Board Thread:General Discussion/@comment-31536324-20190117214835/@comment-31536324-20190315174913

"Was typing a lengthy response, but lost it. F."

I hate when that happens.

"'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.'

Sounds like an opinion to me. Just curious, what do YOU regard as "simple?"

Best way to describe that is an example.

Say that you live in a large family and two of your siblings are fighting over who bought a dress they both bought first. The family makes this system involving sectors, times, who should go where, and try to make the house Fort Knox as a means to resolve it. But rather than indulge in this stupidity, you find the receipts, find out who bought the dress first and end the conflict that way, quickly and peacefully.

"'Oh, so you just ignore how the game never makes any kind of reference to being a game in-universe''

Except with how the world mechanics look like the mechanics of a game? Yes, it's a universe with different laws. But what is the chance that those laws are gonna look exactly like a computer game?"

Infinite worlds, infinite possibilities, chances are actually fairly high.

"In the text that I've lost, I spent mostly talking and defending my view of this. That I'm not saying that this is how it is, but that this seems the most logical to me personally, and that nothing really confirms whether any of us is right or wrong.

I think the true nature of the UT world is the one which you obtain if you reexplain all the meta as something more native to our own universe, in order to get rid of that persisting idea that this world is simulated, since that breaks the game's charm."

In other words, what THA and I have been doing.

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

It is necessary for what I'm discussing. I'm not even discussing the story anymore, I'm currently talking about the mechanics of the UT world. And Toby must be factored in for that."

What THA said.

"'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.''

It's not impossible, but it's improbable."

Exactly, but not impossible.

"Why shouldn't a game-like universe be a game?"

Why should it be?

"Look at it through the POV of the UT world itself. There's probably some nerds speculating that their world isn't real, just like here. Except there, it makes much more sense, since their laws are actually reminiscent of many HUD-driven games, like Pokemon."

They'd be more likely to speculate that games were made based on this phenomenon that occurs in their world first, THEN speculate things like that.

"'Hell, the whole thing with Deltarune last year outright CONFIRMS THE LATTER.''

Prove that UT's and DR's mechanics are identical first. As far as I can see, there's some major differences between the two. You're basically using an entirely different game as an argument. It's only similar to UT on a surface level, like with the characters for example."

Different universes, same multiverse. Basic stuff is the same, it's just that some things are more prevalent, or present period, there than in Undertale.

"'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.''

But that's good. It means the game hasn't gone fully meta. You know what the next step down is? That there is no inner player. Explaining some of Flowey's dialogues on this level might be a bit difficult and using Chara as a substitution for the player a bit clunky, but it can be done. And the final step is the one which demolishes the evidence of the simulation, the same one that reexplains the HUD mechanics as just something less akin to the Pokemon HUD and more akin to the overworld mechanics."

I go with the Anomaly being the Player substitute.

"'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.''

To be frank, I didn't really understand your original statement here, so I just wrote down a random response. Besides, the point wasn't to give an example of some specific simulation. Rather, to give an example of a world that may seem real at first, but isn't. Hence why I've then mentioned dreams. Or, if you wanna relate that to pop culture too, Inception."

It's the one thing you've used as an example, I was just pointing out how it wasn't much of a good one. Don't really care much for Inception.

"'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.''

Hence why I've chosen to NOT interpret it as a game. Because if I do, if I let the 4th wall become canon, suddenly, all the other walls collapse and the story loses all meaning. It's not the nature of the game, nor my own fault, it's the nature of the 4th wall itself. How are you supposed to care about the game, if it's not even TRYING to pretend that it's real? As if it's telling you that caring about it is straight up pointless."

That's why I don't interpret it as a game either, or buy the simulation hypothesis.

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.

Hold on.

>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.

Which is it then, was the player called out, or were there no 4th wall interactions whatsoever?"

I was referring to the player as the Anomaly, probably should have put that there, and how Genocide is basically just calling out the player.

"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.

A role which connects to something outside of the game itself through the 4th wall. In other words, you haven't accomplished anything. The in-universe label doesn't matter. It doesn't matter if you're some shadowy entity controlling Frisk, or if you are the mysterious anomaly (instead of it being Flowey). Either way, you end up having to assume that the UT world is canonically just a game instead of its own universe, due to this 4th wall being utilized."

Not really. In-universe the Player is the Anomaly, if you just remove all meta from the game, then nothing really changes. Rather than a person playing a game, there's instead an otherworldly force that plays game-like worlds like games through possession of those with Red SOULS. I.e the Anomaly.

'1: How?''

2: Proof?

I mean, isn't it obvious? They can act on their own (and not just in the genocide route), they supposedly say things that we never did (they sometimes ask about more than what we originally did), they display their own emotions and whatnot. Plus, you know, they have their own name...

There is enough proof that we are deciding their path, rather than being them."

I know.

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

there have been no such confirmations from the creators, and the works themselves, that say that they're canonically video games.

Hmm?"

What THA said.

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

Good! Now, onwards to explain everything else in a similar manner, mainly the HUD. Try any explanation that works, except for video game tropes."

Well there IS THA's explanation.

"'Except Rowling knows her characters and has never said that.''

No, she did. She's literally that retarded: https://i.redd.it/jv3a64tahxf21.jpg"

What day was that posted?