I love how despite how close to comprehensive this video is, you still pointed to more recommended viewing, like you're not going to pretend that you've said everything there is to say about this game. huge respect
I think the point of the Confusion ending is actually that the Narrator *cannot* make meaningful choices. As a part of the game, any apparent "choice" he might make is simply part of the game's script, and the "confusion" of the ending's name actually refers to the narrator confusing the boundary of his role and the player's, resulting in him becoming the one making the choices that progress the story - which, of course, can only ever lead the story down an entirely linear, predetermined path, because the game can never actually choose between two options, only act like it is. We can see this brought into clearest relief with the penultimate room, in which the narrator forces the player to simply walk in circles while he decides which door to go through - except his logic is clearly absurd and each door turns out to lead to the exact same place, meaning that his choice was completely meaningless (In fact, his logic does make sense, but only for a narrator - whichever door he happens to pick is "correct", because it's the one that leads where you're going). That's then exactly what we see in the room - every apparent choice he had made was pre-scripted and set in advance, and that's exactly what he complains about - "That's all this is? One giant ending? ... That's really how all this goes? It's all... determined?". It's also tied into the Narrator's musings on journeys and destinations - does the meaning of a destination change depending on whether there was a meaningful decision made to select it in the first place? I think it's also relevant that the sound effect that plays at the very end is the same as at the ending of the Stanley Parable demo, when the demo "breaks". That suggests that the narrator, in his confusion of his role in the story, finally actually does manage to make a choice not written in the ending schedule, and in doing so similarly breaks the narrative construct of the game, forcing it to restart. Also, I don't think you give the Minecraft and Portal segments enough credit. They essentially serve as caveats for the game's themes - when the narrator complains about Minecraft being too open-ended, the game is telling the player "okay, there are some games that don't have the kind of narrative structure we're really talking about here, where you can make fairly open decisions about what you want to do". Similarly, Portal is the exact opposite - a game where the narrator is always in control and the player has no input beyond continuing to go forwards. The game wants you to know that it's talking about a particular type of game, where the player and story interact, and that not all games fall into the parable it's telling. When the player falls into the old map, it's so dark precisely because the game wants the player to be lost and baffled - the story is what gives the game context, and now the narrator has left, all the player can do is wander around in the dark with no idea what they're supposed to be doing. As the narrator says when you pick the blue door, "You see? There's nothing here." It's saying that, while there is always conflict between what a player might want to do and what the story or gameplay systems allow, ultimately, the player has to be willing to go along with the limits of the game if he wants his actions to be acknowledged by the game and to have meaning within it - it's definitely no coincidence that this is the ending you get to when you make every "disobey" choice possible.
Excellent looks at these parts, if I ever do a followup video on Ultra Deluxe your points here are definitely going to be brought up, because this is really smart, especially your view of the Gaming ending
Indeed, the Narrator implies he's the author of the story, but really, he's as much a character as Stanley is- he didn't create the Stanley Parable anymore then the words in a book wrote themselves.
Okay, I'll try to explain 47:57. In simpler terms, The Narrator is saying that the nature of reality only exists within the personal observation of sentient beings. No beings to observe= no nature of reality (look up "solipsism"). Now, The Narrator has consciousness. He himself is an observer. But for the Narrator to be able to observe, he has to, well, exist. And the very nature of his existence is that he is only exists within the office (or the game itself; he doesn't exist in real life). But the nature of his existence is only a thing because Stanley is there to observe the office. Stanley, in his own perception, is creating the nature of The Narrator purely because he is there. No Stanley to observe office = No Narrator. With that being said, the Narrator then asks if the office itself is his own consciousness. I personally can't answer that. The Narrator can either exist within the office (separate from him) and Stanley perceives both of them, OR The Narrator IS the office, which is perceived by Stanley the same way. I hope I made it clear lol
Aha, you even mentioned Stanley and The Narrator's shared knowledge. The Narrator can only see what Stanley sees because The Narrator only exists within Stanley's senses
I think the idea of the game is that there really is no comprehensive interpretation. It's a game that fixates on choice but all of your choices are taken away from you. It's like the game doesn't understand its own message sometimes, and that's by design. I also find it very strange that it's by obeying the voice completely that Stanley escapes mind control. Interesting, considering he just obeyed all of the directions to get there. Is he really free?
I love the line "come Stanley, Our Destiny Awaits," followed by literally the destiny that the rest of the ending SHOULD be going on. Neat touch in the writing department
Something I would like to add about the Confusion Ending is that on the first fake restart, the fade in that usually happens when you restart is present, due to the fact the player doesn't know that the restart is fake. Once it's revealed that something is up, all future restarts don't have the fade-in, due to the fact that it's obvious that this is part of a continued ending.
This is the best Stanley Parable analysis that I see so far, I love this game, I first played 5 years ago, completed blind about what is was, and I never wanted so bad, to see all the content in a game, It was incredebly captivating , after spend many hour and found many secrets by myself, I will confess that in the end I cheated and look some stuff online, things like the console and the escape pod ending. But after I did everthing I was still not done, I have the feeling of missing something, I wasnt able to be done with the game even that the game have anything else to offer. I start to watch gameplays, comparing other peoples playthrough to my one, I was incredible corious how many different ways people would play this game, what happend in every playthrough, what was unic to mine, and what are unic to them, see what was people reaction and theories about this unexpected game, but after all that became repetitive, I start to see more reviews, interviews of the creators, things to learn more about the reasons of things the game, why every choice is a choice and why is good, but I never see any review that completed fill my expetations and thoughts of the game, I was still feeling I was missing somethings, not that every analysis that I see was bad, I like a bunch and they built up to my view of the game, but only now, 5 years later I think a found a analysis that I feel complete and tackle the parts that I wanted. TL;DR: Thanks for your incredible analysis PS: the most ironic part is that I fannily done with the game, but very soon I will play more, when the Deluxe version realese. PS2: Sorry if my bad grammar, make it difficult to you understand me, English isnt my first language, but I feel like I need to thanks anyway.
my take on the existence of “wrong choices” like in the museum ending and the free choice ending is that the game not only has a game and a metagame, but something below the base game, or an infragame so to speak. the infragame being what the narrator is allowed to control and what he expects to be possible, the game itself is what the game actually allows you to do, and the metagame being the game as a file on your computer. the game itself can change and shift without the narrator’s influence as seen in the confusion ending, which ironically makes the “metanarrator” as described in the narrator, while the “narrator” is more of an infranarrator. it also explains the dichotomy of stanley, the player, and the controller, as stanley is the infragame, the player is the game, and the controller is the metagame god this game is so good
I really love rewatching this video. Not only it gave me more reasons to like The Stanley Parable even more, but also it is a great help for my Master’s thesis I’m currently writing on art and video games. I have quoted your video several times in a chapter about The Stanley Parable and it is only appropriate to thank you for being an awesome source!
1:09:52 I don't think the point the game was making is that choices become meaningless within the game, rather that things like a brutal death "you" are experiencing, or actions you're made to feel guilty for, and such, can easily lose a lot of their impact with the knowledge that you're experiencing preset paths.
I’ve actually seen many TH-camrs and people I know quite enjoy the gaming ending despite its narrative disconnect, I feel like it’s disconnect might be purposeful in tricking the player’s understanding of the purpose of the game and also In order to play into the topic of the ending, game developers struggling to understand what players want, which is what the developers of the game greatly struggled with
Have you noticed, if you click your mouse anywhere it makes a keyboard click noise. This could be that the Stanley parable could be in th emend of Stanley and his own self awareness and whenever you click that is Staley irl doing his job.
I think the first ending, the Gaming Ending, works more to establish the TONE than to establish the gameplay. When I first played this game, I was absolutely mesmerized by it. I think it works perfectly for what it's trying to be, which is to establish the tone to a new player, rather than the gameplay.
34:50 something else I wanted to talk about here, the apartment ending where narrator asks you to not push a button next time when asked for. I made a streamer I watch regularly play this game, and when he got to this point in the game, he literally just stopped. he left the headset at the pc, went on his bed [which was shown on the webcam] and just did nothing 5 minutes straight. I'm not joking. and then he started browsing his phone, probably open up chat to see if I said anything. this guy wanted so badly to prove that he can just not do what he's asked for that he refuses to move forward. this was one of his first endings. he eventually did get back on the game after a while, but this moment made him not want to play that much, as a result he never went for any small ending like out-of-bounds one or any other small ending/"ending". although gotta say they appreciated the broom closet ending I'm trying to think rn if the game should've given you a voice line if you refused to push anything for 10 minutes or so... because this time the game really gives you nothing and just guilts you [and betrays you since once you disobey the narrator twice at the start of the game, if you listen to him right away, he just does this]
Honestly, TSP really seems like it missed a lot of those kind of opportunities. It's not like the game never gives the player narrator lines (or at least something substantial) for doing something (or nothing) for a long stretch of time. There's an ending that requires four hours of constant button pushing, which is only "worth it" to hear the narrator's occasional commentary (as the ending itself is quite a bore, and is underwhelming). The narrator (in certain locations) also will acknowledge you standing around doing nothing (so the precedent is definitely there). Keeping all that in mind, I don't think it's unreasonable whatsoever for the game to provide some kind of variation (or some form of acknowledgement) in the narrator's lines to reflect the player's refusal to act. Even if the player has to do nothing for a whole hour, that would be better than what we got. Besides, an hour of doing nothing is small time compared to getting the art ending.
Ok, slight critism of the third reason in the "reasons games don't need meaningful choices" bit, and a mistake I'm especially confused by considering you literally just talked about how Undertale handled this exact kinda thing; You don't need to make the choices limited by some arbitrary number. You just need to make the choices permanent. As I implied, Undertale does this brilliantly; you are given every chance to stop the genocide run while playing, right up to the very end, where you can actually just stop and quit the game if you don't want to kill flowey (which, as you established, is in fact a real option). But if you don't... Your game is forever marred. No matter how much you reset, how much you try and try again, no matter how many times you pacifist the game, the game will never let you forget that you did that, by forever marring your happy ending. An ending that even extends into Deltarune. Now, of course, you could do a full uninstall and clean install, but that is also a choice, and not one you'll forget. Because the game won, abd the only way for you to win is to delete the universe of the game, in the meta and literal senses. This leaves the choice to kill Flowey, the choice to complete the run and see all the content, as impactful in the very real way Narrator 2 electric boogaloo was implying. That is it. That is my only critique of this two hour video, a segment that lasted less then two seconds. For shame. I can't believe you'd be so careless.
