@@WinterPains I really do wish I had the knowledge of Special Interest™ fan because jesus christ does the lore seem interesting... But alas, I was chosen to be a Persona fan instead not even one of the cool bitchless fandoms 😂
The fact that the community STILL can't agree that mustard man in Midnight Motorist is William Afton shows that people are absolutely complicating FNAF lore.
I don't really see the difference in "the answer that adds the fewest assumptions" and "the answer with less assumptions", can you clarify the distinction for me?
@@Cryonide If you hear a loud noise at night in your home and have a pet dog. Assumption 1: Your dog knocked over something, this has 2 assumptions 1. your dog is awake 2. they knocked over something This adds the fewest assumptions because if you assume your dog is awake and you can reasonably assume they knocked over something because it's night so the light are off Assumption 2: Someone broke into your house, this has 1 assumption 1. Someone broke into your house this has the less assumptions but has a massive leap in logic compared to Assumption 1, Assumption 1 already has the cause of the noise inside the house which is the dog and only requires to assume they are awake then them knocking over something which is more reasonable than someone breaking into your house since the cause of the noise needs to get in the house and then cause a noise a loud noise inside the house since the dog was already present in the house as opposed to the burglar needing to go into your home to caused a load noise Having the less assumptions can just mean the assumptions have a huge leap in logic compared to adding the least amount of assumptions which follow a reasonable starting assumption that follows other assumptions that add fewer ideas, with Assumption 1 just adding the idea of your dog being awake then knocking over something compared to Assumption 2 which adds the idea someone broke into your house
@@Cryonide Pedantic difference between "adding assumptions to arrive at a conclusion" and "arriving at a conclusion based upon presupposed assumptions" imo
I think at times we do overcomplicate things needlessly but you make a fair point in that oversimplifying things in the lore is just as bad. A nice balance is what's needed. Plus it's more fun to find in-universe explanations than simply arrive at conclusions like "Scott is stupid" or "it was a retcon." Part of the joy of theorising in the first place.
I mean the "ruined freddy is our glamrock freddy" is not weird, looking at SB Freddy we have: -Vanny ending left him dismantle -His body is left behind -With marks on his body that look like a mouth in his stomach -Freddy is disconnected from the network of the pizzaplex -He goes feral the moment safe mode is deactivated So in Ruin we have a Freddy dismantled, without his head, with the marks the look like a maw in his stomach, disconnected from the VR, and more feral like the other animatronics, that's why we can't watch him in the VR, is not that he doesn't exists, simply he's not in connected to the VR Again occam's razor is the best answer not because assumptions, but because most of the things in this franchise don't have the deeper meaning people wanted to, and when they give us the answer, is so much simpler and that makes people angry
I actually share a similar mentality of wanting a cut and clean answer for everything, and that's also why in making a theory about the timeline of the games I cut it off after ucn, ucn gave a satisfying end to the series before the next chapter and because it answered questions from the past and didn't jump to the future its where chapter 1 of the games end for me and chapter 2 begins but then there's the new problems like how you mentioned Scott didn't tell steelwool the story meaning the secrets of security breach are assumptions making it difficult to come to that clear cut answer so while at some point I'm probably going to start trying to tie up that mess for now I'm focusing on pulling together the story of chapter 1 and in all honesty I think I've cracked it in a way that leaves no plot holes answers every question and anything that doesn't entirely fit well is explained away its as clean cut as anyone can get it to my knowledge, still doing some final checks and then laying it all down on paper then I might make a video on it but idk
It’s funny how in most games we’d recognise small inconsistencies as plot holes while in fnaf they become these big mysteries that go unanswered for years probably because there isn’t supposed to be an answer
Isn't there also the option that the model had that label as it wasn't originally intended for use in the final game? Someone going "that looks fine, put it in" and forgetting to take that off Admittedly, it'd be weird to label it "prototype" and not "WIP" or "beta" or something, but I honestly originally thought that's where the video was going
It's not about not making assumptions, but rather going with the MOST LIKELY answer. The answer that doesn't have a yon of leaps in logic is the MOST LIKELY answer.
