Minor spoilers ahead.

I just beat the game and I think Transistor has issues on a very fundamental level in terms of storytelling.

I enjoyed the game but didn't love it. While it can often look very striking, offering beautiful scenery and wonderful lighting - just as often I felt it funneled you through very similar looking, sterile environments only to face skirmish after skirmish with the same handful of enemies. As combat is quite literally the only gameplay aspect present, by the end I was quite frankly a bit tired of it. I also didn't spend a whole ton of time searching through every single corner and reading every single datafile because I didn't feel the city of Cloudbank was engaging enough to do so - a matter of opinion of course.

This is where I think the narrative shortcomings come into play. While the gameplay didn't hook me all too much, I was interested in the story. Here is this noir-mystery: a murder, a young woman robbed of her voice, and a mysterious guide leading you forward with pursuers hot on your tracks through a Tron like city.. I was very intrigued. Yet playing through the game in a very casual and straightforward manner I finished Transistor with a ton of questions unanswered. Very basic questions too. Like why did they steal her voice? What were they using the process for exactly? What is the process? To do work for them, but what work? Why were they killing artists? How do they have transistors inside the transistor and why does killing someone with it let you leave? Why did the man inside the Transistor start to get "woozy" whenever the snake boss was around? So on and so forth..

I've read that a lot of questions get answered in NG+ - I assume through the acquisition of new powers and reading of their data entries. I feel like it's in the best interest of a game to make sure the very basic story beats are told along the way. Stashing away important narrative elements in text files is a terrible design choice in my opinion. Especially when some of those files are only accessible after you've level up enough to unlock them. Playing a game for the second time around should reveal interesting bonus tidbits, not complete the initial picture.

I agree. Transistor was overall very clumsy in the way it told the story, to the point where it was detrimental to everything else. It hid crucial narrative points on purpose. I love it when a story doesn't give you the entire picture and leaves something to the imagination. I don't like it when I am left confused as to some basic character motivations from the two main characters (The sword and Red). It is a balance, and Transistor erred by hiding some very basic character motivations until it was too late at times.

Even trying to get to the parts that clear up the story is a bit of a hassle. While I appreciate a lot of the clever text that was written, it created a lot of points where you had to stop and read it. Even the few bits of audio from Asher stopped the action. There is a lot of rich narrative in transistor, but looking for it slows you down. If there was a game that makes a good argument for audio-log pickups as not being as bad as people make them out to be, it is this game.

I haven't started NG+ yet (will tomorrow), but I'm guessing most of what you're asking is answered through that inside all of the bios and interaction. If not, then I don't mind a story being vague and leaving some questions unanswered (Red asks some of the same questions during the game, so it isn't like the developers just overlooked it).

Greg's also made note that there are a lot of hidden things.... so maybe somebody will have to "Fez" the game in order to figure things out, that and somebody will probably make a wiki to explain the story in full like Dark Souls was.

@c2c: Yes, as much as we revile audio logs as being a cheap vehicle for filling out the story, I still think they are magnitudes better than having to stop and wade in through actual text documents. Transistor sets up a great story which gets lost in their muddled and needlessly cryptic plot exposition along the way. For as much talking as the sword does, a large part of it is surprisingly superfluous.

@humanity: I feel I had the answers to your unanswered questions pretty soon after I started NG+; if I had been a little smarter at putting the pieces together, I could have had it by the end of the game. I feel that the story in Transistor wants to make you work for the information. If you want to understand the world better, the game makes you put the pieces together yourself and consider how they relate to one another.

I never found using the different skills to unlock the information as a hassle, as it made me try different things out while I was doing it. I can agree that it's a little tedious and dry to read all of them, but I was at least fascinated enough to do so. I had most of the functions by the time I finished the game and had unlocked the entries for them too. Also, there is some good information in them, but I don't think it's entirely crucial to understanding most of what the story is trying to say.

