So is Sephiroth the strongest dude in FF7 or what

[Roger]

Well for obvious plot reasons, they can't really say the names or anything of those characters, and for the reasons you said. And really, if the Onion Knights were to have a name, they'd be the names of the characters in the DS remake of FFIII, as shown in the Dissidia Ultimania.

Honestly if the Onion Knight were to be even a name, it would something new because from what I can tell he's his own, and completely new character.

The outcome they *all* want, is a true death for Cosmos. After that, they know they're gonna do whatever they want. As Mateus states after Cosmos is killed:

That about sums it up. And it makes total sense.

Are serious? Kefka, Exdeath, Kuja and the CoD work together to bring the world back to nothingness and Matues wants to rule it. And does nothing to stop the former from ruining what he is is fighting for. this makes perfect sense to you.

Kefka wasn't interested in destroying Terra originally, he wanted to capture her and make her, his slave again. As for Ultimecia, that's a good point. She's the only real exception. She probably intended to beat the shit out of him, and push him to his limit, in hopes of making him squeeze out his crystal so their plot would work.

Or she was just prudent. Ultimecia, Garland, the Emperor and Sephiroth each got the **** beaten out of them by the Warrior of Light on their own terms and the probably were honestly trying to stop him from penetrating their stronghold, while Squall fought him to a complete standstill easy as that.

Also, I think its worth noting that in Shade Impulse, ExDeath, Emperor Mateus, and Garland, are the only villains that are by plot, faced off against, by more than one hero. These three apparently took more than one person to beat. Not just their respective heroes. All the others were defeated by their respective hero exclusively.

Really, because I don't. Garland, after all was a wimp in his own game. Apparantly lvl 1 in Final Fantasy translates into lvl 40~ for most other games judging by the Warrior of Light and Garland in comparison to the villains from the other games.

If you are going to this against the other villians, that ExDeath took more to defeat even though he's one of the ones you say lost his powergranting plot device, even though the rest of them still were just as powerful as they were at the end of their own games, then one would just have to assume that their methods of gaining power were utterly ineffective. Obtaining the power of the Statues, being raised as a Magitek Knight, and using Magicite just like your party put Kefka on level with one of your party members. That's how it happened.

Save for Emperor Mateus, the only villain left that comes close to actually being what he was made out to be in his original game. (And Chaos in FFI)

 

[Makoeyes987]

How does this help an argument of it being canon? A non canonical entry in any series still can provide insight in the characters it features.

How would a main installment in the Final Fantasy series, not be canon, especially when it goes out of its way to establish canon and continuity between each of the game's characters, who are apart of the main series, and the stories they come from? Huh?

I don't interpret it that way. To me it seems like they're saying that they've been careful to make sure the game feels like Final Fantasy and has that same care and attention to it. Which they've done a pretty good job in doing. I don't see how that statement means its canon.

So where do they say it's a side story, and not canon? If that's your interpretation, put up the evidence that says so, because you're merely parsing the text without the context of the actual plot, or the Ultimania that clearly references how each of the characters connect to their original stories. It has nothing to do with "care and attention" when they say the game *is* a main Final Fantasy installment, and refute its classification as a side story.

Seriously, the same thing has been said about non canonical Street Fighter entries.

....Why do you keep bringing up non-related material in discussing this? This isn't SF, and it's not even within the same context. SF was always a fighting game series. FF is not.

 

[Cat Rage Room]

How would a main installment in the Final Fantasy series, not be canon, especially when it goes out of its way to establish canon and continuity between each of the game's characters, who are apart of the main series, and the stories they come from? Huh?

How does it go out of its way to establish canon and continuity? Sure, it fleshes out some stuff, but I don't see what you mean.

So where do they say it's a side story, and not canon? If that's your interpretation, put up the evidence that says so, because you're merely parsing the text without the context of the actual plot, or the Ultimania that clearly references how each of the characters connect to their original stories. It has nothing to do with "care and attention" when they say the game *is* a main Final Fantasy installment, and refute its classification as a side story.

I'm not saying it's a side story. I just don't see the evidence that it's canon. All I see is some fleshing out.

....Why do you keep bringing up non-related material in discussing this? This isn't SF, and it's not even within the same context. SF was always a fighting game series. FF is not.

Whether it's SF or a fighting game or not its irrelevant. The genre doesn't matter either. If I bring up decent, relevant examples, that's good enough. Final Fantasy doesn't exist in a vacuum, and it's going to get compared to similar things whether you like it or not.

