Feedback wanted: Some questions on Ending (spoilerish)

[Renegade_]

(09-10-2010 07:47 PM)Thomas Wrote:  1) When entering the Orb Room (where Alexander is), what where your feelings toward Daniel (ie yourself), Alexander and Agrippa.

As the story progressed to the point of the ending, I emotionally disconnected myself from Daniel, and had a faint sense of disdain and loath towards him. For being naive, fickle, and ultimately morally deprave by his own standards.

Yet oddly I felt a strange sense of gravity towards Alexander's character while remaining only mildly conflicted about his motives/morals. It were as if his other-wordly existence defied and surpassed the trivial and petty notions offered up by humanity (in his own terms), and though (as with Daniel) I would likely not have condoned his actions were he human, I truly felt his reasoning - of being beyond good and evil - was compelling and could square it with myself much more so than Daniel's.

This is also in large part due to the superb voice acting on both characters. Daniel's voice acting always trembled with a faint hint of naivety and doubt; while Alexander's was powerful, sure, comforting and explanatory, imbuing him with a sense of authority figure, and reassurance. These attributes resounded in their voice narratives and actions, and is difficult to separate the two.

I felt Agrippa seemed more like an unimportant side-story; though I did enjoy the backstory and myth of Weyer, and found it to be intriguing. However the seeming comical relief Agrippa supplied was not entirely wanted or fitting of the narrative and, combined with his late introduction, I did not feel much connection to or interest of this character (likewise I also assessed his motives to be of a more benign nature).

Much more so than Daniel or Agrippa, I was most fascinated by, and intrigued to see the fate of Alexander.

Quote:2) What was the ending that you got the first time? Was this a choice?

From playing several other adventure series before, I feel my decision was not entirely natural. I knew very likely there were going to be a few alternate endings, so I chose the most obvious one first: eliminating the portal without delay. I then chose the opposite of that (Alexander's ending), finally followed by the median between the two (Agrippa's ending).

It was a choice, but only inasmuch as I tend to approach these things in a very calculated manner (i.e. I tend to hoard supplies, explore every room, and rarely wing it or go on gut).

Quote:3) How did you like the ending?
4) Did you get any other endings? If so, which one was your favorite? And what where your motivation for seeing more endings?

I enjoyed all the endings, but particularly Alexander's. Daniel's I felt was somewhat expected, though with a sense of something missing: it did not resolve or address his dubious actions during the narrative, and I was hoping to see more of a tragic hero end (perhaps life-long insanity due to intense dissonance, or suicide, or spending the rest of his life as a recluse, marked, scarred, or in some other form of atonement for his actions).

Agrippa's ending was contemplative and mysterious, tying back into the backstory with Weyer. And might have served to be a "good ending", though again for reasons above, I don't feel it was fitting for Daniel in particular, but did offer some resolution as to Agrippa/Weyer.

Finally, Alexander's ending was most intriguing. We never quite glimpse to where he is returned, and are left to ponder the untold majesties of his other-wordly origin. However, on his exit, he notes with sadistic realism what Daniel's fate will be; and I marveled truly at how this was so cooly delivered, without spite or vindictiveness, yet with a hint of surly triumph. The player is left to dwell on Alexander's statements on good and evil, as he states with vivid candor and honesty that Daniel's name and legacy will be "celebrated" eternally; which is summative of the inability to precisely pin Alexander's character as wholly good or evil throughout the entire narrative.

[masochism]

I think its important, when assessing Daniel and Alexander, that you pay as much attention to Alex's notes as you do to other parts of the storyline. Alexander has no reason to lie with these, as they are (meant to be) personal notes. One in particular that I thought was important was the one toward the end which said something along the lines of 'Daniel will not take part in the ceremony, he has changed tonight and can't be trusted'. The tone of the note told me that Alexander saw Daniel as more of a colleague than a pawn. I also got this impression from the bad ending. There is no evidence of Alexander doing to others for no gain to either party, so at worst, he's selfish, but not inherently evil, although he does seem to lose the plot a bit in the good ending.

