Undertale May Be This Year's Best Written Game

[McElroy]

Oh, Undertale how I let my guard down for you. The music just... it won't leave my head. Fandoms are what they are and I don't really want to become a part of one anymore, but I need my daily dose of Undertale for a while at least (all hail Reddit).

And of course we must have: FLIRTING GOATMOM SPAGHETTI FILLS YOU WITH DETERMINATION AND ANIME IS REAL ALL RIGHT!! ok, hOI

 

[Drathnoxis]

Snip

Good points, but I guess the thing I'm asking is: is this supposed to be a moral? Is this something that the developer wants us to take from the game and apply to all other games we play? That being a completionist is bad and we shouldn't try to experience everything a game we like has to offer. Because if it's not a moral the game is pretty much giving us a hard time and deliberately diminishing the experience over something that isn't a big deal. And if it is a moral it kind of falls flat, because plenty of other games encourage completionism.

 

[Xman490]

What I find most commendable about this game is how it is a satire of RPGs in general. In RPGs, you not only kill every enemy you meet, but you also at least have the power to reset the game to do it again with slight changes. Undertale not only punishes/insults you for killing (even for killing particular enemies), but it has a character who does everything possible to keep you from wanting to finish it and then start over.

It lacks a challenge, it's easy to beat and there is no punishment.

It is actually somewhat challenging if you're not a bullet-dodging expert. Genocide Runs have much harder variants of bosses (i.e. punishment), and Pacifist Runs require you to keep enemies alive and attacking at full force.

Bullethell is something different, but it doesn't seem like the right something in the end. I see why rpg went the western route and became 3rd person action games.

I feel like the bullet hell fits in well. It allows the game to portray enemies attacking you in appropriate ways (e.g. bones, weapons, fire) while providing some challenge and demonstrating their emotions.

 

[Saetha]

Snip

Good points, but I guess the thing I'm asking is: is this supposed to be a moral? Is this something that the developer wants us to take from the game and apply to all other games we play? That being a completionist is bad and we shouldn't try to experience everything a game we like has to offer. Because if it's not a moral the game is pretty much giving us a hard time and deliberately diminishing the experience over something that isn't a big deal. And if it is a moral it kind of falls flat, because plenty of other games encourage completionism.

Well, I can't speak to the developer's intentions... but if you want a nerdy rant of my own take, that I can do!

I suppose you could see it as a moral - I just see it as an alternate viewpoint. That all the game is doing is asking me "Hey, if a being had these abilities, and used them to reset their friends' happy ending and put them through hell (Or put them through hell and then try to escape the consequences by running to a previous time.) isn't that kind of screwed-up?" It's an interesting question to contemplate, and it'll probably pop up in the back of my mind whenever I reset a game, or reload a save to see an alternate route. But there is that vital disconnect: Undertale's efforts to blur the player and the player character are pretty unique, but that also means any moral it has to give either isn't really applicable in other situations or games. If I booted up a game of Wind Waker right now, the game can't really shame Link for stealing everyone's happy ending because... well, first of all, they really are just lines of code and that code doesn't allow them to be aware of or upset by it. But also because Link didn't choose to do that, the player did. As for shaming the player - again, no one's programmed to even be aware of or upset by it. So, technically it's not wrong. No one's hurt. No one's upset. They don't even know. They're incapable of even knowing.

So, that's how I see it. An interesting philosophical question, but one that's meaningless outside of any work that's not as ridiculously meta as Undertale. And to that end - I'd say completionism is only bad if the characters and game in question really react to it. Which most of them don't.

But, we could look at it as a moral - you have to consider characters as entities capable of existing beyond their coding, beyond the screen, beyond whatever the work in question chooses to show us. Which is something we often extend without thought - we accept the idea that characters will continue living on after the ending's achieved and game's turned off (Otherwise every ending's a sad one, since it means the characters will simply stop existing once the credits roll.) So, if we accept that and approach things with that mindset, then consider how you alter that existence by experiencing the work in question. You play through a whole game, befriend these characters, give them their happy ending, and then let them off to live their lives - until you reload, take away their happiness, and force them to go back through hell so you can murder them all and see a different ending.

In that scenario, yeah, it's a pretty screwed-up thing to do. Like, imagine if you did that to another sentient being. Even if they are never made aware of what they've lost, it'd be pretty terrible. Of course, it's also a somewhat illogical position to take, because they aren't really sentient beings. But we aren't always the most logical of people, either.

