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

[Zenja]

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?

It isn't in the name of story-telling. It is in the name of making a statement about the psychological behavior of achievement completionists or just video game psychology itself. I haven't even played the game and I can see that this game is playing off of making meta-statements. Why are you playing that way? Why not try harder to play the style where you don't feel bad, or why can't you just put the game down?

The important thing to remember here is this is only 1 route through the game. The route where the player DECIDES not to use problem solving and instead takes the thick headed violence approach. Then the game does make negative statements about you doing this despite there being much more ethical yet harder options available.

This is not for storytelling, it is for commentary about player behavior in games. By the looks of it, it's design can show our need to 'dominate' the game world we play in. To top it off, there is no achievements in the game, thus nothing to encourage this behavior in the player beyond their own stubbornness. This is not about storytelling, the game is flat out saying that you are stubborn for insisting it let you kill people. So stubborn you are actually angry it talks down about using such tactics in the game yet you still continue to do it and insist the game is wrong for doing not agreeing with you.

 

[crimson5pheonix]

Nitpick #1: The game supplies an unfair difficulty for half its best content (Genocide Run).

Nitpick #2: The game punishes you for playing half its best content (Genocide Run).

More games should have the balls to have you not be a hero.

 

[Nazulu]

Why the hell didn't anyone keep the Hotland puzzles activated? I'm sure Frisk couldn't get through alllll those lasers and doors without help. Also, Mettaton can fly, and he also received upgrades from Alphy's, and Alphy's seems like she could build anything..................... USE A NUKE!!!

Actually, if you check some of the earlier puzzles, you'll find vines deactivating them.

Basically, once Flowey learns about what you're doing, he goes on ahead and deactivates any puzzles that get in your way.

I did see the vines, but I didn't see them in Hotland, plus I don't think that would make any sense. Also, that doesn't explain why the people left instead of keeping the place activated.

Why the hell didn't anyone keep the Hotland puzzles activated? I'm sure Frisk couldn't get through alllll those lasers and doors without help. Also, Mettaton can fly, and he also received upgrades from Alphy's, and Alphy's seems like she could build anything..................... USE A NUKE!!!

I had more but I can't remember them right now.

I mean, the monsters do have to keep living in the underground afterwards. Radiation would probably be bad. And I'm not so sure Alphys actually invented a lot of the technology monsters use. It's implied that monsters are woefully far behind humans technologically, and that tech in the Underground isn't invented so much as reverse engineered by whatever human tech happens to fall down. And we're generally pretty good about not letting nuclear bombs casually fall into giant mountains. Alphys might not know enough to truly invent something new, just copy and improve on what tech monsters already have.

As for the traps being inactive - people needed to evacuate. And once they did, there was no reason to try and keep Chara there. It'd be more beneficial to open the way for Chara actually, to encourage them to leave and let everyone get back to their lives. Spitefully trying to keep Chara there wouldn't do any good.

I don't mean a literal nuke. Alphy's made a phone that's also a jet pack, as well as Mettaton. That's far more advanced than anything we have now. I think she could build something that can handle one human pretty easily, even just an inescapable trap.

Your last paragraph makes no sense to me. You would want to work together to stop the menace, and they easily could with all the security, so this evacuation plan makes no sense. Including, it seemed like no one told Asgore (or he wanted to stay), so letting her/him leave so no one else would get harmed was not a thought that was implied.

I guess we could make a whole lot of assumptions, but it's really pulling all the strings.

 

[Saetha]

I don't mean a literal nuke. Alphy's made a phone that's also a jet pack, as well as Mettaton. That's far more advanced than anything we have now. I think she could build something that can handle one human pretty easily, even just an inescapable trap.

Your last paragraph makes no sense to me. You would want to work together to stop the menace, and they easily could with all the security, so this evacuation plan makes no sense. Including, it seemed like no one told Asgore (or he wanted to stay), so letting her/him leave so no one else would get harmed was not a thought that was implied.

I guess we could make a whole lot of assumptions, but it's really pulling all the strings.

The traps had to be deactivated so people could evacuate - otherwise they'd be wasting time on Alphys' puzzle bullshit and getting murdered by the one-man killing machine sweeping the Underground. Once gone, re-activating the puzzles wouldn't really solve the problem with Chara, and likely prolong it. Plus, maybe Alphys couldn't reactivate them from wherever she evacuated to.

