Frequently Asked Questions Regarding Dissidia Final Fantasy – An Analysis by Squall_of_SeeD & Makoeyes987
by Makoeyes987 October 23, 2009 0 commentsAs if it weren’t apparent from our site’s coverage, Dissidia: Final Fantasy is a game that’s very close to my heart. And as it turns out, it’s a game that’s very close to Squall_of_SeeD’s heart too.
So it was only natural that the two of us would geek out and combine our resources and compile a FAQ of the most commonly asked questions regarding the game that celebrates Final Fantasy’s 20th Anniversary. Below you’ll find this site exclusive FAQ, the fruit of our research and understanding. Enjoy, and hopefully it’ll allow you to further enjoy the game and it’s storyline!
*Q: What are the Crystals in Dissidia Final Fantasy?
The crystals are the embodiment of the harmonious power wielded by Cosmos, the Goddess of Harmony. They allowed the heroes to exist within the world of Dissidia, even when Cosmos herself was killed by Chaos.
Cosmos surrendered her power to the heroes, in order to fully put an end to the cycle of conflict. By giving them her power to fully defeat Chaos and give him a true death, she hoped to finally end the endless cycle of battle, and restore the universe’s order.
Each crystal could only manifest to a hero, when their strength and resolve was at its peak while facing off against their respective opponent. By obtaining a crystal, the hero proved themselves worthy of wielding a portion of Cosmos’s power.
The shape and appearance a crystal took for each character, referenced a particular type of crystal from their originating story.
*Q: What was Emperor Mateus’s plan in Dissidia?
The Emperor’s original plan was to use Jecht, who had been a warrior of Cosmos, as the means to ensure his own survival once Chaos eradicated everything.
Though he was brought over to Chaos’ side, Jecht still had a bond with Cosmos and the light, and, thus, when he fought Tidus, both of them received a crystal. However, the Emperor captured the light of Jecht’s crystal for himself.
Due to Jecht’s allegiance with Chaos and his unwilling connection to darkness, the Emperor was able to use the crystal he created from that light for the same purpose as the crystals Cosmos had left with the heroes — to preserve himself after the death of the god whose side he fought upon, Chaos. Basically, by using the dark crystal Jecht’s bond with Tidus created, he was able to ensure that should Chaos disappear, he would still exist and be able to re-shape the universe as he saw fit, becoming the new god himself.
*Q: What were Sephiroth’s intentions in Dissidia?
The villains of Dissidia each held a personal goal that allowed them to overcome their differences in order to enact their plan to ensure Cosmos’s demise. One schemed the world’s return to the Void, while another wished its ultimate destruction, while others intended to survive the conflict’s end and fashion a new world with themselves as its sole ruler. But one particular villain’s goal was opaque compared to the rest…what were Sephiroth’s intentions within Dissidia? Did they go beyond merely settling his grudge against Cloud?
In Destiny Odyssey scene 50, Emperor Mateus and Ultimecia approach Sephiroth, hopeful in persuading him to join their plan in fashioning the demise of the gods. Sephiroth rebuffs their invitation and walks off. However, as seen in Cloud’s Destiny Odyssey, he clearly participates in Cloud obtaining his crystal, and goes so far to state that he led him to it… as if he intended and desired for Cloud to achieve his goal in the first place. Why would Sephiroth purposefully go forward with the Emperor’s plan of guiding the heroes to their individual crystals, after clearly stating he was not interested?
Sephiroth’s true intentions lie within his desire to be free of the conflict of the gods and allowed back to his originating world, so that he can continue to be the master of his own destiny. As stated in Destiny Odyssey II-7, Sephiroth sees the members of the conflict as “Mere puppets who cannot see their own strings.” In the previous cycle of conflict between the gods, Sephiroth was not content merely playing his role as an emissary of discord. At the end of the previous cycle, Sephiroth ended his own life to see what truth lied in a world he felt was full of illusions.
At some point, he became aware of the cyclical nature of the conflict, and believed that despite his death, he would return again. As shown in Shade Impulse Chapter 3-2, Sephiroth did not fear his demise, believing that the spirit would live on as spirit energy, instead of merely vanishing. A metaphysical perspective that is consistent with the world he originated from.
In the end, he realized that for him to truly be free to control his own destiny (and the destiny of others in his originating world), the heroes had to succeed in eliminating Chaos. Sephiroth coyly discusses with Garland, what fate would befall each of the worlds should Chaos truly be defeated, hinting at his desire for reality to return to what it once was. For that reason, Sephiroth played his part in Emperor Mateus’s plan while simultaneously allowing Chaos’s own forces to deliberately sabotage themselves.
In Destiny Odyssey scene 32, Sephiroth is shown to be aware of Golbez’s betrayal to Mateus’s plan. However, he remained quiet on the subject so that Golbez could continue allying himself with the heroes and working against his fellow warriors of Chaos. All this was done, so that he could be allowed to return home. After all, Sephiroth had his own personal plan to ensure his immortality and godhood…Geostigma.
In his final confrontation with Cloud in Shade Impulse, upon his defeat, Sephiroth ominously references his intent to face Cloud once more. Explicit references are made to his plan to use Cloud as a way of ensuring his return once again, as expressed in the Lifestream Black novella, where he states:
As long as Cloud remembers me, I can continue to exist. Within the Lifestream, and on the surface. Even if my spirit disseminates, even if just one fragment of a memory courses around the planet, in the end I can count on Cloud’s consciousness to bring me back…
In the end, Sephiroth’s true intent and desire in Dissidia was the fulfillment of his own ambitions. This included Chaos’s defeat and the success of the heroes so that he could return to the Gaia of FFVII, and enact his own plan to ensure his resurrection and the completion of his original goal of godhood.
*Q: Why do some of the villains remember the previous turn of the cycle, but others do not? Also, none of the heroes do. Why?
Retaining one’s memories from a previous turn of the cycle to the next seems to be dependent on being “wrapped in some strong emotion” (per Chaos Report #6) and being alive at the time of the new turn’s beginning. Thus, the heroes — who lost the time before — would have never remembered the previous turns of the cycle before. Sephiroth — who killed himself at the end of the previous turn of the cycle — did not remember things until very late in Shade Impulse.
*Q:Why did Chaos have a dream about governing the world alongside Cosmos?
In the distant past, Chaos was a god who ruled along side Cosmos, and suppressed discord, destroying only when it was necessary. However, as shown in Chaos Report 1, the Lufenians wanted to fully utilize and control the power of discord for themselves, and thus, removed Chaos’s memories of his purpose, and made him the total destroyer we see him as in Dissidia and FF1. The creation of Garland was apparently the result of Chaos losing his memories. Given the Final Fantasy theme of memories as life and power, it is likely that the memories extracted from Chaos themselves became the being known as Garland.
*Q: Who is Garland really?
Garland is the manufactured being talked about in the Cosmos and Chaos Reports who had control over the ethereal discord and was used as a tool of war for the Lufenians. He’s likely the “new being” created by the Lufenians when they wiped Chaos’s memory — the “one of harmony that could subdue and control discord.”
*Q: Who is Warrior of Light really? And what is his past?
The past and identity of Warrior of Light is truly a mystery. Even to himself. As stated by himself, he has no memory of his past, his name, or where he even is supposed to go.
The Guiding Light accessory, which is necessary to create Warrior of Light’s final exclusive weapon, gives a telling message to presumably, Warrior of Light himself:
Lukahn prophesized: a nameless warrior guided by the light will purge the chaos from the world.
So whoever the Warrior of Light is, is a purposeful enduring mystery within the scenario of Final Fantasy and Dissidia Final Fantasy.
*Q: What is the sword the Warrior of Light uses in Dissidia?
The heroes of Dissidia each carry and wield their iconic weapons from their respective stories. Cloud wields the Buster Sword, Squall wields his Revolver gunblade, Zidane uses two Mage Mashers, Firion wields the Blood Sword, etc. But what of the Warrior of Light? He has no iconic weapon from his previous game in Dissidia.
…Or does he?
Here is a screenshot from the PSP 20th Anniversary edition of Final Fantasy, showing the Warrior of Light wielding the sword Excalibur.
The sword the Warrior of Light is wielding in Dissidia appears to be the Excalibur from Final Fantasy. The designs of the weapon in both games are extremely similar.
*Q: What are the weapons used by the Onion Knight in Dissidia?
As with the Warrior of Light, the Onion Knight of Final Fantasy III did not have an iconic weapon from his original game. The two swords the Onion Knight uses in Dissidia are from the Amano cover illustration from Japanese boxart for the game.
But do these swords appear anywhere in Final Fantasy III? I’d say yes… At least, in the DS remake.
Two swords that appear in Final Fantasy III for the DS resemble the yellow and red weapons from Amano’s artwork of the nameless Warrior of Light on FFIII’s cover.
The yellow sword held by Onion Knight Luneth is the Ragnarok. The red sword held by Ninja Arc is the Muramasa. And the staff held by Sage Ingus is the Elder Staff. The colors and blade shape of both swords strongly resemble the stylized weapons Onion Knight wields in Dissidia.
What’s also interesting is that the Muramasa is a Ninja and Dark Knight exclusive weapon. Furthermore, the Muramasa is only awarded by the Legendary Swordsmith in FFIII DS when the Ninja job class is mastered. The fact that Onion Knight only wields this sword when class changing to a Ninja seems to further cement that this is the sword’s true name.
In regard to the Sage’s staff in Dissidia, the staff held by Sage Ingus is the Elder Staff, and bears a slight resemblance in terms of its shape to said staff used by Onion Knight in Dissidia. However, the strongest matches in terms of weaponry lie with the Ragnarok and Muramasa weapons.
*Q: Who is the “Great Will?”
In a metatextual capacity, the player is identified as the Great Will at the end of Inward Chaos. As far as the story itself goes, however, Cid of the Lufaine is confirmed as the Great Will in the Chaos Reports, specifically Chaos Report #10. Earlier hints to this came from Garland telling Chaos that he had guided him “in accordance to the Great Will’s wish,” while Chaos Report #4 had Cid mention that he’d gotten Garland to agree to “stand at the right hand of discord.” As well, both Shinryu’s profile in the Museum and Shinryu’s brief dialogue with Chaos near the end of Shade Impulse makes it clear that he had been assigned a task by the Great Will. In Chaos Report #3, Cid mentions that he’d made a pact with “a certain dragon wandering through space and time” (Shinryu).
*Q: For what purpose was Cid trying to turn Chaos into the “ultimate weapon?”
To get revenge on the world for what happened to himself and his wife as revealed by her in the Cosmos Reports. The reason the cycle was necessary was because Cid wanted an absolute ending — the destruction of all reality. He needed Chaos — “the ultimate weapon” — to do this. But Chaos winning the war wouldn’t alone achieve this. Cid had to get rid of Cosmos for good so that Chaos would despair and destroy himself.
To deliver an absolute death to the gods, they had to choose to die. Cosmos had to kill herself by dividing her power into the 10 crystals. Once she was actually dead, Chaos would feel despair and decide to end his own life, along with the universe.
*Q:How is Cosmos alive during the Secret Ending?
The defeat of Chaos returned all that was lost from the discord he controlled. Presumably, this included Cosmos, and because of that, harmony was allowed to once again take control and restore all that was lost. As Cid said in the Secret Ending of the game, there will be conflict as long as the world exists, for harmony and discord are concepts born of the human mind — so as long as there are people, there will also be the embodiments of those concepts, Cosmos and Chaos. Since Chaos failed to destroy the universe prior to his death, there was still life — and with everything lost to the discord then restored, so too was Cosmos. Which would then tie into the plot of FF1 being allowed to finally resolve.
Pages: 1 2
No comments yet
Log in or Register
–“Shinryu existed outside of that dimension, but the point is that Shinryu appeared to Chaos and gave him its power as Chaos’s memories returned. Shinryu then tells Chaos that he’s gaining a complete understanding of the conflict. This highly suggests that it is responsible.”
It’s possible, but I don’t think it’s the only way to look at it. It always looked to me like Chaos was in agony and Shinryu just revealed himself to help ease the burden.
–“Also, I don’t recall Squall regaining any memories.”
Squall: “I remembered this promise I made… There’s someone waiting for me.”
–“That’s kind of a stab in the dark, for a few reasons. One, Cosmos isn’t completely gone–her essence still exists in the crystals.”
She’s gone enough for Chaos to become emo and the planet to start crying.
–“Two, harmony would continue to exist even if she did not, as Cid says.”
Her passing certainly made a difference in the equation. Thus, this blurb from Shade Impulse:
“With borders and principles no longer defined,
a world without harmony
can only move towards destruction…”
–“Three, it’s not explained why Sephiroth regained his memories.”
Given quotes like the above (which was actually stated immediately before Sephiroth spoke of having his memories back; Seph and Garland were in the very next scene), it’s quite obvious.
–“As I recall, your earlier assessment was that Sephiroth gained his memories so late in the game because, although his side won last time, he killed himself towards the end of the battle.
Both are possible explanations because there is no explanation.”
The two go hand in hand. He didn’t have his memories because he’d died during the previous turn of the cycle. Once harmony was lost, he got those memories back.
–“Even so, either Cosmos dying alone destroys the universe or Chaos was using/going to use his powers to do it. It really can’t be both.”
Cosmos dying throws everything into disorder which *leads* to Chaos using his powers to do it. It *is* both.
Like the above line said, “a world without harmony can only move towards destruction.”
–“If Dissidia actually took the time specify anything, we wouldn’t be having this discussion, now would we?”
It takes the time to have Cid use “harmony” and “discord” for different things and to refer to two different things on multiple occasions.
–“This suggests that the Lufenians were aware of this, in which case, why would they go about the experiment in the way they did? It would be suicidal.”
You’re suggesting they’d be aware of it as well. Either way — they were setting out to create “a being of harmony to control discord” and that’s the most likely cause of Chaos not having his memories, regardless of who was produced.
–“What is stopping Chaos from consuming everything? Cosmos. Ergo, Cosmos controls discord, albeit indirectly.”
She counter-balances him, but she doesn’t control him. There *is* a difference.
–“You have a scale. It’s empty. Thus, balanced.
You now put a rock on one side. Imbalanced.
You then put a rock on the other side. Balanced again.
That they DO balance out the world doesn’t suggest that they were always necessary. Rock 1 necessessitates Rock 2’s existence. Without either, it would be balanced. With both, it would also be balanced. With only 1, it would not.”
I suppose it depends on whether you believe Chaos’ dream was a genuine memory then.
–“Where is this from, again? Inward Chaos?”
Yes. Like I said, use that script I compiled. It has almost everything.
–“Then why utter lines like, ‘The world is unchanging’?”
That’s the only like that he has, and it sounds like it was the follow-up to “I will extinguish all life” anyway.
–“His wife does. The Cosmos Reports detail the whole story of Garland.”
Actually, the kid already exists at the beginning of his story. He’s only referred to as a “created being” at a later point.
–“We also have Cid recalling an experiment, stating that the Manikins are failures but that there are some successes who ‘question their own existence.'”
In my honest opinion, that doesn’t compare to the opening FMV’s statement that the gods brought pawns to them for the direct purpose of war, as well as the fact that the heroes vanish when Cosmos does.
Add to that, this:
“And as last spoken by the deity who summoned them–
The warriors were now about to experience
true darkness.”
There it’s directly said that Cosmos summoned the heroes. I really don’t see the game being as ambiguous as you feel it is.
–“You don’t understand it correctly, then. Regardless of what the characters are or what was or was not there before them, they were definitely summoned to serve the gods.”
If they were summoned, then, yes, there’d be a connection between them and Cosmos — but earlier you suggested that the manikins may have just been wandering around until they filled the pawns’ vacancies.
At any rate, the manikins were already there without a need to be summoned, remember? You have to admit that the language used in the game doesn’t lend itself toward this more complicated conclusion that leaves the details vague anyway.
–“Possible, but not suggested by the way he phrases it.”
It’s *entirely* suggested by the way he phrases it. He says “*this* world,” same as Cid does when talking about him.
–” Firion–Seems to be unaware that the Emperor can come back from the dead”
That’s really stretching things. Just because the Emperor pulled it off once isn’t a sign that it should be expected every time. Especially when reality has been distorted as badly as it had been.
–“Cecil–Cannot wield darkness in either IV or The After Years, which Dissidia would have to be in between if it was him.”
As I asked once before — *cannot* or *doesn’t*? Is there anything to prevent him from using a dark sword again if he so chose?
–“Exdeath–Retains his nihilistic personality, but if this is the case, he should not have control of his Void powers, ’cause that’s what killed him.”
Why wouldn’t he? He’s obsessed with the Void and returning everything to it now — just as when he became Neo Exdeath. He’s retained his end-of-game personality.
–“Kefka–If his God of Magic form isn’t–well, the God of Magic–then what the Hell is it?”
It is that form, but that doesn’t mean he’s going to have power over the magic of entities whose powers were never derived from the Warring Triad. Each world has its own source of magic, after all.
Also doesn’t mean he’s going to have constant access to that great power.
–” Cloud–If this is before or during Advent Children, then he somehow gets over his reluctance to fight, gains back the same problem, then loses it again.”
