Undertale May Be This Year's Best Written Game

[EyeReaper]

Snip

Snip

I rescinded my thoughts on the genocide run, I originally thought that it was going to be like SMT, you know, easy to lock yourself in to a route accidentally. I now know you really need to gun for bad times (though I still dislike the game calling out people watching on youtube) There are other parts of the game I feel are kinda forced though. for example

Spoiler

In the Toriel boss fight, you will do a crazy high damage crit when you attack her at like, 30% health or something. This is immediately after a froggit tells you that some enemies won't surrender until beaten to near death. I feel like these two events correlate to try to trick the player into killing Goatmom, resetting, and getting Flowey to do his thing

Snip 2: Electric Snipaloo

Hey, I'll fully admit I could be wrong. Maybe I'm just being overly cynical. I think watching too much Jim Sterling has made me lose all optimism I had for Indie devs
On the other hand, undertale hit the highest metacritic PC rank in less than a month. If that's not an open invitation for a few quick greenlight titles named something like "Blundersale: The Pacifisting" I don't know what is.

 

[D-Class 198482]

I feel like a cock for disliking this game. It's too quirky for me, but I can appreciate its qualities.

Funnily enough, that reminds me of a quote from the game itself. "I don't like that guy, but I appreciate his lifestyle."

 

[Imp_Emissary]

Snip

Snip

I rescinded my thoughts on the genocide run, I originally thought that it was going to be like SMT, you know, easy to lock yourself in to a route accidentally. I now know you really need to gun for bad times (though I still dislike the game calling out people watching on youtube) There are other parts of the game I feel are kinda forced though. for example

Spoiler

In the Toriel boss fight, you will do a crazy high damage crit when you attack her at like, 30% health or something. This is immediately after a froggit tells you that some enemies won't surrender until beaten to near death. I feel like these two events correlate to try to trick the player into killing Goatmom, resetting, and getting Flowey to do his thing

About the Froggit's warning.

Spoiler: Spoiler for Undertale's first boss fight!

The Froggit also says that you may have to one day spare someone even if their name ISN'T yellow. Hinting at what you'll have to do to spare Toriel's life (as well as many of the other bosses).

Also, the game does react pretty well to you failing to save Toriel (tried to spare her but hit her too much), not even trying to spare her (you just attacked), or if you betrayed her (pretended to spare her and at the last moment killed her).

It's true that it's indeed a trick, but it's done to purposely show off how the game remembers what you do even if you reload to an old save.

Like if you try again after killing her, you can try the ACT option "talk" and it mentions you thinking about telling Toriel that you saw her die.

In short, yeah it was a trick, but it was done to show off the games abilities in relation to the use of the "saving power" in the story. The game didn't force you to do that, you chose to do it. You just may have not known that there was another option.

 

[Infernal Lawyer]

Oh, look someone on the Escapist finally acknowledges that Undertale exists. Goody!

Anyway, I must admit that I was pretty biased about Undertale from the moment I got two minutes into the demo two years ago, since I've developed a craving for games that invoke discussion or have some manner of self-awareness (for want of a better word).

Undertale is also the only game where (AFAIK) the morality system that acknowledges that you, as the player, have the power to turn back time on a whim to change how things play out. This is just me, but I'm fascinated by this concept since most people like to claim that their conscience is clear for killing NPCs because they were "acting in self defense", as if their character was at any risk of suffering anything that couldn't be instantly reversed.

It's also one of the only games where the morality system REALLY makes you feel like a scumbag.

 

[loa]

Well, I personally did play the game, and quite enjoyed it, but I actually kind of disagree with the idea that you need to experience the "player agency" of making the decisions yourself. Thing is, the decisions them-self, while nice, aren't exactly all that complicated. It's no Witcher 3 or Mass Effect in that department; you don't have the consider complex moral and political context to base your judgements off. It's pretty much, do you you want to kill every single monster bar none, or do you want to go through the game handing out free hugs? Anything more than a hair to either side of these extremes and you get the neutral ending.
If you paid even the slightest bit of attention to the fanbase, development, marketing, or even just the in game dialogue, you'll figure out immediately that you're supposed to go through the game without killing anyone. So you'll basically find yourself picking all the black and white nice options just to get the good ending, then picking all the evil options when you inevitably do the genocide run.

