Maybe we should ask the malfested guys Cass cured or the Fygul Cestemus dude she killed (or any of their averted victims) if they think there's a multiverse? =P
Would he really need the swords to achieve his new goal though? I mean, he intends to see humanity grow beyond what he had thought possible and that doesn't really need the swords, just patience. At most he might step in to make sure humanity lasts long enough to reach that point in the first place given how many ways the world could end in this series.
But then what defines a tangent? If Cassandra's timeline being altered as opposed to merely expanded doesn't count as a tangent, what degree of event would have to occur to qualify?
He directly says as much in his final chapter of Soul Chronicle, that his plan is set into motion, but he needs power to achieve his goal, then he says he will need both the cursed sword and the spirit sword, so yeah, even Zasalamel feeds into the "well yeah, the setup is different, but the end result is the same" pattern that all of the stories end with. And all I'm saying, really, is that if they were attempting to avoid this confusion, to truly establish a new and separate timeline, that they could just not include these things, because when they sprinkle that in to every story, I really am confused as to how it seems like I'm the only one out here that sees it. It's bizarre. Like we just went over with regards to Setsuka, I had reached an entirely different understanding of her story, and was even onboard with the change, but Tres pointed out that I missed the line, at the very end, where Setsuka says she's still going to pursue her vengeance plot on Mitsurugi anyway. Like, they didn't need to put that in, it clashes with the story narrative they just set up, but then... they did put it in, which has implications that it doesn't matter what these people do, their fates will end up the same.
Someone has to do something that actually changes the course of events as we know them. And yet no one seems willing to step up and do it, whether they have the knowledge, power, or both, any capacity to do so. Or they literally can't, even if they wanted to, that seems to be the implication I'm getting. All these new events, some of which aren't really "new" but "were never seen before by people who don't read all the lore", but some of which are actually new, either don't clash with the original narrative or don't have any implication on the original narrative. And all I'm looking for is for someone to break the mold, someone to alter destiny, someone to do... anything different. And they just won't. It's frustrating. I want an answer to this debate, either direction, but it doesn't seem like we're getting one before SoulCalibur VII, as every new story in SoulCalibur VI DLC is still following the same pattern of not actually changing things up, even if they're "different", they still end in a way that sets up SoulCalibur II and beyond to unfold just like it did before.
In terms of game logic, or even fiction logic in general, random folks that don't even have names don't have an impactful bearing on the story, unless it's a wide-reaching event, like saving an entire country or bringing one to ruin, something world-changing an event. They're just plot devices to drive events.
I don't know enough to say one way or the other, but from the bits and bobs I've heard, it's debatable if this is canon? And let's say it is canon, they shouldn't foxhole away very important lore into such an obscure thing as a digital smartphone game with limited availability that also has a time limit where it doesn't exist anymore. They should, at the very least, print up its lore into a physical medium or put it online or something concrete that we can use as reference material, if it's important. It doesn't help us to settle anything when people don't really know what it covers or entails in detail.
I kind of doubt they would answer this question, but you never know... maybe.
A chapter of Cassandra's story was literally named "A Broken Destiny."
When you select this particular phrasing, though, do remember that your position is the one that runs contrary to the general understanding of fictional timelines. The reason you feel you're "the only one out here who sees it" is that you're using terminology incorrectly and have remained steadfast in the validity of that choice of wording.
Sudden Xenosaga flashbacks.
Which you and I both know was just a reference to Broken Destiny, the game, rather than referring to actual literal broken destinies. And no destinies were broken in the SoulCalibur IV remake for PSP, except maybe ours with the introduction of Dampierre.A chapter of Cassandra's story was literally named "A Broken Destiny."
I disagree, but of course I do, considering my perspective. I even acknowledge the fact that I'm isolated, but that doesn't mean it's a matter of right and wrong, is my point. And I have very much reasoned why I feel the way that I do is only due to the material being presented before me and also my own personal experiences with similar narratives in the past, which is what anyone is going to do. I don't find it strange.When you select this particular phrasing, though, do remember that your position is the one that runs contrary to the general understanding of fictional timelines. The reason you feel you're "the only one out here who sees it" is that you're using terminology incorrectly and have remained steadfast in the validity of that choice of wording.
I've tried, more than tried even, to talk about these things, but you all get wrapped up in the nuance and don't actually get to the discussion because you're entangled in the idea that my belief structure is flawed rather than anything I'm actually saying. I don't even think that we really disagree that the plot is moving in the same or a similar direction as it originally did, it's just our process of arriving at that conclusion is so different that we find each other at arms over it, but it seems fairly obvious to me that we're rooted in our ways of thinking and aren't likely to change this. That was the original topic, too, whether or not we would repeat history or create a new, different future, and so far, they seem determined to get us back to where we were rather than do something different, as I've laid out my reasoning many times.
