Transistor was an unfinished product, released before it was done

[Tariffs Are Taxes]

I suggest that Transistor was an unfinished video game, rushed out before it was done. Maybe they ran over budget, maybe someone quit the studio, maybe a bigger opportunity came up. I don't know why.

What I do know is the following:

There are four main antagonists in the game. Two of them commit suicide before you even meet them, including the one who was obviously being set up as the mastermind/leader of the bunch, Grant Kendrell. Grant doesn't even have any dialog in the game. He's a character being set up for something big... and then he's gone before you even met him. Almost no background on him. Not really involved in the story.

There is no explanation for the Spine or why it has a negative effect on the Transistor, causing it to glow red. Unfinished plot.

An entire city, devoid of people. How many live persons do you meet in the game, fact to face? One, and you kill him soon after. Sybil isn't human anymore by the time you meet her. Grant and Asher are dead, though you get to hear some messages from asher. You get to see Mr Unknown's body and he's talking to you the entire game, but the entire point is that he's been separated from you. Your flatbread? Apparently delivered by ghosts/robot/vacuum tube. You are a singer. Where's the audience and what happened to them? The newscasts and information on the terminals? Social media? Social with who? All of it was tacked on at the very end. It just wasn't in the schedule, so they cut it all out. Hell, even the ending doesn't involve restoring the city or anyone. All of the people stuck in the transistor?

Characters are vapid and shallow. If it wasn't for the description text on functions/skills, the game would be nearly empty. Background on the Camerata? There's almost nothing. No explanation, no deeper meaning, no motive, no nothing. There's nothing there because nothing was written. It makes for great theory crafting, but all gaping plot holes do. Something has to fill the void before us.

What's the background on Cloudbank? Where is it? What is it? What kind of universe are we in?

How did Red lose her voice? Where did it go? Got nothing.

Why was Red attacked? What's the plot again?

Players of the game are confused, as you can see here on the message forums or elsewhere. People don't understand what the story was all about and are guessing endlessly as to the meaning behind it all. The meaning is that the game wasn't finished so they rushed it out.

Go look at the various wikis for the game, like maybe the one on Gamepedia, and notice how little content there really is on characters and the story.

The total number of regular enemy units in the game is 12. Most $2 mobile games have more than that. There just wasn't time for more.

The game has great music, locked away in the sandbox. Most areas of the game have short loop tunes. I don't think they had time to integrate most of the music into the main game. I am under the impression that there is was a lot of leftover music and art content that didn't make it in. There's a reason for that.

Humming. What does it do? Feels like an unfinished mechanic, though I could believe they just put it in the game to highlight some of the art. It's a nice touch, but it really feels like they made this to do something and then didn't finish it.

The art is fantastic and lovely. The fundamentals of the story are interesting and it was a great start, but something interrupted development and they shipped an unfinished video game. It's too bad. The end result is highly polished, but something went seriously wrong here. What is amazing to me is how well it turned out despite all of the above.

[Agenta]

For story questions, listen to this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ENXToEvaCKc

And this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j3nhjxZSTvs

And this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9uOtvaaCdpE

If you went "Too long for me so I Didn't watch them", Transistor leaves a lot of it's plot up to interprettation. It's not a story that just tells you everything, you gotta speculate for a lot. As for the rest, SuperGiant games is a indie-dev, not a full scale developer. Smaller team, their games are typically smaller but highly replayable. They also have a huge focus on art and music.

[okimy]

There is an answer for the question why Red was attacked by the way, as you said you have to read the description text for "crash". I know it isn't much (and probably not what you expected for an answer, even though you really could have found that out yourself), but that's one of your questions answered. For more information on that you can listen to the games vocal tracks and pay attention to the lyrics.

[indio68]

Nice spoiler damn...

[Malagon]

Mark your ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ spoilers.

[Tabby3456]

I wounder if they will make DLC

or not

[Count von Bunnyhopven]

Mmmh yea, it was probably unfinished. This is not something uncommon however. Amost every game is uninished to some extent if you count not living up to the developers dreams at inception as unfinished. Notable examples of great games that was neverless highly unfinished includes Planescape Torment and Dark Souls 1.

