Quick confirmation? I assume "Gristle" is the name for the MC you have given?
- Thread starter baconsmoke
- Start date
Quick confirmation? I assume "Gristle" is the name for the MC you have given?
It's the default MC name so I just went with it.
You can find it it the script, ended up being unused in favour of player choice
Perhaps it was changed? I started with act 1. Abandoned the game. Picked up act 3.
I just hit return. return, return and got Gristle Baumgartner
Edit: Just did it again with act 1 compressed - return, return, return gives you "okay, if that's what you want to go with Mr. Gristle Baumgartner"
So, yeah, the game tells that this unreliable narrator story in the very first minute.
I also got this:
"The MC is also the narrator And just because he says something, that doesn't make it true"
Edit 2: Same with act 3. Try it yourself. Start the game and keep hitting return and your MC will also be named Gristle Baumgartner
I just hit return. return, return and got Gristle Baumgartner
Edit: Just did it again with act 1 compressed - return, return, return gives you "okay, if that's what you want to go with Mr. Gristle Baumgartner"
So, yeah, the game tells that this unreliable narrator story in the very first minute.
I also got this:
"The MC is also the narrator And just because he says something, that doesn't make it true"
Edit 2: Same with act 3. Try it yourself. Start the game and keep hitting return and your MC will also be named Gristle Baumgartner
Last edited:
I will be clear with you on how I interpret the story.
While we all will take liberties of her personal experiences to shape that which is not fully established in the story, I specifically refer to the story as a means to understand it.
So I do not take "outside" interpretations as evidence of anything. If you have read the past discussion, even the literal understanding of various things like "drugs" or various "ailments" are not represented to actual standard within the story. So, it is important that all "views" of the story be contained to that concept.
It is like looking at a philosophy of a culture. If you want to understand it, you evaluate it "internally" (within its own world view and system) and make steps to avoid external influence in the evaluation only judging it to its own rules and structure. That way, if for instance a story depicts a man that lives a 1000 years is used in its evaluation, you don't dismiss the the entire story because current knowledge shows this is not a likely or possible thing. What you do is evaluate the context accordingly and measure its position within its own evaluation.
That doesn't mean you can not provide an external evaluation, but if you are honest to that what you are evaluating, you will allow "internal" view to at least see their perspective.
In this story, this is the same concept. You accept what is given within the story, measure according to its world and means, and then evaluate your conclusions within that scope. You can still offer external view, but you can not insert that external view to explain the internal evaluation.
This is my point about this story. Internally, the story establishes self in a certain directions... the issue some of us have is the inconsistencies between them that betray previous issues. There are theories, certainly the one you bring that this is all loose perspective is one, but it also may be due to many points previously brought up. The fact is, we don't know... but I think it is fair to say, a lot of the foundations of the characters (regardless if they have changed some) are pretty clear in their position and intent.
Could this all be a show? Some fantasy of thought where the reality is eventually displayed? Certainly, I won't dismiss the possibility, the Professor has already shown he is willing to "change the rules" in past works, but as it is now, from what we know, from what has been established, I think it is either writing inconsistencies (as has been reasonably argued), or it may be as you say... some ultimate reveal of various confusion and means to which some other purpose is explained.
As it is now though, honestly... I think that your take on the characters is... too heavily residing in interpretation at the extreme expense of the literal evaluation of the story as it is told so far.
That is funny, I guess I never noticed that. What an odd name to pick...
1. The game tells us in the first minute of starting that we shouldn't accept things the narrator says as truth. I may be wrong about my monster theory but I am resolute in my belief that this is an unreliable narrator story. I mean the dev tells us that almost immediately
So even if we only accept the internal logic of the game, the game tells us to not believe Gristle
2. The game tells us not to only accept the internal logic of the game. So we're in a real bind - if we only use internal logic we are going against the wishes of the dev. The dev tells us that the MC has PTSD and depression. He later adds co dependency. We are asked to interpret the text according to those outside sources.
So, yeah, K doesn't quite work the way the author says it does. But scapegoating works just like this story does. Everything is the scapegoat's fault. The scapegoat started the fight. The scapegoat is responsible for all this drama. The scapegoat is the person who is always screwing up.
So even if we only accept the internal logic of the game, the game tells us to not believe Gristle
2. The game tells us not to only accept the internal logic of the game. So we're in a real bind - if we only use internal logic we are going against the wishes of the dev. The dev tells us that the MC has PTSD and depression. He later adds co dependency. We are asked to interpret the text according to those outside sources.
So, yeah, K doesn't quite work the way the author says it does. But scapegoating works just like this story does. Everything is the scapegoat's fault. The scapegoat started the fight. The scapegoat is responsible for all this drama. The scapegoat is the person who is always screwing up.
duckydoodoo
Active Member
- Nov 9, 2023
- 703
- 1,057
- 276
okay, two points on the recent discussion.
