Inside (Addendum) (All The Spoilers)

[@SatansBestBuddy1]

I just thought the model was the game devs being really cheeky about the metatext of this all still being just a game. The blob may have escaped the lab, but it's still trapped in the game world. The beach is just a model, a bunch of ploygons and textures made to resemble a beach. All of the world is a stage, honestly, and so they have a bit of fun poking at the artifice of escape when in the end, it's all a carefully constructed work of fiction. The secret ending is even more explicit about this, with the boy's only real means of escape being complete detachment from the systems that control him... which leave him as just another doll, unable to to anything, because the world is not designed around the idea that the boy has any free will in the first place. If he moves, it's because he is under the player's control, he has no will of his own because he is literally a puppet, and the only thing that makes him special is that the puppet master is the player. I'm actually kinda surprised you kept your analysis within the world of the game, but then, it is a very well made world. The stage Playdead made is wonderfully constructed and has a real sense of weight and depth to it, and there are so many little touches that make this place feel more like a living, breathing world, so it's easy to forget that it is a game, and if the game has a message it could be on the nature of games itself.

[@JoPeTuYaTroJoueY]

nice analyse ! but i'm more enclin to think, with all the cracked code / poem about the Busy Monster, that the devs was trying to do a critic of the humankind in itself, than a critic of the game being just a game.

[@dustypartition]

"... going out on a limb...". Yes. Many, many limbs.

[@gizmohollow]

Campster I dunno if you knew this, but you don't actually have to kill the scientist at around 5:30. If you wait a little while, he'll nervously sidestep out of your way

[@ErrantSignal]

... ...I swear to god I am not doing an addendum to the addendum

[@TheodoreCaesarMoseby]

Jimmy Joseph It reflects the blind trust you have in the game... or some bullshit.

[@Spyderist]

Errant Signal you're going to do it and like doing it, mister

[@hockeater]

Fair. Besides your point still stands. After all what kind of moron plan complete with a destination and a path to get there leading the thing by whatever qualifies as its nose places one of the planners in such obvious position to be harmed?

[@John-uw2je]

If you need some more content for the addendum's addendum, (if your up to it, your choice really) then you should also factor in how you always go downwards. Also maybe touch on how the pods for turning people into those things are everywhere, even the beggining. There is also the point how near the end you see a lot of rockets and gravity testing. This along with other aspects of the game (beings that don't need air, and a weird constantly exploding area) suggest space travel.

[@dotanuki3371]

But how does ambiguity help me Be Right on the internet?

[@politure]

top quality comment

[@jons787]

Step 1: The Huddle escapes, destroys our facility, and dies on a beach. Step 2: ... Step 3: PROFIT!!!

[@richenrd]

Maybe that beach was there just in case the huddle escaped, rather than being there for him to escape to. That explains why some workers died, because the huddles escape wasn't planned for, but was also planned for. You get what I mean?

[@nope1018]

lol I always interpreted the motivations of the scientists that help you out as being "HOLY SHIT, GET THIS HORRORTERROR THE FUCK OUT OF OUR WORKSPACE"

[@morganj426]

Yo, "embrace ambiguity and revel in abstraction" is my new blog title.

[@justthecoolestdudeyo9446]

"Revelers in Abstraction" is actually my band name

[@Uncerten]

Fan theories are fun but we should really start at the basic agreement that authors are flawed and not omniscient. And the conversation should be about both the authors intended and unintended themes.

[@buildings_and_food]

a Theme is just as much a Theme, intended or not. I don't think there's much critical value in trying to crystal-ball the minds of INSIDE's creators. just like campster says, revel in everything the text inspires in you!

[@gwardojones]

But if we are going to address evidence purposefully set by an author to led to a better understanding of a work's themes, we need to address what ISN'T evidence to come to a clear consensus of what the work was intended to express.

[@duffman18]

Yeah this is a the beauty of art. Literally the best part of art. That Death of the Author means it doesn't even necessarily matter what the author thinks the meaning of their work of art actually means. Everyone gets different things from a piece of art and they're all equally valid. Seeing something meaningful in art that wasn't intended by the author, is a great thing. It's what sparks the best part of parties (or going to the pub), the hours and hours of fascinating discussion and debate over what a piece of art actually means, like say debating what the meaning of a film or TV show really is. Those discussions are so fun. Especially if you've got coke. Then you can just chat non stop for hours at a time and it seems like the funnest thing in the world when you're doing it

[@shotscarecrow]

I'll just repeat the comment I made below in reply to another commenter on the subject of ambiguity: The point of ambiguity in an artform is usually to illustrate that there's a relationship between the two or more possible interpretations. So, for example, if you're not sure whether a game is an explicit fable about post-industrial mass slavery or a metaphorical illustration of the forms of control that exist between player, game designer and game object, then the point might just be to cause you to reflect on the parallels between societal power structures and game design.