Maybe I'm just good at putting the pieces together(surprisingly, since I usually suck at it)?

I actually liked Transistor a lot, especially on the narrative end, but I won't refute any of your criticisms. They're intensely subjective, but no less salient.

Any potential gaps in the story didn't really register for me, though, because, very much like Bastion, I approached Transistor as basically a tone poem with a minimum of concrete story beats. For instance, the Transistor is less a dispenser of plot detail than a constant reminder of the dead man's devotion to Red.

Nearly all of your lingering questions, I feel like I have satisfying answers to. But I also arrived at those answers mostly based on my own conjecture. I don't mind that approach as long as the creative work meets me halfway, as I feel Transistor did, but that halfway point is different for every person.

I agree with most of what's being said here. I found it a real problem that the game wanted me to stop all the time to learn what was going on, to get out of the action and go read snippets of peoples back stories. There's all these characters, but if you were never to go look at the functions fully, which you could absolutely do and still beat the game, you'll never have seen any of them.

My understanding of the story is that Cloudbank is some sort of Rapture type city, filled with the most intelligent, beautiful, creative minds. They all came together to build their great city and keep the rabble (people in The Country) away. That's why the bridge was being petitioned because some people wanted to let the rabble in? I dunno.

As for The Process, I think it's what they used to create most of the city. Or they made it so that they could get rid of all the creative types by locking them in the Transistor and then using that to control The Process so that they can continue to mold the city to their will and control the people. But it all went wrong when The Process gains sentience.

All the story is on the terminals. And it's not a city for only the best and brightest, but they are elevated and celebrated to an even greater degree than they are in our society. The Process is what runs the city, all the terminals, the polls and even the sky are controlled by The Process. If people really need a full explanation of the story I could probably provide such. I personally found it easy to understand. The only bio that is really crucial to the story is Sybil's, as it explains why they went after Red.

@encephalon: @wemibelec90: My problem was that the game didn't win me over completely and as time ticked on I began engaging with it less and less. Schooled by Dark Souls and other lore heavy titles I initially read every last tidbit of information. Unfortunately at the outset of the game without any real context it all comes off as incredibly cryptic and I got little out of it. Halfway through the combat started to seem a bit repetitive and changing up my powers didn't alleviate the tedium. So slowly but surely my leisurely stroll through Transistor turned to trot and soon after a full out sprint to the finish. I still cared about the story though, but I mistakenly thought that you could ignore all the side stuff and by virtue of simply playing through the game expose the mystery which turned out not to be the case - or rather, through the lack of information learnt out of all the side material, the main story was still somewhat unclear.

Having just beaten Transistor, I have to say it really reminds me a TON of the way I felt about BioShock: Infinite's story when I finished that. At the time I was so wrapped up in the story, waiting expectantly for it all to come together, then being so overwhelmed by all the information right at the end that I immediately assumed "Well that's all that sorted out". Yet, same as with Transistor, I slowly realised there were a bunch of aspects to the story that were poorly-handled, didn't properly develop and still didn't make a lot of sense.

Bastion had a story of the setting and a story of the characters; both were compelling and pulled me along to a satisfying end. With Transistor, I feel like the story for the characters ended up being completely buried by the game trying to make me figure out the "mystery" of Cloudbank. the eventual conclusion could've been a tearjerker, but they had so much abandoned that aspect of the story at that point that I just didn't really care.

A fantastic game overall, but definitely not a story handled as well as it could have been.

I kind of ignored most of the Function bios for my first playthrough and I thought the core story came together pretty tightly near the end. I'd probably agree that Sybils function is the only optional one that is really important. Maybe the Camerata terminals as well but they're all directly in your path.

The only thing I came away from the game confused about was The Spine and why exactly it was having the effect it did on the Transistor. Kinda seemed like that went nowhere at all unless I just missed something entirely.

