Alternate Plot Interpretation

Neo Bahamut · Feb 13, 2010

Title sucks, but to understand the basis, you pretty much have to read this:

http://degosroleplaying.aceboard.com/231338-10678-9029-0-Plot-Dissidia.htm#id231123

It's an FAQ I made for Dissidia's plot, feeling that the one here was inadequate. No offense.

Now, there are a few basic premises here:

1. Chaos & Cosmos have not always existed. They were created by the Lufenians & started out as Garland & the clone of Cid's wife, respectively.

2. The warriors in the game who serve the gods are actually advanced Manikins.

To understand my reasonings for either of those, you basically have to read the FAQ.

Now, there is also a specific "rule" of sorts that I'd like to impose on this discussion. Basically, I want anyone who responds to do so with only 1 point at a time. There are 2 main reasons I'm asking for this:

1. I have already been responding to counterarguments that were 2-3 pages on Word, easily. This was on the article comments, once or twice a day. That was bad enough. In a forum setting, there is no possible way I could keep up with 3 or more posts like that.

2. In that same debate, I felt like points that should have already been clarified were coming up far too often. If the foundation isn't clear, the rest of the argument will be just as murky.

As I do not have any actual authority, no one is obliged to follow it, but if they don't, I still will. So yeah.

Now, the reason I've chose to come here is because I'm entering the final stage of editing & soon to declare the project completed. As such, I'm looking to expose the idea to a large base of criticism.

Now, fire away with any questions, comments, or concerns that you may have.

Neo Bahamut · Feb 14, 2010

Forgot to put my topics on E-mail alert.

The Twilight Mexican · Feb 14, 2010

Hello, again. Thanks for returning, and for bringing it to the forum this time. It is much easier to have lengthy conversations here.

I'd like to pick up where we left off concerning your second premise:

Neo Bahamut said:
Which is my point. The heroes could have easily been part of Batch 2.

Then you’re defeating your own argument — because, again, we’re only ever told that Cosmos and Chaos summoned warriors from other worlds, and for the expressed purpose of waging their war. Further, we have the heroes and villains referred to as the few survivors of such a group.

It doesn’t matter if they’re batch one or batch thirteen. If they’re survivors of a group summoned from many worlds to wage war, then they’re not the manikins. The wording simply rules them out due to the circumstances of the manikins’ creation.

Neo Bahamut said:
Was it always the case? Cloud seems to think that he’s fighting too many senseless battles. Maybe he’s just now stopping to think, ‘The Hell am I doing this for?’ That sort of was the case in the original game, afterall.

Where is it ever implied that the heroes or villains got a choice? You have a high burden to support on this given that their circumstances defy the suggestion — and since their worlds obviously didn’t get a choice.

Neo Bahamut said:
Exactly! The Warriors disappear when Cosmos does because they’re her warriors. The fact–true or false–that they’re Manikins would not affect that in the slightest.

No one’s said it has. But in the case of the heroes and villains, we’re told that they were outright pulled there by Cosmos. The manikins were already there. It makes sense that the warriors would disappear if their matron/patron god died given that we know the god in question is the reason for them being there — but the manikins were *already there*.

Neo Bahamut said:
All I saw was a listing of references Dissidia makes to the original game.

Then you’re ignoring the wording which treats Dissidia’s Cloud as the same Cloud in FFVII and AC.

Neo Bahamut said:
‘I think that Cecil could use Dark Knight abilities even though it’s nowhere suggested in either game.’

‘I think that Cecil cannot use Dark Knight abilities, because ya can’t do it.’

WHICH ONE is extra-content justification now.

So, how seriously would take me if I said that I don’t think Vincent can fly when not in Chaos’ form because you can’t do it in Dirge of Cerberus. Nevermind that he does it twice in Advent Children?

Or if I also insisted that he can’t leap really high and do all kinds of insane acrobatic shit, because, again, you can’t do it in Dirge of Cerberus — nevermind what he does in AC or in DC’s cutscenes?

If you’re going to insist on a similar argument, you’re conceding the point.

Neo Bahamut said:
Additionally, you’ve just clearly admitted that being a Dark Knight is more than just using a sword.

I never said it wasn’t. But I also said that Cecil can’t use Dark Knight powers without Dark Knight swords. Which he can’t. So the sword has *a whole lot* to do with it.

And for the record, since you make such a big stink over gameplay, in FFIV DS, even as a Paladin, Cecil can still use the Darkness power if the Darkness Augment is used on him.

Furthermore, in the opening cutscenes of the game, Cecil uses an Inferno and a LitStorm to defeat the monsters attacking the Red Wings. In gameplay, these items could only be acquired in places that Baron didn’t have open access to.

You can get Infernos from defeating Chimeras (Tower of Babel), and you can also find one in the Sylvan Cave and Lunar Subterrane. Meanwhile, you can find a LitStorm in the Sylvan Cave, and get them from defeating Screamers (Sealed Cave) and Grudgers (Tower of Babel).

So if you *really* want to make a stink over gameplay, we *can* go down this road. If you *really* want to.

Neo Bahamut said:
As for the prophecy itself, it refers to the fact that Cecil used a Dark Crystal on Zeromus.

How does that even fit the wording of the legend? At the moment Cecil “rose to the heavens” and fulfilled the prophecy, he didn’t have the dark crystal. Golbez had it.

And the wording is quite clear that the one who rises to the heavens bears darkness and light. At that exact moment, though, he didn’t have the dark crystal.

Neo Bahamut said:
TresDias said:

If you lose control of you car for a few seconds, barring the scenario where you end up dead as a result, are you never able to get in that car and be in control of it again?

Click to expand...

So, if I am understanding this, you think that the personality change resulted not from the Void itself, but something else? Because if it did, then yes, I am led to believe that the effects of the Void are permanent.

Where did I say the personality change didn’t come from the Void? Nothing in what you responded to implied that.

It obviously did.

But his personality being different isn’t dependent on him not having control over the Void. Again, he lost control for a moment, got swallowed by the Void, became NeoExdeath with the new personality, and then he died.

And then Chaos revived him.

He still has the same personality that he had in his final moments, and he still has his natural ability to access the Void.

You’re making it out to be something far more complicated than it really is. The fact that you’re acting like it’s some kind of absurdity that he should have control of the Void again after being revived is like making a stink over Sephiroth having legs again when he came back since he didn’t have any when he got killed as Safer Sephiroth.

You really might as well be making a fuss over that.

Neo Bahamut said:
I think you’re failing to notice that I’m not Tetsuya Nomura. I can clearly see the meaning of the line & I can clearly see that it doesn’t make sense that Ultimecia would know it. But, since I don’t work for Square, I can’t explain this away. I just don’t have the information.

And I understand that. But if you’re going to argue for a theory, you need to try explaining any discrepancies it creates that weren’t there before.

For instance, I imagine you feel that your theory would explain the memory issues some of the heroes have (Firion not remember what the wild rose is at first, and Squall not remembering Rinoa). You’d then feel that my explanation should also try to explain those if I’m going to argue for a different interpretation, yes?

And so I have. I’ve argued in this post that the memory loss is probably a result of the heroes losing the previous turn(s) of the cycle — and that’s supported by the fact that Golbez knows the rose’s significance to Firion, and knew to leave it next to him before he woke up to trigger his memories.

That the rose is known to Golbez would imply that Firion had his memories of the Wild Rose Rebellion in the previous turn of the cycle.

I will agree with you on one sentiment, though: Much of the story is needlessly convoluted.

Neo Bahamut said:
I don’t know if you’ve noticed this or not, but way too much of this argument is off in hypothetical land. I am concerned primarily with what the text says, justifications second.

Well, that’s a big issue. If you’re going to be concerned with explaining what one part of the text says, you need to make sure it’s not making holes in another part.

Neo Bahamut said:
That’s not the issue. The issue is using an argument that is itself unproven as justification for 2nd argument.

I’d disagree. It’s about making a second issue *workable* in the event of a first argument.

And you’re not trying to do this, and it’s kind of frustrating on my end. You want to insist that I make my position have no holes, and then you get annoyed when I point out something like “Cecil could choose not to use that power” to explain one — but for your own part, you’re not interested in even attempting to fill the secondary holes that are formed by your primary arguments.

To me, that’s not just a double-standard; it’s also incomplete analysis. You’re doing half the job and wanting to call it quits.

Neo Bahamut said:
That’s INTERPRETING. The exact OPPOSITE of what we allegedly want to do, here.

Analysis *is* interpreting.

For that matter, we’re interpreting *everything* in this situation, by definition of “interpretation.” Even the English we’re typing at one another is being interpreted on both ends.

Neo Bahamut said:
The problem, I’m afraid, is that you’re still either unable or unwilling to separate fact from opinion. I don’t mean this as an insult, but you cling to theories merely on the basis that they are POSSIBLE, with complete disregard to whether or not there is evidence for them.

What do you think you’ve been doing by insisting that your position on advanced manikins is correct in the face of a description for the “few surviving warriors” that contradicts such a conclusion?

Not to mention the narrative themes, and the Ultimania’s treatment of the characters.

Neo Bahamut said:
It is both unnecessary & unrealistic to expect to explain every potential problem that arises.

It’s actually quite necessary.

You can’t form a theory that creates holes in some spots while filling others, then insist that this theory is superior to another that ventures to explain all angles.

As long as your analysis remains incomplete, it’s the weaker theory.

Neo Bahamut said:
”A prime example is the world composition. As much as I’ve been examining that, I just don’t think I’ll ever find sufficient in-game evidence to support more than the vaguest idea of how it’s put together. Relative locations of the stages are but a pipe dream.

I’m not even sure why you’re concerned about something like that. It would be cool to konw the relative locations, yeah, but the absence of such knowledge doesn’t leave any holes in anything.

Neo Bahamut said:
No, I don’t. Dude, this REALLY isn’t that hard of a concept. You can know something IS without knowing WHY it is. Lightning. Fire. Flight. These things all existed before anyone had any clue how they worked.

So Ulty just *knows* that Kuja has a limited lifespan then? For no reason?

And this manikin of Kuja for some reason suffers from the same condition that the real guy had? Why?

These are the kinds of holes you need to fill but absolutely refuse to even consider attempting.

Neo Bahamut said:
We are told 2 conflicting stories by the game. Therefore, the former is true…why?

We’re told the same damn story on both occasions:

Golbez: “This world is formed of shards brought from different realms by the
two gods.”

Garland: “… This world is composed of elements collected from different
realms.”

Neo Bahamut said:
Then the confirmation…is the quotes. They’re THE evidence that the case is based on.

“Confirmation” as in an interview or Ultimania quote. I’ve got quotes from the game too, ya know?

Neo Bahamut said:
Listen, I tried to say that without being condescending, but the fact is that I get kind of sick of beating a dead horse. If you’re as knowledgeable on debate as you claim, then why have you been repeating the same things, despite having already gotten explanations for them?

Your explanations tend to either ignore some quotes in favor of others, or settle for, “It doesn’t have to explained.”

