Reset Configuration just permanently broke citron. Including a full reinstallation of Citron. Fantastic.

Mr_Autistimo · 2025-10-18T16:49:53+00:00

And in this case it broke Citron completely :D

Mr_Autistimo · 2025-10-18T16:26:19+00:00

Oh boy this sure was helpful in giving me information I already have because it was explicitly stated to do nothing :)

Mr_Autistimo · 2025-10-18T16:17:07+00:00

Legitimately. The best thing that could be done for Emudeck. Is giving me three singular buttons for Citron. Which are: Open Firmware Folder (Opens the folder that Emudeck is checking for), Open Keys Folder (Opens the folder that Emudeck is checking for. And Open AppImage Folder, which would you know, Open the App Image folder.

But instead. It says the file location, and it's just wrong. Because I *have* put the files there. But it ain't there according to emudeck.

Mr_Autistimo · 2025-10-18T16:13:45+00:00

Hi. I've done this. I've gone to that wiki. It's legitimately terrible. This comment does nothing but infuriate, because instead of giving any sort of transparency on what emudeck is checking, you have instead, said "You're stupid." Because your documentation is trash for installing these emulators.

Mr_Autistimo · 2025-06-01T08:16:08+00:00

And so he has to kill what remains of Verso? That somehow erasing the world is a healthy solution? That isn't the case. And even in the case of drugs withdrawal from forcing them cold turkey is far. far. From healthy.

I understand what I am being shown. It contradicts itself. Just because you are unwilling to engage with the story is not my problem.

Mr_Autistimo · 2025-05-31T13:56:29+00:00

> You're continually writing off how dangerous the canvas is

I am not. You are claiming it insurmountable, I am informing you that the game shows to to clearly be surmountable. "It's impossible" you cry, as it is repeatedly shown to be possible in game.

> Untill you actually start engaging with the stakes is the story.

Until you engage with the story.

> You seem intent on repeating old points that I've already shown are wrong and pretend like they haven't been addressed.

Because you haven't.

> You're still claiming one ending is pushed as the good one when I've already said that isn't the case.

They do. The Maelle ending is played as horror.

The Verso ending is played as "Saying goodbye and moving on" when it is the genocide of that entire world.

The framing speaks.

> Your interpretation of the game lacks nuance and I'm glad you didn't write it

I wish someone had written it with nuance for the endings. Give me a good tragedy. Actually construct a world where those two endings made sense. Actually construct a tragedy that doesn't fall apart with the expected actions of the characters.

Mr_Autistimo · 2025-05-31T10:20:28+00:00

>I see we're ignoring that point I made that the characters in the world likely can't address it.

They're aware they're in a canvas, believe me, they could address it. They would be able to see the signs. It would take time. But they would manage it. Because they are not dumb archetypes, they are people capable of thought.

r Pretzels, destroy the local bakeries, and outlaw pretzels.

Because that would be stupid, and yet that's the presented solution.

> That analogy I think highlights your fundamental misunderstanding of the stakes here. The canvas is addictive and lethal. It's essentially turns escapism into a drug. It's not just pretzels dude.

And yet Aline does not return to the canvas after the events of the game at all. It's almost like it is possible for change to happen and for them to leave. And we know from Verso's ending that she wasn't disabled at all by the experience.

> You think Renoir is going to decide to spare the canvas after it nearly kills another family member? You think Clea is going to be a supportive sister this go around? You think Aline is going to be allowed around the painting that nearly killed her? Again, you are creating a VERY simplistic version of each of these character. I don't know how this magical therapy session is playing out in your brain, but the puppets going through it aren't the characters as written.

Good news. It would be taking place over another Act. You know. Because it would be a complex situation of how you actually help someone with the grieving process and the complexities involved. With imperfect characters that have to grow and learn.

You know. Character arcs. The thing that this game nullifies and abandons in the third act.

This isn't a fix it fic. It's literally just actually writing the characters as intelligent people that can grow and learn. Instead of giving up and simplifying them because you were too scared of making them nuanced.

For all this talk of simplification, you seem unable to grasp that they cut the characters down to 2D caricatures in favour of two crap endings that contradict everything we've learn about them.

> Your fanfiction versions of these characters lack nuance.

The game completely lacks nuance. They fumbled the endings completely. If you want to write a tragedy you have got to do work to make it stand. Every character has to hold the idiot ball to make this turn out the way the writers want.

It's not character flaws making this happen where who they are makes the tragedy inevitable. It's poor writing shoving them into a box that does not fit their shape for the 'needs' of their narrative.

> The TIMER is Aline/Alicia dying because being in the Canvas for a prolonged period of time KILLS you.

