andrew cunningham's deltarune analysis videos are perhaps my favourite ones (i do really love stuffed alpaca's ones too and vivat veritas has always got something interesting to say), and i think the reasons for that are pretty succinctly summarised by some things i remember him saying, in a comment response stream for the knights conspiracy video.
lots of people objected to his conclusion that the phone caller is carol. their reasoning was often based wholly on the fact that we cant hear litterally everythig the caller says, so maybe they actually said the complete opposite of what we think. but thats a useless analysis because all the text from the caller is coherent, we can derive full meaning from everything we can hear, so to assume thats not what they are saying is to assume toby fox is lying to us, and as andrew said, you cannot derive useful analysis by assuming we are being lied to, but also, if toby is genuinely trying to decieve us, then reaching the conclusion he wants us to reach is a success. andrew's entire objective with his analysis is to understand what the game is trying to tell us.
and that feels weird to point that out, right? i mean surely thats a foundational part of any theorycrafting, but my problem with most deltarune theory videos is that they dont act like this; when i watch a random video about the kris slash theory, its goal is to convince me of that theory and nothing else; when i watch andrew's video about kris' soul(s?), its goal is to asses and understand what the game says about kris and use that to draw conclusions.
i dont think theres anything wrong with liking those kind of videos, im sure they can be fun to watch, but i just cant do it (autism i guess).