This game is so interesting, I would say that it's somewhat poetic. By making it about itself, it became a tool that doesn't just dissect and deconstruct its own premises, but a tool that refers to all other games and more. This reminds me of the power and paradoxes that often arise from self-referencing (like "The next sentence is true. The previous sentence is false"). Your video has definitely inspired me to think more about this game from different angles, after already seeing quite a few other interpretations of it. There are just so many "conclusions" one can pull out of this game. Is this game about whether we the players are the ones playing the games, or is it that the games are playing (manipulating) us the players? Overt hinting at the possibility of hurting yourself to get different dialogues to encourage such behavior; using a competitive leaderboard to manipulate player's psychology into investing more time into an otherwise lacking game; removing the storytelling and narrative aspect of a game which can be argued to have been borrowed from cinema and literature, to expose the bare mechanics of the game in the Art Ending, to show that in order for a game to be engaging, it needs to please/stir up/manipulate the player's emotions; etc. Is this game about free will vs. determinism? The entire game is based on what happens when you seemingly disobey your "fate" by exercising your free will, only to realize that (almost) every choice you thought to be free were all anticipated or even pre-determined. I especially like the narrator's lines at the end of the Confusion Ending: "How would we even know? Will someone come for us? Will something happen?" We who perceive ourselves as free entities, were dropped into this universe without any (obvious) purposes or guides. Once we finally find our goals, make up our minds, complete our paths, follow our fates to their ends or break free from our fates, will there be a way for us to know if we've done well? Or taken from another angle: do gods exist (that "someone" that might come for us, let us "know", and make "something" happen) or are we truly alone? Is this game about the role of authorities in our life? How should we balance between our own thoughts and opinions, and the guidance or expectations from society, our family, the education system, our friends, etc.? In the game, if we follow the narrator completely, we end up with a false freedom. If we completely rebel against it and even make extra efforts (by jumping off the platform onto the otherwise inaccessible corridor), we realize that there does need to be a voice to wrap up our experience, a reference point to which we can organize our thoughts about the chaotic world. All other paths in this game exist in between these two extremes. The Explosion Ending is what happens when we disobey at the last moment in hope of gaining control, but it seemed to be too late. The Confusion Ending is by disobeying, then obeying, then disobeying. It is a mix of the two extremes, a compromise, and hence the game showed its most overtly paradoxical ending, possibly to illustrate the paradox between these two? The Escape Pod Ending and the Gaming Ending show that we need the narrator to go forward. The Free Choice Ending shows that the narrator needs us. The Museum Ending shows that we need each other. So perhaps there lies or answer. Finally, as you have beautifully illustrated at the end of the video, "the end is never the end." This is true of this game, but isn't it true about everything in this world? Things we experience have lasting impacts on us, and things we do have lasting impacts on the world. Questions with definite answers are few and between. Most questions can never have a definitive, best answer or solution, it's just impossible. So perhaps we should treat them with more open-mindedness, never being so confident in a certain view and become reluctant to discussion or change. Or on a similar line as what you have said, we shouldn't try to label everything with a definition, a tag, a conclusion, a QED. These things might simplify our life and our thoughts, but they can also blocks us from further insights if we are to mistakenly take these artificial constructs as identical to the the original, thus flattening the richness that exists in the world.
I saw the lack in the gaming ending was on purpose. The game is very... Hateful? Of video games. Discouraging the player from exploration IS the point! Especially if you consider how this is what happens if you never listen to the narrator! It's as if it's him saying "look how unrewarding exploration is! Better listen to me from now on!" Just my observation.
Oh this is actually a really smart take. It's like the part in the "unfinished map section" taken to subtext level, where the game is showing you what you wanted to see so badly, the unfinished rooms and places and spites you for wanting this nothing. Great interpretation
I finally watched this to prepare for the release of Ultra Deluxe, and this might be the most satisfying take on the game I've ever seen. It was a long, winding journey and worth every bit of it, much like the experience of the game itself - thank you so much for helping me reignite my excitement for this game
13:35 here you talk about the gaming ending, the last segment where you just walk in dark rooms of the original stanley parable map, you claim that they serve no meaning but just to stretch the ending. I disagree, I got 6-7 of my friends to play the game and I watched them do all the endings each, their initial reaction, how do they decide on choices, and so on. I learnt a lot of game design and other things from this, and regarding this segment I mentioned earlier, I believe it's purpose was to be creepy, at least half of the people I watched got a little terrified or spooked. sometimes I would poke fun at them and tell them that there may be a jumpscare. people I watched with low horror game tolerance [including myself] were kind of unsettled. I can tell you that it's supposed to be somewhat creepy.... but I can't tell you why or what they achieved, I am just saying the reaction I saw a lot of people have, which is something you didn't fully cover I agree when you said that it's a bit disappointing that there's missing content on the second rating, and that it's frustrating to try to see all the dialogue options, however in my experiment, nobody actually wanted to replay to see the other voice lines when reviewing, even those who wanted to 100% and looked up secrets and stuff online. another little note on this ending, in the experiment I ran, I think absolutely everyone were really amazed when they saw the minecraft segment, they were very hyped and as intended they thought it's more to it than it actually is. It was a welcoming surprise to say the least, even if you can't interact much. 2 of those people were visibly disappointed when it ended, but for most it ended before they reached the end of the last tunnel so they thought it'd be more to it if they explored more, so that left a nice mark on them
I immediately heard the Machinarium soundtrack in the background as you explain further your discoveries regarding the Confusion Ending, I am truly overjoyed!!! Tis such a little old gem of a game
I've always found it interesting how this game manages to be both silly but also thought provoking at the same time. Like sure, you have other games and stuff that balance comedy and commentary but The Standly Parable seems to be able to do both at the same time. A lot of the jokes make you think and the more you think, the more funny it becomes in concept. This truley is a Stanley Parable
I think the line at 18:15 means that since what the narrator is saying is based around what Stanley thinks of the office, then what the narrator thinks about him is not only something he knows, but also, that would mean that Stanley is thinking that he is thinking about something which he has no way of knowing would matter in the first place. So in a weird way, it would apply to when a character in a game finds out about something, he really always knew, as that was in the code of the game, although I'm not completely sure.
Watched this video while I was considering a choice between getting a degree in Quantum Physics or Philosophy. It's really very good, and had a profound impact on me. Anyways, let me tell you about spooky action at a distance...
Quantum Physics is by far the wiser choice in terms of getting a job and making a career out of it, as a degree in philosophy is appearantly quite useless whilst a degree in quantum physics is definitely something that is appricated in a scientist. Though that's just me, a stranger on the internets opinion, so still do think about it and choose what's best for you 😄
@@Minisquix-vc2rn Your advice is sound and there would be more money in an advanced degree in quantum mechanics, an advanced degree in philosophy isn't quite worthless - especially if you want to get into teaching (at the collegiate level in the US). Or even writing. It just depends on the ultimate goal of the degree and future plans!
@@staceyann1180 Indeed! Insight like you are providing here is why I wrote "appearantly useless", as I just relayed what I've heard, but clearly there is a reason for it's existance, I was simply unowing of what that was. Thanks for enlightening me 😄
1:19:11 here you talk about the "free choice" ending. if you pick door on the right, game breaks. once it fully breaks and rewinds time, if you go on the door of the right again, it will rewind everytime. here you mentioned that you can do this forever.... and I wanna mention that the same streamer I mentioned in one of the other comments that I made to play the game, they legit went on the right door every single time and rewinded a bunch of times..... the thing is, after the 3rd or 4th time, the game legit crashed somehow... and that was terrible, cuz the player didn't get to see what happened if he did pick the left door. so he went back to do it, but it was quite a drag, listening to that strange unskippable commercial again, walking all the way and... they did do it, but it was a pain for them and for me cuz of this. There's not much to take out of it, except that, there's a small chance if you keep going on the right you do crash, and there's an extremely small chance that that's intended and it's kind of like an ending I don't see listed anywhere. While talking about this bug, I've found a ton of bugs when watching people play. mainly on the "escape pod" ending, if you spam click to open doors as fast as possible, which is 2/3 of the players who I watched did, if you spamm click the door leading directly to the initial 2-doors choice, it will open, close, then get locked [and the area in front of you literally despawns, I checked with noclip] and you are literally soft-locked until restart. Also in the "museum" ending, there's a specific spot that if you go through, there's just a 50 50 chance to crash, and that spot is very close to where you're supposed to go and the crash typically happens after exploring the museum for some time.
Hi so, according to you I did something nobody else did and quit during the apartment ending, I don't think I count though because the game bugged and the commands to press buttons didn't show up, still it means I got an extra ending and I'm pretty happy about it.
I very much disagree with the assertion that the "games ending" is the one most people will go for on their first try. While the two initial disobediences are easy to spot and execute, the "jump off the moving platform on to the seemingly decorative railing is quite a leap of logic. Even after that, the first time I got to the red/blue door situation I didn't realize that the third blue door actually excited, instead thinking it's a joke on the fact that the narrator no longer gives you the choice and was only clued into it with the first line of the zending. The ending I think is the one people go for first is the phone ending. You ride the elevator up while the narrator talks to you, you don't notice the phone cord, you don't realize you can quit. The path of least resistance with low conformity. The path where the narrator is straight up hostile to you.
Actually, the light in the phone room sways back and forth, revealing the plug at the back of the room. You might not (at first) realize you can quit, but I don't think it would be a stretch to assume that some people would notice the fact that the phone is plugged in. And I'm guessing that movement of the lighting was intentional in order to highlight this choice (even if you don't realize that you can interact with it).
I think one aspect you didn't really get into in the Games ending is that its very much a pretty deliberate taunt of the player. I think going against and disrespecting the narrator so many times is supposed to be kinda analogous to behavior like... Really stubbornly trying to glitch your way into a room you aren't supposed to go into, when it's obvious that's not meant to be part of the game just because you want to know if you can. Something I've personally done with that one gate in New Vegas just to get... A bunch of default textures on the other side. So the game taunts you for it, gives you a third door that goes nowhere, puts you at the bottom of the leaderboard, asks you to complete a tedious and annoying task to see "Real art" to get what amounts to just a congratulations screen. Until finally it asks "If you didn't want to actually play the game, why are you still here? Why aren't you playing other games?" Shows you a more open ended game that you could be playing before cutting it off. Open world games not really your thing? Well here's a fun linear game you could be playing instead, and then takes everything away. But the player stubbornly sticks it out so you get what the result of doing something like trying to get to an area in a game where you're not supposed to be... A bunch of boring stand-in textures that you can't really interact with. Stanley's fate of getting stuck there meant to be a sort of karmic punishment. For the game to finally pull the plug and say "You know, you need to acknowledge the boundaries a game sets for you because you need some boundaries to actually play a game."