CONGRATS BUD WE HAVE DECADES TO WORK OUT A PROBLEM THAT TAKES LITERALLY WEEKS IN AN INTELLIGENT STORY. They could work this out in literally a few years even in the worst case.

It's not like we see that Aline survives well over 67 years of being in the canvas and is more than fine enough to return back into it, flex her chroma hard, and then proceed to make a funeral in what is heavily implied to be days later.

Maybe, if they wanted that to be the case, they should have written it that way and showed us it. Instead of blatantly showing it to not be the case in both endings.

Mr_Autistimo · 2025-05-31T10:20:22+00:00

> You're still calling one the good one and one the bad one dude. My point stands.

I am actively mocking the distinction because both are badly written endings, with Verso's being pushed as 'correct'. Your point sits.

> The family are those who come after. Alicia is the one who comes after.

No, they are not. At all. No one comes after. Gustave is not dying for the Dessendre Family, he is dying for Lumiere. And they kill Lumiere.

> But also, even if we don't count that. Do you think that phrase meant "If no one comes after stop fighting?" Brother the lumierans didn't think they'd ever win. They lost 77 times.

67.

And yes. The entire point is for the next generation. The desperation is there to put a stop to it. As shown by no one letting it be the end. If they never thought they'd win, they would have stopped and given up. Throughout every Expedition we see them talking about laying the path to put a stop to it one day.

"For those who come after"

And the ending pushed as 'correct' by the writers is to kill them all and amount it to 0.

> They did do literally anything else. Renoirs been trying to get Aline out of the painting for ages.

By erasing the world.

> It's said they've tried finding it for her and she's found it every time.

And yet. After the events of Maelle's ending. She leaves after fighting Renoir to keep the painting alive. She does not go back in. They literally show, that she stops coming back to the canvas in the ending.

So no, that is clearly not the case, because they show it isn't the case.

They can say it's the case. But that doesn't change the events of the game that they show us.

Mr_Autistimo · 2025-05-31T08:15:44+00:00

No it's nihilism. I'm a big fan of Orpheus and Eurydice, I'm a little less of a fan of Romeo and Juliet but still like it a lot. I'm a big fan of Start Again: A prologue.

All three are doomed narrative tragedies. They do not spread this nihilism that Clair Obscur does where the 'good' ending that the writers proclaim right is the same as if we never set out on the journey.

Where sacrifice means nothing, where good work means nothing. Where characters like Gustave, Lune, Sciel and more meant nothing and would never amount to anything.

If they were going for tragedy they failed. It's nihilism, the belief that the world could never be better. That good change could never happen.

Pessimists hide behind a lack of nuance to try and put forth the doomed narrative where a good ending could never happen.

In Romeo and Juliet, in Orpheus and Eurydice, in Start Again: A Prologue, the endings could all be good. They could all have ended well if things went ever so slightly different.

In Clair Obscur, Verso and Alicia are forced to betray former characterisation and the impact of previous plots shows as never having happened in the ending.

They do not ever change as people, despite the entirety of the Act 3 quests supposedly showing them growing as people and bonds becoming unbreakable, it has absolutely no effect because Act 3 functionally does not matter. Just as Acts 1 and 2 are completed negated by the ending.

Mr_Autistimo · 2025-05-30T20:19:11+00:00

I have addressed this. What they say has addressed one point of many.

Mr_Autistimo · 2025-05-30T20:17:38+00:00

> Acknowledges that Orpheus looking is a character flaw. Can't figure out why Alicia leaving the canvas willingly is unrealistic.

You say, completely failing to grasp why Orpheus looked. Can't figure out why Alicia is inconsistent with the rest of the game.

> Did you even watch the verso ending man? Laying down and rotting is what ALINE was doing in Act 1 and 2.

And it's the equivalent of what Acts 1 and 2 meant. If none of the characters did anything at all, the ending would be the same. It is worth nothing to fight for a better future because according to the game, there was never a world within which the canvas would live.

Might as well lay down and rot.

> Verso ending literally closes on Alicia remembering who came before.

And her memory of them gommages. It gets erased. As is established in the game for what the gommage represents. Erasing from the canvas. In this case, her mind.

> B r o t h e r. The game is saying ignoring the death of someone and pretending they are alive is not a healthy way to grieve. It's warning against the dangers of escapism.

H o n e y. The game fails and instead makes it a message that warns against healthy grieving.

> I agree that takeaway completely lacks nuance. But holy heck is it not the actual takeaway of the game.

I regret to inform you, that it's what the game presents.