He didn’t get over it during this game. He got by, but it’s never suggested that he was free of his concern that he couldn’t save people, nor is it suggested that he was freed of his guilt over the deaths of Aerith and Zack — something which it was said in the Reunion Files (pg. 58) that only Aerith could lift from him.
Furthermore, Dissidia’s Ultimania specifically says that Cloud was feeling guilt over their deaths during this game.
So, yeah, he’s able to function well enough to get to the end of the game, but his problems were by no means fixed.
For that matter, even at the beginning of Advent Children, Cloud was willing to do a bit of fighting (he fought Shadow Creepers, Loz and Yazoo), yet he obviously wasn’t free of his guilt there yet.
–“Kuja–Ultemica tells him he’s a ‘flawed vessel,’ Zidane decides to help him. He acts surprised both times.”
We’ve been over this — to someone like Kuja who doesn’t think the way Zidane does, trying to kill him yet again, only to receive his helping hand once again, is going to be utterly baffling.
Do we even know what the “flawed vessel” line entails, for that matter?
–“Jecht–The Final Aeon is human-sized. While this seems–& to an extent is–insignificant, the Aeons are never displayed as being able to change their size.”
Dude. Aeons are made of pyreflies — by the very nature of their composition, their size isn’t fixed.
Hell, look at Sin. Yu Yevon used Braska’s Final Aeon/Jecht as a basis to start building a new Sin. That’s why he possessed aeons: They provided an already large conglomeration of pyreflies to start building the new Sin with.
After a few years of adding pyreflies to the aeon he’d possessed, he’d end up with a new Sin.
–“It…wouldn’t be a random shadow. It would be Sephiroth’s shadow. That’s why it behaves like Sephiroth would, takes his form, & has most of his abilities.”
So it looks like him, has his personality, and behaves like him. Why, again, is it not him? Especially since his consciousness would have obviously had to float across the dimensional divide for it to happen at all?
“It’s possible, but I don’t think it’s the only way to look at it. It always looked to me like Chaos was in agony and Shinryu just revealed himself to help ease the burden.”
That doesn’t sound like Shinryu. The dragon’s kind of a douche.
Squall: “I remembered this promise I made… There’s someone waiting for me.”
Ah. Well, in that case, I would say that he just says he remembers something. Losing & regaining memories due to some cosmological imbalance is strictly unnecessary.
“With borders and principles no longer defined,
a world without harmony
can only move towards destruction…”
Metaphorical narrative language? Besides, I think you’re missing the fact that none of this stuff says, “This all happened because Cosmos died & Chaos didn’t cause any of it.”
“it’s quite obvious.”
Umm…how? I must say, I’m not seeing any deductive statement that makes it “obvious.”
“Cosmos dying throws everything into disorder which *leads* to Chaos using his powers to do it. It *is* both.”
That doesn’t even make sense. If Cosmos’s death causes it, Chaos doesn’t need to do jack shit. Reiteration: It can’t be both.
“You’re suggesting they’d be aware of it as well.”
Aware of what? Chaos, the deity, did not even exist before Garland, if my theory is right.
“She counter-balances him, but she doesn’t control him. There *is* a difference.”
Function: Verb.
…
2 a : to exercise restraining or directing influence over : regulate b : to have power over : rule c : to reduce the incidence or severity of especially to innocuous levels
“Yes. Like I said, use that script I compiled. It has almost everything.”
I didn’t feel like looking. In that case, I would point out that Inward Chaos Chaos is distinctly different from the Chaos that appears in Shade Impulse.
“That’s the only like that he has, and it sounds like it was the follow-up to “I will extinguish all life” anyway.”
Even if it’s the only line, it still suggests knowledge of the world. It doesn’t make sense if Chaos was “new to it all.” It also shows that he had the same opinion of the world before and after Cosmos died.
“Actually, the kid already exists at the beginning of his story. He’s only referred to as a “created being” at a later point.”
What’s your point?
“In my honest opinion, that doesn’t compare to the opening FMV’s statement that the gods brought pawns to them for the direct purpose of war, as well as the fact that the heroes vanish when Cosmos does.”
Well, that’s all well & good, but the fact is that it’s a pretty ironclad case. What you believe it “doesn’t compare to” is actually a vague statement/graphic effect that don’t indicate much of anything.
I mean, as many times as you say the heroes wouldn’t fade away if they weren’t real, they would. They fade away because they’re bound to the world by Cosmos. It doesn’t matter if they’re Manikins or not.
“There it’s directly said that Cosmos summoned the heroes. I really don’t see the game being as ambiguous as you feel it is.”
I do believe I said they responded to her call for aid, did I not?
“You have to admit that the language used in the game doesn’t lend itself toward this more complicated conclusion that leaves the details vague anyway.”
I take objection to this part. The conclusion is, in fact, much simpler. That’s why I adopted it. Think about it: It easily explains both why the characters seem so genuine & why there are strange discrepencies in their actions with one statement. I also deduced the conclusion straight from the game’s backstory. It doesn’t get more “language lent” than that.
“It’s *entirely* suggested by the way he phrases it. He says “*this* world,” same as Cid does when talking about him.”
But when he talks about the soul returning to the planet, he doesn’t say anything like, “This is the way it worked in my world. I suspected it was the case here, but I had to make sure.” In fact, it seems like the idea is entirely new to him.
“That’s really stretching things. Just because the Emperor pulled it off once isn’t a sign that it should be expected every time. Especially when reality has been distorted as badly as it had been.”
No, -that- is really stretching things. You have an enemy that you know can come back from the dead. In fact, he’s actually done it TWICE, since the Emperor was dead before Dissidia. At a certain point, if you’re still going, “Holy shit,” you’re an idiot.
Also, the whole “reality being distorted” thing doesn’t even logically connect back to the issue of why he didn’t expect this.
“As I asked once before — *cannot* or *doesn’t*? Is there anything to prevent him from using a dark sword again if he so chose?”
I know you did, & I was waiting for it to come up again: This is an invalid argument. The class is not available in the game & he doesn’t use dark powers in any scenes. Therefore, it is illogical to conclude that he can.
It is even MORE illogical when the entire message of his story in Dissidia was that he was learning to fight with Light & Darkness back-to-back.
Since I know you also connected this to Cloud not using Meteorain in AC, I’ll tackle that as well:
If P, then Q.
P.
Therefore, Q.
I don’t know whether you’ve ever seen this before or not, but it’s the valid form of the Aristotlean argument form “modus ponens.” P is the premise, C is the conclusion. If P is true & Q logically follows P, then the argument is sound. So, replacing those:
If {Cloud can use his FFVII Limit Breaks in AC}, then {he can theoretically use Meteorain.}
{Cloud does use his FFVII Limit Breaks in AC.}
Therefore, {he can theoretically use Meteorain}.
This is why the analogy was incompatible.
“Why wouldn’t he? He’s obsessed with the Void and returning everything to it now — just as when he became Neo Exdeath. He’s retained his end-of-game personality.”
Again, if this is the same Exdeath we see at the end of the game, he should not be in control of the Void.
“It is that form, but that doesn’t mean he’s going to have power over the magic of entities whose powers were never derived from the Warring Triad. Each world has its own source of magic, after all.”
If he could only go into that form because he was the God of Magic & he is no longer the God of Magic then it stands to reason that he should not be able to go into that form.
“For that matter, even at the beginning of Advent Children, Cloud was willing to do a bit of fighting (he fought Shadow Creepers, Loz and Yazoo), yet he obviously wasn’t free of his guilt there yet.”
I’m not talking about the game. I’m talking specifically about the scenes in both Dissidia & AC where he apparently conqueors his grief.
I can accept him going back to his old ways between FFVII & AC. That’s 2 years & he didn’t have time to grieve beforehand. If Dissidia is him in some kind of alternate universe story, that would mean he’d basically have to get over it, go back, lose it again, then get over it again in the space of like a week.
For that matter, it couldn’t be before AC anyway, as he’s unsurprised to see Sephiroth alive. Now, surely we CAN reason that away, but let’s remember that Cloud has been reluctant to accept the possibility that Sephiroth is capable of revival before. I doubt any logic we could come up with would make sense from his perspective.
“Do we even know what the “flawed vessel” line entails, for that matter?”
There’s only so many things it can refer to. Since even the villains seem to be unaware of the Manikin project, it is likely referring to his status as a flawed Angel of Death.
And I know we’ve been over this before. I would accept your analysis IF it weren’t for one glaring problem: He says, “Why would you help me?” He does not say, “Why would you help me again?”
This is one word that makes a whole world of difference. Never does he say anything to indicate that this has happened before. So, I’m afraid to say, “That’s what he’s saying” is attaching significance to a quote that just isn’t there.
If we were on an airplane & I turned to you & said, “Holy shit, we’re flying!” would it be logical to conclude, from that statement alone, that I had been on an airplane before? Or would it be more logical to conclude that it was my first time?
–”Jecht–The Final Aeon is human-sized. While this seems–& to an extent is–insignificant, the Aeons are never displayed as being able to change their size.”
“Dude. Aeons are made of pyreflies — by the very nature of their composition, their size isn’t fixed.”
You’re stating that as though it’s a fact. It’s not. The monsters & aeons & whatever else that is composed of pyreflies always appears in a uniform size. CAN their sizes vary? I suppose they could. But the important thing is that we have no BASIS for that assumption, to state it as a fact is making an unsupported assertion.
Not like this is the most important problem, mind you.
“So it looks like him, has his personality, and behaves like him. Why, again, is it not him? Especially since his consciousness would have obviously had to float across the dimensional divide for it to happen at all?”
Surely, if you’ve been following me, you must have at least some idea of what I would say to this?
–“That doesn’t sound like Shinryu. The dragon’s kind of a douche.”
I’m not saying he was trying to comfort him. I’m just saying that he was trying to get him back on track for the fulfillment of the purpose they both had.
Hell, his opening statement is “Calm yourself.”
I also find it rather odd to begin with that you’re suggesting Shinryu would be giving Chaos these memories — seeing as how they’re irrelevant to what Cid wants.
It’s easiest to assume that Chaos is receiving these memories for the same reason that Squall and Sephiroth are getting theirs back — harmony is gone and things that shouldn’t be happening are.
So Chaos is getting back all of his memories — and given that chaos and harmony permeate everything, he should literally receive every memory in the world.
–“Ah. Well, in that case, I would say that he just says he remembers something. Losing & regaining memories due to some cosmological imbalance is strictly unnecessary.”
Yet you know it’s happening. Look at Sephiroth.
–“Metaphorical narrative language? … Umm…how? I must say, I’m not seeing any deductive statement that makes it ‘obvious.'”
Seems pretty straightforward: the boundaries that applied to reality when harmony/Cosmos was there no longer do. And then a moment later we have Sephiroth getting back his memories — something that Garland said shouldn’t be possible.
This is simply moving from A to B.
–“That doesn’t even make sense. If Cosmos’s death causes it, Chaos doesn’t need to do jack shit. Reiteration: It can’t be both.”
Seeing as he’s the *embodiment of disorder*, then, yes, he does. You’re forgetting the abstract basis for his existence.
Nothing’s going to happen without him, but he *is* going to be involved — because that’s what he is. He’s a function of the universe, not really his own person.
–“Aware of what? Chaos, the deity, did not even exist before Garland, if my theory is right.”
My point was, whether it’s Garland or Cosmos that’s created from the discord, leading to Chaos’ memory loss, you can’t say that one scenario requires the Lufenians to assume they’re setting universal suicide into motion while the other scenario gets away without the same requirement.
–“Function: Verb.
…
2 a : to exercise restraining or directing influence over : regulate b : to have power over : rule c : to reduce the incidence or severity of especially to innocuous levels”
You didn’t say what word you were providing a definition for.
Anyway, again: counter-balancing something means that forces are *at rest*. Controlling means forces are imbalanced.
–“I didn’t feel like looking.”
Well, dude, don’t ask me for quotes that you can grab yourself.
–“In that case, I would point out that Inward Chaos Chaos is distinctly different from the Chaos that appears in Shade Impulse.”
Obviously. He’s one that has never known defeat — and he’s stronger due to Shinryu pouring energy into him.
Why would Shinryu be doing this in *any* realm if it wasn’t part of the agreement he made with Cid?
Also, what else could Cid have been referring to when he was talking about developing Chaos into the ultimate weapon?
–“Even if it’s the only line, it still suggests knowledge of the world. It doesn’t make sense if Chaos was ‘new to it all.’ It also shows that he had the same opinion of the world before and after Cosmos died.”
It sounds like taunting the heroes to me — telling them that they can’t change anything.
And I do think that it makes sense that Chaos is rather uninformed. He certainly doesn’t know about Cid, he likely doesn’t know about Shinryu, and he’s letting Garland and the Emperor call the shots.
I mean, for god’s sake. Dude clearly doesn’t think he’s as on top of shit as his own minions.
–“What’s your point?”
My point was that the Cosmos Reports wouldn’t establish anything about his creation either if we’re assuming that the being Cid talks about creating isn’t him.
We would just randomly have a statement that he was a created life with no context for it and no idea of how that relates back to what Cid had been doing.
–” I mean, as many times as you say the heroes wouldn’t fade away if they weren’t real, they would. They fade away because they’re bound to the world by Cosmos. It doesn’t matter if they’re Manikins or not.”
I haven’t said they wouldn’t fade away if they weren’t real. What I said is that they wouldn’t fade away if Cosmos hadn’t *brought them there*, which then *indicates* that they are real.
Because, again, we’re given no reason to believe that the manikins are bound to Cosmos or Chaos. The heroes, however, are explicitly stated to have been summoned by the gods, and we see them vanish when Cosmos dies. That is self-explanatory.
The manikins were not summoned. The manikins were just *there*.
–“I do believe I said they responded to her call for aid, did I not?”
Which is a wording that I should point out I take issue with. It doesn’t look to me like they had any choice in the matter. They didn’t respond to a request — they got yanked in like Marvel’s heroes were by the Beyonder during the Secret Wars.
–“But when he talks about the soul returning to the planet, he doesn’t say anything like, ‘This is the way it worked in my world. I suspected it was the case here, but I had to make sure.'”
Why would he need to say that? The fact that it’s Sephiroth and he comes from VII’s world tells you that it’s the very reason he would suspect it in the first place.
In fact, it seems like the idea is entirely new to him.
–“No, -that- is really stretching things. You have an enemy that you know can come back from the dead. In fact, he’s actually done it TWICE, since the Emperor was dead before Dissidia. At a certain point, if you’re still going, “Holy shit,” you’re an idiot.”
Chaos bringing him back doesn’t count, so it’s still only once. Unless Ultimecia getting revived is supposed to be an indication that *she* comes back from the dead, despite never doing so previously.
In any case, when Firion and his team killed him and the guy stayed dead — and all his demonic legions vanished from the face of the planet with him — I think it’s fair for Firion to be shocked at the guy coming back to life again later.
In any event, given that in Dissidia, Firion references the loss of some of his comrades during FFII’s storyline, you kind of have to give me this one: He’s not clueless to the fact that Mateus has died and returned before. He simply wasn’t expecting it to happen again here.
–“Also, the whole ‘reality being distorted’ thing doesn’t even logically connect back to the issue of why he didn’t expect this.”
The point being that everything they knew had gone to hell. Why would you expect anything to work a certain way simply because it had before?
–“I know you did, & I was waiting for it to come up again: This is an invalid argument. The class is not available in the game & he doesn’t use dark powers in any scenes. Therefore, it is illogical to conclude that he can.”
Is it illogical to conclude that he can use a spear because we never see him do it?
Really, how hard is it for him to use a Dark Knight’s weapon again?
–“It is even MORE illogical when the entire message of his story in Dissidia was that he was learning to fight with Light & Darkness back-to-back.”
Why would him using a dark sword in Dissidia be an indication that he can’t use a dark sword again if he wants in FFIV or FFVI: TA?
–“Again, if this is the same Exdeath we see at the end of the game, he should not be in control of the Void.”
And why not? He was always able to control the void. It’s part of his natural existence given what he is.
In any case, throughout FFV, Exdeath was concerned with conquering. He wanted power. He wanted to rule.
Then he gets eaten by the Void and bonds with it and comes out wanting to put everything else in the Void. The same personality he had when he emerged from the Void in that final battle is the personality he has throughout Dissidia.
His old personality of wanting to conquer is gone. Ergo, the Exdeath we see in Dissidia has the same personality as the Exdeath at the end of FFV. They’re the same person.
–“If he could only go into that form because he was the God of Magic & he is no longer the God of Magic then it stands to reason that he should not be able to go into that form.”
And why would he no longer be the god of magic? He was such when he died and took magic with him out of VI’s world.
If he gets revived, it stands to reason that he’ll still have magical powers.
–” I’m not talking about the game. I’m talking specifically about the scenes in both Dissidia & AC where he apparently conqueors his grief.”
Only like I said: There’s no scene in Dissidia where he conquers his guilt. As I quoted for you from pg. 58 of the Reunion Files: *only* Aerith could provide hiim the absolution he wanted. We see him wanting to meet her again even after the final battle with Sephiroth in Shade Impulse: “The one I really want to meet is …”
So, no, Cloud didn’t get better Dissidia.
–” For that matter, it couldn’t be before AC anyway, as he’s unsurprised to see Sephiroth alive.”
