This is a split board - You can return to the Split List for other boards.

Why do people hate the 'Squall is Dead' theory?

#1SocialAnXieTyPosted 3/15/2010 2:35:58 AM

Forgive me in advance if it's really that annoying, but I just checked out the site for it and I thought it was a very well thought-out theory as to what might have happened through the game.. but the few people I've seen mention it on these forums seems to think that only gullible idiots could be lured in by it.

Anyway, discuss.

#2sniperfox29Posted 3/15/2010 2:44:05 AM
Now lets see, how about the fact the board was flooded with the same moronic posts that only stated "LOL I found this link, its awesome" followed by the link and discuss.

That's it, no why the TC thought the theory was good, just here's a link, discuss.

Now if you have a valid point you want to discuss (and for the moment will take the Squall's dead theory as legit instead of the BS that it is), don't you think its best for you to put your case forwards before you expect other people to do the same?

This person, sorry, these people didn't, nor did they think that copy pasting each others posts and spamming the board up with the same useless crap wasn't a good idea, hence why the theory (whatever merit it actually had) was discarded from the get go.

Oh, and the fact the theory was rubbish and had even less going for it then Ulti = Cheeseburger.
---
Compassion is no virtue, cruelty is no vice.
GT - Sniper Fox29.
#3magicpotPosted 3/15/2010 4:07:46 AM
Squall's not dead....he's just still plugged into the matrix. All he has to do is follow the white rabbit and we will have a new "the one"
---
GIMME ELIXIR!!!
#4fireinthewrongholePosted 3/15/2010 4:37:10 AM
It's not "well thought-out." He's making a huge leap in logic. How do you go from "there are no lead-up to certain things, so the events are weird and lots of weird stuff are introduced" to "Squall is dead and the whole thing must be a dream." How do you go from the first point to the next? There are plenty of possible--and more plausible--explanations as to why the writers didn't lead up to certain events. Perhaps they wanted to surprise you with the events. Or perhaps they were just being lazy. And he claims that weird creatures like Moombas can only exist in Squall's dream. Why find those creatures weird when GFs are established to be real since you encounter them before his supposed death? It's a fantasy world. Such creatures can exist. To assume that Squall is dead when he has absolutely no other basis for that assumption is dumb. Dumb. As in, like you said, only gullible idiots could be lured in by it.
And no, he has no other evidence. That was his main support. His other ones, if possible, are even worse. Why question why Squall was alive after he was impaled? It's quite likely that Ultimecia simply wanted to incapacitate him so she could question him, which we can see later on anyway. How was she able to do that without killing him? She's a highly skilled sorceress. It's magic. How was his wound completely healed? It's magic. That's the logical assumption. It makes no sense to conclude that Squall died and he's now dreaming.
And what were the rest? That Squall's line after Seifer's death was a foreshadowing? No. You only interpret it that way if you buy into the BS theory. All the line is meant to do is shed light on Squall's character--how he can't handle loss (even if it's Seifer), hint at his rationale for putting up a facade, and how self-conscious he really is. That's it. The guy does the same thing with the ending--twist it to fit his theory, ignoring everything else that's happening.
I forget who said it, but it really sums up the theory well--the guy's mainly just trying to excuse bad writing by replacing it with terrible writing. If Squall was dead throughout the entire game, the story would be EXTREMELY horrible.
---
"Im not stupid. GAMEFAQ's PLEASE CLOSE THIS TOPIC SINCE MY QUESTION WAS ANSWERED!"
- bes4360
#5SocialAnXieTy(Topic Creator)Posted 3/15/2010 5:58:57 AM

You do realize that's the entire meaning to a theory, right? To theorize, to discuss and interpret in a way that your mind sees fit. It makes sense to a point when you open your mind a bit, rather than write it all off simply as "It's magic". In the end, there is a reality to the worlds games such as these create. It's okay to take what you got out of your experience and share it with the world.. that's the beauty of freedom.

