Again, serious denial if you're trying to say that these emblems are not practically the
same exact thing as the Heartless symbol, Ven's in specific is
exactly like the Heartless symbol
Well, yes, there is a resemblance, I'll say that.
Resemblace? More like it's practically the exact same symbol
I think he was expressing that, as of now, it means nothing. So why should VAT's symbol be any different?
So, because one thing is something you think has no direct meaning, anything related to it should be equally dismissed? Hell, we don't know if the DS having the same outfit as Dark-Riku has any meaning, so you're clearly delusional for trying to think that there's a connection, Hades.
It's still largely meaningless. I mean, what plot relevance does it have? Is it ever commented on? Does anyone actually notice it? No.
See: because you can point out a similar thing that wasn't a huge plot detail, that means that everything remotely like that has to be equally meaningless.
It's a stupid defense to try and dispell the notion.
So, with that you're saying they're not the same symbol?
If you look at the picture, they clearly are.
The difference is, with the organization members, we already know that they ARE nobodies, so there's really nothing else you can do with the symbol to say it's something else. We don't have a clue what the belt buckle means, if anything, so I think you're jumping to conclusions to state that it aesthetically IS the heartless symbol. A simpler explanation could be...
Before we knew what Nobodies were they still had the symbol on their weapons, had this conversation taken place 2 years ago you'd be trying to tell me that there is no relation between the symbol on the Unknown's Weapons and the symbol representing the "White Heartless"
I'm not jumping to huge conclusions, I'm looking at something blatantly obvious that the director of the game is making a
clear connection between, and you're saying that because they're not precisely the same thing, that there's no way they're related and that it's just PURE COINCIDENCE that the director orchestrating the entire story decided to put them there?
...because, well, I have my own opinions concerning Nomura's overall lack of ingenuity. Every one of his dark, brooding, emo jerk characters always has to have some angel wing-motif to represent that they are FALLEN ANGELS (ooh so dark). That doesn't mean Sephiroth is related to Riku. The hair, too; the good guy always has spiky hair in a natural color (What year was Goku created?), while the ambiguous bad guy always has to have long, white hair. (And I won't even bring up here the tendency of rehashing the same stories over and over, as we all know that has its own thread...)
It's funny that you say this, because was it not 2 pages ago that you said you had faith in Nomura to not use such a plot device that you deem 'too obvious'? Clearly it's not that obvious, seeing as I'm the only one here who has noticed the connection and how clearly relevant it is, you're using Nomura lack of ingenuity to try and disprove my theory, while defending yours by saying that Nomura has the ingenuity to not do something that would be so obvious
Obviously, the point of contention we dissenters have is that it is nowhere near "blatantly obvious" to be a connection. You are jumping to conclusions in leaps and bounds.
I'm making obvious connections, and you're sticking your head in the sand
Again... Sora's crown. Roxas's cross-thing. The weird circuitry-board pattern on Diz's chest or all those pouches he's wearing on his belt. All the zippers everywhere. Saix's scar. The prevalence of victorian architecture in Traverse Town. They're just for looks, that's all. They're graphical designs made to draw the eye and better keep the player's attention.
See: because you can point out a similar thing that wasn't a huge plot detail, that means that everything remotely like that has to be equally meaningless.
The point you were making sort made sense up until the DiZ part. You're saying that because he designed
buildings, that means that the Knights having a Heartless symbol crest on them years before it was thought it has no meaning? There's a difference between making something pretty, and placing a
specific symbol in a
prequel that you are
specifically making to explain the
history of the
things we don't know about
Let's see here, I'll try the same thing you're doing
Riku has big shoes, Sora has big shoes, clearly this means that Master Xehanort has a foot fetish, and thus clearly has no plot relevance because he's creepy!
Possible, sure, but still pure conjecture.
You give one example of what could have taken place and it's clearly a well-thought proof that what I'm saying could not have taken place, I say something similar and it's nothing more than 'conjecture'?
Exactly. Three games so far, and not a single hint that it's anything more than decoration.
See: because you can point out a similar thing that wasn't a huge plot detail, that means that everything remotely like that has to be equally meaningless.
The DS's face was hidden in the trailers, in the Kh2 trailers Xigbar's face was hidden, however Xigbar turned out to have no real plot relevance, that means that DS is equally irrelevant because his face is hidden and this clearly means that there's nothing mysterious about him!
It's just there. It never achieves importance.
The Soul Eater never achieved importance, up until it became a huge plot device.
I can't say that this won't be proven true, I just think that you're prematurely assuming it is.
You're prematurely assuming it isn't.
I haven't assumed anything, as you can see all I've done this entire discussion is point out why I
feel it is important, I have no waved anything around as a fact, I merely pointed out a connection and pointed out how this could be important
I think that it is different enough to be a new symbol.
That'd be like saying Mickey's Keyblade is difference enough from Sora's to not be called a Keyblade at all, and instead be called a "Mickey-Blade"
1. TMM, it could be a prequel to the heartless symbol (although, i disagree). BUT, nothing that you have said has ever proven to me that it doesn't stand for the new enemy BEFORE it would stand for the heartless.
You've said nothing that provides any inclination that it
does stand for a new enemy.
1. It's not the same symbol.
2. How do you know it is nothing more then a crest, or that it isn't tied to darkness and the heartless? Even crests have to stand for something.
At the time of BBS taking place, it very well could mean nothing more than a crest of their group, however
years later an Apprentice recalls the same symbol, and uses it to mark the Dark Beings he artificially created
You are only asuming that he would be wearing it when he is found with his memory lost. If you notice, that symbol isn't on the armor that VAT are wearing in the last battle with MX.
No, I am not assuming that he had it on his person at all. I said that
he remembered the symbol, not had it in his possession. When thinking up the Crest to mark his artificial Heartless with, he had a
predisposed idea of the Emblem he should mark them with, and that symbol happened to be the same one that Terra/Venn/Aqua(?) adorned
The number of variables in that theory are astonishing. And you are always talking as if it is fact.
The number of variables in any theory is astonishing, which is why 95% of the time every single one of us will be wrong.
