Sonic the Hedgehog (Game) CRT: To New Frontiers

[Theuser789]

I agree. Don’t forget supers also get conceptual manipulation for being able to interact with The End.

Good catch

 

[JJSliderman]

Actually, I’m kind of unsure where the concept manip is coming from, the entropy stuff is never mentioned in-game.

If it is true, I’m iffy applying it to anything besides the End rn, could just be referring to its unseen true power.

 

[Theuser789]

It's inferred. Y'know, the things we aren't told directly but can still put together because we can interpret text.

 

[JJSliderman]

I think it’s kind of a stretch to go from “I am everything and nothing, the abyss, all consuming void” to “I am the literal concept of entropy”.

And again, what makes it refer to the planetoid form?

 

[Dalesean027]

Could always put it as possibly

 

[Theuser789]

I think it’s kind of a stretch to go from “I am everything and nothing, the abyss, all consuming void” to “I am the literal concept of entropy”.

And again, what makes it refer to the planetoid form?

No, it isn't. It's literally in the name "The End". The inevitable end of it all, which is entropy

What is Entropy? Part 3: the way the universe will end

One of the rules about entropy is that it cannot decrease. What is the effect of this on our everyday lives? To better understand let’s zoom in on the molecular basis of matter.

www.heinenhopman.com

Media literacy. Understanding the themes behind a work, rather than being ignorant to it. This makes it clear what the intention behind The End is.

No reason to put a "possibily" there either

 

[JJSliderman]

It’s just a name.
A name that can refer to it being able to destroy everything without being an actual living concept.

Solaris could bring the concept of time itself to nothing, are we gonna give him concept manipulation too?

And again, is there solid evidence it applies to the planetoid form, a single incarnation that is very clearly physical and not conceptual in nature.

 

[Theuser789]

Also I forgot when making the page, but Sage should have non-physical interaction for hitting Ghost Knuckles

 

[Theuser789]

It’s just a name.
A name that can refer to it being able to destroy everything without being an actual living concept.

Solaris could bring the concept of time itself to nothing, are we gonna give him concept manipulation too?

And again, is there solid evidence it applies to the planetoid form, a single incarnation that is very clearly physical and not conceptual in nature.

"It's just a name" Not when you couple it with its dialogue, the themes of the story, and the context of the story. You are being ignorant.

"But what about" Not talking about Solaris. But I am not against this.

It's not solid. It comes out of Supreme as a fog, it's in the page

 

[JJSliderman]

Yeah, and then it takes a physical form when it’s fought. Being incorporeal does not equal being conceptual.

Also what themes make the End conceptual? It shows up nuking planets and destroying shit with laser beams. Guess Kid Buu is conceptual now too.

 

[Theuser789]

The themes that I outlined in the description of the ability. You really need to be more cultered in media beyond what you see. Because you sound really ignorant

 

[JJSliderman]

I don’t need a degree in media studies to know the End is just spouting generic villain dialogue I’ve seen villains like MCU Thanos use some parts of. It’s true form at least has the argument of being an abstract entity to lend credence to being conceptual, the planetoid form really has nothing that the Hyudoros didn’t have.

 

[TheKingStrategist13]

ok let's do something
Let's pretend that I have a character A who is weaker than character B, C and D (they all defeat him separately)
but character A has the advantage of being omnipresent, so he has to be defeated in the past, present and future to be definitively defeated.
while character E is comparable than character B and character F that is equal to character B.
you understand right?solaris if he does not have is omnipresence,then he will be easy to beat.

I wouldn't quite say he would be easy to beat per say. Eggman makes a statement of questioning if it's actually possible to defeat Solaris In spite of knowing Full well how powerful Super Sonic is (Having observed him numerous times throughout his career), and having a good idea of how strong Super Shadow is (Having seen him twice now). This would imply that Eggman saw Sonic, Shadow, and Silver were all struggling against Solaris. It was also stated that even though he Surpassed Dimensions, Something had to be holding him down to our dimension in the first phase, implying that a debuffed Solaris who forced himself to anchor to our dimension was already a Super Form level threat on his own. Solaris is also one of the few bosses that can actually deal damage to a super form, implying that He was on a higher calibur than any other foe, and was much more of a match for the Hedgehog's than other bosses were through the series.