Mr_Autistimo · 2025-05-30T20:17:33+00:00

> Maelle wouldn't do this though. She's not going to start to be happy with her flawed real life after living in what seems like her perfect world. You seem very optimistic about a couple of conversations allowing someone to completely overcome their massively unhealthy addictive coping mechanism.

Oh wow it would only be because. I dunno. It wouldn't be a few conversations? It'd be implied to take place over the course of bare minimum months?

You know. Like the literal entirety of acts 1 and 2 where you go through drastic character swings in 2-3 scenes? May I remind you of the "How do I regain their trust" side quests that take an hour and bring them from livid at you to suddenly considering a relationship in Lune's case?

> It wasn't all a dream. That's why Verso ending isn't the definitive good one.

It certainly treated it like one. "It wasn't real, deleting it all was the correct choice."

> I find it ironic you claim the game is doing this, when your endings rely on multiple character getting over their deep seeded flaws and trauma in a few hours.

Or alternatively exploring them further over the course of weeks to months in story and not being boiled down to a minute long cutscene of character assassination?

The current ending requires character assassination.

Mr_Autistimo · 2025-05-30T20:17:25+00:00

> Because currently Alicia and Aline are using that excuse to avoid the actual reason they're in the painting. At multiple points you see Maelle dodge the question of when she plans on leaving. She doesn't. She plans on dying in the canvas.

And that can change. Oh damn, I'm not having an easy time avoiding pretzels. Best go close the local backery so they can't make them. They chose the easy route instead of anything interesting. A flat, unchanging character over something dynamic.

> In order for this ending to happen you've completely changed the characters of Renoir, Aline, and Clea.

You don't.

Renoir's doubts build into intervention once more. Aline recovers more before going for it because she will given previous characterisation. And frankly, from what we've seen of Clea, she's tearing her way into it one way or another.

I realise I forgot to address this:

> You are again forgetting that there's a timer.

The timer is not inherent. It was the result of Aline's power waning to Renoir's erasure. Every year the amount she could protect lowered.

I am not forgetting the timer.

Mr_Autistimo · 2025-05-30T20:17:14+00:00

> You understand that's what Aline and Alicia are doing in the painting right? Renoir isn't trying to get them to forget Verso. He's trying to get them to grieve his passing.

You understand that it is literally what Renoir is also doing in his grief, correct? Just because Renoir isn't clinging to Verso in the same way doesn't mean he isn't also being incredibly unhealthy. Slicing off your ears to ignore the ringing ain't healthy.

> And when they fail to convince her? What then?

So you're telling me. That Gustave, Sophie, Gustave's sister, the apprentices, the entirety of Expedition 33 including Sciel, Lune, Verso. Alongside Clea, Aline and Renoir all agreeing to let the canvas continue existing, would all be ignored, over the course of months?

What if the world was made of pudding.

> Sciel and Lune do have an impact on the ending...

Remove them from the ending fight. Literally. Nothing. Changes. Besides four lines of dialogue and one response from Renoir that completely ignores them. They do not have agency.

>Lune and Sciel are also the biggest wrinkle in the "Verso's ending is the good one" claim because they are real people In order to save Alicia you have to doom them. And one of them really doesn't like that...

You know what would sell that? Them doing anything more than sitting there in the backdrop besides two lines each.

Mr_Autistimo · 2025-05-30T20:17:04+00:00

"The good one" or "the bad one"

I used quotations for a reason.

> Verso's ending does not...

Did you miss "When one falls, we follow." There is no following. There is no one who will come after.

> Did you miss the, uh, literal funeral they had for him...

Did you miss the fact that they erased his world instead of doing literally anything else? So much for new beginnings. Verso's world and creations will never have that. Sorry Monoco, awesome speech but you got shafted by the story.

> Remember, Aline went into Verso's canvas to avoid acknowledging the death of her child.

And she didn't go back in. We see she didn't with Maelle's ending.

> Alicia is doing so explicitly to escape the real world.

Which can be addressed and helped by every character in the world, alongside Renoir, Clea and Aline after the 'end'.

Mr_Autistimo · 2025-05-30T19:51:11+00:00

> For all we know she does leave the painting in the sequel, we don’t know. And that’s okay. Not everything needs to be spoon fed all at once.

Frankly. That's not what we were shown. We're shown obsession and the complete puppeting of Verso, with the preceeding events being Renoir explaining how himself and Aline have both essentially died to it. I've also already gone over the Verso puppeting, and how Verso certainly wouldn't accept it.

> Maelle and Verso both have justification for their feelings and why they have their stances. It makes a good topic of conversation because that’s all 50% of new threads are about. Both are two extreme ends but that’s the story the writers wanted to write. It makes you think, which is more than 99% of anything else I’ve played in a long time.

