I don't care who is "right" and who is "wrong" I just care about seeing as many different angles and new pairs of eyes perspectives as possible. Then I take info from all those different angles and make my own assumptions and theories.
My fav point you made is how the books are campfire stories kids are telling. It adds to the idea from fnaf3 that the murders became urban legends. The books feel like that to me, sometimes insightful but far from necessary. No shade to Matpat but that Meyer Briggs part was wild. It reminds me of my old job where they made us all take ot and wanted us to display our results at our desks as if it's impossible to communicate without the personality type in mind.
19:37 Wow, ok Hellkrai, you gotta chill. There was absolutely no need for you to attack the Naruto Clan tests out of the blue like that. I'll have you know that me and the rest of the Hyuga clan will not let this aggression go unnoticed by our powerful byakugans. You better watch your steps, mister.
I think I understand what both theories bring to the table which is why I enjoy watching them. I like seeing how different theorists see things differently than I do and understanding their point of view. Of course Matpat should treat these just as theories as well as the other theorists. Thank you for explaining your theories even if I see things a little differently.
I don't mind anyone seeing something different than my perspectives on stuff. It's actually awesome. and having people to discuss stuff with that may disagree makes you think more in depth than you might otherwise!
What’s so funny is dream theory was probably NEVER CANON. If it were, the very ending of fnaf 4 would make no sense. “I will put you back together,” has no explanation under dream theory, which is kind of crazy because that very obviously means something. There are multiple other explanations to fnaf 4 using all of the evidence that dream theory uses that fit it WAY BETTER. My favorite of these is Shattervictim, which suggests that happiest day comes from BV’s memories, and so what we’re seeing in fnaf 4 is all of the things that would eventually become the way to free the MCI and BV’s souls. The toy chica missing her beak lines up with chicas party, one of the minigames. The shadows that you can see of Fredbear and springbonnie line up with the shadow bonnie minigame, the balloon kid that looks like balloon boy lines up with BB’s air adventure, mangle’s quest lines up with the mangle in Elizabeth’s room, and stage 01 is literally just fucking fredbear. Happiest day itself is even a reverse of Fredbear’s diner, it’s the exact same map with the same balloons but reversed, to show that the worst memory is being reversed to become a happy one that becomes happiest day. Everything lines up, and it makes way more sense in the context. Who’s the Fredbear plush? It’s Charlotte telling BV that she will put him back together, which she eventually does in happiest day using his memories. She puts his memories back together, freeing the lost, broken spirit. Not to mention how this is basically confirmed in later entries, as happiest day itself has been confirmed to be someone’s memories being used to create a happiest day for them to live in forever. This explanation I feel is very clearly what Scott was intending in fnaf 4, but it was overlooked because of dream theory. Everyone just assumed matpat was right, and matpat assumed he was right, so everyone missed the actual answer.
This is awesome because I've never heard this before and it sounds cool. Which is also so infuriating because everyone just keeps saying "dream theory" for everything, instead of mentioning an alternative like this 😔
@@duckman9327interesting. That just leaves me with one question. Who is BV? If you're talking about the crying child then they should be address as such.
This video explains why I lost interest in both FNAF and Game Theory at the same time. I missed out on a sweet series of games as a result, because I picked back on it last year. I didn't want to spoil myself by seeing MatPat drop his spoilers, and of course, he himself thinks he's writing the game's story in a way that's hard to follow, because he doesn't know when he is wrong. I rewatched every single one of his theory videos, and it looks to me like he was doing it out of obligations just to fuel a rumor mill that would ultimately get him extra views. And saying sensational words such as "We were all wrong!" when no, HE was when he talked about his makeshift ideas and I could figure it out myself. I don't hate MatPat considering the amazing theories he made, but when you can't separate fact from theory, you lose a lot of your sanity, and MatPat dragged his gargantuan fanbase with him and involved them. I bailed out, and came back when the heat was finally off, only to see new FNAF fans join in and use his patchwork of nonsense timeline as a first impression to the series. And I've lost all hope for him again. He's good at theories but is a horrible story teller, in this case at least.
Dream theory was never right SMH he's pretending to be humble but he's so passive aggressive. I think the hippo's story about the guy feeding the ducks bread, which is bad for them, was a direct metaphor for theorists meaning well , but ultimately feeding people bad info.
You don't think there is any chance Mr hoppo was referring to Scott himself dropping a bread crumb trail with good intentions to tell a story but it ultimately ended up hurting fans. Or better yet it was a random part of the story that only makes sense if you cherry pick like I and you just did? The main idea of Matt making theories that make people believe the wrong thing was already said in that same story from Mr hippo so why would he say the same thing twice. Also that doesn't even mean that Matt is wrong about dream theory. He could be talking about any of his theories.
Shrodingers game theory video. Where every single one of his videos is free from critique because it’s just a dumb theory. But at the same time we should take everything game theory video seriously.
I really don't think that he wants that. He just wants people to not say "this is the worst theory ever" when there are worse theories on his channel and that the theory is "literal cancer" when it's not. The intro of his video is what the video is about, not just anyone who thinks he's wrong.
4:30 Ngl, the person saying that a design choice being turned into a storyline element is a bad way to write a story is bonkers, imo. Like, as long as a story is not complete, you can always take elements from before and give more meaning to them, instead of just leaving them as "oh, this looks cool, k, bye". Not to mention that a story writer does not need to have the whole story finished in just the first "volume" of it (with the other volumes only serving as presentations of the already completed story). They are allowed to break up the development of the story in parts. If anything, this is also less likely to cause an "unstable" story, full of holes and contradictions. And there's literally zero issue on extending a story, or adding details, as long as the extensions and details are not contradicting anything. And the fact that Toy Chica in FNAF 2 having a fallen beak implies that the child with the Chica Toy in FNAF 4 possesses Toy Chica is not contradictory to anything - at least to my knowledge. An example of extending storylines after-the-fact being a great thing that comes to mind is from the animation industry; the prequel to Monsters Inc, Monsters University. I do believe it's unlikely that when Monsters Inc was made, the creators at Pixar had already developed all background details around the protagonists that would appear in MU instead of just choosing character traits that seemed to fit nice to the story Monsters Inc was trying to say. MU was just a clever retrospect on Monsters Inc and a competent extension of its universe, imo, that came many years later. Taking elements that had no meaning before and giving them a completely believable part in a story is not bad storytelling. In my opinion, it's a perfect example of competent storytelling. I think the sentiment against such things is just theorists being salty that they are having their theories be overthrown by additional story elements they didn't have to consider before.
Also I think that fact that Scott called it out is what made it important not just that it existed. Like if Scott hadn't called it out in FNAF 4 I'm sure many people would have assumed it was just a reference to FNAF 2. Also I just wanted to mention I have no problem with people saying that that girl is the one possessing toy chica, even though I personally don't see the toys being possessed, but to say it's "obviously" the right explanation just makes me irritated. Is he being ironic or hypocritical by saying it's "obvious" and "just works"
I'm a fan of Matpat and game theory. I don't believe every single one of his videos are fact, I mainly watch because his videos are entertaining. I watch his videos regularly since 2013. With that said, I do agree with this video and others with a similar stance. The fact of the matter is, we don't have hard evidence that the games have been retconned, the books are needed to solve the lore, or even that gregory is most definitely a bot. A lot of that is people taking information that can easily be interpretated in other ways filtering it through there own biases. This doesn’t make any particular theory right or wrong, but it does mean many theories will have varying degrees of legitamacy. Quite frankly, Mats Greg Bot theory I feel is very weak. Greg being a bot is not necessary for Gregory to do any of the things we see him do in Security Breach. Brainwashing and body possession is just as likely, if not, more likely due to the game that directly preceded it in Help Wanted featuring brainwashing as a core theme. I don't care to go into detail addressing each of Mat's Greg Bot points as this video and others have already done so. Also, because I rather not waste that time typing about it when I could be doing other things. It would have been best if Mat left out some of the Myers Briggs stuff and just address the direct criticisms people have with the theory. Ignore all the mindless criticisms like "this is dumb (insert lack of reasoning here)", and maybe make a general statement on how best to make constructive criticism and differentiating that from non-constructive criticism.
I agree 100% I was an early subscriber and always liked how fun and goofy his videos were. and he really should stick with that mindset instead of going down this awful "I'm right actually" rabbithole, there's no light at the end of that tunnel.
@hellkrai Appreciate the love and the comment. Just subscribed. Looking forward to more videos and watching some of your older one's now. I like your "books not neccessary" approach to FNAF theorizing and wish more FNAF theories took that approach if only to get more of that perspective in the community.
Thank you! This is exactly how I feel and it's like being gaslit by half the fandom. There's nothing wrong with theorizing, but there's too much conjecture in MatPat's videos that are presented as truth. To the point that he's actually convinced the fandom that the *author* came up with his worst take on the story and just won't admit it. A sad amount of videos knocking the writing in FNAF bring up the dream theory as proof of Scott being a bad writer.
2:40 well... yeah but i think he wasnt really serious about "blaming scott" and more of acknowledging that his theory didnt lined up with Scotts plan in a comedic way. Maybe its also a commentary how plot is unpredictable because even MatPat (arguably the biggest FNAF lore analycist) can't get it right... Or maybe im too optimistic about this interpretation i dunno, i just fail to see MatPat as this pompous "im right and you are not" persona...
I agree. The problem that "critics" of MatPat have is that they take his script at face value rather than the way the argument is presented. There's a lot to be taken away from how he says the things he does, his vocal inflection, and body language etc. This part in particular is very much a joke, and Mat is in no way blaming Scott for the retcon of Dream Theory. People really just take these couch videos at face value and make quick responses rather than actually take the time to analyze the argument being made and how it's being made.
Wouldn’t you think it would be kind of counterintuitive for him to think Scott rigged the Fnaf timeline so he can’t solve it yet also continues to make theories @@hellkrai
His biggest RUclips project ever revolved around the Fnaf timeline as he pictured it, if he thought Scott was going to change the strory after why put so much effort into it anyways@@hellkrai
I think this video and matpats videos ironically coalesce around the same points, viz: people take others' theories or criticisms personally. It might seem like Matpat is cherrypicking rude comments but basically the only comments on his videos are either regurgitating what he himself already said, or rude comments criticising him - he barely gets comments which are constructive, so I get why he would be frustrated. I don't really think he came off as egotistical in that video, just tired of the same insults again and again. But he should be taken with a grain of salt by his own admission, and he doesn't seem to accept that this is the role of him and others like him in the fnaf community. Regardless I have a lot of respect for matpat for getting a lot of stuff right, and I WOULD respect him for getting stuff wrong if only he was a bit more graceful in accepting that.
It's a spesific kind of dismissal on the criticism aspect. Yes 90% of the ones he gets is that garbage, and likely bigger critics don't comment. But if that's all he shows, and all he addresses it makes it appear as if there is no meaningful criticism that he receives.
Replying to myself: 1. sorry for writing huge paragraphs, I'm too used to writing a lot as it's basically the only thing I do these days 2. On at least 1 occasion I'm sure matpat hit the nail on the head and Scott cawthon retroactively changed the plot 3. Your video is actually the exact spirit in which we should take game theories, that's the whole point! Question them and build on them. But the fanbase is majorly children and they are rude, which sucks.
It's okay. I don't think Scott ever retconned anything personally. I know he gives a big example being security breach. But if you look at his initial theory video where it's about a cult of glitch trap and you look at my video about it I got something very similar to what he first said but he acts as if it was completely changed and then starts pedaling his Greg bot thing.
I think what the fandom fails to understand is that both "S's" and "N's" BOTH have downsides. While an S mindset might take things too literally. An N mindset can end up blowing something way past the complexity it needs to be. All matpat has done is neatly segregate the entire theory base, good job mat, you further divided the fnaf theorists. God damnit...
@@vanyadolly yep, doesn't matter if we are either type, the end of the day fnaf brings us all together. And all matpat has done is neatly segregate the entire theory base with the Myers test.
I do like Matpat theories mostly the FNAF ones but his recent video talking about "Why you don't like my theories" felt more complaining then actually caring about the franchise he's been making theories for since the start of the first game it also didn't help he constantly uses old theories as supporting evidence when those theories haven't been proven at all yet and probably never well because the creator won't give us answers for anything even though it's been 9 years since FNAF creation and yet not one person can tell you FNAF Lore without half of it being theorized or made up to fill in the holes and it kinda sucks as a fan but also kinda amazing how FNAF is pretty popular yet it really doesn't deserve it the Henry's speech at the end Pizzeria Simulator is such a prime example of this the speech was excellent but at that point Henry was only in the books and never mentioned in the games so the speech wasn't as impactful as it should be and could have been not saying the entire speech wasn't impactful as henry mentioning his daughter Charlie was good and made it a lot better Side note: 15:19 Well I do personally agree that Gregory not a robot it's important to note that robot children do have blood if the Books concepts were used for security breach if they aren't then it was most likely cut for a younger target demographic or to get more people thinking about the lore
5:25 This entire stereotypical RUclipsr monologue is absolutely infuriating. This is purely the salt of an egotistical content goblin who has never had a hand in anything creative or interesting. Do you imagine he says "duhhh guess im supposed to just magically intuit that something means something???" every time he Googles something he wants to know?