@efesell: Yeah, I feel I've got a pretty good grasp of everything that went on, but The Spine feels like an idea that got cut short due to either budget or time restraints. I mean, yeah, it could have just been a boss (and from the looks of it, a nixed boss fight too), but the effect it had on The Transistor isn't very clear. My only guess is that The Process was trying to process the Transistor itself, but even that's kinda pushing it, maybe.

I'm going through ng+, having unlocked all the text in the functions and the limiters. The only true time i felt rewarded for reading everything, so far, is when i fought Sybil the second time since the dialogue she has during her fight, and in particular when you kill her (execute may be a better word?), made much more sense having learned about her through reading her function, and cast a really tragic light on her character.I must say that i'm pretty confused about the final boss (wtf actually is the Cradle? And why you have to fight Royce? You put the Transistor in the Cradle as he asked...and in that scenario that make no sense to me? Is it the Country? And if so why you find yourself in the Country? And why he babbles about only one transistor of the two being "real"? I really don't understand). And i can't understand too why the Spine affect the Transistor in such a way; going throught the limiter i learned that the Process create and choses new "forms" (the Jerk being old etc), so it's the Spine actually a new form through which the Process try to free himself from the power of the Transistor and if so it's specially designed to interfere with it?

On a side note i really enjoy the art design of Jen Zee as always and i'm really happy that Darren Korb returned with Ashley Barrett (i'm in love with her voice since the first time i heard Build That Wall)

Also a curiosity: i started the game in Italian before switching to english (the subs didn't make much sense with the costant talking of the Transistor in english) and in that version the term Camerata is changed to Orchestrali. I think that is because "camerata" (that exact spelling) in Italy is the word people in the Fascist party in the 20's-30's used to refer to each other, akin to the "comrade/compagno" used in the communist party. Orchestrali i feel like it's a nice choice by the translation team part; since in italian it's the word used for the members of an orchestra (furthering the "music" theme of the game) and the verb "orchestrare" can also be used meaning to try to organize something from the shadows, something like a "puppeteer" in english if i'm not mistaken

I apologize for any mistake (grammar or else) i made writing this

I just beat the game on NG+. Are you prepared for the differences in the story?

Just finished tonight and I have to say I loved every part of the game except the story. The decision to make the story hidden in a codex is not engaging in any way. I think the idea of the story being tied to the upgrades and how you use them is actually awesome, but the payoff needed to be more than just text. The art is so fantastic a small scene for each chunk would have left me feeling much more positive (about the story). Each major story beat just left me confused and I didn't want to take time away from the fun combat system to read reports. It really holds the game back from being memorable.

From the moment you start Transistor onward, a theme intrinsic to its design wraps around you and never lets go. This is not just a game; Transistor is a work of art. Is it the faithful duty of art to handhold you through the meaning between its lines? I don't believe so, but as with anything to do with the understanding of a work, it is all subjective. Supergiant clearly chose to create a game that required not only the act of playing and completion to uncover its secrets, but contemplation as well; which is something I found utterly intriguing.

What they created was a game: with a really poorly told story that makes it hard to really care about it's characters; some interesting combat mechanics that ultimately don't evolve enough; not enough enemy variety and art that while stunning in some places, overall tends to blend together a bit much.

It's a decent game, a good game even, it's far from a work of art. There is something to be said about challenging the player to unravel some mysteries of the narrative, but Transistor handles this very clumsily. It's a fine effort from Supergiant but in my personal opinion they did not step their game up enough from Bastion - I'm glad you enjoyed it though.

I disagree.

This is a character driven story, unlike Bastion which was the story of a world. This is Red's story, from Red's perspective.

Red doesn't care about the Process. She doesn't care about the Camerata. She doesn't care what the Transistor is, or why the Spine makes it go crazy. She doesn't care about any of these questions you the player had. What she cares about is one thing, and that's if it's possible for her to resurrect the love of her life. That's it, that's her driving motivation from the word go.

