Talk:Human

Musings On the Supposed Extinction of Humanity
I should preface this by stating I'm mostly writing this for fun, because I enjoy having arguments discussions and writing out said discussions. I also realize I could probably write this in discord, but I'm lazy so here we are. With that out of the way, I'd like to explain why I choose to use the more open term of "presumably extinct" rather than the definite term of "extinct." I would like to bring up the issue of unreliable narrators, or narrators who mislead or misinform the reader/viewer/player, intentionally or otherwise. Now I'm going to be arguing from a watsonian perspective (within universe), so bear with me for a moment. ORCA is presented as a neutral figure, but despite having the word omniscient in his name (in the english loc). However, he doesn't seem to have complete information. He does not mention anything about Tartar, or any other dome networks. So did ORCA just not know about these, or is it intentionally obscuring information? In the first Alterna log, ORCA states that humanity went extinct, and immediately contradicts that. It doesn't help that the last AI we ran into was a certified liar (and genocidal maniac). Sure ORCA isn't directly hostile to the player, but that doesn't mean it's friendly either. Doesn't help that ORCA's description of humanity's "final extinction" is somewhat vague (and kind of dumb to be honest). For a place that supposedly suffered a massive disaster, Alterna seems pretty intact. In addition, while ORCA states that the few humans who survived the disaster "soon perished," they may have persisted a bit longer, enough to make a little impact. Alternatively, they might still be out there somewhere for better, or perhaps for worse.

From a doylist perspective (from the author's perspective), a lot of the information presented in-game or in art books is rather vague, presenting a lot of leeway for future writing. This isn't the first time initially vague information, stated or implied, was presented. In Splatoon 1, all we knew was that humans were dead from a big flood and the only things that survived were a cat and some weirdly empty underground dome networks. Later on we learned that there was some sort of war, and then in Octo Expansion we find a surviving sapient AI created by humans, which was a surprise when the DLC first came out. So who knows what the writer might present next? Humans might all be dead, but that could easily be contradicted in future stories, with previous information being dismissed as unreliable or limited. If inklings can completely overlook the mass appearance of octolings, what else have they overlooked? A future writer may very well show us.

But at the end of the day, I'm just one idiot with presuppositions, writing an narrative analysis and argument about the funny squid game on a wiki. Inkipedia prides itself on accuracy, and while humans might be still around, they also, given the information presented to us, are more likely not. So going with the safe option by declaring humanity definitely extinct, is completely understandable. Yes humanity could be reintroduced to the setting as an active force, but so might some newly discovered ais, or a civilization of intelligent penguins, or an army of rabbit people from the moon who wield wii u styluses and snes Super Scopes as weapons! As for ORCA, yes it could potentially be not entirely reliable, but likely ORCA was conceived as way to present new information to the player (the alterna files), and also as an explanation for why you have to do octo expansion style missions again. Honestly, you could poke a thousand holes in the splatoon narrative, but like with many video games, these can be easily explained with "the gameplay demands it." As for my own personal biases, I always enjoy stories where some supposedly long dead force appears and shows up and shows the young ones who's boss, and often notice the holes in the upstarts. Heck, Tartar as much of a nutcase it was, sort of does this, by pointing out how silly the main gameplay loop of the games are (endlessly battling and getting more clothes). As people, we often poke holes in each other, ourselves, and the various entities that surround us. Stories are often reflections of ourselves, so why should they be different?

Well at this point I'm just rambling, so better end it here. If you decided to waste minutes of your life reading my poorly organized and amateurishly written mini essay, I sincerely thank you. If you didn't, human good, squid bad, and snort wasabi it's great for your sinuses. Well in any case, stay critical, stay kind, and don't forget to vote for Grizz in the 14278 elections. FOCUS TREE (talk) 16:34, 11 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Your personal taste is heavily affecting your interpretation of Splatoon canon. That's fine; but you can't argue for something to be displayed on a wiki page just cause that's what you hope will happen in future Splatoon media. If that's not what you're arguing for, then talk pages are not for theory discussion. The Discord server has chat channels where theories are welcome.
 * As editors we are only concerned with what has been established in canon, not what the writers might do in the future. We will work on that when we get there. If there's new lore that says they might still be alive, we will add that when we get there. Presently there's an immense emphasis on them being completely gone.
 * The unbiased Doylist interpretation of RoTM is that it seems the writers wanted the hype of players going "wait there's humans that are still alive?!" without having to deliver on it. Most of the things you point out as plotholes (such as Alterna not being in ruin) are explained diegetically in the logs, but talk pages are not the place for theory arguing. The wiki is not meant to have Doylist interpretations listed as fact, unless it's somehow very relevant to the Watsonian information. Unless you have evidence of humans still existing past the unreliable "the writers might want to do another human plotline in the future", the page should reflect the evidence we have currently gathered. Yoshifan52 (talk) 22:02, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
 * If you had read more carefully, you will have noted that I acceded that the current wording is more objective than my personal preferences. In addition, I am not arguing over theory, I am primarily arguing that there is a deliberate vagueness in the narrative that is ripe for exploitation. Again, I think the current edit is fine, but I still want to make my voice heard, so to speak. I don't mean any harm, I just enjoy thinking about these things. FOCUS TREE (talk) 16:27, 13 January 2023 (UTC)