Quote:
Well, Rinoa was a sorceress. So was Ultimecia. Ultimecia was insanely mad, wasn`t she? Right, so if Rinoa and Ultimecia were in the same family, there`s a chance that Rinoa can be crazy at certain times too.
Wasn`t Hyne crazy too? I mean, it must have taken him the guts to cut himself, tearing his parts off ... sacrificing himself.
As for Squall being alive at the end, well that`s an assumption.
There's no evidence that Rinoa and Ultimecia are in the same family, nor that Hyne was crazy (the story of him cutting off his skin is probably allegorical and not necessarily 100% fact). In other words you are saying "it might be possible because we don't have enough information".
Quote:
Which is a valid point. But consider this: if time gets skipped occasionally during the FMV. I.e. we didn`t get to view what happened to Squall after the flower field scene and he somehow appeared at the end = so we assume that time gets skipped. There are other things that get skipped as well.
So, how much time did it take from the flower field scene to the Seifer`s scene in reality? Approximately 1 minute? 1 day? 1 week? 1 month?
And how much time did it take from the previous scenes to the party scene?
My point is that if a friend of yours died for something he loved doing, then perhaps ... let`s say 1 month later since his death, you would be feeling better, not exactly sombre but better. It`s not like the co party went partying after the day of Ultimecia`s defeat, right?
If I recall correctly, Seifer was injured not too long before the entrance of Ultimecia`s, so how long did he get better? Who took him to a doctor? That must have taken some time.
Again all you are saying is "we don't have enough information so anything could be true".
More to the point though, when a character dies in an FF game, Square have ALWAYS made a big point about it, showing the reactions of other characters. If they wanted us to think he was dead they wouldn't have shown a celebratory victory showing everyone totally happy. Squall might have been dead for a week or so after the Garden party (why would they wait longer to celebrate?) but then it's likely they would still have had some sort of commemoration for Squall. If they wanted us to think he was dead they wouldn't skip the commemoration and then show him appearing alive. Square might have been ambiguous in other FF's but never misleading.
However the main issue here is that your entire argument is "we don't have enough information". I'll explain at the end why that means this theory is worthless.
Quote:
1) This game contains quite many MacGuffins, Squall at the end could be one because not enough information were given (his health and the time differences of each scene in the FMV.)
2) There are indications that something will happen in the future timelines. So, that`s another thing Square wanted us to think about. Asking for evidence is meaningless.
You seem to be confused about what a MacGuffin is. A MacGuffin is something which is used to advance the plot without the details of it being too important (Time compression would be the best FF8 example). Squall appearing at the end, dead or alive, would not be a MacGuffin. The plot is over when you see him! Squall being dead would not be similar to anything Square has ever done. As I said, they have at most been ambiguous, never misleading.
Whatever indications for the future there are none of them imply that Squall is dead at the end of the game. Asking for evidence is hardly meaningless. I don't mean mathematical proof mind you, but evidence as in 'arguments that aren't based on lack of information' which is the only argument you are using.
Quote:
If Square has done something like this before, then why are the other FFs more clear? There`s a good chance that FF8 was just an experiment by Square.
Why is that a good chance? Also, the other FF's are not more or less clear. Consider FF9:
(SPOILER)Square do the exact same thing with Zidane as with Squall. They make it out as if he is dead, then leave you hanging for a long time in the ending not revealing him until the very last moment. The setup is literally identical to FF8. FF8 is not less clear than this.
Quote:
The flat battery indicator and the casting time of Rinoa`s finger sign symbolism exactly appeared at the same time. I think it`s something to do with symbolism (I made a thread about it back then.) You see her finger sign so many times in the game = too many coincidences = likely to have some meaning.
It's just Square teasing the viewer. They know you're wondering if Squall is out there too, so 'coincidentally' the camcorder runs out before you can see. In any case, 'symbolism' here won't be evidence of Squall being dead.
Quote:
How can it be a mistake? Why didn`t they just ... like ... copy the animation of Rinoa from the camcorder scene and then paste it into the final scene?
Because making an FMV isn't as simple as copying and pasting? Square have made continuity errors in other games too (although I won't mention any since you might call those profound symbolism too).
Quote:
But this clone device does exist, sure, it didn`t tell us whether does it have the ability to physically interact or not. Being said that, it doesn`t outright the fact that it can`t physically interact due to lack of information.
You say it yourself. Your argument is based on lack of information.
Quote:
Well, we don`t exactly know what happened in the FMV`s timeline. Anything can happen, no evidence required.
I.e. "we don't have enough information".
Quote:
Um, I`ve just posted events from the game (which are evidence), and I`ve made a interpretation/speculation of those events. If I had evidence for my interpretation/speculation, then it becomes entirely fact. This is why it`s a theory.
When it comes literary interpretation "evidence" doesn't mean mathematical proof. It means an argument based on something real (an event in the game, tutorial information, whatever) which can very clearly be interpreted in one direction. You have provided several ingame events sure, but they don't naturally imply what you want them too. You are ONLY able to stretch them since "there is not enough information". Take your clone device for example. We know a device exists which creates a projection of people, but this isn't evidence for your theory because that would require this projection to interact physically which we don't know if it can do. Hence it's not evidence, it's just saying "we don't know for sure so anything could be true".
Why is that a worthless argument? Well, let me ask you this: do you think every theory conceivable is equally plausible? Are there theories even you would agree are absurd (Rinoa=Irvine=a cactuar in disguise for example)? If yes, then "we don't have enough information" can even be used to argue for such theories whence it becomes clear it is worthless. If no....well then you are not discussing theories but fanfiction.
The plain matter is that until you provide a piece of evidence (again, not mathematical proof, see above) which isn't based on lack of information, your theory is completely worthless.