Both Serapy and Iceglow are raising some pretty interesting points here - so far I think it can go either way, but as I said in someone else’s posts (someone who sadly hasn't been seen for a while...) it's fun to theorize(if that's the correct word) and I'm slightly envious of these threads, as I have had a couple of theories on things (some based on what I have read at this forum and some on what I have interpreted myself) they may be wrong, they may be right, but I don't have the skill to explain them in great detail.


Anyway, this discussion between the two of you has interested me, and I have agreements for both sides in places.

I will admit I tend to put my own methods into SquareSoft though, but I am pretty sure that do intend to have people theorize(?) their games to some extent which is why they don't set things fully in stone - they never fully explained who Laguna was for example, but put hints in places - his relation to one of the main characters may actually not be what Square was trying to say (I think it was), but if it was then Square let the gamers do some of the work. However there are times when we've blatantly gotten it wrong, and designers such as Square are forced to release proof of that fact - I am sure that there is a book about FFVII that corrects various erroneous theories about that game, but I have yet to read it though.

If I was to make something (a game/film/show for example) I would put in things like this, to see if the player/viewer noticed, and what s/he interpreted by it (though I may or may not be forced to reveal it eventually like Square did) but I realize I am not Square.

I hope that wasn't too OT, and I'll probably respond properly to the debate once I've stalled it all - there wasn't enough time to do it in this thread.