Board Thread:General Discussion/@comment-27907368-20160428221757/@comment-27701762-20160430045027

Alright, so for this post and in future posts in this thread I'm going to try to stick to your terminology on these three entitites, although it will obviously be difficult because I need to approach the whole thing from the starting point that the protagonist and the player are separate entities.

So regarding the first part, about the "determination lies with us" idea, I think it would be useful if we could catalogue all instances where there are references to the player specifically. This process would be useful in helping to figure out what the role of the player is. Allow me, for the time being, to present a competing theory, once again:

The player is really a non-existent entity except at a few very specific points. Insofar as we are controlling the actions of the protagonist, that control is not indicative of some special relationship we have, but a product of the nature of the game itself. In the same way as in any other game our control of a character does not imply a sudden transfer of us into that character. The various choices being made are properly speaking the protagonist's, and any sense of control we offer is due to the mechanics of the game qua video game.

As for the second part, I do agree that Chara's independence is significant.

Is Frisk's? Well I don't see these things you point to as signs of specific independence. Frisk's naming seems like a case of independence, but no one asks them their name before. So we as observer go along with a presumption that the character we play as is the character we name, but the fact that the character corrects that presumption later on does not prove a case of the character wrestling back control from us as player. In order for that to be true, we would need to posit that if the same question were to be posed at the beginning of the game by a character, that the response would be different (I'm imagining something like in standard JRPGs).

Frisk reaching for the SAVE file seems significant as well, except these actions have continually shown up throughout the game already. The protagonist's unstated conversations with other characters, expressions, and even certain actions that are narrated. "You tried to reach your SAVE file" would just be another entry in this category.

And while the Mettaton line is odd, it is also quite ambiguous. Since the narration often refers generally to what the protagonist says, that it just says "A yes or no prompt was not provided" seems odd as a way of saying that Frisk gave their own answer. In fact, a much better way to get across that specific idea would be to narrate Frisk's answer (i.e. "You say that Mettaton's idea is good."). Given that neither path is taken, I am more inclined to read this as Mettaton not really paying attention to what you (would) say, but just assuming you think it's a great idea.

Third section & fourth section combined: I can see how you're reaching that conclusion, but I do not believe this explanation is needed. You point to a need to have a physical form to see, and point to the fact that we don't see Chara after the world is erased. But, the world has been erased: what is there to see in a void? You've assumed that in the void Chara still has a physical form to inhabit, and the fact that we can't see them is because we lack a physical form. But another explanation would be that there is nothing to see in the first place. As a result, the premise that we need a physical body to see goes away. Likewise, the idea that in order for us to see Flowey he must be therefore talking to Chara while in Frisk's body (and thus to Frisk as well) is no longer needed.

I'm also highly skeptical of the mechanic used to explain how this would happen. In no small part because the point of the fusing is that the bodies of the monsters were being fused together, which are themselves composed pretty much entirely of magic. How do you get the fusion of Frisk's physical(?) soul and Chara's "essence," which is really just a spirit, from this same process? While the two can be imagined to be combined, that doesn't get us to the necessary mechanical explanation for how the process works.

Fifth section: you raise these bullet points, but there are problems. Some of the points don't actually get us to the conclusion that Chara has been fused with Asriel or has taken over or whatever you would like to call it (points #1 & #6). Some of the points are begging the question (#4 & #5). I don't quite follow what you're getting at with #2. #3 seems to be the strongest prima facie point, but it actually isn't saying what you think it is.

You bring up the specific fact that it says "their" name instead of "his." Since we know Asriel is a he, and we know his name, you presume that the SAVE action would just say "Asriel," rather than "Someone else." But these initial ambiguities are part of the narrative structure of the ending: it gives to us an unnamed character that can be saved, so that we are led to question who it could be; at this point, once we select to save "someone else," it shows us a cutscene of Asriel coming upon Chara and befriending them, and essentially bringing back to Asriel's mind that he is a good person (monster) who just wants to be friends; at this point we come to the realization that we have the ability to save Asriel from himself by reminding him of who he truly is. The initial ambiguity is a method for increasing the drama of the subsequent actions - it could just lead in with Asriel, but it gains a bit more power by doing this special reveal instead. Further evidence includes Asriel's reaction: he tries to push you away and get rid of you to stop the sudden sensations that are coming on, and talks about how he doesn't need anybody, before then calling out Chara's name several times and explaining that he wants them around (and of course, at this point he is actually speaking to Frisk), and then launching the big laser attack, and then going back to speaking to Chara (Frisk). All of these actions are not only explainable through Asriel as the sole actor the whole time, but introducing the concept that Chara has taken over Asriel's form raises questions about how these reactions mesh with the theory you are trying to produce.

Also, by your own statement the "someone else" would have to be Asriel, since you deny that Chara is a person, and the quote says "It seems that there's still one last person that needs to be saved." But this could also simply be a slight misstatement on your part.

If you don't mind, I'm going to skip the last section. I think there's more than enough to go over right now, and the section is something that can be answered through the discussion of these preceding points. If we have to revisit it later, then we can do so when the time comes.