Daniel is, in my opinion, righteous. He always made the correct choices based on the information that he had at the time.
-If he had not tortured people himself, Alexander would done it instead.
-If he had openly acted against Alexander, then he would have become another victim of the torture.
-If he had killed himself, Alexander would simply recover the orb and continue with what he was doing.
-Daniel had no way of knowing that Alexander could not fix an orb like he could, so he had no reason to destroy the orb.
Am I missing anything? The only part of Daniel that I don't like is that he loses sight of the above, and breaks down because of it.

Agrippa doesn't really feature enough for me to form an opinion on him.
____

I got the good ending the first time, then the bad ending. It actually took me a long time to work out that you could knock over the poles.

I don't like how Alexander seems to spend his final moments in a state of insanity during the good ending. The revenge ending was certainly the most satisfying, and the bad ending was a good insight into Alexander's character. I liked bad/revenge the endings, but I thought the good ending was lacking.

[Renegade_]

(12-14-2010 10:25 PM)masochism Wrote:  Am I missing anything? The only part of Daniel that I don't like is that he loses sight of the above, and breaks down because of it.

Yes, a rather large chunk of definition for Daniel's character: he knowingly hunts down and kills an innocent child for his own salvation as revealed in the last chapter. As he states in his own notes, he may be forgiven for taking the life of a degenerate but "to take the life of an innocent" made him in his own words a vile "murderer". Furthermore he quite clearly suppressed his own doubt to the point of willful ignorance (many of the tortured were professingly innocent men, women, and children), taking Alexander's word not because he believed it, but because believing it would allow him to justify taking life to save his own. That is dubious and selfish moral ethic. As you say, Alexander's rationale, though trivializing human life, did at least seem to have merit towards an actual (possibly altruistic, since his departure is best for all parties involved) goal other than sheer terror/evil. Daniel on the other hand is a human, and so by those standards and his own, truly evil for no other reason than to save his own.

The profound bit of character reveal towards the end is when even Alexander scorns and shames Daniel about the lack of moral to which he (Daniel) subscribes himself to; he reminds Daniel that had he simply let the Shadow take him, he would have spared so many lives, instead of having so many to pay for his own mistake. This is why Alexander's character seems more honorably intentioned, whereas Daniel's is dubious at best. It is to say as if he (Alexander) can justify his actions because the morals he holds himself to are upkept, even though seemingly beyond human comprehension. Whereas Daniel, by his own morals and self-admittingly has willingly and knowingly committed evil.

This, to me, paints a very unrighteous picture of Daniel (though he is often insufferably sanctimonious in his notes to himself) and quite far from Agrippa's "good boy" image, nor deserving of it.

[masochism]

Ah, the child. Try to put it in perspective.

1. 18th century rural Prussia isn't a very nice place for a child without any of its family. He will be releasing the child into an environment which could likely get them killed, possibly in a rather gruesome way.
So its not a matter of:
-kill child vs let child live happily ever after
but instead it is a matter of:
-kill child vs put the child into a hostile environment without any surviving immediate family

2. If he lets the child go, then if the child doesn't meet an untimely (yet natural) end, then they will likely alert the villagers to the goings on in the castle. This would most likely undermine the efforts of Daniel and Alexander, and could lead to even more bloodshed in the long run (on top of making all the previous tortures be for absolutely nothing).

3. The world would probably benefit less from a farmchild than from a member of the academic world with Daniel's unique experiences and knowledge. Thus Daniel's life is more important to the world than that of the child.
____
Daniel had no way of stopping the torturing of the people once he knew that it was going on. If you think otherwise, I'd like to know why. As for suppressing his own doubt about the identities of the tortured, this has absolutely no relevance to whether he is a good person. Torture is torture whether you are doing it to a murderer or a saint. Both feel the same pain.
____
Regarding Alexander's scorn of Daniel's actions, this seems quite consistent with a good old Hannibal Lecture (not Lecter). Google it if the term is unknown to you.
____
To me, this paints a very simple picture of Daniel; he generally makes decent choices, considering the range of choices available to him and the long and short term consequences of each possible choice.

