Xesirin
2009-08-10, 12:00 AM
This seems to get thrown around alot regarding whether the planet inside the rift is world 1.0, or if it's 2.0 and it's a recursive rift, or if 1.0 is their world and the one inside is 2.0, etc..........
So, I pose this question: Is it explicitly said somewhere that world 2.0 was built geographically distinct from world 1.0, and assuming it were, given the limitations of the art style, is there enough evidence regarding the appearance of either world for any one person to look at world 1.0 or world 2.0 and be able to declare that one is or isn't the either?
ALSO: Why this is relevant....... Comments have been made on the grounds of their own identification of the planets as they were listed, and the evidence cited to support their claims often relies upon information my inquiry has specifically challenged the integrity of.
So, I pose this question: Is it explicitly said somewhere that world 2.0 was built geographically distinct from world 1.0, and assuming it were, given the limitations of the art style, is there enough evidence regarding the appearance of either world for any one person to look at world 1.0 or world 2.0 and be able to declare that one is or isn't the either?
ALSO: Why this is relevant....... Comments have been made on the grounds of their own identification of the planets as they were listed, and the evidence cited to support their claims often relies upon information my inquiry has specifically challenged the integrity of.