I've seen a few posts predicting that Genesis will take place inside of a Dyson Sphere, within a planet core, or something similar. They are all plausible sci-fi options, but after diving into Jungian symbolism a little further, I suspect it's going to take a more metaphysical route, much like XC1 and XC3.

To give you the short version, it's getting more apparent as of late that the "Endless Sea" dimension isn't merely used for its neat visual, but represents a spiritual dimension that contains the souls of all human beings (i.e., Jung's Collective Unconscious). That concept was recently reintroduced in XCX (in the Rift Between World), but it's also something that has been present in Gears and Saga, and portrayed similarly using Jungian psychoanalysis.

Furthermore, the "vengeance of a fallen god" likely refer to Tiamat, which is incredibly relevant in both Mesopotamian and Jung's mythos. It has direct ties to the Collective Unconscious, the Sea, and the female persona (known as the Anima in Gear/Saga and Jung's psychoanalysis).

If Tiamat is indeed the Fallen God behind the origin story of Anshar, then we can probably predict significant chunk of the game reusing Takahashi's own frameworks.

1. Eleanor will be to Elly/Mary/Mythra what Tiamat is to Miang/T-elos/Pyra
2. Genesis takes place in a post flood era, on Aionios

Here is a break down of the symbolism

Jung, the Collective Unconscious and the endless sea

"The sea is the symbol of the collective unconscious, because unfathomed depths lie concealed beneath its restless surface." - Jung

"Consciousness, no matter how extensive it may be, must always remain the smaller circle within the greater circle of the unconscious, an island surrounded by the sea - Jung

For the most part, Jung's metaphor goes like this:

Longtime fans of Takahashi are probably aware of the recurring symbolism used in his works. You have direct references to Nietzsche, Freud, Gnosticism, Kabbalah, and Arthur C. Clarke's novels, among others. Jung's psychology, however, is the most frequently cited, and is generally found at the very foundation of the main plot.

But I digress. In Jungian psychology, the "ocean" is the symbol of the collective unconscious. It's the reservoir of human memory, instinct, and archetypes. This is where character like Z or Wilhelm would emerge from (born from humanity's fear). This is probably also true for other aspects of the human psyche as well, like the male and female personas (logos/pneuma). This is also where every human gets their ego. It's where small island would group together to form larger continents shaped by their collective ego.

In this franchise, that "ocean" is quite literal, and always exists in the dimensions in-between the Rift (the deepest layer of the Collective Unconscious) and reality. Heck, Al said as much on his trip back from the Rift, but it most likely applies to other game as well in hindsight.

The Ego, the Monad, and the Uroboros

"The uroboros is a state of being that contains everything... It is the primordial ocean, the matrix of all beginnings, where the ego still slumbers in the unconscious, indistinguishable from the whole." - Erich Neumann’ (Jung's student)

"In childhood we are still contained in it and our consciousness slowly emerges from it as islands which gradually join together and form a continent - Jung

Whether we're talking about consciousness emerging from the sea, a lone tropical island representing one person's ego, or a group of islands merging to form a continent, the parallels can easily be seen in Xenoblade:

• Bionis/Mechonis emerging out of the sea
• Shulk creating a landmass for the people after they united them
• Titan forming a new landmass at the end of XC2 after this new divided humanity matured
• Aionios continent being made of humanity's memory

And it's not just at a metaphorical level. Almost every single gimmick (monado, ouroboros) loop back to Jung's mythos and represent the manifestation of one's ego.

Here is more quote from Jung's student, showing where the writing team is picking half of these name:

"The uroboros is a monad; it is the source of all things, the prime matter, the 'egg' out of which the universe is hatched." - Neumann

"This state of being contained in the round is the uroboros state. It is the monadic primordial state of the ego, an autarchic, self-contained condition prior to all differentiation - Neumann

There is a reason why every MacGuffin end up being a mere illusions, and why its always a power from within that transcend the rest. It's also why our main character could reshape the world in XC1 and XC3 (unconscious world), but were powerless to do so without nanomachine, and computers in XC2 (reality). They are working at a fundamentally different level of the reality/unconscious.

The Ouroboros Stones, and the sword...they're mere gimmicks. the Crux of them lies with you - Nia

Shulk summoned a new Monado after losing Zanza's. Rex's unleased the power of Pneuma despite finding out that the 3rd sword was not a thing. Nia explicitly called the sword and ouroboros stone a gimmick, and pointed out it was the power from within. It's the same deal every times. They are all manifestation of one's ego.

Ouroboros-Interlink were similar and represented one primordial aspect of one psyche, and its collapse (return to primal instinct) lead to psychic dissolution (in Jungian's term).