 

[runic knight]

I feel like the bullet hell fits in well. It allows the game to portray enemies attacking you in appropriate ways (e.g. bones, weapons, fire) while providing some challenge and demonstrating their emotions.

Idk, I think the styles juxtapose too greatly while still not really capturing the feeling that the little heart on the screen is your character moving. Always felt too much like a minigame instead of a well fitting representation of the character. Perhaps if they worked it more into the walking map where it was the character reacting to the various attacks instead of a heartshaped icon, might have seemed less awkward a fit to me.

 

[loa]

I feel like the bullet hell fits in well. It allows the game to portray enemies attacking you in appropriate ways (e.g. bones, weapons, fire) while providing some challenge and demonstrating their emotions.

Idk, I think the styles juxtapose too greatly while still not really capturing the feeling that the little heart on the screen is your character moving. Always felt too much like a minigame instead of a well fitting representation of the character. Perhaps if they worked it more into the walking map where it was the character reacting to the various attacks instead of a heartshaped icon, might have seemed less awkward a fit to me.

That's because it isn't strictly your "character moving", the "battles" range from abstractions of conversations, concerts, flexing to actual fighting.

 

[runic knight]

I feel like the bullet hell fits in well. It allows the game to portray enemies attacking you in appropriate ways (e.g. bones, weapons, fire) while providing some challenge and demonstrating their emotions.

Idk, I think the styles juxtapose too greatly while still not really capturing the feeling that the little heart on the screen is your character moving. Always felt too much like a minigame instead of a well fitting representation of the character. Perhaps if they worked it more into the walking map where it was the character reacting to the various attacks instead of a heartshaped icon, might have seemed less awkward a fit to me.

That's because it isn't strictly your "character moving", the "battles" range from abstractions of conversations, concerts, flexing to actual fighting.

True, and I suppose that is a strength of the idea, the flexibility of it, though I still think it meshes poorly in how it is done. I will be honest though, I can't exactly think of a better way to demonstrate some of the odder encounters in order to maintain that variety. The robot alone gets weird enough as it is, and that if I recall, does mix in some of the character moving.

 

[Hungryfreak]

Good points, but I guess the thing I'm asking is: is this supposed to be a moral? Is this something that the developer wants us to take from the game and apply to all other games we play? That being a completionist is bad and we shouldn't try to experience everything a game we like has to offer. Because if it's not a moral the game is pretty much giving us a hard time and deliberately diminishing the experience over something that isn't a big deal. And if it is a moral it kind of falls flat, because plenty of other games encourage completionism.

I think that the game poses a really interesting question to consider.

I mean, games are the only medium in which you have a choice, the freedom to go through it without experiencing all it has to offer. So why should games always insist that a player find everything it has to offer?

Personally, I think completionism is a valid reaction to the gaming experience like any other, but it's bad when games mindlessly encourage it, like it's the only way to play the game. Things like achievements make a statement that the player that completes the game is having a more valuable and/or valued experience than anyone else. That sort of statement really diminishes the importance of having that freedom in the first place. For example, playing Grim Fandango without achievements is a very different experience from playing it with achievements. Personally, with achievements, I felt pressured to go and find every line of dialogue, making conversations that used to be fun and surprising somewhat stressful.

In a sense you can't say that Undertale HATES completionists. As much as it makes sure that you're going to have a bad time, there is so much additional effort and content packed in it that there is something meaningful to gain from experiencing it What Undertale does is tie your choice to responsibility and consequence. That way, the game gives a purpose to your decision and, through it, values each kind of player.

 

[Drathnoxis]

Snip

I see, not really a moral, more of a 'what if' question. Like their going "what if these characters were real, then replaying the game to screw with them would be really messed up." Not really meant to be taken seriously, but just considered for a bit for fun. That makes sense, because as a moral it's kind of dumb.

Snip

I agree about achievements, I mostly ignore them now days because they can make a game quite a drag.

You are right though, the game does do a good job of giving your choices weight and consequence. But in a way it's kind of a shame that it does, because the pacifist route is such a well written and enjoyable story that ends so fantastically. It's a little unfortunate that the game will let you diminish that experience, because the other endings are not nearly as satisfying. The presence of choice here kind of dilutes the game as a whole.

 

[aegix drakan_v1legacy]

I love the fact that the game includes the "Genocide" path, even if I'll never do it.

Why? Because it gives the whole game WEIGHT. What's the point of doing Good if it's the only option? By including the option to be a total dick, it makes the choice to consistently reject that and be a true Pacifist that much more powerful, since at any time you could have changed your mind. Good is given weight if it's CHOSEN over Evil.