I would hope he wouldn’t be surprised to see him alive considering that he and the other heroes had just fought against him and the entire team of villains not too long before.
Didn’t you notice that both sides already knew the numbers of the other side? WoL knows Ultimecia on-sight. Firion knows Jecht. Squall knows Kuja to be one of Chaos’ pawns.
The opening FMV wasn’t just pretty graphics and cool fights.
–“There’s only so many things it can refer to. Since even the villains seem to be unaware of the Manikin project, it is likely referring to his status as a flawed Angel of Death.”
And why are they more likely to know about that?
For that matter, why would you insist that Kuja has to have his exact body after being revived but Kefka shouldn’t have his?
Further still, if these heroes and villains are just manikins to begin with, why is Kuja stuck with a limited lifespan all over again?
–“And I know we’ve been over this before. I would accept your analysis IF it weren’t for one glaring problem: He says, “Why would you help me?” He does not say, ‘Why would you help me again?'”
Question applies either way, doesn’t it? You insist on the characters saying a lot of extra dialogue, such as past insistence that Cloud should mention Dissidia in AC/C or DC.
–“You’re stating that as though it’s a fact. It’s not. The monsters & aeons & whatever else that is composed of pyreflies always appears in a uniform size. CAN their sizes vary? I suppose they could. But the important thing is that we have no BASIS for that assumption, to state it as a fact is making an unsupported assertion.”
Did you not read what I said about Yu Yevon and Sin? It’s not unsupported assertion at all: Yu Yevon takes aeons, co-opts their pyreflies, and then adds more pyreflies to them over time, growing them into a new Sin.
Hell, for that matter, look at the Magus Sisters’ entrance animation. Look at Seymour in the original game after he’s become an unsent. He literally grows larger.
Really, saying a body made of pyreflies can’t change size is like suggesting that a ghost shouldn’t be able to pass through walls. It’s all part of the nature of the concept.
–“Surely, if you’ve been following me, you must have at least some idea of what I would say to this?”
I’m guessing you’ll say that it’s merely fragments of the original, despite Cid never speaking as though he was dealing with mere fragments of consciousnesses. Which, if that’s the case, still makes it the real deal, so I don’t see the problem.
“I also find it rather odd to begin with that you’re suggesting Shinryu would be giving Chaos these memories — seeing as how they’re irrelevant to what Cid wants.”
It’s Shinryu. I don’t know why it does anything it does.
“It’s easiest to assume that Chaos is receiving these memories for the same reason that Squall and Sephiroth are getting theirs back — harmony is gone and things that shouldn’t be happening are.”
I find that causality is a better answer where it can be applied.
“Yet you know it’s happening. Look at Sephiroth.”
Sephiroth is one thing. Squall remembering a promise has no supernatural implications whatsoever.
“This is simply moving from A to B.”
Hypothetical syllogism? I think not.
Paraphrase: If Cosmos maintains the world’s boundaries, then with her gone, they would be poorly defined. If that were the case, all manner of things could happen. Therefore, memories start coming back to people.
The first problem with this is the premise. I’ve been maintaining several times that the world’s state is Chaos’s deliberate actions, not some natural phenomenon caused by Cosmos’s death.
After the first conclusion, it becomes what I can only call an “argument from randomness,” which is really neither logical nor supported. Besides this, there are very little instances of “the impossible happening.” The reason I say it isn’t logical is because, by the argument’s very definition, it depends on a lack of causality.
“Nothing’s going to happen without him, but he *is* going to be involved — because that’s what he is. He’s a function of the universe, not really his own person.”
No. This justification makes no sense. Action & inaction are mutually exclusive.
So, pick one.
“My point was, whether it’s Garland or Cosmos that’s created from the discord, leading to Chaos’ memory loss, you can’t say that one scenario requires the Lufenians to assume they’re setting universal suicide into motion while the other scenario gets away without the same requirement.”
Umm…yes I can. They’re only making an already existing deity insane in your scenario. It just is not a problem in mine.
“You didn’t say what word you were providing a definition for.”
I didn’t want to appear needlessly condescending. The word was control.
“Anyway, again: counter-balancing something means that forces are *at rest*. Controlling means forces are imbalanced.”
I do not think those are inherent to the words’ definitions.
–”I didn’t feel like looking.”
“Well, dude, don’t ask me for quotes that you can grab yourself.”
At many points I could tell you to just look it up. I typically forego that course of action in order to make a logical point.
“Why would Shinryu be doing this in *any* realm if it wasn’t part of the agreement he made with Cid?”
Why does Shinryu do anything? This time, he states a reason: It wants to see the ultimate chaos.
“Also, what else could Cid have been referring to when he was talking about developing Chaos into the ultimate weapon?”
Frankly, that passage has never made sense. It’s not as though Cid had an enemy that he was using Chaos on, unless one counts the universe. In that case, I’d say making something destroy the universe is pretty “ultimate weapon” in & of itself.
“I mean, for god’s sake. Dude clearly doesn’t think he’s as on top of shit as his own minions.”
Or he could think he doesn’t need to do the small stuff. Or he could have been healing from the battle. Or he could just be lazy. It isn’t “clear” when there a multiple answers.
I mean, Cosmos doesn’t do a whole lot of anything either, but she did have a plan.
“We would just randomly have a statement that he was a created life with no context for it and no idea of how that relates back to what Cid had been doing.”
The Cosmos Reports alone establish that the child was created and able to use the power of discord. The inclusion of the 4 Fiends also suggest that he’s Garland.
I’d say that’s an origin story.
“The manikins were not summoned. The manikins were just *there*.”
The heroes, IE the advanced Manikins, were summoned by the Gods. That is why they fade away. It does not have to be the original Onion Knight to be tied to Cosmos. It does not have to be the original Jecht to be tied to Chaos. There is nothing anywhere that logically contradicts the notion that an advanced Manikin can be tied to one of the deities.
“Which is a wording that I should point out I take issue with. It doesn’t look to me like they had any choice in the matter. They didn’t respond to a request — they got yanked in like Marvel’s heroes were by the Beyonder during the Secret Wars.”
Well, if Cid noticed the free-floating consciousness while observing how Cosmos and Chaos gathered their pawns, then the 2 are probably connected.
“Why would he need to say that? The fact that it’s Sephiroth and he comes from VII’s world tells you that it’s the very reason he would suspect it in the first place.”
He never SAYS he suspects it. He’s having a revelation. This is the problem. His words do not indicate prior knowledge. If it was just understood that it was FFVII Sephiroth & that’s how he knew these things, it wouldn’t require some fancy suicide story.
After all, Ultimecia didn’t need to set up an experiment to cast Time Compression. The Emperor didn’t need to die in order to set up his crystal plan–although he sure did a lot of that, anyway.
“Chaos bringing him back doesn’t count, so it’s still only once.”
Of course it counts! If Kuja is shocked every single time Zidane saves him, no matter how predictable it is, then Firion should be shocked by Mateus’s revival, goddidit or not.
“He’s not clueless to the fact that Mateus has died and returned before. He simply wasn’t expecting it to happen again here.”
IS he not clueless? If so, WHY did he not expect it? Especially since you’ve noted a few times that it should be expected because of Chaos. It’s just not adding up. You’re saying that the characters should respond logically in some scenarios, but in other, similar scenarios, they should be caught completely off guard.
“The point being that everything they knew had gone to hell. Why would you expect anything to work a certain way simply because it had before?”
It still doesn’t logically connect. If anything, you SHOULD expect people to come back from the dead in a world of chaos. But all of this does not matter, because we are injecting logical thoughts into the characters that they simply do not display.
Even if your assertions do make sense, they have no basis. We’re just supposed to assume that this extra-content justification is true because it could work, hypothetically.
“Really, how hard is it for him to use a Dark Knight’s weapon again?”
Well, frankly, from my understanding of IV, he went through a whole internal conflict of cosmological consequences during his class change.
So…really hard.
It is my understanding that the spear is in fact a weapon from IV. But even if Cecil can use spears in Dissidia & not in IV, it’s illogical to say that he MUST be able to use spears in IV if Cecil from IV & Cecil from Dissidia are not necessarily the exact same person.
Veeeeeeeeery similar, but not a perfect clone. Either way, my point stands: Assuming that he “can but simply chooses not to” with absolutely no evidence is a terrible basis for a counterargument.
“Why would him using a dark sword in Dissidia be an indication that he can’t use a dark sword again if he wants in FFIV or FFVI: TA?”
Look, it all comes down to burden of proof. You have to prove that he can use the power “if he wants to.” It is absolutely ridiculous to ask me to “prove he can’t,” because my evidence is that he DOESN’T. The ability is not available to the player OR shown in cutscenes.
“And why not? He was always able to control the void. It’s part of his natural existence given what he is.”
No it’s not. His control over the Void was an acquired ability. Besides that, he dies because he loses control over the Void. This was when he acquired his Neo Exdeath persona. So, since his loss of control & desire for destruction are connected, one cannot exist without the other.
“If he gets revived, it stands to reason that he’ll still have magical powers.”
You already said he isn’t the God of Magic.
“There’s no scene in Dissidia where he conquers his guilt. So, no, Cloud didn’t get better Dissidia.”
Yes there is, and yes he did. “You’re the one who can’t let go!” He doesn’t even say this to Sephiroth in AC. This is all sorts of inner conflict conqueoring.
“I would hope he wouldn’t be surprised to see him alive considering that he and the other heroes had just fought against him and the entire team of villains not too long before.”
Alright, then what about ACC? Why does Cloud refuse to believe that Sephiroth can come back from the dead if it’s already happened before?
“Didn’t you notice that both sides already knew the numbers of the other side? WoL knows Ultimecia on-sight. Firion knows Jecht. Squall knows Kuja to be one of Chaos’ pawns.”
Yes, I did. It would seem, however, as though they were limited to knowledge of the other characters’ identities–not their capabilities.
“And why are they more likely to know about that?”
That I don’t know.
“For that matter, why would you insist that Kuja has to have his exact body after being revived but Kefka shouldn’t have his?”
That is not what I insisted at all. As you said, “We’ve been over this before.” So, you clearly should know that my problem is that he flips out over the same revelation AGAIN.
“Further still, if these heroes and villains are just manikins to begin with, why is Kuja stuck with a limited lifespan all over again?”
I don’t know if the Manikins have limited lifespans or not. The important thing is what they THINK. Now, I KNOW I’ve explained more than once that there is a discrepency between what the characters believe & what is actually the case.
“Question applies either way, doesn’t it?”
No, it doesn’t. I’m pointing out that there is NO indication of an actual crossover, either in Dissidia OR the other titles. No matter what title you look at, they NEVER say ANYTHING that flatly contradicts this & thoroughly proves that they did travel across dimensions.
What I have always been focused on is what the words actually say. In either scenario, you have the problem of key words not being there. Frankly, I’m at a complete loss for how you believe I’m somehow contradicting myself.
“Really, saying a body made of pyreflies can’t change size is like suggesting that a ghost shouldn’t be able to pass through walls. It’s all part of the nature of the concept.”
No it isn’t, & all of your examples did not prove variable size, they proved TRANSFORMATION, except for the case of Sin, which is armor. Now, if you can show me that Sin has grown in size in each of its incarnations, then THAT would be proof positive of the concept that Aeons can change their size.
I’m not saying it’s NOT possible, I’m saying that the proof is insufficient.
“I’m guessing you’ll say that it’s merely fragments of the original, despite Cid never speaking as though he was dealing with mere fragments of consciousnesses. Which, if that’s the case, still makes it the real deal, so I don’t see the problem.”
Except it doesn’t. By definition, a shadow is not the “real thing.” Yes, it comes from the real thing & is very similar to the real thing.
However, you would have Squall active in FFVIII’s world at the same time Manikin-Squall was active in Dissidia’s.
If they existed alongside, anyway.
The problem is simple: Contradictions & lack of confirming evidence.
Furthermore, even if there were no problems, there’s also the issue of what the Reports say. That is the most damning evidence of all & pretty much what must be disproven before the theory can be deemed invalid.
The problem is simple: Contradictions & lack of confirming evidence.
This is your problem, NB. Yours. Not Tres’ or anyone else’s.
I point out something here- Manikins quite simply, exist without the need for Cosmos or Chaos’ power. The heroes, and the villains, do require this power. If they were ‘advanced manikins’, this power would not, be required to sustain them. They would not merely ‘fade away’ with the lack of their supporting Deity.
Seriously, you admit that the gods can summon people from various worlds, and that the current group was summoned. There’s no reason to think that they are fakes except that you’re taking the very vague line regarding manikins questioning their existence and presuming that it means that the heros and villains, who as a whole don’t actually question their existences, at most their purposes, MUST be manikins, because, for some reason, you want them to.
Also, you are incorrect regarding your logic RE: Cecil. We do not see him use the darkness at any point during FFIV:TA true, but this does not positively mean he cannot use it. Merely that he does not. Certainly, we cannot simply assume he can, but that does not prove he cannot.
And even if he cannot, Dissidia exists in a world with literal deus ex machina. He can be granted the ability to use his darkness safely by Cosmos’s power in a way he cannot in his own world.
Because Cecil never got rid of his darkness. He ACCEPTED it. He let it defeat itself.
Seriously, NB, for all your posturing, you simply have nothing to seriously support the idea that the heroes are fakes, much less the extraordinary evidence you’d require to prove such a notion to be true.
It does not make sense in the context of the story. Your only proof is a quote that does not refer to the heroes despite all your huffing and puffing. Cid, on several occasions, speaks of the gods summoning their pawns, even as the inspiration for the manikins.
Lastly, there’s an omission regarding your theory so glaring I have to bring it up. In the Ultimania, where the whole story of Dissidia is discussed, and all the heroes are detailed, NOTHING says that any of them are fakes made by Cid.
I mean, this IS a big facet of the story, if it’s true. You’d think it’d be worth mentioning more explicitly SOMEWHERE.
“This is your problem, NB. Yours. Not Tres’ or anyone else’s.”
No, it isn’t. I have plenty of collaborating evidence, & nothing stated so far has actually contradicted the theory. That you don’t know this I can only assum means that you haven’t read the FAQ.
“I point out something here- Manikins quite simply, exist without the need for Cosmos or Chaos’ power. ”
Except the part where Chaos’s forces &, in 1 instance, Shanttotto, retrieve them from the Interdimensional Rift. So, I guess they DON’T just exist in Dissidia’s world with no questions asked, now do they?
“Seriously, you admit that the gods can summon people from various worlds, and that the current group was summoned.”
No, I did not. I may have said it was a POSSIBILITY, but I never “admitted” this. And this is with complete disregard to whether or not I think they can. Either way, I never said it.
“There’s no reason to think that they are fakes except that you’re taking the very vague line regarding manikins questioning their existence and presuming that it means that the heros and villains, who as a whole don’t actually question their existences, at most their purposes, MUST be manikins, because, for some reason, you want them to.”
I’ve proven that the Manikins are the failed experiments. Therefore, a Manikin with self-awareness MUST be the success story. Since many of the heroes & some of the villains question their purposes, this indicates quite flatly that they are the success stories.
If they are not, then it was just a dead end plotline.
It is not that I “want” it to be the case, it’s that the evidence points to that. I can’t emphasize that enough.
“Also, you are incorrect regarding your logic RE: Cecil.”
No, I’m not. You can restate the argument all you want. I proved that it was an invalid argument. Now, invalid does not mean it is not true, but it DOES mean that it can’t be used as a justification without being proven ITSELF.
“And even if he cannot, Dissidia exists in a world with literal deus ex machina. He can be granted the ability to use his darkness safely by Cosmos’s power in a way he cannot in his own world.”
Look, you can justify one or two of these apparent contradictions. The problem is that eventually, they start to add up.
Besides that, why go through the trouble of conqueoring his darkness at all, if he was just going to accept it back?
“Seriously, NB, for all your posturing, you simply have nothing to seriously support the idea that the heroes are fakes, much less the extraordinary evidence you’d require to prove such a notion to be true.”
I have a great deal of collaborating evidence, which you’d know if you only LOOKED.
“It does not make sense in the context of the story.”
Yes it does!
“Your only proof is a quote that does not refer to the heroes despite all your huffing and puffing.”
Look, Ryu, for all of YOUR “huffing & puffing,” you have offered no working alternate explanation, so I suggest you put up or shut up.
“Cid, on several occasions, speaks of the gods summoning their pawns, even as the inspiration for the manikins.”
See, this is your problem. You’ll stick to this mantra until the end of days, but you completely ignore other relevant quotes. You haven’t even BOTHERED to try & explain what the successful Manikins were, if not the heroes themselves.
Don’t ask me to explain something I’ve tackled a dozen times over before you explain yourself even once.
“I mean, this IS a big facet of the story, if it’s true. You’d think it’d be worth mentioning more explicitly SOMEWHERE.”
The Ultimania also does not explain Sephiroth’s goals, or else you would have used it against me already. You’re making a grievous assumption.
No, it isn’t. I have plenty of collaborating evidence, & nothing stated so far has actually contradicted the theory. That you don’t know this I can only assum means that you haven’t read the FAQ.
I know you THINK you have plenty of corroborating evidence, but you don’t. You have nothing pointing to them being copies. Everything points to them being the real thing.
