Undertale

[Rehab]

At first I thought this recent-ish tweet:

https://mobile.twitter.com/FwugRadiation/status/663423828425629696

implied otherwise, or that he'd changed his mind, but I didn't see the one that came before it:

https://mobile.twitter.com/FwugRadiation/status/663421225218277376

which clarified that he was just addressing content patches to Undertale itself. Here's hoping!

[Rapier]

To be honest I'd much prefer another game than patches to Undertale. :V

But waiting 2+ years is horrible, to say the least. And there is no info about the second game whatsoever.

[Draco]

I really like Undertale, but I don't think I want or expect a sequel. The true ending is pretty happy, and did a solid job of tying up loose ends and bringing the story to a satisfying conclusion. Mostly, I just don't want to be the person who's always expecting more and more out of the developers. They already made a really solid game, and as much as I love it, I couldn't and won't ask for more.

[Loki Laufeyson]

I dont need a sequel, but a spiritual successor would be neato. Maybe not the same story and characters, but something similar with a revamped battle system and larger world. And maybe some cameos.

[Zerosabers]

If a successor to Undertale is created I hope it'll be more focused on the

cosmic/meta horror(kinda) aspect from the genocide route.

Or a full game about running Muffet's business and becoming a huge spider monopoly.

[Rapier]

I dont need a sequel, but a spiritual successor would be neato. Maybe not the same story and characters, but something similar with a revamped battle system and larger world. And maybe some cameos.

Pretty much this. If Undertale had a world worth interacting with (and backtracking), like Earthbound, it'd be great.

I'd also like a darker game, because Undertale had an interesting take on morality on the demo, until the player found out the world is actually full of chummy monsters (like Monsters Inc. I guess) and Flowey was pulling that discourse about KILL OR BE KILLED from his ass.

Edited November 21, 2015 by Rapier

[Rehab]

I might call that worthy of being spoilered, just in case.

Well, to an extent. The game goes back and forth a bit on whether the monsters are a threat to you as you play. Flower was talking out his ass as to the extent that the underground is intrinsically hostile, but we do keep getting warnings of some sort even from the monsters that are never anything but friendly to us, like that there are indeed some beings that want to capture us, and we do have to protect ourselves during random encounters (though nonviolent resolution is (almost) always eminently possible). Papyrus talks about capturing us, then ends up being mostly bluster/the biggest softie a skeleton ever was, and in Snowdin we meet a whole gaggle of monsters who are nothing but friendly, but looking and talking around reminds us a lot that there is indeed a lot of tension between monsters and humans, so the player could easily still be conflicted/wondering what the hell to think. And then Undyne goes straight up R.E. Nemesis on us, chasing and openly trying to murder us.

And so on.

There are still moments where players not decidedly committed to nonviolence (and who haven't been spoiled *cough*) could be be made to wonder if violence is the right choice to pick, or to rationalize it, like in Undyne's case and then being rewarded with the realization that they basically just killed Goku, in that fucking horrific Neutral death scene.

I think the game still managed to pull off something neat as far as morality goes, in that while violence may unambiguously end up being the worse choice when looking at all the outcomes in hindsight, it can often be said to make sense in the moment- and at the same time there's also generally room for the player to doubt that, to keep trying to find another way out. And it also manages to be way more internally consistent with its own standards of morality than the average effort.

I'm having a hard time imagining how the exact same trick could be pulled off a second time by a successor, though. But then again it wouldn't be strictly necessary- Toby can probably cobble together stuff worth playing using just good old-fashioned game design easily enough. And it's also nice to merely have more examples of games where pacifism is not only possible but supported and encouraged to the extent that Undertale manages.

Unambiguous +1 here for loving the game's meta horror, to be sure.

Edited November 21, 2015 by Rehab

[Zerosabers]

Undertale is probably the first game to genuinely unsettle me because of the true lab.

