I chose to save Chloe. I didn't even replay the ending to see the other choice, because I stand by it. Why?: Despite the way it presents itself, Life is Strange is very much a game about not actually having choices. Except in the end. That one choice is yours. Of course, the game doesn't think so, as the video has pointed out. It tries to guilt you into picking Arcadia Bay. But this goes deeper. It tries to guilt you into believing that everything you did was wrong, and that you now have to offer a sacrifice to the gods of time you have transgressed against. And yes, it's not a coincidence that the game calls it a "sacrifice". The game wants you to think that your choices, that weren't actually choices, is something you have to atone for. It sends you back in time, let's you make a specific change, blames you for the unforeseen outcome, and then makes you return like a penitent sinner to undo this specific change, instead of all the other choices you could have made. The game celebrates passivity. It celebrates not being a hero, not even an everyday one. But in the end, you don't have to fall in line. You get one choice. One actual choice. The video says that it should be obvious for Max to pick saving the town. But is it? It is "obvious" for the player. Why would Chloe being killed even stop the tornado? Oh, sure, we know this because we can replay the ending, or watch it online. And because the game helpfully labels the choices "Sacrifice Chloe" and "Sacrifice Arcadia Bay". And because of the above mentioned guilt trip the game sends you on for even daring to interfere with time (which is apparently administrated by a quite jealous god) for the benefit of others. From Max's point of view, fate wants her to let Chloe die. And from the player's point of view, the game narrative wants them to let Chloe die. And if you opt to save her, Max tells fate and you tell the narrative "No. I am not following your orders." "Magical time tornado? You want me to kill my friend? You want to punish me and everyone in my geographical vicinity because I tried to do good? Well, fuck you. You can't have her." Yes, I am aware that this is a meaning that was probably completely unintentional. But I think it's worth looking at it from that angle. That it can be an emancipatory act to NOT pick the choice a game wants you to choose. And to tell fate to fuck off.
I don't think it was unintentional. The game shows you time and time again that going back to make things better often make things worse, and have Max struggle with the concept of responsibility that comes with her powers. The conversation Max has with herself in the Nightmare highlight this struggle. And what does the ending propose: Go back in time and fix it. The superpower interpretation would indeed have you use your powers for the greater good at your own cost, but the conclusion one can come too with just as much legitimacy is that there is no such thing as fixing, and playing with time always have dreadful consequences. I chose the Destroy the Photo ending in equal part as an act of love for Chloe, an act of defiance against fate and an act of accomplishment. Enough with the fixing, it was time to assume the mistakes. A bit in the same manner, in the Prince of Persia, sand of time saga, the protagonist is perpetually trying to fix his mistakes, and constantly paying for it. Only in the third game, where he accept the idea that he doomed his father to death and his people to suffering does he finally transcend the power of the Sand. While the ending is bleak, as his kingdom lies in ruin and the survivors just begin to gather, it is also a hopeful ending, because the Prince has triumph over himself and become a worthy ruler, wise enough to build a future.
It's a deeply personal experience, and while developers' intentions are important, the thing that matters most is what each player takes away from it. Thanks for sharing your experience.
Telling fate to fuck off is just immature and unrealistic though. It also undoes all the character progression the game set up. I don't think it should have been a choice either.
I do agree with your interpretation. At first, I let Chloe die because it just felt natural based on what Chloe said (she talked about fate and that it would save everything). However, there is no indication that: 1. storm won't happen (we are messing with time again) 2. Chloe "has" to die And, the most important fact, to choose Chloe is to finally to accept that you can't change time and just live with your choices - that is the _real_ maturity, from my point of view.
+Sethar1234 tbf this is the blank slate thing on Max's end and depends on how you play her, though you're right that there's no doubt Chloe loves Max and loved Rachel...
That's a fair point, but the game still liberally hands out lesbian under/overtones throughout the story. *Especially* with that ending nightmare sequence.
I know and it was just a poor choice of words on his part. I doubt he meant anything by it. He's done a video in the past on Gone Home, so he doesn't exactly shy away from the subject.
My issue with "bae or bay" is that the whole conflict feels kinda contrived. Chloe needs to die because reasons and if she doesn't die all of Arcadia bay is destroyed because reasons and this is all linked to Max's time powers because reasons. They forsake the real life butterfly effect chain of cause and effect in favour of a "because destiny (read, the developers) say so" twist.
+Phrozenflame500 What can I say, "God" or whatever entity that gave Max the power is a gigantic jack***. Which is why the only true ending involves flipping it off and riding to sunset. ;p
I know this comment is super old but I feel compelled to answer anyway. Cause and effect is not the Butterfly Effect, that's just simple causality. The name Butterfly Effect comes from the idea that killing a butterfly in the past could cause a hurricane in Florida in the future. In other words, the Butterfly Effect refers only to unforeseen circumstances arising from a minute piece of a system being removed from the larger whole. The ending of Life is Strange is actually the perfect example; it's the only game/movie I've ever seen to actually get it right.
@@dlj3cs2 Exactly. People usually think of the butterfly effect as tracing back an event to its first cause. That's not it, that's just a cause-effect chain. The butterfly effect happens when a small change in the initial conditions causes a massive difference in the outcome. Lorenz put it this way: when the present determines the future, but the approximate present does not approximately determine the future. I think they got that right when Max goes back in time and saves William. Many people would think that, because the butterfly effect is a series of causes and effects, Max has no reason to be in the Vortex Club, William's death would have nothing to do with it (I saw this being pointed out as a "sin" recently in a Game Sins video about LiS). The truth is, that's not the butterfly effect. Max made a somewhat small change in the initial conditions - an approximate present -, which didn't result in an approximate future, exactly as it should be in Chaos Theory. Again, in the final choice, I think they got that right.
@@yvltc It's also important to remember exactly how the dialog goes at the end. Chloe is telling Max that her fate is to die. She's not saying this because she believes it. She's saying it because she knows this choice is killing Max, and Max will not be able to live with herself if she sacrifices the town. You can see this in the look on Chloe's face before Chloe makes the decision to start talking about her fate.
as someone who was once a teen girl with a friend like chloe and an equally abusive dad, i think chloe's step-dad played off pretty realistic. i heard all the time from other adults about how my friend's father cared "deep down" and didn't know how to show it as an excuse to explain away his abusive behavior instead of confronting it. that said, they definitely could've done with some more showing and less telling wrt the other characters!
I'm amazed that we have read the ending in completely opposite ways. I thought that the Save Arcadia ending was sentimental schlock and the real ending was Save Chloe. As other commenters have said (and opposite to you), NOT saving Chloe undoes all of the work you've done for her. But in a deeper sense, I think that not saving Chloe goes against the entire point that the game is trying to make. Ever since episode 3, LiS has been hammering one idea home: It's folly to think that everything will turn out alright *in the long term* if you just did something different, or if you somehow knew the right thing to say. Sometimes bad things happen, and you need to do the best you can and then wear the consequences. It's part of growing up in an imperfect world. If you go back in time to save the Bay, you don't learn that lesson. I also think the lack of impact of player choices also makes sense thematically, and I'll explain by way of analogy. Imagine that you were starving and I gave you a choice of two things to eat: something rotten or something fresh. Is that a real choice? And if you could go back in time and redo a conversation with your crush, where one outcome leads to you starting a relationship and the other ends with you never talking again, is THAT a real choice? For the entire game you/Max have been doing this mental calculation of choosing the outcome that is the least bad, but picking the least-bad thing is itself a non-choice. Sacrificing Arcadia Bay feels like owning up to your mistakes, it feels like the only real choice you can make.
About the facial animations: they certainly annoyed me too. But we shouldn't forget the game was made on a small budget. If we insist that the production values of a work be excellent in order to consider the work "good", we deserve every bland, conservative Hollywood/EA/Ubisoft/... work that's thrown at us.
My two cents on why I saved Chloe: You could easily make the argument that it was Arcadia Bay's fate to get wiped out by a tornado. And before anyone had gotten any ending, how could you be sure that this time you go back you won't fuck up time and everything even more? Also, the last third of the game keeps telling you how the storm is your fault, but considering how unexplained Max's powers are, I don't feel this to be particularly true. And lastly, this ending is interpreted by all to mean accepting loss, moving on and maturing... by going back in time again, denying the mistakes you made which supposedly broke time and brought the tornado. While accepting the loss of people in time and there are things you can't change, BY NOT ACTUALLY GOING BACK IN TIME TO CHANGE THEM, makes more thematic and dramatic sense to me personally. Chloe and Max have to live with the weight and guilt of that choice for the rest of their lives, even if they go somewhere else and it will inform how they grow and mature. They both need each other - Chloe needs Max to not be manic and become a possible addict + some positivity in her life, Max needs Chloe to support her in putting her work out there and be confident. And choosing to sacrifice all those characters I'd gotten to know still wasn't easy, you know. I was initially going to sacrifice the town, but the more I thought about Chloe and especially how she was ready to die reminded me of how Kate thought she was worthless and no one cared before she died. I just couldn't take it and impulsively saved her. But the more I thought about it after, the more okay I am with that choice.
I took the save Chloe ending since I felt all that I've done would've gone to waste. Saving Kate, being nice to everyone, let Warren finally beat the shit out of Nathan.. I'd rather let them all go and die with those memories than be forgotten once more. Especially without my partner in time.
+SilverDragon893 Same here, to be honest. What's more, the whole "going back and letting her die" thing shouldn't have magically undone all of the damage Max had done. If anything, she should have ended up dumped back into the ruins of Arcadia Bay, heartbroken and mindbroken as she faces the full consequences of fucking with the timeline, and doesn't even have her best friend to fall back on. After all, isn't that part of growing up? Learning that your actions have consequences and dealing with their impact? Even by having an "easy way" to circumvent your problems, you still run the risk of facing more chaotic, "unforeseen consequences" that pop up because time is like Marsellus Wallace. In that it doesn't like getting fucked by anyone except for Mrs Wallace.
+SilverDragon893 I took the same choice but for a different reason. That was clearly the wrong choice from a moral stand point and was clearly selfish, so why? Well because I asked myself, if to save a friend Max was ready to carry that burden, of literally givin up on the whole town just for an act of extreme selfishness. And my answer was yes. That's why that was a choice, it wasn't the right one at all but it was mine.
+GmodPlusWoW I also don't get how letting Chloe die fixed things. Max had a vision/dream of the tornado at the beginning of the game before rewinding Chloe's death which supposedly caused it.
A very big portion of the game is basically about saving Chloe. To not pick that ending at the end is as difficult a decision to make as to not pick the Save Arcadia ending.
I felt that the Sacrifice Arcadia Bay ending did provide an answer and a closure to Max and Chloe's respective arcs. For Max it's the first and final act of defiance against all odds, the game seems to be pushing you to abandon Chloe for the greater good, and Max decides not to be the great heroin she tried to be, but simply Max the human being. I also see it as a decision not to constantly try to fix broken things, something that keep failing, but to go on and assume the consequences of her failure in order to move on. For Chloe, Max's decision allow her growth to be complete. As she reveal herself as a selfless person in the end, she also consider herself worthless and undeserving, the result of her dysfunctining family and Rachel's own actions. It closes her ark not through an act of redemption and selflessness, but through an act that shows that she IS worth to someone. While the Sacrifice Chloe Ending implemented Max and Chloe as selfless heroes for the greater good, the other ending concluded the human part of them, the "Everyday" part where both grow into flawed but accomplished human beings.
I think what you're asking for is impossible. The closer you get to a fully realized self actualized main character in a game like this the more evident you make the dissonance between the character being "you" and the character being themselves. If you make the MC have a fully realized arc every choice you make will end up breaking the immersion that its not you. This works in reverse too. Having a character you identify as make a decision you wouldn't breaks the immersion in a "visual novel game" like this. You cant get away from that uncanny valley in an interactive medium.
+hoIyforks Unless you make different matrices of choice indicate different main characters, such that successive options do not all elaborate on the same character, but indicate how that choice reflects on the person who starts the game, and invariably is a different person as a result of different choices. If a game succeeded at that, then each of the numerous paths a player takes represents both a complete and precise character as well as a character reflective of the player's own particular choices. Now, that's really freakin' difficult, and it would be outside of what Life is Strange tries to do -- what it can do, based on its format and use of the medium -- but its not an inherent impossibility.
I don't feel like this is totally true, although I think it's definitely a fair point. I'll use The Witcher series as my counterpoint, games which also are known for doing narrative and moral choice well. In The Witcher, you role play as a very well established character, and yet the game asks you to make a lot of choices, from morally grey vigilantism to who you want to be friends with to the lyrics for your bard-buddy's new song. I almost never felt like my immersion was broken. The Witcher does this by having choices that aren't usually about characterization. You, the player character, already know that Geralt doesn't see things in black and white; if presented a choice, he takes the lesser of two evils. The game then lets me, the player, decide what the lesser of two evils actually is. In contrast, if the game presents me with a choice already decided by Geralt's personality, like loyalty to friends or the greater good, I feel obligated to choose loyalty to friends, which can be immersion breaking. For the most part, The Witcher avoids asking these types of questions because Geralt's personal arc isn't about characterization, it's about his effect on the world around him. Life is Strange is in a different boat, since Max's arc is about her coming of age and deciding what kind of person she wants to be. I think it's still possible to achieve the immersion of The Witcher with this arc, it's just difficult. It would require the developers to make the content very dynamic. As you make choices which determine your personality, choices later on down the line can be decided automatically by Max's new personality, or get locked off and replaced with a different type of choice that continues from what you've already established, or simply be framed differently. That's a lot of content for any game, especially for a relatively low budget episodic game like Life Is Strange. The Witcher did it by just being HUGE, and also by having a lot of world-building being already taken care of by the book series. To be fair, even The Witcher still struggled somewhat since during the first two games Triss keeps asking Geralt personality-building questions that seem kind of awkward and unnecessary. So I think you're right, characters who you're supposed to identify with and choices made that conflict with the player are at odds with each other. I just don't think it's impossible to reconcile that.
+hoIyforks I think it shifts the game from a player avatar or power fantasy into more of a role playing mentality. Which can still be totally fine. I just finished Tales from the Borderlands and I felt like the 2 main characters there had more of an arc and had strong personality traits that were different from mine. I wasn't immersed in the fantasy of being them but I was invested in helping them achieve the kind of resolution I wanted for them.
+hoIyforks You can be immersed in someone who is not you.Spec ops the line proves that you can be immersed in someones story,despite vehemently opposing their actions.That last choice in that game can still be extremely impactful,even though you know perfectly well its not you/your avatar you are deciding the fate of.You dont need a blank slate in order for a game to be immersive.
+DaemianLucifer i am anti immersed in Spec Ops. because you have no Agency, you have a railway to follow and that Railway is the story gangbanging you every step of the way, from start to end. it would be like reading a book that only contained profanity or Characters yelling through the fourth wall to the reader. hard to find interest in a story when the story is always yelling at you and hitting you with a 2x4.
I was upset with the final choice, but for a different reason. One of the choices literally completely undoes the entire rest of the game. So your final choice is either the wrong choice or effectively the only one you've made.
I'd say the final choice is either chosing the ending that the developer thinks is the one or chosing the ending that they didn't have the budget for. I'd rather had one ending with differences depending on more choices than just the final A or B choice.
+Mr. ShinyObject Actually,both choices undo the entire rest of the game.Either nothing of that happened,and chloe is dead,or all of it happened,but everyone else is dead.Pointless either way.
+Mr. ShinyObject I think the point of the game is that it doesn't. Granted, we could argue about this for quite a while, and this is just my reading, but I think the true core of the game is emotional. The game makes a point in explaining and showing that no matter what timeline ends up being the 'real' one, whatever happens is real to Max insofar as she experienced it and felt that emotion. Sure, from a pure plot reading, the whole game doesn't 'matter' as soon as that choice has been made, but if you take a step back, it's easy to see that pure, chronological plot isn't entirely important in this game. Half of episode 5 takes place in a dream state, one that I thought was beneficial to the story being told and also had some really cool set pieces, and the game and the player clearly believe that that part matters even though it has minimal effect on the actual plot. Also, I think that the most harrowing choice in the entire game, at least for me, was the one where Max has to decide whether to take Chloe off life support. I stared at the screen for a good minute or more for that one, knowing full well that it doesn't matter to the chronological plot, simply because it was an awful decision to make, and the emotions were entirely real. I refuse to accept that everything I experienced in the game is undone because chronologically, it is.
+Keenan Wulff I can respect that point of view. But I think the main issue here is how this game (and actually most games nowadays) sell you on the fact that the choices you make will alter the story in meaningful ways. While the emotional journey of Max and the player is real, and both will remember the events and choices even if they are undone, the negative side of the final choice is that you get to make the same decision no matter what route you took along the way. This is the same complaint that happened after people played Mass Effect 3. One idea of how they might have been able to do that differently but keep the same endings would be if the choice was made for the player based on their actions throughout the game. If the end of the game arrived, and instead of getting a choice, you were presented with the choices you made that influenced Max's character to choose to save the town or to save Chloe, because that's how her character grew throughout the game, then I think people would be less upset about it. Because even if they didn't get their preferred ending, they knew that if they had made different choices, it would alter the outcome. And really, if it was done correctly, Max would make the choice the player would have made, because the choice would align with the player's own priorities.
My main issue with the "good" ending (besides playing into the Dead Lesbians trope in the most straight-forward way possible) is that it requires Friday-Max to sacrifice Monday-Chloe, who then dies without any of the insight that Friday-Chloe has built up, thinking that everybody has abandoned her etc. Monday-Max then resumes control throughout the week, having seen her best friend die before she ever got to speak to her again and thus totally ignorant of the massive sacrifice that Friday-Max (and the player) has just made on her behalf. Friday-Max then reappears at the funeral, also completely ignorant of the dreadful week that non-powered Max must have been going through, completely destroying any emotional growth that Monday-Max went through.
Arakhor you do know that max going back in time to save Arcadia bay doesn't erase her memories... Right? I mean come on. She already knows she's probably gonna have a shit week. She already knows that... Alyssa, I think her name was? Max already knows someone's gonna throw something at her and knows how to save her. Tl;dr, max keeps her memories, so your point is invalid.
Friday-Max doesn't lose her memories, you're quite right, but Monday-Max never gains Friday's memories and instead is overwritten by Friday at the funeral.
I really don't like the framing of the final choice. The power make such little sense that drawing the conclusion that Chloe needs to die is just kinda dumb horror movie logic. Real life doesn't contrive to serve strange thematic ideals. I'm also kind of morally opposed to a moral that insists death and tragedy need to happen. It's boring, defeatist, status quo reinforcing thinking. The only logically consistent way I can make sense of the ending is that it takes place in a universe with a god who does in fact hate gay people.
Not so much that it needs to happen as it DOES happen and needs to be accepted. The whole week is Max refusing to accept Chloe's death. It's the Denial part of her five stages of grief...
+Sharles Davis Kendy Yup. I thought the sacrifice Chloe ending was both powerful, sad, heavy but also beautiful, perfect in a way. It encompasses so many things about growing up, sacrifice, best friends, first love, letting go, moving on.... It's really well done.
+Rosalind Chapman on a bigger scale, the "storm of death" in the story is rather idiotic. how does that work? God send it? it's a tempest of Tachyon due the overexerting of time-space by max? how does that work? other than being the butterfly effect of a the Chloe death, her being alive makes a tornado appear... this is as stupid as "the power of love" it's a forced element of "good emotions", like a happy medicine movie, but aimed to cheap drama.
+Sharles Davis Kendy but since chloe is not dead is not denial. it's the same as a fireman that goes to save a woman in a burning building, then the house crumbles and kills 3 guys, but he and the woman got saved. maybe IF he did not got into the building on fire the house would have crumbled in other ways, but he surely isn't in "denial" for saving that woman... but of course, a deus ex machina forcing a cheap emotional drama without logic or cause is the "best possible ending for a videogame"...
