What to expect from me. (I thnk it's ok here, move if need be)

[MJN SEIFER]

I was taking it as given that we were talking about about the FF series, not other media, although I accept other SE tie-ins as canon (like Ultimania and AC).

We are talking about the FF Series. I mentioned "other media" as an umbrella term to point out that some writers probably do put subtle things in (and Square may or may not be one of them).

All my theories on this board will be (for now) be FF related as this is an FF forum, and I need to keep on topic.

[BG-57]

For what it's worth I agree with you. But that's not proof in of itself.

At any rate, another thing I've noticed that the Ultima Weapon in FFVIII carries a sword that looks identical to Cloud's Ultima Weapon sword. My conclusion is since the FFVII Ultima Weapon drops Cloud's Ultima Weapon, it could follow that the FFVIII Ultima Weapon simply carries it's own version of the sword into battle instead of merely dropping it. Many FFs have both the UW monster and sword. There are many convoluted ways to explain how it could be the same sword, but I find them doubtful.

On a side note I've been tempted to break out my ArtFX UW action figure just to give the sword to my Cloud action figure. I'd bet it'd look cool.

[Lacarus]

Well, they do look very much alike, but then again, Ultima and Omega Weapon always share the same colour scheme and look, and VIII's Ultima Weapon carrying as sword that looks like Cloud's Ultima Weapon could just be a cameo just like XII's Gilgamesh carrying Tidus', Squall's, Odin's and Cloud's swords. Although these are fakes.

[Wolf Kanno]

I fall into BG-57's camp in that SE never leaves clever subtle hints. Most of the time its really obvious. From Squall and Laguna being related to the obnoxious not so subtle hints X-2 has that connects X to the VII world. I don't feel FF games are really created to leave mystery. Even VII's cliffhanger ending is spoiled by its epilogue that strongly suggested everyone survived.

There are certain philosophical lessons one can gleam from the series that are carefully placed in the background; but I don't think SE goes out of its way to hide secrets like R=U or the FF worlds all being interconnected. Especially since several clues people find to make their theories correct always seem to be looking too much into an artistic showboating sequence or are obviously taking information out of context to support their bias.

Just looking back on most of the plots in the series, the games have always been made to be stand alone titles; so most plot elements are always tied up and those that are not tend to have little significance. Its because of this consistency in the series that I find it highly unlikely that SE writes in ambiguous secrets that only die hard fans will discover. It just all reminds me of the episode in American Dad where the father is searching for the lost treasure in his basement.

Granted its fun to debate some theories and come up with them.

[BG-57]

Well, they do look very much alike, but then again, Ultima and Omega Weapon always share the same colour scheme and look, and VIII's Ultima Weapon carrying as sword that looks like Cloud's Ultima Weapon could just be a cameo just like XII's Gilgamesh carrying Tidus', Squall's, Odin's and Cloud's swords. Although these are fakes.

That's what I was thinking. They are esentially palette swapped versions from the same model. FFVIII overused palette swapping, especially with Bahamut and Tiamat; the latter is usually portrayed as a mutli-headed dragon.

I fall into BG-57's camp in that SE never leaves clever subtle hints. Most of the time its really obvious. From Squall and Laguna being related to the obnoxious not so subtle hints X-2 has that connects X to the VII world. I don't feel FF games are really created to leave mystery. Even VII's cliffhanger ending is spoiled by its epilogue that strongly suggested everyone survived.

There are certain philosophical lessons one can gleam from the series that are carefully placed in the background; but I don't think SE goes out of its way to hide secrets like R=U or the FF worlds all being interconnected. Especially since several clues people find to make their theories correct always seem to be looking too much into an artistic showboating sequence or are obviously taking information out of context to support their bias.

Just looking back on most of the plots in the series, the games have always been made to be stand alone titles; so most plot elements are always tied up and those that are not tend to have little significance. Its because of this consistency in the series that I find it highly unlikely that SE writes in ambiguous secrets that only die hard fans will discover. It just all reminds me of the episode in American Dad where the father is searching for the lost treasure in his basement.

Granted its fun to debate some theories and come up with them.

You put it better than I could.