The huge contrast between that area and literally everywhere else in a pacifist run really made me feel unwelcome and I just wanted to run back to Toriel.

[Rapier]

Well, the Underlab was creepy but the monsters were not evil. I could feel sympathy for the monsters even though they were scary ghosts trying to kill Frisk.

@Rehab

That is my problem, in a nutshell: Every conflict can be solved through pacifism, which is... far too idealistic, I suppose. Ok, there is nothing wrong with a game being idealistic, but there's something wrong when it establishes the [bad] consequences of pacifism as a premise (and a "hostile, cruel" world... that is actually filled with chummy people, in such a way that even the guy who wants to capture you won't really harm you), then ignores it after the demo is over.

My point is that there should've been some sort of consequence to the pacifist route. Like, someone gets hurt/killed because you decided to be pacific when you should've killed, neutralized or subdued* an enemy (the only example that comes close to this is Asgore, but he is killed by a third party independently of what you do). Which is actually what happens when you decide to be pacific when someone is appealing to aggression, since the only way to defend yourself is through aggression. Or, if that breaks the point of a pacifist route, then have a consequence trouble the player character on his journey. For example, as a consequence for not killing Undyne in the first time, she could appear again, stronger and readier to take on the player, intent on taking his soul.

Speaking about her, even Undyne, who at first seems like the kind of enemy who will chase the player into hell to capture them, will eventually give up after losing the battle and never trouble the player again (even if they don't try to befriend her, as Papyrus suggests). It is said in one of the endings that she took the throne and is now preparing to invade the human world so, ok, there is a consequence, but it is never shown (and for all I know she could turn into a softie toward the next human who falls into the underworld, as she does with the player character).

It is as if a "higher force" (hi, toby) is making the world kinder than it was supposed to be, from what the demo told us. Ok, Flowey is an asshole who sees the world on his own distorted way, so I can understand why there is such a difference between the world we see and the world he describes to us, but that doesn't mean it should be sugarcoated instead.

* The only other fight that I recall you need to subdue an enemy in order to survive is the Mettaton EX fight. Even through "pacific" means, the player ends up blowing bits of their body because that is the only way they'll stop bugging the player character for good.

tl;dr, the world is so sugarcoated and made for you to be a goody two shoes that the hostile world where pacifist actions have bad consequences simply doesn't exist, it is an illusion at best.

Edited November 21, 2015 by Rapier

[Zerosabers]

That head banging guy though.

The whole pacifist route could have benefited from more difficult bosses. I think I only died to Undyne because I didn't know you could run from her as soon as you go red.

I mean people have beat Papyrus without figuring out you can move left and right and just jump to dodge everything.

The only real dangerous bosses in the game are Undyne the Undying and Sans. Both are only fought in genocide too.

And I still don't get how Undyne goes from "I'm going to rip your face off" to "You're my bestest friend"

There should've been a second Undyne fight where she claims you must have thought she wasn't worth fighting and attacks you again.

I do think you should have been able to friend Undyne eventually, like just before Asgore when she sees that you've still not killed anybody and Papyrus kept bothering her about it.

[InsaneNoire]

Spoiler Tags: The Topic.

I actually felt terrible for Flowey when he suddenly revealed himself as Asriel and begged for mercy in Genocide.

On another note, I'm sure I'm not the only one who sees the final hit on Sans, the assisted murder of Asgore, and the murder of Flowey as Frisk/our actions. What I mean is, we had no part in that. It was not us, the player, that did that. I fully believe that was entirely Chara's doing, not ours.

I knoowwwwwww, it really changed my view of Flowey overall. I mean, Asriel is clearly damaged from how the humans treated him and how he became a flower. So he comes off as very selfish and vengeful, with little regard for others. But his monologue near the end of the genocide run shows that he does seem to have some compassion, or at least tries to, when he struggles to understand feelings like love and affection. Don't mean to be technical, but he's a textbook sociopath. He's unable to have compassion for other people, yet he does have a bit of a conscience. (This is not to be confused with a psychopath, which is someone who lacks any kind of empathy, because they're just born bad, like Chara).

