Does Rinoa, a new sorceress, go on to become Ultimecia? This is a subject of debate that's been hotly debated, as far as I can tell, since the game first came out. I personally don't believe Square meant for the player to assume that Rinoa becomes Ultimecia, and in the following paragraphs I'll attempt to explain why. Of course, this is not a definite statement that the theory is wrong - I'm just stating my opinion and supporting it (or at least trying to). The theory, in fact, actually makes the game more interesting for me in that after I first read about it I started looking at the game on a deeper level (maybe a little too deep...I have a tendency to overanalyze ^_^;).

I've read good arguments on both sides, but, as I said before, I've decided that Rinoa and Ultimecia are different people. The following points I make are mostly conclusions I've come to based on what I've seen in the game and my own craziness :p

* First of all...I mean this in the nicest way...I believe Square was, through FF8 (as well as all their games...they want people to like them but they also want money), trying to appeal to a broad range of people (who play video games), and putting in the idea that Rinoa is Ultimecia through the clues that they supposedly did have would, in my opinion, fly over the heads of many gamers (my not-so-brilliant brother, for example...). I'm not saying most video gamers aren't smart - I'm just saying that it would take a certain level of deeper thinking to come to that conclusion (that R=U) than most people would get on a first, or even second playing of the game (I consider myself fairly intelligent, but beat the game twice and the theory didn't even occur to me until I read about it on a message board - most people I know have only played this game once so the idea would probably never occur to them), and if Square really wanted to make it clear to the average gamer that Rinoa would become Ultimecia, I think they would've put in more clues than a scattering of vague lines and subliminal imagery.

* Second, I think there's reason to believe that in FF8, a possessed sorceress can read the mind of her possessor, and that the possessor can read the mind of the possessed. Two souls in the same body, in essence. For example, at the beginning of Disk 3 (when you visit Cid and Edea at the orphanage), Edea says this:

"I was at the mercy of Sorceress Ultimecia. Ultimecia is a sorceress from the future. A sorceress many generations ahead of our time.... Ultimecia is a very fearful sorceress. Her heart is filled with anger and hate."

How else would Edea know that the sorceress' name is Ultimecia, or where (when) she's from, or what she's like, without sharing her mind and getting an "up-close" look into her personality and background?

Now you may ask, what does that have to do with Rinoa being Ultimecia? It may support pivotal counterpoints to two assertions made supporting the "R=U" theory: Ultimecia using Griever is actually Rinoa having created a living entity out of the ring Squall gave her (or something along those lines), and Ultimecia having placed her castle directly over the orphanage is Rinoa waiting for Squall to "return" to her after a presumably long period of separation. Both of these points can be disproved with the idea that sorceresses can read each other's mind when possessed/possessing, Ultimecia reading Rinoa's mind in both instances.

Concerning Griever, in Disk 2 Rinoa (before her first possession by Ultimecia) and Squall talk about Squall's ring:

Squall (to Rinoa): "That's my favorite ring. You'd better give it back."
Rinoa: "I'm sure it is. It's a cool-looking ring. What's this monster on it anyway?"
Squall: "It's not a monster. It's a lion. Lions are known for their great strength and pride."
Rinoa: "Hmm...great strength...pride......Kinda like you, Squall."
Squall: "I wish..."
Rinoa: "Hmm...so this L I O N of yours. Does it have a name?"
Squall: "Of course."

[you can then name the ring, and the corresponding GF will have the same name when you fight it)

So Rinoa knows that Griever (or whatever name you gave) is a symbol of the qualities that Squall really admires - this information is processed in her mind and stored in her memory (not to sound all computer-ish here...). When she is possessed the first time (or even the second, really), Ultimecia could've had found this information in Rinoa's mind (as they seem to have access to each other's feelings and memories) and later used it to create the actual Griever GF as a way of intimidating Squall. In creating Griever, Ultimecia is not acting out of memories of the one she loved, but rather out of a twisted kind of logic and someone else's memories.

Now, concerning Ultimecia's castle: Rinoa, along with the rest of the gang, discovers that Irvine and the SeeDs partly grew up in the orphanage, and later makes a promise with Squall that should they be separated they meet up at the flower field. It's obvious that the place holds a lot of meaning for her. So, following my logic, when Ultimecia possesses Rinoa the second time (right before Time Compression), Ultimecia could've discovered (again, through access to Rinoa's thoughts) the value of the orphanage. I don't have an idea as to why she actually places the castle over the orphanage, but I'm sure its meaning for the main characters is somehow involved, and the link provided at the bottom of the page provides a pretty good theory.

* Final Fantasy 8 contains a lot of contrasting ideas and imagery. Some examples revolve around Squall and Seifer - their opposite personalities, their gunblade types (heavy vs. light), their hair color...Square's use of this idea reveals different facets in the game while also possibly disproving some R=U points.

"Even if you end up as the world's enemy...I'll be your knight"

Squall (wordlessly) promises this to Rinoa at the orphanage in Disk 3. R=U supporters sometimes use this to bring up how Squall was the knight Rinoa needed to remain a "good" sorceress (it's stated in the game that sorceresses need knights in order to, basically, not go evil). Adel, for example, did not have a knight, and went "bad." The R=U supporter then makes the assumption that post-game, something happens to Squall and Rinoa is left without a "knight," leading to her moral downturn and transformation into Ultimecia.

To me, the game developers put that quote in to add to the list of differences between Squall and Seifer. While Seifer acts as a "knight" to an evil sorceress to fulfill his own romantic dream, Squall acts as a "knight" to a good sorceress out of love for her. Through supporting Edea/Ultimecia, Seifer wants to spread his own power and fulfill his own dream, while Squall supports Rinoa out of a desire to protect her. The knight statement, in my mind, just highlights the contrast between a good/bad knight and a good/bad sorceress.

This idea of contrast comes up, also, in the idea of Rinoa and Ultimecia's feathery wings (Rinoa's are white while Ultimecia's are black). I believe the game developers were once again using a simple, almost cliché use of colors to contrast personalities (white = good, Rinoa = pure, innocent, good white, therefore Rinoa = good; vice versa for Ultimecia).

Last but definitely not least, here is a FAQ that counters virtually every common R=U point with good evidence and points (there's also a huge explanation on the nature of time in FF8). I didn't include a lot of stuff in this rant of my own because it was covered in that link in a definitive way with no other possibilities for new comments or perspectives (in my opinion).

Whew! :)~. So yeah, those are just some of the points that can counter the R=U theory. I think this is one of those issues that won't ever be resolved, as there's good evidence on both sides. If you find any factual errors in this rant, please tell me.