Undertale, An Analysis. [Spoilers]
- Thread starter Bealzibob
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Question for OP: Did you play or watch a complete genocide run? Because I feel that's where Sans actually becomes a interesting character compared to the fairly one note trickster in all other routes. Although I feel it should have been stretched over the whole run rather than crammed in during the final boss.
Other than that I do mostly agree with you that the game was only brilliant at the very beginning and on the last third or so, with the rest being merely OK (and I say that as someone who would not hesitate to call Undertale my GOTY 2015), although I actually thought the whole Mettaton bit was some of the better comedy. I would also point out that some of the bosses simply will not ever kill you (Toriel, Papyrus) and most of those who will feel like they have a good reason (Undyne who by the way you actually run from rather than talk to and Asgore) with the exception being Muffet who IIRC was shoehorned in as someone's kickstarter reward.
I also want to address one part specifically because it seems to be a common issue people have and I don't get why
When you combine those two things it makes the whole system work. The monsters attack you because they either do remember the war at which point they know your kind as backstabbing butchers, or they were born later and see a demon of myth steeping into their homeland to do god knows what. Either way they also know from Asgore that your death just so happens to be the key to their freedom from unjust imprisonment. On the flip side the game has a leg to stand on criticizing you for killing because, especially in the case of non-boss monsters, you are punching wayyyyyy down. Yea they attacked you, but in story (and in gameplay if you have a modicum of shump skill) they don't actually represent a real threat. If a five year old kicks me in the shin imma be pissed, but he in no way represents a threat that justifies me turning on him full force and beating the shit out of him.
Other than that I do mostly agree with you that the game was only brilliant at the very beginning and on the last third or so, with the rest being merely OK (and I say that as someone who would not hesitate to call Undertale my GOTY 2015), although I actually thought the whole Mettaton bit was some of the better comedy. I would also point out that some of the bosses simply will not ever kill you (Toriel, Papyrus) and most of those who will feel like they have a good reason (Undyne who by the way you actually run from rather than talk to and Asgore) with the exception being Muffet who IIRC was shoehorned in as someone's kickstarter reward.
I also want to address one part specifically because it seems to be a common issue people have and I don't get why
Here's the thing, the game makes it abundantly clear that 1. humans slaughtered monsters and drove the underground based on a purely theoretical fear and 2. because of DETERMINATION [tm] humans are vastly stronger than monsters.
When you combine those two things it makes the whole system work. The monsters attack you because they either do remember the war at which point they know your kind as backstabbing butchers, or they were born later and see a demon of myth steeping into their homeland to do god knows what. Either way they also know from Asgore that your death just so happens to be the key to their freedom from unjust imprisonment. On the flip side the game has a leg to stand on criticizing you for killing because, especially in the case of non-boss monsters, you are punching wayyyyyy down. Yea they attacked you, but in story (and in gameplay if you have a modicum of shump skill) they don't actually represent a real threat. If a five year old kicks me in the shin imma be pissed, but he in no way represents a threat that justifies me turning on him full force and beating the shit out of him.
Spec-Ops didn't discourage replay, Spec-ops called you a twat for not ejecting the disk partway through. For that matter I seem to remember one of the devs having the balls to tell people they should have just quit if they saw all the horrible shit coming. So I suppose by that logic I got the best possible ending by simply refusing to touch that pretentious preachy pile of wank.Weaver said:
I totally agree with your post. To put it in real world terms, Alphys was basically experimenting on medical cadavers and accidentally invented zombies. If she has something to answer for it is how she handled accidentally inventing zombies, which was admittedly not great.CaitSeith said:
Undertale is a game that, on its surface, follows a fairly trite story about friendship and love and determination and all that. But as in the real world the devil is in the details. People who took a surface level look at Undertale see the central theme as "friendship conquers all" that casts absolute moral judgement and they think it is trite and stupid and bad. But everything about the game, from the very title, tells you to look deeper. And when you do it uncovers the real themes, which run very deep. I would say the biggest theme of Undertale is an examination of "the end justifies the means." It asks interesting questions about morality, and unlike most such examinations (in video games) it gives no inherent judgement either way on any of the interesting questions it asks.
