Board Thread:General Discussion/@comment-31981697-20170722123329/@comment-27136653-20171031135730

I was not using the intro as a source. There was nothing useful in it anyways.

"It MUST make more sense from the in-game point of view, EVERY time."

Only if we're assuming that everything is canon.

"by claiming that Chara is the player in one case, and just Chara in another"

I did not claim that Chara is the player. I said that Flowey used their name as our name. This argument is supported by the fact that people often name the protagonist after themselves. And besides, we know very little about Chara, we didn't know that they could do the True Reset up until that point. And yet, it was US who were behind everything all this time; WE were the ones in control of everyone's fate. And it is us again who actually HAVE the option to press the True Reset button in the menu. So, assuming that certain moments truly are this level of meta, it means that Flowey was speaking to us, meaning, this conversation wasn't canon, because logically, he couldn't have known about us.

Or yes, you can say that he was speaking to Chara, not us, in order to avoid this whole charade, heh.

But still, first prove that everything truly IS canon (to be more exact, prove that Toby truly meant everything to be canon, that nothing was meant solely for the player), before you start killing off all the "this character is talking to the player" theories.

And so, if we assume that certain moments exist just for the player's sake, then yes, it does make sense to say that this room was a reference to Toby, and that this character over here talked to the player. It only doesn't make sense if you insist that everything must be canon, and that nothing must break the 4th wall (despite this being one of the most memorable qualities of this game).

By this point I'm not even trying to convince you. Your theory is fine as it is, I'm just trying to make you understand mine.

Also, I guess you would admit that the Annoying Dog IS a reference to Toby, but that the dog in the game is not Toby. Since that's obvious even to me. However, now that you hinted at it, I want you to show me PROOF that the developer room (not the dog, the room) is NOT a reference to Toby's work.

And I get it. Flowey mentioned Chara's name, so you're now convinced that he was talking about Chara. The reason why I don't fully believe this, is because, well, I did say it already. There's no actual proof that Chara can reset, and heck, we don't even know how Flowey obtained this knowledge! All of this seems really sketchy to me.

So yeah, stop talking about the scientific method, when the possibility that certain things are simply not canon can very well be the truth here. What do you know, perhaps this is how Toby wanted it? Where did he ever say that EVERYTHING in the game is a part of a single consistent universe? Including all the obvious 4th-wall-breaking jokes, and the stuff like the intro, the menu, the credits, etc. To me, it seems like a plenty of these things were simply never meant to be a part of such universe. Yes, things like the HUD may as well be canon, because there's proof, but heck, what proof is there that for example the intro happened the way you're saying it happened (that it was Frisk's vision). Why can't it be just a prelude to the actual story? Why must it BE a part of that story? Of course, I'm not saying it's not canon. Of course it is. The discussion here is about what is and what isn't a part of the single consistent in-game universe. So, is the intro just canon lore, or was it Frisk's actual vision as you're claiming? Because I think claiming so is unnecessary.

"Welp, I bet you'd argue this world is a bunch of code too because it has special laws like quantum mechanics."

We don't have proof for that. But we can see that the mechanics of Undertale's universe are very similar to most other games (eg. buttons, turn-based fights, etc). So who's to say it's not made out of code? It's still a simpler explanatinon than a one that would need dozens of wild mathematical equations to explain it. And before you say it again, no, we cannot say the same about our own universe. I only offered this explanation because of the fact that... "the mechanics of Undertale's universe are very similar to most other games" - quoting myself here. So then, what's your counterargument? Why do you think the good ol' Occam's razor isn't working in this case?

And, as I said already, the HUD being canon does make sense, but you still have to convince me on the "it's not code" argument. None of the characters seem to know that it's made out of code, so I'd say they simply don't know yet. However, the amount of obvious proof that their universe behaves exactly like videogames is overwhelming. So how can they NOT know? It would be too easy to say that the universe simply keeps such thoughts out of their heads or something, since we could just use this theory for our own universe to argue that aliens are currently standing in our rooms, but they keep erasing our memories, meaning we don't remember - it's a pointless theory. So then, the only other two explanations are, that they're either stupid, or there's something wrong with our original assumption. Sans isn't stupid, but he's still not realizing this. His nihilism comes from the fact that resets are a thing, not that he's living in a simulated reality, that's pretty much confirmed. So even Sans doesn't know. That must mean that universe is not made out of code, just like you said. However, this confirms that the HUD cannot be canon...

Just think about it. Certain characters talking about the game's mechanics, while not realizing they're in a game? They're certainly not stupid. The only other explanation, which I've offered a LONG time ago is that they're simply seeing different things, talk about different things, but we, the players, see everything through the HUD, for convenience. So in short, I am saying that the HUD exists only for us.

"If there is no in-game universe, we have nothing to theorize about, and have no reason to even be having this discussion."

And that was the first option. That the characters aren't realizing anything, since they're a part of the "system". Yes, in such case, there's no point in having this discussion. So if you dislike this theory, then please, choose the other one, that the HUD cannot be canon, since if the characters aren't a part of the system, but aren't stupid either, then their obliviousness proves its non-existence.

" I made a similar yet different claim about said player, not that Frisk was just the player, but that the player was just Frisk."

I assume you don't mean us. Very well, all the 4th-wall interactions were then the characters talking to a version of Frisk that was playing the game, is that what you wanted to say? Because for example Sans stares directly at the screen many times, or even turns towards it when making a joke. Or did you mean that all the moments where the characters SEEM to be talking to the player, they're actually just talking to Frisk? I've already said that this cannot work. Flowey talking about someone who's watching - this someone could be the narrator (you already rejected the possibility that he knew about Chara directly), but we have no proof that Flowey knows about the narrator. Unless... everyone has their own narrator. But then again, prove that. And Flowey talking to Chara. That happened in the pacifist route, where Asriel understood that Frisk wasn't Chara. So he wouldn't be calling them Chara. And since I don't see any proof that he suddenly understood that not only there was someone with Frisk, but that this someone was also Chara, I do not think he said their name because of this reason either.

" If you make a big hack, to be patched to Earthbound, you can't call it a full game. But since the end result of patching it to Earthbound IS a whole game, not just bits and pieces, we CAN call it a whole game."

Yes. But then it's no longer just the hack, is it? We're no longer talking about the same thing. Don't mix apples with oranges.

"But you can't "truly" translate it without translating 100% of it."

Also true. But I didn't say that I "truly" translated it. What I said had the implication that I did most of it at the very least. Besides, if I was the only translator, then that also counts towards my credit. As I said, if Toby is the only programmer, then he can say so. Unless you have proof that someone actually did parts of the code for him, and didn't just give him "hints" and whatnot. Because that's what I'm getting from all of this. That the person who helped Toby with the programming didn't just program x lines and then sent them to Toby. No, I believe he explained everything to him, gave him examples, and then Toby did it himself.

" I believe the statement is referring to a clever dog making 100% of a full game that isn't Undertale."

That's an in-game explanation. What about a real-world one, in which the room refers to Toby's work? Or can you finally explain how does it NOT refer to him in any way at all? And if you can't, does it mean that the same also applies for the in-game view, since otherwise, we would be changing evidence?

And your theory that the dog programmed the halloween hack is cute, but it sort of implies that he had some affiliation with Toby Fox? Why can't it be just straight up Undertale then? Because a paradox would occur? We can always exclude the room from the in-game storyline to make that paradox vanish!