Board Thread:General Discussion/@comment-31536324-20190117214835/@comment-31536324-20190213044546

"'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.''

Just like any other time he comments on absolutely pointless stuff? Like, repeatedly doing the same dumb thing he didn't want us to do? This isn't all that different."

Then he was doing so for his own amusement, putting his two cents and insults in for his own pleasure, and taking advantage of his new role as a spectator not the instigator. At the point of the Asriel fight, he doesn't even have that anymore. Besides, he's now at Frisk mercy with the resets, so of course he'd get annoyed at them just repeating something for the sake of repeating it.

With the Asriel fight, there's nothing new to comment on, everything about the situation - besides how it truly ends - is known. Frisk still having control, them being willing to reset for anything, anything that could provide shock or disbelief is already made aware to the two of them. There's nothing new, like the Transformer movies.

"'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.''

Properly programmed mechanics. Toby forgot to do that here. Or maybe he didn't know how to. Or maybe he did but shrugged it off due to assuming that no one would ever think that being able to forcibly quit the game when it logically should be on a 2-second autosave could be canon."

Am I seriously going to have to forbid anything Toby related from this thread? Because this is just ridiculous. Calling a man's skills into question just to validate a point you have, really?

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

I mean, they should after the monster dies, no? The thing keeping them from dusting should be the energy of the soul."

I guess any part of the monster that's detached before death doesn't fade to dust.

"'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.''

By adhering so strictly to the canon, you're basically gonna replicate all the if-else statements within the code. It should be our prime goal to REMOVE exceptions and asterists from our theories!"

And what are these "if-else" statements?

"'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.''

All of that has alternative explanations to it though. That's the crux of these theories. All theories, more or less."

Given that the areas their items fell in are areas where their SOUL MODES and characteristics would be more of a deteiment than a help - with the possible exception of Perseverance - I'd say it'sa fairly safe bet.

Bravery - Always moving, items found at Snowdin where Light Blue Attacks are.

Justice - Can only shoot in one direction, if originally at the Junkyard then the attacks from all around do the trick. If they did make it to Asgore, then the same problem applies, albeit more streamlined. Mettaton and Core Assassins wouldn't be around at their time.

Kindness - Can't move, can only defend one side. You need to move to avoid damage in Hotland.

Patience - Can't move, most enemies in the Ruins hve attacks that require movement.

Integrity - Always brought down to bottom, bottom area attacks are difficult to dodge in Waterfall.

Perseverance - Limited movement, most likely to have died from Asgore.

"'The ability itself does have limits, as shown by the Asriel Fight, so they aren't Mary Sues.''

Well, how about the argument that the DT content of Frisk's soul spiked to well above 700%?"

When have I ever said that?

"Oh wait, that's assuming that DT is SP AND that there's no plot hole in Asriel's battle."

No, that's not that at all, and I still fail to see this imaginary plot hole that you've deluded yourself into believing exist.

"My bad. This was the original reason why I said your explanations turn Frisk into a Mary Sue. I guess that's gone. If you wanna turn Asriel into a big doodoo head for not realizing that he's not actually in control, I guess..."

Except he does know he's not in control, he literally says it.

Also, he had control when he was Omega Flowey, he had access to his own SAVE File, deleted Frisk's file, and literally said he was going to SAVE over their death. I have no idea where you got the idea that he didn't.

"'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!''

But the soul is surely made up of something, right? For one, there's DT inside it. Anything else?"

The other traits. Why are you asking this?

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

You were arguing how it's not a simulation, but you weren't trying to reexplain the meta."

I did: take out the double meta meaning and you have a basic cosmic horror story set in a world based out of intelligent design. Simple.

"I was arguing that it's not a simulation, and that the meta isn't real, that a more "realistic" explanation exists for it. I was only ever arguing pro-simulation whenever you insisted that the meta is real and shouldn't be changed.

Meta exists = simulation.

No simulation = meta cannot exist (e.g. turns aren't real).

Somehow, you dislike both of those choices."

Meta is things refrencing other things outside the material and medium. The Nostalgia Critic wearing a wedding ring when he himself is not married but the man who plays him, Doug Walker, is married is meta.

A bullet hell and turn based battle system, with SAVE and LOAD functions, acknowledged in-universe to be a part of the world is not meta.

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

To clarify, by meta, I mean the things which seem too absurd to be "natural" and "fluid". Such as turn and button mechanics."

I cite directly above this.

"'Except the grammer does work exactly the same as ours, so the plaques are still viable sources of logical conclusions.''

They were written a looooooong time ago tho! See, there's always a catch."

Now you're just grasping for straws.

"And in all honesty, both explanations of the plaques work. You could interpret strength and power that they talked about as the same thing, due to these two synonyms being used in the same context, and then connect power to soul power due to its correlation with DT, or you could say that strength and power aren't the same and assign a different meaning to each one. I merely took the simpler approach.

And the correlation is real:

Humans: lots of DT, monsters: not even enough to make their souls persist.

Humans: lots of SP, monsters: a fraction of a single human soul.

It doesn't have to mean anything. That's why I'm calling it a correlation. But then again, I am using Occam's razor on this, so..."

THANK YOU, THAT'S WHAT I WAS LOOKING FOR! FINALLY!

"'Except he had it when he was Omega Flowey''

Eh? There's no proof that OF could reset, he didn't demonstrate the ability. So, since Asriel couldn't, I'm arguing that OF couldn't either."

He had access to his own SAVE, deleted Frisk, and LOADED IN THE MIDDLE OF THE FIGHT AND HIS OWN DEATH ANIMATION!

"'We still have it, so really it's not.''

Yes, that's the definition of a plot hole. When the story doesn't align with the lore. We have it, but we shouldn't. That's my entire point."

Except he says he doesn't have control, and that he will once he kills us. So, no, there's no plot hole.

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

Not the game, the player."

That makes no sense.

"'Except the Player is a canon separate entity from Frisk.''

And how do you intend to prove this?"

The Pacifist ending outright names Frisk, showing that he's notthe character that we named. Flowey outright says to let them live their life, confirming that they are their own person. Like I said, basic cosmic horror story.

"'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.''

So... the traits aren't fundamental substances?"

I was just explaining what he meant, ask him!