[@TheDominitri]

I've been a viewer for years, I don't usually comment but I have to say this time Chris, this is one of if not the best ES you have made. Thanks

[@lereff1382]

.....isn't it just an addendum as the title reads?

[@TheDominitri]

Yeah, I think so

[@lereff1382]

TheDominitri then you probably shouldn't refer to it as an ES.

[@TheDominitri]

What

[@politure]

lol

[@part-slimer]

Basically completely agree with you. I understand why people look for some sort of narrative cause and effect within things like this, but to me it's much more about "what does the information we are given say". I'm not sure I could point to how it happened (perhaps when I got more into film theory and started applying that to videogames) but to me it's more interesting to consider what the text tells us about the world outside of the text than the unexplored parts of the world inside *ahem* the text. The wonder of ambiguity is that it means a piece of art that was perhaps created with something totally different in mind can touch you regarding ideas that are already close to your heart. I've been doing a lot of thinking lately about individualism versus collectivism, so obviously playing this game challenged a lot of the thoughts I was forming around that. Was someone at Playdead approaching it from that angle? Maybe, but it doesn't really matter. I can't speak for any other country, but I feel like The One True Reading in the UK is something that comes at least partly from English literature education, that teaches even under 10s that, say, the writer of a poem had a particular specific idea in mind when they wrote it. But in reality, artists are often grappling with questions they can't answer, and the art is the expression of something that maybe even they themselves don't understand. And once you approach any piece of art with that idea in mind, it becomes much easier to understand, in my opinion. Furthermore, in the case of narrative art, it helps make ambiguity tend to be satisfying rather than frustrating.

[@cliftonb]

Honestly, I'd watched so many videos on this game that I thought you had touched on the soundstage in your first one.I'm getting my game analysis channels all mixed up. But I think it's good that you'd missed it initially, as it may have helped the skepticism you've got for that theory now that you've seen it.

[@BadHatNZ]

This is a great addendum, thanks for taking the time to not only correct yourself but use that new information to put forward a broader take on the game. There's one thing that I still have trouble accounting for, and this doesn't really change any of what you said, it's more of a technical niggle. That is -- where is the player at the end of the game, in relation to where they were at the start? Before you descend into the lab you see a lot of pretty ordinary looking places, the kind you'd expect to see roughly at sea level. But once you're inside the lab (as far as I remember it), it's more or less a constant descent. So... if that's not an artificial lake at the end - and even if it is - how does it exist so far below sea level? Again, this is just a technical niggle, but it did stand out to me because of how insistent the game is on providing a seamless journey from start to finish. There aren't any "fade to black" moments that could easily explain this away. So it's either a mistake, an intentional omission, or a clue, and I guess it's impossible to tell which - or if it really matters. :v

[@ParadoxMooCheese]

The interpretation that appeals most strongly to me is that this game is symbolism for cancer and the body's natural and assisted defenses, recurrence (coming back to life after being drowned by the chemotherapy girl), and becoming malignant (the blob that bursts out of containment, destroying everything in its path). Many, if not all, of the puzzles and traps have a strong relationship to mechanisms that the body uses to detect and eliminate cancer, the assistance that doctors and treatments may provide, as well the processes that the cancer cells utilize to coop the body's systems for their own means (such the chicks and the 'zombies'). Being symbolism for cancer also fits much better with the game's name "Inside" than the other explanations I have seen presented. But I work in oncology research, so that may just be my bias.

[@etamr60]

Then again, you can metaphorically relate the relationship between the cells of the body as total control of the government (or governing principle). To the point of killing of cells "for the greater good" as has been discovered in C. elegans. The rogue cell escaping the body's control can be linked to the search of liberation of the player's character, destructive for its environment (poor scientist). And the secret ending is, in its own way, apoptosis, harmless for the environment. In this interpretation, when you want to escape society (which implies you are either malformed, or meant to die), suicide is a cleaner way than a rush for freedom. So much for the revolution 😖.

