Some people always takes some subjects to far, unfortunately. Depends on what it is. It seems to always be the case to anything. If a problem bothers a person, said person has to reply to the problem by being their way (Either without any form of sense or with actual and intelligent explanations). But the worst are those without a sense. They just go on somewhere and of course, be stupid. However, messages do affect people, but one thing I noticed that always had "Messages" are stuff that, for an exemple, are Animes. I have no problem with those sort of things (In fact, they can be fun and entertaining when bored). To be honest, I've been trying to be less critical about stuff, and instead just let it go if it wasn't my cup of tea, because everyone pretty much hates something, just likes they enjoy another thing. To return on what you mean with people taking things to far, it applies to anything, and yes, I've seen some weird idiotic strangers with "That logic and mindset". To be annoying and not makes the difference between real and fiction. But hey, what can I say. Will I ever play Undertale? Maybe, maybe not (Less likely to happen unless it goes on an amazing Steam Sale (85%+..)). People should just be happy and share what path they took. Isn't the point of a game to discover all the mysteries, either they're good or not? xwx

You see messages like life lesson messages such as "strive for your goals!" I can get down with. Messages trying to push an agenda that has been rightfully criticised time and time again, that are used to shame others in a medium like this is where I lose respect for the person who created said message.

And I agree, there will be idiots who spew vitriol and plain bullshit. The fact is, some of said idiots have power to change what we like and we can't ignore that.

I also agree with this.
" Isn't the point of a game to discover all the mysteries, either they're good or not? xwx"
...though I'd say "Isnt the point of a game like this"

"But I don't likes the game likes that."
"Then why play it."

Exactly. People like Sarkeesian hate these games but because of how selfish they are, they'll try and change it to suit their narcissistic needs.

http://vignette2.wikia.nocookie.net.....20150920140931

Well said man. Well said. Now I truly wish I could fave this journal.

thank you, thank you

*bows* XD

I don't know if you've played the game or not, based on this rant, but allow me offer some insight on this.

It is true that the game locks you out of the True Ending if you do a Genocide run, which can be done on your first playthrough of the game. However, the game starts off by introducing you to the concept of sparing and acting, rather than fighting. It doesn't force you to do it; it introduces the new mechanic in a way that seems just as rewarding than fighting, even if you don't get EXP. I knew nothing about the game when I first got it; I got no guidance on what to do, and had zero preference either way. But I chose the Pacifist route because the game presented it as a mechanic that was just as important and second-nature as fighting. And seeing how it was the different choice than the norm, good ending or not, I wanted to do it. I could've gotten the worst ending ever for it, but I didn't care because it was a new game mechanic that I wanted to see integrated.

Plus, the game does remember things, frequently, especially if you leave without saving. The first time it happened freaked me out, and actually made the game more interesting to me; if the game was capable of doing that, while still keeping in line with the story, then what else was it capable of? It makes you want to play the game more because of the implications of some greater force acting against you. If the game shows you that it has the ability to remember any kill you've made, and reminds you of it, it just shows that every action you do has a consequence. Animal Crossing does the same thing in the form of Resetti, and just like there, he is expanded on as a tangible, normal character rather than some ethereal gimmick and implies that there is a consequence to trying to "play God", as the game calls it. I think it boils down to immersion, for me; when you do bad in a game, and you soft reset, it takes the player out of the immersion and makes the game more of a task, rather than an experience. This is different from getting a Game Over, because you have complete control over what your take-away from ending the game is in soft resetting, as well as if you want to step back into the game at all. I don't think Undertale is meant to be played as a typical RPG, and it knows that. This is, by no means, me trying to raise it on some pedestal; this is me recognizing that this game is trying to portray the concept of killing in a light that isn't touched on at the moment. There is no "completionist" vibe to it at all (that is, unless, if you're like me, and you reading every bit of text to digest the story. But that's the immersion for me.) If a player can go out of their way to grind and kill enemies for levels in other games, why can't a game use a different mechanic, portrayed as being on par with fighting, to simply spare enemies?

Now, for the Genocide Run. I do agree that it is a little tedious that when you get it, you can't fix the true ending. However, deleting the game's folder from your Steamapps folder and reinstalling the game completely resets it, so you can go for the Pacifist ending. Alternatively, if you complete the Pacifist ending and want to do a Genocide run, there is a "True Reset" option at the save file that will hard reset the entire game for you. It's a little annoying to have to do, but it just means that you can still accomplish endings. Plus, going for a Pacifist run after getting the Genocide Run gets you a completely different ending, so that's cool.

