FFVII from a newcomers perspective

[Fiz]

I don't think it's possible for consumers of a text to simply invent thematic meaning that isn't there. What you find in the text is what is in the text.

I'm not so sure thats true.

Many FFVII fans first played the OG at such a young age that Aerith's fictional death had, and retains, a disproportionate impact on them. The fictional deaths of characters we're deeply invested in tend to have that effect on us as children. It's all part of the process of learning about death.

I agree, I mentioned that age will play a fairly substantial role. I think having been an older teen or an adult when you first played it will have a very different impact.

I don't think using the words "mature" and "immature" are really helpful. I prefer "sophisticated" and "unsophisticated". Games made 25+ years ago were unsophisticated in all the sorts of ways. The medium was unsophisticated, and the presumed audience was assumed to be adolescent boys, who also tend to be unsophisticated. The medium has grown up with its users.

But, isn't this just semantics because we're referring to the same. If we call it mature and immature or sophisticated and unsophisticated, we're still referring to the same traits.

That said, as someone who was a mature adult when she played both the OG and the Remake, I may have a slightly different perspective, and I have to say I don't find the Remake to be more "mature" in its handling of the games themes. In some ways, it is less "mature".

The baddies are badder, the goodies are nicer and do less harm; the death toll has been reduced; everybody's beautiful (except Palmer); the nuance, the shades, the resonance with ordinary people's real life experienes have been reduced in favour of some complicated and ultimately meaningless twaddle about time loops and fate, which doesn't exist in the real world except as an abstract intellectual game.

Okay, I'm on the fence here because I feel like Remake is more grown up, this does not mean I think its a really mature story.

The baddies are badder:
Agreed

the goodies are nicer and do less harm:
Nicer? Not so sure

the death toll has been reduced:
But there still is a pretty high death toll, a higher death toll and less people being saved doesn't make it mature. There was a film maker on Youtube who picked up on this, asking for more death and more blood to make it mature is immature. He was referring to people being saved in Sector 7 and the lack of blood. He pointed out that children tend to want that because it feels grown up. Hammer horrors are full of death and full of blood, but are some of the most immature films in existance. Whereas some of the most mature and thought provoking films don't have blood at all, have one or two deaths, or even none at all.

I'm not saying that FFVII would be more mature without, of course that doesn't mean that. Just, that death and blood isn't the thing that makes a story mature. If it did, then hammer horrors would be the most mature and thought provoking, emotionally upsetting films in existance. However, they're the opposite on all counts.


everybody's beautiful (except Palmer):
And Hojo. But yeah, point taken. Thats just East Asian entertainment media though, everyone looks like idols. However, in Japan there was a bit of a stir with people calling Aerith ugly and western looking, I saw something along the lines of "Horse Face" a few times. So, maybe some of that is culture too. But yeah, they're all beautiful.


the nuance, the shades, the resonance with ordinary people's real life experienes have been reduced:
This, I'm not sure what you're referring to. Remake takes a lot of time to humanise the residents of Midgar, Shinra employees, and moralises over your actions. There is more depth there. I know, Shinra set Avalanche up, however the idea that trying to bring about a change that will disadvantage the publics quality of life through violent means is going to entrench the people against you, is very much in-tact & wasn't present before.

 

[LicoriceAllsorts]

I think the tension between the need to save the planet and the necessary sacrifice of a comfortable way of life was very much present in the OG. Inevitably there's more material, as a ten hour stretch of the OG has been expanded to a 40+ hour game, but I don't know that more material = more thematic depth.

I really liked Corneo's Battle Arena; I think the whole arc of the plot there contained a lot of truths about human nature. But the behaviour of some of the characters in Wall Market baffled me. Maybe the message is that they needed Cloud and Co to come along and inspire them to rebel against Don Corneo's rule, but they're all so morally compromised anyway - Lesley, Madame M, Chocobo Sam... Are we meant to think Wall Market will become a better place for Don Corneo's removal? No: Wall Market fulfils a need, as Aerith astutely pointed out, and every Wall Market needs a Corneo. Lesley goes on to become a full-time scam artist in the post-Meteor world.

Marle is just an irritation, the incarnation of every bossy old landlady with a heart of gold trope ever.

There isn't a single new character as glorious as the late, lamented Sector 7 Train Man.