It's also amazing for another reason. Undertale is a game about Choice. And unlike so many other games with Moral Choices, which force you into either Good or Evil based on a handful of decisions, Undertale has that one major decision hit you again and again, tempting you into the easy path of just killing your enemy and getting stronger, and...Here's the kicker: Unless you completely commit to either Pacifism or Genocide, you get a neutral ending of various shades of grey, based on who's still standing at the end. You are only truly judged if you are willing to see your actions all the way to the end and be a true hero, or an irredeemable maniac.

 

[aegix drakan_v1legacy]

Yes, there were also first person horror games before Slender, and games about building things before Minecraft. I see Undertale being the finishing blow that's going to fill a bunch of college indie devs with determination and think they can build the same experience with their pirated version of RPG Maker XP.

God I hope not.

And I say this AS a University student studying gamedev, who also happens to make RPGmaker games as a hobby (Not in XP, though, that engine was pretty, but allowed little depth).

You can't just go "Yeah, I can make that!" and just do it. Especially not in RPGmaker. To make a good RPG, you need to spend a lot of time and dedication on it. Making a good game takes a lot of effort, so to think "Yeah, Undertale was great, I can reach that level right now!" is the height of arrogance.

I make most of my games as part of online events/contests, so I usually only have 2 weeks to a month to make my games, so they usually end up flawed, or short. To make any of them really good, I had to dedicate literally all of my free time to the project and keep the scope VERY tight (that game is literally 2 hours long tops), or come back to the project after release again and again to update them and improve them over the course of MONTHS.

Good game development doesn't just "happen". There are a lot of blood, sweat and tears you have to pour to get there, and I hope that any people inspired to make an RPG after Undertale realizes that.

Seriously, if this leads to a flood of shitty RPGmaker games trying to piggyback off Undertale, I will be a very sad panda.

 

[normalguycap]

"For some reason, that's the moment when it all hits home. As the game begins you're sold on the underworld as this dangerous place full of monsters that want you dead. And while that's technically true, the recurring theme of every 'boss' character you go up against is that they're all pretending to be something they're not. They're all complex, flawed, good-hearted people who have mostly been punished in the past for their naivete, and now feel forced to attempt to meet you with hostility to avoid any further tragedy. But when they meet you (or at least the pacifist version of you), they just can't keep it up. Because by refusing to fight no matter how much shit they throw at you, you're showing them that they gave up on goodness too quickly, and one by one you reach the real person inside."

Where does he get this idea? No boss is pretending to be something they are not other than the final ones. Toriel doesn't act that way. Papyrus isn't pretending, he's the most earnest. Neither is sans. Undyne isn't trying to be something she is not, neither is Mettaton, Muffet, or any miniboss besides the Royal Guards. And no one has been punished in the past for their naivete other than the final ones as well.

It's a wonderful sentiment and very true in other things, but not for these characters in this game. He must be sorta projecting as he states later in his essay.

 

[normalguycap]

It seems all the people "who don't get it" are people that have watched 5 seconds of an LP or listened about a minute to the soundtrack instead of going in blind and experiencing the entire thing on its own. Undertale is an experience that's greater than the sum of its parts, so I can only roll my eyes from all the comments here. This truly is the pinnacle of the youtube age of gaming, where everyone acts like an arm chair game designer by engaging with the minimum amount of effort.

I'm glad I took Yahtzee's advice in the beginning of this article. In an age where movies and games have lost any surprise and magic due to over marketing and spoiling the experience months of advance to its release (*cough Phantom Pain *cough) Undertale coming out of nowhere and giving me one of the most memorable experience this year was a pleasant surprise. I look forward to more of Toby Fox's output, and ignoring the over hyping and hype back lash back and forth vitriol that gets spouted when a cult game like this emerges.

I found this true and splendid to read. I hope no one in this thread tries to make or review games.

 

[Worgen]

When I look through criticisms of Undertale here and anywhere else, one common thread I notice are the people saying "BUT IT'S NOT FUN."

I can go on defending how Undertale is one of the few RPGs that integrates a non-menu element into its combat and contains more entertainment value by gameplay than most popular RPGs, but that's not the core of the problem.

The problem is people treating video games like they're just toys. Criticizing a game like Undertale for lack of fun is like criticizing Schindler's List for a lack of explosions and titties. The quality in Undertale is measured in how it tells a story through the medium of gaming, not by how hard it makes your action dick.

You forgot to mention that Undertale only really works as a game. I don't think its possible to have a story like it in any other media. I know I'm late to the party, I just beat the true pacifist like 2 days ago.