The "Am I overthinking this?" thread

[Igor-Rowan]

Some games have deeper meanings, Bioshock and Deus Ex fans know what I'm talking about. But is it a problem when I see a deeper meaning when there might not be any? Can a game do too good of a job of immersing me on its world that I see things that maybe the developers didn't intend so.

Here a few theories I have about some games I recently played and there might be spoilers:

Spoiler: Limbo and Inside

At the end of Limbo you finally gets your sister, who you are and why you are there doesn't matter. My take on that is that kid's willpower managed to overcome that place that's bigger than him, it's kinda like A Series of Unfortunate Events, even if the kid is doomed to that life of misery, he is determined to move forward no matter what.

I initially became skeptical when Inside went into that direction, except that ending left me with way too many questions, but then I saw the secret ending and I think I got it:

What if the villain is not the zombies? or the Huddle? or the scientists? That the evil mastermind that kid is running from is... the player? Why? To unlock the secret ending, you have to reach some devices and shut them down, and two of them weaken, but not nullfy, the kid mind-controlling some zombies. And then through the game we are shown the properties of the mind-control devices in how they can "Inception" others into controlling other zombies. And both endings are the kid finally being set free from that one mind-control provided by you. That's what Inside means, not the fact you go indoors towards the objective, the fact that the kid wants fruit-lessly escape from inside a force more powerful than he'll ever be.

Spoiler: Stardew Valley

Joja Mart is the key to my theory, through the entire game, that brand is going to be there to help you, like if the market's closed, they have that, but more expensive. And all of the unlockables from the Community center's achievements can be simply bought and all of the mystical creatures that live there will be lost.

To restore the Community center, you'll need a bunch of items, and things that require time, effort and planning to get. "Why go through all of the chore of basically playing the game, when you can just buy away everything you need? Why put effort into things if money solves it all? You took the short route to achieve something, but do you fell proud of that?" asks the game.

Spoiler: Super Mario Galaxy

SMG has one of the most cryptic endings of the entire Mario franchise, or any Nintendo franchise for that matter. After Mario rescues Peach, something weird happens about the core of something, a big bang happens, then we suddenly are back at where this all started, everybody is there to make sure it's not a dream. Then Rosalina talks "something-something reset, the cycle returns, but changes each time". It was weird this franchise having little to no story, then having lots of story, then going back to the former

I think that is not by chance that the game is essentially telling them (Mario, Peach, and Bowser): "Don't forget, you're here forever", notice that this fabled "event that happens every 1000" repeats itself in Mario Galaxy 2, it's a bit hyperbolic that they've been doing this same shtick for 1000 years, but what if that actually happened? When the universe reset these three were destinied to do the same thing in a Groundhog Day-style?

Either these games have some deep meaning, or maybe I have too much time in my hands (which is not true). Is there another game that you think it means more than it does?

 

[Xprimentyl]

Some games have deeper meanings, Bioshock and Deus Ex fans know what I'm talking about. But is it a problem when I see a deeper meaning when there might not be any? Can a game do too good of a job of immersing me on its world that I see things that maybe the developers didn't intend so.

Here a few theories I have about some games I recently played and there might be spoilers:

Spoiler: Limbo and Inside

At the end of Limbo you finally gets your sister, who you are and why you are there doesn't matter. My take on that is that kid's willpower managed to overcome that place that's bigger than him, it's kinda like A Series of Unfortunate Events, even if the kid is doomed to that life of misery, he is determined to move forward no matter what.

I initially became skeptical when Inside went into that direction, except that ending left me with way too many questions, but then I saw the secret ending and I think I got it:

What if the villain is not the zombies? or the Huddle? or the scientists? That the evil mastermind that kid is running from is... the player? Why? To unlock the secret ending, you have to reach some devices and shut them down, and two of them weaken, but not nullfy, the kid mind-controlling some zombies. And then through the game we are shown the properties of the mind-control devices in how they can "Inception" others into controlling other zombies. And both endings are the kid finally being set free from that one mind-control provided by you. That's what Inside means, not the fact you go indoors towards the objective, the fact that the kid wants fruit-lessly escape from inside a force more powerful than he'll ever be.

Ooooh, INSIDE...

Spoiler: On your theory...

The beauty of both Limbo and INSIDE is that they are entirely and purposefully implicit in their details; there is no "right" interpretation outside of developer Playdead's walls if there's even one to be had. So you're not overthinking, you're thinking, something few games today task the player to do.

Personally, I like you theory, but I like any that involves the player as an active piece of the narrative: we're plugged in to control the boy who in turns plugs in to control the mindless homunculi; the standard ending frees the homunculi from the twisted experimental science/corporate control and the secret ending frees the boy... from us.

