"Inside" - A Defense of the Ending

[Xprimentyl]

I understand we?re each different, each entitled to our opinion and am not posting to start a debate; I just wanted to share my take on ?Inside?s? ending for those who were disappointed by it in the hopes some might find a slightly different perspective to see it from versus having to defend themselves from people who dismiss them as ?just not getting it.? Warning: SPOILERS ahead!

We can all agree: ?Inside? poses more questions than answers. What starts off as a fairly straight forward stealthy chase through nondescript, eerily foreboding woods quickly spirals into a disturbing and macabre dystopian nightmare rife with themes of slavery, control and horror. The pace and questions ramp up exponentially throughout the game until you face a disappointingly abrupt denouement and credits, all questions unanswered? ?

Believe me; I understand how unacceptable that is in 99.9999% of cases, but as I?ve said in a few other forums, ?Inside? is more an immersive experience than a game. This is all my personal opinion, but given what I know of ?Limbo? and the similar vein of silent, implicit storytelling that carried over into ?Inside,? I think developer Playdead chooses to engage its audience in more different and innovative ways than the traditional ?beginning, middle and end? games, and for that reason, their games will stand out in our hearts and minds longer and more so than many an 8-hour, big budget Triple-A affair which can be forgotten almost immediately.

But in defense of ?Inside?s? ending, allow me an analogy. I love movies with a twist. I love a movie that keeps me guessing for 2 hours only to put my every assumption on its head in the final minutes. But what I also hate about such films is that they can only truly be enjoyed once. After you know the twists, the only enjoyment you can take from them is finding someone who hasn?t seen them and spend the time watching them guess and reveling in their surprise, wishing you could share in it. ?Inside? is the rare gem that, while the surprise may not be there for me anymore, it still dominates the imagination, leaving everything up to interpretation and speculation, making us want to go back? well? ?INSIDE? again and again, picking apart every detail for a hint, a CLUE, as to what this world of horrors was all about!

I?ve played the ?Bioshocks? and ?Spec Ops: The Lines? of the world and yes, those games were amazing and surprised the hell out of me, but save for fondly recalling my surprise, none of them really STUCK with me or made me think beyond the end credits. I felt no need to play them again; they told me their stories and I was done with them. I finished ?Inside? over 2 weeks ago, and have played it back through several times since then; I played it during my lunch hour today. That game and it?s unanswered questions have been on my mind unlike any gaming experience ever, and I don?t think I could appreciate it or its world of horrific mysteries that unfolds nearly as much had Playdead opted to give us the nice and neat explanations and ending so many people feel they wanted and/or deserved. There?s a darkly satisfying charm when I think of the game?s beginning (a red-shirted boy running through the woods,) then the ending (a sentient, fleshly mass of arms and legs running for its life) and how all the amazing, experiences and set pieces in between are all somehow connected, but not knowing how!

Playdead?s ?Inside? invites us to partake of and think within a deeply and disturbingly thought-provoking world of which it only allows us a brief glimpse, and in that course, it has become, for me, one of the most memorable gaming experiences in a long time. Playdead didn?t do it with high-end graphics or novelty gameplay mechanics; they did it with the kind of beautifully telling imagery and subtlety that proves that the old adage ?a picture is worth a thousand words? still holds true.

 

[Xprimentyl]

People find the ending disappointingly abrupt? I don't understand people. Playdead created another masterpiece that's about as long as I'd want it to be. It took them six years, and they didn't waste your time with much emptiness and traveling, like a lot of other devs. I played it again the day after and enjoyed getting the remaining secrets. I wish AAA devs told stories more in this way. Using the environments and gameplay, like only a game can. Most cutscenes and dialogue are so dull and tedious. Why do they all believe they have to emulate movies? I'd rather watch movies.

To be clear, the complaints I've seen around the web are generally leveled at the WAY the game ends, not so much the overall length of the game. Most people agree with you; it's about as long as it needs to be, but many were expecting answers they didn't get.

