Do you just lose all progress when you quit the game?

[RedMidori]

*Spoiler alert* I was told by the female narrator that the only way to survive was too quit the game, i assumed the game auto saved or something,so i went along with it clicked "quit to main menu". Then I went back to playing the game and seems to have restarted.
Now I'm just really confused. I thought the game was leading up to some actual true ending,
If so it seems kind of stupid to not have a save feature or anything.

[Pequod]

Lol, didn't think people would actually quit the game :L

That's pretty funny

[RedMidori]

Originally posted by =AJSA= Cyka:

Lol, didn't think people would actually quit the game :L

That's pretty funny

I only really did it because I wanted to see what would happen.

[pogliacci]

I did that too. No big deal though, that branch was pretty simple to find.

[The South Atlantic Anomaly]

You can enable saves in the options menu (options>extras>save). But there is no need for saves.

[SrPilha]

You mean you quit the game and that was not enough ending it for you? Man, you're one demanding ender. :)

And the game did not restart. I mean, it did, but since you seem to think it hadn't ended (which, in a way, it hadn't indeed), then it cannot have restarted, properly speaking.

So when the game ends, it doesn't end. Except when it does. Which is when it doesn't. Maybe.

THE END IS NEVER THE END IS NEVER THE END IS NEVER THE

[Sun_S]

Yeah, the female narrator is referring to something else than an in-game ending. It's meta, it's about what the Stanley Parable tells you - how storytelling in games works.
What she means is that the narrator and Stanley = you are in a kind of conflicted relationship. The narrator wants to tell a story. It's the story that you experience when you do everything he tells you. But the narrator's story can only happen when you cooperate willingly. If you don't cooperate, he starts punishing you to make you return to the path he had intended the story to run.
Sure, you can fight him. But as long as you are inside his story, you can never "win" against him. It's his story after all, and all the choices that are presented to you have been made way before and only exist because the game's makers decided to allow you these choices. So, neither the narrator nor Stanley can ever really be free, they need each other.
If you as the player want to be "free", the only winning move is not to play. That's what she means.

When I played the original mod, this insight annoyed me. But if you really think about it, all stories work like that. Someone else decides on a course of action, and you can agree to experience the story with no or little control over its course, or not participate in it.

[rtxA]

Originally posted by Sun_S:

Yeah, the female narrator is referring to something else than an in-game ending. It's meta, it's about what the Stanley Parable tells you - how storytelling in games works.
What she means is that the narrator and Stanley = you are in a kind of conflicted relationship. The narrator wants to tell a story. It's the story that you experience when you do everything he tells you. But the narrator's story can only happen when you cooperate willingly. If you don't cooperate, he starts punishing you to make you return to the path he had intended the story to run.
Sure, you can fight him. But as long as you are inside his story, you can never "win" against him. It's his story after all, and all the choices that are presented to you have been made way before and only exist because the game's makers decided to allow you these choices. So, neither the narrator nor Stanley can ever really be free, they need each other.
If you as the player want to be "free", the only winning move is not to play. That's what she means.

When I played the original mod, this insight annoyed me. But if you really think about it, all stories work like that. Someone else decides on a course of action, and you can agree to experience the story with no or little control over its course, or not participate in it.

Genius comment!