I accidentally hit the ESC button mid-review, and I'm not typing all that again, so the long an short of it is that this game is a poor analysis of politics. I'll take an example from one of the late-game Follower ranks. There's this Paripus (the furry race) who has been experimented on by some of the other, wealthier races. In a trauma-fueled rage, having been tortured for years on end, he decides to hunt down those who aided and abetted in his people's torture, to kill them. What political commentary do you think the game has on this? That trauma leads people to self-destruct? That whilst deserving, killing these people won't undo what happened to you? No. The game literally, and I'm quoting here, says through its characters "No matter what, murder is murder."
Still not convinced? Thinking it's a fluke?
A Robin Hood-esque member of the same race does as any Robin-Hood figure does, and steals from the rich to give to the poor, with the added factor of killing them. She later on has a change of heart and decides that stealing and killing is bad. The killing is up for discussion, as some could've simply inherited wealth, and there's no specific wealth threshold by which they deem it OK to kill and steal by. Instead of questioning which amoral actions can become justified given dire circumstances (the people stealing are literally dying on the streets-- kids included, and their only means of income are from these rich Clemars and the like paying them scraps in exchange for getting to experiment on them.) The grand, riveting statement of this Bond is, and again I quote "What you steal can always be stolen back!"... Are you kidding me. Is THIS what I paid my hard-earned (well, not really, I'm still studying so I get it from there) money on? I'm not even necessarily saying I agree with what this Robin-Hood gal does! But the milquetoast conclusion of "if u steal, other person can steal back" is asinine. It's about the most BORING take you could have on this.
If you still for some reason want to play this game and you care about spoilers, you should dip out right about now. For those staying, I'm going to be providing a main-story example of this basic, 3rd grade writing.
Louis Guiabern, the main antagonist, believes that the world they live in is corrupt. When confronting Louis in the penultimate dungeon, he says to the main character "Should you deny me, then what? How would you fix this country? You must have seen it everywhere you traveled. Tradition, superstition, family honour... and all those struck down unjustly in the name of such authorities. The only cure for such suffering is a simpler world, in which strength triumphs over pain. It is not a solution without cruelty. But surely the fairness it would restore to our lives is worth any sacrifice. Come with me, and we can realize this dream. What say you?" If you agree, your teammate and friend Strohl doesn't even try to fight you, rather saying "At this point... what can we do but try to change our perspective? Maybe this is better than prolonging the cycle of injustice." Another member, the GOAT Heismay says "It is out of our hands now... It wasn't long ago I was living alone in an empty cavern. I'll have to appreciate that this will be better than that." Louis even comments "No one else seems to have objections." Without just spamming quotes, I'll say that the game even says that the MC and Louis take equal hands in creating this new world. This after the MC had betrayed Louis, and brought Louis to death's door.
For context, this is seen as the bad ending. The text in the end reading "Fantasy is Destroyed," doesn't award any sort of game-completion trophy; this is not seen as a valid ending. What would happen in this ending is that everyone in the Kingdom would become stuck in their own minds, temporarily having to fight their anxiety. Overcoming it grants them the strength to go on, but failing to do so makes this temporary state permanent until death. Your shell becoming that of a monster.
His methods are, as he himself states, cruel. It is not the most ideal way to reform a country, but perhaps the most plausible. What he suggests doing is no different from what the world already does to its people. The kids dying on the streets, Paripi getting experimented on, people getting manipulated by the Sanctist church... By this point in the story, people are killing each other in the streets because of their anxiety and superstitions. What Louis is doing is simply using the tools that created the world, to destroy it. The interesting question then becomes... Is that a good foundation to build this new world upon? Questions, the game doesn't want to answer. Instead, in the canon ending, the writers turn Louis into Lucifer (I'm not kidding, it's that dumb) and they say that he's wrong, because he simply has to face his anxieties... Again, the most boring answer to this philosophical dilemma Louis poses, which could be likened to the trolley-problem.
In the "Good" ending, the MC becomes king (whilst not even knowing what the main party stands for except for "Hope... Maybe?" He basically introduces some sort of democracy to the kingdom (where he's still a monarch), and as ANY good king does, he leaves without any bodyguards constantly, and without notice, and barely a year after he gets crowned, he decides to go on an un-announced journey to another part of the world to "get their opinion"... Granted, he has powers, but in the canon he still always fights with his allies, and the battle-mechanics depend on teaming up with teammates to perform high-damage attacks. The kingdom is just beginning to heal, and he just decides to risk his life (even though the kingdom will irrevocably be harmed if he dies), but his teammates, catching up to him, say "It'll sort itself out. After all, we gotta teach the people independence!" Like chileeeeeee
I think the theme here is clear: Metaphor broaches interesting and thought-provoking questions, but then give the most mundane, generic "Hero good, Villain bad" answer. "Killing bad, stealing bad, Sacrifice bad." I'm not even fully saying that the conclusions in and of themselves are bad, or wholly wrong, but it simply doesn't make for an interesting and compelling discussion, when they don't meaningfully explore the subject-matter.