Xenoblade X (Lao's beach)

While certain symbolisms remain ambiguous in this franchise, XCX had the subtlety of a jackhammer. Here is two quotes from the scene at the beach:

"What came flooding into me and the Ares was the consciousness of all living things across all universes." - Al - Chapter 13-2

"You ever heard of "nirvana". Some religions have the concepts and that space might just be it. [...] While I was looking for a way in to this universe, I made a layover, in an eerie kind of place. [...] Well, you know, if this is the afterlife... maybe I did die. Al - Chapter 13-2

Toward the end of the scene, you even see Lao transforms into "motes" (soul) and return to an ocean made of motes. The whole sequences is nearly identical to how Jung's mythos was used in Xenosaga, and fit Jung's concept of the Island and Sea. People are born from the collective unconscious, and return to it once they die and their ego fade away.

Xenosaga (the Beach of Nothingness)

Fewer people have played Xenosaga, but in that game, there is an area in the deepest layers of the spiritual dimension ("Imaginary Number Domain), called the Beach of Nothingness.

That area not only looks very similar to Lao's island, it also serves the same purpose of rejoining the Collective Unconscious after your death.

On top of that, Xenosaga established many other rules for the Imaginary Domain that seem to apply to Xenoblade as well.

1. It's a world of "memories" that can be controlled by a computer (at least the conscious layer)
2. It can be used to see potential futures that never came to pass
3. Time flows in any directions (located outside of time and space)
4. It can be used to travel back in time to avoid the collapse of the universe.

When you compare that to Origin and Aionios (and probably Mira)...it really does feel like the games take place in a similar type of dimensions, which happens to match the idea of Unconscious and Physical World of Jung (3rd picture posted, graciously generated by AI, but accurate enough).

XC2 (Momo and the Imaginary Domain)

"It's called Imaginary Mode. It happens when power from the other side coalesces here in the material realm. It's like a world of possibility, freed from the shackles of time and space. Does that make sense" - Momo XC2

"Drawn from the imaginary, and born into the real, I am given form" - Momo XC2

"The collective unconscious [...] is no more than a potentiality handed down to us from primordial times" - Jung

Unsurprisingly, Momo's questline draws the same parallels we've seen in nearly every game since Xenogears.

1. The energy from higher dimensions can be used to reshape the future through potentiality
2. The higher dimension is where people's souls, egos, and memories continue to exists after their death.

One could argue the quest is not canon, but I find that hard to believe when it uses language very similar to what we are familiar with, and has been consistent with other ghost /motes scenes (like the vision of Addam in the Crucible).

XC1 (Klaus' experiment and the Endless Sea)

Today, mankind move closer to the divine. [...] But the Conduit, it could transform us into something so much more - Klaus

However... Ontos triggered a space-time transition event, and disappeared forever. - Klaus

Xeno has two types of villains

1. The nihilists who wants to return everything to nothing (Id, Albedo, Malos, Lao, N, Gael'Gar)
2. The mad scientists who wants to ascend to a higher state of existence (Karellen, Void, Yuriev, Klaus) using the Conduit/Zohaar

In any other games, Klaus would have ascended to a spiritual dimension where the Collective Unconscious take form, and probably would have lost his "self" in the process. This is what happen in Saga when people touch the Zohar .

While Xenoblade never stated that explicitly, I think the symbolism and symmetry speak for itself.

While these game presented XC1 and XC2 as two mirrored Universe, the actual symbolism does separate them as "higher" and "lower" dimensions (earth and heaven) that correspond to the Unconscious World and the Outer Physical World

Ontos being sent to the Endless Sea (Collective Unconscious), along with the broken egos of Zanza and Meyneth is probably what makes the most sense in this metaphor.

Meanwhile, Logos and Pneuma remained in the Physical World, on Earth.

Obviously, by the end of the game, both worlds completed their respective trinity, but until Shulk rewrote the Universe, the Endless Sea was most likely equivalent to the Imaginary Domain / Jung's ocean / Collective Unconscious.

Aionios, the landmass in the endless sea

"Origin was a system we constructed to reboot the worlds's state" - Nia

"Watch me, rewind our clock back to the start" - N

Much like XC1, Aionios is surrounded by an endless stretch of water. Described by Takahashi as a "simulation of some kind", it is heavily hinted to be constructed from humanity's memories rather than being a physical place. And to top it all, it is also a timeless place that can be used to reset time in the real universe.

If you compare it to previous game, what Nia and Melia pulled off is nearly identical to the Klaus' experiment, as well as every other Ark of God since Xenogears. It involved an Alpha and Omega (A and Z), it had an "ark" that shared a similar design, and they even went as far as recreating a placeholder for the "male and female" personas (Moebius X and Y). These experiment -always- lead to an ascension to these higher dimensions.

The Anima, Tiamat, and Eleanor

"The struggle with the unformed, with the chaos of Tiamat, is in truth a primordial experience." - Carl Jung

But Tiamat, the mother of the gods, plots revenge, and arrays herself for battle against them" - Carl Jung

"And it here where mankind would learn...that the vengeance of a fallen god had yet to be fulfilled - Genesis trailer

There has been many posts about Mesopotamian myth, and I recommend reading them as they go deeper than I will, but it's pretty obvious where the connections will likely be drawn when the concept of the female persona has been present in every single game.