Undertale does have a bit of a pretentiousness to it when it comes to calling you out on things; the first time I soft-reset, it remembered the enemy I accidentally killed and warned me about killing. After that, the kill didn't count because it didn't technically save it. The game was teaching me that consequences are present on each side of the game. Going for the Pacifist route means that you can't kill, you can't level up, and for some bosses, you have to do nothing but let their text slide for twenty+ moves while you dodge attacks. The Genocide route seems more fun, as it can be satisfying to destroy enemies. However, the game warns you against doing it and when you get to the final Genocide boss, the difficulty ramps up dramatically. It presents you with a challenge that you want to conquer, especially now that you've become accustomed to the attacking system. In the final Pacifist boss fight, the boss has significantly less health, and actually gets weaker as you go on. But the challenge isn't in defeating the boss, but surviving; as a level 1 player the entire time, you are incredibly weak to attacks, so the challenge is different than the Genocide route. A different challenge presents itself on either side, and while the message for the Genocide ending is a little lofty, it's meant to show how this game, in it's nontraditional environment, interacts with a typical RPG ending. Is it done perfectly? Absolutely not. It plays off a little mean-spirited, which is the purpose of it, but leaves no ability to True Reset. But, then again, the solution of deleting the folder and reinstalling is still present.

I'm probably going on and on for too long, but I'll just give the tl;dr version here: Undertale is very in-your-face on what you choose, and does get heavy-handed with the Genocide run's message, but it's not the fault of the developers, but the choice of the player. Nobody is at fault for the product of this game. It's a fictional game that tries to play to the player's emotions themselves because it's part of the immersion to the fantasy. Curiosity isn't ignorance, and if it is in somebody's case, then you're not playing the game for what it is. And while it is annoying to fix the game to get the True Ending after a Genocide run, it's simple enough to do. What the game boils down to is raw immersion; it plays right to what you want the game to be, and runs with it to the nth degree. There has to be a degree of logic put into how the game tells its story; don't kill enemies to learn the secrets of the world, or do kill enemies and become strong enough to destroy the powerful enemies presented to you at the very beginning of the game. Either way, it's a choice.

Ok, let me clarify (I should've added this to the rant, my bad). I'm aware of how the game plays and how it breaks the fourth wall. I'm aware of final bosses of the game on both runs. I'm aware of how to truly reset the game. I shouldn't have to do that though because both runs offer different amounts of information about the world and it's characters. Choose the wrong one and the true ending is locked. That's what I mean by a completionist run and that the idea of locking you out of something you want to see is a terrible, and in this case, pretentious idea.

But to reply to your comment. I'm am not against choices in games, I'm all for it. I praise Undertale for its options in combat and it's good writing. It succeeds playing to the emotions of players. If Toby wanted the player to feel guilt for what they did then ok, I can't change that. It's his game and I'm fine with that. What I'm not fine with is that he didn't keep it in his own world and just to note, his ideology in that article only works in the universe he created. I'm not fine with the pretentious stick beating, sending the message of "You are bad for fighting not just in this game, but in others". It's not his right to shame me for enjoying other games that have combat in it. It's not his right to try and push a change in other games to fit his ideology. To be honest, with how the game locks you out of the true ending if you kill anyone, it's an illusion of choice. I know it's supposed to be immersion at play but its both a catch 22 and a false dichotomy. The game wants you to be a pacifist or the stick beating ensues. That's not a proper choice in retrospect.

I'm adding this after writing my reply; this comment has spoilers.

I'm glad that you actually brought that up, the different degrees of information. To be honest, I'm actually glad that you dislike the game in this respect because it just means I can have a more intellectual discussion with somebody.

The game does offer different variants of information, but what's interesting is that the information you need that is relevant to your run is still given. Let's take for example, a rather interesting interaction between two main characters, Toriel and Sans. Sans will tell you about a mysterious woman he speaks with who is locked behind a door and can't leave the Underground. They pass time together by tell awful jokes to each other. No matter which run you choose, Sans will still tell you about his interactions with Toriel, and if you explore Toriel's home before leaving at the beginning of the game, you can actually get foreshadowed to much of the game's hidden details (she has a book open with a circled joke).

The thing is, the Genocide run still has those basic hidden bits of information that, ironically, don't even require the characters themselves. Sure, you miss out on learning the origin of Flowey entirely, but that's because before doing that, you murder the only person that can give you that information. What's funny is that if you spare only that person, there is a message that she gives you at the very end stating that there was something she regretted saying, but rather than tell you, she trails off and tells you that she should've killed you when she had the chance. Like I said, the game puts your choices to the nth degree; it doesn't deem mercy over one person important because you've murder over a hundred enemies at this point at the most, potentially including her love interest. And then, you only get the Neutral Ending because you didn't kill her, so you can go back and do a Pacifist run to figure that "something else" out.

The Genocide run only happens when you kill everyone. Everyone. That means consciously choosing to go to every area and kill everything until nothing even randomly encounters you anymore. That also means consciously choosing to kill every boss before (or after) getting the information needed. Crucial information can be given in boss fights; it takes the right number of turns to get it, but every boss has some pattern to stop the fight peacefully without ever attacking them, aside from the Pacifist final boss and the final final bosses. After that, you're free to kill them.

