Poll: Why does nobody seem to have the balls to criticize Undertale and its genocide mode?

[aegix drakan_v1legacy]

Is it good to make the player feel on a personal, ethical level like they are a bad person and disgust them with this large amount of negativity they feel in the process, in the name of good video game story-telling?

Considering how amazing I found Spec Ops the Line?

Yeah, I think it's a good thing to have games like that exist. Now, not EVERY game should do it, and not all games will do it because there are lots of genres and styles out there.

But the fact that games like that exist are great. They can make us face our darker sides, or make us realize something fundamental about ourselves we would never have realized, or make us recognize something that's wrong in the way we see the world.

Hell, Spec Ops the Line hit me hard in a way that made me realize "good intentions mean nothing if your actions are bad", which wasn't something I really gave much thought too before, and I love the game for that, as painful as it was.

And again, I sympathize that you wanted to play the whole game to review it, but still, the player can choose not to go down that path and the game warns you again and again not to do it.

For me, no. It's like writing an indirect hate letter to any anonymous person who reads it saying that they're an asshole for reading the letter, and then going on to carefully and elaborately convince you just how much of an asshole you are for continuing to read that letter. The more you read that letter, the more the letter builds up its guilt-trippy argument that you're a bad person for reading it.

You're leaving out the part where on the Geno route, you're doing something horrible in terms of the world you're playing in (literal genocide).

I think a better example is if you're reading a book where the first half builds up a lovable cast of characters, then warns you not to read the second half, and if you try, you see it's a highly sexualized account of each character being murdered and eaten, while the book tells you you're an asshole for continuing to read about these lovable characters suffering through this and telling you "It's only happening because you're reading it. If you hadn't read it, this wouldn't be happening".

 

[shrekfan246]

A lot of people are insulting the OP for criticizing their favorite game in this thread. That's sort of sad.

I enjoyed Undertale, but I didn't particularly care about it. I'm criticizing (not insulting, thanks) the OP because he's demonstrably missed the point of the game and is now complaining about it because he seems to be refusing to accept that sometimes a game that breaks the fourth wall will do it in a serious manner.

Anyway, I remember the Completionist criticized the Genocide Run. He did so specifically because finishing the Genocide Run means you can never have the better endings ever again. You play as a pacifist, then at the last minute your character wakes up, possessed, before s/he murders everyone anyway. You literally have to remove all your save data completely to fix that. He felt the game was punishing you for completing the game and experiencing all it had to offer, which he didn't like.

I don't know if this is a case of the messenger confusing the message, because I haven't watched the video, but that's... up to interpretation. The only explicit information given is that the remnants of what happened on the Genocide run will always remain. If you want to extrapolate further that your character then goes on to perform a murder-spree after you've stopped playing, well, that's kind of just down to your personal feelings and I don't think it's a fair point of criticism to aim at the game itself.

And, as Luminous_Umbra said, of course he didn't like it. Once again, that was part of the point. The Genocide run is a direct commentary on completionists, they're not supposed to like it. It's the exact same problem that OP has here; the game is treating its world like a real world. You, as the player, will suffer consequences for what you do in that world.

 

[DoPo]

And, slightly off topic onto the topic of Dishonored, the game really soured me with my first playthrough with the "moral choice system."

See, when I was looking through the powers for the first time, I noticed that Shadow Kill turned enemies to ash when killed. Remembering that I had heard that part of the High Chaos ending was the sheer amount of rats from all the dead, I picked it up, figuring that if everyone I killed turned to ash, I wouldn't run into this issue and at least get a special High Chaos ending, if nothing else.

Cue my disappointment when I found otherwise.

Wait, how is Dishonored's fault that you were wrong?

The high chaos ending isn't because of the rats. Yes, the rats do play a role but it is called high chaos no high rat content. It makes perfect sense that if you kill more people, things aren't improving. In the game world the resources of the city are already stretched thin - the people you kill would, therefore, be unable to assist with anything. Yes, they may not be food for the rats if they "vanish" but it still leaves less people who could be doing something to help.