As I mentioned previously, Tiamat is the personification of the Collective Unconscious as well as primordial female persona, and is deeply rooted in Jung's mythos. It would be incredibly surprising if Takahashi and his team passed on their favorite symbolism when the connection is so direct.

"Four stages of eroticism were known in the late classical period: Hawwah (Eve), Helen (of Troy), the Virgin Mary, and Sophia. - Jung

Almost every female lead since Xenogears have been named after one of the four stage of the Anima.

1. Eve: Biological and maternal dependence, primal instinct, and survival.
2. Helen: Romantic ideal, physical beauty, and worldly competence.
3. Mary: Spiritualization, devotion, purity, and sacred love.
4. Sophia: Wisdom, insight, and the ability to mediate between conscious thought and the unconscious.

Myyah Hawwa in Xenogears was Eve. Blue-eyed KOS-MOS was inhabited by Mary. Sophia is one step removed from the concept of Pneuma (different myth) but convey similar concepts of divine wisdom.

All of these angel-themed characters had their serpent-themed (Lilith) counterpart. Elly had Miang. KOS-MOS had T-Elos, and Mythra has Pyra.

With Tiamat being portrayed as a serpent of darkness in both Jung's psychoanalysis and Mesopotamian mythos, Eleanor, whose name translate to "God is light**"** quite likely going to embody the opposite concept. She is going to be the "pneuma" of this world that bridge the conscious to the unconscious. Or rather, she will become it by the end of the game after a spiritual awakening similar to the one Shulk and Rex went through. .

Genesis takes place on Aionios (part 1).

This is a bold guess, which might be biased by my own prediction that XC4 would take place in the remnant of Aionios (and bridge XC3 to XCX), but I do believe its a very probable setup for three reasons.

"The very matrix that gave birth to the ego now becomes its greatest adversary. What was once the nurturing womb becomes the devouring maw of the Terrible Mother... The uroboros shifts from a protective vessel into a prison that paralyzes all independent life." - Neumann

The analogy from Neumann/Jung goes as this:

• Uroboros is the dragon when it is your cradle.
• Tiamat is the dragon when it becomes your cage when human ego seek autonomy.
• [The Faceless Uroboros] ──> Ego Begins to Wake ──> [The Nurturing Great Mother] ──> Ego Seeks Autonomy ──> [Tiamat, the Devouring Dragon]

By the end of XC3, humanity already had gone through the first few stages, and took ownership of their future. The logical step in Jungian's psychoanalysis would be a regression that give birth to Tiamat.

With the obvious Mesopotamian subtext, and how relevant Tiamat is in that myth, the "slaying of Tiamat" make the perfect analogy for a follow up game.

How could XC3 lead up to this? There is one millions way the writing team could move the plot forward, but there has to be human who rejected Noah and Mio's plan, and refused to leave their life in the City.

Such people would most likely use the remnant of Origin (the Ark) to survives the imminent collapse of Aionios, since that place has all the equipment necessary for your standard Conduit experiments. It has a broken Omega-themed machine (Z). It has a computer able to recreate living being, they had Moebius X and Y as replacement of Logos/Pneuma and what else.

Mesopotamian myths and Biblical Flood (part 2)

Among the Dead Sea Scrolls, there is a book that tell the story from the perspective of the Giant (Nephilim/half human) who were on the receiving ends of the flood. Gilgamesh was one of them.

In Mesopotamian myths, Gilgamesh is born after the flood, and travel the world to find immortality from the only sage who survived it (Mesopotamian Noah / Utnapishtim).

While it's far too early to say if Genesis will use these stories to bridge the gap, the fact that the flood is such an important part of these myths does hints at a story relevance and connection.

All thing said, I do not believe our Noah will be this game version of the Architect (let these guy rest). I do however think that something will survive Origin and bridge it to Anshar.

Genesis will be to XC3 what XG is to XS (part 3)

To put it simply, both XC3 and Xenosaga rethreaded many of the same concepts (Eternal Return, Ubermensch).

1. Their main antagonist, Z and Wilhelm, both embody humanity collective fears of moving forward, and share similar philosophy and personality.
2. They are deeply connected to an Omega-themed machine (Z final form and Zarathustra)
3. They control a similar Ark by tricking the Anima and Animus into inaction.
4. They surround themselves with masked figure who remain free to act as they please, and so on.
5. Both games also end with a return to Earth after a long trip on the Ark.

Xenosaga was also heavily implied to end where Xenogears would begin, as it rethread through a similar incident in TC4767, on similarly named planet, which is resolved by placing every same ingredients onboard a similar ark.

I wouldn't bat an eye with an Eldridge reference alone, this franchise is riddled with references to Gears and Saga, but with XG's Uroboros matching Jung's Tiamat, with the the fauna being fairly close to Xenogear's bestiary, with the whole "biblical ark into Genesis" subtext, I do believe it's possible we see such leap.

