Board Thread:General Discussion/@comment-31536324-20190117214835/@comment-27136653-20190314184947

Was typing a lengthy response, but lost it. F.

''In other words you just want to be lazy. Occam's Razor is using the SIMPLEST SOLUTION, What you're preaching is anything but simple.''

Sounds like an opinion to me. Just curious, what do YOU regard as "simple?"

Oh, so you just ignore how the game never makes any kind of reference to being a game in-universe

Except with how the world mechanics look like the mechanics of a game? Yes, it's a universe with different laws. But what is the chance that those laws are gonna look exactly like a computer game?

In the text that I've lost, I spent mostly talking and defending my view of this. That I'm not saying that this is how it is, but that this seems the most logical to me personally, and that nothing really confirms whether any of us is right or wrong.

I think the true nature of the UT world is the one which you obtain if you reexplain all the meta as something more native to our own universe, in order to get rid of that persisting idea that this world is simulated, since that breaks the game's charm.

No talking like you know Toby, or making assumptions about him.

It is necessary for what I'm discussing. I'm not even discussing the story anymore, I'm currently talking about the mechanics of the UT world. And Toby must be factored in for that.

''Simple multiverse theory: our world is but a single possibility in an infinite sea of infinite possibilities. Undertale, in-universe is just another one of those possibilities.''

It's not impossible, but it's improbable. Why shouldn't a game-like universe be a game? Look at it through the POV of the UT world itself. There's probably some nerds speculating that their world isn't real, just like here. Except there, it makes much more sense, since their laws are actually reminiscent of many HUD-driven games, like Pokemon.

Hell, the whole thing with Deltarune last year outright CONFIRMS THE LATTER.

Prove that UT's and DR's mechanics are identical first. As far as I can see, there's some major differences between the two. You're basically using an entirely different game as an argument. It's only similar to UT on a surface level, like with the characters for example.

The fact that the fact it's a game in the real world in NEVER brought up, lampshaded, pointed out, played with, or referenced in the game EVEN ONCE.

But that's good. It means the game hasn't gone fully meta. You know what the next step down is? That there is no inner player. Explaining some of Flowey's dialogues on this level might be a bit difficult and using Chara as a substitution for the player a bit clunky, but it can be done. And the final step is the one which demolishes the evidence of the simulation, the same one that reexplains the HUD mechanics as just something less akin to the Pokemon HUD and more akin to the overworld mechanics.

I swear, do you and MagomaevaAnima just not understand the basic concept of examples?

We obviously do, meaning the fault is on your side. Instead of actually trying to think about and understand my point, you suggested that I have missed your point.

''This is a horrible example to use, because everything that's done in Undertale ARE THINGS EVERYONE CAN DO FROM THE GET GO! No, "realizing the truth" required.''

To be frank, I didn't really understand your original statement here, so I just wrote down a random response. Besides, the point wasn't to give an example of some specific simulation. Rather, to give an example of a world that may seem real at first, but isn't. Hence why I've then mentioned dreams. Or, if you wanna relate that to pop culture too, Inception.

''So this entire argument is because you lack imagination and have the inability to see Undertale as anything other than a video game in the real world? Wow.''

Hence why I've chosen to NOT interpret it as a game. Because if I do, if I let the 4th wall become canon, suddenly, all the other walls collapse and the story loses all meaning. It's not the nature of the game, nor my own fault, it's the nature of the 4th wall itself. How are you supposed to care about the game, if it's not even TRYING to pretend that it's real? As if it's telling you that caring about it is straight up pointless.

''because it's just you trying to act like you know Toby and ACTUALLY taking the game too seriously. Ironically the very thing you say we do.''

I have said that in regards to how much you all nitpick the lore, going way deeper than Toby probably ever did. I'm also not pretending that I know Toby. I'm guessing him. As anyone else does. Nothing wrong about that. And it's not like I'm making up some bullshit claims, I am making educated guesses. Most people would for example unanimously agree that Toby prioritized feelings over deep worldbuilding during Asriel's final battle. That's just obvious. So it makes sense why reloading during it does what it does. It's simply a plot hole. Besides, saying there are no plot holes in the story or errors in the code is just idiotic.