As for questioning my reasons for thinking it as plausible, they're all in the blog that this man wrote. I may not completely agree with everything he said, but that doesn't mean I can't see the perspective from which he's coming from. I don't even fully believe that this is the true interpretation the developers tried to put forth, I just think it's an interesting point of view to take it from.

Also, because a lot of people suddenly discovered this persons theory at once and thought it was interesting enough to share with such gentle and loving fans of this work of art, it immediately destroys any credibility the theory has? That's like writing off great musical acts such as The Beatles, Led Zeppelin, and Pink Floyd as "rubbish bands" simply because they had large followings at the snap of a finger. Popularity doesn't equal mediocrity, my friend.

I simply asked what makes people react on such a hostile level towards the theory, and wouldn't you know it that I got hostile responses. Again, I never said this theory was the theory, I only said that it's definitely an interesting thought. No reason to act so immature about the situation.

#6fireinthewrongholePosted 3/15/2010 6:37:18 AM
>>>You do realize that's the entire meaning to a theory, right? To theorize, to discuss and interpret in a way that your mind sees fit. It makes sense to a point when you open your mind a bit, rather than write it all off simply as "It's magic". In the end, there is a reality to the worlds games such as these create. It's okay to take what you got out of your experience and share it with the world.. that's the beauty of freedom.<<<

No, that's not what it means to theorize. You don't draw an arbitrary conclusion out of nowhere and try to twist meanings within the game to support it. You interpret actual events, not drawing an arbitrary conclusion out of nowhere. Here's my favorite poorly made-up theory that I always throw against theories like this.
Zell is constantly annoyed about not having hotdogs from the cafeteria. My theory is that that annoyance develops into hatred. Hatred against Garden. Hatred against all SeeD. He has knowledge of how a sorceress' powers are passed down. So he kills Rinoa and inherits her powers. And we know that sorceress powers changes your body. So in the same way Adel becomes masculine, Zell starts becoming feminine. The tattoo on his face changes shape to resemble the marks on Ultimecia's face. And we know that Zell knows about Adel's seal, so he seals himself till the future when he can hatch his plan to get revenge on SeeD. We know that he has used GF, so it's likely that he forgot she was ever Zell. That's why Ultimecia asks you to reflect on your childhood. She doesn't remember hers. But she knows to draw Griever from Squall because he was the one who asked him for the ring. So there, my theory is that Zell is Ultimecia. I used evidence from the game too.
Or my other theory--Irvine has fourteen nipples. It gets EXTREMELY uncomfortable when it gets really cold and that's why he wears that thick coat. That's my theory of why Irvine wears a thick coat. Fourteen nipples. A "beautiful" interpretation, wouldn't you agree?
Really, that's not how you theorize at all. And also, when asking about how a sorceress healed a person's wounds, it's okay to "write it off" as "It's magic." I'm only explaining that one minor event. I don't see how that's more farfetched than writing off everything that happened in the game as "a dream."

>>>As for questioning my reasons for thinking it as plausible, they're all in the blog that this man wrote.<<<

Show me where. I already shut down all of his support. Read before you post.
#7fireinthewrongholePosted 3/15/2010 6:38:43 AM
>>>Also, because a lot of people suddenly discovered this persons theory at once and thought it was interesting enough to share with such gentle and loving fans of this work of art, it immediately destroys any credibility the theory has? That's like writing off great musical acts such as The Beatles, Led Zeppelin, and Pink Floyd as "rubbish bands" simply because they had large followings at the snap of a finger. Popularity doesn't equal mediocrity, my friend.<<<
LMAO! You think we're shutting it down because it's popular. Again, lrn2read, my friend. I already told you why the theory fails. Read it. It has nothing to do with the fact that so many people are gullible enough to fall for it. The "theory" sucks.
And I can't believe you actually compared that guy to The Beatles, Led Zeppelin, and Pink Floyd. lol