Neo Bahamut said:
Dude, think about it: He’s citing HIMSELF. It’s not whether or not I “trust” him, it’s that I can’t take his word as evidence of his claims.

You’re not going to use this bullshit argument on me when I’ve provided you links on most of the occasions I’ve referenced the Japanese script, and also emphasized the Japanese word used for “realms”/”dimensions” — a word which plainly appears in the game’s opening FMV, the Japanese version of which you could easily find on YouTube anytime you care to look.

If you need verification of something, ask for it. Don’t act like you don’t need it until you want to pull it out as a basis for not believing someone’s argument.

Neo Bahamut said:
Now, if I had knowledge of Japanese myself or some kind of 3rd party translator, it would be different.

You have the Internet and its multitude of resources at your disposal. I suggest starting with things like popjisyo.com, kantango.com and the JWPce Japanese word processor.

You’ve always got Babelfish, Google Translator and excite.co.jp/world/english/ to fall back on too.

Neo Bahamut · Feb 14, 2010

As I said, I plan to tackle 1 issue from each poster at a time. Since the first point seems to be the most immediately relevent, I'll tackle that one:

Is not.

But seriously, I fail to see how the Manikins can't be survivors of a group of summoned individuals.

The Twilight Mexican · Feb 14, 2010

Neo Bahamut said:
As I said, I plan to tackle 1 issue from each poster at a time.

That's all that I was addressing. Everything I quoted from where we left off was about the manikin issue.

Neo Bahamut said:
But seriously, I fail to see how the Manikins can't be survivors of a group of summoned individuals.

I'll explain once more. The most simple reason -- though there are others -- is that the opening of the game says this:
"Reigning from distant realms,
the two gods had gathered warriors from
all lands to lead them in savage war."

The acutal Japanese text (which you can see here):
次元のかなたに君臨する二柱の神は
数多の世界から招いた戦士達を率いて
熾烈な戦いを繰り広げていた。

Translation of that text (which you can verify for yourself by using any of the resources I've mentioned previously):
"Reigning in (a) faraway dimension(s),
the two gods summoned warriors from many worlds
to lead them in savage war."

次元="dimension"
数多="many"
世界="world"

So, this line in your FAQ ("We just assume the heroes come from other dimensions, it's never stated") is incorrect. As I've been trying to tell you for the longest time.

Once more, utilize any or all of these resources and see for yourself:
http://www.popjisyo.com/WebHint/Portal_e.aspx
http://kantango.com/
http://www.excite.co.jp/world/english/
http://babelfish.yahoo.com/
http://translate.google.com/#

Now, moving forward, let's read the complete text of the opening FMV, and then the text that follows immediately after the opening FMV ends (here's a link to that script in case you need it again):

Cosmos, the goddess of harmony.
Chaos, the god of discord.
Reigning from distant realms,
the two gods had gathered warriors from
all lands to lead them in savage war.
Cosmos and Chaos were of equal strength.
It was believed the conflict would last forever.
But--

[Opening battle between the Warriors of Cosmos and the Warriors of Chaos,
culminating in the appearance of the Dissidia: Final Fantasy logo]

(Scene ends)

The balance was broken.
Those who answered Chaos's call created an inexhaustible force.
And under vicious attack without relent, the warriors fighting for Cosmos
started to fall one by one.
The conflict that has continued for eons is now about to end in Chaos's favor.
The world has been torn asunder, sinking into a vortex of disorder.
As for the few surviving warriors--

Clearly, "The balance was broken" picks up after "But," as it's addressing the matter of "It was believed the conflict would last forever" and telling us that "The conflict ... is now about to end in Chaos's favor."

As a consequence of that, "the few surviving warriors" must refer to the same warriors spoken of in the opening FMV. Who were these warriors?

"Warriors from many worlds."

Thus, they're not the manikins. The manikins were not warriors summoned from many worlds, and were never indicated to have been summoned by Chaos or Cosmos at all.

Even had they been, they would not have been summoned from other worlds, as they were already there at the combined world that serves as Dissidia's battleground.

Their creation is described in Chaos Report 5, where Cid speaks of, indeed, getting the idea to create them after witnessing Cosmos and Chaos summoning their pawns -- in other words, "warriors from many worlds":

Harmony and discord are both created beings.
While observing how they acquired pawns to
fight in their conflict, I found that a great
number of the consciousnesses had drifted to
this world from other dimensions.

This is a very straightforward matter: The manikins were created by Cid after watching Chaos and Cosmos acquire pawns.

Their pawns were warriors summoned from many other worlds.

The beginning of the game refers to the heroes and villains of Dissidia as "the few surviving warriors." Of what? "Warriors from many worlds."

In conclusion, the wording is there from the beginning to tell us that the characters are the real deal. And that's without even going into the Ultimania's treatment of the characters as authentic, nor going into the narrative and thematic bankruptcy that would follow all the characters' talk of going home being baseless.

If you still insist otherwise, please provide your reasoning for why the heroes and villains are not the "few surviving warriors" spoken of at the beginning of the game.

Neo Bahamut · Feb 14, 2010

Even had they been, they would not have been summoned from other worlds, as they were already there at the combined world that serves as Dissidia's battleground.

This is the problem. There's nothing that tells us the Manikins were already there. We only know the location of the failed Manikins--in the Void. The successful ones could have been anywhere.

So, whether that line was meant to be translated as "worlds" or not is irrelevent. It doesn't disprove anything.

Now, let's assume for a second that they were already there. Let's also assume, for the sake of the argument, that there were 80 warriors, originally.

If the 10 survivors all came from the same world, you'd still have 70 warriors that could be from anywhere.

So, really, there only exists a contradiction in an extremely rigid set of circumstances, which the game doesn't give us. It gives us warriors (who?) realms (where?) an incredibly vague time frame in the form of "t happened after c."

The letters were chosen to illustrate the point: T is after C, but it is not immediately afterwards. Similarly, just because we know the war was already raging before the advanced Manikins were born, we don't know that they never got mixed up in the conflict. In fact, IIRC, it wasn't until one of the latest turns that the failed Manikins were used by Chaos.

The Twilight Mexican · Feb 14, 2010

I take it, then, you've moved from the super manikins being a later batch of warriors to just being the survivors of one really large batch?

Heck, I could play that game too and say that, supposing Chaos and Cosmos did select manikins among their warriors, the manikins were among the 70 warriors who have already fallen.

Short of a very specific set of circumstances that we have no reason to believe took place, it's going to be awfully hard to reconcile your theory with those opening statements of the game.

Is that to say that it's impossible? No. It's not.

But it is to say that it seems like reaching really, really hard when there's nothing to directly imply it.

What this really comes down to is what you think has more narrative weight:

1) a possible loose end with successful manikins (whatever that implies) or
2) the recurring subject of going home, as well as the Ultimania's unambiguous treatment of the characters as the genuine article

The reason I said "whatever that implies" above, by the way, is that Cid only says the purpose of his experiment was to attempt giving those free-floating consciousnesses physical bodies. Now, obviously, the manikins fought during the game have physical bodies, and you consider those to be the failures -- yet these are also supposed to be the manikins that Exdeath retrieved from the Rift -- so there's something unclear here anyway, I think.

As well, you always apply the line "Within the created pawns were some whose faith in themselved wavered--who questioned their very reason for living" to the successful experiments, but, really, the Chaos Report as-written doesn't lend itself only to that possibility.

It goes straight from talking about the failures who were sealed in the Rift to saying this line. It could be describing the failures as easily as it could be the successful manikins:

I wondered if I might be able to give those
consciousnesses physical form. After countless
experiments, finally my testing reached success.
The failures were sealed in the Interdimensional
Rift.
Within the created pawns were some whose
faith in themselved wavered--who questioned
their very reason for living. It seemed that
existence itself was not sufficient incentive.

Like Ryu's mentioned before, it kind of would make sense that entities who questioned their reason for living and felt that existence itself was not enough might assume the forms of the heroes and villains in an attempt to establish identity.

Point is, there's no clear indication in either direction whether those manikins were the failures or the successful creations. How can you not only be so sure that the description applies to one group, but that the potential for a loose end also carries more narrative significance than all the talk of going home?

Neo Bahamut · Feb 14, 2010

I take it, then, you've moved from the super manikins being a later batch of warriors to just being the survivors of one really large batch?

I think I've been very clear that every time I've thrown out a possible scenario, it was a hypothetical. I make these statements to show that these are not unsurmountable contradictions. It is not a "very specific set of circumstances." There are literally dozens of ways that the heroes can be advanced Manikins.

On that subject, I don't really know whether or not they're "successful," although Cid seems to treat them with intrigue, rather than flat dismissal, as he does with the "failures." It's just another way to distinguish them.

1) a possible loose end with successful manikins (whatever that implies) or
2) the recurring subject of going home, as well as the Ultimania's unambiguous treatment of the characters as the genuine article

I've seen the Ultimania articles. They explain how the characters react in certain situations, as well as listing references to the original games. They do not contradict the theory at all. As for "narrative weight," it's a simple rule: You don't introduce plot elements that go nowhere.

You act as though there is no significance to the characters acting certain ways. That is not the case. The fact that they are representations of the original characters means they will act in similar manners.

Like Ryu's mentioned before, it kind of would make sense that entities who questioned their reason for living and felt that existence itself was not enough might assume the forms of the heroes and villains in an attempt to establish identity.

And, like I said, only the failures were stated as being sent to the rift. Besides that, that does not make sense at all. Assuming someone's physical form does not directly translate to "questioning your existence."

The guess is theoretically possible, but it is extremely unsupported, and reads a lot like a far-reaching attempt to dismiss a much simpler conclusion.

We already have a group that clearly questions themselves. And isn't it odd that the Manikins take after them?

This proves that, at the very least, the heroes must have been the cause of the "free-floating consciousness." And if we can accept that, it isn't a leap to assume that the heroes themselves could be Manikins, especially given the statement that "some of them questioned themselves."

Ryushikaze · Feb 15, 2010

Again, NB, if you're just throwing out 'it's entirely possibles' while rejecting Tres's 'it's entirely plausibles', you're asking that he be held to a standard you yourself don't want to be held to.

The order of events is clear- Pawns are summoned- Cid notices consciousnesses, tries making crap out of them. All the while the conflict continues. Eventually, Cid makes some of these consciousnesses into the manikins, and later seals them into the rift. Later, Exdeath, one of the 'remaining warriors' who you claim is a manikin, yoinks said manikins from the rift.
What you are doing is taking a very specific and unsupported reading of the text, and saying that because it's possible, it's most likely, even more likely than anything else, even when the only thing you have to support it is what ifs and the less than filled in timeline.

Neo Bahamut · Feb 15, 2010

Again, NB, if you're just throwing out 'it's entirely possibles' while rejecting Tres's 'it's entirely plausibles', you're asking that he be held to a standard you yourself don't want to be held to.

Not even close. I believe you're referring to the Cecil example? "He could do something he never does" is obviously invalid logic.

"This is a scenario that allows for the possiblity" is a completely valid response to "this is a contradiction."

The fact of the matter is that I've never been after circumstantial evidence. It does not matter so much HOW the events occured, what matters is whether or not the game STATES they do.