 

[Makoeyes987]

Honestly if the Onion Knight were to be even a name, it would something new because from what I can tell he's his own, and completely new character.

Well that's how he originally was, so that makes sense as well.

Are serious? Kefka, Exdeath, Kuja and the CoD work together to bring the world back to nothingness and Matues wants to rule it. And does nothing to stop the former from ruining what he is is fighting for. this makes perfect sense to you.

He does. He ensures his own survival by creating a dark crystal that will allow him to exist continually, even if Chaos, Kefka, Exdeath, Kuja, and CoD get their wish to destroy everything.

Really, because I don't. Garland, after all was a wimp in his own game. Apparantly lvl 1 in Final Fantasy translates into lvl 40~ for most other games judging by the Warrior of Light and Garland in comparison to the villains from the other games.

Considering Garland's importance to the original plot, and the backstory he's gained. He's certainly more than a wimp.

If you are going to this against the other villians, that ExDeath took more to defeat even though he's one of the ones you say lost his powergranting plot device, even though the rest of them still were just as powerful as they were at the end of their own games, then one would just have to assume that their methods of gaining power were utterly ineffective. Obtaining the power of the Statues, being raised as a Magitek Knight, and using Magicite just like your party put Kefka on level with one of your party members. That's how it happened.

Maybe that's how it happened in Dissidia, but that didn't happen in the original story. Again, Dissidia has had numerous cycles of combat that had the warriors fighting again, and again.

 

[Cat Rage Room]

Again, Dissidia has had numerous cycles of combat that had the warriors fighting again, and again.

SEE THIS IS WHY I THINK IT IS STUPID

 

[Makoeyes987]

How does it go out of its way to establish canon and continuity? Sure, it fleshes out some stuff, but I don't see what you mean.

You need to read the Dissidia Ultimania, and all the numerous references the game specifically points out that references the entire previous plots each of the characters had. It's all apart of the characterization and backstory. I don't understand how the story establishing continuity between the character's previous stories and histories doesn't establish its canon and continuity. Especially in terms of the creators commentary.

I'm not saying it's a side story. I just don't see the evidence that it's canon. All I see is some fleshing out.

Umm, the fact they flesh it out and make it in continuity and consistent with their previous histories, establishes canon and continuity by definition. If it weren't, then they'd be like the character cameos in KH. With either no tangible, concrete references to their past and past adventurers, or entirely different backstories, independent to their originating stories. Is that the case here?

Whether it's SF or a fighting game or not its irrelevant. The genre doesn't matter either. If I bring up decent, relevant examples, that's good enough. Final Fantasy doesn't exist in a vacuum, and it's going to get compared to similar things whether you like it or not.

If we're analyzing the work in question regarding the consistency within itself, why would I care if its doing something that SF did? That makes no sense. Are we examining it to see if its canon and in continuity within FF, or SF? You're bringing irrelevant facts to the discussion, because we're looking at the intent of the creators in terms of its canon or not to their own series.

SEE THIS IS WHY I THINK IT IS STUPID

Ok....Cry moar?

 

[Roger]

He does. He ensures his own survival by creating a dark crystal that will allow him to exist continually, even if Chaos, Kefka, Exdeath, Kuja, and CoD get their wish to destroy everything.

Then there's the other way around. despite what you might think Emperor Matues falls under the category "everything". And he has in no way been suble about his intentions

Considering Garland's importance to the original plot, and the backstory he's gained. He's certainly more than a wimp.

But he was. This is Garland without Chaos. The first and easiest boss Final Fantasy series may have came up with yet

Maybe that's how it happened in Dissidia, but that didn't happen in the original story. Again, Dissidia has had numerous cycles of combat that had the warriors fighting again, and again.

This is a first time for Kuja. And by extention probably Zidane, who can tackle Garland and fight evenly with him no prob.

 

[Cat Rage Room]

You need to read the Dissidia Ultimania, and all the numerous references the game specifically points out that references the entire previous plots each of the characters had. It's all apart of the characterization and backstory. I don't understand how the story establishing continuity between the character's previous stories and histories doesn't establish its canon and continuity. Especially in terms of the creators commentary.

Umm, the fact they flesh it out and make it in continuity and consistent with their previous histories, establishes canon and continuity by definition. If it weren't, then they'd be like the character cameos in KH. With either no tangible, concrete references to their past and past adventurers, or entirely different backstories, independent to their originating stories. Is that the case here?