One world for all the games is impossible, at minimum there are at least three: Spira, Gaia, and Ivalice. Even that is stretching it. Interestingly enough, the proof that Ivalice and Gaia are separate worlds comes from FFT: Cloud's little appearance is explained as traveling through space, not time.

[Lacarus]

That's what I was thinking. They are esentially palette swapped versions from the same model. FFVIII overused palette swapping, especially with Bahamut and Tiamat; the latter is usually portrayed as a mutli-headed dragon.

VIII didn't have much palette swapping compared to other FF's, only what you mentioned, blue and green Galbaldian soldiers, Behemoth and Catoblepas, Griever and Diablos who shared the same skeleton and of course the weapons. In VII, X and XII for example, had many of the same monster types, X got around this, though, with the Arena. I'd say VIII had the most original monsters than otehr FF's, maybe except IX.

[BG-57]

I liked the monster designs in FFVIII, but repainting Bahamut as Tiamat was just plain lazy.

[Lacarus]

Maybe, but Bahamut and Tiamat has much in common. Both dragons and both GF's, however Ultimicia changed him into a monster. I think it's intentional that they share same design.

[Wolf Kanno]

Historically speaking... Bahamut is suppose to be a giant fish but that's just semantics at this point.

They pulled the same thing in FFIV. Both Bahamut and Tiamat were simply palette swapped versions of each other.

[BG-57]

Lets not even go there with Shiva.

[Wolf Kanno]

Like the fact Shiva is traditionally a man and has more of an association with fire than ice?

[BG-57]

Perish the thought.

[MJN SEIFER]

For what it's worth I agree with you. But that's not proof in of itself.

I fall into BG-57's camp in that SE never leaves clever subtle hints. Most of the time its really obvious. From Squall and Laguna being related to the obnoxious not so subtle hints X-2 has that connects X to the VII world. I don't feel FF games are really created to leave mystery. Even VII's cliffhanger ending is spoiled by its epilogue that strongly suggested everyone survived.

I can see what you both mean. I personally think the only way we'll know for sure is if Square actually says they leave subtle hints - or they don't. For now it's up to debate and everyone has an opinion including me, but I accept I may be wrong (Note: I say "may be" because I still hang on to a minor hope that I am right - not because I am arrogant, because I am not). (To Wolf Kanno only: I never really concidered VII's ending to be a "clifhanger" - more evidence on how two people can see the same thing differently)

There are certain philosophical lessons one can gleam from the series that are carefully placed in the background; but I don't think SE goes out of its way to hide secrets like R=U or the FF worlds all being interconnected. Especially since several clues people find to make their theories correct always seem to be looking too much into an artistic showboating sequence or are obviously taking information out of context to support their bias.

Granted its fun to debate some theories and come up with them.

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.

VIII didn't have much palette swapping compared to other FF's, only what you mentioned, blue and green Galbaldian soldiers, Behemoth and Catoblepas, Griever and Diablos who shared the same skeleton and of course the weapons. In VII, X and XII for example, had many of the same monster types, X got around this, though, with the Arena. I'd say VIII had the most original monsters than otehr FF's, maybe except IX.

Funnily enough, it never really occured to me that many of VII's monsters where the same albeit a different colour scheme. Despite the fact many NPCs looked identical - I always asumed that the mosters where all "related" - like how you can have many breads of the same animal, and it was all deliberate move to have them look similar, but looking back - it probably was Square reusing sprites.

However it's funny the Tiamat stuff was mentioned in a thread in which I admited to having theories...

[BG-57]

I think everyone has theories about their favorite games, it's proving it that's the challenge. Any good theory in science is falsifiable, that is, can be proven false. I hold game theories to similar standards. If someone proposes a theory (myself included) is their job to prove their idea right, not for someone else to prove them wrong.

Palette swapping goes all back to beginning of the series. The question is was it to save on work or was there a deeper reason. A few years ago I actually suggested (tongue in cheek) a B=T theory, since it is technically possible that Bahamut could have been corrupted in the future by Ultimecia into Tiamat. Both do use similar attacks (Mega Flare vs Dark Flare). But in the end I doubt it simply because Tiamat has been protrayed in most previous FFs as a different being from Bahamut (and usually with more than one head).

[Wolf Kanno]

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.