Welcome to Smashboards, the world's largest Super Smash Brothers community! Over 250,000 Smash Bros. fans from around the world have come to discuss these great games in over 19 million posts!
You are currently viewing our boards as a visitor. Click here to sign up right now and start on your path in the Smash community!
It's not an opinion, I'm merely telling you that his catchphrase is shallow and meaningless and is not a reflection of MatPat's true feelings on his own theories.
Being rude about something doesn't mean it's a theory. A theory is basically a fact that's not 100% proven and can still be disproven. People can believe a theory without it being 100% proven fact. MatPat has every right to believe in his theories; he's the guy who made them. The "opinion" part was more referring to the last paragraph of your post.
Him believing them isn't the problem - it's him trying to rudely force it down other people's throats that's problematic, especially when his points have been proven wrong and his theories have negative effects on communities. It's obsessive and desperate, and serves no purpose than to try and boost his own ego.
Do you have any specific instances where he does do this? I'm interested. I only watch the videos themselves, and that's the only thing I'm judging here.
No, because Rosalina is ambidextrous, and he would not accept that. His genetics research failed him.
It's not an interesting coincidence, because there is no connection to be made. For starters, genetics research really has no place when talking about cartoon characters to begin with, because any animator will tell you that different rules apply. Game characters are not born by genetics, they are imagined by a designer, and real genetics can only apply to a game with a realistic art style. Therefore, when trying to portray a connection to between two characters in a cartoony game such as Mario, you approach it in different ways. For example, by giving them similar clothes, like Mario and Luigi do - because they are brothers, you need to portray a sense of similarity between them, so you give them matching outfits, as well as a moustache. Similarly, characters are designed to reflect their personality traits. For example, Rosalina is so tall because it is not only associated with ethereal beauty and elegance, it's portrays a sense of power and authourity.
Hyrule Castle looks a lot like Peach's Castle, as do a lot of the other castles designed by Nintendo in their games. It doesn't mean anything. Nintendo just base all of their castles in fantasy games off of the Victorian architectural style.
I read that but ignored it because it's also completely wrong and irrelevant to the discussion at hand. That castle was from Rosalina's memories of before she even met the Lumas. It really was just there for decoration in the context of the story, and meant very little. It's never even referred to by Rosalina herself (CTRL + F "castle" in any documentation of the story on a webpage, and you get nothing). The thing she built with the Lumas was the Observatory itself, which became mobile when a Luma turned into a comet to carry it.
But only because you lacked objective information.
Oh, right. Duh. Yeah, it was probably just a random background detail. I still didn't say it was Peach's Castle, though, which you said I did (unless you meant something else).
I still find the episode interesting now, even though I know the backstory is probably false (it interests more for the "what if" aspect than anything else, as well as some of the side information).
Name something that's objectively guaranteed to interest everyone in the world, then.
It was interesting for the time that you had interest in it. I (and most people when they were little kids) used to be interested by little kids' shows(at least, I'd assume I was if I watched them all the time
), but I'm not now. They were still interesting to me at the time. What you're saying is like saying that if a car stops moving once it runs out of gas, then it never really moved at all. Things that used to be true in past tense (the car was moving) can be made false in present tense (the car isn't moving) because of some reason (it ran out of gas), but it was still in that past state in the past.
I didn't. You said it resembled Peach's Castle, and I pointed out how what little resemblance it had was no different to how pretty much any other castle in a Nintendo game resembles Peach's Castle, for architectural theming reasons, so there's nothing of interest there that warrants examining.
-Aliens showing up and being communicated with, in a broadcast to the world
I never really had interest in it. I watched it when I had nothing else going on.
*
Ah, okay. I thought you meant something else, my bad.
What about those things makes it so that it's guaranteed to be interesting to everyone? Those things are more likely to be interesting, but there's no objective guarantee. For instance, someone who wouldn't necessarily find any of these things interesting is an alien.
Well, it caught your attention for the ten-fifteen minutes you watched it through. That means you found it at least somewhat interesting (as does the fact that we're discussing it right now).
Ignoring the fact that you seem to have completely misinterpreted at least two of the points there, those are entirely different ball games that I am not willing to explain here.
See, there you go again, talking like you know me.
Good, I was getting a bit tired of talking about fact vs. opinion.
I came here after the quality of the episodes was brought up, and after I posted my "probably won't post here again; just giving my two cents" post, you quoted it and started this long, drawn-out argument about facts versus opinions. I'm not defending the episode (I've said multiple times that I believe the backstory presented to be false); I'm simply stating my opinion.
I'm going off of information you gave me. You said you watched the whole thing, and you've provided me reasons to believe that you were paying attention (you know quite a bit about it); therefore, I can conclude that it held your interest.
Correct; it's not guaranteed that you were willing to attend, nor is it guaranteed that you paid attention. However, when you know the ins and outs of something, you at least took some sort of interest (as in, it captivated your attention for you to be able to know about it).
...You explicitly tried to defend it's quality on multiple occasions.
I watched something out of pure boredom. It does not mean I had a particular interest. Interest =/= holding your attention.
Again, his loyalist fans like yourself keep bringing it up in my face. Of course it's gonna be fresh on the mind. That, and I sometimes have an involuntarily good memory.
I feel like MatPat took this theory and replace "Autistic Kid" with "Sakurai" (although the Sakuria theory does make more sense in my mind.)This one's better.
