Nomenclature...

[esper1]

Call me fussy, but I think some of the esoteric stuff in the KH universe could be named differently/better. See if you agree..

For example:

Heartless: If they are just ripped out hearts that are steeped in their own darkness, wouldn't it be more accurate to call them "Nobodies?" After all, they don't have "bodies" to speak of, and no minds for that matter...

Likewise, if the Nobodies are entities without hearts, shouldn't they be called "Heartless?"

Also, I'm aware that in Japanese, kokoro (heart) and tamashiii "soul" can be interchangeable, but in this instance, wouldn't "Soul" be a better description for the device that is known as a "Heart" in the KH universe? Considering that they go to a place that is basically an allegory for Heaven.

Of course, then that place might need to be renamed Kingdom Souls, which to be frank doesn't sound as good...

If this theory holds water, then the "Soul" thing would need to be re-named. In the KHU, the Soul is supposed to hold the thoughts and memories - couldn't it be called "Mind" or "Psyche?"

Obviously, I don't expect Nomura to change anything based on my suggestions - that's not what this thread is about. I'm just airing my ideas.

Feel free to agree/disagree/rip me a new one...

[SufferingAngel]

Nobodies and Heartless both hold irony to them - intentionally. Also, while technicalities would have you correct, reality proves you wrong.
The Heartless lack emotions, thus - Heartless.
The Nobodies have no Self to relate to, thus leaving them being truly Nobodies. They aren't even shadows for shadows indicate the true person. That, however, left on to become a Heartless. They said so clearly and rather precisely inside the games - with the Heart having moved on, they have no one left to be.

Kokoro doesn't really speak about soul. Tamashii doesn't really speak about heart.

And the Heart in KH relates more to the Mind/Psyche you wanted to use for a Soul.
Common eastern concept about what the human being is made of -
Soul - the source of Life
Mind - the Heart in our case. The Self.
Body - the vessel.
You might want to switch the Mind and the Heart, but seeing how this is a Disney game once it's all said and done, it's just as good and maintains the same balance and 'ingredients' where each still holds onto its original role

[esper1]

Of course in actual reality, none of this stuff is relevant at all, seeing as the heart is just an organ, and the mind is just a lobe in the brain which functions like a screen on which thoughts are projected. The existence of a "soul" is commonly disputed by science. The closest thing would be the core processes of the brain.

Within the game: while I'm being literal about the names of the Nobodies and the Heartless, you seem to have gone the long way round and described them metaphorically. While there is nothing wrong with this, I doubt the creators would have wanted things to be this opaque. It's hard enough that they had to involve this stuff in the story at all, let alone that they have to make it hard to understand.

[SufferingAngel]

Read what I said again.
Common Eastern concept.
That kind of thing can be seen in just about any video game or manga that doesn't go out of its way to be Western and cool on the conceptual level. Bleach is one of my favorite examples in that matter - death rules out the Body. Then with time, the Heart-mind is destroyed, collapses in on itself - leaving the Soul to wonder as a Hollow.

Also, I didn't go the long way around or nothing.
That's how Nobodies were described in the game, in those very words - with the Heart gone, they have no one 'left to be'. Thus - Nobodies, since the Heart is what gives them 'existence', being Identity.
The Heartless are described as 'ones without Hearts' - since they don't act anything like what one with a Heart would act like.

So far it's not hard for them to involve it in the story at all; they've done so wonderfully. Also, it's not that hard to understand if you actually pay attention to the game. It's all been said.

[esper1]

Originally Posted by SufferingAngel

Also, I didn't go the long way around or nothing.
That's how Nobodies were described in the game, in those very words - with the Heart gone, they have no one 'left to be'. Thus - Nobodies, since the Heart is what gives them 'existence', being Identity.
The Heartless are described as 'ones without Hearts' - since they don't act anything like what one with a Heart would act like.

I see, thanks for clearing that up. So while in a literal sense, a Heartless has a heart, because it's swamped in darkness, it acts like it's heart doesn't work, making their behaviour "heartless."

And the Nobodies have lost the core of who they "are," so they are a non-entity, AKA, a Nobody.

Originally Posted by SufferingAngel

So far it's not hard for them to involve it in the story at all; they've done so wonderfully.

You and I might think so, a child might disagree.

Originally Posted by SufferingAngel

Read what I said again.

I have difficulty reading your posts, to be honest.

Originally Posted by SufferingAngel

Also, it's not that hard to understand if you actually pay attention to the game. It's all been said.