Neo. You are acting like a Fundamentalist right now. You are protecting your hypothesis with a religious fervor, overlooking the gaps in your own idea and grossly magnifying the small ones in other peoples ideas, or seeing ones that are not there.
You want an idea of what the succesful expiriments are? THE SUMMONS.
Other than that, I am not going to respond to you here. If you actually do wish to continue this further, I suggest you do what I asked some time ago and take this discussion into the forum where such things belong. Stop spamming the front page with all this nonsense.
I am willing to continue this debacle, but not here. It doesn’t belong here. It belongs in discussion forums, not in the comments of the article.
“I know you THINK you have plenty of corroborating evidence, but you don’t. You have nothing pointing to them being copies.”
Further proof that you haven’t looked very hard. I have numerous quotes that all point to the same conclusion. Distant Glory: Heroes, the Chaos Reports, it all seems to synch up. That’s the very DEFINITION of “collaborating evidence.” I don’t THINK I have it, I KNOW I do. And that’s the problem with your argument: Since you refuse to accept that fact, you keep trying to hammer away at small points while ignoring relevent ones.
Even if you are correct, you are not properly proving your point simply by bashing my own–much less me.
“Everything points to them being the real thing.”
With extreme mental acrobatics & extra-content explanations that are never confirmed, I suppose. Vague, sweeping blanket statements such as this do not constitute “proof,” Ryu.
“Neo. You are acting like a Fundamentalist right now. You are protecting your hypothesis with a religious fervor, overlooking the gaps in your own idea and grossly magnifying the small ones in other peoples ideas, or seeing ones that are not there.”
Pot/Kettle. If I’m “protecting my hypothesis with religious fervor,” how exactly is it that I’ve changed some of my points in light of evidence? How is it that I’ve ADMITTED that there are some gaps? The problem is not the gaps. The gaps don’t disprove the idea. The idea would be disproven by a blatant CONTRADICTION, of which there don’t appear to be any.
“You want an idea of what the succesful expiriments are? THE SUMMONS.”
I’m sure you’re proud of yourself for what you feel finally blows a hole in my logic, but if you would bother to think for more than 5 seconds, you’d realize that this CAN’T be the case, as the summons don’t “question their purpose.” Furthermore, they aren’t anything like the Manikins, so it would be a massive stretch to conclude that they’re the same project.
And you wonder why I don’t like talking to you. You do this kind of thing all the time. Don’t shout at me like you’re revealing some obvious truth to an idiot, & if you’re going to behave like that, at least make sure it can’t easily be blown out of the water in a 10 second retort.
“Stop spamming the front page with all this nonsense.”
You call it “nonsense” & expect me to believe I’ll find honest debate by taking your suggestion? What, exactly, is wrong with you? Furthermore, how is it spam if it’s completely on-topic?
“I am willing to continue this debacle, but not here. It doesn’t belong here. It belongs in discussion forums, not in the comments of the article.”
Why not? For that matter, why didn’t you go through any of the channels -I- suggested, if you were so willing to continue?
I’ll consider going to the board, but I make no promises. I left it FOR A REASON. Multiple, in fact. I’m not just going to step back in & go, “Hi, everybody! Long time, no see!” without giving it a bit of thought.
You can, however, E-mail me or post on Dego’s board. I don’t see why I should have to go somewhere I know I’m not wanted just to respond to your drivel.
He told you he would respond if you took this to the forum. If you wish to continue this, please, take it there.
If he chooses not to respond, that’s great for him. He has given me no reason to believe he is worth seeking out for the purposes of this discussion.
On the other hand, I couldn’t help but notice that everyone involved in this discussion continued to comment on what I said here, despite my claim that I intended to discuss it elsewhere. Now, maybe the viewpoint is that this is different because the forum is an official place connected to this site, rather than an outside area.
That’s fine. I can see that. However, I don’t see the point in jumping on me for something you, Ryu, & Squall have already done.
Not to be needlessly antagonistic, of course. What’s done is done.
You have the issue with the FAQ here. You wish to show this FAQ wrong. You should have the fortitude to face us directly.
By the by, spanky, Cid never said the successes question their reasons for existing. He just says that among the created pawns, among the manikins existed those who questioned their reasons for living.
Yet again, you automatically conflate the successes and the doubters not because the text says them to be connected, but because you want your hypothesis to succeed. In spite of all parsimonious ideas to the contrary.
Again, though, unless you want to man up and take this to the forums, I’ll leave this to Tres. He can more than handle this… totty.
Umm…no. I equate the two because it mentions some who question their reason for living, then automatically talks about “failures.”
You have something of a point in that it does not LITERALLY say such, but the linguistics still suggests it.
Furthermore, it is rather asinine of you to ignore the first time I posted in response to you & come back a page or so later acting like the smartest person in the topic.
Consider, for a moment, the fact that this is the FIRST time you’ve EVER introduced this idea. Since I have not already considered this evidence you did not submit, you feel justified in acting superior and making statements like “you just want your hypothesis to succeed.”
It’s just bad form.
Now, that’s obviously an ad hominem, so there’s no real point in addressing it, but I will anyway:
To a certain extent, it could be said that I “want the hypothesis to be true.” I’ve come to expect certain things from Square. Fan fictions are not one of those things.
However, you have all made various statements to the effect that you believe it would be “pointless” or “narratively unsatisfying” for this to be true.
At what point do you ask yourself, “How much of my argument comes from bias?” It should not come after accusing the other person.
You know, I do still believe the theory would render much of the story pointless and narratively empty. For example, Squall speaking of remembering his promise to Rinoa.
There’d really be no reason for that to come up so close to the final battle if he’s not actually going back to her. It would, for lack of better words, I’m afraid, be both pointless and narratively unsatisfying.
To a certain extent, I would agree with you. However, I consider “fan fic plots” far more shoddy storytelling.
As to a sequal, I really never gave a thought to what I’d have to do with regards to my FAQ if one came out…interesting….
You know, Ryu, I’d been so embroiled in this debate that I failed to even notice the wording was “within the created pawns were some” rather than ” within the successful pawns were some …” — but you make a good point.
As written, he could as easily be referring to the failures when he says that some questioned their reason for living. That could very well lend itself, then, to why the manikins take on the forms of the heroes and the villains — as a means of trying to establish some identity and purpose?
Though that does still leave the lingering matter of who the successes would be.
I still think that may have been related to the sequel that was initially intended.
Something that somehow diddn’t occur to me until now, somehow: This conclusion is invalid.
Your idea does make sense, I suppose, but the problem with metaphorical analysis is that it’s difficult to determine unless it’s hinted at or stated somewhere.
Meanwhile, the characters literally do question themselves.
Occam’s Razor would suggest that we go with the latter explanation.
I do not believe that the characters are “clearly distinguished” from the experiments.
I also don’t agree with the sequal idea. While it is possible that information might be retconned, I do not believe making a sequal to explain this was foremost in the developers’ minds when making it. After all, they “have no immediate plans for a sequal.”
Dissidia, much like whatever group we’re talking about right now, was an experiment.
Since there were no immediate plans for a sequal, I think we should be able to find all of the answers to the important questions somewhere in the game itself.
Well, that’s the thing: There pretty much *were* immediate plans for a sequel. They just got sidetracked from it and the idea put off.
–“It’s Shinryu. I don’t know why it does anything it does.”
Well, the game would imply he does the things he does because he’s carrying out Cid’s plan.
And as near as I can tell, Chaos gaining all the memories of the world has nothing to do with that.
–“I find that causality is a better answer where it can be applied.”
I’m unsure what you were saying here.
–“Sephiroth is one thing. Squall remembering a promise has no supernatural implications whatsoever.”
It kind of does, given that Squall’s promise to Rinoa is not something he would forget easily and need to be reminded of unless there were supernatural elements involved. It’s a central aspect to his character.
And given that it’s happening in the same segment of the game where Sephiroth has randomly recovered memories that he isn’t supposed to have after saying “As disorder grows in strength, I seem to be regaining my memories …” — well, there you go.
–“The first problem with this is the premise. I’ve been maintaining several times that the world’s state is Chaos’s deliberate actions, not some natural phenomenon caused by Cosmos’s death.”
You haven’t maintained it, though. The game outright tells us that with Cosmos gone, shit goes to hell. I’ll post it again:
“With borders and principles no longer defined,
a world without harmony
can only move towards destruction…”
–“No. This justification makes no sense. Action & inaction are mutually exclusive.”
Not when you’re talking about beings who — beyond their own choosing and control — are embodiments of abstract concepts and universal forces.
Again, I’m saying that Cosmos’ absence merely throws everything off-kilter. Which we clearly see, and which is implied directly by Cid’s own statement that “their diametric nature … stabilized the world.” If the two of them stabilize the world, then in the absence of one, order goes out the window, yes?
That alone does not cause the destruction of the universe, though, of course — and I’m not saying it does. It will *lead* to it, though, because disorder then grows stronger, and the logical end of that is Chaos’ act of universal suicide.
As Garland said when he was defeated for the final time in Dissidia, “If chaos is a state without form, where all things collide and blend… then ultimate chaos would be the denial of all existence, would it not?”
So while Cosmos’ death alone doesn’t end the universe, and while things going to hell are not caused by Chaos himself, the eventual destruction of the universe will be performed by him — as a consequence of Cosmos’ death.
That dovetails logically into the above statement that without harmony, destruction is inevitable, no?
These ideas are not mutually exclusive whatsoever. They inform one another quite nicely, I’d say.
–“Umm…yes I can. They’re only making an already existing deity insane in your scenario. It just is not a problem in mine.”
Alright, fair enough.
I think you’re making too big a deal out of this, though, given that the Lufenians couldn’t have *known* what was going to happen in my scenario, and given also that the entire spectrum of what they’re doing is stupid and suicidal.
–“I do not think those are inherent to the words’ definitions.”
They are. If you’re counter-balancing something, you’re applying enough force to balance the forces out such that they’re equal.
Control, by definition, implies an imbalance of forces.
–“At many points I could tell you to just look it up. I typically forego that course of action in order to make a logical point.”
As you should, given that we’re taking different interpretations of the same lines.
–“Why does Shinryu do anything?”
Primarily because Cid asked him to.
–“This time, he states a reason: It wants to see the ultimate chaos.”
He says he has come to stand watch, right after talking about Cid again.
In any case, I’m not that concerned about this particular point. I do think Chaos was getting stronger somehow given that he actually delivered a mortal wound to Cosmos at the beginning of the game, right after we had just been told they “were of equal strength” and “it was believed the conflict would last forever” — which was followed by “But–“.
And then we have these lines from Garland during Shade Impulse:
“You misunderstand the desires of the Great Will. My task is yet unfinished… This world is but a testing ground for the development of the ultimate weapon…Chaos. And that is precisely why the cycle of battle had to continue for all eternity.”
“All was to nurture the power of disorder so Chaos could become the ultimate weapon.”
Words like “development and “could become” imply that Chaos was not already the ultimate weapon in Cid’s eyes.
It sounds like something changed.
But, again, it’s not that big of a deal.
–” Frankly, that passage has never made sense. It’s not as though Cid had an enemy that he was using Chaos on, unless one counts the universe. In that case, I’d say making something destroy the universe is pretty ‘ultimate weapon” in & of itself.’
Even when Cid talks about the “ultimate weapon” in the Chaos Reports, he’s using phrases like “this unending war to create the ultimate weapon.” The passage makes perfect sense given what Shinryu says in Inner Chaos, what Garland says in Shade Imuplse, and the fact that Chaos gained a clear edge over Cosmos when they were supposed to be equal and unable to defeat one another.
–” Or he could think he doesn’t need to do the small stuff. Or he could have been healing from the battle. Or he could just be lazy. It isn’t ‘clear’ when there a multiple answers.”
He certainly was recharging from the battle for most of the game, but his actions had still been in accordance with Garland’s guidance. Why he needs guidance is left unclear, as you say, but given that — of the trio of Shinryu, Garland and himself — he’s the only one in the dark (while Garland leads him to believe that it’s all about ruling the world), it seems rather telling about his knowledge of the entire scenario.
But this matter isn’t that big of a deal either.
–“I mean, Cosmos doesn’t do a whole lot of anything either, but she did have a plan.”
Which is actually a lot more than can be said for Chaos.
–” The Cosmos Reports alone establish that the child was created and able to use the power of discord. The inclusion of the 4 Fiends also suggest that he’s Garland.
I’d say that’s an origin story.”
Yes, we’re told there that he’s a created being, and it’s safe to assume that he was created in response to the Lufenians’ fear of invasion — but in Cid’s own summary of events, he goes straight from talking about the fear of invasion to his homeland’s desire for him to use that power more, to then saying that the being who had that power wasn’t interested in using it any more than was necessary, to then talking about creating someone who could control discord.
Why is it only then that he talks about it?
Why, when Garland was the Lufenians’ MacGuffin, did the passage build-up from the fear of invasion to emphasizing the “being of harmony” if that wasn’t him?
–” The heroes, IE the advanced Manikins, were summoned by the Gods.”
Here’s the problem: The manikins were already there after the gods had created Dissidia’s world, right? They’d already done their business of calling beings from other dimensions.
How, then, would the manikins fit this description?:
“The two gods summoned warriors from many worlds to lead them in savage war …” (the Japanese line used “amata no sekai,” or “many worlds”)
“As for the few remaining survivors …”
The “remaining survivors” are obviously the heroes and villains. What are they survivors of? The “warriors [summoned] from many worlds.”
If the heroes and villains were manikins, then they weren’t summoned from many worlds, correct? By then, the battle world of Dissidia would have already existed and the manikins would just be wandering around it, conveniently there to replace the actual summoned pawns.
Did the consciousnesses that Cid would have tinkered with originate from other dimensions? Sure. But they wouldn’t have been *summoned* from those other dimensions. Cid specifically says that these consciousnesses *drifted* over.
Furthermore, even if we were to make an allowance for the conflicting wording, we’d still be left with the fact that it was said Chaos and Cosmos did their summons for warriors to “lead them in savage war” — which pointedly would not have been the case for the manikin consciousnesses during their initial arrival.
All that being the case, I really don’t see how the manikins could be Cosmos’ and Chaos’ warriors.
–“There is nothing anywhere that logically contradicts the notion that an advanced Manikin can be tied to one of the deities.”
You’re correct. There isn’t. However, the manikins were *already* there. They shouldn’t be disappearing because Chaos or Cosmos does.
–“He never SAYS he suspects it. He’s having a revelation. This is the problem. His words do not indicate prior knowledge.”
Looking at it again, it doesn’t seem to be written so much like a revelation as like speculation on something he suspects (the Japanese line that got translated as “This is merely conjecture” was “I’m just talking about a feeling/hunch”).
But, then, I have to ask: Since the dude *did* just say that he’s regaining his memories before he mentions the concept, why should that not indicate prior knowledge?
–“If it was just understood that it was FFVII Sephiroth & that’s how he knew these things, it wouldn’t require some fancy suicide story.”
Don’t you hold that the warriors go to Gabranth’s hell when they die? How would Sephiroth’s suicide have led to an “idea” about becoming one with the planet?
Especially under your theory, the only thing that makes sense is that he got his memories back about something he already knew.
–“Of course it counts! If Kuja is shocked every single time Zidane saves him, no matter how predictable it is, then Firion should be shocked by Mateus’s revival, goddidit or not.”
I imagine he was surprised the first time he saw him. And, yes, I agree that if Chaos could bring them back to life once, then the heroes should have suspected it could be done again.
They didn’t, though. And even so, Firion nonetheless remembers the story of Final Fantasy II. He references the comrades he lost (the Ultimania for Dissidia confirms that his “Many people lose their lives in times of war …” line was referring to them), and also speaks of the Emperor as though he’s someone he knows well (“He uses words only as tools to deceive others”).
For that matter, so long as we’re talking about what the Ultimania has to say, why does it treat the characters in Dissidia as though they’re the same as the ones from the original games? And what about Boko’s feather?
–“You’re saying that the characters should respond logically in some scenarios, but in other, similar scenarios, they should be caught completely off guard.”
Mainly because that’s how it was written. It’s a little illogical, though, I agree.
–“Even if your assertions do make sense, they have no basis. We’re just supposed to assume that this extra-content justification is true because it could work, hypothetically.”
Is that not what you’ve done with the characters-as-manikins ideas?
–“Well, frankly, from my understanding of IV, he went through a whole internal conflict of cosmological consequences during his class change.
So…really hard.”
If you say so. I’d think he could just pick up a sword and use it myself.
–“Look, it all comes down to burden of proof. You have to prove that he can use the power “if he wants to.” It is absolutely ridiculous to ask me to “prove he can’t,” because my evidence is that he DOESN’T.”
Not when it’s a power he’s been known to have before, and which nothing since has ever implied became *unavailable* to him.
–“No it’s not. His control over the Void was an acquired ability.”
No, dude. It’s innate.
–“Besides that, he dies because he loses control over the Void. This was when he acquired his Neo Exdeath persona. So, since his loss of control & desire for destruction are connected, one cannot exist without the other.”
What’s your point exactly? You’re suggesting that because he lost control of it on one occasion he could never use the power again after being revived?
–“You already said he isn’t the God of Magic.”
He’s not the god *of all magic in the omniverse* no. He never was. He was the god of all magic on *one planet*.
