- Joined
- Nov 28, 2014
Let me preface this thread by saying that I do like the idea that theories about how certain things work in video game universes can put all new perspectives on the respective media, but I know that these are in no way canon unless verified by the developers/designer/writer/director. This particular niche of the gaming community seems to get a bit of flak not only because people like MatPat are shitty and have lolcow threads here, but also because some kids think these theories are TOTALLY CANON FACT which causes another group of people to completely ignore these theories and makes this huge, starkly black and white divide between the OMG ITS TOTALLY CANON GAME FACT and THESE THEORIES ARE STUPID YOU'RE STUPID AND MATPAT IS A WHINY BITCH camps. All the research in the world won't make these game theories canon unless the developers come forward and verify them, but just because they're not canon doesn't mean that they're all stupid or that it can't be entertaining to listen to someone explain how a morph ball or hookshot might work (albeit both with lots of bone crunching according to everyone's least favorite theorist MatPat), or that Mario is a psychopath and his own father. There's more of a reason for MatPat ending his videos with "It's just a theory, a GAME THEORY" than just annoying people and sounding like a douchebag, it's so the viewers can know it's not canon (also Game THEORY is the show's title but these fucking kids have to ruin it by calling it canon and also MatPat for being a douchebag who can't handle criticism any more gracefully than an 8 year old, yes I feel like I have to bash his character multiple times in the thread so I don't sound like a retarded fanboy fawning over theories 
also there are far better and less obnoxious-sounding theorists out there like Gnoggin, whose video crossover with Indirect Consequences I'll post here because it's relevant to my views on the matter).
tl;dr, Game theories aren't entirely stupid, especially with the right research, but they aren't fucking fact. It may be entertaining to think about how Mario is an evil psychopath who is his own father and also Bowser's wingman, and that the Toads are cordyceps zombies like in The Last Of Us, except controlled by Princess Peach, but at the end of the day everyone who's seen a Nintendo system knows damn well that Mario is the heroic plumber, Luigi is his bumbling cowardly brother and player two who happens to have some potential over Mario (I'm looking at his jumping ability), Bowser is the consistent big baddie of the series, Peach is the damsel in distress (or Pauline to "Papa Jumpman" Mario), and the Toads are just little mushroom people who serve the Princess.
also there are far better and less obnoxious-sounding theorists out there like Gnoggin, whose video crossover with Indirect Consequences I'll post here because it's relevant to my views on the matter).tl;dr, Game theories aren't entirely stupid, especially with the right research, but they aren't fucking fact. It may be entertaining to think about how Mario is an evil psychopath who is his own father and also Bowser's wingman, and that the Toads are cordyceps zombies like in The Last Of Us, except controlled by Princess Peach, but at the end of the day everyone who's seen a Nintendo system knows damn well that Mario is the heroic plumber, Luigi is his bumbling cowardly brother and player two who happens to have some potential over Mario (I'm looking at his jumping ability), Bowser is the consistent big baddie of the series, Peach is the damsel in distress (or Pauline to "Papa Jumpman" Mario), and the Toads are just little mushroom people who serve the Princess.
Last edited:
