Why we shouldn't hate on matpat

[Danerade]

Ok, I'm going to say this once and now, I like matpat and Game Theory. I get it, I have heard of the complaints, I completely respect your opinion if you don't like his newer content. Yes, not all of his theories are fully fleshed out, the dream theory, that I think was just crap (I just personally didn't agree with it, well edited with lots of evidence) And with the whole "His theories are rushed" That's why I Hate Treesicle, oh hey ultimate custom night comes out, lets make a video when it comes out to take advantage of that sweet Fnaf hype train, oh yea, the theory was crap. Now it did get me, ok im getting very off topic, hold on!!! (Treesicle isn't that bad but most newer stuff is soooo rushed) Anyways, matpats newest video is a theory and just that, it should't be taken as canon and his answer is completely wrong. Though honestly, I am getting sick and tired of the whole "All this time and effort to make theories!!! Rewrites!" Just him complaining about this stuff isn't funny. Ok, so yes, not everything about his Fnaf theories are amazing. But its just a theory, that dosen't mean we can't take parts that do make sense and put them into a new theory. He has given us great theories, like the mega theory he did way back before Fnaf 6 was a thing. Say what you want about the Ballora Afton stuff, the series was in a dire state and needed to spark up interest in Fnaf. Anyways, why did I make this post, because I'm bored. Also I'd recommend Dawko's theories he has uploaded on his channel, he is very open for more suggestions, anyways, I guess um,,,bye!

(This got off topic quick)

[Mglogo/Jordanisgreat]

Treesicle just makes up ♥♥♥♥ from his ass and calls it a threoy

[Doctor Script]

Originally posted by Spark:

PhD? In what? I assume some sort of writing/literature given how much you know.

I earned my PhD in Literary theory. My doctoral Thesis was on how the internet is changing narrative conventions and I used Five Nights at Freddy's as the main resource.

----

As for the "MatPat insists that he's right" thing, Those are called Assertions. He doesn't use data to support his conclusions, he makes up what could fit the data and then ignores the points that clearly prove him wrong.

This is why he feels like he knows what he is talking about, when he asserts the most inane and obtuse things to prove true to his audience.

[jonathan]

Originally posted by Doctor Script:

Originally posted by Spark:

PhD? In what? I assume some sort of writing/literature given how much you know.

I earned my PhD in Literary theory. My doctoral Thesis was on how the internet is changing narrative conventions and I used Five Nights at Freddy's as the main resource.

----

As for the "MatPat insists that he's right" thing, Those are called Assertions. He doesn't use data to support his conclusions, he makes up what could fit the data and then ignores the points that clearly prove him wrong.

This is why he feels like he knows what he is talking about, when he asserts the most inane and obtuse things to prove true to his audience.

could i just get an example, a video or just a simple quote from game theory? If he does this all the time it wouldn't be hard to find a quote from a live stream, theory, or tweet.

[Glorious M e l o n]

Originally posted by jonathan:

Originally posted by Doctor Script:

I earned my PhD in Literary theory. My doctoral Thesis was on how the internet is changing narrative conventions and I used Five Nights at Freddy's as the main resource.

----

As for the "MatPat insists that he's right" thing, Those are called Assertions. He doesn't use data to support his conclusions, he makes up what could fit the data and then ignores the points that clearly prove him wrong.

This is why he feels like he knows what he is talking about, when he asserts the most inane and obtuse things to prove true to his audience.

could i just get an example, a video or just a simple quote from game theory? If he does this all the time it wouldn't be hard to find a quote from a live stream, theory, or tweet.

dude he literally does that in every video. remember the mangle is a dog theory? there was no proof for that, he just put a bunch of un-related data together and stated it like a fact.

[Doctor Script]

Lets go with his FNAF2 video, something people typically claim as his 'best' video.