+Sharles Davis Kendy Yeah I don't buy that because you're not "in denial", your powers clearly work and you still bust Mr Jefferson in the sacrifice chloe ending. Why didn't that cause a hurricane, because "Chloe needs to die" because the Devs said so. No in universe justification for it.
I liked that the final choice was a choice. Even though 1 ending is shorter, and clearly not the 'good' ending, the fact that we have the choice makes sacrificing chloe even more effective because (much like the morning in Chloe's room) the player can't capture the moment forever, and they must actively end that moment.
+Senor Salty I'm in this camp to. I think it's important for the player to understand that this is a choice, that Max has to live with the burden of having made that choice, and not just had it made for her by necessity.
+Senor Salty I'll disagree here. While it was technically a choice, it was akin to the same choice in Far Cry 3 where you can choose to sacrifice your friends for more power, which went completely against all your action's intentions up to that point. It was a misplaced mechanic that broke the tone of the game of helping people. Up to that point, you really didn't do much of anything selfish, but you get this silly option to sacrifice an entire town to be with your friend longer. When they earlier drove home the point that this was a bad idea after Max tried saving Chloe's dad. There is no reason any player should think this is a good choice unless you're a completionist.
+Senor Salty Its as much of a choice as you deciding to live your life normally or blowing your brains out for no reason(no depression,no sucky life,just for a goof).So ultimately,no choice at all.Just because your choice leads to two radically different outcomes does not mean its justified,well presented,or an actual choice. Contrast it with an earlier choice of euthanasia.Now thats how an actual choice needs to be made.
+Thomas L you could make that work by say... if the Player chooses to run away, something happens that forces them to only have one option, to change history again and right their wrongs. the Player gets to make the choice, but the story still ends in the branch that makes any sense at all.
***** You could probably do that better and have the choice with the storm be a metaphor for her inaction in the bathroom. Then rewind to the beginning and when she has a chance to stop Chloe from getting shot, give the player the option to interrupt the fight and offer her life for Chloe's, or let her die; having what you experienced be applied to the game in a real sense. Offering a opportunity to mull over the idea that she was destined to die or that Max's death will give Chloe purpose to live.
Totally agree with the scene with them lying on the bed listening to Bright Eyes. I sat there for several minutes and i didn't even realize it was on a loop cause i was so caught up in the scene. so beautiful, one of the most wonderful moments in videogames imo.
Good video. Hit on some stuff that I didn't - I focused more on the positives of the rest of the narrative and the single big problem of the last episode. kinda interesting that we both came to the conclusion that the final choice shouldn't be a choice, if for different reasons.
"Your kinda sorta queer-coded partner (with plausible deniability so boys can play the "they're just friends!" card) NEEDS to get killed in cold blood by a rich white boy because, uh....the universe demands it? And resisting this act of violence in any way constitutes, uh...being immature! Grow up and accept the world!" Did the writers, like...even think twice about the message they were trying to send with this? Did someone engorge themselves on trashbin-tier yuri manga as "reference material" for this ass-backwards ending? Between that "twist" and the various other "controversial" plot points in the game, I can't imagine anyone but the most self-important art school white dude writing this game. Like we need to address all these social issues in our storygame, but god forbid we say anything interesting or nuanced about them. Gotta keep that lesbian tragedy plot moving.
Golbleen Was just imitating your own assumptions. All I was trying to say was that you shouldn't have jumped to the conclusion that the game is unethical.
+Shhwonk I think you're projecting an awful lot of your personal hang-ups with the industry and possibly even women in general onto me jokingly dramatizing "this video game writing is bad." : ^)
The ultimate life is strange "review/essay" to end all life is strange reviews. Good job Chris, it's nice to see someone actually willing to see the blatant flaws in this game.
I think that Nathan Prescott's character is actually really interesting. We don't get to see Nathan try to make his father happy, but we DO see him reach out of his loneliness to Jefferson, who he adopts as a new father figure and as someone to emulate. This becomes more clear when you realize that some of the letters and texts written to Nathan that appear to be from his father are ACTUALLY from Jefferson. In the video above, at 8:25, Max comments about "what is going on between Nathan and his father." It isn't between Nathan and his father. Nathan's need to make his "father" happy is shown by his willingness to copy Jefferson's sick art himself. There are also records of him being on a lot of prescription drugs and his family refusing to deal with issues brought to light by his counselor.
"Gal pals" lmao. Also, my big problem with the ending- Max sees the storm before she gets her powers. And there's pretty much no proof that they're connected, that saving Chloe creates the storm. It felt awful- like both of them need to be punished! The Chloe ending should've been done differently to at least begin to fix the ending
+CaptainPirateArr Yea, that is basically my issue as well. It's lazy writing to say "oh yea the storm was tied to the powers, it sure was... LOL Butterfly effects AM I RIGHT!?>!>!>"
I like to picture it was a quiet day in the office while they're working on the finale, when an intern suddenly pipes up "WAIT! We forgot about the storm!" "Oh...err....uhm.....lets....blame....uhh...." "Chloe!" "Yeah, Chloe!"
Sharles Davis Kendy It wasn't obvious, it was suspected by many but there is nothing substantial to prove it. If there is evidence feel free to prove me wrong as I would love for there to be even a hint of correlation between the two.
I chose to sacrifice Arcadia Bay and save Chloe, and I honestly don't regret that. The premise that the storm is a result of Max messing with the timeline was not something I bought into, it was a dumb explenation from the devs to force in some last minute drama and "important choice" and because there is NO reason for Max and Chloe to know why the storm is coming and that going back and not save Chloe would stop it, I didn't. I don't like when characters take wild guesses about totally unknown events they have no way of knowing anything about and it turns out to be true. Thats just really bad and lazy storytelling, so when the obvious choice came up to "do what the developers want or get the "bad" ending", i knowingly choose the "bad" ending, as a "fuck you" to their storytelling tropes and crappy ideas, and it felt good to see that town with all it's issues and fucked up memories get blown away. They should have focused on one story, one big mystery that would have to be solved. The game would be better if it eather was about how to stop the storm and save the town OR was a murder mystery (without any time travel or supernatural elements). Now it's just a mess with two bad endings.
This is really well stated and put together, but I have to disagree with your take on the ending. It just seems to rely on too many leaps in logic. Out of all the time traveling, why is THAT the one thing that causes all the problems? And if time travel is what is harming the universe, how would time traveling again fix it? Why would Max be given a vision of the storm just before Chloe dies, if not allowing Chloe to die is what causes that storm? Why would Max even be granted these powers if she isn't meant to use them? So if we must rely on the existence of Fate, why is it only concerned with killing Chloe in increasingly cruel and humiliating ways? Like, Fate doesn't seem to give a shit whether we allow Kate, Frank, or Jefferson to live or die. Why is it so concerned with JUST Chloe dying? If fate exists as we are meant to believe in this way, then he is petty, passive aggressive, and damn shitty at his job. I agree that sacrificing Chloe fits with the themes of not being able to return home or hold onto the past, but it does so to a degree that is dehumanizing to the characters. This, to me, is unacceptable in a narrative that is entirely about humanizing characters. Frankly, I think rolling over and accepting that the universe is just fundamentally vindictive and cruel for no compelling reason is a far weaker show of character than standing up, not going quietly into that good night, and keeping what you have fought so hard to protect. Power has been thrust upon Max by Fate. Fate then, should just as much have to bow to this reality as Max and Chloe have to.
I think we do actually see David's soft site and Nathan's emotional problems. Spoiler : We see how broken and sad Nathan is when he lies beaten on the floor (if you let Warran beat him up) and in the message he leaves for Max before he's killed by Jeff. In Davids case we see and hear how much he cares when he breaks down after you tell him that Chloe is dead in the bunker scene. But I do agree with you that it would have been nice to see these things before the last episode and see them impact the actual story .
I think you kind of missed the point of the media when you compare the narrative structure of the game to that of a movie. While I agree that saving Chloe instead of the Bay is reverting her arc - it is my choice. I'm part of the narrative as much as the virtual characters are. You beautifully pointed out, that they re-used an old song for the Chloe ending, but this drives it home (literally) how much she is stuck in a childlike, best friends forever, world. But I chose that one. This is my story. And that I have been given that option, makes me feel much more connected to that world and the characters than if I were to watch the same story as a movie. I wouldn't call it a flaw in the story. It's the option to be flawed if you so desire.
Thanks for this, Chris, this is an absolutely fantastic video with some really interesting points made (as per usual for you). I agree with most of what's said, but there's a few things I wanted to mention (for anyone not watching the video but reading the comments for some reason, be warned this also has spoilers): -I think giving the villains their characterization off-screen actually works quite well. I feel the game's giving you a slanted view of the characters on purpose, and it wants you to look for redeeming qualities yourself. After all, the way David or Nathan act is very indicative of how certain people are seen in the real world. The game wants you to understand that, no matter how awful a person is, there's always something that's making them this way, and that's as true for your friend Chloe as it is for her step-douche. -Speaking of villains, I'm surprised you didn't rag on Jefferson for a bit. I thought he was one of the lamest things about the game. Not only were his motivations extremely cliche to the point of hilariousness, but I actually think the way the game foreshadowed his twist is actually kind of repulsive. Throughout the early episodes, it's established Jefferson has a very dark style of photography, and in his classes he talks about "binding people in a dark corner and framing them in a moment of desperation". The same is true for Nathan's artstyle. No one else is that way, aside from Kate shortly before her suicide attempt. I think it's a messed up thing to imply that someone producing dark and disturbing art means they've got this big dark murder-rape secret or are suicidal. You can produce dark and disturbing art and be in a perfectly fine mental state. -I very much appreciate the lack of explanation for Max's time travel. If they'd centered the whole thing around that, the story would've lost a lot of its emotional impact, and the importance of just small moments. I'm happy they left it as a plot device and nothing more. -I think it kind of sucks that you can get Max and Chloe to show romantic interest in each other. I feel conflicted about saying this, because I love the fact that there's a couple more good gay/bi characters (I don't think Chloe's ever interested in a guy, is she?) in the gaming industry, but I think media has a tendency for people who are really close to always get romantically involved. I really loved Life is Strange as the story of a really close friendship without any romantic feelings, a thing that's fairly underrepresented in media (unless it's something explicitly about *THE POWER OF FRIENDSHIP*), and I think having the two of them have that kiss at the very end kind of ruins that. I don't mind the kiss in Episode 3, that very much felt like just a silly thing two teenage girls would do who weren't romantically attracted. Overall, despite the many flaws that Life is Strange really has, it's the game that's stuck with me the most the whole year. There's some really touching moments in there, and Max and Chloe's relationship is fantastic. It's not the best game to come out in 2015, but it *is* my favorite one. Also, if anyone stuck through this whole comment, thanks for caring about this random guy on the internet's opinion, and sorry about how long this is.
+masterplusmargarita Regarding Jefferson characterization, there are a lot of other elements hinting us toward his madness, so it's not like the game really makes a statement. GeekRemix made an incredible video right after episode 1 where they spotted numerous hints well before anyone would have suspected it, just watch it if you have doubts. Anyway, the game isn't as much about photography than simply using it as a metaphor. That's my take on it anyway.
+masterplusmargarita "I think it kind of sucks that you can get Max and Chloe to show romantic interest in each other." You cant really.I mean chloe is bi(she mentions a guy at one point),but even if you go for the kiss,max describes it as a playfull joke in her diary.Max still sees chloe as a good friend,not a romantic friend,no matter what you do.
+MrTrollaid I have seen the video in question, but I the way that video guesses the whole Jefferson shebangle is precisely via what I mentioned: 'Jefferson is evil because his art is dark'. I still think that's simply a bad message to put out there. It's been a while since watching it, so correct me if I'm wrong. +DaemianLucifer If you go full Chloe in your decisions (Take the blame for the weed, ignore Kate's call, steal the money from the principal, etc. I think you get to have one "non-Chloe" choice.), and then kiss her in episode 3, Max writes some things in her diary that imply she sees Chloe as more than just a friend, and they have a pretty passionate second kiss if you pick the sacrifice Chloe ending at the end. I find this frustrating in both the sense that I would prefer this to just not be a thing, and that the fact that you have to make such a specific series of choices kind of implies that you're doing it wrong if you don't get the kiss at the end.
glorb The problem here is that games are kind of bad at determining player reasoning for things. To love someone you don't have to be slavishly devoted to them and pander to them. It only "makes sense" to me in that weird video-gamey Bioware relationship way where you woo people by constantly giving them presents and agreeing with everything they say. Remember, we're not talking about Chloe loving Max, we're talking about Max loving Chloe. Of the Chloe choices, answering Kate's call, and saying not to steal the money seem like perfectly good options even if you love her. (And I have no idea if the Euthanasia choice plays into it, but if it does that one is a minefield either way) You absolutely can love someone and ignore their huffy protests to answer a super fucking important phonecall from someone who has just been sexually assaulted and publicly humiliated, or tell them that maybe stealing charity money isn't the best way to settle their debt (especially when it could get you caught, which is what I was worried about).
I disagree that the choice was supposed to be that simple, that Chloe was supposed to die, Final Destination style. Or if that was the message then they failed to deliver it by the half hour leading up to that being a refresher on 'every time you go back to fix something you make it worse'. So when the choice came up it felt like the final test: Will you go back in time to fix everything, one last time (after it just beat you over the head with how that NEVER works out that way), or will you finally accept that sometimes bad things happen and you can't change that? Also with the environmental devastation it felt almost like an allegory for climate change. So you've noticed you're power is screwing up the planet, and it's going horribly wrong... will you A) Use the power. One last time. For realsy, this time I'm gonna quit right after. or B) Stop using the power that's destroying everything. And it sucks that a lot of people will die, but making that storm bigger and killier isn't going to change that. And it worries me that about half the people playing saw that, said 'ok, the environment is exploding because of this, but lets keep going just a little bit more, we can fix the environment later'... or apparently the only thing that the environment needs to calm down is just a wee bit more CO2, then it will all be fixed. I'm not really sure... Chloe's explanation for how letting her die would help just didn't make any sense. It sounded more like survivor's guilt. Ok, so I haven't seen the Chloe dies ending yet and apparently a magic fix is possible (Chloe was right, and I was wrong) and I read the implications of Max's powers wrong. But given how hard they preached that the use of the power was the problem, I don't know that it was meant to be a simple choice of weighing the benefits. I think they also intended us to weigh the risks.
I beg to differ on the sacrifice Arcadia Bay ending to wipe away everything you did throughout the game while the Sacrifice Chloe ending doesn't. The entirety of the game you have been going around and about with Chloe, doing everything you can to save her ass again. Sacrificing her in the end to me means that everything I did in the game is pointless.Yes, it may be better from a perspective of coming to terms with adulthood etc, it would mean that to be an adult you have to abandon something you care deeply for. Which I don't agree with. It's something that maybe society wants me to do, but fuck society. Another thing, after the hurricane the Two Whales part that wasn't collapsed seemed to still be intact, meaning that there is a big possibility that the people in there survived. While in the other ending Max could have easily stepped in and see what happened. You already know what is coming so just walk up to Nathan and give him a kiss or something super insanely unexpected to see how that would turn out. You can rewind after all, especially because if you chose to go back in time the rewinds that you have done so far didn't happen so you'll start with a blank slate. I don't agree with either option at the end because there could have been way better things happening. On the emotional spectrum though the game does already provide enough backlash to the things Max/the player does. Going back in time to save Chloe's dad turned out to lead to Chloe being paralyzed from top down, which to me was the most harsh emotional thing that happened in the game. Even compared to the ending, simply because it feels more fleshed out. At the end of that arc where you had to make a choice to end her suffering or to prolong her life for her parent's sake felt like an actual relief to me, a proper conclusion and repent for the choice I had made even though the choice itself was fine but somewhere down the line where Max had no influence all of that happened. I didn't feel that in either ending of the game, so I went with saving Chloe, why? Because I'm a type of person who likes to resist the natural way, the way it was meant to be. That and I did really like Chloe as a character though I am a bit sad that other characters didn't get included as much. Warren was just standing on the side and not nearly enough screentime while a lot of the times they did have contact on the phone. Anyhow, I liked the game a lot. Currently playing through it again just to experience the emotions again. On another note, the choices you make in the game have no real impact on the plot itself, yes that is true. But would you want to wait for the development time of a game to have all of that. It would take a long time to make every choice you make to have a big influence on the plot. Besides, the beauty of video games to me is that it is all an illusion, all fake, yet we humans are able to take experiences from it. It doesn't have to be real to feel real. The facts that some of the choices made me consider what would happen in either one and the fact that there is even a little mention from some character on some choices I made is more than enough for me. I am willing to suspend the disbelief of the choices having no real consequences to increase my own immersion in the world of Life is Strange. I actually think that this is the best thing about video games, next to video games being an interactive medium that can accomplish things other media can't. To me, Video games are the proof of the power of lies and illusions. Even if the things in a game aren't real, it doesn't mean we can't take real experience from it.
In my opinion the only right final choice is to save Chloe because all the possible outcomes already exist and I'd think Max would much prefer to exist in the reality Chloe survives.
Wow this is a lot more cynical than I would've expected from you. Kate's suicide is just a "video game puzzle"? Nah the game deals with Kate's troubles as well as it possibly could within the frame of its narrative, especially if you take the time when you're in her room to look at all the things. Really lots of pedantic points. I don't care if a narrative point is a little bit convenient if it's used to serve up some really fantastic scenes with a lot of emotional truth, as you say. More games should strive to hit even half of the notes this game hits.
+Groose Caboose WHat I thought was weird was he said that Nathan doesnt show a different side to him but he does when he leaves a message to Max sobbing saying hes sorry and he didnt want it to end that way when you're driving to the diner to meet with Warren.
+Chloe WolfieGirl What makes this extra puzzling is Nathan's first scene in the bathroom. He seems like the local rich jerk psyching himself up for the confrontation with Chloe... but in hindsight it's pretty clear he's just trying to work up the nerve to stand up to yet another person trying to use him. It's all arguable, sure, but not easily dismissed.
+Groose Caboose To be honest, I'd be much more cynical than he is about it. First: It is a puzzle. It's a very classically constructed one, at that. A number of levels of puzzle choice, many of which have 'bye' options if you did something earlier to make it easier, ultimate pass-fail scenario based on X misses and you're out. It's a puzzle. Second: That's actually one of the worst damn ways to handle this sort of plot. Every suicide leaves behind a multitude of people who all wonder "What could I have done differently? Could I have saved her?" And the answer is usually no. This, however, argues, "Yes, absolutely. You could have!" It rings false as a result. If it had been up to me, I'd have again taken some choice away from the player here. Namely, I'd have removed the chance to save Kate. Instead, I'd have ditched the 'I'm running out of juice' plot contrivance and let you rewind again and again and again to get there in time, letting you do it every step so you really feel the pain of it. Then, up on the roof, I'd have the full dialogue tree... and then she jumps. And you rewind, of course. And then she jumps. So you rewind again and... And sooner or later it hits you. You can't save her. This is a point where no matter how much your powers let you reset, you were powerless. Knowing that is a part of growing up too, fitting the themes of the game and feeling more coherent.
+Chloe WolfieGirl True, but that hits the other point he makes: All those Nathan points happen offscreen. Yes, he leaves the voice message but, yet again, he's offscreen. As such, he doesn't hit home as much as he should. In addition, that voicemail is payoff, not setup. He needed (very badly) a scene during the alternate reality where Max was in his group. That entire sequence was squandered. Yes, I get that it's a beautiful chance to show how Chloe wound up how she is. But it could also have done time giving us insight into Nathan, in different lights, humanising him. It hurts not having it there.
+Groose Caboose Yeah I don't really get the Kate complaints either. In the context of the events of the rest of the episode it makes sense that Max's power is taken away from you. You're spending the entirety of the episode up to this point using your powers with Chloe who you just unveiled them to, using them much more than you normally would (outside of player driven rewinds for dialogues and stuff like that, I'm talking about the narrative directly addressing you have time powers and making Max/You use them). Then like you said, there are a ton of notes and things about Kate's character and her family relationships that really help highlight the scene on the roof if you take that time to look at them. It can make or break the entire scene, and finding that is made optional because the game is testing how well you got to know that character, or if you just didn't care at all. It's a very very high note for that game, and this narrative type of game in general.
Der Krazy Kraut yeah, I see what you mean. Other than that I know VaatiVidya, but his channel is focused just on From Software's games and their lore. There should be more UA-camrs like this.
Characters' personalities are indeed presented through "writing and voice acting" but also body language. "Environmental stories aren't bad but it limits the stories you can tell". Yes that's true but the game chooses to tell instead of show because they didn't have a budget like Telltale games for example The Walking Dead. And it might be materialistic but thats the truth. More money = more opportunities = proper facial reaction etc. Maybe they would implement the sadness, happyness to the characters and we would could watch and know what is going on instead of reading/listening to the dialog. Also it's just like in real life. Sometimes the personality or true feelings (like David's) are hidden deep inside and there are people that "aren't really geat at showing it" so it has to be told for those who cannot see it for themselfs About Max's personality which u stated as damped. I strongly disagree. It feels like it but it's because she have changed thoughout the game. She IS artsy - her journal, hello? geeky - all the camera geeky stuff in ep1 and ep2?, unsure of herself - in the begining - yes then it changed. Running away with Close DOESN'T undo the Max's character development ! They went though this week together, it changed both of them. Now Max is confident etc and Chloe is less self-centered. This statement would make some sense in "Saving the Bay" ending but actually in my opinion it is wrong. Because her character is still the same even after rewinding time and going all the way back to "normal". Max still have lived through all these events and it changed her personality no matter what timeline she is in. GOD i have written way too much LOL
The thing about the end is that Max had two seperate character arcs. One based around self actualization and the other tied to her power and how it represents a desire to compulsively fix mistakes. The game has two wildly diverging thematic wrap ups, neither is better than the other because they are so wildly oppisite.
I think that jacksepticeyes Playthrough of this game says it all. When Kate commits suicide, jack went "please tell me I fucked that up. Please tell me there was a way to do that, and I just fucked it up." ... Really. I haven't watched the video yet, but this is a game that makes people want to know they fucked up rather than know they were on a set path... That's deep enough for me.
This is my favourite game of 2015, but I guess that might partially be because of the game types I'm into, I dont quite get the "stilted writing" as to me the writing was more articulate and great compared to many shows, games, podcasts and peoples convocations in real life, it also tackled a lot of things. The animation wasn't great sure, the necks where long, eyes looked weird not a massive amount of facial expression but the voice acting and what was said was more then enough. Also perhaps at the end your choices kinda meant nothing in the timeline they did, it made me feel more connected with the timeline and more connected with the characters, it made me feel bad that Warren likes me and not brooke in this timeline, it made me glad that I let the guy draw me, it made choices that I didn't even know I could make feel important such as signing a patition, perhaps in the end it wouldnt have changed much if anything, it feels important. It did feel awkward when I lost my powers when I needed to with Kate because it never showed up again other then when the game slowed down told me I couldnt be in two places at once and had to restart the game cos glitch, but other then that I feel all the mechanics work and that its great, Max feels like a great character much like Chloe. It was a fight between this and Undertale for my fave game of the year but I chose this one.
Can allowing the player to choose the "wrong" choice for the character arc be an interesting statement in and of itself? Like you say, the whole game leads up to this theme of growing stronger as an individual, and that saving Chole runs counter to that. But in real life people don't always have satisfying arcs, sometimes they fuck up big time and have to live with it. Sometimes we're just too weak willed to do the right thing. When Max and Chole drive off it's unsatisfying, but more than that I just look at the deeply troubled look on Max's face and think "damn, this girl is emotionally scarred for life." It reminds we in a way of that slow sobering long take at the end of the graduate, as you feel all the jubilation slip away and really think about the consequences. So in a way, I think allowing players to essentially cock-up the narrative, reinforces the importance of having the courage to do the right thing. By seeing these consequences happen from failure, it shows us the reality of unhappy ends. But I'd acknowledge that this message is limited by players engagement with Max's relationship with Chole. If you don't maximally play in a way that allows one to invest themselves in the two's bond, then it could be easier to decide to save Arcadia. If the moment moral dilemma doesn't require much will power on your part, that aspect of the message is lost. Therefor it's troubling that the design of the game distinctly allows for this possibility.
Glad to see this episode finally came out, I've been looking forward to it since I asked about it. It's always nice to see another perspective on a game.
Hmmm. I disagree with the final choice being a bad idea. I sacrificed Arcadia Bay and i'm not looking/going back to sacrifice Chloe. Every action I took had a consequence and at a certain point, if not immediate, it led to a goddamned tornado regardless. I felt I could just live with my decisions. So what if it up heaves the entire character arc saving Chloe; that's what I was aiming to do the entire freaking game.
I think you nailed it by saying that games are in such a position that an interesting story about two teenage girls with sincere relatable moments (like waking up and just chill, you can do it in all 1-3 episodes) trumps all the mystery and time travel. I think the greatest part of this game is making you feel a part of that friendship/relationship. This is the main reason it has such high scores and people like it.
I definitely agree that weather you sacrifice Chloe or not should have NOT been a player choice. However I believe choosing to sacrifice Chloe to be the better choice. What was the point in falling in love to give up that love? What is the point in being able to change time and escape fate if you don't? The whole game is about Max learning to self actualize. The game starts with her unable to turn in an assignment, and the only way to keep moving forward, rejecting fate and seizing the destiny you want. In my opinion the only option is to save Chloe otherwise the whole journey has been pointless.
I think the ending decision being left in the hands of the player is important. What's the point of having an interactive medium if pivotal decisions are made for you? The theme also has an opportunity to hit harder this way: if you don't learn from your experiences, you'll keep treading water as everything descends into chaos around you.
Thanks for this. I really hope DONTNOD sees this video. I, personally, absolutely love the hell out of Life Is Strange, warts and all, and feel that it's one of the most genuinely touching experiences that I've ever had with any piece of art in any medium, but I can't deny that there are so many issues that could certainly be fixed. I maybe disagree with the idea of taking away choice, it's okay for a video game to lead towards an arc but also leave open the option to see how things play out if you make a differing choice (in this way, the shorter ending is somewhat punishing as it basically says "well, this is what you wanted, so here it is" and just kind of gets out of the way quickly with little resolution), but I definitely think that every criticism raised in this could be addressed and would make for an outstanding game. It's going to be really hard for them to top Max and Chloe as characters, for me, though. I can't wait to see what is cooked up for the inevitable sequel!
I believe that the ending of this game had to be a choice, even though only one of them felt like a true ending. Max say's "I can't make that choice" and Chloe tells her "No, your the only one that can". I don't think it would have been as impactful if it just chose the right answer for you, you have to make the right choice even though its hard. I wanted so badly for the two of them to be together romantically that I felt every beat of the complicated web of trying to find a reality where she was still alive. But then I as the player had to chose to do the right thing by throwing all of that away. That ending made me flat out cry, and it probably wouldn't have been as impactful if i didn't have to pull the trigger myself. I needed it for the meta narrative rather then just the narrative.
I only finished Life Is Strange just the other day (darned Steam backlog) and just wanted to pick-up on a point in your (great) video. You mentioned "Butterfly effect" powers as a negative, as "convenient". I think the game is fully aware of it's extremely close ties to the Butterfly effect as the butterfly is the main symbol of the game. The first photo you take, the icon that appears when a memorable choice is made and more. Whilst the "travel into a photo" power itself could be contrived as convenient I didn't take it like that. I was so caught up in the story I took it as just the evolution of this unknown, unreliable power. If it was just used for that one scene I would completely agree with you but it's a power that comes back. Max COULD have used it for anything but what is it she cares about at that point in the game? Chloe. You also said that Max's power-loss in the Kate scenario wasn't referenced again and I have to disagree because it was. It never happened again, which I do think is a flaw, but it was discussed often and I actually felt tension first-play through as I EXPECTED her power to fail again. Max mentions over and over that she didn't want Chloe to rely on her power to try and calm Chloe down. Overall though I agree with your conclusion. The game is not perfect but IS important in the world of computer games in general and hope many studios, including Dontnod themselves keep evolving the world of game storytelling as they are doing. Saying that, even with its flaws, it still packed an emotional punch for me that I've not felt for a long time and I watch a lot of films and read a lot of books.
0:12 Life is Strange 0:40 Emotion 2:16 Powers ties to theme 3:20 Changing the past 4:11 Issues 5:54 Coming of Age 6:44 Too often/too explicitly we are told she’s grown up 7:43 Told, Not Shown 8:23 Nathan Prescott, 9:13 Victoria 10:12 Get a sense
this games final decision reminds me of steins gate, in that steins gate subverted the "I'm fated to die" fatalism trope. turns out if your really clever, and willing to endure a lot of pain, you can use time travel to save everyone. at least so long as god doesn't throw a magic storm at you for no reason.
I think it is great that we get the choice at the end. When I played it, it didn't feel like a choice, and if I somehow encountered this same situation in real life, it wouldn't be a choice either. You don't have the right to decide over the lives of thousands of people. But it is still you who has to act in order to save them. Having the ability to not do it gives doing it a lot more depth. This is one of the tools games have that other media don't.
[The Last of Us and Bioshock Infintie spoilers] BTW That was my problem with the last of us's ending. It tried doing the same thing as Life is Strange or Bioshock Infinite (when you didn't leave the room until you handed over the baby), but it failed in my opinion. It forced me to do something that I would never ever do. I get that Joel is completely his own character and I'm just following him, but then why make me press the button to do the very thing that makes me hate him? It's not like he had to do it, like it is in Life is Strange and Bioshock, he's just a selfish asshole.
Hey, I just found your channel. Great stuff! I was curious about your critique of the "wooden face" acting that made a lot of the story heard and not scene. I was thinking it was a limitation of the way they developed the game. Since it's very cinematic, animation, and dialogue heavy, it would cost a lot to do high quality rendered out cut scenes for the acting moments. I'm aware they used in engine, real time render for every cut scene, so that would limit the rigs they would be able to use (you can't use blend shapes in Unreal to get that nice level of expressions). You can also tell they re-used idle animation for a lot of the more basic dialogue. I think it's a fair critique but I wonder if it's a moot point since I can't see the Developers being able to showcase that level of expression given the time, budget, and engine constraints.
I agree with most of it but with 2 exceptions. First, I feel that the fact that we saw only one side of 'Step-Douche' (which is false, because we saw how he saved Max) or Nathan, didn't harm the game. Because, in real life, it's unlikely that you would know a person from a different side, especially if that's your enemy. For that to happen, you need to catch them in their vulnerable moment, like Max did with Victoria. The only way for the game to show the "good" side of Nathan would be to pull some forced plot drama and that would be very cheap. Making us discover that on our own through little details, only helped the immersion. So that Max would understand that they just want to act tough and strong and they're afraid to show their human side. Victoria wasn't that afraid to show it while Frank in fact was proud of it. He has trust issues but he's not hiding his true self unlike David and Nathan. And second, the ending choice is there for a reason. Not everyone sees the main plot as Max's love for Chloe and unwillingness to let her go. She also does everything in her power to make everyone happy and tries to save everyone. Either choice provides personal growth for Max. First option closes the character arc for Chloe but not Max. Max still goes back in time to save everyone, like she always does. She doesn't realize that you can't always save everyone, no matter how hard you try. When she went back in time for the first time, to save Chloe's dad, she experiences this in person. There are consequences. By saving the city Max refuses to acknowledge it and doesn't learn on her mistakes. Even after Chloe's death, she will likely to continue to use her powers for good, screwing up the timeline even more. The second option on the contrary, doesn't close Chloe's arc, but it does provide personal growth for Max for the reasons listed. Without metagaming, there's no reason to believe that tornado is connected to Max. It may simply be the climate change like it does happen in our world. Max is not a goddess, she can't be responsible for everything. And she definitely can't be responsible for the tornado. In fact, there's no game explanation for that tornado at all. We start our game with the dream of one. And it was before Max's powers manifested. It would make sense that this dream would happen after she saved Chloe, if Chloe was indeed the source of that tornado. I just wish they would put more effort in the second ending, with the epilogue and all. If you put more content in just one option, there is exactly no choice because people would want to see the other ending, just because it has more closure. That's my opinion of the endings.
The Darkness did the "do nothing and enjoy the love" bit better than Life is Strange imo. It got there quicker, was a huge contrast to an otherwise brutal and (obviously) dark game, and managed to give the whole trope of revenging your dead girlfriend thing an incredible weight I'd never seen before. It was also a whole lot sadder because the entirety of the game follows a guy who is unable to let go. It ends bleakly, without a choice, but ambiguous enough that it leaves you wondering if the main character, Jackie, moves on or even if he SHOULD move on. Given it's source material is a very 90s, very edgy comic that shares space with Witchblade, it becoming a bleak and thought-provoking game that, while otherwise bland, does a few things amazingly well, was miraculous. It and Demon's Souls endings (and most Souls games endings) show to me that it's often times best to say nothing at the end of a game that asks you though questions. Unfortunately, because Life is Strange doesn't end here, it can't do something like that (yet). My only hope for the series is that it ends with a choice you make in your own head, because choosing for you will alienate you from Max, but summing up the series in a way that you feel doesn't do what you want it to will just result in the same feeling. At worst it will feel like a cop out, but no matter what, ending on ambiguity will keep people thinking and talking about the game.
I was super supportive with what this game was trying to do all the way up to the end of episode 4, despite its flaws. However, when episode 5 came out, I had to finally submit that this game was actually not very good at all, and destroyed my interest in it. Every input by the player is proven to be pointless by the last episode, because no matter what things you say or do, Max goes back in time to moments prior to when you made these choices. Everything boils down to the very last "choice". Even then, as Errant points out, that last choice is also pointless, since there is only one right thing. If this were a film, this would have been monumentally better, since then the player wouldn't feel railroaded down arbitrary paths to an inevitable conclusion, which cannot be affected by personal preferences in anyway.
+TheCrimsonSpire You might not appreciate it, but that's kind of the entire point of the game's "choice" mechanics. Max tries to fix everything and get the happy ending, and it consistently backfires, complicates the situation, and/or makes it worse (or at least just as bad but in a completely different way).
+OnlyARide That message/theme could have easily been communicated through a more effective medium such as film, rather than the more interactive medium of video games. The interactive elements imputed by the player is worthless in the grand scheme of things. At most we get to press the play button on the remote and watch it unfold in front of us.
Great video, you touched on a lot of points of why I both loved this game and was frustrated by it. Looking back, I liked that the game was so much about emotional truth of the moment. It was different and part of why it has stuck with me so long. But that's also where they snapped the rubber band in the last episode. I agree giving us the choice was bad, but for slightly different reasons. The game had broken it's own rules so much by having Max, Warren, and Chloe pulling out of thin air that Chloe not dying was what caused the storm that I refused to believe them. It hadn't set up like the Butterfly Effect that all time travel was bad, plenty had been changed with no effect on the strength of the storm. The storm was still coming in the alternate reality with William, where I did honor Chloe's wishes before leaving. In the moment, that couldn't sell me on that emotional truth. And outside of that, my Max wasn't able to sacrifice Chloe. I was exhausted, Max was exhausted from the marathon that was the last two episodes. It had done an amazing job of making me feel everything up to this final choice, of having me empathize with Max. I was so glad to be playing until the ending. And it wasn't a noble choice, but I felt a very real human choice to say fuck the town. She wasn't a hero in a morality play, I was playing her like a person and this was a bridge too far. There would be guilt and pain and it would break something, but killing Chloe was the more horrible choice for my Max. And everything dontnod did to make it the "bad" ending just annoyed me more. You can't imply everyone dies if in the same episode you have me running through the storm, and there some people survive while others don't. There will be a body count, but going "everyone dies if you pick your girlfriend" is gross.
I loved this game but didn't like the ending, and I couldn't put into words why until I listened to your reasoning. The game was definitely working up to letting Chloe go, to show that sometimes you can't save someone and you will lose them forever. It's a game about dealing with grief, and it's really, really clear about that. When the final choice wass presented I was incredibly confused and ended up taking the "Save Chloe" option just to see what it would show me. In the moment I thought maybe I'd missed something, that maybe the game was telling me to not give up and keep on trying to save Chloe, that somehow I could save her and the town somehow. What I got was an ending that told me I made the wrong choice, especially when saving the town is so very clearly what the game feels is the correct one. It felt like I was following along then was thrown a red herring, which really sucked the wind out of my sales and left me sitting in my chair wondering what just happened. I think that you're right, that the game should have shown that Chloe could not be saved and made your final choices have more to do with how you grieve and how you move on. That, to me, would have been thematically more appropriate (and I would have cried my eyes out rather than enter a state of bewilderment).
+qerguil I think he misses the point of the ending entirely. In a game all about those small touching moments that is talked about in the beginning of this video, the ending absolutely embodies that dynamic. Should you let Chloe sacrifice herself in order to save the rest of the town, thus dooming her to be forever just within your memories and undoing all of the moments between her and Max within the game? Or should you hold on to Chloe for as long as fate will allow, cherishing your relationship with her above all else and seeing all the stuff you've been through together as too much to let go? The whole game is about this choice: it presents you with several meaningful moments, and then lets you decide whether to hold on to them or move on immediately. Even if Chloe is somehow destined to die, the choice of ending allows the player the entirely valid option of sticking with her no matter what happens. The game builds up to a hard choice where the answer isn't easily available and the game won't make it for you. That burden of personal responsibility, whether to the people of Arcadia Bay or Chloe, is the result of Max's character development, not the one-sided narrative option that Campster feels should happen.
+Jacob French His point was that the option to save chloe contradicts the whole character development of the two girls, and I agree. Saving Chloe just doesnt make sense from an audience view, so why give us a choice if the one option is totally off character?
+Jacob French I think the point, for a gross simplicity, would be akin to saying "and it was allllll a dreeaaammmm!!". No one wants that crap because it undermines the story as a whole.
I think I'd argue that even the "superficial" choices and even the ending choice play into the story thematically in that they make the player feel unsure of themselves, which is definitely a huge part of Max's character.
There are obviously multiple ways to interpret and look at Max's character arc and the nature of her powers. The way I see it, Max was at the beginning of the game still traumatized by her forced departure from Arcadia Bay shortly after the death of her best friend's father. She was basically stuck with anxieties/analysis paralysis that made her lose touch with Chloe, and for whatever reason she was granted her powers the morning of the very day when her inaction would have permanent consequences. (I.e., Chloe's death.) I think this is supported by the alternate timeline where Chloe's father didn't die, and we got a short glimpse into a life where Max was popular and more well-adjusted. When Max moved away in that timeline, Chloe was fine and moving wasn't the same thing as abandoning her, even if bad things still happened later on. Furthermore, Max Prime's diary mentioned how the fears that kept her from getting back in touch with Chloe only got worse the longer she waited. Without a doubt, Max received her powers at the start of the game so that she could save Chloe. A second chance of sorts, regardless of if it gained permanence or became reduced to memories of a world that could have been at the end of the game. Then that was followed by both the player and Max getting to explore those powers, which served the purpose of both familiarizing the player with the game's systems and giving Max herself opportunities to safely take chances and make decisions, as she feels protected by the option to rewind after any given choice. I think Max's ability to finally take decisive action, fully aware of that bad things will happen regardless, is what the ending is about. Starting with the journey into the past in episode 4, Max stopped second-guessing her decisions and went so far as to burn bridges she didn't want to take. Starting with the childhood photo in Chloe's house, Max systematically destroyed photographs she could potentially use to undo her decisions. This continues all the way up to the ending, where Max rips her butterfly photo after deciding what parts of her life are more important to her, and what action she can or can't take. (Of course there's also a bit of irony in that both choices depend on Max's own inaction. Regardless of which timeline she ends up in, the only thing she can do is... nothing.) Anyway, Chloe Price ---❤️--- 4ever.
