confusion and suggestions about the current Moon Line story

[aoka404]

7 minutes ago, Primalflower said:

That's the thing though. he doesn't at first. he specifically avoids mentioning the specifics of the island that you're sending her to in all but one of his quotes, trying to make whats happening sound better to the player/keeping the player & survivor in the dark as much as he can.

The only time he mentions the specifics of what he's trying to do is when you fail to give him a map with what he wants on it, and he only has a 33% chance of running the quote where he lets that detail slip. he's only ever giving you as many details as you absolutely need to do his dirty work for him and keeping you in the dark in the process. It's not really a plot beat harder to understand than literally Cloudy With A Chance Of Meatballs 2 .

Again, this quest line is entirely in line with the way that the survivor/player works with higher forces without really knowing whats going on at all, this isn't a new paradigm of interaction, I don't think the survivors ever knew truly the extent of what wagstaff wanted to do when they were building up any other of his machines and unleashing the moonstorm and mutating tons of innocent animals in the process, or actively helping charlie rebuild the portal by uncovering the archives. This is another point in time where the survivor accidentally/unknowingly help a force get exerted in the constant, for one reason or another, without truly understanding the consequences of the decision. Whats nice about this decision is that there is a specifically built in ability to make up for your mistakes with pearl after with the rehomer. Come on guys. 

It is a very straightforward fact that the game character acts as the villain to assist Wagstaff in deceiving Pearl. You, however, misinterpreted this sickly plot arrangement with such unrelated imagination, making it seem reasonable. You are really amazing!

[Primalflower]

Just now, aoka404 said:

It is a very straightforward fact that the game character acts as the villain to assist Wagstaff in deceiving Pearl. You, however, misinterpreted this sickly plot arrangement with such unrelated imagination, making it seem reasonable. You are really amazing!

I hope you never have to interpret any video game narrative deeper than the story found within cloudy with a chance of meatballs 2

[Uedo]

3 minutes ago, Primalflower said:

he almost says what he's talking about but then specifically backtracks on the details so as to hide it from the survivor while still functioning as a gameplay hint for how to progress the story

Fine, let me concede to that, that's fine with me.

How does the player map the island without seeing what is on the island?

[Primalflower]

Just now, Uedo said:

Fine, let me concede to that, that's fine with me.

How does the player map the island without seeing what is on the island?

they absolutely do see what's on the island. They map it correctly, making sure to include that there are monkeys on it whenever they end up visiting it. and then wagstaff not only doesn't disclose what island he circled (note: it is incredibly likely that in this extremely lategame activity that the survivor will have already visited the moon quay before and won't have to specifically go out there again, and the gameplay will have been just giving wagstaff a map of what they've explored so far and wagstaff just circles a random part of it) but also takes agency away from the player a bit and makes edits to the map that the survivor/player can't see. important note: the survivors don't seem to have different quotes for a tricked map. they can't tell the difference. 

[aoka404]

1 minute ago, Primalflower said:

they absolutely do see what's on the island. They map it correctly, making sure to include that there are monkeys on it whenever they end up visiting it. and then wagstaff not only doesn't disclose what island he circled (note: it is incredibly likely that in this extremely lategame activity that the survivor will have already visited the moon quay before and won't have to specifically go out there again, and the gameplay will have been just giving wagstaff a map of what they've explored so far and wagstaff just circles a random part of it) but also takes agency away from the player a bit and makes edits to the map that the survivor/player can't see. important note: the survivors don't seem to have different quotes for a tricked map. they can't tell the difference. 

Your imagination is just too much. You go to great lengths to accept the unreasonable things and even fabricate the non-existent fact that Wagstaff deceives the game characters. How ridiculous! The game characters have already been to the Moon quay and drawn its map. Knowing how bad that place is, how could they still be deceived by Wagstaff's map clearly marked with the Moon quay? The plot in the game is already very straightforward. They are just helping Wagstaff deceive Pearl!!

