View Single Post
Old 2018-05-26, 16:35   Link #65
Klashikari
阿賀野型3番艦、矢矧 Lv175
*Graphic Designer
*Moderator
 
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Belgium, Brussels
Age: 33
You asked me why I found this plot part not consistent, and I pretty much gave you my reasons with the arguments. All you have provided thus far is the "butterfly effect" argument with the assumption information was different, but you didn't provide evidence regarding that part and even called my argument "long blurbs" without addressing any of them. The butterfly effect would only work with a deliberate change or something with a "probability" to occur. And I don't see how there is a probability involved in the information Leskinen has put in her brain.

As I said, you used a lot of "if", but the problem is that you didn't provide evidence the information was different.
The game itself confirmed that Kagari already heard the "voice of god" in both branches, meaning that future Leskinen brainwashed her regardless of the world line. In both cases, the "voice of god" made her rogue against Suzuha because it told her to "protect the world", hence why she didn't want Suzuha to meddle with the past.
That part is consistent, and I don't see where information Leskinen has found in Kagari's brain could be different between both world lines.

In a nutshell:
My initial assertion is like this: Future Leskinen deliberately brainwashed kid kagari so he could give information to himself and actually have a time traveler at his disposal, which would be a perfect sample for him.

Evidence I've noted: The voice Kagari kept hearing always mention about protecting the world and her mother, meaning Leskinen knew about FG lab plans (which explains why he was screwing Suzuha's valkyrie unit with brainwashing in 2036).
Kagari, regardless of the branch, always goes rogue against Suzuha in 1998, and is always "sheltered" by Leskinen (proved by RMG and V&A).

My conclusion: Leskinen pretty much made sure he would have information from the future so the future won't be changed (meaning that his actions in 2010 would maintain the WW3 events). And that's exactly why I mentionned characterization as the fundation of my argument: Leskinen, both present and future versions, had a very precise objective and it is consistent in both routes. And this is the very reason why I disagree on the assumption the "information" was different. If anything, if it is, you are actually proving the scenarists screwed up with Leskinen characterization.
__________________

Last edited by Klashikari; 2018-05-26 at 16:57.
Klashikari is offline   Reply With Quote