Not true, none of the decisions other than killing or not doing so actually has any effect on the ending with only 1 exception (that may or may not be a bug) so it's actually even more simplistic than you make it out to be.
You can pick as many "I don't like you" options as you want, all that does is giving you different dialogue but it won't change the ending.

Yes, you ARE supposed to go through the game as a pacifist. There are 0 moral greys here.
The "moral choice" here is, will you, you the player, experiment anyway?
Also "picking all the evil options" will NOT lead to genocide.
You probably wouldn't find out about it on your own without the internet constantly telling you about "genocide runs" which kind of ruins it in a way.
It's kind of hidden and requires very deliberate, constant work.
But because it's there, because you CAN do it, you have to. Right?
Even though the game so clearly states that "nobody has to die" and offers you one of the most satisfying endings I have ever seen in fiction if you play by its rules, you paid 10 bucks for it and have to see all its content even if there's really no fun to be had here apart from 2 hard bossfights (after which there's nothing worthwhile for you to see and you CAN quit but will you or do you HAVE to see what comes next because you "earned" it defeating that incredibly hard boss that kept begging you to QUIT and do literally anything else?).

As mentioned above, this game also acknowledges that you can save and reload and are basically an immortal groundhog-day deity that has no real stakes in any conflict. Acting in "self defense" is a moot point here if "dying" means a game-over screen followed by an immediate retry and there always IS a non-violent way out.
So the actual "moral choice" is not a limp mass-effectian "burn orphenage or pet kittens" kind of deal but something more meta that may make you question the way you act in games.
Or not.

 

[FirstNameLastName]

...

As mentioned above, this game also acknowledges that you can save and reload and are basically an immortal groundhog-day deity that has no real stakes in any conflict. Acting in "self defense" is a moot point here if "dying" means a game-over screen followed by an immediate retry and there always IS a non-violent way out.
So the actual "moral choice" is not a limp mass-effectian "burn orphenage or pet kittens" kind of deal but something more meta that may make you question the way you act in games.
Or not.

The thing is, in games, you generally pretend that you aren't just playing a game when it comes to morality. While I did find all the meta elements interesting, it doesn't really have much to do with actual morality. If you're going to acknowledge the fact that this is all just a game being played by someone with the ability to save and reload their way out of every problem, then you can't really ignore the fact that there is no morality to player decisions in the first place, since it's all just code running on a computer. Outside of multiplayer games where the morality of greifing and trolling can be questioned, there is no actual real world moral difference between being nice to the characters and killing every single one of them. At the end of the day, morality in video games is basically just a form of roleplaying; applying morality to places where none exists by pretending it's real. Morality in fiction really only exists to the extent that it reflects on real life in some manner. You're supposed to think about how these situations in books, games, movies, etc, relate to the real world.
The meta stuff doesn't really change how I think about my actions in other games since in those other games, from a moral stand point, I'm pretending I don't have the ability to save scum my way through a perfect pacifist run, therefore, it can't really negate my claim to self defence without also negating any sense of morality in the first place.

 

[EyeReaper]

Undersnip

Yeah, I know what the game was trying to do, It just feels so... underhanded. It feels less like a choice when it seems that the only people who don't fall for the ploy are people who have already spoiled themselves. That was supposed to be one of the game's big things, you know? That there was so many varying things you could do, but literally everyone I've talked with about the beginning of the game did the exact same sequence, and quite a few streamers too. Just feels a little too forced to me.

 

[Imp_Emissary]

Undersnip

Yeah, I know what the game was trying to do, It just feels so... underhanded. It feels less like a choice when it seems that the only people who don't fall for the ploy are people who have already spoiled themselves. That was supposed to be one of the game's big things, you know? That there was so many varying things you could do, but literally everyone I've talked with about the beginning of the game did the exact same sequence, and quite a few streamers too. Just feels a little too forced to me.

Again, it's not really forcing the players it's just playing on their expectations (that if "talking" won't work, resort to violence). Kind of like what Toriel did.

Spoiler: I have seen Letsplayers that figure out the trick before failing,

Video contains spoilers for the game! (duh)

and did so myself. So while the trick is pretty effective it's not unavoidable.

