Board Thread:General Discussion/@comment-27997069-20160317174518/@comment-28064260-20160409064626

GetYourFix wrote: "Metafictional" "Metafictive" Let's entertain your little word game here: give me three popular examples of metafictional characters, another three for metafictive characters, NO OVERLAP.

GetYourFix wrote: You're blatantly ignoring that Chara does not recognize that they are a part of a game or that their reality isn't real. They aren't aware that we're sitting in the real world playing on a computer or that we read their words on the screen. Sure, they say "you". Scary. So does every NPC in the game (while their sprites look at us through flavor text boxes). We don't rove around calling that "meta" because it is understood that this is how overhead RPGs convey dialogue and emotion to us. Actually, you're blatantly ignoring that Chara necessarily recognizes that s/he is part of a game the moment s/he talks to the player. You also willfully ignored important parts of what Chara says at the end of genocide, which makes s/he meta. I also like how you strawman me by implying that I believe Chara is meta ONLY because s/he talks to you, the player. You're wrong about every NPC talking to the player, and it shows how you fail to understand meta, again.

GetYourFix wrote: So long as the NPC doesn't mention the actual parameters of the game or the framework of the game, they aren't being meta. If you actually believe that, then you must also believe play-within-a-play is not necessarily metafictional. Contrary to your assumption, there are non-in-your-face ways to be meta.

GetYourFix wrote: They tell us that our power awakened them from death. This isn't meant to be some big commentary on RPGs or Undertale - it's Chara stating their reality. Most of the genocide ending is Chara defining their reality. Again, strawman.

I'll try to let you understand why Chara is meta, although I'm probably going to fail consider the fact that you don't even understand meta to begin with.

First, the context. Players always name Chara. In the genocide ending, Chara is meant and used to punish the player. You got this? Good. No? Well you just failed literature.

Chara says:

his/her soul and determination were "YOURS"

with your guidance, Chara realized his/her purpose is power

every time a stat increases, that feeling is Chara

let's move on to the next world (and then proceeds to destroy the game world, becomes surprised at you still wanting to play after you reenter the game and wait for that damn 10 min)

when you choose "Do Not", Chara says you were not the one in control

Logically speaking, Chara is either talking to Frisk or the player. But Frisk receives no characterization whatsoever, and there is no evidence to suggest that there is a next world in undertale that doesn't mean timeline. So the answer is obvious, and it matches with the dialogue and writer's intention. As part of punishing the player, Chara is meant and used to reflect the player. By directly interacting with the player in such a vital way to the story, Chara shows self-awareness as a fictional character and reminds us that we're playing a game. In summary, Chara plays a meta role.

Doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure that out.

inb4 more strawman