 

[Fiz]

I think the tension between the need to save the planet and the necessary sacrifice of a comfortable way of life was very much present in the OG. Inevitably there's more material, as a ten hour stretch of the OG has been expanded to a 40+ hour game, but I don't know that more material = more thematic depth.

I really liked Corneo's Battle Arena; I think the whole arc of the plot there contained a lot of truths about human nature. But the behaviour of some of the characters in Wall Market baffled me. Maybe the message is that they needed Cloud and Co to come along and inspire them to rebel against Don Corneo's rule, but they're all so morally compromised anyway - Lesley, Madame M, Chocobo Sam... Are we meant to think Wall Market will become a better place for Don Corneo's removal? No: Wall Market fulfils a need, as Aerith astutely pointed out, and every Wall Market needs a Corneo. Lesley goes on to become a full-time scam artist in the post-Meteor world.

Marle is just an irritation, the incarnation of every bossy old landlady with a heart of gold trope ever.

There isn't a single new character as glorious as the late, lamented Sector 7 Train Man.

Okay, I hear what you're saying. But, overall, I still think Remake has a higher quality of storytelling and characterisation compared to the original and that the pacing was generally fine, improved upon from the original but still not without its flaws.

 

[KindOfBlue]

the resonance with ordinary people's real life experienes have been reduced in favour of some complicated and ultimately meaningless twaddle about time loops and fate,

I think that ultimately depends on where they go with it, but I will say that the conversation of fate versus free will is quite old and a very human thing to ponder.

If I had to guess, the knee jerk negative response to it in FF7R is at least partly fueled by an oversaturation of the use of alternate timelines/dimensions throughout pop culture. Fair enough, I don’t particularly care for the concept either but it didn’t quite leave the bitter taste for me that it did for some people.

Inevitably there's more material, as a ten hour stretch of the OG has been expanded to a 40+ hour game, but I don't know that more material = more thematic depth.

I think some of the themes that people praise the OG for don’t truly manifest until later in the game anyways, so of course they’re not in FF7R, we’re not there yet. By this point in the OG we barely know anything about Jessie, Biggs, and Wedge so I certainly didn’t think much of their deaths. The remake added all of that, but did they truly take it away as well?

Sure, certain characters seem to be alive now but I’m not so sure they’re going to live happily ever after. Some automatically dismiss time travel and related elements because they supposedly “remove the stakes” but to me that depends largely on execution. I don’t think a world in which time travel or alternate dimensions exist is as truly free from consequence as many people make it out to be, but that’s all TBD at this point.

I think the tension between the need to save the planet and the necessary sacrifice of a comfortable way of life was very much present in the OG.

Interestingly, this reminds me of the creative struggle between some fans’ desires to be comfortable (just do the OG, we already know it works!) and the creator’s desire to take their creations in different directions.

 

[LicoriceAllsorts]

You're spot on, of course, about the debate between free will and fate being as old as humankind. It's something I find inherently interesting. I just don't think the Remake had anything interesting to say about it. Fate is either normally God's will or the inevitably consequence of the physical laws of the universe. The laws of the FFVII universe don't seem to be consistent, so they're easy to get around; as for God's will, we have the Planet's will instead, but that too is portrayed with some inconsistency. In a world in which fate itself seems so unfixed and inconsistent, how can we even call it fate? And if it isn't fate but just possibilities, or the wish-list of an entity with limited powers, then you're not really fighting or defying fate, are you? Plus, if you somehow succeed in changing your fate, then, paradoxically, it was never your fate in the first place. Free will and fate cannot co-exist; if the characters of FFVII have free will, then it logically follows that in their world, fate does not exist and never existed. It's just a story of different wills contending for different desired outcomes.

 

[Fiz]

I think that ultimately depends on where they go with it, but I will say that the conversation of fate versus free will is quite old and a very human thing to ponder.

If I had to guess, the knee jerk negative response to it in FF7R is at least partly fueled by an oversaturation of the use of alternate timelines/dimensions throughout pop culture. Fair enough, I don’t particularly care for the concept either but it didn’t quite leave the bitter taste for me that it did for some people.

