Just for the sake of relevance, I'll make one example: Squall is Dead. Let's take what Kitase, according to the article, said into account and then compare it to the in-game proof.
Firstly, Kitase agrues that Squall couldn't be dead and in order for that to work, he was stabbed around the shoulder area. It HAS to be the shoulder area, so he's alive. Anything else is irrelevant.
Now, in game, Edea (controlled by Ultimecia) casts a shard, consisting of five icicles: one primary large and blue icicle with its secondary smaller but green ones.
At least 2 of them (the green ones) went through Squall; the first one went through the center of his chest, second one went through his upper chest. Unknown about the other green ones, but the primary icicle strikes him in the upper-right area of his chest and then it's stuck inside him.
On close up of the blue icicle (take note that a part of his sleeve is covering it):
Clearly not shoulder or around its area. His fall damage has to be considered as well. It doesn't matter if this whole scene was poorly rendered or not, but proof is proof and it's contradicting with the claim/assumption made by Kitase in the article.
Either he forgot what he had created or he's just discarding the themes of FF8 (how the story is played out, time travel and the whole fate / destiny thing.) because they're likely to have a role in this Squall being impaled scene as well.
But either way, you can easily interpret this Squall scene however you want, or just suspend belief. This Squall scenario also creates another ambiguity; what happened after this and before the prison scene? Squall questioning his wound and looking perfect in health. Things like this are ambiguous. A work of beautiful fiction and that's how it's supposed to be.