[@rtbobo77]

When you break the wall that let's you into the coast look at the beams. The beams are positioned in a way that makes it look like the coast is still inside. Additionally the trees that you break when falling to the coast are way too small. They are the size of miniatures.

[@x24sonic]

going back to inside and watching these videos honestly reminds me very strongly of the folding ideas video "annihilation and decoding metaphor" where he talks about how everyone trying to figure out the literal answer to what happens at the end is completely missing the point of the whole movie, because the diegetic answers don't matter. both annihilation and inside are *very* heavy on the metaphorical imagery and trying to hash out the details of whether the ending is actually a sound stage or not is almost missing the point entirely.

[@raveelemental4928]

Damn these couple of vis you made, even 4 years later, still hit. The ending of the game and the fact that the Huddle comes out of nowhere disturbed me, and even more so the fact that you have no control to change any outcome. There is only the Huddle's fake (or not) escape, or the relinquishing of what little control you had altogether. I'm glad that you mentioned the concept of us wanting cetainties, I certainly have always felt that way, but I suppose the inherent point of Playdead's games is what you make of them. It's been 5 years now, who knows if we're gonna get a new one next year...

[@DarkestMirrored]

I think, from a "narrative" standpoint (which I agree is shaky to impose on a game like Inside, but still fun to theorycraft about), that there's a happy medium to be reached between "The blob escaped" and "The entire escape was already planned". Note that, prior to "breaking out", you are dropped into a... holding tank? A silo? A deep pit that you have to rip a specific plate off of to escape. A plausible explanation to me would be that the Blob's escape was in no way intended- the initial chaos and death it results in doesn't seem very "scripted"- but that before long the scientists and other personnel in the laboratory think quickly and start guiding you somewhere they hope to contain you (or at least minimize the damage of your rampage). Perhaps they expected you to stay in the tank they trick you into. Maybe they figured you'd break out further, but that that area was largely empty. Regardless, the final scene _does_ seem heavily implied to still be "inside" the lab- the identical nature of its appearance _and_ the way the walls of the facility directly prior to it seem to curve away into the distance seem very telling that the scene is enclosed.

[@rocketcarmike]

If the diorama "proves" the escape was all planned, then why did the scientists plan for the huddle to walk through that diorama and give the plan away? Given the game's hidden message tips the devs' hand--it links to a poem that states "scientific progress away from nature is bad", it's a pretty clear read that the scientists are couped up inside, they can't visit the beach outside. So they have a diorama of it. Keep it behind glass; nature is something to be studied. Progress has made them imprison the blob, imprison nature, and imprison themselves. The scientists are "inside" as much as the blob is. When the blob gets loose, it's not an "everyone is an actor" conspiracy. Almost everyone is fearful. Some are curious. Then some find their humanity and have sympathy for imprisoned life, and help it escape into nature. The blob's triumph is probably not for the better, but that's freedom from control for you. Hence the uneasy feeling of the ending. Reading it as optimistic or not isn't about the "true interpretation" of a piece of set decoration -- that's just finding an excuse to force the ending away from ambiguity and into your personal wheelhouse.

[@badradish2116]

they programmed the goal. not the way the blob reached that goal. escape was a test and casualties were expected, rather than planned.

[@jonnil1997]

I like this read (:

[@DrFaustisDead]

I've been running with the theory that the entire experience of inside is a bit of multiverse shenanigans, with an elaborate set of experiments meant to prove that the player not only exists but is capable of influencing the world using a "husk" as a proxy. Here are a few items of note. 1. The biome in the sunken lab is a small scale version of the forest from the opening. 2. Some humans wear masks, most notably in the forest, the city, and the Theater at the end of the game. I think all of the non masked humans are actually husks. 3. The room where the "siren" drowns and resurrects the boy has no exit door. if the walkway didn't collapse there would be no way out. 4. Almost everything is diegetic, most notably the reel to reel tape player with the vault code, the light board in the room with the final orb, hell even the camera. 5. The bunker under the cornfield has a picture of the blob in it. But thanks to the games ambiguity, who's to say really.

