AnotherSanctuary

@FoLam56 @axolotian @termina_lives @kurisukt I apologize if you felt slighted by my initial message, I will restate that my attention was only regarding your view and not you as a person. Nevertheless

@FoLam56 @axolotian @termina_lives @kurisukt 😁

if in 2026 you still think this dialogue is about a secret force called """"the player""" controlling anyone you do not understand what this dialogue is about At all

@FoLam56 @axolotian @termina_lives @kurisukt I think you'll be aight

@AnotherSanctum @axolotian @termina_lives @kurisukt Then just say you disagree, and go on your way lmao. All you did is being dismissive, not just disagreeing. Do I really need to explain why calling the view as narrow minded is not the way to "disagree" normally? I think you need to learn how to engage with discussions.

@FoLam56 @axolotian @termina_lives @kurisukt I made my argument, I heard yours and said I disagreed on first principles because the paradigm your putting forward is non-encapsulating. I think you need thicker skin if calling your view narrow minded was enough to set you off in this manner

@AnotherSanctum @axolotian @termina_lives @kurisukt If you can't handle the discussion without going into "Oh how much your view are narrow minded, and mine is better because I said so", don't start the discussions at all. Either make an argument or go.

@FoLam56 @axolotian @termina_lives @kurisukt Is that a fucking AI analysis of my statement lmfao

@FoLam56 @axolotian @termina_lives @kurisukt It was relatively minor scrutiny, again it was assessed directly at your view and not you yourself. If you can't handle that, it's not my problem, especially when the point you're making is non-impactful to the initial discussion

@FoLam56 @axolotian @termina_lives @kurisukt Its not personal at all, I think on an assessment of your view its far from encapsulating how dynamic signifiers in the context of this narrative are and how they can have multiple referents

@AnotherSanctum @axolotian @termina_lives @kurisukt Now we're getting personal? Just because someone doesn't agree with you and doesn't see things in your way do not mean they are "narrow minded" I've made it very clear why I don't see it the way you do.

@FoLam56 @axolotian @termina_lives @kurisukt Yeah this is just a narrow minded view of signification within the narrative

@AnotherSanctum @axolotian @termina_lives @kurisukt No, that would depend on what determination you are talking about. Because determination as what the characters have in-game and what we have when playing games are different concepts. In-game determination not only allows you to persist - it also

@FoLam56 @axolotian @termina_lives @kurisukt This would be akin to me saying something like "Determination isn't the player's ability to persist in playing the game, it's a real power in the narrative of Undertale". I wouldn't be capturing the totality of the concept because I'm restricting how it's signified already

@FoLam56 @axolotian @termina_lives @kurisukt I can say that the soul is truly Kris's and also say that from the connection formed at the beginning of chapter one it is also for all intents and purposes, as an analogue for the player. It's not really a substantive critique against my point bc it's not mutually exclusive

@termina_lives @LazyNick5 @kurisukt Deleted my last response bc I asked a dumb question. I think the ultimate distinction is what it means to be diegetic or not, but on the fundamentals I think we agree

@AnotherSanctum @LazyNick5 @kurisukt

@axolotian @termina_lives @LazyNick5 @kurisukt barriers rather than trying to fit the player within them.

@axolotian @termina_lives @LazyNick5 @kurisukt --invasive presence that it is to Kris in DR. This just means then that the player lacks a concrete referent within the logic of Undertale itself, not that the player is then inconsequential. This is why I prefer the term metalepsis, since Flowey actively breaks down narrative--

@termina_lives @LazyNick5 @kurisukt -- inconsequential, lest the meta subtext of Flowey's genocide monologue lose its significance. Is this mostly pedantic distinction making? Probably. But meta narratives are complex in and of themselves so it's important to be precise in our language describing them

@termina_lives @LazyNick5 @kurisukt So to the point: all I'm doing is making a distinction between whether the player is diegetic (which is to say, immanent to the world of Undertale's narrative) or exists as an external influence beyond the bounds of the narrative. I definitely do not dismiss the player as --

@axolotian @termina_lives @LazyNick5 @kurisukt I don't think all fourth wall breaks imply the audience/reader/player is diegetic, which is the logical conclusion to your statement

@AnotherSanctum @termina_lives @LazyNick5 @kurisukt flowey is removed from the narrative as soon as he speaks to the player? like, what definition of diagetic are you using for this line of thought, for me, a character acknowledging an element of the world is, by definition, diagetic behavior