Right about now a bunch of people are clamoring to point out that Sans explicitly judges you for killing monsters. Yup, that happens. Because that is not an interesting moral question. The game is specifically set up so it isn't, in two ways.
Humans are explicitly stated to be far stronger than monsters. This is backed up by the game mechanics. With just a little bit of skill only boss monsters are credible threats. Except they actually are not credible threats, because of reason two, your ability to save and load the game is an in universe power. You can never actually lose to any of the monsters because of it - even if you are killed you can just reverse time. No enemy you ever face can ever actually hurt you. They can only inconvenience you, and usually only in a fairly minor way. And killing because you are mildly inconvenienced is not a justified homicide.
With that nonsense out of the way, the game asks several really interesting questions.
For example, was Asgore wrong in killing the 6 humans before you? This is variation on the classic question: Are we justified in sacrificing the few for the many? Do nothing, and the many will suffer for eternity. Or sacrifice the few, and the many will be delivered from their suffering. It's the trolley problem. In the frame of the classic problem, Asgore chose to redirect the train, take on the responsibility for deliberately killing the few, but saving the many. Toriel casts harsh judgement on Asgore for doing so (even after the true pacifist end she never forgives him,) but the undeniable ultimate result of his actions are a great good. If he had not collected the souls of the 6 humans you never could have broken the barrier. You will notice Toriel joyfully takes advantage of the end result while casting judgement on the means (and the man) who got her there.
This is the only game I can think of where the true pacifist ending includes "and because of the murder of 7 people (if we include Azrael) motivated by hatred, rage, despair, and systematic hatred of the other, everything got better!" Anyone who says the true pacifist ending is all about the power of friendship just wasn't paying attention.
Uh, where does it ever cast Asgore's actions as a good thing? He didn't sacrifice the few to save the many. He didn't even have to sacrifice anyone at all. The first time a human fell down, he could've just politely asked said human to let him through the barrier, collected six other humans from the outside, bring them back, and tear the barrier down without killing anyone. It would've been much faster, too. No one had to die, and he wouldn't have had to keep his people in cramped isolation for who-knows-how-long. But he didn't because... he was a lonely coward or something? The game wasn't terribly clear on his motivation. But anyway, there was nothing good about Asgore did, no end justifying his means. There was no "interesting question" being asked. He was being a selfish dick, and made everyone suffer for it. That the worst he gets is a bit of sass from his ex-wife is astonishing to me. If you look at actions alone, he's basically a worse person than Flowey was.ThatOtherGirl said:
So, yeah, he's was pretty damn wrong because he didn't even need to do it. He was just too much of a coward not to. Like, Toriel explains all of this. She explicitly says there was a better way where no one had to die or suffer and Asgore just didn't take it.
So, talking about people not paying attention...
Humans cannot exit the barrier without first taking a monster soul, this is clearly stated. You cannot possibly miss it if you are actually reading the text of the game. It takes one of both. Also, a monster cannot absorb a soul unless the human is dead. So no, he could not have. He would have had to kill at least one before he could leave.Saetha said:
So, second option, aka Toriel's solution: Kill one human, go through the barrier and collect other human souls, free the monsters. This seems to be a reasonable solution, but with a glaringly obvious problems that Toriel doesn't mention. The backstory of the game is that the humans, fearing the monster ability to absorb human souls, initiated a genocidal slaughter of the helpless monsters (we know they were helpless because not a single human was even injured in the "war") ultimately only sparing a relatively small amount which they drove underground. In addition, his son was attacked and mortally wounded on sight.
The logic of Asgores plan (which he created in his rage at the slaughter of his son) was based on two things: His assumption that humans would attack and attempt to kill monsters on sight, and that if the monsters somehow escaped the barriers the humans would again launch a genocidal war against the monsters. Reasonable assumptions based on previous experiences with the humans. Thus, he will gather souls until he is powerful enough to break the barrier and destroy all humans. The plan is announced, despite the terrible implications it brings hope to the monsters.
