Thread:Cheeseskates/@comment-28804220-20161025202319/@comment-5956954-20161026022716

They are skeletons. They are monsters. They are completely separate from human comprehension and understanding. Their biological features and hierarchy are entirely separate in many certain ways. Why does everyone forget that? Why do people make Undertale so overly complicated, making it look better than it actually is, making what I said likely wrong?

The point is that nothing in Undertale is definite anymore, so I don't care anymore. I'll give it a try, though, only to be bashed in some way.

If I were to agree with you, which is technically correct, then everything would be simple. Everything is left indefinite, and debates will not storm the landscapes until the end of time.

If I didn't, I have to come up with only the most articulate reason for it, like I will right now. Say if Toby, the creator of Undertale and all of its characters, said that Papyrus would "definitely" use Aniki, then Papyrus would use Aniki. Afterward,he says "I think" in a separate sentence, creating a sense of doubt, and therefore no definite answer since even Toby is unsure what Papyrus, his creation, would do. Then he asks "what's your take," so he is asking people to interpret it their way to record the statistics in a survey type of discussion on Twitter.

However, ultimately, that is one of the multiple ways to look at the sentence structure. Another way would be Toby telling us that yes, Papyrus would use Aniki. However, he would create a sense of doubt on purpose for other people, keeping the definite answer to himself that yes, Papyrus, his creation, would use Aniki, because as the creator of Papyrus, he knows him from inside out, and any dialogue of him from Toby is therefore considered canonical. He would ask what our take is for the same purpose as the above interpretation of the sentence structure, creating a survey to see either how many people he had fooled or guided properly.

Another stupid way of looking at it is since the game is basically indefinite in everything relating to the psychology and physiology of the characters, Toby would spurt out that Papyrus would use Aniki, but ultimately would be lying to trick people. He would be unsure, however, that what he spurted out might actually be true, but there is also the possibility that yes, Papyrus would not use Aniki. He would ask people what their take is so he can keep an open mind to a possible unknown trait obscure to us for Papyrus.

The simplest meta reason would be that if Toby confirmed something canonical, he would do it with subtlety. Otherwise, he would leave it to interpretation so he is not the one people go to spread hate or love for confirming their "theory" or answering too many questions somehow.

''Why the fuck do people make Undertale so complicated...? This is an essay on the possibility if Papyrus would use goddamn Aniki for Sans.''

In conclusion, yeah. It's left to interpretation in my opinion. Since I am not smart, I suggest making a community vote about it so it can get removed or kept in while educating doubters or supporters.

That is all.