Soul Calibur VI: General discussion

Nyte said:
By the way, ANY change is a good indication of a different timeline. You keep missing the minor details, which is important. But the fact that two people have knowledge of a different timeline is major and will change the story as we know.
Click to expand...
Wellll...maybe. Let's remember this is a story, a constructed narrative, not objective reality. While in reality small changes inevitably lead to larger and larger differences in a system over time (and there are physical laws for why this is so), the fact is that this is a story being created by a team of writers (and note we're not talking about the next Tolkiens in terms of plotting here..), so it's possible at least that small changes introduced now could go nowhere, and that they could go back to strictly adhering the the original timeline. Do I think that's where things are headed? No. Do I in fact think that they have in fact expressly indicated (in about as direct a way as you ever get in the voice of the story itself) that they are headed towards significant divergence? Yeah, more or less. But is that interpretation in some way binding as a matter of logic on what happens next. Nope, not remotely. And the ultimate approach could become a mix, or alternate between the two approaches. Actually, that's the most likely outcome by far.

Look, I agree with your interpretation of the basic nature of the narrative much more than Dante's, but man, you're doing the things you always do when you argue here that has brought you into conflict with people so many times. One, this is not worth the level of bombastic accusation you bring into the debate. I might go as far in agreement with you to say that Dante has her head in the sand on this one, but so what?? Nobody's got a gun to their head to be here, let alone take part in any one debate--which at the present moment, I remind you, is about the plot of a video game. And not just any video game. Friggin' Soulcalibur. The game with the most balls-to-the-wall insane, insipid nonsense. Holy cow, could the stakes not be lower on this one.

You also tend to run your arguments backwards, starting with the conclusion "X sucked so much, Y is definitely happening"--so you make it hard for those who agree with your conclusions alone, because no one wants to sign on to the way you got there. Like, for example, you start this discussion with "SCV sucked so much, everything they are doing is a direct response to avoiding that." First off, we don't know that, not really. Its never anything that's ever been expressly said by the devs, it's just a theory we've adopted as fans (to greater or less extents among us) because it mostly fits with the evidence. But it could be only half true, or 10% true: other franchises have been rebooted before just because new creative talent want to march back the narrative. And, not for nothing, lots of people actually liked SCV, and many more of us view it as a mixed bag. I'd say probably that is the best way to describe the position of most veteran players on the entry: it did some things pretty well, but overall was under-developed, failed to gel, and tried to be more experimental in more ways than it should have. But so awful that it must be shunned and the devs are never going to borrow anything out of its pages again? Nah, that's going too far.

I mean, overall dude, just maybe not take the volume to 11, all the damn time?
DanteSC3 said:
It seems like you're more on the side of TresDias's argument, where if literally anything is different, then it establishes a new continuity, where for me, it's not that simple. There have to be changes that affect the end results at large in order for it to be truly different. Mixing up the details to make a more cohesive narrative is not, in and of itself, enough to quantify a "new timeline".
Click to expand...
Ehhh, it pretty much does. At least, as regards the way that particular phrase is parsed, as an idiomatic matter, by the vast majority of people in the vast majority of contexts, it really does. The idea is that any degree of change is a new branch on the causality tree. That's a pretty standard, textbook definition of what a "timeline" is in fiction involving time travel. The sentence "Every single decision or change, no matter how insignificant, creates its own timeline" or something like it, has been used in so many stories, it's beyond a trope: its a safe assumption about the basic meaning of that phrase. Furthermore, purely as a logical matter, I don't see any room for your argument to work here: who decides what an "important" difference is? If you can't judge it by some objective standard, its pretty meaningless as a distinction in this context, if you want to try to judge the logic of what is happening in the story in a manner that allows people to get on the same page.

DanteSC3 said:
Particularly because we haven't defined the parameters of how time travel works in SoulCalibur, if there is only one timeline (which I believe), or if there are split paths and branching, or multiverse theory (which you clearly believe). Until they make it clear, there is no black and white answer, not yet.
Click to expand...
Don't we know that, though? This entire concept was introduced in SCV and its pretty clear how it worked there: Pyrrha died. Patroklos went back in time, saved her life and then the entire plot continued down a new path from there. No time loop, just standard old generic time travel shenanigans.