I'd just like to comment that the timing for Max to gain new powers, although convenient, is also very consistent. We are shown from the very first time she does that it happens because of being in stressful situations in which someone close is involved (even though she doesn't know Chloe at first, they are connected thru their childhood friendship) Imo, the game sets up variations in Max's powers effectively from the get-go
Your favorite LIS moment is mine as well! And I think your characterization of the game as something that is touching but does not necessarily make logical sense/establish rules of its universe is spot on. In addition to the social issues you mentioned as drama creators in the game (suicide, murder, sexual harassment/sexual assault), I think LIS does really weird things with race and specifically with the use of Native American spiritual and cultural traditions, from the tobanga and the use of the Hopi prophecy to Ms. Grant's weird and historically inaccurate comments about cooperation between Native Americans and European settlers. Then there are characters like Daniel who looks to be a person of color and has what seems like a Spanish accent, yet is actually played by a white voice actor? Just a lot of weirdness going on there...
I love this game so much. It is by far one of my favorites of all time and takes game of the year for me by a landslide. I know that is not perfect, not even a little, but when it is good it is really good. I will carry this game with me for the rest of my life.
I have such a strong Love/Hate towards this game, and you basically gave all my reasons why in this nice little video. Now when everyone ask me why, I'll just show them this video. Thanks for the awesome video as always.
Hey I had been trying to save Chloe for five episodes. I chose to save Chloe because otherwise everything I had done for the whole game would be gone and I didn't want that.
That's the thing, though. Saving Chloe is what set all the other chain of events. Using the photography allegory, it's like constantly trying to find the "perfect" shot (like Jefferson kept doing while torturing Max) rather than just accept what's in front of you. You can "capture" a moment, freeze it in time, but you can't change what happened.
I liked the Chloe's ending more because else everything I had done during 2 episoades had of been for nothing if I would just throw that away and just "reset" the timeline by letting her die.
I think my favorite moment besides the ending is, after I let Nathan get the shit kicked out of him, he sends a text later where he apologizes and opens up some. made me feel super guilty.
now I get the title, especially the errant part. I love this serie but the content could use a little more structured. But the title says it all, so I can't really complain. Plus, it is useful to sometimes just think about it and let your mind wander. You might reach unexpected places and this series does it very well. So I get it and I like it.
If the moral of a story can be summed up by Homer Simpson, I think it may have underachieved somewhat on its intrinsic promise that it would have some kind of meaning. "Kids, you tried your best, and failed miserably! The lesson is: Never try."
That was an interesting take on the ending. I feel like everyone else who's analyzed the final choice, including ANTHONY FREAKING BURCH, came to the conclusion that leaving with Chloe is the more plausible ending for Max's character arc. Nice to hear the other side being argued.
Excellent episode, though I too found the final choice to be a necessity. While yes, according to your sound line of reasoning, Chloe dying is sensible with Max's development, it asks the player if they've had a similar one. Not that I took that choice. I wanted Max to reflect me, and in my ethos I'd burn the world before giving up my love.
I'm really late, but I want to weigh in anyway. I completely agree with the criticism about the final choice. On my first playthrough, I instantly picked 'Sacrifice Arcadia Bay' because Chloe had completely won me over and I didn't want her to suffer. I only went back to sacrifice her after learning that the only way to get the kiss that I was waiting for the whole game is through that path. :'( Now that I know the 'Sacrifice Chloe' is the 'correct' option, I feel like being robbed of a very powerful ending to a flawed but brilliant game. Still, Life is Strange is easily in my Top 5 games, and I feel that if Dontnod fix even half the problems for the Life is Strange 2, it'll be the best game I've ever played.
I disagree a lot with your analysis of the final choice. First, I think the "run away with Chloe" ending is, yes, shorter, but perfectly fine. It would have felt wrong IMO to extend it. I don't agree that the "go back in time" option is clearly the correct action. I feel like, emphasizing with Max, I couldn't undo just the fact that the past events happened. Even though the "save the town" option is clearly better from a "moral" standpoint, I couldn't stand the idea that none of the magical adventure would have occurred. Also, I don't know how clear the machinations of the time travel really are. Sure, Chloe *says* that "fate clearly want her dead" or some such, but really? I mean, think about how many times she actually died in flashbacks? For me, it was once on the train. And... of course in the final sequence. But I don't think any time elsewhere. I learned through watching people there are a couple of other moments she can die (playing with the gun... arguing with Frank, I think) but I definitely wouldn't say it's super clear.
the real problem with the ending choice, from my playthrough's experience, was that I just didn't like chloe THAT much, I found a lot of the other parts of the cast more engaging, more human, and better people (warren was the coolest nerd, victoria JUST NOW learned how to be a nice person and she has hopes and ambitions, and even the school principal being stuck between honestly wanting to teach kids and trying to stay afloat, taking Prescott money) all the while chloe was stubborn and never willing to talk or listen to max, especially through the later scenes. all and all I agree, it didn't feel much like a choice to me, it felt like they had put far too much weight on me REALLY liking chloe, like max did. but all and all it was a good game for the most part, and I really admire just how creepy the birds falling and whales beaching is, just seeing more and more of nature going mad was fantastic.
I thought the game was perfect for me, the cost of it was great and the writing was spectacular. I can't think of another piece of media or game that has hit me with such an emotional blow as this one. They really did a fantastic job with it.
In my opinion, the plot sorta falls apart at the end. Part of it ties directly to the whole "Max's powers work as the plot demands" thing, part of it fits that general mold without actually involving those powers. The identity of the guy doing the creepy stuff with Rachel Amber and others sorta came out of nowhere; the only clues that I can see are that he seems like the last person you should expect to do that kind of stuff and a line of dialogue that the game flashes back to after The Reveal. And that dialogue...good foreshadowing makes you wonder how you could have missed it the first time, and changes how you understand the work on subsequent viewings. That bit of dialogue does almost the exact opposite. I can see a vague connection, but I'm still not completely sure how the line is supposed to suggest anything about him. And then there's that trippy sequence towards the end, which mixes up Max's powers and game mechanics in some ways which seem ill-considered, which seems like a painfully artificial attempt to get the player to contemplate the plot and their actions and so forth. I see why they did it, but it doesn't seem to work that well (especially the stealth section). This is one of several reasons that I suspect Life is Strange didn't spend enough time considering how their concluding section would play out before releasing the first parts. I like a lot of what LIS does, and love what it's trying to do. But the execution manages to so frequently fall so far short of its intentions and my hopes that I can't call the final product more than okay.
Watching this made me just now realize that I acted out the real life version of the game's premise by the end. I chose to let the town get hit, wasn't satisfied, and went back the next day to chose the other ending. Which in the most meta way possible makes me more satisfied with the fact that there's a choice, because maybe that was also part of the point. Maybe that's the reason the selfish ending was so underdeveloped. Or maybe that's just making excuses. Before I thought of this, I agreed that it should have just been the selfless ending with no choice. But it was interesting to still have that power over choice even after the game is over.
In my original playthrough, I chose to save Arcadia Bay. It was tragic and moving; but after having played through it again and chosen to save Chloe; I was more satisfied by that ending. It seems childish and severe; but the bond between Chloe & Max was legit and Max's powers appeared just as she could save her long-time friend's life. In effect; they're meant to be together. (not in the romantic way)
Disclaimer: I loved the crap out of this game. I feel many of the problems with the narrative stem from the fact that there is a ton of "the end justifies the means" by the writers/developers. They had cool scenes and situations in mind and they didn't care that much about how to get there. The devs really wanted the flashback to 13-year-old Max and consequent timeline because they knew the scenes would be great, so they contrived a way to do it without worrying too much about making sense. The devs really wanted a girls-night-out in the swimming pool because they knew the scene would be great, so they contrived a way to do it without worrying too much about making sense. And so on and so forth until the ending itself. Don't know if it was a conscious decision or not, but the focus of the game is indeed in executing brilliant scenes, and much less in creating a cohesive world and plot, and so the narrative suffers. And still I'd totally say it was worth it, overall. Those moments they created sure are memorable. I've forgotten a lot of well plotted stories, but I know I won't ever forget Life is Strange.
I don't think you give Nathan or Jefferson due credit. They're both criminals who have put up a facade the entire first four episodes and they both do come down in front of you dynamically. You see that Nathan is a scared, traumatized kid who is aimlessly angry due to his trauma in his bedroom and his facade comes down dynamically in a voicemail. Not a voicemail to somebody else, a voicemail to you. His last action is to warn Max of Jefferson and his facade is gone completely in that action, showing how scared he is. Jefferson's facade crashing down is much more dynamic, as his basic actions during the first half of Episode 5 are that of complete objectification of Max. How is treats Max then is how he treats people everyday, showing how manipulative he is. Also, the ending isn't just awful because it undermines the arcs, its awful because its underdeveloped and it doesn't make sense. There are plotholes in every time travel story where somebody changes something to effect them personally but the ending was just unacceptable. The theory that Chloe is the catalyst for everything bad is undermined by the fact that the storm is still coming in Episode 5 even when she's dead and the theory that time travel is the catalyst and that Chloe isn't doomed to die is simply never tested - you never get to travel back in time and save Chloe without time travel powers, which would be pathetically easy.These were both obvious flaws that I saw *during* the decision making process. One theory asserted is probably wrong and the other is one you never get to test because fuck you player for following basic time travel logic. I understood what the game was trying to do thematically but it made zero sense at all. Its a Mass Effect 3 Ending level of logical failings, though the ending as a whole wasn't quite as bad as ME3's. The fact that ites entirely uncohesive basically turns it into "would you murder your brest friend if it might save your town?" versus "would you let your best friend live if it means others may die deaths they otherwise might not would've". Its not even on the level of the Fat Man Railroad Tracks scenario because in Fat Man scenario you *know* you're saving more lives than you're ending whereas here you're sacrificing somebody's life to *maybe* save a few other people. DONTNOD's ideal ending asks you to commit what is essentially murder on the off-chance that it *might* better for everybody else if she dies. Its the second-worst videogame ending I've encountered (after ME3 of course) because what they intend to ask the player and what they actually ask the player are two entirely separate things.
i think this is a clear case of Player Expression Vs Character Expression like in Fallout 4, the Character has a driving force that is supposed to be their modus operandi but the developers made choices and mechanics that express player expression rather than character expression but they also try to do character expression choices as well. it just comes out as a mess in the end because in the end you have to choose between the Player Character being a character or a player avatar. its structured vs emergent gameplay that are truly mutually exclusive to one another.
Idk what you are talk about with Max she's a amazing and , Max was one of my most fav character of all time , and she's not blank at all . That all I have to say
I just finished this game tonight, and I have to say that I think the storm feels like a real deus ex machina plot device that's supposed to serve as a sufficient threat to get the ending the developers wanted, but in the wake of "meaningless choice" endings like Mass Effect 3, they had to give the run-away ending some sense of conclusion that gives the player the thing that they wanted to see when they picked the alternative option. I think in reality the eleventh hour heroic sacrifice has reached a point where a lot of people are tired of seeing it, and they could have gone in a lot of different ways than the one that they did. For example, using the storm as an analogy for how teenagers can feel the entire universe is out to get them, and how Chloe's life was until that point a series of disappointments and abandonments that does feel like she's been sucker-punched by destiny in so many ways. She is always stuck with a tragic life (Max's seems less difficult by comparison), and she's only a hero insofar as she resigned herself to a tragic life after a friend tried every supernatural trick she could think of to save her. If I was writing this game, the waterspout would have represented her rage and resentment, and disappeared when she realizes she can't spend her tomorrows living the results of her yesterdays. But perhaps that says more about me.
Dear Errant, I do agree with your assessment of problems that LIS has now as I'm writing this after much thought. But I didn't think much of them as I was playing the game. Yes, the final choice and the end-of-episode 2/start-of-episode 3, had me want to flip a table, but most everything you said that didn't work kinda phased over me . I wonder why that is. I find myself wanting to reject your augment out of contexts for disagree with how I feel but can't because we both like LIS. So, from what I can think of at 3 am in the morning mostly likely did not analyze the characters and plot properly because it was both very enjoyable to play and unlike most everything I have played LIS felt earnest and honest with it's presentation.
I chose to save Chloe. I realised it didn't make logical sense, but BECAUSE the game offered me a choice, I thought that the game might work beyond that, that it might make some narrative sense, that the idea that I would sacrifice it all for Chloe was worth some sort of reward. Heck, I was half expecting that sacrifice to wipe out the storm before it hit, in a Disney sort of way. But no, because of that choice the game really let me down at the end. One thing I found rather clever about this game was how at the end of every chapter it showed you all the choices you made, and all the choices you could have made, and people's statistics for each. I initially felt like it was spoiling the game for me, but then I realised it was like a metaphor; if I didn't like how things turned out in that chapter I could have played it again, effectively rewinding time. Would I stick with my choices or use my powers? It seems very deliberate to me.
Completely agree on the facial animations. Really wish they were better. Also agree on the final choice. Should not have been an option as the entire story led up to that.
I think like most people, I chose to make the choice I thought was right, as far as I know these types of plots work, and I think that it's a beautiful ending. That said, something really appeals to me about the narcissism of the second choice. It seems to require an amount of apathy to make, and I love that it kind of spits that back out at you and follows through with an ending that is also narcissistic and apathetic to the happenings of the town. It could have been longer, and I'd like to see more of that channeled within Max herself, but I really like that it decided to undermine the player's expectation of a deus ex machina or even a strand of emotional redemption. That choice was truly a selfish one, and the game knew it as well as the player.
My problem all stems from that very first time she stops time. It never happens again, and something could have been done to prevent damn near everything. How? In the bathroom she could have stopped time, grabbed his gun and her and Chloe could have called for help. There were ways to win, but because the game never brings up the concept of time stopping we, as the player, can imagine scenarios where we win, easily in fact! A video of the storm brought back to warn people, making fake threats of bombing to evacuate the town, sending people to the light house in someway. All had possibility, but because we can't stop time and move through it we feel weak when we apparently have this amazing power within! Chloe's arc could have been finished in other ways, but because we can't stop time, we never get the chance to make a real difference. On a side note, why couldn't we go to the funeral and talk and grieve, even have one last word with anyone? Yes, I know Chloe was dead, but the survivors weren't. Some closure with them would have made this all a little easier to swallow. Instead? One of my favorite characters lays dead, and I can't even give my thoughts within the game.
just a comment on where you talked about how losing your powers during kate's suicide sequence seemed out of nowhere. I don't agree with that. It makes a lot of sense considering that episode largely focused on max abusing her powers to goof off with chloe. it reinforces a lot of max's beliefs that her powers are limited and that she's not omniscient, which is important to how she reacts so negatively to even having to use them in later episodes.
i'm disappointed that you didn't touch upon the thing that really pissed me off about the ending, which is the subtext regarding max and chloe's relationship i know you don't HAVE to read them as romantic, but like. everyone i know did. they made all the romantic choices, and they got really attached to that surprisingly earnest representation. that stuff's important to us. like, how many games exist where the focus is a gay relationship? next to none. but for the ending, the choice to let the protagonists stay together is tied to being immature and selfish and destructive, just because. the storm is arbitrarily tied to chloe to break them up. all of your efforts to save chloe and get closer to chloe are wasted by the "good ending" where she's sacrificed, and for what? for max to learn that everything sucks forever and that she has no control over the bad things that happen in her life? honestly, there's nothing fresh or interesting about yet another Bury Your Gays tragic ending in which another gay couple is tortured just for the sake of drama. and it kind of ruined the rest of the game for me
+Bobby Schroeder to be fair even if Chloe were a guy it wouldn't make the choice more or less selfish and immature, but honestly the relationship aspect is kinda moot because of the what the choice is, sacrifice a town or sacrifice one person, and there is no unselfish reason to not kill Chloe.
Bobby Schroeder i mean it kinda does matter, chloe's sex is irrelevant to the choice you have to make, if she were a guy it would be the same choice with the same outcomes. this choice isn't purposely making a statement about gay relationships by the devs. honestly, if you feel like this choice is anything more than the devs wanting the player to have the generic "The Good of the Many vs. The Rights of the Few" moral choice at the end, you are giving the devs too much credit.
+Noschool100 i don't think you understand what i'm saying. it doesn't matter what dontnod's intentions were. it doesn't matter how much you think would change if chloe was a dude. the problem is that, in the actual story we got, the gay couple is refused a happy ending. yet again. most media about gay people ends this way, and it has for years. we don't get to be happy, it's just all about our suffering, and then straight people get to look at it and go "wow, so poignant..." and not only did we get that shitty ending, but we're given the choice of whether chloe lives or dies, and told that letting her die is the right thing to do. either way, they're screwed. because of some nonsense about fate that the writers pulled out of their asses it renders the intimate choices from earlier in the game that allowed the relationship to evolve almost completely moot, and turns it from an earnest story about two girls into yet another voyeuristic tragedy about gay suffering
+Bobby Schroeder Pretty sure it mattered zero percent if they were in love with each other. This game has nothing to do with the sexual agendas of the main protagonist. You can choose to try and get Chloe or that guy (forgot his name). You could probably go for nothing and since the choices don't matter anyway who cares about that? I mean you clearly feel things about being gay but the game is more focused in other matters.
+Bobby Schroeder the problem is that Chloe died before you knew her. You fell in love with on borrowed time and now that time is up. It was short, but it was sweet. Relationships aren't measured by how long they last. Sometimes the best aren't the longest, and vice versa. Nothing lasts forever and sometimes you have to accept the loss of a loved one. Even when it hurts. You don't have to forget them, but you do have to learn to let them go. It's part of growing up.
I chose to save Chloe. I didn't even replay the ending to see the other choice, because I stand by it. Why?:
Despite the way it presents itself, Life is Strange is very much a game about not actually having choices. Except in the end. That one choice is yours. Of course, the game doesn't think so, as the video has pointed out. It tries to guilt you into picking Arcadia Bay. But this goes deeper. It tries to guilt you into believing that everything you did was wrong, and that you now have to offer a sacrifice to the gods of time you have transgressed against. And yes, it's not a coincidence that the game calls it a "sacrifice". The game wants you to think that your choices, that weren't actually choices, is something you have to atone for. It sends you back in time, let's you make a specific change, blames you for the unforeseen outcome, and then makes you return like a penitent sinner to undo this specific change, instead of all the other choices you could have made. The game celebrates passivity. It celebrates not being a hero, not even an everyday one.
But in the end, you don't have to fall in line. You get one choice. One actual choice.
The video says that it should be obvious for Max to pick saving the town. But is it? It is "obvious" for the player. Why would Chloe being killed even stop the tornado? Oh, sure, we know this because we can replay the ending, or watch it online. And because the game helpfully labels the choices "Sacrifice Chloe" and "Sacrifice Arcadia Bay". And because of the above mentioned guilt trip the game sends you on for even daring to interfere with time (which is apparently administrated by a quite jealous god) for the benefit of others. From Max's point of view, fate wants her to let Chloe die. And from the player's point of view, the game narrative wants them to let Chloe die. And if you opt to save her, Max tells fate and you tell the narrative "No. I am not following your orders."
"Magical time tornado? You want me to kill my friend? You want to punish me and everyone in my geographical vicinity because I tried to do good? Well, fuck you. You can't have her."
