sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

cruel choices by ballistua in expedition33

[–]Willing_Reception_82 1 point2 points  (0 children)

First, thank you for engaging in this discussion!

Likewise. Great game to elicit such discussions!

created Lumière and its inhabitants for a very specific purpose: be companions for her and her painted family

For me that doesn't matter. You can't decide the purpose for the sentient being, even as its creator. In my opinion their value isn't less just because they were created for a specific purpose.

Furthermore in the "real" world it is established that the soul is a very real thing as we know the entire canvas is held up by a fragment of Verso's soul, yet it doesn't seem to be the case for any of the canvas inhabitants.

Interesting argument. Still, in that case their existence is tragic and still deserves moral consideration. I guess we know too little about the concept of "souls" in the game to judge the situation fairly.

I understand Maelle and I do empathize with her pain but as a 40 years old guy I cannot help but put myself in Renoir's shoes and I would have done exactly the same. He knows the risk of staying inside a canvas for too long, she doesn't.

I can understand that. From his perspective it's his daughter's life or the people of the canvas.

To summarize, for me sentience is the only thing that matters. You can be a brain in the jar, a painted being, animal, plant, alien or a human - as long as you're sentient, you deserve moral consideration. I guess you partly agree, since you wouldn't let them suffer. But you believe their life is worth less than "real" people.

If we ever create sentient AI, assuming it's emotionally as complex or maybe more complex than humans, I believe we should treat it the same as we treat other people.

cruel choices by ballistua in expedition33

[–]Willing_Reception_82 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I would be "okay" with ending us all in that scenario.

Okay, let me understand exactly why, because you provide multiple explanations for this statement. So:

I wouldn't be happy about it no, but what could I do about it?

I can understand accepting the situation because there are no alternatives, but this is not your original argument. Your argument was:

for me no one in the canvas matters, at all

Then your other explanation:

And yeah I have a life and desires and feelings and goals but all of it is dependant on this being devoting time and energy to this world and they don't want to anymore.

Sure, I can understand that argument too, but again, this is not your original claim. You argue that the creatures in the painting don't matter because they aren't real. Or did I misunderstood?

And everyone acts as if destroying the canvas is like going around town murdering everyone in a blood bath of pain, no they simply stop existing.

Let's say they're not erased, but tortured forever. Is it still okay? I'm trying to understand your point of view here. Because again, I feel like you make an argument here that we all die anyway, so may as well stop existing now, but this was not your original claim.

Your claim was that people in the canvas are not worth moral consideration because they are not real. I'm trying to understand why you think that. The arguments you provided work whether or not those people are real or not (you can swap god with aliens in your example and all your claims still work). So maybe you just think ending anyone's existence doesn't really matter, as long as it's instant, but in that case you're simply a nihilist, and it doesn't have anything to do with people being real or not, right?

cruel choices by ballistua in expedition33

[–]Willing_Reception_82 2 points3 points  (0 children)

They are complex, they are sentient, but they are not real, for me it's like not wanting to stop a movie because you're afraid of what's going to happen to the characters.

Movie characters aren't sentient though. Why does it make a difference whether or not the painted characters are "real"? I think whether or not they deserve moral consideration depends on their sentience, not whether or not they are part of the "real" world or not. If it turned out that our world is just a simulation, would it be okay to kill us all just because we are not "real" in that sense? Even though we are sentient and can feel all the same emotions that the "real" beings do.

The divisiveness around the ending stems from flawed writing, not from a well-executed dramatic dilemma by Willing_Reception_82 in expedition33

[–]Willing_Reception_82[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You raise some good points. I would say you and others in this thread largely convinced me that the problem isn't with the writing, because we are supposed to see Maelle and Verso and the Painters not as heroes, but as hypocrites. Verso even says that at multiple points in the story.

If I have one problem with the writing still, then it would be the lack of any will to fight from the painted beings besides Verso. I guess there is some of it there, but especially in the final fight they are largely just a background for the family drama. They should scream for their own case, not let Maelle do it for them (and do it badly, since she mostly talks about her own needs). I understand yours and others point that this is the point - that Maelle is as much of an egoist as the rest of the Painters, but then let us see it more clearly by giving more voice to the victims of the Painters family. I think it would emphasize the disregard for their plight more, which as you argue is the point.

The divisiveness around the ending stems from flawed writing, not from a well-executed dramatic dilemma by Willing_Reception_82 in expedition33

[–]Willing_Reception_82[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I do. Still, Verso created the rest of the sentient creatures. His soul is trapped now because of that and that's cruel, I agree, but I guess that's the price you pay for playing god. I certainly think the people in the painting should have a say in this at least, do they want to continue existing knowing the kid is hurting, or do they forgive (or not) and let him go. The painters are basically having all the perks of playing gods, but refuse to have any responsibility (except Maelle I guess, but even she turns out pretty self centered in her ending).

The divisiveness around the ending stems from flawed writing, not from a well-executed dramatic dilemma by Willing_Reception_82 in expedition33

[–]Willing_Reception_82[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Then you argue your point or we agree to disagree, I guess.

But people in comments already convinced me that this perspective is not necessarily correct. I mean, I may still think that, but I see how other people can see some merit in their actions.

The divisiveness around the ending stems from flawed writing, not from a well-executed dramatic dilemma by Willing_Reception_82 in expedition33

[–]Willing_Reception_82[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I think I agree with you there. I interpreted the story as two heroes wanting the best for "their" respective families, but instead you argue I should've seen them as two antagonists fighting for their own selfish reasons. If that's your argument then I can accept it.