The game that was blatantly retconned, was rushed to be changed, and wound up feeling very clunky and unfished as a result was most likely Hello Neighbor. Not only does it match up really well with what he describes, it would also fit with their obsessive attempts to get his attention and his clearly caustic attitude towards the developers and franchise. While he cracks jokes about hostility towards FNaF, he does, eventually, express his love for Scott and extoll the guy's virtues. Despite MatPat's insistence that Scott must have retconned the series multiple times, there's still plenty of good will between them. Speaking of retcons, Scott has admitted to one retcon without explaining what it was. And if he's okay at admitting a retcon occurred... why wouldn't he be okay with doing so again? Why are theorists obsessed with the theory that FNaF VR and so on retconned the prior series? Just like any other theory, it's just an "educated guess", and a complete misunderstanding could be behind that guess. Steel Wool could have decided to take the story in a completely separate direction, but the proof just isn't concrete. Scott has a tradition of using newer games to explain misunderstandings in prior games. This is something MatPat himself has pointed out. Also, MatPat uses a parallel canon to provide explanations for the games, with the books. So... if the pattern holds, the FNaF movie is yet another parallel canon that is trying to clear up a past misconception, right? So what do we see in the movie? "Dream Theory" is a true concept in the movie, except the definition of it is radically different from the way theorists use it. Dream theory in the movie is the theory of instigating dreams to uncover details that only the subconscious noticed and didn't at the time recognize. It's like the Brain Dives of Cyberpunk. "Dream Theory" is re-examining old memories for new revelations. And it's no stretch to say "Mike's dreams are true." Both the memories he's reliving and the interactions with the ghosts, such as Foxy cutting him. Mike's dreams are true? Could that also apply to the "dreams" where Mike was the protagonist? The games predating FNaF VR? The movie also seemed to stress that dreams and reality weren't mutually exclusive. That dreams reflected reality. I don't think the games before Steel Wool are supposed to have been retconned, at least not completely. And didn't FNaF VR imply the MINIGAMES were what the in-world dev supposedly created? That's very, very different from the main games being different. As you mention "disgusting behavior" in this video, the absolute insistence that there's more retcons than admitted to seems... slanderous to me. At least without a great deal more solid evidence to back that claim up. To me, it just seems like belligerent, close-minded anger that they manufactured for themselves.
I don't understand why people keep insisting that the Steel Wool era of games, particularly Help Wanted, retconned the previous games as just in-universe games. It was explicitly mentioned in that very game that the events of the previous games are still real, in-universe events that actually happened. It's just that the current incarnation of Fazbear Entertainment (in what has been consistently in-character for them since the original FNAF) is trying to cover up those events to get back into the public's good graces. This was even reinforced in Security Breach with a message you can find that read along the lines of, "Why did you reopen? We all remember what happened to those kids."
Saw your videos on The Beginner's Guide and now this, and while they in general seem a bit too advanced for me to really let me form any proper thoughts, I will say that I strongly believe Scott Cawthon artificially extended/convoluted the lore of his first successful series to get more mileage out of each game to keep fans invested. Whether or not dodging fan theories played a role in that convolution is indeterminate, however, incorporating the sheer volume of fan theories as feedback (whether additive or subtractive) into a design loop would have likely made the creative process significantly easier than without doing so.
His stories started as a last hurrah. Always remember that. You can't start with a fully cohesive story plot when you don't know if that game will thrive, or crash and burn like every other project you started from. My take: Scott was winging it for 1, 2 built on 1's winging-it, 3 tried to provide a good closure point, by 4 and World he had an idea for a greater story, and Sister Location, Pizzeria Sim and UCN all built on that. Delivery, Help Wanted, Security Breach and Ruin give me vibes of "Gaiden" chapters that wound up spinning into the successor "mainline" - probably Scott realizing that AR game's lore actually sounded like it had too much potential for just being a spinoff entry. Note this is all based on my experiences doing creative worldbuilding for a D&D campaign and writing a story that began as winging it and finished as a gigantic lore bible with some readers' theories being close to my vague winging it "vibes" while other stuff was so off I replied to correct their take because it clashed THAT hard against my interpretation of my own plot. Also when you incorporate fan theories into your plot you get Voltron's reboot, that is REALLY BAD ADVICE. Never let the fans drive.
Another note about the static vision: games like batim use a slightly different filter to distinguish the main villain from others, which helps make them more threatening.
MatPat being so passive aggressive in that video and BMing about everything definitely isn't a good look. Everyone knows, at least on larger content creator's videos, the comments are absolute cancer; MatPat should know this by now being on the platform as long as he has. Yes, everyone should look at him as an entertainer, but he takes it so seriously.
"Everyone knows, at least on larger content creator's videos, the comments are absolute cancer" yeah and he picks ones that only highlight this aspect. Not actual criticisms. sad really.
This was his first time publicly criticizing the toxic fnaf community in a video. He’s been doing these videos on fnaf for over a decade. Who are you to dictate what he can or cannot post? Also why are you so butt hurt??? Sound like you need your diaper changed.
I’ve seen so so many people react to or simply side with MatPat here on this video, and finally finding someone else who views the S vs N debate he lays out as actually just offensive. I never disliked MatPat himself even if I thought his theories went way downhill as of security breach, but hearing him basically tell me I’m too close minded to understand his theory and THATS why I don’t agree with it made me feel genuinely hurt as goofy as that sounds from an egotistical RUclips video XD Anywho this video made me smile and you’ve earned a sub! I wish you luck on getting to 1k!!
I dare MatPat to go into any MBTI-related internet forum where people actually know what they're talking about (under a false name to avoid popularity bias) and present his dichotomy-based approach to typing. We can make bets as to how quickly he'll be laughed out of the forum.
at some parts you've literally taken moments where Matpat is CLEARLY joking around and being sarcastic , even chuckling to himself while saying them meaning he doesn't take hismelf seriously and doesn't mean them literally at 02:26 specifically , the whole Matpat VS Scott thing was an inside joke , as for everything else i'm not really sure , that's all i had an issue with , still overall an awesome video and a fun watch , i don't like beating down people for miniscule things at all so , even if that was a small issue , keep the good work up :D
I used to think they were jokes too, but he keeps saying it over and over and making arguments as to why it's valid which makes it seem like less of a joke. And it's not hard to look at twitter and see people say that "Scott Retconned the story" as a fact and not a "theory" because of Matpat. But at the end of the day I'm an 'N' too so I SHOULD just agree with him if his theory is true,
@@hellkrai not everyone has the same level of humour so maybe I'm just a bit naive on the matter , I don't know , views vary , i perceived what he said as a joke , you don't, maybe others don't as well , in the end at some things i cannot be really sure
Sometimes they're a joke but sometimes it gets a little weird. Since the dream theory thing in particular he has brought up a few times as being what Scott intended at the time, very insistent on it
Sure we can say it's a joke, but the sad truth is that this theory in particular has affected how people view not just Scott as a writer, but the entire franchise. It's accepted as truth by people to argue that the story is bad, and honestly it's just about the most insulting lack of creativity you could ever accuse a writer of.
Scott thought about retconning the games to dream theory to appease MatPats imagined missing puzzle pieces. But fearing fan backlash that retcon got locked in the box. Scott made sure to explain in an interview that he tried to retcon only what was absolutely necessary, and that he tried to make them very clear in the game when he did (Bite of 87' to 83' ex). MattPats certain there's dozens of retcons and that the books are 1:1 to the game and are required decoder rings to play the games now. But fact is Scott thought the narrative for his games was pretty straightforward, assuming you played all the secret mini games. FNAF 4 was added in response to try to steer MatPat back on track because of how far he was getting off track in interpreting the story and it was thought that if he was that confused then maybe a lot of fans were and needed the extra clarification. I sincerely doubt that Scott decided the books were the best way to help explain the narrative the best, after Help Wanted and Security Breach had been released, that way everyone will understand Ruin and HW2... More likely the SB dev team knew what they were doing, the burntrap ending was labeled correctly as the 'True Ending' and the Ruin DLC is another VR brainwash nightmarescape just like Help Wanted was. Cassie is trapped in VR to replace Gregory and Vanny who just recently escaped Glitchtrap, and HW2 seems to hunt that maybe Cassies dad got brainwashed too and may have trapped Cassie himself by giving her the mask like Glitchtrap wanted. Ruin shows evidence of several if not all of SBs endings as having occurred which is just not possible, nor is it possible for AR glasses to gift you with teleportation and pass through physical walls. Matt wants us to believe that beneath burntrap and the tangle deeper in the ground was the mimic all along which Gregbot and Vanny knew the whole time so they wrote the super AI Bonnie Security to go after him while they fled. It all makes sense if you read 20 books before playing Ruin just like Wool and Scott intended. Straight forward narrative.... or maybe they intended people to play the games and that's it, with an actual straight forward narrative once you realize RUin made no logic sense by design so that you could clearly tell that you aren't in Kansas anymore. All the theorists said from the get go with SB 'it can be hard to tell Easter eggs from lore information be careful' then they all seemed to collectively ignore their own warnings and took every Easter egg nods to the books as though they were the only relevant clues to lore in the whole game. Blurgh
4:50 I didn't think the FNaF 2 animatronics were possessed, and alot of ppl thought they were and I was always confused. But this makes alot of sense compared to whatever the reasoning was... idk, i still don't believe they're possessed, but this brought smtg up that i had never thought of before :)
The exact specifics I'm not 100% on personally, but I feel like acting like it's completely random and has no thought is a bit odd? Just seems like the simplest answer that doesn't have direct contradictions. "Occam's razor"
They are posessed. The black eyes (also known as "silver eyes") are described as "the window of soul" or something like that. Also, do you really expect non-posessed animatroics to walk through vents and murder you?
@@arandomguy6951my belief was that the fnaf 2 animatronics had some kind of high tech security built into them that made them aggressive. Don’t know why exactly, but they see you as a threat, so they go out and attack you.
@@TrecherousbeastThere's probably some low level possession with the Toys due to having the Withereds used as spare parts. Granted, that only really works with the later addition of remanet and is very unlikely to be Scott's intent on FNaF 2's release
I agree with most of what you said here, but there are some things I would like to add and get some clarification on. Like you pointed out, it is frustrating when MatPat basically said that he knows that Dream Theory was meant to be correct but Scott just changed the story either to spite him or because he realized it was unsatisfying without having any way to actually know this. However, the interpretations that Scott retconned Dream Theory, or that there are potentially multiple rectons in the series, are still valid conclusions to come to because there is some evidence that could reasonably lead one to believe them, and they don't necessarily frame Scott in a bad light if they merely consider that his writing may be flawed as anyone's writing can be. It only becomes an issue when someone frames that interpretation as pretty much factual and ignores other possible (and more fitting) explanations like Mat did, especially when doing so leads to Scott being perceived as a bad writer, and I agree with you calling this particular behavior "disgusting". Although I wouldn't say that RyeToast did the same thing, because his interpretation was framed much more reasonably in my opinion, and I wouldn't call his behavior "disgusting" as I would call MatPat's, because he didn't necessarily say Dream Theory was "right" at the time, but that in his opinion, it would make sense if it was at the time of FNAF 4's release. I would also like to add that, while MatPat saying that the franchise constantly changes and adds lore in unexpected places would frame it in a bad light, I don't get what's wrong with that if it is objectively true. So, ultimately, I guess I would ask you to elaborate on why you would frame certain behavior from theorists that I view as reasonable interpretation as "disgusting" alongside more unreasonable behavior that is more fitting of that description.
The issue is pretending to know the author's intent and ascribing that to the author. For all we know a "definitive timeline that covers everything" as Rye Toast asserts isn't actually anything that's supposed to be possible or intended. And given some of Scott's reactions towards the book stuff, I feel that implies it. The books aren't supposed to map onto the story 1:1 and aren't supposed to be wholly accurate all the time. But on the other hand if you look at the theorist community they keep implying that it needs to??? Or that every little hint he puts into a book is a massive revelation and retcons the entire series??? Yes I get the aspect that they need to do this for "clickbait" But they don't make compelling arguments for it other than talking down to Scott and saying Scott's not a good writer
@hellkrai I completely agree that assumptions like this that theorists make are stupid and harmful to productive discussion of the franchise, I mainly just disagreed with some examples of people doing this that you provided. I still appreciate you making this video though since it highlighted problems in the theorist community that I hadn't really considered before.
@@jax99hax yeah I will say Fuhnaff's thing I mentioned is one that actively bothers me, and the way the Retcons theory has ruined discussion are my primary issues.
