So I wonder, after playing FF Origins, did the time-loop become any clearer? Was the translation better? I still don't get a thing of it...
Printable View
So I wonder, after playing FF Origins, did the time-loop become any clearer? Was the translation better? I still don't get a thing of it...
(SPOILER)Okay. Garland was once a good guy. But, he became power-starved and corrupted. So, he kidnaps the princess, right? But you defeat him. So he's dead! Not really. The four Chaos guardians transport him 2000 years into the past. So, he releases them. Now.. every 2000 years... time zips back to the point when the guardians saved Garland. The same 2000 years just keep repeating. That's why; we gotta go back to that moment and defeat Chaos, therefore breaking the time-loop and restoring the world to it's proper order.
At least thats the way I saw it. I may have explained it badly, butI hope I helped a bit. If I'm wrong, someone correct me, please. This is my fav FF game of all, so I wanna make sure I got it right.
*headache*Quote:
Originally posted by ShadyMilkman
(SPOILER)Okay. Garland was once a good guy. But, he became power-starved and corrupted. So, he kidnaps the princess, right? But you defeat him. So he's dead! Not really. The four Chaos guardians transport him 2000 years into the past. So, he releases them. Now.. every 2000 years... time zips back to the point when the guardians saved Garland. The same 2000 years just keep repeating. That's why; we gotta go back to that moment and defeat Chaos, therefore breaking the time-loop and restoring the world to it's proper order.
Well, that seems good, but what does Garland gain from it? If he just repeats time over and over again, he gets beaten by the Light Warriors over and over, then gets sent back by the fiends, and then does it all over again. He never takes over the world, he just kidnapps the same damn princess and get his a$$ kicked over and over. That's not a desirable goal, if you ask me.
This is how it works.
Ya see, Thief is forced to move back in with his parents.
And Garland and White Mage are doing this charity thing, which involves an appearance on the today show.
Fighter's new girlfriend doesn't talk very loudly. And while Fighter, Garland, and White Mage are at dinner, Garland accidentaly agrees to wear the low-talker's ugly, puffy shirt for his appearance on the Today show!
Meanwhile, thief becomes a hand model.
Garland finds out that the low-talker's career depends on his wearing the puffy shirt. He can't back down! How humorously awkward. Garland ends up wearing the shirt, and then breaks down and rants about how ugly it is on national TV. The low-talker goes crazy, and later in the dressing room, shoves thief into the hot iron, ruining his hand model career.
It comes to an end when they discuss how their lives were ruined by the puffy shirt and the low-talker.
He does, however, get eternal life, which seems pretty good to me.Quote:
Originally posted by Fredde
Well, that seems good, but what does Garland gain from it? If he just repeats time over and over again, he gets beaten by the Light Warriors over and over, then gets sent back by the fiends, and then does it all over again. He never takes over the world, he just kidnapps the same damn princess and get his a$$ kicked over and over. That's not a desirable goal, if you ask me.
But is it worth it if the same stuff happens over and over again? But then again, does Garland know that he's gonna get whipped around again and again, kind of like a Groundhog Day scenario?Quote:
Originally posted by Black Mage 121
He does, however, get eternal life, which seems pretty good to me.
Garland loses all memory of his previous life, since that happened in the future, and he's resurrected in the past...or something like that.
Well, if he looses all memory, why does he gloat about "the time loop is complete" and "I'll be immortal!" And seriously, would anyone want eternal life if it means getting beaten up by lvl 3 Light Warriors over and over?
I think the FFO dialogue contained something about memory loss, but I'm not entirely sure. Certainly, the NES version doesn't mention it, but I have a feeling FFO does.
If Garland is sent to the future by the fiends, he's probably sent back a good few years before the light warriors appear. Although it's unclear, I think the fiends can send Garland back at any time period, in which case he'd probably be sent back a decade or so before the light warriors appear. In my opinion, being 'defeated' once every ten years is a small price to pay for eternal life.
uhh, I think you miss something Black Mage 121. Garland isn't sent in future, but in the past. You see, it's Chaos that created the fiends so they could sent him in the past when he gets to the future.
....ah man, this kind of story really fries all your brain when you start to think about it for a too long time... :p
Did the fiends send him back only when he dies or just because they are set to do this every 2000 years?
Unless Garland has a natural lifespan of 2000 years, Garland would have to travel back into the future with the fiends to have any chance of continuing the time loop.
At least that's the way I see it. The plot never was explained very well.
Try to Rememer that Square were planning to end on Final Fantasy (HenceFINAL) So the would have been ocasional plot holes involede
I remember one thing that was pretty interesting in the ending of FF Origins, namely that it says that the Light Warriors where from an alternative...(past? Dimension? World? Can't seem to remember) something. Maybe they were from an alternative history where Garland never existed or something. Wait, that only confuses it even more...
I think it's best we ignore FFO's ending completely. It caused more problems than it solved.
But I think it mentioned something like that, yeah.
So I wonder, after playing FF Origins, did the time-loop become any clearer? --Fredde
No.
No, obvioulsy not. What the heck was the programmers thinking of?! Did they do it to give FF1 an "involving" story? Well, I'd rather call it "brain-melting."
Still, FF1 was a great game. You can't take that away. Really.
well i used to think i understood it...
but now i'm confoused even more
but i go with ShadyMilkman's explaination