The Chaos Reports ask whether the warriors are people who do exist or people who will exist. The reason I ignore it is very simple: It doesn't matter.

The order of events is clear

No it's not.

- Pawns are summoned-

In one batch, a few, or many?

Cid notices consciousnesses, tries making crap out of them.

How long did this take? Did it occur during the summoning process, or only afterwards?

Eventually, Cid makes some of these consciousnesses into the manikins, and later seals them into the rift.

Which turn of the cycle? Really, don't say things like "the order is clear" when it's not.

Later, Exdeath, one of the 'remaining warriors' who you claim is a manikin, yoinks said manikins from the rift.

One question: Where was it said that Exdeath removed them from the Rift?

What you are doing is taking a very specific and unsupported reading of the text

It's not unsupported in the slightest. It's practically proven by simple process of elimination. The fact that nothing outright contradicts it supports it. The fact that it elegently explains apparent breaches in continuity supports it. The fact that the consciousnesses obviously belonged to the warriors supports it.

and saying that because it's possible, it's most likely, even more likely than anything else, even when the only thing you have to support it is what ifs and the less than filled in timeline.

You're being disengenuous. I'm not the one going back to the timeline. I'm merely countering claims that the timeline renders the scenario impossible when it clearly doesn't. Furthermore, my support is not "what ifs." It's pointing out the obvious fact that only 1 group clearly exhibits the characteristics in question. It's very nearly a certainty.

The Twilight Mexican · Feb 15, 2010

Neo Bahamut said:
I think I've been very clear that every time I've thrown out a possible scenario, it was a hypothetical. I make these statements to show that these are not unsurmountable contradictions. It is not a "very specific set of circumstances." There are literally dozens of ways that the heroes can be advanced Manikins.

Alright, then. So far we have "They were part of a single big batch of warriors summoned from many worlds" or "They were part of a later batch of warriors summoned from many worlds."

That's two. If you think there are many other possibilities, present them, please.

Neo Bahamut said:
On that subject, I don't really know whether or not they're "successful," although Cid seems to treat them with intrigue, rather than flat dismissal, as he does with the "failures." It's just another way to distinguish them.

That's the thing -- we don't know whether he'd be more intrigued by failures or successes. We also don't know the standard by which he determined failure or success. What if the whole "questioned their own existence" thing might be what made him determine success or failure?

And if it were the line by which he drew that determination, we also don't know whether the act of questioning rendered a manikin a failure or success -- though I would say his description of these entities hardly sounds like approval.

We know absolutely nothing about that experiment other than it leading to the failures being sealed within the Interdimensional Rift.

Neo Bahamut said:
I've seen the Ultimania articles. They explain how the characters react in certain situations, as well as listing references to the original games. They do not contradict the theory at all.

They certainly don't support it. Establishing continuity between Cloud in FFVII, Cloud in Dissidia and Cloud in AC/C is hardly a point in the theory's favor.

Neo Bahamut said:
As for "narrative weight," it's a simple rule: You don't introduce plot elements that go nowhere.

Why is this true for a potential loose end that shows up only in the optional Chaos Reports, but not true for mandatory discussions that occur several times throughout the game?

Why does that one instance of an optional, potential loose end that could potentially support the interpretation you proffer override a recurring, mandatory plot element, as well as the Ultimania and the in-game bios about the characters (which constantly use phrases like "In the original game, he ...").

Neo Bahamut said:
You act as though there is no significance to the characters acting certain ways.

I'm not even sure what you're trying to say here.

Neo Bahamut said:
... that does not make sense at all. Assuming someone's physical form does not directly translate to "questioning your existence."

No one said it directly translated.

In any case, you don't think the manikins assuming the forms of other beings is a behavior that could plausibly belong to entities who were questioning their own existence?

Neo Bahamut said:
The guess is theoretically possible, but it is extremely unsupported, and reads a lot like a far-reaching attempt to dismiss a much simpler conclusion.

How is your conclusion much more simple? I don't see all the villains going through existential anguish. Most of them seem pretty darn comfortable with themselves.

Neo Bahamut said:
This proves that, at the very least, the heroes must have been the cause of the "free-floating consciousness."

I don't follow how they're the cause. Cosmos and Chaos were the cause. They're the ones who united the worlds and sundered the dimensional barriers.

Neo Bahamut said:
The Chaos Reports ask whether the warriors are people who do exist or people who will exist.

Actually, Cid was pondering over the consciousnesses he had turned into manikins. He didn't mention the warriors.

Neo Bahamut said:
How long did this take? Did it occur during the summoning process, or only afterwards?

Unless we're assuming that it takes Chaos and Cosmos a long time to pull it off for some reason, it would have to be after.

Neo Bahamut said:
One question: Where was it said that Exdeath removed them from the Rift?

It's generally assumed that Exdeath was the one who pulled them out given his ability to access the Rift, and as he's the only villain shown summoning manikins during the game.

It could as easily have been Chaos, of course, but most people assume it was Exdeath.

Neo Bahamut said:
The fact that nothing outright contradicts it supports it.

You mean nothing other than the Ultimania's treatment of the characters, the in-game bios' treatment of the characters, and the recurring plot element about returning home?

Neo Bahamut said:
The fact that it elegently explains apparent breaches in continuity supports it.

Even if it did that, I think "elegantly" is a bit strong a word.

Anyway, as I've repeated to you over and over, there is no apparent breach in continuity formed by Cecil using both Dark Knight abilities and Paladin abilities. Not using them in The After Years is not an indication that he can't do so if he chooses to.

Since you're still ignoring this point, let me repeat it:

I said:
So, how seriously would take me if I said that I don’t think Vincent can fly when not in Chaos’ form because you can’t do it in Dirge of Cerberus. Nevermind that he does it twice in Advent Children?

Or if I also insisted that he can’t leap really high and do all kinds of insane acrobatic shit, because, again, you can’t do it in Dirge of Cerberus — nevermind what he does in AC or in DC’s cutscenes?

If you’re going to insist on a similar argument, you’re conceding the point.

...

I also said that Cecil can’t use Dark Knight powers without Dark Knight swords. Which he can’t. So the sword has *a whole lot* to do with it.

And for the record, since you make such a big stink over gameplay, in FFIV DS, even as a Paladin, Cecil can still use the Darkness power if the Darkness Augment is used on him.

Furthermore, in the opening cutscenes of the game, Cecil uses an Inferno and a LitStorm to defeat the monsters attacking the Red Wings. In gameplay, these items could only be acquired in places that Baron didn’t have open access to.

You can get Infernos from defeating Chimeras (Tower of Babel), and you can also find one in the Sylvan Cave and Lunar Subterrane. Meanwhile, you can find a LitStorm in the Sylvan Cave, and get them from defeating Screamers (Sealed Cave) and Grudgers (Tower of Babel).

So if you *really* want to make a stink over gameplay, we *can* go down this road. If you *really* want to.

Neo Bahamut said:
The fact that the consciousnesses obviously belonged to the warriors supports it.

And how is this obvious? Given that, even according to your theory, there are a shitton more consciousnesses that didn't belong to the warriors (see: all the other manikins), what's obvious about it?

Neo Bahamut said:
Furthermore, my support is not "what ifs." It's pointing out the obvious fact that only 1 group clearly exhibits the characteristics in question. It's very nearly a certainty.

Yet many of the people in that group don't exhibit any such thing. Certainly the villains don't, with the possible exception of Golbez -- whose in-game bio already explains that "he resents that evil was able to cloud his soul, despite being of the same pure Lunarian blood as Cecil."

On the heroes' side, who -- other than Terra, Cloud and maybe Squall -- really goes through anything that fits the idea? Even if we're generous -- as well as extremely loose in our definition of "questioned their own existence" -- and count the Onion Knight and Zidane's internal conflicts about what they should do with the shitty situations they find themselves in, we're still dealing with only half the heroes.

For his part, Firion is quite confident in his dream and motivations. Cecil's confidence in his brother and himself is pretty much unwavering. Bartz is consistently confident in what he's doing, as is Tidus.

So, yeah, dude, you're dealing with a "what if" that is nowhere near being a certainty.

On the other hand, speaking hypothetically, if the beings who questioned their existences were the manikins fought throughout the game, we would see this trait consistently -- nay, invariably -- portrayed by the fact that they have no identities of their own and merely assume the forms of others.

Now, would we still be left to wonder who the successful experiments are? Perhaps so. But, as I've mentioned in the past, Dissidia was made with a sequel intended. What you see as a deal-breaking loose end the developers might have seen as the foundation for a new plot element in the next game.

Ryushikaze · Feb 16, 2010

Neo Bahamut said:
Not even close. I believe you're referring to the Cecil example? "He could do something he never does" is obviously invalid logic.

And that's a strawman of the point Tres has made.
And again- darkness augment.

"This is a scenario that allows for the possiblity" is a completely valid response to "this is a contradiction."

And you're rejecting Tres's out of hand.

The fact of the matter is that I've never been after circumstantial evidence. It does not matter so much HOW the events occured, what matters is whether or not the game STATES they do.

Then congratulations, you're completely shit out of luck. Because it never says anything sufficient to support your idea.

The Chaos Reports ask whether the warriors are people who do exist or people who will exist. The reason I ignore it is very simple: It doesn't matter.

No, the chaos reports ask if the CONSCIOUSNESSES are such. It does not speak of the warriors as such. This is your greatest failing. You are taking statements and ascribing things they do not say.
Like that the people who question their existence are the successes, that they're 'obviously' the heroes because a couple of them express doubts about their purpose but not their existence. It's reaching at every step.

No it's not.

Yes, it is. You are trying to make it more complicated because there are gaps between points, but the order of those points are clear.

In one batch, a few, or many?

They summoned their pawns. No mention of multiple batches, parsimony suggests all at once.

How long did this take? Did it occur during the summoning process, or only afterwards?

Cid spoke of how he observed both sides having summoned, so after.

Which turn of the cycle? Really, don't say things like "the order is clear" when it's not.

Doesn't matter. The ORDER is clear. That we don't know the exact particulars of relative points on a timeline does not render said timeline moot.

One question: Where was it said that Exdeath removed them from the Rift?

Only two known agents can use the void, and one is seen calling them forth. The other does not seem to know or care than manikins exist

It's not unsupported in the slightest. It's practically proven by simple process of elimination. The fact that nothing outright contradicts it supports it.

The narrative and Ultimania treating the characters as the original contradicts it. It speaks of the heroes and villians in dissidia in the same context as their original games. It's not 'In the original, Tina did X and in dissidia the copy does', it's 'In the original Tina does X and here she Y in reference to that.'

The fact that it elegently explains apparent breaches in continuity supports it.

Far far less elegantly than 'gods with control over time and space who rent

The fact that the consciousnesses obviously belonged to the warriors supports it.

Except they didn't. The text doesn't say that. It even says they were drawn to the dissidia world as a result of the pawns being summoned. Pawns who the current 20 are the only remaining survivors of.

You're being disengenuous. I'm not the one going back to the timeline. I'm merely countering claims that the timeline renders the scenario impossible when it clearly doesn't.

