Board Thread:General Discussion/@comment-31536324-20190117214835/@comment-31536324-20190212190655

"'Again, Asriel not commenting on your reset is not a plot hole, because he has literally no reason to do so.''

And I'm again saying that he does, since he always talks so much about us in the other routes, even if nothing particularly interesting has happened."

That literally means nothing. He has no reason to. There's no shock, there's no disbelief, there's nothing that would spur him to do that. He knows you still have the power to RESET, he has no reason to comment on anything you do BECAUSE OF THIS FACT.

"That, plus the fact that this looks like something you weren't meant to do in that fight, considering the narrative of the fight and buildup towards the fight itself."

If we weren't meant to do it, then what would prevent us from doing so in the OF Fight would have been put in place.

"'What fur and sink, and plot holes that supposedly cropped up, are you talking about?''

To my knowledge, the fur stuck in Toriel's sink is still there even after you kill her. That goes to imply she has a physical body. When in reality, monsters are magical creatures as stated or implied in many other parts of the game."

Or it could just be that detatched parts of a monster don't wither to dust.

"'The code itself has no place or effect on the world of Undertale.''

Its functionality will still get replicated precisely if we do this, even if we say for every line "that's how this universe works" instead of "that's how the game works." Literally nothing changes by that."

And what exactly is thus supposed to achieve? The code has no basis in ththe world itself, so unless the game literally mentions and hints and abuses it, then it's to be ignored.

"'so REFUSE would likely be an exclusive ability to Red SOULS''

Just because it's a rarer manifestation of determination? I'd need more evidence than that."

It falls in line with Determination's abilities, and the other kids are irreversibly dead - likely due to the characteristics and limitations of their traits. Even though they have Determination, none of them would have garnered enough, or been determined enough, to gain or use it.

Everyone has all traits, but only one is their physical SOUL Trait. You can have a Bravery SOUL and have kindness (protect and fight for/on the behalf of others) but not have a Kindness SOUL or its abilities.

Each kid was the most determined in their time, so they got SAVE. But only a Determination SOUL can get REFUSE, because their the only ones able to attain and maintain the level of Determination needed to do so. The ability itself does have limits, as shown by the Asriel Fight, so they aren't Mary Sues.

And the other traits don't lend themselves to plausibly being able to allow one to gain REFUSE.

"'It's the power of the SOUL as a whole, that's it.''

I'm not following. Power = DT. Unless I'm wrong, in which case, power = DT + X, and then tell me what X is."

I literally don't get how that can be simplified any more than it already is. SOUL Power is the power of the SOUL as a whole, the entire SOUL, not a part of it, the entire thing!

"'Really? 'Cause all I've seen is of your "simplest rational conclusion" essentially you saying that the world of Undertale is itself a game just because it's a game in real life.''

I've been really saying that?"

Yes.

"Pretty sure I was arguing that all the meta can actually be explained as some "realistic" phenomena that wouldn't go to imply a simulation."

You mean what THA and I have been doing? No, you've done that bery sparringly, almost nonexistently.

"But if we keep the meta, that does imply the simulation scenario."

Or intelligent design. But I don't keep the Meta, so I go wih that explanation.

"Saying that there's computer-like meta, yet that there's no creator of this clearly computer-like meta, is like some aliens visiting our world after we die off saying that computers have evolved naturally on this planet."

Good thing neither THA nor I accept the meta, and I haven't remotely said anything like what these couple sentences imply.

"In other words, either we adhere to real-world logic, or we discard it for the sake of being allowed to say this. But that also means discarding it everywhere else. So forget about logic and rational conclusions about, say, the plaques. Because "the grammar of this universe works differently" - just like "the laws of this universe work differently"."

Except the grammer does work exactly the same as ours, so the plaques are still viable sources of logical conclusions. They're not talking about SOUL Power, or about some nonexistent correlation between it and DT. They're talking soley about DT, and nothing else.

"My point is, using the "it's like this because Toby wanted it to be like that" is not only a baseless argument, it also allows you to argue for anything."

Good thing I don't use Toby as an argument.

"'That literally makes no sense, amd here's what he said: "After I regain control of the timeline...I just want to reset everything."''

This is what he actually said: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B6gS2LPXdIc5NmwzSXVGdzByemc/view

Note: "total control." He already had what Omega Flowey had, due to being as strong as OF, with even more power on top this time around, but he was still missing the reset ability."

Except he had it when he was Omega Flowey, but not when he's Asriel. My point still stands, he still needs to kill you to gain control, you still beat him out. Nothing's changed here.

"That's what he meant by "total control", that after he gains it, he will finally be able to reset again. This also goes to imply a bonus fact, and that is, that OF, due to being weaker also didn't have the reset ability."

Except he did.

"This conclusion implies that us reloading through quitting the game is a plot hole."

We still have it, so really it's not. Again though, I've stopped using this argument, and you've failed to disprove the argument I got through that quote. Again, nothing has changed.

"Of course, you could come up with a different explanation that wouldn't need to assume this plot hole, but, and here's where I get a bit controversial, I think this is what Toby meant here. I don't think Asriel would be so proud of himself in that fight if he wasn't sure that we couldn't just cancel his reset attempt through killing us by simply reloading. It's just not the behavior I'd expect from him, or rather anyone in his position at that point in time. Maybe Mad Dummy, I reckon he'd be mad enough to act like this, to act as if he's the king of the timeline, when in fact, he's not."

Didn't I make it abundantly clear NOT to try and get into Toby's head, or act like you get what he's thinking, when on this thread?

Also, again, I don't use that argument anymore.

"'Frisk and the Player are two separate entities, this is made abundantly clear by the Pacifist Ending.''

It's a head canon that the player has an influence over Frisk."

Oh, so we're calling the game itself a headcanon now?

"But what if the player isn't a canon entity?"

Except it is.

"What if Frisk's actions are not canonically guided by anyone but themselves?"

The keyword here is guided.

"We're not actually really controlling them, we're merely writing their story, giving them their own character by making them act this way and that way. If you play the pacifist route, that's who your Frisk is. If you do the genocide and then leave the game, that's who your Frisk is. If you do everything imaginable, explore and probe every single aspect and part of the game... that's who your Frisk is. Their personality isn't all the routes combined together. It's what you actually MAKE them do in the game that's them. Because those other routes haven't actually happened if you don't do them.

That is my head canon. Yours is what you said."

Except the Player is a canon separate entity from Frisk.

"'This explains nothing, nor makes any sense.''

I've already explained it. When it's a sum of all the traits, a perfect balance, you can think of their personality as being the same distance away from all 6 traits, ergo none being dominant, ergo giving the illusion that there are actually none, because there is no contrast, no dominance. Does it make more sense now?"

Yes, but the only dominant would be what the combination is.

"'Water is made up of 1 Hydrogen and 2 Oxygen atoms. He likely means the same things with the traits.''

So the traits are actually made up of atoms which form molecules?"

It's an analogy. That the traits are themselves made up of subsets that aren't their own trait, but make up the bigger trait set, is what I was saying he meant.