>>>I simply asked what makes people react on such a hostile level towards the theory, and wouldn't you know it that I got hostile responses. Again, I never said this theory was the theory, I only said that it's definitely an interesting thought. No reason to act so immature about the situation.<<<
While it being "popular" is not the reason we're shutting it down (we're shutting it down because it really is a stupid theory--nothing to do with popularity), we may be "hostile" because it's been spammed here so many times in the past few weeks. Five? Six? Not only is it annoying, but it's a discouraging thought that so many people would think that that man's ramblings makes for a good theory.
---
"Im not stupid. GAMEFAQ's PLEASE CLOSE THIS TOPIC SINCE MY QUESTION WAS ANSWERED!"
- bes4360
#8fireinthewrongholePosted 3/15/2010 6:52:55 AM
Oh, just to get it clear--I'm not speaking for everyone here. Mostly everyone else has been nice when explaining why the theory doesn't work.
But after seeing the topic repeatedly and seeing people continue to support it with the same exact lines--"It's well-supported. He drew evidence from the game. There's nothing that says that it's not true. It's completely possible and it's an interesting interpretation of the game."--I'm just getting annoyed. But really, I was not being immature in my initial post. If I described the theory as being stupid, it's because I sincerely believe that it is.
---
"Im not stupid. GAMEFAQ's PLEASE CLOSE THIS TOPIC SINCE MY QUESTION WAS ANSWERED!"
- bes4360
#9SocialAnXieTy(Topic Creator)Posted 3/15/2010 8:30:31 AM

The difference between your obviously sarcastic 'theoretical thoughts' and this mans 'Squall is Dead' theory is that his personally pertains to the story and overall character development of the lead character. You pretend as though he doesn't use actual events, when it's more than clear that he does. If you really wanted to believe that whole 'Zell is evil over hotdogs' bit, then go for it.. that's your right as a human being. But that Irvine theory was ridiculous and irrelevant. At least your 'Zell' concept pertained to the story a little bit.

When I mentioned the "popularity =/= mediocrity" bit, I wasn't referring to you.. but rather, the other poster. Sorry for the confusion. And I didn't compare this man to any of those bands, I only used them as examples towards my "popularity =/= mediocrity" formula. Though I still don't see exactly where you've disproved this theory completely and entirely other than shouting "ITZ MAGIK".

I can understand annoyance, but once more, this is merely an interpretation. If there's more than a few events that can coincide with it and also nothing that can completely disprove it, then it can be accepted as a theory.. that's a fact, regardless of what you may believe. If you choose to think it's mindless and non-sensible, then go for it. I choose to leave my mind open to it throughout future playthroughs, though as I said, I'm not 100% devoted to this theory as a literal interpretation.

#10phiefer3Posted 3/15/2010 9:09:16 AM
TC, you simply aren't listening. The theory is not being bashed by ANYONE for being popular. It's being bashed because it's nothing but complete garbage. Basically every facet of the theory is based on things that aren't even true within the game, or really aren't based on anything at all. There is absolutely zero merit to the entire theory. If you disagree then give us an example of an aspect that has merit and we'll show you where it falls apart.

What you seem to be mistaken for "bashing because it's popular" is about as valid as the theory itself. Here's how this whole scenario played out. The first person to post about this theory (I'll give him the benefit of the doubt and assume he was innocent and really thought this piece of garbage was interesting) makes a topic and says to discuss it. Everyone else follows the link sees just how terrible the theory is and points it out as being terrible (note: at this point the theory is being bashed SOLELY for being terrible, it's in no way "popular" at this point at all).

Then, upon seeing the responses about just how terrible the theory is, other posters decided to make a whole bunch of repeat topics that again simply give a link and say to discuss it. These people did NOT do this because they liked the theory at all, they did it ONLY because they were trolls and were just trying to annoy everyone else, and it worked. So still at that point it's STILL NOT POPULAR.

So the theory was first bashed because it was terrible. They theory continued to get bashed because it was still terrible, and because it was now just a tool that trolls were using.

As a last note, I'm starting to think that this topic is simply a next-generation version of those troll topics.

---
http://www.geekologie.com/2008/08/25/ninja.jpg
Everytime you see him, the phiefer's just so hype. He's dope on the board and he's magic on the mic. ~fidormula