Yes, it does. Because the timeline says the gods summoned their pawns and those pawns fought numerous cycles, and the ones still existing are the survivors of those pawns.
Meanwhile, Cid made his expiriments after the summoning of the pawns.

Furthermore, my support is not "what ifs." It's pointing out the obvious fact that only 1 group clearly exhibits the characteristics in question. It's very nearly a certainty.

But they do not exhibit that characteristic. Questioning purpose and questioning existence are not the same at all.
And still, again, you are taking mere 'what ifs' and acting like they are absolutely certain. You are making giant unfounded leaps in logic at every turn.

Neo Bahamut · Feb 16, 2010

I'm flirting with the line of my "one point per post" policy, here, but I've decided to include all of these quotes on the grounds that they are necessary for the overarching point, that being the question of how valid the argument is.

Also, to Paradox: I notice you occasionally thank Tres's posts. I just want to take this opportunity extend an invitation to you or anyone else who has an opinion on the subject. This is by no means a private topic.

That's two. If you think there are many other possibilities, present them, please.

Don't you think that's a little bit unreasonable? I've clearly proven that there is no contradiction, which is exactly what I set out to do.

We know absolutely nothing about that experiment other than it leading to the failures being sealed within the Interdimensional Rift.

We know the failures were sealed in the rift, they were an attempt to give the free-floating consciousnesses form, & that they are currently being used by Chaos's forces.

We know that the Manikins were obtained from the Rift & that Chaos's forces are using them.

We also know that some of the Manikins "questioned their purposes." The only group that clearly does this is the warriors.

They certainly don't support it. Establishing continuity between Cloud in FFVII, Cloud in Dissidia and Cloud in AC/C is hardly a point in the theory's favor.

Again, it only establishes that they have similar mentalities. It also points out elements of Dissidia meant to reference the original game.

Or do you think that Cloud & Sephiroth intentionally recreated portions of their battle in AC? It does not establish that they are the same person.

Much stronger confirmation would be something to the effect of this:

"Cloud was transported from Gaia a few months after defeating Sephiroth at the Northern Crater, shortly before contracting Geostigma."

I'm not even sure what you're trying to say here.

Simply put, the fact that the characters act similar to their original counterparts & occasionally reference their past lives is a consistent case you make against the Manikin theory. It's invalid because it only proves that most of the characters at least think they're the originals. You're trying to disprove the idea with something that it already takes into account.

It's also pretty obvious why it's that way from a real-world standpoint. The game was never meant to include completely new characters or complete redefinitions of the old ones. This way, they can use the same characters while keeping the original continuities unmucked by interdimensional travel & wars between gods.

How is your conclusion much more simple? I don't see all the villains going through existential anguish. Most of them seem pretty darn comfortable with themselves.

You're trying to sell me on the idea that the Manikins take the forms of others because they "question their own existence." That's massive speculation. It is theoretically possible, but it's so far out there that it's a completely unsound conclusion to make without some decent correlation.

My conclusion is more simple because there is a clear correlation. Unlike the Manikins who might possibly be questioning their existence but we can't tell because they don't talk & no one mentions it, we actually have a group that visibly does that.

In that line of thought, Firion, Onion Knight, Cecil, Bartz, Terra, Cloud, Squall, Tidus, Golbez, Kefka, Sephiroth, Ultimecia, Kuja, Jecht, & Gabranth are all prone to questioning their ideals & motivations, during the course of the story.

True, some of those are a tad bit iffy depending on your definition, but it goes both ways. With a liberal definition, pretty much all of the characters can fit, as they all have motivations that go beyond mere existence. The summons & the Manikins, both of which were suggested as possible replacements, seem to be perfectly content just sitting around until someone decides to use them as a pawn.

But even though I've aquiesced to your request for examples, I must stress the folly in suggesting that, since not every single one of the warriors does the activity in question, the conclusion is invalid.

I don't follow how they're the cause. Cosmos and Chaos were the cause. They're the ones who united the worlds and sundered the dimensional barriers.

Cause. Origin. Source. Pick your poison. The point is that, if the Manikins were created from free-floating consciousness, & they take the form of the warriors, then it's pretty obvious where the consciousness in question came from, is it not?

You mean nothing other than the Ultimania's treatment of the characters, the in-game bios' treatment of the characters, and the recurring plot element about returning home?

Those are not outright contradictions.

1. The Ultimania only states that the characters act a certain way & points out references to the original games.

2. The bios are much the same.

3. The characters clearly think they have homes to go to, but Cloud thought he was a SOLDIER 1st Class for like a year.

If any of those outright contradicted the theory, I should not be able to reconcile them with it so easily. An outright contradiction would be any of the following:

1. We knew that all of the Manikins were placed into the Void & emerged at the same time.

2. There were flashes to the other worlds that showed us the original characters realizing their friends were gone.

3. There was a confirmed timeline of when even 1 character was spirited away.

It would be impossible to argue those, because every single one lays down a sequence of events that cannot coincide with the theory.

Even if it did that, I think "elegantly" is a bit strong a word.

Anyway, as I've repeated to you over and over, there is no apparent breach in continuity formed by Cecil using both Dark Knight abilities and Paladin abilities. Not using them in The After Years is not an indication that he can't do so if he chooses to.

And how is this obvious?

See Quote # 3.

On the other hand, speaking hypothetically, if the beings who questioned their existences were the manikins fought throughout the game, we would see this trait consistently -- nay, invariably -- portrayed by the fact that they have no identities of their own and merely assume the forms of others.

If there were some quotes & collaborating events indicating this, I could do some fishing. As it stands, I need a little more support to declare that something definitely is a certain way.

Neo Bahamut · Feb 16, 2010

I'm not entirely certain if this is your most important point, Ryu, but it was first, so here goes:

And that's a strawman of the point Tres has made.

If you say so. I just don't think that something which never happens is sufficent grounds to say for certain that it can.

It really doesn't mesh well. He's in Dark Knight form for the majority of Dissidia, but he never goes into it in the After Years. Something's fishy, there.

And again- darkness augment.

Having looked into FFIV for unrelated reasons, I have to say that this is, if possible, even more unconvincing a justification. The augment system is a support ability system added in a remake with no clear plot value. Equipping it on someone does not mean they were a Dark Knight. If you give it to Rydia*, she will not have a sidequest about throwing off her inner darkness.

*=I think you can give augments to anyone, but I'm not 100% clear on that.

The Twilight Mexican · Feb 16, 2010

On my way to work, so I just wanted to let you know to expect my reply in about 12 hours.

Neo Bahamut · Feb 16, 2010

That felt vaguely threatening. "I'll be back in 12 hours. EXPECT it."

But seriously, I'm posting mainly to update on the progress of the edit:

I have looked through the Ultimania files. This was somewhat accelerated by the fact that I read more of them than I thought I did already. Assuming there aren't any multi-page entries, I doubt I've missed anything incriminating.

That said, I wonder where I should turn next. The game script may have some clues regarding the world composition, but I'm not too crazy on searching through the entire game a 2nd time for such a slim possibility.

~~Edit: I've decided that my first step will be to collect links of anywhere where similar plot elements are being discussed & put them up for comparison. Let me know if you have any.~~

Idea cancelled due to epic link failure.

The Twilight Mexican · Feb 16, 2010

Neo Bahamut said:
Don't you think that's a little bit unreasonable? I've clearly proven that there is no contradiction, which is exactly what I set out to do.

You've proven that there's a possible way around the apparent contradiction, yes. But since you said that there are "literally dozens of ways" -- and since I genuinely don't see them and am curious -- I asked you to elaborate.

That's all. I don't think that's unreasonable.

Neo Bahamut said:
We also know that some of the Manikins "questioned their purposes." The only group that clearly does this is the warriors.

Again, the line is not "questioned their purposes." It's "questioned their very reason for living." You really think the warriors of Chaos and Cosmos fit this mold?

You're insisting on a loose reading of "reason for living" without first looking to see if there's anyone else who fits the more literal wording.

You're also not addressing my question of how we know whether this description was being used for the successful manikins or the failures sealed within the Rift. Again, he moves straight from saying "The failures were sealed in the Interdimensional Rift" to talking about the beings for whom existence alone was not sufficient purpose.

It seems to me every bit as likely that here he's talking about the failures who we end up fighting throughout the game.

Neo Bahamut said:
Again, it only establishes that they have similar mentalities.

No. Notice that it says "Cloud continued to regret" the deaths shown in FFVII as explanation for a line in Dissidia?

To say that he continued doing something in Dissidia that stemmed from events in the original game is establishing continuity between the titles.

Neo Bahamut said:
Or do you think that Cloud & Sephiroth intentionally recreated portions of their battle in AC?

You might as well be asking me if, in AC/C, they deliberately recreated a portion of their battle in Crisis Core. That same scenario with Cloud coming down toward Seph to strike him -- only for the attack to be blocked and Cloud to be flung away -- happens in all three titles.

It's actually even more similar between CC and AC/C.

Neo Bahamut said:
It's also pretty obvious why it's that way from a real-world standpoint. The game was never meant to include completely new characters or complete redefinitions of the old ones. This way, they can use the same characters while keeping the original continuities unmucked by interdimensional travel & wars between gods.

What's mucky about it?

For that matter, how is it so much more so than was Time Compression in FFVIII?

Neo Bahamut said:
You're trying to sell me on the idea that the Manikins take the forms of others because they "question their own existence." That's massive speculation. It is theoretically possible, but it's so far out there that it's a completely unsound conclusion to make without some decent correlation.

Dude, keep in mind that you're trying to sell people on the idea that the heroes and villains of this game aren't really the heroes and villains they look, talk and sound like, despite having their memories, believing themselves to be them, and being presented as them in both the in-game bios and the Ultimania.

Furthermore, as part of that package, you're trying to sell the idea that your preferred interpretation of a one-shot line of optional text -- text that, in the first place, doesn't concretely identify who it's talking about -- supercedes the recurring plot element of the heroes returning to their homes.

With both ideas technically possible, what we're looking for here is which is the more plausible.

Neo Bahamut said:
My conclusion is more simple because there is a clear correlation. Unlike the Manikins who might possibly be questioning their existence but we can't tell because they don't talk & no one mentions it, we actually have a group that visibly does that.

Yet we have no such thing. Only when you change the words being used do we arrive at "a clear correlation."

For that matter, it's baffling to me that you say we have a group that "visibly does" what you claim, but the manikins' visible actions go unregistered by your count.

Neo Bahamut said:
In that line of thought, Firion, Onion Knight, Cecil, Bartz, Terra, Cloud, Squall, Tidus, Golbez, Kefka, Sephiroth, Ultimecia, Kuja, Jecht, & Gabranth are all prone to questioning their ideals & motivations, during the course of the story.

Where does Firion question his reason to live? He seems confident of it from start to finish: the wild rose. His dream.

Out of the list of people you just provided, the only ones who fit it pretty well are Cloud, Terra and Golbez. How you arrived at any of the things someone like Onion Knight goes through being equivalent to "they questioned their reasons to live, because existence itself wasn't sufficient to satisfy them" is beyond me.