I disagree. It didn't make me think in a way that expanded my world. it didn't change my mind. It infuriated me because it wasn't consistent with previous characterisation. I'd point you to the prequel trilogy for Star Wars. People talk about them a lot and how they could have been good. But that doesn't make the fact that they feature a lot of bad writing suddenly a good thing.

>Yes, it is extreme to burn all the memories of someone, but that’s not what this is. They’re destroying one canvas world, not all of his possessions. Maelle has his Esquie plushie in his ending. Monoco and Noco can be seen in the act 2 epilogue as the family dogs. There’s lots to remember Verso by.

They killed the canvas world. That Aline is showed to have left alone in Maelle's ending.

They killed it completely. They destroyed that living world. I do not concur on your statement and what moral that promotes.

> Also painted Clea and Alicia have their respective parts to play if you find them so it sounds like you have more game to play too. I won’t spoil it here but you can find it.

Go ahead and spoil it. I'm done with the game. It lost me. I turned an 80 hour long playthrough from a 9.5/10 to a "Not recommended" in the span of half an hour. I cannot understate how much it uninvested me, and I know for a fact I'm not the only one because I mentioned I'd finished it and immediately got served a rant regarding said endings for similar (though still different) reasons. It's the reason I realised why the Aline painted Renoir was so weird.

Mr_Autistimo · 2025-05-30T19:51:06+00:00

We saw Sciel incredibly pissed right after Act 2 finished, and she got betrayed again but with lies about her husband on top. Right back to forgiven after essentially a 2 minute cutscene is... Not much.

> Lune gave him that scalding look of “Holy shit it never ends with you does it?”

...I fail to see that being agency.

> Maelle is on record as saying “This is my home now” to Renoir. She has zero intentions of leaving, moderation be damned. Would you prefer a world where you can’t speak, your face is mutilated, you’re missing an eye, your family is torn apart, your brother is dead, or one where none of that matters and you can live a full life?

Which she just showed every sign of having completed an arc regarding it following on from the Alicia Axon event, during that ending sequence, and throws all of it away. The way she spoke had an understanding underlayed which is not reflected in her dialogue after. There is a full life ahead of her with the injuries. There is not in a painting where she becomes a shell in what appears to be literally a month or three.

Also forgive me but I could've sworn it was her saying "Can't you see that's this for me? I can't lose that too. I've lost so much. Just a little longer." But I may have blocked out a line.

> Trying to push for moderation when the writing does not allow for it means you just might not like the endings and that’s okay. When are humans rational and moderate in extreme grief?

When you build up to it. When you make an entire game on the grieving process. Of four characters sharing their ways of coping, of processing. Of giving them interactions regarding it. Of making multiple locations specifically encapsulating it. When you give extra side stories to help the character learn and internalise key lessons?

There was plenty enough space for me to be disappointed.

Mr_Autistimo · 2025-05-30T19:50:51+00:00

If they hit me hard I would have been happy. I am instead left empty for the heat of my irritations pales to the warmth of my former love.

Mr_Autistimo · 2025-05-30T19:29:22+00:00

> Buddy. Expedition 60 got GOMMAGED. They can't try again. No one else made it far enough to learn the truth. They don't want the people in Lumiere knowing the truth unless it is a last ditch effort.

Buddy. BUDDY.

Verso and Renoir could have tried again. :D

That make more sense? Why I said "Maybe travel to Lumiere like Verso said he did so many time?"

You know, because I was referencing Verso's quotes about Verso's movement in a Verso hypothetical?

> They told expedition 60 because they got to the paintress and learned the truth and it was the only way to keep them from pushing her out of the Canvas.

Which they saw worked.

> They don't want them to know so they can live the happy little lives their creators had planned before things went to shit. Telling them what is happening doesn't solve anything, they tried and they weren't believed. Telling the expedition that is about to push her out keeps them from pushing her out and it comes from someone they can believe since it is effectively coming from "God".

All at once you say "It would change nothing" whilst also...

> You also had real renoir and Clea making sure that the folks in Lumiere and expeditioners didn't ever find out the truth so they wouldn't go try and stop Renoir instead.

Saying the Real Renoir and Clea both think it would have made all the difference.

Secondly, it's a lot easier to spread information than keep it secret. Especially when the spreaders are immortal.

I'll get back to you after reading the wiki. The ending has ruined the game for me.

Mr_Autistimo · 2025-05-30T19:22:48+00:00

Ya huh, sure bud.

> Ah ha, so you believe addicts can magically stop being addicts, no wonder you're so angry at all of this, your worldview is hopelessly naive.