You can do that with ANYTHING, though. You know how many non canonical entries in comics, video games, books, etc have character 'cameos' (for lack of a better term, forgive me) have concrete backstories, references to their original work they appeared in, fleshing out, etc and still aren't canon?

Those points alone doesn't mean anything is canon, man! I'm not saying it's most definitely not canon or anything, but your argument is kinda weak, man.

If we're analyzing the work in question regarding the consistency within itself, why would I care if its doing something that SF did? That makes no sense. Are examining it to see if its canon and in continuity within FF, or SF? You're bringing irrelevant facts to the discussion, because we're looking at the intent of the creators in terms of its canon or not to their own series

I'm making that comparison because you're bringing up points that don't match up when placed side by side with something else. For example, you're saying that 'Dissidia is canon because it's a genuine FF entry'. Bur Marvel vs. Capcom is a genuine SF entry, but isn't canon, so how are you going to convince anyone with that squeaky argument? That's the point I was making.

 

[Makoeyes987]

Then there's the other way around. despite what you might think Emperor Matues falls under the category "everything". And he has in no way been suble about his intentions

Wait, what? I'm not following what you mean here. What do you mean, "everything?"

But he was. This is Garland without Chaos. The first and easiest boss Final Fantasy series may have came up with yet

Umm..Garland and Chaos are the same. They're one.

This is a first time for Kuja. And by extention probably Zidane, who can tackle Garland and fight evenly with him no prob.

It's not the same for Zidane. The game states that all the heroes were there, and they are the last. The villains have had newcomers. Not the heroes.

 

[Makoeyes987]

You can do that with ANYTHING, though. You know how many non canonical entries in comics, video games, books, etc have character 'cameos' (for lack of a better term, forgive me) have concrete backstories, references to their original work they appeared in, fleshing out, etc and still aren't canon?

So again, where is the evidence that this is the same thing? Put up the evidence that it's the same thing. Them being similar is irrelevant, unless you can prove to me that's what they did, which would completely contradict their intent, and statements on the matter. It'd be nice if you'd back up your interpretation with concrete facts, instead of "hey it happened here, so clearly that's what this all could mean!"

Those points alone doesn't mean anything is canon, man! I'm not saying it's most definitely not canon or anything, but your argument is kinda weak, man.

It's only weak if you put up actual evidence to the contrary that refutes or contradicts what the story and creators say themselves. Again, what evidence do you have, save for outside examples, done by different people, in different narratives/games, do you have that refutes Dissidia's canonicity to FF?

I'm making that comparison because you're bringing up points that don't match up when placed side by side with something else. For example, you're saying that 'Dissidia is canon because it's a genuine FF entry'. Bur Marvel vs. Capcom is a genuine SF entry, but isn't canon, so how are you going to convince anyone with that squeaky argument? That's the point I was making.

Marvel vs. Capcaom is not the same as Final Fantasy. They are not done by the same company, the same people, and aren't even the same genre. They are two entirely separate animals in terms of their scope and genre. How the hell does that equate to an actual argument of validity in terms of whether or not Dissidia is canon, when the creators say its a genuine FF entry, and the storyline points out the characters pasts from each FF?

I could literally use that same argument to say that the Compilation of FFVII isn't canon to FFVII, if I so choose. Pulling outside evidences and examples of unrelated media, is pretty easy.

Can you actually provide me some factual evidence from the series we're examining, or the creators we're discussing to prove your point?

 

[OWA-2]

I found it:

-The "FF" series' characters which appear in this game already have their own stories but how will they be introduced?

TA: "Dissidia: Final Fantasy"'s story is not directly linked to the "FF" stories these characters come from. However, we have designed it so that, as you get closer to the game's ending, there will be some kind of link you can see relating to each one of them. Also, although this is a different world and story, the characters will keep their recognisable personalities so fans can rest assured. (Laughs)

Not directly linked, but with references to each FF game(like many FF games have references to past games of the series).

How does this help an argument of it being canon? A non

canonical entry in any series still can provide insight in the characters it features.



I don't interpret it that way. To me it seems like they're saying that they've been careful to make sure the game feels like Final Fantasy and has that same care and attention to it. Which they've done a pretty good job in doing. I don't see how that statement means its canon.

Seriously, the same thing has been said about non canonical Street Fighter entries

The problem here is interpretation. Mako's interpretation is wrong IMO, but he think the same of ours. We will stay here arguing hours and hours, going in circles, only to see that, in the end, nothing changed and it was all a waste of time.


So yeah, whatever.

