Earlier I mentioned an Invisigal post Iâm working on, and believe me, itâs still coming, because Iâve got so many thoughts about her and her presentation. But in the meantime, I had an awful yet hilarious realisation while brainstorming.
And that is that the endings of Dispatch, good or bad, whichever one you end up with, are stupid and bad.
..... I know, shocking statement. I am the first person in existence to ever say this.
But more seriously, when I say this, Iâm not talking about the criticisms Iâve already seen about the language used in the bad ending stats, or the continued issue of a choice game not always having especially meaningful choices. Those are their own conversations.
No, what I realised is that the endings actively make each other worse. Because once you look at both versions side by side, the problem isnât just that one ending is weaker than the other, the problem is that the existence of each ending makes the logic and emotional impact of the other one fall apart.
The first thing I realised is that Invisigal stepping in and taking the bullet for Robert doesnât actually mean that much, and in fact ends up looking kind of stupid, when the bad ending exists. Because the thing to remember is that both endings are almost exactly the same until the moment where Invisigal makes her choice. Shroud has Robert at gunpoint, Robert is in danger, Invisigal is there, invisible, close enough to intervene. So if sheâs in a position to kill Shroud in the bad ending, then she should also be in a position to kill him, disarm him, knock the gun away, incapacitate him, or do literally anything else useful in the good ending.
But instead, in the good ending, she takes the bullet.
And I get what the scene is trying to do. Itâs trying to make this big, dramatic, redemptive moment where she proves she really has changed by risking herself to save Robert. Ignoring my own issues with 'redemption through self-sacrifice' for a second, I understand the intent.
The problem is that the bad ending immediately proves she had another option. Thatâs the part that breaks it for me. The story wants taking the bullet to be proof that sheâs become heroic, but then the alternate version of the same scene shows that she could have saved Robert by stopping Shroud directly. So now her 'heroic' choice doesnât read as more moral, it reads as less practical. Why would becoming more heroic mean she suddenly loses the willingness to actually stop the guy who is actively trying to murder someone? And before anyone says âwell, heroes donât kill,â that doesnât really work here either.
First of all, nothing in Invisigalâs story is actually about her learning that killing is wrong. Her story is supposed to be about trust, redemption, selfishness, survival, being used, being treated like sheâs already doomed to be a villain, and whether or not anyone actually believes she can be better. Thatâs not the same thing as an arc about refusing lethal force.
Second, the game itself doesn't commit to the idea that killing Shroud is some clear moral line heroes cannot cross, because immediately after Invisigal takes the bullet, Robert is allowed to beat Shroud down and then kill him anyway.
And that brings me to the second thing that makes the endings undermine each other. When Invisigal kills Shroud, the framing is bad. Itâs treated as her descent back into villainy, like Robert failed her, like this is the proof that she was never truly saved or never truly became a hero. But when Robert kills Shroud, the game doesn't frame it anywhere near that harshly. And arguably, what Robert does is worse, because Invisigal kills Shroud while he is an active threat, mid action, with a gun pointed at Robert. Robert kills Shroud after the immediate danger has passed. Shroud has already been beaten, heâs incapacitated. Robert is making a revenge choice in cold blood. And yet Robert gets, what, a slap on the wrist? A mention of temporary suspension and investigation? Some very minimal acknowledgement but then immediate hand waving?
So what is the actual message here? Is killing Shroud wrong or not? If itâs wrong, why does Robert get treated so much more kindly for doing it? If itâs not wrong, why is Invisigal killing him treated as proof that sheâs fallen?
And before anyone says itâs because Robert has more reason to want Shroud dead, sure, yes, Robert absolutely has reason. Shroud killed his father, destroyed his life, ruined his suit, tortured him, threatened Beef, and tried to kill him.
But Invisigal also has reason. She was in the Red Ring, was used by Shroud, manipulated by him, dependent on him in ways that directly affected her ability to breathe. He had power over her body, her survival, and her future. She has plenty of reason to want him dead too.
So why does Robertâs revenge get treated as understandable, while Invisigalâs revenge gets treated as proof that she failed as a person?
Thatâs where the endings really starts eating each other. The good ending wants Invisigal taking the bullet to mean 'she became a hero'. The bad ending wants Invisigal killing Shroud to mean 'she became a villain'. But the Robert kill ending turns around and says 'actually, killing Shroud isn't all that bad'.
So the game ends up having three different moral standards in the same finale.
- Invisigal taking the bullet equals hero.
- Invisigal killing Shroud equals villain.
- Robert killing Shroud equals complicated, but basically fine enough.
The point of her story is meant to be whether or not she can become a hero, but having the bad ending have her kill the villain and nothing else? ...... I'm sorry, is that supposed to be her being a villain?
So yeah, once I realised all of this, the endings became even harder to take seriously. Because itâs not just that the good ending is a little cheesy, or the bad ending is frustrating, or the choice structure is weird. Itâs that the endings donât actually agree with each other about what the story is trying to say. They want Invisigalâs ending to be about redemption. They want Robertâs ending to be about what kind of hero he is. They want Shroudâs death to be both a moral line and a cathartic revenge option. And those ideas can work together, but not if the story only applies the consequences to one character. Because at that point, the question stops being did Invisigal become a hero? It becomes why is Robert allowed to be messy and still count as a hero, while Invisigalâs messiness is treated as proof she was doomed?