Undertale (PC, PS4, Switch) & Deltarune (PC DEMO)

[Wraith]

But is that not kind of weird? Like, in real life, if I went around beating the shit out of people, I would still get called a violent asshole regardless of the fact that I didn't kill them. That's a weird mechanic in terms of the themes that I imagine is only in there as a safe guard against someone pressing buttons too quickly and thus accidentally hitting a monster during a pacifist run.

I think the idea is that the monsters come up to you and start attacking you first, so you're allowed to fight back if you wish. 

[Mega]

 

Have some Monsters actually 

not 

attack you, whether intentionally or not.

 

Whimsuns never intentionally attack you, even if you terrorize them. Moldsmals can be spared immediately. Greater Dog will only attack if you move; otherwise, it just snoozes and you can spend the entire turn just sitting there. I think there are a few others, but in a lot of cases, I think the attacks aren't intended to be portrayed as deathly force, given the info in Snowdin that monsters express themselves through bullet patterns.

 

Could this have been conveyed better? Most likely, but it's a case of gameplay/story segregation. Remove enemies attacking and you remove the challenge. Suddenly battles become a simple matter of spare, spare, spare, and I think the bullet hell mechanics add some fun action elements. Random encounters DO end when you clear an area, so it's not as though the monsters keep trying to kill you after the fact.

 

Basically, while I think there are some valid claims re: self-defense, and accidentally killing enemies can/does happen (especially for blind playthroughs), going out of the way to kill enemies when they are no longer interested in fighting just seems harsh.

 

Edited December 23, 2015 by Mega

[Nepenthe]

I think the idea is that the monsters come up to you and start attacking you first, so you're allowed to fight back if you wish. 

Outside of the Royal Guard dogs, I never got that impression. Like, I understand an encounter with them starts a "fight," but they rarely make a move first nor have flavor text indicating hostility. It seems more like a direct social interaction to me where you're allowed to "break the ice" of sorts in your own way. For example, in Genocide you initiate a fight with Asgore but don't actually hit him. He sees hostile intentions in you, but he hasn't been attacked. Now with the way monsters just kind of mosey around, and the fact that they all have distinct personalities and dreams and desires, I never got the impression that they were actually trying to hurt you.

[Kuzu]

 

Well, you can. I think for most(?) random encounters, you can beat them up enough to be able to spare them. Most people recommend against it because it takes the risk of breaking a pacifist run if you do accidentally kill someone, and the combat isn't that interesting anyway. And you're not penalized for attacking bosses either, even though you can't spare them that way.

At what point do you feel the game is taking a side? To me, after seeing everything, the closest I feel the game comes to taking any stance on the situation is "both sides have made their mistakes, and it's unfortunate that it's turned out this way". 

Like I said, I haven't finished the full game along the pacifist and genocide routes, so I'm only going on what I've seen so far, so I might be wrong. It just feels like pro-monster because, well, there are literally no other humans to interact with. The only monsters who seem truly sympathetic and regretful are Torriel and Asgore.

But I'll play some more and rethink this.

It's only when you kill people that you're portrayed as a violent asshole though, and I think that's fair game. Beating someone up until they run way is still fine.

Yea, but you can one shot almost any monster in the game, usually by accident like Nepenthe said. You accidentally kill a monster, congrats you're permanently locked out of the best ending unless you restart. The "fight" option literally serves no other purpose than if you're going for the worst ending in the game or for one specific boss fight in the neutral path.

Edited December 23, 2015 by Kuzu the Boloedge

[Nepenthe]

You can only one-shot a monster if you've been leveling up, but if you're stuck in level 1 the entire time, you won't be able to do that. Sparing a monster also doesn't award XP even if you've hit them, I believe. So yeah, the lack of nuance between monsters being beat up and monsters being killed seems like a safeguard for pacifists pressing buttons too quickly. "Everybody gets one."

