Install Steam
login
|
language
简体中文 (Simplified Chinese)
繁體中文 (Traditional Chinese)
日本語 (Japanese)
한국어 (Korean)
ไทย (Thai)
Български (Bulgarian)
Čeština (Czech)
Dansk (Danish)
Deutsch (German)
Español - España (Spanish - Spain)
Español - Latinoamérica (Spanish - Latin America)
Ελληνικά (Greek)
Français (French)
Italiano (Italian)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesian)
Magyar (Hungarian)
Nederlands (Dutch)
Norsk (Norwegian)
Polski (Polish)
Português (Portuguese - Portugal)
Português - Brasil (Portuguese - Brazil)
Română (Romanian)
Русский (Russian)
Suomi (Finnish)
Svenska (Swedish)
Türkçe (Turkish)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamese)
Українська (Ukrainian)
Report a translation problem
Discussions Rules and Guidelines
Report this post
While I can completely shred MatPat's ethical and moral standards and I am providing the best evidence I have to discredit his reliability as a source for analysis of Pop Culture, there is one element that I can NOT deny he is obscenely talented in.
Marketing.
As a neuro-physicist by education, and Consumer Psychologist in Profession, MatPat's argumentative style of Hyper-Literalism is best suited for conditioning people to move closer to the products he is peddling. There is no denying that MatPat has to seamlessly tie his product placements into his work, and that he has avoided the 'Blue Apron' epidemic most YouTubers seem to rely on, just to keep their lights on. While he does do sponsored content occasionally, the 'Paid Promotion' tag is usually absent due to riding Google Search analytics and knowing when to time releases of relevant content.
But, as I pointed out in the Don't Hug Me, I'm Pissed section, MatPat is a marketer first, and a scholar second. He hates having to be transparent with his advertising (See the Emoji Movie Video for evidence). So, what is a Marketer to do, straddled with mountains of litigation that forces him to be transparent, with a consumer base that is eager for his content, but he is unwilling to challenge Forced Obsoletion. If FNaF were to be solved, He can't make new videos detailing new discoveries. But...
His audience is Primed to think MatPat is the best theorist out there, but making theories with no substance is the easiest way for him to lose subscribers faith in him. He is locked in a corner he painted himself into, He can't do what he normally does, because he will lose his largest and most loyal fan base. But he can't do honest work and try to solve the lore legitimately with solid arguments, because he would effectively have slaughtered his golden goose.
This is a tight jar of Pickles to open, but one with a solution.
He markets for Scott.
Now, what I'm about to post is simply a Hypothesis. I do NOT have proof to support this conclusion. Due to the fact that I can not prove it True or False (with the data that is available right now, at least), this isn't an argument yet. Thus, I am making a prediction to test the Hypothesis, and the test could come up confirming the prediction, refuting the prediction, or Inconclusive.
Remember the three base assumptions of logic. Just like I logically analyze Five Nights At Freddy's, I can analyze MatPat's work.
This is the Hypothesis;
So, to preface, MatPat released a video he titled and marketed as his 'Final FNAF Videos' shortly after the release of The Survival Log Book (Hereby, I'm going to abbreviate it to Logbook). Already, I was a bit suspicious of his intents. That's a fairly big bomb to drop on his audience. It's almost a meme that we get at least two FNAF videos per other game videos at this point.
Then, he clarifies that it was his 'Last video... Until FNAF6 comes out'. This is hardly a finale to his videos, but just looking at the thumbnail, it appears that he is going all in on the work.
At the beginning of the video, he further primes the audience by saying, and I quote;
This is what piqued my interests in looking deeper into the content of his argument, and how exactly he came to the conclusions he did. It was awfully convenient that he could predict that Scott was going to confirm his theory correct, after talking about the value of the Logbook for theorists. He down plays it, then builds it back up, and feigns relief for something that he clearly has little to no problem with.
This is a clear advertiser gimmick since the 40's at least, but I wouldn't be surprised if it were much older. He even demonstrated it's power by addressing something that was so prevalent in the community, that he had to explain exactly what the argument was, so he could disprove it with the book.
So, lets do some analysis together.
When forming an argument, you start by gathering observations. We know what MatPat's typical video looks like, we know what this video is like, what are the differences?
As usual, MatPat releases this video in line with the logbook's release. I've already addressed the misdirect with the thumbnail, but Click bait is not exactly a clearly defined term, and I think multiple terms are needed for the varying kinds of click bait that exist.
We're not going to go into that right now.