Also, as I mentioned there are benefits story wise/save game mechanic wise to players making this mistake. Not only will the game explain it's use of saving and reloading to the players, but they also get more backstory on Flowey.

Spoiler: Spoiler for Flowey the Flower backstory.

Namely that he mentions to you that he used to have the power to save and reload until you showed up. He only mentions this if you fail to save Toriel and then reload to save her. Otherwise it doesn't come up again until much later in the game.

So yeah, the game is tricking you, but it's doing so with important purposes in mind. Plus, those who fall for the trick get more out of failing than those who figure out the puzzle before it gets them.

 

[loa]

The thing is, in games, you generally pretend that you aren't just playing a game when it comes to morality. While I did find all the meta elements interesting, it doesn't really have much to do with actual morality.

Really.
Imagine you had a real-life F5 and F6 key to quickload and quicksave and "dying" resulted in a "game over" screen and a restart.
You are above consequence.
Would you use that to strive for the best possible outcome or start killing people just to see what would happen?

 

[Silence]

Really thinking about picking it up (now that is the beginning of the month) just to talk about it more smartly.

But ... is there any reason to go for a genocide run? (aside from getting xp. which is hardly a necessary thing if you can go through it without getting any). It seems to me there is just one "true" storymode. I would go for genocide -> pacifist because it seems nobody does that and apparently it does have some other things in it then.

 

[kenu12345]

Really thinking about picking it up (now that is the beginning of the month) just to talk about it more smartly.

But ... is there any reason to go for a genocide run? (aside from getting xp. which is hardly a necessary thing if you can go through it without getting any). It seems to me there is just one "true" storymode. I would go for genocide -> pacifist because it seems nobody does that and apparently it does have some other things in it then.

Well for the experience, just like with any other path. Its heartbreaking, but it reveals whole new layers to everyone

 

[Hungryfreak]

One aspect I don't really like about the fanbase is the way so many seem to think this is the new Spec-Ops, holding a mirror up to other RPGs where you kill lots of monsters. I'm not sure of exactly how much of this is intentional, and how much is just people's perceptions of the game, but there do seem to be a large number of people who believe that solving all conflicts without violence isn't just revolutionary, but is somehow a profound statement about other in game enemies and the way we deal with them.
Here's the thing, as nice as the in game world is, and as interesting as the story is, the scenarios in which you are able to simply complement or pet your way out of every conflict are completely contrived and in no way reflect reality. There are already plenty of games that involve stealthing your way out of conflict, and plenty that depict unnecessary violence as despicable, but all these comedic solutions really can't work outside of the setting or tone. It's all well and good to show absolute mercy towards a world of cute, anthropomorphic animals that seem to have near human levels of intelligence, but I don't see why anyone should expect others to show mercy towards more typical RPG enemies.
Real world conflicts are far too complicated for any simplistic pacifist morality, and as horrible as it might sound, sometimes violence is necessary. Yes, despite what you've been told all your life, violence does indeed solve problems in certain cases. Sorry to invoke Godwin's law here, but I would have loved to see an alternate history in which the allied soldiers locked hands, sang songs, and attempted to complement their way to victory against the Nazi's. I'm sure the Nazi's, with their guns, tanks and planes, wouldn't stand a chance against all those kind words.

By all means, create more games with more interesting gameplay elements than repetitive combat, and create more stories that don't just paint any and all opposition as monsters deserving of death, but if you expect me to spam mercy at every skeleton, zombie and demon that crosses my path, then guess again. Most skeletons don't serve you spaghetti and witty puns.

Now, I'm not saying that the game is bad for such morals; it was a pretty emotional story. But I am rather sick of the fans who seem to think this game is some great and profound thesis on morality, conflict and violence.

The thing about art of any kind is that it's almost never literal. Like, in a lot of video games, you can climb up really tall buildings, fall off and die. Does that actually make you feel like you just jumped off a building?

