Clair Obscur: Expedition 33 lead writer Jennifer Svedberg-Yen has confirmed that the game’s conclusion has no single correct or canonical ending. In a recent interview, Svedberg-Yen shared detailed insights into the creative philosophy behind the game’s dual endings, describing how both were deliberately written to evoke mixed emotions and moral reflection rather than closure.
Svedberg-Yen explained that the narrative was designed to mirror the complexity of real-world choices. “A lot of people ask me that—Which one’s the right ending? What’s your favorite ending? What’s the correct ending?” she said. “And I tell everybody there is no correct ending. There is no canon ending. There’s no official Sandfall ending.” She elaborated that both endings were constructed to carry emotional weight and consequence: “Neither is perfect. Both of them are heartbreaking in their own ways. Both of them have parts that make you glad, parts that you feel like, okay, I want a happy ending for these characters. But they both also have their own cost.”
Expanding on the game’s moral design, Svedberg-Yen emphasized that Clair Obscur: Expedition 33 was not meant to present a traditional good-versus-evil narrative. “We didn’t want to tell a story that was just good versus evil,” she explained. “The antagonist and the protagonist—they’re all actually good people and they actually really deeply care about each other. And at the heart of it, it’s the fact that because they care, there’s conflict.” She noted that this emotional complexity was central to the game’s storytelling, contrasting it with stories where conflict arises from simple misunderstandings or purely malicious villains.
The writer also discussed the thematic foundation of conflicting perspectives, describing how both sides of the story were given equal validity. “Part of what we wanted to do in the story is really be able to show both perspectives so that at the end you’re not sure who’s right,” she said. “They both have a point and that’s the problem—they both have a point.” Some players, she added, felt strongly about one outcome or the other, which she considered a testament to the story’s emotional depth: “For some people it was very clear. They told me the ending was very clear for them—‘Obviously their ending. Obviously Melle’s ending. How is there even a question?’ Which is also a valid reaction.”
According to Svedberg-Yen, the purpose of allowing multiple interpretations ties directly into the interactive nature of video games. “For the players, they go into this and through their own life experiences and perspectives, they engage with the story and interpret the facts as they are given,” she explained. “Then the player can decide for themselves what is the right ending based upon their own perspective.” Some fans, she revealed, even told her they “agonized for hours” before deciding which path to take.
During the discussion, the interviewer reflected on how the decision in Clair Obscur: Expedition 33 feels more organic than typical branching choices in games. Instead of a protagonist simply making a moral decision, the game’s climax revolves around choosing which character’s beliefs the player identifies with—Verso or Maelle—both of whom have already made up their minds. Svedberg-Yen praised this structure, calling it a natural way to align gameplay with character conviction.
While both endings have been described by players as emotionally devastating, Svedberg-Yen believes that this bittersweet duality captures the essence of the story. “It’s bittersweet because it’s like you want it, but then you also regret wanting it,” she reflected, reinforcing that the game’s power lies in its ability to make players question their choices long after the credits roll.
Through her remarks, Svedberg-Yen reaffirmed that Clair Obscur: Expedition 33 was crafted as a reflection of human complexity—where love, care, and conviction can coexist with tragedy, and where every decision, no matter how well-intentioned, carries its own price.