Since the video is labeled Pt. 1, the need to return for the conclusion is already expected and MatPat starts by setting up the question of which purple man is in the Spring Lock suit. However, just trying to look for the quote I knew already existed at the usually spots, it becomes clear that this video has had Numerous drafts. Discussion points are picked up, dropped off, things that are called important are ultimately forgotten and never concluded, and other seams that are uncharacteristic of MatPat's writing.
There are numerous theorists that are trying to capture MatPat's success, but they don't respect his formula, and don't understand what it is supposed to do. Treesicle, for example, will announce their claim, provide evidence, piece everything together, and summarize their findings. This is how you would pitch an argument in a college course, and adding fart jokes just distances their audience from wanting to pay attention.
MatPat, conversely, usually uses a 'Prestige'. This is a modified version of the three act structure, codified by Vaudevillian magicians. He starts by introducing the audience to the work, but under his terms. He controls your eyes, by emphasizing what he wants you to pay attention to and ignoring the details that are problematic for his argument (The general plot of Wonder Woman and what is important). Then, he explains something alien to the work (Boat speeds to Wonder Woman, for example), while making it relevant to the work. He bolsters the legitimacy of the authors by citing anything and everything they have accurate to the real world, and this is critical, because he needs you to focus on what he is pretending to measure. Remember, he controls always is in control of the variables of what ever he is analyzing. If he needs them to be higher or lower, he is one camera shot away from something of value to prove the point. Then, to drive it home for the audience, he applies the alien concepts to the work and makes the work change somehow (Wonder Woman couldn't have made it to the fight in the boat she was using).
Luigi is the Father of Rosalina, because Peach and Luigi are both left handed, and that that is genetically significant in Pundint Squares... However, Mario is the main character of a series, and right handed for Blocking purposes, which means supporting cast needs to be left handed so they are both open to the audience. Funny, I would expect someone who was in a Broadway play would know better.
This has nothing to do with logic and exploration of the science. it's a simple magic trick.
But something in these two episodes threw that off. He threw out the standard formula for a bit of an odd sequence of this is what I know and this is how I know it. He even states that he went through two other drafts and dismissed them because he didn't like how they came out. That definitely explains the... unusual... change in his writing, but it doesn't account for the content he wrote about.
Rippo, Can you verify this next part for me? Do you still have the links bookmarked?
Back in FNAF4, while working on my thesis, I made numerous claims that I spent hours researching and verifying against the available data in the games. Rydi and I argued them back and forth and I want to point somethings out, specifically.
I claimed;
Now, I have beaten my head against a wall to try to prove the children haunt the masks. However, spontaneously, MatPat claims out of the blue that the stores sell the 'All important Masks' when talking about the merchandise at Freddy Fazbears.
This was after talking about how the story is all about William Afton's family, shoehorning Ballora as Mrs. Afton.
And the entire episode's hook is talking about how there ARE in fact, two purple guys. While MatPat claims that the book proves Pink Guy is Purple Guy... I never disagreed with that (well... I Did but I recanted that claim).
What MatPat seems to be jumping between are assertions, that he appears to be pulling out of nowhere, that are conclusions I've already made. The assertions are poorly formed, he only has a baseline grain of truth behind them, but he goes forth and bends over backwards to try to prove them.
Thus, I suspect a list, from Scott, of hints that MatPat is drawing from.
Now, I'm not just tooting my own horn, here. I claimed in those same debates that The Puppet doesn't have a digital Map (Proven true in the Security Puppet Minigame), was the size of an endoskeleton and could wear a springlock suit (Proven true with Lefty), was captured or disabled somehow after FNAF2 but before FNAF1 (Also, proven true with Lefty), and that Golden Freddy was never released like other spirits of the children because she never forgave the Puppet and invited her to her birthday party (Proven true in UCN).
My model, my Theory, has predictive capacity. This is a verifiable FACT. You might disagree with my conclusions, but that is immaterial at this point. The observation that MatPat made a video that touched on points I agree with, but come from nothing and are unsubstantiated in critical review is enough to draw that suspicion of his sources.
And who the hell was arguing two purple guys after Sister Location? Like I pointed out earlier, he had to go over what the debate was Because no one was debating it, anymore. I know I still have to remind people of my position when it comes to Purple Guard. This was important enough to put in his magnum opus? His final video? His sacrifice of the sacred cow?
Keep in mind, IF MatPat was honest, and wasn't going to do anymore Lore videos, and Scott never released any other games, he opens with the weirdest point to argue. When you watched his video, did it jar you that he was talking about the two purple guy theory? Has he ever touched on Sparky or Foxy is a good guy? This is a fringe theory he never talked about before, and for a good reason.
So, we have a marketer, who is shilling out a book for an author, making unusual claims, that he can't support, and is commended for excellent work by the author he was shilling for.
