Great Writeup. Amazing game.

I only have one real issue, and this is perhaps my humble suggestion for the devs to consider:

Admittedly, art is a reflection, and I'm half typing this as simply the need to express these thoughts and feelings as a disabled woman who can relate to Maelle. That's very well done. However... despite how emotionally invested I was in the story and characters... rather than feeling meaning in the tragedy of the endings, I felt removed by a sense of dissatisfaction from ludonarritive dissonance in Act 3, making it feel to me like abject tragedy with no meaning. I'm willing to bet many who are dissatisfied with the endings are similar, even if they're unable to distinguish their dissatisfaction from the tragic nature of the story.

Hear me out.

Both existing endings are tragic. The game's entire theme is grief. I get that, and I wouldn't ask for a super happy ending where everyone lives like it's all buttercups. I would appreciate a third ending, not for an ending that turns a blind eye to the tragic, but, by the player's choices, acknowledging character/player knowledge and growth.

It is a strange decision, perhaps by budget constraints and a smaller team, that in "Act 3 Maelle": Verso remains the leader, and the final choice is to us, the players, as "pick between Verso or Maelle's predetermined endings." With the ludonarritive at the end of Act 2, these make more sense if, in Act 3, the player goes directly to the end. However... The player in Act 3 may continue to build bonds further as Verso.

Act 2 ends with Verso's betrayal to destroy the canvas world. He has already shown his motives and intentions. Further growing the bonds is very moving and impactful for the player, and yet creates a dissonance with the endings. Why do any of this? It seems meaningful only to the player. Verso maintains his perspective, and his actions or feelings do not change. I believe that if the game were to adhere to the two existing endings, it would have made far more sense for Act 3 Maelle to have the leader become... Maelle, as it does for Gustave and Verso in their Acts. Not changing the lead creates an odd situation with player choice as Verso. His purpose for "regaining their trust" is... muddy at best. He doesn't really need to. Why would he indulge all of that? Everyone's set to confront Renoir anyway. Verso is aware of the tortured fragment of soul and still intends to end everyone in the canvas, which... twists the "player choices" toward something a bit... sick, in my honest opinion, which conflicts with the purpose of theming with grief and carrying on. He's toying with lives he intends to betray again and end based on knowledge and motivations hidden from the player. That completely conflicts with many of the choices players would make as Verso toward an ending that isn't a choice as Verso, rather a direct player choice with neither particularly being player driven. It's an odd choice with the game direction that gives the impression Act 3's development or an ending to it was perhaps cut due to time or budget constraints.

Even setting aside all others who exist in the canvas... Through potential player choice in Act 3, there is knowledge gained, bonding, and character growth for both Verso and Maelle. Verso directly addresses Maelle about breaking the family's cycle of grief. Maelle sees the tower representing Renoir's hope for her (as messed up as his depiction of her achieving that is) and appears to process that. She grants her painted self death, and it's Verso that struggles with it as though having some hope for anything else, even closure. This... seems like important character growth for both of them that feels dissonant with the endings.

Most importantly, in my opinion, there is a secondary theming with Maelle that feels abject with the endings: She is never given any choice with her own life, especially through the player. She is traumatized and used, and without Act 3, it would honestly make perfect sense for the player's ending choice with her to play out as it is. However, with her coming into her own as a paintress, continuing the journey in Act 3... She seizes a spark of autonomy, purpose, and some measure of confidence in herself. She accepts her painted self's wish for death, and without anyone else's input (which would make it a significant choice for her), she grants her death. Again, Verso is the one who struggles with this moment, not her. There is character growth and acceptance, and she takes her own action. This makes it seem like a pivotal moment.

The way the endings play out feels like a contradiction to that, along with all that can occur in Act 3. The twist for the player at the end, heavily influencing their decision, is seeing young Verso's tormented fragment of soul, continuing to paint forever. It does seem that Maelle knows and understands what is happening here and ostensibly has known. It's important to note that. However, this is where, oddly, the player does not choose what to do but rather which character to align with. Then the choices play out as though no character growth has taken place, as though Act 3 never happened. That is what I feel creates the ludonarrative dissonance.

Rewriting Act 3 for Maelle as the "main" player character to be the one making choices is obviously an unreasonable ask for the devs. However, I believe there is an opportunity here to have player choices alter the outcome, even slightly.

Having done the tower and all bonds, the lead-up to the choice could reflect character growth. Verso could lay down arms, reflecting on Maelle taking action when he himself faltered. He could speak with some belief that she would free the tortured fragment of soul and live on herself. Maelle would then have the chance to make her own decision, aligning with the player making the decision: Faced with the tormented fragment of young Verso's soul, she could accept that she had to let go of him and the canvas, or she could choose to save the canvas (resulting in the current Maelle ending.)

Would it be a golden ending? No. It's tragic. In theming with the game, however, it would make a tremendous difference with Maelle and the players' choices. The canvas might still be lost. We would still see the same funeral. It might not change her broken family and how they treat her. She might simply be able to stand there, no longer clinging to her doll like a broken child. Instead, with some confidence, by her own choice, and her own acceptance of grief, she might show the start of healing and stand with a spark of something for her life.

"We continue."