And you're right, the industry needs more devs, indie and AAA alike, who're willing to try something new. Even if it doesn't pan out, at least we'd know they tried and weren't content (as they are now mostly) insulting our intelligence by taking our cash for the latest clone of essentially the same 4-5 games year after year.

 

[Silentpony_v1legacy]

See I felt it was lazy, and I mean that very literally. They couldn't think of a good ending, probably because they just wanted spoopy set pieces and disturbing imagery, and when it came time to make the end they just said "Fuck it, Game Theory will make a few videos trying to explain red herrings and PewDiePie will play it, therefore profit." Who needs intrigue and plot when you can get gamers to argue over things?

And that's the thing with intrigue. You have to pay it off, otherwise its not intriguing, its confusing. Intrigue has to be working towards a goal or revelation, otherwise its just a bunch of disconnected things happening, some of which may mean somethings, others not. Imagine sitting down with all your friends to play Clue, you all get your cards and characters, few turns go 'round...and then you all stop. Never figure out who it was, or where or how. Game's over, piss off. Or if Amnesia had just ended after the Water-monster chase or if Silent Hill 2 ended before you figured out what happened to your wife. All atmosphere, no world. No clue has any meaning because it serves no end; they're just empty things that happen.

Take Limbo for example. The story is you're in Limbo...and that's it. That's the full story. You're on the first circle of hell, things are always bad, and when you finish the game, turns out you're still in Limbo. As stories go, its simplistic sure, but its at least explained and cohesive. But what if Limbo had just faded to black after the City sections. It wouldn't have been brilliant, it would have been confusing.

That's what Inside felt like to me. A game that couldn't live up to its own story. Half finished at best.

 

[Xprimentyl]

See I felt it was lazy, and I mean that very literally. They couldn't think of a good ending, probably because they just wanted spoopy set pieces and disturbing imagery, and when it came time to make the end they just said "Fuck it, Game Theory will make a few videos trying to explain red herrings and PewDiePie will play it, therefore profit." Who needs intrigue and plot when you can get gamers to argue over things?

And that's the thing with intrigue. You have to pay it off, otherwise its not intriguing, its confusing. Intrigue has to be working towards a goal or revelation, otherwise its just a bunch of disconnected things happening, some of which may mean somethings, others not. Imagine sitting down with all your friends to play Clue, you all get your cards and characters, few turns go 'round...and then you all stop. Never figure out who it was, or where or how. Game's over, piss off. Or if Amnesia had just ended after the Water-monster chase or if Silent Hill 2 ended before you figured out what happened to your wife. All atmosphere, no world. No clue has any meaning because it serves no end; they're just empty things that happen.

Take Limbo for example. The story is you're in Limbo...and that's it. That's the full story. You're on the first circle of hell, things are always bad, and when you finish the game, turns out you're still in Limbo. As stories go, its simplistic sure, but its at least explained and cohesive. But what if Limbo had just faded to black after the City sections. It wouldn't have been brilliant, it would have been confusing.

That's what Inside felt like to me. A game that couldn't live up to its own story. Half finished at best.

Fair enough; I can understand the need for closure and the lack thereof leaving a sense of incompletion. But I will disagree that Playdead was lazy. I would argue that a game this finely and pain-stakingly well-crafted by a developer well known for their use of implication and subtlety would not be one to have copped out at the very end for lack of effort. Will the ending be lost on some? Yes, but that doesn't mean they didn't meet their full intention. I think it was just a different approach they chose to take and I'd offer that a lot of the animosity and vitriol Playdead has received is actually a testament to how invested and immersed gamers were in the world of "Inside." I'd much rather take a great game that leaves me thinking, guessing and wondering than any one of the hundreds of mediocre ones that wrap everything up in a contrived story I've played dozens of times over.

 

[Silentpony_v1legacy]

SNIP

I guess any contention we might have comes from when along the proudtion path they decided not to explain what's going on, and why. Like if they wanted people to wonder and puzzle, fine. If they had an ending but couldn't fit it in, fair enough.
My worry is there was never an intention to have an ending, and not for artistic reasons, but because they couldn't think of one not be bothered to do it.

