Comments on: Squall’s Dead

By: Vicente Pelechano Servando

Vicente Pelechano Servando — Sun, 22 Jan 2012 11:16:00 +0000

Final Fantasy VIII has its deep meaning, it is about coming of age, is one of those works were the character interactions are more important than the story.

It is not about withces, is not about time c(k)ompression that shit is unimportant, it is about Squall becoming an adult, acting at the start as an emo asshole that hinks beinc emo is cool and edgy and slowly softens to the lovely pragmatism that is becoming an adult.

The rest doesn’t make fucking sense because it doesn’t have to, it is just a stage, the same way Final Fantasy VII’s story was about enviromentalism and IX was about War, just check the stories of said games closely.

In VII you have the main protagonist suddendly having being mind controlled by the dead villain who revives and destroys the world just because, then suddendly it happened that Cloud was part of a failed experiment to replicate Sefirot’s Clones because it is good to have good soldiers being maniacs run amok for every company that tries to control the world…I loved VII but the plot is bullshit, it is ok for JRPG’s but if you compare it to Suikoden’s plot for instance it doesn’t hold ground.

Same goes to IX when suddendly it happened that the protagonist was part of an artificial alien race that…

Saying I like Final Fantasy for the plot is like saying that you buy Hustler’s for the writting, either you are completely illiterate in gaming and literary terms and it is just impressing your virgin mind, or it is nostalgia speaking for you.

By: John

John — Sat, 05 Nov 2011 04:58:00 +0000

I think that this theory was made because this person really thought that every final fantasy game has to have a deep story or meaning to it. The idea of the game really being a study of squall’s mind right before he experiences death is a fascinating idea but I really don’t think that this is the case since this is a fantasy RPG game and weird shit is supposed to happen in these games.
I would really like to see a movie about something like that though. We see into the mind of someone experiencing death and see his/her life flash before the person’s eyes and they contemplate what their lives might have played out like while they experience what feels to them like decades.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Tue, 23 Aug 2011 10:16:00 +0000

Lol.

By: Adam Belsha

Adam Belsha — Sun, 19 Jun 2011 08:23:00 +0000

I was trying to reply to something that was said farther down the page, but my Facebook sign-in flubbed and I made a new post. :

By: Kenny Vider

Kenny Vider — Sun, 12 Jun 2011 02:30:00 +0000

Who mentioned FF7? This whole thing is about 8.
Sorry if you were replying to someone… I was just kinda confused where 7 came in at.

By: Adam Belsha

Adam Belsha — Sun, 29 May 2011 00:42:00 +0000

I’m not saying I don’t believe in what others believe. I’m saying there are holes in their logic that works against them. You seem to have missed the fact that I’m for interpretation: I’m not arguing against the idea of the opinion. It’s believing a fallacious one in the face of overwhelming opposing evidence that bugs me, and it bugs me because I’m trying to be involved in a serious discussion with people who are preaching an erroneous argument. A does not equal B simply because you tell yourself that it does.

The general idea here is that you’re not wrong because I don’t agree with you…you’re wrong because you’re wrong. I’ve already noted that “Squall is Dead” ignores and alters some information, makes the ironic argument that “unrealistic” and “impossible” events occur in a FANTASY video game, and uses the word “misinterpretation” to refer to other peoples’ ideas about the game (yet how can the word “misinterpretation” exist if there is no wrong interpretation?). Those are my reasons for not agreeing with the theory. In my mind, it is not sound. The invalidity of the argument needs to be corrected to keep fallacious arguments from polluting real logic and debate within the community.

Those are my reasons. I feel like I’ve explained myself numerous times at this point. If you’d like to discuss it further, feel free to message me on my Facebook account as I don’t feel like carrying out a one-on-one argument with somebody in public.

By: Rahul

Rahul — Sat, 28 May 2011 23:51:00 +0000

There’s no such thing as an objectively invalid interpretation. The very
nature of interpretation makes it subjective. Religion is a great example:
people who are religious believe what they believe, and just because you
don’t believe it as well doesn’t make them wrong. It just means you disagree
with them.

No one’s hurting you when they agree with Squall’s Dead. I guess I just
don’t understand why you care so much.

By: Rahul

Rahul — Sat, 28 May 2011 23:51:00 +0000

No one’s hurting you when they agree with Squall’s Dead. I guess I just
don’t understand why you care so much.

By: Adam Belsha

Adam Belsha — Sat, 28 May 2011 23:40:00 +0000

I speak from experience. I make no assumptions as I’ve personally observed these behaviors in the past. People use erroneous reasoning and they cherry pick to support their own opinions all the time. Ever hear of…religion? It’s a lot like that. You can preach logic until you’re blue in the face, that doesn’t mean they’ll listen to you.

And interpretations become invalid when there is either strong evidence to go against them, or when they are filled with holes as I said above. There’s nothing wrong with having a casual opinion about something so long as it’s rational. This reminds me of an image I have saved on my hard drive.

In a book: “The curtains were blue.”
Your teacher thinks: “The curtains represent his immense depression and his lack of will to carry on.”
What the author meant: “The curtains were fucking blue.”

Interpretations can be invalid.

By: Rahul

Rahul — Sat, 28 May 2011 23:09:00 +0000

Your post makes numerous assumptions about other people just because they -
apparently – interpet a game differently than you do. Who are you to say
their interpretations are invalid? And why do you insist on claiming that
those people are unable to change their minds? Kind of an arrogant attitude,
if you ask me.