The officers of the watch may not be good people and may be abusing their power (not all of them, but still), yet they ARE instrumental for keeping the plague in check. Their methods may be "unethical" but they are effective.

Other normal people may have various degrees of control over the plague but they are part of the world. Taking them out severs nobody favours. In many cases, it harms, as well.

Moreover, the more people you kill, the more the tension rises. As I pointed out, Dunwall's resources are already stretched thin, and people's patience and piece of mind is part of those resources. There is only so much they can endure before falling victim of negative emotions like fear and anger. You can directly see this throughout the game, as well - the worse Corvo acts, the worse everyone acts. Coupled with the plague, it means the whoe situation spirals down the drain.

Dishonored is not explicit like other games, but it does carry a message of "people's lives matter". You chose to ignore that and...well, let me paraphrase you: cue your disappointment. Yet, I don't see how the game is at fault for your actions. It wasn't explicit, but it sure as hell wasn't subtle that high chaos is bad. Bad for Dunwall, bad for the player, bad for everybody.

Which is why I liked the high chaos ending as well. It perfectly illustrates why turning into a monster while pursuing your goals doesn't magically remove the negative impact of your actions.

 

[Saltyk]

A lot of people are insulting the OP for criticizing their favorite game in this thread. That's sort of sad.

Anyway, I remember the Completionist criticized the Genocide Run. He did so specifically because finishing the Genocide Run means you can never have the better endings ever again. You play as a pacifist, then at the last minute your character wakes up, possessed, before s/he murders everyone anyway. You literally have to remove all your save data completely to fix that. He felt the game was punishing you for completing the game and experiencing all it had to offer, which he didn't like.

Well, of course he didn't like it, he's The Completionist and the game tears down that kind of playstyle and points out how messed up it is within the context of a living world.

Anyway, I remember the Completionist criticized the Genocide Run. He did so specifically because finishing the Genocide Run means you can never have the better endings ever again. You play as a pacifist, then at the last minute your character wakes up, possessed, before s/he murders everyone anyway. You literally have to remove all your save data completely to fix that. He felt the game was punishing you for completing the game and experiencing all it had to offer, which he didn't like.

I don't know if this is a case of the messenger confusing the message, because I haven't watched the video, but that's... up to interpretation. The only explicit information given is that the remnants of what happened on the Genocide run will always remain. If you want to extrapolate further that your character then goes on to perform a murder-spree after you've stopped playing, well, that's kind of just down to your personal feelings and I don't think it's a fair point of criticism to aim at the game itself.

And, as Luminous_Umbra said, of course he didn't like it. Once again, that was part of the point. The Genocide run is a direct commentary on completionists, they're not supposed to like it. It's the exact same problem that OP has here; the game is treating its world like a real world. You, as the player, will suffer consequences for what you do in that world.

I get that. So did Jirald. He just didn't like that he was sort of punished for experiencing everything in the game. While the game may not explicitly state that the main character kills everyone afterwards, I think it is at least implied in any ending post genocide run. Even if it isn't, it's frustrating to have the game criticize you for killing everyone and then rub that in your face on subsequent playthroughs.

I have no real opinion on the game and haven't played it, nor do I really care to. However, I was pointing out that there have been people who have criticized the game. I should point out that Completionist seemed to really enjoy the game and even did a huge 40+ minute episode on the game, even restarting the review twice after reviewing the game, each time with a different run. Loving a game doesn't mean you can't criticize it.

And also, we are not "insulting" the OP because Undertale is our "favorite game" (I can tell you for a fact that it isn't my favorite). We are criticizing the OP for things like calling Undertale "unethical" for what it does.

A lot of people are insulting the OP for criticizing their favorite game in this thread. That's sort of sad.

I enjoyed Undertale, but I didn't particularly care about it. I'm criticizing (not insulting, thanks) the OP because he's demonstrably missed the point of the game and is now complaining about it because he seems to be refusing to accept that sometimes a game that breaks the fourth wall will do it in a serious manner.

