Board Thread:General Discussion/@comment-37334388-20190301031034/@comment-24237085-20190804190733

MagomaevaAmina wrote: "It's Toby Fox's Twitter. If it's meant to be joking, it'd be obvious. The reply is obviously joking, whereas the parent is not. Toby Fox tends to joke a lot on his Twitter, but it's always more or less obvious when it is."

The "lol"doesn't prove anything,it could mean literally anything.As i said perhaps he's mocking the player's lack of imagination.But something that's certain is that any name is valid since he said that it's perfectly okay to name them after your cat

"When?"

Well in the tweet about naming them,other than that he refuse to talk about this character at all

"Exactly. But simply misleading the player about which character they control can be done without allowing the fallen child to be named,"

How??In many rpgs you name the character you control,Toby just wanted to subvert the trope and mislead us.

"o it's clearly meant to be because the fallen child's character fully depends on the player and their interpretation because it it's a representation of the player and their interpretation."

Depending on someone # being them.After all,Gaster is completely us to interpretaion to,does that mean he's the player??

And perhaps we should name Chara because Chara took another name when they fell in the underground as it was a new start for them or maybe it's simply to mislead us

'Having your actions directly attributed to your name forces a mental correlation between the two."

"its me [Name](...)It was you who pushed everything to its edge,it was you who led the world to it's destruction"

See?The character you name clearly atrubute all wrongs doings towards a geno player.They distance themselves with the player.

"Why do criminals often wear masks? Why do people act differently on the internet when they're anonymous? Because if their words and actions aren't associated with their own identity, they don't need to worry about their identity being associated with words and actions that society deems immoral, and they can act as they please without guilt."

Again the character you name directly accuse you for doing all bad stuff and causing the world's destruction,so it's irevelant.Plus Frisk is our avatar in the game,the one that lack of personality,race,etc..just to allow projectiom

" Just like Nastablook,Ice wolf,monster kid,Frisk,mad dummy's cousin etc...

(the point of that last bit was just to express annoyance with all the people in this thread referring to them with she/her pronouns)"

That's not my concern since i always use gender neutral pronouns for them By "When?" I mean "When has Toby ever referred officially, deliberately, unmistakably referred to the fallen child as "Chara"?"

It's possible that the fallen child is meant to be named whatever RPG players usually name their characters, whether that's their own name, their cat's name, their OC's name, some expletive, whatever. That's the character that the player plays as in RPGs, which is, of course, detached from the player as a person, because players often act differently in games than they do in real life. So, when this persona of the player talks to the player, they are still correct in that it was the player's choice to mercilessly destroy everything, because, chances are, that's what that persona has done in other games - other worlds - before erasing them and moving on to the next.

The fallen child doesn't directly represent the player. It represents the persona of the player that the NPCs in a game see, which is why this persona's actions tend to seem "evil" or "emotionless".

To quote Zarla-S:

The two questions raised by this hypothetical scenario are this:

a) What would the human child look like from the perspective of the goat family, who can only judge you by the actions you take in the game and have no way of understanding who you are outside of it? What kind of picture would this behavior paint to them?

b) If the game had to recreate a person out of your previous actions, with no access to your motivations for doing them, what kind of person would the game be able to make? What kind of assumptions would the game make about who you are and what you want?

This kind of detached, carelessly cruel, impersonal behavior is unique to games, and you can find examples of it everywhere. Games are, after all, toys, and nothing in them is real. So if you, say, systematically attack and kill every man, woman, and child in a game to make a table of their HP, or hit an NPC repeatedly until they get brain damage and die to get their item drop, what does it matter? Who does it hurt? These questions are pretty much the thesis statement of the game, actually, and the entire murder run is specifically about this kind of behavior. It’s not something you can divorce from the context of playing a video game without losing something vital.

During the murder run, Flowey talks about how he’s been given the power to exist outside of normal consequences, the same kind of power as a human player. He’s kind to the “lesser" beings in the game at first, but he eventually gets bored, and curious, and he begins killing and torturing others in the Underground just to find some new dialogue or information to keep his interest. But when even that is exhausted, Flowey gets tired of playing the game entirely and wants to quit, taking everyone else out with him.

He talks about how, along with his new reality-transcending power, he can no longer feel empathy, sympathy, love, or affection for any of the other characters in the game. Any of the “NPCs”. They aren’t real. Not like he is. Not like you.

And when he tries to think of the one and only other person who might understand how he feels, or rather, how he doesn’t feel… he thinks of you.