• Welcome to the Angry Joe Show Army!

    Join our community of gamers passionate about our community and our hobby! Whether it's playing, discussing, or watching games, regardless of platform, genre, or location, we have a place for you, always!

  • PS4 Forum

    The AJSA Playstation 4 Division: Game Nights and More!

    The AJSA is on Playstation 4! Join us for weekly Game Nights with a selection of the best games the PS4 has to offer!

  • XBO Forum

    The AJSA Xbox One Division: We Got You Covered!

    The AJSA Xbox One Division is ready to connect with you on XBox Live with a ton of events for the best Xbox games!

  • News Archive

    The Best News from the Best Sites, Every Week.

    The AJSA News Collection Team is hard at work condensing a week's worth of news into one giant-sze digest for you to chew on and discuss! Links to source articles are always provided!

  • More Info

    The AJSA Expeditionary Force: Deploying to Play the Best PC Games!

    The elite vanguard of the AJSA, the Expeditionary Force (EF) chooses a new PC game every week! Join us for weekly events and help decide if the game has a future in the AJSA.

  • The Team

    Streaming Now: The AJSA Stream Team

    Joe can't stream every game, but our talented AJSA Stream Team covers a wide variety of games and personalities! Check them out, and show them some AJSA Love!

  • The Tube

    The AJSA Community YouTube Channel

    Featuring news, gameplay clips, and more from the community! The Community is a chance to showcase the best moments in AJSA Gaming!

Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Dr. Xeno Pootis

The Game Theorists: Fan Section

19 posts in this topic

Ever wondered the "Behind Scenes" of a game we all know and love? Ever wanted to learn dark secrets and truth of a game? The Game Theorists is a very interesting channel I have came upon (and AngryJoeShow, no worries no butthurt), they explain in depth information. Their videos explain a certain game into a theory, using mind-fucking mathematics and science. 

 

Please note I do not intend to offend, disgrace, or anything negative AJSA in any way. I love both the Angry Joe Show and The Game Theorists all together. 

 

The Game Theorists offers much interesting content and also entertaining. It is highly recommended if you want to ruin your childhood and get mindfucked. 

 

http://www.youtube.com/user/MatthewPatrick13 - Game Theorists Channel

 

 

IrishRogue and sanddrake111 like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is that based on actual facts or just their theories?

Facts about how a game comes in to being is cool where as peoples theories just inevitably irk me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's just being theories.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I too love Game Theory, MattPat and Co. crank out some really good content and its always exciting to see what they have come out next!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess I'll give it a look, not really much into behind the scenes stuff though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ew... Im not big on "theories" in all honesty since they rarely hold any valid facts for their claims so I tend to stay far and away from them but I do enjoy real documentary like "the making of" type stuff.

Its kind of interesting to hear what people think as they are creating something.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

you aren't stealing the thunder i think, so no worries. i've seen their channel but i haven't watched any of their videos or subbed. i'll check it out though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In my opinion, Game Theory uses a lot of fast-talking tangentical nonsense in order to come up with a conclusion that either has nothing to do with the topic they originally set out to prove, or use sensationalist reasoning to come off as enlightened or insightful.

Example. The Leap of Faith video. They start off strong, trying to prove whether or not a leap of faith is plausible, then they get crazy and come up with the conclusion that Ezio would die long before he reached the top of his jump. How he gets to that conclusion is through a series of seemingly related equations... but the thought occurs to me that he wasn't actually trying to prove how much force the haystack would have to absorb to be "safe", but to come to this conclusion in the first place. Video linked below.



That is not how the scientific process works. You're supposed to test your theory not test your conclusion. Everything about the video was built around the result, instead of building up to it.

Another example, his "Mario is evil" conspiracy theory. While there is some fact to what he cites as examples, a lot of it is taken out of context for the sake of proving his point. The biggest evidence of this is at the end of this video, when he points to Mario scuffing Luigi's boot at the end of Luigi's celebration in Mario Power Tennis. He draws attention to this moment, but then neglects to mention a lot of the other victory celebrations, such as when Daisy practically tackles Luigi to the ground or when Yoshi EATS him.




<== The Mario Tennis victories


So yeah, it annoys me when people see this show as factual or scientific. The guy's about as well-researched as a tabloid newspaper, and he comes off as elitist or superior to me. Maybe that's his intention, but I just dislike everything about this show.

Divergence likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In my opinion, Game Theory uses a lot of fast-talking tangentical nonsense in order to come up with a conclusion that either has nothing to do with the topic they originally set out to prove, or use sensationalist reasoning to come off as enlightened or insightful.

Example. The Leap of Faith video. They start off strong, trying to prove whether or not a leap of faith is plausible, then they get crazy and come up with the conclusion that Ezio would die long before he reached the top of his jump. How he gets to that conclusion is through a series of seemingly related equations... but the thought occurs to me that he wasn't actually trying to prove how much force the haystack would have to absorb to be "safe", but to come to this conclusion in the first place.

