Board Thread:General Discussion/@comment-31981697-20170722123329/@comment-27136653-20171030160845

But we're not trying to canonize the trailer.

And yes, the Annoying Dog CAN be just a normal moderately-clever dog in the inside universe, but even then, it's just an unconfirmed theory. Although, I do believe it! What I don't believe though is that the room has no significant meaning.

Sure, the dog can have any context, any meaning, but when in that specific room, it all seems like a direct hint at Toby Fox and his work, so until Toby confirms otherwise for the ingame universe, I'm sticking with this.

This is similar to my argument that while the name of the first fallen human does reference them in most cases, only at the end of the game when Flowey is speaking to us, he's using it to reference us, not that human, meaning, that this specific monologue cannot be canon. And I argue so, because it makes more sense for him to be referencing us, rather than Chara. Similarly to how it makes more sense for the room to be referencing Toby's work, rather than having no meaning at all. Not because it makes more sense from the in-game point of view (it doesn't), but because it makes more sense from the real world perspective. Toby isn't the first person to insert themselves into their own game in the form of some character.

And yes, I am realizing that it might not inherently make "sense", if my claims shatter literally all aspects of logical reasoning (And I don't mean the fact that by claiming the dog cannot be canon, since he represents Toby, I'm breaking logic - No, in this specific case, this could be a legitimate theory. But what I mean is, that it's rather the claim that  in this case, Chara is Chara, and in that case, Chara is us, and similarly, in this case, the dog is no one, and in that case, the dog is Toby - that is the fallacy I am making here. )

Well, if I could apply the Occam's razor here, I would say that in both cases, the dog and Chara reference the same person, never two different ones. But something is just nagging me. The fact that in that specific room, the dog being a reference to Toby makes too much sense (and similarly, that in the other case, Flowey using the player-inputted name to call the player), that is. You may claim that despite the game being so "meta", going as far as making the battle interface canon, none of the characters know about us, nor are speaking to us, but I don't believe that.

I do firmly believe that in some cases, Flowey was speaking directly to us, rendering his monologue not-canon to the ingame universe. Just like I believe that the intro is a prelude to the actual story, not something that Frisk actually sees. So if I can argue with this, then I can argue similarly about the developer room.

And also, the HUD. Maybe it's all canon, maybe only some parts of it are, or maybe it isn't canon at all (and what's "really" happening in the in-game universe is totally different from what we see happening on the screen). But one can't deny that the first option cannot work without the code being canon, rendering the idea of an "in-game" universe pointless.

The reason why I think that if the HUD is all canon, the game must canonically be made out of code, is that for me, it makes more sense than saying that that's just how the special laws of that in-game universe work. The code explanation is simpler, and makes more sense from our point of view, despite completely shattering the idea of an in-game universe (since if the game is canonically made out of code, then nothing is real, logically - so in such case, one can freely claim that Frisk is just the player).

So... eh, that's how we got from the Annoying Dog, across Flowey's speeches, all the way to the general idea of what is and what isn't canon.

If you believe that everything must be canon, even if it means creating wild theories JUST to make it canonically work, then I'm not stopping you. But just remember, you cannot claim this without saying that the game is canonically code. Since you can't explain the HUD without code. You argued with some physical laws, and I am arguing, that yes, physical laws are what is making it all work, but that they are based on code. Since this is a simpler explanation than trying to explain such universe using the laws of physics similar to our own universe (which would be impossible anyways).

You can claim whatever you want about physical laws, but in the end, you cannot escape the code argument. So the simpler default is, that it's all just code, and nothing matters. It's just a dumb game.

But I myself don't believe that. I believe that Toby wasn't aiming for a matrix-styled universe, but for something on a more "real" level. Code is code, it needs a designer. And normal universe and physical laws? Who knows, maybe they don't need a designer. And magic can be the same exact mystery as quantum mechanics, so don't say that this proves the presence of a designer. Only code proves that. And if everything is canon as you were claiming over and over, then that proves the presence of code.

Besides, if the game is canonically made out of code, meaning that nothning matters, then all AUs, works of fiction, and even all fanart! re a nonsense, since saying so implies that only the game itself makes sense and nothing else does. But Toby never spoke against this.





<p style="font-weight:normal;">So... that's that.

<p style="font-weight:normal;">Finally. If you program bits and pieces of Undertale, you can't call it a whole game. But since Undertale IS a whole game, not just bits and pieces, we CAN call it a whole game. The opposite applies when we use the other article though: Toby didn't program THE whole game.

<p style="font-weight:normal;">You're seeing it now? The line isn't lying, since Toby DID program a whole game, even though he didn't do all of the work. For example, if there's some whole game, and I translate a part of it into my language, I didn't translate the entire game, but I DID translate a whole game! (since the premise stated that the game is whole, finished)

<p style="font-weight:normal;">Of course, now it all depends on the meaning of the word "translate". If I do 5% of the translation, I can't be saying that. But if I do 95% of it, then I CAN say that I translated it. Since that's a sufficiently high amount to say that I truly "translated" something. Since saying so actually implies that I did MOST of it. So if I didn't do most of it, then yes, it would be a lie.

<p style="font-weight:normal;">So now we loop back to Toby Fox. He programmed a whole game. Implying, that he did most of the programming, if not all of it. You showed me that he had help with the programming, yes. But that could mean anything, he could have just gotten some hints and tips, maybe no one actually did any of the code for him! But even if yes, I do firmly believe that he STILL did most of it (95% or so), so yes, we can say that he did program a whole game. Since, as I implied with the word "translate", the word "program" refers to a finished, or a nearly-finished programming job, and that's what I believe Toby did.

<p style="font-weight:normal;">If you're suspicious and think that Toby Fox is a liar, that he didn't program any of it (or at least not so much, eg. 5%), then feel free to call him out on that.

<p style="font-weight:normal;">But I do believe that Toby did most of the programming, meaning, that he CAN claim that he did program the game (since if said like this, it is implying that he did most of it, if not all of it), and that whatever he programmed, it was a whole game. Not just bits and pieces of a game.

<p style="font-weight:normal;">Which, of course, isn't the same as saying that he did program THE whole game. Since if we know that he didn't do all of the programming, then that would be a contradiction. But saying that he programmed A whole game, even if he did not do all of the programming himself, is not a contradiction, since the premise isn't that he did it all by himself, but simply that the game is whole, finished, done.

<p style="font-weight:normal;">

<p style="font-weight:normal;">Please, take your time here. I don't want to reexplain things.