Comments about the ending

[Malygris]

This is about the ending of the game and is thus likely to include information that you won't be aware of until you've finished it. I'm not going to bother with the spoiler tag, since the whole thing is basically a spoiler, so consider yourself warned, read on at your own risk, etc.

Seriously.

Okay, so I finished the game, stood to be judged, and had only two strikes against me. (One was actually a mistake, I meant to release the rodent but mixed up the symbols on the lever, so he died instead.) The rest, seven or eight or however many decisions remained, went in my favour - showing I had a good heart. And yet in the final analysis, I was damned anyway! Isn't that kind of ridiculous, that we have to be basically perfect through the entire game to achieve salvation? I get that you're not exactly a good guy going into things, but that's a serious imbalance.

I suppose the idea that you do need to be basically perfect fits into the fiction, though. The scales are already heavily tipped toward darkness, so your actions need to be almost entirely (or entirely) pure in order to bring them back. That's an interesting idea too, that "sort of good" isn't good enough - you may have been "sort of good" in the events that took place prior to the game, but not good enough to avoid doing something horrific in the heat of the moment.

Is that what this actually is, a struggle against odds that are heavily stacked against you because of the very nature of the game? Or is it a simple balance issue?

[Dread Arkive]

I'm guessing you chose the "good" key at the end? If so, that's your problem. If you do one evil thing, but still are considered good, you need to choose the bad key to show that you personally understand that you have sinned. Otherwise they dump you for being arrogant or some-such.

[Conan, Cimmerian]

It IS kinda arrogant to chose the light key, so fate well deserved :p

[Malygris]

I did not think of that. Yes, I chose the good key, because I thought I'd done good, or at least as best I could, from start to finish. Killing the rodent was a mistake, but when it turned out he was a pretty bad guy in his own right, it seemed as though the scales were balanced - even though I couldn't have possessed that knowledge when I killed him.

It seems like a deceptively "deep" game at the end, although I wonder if I'm giving it too much credit. I think a stronger narrative element might have served the game well. The mystery is obviously important, but I don't think a clarification of the stakes and the nature of the decision at hand would have done any harm to it. But then, if I'd got it "right," I probably wouldn't be spending so much time thinking about it, and I certainly wouldn't be considering a replay. So as "big picture" outcomes go, I suppose this was for the best.

[chairmanw0w]

The whole moral of the story is that even someone who has done really bad things doesn't deserve to die. Everyone gets a chance to redeem themselves when they eventually do die. So killing the rodent is bad no matter how bad the rodent himself is. And if you had known the stakes then you would have played the game differently, so it wouldn't be a true test. Throughout the game you can notice strong themes of morality and redemption, and the quote at the beginning of the game is a clue as well.

[cobalt358]

i had a similar experience with the ending, did what i could to be a good guy, only got 2 strikes against me, one was an accident, but i still go the "bad" ending. i had a feeling it had something to do with the choice of keys aswell, but couldn't put my finger on what at the time.

i do like how the moral choices were sometimes difficult though, and sometimes it felt more like choosing between the lesser of 2 evils than an obvious binary good/evil choice. it just took me by surprise at the end, where i felt that my attempt at doing good deeds fell through.

it didn't mar my enjoyment of the game though, and will be going for a third playthrough soon, still need to get that "good" ending.

[Malygris]

Messaggio originale di chairmanw0w:

Throughout the game you can notice strong themes of morality and redemption, and the quote at the beginning of the game is a clue as well.

That's one of the ironies of the game: I really wasn't paying much attention at the beginning, and I couldn't even make a reasonable guess as to what that quote might be, because it struck me as just a vaguely creepy hidden object adventure knock-off, minus the hidden-object searches. It wasn't until I got fairly deep into it, around the part that I discovered the truth about the rodent, that I began to take notice of that layer of depth. And that did make it more effective; you're absolutely right that if I had known all of this up front, I would have played differently.

Messaggio originale di cobalt358:

it didn't mar my enjoyment of the game though, and will be going for a third playthrough soon, still need to get that "good" ending.

Agreed. In fact, despite my questions I'd say the "surprise" ending increased my overall enjoyment. I have a bit of an urge to play it again too, maybe even a couple more times, just to see how it works out. Glad it's as short as it is.

[( °□°） ︵]

This game has a rather naive and weak concept of morality and virtue. Justice carries a sword for a reason. Bringing the bird to answer for his betrayal and not choosing to interfere in the jester's deserved fate are not signs of a morale weakness. The concept that you are trying to redeem yourself of some great sin is only the vaguest of assumptions, based on the accusations of those who display no real virtue themselves; one doesn't reckon their past grievances by being complicit with the evil of others. At the end of the game, I was not surprised at seeing a long list of European names... trying too hard to be all dark and metal; yet displaying the most innanely childish sense of right and wrong.