When I saw his follow-up video to the FNAF ARG theory getting out-of-hand, he took responsibility for his part and instructed on etiquette; I thought "Wow, owning mistakes and focusing on betterment, now that's someone to look up to." So this video scape-goating a group of people and presenting criticism as mere insults was disappointing to say the least. There are plenty of issues with using these MBPT results but for me the one that said it all was how John(Fuhnaff) had previously been an 'S'. First it's presented as evidence that "We can all theorize equally, we're not saying N is better"(he got validated, you could too!) but then John changing into an 'N' after being around Team Theorist is presented as leveling-up. "We just HAPPEN to all be 'N's; now he has the proper mindset to be a theorist in the BIG leagues with us." (N is better). It's telling you that they see them as equal while showing the opposite. Just as you pointed out him saying "Idc if you like my theories" in the axe-grinding script about 'Why You Hate My Theories' clearly showing otherwise. Even if this was months ago now, I'm very glad to see someone able to call these out at a time when many had nodded in agreement.
Each series of books is its own continuity as are the games… they’re set in the same world, but separate stories. I personally don’t think any one person can solve this franchise but if everyone puts their mind to it we can each solve a TINY piece of one of the different stories…
This is my reason I am annoyed at Matpat. and his followers who blindly believes his theories are fact and true. And don't bother trying to contradict him or argue against his theories and fight against them. AS THAT HOW THEORY WORKING DOES! In respectfully talk and debunk or say how certain or both side of the theoies aren't correct or have hard evidence to to try and hopefully back up your claim from the sources or in this case, whats given to us vaguely in the game to try and connect the dots. But no he doesn't do so and even will go out of his way to get his own FATHER to try and prove his theories being correct, to show just how insecure he is about takinf constructive criticism, or out right SAY constructive criticism is hate comments when that is not true. GAH this guy annoys me a lot and it even more so when he tries doing other franchise. Like how he literally brought back the "Mario is a villain" and try to trick peopel into thinking the clips he showed of Mario caging Donkey kong, or sotmping on Luigi's foot in MArio tennis for the Gamecube are all evil intentions and thus he must be a villain. To then saying the Indie game Pizza tower that the intalian hwo makes pizza is also a villain...which is racist in all degrees to automatically assume another italian who is like Mario, is evil. JUST UGH. Don't get me started on his sorry excuse of Pokemon theories! Also took that test and...says I am a INFJ type
Tell me about it..doesn't his case that he also ignores actual subjective and constructive criticism. Not owning up to his mistakes let alone practically ignoring in game logic and dialogues, by doing outside resources for his theories and declares their 'findings' are what makes his theory true. But as you stated, that shouldn't count at all let alone, using outside sources to look and make your information as facts. Doesn't solve your case, when the game themselves contradict his theories. Like a good example Pokemon Let's go Pikachu and Eevee. He believes 'Green' the female trainer who you can fight after catching or defeating Mewtwo. Is a human clone of Mewtwo and that the reason she is trying to find him, is so they can be complete and whole. And she thinks can capture humans with Pokeballs. Because the girl gets mad at you for catching Mewtwo. EVEN though the dialogue states otherwise and the person in front of the Cerulean cave even tells you that "There is this crazy strong Trainer who enter here looking for the Strongest Pokemon. She had really powerful Pokemon." and when you beat her. And though I don't know if she still does it, if you don't catch MEwtwo. Out of frustration of learning you caught or beat Mewtwo, starts throwing Pokeballs at you in frustration- saying how why not join my team. It...ugh so frustrating and and ugh...HIS resource for how his theory stands true is because of...The First Pokemon Movie Mewtwo short with Amber 2...and believe Green is the first successful human Clone made from using Mewt...ugh yeah. granted this probably meaningless...cause I don't know if you play or care for Pokemon lol, no offense.@@hellkrai
Especially his Pokémon theory about it being Abused and the Pokémon are feeling trapped into the Boxes because of You. Trying to Guilt trip the Players for Enjoying Pokémon. It's a Chaotic Mess.
I’m gonna be honest. Most of the argument you make is based off of matpat making a joke by saying that Scott won’t let him have a victory. He’s obviously being sarcastic, just frustrated that the hate towards his theory will be valid. I have to add though, I hate the latest theories because matpat sold the company. The new theories are so obviously rushed and boring. For example, the shorts arg “theory” was just repeating everything that happened. We all know how matpat starts by explaining what the topic is, and then starts the theory. In that video and many others, the theory NEVER STARTED.
well its very clearly not a joke. it starts as him laughing making a joke of it but as it goes on it becomes very clear this is what he believes and that's why he finds it funny. its funny to us because its absurd that Scott would change a game because of matpat. but its funny to him because he thinks Scott change the game because of his theory's. its funny to him because its true while its funny to us because its absurd. its different perspectives coming to the same conclusion of laughing with the big difference being he believes what he's joking about.
The problem with fnaf in general when it comes to theorising is there is very little ground to stand on but a lot to work from. Most theorists aim to actually SOLVE the lore and not just keep it a book definition of a theory and most of the fanbase stick around to see the latest progress on that journey yet they get mad over seemingly outlandish ideas that were planted there by scott himself. And I think THAT is what frustrates Mat and many other theorists nowadays.
Finally someone explaining why they dont like matpats theory all the hate videos are just little kids i respect ur opinion but im still on matpats side (im not hating btw)
Scott Cauthen doesn’t hold as big of a hand in the series anymore, I think it’s fair to assume do to the change in staff there are some holes in the new games
I think the girl in that minigame posessing Toy Chica is a bit of a stretch, like, i think it's more likely to posses Mangle since she doesn't have a Mangle toy which represents that she is Mangle (english is my second language)
I just wanted to firstly say I agree with everything you have said in this video, except the Myers Briggs personality test part. I want to start off by saying I completely get on where you where coming from about Marat using the test to kinda gaslight you into believing him, But I will want to make the point of when you said “it’s not scientific” that is completely incorrect, the personality test is a psychological theory that explains the behavior of someone. And even though I dislike the person who proposed the theory(sigmund Freud) I still think we should not look over his theory, again I completely agree that he is using the personality test to gaslight/manipulate you to believe him, but that is just my opinion and the research I’ve done. I’m a psychology student lol so if I got anything wrong please let me know!!! 😁
Oh that's fair, I guess I meant that it's not really like a "fact of life" that it's theory and using it to characterize people you don't agree with is the unscientific part.
The Myer Briggs thing is literally pseudoscience. There are no such things as I N S F etc personality types. It is just astrology for self identified intellectuals. I can’t believe he actually used this to say that people couldn’t understand his theories due to peoples brains not being able to grasp concepts due to being basically different astrological signs. Yikes. You’d think someone “dedicated to science” wouldn’t get caught up in this sort of thing.
the Test isnt scientific infact its counted as a pseudoscience which is just fake science when we boil it down "Despite its immense popularity and impressive longevity, the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) has existed in a parallel universe to social and personality psychology. Here, we seek to increase academic awareness of this incredibly popular idea and provide a novel teaching reference for its conceptual flaws. We focus on examining the validity of the Jungian-based theory behind MBTI that specifies that people have a “true type” delineated across four dichotomies. We find that the MBTI theory falters on rigorous theoretical criteria in that it lacks agreement with known facts and data, lacks testability, and possesses internal contradictions. We further discuss what MBTI's continued popularity says about how the general public might evaluate scientific theories." Stein, R., & Swan, A. B. (2019). Evaluating the validity of Myers‐Briggs Type Indicator theory: A teaching tool and window into intuitive psychology. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 13(2). doi.org/10.1111/spc3.12434 its widely regarded as pseudoscience and really isn't a good determiner for ones personality. compatibility or Thought process. its like the modern version of star signs more of a fun game rather than an actual scientific test
I never played or been interested in fnaf, but I hate matpat so much x.x the whole game theory stuff has hurt media analysis in such a weird way. They're "theories" in the same sense conspiracy theories are theories, warping facts to reach a conclusion or seeking deeper hidden meaning everywhere without engaging with what's actually there. matpat content is basically the pop culture equivalent of Qanon and I genuinely believe it's been damaging both in term of media literacy and critical thinking skills.
(sorry for the late reply) I agree with this. before the "Why you hate my theories" video, I kinda stop watching matpat. There were some videos where he would say "A happens because of F" and I'd think "It looks like it happens because of B...maybe X but idk" and it slowly went to "I see where you're going but A is shown to happen because of B" and I just kinda got bored of him afterward.
I feel like the problem is both fnaf content creators and fnaf fans. One makes theories that may or may not be true and the other takes anything for gospel and runs with it like the 2nd coming of christ. Then we got the 3rd reason, rushed vids like this that only point blame onto one person with half-assed evidence. For someone that hates matpat you sure follow the persona he made to a T
it's so hilarious and funny that scott cawthon made a book out of matpat ever since he got his fnaf theories wrong since scott is the one who makes the games and wrote the books, you gotta love this man.
@@hellkrai I don't really think he has to, the very nature of a theory is it being just a possibility for an answer, no matter how likely and unlikely it is. The whole thing about Scott changing the story, while never directly said, it seems to be a very likely explanation of the story reveals/changes. Two examples being that the crying child was almost definitely meant to be the spirit in the puppet and that Afton had used the golden freddy suit to lure kids and not spring bonnie(which didn't even exist at that time). The phone guy states that someone used a yellow suit from the back and golden freddy being the only yellow one we'd seen it was a decent assumption. I also think that shadow freddy was meant to represent afton using the golden freddy suit because it is the exact same model just colored to be purple, with that color usually being a sign of afton's presence.
@@hellkraiHe literally says it's a theory at the end of every video hell it's in the fucking channel name!! It's basically his catchphrase "But hey that's just a theory, A GAME THEORY!" Why do people keep forgetting that? If he thought his theories were facts he would've changed his name to game fact.
@@skrappothemonster1436 Wtf does that even mean? If you're talking about him being theatrical that's more for entertainment than anything else since a large chunk of mat's audience are children.
5:04 That's literally never confirmed? And not obvious at all? It's a valid theory but considering that we don't even know if the toy animatronics were possessed or not, it's not that clear cut.
Just like he always says “it’s just a theory.” Why take this so personal?? Everything he said is true about how toxic the fnaf community has become. Y’all acting like some grown children, no surprise.
This video is fucking gospel! Thank you sir. Another big thing that those fuckers don't get, is that the more popular anyone with a platform gets, especially with a brand and merch, they become similar to a cult leader, and then try to downplay, oh I'm just a guy that makes videos...
He wasnt actually blaming scott cawthon, see there are these things called "jokes," and he was just making one. So as for him saying its a theory, thats because it is. If your feeling cold this winter, and you like matpat, watch this video.
I understand the point your trying to make in this video, but you do understand your also doing the things your saying matpat and the other FNAF theorists are doing, as well as the things mat is saying about what the community does to him and the other theorists? Also slight side not but I had a question about your rebuttal to the vanny vision glitching, if Greg was possessed but isn’t any more and vanny still is, why would to proximity distort his vision if all that’s happening is possession? Also why would the vision distortion be video tracking lines, seems like an odd choice if that’s what it really is
No I'm not saying the writer of the game is retconning their story. I'm not saying that "you have to disprove my theory to disagree with it". And I'm absolutely not saying "your Myers-Briggs score makes information processing hard". As far as my theory it's because he was once possessed, that the distorted vision is likely a side effect of it. So when glitchtrap possessing vanny walks by. It's like glitchtrap walking by and the visual is a representation of that.
Bruh, let mat pat theorize. If you dont like it then go away. If you do like it, keep it. Otherwise dont call peoples behaviour disgusting. Its just not a good way to fix it. Make ur own theories and have fun and let other guys have fun.
The fact that Mat is talking about "the fandoms is attacking me and other Theorists out there just because they didn't like theories we made" and not something like "you don't like my theories because you're sucha libra and you could never accept that gregthony fredtano is the ultimate custom night that ruined the franchise." you claimed This is just Pathetic. Please be Better. You're literally being "That Person" Mat is talking about in taht video of his.
but it is what he's saying he's saying that the fandom is attacking me and other theorist because you cant understand our theory's that's what he's saying with his justification being N or S on a pseudoscience test which has been disproven by multiple scientific papers
Fucking great video. I've disliked matpat and theory style videos like his for their blatant disregard of recognizing the things they talk about as art for a while now. Fnaf is a particularly bad example of this but it really goes for any piece of media with obtuse or dense lore and or methods of storytelling. It makes art out to be a problem that has to be solved and not something personal to be enjoyed and to introspect on. This isn't to say sharing your interpretations is bad at all far from it but it's just entirely MISSING THE POINT OF WHAT A PIECE OF ART IS. I'm sure most of these people mean well but it is just so infuriating seeing people try to make something subjective into something solidly objective. ESPECIALLY when they proceed to chastise the artist or storyteller when they turn out to be incorrect.