[Candescence]

Mirrors Edge, Metal Gear Solid Peace Walker, Metal Gear Solid 4 Along with all the other story driven games in existence where violence isn't even an option. Some Ultima games as well. I'm probably missing some but this is what comes to mind.

Wow. Wow. Way to completely ignore the specific criteria I mentioned, mate. I'd be impressed if I weren't banging my head against a wall right now. It's increasingly difficult to take you seriously.

Also, I specified 'resolving conflict non-violently as a regular gameplay feature'. Scripted one-off dialogue sequences (which just might end violently anyway, just look at Saren and the Illusive Man, the only way to resolve their final confrontations is basically getting them to commit suicide) and avoiding conflict altogether doesn't really count. Basically, all the examples you use basically don't count. And no, beating people unconscious doesn't count as non-violent, for example.

Edited December 23, 2015 by Candescence

[Dejablue]

Wow. Wow. Way to completely ignore the specific criteria I mentioned, mate. I'd be impressed if I weren't banging my head against a wall right now. It's increasingly difficult to take you seriously.

Also, I specified 'resolving conflict non-violently as a regular gameplay feature'. Scripted one-off dialogue sequences (which just might end violently anyway, just look at Saren and the Illusive Man, the only way to resolve their final confrontations is basically getting them to commit suicide) and avoiding conflict altogether doesn't really count. Basically, all the examples you use basically don't count. And no, beating people unconscious doesn't count as non-violent, for example.

In that case no games count. In Undertale there are enemies you are forced to cause harm to. Also depending on what you do, Asgore can commit suicide.

Edited December 23, 2015 by Dejablue

[Mega]

IIRC, the only enemies you can oneshot on accident are the Dummy (doesn't count against pacifist), Moldsmal, Whimsun, and... I think that's it?

[Dejablue]

Kek that one secret enemy that nobody likes, You are rewarded for beating him as close to death as possible without killing him, If you kill him you ruin your pacifist run. I remember there was a rumor going around that he didn't effect anything and I almost fell for it. Oy vey Butterdragons...

Edited December 23, 2015 by Dejablue

[DBZHedgy]

Because Asgore didn't want to kill people. You need 7 human souls to break the barrier, with one human soul in their possession Asgore would need to absorb it, pass through the barrier alone, kill 6 more humans for their souls, then return to free the rest of the monsters. But because he couldn't go through with it and because he didn't have the guts to tell the monsters that the plan was off, he just hid and waited and hoped futilely that humans would stop falling into the underground. And if you wanted to be less charitable you could argue that that way he could justify it as self defense, as any trapped human would have to come to kill him and take his soul if they wanted to leave, compared to him going out and actively hunting down a half dozen humans.

I thought I remember Toriel pushing this idea because she thought simply asking the humans on the outside to drop the barrier would yield a result. I don't recall there ever being any mention of him having to kill 6 more humans if he crossed the barrier with one soul.

And it can't end like last time since there isn't a body to alert them of someone being killed.

[sonicgirl313]

I thought I remember Toriel pushing this idea because she thought simply asking the humans on the outside to drop the barrier would yield a result. I don't recall there ever being any mention of him having to kill 6 more humans if he crossed the barrier with one soul.

And it can't end like last time since there isn't a body to alert them of someone being killed.

Well in the intro it was stated the barrier was created by seven humans, thus the barrier was created with the soul of sevens humans and could only be destroyed with seven human souls or the equivalent of seven human souls. Though it makes you wonder, if those seven humans were able to create the barrier without even needing to kill themselves, then could the barrier be destroyed without needing to kill humans?

Anyways something else has also been on my mind.

Does anyone else think Chara is up there with the level of jerkiness that Porky from the Mother series is? I mean she (or he or even they, take your pick) destroyed relationships, caused the life of child to be taken, and caused an entire kingdom to fall into despair and almost started another war all because she wanted to satisfy her need to kill everything! Geesh, she's raised by a nice family but it doesn't matter to her if she can't kill and if you go with the Genocide route, she insures that you can never get a happy ending in the game ever again (unless you delete the files but let's ignore that for now.) And if you think about it, Porky also caused deaths for his own entertainment much like Chara. And when you think about it, Chara is the reason Asriel can never get a happy ending. Man who knew a video game character could pop up that I would end up hating as much as Porky!

