I am a little skeptical of the final analysis, but this is definitely the most coherent take on the series I have seen to date! Probably should include a spoiler warning of sorts but I don't think...
I am a little skeptical of the final analysis, but this is definitely the most coherent take on the series I have seen to date! Probably should include a spoiler warning of sorts but I don't think the video would be watchable if you haven't seen the series.
Some thoughts... One of the major problems with all of these Analogue Horror / ARG / Webseries shows is that they end up being either obscenely complicated or far too direct. Petscop has always...
Some thoughts...
One of the major problems with all of these Analogue Horror / ARG / Webseries shows is that they end up being either obscenely complicated or far too direct. Petscop has always been in the former camp, so I'm happy to accept this as the foundational "truth" of the series.
The PS2 devkit thing is interesting. The game doesn't seem to show the classic vertex snapping that's a part of the PS1 hardware, so it very well could be a PS2 game? A PS1 game being played through the PS2 would use the PS1 chip that's built-in and presumably wouldn't have the right firmware required to connect to the internet. But the game looks like it's in 240p rather than 480i, which would indicate it's not a port. This is obviously nitpicking to an absurd degree.
I am so glad that this theory managed to stick the landing without referencing Newmaker. I agree with the author that it was frankly gross to include in the first place, and it was one of the things that made me hesistant to watch the video. Explaining that it wasn't relevant upfront was a good choice.
I'm the least convinced by the connection between the mastoid retractor, the "tool", and the petscop character sprite. I can get the leap in logic of the retractor being drawn from memory into the "tool", but the sprite seems to be in use in the first version of the game? I still think it's just a goofy guy from the game's original form, that was drawn by the author to be unsettling enough to slot into the horror sections nicely.
I think the link that makes this theory work is the Petscap/Rainer Rilke connection. It's incredibly tenuous, but the fact that Rainer Rilke's early life is vaguely reminiscent of the theory (though seemingly less traumatic for Rilke) and that I've never heard an explanation for the name other than this is good enough for me.
That said, the pacing and formatting of this video was a little annoying. Like, relax a bit, it's just an old webseries, you don't need to yell!
I am a little skeptical of the final analysis, but this is definitely the most coherent take on the series I have seen to date! Probably should include a spoiler warning of sorts but I don't think the video would be watchable if you haven't seen the series.
Some thoughts...
One of the major problems with all of these Analogue Horror / ARG / Webseries shows is that they end up being either obscenely complicated or far too direct. Petscop has always been in the former camp, so I'm happy to accept this as the foundational "truth" of the series.
The PS2 devkit thing is interesting. The game doesn't seem to show the classic vertex snapping that's a part of the PS1 hardware, so it very well could be a PS2 game? A PS1 game being played through the PS2 would use the PS1 chip that's built-in and presumably wouldn't have the right firmware required to connect to the internet. But the game looks like it's in 240p rather than 480i, which would indicate it's not a port. This is obviously nitpicking to an absurd degree.
I am so glad that this theory managed to stick the landing without referencing Newmaker. I agree with the author that it was frankly gross to include in the first place, and it was one of the things that made me hesistant to watch the video. Explaining that it wasn't relevant upfront was a good choice.
I'm the least convinced by the connection between the mastoid retractor, the "tool", and the petscop character sprite. I can get the leap in logic of the retractor being drawn from memory into the "tool", but the sprite seems to be in use in the first version of the game? I still think it's just a goofy guy from the game's original form, that was drawn by the author to be unsettling enough to slot into the horror sections nicely.
I think the link that makes this theory work is the Petscap/Rainer Rilke connection. It's incredibly tenuous, but the fact that Rainer Rilke's early life is vaguely reminiscent of the theory (though seemingly less traumatic for Rilke) and that I've never heard an explanation for the name other than this is good enough for me.
That said, the pacing and formatting of this video was a little annoying. Like, relax a bit, it's just an old webseries, you don't need to yell!
TL;DR I think this is a pretty good theory.
A recent reinterpretation of the mystery youtube series Petscop.