Literally every bit of worldbuilding is built for this specific purpose. She take's Blue's jacket and wears it to remember him by, she talks to him through terminals, and holds the sword close when he's in trouble. The scene at her apartment and at the bathroom are almost flirty, scenes showing two lovers trying to catch a normal moment in a world gone to hell. Heck, just look at her reaction to what the Spine did to him, pure anger, followed by her telling him she was going to rip out it's heart for hurting him.

The story isn't about the Camerata or the Process. Having Royce stand on a pedestal and give you a monologue about how the Process are the builders of the city, and Blue fucked everything up wouldn't have helped the core narrative of the love story. That core story of love trying to survive in a nihilistic damned world is told very well if you pay attention to the basic stuff going forward. What you are saying is that you didn't like the core love story, and instead found the side stuff so much more interesting you considered that the main story, and are angry those questions are not getting answered.

Which is fine. If you don't like love stories that's fine, the side stuff is intriguing. But the answers to every single question you asked is either told by the main characters you meet, or can be implied from the terminals. It's not tied to the unlocks at all. All the unlocks teach you is that the Camerata are hunting the best and brightest ( plus those that get in their way ), and there are people in the sword. Those things are told by the basic game as well.

Oh yes, I forgot, the Grant/Royce bio's give you the motivation for the Camerata as well, but that's not a question you asked.

Damn, seems the trend of me absolutely loving stories in games other people are really upset about/ dismissive of continues. It's almost a little scary. Either way, Transistor really got to me in a big way. Absolutely could not put it down, craved every new wrinkle, possible interpretation and new angle the game threw at me. My brain was practically on fire in the best possible way by the time the ending hit. And even then there's still a great and simple emotional core to the whole thing even if you discount most of the optional potential for interpretation. I do utterly enjoy the fact that initial interpretations already range from romantic concepts, virtual reality, philosophy, technology to cultural and societal issues though.

Granted, my huge bias here is the simple fact that I greatly enjoyed all of the wonderful gameplay and its very smart intermingling with the harder to find story beats (Not quite done yet myself). That is the biggest step forward as opposed to the (also excellent Bastion). Just breezing through the minimum of content might very well have been less satisfying then in, say Bastion, where I obsessed about every detaill anyway. Not sure. I really hope people might appreciate the story more given a little more time and thinking since I enjoyed it so very much. We'll see. Right now, immediately after my first playthrough, I am very, very impressed with it. What a game!

This would be fine, but Transistor shows little depth to its storytelling. It obscures much and challenges you to unlock more of the story, but rewards you with little in the way of meaning or greater understanding of the world and motivations of the characters.

MINOR SPOILERS

With each ability linked to a person in Cloudbank you can learn the origins and fate of each character, an intriguing idea for sure, but you quickly realize that each person met their fate in the same way and for the same reason. There are no great revelations and the wonderful premise of a woman with her voice taken and only capable of communicating through online message board comments is never followed through on.

MAJOR SPOILERS

And the ending is about as rote and uninteresting as anything. A woman once without power is given total control to rebuild and shape her world, but instead chooses to kill herself in order to be with a man-- a man whose relationship or significance to her is never fully explained to us.

The storytelling left me very cold, but I personally loved the combat and would still rank the game as one of my favorite's of the year so far.

@rockyraccoon37:

And the ending is about as rote and uninteresting as anything. A woman once without power is given total control to rebuild and shape her world, but instead chooses to kill herself in order to be with a man-- a man whose relationship or significance to her is never fully explained to us.

Personally, I found this ending to be strikingly beautiful. A woman given all of the power that she could possibly want, but being only human, chooses love. It has become a trend in modern gaming to have endings that are everything other than "final". Transistor truly ends, and with the ending comes the reveal of its true themes: though we live in world that often takes the control from the people who live in it; though it feels like life itself is a strange uphill pursuit into the unknown; we are still people, who at their core, need other people and love to feel happy.

All subjective of course.