As for Sans' death and whatnot, I'm not sure Chara did that. I believe that Chara is brought back to life after you've killed every monster in the underground, because you've collected all the souls. Also, if you managed to kill everyone else without a second thought, why stop at Sans?

[Zerosabers]

As for Sans' death and whatnot, I'm not sure Chara did that. I believe that Chara is brought back to life after you've killed every monster in the underground, because you've collected all the souls. Also, if you managed to kill everyone else without a second thought, why stop at Sans?

The thing is you didn't push the fight button again, the second attack happens automatically.

[Loki Laufeyson]

[spoiler=A thing]

And I still don't get how Undyne goes from "I'm going to rip your face off" to "You're my bestest friend"

On a neutral route, you cant make friends with her. The only way that gets triggered is if you never killed anything/got EXP. And on top of it, you do have to give her the cup of water. Its really not hard to understand that Undyne's opinion of you can change after observing you and listening to Papyrus' talk about you. (Since its his idea that Frisk and Undyne hang out in the first place.) Through some weird reverse psychology once you meet her at her house, she reasons to be aggressively your best friend. Its hilarious. (its also a part of her character development.)

[Zerosabers]

I didn't know Undyne was pacifist only friend, that makes it easier to understand.

I figured she was friendable in neutral too, but I never tried.

[InsaneNoire]

The thing is you didn't push the fight button again, the second attack happens automatically.

Yeah that was kind of weird. I was wondering about that too. I would think maybe you hit him twice, because you kind of..."cheated" since you attacked on his turn.

[InsaneNoire]

I didn't know Undyne was pacifist only friend, that makes it easier to understand.

I figured she was friendable in neutral too, but I never tried.

She is, as long as Papyrus is alive, I believe.

[Alazen]

About the player, two certain characters, and events linked to them:

In the No Killing Path's epilogue, checking a mirror will say: It's still you, Frisk.

In a duststained Path, checking a mirror features ''It's ME'', surely referring to the entity revealed right before the world gets destroyed.

It's apparent that the red text is for a scenario where Chara is winning out over Frisk. Otherwise, the text looks like it shifts between who's doing the talking.

Now, the No Killing Path still has the name ''Chara'' for the pause screen. I would say this points to Chara being present in every Path you pick.

I say that the You/Me dichotomy is only between Frisk and Chara, the player as somebody separate from the two is never part of it. Flowey, who talks about game things like exhausting dialogue and SAVING never mentions the player in a way that wouldn't refer to Chara.

So in every Path, Chara is the entity who makes contact with Frisk. Who Chara turns out to be and how much control he has shifts through the Paths. The No Mercy ending has the twisted Chara take control and destroy the world with Frisk's approval or not. Frisk, perhaps out of guilt for his role in the world's destruction agrees to let Chara have her soul. I'll also put in that considering how Chara brings back the world with no prodding right after suggesting doing another Path if you did two No Mercy runs in a row before another playthrough, the entity's ultimate goal is to take Frisk's soul and act unopposed in the world.

Lastly, the First Human is not really the same being as the entity who destroys the world. Like how Flowey isn't really the same being as Asriel.

[Rapier]

I also like how there's a monologue change in the mirror depending on your path

pacifist: "It's you"

neutral: "Despite everything, it is still you"

genocide: "It's me, Chara"

I'm not sure if there is a change between the neutral and pacifist versions, but there's obviously one in the genocide route. They're... full of feels, to say the least.

Lastly, the First Human is not really the same being as the entity who destroys the world. Like how Flowey isn't really the same being as Asriel.

This is not true. The First Human showed signs of being evil ever since his (premeditated) death, like when they put stuff on Asgore's food to make him sick on purpose. Lastly, they attempted to possess Asriel and kill all humans, but they couldn't control his body and thus their plan failed. I'm fairly sure Chara was a sick person even before becoming that overpowered demon we see later, and I'm willing to bet it was part of his soul that made Asriel become the psychopathic Flowey.

