i could go on and on about how hood could represent internalized misogyny. the fact that she was the one to bring a knife to the well says so much about her feelings for her friend leading up to that. she probably thought she was an IDIOT for daring to present as a dainty femme pagan hippie under the looming threat of war, during a time that is notoriously dangerous for young girls. (said pagans were probably heavily propagandized against as well.) in contrast, hood fortifies herself and fully covers head to toe in an attempt to obscure all traces of femininity and "weakness" to keep herself safe. turns out the town predator was able to sniff her out and take her back to his lair anyway. something something "what was she wearing"
my take on hood is that she was a deeply traumatized little girl who was a victim of the same horrors of war and encroaching dread as everyone else, and as a girl she felt xtra pressured to hide her true self in a faulty attempt to escape the predators and armed men and undead monsters around the block. AND she was a little hater who projected her fears on her only other female friend
I’ve seen a lot of people talk about the stylistic differences between Little Nightmares 3 and the previous games, particularly how the designs and story structure differ, to the point they feel incongruous. But as I suggested in my initial analysis, I feel this all comes down to LN3 being a more personal story.
While the first 3 games partially served as different chapters in Six’s story, I think their REAL focus (esp. with the first game) was the worldbuilding, the social commentary, and themes of survival. However, LN3 takes a step back from this previously interconnected story in order to tell a completely new story that centers hope and cooperation, but also how this can devolve into codependence. The game serves as a character study and an examination of Low’s psyche. And in order to do so, it plays into the themes of childhood more, and adopts a different story structure to flesh out the character of interest.
After the game’s reveal, one of the main aspects people critiqued were the character designs, saying they were “overly detailed” or “too cute” compared to their predecessors. Which I get, because it's unfamiliar in a series that's known to emphasize the "horror" in "charming horror" a bit more. But I believe this is mainly to service these brand new characters and make them recognizable. In the early marketing, it was mentioned in interviews that “childlike curiosity” was a key element in the character design. This is evident in the items that Low wears: his mask, cape, beaded anklet, and hand-made bow and arrows. This signals to the player that Low is a determined, hopeful person with a crafty aesthetic, who displays his imaginative nature outwardly. Instead of letting go of his “inner child” and assimilating into the dreariness of Nowhere, he clings to hope and the things that bring him comfort, such as his creative hobbies and his best friend. Speaking of, Alone fits into this philosophy just as well with her bright colors, can-do attitude, and "incurable" curiosity about the world around her. She's the idealized best friend who's always there to pick you up when you fall, and she and Low have survived this long because of that. The same can't be said for all the other kids in the series.
This makes for a noticeable contrast between Low and Alone's highly personalized designs and the visual simplicity of the previous 4 playable characters. They all have one, maybe two standout features. And I think this was the design philosophy of choice for these characters so you could tell the Nowhere has begun to leave its mark on them and wear them down. Even from the start of their respective stories, they've already developed some sort of ruggedness and grit. Unlike Low and Alone, who retain vague memories of their home, they don't have places they want to return to, if such a place existed for them at all. It's clear that Low still clings to certain stereotypical indicators of childhood, like playing with toys, drawing out his thoughts and (somewhat) untainted optimism. I’d initially assumed he was a bit older than Mono and Six because of his height, but I later started questioning how young he was actually supposed to be, thanks to the "Dreams On Paper" trailer. Low could be the same age as them, but if not, that means he’s not yet ready to grow out of that phase of life, as opposed to other characters who were forced to grow up faster. His character design and actions reflect this in a way that stands apart from the other kids.
[I think Mono is an exception, or maybe more of an in-between. He and Low both deal with a similar conflict: running away from their problems until they can't run anymore, and accept that they have to face the problem head-on. But until that turning point, Mono remains largely resigned to the idea of the world hating him, while Low continuously strives to return to the place he belongs.]
Worth noting that what ALL the game protagonists have in common are their obscured faces. It's a recurring motif that Tarsier has used since the beginning and likes to utilize into all their stories in different ways, to the point that people see it as an element of their personal brand. It makes sense that future LN works would keep up the trend, given that it's equally part of this one series' identity, but use it for a unique purpose that differs from Tarsier's current usage of it.
–
This all isn't to say that LN3 abandoned the worldbuilding and social commentary, though. Low is still part of a collective like, say, Runaway was. He's one of many kids whose fears helped construct the Nowhere from the ground up. But unlike the rest of the gang, the way that Low carves out his unique identity is not that closely tied to the games' locations. (Except for the final chapter, but we'll get to that.) LN3's story centers more on his personal trauma, his journey, his friendship with Alone.
For the most part, Low and Alone traverse through different loosely connected landscapes that, while still grand, don't have any hard connections to either character. And I believe this is on purpose. As I wrote in a previous analysis, these locations don't need to be connected to Low's character, because he has one key reason to visit them: the mirrors. His primary goal in each location is to keep search for the mirror hidden within and take the next step towards the Waking World. (The other big reason for going on this journey is for the journey itself, which I believe is Alone's primary motivation.) And I may be reading into it too deep here, but I think this way of navigating Nowhere is a reflection of his severe depression. Living with the illness is often described as "going through the motions" so to speak: chasing the next high, looking for the next material thing that'll bring you temporary solace, days passing by until they all blur together but don't feel very cohesive. And Low only stays in one particular place as long as he needs to check another item off the list and then move on.
This pattern repeats for a few chapters until everything changes in chapter 4, the conflicts of which directly arise from Low's medical trauma. Low was subjected to institutional abuse in the CoPI, which he crossed into the Nowhere in order to escape from. But some semblance of that trauma ended up following him. The Nowhere's version Institute, which Low presumably broke out of later and is most intimately tied to his past, is ironically where the one mirror he actually needed was being kept all along. So until he faces his past head-on, he can't return home.
This is why I think the game doesn't have an overarching "main" antagonist. Low spends most of the game away from the Institute, running in circles, only to be dragged back to it to confront his fears. If he and Alone hadn't crash-landed on the shores outside the building, he may have just kept on running, either due to unknowing ignorance or complete denial. But he's instead forced to confront the Hypnotist, the manifestation of his past abuse, in order to get his ticket out of the nightmare and begin to move on.
Once Low returns to the waking world, he can begin to grow up, learn to live with his trauma and proceed towards a better life. But unfortunately, growing up doesn't come without leaving a few things behind. He sheds his mask, his cape, his delusions of grandeur. And after losing his best friend as he knew her, another piece of his innocence is gone.
re: the reanimal scrapped endings/plotlines, i read people saying that the jump from the brook horse to the trenches was too abrupt, and i think keeping the plotline where the kids have to rescue bandage from the horrors of being drafted would have remedied that
now could you still keep the pelican in that framework? cuz i like the idea of an officer holding him hostage because it's vile and real, kinda wish they had the guts to keep that in, but maybe then he's not the "top dog" of the military unit. like he was holding a kid hostage because he was "following orders" (also real as hell) and then the pelican would be the key antagonistic force dealing the orders, as the embodiment of the army's cause and what they believe in. then it and the sheep can fight it out in the background
very glad that reanimal fanartists aren't shying away from different body types and facial differences and injuries and animals they haven't drawn before