Maybe nobody is as nice as in the world of Undertale, maybe skeletons aren't real or something, but they certainly are in Undertale and at least 50% of them feed you spaghetti. In the world of Undertale, you can spare monsters or you can slay them. Sparing them makes them open up to you, slaying them hurts. Your actions have an impact on the game world that feeds back to you. When you spare, you get to see the best of the game, explore its characters more, date more skeletons and bring about a great and satisfying ending. When you slay them, the characters start hiding away. When you go full genocidal, the game throws its worst at you, requiring you to grind, fight a bunch of boring and easy battles and its two by far toughest ones, then finally permanently stain your game. There are consequences.

Undertale almost literally asks you: is it worth it? That instinct you have as a gamer, that desire and power you have to see every line of dialogue, fight every battle and do everything you can, is it worth ruining the lives of all the characters, running through a miserable version of the game and ultimately tarnishing your own experience?

That's what separates it from most other games with a moral choice element. There are no or minimal consequences. Maybe some lines of dialogue change, or one character lives a little longer, or some mooks die instead of other mooks. A game like Mass Effect is afraid of actually making the player feel loss and thus distrusts their ability to confront it. Instead, it offers essentially equal options so that you aren't really restricted by making a mistake. More sensitive players might still be compelled to go blue, because the extra lines of dialogue they miss might be that important, or they've thoroughly injected themselves into the role, but that's on the person playing, and to some extent the narrative, but not the game.

 

[marioandsonic]

So, I just got finished playing Undertale. I went for a True Pacifist ending.

Spoiler: Here's my thoughts on it

It's a solid game for me, probably somewhere between an 8 and a 9 out of 10. I really liked many of the characters and the humor (Nearly every line from Papyrus is solid gold). I do find some of the "meta" moments to be pretty interesting, and the music...god damn. That final boss theme is going right on my phone

I do have some criticisms, though. One is that the spritework is a bit inconsistent. Some of them look great, which others do not. Also, as Yahtzee pointed out, the music, while great, can't decide whether or not it's going to be chiptune or use real instruments. While I said I like most of the characters, I don't really like Alphys that much. Finally, while the battle system is interesting, it does make certain enemies and bosses a pain to fight. Then again, I'm not very good at bullet hell games, so I probably died more than most people would.

And for those who are wondering, no, I have no intention of a genocide run. Two reasons for this: As I said before, I'm not good at bullet hell, and if what I've heard is true about the genocide bosses, I would probably just die over and over. And the second is that...I just can't bring myself to kill all of those characters. Which probably speaks well for the game's writing.

So in summary, I enjoyed it and it's probably one of the better games to come out this year, so go buy it and play it.

 

[Saetha]

Snip

Just for the record, all Undertale is really doing is offering a different viewpoint. You don't have to accept it as valid, you can probably come up with some counterarguments to it - I mean, if I'm completely mercenary about it, Undertale's entire point is moot because they really are just lines of dialogue and numbers and variables. They don't exist, and ruining their lives to exhaust every possibility is no way morally wrong because, well, no one's actually getting hurt. That extends to every game. The urge to be upset or morally repulsed by fictional troubles is always an illogical one.

So, I choose to examine it in the framework of the game itself - that I'm an omnipotent, non-physical, time-travelling presence in the game world - and apply that framework to other games as well. You argue that you can't because the player's "role" in this story is different from their "role" in most others - you are this presence only in Undertale, and simply another character in most others. That's fine. But it presupposes that everyone plays their games that way, in that role, which is not necessarily true. It certainly isn't for me - immersive role-playing loses my interest pretty quickly, and I meta-game like a *****. So Undertale's framework is applicable to most games for me, because I do consider myself to largely be directing events rather than involved in them, and I always consider and treat my player character as a separate entity from myself.

Neither viewpoint's wrong. It's just another way of looking at things.

Snip

Eeehhh, I wouldn't say games like Mass Effect are afraid of making the player confront their own losses and mistakes. There are points where you have to lose, such as Thessia or Virmire. Rather, I think the issues with those games are twofold - One, high production values, which makes even minor changes in regard to your decisions difficult to implement. And two, businessmen who will question the need to spend money on such minor details few players will notice. Undertale escapes both issues, because it's a labor of indie love with lower production values, allowing small or even major changes with, comparatively, less effort and cost.

That being said, it's certainly refreshing in how much choice and variance it offers. That's not something you'll find in most other games, and definitely not in a AAA game - but I think the reasons are more practical than you're making them out to be.