There are very consistent rules to it, as I've mentioned before, a major story beat needs to change, otherwise there's no significant divergence to the chain of causality to actually define it as a "new timeline". No-name NPCs who don't have the power to shape the world don't really qualify. It's not arbitrary, it's just that stems into butterfly effect territory that seriously doesn't apply unless a story is specifically employing that mechanic in its narrative, which SoulCalibur definitely does not seem to be doing. Again, I'm only presenting this based on the story so far, and what has or hasn't mattered in the past.
Neither was that silly non-canon Gauntlet story mode from Broken Destiny, and then there's things like Chronicles of the Sword and Weapon Master Mode having their own self-contained stories that run parallel to the main story and don't impact it in the slightest. If Unbreakable Soul is canon, it matters, but if it's not canon, it doesn't matter, is more or less how I see it. They've employed the technique, sure, I'll give you that, and I'm assuming you're right, because I don't know enough about Unbreakable Soul to verify that or not, but my thoughts on seeing Astral Chaos Cassandra was that she had tried several times to change the past and failed to do so, to the point of literally losing herself, not that she'd been jumping multiverses, since they didn't even begin to hint at the concept in Cassandra's Soul Chronicle. If they did talk about her multiverse-hopping, which they could have, to confirm that Unbreakable Soul was canon, then that would be a valid consideration, but since they didn't, and they could have, it's left ambiguous and uncertain. It would be so easy for them to just come out and say we're in a new paradigm, but their refusal to do so is what makes me doubt.
I'm aware that Before Crisis exists, but I'm not aware of things that actually call back to it or reference it in any meaningful way.
And that's all I'm getting at, they're not making things as clear cut as they could/should be. There are no firm answers, because they refuse to give them.
For what it's worth, I do agree that a lot of the major plot beats are likely to be replicated, nevermind that it arguably runs afoul of the Butterfly Effect and all logic--we re talking about SoulCalibur level writing after-all.
Yeeeaahhh, but here's the thing, you're not really just us here about that topic--you're arguing with the established definition of that word as far as it has ever been used in critical story analysis, metaphysics, pop culture, or anywhere where the idea of lines of causality are discussed in either trivial or heady empirical contexts. See above for the reasons why using it as you would choose to use it just erodes the very concept to sand that serves no other useful function but letting you avoid facing logical predicate-result consequences of facts that are inconvenient to what you want to believe. If a change isn't a "real" change until you've decided you feel it is so, and you'd rather engage in that kind of subjective exercise rather than discussing the chain of events on a level playing field--that is, if this is a situation where you can't be logically hemmed in by the facts because as a last resort you always have access to your "not changed enough" escape hatch, wherein your analysis of "enough" is subject only to your own sentiments and no further rational argumentation--then this entire conversation is entirely pointless, because in those terms, none of us can ever shake your position until you have already determined to do so yourself. Which again, int he circumstances, is your perogative. But it means the rest of us might as well be talking to a wall when we engage with you on the topic.
I disagree with this sentiment. This is absolutely not what I'm doing or want. You saw this in my resignation that the debate could have finally been at rest with Setsuka truly branching out into a new history... except apparently it isn't, because she's still going to do her Mitsurugi revenge plot after all. I am not an immovable wall, I just have a higher expected burden of proof on the game than the rest of you, it seems. They seem duty-bound to ensure that the future events will play out the same, evidenced by the endings of literally every single Soul Chronicle in the game putting the pieces in play to where they would. And no one yet has acted in a way that will change those events, and they don't seem like they will until maybe SoulCalibur VII.
I didn't mean to assert that those two options were the only valid ones, I only provided two possible examples. I'm not saying my ideas aren't extreme, just one possible fix to a scenario given the facts that Cassandra is aware of. A core of their tragic future stems from Pyrrha and Patroklos, so preventing their existence would definitely be a short solution to their troubles, but I guess that would be too easy? My point remains that Cassandra doesn't do anything of value with her future knowledge in SoulCalibur VI. She might do it in SoulCalibur VII, but she hasn't done it yet in SoulCalibur VI. The problem with her not acting yet, though, presents the possibility that she knew in the original story too, but was also unable to act, in the event of a time loop scenario. We've been over this, that Astral Chaos may be "fate" itself, and intervenes when people try and fight it, which is how/why Cassandra got whisked away.
