On the subject of clones:

In the interest of not littering the activity page with tons of edits and commentary, I'm using this to put my two cents in. It's really pedantic to make a distinction. It is said in canon that the Transporter makes COPIES of the source material before spitting it out in the destination. Exactly like how a fax machine works. A fax machine is a glorified copy machine with the added bonus that you can transport data somewhere else. Whether you call them copies or clones, it's the same exact concept.

Sure, Akane in VLR timeline isn't a "clone" in the same sense that K is a clone of Sigma--but conceptually speaking it doesn't matter because she IS a clone of herself. The only real difference that actually matters is how the clone was made. In K's case, he's completely artificial, just like Luna. In Akane's case, her clone is completely biologically real, because she became cloned through the Transporter and not made by someone else.

So it is, in fact, correct to call the Akane in VLR a clone. Thank you, this has been a rant.

Kirvee (talk) 20:34, April 29, 2017 (UTC)

However, the way it's worded will make people think that it's referring to a clone like Kyle. However, Akane is still the exact same person, basically. At the very least, it would be reworded to make it clear that it's not clone like Kyle. I had actually confused it for that myself. Same with the Junpei page. TaylorHyuuga (talk) 20:40, April 29, 2017 (UTC)

I can agree with that. This wiki isn't exactly spoiler free, so it wouldn't be wrong to distinguish it by specifically saying she's from another timeline. Alternatively, you could just say "copy" which as I said is exactly the same thing in concept to "clone" without the artificial implications. Kirvee (talk) 21:30, April 29, 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, I've made edits to make it far easier to distinguish, that I'm sure everyone can agree is a better way to word it than just calling her and Junpei clones, not even mentioning they're just from a different timeline until further down. TaylorHyuuga (talk) 21:31, April 29, 2017 (UTC)

The definition of a clone is "a cell, cell product, or organism that is genetically identical to the unit or individual from which it was derived." So if someone is duplicated using the Transporter, it counts. Can we at least put "could be considered a clone"? —AlexShepherd 07:04, April 30, 2017 (UTC)
Why? I don't really see a point to it. TaylorHyuuga (talk) 08:11, April 30, 2017 (UTC)
Because the way it is currently phrased, it makes it sound like Akane just timeline hopped, when in actuality, it's a cloned duplicate - a separate Akane - a reconstructed body of an original. It does a poor job of making this clear. —AlexShepherd 08:46, April 30, 2017 (UTC)
Because Akane DID just timeline hop. That's really all it is. And as I mentioned the Transporter, that is their way of distinguishing that she didn't SHIFT. Although I suppose a link to the Transporter article could be provided. TaylorHyuuga (talk) 09:09, April 30, 2017 (UTC)
Please learn how to properly indent your posts. It's wiki etiquette to indent more when there's a new reply. Anyway, whether or not you consider those duplicated by the Transporter a "clone" is a philosophical question. I'm not denying that Akane timeline-hopped, but I don't consider the Akane/Junpei in VLR their original selves because their original bodies died, and the Akane/Junpei in VLR are reconstructed using atomic-level materials from nothing. As Sigma says, it doesn't just "transport", it "copies" like an atomic level 3D printer. Thus, the Akane/Junpei in VLR are "copies", not their original selves. By not even allowing "they could be considered clones", you are essentially pushing and forcing your own beliefs onto others. —AlexShepherd 09:18, April 30, 2017 (UTC)
It is a philisophical question, certainly. But it doesn't matter in the slightest. If it had been brought up in game, then sure, there'd be reason to add it. But without that in-game knowledge, I don't see the point. We aren't here to pose philisophical questions. TaylorHyuuga (talk) 18:34, April 30, 2017 (UTC)
It's just your opinion that it doesn't matter, and it's a notable possibility imo. Just because "clone" doesn't appear in-game, it doesn't mean we can't mention "clone" on the wiki. At the very least, I'll add it on the Transporter's trivia. —AlexShepherd 23:39, April 30, 2017 (UTC)


This doesn't deserve to be put anywhere on the article. It's a useless comparison based on an nonobjective notion of what is "general" for visual novels and video games. And it's uselessly stating something that's not there in the first place. The fact that she's not sexualized has absolutely no meaning. You might as well include a paragraph about how rare it is for VN characters to have purple eyes, or how Akane doesn't have blonde hair. Or how she's not the Prime Minister of Japan, or how she's not a lizard. 