[Dejablue]

The humans who created the barrier were magical wizzerds. So they probably knew how to do it without sacrificing themselves. No detail is given, but it's interesting to speculate. Especially since these are humans with magic. But I thought humans were incapable. It feels a lot like a cop out but I wish we had learned more about these convenient human wizards.

 

Too bad there couldn't be an alt ending where Frisk gives their soul to Asriel. I imean you'd think that'd be in line with how strongly this game wants you to save this character.

Edited December 24, 2015 by Dejablue

[Mega]

@Dejablue

Might not be an actual ending, but you might enjoy this comic/askblog. c: Obviously contains spoilers, but the art is lovely.

[Dejablue]

@Dejablue

Might not be an actual ending, but you might enjoy this comic/askblog. c: Obviously contains spoilers, but the art is lovely.

MFW I saw a youtube dub of that very comic which is why I suggested that lol.

Edit: Actually no I'm a dirty liar. I assumed before I clicked. I was actually refereing to this :  The Mistake

Edited December 24, 2015 by Dejablue

[sonicgirl313]

MFW I saw a youtube dub of that very comic which is why I suggested that lol.

Edit: Actually no I'm a dirty liar. I assumed before I clicked. I was actually refereing to this :  The Mistake

Actually I believe that dub actually comes from that ask blog. So you were right in a way. ^^

[GamerGirl54321]

Human souls don't vanish after death, so Asgore could've just gone into a random graveyard, gotten 6 human souls, and broken the barrier. No one except the first human after Chara would've died.

Edited December 24, 2015 by GamerGirl54321

[Diogenes]

They don't vanish immediately, but I doubt they stick around forever under normal circumstances. That'd just be way too convenient.

[GamerGirl54321]

Well, maybe, but people die every day, it wouldn't have been too difficult to find a soul that hadn't been dead for long.

[Sean]

Anyways something else has also been on my mind.

Hidden Content

I don't think at any point in the game is the player expected to hate Chara. They're more of a force than a character in their own right. Like the embodiment of the RPG battle system where they feed off experience, golds, levels, and other character-building stats. They're the representation of the underlying evil that the player is capable of in every RPG in existence where killing monsters is necessary to progress.

They also never force you to do any evil acts in the game, with the exception of Asgore, and by that point you've already gone and murdered the entire Underground so what's one more life to you?

[sonicgirl313]

Hidden Content

 

Eh I'm not really bothered too much by it and I understand the purpose. I was pretty much looking from a character standpoint which is what lead me to the jerk conclusion.

[J&/MA/MC]

Anyone here who would like Disney to make an Undertale movie? It's in their wheel house, considering it's mix of Alice in Wonderland and Lilo & Stitch meet The Butterfly Effect. Could that work and would that be fun?

[DaBatGuy]

Not really, the story and humor is very meta and hinges on player being able to interact with and affect the narrative in a non-linear fashion. Without the player's agency it just becomes a story about time travel and cute monsters, it loses the core element that makes Undertale so unique. 

[Nix]

Anyone here who would like Disney to make an Undertale movie? It's in their wheel house, considering it's mix of Alice in Wonderland and Lilo & Stitch meet The Butterfly Effect. Could that work and would that be fun?

No.

Undertale's story is only possible because it's a video game.

[DBZHedgy]

Hidden Content

Even though that is what Chara represents, Chara is still a very pivotal character in Undertale's story.

Were it not for them, I doubt the whole war on humans would even need to happen in the first place, and Flowey wouldn't be such a thorn in the characters side. I'm not sure if Frisk is possessed by Chara since they look so similar, or what, but they are still very important beyond that.

[FriendBot]

Hidden Content

The war had already happened before Chara ever fell into the Underground though.