You can played this game on Android with JoiPlay Emulator
Soma Spirits: Rebalance
Log in with itch.io to leave a comment.
Soma Spirits is a beautiful and artful RPG with strong messages about unity and acceptance. Despite what some would say, the game is not remotely political in nature, and deals instead with emotions and other life challenges that you, as the two guardian spirits, have to resolve for the people in the world. The humour is great, the characters are endearing, and no matter what choices you make you're never left thinking you absolutely did the right thing. Because of this, the game lends itself very well to replays.
The battle system is top-notch as well. This turn-based RPG has a twist: the powers of the two heroes will be different depending on which world you're in, so you have to play around with different strategies to succeed. There are 3 difficulty settings, of which I chose Normal for my first run. The balance was finely tuned, neither excessively grindy or a walk in the park. For future runs I will happily experiment with the other difficulty settings as well.
Strongly recommend playing this game to anyone who happens to pass by and read this! My first run took roughly 6 hours to fully complete, could be done in less, and of course replays to see all of the content make this a fantastic deal in my eyes. Don't pass it up!
Interesting little game. The combat didn't really grab me. Story and "puzzles" were interesting enough.
My political views were not changed by this game.
...I don't want to make any assumptions, but this is the most White Liberal game I've seen in a while.
I'm really sick of ~why can't we all just agree to disagree~ narratives. I will not agree to disagree telling me that certain people do not deserve to exist. That is the obstacle to justice and progress, not extremists stirring up trouble and pitting people against each other. There is no compromise between lies and truth or justice and injustice. The answer does not always lie in the middle. People hold ideals for reasons and sometimes those ideals are more important than relationships. If you think someone's ideals are going to hurt people, you should not tolerate that, no matter if they're friends or family.
Your narrative presents a sanitized, oversimplified world with no relation to reality and real conflicts. There are no bad-faith actors except Form and Dissonance, and all conflicts are personal or horizontal (even Box World, where you tried to convince us that a CEO and an employee are somehow in an equal relationship), never vertical.
And it is particularly tone-deaf to include as part of a BLM bundle a story about how a political tyrant was actually a poor misunderstood woobie who voluntarily gave up power when he realized it would hurt people (lol yeah sure) and then tried to save everyone from the real evil, the extremists who wanted to change the world. It is outright poisonous to say the extremists never had any actual point and in fact are just manufacturing conflict to manipulate people into thinking their reforms are necessary. You do realize there are people who say that about everything from climate change to BLM to school shootings, right? You realize you are validating their conspiracy theories with this narrative?
I realize the original story was released before Trump was even elected, but even still, read the room. The status quo is not worth protecting. Sometimes the extremists are right.
Hi, not the dev but the composer, for reference (my views don't represent those of my commissioner etc) but I wanted to respond to this.
I didn't write it but I can guarantee this game wasn't written as political commentary. Most of the conflicts in the game are on the individual character level. I don't think the story was intended to be read as being about the importance of the status quo, but about optimism vs. pessimism rather than "right vs. wrong/agree to disagree". I understand how you could read it that way if you were searching for a game to comment on the current climate and came in expecting that, but I feel like somewhere along the line your expectation of what the game should be saying about the world became more important to you than what the game actually said.
The two worlds don't represent political views but attitudes toward life and problem-solving. I don't think the two worlds were ever meant to represent an us vs. them. You even say here: "all conflicts are personal or horizontal". I believe this is intentional because the question isn't "who is right or wrong in this power difference" but more "what is the right way to feel and handle when presented with a complex problem". The message isn't meant to be that arguments should meet in the middle, I feel like it's meant to be that both optimism and pessimism are necessary for solving problems; it's about the base level emotional response to a problem rather than the moral question. I'm sorry the game didn't provide the deep political commentary you wanted but I also think you're likely reading a bit too much into it expecting it to comment on something it isn't trying to. It was written half a decade ago and I'll be honest, nobody expected the fascist political climate we have right now back then. (I don't think if I were to have written a game back then I could have commented on today's environment either!) But I guarantee you nobody who worked on this game thinks fascism is ok or that the solution is meeting in the middle. Speaking for myself as an lgbt individual I can guarantee you I am not meeting in the middle with fascists. :\
But I do think if you're reading into the power dynamics of a sentient cardboard box or ear of corn, you may be thinking about it a little too hard... A lot of people see the worlds of joy/sorrow as representing good/bad but I think it's more meant to represent blissful ignorance and depression respectively. I feel as though your review is more about what the game isn't/doesn't do than what it does do which is a bit difficult to comment on.
I didn't write it but I can guarantee this game wasn't written as political commentary.
...I'm sorry, but that is itself an incredibly White Liberal thing to say. All art is propaganda whether you intend it or not. That's just the way it works; you're presenting your own vision of reality, of how you think the world works. We live in a society.
I completely believe torch60 did not intend to make a political commentary with this game, but he did anyway. When you make a game with multiple endings and you say that one is the "correct" one, that is an ideological statement. When that "correct" ending is about finding compromise between two ideals, that is an ideological statement. When you make a story where a cruel tyrant is secretly a misunderstood good guy and the idealists trying to stop him are secretly comically evil monsters who decide that if they can't get what they want they're going to kill everyone, that is an ideological statement.
