Could you not make such assumptions? All I know is that Ultima has the most knowledge when it comes to the tiering system, never said that the user is 100% correct or omniscient about it. Also quite rude to make it sound like I idolize the user.
Roughly, it would be something with far more clarity to the mechanics going on. The Reality - Fiction Interaction page needs to be updated it seems, can you source any other page that talks about the manner?
Again, where are said standards? It doesn't contradict it because I said it was a what-if for the game already having a (valid) Low 2-C / Low 1-C difference.
I don't see the feats in the first place due to seeing this standards as deeply flawed and so generous it invites all kinds of characters who are not Low 1-C. What job do this standards even do to portray how anti-feats would look like and what misconceptions to avoid?
"The player", which is not even their name, needs too much speculation and "an insistence on a lack of evidence being acceptable for certain claims" to be Low 1-C, but then that would mean I would need to see what standards are you talking about, so this doesn't matter.
While you are correct on most things, you have to realize that the arguments provided in the original post do not point towards a higher dimensional existence, and much less Low 1-C.
Both of these do not hint towards a literal player, in no way, shape or form.
This is a very blatant misinterpretation of Flowey's word. The line is proposedly ambiguous to trick the player into thinking he knows it's a game.
Again, this is just guesswork. A suggestion.
Metafiction.
I'll let someone else tackle your other counterarguments, but I wanna clear this one up first.
You're not wrong.
That's fair.
That is quite interesting.
Which is a Low 2-C feat according to the profile.
? And this is supposed to be a support statement because..?
This is just Flowey breaking the fourth wall and talking directly to you, that's not being transcendent at all, and nowhere in the game such a thing is stated or even implied.
Seeing a 4th Dimensional Universe as less real, or fiction, means you're at least 5th dimensional.
You can, that's how Wukong got into. Tier 1 albeit in a different way. Viewing fiction as fiction is also another.
He already got that mainly from the cosmological aspect and stuff. Not necessary the same case as this one.
Mainly the transcending part is similar but what he transcends isn't fiction, he basically transcends an endless recursion of time-space so yeah.
Actuallyspaceman is going to do it but for now let's end it here to prevent the thread from getting derailed.
Not really, just asking why one is a game and other isn't.
Deltarune game mechanics are weird we don't know if they are canon or they aren't or if they are in a mid point, doesn't help that the game opperates on different laws of undertale while still sharing some laws, is kinda weird applying undertale laws to deltarune
I see.
Undertale has mechanics connected to its power systems, Deltarune has few characters knowing the mechanics for the sake of tutorials, and is not a finished game, so we can't judge yet.
I see.
I wholeheartedly agree with Saikou.
Similar but not similar to apply cross the rules
I suspected that either there was some page I was missing or you were using one I already read & misunderstanding it, and it was the latter.
It was just to illustrate my point to GodlyCharmander that "R>F" stuff doesn't require you to significantly affect anything, per our standards. Whether or not the Player actually qualifies for that isn't relevant to what I was telling him, because as I said, I'm overall neutral to this matter even if I lean towards agreement.
I'm not sure if there necessarily has to be, though? As long as the audience's existence in-universe is established, and as long as they are properly defined as being superior to the fiction they are consuming on an existential level, that's that. The "real world" need not have to be explicitly referenced.
I guess that can be expanded upon, yeah.
Why not, though? Especially when it's a meta detail like the player canonically being ontologically greater than the game. No matter what, you can't just bypass the game's progression completely, even if you're described as being superior to the game's entire world. In fact, if I may, I'd like to direct your attention to this tidbit from that page you just linked:
I'm well aware that seeing something as fiction is not automatically tier 1, in the same way that we don't give anyone Low 2-C or Low 1-C solely because they exist outside of spacetime. But I'm not sure why you seem to act as though we disregard the possibility of counter-evidence. Maybe the supporters just aren't convinced by your arguments.
I find this manner very problematic. This isn't something that should be insisted on in a thread for 1 verse, even if you don't 100% agree with the upgrade. Nor do I need to go revise the standards, as you said, that don't even say something this basic. You can't really say that based on no rules, I could be 100% sure that's wrong or think it's wrong while being as unsure there as you are, both of our personal opinions are just as irrelevant. Better rules shoud be made while this thread is ignored.