And actually, while I wouldn't say Alphys didn't invent all that stuff (Because we don't know one way or the other) we know that Undertale is set slightly in the future. The first human fell down in 20XX. Five other humans also fell down in that time between Chara's appearance and Frisk's. We can only speculate how much time it took - could've been just a few years, could've been decades or centuries. Either way, humans in the Undertale's world are probably more advanced than we are.

And as for why Alphys didn't just set some weapon on Frisk - eh, that's a fair enough criticism. Mettaton was supposed to do that, but I guess he was poorly designed. Seems like Alphys could've done something better.

 

[Nazulu]

I don't mean a literal nuke. Alphy's made a phone that's also a jet pack, as well as Mettaton. That's far more advanced than anything we have now. I think she could build something that can handle one human pretty easily, even just an inescapable trap.

Your last paragraph makes no sense to me. You would want to work together to stop the menace, and they easily could with all the security, so this evacuation plan makes no sense. Including, it seemed like no one told Asgore (or he wanted to stay), so letting her/him leave so no one else would get harmed was not a thought that was implied.

I guess we could make a whole lot of assumptions, but it's really pulling all the strings.

The traps had to be deactivated so people could evacuate - otherwise they'd be wasting time on Alphys' puzzle bullshit and getting murdered by the one-man killing machine sweeping the Underground. Once gone, re-activating the puzzles wouldn't really solve the problem with Chara, and likely prolong it. Plus, maybe Alphys couldn't reactivate them from wherever she evacuated to.

And actually, while I wouldn't say Alphys didn't invent all that stuff (Because we don't know one way or the other) we know that Undertale is set slightly in the future. The first human fell down in 20XX. Five other humans also fell down in that time between Chara's appearance and Frisk's. We can only speculate how much time it took - could've been just a few years, could've been decades or centuries. Either way, humans in the Undertale's world are probably more advanced than we are.

And as for why Alphys didn't just set some weapon on Frisk - eh, that's a fair enough criticism. Mettaton was supposed to do that, but I guess he was poorly designed. Seems like Alphys could've done something better.

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.

 

[cleric of the order]

Why do we need to criticize it at all?
too difficult: you were warned.

Made you feel bad well what would you expect a game about not killing people would be like when you killed people. You are the villain, you do evil things. Heart enchantingly bad things and do you not expect the characters to reflect that.
Some people revile in that attention. some people enjoy being the dick.

 

[not_you]

Yeah, those two nitpicks are purely driven down to you as a player...

Nitpick#1 comes down to that old Dark Soul's fanbase... hmmm, what do they say all the time to new players...
oh yeah: git gud

So, does that mean that Dark Souls itself isn't a fair game because half the players give up initially just because they can't get a grasp of a specific boss? (I know quite a few of my friends that just couldn't beat certain bosses... So... yeah...)

And throughout the entire Undyne boss fight, the DDR sections are static... they never change... So, learn the pattern, and you could effectively set up a macro to do the fight for you... If you were so inclined, but you might not be because.......

(And for the record, Sans is harder than Undyne)
((Also, saying that the mechanics aren't explained properly doesn't work either, because the genocide run will almost always NEVER be the first playthrough, so you would've already seen how Undyne fights, and learnt from there))

Nitpick#2 The game makes the player feel bad...

Now, here's when I make a comment saying that there must be something seriously wrong with me, because upon playing the game once, and getting the neutral ending with Omega Flowey just wrecking everything, I got past that whinging and moaning stage rather quickly, and wanted to teach the game a lesson my own way...
Upon meeting Sans for the first time, (even on my first playthrough) I wanted nothing more than to murder his ass... And once I found out that you could, I had to make sure that every possible thing was dead in the world...

No problem at all. Hell, I even enjoyed it more than the pacifist run I did after... (And yes, I manipulated all save-states so that I've seen every single ending possible pre/post genocide runs... It's actually funny when Flowey turned up after a specific combination of saves saying that he knew what I was doing, and that I was a real monster... tee hee, I'll kill you again you silly flower)

*ahem* got off topic there...