That is not how the scientific process works. You're supposed to test your theory not test your conclusion. Everything about the video was built around the result, instead of building up to it.

Another example, his "Mario is evil" conspiracy theory. While there is some fact to what he cites as examples, a lot of it is taken out of context for the sake of proving his point. The biggest evidence of this is at the end of this video, when he points to Mario scuffing Luigi's boot at the end of Luigi's celebration in Mario Power Tennis. He draws attention to this moment, but then neglects to mention a lot of the other victory celebrations, such as when Daisy practically tackles Luigi to the ground or when Yoshi EATS him.

So yeah, it annoys me when people see this show as factual or scientific. The guy's about as well-researched as a tabloid newspaper, and he comes off as elitist or superior to me. Maybe that's his intention, but I just dislike everything about this show.

This is pretty much how I feel about all people who derive their own "theories" of things without using any facts or doing any actual "homework" for the topic they are referencing.

I like to learn new things hence why I love documentaries and such (I'm a weird person I know) but the things people come up with apparently out of their arse when it comes to their "theories" is just annoying to me to hear about.

 

That's why many moons ago I ceased to view things of this type of content because you cant even use common sense against these people because they themselves don't appear to have any....

I am tempted to watch the videos though but I know it would just aggravate me to not be able to point out how wrong they will no doubt be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ew... Im not big on "theories" in all honesty since they rarely hold any valid facts for their claims so I tend to stay far and away from them but I do enjoy real documentary like "the making of" type stuff.

Its kind of interesting to hear what people think as they are creating something.

Game Theory brings up science, psychology, physiology, physics, mathematics and various other sources to make their point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Game Theory brings up science, psychology, physiology, physics, mathematics and various other sources to make their point.

 

Like any good conspiracy theorist of this nature do, if they actually use facts, they warp them to get to their goal which is normally some made up nonsense that holds very little if any truth to it.

 

Sure, it may be entertaining for some and some theories about games can even be quite thought provoking but for the bulk of them its just the twisting of what is known to validate their opinions which to me is not a legitimate source of information.

 

And  I also mostly don't care for people who try and debunk something in a video game as "not plausible" using "science" because its a video game. Fantasy. Not real. Doing that is a complete waste of effort  and proves nothing more to me than people have way to much time on their hands.

 

Don't get me wrong certain things in games are irritating to me when certain impossibilities happen that by all rights shouldn't be possible even for that games "world". Like boobies jiggling like Jell-O when someone nods their head, someone getting in a crash and walking away without a bruise or if someone dies by a certain method in the game that by its own world standards is entirely "revivable" but yet it can not be done for some miraculous reason. Things of that nature are a complaint I have but I don't need "science" to prove its not  a possibility for it to happen since games are overall fantasy and really don't require proof of that sort. To me at leaste

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Like any good conspiracy theorist of this nature do, if they actually use facts, they warp them to get to their goal which is normally some made up nonsense that holds very little if any truth to it.

 

Sure, it may be entertaining for some and some theories about games can even be quite thought provoking but for the bulk of them its just the twisting of what is known to validate their opinions which to me is not a legitimate source of information.

 

And  I also mostly don't care for people who try and debunk something in a video game as "not plausible" using "science" because its a video game. Fantasy. Not real. Doing that is a complete waste of effort  and proves nothing more to me than people have way to much time on their hands.

 

Don't get me wrong certain things in games are irritating to me when certain impossibilities happen that by all rights shouldn't be possible even for that games "world". Like boobies jiggling like Jell-O when someone nods their head, someone getting in a crash and walking away without a bruise or if someone dies by a certain method in the game that by its own world standards is entirely "revivable" but yet it can not be done for some miraculous reason. Things of that nature are a complaint I have but I don't need "science" to prove its not  a possibility for it to happen since games are overall fantasy and really don't require proof of that sort. To me at leaste

There isn't any warping of facts in Game Theory. Also watching these videos show that game developers may be more meticulous than you think.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There isn't any warping of facts in Game Theory. Also watching these videos show that game developers may be more meticulous than you think.

Uh, yes there are warping of facts in Game Theory. I just gave two examples.

Also only some of the videos show insight on game development, the Assassin's Creed video just abuses the fact that physics in video games are not the same physics as in reality. (And he does this again in his Sonic video)

Also not to discredit Valve for their attention to detail, but a lot of the reason Pyro has such a unique stature is because that's the point.

 

 

 

Class readability was addressed through the character's silhouette. Unique silhouette and animation shapes are more identifiable at far distances, and across a broader range of light levels, than any amount of other visual detail on the model.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Uh, yes there are warping of facts in Game Theory. I just gave two examples.

