So which ending is canon?

[alone in the town]

Not in any way you would find flattering. I feel as if I'm debating evolution with a New World Creationist who insists that his point of view is valid because one source out of dozens claims it is, and I wasn't around in 4004 B.C. to know for certain that it isn't, and on that basis, Creationism should be taught alongside evolution in public schools as an 'alternative explanation'.

[Tillerman]

Truly, a classy response. Well done.

[alone in the town]

I'm not really trying to convince you to change your mind. I know you won't, out of spite if nothing else. What I want is to set up a case. When people ask, in the future, which ending is canon, they can be referred to this thread, and see that the mountain of evidence rests entirely on one side of it. That way, the only people who will come away with an opinion agreeing with yours are people immune to logic and not worth trying to convince, or people who enjoy taking a futile position in a debate for whatever pleasure it gives them. Who's wrong and who's right is self-evident to anybody not in those categories.

I did warn that you wouldn't find it flattering.

[Tillerman]

I never asked to be flattered; I simply asked for fair consideration of my point of view. But I'm obviously not going to get that from someone who is, by your own admission, doing everything they can to "make a case" like a lawyer.

[alone in the town]

That's because the bulk of your argument addresses my methodology rather than the salient issue. Your issue is with my viewpoint being absolute, that I should allow for Good+ because anything that isn't 100% impossible will eventually happen given infinite time and repetition, and I view this as a worthless in any practical sense since events in the game happen once.

[Tillerman]

That's because the bulk of your argument addresses my methodology rather than the salient issue.

Methodology matters. It's not okay to get to the right conclusion with faulty logic. Unfortunately though, this methodology is subjective... if you want to take what is the player's action, choosing an item to unlock a story path, and view that as an illogical character action, there's no way for me to prove that you're wrong. I can only say that this logic leads to ridiculous outcomes if you apply it to all games. (For one thing, the story of 70% of all adventure games is pretty much instantly invalidated.) But you're totally free to ignore that and consider it "evidence" if you want to.

If I'm being overly contentious, I apologize. It's difficult though when you are equally as contentious and don't back down at all. You think the red liquid thing is a very important point and I disagree... at the end of the day that barely even matters because we both basically agree that Cybil is probably dead. Why don't you have a little courtesy and agree with me that this red liquid discussion should die as well.

Your issue is with my viewpoint being absolute, that I should allow for Good+ because anything that isn't 100% impossible will eventually happen given infinite time and repetition, and I view this as a worthless in any practical sense since events in the game happen once.

The only real way in which stories "happen" is how they are portrayed to us. If an event is left off-screen and unexplained, it only exists as speculation in our minds. There is no definitive answer, nor does there need to be one for "practical" purposes IMO. (Silent Hill rarely adheres to "practical explanations" anyway.)

[Typographenia]

Yes, it's different, but you still didn't bother to explain why that difference means that suddenly the plausibility of game mechanics needs to be questioned. You assert that if an event is forced, it's plausibility doesn't matter, but if it's optional then it suddenly does. Am I the only one who thinks that doesn't make any sense?

Is UFO ending also plausible canon, then?

You stated earlier that often the "true" ending is the one you have to work hardest for. UFO requires much more from the player to do than any other ending because, unless you have a guide, you end up using the gem in every location in an attempt to get some kind of reaction.

It would require the exact same trial approach as Good+ ending requires, and, much like Good+, you wouldn't be able to get it on your first playthrough (unless you're cheating or insanely lucky at guessing).

[Tillerman]

Is UFO ending also plausible canon, then?

No, but that has nothing to do with how hard you have to work to get it. How hard you work has nothing to do with whether the ending is canon, and generally speaking the rule in video games is that "true ending" is the hardest one to get. That's undeniable.

What makes the UFO ending not plausible is that the content of that ending is portrayed in a vastly different tone. It's silly and obviously meant to be taken as a joke. Let me ask you this... if the UFO ending were portrayed in a different way, if it were a dark and gritty and realistic, do you think people would still see it as a joke? I think that would have led to tons of people believing that it was a canon ending.

By the way, I believe Cybil is probably dead.

[Typographenia]

No, but that has nothing to do with how hard you have to work to get it. How hard you work has nothing to do with whether the ending is canon, and generally speaking the rule in video games is that "true ending" is the hardest one to get. That's undeniable.

I meant it more in regards to the game mechanics you kept asking about.
The UFO ending could be viewed as a "puzzle" in the same way you seem to suggest that Good+ requiring to use a specific item at a specific time on a specific character without any hint or information is a "puzzle."

Both UFO and Good+ would require the player to randomly attempt using them at every opportunity to uncover their actual intent and purpose, unless you read up on it before hand.


edit: Also, UFO really does make the strongest case for SH canon since it is the most consistent across the games. : P

[Tillerman]

I meant it more in regards to the game mechanics you kept asking about. The UFO ending could be viewed as a "puzzle" in the same way you seem to suggest that Good+ requiring to use a specific item at a specific time on a specific character without any hint or information is a "puzzle."