1. show dialogue where it clearly states verionica's connections is the monster. as far i recall reading, it sounded like he could be. but nothing saying he is. so im wondering if i missed a clear statement of fact. cause one of you out there stated it like it was fact.
2. i posited that MC could be the monster, using the same line "when do i get to be the monster" as a possible foreshadowing, especially as it came before the monsters first appearance(to my recollection at that time and still now). furthermore, i noted his disscociative problems and tech skills as well as physical and emotional proximity to all the girls involved would give him the ability to track and monitor them. the how isnt even hard, i have an app on my phone that that gives me time delayed notifications called a calender. somone with a lil tech know how could easily hack their own phone and leave themselves messages to communicate with their other personality. its actually a very common literary device in stories where a character has dissociative disorders that the main personality is not aware of the others, and the protector personality is well aware of the main, goes out of their way to protect them, as well as communicate with them. My favorie example is a pscyh episode where a dude is being haunted by a female ghost, turns out one dissociative personality is a women and she is trying to warn him about their more dangerous personality. all sorts of shenanigans in that episode but im starting to stray. just saying, its normal in stories for a main personality to not know about the others, and the others to do all sorts of shit and even make contact through varied means to guide or protect the main from themselves and others.
it may not be where the story is headed, but there is as much evidence making it possible as any other saying "this" or "that" character is the monster.
1. show dialogue where it clearly states verionica's connections is the monster. as far i recall reading, it sounded like he could be. but nothing saying he is. so im wondering if i missed a clear statement of fact. cause one of you out there stated it like it was fact.
2. i posited that MC could be the monster, using the same line "when do i get to be the monster" as a possible foreshadowing, especially as it came before the monsters first appearance(to my recollection at that time and still now). furthermore, i noted his disscociative problems and tech skills as well as physical and emotional proximity to all the girls involved would give him the ability to track and monitor them. the how isnt even hard, i have an app on my phone that that gives me time delayed notifications called a calender. somone with a lil tech know how could easily hack their own phone and leave themselves messages to communicate with their other personality. its actually a very common literary device in stories where a character has dissociative disorders that the main personality is not aware of the others, and the protector personality is well aware of the main, goes out of their way to protect them, as well as communicate with them. My favorie example is a pscyh episode where a dude is being haunted by a female ghost, turns out one dissociative personality is a women and she is trying to warn him about their more dangerous personality. all sorts of shenanigans in that episode but im starting to stray. just saying, its normal in stories for a main personality to not know about the others, and the others to do all sorts of shit and even make contact through varied means to guide or protect the main from themselves and others.
it may not be where the story is headed, but there is as much evidence making it possible as any other saying "this" or "that" character is the monster.
Sayora
Member
- Oct 17, 2017
- 254
- 373
- 226
I completely agree, but there are three "buts."
First, he can't leave on his own because he's painfully codependent.
It's essentially like a seasoned drug addict being asked to quit voluntarily.
Second, it's the author's choice to leave him in this savage state.
And finally, the most delicious part (but not yet confirmed by me) – there's a common belief that MC isn't the main character in this drama.
And I still sincerely hope that the author will give us the opportunity to save what little remains of MC ,if anything remains, of course.
AL.d
Engaged Member
- Sep 26, 2016
- 2,023
- 6,477
- 792
Did it maybe occur to you that she replies they are right in those instances, because they really are right? Because her actions were actually indefensible? Why would you not factor the most obvious cause for those replies in your take?
The pattern you are describing is just the standard fake admission of guilt from a covert (vulnerable) narcissist. It redirects the conversation and disarms the opposition, simply because they can't keep beating a dead horse (or sad puppy). Because a simple admission of fault without engaging with the true reasons behind the action, costs nothing and means even less.
By the way, on your line about what type of crazy, the most likely answer is multiple. But the one disorder that is the most obvious and the writer has actually name dropped in the game, is NPD. Which happens to fit like a glove the extremely toxic bond the writer wants to portray, since the dude is codependent. They are each other's tailor made drug.
On the few times she has been pressed to reveal why she keeps doing things she knows are wrong again and again, on rare occasions when MC dismantles a flimsy rationalization, she answers with "I can't answer you why". Because in a sense she can't. The game makes it extremely obvious she has self-destructive compulsions that she can't fully control. It even includes a shouting match with her own self for anyone who somehow hasn't gotten the memo in previous updates.
Since you like to examine how her past abuse might play a part on her current self and you claim you are looking for patterns, how come you didn't mention one of the most common for this type of thing? Which is an abused, growing to be an abuser.
If I remember right, that is only up to the point of the present. That is, up until we start the story of her return.
I don't think the "whole" story is his recount of everything under this perception, just the first part up until lacy returns to him. I could be wrong, but this is an issue of details of the dialogue.
Also, this doesn't say "don't believe", it says that recollects may not be accurate to an extent. That means nothing, it doesn't dismiss his account, nor does it bolster another view. It simply means, we don't know.