Video games in general do a lot of silly things with their stories. Fighting games are no exception. There's nothing that says it couldn't be ironic with all of those silly over-the-top platitudes being an exercise in futility. If they wanted us to believe that carving your own fate was possible, then this game should have actually shown the characters carving new fates instead of repeating their past lives in greater detail. I will repeat and say that there was simply no reason for a lot of these shoehorned in at the last minute plot beats that indicate we'll be repeating SoulCalibur II and beyond if they actually intended on changing the future.
I would argue that this story did exactly "what <I> wanted it to do" if we're defining that as "turned back time to give SoulCalibur V a second chance at existing, because it would have been illogical and poorly received if after six years, the game we got was a remake / definitive edition of arguably the worst received game in the entire series" because that's exactly what SoulCalibur VI is. It contains within it the possibility that the future may change, but they remain absolutely hesitant to do so, going so far as to frame every story where the previous games can also be retold without a hitch.
Crazy as it may be for you to believe, I actually would answer this question yes. Azwel is, at his core, a plot device that is being used to string all of these ridiculous stories from the legacy of SoulCalibur together into a cohesive narrative. If Azwel didn't exist, then it would have been far more difficult to accomplish this herculean task. It's not that it's "going nowhere", Azwel just simply exists as a means to an end. He is a thread that weaves all the fabrics together, much the same as the Aval Organization itself. Azwel is the one who holds the power, so he's the one causing the most impact. Grøh, by comparison, has amounted to a lot less, and remains a bit mysterious as to what his bigger picture ideal really is, unless he's doomed to guide our original characters through the Libra of Soul branch of the stories moving forward, which is a bit sad, really.
The latter is usually one type of the former. It was also shown as such in "Unbreakable Soul," where Cassandra was able to be reunited with "her" sister (but not really her sister), as Sophitia was still alive in a world where the events of SCIV had not yet taken place.
I just don't know what I can say to hammer this point home. Fighting game stories are defined by the interactions between and of the main cast, not the nobodies that don't even have names. Sometimes minor characters who have names can contribute, but they still don't write the story. No-names absolutely do not, they are quite literally fodder. The ones who matter, for the terms of the story, are our named cast of playable characters. I don't find that concept to be alien or arbitrary in any respect.
The Koreans are named and playable characters, so yes, of course they matter. If Hwang, Mi-na, or Yun-seong die, of course that's important and has impact, even if the core plot remains the same. That is actually a reputable point of divergence, because it's a story point that affects our main cast in a significant way. None of those things have happened though or are hinted to happen, though, so that's where I'm at with saying we haven't changed anything as of yet. Even Han-myeong, he would have a presence too, even if he was only ever a literal clone character in SoulBlade, he still has a pivotal role in the stories of the Koreans, so he matters. Random Korean foot soldiers, naval service members, or students of Seong Dojang? Not important in the slightest, in terms of the narrative.
And I am contesting that with what I just said back to Rusted Blade in my last post, that a difference that is only a liberty taken to take our ridiculously convoluted and multi-layered ridiculous storytelling model of old SoulCalibur games and concatenate it into a single narrative as in SoulCalibur VI, those changes are not reflective to indicate a change to be a difference, but a change that makes the narrative work. You can say it's splitting hairs or is arbitrary, but I really do not see it that way. They either had to change some things or have a story that makes even less sense than it already does or doesn't in its current form, because the stories, word for word, as they were written prior to SoulCalibur VI, did not mesh well enough to just be taken wholesale and mushed together, such was the challenge of the SoulCalibur VI writers, to make it all work. All changes are not equal, and they have yet to make changes in the respects that actually move the story in a different direction or affect the lives of the cast of characters. They have planted seeds, but seeds alone do not produce fruit, that's what I'm getting at.
I didn't read On the Way to A Smile, I've only heard about it, so I wasn't privy to the specifics, and I don't even know what The Kids Are Alright even is, but I don't recall anything specific about Advent Children Complete that references that. Unless it's super obscure and you'd only know if you know what transpired in Before Crisis, because the Turks are definitely in ACC, but it was Reno and Rude for most of it, and Elena and Tseng show up later on, but that's really mostly it, I'm not sure what you're referring to. I'm not saying you're wrong, either, that's interesting if they do go more into Turks stuff, but the Turks were pretty conspicuously absent from Dirge of Cerberus, so I wonder whether or not they even followed up on it or if it was just a nod?
