Board Thread:General Discussion/@comment-31371445-20170222233857/@comment-27136653-20181115151444

MysteriousMalice wrote: What was said in the story directly hints on the idea of a simulation, thus contradicting the message of the game."

No, it does not. The game has never once hinted at the world being a simulation, ever.

"That is my conclusion."

Which both we, and you now, have proven false. THA explains why.

"We must therfore necessarily warp the things said into something equivalent, yet less meta."

Yes, what THA and I have been saying: that the world of Undertale as we see it (with explicit contradictions of certain visuals made by the game taken into account) is how it naturally works and operates. I don't get why this is so hard for you to understand. You know very well that I have ignored your proofs and debunks because they totally missed the point. You argued just to avoid the heart of the problem. The point is, if everything tends towards an unpleasant explanation, maybe there's something up with it and we shouldn't necessarily be looking for softer alternatives.

For example, I know the world of Undertale has never hinted at the simulation idea directly. But indirectly? You've got computer game mechanics directly and without any changes (as in, exactly the way we see them on screen) integrated into the mechanics of the world, and yet, you chose to avoid the simulation hypothesis, simply because you don't like it, despite the fact that it's far simpler and sensible. Simulation is on par with the rules of our reality. Magic isn't. If you wanna preserve logic, reason, and everything concerning the rules of OUR universe, you MUST prioritize explanations which lean towards the architecture of OUR universe. Instead of, I dunno, conspirating about the existence of some metaphysical HUD, which really isn't an actual HUD, but then again, it acts exactly like your typical HUD, so it is an HUD, but then again, it isn't...

Now, I totally get where you're coming from. You see different laws, you think, "different universe". I think so too when I watch Marvel movies. But here, all I see is something VERY akin to a computer game. Ergo, for me, the simpler explanation is a code-based universe, and therefore, the possibility of the laws of our own universe being behind it all. You get me now?

Side note, I dislike this theory too, but if I had to concede that the said mechanics are indeed canon and exist exactly the way we see them on screen, THIS would be my new head canon. It's definitely better than your proposal, which is far more complicated in its core.

As for what is difficult for me to understand, it is how you incline towards the meta being canon exactly the way we see it, yet when it comes to all the utmost annoying specifics, you argue that "if it's not addressed, it's not canon", and "if there is a contradiction, it must be avoided".

Did I mention I hate nitpicking? All three of us understand what Toby said. That everything we see on screen is canon. So, it is. But now, how do we ACTUALLY integrate this 'everything' into the world? Do we choose to go for an in-universe explanation, or straight up introduce a new law each time? Is it impossible to kill Gerson, because the crystals of his cave are casting an invisible forcefield, preventing you from striking him, or is it because you literally cannot, due to some obscure exclusive mechanic?

(Answer that, it wasn't just a rhetorical question, I'm actually interested in your opinion.)

I could keep on going here, but I think this is sufficient.

In summary, when it comes to obscure mechanics in UT, do you:

A) ignore them,

B) integrate them inclusively (i.e. no new rules introduced),

C) integrate them exclusively (i.e. new rules ahoy).

What exactly makes you think option C is always necessary? From what I can tell, you favor it quite a lot.

As for me, I'm all-B, except for when something is obviously just a joke. I always omit as little as possible. But when something is simply BETTER explained as a joke, rather than it being actually real, I resort to A. Because I always go for the simplest explanation... at least when I have nothing else that could give me a more concrete hint as for where the truth lies.