[hollowleviathan]

Daniel had a way of stopping the torture; Alexander is a weak old man, and he could easily kill him with his bare hands.

[masochism]

Alexander is old, but he also practices magic. There is no reliable information which indicates that that Daniel can easily kill Alexander. The pep talk he received from himself might just be a little bit biased and unreliable. In addition, if I'm not mistaken, a diary entry specifically states that Alex's 'servants' are **always** nearby. Seeing as killing someone (even an old guy) with bare hands takes a fair amount of time for someone such as Daniel (clearly not a trained fighter), it is very likely that the monsters/servants could and would intervene. Weapons are out of the question, because it is made painfully obvious that Daniel lacks the ability to (effectively) use even a makeshift club, let alone a weapon which kills quickly.

[Renegade_]

(12-17-2010 11:55 AM)masochism Wrote:  Ah, the child. Try to put it in perspective.

1. 18th century rural Prussia isn't a very nice place for a child without any of its family.
...

19th century Europe (you've got the wrong century) was well beyond the period of enlightenment and the industrial revolution, and into the period of civility, medicine, and modernity. Don't let the medieval castle setting cloud judgment of the morals of that time period. Murderously ending a child's life because you believe their outcome to be poor is appalling logic and yet we know that Daniel's intent was devoid of whatever good there is to be found in it (very little I might add). He did not kill the child out of some twisted form of compassion to save her from further suffering; no, in fact, he was the source of that suffering, and took her life savagely for loathsome reasons even he admits to: in a murderous rampage to save himself from The Shadow.

2.
And if the villagers were made aware, and the king's men brought, all the better to end it rather than Daniel further abetting Alexander's plan. Taking it upon himself to murder an innocent in some twisted fantastical hope that it will somehow contribute towards the better (not only was this not even Daniel's intent, but by that point Alexander's plan was already ostensibly 'evil') is the very same wishful thinking and willful ignorance that allows Daniel to commit such horrid acts in the first place.

3.
No human could ever hope to objectively quantify a life to the extent where they feel they are justified in murderously taking it (thus Alexander may be justified, but certainly not Daniel). Firstly, this sort of logic leads to all sorts of moral dubiousness: to whom do you give the authority to judge which life is more valued? And then further, how do you expect this to remain objective when it is the judge's own life that is in question (by your example Daniel is judge, jury, and executioner).

Secondly, again we already know this was not even Daniel's intention: his act was done in supreme selfishness and fear for his own life, not out of any attempt to objectively appraise the child's life (even if the child's life was truly 'worthless' there was no way he or any non-omniscient being could be sure of that). To believe, as he loomed there over the child with murderous intent, that he ended her life in cold blood out of a rational objective decision is to have failed to grasp the gravity of that situation entirely.

Furthermore Daniel did have many ways of stopping the torture: in the least he could have simply neglected to partake in it (certainly the acts of torture and the Baron's ultimate plan was only increased with Daniel's aid), and in the most he could have followed the advice he gave himself before cowardly drinking the Amnesia potion, and ended Alexander's life (and don't fool yourself into believing this was not possible: if such a powerful being could meet his demise from a few loosely toppled structures, then so too could he at the vengeful grip of an enraged human).

It's not to say that he was not under extreme stress or placed in dubious predicaments by a wily-tongued tempter, but at any moment I was not able to perceive Daniel's actions as forced. Coerced, or heavily influenced perhaps, but never forced. He always possessed a choice, and yet always displayed mild cognitive dissonance or doubt quickly followed by willful ignorance that allowed him to consistently make choices of increasing moral depravity at the direct expense of others' lives simply to save his own. And for that reason Daniel's character is to be loathed, and his end no more deserving than those he gave to others.