I never said either of you insulted the OP. Nor did I name names. However, at least one post I feel went too far in countering OP's point. It went beyond "I disagree" and more into "Let me tell you why you're an idiot". Reading back over the thread, most comments are fine, but I think one or two cross a line from debate into insults. Perhaps I misspoke, but I feel a healthy debate avoids making it personal.

Hell, I'm a walking Devil's Advocate who will argue for points I disagree with just to keep a healthy debate and even make people see things from different views. Nothing I hate more than having someone I agree with personally insult me for defending or arguing an opposing view point. I feel like it makes me look bad.

And, slightly off topic onto the topic of Dishonored, the game really soured me with my first playthrough with the "moral choice system."

See, when I was looking through the powers for the first time, I noticed that Shadow Kill turned enemies to ash when killed. Remembering that I had heard that part of the High Chaos ending was the sheer amount of rats from all the dead, I picked it up, figuring that if everyone I killed turned to ash, I wouldn't run into this issue and at least get a special High Chaos ending, if nothing else.

Cue my disappointment when I found otherwise.

Well, that's just lazy and misleading game design. It should have at least mentioned that bodies turned to ash still draw rats or something in the abilities tool-tip.

 

[shrekfan246]

I get that. So did Jirald. He just didn't like that he was sort of punished for experiencing everything in the game. While the game may not explicitly state that the main character kills everyone afterwards, I think it is at least implied in any ending post genocide run. Even if it isn't, it's frustrating to have the game criticize you for killing everyone and then rub that in your face on subsequent playthroughs.

It's not implied that your character goes on a killing spree, it's basically implied that a character revealed during the Genocide run is perhaps still present and always lurking in the darkness. And otherwise, oh well? How else would the game truly hammer home that there are consequences for your actions? If you can just wipe the slate clean, then it's exactly like every other game ever. That's boring. I appreciate games that test and push the medium forward rather than wallowing in the stagnant pools settled by their predecessors. I hardly believe that it's "punishing" for a game to remember that you actively made the choice to systematically eradicate its entire population.

I never said either of you insulted the OP. Nor did I name names.

Well, what you did was a passive-aggressive call-out to everyone who has posted in this thread.

However, at least one post I feel went too far in countering OP's point. It went beyond "I disagree" and more into "Let me tell you why you're an idiot". Reading back over the thread, most comments are fine, but I think one or two cross a line from debate into insults. Perhaps I misspoke, but I feel a healthy debate avoids making it personal.

Yes, unfortunately internet discussions tend to have people who will devolve the level of discourse. Have you seen any of the recent spate of "SJW"-related threads? They're a complete mess.

Hell, I'm a walking Devil's Advocate who will argue for points I disagree with just to keep a healthy debate and even make people see things from different views. Nothing I hate more than having someone I agree with personally insult me for defending or arguing an opposing view point. I feel like it makes me look bad.

There's a whole lot that can be said about why adopting the position of Devil's Advocate makes for little more than dishonest and disingenuous discussions, but I'm not going to assume any of the reasons you might attempt to do so. Typically, though, from what I've seen people who say they're sticking up for something they "disagree with" tend to agree with it a little more than they'd like to admit.

 

[Saltyk]

I get that. So did Jirald. He just didn't like that he was sort of punished for experiencing everything in the game. While the game may not explicitly state that the main character kills everyone afterwards, I think it is at least implied in any ending post genocide run. Even if it isn't, it's frustrating to have the game criticize you for killing everyone and then rub that in your face on subsequent playthroughs.

It's not implied that your character goes on a killing spree, it's basically implied that a character revealed during the Genocide run is perhaps still present and always lurking in the darkness. And otherwise, oh well? How else would the game truly hammer home that there are consequences for your actions? If you can just wipe the slate clean, then it's exactly like every other game ever. That's boring. I appreciate games that test and push the medium forward rather than wallowing in the stagnant pools settled by their predecessors. I hardly believe that it's "punishing" for a game to remember that you actively made the choice to systematically eradicate its entire population.