I think the most meta aspect about this game is that people who play this game and commentate on it become meta-narrators themselves and create a ceaseless dialog of the Stanley Parable, thus ensuring the game never runs out of things to say about itself.
Zending and the out of bounds ending brought me to tears. I know that's corny to say about a video game that makes so many gags they become the main "plot" but this game made me shed tears for the narrator. He sounds so distressed when you leave the zending room, I almost couldn't bring myself to kill Stanley because I wanted the narrator to be happy. And in the out of bounds ending, he sounds so legitimately concerned and upset in his tone and choice of wording, it gets to me everytime I here him plead to Stanley with "so... You hear me?" 🥲
The thing is, if you just hit the restart button from the pause menu, it achieves (in function) everything that the suicide option does; it's just the narrator doesn't have time to be sad, and you don't get to hear his depressed commentary. Just something I thought about the other day, which I find really undercuts the effect of what the ending is trying to go for.
It's also important to remember that the Metanarrator is a character in the story, like the narrator. And I think she's meant to be wrong. I think it's very important that the Museum Ending takes place in a museum. A place where people go to look at things without interacting with them. But Museums are still important. Museums have a purpose and should exist even if you aren't affecting anything.
As for that confusing line about subjective mental experience by the Narrator around 47:20: "If my experience of your existence rests inside of your subjective experience of this office, is this office, in fact, the skeleton of my own relative experimental mental subjective construct?" Now people have other good ideas in this comments section I recommend you read, but I think I got something coherent by tying it in with the talk of journeys. He said that the journey (subjectively, at least) "creates" a destination, now he seems to point out the lack of any outside frame of reference for the office ("my experience of your existence rests inside of your subjective experience of this office"), and so wonders if the office could have been created for their journey (this could also be read as the narrator almost getting meta), he specifically wonders if it's actually inside his own mind ("is this office, in fact, the skeleton of my own relative experimental mental subjective construct?"). I don't know how strong of an analysis this is, but I feel like it makes the most sense as a direct continuation of his train of thought. (It also seems possible the narrator doesn't really understand either, based off of him saying "that got a bit weird there", and not following up, though whether that means he did actually construct a meaningful idea but didn't really understand (relatable), or he just got a bit lost in existentialism is up to interpretation.)
This is a really good take on this! I'm glad people are still willing to also dig deep into this line that's meant to be "the silly confusing one" because its just really cool and introspective
It is not everyday that I get an existential crisis by a video game commentary video, but my god this made me stare at a wall for half an hour and just, blink like a gasping fish on land. What an amazing analysis!!!
The only truly rebellious ending is jumping off the tower in the screen room, since that was a bug and thus, the only action a player can take that the game devs didn’t want.
I really enjoyed this video , very high quality , I wish you spent more time talking about the cold feet ending and how the narrator essentially challenges you to fall to your characters death , and the implications of “soft” “endings “ like the broom closet and white board ending
@@BoogsNStuff That's still a real leap in logic. If a player saw his video than yeah they might go for that ending but for a totally blind player who just got the game on a whim with no context for it. Its really unlikely it would be their first ending given how very specific it is to pull off.
I know it's 1 year late, but I watched boogs video responding to comments and found your comment. I ran some sort of analysis of watching 6-7 of my friends play the game. The most common ending people got by far was actually the gaming ending. I think 4 people just picked it up right away. the rest picked museum ending, freedom ending and apartment ending, from what I remember. I did this about 4 years ago, so I don't remember much, but I definitely remember people actually going for the gaming ending, first run. Keep in mind I didn't interact with them in any way, during their first endings so I wouldn't influence them. In the rare case you are curious about this stuff, for whatever reason, I have a bunch of note somewhere about it. I wish I would've recorded and made it into a ytb video because the findings were extremely interesting
14:53 Why are you so convinced that it's 'Missing' content? Did any of the devs mention it? Were there leftover unused quotes in the code?? It's the Narrator belittling Stanley by ignoring his opinion. That's it.
Absolutely have to revisit this game now. I'd seen pretty much everything it had to offer and nothing in this video was really news to me, but it was immensely enjoyable remembering everything this game did. Seeing you compile everything, however, double-backing and countering counterarguments to your counterarguments made my head spin. Good job keeping track of everything! First video I've seen from you but I really enjoyed it, well done. My head hurt
So this really long bit you do around the "Free Choice" ending and how it is to hard to get and all, which can create issues for the player. It was literally my first ending and idk what that says about me, though honestly I don't find it to crazy to find. The light lamp highlights the cord and my eyes were pulled insteantly to that option. idk because of that I just find your point a bit weaker.
The claim that the Gaming ending will be most players' first ending is debatable. I don't think most players would think to jump onto the catwalk in their first playthrough, and some players, especially with the console re-release, might experience stick drift or accidentally tap their joystick, resulting in the powerful ending instead
I love the “right door” joke. I always understood it as “will taking the right (correct) door lead us to our destination? Yes! So the door on the right must be the correct one.”
The Stanley Parable is a story that really only can be told through the medium of video games. Well, perhaps you could re-create something like it in a "Choose-Your-Own-Adventure" book, but even that is far more limited.
The narrator is the game developer. He is taking the opportunity to mess with you. He does this in a way that is just entertaining and witty enough to keep you playing. I think you are meant to see an analogy to the real world. The real world in which people play computer games all day.
I just wanted to say that the music does not loop forever in the out of bounds ending. It takes roughly 5 minutes but the guitar strings (power down). After which you are met with only silence until you do restart. Also, your assertion that you will never find the free choice ending because the plug is so hidden out of sight is missing vital information when actually playing the game. For example, the picture you posted at 1:28:28 does make it seem like it's so out of the way that people would never find it. However you're missing the fact that the light is swinging, in the game when the light is swinging your eyes naturally follow to see what it reveals. If you look around the room nothing is revealed except for that plug, and it is continuously swinging continuously revealing that very same plug repeatedly until you either pick up the phone or unplug the plug. The game is constantly "revealing" that choice to you by swinging the light back, hiding the plug again, only to once again reveal it seconds later. Portal 2 does the exact same thing, despite the mass of underground areas you are in for half the game, where your objective is on the complete opposite side of the map you still know that's what you're supposed to be because that particular area is lit up. The light guides you much like how the light guided us to that plug. There is actually a video about this that I am no longer able to find. It was something like "How Portal 2 guides the player" or "How Valve guides the player". Regardless, it had some pretty neat ideas in there and I wish I could have linked it.
Can't wait to see what people have to say in addition to the Stanley Parable Ultra Deluxe's content. Isn't that what we want? More content? It's always more more more!
I don't know if anyone else as mentioned this, (this video is 3 years old, surely people know by now), but the song the Narrator plays by saying that you *are* sick of this gag in the OoB ending *does* actually end. The narrator plays the song to completion with lyrics, then 2 more times as a guitar (or ukulele or whatever he is playing) solo then a string breaks and the song stops playing.
I think that the freedom ending being the only good ending is meant to be commentary on how the canon ending In multiple ending games is usually the "good ending". This whole game is a commentary on video game storytelling as a whole.
i really disagree w the idea that the Gaming Ending is missing content. the Narrator’s responses to the second 1-5 rating are all the same because he’s simply distracted. your answer doesn’t matter because he just wants to show you this other thing he did, rather than listen. if we’re continuing the metaphor, I guess one could liken it to when devs ignore player feedback or even double down when given critique. unless I’ve misremembered something from the first game (im p sure it plays out the same way there?), or maybe I’ve just rly misunderstood, I don’t see any evidence that something is missing here. Anyway, I don’t see any issue with the Narrator being audible despite us being away from Stanley. he’s omniscient and omnipresent. it’s cartoon logic. But now I’m curious to know which ending ppl statistically tend to get first. I got the Self-Destruct ending first and I would’ve thought the Games and/or Art Ending would’ve come in far, or at least not the very first or second ending one gets. tho maybe I’m assuming based on nothing but my own experience
with the gaming ending, im pretty sure its so long because they knew that would be a lot of players' first endings, seeing as people like to defy the narrator so much, making it longer and adding those references would make people more intrigued and want to play more endings, the questions that arise are simply answered by "hes the narrator" he narrates stuff, he isnt anywhere, hes just narrating whats happening
I think the line starting at 47:58 means that the Narrator is experiences Stanley's existence as the subjective/opinionated version of their experience in their office building and the Narrator is questioning if the office is what is left of a construct of his experience of Stanley's existence. More simply put, the office is a manisfestation of memories the Narrator has left of what he knew of Stanley. (Past here is very theoretical and how I interpret it) Perhaps meaning the Narrator created the game to mourn the loss of his friend Stanley and wants to guide Stanley to freedom because he wants to help his friend to be happy because he couldn't help them before they died.
I guess that you wanted to contradict the narrator but didn't realize that jumping onto the lower platform was an option? It's still amazing that you got it first but it's really isn't as hard to find as he said it was. I mean the game plopping you with a huge, blatant "listen to the narrator"? Obviously you want to keep messing with him and there's an obvious plug.
@@Jann75 I didn't even realize that picking up the phone was an option XD I guess because it didn't register my keystroke. But yeah, sticking with the rout that platform was going looked too obvious and I saw that door on the side. I'm one of those people who tries to break the game when she can.
the gaming ending was my favirote ending cause it felt....cozy? being in other games I've played. Kinda like being in bed while it rains. A nice warm feeling alongside some funny dialogue
I mean when I played the very first ending I got was the Freedom Ending, I guess I’m different from a lot of gamers cos my instinct is to start by following the rules of a game to see what experience the developers intended before starting to fuck around and push the boundaries
Not sure why this video showed up only after Ultra Deluxe came out when I was looking for analysis videos but better late than never. Hope you make an update video for the new game.
Because this is youtube and someone says in a video that they do not know why this part is here... I must make myself clear that I am smarter. So at 13:00 that map is proof that the narrator hasn't started with making this game and played it over and over and over ect. It overlaps with the mind control startup ending since they both prove the same point when the narrator confesses about co-workers. Everyone must think I am very powerful. This is likely gonna be a chain so I apologize.