Flowey, who talks about game things like exhausting dialogue and SAVING never mentions the player in a way that wouldn't refer to Chara.

I found this strange. It's probably something Toby changed his mind after the demo, then forgot to alter the start of the game. When Flowey introduces the overworld to the player character, I am fairly sure he doesn't know or think they're his lost friend. Only later does he think they might be them. Still, it's no wonder he confuses the player character with his friend, as part of his soul is contained with them (and killing Flowey is what ultimately merges both parts together, forming the entity we see in the end).

What I still don't know about the genocide ending is where the other souls went. Were they absorbed by Asgore? He was killed so easily that I doubt so. Same about Chara. Did he absorb all the souls and become overpowered because of this? It seems plausible. That's something Omega Flowey could've done easily, if he wasn't so foolish during the battle with Frisk.

Also, as a completely unrelated theory, I think Chara is a Fetch from Changeling: The Lost. This makes no sense, but one can dream, and that kid sure looks like Chara after one of the soulless endings where it possesses Frisk's body, breaks free from their room with the Real Knife and goes after Toriel. Wow, I'm sick... Maybe the overworld is worse than we expected.

Edited November 28, 2015 by Rapier

[Deviddo]

I also like how there's a monologue change in the mirror depending on your path

pacifist: "It's you"

neutral: "Despite everything, it is still you"

genocide: "It's me, Chara"

I'm not sure if there is a change between the neutral and pacifist versions, but there's obviously one in the genocide route. They're... full of feels, to say the least.

This is not true. The First Human showed signs of being evil ever since his (premeditated) death, like when they put stuff on Asgore's food to make him sick on purpose. Lastly, they attempted to possess Asriel and kill all humans, but they couldn't control his body and thus their plan failed. I'm fairly sure Chara was a sick person even before becoming that overpowered demon we see later, and I'm willing to bet it was part of his soul that made Asriel become the psychopathic Flowey.

I found this strange. It's probably something Toby changed his mind after the demo, then forgot to alter the start of the game. When Flowey introduces the overworld to the player character, I am fairly sure he doesn't know or think they're his lost friend. Only later does he think they might be them. Still, it's no wonder he confuses the player character with his friend, as part of his soul is contained with them (and killing Flowey is what ultimately merges both parts together, forming the entity we see in the end).

What I still don't know about the genocide ending is where the other souls went. Were they absorbed by Asgore? He was killed so easily that I doubt so. Same about Chara. Did he absorb all the souls and become overpowered because of this? It seems plausible. That's something Omega Flowey could've done easily, if he wasn't so foolish during the battle with Frisk.

Also, as a completely unrelated theory, I think Chara is a Fetch from Changeling: The Lost. This makes no sense, but one can dream, and that kid sure looks like Chara after one of the soulless endings where it possesses Frisk's body, breaks free from their room with the Real Knife and goes after Toriel. Wow, I'm sick... Maybe the overworld is worse than we expected.

It's important to note that Chara only found out about the poisonous properties of the flower because they accidentally gave it to Asgore. If it was intentional to feed the flowers to Asgore, it certainly wasn't because they were trying to poison him. I don't know how or when it changed, but Chara loved monsters and hated humanity. Of course you could easily argue that Chara hates humanity more than they cared about the monsters, and it would certainly make sense, but in the beginning, Chara never wanted to harm the monsters.

Edited November 29, 2015 by Deviddo

[Rapier]

It's important to note that Chara only found out about the poisonous properties of the flower because they accidentally gave it to Asgore. If it was intentional to feed the flowers to Asgore, it certainly wasn't because they were trying to poison him. I don't know how or when it changed, but Chara loved monsters and hated humanity. Of course you could easily argue that Chara hates humanity more than they cared about the monsters, and it would certainly make sense, but in the beginning, Chara never wanted to harm the monsters.

