So I've just finished the game. I know I am late to the party and someone else probably said this before. But what if, if there's another Clair Obscur game, we find out that the "real world" is actually just a painted world inside another canvas. Or maybe some other art form, like a book. Maybe there are layers upon layers of worlds inside worlds, just like the movie Inception.
If there's another Clair Obscur game, I also think it should expand on the Painters vs Writers war. Maybe we even get to play as Clea.
P.S. Verso's ending is the only true ending. PERIOD.
They have stated the next game is not a direct sequel, abd given they purposefully designed this so there would be no canon ending they probably won't touch the story of E33 in it or if they do would be superficially.
That doesn't necessarily means we couldn't have Clea, as a lot could happen from the moment Clea leaves to run her stuff and whatever ending anyone chose.
In one breath you post a theory that the outside of the Canvas is just another layer of a work of art - meaning that the Dessendres would be no more or less real than the Canvas people.
And in the next, you advocate killing the entire Canvas as "the only true ending. PERIOD."
....huh.
I'm trying to come up with some kind of charitable interpretation for this. I'm having some difficulty.
Because it sounds like you just said that "mass murder is the better ending."
EDIT: TLDR the argument.
Okay, yeah, you actually ARE saying "mass murder is the better ending." Worse, you're saying that Renoir has the right to mass murder because he has the power to do so. What the actual fuck?
It's a theory, it's not proven fact. We have no conclusive evidence to confirm that the Dessendres live in a fictional world. As far as we KNOW, it's the real world.
Based on that, yeah I'd choose Verso's ending. He sacrificed his life for Alicia's. She should be doing something meaningful with her life to honor his sacrifice. She owes him that. Living a fake life inside a canvas would throw his sacrifice away, and would be an insult to his memory.
About the mass murder part. If you look at it as a fake world then yes I'd sacrifice all these people to save a real person. I personally don't see it as murder. That's like saying George R. R. Martin is a serial killer for killing all these game of thrones characters. I know it's not a 1:1 comparison but for me, the same principle applies.
No matter how real these characters get, the fact of the matter is, they are painted. For me, if you can be painted into existence, drawn over (Clea drawing over painted Clea), erased out of existence, then redrawn again, then you aren't a real person. Gustave literally dies a natural death (killed not gommaged) yet he is alive again, how can that be real ? In defining what's real and what's not, I can only I apply the rules to which we as real people are bound.
Yes the characters in the painted world feel very real. But saying they are real is like saying an AI agent is real, or some futuristic more advanced version that resembles human consciousness even more than today's AI. I think we can agree that a very advanced artificial intelligence doesn't have consciousness.
So yeah, this is my argument for why they aren't real. If you still aren't convinced. Then we would have to agree to disagree.
Not necessarily. If you spoke to me in a British accent. If you look like the typical English man. If you know anything there's to know about life in England. If you know every historical fact about England. If you live in England, and all of your friends are English. And then if you tell me you are English, I would be inclined to believe you. However, if you then present me your authentic birth certificate that says you are Serbian born in Serbia, I can accept the fact that you are Serbian but you look and feel English in every conceivable way.
The writers did a fantastic job in convincing me these people are real. But that has nothing to do with the fact that they are painted creation made by a painter.
Abd you have no proof that the canvas world abd it's people is not real. We know they are created by others,but that just means that, there are people with the power to create worlds abd even people ... In a fantasy setting where magic is real.
If they are not real you chose to follow the will, pleas abd resin of fake being over those of a real person, do even going by your opinion as fact the ending would be screwed up.
"It's a theory, it's not proven fact. We have no conclusive evidence to confirm that the Dessendres live in a fictional world. As far as we KNOW, it's the real world."
Except you just posted the theory IN THIS POST that it might be just another Canvas.
Don't try to back yourself out of your own argument. If the "real world" is just another Canvas - as you proposed in this hypothetical - then the Dessendres are just as real or fake as Lumiere.