Not 100% following on what you mean by "played it over and over". Do you mean he keeps playing an unfinished game over and over as opposed to finishing it? Would love to hear more about this idea, since I couldn't think of a reason for this segment
Well actually, think of al of the games that seem they just won't go away. This is because of fan-created content. Undertale, if I'm not mistaken fits this. Portal is another glaring example of this. Any of the games with various modded maps and so on. I wonder if this particular games hasn't had several mods by not. Therefore "The End is never the end" holds true indeed.
I Disagree with the "Free Choice" Ending being too hidden. When you already did the office ending, you are ANGRY at the narrator for lying to you, so when you come back to that ending, you look around the room for any way to go agaist picking that phone up out of spite. That is when you find the cord and pull it out. Even pewdiepie found this ending, man.
Ok, I don't get it, you claim this is not a review of any sort, and the very first segment of the video is directly complaining about 'missing content' and how much the player *enjoys* this ending, which you promptly assume off the top that most people will get first just because you think most people have this sort of rebellious streak in them. What gives?
criticism does not a review make! my claim that this isn't a review are because this isn't a way to judge whether the stanley parable is worth your money, and that the video isn't something to watch before experiencing the entirety of the game. criticism is not limited to reviews alone
What if *we* are the narrator? In control of what's going on, and able to hear the narrator at the end of the Gaming ending despite the Narrator being away from Stanley, I think maybe that's a nice new theory that could be fleshed out more by someone who cares to follow it
When ultra deluxe had branching path endings, would employ skip and reset button veriants and actually made sense, it would have been a good extension. Storytelling becomes unreliable when both the game and the player doesn't know what to do or what it wants. 12:54 suddenly stopping the game is just plain wrong they had the actual map in there. Dialogue they owned the sequence they had to rebuild, but given they have a habit of restricting paths by just extending a few guard rails, I would have accepted the true ending in the old style while midway breaking and then fading to black like the old one breaking apart following the original dialogue. Alternatively closing the door and waiting for a minute would fade to black aswell because it fits just way better. Or actually make a good ending out of it, not that hard it's a source to source port. 15:02 Exploration leading to dissapointment could have been improved but it's not their fault for not having a skip button. Of course they add it then not use it because you know their game and all that modern art subjectives, opinions. 16:36 gotta mention that aswell. 18:36 not enough branching choices or annoying waiting times to go through, except the password but you need to have played another ending through there first. Having a story be interrupted by something would be far more dissatisfying than following a told story. 21:53 couldn't be done in the extension because for some reason you're having a text guy take control of the narroator taking control of you taking control of stanley. 23:21 passing over an important dialogue about control. 26:52 never indicates the restart button, like it should, but you're pulled out without getting a hint if it actually would blow up. Fixable by replacing the restart button with a detonate button but whoever got the idea of a restart button replacement made the skip button then got fired for adding something redicilous as a skip button. 37:05 restarting is even more punishing because you'd have to go back to find out what happens after you finished that part. And the appartment's not ending that well. I see you got to it at 38:10 nevermind then confusion ending is best ending. 43:28 does not discourage actually resetting, given if you like the narroator you can reset it for him, or have it just reset to the confusion ending again with him adding a nod that he remembered encountering that same room already. 44:17 by that point noone would reset though.49:00 not noticing that it is quite difficult to write a story with illusion of choice and even harder having the entertaining that you yourself aren't even in control of the illusion, nice experience you feel his enjoyment breaking rules. 50:43 not blacking out the hallways so the realisation hits a bit more delayed. 56:40 meanwhile the extension rips that schene away from you and calls it endings. The only way to curb expectations in a game that doesn''t make sense yet you can make sense of it and it's squandered. 57:56 automatic resetting there is insulting at least give a hint in the credits as they keep scrolling by that reset is the only option. 1:02:44 by adding the serious room they opened up the way to find holes in everything, never leave a debug option in your games if you care about context, deltarune. 1:03:56 insulting because of how you get there, without exploits like a vent hidden somewhere, and how it makes you question where the ending even happens. In addition to you having the experience of the being drawn to the crusher twice. It makes sense how it's structured it feels like they're 2 different endings you know the original crushed ending and a secret museum ending in a reset or whatever. 1:04:37 trailing over example how every choice should have been underlined, adding dialogue for backing out or backtracking both positive and negative encouragement because you know journey beats destination. 1:12:07 selecting "Quit" does not exist although given how it's structured I can say adding no features to restarting the game and then have you a choice of restarting the game would be insulting. Only reason for it is the survival fo stanley, that would be trapped in a cage. The main menu does not show stanley sitting in his office just you and the monitor bit of a wasted opportunity showing that returning to menu is a choice. 1:13:19 explains choice, not consequence. Of course 20/20 hinesight giving how deluxe ruined that ending explaining what choice is then not give choice is insulting. Meanwhile showing what consequence means shows any choice leads to consequence making the endings still weird but just a bit better. Same with explaining a joke how it managed to write the video just the wrong way it had to be intentional destructive to it's own message. The plug is a good choice if it had more plugs it would have more videos talking nosense (at least here it actually still makes sense somewhat) so maybe not drive in how you're the player then do nothing with it multiple times. The ending should actually not lead to new endings just bring you "back on track" and only break once you do it twice, while him remembering the phone somewhat. Deluxe does this but of course messes it up by removing the hallways and removing choice. 1:19:44 driving in sense into a one way street that gave you a choice going into the street, then showing you the importance of choice then you keep going into a one way street. Not deep just simple, fine although a bit insulting given you can't even say apple by jumping then crashing the game or whatever creative string you could have done there. 1:24:31 the game taunting actually having a choice by doing nothing, while not being in control. Have happy endings appearing randomly in rooms next to the office while you're shoehorned into ending paths. 1:28:39 Have not enough chefs in the kitchen, them drained of creatives ways of storytelling and because of fatigue not thinking of eventual alternate paths that could occur by having too much choice. 1:36:19 see the achievment list for how that's not correct, except when you're immortal then it makes sense it just takes a while. Joke feature but still. 1:37:50 or be naturally predisposed finding glitches and secrety therefore ruining the entire game by waiting in rooms for minutes expecting change, fine way to ruin the game if only either it tried to discourage it at least once.
47:58 Oh it's easy. The Narrator is basicly asking if he is part of Stanleys and the players experiences if they are also his own experiences. And if experiences are part of our existance by our existance and our self being being what we persive it to be would that mean that since theyr experiences are so similar theyr existences are also similar. Basiclly if I understand it correctly are the player, the narrator and Stanley by shearing one and the same experience the same being or are they seperate. To wich I say they are still seperate beings. While they are still experiencing the same chain of events they are experiencing them from three diffrend points of view assuming we think Stanley is sentient. That brings into play the three narrative options wich you have while writing you can have the first person perspective wich is what Stanley is experiencing. The outsiders perspective wich is when somebody seeing the action describes it and brings fourth theyr own opinions and feelings into it. And the all knowing perspective wich is bassicly the player by veing outside observer but also charakter alike we can know what the charakter feels, since we are basiclly the one who is the charakter at that point, while also seeing it from the outside. This explanation might be even more confusing than what the narrator sayed but.....maby I'm just cunfused about it and what I am saying is wrong. It might be all leading with the same conclusion wich brings up more questions about oneself: I think therefore I am. Or maby by frameing it in the context of the office he is trying to say that it all is part of his imagination?
This game gave me so much trippy feelings and creeped me out, I couldn't do more than a few endings because it was too heart wrenching. Please describe what the endings are and your analysis and dont tell me to walk through it again. it is a good game but mentally hurts to play!
Yes! It scares me to play it again, it's like a creepy existential dread bundled with a videogame (a self contained reality seen as fantasy) debating it's own existence and misery. Scary how something I point as fictional points back at me, pinching my chest with fear
With the advent of A.I the possibility for an infinite game that will generate new never before seen content completely narrated will destroy everything we understand about conventional story telling.
in my very first play through i did everything the narrator told me to . and in the next play through i did the full opposite of the narrator . having found the extremes of the game i tried different combinations of decisions to find the different endings
lol i guess im just special that gaming ending was one of the last ones i got, but then i didnt start with totally trying to spite the narrator, i just pushed him some so i got explosion first
i've been a fan of this game since i was a small little child and have never heard of the serious room until i watched this video. thanks boogs anyways good video i liked it but i didn't actually because no analysis of this game will ever be as good as raphael's
1:42:51 Gotta say, I appreciate Ultra Deluxe for removing this "Cheats" quandary, and especially for giving players the option to turn on Dog Mode right then and there.
The meaning is probably that all our choices change nothing at the end, we will all die someday, and we experience life without questioning anything, and when we do, we realise that life has no meaning, the free choice ending is when you eventually get to the bottom of meaning of life, there is none That’s just my take anyway
I love how despite how close to comprehensive this video is, you still pointed to more recommended viewing, like you're not going to pretend that you've said everything there is to say about this game. huge respect
definitely
WHY IS CONLANG MAN ON A VIDEO ABOUT THE SCOOBIS PARNABLE
This game is still fun to play 2 years later
THE MOST SUPERFICIAL COMMENTATOR ON CON-LANGUES SINCE THE IDIOTIC B GILSON LIKES TSP???
This comment has exactly 427 likes
I think the point of the Confusion ending is actually that the Narrator *cannot* make meaningful choices. As a part of the game, any apparent "choice" he might make is simply part of the game's script, and the "confusion" of the ending's name actually refers to the narrator confusing the boundary of his role and the player's, resulting in him becoming the one making the choices that progress the story - which, of course, can only ever lead the story down an entirely linear, predetermined path, because the game can never actually choose between two options, only act like it is. We can see this brought into clearest relief with the penultimate room, in which the narrator forces the player to simply walk in circles while he decides which door to go through - except his logic is clearly absurd and each door turns out to lead to the exact same place, meaning that his choice was completely meaningless (In fact, his logic does make sense, but only for a narrator - whichever door he happens to pick is "correct", because it's the one that leads where you're going). That's then exactly what we see in the room - every apparent choice he had made was pre-scripted and set in advance, and that's exactly what he complains about - "That's all this is? One giant ending? ... That's really how all this goes? It's all... determined?". It's also tied into the Narrator's musings on journeys and destinations - does the meaning of a destination change depending on whether there was a meaningful decision made to select it in the first place? I think it's also relevant that the sound effect that plays at the very end is the same as at the ending of the Stanley Parable demo, when the demo "breaks". That suggests that the narrator, in his confusion of his role in the story, finally actually does manage to make a choice not written in the ending schedule, and in doing so similarly breaks the narrative construct of the game, forcing it to restart.