No, it isn't. It's literally in the name "The End". The inevitable end of it all, which is entropy

Er... To be fair, it's not like we consider The End Dimension in Minecraft to literally be the End of everything, right? ... I'm all for using theme's and idea's to convey something, even power, but this is, kinda flimsy at best. At the very least, the version we see and fight shouldn't be given this, really.

 

[Theuser789]

It's not just the name, guys. I reconsider for you to go back and read the explanation that I gave in the page. Read it slowly. Because it has nothing to do with Minecraft or the MCU or anything else. In fact, using those examples just prove you didn't get it

 

[TheKingStrategist13]

It's not just the name, guys. I reconsider for you to go back and read the explanation that I gave in the page. Read it slowly. Because it has nothing to do with Minecraft or the MCU or anything else. In fact, using those examples just prove you didn't get it

All of the statements are made by The End itself, when The End is noted to be overly arrogant in it's very own wiki page. Look, I'm not saying that you can't use Theme's and Idea's to convey power, but when they are by themselves, they serve to be little more than empty words without any real backing. If you could provide even just one piece of evidence that isn't just The End hyping itself for this, then maybe I can give you that, but as it stands, this argument has a very flimsy, easy to topple base. And nobody said it has to do with Minecraft or the MCU- They just mentioned them because they are helpful supporting evidence to show that just saying you are X amount of power and having X particularly vague name isn't enough to give you Conceptual Manip, so I'd think that we did get it, pretty well in fact.

 

[JJSliderman]

I have read the explanation, I haven’t argued against Abstract Existence for that reason.
The concept manip justification is just the End quote with a not substantially backed up entropy theory, I unironically think Solaris had better concept manip justification.

 

[Theuser789]

I have read the explanation, I haven’t argued against Abstract Existence for that reason.
The concept manip justification is just the End quote with a not substantially backed up entropy theory, I unironically think Solaris had better concept manip justification.

Oh, you mean The End having concept manip? I was always iffy on that too. The others should still have it anyways, especially the Titans since they fought it at full strenght

 

[JJSliderman]

I meant the End being a living concept was shaky to me.

That and, I don’t think we see enough of the fight with the Titans vs the true End to say they could hit its concept, even if it was one.

 

[Theuser789]

The End is noted to be overly arrogant in it's very own wiki page.

I am the one who wrote that, so don't try to use it as a gotcha against me. The End being arrogant doesn't mean it's just lying or that it's unrealible. It just means that they underestimated Sonic, like Sage did. That it can't see beyond its vision, which is seen in the dialogue when it doesn't understand why Sonic keeps fighting.

 

[TioKill]

Excuse me, are we giving a hax to a character that haven't shown ANY form of it in any situation or opportunity just because of an interpretation of its name and it's dialogue? No, hard disagree. Your interpretation of the dialogue isn't even passable as a piece of evidence in the first place unless you have a direct support, and names are not a piece of evidence either - no, you can't claim your interpretation is correct to validate the name, that's "begging the question fallacy".
Taking two minor hypothesis with minor support isn't enough for a hax of that caliber - or any.

 

[TioKill]

I am the one who wrote that, so don't try to use it as a gotcha against me. The End being arrogant doesn't mean it's just lying or that it's unrealible. It just means that they underestimated Sonic, like Sage did. That it can't see beyond its vision, which is seen in the dialogue when it doesn't understand why Sonic keeps fighting.

You don't even argue against to the fact its arrogant, you just said "X doesn't mean Y" and called it a day.
No, noting it's arrogance in one instance doesn't mean said character trait couldn't possibly apply to other dialogue - it does make it unreliable. You never gave an argument as to why it's reliable when its arrogance is noted already.