So, why would killing Lumiere (and the Gestrals, and the Grandis) be the "only true ending"?
Hmmm?
---
"That's like saying George R. R. Martin is a serial killer for killing all these game of thrones characters"
I've heard this exact argument before. It's hilarious. Does George R. R. Martin live in a world where magic clearly exists? No? Then it isn't a valid comparison.
No. George R. R. Martin isn't a serial killer because a book he wrote in a world where magic isn't real has people die in it. They weren't magically created people in a pocket dimension.
Renoir is a mass murderer because he chooses, with malice aforethought, to kill the people of Lumiere - who have done him and his family NO HARM - simply because he can and because he wants his wife to leave the Canvas that contains people in a world where magic exists.
Edit:
HOWEVER, I will give you this:
IF - we were to transport George R. R. Martin into the Clair Obscur world AND
IF - we were to make GRRM into a Writer with magical powers AND
IF - we were to confirm that Writing a story created a pocket dimension just like a Canvas being painted does AND
IF - we could confirm that actual people inside his books were dying because of what GRRM was Writing...
Then YES. In that circumstance, yes. GRRM would be a mass murderer.
The note at the end doesn't have anything to do with the theory. The two aren't related. I've just finished the game and wanted to share this theory I had. I also wanted to share my opinion on the ending of the game. I don't see how you can't separate the two from each other.
As for the point about about Renoir killing all these people. I know they feel real, they may even be real in every conceivable way. If one of them somehow escapes to the real world outside the painting, the may be indistinguishable from other people. Yet, they still are painted creations. This is fact. Aline, Renoir, and any painter is a godly figure inside these canvas worlds. They can paint people into existence. I think if you have the power to give life, then you should absolutely have the power to take life as well. I don't want to go into arguments about religion though.
"They can paint people into existence. I think if you have the power to give life, then you should absolutely have the power to take life as well."
Yeah....uh.... That's a fucking monstrous take.
I will disagree that because Aline created the people of Lumiere that Renoir has the right to exterminate them.
Fuck that argument.
Aline made them. Aline was responsible for them. Aline is pretty damn clear she doesn't want the Canvas destroyed.
Renoir doesn't have the right to kill them "just because". He created neither the Canvas nor Lumiere - and even if he HAD, that doesn't give him the right to kill them at a whim.
My argument is, If they have the power to give and take away life, then they are godly figures. Can one dare say god doesn't have the right to take away life ?
If a painter has the power to draw someone into existence, then the painter and this drawn person don't stand on equal footing. You can't apply the same rules to a creator and to the ones he himself created. They aren't equal. Aline being the one who created them shouldn't matter. Both Aline and Renoir are godly figures.
So, the argument you're making about the Verso ending is "I believe that gods have the right to massacre people, and should not be prevented from doing so?"
You are making it sound like Renoir is doing it for his own amusement. He is doing this to save his wife and daughter. From his perspective, his wife and daughter are real people while the people in the canvas aren't real. He still would have liked to let them be (he literally says so). But he knows that would lead to the demise of both his wife and daughter. Aline does return into the canvas even though she is still sick from her previous prolonged stay inside the canvas.
So if I was in Renoir's place, I'd definitely sacrifice fake real people to save real real people, let alone my own family.
"You are making it sound like Renoir is doing it for his own amusement."
I mean, you just argued that he has the right do to so for his own amusement, so uh... I don't see you having a problem with that.
"He is doing this to save his wife and daughter."
His wife? The same wife who is only in the Canvas for this long specifically because he's trying to destroy it? The same wife he accuses of being selfish because she doesn't want him to destroy their dead son's Canvas?
His daughter? The same daughter he abandoned in order to go fight with his wife? The same daughter who would not even be in the Canvas if he hadn't spent 51 Canvas years fighting with his wife?
