juney-blues:
juney-blues:
i love when a fan theory about something starts with things that are reasonable inferences from the text, and then makes logical extrapolations from *that* which are, plausible in context if hard to see as fully intended. and then you do this a few times and suddenly the theory is saying things that just straight up aren’t in the text of the story like they’re the most logical thing in the world and you’re an idiot for not knowing them.
spoilers for the ending of undertale i guess
i’ve seen *two* entirely unrelated Theorists try to argue that the player character and the first fallen human are in fact, one and the same. not in a “there’s a lot of interesting thematic stuff if we analyze the game through this lens” way but in a “this is literally the intended reading of the events of the game and we’re all stupid for not realising it sooner” way.
and like.
if this *is* true. then the entire twist of the reveal is not, in fact:
“haha i used the established rpg convention of naming your player character to make you *think* the protagonist was a blank slate for you to project on. but actually they’re their own person with their own name! got you!”
but instead:
“okay you actually *did* name the player character at the start. when asriel looks directly into the camera and says "i was projecting PLAYERNAME onto you, but was wrong to do that.” he is actually being *doublewrong* and that scene was *actually* meant to be your player character choosing their own new name to symbolise their new lease on life.“
and like that is plainly insane and no one would write a plot twist like this on purpose. If that truly was what toby fox was meaning to communicate with the ending of pacifist then frankly he did an incredibly poor and needlessly confusing job.
and like fine, who cares. this is a neat reading even if it’s at odds with the messenging of the story.
it’s just, seemingly not aware that it *is* that. it’s so many layers deep in its own assumptions that it can no longer tell the difference between what the author has brought to the text and what the theorist has brought to it.
which honestly? i kinda love.
i am *incredibly* fascinated by this.
i also find it really funny how this entire branch of reasoning seeks to explain things which are obviously contrivances.
"Why do The Fallen Human and The Player Character look so similar?” well see, that’s a contrivance so this plot reveal can happen. (and also they just only kinda have similar silhouettes. they don’t look so UNCANNILY similar that it demands explanation. none of the characters who knew the fallen human, visually recognise the player character as such. which frankly would be a massive plot hole this line of reasoning fails to address)
“If The Player Character is their own person with their own name, how and why isn’t this revealed at earlier points in the story it would be logical for this to come up?” well see, that’s a contrivance so this plot reveal can happen.
“If we don’t name The Player Character, then why does the name we choose show up in menus?” Well See, That’s A Contrivance So This Plot Reveal Can Happen.
please note i’m not using “contrivance” here negatively. these are good contrivances. this reveal is extremely effective and it is *well* worth the honestly extremely minor plot oddities that come up.
sometimes a writer just thinks of something cool, realises they have to make some sacrifices to the plausibility or logical reasoning of the story for it to work, and decides that making that sacrifice is worth it.
(and again, in this case atleast, those sacrifices are very minor)
oh my god i am trying really hard not to be mean but this is such a good example of what i’m talking about and it’s also really funny
“my theory is so obviously true that Toby Fox is the one responsible for why it doesn’t make sense”