Look, we can argue this all day. It really doesn't matter and I don't care. We both agree that there are permanent consequences for doing a Genocide Run of the game that make it so you can never get the True Pacifist Ending without deleting your Save Data. The exact form of those consequences are semantics.

I tend to agree with people who find that to be a bit disappointing that you can't have that true good ending just because you wanted to experience everything in the game. I think it would be like saying, you didn't buy flowers from Aerith at the start of the game one time and now the game has a bad ending for all time.

I never said either of you insulted the OP. Nor did I name names.

Well, what you did was a passive-aggressive call-out to everyone who has posted in this thread.

Fair enough.

However, at least one post I feel went too far in countering OP's point. It went beyond "I disagree" and more into "Let me tell you why you're an idiot". Reading back over the thread, most comments are fine, but I think one or two cross a line from debate into insults. Perhaps I misspoke, but I feel a healthy debate avoids making it personal.

Yes, unfortunately internet discussions tend to have people who will devolve the level of discourse. Have you seen any of the recent spate of "SJW"-related threads? They're a complete mess.

I tend to avoid such discussions. Especially here.

Hell, I'm a walking Devil's Advocate who will argue for points I disagree with just to keep a healthy debate and even make people see things from different views. Nothing I hate more than having someone I agree with personally insult me for defending or arguing an opposing view point. I feel like it makes me look bad.

There's a whole lot that can be said about why adopting the position of Devil's Advocate makes for little more than dishonest and disingenuous discussions, but I'm not going to assume any of the reasons you might attempt to do so. Typically, though, from what I've seen people who say they're sticking up for something they "disagree with" tend to agree with it a little more than they'd like to admit.

You are making a lot of assumptions. And I don't appreciate what you are implying about me, either.

I tend to be able to take the Devil's Advocate role as I tend to know and understand both points of view (though I may view certain arguments as drivel even then). I may even sympathize at least a little with the side I disagree with. For example, I understand how the people with an opposing view point on abortion feel about it and don't completely disregard it because they are "immoral" (maybe you're right there, but not in the way you seem to think you are). However, I also want to make sure people can actually argue the points well. If you can't argue your views to someone who agrees with them, you won't be able to argue them to someone who doesn't.

I once talked to someone about how they felt about the Death Penalty. When they couldn't articulate their feelings I explained to them all sorts of data that supported their view. I then told them I took the opposing view point to their shock. When they asked why I would do that I told them I knew both sides arguments and evidence. I'd much rather you know both points of view and make your own decision than choose the same point of view that I have. That's how I make such decisions. I feel it only right that I do the same for others.

The reality is that nothing is black and white. It's all shades of grey. I see that and embrace it. Always remember that the people you argue against feel they are just as right as you do. Sometimes they may be wrong (racial supremacists) but that doesn't mean they don't think they are right. Other times you may simply be refusing to acknowledge that just maybe they do have some valid points. For example, maybe it is kinda shitty that a game punishes you for seeing everything it has to offer. But maybe it is also a pretty awesome and innovative game, and maybe that even emphasizes that there are consequences for your actions.

 

[gsilver]

I have a friend who refused to play the pacifist ending, and restarted multiple times when he fell off of the Genocide path.

My friend is also a jerk.

 

[shrekfan246]

Look, we can argue this all day. It really doesn't matter and I don't care. We both agree that there are permanent consequences for doing a Genocide Run of the game that make it so you can never get the True Pacifist Ending without deleting your Save Data. The exact form of those consequences are semantics.

I tend to agree with people who find that to be a bit disappointing that you can't have that true good ending just because you wanted to experience everything in the game. I think it would be like saying, you didn't buy flowers from Aerith at the start of the game one time and now the game has a bad ending for all time.

But that's not true.