I used to hate certain games and other thing’s lore, because I hated the fact that there wasn’t a clear cut answer for things, but in recent years I’ve really embraced the “idea” of interpretation. Theories are supposed to be a fun way to analyze media, but in recent years it really has become a way for people to “explain”. There was one RUclipsr (I think it was Patricia Taxxon?) who made a theory video on the Don’t Hug Me I’m Scared series. For years, people have “explained” that series, saying that the teachers in the series were specifically spreading propaganda to children, or specifically as a way to make profit. Red guy wanted to make a good and wholesome kids show, but executives got in the way with them monetizing his “content”, with red guy ultimately splitting off and deciding to make stuff on his own. This is an interesting interpretation of the series, but also seen as the TRUTH of the series, despite the creators saying “every theory is correct”, which made me angry with how “open” it was in the past. But Patrica’s take was about how the teachers were incompetent rather than outright malicious, which was an interpretation she had based on her own experience growing up on the autism spectrum and dealing with incompetent teachers. Her whole video in general was about how strange it is that people don’t look at stuff like DHMIS and try to look at it from their own perspective and instead try to “explain” the series, which COMPLETELY changed my outlook on theories. I even found another RUclipsr (can’t remember his name), showing his own interpretation of the series. Everyone says that episode 3 is about religion, even though the episode states over and over again that it is about love, and I really liked his interpretation that the imagery was more about the way that people talk about love sounds like a cult, especially from his own experience of trying to find love and seeing how people would talk to him. I feel like I’ve grown out of stuff like GT, mainly about taking it seriously. I still find the videos entertaining, but I definitely don’t vibe with his fnaf stuff anymore.
Being around matpats age... (which makes me older than dust i know) i think that he was trying to convey a clashing of the generations. Not going to defend him, he makes way more money than i ever will but i think he was trying to explain things without being too critical of those younger fans. Is he right? Sometimes. Sometimes hes very much not. Everyone needs to remember that Scott likes to troll us into a frenzy. I think this generational divide might be by design. Out with the old in with the new kinda thing... meyers briggs is certainly not scientific but it does pick up on personality trends etc. Not the end all be all but he was just trying not to be the old guy yelling on his stoop lol. Also your style is rather negative in this vid. Ill try more of your content but its a bit combative for me. Cheers
Why do you overly defend scott like that? Scott is indeed a bad writer, he is a good game developer, but anytime anyone even mildly criticizes his writing you jump to his absolute defense, wtf
Well the video I referenced is more than "mild" criticism. My issue is that they're ASSUMING they know what he INTENDED. When they can't possibly know that
@@hellkrai but by that logic like half of all media analysis is invalid because "how you know that is what author really intended!?!?!?" I actually agree with death of the author, but that doesn't mean the authors intention has no value in a more "meta" level, when the story is confusing and the "truths" seem to keep changing in illogical ways or barely even exist, you have to try and understand the author itself, not just the story, even if they dont exist in the story and are not to be seen as the "god" of it they are still the ones communicating it to us. My best argument for scott being a bad writer isnt even the retcons, its just the lack of clarity, subtetly isn't inherently good, and fnaf is way more vague than subtle, you get vagueness and then multiply it times a million over god knows how many hours of games and you have the fnaf "story", scott is telling a story by not telling a story and just showing some crums that might or might not be relevant and then letting the fans make up their own delusions over it, then the fans get mocked by everyone (even scott himself) when they do exactly that, its just stupid, I'm writing a really long story, so at least scott has teached me what to NOT do with my lore.
I think the biggest problem lies with the story itself. Can you really say half the info/assumptions people are theorizing off of have actual confirmations? Even back in the day, most of the story was through speculation, and I feel like with the plethora of new books it's just gotten worse. I've watched so many different theory videos from different creators on FNAF and at this point, the story is so confusing, convoluted, and weird that I'm basically done with the FNAF stuff. I think ending it at either FNAF 6 or UCN would've been perfect, but oh well. I understand that lots of people think Matpat goes for some reaches and sometimes misleading/inaccurate takes in his theories, and people hate on him for that. But what else should he do? He's a creator over a theorist (he can't spend hours a day combing over minute details while still consistently producing content), and I'd say that for him, having a semi-working narrative is more important than 1000% accuracy. He did come off as petty in this video, but honestly, I'd say he's relatively tame for the hate he gets. Cringe hate sucks, especially when it drowns out all the constructive criticism. Matpat's main problem in my eyes in through his own research and viewing of details, creates his very own headcanon that he bases all theories off of. For his theories, if that headcanon basis is gone, then viewers are just gonna get a bunch of random factoids and details shoved into their faces with a "figure it out yourself I guess" type of deal. Though the accuracy of Matpat is questionable, his way of doing it definitely provides for a better viewing experience. Also, the whole retconning story thing, I'm not sure if this helps, but have you seen the Dawko Scott Cawthon interview? In it, Scott confirms that quote "I inconvenience him with my games, but sometimes he inconveniences me with his theories" and also that "He's [Matpat] absolutely right, the contents of that box [FNAF 4 locked box] have changed over the years." The implications are there, so you take that how you want. Not definitive proof, but let's be real. With intended final games in FnAF 3, 4, as well as Fnaf 6 being a narratively satisfying conclusion if it weren't for later additions, I'd say that Scott's ideas for the game have definitely shifted. I do a lot of writing on my own, and writing a story, especially of this scale, is not easy to keep the same ideas you started with. TL;DR, blaming Matpat for all his narrative leaps, inaccuracy and pettiness is both justified but also unfair. Theorizing, to me, at least, is more of speculation and perspective than definitive fact and proof. In a franchise like FNAF, all theories are basically selectively taking details and information tidbits from the ocean that exists, and piecing them together in unique ways to create different theories and further your personal narrative. Interesting video, and definitely and interesting choice to edit in Are Theories Killing Games lol.
I think you can 100% get a sense of the narrative without stupid RUclips videos and that aspect of it is what has led to it being interesting for most of the audience. I think that dawko interview quote is misused by the fandom. If he only just realized the "contents have been changed" that means that in a manner of speaking the "Physical Items" haven't changed but the context around them has. I don't feel the need to speculate on it but for a bit of an example, if it was a toy ice cream maker. Then the context of that is different in FNAF 4 vs after FNAF SL. It isn't because that doesn't make sense but it's a good example of something that can "change" without "changing"
@@hellkrai Ok, true. But tbf, to get a full narrative of the entire story withou watching people's videos, I'd have to and play all the games, read a bajillion books, and spend hours and hours thinking and organizing details and plots within those books. My point is his video audience isn't really hardcore FnAF theorists, who have every right to be unsatisfied with his theories, but rather more casual listeners/watcher like me who are only kind of interested and want to hear an interesting story. With the story, I'm saying that I don't think he retconned the entire thing, but rather that quote is suggesting that the direction he personally wanted it to go has definitely shifted. (Personal take but you literally cannot convince he intended for Afton to have some sort of AI form and for the story to revolve around a Mimic AI way back in FnAF 4.) I think we just have different perspectives, you as a more serious Fnafer and me as a much more casual viewer who doesn't quite understand all the hate. Like, a lot of his theories don't really make sense in my mind, but I just click out of the video if I don't like it (A lot of his SB and Ruin theories were not really making much sense, so I quit around there), rather than sit there and get mad at how inaccurate some information is presented. I'd get more mad if it was about more factual information or relevant details today, but for me it's just a game franchise that's been stretched for a literal decade. But that's just me; interesting ideas tho
@@hellkrai ? What? I'm not talking about you specifically, I'm talking about FnAF theorizing in general. Like FuhNaff, RyeToast, ID's Fantasy, most of their theories have so much background info that I can't keep track of it all. I'm not dunking on your perspective, you know. Your takes are very valid, I'm just trying to reason a middle ground because it feels a lot of animosity gets thrown around for no reason (not you specifically, just in general)
@@thedilatoryvellichor748 oh I'm not taking it personally, just reiterating what I mean. I just feel the "Theorist" community found a lazy easy out and keep exploiting it basically and that it has been picked up by the wider internet because they're in the role of "being the guy who talks about FNAF"
he is soo full of himself, making theory without doing reserching like what he did to persona 4, not to mention his big word about the fnaf arg that never exist
13:08 literally what i also thought in my video, i have already seen it two times in the videos, i'm glad this is getting at least a tiny bit more popular with people releasing this thought into the wild I could also talk about MatPat's theories themselves again...but i don't feel like it lol what's with the "Are Theories KILLING video games" vid troughout the video though?
Stop judging on Matpat ok there not facts but theories and lore that he looks over so many times that it’s in his head on repeat and he also spends a lot of time on these theories at least a two weeks at least so stop putting pressure on him he’s doing his best.
i mean he cares if his theorys are worng. he cares enoght to post a video. other people care about there theorys. for alot of the fandom its a rat race to see who is correct which nowadays seems to include discrediting other creators. matpats theory's are just that theory's yet he presents it as fact and even has the audacity to really say that the story changed because of his theory's. if he's wrong he's wrong. but if he taking out on the community that if you think I'm wrong your just a hater. that is just unjust and really shitty thing to do.
Yeah mats video has some mistakes, like the whole myers brig bullshit, but its generally and fundamentally correct, this just seems like an overrgenerelatization of mat, you do the whole "its just opinion and interpretation" thing then proceed to be extremely uncharitable of mat. Nothing he says can be a joke or hyperbole, its all literal and absolute, you are literally being the guy he criticizes.
in my opinion, this isn't about defending Scott. It's about giving mat pat a reality check. His Ego is straight up out of control if he truly believes they ret-conned the series multiple times just so he could be wrong. Instead of just saying "I was wrong" he doubles down on the wrong idea, and comes up with excuses for why people disagree with him.
@@StarBlue42In my opinion, it was retconned cuz matpat got it right, its cuz of the reaction the community gave to him being right. Everyone hated the fact that the lore kughyve just been some child's imagination during a coma so Scott tried to turn away from that and never reveal what's in the box, which would've, probably, supported the theory.
![Chino Pacas - Modo Capone (with Drake & Fuerza Regida) [Video Oficial]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/zjv8TQ0gBkg/mqdefault.jpg)
I don't care who is "right" and who is "wrong" I just care about seeing as many different angles and new pairs of eyes perspectives as possible. Then I take info from all those different angles and make my own assumptions and theories.
Me too
My fav point you made is how the books are campfire stories kids are telling. It adds to the idea from fnaf3 that the murders became urban legends. The books feel like that to me, sometimes insightful but far from necessary.
No shade to Matpat but that Meyer Briggs part was wild. It reminds me of my old job where they made us all take ot and wanted us to display our results at our desks as if it's impossible to communicate without the personality type in mind.
19:37 Wow, ok Hellkrai, you gotta chill. There was absolutely no need for you to attack the Naruto Clan tests out of the blue like that. I'll have you know that me and the rest of the Hyuga clan will not let this aggression go unnoticed by our powerful byakugans. You better watch your steps, mister.
Im glad to see people talking about this. too many people take mat's word as gospel
And they defend him like religious zealots
I think I understand what both theories bring to the table which is why I enjoy watching them. I like seeing how different theorists see things differently than I do and understanding their point of view. Of course Matpat should treat these just as theories as well as the other theorists. Thank you for explaining your theories even if I see things a little differently.
I don't mind anyone seeing something different than my perspectives on stuff. It's actually awesome. and having people to discuss stuff with that may disagree makes you think more in depth than you might otherwise!
What’s so funny is dream theory was probably NEVER CANON. If it were, the very ending of fnaf 4 would make no sense. “I will put you back together,” has no explanation under dream theory, which is kind of crazy because that very obviously means something. There are multiple other explanations to fnaf 4 using all of the evidence that dream theory uses that fit it WAY BETTER. My favorite of these is Shattervictim, which suggests that happiest day comes from BV’s memories, and so what we’re seeing in fnaf 4 is all of the things that would eventually become the way to free the MCI and BV’s souls. The toy chica missing her beak lines up with chicas party, one of the minigames. The shadows that you can see of Fredbear and springbonnie line up with the shadow bonnie minigame, the balloon kid that looks like balloon boy lines up with BB’s air adventure, mangle’s quest lines up with the mangle in Elizabeth’s room, and stage 01 is literally just fucking fredbear. Happiest day itself is even a reverse of Fredbear’s diner, it’s the exact same map with the same balloons but reversed, to show that the worst memory is being reversed to become a happy one that becomes happiest day. Everything lines up, and it makes way more sense in the context. Who’s the Fredbear plush? It’s Charlotte telling BV that she will put him back together, which she eventually does in happiest day using his memories. She puts his memories back together, freeing the lost, broken spirit. Not to mention how this is basically confirmed in later entries, as happiest day itself has been confirmed to be someone’s memories being used to create a happiest day for them to live in forever. This explanation I feel is very clearly what Scott was intending in fnaf 4, but it was overlooked because of dream theory. Everyone just assumed matpat was right, and matpat assumed he was right, so everyone missed the actual answer.
Ughghgh it makes me so mad lmao
This is awesome because I've never heard this before and it sounds cool.
Which is also so infuriating because everyone just keeps saying "dream theory" for everything, instead of mentioning an alternative like this 😔
@@duckman9327interesting. That just leaves me with one question. Who is BV? If you're talking about the crying child then they should be address as such.
@@austin-1993 BV stands for Bite Victim.
@@duckman9327 I ain't reading allat
22:05 Someone needs make a sound clip of Matpat saying the words "an N mentality" so it can fulfill the destiny of greatness that it was made for.
It’s weird that he seems to have some prejudice against N’s
This video explains why I lost interest in both FNAF and Game Theory at the same time. I missed out on a sweet series of games as a result, because I picked back on it last year. I didn't want to spoil myself by seeing MatPat drop his spoilers, and of course, he himself thinks he's writing the game's story in a way that's hard to follow, because he doesn't know when he is wrong.