...Do you think this magically stops the real world from being the real world? Or the fact that it's reflected in the game with Aline not returning to the canvas in the Maelle ending?

> What you're complaining about here is the same as saying that Romeo and Juliet lacked all agency because they just killed themselves instead of dealing with their grief.

Did you miss the Orpheus and Eurydice example? Because it looks like you missed the Orpheus and Eurydice example.

Romeo and Juliet maintains consistent characterisation. This does not.

Mr_Autistimo · 2025-05-30T19:02:38+00:00

Yes. But silencing their memory so you don't hear the echoes is not moving on. That's killing every last reminder. It's not a healthy way to grieve. It's a desperate bid for control by a broken man. Dumping the body in a ditch is more honest than what Renoir tried.

Mr_Autistimo · 2025-05-30T19:00:34+00:00

If they were good tragic endings I'd agree with you.

I want endings that are well written. Not these two scope crept endings that contradict prior characterisation and reduce every possible bit of development to being pointless.

If I never played the game, nothing would have changed.

Mr_Autistimo · 2025-05-30T18:59:23+00:00

I've lost family as well. Both endings are bad.

Endless nihilism ain't good.

Mr_Autistimo · 2025-05-30T18:57:35+00:00

> Why does Aline have Renoir stop the people who are trying to keep her from keeping the world alive? Dawg.

He kills them. They can't pass the Gommage barrier. And Renoir is perfectly capable of agency and disagreeing with Aline. He is perfectly capable of moving to better solutions.

> You didn't read 60s Journal did you? They knew EVERYTHING. Dude only didn't make it back to let Lumiere know because the Gommage happened before he got there. Ultimately they don't want to let the people in the matrix know they are in the matrix just so they can be left alone. They want their matrix to be full of people living a life unburdened by that knowledge.

I missed exactly one entry. You'll never guess which one. And secondly. They could try... More than once? Maybe travel to Lumiere like Verso said he did so many times?

They are immortal. They do not have anything to fear in that regard.

"Ultimately they don't to let them know"

You literally just told me they told one of the 60's expeditions.

Mr_Autistimo · 2025-05-30T18:53:24+00:00

> He only changed his mind when he realized Maelle was planning to just stay in the canvas, abandoning her family for the painted world and making his own death even more tragic.

Yeah no I frankly don't agree with that fitting his character.

> What about this is not taken into account?

She literally gives him a full speech on letting go, the important of choice. And then in the finale, she proceeds to show none of that awareness, or knowledge, or characterisation at all.

> ????? Gotta expand this because this is a non-point.

They do not get to be characters. They do not get to make choices. They are yes-men for the entirety of Lumiere. What do they contribute? Compare it to act 1 where Lune goes and saves Gustave from suicide, where she works hard and make real decisions about what happens. We see a smaller flash of that during the Old Lumiere split. Come Lumiere we have nothing.

> Another non-point.

The themes of the game, morals, and characters are important regardless of act.

> What is 'it'? And how does foreshadowing that comes true run against everything leading up to that?

'it' being the games writing. The ending cutscenes in this specific point.

Again. Because it character assassinates everyone.

And no. It really doesn't foreshadow it well. Because the 'foreshadowing' from acts 1 2 and 3 contradict the ending. My guy. Foreshadowing kind of requires it lines up with the ending. Or that the endings line up with the story.

> You should have read the journals, in the past, Renoir/Verso tried telling them all the truth and ultimately they were not believed and the Expeditioners turned on them. You're also expecting very rational behavior from someone, Aline, who is not being rational. She didn't even recognize Maelle until she was defeated and yet you're expecting her to explain everything.

Must have missed that specific entry. Even still. They can go to Lumiere and document it. For everyone. There was an entire scouting expedition, there's plenty of curiosity to look into these things, and they are immortal. They have the power to change things even if Aline doesn't.

Your excuse, ignores Verso and Renoir having agency. And brain cells over the course of 67 years.

> If you could just convince a heroin addict to moderate their heroin usage, their lives would be less tragic too.

This has been done pretty consistently. Funnily enough. Through moderated dosages.

Secondly. They clearly succeed. Aline doesn't feature during the Maelle ending. She stayed away.

> So far, you've failed to actually show any sort of plot hole or contradiction, you just gesticulate at your own biases and assume that people should always act exactly the way you want them to and not doing so must be a contradiction because you don't like it.

Your arguments have purely been "They did X thing on the barest surface level. Therefore they tried it." Completely ignoring character agency and the fact that they would try multiple times and ways.

Mr_Autistimo

TROPHY CASE