- Joined
- Jun 30, 2020
- Messages
- 808
- Awards
- 3
First of all I apologize if there's already been arguments about this. But in other KH communities I've always noticed a bizarre difference in understanding between me and others regarding what Nomura has to say about Shibuya in the Ultimania interview. To recap:
I have had numerous people assert to me that this is Nomura saying that KH3-Shibuya is not TWEWY/3D-Shibuya, and this is commonly treated as canon fact. But that's not what this quote says in the slightest. In fact, it spells KH3-Shibuya and 3D-Shibuya in the same way. What's up with people coming to the exact opposite conclusion? Feels like people just read "It does look like it. But" and stopped there.
Even right now on the KHWiki, the statement "Neku's Shibuya and Yozora's are two entirely separate worlds." is presented as fact with this quote being the citation. Kinda bothers me that this misinformation is accepted as the truth. I know it's an ambiguous non-answer so people take it different ways, but that's kind of the point: it's an ambiguous non-answer, so obviously you can't make a conclusion as firm as the wiki's from that.
—Is Sora in the world of the World Ends With You?
Nomura: It does look like it. But there's more meaning in the fact that it is not Shibuya (written with kanji), but Shibuya (written with katakana). Also, Sora promised Neku and the others in KH3D that he would meet them in Shibuya (written in katakana), but that doesn't mean it's directly connected to this movie.
I have had numerous people assert to me that this is Nomura saying that KH3-Shibuya is not TWEWY/3D-Shibuya, and this is commonly treated as canon fact. But that's not what this quote says in the slightest. In fact, it spells KH3-Shibuya and 3D-Shibuya in the same way. What's up with people coming to the exact opposite conclusion? Feels like people just read "It does look like it. But" and stopped there.
Even right now on the KHWiki, the statement "Neku's Shibuya and Yozora's are two entirely separate worlds." is presented as fact with this quote being the citation. Kinda bothers me that this misinformation is accepted as the truth. I know it's an ambiguous non-answer so people take it different ways, but that's kind of the point: it's an ambiguous non-answer, so obviously you can't make a conclusion as firm as the wiki's from that.