I don't even think it is timetravel, nor multiple timelines / multiverse theory but more of a time-loop which isn't the same thing if the populous isn't aware of the loop. If we return to the OG, there was a theory that this was a loop from the very beginning when FFVII was released due to Aerith's bookends on the story.

Also, when the idea of fate or time-loops etc are raised people tend towards the common implementations. In storytelling you have magic systems for anything that isn't possible in the real world. You have hard magic sytems (explained and rigid) and soft magic systems (more above comprehension, not always infallible, more fluid).

Typically fate is implemented in a very rigid fashion, it's this thing that guides the exact destiny of all things. Time loops, time travel, timelines, dimensions also tend towards hard magic systems, where they are complicated and explained with very rigid rules, which is often their downfall because they either become too complicated and bogged down in exposition, or start to implement holes.

The lifestream is a soft magic system, so I expect whatever that the timeloop, timetravel or timeline thing is, will also be a soft magic system. I also think fate in Remake is a soft magic system, and I don't think its infallible.


I suspect the world is in some kind of time loop (as a result of Sephiroph, Aerith and Jenova - I think all 3 will be connected to it). The only things that have knowledge of past loops are Aerith and Sephiroph, although Aeriths is limited (because otherwise shes infallible). I think Fate rather than a naturally occuring phenomena is an emergency reaction by the planet to try to keep the time loop on a course that it thinks won't lead to Sephiroph / Jenova bringing about its destruction. It intervenes only when something happens that it thinks might throw the the course off in a way that will throw the known course off too much, I also don't think it can be in all places at all times, it has it's limitations, and that it can also be tricked.

We have seen it tricked already, through Aerith making a few subtle changes that caused a butterfly affect which lead to people in Sector 7 being saved.

Sure, certain characters seem to be alive now but I’m not so sure they’re going to live happily ever after. Some automatically dismiss time travel and related elements because they supposedly “remove the stakes” but to me that depends largely on execution. I don’t think a world in which time travel or alternate dimensions exist is as truly free from consequence as many people make it out to be, but that’s all TBD at this point.

If anything, the overall setup has added the stakes because nobody knows whats going to happen now. That adds narrative tension.

Also, BIB: Agreed. I think the plot is probably going to fork around Aerith down OG and a new route for Remake that closes the compilation (a final end). In that I suspect Aerith will live (at the very least until the end). But, I don't think that means robbing it of anything either. I can see a route and its not without its tragedy, loss and consequence.

Interestingly, this reminds me of the creative struggle between some fans’ desires to be comfortable (just do the OG, we already know it works!) and the creator’s desire to take their creations in different directions.

I also think it's partly because fans know that this remake will contain changes they might prefer weren't changed.

 

[KindOfBlue]

I just don't think the Remake had anything interesting to say about it.

Free will and fate cannot co-exist; if the characters of FFVII have free will, then it logically follows that in their world, fate does not exist and never existed. It's just a story of different wills contending for different desired outcomes.

I don’t think there’s much to say about it that hasn’t already been said, but I don’t think that’s what they’re trying to do either since all of those things you brought up are extensions of the already existing conversation about fate and free will. At the core, I think the devs are more concerned with how these elements affect the characters, because really, that’s the most power they have. They’re not scientists or philosophers after all and even if they were, they’re still bound to the same temporal limitations we all are.

As far as free will versus fate, it’s a matter of perspective isn’t it? If a world exists in which some can see the future and others cannot, the free will of those who cannot see the future is already being observed by the ones capable of doing so. So does one truly take precedence over the other? I don’t think any of us can really answer this, and we sure as hell won’t find the answer in FF7R of all things but I could really say the same for the OG’s themes as well. I don’t think the OG really says much about its themes either but was it really supposed to say anything, or just show them?

I also think it's partly because fans know that this remake will contain changes they might prefer weren't changed.

I mean right there, you brought up a change that I personally would rather not see. It’s possible that they save Aerith’s death for the end and I think that would be lame but I’ll get over it, I’m also not entirely sure they’ll even do that anyways. I mean, really I think the biggest changes will mostly affect stuff like Advent Children.

 

[LicoriceAllsorts]

"At the core, I think the devs are more concerned with how these elements affect the characters,"
What elements?