I really did feel differently about how the story was told. Clearly, this is a case of two distinctive views on stories in general, and that is perfectly fine; but, given that you felt it was clumsy, perhaps you can agree that at least Supergiant was uncompromising in their vision of how they wanted to present Transistor. They created a game that, in my view, is distinctly unique in all aspects. To present a narrative like Transistor does in modern gaming, without any reservations, is a tremendous feat all by itself.

I guess I felt that regardless of context given to the relationship between Red and the stranger (of which there is very little and thus lacks impact for me), the ending remains rather trite and problematic in my eyes. That a woman whose voice and power has been systematically taken from her would sacrifice the ability to create and build in order to be with the one she loves is a reinforcement of problematic gender politics.

A woman can not be creative, industrious, or independent and in love, she must choose one or the other. And in culture, far too frequently we see her choose the later rather than the former. I suppose we do get a shot in the end song of her writing, but it's a footnote at best.

What makes the ending all the worse for me is that Red as a character is never developed. Granted she has no voice, but when she can communicate, we're given little to no character-- furthermore the idea of the voiceless being given a platform to speak (online) is an idea that is never touched on. Meanwhile the mystery man in the Transistor speaks constantly and even still is given little to no characterization.

I don't see beauty in the idea that through some vague idea of love that her voice returned. The game clearly speaks of political, systematic oppression and Red's voice being taken is a deliberately political act, but then the game never explores political questions of power and oppression except to say that the people in power kill those who seek change.

Throughout the game, Transistor, who is a male, is clearly the one who has given in more to love. Red, when given the choice near the beginning of the game to escape, chooses to pursue the Comerada and to find out what happened to Cloudbank. I believe that is point enough that the game does not reinforce "problematic gender politics". It is not until the end of the game, once she has completed her goal, that she chooses to join with the one she loves; the one who at times tried to divert her from her task in the name of love. It is not until she has completed her task that Red chooses love instead of essentially becoming a godlike figure; a person with all the power but with no one to share it with. Who would want that?

Red as a character, I believe, is well developed strictly through her actions as the game progresses. I felt her consistency in moving forward toward the task at hand in combination with the OVC terminal text, provided more development in her motives and overall nature than most games accomplish with a fully voiced lead character.

Finally, the game is not bound to its political themes; it also dabbles heavily in the idea of reality itself. Cloudbank likely doesn't exist within reality as we perceive it; it is a metaphor for people who inspire change and how they affect the world. What you see as underdeveloped, I see as subtlety and giving the player the space to fill in all of the gaps with their imagination.

Thanks.

I suppose that it is very subjective, although one could argue there is a definitive right and wrong way to tell a story. Let me clear up that I was more upset with the way the story was presented than the story itself. While being uncompromising in their vision is in fact a bold and to some degree welcome change of pace in gaming these days, it comes at the price of leaving a large part of your audience a bit bewildered and not entirely positive on your product. To me story is the most important thing next to solid gameplay, and depending on the game can even be the most important element. A great story can propel you forward in an otherwise middling game. I very strongly believe that it's important to invest a lot of time in conveying that story to the player, in making them feel like they're part of it. Transistor for me fails in that unless you make the effort and really study it, a large part of the story is simply not there. It's an incredible waste. I can certainly enjoy tying up lose ends, speculating and unraveling the story myself, but I need to get to a point where I'm entrenched far enough in the plot that I will make the effort to find out even more. That didn't happen for me in Transistor because it's very coy about presenting you with even the most basic pieces of information. I hate reading data logs in games and think it's a very sterile way of presenting backstory. If it's important, you should be presenting it front and center with voice over, cutscene or even character dialog. Important pieces of the main plot should in my opinion never be relegated to optional data logs - whatever form they may take.

Be that as it may, I can understand it's a very subjective topic. I felt similarly moved and inspired to play more and dig deeper by Bioshock Infinite, a game that many tend to dismiss these days as a very poorly told story - so go figure.