[@SarkisovK111]

You've briefly touched upon the topic of the "mermaid(s)". Remember how they all exist underwater in the sunken labs that are almost the exact copy of the one you're going through before you climb into that blob thing? What I'm implying is that MAYBE that mermaid is somehow a survivor of a previous experiment? It all clicks, really, look at it - it's naked (as you are after being sucked in the final chamber), and it's long hair perhapse means that it was living underwater for a long long time. I think that mermaid-thing is one of the key elements of the worldbuilding puzzle. It clearly suggests that it all happened before, something went wrong, the facility got flooded etc. Why it has the ability to breath underwater - I don't know. But stil, you know, kinda fascinating to think about all this.

[@buildings_and_food]

correct. I think it's the second time you encounter her that, even submerged, she's hooked up to blue and red cables on some kind of medical device.

[@tommytelstar]

Fit me into the ambiguousness is a yawner camp. It's not really valued as highly in any other media by quite a distance, and here in INSIDE it's from a dev who did the exact same thing the same before, leaving me questioning their writing chops to fill in the world. Ambiguousness auto-loyalty reads to me generally as bias gamers defending their latest video game they love. And since when did specific conclusion or motivations in a story automatically shut off an individuals ability to improve/alter/ fill in more detail.... a persons ability to change or think about a conclusive story more then an ambiguous one ? I never let it, so why do most others treat it that way.

[@Nazareadain]

I've got to wonder why you assume auto-loyalty. There are more classically, well, classy intellectual pursuits to feign interest in, if it's the vanitilectuals you're alluding to. If not, to explain myself, I don't jump on every vapid attempt at pseudo-intellectualism (Well, I try a lot of them, but doesn't mean I default to liking them) and find it hard to both find and make games that have the proper ground work for satisfying allusions and connections as opposed to either a hot mess of loose ends or a tight knot of nothing to say. When done right, it's a gift that keeps giving even after I put the game away. I've also got to wonder what you're doing here when half the channel is exploring themes, context and connections, all fitting nicely under an umbrella term of ambiguity.

[@Ghosthacker94]

"not really valued as highly in any other media"??!!!! Books? Films? Painting? Even fucking song lyrics man. Don't talk out of your ass

[@shotscarecrow]

"Fit me into the ambiguousness is a yawner camp." The point of ambiguity in an artform is usually to illustrate that there's a relationship between the two or more possible interpretations. So, for example, if you're not sure whether a game is an explicit fable about post-industrial mass slavery or a metaphorical illustration of the forms of control that exist between player, game designer and game object, then the point might just be to cause you to reflect on the parallels between societal power structures and game design.

[@cthulhluftagn3812]

I think that the theme of control is also a theme of how control is not a long term solution. They are trying to control a disaster thatd just getting worse and worse rather then adapting to or solving it. The emgineers helping you is them trying to get you back on track only for you to wander off into a abandoned area, hiding in yet another failed area of control. Your free because you are forgotten

[@crisis8v88]

If anything, the room with the set of the ending is an excellent place to show off the huddle's mesmerizing facets.

[@protonjones54]

Great analysis, you really provide some effective closure to this very abstract game. And there's a few comments down here that also help wrap things up as far as figuring out the narrative of this game, like the cherry on top of the explication sunday

[@AlexLusth]

just a though, the glass you break through in the model is a metafor for you actually breaking free. you are for the first time outside their reach. maybe the model is just that, a model of their workplace, and you now for the first time step outside of it.

[@doctajohn07]

Really liked this follow-up! When I played and found the secret ending, I found a lot of the whole plot pretty ambiguous, and this put me in a state of some unease, but I still felt like that not knowing meshed really well with the themes of the game up to that point. Unlike some forms of media which do a hand-waving "we didn't have a clear idea for the plot so you decide", INSIDE seemed really intentional with its obfuscation in a "knowledge is power" kind of way.

[@matiasblasi_music]

I really love you came back to mention that dioarama, i didn't knew it either, great extension-video. I love this channel.

[@EmjiAmsdaughter]

I like that you bring up the point of "somrtimes, the beach next to where you work is just the beach next to where you work". People do like to think that the model means that the blob's escape was planned and that the freedom at at the end is a lie, but I prefer to think that it's just interior decorating.

[@TheodoreCaesarMoseby]

You said it better than I did.

[@narutoandanimefa]

2:42 "We don't know. We *can't* know because all we can do is look at the environment and make inferences. And there's nothing wrong with that! There's nothing wrong with working in abstractions or not being able to know the exact timeline of a game's history or how its world works. Ambiguity can be a strength. That's the power of environmental storytelling; it evokes, it engages but it doesn't really *tell*." I seriously love your videos and your eloquence. Thank you, sincerely, for making them.

