You're browsing the GameFAQs Message Boards as a guest. Sign Up for free (or Log In if you already have an account) to be able to post messages, change how messages are displayed, and view media in posts.
Seriously though, great info :)
"You were that round's SCOTUS, and I... was its hanging chad." -- AstralEsper
lol I agree with the previous 3 posters. And of course Astral's always amazing analysis. The main thing to remember is... theres time travel involved. Of course its gonna be ****ed up. Paradoxes and time-loops just mess with your head because we can't grasp them quite correctly with our linear minds.
Thanks, that was an amazing answer.
It's still confusing but like the earlier poster said, that's only because of our linear minds.
Thanks a lot :)
Playstation 3 - Tyler310
Wii FC - 6467 2736 2041 0133 (Tyler)
He he, don't you just love situations involving time travel.
I have to admit that I too have given this very topic some thought. I think that Astral prety much nailed it. Good Job!
. . .no man can truly master the staff of order until he casts it aside ~The Basis of Order (The Saga of Recluse)
Wow.... just.... wow.
]]-[[ ][ ]]\/[[
Confirmed 11/30/07: FF7 For PS3 in 2009.
The future ain't what it used to be.
I was always wondering how the Time-Loop could be broken if everyone went back to the beginning of the present with no memory of what had happened. That would make everyone (esp Garland) just as likely to make the same mistakes. Also, I was thinking that the party that shows up out of nowhere in the beginning of the game was returning from the previous loop.
But the important part of the ending is the loop is broken, so things are changed and the past will not repeat, despite past mistakes being repeated as a recurring theme later in the series. This alternate timeline idea (inside vs outside the loop) makes a lot of sense. I just wasn't thinking fifth dimensionally enough (first 3 dimensions occupy one point in time, 4th dimension = one complete timeline, 5th = alternate lines (forks, loops, parallel, etc), 6th = skewed lines (time's "3rd dimension") = brain implosion. Or something like that.
Nothing to see here. Move along.
I usually attribute the fact that the loop can just start again to relate to the fact that this game has lots of replayablility. Each time you start a new quest with a new set of warriors you have to solve the same time loop over and over again because it never does really stop.
Hmm... Garland mentioned the warriors of light dieing over and over again.
That doesn't make sense though. How would they come back through the loop, then?
My theory is that we might be looking too deeply into this. If the storyline was as deep as we are assuming it is, they would probablly explain it. Maybe it IS just impossible...?
Maybe we are giving Square's first Final Fantasy game too much credit?
Playstation 3 - Tyler310
Wii FC - 6467 2736 2041 0133 (Tyler)
Thats quite possible. I often feel that things that are well beloved often have much deeper meanings tied to them than what the original author might have intended. I was often annoyed in my english classes when they would explain the "deeper" meanings behind some works. How do they really know it was meant to be that deep and have all that extra meaning? They don't. They just want it too to make it seem that much better. The original author might never have even thought of half of those things and probably never even intended it to be taken that far.
I'm not saying this is the case with Final Fantasy, but its certainly a possibility. More and more has been added to it over the years to try to make sense of it because it has become so popular. If it wasn't popular, these gaps may never have even been considered or filled in at all. Perhaps originally it was just a crappy quick attempt at a convoluted "story" to be used as filler wrapped around this game engine.
Oh, I think there's very little question about us giving too much credit to what most probably actually was a crappy convoluted story that no one really bothered to think out too far in order to churn out a last-ditch effort to prevent the company from going under. And yet, despite (or perhaps in part because of) its shortcomings, that makes it all the more fascinating. Actually, despite its shoddy assembly/construction, there's some pretty neat things about FF1's storyline that, had they thought to work out just a little better, could have made for an excellent NES-era storyline. Garland's centrality as alpha and omega, the Light Warriors being from the alternate timeline, the elemental forces facilitating both Fiends and Light Warriors. If they'd made a few things clearer, or even dropped a few more clues, it could have been all the more clear and detailed. Personally, I would have loved to have some clues as to just what sparked Garland's hatred (DoS's added explanation makes sense, but really reduces Garland to a much more simplistic and 1-dimensional character). Maybe a clue or two to who the Light Warriors really were. I dunno, some little points like that.
Then again, this particular to the NES era, and 1987 at that, we should probably be grateful that we got a storyline that's even this coherent given the other stuff out there at the time. Something like Dragon Quest might make more sense, but... it's also a lot simpler. Same with Zelda. I really can't think of a more complex storyline from 1987 or earlier (and then FFII would come to blow it away, though from what I hear, the later Dragon Quest games significantly improved on this dimension as well afterwords). So, all things consider, and especially when you control for mistranslation, I guess we didn't make out so badly. And hey, look at all the time we've (here, mostly me) have spent (or wasted) analyzing it! In a way, intentional or not (probably not), that is part of the value of the storyline. After all these years, I feel like I've actually come to "care" about Garland as a character - and I think that says something about the story, sensical or not.
As to interpretation in general... yeah, reading too much into what the author intended can be problematic. However, part of the wonder and joy of literary works is that they can mean so many different things to so many different people. Because really, the subjective experience of the story is a composite of what the author has brought to the table (in terms of inspiration) and what the reader/viewer brings to the table (in terms of subjective perception and consequent interpretation). I was taught that, as long as you can support your interpretation with the text, then it's a valid one. And I think that's a pretty good rule. Maybe not all interpretations are equally interesting or close to what the author intended, but if they follow this rule, then they all at least work on some basic level. While it is obviously important that we not impute what we see to what the author meant while writing it (because we can't know for sure absent an explicit revelation from the author), we can receive a message from a story that other people might not that, regardless, is still meaningful in a very real way.
And I'm probably almost out of space, so I'll stop now. But as to the question, it is still possible to reconcile (and in the first version he said "you will die here" or something, which isn't problematic). Additionally, even if they come from outside the loop to break it, if they fail, they could ultimately become incorporated as a part of it - thus doomed to repeat their journey endlessly only to fail at the hands of Chaos. You can introduce new variables to the loop, but in order to break it, they have to change something determinative, otherwise they just become part of it.