Feel I should point out, in SCII Amy was just a name in a backstory. Algol and Arturus were one-off names in a noncanon side mode.
Not true, she was featured in the opening cinematic as well, where her appearances matches that of her first appearance here in SoulCalibur VI. But Amy would be an example of a named minor character who evolved into having a purpose relevant enough to become a main character. It would be more impressive if she was a no-name whomever like the dudes that Cassandra saved or the endless number of slain mooks, but that isn't the case.
Algol and Arcturus are also names of stars, though, and Algol in SoulCalibur II was just a location, having nothing to do with the Hero King, and I find it happenstance that there was another hero named Arcturus in a side mode, I have excessive doubts that the Arcturus of Weapon Master is one in the same for Algol's son, because Algol the character wasn't yet conceptualized.
Yes, but your willingness to give up the ghost on whether your objections to terminology, is itself still predicated on your own arbitrary analysis of whether certain facts are important enough to be factored in. That's the issue with trying to have a debate about this subject where you won't embrace an objective standard like everyone else. With your Setsuka mistake, you've demonstrated that, yes, there are hypothetical scenarios in which you would drop the stick on the argument, but only where you have already made that determination under you own vague, idiosyncratic feelings, not based on any of the existing evidence which clearly already establishes the fact of a new timeline, as an objective and explicit matter.
Yers, but literally every other thing that she does aside from the two things you have already identified as "sufficient" to make a "real, true" difference, you dismiss as "not a real, true difference; not sufficient". Again, that's the classical logical fallacy known as begging the question, and your entire argument rests on that false logic/subjective, arbitrary analysis. Cassandra's entire narrative in this game, literally everything she does from the moment she is confronted by her older self, are things that did not happen in the original narrative--she doesn't take up arms until years later in that narrative, which is part of how we know she didn't have that knowledge the first go-around (but I would argue that even if that weren't the case, your argument that this isn't really a new timeline story even though that is what is beign manifestly presented as would defy Ockham's Razor).
Who said a closed time loop would be silly? From an internal storytelling logic perspective, what you propose would be much more logical. Tradional forking timeline stories have always been subject to all manner of paradoxes which the greatest minds of physics, phliosophy and formal logic have been unable to resolve, suggesting that even if time travel were a real physical possibility, it would probably follow closed-causality principles.
Indeed not, which as I'm sure you will recall, is something I said myself previously in this discussion: it would be something of a clever subversion. But it just strains credulity to believe that this whole franchise from herein is being positioned to be an artistic statement about ontological determinism, especially given the context: the writers in question, the existing story, the audience, and now the express events of the story itself which clearly disallow that all actions are invariably fixed in the retelling--which is a per se logical predicate for asserting the close causality loop in the first place.
Ai....yai....yai....
Fine, but we've been down this road several times before, and I for one have told you at least a half dozen times that I think we can agree that the writers will do the easy thing and return to the same plot beats again and again. Of course they will. But that doesn't make your original full-throated assertion that it's unreasonable for anyone to call this new story a different timeline any more secure, now that we've seen indisputable proof within the story that this it is in fact a new timeline. Nevermind that we can all agree that, given the nature of the story and these particular writers, they are certain to recycle many parts of the story (whether that makes sense from a causality standpoint or not).
/ :D / bwahahaha!). But you gotta let this one go, if you ask me. Because you were just categorically wrong about that narrow question, and all the walls of text and subjective dissembling about "major vs. minor differences" isn't going to change the core analysis here. And at this point it just makes you look obstinate and intractable on a subject once you have your druthers up.I don't know what could be considered less "hesitant" about displaying one's intention to retell the reboot somewhat differently than the decision to throw in actual timetravelers going back to try to change the past...
We all understand your priorities and why this notion appeals to you. Some of us might even share your preferences in some respects. What we don't understand is why you still think this is on the table.
Yeah, but Azwel could serve all of those roles without having the ability to divine the future. There's just no reason to add that capability as an element of the story for a villain whose primary character trait is scheming, if ultimately it turns out everything is pre-destined anyway and those visions are just a joke to which he is the punchline. Or at least, there's no reasons to do so that I can imagine are actually the ones which governed those story choices.
Oh, I would have saved my Nyte commentary if I knew you were converging on that aspect of the debate yourself. Ok, yeah, I get it. And of course his arguments were no better or more rational than yours: I didn't even see all of them and I feel confident saying your argument was certainly better organized and more based in an interpretation of evidence than in gut feelings.
