Impression and Analysis

[Kit Fulvas]

I have a analysis paper on any subject I choose, so I picked the morality of video games with OneShot and Undertale as the focus. However, I need citation and my professor said Steam Discussions can be used,

So! What impression did you get from the game. How did YOU guys as players interpret the ending (Both original ending, and SOLSTICE)

[Zingy zucchini]

It’s an amazing game u should get this game if I have 10$

[yaourt]

Ending made me think about how much my choices in life meant. I do not know why but it saddened me. The SOLSTICE ending also made me think, but gave me closure and made me feel a little more satisfied. I believe SOLSTICE ending was better because it wrapped everything up and fixed frustration of not being able to see Niko or what happened to her at all.


Overall, amazing game, amazing endings, but the latter was much better. :)

[TheMysteriousGray]

While I am grateful for the Solstice ending giving closure and resolution to the overall story, I also really like the original choice for forcing me to make a hard decision. Most other games that involve choice have lots of micro-choices that slowly mold a different storyline based on them, but I like that this game builds up to a big choice almost from the very beginning, With Prophetbot being optimistic and encouraging of Niko and Silver being dismissive and cold. The way the game sows doubt in the player's mind over whether the goal is worth the potential sacrifice, or whether it will actually solve anything, is really subtle but very effective.

[Violet Rose]

OneShot and Undertale are both notable indie titles in which moral choices play a major role, but their approaches to the subject are very different. In Undertale, the difference between right and wrong seems to be clearly established from the beginning of the game, and the choice more or less comes down to whether you even hold the game's proposed moral system as meaningful, or if you view yourself as above it. In this way, the statement it makes operates on a meta level, asking not whether you value good or evil in the game, but whether you value the characters of the Underground more than you value the meta-satisfaction of completing both paths and seeing all that the world has to offer.

OneShot, by contrast, still addresses the concepts of the game world and the player's role, but doesn't ever meaningfully introduce this as a moral conundrum. It's generally taken as a given that you care about Niko and want to usher them to a good ending, with the uncertainty introduced in-game as a variant on the old philosophical question "If one innocent suffering would ensure that all others live happily, would you accept that?" with two major changes. It's not established if the "sacrifice" ending would really be that terrible for Niko - but it's also not established if it would even, ultimately, accomplish anything.

Because of this, while it still carries some latent overtones of the question of moral principle vs. the good of the many, I personally interpret this as a question of optimism vs. pessimism. At the time you're forced to make the choice, you lack crucial information, and that fact is clearly established by the preceding narrative. All you're allowed to know at that point is that you can sacrifice Niko, a kindhearted child who seems to have had a lovely home and a bright future, for a world largely populated by good, innocent people, but that seems like it may be completely doomed, or vice versa. I am a pessimist, and chose to sacrifice the world, because it seemed like a hopeless cause, or at the most positive I could imagine, would need to keep being fed in the future to maintain a state of perpetual senescence. But an optimist could just as easily make a case for saving the world at Niko's expense, with the pure intention that maybe, as long as hope is allowed to survive, things can still get better in a way we can't presently foresee.

It's a profound question, made no less so by its relatively trite essence. The game strives, throughout its playtime, to introduce doubt, create uncertainty, and foster attachment, both to Niko and to its world. In all honesty, as much as I appreciated the Solstice path as something close to a balm on a wound, it significantly detracts from this idea. It dismisses the previous choice as completely irrelevant, and while it does present a different question, "Will you keep trying, even past the point that it seems clear all is lost?", even though that is still an emotional question, it just doesn't offer a meaningful choice anymore, because your options are only to keep playing or to quit the game. There's nothing hard about it, and you're ultimately rewarded, not for making wise choices or even for great perseverance, but purely for continuing to walk down the path laid out for you at no personal expense other than the small amount of time it takes.

To me, it seems like a case of art losing a battle against popular desire. As it originally stood, playing OneShot to completion was an emotionally wrenching experience that raised a deep question of which values you're more willing to sacrifice. But because the players wanted a happy ending, and the developers wanted to keep developing the game and satisfy their userbase, that statement was compromised. Although, I suppose that in itself raises a question: what do you value more, the power of art to make a statement, even at the price of pain during the experience, or simple happiness in entertainment?

[DragonicPixel]

For OneShot, the game was mostly character-based, with you finding that you quickly start caring for Niko. The Solstice route had more information as to what was happening, but seeing Niko so distraught when he learned that the world was actually just a computer program made me think that this is still more character-based.
With Undertale, I think that it is more plot-based. I can't really explain, as I haven't actually beaten the game... which is something I really should do sometime.
Hope you do well on your assignment!