I dunno, unlike the Sans = Ness theory, I think this one has actual plausibility. For one, many had already theorized in the past that Gaster was related to Sans and Papyrus (usually just as a third brother, though), because of the font focused name, so it's not like he's the first person to assume something like that. Furthermore, it's also stated that the skeletons just randomly appeared. They weren't always there, they instead randomly appeared. Toby Fox wouldn't just add a statement like that into the game, it has to be important to the backstory of Sans and Papyrus.
If you can actually find a good reason to disagree with this theory, then feel free to say it, but don't immediately go to insulting MatPat because it sounds initially bad.
I mean, honestly, after Sans = Ness, I just stopped caring for the channel. That was basically my sign that the channel would basically be like "hey, remember when this channel applied scientific fact to video games and how stuff like that would work in real life? yeah? well fuck you have edgy creepypasta theories" from then on.
And based off this, the economics video, and all the other stuff inbetween, It sure as hell doesn't seem like I was off by that assessment. It's honestly not even the fact that he's doing these "theories", I couldn't care less. it's more that he had this super neat premise and then wasted it on those "theories," doubly so since I was a big fan when he was actually doing those science theories.
I just wanted to know the fucking nutritional facts of the tiny burger in the middle of Fork Lifter from Rhythm Heaven Fever. That is ALL that I wanted to see from a show about science in gaming.
@CWS You're making your own expectations the standard for what the show should be. Just because *you* want the channel to be that way, doesn't mean that that was ever the only purpose for the channel. In fact, many of the earliest videos weren't focused on the science of the games. Game Theory was never specifically about analyzing the science in games, it was very clearly always about theorizing about them, sometimes comparing the real-world to the game, sometimes just theorizing about the game itself. It's not like the show is called "Game Science" or anything, just "Game Theory."
Furthermore, it's not your show. Just because it has in your opinion "a cool premise," that doesn't mean that the show needs to follow your exact wishes. That's legitimately selfish.
What's even your definition of science, anyways? Economics are considered a science, yet you don't take them seriously, despite the economics videos usually containing the "useless facts" you seem to be asking for in your last statement. Is the nutritional facts of some random burger really that different from calculating the cost of Luigi's mansion?
Yeah, my own image and expectations for what the show should be, except that was what the ENTIRE SHOW WAS BASED UPON IN ITS EARLY EPISODES, AND THAT WAS LITERALLY ITS PREMISE. Seriously, look at some of the early episodes and tell me that the show was inherently never about science in games.
Tell me that the episode about Adventure Island's canonical location being inaccurate was in fact, not about that, but how Master Higgins is a slave driver of the creatures.
Tell me that the episode about Dig Dug was not, in fact, about if Taizo could hypothetically make a human explode, but it was instead about the cruel slaughtering of a crazed popping-fetishist madman after going crazy in an underground mining expedition.
Tell me that the episode about the value of the Minecraft Diamond was instead about how Herobrine is actually real and Notch has lied to us all.
And just in case you're thinking of the flipside of things, and just want the other side of the spectrum, tell me that the episode in which he declares Sans = Ness is scientifically backed and he utilizes the scientific method as well as proofs through real-world comparisons.
Go on. Tell me all of those were actual things, and that the series has always, and was even FOUNDED ON, the creepypasta theories, and not science in gaming. You can say that, but really, you're just lying.
(And before you mention the Polybius episode, he explicitly made it very clear it was more of a "special" episode not like the rest of the show... even though nowadays it'd likely be just your average Game Theory episode.
I was also talking about the "economics" in terms of his Wii U sales videos. Since there's some genuine basis in science and values for the value of, say, a rupee, based on the value of real world gemstones, those would likely be able to be filed under actual science... Can't exactly say the same about computers, though, since those pretty much vary on so many factors it's almost a joke.)
@CWS You're logic is still flawed. MatPat has made non-science based videos since the very beginning of his show. For example, this video:
Where he talks about history, rather than science, or this video:
Where he talks about the various inspirations for Duke Nukem. I can make an entire list of non-science focused list from the early days of game theory. Furthermore, just look at the original promo for game theory, released days before the first actual episode:
Notice how he doesn't ever say the *science* behind games. He just said it's so you can learn more about the games he talks about. Learning more about games can mean a lot of things, from comparing the science from to game to reality, to studying the influences in design, to just theorizing about what actually happened in the game. You could argue that that was just a weird choice of words and that he was actually talking about science, but it's MatPat. Even back then I'm sure he'd know how to decently explain the premise in a way that doesn't limit him.
The same problem with every Gaster theory, I think. Lacks concrete evidence. Even then, I don't see a point to the video. It's just the same theory some people had before, with more minor evidence. And, a part of the evidence is easy to rebut. Not a very solid theory when evidence is easy to rebut( it's raining somewhere else could just mean waterfall, gaster couldn't be talking to sans if he's a part of him are examples). And, the " alternate timeline" lacks evidence. Sure, we can assume it is that, but it can be other things. But, I guess it's okay if it fits the theory or something. But, uh, I don't really mind that it doesn't have a lot of science.
@Gneratoror No, there was plenty of non-scientific theories prior to the FNaF videos, such as the Rosalina Unmasked videos (excluding the genetics related stuff), the best Link video, the "are video games anti-LGBT" videos, and so on. Even after the FNaF theories, there hasn't really been that much of a difference in the type of content. I'm pretty sure MatPat just makes theories based on concepts he finds interesting (with the exception of certain theories that he is forcibly obligated to do, such as the FNaF theories). Case in point: the Sans is Ness theory. Literally nobody was asking him to make such a theory, and he practically only got flak for making it. It's very clear that it was a theory he simply wanted to make, rather than making it to satisfy fans.
I said that it was the one to ATRACT another demographic, since FNAF was a blast back then.
Before, he attracted mostly geeks and people with nostalgia.
Also i do agree he chooses his topics, But now they are lighter and with less calculations.
He is also more forced to chooses topics