Still, there is nothing wrong about what you're doing either, that is, assuming the death of the author. It's a nice, "clean" way of theorizing about the story, and I use it most of the time. It's only when some theory REALLY grinds my gears that I tend use unorthodox arguments. And assuming bs about the story's message is one of those things.

I genuinely think that you're interpreting that part of the game wrong. I'm adamant that this is not how Toby meant it, so your explanation is wrong, even if it assumes the death of the author. Because it fucking sucks compared to the one that assumes that this was just a plot hole, since in that one, Frisk doesn't need to be a mary sue of determination for the story to make sense, since we're dropping out the nonsensical part. And unlike other weird plot occurrences, this one has a solid explanation, that actually explains why it's ok to simply label this as a mere plot hole:

Toby expected us to play through this battle without quitting, since it's literally the climax of the entire game. Ergo, he didn't bother programming for the case that we do quit. Besides, doing the same that he did for OF would just, ugh, ruin the entire fight, due to Flowey questioning about why you did it, etc, even if you've already seen the fight in its pristine, not-yet-ruined form a literal minute ago.

Another way to think about it is that everything has its limits. Technically, you could assume that Flowey eventually repeating after resetting enough times is a plot hole too, or rather just the impossibility of making him say a new thing every single time (and then, in your style, say that he's actually repeating to piss you off... huh, yet another terrible attempt at resolving an obvious plot hole). In other words, those are the limits of this particular type of story telling, and in that battle, Toby had different things to focus on, so he didn't bother programming Flowey's dialogue for these weird shenanigans that you might try to pull off.

If I have to be honest, assuming the death of the author literally everywhere is a bit shortsighted.

''Except it's not canonically a game, and the real world player IS the one pulling the strings. Now you're just adding layers that overcomplicate things to justify your view. Ironically going AGAINST your beloved Occam's Razor.''

Did I say that's what I believe? Pretty sure I was just giving an example of something right there. Because what I believe is something entirely different.

''And how does it do that? No, really, explain that. Because almost any answer I see you giving is just more "I THINK I know Toby" nonsense.''

This has nothing to do with Toby, this is how I personally feel. I only talk about Toby in regards to the plot hole of Asriel's battle.

''A world that the game SCREAMS at us is a world of its own that Players manipulate and tamper with through PLAYING the game. Not hacking, PLAYING.''

A world that works exactly like some computer game...

''Yes the previous user of SAVE was Flowey, but Sans likely doesn't know much of anything about SAVING, and thinks that it's the work of an otherworldly Anomaly. It pretty much is what's said in Genocide.''

Eh, I forgot what the point was here.

If the player was never called out then yes, it would be the former, but because they are it isn't. It's the latter.

Hold on.

>The fact that the fact it's a game in the real world in NEVER brought up, lampshaded, pointed out, played with, or referenced in the game EVEN ONCE.

Which is it then, was the player called out, or were there no 4th wall interactions whatsoever?

And what exactly is wrong what the explanation I've BEEN giving you? Player = Anomaly, which cuts off all meta ties since it's giving us an in-universe role as an in-universe phenomenon.

A role which connects to something outside of the game itself through the 4th wall. In other words, you haven't accomplished anything. The in-universe label doesn't matter. It doesn't matter if you're some shadowy entity controlling Frisk, or if you are the mysterious anomaly (instead of it being Flowey). Either way, you end up having to assume that the UT world is canonically just a game instead of its own universe, due to this 4th wall being utilized.

1: How?

2: Proof?

I mean, isn't it obvious? They can act on their own (and not just in the genocide route), they supposedly say things that we never did (they sometimes ask about more than what we originally did), they display their own emotions and whatnot. Plus, you know, they have their own name...

There is enough proof that we are deciding their path, rather than being them.

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

there have been no such confirmations from the creators, and the works themselves, that say that they're canonically video games.

Hmm?

Both you and Sans equated SAVE to Time Travel, so that's what it is.

Good! Now, onwards to explain everything else in a similar manner, mainly the HUD. Try any explanation that works, except for video game tropes.

Well then, as a budding content creator myself, I am greatly offended by your pretentiousness.

If you have a story that looks and works like a video game and never confirm nor deny whether it actually canonically is a video game, then you're basically asking for the theory that it's canonically a game to arise.

Except Rowling knows her characters and has never said that.

No, she did. She's literally that retarded: https://i.redd.it/jv3a64tahxf21.jpg