Now, since I feel like both sides have been doing a lot of talking past eachother, maybe it would help to shift discussion away from arguments about nomenclature and towards some things that probably both sides will agree on. For example, I consider all of the following to be non-controversial:

  • The stories, regardless of how faithful they are to the original narrative, or novel unto themselves, will be paced differently. The whole idea of three games taking place mostly inside of one year (which never made any more sense than jumping forward 17) is surely not going to happen again. I think that even Dante would concede that, even if her extreme interpretation of plot repetition were to come to pass, they'd at least adjust the timing, which of course would have at least some consequences on who could do what, insofar as ages are concerned.
  • And that part is important, because I think we should also be able to agree that probably some, if not all, of the SCV cast additions will reappear at some point. Maybe just as a narrative matter, but I do think that, in addition to the obvious case of Viola, Natsu will still be a Fu-ma trainee, there will be another younger Yoshimitsu at some point, and probably the even younger characters (Leixia, Pyrrha, Patroklos and, ugh...Xiba) are likely to have rolls again eventually. Nevermind that it doesn't make sense: that any change in the timeline should lead to entirely different children being born: these types of stories rarely take that into account, and I'm not having faith that Soulcalibur is gonna be the story to pay logic/genetics better fidelity, lol. We can hold out some hope that maybe they will reconsider uber emo-douche ZWEI, but even there I wouldn't hold my breath.
  • In general, I would hope that each game would take place over the course of a couple of years (or at least a whole year, with buffer times between the end of the previous game and the beginning of the next).
So you might say I think both arguments at the extremes here embrace a piece of the puzzle but have gone a little hog wild with it. Will the plot repeat without variation? I never thought that was at all likely and as of the most recent content, I think that ship has sailed. But does that mean it was done with the express purpose of avoiding SCV in its entirety and that all that lore goes out the window, never to be tapped by lazy or admiring writers? I think that's equally implausible. It's clearly going to be a bit of both, ultimately in combinations that don't really add up at the end of the day, but will collectively just be another drop of water in the ocean of ways in which Soulcalibur's story does not make sense.
 
Last edited:
Yeah, this isn't very productive. Sorry, my blood boils whenever I hear of people wanting to go back to SCV. We just got out of the dark ages, and now they want to go in?

Anyways, on a more positive note, at least the stream will be in just a few hours. Can someone post it here again?
 
Nyte said:
Yeah, this isn't very productive. Sorry, my blood boils whenever I hear of people wanting to go back to SCV. We just got out of the dark ages, and now they want to go in?

Anyways, on a more positive note, at least the stream will be in just a few hours. Can someone post it here again?
Click to expand...


Here's the stream!
However you have to hear these dreaded words that will haunt the future of this franchise.
I like Viola and you have to as well, opinions don't exist I promise

I'm so excited for the stream!
 
I'm likely going to sleep through it and wake up to some (hopefully good) news. Trying to fix a bad sleeping habit and this airs at 3:00 AM my time. I'll try to watch it though if I end up having trouble sleeping again lol.
 
Rusted Blade said:
Ehhh, it pretty much does. At least, as regards the way that particular phrase is parsed, as an idiomatic matter, by the vast majority of people in the vast majority of contexts, it really does. The idea is that any degree of change is a new branch on the causality tree. That's a pretty standard, textbook definition of what a "timeline" is in fiction involving time travel. The sentence "Every single decision or change, no matter how insignificant, creates its own timeline" or something like it, has been used in so many stories, it's beyond a trope: its a safe assumption about the basic meaning of that phrase. Furthermore, purely as a logical matter, I don't see any room for your argument to work here: who decides what an "important" difference is? If you can't judge it by some objective standard, its pretty meaningless as a distinction in this context, if you want to try to judge the logic of what is happening in the story in a manner that allows people to get on the same page.
Click to expand...
My bigger picture argument is that if, at the end of the day, the next game's events happen as follows:
  • Siegfried relapses and becomes Nightmare again, creating a new conflict for Soul Calibur to rise up and fight once more.
  • Nightmare is defeated, Soul Edge is pierced in the eye by Raphael, Raphael is poisoned by Soul Edge's taint, lives, Amy brings him back up to speed.
  • Zasalamel enacts his plan, using the swords and those who wield them as pawns, combining the swords to perform a ritual, invoking Night Terror.
  • Night Terror's rise and fall, banishment back to the Astral Chaos is enough of a disturbance to awaken Algol, who erects the Tower of Remembrance.
  • Algol is confronted and defeated, balance is restored as Inferno rises once more and is defeated, this time Soul Calibur is put in check, too.
Then no, we are not on a "new timeline", and no, this was not a "reboot". The nature of these things would be defined by their chain of differences from the original course of things, and so far, it would appear that these things will not deviate, at least in my opinion. There isn't enough evidence to support that these things won't happen, at least not yet. SoulCalibur VII will break that notion, one way or the other.