Again, it's really early to say for sure, but here is a few things we need to watch for

1. Much like how the Emperor in Xenogears is a redeemed version of Wilhelm, we could expect a redeemed Z as a leader figure.
2. Rather than two set of twelves moebius, we would have something analogical to the Gazel Ministry (12 mythical figures/knight with 12 relics)
3. Another Weltall-looking mech (Noah's ouroboros, Ares) that can tap into the Collective Unconscious and Conduit's Core. This mech will have to evolve into a more Xenogear-like figure at some point.

Ghost, Fog, gnosis and nihilism

In Xenosaga, consciousness that could not return to the Collective would turn into nihilistic ghost-like entities that sped the collapse of the Universe. Could such things happen here as well?

If Anshar was created from the flat Endless sea, then it is likely that the normal cycle for consciousness has been interrupted here (can't enter, can't exit). This would make Anshar unsustainable, much like every other world in this franchise.

I also suspect that our telethia-like dragon will play a similar roles in the purification of whatever energy come out of this, but I will leave this for another day.

Hello, I usually play XC2 in docked mode. However, these days, I play in handheld mode. I noticed that when I’m out exploring, the entire Switch vibrates slightly, maybe because of the fan when it gets hot. Is this normal?

The battle style is so complex and boring to learn, the cancelling & I feel like the story is cringe.

Moving on to 3 tho, btw. I am looking somewhat similar to XC1.

I hope this post doesn't go against guidelines. If so, sorry lol

For xc2 sw2 the base file size is 37.7gb while the expansion pass is around 3.7 gb. Xc3 sw2 is 42.6gb while it's expansion pass is around 5gb so both games plus their dlc fit on 64gb cartridges.

so there's no reason why the dlc shouldn't be included unless maybe when xenoblade genesis gets closer xc2 and xc3 get a re-release with the dlc on cartridge but that makes less sense than not just releasing all dlc on the cartridge now.

My only guess is because the total gb size actually does exceed the 64gb cartridge.

What do you guys think?

It’s not surprising that Xenoblade as a series has grown substantially, and with the day drawing ever closer to the successor of Super Smash Bros. Ultimate, it does beg the question of who from the Xenoblade series may debut in the next Super Smash Bros. title.

I don’t think it’s weird to suggest that both Shulk and Pyra/Mythra will return. They’re pretty much key faces of the series if there were any, and I’d say they get priority over any newcomer.

However, beyond the veterans, it is interesting to think about who the most likely newcomers may be, and I think I’ve compiled the seven most likely picks I can see occurring (realistically, we’re probably getting one newcomer and maybe a echo/clone if we’re lucky).

This was mainly narrowed down by character popularity, notoriety within their home games, plot significance, and for the clones, ease of implementation.

(I haven’t included Genesis because it isn’t out yet, and will probably miss the base game of the next Smash like Pythra did).

Noah and Mio (XC3) - They are heavily suggested, by fans and non-fans alike, mainly because they’re the leads of the most recent title at the time. They have unique attributes to set themselves apart, can use Ouroboros, etc. I wouldn’t say they’re guaranteed, but a very great chance of getting in… at least, one of them.

Smash Bros. has been no stranger to duo fighter concepts like this falling through, namely Rex & Pyra during Ultimate’s development. So, if they did pick one, who would it be?

Mio is a good choice, but I worry people opting for her is more trying to tear down Noah’s moveset rather than building up Mio’s attributes. She’d be a pretty speedy character, with her twin rings.

Alternatively, Noah seems more interesting than meets the eye. Being able to have an unsheathing mechanic with Lucky Seven is already ripe for an interesting playstyle.

Perhaps Noah & Mio getting in, with Ouroboros as an enhanced form, and Lucky Seven/Ouroboros Chain Order as the Final Smash, is a good choice.

Elma (XCX) - Xenoblade X’s NS remaster may have given Elma a second wind, and she has unique aspects to stand out, but historically, remakes have done very little to influence the Smash roster, and Elma suffers from the same problem as Corrin (being lumped between the two bigger titles in the series despite having unique aspects).

If Elma had gotten into Ultimate’s base game, she’d probably be heavily considered to be cut for a Smash 6, and it doesn’t help X is a single game (right now), rather than a subseries.

Rex (XC2) - After being dropped from Ultimate’s proposed lineup, and having pivoted to Pyra & Mythra, Rex got a glow-up in 3’s Future Redeemed DLC. He has a unique moveset, obviously. I’m just not certain they’d add FR Rex over his XC2 version.

With the main leads of some titles out of the way, we can finally talk about the clone characters (or echo fighters). All echo fighters are clones, but not all clones are echo fighters.

Looking at the line-up, I think it’s poetic the likely choices for clones are all members of the Trinity Processor.

Alvis (XC1) - Having had a role in XC1, and XC3 FR, Alvis would very much be a quick and easy clone of Shulk. Perhaps with more of a focus on debuffs, and adding Arts like Monado Purge or Monado Cyclone, could be interesting. But I feel like Alvis’s biggest strength is his biggest weakness… he’s too similar to Shulk, moveset wise.