I rewatched every single one of his theory videos, and it looks to me like he was doing it out of obligations just to fuel a rumor mill that would ultimately get him extra views. And saying sensational words such as "We were all wrong!" when no, HE was when he talked about his makeshift ideas and I could figure it out myself.
I don't hate MatPat considering the amazing theories he made, but when you can't separate fact from theory, you lose a lot of your sanity, and MatPat dragged his gargantuan fanbase with him and involved them. I bailed out, and came back when the heat was finally off, only to see new FNAF fans join in and use his patchwork of nonsense timeline as a first impression to the series. And I've lost all hope for him again. He's good at theories but is a horrible story teller, in this case at least.
seeing myers briggs fly in, in comic sans, shook me to my core.
Dream theory was never right SMH he's pretending to be humble but he's so passive aggressive. I think the hippo's story about the guy feeding the ducks bread, which is bad for them, was a direct metaphor for theorists meaning well , but ultimately feeding people bad info.
Please shut up
You don't think there is any chance Mr hoppo was referring to Scott himself dropping a bread crumb trail with good intentions to tell a story but it ultimately ended up hurting fans.
Or better yet it was a random part of the story that only makes sense if you cherry pick like I and you just did? The main idea of Matt making theories that make people believe the wrong thing was already said in that same story from Mr hippo so why would he say the same thing twice.
Also that doesn't even mean that Matt is wrong about dream theory. He could be talking about any of his theories.
Shrodingers game theory video. Where every single one of his videos is free from critique because it’s just a dumb theory. But at the same time we should take everything game theory video seriously.
Lmao
I really don't think that he wants that. He just wants people to not say "this is the worst theory ever" when there are worse theories on his channel and that the theory is "literal cancer" when it's not. The intro of his video is what the video is about, not just anyone who thinks he's wrong.
4:30 Ngl, the person saying that a design choice being turned into a storyline element is a bad way to write a story is bonkers, imo. Like, as long as a story is not complete, you can always take elements from before and give more meaning to them, instead of just leaving them as "oh, this looks cool, k, bye". Not to mention that a story writer does not need to have the whole story finished in just the first "volume" of it (with the other volumes only serving as presentations of the already completed story). They are allowed to break up the development of the story in parts. If anything, this is also less likely to cause an "unstable" story, full of holes and contradictions. And there's literally zero issue on extending a story, or adding details, as long as the extensions and details are not contradicting anything. And the fact that Toy Chica in FNAF 2 having a fallen beak implies that the child with the Chica Toy in FNAF 4 possesses Toy Chica is not contradictory to anything - at least to my knowledge.
An example of extending storylines after-the-fact being a great thing that comes to mind is from the animation industry; the prequel to Monsters Inc, Monsters University. I do believe it's unlikely that when Monsters Inc was made, the creators at Pixar had already developed all background details around the protagonists that would appear in MU instead of just choosing character traits that seemed to fit nice to the story Monsters Inc was trying to say. MU was just a clever retrospect on Monsters Inc and a competent extension of its universe, imo, that came many years later.
Taking elements that had no meaning before and giving them a completely believable part in a story is not bad storytelling. In my opinion, it's a perfect example of competent storytelling. I think the sentiment against such things is just theorists being salty that they are having their theories be overthrown by additional story elements they didn't have to consider before.
Also I think that fact that Scott called it out is what made it important not just that it existed. Like if Scott hadn't called it out in FNAF 4 I'm sure many people would have assumed it was just a reference to FNAF 2.
Also I just wanted to mention I have no problem with people saying that that girl is the one possessing toy chica, even though I personally don't see the toys being possessed, but to say it's "obviously" the right explanation just makes me irritated.
Is he being ironic or hypocritical by saying it's "obvious" and "just works"
I'm a fan of Matpat and game theory. I don't believe every single one of his videos are fact, I mainly watch because his videos are entertaining. I watch his videos regularly since 2013. With that said, I do agree with this video and others with a similar stance. The fact of the matter is, we don't have hard evidence that the games have been retconned, the books are needed to solve the lore, or even that gregory is most definitely a bot. A lot of that is people taking information that can easily be interpretated in other ways filtering it through there own biases. This doesn’t make any particular theory right or wrong, but it does mean many theories will have varying degrees of legitamacy.
Quite frankly, Mats Greg Bot theory I feel is very weak. Greg being a bot is not necessary for Gregory to do any of the things we see him do in Security Breach. Brainwashing and body possession is just as likely, if not, more likely due to the game that directly preceded it in Help Wanted featuring brainwashing as a core theme.
I don't care to go into detail addressing each of Mat's Greg Bot points as this video and others have already done so. Also, because I rather not waste that time typing about it when I could be doing other things.
It would have been best if Mat left out some of the Myers Briggs stuff and just address the direct criticisms people have with the theory. Ignore all the mindless criticisms like "this is dumb (insert lack of reasoning here)", and maybe make a general statement on how best to make constructive criticism and differentiating that from non-constructive criticism.
I agree 100% I was an early subscriber and always liked how fun and goofy his videos were. and he really should stick with that mindset instead of going down this awful "I'm right actually" rabbithole, there's no light at the end of that tunnel.
@hellkrai Appreciate the love and the comment. Just subscribed. Looking forward to more videos and watching some of your older one's now.
I like your "books not neccessary" approach to FNAF theorizing and wish more FNAF theories took that approach if only to get more of that perspective in the community.
Thank you! This is exactly how I feel and it's like being gaslit by half the fandom. There's nothing wrong with theorizing, but there's too much conjecture in MatPat's videos that are presented as truth. To the point that he's actually convinced the fandom that the *author* came up with his worst take on the story and just won't admit it. A sad amount of videos knocking the writing in FNAF bring up the dream theory as proof of Scott being a bad writer.
Yeah i hate when people go “youre just mad he figured it out” and all that bullcrap
dream theory is literal cancer
S mentality
I'm N but my intuition tells me it doesn't make any sense
2:40 well... yeah but i think he wasnt really serious about "blaming scott" and more of acknowledging that his theory didnt lined up with Scotts plan in a comedic way. Maybe its also a commentary how plot is unpredictable because even MatPat (arguably the biggest FNAF lore analycist) can't get it right...
Or maybe im too optimistic about this interpretation i dunno, i just fail to see MatPat as this pompous "im right and you are not" persona...
I’m pretty sure the thing about changing the games was a joke. He was literally almost laughing while saying it
I'm not so sure since it gets brought up a lot by him.
I agree. The problem that "critics" of MatPat have is that they take his script at face value rather than the way the argument is presented. There's a lot to be taken away from how he says the things he does, his vocal inflection, and body language etc. This part in particular is very much a joke, and Mat is in no way blaming Scott for the retcon of Dream Theory. People really just take these couch videos at face value and make quick responses rather than actually take the time to analyze the argument being made and how it's being made.
Wouldn’t you think it would be kind of counterintuitive for him to think Scott rigged the Fnaf timeline so he can’t solve it yet also continues to make theories @@hellkrai
Then why does he keep saying that Scott Retconned it?
His biggest RUclips project ever revolved around the Fnaf timeline as he pictured it, if he thought Scott was going to change the strory after why put so much effort into it anyways@@hellkrai
I think this video and matpats videos ironically coalesce around the same points, viz: people take others' theories or criticisms personally. It might seem like Matpat is cherrypicking rude comments but basically the only comments on his videos are either regurgitating what he himself already said, or rude comments criticising him - he barely gets comments which are constructive, so I get why he would be frustrated. I don't really think he came off as egotistical in that video, just tired of the same insults again and again. But he should be taken with a grain of salt by his own admission, and he doesn't seem to accept that this is the role of him and others like him in the fnaf community.
Regardless I have a lot of respect for matpat for getting a lot of stuff right, and I WOULD respect him for getting stuff wrong if only he was a bit more graceful in accepting that.
It's a spesific kind of dismissal on the criticism aspect.
Yes 90% of the ones he gets is that garbage, and likely bigger critics don't comment.
But if that's all he shows, and all he addresses it makes it appear as if there is no meaningful criticism that he receives.
Replying to myself:
1. sorry for writing huge paragraphs, I'm too used to writing a lot as it's basically the only thing I do these days
2. On at least 1 occasion I'm sure matpat hit the nail on the head and Scott cawthon retroactively changed the plot
3. Your video is actually the exact spirit in which we should take game theories, that's the whole point! Question them and build on them. But the fanbase is majorly children and they are rude, which sucks.
It's okay.
I don't think Scott ever retconned anything personally.
I know he gives a big example being security breach.
But if you look at his initial theory video where it's about a cult of glitch trap and you look at my video about it I got something very similar to what he first said but he acts as if it was completely changed and then starts pedaling his Greg bot thing.
@@hellkrai Very true, I think he did cherry pick to prove his point but it's very easy to prove almost anything if you go by youtube comments.
*specific, btw@@hellkrai
I think what the fandom fails to understand is that both "S's" and "N's" BOTH have downsides.
While an S mindset might take things too literally. An N mindset can end up blowing something way past the complexity it needs to be.
All matpat has done is neatly segregate the entire theory base, good job mat, you further divided the fnaf theorists. God damnit...
🎳
Different but equal?
@@vanyadolly yep, doesn't matter if we are either type, the end of the day fnaf brings us all together.
And all matpat has done is neatly segregate the entire theory base with the Myers test.
@@gamingonamonday6342
...how?
@@gamingonamonday6342fnaf fandom destroy eachother by their self. Not matpat.
I do like Matpat theories mostly the FNAF ones but his recent video talking about "Why you don't like my theories" felt more complaining then actually caring about the franchise he's been making theories for since the start of the first game it also didn't help he constantly uses old theories as supporting evidence when those theories haven't been proven at all yet and probably never well because the creator won't give us answers for anything even though it's been 9 years since FNAF creation and yet not one person can tell you FNAF Lore without half of it being theorized or made up to fill in the holes and it kinda sucks as a fan but also kinda amazing how FNAF is pretty popular yet it really doesn't deserve it the Henry's speech at the end Pizzeria Simulator is such a prime example of this the speech was excellent but at that point Henry was only in the books and never mentioned in the games so the speech wasn't as impactful as it should be and could have been not saying the entire speech wasn't impactful as henry mentioning his daughter Charlie was good and made it a lot better
Side note: 15:19 Well I do personally agree that Gregory not a robot it's important to note that robot children do have blood if the Books concepts were used for security breach if they aren't then it was most likely cut for a younger target demographic or to get more people thinking about the lore
5:25 This entire stereotypical RUclipsr monologue is absolutely infuriating. This is purely the salt of an egotistical content goblin who has never had a hand in anything creative or interesting. Do you imagine he says "duhhh guess im supposed to just magically intuit that something means something???" every time he Googles something he wants to know?
Looking into this.
The game that was blatantly retconned, was rushed to be changed, and wound up feeling very clunky and unfished as a result was most likely Hello Neighbor. Not only does it match up really well with what he describes, it would also fit with their obsessive attempts to get his attention and his clearly caustic attitude towards the developers and franchise. While he cracks jokes about hostility towards FNaF, he does, eventually, express his love for Scott and extoll the guy's virtues. Despite MatPat's insistence that Scott must have retconned the series multiple times, there's still plenty of good will between them.
Speaking of retcons, Scott has admitted to one retcon without explaining what it was. And if he's okay at admitting a retcon occurred... why wouldn't he be okay with doing so again? Why are theorists obsessed with the theory that FNaF VR and so on retconned the prior series? Just like any other theory, it's just an "educated guess", and a complete misunderstanding could be behind that guess. Steel Wool could have decided to take the story in a completely separate direction, but the proof just isn't concrete.
Scott has a tradition of using newer games to explain misunderstandings in prior games. This is something MatPat himself has pointed out. Also, MatPat uses a parallel canon to provide explanations for the games, with the books. So... if the pattern holds, the FNaF movie is yet another parallel canon that is trying to clear up a past misconception, right? So what do we see in the movie?
"Dream Theory" is a true concept in the movie, except the definition of it is radically different from the way theorists use it. Dream theory in the movie is the theory of instigating dreams to uncover details that only the subconscious noticed and didn't at the time recognize. It's like the Brain Dives of Cyberpunk. "Dream Theory" is re-examining old memories for new revelations. And it's no stretch to say "Mike's dreams are true." Both the memories he's reliving and the interactions with the ghosts, such as Foxy cutting him.
Mike's dreams are true? Could that also apply to the "dreams" where Mike was the protagonist? The games predating FNaF VR? The movie also seemed to stress that dreams and reality weren't mutually exclusive. That dreams reflected reality.
I don't think the games before Steel Wool are supposed to have been retconned, at least not completely. And didn't FNaF VR imply the MINIGAMES were what the in-world dev supposedly created? That's very, very different from the main games being different.
As you mention "disgusting behavior" in this video, the absolute insistence that there's more retcons than admitted to seems... slanderous to me. At least without a great deal more solid evidence to back that claim up. To me, it just seems like belligerent, close-minded anger that they manufactured for themselves.