For that matter, Cid's clearly talking about the entities' behavior following the experiment. It's two Chaos Reports later before he even gets as far as commenting on Sephiroth's suicide -- so certainly none of the other stuff you argue the heroes and villains being prone to has yet occurred.

Or are you going to say "They probably do this sort of self-questioning during every cycle"? In case the thought crosses your mind, be aware that it's not going to be acceptable to use such an argument in this discussion given how you insist on this "If we didn't see it, it didn't happen" standard with Cecil being able to become a Dark Knight.

Of course, you've been more than willing to relax that standard when talking about multiple batches of summoned warriors for Dissidia. I also notice that you still refuse to address my comments regarding Vincent's ability to fly when not in Chaos' form being unavailable to players of Dirge of Cerberus, as well as going without presentation during any of the game's cutscenes.

Neo Bahamut said:
True, some of those are a tad bit iffy depending on your definition, but it goes both ways. With a liberal definition, pretty much all of the characters can fit, as they all have motivations that go beyond mere existence.

With a really loose definition, we could argue any damn thing we wanted.

Neo Bahamut said:
The summons & the Manikins, both of which were suggested as possible replacements, seem to be perfectly content just sitting around until someone decides to use them as a pawn.

Didn't you just get finished saying that the manikins don't express any of their thoughts in front of us? Now you're saying that they seem content to do nothing until selected to be someone's pawns.

Hell, for that matter, such an argument is really a point in favor of the idea that it's the manikins sent to the Rift that Cid was talking about: so little motivation that they just literally sit around waiting for someone to give them a reason to live!

Do you see the kind of circles we're going to keep running in as long as "It means whatever I want it to mean" is on the table?

Neo Bahamut said:
But even though I've aquiesced to your request for examples, I must stress the folly in suggesting that, since not every single one of the warriors does the activity in question, the conclusion is invalid.

Hardly any of them do, actually.

Neo Bahamut said:
Cause. Origin. Source. Pick your poison. The point is that, if the Manikins were created from free-floating consciousness, & they take the form of the warriors, then it's pretty obvious where the consciousness in question came from, is it not?

Wait. Let me make sure I have this straight.

You're saying that the consciousnesses that were utilized to create the manikins which are the heroes and villains of Dissidia are the consciousnesses of those very heroes and villains -- in which case, during the ending, those consciousnesses should return to wherever they were prior to Cosmos and Chaos fucking things up.

But despite the consciousnesses belonging to those heroes and villains and returning to wherever they were prior, the manikins created from those consciousnesses aren't the heroes and villains?

What the hell, dude? What kind of argument is that?

That's like arguing that the ice cubes you made in your ice tray in the freezer aren't really the water that you put into the tray -- but then acknowledging that it's the same water as before if you allow the cubes to melt.

Neo Bahamut said:
It really doesn't mesh well. He's in Dark Knight form for the majority of Dissidia, but he never goes into it in the After Years. Something's fishy, there.

Vincent wasn't wearing a parachute when AVALANCHE jumped off the Highwind to land in Midgar near the end of Disc 2 of FFVII. He plainly flies on two occasions in AC/C.

Then, even though we know he can fly, he uses a hoverboard when entering Midgar from the sky in DC.

Is there something fishy about him never flying in DC without being in Chaos' form?

Neo Bahamut · Feb 17, 2010

Sounds like a task for another day, then.

Again, the line is not "questioned their purposes." It's "questioned their very reason for living." You really think the warriors of Chaos and Cosmos fit this mold?

It's not a "loose reading," it's the same epistemlogical question. Like...literally. "Purpose" & "reason for living" are the same thing.

It seems to me every bit as likely that here he's talking about the failures who we end up fighting throughout the game.

Since he never specifies whether or not there were successes, let alone his standards for success, that's kind of hard to do. As I said, the reason I think the advanced Manikins are "successful" is that he doesn't appear to flatly dismiss them like the others.

But if you find it "every bit as likely," I think you're ignoring a simple fact:

Warriors-Clearly question their existence throughout the game.

Manikins-Appearances can be construed as questioning their existence. Never directly confirmed.

No. Notice that it says "Cloud continued to regret" the deaths shown in FFVII as explanation for a line in Dissidia?[/quote]

Doesn't seem like a particularly strong case, to me. The sections for Garland, Kuja, & Zidane explain the lines "I AM the Angel of Death! YOURS!", "You make my skin crawl, Garland," & "I feel an unbreakable bond between us," but Garland from I & Garland from IX are not the same individual.

You might as well be asking me if, in AC/C, they deliberately recreated a portion of their battle in Crisis Core. That same scenario with Cloud coming down toward Seph to strike him -- only for the attack to be blocked and Cloud to be flung away -- happens in all three titles.

That's exactly what I'm saying. Every time I say the Ultimania "lists references," someone says I can't read. Well, that's one instance where it does exactly that. It's by no means the only one, either. Every battle quote does it, too.

For that matter, how is it so much more so than was Time Compression in FFVIII?

1 game. They take place in vastly different worlds. II has a literal Heaven & Hell. VII has neither gods (with the possible exception of Minerva), nor interdimensional travel.

With both ideas technically possible, what we're looking for here is which is the more plausible.

It isn't just 1 line of text. That's kind of what I'm getting at. Besides, I've already answered which is more plausible a few times.

The reason it "supercedes" the heroes' desire to return home is that information from the premise is overturned all of the time. Final Fantasy is littered with examples. There's Cloud not being an ex-SOLDIER, Xande & Golbez being mind controlled, Edea being possessed by a witch from the future, & so on.

As a general rule, the later the information is introduced, the more likely it is to be the "real story."

Although, I will agree with you that it sounds pretty crazy, until one sees the justifications.

Where does Firion question his reason to live? He seems confident of it from start to finish: the wild rose. His dream.

Emperor: You're just a pawn.

Firion: Sweet shit. Am I a pawn?

My words. Not theirs.

The problem is that you're allowing for only a very strict set of characters when everyone is at least capable of doing it.

I also notice that you still refuse to address my comments regarding Vincent's ability to fly when not in Chaos' form being unavailable to players of Dirge of Cerberus, as well as going without presentation during any of the game's cutscenes.

Due to my "one point at a time" policy, it's a necessary evil that certain points are ignored. You may always bring them up later, but considering I'm STILL clarifying the original points, I think it's safe to say that the old method of "answering everything quote-by-quote" wasn't working.

Personally, I would suggest maintaining focus on the couple of ideas you are currently trying to dis/prove, instead of dragging out the Cecil argument again & again.

Do you see the kind of circles we're going to keep running in as long as "It means whatever I want it to mean" is on the table?

Then stop doing it.

It's rather self-defeating to say that when so much of your argument rests on denying that lines of text mean what I claim they do.

That's like arguing that the ice cubes you made in your ice tray in the freezer aren't really the water that you put into the tray -- but then acknowledging that it's the same water as before if you allow the cubes to melt.

I wasn't planning on an analagy, but this is a good one. But I would say that you have it mislabeled. Consider the tray the consciousness & the ice cubes that come from it the Manikins.

I suppose one could liken it to astral projection, but not really.

Before you ask me how this is even possible, keep in mind that Cid says he isn't even sure whether or not the source of the consciousness exists yet.

The Twilight Mexican · Feb 17, 2010

Neo Bahamut said:
It's not a "loose reading," it's the same epistemlogical question. Like...literally. "Purpose" & "reason for living" are the same thing.

One can question their purpose without questioning their reason for living. "I know what I want to live for, but what is my purpose in the grand scheme of things?"

Yes, it could mean the same thing, but you're reading this stuff so loosely that it could literally mean whatever you want it to. We're going from "very reason for living" to "purpose" to "motivations" and even to "ideals."

What the fuck, man?

Neo Bahamut said:
Since he never specifies whether or not there were successes, let alone his standards for success, that's kind of hard to do.

Yes. It is. Which is why I'm so confused that you insist on this line only possibly, logically meaning specifically the warriors, but applying to them in a very loosely defined assortment of ways.

By the way, he does specify that there were successes: "After countless experiments, finally my testing reached success."

Neo Bahamut said:
As I said, the reason I think the advanced Manikins are "successful" is that he doesn't appear to flatly dismiss them like the others.

Where do you see this? His line about those who "questioned their very reason for living" is either explaining the failures or the successes.

Neo Bahamut said:
But if you find it "every bit as likely," I think you're ignoring a simple fact:

Warriors-Clearly question their existence throughout the game.

Yet that's not a simple fact at all. It's only, again, when you start defining "very reason for living" any way you want to that it becomes so "obvious."

Most of those characters have a fairly solid idea of their reason for living in mind. It's only when you decide to make that term mean something related, but different -- like "purpose" -- that questioning one's motivations or what the right course of action in a given situation should be becomes a possible synonym for "very reason for living."

"Girl" and "woman" are often used interchangeably in English, for instance, but they're not the same. If you're referring to a specific individual as a "girl," if her age is unknown, there could be ambiguity at work as far as her age range goes.

Likewise, calling her a "female" would leave her age unclear. If you call her a "woman," though, it narrows things down.

"Girl" is always going to encompass "female," but could mean "woman."

Neo Bahamut said:
Manikins-Appearances can be construed as questioning their existence. Never directly confirmed.

It's also never directly confirmed that the Onion Knight wondering whether he should fight Cloud of Darkness or find a way around that battle instead is an example of "questioning his reason for living," and I find it a very far stretch to say that it almost certainly is.

Neo Bahamut said:
Doesn't seem like a particularly strong case, to me. The sections for Garland, Kuja, & Zidane explain the lines "I AM the Angel of Death! YOURS!", "You make my skin crawl, Garland," & "I feel an unbreakable bond between us," but Garland from I & Garland from IX are not the same individual.

It says that in Dissidia Cloud is doing something as a continuation of something he'd been doing prior, and that he's still doing it in AC/C. How does that not establish a timeline?

NB said:
1 game. They take place in vastly different worlds. II has a literal Heaven & Hell. VII has neither gods (with the possible exception of Minerva), nor interdimensional travel.

So a couple examples of different metaphysics means that the different dimensions should never be able to come in contact without becoming hopelessly muddled?

Was that the case when the plot element of the Interdimensional Rift allowed Gilgamesh to travel from V's world and visit VII, VIII, IX, X/X-2 and XII's worlds? Given that VII and X/X-2 took place in the same dimension, that means we're still working with as many as five different dimensions right there.

By the way, I'm not sure how you can say that VII doesn't have interdimensional travel. Obviously it doesn't because it's not part of the plot, but if you're suggesting that no one -- not even somebody from another dimension coming to that dimension -- could do it, then that's an "absence of evidence = evidence of absence" claim.

In any case, we do have evidence for it: Gilgamesh was there.

NB said:
It isn't just 1 line of text. That's kind of what I'm getting at.

But it is. Count the number of times that topic comes up. It's once!

NB said:
Besides, I've already answered which is more plausible a few times.