[@gustavocosta7304]

Well said. I think this is similar to the ending of The OA (mild spoilers ahead). The point is not to look for the Correct Canon Explanation, but rather to embrace ambiguity and what it itself says about the work. Here, the point is control is at its strongest when it is unclear that it exists. In The OA, it argues (or at least i think it does) that the search for the superior truth is meaningless, and if something affects and transforms people, it becomes real, regardless of its factual accuracy.

[@bibbly1571]

I think another point of interest was the forest in the water section (with the door that the pods roll out of). The forest looks very similar to the forest at the start of the game, and indeed contains one of the pods that you saw earlier as well.

[@JosephCoco]

This analysis makes sense. You can't tell when you're truly in control.

[@Yipper64]

when you said "not know is indeed the point" that sounds like the beginner's guide to me.

[@zetetick395]

I'd never noticed before that the non-automoton (still sentient) Humans are all wearing flesh coloured masks - which adds a touch of Kreepy. - I'd *love* to see an open metroid-vania version of *INSIDE*, like "Song of the Sea" but within *INSIDE*s world, exploring both in and out of the Bathysphere...You need that kindof explorative _space_ in a game, to really soak in the feel.

[@Lawsuit]

art imitates life. the question of free will goes back centuries, and support for determinism is as strong as ever. physics, genetics, neuroscience, and psychology all provide a wealth of evidence that suggests individuals don't fully own the decisions they make, despite intuition. genetics, upbringing, and circumstances all dramatically affect your decision-making. (edit: check out situationism. I was introduced to this by John M. Doris, who's a cool dude) similar to how the game gradually pushes the origin of control to the point where you can't be sure if you had any free will, the sciences have pushed the origin of control to the point where you can't be sure if you yourself have free will. and yet you seemingly control the boy with the red shirt, and you seemingly control your own decisions IRL. my personal read on this game now is that it encapsulates the age-old question of whether we have free will.

[@macannathairghrian5257]

Insetick well put. I don't have anything to add to it so I'm just replying so more people will see it :)

[@Shaeress]

I kind of disagree with arguing free will vs determinism. It's really only relevant because of the way we think of free will as inherent in humans, as if gifted to us (literally the humanistic insight upon which we've based our democratic, capitalist civilisation) and that it's somehow special and unique to humans. Instead, it would seem that humans just might have a bit more of it than other animals or that we just notice it more. A matter more of nuanced complexity and multi-dimensional scales than a dichotomy between completely conscious, inherent rationality and a world without meaningful consequences to our decisions. In particular the last part, because even if our choices might be predetermined in theory it really isn't relevant unless actually, practically and reliably predictable. Even then, that doesn't serve to remove meaning from our decisions. What is important is how we think of agency, control and responsibility. How and to which extent we should enable agency, and to which extent should we hold people responsible for the control that they carry out and where should we put that control? Whether or not things are pre-determined or not, we still need to do our best to handle these complex questions, because the possibly inevitable outcome hasn't been predicted yet.

[@junkmail2223]

Determinism and free will are not diametrically opposed plato.stanford.edu/entries/compatibilism/

[@Lawsuit]

today I learned. though to be fair, compatibilism appears to have valid criticisms. I didn't mean to explain my point as if the debate ends the same place my post did: I think there's way more to be said on this, clearly much more than I'm even familiar with. I do think that's part of the art: that you can read into this game and see much more than what's on the surface

[@oPHILOSORAPTORo]

I've often felt that the best, most memorable art leaves it's audience asking questions. Hell, several hundred years later and people are still trying to figure out wtf is the meaning of the Mona Lisa's smile, or why did Da Vinci choose to paint her, what was he trying to tell us? (maybe he just thought she was hot?) But isn't that kinda the point? That the artist(s) want the audience to be left with questions, to think and reflect on... Something? And not unlike a parable or fable, often the best artists will use ambiguity to show the audience a path without leading them down it, allowing them to come to the intended conclusion by themselves, or perhaps even find their own conclusions. Or, maybe, they just painted that particular scene because it looked pretty. "I can only show you the door. You're the one that has to walk through it."