Yes, I am aware that this is a meaning that was probably completely unintentional. But I think it's worth looking at it from that angle. That it can be an emancipatory act to NOT pick the choice a game wants you to choose. And to tell fate to fuck off.
I don't think it was unintentional. The game shows you time and time again that going back to make things better often make things worse, and have Max struggle with the concept of responsibility that comes with her powers. The conversation Max has with herself in the Nightmare highlight this struggle.
And what does the ending propose: Go back in time and fix it.
The superpower interpretation would indeed have you use your powers for the greater good at your own cost, but the conclusion one can come too with just as much legitimacy is that there is no such thing as fixing, and playing with time always have dreadful consequences.
I chose the Destroy the Photo ending in equal part as an act of love for Chloe, an act of defiance against fate and an act of accomplishment. Enough with the fixing, it was time to assume the mistakes.
A bit in the same manner, in the Prince of Persia, sand of time saga, the protagonist is perpetually trying to fix his mistakes, and constantly paying for it. Only in the third game, where he accept the idea that he doomed his father to death and his people to suffering does he finally transcend the power of the Sand.
While the ending is bleak, as his kingdom lies in ruin and the survivors just begin to gather, it is also a hopeful ending, because the Prince has triumph over himself and become a worthy ruler, wise enough to build a future.
It's a deeply personal experience, and while developers' intentions are important, the thing that matters most is what each player takes away from it. Thanks for sharing your experience.
Telling fate to fuck off is just immature and unrealistic though. It also undoes all the character progression the game set up. I don't think it should have been a choice either.
This write up made me realize how much Life Is Strange is borrowing from Madoka Magicka. "Save Chloe" ending is the Rebellion. God damn it.
I do agree with your interpretation.
At first, I let Chloe die because it just felt natural based on what Chloe said (she talked about fate and that it would save everything).
However, there is no indication that:
1. storm won't happen (we are messing with time again)
2. Chloe "has" to die
And, the most important fact, to choose Chloe is to finally to accept that you can't change time and just live with your choices - that is the _real_ maturity, from my point of view.
A "friendship" between two girls
Yup
A friendship
Just gals being pals, right Chris?
+Sethar1234 tbf this is the blank slate thing on Max's end and depends on how you play her, though you're right that there's no doubt Chloe loves Max and loved Rachel...
That's a fair point, but the game still liberally hands out lesbian under/overtones throughout the story. *Especially* with that ending nightmare sequence.
I know and it was just a poor choice of words on his part. I doubt he meant anything by it. He's done a video in the past on Gone Home, so he doesn't exactly shy away from the subject.
Of course, of course, I was just trying to poke fun at said poor choice of words.
Okay, that's fair enough
My issue with "bae or bay" is that the whole conflict feels kinda contrived. Chloe needs to die because reasons and if she doesn't die all of Arcadia bay is destroyed because reasons and this is all linked to Max's time powers because reasons. They forsake the real life butterfly effect chain of cause and effect in favour of a "because destiny (read, the developers) say so" twist.
+Phrozenflame500 What can I say, "God" or whatever entity that gave Max the power is a gigantic jack***. Which is why the only true ending involves flipping it off and riding to sunset. ;p
I know this comment is super old but I feel compelled to answer anyway. Cause and effect is not the Butterfly Effect, that's just simple causality. The name Butterfly Effect comes from the idea that killing a butterfly in the past could cause a hurricane in Florida in the future. In other words, the Butterfly Effect refers only to unforeseen circumstances arising from a minute piece of a system being removed from the larger whole. The ending of Life is Strange is actually the perfect example; it's the only game/movie I've ever seen to actually get it right.
@@dlj3cs2 Exactly. People usually think of the butterfly effect as tracing back an event to its first cause. That's not it, that's just a cause-effect chain. The butterfly effect happens when a small change in the initial conditions causes a massive difference in the outcome. Lorenz put it this way: when the present determines the future, but the approximate present does not approximately determine the future. I think they got that right when Max goes back in time and saves William. Many people would think that, because the butterfly effect is a series of causes and effects, Max has no reason to be in the Vortex Club, William's death would have nothing to do with it (I saw this being pointed out as a "sin" recently in a Game Sins video about LiS). The truth is, that's not the butterfly effect. Max made a somewhat small change in the initial conditions - an approximate present -, which didn't result in an approximate future, exactly as it should be in Chaos Theory. Again, in the final choice, I think they got that right.
@@yvltc It's also important to remember exactly how the dialog goes at the end. Chloe is telling Max that her fate is to die. She's not saying this because she believes it. She's saying it because she knows this choice is killing Max, and Max will not be able to live with herself if she sacrifices the town. You can see this in the look on Chloe's face before Chloe makes the decision to start talking about her fate.
as someone who was once a teen girl with a friend like chloe and an equally abusive dad, i think chloe's step-dad played off pretty realistic. i heard all the time from other adults about how my friend's father cared "deep down" and didn't know how to show it as an excuse to explain away his abusive behavior instead of confronting it. that said, they definitely could've done with some more showing and less telling wrt the other characters!
"gal pals"... yeah... "gal pals".... who kiss each other.... and confess their love........ "gal pals".
I'm amazed that we have read the ending in completely opposite ways. I thought that the Save Arcadia ending was sentimental schlock and the real ending was Save Chloe. As other commenters have said (and opposite to you), NOT saving Chloe undoes all of the work you've done for her.
But in a deeper sense, I think that not saving Chloe goes against the entire point that the game is trying to make. Ever since episode 3, LiS has been hammering one idea home: It's folly to think that everything will turn out alright *in the long term* if you just did something different, or if you somehow knew the right thing to say. Sometimes bad things happen, and you need to do the best you can and then wear the consequences. It's part of growing up in an imperfect world. If you go back in time to save the Bay, you don't learn that lesson.
I also think the lack of impact of player choices also makes sense thematically, and I'll explain by way of analogy. Imagine that you were starving and I gave you a choice of two things to eat: something rotten or something fresh. Is that a real choice? And if you could go back in time and redo a conversation with your crush, where one outcome leads to you starting a relationship and the other ends with you never talking again, is THAT a real choice? For the entire game you/Max have been doing this mental calculation of choosing the outcome that is the least bad, but picking the least-bad thing is itself a non-choice. Sacrificing Arcadia Bay feels like owning up to your mistakes, it feels like the only real choice you can make.
About the facial animations: they certainly annoyed me too. But we shouldn't forget the game was made on a small budget. If we insist that the production values of a work be excellent in order to consider the work "good", we deserve every bland, conservative Hollywood/EA/Ubisoft/... work that's thrown at us.
Can I just ask, how many people thought the scene where you have to help David take out Mr. Jefferson is comedy gold?
My two cents on why I saved Chloe: You could easily make the argument that it was Arcadia Bay's fate to get wiped out by a tornado. And before anyone had gotten any ending, how could you be sure that this time you go back you won't fuck up time and everything even more? Also, the last third of the game keeps telling you how the storm is your fault, but considering how unexplained Max's powers are, I don't feel this to be particularly true. And lastly, this ending is interpreted by all to mean accepting loss, moving on and maturing... by going back in time again, denying the mistakes you made which supposedly broke time and brought the tornado. While accepting the loss of people in time and there are things you can't change, BY NOT ACTUALLY GOING BACK IN TIME TO CHANGE THEM, makes more thematic and dramatic sense to me personally. Chloe and Max have to live with the weight and guilt of that choice for the rest of their lives, even if they go somewhere else and it will inform how they grow and mature. They both need each other - Chloe needs Max to not be manic and become a possible addict + some positivity in her life, Max needs Chloe to support her in putting her work out there and be confident. And choosing to sacrifice all those characters I'd gotten to know still wasn't easy, you know. I was initially going to sacrifice the town, but the more I thought about Chloe and especially how she was ready to die reminded me of how Kate thought she was worthless and no one cared before she died. I just couldn't take it and impulsively saved her. But the more I thought about it after, the more okay I am with that choice.
I took the save Chloe ending since I felt all that I've done would've gone to waste. Saving Kate, being nice to everyone, let Warren finally beat the shit out of Nathan.. I'd rather let them all go and die with those memories than be forgotten once more. Especially without my partner in time.
+SilverDragon893 Same here, to be honest. What's more, the whole "going back and letting her die" thing shouldn't have magically undone all of the damage Max had done. If anything, she should have ended up dumped back into the ruins of Arcadia Bay, heartbroken and mindbroken as she faces the full consequences of fucking with the timeline, and doesn't even have her best friend to fall back on.
After all, isn't that part of growing up? Learning that your actions have consequences and dealing with their impact? Even by having an "easy way" to circumvent your problems, you still run the risk of facing more chaotic, "unforeseen consequences" that pop up because time is like Marsellus Wallace. In that it doesn't like getting fucked by anyone except for Mrs Wallace.
+SilverDragon893 I took the same choice but for a different reason.
That was clearly the wrong choice from a moral stand point and was clearly selfish, so why?
Well because I asked myself, if to save a friend Max was ready to carry that burden, of literally givin up on the whole town just for an act of extreme selfishness.
And my answer was yes.
That's why that was a choice, it wasn't the right one at all but it was mine.
+GmodPlusWoW I also don't get how letting Chloe die fixed things. Max had a vision/dream of the tornado at the beginning of the game before rewinding Chloe's death which supposedly caused it.
+SilverDragon893 Same decision, same reason
A very big portion of the game is basically about saving Chloe. To not pick that ending at the end is as difficult a decision to make as to not pick the Save Arcadia ending.
I felt that the Sacrifice Arcadia Bay ending did provide an answer and a closure to Max and Chloe's respective arcs.
For Max it's the first and final act of defiance against all odds, the game seems to be pushing you to abandon Chloe for the greater good, and Max decides not to be the great heroin she tried to be, but simply Max the human being. I also see it as a decision not to constantly try to fix broken things, something that keep failing, but to go on and assume the consequences of her failure in order to move on.
For Chloe, Max's decision allow her growth to be complete. As she reveal herself as a selfless person in the end, she also consider herself worthless and undeserving, the result of her dysfunctining family and Rachel's own actions. It closes her ark not through an act of redemption and selflessness, but through an act that shows that she IS worth to someone.
While the Sacrifice Chloe Ending implemented Max and Chloe as selfless heroes for the greater good, the other ending concluded the human part of them, the "Everyday" part where both grow into flawed but accomplished human beings.
I think what you're asking for is impossible. The closer you get to a fully realized self actualized main character in a game like this the more evident you make the dissonance between the character being "you" and the character being themselves. If you make the MC have a fully realized arc every choice you make will end up breaking the immersion that its not you. This works in reverse too. Having a character you identify as make a decision you wouldn't breaks the immersion in a "visual novel game" like this. You cant get away from that uncanny valley in an interactive medium.
+hoIyforks Unless you make different matrices of choice indicate different main characters, such that successive options do not all elaborate on the same character, but indicate how that choice reflects on the person who starts the game, and invariably is a different person as a result of different choices. If a game succeeded at that, then each of the numerous paths a player takes represents both a complete and precise character as well as a character reflective of the player's own particular choices. Now, that's really freakin' difficult, and it would be outside of what Life is Strange tries to do -- what it can do, based on its format and use of the medium -- but its not an inherent impossibility.
I don't feel like this is totally true, although I think it's definitely a fair point. I'll use The Witcher series as my counterpoint, games which also are known for doing narrative and moral choice well. In The Witcher, you role play as a very well established character, and yet the game asks you to make a lot of choices, from morally grey vigilantism to who you want to be friends with to the lyrics for your bard-buddy's new song. I almost never felt like my immersion was broken. The Witcher does this by having choices that aren't usually about characterization. You, the player character, already know that Geralt doesn't see things in black and white; if presented a choice, he takes the lesser of two evils. The game then lets me, the player, decide what the lesser of two evils actually is. In contrast, if the game presents me with a choice already decided by Geralt's personality, like loyalty to friends or the greater good, I feel obligated to choose loyalty to friends, which can be immersion breaking. For the most part, The Witcher avoids asking these types of questions because Geralt's personal arc isn't about characterization, it's about his effect on the world around him.
Life is Strange is in a different boat, since Max's arc is about her coming of age and deciding what kind of person she wants to be. I think it's still possible to achieve the immersion of The Witcher with this arc, it's just difficult. It would require the developers to make the content very dynamic. As you make choices which determine your personality, choices later on down the line can be decided automatically by Max's new personality, or get locked off and replaced with a different type of choice that continues from what you've already established, or simply be framed differently.
That's a lot of content for any game, especially for a relatively low budget episodic game like Life Is Strange. The Witcher did it by just being HUGE, and also by having a lot of world-building being already taken care of by the book series. To be fair, even The Witcher still struggled somewhat since during the first two games Triss keeps asking Geralt personality-building questions that seem kind of awkward and unnecessary.
So I think you're right, characters who you're supposed to identify with and choices made that conflict with the player are at odds with each other. I just don't think it's impossible to reconcile that.
+hoIyforks I think it shifts the game from a player avatar or power fantasy into more of a role playing mentality. Which can still be totally fine. I just finished Tales from the Borderlands and I felt like the 2 main characters there had more of an arc and had strong personality traits that were different from mine. I wasn't immersed in the fantasy of being them but I was invested in helping them achieve the kind of resolution I wanted for them.
+hoIyforks You can be immersed in someone who is not you.Spec ops the line proves that you can be immersed in someones story,despite vehemently opposing their actions.That last choice in that game can still be extremely impactful,even though you know perfectly well its not you/your avatar you are deciding the fate of.You dont need a blank slate in order for a game to be immersive.
+DaemianLucifer
i am anti immersed in Spec Ops. because you have no Agency, you have a railway to follow and that Railway is the story gangbanging you every step of the way, from start to end.
it would be like reading a book that only contained profanity or Characters yelling through the fourth wall to the reader. hard to find interest in a story when the story is always yelling at you and hitting you with a 2x4.
I was upset with the final choice, but for a different reason. One of the choices literally completely undoes the entire rest of the game. So your final choice is either the wrong choice or effectively the only one you've made.
I'd say the final choice is either chosing the ending that the developer thinks is the one or chosing the ending that they didn't have the budget for. I'd rather had one ending with differences depending on more choices than just the final A or B choice.
+Mr. ShinyObject Actually,both choices undo the entire rest of the game.Either nothing of that happened,and chloe is dead,or all of it happened,but everyone else is dead.Pointless either way.
+Mr. ShinyObject I think the point of the game is that it doesn't. Granted, we could argue about this for quite a while, and this is just my reading, but I think the true core of the game is emotional. The game makes a point in explaining and showing that no matter what timeline ends up being the 'real' one, whatever happens is real to Max insofar as she experienced it and felt that emotion. Sure, from a pure plot reading, the whole game doesn't 'matter' as soon as that choice has been made, but if you take a step back, it's easy to see that pure, chronological plot isn't entirely important in this game. Half of episode 5 takes place in a dream state, one that I thought was beneficial to the story being told and also had some really cool set pieces, and the game and the player clearly believe that that part matters even though it has minimal effect on the actual plot. Also, I think that the most harrowing choice in the entire game, at least for me, was the one where Max has to decide whether to take Chloe off life support. I stared at the screen for a good minute or more for that one, knowing full well that it doesn't matter to the chronological plot, simply because it was an awful decision to make, and the emotions were entirely real. I refuse to accept that everything I experienced in the game is undone because chronologically, it is.
+Keenan Wulff I can respect that point of view. But I think the main issue here is how this game (and actually most games nowadays) sell you on the fact that the choices you make will alter the story in meaningful ways. While the emotional journey of Max and the player is real, and both will remember the events and choices even if they are undone, the negative side of the final choice is that you get to make the same decision no matter what route you took along the way. This is the same complaint that happened after people played Mass Effect 3.
One idea of how they might have been able to do that differently but keep the same endings would be if the choice was made for the player based on their actions throughout the game. If the end of the game arrived, and instead of getting a choice, you were presented with the choices you made that influenced Max's character to choose to save the town or to save Chloe, because that's how her character grew throughout the game, then I think people would be less upset about it. Because even if they didn't get their preferred ending, they knew that if they had made different choices, it would alter the outcome. And really, if it was done correctly, Max would make the choice the player would have made, because the choice would align with the player's own priorities.
My main issue with the "good" ending (besides playing into the Dead Lesbians trope in the most straight-forward way possible) is that it requires Friday-Max to sacrifice Monday-Chloe, who then dies without any of the insight that Friday-Chloe has built up, thinking that everybody has abandoned her etc. Monday-Max then resumes control throughout the week, having seen her best friend die before she ever got to speak to her again and thus totally ignorant of the massive sacrifice that Friday-Max (and the player) has just made on her behalf. Friday-Max then reappears at the funeral, also completely ignorant of the dreadful week that non-powered Max must have been going through, completely destroying any emotional growth that Monday-Max went through.
Arakhor you do know that max going back in time to save Arcadia bay doesn't erase her memories... Right?
I mean come on. She already knows she's probably gonna have a shit week. She already knows that... Alyssa, I think her name was? Max already knows someone's gonna throw something at her and knows how to save her.
Tl;dr, max keeps her memories, so your point is invalid.
Friday-Max doesn't lose her memories, you're quite right, but Monday-Max never gains Friday's memories and instead is overwritten by Friday at the funeral.
I really don't like the framing of the final choice. The power make such little sense that drawing the conclusion that Chloe needs to die is just kinda dumb horror movie logic. Real life doesn't contrive to serve strange thematic ideals. I'm also kind of morally opposed to a moral that insists death and tragedy need to happen. It's boring, defeatist, status quo reinforcing thinking.
The only logically consistent way I can make sense of the ending is that it takes place in a universe with a god who does in fact hate gay people.
Not so much that it needs to happen as it DOES happen and needs to be accepted.
The whole week is Max refusing to accept Chloe's death. It's the Denial part of her five stages of grief...
+Sharles Davis Kendy Yup. I thought the sacrifice Chloe ending was both powerful, sad, heavy but also beautiful, perfect in a way. It encompasses so many things about growing up, sacrifice, best friends, first love, letting go, moving on.... It's really well done.
+Rosalind Chapman
on a bigger scale, the "storm of death" in the story is rather idiotic. how does that work?
God send it? it's a tempest of Tachyon due the overexerting of time-space by max? how does that work?
other than being the butterfly effect of a the Chloe death, her being alive makes a tornado appear...
this is as stupid as "the power of love" it's a forced element of "good emotions", like a happy medicine movie, but aimed to cheap drama.
+Sharles Davis Kendy
but since chloe is not dead is not denial.
it's the same as a fireman that goes to save a woman in a burning building, then the house crumbles and kills 3 guys, but he and the woman got saved.
maybe IF he did not got into the building on fire the house would have crumbled in other ways, but he surely isn't in "denial" for saving that woman...
but of course, a deus ex machina forcing a cheap emotional drama without logic or cause is the "best possible ending for a videogame"...
+Sharles Davis Kendy Yeah I don't buy that because you're not "in denial", your powers clearly work and you still bust Mr Jefferson in the sacrifice chloe ending. Why didn't that cause a hurricane, because "Chloe needs to die" because the Devs said so. No in universe justification for it.
I liked that the final choice was a choice. Even though 1 ending is shorter, and clearly not the 'good' ending, the fact that we have the choice makes sacrificing chloe even more effective because (much like the morning in Chloe's room) the player can't capture the moment forever, and they must actively end that moment.
+Senor Salty I'm in this camp to. I think it's important for the player to understand that this is a choice, that Max has to live with the burden of having made that choice, and not just had it made for her by necessity.
+Senor Salty I'll disagree here. While it was technically a choice, it was akin to the same choice in Far Cry 3 where you can choose to sacrifice your friends for more power, which went completely against all your action's intentions up to that point. It was a misplaced mechanic that broke the tone of the game of helping people. Up to that point, you really didn't do much of anything selfish, but you get this silly option to sacrifice an entire town to be with your friend longer.