4 minutes ago, aoka404 said:

Your imagination is just too much. You go to great lengths to accept the unreasonable things and even fabricate the non-existent fact that Wagstaff deceives the game characters. How ridiculous! The game characters have already been to the Moon quay and drawn its map. Knowing how bad that place is, how could they still be deceived by Wagstaff's map clearly marked with the Moon quay? The plot in the game is already very straightforward. They are just helping Wagstaff deceive Pearl!!

Game characters are not like players who can draw the moon quay on the map without logging in.

without landing.

[Bumber64]

9 hours ago, Primalflower said:

he almost says what he's talking about but then specifically backtracks on the details so as to hide it from the survivor while still functioning as a gameplay hint for how to progress the story

He backtracks on revealing that he's responsible for the creation of moon quay. In the other quote, he slips that he knows exactly what's on it.

None of this excuses the fact that the survivors themselves know what's on it. At best, they just couldn't be bothered to check where Wagstaff was sending her.

[Primalflower]

26 minutes ago, Bumber64 said:

He backtracks on revealing that he's responsible for the creation of moon quay. In the other quote, he slips that he knows exactly what's on it.

None of this excuses the fact that the survivors themselves know what's on it. At best, they just couldn't be bothered to check where Wagstaff was sending her.

I already stated that

1. the player/survivor properly maps the monkeys before wagstaff undetectably by the survivor, edits the map to remove the presence of monkeys. They don't have quotes for noticing this discrepancy, so yeah, the mean/bad faith read is that the survivors just didn't check, but seeing as how literally a whole plot point from before is about the survivors growing a relationship with Pearl and coming to understand her/help her, it makes far more sense to say that they're not acting maliciously and much more so just genuinely didn't know. Again, this isn't the first time that the Survivors have acted on behalf of a greater force without fully understanding the situation/the consequences of the decision. it's just that it's more personal this time, which literally makes sense, given that it's supposed to be the climax to a whole thing and wagstaff is clearly growing much more desperate.

Let me repeat that. an entire arc of this game that I don't think I would be remiss to say is supposed to happen over genuine years of gameplay given flower salad's place in pearl's friendship, is about befriending pearl and helping her. Take a look at the quotes for the pearl's pearl/cracked pearl and tell me that these survivors would act in poor faith for this old woman. they just wouldn't! She's their friend for gods sake!! Use context clues my friend!!

2. Wagstaff again, never mentions what island he's referring to outside of that one quote which has a gameplay reason to exist far more than anything else. A quote that has a 33% chance to play on a dialogue that in almost all situations isn't going to happen, surrounding on both sides with quotes where wagstaff awkwardly tries to dodge telling the survivor the whole story, something he would only avoid if he foresees them taking issue with it. Let me remind everyone that this quest line happens almost certainly hundreds and hundreds of days into a world, where it is almost certain that the player has already explored enough of the world to find the moon quay, especially if they're doing literally anything with pearl, crab king, the lunar island. 

Not only that, but if extremely high circumstance isn't enough to convince you, let me remind everyone that 

as far as canon survivor experience goes, these guys already mapped the moon quay like, years ago. With reworks and skill tree text in the picture, it's explicitly stated text that much of the updates that we see, *especially* ones that pertain to the ongoing questlines as we know them, are happening in real time with the survivors going through each step as it comes out.  

What this means is that it might not shake out that way in gameplay sometimes, but the canon thing that happens is that again, wagstaff just takes one of these guyses maps and circles a random as part of it and then hands it back for you to instantaneously give to pearl.  They are genuinely just as much of a victim of wagstaff as anyone else. Just like they were a victim of charlie, maxwell, time and time before. This interaction is a core part of don't starve as a series at this point. come on guys.

[lowercase skye]

1 hour ago, Bumber64 said:

At best, they just couldn't be bothered to check where Wagstaff was sending her.

People often do things that are irrational or not well thought out, rather than the most logical thing in every situation.

[aoka404]

12 minutes ago, lowercase skye said:

People often do things that are irrational or not well thought out, rather than the most logical thing in every situation.