 

[Cat Rage Room]

So again, where is the evidence that this is the same thing? Put up the evidence that it's the same thing. Them being similar is irrelevant, unless you can prove to me that's what they did, which would completely contradict their intent, and statements on the matter. It'd be nice if you'd back up your interpretation with concrete facts, instead of "hey it happened here, so clearly that's what this all could mean!"

It's only weak if you put up actual evidence to the contrary that refutes or contradicts what the story and creators say themselves. Again, what evidence do you have, save for outside examples, done by different people, in different narratives/games, do you have that refutes Dissidia's canonicity to FF?

Where is YOUR evidence? It looks like this is a matter of interpreting things differently.

Marvel vs. Capcaom is not the same as Final Fantasy. They are not done by the same company, the same people, and aren't even the same genre. They are two entirely separate animals in terms of their scope and genre. How the hell does that equate to an actual argument of validity in terms of whether or not Dissidia is canon, when the creators say its a genuine FF entry, and the storyline points out the characters pasts from each FF?

So Final Fantasy exists in a vacuum? Works are compared to other works. Get over it, man. 'Dissidia is canon because it's a genuine FF entry' means absolufuckinlutely nothing because the same is often, and can be said, for anything. What makes the statement so magical and different this time? The statement can't mean what you want it to mean just because two different entities said it. So by your logic, Square Enix and Capcom both saying 'the sky is blue' means wildly different things because they're two different companies.

 

[Makoeyes987]

I found it :happy:



Not directly linked, but with references to each FF game(like many FF games have references to past games of the series).

That was 1 month into Dissidia's announcement as a title. Bear in mind Nomura also said Namine had no relation to Kairi when KH2 was first announced, and Roxas had no relation to Sora. And he literally says the exact opposite in regards to Dissidia in its Ultimania, along with Arakawa and Kitase. And by the very fact that Dissidia's plot is a prequel to FF1, completely refutes that claim.

Again, look at the facts in relation to everything else. Don't just parse it in isolation to prove yourself right.

The problem here is interpretation. Mako's interpretation is wrong IMO, but he think the same of ours. We will stay here arguing hours and hours, going in circles, only to see that, in the end, nothing changed and it was all a waste of time.


So yeah, whatever.

Interpretations mean nothing, if they don't have tangible proof or factual basis to prop it up. Again, I'd like you to prop up yours if you're going to somehow state that yours is correct and mine is incorrect. It's only fair and logical.

 

[Cat Rage Room]

TA: "Dissidia: Final Fantasy"'s story is not directly linked to the "FF" stories these characters come from.

alright guys everybody go home

 

[Roger]

Wait, what? I'm not following what you mean here. What do you mean, "everything?"

When Exdeath says he wants everything to return to the void, including the world, himself, the good guys, and everything else. don't you think he was talking about Mateus as well. They want to bring everything back to nothingness, does it make sense if in that context they are fully satified if Matues survives this and starts a world anew where he rules?

Umm..Garland and Chaos are the same. They're one.

I spot subtle differences actually. I think Chaos has left Garland's body in Dissidia, I may wrong though.

It's not the same for Zidane. The game states that all the heroes were there, and they are the last. The villains have had newcomers. Not the heroes.

So, they lost the last conflict despite outnumbering them? Didn't Shantotto get a replacement?

 

[Makoeyes987]

Where is YOUR evidence? It looks like this is a matter of interpreting things differently.

I just posted the creator quotes. I directed you to read the Dissidia Ultimania which is pinned on the front page of our site. That's all the evidence.

How is the creators stating that Dissidia is a main installment, not a gaiden/side-story, and the characters referencing their past, such as Firion remembering all of the friends he lost in the course of war in FFII, or Cloud referencing his embracing of his true past and Zack's friendship and memento (the Buster Sword), or saying Firion reminds him of Zack, NOT a connection to his original story, which establishes canon and continuity to his FF game? ESPECIALLY when said game is made explicity a PREQUEL to FF?

So Final Fantasy exists in a vacuum? Works are compared to other works. Get over it, man. 'Dissidia is canon because it's a genuine FF entry' means absolufuckinlutely nothing because the same is often, and can be said, for anything. What makes the statement so magical and different this time. The statement can't mean what you want it to mean just because two different entities said it. So by your logic, Square Enix and Capcom both saying 'the sky is blue' means wildly different things because they're two different companies.

So you compare and analyze SF and the fight between Ryu and Akuma, when discussing the nature and plot relevance of Cloud and Sephiroth's final confrontation in ACC? Again. We're discussing the facts within the self contained universe and narrative of THIS franchise. What goes on in SF and its creators, is irrelevant to the narrative here.