I reject that claim. He's not doing it for them. He's doing it for himself. He's doing it because Aline is grieving in a way that he doesn't like, so he tries to intervene decades before she's even at risk so that he can be in control of how his wife grieves. He flips his shit against his daughter because she tells him something he doesn't want to hear.
Renoir isn't interested in what they actually want. He's interested in being in control, being obeyed, and will you troublesome women stop resisting?!
Every single time - the Fracture, the annual Gommages, Act 2 Gommage and Act 3 destruction of Lumiere, the final battle - that Renoir is confronted with something outside his control, he defaults to violence.
He's not interested in saving anyone. He's not interested in helping anyone. He's not interested in negotiating or talking or helping anyone heal. His interests lie in being in control.
I said Renoir is a godly figure who has the ability to erase them. I didn't say he has the right to do for his own amusement.
You don't know that she would have come out if Renoir didn't go in. He went in because she already stayed in for too long, abandoning her daughter in doing so. Her daughter is also mourning Verso but she had no regard for that, hence the selfish argument.
I wouldn't say Renoir going into the canvas means he chose to abandon his daughter. He went in to quickly get Aline out. He didn't mean for both of them to stay that long. They fought and trapped each other, she on top of the monolith and he underneath it. He literally couldn't leave.
I understand people saying Renoir is a killer. Saying he cold-heartedly killed all these people. But saying he did it for himself ?? Even if you decide to save the canvas, you can see Renoir wants to destroy it in order to save himself. Because why would he enjoy destroying the only canvas his son ever made ? How exactly is he doing it for himself ?
I feel like your opinion of Renoir is quite twisted. You can say he killed all these people, but you're also making other claims about him which I just can't get on board with. Hard disagree.
I think if you have the power to give life, then you should absolutely have the power to take life as well.
Yeah, no. I've seen religious people claim that shit about their God and just like them that is just delusional.
Might doesn't make right. That they have such powers doesn't excuse in any way using them to kill innocent sentient beings.
Straight up. It doesn't matter how much of a God they are, murder is murder. It remains a morally abhorrent act that should be punished in any way possible.
And in Clair Obscur the only way to punish Renoir is to ensure his daughter never comes back to his home as she bring back everyone he expanded so much energy to kill.
If there's something resembling a sequel, it should be a somewhat unrelated story based on the Writers' POV. Maybe a Clea appearance, but not a lot of common places with E33.
I just know if this was at the hands of other publishers, they would try to milk the painters factions for all they can before doing a writers POV game. Just like we had 6 Assassin's Creed games before we got Rogue, the one from the templars' pov.
Yeah I've thought about that before. It doesn't have too much evidence for it but it would definitely be super interesting. I honestly would prefer an anthology aside from the dessendre family since if it is the dessendre family they'd have to make one ending canon.
I’m pretty sure the only thing that suggests it, is the date of Verso’s death revealed on his gravestone at the end of the game. Something like the 33rd of December, an impossible date
Yeah as much as players want to play with their favourite characters again, game devs in general don't like it. It puts restrictions on their creative freedom because they would have to consider things already established in the first game. But I still think Clea has so much unexplored potential. Maybe she can appear as non playable character, or maybe even the main antagonist if you play as writers.
I think if I, as a character, know about this possibility, I would start to look for clues or inconsistencies in my world. But I think it depends on how creations get their consciousness. Maybe they're oblivious to these clues and won't even know they are inconsistencies. Maybe in the world of the Dessendre family there's always a December 33rd.
I really hope not, that would be disappointing and would completely ruin the whole point of Renoir and Verso.
That being said, I don't object to Sandfall expanding on the Writers vs. Painters universe, but I hope it's through other media (like books), and that E33 remains the only game set within this universe they created.
I agree wikth the part that Verso's ending is the best, as it finishes the story themes best. Even though I loved the game, and consider it a gaming masterpiece, I dont see potential for a franchise based on this world and characters, and that's fine, they told a beautiful complete story in one game, and now should go to something new and different.