What you mean why not? What do you mean "the player canonically being ontologically greater than the game"? You are free to elaborate on that as much as it is possible. You don't have anything to back up how one "can't just bypass the game's progression" if the latter is fiction to them; I'm real and can re-write fiction if it's in my hands, I only won't by sheer conformity with it & how it's meant to be consumed, it's written nowhere that we should always apply the latter generosity to any entity "real" next to what they see as "fiction".
Then this is downright malefic, how can you be "aware that seeing something as fiction is not automatically tier 1" but yet quote me something saying otherwise ("such as by perceiving them as literal fiction/unreality (or being comparatively more "real" in nature)"). You go off entirely by rules and standards that we do not have written but yet you think you know of them, how to apply them & what to do in certain situations, to do that and act as if said rules and standards are real is horrible. At least you do admit in parts when you're not sure and that our rules are vague.
Omega Flowey and Chara seems extensions of the in-verse mechanics, Stats are a part of the lore, HP is mentioned by random NPCs. Chara isn't limited to mention
As a player, none by name, only suggestions.
If you agree that they are, in fact, canonically game mechanics, then you agree that Undertale is canonically acknowledged as being a video game, and that the Player is thus a fairly literal contextualization of us within the verse's setting, instead of some entity that acts as a stand-in. Either you try to justify it all as in-verse mechanics that resemble the workings of a videogame, or you effectively agree to that thread's proposal. I really do not see how any middle ground exists here.
None of those protests actually matter here. We treat viewing a reality as literal fiction as being enough to qualify for a level of transcendence over it, and that is that, especially if this reality actually exists as a lower world of its own. This is something that has been agreed to for a long, long time now, and I don't think we ought to change that just because you misunderstand how the Tiering System works.
That doesn't necessarily preclude the existence of a literal Player, no. I don't see at all how it does, in fact. A metafictional entity having impact on the setting at all does not make it into a non-metafictional character.
This is the greatest example of non-sequitur, or in worse terms, "false equivalency".
I will do a fun little experiment, and count how many unsupported and untrue statements you make in the following sentences.
Unsupported.
Mostly unsupported, we're not viewed as a player, we're viewed as a fictional force outside of the universe, not necessarily said force will be of higher existence in relation to the verse.
What should we prove a negative? You seem under the very strange confirmation bias that, because something resembles a concept, then said concept must also be applied.
It does acts as a rebuttal to the evidence used to prove as such. The anomaly is directly mentioned as an anomaly, and is very clearly meant to be our influence, thus, all the evidence that suggests the characters are referring to the player automatically gain another explanation, that in fact, the characters are speaking to this fictional anomaly, thus making this already sketchy evidence to become even sketchier.
The OP as well as Ultima are clearly basing off the proposition of an idea called "ontology". Not sure if you're very familiar with it but I'll break it down:
Being a force "outside the universe" which is quote 'Undertale', and also acting as an ontologically higher state of being or more conversely information, can qualify. And I'd like to bring this up from earlier:
This actually does refer to a player, his dialogue make pretty clear reference
All of that being very indicative towards a force, that is able to control frisk, lies outside the game's rules and thus reality.
I'd like to move my vote to neutral, because I'd like to see maybe a shake of sand more evidence, but I'd like to point out to you that the conclusion isn't simply false, if this is obviously still being discussed. There's obviously some sense to what is being argued. I just think you're misunderstanding what the reasoning behind the premise is and that you are only attacking what the premise says, not what it means.
What is the evidence for ontology here? Because just having mechanics governing the reality certainly isn't enough. How does scarce evidence that have a humongous amount of red herring and different interpretations justify such an ideology? It doesn't.
I do not have to repeat myself and say this is not hard evidence due to the inherently proposed ambiguity of making Flowey say the fallen human's name (which doesn't necessarily match ours), making possible that Flowey is just misinterpreting the anomaly for said fallen human, like he did in quite literally every other route of the game.
"If it's still being discussed, it has some sense behind it".