This is what leads to the awkward discussion of whats Scott's role in all of this is.
Scott has traditionally been for the discovery of the lore. He has always pushed the audience to look into it. He told us their were pieces that we needed to put back together again. He was upset when we didn't understand FNaF4. From the source code, we can tell that the the box was, in fact, supposed to be open-able, but the update with the contents never came because we never solved it.
I have been heartbroken ever since seeing the post from Scott saying that MatPat was "almost" correct, because everything he has put into the games, the poetry, the artistry, the tension, the subtle character development, was butchered together in these videos. I didn't understand why, I Couldn't understand why he would ever say that.
And when FNAF6 was released and the paragraph 4 started making it's rounds, it started to click. He was under contract.
So... Lets discuss a bit of Law.
A Benefit is anything that is worth money on the open market. This includes money, but also services and anything that could be bought and traded. So, for example, if I offered MatPat a car to promote my new YouTube channel, MatPat would be receiving a legal benefit. Since he is receiving a benefit, he would be subject to the Fair Trade Commissions, and would have to put that fancy 'Paid Promotion' on the bottom of his video and say that he was paid for the video.
As discussed in Don't Hug Me, I'm Pissed, this is bad for his image as just an average Joe that just really like those video games n' such.
Legal loopholes to the rescue.
A list of hints from Scott, without any context to support them, and Scott saying that MatPat is right without actually providing any form of argument to prove he is correct, is all subject to Death of The Author. From a logical perspective, these are literally useless.
Wiggle and I had a little debate over Death of the Author, but in summary; Once the author has published a work, his external comments can NOT change the work itself. The work is objective, and can be critically examined. The author does have a unique perspective on the work, but that should make it easier for the author to defend his position. Claiming that the Author said something, without a supporting argument to prove it's validity, and asserting that it is true is simply an appeal to authority. The author is effectively a member of the audience, once they have published the work.
So, if the Trade Commissions were to take MatPat to court over this, MatPat's attorney's have the position that these are NOT benefits (as they are literally worthless for rhetoric), and therefore, MatPat was not Paid for the Promoting of The Logbook. If MatPat was not paid, he does not have to disclose this to his audience.
Now, that doesn't mean that this is Beneficial for MatPat. MatPat has had the #1 Trending for every FNaF video he has produced since Scott called him legit. But, MatPat knows his audience, and knows that appealing to authority is fair game when the audience doesn't know how to argue against it.
And they don't know how to argue against it. Because MatPat teaches them to NOT argue against it.
So, MatPat predicts that he is going to solve the lore, that FNAF6 is going to come out soon, mourning the fact that his beloved series is going to come to an end if FNAF6 doesn't come out, and a week later Scott is teasing FNAF6. MatPat is confirmed, but note that Scott doesn't even say what positions were right in the FNAF videos, just that people can stop arguing those specific debates. Almost like it was written before MatPat had released his videos.
And now, Scott doesn't have to sell the games. He can give them out for free, because the Logbook costs almost twice as much as a single game. MatPat can keep pushing out new "Theories" on FNAF (Am I the only one that felt personally insulted about the "Mangle is a Dog" Theory?), and Scott can live comfortably on Merchandise sales.
If this hypothesis is true, I imagine an NDA (Non-Disclosure Agreement) has been signed. But I also imagine that Scott is not very happy with his end of the deal. I don't have Proof, I don't have enough evidence to support this as a definitive conclusion.
Thus, this is a Hypothesis.
It's Plausible that this could be really (Terribly, grotesque even) bad plagiarism. He could have skimmed my work and developed his own conclusions based on it. Typically MatPat is better at plagiarizing then this, and the whole point of plagiarism is reduce the work you need to put forward, rather then add to it, but I can't prove that he didn't.
It is even possible that the null hypothesis is correct, MatPat happened to release these videos, promoting Scott's new book out of the kindness of his heart, and Scott was so relieved to finally have someone smart enough to see through his twisted narrative that he decided it was time to release FNAF6.
I can't ask MatPat or Scott to try to prove that the Phantom List Hypothesis is false. I can't ask them to prove a negative. Scott, standing before me, with a genuine pinky promise that he didn't give MatPat a list doesn't prove anything. Even if Scott provided detailed documentation of every interaction he has ever had since coming up with the idea for FNAF, I can't prove that interactions between him and MatPat haven't been removed. Even if he did have a list of interactions between him and anyone else all documented and proven to be a truly exhaustive list, I can't prove that someone else didn't communicate this to MatPat on Scott's behalf.
Since I can not prove it is False, this hypothesis needs more Data. As it stands right now, it's just an accusation.