–“Yes there is, and yes he did. ‘You’re the one who can’t let go!’ He doesn’t even say this to Sephiroth in AC. This is all sorts of inner conflict conqueoring.”
They weren’t talking about Cloud’s guilt there, though, were they?
Also, as I’ve told you twice before now: Cloud’s guilt was something that could *only be lifted by Aerith*. Even *after the battle* with Sephiroth in Shade Impulse, he’s still talking about wanting to meet Aerith again so he can get forgiveness.
So, no, Cloud conquers no guilt in Dissidia.
–“Alright, then what about ACC? Why does Cloud refuse to believe that Sephiroth can come back from the dead if it’s already happened before?”
Different planet? And I wouldn’t say he refused to believe it at all. He sounded doubtful about it, and when Rufus provided his reasoning, Cloud didn’t disagree with him.
For that matter, Cloud figured out what Kadaj, Yazoo and Loz were all on his own, and he also realized that they could be used to revive Sephiroth.
–“Yes, I did. It would seem, however, as though they were limited to knowledge of the other characters’ identities–not their capabilities.”
Their identities are what we were talking about. You were saying that Cloud should have been surprised to see Seph alive in Dissidia, but he already knew about it by the time the game’s story begins.
–“That I don’t know.”
I think you need to come up with a reason. Especially if you’re going to take so much issue with something like Cecil using a particular type of sword again.
–“That is not what I insisted at all.”
If you’re saying he’s still suffering from the ticking time-bomb effect, then that is what you are saying.
–“I don’t know if the Manikins have limited lifespans or not. The important thing is what they THINK. Now, I KNOW I’ve explained more than once that there is a discrepency between what the characters believe & what is actually the case.”
So, again: Why would they think Kuja has a limited lifespan? And how does Ultimecia’s line even indicate that?
–“No, it doesn’t. I’m pointing out that there is NO indication of an actual crossover, either in Dissidia OR the other titles. No matter what title you look at, they NEVER say ANYTHING that flatly contradicts this & thoroughly proves that they did travel across dimensions.”
Opening FMV: “The two gods summoned warriors from many worlds to lead them in savage war …”
As well, even your manikin theory is dependent on: “I found that a great
number of the consciousnesses had drifted to this world from other dimensions.”
Not to mention both Garland and Golbez saying that Dissidia’s world was formed from combining shards of worlds from many dimensions (just to reiterate, “realms” *is* “dimensions” here; the Japanese word is “jigen”).
–” No it isn’t, & all of your examples did not prove variable size, they proved TRANSFORMATION, except for the case of Sin, which is armor. Now, if you can show me that Sin has grown in size in each of its incarnations, then THAT would be proof positive of the concept that Aeons can change their size.”
I genuinely can’t believe you’re serious. Just look at what pyreflies are. At what they do. At the existence of Sin’s sinspawn. At the fact that Yu Yevon grows Sin out of an aeon. At the way the pyreflies within Sin’s body made a gigantic realm that literally made him larger on the inside than he was on the outside.
Out of all the things you know pyreflies can do, all the forms they can take — you really have difficulty with something as relatively small as a size change?
–“Except it doesn’t. By definition, a shadow is not the ‘real thing.'”
Which I wouldn’t disagree with. But Cid didn’t use the word “shadow.”
–” The problem is simple: Contradictions & lack of confirming evidence.”
But the contradictions in this don’t matter for your theory?:
“The two gods summoned warriors from many worlds to lead them in savage war …” (the Japanese line used “amata no sekai,” or “many worlds”)
“As for the few remaining survivors …”
And where’s the confirmation for your theory? If you’re going to say that this one needs confirmation — when the in-game profiles, the Ultimania and the narrative itself (you really only suggest that the Chaos Reports do otherwise) treat the characters as the real deal — then what about yours?
–“Furthermore, even if there were no problems, there’s also the issue of what the Reports say. That is the most damning evidence of all & pretty much what must be disproven before the theory can be deemed invalid.”
Then I guess good luck to you with getting the manikins around the lack of being surviving warriors summoned from another dimension.
–“I’ve proven that the Manikins are the failed experiments. Therefore, a Manikin with self-awareness MUST be the success story.”
In fairness, Cid only ever said that the purpose of his experiment was to give them physical bodies: “I wondered if I might be able to give those consciousnesses physical form.”
–“Since many of the heroes & some of the villains question their purposes, this indicates quite flatly that they are the success stories.”
Not really. He only said that some of the successful ones questioned their existences.
–“If they are not, then it was just a dead end plotline.”
Or it could be part of the sequel that they’d intended. Nomura admitted in an interview in the Ultimania that it was intended.
–“Besides that, why go through the trouble of conqueoring his darkness at all, if he was just going to accept it back?”
So that he could be in balance. Which Dissidia emphasizes is a good thing.
Hell, if you have an eating addiction, just because you’ve conquered it doesn’t mean you’re never going to eat food again.
“Well, the game would imply he does the things he does because he’s carrying out Cid’s plan.”
Why? Shinryu is an independent character with rather shadowy motivations.
“I’m unsure what you were saying here.”
Simply that an answer dependent on random things happening with no particular pattern isn’t a very good explanation. It’s difficult to prove or disprove.
Like, if things are going completely haywire, why doesn’t gravity reverse itself? This isn’t stated in the premise, but at the same time, one would expect a little more of “a world without order” than just some deja vu.
“It kind of does, given that Squall’s promise to Rinoa is not something he would forget easily and need to be reminded of unless there were supernatural elements involved. It’s a central aspect to his character.”
First of all, this is reaching. Second of all, remembering doesn’t even necessitate forgetting. You can recall something that happened earlier in the day not because you forgot it, but because you don’t think about it constantly.
“well, there you go.”
There I go with what? Because 3 things happen relatively close together, they must be connected?
“You haven’t maintained it, though. The game outright tells us that with Cosmos gone, shit goes to hell. I’ll post it again.”
Well, then, I’m maintaining it. Regardless, your quote is irrelevent to my point: Active & inactive are mutually exclusive.
“With borders and principles no longer defined,
a world without harmony
can only move towards destruction…”
Again, the narration is often metaphorical. Take, for example, the chapter openings talking about “x revealing a new source of courage in the warrior.” There aren’t protracted scenes where the summon teaches the character something about themselves. It’s a hint at what the summon is.
These messages really aren’t typically all that significant.
“Not when you’re talking about beings who — beyond their own choosing and control — are embodiments of abstract concepts and universal forces.”
Considering I disagree with this premise, it does not make much sense to use it in justification of a separate conclusion.
“If chaos is a state without form, where all things collide and blend… then ultimate chaos would be the denial of all existence, would it not?”
This seems to detail a conscious effort on Chaos’s part. It’s simply him taking his nature to its logical conclusion. In fact, order could be said to be any sort of stable pattern. Heat death could be order. This is also something we can expect from Chaos, given his extremely fatalistic viewpoint.
“That dovetails logically into the above statement that without harmony, destruction is inevitable, no?”
No. It would make sense if someone said, “Chaos used his powers to destroy harmony.” But they don’t. It’s spoken of as 2 different issues. With the wording as-is, they’re simply impossible to reconcile.
“These ideas are not mutually exclusive whatsoever. They inform one another quite nicely, I’d say.”
Well, you can say that, but you’re wrong. I mean, you yourself said that Chaos “using his powers to destroy the universe” was a line made in the future tense. It absolutely does not make sense for it to be referring to a past action, if that is the case. Again, it’s either deliberate action on the part of Chaos or it’s just a natural consequence of Cosmos’s death. It really can’t be both.
One also runs into the problem of the fact that Chaos dies at the end of the game with no negative consequences. You could argue that he wasn’t quite dead, but neither was Cosmos. A “complete death” is defined by the characters themselves as a death the god/dess cannot come back from.
“I think you’re making too big a deal out of this, though, given that the Lufenians couldn’t have *known* what was going to happen in my scenario, and given also that the entire spectrum of what they’re doing is stupid and suicidal.”
If I’m not mistaken, your scenario requires them to take a god of destruction and remove the memories that remind it not to destroy the universe.
Let me rephrase that: Prove it.
“But, again, it’s not that big of a deal.”
I suppose not. I would like to point out that there are several ways the tide could have changed, though. The villains are, more often than not, much more powerful than the heroes. There are also the Manikins, which I include as a possibility because “but” leads right into “the pawns of Chaos created an inexhaustable force.”
“Even when Cid talks about the “ultimate weapon” in the Chaos Reports, he’s using phrases like “this unending war to create the ultimate weapon.” The passage makes perfect sense given what Shinryu says in Inner Chaos, what Garland says in Shade Imuplse, and the fact that Chaos gained a clear edge over Cosmos when they were supposed to be equal and unable to defeat one another.”
I’m just saying, I’d take that with a grain of salt. In what sense can Chaos be referred to as a weapon? Perhaps a tool, but a weapon requires an enemy of some kind.
“Which is actually a lot more than can be said for Chaos.”
True, but what I mean is that the appearance of doing nothing can be does not confirm actual ineptitude.
“Why, when Garland was the Lufenians’ MacGuffin, did the passage build-up from the fear of invasion to emphasizing the “being of harmony” if that wasn’t him?”
How can Cid use and refine Chaos without Garland? We are given no indication of any pre-Garland experiments. In fact, Garland seems like an experimental leap. The point in jumping to the “being of harmony” is that Garland was becoming difficult to control and refusing to destroy things for the Lufenians.
“Here’s the problem: The manikins were already there after the gods had created Dissidia’s world, right? They’d already done their business of calling beings from other dimensions.”
Yes. And no. The problem is that we don’t know. You’re assuming that the gods only gathered 1 set of warriors, which seems unlikely to me. As it should to you, since you’re the one who noticed that Kuja was new to the cycle.
“The “remaining survivors” are obviously the heroes and villains. What are they survivors of? The “warriors [summoned] from many worlds.”
Survivors from past battles of the cycle, I would say. That does not mean they can’t also be Manikins.
“If the heroes and villains were manikins, then they weren’t summoned from many worlds, correct?”
Again: We don’t know where they were at the time.
“Did the consciousnesses that Cid would have tinkered with originate from other dimensions? Sure. But they wouldn’t have been *summoned* from those other dimensions. Cid specifically says that these consciousnesses *drifted* over.”
It’s all relative, really. Just because you’re summoned, it does not mean you have to respond.
“You’re correct. There isn’t. However, the manikins were *already* there. They shouldn’t be disappearing because Chaos or Cosmos does.”
Warrior of Light disappeared, and we BOTH agree that he’s the genuine article.
“But, then, I have to ask: Since the dude *did* just say that he’s regaining his memories before he mentions the concept, why should that not indicate prior knowledge?”
Because if he’s Sephiroth, then he’s already done this before. In any case, I recall him telling Garland that it’s speculation. I also recall him saying that he’s regaining memories just before that. He also tells Garland that there’s “no need for him to take it as truth” after Garland basically shits a brick. It seems to me like this is Sephiroth’s way of saying, “Calm down, & pay no attention to what I’m doing.”
“Don’t you hold that the warriors go to Gabranth’s hell when they die? How would Sephiroth’s suicide have led to an “idea” about becoming one with the planet?”
Either he found out from something or someone in Gabranth’s Hell, or he was somehow able to witness the truth of the world from there. A similar question arises in how the Emperor knows about Shinryu.
As to the discrepency between the 2 end results of dying, personally, I blame the game itself for hinting at both of them. Nonetheless, I can think of a few possible ways to combine the 2, but my personal opinion is that the warriors only go to Gabranth’s Hell as long as they have some connection to the cycle of battle, even if it’s just as a discarded pawn. No Chaos, no Cosmos, no one to get in his way.
“Especially under your theory, the only thing that makes sense is that he got his memories back about something he already knew.”
Something he didn’t know, actually. I never said that the Manikins were carbon copies. In fact, the theory is more-or-less pointless if there are no discrpencies to account for.
“They didn’t, though. And even so, Firion nonetheless remembers the story of Final Fantasy II. He references the comrades he lost (the Ultimania for Dissidia confirms that his “Many people lose their lives in times of war …” line was referring to them), and also speaks of the Emperor as though he’s someone he knows well (“He uses words only as tools to deceive others”).”
Oh, he certainly has memories, but they seem a tad bit incomplete, if he doesn’t remember the Emperor’s revival stunt.
“For that matter, so long as we’re talking about what the Ultimania has to say, why does it treat the characters in Dissidia as though they’re the same as the ones from the original games? And what about Boko’s feather?”
You’d have to elaborate a bit. I do intend on reading the Ultimania files as part of my editing stage, but I don’t really have time right now. I’ve been doing a lot of work with the Senior Research Project.
“Is that not what you’ve done with the characters-as-manikins ideas?”
It can’t be extra-content justification if I’m USING the content as my main argument. Extra-content justification would be something like, “Well, it’s never said or even implied that Cecil can go into Dark Knight again, but that doesn’t mean that he CAN’T.”
“If you say so. I’d think he could just pick up a sword and use it myself.”
But it’s not that simple in the game. He has to go to some cave & have an internal struggle to class change. There’s a whole prophecy regarding the darkness/light crap that makes up a core portion of the game’s backstory.
“Not when it’s a power he’s been known to have before, and which nothing since has ever implied became *unavailable* to him.”
Except for not being able to use it and the game’s heavy-handed hints that light and darkness are incompatible in the same being.
“No, dude. It’s innate.”
Even if it is, it’s only because he has the soul of that mage. Enuo, or whatever his name was, which still makes it an acquired ability in that the tree had to absorb his soul to do it. Regardless, there’s still the problem of him losing control over the Void and being consumed by it.
The point is that his change in personality & his loss of control over the Void went hand-in-hand. One almost necessitates the other, if this is the same Exdeath.
It’s also basically necessary in order to beat Exdeath, who was nigh invincible in FFV.
“He’s not the god *of all magic in the omniverse* no. He never was. He was the god of all magic on *one planet*.”
I fail to see your point.
“So, no, Cloud conquers no guilt in Dissidia.”
Then his reluctance to fight. Whatever. It doesn’t matter WHAT’S keeping him, the fact that there IS a change doesn’t make sense.
It’s really a simple equation. Whatever the internal conflict is, you can’t beat it twice in a row.
–”Alright, then what about ACC? Why does Cloud refuse to believe that Sephiroth can come back from the dead if it’s already happened before?”
Different planet? And I wouldn’t say he refused to believe it at all. He sounded doubtful about it, and when Rufus provided his reasoning, Cloud didn’t disagree with him.
“For that matter, Cloud figured out what Kadaj, Yazoo and Loz were all on his own, and he also realized that they could be used to revive Sephiroth.”
No he didn’t. Vincent told him.
–”Yes, I did. It would seem, however, as though they were limited to knowledge of the other characters’ identities–not their capabilities.”
No, we were talking about their abilities. Take Firion, for example. He clearly knows OF the Emperor. He does not, however, seem to know about the Emperor’s ability to come back from the dead.
“I think you need to come up with a reason.”
Excuse me? No, I don’t. There’s nothing wrong with admitting that I don’t have an answer. I’m not arguing with you for the purpose of outsmarting you. I’m trying to reach a logical conclusion.
“Making shit up” is not a logical conclusion.
“Especially if you’re going to take so much issue with something like Cecil using a particular type of sword again.”
Because that’s not what it is! Dark Knight is a whole class of abilities & the class shift itself is implied to be how he broke Zeromus’s control. It extends so far beyond just using a certain weapon.
It IS a huge issue. It’s something Cecil apparently cannot do in either game that makes Dissidia IMPOSSIBLE to fit in the timeline.
You say I need to come up with reasons. I say just the opposite. As I said, a debate is not about outsmarting the other person. This isn’t “who can come up with the best proof of their side,” it’s “what’s actually there.”
Possible explanations, even probable ones, neither of which this really is, should be thrown out completely if they aren’t supported by the existing data.
You literally cannot use Dark Knight in either game after a certain point. That alone is sufficient evidence against the ability.
“If you’re saying he’s still suffering from the ticking time-bomb effect, then that is what you are saying.”
No I’m not. You’re presupposing that Ultimecia is even correct. Kuja can be the only immortal character in the game, for all I know. It doesn’t matter.
What I am insisting is that he reacted the same way to something he allegedly already knew.
“So, again: Why would they think Kuja has a limited lifespan? And how does Ultimecia’s line even indicate that?”
There’s something she says afterwards. Remind me to get back to you on this when I have more time.
“Opening FMV: “The two gods summoned warriors from many worlds to lead them in savage war …””
Not good enough. I need more than 1 rather vague quote. I need something that flatly contradicts that the heroes are Manikins.
“Not to mention both Garland and Golbez saying that Dissidia’s world was formed from combining shards of worlds from many dimensions (just to reiterate, “realms” *is* “dimensions” here; the Japanese word is “jigen”).”
I point you to again the FAQ, where I have at least 1 quote hinting at the possibility that the world was not a “combination” of anything, & in fact gave rise to other dimensions.
“I genuinely can’t believe you’re serious. Just look at what pyreflies are. At what they do. At the existence of Sin’s sinspawn. At the fact that Yu Yevon grows Sin out of an aeon. At the way the pyreflies within Sin’s body made a gigantic realm that literally made him larger on the inside than he was on the outside.”