Also, I don't think you give the Minecraft and Portal segments enough credit. They essentially serve as caveats for the game's themes - when the narrator complains about Minecraft being too open-ended, the game is telling the player "okay, there are some games that don't have the kind of narrative structure we're really talking about here, where you can make fairly open decisions about what you want to do". Similarly, Portal is the exact opposite - a game where the narrator is always in control and the player has no input beyond continuing to go forwards. The game wants you to know that it's talking about a particular type of game, where the player and story interact, and that not all games fall into the parable it's telling. When the player falls into the old map, it's so dark precisely because the game wants the player to be lost and baffled - the story is what gives the game context, and now the narrator has left, all the player can do is wander around in the dark with no idea what they're supposed to be doing. As the narrator says when you pick the blue door, "You see? There's nothing here." It's saying that, while there is always conflict between what a player might want to do and what the story or gameplay systems allow, ultimately, the player has to be willing to go along with the limits of the game if he wants his actions to be acknowledged by the game and to have meaning within it - it's definitely no coincidence that this is the ending you get to when you make every "disobey" choice possible.
Excellent looks at these parts, if I ever do a followup video on Ultra Deluxe your points here are definitely going to be brought up, because this is really smart, especially your view of the Gaming ending
Indeed, the Narrator implies he's the author of the story, but really, he's as much a character as Stanley is- he didn't create the Stanley Parable anymore then the words in a book wrote themselves.
Okay, I'll try to explain 47:57.
In simpler terms, The Narrator is saying that the nature of reality only exists within the personal observation of sentient beings. No beings to observe= no nature of reality (look up "solipsism"). Now, The Narrator has consciousness. He himself is an observer. But for the Narrator to be able to observe, he has to, well, exist. And the very nature of his existence is that he is only exists within the office (or the game itself; he doesn't exist in real life). But the nature of his existence is only a thing because Stanley is there to observe the office. Stanley, in his own perception, is creating the nature of The Narrator purely because he is there. No Stanley to observe office = No Narrator. With that being said, the Narrator then asks if the office itself is his own consciousness. I personally can't answer that. The Narrator can either exist within the office (separate from him) and Stanley perceives both of them, OR The Narrator IS the office, which is perceived by Stanley the same way.
I hope I made it clear lol
Aha, you even mentioned Stanley and The Narrator's shared knowledge. The Narrator can only see what Stanley sees because The Narrator only exists within Stanley's senses
This game went from "haha funni voice in weird office" to an existential crisis
@@MarcyRavenManji turnt up 100000 with one of the new endings too (i realize that the comment was posted before the ultra deluxe time frame)
I think the idea of the game is that there really is no comprehensive interpretation. It's a game that fixates on choice but all of your choices are taken away from you. It's like the game doesn't understand its own message sometimes, and that's by design. I also find it very strange that it's by obeying the voice completely that Stanley escapes mind control. Interesting, considering he just obeyed all of the directions to get there. Is he really free?
I love the line "come Stanley, Our Destiny Awaits," followed by literally the destiny that the rest of the ending SHOULD be going on. Neat touch in the writing department
DID YOU GET THE BROOM CLOSET ENDING???!?!? THE BROOM CLOSET ENDING WAS MY FAVOURITE!!!!!!!!!!!!!11
eks dee
I find this concerning
I find this concerning
Something I would like to add about the Confusion Ending is that on the first fake restart, the fade in that usually happens when you restart is present, due to the fact the player doesn't know that the restart is fake. Once it's revealed that something is up, all future restarts don't have the fade-in, due to the fact that it's obvious that this is part of a continued ending.
This is the best Stanley Parable analysis that I see so far, I love this game, I first played 5 years ago, completed blind about what is was, and I never wanted so bad, to see all the content in a game, It was incredebly
captivating , after spend many hour and found many secrets by myself, I will confess that in the end I cheated and look some stuff online, things like the console and the escape pod ending. But after I did everthing I was still not done, I have the feeling of missing something, I wasnt able to be done with the game even that the game have anything else to offer. I start to watch gameplays, comparing other peoples playthrough to my one, I was incredible corious how many different ways people would play this game, what happend in every playthrough, what was unic to mine, and what are unic to them, see what was people reaction and theories about this unexpected game, but after all that became repetitive, I start to see more reviews, interviews of the creators, things to learn more about the reasons of things the game, why every choice is a choice and why is good, but I never see any review that completed fill my expetations and thoughts of the game, I was still feeling I was missing somethings, not that every analysis that I see was bad, I like a bunch and they built up to my view of the game, but only now, 5 years later I think a found a analysis that I feel complete and tackle the parts that I wanted.
TL;DR: Thanks for your incredible analysis
PS: the most ironic part is that I fannily done with the game, but very soon I will play more, when the Deluxe version realese.
PS2: Sorry if my bad grammar, make it difficult to you understand me, English isnt my first language, but I feel like I need to thanks anyway.
my take on the existence of “wrong choices” like in the museum ending and the free choice ending is that the game not only has a game and a metagame, but something below the base game, or an infragame so to speak. the infragame being what the narrator is allowed to control and what he expects to be possible, the game itself is what the game actually allows you to do, and the metagame being the game as a file on your computer. the game itself can change and shift without the narrator’s influence as seen in the confusion ending, which ironically makes the “metanarrator” as described in the narrator, while the “narrator” is more of an infranarrator. it also explains the dichotomy of stanley, the player, and the controller, as stanley is the infragame, the player is the game, and the controller is the metagame
god this game is so good
"You will never find the free choice ending."
Uuuh... that was my second ending after the gaming ending. And no, I didnt have a guide.
I really love rewatching this video. Not only it gave me more reasons to like The Stanley Parable even more, but also it is a great help for my Master’s thesis I’m currently writing on art and video games. I have quoted your video several times in a chapter about The Stanley Parable and it is only appropriate to thank you for being an awesome source!
1:09:52 I don't think the point the game was making is that choices become meaningless within the game, rather that things like a brutal death "you" are experiencing, or actions you're made to feel guilty for, and such, can easily lose a lot of their impact with the knowledge that you're experiencing preset paths.
I’ve actually seen many TH-camrs and people I know quite enjoy the gaming ending despite its narrative disconnect, I feel like it’s disconnect might be purposeful in tricking the player’s understanding of the purpose of the game and also In order to play into the topic of the ending, game developers struggling to understand what players want, which is what the developers of the game greatly struggled with
Have you noticed, if you click your mouse anywhere it makes a keyboard click noise. This could be that the Stanley parable could be in th emend of Stanley and his own self awareness and whenever you click that is Staley irl doing his job.
I think the first ending, the Gaming Ending, works more to establish the TONE than to establish the gameplay. When I first played this game, I was absolutely mesmerized by it. I think it works perfectly for what it's trying to be, which is to establish the tone to a new player, rather than the gameplay.
34:50 something else I wanted to talk about here, the apartment ending where narrator asks you to not push a button next time when asked for.
I made a streamer I watch regularly play this game, and when he got to this point in the game, he literally just stopped. he left the headset at the pc, went on his bed [which was shown on the webcam] and just did nothing 5 minutes straight. I'm not joking. and then he started browsing his phone, probably open up chat to see if I said anything. this guy wanted so badly to prove that he can just not do what he's asked for that he refuses to move forward. this was one of his first endings. he eventually did get back on the game after a while, but this moment made him not want to play that much, as a result he never went for any small ending like out-of-bounds one or any other small ending/"ending". although gotta say they appreciated the broom closet ending
I'm trying to think rn if the game should've given you a voice line if you refused to push anything for 10 minutes or so... because this time the game really gives you nothing and just guilts you [and betrays you since once you disobey the narrator twice at the start of the game, if you listen to him right away, he just does this]
oh i would love a link to this stream
@@BoogsNStuff valgaav21, there's no vod of the gameplay unfortunately. answering here in case someone stumbles upon this reply and is curious as well
Honestly, TSP really seems like it missed a lot of those kind of opportunities. It's not like the game never gives the player narrator lines (or at least something substantial) for doing something (or nothing) for a long stretch of time. There's an ending that requires four hours of constant button pushing, which is only "worth it" to hear the narrator's occasional commentary (as the ending itself is quite a bore, and is underwhelming). The narrator (in certain locations) also will acknowledge you standing around doing nothing (so the precedent is definitely there). Keeping all that in mind, I don't think it's unreasonable whatsoever for the game to provide some kind of variation (or some form of acknowledgement) in the narrator's lines to reflect the player's refusal to act. Even if the player has to do nothing for a whole hour, that would be better than what we got. Besides, an hour of doing nothing is small time compared to getting the art ending.
Ok, slight critism of the third reason in the "reasons games don't need meaningful choices" bit, and a mistake I'm especially confused by considering you literally just talked about how Undertale handled this exact kinda thing;
You don't need to make the choices limited by some arbitrary number. You just need to make the choices permanent.
As I implied, Undertale does this brilliantly; you are given every chance to stop the genocide run while playing, right up to the very end, where you can actually just stop and quit the game if you don't want to kill flowey (which, as you established, is in fact a real option).
But if you don't... Your game is forever marred. No matter how much you reset, how much you try and try again, no matter how many times you pacifist the game, the game will never let you forget that you did that, by forever marring your happy ending. An ending that even extends into Deltarune.
Now, of course, you could do a full uninstall and clean install, but that is also a choice, and not one you'll forget. Because the game won, abd the only way for you to win is to delete the universe of the game, in the meta and literal senses.
This leaves the choice to kill Flowey, the choice to complete the run and see all the content, as impactful in the very real way Narrator 2 electric boogaloo was implying.
That is it. That is my only critique of this two hour video, a segment that lasted less then two seconds.
For shame. I can't believe you'd be so careless.
When you realize that one of the game’s choices happened outside the game. You “chose” to buy, install, and play The Stanley Parable
This game is so interesting, I would say that it's somewhat poetic. By making it about itself, it became a tool that doesn't just dissect and deconstruct its own premises, but a tool that refers to all other games and more. This reminds me of the power and paradoxes that often arise from self-referencing (like "The next sentence is true. The previous sentence is false"). Your video has definitely inspired me to think more about this game from different angles, after already seeing quite a few other interpretations of it. There are just so many "conclusions" one can pull out of this game.
Is this game about whether we the players are the ones playing the games, or is it that the games are playing (manipulating) us the players? Overt hinting at the possibility of hurting yourself to get different dialogues to encourage such behavior; using a competitive leaderboard to manipulate player's psychology into investing more time into an otherwise lacking game; removing the storytelling and narrative aspect of a game which can be argued to have been borrowed from cinema and literature, to expose the bare mechanics of the game in the Art Ending, to show that in order for a game to be engaging, it needs to please/stir up/manipulate the player's emotions; etc.