After his rage has subsided (probably before the next human falls to the underground) he regrets creating the plan. He doesn't want to kill anyone. But what can he do? As far as he knows those two points are unchanged. His choices are to rescind the plan, thus destroying any hope the monsters will ever have of escaping the underground and throwing their entire society into despair, or continue with the plan that puts them on the track to commit genocide. He decides he will delay as long as possible, trying to keep hope alive in his people but secretly hoping no human will ever come so he doesn't have to kill anyone.
That is all fairly plainly stated.
Just getting through the barrier doesn't solve anything, and Asgore knew it. The humans created the barrier, they could do it again. Or, possibly, seeing that their barrier failed, attempt a more complete genocide. How powerful is a monster with a single soul? Strong enough to fight all the humans? The main character, a child, manages to kill a monster that has collected 6 human souls. Could he risk leaving the underground early?
You have to solve the humans vs monsters problem first or things just get worse. Toriel conveniently ignores this. Why? She prefers to simply hope that the people who launched an unprovoked genocide against them would just be like "Whelp, you got past our barrier! Guess we can be friends now!" Toriel champions a plan based on a world view she knows to be false. Why? We do not know. It is possible she just couldn't handle the reality of the situation.
So why doesn't he just go out? Because he doesn't want to commit, at the very least, multiple homicide. I think that is a pretty damn good reason to not want to do something.
It is even possible that he hoped that with the power of seven souls he would be able to protect the monsters without killing anyone else. After the barrier is broken he basically trusts that you can do exactly that, and it appears you are successful.
So yeah, I did pay attention.
Of course, this is going way deeper than the simple trolley problem variation. I'll admit the Trolley problem interpretation has problems, but so does every variation of the trolley problem ever. It doesn't need to be an absolutely perfect representation of the issue to ask the question.
Also, his actions are cast as a good thing because it allowed the monsters to get out of the underground. Remember how I specifically stated the theme is an exploration of "the ends justify the means"? You don't need a character championing something with such a clearly positive result. What you might need is someone like Toriel pointing out that there might have been a better way.
Except the game proves that assertion wrong. Monster souls easily vanish the moment they are killed. Asgore's soul was annihilated by Flowey in the Neutral Route, and you don't get Flowey's either regardless if you spare or kill him, and yet you still manage to exit the barrier. Even when playing the game without killing anyone this still happens.ThatOtherGirl said:
Wrong. The main character didn't kill a monster with 6 human souls. Even when you bring Flowey's health down to 0, he didn't perish and instead restarted the whole thing, proving that he was practically invincible against you. It was only the 6 souls rebelling that stopped him, and even then it didn't kill him, but instead brought him back to the state he was before with no souls. It was at that part where you could spare him or kill him, but it was at that point he no longer had 6 human souls.ThatOtherGirl said:
But... that's exactly the thing? The issue that humans are stronger than monsters and can kill them without much trouble is one that's never resolved. Ever. Even the pacifist ending slaps you with a picture of a sunset and goes "Happily Ever After don't think too deeply or you'll realize monsterkind is probably fucked no matter what!" Toriel's plan doesn't account for it. Asgore's doesn't either. No one does. They just want to get the barrier down - at no point are we showed that they have a plan in place to fend off humans, or even think they need to. Everyone acts like the barrier's the only obstacle they face - so, I'm not seeing how that's some grand question or issue the game asks you to ruminate on. If anything, it seems like it tries to sweep that whole problem under the rug. The only token effort it makes otherwise is showing that Frisk will try to help them which - I mean, Frisk's a kid. They don't have any authority. There's nothing they can really do.ThatOtherGirl said:
Secondly, where is it ever said that you have to kill someone to use their soul? Flowey uses all the monsters' souls at end of Pacifist, yet they obviously don't die since you can un... lost-soulify them, or whatever. Similarly, you get through the barrier at the end of a normal run without killing a monster and taking their soul. It seems to me that simply having another person around is good enough, and Asgore only killed the humans and took their souls for convenience.