[@danielwareking]

In my eyes, Inside is possibly the closest a game has come to being perfect. And this video illustrates a lot of why I think that. It's clearly SAYING something (a lot of things, really) but it does it within this tone-piece framework that simply doesn't allow for any truly concrete, specific interpretations. It's a similar feel I get from films like 2001 and Apocalypse Now - the obvious presence of broad themes, but in a way that deprives the audience of the ability to truly nail down a condensed, satisfyingly specific idea of what's being communicated. And then you've got the whole "This game has perfect art direction, sound design, music, animation, pacing, etc..." thing.

[@Jacefax]

It's not just the model. You literally break through stage walls to get to the lake.

[@vighneshsivakumar3418]

I like this take. It fits more cleanly, without the jagged edges of poorly evidenced theories.

[@ricchapin723]

Maybe it's just a model of the place they work; Amazon does that like crazy - go into any building that Amazon owns or rents and there's a model of how many buildings within a city that fall under its jurisdiction. It's just more a case of: "hey, this is how it is in the real world and we want this game to feel real."

[@EightPageProductions]

Your videos are so well constructed

[@AlexBeckers]

This may have already been said in another comment, but re: the theory that the ending takes place on a sound stage: The last wall you break through before rolling down that last hill looks a LOT like the back (i.e non-audience-facing) of a theatrical stage flat.

[@MatthewBester]

Ooo one thing I must add. You (the blob) don't have to kill anyone, 5:07. You can let them all step out of the way, even the man in the office will step aside if you give him enough time. I think this is relavant. Mercy?

[@Rakned]

Actually, there is a connection between the cables connected to the blob and the mind-control helmets - after the boy is connected to one of these same cables by a mermaid, he gains the ability to control zombies without the use of a helmet.

[@orbisvae2334]

I'm pretty amazed by your analytical mindskills and mastery of speechcrafting) Take some good karma rays from Russia and... Just thanks, that you still maiking videos for this channel ;-)

[@jasongarrett768]

The conclusion reached here is why I still feel like Silent Hill lost something special when the sequels started to solidify certain details, even if I did love 2 and 3.

[@mallk238]

I think one of the key bits of information that confirms that the ending on the beach is a fake beach is that, by this point in the game, you have travelled several miles below the surface. There's an entire body of water above your head! The beach itself MIGHT just be a naturally occuring beach, but I don't think the game intends for you to think that it is, simply because it seems to be pushing TOO hard to get you to believe that its a real beach. The fact that you missed the model in plain sight was definitely not an accident either! Of all the stuff you can see in the backgrounds, its one of the more ordinary looking backgrounds, and you're probably already thinking ahead to what will happen next. Your initial analysis is probably more accurate to what the developers want people to read into about the game when they first play the game, and then maybe if the player is really interested in the game they can be rewarded with this new context after one or two play throughs

[@LOogt]

I like that you made this follow up video!

[@thrillhouse_vanhouten]

Deckard was a replicant all along.

[@JimFaindel]

So basically the only way to escape the control of the game, and to escape controlling others, is to avoid playing the game at all, to willingly refuse to dirty one's own hands.

[@jonasolsson9542]

The only winning move is not to play?

[@hypergrip]

Well, this is a theme other games have explored, specifically "Spec Ops: The Line", which has the "final boss" tell you (the player, not the player character) that you could have decided to just walk away "but no, you marched on...". Making "the user stops playing" an actual outcome of the game is interesting because it defies the "win state" / "loss state" system we expect from games. And of course it clashes with other concepts like "As the player I am aware that this is a simulation, and for the sake of advancing/experiencing the story, I am willing to partake in (simulated) actions I find horrible", etc.

[@featheredicarus]

I could also see the model being a kind of beacon of hope. You suffered through a lot of horrible things, and for what? To become a huddled mass of biological tissue. But that Mass managed to do something. To get somewhere. It managed to escape to the real version of the shallow existence it had before. Maybe it dies or lives, who knows, but it got there!

[@srayce1_]

We in there! New Errant Signal bois!