Hopefully, you're not of the camp of gamers who feels slighted by the lack of concrete answers provided by INSIDE and can appreciate that being thought-provoking in this case was way more powerful than had they attempted yet another standard "beginning, middle and end" story to be consumed and forgotten. I personally LOVE the ending(s); I enjoy thinking about and discussing what my 3-4 hours experience with INSIDE could mean leagues more than the dozens upon dozens of games I've played that eventually piddled out of memory after 8, 30 , 100 hours telling me exactly what the did mean.

 

[Neverhoodian]

I was a huge fan of Team Fortress 2's original aesthetics and art style. The game had hardly any backstory or lore at the time, but the few tidbits gleaned from official sources hinted of a cautionary tale about the dangers of corporatism run amok.

In an alternate 1960's timeline, two faceless mega-corporations run the world; Reliable Excavation Demolition (RED) and Builder's League United (BLU). These two entities wage a never-ending war with each other over the last remaining unclaimed resources by hiring (or perhaps cloning?) a group of violent, mentally unstable mercenaries. Yes the game had a significant element of comedic relief, but when you peeled away the veneer and started to really think about it, the premise was depressingly relevant in an age of private military contractors and ever-increasing corporate power and influence.

Apparently I was in the minority though, as the original tone was supplanted over the years with "LEL HATS SCOUT'S MOM MEMES." Don't get me wrong, I like wacky TF2 Gmod or SFM videos as much as the next person, but those were fan creations. Seeing the official lore get similar treatment was disappointing.

 

[Silentpony_v1legacy]

Soma.
1. The world has been destroyed.
2. Everyone is now robots.
3. Robots are insanely easy to trick into thinking anything you want.
4. Launch a missile to save everyone.
5. You are a robot.

And yet no one in the writing staff saw that massive glaring plothole.

Its a game with human/robot/artificial intelligence/diaries hooked up to Speak N' Spells/things and the easy by which they can be tricked into believing anything. They think they're people. Literally, they think they have limbs, arms, blood, a heart, spleen, teeth and tongue. And that its totally normal to have been disemboweled by another machine and lay in a pool of what they perceive to be their own blood for nearly a year without dying. That's the level of cognitive dissonances we're dealing with when it comes to reality with these creatures.
And yet we, as one of them, are expected to believe this is the real world, the world has really been destroyed, and we really are saving everyone by launching a giant missile and that none of this is fake.

 

[Neurotic Void Melody]

Actually with the normal ending to Inside;

Spoiler: Did you notice...

...That as you attempt to escape the institute as part of the sentient flesh ball, you land into one room, through the ceiling of what appears to be a glass tank with a small scale model of the end hill the game stops you on by the lapping water. Also, when you get to that hill, although there appears to be a form of sunlight shining down upon you, the horizon is completely black, implying you are not at all free, but in a much larger prison or testroom. Considering nobody appears to try and stop you, only avoid being crushed by you, they had no defensive or offensive containment techniques deployed. Also the game does a rather weird gradual trick in its' progression that makes you think the boy is running towards freedom, escape from whatever chains held him. Yet the further you run away from the dangers all chasing or attacking you, the deeper down and inside whatever oppressive systems have been built on top of each other you go. Every small success you achieve only leads you to a deeper darker pit of whatever you're trying to escape from; sunlight, fresh air and sky all things you hope to see past the next obstacle that could hint at your eventual freedom give way to a sinking realisation that youre down too far into a vast rabbit hole beyond your understanding.
The best chance at escape would have been at the farm. So far, I think the flesh ball was being tested in that huge machine to see if it could lure the boy (and therefore many other potential people) towards it with whatever psychic connection they're using with those metal spheres you unplug, for whatever neferious reasons they seem to be well under way with. And - either the player is the flesh ball or the flesh ball is its' own thing - whatever one, it needed to dismantle the web of control spheres to stop the cycle of testing being done and to give the boy a real chance at escape.

There are other ideas am mulling about with the world that are still intriguing, including a certain metaphor am curious on how it checks out throughout all the details provided, but won't go anymore into it considering have typed too much already. Am open to more ideas.

I tried to keep it brief, may have not spoken efficiently though.

 

[Igor-Rowan]

snip

About Inside...

Spoiler

I think you might have summed up my theory "the kid is never Outside", but the game goes out of its way to stabilish how the mind control devices work, as soon as you unplug any controlled creature in the vicinity is set free. Much like Limbo shows the fear of being crushed of an world bigger than you, Inside shows a fear of being controlled, by a force beyond reason (the player).

snip

I love that Inside is not that implicit either. I was sadly spoiled that there were two endings, but did not know about how to get the other one, so I decided to look for it. And then... I found something that made me love this game and Cave Story even more: yellow strings. On my first playthrough they were always there, but as soon as I started to notice them, I knew there was more than meets the eye, and some of them were hard to spot either. Kinda like Cave Story's red markings, when you notice it's there and what they do, the game becomes smarter than you give it credit for.

 

[Johnny Novgorod]

With most games I think gamers tend to give them way more thought than writers do. Overthinking cartoon plots like Mario's and the like can be fun in that Game Theory sort of way but I would never put any stock in those ramblings.