I'll say it again. Look at the statement in regards to its relevance to the plot and intent shown within the story. Stop looking at it in a vacuum and take it within the context of the entire work, and its story. How could it not be canon when the creators state it is, and directly LINK it to FF1?

And if SE says the sky is blue in FF because Cosmos painted that why, and Capcom says its blue, because Chuni-Li's favorite color is blue, then yes, they mean two different things within the context of their narratives. The creators and their stories are not explicitly the same, nor is the intent used to write them.

 

[Makoeyes987]

When Exdeath says he wants everything to return to the void, including the world, himself, the good guys, and everything else. don't you think he was talking about Mateus as well. They want to bring everything back to nothingness, does it make sense if in that context they are fully satified if Matues survives this and starts a world anew where he rules?

They wouldn't really have a choice in the matter, since again. Mateus secured his existence by making himself immortal and able to escape whatever happens to the world, since he plotted it that way. That was his entire point, right there. He'd come back.

I spot subtle differences actually. I think Chaos has left Garland's body in Dissidia, I may wrong though.

No... Garland states explicitly that he and Chaos are one to Golbez, and Chaos himself.

So, they lost the last conflict despite outnumbering them? Didn't Shantotto get a replacement?

Who knows. But I don't think we really know exactly *what* happened to Shantotto to be honest.

 

[Cat Rage Room]

I just posted the creator quotes. I directed you to read the Dissidia Ultimania which is pinned on the front page of our site. That's all the evidence.

How is the creators stating that Dissidia is a main installment, not a gaiden/side-story, and the characters referencing their past, such as Firion remembering all of the friends he lost in the course of war in FFII, or Cloud referencing his embracing of his true past and Zack's friendship and memento (the Buster Sword), or saying Firion reminds him of Zack, NOT a connection to his original story, which establishes canon and continuity to his FF game? ESPECIALLY when said game is made explicity a PREQUEL to FF?

I can very easily accept that its a prequel to FF1. But every single thing you mentioned can be in any installment of any media and still not be canon. That is not convincing.

So you compare and analyze SF and the fight between Ryu and Akuma, when discussing the nature and plot relevance of Cloud and Sephiroth's final confrontation in ACC? Again. We're discussing the facts within the self contained universe and narrative of THIS franchise. What goes on in SF and its creators, is irrelevant to the narrative here.

I'll say it again. Look at the statement in regards to its relevance to the plot and intent shown within the story. Stop looking at it in a vacuum and take it within the context of the entire work, and its story. How could it not be canon when the creators state it is, and directly LINK it to FF1?

And if SE says the sky is blue in FF because Cosmos painted that why, and Capcom says its blue, because Chuni-Li's favorite color is blue, then yes, they mean two different things within the context of their narratives. The creators and their stories are not explicitly the same, nor is the intent used to write them.

You said that the creators said that 'Dissidia is a main installment' and thus is canon based on that statement. The statement 'X is a main installment' doesn't mean shit for something being canonical. Anything can be a main installment and not be canon. That's why I made the comparison.

 

[Roger]

No... Garland states explicitly that he and Chaos are one to Golbez, and Chaos himself.

I think he wasn't speaking literaly, based on the fact that when you say he said it to Chaos, you mean a guy standing in front of him, not talking to himself.

 

[Makoeyes987]

I can very easily accept that its a prequel to FF1. But every single thing you mentioned can be in any installment of any media and still not be canon. That is not convincing.

Now you're not making any sense. If the creator's commentary, and evidence within the game, convinces you it's a prequel to FF1, then by that, it should convince you it's connected to the other installments within the same series, FF1 is connected to. Especially since Dissidia establishes that the Interdimensional Rift of FFV is connected to FF1, and all other FF's. That's a big plot connection right there that again establishes continuity and connection between all the games in the series.

You again, don't seem to be able to pull me any evidence within the work itself, or from the actual creators themselves. You cannot equate their intent here in terms of their writing, to the intent of writers of completely different stories, in different genres. That makes absolutely no sense.

You said that the creators said that 'Dissidia is a main installment' and thus is canon based on that statement. The statement 'X is a main installment' doesn't mean shit for canonical. Anything can be a main installment and not be canon. That's why I made the comparison.