However, the game avidly advises against it; looping back to the Toriel/Sans example, a common textual meme I've seen floating around about Undertale is: "You feel as through you're going to have a bad time". Sans repeats that there, and a handful of other times before you have to fight him as the final Genocide boss. And he's tough. Really tough. If you spare him right there, after everything, you can get a neutral ending that won't destroy your game. If you've seen the Sans fight, the final portion is when you have to slowly move the entire field of movement itself to either the left or right, to fight him or run away while he's asleep. This gives the player an ultimatum; Sans is asleep. He has no ability to warn you that either choice will be final. You know that it's final because every time you attack him before that, he dodges it. He even gives you a chance to spare him successfully during the fight. It seems that the Sans character himself is meant to be your guide outside of the Underground, a character foil to Toriel who was your guide in the Underground. Either character doesn't want you to fight them, and has to play rough to get you to understand that, and when things get close, they offer an out. Toriel damages you too much? Her attacks get weaker and move away from you. Sans is halfway into the fight and doesn't want to kill you? He offers a chance to spare and flee. The fact of the matter is that if you really want the Genocide ending, you have to make the same style of choice that you made when you killed Toriel at the beginning of the game. You have to kill the deceptively powerful character that acted as your guide when they're showing mercy. THAT, fictional or not, is a pretty awful thing to do. And after multiple warnings with several outs, it's one of those situations where the game is just saying "don't say I didn't warn you", especially if you've done a Pacifist run or the True Ending before it.

So, yes, I don't condone bashing other games, but I believe that what this game does in its own universe is fine as it is. The story within it reflects the morals of the player and its interactions with the game itself. It's not right to bash other game devs for sticking to the basic fighting formula. However, I still think that locking the True Ending is less pretentious and more just. It not only forces you to jump through hoops to understand the meaning behind certain things, but it makes you realize that this game doesn't operate like other games. The game still offers the same basic contextual clues in the environment, if you interact with it enough, but the details from the characters can be picked up at any time if the player decides to take those outs. It's a conscious choice to not listen to the game or learn from it, especially if missing one monster makes the whole difference.

I know you'll understand this but I have to say it anyway. Just because it's different doesn't always mean it's good. But yes what it does within it's own universe is fine even if it does go a little overboard with it. It's still subject to criticism though some fans think otherwise and to me that's very weak-minded.

I'll have to agree to disagree with the true ending lock. I just can't see it being a good, non pretentious idea. Again, though it may try to be different, being different for the sake of being different doesn't mean it's good. It's still subject to criticism and to go on a little tangent, I'm seeing a growing number of indie devs dismissing the fact that they're not immune to criticism. Even Toby Fox is boasting how he got better review scores than MGSV to people who didn't like the game, heavily implying that they're trolls or their criticisms are void.

Oh, and to just address one point. I don't hate the game entirely otherwise I wouldn't be listening to sans boss theme 'Megalovania' right now. Awesome track might I add lol. Additionally, it has good writing. The character interactions, their backstories, their dialogue are written well if cliche half the time admittedly but oh well. I don't hate the game entirely, I just hate the message that being pushed. I hate it so much because I'm tired of hearing this same or similar message that one particular group keep pushing and have been for over two years. The same group that think fun in games should not be the focus. The same group that criticises gamers even though they have never played a game or took part in the community in their life. But I digress.

I can agree with that, I guess. It's a shame to see Toby acting the way he is, especially with an overwhelming number of people that appreciate the game for what it is. It is different, and what it does well it does very well, but I think it's trying to send a message that is a little too heavy-handed in the Genocide ending. The True Ending, though, is still a great moment of story for me. I actually got teary-eyed through it because without all of the problematic stuff, in the universe alone, it really is a satisfying ending to the arc.

And yeah, Megalovania is an awesome track.

Yeah it is a shame because besides my issues with the game, I think he made a good, alneit short game. And I agree, the ending was touching and bittersweet to boot. Flowey gets the shaft no matter what; you can't help but feel sorry for the soulless maniac lol. It's just too bad the true final boss theme isn't as good as Megalovania. At least to me anyway because of one guitar riff near the beginning of the theme which imo ruins the whole song.

Aw, I like that theme. But yeah, it's definitely not as good as Megalovania.

I love the character themes right under that, though. Undyne, Asgore, Muffet, Papyrus...all those themes are awesome, in my opinion.

"YOU WILL BE FOILED BY THESE TRAPS, MADE BY ME! THE GREAT PAPYRUS!"

NYEH HEH HEH!

THAT WAS MY BLUE ATTACK! SEE? YOU'RE BLUE NOW!

Just remember blue stop signs.

XD

I haven't seen all the lines to this game. Darn, I may have to get Undertale one day XD

I always say it, those people in the games are not real. It's fine if you care about them, yeah, but in the end, in reality, they do not exist. Now I've never played this game, neither am I interested in doing so, but seriously, from the sound of it, it seems not fun. Games are supposed to allow you to step out of your reality and enter a world in which you can do impossible things, creating a joyful experience for the player. Now, for this, "Kill no one" Story type, they should've looked at Shadow of the Colossus to really do it right. In that game, the character knows what he's doing is wrong, but he's doing it to save someone he loves, not just outright killing. It should be presented with a reason. And that reason must be addressed. Why did you kill this person? Because if I didn't, so and so would lead to so and so's death, or my own. Something like that.

In retrospect, for the true ending, the combat is flipped on its head. You spare instead of fight. The only thing new is the shmup style movement in battle.

Damn son. Can I favorite this some how? cx