 

[TheKingStrategist13]

I am the one who wrote that, so don't try to use it as a gotcha against me. The End being arrogant doesn't mean it's just lying or that it's unrealible. It just means that they underestimated Sonic, like Sage did. That it can't see beyond its vision, which is seen in the dialogue when it doesn't understand why Sonic keeps fighting.

Are you saying that just because you wrote that down, that means I can't use it against you? That was kind of part of the point, though. Sure, it's possible it wasn't lying, but since it is noted to be arrogant, that makes it equally, if not more possible, that it is lying.It inherently becomes a unreliable narrator for itself and other's if it has the trait of being Arrogant.

 

[Theuser789]

Are you saying that just because you wrote that down, that means I can't use it against you? That was kind of part of the point, though. Sure, it's possible it wasn't lying, but since it is noted to be arrogant, that makes it equally, if not more possible, that it is lying.It inherently becomes a unreliable narrator for itself and other's if it has the trait of being Arrogant.

Uh, yes, I am. Mainly because I know why I worded it that way, and why it doesn't contradict anything. The rest of your post is just you repeating yourself while not adressing my explanation. The End never lied in the game, so why would it be lying in the battle? The only thing it's unsure of is Sonic's willpower, which is something show time and time again that defies common logic in the very game

 

[JJSliderman]

I still don’t think anything the End says unequivocally proves it’s a living concept.

 

[TheKingStrategist13]

Uh, yes, I am. Mainly because I know why I worded it that way, and why it doesn't contradict anything. The rest of your post is just you repeating yourself while not adressing my explanation. The End never lied in the game, so why would it be lying in the battle? The only thing it's unsure of is Sonic's willpower, which is something show time and time again that defies common logic in the very game

Then let me ask you why it wouldn't be lying.

Simply saying that it isn't lying because it hasn't lied yet is a flimsy argument at best. This has nothing to do with it being unsure of Sonic's Willpower. The definition of Arrogant is as follows: "having or revealing an exaggerated sense of one's own importance or abilities.". It's right there, clear as day in the very meaning of the word- It exaggerates it's own importance and powers. If we go by it having a Arrogant character, then that would come with the possibility of it exaggerating itself much further than what it can actually do. Combine that with it lacking any other evidence towards this argument outside of it just talking about itself being strong, and the Argument quickly becomes fallacious. Can you support your argument with something more concrete beyond "X character say's Y thing, and since X character hasn't lied yet, this can't possibly be a lie", when X character has yet to do Y thing to back up saying Y thing?

 

[Theuser789]

All of this is assumptions based on the meaning of a word I put that there myself. You ask me for proof, but your counter-proof is something I made up, and has as much weight as anything else I wrote. There's no reason, nor proof, that its statment is wrong, and you would need to prove that first when we use statments for abilities and haxes since forever.

Like, all of these arguments boil down to "I don't think this is true", which, ok, fine, but it's not a debunk. You can disagree and all, but you actually didn't counter anything

 

[JJSliderman]

Then prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the End is actually a concept, instead of just a being who can destroy everything.

 

[TheKingStrategist13]

All of this is assumptions based on the meaning of a word I put that there myself. You ask me for proof, but your counter-proof is something I made up, and has as much weight as anything else I wrote. There's no reason, nor proof, that its statment is wrong, and you would need to prove that first when we use statments for abilities and haxes since forever.

Like, all of these arguments boil down to "I don't think this is true", which, ok, fine, but it's not a debunk. You can disagree and all, but you actually didn't counter anything

The problem with this is that we use statements from reliable sources, that which The End is not. Mainly Author Statements or Statements made from a Unbiased party, which would not be applicable here. You are right though- This is not a debunk... Because there is nothing TO debunk. For as little solid proof that this is wrong, there is as little proof that it is right. Just because we are using the very word you put on there against you does not make the point we make any lesser- In fact, it is a common thing for people to point out things that may contradict a opponents argument. The matter of fact here is, You are taking a Statement about a being from that being themself, when said being is not proven to be a unbiased source in this situation. If I were to say that I had the power to destroy the Planet, and that was all the evidence I had, would you believe me? No, you probably wouldn't. Same applies here.