Fate IS set in stone. If fate is capable of being altered by the actions and choices of beings with agency, then it's not fate. It's just a thing that might happen. Fate is not a magic system, soft or hard. It's the word for the things that happen to us, and the word for the irresistible, all-powerful force that makes those things happens. This isn't about perspective. It's about correct and incorrect definitions.

I am perfectly happy with a plot in which a couple of the characters are conscious of the fact that they've been around this block before (maybe more than once), and, since they can remember where they went wrong last time, they hope to fix it this time. I am perfectly happy with a story of contending wills battling for their preferred outcomes. None of this happens in real life, of course; we can only dream of Remakes and do-overs.

You cannot have a world in which some people can forsee an unchangeable future (future) and at the same time observe other people acting from free will. If the future is fixed, all necessary actions leading to it are also fixed; at best, agents have the illusion of choice. However, Aerith doesn't forsee the future; she forsees one possible future. She sees options, probabilities, likelihoods. Other futures are possible precisely because there is no fate: the future isn't set in stone.

It's also possible that what she's really doing is remembering the past. However, she's not back in that past, she is moving forward along a time line which bears many close resemblances to that past but also contains within itself the possibility of being different.

I just hope they don't bring Zack back to life permanently, but I know they will.

 

[Fiz]

I don’t think there’s much to say about it that hasn’t already been said, but I don’t think that’s what they’re trying to do either since all of those things you brought up are extensions of the already existing conversation about fate and free will. At the core, I think the devs are more concerned with how these elements affect the characters, because really, that’s the most power they have. They’re not scientists or philosophers after all and even if they were, they’re still bound to the same temporal limitations we all are.

As far as free will versus fate, it’s a matter of perspective isn’t it? If a world exists in which some can see the future and others cannot, the free will of those who cannot see the future is already being observed by the ones capable of doing so. So does one truly take precedence over the other? I don’t think any of us can really answer this, and we sure as hell won’t find the answer in FF7R of all things but I could really say the same for the OG’s themes as well. I don’t think the OG really says much about its themes either but was it really supposed to say anything, or just show them?


I mean right there, you brought up a change that I personally would rather not see. It’s possible that they save Aerith’s death for the end and I think that would be lame but I’ll get over it, I’m also not entirely sure they’ll even do that anyways. I mean, really I think the biggest changes will mostly affect stuff like Advent Children.

I'm open minded, I don't really mind either way. I don't feel it absolutely needs to happen, nor do I feel that it absolutely shouldn't. All I ask is that whatever they do, they do it well.

I don't want to derail this into an "I think I've got what they're planning!" theory, it tends to end up in having to explain yourself too much, and requires a load of discussion on culture between 1997 and 2020 - particularly their original subversion, the nature of remakes and stuff like that, and think I could open myself up to attack.

But I'm just going to touch on something:

They've added: a Sephiroph and Aerith who to varying degrees know the future, a concept of fate that keeps us on the OG path which we go on to destroy in a massive battle, a Sephiroph who is directly antagonising Cloud and messing with him, an Aerith who is almost leading the group on the adventure instead of Cloud (dunno how many people have really picked up on this), Aerith knowing who Jenova and Sephiroph are, Aerith showing hated for Sephiroph (an emotion we never see from her), Aerith playing butterfly effects with fate, showing flash forwards to Aeriths death and Meteor, declaring the flashforwards as "the bad end to prevent", Sephiroph calling on Cloud to join him (that is ominous foreshadowing), and kept a bunch of dead people alive including Zack, and some kind of time loop (possibly time travel/alternate timelines). Plus, a meta commentary on authors rights to change things within their own story.

While this was 90% faithful to OG, thats a lot of stuff with some pretty profound implications on the story. It's almost certainly taking place post Advent Children functioning as a "Requel". As writers its highly unlikely that they would implement something like that for some inconesequential changes nobody is going to be particularly arsed about and isn't going to illicit a shock reaction. Nor are they likely to do it in order to mess with the players emotions (you can do that without all that stuff). They're doing it with a plan.

Therefore, I don't think this is going to have some small changes. Nor do I think they're going to shy away from doing anything controversial, they're already treading that road.

 

[Fiz]

"At the core, I think the devs are more concerned with how these elements affect the characters,"
What elements?