The reason it "supercedes" the heroes' desire to return home is that information from the premise is overturned all of the time. Final Fantasy is littered with examples. There's Cloud not being an ex-SOLDIER, Xande & Golbez being mind controlled, Edea being possessed by a witch from the future, & so on.

As a general rule, the later the information is introduced, the more likely it is to be the "real story."

But you still don't know who that information refers to.

NB said:
Although, I will agree with you that it sounds pretty crazy, until one sees the justifications.

At least we agree on that much. I don't see the justifications, so it remains pretty crazy to me.

NB said:
Emperor: You're just a pawn.

Firion: Sweet shit. Am I a pawn?

My words. Not theirs.

Fair enough. He does question his purpose there, and in such a way that it could be construed as his reason for living.

So that's Cloud, Firion and Terra, for sure. Who else?

By the way, I want to remind you again that all of this takes place after Cid has already made his observation about the beings who questioned their reason for living. Even before Sephiroth's suicide.

NB said:
Due to my "one point at a time" policy, it's a necessary evil that certain points are ignored. You may always bring them up later, but considering I'm STILL clarifying the original points, I think it's safe to say that the old method of "answering everything quote-by-quote" wasn't working.

Personally, I would suggest maintaining focus on the couple of ideas you are currently trying to dis/prove, instead of dragging out the Cecil argument again & again.

The Cecil argument -- and consequently, the Vincent example -- are all related to this same matter. Otherwise I wouldn't continue bringing them up.

NB said:
Then stop doing it.

Dude, you're the one doing it. I'm taking "very reason for living" as what it says. You're insisting on transferring that into meaning several other very specific things, several of which aren't even related to the original idea (e.g. Onion Knight's question of what he should do about CoD).

The most I'm doing with "very reason for living" is drawing the conclusion that anomie is at work within the entities in question and they are unsure of themselves and their place in the world. Which is something else that Cid outright said: "Within the created pawns were some whose faith in themselved wavered--who questioned their very reason for living."

That being the case, it's pretty easy to connect those ideas to entities who take on the forms of others.

It's far more of a stretch to equate someone worrying about how they can help their friends to a sense of having no purpose.

NB said:
It's rather self-defeating to say that when so much of your argument rests on denying that lines of text mean what I claim they do.

Not really. You've not justified how you arrived at the claim you're making.

You've explained how you got there, sure, but your entire argument rests on the premise that only the heroes and villains visibly question their reason for living, when that's not even true of just about all of them. As well, we don't even know who Cid was talking about when he was describing the entities who questioned themselves.

NB said:
I wasn't planning on an analagy, but this is a good one. But I would say that you have it mislabeled. Consider the tray the consciousness & the ice cubes that come from it the Manikins.

I suppose one could liken it to astral projection, but not really.

So it would essentially just be Disc 1 Cloud all over again -- Cloud with some parts missing?

I'm still not sure why that wouldn't really be them. Fragments of them that have to go back where they came from are still them.

It's almost like a non-issue what we're debating here: I'm arguing that it's the complete individuals, body and soul, while you're arguing that it's a large quantity of fragments of those individuals' souls, with bodies of unknown origin.

NB said:
Before you ask me how this is even possible, keep in mind that Cid says he isn't even sure whether or not the source of the consciousness exists yet.

I'm not too concerned about that aspect of things, honestly. As it is, we've got people from the same worlds/universes, but different points in time (Cloud and Seph come from the same universe as Tidus and Jecht, while Squall comes from the same world as Ultimecia; just different time periods).

That being the case, it's not really a big deal when in time the consciousnesses come from.

Neo Bahamut · Feb 19, 2010

By the way, he does specify that there were successes: "After countless experiments, finally my testing reached success."

Then, since the Manikins were thrown into the Rift, they can't be the successful experiments. You've solidified a point I wasn't sure on a minute ago. Thanks.

Most of those characters have a fairly solid idea of their reason for living in mind.

If they're clear & distinct, then I suppose you can give a few characters & their "reasons for living," & we'll just see whether or not they're questioned.

It's also never directly confirmed that the Onion Knight wondering whether he should fight Cloud of Darkness or find a way around that battle instead is an example of "questioning his reason for living," and I find it a very far stretch to say that it almost certainly is.

You're expecting the impossible. That doubts about yourself are questioning yourself is an axiom. You would never have it "specified" for you.

It says that in Dissidia Cloud is doing something as a continuation of something he'd been doing prior, and that he's still doing it in AC/C. How does that not establish a timeline?

It doesn't if you're reading too much into 1 quote, which is inherently designed to explain a line in relation to a character. If they really wanted to "establish a timeline," then we should see, at the very least, similar quotes spread throughout the sections.

In any case, we do have evidence for it: Gilgamesh was there.

Gilgamesh was never in VII. I'm not even sure about X/X-2. If you're referring to his weapons, they all had obvious flaws that denoted them as being fake. In any case, certain characters have demonstrated the ability to traverse dimensions. I've never denied that. In fact, it's an important part of my FAQ's introduction.

However, these characters are very few & they don't interact with the other worlds. Although he acts like the original Cloud, teleported from somewhere else, the Cloud in Tactics is treated as a cameo. I see no reason to believe that Dissidia is different, in this regard.

To be fair, though, I suppose I am arguing suspension of disbelief, which can be fairly subjective.

But it is. Count the number of times that topic comes up. It's once!

My response to you is to read the FAQ. I've already spelled out the big picture. Several times.

But you still don't know who that information refers to.

So you're saying that it can't be extrapolated?

So that's Cloud, Firion and Terra, for sure. Who else?

Cecil has a moment of doubt when Firion tells him not to trust Golbez. When Ultimecia tells Squall that he's alone because he doesn't trust his friends, he becomes visibly hesitant. Golbez...just Golbez. Terra strongly hints that Kefka destroys to "fill the void." Sephiroth kills himself to "learn the true nature of the world, or whatever."

Understand that these characters by no means represent a complete or incomplete list. They were chosen for the sake of simplicity. Also, there is Kuja, who needs his own section.

Upon reading the script, which I can't access right now, so you'll excuse me if my quotation is slightly inaccurate, I found that the line which references his past is before his freak-out, not afterwards. Namely, "you are a flawed vessel." This seems like a pretty obvious reference to his original motive. After finding out that he was a "flawed" Angel of Death, a mortal, & would eventually become useless to Garland, he goes off the deep end & tries to destroy the world.

You could argue, "How could Ultimecia know?" but my response is still, "Does it matter?" Also, "What else could she be referring to?"

By the way, I want to remind you again that all of this takes place after Cid has already made his observation about the beings who questioned their reason for living. Even before Sephiroth's suicide.

Let's just focus on whether or not they DO it, for now.

That being the case, it's pretty easy to connect those ideas to entities who take on the forms of others.

It's far more of a stretch to equate someone worrying about how they can help their friends to a sense of having no purpose.

...No. It's not. Taking someone else's form does not automatically denote a metaphysical paradox. Think of virtually any shapeshifting character, for instance. Zeus did not "question his own existence." Taking the form of another person=/=questioning your own existence.

It is a massive stretch to arrive at without any sort of conclusive evidence.

Not really. You've not justified how you arrived at the claim you're making

.

Irrelevent if true. As long as you're arguing word definition, you're defeating your own logic. And boy howdy, are you arguing word definitions.

I'm still not sure why that wouldn't really be them. Fragments of them that have to go back where they came from are still them.

It's almost like a non-issue what we're debating here: I'm arguing that it's the complete individuals, body and soul, while you're arguing that it's a large quantity of fragments of those individuals' souls, with bodies of unknown origin.

I wouldn't say that it's not an issue. Either way is a massive difference in regards to the plot.

The Twilight Mexican · Feb 19, 2010

Neo Bahamut said:
Then, since the Manikins were thrown into the Rift, they can't be the successful experiments. You've solidified a point I wasn't sure on a minute ago. Thanks.

... Dude, the damn text tells you that failures were the ones put in the Rift. But what I was saying is that it doesn't specify whether the ones who "questioned their very reason for living" were the failures or the successes.

But the failures were the ones he'd spoken of immediately prior, so I would conclude -- given that doubting one's reason for living and such isn't exactly a positive -- that it was the failures.

NB said:
If they're clear & distinct, then I suppose you can give a few characters & their "reasons for living," & we'll just see whether or not they're questioned.

-Mateus, Sephiroth and Ultimecia desire conquest
-CoD, Exdeath and Kefka desire destruction
-Golbez wants to see his brother survive the conflict and be freed from it
-Kuja apparently wants to break Zidane
-Jecht wants Tidus to get sent back to Spira
-Firion has his dream of the wild roses
-Cecil wants to fight alongside his brother and end the conflict
-Tidus wants to beat his dad

Other than survival and it being the right thing to do, OK doesn't have a clear motivation initially, nor does Bartz, Squall and Zidane. Terra and Cloud actively question their reason for everything, and Firion expresses momentary doubt whether his dream is valuable.

So a whopping total of three characters out of 18 apply.

NB said:
You're expecting the impossible. That doubts about yourself are questioning yourself is an axiom. You would never have it "specified" for you.

Yet the specific wording is "their very reason for living" and the inclusion of "very" makes it quite specific indeed. And, no, you cannot somehow playdoh that into being a synonym for having doubts of any kind, especially one such as whether he should fight CoD head-on or look for a way to avoid the battle.

NB said:
It doesn't if you're reading too much into 1 quote ...

The irony here is astonishing. How did you not pick up on it before you hit "submit reply"?

NB said:
... which is inherently designed to explain a line in relation to a character.

Yes, it is. Thank you.

NB said:
If they really wanted to "establish a timeline," then we should see, at the very least, similar quotes spread throughout the sections.

Or they might not have anticipated you needing it beaten into your head over and over that these guys are real.

NB said:
Gilgamesh was never in VII. I'm not even sure about X/X-2. If you're referring to his weapons, they all had obvious flaws that denoted them as being fake.

Yet his Bestiary entry makes it clear that he has been to those worlds and met the swordsmen that the real weapons belong to:

"An ancient Man of Mystery, traveling the Dimensions with his lone Companion, Enkidu, in search of a legendary Sword. It is said he confronts all Adventurers he meets and challenges them for their Weapons. Each of his six Arms bears a Weapon of great Fame, yet there is no Evidence that any are the genuine Article. Petitioned as a Mark by a Swordsman bereft of his beloved Blade."

And the "weapon of great fame" description makes it clear that these weapons are supposed to be related to the real deal -- not just imitations that came out looking similar by a funny turn of coincidence. For that matter, the very fact that the fake Buster Sword says "fake" on it indicates that there's a real one.

NB said:
Although he acts like the original Cloud, teleported from somewhere else, the Cloud in Tactics is treated as a cameo. I see no reason to believe that Dissidia is different, in this regard.

You're arguing that he's an easter egg in a game that has, as its premise, playing with the main characters of the first 10 games? What the hell?

NB said:
To be fair, though, I suppose I am arguing suspension of disbelief, which can be fairly subjective.

You're arguing suspension of reality, man.

NB said:
My response to you is to read the FAQ. I've already spelled out the big picture. Several times.

