[sunrunner]

I like to get into heated debates with friends that have played SOMA about whether or not the events in the ending that is presented to you were all necessary and effective, or perhaps undermined the overall message in some way.

Specifically (and no spoilers, but I will be talking structure), you see parts A -> B -> C.

I believe that part C makes the sequence of A -> B much less effective, by essentially removing a lot of the tension caused by seeing A, believing what it shows, and then immediately cutting to the reality of B.

C only really takes away some of that tension, and I feel like it was added because of concerns about how a simple A -> B -> fade to black, would leave players feeling. Arguably it's the truest representation of part of the game's message, but to me feels like a bit like it's shying away from really making you face the specific truth highlighted well by B.

Alternatively, keeping all the elements but playing them as A -> C -> B, would keep the message intended by seeing A -> B, and make it gentler for the player to receive, but ultimately remove the powerful effect of the buildup from A leading immediately to the reveal of B.

Dropping C entirely would lose the confirmation of 'Seeing both sides', however I believe A -> B is a more powerful vision, and players can come to question whether C even exists by themselves.

[the_af]

Haha, I had to decode what you meant.

I think C is absolutely necessary and the game cannot work with it, because this is critical:

> Dropping C entirely would lose the confirmation of 'Seeing both sides'

The game doesn't really work in full ambiguity and uncertainty. Enough people didn't understand it even with C (as you can see if you go read the subreddit about the game).

If it's any consolation, I'm actually deeply worried about this: C is not the salvation we may think. C is not forever, and in fact, it's quite brittle! There's also no, ahem, mechanical way to reverse C back into its... "source". So the source is gone forever; once we have C, C is all there is, for as long as C can last without any failure or decay, which might not be much longer.

[sunrunner]

> Enough people didn't understand it even with C

Yeah that's a good point, and perhaps explains why C was added in the first place.

I was going to say that B also shows the literal protagonist not really understanding it either, however now I think about it that reading doesn't track because as a player you've only been able to see one point of view at each branch along the way, so the other experiences are still happening in the background, just not observed by you.

> C is not the salvation we may think

I agree, and in fact the way C is presented in that moment (and maybe described throughout, it's been a while since I played through the game) also implies a 'nice' closure, or a victory that, like you say, doesn't really exist, on top of taking player's minds away from B.

I guess B is the more obvious existential horror, C is one you have to question a bit before it starts to feel wrong.