I'm not. I'm fighting against you asserting it as fact.Originally Posted by Serapy
But this does not mean the Ultimania is invalid.I read VIII and I was then wronged by someone else for getting something wrong due to new-lol-canonised information from Ultimania. This time, I am told to read the Ultimania's translations and then I must change my view on VIII as a whole.
Yes, it IS your fault you got something wrong. They hold the information. That's their perogative.There's something wrong about this process. It's not my fault that I've got something wrong. It's Square's fault.
Again, this doesn't make it invalid at all.Ultimania is only exclusive to Japanese. If Square was so desperate to modify something in FF games and thus re-clarify our knowledges, they could of have added multi-languages support, but they didn't.
No, the original games, and the international versions, are in Japanese. Square made the games and the Ultimanias in Japanese.So, what could this mean? It could mean that Ultimania is not actually very important to people who don't understand Japanese. They have left us the original games in English and that's what matters.
It's not wrong in the slightest for a writer to release additional information regarding their series that disproves assumptions made about it. You just don't like it because it kills your pet theory.It's completely wrong to use Ultimania as a whole to disprove something. 99% of the original plot and 1% Ultimania are fine, depending on the context.
Yes you did. You are saying it doesn't count.I never declared it to be invalid.
You keep talking about 'not your fault' like it makes any difference. Your perspective is contradicted by the Ultimania. It takes precedence.Partly. DigiCube Co was the company that released and published VIII Ultimania.
It wasn't my fault that my perspective contradicted the Ultimania.
And this contradicts nothing in the books. It is totally Rowling's right to do this.There wasn't evidence regarding his sexuality in the series. And all of a sudden, Rowling claims that he's gay. That's the whole point.
No, because it was an error made in the translation of the game's manual.Still relevant.
They prove nothing, and the manual IS an external source by your logic. Not that the Ultimania is any more an 'external source' than J.K. Rowling is for Harry Potter.Thier mistakes have proved something. Therefore, it's better to focus on the original games and not to focus on the external sources.
No it's not, because you listed it in the first place as an example of contradiction making official sources unreliable. So either concede this point or substantiate it.Addressing the explanation as to why the Kefka case is a contradiction is irrelevant. We are on the VIII board.
Mistakes you claim they have made but have not substantiated, and do not justify outright disregarding the Ultimania as you would like to.It's not wise to 100% trust them after they have made these mistakes.
I didn't give up on him, I stopped responding to him because his long winded responses on nothing weren't even amusing to respond to any longer. Besides, he got banned immediately thereafter, making any response utterly redundant.According to your definition of 'troll', Lychon was definitely a troll. And yet, you gave up on him. See below for more explanation.
One greek person we know exists > Four greek people you say exist.Four Greek persons < One Greek person? Really?
If you could provide evidence they exist and they say what you say they do, it would be different.
No. They aren't. One is 'They is doing something wrong', the other is 'adekjh wdkjuhfd fin ekfhsd'They are both the same thing in terms of inaccuratity.
IF that data makes it through the editing process, then yes, it will be valid until it is overruled. That is how canon works.So, if someone miserably adds something and that new data, which is deemed to be out of the ordinary, becomes equally as important as the orginal games? Right.
In which case, 'your boss' being the creator/s of the original game, will know if it it in line with their vision for the game, and approve or disapprove on that basis.It's possible. Impress your boss and he probably will approve it.
Can you be hired for this job?Anybody can have any job.
The likelihood of which is very very slim.I was just hypothesizing a scenario.
But your Japanese would be random nonsense and maybe the occasional real word interspersed.Not everybody will put the same identical characters.
His name is Leonhart. His theme song is 'Maybe I'm a Lion'. His emblem is a lion.You're now claiming that Squall is linked with lions.
WHAT must be true? That the image you showed is relevant to FFVIII? That does not follow. Squall having an obvious link to Lions does not substantiate your claim that that image has anything to do with FFVIII.So, if Ultimecia has them on her castle, and considering that the visible comparison of between these visual images does exist, it must be true.
How does 'this thing' keep showing up? And yes, you are drawing conclusions from this thing.If this thing has no possibility of drawing any conclusion, then what's the purpose of its existence when it, in fact, keeps showing up in more than one instance within the game? Why would the developers waste time on designing things that absolutely mean nothing?
Also, when you look at one thing, it's not a conclusion. A conclusion usually occurs at the end of the thinking process.
As for why they'd design something without meaning 'It looks cool.'
But it's not meaningless. It's a referrer to my response to your identical statement elsewhere.I shall accept this statement as meaningless.
Are you trying to DEFEND Lychon, Serapy? And are you saying that these discussions, which are talking about your claims, are off topic from the threads, which are about your claims?http://forums.eyesonff.com/final-fan...ml#post1757460
Your excuse for not replying to him back is off topic? Well, well! Most of the things in our arguments are mostly off-topic as well!
You're partly responsible for making him get banned. And that administrator... Yeah.
It wasn't?Your logic is so compelling. Back in '06, the phenomenon of 'trolls' wasn't widely acknowledged.
Or it's because he wasn't fun. You're amusing.So, if we merge our timeline with the '06 timeline, he would be called as a troll according to your definition of 'troll'. And yet, the ending result is completely different! It's funny how time can change people.
What, do you want to officially concede instead?I beg to differ.
You are asserting connections between things that have no connection. YOU, good sir, are the one engaging in exaggeration.And yet you act as if this is 100% fan-fiction. Exaggerating doesn't increase the level of your validity, you know.
Blatant Red Herring noted and held against you. If it's not a theory, then what is it?You got ... Oh, wait. Never mind.
Reply With Quote