[Nova225]

Messaggio originale di (╯°□°）╯︵ ┻━┻:

This game has a rather naive and weak concept of morality and virtue. Justice carries a sword for a reason. Bringing the bird to answer for his betrayal and not choosing to interfere in the jester's deserved fate are not signs of a morale weakness. The concept that you are trying to redeem yourself of some great sin is only the vaguest of assumptions, based on the accusations of those who display no real virtue themselves; one doesn't reckon their past grievances by being complicit with the evil of others. At the end of the game, I was not surprised at seeing a long list of European names... trying too hard to be all dark and metal; yet displaying the most innanely childish sense of right and wrong.

The big theme is that it is not your place to judge the others for their sins. Killing the guard, freeing the jester, not bringing attention to the bird, etc, are all situations in which you the player judged another character, when you had no place too.

[{GFY}ZERO]

IMHO the bad ending has a badass song :)

[Sarsben]

I appreciate what the game is trying to do in terms of moral philosophy, but I still think it's a bit ridiculous and stupid how it handles this issue.

I had a similar outcome-- I did two "bad" things (releasing the spider to kill the guard and ratting out the winged guy), and did the "good" thing for every other choice in the game. I picked the angel key at the end, and got the bad ending. So, the game's message is supposed to be that it's never too late for redemption, cruelty/vengefulness serves no purpose, don't pass judgement on people no matter how awful they've been, blah blah... and it illustrates these points by punishing you for deciding that, on balance, you've been more of a good person than an evil bastard after spending the entire game behaving selflessly, compassionately, rationally, and non-judgementally 80% of the time? Really? After all that, to be considered a good person worthy of forgiveness, all I really had to do is decide that I was really an evil bastard on balance because of those two choices I made?

Sorry, but that makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. Don't get me wrong, I enjoyed the game for the art and puzzles, but the morality is completely incoherent-- one of the most facile and arbitrarily mechanical approaches to moral philosophy I've seen in a game.

[Nova225]

Messaggio originale di Sarsben:

I appreciate what the game is trying to do in terms of moral philosophy, but I still think it's a bit ridiculous and stupid how it handles this issue.

I had a similar outcome-- I did two "bad" things (releasing the spider to kill the guard and ratting out the winged guy), and did the "good" thing for every other choice in the game. I picked the angel key at the end, and got the bad ending. So, the game's message is supposed to be that it's never too late for redemption, cruelty/vengefulness serves no purpose, don't pass judgement on people no matter how awful they've been, blah blah... and it illustrates these points by punishing you for deciding that, on balance, you've been more of a good person than an evil bastard after spending the entire game behaving selflessly, compassionately, rationally, and non-judgementally 80% of the time? Really? After all that, to be considered a good person worthy of forgiveness, all I really had to do is decide that I was really an evil bastard on balance because of those two choices I made?

Sorry, but that makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. Don't get me wrong, I enjoyed the game for the art and puzzles, but the morality is completely incoherent-- one of the most facile and arbitrarily mechanical approaches to moral philosophy I've seen in a game.

You sentenced two people to death/torment (of which you had no right to do so), and you consider yourself good?

Wat?

[Sarsben]

It's not that I consider myself good-- in this game, where even freeing a helpless prisoner can have the unintended consequence of dooming somebody else, I don't know if it's possible to really be entirely good. But when the only two choices are "good" or "evil" (the game's choice of words, not mine), I assume we're speaking relatively and in generalities.

When somebody goes out of their way and endangers their own life in order to free prisoners, forgives and saves the lives of others who have tried to use and manipulate them, and generally behaves in an all around righteous and benevolent manner eight times out of ten, and those other two times when they indirectly caused someone's death it was in order to save someone else or possibly prevent further innocent deaths, in the end on final reflection they're considered evil for no other reason than that they deemed themselves to be more good than evil, given the black and white choice of only those two things? That's about as irrational and arbitrary a moral judgement as I've ever seen anywhere.

Edit: I think it's also worth mentioning that the game apparently doesn't hold it against you that you have to kill or maim several monsters just because they're in your way or you need one of their limbs in order to accomplish your goals. Presumably those monsters are behaving according to their own nature or instincts, or simply trying to survive, but it's okay to poison or eviscerate or impale them to get what you need. Actual intelligent beings on the other hand, who choose to commit mass murder and relish in tormenting others, are not yours to judge, even if eliminating them appears arguably justifiable in the moment to save another life.

[['w']]

:D damn my pride, I gave the crown to the rat, thought well, at least I know he isn't "that" good, eating humans well, why not, but the lizard who the ♥♥♥♥ knows what his intentions are

[MundM]

Yeah, the moral in this game universe is kinda weird, I mean, the Rodant Family are freaking monsters, that enslave humans to eat them, who would deserve death if not them? So the instinct that the rodent man is evil, turns out to be true at the end...but I guess don't judge, you did this and that...

[MundM]

Messaggio originale di wilb:

:D damn my pride, I gave the crown to the rat, thought well, at least I know he isn't "that" good, eating humans well, why not, but the lizard who the ♥♥♥♥ knows what his intentions are

The lizard man knows what's up, well, he wishes he knows what's up, the rodent is a monster!