Before I go further, I should also point out that firstly, Zansetsuken Reverse appears to have no other use but to return the very specific swing Odin uses, as it neither manages to deflect any of Squall or his companions attacks should they battle. Or Gilgy's swing with it.
Also, if, using your logic, Seifer > Odin, then Gilgamesh > Seifer, but Gilgamesh has been defeated by pretty much every other set of heroes he's faced, including being beaten up as a mid level boss for a number of them, that means Seifer's at the bottom of the villain tier, anyways.
A. I was talking about Squall's abandonment issues. He's left behind by Ellone.
So it is utterly irrelevant to a direct comparison with him to Seifer?
B. You're violating the rules set up in this thread.
I'll assume you are referring to my mention that he's actually a pretty piss poor boss even in his own power curve because this is gameplay mechanics.
You do realize that you're referencing game mechanic when you say Squall faces Seifer in a group of three, right?
Seifer's difficulty as a boss is pure gameplay mechanics, comparable to how you get shot and all it does is make little numbers appear. Which is to say it's not accurate at all from a story perspective.
And neither is Squall always fighting in threes. Of course, taking the story into perspective, Squall was not attempting to do anything but subdue the rather maniacal Seifer.
Of course, there IS an instance where Squall, on his own, defeats Seifer unequivocally, and that's on the float in the parade.
And Seifer actually being below the difficulty curve actually does tell us that he's much less of a threat than the bosses both before and after him.
Actually no, it's using the premise of my argument and drawing a separate, unrelated and unsubstantiated conclusion.
Your premise is that because Squall fights Seifer in 3 on 1 according to the battle screen, he must be weaker than Seifer. This is true of nearly every single battle in the game, even ones where the enemy would be no threat to Squall, such as PuPu.
I'm not using just how Seifer takes on Squall and 2 people as evidence. I'm also using their compared fights against Odin.
PuPu has no such feats thus using him is absurd and a flagrant red herring.
But their fights against Odin are merely 'gameplay mechanics'
Unless Gilgamesh is a better fighter than Seifer, of course.
[sing-song]So are your only examples![/sing-song]
Says the guy who was just talking about how weak Seifer is as a boss while I was simply using the storyline evidence of Squall only fighting Seifer with two people.
So, Gilgamesh is better than Seifer. Got it.
This would be another red herring.
Ultimecia controlling time is a red herring to being tougher than Odin? I mean, he's ONLY been beaten by everyone from Onion Knights to Vaan for crying out loud. Hell, by your logic, Gilgamesh is better than he is.
Pointing out that Squall singlehandedly defeated a time controlling long range specialist is a red herring to him being a superior swordsman?
If nothing says he can do it, then he can't. That's just how debating works.
No, actually, it's not.
Proof is on the positive saide which is why negative proof is a fallacy.
The proof is indeed upon the positive claimant, and shifting that burden is a fallacy. But by the very situation you use as evidence, you must admit that Squall does indeed defeat Odin. Gilgamesh and Odin's dissidia profile are evidence Squall did.
You can't win a debate by saying "well nothing says he couldn't".
This is true. But I wasn't trying to win. I was trying to point out that assume the negative doesn't mean 'can't', that's a positive claim. Assume the negative means 'we dunno.'
Yes but but that's irrelevant. That's not strength.
Nor is Zansetsuken Reverse.
Nor is 'strength' a major deciding factor.
That would mean it's Odin who can't kill everything.
That would mean this is semantic bullfuckery, good day.
Not when you're a magically teleporting guy on a horse. I'd take that over most anyone with a gun.
Some obvious exceptions.
Magically teleporting lady with a gun. Ultimecia's time control lets her effectively do this. Hell, it's meaner.
Why not? I don't think how Solid Snake beat a tank would work on a bus.
Nearly anything that tankbusts will busbust unless it's very specifically reliant on the shells themselves.
Circumstance matter greatly.
And the circumstances in this case all point to Ulti being tougher to beat than Odin.
Except you can't say how much Negative Lifestream there is. I gave him the benefit of the doubt in having the same amount as the Lifestream that destroyed Meteor but honestly, there i sno proof at all for how much he controlled.
You're way overthinking this and missing the point. He commanded at least a portion of it to rise and blot out the sky, and remain aloft. Even assuming no energy expended at rest, he still has to raise the whole of it in enough mass and density to blot out the sun.
Topic A is under discussion.- Squall needs party members to fight Seifer
Topic B is introduced under the guise of being relevant to topic A (when topic B is actually not relevant to topic A).- Squall needs party members to fight PuPu, an unknown entity with no comparison to Seifer in the least.
Topic A is abandoned
Except topic A is not abandoned at all.
And are you honestly saying Pupu MIGHT be stronger than Seifer?