Your FAQ says the same thing every time I look at it. I'm talking to you.

And I know what your damn FAQ says -- that the plot point wouldn't be there unless it was there for a reason.

Well, I've said the same damn thing to you about the recurring plot point of the heroes going home, but you think it's far less relevant. As well, you insist on the optional, one-shot line of text having a specific meaning when it's not even clear who it's referring to -- successes or failures.

NB said:
So you're saying that it can't be extrapolated?

I'm saying you don't know who it refers to, so you really need to stop with the "It's all but certain" stuff.

NB said:
Cecil has a moment of doubt when Firion tells him not to trust Golbez. When Ultimecia tells Squall that he's alone because he doesn't trust his friends, he becomes visibly hesitant.

Yes, and I had a moment of doubt half an hour ago about whether I wanted to heat up some beef stew or wait and get something else later, but I wasn't questioning my very reason for living.

Any form of doubt is not equivalent to that.

For that matter, you're still dodging the point I made that Cid remarks well before the current cycle -- even before Sephiroth's suicide -- that these entities questioned themselves. Now, again, how are you using events that took place after as evidence that descriptions made earlier were describing the events that came later?

Again, unless you're going to argue that "It happened at other times and we just didn't see it" -- which takes you into the same realm that you say I've been in all along with Cecil being able to become a Dark Knight again if he wants to. Which is common sense to begin with, but anyway.

Also, I'm still waiting for you to address the point about Vincent and flight. I am not going to let you dodge this, no matter how many times you brush it aside or wait a couple days between replies. I have a very good memory, so you might as well just stop.

NB said:
Golbez...just Golbez.

He's down on himself hard, but he seems to have powerful convictions, and I don't see where he ever expresses doubt in his mission to save Cecil.

NB said:
Terra strongly hints that Kefka destroys to "fill the void."

Kefka is Kefka. He doubts all existence, not just his own.

NB said:
Sephiroth kills himself to "learn the true nature of the world" ...

And that is somehow a question of doubt about himself and his own reason for living?

NB said:
You could argue, "How could Ultimecia know?" but my response is still, "Does it matter?" Also, "What else could she be referring to?"

Yet when someone points out that it really doesn't matter at all how Aerith or the Cetra or the Lifestream or whoever the fuck now has the capacity to destroy JENOVA cells, you insist that it does. Nevermind that regardless of what's taking place -- destruction of JENOVA cells, neutralization of Sephiroth's will -- it's new in either case, and it goes unexplained.

As for what else she could be referring to, I have no fucking clue, but I'm far more interested in how "flawed vessel" translates to "limited lifespan" when he was never previously a vessel for anything in the first damn place. The line itself is painfully vague.

And I still want to know -- which you never answered before -- why Kuja would again be stuck with a limited lifespan.

NB said:
Let's just focus on whether or not they DO it, for now.

No. We'll look at it comprehensively or not at all.

NB said:
...No. It's not. Taking someone else's form does not automatically denote a metaphysical paradox. Think of virtually any shapeshifting character, for instance. Zeus did not "question his own existence." Taking the form of another person=/=questioning your own existence.

It doesn't, but we're talking about characters who otherwise express no emotion and whose sentience is questionable, aren't we?

NB said:
It is a massive stretch to arrive at without any sort of conclusive evidence.

And there comes your magnificent double-standard once again.

NB said:
Irrelevent if true. As long as you're arguing word definition, you're defeating your own logic. And boy howdy, are you arguing word definitions.

Words have meaning. I can't help that this concept is the basis for communication.

NB said:
I wouldn't say that it's not an issue. Either way is a massive difference in regards to the plot.

In one circumstance, they apparently get blitzed along with everyone else in existence, and then get reformed. In another, everyone gets fried but them.

At the end of the day, it's not that big of a difference.

Neo Bahamut · Feb 19, 2010

But the failures were the ones he'd spoken of immediately prior, so I would conclude -- given that doubting one's reason for living and such isn't exactly a positive -- that it was the failures.

Or that he moved on to the successful ones. It's more extrapolation. If the failures were dealt into the Rift, then the successful ones could not have been the failures. This implies that they were more advanced recreations. Therefore, if the heroes are advanced Manikins, they are likely the successful ones.

So a whopping total of three characters out of 18 apply.

More to the point, all of those "reasons for existing" are goals & ideals. You have successfully proven that "purpose" & "reason for living" are the same.

In my list, I'm counting 7, & I'm using a rather conservative definition. Coming up with a purpose AT ALL is evidence that you don't exist just for the sake of existing.

Yet his Bestiary entry makes it clear that he has been to those worlds and met the swordsmen that the real weapons belong to:

It says he meets adventurers & challenges them for their weapons. That does not mean he fought Cloud, Squall, Tidus, & whoever.

And the "weapon of great fame" description makes it clear that these weapons are supposed to be related to the real deal -- not just imitations that came out looking similar by a funny turn of coincidence. For that matter, the very fact that the fake Buster Sword says "fake" on it indicates that there's a real one.

Dude. It's a reference. It's like the ancient wonders in Tactics.

You're arguing that he's an easter egg in a game that has, as its premise, playing with the main characters of the first 10 games? What the hell?

I'm arguing that "acting like the real Cloud" does not prove that he was directly transported.

You're arguing suspension of reality, man.

Did you ever consider the possibility that you're wrong? Like...even once. Has it crossed your mind that it might be possible? Because I'm seeing a lot of "I'm so obviously right that you're fuckin' stupid" coming from you.

Your FAQ says the same thing every time I look at it. I'm talking to you

.

I say the same thing every time. I can't help but wonder if it's because you just aren't trying to get it. Regardless of whether or not you agree, I simply should not have to spend this much time just clarifying the basics. Why is that? Probably because you refuse to let any minor point go. Shit, take this for example:

Well, I've said the same damn thing to you about the recurring plot point of the heroes going home, but you think it's far less relevant. As well, you insist on the optional, one-shot line of text having a specific meaning when it's not even clear who it's referring to -- successes or failures.

I've explained every angle of this multiple times. From the logical steps it takes to deduce the group the quote is referring to. From the "point" of the recurring "going home theme." To WHY one thing is more relevant to the other. To the fact that it's not just 1 line of text!

The last part, in particular, is emphasized in the FAQ.

I'm saying you don't know who it refers to, so you really need to stop with the "It's all but certain" stuff.

You avoided the question. Do you or do you not think that you can logically extrapolate something from a quote, even if it doesn't literally explain every baby step to you?

Any form of doubt is not equivalent to that.

Above, you identified their "reasons for living" with their goals. Point proven.

For that matter, you're still dodging the point I made that Cid remarks well before the current cycle -- even before Sephiroth's suicide -- that these entities questioned themselves. Now, again, how are you using events that took place after as evidence that descriptions made earlier were describing the events that came later?

I didn't dodge the point. I specifically said, "For now, let's prove they DO it." Start from the bottom. Work up.

I have a very good memory, so you might as well just stop.

You have an excellent memory, when it's in your interests. You seem to forget anything I prove, disprove, or clarify.

If you want other points addressed, you need to understand the points we're currently talking about. It's just complete nonsense for me to move on when you still have issues with the foundation.

What you fail to understand is that the course of this discussion has been your choice the entire time. When you decide that you understand a point, you can choose to set it on the backburner & bring up another one.

You have to pick & choose your evidence. I outlined the way I was going to do this from the very beginning. I chose to go to the forums in part because of the understanding that a topic is made on the maker's terms. It hardly makes sense to complain about it now, especially when this was originally supposed to be "*Quote/Response*" for each person.

Believe me, as stupid as I think the Cecil/Vincent shit is, I will counter it, if it's presented in the proper manner. I already did it for Ryu.

He's down on himself hard, but he seems to have powerful convictions, and I don't see where he ever expresses doubt in his mission to save Cecil.

He doubts himself. That's it. He also doubts the plan, as he tells Cosmos that her conduct is "unbefitting a goddess."

And I still want to know -- which you never answered before -- why Kuja would again be stuck with a limited lifespan.

Yeah, why don't you answer the question before accusing me of dodging questions. Or, you know, even consider what the line means before brushing it off, entirely. Even if you don't agree with me, surely you realize that line has some weighty implications.

No. We'll look at it comprehensively or not at all.

I phrased that wrong. It was not a question. We are not going to move on until you understand, at the very least, why I claim that the heroes question their own existence. You don't have to agree with it, but if you don't have some understanding of premise, that explanation would just be a waste of time. If you want to talk about that, do yourself a favor & see the point.

It doesn't, but we're talking about characters who otherwise express no emotion and whose sentience is questionable, aren't we?

Which wouldn't prevent one of the other characters from explaining this connection. As I've said. Before. Multiple times. Again.

Why are you the one getting pissy, exactly?

And there comes your magnificent double-standard once again.

There IS no double-standard. There is plenty of evidence from the text & I have outlined it multiple times. It is nowhere near the same thing.

Words have meaning. I can't help that this concept is the basis for communication.

Yeah, that's why I didn't make such a stupid claim as, "Don't argue definitions." Paraphrased.

In one circumstance, they apparently get blitzed along with everyone else in existence, and then get reformed. In another, everyone gets fried but them.

At the end of the day, it's not that big of a difference.

What are you even talking about?

The Twilight Mexican · Feb 19, 2010

Neo Bahamut said:
Or that he moved on to the successful ones. It's more extrapolation. If the failures were dealt into the Rift, then the successful ones could not have been the failures. This implies that they were more advanced recreations. Therefore, if the heroes are advanced Manikins, they are likely the successful ones.

And you're still not identifying anything that establishes -- i.e. confirms beyond a reasonable doubt -- he was describing the successes there.

It could have been either, for fuck's sake.

Neo Bahamut said:
More to the point, all of those "reasons for existing" are goals & ideals. You have successfully proven that "purpose" & "reason for living" are the same.

Not really.

Again, "purpose," "reason for living" and "ideal" can be synonymous -- but aren't strictly so by definition. The addition of "very" in front of "reason for living" sounds like the writer was trying to get specific.

Neo Bahamut said:
In my list, I'm counting 7

Let's see your list.

Neo Bahamut said:
Coming up with a purpose AT ALL is evidence that you don't exist just for the sake of existing.

True enough -- but you're not meeting the standard of establishing that they questioned their reason.

NB said:
It says he meets adventurers & challenges them for their weapons. That does not mean he fought Cloud, Squall, Tidus, & whoever.

They're clearly trying to give the impression that he's met them.

NB said:
Dude. It's a reference. It's like the ancient wonders in Tactics.

Gilgamesh has an established plot-related means of traveling between dimensions and has done it before. That's altogether different from Baron Castle randomly being in FFTactics.

NB said:
I'm arguing that "acting like the real Cloud" does not prove that he was directly transported.

Acting like the real Cloud doesn't indicate that he isn't the real Cloud -- especially when we have a description out of the Ultimania that says he continues doing in Dissidia something that he was doing before.

While we're on this topic, by the way, why should we doubt that the Cloud in Tactics was the real deal anyway? He clearly references falling into the Lifestream.