Is this game about free will vs. determinism? The entire game is based on what happens when you seemingly disobey your "fate" by exercising your free will, only to realize that (almost) every choice you thought to be free were all anticipated or even pre-determined. I especially like the narrator's lines at the end of the Confusion Ending: "How would we even know? Will someone come for us? Will something happen?" We who perceive ourselves as free entities, were dropped into this universe without any (obvious) purposes or guides. Once we finally find our goals, make up our minds, complete our paths, follow our fates to their ends or break free from our fates, will there be a way for us to know if we've done well? Or taken from another angle: do gods exist (that "someone" that might come for us, let us "know", and make "something" happen) or are we truly alone?
Is this game about the role of authorities in our life? How should we balance between our own thoughts and opinions, and the guidance or expectations from society, our family, the education system, our friends, etc.? In the game, if we follow the narrator completely, we end up with a false freedom. If we completely rebel against it and even make extra efforts (by jumping off the platform onto the otherwise inaccessible corridor), we realize that there does need to be a voice to wrap up our experience, a reference point to which we can organize our thoughts about the chaotic world. All other paths in this game exist in between these two extremes. The Explosion Ending is what happens when we disobey at the last moment in hope of gaining control, but it seemed to be too late. The Confusion Ending is by disobeying, then obeying, then disobeying. It is a mix of the two extremes, a compromise, and hence the game showed its most overtly paradoxical ending, possibly to illustrate the paradox between these two? The Escape Pod Ending and the Gaming Ending show that we need the narrator to go forward. The Free Choice Ending shows that the narrator needs us. The Museum Ending shows that we need each other. So perhaps there lies or answer.
Finally, as you have beautifully illustrated at the end of the video, "the end is never the end." This is true of this game, but isn't it true about everything in this world? Things we experience have lasting impacts on us, and things we do have lasting impacts on the world. Questions with definite answers are few and between. Most questions can never have a definitive, best answer or solution, it's just impossible. So perhaps we should treat them with more open-mindedness, never being so confident in a certain view and become reluctant to discussion or change. Or on a similar line as what you have said, we shouldn't try to label everything with a definition, a tag, a conclusion, a QED. These things might simplify our life and our thoughts, but they can also blocks us from further insights if we are to mistakenly take these artificial constructs as identical to the the original, thus flattening the richness that exists in the world.
Wonderful readings! I love getting these comments on this video so much. Great to see more people taking so much from this game. Good stuff
I saw the lack in the gaming ending was on purpose. The game is very... Hateful? Of video games. Discouraging the player from exploration IS the point! Especially if you consider how this is what happens if you never listen to the narrator! It's as if it's him saying "look how unrewarding exploration is! Better listen to me from now on!"
Just my observation.
Oh this is actually a really smart take. It's like the part in the "unfinished map section" taken to subtext level, where the game is showing you what you wanted to see so badly, the unfinished rooms and places and spites you for wanting this nothing. Great interpretation
I finally watched this to prepare for the release of Ultra Deluxe, and this might be the most satisfying take on the game I've ever seen. It was a long, winding journey and worth every bit of it, much like the experience of the game itself - thank you so much for helping me reignite my excitement for this game
13:35 here you talk about the gaming ending, the last segment where you just walk in dark rooms of the original stanley parable map, you claim that they serve no meaning but just to stretch the ending.
I disagree, I got 6-7 of my friends to play the game and I watched them do all the endings each, their initial reaction, how do they decide on choices, and so on. I learnt a lot of game design and other things from this, and regarding this segment I mentioned earlier, I believe it's purpose was to be creepy, at least half of the people I watched got a little terrified or spooked. sometimes I would poke fun at them and tell them that there may be a jumpscare. people I watched with low horror game tolerance [including myself] were kind of unsettled. I can tell you that it's supposed to be somewhat creepy.... but I can't tell you why or what they achieved, I am just saying the reaction I saw a lot of people have, which is something you didn't fully cover
I agree when you said that it's a bit disappointing that there's missing content on the second rating, and that it's frustrating to try to see all the dialogue options, however in my experiment, nobody actually wanted to replay to see the other voice lines when reviewing, even those who wanted to 100% and looked up secrets and stuff online.
another little note on this ending, in the experiment I ran, I think absolutely everyone were really amazed when they saw the minecraft segment, they were very hyped and as intended they thought it's more to it than it actually is. It was a welcoming surprise to say the least, even if you can't interact much. 2 of those people were visibly disappointed when it ended, but for most it ended before they reached the end of the last tunnel so they thought it'd be more to it if they explored more, so that left a nice mark on them
I immediately heard the Machinarium soundtrack in the background as you explain further your discoveries regarding the Confusion Ending, I am truly overjoyed!!! Tis such a little old gem of a game
I've always found it interesting how this game manages to be both silly but also thought provoking at the same time. Like sure, you have other games and stuff that balance comedy and commentary but The Standly Parable seems to be able to do both at the same time. A lot of the jokes make you think and the more you think, the more funny it becomes in concept. This truley is a Stanley Parable
I think the line at 18:15 means that since what the narrator is saying is based around what Stanley thinks of the office, then what the narrator thinks about him is not only something he knows, but also, that would mean that Stanley is thinking that he is thinking about something which he has no way of knowing would matter in the first place. So in a weird way, it would apply to when a character in a game finds out about something, he really always knew, as that was in the code of the game, although I'm not completely sure.
Watched this video while I was considering a choice between getting a degree in Quantum Physics or Philosophy. It's really very good, and had a profound impact on me.
Anyways, let me tell you about spooky action at a distance...
Quantum Physics is by far the wiser choice in terms of getting a job and making a career out of it, as a degree in philosophy is appearantly quite useless whilst a degree in quantum physics is definitely something that is appricated in a scientist. Though that's just me, a stranger on the internets opinion, so still do think about it and choose what's best for you 😄
@@Minisquix-vc2rn Your advice is sound and there would be more money in an advanced degree in quantum mechanics, an advanced degree in philosophy isn't quite worthless - especially if you want to get into teaching (at the collegiate level in the US). Or even writing. It just depends on the ultimate goal of the degree and future plans!
@@staceyann1180 Indeed! Insight like you are providing here is why I wrote "appearantly useless", as I just relayed what I've heard, but clearly there is a reason for it's existance, I was simply unowing of what that was. Thanks for enlightening me 😄
1:19:11 here you talk about the "free choice" ending. if you pick door on the right, game breaks. once it fully breaks and rewinds time, if you go on the door of the right again, it will rewind everytime. here you mentioned that you can do this forever.... and I wanna mention that the same streamer I mentioned in one of the other comments that I made to play the game, they legit went on the right door every single time and rewinded a bunch of times..... the thing is, after the 3rd or 4th time, the game legit crashed somehow... and that was terrible, cuz the player didn't get to see what happened if he did pick the left door.
so he went back to do it, but it was quite a drag, listening to that strange unskippable commercial again, walking all the way and... they did do it, but it was a pain for them and for me cuz of this.
There's not much to take out of it, except that, there's a small chance if you keep going on the right you do crash, and there's an extremely small chance that that's intended and it's kind of like an ending I don't see listed anywhere.
While talking about this bug, I've found a ton of bugs when watching people play. mainly on the "escape pod" ending, if you spam click to open doors as fast as possible, which is 2/3 of the players who I watched did, if you spamm click the door leading directly to the initial 2-doors choice, it will open, close, then get locked [and the area in front of you literally despawns, I checked with noclip] and you are literally soft-locked until restart. Also in the "museum" ending, there's a specific spot that if you go through, there's just a 50 50 chance to crash, and that spot is very close to where you're supposed to go and the crash typically happens after exploring the museum for some time.
This is criminally under rated
Keep up the good work
Hi so, according to you I did something nobody else did and quit during the apartment ending, I don't think I count though because the game bugged and the commands to press buttons didn't show up, still it means I got an extra ending and I'm pretty happy about it.
Happened to me too!
I like the fact that you realized that people might get confused with The Game's Ending and The "Games Ending"
Finally starting to take on this video. Its going to take some time. But I'm ready to dive in. Thank you for your ambition.
I very much disagree with the assertion that the "games ending" is the one most people will go for on their first try. While the two initial disobediences are easy to spot and execute, the "jump off the moving platform on to the seemingly decorative railing is quite a leap of logic. Even after that, the first time I got to the red/blue door situation I didn't realize that the third blue door actually excited, instead thinking it's a joke on the fact that the narrator no longer gives you the choice and was only clued into it with the first line of the zending.
The ending I think is the one people go for first is the phone ending. You ride the elevator up while the narrator talks to you, you don't notice the phone cord, you don't realize you can quit. The path of least resistance with low conformity. The path where the narrator is straight up hostile to you.
Actually, the light in the phone room sways back and forth, revealing the plug at the back of the room. You might not (at first) realize you can quit, but I don't think it would be a stretch to assume that some people would notice the fact that the phone is plugged in. And I'm guessing that movement of the lighting was intentional in order to highlight this choice (even if you don't realize that you can interact with it).
I think one aspect you didn't really get into in the Games ending is that its very much a pretty deliberate taunt of the player. I think going against and disrespecting the narrator so many times is supposed to be kinda analogous to behavior like... Really stubbornly trying to glitch your way into a room you aren't supposed to go into, when it's obvious that's not meant to be part of the game just because you want to know if you can. Something I've personally done with that one gate in New Vegas just to get... A bunch of default textures on the other side.
So the game taunts you for it, gives you a third door that goes nowhere, puts you at the bottom of the leaderboard, asks you to complete a tedious and annoying task to see "Real art" to get what amounts to just a congratulations screen. Until finally it asks "If you didn't want to actually play the game, why are you still here? Why aren't you playing other games?" Shows you a more open ended game that you could be playing before cutting it off. Open world games not really your thing? Well here's a fun linear game you could be playing instead, and then takes everything away. But the player stubbornly sticks it out so you get what the result of doing something like trying to get to an area in a game where you're not supposed to be... A bunch of boring stand-in textures that you can't really interact with. Stanley's fate of getting stuck there meant to be a sort of karmic punishment.
For the game to finally pull the plug and say "You know, you need to acknowledge the boundaries a game sets for you because you need some boundaries to actually play a game."
I think the most meta aspect about this game is that people who play this game and commentate on it become meta-narrators themselves and create a ceaseless dialog of the Stanley Parable, thus ensuring the game never runs out of things to say about itself.