I don't understand why people keep insisting that the Steel Wool era of games, particularly Help Wanted, retconned the previous games as just in-universe games.
It was explicitly mentioned in that very game that the events of the previous games are still real, in-universe events that actually happened. It's just that the current incarnation of Fazbear Entertainment (in what has been consistently in-character for them since the original FNAF) is trying to cover up those events to get back into the public's good graces. This was even reinforced in Security Breach with a message you can find that read along the lines of, "Why did you reopen? We all remember what happened to those kids."
I am a S so I have no fuckin clue what your saying, I literally can’t perceive what your saying
Saw your videos on The Beginner's Guide and now this, and while they in general seem a bit too advanced for me to really let me form any proper thoughts, I will say that I strongly believe Scott Cawthon artificially extended/convoluted the lore of his first successful series to get more mileage out of each game to keep fans invested. Whether or not dodging fan theories played a role in that convolution is indeterminate, however, incorporating the sheer volume of fan theories as feedback (whether additive or subtractive) into a design loop would have likely made the creative process significantly easier than without doing so.
His stories started as a last hurrah. Always remember that. You can't start with a fully cohesive story plot when you don't know if that game will thrive, or crash and burn like every other project you started from.
My take: Scott was winging it for 1, 2 built on 1's winging-it, 3 tried to provide a good closure point, by 4 and World he had an idea for a greater story, and Sister Location, Pizzeria Sim and UCN all built on that. Delivery, Help Wanted, Security Breach and Ruin give me vibes of "Gaiden" chapters that wound up spinning into the successor "mainline" - probably Scott realizing that AR game's lore actually sounded like it had too much potential for just being a spinoff entry.
Note this is all based on my experiences doing creative worldbuilding for a D&D campaign and writing a story that began as winging it and finished as a gigantic lore bible with some readers' theories being close to my vague winging it "vibes" while other stuff was so off I replied to correct their take because it clashed THAT hard against my interpretation of my own plot.
Also when you incorporate fan theories into your plot you get Voltron's reboot, that is REALLY BAD ADVICE. Never let the fans drive.
Another note about the static vision: games like batim use a slightly different filter to distinguish the main villain from others, which helps make them more threatening.
MatPat being so passive aggressive in that video and BMing about everything definitely isn't a good look. Everyone knows, at least on larger content creator's videos, the comments are absolute cancer; MatPat should know this by now being on the platform as long as he has. Yes, everyone should look at him as an entertainer, but he takes it so seriously.
"Everyone knows, at least on larger content creator's videos, the comments are absolute cancer" yeah and he picks ones that only highlight this aspect. Not actual criticisms. sad really.
No there not ok you just want attention like the stupid vegan teacher f her and f u@@hellkrai
This was his first time publicly criticizing the toxic fnaf community in a video. He’s been doing these videos on fnaf for over a decade. Who are you to dictate what he can or cannot post? Also why are you so butt hurt??? Sound like you need your diaper changed.
anybody else think matpat didn't
I’ve seen so so many people react to or simply side with MatPat here on this video, and finally finding someone else who views the S vs N debate he lays out as actually just offensive. I never disliked MatPat himself even if I thought his theories went way downhill as of security breach, but hearing him basically tell me I’m too close minded to understand his theory and THATS why I don’t agree with it made me feel genuinely hurt as goofy as that sounds from an egotistical RUclips video XD
Anywho this video made me smile and you’ve earned a sub! I wish you luck on getting to 1k!!
I dare MatPat to go into any MBTI-related internet forum where people actually know what they're talking about (under a false name to avoid popularity bias) and present his dichotomy-based approach to typing. We can make bets as to how quickly he'll be laughed out of the forum.
at some parts you've literally taken moments where Matpat is CLEARLY joking around and being sarcastic , even chuckling to himself while saying them meaning he doesn't take hismelf seriously and doesn't mean them literally at 02:26 specifically , the whole Matpat VS Scott thing was an inside joke , as for everything else i'm not really sure , that's all i had an issue with , still overall an awesome video and a fun watch , i don't like beating down people for miniscule things at all so , even if that was a small issue , keep the good work up :D
I used to think they were jokes too, but he keeps saying it over and over and making arguments as to why it's valid which makes it seem like less of a joke.
And it's not hard to look at twitter and see people say that "Scott Retconned the story" as a fact and not a "theory" because of Matpat.
But at the end of the day I'm an 'N' too so I SHOULD just agree with him if his theory is true,
@@hellkrai not everyone has the same level of humour so maybe I'm just a bit naive on the matter , I don't know , views vary , i perceived what he said as a joke , you don't, maybe others don't as well , in the end at some things i cannot be really sure
I think he intended it to be a joke at one point but it seems less and less like one every time he brings it up.
Sometimes they're a joke but sometimes it gets a little weird. Since the dream theory thing in particular he has brought up a few times as being what Scott intended at the time, very insistent on it
Sure we can say it's a joke, but the sad truth is that this theory in particular has affected how people view not just Scott as a writer, but the entire franchise. It's accepted as truth by people to argue that the story is bad, and honestly it's just about the most insulting lack of creativity you could ever accuse a writer of.
Ah yes, MatPat's channel, where nuance goes to die.
Scott thought about retconning the games to dream theory to appease MatPats imagined missing puzzle pieces. But fearing fan backlash that retcon got locked in the box. Scott made sure to explain in an interview that he tried to retcon only what was absolutely necessary, and that he tried to make them very clear in the game when he did (Bite of 87' to 83' ex). MattPats certain there's dozens of retcons and that the books are 1:1 to the game and are required decoder rings to play the games now. But fact is Scott thought the narrative for his games was pretty straightforward, assuming you played all the secret mini games. FNAF 4 was added in response to try to steer MatPat back on track because of how far he was getting off track in interpreting the story and it was thought that if he was that confused then maybe a lot of fans were and needed the extra clarification. I sincerely doubt that Scott decided the books were the best way to help explain the narrative the best, after Help Wanted and Security Breach had been released, that way everyone will understand Ruin and HW2... More likely the SB dev team knew what they were doing, the burntrap ending was labeled correctly as the 'True Ending' and the Ruin DLC is another VR brainwash nightmarescape just like Help Wanted was. Cassie is trapped in VR to replace Gregory and Vanny who just recently escaped Glitchtrap, and HW2 seems to hunt that maybe Cassies dad got brainwashed too and may have trapped Cassie himself by giving her the mask like Glitchtrap wanted. Ruin shows evidence of several if not all of SBs endings as having occurred which is just not possible, nor is it possible for AR glasses to gift you with teleportation and pass through physical walls.
Matt wants us to believe that beneath burntrap and the tangle deeper in the ground was the mimic all along which Gregbot and Vanny knew the whole time so they wrote the super AI Bonnie Security to go after him while they fled. It all makes sense if you read 20 books before playing Ruin just like Wool and Scott intended. Straight forward narrative....
or maybe they intended people to play the games and that's it, with an actual straight forward narrative once you realize RUin made no logic sense by design so that you could clearly tell that you aren't in Kansas anymore.
All the theorists said from the get go with SB 'it can be hard to tell Easter eggs from lore information be careful' then they all seemed to collectively ignore their own warnings and took every Easter egg nods to the books as though they were the only relevant clues to lore in the whole game. Blurgh
4:50 I didn't think the FNaF 2 animatronics were possessed, and alot of ppl thought they were and I was always confused. But this makes alot of sense compared to whatever the reasoning was... idk, i still don't believe they're possessed, but this brought smtg up that i had never thought of before :)
The exact specifics I'm not 100% on personally, but I feel like acting like it's completely random and has no thought is a bit odd?
Just seems like the simplest answer that doesn't have direct contradictions.
"Occam's razor"
They are posessed. The black eyes (also known as "silver eyes") are described as "the window of soul" or something like that.
Also, do you really expect non-posessed animatroics to walk through vents and murder you?
@@arandomguy6951my belief was that the fnaf 2 animatronics had some kind of high tech security built into them that made them aggressive. Don’t know why exactly, but they see you as a threat, so they go out and attack you.
@@TrecherousbeastThere's probably some low level possession with the Toys due to having the Withereds used as spare parts. Granted, that only really works with the later addition of remanet and is very unlikely to be Scott's intent on FNaF 2's release
I agree with most of what you said here, but there are some things I would like to add and get some clarification on. Like you pointed out, it is frustrating when MatPat basically said that he knows that Dream Theory was meant to be correct but Scott just changed the story either to spite him or because he realized it was unsatisfying without having any way to actually know this. However, the interpretations that Scott retconned Dream Theory, or that there are potentially multiple rectons in the series, are still valid conclusions to come to because there is some evidence that could reasonably lead one to believe them, and they don't necessarily frame Scott in a bad light if they merely consider that his writing may be flawed as anyone's writing can be. It only becomes an issue when someone frames that interpretation as pretty much factual and ignores other possible (and more fitting) explanations like Mat did, especially when doing so leads to Scott being perceived as a bad writer, and I agree with you calling this particular behavior "disgusting". Although I wouldn't say that RyeToast did the same thing, because his interpretation was framed much more reasonably in my opinion, and I wouldn't call his behavior "disgusting" as I would call MatPat's, because he didn't necessarily say Dream Theory was "right" at the time, but that in his opinion, it would make sense if it was at the time of FNAF 4's release. I would also like to add that, while MatPat saying that the franchise constantly changes and adds lore in unexpected places would frame it in a bad light, I don't get what's wrong with that if it is objectively true. So, ultimately, I guess I would ask you to elaborate on why you would frame certain behavior from theorists that I view as reasonable interpretation as "disgusting" alongside more unreasonable behavior that is more fitting of that description.
The issue is pretending to know the author's intent and ascribing that to the author.
For all we know a "definitive timeline that covers everything" as Rye Toast asserts isn't actually anything that's supposed to be possible or intended.
And given some of Scott's reactions towards the book stuff, I feel that implies it.
The books aren't supposed to map onto the story 1:1 and aren't supposed to be wholly accurate all the time.
But on the other hand if you look at the theorist community they keep implying that it needs to???
Or that every little hint he puts into a book is a massive revelation and retcons the entire series???
Yes I get the aspect that they need to do this for "clickbait" But they don't make compelling arguments for it other than talking down to Scott and saying Scott's not a good writer
@hellkrai I completely agree that assumptions like this that theorists make are stupid and harmful to productive discussion of the franchise, I mainly just disagreed with some examples of people doing this that you provided. I still appreciate you making this video though since it highlighted problems in the theorist community that I hadn't really considered before.
@@jax99hax yeah I will say Fuhnaff's thing I mentioned is one that actively bothers me, and the way the Retcons theory has ruined discussion are my primary issues.
When I saw his follow-up video to the FNAF ARG theory getting out-of-hand, he took responsibility for his part and instructed on etiquette; I thought "Wow, owning mistakes and focusing on betterment, now that's someone to look up to." So this video scape-goating a group of people and presenting criticism as mere insults was disappointing to say the least.
There are plenty of issues with using these MBPT results but for me the one that said it all was how John(Fuhnaff) had previously been an 'S'. First it's presented as evidence that "We can all theorize equally, we're not saying N is better"(he got validated, you could too!) but then John changing into an 'N' after being around Team Theorist is presented as leveling-up. "We just HAPPEN to all be 'N's; now he has the proper mindset to be a theorist in the BIG leagues with us." (N is better). It's telling you that they see them as equal while showing the opposite.
Just as you pointed out him saying "Idc if you like my theories" in the axe-grinding script about 'Why You Hate My Theories' clearly showing otherwise. Even if this was months ago now, I'm very glad to see someone able to call these out at a time when many had nodded in agreement.
Each series of books is its own continuity as are the games… they’re set in the same world, but separate stories. I personally don’t think any one person can solve this franchise but if everyone puts their mind to it we can each solve a TINY piece of one of the different stories…
Matpat in FNAF Movie!
This is my reason I am annoyed at Matpat. and his followers who blindly believes his theories are fact and true. And don't bother trying to contradict him or argue against his theories and fight against them. AS THAT HOW THEORY WORKING DOES! In respectfully talk and debunk or say how certain or both side of the theoies aren't correct or have hard evidence to to try and hopefully back up your claim from the sources or in this case, whats given to us vaguely in the game to try and connect the dots.
But no he doesn't do so and even will go out of his way to get his own FATHER to try and prove his theories being correct, to show just how insecure he is about takinf constructive criticism, or out right SAY constructive criticism is hate comments when that is not true. GAH this guy annoys me a lot and it even more so when he tries doing other franchise.
Like how he literally brought back the "Mario is a villain" and try to trick peopel into thinking the clips he showed of Mario caging Donkey kong, or sotmping on Luigi's foot in MArio tennis for the Gamecube are all evil intentions and thus he must be a villain. To then saying the Indie game Pizza tower that the intalian hwo makes pizza is also a villain...which is racist in all degrees to automatically assume another italian who is like Mario, is evil. JUST UGH.
Don't get me started on his sorry excuse of Pokemon theories!
Also took that test and...says I am a INFJ type
yeah it's very frustrating, and it gets annoying how much the stuff he says gets repeated as objective truths.