 

[SweetShark]

10/10. Excellent game for me.
Just to be short, the ending of the game maybe was cut very sudden, but also make sense.
At some point you see a small model of the place the blob reach in the end of the game. This means somehow the humans knows from the beginning you will do this all along.
That why also the secret ending make sense. You disconnect the boy from, well, from you, the player. YOU are the result of the experiment it happens in the game.
This of course is my opinion for the 4th wall story part of the game. For the reason WHY they doing they doing this to you is unknown to me.

 

[Guitarmasterx7]

I haven't seen many complaints about the ending. It's definitely not a Firewatch case or something.

I feel like it was well thought out and they were smart about where to clue you in and what to leave ambiguous. I don't feel like there's a single "right" interpretation of it but there are definite non debatable "bones" to the story that you can connect in various ways and build a conclusion that all clicks together. This is what separates it from say, the end of inception. It's not that you aren't being given the full story. You are. The sequence of events is very clear. You just aren't told WHY those things are happening and that's what you're left to interpret.

 

[Dalisclock]

I thought it was okay, my theory is that the hero and slaves where "mer-creatures" with the hero somehow escaping getting parts of his brain removed or something and the "mer-creatures" can control their limbs without blood flow or something in some sort of radio waves (hench their ability to "combine"), though it doesn't explain how the hero can suddently breath underwater, maybe he's been altered in some way prior to his escape?

The ending was just anti-climatic but in the worst way of it ending without much reason, you just slump dead before the finish line.

I kinda wonder if the mer-creatures weren't intentionally being created(whether from the whole cloth or by altering humans) as a new race that would be adapted to living under the sea, and we see a lot of water in the game they would work well in. I speculated while playing through it that the boy had previously been in the facility and he was in the early stages. Somehow that one scene kickstarted him becoming one of the mer-creatures, but he wasn't around long enough to finish the process.

Just a theory from what I saw.

 

[Neurotic Void Melody]

Now...I havent played the game yet, and am trying my best to avoid spoilers. But...isn't there supposed to be a "true" ending? Like I said, I am very much trying to avoid spoiling myself for the length of potentially a year, so this is just me throwing an unidentified bone out here

 

[EHKOS]

I didn't play it personally, like most games nowadays. (Adulting takes money ya know?) But I did watch it and the alt ending, and personally, I feel like they just recycled Limbo. There were some set-pieces, none as memorable as the spider, it used the same dark world, small kid tricks, and it's ending was up it's own ass while trying to be profound. Instead it was just a white canvas at a modern art gallery, which most "indie" games are like. So basically all that's left are some tedious puzzles, and that may be my most hated part of video games.

tl;dr My sense of wonder is dead and I identify the game as a cash-grab riding on old fame. Something I would put a cigarette out on if I still smoked. Not out of malice but indifference....alright, a little malice.

 

[Saetha]

Sign me up on the "It was a stupid ending that ruined the story by refusing to give answers." I'm not going to speculate on why the devs gave it the ending they did - I'm not going to sit here and condescend about how it's obviously a product of greed or laziness. Maybe they did have a story and didn't communicate it effectively. Maybe they had a story but didn't want to give it all away. Or maybe they were lazy/greedy. I dunno.

 

[Redryhno]

Sign me up on the "It was a stupid ending that ruined the story by refusing to give answers." I'm not going to speculate on why the devs gave it the ending they did - I'm not going to sit here and condescend about how it's obviously a product of greed or laziness. Maybe they did have a story and didn't communicate it effectively. Maybe they had a story but didn't want to give it all away. Or maybe they were lazy/greedy. I dunno.

Personally I'm just convinced they decided to ask a room of people about setpieces they'd like to see and then frankenstein'd the fuck out of them all for something vaguely similar to an incoherent narrative.