Zending and the out of bounds ending brought me to tears. I know that's corny to say about a video game that makes so many gags they become the main "plot" but this game made me shed tears for the narrator. He sounds so distressed when you leave the zending room, I almost couldn't bring myself to kill Stanley because I wanted the narrator to be happy. And in the out of bounds ending, he sounds so legitimately concerned and upset in his tone and choice of wording, it gets to me everytime I here him plead to Stanley with "so... You hear me?" 🥲
The thing is, if you just hit the restart button from the pause menu, it achieves (in function) everything that the suicide option does; it's just the narrator doesn't have time to be sad, and you don't get to hear his depressed commentary. Just something I thought about the other day, which I find really undercuts the effect of what the ending is trying to go for.
This video is a gem! Excellent breakdowns, and as someone new to TSP and searching for video essays, the recommendations are very helpful!
It's also important to remember that the Metanarrator is a character in the story, like the narrator. And I think she's meant to be wrong.
I think it's very important that the Museum Ending takes place in a museum. A place where people go to look at things without interacting with them. But Museums are still important. Museums have a purpose and should exist even if you aren't affecting anything.
As for that confusing line about subjective mental experience by the Narrator around 47:20:
"If my experience of your existence rests inside of your subjective experience of this office, is this office, in fact, the skeleton of my own relative experimental mental subjective construct?"
Now people have other good ideas in this comments section I recommend you read, but I think I got something coherent by tying it in with the talk of journeys.
He said that the journey (subjectively, at least) "creates" a destination, now he seems to point out the lack of any outside frame of reference for the office ("my experience of your existence rests inside of your subjective experience of this office"), and so wonders if the office could have been created for their journey (this could also be read as the narrator almost getting meta), he specifically wonders if it's actually inside his own mind ("is this office, in fact, the skeleton of my own relative experimental mental subjective construct?").
I don't know how strong of an analysis this is, but I feel like it makes the most sense as a direct continuation of his train of thought.
(It also seems possible the narrator doesn't really understand either, based off of him saying "that got a bit weird there", and not following up, though whether that means he did actually construct a meaningful idea but didn't really understand (relatable), or he just got a bit lost in existentialism is up to interpretation.)
This is a really good take on this! I'm glad people are still willing to also dig deep into this line that's meant to be "the silly confusing one" because its just really cool and introspective
It is not everyday that I get an existential crisis by a video game commentary video, but my god this made me stare at a wall for half an hour and just, blink like a gasping fish on land. What an amazing analysis!!!
The only truly rebellious ending is jumping off the tower in the screen room, since that was a bug and thus, the only action a player can take that the game devs didn’t want.
I really enjoyed this video , very high quality , I wish you spent more time talking about the cold feet ending and how the narrator essentially challenges you to fall to your characters death , and the implications of “soft” “endings “ like the broom closet and white board ending
i dont think anyone played the gaming ending first, its not very obvious that you have to jump onto the catwalk
markipliers first stanley parable video
@@BoogsNStuff watching his lets play reminded me how much i truly hate lets play videos XD
@@BoogsNStuff That's still a real leap in logic. If a player saw his video than yeah they might go for that ending but for a totally blind player who just got the game on a whim with no context for it. Its really unlikely it would be their first ending given how very specific it is to pull off.
@@JamesSmith-vn6vi it was an example of such instance, not its effects on future player psyche or whatever
I know it's 1 year late, but I watched boogs video responding to comments and found your comment. I ran some sort of analysis of watching 6-7 of my friends play the game. The most common ending people got by far was actually the gaming ending.
I think 4 people just picked it up right away. the rest picked museum ending, freedom ending and apartment ending, from what I remember. I did this about 4 years ago, so I don't remember much, but I definitely remember people actually going for the gaming ending, first run. Keep in mind I didn't interact with them in any way, during their first endings so I wouldn't influence them.
In the rare case you are curious about this stuff, for whatever reason, I have a bunch of note somewhere about it. I wish I would've recorded and made it into a ytb video because the findings were extremely interesting
10:38 there is no missing dialogue there, the game just disregards your feedback there on purpose
A fantastic Analysis just watched it all! My mind is blown by some of the things you covered!
14:53 Why are you so convinced that it's 'Missing' content? Did any of the devs mention it? Were there leftover unused quotes in the code??
It's the Narrator belittling Stanley by ignoring his opinion. That's it.
Absolutely have to revisit this game now. I'd seen pretty much everything it had to offer and nothing in this video was really news to me, but it was immensely enjoyable remembering everything this game did. Seeing you compile everything, however, double-backing and countering counterarguments to your counterarguments made my head spin. Good job keeping track of everything! First video I've seen from you but I really enjoyed it, well done. My head hurt
I just wanted to say, good work on the video!
Your channel deserves more views!
watching this on the leadup to ultra deluxe (4/27 hopefully...) and you really summed up everything well :D
So this really long bit you do around the "Free Choice" ending and how it is to hard to get and all, which can create issues for the player. It was literally my first ending and idk what that says about me, though honestly I don't find it to crazy to find. The light lamp highlights the cord and my eyes were pulled insteantly to that option. idk because of that I just find your point a bit weaker.
The claim that the Gaming ending will be most players' first ending is debatable. I don't think most players would think to jump onto the catwalk in their first playthrough, and some players, especially with the console re-release, might experience stick drift or accidentally tap their joystick, resulting in the powerful ending instead
Finally got around to finishing this. Very well done Stanley
I love the “right door” joke. I always understood it as “will taking the right (correct) door lead us to our destination? Yes! So the door on the right must be the correct one.”
The confusion schedule doors sounds like a way I would solve a math problem
Oh my god, you found the [SPOILER REDACTED], holy moly!
You have an eagle eye of what crows' seeds I gave you.
This video deserves a million views, not just 600! I'm gonna send this to all my friends, you deserve way more viewers than this.
The Stanley Parable is a story that really only can be told through the medium of video games. Well, perhaps you could re-create something like it in a "Choose-Your-Own-Adventure" book, but even that is far more limited.
The narrator is the game developer. He is taking the opportunity to mess with you. He does this in a way that is just entertaining and witty enough to keep you playing. I think you are meant to see an analogy to the real world. The real world in which people play computer games all day.
I just wanted to say that the music does not loop forever in the out of bounds ending. It takes roughly 5 minutes but the guitar strings (power down). After which you are met with only silence until you do restart.
Also, your assertion that you will never find the free choice ending because the plug is so hidden out of sight is missing vital information when actually playing the game. For example, the picture you posted at 1:28:28 does make it seem like it's so out of the way that people would never find it. However you're missing the fact that the light is swinging, in the game when the light is swinging your eyes naturally follow to see what it reveals. If you look around the room nothing is revealed except for that plug, and it is continuously swinging continuously revealing that very same plug repeatedly until you either pick up the phone or unplug the plug. The game is constantly "revealing" that choice to you by swinging the light back, hiding the plug again, only to once again reveal it seconds later.
Portal 2 does the exact same thing, despite the mass of underground areas you are in for half the game, where your objective is on the complete opposite side of the map you still know that's what you're supposed to be because that particular area is lit up. The light guides you much like how the light guided us to that plug. There is actually a video about this that I am no longer able to find. It was something like "How Portal 2 guides the player" or "How Valve guides the player". Regardless, it had some pretty neat ideas in there and I wish I could have linked it.
Can't wait to see what people have to say in addition to the Stanley Parable Ultra Deluxe's content.
Isn't that what we want? More content? It's always more more more!
Meanwhile, in Ultra Deluxe:
BUCKETS
I don't know if anyone else as mentioned this, (this video is 3 years old, surely people know by now), but the song the Narrator plays by saying that you *are* sick of this gag in the OoB ending *does* actually end. The narrator plays the song to completion with lyrics, then 2 more times as a guitar (or ukulele or whatever he is playing) solo then a string breaks and the song stops playing.
I think that the freedom ending being the only good ending is meant to be commentary on how the canon ending In multiple ending games is usually the "good ending". This whole game is a commentary on video game storytelling as a whole.
i really disagree w the idea that the Gaming Ending is missing content. the Narrator’s responses to the second 1-5 rating are all the same because he’s simply distracted. your answer doesn’t matter because he just wants to show you this other thing he did, rather than listen. if we’re continuing the metaphor, I guess one could liken it to when devs ignore player feedback or even double down when given critique. unless I’ve misremembered something from the first game (im p sure it plays out the same way there?), or maybe I’ve just rly misunderstood, I don’t see any evidence that something is missing here. Anyway, I don’t see any issue with the Narrator being audible despite us being away from Stanley. he’s omniscient and omnipresent. it’s cartoon logic.
But now I’m curious to know which ending ppl statistically tend to get first. I got the Self-Destruct ending first and I would’ve thought the Games and/or Art Ending would’ve come in far, or at least not the very first or second ending one gets. tho maybe I’m assuming based on nothing but my own experience
50:05 "logically, doors lead to places. also the door on the right is arbitrarily probably where we wanna go lmao"
Your content is underrated dude keep this up.
with the gaming ending, im pretty sure its so long because they knew that would be a lot of players' first endings, seeing as people like to defy the narrator so much, making it longer and adding those references would make people more intrigued and want to play more endings, the questions that arise are simply answered by "hes the narrator" he narrates stuff, he isnt anywhere, hes just narrating whats happening
Great video!! Would love to hear your thoughts on ultra deluxe and some of the new endings added :)
Dude this is SO well made. Subbed.
I think the line starting at 47:58 means that the Narrator is experiences Stanley's existence as the subjective/opinionated version of their experience in their office building and the Narrator is questioning if the office is what is left of a construct of his experience of Stanley's existence. More simply put, the office is a manisfestation of memories the Narrator has left of what he knew of Stanley. (Past here is very theoretical and how I interpret it) Perhaps meaning the Narrator created the game to mourn the loss of his friend Stanley and wants to guide Stanley to freedom because he wants to help his friend to be happy because he couldn't help them before they died.
What does it tell about me that the "free choice" ending was my first?
I guess that you wanted to contradict the narrator but didn't realize that jumping onto the lower platform was an option?
It's still amazing that you got it first but it's really isn't as hard to find as he said it was. I mean the game plopping you with a huge, blatant "listen to the narrator"? Obviously you want to keep messing with him and there's an obvious plug.
@@Jann75 I didn't even realize that picking up the phone was an option XD I guess because it didn't register my keystroke.