It does raise the question of why most indie games don't do this, though.

 

[Drathnoxis]

Undertale almost literally asks you: is it worth it? That instinct you have as a gamer, that desire and power you have to see every line of dialogue, fight every battle and do everything you can, is it worth ruining the lives of all the characters, running through a miserable version of the game and ultimately tarnishing your own experience?

This is so true. The game is almost malicious to completionists, because the ending that you would want to do last is permanently negatively affected by the genocide run.

I just finished my third run through of the game. I started with a pacifist run and had a blast, when it ended I felt completely satisfied by the experience in a way that few games have ever managed. But then, I just had to know what was in the other endings, just what I was missing. So I did the genocide run and also neutral boss killing run, and while they were interesting in their own way, they are by no means satisfying endings. To leave the game with those as my final experiences ultimately leaves me feeling unfulfilled and a little bit guilty.

EDIT: It is kind of interesting to have a game pose these sorts of questions, though, and it's not like the game wasn't clear that going down those paths were going to be a bad time. I'm not sure if I like the game for doing it though. It's kind of like I was going to put my hand on a hot stove, and the game told me that it was going to be unpleasant to do so, and then just stood back and watched as I did it anyway.

 

[1981]

The thing is, in games, you generally pretend that you aren't just playing a game when it comes to morality. While I did find all the meta elements interesting, it doesn't really have much to do with actual morality.

I thought that the majority of people would want to experience the story in a story-driven game. That's why I had trouble understanding why it had to trick me into doing something it assumed I was going to do instead of just giving me a choice. The meta elements were clever, but they didn't appeal to me at all. I've already had games play me. They've helped me shake the habit of reloading to get a better outcome by giving me a chance to learn from my mistakes.

Spoiler

You have to let Toriel and Papyrus "kill" you in order to figure out that they can't kill you. If I remember correctly, the other bosses make no attempt to spare you.

Which means that you are expected to rely on reloading rather than your judgment.

 

[Saetha]

EDIT: It is kind of interesting to have a game pose these sorts of questions, though, and it's not like the game wasn't clear that going down those paths were going to be a bad time. I'm not sure if I like the game for doing it though. It's kind of like I was going to put my hand on a hot stove, and the game told me that it was going to be unpleasant to do so, and then just stood back and watched as I did it anyway.

What would you have the game do? Once it becomes clear that you're a bad guy, all the characters do everything in their power to stop you. It just isn't enough. (Although, I hear a lot of people give up out of frustration at the Sans fight, so I guess that counts as a "victory.")

Which means that you are expected to rely on reloading rather than your judgment.

*Shrug* If you somehow manage to get to the Undyne fight without making a single random encounter, sure. Because remember - Toriel and Papyrus are the only ones going easy on you. Even the first encounters in the ruins are fighting to kill.

And I'm not sure I'd say reloading because you literally died, had your soul stolen, and possibly used to wage war on humanity is the same as reloading because you accidentally sold your last dog residue to Tem Shop.

 

[Drathnoxis]

EDIT: It is kind of interesting to have a game pose these sorts of questions, though, and it's not like the game wasn't clear that going down those paths were going to be a bad time. I'm not sure if I like the game for doing it though. It's kind of like I was going to put my hand on a hot stove, and the game told me that it was going to be unpleasant to do so, and then just stood back and watched as I did it anyway.

What would you have the game do? Once it becomes clear that you're a bad guy, all the characters do everything in their power to stop you. It just isn't enough. (Although, I hear a lot of people give up out of frustration at the Sans fight, so I guess that counts as a "victory.")

I don't know, maybe make it reasonable to do the best ending last. I have to wonder if it's really good game design if, to get the best experience out of the game while also seeing all the content you would have to follow a guide that tells you what order to do the endings in and also delete some hidden files the game makes in several locations.

It's just so strange to me to make a game where you don't want people to see all the content. Like, the best way to play the game would be to just play the pacifist route and then stop, because the pacifist route is just fantastic narratively. The game even begs you not to restart after it, but the content is there so people have to see it. And if you are doing genocide, it doesn't matter if you do it before or after pacifist, it's still going to lessen your experience. Either because if you do it first it modifies the pacifist ending, or if you do it after it ruins the narrative pacing by tacking on a downer ending after the satisfying conclusion.