When they earlier drove home the point that this was a bad idea after Max tried saving Chloe's dad. There is no reason any player should think this is a good choice unless you're a completionist.
+Senor Salty Its as much of a choice as you deciding to live your life normally or blowing your brains out for no reason(no depression,no sucky life,just for a goof).So ultimately,no choice at all.Just because your choice leads to two radically different outcomes does not mean its justified,well presented,or an actual choice.
Contrast it with an earlier choice of euthanasia.Now thats how an actual choice needs to be made.
+Thomas L
you could make that work by say... if the Player chooses to run away, something happens that forces them to only have one option, to change history again and right their wrongs.
the Player gets to make the choice, but the story still ends in the branch that makes any sense at all.
*****
You could probably do that better and have the choice with the storm be a metaphor for her inaction in the bathroom.
Then rewind to the beginning and when she has a chance to stop Chloe from getting shot, give the player the option to interrupt the fight and offer her life for Chloe's, or let her die; having what you experienced be applied to the game in a real sense. Offering a opportunity to mull over the idea that she was destined to die or that Max's death will give Chloe purpose to live.
Totally agree with the scene with them lying on the bed listening to Bright Eyes. I sat there for several minutes and i didn't even realize it was on a loop cause i was so caught up in the scene. so beautiful, one of the most wonderful moments in videogames imo.
Good video. Hit on some stuff that I didn't - I focused more on the positives of the rest of the narrative and the single big problem of the last episode. kinda interesting that we both came to the conclusion that the final choice shouldn't be a choice, if for different reasons.
"Your kinda sorta queer-coded partner (with plausible deniability so boys can play the "they're just friends!" card) NEEDS to get killed in cold blood by a rich white boy because, uh....the universe demands it? And resisting this act of violence in any way constitutes, uh...being immature! Grow up and accept the world!"
Did the writers, like...even think twice about the message they were trying to send with this? Did someone engorge themselves on trashbin-tier yuri manga as "reference material" for this ass-backwards ending? Between that "twist" and the various other "controversial" plot points in the game, I can't imagine anyone but the most self-important art school white dude writing this game.
Like we need to address all these social issues in our storygame, but god forbid we say anything interesting or nuanced about them. Gotta keep that lesbian tragedy plot moving.
no listen I'M not being salty and reductionist YOU'RE being salty and reductionist
+Shhwonk damn dude look at you claiming I said all those things I didn't. sure is ethical in here
Golbleen Was just imitating your own assumptions. All I was trying to say was that you shouldn't have jumped to the conclusion that the game is unethical.
+Shhwonk I think you're projecting an awful lot of your personal hang-ups with the industry and possibly even women in general onto me jokingly dramatizing "this video game writing is bad." : ^)
Golbleen Wait, what? I'm a feminist. And see, that's exactly what I see you doing in your own post. Whatever, let's just agree to disagree. :P
I'm really glad you decided to come back to Life is Strange in a follow up episode, thanks Errant.
The ultimate life is strange "review/essay" to end all life is strange reviews. Good job Chris, it's nice to see someone actually willing to see the blatant flaws in this game.
I think that Nathan Prescott's character is actually really interesting. We don't get to see Nathan try to make his father happy, but we DO see him reach out of his loneliness to Jefferson, who he adopts as a new father figure and as someone to emulate. This becomes more clear when you realize that some of the letters and texts written to Nathan that appear to be from his father are ACTUALLY from Jefferson. In the video above, at 8:25, Max comments about "what is going on between Nathan and his father." It isn't between Nathan and his father. Nathan's need to make his "father" happy is shown by his willingness to copy Jefferson's sick art himself. There are also records of him being on a lot of prescription drugs and his family refusing to deal with issues brought to light by his counselor.
"Gal pals" lmao. Also, my big problem with the ending- Max sees the storm before she gets her powers. And there's pretty much no proof that they're connected, that saving Chloe creates the storm. It felt awful- like both of them need to be punished! The Chloe ending should've been done differently to at least begin to fix the ending
+CaptainPirateArr Yea, that is basically my issue as well. It's lazy writing to say "oh yea the storm was tied to the powers, it sure was... LOL Butterfly effects AM I RIGHT!?>!>!>"
I like to picture it was a quiet day in the office while they're working on the finale, when an intern suddenly pipes up "WAIT! We forgot about the storm!" "Oh...err....uhm.....lets....blame....uhh...." "Chloe!" "Yeah, Chloe!"
It was pretty god damned obvious from the beginning they were connected.
Hell the final choice was telegraphed in the first episode...
Sharles Davis Kendy It wasn't obvious, it was suspected by many but there is nothing substantial to prove it. If there is evidence feel free to prove me wrong as I would love for there to be even a hint of correlation between the two.
Chloe dies and the storm doesn't happen. That is proof.
Honestly I just played this game because I love Chloe
I chose to sacrifice Arcadia Bay and save Chloe, and I honestly don't regret that.
The premise that the storm is a result of Max messing with the timeline was not something I bought into, it was a dumb explenation from the devs to force in some last minute drama and "important choice" and because there is NO reason for Max and Chloe to know why the storm is coming and that going back and not save Chloe would stop it, I didn't.
I don't like when characters take wild guesses about totally unknown events they have no way of knowing anything about and it turns out to be true. Thats just really bad and lazy storytelling, so when the obvious choice came up to "do what the developers want or get the "bad" ending", i knowingly choose the "bad" ending, as a "fuck you" to their storytelling tropes and crappy ideas, and it felt good to see that town with all it's issues and fucked up memories get blown away.
They should have focused on one story, one big mystery that would have to be solved. The game would be better if it eather was about how to stop the storm and save the town OR was a murder mystery (without any time travel or supernatural elements). Now it's just a mess with two bad endings.
This is really well stated and put together, but I have to disagree with your take on the ending. It just seems to rely on too many leaps in logic. Out of all the time traveling, why is THAT the one thing that causes all the problems? And if time travel is what is harming the universe, how would time traveling again fix it? Why would Max be given a vision of the storm just before Chloe dies, if not allowing Chloe to die is what causes that storm? Why would Max even be granted these powers if she isn't meant to use them? So if we must rely on the existence of Fate, why is it only concerned with killing Chloe in increasingly cruel and humiliating ways? Like, Fate doesn't seem to give a shit whether we allow Kate, Frank, or Jefferson to live or die. Why is it so concerned with JUST Chloe dying? If fate exists as we are meant to believe in this way, then he is petty, passive aggressive, and damn shitty at his job.
I agree that sacrificing Chloe fits with the themes of not being able to return home or hold onto the past, but it does so to a degree that is dehumanizing to the characters. This, to me, is unacceptable in a narrative that is entirely about humanizing characters. Frankly, I think rolling over and accepting that the universe is just fundamentally vindictive and cruel for no compelling reason is a far weaker show of character than standing up, not going quietly into that good night, and keeping what you have fought so hard to protect. Power has been thrust upon Max by Fate. Fate then, should just as much have to bow to this reality as Max and Chloe have to.
Have you perhaps considered that this game was written by French people.
I think we do actually see David's soft site and Nathan's emotional problems.
Spoiler :
We see how broken and sad Nathan is when he lies beaten on the floor (if you let Warran beat him up) and in the message he leaves for Max before he's killed by Jeff.
In Davids case we see and hear how much he cares when he breaks down after you tell him that Chloe is dead in the bunker scene.
But I do agree with you that it would have been nice to see these things before the last episode and see them impact the actual story .
I think you kind of missed the point of the media when you compare the narrative structure of the game to that of a movie.
While I agree that saving Chloe instead of the Bay is reverting her arc - it is my choice. I'm part of the narrative as much as the virtual characters are.
You beautifully pointed out, that they re-used an old song for the Chloe ending, but this drives it home (literally) how much she is stuck in a childlike, best friends forever, world. But I chose that one. This is my story. And that I have been given that option, makes me feel much more connected to that world and the characters than if I were to watch the same story as a movie.
I wouldn't call it a flaw in the story. It's the option to be flawed if you so desire.
Thanks for this, Chris, this is an absolutely fantastic video with some really interesting points made (as per usual for you). I agree with most of what's said, but there's a few things I wanted to mention (for anyone not watching the video but reading the comments for some reason, be warned this also has spoilers):
-I think giving the villains their characterization off-screen actually works quite well. I feel the game's giving you a slanted view of the characters on purpose, and it wants you to look for redeeming qualities yourself. After all, the way David or Nathan act is very indicative of how certain people are seen in the real world. The game wants you to understand that, no matter how awful a person is, there's always something that's making them this way, and that's as true for your friend Chloe as it is for her step-douche.
-Speaking of villains, I'm surprised you didn't rag on Jefferson for a bit. I thought he was one of the lamest things about the game. Not only were his motivations extremely cliche to the point of hilariousness, but I actually think the way the game foreshadowed his twist is actually kind of repulsive. Throughout the early episodes, it's established Jefferson has a very dark style of photography, and in his classes he talks about "binding people in a dark corner and framing them in a moment of desperation". The same is true for Nathan's artstyle. No one else is that way, aside from Kate shortly before her suicide attempt. I think it's a messed up thing to imply that someone producing dark and disturbing art means they've got this big dark murder-rape secret or are suicidal. You can produce dark and disturbing art and be in a perfectly fine mental state.
-I very much appreciate the lack of explanation for Max's time travel. If they'd centered the whole thing around that, the story would've lost a lot of its emotional impact, and the importance of just small moments. I'm happy they left it as a plot device and nothing more.
-I think it kind of sucks that you can get Max and Chloe to show romantic interest in each other. I feel conflicted about saying this, because I love the fact that there's a couple more good gay/bi characters (I don't think Chloe's ever interested in a guy, is she?) in the gaming industry, but I think media has a tendency for people who are really close to always get romantically involved. I really loved Life is Strange as the story of a really close friendship without any romantic feelings, a thing that's fairly underrepresented in media (unless it's something explicitly about *THE POWER OF FRIENDSHIP*), and I think having the two of them have that kiss at the very end kind of ruins that. I don't mind the kiss in Episode 3, that very much felt like just a silly thing two teenage girls would do who weren't romantically attracted.
Overall, despite the many flaws that Life is Strange really has, it's the game that's stuck with me the most the whole year. There's some really touching moments in there, and Max and Chloe's relationship is fantastic. It's not the best game to come out in 2015, but it *is* my favorite one.
Also, if anyone stuck through this whole comment, thanks for caring about this random guy on the internet's opinion, and sorry about how long this is.
+masterplusmargarita Regarding Jefferson characterization, there are a lot of other elements hinting us toward his madness, so it's not like the game really makes a statement. GeekRemix made an incredible video right after episode 1 where they spotted numerous hints well before anyone would have suspected it, just watch it if you have doubts. Anyway, the game isn't as much about photography than simply using it as a metaphor. That's my take on it anyway.
+masterplusmargarita "I think it kind of sucks that you can get Max and Chloe to show romantic interest in each other."
You cant really.I mean chloe is bi(she mentions a guy at one point),but even if you go for the kiss,max describes it as a playfull joke in her diary.Max still sees chloe as a good friend,not a romantic friend,no matter what you do.
+MrTrollaid I have seen the video in question, but I the way that video guesses the whole Jefferson shebangle is precisely via what I mentioned: 'Jefferson is evil because his art is dark'. I still think that's simply a bad message to put out there. It's been a while since watching it, so correct me if I'm wrong.
+DaemianLucifer If you go full Chloe in your decisions (Take the blame for the weed, ignore Kate's call, steal the money from the principal, etc. I think you get to have one "non-Chloe" choice.), and then kiss her in episode 3, Max writes some things in her diary that imply she sees Chloe as more than just a friend, and they have a pretty passionate second kiss if you pick the sacrifice Chloe ending at the end. I find this frustrating in both the sense that I would prefer this to just not be a thing, and that the fact that you have to make such a specific series of choices kind of implies that you're doing it wrong if you don't get the kiss at the end.
glorb The problem here is that games are kind of bad at determining player reasoning for things. To love someone you don't have to be slavishly devoted to them and pander to them.
It only "makes sense" to me in that weird video-gamey Bioware relationship way where you woo people by constantly giving them presents and agreeing with everything they say.
Remember, we're not talking about Chloe loving Max, we're talking about Max loving Chloe. Of the Chloe choices, answering Kate's call, and saying not to steal the money seem like perfectly good options even if you love her. (And I have no idea if the Euthanasia choice plays into it, but if it does that one is a minefield either way)
You absolutely can love someone and ignore their huffy protests to answer a super fucking important phonecall from someone who has just been sexually assaulted and publicly humiliated, or tell them that maybe stealing charity money isn't the best way to settle their debt (especially when it could get you caught, which is what I was worried about).
The song in the bedroom scene is Bright Eyes - Lua, in case anyone was wondering. Great song to bawl your eyes out to.
I disagree that the choice was supposed to be that simple, that Chloe was supposed to die, Final Destination style. Or if that was the message then they failed to deliver it by the half hour leading up to that being a refresher on 'every time you go back to fix something you make it worse'. So when the choice came up it felt like the final test: Will you go back in time to fix everything, one last time (after it just beat you over the head with how that NEVER works out that way), or will you finally accept that sometimes bad things happen and you can't change that?
Also with the environmental devastation it felt almost like an allegory for climate change. So you've noticed you're power is screwing up the planet, and it's going horribly wrong... will you A) Use the power. One last time. For realsy, this time I'm gonna quit right after. or B) Stop using the power that's destroying everything.
And it sucks that a lot of people will die, but making that storm bigger and killier isn't going to change that. And it worries me that about half the people playing saw that, said 'ok, the environment is exploding because of this, but lets keep going just a little bit more, we can fix the environment later'... or apparently the only thing that the environment needs to calm down is just a wee bit more CO2, then it will all be fixed. I'm not really sure... Chloe's explanation for how letting her die would help just didn't make any sense. It sounded more like survivor's guilt.
Ok, so I haven't seen the Chloe dies ending yet and apparently a magic fix is possible (Chloe was right, and I was wrong) and I read the implications of Max's powers wrong. But given how hard they preached that the use of the power was the problem, I don't know that it was meant to be a simple choice of weighing the benefits. I think they also intended us to weigh the risks.
I beg to differ on the sacrifice Arcadia Bay ending to wipe away everything you did throughout the game while the Sacrifice Chloe ending doesn't.
The entirety of the game you have been going around and about with Chloe, doing everything you can to save her ass again.
Sacrificing her in the end to me means that everything I did in the game is pointless.Yes, it may be better from a perspective of coming to terms with adulthood etc, it would mean that to be an adult you have to abandon something you care deeply for. Which I don't agree with. It's something that maybe society wants me to do, but fuck society.
Another thing, after the hurricane the Two Whales part that wasn't collapsed seemed to still be intact, meaning that there is a big possibility that the people in there survived.
While in the other ending Max could have easily stepped in and see what happened. You already know what is coming so just walk up to Nathan and give him a kiss or something super insanely unexpected to see how that would turn out. You can rewind after all, especially because if you chose to go back in time the rewinds that you have done so far didn't happen so you'll start with a blank slate.
I don't agree with either option at the end because there could have been way better things happening.
On the emotional spectrum though the game does already provide enough backlash to the things Max/the player does.
Going back in time to save Chloe's dad turned out to lead to Chloe being paralyzed from top down, which to me was the most harsh emotional thing that happened in the game. Even compared to the ending, simply because it feels more fleshed out.
At the end of that arc where you had to make a choice to end her suffering or to prolong her life for her parent's sake felt like an actual relief to me, a proper conclusion and repent for the choice I had made even though the choice itself was fine but somewhere down the line where Max had no influence all of that happened.
I didn't feel that in either ending of the game, so I went with saving Chloe, why? Because I'm a type of person who likes to resist the natural way, the way it was meant to be. That and I did really like Chloe as a character though I am a bit sad that other characters didn't get included as much.
Warren was just standing on the side and not nearly enough screentime while a lot of the times they did have contact on the phone.
Anyhow, I liked the game a lot. Currently playing through it again just to experience the emotions again.
On another note, the choices you make in the game have no real impact on the plot itself, yes that is true.
But would you want to wait for the development time of a game to have all of that. It would take a long time to make every choice you make to have a big influence on the plot.
Besides, the beauty of video games to me is that it is all an illusion, all fake, yet we humans are able to take experiences from it.
It doesn't have to be real to feel real. The facts that some of the choices made me consider what would happen in either one and the fact that there is even a little mention from some character on some choices I made is more than enough for me.
I am willing to suspend the disbelief of the choices having no real consequences to increase my own immersion in the world of Life is Strange.
I actually think that this is the best thing about video games, next to video games being an interactive medium that can accomplish things other media can't.
To me, Video games are the proof of the power of lies and illusions.
Even if the things in a game aren't real, it doesn't mean we can't take real experience from it.
In my opinion the only right final choice is to save Chloe because all the possible outcomes already exist and I'd think Max would much prefer to exist in the reality Chloe survives.
Wow this is a lot more cynical than I would've expected from you. Kate's suicide is just a "video game puzzle"? Nah the game deals with Kate's troubles as well as it possibly could within the frame of its narrative, especially if you take the time when you're in her room to look at all the things. Really lots of pedantic points. I don't care if a narrative point is a little bit convenient if it's used to serve up some really fantastic scenes with a lot of emotional truth, as you say. More games should strive to hit even half of the notes this game hits.
+Groose Caboose WHat I thought was weird was he said that Nathan doesnt show a different side to him but he does when he leaves a message to Max sobbing saying hes sorry and he didnt want it to end that way when you're driving to the diner to meet with Warren.
+Chloe WolfieGirl What makes this extra puzzling is Nathan's first scene in the bathroom. He seems like the local rich jerk psyching himself up for the confrontation with Chloe... but in hindsight it's pretty clear he's just trying to work up the nerve to stand up to yet another person trying to use him. It's all arguable, sure, but not easily dismissed.
+Groose Caboose To be honest, I'd be much more cynical than he is about it.
First: It is a puzzle. It's a very classically constructed one, at that. A number of levels of puzzle choice, many of which have 'bye' options if you did something earlier to make it easier, ultimate pass-fail scenario based on X misses and you're out. It's a puzzle.
Second: That's actually one of the worst damn ways to handle this sort of plot. Every suicide leaves behind a multitude of people who all wonder "What could I have done differently? Could I have saved her?" And the answer is usually no. This, however, argues, "Yes, absolutely. You could have!" It rings false as a result.
If it had been up to me, I'd have again taken some choice away from the player here. Namely, I'd have removed the chance to save Kate. Instead, I'd have ditched the 'I'm running out of juice' plot contrivance and let you rewind again and again and again to get there in time, letting you do it every step so you really feel the pain of it. Then, up on the roof, I'd have the full dialogue tree... and then she jumps. And you rewind, of course. And then she jumps. So you rewind again and...
And sooner or later it hits you. You can't save her. This is a point where no matter how much your powers let you reset, you were powerless. Knowing that is a part of growing up too, fitting the themes of the game and feeling more coherent.
+Chloe WolfieGirl True, but that hits the other point he makes: All those Nathan points happen offscreen. Yes, he leaves the voice message but, yet again, he's offscreen. As such, he doesn't hit home as much as he should. In addition, that voicemail is payoff, not setup. He needed (very badly) a scene during the alternate reality where Max was in his group. That entire sequence was squandered. Yes, I get that it's a beautiful chance to show how Chloe wound up how she is. But it could also have done time giving us insight into Nathan, in different lights, humanising him. It hurts not having it there.