And on you saying the theme is "ends justifying the means," - you can say that but it hardly makes it true. I mean, where in the game is that even really touched upon? Where is it demonstrated? If that's the game's theme, then it did a pretty poor job of exploring it, not the least because it's entirely irrelevant outside of Asgore and his arc (And directly contradictory with the genocide route, where the ends clearly don't justify the means, and are really just as bad, if not worse, than the means to begin with.). Seems to me the theme is "Don't kill people," - given that, you know, it's all about pacifism giving you the good ending, and Sans words to you being "Don't kill and don't be killed," (As an echo of Flowey's "kill or be killed.") It's great that you're finding this fascinating moral issue in the game, but it's not what the game's about or it's intended message - and perhaps the reason why it doesn't pass judgement is because there's nothing to pass judgement on. Perhaps the reason people aren't "looking deeper" is because there's nothing deeper to look at. The theme is violence vs. peace, everything in the game's built around that, Asgore's plan is revealed as faulty because it choose violence over peace, that was the whole thing with Toriel coming in and calling him out so late in the game.
And you know, there's nothing wrong with that being the message. Is is trite and childish? Maybe. But innocence isn't always bad or boring. I don't see the point in trying to corrupt it and twist into something that, honestly, I can't find any hint of in the game itself.
I dunno, it just seems like you're trying to make the game darker and grittier than it is. Not everything has to be cynical and "mature." Not everything has to be a complex moral issue, or hiding a complex moral issue. Somethings are straightforward - murder is bad and you shouldn't kill people when there's a better way. A simple message, but one the game conveys extremely well.
I think it was impled that Flowey/Asrael resets the timeline to before he killed everyone, but somehow didn't reset the Barrier back up. The more precise control of Save/Load isn't entirely unused elsewhere, as his battle in the Neutral run, he is able to reload you, and only you, to cause you to lag back into his attacks.
Toriel says that Asgore was a coward for not going and getting human souls, instead waiting and hoping for them to come to him. He wanted to appear that he was working to dissolve the barrier, but didn't want to actually perform the murder necessary. It actually makes Toriel appear to be equally selfish. She is fine with Asgore going out and murdering six unknown humans, but goes to ludicrous lengths to protect Frisk just because Frisk looks like her adopted child.
Toriel says that Asgore was a coward for not going and getting human souls, instead waiting and hoping for them to come to him. He wanted to appear that he was working to dissolve the barrier, but didn't want to actually perform the murder necessary. It actually makes Toriel appear to be equally selfish. She is fine with Asgore going out and murdering six unknown humans, but goes to ludicrous lengths to protect Frisk just because Frisk looks like her adopted child.
It isn't explained how Frisk exits the barrier. There are lots of theories on that, including that Frisk never does (we just infer Frisk exits because they never came back to the monsters, but there are reasons to suspect this isn't the case.) or that there is something special about Frisk,Rahkshi500 said:
It is explicitly stated several times that humans with a single soul have no special ability to exit the barrier without a monster soul. It is a vital point in the Asgore/Toriel/Azriel/Chara story line and to the main story line.
So yeah, I guess it is possible they just never bothered trying to go through the barrier, even when they had access to a human and that human's dying wish was to do so. Seems like an odd decision though.
Ok, sure, the main character doesn't kill a monster with 6 human souls, they just defeat that monster. THEN they kill the monster.
The actual point I was making here is that a monster with even 6 souls was still incapable of dealing with even a single human. It doesn't matter why because any reason you can give for his loss could apply to any other human flowery might choose to fight. It is possible Frisk was just exceptional, but by that much?
Monsters with souls might not be as powerful as the monsters think.