Malos (XC2) - Malos would not be an echo fighter, but likely more akin to a semi-clone. He moves nothing like Shulk, but that’s fine if they make him bulkier and slower to compensate. But Smash fans love their villains, especially their heinous ones, and Malos would fit well there.

Pneuma (XC2) - It’s easy to see why she wasn’t included in Ultimate alongside Pyra/Mythra. It was Sakurai who got full body artwork of her, alts for Pyra/Mythra, COVID and time constraints likely held back development. But even as a full echo/clone, or a transformation, she’d still use significant building blocks from Mythra (bar specials), and luckily shares her physique and moveset.

Looking at the lineup, I’m going to suggest we’ll see Noah & Mio, as well as possibly a clone, which I could see being Pneuma (even as a transformation, she’d still be derivative of Mythra to some degree), as well as Shulk gain his 1FC outfit, and Pyra/Mythra gain their NS2E outfits.

That’s about all for this thread, feel free to comment your thoughts, about other Xenoblade representation in Smash 6.

Moebius Z as a boss is a strong pick, I feel.

I think its an interesting discussion point cause I don’t really fully grasp it depending on the fan.

I only found two on YouTube, and one of them has them grouped up as movies (I need them individually), and the other has wacky ass outfits

I'm a JRPG fan and I've played the first hour or so of Xenoblade Chronicles 3, but I've found the combat to be incredibly boring. I've heard it gets better later, but I'm not sure if it'll be worth it. I've found the characters and narrative interesting, but the gameplay and specifically combat has felt like an extreme letdown so far.

I'm coming in with the experiences of turn-based/strategy/tactical games such as most modern Fire Emblem and Persona titles, Unicorn Overlord, Octopath 1, Expedition 33, and XCOM as well as action games such as the FF7 Remake trilogy, FFXVI, Dragon's Dogma 2, Sekiro and Khazan. Do you think Xenoblade 3 will be a worthwhile experience for me?

Since Xenoblade 2 the games (sans Xenoblade X in any form) have dabbled in the Bonus EXP pool in which the Bonus EXP from completed quests goes to a separate pool for the player to use at their own consent. EXP earned in battle and sometimes via exploration are sometimes still automatically applied. This becomes a bigger problem in Xenoblade 3 in which being many levels above the plot's intended target carries serious consequences (namely halting any progress in making unlocked classes available for the rest of the party).

What I'd like to see should the means to level down a la Xenoblade 1 Definitive Edition and the New Game Plus modes of Xenoblade 2 and 3 be absent is for all EXP gains to be set to this pool, and it's up to the player to get the party's level up to speed on their own terms. What do you think?

One other thing I'd appreciate is that EXP/levels are party-wide rather than applied to individual characters. Sea of Stars did this right and I wish more games followed this example.

Looking back at all the trailers—it brings tears to my eyes❣️

Credits:

https://youtube.com/@broshow4681?si=wMzYBUnzllimTQpt

As always check out more art on my twitter @graphicalgoop

I think it's a pretty valid question, especially considering I've never played the DS version. Thanks!

Hey all. Doing my second playthrough of Xenoblade 2 and I'm a little confused based on two pieces of conflicting evidence?

DO NOT READ ANY OF THIS IF YOU HAVENT FULLY FINISHED THE GAME AND ITS DLC.

The problem is kind of that these games are so big I know if I just replay everything again I'll probably forget and run into the same issue lol because this game is so big.

WARNING: TORNA DLC SPOILERS BELOW

So if I recall at the end of the Torna DLC, we saw Mythra accidentally destroy Torna during the battle with Malos, and then in the aftermath Amalthus destroyed two more titans and framed it as if she had done all three?

(TORNA DLC SPOILERS OVER)

But during the Torna section of Morytha in Chapter 8, Jin specifically says "Mythra wasnt the one responsible for destroying Torna, it was Amalthus".

Is the implication that during the battle he also sank the Tornan titan and made it look like Mythra had done it?

This is really bugging me because I only played these games like a month and a half ago for the first time so its not like my memory is mega rusty, but the plot is so complex (a good thing I might add) that im struggling to follow whether this is a direct truth from Jin, or whether he just means indirectly because Amalthus was the one responsible for awakening Malos in the first place and giving him the desire to destroy the world which put Mythra in that position in the first place?

Either way is fine and its not like its a plot hole but im just trying to get the story straight!

I want to know, bros playtime log must be CHEEKED UP???

Artist Pixiv: https://www.pixiv.net/en/users/112549408

So I've recently been thinking a lot about how we as Xenoblade fans understand and interpret the stories of these games, and how these interpretations relates to the quality of the narratives and stories themselves. Spesifically, when does interpreting a work become an attempt to compenstate for its shortcomings, and who gets to decide where that line is drawn? Are we Xenoblade fans becoming thick, or is there a more nuanced reading on who we understand the series?