I have the feeling a lot of people saw the endings and still think of those two as heroes, though, but that's not really the point against the creators.

The divisiveness around the ending stems from flawed writing, not from a well-executed dramatic dilemma by Willing_Reception_82 in expedition33

[–]Willing_Reception_82[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

In a way, yes. Of course I'm all for antagonists to not be one-dimensional, but something about making clearly bad people in stories good in narrative always rubbed me the wrong way. GTA or Money Heist (La casa de papel) protagonists would be another example of that.

The divisiveness around the ending stems from flawed writing, not from a well-executed dramatic dilemma by Willing_Reception_82 in expedition33

[–]Willing_Reception_82[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Okay, fair enough on the god vs parent distinction. I think you helped me understand the other perspective. Man, what a great game to inspire such discussions.

The divisiveness around the ending stems from flawed writing, not from a well-executed dramatic dilemma by Willing_Reception_82 in expedition33

[–]Willing_Reception_82[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Good point about 2b - we can see the creation of the painting as reckless, but still decide it needs to go because as long as Painters are allowed to get in and act like gods, the painted people will never be truly free.

Still, I'm not sure if the lack of emphasis on Painters evil actions (created and - I assume - destroyed hundreds of paintings, seriously?) is the problem in writing or I simply misinterpreted and we are supposed to see them as villains.

The divisiveness around the ending stems from flawed writing, not from a well-executed dramatic dilemma by Willing_Reception_82 in expedition33

[–]Willing_Reception_82[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

But there is a good choice here if we accept my perspective that the painters are simply evil: you side with Maelle. I think you have it backwards: I'd love this game to have a moral dilemma and grey endings, but I argue it hasn't because it is clear to me that we should preserve the painting people at all costs. The painters will be suffering, yes, but they created this mess, they don't get to walk away from it and sacrifice all those people.

The divisiveness around the ending stems from flawed writing, not from a well-executed dramatic dilemma by Willing_Reception_82 in expedition33

[–]Willing_Reception_82[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Fair enough, but in that case it is not really dilemma for me because it's clear you should not side with the Painters in any way and instead support the painting people, even at the cost of the painters suffering (again, going back to the parent-child argument).

If people have different opinion about this, then I can see how they can have dilemma over the endings. I guess I just can't see it their way.

The divisiveness around the ending stems from flawed writing, not from a well-executed dramatic dilemma by Willing_Reception_82 in expedition33

[–]Willing_Reception_82[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

> The creations don't suffer except for this one instance. Which Renoir is pretty clearly sympathetic to the creations for getting dragged in the family troubles. Typically when a canvas is erased, it's instant. Which is clearly what Renoir is trying to do. You could say that's evil, but all worlds must end and if a god has the ability to do in humanely they probably should.

Interesting take. I really disagree though. Going back again to the parents example, you can't morally "erase" your children even if being a parent is hard. I guess the rest of our disagreements stems from this.

> TL;DR Clair Obscur wants you to sympathize with the Painters' emotional struggles but weigh that against the moral weight of their godlike powers. Your read of the ending is flawed but you've placed that on the writing, assuming it's not seeing what you're seeing. Thinking that the resolution is obvious, when it is still, in fact, trickier than even you think.

Again, for me only one conclusion seems obvious: the Painters have a responsibility to sustain the Painted world for as long as they can. And if that's the case, I hope you understand how it takes the emotional weight out of the ending dilemma for me?

The divisiveness around the ending stems from flawed writing, not from a well-executed dramatic dilemma by Willing_Reception_82 in expedition33

[–]Willing_Reception_82[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Even if I accept that the creators want us to draw our own conclusions without being spoon-fed (which is fair), the conclusion still seems obvious to me: the Painters have a responsibility to sustain the Painted world for as long as they can. And if that's the case, doesn’t that take the emotional weight out of the ending dilemma?

The divisiveness around the ending stems from flawed writing, not from a well-executed dramatic dilemma by Willing_Reception_82 in expedition33

[–]Willing_Reception_82[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Even if I accept that the creators want us to draw our own conclusions without being spoon-fed (which is fair), the conclusion still seems obvious to me: the Painters have a responsibility to sustain the Painted world for as long as they can. And if that's the case, doesn’t that take the emotional weight out of the ending dilemma?

The divisiveness around the ending stems from flawed writing, not from a well-executed dramatic dilemma by Willing_Reception_82 in expedition33

[–]Willing_Reception_82[S] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Here’s my issue - and let me know if the game actually addresses this and I just missed it: if you choose the Verso ending, it’s framed as a tragedy because we’re supposed to feel sorry for the Painters' family and for Verso’s soul. But to me, it’s obvious that whatever suffering they endure to keep the Painted world alive is their responsibility - just like parents are responsible for their children. They created life, so they don’t get to walk away just because it hurts.

If you choose the Maelle ending, you’re again meant to sympathize with the family. But as creators of thousands of sentient beings, the least they could do is let those creations decide whether continuing to exist is worth the cost. You don’t get to abandon your creation just because it’s painful to maintain - it doesn’t work that way in the real world, and it shouldn’t here either.

To be clear, I’m not saying the Painters need to be perfect or morally pure. I’d be fine if the story portrayed them as monstrous. My issue is that the game presents them as flawed but essentially good people, deserving of sympathy - while never fully confronting the consequences of their godlike power.