The story is the same, devs tries to create a vision much grander than what they could actuallize. The result being a beautiful game with a lot of holes and weaknesses. And lots of compromises.

In this case I supect that much of what OP sees as flaws was artistic choices that did not trn out as well as the devs intended.

For example: in their previous game they had a mute protagonist that was narrated by a faceless voice. Neither the protagonists lack of voice or the narrator was ever explained. But it did not need to, it worked great. In this new game they tried the same formula, but with the narrator as an actuall character. (and with the same voice actor) Only this time they had a much grander story planned out.

Needless to say it failed. Because they did not account for how this much more serious setting handled these problems. Many things that was a non-issue in the last games less serious setting suddenly did not get a pass.

My own pet theory is that the devs suddenly realized that the gameplay system had limits and that they were forced to work around those limits to make something that they could sell. Its a very original system, but not very conductive to what people normally see as good kinetic gameplay. At the same time the gameplay system limited the story and where they could go with things.

[Snarplord XVI]

Originally posted by Count von Bunnyhopven:

For example: in their previous game they had a mute protagonist that was narrated by a faceless voice. Neither the protagonists lack of voice or the narrator was ever explained. But it did not need to, it worked great. In this new game they tried the same formula, but with the narrator as an actuall character. (and with the same voice actor) Only this time they had a much grander story planned out.

Needless to say it failed. Because they did not account for how this much more serious setting handled these problems. Many things that was a non-issue in the last games less serious setting suddenly did not get a pass.

1. The narrator is explained in Bastion, it's Rucks telling the story to Zia, which is why he begins talking in the present tense during the final level.

2. People seem to be glossing over the fact that this game is clearly meant to be played through at least twice. You can piece more things together on your second go-around, using both knowledge of future events and the character backgrounds detailed in the Functions.
If you need more information on the story, this guide explains it decently well without relying on your having played the actual game:
https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=337587422

[MightyFox]

Originally posted by Snarplord, Junior Detective:

Originally posted by Count von Bunnyhopven:

For example: in their previous game they had a mute protagonist that was narrated by a faceless voice. Neither the protagonists lack of voice or the narrator was ever explained. But it did not need to, it worked great. In this new game they tried the same formula, but with the narrator as an actuall character. (and with the same voice actor) Only this time they had a much grander story planned out.

Needless to say it failed. Because they did not account for how this much more serious setting handled these problems. Many things that was a non-issue in the last games less serious setting suddenly did not get a pass.

1. The narrator is explained in Bastion, it's Rucks telling the story to Zia, which is why he begins talking in the present tense during the final level.

2. People seem to be glossing over the fact that this game is clearly meant to be played through at least twice. You can piece more things together on your second go-around, using both knowledge of future events and the character backgrounds detailed in the Functions.
If you need more information on the story, this guide explains it decently well without relying on your having played the actual game:
https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=337587422

No one should have to have the game explained to them by third parites who THINK they know what's going on. It's on the developers to leave enough breadcrumbs to piece together a decent plot, and in this case, I for one believe they failed.

The idea that things should "be left up to interpretation" in narratives these days is a terrible one, and one of the reasons so many fanbases turn toxic. When you leave too many things up to interpretation, everyone is going to interpret it differently, and then they are going to go around believing they are right.

For example, there is an argument about how Red, is a weak/strong character, because we were given NOTHING of her personality throughout the game, throwing her decision in the end into question. Sure, people are going to say they KNOW who she was throughout the game, but that is a lie told to make themselves think they are clever.

As for playing the game through twice... no. The game isn't compelling enough to play through twice. It could barely keep my interest long enough to get through it once. The characters are shallow and underdeveloped, the villains are hyped up, only to be dissapointing, and the duel at the end makes absolutely no bloody sense. Definitely not worth any more of my time.

[Snarplord XVI]

Originally posted by MightyFox:

Originally posted by Snarplord, Junior Detective:

1. The narrator is explained in Bastion, it's Rucks telling the story to Zia, which is why he begins talking in the present tense during the final level.

