Board Thread:General Discussion/@comment-31981697-20170722123329/@comment-32182236-20171030195036

We HAVE to canonize the trailer in order to use it as evidence. If the trailer isn't canon, it can't be used as evidence. Stop using non-canon sources as empirical evidence.

"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."

You're right about the two arguments being similar, I argue that the Chara/Player argument you make is ALSO bogus, and that Flowey's speaking to Chara in EVERY case they use Chara's name, including the end scene. It MUST make more sense from the in-game point of view, EVERY time. That's how we analyze the game-If we try this "real world" point of view, then LV is a good thing, because it increases your stats and level's a great thing in RPG's. So go murder innocent monsters because that's what you're supposed to do in an RPG. They're just code anyway.

"And yes, I am realizing that it might not inherently make "sense", if my claims shatter literally all aspects of logical reasoning."

You're right about them shattering logical reasoning, by claiming that Chara is the player in one case, and just Chara in another-And if it shatters all logic like that, it must be wrong. Therefore, you must discard the theory.

"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."

And that's exactly what I'm saying.

"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."

The Earth being flat makes sense too-It looks flat, all the way to the horizon, and you walk on flat roads. But, if we apply logical reasoning and experiments by looking at more cases, we find that the Earth cannot be flat. By doing this, you're making the same mistake that those who said the Earth was flat did-Just assuming something is true because it seems to make the most sense in a specific circumstance-Actually, they were actually slightly more logical, because there was no evidence the Earth was round that they had. In this case, there's plenty of evidence the dog isn't Toby-And just like the Earth being round (but not perfectly round), the alternative doesn't c0ntradict anything, and is still plausible-Flowey very well could be speaking to Chara here, and I believe he is.

"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."

The last sentence is valid logic-I however, argue that the premise is false-You can't argue with this, just like you can't about the developer room, because in both cases, you're basically cherry-picking to support a biased conclusion. The evidence must make sense together-We're supposed to be logical and scientific, not pseudo-scientific that disregards in-game evidence just to support our theory.

"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)."

Welp, I bet you'd argue this world is a bunch of code too because it has special laws like quantum mechanics. Once again, we have to use the GAME'S point of view when making analyses of Undertale's world. The HUD being canon and the world not being code makes more sense than it not being canon, as the former actually keeps a consistent, in-game universe. If there is no in-game universe, we have nothing to theorize about, and have no reason to even be having this discussion. From our perspective, Undertale is just a game of code with monsters, with nothing really going on, and the game ends after TP or Genocide-Flowey was never Asriel until the end of TP, we just get a backstory, and Asgore tries to kill us not because we're the seventh (eighth?) human, but because that's what his code tells him to do. Of course, that's not what we're here to talk about. We're looking at the game's canon, and that's what we should be using as our frame of reference. As for the player and Frisk, I made a similar yet different claim about said player, not that Frisk was just the player, but that the player was just Frisk.

"since saying so implies that only the game itself makes sense and nothing else does."

It is nonsense to use anything other than the game itself as canon evidence-That includes fiction, fanart, and AUs. ALL of them. They make good stories, but they're not canon.

"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."

If you make a big hack, to be patched to Earthbound, you can't call it a full game. But since the end result of patching it to Earthbound IS a whole game, not just bits and pieces, we CAN call it a whole game.

"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."

In both cases, you can't. You can only say you translated a part of it. Is the part much bigger in the second case? Yes. But you can't "truly" translate it without translating 100% of it.

"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."

I don't think Toby is a liar. As I stated before, I believe the statement is referring to a clever dog making 100% of a full game that isn't Undertale. Since it's not referring to Undertale, the statement is not a lie-In fact, the fact that the statement WOULD be a lie if it were talking about Undertale I'm using as evidence it probably isn't-I'm technically only arguing that either Toby's lying or the game isn't Undertale, and I believe the latter is true.

"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."

Once again, let's go back to Earthbound. Toby made all the maps, music, and story, and programmed it all into the hack. Now, he only made part of a game, but when you combine it with Earthbound, you get a full game. It is THIS full game that I'm saying Toby made by it being a full game-And since it predates Undertale, the line is talking about THAT full game-The end result of applying the Halloween Patch to Earthbound. Now do you understand? (It'd be easier for me to explain if you could come up with a name to call this finished product.)