Careful to inject too much "perception" into the the story, and that is my entire point. Measure everything as they are given, change as new information presents itself, but don't inject (outside of pondering alternatives, which is perfectly fine)
Because that's not the sort of story this is. The dev tells us in the first minute of the game that we shouldn't confuse the MC's / Narrator's POV with truth. It IS an unreliable narrator story. I am truly stunned that people aren't interpreting it that way when the author tells us that we should read it that way.
The MC calls himself an incel when he has having a incel rage moment. In that case he was right - he was acting like an incel.
The most obvious is "family scapegoat" imo but you are right that the MC is also a narcissist. You cooould argue that Lacey is also one because there is a something very narcissistic about always accepting the blame but
Give me an example please. You are absolutely right this this a case study in self destruction - for both main characters - but I sincerely believe that Gristle's fatal flaw - the keystone of his personality - is his rampant, blatantly obvious misogyny and that fit hand in glove with Lacey's willingness to a be hate sink.
You absolutely right that these two are made for each other - but it's sadist-misogynist + masochist-scapegoat relationship.
Indeed the one person that might help Gristle - other than the therapist - is the mdom at the dungeon. He could teach gristle to acknowledge his sadistic desires and to reign them in. But, tragically, jealousy prevents him from learning what that master can teach.
Good point. That might be Gristle's story. I mean the dev tells us he has PTSD. From what? What caused him to become the worthless shit that he is?
Last edited:
No.
This is not just a case of walks like a duck and quacks like a duck ergo a duck. It's "walks like a duck and quacks like a duck and person who wrote the story tells us it's a duck"
It's an unreliable narrator story.
There's so many theories, but I want to jump in on the whole MC is the Monster thing and say I fully support this hypothesis - my evidence (and sorry if this has been pointed out already).
When the AI video is shown, the monster tells the MC to go directly to Christine. This (at least to me is because the MC already suspects its AI (he works in the tech field after all))
The monster tells the MC this because the MC is already aware that Christine would spot it as a deep fake and would be able to point this out to the MC.
It's almost like he's talking to an alter that he just isn't aware off is himself.
Also, as established in ACT 1, the MC is able to use technology to text himself (the servers text him when they have faults))
Happy to be wrong, but There's more evidence that supports this - though the link to Veronica in Act3 does throw a slight spanner into the theory, but I guess that can be explained due to the unreliable narrator plot device.
When the AI video is shown, the monster tells the MC to go directly to Christine. This (at least to me is because the MC already suspects its AI (he works in the tech field after all))
The monster tells the MC this because the MC is already aware that Christine would spot it as a deep fake and would be able to point this out to the MC.
It's almost like he's talking to an alter that he just isn't aware off is himself.
Also, as established in ACT 1, the MC is able to use technology to text himself (the servers text him when they have faults))
Happy to be wrong, but There's more evidence that supports this - though the link to Veronica in Act3 does throw a slight spanner into the theory, but I guess that can be explained due to the unreliable narrator plot device.
AL.d
Engaged Member
- Sep 26, 2016
- 2,023
- 6,477
- 792
lol. What do these word mean. Forget who wrote them what do they mean:
"Remember the MC is also the narrator"
"And just because he says something, that doesn't make it true"
"He's just as unreliable as any other human being"
"Go easy on him though, he's dealing with own mental health issues"
"And like anybody who has these issues, will sometimes make unhealthy decisions"
Just to remind you that even with an unrealiable narrator, it does not mean they are *always* unrealiable. Only that some of what they tell you cannot always be taken as truthful.
To throw out everything you read as lies is to miss the idea, that even an unreliable narrator can tell the truth sometimes - though when that truth is told to us is not always obvious... almost like.. it's.. unreliable
I will admit however the Dev uses the same words at the start of his other games, so I initially just took it as a stock 'text before the game' instead of it actually being a used literary device.
Which I guess, just makes things more interesting.
To throw out everything you read as lies is to miss the idea, that even an unreliable narrator can tell the truth sometimes - though when that truth is told to us is not always obvious... almost like.. it's.. unreliable
I will admit however the Dev uses the same words at the start of his other games, so I initially just took it as a stock 'text before the game' instead of it actually being a used literary device.
Which I guess, just makes things more interesting.
AL.d
Engaged Member
- Sep 26, 2016
- 2,023
- 6,477
- 792
It means that most of the things you are referring to, do not exist in this game. Only in your unique and quite nonsensical version of it.
Also the unreliable narrator mechanic doesn't apply to everything you see on screen. The dev gives obvious clues for reality breaks. Not even that subtle. And there are plenty of situations and convos provided, that aren't shown from MC's PoV but corroborate what we do see from his PoV. Is every single character of this game delusional in your unique version of it?
I'm giving you d minus for reading comprehension.
That is true. The point is that "when in doubt, the woman is at fault" is a sexist trope that both MC's have accepted and internalized. So there is pattern
Yes. They are all insane in different ways and I have guesses as to the diagnoses for each. Are you really going to deny that Christine has daddy issues?