Look, how hard is it for you to understand that something merely being possible IN THEORY does not make it good justification? Be honest with yourself & answer this one question:
Is there any point in the game where Bahamut appears the size of a dog?
THAT is the kind of example you would need to show that it is possible not only in theory but in practice as well.
I’m not even saying I disagree with you. I’m saying I’m looking for hard evidence.
“But Cid didn’t use the word “shadow.”
I didn’t say he did. It’s a word I’m using to help clarify the point.
–” The problem is simple: Contradictions & lack of confirming evidence.”
“But the contradictions in this don’t matter for your theory?”
There ARE no contradictions in that quote. There are GAPS in our knowledge. What you are using is a form of the God of the Gaps argument. We do not have a specific chain of events that debunks the idea. Instead, we have some quotes that don’t entirely seem to add up. This is what you are using in an attempt to disprove the theory.
“And where’s the confirmation for your theory? If you’re going to say that this one needs confirmation — when the in-game profiles, the Ultimania and the narrative itself (you really only suggest that the Chaos Reports do otherwise) treat the characters as the real deal — then what about yours?”
Read the FAQ. Or just skim it for the quotes. You aren’t the only one who doesn’t like repeating himself.
“Then I guess good luck to you with getting the manikins around the lack of being surviving warriors summoned from another dimension.”
I don’t have to “get the Manikisn around anything,” because there’s no proof that the order of events took place in the way you describe it does. Just think for a second, before using that quote again, if there’s ANY other way that the events could have gone down.
The one that should immediately leap at you, which I’ve already pointed out several times in my response, is that there wasn’t just 1 batch of warriors.
It saves a lot of time and effort to argue against onself before one’s opponent. Simply asking, “How can what I am about to say be countered?” helps to improve a point a great deal.
“In fairness, Cid only ever said that the purpose of his experiment was to give them physical bodies: “I wondered if I might be able to give those consciousnesses physical form.””
But the Manikins were in the Void, and that’s where he dealt the failures. So, it seems it’s necessary that the object has both consciousness & form.
“Not really. He only said that some of the successful ones questioned their existences.”
Exactly. After this, it becomes process of elimination. What groups do we have at our disposal? Shinryu, the warriors, the summons, the Manikins, & the gods.
What can we eliminate? Shinryu existed before Cid and is more powerful. None of the summons question thesmelves. The Manikins have already been determined to be the failures. The gods already existed & besides that, they have their own origin story. By simple process of elimination, the warriors must be the group the successes are referring to.
Examining them more closely, we see that Garland cannot be one, as he has his own origin story, as well. Warrior of Light also seems doubtful, as that would imply that there is some other Warrior of Light that generates the consciousness necessary for a WoL Manikin, despite the fact that this WoL’s home is clearly the FF1 world.
“Or it could be part of the sequel that they’d intended. Nomura admitted in an interview in the Ultimania that it was intended.”
No he didn’t. The statement was that there were no immediate plans for a sequal, but it was a possibility, depending on fan reaction.
“So that he could be in balance. Which Dissidia emphasizes is a good thing.”
Dissidia. Not FF4. It’s a major conflict in FF4, suggested to be a dichotomy. Besides, he’s clearly not concerned with balance in The After Years.
“Hell, if you have an eating addiction, just because you’ve conquered it doesn’t mean you’re never going to eat food again.”
Except that in this case, it would be more like accepting the addiction back.
–“Why? Shinryu is an independent character with rather shadowy motivations.”
He has an agreement with Cid. That’s all we need to know. Nothing ever suggests he was trying to do anything but fulfill their bargain.
–“Like, if things are going completely haywire, why doesn’t gravity reverse itself? This isn’t stated in the premise, but at the same time, one would expect a little more of ‘a world without order’ than just some deja vu.”
The planet literally screaming doesn’t count?
–“First of all, this is reaching. Second of all, remembering doesn’t even necessitate forgetting. You can recall something that happened earlier in the day not because you forgot it, but because you don’t think about it constantly.”
Given that everyone else in that part of the game who was talking about remembering stuff had literally forgotten things? That’s not reaching. That’s paying attention to the story.
You’ll also notice the context of the conversation: Onion Knight is asking Squall why he believes that Cloud’s idea about everyone going home once Chaos is defeated is true. Squall says he believes it because he remembered the promise he made with Rinoa, and that she’s waiting for him.
That’s self-explanatory.
Look at the line in Japanese, if it helps:
http://mfeo.exblog.jp/10680557/
The time that Squall says he remembered the promise is “ima ni” (“presently”) — putting the recollection, at most, a few minutes before Cloud stated his theory (which was right before Onion and Squall had this conversation).
–“There I go with what? Because 3 things happen relatively close together, they must be connected?”
When they’re all the *same* thing and the explanation offered for the first in the series should be able to apply to all three? Yes.
–“Well, then, I’m maintaining it. Regardless, your quote is irrelevent to my point: Active & inactive are mutually exclusive.”
You’re not following what I’m saying about this whole physical embodiments of abstract concepts thing.
In Cosmos’ absence, everything goes to hell. Because that’s what happens without her around.
This includes Chaos himself. He will then ultimately destroy everything. Because that’s what he does. He doesn’t have a choice. He is Chaos, the embodiment of discord.
Without harmony, discord runs wild. Memories that shouldn’t be there are recovered. Planets start crying. Etc.
The ultimate form of discord is nothingness, as said by Garland. Thus, the final act wll be Chaos’.
–“Again, the narration is often metaphorical. Take, for example, the chapter openings talking about ‘x revealing a new source of courage in the warrior.’ There aren’t protracted scenes where the summon teaches the character something about themselves. It’s a hint at what the summon is.”
And yet there are plenty of chapter openings that *are* literal. Given what Garland says when he’s defeated for the final time, this is obviously one of them.
–“Considering I disagree with this premise, it does not make much sense to use it in justification of a separate conclusion.”
Does the fact that everything goes to hell without Cosmos not tell you anything, especially when there’s a chapter intro reaffirming to you that very thing? Or Garland’s reference to “ultimate chaos”? Cid talking about harmony and discord being born of the human mind in the Secret Ending?
I suppose all those things are there for no reason — like Squall’s promise to Rinoa, and all the talk of going home?
–“This seems to detail a conscious effort on Chaos’s part.”
Not really, considering that he was all about killing him some Cosmos until after he’d done it.
–“It’s simply him taking his nature to its logical conclusion. In fact, order could be said to be any sort of stable pattern. Heat death could be order. This is also something we can expect from Chaos, given his extremely fatalistic viewpoint.”
His fatalistic viewpoint doesn’t even seem to *emerge* until after Cosmos is gone.
–“One also runs into the problem of the fact that Chaos dies at the end of the game with no negative consequences. You could argue that he wasn’t quite dead, but neither was Cosmos.”
Why would there be a negative consequence? With both dead, order should have been restored because the two of them were in balance once again.
Unless you have some other explanation for how everything went back to the way it was supposed to be.
–“If I’m not mistaken, your scenario requires them to take a god of destruction and remove the memories that remind it not to destroy the universe.
Let me rephrase that: Prove it.”
Well, I could ask the same of you, no?
In any case:
1) Chaos is said to have been without his memories
2) Toward the end of the story, Chaos has a dream — at the same time in the game that other characters are recovering lost memories, and only moments before he receives a flood of them — where he operated in balance with harmony
3) Garland clearly reacts to this dream as though it’s something more significant than “just a dream” — it even prompts him to reveal the truth of manipulating Chaos
4) In Chaos’ dream, he suppressed disorder
5) In Chaos Report 1, the being who wielded the power of discord wasn’t interested in destroying wantonly
6) This being’s memories are culled
Even if you have another interpretation, you can’t argue that this isn’t a sound argument that synthesizes all the available data in a logical manner.
–“I’m just saying, I’d take that with a grain of salt. In what sense can Chaos be referred to as a weapon? Perhaps a tool, but a weapon requires an enemy of some kind.”
A weapon is something to be wielded against a target. It doesn’t imply an enemy.
–“Yes. And no. The problem is that we don’t know. You’re assuming that the gods only gathered 1 set of warriors, which seems unlikely to me. As it should to you, since you’re the one who noticed that Kuja was new to the cycle.”
Even if they had gathered a whole new set, we’re only ever told that they gathered warriors from “many worlds” and that the sets seen in Dissidia are “the surviving warriors.” Right?
As for Kuja, while new, he seems to have been added alone instead of in a set — probably a replacement for Gabranth.
–“It’s all relative, really. Just because you’re summoned, it does not mean you have to respond.”
The implication seems to be that they didn’t get a choice. Look at Cloud. He thinks the whole thing is b.s. I don’t think he’d have gone if he had a choice.
–“Warrior of Light disappeared, and we BOTH agree that he’s the genuine article.”
Yeah, but he’d also been pulled into the conflict by Cosmos.
–“Because if he’s Sephiroth, then he’s already done this before. In any case, I recall him telling Garland that it’s speculation.”
Well, yes, but he’s speculating about the planet they’re on. As Cid said in the Chaos Reports: “A pawn has appeared, willing to sacrifice himself to further understand the truth of this world.”
–“Either he found out from something or someone in Gabranth’s Hell, or he was somehow able to witness the truth of the world from there.”
That doesn’t seem more like special pleading than simply assuming that he got his memories back? Not that I’m convinced he’d ever even lost his memories about the Lifestream, but still — that’s way easier to conclude.
–“A similar question arises in how the Emperor knows about Shinryu.”
Not really. Presumably he’d just need to survive the end of a cycle when Shinryu arrives. That’s the same way everyone who knows about Shinryu appears to know.
–“As to the discrepency between the 2 end results of dying, personally, I blame the game itself for hinting at both of them. Nonetheless, I can think of a few possible ways to combine the 2, but my personal opinion is that the warriors only go to Gabranth’s Hell as long as they have some connection to the cycle of battle, even if it’s just as a discarded pawn. No Chaos, no Cosmos, no one to get in his way.”
I’m not sure I really understand.
–“Oh, he certainly has memories, but they seem a tad bit incomplete, if he doesn’t remember the Emperor’s revival stunt.”
That was more or less my point, though: Since he remembered those significant events, he’d probably remember that one too.
In any case, there’s really no reason he should assume the Emperor is unkillable — he killed him at the end of FII, and he stayed dead.
–“You’d have to elaborate a bit. I do intend on reading the Ultimania files as part of my editing stage, but I don’t really have time right now. I’ve been doing a lot of work with the Senior Research Project.”
Well, for an example, look at the entry on links to FFVII:
http://thelifestream.net/final-fantasy-vii/1612/link-to-the-original-final-fantasy-vii-p-530-of-the-dissidia-ultimania/
Within several paragraphs, Cloud from Dissidia and Cloud from FFVII are both discussed — as though they’re the same person. The “Are my sins forgiven?” entry even seems to go as far as to connect Cloud in FFVII to Cloud in Dissidia to Cloud in AC, as though following a timeline.
“In Destiny Odyssey VII-3 Tidus called the Buster Sword heavy, to which Cloud replies ‘It’s not a heavy sword. It’s an important sword.’ The Buster Sword is a memento of Zack, Cloud’s deceased best friend in FFVII.”
“‘Not interested.’ — Cloud: start of battle
Cloud’s signature line. In addition to appearing in FFVII and AC, he also says this line in Dissidia’s ending.”
“’If I win, are my sins forgiven?’ — Cloud: battling against Cloud.
Cloud continued to regret the deaths of his best friend and comrade, who were dear to him, in FFVII. In AC, he says ‘I want to be forgiven.’”
With that last one in particular, we have a quote from Cloud in Dissidia that is explained as him *continuing* to regret the deaths of his loved ones from FFVII. And then, in AC, he says, “I want to be forgiven.”
–“It can’t be extra-content justification if I’m USING the content as my main argument. Extra-content justification would be something like, ‘Well, it’s never said or even implied that Cecil can go into Dark Knight again, but that doesn’t mean that he CAN’T.’”
Again, given that it’s something he could do at anytime before — there’s really no reason to believe he couldn’t do it again. Hell, I never got the impression playing even the original FFIV that he couldn’t have chosen to keep using his Dark Knight powers if he wanted to.
Given that he was trying to conquer his darkness at the time, though, it would have been a bad idea to try.
Really, it seems to me that you’re reaching for the extra-content justification to say that he couldn’t do something that he constantly did prior to choosing to stop doing it.
–“But it’s not that simple in the game. He has to go to some cave & have an internal struggle to class change. There’s a whole prophecy regarding the darkness/light crap that makes up a core portion of the game’s backstory.”
He has to have that internal struggle because becoming a Paladin is a pretty big deal. We never get the impression that he went through any such thing in becoming a Dark Knight — nor that Kain would have in becoming a Dragoon, Rosa a White Mage, etc.
As for that prophecy, that’s all just metaphorical language.
See what I did there?
–“Except for not being able to use it and the game’s heavy-handed hints that light and darkness are incompatible in the same being.”
I never saw such hints in the game myself. In any case, when SE titles do discuss darkness and light, they tend to push the idea of balancing them, not annihilating one or the other (FFIII, Kingdom Hearts series, Dissidia).
And since you were just talking about that prophecy:
http://finalfantasy.wikia.com/wiki/Mysidian_Legend
Doesn’t it say that the central figure will bear both darkness and light?
–“The point is that his change in personality & his loss of control over the Void went hand-in-hand. One almost necessitates the other, if this is the same Exdeath.”
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?
–“I fail to see your point.”
You keep asking “Is Kefka the god of magic or not?” — with the only implication I can draw from it being that you think he should be more powerful than anyone else in the game. I’m just pointing out that he’s the god of magic on a single planet — he doesn’t trump everyone.
–“Then his reluctance to fight. Whatever. It doesn’t matter WHAT’S keeping him, the fact that there IS a change doesn’t make sense.
It’s really a simple equation. Whatever the internal conflict is, you can’t beat it twice in a row.”
They’re two separate conflicts. One is a reluctance to fight battles without understanding why. The other is guilt.
His reluctance to go after the kids in AC was because he was afraid he wouldn’t be able to save them — not because he was reluctant to fight in general. It was all related to his guilt.
–“No he didn’t. Vincent told him.”
Check again. Vincent didn’t tell him anything.
Hell, when Tifa asked Vincent if Cloud knew what Kadaj really is, Vincent only said, “Probably.” If he’d told him, Vince would *know*.
–“Excuse me? No, I don’t. There’s nothing wrong with admitting that I don’t have an answer. I’m not arguing with you for the purpose of outsmarting you. I’m trying to reach a logical conclusion.”
My point is that you’re insisting on the line meaning something specific, even though that creates its problems. But you’re not trying to explain those other problems away, even while you insisting on something like Cecil not being able to ever use Dark Knight abilities again if he wanted to.
–“Dark Knight is a whole class of abilities & the class shift itself is implied to be how he broke Zeromus’s control.”
He wasn’t ever under Zeromus’ control.
–“It extends so far beyond just using a certain weapon.”
Yes, but the weapons seem to facilitate it. If I recall correctly, he can’t use Darkness without a sword, right?
–“You say I need to come up with reasons. I say just the opposite. As I said, a debate is not about outsmarting the other person. This isn’t ‘who can come up with the best proof of their side,’ it’s “what’s actually there.”
Honestly, I could have said the same to you. I would think we’re trying to arrive at the answers, not simply “win.”
–“You literally cannot use Dark Knight in either game after a certain point. That alone is sufficient evidence against the ability.”
Not really. There’s a valid storyline reason for him to choose not to use it, even if he could — which he *should* be able to: He’s trying to conquer the darkness that was swallowing him.
If you had an addiction to alcohol, for instance, while trying to conquer that addiction, it would probably be a bad idea for you to drink. Once you’ve sufficiently demonstrated that you rule it and not the other way around, though, you might be able to have a drink without it leading to a dozen more.
–“No I’m not. You’re presupposing that Ultimecia is even correct. Kuja can be the only immortal character in the game, for all I know. It doesn’t matter.”
Then the theory is in need of even more explanation.
Look, I thought we both feel that we’re supposed to be working toward a theory that doesn’t leave illogical holes? But trying to counter some of my points and leave it at *just that* looks more like an effort to win the debate.
–“What I am insisting is that he reacted the same way to something he allegedly already knew.”
And you first need to come up with a valid reason for the person who’s supposed to be informing him of it to even know about it. Especially since, whatever it is, it’s later said to be true by Ultimecia and Garland doesn’t contest its accuracy.
–“There’s something she says afterwards. Remind me to get back to you on this when I have more time.”
Will do.
By the way, having looked at her lines afterward, and her conversation with Garland again, I’m not seeing anything that jumps out at me as her saying she told him he’s dying.
–“I point you to again the FAQ, where I have at least 1 quote hinting at the possibility that the world was not a ‘combination’ of anything, & in fact gave rise to other dimensions.”
We’re plainly told *twice* that the planet was an amalgamated construction. Once by Golbez, and once by Garland — and I think Garland would know even if Golbez didn’t.
–” There ARE no contradictions in that quote. There are GAPS in our knowledge. What you are using is a form of the God of the Gaps argument.”
Your idea definitely runs into contradictions when we’re simply looking at what is told to us about the gathering of Chaos and Cosmos’ warriors, as well as Cid’s own description of the timing of creating the manikins.