Fate IS set in stone. If fate is capable of being altered by the actions and choices of beings with agency, then it's not fate. It's just a thing that might happen. Fate is not a magic system, soft or hard. It's the word for the things that happen to us, and the word for the irresistible, all-powerful force that makes those things happens. This isn't about perspective. It's about correct and incorrect definitions.

I am perfectly happy with a plot in which a couple of the characters are conscious of the fact that they've been around this block before (maybe more than once), and, since they can remember where they went wrong last time, they hope to fix it this time. I am perfectly happy with a story of contending wills battling for their preferred outcomes. None of this happens in real life, of course; we can only dream of Remakes and do-overs.

You cannot have a world in which some people can forsee an unchangeable future (future) and at the same time observe other people acting from free will. If the future is fixed, all necessary actions leading to it are also fixed; at best, agents have the illusion of choice. However, Aerith doesn't forsee the future; she forsees one possible future. She sees options, probabilities, likelihoods. Other futures are possible precisely because there is no fate: the future isn't set in stone.

It's also possible that what she's really doing is remembering the past. However, she's not back in that past, she is moving forward along a time line which bears many close resemblances to that past but also contains within itself the possibility of being different.

I just hope they don't bring Zack back to life permanently, but I know they will.

I don't think this is fate for indivudals, but fate for the planet itself that the planet has invented because an anomaly (time loop and a dead Sephiroph walking the world) has occurred.

 

[LicoriceAllsorts]

If the planet is in control, at least partially, of its own future, then this is not fate.

 

[Fiz]

If the planet is in control, at least partially, of its own future, then this is not fate.

HAHAHA, I can't reply to this with anything. No, no its not. But, whatever it is, it is that thing that they're calling fate.

 

[Clement Rage]

I don't think we know what the hell is happening with fate or lack thereof yet. I think that's intentional, and we will learn more about exactly what the hell is happening further on. And, honestly, for me that's a good thing. They're not playing all their cards in part one, so speculation on how fate and timelines work or don't work is premature, because we don't know enough yet.

The effect for now is 'don't think you know everything about what's coming' and keeping the people guessing, so instead of thinking they know the story we're going 'are they going to do this? Are they going to do that?' without knowing for certain.

I really don't like the idea that fantastic=immature/unsophisticated or that relating to people's ordinary life experiences is somehow superior to telling a story about something that doesn't directly relate. It's just what you're interested in versus what you're less interested in, neither approach is better or worse.

Deep themes get interpreted into works all the time, that's where we get the differences between Fanon Yuffie and Canon Yuffie, to use my stock example. She's a traditionalist trying to restore her people's way of life, but is constantly interpreted as a moderniser dragging a reluctant nation into the modern age.

Remake and the OG are incomparable,there's just too much of a difference in tech. They both did what they wanted to do and what tech permitted them to do (there can be a lot more character interaction when characters can talk to each other as they run around without having to click through textboxes.)

I don't think either is more mature or sophisticated, they're both working with what they have.

I didn’t mean to get so philosophical, hot damn! Anyways, I’m curious to know from you all, which FF game do you consider the best/your favorite, and was it the first one you ever played?

FF9, and no. FF7 was the first one I played. Most of my investment in it comes from communities like this, not the game itself.

 

[Fiz]

I don't think we know what the hell is happening with fate or lack thereof yet. I think that's intentional, and we will learn more about exactly what the hell is happening further on. And, honestly, for me that's a good thing. They're not playing all their cards in part one, so speculation on how fate and timelines work or don't work is premature, because we don't know enough yet.

The effect for now is 'don't think you know everything about what's coming' and keeping the people guessing, so instead of thinking they know the story we're going 'are they going to do this? Are they going to do that?' without knowing for certain.

I really don't like the idea that fantastic=immature/unsophisticated or that relating to people's ordinary life experiences is somehow superior to telling a story about something that doesn't directly relate. It's just what you're interested in versus what you're less interested in, neither approach is better or worse.

Deep themes get interpreted into works all the time, that's where we get the differences between Fanon Yuffie and Canon Yuffie, to use my stock example. She's a traditionalist trying to restore her people's way of life, but is constantly interpreted as a moderniser dragging a reluctant nation into the modern age.

Remake and the OG are incomparable,there's just too much of a difference in tech. They both did what they wanted to do and what tech permitted them to do (there can be a lot more character interaction when characters can talk to each other as they run around without having to click through textboxes.)