Very true. Again, I would say that the game mechanics of how the UFO ending is uncovered have nothing to do with my view on whether it's canonical. There are definitely endings in other games that are meant to be canonical even though they are obscure to unlock. My view on what is canonical rests *only* on two things: 1. What the creators say is canon. 2. An analysis of the story itself. (Keeping in mind that the latter will never be more than guesswork.)

edit: Also, UFO really does make the strongest case for SH canon since it is the most consistent across the games. : P

Not in SH4 though! Unfortunately.

[Kompwars]

I meant it more in regards to the game mechanics you kept asking about. The UFO ending could be viewed as a "puzzle" in the same way you seem to suggest that Good+ requiring to use a specific item at a specific time on a specific character without any hint or information is a "puzzle."

Very true. Again, I would say that the game mechanics of how the UFO ending is uncovered have nothing to do with my view on whether it's canonical. There are definitely endings in other games that are meant to be canonical even though they are obscure to unlock. My view on what is canonical rests *only* on two things: 1. What the creators say is canon. 2. An analysis of the story itself. (Keeping in mind that the latter will never be more than guesswork.)

edit: Also, UFO really does make the strongest case for SH canon since it is the most consistent across the games. : P

Not in SH4 though! Unfortunately.

Isn't that because SH4 wasn't even supposed to be a SH game?
i heared that if you hack the game you can get ufo items but they don't do anything

[VenusDoom]

^That's a bullshit rumor. SH4's idea came about durring the making of SH2, but they decided to do SH3 first, and while making SH3 dthey wanted to experiment with the gameplay formula I belive.

[Kompwars]

^That's a bullshit rumor. SH4's idea came about durring the making of SH2, but they decided to do SH3 first, and while making SH3 dthey wanted to experiment with the gameplay formula I belive.

really? O_O oh ok..nvm..but i heard alot about SH4 was actually supposed to be an different series lol.

[alone in the town]

It's a piece of legacy from the days when everybody hated Silent Hill 4 in spite of it being another divine Team Silent product. If people believed it wasn't supposed to be a real Silent Hill game, they could pretend it didn't impose itself on the other three totally flawless games which came before it and ignore any impact it had on the series.

[Tillerman]

Actually I believe that myth came from an interview in which the game's producer was mistranslated or some such thing. I don't remember the exact details, but it was something like that.

[R08813]

I doubt Team Silent's opinion matters for anything given that this organization no longer exists and their work has been expanded since their dissolution.

By your logic, Einstein's opinion doesn't matter for anything given that he's already dead and his work has been expanded since he died.

In my other thread, I was not aware of the impact Homecoming had in deciding the matter. Time marches on.

You can change your opinion of course. The point I'm trying to make is one can disagree with your thread without being illogical.

If after this much discussion and eight years of arguing, nobody can come up with any possibilities that don't sound completely ridiculous, we've moved far past the realm of assumptions.

Nobody can come up with any possibilities that you are satisfied with. You can argue Cybil's dead because of that but you can't take the discussion of other players as an official confirmation of her death.

Players can imagine that Dahlia is an alien robot, too. That's probably not canon, either.

There's nothing in the Book of Lost Memories suggests Dahlia is an alien robot. Hiroyuki Owaku allows us to imagine what happens to Cybil afterwards, which may or may not include her survival. If Cybil's dead, it wouldn't even be necessary for him to say a dead person is not involved with Silent Hill 3. If Cybil survives, Owaku, as the scenario writer, needs to explain why she doesn't appear in Silent Hill 3 by saying she is not involved.

And, as has been stated repeatedly, there are no explanations which involve her survival that make sense, because she never even reported back to her station.

There are no explanations players can think of which involve her survival that make sense from your point of view. It doesn't necessarily mean Cybil's dead.

I'm excluding the possibility that it happens because every single piece of evidence that exists says it doesn't. As I've said before, if a future game shows her to be alive, this all falls apart. I'm fairly confident this won't happen, and until it does, nothing currently contradicts the fact that Good is the canon ending.

Except Hiroyuki Owaku's statement. To argue the Good Ending is canon, you have to (1) take his quote out of the context of the Good+ Ending (2) apply it to the Good Ending (3) make the assumption that, for some reason, Hiroyuki Owaku wants us to imagine what happens to Cybil after she's killed.

[The Adversary]

>There's nothing in the Book of Lost Memories suggests Dahlia is an alien robot.<
Except nothing has claimed Dahlia isn't a robot.

[Tillerman]

>There's nothing in the Book of Lost Memories suggests Dahlia is an alien robot.<
Except nothing has claimed Dahlia isn't a robot.