Now, you do attempt to explain this, but we have a contradiction nonetheless. As well, several of the gaps you refer to are too large to be ignored if we’re to be seeking the truth here.
–“Read the FAQ. Or just skim it for the quotes. You aren’t the only one who doesn’t like repeating himself.”
I’m aware of your *reasoning*. I was asking about *confirmation* though.
–“It saves a lot of time and effort to argue against onself before one’s opponent. Simply asking, ‘How can what I am about to say be countered?” helps to improve a point a great deal.'”
And we’re nonetheless left with a line where “surviving warriors” builds off “those who answered Chaos’s call” — which itself builds off of the line about Chaos and Cosmos, in their far-off dimension(s), summoning warriors from many worlds.
In any case, please don’t talk to me as though I’m unfamiliar with debate. I’ve been participating in it online for a decade and have been formally educated in it while I was in university.
–“No he didn’t. The statement was that there were no immediate plans for a sequal, but it was a possibility, depending on fan reaction.”
At the *time* of the interview, there were no plans. *Prior* to the interview, there had been. They just fell through.
–“Dissidia. Not FF4. It’s a major conflict in FF4, suggested to be a dichotomy. Besides, he’s clearly not concerned with balance in The After Years.”
Or he’s simply using what he prefers.
First & foremost: Would you mind supplying me that game script again? I never saved it to my favorites & now I can’t find the link.
“He has an agreement with Cid. That’s all we need to know. Nothing ever suggests he was trying to do anything but fulfill their bargain.”
I would contend that everything Shinryu does is in line with its personality, which is something of a scientific mentality. It’s always doing things just to see what will happen.
“The planet literally screaming doesn’t count?”
You’re missing the point. Your entire argument rests on random crap happening, with no clear pattern, except that it occurs in Shade Impulse. By the very nature of the argument, it is difficult to prover or disprove.
Then, let’s say we do prove it. How do we determine what’s caused by the world dying & what’s just normal?
“That’s self-explanatory.”
…No it isn’t. It says he believes Cloud because of a promise he made to Rinoa. It says nothing about supernatural memories resulting from the world dying.
For that matter, don’t you maintain that the heroes are their real selves, & thus maintain all of their memories?
“When they’re all the *same* thing and the explanation offered for the first in the series should be able to apply to all three? Yes.”
Except…they aren’t. Squall’s recalling a promise in the context of a conversation. Sephiroth is flipping shit because he remembers stuff from before he died.
“You’re not following what I’m saying about this whole physical embodiments of abstract concepts thing.”
I’m following it, I assure you. The problem is that it’s meaningless semantics. It obfuscates the real point, which is whether or not you can do something actively & inactively at the same time.
I mean, you contradict the idea that they go hand-in-hand in this very explanation. You say that Chaos doesn’t have a choice, when it’s clearly stated that he’s using his powers to destroy the universe.
And yet there are plenty of chapter openings that *are* literal. Given what Garland says when he’s defeated for the final time, this is obviously one of them.
“I suppose all those things are there for no reason — like Squall’s promise to Rinoa, and all the talk of going home?”
No, all of those just have alternate explanations. The world goes to Hell even moments BEFORE Cosmos dies. It’s Chaos that’s doing it.
Garland’s explanation is sound in theory, but that just suggests that Chaos goes with the same line of thinking.
Moreover, I don’t believe all the talk about going home is there for “no reason.” First of all, the game is filled with references, one of which is that promise. Second of all, it establishes a very human reason for why they fight against Chaos.
“His fatalistic viewpoint doesn’t even seem to *emerge* until after Cosmos is gone.”
Even assuming that’s true, so what? The sections we’re referring to all happen after Cosmos dies, anyway.
“Why would there be a negative consequence? With both dead, order should have been restored because the two of them were in balance once again.”
‘Cause they weren’t. Cosmos is revealed to be the only one still alive in the secret ending.
“Unless you have some other explanation for how everything went back to the way it was supposed to be.”
Generally speaking, when you kill the guy using crazy magic to fuck shit up & ruin everyone’s day, sunshine & butterflies emerge once more.
“Well, I could ask the same of you, no?”
Actually, “Prove it” is a leftover from another comment that I deleted. I apparently missed that part.
“Even if you have another interpretation, you can’t argue that this isn’t a sound argument that synthesizes all the available data in a logical manner.”
Let’s be careful of the words we’re using here. “Sound” suggests that not only does the argument follow logically, but ALL of the premises are true.
For the most part, I would agree with you, with the exception of the “lost memories” part. I maintain that the only other character who fits that description is Sephiroth.
“Even if they had gathered a whole new set, we’re only ever told that they gathered warriors from “many worlds” and that the sets seen in Dissidia are “the surviving warriors.” Right?”
Which is my point. The heroes could have easily been part of Batch 2. Also, who replaces Shanttotto? Zidane?
“The implication seems to be that they didn’t get a choice. Look at Cloud. He thinks the whole thing is b.s. I don’t think he’d have gone if he had a choice.”
There are 2 ways to approach this:
1. 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.
2. Metaphorical heart bullshit! While I’m not hugely fond of the explanation, Dissidia hammers us with this BIG time. It’s implied that one has to resolve some sort of internal conflict in order to get the crystal. Jecht has a “heart of light & a body of darkness.” Golbez considers “the fact that his heart was touched by Chaos a sign of his weakness.”
“Yeah, but he’d also been pulled into the conflict by Cosmos.”
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.
–”Because if he’s Sephiroth, then he’s already done this before. In any case, I recall him telling Garland that it’s speculation.”
“That doesn’t seem more like special pleading than simply assuming that he got his memories back? Not that I’m convinced he’d ever even lost his memories about the Lifestream, but still — that’s way easier to conclude.”
Easier perhaps, but it neglects that Sephiroth had to die to reach this revelation in the first place. The easiest explanation is only the best one when it takes everything into account.
“’m not sure I really understand.”
Basically, Sephiroth needs Cosmos & Chaos gone in order to put his plan into action.
“Within several paragraphs, Cloud from Dissidia and Cloud from FFVII are both discussed — as though they’re the same person. The “Are my sins forgiven?” entry even seems to go as far as to connect Cloud in FFVII to Cloud in Dissidia to Cloud in AC, as though following a timeline.”
All I saw was a listing of references Dissidia makes to the original game.
“Really, it seems to me that you’re reaching for the extra-content justification to say that he couldn’t do something that he constantly did prior to choosing to stop doing it.”
Come on, now, think about this:
“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? Additionally, you’ve just clearly admitted that being a Dark Knight is more than just using a sword. As for the prophecy itself, it refers to the fact that Cecil used a Dark Crystal on Zeromus.
“He has to have that internal struggle because becoming a Paladin is a pretty big deal. We never get the impression that he went through any such thing in becoming a Dark Knight — nor that Kain would have in becoming a Dragoon, Rosa a White Mage, etc.”
Which would still imply that Dark Knight & Paladin don’t exactly mix.
“See what I did there?”
Erected a straw man? Yes, that was quite nice.
“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?”
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.
“You keep asking “Is Kefka the god of magic or not?” — with the only implication I can draw from it being that you think he should be more powerful than anyone else in the game. I’m just pointing out that he’s the god of magic on a single planet — he doesn’t trump everyone.”
No, I mean the question as-is. You’ve stated that he–that is to say, Dissidia Kefka–is the God of Magic at some points & that he isn’t at others.
“Check again. Vincent didn’t tell him anything.”
“If they wanted to, they could recreate Sephiroth.” I’ll concede that he didn’t tell Cloud word-for-word, but he definitely did give him a nudge in the right direction.
“My point is that you’re insisting on the line meaning something specific, even though that creates its problems.”
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.
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.
“But you’re not trying to explain those other problems away, even while you insisting on something like Cecil not being able to ever use Dark Knight abilities again if he wanted to.”
That’s not the issue. The issue is using an argument that is itself unproven as justification for 2nd argument. Suggesting that he “simply chooses not to” is working backwards from the conclusion.
The arguments I’ve made against the IDEA itself are simply because you’re dragging me through the mud by refusing to accept this fact & let go of an argument that is clearly invalid.
“He wasn’t ever under Zeromus’ control.”
Lunarians are easier for him to control, so he manipulated the only ones on earth with Lunarian blood, Kluya’s sons Golbez and Cecil. Cecil eventually rejected the dark path by becoming a paladin, but by the time Golbez was strong enough alone and the mission was almost complete, this wasn’t an issue.
~Taken from the FF Wiki
“Honestly, I could have said the same to you. I would think we’re trying to arrive at the answers, not simply “win.””
Then I have to ask why you would ask me to do something so illogical as “come up with an explanation.”
That’s INTERPRETING. The exact OPPOSITE of what we allegedly want to do, here.
“But trying to counter some of my points and leave it at *just that* looks more like an effort to win the debate.”
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. A prime example would be the Cecil thing.
The fact that he doesn’t go into Dark Knight anymore should be a case closed. The fact is that we can argue until the end of time reasons for whether or not he “could,” but he doesn’t.
It is both unnecessary & unrealistic to expect to explain every potential problem that arises. This is why I’m focused soley on what the text says. That, in turn, is why there are a couple of questions on my FAQ that I regrettably cannot answer.
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.
“And you first need to come up with a valid reason for the person who’s supposed to be informing him of it to even know about it. Especially since, whatever it is, it’s later said to be true by Ultimecia and Garland doesn’t contest its accuracy.”
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.
“By the way, having looked at her lines afterward, and her conversation with Garland again, I’m not seeing anything that jumps out at me as her saying she told him he’s dying.”
Well then, we’ll just have to see if I can find it, won’t we?
“We’re plainly told *twice* that the planet was an amalgamated construction. Once by Golbez, and once by Garland — and I think Garland would know even if Golbez didn’t.”
We are told 2 conflicting stories by the game. Therefore, the former is true…why?
“Your idea definitely runs into contradictions when we’re simply looking at what is told to us about the gathering of Chaos and Cosmos’ warriors, as well as Cid’s own description of the timing of creating the manikins.”
Except that, so far, you have yet to point to any 1 thing that actually renders it impossible for the characters to be Manikins. I mean, really, you’re starting to make me wonder how thoroughly you’re reading these counterarguments. Why would you keep tossing that quote out when I’ve already shown how there are scenarios that allow for the idea to coincide with it? By definition, that means they aren’t contradictory.
“I’m aware of your *reasoning*. I was asking about *confirmation* though.”
Then the confirmation…is the quotes. They’re THE evidence that the case is based on.
“In any case, please don’t talk to me as though I’m unfamiliar with debate. I’ve been participating in it online for a decade and have been formally educated in it while I was in university.”
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?
Responding to these huge comments eats up a lot of time. The fact that like half of every comment ends up with me repeating myself gets old fast.
For that matter, why haven’t you done any argument proofs? They would sort of lay to rest disputes as to the validity of an argument.
“Or he’s simply using what he prefers.”
He uses Dark Knight far more often in Dissida.
If anyone’s beating a dead fucking horse, it’s you. Your hamfisted attempt to prove your theory that they’re manikins when not even the dismantling guide of the entire plot even hints at such a plot twist, is annoying and now bloating this article up to 100 fucking comments. I don’t even think you’ve played the fucking game. Shade Impulse isn’t about random shit happening. The game proper states that the world is falling into disorder and destruction because Cosmos, the Goddess who kept the universe alive, was dead. Why the hell can you not accept what the story says?
Sephiroth isn’t a fucking shadow, and the game never even hints at him being anything but the real deal. If he were a goddamn shadow, then I’m pretty sure that would warrant a passing mention in the damn Dissidia Ultimania that talks about every relevant plot point and creative process in the game and story. Funny that never seems to be mentioned though.
Dissidia’s Ultimania isn’t a goddamn listing of references to the original game, and if that’s all you see, then you’ve either clearly lost your reading comprehension or never had it to begin with. The fact it clarifies the point that Chaos and Garland are one within the context of Dissidia’s story, and Dissidia’s ending takes place in FF1 makes more than a checklist of allusions.
You’ve been told over 5 fucking times to take it to the forums. Take a fucking hint, please. Your stubbornness and density are annoying.
Dude, would you calm the fuck down? I might actually do what you wanted me to if you stopped insulting me for 10 seconds.
Why am I any more stubborn than you guys? You clearly haven’t given up on your claim, either.
I’ll calm down if you post on the damn forums like you were asked to days ago. For fuck’s sake, I can’t even find where your comments are, and you swamping my inbox with new tl;dr trying to shove your circle shaped theory down the square shaped hole is getting aggravating.
You’re stubborn because you won’t take it where it belongs, and of course because you’re assuming something of the narrative that’s not stated anywhere at all.
There’s way too much butthurt in this topic for my tastes, & I’m a busy man anyway. I think I’ll take a break from this topic & mull over the forum idea while I’m away.
While I do that, I want you, MakoEyes, to reflect very carefully on a few things:
You are a mod.
Why might I not want to go to your forum?
Is there any way you can present yourself when I get back that won’t result in my immediately dismissing you as nothing but an annoying child?
We’ll try this again some other time.
Awww..did I scare you away!? Damn, I’m so sorry. I thought I was dealing with someone with a spine who was past the age of 5. I didn’t think someone would be so sensitive as to get offended on the internets.
Maybe if you listened to us asking you to take it to the forums the 20 times we asked you politely, I wouldn’t have to insist so harshly. I could give a shit if you dismiss me, likewise I could give a shit whether or not you do go to the forum. The point is, is that you were told before to quit using the frontpage as the forum when it isn’t. The choice is yours on whether or not you will. Either way, the world will go on.
NeoB, it occurs to me, while reading back over my most recent tl;dr post, that I could have clarified myself much better on the primary point I made, which was in regard to “the few surviving warriors” mentioned early in the game.
I shall do so now:
1) Cid says in Chaos Report 5 that he witnesses the gods gathering their pawns. This event leads to him discovering disembodied, drifting consciousnesses, which he then experiments with, leading to the creation of the manikins
2) In the game’s opening FMV, we’re told that Chaos and Cosmos gathered warriors from many worlds across the dimensional divide. Following the opening FMV, the characters still around are referred to as “the few surviving warriors.” The few surviving warriors of what? “Warriors gathered from many worlds”
3) Since we’ve already established that at least the initial set of summoned warriors described in the opening FMV and Chaos Report 5 could not be the manikins, and since the characters still alive in Dissidia are referred to as “the few surviving warriors” of the “warriors gathered from many worlds” — we’re left, then, with a scenario where the manikins could not possibly then be the heroes and villains (i.e. “the few surviving warriors”)
That’s it in a nutshell. The manikins are clearly differentiated from the heroes and villains.
Again, my response is that without a clearly defined sequence of events, the events cannot contradict the hypothesis.
It’s an alibi problem. If we do not know where a person is, specifically, when a crime takes place, it automatically puts them into suspect. We then have to use the rest of the evidence to conclude whether or not the person could have committed it.’
I would also like to note that premises 2 & 3 were not established anywhere.
Also, because the Nobody analogy seems to be working so far:
It is stated several times in the games that Nobodies do not have emotions. If this argument were about that, it would basically be going as such:
“The game says they don’t have emotions. Therefore, they do not.”
“Yeah, but the Nobodies show emotions all of the time. Vexen was clearly frozen in fear when Axel attacked him. For this to be an ‘act,’ it wouldn’t make sense. It was detrimental to his survival.”
“But you’re arguing against the narrative.”
“Yes, because I believe other sections of the game overturn it.”
“The characters say they don’t have emotions.”
“Who does? Xemnas, who already had the emotional range of a teaspoon and now has a vested interest in brainwashing the other Organization members to serve his cause, and the heroes, who have reason to dehumanize their enemies.”
“You just want your hypothesis to be true.”
Keep in mind that I take a neutral stance on that issue, and am in no way trying to change the argument to that. I’m using the analogy, because as you can see, the restatement that something is said in the game does not get to the core of the opponent’s argument. Indeed, they’ve already acknowledged and countered it a few times.
What we know is that Cid noticed the gods gathering pawns and created some sort of experiment, then dealt with the failures in the Interdimensional Rift. We do not know who these first warriors were, whether or not the Gods had gathered 1 set of pawns (seems unlikely), or anything else specific enough to overturn the hypothesis. Meanwhile, one can pick out numerous apparent discrepencies with the characters that are rather awkward to explain away.
–“Again, my response is that without a clearly defined sequence of events, the events cannot contradict the hypothesis.”
But the sequence *is* clearly defined:
“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.
I wondered if I might be able to give those
consciousnesses physical form. After countless
experiments, finally my testing reached success.”
First, he observes pawns being gathered and notices some drifting consciousnesses. Second, he wonders if he might be able to give the disembodied consciousnesses physical forms. Third, he does experiments to try to achieve this.
–“I would also like to note that premises 2 & 3 were not established anywhere.”
The second part was a premise. The third part was my conclusion based on what was outlined in 1 and 2.
In any event, yes, 2 was established by the game quite clearly:
“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–”
Now, to insist that “the few surviving warriors” and “those who answered Chaos’s call” doesn’t refer to “the warriors from many worlds” would be a rather counter-intuitive reading of the text, don’t you agree?
Certainly more so than reading that the manikins who questioned their purpose for living may have been referring to the failed experiments and not the successful manikins.