I can appreciate what they are doing, and it is pretty clever, but as a completionist it does still leave me with a bit of a worse experience.

Also, I'm not sure what the message I'm supposed to come away with is. Is it that being a completionist is bad, and for future games I should not try to see all of the content it has to offer? That's kind of strange, because in other games to get the best ending you have to be a completionist.

 

[kuolonen]

Really thinking about picking it up (now that is the beginning of the month) just to talk about it more smartly.

But ... is there any reason to go for a genocide run? (aside from getting xp. which is hardly a necessary thing if you can go through it without getting any). It seems to me there is just one "true" storymode. I would go for genocide -> pacifist because it seems nobody does that and apparently it does have some other things in it then.

Several reasons for myself actually. One was to see how people react to utter monster savaging the community. It also brings out the best in many people. And there are just way too few games that give you the chance to be the villain. For a game that has good writing every single one of those three points gets the value doubled. Undertale delivered quite nicely there.

OT: For Yahtzee decrying the genocide route existing, for shame. Whats the point of being nice if it is the only choice possible? The reason, for me at least, that true pacifist has any value is precisely because it is a choice you make. Don't really get where Yahtzee gets his infinite hate for moral choice, the bloody moralphobe.

Any game where I play protagonist where my only influence to story is isolated to beating monsters/fetching keys/etc, while all decisions are made for me by the game better have 10/10 graphics/gameplay/all else, because by story the it will only clock about 5/10 as a game.

 

[Saetha]

Also, I'm not sure what the message I'm supposed to come away with is. Is it that being a completionist is bad, and for future games I should not try to see all of the content it has to offer? That's kind of strange, because in other games to get the best ending you have to be a completionist.

So I drafted up an essay to this, and then my wifi crapped out as I was posting. *Sigh* Cliffnotes version, then.

1) Yes, the reason you feel bad is likely because you're a completionist, and the genocide run is showing how terrible completion can be, especially when you have to do horrible things to achieve it.

2) It's important to remember that the protagonist has and can use powers typically ascribed solely to the player - saving, reloading, resetting are not suspensions of logic that the game doesn't acknowledge, but abilities Frisk consciously chooses to use. If they use them to undo the perfect ending and do a genocide run, just because they can do that, then it's pretty morally repugnant. Frisk is basically treating their "friends" as playthings, who exist only to entertain Frisk themselves - much as the player, especially a completionist player, treats the game as toy to entertain them, regardless of how much pain and suffering their fun causes in the game world.

3) There's a bit of a flaw in that logic, because the game is a toy to entertain them - to be effected by it's guilting, you have to suspend your own logic telling you that these characters aren't real and the pain you've caused them is false. The "But they really are just lines of dialogue and series of numbers" argument is a pretty valid counter if you ask me - but it's also one that the game and Toby can't overcome.

4)If you accept, even distantly, that these characters are real, then the suffering you caused them in a genocide run is also real. So, the game doesn't let you get away with it, because you did a bad thing, and I see no reason why it shouldn't let you suffer the consequences.

5) But nothing's forcing you to cause that suffering. Remember what Sans said? "You'll do something because you can, and because you can, you think you have to." So yes, the content was basically there to not be seen, and the game will punish you for seeing it. It'll warn you not to do something, and then watch you do it, only to get mad later. But that's also the most effective way of communicating Toby's point - that torturing people to see what they'll do is pretty fucked-up.

6) However, I fail to see how that's different from, say, Dragon Age guilting you for murdering someone. Only difference is, in Dragon Age you get an approval hit and a snippy rant from a friend before everyone just forgets. Undertale is much better about giving your actions consequences - even bad ones.

7) I think the problem is that, as gamers, we're used to resets and new save files acting like a "Get Out of Jail Free" card. Once a save is erased, it never happened, and no one - not even the game - is allowed to make you feel bad for it. Undertale questions this. It's breaking the rules, which is why some see it as brilliant, and others as only unfair.

8) I fall in the former category. You seem to fall in the latter. That's fine, but I like how it's breaking the mold and establishing consequences.

9) Granted, I also just watched a genocide run on Youtube, because I'm not a completionist and was happy with the true ending.