But yeah, sticking with the rout that platform was going looked too obvious and I saw that door on the side. I'm one of those people who tries to break the game when she can.
the gaming ending was my favirote ending cause it felt....cozy? being in other games I've played. Kinda like being in bed while it rains. A nice warm feeling alongside some funny dialogue
I mean when I played the very first ending I got was the Freedom Ending, I guess I’m different from a lot of gamers cos my instinct is to start by following the rules of a game to see what experience the developers intended before starting to fuck around and push the boundaries
Awesome video, subscribed!
i dont know why and how i got recomended this, but thank god for the youtube algorythim
My thoughts exactly.
Not sure why this video showed up only after Ultra Deluxe came out when I was looking for analysis videos but better late than never. Hope you make an update video for the new game.
I hope you come back for the ultra deluxe edition :)
51:33 I kinda like the idea that The Narrator only knows as much as Stanley
15:18
Missed opportunity for you to put "It ends soon. Very soon" on screen
Because this is youtube and someone says in a video that they do not know why this part is here... I must make myself clear that I am smarter.
So at 13:00 that map is proof that the narrator hasn't started with making this game and played it over and over and over ect.
It overlaps with the mind control startup ending since they both prove the same point when the narrator confesses about co-workers.
Everyone must think I am very powerful. This is likely gonna be a chain so I apologize.
Not 100% following on what you mean by "played it over and over". Do you mean he keeps playing an unfinished game over and over as opposed to finishing it? Would love to hear more about this idea, since I couldn't think of a reason for this segment
Me burning time due to not being able to sleep: this looks FUN
Well actually, think of al of the games that seem they just won't go away. This is because of fan-created content. Undertale, if I'm not mistaken fits this. Portal is another glaring example of this. Any of the games with various modded maps and so on. I wonder if this particular games hasn't had several mods by not. Therefore "The End is never the end" holds true indeed.
This video is fantastic.
I Disagree with the "Free Choice" Ending being too hidden.
When you already did the office ending, you are ANGRY at the narrator for lying to you, so when you come back to that ending, you look around the room for any way to go agaist picking that phone up out of spite.
That is when you find the cord and pull it out.
Even pewdiepie found this ending, man.
Ok, I don't get it, you claim this is not a review of any sort, and the very first segment of the video is directly complaining about 'missing content' and how much the player *enjoys* this ending, which you promptly assume off the top that most people will get first just because you think most people have this sort of rebellious streak in them. What gives?
criticism does not a review make! my claim that this isn't a review are because this isn't a way to judge whether the stanley parable is worth your money, and that the video isn't something to watch before experiencing the entirety of the game. criticism is not limited to reviews alone
Jesus Christ this analysis was amazing.
No it’s not
@@yoimiyafan2787 lol ok
What if *we* are the narrator? In control of what's going on, and able to hear the narrator at the end of the Gaming ending despite the Narrator being away from Stanley, I think maybe that's a nice new theory that could be fleshed out more by someone who cares to follow it
There's always another way.
When ultra deluxe had branching path endings, would employ skip and reset button veriants and actually made sense, it would have been a good extension. Storytelling becomes unreliable when both the game and the player doesn't know what to do or what it wants. 12:54 suddenly stopping the game is just plain wrong they had the actual map in there. Dialogue they owned the sequence they had to rebuild, but given they have a habit of restricting paths by just extending a few guard rails, I would have accepted the true ending in the old style while midway breaking and then fading to black like the old one breaking apart following the original dialogue. Alternatively closing the door and waiting for a minute would fade to black aswell because it fits just way better. Or actually make a good ending out of it, not that hard it's a source to source port.
15:02 Exploration leading to dissapointment could have been improved but it's not their fault for not having a skip button. Of course they add it then not use it because you know their game and all that modern art subjectives, opinions. 16:36 gotta mention that aswell. 18:36 not enough branching choices or annoying waiting times to go through, except the password but you need to have played another ending through there first. Having a story be interrupted by something would be far more dissatisfying than following a told story. 21:53 couldn't be done in the extension because for some reason you're having a text guy take control of the narroator taking control of you taking control of stanley. 23:21 passing over an important dialogue about control. 26:52 never indicates the restart button, like it should, but you're pulled out without getting a hint if it actually would blow up. Fixable by replacing the restart button with a detonate button but whoever got the idea of a restart button replacement made the skip button then got fired for adding something redicilous as a skip button. 37:05 restarting is even more punishing because you'd have to go back to find out what happens after you finished that part. And the appartment's not ending that well. I see you got to it at 38:10 nevermind then confusion ending is best ending. 43:28 does not discourage actually resetting, given if you like the narroator you can reset it for him, or have it just reset to the confusion ending again with him adding a nod that he remembered encountering that same room already. 44:17 by that point noone would reset though.49:00 not noticing that it is quite difficult to write a story with illusion of choice and even harder having the entertaining that you yourself aren't even in control of the illusion, nice experience you feel his enjoyment breaking rules. 50:43 not blacking out the hallways so the realisation hits a bit more delayed. 56:40 meanwhile the extension rips that schene away from you and calls it endings. The only way to curb expectations in a game that doesn''t make sense yet you can make sense of it and it's squandered. 57:56 automatic resetting there is insulting at least give a hint in the credits as they keep scrolling by that reset is the only option. 1:02:44 by adding the serious room they opened up the way to find holes in everything, never leave a debug option in your games if you care about context, deltarune. 1:03:56 insulting because of how you get there, without exploits like a vent hidden somewhere, and how it makes you question where the ending even happens. In addition to you having the experience of the being drawn to the crusher twice. It makes sense how it's structured it feels like they're 2 different endings you know the original crushed ending and a secret museum ending in a reset or whatever. 1:04:37 trailing over example how every choice should have been underlined, adding dialogue for backing out or backtracking both positive and negative encouragement because you know journey beats destination. 1:12:07 selecting "Quit" does not exist although given how it's structured I can say adding no features to restarting the game and then have you a choice of restarting the game would be insulting. Only reason for it is the survival fo stanley, that would be trapped in a cage. The main menu does not show stanley sitting in his office just you and the monitor bit of a wasted opportunity showing that returning to menu is a choice. 1:13:19 explains choice, not consequence. Of course 20/20 hinesight giving how deluxe ruined that ending explaining what choice is then not give choice is insulting. Meanwhile showing what consequence means shows any choice leads to consequence making the endings still weird but just a bit better. Same with explaining a joke how it managed to write the video just the wrong way it had to be intentional destructive to it's own message. The plug is a good choice if it had more plugs it would have more videos talking nosense (at least here it actually still makes sense somewhat) so maybe not drive in how you're the player then do nothing with it multiple times. The ending should actually not lead to new endings just bring you "back on track" and only break once you do it twice, while him remembering the phone somewhat. Deluxe does this but of course messes it up by removing the hallways and removing choice. 1:19:44 driving in sense into a one way street that gave you a choice going into the street, then showing you the importance of choice then you keep going into a one way street. Not deep just simple, fine although a bit insulting given you can't even say apple by jumping then crashing the game or whatever creative string you could have done there. 1:24:31 the game taunting actually having a choice by doing nothing, while not being in control. Have happy endings appearing randomly in rooms next to the office while you're shoehorned into ending paths. 1:28:39 Have not enough chefs in the kitchen, them drained of creatives ways of storytelling and because of fatigue not thinking of eventual alternate paths that could occur by having too much choice. 1:36:19 see the achievment list for how that's not correct, except when you're immortal then it makes sense it just takes a while. Joke feature but still. 1:37:50 or be naturally predisposed finding glitches and secrety therefore ruining the entire game by waiting in rooms for minutes expecting change, fine way to ruin the game if only either it tried to discourage it at least once.
47:58
Oh it's easy.
The Narrator is basicly asking if he is part of Stanleys and the players experiences if they are also his own experiences. And if experiences are part of our existance by our existance and our self being being what we persive it to be would that mean that since theyr experiences are so similar theyr existences are also similar.
Basiclly if I understand it correctly are the player, the narrator and Stanley by shearing one and the same experience the same being or are they seperate.
To wich I say they are still seperate beings. While they are still experiencing the same chain of events they are experiencing them from three diffrend points of view assuming we think Stanley is sentient. That brings into play the three narrative options wich you have while writing you can have the first person perspective wich is what Stanley is experiencing. The outsiders perspective wich is when somebody seeing the action describes it and brings fourth theyr own opinions and feelings into it.
And the all knowing perspective wich is bassicly the player by veing outside observer but also charakter alike we can know what the charakter feels, since we are basiclly the one who is the charakter at that point, while also seeing it from the outside.
This explanation might be even more confusing than what the narrator sayed but.....maby I'm just cunfused about it and what I am saying is wrong.
It might be all leading with the same conclusion wich brings up more questions about oneself: I think therefore I am.
Or maby by frameing it in the context of the office he is trying to say that it all is part of his imagination?
14:38 the escape pod ending isn’t completed in the code either though
Not missing but unfinished
This game gave me so much trippy feelings and creeped me out, I couldn't do more than a few endings because it was too heart wrenching. Please describe what the endings are and your analysis and dont tell me to walk through it again. it is a good game but mentally hurts to play!
Yes! It scares me to play it again, it's like a creepy existential dread bundled with a videogame (a self contained reality seen as fantasy) debating it's own existence and misery. Scary how something I point as fictional points back at me, pinching my chest with fear
With the advent of A.I the possibility for an infinite game that will generate new never before seen content completely narrated will destroy everything we understand about conventional story telling.
To qoute: “the only winning move is not to play”
in my very first play through
i did everything the narrator told me to .
and in the next play through
i did the full opposite of the narrator .
having found the extremes of the game
i tried different combinations of decisions to find the different endings
lol i guess im just special that gaming ending was one of the last ones i got, but then i didnt start with totally trying to spite the narrator, i just pushed him some so i got explosion first
i've been a fan of this game since i was a small little child and have never heard of the serious room until i watched this video. thanks boogs
anyways good video i liked it but i didn't actually because no analysis of this game will ever be as good as raphael's
Okay, but what about you trapping yourself in your office at the very beginning?
Thanks for the video man! What an effort, good work.
Could you please speak clearly and slower next time?
im working on "next time" now and youll be happy to know i speak even faster in this one
1:42:51 Gotta say, I appreciate Ultra Deluxe for removing this "Cheats" quandary, and especially for giving players the option to turn on Dog Mode right then and there.
The meaning is probably that all our choices change nothing at the end, we will all die someday, and we experience life without questioning anything, and when we do, we realise that life has no meaning, the free choice ending is when you eventually get to the bottom of meaning of life, there is none
That’s just my take anyway