+Groose Caboose Yeah I don't really get the Kate complaints either. In the context of the events of the rest of the episode it makes sense that Max's power is taken away from you. You're spending the entirety of the episode up to this point using your powers with Chloe who you just unveiled them to, using them much more than you normally would (outside of player driven rewinds for dialogues and stuff like that, I'm talking about the narrative directly addressing you have time powers and making Max/You use them). Then like you said, there are a ton of notes and things about Kate's character and her family relationships that really help highlight the scene on the roof if you take that time to look at them. It can make or break the entire scene, and finding that is made optional because the game is testing how well you got to know that character, or if you just didn't care at all. It's a very very high note for that game, and this narrative type of game in general.
Any other youtubers like Errant Signal and Super Bunnyhop? I'm having a hard time finding content like this
Extra Credits has a lot of great videos on game design and narrative! :)
Yeah but Extra Credits feels less personal and more technical, dunno if that makes sense.
+Der Krazy Kraut Check out Mathewmatosis
Der Krazy Kraut yeah, I see what you mean. Other than that I know VaatiVidya, but his channel is focused just on From Software's games and their lore. There should be more UA-camrs like this.
Czarek7711 Subscribed :)
Characters' personalities are indeed presented through "writing and voice acting" but also body language. "Environmental stories aren't bad but it limits the stories you can tell". Yes that's true but the game chooses to tell instead of show because they didn't have a budget like Telltale games for example The Walking Dead. And it might be materialistic but thats the truth. More money = more opportunities = proper facial reaction etc. Maybe they would implement the sadness, happyness to the characters and we would could watch and know what is going on instead of reading/listening to the dialog. Also it's just like in real life. Sometimes the personality or true feelings (like David's) are hidden deep inside and there are people that "aren't really geat at showing it" so it has to be told for those who cannot see it for themselfs
About Max's personality which u stated as damped. I strongly disagree. It feels like it but it's because she have changed thoughout the game. She IS artsy - her journal, hello? geeky - all the camera geeky stuff in ep1 and ep2?, unsure of herself - in the begining - yes then it changed.
Running away with Close DOESN'T undo the Max's character development ! They went though this week together, it changed both of them. Now Max is confident etc and Chloe is less self-centered. This statement would make some sense in "Saving the Bay" ending but actually in my opinion it is wrong. Because her character is still the same even after rewinding time and going all the way back to "normal". Max still have lived through all these events and it changed her personality no matter what timeline she is in.
GOD i have written way too much LOL
The thing about the end is that Max had two seperate character arcs. One based around self actualization and the other tied to her power and how it represents a desire to compulsively fix mistakes. The game has two wildly diverging thematic wrap ups, neither is better than the other because they are so wildly oppisite.
I think that jacksepticeyes Playthrough of this game says it all. When Kate commits suicide, jack went "please tell me I fucked that up. Please tell me there was a way to do that, and I just fucked it up." ... Really. I haven't watched the video yet, but this is a game that makes people want to know they fucked up rather than know they were on a set path... That's deep enough for me.
Well, I proudly chose to run away with Chloe, knowing that choice would be frowned upon.
This is my favourite game of 2015, but I guess that might partially be because of the game types I'm into, I dont quite get the "stilted writing" as to me the writing was more articulate and great compared to many shows, games, podcasts and peoples convocations in real life, it also tackled a lot of things.
The animation wasn't great sure, the necks where long, eyes looked weird not a massive amount of facial expression but the voice acting and what was said was more then enough.
Also perhaps at the end your choices kinda meant nothing in the timeline they did, it made me feel more connected with the timeline and more connected with the characters, it made me feel bad that Warren likes me and not brooke in this timeline, it made me glad that I let the guy draw me, it made choices that I didn't even know I could make feel important such as signing a patition, perhaps in the end it wouldnt have changed much if anything, it feels important.
It did feel awkward when I lost my powers when I needed to with Kate because it never showed up again other then when the game slowed down told me I couldnt be in two places at once and had to restart the game cos glitch, but other then that I feel all the mechanics work and that its great, Max feels like a great character much like Chloe.
It was a fight between this and Undertale for my fave game of the year but I chose this one.
Can allowing the player to choose the "wrong" choice for the character arc be an interesting statement in and of itself? Like you say, the whole game leads up to this theme of growing stronger as an individual, and that saving Chole runs counter to that. But in real life people don't always have satisfying arcs, sometimes they fuck up big time and have to live with it. Sometimes we're just too weak willed to do the right thing. When Max and Chole drive off it's unsatisfying, but more than that I just look at the deeply troubled look on Max's face and think "damn, this girl is emotionally scarred for life." It reminds we in a way of that slow sobering long take at the end of the graduate, as you feel all the jubilation slip away and really think about the consequences.
So in a way, I think allowing players to essentially cock-up the narrative, reinforces the importance of having the courage to do the right thing. By seeing these consequences happen from failure, it shows us the reality of unhappy ends.
But I'd acknowledge that this message is limited by players engagement with Max's relationship with Chole. If you don't maximally play in a way that allows one to invest themselves in the two's bond, then it could be easier to decide to save Arcadia. If the moment moral dilemma doesn't require much will power on your part, that aspect of the message is lost. Therefor it's troubling that the design of the game distinctly allows for this possibility.
Glad to see this episode finally came out, I've been looking forward to it since I asked about it. It's always nice to see another perspective on a game.
Hmmm. I disagree with the final choice being a bad idea. I sacrificed Arcadia Bay and i'm not looking/going back to sacrifice Chloe. Every action I took had a consequence and at a certain point, if not immediate, it led to a goddamned tornado regardless. I felt I could just live with my decisions. So what if it up heaves the entire character arc saving Chloe; that's what I was aiming to do the entire freaking game.
I think you nailed it by saying that games are in such a position that an interesting story about two teenage girls with sincere relatable moments (like waking up and just chill, you can do it in all 1-3 episodes) trumps all the mystery and time travel.
I think the greatest part of this game is making you feel a part of that friendship/relationship. This is the main reason it has such high scores and people like it.
IT'S BEEN 84 YEARS!
No, I've really anticipated this video since I saw the first one and decided to play Life Is Strange! Thanks!
I definitely agree that weather you sacrifice Chloe or not should have NOT been a player choice. However I believe choosing to sacrifice Chloe to be the better choice. What was the point in falling in love to give up that love? What is the point in being able to change time and escape fate if you don't? The whole game is about Max learning to self actualize. The game starts with her unable to turn in an assignment, and the only way to keep moving forward, rejecting fate and seizing the destiny you want. In my opinion the only option is to save Chloe otherwise the whole journey has been pointless.
I think the ending decision being left in the hands of the player is important. What's the point of having an interactive medium if pivotal decisions are made for you? The theme also has an opportunity to hit harder this way: if you don't learn from your experiences, you'll keep treading water as everything descends into chaos around you.
Thanks for this. I really hope DONTNOD sees this video. I, personally, absolutely love the hell out of Life Is Strange, warts and all, and feel that it's one of the most genuinely touching experiences that I've ever had with any piece of art in any medium, but I can't deny that there are so many issues that could certainly be fixed. I maybe disagree with the idea of taking away choice, it's okay for a video game to lead towards an arc but also leave open the option to see how things play out if you make a differing choice (in this way, the shorter ending is somewhat punishing as it basically says "well, this is what you wanted, so here it is" and just kind of gets out of the way quickly with little resolution), but I definitely think that every criticism raised in this could be addressed and would make for an outstanding game. It's going to be really hard for them to top Max and Chloe as characters, for me, though. I can't wait to see what is cooked up for the inevitable sequel!
I believe that the ending of this game had to be a choice, even though only one of them felt like a true ending. Max say's "I can't make that choice" and Chloe tells her "No, your the only one that can". I don't think it would have been as impactful if it just chose the right answer for you, you have to make the right choice even though its hard. I wanted so badly for the two of them to be together romantically that I felt every beat of the complicated web of trying to find a reality where she was still alive. But then I as the player had to chose to do the right thing by throwing all of that away. That ending made me flat out cry, and it probably wouldn't have been as impactful if i didn't have to pull the trigger myself. I needed it for the meta narrative rather then just the narrative.
I only finished Life Is Strange just the other day (darned Steam backlog) and just wanted to pick-up on a point in your (great) video. You mentioned "Butterfly effect" powers as a negative, as "convenient". I think the game is fully aware of it's extremely close ties to the Butterfly effect as the butterfly is the main symbol of the game. The first photo you take, the icon that appears when a memorable choice is made and more.
Whilst the "travel into a photo" power itself could be contrived as convenient I didn't take it like that. I was so caught up in the story I took it as just the evolution of this unknown, unreliable power. If it was just used for that one scene I would completely agree with you but it's a power that comes back. Max COULD have used it for anything but what is it she cares about at that point in the game? Chloe.
You also said that Max's power-loss in the Kate scenario wasn't referenced again and I have to disagree because it was. It never happened again, which I do think is a flaw, but it was discussed often and I actually felt tension first-play through as I EXPECTED her power to fail again. Max mentions over and over that she didn't want Chloe to rely on her power to try and calm Chloe down.
Overall though I agree with your conclusion. The game is not perfect but IS important in the world of computer games in general and hope many studios, including Dontnod themselves keep evolving the world of game storytelling as they are doing. Saying that, even with its flaws, it still packed an emotional punch for me that I've not felt for a long time and I watch a lot of films and read a lot of books.
0:12 Life is Strange
0:40 Emotion
2:16 Powers ties to theme
3:20 Changing the past
4:11 Issues
5:54 Coming of Age
6:44 Too often/too explicitly we are told she’s grown up 7:43
Told, Not Shown
8:23 Nathan Prescott,
9:13 Victoria
10:12 Get a sense
I really appreciated this video and agreed with everything you said. Your analysis of the ending choices was so well done. Thank you.
this games final decision reminds me of steins gate, in that steins gate subverted the "I'm fated to die" fatalism trope. turns out if your really clever, and willing to endure a lot of pain, you can use time travel to save everyone. at least so long as god doesn't throw a magic storm at you for no reason.
I think it is great that we get the choice at the end. When I played it, it didn't feel like a choice, and if I somehow encountered this same situation in real life, it wouldn't be a choice either. You don't have the right to decide over the lives of thousands of people. But it is still you who has to act in order to save them. Having the ability to not do it gives doing it a lot more depth. This is one of the tools games have that other media don't.
[The Last of Us and Bioshock Infintie spoilers] BTW That was my problem with the last of us's ending. It tried doing the same thing as Life is Strange or Bioshock Infinite (when you didn't leave the room until you handed over the baby), but it failed in my opinion. It forced me to do something that I would never ever do. I get that Joel is completely his own character and I'm just following him, but then why make me press the button to do the very thing that makes me hate him? It's not like he had to do it, like it is in Life is Strange and Bioshock, he's just a selfish asshole.
Hey, I just found your channel. Great stuff! I was curious about your critique of the "wooden face" acting that made a lot of the story heard and not scene. I was thinking it was a limitation of the way they developed the game. Since it's very cinematic, animation, and dialogue heavy, it would cost a lot to do high quality rendered out cut scenes for the acting moments. I'm aware they used in engine, real time render for every cut scene, so that would limit the rigs they would be able to use (you can't use blend shapes in Unreal to get that nice level of expressions). You can also tell they re-used idle animation for a lot of the more basic dialogue. I think it's a fair critique but I wonder if it's a moot point since I can't see the Developers being able to showcase that level of expression given the time, budget, and engine constraints.
I agree with most of it but with 2 exceptions. First, I feel that the fact that we saw only one side of 'Step-Douche' (which is false, because we saw how he saved Max) or Nathan, didn't harm the game. Because, in real life, it's unlikely that you would know a person from a different side, especially if that's your enemy. For that to happen, you need to catch them in their vulnerable moment, like Max did with Victoria. The only way for the game to show the "good" side of Nathan would be to pull some forced plot drama and that would be very cheap. Making us discover that on our own through little details, only helped the immersion. So that Max would understand that they just want to act tough and strong and they're afraid to show their human side. Victoria wasn't that afraid to show it while Frank in fact was proud of it. He has trust issues but he's not hiding his true self unlike David and Nathan.
And second, the ending choice is there for a reason. Not everyone sees the main plot as Max's love for Chloe and unwillingness to let her go. She also does everything in her power to make everyone happy and tries to save everyone. Either choice provides personal growth for Max. First option closes the character arc for Chloe but not Max. Max still goes back in time to save everyone, like she always does. She doesn't realize that you can't always save everyone, no matter how hard you try. When she went back in time for the first time, to save Chloe's dad, she experiences this in person. There are consequences. By saving the city Max refuses to acknowledge it and doesn't learn on her mistakes. Even after Chloe's death, she will likely to continue to use her powers for good, screwing up the timeline even more. The second option on the contrary, doesn't close Chloe's arc, but it does provide personal growth for Max for the reasons listed. Without metagaming, there's no reason to believe that tornado is connected to Max. It may simply be the climate change like it does happen in our world. Max is not a goddess, she can't be responsible for everything. And she definitely can't be responsible for the tornado. In fact, there's no game explanation for that tornado at all. We start our game with the dream of one. And it was before Max's powers manifested. It would make sense that this dream would happen after she saved Chloe, if Chloe was indeed the source of that tornado. I just wish they would put more effort in the second ending, with the epilogue and all. If you put more content in just one option, there is exactly no choice because people would want to see the other ending, just because it has more closure. That's my opinion of the endings.
The Darkness did the "do nothing and enjoy the love" bit better than Life is Strange imo. It got there quicker, was a huge contrast to an otherwise brutal and (obviously) dark game, and managed to give the whole trope of revenging your dead girlfriend thing an incredible weight I'd never seen before. It was also a whole lot sadder because the entirety of the game follows a guy who is unable to let go. It ends bleakly, without a choice, but ambiguous enough that it leaves you wondering if the main character, Jackie, moves on or even if he SHOULD move on.
Given it's source material is a very 90s, very edgy comic that shares space with Witchblade, it becoming a bleak and thought-provoking game that, while otherwise bland, does a few things amazingly well, was miraculous. It and Demon's Souls endings (and most Souls games endings) show to me that it's often times best to say nothing at the end of a game that asks you though questions.
Unfortunately, because Life is Strange doesn't end here, it can't do something like that (yet). My only hope for the series is that it ends with a choice you make in your own head, because choosing for you will alienate you from Max, but summing up the series in a way that you feel doesn't do what you want it to will just result in the same feeling. At worst it will feel like a cop out, but no matter what, ending on ambiguity will keep people thinking and talking about the game.
I was super supportive with what this game was trying to do all the way up to the end of episode 4, despite its flaws. However, when episode 5 came out, I had to finally submit that this game was actually not very good at all, and destroyed my interest in it.
Every input by the player is proven to be pointless by the last episode, because no matter what things you say or do, Max goes back in time to moments prior to when you made these choices. Everything boils down to the very last "choice". Even then, as Errant points out, that last choice is also pointless, since there is only one right thing. If this were a film, this would have been monumentally better, since then the player wouldn't feel railroaded down arbitrary paths to an inevitable conclusion, which cannot be affected by personal preferences in anyway.
+TheCrimsonSpire You might not appreciate it, but that's kind of the entire point of the game's "choice" mechanics. Max tries to fix everything and get the happy ending, and it consistently backfires, complicates the situation, and/or makes it worse (or at least just as bad but in a completely different way).
+OnlyARide That message/theme could have easily been communicated through a more effective medium such as film, rather than the more interactive medium of video games. The interactive elements imputed by the player is worthless in the grand scheme of things. At most we get to press the play button on the remote and watch it unfold in front of us.
Great video, you touched on a lot of points of why I both loved this game and was frustrated by it.
Looking back, I liked that the game was so much about emotional truth of the moment. It was different and part of why it has stuck with me so long. But that's also where they snapped the rubber band in the last episode.
I agree giving us the choice was bad, but for slightly different reasons. The game had broken it's own rules so much by having Max, Warren, and Chloe pulling out of thin air that Chloe not dying was what caused the storm that I refused to believe them. It hadn't set up like the Butterfly Effect that all time travel was bad, plenty had been changed with no effect on the strength of the storm. The storm was still coming in the alternate reality with William, where I did honor Chloe's wishes before leaving. In the moment, that couldn't sell me on that emotional truth.
And outside of that, my Max wasn't able to sacrifice Chloe. I was exhausted, Max was exhausted from the marathon that was the last two episodes. It had done an amazing job of making me feel everything up to this final choice, of having me empathize with Max. I was so glad to be playing until the ending. And it wasn't a noble choice, but I felt a very real human choice to say fuck the town. She wasn't a hero in a morality play, I was playing her like a person and this was a bridge too far. There would be guilt and pain and it would break something, but killing Chloe was the more horrible choice for my Max.
And everything dontnod did to make it the "bad" ending just annoyed me more. You can't imply everyone dies if in the same episode you have me running through the storm, and there some people survive while others don't. There will be a body count, but going "everyone dies if you pick your girlfriend" is gross.
I loved this game but didn't like the ending, and I couldn't put into words why until I listened to your reasoning. The game was definitely working up to letting Chloe go, to show that sometimes you can't save someone and you will lose them forever. It's a game about dealing with grief, and it's really, really clear about that.
When the final choice wass presented I was incredibly confused and ended up taking the "Save Chloe" option just to see what it would show me. In the moment I thought maybe I'd missed something, that maybe the game was telling me to not give up and keep on trying to save Chloe, that somehow I could save her and the town somehow. What I got was an ending that told me I made the wrong choice, especially when saving the town is so very clearly what the game feels is the correct one. It felt like I was following along then was thrown a red herring, which really sucked the wind out of my sales and left me sitting in my chair wondering what just happened.
I think that you're right, that the game should have shown that Chloe could not be saved and made your final choices have more to do with how you grieve and how you move on. That, to me, would have been thematically more appropriate (and I would have cried my eyes out rather than enter a state of bewilderment).
This was way more positive than I would've been. But definitely insightful and well-balanced critique and I find myself agreeing with a lot of it.
Don't think I've disagreed with a video of yours this much before. I think your interpretation of the ending especially is way off.
+qerguil I think he misses the point of the ending entirely. In a game all about those small touching moments that is talked about in the beginning of this video, the ending absolutely embodies that dynamic. Should you let Chloe sacrifice herself in order to save the rest of the town, thus dooming her to be forever just within your memories and undoing all of the moments between her and Max within the game? Or should you hold on to Chloe for as long as fate will allow, cherishing your relationship with her above all else and seeing all the stuff you've been through together as too much to let go? The whole game is about this choice: it presents you with several meaningful moments, and then lets you decide whether to hold on to them or move on immediately. Even if Chloe is somehow destined to die, the choice of ending allows the player the entirely valid option of sticking with her no matter what happens. The game builds up to a hard choice where the answer isn't easily available and the game won't make it for you. That burden of personal responsibility, whether to the people of Arcadia Bay or Chloe, is the result of Max's character development, not the one-sided narrative option that Campster feels should happen.
+Jacob French Very well said. I couldn't agree more.
+Jacob French His point was that the option to save chloe contradicts the whole character development of the two girls, and I agree. Saving Chloe just doesnt make sense from an audience view, so why give us a choice if the one option is totally off character?
+Jacob French I think the point, for a gross simplicity, would be akin to saying "and it was allllll a dreeaaammmm!!". No one wants that crap because it undermines the story as a whole.
+Rodney Hamilton But is true to life. :P (I've had no end of "it was allllll a dreeaaammmm!!" surprises to know, that's how it goes most days :D )
I think I'd argue that even the "superficial" choices and even the ending choice play into the story thematically in that they make the player feel unsure of themselves, which is definitely a huge part of Max's character.
There are obviously multiple ways to interpret and look at Max's character arc and the nature of her powers. The way I see it, Max was at the beginning of the game still traumatized by her forced departure from Arcadia Bay shortly after the death of her best friend's father. She was basically stuck with anxieties/analysis paralysis that made her lose touch with Chloe, and for whatever reason she was granted her powers the morning of the very day when her inaction would have permanent consequences. (I.e., Chloe's death.)