2. People seem to be glossing over the fact that this game is clearly meant to be played through at least twice. You can piece more things together on your second go-around, using both knowledge of future events and the character backgrounds detailed in the Functions.
If you need more information on the story, this guide explains it decently well without relying on your having played the actual game:
https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=337587422

No one should have to have the game explained to them by third parites who THINK they know what's going on. It's on the developers to leave enough breadcrumbs to piece together a decent plot, and in this case, I for one believe they failed.

The idea that things should "be left up to interpretation" in narratives these days is a terrible one, and one of the reasons so many fanbases turn toxic. When you leave too many things up to interpretation, everyone is going to interpret it differently, and then they are going to go around believing they are right.

For example, there is an argument about how Red, is a weak/strong character, because we were given NOTHING of her personality throughout the game, throwing her decision in the end into question. Sure, people are going to say they KNOW who she was throughout the game, but that is a lie told to make themselves think they are clever.

As for playing the game through twice... no. The game isn't compelling enough to play through twice. It could barely keep my interest long enough to get through it once. The characters are shallow and underdeveloped, the villains are hyped up, only to be dissapointing, and the duel at the end makes absolutely no bloody sense. Definitely not worth any more of my time.

Don't complain about not understanding the game whose story is given completely to you in pieces via the Function descriptions and then refuse to play through the (short) game again in order to receive all those descriptions.

[MightyFox]

Originally posted by Snarplord, Junior Detective:

Originally posted by MightyFox:

No one should have to have the game explained to them by third parites who THINK they know what's going on. It's on the developers to leave enough breadcrumbs to piece together a decent plot, and in this case, I for one believe they failed.

The idea that things should "be left up to interpretation" in narratives these days is a terrible one, and one of the reasons so many fanbases turn toxic. When you leave too many things up to interpretation, everyone is going to interpret it differently, and then they are going to go around believing they are right.

For example, there is an argument about how Red, is a weak/strong character, because we were given NOTHING of her personality throughout the game, throwing her decision in the end into question. Sure, people are going to say they KNOW who she was throughout the game, but that is a lie told to make themselves think they are clever.

As for playing the game through twice... no. The game isn't compelling enough to play through twice. It could barely keep my interest long enough to get through it once. The characters are shallow and underdeveloped, the villains are hyped up, only to be dissapointing, and the duel at the end makes absolutely no bloody sense. Definitely not worth any more of my time.

Don't complain about not understanding the game whose story is given completely to you in pieces via the Function descriptions and then refuse to play through the (short) game again in order to receive all those descriptions.

The story was "completely" given to me? That's a joke. I completed most of those descriptions and they answered so little I stopped bothering to care about them. As for understanding the story, I understood it perfectly well on my own, however you go ahead and let others tell you what's it about, since you obviously needed the help.

[Snarplord XVI]

Originally posted by MightyFox:

Originally posted by Snarplord, Junior Detective:

Don't complain about not understanding the game whose story is given completely to you in pieces via the Function descriptions and then refuse to play through the (short) game again in order to receive all those descriptions.

The story was "completely" given to me? That's a joke. I completed most of those descriptions and they answered so little I stopped bothering to care about them. As for understanding the story, I understood it perfectly well on my own, however you go ahead and let others tell you what's it about, since you obviously needed the help.

I understood the story completely, but it appeared that you didn't and thus I linked that helpful guide. Why you are being so aggressive is beyond me.

[eduvbs]

Only I fully understood the story, without resorting to Wikia, after reading all unlocked Functions data? Many of the answers to topic questions are in the Functions data or it can be reasoned from it plus dialogues with the Camerata. To understand Royce's mind and a bit of Process itself, just read the Limiters data. For this the Spine has a negative effect on the Transistor, because it is a gigantic Process difficult to control, so causes instability in the device as counter attack of Process to Transistor, an involuntary Limiter because the Process evolve.

