Board Thread:General Discussion/@comment-31536324-20190117214835/@comment-31536324-20190312162409

"Use a different term then, because I've given you plenty of examples of actual meta, yet you've constantly chosen to ignore them.

I'm not going to invent new terms when I can just reuse them. The meta comes from the fact that the standard tropes are being regarded as canon. Even though they actually are canon in this case, without necessarily relating back to the real world, unlike in games like Oneshot or DDLC. Still, I'm not gonna invent new terms to describe what a layman might call basically the same thing."

I said USE A DIFFERENT TERM, like mechanics for example, not make a new one.

"Except it never does the latter, everything is played as real, so it all is real.

It doesn't need to explicitly tell us. I gave an example of how the logic of it all is speaking for itself. If it truly does work like a game, without actually being addressed as anything else, then we might as well regard it as canonically being a game or a simulation, because, as I said, Occam's razor."

In other words you just want to be lazy. Occam's Razor is using the SIMPLEST SOLUTION, What you're preaching is anything but simple.

"Furthermore, explanation =/= proof. It's all very nice that you can argument in favor of your thesis, how such world would work, etc, but I must stick to what I know, that it acts like a game, with there being no proof that it's not actually a game on some level of reality (other than ours). If it acts like a game, then the default assumption is, that it IS a game, rather than the opposite."

Oh, so you just ignore how the game never makes any kind of reference to being a game in-universe, in favor of just throwing up your hands and going, "It's a game in real life, so it's a game in-universe."

"I'm starting to think that Toby didn't think this one through. Literally. He didn't worldbuild the game THIS much, so now, we're looking way too deep into it."

No talking like you know Toby, or making assumptions about him.

"No, the simplest explanation is that it's just another possibility in the sea of infinite possibilities.

I'm sorry, but that makes no sense whatsoever."

Simple multiverse theory: our world is but a single possibility in an infinite sea of infinite possibilities. Undertale, in-universe is just another one of those possibilities.

I ignore the meta - the fact that it's a game being played by a real world person - in favor of the in-universe explanation. That it's a world that acts like a game that's being tampered with by an outside force. Hell, the whole thing with Deltarune last year outright CONFIRMS THE LATTER.

"The world is depicted as acting like a video game without making the world a video game.

Where and how is the game making itself NOT look like a game? By making Sans oblivious to this fact? I could list a hundred different explanations for that, from him not being aware yet, to him already nowing but hiding it, plus all the possibilities in between included."

The fact that the fact it's a game in the real world in NEVER brought up, lampshaded, pointed out, played with, or referenced in the game EVEN ONCE. And that any potential reference is given an in-universe explanation (the Annoying Dog is working on a game, but is lazy; Flowey saying everything's a game is him imposing Chara onto Frisk and wanting to "play" with them) without any inkling of the games real world origin.

"Dragon Ball's shenanigans can be explained as it being an Anime, yet the world itself is not an Anime. Scott Pilgrim's world acts like a video game, but isn't even one to begin with.

I don't know either of those things, so I cannot relate. Besides, we all know that unrelated media should not be used to argument for Undertale. Else I might just claim that Frisk is canonically non-binary because Toby used to work with non-binary characters in the past. You can see how broken this logic is."

I swear, do you and MagomaevaAnima just not understand the basic concept of examples?

"These things are natural to these worlds, because that's the logic these worlds operate on.

Of course they are. Why wouldn't they be? The Matrix may also seem natural at first, that is, until you step out of it. Or dreams."

1: The Matrix is a simulation meant to emulate the real world PERFECTLY, and any otherworldly things is a result of people being aware of its true nature. This is a horrible example to use, because everything that's done in Undertale ARE THINGS EVERYONE CAN DO FROM THE GET GO! No, "realizing the truth" required.

2: A better example would be Lyoko from Code Lyoko, a world made up of various sectors filled with monsters, video game mechanics, and superpowers. The main difference between Undertale and Lyoko however is that Lyoko IS a simulation - albeit one that CAN affect the real world - whereas Undertale HAS NO SUCH IMPLICATIONS.

"First off, what meta things did it do that "made it all meaningless"?

If the world is fake, if the main story is the interaction between you and the game, then how are you supposed to take anything else, such as the overall message of the game, seriously? It's fake, ergo it's unimportant."

So this entire argument is because you lack imagination and have the inability to see Undertale as anything other than a video game in the real world? Wow.

Also, I said what meta thing does IT (the game) that makes it meaningless. You just deliberately dodged the question so you can go on a nihilistic spiel. As such, I'm not even going to give most of the rest of this section any attention, because it's just you trying to act like you know Toby and ACTUALLY taking the game too seriously. Ironically the very thing you say we do.

