[SPOILERS] I had finished the game. BUT . . . . . .

[neko9KO]

At the Tower, I had to choose between GO HOME or SAVE THE WORLD. At that point, I think rationally. Me and Niko had bring the lightbulb all the way the game. We met memorable characters in this game. We help each other and many more. So me and Niko at the Tower, the final decision to end the game. You know what I choose? I choose SAVE THE WORLD. I said to Niko infront of my laptop, "Sorry Niko. I don't want everyone to die in this world. And it doesn't mean I didn't care about you...."
So the conclusion of this DISCUSSION, am I doing the right choice? Or I have to play this game again? :(

[BergJun]

There's no "right choice" you choose what you think it's correct.
You should play the game again because there are some differences

[neko9KO]

Originally posted by ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)Junberg( ͡°:

There's no "right choice" you choose what you think it's correct.
You should play the game again because there are some differences

how I restart the game?

[/dev/NULL>skydart]

Start the ________.exe again, there will be a hint about that. Do what it says, then start the game again.

[|-MC_JP-|THE LEGACY OF TERROR]

Originally posted by /dev/NULL>skydart:

Start the ________.exe again, there will be a hint about that. Do what it says, then start the game again.

tried this but no file appears

[Goblin]

The endings are both depressing.
Probably going to send Niko home next time, no child should have that responsibility on their shoulders. Plus, the people say their world is screwed either way

[Garrettcube]

The feelings behind each ending are what you make them out to be.

For example, I chose to send Niko home instead of saving the world because I felt a stronger connection with him rather than the world he was trying to save. I still felt bad for screwing over an entire world (despite everyone saying that the sun wouldn't fix anything), but I wanted to see this character I grew attached to get what he really wanted, which was to go home.

I of course replayed the game in order to get all the achievenemts & the other ending, but I finally got to see the full message from the Author during the tower part (it messed up on me the first time) and felt even worse about getting the other ending which would leave Niko's fate up to interpretation.

My point is...what you feel was right or wrong is based solely on your connection to it.

(also sorry this was so long! I can go into great detail sometimes!)

[MythicalSerenade]

Remember what the entity wants? Here's what I chose and why (huge end game spoilers below)
In the 'Save the world' ending I think Niko actually gets to go home anyway. Because either way I think Niko goes home when you're NOT playing the game, so since you've finished the game you'd no longer be playing the game.
Throw in the fact that the bedroom is empty at the end I think they went home anyway.

And remember what the entity is trying to make you do? Break the lightbulb, the entity IS the game. The game wants to 'end' and by saving the world the characters still live in it. However you don't continue playing, so you don't need Niko. Thus Niko goes home in both endings.

[GAMING_Alligator]

Originally posted by MythicalSerenade:

Remember what the entity wants? Here's what I chose and why (huge end game spoilers below)
In the 'Save the world' ending I think Niko actually gets to go home anyway. Because either way I think Niko goes home when you're NOT playing the game, so since you've finished the game you'd no longer be playing the game.
Throw in the fact that the bedroom is empty at the end I think they went home anyway.

And remember what the entity is trying to make you do? Break the lightbulb, the entity IS the game. The game wants to 'end' and by saving the world the characters still live in it. However you don't continue playing, so you don't need Niko. Thus Niko goes home in both endings.

Hmm, I'm not sure. In the "Send Niko home" ending, Niko actually walks out of the game window off your screen, indicating she's left the game and in fact "gone home".

If the same thing doesn't happen in the other ending, I think it's a safe assumption we're meant to interpret it as her not having gone home. Having said that, I haven't played the other ending yet.

[Anoobus_Maximus]

Out of the 2 endings, (at this time) I preffered sending Niko home, as a conversation I had with one of the npcs struck a chord.

"If you were going to die, would you like it in an instant, or slowly fade out over time?"

