That Ending Is Horrible!

[Caulfieldd]

Danganronpa didn't deserve such an ending! (+twist)

EDIT: After having revisited the ending, I came to understand that it was in fact better than I first imagined.

[Battler Ushiromiya]

Първоначално публикувано от CrimSon ®:

Първоначално публикувано от WizoDard:

Disgusting...You guys misunderstand what Kodaka was going for in the ending.

It's still a trash ending, no matter how you look at it. Please stop being hardcore fanboys/girls and realise that this ending just sucks.

Not really.

[Caulfieldd]

Първоначално публикувано от Battler Ushiromiya:

Първоначално публикувано от CrimSon ®:

It's still a trash ending, no matter how you look at it. Please stop being hardcore fanboys/girls and realise that this ending just sucks.

Not really.

Explain me how this is a good ending?

[Battler Ushiromiya]

Първоначално публикувано от CrimSon ®:

Първоначално публикувано от Battler Ushiromiya:

Not really.

Explain me how this is a good ending?

Explain how it's not. Honestly, you're saying your opinion like fact. All I was doing was returning the favor.

[Druid]

It's a gimmicky ending, and it fits right into this franchise. The game is a gimmick and the ending is more so.
It is poorly explained and open ending. In the end you don't know anything, because the epilogue doesn't show anything more about outside worlds, so you can only keep guessing. If you dig deeper, there are more unanswered questions that you can only guess the answers.

But ... wasn't that always the case in Danganronpa? I remember the first game, which just kept labeling stuff with fancy labels : "Ultimate Despair", "The Biggest, Most Awful, Most Tragic Event" and so on and never cared about the story itself, in the end you were left with survivors not knowing anything true about the ouside world and everything ended with a cliffhanger. Sure they expanded a bit later in the sequels, but the plot was always very poorly executed and relying more on shock moments and crazy cast. So how long can you keep this ridiculous story going?

If "reality show" theme is true, i am really ok with that. It is a really interesting twist, and if it leaves Danganronpa 1-3 as a standalone fictional story as its own thing, i am fine with that. It doesn't break everything but actually creates space for sequels in a pretty interesting and clever way.
Because honestly were you satisfied with how it was going before the twist? Gofer Project? Remaining Remnants of Despair and so on? I wasn't, because it's the same stuff again and again. The game never had a strong basis for a good story, so don't expect that to change, still they innovate a bit to not repeat themselves completely, so that's a welcome addition in my opinion.

[BeastBox]

Everyone stating their opinion on the ending isn't wrong. Ultimately, if this many people are taking the ending "wrong", then Kodaka or the translation team or whoever you want to blame should have done a better job of communicating the ending.

This is why "open ended" is generally a bad idea. :p It worked in Trigger Happy Havoc because it didn't undermine the overall story, just what the outside world was or was not like since we never actually saw what was outside the door. That didn't change what happened inside the school or what the stakes were or the actual background of the setting and the characters. Lots of games and movies and such do that and get away with it. In this game though, it just makes everything unreliable and hard to invest in as a player because it's so pervasive as a theme. It's not just open ended, it open everything (because, you know .... lies).

[Battler Ushiromiya]

Първоначално публикувано от DNI_R:

If "reality show" theme is true, i am really ok with that. It is a really interesting twist, and if it leaves Danganronpa 1-3 as a standalone fictional story as its own thing, i am fine with that. It doesn't break everything but actually creates space for sequels in a pretty interesting and clever way.

Ignoring how, if that'sall true, DR1/2/3 would take place in an alternate universe.

[Sepiablitz]

Първоначално публикувано от BeastBox:

This is why "open ended" is generally a bad idea. :p

I disagree on the generally, though I agree that this is just an exception to the rule: The beginning of a longer story arc, which DRV3 was advertised as.
In other words: If it is a standalone work with no continuation, I would agree that an open end is a bad idea. However for any part bar the finale of a series, I think an open end is to some extent even nessessary.

This assumes there will be a continuation, true. It is based on an assumption. But as it was advertised as the beginning of a new arc and Ultra Despair Girls 2 was teased within the game, I think DRV3 aplies to the exception of open ends being bad.

Edit: Plus for me personally it is really fun and like a 7th class trial trying to figure out the ending.

[WizoDard]

Първоначално публикувано от CrimSon ®:

Първоначално публикувано от Battler Ushiromiya:

Not really.

Explain me how this is a good ending?