Which is fine, but I still consider Limbo to be the better game. Which is pathetic, since Limbo was a largely generic platformer, but it didn't add padding to the puzzles it had with things like the charge-up on the sub, elevator rides that make ME1 look like a game with no pauses, and anything involving dogs. I think the worst mistake Limbo made was the first spider auto-scroll and drowning the minute water touched you knees.

 

[Xprimentyl]

SNIP

My worry is there was never an intention to have an ending, and not for artistic reasons, but because they couldn't think of one not be bothered to do it.

I highly doubt that was the reason for the ending. Again, from the team at Playdead that birthed the quality that was "Limbo" which (IMHO) only got better with "Inside," I'd be hard pressed to believe they'd deliver a knowingly and intentionally unfinished product, particularly missing story elements; I'd imagine they had that part figured out (as well as what parts they wanted to disclose and those they wanted to withhold) well before production even started. It's my opinion that, for better or worse depending on the gamer, the game was more about the journey and thoughts each player would form in their own mind, not so much a concrete story they wanted to simply give us. Yes, this might be a misstep in some people's minds, and it was certainly a different approach from most games out there, but for those like myself, it was a unique thought starter and welcome offer of immersion.

The overarching theme of the game is escape; we spent 3-4 hours running, trapped inside the sick and twisted machinations of an ominous "evil" and the game ends with our making it out. Many think the "blob" is dead at the end (another debated topic,) but during the credits, one can clearly see it breathing; I chose to think it (whatever "it" is) is resting, relieved to have escaped, no longer "inside." To me, THAT is the story; that is the ending I feel fits best. Had they chosen to show the blob get up, dust itself off and catch a bus back to "Blobville" or something, I'd probably be on your side of the disappointment camp!

 

[Xprimentyl]

I didn't play it personally, like most games nowadays. (Adulting takes money ya know?) But I did watch it and the alt ending, and personally, I feel like they just recycled Limbo. There were some set-pieces, none as memorable as the spider, it used the same dark world, small kid tricks, and it's ending was up it's own ass while trying to be profound. Instead it was just a white canvas at a modern art gallery, which most "indie" games are like. So basically all that's left are some tedious puzzles, and that may be my most hated part of video games.

tl;dr My sense of wonder is dead and I identify the game as a cash-grab riding on old fame. Something I would put a cigarette out on if I still smoked. Not out of malice but indifference....alright, a little malice.

Haha! Tell us how you REALLY feel!!

But to your point, given the diversity within gaming (if not so much within individually genres of gaming,) why would we hold Playdead to any higher standard than a Treyarch or Infinity Ward who put out the same "Call of Duty" every year or two? Or Ubisoft who's been shitting out another "Assassin's Creed" every 14 minutes since 2007? Or EA and it's yearly release of sports titles wherein they're basically swapping features in and out with little to no actual innovation? Because fans of the those games will buy them and those developers (ostensibly) are good at what they do; there're more than enough markets and demographics for a decent developer like Playdead to be proficient in one and cater to those who'll support and appreciate their efforts without having to shoulder a criticism of "cash-grabbing." They've made TWO games in 6 years for Christ's sake; doing something twice doth not a habit make (except heroine or crack, that shit'll kill you.)

Like it or leave it, "Limbo" was a stellar game that sold well and made a huge impression on both fans of the platformer genre and many who weren't traditionally; I include myself in that latter category, but found "Limbo's" minimalist tone, creepy environments and visceral punishments to be right up my alley, enough so to not bat an eyelash before dropping $20 for Playdead's next title "Inside" 6 years later. Should Playdead have made an FPS? Maybe a "Rocket League" knock off? Maybe a rhythm game ala "Guitar Hero?" No, of course not. Fans of their work wanted something else that was new, but worthy of the amazingly high standards they delivered with "Limbo," and "Inside" was just that and then some, better in most respects, IMHO.

 

[go-10]

I don't know why people hated the enfing so much. I liked both endings, but I didn't think anything special or some hidden meaning behind everything.