I understand where you're coming from OP, there are certain parts of the game during the Genocide run that is supposed to make you want to stop... But that's exactly why they're there... To keep reminding the player that going back might be the better option... But for those either looking for a challenge, or (like me) genuinely wanted to take the jokes that goddamn skeleton made and jam them down his throat with his own shins.... Well, I certainly imagined doing that anyway...

.......

Chara was right...

 

[default]

I think an important distinction to make here (especially for those who haven't played the game) is the one behind the difference between a Genocide run and a run where you just kill the monsters that attack you. Just attacking the monsters in self defence is not genocide, that just lands you on the bad side of a neutral run where the ending will be no different but you will be berated for your violence. That's what I did on my first playthrough. A Genocide run requires something very, very different. It requires grinding away in each area for a long time, systematically killing a large number of randomised encounters until you get a special message telling you everything in the area is now dead. You need to do this for every area in the game and it drastically shifts the path the story and gameplay takes. It requires a very specific and unintuitive style of play, one that is unlikely to be encountered naturally unless you are a grinder.

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.

Games don't have to make you feel good. Stories don't have to make you feel good. If their only goal was to bring you direct pleasure, they'd be a short manual for how to masturbate.

You're complaining about one of the strengths of the game, that it treats it's world with an internal consistency. Characters don't want to die, and committing genocide is pretty bad. If someone wants to kill everything, they'll be pushing against a path of most resistance. Frankly, that's more interesting than most games making killing the default interaction.

Yes, it can make you feel bad, as a consequence of your own actions, and choices. People have mentioned Spec Ops: The Line, I think it actually surpasses that. Spec Ops forces you to play through, if you want to see the meta-discussion of games and violence, you have to put up with it assuming you're playing it for the wrong reasons, and it'll bludgeon you for it, which can be eye-rollingly irritating. And it forces you to do many of the awful things, not even necessarily with trickery, sometimes not doing them is a game over. The only thing it has to say if you have a problem with that is "Turn off the game". The best moments were smaller, and had choices which most players weren't even aware of (There's a scene with a mob where the player is basically expected to commit a massacre, but there are other ways around it).

Instead, Undertale gives you other ways around the obstacles. It literally gives you the choice of how you want to proceed through it's world, and how you want to do things. I don't think that people are missing "balls" for failing to criticize it, I think you're missing the point, and I think you should have the balls to have the strength of your convictions in your playthrough. If you've decided to kill everyone, then you should be able to deal with the fact that that's a miserable path to choose, or you should be able to expect more from art than just to feel good.

You feeling like it's an indictment of your character as a human being rather than the character you've taken on playing the game, and feeling on a personal, ethical level, insulted, by the game responding to choices you freely made, is your failing as a consumer. Don't take it so seriously, deciding to kill everyone doesn't make you a bad person. That you feel bad shows that the game does what it sets out to do, like any art which imparts a feeling. You weren't misled, you weren't deceived, you were outright warned.

Agreed. Why shouldn't stories make you think or feel bad for taking part in them? Interactivity gives wonderfully unique opportunities for entirely new methods of storytelling. They should be fully embraced and explored. 'Unethical' is a pretty silly way to describe it.

Even then, Undertale constantly warns you from this path once you are on it. It practically begs you to your face to stop. It's your fault if you continue. And if you do, the game will call you out for it on a personal level and make you feel like shit. Isn't that cool? Isn't that wildly inventive and interesting? I really don't understand the problem here.

 

[Gengisgame]

This is by biggest gripe with Dishonored.

I'm a real stickler for getting the best possible ending on a first playthrough and that requires you to play in the most boring way, not using most of your tools and spending too much time sneaking and hiding bodies.

 

[Zacharious-khan]

It does none of those things. The genocide bosses are the only hard part in the entire game and that fits the narrative. An enemy appears and a hero rises.
The game does not punish you for attempting to experience content. Unlike in a lot of games where you play the hero or villain you do not actually make any choices. In this game you have the option to be evil just as you have to option to be good. Everything is governed by the story and it makes very good sense in universe for you to experience those hard fights. I've never seen genocide as a whole new run. Lets be honest you are meant, and most people do, get a neutral ending first. A person would need to unknowingly try very hard (with the game asking you not to ) to even get to Undyne the Undying first run. Genocide (and Pacifist to an extent) are additions that allow you to further explore the story.
>hard
Not really buddy. They aren't easy by any stretch of the imagination but they are also the final bosses of the entire game. Optional final bosses. They're hard, It's literally the point.

