Ultimecia's background and motives *SPOILERS*

Well, okay, I should clarify a few things I guess.

The FAQ is perhaps not too explicit about this, but essentially static time and dynamic time are fundamentally opposing theories. "Static time" is the description we use for a model of time in which you can't change the past, while "dynamic time" is the description we use for a model of time in which you CAN change the past. In the FAQ we just call the "static time" theory described "Static Time" as if it were the only model of time in which the past can't be changed, and similarly we often talk about "Dynamic Time" as if there were one single model for time in which the past can be changed. That's not entirely true though.

Essentially, assuming that the past can't be changed, then your options become extremely constrained, and the Static Time theory described in the FAQ pops up as one of the most natural models. It is possible that there are other models of time which are such that you cannot change the past yet are not completely the same as our Static Time (I could go into more detail about this later maybe). For Dynamic Time, the only explicit model in the FAQ is Squall_Of_SeeD's, but with dynamic time there are very few constraints so there are without doubt many different kinds of dynamic time models.

Anyway, the point is that "static time" and "dynamic time" really refer to distinct classes of time-models, so to speak. The "static time" class consists of models where you can't change the past, while the opposite is true for the "dynamic time" class. Hence there is by definition no way that dynamic time and static time can be made compatible.

However, there are, as I think you were trying to say, different properties of both types of models which might be desirable to intertwine with eachother. Static Time only has one 'issue' with it really, and that is that it lacks the intuitive idea of a flow of time. In our model of Static Time the ULOT is entirely rigid, there's no flow of time whatsoever. In the Dynamic Time theory of Squall_Of_SeeD, and most dynamic time models, you do have the idea of flowing time, because dynamic time models tend to be based on the idea that the future doesn't exist yet, but is constantly being created 'as we speak', in some sense. The timeline really is thought of as forming like a stream of water forms a river.

I'm not entirely sure if that's a desirable property to have in any model, since as I explain in the FAQ, I think the idea of flowing time is absurd in the first place, despite how intuitive it is. However, I can see why one might want to include it in your model. So can this property be fitted into a static time model? Perhaps, in fact maybe even probably. It might be possible to have a well-defined model where the future doesn't exist beyond the 'present', yet you still can't change the past. Is that sorta what you had in mind?

I think another possibility is mentioned in the FAQ, which is how it is conceivable that a dynamic time model could end up turning into a static model. The idea is that in dynamic time, every iteration of the timeloop in the game would be slightly different, but might gradually converge to some fixed loop. Eventually it would appear as if the loop looked the same every time, i.e. it would appear as if no one were changing the past. Dynamic time would become (at least locally) static.


ANYWAY, I've gone on for quite a bit now and it's all been rather technical. Hopefully I mentioned some stuff which is interesting >_<

Now, maybe you guys should think of the element of time in FF8 at not only a mortal point of view, but from a God point of view as well. And here's the kicker. This God, is the players themselves. To us, we know what going to happen before it happens because we've played the game more than twice. Yet, we the players do have the ability to effect events in the story. Just because we don't actually exist within the story, doesn't mean we don't have any influence.

Sure, somethings we can't and won't ever be able to change. But, with out players actually playing the game, the world that is FF8 wouldn't even exist. The reason time compression never work is not because time is not allowing it. It's because the players themselves are not allowing it. And to put a spin on things, do you believe that time compression would succeed if the player forces the main party to die doing a battle? Yet, the players also have the ability to press the reset button and try all over again.

Maybe this is an INSANE concept I'm talking about. But I here their a fine line between insanity and genius. Either way, it's still something very important we must take in account. What's the player's true role in the fabric of the FF8 universe?

Haha, well it's true that if time compression succeeded then there'd be no game to play :p

However, I really don't think we should consider ourselves as having any role in the model.

Why not? Challenge yourself for a second. Although time and history in the world of FF8 can't be change for the most part, it is undeniable that players have influence within the game itself. If it weren't the case, the game would be playing itself, we wouldn't be able to come up with all these different theories, and their wouldn't be any room to speculate about anything. And these are facts. So why shouldn't we consider the influence players have in the lives of the characters in FF8?

The point is that all our discussions about the plot in the game are based on the idea that the universe we're talking about actually exists. Not just that, but we are imagining ourselves as being inside it. Of course it is actually a game, but there's no sense in mentioning that when explaining stuff.

I mean, Squall won't do anything unless we make him do it, but that doesn't mean we're going to try to explain his actions by appealing to the gamer!

I see. Awkwardly enough I was thinking of it as an actual existing universe were we're the Gods controlling the every actions of Squall and Co in a fixed existence thus contributing to their inability to change their own fates. Wow, I think very strangely...:roll2

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sir Bahamut

There are plenty of things the phrase 'might' mean, like I said, it seems to leave just enough space to allow you to wriggle out of blatant absurdities. But I haven't heard a interpretation which fits in with them being real women which sounds in any way satisfying.

As for which is the bigger leap, I genuinely do think they're both about even. We already know TC is capable of producing landscapes and images based on peoples thoughts and emotions, and so it's hardly a big leap to think that Ulty's will could push TC into spawning actual beings (especially given that Ulty could create GF's in a flash even without TC). And then just look at how we first encounter them: the first one appears as Edea in the Commencement Room, but when you enter the battle she's turned into someone looking entirely different, as if she morphed right there and then. Doesn't seem that real to me!

---

I had always seen that as a timeskip, myself.
I'm not saying it's impossible for them to be created from the aether, I'm just saying that them being the line of witches from 'the now' to Ultimecia's time, possessed, seemed more plausible than them just randomly being created by TC, or by an outside hand.

On the subject of dynamic vs static, I personally subscribe to an idea somewhere between the two, where time is neither wholly fixed nor wholly dynamic.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Serapy

Understood, thank you!

I do admit that VIII has a stronger force of supporting the Unjust Persecution theory more than the R=U theory. If I focus entirely on the UP theory, the reasoning behind Ultimecia's dialogues in the present era actually seem to make sense, which also fit her motives.

The reason why I value R=U as the most interesting theory is because it's just that intriguing in my opinion. A woman who you love dearly happens to be the exact same woman from the future and out of no where, she's travelled to your present era with the intention of ruling your own universe. So, the ultimate question is, are you willing to fight against the person who you love dearly?

Sure, the R=U theory is not plausible. But if I ignore common sense and logic, and focus on connections instead, there always will be something (such as certain visual images or little hints) within the game that make me think something along the lines of "Wait a second, R=U? Er, maybe, maybe not."

Anyway, well done, guys!

---

i've never lol'd so much in my life.

I can't wait till I have time to read this. The old version was one of my favorite reads of all time.

Sorry for not weighing into the discussion, but since the article is quite long, I haven't read it at all yet (I'm at uni today, so I'll get started during the lectures xD). But I just wanted to voice my appreciation. It's great to see that you guys are so devoted to this game.

Keep up the good work.