I finally beat the game earlier today, chose Maelle's ending because I felt bad about her life in the real world and assumed she would be strong enough to leave the Canvas whenever it started to become unhealthy. Obviously I was wrong, and her ending is clearly the bad one where she gets sucked into the delusion and continues the cycle of the Paintress. Verso's ending, while bittersweet, is also clearly the healthier choice, as it gives everyone a chance to heal and move on and grow.
So anyway, I went online to join discussions on the ending and noticed something kinda interesting. The people who preferred Maelle's ending were using a lot of leftist-coded language while defending it. Stuff like "media literacy", "genocide" "body autonomy" and that they preferred the female characters and thought the men were all being "oppressive jerks". Thinking on it, it makes perfect sense, as Maelle's ending of living in a delusional childrens world instead of facing reality is leftism in a nutshell, while Verso's ending of taking responsibility and dealing with grief in order to overcome it and grow, is very rightist. I dont think the dev's intended it this way but the online discussion of it has turned out like that.
I've also noticed it's mainly women who prefer Maelle's ending and men who prefer Verso's. So im curious, I assume most people here are right wing and male, which ending did you guys prefer?
I haven't played it, but I vaguely understand the major plot from watching a streamer go through the end of [one act] and the beginning of [another]. I felt like it was pretty clear how the two felt after Maelle returned to Lumiere. She wanted to preserve it and he didn't.
Funny how that wouldn't apply for one person if Maelle had her way. Even if she could escape herself, she would basically have kept him as a plaything to enjoy at her own whim.
I think they knew there would be debate over it, but perhaps just not a clear gendered breakdown if what you're saying is true.
Its not really as clear as one wanting to preserve it and the other not.
Verso, or more accurately the part of him left and his painted self, were tired and wanted to just be done with with. They both still felt bad about everyone they knew and loved dying/vanishing/being unmade/whatever you want to call it.
The scene with Monoco and Esquie is rough, and the music is especially hard hitting there.
There just isn't (as far as we know) a middle ground of saving everyone in the painting but letting verso finally rest and alicia and the family to move on.
I am not fully versed on the world inside the painting. Are the people real in some way, independent of the painters? It presents an interesting wrinkle if so, but still arguable that it is still a fiction that might only serve to trap people from reality.
I think the only dependence Canvas-life has is Chroma, which is mostly controlled by the dominant Painter. Considering how many different complex thought processes all the non-Painter characters go through, there is clearly a sense of free will within them. Hell, "Verso" was literally going against his direct creator of his own decision, with the full knowledge of what consequences it would bring.
So there's a lot that isn't really explained, but it seems like the painting was started, but then takes a life of its own. So you can paint people, but then they sort of do their own thing, can even have kids, etc. Or that's how I read it, at least.
So I'd argue they're real, or at the very least real enough. It's why it's an interesting quandary.