While it doesn't impact FFVII's story at all -- nor should it -- it's certainly not beyond reason that it could have really happened. For that matter, the dude and his sidequest do get included in Alazlam's Brave Story chronicles.

NB said:
Did you ever consider the possibility that you're wrong? Like...even once. Has it crossed your mind that it might be possible?

Yes? Right around the same time I pointed out that both interpretations fall into the realm of "possible" and that we need to be establishing which is the more plausible based on narrative themes and plot elements that are definite.

NB said:
Because I'm seeing a lot of "I'm so obviously right that you're fuckin' stupid" coming from you.

You're seeing a lot of frustration coming from me. I simply can't fathom how you can make an argument like "Storytelling rules say that if you have a gun in Act I, it better be fired by Act III -- so a single ambiguous line in an optional text clearly could only mean what I'm saying it means, and it overrides this other recurring, mandatory plot element."

NB said:
I've explained every angle of this multiple times. From the logical steps it takes to deduce the group the quote is referring to.

When there's another group it could easily refer to, and to whom it would apply to every last individual in that group, rather than somewhere from 3 to 7 -- less than half of the whole.

NB said:
From the "point" of the recurring "going home theme."

Which, again, is something that could have easily been done without a pointless plot element that is ultimately narratively bankrupt for both the characters and the audience.

You can give them a reason to fight like "It's the right thing to do!" or "Because we're heroes!" without leading them and us on. For that matter, they didn't even really believe they could go home until right before they fought the Emperor for the last time.

They'd been carrying on for quite some time without that belief.

NB said:
To WHY one thing is more relevant to the other.

If I remember correctly, you said it was because the Chaos Reports are available after the story's over, and newer info would obviously override older. While I don't disagree with that mechanic of determining true information, I'd, again, point out that you don't know which group was being referred to.

NB said:
To the fact that it's not just 1 line of text!

Yet it is. Christ.

NB said:
You avoided the question. Do you or do you not think that you can logically extrapolate something from a quote, even if it doesn't literally explain every baby step to you?

Obviously. But you don't think that's possible to do with the manikins. Only the heroes and villains. Even when dealing with the same quote.

NB said:
Above, you identified their "reasons for living" with their goals. Point proven.

Except not.

For that matter, I've got a number of goals. Some are my reason for living. Doens't mean any time I doubt anything I'm questioning my reason for living.

NB said:
It's just complete nonsense for me to move on when you still have issues with the foundation.

This is how debating works. A point made later can illuminate an earlier one.

NB said:
What you fail to understand is that the course of this discussion has been your choice the entire time. When you decide that you understand a point, you can choose to set it on the backburner & bring up another one.

I'm not going to accept your premise -- such that further debate even becomes unnecessary -- just to get other points of equal relevance to the discussion.

You're well capable of moving on to other points at any time. You just insist on sticking to the same ones.

I already know your premise. You already know mine.

Again, we've established the "possible" status. Now it's time to move forward and get to the "plausible" status.

You argue that the Cecil matter is related to plausibility. So let's get to it.

NB said:
I chose to go to the forums in part because of the understanding that a topic is made on the maker's terms.

Then you misunderstood.

NB said:
Believe me, as stupid as I think the Cecil/Vincent shit is, I will counter it, if it's presented in the proper manner. I already did it for Ryu.

There's no "proper manner" that I'm missing. It's been presented to you. Weeks ago. And it's still waiting for a reply. And I'm getting really fucking annoyed about it.

NB said:
He doubts himself. That's it.

No, he's down on himself. That's it.

NB said:
He also doubts the plan, as he tells Cosmos that her conduct is "unbefitting a goddess."

Yes, he has doubts about the plan. Where does that indicate that he doubts his very reason for living?

NB said:
Yeah, why don't you answer the question ...

I answered your question the same way you answered mine about how Ulty knows.

NB said:
Or, you know, even consider what the line means before brushing it off, entirely. Even if you don't agree with me, surely you realize that line has some weighty implications.

I don't know what implications it has. Kuja was never a vessel for anything, so I don't know what the fuck she's talking about.

NB said:
We are not going to move on until you understand, at the very least, why I claim that the heroes question their own existence. You don't have to agree with it, but if you don't have some understanding of premise, that explanation would just be a waste of time.

Disagreeing with your premise doesn't mean I don't get it. Now let's move the hell on.

NB said:
There IS no double-standard. There is plenty of evidence from the text & I have outlined it multiple times. It is nowhere near the same thing.

It is a double-standard. You're arguing that one group fits an interpretation of a description better -- when, by your own admission, the description wouldn't apply to as many as half of that group's members -- than another interpretation of the same line when the group in question under the alternate view would be comprehensively covered by the description.

In fact, you're saying that the other is a "massive stretch" by comparison.

So, yes. Double-standard.

NB said:
What are you even talking about?

Your interpretation calls for everybody in existence getting reduced to free-floating consciousnesses, and then a few of them being given physical bodies and becoming the heroes and villains -- while some others become the manikin enemies -- through experimentation by Cid, yes?

Neo Bahamut · Feb 19, 2010

Since you're intent on "moving on," I will. But I'm going to make an exception & reference 2 points, instead of just 1. You'll see why in just a second:

Your interpretation calls for everybody in existence getting reduced to free-floating consciousnesses, and then a few of them being given physical bodies and becoming the heroes and villains -- while some others become the manikin enemies -- through experimentation by Cid, yes?

No. This isn't even remotely what I suggested. In fact, Cid tells us where the consciousness comes from: He doesn't know. And if the essentially omniscient narrator is clueless, what are the odds that I'll be able to give you a definitive answer?

In any case, the fact that this is so radically different from anything I've ever suggested, the only things even similar being that the warriors & the Manikins were produced from the same consciousness, leads me to believe that you really don't understand my premise at all, & you're getting "really fucking annoyed" with overclarifications that you're triggering.

Regardless, since we both appear to want to move on, I'm going to shift the discussion to something I feel is particularly important to my editing:

I don't know what implications it has. Kuja was never a vessel for anything, so I don't know what the fuck she's talking about.

This is a problem. You told me, matter-of-factly, that I should have to explain "any discrepency in my theory." Now you're going to tell me that you're not willing to do the same?

I don't really think you should, personally. I think that it's just bad logic to try & come up with an answer that just isn't there. It's also an exercise in futility, as your opponent would be quick to point that out to you, despite demanding the explanation in the first place.

That being said, the Genomes were vessels for Terra's souls.* This line, therefore, fits eerily well with FFIX's original story, & I cannot see anything in Dissidia that it could be referring to.

*=From the FF Wiki:

However, Garland made three Genomes with souls, who were more powerful than regular Genomes. The first of the three, Kuja, was created by chance. Kuja harbored an extraordinary will, but this trait came at the price of mortality. Put bluntly, his creation was a fluke, and Garland even considered discarding him because of it.

So, Kuja was a flawed vessel in his original story. The realization of this caused him to go batfuck insane. Why would that happen twice?

The Twilight Mexican · Feb 20, 2010

Neo Bahamut said:
This isn't even remotely what I suggested. In fact, Cid tells us where the consciousness comes from: He doesn't know. And if the essentially omniscient narrator is clueless, what are the odds that I'll be able to give you a definitive answer?

Actually, he does tell us where they came from:

While observing how they acquired pawns to fight in their conflict, I found that a great number of the consciousnesses had drifted to this world from other dimensions.

From there, it's just putting two and two together to conclude that these other consciousnesses have come from the worlds that got squished together.

Neo Bahamut said:
In any case, the fact that this is so radically different from anything I've ever suggested, the only things even similar being that the warriors & the Manikins were produced from the same consciousness, leads me to believe that you really don't understand my premise at all, & you're getting "really fucking annoyed" with overclarifications that you're triggering.

If it differs from your premise, then I would like you to explain how.

We know the worlds got screwed with and combined. We know consciousnesses that came from other dimensions have drifted into Cid's experimentation range.

Since that's the premise we're dealing with, how is this summary "so radically different" from anything you've ever suggested, when you say that the rest of it -- the warriors and the manikins being produced from the drifting consciousnesses -- is spot-on?

By the way, what I said I was getting "really fucking annoyed" with was you still not addressing the Cecil/Vincent/gameplay business weeks after I first brought it up.

Neo Bahamut said:
This is a problem. You told me, matter-of-factly, that I should have to explain "any discrepency in my theory." Now you're going to tell me that you're not willing to do the same?

I haven't said that I'm unwilling to. What I said is that I have no idea what the hell Ultimecia was talking about. It's not a matter of reconciling apparent discrepancies; it's a matter of not knowing to what the woman was referring.

Neo Bahamut said:
That being said, the Genomes were vessels for Terra's souls.* This line, therefore, fits eerily well with FFIX's original story, & I cannot see anything in Dissidia that it could be referring to.

...

So, Kuja was a flawed vessel in his original story. The realization of this caused him to go batfuck insane. Why would that happen twice?

I will admit that it sounds like it fits very well. They did throw the word "vessel" (kanji: &#22120

around in the Japanese version of FFIX a lot as well.

I still wonder if it doesn't really explain Ulty's line, though. Though it's possible that "flawed" refers to Kuja's limited lifespan -- even though that was a deliberate design choice on Garland's part -- Kuja's reaction to what Ulty's talking about in Dissidia is completely different from his reaction to Garland's news in FFIX.

Instead of -- as you appropriately put it -- going batfuck insane and just randomly trying to kill everyone, he just dicks around with Zidane. In FFIX, after finding out about his mortality, Kuja didn't even care about Zidane anymore.

He even had Zidane helpless in front of him at the time he learned about his mortality and just completely forgot about him.

For that matter, I have to question why he would even believe what the obviously evil bitch who obviously doesn't like him has to say. And still wonder how she would even know.

But, yeah, I'll give you that it sounds like it would fit. Without an Ultimania that would explain that line -- and Dissidia's Ultimania doesn't include a Story Playback section that summarizes its story, as many Ultimanias do -- I can't contest this particular matter about Kuja any further. It's probably the strongest point in favor of your theory, actually.

I don't know what else she might be talking about, as I've honestly never been able to come up with anything.

Still think your take on "questioned their very reason for living" is bollocks, though. :monster:

Alternate Plot Interpretation

Omnipotent Jackass

Omnipotent Jackass

Ex-SeeD-ingly good

Omnipotent Jackass

Ex-SeeD-ingly good

Omnipotent Jackass

Ex-SeeD-ingly good

Omnipotent Jackass

Deus Admiral Parsimonious, PHD, DDS, MD, JD, OBE

Omnipotent Jackass

Ex-SeeD-ingly good

Deus Admiral Parsimonious, PHD, DDS, MD, JD, OBE

Omnipotent Jackass

Omnipotent Jackass

Ex-SeeD-ingly good

Omnipotent Jackass

Ex-SeeD-ingly good

Omnipotent Jackass

Ex-SeeD-ingly good

Omnipotent Jackass

Ex-SeeD-ingly good

Omnipotent Jackass

Ex-SeeD-ingly good

Omnipotent Jackass

Ex-SeeD-ingly good