Even by people who dislike him???
Tell me about it..doesn't his case that he also ignores actual subjective and constructive criticism. Not owning up to his mistakes let alone practically ignoring in game logic and dialogues, by doing outside resources for his theories and declares their 'findings' are what makes his theory true.
But as you stated, that shouldn't count at all let alone, using outside sources to look and make your information as facts. Doesn't solve your case, when the game themselves contradict his theories.
Like a good example Pokemon Let's go Pikachu and Eevee. He believes 'Green' the female trainer who you can fight after catching or defeating Mewtwo. Is a human clone of Mewtwo and that the reason she is trying to find him, is so they can be complete and whole. And she thinks can capture humans with Pokeballs. Because the girl gets mad at you for catching Mewtwo.
EVEN though the dialogue states otherwise and the person in front of the Cerulean cave even tells you that "There is this crazy strong Trainer who enter here looking for the Strongest Pokemon. She had really powerful Pokemon." and when you beat her. And though I don't know if she still does it, if you don't catch MEwtwo. Out of frustration of learning you caught or beat Mewtwo, starts throwing Pokeballs at you in frustration- saying how why not join my team.
It...ugh so frustrating and and ugh...HIS resource for how his theory stands true is because of...The First Pokemon Movie Mewtwo short with Amber 2...and believe Green is the first successful human Clone made from using Mewt...ugh yeah. granted this probably meaningless...cause I don't know if you play or care for Pokemon lol, no offense.@@hellkrai
Especially his Pokémon theory about it being Abused and the Pokémon are feeling trapped into the Boxes because of You.
Trying to Guilt trip the Players for Enjoying Pokémon.
It's a Chaotic Mess.
I’m gonna be honest. Most of the argument you make is based off of matpat making a joke by saying that Scott won’t let him have a victory. He’s obviously being sarcastic, just frustrated that the hate towards his theory will be valid.
I have to add though, I hate the latest theories because matpat sold the company. The new theories are so obviously rushed and boring. For example, the shorts arg “theory” was just repeating everything that happened. We all know how matpat starts by explaining what the topic is, and then starts the theory. In that video and many others, the theory NEVER STARTED.
well its very clearly not a joke. it starts as him laughing making a joke of it but as it goes on it becomes very clear this is what he believes and that's why he finds it funny. its funny to us because its absurd that Scott would change a game because of matpat. but its funny to him because he thinks Scott change the game because of his theory's. its funny to him because its true while its funny to us because its absurd.
its different perspectives coming to the same conclusion of laughing with the big difference being he believes what he's joking about.
Imagine using a pseudoscience like mbti to validate your thoughts 😂
Im not trying to attack Matpat, but I think ever since he retired, the Fnaf community started cooking with Fnaf theories
The problem with fnaf in general when it comes to theorising is there is very little ground to stand on but a lot to work from.
Most theorists aim to actually SOLVE the lore and not just keep it a book definition of a theory and most of the fanbase stick around to see the latest progress on that journey yet they get mad over seemingly outlandish ideas that were planted there by scott himself. And I think THAT is what frustrates Mat and many other theorists nowadays.
@5:15 omg thank you for pointing this out 😝
Finally someone explaining why they dont like matpats theory all the hate videos are just little kids i respect ur opinion but im still on matpats side (im not hating btw)
Scott Cauthen doesn’t hold as big of a hand in the series anymore, I think it’s fair to assume do to the change in staff there are some holes in the new games
Not true, Scott Is still the main One writing the story
I think the girl in that minigame posessing Toy Chica is a bit of a stretch, like, i think it's more likely to posses Mangle since she doesn't have a Mangle toy which represents that she is Mangle (english is my second language)
I just wanted to firstly say I agree with everything you have said in this video, except the Myers Briggs personality test part. I want to start off by saying I completely get on where you where coming from about Marat using the test to kinda gaslight you into believing him, But I will want to make the point of when you said “it’s not scientific” that is completely incorrect, the personality test is a psychological theory that explains the behavior of someone. And even though I dislike the person who proposed the theory(sigmund Freud) I still think we should not look over his theory, again I completely agree that he is using the personality test to gaslight/manipulate you to believe him, but that is just my opinion and the research I’ve done. I’m a psychology student lol so if I got anything wrong please let me know!!! 😁
Oh that's fair, I guess I meant that it's not really like a "fact of life" that it's theory and using it to characterize people you don't agree with is the unscientific part.
@@hellkraiyeah lol that’s fair lol
@@hellkraiand your totally fine lol I kinda didn’t understand what you where saying until you explained it lol, my bad lol
The Myer Briggs thing is literally pseudoscience. There are no such things as I N S F etc personality types. It is just astrology for self identified intellectuals. I can’t believe he actually used this to say that people couldn’t understand his theories due to peoples brains not being able to grasp concepts due to being basically different astrological signs. Yikes. You’d think someone “dedicated to science” wouldn’t get caught up in this sort of thing.
the Test isnt scientific infact its counted as a pseudoscience which is just fake science when we boil it down "Despite its immense popularity and impressive longevity, the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) has existed in a parallel universe to social and personality psychology. Here, we seek to increase academic awareness of this incredibly popular idea and provide a novel teaching reference for its conceptual flaws. We focus on examining the validity of the Jungian-based theory behind MBTI that specifies that people have a “true type” delineated across four dichotomies. We find that the MBTI theory falters on rigorous theoretical criteria in that it lacks agreement with known facts and data, lacks testability, and possesses internal contradictions. We further discuss what MBTI's continued popularity says about how the general public might evaluate scientific theories."
Stein, R., & Swan, A. B. (2019). Evaluating the validity of Myers‐Briggs Type Indicator theory: A teaching tool and window into intuitive psychology. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 13(2). doi.org/10.1111/spc3.12434
its widely regarded as pseudoscience and really isn't a good determiner for ones personality. compatibility or Thought process. its like the modern version of star signs more of a fun game rather than an actual scientific test
I never played or been interested in fnaf, but I hate matpat so much x.x
the whole game theory stuff has hurt media analysis in such a weird way. They're "theories" in the same sense conspiracy theories are theories, warping facts to reach a conclusion or seeking deeper hidden meaning everywhere without engaging with what's actually there.
matpat content is basically the pop culture equivalent of Qanon and I genuinely believe it's been damaging both in term of media literacy and critical thinking skills.
(sorry for the late reply)
I agree with this. before the "Why you hate my theories" video, I kinda stop watching matpat. There were some videos where he would say "A happens because of F" and I'd think "It looks like it happens because of B...maybe X but idk" and it slowly went to "I see where you're going but A is shown to happen because of B" and I just kinda got bored of him afterward.
The dream theory never made sense anyway.
I feel like the problem is both fnaf content creators and fnaf fans. One makes theories that may or may not be true and the other takes anything for gospel and runs with it like the 2nd coming of christ. Then we got the 3rd reason, rushed vids like this that only point blame onto one person with half-assed evidence. For someone that hates matpat you sure follow the persona he made to a T
1. I don't hate mattpat
2. 🤔
You just jealous of his legacy dude…
I'm so jealous of his legacy of telling children that reading books is "homework"
Hellkrai has a sandwich legacy he lives up too…
fun fact about me, I semi-arbitrarily dispise the Meyers Briggs personality tests
this guy got some good points but i hate listening to him virtue signal the whole vid and talk like a prick like I mean chill man
Toy chica missing her beak is nothing on why toy chica removes her eyes if they are set to a criminal database
He just makes theories there’s no harm in what he doing
Real "N"s losing with this comment
tell that to the mario fandom
it's so hilarious and funny that scott cawthon made a book out of matpat ever since he got his fnaf theories wrong since scott is the one who makes the games and wrote the books, you gotta love this man.
thanks for fnaf games and books scott.
I never believe Gregory was a Robot.
Robots can't eat Ice Cream why would they ever feel the "Need" to?
🤣
Fair points, but as he says it’s a theory. It’s not set in stone
Then why doesn't he just say that instead of making a 26 minute video about why he was right the whole time and scott just changed the story?
@@hellkrai I don't really think he has to, the very nature of a theory is it being just a possibility for an answer, no matter how likely and unlikely it is. The whole thing about Scott changing the story, while never directly said, it seems to be a very likely explanation of the story reveals/changes. Two examples being that the crying child was almost definitely meant to be the spirit in the puppet and that Afton had used the golden freddy suit to lure kids and not spring bonnie(which didn't even exist at that time). The phone guy states that someone used a yellow suit from the back and golden freddy being the only yellow one we'd seen it was a decent assumption. I also think that shadow freddy was meant to represent afton using the golden freddy suit because it is the exact same model just colored to be purple, with that color usually being a sign of afton's presence.
@@hellkraiHe literally says it's a theory at the end of every video hell it's in the fucking channel name!! It's basically his catchphrase "But hey that's just a theory, A GAME THEORY!" Why do people keep forgetting that? If he thought his theories were facts he would've changed his name to game fact.
He says that it's just a theory, but he doesn't act like that's all it is.
@@skrappothemonster1436 Wtf does that even mean? If you're talking about him being theatrical that's more for entertainment than anything else since a large chunk of mat's audience are children.
5:04 That's literally never confirmed? And not obvious at all? It's a valid theory but considering that we don't even know if the toy animatronics were possessed or not, it's not that clear cut.
Most of these things are literally never confirmed. so why does matt daddy act differently?
i think everyone in this comment section including matpat forgot the "that's just a theory, a GAME THEORY!" part at the end of every video ever
If it's just Theories why is he trying so hard to say he was absolutely right tho?
@@hellkrai that's why i said in my comment, "including matpat", learn to read better
Just like he always says “it’s just a theory.” Why take this so personal?? Everything he said is true about how toxic the fnaf community has become. Y’all acting like some grown children, no surprise.
Did I take it personally? 🤔
@@hellkraiYes. Yes you did.
@@GarrettPennington-k3x this is the first I'm hearing of me taking it personally? How can you determine that?
This video is fucking gospel! Thank you sir.
Another big thing that those fuckers don't get, is that the more popular anyone with a platform gets, especially with a brand and merch, they become similar to a cult leader, and then try to downplay, oh I'm just a guy that makes videos...
The irony of calling it gospel and pointing out the cult like behavior is not lost on me, lol.
Matpat its just trying to let us know its just a theory
He wasnt actually blaming scott cawthon, see there are these things called "jokes," and he was just making one. So as for him saying its a theory, thats because it is. If your feeling cold this winter, and you like matpat, watch this video.
I guess my N is so tiny I can't comprehend a joke
I understand the point your trying to make in this video, but you do understand your also doing the things your saying matpat and the other FNAF theorists are doing, as well as the things mat is saying about what the community does to him and the other theorists? Also slight side not but I had a question about your rebuttal to the vanny vision glitching, if Greg was possessed but isn’t any more and vanny still is, why would to proximity distort his vision if all that’s happening is possession? Also why would the vision distortion be video tracking lines, seems like an odd choice if that’s what it really is
No I'm not saying the writer of the game is retconning their story. I'm not saying that "you have to disprove my theory to disagree with it".
And I'm absolutely not saying "your Myers-Briggs score makes information processing hard".
As far as my theory it's because he was once possessed, that the distorted vision is likely a side effect of it. So when glitchtrap possessing vanny walks by. It's like glitchtrap walking by and the visual is a representation of that.
@@hellkraiah okay, so the distortion is really just the important part and the tracking lines is just a weird design choice then?
@@huskyhaga7557 I think it makes sense if you remember that glitchtrap is a digital being and that it brainwashed them through VR.
@@hellkrai ah okay yeah that makes sense then
Bruh, let mat pat theorize. If you dont like it then go away. If you do like it, keep it. Otherwise dont call peoples behaviour disgusting. Its just not a good way to fix it. Make ur own theories and have fun and let other guys have fun.
You just don't agree with me because ur an S
People may think matpats kiddish childish annoying but leave it in the inside if your gonna hate don’t even talk or say anything
I have no idea what everyone is talking about, calling you a "hater." This is perfectly valid criticism! You don't even sound mad!
Everyone loves to say I'm mad, but I'm just having a good time.
The fact that Mat is talking about "the fandoms is attacking me and other Theorists out there just because they didn't like theories we made" and not something like "you don't like my theories because you're sucha libra and you could never accept that gregthony fredtano is the ultimate custom night that ruined the franchise." you claimed
This is just Pathetic. Please be Better. You're literally being "That Person" Mat is talking about in taht video of his.
Guess I'm just not much of a sigma male N that matt daddy needs to get what he means
but it is what he's saying
he's saying that the fandom is attacking me and other theorist because you cant understand our theory's that's what he's saying with his justification being N or S on a pseudoscience test which has been disproven by multiple scientific papers
like this aged well
Fucking great video.
I've disliked matpat and theory style videos like his for their blatant disregard of recognizing the things they talk about as art for a while now. Fnaf is a particularly bad example of this but it really goes for any piece of media with obtuse or dense lore and or methods of storytelling. It makes art out to be a problem that has to be solved and not something personal to be enjoyed and to introspect on. This isn't to say sharing your interpretations is bad at all far from it but it's just entirely MISSING THE POINT OF WHAT A PIECE OF ART IS. I'm sure most of these people mean well but it is just so infuriating seeing people try to make something subjective into something solidly objective. ESPECIALLY when they proceed to chastise the artist or storyteller when they turn out to be incorrect.