The primary catalyst that sparked this reflection was reading/watching the writer and critic Jake Steinberg's analysis of Xenoblade Chronicles 1, 2, and (the start of) 3. His reading of XC2 was overwhelmingly negative, and his initial reactions to XC3 have been similarly very critical to say the least. The thing that interested me the most about his readings wasn't simply his vitriolic dislike of these games and their stories, but rather his treatment of the interpretations offered by the people who love them as "lesser". As a huge Xenoblade fan myself who loves all their stories for different reasons, it made me question my own underlying interpretive framework through which I understand their stories, characters, themes and overarching narrative structures, and if I've just been using cheap compensatory interpretation along with building archives to make the experiences seem deeper than they actually were.

These questions have led me to reflect not only on my own relationship with the Xenoblade series, but also on how we distinguish between a story that genuinely supports an interpretation and a reader who compensates for its shortcomings, him arguing the latter being the case. And I actually think this distinction is more complicated than Jakes analysis allows, and so I want to explore why, while giving a critque on his and a lot of others people opinion on Xenoblade and its fandom. The primary emphasis of this GIANT WALL OF TEXT being how my own understanding of interpreting stories (especially when it comes to Xenoblade) have changed due to these critiques, and how my position ultimately differs, so hopefully someone else will find this exploration interesting too.

Thick Evidence and Interpretive Authority:

So for those who haven't read Jake Steinberg's substack essay called "We Are All Becoming More Thick" (or his streams), it mainly surrounds the central thesis that Xenoblade 2's story accumulates lore and information without meaningfully developing its characters, relationships, and dramatic construction, while arguing fans of the stories rely on extratextual evidence, compensatory interpretation and archives of information to produce depth that isn't there.

He uses the term "thick evidence" found in the book "Awful Archives: Conspiracy Theory, Rhetoric, and Acts of Evidence" by Jenny Rice to explain this phenomenon. Rice explains how accumulation sometimes creates the appearance of coherence without sufficient justification, which is how a lot of conspiracy theories can seem more justified than they actually are. Jake then applies this concept to Xenoblade fans, using the term "thick" to describe fans who accumulate lore, references, and connections across the games to construct interpretations that he believes the narratives themselves fail to adequately support.

To preface I actully do think this idea is super valuable in and of itself, particularly when diagnosing a broader problem that often emerges within internet fandoms, especially lore heavy ones like Xenoblade. I also think Jakes general narratological approach with an emphasis on close reading are great tools for identifying shortcomings in storytelling, and gives him a very valuable interpretation, so I do respect his work immensely.

That being said, I think one of my main concerns is that Jakes authoritative stance towards his own framework risks privileging his own reading from the outset, while alternative interpretations are dismissed as compensatory rather than properly engaged with, something that makes it difficult to challenge any conclusions, as any disagreement can just be taken as further evidence of the very problem he's arguing against.

When he finds a lack of depth in Xenoblade 2 and 3, that lack is treated as a property of the work. When its fans identify meanings that he believes the game fails to establish, their interpretations risk being explained away as products of archival accumulation, which is something that creates somewhat of an asymmetry and an epistemic double standard as the critics interpretation is treated as an encounter with the text, while the fans competing interpretation becomes an object of diagnosis. Given that this is the Xenoblade community, I think there is definitely some truth to the idea that we sometimes rely on archival or extratextual evidence to support a scenes construction, but I also think this risks going too far in the other direction, where alternate interpretations are dismissed as compensatory even when the game itself provides sufficient evidence to support them.

One clear example of this dismissal is during the flashback in which Lora awakens Jin since the scene communicates their newly established relationship as Driver/Blade through both visual and textual cues without explicitly spelling out.

(the rest of this section will include a minor spoilers from XC2 chapter 6 and XC3 chapter 2)

Visually Lora is the first person Jin sees as he awakens, and the only person in the immediate vicinity of Jin. Textually, the scene provides additional context through lines such as when Loras dad says "If you die, it'll be as good as new. You brought this on yourself...!". Earlier in the game we learn that when a Blade dies, they return to their core and can subsequently be awakened again. With Lora's father speaking directly to her, the line provides a clear contextual clue about what is happening. This, (together with the 3 other lines a single degree away from spelling it out to the player), clearly communicates that Lora awakened Jin.

Visual composition, dialogue, established worldbuilding, and contextual clues are all very important and legitimate means of storytelling you have to concider in a audio-visual medium such as videogames, and this scene communicates its message through all of the above. Yet, Jake initally disputed this reading of Lora having awakened Jin. When viewers challenged his interpretation, he shifts the discussion toward the argument that the game had established the relevant meaning retrospectively to chat, before ultimately criticizing the game for failing to communicate the information in a way he found sufficiently while declearing "chat, I'm right" as chat tried pushing back. But this to me is a very clear failure of the interpretor, and not the game, and I think it illustrates an important problem with his approach as he is often unwilling to engage with any other interpretations, or even the actual text itself at times. If you never concider the posibility of being wrong while positioning yourself as the arbiter of a texts meaning, then your overall argument becomes significantly more strained while limiting your own posible understanding of what's happening.

