Discussion in 'The Edge of Space' started by Lex, Oct 22, 2015.
Worst Youtube channel, or worst Youtube channel?
I've not seen it, but it can't be any worse than DSP
Worst ,also sick of seeing them in my recommend section
Why don't people like GT? I've never really checked them out myself.
their video's aren't that good and their theory's (read misinformation) spreads like wildfire
Imagine a 9/11 truther crossed with a Souls lorehound and you will have a rough idea what Game Theory is like
I dunno. I don't trust the theories themselves all the time, but they're not bad to throw on in the background while working.
Meh. MattPatt has an extremely punchable face and voice but I still watch his stuff because I get off on being annoyed, somehow (?).
this is so bad it's good.
I actually liked his older videos, which originally hooked me. The ones where he, you know, actually did real theory and science-y-ish things. Lately has been more click-baity I think. I have had no interest in them.
From what I gather he started a "youtube marketing company" so I think he's using more marketing strategies to get views. Which is click bait. So meh, I have no interest anymore.
I got nothing against the guy. It true he has a punchable face, and his voice is sort-of "ughhhguhghhhhh." But I think it's less of a passion and more of a job for him now, and it reflects on his channel. Plus he's making appearances on other channels. So there really isn't a buffer and he's a little much... yeah...
game theory is bad, but nothing beats 3lamestudio
That bad? I've seen them recommended to me a few times but never actually watched any of their vids.
I feel it's an accurate characterisation, but you should watch a video or two and decide for yourself.
I forgot that existed. I was happier having forgotten it.
It's theories so I don't take it seriously. The problem is the majority of his fanbase takes all he says for bloody gospel and don't think on their own, just parroting his crap.
His science-y stuff is fun, even if it's not 100% and often omits integral segments (like the one about Siren and how sound can kill).
I actually enjoyed a fair number of his videos. Keyword is enjoyed.
His newer stuff is absolutely terrible in my opinion. It often comes off as pandering, easily disproven or pointless. His FNAF videos really wore out their welcome, especially when he missed one of the most blantant plot points that even I knew about (I don't play the games) which completely ruined the entire theory.
I liked a lot of his older ones, where he talked about pointless shit that was still entertaining and fun to watch, see the Minecraft Diamond Armour one, the Assasins Creed Leap of Faith one or the Sonic's Speed one. I can't stand some of his newer ones though, like Peach is dead or the Toad's deadly secret ones. (So I like the ones that pointlessly compare video games to real life and hate the ones where he goes 9/11 conspiricy)
I'll stand by that I like his voice though. It's cheezy and overly enthusiastic, but I like it for that.
So not worst channel IMO. Someone mentioned DSP. If you're unfamiliar with him lucky you. He still gets my vote for "worst".
The haters he has are a little creepy though. They essentially stalk everything he says to point out how bad of a person he is. He can be a sack of shit, but some people take it a little too far.
What this guy said. MattPatt's original videos were really nice. I particularly liked the ones about Mario being a sociopath and Rosalina's true origins. I actually learned a few things I didn't know, watching his stuff.
But now, as you said, his newer videos smell of clickbait a mile away.
The Sonic's Speed one is utterly wrong, though - he looks at Sonic's average speed rather than his top speed.
The correct way of doing it would be firstly to note that Sonic doesn't actually have a top speed in the classic games - he's limited only by the size of the number that can hold his speed, which caps him out at just under 128px/frame (horizontally).
Take Sonic's height (40px, ~1m according to official material) to find the ratio between pixels and metres, note the game runs at 60fps, and you have Sonic's top speed at 192m/s.
Which is a bit more than the 9m/s given in the video.
Note that on purely flat ground, Sonic's top speed is indeed 6px/frame (9m/s), Sonic's top Spindash/Peelout speed is 12px/frame (18m/s), and the camera is locked to 16px/frame (24m/s) in Sonic 1, 2, and CD, and 24px/frame (36m/s) in Sonic 3. But given that Sonic can outrun the camera with enough skill, these are clearly all slower than his actual top speed.
It took me five minutes of research to learn this, not counting the fact that I've played the Sonic games too much.
I actually enjoyed this one, I knew it was wrong when watching it, but I still found it enjoyable.
I made a comment like 2 years ago on it about the fact that it was wrong on a base level. It's been a while, but I think it was the fact that he used Modern Sonic's height as a measurement but used Classic Sonic's sprite as the basis for it. Classic is quite a bit shorter than Modern.
It only made Sonic's speed in Sonic 1 like a couple of meters per second faster though.
Sonic 1 has a speedcap on the ground while the other classic games have a considerably higher one and a speedcap in the air AFAIK.
Anyway, while the video was pointless and wrong, it was still fun.
All the classic games have the same speed caps (6px/frame); in Sonic 1 they're broken and slow you down if you are going faster than it and press in the direction you're heading in. In Sonic 2 and CD the ground speed cap is fixed, but the air speed cap is still broken. Sonic 3 fixes the air speed cap too.
It's not a hard cap, though, and can still be accelerated past it by going downhill or jumping off slopes, which is how you can outrun the camera.