You still get the true pacifist ending. There's just a small difference that references the genocide path. This isn't an uncommon occurrence for the in-game universe, either; there are tons of little things that will reference themselves based on how you've played previously. It's well established from near the very beginning of the game that it's going to remember everything you do.

It'd be more like if Advent Children read your Final Fantasy VII save file and, upon seeing that you didn't buy her flowers, decided that Aerith would never appear at the end of the film again. (I realize that's a bit of a stretch for a comparison, but it's honestly the level of reference we're dealing with here so I don't know why it's even a problem.)

You are making a lot of assumptions. And I don't appreciate what you are implying about me, either.

I was making no assumptions nor implying anything about you, in fact I specifically stated that I wasn't going to make any assumptions about your reasoning. I was making a response based on things I have actually seen from people who claim that they're adopting a stance purely for the sake of being the devil's advocate, which just so happened to be brought about because you brought it up.

For every person who spends the time learning both sides of a controversial discussion so that they might intelligently debate about it, there are five who care nothing for understanding what their ideological opponents actually say and believe, and yet still attempt to engage in the debate anyway. Frequently, these types of people frame themselves as being devil's advocates because they want to appear to be defending something they don't believe, when in actuality they do or at least partly do believe it.

Let's take something pretty unambiguous, like gay marriage, for instance. How could someone who intimately knows the details of that subject ever, at least in good conscience, not support gay marriage? And, more to the point, what exactly would be the point of sticking up for the position of opposing gay marriage, if they don't believe that gay marriage is wrong?

...

You know what, this is all getting wildly off-topic and I honestly should probably just take a break from the forums again. Rest assured, I'm not attempting to say that you're being dishonest whenever you try to be a devil's advocate, and I didn't mean for it to come across that way. For the record, my immediate reaction to the term is probably a bit colored by the fact that a lot of people who say they're doing it don't actually seem to know what it really means or implies, much like with many other things the internet has grabbed hold of in the past few years.

 

[Luminous_Umbra]

And, slightly off topic onto the topic of Dishonored, the game really soured me with my first playthrough with the "moral choice system."

See, when I was looking through the powers for the first time, I noticed that Shadow Kill turned enemies to ash when killed. Remembering that I had heard that part of the High Chaos ending was the sheer amount of rats from all the dead, I picked it up, figuring that if everyone I killed turned to ash, I wouldn't run into this issue and at least get a special High Chaos ending, if nothing else.

Cue my disappointment when I found otherwise.

Wait, how is Dishonored's fault that you were wrong?

The high chaos ending isn't because of the rats. Yes, the rats do play a role but it is called high chaos no high rat content. It makes perfect sense that if you kill more people, things aren't improving. In the game world the resources of the city are already stretched thin - the people you kill would, therefore, be unable to assist with anything. Yes, they may not be food for the rats if they "vanish" but it still leaves less people who could be doing something to help.

I'm not saying it's Dishonored's "fault", but I am disappointed that there is no impact at all.

Note how I said "at least get a special High Chaos ending, if nothing else." The way I figured, even if Dunwall was going to pieces, doing so without the large amount of rats would affect the game in some way, differing it from a regular High Chaos run.

That's what I'm disappointed by. Not the fact that it's still High Chaos, but that it's exactly the same High Chaos.

Heck, even if we ignore the rats, the fact that people are disappearing instead of being found dead should still cause some difference, even if it's just a small difference.

 

[MHR]

I think a better example is if you're reading a book where the first half builds up a lovable cast of characters, then warns you not to read the second half, and if you try, you see it's a highly sexualized account of each character being murdered and eaten, while the book tells you you're an asshole for continuing to read about these lovable characters suffering through this and telling you "It's only happening because you're reading it. If you hadn't read it, this wouldn't be happening".

See I've been thinking about this insulting book simile for a little bit. Doesn't make much sense, does it? Book insults you and gives you an unsatisfying ending for doing nothing but turning the page.