[@tehx3n]

I agree with you that a lot of the "the boy is definitely controlled by the blob" or the "ending is definitely just a sound stage" takes are more fanfic than interesting criticism because they attempt to create a literal narrative around a text which is clearly abstract in a way that defies literal readings and invites metaphorical ones, but I think some of your refutations of these readings fall into the same trap. Since the environments are for the most part knowingly impossible and unrealistic, I don't think it makes sense to say that the diorama may just be a model the scientists made of the place where they work. That reading takes the scientists and the lab as a literal place instead of looking at how the text presents the diorama: the blob literally crashes though a wall into the middle of a glass panelled enclosure of the end scene with a spotlight shining on it and observing scientists on the other side of the glass. Thats fairly blatant visual metaphor. Similarly it's only interesting to point out that the earlier artificial forest has a different sort of tree if you're looking at the scientist's plans as a literal narrative as apposed to looking at how the game associates natural scenes with artificiality.

[@LE0NSKA]

but what about how they were all looking at the tank with the blob in it before you even got there? and they only started to gather around the tank, once you got near it. they rushed to the scene, as if they were expecting something to happen. or how they were looking at the beach model before you even dropped down there. you didn't smash anyone so noone was in it. why were they all looking inside of an emtpy soundstage you just happen to drop down to? and what about that part where there is litereally a stage where scientists are gathered around you, as in a play or something (very hard to see if your screen is too dark), and just observe how you in the blob form, try to reach for the hanging crate, wich is dangeling above a trapdoor. I don't think it's just the beach model. there are more signs. and there are problably a bunch more I don't know about / missed / or forgot by now.

[@underdog353777]

If the thing by the computers is controlling the boy, what does that say about it relinquishing its own control? I feel like that's a pretty big thing that wasn't commented on at all. It's not just that the boy's strings are cut, it's that the puppet-master cut those strings through the boy. That's a little bit provocative as a thought isn't it? Hmmm, who knows.

[@badradish2116]

best interpretation yet

[@beeslikesteve]

So here is another thing about the ending area. Those trees that you fall / roll through. Those are not to scale at all. Given the scale in the previous areas those trees are way too small. Accidental design by the game dev? Or perhaps accidental design by the scientists?

[@yoavhortman9837]

I love your work man, keep it up

[@arcanethink]

Hey can you review Sorcery! ? It's a fantastic choose your own adventure story , one where you choices actually matter a lot in the long run plus it's got a ton of content. It's got 4 episodes and the complete edition is on Steam.

[@conorsmith9424]

When I saw the blob, I assumed it was a representation of the consciousness of the oppressed people in the game and that the boy was freeing them from the evil authority.

[@Nicholas_Steel]

The scientist you killed in your clip? Not only does he step aside if you give him some time to relax instead of charging recklessly in to him... but the diorama only implies they wanted the "blob" to end up there, they likely didn't expect you to dive in, merge with it and cease control of it. This is backed up by all the content leading up to the blob being filled with soldiers, dogs, machines, traps etc. that want to kill/smother you to death and *not* let you progress to the blob. You accelerated the scientists plans by ceasing control of the blob and breaking free through the glass in to where the people are all crowded around. They did not have everything in place yet and your interaction has screwed up their existing understanding of the blobs behaviour/mannerisms.

[@nintendods23164]

Yeah but did you really think the top would fall over??

[@ParchmentOfPower]

Have you considered that the fake hill is just a simulacrum of a natural environment similar to the fake environments zoos use for their animals?

[@Poetabrasileiro]

Oh, wow... i wasn't expecting a video... nice! :D

[@Schmidtelpunkt]

What is with the children watching and choosing the mind controlled drones towards the end?

[@geneirai]

I have to disagree with the 'blob doesn't control the boy' point, while the game doesn't use visual queues to suggest such a thing, most player will not get the hidden ending, thus inferring that the boy was controlled to enter the blob simply because why else would the boy do what they are doing is a valid inferance, maybe an entry level one, but one that both A) satisfyingly answers a burning question the game presents (why is this happening) and B) supports your own theories on what the game is trying to say, it's about control. when viewing games you have to view all their parts, visual, narrative and mechanical, the main mechanic in inside is movement and argueably mind control, saying that the 'blob doesn't control the boy because the game never infers that' is wrong because the game does infer it, weather by dev intent or not, the game infers the boy isn't of his own mind and that mind is that of blob because the blob is the one who benifits from the boys presence not vice versa.

[@Neostrius]

I'm fairly sure that the ending being a fake environment isn't an implication, you straight up have to break through a wooden dome to get into it that appears to be large enough to encapsulate the area, and the trees are strangely quite small. If you think about how big a human is in proportion to them, and how big that kind of tree is supposed to grow, it doesn't add up. Not to refute anything else you've said in the video though.