Hold it!

Chara put something on Asgore's food that they knew he was allergic to, maybe not necessarily with the intent to kill him but with the intent to play an ill intended prank, then poisoned themselves with the intention to possess Asriel's body, move to the human world and kill everyone. I also disagree that Chara loved monsters (and if this is stated anywhere in the game, please tell me where it is), since they do not feel remorse when influencing Frisk to kill anything on their path - with a smile, no less -, and then ends the world without any care for those who evacuated to Alphys' place.

Maybe humans were Chara's major motive.

[Deviddo]

Hold it!

Chara put something on Asgore's food that they knew he was allergic to, maybe not necessarily with the intent to kill him but with the intent to play an ill intended prank, then poisoned themselves with the intention to possess Asriel's body, move to the human world and kill everyone. I also disagree that Chara loved monsters (and if this is stated anywhere in the game, please tell me where it is), since they do not feel remorse when influencing Frisk to kill anything on their path - with a smile, no less -, and then ends the world without any care for those who evacuated to Alphys' place.

Maybe humans were Chara's major motive.

While it is entirely reasonable to argue that Chara was perhaps a very mischievous child, it's also important to note that everyone in the Underground loved them.

Admittedly, Prosecutor Rapier, I don't have any solid evidence that links Chara to being a kind-hearted child, however I do at least have the testimony of the monsters Underground.

Chara was known for spreading a feeling of "hope" to all the denizens there, Asgore directly linked Chara to the future of humans and monsters overall. I really don't think that he would say that to someone unless he was absolutely positive of their intent.

Now, I won't argue that Chara isn't blatantly evil in the Genocide Route, but there are several theories that speculate that perhaps Chara only becomes that way due to Frisk's violent nature in said route. Either way I'm simply defending my client's behavior at the time before they died, so that point is irrelevant!

[carefreejules]

While it is entirely reasonable to argue that Chara was perhaps a very mischievous child, it's also important to note that everyone in the Underground loved them.

Admittedly, Prosecutor Rapier, I don't have any solid evidence that links Chara to being a kind-hearted child, however I do at least have the testimony of the monsters Underground.

Chara was known for spreading a feeling of "hope" to all the denizens there, Asgore directly linked Chara to the future of humans and monsters overall. I really don't think that he would say that to someone unless he was absolutely positive of their intent.

Now, I won't argue that Chara isn't blatantly evil in the Genocide Route, but there are several theories that speculate that perhaps Chara only becomes that way due to Frisk's violent nature in said route. Either way I'm simply defending my client's behavior at the time before they died, so that point is irrelevant!

It's also best to keep in mind that Chara doesn't have their soul in the Genocide route which could further support their cruel and violent behavior that Frisk displayed because we all know how cruel Flowey is because he doesn't have a soul himself. The lack of soul means the host is unable to feel remorse and compassion. If Chara was truly 'evil', would they have spent all their time being tame towards Asriel and the other monsters? No, but that's because they had their soul. Surely if Chara didn't have a soul when they were adopted into Asriel's family, they would have offed everyone a long time ago. Heck, they would have properly offed everyone the moment they regained consciousness. They wouldn't have anything to hold back because they lack the very thing that makes them feel guilty.

Remember, even though Chara was brought 'back to life' by the player, that doesn't mean they suddenly have a soul again. Why else would they ask for the player's soul in exchange to reset the timeline?

[Ebony]

Late here, but I love this game so much. One of the best I ever played.

Sometimes I even spend time on the Endless Sans website... because... I'm a masochist...

[Zerosabers]

Late here, but I love this game so much. One of the best I ever played.

Sometimes I even spend time on the Endless Sans website... because... I'm a masochist...

Wait there's a website where you can endlessly fight Sans?

[carefreejules]

Wait there's a website where you can endlessly fight Sans?

Yup. Pretty sure it's called bad time simulator.