@hippyjack:

You see the man in the Transistor as embodying what would typically be the female character's position of embracing love and avoiding violence and vengeance (which I admit, I did not consider!), but I still see that as him attempting to dictate her actions and direct her. Also consider the act of sacrifice each character performs-- he sacrifices himself to save her, a chivalrous action, while she sacrifices herself to be with him. These specific modes of sacrifice are codified into cultural representations of normalized gender roles.

Anyway I don't want to take over this thread with our very specific conversation (and I need to head out)--I still personally disagree with your reading but totally see where you're coming from. I would still argue that subtlety can be achieved without sacrificing meaning (which I believe it does ultimately lack, even if I were to agree with your reading), but I really enjoyed the conversation!

Re: specific story beats being locked away behind data logs-- I tend to agree that it isn't the best way to deliver story, but truthfully I don't think the game locks any meaningful information behind those data logs.

I found myself unlocking most of the logs, not because I felt I was missing story beats, but because I wanted to naturally explore the multiple combinations in the combat system. All the logs really give you is information on extraneous characters that don't really play into the story at hand, but give you an idea of what the world was before this process took over.

And all you end up learning is that the powers that be exerted force against any artistic or ambitious individual who sought to bring change or question the state.

@humanity:

Yup 100%. I just beat it over the weekend. Didn't like it at all at first, but then warmed up to the gameplay. Aesthetics/art-direction is likable except I felt like the "camera" was way, WAYY too far away from Red. It was hard to see her while sitting on my couch playing on a 42" TV.

But yes, the intentionally-obtuse story elements were a real drag. I played the game for it's fun gameplay but not because I was motivated for plot reasons. Even Dark Souls, a game I love and I know Greg Kasavin loves, had some very basic exposition at the beginning of the game that explained a few basic things:

• Where you are. --an Undead Asylum awaiting the end of the world.
• What kind of world you live in. --A realm of demigods who fear the curse.
• Who you are. --a cursed undead.
• What the hell you're supposed to do. --escape the asylum, and fulfill Oscar's prophecy.

Transistor basically starts in the middle of Act 2. Taking the Dark Souls analogy further, this would be like starting from when you get the Lord Vessel. Way, WAYYYY too many questions need to be answered and so little time (none) was spent explaining the setting and characters.

@rockyraccoon37: I don't know, I don't consider myself a 'dense' individual. I can deduct and reason - or at least I like to think that I do. Transistor really left me quite baffled for many reasons. I was waiting for a lot of story exposition in the end that simply didn't happen. You hear a lot from the final "boss" but it still felt like I was only hearing half the story. Not to beat a dead horse but I simply found the storytelling lacking because a story wasn't really told - it felt more like there was a story there, and you could have gone ahead and looked into it along the way if you wanted to.

I just beat it and I have a lot of thoughts about the story and the game overall but to keep it short: I think Transistor is absolutely wonderful at using it's audio and visual design to paint broad emotive strokes, there are specific times in the game where I was downright overwhelmed by the way it was all coming together. The thing is, anytime it gets into the nitty gritty, the actual details of it's story, it completely loses me. Not only are a few of the story concepts they're playing with fundamentally uninteresting to me, they're told in such an ambient way for the most part that it lessens their impact even further.

It's a shame cause one half of the game I would have no issue describing as amazing, and the other half (plot and combat) are just a little limp to me. Makes me wanna go back and play Bastion though, I never felt like I gave that game a fair shake.

The ending of Transistor violates one of the fundamental rules of storytelling, that the ending has to finish the narrative arc that has been set up. Red's been building up to a fight with the final boss, Royce. OK, so far so good. Going to see him, running running running, Red finally get to his stage and things get all trippy. The Spine makes a special guest appearance, but then it disappears as quickly as it appeared. But hold on. Suddenly there's a The Cradle, and Red needs to put The Transistor in it. Suddenly Red's transported to a fight with Royce where he has his own The Transistor. He's pretty sure this is going to work. Whatever this is. Now the two of them have to re-enact Highlander in The Country, because it's asserted that there's no other choice. Oh, and for some reason Royce has Red's time-stopping power, too. I guess that's pretty neat, good for him! Afterwards, Red becomes the Goddess of Cloud Bank. Then she kills herself and goes to live with her lover... by implication inside The Transistor.