Besides, it doesn't exactly make sense in the context of Zero Escape anyway to write a paragraph praising the non-sexualization of a female characters, when the series has characters like Lotus , Alice and Mira. Radical-6-fever (talk) 19:22, August 29, 2017 (UTC)

I agree. Keep it off. It's entirely irrelevant and completely pointless. TaylorHyuuga (talk) 19:27, August 29, 2017 (UTC)
I disagree to a degree. I don't think it's irrelevant or pointless at all, I think it's rather ground-breaking and says a lot about how the developers wanted to portray Akane. There's a huge false equivalence between noting that Akane is a major female character in a Japanese visual novel series who is never physically sexualized, and saying she's not a lizard or a prime minister or some other completely ridiculously thing. I think her lack of sexualization is quite remarkable considering the medium, as well as the "woman as reward" tropes that 999 avoids. The paragraphs aren't exactly "praising" it either, just noting that it is quite unique. Also, the paragraph is focused on Akane, not the women of the series in general, so I don't see a problem with its inclusion on Akane's article. —AlexShepherd 19:51, August 29, 2017 (UTC)
For starters, there is no objective ground on which to base this in the first place. I don't want to turn this into a debate about how female characters are typically represented in visual novels, or any other types of games and media, but the fact remains that saying that a character is not an example of a generalized notion of how a type of character is typically portrayed is far too nonobjective. Besides which, the fact that Akane isn't sexualized is pretty debatable in the first place. Junpei clearly does sexualize her on quite a few occasions, and although this is not her being physically sexualized, it is still pretty clearly supposed to be sexualization of Akane to at least certain extents. Then there's also the fact that Akane not being a "woman as a reward" doesn't really have any baring. Akane isn't a "woman as a reward" because in the context of the story that wouldn't make any sense, especially so at the end of 999. Junpei and Akane suddenly making out on the side of the road would be completely ridiculous. Writing a paragraph on the subject as though it was something that Uchikoshi and the others on the production team purposefully avoided makes zero sense. Radical-6-fever (talk) 20:19, August 29, 2017 (UTC)
We don't need statistic studies since it's common knowledge that women in Japanese VNs (and video games in general) tend to be sexulized, and to deny this unique portrayal of Akane because we don't have statistics is a bit absurd. Regarding Junpei having thoughts about Akane, that's why I specified *visual* sexualization. And that's the point, Akane isn't presented as a sexualized or romantic reward, and it's done in a unique way. Anyway, I don't wish to pursue a long argument about this, just wanted to point out your false equivalence fallacy more than anything. Also, it's "bearing", not "baring". —AlexShepherd 20:31, August 29, 2017 (UTC)
I said I wasn't going to turn this into a debate about how women are portrayed in media, but since you seem pretty insistant to turn it into one, I will say that I don't at all agree with what you're saying. I feel like you're generalizing, and that this subject matter often engages in cherry-picking (aka, purposefully noticing examples that support a stance, and blissfully ignoring the examples that don't, despite how many there may be, and how often they may arise). Even still, if that is your opinion, which I disagree with, but still nevertheless respect as your opinion, the fact remains it's your stance. It's a nonobjective stance, and it shouldn't be the basis for whatever information you want to spread about on a character's page. And Akane is presented as a "romantic reward" in ZTD. Ultimately the outcome for Junpei is that she ends up as his fiancee. All of this is just useless in the first place though. It fits around whatever narrative they made for the characters, and you just making a paragraph outlining how Akane isn't sexualized or used as a "reward" as a woman actually has the opposite effect, and makes her seem less dignifed as a character. As someone who likes Akane quite a bit, this kind of thing flat out bugs me. Radical-6-fever (talk) 20:42, August 29, 2017 (UTC)
Agree to disagree. And I wouldn't say Akane in ZTD is a romantic reward at all. The only thing I can think of is Junpei proposing to her, and Carlos is the protagonist, not Junpei. I love Akane too. I'm not going to re-add it to Trivia, although I disagree with its exclusion. I'm tired of long debates. —AlexShepherd 20:50, August 29, 2017 (UTC)
Sorry but they're right, this is completely pointless and borderline false information and doesn't belong on a Wikia article. First of all, MANY of not ALL VNs have at least one unsexualized female character so Akane isn't unique in the slightest. Second, the fact that other characters in Zero Escape are sexualized completely cancels out any praise for not sexualizing one character. The fact is, Zero Escape is exactly like any other VN in this regard. Additionally, unless you have stats and studies that prove that "women are generally sexualized in VNs" then all it is is your generalization, not a fact. Abearhead (talk) 23:03, August 29, 2017 (UTC)
@Abearhead Don't worry, he already agreed with everyone on excluding it from her article, so there is no need to discuss this further. Thank you everyone for their input though! ^-^ -JuneSlade (ドナルド) 23:51, August 29, 2017 (UTC)