 

[TioKill]

The End never had a statement where it clearly stated it was a living concept

 

[Theuser789]

My proof is the evidence present in the game, your counter-proof is "I don't agree with this" which is fine, but it doesn't really matter. This thread doesn't depend on your opinion. It can just tally that up to disagree, but unless it's an actual debunk, it doesn't matter.

 

[JJSliderman]

The statements are not ironclad, they can just refer to its ability to destroy everything and be superior to everything that came before.

 

[ElixirBlue]

Does anyone have in-game contradictions to counter The End’s words?

 

[JJSliderman]

The End’s words don’t prove it’s a living concept to begin with, it’s people taking that and interpreting it as the End being the actual concept of entropy.

 

[ElixirBlue]

Are there any contradictions to them?

 

[Theuser789]

"It could be"s aren't counters either. They aren't debunks.

 

[JJSliderman]

Are there any contradictions to them?

Technically no, but there’s nothing solidly proving it either.

 

[TheKingStrategist13]

My proof is the evidence present in the game, your counter-proof is "I don't agree with this" which is fine, but it doesn't really matter. This thread doesn't depend on your opinion. It can just tally that up to disagree, but unless it's an actual debunk, it doesn't matter.

No, our proof is not just "I don't agree." It's "This doesn't make logical sense because it's just a few words being slapped around by a unreliable narrator". At that point this is just you interpreting the character as being a certain thing, which is fine, but not when it's not backed up.

Allow me to bring in a example from this very wiki- The Universe Arcana from Persona 3. It is stated to be able to do The Impossible, and that it is the greatest power the character called Igor has seen. Yet this wiki does not take that to mean that The Universe Arcana is stronger than the character Tatsuya Suou. Just because something is said to be something by a being in verse does not inherently make it that thing, and this is a even worse case where the being in question is talking about itself.

Your argument boils down to "Ok but nothing say's it can't do this"

Nothing say's Raditz can't use Ice Manipulation, but we all know he doesn't have it. Just because The End is saying they are X thing does not really make them to be X thing. Just as we are required to bring solid proof to debunk something, you are required to bring solid proof to bring that something up in the first place, not a handful of statements made by a unreliable narrator.

 

[Alexander]

No, our proof is not just "I don't agree." It's "This doesn't make logical sense because it's just a few words being slapped around by a unreliable narrator". At that point this is just you interpreting the character as being a certain thing, which is fine, but not when it's not backed up.

Allow me to bring in a example from this very wiki- The Universe Arcana from Persona 3. It is stated to be able to do The Impossible, and that it is the greatest power the character called Igor has seen. Yet this wiki does not take that to mean that The Universe Arcana is stronger than the character Tatsuya Suou. Just because something is said to be something by a being in verse does not inherently make it that thing, and this is a even worse case where the being in question is talking about itself.

Your argument boils down to "Ok but nothing say's it can't do this"

Nothing say's Raditz can't use Ice Manipulation, but we all know he doesn't have it. Just because The End is saying they are X thing does not really make them to be X thing. Just as we are required to bring solid proof to debunk something, you are required to bring solid proof to bring that something up in the first place, not a handful of statements made by a unreliable narrator.

time eater is a being that destroys space-time,solaris is a being that is a sun god(archetype)erazor djinn is a djinn from a lamp,dark gaia is a being of darkness,and the end could be the end of anything.
but of course,is just a theory,a game theory.

 

[JJSliderman]

"It could be"s aren't counters either. They aren't debunks.

They aren’t counters, but “this enemy can destroy everything physically and that’s why it calls itself an all consuming void” is a simpler path than “I am the literal concept of entropy because I bring everything to nothing through entropy specifically even though I blow planets up with giant lasers”

 

[Theuser789]

The latter literally isn't what I said. I never said The End destroys shit with entropy, only that it represents that. If you're going to strawman me, do it right.

I am going to wait for staff now