I've intentionally spoiler tagged only certain parts to drive home a point, as it's already been mentioned this is a spoiler thread. Much of the ending has nothing to do with the narrative arc that's been established, and thus it can't be considered "spoiled". There will be a big reveal-that-isn't, a few lines are uttered, some more steps are taken, and the game lurches to the next revelation-that-isn't. If the final boss fight was interrupted by a farting clown operating a taco truck, it would have fit in about as well as the rest of the narrative elements in the ending. Why must there be a The Cradle? Nothing in the narrative needs this; the ending could have done equally well without it. Why must Royce have his own The Transistor? Again, the ending could have done equally well without it. Why must there be only One? Again, the ending could have done equally well without it. Why must there be a farting clown interlude? Again, the ending could have done equally well without it (and did, it turns out.) Why must Red su root? Again, the ending could have done equally well without it. There is not a single element of the ending that has any bearing on the narrative other than "Hey, go kill that guy."

This is part of the major issue with Transistor, that in order to make the game semi-mystical, they refused to define any of the elements of their world, so in the end it's a sketch of a story instead of an actual story. (This seems to be a common flaw in any piece of media that uses a lot of "The InsertNoun-Clause Here" constructions.) It's not just that they left certain things unanswered. It's that virtually everything has been left unanswered. The only question that might have been answered is "Why are the Camerata being such dicks?", and even then, it's not really clear what their final goals were (When they got control of The Process, what then? Obviously something nefarious, but what? Control Cloudbank? Reprogram the population? Attack Eastasia, as they've always done? They're obviously planning on re-enacting some dystopian fiction, but will it be 1984 or A Brave New World or Revenge of the Sith? Who know?). I don't know what was happening in Transistor, but more importantly, I don't care that I don't know what was happening in Transistor (other than being a little annoyed that I spent 4 hours playing it), because I don't even have the faintest what Transistor was. Other than a really pretty game with what better be Giant Bomb's Best Soundtrack of the Year.

@thenino85: I think you described everything that I found lacking in the story very well.

"This is part of the major issue with Transistor, that in order to make the game semi-mystical, they refused to define any of the elements of their world, so in the end it's a sketch of a story instead of an actual story."

This was my major criticism after finishing the game and it perfectly encapsulates everything that was wrong with it. I enjoy a bit of mysticsm to spice up the story, but in the end I'd like to have some very basic handle on the world I'm playing in.

When everything changes, nothing changes.

Trying to figure out what the heck the Camerata mean by that somewhat trite phrase goes a long way to understanding what happened in this game.

Mechanically, I thought that revealing story / world "colour" via the profiles was an ok idea executed poorly. Personally I thought it felt like an afterthought especially because you only had to use a power once in each slot type to unlock the related text. It's probably an unpopular opinion (I don't really mind the reading) but I think they should have revealed that more gradually or even required certain combinations to unlock special sections. Also, aside from Transistor-guy, they really didn't make much use of the idea that the people you "absorbed" still had some kind of presence (not counting the few Camerata that you get information from on where to go next, since that was purely narration IIRC).

The terminals as a vehicle for building the world and also some characterization of Red (especially the times when she was typing ephemeral messages to Mr. Transistor) were pretty cool. Though again, I would have liked to see more of them or even had more options for what to do at each one (the fact that you couldn't even interact with them more than once was particularly irksome, though somewhat justifiable for story reasons). I think it also would have made more thematic sense for the access points and the terminals to be the same thing -- I couldn't suss out any justification for why "access points" existed at seemingly random places.