Well that's just not true. What it is, is like a choose-your-own-adventure book. If you want a shit ending, you choose the wrong decision every time, and what do you expect? Deus Ex Machina to come in and fix everything for you? Lazy writing. If instead you tried your best to make the right decisions, you will arrive from the front cover of the book to the back cover and finish it.

Rereading it differently is your choice.

 

[Lightspeaker]

To be fair I think there is one good point here: the fact that the game apparently 'remembers' what you've done is cute but also flat out means you can't compare and contrast different routes through the game properly unless you fiddle with the files to reset your save state (I've seen people mentioning that).

 

[MHR]

Well yes, but the only differences are small dialogue changes. Videos of which are on Youtube.

 

[Adeptus Aspartem]

For your short and unshort answer, that's what I understood as well, but when you think about it, how do you become that apathetic to the point that you just sit back and do nothing? He loves his brother and but he won't protect him? He enjoy's hanging out at Grillby's but he won't help the people there? What does he do till the very end?
Sans also felt that even if they made it out, that time would just be reset anyway, so why doesn't he release hell earlier before losing everything?

Don't get me wrong though. I like Sans, but it doesn't completely add up to me.

As for your point with Flowey, I don't think he was afraid of Chara because after you kill Toriel on the genocide run, he says "You're ***** aren't you?", and then he helps you all joyful like. He becomes scared later for some reason I never got, since on the video tapes Chara just sounded like weirdo (unless I confused that part).

You make a good point about the souls and save states though, but I wonder, because anyone with an evil brain would want all the power they could get their hands on anyway. Also, he magically took every monsters soul like vacuum in the pacifist ending. I think everyone would go with that option.

Okay, i've spent way to much time griding every last bit of information out of every source possible for undertale, maybe i can shed some light on this.

Sans tells you why he doesn't act, because he knows it doesn't matter anymore. He only acts if he's 100% certain the current timeline is the one which ends everything - because on every other timeline, it'll reset anyway.
And i'm fairly certain these timeline jumps are happening since a long ass time. 6 Children and Flowey - who played around with the save states even more than the player - are tons of resets over the course of many years.

There are 2 other facts though: Sans is the most caring and the least aggressive monster in the underground, depicted by his 1 Def, 1 Atk stats and, very important, his promise with Toriel, which prevents him from going apeshit on your human face right from the get go.
Jeah, in the restaurant he tells you, he'd kill you if not for the promise and there are to possiblities. Bluffin' to scare both Frisk + the player or he means it. This obviously sounds like a contradiction, then why would the caring 1/1 monster go ballisitc on a child?
From here on it gets complicated. Characters in this game have tons of flaws, they misbehave, they cheat, lie, murder etc. Here in Sans case it's simply fear and anger mixed with resignation. If he didn't made the promise he'd force his bossfight on you right after Toriel so you'll never even can become a threat to the timeline.
But since he made that promise, he'll give you the benefit of the doubt and he hopes that if he shares some food & laughs with you, you'll choose the pacifist run sooner or later (That's also something he tells you during his fight).

You see, you can easily abort the Genocide until even nearly before the very end. If you only spare 1 monster before killing Mettaton you've shown 1 ounce of good or 1 iota change of mind - so the world won't end, but it will be reset.
So why fight? There's a chance you'll do better next time.

But there's more to Sans, much that's not yet confirmed though. He has connections to W.D Gaster, he has way more knowledge than most characters, he knows about the true lab, he knows about time travel etc. etc. So jeah, unless he's completly certain you're ending the world, he knows nothing that matters will happen and he'll constantly encourage you to do better.

And Flowey becomes scared of Chara because of 2 reasons: He knows Chara is incredibly powerful at that point and definitly trumpin' his determination - so even the Souls won't help him much, because Chara will keep control over SAVE.
The other thing is, he himself points out that they (Flowey+Chara) are cold-blooded killers that would even kill each other if given the chance. And when he utters that sentence he realizes that Chara is out for his blood (or sap) because of his betrayal.