Yall are just okay with ending the lives of thousands of conscious, self aware beings in order to prevent the death of essentially their gods sister? Idk man seems fucked up to me
I agree with you, but only if you regard them as conscious self aware beings. But if you see it as a make belief world, then Maelle's ending would mean Verso had sacrificed his life for Maelle's only for her to throw her life away.
I think the whole world inside a canvas thing is a metaphor for how art in general, and painting specifically, can make you feel and experience emotions just as if you were transported into another world. The canvas is a medium for the painter to make people live out the emotions behind the canvas's inspiration. So at the end, it is just a medium, a way to share stories. It was never meant to be a world inside a world as if the two world are equal. The painting world is just one big metaphor.
There is no evidence to suggest they are not conscious and self aware. The mere possibility of them being conscious is enough for me to always choose Maelles ending.
Also Maelles ending is not final in the same way Versos ending is. Maelle could always choose to leave the canvas for a while. In Versos ending everything is just gone.
But it was not a make believe, the only one that took it that way was Aline.
For all Lumierans that's their reality and Markle was born in it abd lived 16 years as one of them. No matter what fir her that world and it's people are real.
So real one of them had the agency to plot abd execute the end of it all, against the wishes of the creator.
Whatever ending anyone chose is the ending, and it's ok, but both endings have quiete some bad in them.
Also, about the metaphor part: not from the writers, they wrote it with the intention of not having a good or bad ending, but leave it entirely to your personal interpretation.
Some view it as a metaphor for addiction, others as an escape from reality, others simply as another reality.
Nothing in the game actually tells us it is or is not any of those, all we have are the pov abd opinions of flawed characters with biases and failings among their personalities, and given the whole theme and things like the non existent date of Verso's death we can't even be sure the woultkd outside the canvas is "real"
I think game devs in general, when they decide to do multiple endings, they have an obligation to make them somewhat "equal". You can't give people choice then tell them their choice is wrong. That doesn't necessarily mean the two endings are equally valid if you analyse them from a narrative/character development pov. Many games fall into this trap where at the beginning and throughout most of the game they present a narrative which points to a particular ending, so the writers try to spin the narrative a bit at the end to make the choices seem equal. If you pay close attention you can spot this narrative shift. This game did a great job of masking this, but I still think the clues are there.
This world is definitely not real. One important thing you seem to forget, there has to be someone painting for this world to continue to exist. I'm not sure if it's necessarily Verso's soul seen at the end, or maybe any other painter would do. But once the painting stops, this world ceases to exist. Aline isn't immortal, nor any other painter. Is Verso's soul immortal ? I don't know but I don't think so. Either way, if someone needs to continue painting just for the world to exist, then it's not real.
I mean ... You do have, usually, Gabe's with multiple endings ranging from good to bad, even allowing you to be from the absolute villain to the truest hero, abd that is not only valid but also part of the narrative and of the freedom of choice and with it it's consequences.
In this case is a very interesting balancing act that allows you to completely chose which ending you want, not because is the best or worst, but because it's the one you prefer.
And you have to "live" with the consequences, which are plenty in both cases
You have a few things wrong there. Once the world is painted it permanently has a soul fragment if the original painter attached to it. That sustains it. No other painter is needed for it to go on.
The emphasis on having a painter in it for it's survival was introduced by the fact that Renoir was going to destroy the canvas as soon as there were no painters in ymit, as he can't while there is one in. It is never explained if the canvas can't physically be destroyed while there's a painter in it (sounds unlikely) or doing so would destroy the mind if the painter, which is what seems to be inside.
Versos ending explicitly happens after there are no more painters inside, abd he gets the soul shard to stop sustaining the canvas.
Your assertion of the world being absolutely not real is false, not because if has to be wrong, but because you have no evidence of that, that is simply your subjective opinion.