Claim: Phone Guy is Purple Guy
Premise: Purple Guy is the killer of the series (Something the community has never bothered to prove true)
- Purple Man kills the Puppet, therefore, All children are killed by Purple Man
- Purple Man Kills all the children, because The Puppet is a Child, and the Missing children are Children, Therefore this is an example of Serial Killers developing a Signature (A false premise and a non-sequitur; Serial killers Who Get Caught tend to have signatures, due to it being easier to catch a killer in a rut. This is an excuse to conflate the puppet's Murderer and the missing children's murderer as the same character)
- Purple Man stands next to Foxy in Go Go Go
- Phone Guy likes Foxy, therefore, he murdered the children in the scene. (Do I need to spell out the Non-sequitur here?)
- Purple Man killed the puppet
- Phone guy is distrustful of the Puppet, therefore Phone Guy killed the puppet.
- Purple Man, in SAVE THEM, has a badge and a phone.
- Therefore, Phone Guy murdered the dead children around the store.
-Conclusion: Phone Guy killed the puppet, developed a signature that is obscenely more complicated to kill more children, because he has a phone and likes Foxy but doesn't like the puppet.

It Sounds convincing. But MatPat will never address the problems with these theories (How does Phone guy get around the Facial Recognition software? If he doesn't need to, because he has never been caught and therefore wasn't on the database, why disable it? If he didn't mean to disable it, why feature it in the first place?), because he uses a Gish Gallop to make it seem like his theories are unassailable.

Kent Hovind is the Master of the Gish Gallop, watch Logicked's series on Kent Hovind, then watch the Non-Sequitur podcast with Aron Ra vs. Kent Hovind. The tactic is convincing, but has literally no substance. If your argument has substance to support itself, you wouldn't need to Gish Gallop the audience, so it's akin to Guerrilla warfare of argumentation. A losing tactic, but hard to identify and argue against in the heat of the moment.

The biggest downside of this tactic is that it makes the audience feel like you are full of yourself. They get bombarded with things they want to address and argue against, but the Gallop moves past their point and treats it like it will come back around, but never does.

Originally posted by MatPat's Final FNAF Theory:

But that begs the question; Which Purple Man? Because their are two of them now... ... But before we get into that, we need to identify which purple man is which... ...this is a story about a family

If you never look for the way he pulls you along topics, you'll never see the gallop moving past you.

[RippoMadness]

Originally posted by jonathan:

could i just get an example, a video or just a simple quote from game theory? If he does this all the time it wouldn't be hard to find a quote from a live stream, theory, or tweet.

His ace attorney video comes to mind. In that video, he asserts that the main character, Phoenix Wright, is a criminal that constantly breaks the law in order to win his trials. The problem with this theory is that in order to make it work, he straight up ignores evidence that completely debunks it in an instance, instead preferring to cherry-pick his information to push his desired narrative.

A very good example of this is when MatPat brings up Phoenix revealing new evidence out of the blue during trial without the prosecutor knowing about it beforehand. If this was a real court trial, that would have been illegal and the evidence wouldn't be acknowledged by the court. But if MatPat made actual effort into researching the games, he would've known that the Ace Attorney universe addressed this issue by explaining how evidence can be submitted into court, rendering Mat's argument moot.

There are plenty of other issues just like this riddled throughout the video. I could bring up how MatPat misunderstood how the court record works and then proceeded to claim that Phoenix tampered with the crime scene even though that wasn't the case (he even showed dialogue in the background disproving that notion in that section). I could even bring up how he brought up the differences between Japanese and American laws halfway through the video and that it made the first half completely meaningless. But I think you get the idea.

I don't have as much of a burning passion of hate for MatPat that's equal to the might of a millions suns going supernova as some others do, but I also can't say that I really care much for MatPat and his content because of how disengenuous he can be at times. I've been left with a sour taste in my mouth, so to speak. The most I ever watch from him now is his GTLive, mostly because:

A) It's entertaining enough for those times when I'm bored and I can't find anything else to watch

B) Mat's reactions when he plays certain games are the most genuine thing I ever see come out of him nowadays.

But anyways, yeah, Game Theory is a shell of its former self as far as I'm concerned. I no longer have any interest in watching their videos because I find no value in them anymore.

*checks the time*

Did I seriously just spend a good half hour writing a diatribe over why I'm not a fan of GT? Goodness, I need a drink... of water...

[bloopah]

Originally posted by The Earthdragonninja:

The reason we hate his theories is that he INSISTS that he's right, even if his theory is rushed and full of holes

[FidelCastro1]

But Thats Just A Theory.


A Steam? Theory.

[Soupreme_King]

Originally posted by DownPool:

But Thats Just A Theory.


A Steam? Theory.

Correction:But that's just a theory. A FORUM THEORY!! THANKS FOR READING!