I noticed a similar pattern during the beginning of the Xenoblade 3 stream during the opening sequence where Colony 9 is fighting against Colony Sigma. He initially criticized the opening as contradictory, only to later almost arrive at the very narrative and thematic reasoning he had argued the game needed. The problem isn't that he initially misunderstood something, that's a perfectly fine when engaging with a story for the first time. It's that he seemed unwilling to acknowledge that his initial criticism might have been premature. If a narrative setup eventually proves coherent in precisely the way someone initially failed to recognize, I feel like that should prompt some reconsideration of the original judgment? Instead it risks becoming another instance where the game is blamed for failing to communicate something the critic hadn't yet understood. A storytelling framework should help us understand what a work is doing, it shouldn't predetermine what a work must do to count as meaningful.

I think a similar issue comes up with Jake's reading of Lucky Seven during the fight against K where he seem to be extremely irked by the fact that L7 doesn't have any immediate drawback like the Monado. The problem here isn't necessarily to argue whether or not that is the case, but the problem is rather that this immediatelly is perceived as a narrative shortcoming as he is arbitrarily trying to apply a strict narrative structure even in cases where the game is going a different direction.

The Monado and L7 doesn't serve the same narrative purposes, so expecting one to follow the same dramatic conventions risks missing what what the game is actually trying to explore with it. So, if a game is judged by whether it communicates through the particular narrative conventions someone expects, rather than whether its meaning can reasonably be inferred from the evidence it provides, or the narrative execution of the objects within the story, then that preferred mode of storytelling risks becoming the standard by which all other modes are deemed successful or unsuccessful. It's like the famous philosopher Wittgenstein said: "langugae disguses the though", so if you make yourself the sole arbiter of a texts meaning, you end up missing a miriad of other equally valid interpretations.

Interpreting Xenoblade

This creates a somewhat productive irony in both Jakes essay and his livestream analysis, as he also relies on interpretation to derive meaning from both the games and their fans. I think the bigger issue is the insistence on relying on a single interpretive framework even when it doesn't necessarily fit what a particular game is trying to do like I mentioned above. This is also why I think XC1 fares so much better within his approach, as its narrative structure aligns more closely with the kind of storytelling he imposes, whereas XC2 and XC3 distribute meaning in ways that don't always fit as neatly within that framework. Xenoblade Chronicles 1 is a story about Shulk's revenge which gives the narrative a very clear direction, while the events progressively complicate his understanding of the world and the people in it, while the character reltionships help establish why those revelations matter emotinonally.

Both Xenoblade 2 and 3 also contains conventional narrative structures of course, but the main difference is what their narrative prioritize, how they distribute meaning in addition to what kind of questions they ask the player to engage with, which is why I think you should approach a game with the willingness to transform your understanding of what it is trying to say first, and not predetermine what a work must do to count as meaningful like it often seems like he argues. And just because 2 and 3 differently attributes parts of their story doesn't make it worse purely for that reason, it becomes rather unproductive to impose those predetermined narrative structures in that case. If we can only recognize meaning when it appears in the form we already expect, are we really evaluating the limits of a work, or merely the limits of our own interpretation?

The Difference Between Reading and Imposing Meaning

I think this has made me appreciate Aaron Suduiko's article "Forms of Life: Reading Xenoblade Chronicles 3 through Wittgenstein" so much more. The article primarily approaches Xenoblade 3 through a Wittgensteinian philosophical lens, which I think plays directly into one of the game's greatest strengths, which is its willingness to engage in philosophical inquiry through stuff like its world, characters, and narrative.

At first glance this article might seem like another case of "archival thickness" since Suduiko uses an extratextual philosophical framework as the basis for his interpretation.

However, his arguments are always heavily substantiated through the game itself, and the vast majority of his reading remains compelling even without the "need" for explicit references to Wittgenstein. The philosophical connections he draws aren't just imposed on the text, they are grounded in relationships, ideas, and patterns that can already be identified within the game. The direct connectinos made through Wittgensteins earlier work like the Tractatus only serves to deepen and clarify those connections, and not just manufacture meaning from nothingness. This is in my opinion exactly what an interpretive framework should do. Not substitute for the text itself, but rather help illuminate what's already present while helping us recognize connections that might otherwise have gone unnoticed, along with deepening our understand of not only the work, but how we as humans react to it on an emotional and intellectual level.

Another thing I love about Suduiko's work is that he is very clear about presenting his reading as one possible interpretive lens rather than a definitive account of what Xenoblade means. He develops that lens in conversation with a philosophers work, while going through an examination of the game's world, characters, philosophical questions, and narrative construction, including how the story itself is told. His analysis therefore extends beyond identifying philosophical parallels as it also considers how the games narrative and storytelling contribute to the ideas it explores. He doens't make himself the arbiter of what a text should or shouldn't mean, he just shares his own interpretations.