I don't think either is more mature or sophisticated, they're both working with what they have.



FF9, and no. FF7 was the first one I played. Most of my investment in it comes from communities like this, not the game itself.

No, but you can get a pretty good feel for the direction something is headed, speculate and make educated guesses. Plus, speculation can be fun, there can be a certain satisfaction in figuring something out and then getting it right.

Personally, I don't think the fate thing is something thats going to have a reveal thats beyond what people have figured out already, and I'd prefer it if they didn't try to drop some clanger of a twist or reveal with it. Just, keep it simple, things tend to go wrong when you complicate it or try to add some shock to it.

BIB: Agreed, FF9.

 

[KindOfBlue]

I don't want to derail this into an "I think I've got what they're planning!" theory, it tends to end up in having to explain yourself too much

Yeah, my theory at this point is that I haven’t the slightest clue what’s next

an Aerith who is almost leading the group on the adventure instead of Cloud (dunno how many people have really picked up on this)

Interesting considering the reveal that Cloud was actually being summoned by Sephiroth in the OG...I wonder if Aerith could possibly be misled as well?

As writers its highly unlikely that they would implement something like that for some inconesequential changes nobody is going to be particularly arsed about and isn't going to illicit a shock reaction.

Yeah, they’ve definitely got something planned. Some people think they’re just making it up as they go along but I’m not convinced. I still don’t think the general direction of the story will be that much different, but how we get there will surely be greatly expanded along with a more conclusive ending (hopefully).

If the planet is in control, at least partially, of its own future, then this is not fate.

But if we’re bound by the planet’s will, is that not fate for us?

 

[Fiz]

Yeah, my theory at this point is that I haven’t the slightest clue what’s next

Well, you can get a feel for things. It's fun to speculate.

Interesting considering the reveal that Cloud was actually being summoned by Sephiroth in the OG...I wonder if Aerith could possibly be misled as well?

Well, this is difficult because we don't know the nature of Aeriths involvement in whatever is happening. Clearly something, no way is she a bystander in this and shes being very coy about what she knows. Tricked, I don't know. I think its more likely that Aerith wanted to try to keep things on the known path (and for most of the game was doing so, with a few small butterfly effects to help), Sephiroph wanted to defeat Destiny to try a new path where he can win, Aerith then made a decision to gamble (thats my interpretation). So, less tricked, more gamble.

Yeah, they’ve definitely got something planned. Some people think they’re just making it up as they go along but I’m not convinced. I still don’t think the general direction of the story will be that much different, but how we get there will surely be greatly expanded along with a more conclusive ending (hopefully).

Yes they have. I think it'll follow the overall story beats too, just that it'll throw a twist into the mix that will affects the characters within it, with a few expositions.

 

[KindOfBlue]

Sephiroph wanted to defeat Destiny to try a new path where he can win, Aerith then made a decision to gamble (thats my interpretation). So, less tricked, more gamble.

I also believe this. I don’t remember where but somebody had pointed out that when Sephiroth seemingly shows us Zack, the part of the scene where he charges at the Shinra officers a la Crisis Core is immediately followed by a shot of Aerith with her body language almost looking as if she saw Zack herself, the way she seems to lift her head up in surprise at what she’s seen is just full of the exaggerated swagger of a flower girl from the slums. If so, I wonder if seeing Zack may have influenced her motivation, question is, in what way? Could Sephiroth have maybe shown Zack to Aerith to mess with her the way he shows Zack to Cloud to mess with him in the OG?

 

[Fiz]

I also believe this. I don’t remember where but somebody had pointed out that when Sephiroth seemingly shows us Zack, the part of the scene where he charges at the Shinra officers a la Crisis Core is immediately followed by a shot of Aerith with her body language almost looking as if she saw Zack herself, the way she seems to lift her head up in surprise at what she’s seen is just full of the exaggerated swagger of a flower girl from the slums. If so, I wonder if seeing Zack may have influenced her motivation, question is, in what way? Could Sephiroth have maybe shown Zack to Aerith to mess with her the way he shows Zack to Cloud to mess with him in the OG?

Maybe, I'm not sure because we don't know how Zack fits into this. She was certainly coaxed though.