You are just narrow-minded and think this is just an entire, " it was all a dream " ending. If you read any of the interviews that Kodaka gets about the ending he states that the main purpose of the ending was to imply that even if everything they went through was fake, the memories and experiences they felt were real. People died, cried, angered, laughed, and they were all real. It wasn't some, " WOWOWOWOWOWOW I AM TSUMUGI MASTERMIND DIS BE FAKE RIGHT HERE TV SHOWS 4 LYFE ". You can't just blindly hate on the ending when you don't even understand what Kodaka was truly getting at. And yes, I do believe he pulled the ending off badly mostly because of the Flashback Lights all being a lie, but he certainly did get his point across about all of the emotions being real. There was just much more emphasis on the fact that it was all fake than the fact that they felt real emotions from it. And the interview really does make the ending feel much better...Although I don't have the link on hand I can go find it.
https://steamuserimages-a.akamaihd.net/ugc/877498811170663442/CA03A7FCCE7C626B3980F9A077628EB86DE63AA4/
https://steamuserimages-a.akamaihd.net/ugc/877498811170694900/9542CB38F658D1284D66683A804067FCD7C7CB0D/
The interview:
https://somerandomness77.tumblr.com/post/164403786192/kodakas-interview-on-ndrv3s-ending-and-dr3

[Zaltys]

"A narrator should not supply interpretations of his work; otherwise he would not have written a novel, which is a machine for generating interpretations." — Umberto Eco

The interviews are irrelevant. What matters is how the audience interprets the work, and it seems that the author did poor job at getting the meaning across. What was intended and what was actually accomplished can often be very different in any field of art.

[WizoDard]

Първоначално публикувано от Zaltys:

"A narrator should not supply interpretations of his work; otherwise he would not have written a novel, which is a machine for generating interpretations." — Umberto Eco

The interviews are irrelevant. What matters is how the audience interprets the work, and it seems that the author did poor job at getting the meaning across. What was intended and what was actually accomplished can often be very different in any field of art.

1 - You can throw a whole bunch of quotes around...but they don't make much of a point
2 - Learn to use the reply button, otherwise I have to guess if this is pointed at me or not.
3 - I already stated above that he got the idea across horribly because the TV Show Twist overshadowed the whole meaning of Fiction affecting reality. That being said, I can still look at interviews and they will change my opinion of the ending itself. She saying the ending is crap isn't entirely true, it was presented crappy, not the idea being crappy itself. So overall he presented in the wrong way causing imbalance on the actual theme, and interviews can still change your opinion of the ending...

[Electronic Toaster]

Първоначално публикувано от Zaltys:

"A narrator should not supply interpretations of his work; otherwise he would not have written a novel, which is a machine for generating interpretations." — Umberto Eco

The interviews are irrelevant. What matters is how the audience interprets the work, and it seems that the author did poor job at getting the meaning across. What was intended and what was actually accomplished can often be very different in any field of art.

I'm sorry but your use of Umberto Eco to imply he said that there is a single, obvious, definable way of understanding things and that this is the job of someone to achieve this, is very strange.

Umberto Eco worked in semiotics, which is the study of signs and symbols. His study area is therefore largely culture. His work has links to ideas like Post Modernism(though it is hard to say that anyone is a post modernist) and he could be argued to come from a field that includes Jaques Derrida(Binary Opposition and Deconstruction), Jean Baudrillard (Hyperreality), Roland Barthes(Death of the Authour).
His subjects include things like Hyper Reality, the difficulty of translation(all Umberto's work is even translated, because he writes in Italian. and many of the other mentioned authors were translated because they wrote in languages like french), reality TV, how memories can be imprecise.

Post Modernism in writing is largely less about the truth, and more about interpretations or a personal exploration by the author about a subject through their own process of links and comparisons with other things. This is because language itself is thought to be a thing that creates truth, rather than just reveals it without any impact on the truth it reveals.

Umberto Eco's quote that you use, would in my opinion, largely support such an ending in that the nature of absolute truth is suspect, but the personal experience of the V3 class in a world of a specific context(tv show) is a real thing, and perhaps the only real thing. I mean, it literally says the novel is for generating interpretations, not for telling the truth of something.

Many of Eco's novels work in such a way, in that they show a personal journey without giving a specific worldy truth. The journys are immensely personal and unique interpretations of the world they see. And other characters in the books often clash with these personal interpretations and see them as inferior verions of the truth. Though their version can be suspect as well. The subject is often the interplay of personal interpretations of the world, and not a hard analysis of which parts are true or not. The difference between personal interpretations and reality are not considered truth of lying or because of incapacity, but just the nature of reality of being a human who uses language to understand and define the world.

[WizoDard]

Първоначално публикувано от Electronic Toaster:

Първоначално публикувано от Zaltys:

"A narrator should not supply interpretations of his work; otherwise he would not have written a novel, which is a machine for generating interpretations." — Umberto Eco

The interviews are irrelevant. What matters is how the audience interprets the work, and it seems that the author did poor job at getting the meaning across. What was intended and what was actually accomplished can often be very different in any field of art.

I'm sorry but you use of Umberto Eco to imply he said that there is a single, obvious, definable way of understanding things and that this is the job of someone to achieve this is very strange.

Umberto Eco worked in semiotics, which is the study of signs and symbols. His study area is therefore largely culture. He work has links to ideas like Post Modernism(though it is hard to say that anyone is a post modernist) and he could be argued to come from a field that includes Jaques Derrida(Binary Opposition and literary Interpretation), Jean Baudrillard (Hyperreality), Roland Barthes(FDeath of the Authour).
His subjects include things like Hyper Reality, the difficulty of translation(all Umberto's work is even translated, because he writes in Italian. and many of the other mentioned authors were translated because they wrote in languages like french), reality TV, how memories can deceive.