You could try to sound less pedantic. I haven't played the games in a while, so I can't recite the texts off by heart like you can, though I might replay them just so that I can discuss these topics on your level.

At the end of the day, I love these games (to a reasonable degree). I'm not going to let a few difficult debates get in the way of my appreciation of them. If it came to a choice, I'd rather play them in solitude than argue over semantics.

[SufferingAngel]

Originally Posted by esper1

You and I might think so, a child might disagree.

Despite this being Disney, I doubt they intended for 5 year olds to play this.

I have difficulty reading your posts, to be honest.

Dare I ask why?

You could try to sound less pedantic. I haven't played the games in a while, so I can't recite the texts off by heart like you can, though I might replay them just so that I can discuss these topics on your level.

You should, otherwise you're gonna get eaten up. And I didn't try to sound pretentious or snobbish - just stated a fact.

At the end of the day, I love these games (to a reasonable degree). I'm not going to let a few difficult debates get in the way of my appreciation of them. If it came to a choice, I'd rather play them in solitude than argue over semantics.

I can relate to and respect that. I just think you're overreacting.

[esper1]

Originally Posted by SufferingAngel

Despite this being Disney, I doubt they intended for 5 year olds to play this.

Alot of the people on this board were only a few years older than that when they first heard of/played the first one. Things were simpler back then, though.

Originally Posted by SufferingAngel

Dare I ask why?

Nothing personal. It's not really a grammatical problem - it's more to do with following your thought processes. It's a simple wavelength difference.

Originally Posted by SufferingAngel

You should, otherwise you're gonna get eaten up. And I didn't try to sound pretentious or snobbish - just stated a fact.

The word I used was "pedantic."

Originally Posted by SufferingAngel

I can relate to and respect that. I just think you're overreacting.

I don't think I am overreacting. You've been dogging my posts since I started here, which has resulted in me being constantly on the back foot - it's not why I came here. I have tried to be courteous by responding to your comments calmly and rationally, because I respect the seniority system that is in place on this board. My patience will only hold out for so long, though, and if I feel that something like this is demanding more of my attention and input than it rightfully should, then I will just cut the connection. I've done it before in real life situations as an act of emotional self preservation, so I will have no problem doing it on the internet.

[SufferingAngel]

Originally Posted by esper1

Alot of the people on this board were only a few years older than that when they first heard of/played the first one. Things were simpler back then, though.

Things are never as simple as it looks. That's part of the charm in both the stories the Disney movies are originally based on, and the Disney movies themselves - you can appreciate them differently every time you come across them.

The word I used was "pedantic."

You can use 'petty', hon, I don't mind XD

I don't think I am overreacting. You've been dogging my posts since I started here, which has resulted in me being constantly on the back foot - it's not why I came here. I have tried to be courteous by responding to your comments calmly and rationally, because I respect the seniority system that is in place on this board. My patience will only hold out for so long, though, and if I feel that something like this is demanding more of my attention and input than it rightfully should, then I will just cut the connection. I've done it before in real life situations as an act of emotional self preservation, so I will have no problem doing it on the internet.

And that is what I call overreacting.
It's a forum. You post a message, I respond. If it seems like I'm hunting you down, you can rest easy, I'm not. It doesn't mean I'll withhold from responding to you though, just because I find it somewhat easy to contradict your claims or go into debates with you.

[Metalmanmac1]

2 person topic?? ahahaha, anyway i like the names we currently have


-METALMANMAC1

[esper1]

Originally Posted by SufferingAngel

You can use 'petty', hon, I don't mind XD

I would, if "petty" was what I was describing...

Originally Posted by SufferingAngel

And that is what I call overreacting.
It's a forum. You post a message, I respond. If it seems like I'm hunting you down, you can rest easy, I'm not. It doesn't mean I'll withhold from responding to you though, just because I find it somewhat easy to contradict your claims or go into debates with you.

I'm not calling your basic behaviour into question. This is a message board after all. Nor am I naive enough to think that I can avoid getting into fierce debates. You're going to contradict me where you can, because that seems to be your way. You won't necessarily be right all the time with your claims (nor will I) because the material we're dealing with is somewhat vague in places and thus, is open to interpretation (which is always personal.) If it wasn't, then this board wouldn't be full of debates and requests for clarification (which get responded to with guesses, sometimes.)

Now we know where each other stands, I'm going to get back to sifting through the rumours.