I also think mind games are going to be Sephirophs modus operandi going forward because thats how he has been presented in Remake. Effectively what they've setup is a situation where Sephiroph has some unknown plan and a partially knowing Aerith in a world where anything can now happen, walking a tightrope between keeping the group safe and not falling into any traps (which ofc, we will). This is a pretty decent setup to create suspense and stress in the player, if they utilise it well.

 

[LicoriceAllsorts]

Yes, if we were bound by the planet's will, or any entity's will, that might be described as fate for us, though if the entity binding us had the ability to make choices and change its mind, that would mean our future was not fixed, and since fate is a fixed future, it wouldn't exactly be fate. Maybe "determined"? However, Cloud&Co are not bound by the planet's will. They are free to choose something other than what the planet wants.

 

[Fiz]

Yes, if we were bound by the planet's will, or any entity's will, that might be described as fate for us, though if the entity binding us had the ability to make choices and change its mind, that would mean our future was not fixed, and since fate is a fixed future, it wouldn't exactly be fate. Maybe "determined"? However, Cloud&Co are not bound by the planet's will. They are free to choose something other than what the planet wants.

Yeah, its not fate in the traditional sense. It's more a mechanism that's similar to fate in that it operates as a safeguard to attempt to keep events on a particular path that the planet knows results in it not being destroyed.

If you want to discuss the traits of destiny and whether that is fate at all, I agree that it isn't. However, it's implementation and purpose is fairly straight forward and I think you're digging deeper into it than is necessary. Also, a lot of the inconsistency people see with it are more that they missed the butterfly affect & as a result miss how "fate" is reacting to it, and/or are assuming this "fate" to apply to all things rather than applying to major things that will cause a substantial deviation from its cause.

Also, I'd add that most viewers/players take stuff on a fairly surface level without thinking too deeply about how things work. They can suspend their disbelief with a fairly high tolerance, they think well in the abstract without it damaging their suspension of disbelief. Some people like a rigid system that makes sense in a very logical way, or to dig into the mechanics of things and need a sound mechanical explanation to suspend their disbelief. I'm kinda getting that feeling from this, because I'm an artist and I do think in abstract terms a lot, and your posts kinda make my head spin a bit trying to parse what you're saying.

I think maybe how tolerant one is to their implementation of fate and destiny depends on how an individuals brain works. I think maybe its better to just abstract it based on its intended purpose if you can. If you can't then yeah, it's going to bug you to hell.

 

[LicoriceAllsorts]

I'm a writer and I do like words to mean the same thing consistently, yes.

 

[KindOfBlue]

But if I had the ability to see the future, and I knew the planet’s will before even the planet does, from my perspective the planet is fated to choose whatever it eventually decides on its own accord. What I mean is I’m not convinced fate and free will are necessarily at odds with one another, but are a matter of perspective. If I make a decision out of my own free will, but there’s a being out there who knew what my decision would be before I even did, I think that could be considered a sort of predestination. I don’t think it matters so much what my decision is, but that no matter what I decide, something out there already knows the outcome and I don’t.

 

[LicoriceAllsorts]

In the situation you cite, if the planet's decision is fixed (which it must be because you have forseen it, and in this thought experiment what you foresee always comes true) then the planet doesn't have the power to choose anything other than the pre-ordained option. Even if at the time it seems as if the planet has a choice, that's only an illusion of free will. In reality, the choice has already been determined. So it's not a matter of perspective, except inasmuch as it may sometimes seem as if the planet has free will, when it really doesn't.

If something out there already knows the outcome of your choices, then you don't have free will; you merely think you do. Your belief may seem justified from the limited evidence available to you, but it isn't true.

In real life, though, nobody actually does have the ability to foresee the future, and there is no entity that knows what your decision will be before you know it.

 

[Fiz]

I'm a writer and I do like words to mean the same thing consistently, yes.

View attachment 8638

I'm British, words can mean whatever the speaker intends them to mean.


None the less, what I said is true. Some people refer very rigid ideas while others are okay with more flexible concepts. A writer can be either logical or abstract, as an artist can an artsy creative but also be a scientist.

 

[LicoriceAllsorts]

Lemon snaffle a window carping, jump cart around the pillow conglomerate.

I don't think anyone could argue with that