 

[DoPo]

best possible ending

In Dishonored, I liked the "bad" ending the most

Spoiler

Everything is going to hell, everybody turns against each other and in the end...you still don't save Emily. I thought that was the most interesting turn of events

requires you to play in the most boring way

By contrast, I found that it was the most interesting way. High chaos isn't "interesting" it's just "easy". The two aren't interchangeable.

 

[Dizchu]

The people who criticise Undertale because the Genocide route didn't feel like a good ol' romp are missing the entire point of the game.

A lot of games with "moral choice" systems really want to place being a good person and being a dick on equal grounds. In Mass Effect you have Paragon and Renegade, in Bioshock you have that god-awful harvesting mechanic, in Bethesda RPGs you're allowed to be the biggest douchebag in the land and the game will not punish you for it.

In Abe's Oddysee you know what happens when you decide to "play it your own way" and kill all the mudokons? You get a shitty ending. The game doesn't try to please you by saying "hey, ANY choice is the right choice!" The right choice is to save your pals, not lead them into landmines and meat grinders. You know what? Killing them might actually be fun. But it's not the right moral choice.

The reason why Undertale goes out of its way to make you feel like shit for killing everyone is because Toby Fox's intention was to have Undertale be a positive experience. The Pacifist ending is not only the "good ending", but it's the "right ending". The Genocide ending is not the "bad ending", it is the "wrong ending". Undertale doesn't pander to people who get a kick out of slaughtering loads of people like games like Dishonored do by saying "you know what? Player choice! Any choice is the right choice! Yay!"

Let's take another great game that has a solid moral system, Thief: The Dark Project. It's much like Dishonored in many ways but what makes it the far superior product is that on higher difficulties you will flat-out lose if you kill anyone. You're a thief, not an assassin. But in many other "stealth" games you can go in, guns blazing, hacking everyone to bits and the game will say "wow, excellent choice sir! Suit you sir!"

I prefer it when a game actually puts its foot down and says outright that some choices are better than others.

 

[Dizchu]

Probably a bad example. Dishonored actually increases the number of certain enemies for killing, and does grant you the bad ending as well. The Outside comes along, tells you you've had your fun, and he's had his, but now everything's all messed up.

Well my point is that Dishonored really does incentivise the "high chaos" approach because many of the more enjoyable gadgets would have very few applications in a pacifist run. In Thief the weapons are clunky and aren't very fun to use at all, which encourages players to use stealth. Undertale is similar, the genocide route is counter-intuitive and isn't fun in the slightest. Because you aren't prevented from going this route it makes the pacifist route more meaningful.

Dishonored's not a bad game at all but it lacks that sense of cohesion that Undertale has because you're conflicted between a more enjoyable chaos route and a more "moral" pacifist route. I guess that works for some but for me it doesn't feel very rewarding.

 

[K12]

Basically the OP thinks that the genecide route should be fun. Who many time does Sans have to say "you're going to have a bad time" before you get the message?

It's not about saying that "killing is wrong" it's a deconstruction of the usual mindset and activities in a JRPG. Grinding for experience is essentially murdering things purely so that you can be better at murdering things. In other JRPG's the narrative encourages you to do that but in this one the narrative goes against it so if you do it anyway then the game treats you like a monster because and, in universe, you fucking well are one! "I wanted to see if I could do it" and "I wanted to see what would happen" are the kind of justifications that complete psychopaths use for killing.

The "good path" vs. "evil path" choice is replaced by "most narratively rewarding path" vs "most mechanically challenging path". You either accept the world and play on it's terms or you attempt to dominate it and the game fights back. I'm never going to do a genecide because I can't make myself kill Papyrus but I think the game is made better by the fact that it exists. This is why the game is so good!

Why does the OP not have the balls to analyse their own criticisms I wonder? Sometimes people don't criticise something because they think it works not because they're cowards who are too afraid to go against the status quo.

 

[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.

 

[Luminous_Umbra]

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.

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.

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.