Install Steam
login
|
language
简体中文 (Simplified Chinese)
繁體中文 (Traditional Chinese)
日本語 (Japanese)
한국어 (Korean)
ไทย (Thai)
Български (Bulgarian)
Čeština (Czech)
Dansk (Danish)
Deutsch (German)
Español - España (Spanish - Spain)
Español - Latinoamérica (Spanish - Latin America)
Ελληνικά (Greek)
Français (French)
Italiano (Italian)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesian)
Magyar (Hungarian)
Nederlands (Dutch)
Norsk (Norwegian)
Polski (Polish)
Português (Portuguese - Portugal)
Português - Brasil (Portuguese - Brazil)
Română (Romanian)
Русский (Russian)
Suomi (Finnish)
Svenska (Swedish)
Türkçe (Turkish)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamese)
Українська (Ukrainian)
Report a translation problem
So it's been a few generations but we're not talking a thousand years or anything like that.
Regarding your discussion of themes, yes, it would fit the theme of the title if these characters "displayed backbone" (particularly Howard ha-ha not actually funny), but every story has a theme including incomplete or badly-written ones.
You touch on the latter even as regards the theme by noting that we can't necessarily believe Clarissa's take. We certainly can't, as regards anti-Kind bigotry, because she herself embraces it to keep certain Kinds out of The Bite. It's almost as difficult to credit her argument about the specialized oppression of women, and women having to literally kill to get any power or comfort, because we see throughout the game that isn't real. Not in post-apoc Vancouver, anyway.
Renee's motivation revolves around class warfare, and is painted up by opposition to the cannibal ring, which she asserts as targeting the poor on behalf of the rich. She additionally says it's because no one will miss them. Problem with that view being that the poor are actually excluded from The Bite and therefore from being cannibalized. Instead, the middle classes are getting it in the neck.
So as far as anyone can tell, these people are standing up against oppressions that either may not exist at all or are being misidentified. Which actually detracts from the theme.
I think my conclusion is that it tells a complete story but it has a lot of hints towards a much better story that went untold.
Plus, Howard isn't a coward. Cowards don't sneak around slaughterhouses and top-security government buildings and penthouses and the slums. Little fella is brave af. Renee isn't really coward either - in fact, she is ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ since she does ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ during the game. Don't get me started on Clarissa. She literally planned and executed the murder of several people to feed the rich. She didn't need that ♥♥♥♥, she clearly already had blackmail material on pretty much everyone in power.
i think artifact are the remaining human-forming components, the mammals evolve, the lizard and bird are next.
talk about the ending. at first, I thught Howard turned into a raccoon literally, like some backward evolution or something. but it seem like his body is forced to evolve with the artifact and then explode. maybe he is dead maybe he is not.
the new backbone is gonna be a prequel. if it about Howard, i think the prequel will have a better ending, but it can still be sad.
How is showing "three different people" doing whatever relates to the title "telling a story"?
That´s really reaching honestly, an anthology? What other short stories where here other than Howard´s? You control Clarissa during one conversation and the same for Rene, you don´t control 3 different characters in 3 different stories, which it´s what it would need to happen for this to be consider an anthology.
Also, neither your OP or the suggestion this was an anthology excuses bad writting, and this game is filled with bad writting. No matter how many clues you think the game provides that everyone is a mutant (it doesn´t, I don´t know where you get all that just because there was a human skull in the ending, by the way, notice how the skull appears already in the final acts, which is what people have an issue. People are not criticizing the ending, people are critizicing a complete 180º shift on the story that comes out of nowhere, it has no build up, and what´s worst it ditches the previous story which was good for a new one that is trash.
The only mystery about this game is how anyone could have giving it a positive review. You can like it the same way I like bad B movies, but a bad narrative is a bad narrative, and any teacher in literature will tell you how stupid is to change the themes and story of your detective mystery midway. Romeo and Juliet doesn´t change into a space opera, Robin Williams doesn´t get superpowers at the end of Good Morning Vietnam, and the characters of A Clockwork Orange do not transform into a band of frog mariachis in the final act.
TL;DR no amount of words will change a bad story poorly writen, this is a bad story poorly wirten, deal with it.
So I will say that similarly to the OP I would agree the story to be a complete narrative and now defying the general sentiment on a personal level I liked the ending.
Here's why: the game themes are somewhat philosophical, specially as it relate to Identity. And as someone that studied the topic in depth on academical level, it hit me hard on very emotional and personal level, as the questions of Identity of the self is very difficult one, and I myself often wonder why did I get to a point where I am. Also the question of whether or not choices matter is very faintly contextually present, but since our (player choices) it gives a strong feeling of "predestination", but also while events are viewed as predetermined dialogue options and interactions would give us different emotional reactions, so while narrative stays intact the feelings associated differ.
The story structure imo doesn't change genre abruptly it evolves based on what Howard and Reene and by association you the player learn. And its noir core remains throughout, even if it introduces and re-focuses element akin to sci-fi and horror. I feel that from the moment conspiratorial element is introduces it allows the story to go in that direction.
While the description is somewhat accurate deduction of events, is it really justified to blame them for ruining the world? I seem to be more akin to a different version of events, lets now say hypothetically that humans would have this kind of tech to make themselves into anthropomorphic animals, and leave in a settings that is walled off. This leaves a question why was it walled off in a first place. I think that given how we the humans are struggling to work with one another in peace is this a stretch to say that most likely normal people wouldn't want to live with "anthromutants" and so the city was made for them walled off from rest of the world so that they could live in peace. I strongly believe its the "normal men" that destroyed civilization and well the animal kinds are all that is left from humanity.
Now also the ending yes it is unsatisfying but so is many things in life not everything ends with a neatly wrapped narrative, sometimes things just end, ex. I spend three years studying at university with high aspirations that things will change and get better, and like half a year of hard work working on final paper, that I thought would be great, but the reception from my friends and family was mid, and I didn't even get its final chapter approved yet. Similarly maybe more relatable example is exactly what happens in game, you don't know when you are going to die, when your story will end, for many people it will end abruptly with many unresolved things. Inevibility and uncertanity of death are what have driven culture and philosophy, "to be or not to be", the final unknown, that leaves us in grief when someone close to us is gone.
The ending is unsatisfactory because it was suppose to be - the themes explored troughout those of identity, change and freewill are brought to their natural albeit depressing conclusion. The characters strives to make a positive difference in a world and yet, they get hurt, and studs quo shifts slightly in favor of Clarissa but is by an large maintained.