But there's a difference. Cybil's possible survival is within the realm of believability. Dahlia being a robot is not. It they want to bring Cybil back, it would be easy to come up with an explanation of where Cybil's been that would make sense, that the fanbase could accept. Especially as people trained to believe that if you don't see the body, they aren't necessarily dead. Dahlia being a robot, however, would be impossible to sell to the audience, no explanation would make it work, for a number of reasons.

[AuraTwilight]

By your logic, Einstein's opinion doesn't matter for anything given that he's already dead and his work has been expanded since he died.

Unless you're claiming that Einstein is the creative director of what is and isn't true in the universe, like Team Silent was for the Silent Hill universe, no, his logic doesn't mean such.

But there's a difference. Cybil's possible survival is within the realm of believability.

The only believable explanation for Cybil being alive, imo, would be one that doesn't require Harry using the Aglaophotis on her and doesn't require her to actually escape the Otherworld, because either require Harry or Cybil breaking character/causality/logic.

Something like "All souls who die in the Otherworld are doomed to stay there. Cybil was killed in the bossfight, but her soul's in there somewhere and maybe in a sequel she fights her way out and effectively revives."

Baseless, and probably dumb, but more logically sound than the alternative.

[alone in the town]

By your logic, Einstein's opinion doesn't matter for anything given that he's already dead and his work has been expanded since he died.

Does Einstein's opinion matter if modern science finds contradictions to what he believed to be true? Of course it doesn't. That happened while he was still alive, regarding quantum theory, in fact.

You can change your opinion of course. The point I'm trying to make is one can disagree with your thread without being illogical.

If that's the case, it'd be awfully nice if those who disagreed with my thread ceased to be illogical.

Nobody can come up with any possibilities that you are satisfied with. You can argue Cybil's dead because of that but you can't take the discussion of other players as an official confirmation of her death.

Why should I accept alternate theories as being relevant when the flaws are so blatant? It's just more Robot Alien Dahlia.

There's nothing in the Book of Lost Memories suggests Dahlia is an alien robot. Hiroyuki Owaku allows us to imagine what happens to Cybil afterwards, which may or may not include her survival. If Cybil's dead, it wouldn't even be necessary for him to say a dead person is not involved with Silent Hill 3. If Cybil survives, Owaku, as the scenario writer, needs to explain why she doesn't appear in Silent Hill 3 by saying she is not involved.

Once again: Homecoming invalidates that possibility.

There are no explanations players can think of which involve her survival that make sense from your point of view. It doesn't necessarily mean Cybil's dead.

Remember what I said to Tillerman about feeling like I'm talking to a New World Creationist, who tells me God is possible because I can't prove God doesn't exist?

Your viewpoint is without any intellectual value.

Except Hiroyuki Owaku's statement. To argue the Good Ending is canon, you have to (1) take his quote out of the context of the Good+ Ending (2) apply it to the Good Ending (3) make the assumption that, for some reason, Hiroyuki Owaku wants us to imagine what happens to Cybil after she's killed.

Actually, I would think the onus should be on you to prove that his statement definitively contradicts the Good ending's officially-sanctioned canon status, since you insist that a contradiction exists.

Not that it matters either way, as Cybil's fate has been determined by Homecoming, which post-dates that statement by four years, beyond any reasonable doubt, and if you can handwave an entire game just to keep believing you're right, I have the right to discount one very vague quote in a book, because as far as intellectual dishonesty goes, your abuse is far worse than mine.

And now I'm curious, since you seem insistent on the idea that my brand of logic is somehow different from a normal person's: I'd love to see you come up with a scenario which explains how Cybil could have survived which
a) does not contradict any stated facts except the very canon status of the Good ending, and
b) follows logic you would honestly accept as plausible.

In doing so, also explain the logic behind these two major logical problems:
a) What makes Harry specifically remember the red liquid at that specific moment, many hours after collecting it and finding no use for it? What makes Harry believe it has any chance of doing any good for Cybil? What makes Harry risk his, and his daughter's, life in order to conduct such a chemistry experiment while his subject is trying hard to murder him?
b) What makes Cybil disappear from the face of the earth the moment she exits Silent Hill? When Harry Mason basically resumes a normal life and lives without any concealment for half a decade, Cybil must go into hiding so soon that she never even bothers returning to her police station and nobody ever knows what became of her. This has to happen for a reason, so give me one that makes sense to you, knowing what we do about Harry (who, by any stretch of the imagination, should be the paranoid one going into instant hiding, not only because he has the child the cult wants, but because his experience in town was far more horrifying than Cybil's.).

I'm basically issuing a challenge you can't successfully complete, but since you seem to think that there are entirely plausible scenarios I lack the capacity to consider, surely you can come up with one.