You may not intend for any of these things to correspond 1:1 to a real-world issue -- most art doesn't -- but people are going to draw those connections anyway, because that's how experiencing art works. There are a lot of people who believe in the Golden Mean Fallacy ("the correct choice is always the midpoint between two extremes") and who, as a corollary, believe extremists don't actually mean it when they say they want to make the world a better place and are just making up problems to manipulate people into changing the world for their own personal gain, and this game validates that worldview 100%.
I want you to look at all the people saying BLM doesn't actually care about racial equality and just wants an excuse to get away with crimes, and then I want you to look at this story where Dissonance lies about unchecked idealism necessitating intervention to avoid catastrophe and then when called on his lie reveals that actually he just wants to kill people, and I want you to think about how someone who already believes the former is going to interpret the latter.
You even say here: "all conflicts are personal or horizontal". I believe this is intentional because the question isn't "who is right or wrong in this power difference" but more "what is the right way to feel and handle when presented with a complex problem".
Yes, and that is an ideological statement too. When you make a story about Meaningful Choices and Deep Conflict yet you only portray a small subset of real conflicts, that's a deliberate choice. Again, the game takes a real-world vertical and systemic conflict -- the exploitation of workers under capitalism -- and bends over backwards to make it an "individual" problem. That is a deliberate choice to avoid talking about systemic problems, and that oversimplification validates the conservative party line that systemic problems aren't real and everyone is individually responsible for their own choices.
The message isn't meant to be that arguments should meet in the middle
Except you can't get the good ending unless you do exactly that. I can believe this for each individual choice (since there's no compromise option for them), but if, say, your base emotional response is that four people need to be less sorrowful, whoops, we're gonna berate you for being stupid enough to believe Form, no good ending for you. You literally cannot "win" the game unless you meet in the middle. This is baked into the mechanics. If this was the intent, you should be able to uncover Form and Dissonance's deceit and get the true ending regardless of what choices you made in the worlds.
Look, I get that talking about systemic problems is hard and uncomfortable. They're hard to wrap our heads around and they don't have easy solutions. But that's exactly why art should push to talk about them and why I'm disappointed when it takes the easy way out instead.
But I do think if you're reading into the power dynamics of a sentient cardboard box or ear of corn, you may be thinking about it a little too hard...
This gets into another thing I wanted to bring up, which is that it's really hard to take the choices seriously with the cartoony aesthetic. As I said when I reviewed the original, so much of these types of personal happiness vs. societal responsibility conflicts are circumscribed by limited resources and physiological needs. The reason we can't just do whatever we want is that at the end of the day, someone needs to put food on the table. But that's really hard to evaluate when I can't tell if these creatures even have physiological needs. Where are the Berry Potions and Lifeforce Nuts coming from? Do Heart and Soul actually need to eat? Soul argues that the forest will suffer if Acre doesn't become the next tree, but like, how? Eternal winter typically means that living things will die, like, permanently, but Mason and Glacia talk as if it's only a temporary thing for both the organics and the snowpeople. Why do the Maltose Mines even exist, are they performing a vital service or a luxury? Why don't they just quit if they're so annoyed with Lemondrop, what's keeping them there?
Thank you taking the time to write up your thoughts on the game and for completing the story all the way to the end. I apologize that the game was not a good experience for you, so I wanted to give my response to your feedback.
Soma Spirits is indeed an older game of mine, having been written in 2015 and released in 2016, and it was in no way intended to be a narrative, commentary, or form of political insight in regards to events and discussions that would be taking place in 2020. As, of course, I could not anticipate any of those discussions four to five years prior.
Soma Spirits is largely an allegory for both depression and bipolar disorder, both of which have affected me and my everyday life as an individual, and Soma Spirits was a way of conveying my personal experiences and hardships. Though the game does pertain to solving conflicts, these conflicts were primarily meant to be internal, solved by the heart and soul. The word Soma means Body. The game's title is literally "Body Spirits."
While I respect your unique interpretation of the game and your insight that the framing devices used in it might align with current discussions, those framing devices, such as redemption, grey-area problem solving, and others, are common to RPGs to achieve this message. I do believe that many of them can be commonly found in other RPGs as well. And I think you will find that these aspects are not exclusive to Soma Spirits.
Soma Spirits is a lot of things: It's a love letter to RPGs, a deeply personal story, and a story-driven experience. But an argument in favor of fascism is something that it is not nor was it ever intended to be, nor is it a stance I believe in or ever stand for.
I hope this will help assuage your concerns. And I hope the next game will be a better experience for you!
- Sgt M
But an argument in favor of fascism is something that it is not nor was it ever intended to be, nor is it a stance I believe in or ever stand for.
No, obviously not. I do, however, feel it is an argument in favor of centrism, which is often an unintentional enabler of fascism.
The worlds as a metaphor for bipolar disorder... Some things do make more sense in that light, but I would not have guessed that was the intended allegory if you had not told me. The repeated theme of personal happiness vs. societal responsibility is what muddied that for me; that is something I associate with political ideologies, not with personal experience, especially when the player is taking the role of an arbiter for other people.
If you wish to avoid political implications in the future, I would recommend avoiding plots about a group desiring to change the world fighting against a group desiring to restore a past era, because that is kind of the core of politics.
This game is so amazing! I love the concept and the narrative and the contrast between the two worlds. I can't wait to get more into it.