Board Thread:General Discussion/@comment-32182236-20190721003717/@comment-32182236-20200110152107

I'll be commenting on Jacky's post. It is a rather good post, but I still think I'm better of commentating on it.

I don't have any good examples on-hand, so I'll make one up.

Good idea. As long as it makes sense, it works.

Let's look at the Multiple Simultaneous Springlock Failures in another way. Suppose that FNAF did NOT establish that normal failures cause cascading failures. What then?

According to my methodology, we'd THEN be better off saying that it really was just multiple failures on a single suit. (That is, if there aren't other problems, but the point of this analogy is that there AREN'T.)

Then, as above, we have two solutions. While the canon helps us eliminate one

In reality, yes. In our analogy, it doesn't, since it is explicitly about an alternate timeline where the cascading failure has NOT been shown to exist. In this timeline, where our analysis takes place in, the canon DOES not help us eliminate one.

, that's not the point- after all, we went dry on Undertale evidence for four years, and Chapter 1 doesn't help much.

Yeah, it really doesn't. But another reason why it's not the point is because if we use that, we're swapping over to the actual timeline, when we're supposed to stick with the hypothetical. We can't use the real timeline to talk about the hypothetical one.

In this hypothetical, which option has more Story Potential, and which one has fewer assumptions.

Oh, I see, what you're doing. It's nice that you're taking my point and formalizing it a bit more.

And I agree with your answer:Option 2 has Story Potential, and Option 1 is more probable.

But Option 1 suggests that such a cascading failure is still possible, while not being guaranteed. With this small assumption, (I lied, more repetition- this being a hypothetical where we don't already know it's guaranteed) Option 1 seems significantly more probable.

Precisely. And since it's NOT guaranteed, there's no problem with the fact that Phone Guy distinguishes a single failure (as the protocol, where if this happens, you go to the Safe Room), with multiple.

(Remember, this is a hypothetical. None of this is true in the real FNAF. It's a different story. Maybe I'll call it Seven Nights at Freddy's? One Week at Freddy's? I'm not sure.)

1. Undertale is a story about a human who falls down a mountain, gaining strange powers over time, and interacts with the monsters underneath, making odd choices that can cause a variety of outcomes and much humor.

As you can see, this is already a story. And it doesn't conflict with anything yet.

Undertale is a story about a human in a post-apocalyptic wasteland who falls down a mountain and interacts with the extremely persuasive cosplayers underneath, making odd choices which are looked upon by a great wizard who sits by judging, and never showing more than the tip of his pinkie in the deeds wrought by his command. His name is W. D. Gaster and he's the last surviving employee of Aperture Science after WWIII between the United States, Western Europe, and Japan against Russia, China, and much of the Middle East (which was conquered by Iran, a puppet state of Russia, early on).

Just think about it, Ferret. That might be what's going on with the Annoying Dog.

Actually, Jacky, do you have one of those conspiracy theories about the Dog? I'd like to turn him from an anomaly that might just make him a simple entity with mysterious powers, into an actual part of the lore.

..Hypothetically speaking, of course.

Now, it's not a particularly good story.

We might be able to turn it into one if we start making up good reasons WHY these people are cosplaying as monsters. Maybe the tale they're telling us is allegorical of something deep. Something big. Why call it a random cosplay when it could be allegorical for the time prior to the war? And their hopes to bring it to an end? And what if, beyond their knowledge, the war is actually still going on?

But the conspiracy I just described above could arguably work, with enough ridiculous assumptions.

Indeed. Let's make them as good-for story as possible, while also making sure that they're very unprobable in canon.

And it does have a story, albeit, again, a bad one. And since we don't know what goes on in Toby Fox's head, maybe he thinks that story would be better.

Who knows, maybe it would actually be a better story. I've already shown bits of Story Potential that actually come out of this. Let's see if we can mine some more from it.

We didn't fill in all the details of the story yet. It's a possibility. Which is where we bring in Occam's Razor. And then we set it aside, unless all seemingly-reasonable interpretations turn out to require yet more ridiculous assumptions.

That is indeed what we do. Does that make sense?