Post Modernism in writing is largely less about the truth, and more about interpretations or a personal exploration by the author about a subject through their own process of links and comparisons with other things. This is because language itself is thought to be a thing that creates truth, rather than just reveals it without any impact.

Umberto Eco's quote that you use, would in my opinion, largely support such an ending in that the nature of absolute truth is suspect, but the personal experience of the V3 class in a world of a specific context(tv show) is a real thing, and perhaps the only real thing. I mean, it literally says the novel is for generating interpretations, not fro telling the truth of something.

Many of Eco's novels work in such a way, in that they show a personal journey without giving a specific worldy truth. They journey's are immensely personal and unique interpretations of the world they see. And other characters in the books often clash with these personal interpretations and see them as inferior verions of the truth. The subject is often the interplay of personal interpretations with the world, and not a hard analysis of which parts are true or not. The difference between personal interpretations and reality are not considered truth of lying or metan lincapacity, but just the nature of reality.

Geez. I do really love when you reply because you beat somebody down into a bush, xD. I have a feeling you were saying he shouldn't be using that kind of a quote in this context...

[Electronic Toaster]

Първоначално публикувано от WizoDard:

Първоначално публикувано от Electronic Toaster:

I'm sorry but you use of Umberto Eco to imply he said that there is a single, obvious, definable way of understanding things and that this is the job of someone to achieve this is very strange.
Snip...

Geez. I do really love when you reply because you beat somebody down into a bush, xD. I have a feeling you were saying he shouldn't be using that kind of a quote in this context...

I'm confused as to why someone would use Umberto Eco as the corner stone of the argument that authors have specifc goals and ideas that they wish to get across without any diversion, that their stories must have a specific and unambiguous truth, have an obligation to supply that truth, and any lack of understanding of that truth and intention by the audience is a failure on the part of the author.

I can understand people feeling that way, but why Umberto Eco as the example?

Eco explicitly has a novel where the main character is an obvious liar who tells his life story, and its unclear at the end which parts were true and which parts were lies. He even, technically, draws the 'offical documentation' of events into question through the story as being a different interpretation :)
He often does alternative history kinds of stuff, uses conspiracy theories and has characters that deliberately use advanced techniques for subtle(or not so subtle) manipulation of the truth.

This type of thing can be common, depending on the author. Franz Kafka often has a person reacting to unknowable and strange events outside their control, and never learns the truth. The Prisoner TV show is also an example.

I apologise Zaltys, if I seem unfair in my focus on your comment, but I'm just really confused. It's fine to feel how you do, but I don't understand Umberto Eco's connection.

[WizoDard]

Първоначално публикувано от Electronic Toaster:

Първоначално публикувано от WizoDard:

Geez. I do really love when you reply because you beat somebody down into a bush, xD. I have a feeling you were saying he shouldn't be using that kind of a quote in this context...

I'm confused as to why someone would use Umberto Eco as the corner stone of the argument that authors have specifc goals and ideas that they wish to get across without any diversion, that their stories must have a specific and unambiguous truth, have an obligation to supply that truth, and any lack of understanding of that truth and intention by the audience is a failure on the part of the author.

I can understand people feeling that way, but why Umberto Eco as the example?

Eco explicitly has a novel where the main character is an obvious liar who tells his life story, and its unclear at the end which parts were true and which parts were lies. He even, technically, draws the 'offical documentation' of events into question through the story as being a different interpretation :)
He often does alternative history kinds of stuff, uses conspiracy theories and has characters that deliberately use advanced techniques for subtle(or not so subtle) manipulation of the truth.

This type of thing can be common, depending on the author. Franz Kafka often has a person reacting to unknowable and strange events outside their control, and never learns the truth. The Prisoner TV show is also an example.


I apologise Zaltys, if I seem unfair in my focus on your comment, but I'm just really confused.

You're looking into this too much. I'm pretty sure he didn't know as much about Umberto Eco as you do, and decided to use it as a type of " intelligent quote " to back-up his point. Glad you are here with your 4 paragraphs per post to correct him/us, xD.

[Zaltys]

Първоначално публикувано от Electronic Toaster:

I apologise Zaltys, if I seem unfair in my focus on your comment, but I'm just really confused. It's fine to feel how you do, but I don't understand Umberto Eco's connection.

Eco was both an author and a critic, which makes him less biased about it. Many authors are incapable of critizing their own works, whereas Eco openly discussed his flaws.

Also, I felt that it explained the concept better than other quotes. I suppose I could've quoted James Hurst instead: "Authors seldom understand what they write. That is why we have critics."

The point is that the authors' interpretion doesn't matter. It is the interpretation of the reader which is important. If the story needs to be explained by the author after you've read it, it's not a good story.