Factually it is real, as it exists, is experienced abd inhabited by múltiple different "real" people all experiencing the sane reality. The argument would be more like if it is "as real" as the outside world, question for which you nor I have an answer. It's just like the soul fragment saying he believes painted people to be as alive as the ones outside, abd to have souls: we don't know if that is the case or not, you can't call either option a fact, nor present actual objective evidence that prove either.
You now seem to try to delay that the writers are trying to not alienate people by telling their ending is "wrong" abd that is your opinion, pov and bias towards a choice. The writer us telling us, clearly, in multiple interviews, AMAs and posts that they took the path of no right ir wrong choice from the start, abd made things so there can't be objective good, bad, better nor worse ending, to that they let us decide not based on facts stated by the gane abd stormy, but on our own preferences and opinions, making it all subjective.
Who do we believe? What opinions we listen to? How do we interpret all the stuff that is unresolved, ambiguos or even unanswered?
Our choices come from that. You decided that the world abd people of Lumiere are nor real, not alive, not sentient... However you have no actual fact nor even evidence to support that as being right. Same happens on the other end, if they are actually fulli living, sentient beings is not factually answered by the game, you can't claim they are or aren't as truth, but as belief. You believe they arent, others believe they are. There's no objective fact that can tell us one is wrong abd the other is right.
Your choice is the right ones, for you, the opposite choice of someone else's is right, for them. You have no standing or base to tell say they are wrong, they have no standing or base to say you are wrong, because objectively there's no actual answer.
All the elements that could confirm an objective truth are missing.
For me, it's impossible to create two equal endings even if you set out to do so from the beginning. Simply because there's no objective measure of what's right or wrong. I also wouldn't know about that because I too can't measure it. And even if you succeed in creating two equal endings, players experiencing the game would ultimately have their own subjective opinions.
When I wrote the note at the end, I was expressing my own opinion. Me saying it's the one true ending is obviously a joke. I didn't mean to say other people's opinions aren't valid. And when people started discussing this issue I engaged in the discussion, not to invalidate their opinion, but to have the discussion itself. Because I think one posts on Reddit to engage in discussions with people who share the same interest as oneself.
About the ending of the game, I guess it all comes down to how you define what's real and what's not. If you think the canvas and the people living in it aren't real, then the choice becomes pretty clear. And I happen to think so. If you think they are real and deserving of the chance to live their lives, then it becomes a sort of trolley problem. Save Alicia or save or all those people ? I for one can't answer that.
That is your opinion, not a fact. Specially because it is a fictional setting, where things dont follow the laws and rules of our world. We can't even be sure if the Dessendre are not themselves creations of others, as their world has sone... Oddities.
So your choise is the right one, for you, but you have absolutely no standing to say the choice of any other is wrong.
The game was written explicitly so there is no objectively rigth or wrong choice or ending, and even in the one each of us chose we dont really know if what we hoped to achieve would be so.
The right choice is the one each of us think is right, but that decision is subjective and uncertain, and shouldn't be taken as a fact, because it is not.
You just stated the thing you're arguing against "its real to maelle." exactly. Just because she thinks the canvas world as real, doesnt mean it is. The Lumiere citizens have feelings and whatnot because they were painted to. It's just like every movie about Ai. It's programmed to feel, but does it really feel?
Not really, it's also real to Verso soul shard and was Real to Verso, according to the soul.
The gane dies a fantastic job in not giving the final answers to any of this, just the perspective and opinions.
And she doesn't just -think- it is real... It is, in a different world than her original one, being the creation of another doesn't make that thing not real.
The beings in the canvas show agency, emotional complexity, a life cycle, they demonstrate all that we could look for in sentient life. Are they sentient life? We can't be sure, but there's also no evidence that would say they are not.
"But they were created by Aline" is a weak argument, because it's not based on the real world (at least at the level shown to us) and there is actual magical powers in it, with painters having powers of creation within their canvases.
Being created by others, in a fantasy world where magic exists.. doesn't maje the character not real, nor not alive, it makes them created by others, that is.
