Board Thread:General Discussion/@comment-31536324-20190117214835/@comment-27136653-20190317031759

But why change it though?

Because it's still reminiscent of games like Pokemon.

Still, physics simulators are reminiscent of the real world, so, not an argument. But I think there's a difference between making something identical to the original, and merely doing something for convenience and accidentally ending up copying something else in the process. If Pokemon exists in Undertale (or something similar, with similar mechanics), there's no reason to assume that people would prioritize realism over convenience, so already at THAT moment, they should realize that their game looks awfully similar to how their universe works.

And that's just one example in a sea of possible scenarios of how the humans could have discovered that their universe behaves weirdly, unnaturally.

Still, I getcha. You could decide to remove certain elements of the HUD that might cause conflicts (such as text, boxes, etc) and only keep the sole, naked mechanics. That way, the dumb stuff is gone, but you haven't changed anything. But technically speaking, you did change something, so I might as well break the establishment that the HUD is rigid and instead reexplain it as something fluid that merely looks rigid to us. It's essentially a conspiracy, that thing X is actually a thing Y with an algorithm Z translating it into thing X, and is ergo unprovable, but in my defense, if it's stupid but it works, it ain't stupid.

Besides, the HUD clashes massively with the overworld mechanics. Such discrete mechanics can only be explained through algorithms, and there you're already approaching the turing machine concept.

''And how is it simpler? It sounds more like laziness.''

Depends on how you look at it. Consistency across all universes, or consistency in the origin of design? I agrue for the latter, since as you've implied, consistency across all universes doesn't exist, since anything is possible. And so, since anything is possible, each new universe could look like the roll of a die. Unpredictable in its composition, when compared to the previous ones. And you hardly ever find patterns in white noise.

Of course, I'm not saying you're not wrong. I'm just saying it's improbable. We have used parsimony many times before in the past on these forums to close off discussions. Why not use it again? Do we have any actual proof that this might NOT be a game?