This review may contain spoilers
Why did I insist on watching this?
Curiosity can be quite treacherous. I didn’t like the ending of season 2. The protagonist’s plan was so bad and unrealistic that it ruined my entire experience with the rest of the season. I still believe they should’ve stopped at season 1, but money always talks louder. So, I decided to watch season 3 out of curiosity — and the experience got even worse, to the point that I couldn’t finish it.
The protagonist’s plan ruined season 2 for me, but that happened at the end. What made me quit season 3 was the ending of episode 4 (if I’m not mistaken). Here’s the point: the protagonist starts season 3 wanting revenge on player 388 for not bringing back the ammo (smart move, actually, because the plan was terrible). He dedicated himself to killing him during the hide-and-seek game — and he did it (detail: he murdered him with his bare hands). Now cut to the end of episode 4: when the Front Man gives the protagonist a dagger and says he can kill everyone plotting his and the baby’s death, episode 5 opens with player 067 from season 1 appearing in his vision and telling him that he’s “not that kind of person,” which makes him give up. Now I ask: how is he not that kind of person? Just a few episodes ago, he strangled someone to death out of revenge. Why wouldn’t he be capable of killing out of self-defense, which is a much more legitimate motivation? This attempt to re-humanize the protagonist made no sense at all.
Another point that bothered me — although less than the previous one: the Front Man constantly tries to prove to the protagonist that no one is 100% honest, as if honesty depended on the circumstances. That’s why he puts the protagonist in the same situations he went through as a player, believing he was forced to commit atrocities to save his sick daughter (like killing those who wanted him dead while they were asleep). When he talks to the protagonist alone before the final game, he asks: “Do you still have faith in humanity?” Here I see more inconsistencies. First, the protagonist had already been corrupted when he decided to coldly murder someone out of revenge (which contradicts his supposed moral principles, because someone who doesn’t have the courage to kill in self-defense certainly wouldn’t kill for revenge). Second, player 120 already proved that good people exist regardless of the circumstances when he chose to lose the hide-and-seek game to save a woman who had just given birth, a newborn, and an elderly lady — even though he was wounded and his life was at risk. Player 222 did too, when she told the protagonist to prioritize taking care of her daughter instead of going back to help her cross the bridge. So, if I was able to spot these glaring inconsistencies so quickly, I’m sure the writers noticed them too. Why weren’t they fixed? I’m sure they could’ve been worked around. A show with that kind of reputation can’t afford these kinds of errors.
Unfortunately, I didn’t finish the last two episodes. I shouldn’t have even started.
The protagonist’s plan ruined season 2 for me, but that happened at the end. What made me quit season 3 was the ending of episode 4 (if I’m not mistaken). Here’s the point: the protagonist starts season 3 wanting revenge on player 388 for not bringing back the ammo (smart move, actually, because the plan was terrible). He dedicated himself to killing him during the hide-and-seek game — and he did it (detail: he murdered him with his bare hands). Now cut to the end of episode 4: when the Front Man gives the protagonist a dagger and says he can kill everyone plotting his and the baby’s death, episode 5 opens with player 067 from season 1 appearing in his vision and telling him that he’s “not that kind of person,” which makes him give up. Now I ask: how is he not that kind of person? Just a few episodes ago, he strangled someone to death out of revenge. Why wouldn’t he be capable of killing out of self-defense, which is a much more legitimate motivation? This attempt to re-humanize the protagonist made no sense at all.
Another point that bothered me — although less than the previous one: the Front Man constantly tries to prove to the protagonist that no one is 100% honest, as if honesty depended on the circumstances. That’s why he puts the protagonist in the same situations he went through as a player, believing he was forced to commit atrocities to save his sick daughter (like killing those who wanted him dead while they were asleep). When he talks to the protagonist alone before the final game, he asks: “Do you still have faith in humanity?” Here I see more inconsistencies. First, the protagonist had already been corrupted when he decided to coldly murder someone out of revenge (which contradicts his supposed moral principles, because someone who doesn’t have the courage to kill in self-defense certainly wouldn’t kill for revenge). Second, player 120 already proved that good people exist regardless of the circumstances when he chose to lose the hide-and-seek game to save a woman who had just given birth, a newborn, and an elderly lady — even though he was wounded and his life was at risk. Player 222 did too, when she told the protagonist to prioritize taking care of her daughter instead of going back to help her cross the bridge. So, if I was able to spot these glaring inconsistencies so quickly, I’m sure the writers noticed them too. Why weren’t they fixed? I’m sure they could’ve been worked around. A show with that kind of reputation can’t afford these kinds of errors.
Unfortunately, I didn’t finish the last two episodes. I shouldn’t have even started.
Was this review helpful to you?