Also only some of the videos show insight on game development, the Assassin's Creed video just abuses the fact that physics in video games are not the same physics as in reality. (And he does this again in his Sonic video)

Also not to discredit Valve for their attention to detail, but a lot of the reason Pyro has such a unique stature is because that's the point.

 

In both cases, he is 100% right. For Sonic, I don't know if he factored in loops which Sonic would have to go three times faster than a straight line, but Sonic is nowhere near the speed of sound and the speed of sound is measurable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In both cases, he is 100% right. For Sonic, I don't know if he factored in loops which Sonic would have to go three times faster than a straight line, but Sonic is nowhere near the speed of sound and the speed of sound is measurable.

That's why I don't like this show though.

Of course Sonic doesn't move at the speed of sound, the game would be nearly unplayable if he did. Sega slowed him down in Lost World so that the game could have more precise controls. It doesn't take a genius to figure it out. But he comes off with this superior attitude and calls games and their developers things like "liars" and "frauds" because the game doesn't fit within the confines of reality. Bravo, well done. Games about blue hedgehogs running at high speeds aren't realistic. Did I need all those mathematical equations to figure that out?

Though the ridiculousness comes from his observation that Mario is faster than Sonic based on measuring pixels. That's pretty silly. Sonic's stages are long, they loop around, and they have more platforming involved while Mario you generally run in a straight line and jump occasionally. The games are too inherently different to compare in an overly simplified measure of time and pixels and then compare them to reality, which neither game is clearly based off of.

If it wanted to live up to its name, maybe it should focus on testing theories within the GAME. Not theories-as-compared-to-reality.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's why I don't like this show though.

Of course Sonic doesn't move at the speed of sound, the game would be nearly unplayable if he did. Sega slowed him down in Lost World so that the game could have more precise controls. It doesn't take a genius to figure it out. But he comes off with this superior attitude and calls games and their developers things like "liars" and "frauds" because the game doesn't fit within the confines of reality. Bravo, well done. Games about blue hedgehogs running at high speeds aren't realistic. Did I need all those mathematical equations to figure that out?

Though the ridiculousness comes from his observation that Mario is faster than Sonic based on measuring pixels. That's pretty silly. Sonic's stages are long, they loop around, and they have more platforming involved while Mario you generally run in a straight line and jump occasionally. The games are too inherently different to compare in an overly simplified measure of time and pixels and then compare them to reality, which neither game is clearly based off of.

If it wanted to live up to its name, maybe it should focus on testing theories within the GAME. Not theories-as-compared-to-reality.

Just because this is a game universe doesn't mean that you can'e measure it. If you don't like it, then that's your fault.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I never said you can't measure it. I said you can't compare what is basically fantasy to reality. There are inconsistencies. If you compare it to itself, then you have a consistent frame of reference for how the game should behave. But like I've said, the show is way too subjective. It tends to go on diatribes about unrelated topics just to prove a point and allow for a justification of yet another mathematical equation. I could compare strong winds to being linked to crime if all I do is take two seemingly unrelated concepts and link them by something. Check it out:

Crime has a trend of being more concentrated in Chicago than the rest of the state of Illinois. And has a more concentrated ratio of crime-to-population than anywhere in the US.

ViolentCrime1.jpg

As this next chart shows, Chicago has a greater wind strength concentrated around its city than around the area of Illinois and its surrounding states

ord.jpg

Therefore crime is related to how strong the wind is.

That's Game Theory in a nutshell. "Let's start by drawing a conclusion and then find evidence to support it."

That's not how the scientific process works. You can use all the facts and figures and graphs you want, but they mean nothing if the logic behind them is flawed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In both cases, he is 100% right. For Sonic, I don't know if he factored in loops which Sonic would have to go three times faster than a straight line, but Sonic is nowhere near the speed of sound and the speed of sound is measurable.

 

What does it even matter? Why not prove that blue talking hedgehogs and foxes with two tails that can fly with them like a propeller isn't a possibility or realistic to happen?

 

You know why? Because its fake. Not being real makes these things possible and no one needs science or mathematics or any other thing to prove that what happens in a fictional setting is false because  for the majority its already well known things that happen in a fantasy world are not true.

 

Just because this is a game universe doesn't mean that you can'e measure it. If you don't like it, then that's your fault.

It doesn't matter or hold value. You cant apply genuine science to fictional beings. Its not even science when it comes down to it if someone wants to prove a genuine "scientific" fact in regards to something like this. They are just using false "science" to make themselves sound intelligent and like they actually have a standing for their "theories"

 

Proving something in a videogame ,which is fictional fantasy, is not something  that can be scientifically claimed to be false  or  be claimed not something that can naturally occur or be physically possible because it all is impossible, its make believe to begin with. A videogame, while it may have some genuine bits of the real world information in it, is ultimately a fake non existent thing. You cant apply science to things that don't actually exist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0