I'd hate to gain hope once more, only for it to just prolong an inevitable demise. It's a bittersweet torture, not knowing if this is it, or by some miracle, it will all get better.


BTW, about the Save the Wrold eneding...In the sending Niko home ending, opening the game again produces an intended error. That error is not present in the Save the World ending, so wouldn't Niko still be present somewhere, as "they" are still recognised by the system?

[Twilight Vulpine]

I've done both endings but the one I think is right is Send Niko Home. Save the World seems to restore the world fully, but even in the best case scenario, you still left a child stranded away from home to bear a burden they didn't have a chance to choose before being forced onto them.

I assume the future updates might bring a way to do both, to understand why the world is really ending, why Niko was brought into it to fix it, why does the Entity wish death and what we can do about it. To some players this might seem a cop out and take away from the dramatic tension, but remember...

We are gods.

[abstractionAlpha]

I think the point of that choice is that no matter which ending you choose, you get a "sad" ending more or less. Saving the world wouldn't be so sad if it weren't for the bond between Niko and their mother, but going home wouldn't be so sad if it weren't for literally all of the characters in the world. :P

[Paste]

As far as I figure, the "correct" ending would be sending Niko home. While the state of the world is a tragedy and all, they're in that situation because they caused it, which you learn when the Author talks about how the entity wasn't supposed to become as sentient (if that's the correct term) as it is, which resulted in it's sabotage. Niko is an unaffiliated party, innocent of the world's inhabitants' hubris, and by no means should be punished for their screw ups. In the end, the Entity's personality and suicidal desire is just another thing to add to a player's reasoning to NOT destroy the bulb, trying to coax the Player to not want him to get his way after learning he was manipulating you to failure the whole time. That being said, Saving the world isn't quite as bad as it first seems. Niko wouldn't "bear the weight of the choice of remaining,"' rather Niko would "bear the weight of the consequence of the Player's choice," which is an important distinction to make. It's the difference between self-lament and Niko lamenting us. Not to mention Niko would be among friends, though at the cost of his previous life. In the end, both choices are equally "correct," making the more "correct" one up to each Player's morals. Though maybe that's too obvious. I only just completed the game for the first time, so I still don't quite know what the Entity IS, nor what it meant by "you already know what this world is," the only meaning I could come up with in my half-asleep state is that the world is just a game. GASP!

[Mono]

I feel like I must have a completely different mindset, because I chose to save the world. I care about Niko, a lot. But I couldn't let an entire world die. Even if it was dying anyways. The way I see it, I think Niko would be burdened with knowing he let that world die if he went home.

I feel like I would always make that same choice no matter how many times I play the game. I'm not wrong in thinking this way, am I?

[Goblin]

Originally posted by Mono:

I feel like I must have a completely different mindset, because I chose to save the world. I care about Niko, a lot. But I couldn't let an entire world die. Even if it was dying anyways. The way I see it, I think Niko would be burdened with knowing he let that world die if he went home.

I feel like I would always make that same choice no matter how many times I play the game. I'm not wrong in thinking this way, am I?

Your not in the wrong, both choices are hard.

[Man's Best Friend]

I just finished my first run of the game. I'm not an emotional person, nor do I get particularly attached to characters. Even so, I spent a while at the decision screen flicking back and forth. Ultimately, I sent Niko home. While I stand by my decision, I can understand others disagreeing. Often "the good of the many" and such. But I think thusly:
1. The world is already in decay. This is unfortunate, but ultimately entropy always wins.
2. It's true, Niko doesn't belong. He is not of that world, and has his own life ahead of him.
3. What right do I or the world have to demand that he give up everything to save a world that he is not part of, and for all we know is already irreparably damaged? I think I have no such right.
4. I think I'd make the same decision if it were my own world on the line. It's our world. If we can't fix it ourselves, then it's our time to stop.

We may disagree on each other's final decisions, but in the end none of us are truly wrong or right. The only thing that's true is that we all have our reasons.