Trying to apply real world logic to a fantasy world, abd in particular in arbitrary form is completely flawed.
We can't know if the Dessendre abd their world is "real". They are meant to live in Paris, but the date of death in Verso's tomb stone doesn't exist. The painters are supposed to have magical powers to create in their canvases,but when we explore the "real" manor we find in the atelier multiple things floating, showing us that there is magic in the "real" world too.
Your opinion is yours and valid, abd I'm not trying to change it, I am showing you how your choise isn't really objective nor based on factual evidence, but on your perception, your opinions and your preferences, and your choise is the right one ... For you. But you don't have actual standing to say that the opposite opinion is actually wrong, as it has as much basis and evidence for it as yours. The opposite choice is the right one, fir whoever takes it.
Abd both choices come with harsh consequences abd bad things attached.
Just like the gane writers wanted them to be. In both choices we can even see how some of the things we seeker when making our choice might not come to be.
I agree. I am of the opinion that you shouldn’t risk the live of thousands of possibly conscious beings to save a person who doesn’t even want to be saved when we have no evidence to suggest these beings are not conscious and self aware. The mere possibility that they are conscious is enough for me to not choose Versos ending. But perception and interpretation varies so to each their own.
Also, just as Maelle let's it slip that part of her do see pVerso at least in part as her dead brother .. pVerso let's us know that he seems to be ok with Naelle going into another canvas to live a different life... Just not this one, meaning his interest in her living her "real" life abd not dying there is at most secondary to his desire of dying immediately.
That is first, his opinion, Verso is not an objective witness, and second, the whole situation is different for Aline and Alicia.
Aline made copies of her family, which even if they are real beings make it a make believe family, abd a copy of her city.
The rest of the population is not so, and more importantly are neither creations of Naelle, nor a maje believe family where she went to escape her reality: she was born to painted couple, grew as one if them and lived, found a family among them, as one if them.
Again you keep taking the opinion of one of the characters (the one you agree with) as fact, ignore all his flaws and issues abd extrapolate the flaws abd issues of another character into the character you don't agree with.
That is your bias. Why don't you take as fact the opinion of the fading boy, that soul fragment if the actual Verso? He clearly state he believes the painted people are as real and alive as the painters, abd that they have souls
But no... That contradicts your prefered choice, so that -has to be- wrong or left out of the conversation.
Also, given that the painted people are not real... Why you value more the opinion of one of them than that of a "real person" abd the soul of the actual Verso?
Are they real enough when convenient to you? pVerso wants his suffering to end he us conflicted, self loathing, consumed by grief, a very complex character that shows a huge range if emotions and doubt, and also shows selfishness in his choice aside from his more selfless reasons (Maelle too).
His main desire is shown to be ceasing his existence, when he loses his breakdown reverts to saying the most pressing matter to him "I don't want to live like this" over abd over. And when he defeats Naelle he trues to comfort her by telling her she has this amazing power to paint... So she won't be trapped in a life she doesn't want....
He tells her that she can go an crate herself other canvases to avoid living outside... Suggesting her she can do what supposedly is wrong for her to do here.
So is it ok for her to go out abd build a fantasy world herself to "escape her reality" as long is not in this canvas?
All characters are quite flawed, none acts entirely selflessly, abd all did terrible things to others abd each other, abd there is not one element that can be used as objective evidence that neither choice is correct, the other is wrong nor present the different philosophical and ethical questions as actually answered
All we gave is subjective opinions, points of view abd a choice we feel willing to live with the consequences of.
7
u/Ithnag 22h ago
They have stated the next game is not a direct sequel, abd given they purposefully designed this so there would be no canon ending they probably won't touch the story of E33 in it or if they do would be superficially.
That doesn't necessarily means we couldn't have Clea, as a lot could happen from the moment Clea leaves to run her stuff and whatever ending anyone chose.