on that note i want to talk a little about “blending the line between fiction and reality” and how that ties into undertale’s heavy inspiration from the mother series. i recently read this comic about shigesato itoi and the inspirations behind mother and i want to focus on these pages:

i’ve seen someone cast doubt on the idea that the player is an entity in the game’s universe - that there’s someone (i.e. you) controlling frisk and/or chara behind the scenes. that sometimes, characters such as sans and flowey speak not to either of them, but to you directly. and i understand that: there’s no direct proof that you, the player, are “real” in the game’s world.

but i think of undertale’s inspirations in the mother series, and mother as a homage to that kind of “blending the line between fiction and reality” in the film itoi mentions, as proof that toby intends the player to be an entity - just in a way that twists and expands upon the player being an “entity” in mother and mother 2.

in mother 2, for instance, the player is an entity in the game’s universe, not only because characters like tony speak to the player directly. but also because paula reaches through the fourth wall and prays to you, the player, to save the chosen four from giygas. and because, well, it works. “you” exist in this game’s world, not as a separate person, but as your literal self, the person holding the controller, and so you have the power to save the world.

undertale takes this all to its logical conclusion: what if this player entity could use this power for good or evil? what if the player’s influence - their “determination” to exert their will over the game’s world - could be used to save the world or destroy it?

it’s exactly this kind of meta storytelling, that the entire game is based around, that leads me to believe very firmly that conversations like sans in his no mercy fight and flowey in the post-pacifist reset monologue are speaking to the player, not frisk/chara. this is only further supported by flowey, at the end of that monologue, saying “see you later [chara’s name]”… because chara’s name is the way the game is referring to you and the closest thing it has to your name, just like in earthbound!

there’s also two other fourth wall “blends” that i think support this conclusion:

- flowey going “What made you wake up? Did you hear me calling you…?” about chara is something i’ve always seen as a reference to “naming the fallen child” at the beginning of the game. chara “awakens” and you take control of the game directly after that point - that feels intentional.

- flowey going “At least we’re better than those sickos that stand around and WATCH it happen… Those pathetic people that want to see it, but are too weak to do it themselves. I bet someone like that’s watching right now, aren’t they…?” suggests not only that the player is an entity but that the player’s potential audience are entitites that flowey is aware of. this is a big one - it makes no sense for flowey to make this allusion if he’s unaware that a “viewing audience” - and thus someone to “do it themselves” as he says - exists.

the only problem with this theory is that chara is not you. they are their own person. but we have to remember that we’re not intended to know this at first, any more than we’re intended to know that chara is the narrator. when flowey says “see you later [chara’s name]” we’re intended to view it as speaking to us, because that’s the entire point of the game asking us to name chara in the first place. the knowledge that chara “should be” named chara, in a sense, ruins this effect and muddles toby’s intent.