Does such a thing that can be seen as incorrect at a glance still require players to think?

Don't force an explanation for this perfunctory plot any longer.

The person who could do such a thing is not without careful consideration, but is truly perverted and evil from the bottom of their heart！

The fact is that the official forces players to deliberately make mistakes even when they know it's wrong. Ask players to hand over the map that is obviously a scam to Pearl. Is such a straightforward and nauseating arrangement still worth considering?

 

1 hour ago, Primalflower said:

I already stated that

1. the player/survivor properly maps the monkeys before wagstaff undetectably by the survivor, edits the map to remove the presence of monkeys. They don't have quotes for noticing this discrepancy, so yeah, the mean/bad faith read is that the survivors just didn't check, but seeing as how literally a whole plot point from before is about the survivors growing a relationship with Pearl and coming to understand her/help her, it makes far more sense to say that they're not acting maliciously and much more so just genuinely didn't know. Again, this isn't the first time that the Survivors have acted on behalf of a greater force without fully understanding the situation/the consequences of the decision. it's just that it's more personal this time, which literally makes sense, given that it's supposed to be the climax to a whole thing and wagstaff is clearly growing much more desperate.

Let me repeat that. an entire arc of this game that I don't think I would be remiss to say is supposed to happen over genuine years of gameplay given flower salad's place in pearl's friendship, is about befriending pearl and helping her. Take a look at the quotes for the pearl's pearl/cracked pearl and tell me that these survivors would act in poor faith for this old woman. they just wouldn't! She's their friend for gods sake!! Use context clues my friend!!

2. Wagstaff again, never mentions what island he's referring to outside of that one quote which has a gameplay reason to exist far more than anything else. A quote that has a 33% chance to play on a dialogue that in almost all situations isn't going to happen, surrounding on both sides with quotes where wagstaff awkwardly tries to dodge telling the survivor the whole story, something he would only avoid if he foresees them taking issue with it. Let me remind everyone that this quest line happens almost certainly hundreds and hundreds of days into a world, where it is almost certain that the player has already explored enough of the world to find the moon quay, especially if they're doing literally anything with pearl, crab king, the lunar island. 

Not only that, but if extremely high circumstance isn't enough to convince you, let me remind everyone that 

as far as canon survivor experience goes, these guys already mapped the moon quay like, years ago. With reworks and skill tree text in the picture, it's explicitly stated text that much of the updates that we see, *especially* ones that pertain to the ongoing questlines as we know them, are happening in real time with the survivors going through each step as it comes out.  

What this means is that it might not shake out that way in gameplay sometimes, but the canon thing that happens is that again, wagstaff just takes one of these guyses maps and circles a random as part of it and then hands it back for you to instantaneously give to pearl.  They are genuinely just as much of a victim of wagstaff as anyone else. Just like they were a victim of charlie, maxwell, time and time before. This interaction is a core part of don't starve as a series at this point. come on guys.

This has nothing to do with the previous plot of the game. In the past, players helped Wagstaff because they knew too little about what he was researching and could only help him first.

It was understandable that players didn't understand the situation before. And now, Wagstaff is clearly asking players to help deceive people together, and players are still helping. So what? Have players become tools without thinking ability? Is this reasonable?

Then if someone forces you with a bundle of bombs and asks you to detonate them in a shopping center with no other choice. You think this is quite reasonable, right?

[Uedo]

5 hours ago, lowercase skye said:

People often do things that are irrational or not well thought out, rather than the most logical thing in every situation.

That's incorrect, we base the entire legal system on people being rational. So it'd say most people DO try to do logical things, it's called rationale and lends itself to how people feel they ought to behave mixed with whatever justifications they have for maladaptive actions.

Societal psychology baybeeeee 

[Primalflower]

3 hours ago, Uedo said:

That's incorrect, we base the entire legal system on people being rational. So it'd say most people DO try to do logical things, it's called rationale and lends itself to how people feel they ought to behave mixed with whatever justifications they have for maladaptive actions.