I used to hate certain games and other thing’s lore, because I hated the fact that there wasn’t a clear cut answer for things, but in recent years I’ve really embraced the “idea” of interpretation. Theories are supposed to be a fun way to analyze media, but in recent years it really has become a way for people to “explain”.
There was one RUclipsr (I think it was Patricia Taxxon?) who made a theory video on the Don’t Hug Me I’m Scared series. For years, people have “explained” that series, saying that the teachers in the series were specifically spreading propaganda to children, or specifically as a way to make profit. Red guy wanted to make a good and wholesome kids show, but executives got in the way with them monetizing his “content”, with red guy ultimately splitting off and deciding to make stuff on his own.
This is an interesting interpretation of the series, but also seen as the TRUTH of the series, despite the creators saying “every theory is correct”, which made me angry with how “open” it was in the past.
But Patrica’s take was about how the teachers were incompetent rather than outright malicious, which was an interpretation she had based on her own experience growing up on the autism spectrum and dealing with incompetent teachers. Her whole video in general was about how strange it is that people don’t look at stuff like DHMIS and try to look at it from their own perspective and instead try to “explain” the series, which COMPLETELY changed my outlook on theories.
I even found another RUclipsr (can’t remember his name), showing his own interpretation of the series. Everyone says that episode 3 is about religion, even though the episode states over and over again that it is about love, and I really liked his interpretation that the imagery was more about the way that people talk about love sounds like a cult, especially from his own experience of trying to find love and seeing how people would talk to him.
I feel like I’ve grown out of stuff like GT, mainly about taking it seriously. I still find the videos entertaining, but I definitely don’t vibe with his fnaf stuff anymore.
Being around matpats age... (which makes me older than dust i know) i think that he was trying to convey a clashing of the generations. Not going to defend him, he makes way more money than i ever will but i think he was trying to explain things without being too critical of those younger fans. Is he right? Sometimes. Sometimes hes very much not. Everyone needs to remember that Scott likes to troll us into a frenzy. I think this generational divide might be by design. Out with the old in with the new kinda thing... meyers briggs is certainly not scientific but it does pick up on personality trends etc. Not the end all be all but he was just trying not to be the old guy yelling on his stoop lol. Also your style is rather negative in this vid. Ill try more of your content but its a bit combative for me. Cheers
I don't think the generation divide has anything to do with it tbh.
And of course this video is a bit combative it's a response to his video.
Why do you overly defend scott like that?
Scott is indeed a bad writer, he is a good game developer, but anytime anyone even mildly criticizes his writing you jump to his absolute defense, wtf
Well the video I referenced is more than "mild" criticism.
My issue is that they're ASSUMING they know what he INTENDED. When they can't possibly know that
@@hellkrai but by that logic like half of all media analysis is invalid because "how you know that is what author really intended!?!?!?"
I actually agree with death of the author, but that doesn't mean the authors intention has no value in a more "meta" level, when the story is confusing and the "truths" seem to keep changing in illogical ways or barely even exist, you have to try and understand the author itself, not just the story, even if they dont exist in the story and are not to be seen as the "god" of it they are still the ones communicating it to us.
My best argument for scott being a bad writer isnt even the retcons, its just the lack of clarity, subtetly isn't inherently good, and fnaf is way more vague than subtle, you get vagueness and then multiply it times a million over god knows how many hours of games and you have the fnaf "story", scott is telling a story by not telling a story and just showing some crums that might or might not be relevant and then letting the fans make up their own delusions over it, then the fans get mocked by everyone (even scott himself) when they do exactly that, its just stupid, I'm writing a really long story, so at least scott has teached me what to NOT do with my lore.
The issue is that he asserts that "Cawthon rewrote the game"
@@hellkrai even if scatton did no retcon or rewrites, this still seems like an overreaction, you talk like mat saying that is the end of the world.
Get his ass.
ayo pause
Why were I subbed to you again?
Because ur very cool
@@ilikegoblo4665Little kid?
why u hatin on himm 😭😭
Just trying to get Matt Daddy to notice me
@@hellkraiunderstandable, this is the best way to do that
MatPat's theories have gone downhill.
I think the biggest problem lies with the story itself. Can you really say half the info/assumptions people are theorizing off of have actual confirmations? Even back in the day, most of the story was through speculation, and I feel like with the plethora of new books it's just gotten worse. I've watched so many different theory videos from different creators on FNAF and at this point, the story is so confusing, convoluted, and weird that I'm basically done with the FNAF stuff. I think ending it at either FNAF 6 or UCN would've been perfect, but oh well.
I understand that lots of people think Matpat goes for some reaches and sometimes misleading/inaccurate takes in his theories, and people hate on him for that. But what else should he do? He's a creator over a theorist (he can't spend hours a day combing over minute details while still consistently producing content), and I'd say that for him, having a semi-working narrative is more important than 1000% accuracy. He did come off as petty in this video, but honestly, I'd say he's relatively tame for the hate he gets. Cringe hate sucks, especially when it drowns out all the constructive criticism.
Matpat's main problem in my eyes in through his own research and viewing of details, creates his very own headcanon that he bases all theories off of. For his theories, if that headcanon basis is gone, then viewers are just gonna get a bunch of random factoids and details shoved into their faces with a "figure it out yourself I guess" type of deal. Though the accuracy of Matpat is questionable, his way of doing it definitely provides for a better viewing experience.
Also, the whole retconning story thing, I'm not sure if this helps, but have you seen the Dawko Scott Cawthon interview? In it, Scott confirms that quote "I inconvenience him with my games, but sometimes he inconveniences me with his theories" and also that "He's [Matpat] absolutely right, the contents of that box [FNAF 4 locked box] have changed over the years." The implications are there, so you take that how you want.
Not definitive proof, but let's be real. With intended final games in FnAF 3, 4, as well as Fnaf 6 being a narratively satisfying conclusion if it weren't for later additions, I'd say that Scott's ideas for the game have definitely shifted. I do a lot of writing on my own, and writing a story, especially of this scale, is not easy to keep the same ideas you started with.
TL;DR, blaming Matpat for all his narrative leaps, inaccuracy and pettiness is both justified but also unfair. Theorizing, to me, at least, is more of speculation and perspective than definitive fact and proof. In a franchise like FNAF, all theories are basically selectively taking details and information tidbits from the ocean that exists, and piecing them together in unique ways to create different theories and further your personal narrative.
Interesting video, and definitely and interesting choice to edit in Are Theories Killing Games lol.
I think you can 100% get a sense of the narrative without stupid RUclips videos and that aspect of it is what has led to it being interesting for most of the audience.
I think that dawko interview quote is misused by the fandom.
If he only just realized the "contents have been changed" that means that in a manner of speaking the "Physical Items" haven't changed but the context around them has.
I don't feel the need to speculate on it but for a bit of an example, if it was a toy ice cream maker. Then the context of that is different in FNAF 4 vs after FNAF SL.
It isn't because that doesn't make sense but it's a good example of something that can "change" without "changing"
@@hellkrai Ok, true. But tbf, to get a full narrative of the entire story withou watching people's videos, I'd have to and play all the games, read a bajillion books, and spend hours and hours thinking and organizing details and plots within those books. My point is his video audience isn't really hardcore FnAF theorists, who have every right to be unsatisfied with his theories, but rather more casual listeners/watcher like me who are only kind of interested and want to hear an interesting story.
With the story, I'm saying that I don't think he retconned the entire thing, but rather that quote is suggesting that the direction he personally wanted it to go has definitely shifted. (Personal take but you literally cannot convince he intended for Afton to have some sort of AI form and for the story to revolve around a Mimic AI way back in FnAF 4.)
I think we just have different perspectives, you as a more serious Fnafer and me as a much more casual viewer who doesn't quite understand all the hate. Like, a lot of his theories don't really make sense in my mind, but I just click out of the video if I don't like it (A lot of his SB and Ruin theories were not really making much sense, so I quit around there), rather than sit there and get mad at how inaccurate some information is presented. I'd get more mad if it was about more factual information or relevant details today, but for me it's just a game franchise that's been stretched for a literal decade. But that's just me; interesting ideas tho
I dont think you need to read a single video or watch any video I made a video about my perspective which does none of those things
@@hellkrai ? What? I'm not talking about you specifically, I'm talking about FnAF theorizing in general. Like FuhNaff, RyeToast, ID's Fantasy, most of their theories have so much background info that I can't keep track of it all.
I'm not dunking on your perspective, you know. Your takes are very valid, I'm just trying to reason a middle ground because it feels a lot of animosity gets thrown around for no reason (not you specifically, just in general)
@@thedilatoryvellichor748 oh I'm not taking it personally, just reiterating what I mean.
I just feel the "Theorist" community found a lazy easy out and keep exploiting it basically and that it has been picked up by the wider internet because they're in the role of "being the guy who talks about FNAF"
he is soo full of himself, making theory without doing reserching like what he did to persona 4, not to mention his big word about the fnaf arg that never exist
im close
Fuck time to play bioshock if your makeing a vid time to put that out of my backlog
13:08 literally what i also thought in my video, i have already seen it two times in the videos, i'm glad this is getting at least a tiny bit more popular with people releasing this thought into the wild
I could also talk about MatPat's theories themselves again...but i don't feel like it lol
what's with the "Are Theories KILLING video games" vid troughout the video though?
Lazy editing on my part mostly tbh
I strongly disagree
Stop judging on Matpat ok there not facts but theories and lore that he looks over so many times that it’s in his head on repeat and he also spends a lot of time on these theories at least a two weeks at least so stop putting pressure on him he’s doing his best.
This is his best?
Wdm??.@@hellkrai
yall are so annoying. who cares if its wrong, its just a theory
Literally what I'm saying bro
i mean he cares if his theorys are worng. he cares enoght to post a video. other people care about there theorys. for alot of the fandom its a rat race to see who is correct which nowadays seems to include discrediting other creators. matpats theory's are just that theory's yet he presents it as fact and even has the audacity to really say that the story changed because of his theory's. if he's wrong he's wrong. but if he taking out on the community that if you think I'm wrong your just a hater. that is just unjust and really shitty thing to do.
@@spectrum1324 you're annoying
i don't like matpat too
Yeah mats video has some mistakes, like the whole myers brig bullshit, but its generally and fundamentally correct, this just seems like an overrgenerelatization of mat, you do the whole "its just opinion and interpretation" thing then proceed to be extremely uncharitable of mat.
Nothing he says can be a joke or hyperbole, its all literal and absolute, you are literally being the guy he criticizes.
Guess I'm just not enough of an N to understand his deep language
@@hellkrai you dont understand the general basics, details irrelevant.
You proved him right. Well done.
🤔
Did you even watch the video? Cause this is such an L take.
@@skrappothemonster1436 no I didn’t watch the video. This is RUclips, you see a thumbnail you don’t like, leave an ignorant comment and then leave.
@@jk844100 Well then you have no right to say he proved MatPat right when you don't even know what he said in the video.
@@skrappothemonster1436I think it was sarcasm
Imagine hating on HIS theories, like he says it's his theories, don't get mad over someone else's research
Mad? Hating? Research?
@@hellkrai don't act stupid
@@veteranRLbro he’s not hating on anyone he just critique the fnaf community when it comes to theories
@@kaysarilyas4430 don't watch matpat if you gonna complain
@@veteranRL it’s not complaining it’s critiquing your allowed to disagree with someone but still enjoy there content
Im gonna miss matpat
Same
Not me. I missed his old content way better than the FNAF theories ruined with jokes
Not me, I'm happy the Breeder is busy with his Offspring stay away from the Internet.
You just like me fr
as a mario fan, i feel your pain. glad he’s retired.
Bro it’s a joke take a joke 2:27
You say that but he said it again in his newest video.
The amount of times he repeats this phrase makes me feel it's not just a joke.
@@hellkrai he has done theories for fnaf for a long time so it makes sense he has a lot of long running jokes
We have all seen Scott's political donations. He is not worth defending from mere attacks at his writing skill, reguardless of if they are unfounded
Why are his political donations and writing abilities linked at all? And why do the donations mean that all attacks on his character are valid?
What does that have to do with anything?
in my opinion, this isn't about defending Scott. It's about giving mat pat a reality check. His Ego is straight up out of control if he truly believes they ret-conned the series multiple times just so he could be wrong. Instead of just saying "I was wrong" he doubles down on the wrong idea, and comes up with excuses for why people disagree with him.
@@StarBlue42In my opinion, it was retconned cuz matpat got it right, its cuz of the reaction the community gave to him being right. Everyone hated the fact that the lore kughyve just been some child's imagination during a coma so Scott tried to turn away from that and never reveal what's in the box, which would've, probably, supported the theory.
@@ilikegoblo4665 exactly what I’m thinking.
Matpat is right, because he's an N. Lmao
Real Ns rise up!
Real Ns rise up!