[waqas12346]

(09-10-2010 07:47 PM)Thomas Wrote:  2) What was the ending that you got the first time? Was this a choice?
Ans- I got good ending, Because all notes are showing me that Daniel wanted to kill alexander, So I push all the rods and thats it

4) Did you get any other endings? If so, which one was your favorite? And what where your motivation for seeing more endings?

Ans 2- I got good ending, Because all notes are showing me that Daniel wanted to kill alexander, So I push all the rods and thats it

Ans 4- Yes I got total 4 endings, All endings are my BEST endings , Here it is:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JL3xYOBbXOI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ZJ7a0GGQ90
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aJmI7aYXuEY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WolXudtLHCU

Spoiler below!

Thanks for watching , Besure to Comments, Rates and Subscribe

[Crazy Crazy Doctor]

1) When entering the Orb Room (where Alexander is), what were your feelings toward Daniel (ie yourself), Alexander and Agrippa.

You guys did an incredible job of manipulating how I felt towards Daniel throughout the game. At first, I wanted to save myself, even as I learned more about what the Shadow was (admittedly not much, which is probably a good thing), it still seemed like I needed to save myself, that it was all an accident. As I heard the flashbacks, Alexander had a very manipulative, evil sounding voice, which made me peg him as a bad man from the start, which also seemed intentional. By the end though, it seemed that Alexander and Daniel were friends in a way, and that Daniel had actually gone way more off the deep end than Alexander. Also, Alexander didn't manipulate Daniel at all, he told him perfectly well what needed doing, and Alexander did them, convincing himself that all of these people were terrible people and deserved to die for their research. The torture chambers were easily the most powerful part of the game for me; they really showed me the atrocities that Daniel had committed without actually showing them which is key to the effect. I felt like Daniel either needed to die for what he did, or try and make up for it. Alexander seemed to be trying to find a woman in the other world? It was implied that he was sort of like Orpheus in that he was trying to find his lost love, but it wasn't too clear. This might have helped garner a bit of sympathy for him, and make him seem more morally-ambiguous. Hell, he even got a bit scared by Daniel there near the end of their plot together.

As for Agrippa, I kind of got a slight Red from Penumbra vibe from him, but he wasn't a part of the story for long enough for me to really develop any feelings for him, other than wanting to save him from an eternal existence of just hanging there.

2) What was the ending that you got the first time? Was this a choice?

The ending I got the first time was Alexander escaping through the portal. It wasn't really a choice, I wasn't sure if the portal was open, because I tried to throw Agrippa's head through the portal when it first showed up but it was still opening.

3) How did you like the ending?

It was kind of fitting? Obviously it was horrible, but I felt like it worked in a way.

4) Did you get any other endings? If so, which one was your favorite? And what where your motivation for seeing more endings?

I saw all of the endings (other than dying in the prison). My favorite was the revenge ending. It seemed to be the most grounded in reality, in that Daniel would have to live with what he had done, but at least made up for it a little bit, and would presumably live a better existence from then on.

The "best" ending, where you throw Agrippa's head through the portal, seemed a little empty to me. I guess I wanted to see a glimpse of something other than blue sparkles? I also wasn't clear on what exactly going to this other dimension/world meant exactly. Is this the equivalent of an afterlife, since I seemed to have died but went there anyway? Along with the Orpheus/Alexander connection, there was also the bright light at the end. If so, the concept of the afterlife as another dimension is a very interesting one.

In the Frictional Games blog, you speak of themes and essence, and I can see many similar themes in both Penumbra and Amnesia, which is a good thing, as it means that there is a clear motive for what you're doing, and you're not just trying to make a cool game.

Thank you for making Amnesia, I can't wait to see what else you guys have in store for us.

[Shev]

You should really focus on fixing the predictability of monsters. And they got less scary with experience towards the end of the game.