Board Thread:General Discussion/@comment-31536324-20190117214835/@comment-31536324-20190310164053

"Again, the mechanics and their roles in the world are not meta

That's how I'm calling them. They're canon, but they relate to the game itself."

Use a different term then, because I've given you plenty of examples of actual meta, yet you've constantly chosen to ignore them.

Meta: Nostalgia Critic wearing a wedding ring when he's not married, yet his actor, Doug Walker, is.

Not Meta: Someone explaining how a phenomenon of their world works, and not once referencing the real life medium as anything but a comparison.

Toriel, nor anyone, makes reference to Undertale being an RPG - if they did then that would be confirming that the world is just a video game. You COULD say that Flowey does do that, but everything after that skews that toward him seeing Frisk as Chara and "playing a game" with them.

Even Mettaton referencing the keyboard can be read as him referencing the Battle System/HUD.

Again, removing the double meta meaning removes nothing but that: remove the double meaning.

"The game relates to itself, that's the definition of the word "meta." Example: meta threads on Reddit, which discuss Reddit itself."

Deadpool is a better example then Undertale, because it does exactly what the word is defined as.

"And now, here's the dilemma. These meta concepts are integrated. That's why we're discussing them, because if they weren't, they wouldn't be any different from other games, where these things are the norm, but aren't addressed. And now, it depends. Are they intergated in the exact way we see them, does the Undertale universe truly function like a game?"

I say that it does.

"If yes, then I'm interested in how it began, in what lies beyond its boundaries. Because computers have a creator. Who knows if our universe has a creator, but we know that computers do, while there being no proof of computers that began on their own out of nowhere. If these questions are not meant to be answered, then I can hardly take the game seriously, for not even wanting to PRETEND that it's "real" and instead telling us, "yep, I'm literally just a game, don't get too attached."

Except it never does the latter, everything is played as real, so it all is real. THA has been giving explanations for how they work and exist, exactly what you're keep clamoring for.

"On the other hand, there's also the possibility that these things aren't actually computer processes at all. But then, the burden is onto us to show how exactly are they NOT precisely that. Like, for example, the save file mumbo jumbo. That's just time travel. Saying that, that's one computer shenanigan removed. Now, remove all the others too and you're golden."

Except that's how they're referred to. It's like Psychokinesis and the Shining, two different names for the same ability.

"So in other words, I'm not denying that these thigns aren't actually happening. I'm just asking, are they true, or are they just mirages of something else? If they're true, then the simplest explanation is the computer hypothesis."

No, the simplest explanation is that it's just another possibility in the sea of infinite possibilities.

"And if this hypothesis is wrong, then we're going against Occam's razor without any evidence."

The world is depicted as acting like a video game without making the world a video game. That's the evidence. Not everything is about Occam's Razor.

"In that case, at least say that they are mirages, so that you can legitimately take down the computer hypothesis. But you will also have to explain how exactly do the mirages work. Like when I reexplained reloading as time travel."

Again, I refer you to my point above about Psychokinesis and the Shining.

Monster attacks are tangible (as shown by Papyrus and Undyne), the SOUL is brought out of the human body and able to be both contained and put in a machine meant to extract something from them, making them - and by extension, the Battle Syestem - tangible as well. I get what you're saying, but still, calling them mirages would still be inaccurate- since accuracy is what you're aiming for here.

"I don't like when you say the world works like a computer game, while not actually being one. If the meta isn't a mirage, then explain how it's NOT just a meaningless computer game?"

Dragon Ball's shenanigans can be explained as it being an Anime, yet the world itself is not an Anime. Scott Pilgrim's world acts like a video game, but isn't even one to begin with.

These things are natural to these worlds, because that's the logic these worlds operate on. That's it. Undertale is just another statistic in the sea of infinite possibilities. It's like howe there are worlds with magic, and worlds without; worlds that have superheroes, and worlds that don't; worlds that have aliens, and worlds that don't.

Heck, Pokemon Origins even used some of the games mechanics as part of the world.

Undertale is a world where these things are natural phenomena, and what you've been complaining about is EXACTLY WHAT THA HAS BEEN EXPLAINING IN THE PREVIOUS THREAD.

"I was familiar this dilemma from the very beginning. From the very beginning, I was aware of the effect the game was having on me. It was self aware. But then the story pulled me in. I've left the meta plane, and began discovering the story instead. I just felt that the two aren't compatible. Like, how AM I supposed to focus on the story, if the game is constantly making it meaningless by doing all this meta stuff? Did Toby not realize this, that some people might not like the game if it sends such mixed signals?"

First off, what meta things did it do that "made it all meaningless"?

"Truly, the more I think about it, the less possible it seems to me to merge the two, the full meta with the story. So instead of using the full meta, we use the explanation, that this is all just canonically a computer game, and the player is some mysterious person sitting behind the screen, but not behind our screen. We are controlling this mysterious "inner player", who is actually playing the game. Going futher in, there's the no-meta possibility, that this computer game is just how the UT world works. But that implies a simulation. So, the final step, the "unmeta" - to retroactively explain the meta as real-world concepts."

In spite of, you know, the in-universe explanation of us being the in-universe Anomaly that's playing the world like a game because it acts like one.

Ironically, the simulation hypothesis that you keep preaching does the exact same thing that you feel the meta does: make everything meaningless.

"So, in a quick summary, here are the four levels of meta I've come up with today:

Full meta: Flowey is talking to the player, while addressing the YouTube viewers (Jacksepticeye assumed this).

Sub-meta: Flowey is talking to the inner player / Frisk (who he thinks is actually Chara, obviously), while addressing the actual player (the Glitchtale canon).

No-meta: Flowey is talking to Frisk, while addressing someone outside of the simulation, but still situated within his own reality (if you don't wanna disregard his words just because they're breaking the 4th wall).

Unmeta: Flowey is talking to Chara, while addressing Frisk, who he thinks is watching this, after observing their occasional automatic moves (be a fan of this one if you don't find the simulation hypothesis plausible)."

Or:

Unmeta 2: Flowey is talking to the Player - who takes the role of the in-universe Anomaly - via adressing Frisk, and thinking that they're Chara.

"And about Scott Pilgrim, does it merely look like a game, or does it actually tamper with itself?"

1st: What do you specifically mean by "tamper with itself"?

2nd: It's a world that acts like a video game, exactly as I said.

"To be able to modify the properties of a game is strongly, if not purely logically implying that it's a game."

If by that you mean things like hacking and coding, then no, no one does that. The world acts one for one like ours, just with the logic and mechanics of a game added on top of that.

"Like, what does actually PROVE that it's not a game? The author's word? Well, how about an explanation, instead of just a single word?"

Oh, so you're suddenly the be all end all judge of whether or not the word of the CREATOR OF A WORK is actually valid or not?