I didn't just say that. Kitase refutes it being anything else BUT a main installment. It isn't a gaiden or side story. Which invalidates the claim that it is just a sidestory/what-if side scenario. It's part of the main series, and canon to it. What main installment of Final Fantasy, is not canon within the FF series? If it's a main installment to FF, that makes it canon to the FF series, right there. Especially since these are all characters FROM the main installments of FF.

 

[Makoeyes987]

I think he wasn't speaking literaly, based on the fact that when you say he said it to Chaos, you mean a guy standing in front of him, not talking to himself.

They're the same, because thanks to a certain time loop, Garland is Chaos, before being sent back in time thanks to the Four Fiends, and Chaos, is the original being that spawned Garland in the first place and had him sent back in the first place. They are literally, the same, as stated by the Chaos Reports. Garland is Chaos from one timestream, and Chaos is the original from the past timestream.

 

[Cat Rage Room]

Now you're not making any sense. If the creator's commentary, and evidence within the game, convinces you it's a prequel to FF1, then by that, it should convince you it's connected to the other installments within the same series, FF1 is connected to.

That's silly. Just because one game is connected to it, that alone isn't enough to convince anyone that 'what the hell, let's assume ALL the games are too'! Something can be one but not the other.

Especially since Dissidia establishes that the Interdimensional Rift of FFV is connected to FF1, and all other FF's. That's a big plot connection right there that again establishes continuity and connection between all the games in the series.

That is a decent point, but little to do with Dissidia itself.

You again, don't seem to be able to pull me any evidence within the work itself, or from the actual creators themselves. You cannot equate their intent here in terms of their writing, to the intent of writers of completely different stories, in different genres. That makes absolutely no sense.

I'm not trying to mold the creators intent, but like I said, we are not interpreting it the same way.

Welp, I kinda gotta go to work! Someone else take my place for I have fallen to the capitalist machine and the need to work to eat and play video games in the first place.

 

[Cat Rage Room]

BTW I'm THIS CLOSE to calling Masamune to FUCK UP YOUR SHIT MAKO

 

[Roger]

They're the same, because thanks to a certain time loop, Garland is Chaos, before being sent back in time thanks to the Four Fiends, and Chaos, is the original being that spawned Garland in the first place and had him sent back in the first place. They are literally, the same, as stated by the Chaos Reports. Garland is Chaos from one timestream, and Chaos is the original from the past timestream.

Garland is the being that it was sent back in time, as in, the Cornelian knight, Chaos is after he send back as in, the God of Discord.

Barely a difference at all, off course, but quite relevant all the same.

 

[Makoeyes987]

That's silly. Just because one game is connected to it, that alone isn't enough to convince anyone that 'what the hell, let's assume ALL the games are too'! Something can be one but not the other.

You've ignored my point. You've just accepted that it's connected and canon to FF1. In regards to that, FF1's plot has established that Garland was sent to the Interdimensional Rift of FFV, along with Cid of the Lufaine, who met Shinryu there from FFV, and made a pact with it, to create the conflict we see now in Dissidia. Right there, you've just accepted FFV is officially connected to Dissidia, because FFV's location, the Interdimensional Rift, is connected to FF1's plot and Dissidia's plot. Not only that, but Dissidia AND FFXII establish that the Interdimensional Rift connects to all FF worlds, and that is how Gilgamesh traverses each of the FF world in his search for Excalibur. So you can't say that Dissidia *just* connected to FF1, because FF1 by itself is also directly connected to other FF's by its own plot. Thanks to Dissidia and its own plot.

That is a decent point, but little to do with Dissidia itself.

This has everything to do with Dissidia itself, because its a direct reference to it's plot.

I'm not trying to mold the creators intent, but like I said, we are not interpreting it the same way.

Welp, I kinda gotta go to work! Someone else take my place for I have fallen to the capitalist machine and the need to work to eat and play video games in the first place.

The fallacy of your entire argument is that you offer no proof whatsoever that the FF creators' intent is anything close to, or the same as the creators you reference as doing the same thing (i.e. for SF or Marvel vs. Capcom). Your interpretation isn't supported by any actual evidence or facts from the creators or story themselves, so how you can automatically assume that this is the same thing, escapes me.

It's the same logical fallacy rabid Cleriths use to try and equate that Aerith's pinkish red ribbon establishes her as an FFVII love interest to Cloud, because it's a common trope in various stories, and because the creators did it, that makes it their explicit intent. There's no actual evidence that states this was their intent at all. If you're gonna try and equate something from another work of media, as being the same in another, you need to illustrate the parallel intent. Otherwise it is meaningless.