"At
least we're better than those sickos that stand around and WATCH it happen...
Those
pathetic people that want to see it, but are too weak to do it themselves.
I
bet someone like that's watching right now, aren't they...?" - Flowey
It's
interesting that the genocide playthrough take up 1/3 of the game and the story
and yet it's an aspect of the story where a quite significant proportions of
fans of the game refused to play, take pride in not playing it and even
questions the morality, ethics and characters of people who do experience that
aspect of the story.
In
a way it's a testament to Toby Fox as a storyteller to elicit this kind of
reaction. By creating such memorable characters where even random monster
people encounter have distinct personality, why would anyone wants to go around
killing them? You have to be an amoral psychopath to go through that people
will understandably argue.
Also
Toby Fox has mastered the integration of interactive elements of video games to
the plot of the game. Saving and loading the game isn't just a video game
mechanics but an intrinsic part of the story and hence maximise the immersion
of having the video gamer self-insert themselves in the protagonist "Frisk
"and give players the illusion that you are the protagonist not just a
passive observer or an actor playing a role as alot of the video gamey elements
that could potentially break the suspension of disbelief is integrated in this
universe. Hence Undertale creates the illusion that you are Frisk with the
power of determination to moulded the world in your vision. Any negative
actions that Frisk does hit home and fills the player with guilt as you are the
person creating harm not just a fictional character.
So
when the reformed Flowey pleads with Frisk/the player to leave the universe
alone and let the true-pacifist happy ending stand instead of resetting the
universe and playing the game and erasing the triumphs of all the characters of
the game. It's quite understandable that people left the game as it is and
not touch the game again and not be a completionist and explore all the stories
that could be told in this game. Especially when the motivation of the villain
of the game is essentially a completionist who dispassionately seek to discover
everything in the world. Why would you want to emulate the villain of the game?
So
is that the end of the argument that the "correct" way of playing the
game is to just play the game until you get the pacifist ending and then just
quit leaving the game installed in the computer but untouched and imagining all
the characters living happily ever after?
My
answer is no and in fact this aspect reveals how "self-insertion" by
the gamers is a limitation of story-telling of video games as a medium. In a way
I see video games as players being an actor in a choose-your-own adventure
story. You are given some degrees of agency to shape the story like most actors
do but ultimately you are following the script of the author/game programmer.
Now
I'm not necessarily saying that self-insertion is wrong and in fact it is a
strength that gives video game it's unique qualities and in large part it is
part of the reason of video game popularity. People self-insert themselves as
an idealised heroic version of themselves in fiction and when they finish the
story they feel they have shared the accomplishment along with the fictional
character.
Although
this is a strength of video game it is also a weakness. It's the reason why
video games are singled out in terms of controversy. After all, when people see
people "playing" video game characters doing immoral violence, they
are not just seeing a character doing violence but seeing the player themselves
as an active participant in violence which does scare alot of people.
However,
there is an alternative to "self-insertion" and the answer is in the
name of the genre of Undertale itself which is "Role Playing". That
you aren't playing an idealised version of yourself and playing a character
with similar ethical standards as you. You are playing a character that you
created with its own personalities, agenda that still makes sense from the
universe the author creates.
The
question whether people playing the genocide route are amoral psychopath could
be rephrased and asked are actors who play villains in movies and not only that
but enjoys playing villains in the movies, are they amoral psychopath? Is Heath
Ledger a psychopath for playing the joker in Batman? For people who seriously
morally object to playing the genocide route of Undertale, you have to ask
yourself what makes you different to the moral crusaders like Jack Thompson who
believes video games makes people violent because it's interactivity of violent
behavior in video games. The inability of people to see the interactivity as
anything beyond self-insertion is the reason why video game controversy exists
and gamer themselves should absolutely resist this mentality as you are falling
in the trapped of people who are essentially anti-video games.
The controversy of people playing the genocide route and people being question about why they want to see well-crafted
characters get cruelly killed off now seems absurd if viewed from a "role
playing" point of view. As the answer is that it is good storytelling. I
mean it's the same reason why people write books, films, TV shows that have
well-made characters be killed off.
The
genocide ending and the subsequent soul-less pacifist is great storytelling.
Imagine a person with the ability to time travel to an earlier version of
themselves and redo events in their lives and even avoid deaths. At first they
go and do things to make the world right and to correct their own mistakes to
ensure that everyone they care about get their "happy ending".
However eventually their own curiosity and boredom with the power where they
feel they discovered everything about the world they know within the
constraints of morality. They decided to start killing people out of curiosity
to see what would happen rationalising that they could always go back in time
and reverse their choices. After all, from the perspective of the character, is
murder really bad when murder is easily reversible with time travel and you can
always undo every consequence of your choice whether it is good or bad. However,
a person can't just indiscriminately killing people without affecting themselves
permanently. You can't just decide to commit genocide and then just reverse
with a click of a finger as no one can make that decision to do these great
evils without changing yourself and turning yourself into a villain. This is
reflected in-game by having Chara taking control over the body of Frisk and
decided to kill Asgore and Flowey and then the rest of the monster universe without
any input from the player. Once you made the step to be the villain you can no
longer have the morality to reset things and make things right and have no
control as a person has to become the devil or "Chara" to make that
decision in the first place and that moral centre that you had is no longer in
control as you unleashed your own dark side (which is represented in game as
Chara). This is shown where even attempts of redemption in doing a pacifist run
after a genocide playthrough resulted in the destruction of the world as once
you cross the moral event horizon you are no longer in control but your own
inner dark side is.
To
me that is excellent storytelling and there's a certain poetry to have the
protagonist becoming the villain that they tried to stop in the initial
"Pacifist" playthrough. Also the genocide playthrough reveals
character insight to many characters of the game including the primary
antagonist. One of the message of the game is that none of the characters are
"purely evil" and they all did things with good intentions. It's
their good side of their nature that comes to the fore when faced with a villain
as powerful as the "Chara" corrupted Frisk and that is good
storytelling. Ultimately "self-insertion" as much as it is a unique
positive aspect to video game can be a pitfall that limits how much a person
can get out of the medium and limits the potential story they can enjoy if
people are unable to divorce themselves from the protagonist they are
playing as this prevents stories that explores the dark side of humanity from being seriously appreciated.
Does
this mean that in my playthrough I did the genocide ending after I finish the
pacifist ending? The answer is no. After seeing the plea from Flowey to leave
the game as it is and the dark music over the resetting the game option I
didn't have the heart to go through with the genocide playthrough. After all
not every person is capable of being an actor to be a villain in a stage or
movie and will have a lot of trouble doing villainous act even in a scripted
event with no real world consequences. However, I see this as my own weakness
and not a strength. That my own inability to roleplay has limited my ability to
fully enjoy video game as a medium of storytelling. I only have to admire
people who do have the strength to go through with that and in that case I
agree with Flowey that people who do the genocide run are getting more out of
the game then people who are unable to go through it or is only able to watch
it. I wish I had the strength to go through with it. So for all those people
who are refused to play the genocide playthrough of the game, that is perfectly
fine but please respect the people who are able to explore all aspects of
storytelling in video games by role-playing instead of self-inserting
themselves and their own personal moral standards on the characters they are
playing.