The premise that’s established by “the few surviving warriors” line is that these warriors are the ones gathered by Cosmos and Chaos.
–“What we know is that Cid noticed the gods gathering pawns and created some sort of experiment, then dealt with the failures in the Interdimensional Rift. We do not know who these first warriors were, whether or not the Gods had gathered 1 set of pawns (seems unlikely), or anything else specific enough to overturn the hypothesis. ”
How is it that a line about the few surviving warriors of those gathered from many worlds doesn’t rule out the manikins?
–” Meanwhile, one can pick out numerous apparent discrepencies with the characters that are rather awkward to explain away.”
The only ones you can point out are Terra having powers and Cecil doing what he does. The first is explained easily enough by the fact that if Cosmos is going to bother selecting her, she’s going to make sure she has access to her powers. And with Kefka alive on the other side, it’s not even that weird to begin with.
As for Cecil — he simply chooses to use both dark and light powers. There. Simple solution.
Everything else you’ve brought up is adding into the story things it doesn’t necessarily suggest (Kuja *needing to use* “again,” Sephiroth not already knowing about the concept of Lifestreams, etc.).
First, he observes pawns being gathered and notices some drifting consciousnesses. Second, he wonders if he might be able to give the disembodied consciousnesses physical forms. Third, he does experiments to try to achieve this.
This is not clear. When did he do this? When did the Gods start fighting? For that matter, if we know that the Manikins are the experiment, doesn’t that sort of make this a slam-dunk?
If the Manikins are the experiment, then that makes the warriors the free-floating consciousness…es.
The problem with premise 2 is honestly the language barrier. I have no way of examining the Japanese text myself to confirm or deny the claim that it translates to “dimensions.” It could translate to “for a good time, call 555-5555,” for all I know.
“How is it that a line about the few surviving warriors of those gathered from many worlds doesn’t rule out the manikins?”
There’s nothing in there that does, unless one assumes that Manikins can’t be chosen pawns.
The only ones you can point out are Terra having powers and Cecil doing what he does.
Not really. Maybe those are the most convincing to you, but I had several. Either way, Terra’s power is a huge problem. If one assumes that Cosmos gave her her powers back, one would also assume that Cosmos had the foresight not to give her too much power to control.
That’s what I mean. You CAN come up with justifications, but not only are they just wild mass guessing, they more often than not tend to raise further questions.
As for “adding into the story things it doesn’t necessarily suggest,” I’m sorry, but that linguistics case was pretty clear. You don’t assume that someone is referring to something happening again unless they say just that. And language aside, it still makes absolutely no sense. Both Dissidia & the ending of IX suggest that Kuja had a change of heart & decided not to destroy the world.
That…really shouldn’t be….
Oh don’t pull that. If for some reason you *now* don’t trust SoS’s translation or ability to understand Japanese, give a specific reason. What is the basis for your doubt, aside from the fact it proves you wrong? It says dimensions. Now you’re being stupid. Look at Minospelgud’s translations of the Dissidia script on Gamefaqs. They refer to the shards of the the FF worlds as dimensions.
When did he perform the experiments? That’s the same as asking what date Garland was born, or when the Lufenian civilization was destroyed. There is no set time because the narrative didn’t feel it was important enough to state. That disproves nothing. The gods have been fighting “for eons” according to the game itself. Did you even play the game, Neo? That’s all the clarification they felt was necessary to give.
I’m really getting tired of you constantly shitting on the comment section here with your unfounded theory that the heroes are a bunch of super-manikins and the Dissidia Ultimania, creator commentary, and game itself just *conveniently* decided to leave that MAJOR plot point out in discussing the game. If they’re advanced Manikins, tell me why the Dissidia Ultimania never refers to them as such, or even talks about that major plot relevation anywhere at all?
You’ve bloated the comments on this article with your ramblings long enough. Take this to the damn forum where in-depth discussion is supposed to take place. If you don’t want to be here or discuss it, then leave.
“Oh don’t pull that. If for some reason you *now* don’t trust SoS’s translation or ability to understand Japanese, give a specific reason.”
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.
Now, if I had knowledge of Japanese myself or some kind of 3rd party translator, it would be different.
“What is the basis for your doubt, aside from the fact it proves you wrong? It says dimensions.”
It doesn’t “prove” anything. Notice how I’ve been going through most of the debate just assuming it was true, for the sake of the argument?
“Now you’re being stupid.”
If I’m being stupid, then you guys were being stupid, first. You questioned the accuracy of a translation (the English game) before I did.
“There is no set time because the narrative didn’t feel it was important enough to state. That disproves nothing.”
You just attacked your own argument. “That disproves nothing.” I’m NOT USING the sequence of events to disprove anything. In fact, I’m saying that it DOESN’T disprove anything, because it’s simply not SPECIFIC enough.
“I’m really getting tired of you constantly shitting on the comment section here with your unfounded theory that the heroes are a bunch of super-manikins and the Dissidia Ultimania, creator commentary, and game itself just *conveniently* decided to leave that MAJOR plot point out in discussing the game.”
Dude, are you reading this? I have several quotes from different areas of the game. It’s not “unfounded.” It’s not “left out.” It IS there, if you only LOOK.
“If they’re advanced Manikins, tell me why the Dissidia Ultimania never refers to them as such, or even talks about that major plot relevation anywhere at all?”
Why does the Ultimania not explain Sephiroth’s motivations? If what you have written in your FAQ right now is so obviously true, then why is it not mentioned in the Ultimania?
Why do you keep using this argument on me but refuse to apply it to your own points?
“You’ve bloated the comments on this article with your ramblings long enough. Take this to the damn forum where in-depth discussion is supposed to take place. If you don’t want to be here or discuss it, then leave.”
I don’t want to discuss with people who are obviously not interested in reasonable debate. I am not taking it to the forums just because you called me “stupid,” or my idea “ramblings.” Why do you think you can somehow intimidate me into doing this? Why don’t you actually act professional, if this is indeed just a procedural matter? That might actually work.
I’m not going to the forum simply so you can insult me. This is not about taking a discussion where it belongs, & you know it.
I said I would consider going to the forums, particularly if I felt I would find reasonable debate there.
You are even now proving that I won’t.
“Maybe if you listened to us asking you to take it to the forums the 20 times we asked you politely….”
Except, y’know, that never happened. I’m “offended”? “Scared off”? Wow, talk about unwarranted self-importance.
Dude, I’m just sick of listening to you bitch. My God, I could practically SEE you stamping your foot, teeth gritted, eyes full of tears, going, “FUCK YOU! SHUT UP, STUPIDHEAD!”
I’ll come back whenever your Aunt Flo comes back home.
So Ryu and I didn’t tell you to go to the fucking forum? Well I guess that answers whether or not you read shit here.
And don’t rush. Take your time.
For someone who’s questioning my reading comprehension, it seems odd that you’ve already forgotten that you said “asked POLITELY.”
And I will take my time, thank you. Watch the comment count rise. Watch it & LOVE IT!
I don’t know how much more polite you want us to be, seeing as how Ryu asked you politely to take it to the forums, and I said “If you wish to continue this, please, take it there. You don’t seem able to take a hint.
(Moving comment. Ignore this.)
What the fuck, guys? I go to work and you two whirl up a shitstorm? For fuck’s sake.
Mako, while I would have certainly preferred to talk with NB in the forum, I was willing to do it here. I wish you hadn’t injected quite so much flammable material into what was a rather civil debate.
I’ve certainly gotten frustrated during, but at least he wasn’t taking off.
In the event that you’re still around, NB:
–“First & foremost: Would you mind supplying me that game script again? I never saved it to my favorites & now I can’t find the link.”
Sure:
http://www.gamefaqs.com/portable/psp/file/939394/57905
–” I would contend that everything Shinryu does is in line with its personality, which is something of a scientific mentality. It’s always doing things just to see what will happen.”
How is concluding that he gave Chaos those memories not adding extra material to the story when we already have an established reason for characters recovering lost memories during Shade Impulse, and when we know Shinryu had a specific bargain to fulfill with Chaos — which something like throwing in an unknown variable for experimentation’s sake might have screwed with for all he knew?
–” You’re missing the point. Your entire argument rests on random crap happening, with no clear pattern, except that it occurs in Shade Impulse. By the very nature of the argument, it is difficult to prover or disprove.”
Yes, random crap begins happening in Shade Impulse. That’s entirely the point: harmony is gone, random crap happens.
And it’s not difficult to prove at all since there’s a line right there in the game stating that this is what happens, and since much of Shade Impulse demonstrates that very thing through the random crap that begins happening.
–“Then, let’s say we do prove it. How do we determine what’s caused by the world dying & what’s just normal?”
We don’t have to since they’re all part of the same thing. Anything Chaos is doing at this point goes hand-in-hand with what he is and what Cosmos is.
Hell, how do you think Cid knew his plan would work? He knew the two gods needed each other.
–“…No it isn’t. It says he believes Cloud because of a promise he made to Rinoa. It says nothing about supernatural memories resulting from the world dying.”
No, it says he believes Cloud because of a promise he *just recently remembered* that he made to Rinoa.
–“For that matter, don’t you maintain that the heroes are their real selves, & thus maintain all of their memories?”
For whatever reason, a few of them had foggy memories at the beginning of the current turn of the cycle (possibly from dying in the previous turn?). Firion awoke with the wild rose near him (Golbez had planted it there to stir his feelings), but couldn’t remember at first what its significance was — it just made him feel nostalgic, he said.
Later, though, he’s recalling the war that the Wild Rose Rebellion waged against the Emperor, so the rose must have triggered his memories. That must have been Golbez’s intent, so that Firion would be in a better position to receive his crystal.
–“Except…they aren’t. Squall’s recalling a promise in the context of a conversation. Sephiroth is flipping shit because he remembers stuff from before he died.”
They’re both having conversations. And it’s the content of those conversations that’s relevant.
–” I’m following it, I assure you. The problem is that it’s meaningless semantics. It obfuscates the real point, which is whether or not you can do something actively & inactively at the same time.”
That you’re even making an issue of such a matter — based in real-world physics as it is — when we’re talking about manifestations of harmony and discord who can shatter dimensions is boggling.
I’ve already clarified myself on this more than once, but I’ll do so one final time: Shit goes to hell without Cosmos. Because that’s what it does.
Chaos’ power grows and is part of the shit going to hell when Cosmos isn’t there. Because that’s what it does.
Chaos himself doesn’t *have to choose to do anything*. In fact, all we see him doing in Shade Impulse before the battle with him is sit on his ass.
But because he *is* discord, he’s doing shit, because disord is doing shit. But Chaos himself — the personality that is Chaos — is sitting on his ass.
It’s fictional metaphysics. It really doesn’t have to make sense in terms of real-world physics. It never did from the outset.
–“Moreover, I don’t believe all the talk about going home is there for ‘no reason.’ First of all, the game is filled with references, one of which is that promise. Second of all, it establishes a very human reason for why they fight against Chaos.”
A reason which wouldn’t have to be there. Certainly the heroes could have been written to fight Chaos because “it will save the world” and because “we’re heroes.” But a good bit of time is spent in this game talking about going home.
–“His fatalistic viewpoint doesn’t even seem to *emerge* until after Cosmos is gone.”
–“Even assuming that’s true, so what? The sections we’re referring to all happen after Cosmos dies, anyway.”
It matters because — prior to Cosmos’ death — he was setting out to conquer and rule. As soon as she’s gone, he suddenly goes suicidal. That tells you something right there about their nature and relation to one another.
–“Cause they weren’t. Cosmos is revealed to be the only one still alive in the secret ending.”
Dude, she was dead. She died at the beginning of Shade Impulse. For at least a moment, both she and Chaos were dead — and, for that matter, there’s no reason to believe Chaos didn’t come back either.
Even in the Secret Ending, Cid says this: “But as long as the world exists, there will be no end to conflict. Even harmony and discord are concepts born of the human mind, after all.”
–“Generally speaking, when you kill the guy using crazy magic to fuck shit up & ruin everyone’s day, sunshine & butterflies emerge once more.”
In this case, though, both Cosmos and Chaos were fucking shit up and ruining everyone’s day. They both had pulled warriors from elsewhere and presumably both had screwed up the dimensions.
And when they’re both dead, everything’s fixed.
–“Let’s be careful of the words we’re using here. ‘Sound’ suggests that not only does the argument follow logically, but ALL of the premises are true.
For the most part, I would agree with you, with the exception of the ‘lost memories’ part. I maintain that the only other character who fits that description is Sephiroth.”
So even though Squall *just* remembered something that led him to believe in Cloud’s theory, and despite him offering the fact he had *only just remembered* as the *reason* for believing — all that has absolutely no bearing on the timing of his memory? He’s randomly using diction that means he’d only just gotten the memory back when what he *really* means according to you is he “was just thinking about” the promise?
No.
And if that’s the biggest thing you can take issue with out of those six premises, then the available counterarguments to the reasoning I offered are quite deficient.
–“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.
–“Also, who replaces Shanttotto? Zidane?”
Possibly.
–“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.
–“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*.
–“Easier perhaps, but it neglects that Sephiroth had to die to reach this revelation in the first place. The easiest explanation is only the best one when it takes everything into account.”
Which it does — he’s still only talking about Dissidia’s world. Which Cid said in the Chaos Report I quoted.
–“Basically, Sephiroth needs Cosmos & Chaos gone in order to put his plan into action.”
Sephiroth is screwed without them. He doesn’t have a crystal like Mateus.
So, no, his plan just seemed to be “make Chaos lose.”
–“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. Thanks for conceding this point.
–“‘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, once again, conceding the point.
–“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.
–“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.
Are you going to make the same excuses here that you have been with Cid’s description of the order of events in making the manikins? That it’s not clear somehow? Even though it’s pretty darn clear?
–“See what I did there?”
–“Erected a straw man? Yes, that was quite nice.”
Actually, it was a playful jab at your tendency to call things metaphorical and dismiss them on that basis alone.
–“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?”
–“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.
–“No, I mean the question as-is. You’ve stated that he–that is to say, Dissidia Kefka–is the God of Magic at some points & that he isn’t at others.”
I’m still not sure what you mean.
–“I’ll concede that he didn’t tell Cloud word-for-word, but he definitely did give him a nudge in the right direction.”
That we agree on.
–” 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.
–“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.
–“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.
–“He wasn’t ever under Zeromus’ control.”
–“Lunarians are easier for him to control, so he manipulated the only ones on earth with Lunarian blood, Kluya’s sons Golbez and Cecil. Cecil eventually rejected the dark path by becoming a paladin, but by the time Golbez was strong enough alone and the mission was almost complete, this wasn’t an issue.”
Which doesn’t address what I said. Cecil was never under Zeromus’ control. You said that becoming a Paladin allowed Cecil to break his control.
–“Then I have to ask why you would ask me to do something so illogical as ‘come up with an explanation.’”
So forming a cohesive theory is now an illogical activity?
–“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.
–“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.
–“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.
–“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.
–“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.
–“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.”
–“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?
–“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.”
–“Or he’s simply using what he prefers.”
–“He uses Dark Knight far more often in Dissida.”
I used to not eat mustard on my hot dogs.
–” 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.
–“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.
–“If they’re advanced Manikins, tell me why the Dissidia Ultimania never refers to them as such, or even talks about that major plot relevation anywhere at all?”
–“Why does the Ultimania not explain Sephiroth’s motivations? If what you have written in your FAQ right now is so obviously true, then why is it not mentioned in the Ultimania?”
Truth be told, we don’t know if it is or not.
Mako, if you could get me some scans relevant to Sephiroth’s moments in the story, I’d like to check.
–“Why do you keep using this argument on me but refuse to apply it to your own points?”
This is a fair position for him to take, Mako.
–“I might not have known because non sequiturs are not funny. Taking something I never said & applying lolspeak & sarcasm to it is about what I expect from this site’s shining wit, of course.”
You can’t say I’ve done that. And, for the record, TJF588 is a fairly inactive member.
http://thelifestream.net/forums/showthread.php?p=204554#post204554
Now quit bitching about it.
This is the game I play in my psp
This is the game I forever
know I fight with Chaos
Apparently I have missed the big theme for the Final Fantasy series because I had no idea of this whole “Interdimensional Rift” and the series being linked. I’ve played XII a few times and I can’t recall any talk of such things. Perhaps I missed things in the conversations with the Occuria?
And speaking of XII, why no playable XII characters? Is it that unpopular?
I got another question here: Who is Onion Knight of Dissidia from the 4 orphans of FFIII?? I think its Ingus because OnionKnight’s main version in Dissidia resembles Ingus more… but then came his alternate look that looks more like Luneth but without the ponytail.. I’m just asking to clear it out in my mind, i can’t seem to take it out XD
He is not one of the FFIIIDS kids. Thus, he’s just “a kid”, without much in the way of an identity. He may even be an amalgamation of the four, or filling the characteristic role of a full party, sort of how the Warrior of Light is situated.
Why is he not one of the DS kids? Well, take a look at his EX Mode. In the original FFIII, once you get ahold of the Ninja and Sage classes, there is no real reason to use any others (aside from a fully-level Onion Knight). In the DS version, though, they’re gimped/more balanced. This OK’s EX is more in line with the Famicom release.