Sorry I am not properly responding, I just don't have time to put together a decent response. But really, I am not trying to make the game dark and gritty, I never said that. "Poses interesting moral questions" =/= "dark and gritty". And we have it by word of god (from the authors mouth, if you do not know that phrase) that it is meant to be much deeper than the surface level interpretation.Saetha said:
I think the game as it is, with it's pacifist message, is deep enough already. And again, if Toby's real theme was "Do the ends justify the means?" then I take back every credit I've ever given to his abilities as a writer. He did an awful job of conveying his message and communicating his theme.ThatOtherGirl said:
Except those are just theories, nothing more. The game's neutral endings do heavily lean towards that yes, Frisk did make it out passed the barrier. The reason behind the way those endings are presented is to make them look unsatisfying so that the players will aim for the True Pacifist ending next time. And because they're stated doesn't necessarily make them true because there are cases that break established rules. The fact that Frisk can Save and Load is proof of that, otherwise the rest of the 6 human souls would've been able to do just that instead of remaining as just souls, therefore leaving the monsters having no souls at all to collect from the get-go. The game never explicitly states that monsters could absorb the souls of other monsters and yet Flowey came out from nowhere in the True Pacifist ending and was able to do that with no explanation nor foreshadowing of any kind.ThatOtherGirl said:
For Chara, it was as much possible for them to leave the barrier whenever they wanted. Their reason not to was that they hated humanity and so wanted nothing to do with them, and the Dreemurr family's raising for him and Asriel was for them to be the future of their people in that they'll find a way to break the barrier. Chara, however, had no intention of leaving the Underground until they found out about the flowers making Asgore sick and then decided to hatch their own plan of getting the monsters to destroy humanity.
-
For Flowey's fight, again, you're oversimplifying the whole thing. For context, every factor matters in determining an outcome. Frisk was only able to defeat Flowey because of the other souls' assistance and because of Flowey's own compulsive behavior. They had to call out to all six of them to awaken and rebel. Anything less than all of them and Frisk is still vulnerable to actual death, which does happen if your HP drops to zero: the reason you keep coming back is because Flowey is purposely reviving you so that he can kill you again, and the souls he absorbed are powerless to do anything until Frisk managed to reach out to all six of them. Most of Flowey's downfall in that fight was his compulsion to keep bringing Frisk back and kill them again instead of offing them and leaving. Without those six souls, Frisk was completely helpless because Flowey's determination overrided theirs. So in a way, Flowey was dealing with seven humans, not just one.
Are monster with souls as powerful as they made them out to be? Maybe? Likely not? But at the same time, it's another thing to completely underestimate what they're fully capable of.
-
Also for with what Toby Fox said, I believe he also said it's up to players to interpret the game however they want. While that can be a perk sometimes in games to be ambiguous in allowing people to come to their own conclusions, it's important to remember that they're just speculation, nothing concrete or solid and it's generally not a good thing to pass such speculation off as fact, even if they're based on some things one tries to interpret from the game. In some cases, there's just simplicity and things that aren't overly deep.
In a way, that is a common theme though since you're constantly faced with the decision whether or not to fight to make progression "easier" and that's how to play rpgs after all, isn't it.Saetha said:
And then there's the whole genocide thing that takes it a step further, you literally do it because you can, just to see what will happen and the game pretty clearly conveys that point to you.
In my opinion, undertales story would be rather dull if it was just about delivering the earth shattering revelation that "killing is bad".
It is about how you approach games and why.
Yeah, it gives you the option to take the easy path and kill. And it shows you that killing people is clearly bad. It never really asks you if the ends justify the means, and if it did, it'd clearly pass judgement on you since, you know, the ruthless path nets you the worst ending.loa said:
I mean, it is about how you approach games. But that doesn't mean it isn't also about how killing is bad. In fact, those two things are intrinsically linked - it deconstructs the common "kill everything" approach to games. That's why it's so good.
Certainly the end that the ends justify the means is never really brought up or touched upon. Hell, Sans even implies you're just lying to yourself if you say "I killed them because they wanted to hurt me."
I just don't understand this need to build Undertale up to be more than it is. "Killing is bad" might not be an earth-shattering message, but it's one the game does a fantastic job of conveying - not to mention that trying to sell Undertale as a philosophically complex game that asks all the hard questions will just disappoint people when they find out it's pretty simple and straightforward.
Which is, y'know, why so many people end up opposed to the game.
Hype backlash, guys. Hype backlash is a *****.
