Board Thread:Wiki Discussion/@comment-25958552-20160731111602/@comment-32182236-20171209130652

"Until the moment when game tries to break the fourth wall or some NPC indirectly mentions about Players. Also people ... constantly accusing Player for doing this or that are still problem. Anyway, I still able to use canon and reality interchangeably."

Simple-Whenever they accuse the "player" for doing it, they're really accusing Frisk. (Or possibly in a single case, Chara) Remember, Frisk can SAVE and LOAD, like a player of a game. Don't non-canonize it or call it a meta-moment, analyze it by how it could work in canon. Remember, SAVEs and LOADs are canon. To say Frisk's motivations might be similar to that of a player wouldn't be that far-fetched of a statement.

"Looks like you are looking at things in different way than I am by ingoring Player's existance and their influence on the game. Interesting way of thinking."

Well, the player doesn't canonically exist, right? If the Player doesn't canonically exist, why should we acknowledge their existence when analyzing canon? Every single time I mention "you" in a theory, I intend it to be replaced with "Frisk" when looking at it canonically. If it looks like something for you, it's for Frisk. Or, in ONE case, Chara. (That one case is Flowey's final speech) Everything WE do in reality, Frisk does canonically. That is why I said the player and Frisk are interchangeable. So when analyzing the game, I stick with the canon, interpreting things in a canon way. If something happens to the player, like being unable to reset in the Omega Flowey battle or after Genocide, it happens to Frisk. Because the player isn't a canon entity. Hopefully now you get it even more.

"I have watched the first, which is very interesting and quite accurate except some minor details. The second is just another exaggerated theory about what if, so I don't care about it too much. However I have noticed that you have interesting way of thinking and drawing conclusions."

Well, what if we took it a step further and called the first CANON? As for the second, it's a logical theory if you start putting the meta with the canon. The similarities between the Surface and Eagleland are there. Then there's the many, MANY similarities between the two games. We both know it's a bad theory with many holes on the canon side, which is why I don't believe it, but it works on a meta-level. If we start looking at the meta instead of canon, THESE are the kinds of theories we'll get.