Well, if we're talking about "backward extrapolating" and whatnot, there are plenty of meta and contextual explanations that support the idea that there are many different types of depictions in CC that aren't present within the OG—some especially in what would essentially create a different impression of storytelling (and/or contradictions to some people lol) in the OG from those specific elements. (as if a Remake was being thought of during development, as we found out recently) From my understanding, I believe Mako's point is that there are only so many things that people can compare from CC with the OG, this partly because of the lack of material to pull from the latter, and what is pulled from the game isn't that different from CC to say it wasn't intended for Zack's character. While then Allsorts point is that CC gives the opportunity for Zack's character to go beyond that material and its lack, even if it was used as the foundation for what we see in CC, to a point where there seem to be certain directional changes with his character and associations (i.e. impact on story elements, character relationships, etc.). There is truth in both, really. I wouldn't necessarily say Zack's character in CC isn't part of what they had in mind in the original for all that was utilized there (which mostly amounted to the role he was meant to fulfill), however, there are a myriad of particular things in CC that don't completely coincide with the depictions given by creations prior—some is for the better, some not. It's in that I agree with youffie that a lot of those reasons are at the heart of people's anger towards the Compilation—people love them some consistency pie, but this can also be understood as the after-effect of further development and perspective of written narrative (especially over years and many stories), which can induce change very easily. For Zack's characterization, maybe its difference isn't in the "what", but the "how/why", on certain things expounded on. But honestly, that gets into a different type of conversation of depictions, whether it clashed with something prior or not, in the FFVII series, and I don't think that's at the core of what was said before, at least from me anyway in what I really meant. I think the conversation direction is probably my fault for mentioning CC, then, so my bad.
So, it was that, by the OG alone, some people believe it's justified in believing that Zack had multiple girlfriends? I will clarify and say that my point wasn't that CC's depiction is like, THE explanation for all the questions presented in regards to the OG in full capacity (although it can be if going forward)—that's the reason why I specify "in the OG" or "in CC" a lot, probably to the point it's annoying all of you. lol I understand the initial thought process of a fan thinking about the "multiple girlfriends" of Zack's characterization by the OG standards—both the 10th Anniversary passage (including the questioning of Aerith's possible jealousy; it's in the same passage btw) and Aerith's lines about Zack in the OG in some capacity present the questions for people to ponder, do they not? It's understandable. However, even by the standards of the OG's depiction alone, I believe we essentially get the answers to some of these questions from the revealing of truths regarding Zack's character in the OG through the letter, the flashback of Nibelheim, and the flashback in the International version—truth that doesn't really lend to the idea he had multiple girlfriends or even multiple people he was going to hide out with. The purpose and answer of the inquisitive nature of all Ultimania quotes (specifically multiple girlfriends) aren't as black and white as those pertaining to Aerith's doubts of his whereabouts by the OG alone, but certain things can still be deduced from above regardless. (and one has to consider the context of these questions in that part of Zack's profile)
But uhh, why are we talking about this again? Lol For why Cloud wasn't depicted as flirtatious like Zack was? I would agree with the beginning of the thread that it wasn't exactly a 1:1 transformation going on there, it was hardly that convenient I believe. For me, it's an interesting detail to learn that the two really weren't that similar after all.