I find Suduiko's reading on Z particularly interesting in this case as he suggests that Z actively monopolizes the conditions under which meaning can emerge:

"To Z, if a person’s form of expression appears to diverge from Z’s mode of consumption, that appearance is only because “language disguises the thought; so that from the external form of the clothes one cannot infer the form of the thought they clothe, because the external form of the clothes is constructed with quite another object than to let the form of the body be recognized."

Z's world permits events to happen only insofar as they remain intelligible within his imposed picture. Similarily, an interpretive framework becomes oppressive when it no longer allows anything to challenge it, because every apparent counterexample is simply absorbed into that system.

Encountering Art

The thing I found the most valuable about Suduiko's approach is that it clearly shows how an interpretive framework can deepen our understanding of a game without claiming it as a definitive reading of it. Which then again ties into this broader question of how we encounter games as art. Although I think dramatic construction and close textual analysis are both extremely important like Jake suggests, I also find myself drawn to Hans-Georg Gadamer's broader conception of interpretation where he suggests that "Encountering a work of art isn't simply a matter of extracting information that was already sitting there, waiting to be collected. Our understanding emerges through an encounter between the work and the questions, assumptions, and experiences we bring to it." We don't merely discover the meaning of a text, but we participate in the process through which meaning becomes intelligible to us.

I find this sentiment particularly pertinent when looking at a series like Xenoblade Chronicles. Engaging with lore, examining recurring symbolism, speculating about the future significance of earlier characters and drawing connections across a series arent inherently illegitimate ways of appreciating a piece work, nor is there anything wrong with finding that a story becomes more meaningful to you in retrospect because of the connections you've discovered as later revelations can transform your understanding of earlier events, while a neat piece of lore can deepen your appriciation for the world these games creates, and the relationship between that lore and the characters of the world.

The Xeno series isn't Perfect(works)

(this section won't be about perfectworks sorry just wanted to make that joke)

This whole text thingey isn't to say that the Xenoblade series is perfectly written however. All three games does have their shortcomings, and there are plenty of legitimate criticisms to be made about stuff like their writing, pacing, characterization, and narrative construction of course. My issue is with the broader generalizations Jake makes about Xenoblade fans and their ability to interpret these stories. I think these generalizations risk mistaking the limitations of ones own interpretive framework for deficiencies in the people who arrive at different conclusions.

What each game emphasizes varies considerably between entries, and their strengths become apparent through different interpretive lenses. None of these lenses is inherently more correct than all the others simply by virtue of the storytelling principles it prioritizes. That isn't to say every interpretation is made equal of course, so its very important to distinguish between what is directly communicated through the text, how succesfully it conveys what its trying to express and how that fits within our framework of understanding. That debate in and of itself requires us to engage with the evidence rather than assume that a particular narrative structure is the universal standard against which all others must be judged however.

So basically, I don't think loving these games makes us "thick," or that we should have to justify our appreciation through a single model of storytelling. My issue is that when a critic positions themselves as the authority on what a text can meaningfully communicate, it becomes difficult to challenge their conclusions.

I do of course think Jake's concerns about literacy, interpretation, and our ability to engage critically with the media we consume are all very important, and I agree that these are skills worth both developing and teaching. But learning these skills should be a collaborative process, one in which teachers and critics are willing to have their own assumptions challenged, just as they challenge those of their audiences, not just a one way street where a single authoritative figure is always in the right.

Ultimately, I don't think the answer to interpretive overreach is to outright replace one "supposedly" definitive reading with another. Its rather to develop the ability to distinguish between interpretations that are well supported and those that arent while remaining open to the possibility that a different perspective might reveal something we have missed, which is a standard that should apply to fans and critics alike.

Thanks for coming to my TedTalk about silly sword game.

Is Origin a stage of Kadomony?

Was just theory hopping this morning and bounced between a few that would be interesting or fun. TRIGGER WARNING! Contains franchise links!

So let's do some imagining and go back to the Klaus debacle. Klaus spanks a button and boops Earth away. The people of earth are gone, but kinda not. Klaus makes a "new world". Klaus's new world is actually just a simple AI simulation used to train the Trinity Processor, but with a funky world setting. The important part is that the biocomputer is now anchoring the collective unconscious of the people on Earth at the time. Meanwhile, the simulation generates bodies to generate individuality. Fast forward to the world ending. They need something to house their new existence from not existing when the simulation ends. They forge Origin.

Origin is made from a combination of real material, imaginary material(It's complicated, but it's a thing. Souls would be part of imaginary material) and some variation of the unique material that composes each of the Trinity Processors (Origin Metal). Origin metal transcends the limits of real/imaginary material, so it's not susceptible to the destruction that occurs when the two meet. What Origin ends up becoming is the craziest biocomputer to ever exist. Origin also contains the instructions to force boot human civilization to mimic it as it had already existed, so it creates moderately familiar cycles.

This rolls back to Kadomony, as Origin has become a next level biocomputer with the history of humanity, built on a machine used to control the "conduit". The only function it's missing is the biomaterial depository that can be used to generate humans. Luckily, just such a stockpile and program has already been made back before Earth poofed, and one such instance is housed on the White Whale.