Too selfish and malicious more like. D=
Dante said:
I don't feel that way, though I can see I guess how you'd come to that conclusion. I also take issue with "vaguely defined", as I feel I've defined it quite clearly, several times, over the duration of this thread. I've even said as much in recent posts, my qualifications to identify this as a changed timeline.
Unless you take the stance, as I have, that we are in a closed loop timeline scenario, as with Azwel, that this did, in fact, happen originally, we just weren't privy to it. Cassandra always did have a pretty firm hatred for the swords, not just Soul Edge, but also Soul Calibur, while practically everyone else always saw them as pure evil and pure good, for better or for worse. The idea that Cassandra served as a threat to the two swords causing the Astral Chaos to swallow her up as an act of self-preservation isn't insane. Cassandra's early romp could potentially cause a manner of disorder to things if she channels her Divine Force powers in some sort of story-relevant way, but as of yet, she hasn't done this. It's a "we'll see" situation, for now.
If we take Cassandra's vow of silence and secrecy to herself as an absolute, and she never resolves herself to act until it's too late (and she gets sucked up by Astral Chaos when she makes her attempt), then current Cassandra could absolutely be the same Cassandra we've already seen in a closed time loop scenario. As for Zasalamel, his is the hardest to disprove, as I'm sure you've gathered from my thoughts here and there and everywhere. Zasalamel himself is an enigma, however, a psuedo-time-lord who is capable of reincarnating (and apparently not reincarnating, and he figures this out sometime after SoulCalibur III), and he may have fits with trying to break the closed time loop despite his powers, or maybe not even he understands fully the situation that we find ourselves in. Zasalamel's new motivation could, for the sake of argument, turn back to wanting to die again if his attempt to cultivate humanity fails. And maybe it is the failed ritual of death that led to Abyss / Night Terror that teaches him how to keep his current body forever instead of reincarnating, but these are answers for our future selves to maybe find out.
Unless we are in a closed-loop scenario and those time travelers are acting in vain, of course. But my particular "hesitant" here is referring to SoulCalibur VI itself refusing to make major changes, keeping us on the hook for a sequel, keeping the possibilities open that they could just do the same things and none of the time travel stuff is having an effect, but it could, but it could not, but it could, but it could not... it's upsetting to see their waffling. Pick a path and walk it, this wishy-washy stuff is just always annoying.
Because every story has threads that lead into SoulCalibur II, III, IV, and V? If we were set on a course to avoid that fate, then they wouldn't have done this.
I mean, that more or less sums up my points and my position. It's not so grand a difference to say we're on a totally different paradigm, at least not yet. Though the biggest unanswered question, for me at least, is what exact model of timeline we're using here. If there is only one observable line at any given time, or if different parallel lines are even possible to coexist on an observable level.
I guess my slightly altered perception of humanity that thinks that would be fine is to blame for considering it a valid solution, I dunno. Selfish, maybe, but malicious, definitely not. "For the greater good" bears no malice. It's a less desirable action, but if it prevents other problems, could be worth it.
It again ultimately depends on the timeline model being used. If you're traveling into the past, you alter the past, and it destroys your old future, as opposed to creating a new future that exists on a parallel line, then it's a different scenario. It's important because so far, we've only seen people travel into the past, not the future. The possibility may not be able to exist, if that's the case. And if it is a closed time loop determined by fate, and those involved are doomed to repeat it endlessly ("eternally retold"), then while they may appear to be doing this, it could still be that nothing they do matters and they're always going to be in this loop, no matter what happens. The apparent will of the universe pushing everyone to their same futures despite the new actions and/or things sent into the past seem to make this a possibility.
It could be exemplifying the exercise in futility. He might have different goals, but the outcome is the same, because he's imprisoned by fate.
Genuine question. Has fate, a truly inescapable fate through prophecy or other methods ever been a thing in the series? Cuz I'm drawing a blank. This series doesn't seem to really use predestination to any degree.
Aside from maybe looking at Viola's cryptic fortune telling, not especially. Azwel has this ability too, since the Quattuor Orbis was revealed to be his originally in SoulCalibur VI. Otherwise, there's a bunch of dialogue lines by the narrator and some characters about fighting fate and destiny, as we touched on not long ago, but...
Well, "there are multiple timelines in Soulcalibur" definitively answers the multiverse question.
Our current Cassandra couldn't be the same because our previous Cassandra never went on this initial quest. She could certainly end up in the same place as the other Cassandra, but if there is going to be a time loop in play here, it hasn't yet become a stable one where there are no variations from round to round and the people involved are literally the same people, memory for memory, thought for thought, and action for action.