[@iamtheaetherian6783]

There is a potential 3rd ending. The files have exposed a secret elevator.

[@DISCO-munication]

What secret elevator? :O

[@minch333]

Yes yes yes to your last conclusion. I've met a lot of people who decide that, due to the death of the author, the only important reading of a work of art is one's own personal interpretation. This to me is bollocks and no better than any deciphering of an author's intent. What makes a work of art interesting is the sum of its interpretations; this is where its insight lies.

[@Mapmaker39]

7:44 well sum up majority of people who dislike the ending for Lost or Mass Effect 3.

[@finnickshade9289]

Maybe the model inspired it to go there >.>

[@DanQew]

i disagree: it wasnt planned, the scientists help because either they know how ephemeral it is&wanna see how far it ll get or they help because they were forced to make it...& can put up the excuse of helping 'for science' to their gov/ruling power.

[@WeightyLemur]

I don't know if you do videos on old games but I f you do, you should do one on Far Cry 3

[@derrickdang6067]

oh my

[@ScarletFame]

Transistor, The Witness, and Broken Age please! :)

[@60SecondReviewsPage]

this goes so much deeper than this you know... you've been manipulated into actually playing this game, into liking PC games more than the real life out there, to think PC job is a great way to live, while your real life passes right behind you all this time... just saying

[@chbarts]

Also, why do you disable comments on your review of Blendo games?

[@torabisurandomT]

; D : /"'= (Watching Black Mirror, great video as always btw)

[@chbarts]

Can you warn when your videos have disturbing noises, like your review of Blendo games?

[@thenarrator8781]

Anyone else wanting to apply this video to the FNAF games?

[@Gordon519]

yay!!! more of your content

[@barryherbers6090]

Still good shit

[@tsartomato]

so hairdoods kill you into game over, except when script says that hairdood saves you and gives you superpowers C O H E R E N C Y

[@IvoryOasis]

Dioramaaa! :D

[@CatSlinky]

I'm still astounded at how badly you missed the point of the game, referencing the long-haired boys as "mermaids" and the huddle as some separate entity seeking mind-control. They're all clones. Clones produced by an AI. You are an AI-driven clone. The secret ending is you stopping the cycle of the game. All of the disaster settings is just destruction wrought by the AI as it evolved society to suit its purpose.

[@jr9529]

that person you crushed was likely the C.E.O so probably not XD

[@omgasmallbox]

wooop!

[@oPHILOSORAPTORo]

The whole, "but some of the scientists died" thing doesn't really play out when you consider that you can go through the entire escape sequence without killing anyone. For example, the guy in the office where you smash through the window? You don't actually have to flatten him. You can wait for him to move.

[@Kyleology]

"What does this new information mean about the reading of the game? Not too much." 8 minutes left in the video. Also you really want your happy ending, huh?

[@bekkayya]

I don't know if happy ending is the right word for that. He used that time to expand on why an ambiguous ending was thematically powerful.

[@Kyleology]

Parzivald Shiflty Yes, as a thinly-veiled attempt to justify why his opimistic interpretation of the end is valid in spite of what is made obvious in the game.

[@bekkayya]

I don't see any optimism. The ambigiuity of the ending (that he expands on in this video) suggests that the answer of control cant be known. Seems kinda depressing and disheartening.

[@LordMonbodo]

He very explicitly says that this clue is important, while also explaining that we can't really know what happens. Nothing is obvious. The model implies that it was all fake but it does nothing more than imply it. | More importantly, this possible conspiracy doesn't actually change his read of the game that much. Which is exactly what he said.

[@ezrablock3218]

Admitting that we don't know the answer to life's big questions doesn't have to be depressing.

[@xamogxusx]

dude the scientist are developers, there's also publishers, you are playing as a metaphor of the game itself. sorry, i love your videos, but i couldn't watch through this

[@justanothershitpostinglose8800]

What, exactly, makes you feel that way about the game? I'm not trying to be argumentative, your interpretation just piqued my interest.

[@jeyko1001]

I would love to make a theory video (I also have a nice interpretative metaphore idea for a Westworld video) and explain it in full, but I am afraid no one is going to watch the videos, and it would be a waste of time.

[@XxXxkeybladematerxXx]

First!?!?!

[@krarkman1]

No last.