"Like, if it's canonically a game, then you might imagine it as controlling some "inner player" who is actually playing the game."

Except it's not canonically a game, and the real world player IS the one pulling the strings. Now you're just adding layers that overcomplicate things to justify your view. Ironically going AGAINST your beloved Occam's Razor.

"No really, ask yourself, what is the difference between Undertale which is pretending to be real, and Undertale, which is canonically just a game?"

I think you mean, "what's the difference between Undertale the real life game and Undertale the world?"

The answer is that the former is how we interact with the latter.

"The latter doesn't seem as relatable, it has no power to pull you in, if it first and foremost convinces you not to regard it as something "real."

And how does it do that? No, really, explain that. Because almost any answer I see you giving is just more "I THINK I know Toby" nonsense. Whereas the only other answer I can see you giving is basically you highlighting how you can't enjoy any kind of media.

We KNOW Undertale is a game in real life, but what we're all talking about is the WORLD of Undertale. A world that the game SCREAMS at us is a world of its own that Players manipulate and tamper with through PLAYING the game. Not hacking, PLAYING.

"In spite of, you know, the in-universe explanation of us being the in-universe Anomaly that's playing the world like a game because it acts like one.

That was Flowey. At least, what Sans was researching. So, who's to say that the current anomaly, us, isn't canonically just Frisk?"

1: Sans point of view - "Hm, this flower is what's stopping and starting timelines, so he must be the Anomaly. Oh wait, a kid is doing the same thing, and the flower no longer is, so the Anomaly must be some fort of force!" Yes the previous user of SAVE was Flowey, but Sans likely doesn't know much of anything about SAVING, and thinks that it's the work of an otherworldly Anomaly. It pretty much is what's said in Genocide.

2: Because we, Chara, and Frisk are all separate entities.

"How do you know the player has any effect on the world at all? Because we're playing it? Isn't that just building Frisk's story, rather than controlling them like a puppet, like in any other normal video game?"

If the player was never called out then yes, it would be the former, but because they are it isn't. It's the latter.

"Ironically, the simulation hypothesis that you keep preaching

You must have misunderstood. I'm trying to show how ugly it is. What I'm actually preaching, is the "unmeta," to retroactively explain all meta elements as something that would not imply a simulation, for the sake of letting our disbelief stay suspended."

And what exactly is wrong what the explanation I've BEEN giving you? Player = Anomaly, which cuts off all meta ties since it's giving us an in-universe role as an in-universe phenomenon.

"Unmeta 2: Flowey is talking to the Player - who takes the role of the in-universe Anomaly - via adressing Frisk, and thinking that they're Chara.

That is factually wrong though, because Frisk isn't a puppet. Unless you like your anomaly head canon more."

1: How?

2: Proof?

"It's a world that acts like a video game, exactly as I said.

Once again, how do you know? Explain, and then also explain the same for Undertale to me."

1: Because I saw and looked up these pieces of media, and there have been no such confirmations from the creators, and the works themselves, that say that they're canonically video games.

2: Basic multiverse theory: it's a universe with these mechanics as natural laws and rules. Most basic concept in fiction.

''If by that you mean things like hacking and coding, then no, no one does that. The world acts one for one like ours, just with the logic and mechanics of a game added on top of that.''

I'd argue that it does happen in Undertale. We are, after all, modifying our save file constantly, no? Does that not count as accessing it? This is a valid theory by the way, that we, Frisk, are modifying the game directly through our actions. Even more valid than your "it's a gamen't" theory I'd say."

1: Both you and Sans equated SAVE to Time Travel, so that's what it is.

2: Editing lines of code, changing variables, and tampering with the looks, mechanics, and sequences of the game is what I mean by hacking and coding. All things that Frisk NEVER does.

"Oh, so you're suddenly the be all end all judge of whether or not the word of the CREATOR OF A WORK is actually valid or not?

Uh, yes?"

Well then, as a budding content creator myself, I am greatly offended by your pretentiousness.

"What ever happened to bullshit police? Is Hermione black, just because Rowling said so, despite writing that she's white in the books?"

Except Rowling knows her characters and has never said that. If you're going to spout stuff like this, use actual proof. I get what you're saying, but if you want your points to sound valid, have a bit of back up.

I have literally every piece of fictional media backing up my point on a multiverse with infinite worlds and possibilities that have outlandish things as natural laws and happenings without said worlds canonically being their mediums.

I deliberately gave you one earlier because the one you were using was not a good one, as it didn't accurately fit what you're trying to convey.

"And on a related note, are you now saying that we should be paying more attention to Toby's own words, or did I mishear?"

If he says something that doesn't conflict with what's canonically there already, pay attention. If he does, keep it in the back of your head, but mostly ignore it unless it's just a joke or given sense later on.