Societal psychology baybeeeee 

i hope you never have  to interpret a video game story deeper than Cloudy With A Chance Of Meatballs 2

(You will be in for a surprise about the rationale that people employ being at times irrational or predicated on incomplete knowledge)

wait also who the hell is talking about the legal system? This is a moral issue, not a legal one. those two things aren't the same.

Edited July 9, 2025 by Primalflower

[Uedo]

1 hour ago, Primalflower said:

i hope you never have  to interpret a video game story deeper than Cloudy With A Chance Of Meatballs 2

(You will be in for a surprise about the rationale that people employ being at times irrational or predicated on incomplete knowledge)

wait also who the hell is talking about the legal system? This is a moral issue, not a legal one. those two things aren't the same.

Good day Primalflower, we're not doing this anymore.

[lowercase skye]

14 hours ago, Uedo said:

That's incorrect, we base the entire legal system on people being rational. So it'd say most people DO try to do logical things, it's called rationale and lends itself to how people feel they ought to behave mixed with whatever justifications they have for maladaptive actions.

the famously functional legal system where neither the people effected nor the authority figures enforcing it ever act irrationally

Edited July 10, 2025 by lowercase skye

[Bumber64]

21 hours ago, Primalflower said:

Let me repeat that. an entire arc of this game that I don't think I would be remiss to say is supposed to happen over genuine years of gameplay given flower salad's place in pearl's friendship, is about befriending pearl and helping her. Take a look at the quotes for the pearl's pearl/cracked pearl and tell me that these survivors would act in poor faith for this old woman. they just wouldn't! She's their friend for gods sake!! Use context clues my friend!!

Which makes it all the more jarring that they show a complete lack of regard for the fact that they're kicking her off of her own island to begin with!

[Primalflower]

26 minutes ago, Bumber64 said:

Which makes it all the more jarring that they show a complete lack of regard for the fact that they're kicking her off of her own island to begin with!

It's explicitly not contextualized like that ingame, they're not evicting her at all, they're very clearly trying to help her. The island that pearl situated herself on initially is stated ingame to be the one that Crab King and Pearl met on initially, and she's just been waiting there for him ever since he never returned for her. They're not evicting her, they're helping her move on from this lost love of hers that has kept her anchored to one position for the entire game thus far.

You can't see any other dialogue other than this ingame, this is a max friendship specific pearl line, and it's one where she's literally describing how she's moving on from waiting for crab king to return as described in her bottles, her bottles which she started out throwing in order to reach crab king, but is now ingame only doing so for the survivor's sake, like a game between the two of them. 

When you see these things ingame, you have to understand that they recontextualize the way you interact with pearl. I agree, the idea of the survivors just throwing her out of her island after so much explicit friendship doesn't make sense, it doesn't make sense so much so that it simply must not be, and isn't what's happening. So then, we must shift our perspective to an alternative explanation, and the fact that they were tricked and otherwise genuinely trying to help pearl as the survivor always have been literally only makes sense.

Whenever something doesn't make sense in a story, it is incredibly reductive to just call it a plothole and move on. A more productive thing to do is to try to recontextualize or shift your perspective of the text to see if it makes sense when looking at it from a different angle or considering different information. In this case, there is a boundless supply of context clues, both old and new, that i've time and time again described in this thread, that endlessly point to the survivors genuinely wanting the best for pearl and having her best interest at heart, and remedying their mistake after being tricked by wagstaff just like pearl was.

Edited July 10, 2025 by Primalflower

[aoka404]

45 minutes ago, Primalflower said:

Whenever something doesn't make sense in a story, it is incredibly reductive to just call it a plothole and move on. A more productive thing to do is to try to recontextualize or shift your perspective of the text to see if it makes sense when looking at it from a different angle or considering different information. In this case, there is a boundless supply of context clues, both old and new, that i've time and time again described in this thread, that endlessly point to the survivors genuinely wanting the best for pearl and having her best interest at heart, and remedying their mistake after being tricked by wagstaff just like pearl was.