Rusted Blade said:
Don't we know that, though? This entire concept was introduced in SCV and its pretty clear how it worked there: Pyrrha died. Patroklos went back in time, saved her life and then the entire plot continued down a new path from there. No time loop, just standard old generic time travel shenanigans.
Click to expand...
The reason it's questionable, for me, is because we have three time travel events, and each one of them is different, so it's hard to form an objective standard as to what time travel rules that SoulCalibur is following:
  • Patroklos turns back the hands of time and redoes his life decisions, sparing Pyrrha and serving the greater good by locking away the swords.
  • Zasalamel sends a message to the past in his consciousness that doesn't have any other acts associated with it other than changing his outlook.
  • Cassandra travels back in time and jumps out of an Astral Fissure and literally speaks to her past self, informing her of events from the future.
Rusted Blade said:
The stories, regardless of how faithful they are to the original narrative, or novel unto themselves, will be paced differently. The whole idea of three games taking place mostly inside of one year (which never made any more sense than jumping forward 17) is surely not going to happen again. I think that even Dante would concede that if, even if her extreme interpretation of plot repetition were to come to pass, they'd at least adjust the timing, which of course would have at least some consequences on who could do what, insofar as ages are concerned.
Click to expand...
It's definitely plausible, depending on what time period is covered in SoulCalibur VII. If they go, for example, 1590-1597, with 1598-1607 left to SoulCalibur VIII, again assuming we'll make it back to 1607, if that's the plan, maybe it is, maybe it isn't, no one can know for sure, then they may space out the events of SoulCalibur II, SoulCalibur III, and SoulCalibur IV to take place in those years, for better pacing, and allowing more events to line up. If they do this at all, that is a time where I will concede that the sands of time are falling differently, and this could then be considered a "new timeline".

Rusted Blade said:
And that part is important, because I think we should all be able to agree that probably some, if not all, of the SCV will reappear at some point. Maybe just as a narrative matter, but I do think that, in addition to the obvious case of Viola, Natsu will still be a Fu-ma trainee, there will be another younger Yoshimitsu at some point, and probably the even younger characters (Leixia, Pyrrha, Patroklos and, ugh...Xiba) are likely to have rolls again eventually. Nevermind that it doesn't make sense: that any change in the timeline would lead to entirely different children being born: these types of stories rarely take that into account, and I'm not having faith that Soulcalibur is gonna be the story to pay logic/genetics better fidelity, lol. We can hold out some hope that maybe they will reconsider uber emo-douche ZWEI, but even there I wouldn't hold my breath.
Click to expand...
Yes, if we do make it back to 1607, it's very likely that we will revisit these characters, which is not, in and of itself, a bad thing. The hope/idea is that not only will we take on these newcomers, but we will also keep our mainstays, due to Daishi being gone, maybe Okubo is more alright with having older women in the games, with or without the ability to halt aging. There's really no reason why this can't happen. And I still think it stands to reason that Z.W.E.I.'s backstory will finally be revealed in SoulCalibur VII, Grøh or not.

Nyte said:
Yeah, this isn't very productive. Sorry, my blood boils whenever I hear of people wanting to go back to SCV. We just got out of the dark ages, and now they want to go in?
Click to expand...
I agree, and believe me or not, it is not my intention to cause you any kind of problems. I'm not against you, I'm more against the way you handle things, much like Rusted Blade has just pointed out. I realize my angle on things is controversial, based on what I've heard over time since before this game was out, when it came out, up until today. I'm also more than willing to admit it if I'm wrong, but I really, truly, and honestly do not believe that my interpretation of events is outlandish or impossible. I am simply giving my view. Some have agreed with parts of my view, but I don't expect anyone to fully agree with me, all the same.

Everyone is welcome to their own theory, and I don't have a problem with healthy discussion of those theories. The salt exhibited whenever discussions come up with you make everyone have a bad time, and I'm not trying to be mean, I'm just trying to offer constructive criticism, so that we might have healthy debates in the future, perhaps. Or if you've completely sworn off trying to do that with me, then hopefully for your future debates, they can be more pleasant. That's all.
 
What does hai mean in Japanese? This is the second time I’ve watched this kind of stream from project soul and they do it a lot.

Last time I saw this type of streamead the2B one
 
There wasn't a whole lot else to the stream, really, they watched the Cassandra and Season 2 trailers, talked about Haohmaru a bit, comparing him to Mitsurugi, but reassuring that he will be different enough to not be a clone copy, so I guess that's good news, and then they did a practice session with Cassandra, showing off how her mechanics and such work.

There's going to be a match between Yutotto and Shining Decopon, to honor 2019 EVO champion versus 2012 EVO champion. That should be a fun watch.
 
Few interesting infos and what to take away from stream:

- 2 or more news moves for each characters (except Inferno)

- Season 2 will be trying to broaden options, but not totally change direction or anything that drastic.

- Listening to comments about the RE messing with the pace

- SC mid combo coming?

- So for stages it's seems to be like: variations of existing stages + 2 brand new stages (Hao Maru's one and another one)

- Considering improving Online

- They talked a lot about Evo and their favorite moments, Okubo want and hope to make SC6 at Evo Sunday
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom