Quote Originally Posted by MJN SEIFER View Post
I think the main reason I like to assume Square (and indead other makers) are like this is because this what I would do if I made (for example) an RPG. Of course, I would have the main stuff obvious, but I would provide "hints" as well.
I do it myself in my own stories but when you are making a financial medium you have to keep your audience in mind; so sometimes you have to subdue your artistic integrity for the sake of clarity. If marketing tells you your audience is "dumb as a box of rocks", you have to write with that audience in mind. Lord knows film and games are the worst offenders when it comes to underestimating its audience.

I don't necessarily disavow all theories, my issue with something like R=U is that its a major plot element that really changes the dynamics of the story. To have its revelation be left to a few questionable moments seems highly unlikely and that's something I feel most supporters fail to explain is how such a major element was presented in a way where most players would miss it. Laguna and Squall's connection is still missed by many people who play the title and its presentation in the story is less subtle than what the R=U supporters present as evidence. Its the overall impact the theory has on the storyline that discredits it in my mind. Its like if VII wrote out the revelation of Zack in VII while still implying his importance. You know Cloud based his personality on another SOLDIER but the game never mentions it was Zack at all. A lot would be lost in the plot.

Now theories involving unexplained elements I don't mind as long as they don't seem too far fetched. I have a few theories of my own for a few of my fave FFs.