Has your mind gone blank? As long as the survivors were mentally sound, it was impossible for them to hand over the map marked with Moon quay to Pearl. Instead, they directly told her the truth and then helped her move her home to a better place.

As long as the survivors have normal thinking and kind hearts, they would never have let Pearl be deceived by the information gap scam of Wagstaff from the very beginning! Because the survivors clearly knew that this was a fraud.😅

[Ridley]

Just throwing this in here, but I am pretty sure the point was that Wagstaff thought Pearl wouldn't move to any place that wasn't a larger island with no gestalts. Our survivor characters selfishly help in deceiving Pearl because Wagstaff is known to be in the process of creating a portal home.

[Primalflower]

Insane i should have just showed this from the start

[Szczuku]

Pearl's eviction was shoe-horned by Klei, makes no sense and I don't understand why some people want to jump through so many hoops to try and justify it

[Bumber64]

7 hours ago, Primalflower said:

It's explicitly not contextualized like that ingame, they're not evicting her at all, they're very clearly trying to help her.

She's willing to move because Wagstaff showed up and started making a racket, and because she's done waiting for CK. However, Moon Quay is most assuredly not an improvement on her current island. Not caring enough to pay attention to where she ends up isn't done with help at top of mind. It's treated as a secondary concern.

2 hours ago, Primalflower said:

Insane i should have just showed this from the start

What is this meant to show? That Pearl trusted the player? We already knew that.

It doesn't give insight into the survivor's reasons, which probably differs between characters. (Warly definitely cares about her, while WX-78 certainly doesn't. Wilson probably didn't think beyond houses sometimes exploding.)

Edited July 10, 2025 by Bumber64

[lowercase skye]

1 hour ago, Szczuku said:

I don't understand why some people want to jump through so many hoops to try and justify it

To be clear, the plot point is as simple as "Wagstaff tricked both Pearl and the survivors who trusted him". I think it requires far more hoop-jumping to come up with entirely imaginary scenarios where the survivors exhaust every possible option and prompt Wagstaff for "I'm stuck in a video game" hints over and over, make sure they completely understand the nature of the situation, and then proceed to evily/stupidly send Pearl to monkey hell on purpose.

[aoka404]

12 minutes ago, lowercase skye said:

To be clear, the plot point is as simple as "Wagstaff tricked both Pearl and the survivors who trusted him". I think it requires far more hoop-jumping to come up with entirely imaginary scenarios where the survivors exhaust every possible option and prompt Wagstaff for "I'm stuck in a video game" hints over and over, make sure they completely understand the nature of the situation, and then proceed to evily/stupidly send Pearl to monkey hell on purpose.

Wagstaff did not deceive the survivors but instead asked them to deceive Pearl together with him. This can be very straightforwardly seen in the game. Your starting point is completely wrong.😮‍💨

[Primalflower]

4 hours ago, Bumber64 said:

What is this meant to show? That Pearl trusted the player? We already knew that.

that the game is clearly and explicitly portraying the entire situation as pearl & the player/survivor all being tricked by wagstaff together, and it would be to literally go against stated text to say otherwise

[Bumber64]

8 minutes ago, Primalflower said:

that the game is clearly and explicitly portraying the entire situation as pearl & the player/survivor all being tricked by wagstaff together, and it would be to literally go against stated text to say otherwise

This interpretation still requires us to accept that the survivors are as gullible as they ever were. That's not great writing, considering they had a disillusionment after Forge+Gorge. We don't get any insight from examining the altered map.

The survivors should at least express some hesitance, or say his hasty scribbles are less legible than usual.

[Primalflower]

Just now, Bumber64 said:

This interpretation still requires us to accept that the survivors are as gullible as they ever were. That's not great writing, considering they had a disillusionment after Forge+Gorge. We don't get any insight from examining the altered map.

The survivors should at least express some hesitance, or say his hasty scribbles are less legible than usual.

I'm pretty satisfied that the goalpost has moved from "this portrayal of events isn't as it shows ingame" to "I find this to be bad writing" and i'm not going to bark up that tree more than I've already stated lol