with the person who posted the review, so I'll simply back off.

Okay, I was just pointing the flaws I saw in Jetty\'s comments, nothing more. I wouldn\'t even call this an argument, it was just a debate.

Anyway, if Jetty wants he can tell me through PM to continue and I will do so. Or not, I don\'t really care.

Debate or not, this stuff is no better than what the game tries to convey. Sure, the meta elements could have been better, but this debate is nothing but horseshit.