 

[Adeptus Aspartem]

The evacuation plan is stupid. I said this. If they stayed put they could've kept all the doors closed, placing all the monsters behind them. Then use Mettaton or something else that can fly to use aerial attacks, or deliver a big bomb, or like I said before, put a bomb under the lava bridge and bye bye Chara.

Alphy's said she made a new phone which has a jet pack (she builds it right in front of us), and it's such an assumption to say she found just blue prints for everything, including Mettaton and his upgrades.

I wouldn't say Mettaton is poorly designed as the excuse, it's just plot-holes and nonsensical stuff. The game isn't 100% (like almost every story), but I still love it.

You forget something: They can't stop Frisk. With the power of SAVE you're unstoppable as long as you stay determined.
Also as the Undyne and Sans fight shows, the monsters are strong enough as it is to handle a single child. How many times on avg do players die vs Undyne+Sans? Jeah exactly.
But that doesn't help against someone who just turns back time a few minutes and learns all your moves. The game really shows you how incredible & frightful time travel in a truly deterministic system is. If you do X the answer will always be Y.

I mean even if they bomb Frisk on the bridge, he'll just go around it the second time. And if they truly manage to block him off, you can still completly reset and start the genocide again - but be faster, take a diffrent route etc.
With time travel Frisk can try litterally hundreds of diffrent approaches until he reaches his goal.
You can't stop SAVE. That's what Sans knows and that's why he fights the way he fights.

He knows he can't beat you, he wants you to get bored so much you just stop and leave.

 

[lacktheknack]

Is it good to make the player feel on a personal, ethical level like they are a bad person and disgust them with this large amount of negativity they feel in the process, in the name of good video game story-telling?

Yes.

Not all the time, but sure. Why not?

 

[Worgen]

Honestly, while I love Undertale, I do not think I could bring myself to go through with the genocide route. I've grown too attached to too many of the characters and the thought of doing that to Sans and Papyrus...... just no. The part of me that wants to see the content feels so conflicted!

I agree, I will play through it again but Ill probably just do another true pacifist run. I want everyone to have a happy ending.

 

[Nazulu]

Okay, i've spent way to much time griding every last bit of information out of every source possible for undertale, maybe i can shed some light on this.

Sans tells you why he doesn't act, because he knows it doesn't matter anymore. He only acts if he's 100% certain the current timeline is the one which ends everything - because on every other timeline, it'll reset anyway.
And i'm fairly certain these timeline jumps are happening since a long ass time. 6 Children and Flowey - who played around with the save states even more than the player - are tons of resets over the course of many years.

There are 2 other facts though: Sans is the most caring and the least aggressive monster in the underground, depicted by his 1 Def, 1 Atk stats and, very important, his promise with Toriel, which prevents him from going apeshit on your human face right from the get go.
Jeah, in the restaurant he tells you, he'd kill you if not for the promise and there are to possiblities. Bluffin' to scare both Frisk + the player or he means it. This obviously sounds like a contradiction, then why would the caring 1/1 monster go ballisitc on a child?
From here on it gets complicated. Characters in this game have tons of flaws, they misbehave, they cheat, lie, murder etc. Here in Sans case it's simply fear and anger mixed with resignation. If he didn't made the promise he'd force his bossfight on you right after Toriel so you'll never even can become a threat to the timeline.
But since he made that promise, he'll give you the benefit of the doubt and he hopes that if he shares some food & laughs with you, you'll choose the pacifist run sooner or later (That's also something he tells you during his fight).

You see, you can easily abort the Genocide until even nearly before the very end. If you only spare 1 monster before killing Mettaton you've shown 1 ounce of good or 1 iota change of mind - so the world won't end, but it will be reset.
So why fight? There's a chance you'll do better next time.

But there's more to Sans, much that's not yet confirmed though. He has connections to W.D Gaster, he has way more knowledge than most characters, he knows about the true lab, he knows about time travel etc. etc. So jeah, unless he's completly certain you're ending the world, he knows nothing that matters will happen and he'll constantly encourage you to do better.