The only detail that was ambiguous was the loss of Red's voice, for me at first it was because of the trauma of seeing her beloved murdered. But according to other players it was because as she was the main target to be absorbed instead of Unknow Man, some of her voice data (Red's screamed with the despair while the activation of Transistor) was taken, so she has a Function in the Transistor even without being fully absorbed.

The history is about an apocalypse where it is too late, even after the defeat of the final boss the world is lost, the people are gone and could not return. So when you get to the terminals you will not find anyone and just traces of the latest news of the people on the terminals. Instead of living in a restored empty world, she decided to give up and stay on the side of her beloved forever inside Transistor.

Frankly Bastion has a much more harder story to be understood, Supergiant has made it more easier in Transistor but people want to understand without properly exploiting the game.

[Mysti_Fogg]

Here's Games as Lit 101: Analysis of Transitor. It will explain the plot if you're having problems with it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4h4YEQqLqtY

1) 4 antagonists and 2 kill themselves so the game is unfinished.

No. Each of the 4 game antagonists handles what happens differently. You and the Boxer (your sword) psych yourself up to face Grant because he seems to be the ringleader. But in the end, he's a less courageous person than you are, and seeks to escape through death. Asher loves him and goes with him. That's not unfinished, that's a snapshot of their relationship and your limited perspective of what's actually going on.

2) The spine.

It's a monster created/let loose by Red when the Transistor is unwillingly transferred to her.


3) The city is devoid of life.

Um... yes. Imagine a zombie apocalypse. Everyone is hiding/evacuating to the country. Or being dissolved and reformed by the process. The people in the Transistor are in there forever. Everyone else evacuated. The world you are in is a cyberpunck version of the 1930s. The visual cues are all there: It's futuristic in an art deco style. Kind of reminds me of Dark City, but more cyber.

4) The characters are vapid.

There are really only 2-6 characters who matter. Red who can only speak through the use of the terminals and then she only talks to respond to the Boxer. The Boxer, who is only speaking to Red. Their relationship is deep and strong, and you see that in what they say to each other. The Boxer also describes some parts of the plot as well as gives us keys to Red's emotions when she's not speaking since he responds to non-verbal cues she makes because he knows her. You take all the pieces, put them together, and these characters are definitely full fleshed out. They're just not *spelled* out for the player.

Sybil's relationship to Red is sung about during their confrontation, so you get Red's perspective. Then you can unlock bits of Sybil's view of things, as well as her ability giving you some idea of what she's like.

The same goes for the rest of the Camerata in terms of their abilities and backstories being given to be unlocked. But for Asher and Grant, we also have Asher's audio logs as he's trying to hold Grant together and they've locked themselves up for their own safety.

Royce is the last man standing, and you learn a lot about what he wants as he monlogues at you in classic villain style.

5) How does Red lose her voice?

She loses her voice when the Camerata tries to kill her and absorb her into the Transistor but the Boxer gets in the way and is killed instead. Red is only partially processed, losing her voice, and control of the Transistor transfers to her.

6) Why was Red attacked?

For the same reason all of the other people in the Transistor were attacked: They're exceptional, and their abilities added to the Transistor enhance its abilities and allow it to affect Cloudbank.

7) What's the plot again?

Revenge. The Camerata tried to kill Red and killed her boyfriend/bodyguard instead. They also stole her voice. Red is pissed and she's coming for them. I'm not sure how you're missing some pretty basic motivations.


8) People are confused and asking questions.

Good. In terms of looking at games as art, art should make you ask questions. And while I'd say in some cases you seem to be confused about some pretty basic things that are obvious (like Red's motivation), other questions like the exact nature of Cloudbank or how the Transistor was meant to work, are open to discussion.There's metaphor in all of these things for the real world.

The game doesn't spoon feed you answers. You have to drink in the atmosphere and the bits of dialogue, let them float around in your mind in an emotional stew, bumping into eachother until the pieces all fit together in a comprehensible fashion. Maybe you don't like that style of storytelling. That's fair. But it doesn't make it wrong.

[深夜恐龙]

good games!!!

[LordXamon]

I was expecting somethin like "performance is crap". I cant play in full screen, fps drops like rain :p