So...
I need to test the claim. And it's only because MatPat has announced he is going to be doing a massive timeline video that I'm comfortable sharing this hypothesis, and will be waiting peer revision from us, theorists, on the boards.
If the list exists, I don't know how many items were on the list, or what the list entails exactly. I do know somethings that are on the list, however.
That last one I'm going to use as a Black Sheep in the flock.
When the video is released, MatPat will have to canonize this list to use as a fact to build off of. He knows the list, we don't. So, when talking about FNAF4, which he conveniently put at the start of the story line in 1983, he will have to point out that the Masks are important. Scott put it on the list for a reason, he just has to decode it.
My prediction, if Scott gave MatPat a list of hints, which includes an emphasis on the importance of the masks, is that MatPat will try to conflate the Masks of FNAF4 bullies and the Mask we wear in FNAF2 and UCN -OR- Conclude that children haunt the masks, not the suits.
This has a number of ways it can play out, but aside from the evidence I already presented for the children haunting the masks, I don't know how MatPat could mistaken the importance. The only masks he hasn't nodded to are the end card of FNAF3, which he's already discussed, and the masks we wear in FNAF2 and UCN.
So, I'm guessing that he would say something to the effect of: All four animatronic masks are accounted for in FNAF4, except golden freddy. Phone guy says we are wearing a Freddy Mask. Fredbear is a Freddy mask, ergo, the missing mask is golden freddy's. Phone guy also says personal belonging in the safe room left behind are your own fault, something something, Golden Freddy's mask is left behind there, and so Golden Freddy is never released and tormenting William Afton.
It's hard to predict irrational conclusions.
IF MatPat doesn't talk about the masks being important, the hypothesis is inconclusive. We will have more data to work with, but as it stands, I can't conclude anything definitively until I see what he makes (See above with "proving a negative").
...
So this is where YOU get involved.
I'm only one set of eyes, ears and internet access. I can be wrong here, and I want you to argue with me on it. I want you to find evidence that points in one direction or the other. I want you to form your own models and test them against what I'm claiming. Has MatPat mispoken on GTLive that I missed (I don't watch GTLive, so I don't have anything from it). Has Scott made post on Freddit that support or debunk this idea?
I don't want to hear bad arguments. Don't argue like MatPat. Don't say "Doc is just a hater!" or "Scott wouldn't do that". If you agree that this is at least an interesting dissection of MatPat's Final FNAF video, what problems do you have, where do you want me to dive in deeper, are there problems with MY argument. I am mortal, and I do make mistakes. I will gladly correct them, if you can support your stance and I am in the wrong.
I want you to prove your positions. I want you to push back like a boss. I want to see us Theorize like we used to back in the day. If this gets you interested, let me give you the tools and education you need to make your position pop out and sock me in the Jaw.
This is literally a Conspiracy Theory... er... Hypothesis... but that doesn't mean you can't contribute to it's validity or invalidity.
Let's have fun with Literary Practice.
These comments were made to reserve spots for even more text.
Granted, it's still technically spam, but what is one to do.
You are correct, mostly. I am giving myself a buffer, in the event that I do go over the limit.
But I'm also breaking the criticism into 5 different sub-categories. This way, if someone has an issue with one or two arguments, they don't have to quote 3 posts to do so.
Mostly, I'm hoping for a deep discussion on what we expect from our YouTube celebrities and what standards we hold to what a 'Good Theorist' entails. If being wrong means disagreeing with the theorists conclusions, and a theorist is only good as long as they aren't wrong, then this encourages people to use Terrible argumentative techniques and won't support the conclusion we are looking for.
But, I do know my audience on these boards, so I'm going to skip to a bit of juicy intrigue just to get the conversation going and see if we can cultivate rational discussion. It'll be fun to see the refutation in full.
Reading usually helps with that. :D
I said that I was going to update it when I got back from work...
Admittedly... This IS still work... but... Never mind that. More is to come.
Cool. I hope to hear your counter argument when I actually provide my conclusions. You are the audience I'm most interested in hearing from. I'm going to talk about Dialectics in this discussion and how important it is to expanding what we know and what we can rely on.
So, strap on your guns and armor, MatPat is going to need white knighting when I'm through with him.
:D
"Pending, from when I return from work."
You may as well have waited until you were ready. That would have avoided this conversation and the reports for spam.
(Edit: Corrected misuse of "You're". Shameful)
You are absolutely correct, I apologize for any inconvenience it may have caused you.
Note has been taken for future record. Thank you for not banning me or deleting the thread.
I'm personally not all that caught up with matpat, but it was interesting