And Flowey becomes scared of Chara because of 2 reasons: He knows Chara is incredibly powerful at that point and definitly trumpin' his determination - so even the Souls won't help him much, because Chara will keep control over SAVE.
The other thing is, he himself points out that they (Flowey+Chara) are cold-blooded killers that would even kill each other if given the chance. And when he utters that sentence he realizes that Chara is out for his blood (or sap) because of his betrayal.

Your points doesn't address how someone can become that apathetic and what he does when everyone is gone, including I'm sure it's always worth stopping a psycho killer. It makes him an asshole no matter how you look at it. You don't just let people suffer. I know you're on board with the promise and knowledge of the timeline excuse, but it's not enough for me.

And your points with Flowey don't make sense really, because he still just stood there for no reason. He had a plan to become all powerful, probably wanting to be the most powerful, then he just forgets about it and sucks up instead? I'm sure everyone and their dog would choose to go for the souls rather than just sit there and die. It just seems out of character. He can clearly get away underground!

You forget something: They can't stop Frisk. With the power of SAVE you're unstoppable as long as you stay determined.
Also as the Undyne and Sans fight shows, the monsters are strong enough as it is to handle a single child. How many times on avg do players die vs Undyne+Sans? Jeah exactly.
But that doesn't help against someone who just turns back time a few minutes and learns all your moves. The game really shows you how incredible & frightful time travel in a truly deterministic system is. If you do X the answer will always be Y.

I mean even if they bomb Frisk on the bridge, he'll just go around it the second time. And if they truly manage to block him off, you can still completly reset and start the genocide again - but be faster, take a diffrent route etc.
With time travel Frisk can try litterally hundreds of diffrent approaches until he reaches his goal.
You can't stop SAVE. That's what Sans knows and that's why he fights the way he fights.

He knows he can't beat you, he wants you to get bored so much you just stop and leave.

You forgot something, they can stop Frisk. They don't know of the power of SAVE, and I don't think the power of save would matter when it comes to unbreakable doors or unavoidable traps. You would do everything to defend yourself and others in real life.

Also you can bomb the bridge on Frisk because there was no other way around (it's a linear game). And even if there was, you still do something about it. Frisk/ Chara/ any great player will give up if it's proven to be impossible to kill everyone when they are stopped every time with greater weapons.

I know you are stretching to explain everything the story is going for (and I appreciate it), but no matter what, the decisions are just not logical. They had flying robots and giant bombs for fucks sake!

 

[happyninja42]

Why don't I have the balls to criticize it? Mainly because I didn't play it. Played for about 2 hours, was incredibly bored with the whole thing, and turned it off. So I can't really criticize one very specific aspect of the game that you find flaw with, because I found flaw with the whole thing.

 

[Lightknight]

Sounds like you guys might be going a little hard on the OP. They just want to play a different mode to see how that takes the story.

Think of it like infamous or mass effect. Imagine if playing as renegade in either of those titles made the game almost unplayably difficult? That places a really high cost on having choice in a game and is something that should be criticized when it happens.

It would almost be like saying that you can choose to kill civilians in a lot of games and go the renegade route, but that's really hard because doing so results in a failed screen and you have to reload.

Haven't played the game yet so maybe there's some component of what is being asked that somehow changes how it sounds.

 

[Cid Silverwing]

Let's make this as perfectly clear as possible. Spoilers ahoy.

Spoiler

OP has completely missed the point of the Genocide route. You're not supposed to criticize it, it's criticizing YOU for making the CONSCIOUS DECISION to start killing everyone.

It calls you out on it and does everything it can to stop you. It's like Spec Ops and the only way to win is to stop playing. There's a REASON the fight with sans is unwinnable without godly reflexes or photographic memory.

If anything I would rather call people out for not having the balls to criticize what a hypocrite Toby Fox is, by making a game themed around determination and player agency, only to yank it away from us when it turns out you can't do anything for Asriel in the True Pacifist ending, or Gaster, who remains lost in the void.