... Papyrus is Autistic? That's news to me. Considering Papyrus is one of the most friendly, diverse Monsters in the game, I don't think he qualifies as "Autistic".
Now, I agree that Alphys is kind of an annoying character, but I think that's kind of her point; she's supposed to be annoying. It's one thing to be friendly to a friendly person, or even being friendly to a person who wants to kill you but is otherwise nice. To be friendly to a person who is constantly talking to you about things that don't matter, that lies constantly, and is responsible for the suffering of several monsters is meant to test how friendly you can actually be. In fact, I'd say Alphys is supposed to introduce you to the idea that absolutely everyone in the Underground is worth forgiveness and redemption. Without her, how many of us would be as forgiving to Asriel/Flowey as we are?
Personally, I like Papyrus and Sans. Yes, they are different from the mood created in the Ruins, but that's kind of their Point: Not everyone is uniform, not even the Underground is uniform (Which is divided into 4 unique parts), and people are different all over so why should the things you fight be all the same? The Chemistry Papyrus has with the rest of the Monsters is not only hilarious, but uplifting (He's the Optimist in a situation where really no one should be optimistic). Sans may be lazy, but he's also loyal and caring. If you kill his brother, he will never forget it and will hate you but in a "Yeah, you may be nice, but you still killed someone important to me, so please never come back" kind of hatred. Metatton is okay, but his existence helps test your friendliness and compassion to all of the Monsters.
Now, I agree that Alphys is kind of an annoying character, but I think that's kind of her point; she's supposed to be annoying. It's one thing to be friendly to a friendly person, or even being friendly to a person who wants to kill you but is otherwise nice. To be friendly to a person who is constantly talking to you about things that don't matter, that lies constantly, and is responsible for the suffering of several monsters is meant to test how friendly you can actually be. In fact, I'd say Alphys is supposed to introduce you to the idea that absolutely everyone in the Underground is worth forgiveness and redemption. Without her, how many of us would be as forgiving to Asriel/Flowey as we are?
Personally, I like Papyrus and Sans. Yes, they are different from the mood created in the Ruins, but that's kind of their Point: Not everyone is uniform, not even the Underground is uniform (Which is divided into 4 unique parts), and people are different all over so why should the things you fight be all the same? The Chemistry Papyrus has with the rest of the Monsters is not only hilarious, but uplifting (He's the Optimist in a situation where really no one should be optimistic). Sans may be lazy, but he's also loyal and caring. If you kill his brother, he will never forget it and will hate you but in a "Yeah, you may be nice, but you still killed someone important to me, so please never come back" kind of hatred. Metatton is okay, but his existence helps test your friendliness and compassion to all of the Monsters.
A problem with games is to define the role and MEANING of the player. That's what a lot of games are now trying to tackle, with Spec Ops: The Line and Undertale being two examples. Why exactly is the player a superhero while the characters within the game are "mortal"?major_chaos said:
The Arcade games of old never had this problem because the player was supposed to be vulnerable, so that he could die and put in another quarter. So the difference in power between the player and the characters in the game was relatively equal. In my early Donkey Kong experience, it often felt like the gorilla vastly overpowered ME.
But Mr. Miyamoto WANTED us to experience his own childhood, and no monster was going to get in the way of that. That was the beginning of the slope that led us to weaker and weaker "opponents" in games, where games became a mere shell in which to place a narrative, where "enemies" became cannon fodder in order to give us in our disempowered lives the false sense that we are powerful, by making us "powerful" within a video game.
But what goes around comes around, and one cannot cheat neither in life nor in art. You can't hand a player an automatic path through a game and simultaneously extol him for being a valiant hero. In moral terms the easy path is associated with evil but it's taken quite a long time and a shitload of effort for a few game critics to communicate this lesson to gamers.
We already have a artform where spectators engage with an experience controlled by the artist, where narrative rules and flourishes - it's called Film.
It's fine that we are insecure and ignorant about what video games are. It's understandable that we try to define them and have them make sense to us. But shouldn't we at least AVOID turning games into what we know they aren't?