I think this is supported by the alternate timeline where Chloe's father didn't die, and we got a short glimpse into a life where Max was popular and more well-adjusted. When Max moved away in that timeline, Chloe was fine and moving wasn't the same thing as abandoning her, even if bad things still happened later on. Furthermore, Max Prime's diary mentioned how the fears that kept her from getting back in touch with Chloe only got worse the longer she waited.
Without a doubt, Max received her powers at the start of the game so that she could save Chloe. A second chance of sorts, regardless of if it gained permanence or became reduced to memories of a world that could have been at the end of the game. Then that was followed by both the player and Max getting to explore those powers, which served the purpose of both familiarizing the player with the game's systems and giving Max herself opportunities to safely take chances and make decisions, as she feels protected by the option to rewind after any given choice.
I think Max's ability to finally take decisive action, fully aware of that bad things will happen regardless, is what the ending is about. Starting with the journey into the past in episode 4, Max stopped second-guessing her decisions and went so far as to burn bridges she didn't want to take. Starting with the childhood photo in Chloe's house, Max systematically destroyed photographs she could potentially use to undo her decisions. This continues all the way up to the ending, where Max rips her butterfly photo after deciding what parts of her life are more important to her, and what action she can or can't take. (Of course there's also a bit of irony in that both choices depend on Max's own inaction. Regardless of which timeline she ends up in, the only thing she can do is... nothing.)
Anyway, Chloe Price ---❤️--- 4ever.
I'd just like to comment that the timing for Max to gain new powers, although convenient, is also very consistent. We are shown from the very first time she does that it happens because of being in stressful situations in which someone close is involved (even though she doesn't know Chloe at first, they are connected thru their childhood friendship)
Imo, the game sets up variations in Max's powers effectively from the get-go
Your favorite LIS moment is mine as well! And I think your characterization of the game as something that is touching but does not necessarily make logical sense/establish rules of its universe is spot on. In addition to the social issues you mentioned as drama creators in the game (suicide, murder, sexual harassment/sexual assault), I think LIS does really weird things with race and specifically with the use of Native American spiritual and cultural traditions, from the tobanga and the use of the Hopi prophecy to Ms. Grant's weird and historically inaccurate comments about cooperation between Native Americans and European settlers. Then there are characters like Daniel who looks to be a person of color and has what seems like a Spanish accent, yet is actually played by a white voice actor? Just a lot of weirdness going on there...
I love this game so much. It is by far one of my favorites of all time and takes game of the year for me by a landslide. I know that is not perfect, not even a little, but when it is good it is really good. I will carry this game with me for the rest of my life.
This is what you call a guilty pleasure.
I have such a strong Love/Hate towards this game, and you basically gave all my reasons why in this nice little video. Now when everyone ask me why, I'll just show them this video.
Thanks for the awesome video as always.
Hey I had been trying to save Chloe for five episodes. I chose to save Chloe because otherwise everything I had done for the whole game would be gone and I didn't want that.
That's the thing, though. Saving Chloe is what set all the other chain of events. Using the photography allegory, it's like constantly trying to find the "perfect" shot (like Jefferson kept doing while torturing Max) rather than just accept what's in front of you. You can "capture" a moment, freeze it in time, but you can't change what happened.
I liked the Chloe's ending more because else everything I had done during 2 episoades had of been for nothing if I would just throw that away and just "reset" the timeline by letting her die.
I think my favorite moment besides the ending is, after I let Nathan get the shit kicked out of him, he sends a text later where he apologizes and opens up some. made me feel super guilty.
now I get the title, especially the errant part. I love this serie but the content could use a little more structured. But the title says it all, so I can't really complain. Plus, it is useful to sometimes just think about it and let your mind wander. You might reach unexpected places and this series does it very well. So I get it and I like it.
If the moral of a story can be summed up by Homer Simpson, I think it may have underachieved somewhat on its intrinsic promise that it would have some kind of meaning.
"Kids, you tried your best, and failed miserably! The lesson is: Never try."
You could say the same about every Greek Tragedy.
That was an interesting take on the ending. I feel like everyone else who's analyzed the final choice, including ANTHONY FREAKING BURCH, came to the conclusion that leaving with Chloe is the more plausible ending for Max's character arc. Nice to hear the other side being argued.
Excellent episode, though I too found the final choice to be a necessity. While yes, according to your sound line of reasoning, Chloe dying is sensible with Max's development, it asks the player if they've had a similar one.
Not that I took that choice. I wanted Max to reflect me, and in my ethos I'd burn the world before giving up my love.
I'm really late, but I want to weigh in anyway. I completely agree with the criticism about the final choice. On my first playthrough, I instantly picked 'Sacrifice Arcadia Bay' because Chloe had completely won me over and I didn't want her to suffer. I only went back to sacrifice her after learning that the only way to get the kiss that I was waiting for the whole game is through that path. :'( Now that I know the 'Sacrifice Chloe' is the 'correct' option, I feel like being robbed of a very powerful ending to a flawed but brilliant game.
Still, Life is Strange is easily in my Top 5 games, and I feel that if Dontnod fix even half the problems for the Life is Strange 2, it'll be the best game I've ever played.
You forgot to mention all the memes that were cranked up to fucking 11 in this "game".
That's a sweet scare quote, Totalbiscuit.
+Michael Zuganov who cares, the story doesn't really revolve around them.
+Daniel Feldspar Did he say exactly the same thing? Well shesh, he totally stole that opinion from me because I don't watch him.
5:29 "gal pals" harold...
I disagree a lot with your analysis of the final choice.
First, I think the "run away with Chloe" ending is, yes, shorter, but perfectly fine. It would have felt wrong IMO to extend it.
I don't agree that the "go back in time" option is clearly the correct action. I feel like, emphasizing with Max, I couldn't undo just the fact that the past events happened. Even though the "save the town" option is clearly better from a "moral" standpoint, I couldn't stand the idea that none of the magical adventure would have occurred.
Also, I don't know how clear the machinations of the time travel really are. Sure, Chloe *says* that "fate clearly want her dead" or some such, but really? I mean, think about how many times she actually died in flashbacks? For me, it was once on the train. And... of course in the final sequence. But I don't think any time elsewhere. I learned through watching people there are a couple of other moments she can die (playing with the gun... arguing with Frank, I think) but I definitely wouldn't say it's super clear.
this is a+ work man. keep at it.
the real problem with the ending choice, from my playthrough's experience, was that I just didn't like chloe THAT much, I found a lot of the other parts of the cast more engaging, more human, and better people (warren was the coolest nerd, victoria JUST NOW learned how to be a nice person and she has hopes and ambitions, and even the school principal being stuck between honestly wanting to teach kids and trying to stay afloat, taking Prescott money)
all the while chloe was stubborn and never willing to talk or listen to max, especially through the later scenes.
all and all I agree, it didn't feel much like a choice to me, it felt like they had put far too much weight on me REALLY liking chloe, like max did.
but all and all it was a good game for the most part, and I really admire just how creepy the birds falling and whales beaching is, just seeing more and more of nature going mad was fantastic.
I thought the game was perfect for me, the cost of it was great and the writing was spectacular. I can't think of another piece of media or game that has hit me with such an emotional blow as this one. They really did a fantastic job with it.
In my opinion, the plot sorta falls apart at the end. Part of it ties directly to the whole "Max's powers work as the plot demands" thing, part of it fits that general mold without actually involving those powers.
The identity of the guy doing the creepy stuff with Rachel Amber and others sorta came out of nowhere; the only clues that I can see are that he seems like the last person you should expect to do that kind of stuff and a line of dialogue that the game flashes back to after The Reveal. And that dialogue...good foreshadowing makes you wonder how you could have missed it the first time, and changes how you understand the work on subsequent viewings. That bit of dialogue does almost the exact opposite. I can see a vague connection, but I'm still not completely sure how the line is supposed to suggest anything about him.
And then there's that trippy sequence towards the end, which mixes up Max's powers and game mechanics in some ways which seem ill-considered, which seems like a painfully artificial attempt to get the player to contemplate the plot and their actions and so forth. I see why they did it, but it doesn't seem to work that well (especially the stealth section). This is one of several reasons that I suspect Life is Strange didn't spend enough time considering how their concluding section would play out before releasing the first parts.
I like a lot of what LIS does, and love what it's trying to do. But the execution manages to so frequently fall so far short of its intentions and my hopes that I can't call the final product more than okay.
Watching this made me just now realize that I acted out the real life version of the game's premise by the end. I chose to let the town get hit, wasn't satisfied, and went back the next day to chose the other ending. Which in the most meta way possible makes me more satisfied with the fact that there's a choice, because maybe that was also part of the point. Maybe that's the reason the selfish ending was so underdeveloped. Or maybe that's just making excuses. Before I thought of this, I agreed that it should have just been the selfless ending with no choice. But it was interesting to still have that power over choice even after the game is over.
In my original playthrough, I chose to save Arcadia Bay. It was tragic and moving; but after having played through it again and chosen to save Chloe; I was more satisfied by that ending. It seems childish and severe; but the bond between Chloe & Max was legit and Max's powers appeared just as she could save her long-time friend's life. In effect; they're meant to be together. (not in the romantic way)
Disclaimer: I loved the crap out of this game.
I feel many of the problems with the narrative stem from the fact that there is a ton of "the end justifies the means" by the writers/developers. They had cool scenes and situations in mind and they didn't care that much about how to get there.
The devs really wanted the flashback to 13-year-old Max and consequent timeline because they knew the scenes would be great, so they contrived a way to do it without worrying too much about making sense. The devs really wanted a girls-night-out in the swimming pool because they knew the scene would be great, so they contrived a way to do it without worrying too much about making sense. And so on and so forth until the ending itself.
Don't know if it was a conscious decision or not, but the focus of the game is indeed in executing brilliant scenes, and much less in creating a cohesive world and plot, and so the narrative suffers.
And still I'd totally say it was worth it, overall. Those moments they created sure are memorable. I've forgotten a lot of well plotted stories, but I know I won't ever forget Life is Strange.
I don't think you give Nathan or Jefferson due credit. They're both criminals who have put up a facade the entire first four episodes and they both do come down in front of you dynamically. You see that Nathan is a scared, traumatized kid who is aimlessly angry due to his trauma in his bedroom and his facade comes down dynamically in a voicemail. Not a voicemail to somebody else, a voicemail to you. His last action is to warn Max of Jefferson and his facade is gone completely in that action, showing how scared he is. Jefferson's facade crashing down is much more dynamic, as his basic actions during the first half of Episode 5 are that of complete objectification of Max. How is treats Max then is how he treats people everyday, showing how manipulative he is.
Also, the ending isn't just awful because it undermines the arcs, its awful because its underdeveloped and it doesn't make sense. There are plotholes in every time travel story where somebody changes something to effect them personally but the ending was just unacceptable. The theory that Chloe is the catalyst for everything bad is undermined by the fact that the storm is still coming in Episode 5 even when she's dead and the theory that time travel is the catalyst and that Chloe isn't doomed to die is simply never tested - you never get to travel back in time and save Chloe without time travel powers, which would be pathetically easy.These were both obvious flaws that I saw *during* the decision making process. One theory asserted is probably wrong and the other is one you never get to test because fuck you player for following basic time travel logic. I understood what the game was trying to do thematically but it made zero sense at all. Its a Mass Effect 3 Ending level of logical failings, though the ending as a whole wasn't quite as bad as ME3's. The fact that ites entirely uncohesive basically turns it into "would you murder your brest friend if it might save your town?" versus "would you let your best friend live if it means others may die deaths they otherwise might not would've". Its not even on the level of the Fat Man Railroad Tracks scenario because in Fat Man scenario you *know* you're saving more lives than you're ending whereas here you're sacrificing somebody's life to *maybe* save a few other people. DONTNOD's ideal ending asks you to commit what is essentially murder on the off-chance that it *might* better for everybody else if she dies. Its the second-worst videogame ending I've encountered (after ME3 of course) because what they intend to ask the player and what they actually ask the player are two entirely separate things.
i think this is a clear case of Player Expression Vs Character Expression like in Fallout 4, the Character has a driving force that is supposed to be their modus operandi but the developers made choices and mechanics that express player expression rather than character expression but they also try to do character expression choices as well. it just comes out as a mess in the end because in the end you have to choose between the Player Character being a character or a player avatar. its structured vs emergent gameplay that are truly mutually exclusive to one another.
Idk what you are talk about with Max she's a amazing and , Max was one of my most fav character of all time , and she's not blank at all . That all I have to say
I just finished this game tonight, and I have to say that I think the storm feels like a real deus ex machina plot device that's supposed to serve as a sufficient threat to get the ending the developers wanted, but in the wake of "meaningless choice" endings like Mass Effect 3, they had to give the run-away ending some sense of conclusion that gives the player the thing that they wanted to see when they picked the alternative option.
I think in reality the eleventh hour heroic sacrifice has reached a point where a lot of people are tired of seeing it, and they could have gone in a lot of different ways than the one that they did. For example, using the storm as an analogy for how teenagers can feel the entire universe is out to get them, and how Chloe's life was until that point a series of disappointments and abandonments that does feel like she's been sucker-punched by destiny in so many ways. She is always stuck with a tragic life (Max's seems less difficult by comparison), and she's only a hero insofar as she resigned herself to a tragic life after a friend tried every supernatural trick she could think of to save her.
If I was writing this game, the waterspout would have represented her rage and resentment, and disappeared when she realizes she can't spend her tomorrows living the results of her yesterdays. But perhaps that says more about me.
Dear Errant,
I do agree with your assessment of problems that LIS has now as I'm writing this after much thought. But I didn't think much of them as I was playing the game. Yes, the final choice and the end-of-episode 2/start-of-episode 3, had me want to flip a table, but most everything you said that didn't work kinda phased over me . I wonder why that is. I find myself wanting to reject your augment out of contexts for disagree with how I feel but can't because we both like LIS.
So, from what I can think of at 3 am in the morning mostly likely did not analyze the characters and plot properly because it was both very enjoyable to play and unlike most everything I have played LIS felt earnest and honest with it's presentation.
Life is Strange treats its ideas and themes like the Scooby Doo hallway gag treats doors.
I chose to save Chloe. I realised it didn't make logical sense, but BECAUSE the game offered me a choice, I thought that the game might work beyond that, that it might make some narrative sense, that the idea that I would sacrifice it all for Chloe was worth some sort of reward. Heck, I was half expecting that sacrifice to wipe out the storm before it hit, in a Disney sort of way. But no, because of that choice the game really let me down at the end.
One thing I found rather clever about this game was how at the end of every chapter it showed you all the choices you made, and all the choices you could have made, and people's statistics for each. I initially felt like it was spoiling the game for me, but then I realised it was like a metaphor; if I didn't like how things turned out in that chapter I could have played it again, effectively rewinding time. Would I stick with my choices or use my powers? It seems very deliberate to me.
Completely agree on the facial animations. Really wish they were better. Also agree on the final choice. Should not have been an option as the entire story led up to that.
I think like most people, I chose to make the choice I thought was right, as far as I know these types of plots work, and I think that it's a beautiful ending. That said, something really appeals to me about the narcissism of the second choice. It seems to require an amount of apathy to make, and I love that it kind of spits that back out at you and follows through with an ending that is also narcissistic and apathetic to the happenings of the town. It could have been longer, and I'd like to see more of that channeled within Max herself, but I really like that it decided to undermine the player's expectation of a deus ex machina or even a strand of emotional redemption. That choice was truly a selfish one, and the game knew it as well as the player.
My problem all stems from that very first time she stops time. It never happens again, and something could have been done to prevent damn near everything. How? In the bathroom she could have stopped time, grabbed his gun and her and Chloe could have called for help. There were ways to win, but because the game never brings up the concept of time stopping we, as the player, can imagine scenarios where we win, easily in fact! A video of the storm brought back to warn people, making fake threats of bombing to evacuate the town, sending people to the light house in someway. All had possibility, but because we can't stop time and move through it we feel weak when we apparently have this amazing power within! Chloe's arc could have been finished in other ways, but because we can't stop time, we never get the chance to make a real difference.
On a side note, why couldn't we go to the funeral and talk and grieve, even have one last word with anyone? Yes, I know Chloe was dead, but the survivors weren't. Some closure with them would have made this all a little easier to swallow. Instead? One of my favorite characters lays dead, and I can't even give my thoughts within the game.
just a comment on where you talked about how losing your powers during kate's suicide sequence seemed out of nowhere. I don't agree with that. It makes a lot of sense considering that episode largely focused on max abusing her powers to goof off with chloe. it reinforces a lot of max's beliefs that her powers are limited and that she's not omniscient, which is important to how she reacts so negatively to even having to use them in later episodes.
Every frame a painting AND errant signal uploads on the same day???
i'm disappointed that you didn't touch upon the thing that really pissed me off about the ending, which is the subtext regarding max and chloe's relationship
i know you don't HAVE to read them as romantic, but like. everyone i know did. they made all the romantic choices, and they got really attached to that surprisingly earnest representation. that stuff's important to us. like, how many games exist where the focus is a gay relationship? next to none. but for the ending, the choice to let the protagonists stay together is tied to being immature and selfish and destructive, just because. the storm is arbitrarily tied to chloe to break them up. all of your efforts to save chloe and get closer to chloe are wasted by the "good ending" where she's sacrificed, and for what? for max to learn that everything sucks forever and that she has no control over the bad things that happen in her life?
honestly, there's nothing fresh or interesting about yet another Bury Your Gays tragic ending in which another gay couple is tortured just for the sake of drama. and it kind of ruined the rest of the game for me
+Bobby Schroeder to be fair even if Chloe were a guy it wouldn't make the choice more or less selfish and immature, but honestly the relationship aspect is kinda moot because of the what the choice is, sacrifice a town or sacrifice one person, and there is no unselfish reason to not kill Chloe.
Bobby Schroeder
i mean it kinda does matter, chloe's sex is irrelevant to the choice you have to make, if she were a guy it would be the same choice with the same outcomes. this choice isn't purposely making a statement about gay relationships by the devs. honestly, if you feel like this choice is anything more than the devs wanting the player to have the generic "The Good of the Many vs. The Rights of the Few" moral choice at the end, you are giving the devs too much credit.
+Noschool100 i don't think you understand what i'm saying. it doesn't matter what dontnod's intentions were. it doesn't matter how much you think would change if chloe was a dude. the problem is that, in the actual story we got, the gay couple is refused a happy ending. yet again. most media about gay people ends this way, and it has for years. we don't get to be happy, it's just all about our suffering, and then straight people get to look at it and go "wow, so poignant..."
and not only did we get that shitty ending, but we're given the choice of whether chloe lives or dies, and told that letting her die is the right thing to do. either way, they're screwed. because of some nonsense about fate that the writers pulled out of their asses
it renders the intimate choices from earlier in the game that allowed the relationship to evolve almost completely moot, and turns it from an earnest story about two girls into yet another voyeuristic tragedy about gay suffering
+Bobby Schroeder Pretty sure it mattered zero percent if they were in love with each other. This game has nothing to do with the sexual agendas of the main protagonist. You can choose to try and get Chloe or that guy (forgot his name). You could probably go for nothing and since the choices don't matter anyway who cares about that? I mean you clearly feel things about being gay but the game is more focused in other matters.
+Bobby Schroeder the problem is that Chloe died before you knew her. You fell in love with on borrowed time and now that time is up. It was short, but it was sweet. Relationships aren't measured by how long they last. Sometimes the best aren't the longest, and vice versa.
Nothing lasts forever and sometimes you have to accept the loss of a loved one. Even when it hurts. You don't have to forget them, but you do have to learn to let them go. It's part of growing up.