I believe the changes in ruin is a perfect example of Scott’s philosophy when it comes to the games. If something wasn’t conveyed well enough in the game it was introduced then Scott goes out of his way to clarify it in the sequel.
Finally RIGHT questions, people tend to throw all the stones at Scott, but I feel like he consider other suggestion towards Lore. Come on, Golden Freddy become "golden" ONLY because Mark called him like that (initially it was yellow bear). Why Freddy called "prototype"? If devs put it there, they did it for a reason and most logical reason - explain why Freddy is friendly while others not in SB
7:19 THIS. Scott’s gone and now the story is left in the hands of other people who might do things that don’t line up with the first couple of games. Some details will just have to be forgotten in this transition, as the story is being told from someone else.
@@SouMorse Eh guess I misunderstood. Anyways, Scott’s writing can be pretty…interesting at times so I’d bet there are details even he would like us to forget. Thank you for correcting me though and being respectful about it.
@@depressedcakke3877 he specifically said tha Security Breach was made in a moment where he wasnt confortable with telling the lore of the games to a bunch of people, so instead he told them what to put in the games and where to put it, like lore hints etc. But they put those things in places that pointed to a story that was different from what he was trying to tell, and other things were totally changed like the Burntrap ending. His intention from what I remember was that Burntrap would appear very quick like the Blob in Ruin, but Steel Wool turned it into a whole boss fight. Then he said that the games that came after were meant to correct the path the games were in and fix the mistakes made by Security Breach, cause currently he is actually working with the studio instead of just telling to put stuff in the game. The Burntrap ending being revealed as just Gregory's imagination is part of the course correction he mentioned. It was never supposed to happen that way so they simply said "none of that happened, Gregory made it all up", Which means that, with the context we have from the games that came after SB, we can look at security breach nowadays and actually use the things it gives us to solve the lore, cause whatever thing it presented in a way that could potentially point us in the wrong direction, the other games give us context that will prevent that from happening.
This video might be filler, but I really loved it, and it really does make you think about theorising. It makes you question, what are we even trying to figure out when theorising? In FNAF 1,2, and 3, it was obvious, the lore, but more precisely the intended lore by Scott Cawthon. But even when the Scott was still making the games, there became issues with that. When? Clearly Scott’s intentions for the lore have changed, with every game release but also whilst a game is out. And then you don’t know what should be used as evidence or not. Many assume Dream Theory was canon (I don’t believe so) and then discard all evidence in FNAF 4 (which I also don’t agree with doing) but these are simply the results of a developer making a changing story. But then, once Scott. got others to help, we had a much bigger problem at our hands. I don’t even know you’re supposed to begin theorising about SB with our knowledge from the Dawko interview. When it comes to theorising I personally stay away from post-UCN stuff, one reason being because the lore was already a mess, and now it is so much worse. I feel always trying to find the logical and intended lore, will lead you into realising that nothing works and that you hate Scott and FNAF theorising as a whole. At the end of the day you’ll get a theory you don’t even like. Personally, I’ve taken the approach to take the pieces given by the games, and make my interpretation of the lore and a theory that I myself like narratively, even if I don’t believe it’s intended. One example is Midnight Motorist. I really like RunawayMCI, and I did think it was intended, but after the release of FLAF, I know the chances are slim. Mustard Man is probably intended to be Purple Guy but I really don’t like that and I thought there was so much more to my theory, so I still stand by it as my favourite theory for MM, even if I don’t think it was intended. This is a topic we don’t talk about much and we often start theorising without thinking about theorising as a whole and what we’re trying to do. This was a great video thank you so much for it :3
Honestly, I kinda blame Scott for not telling Steel Wool the story of Security Breach. Because it seems like were jumping to the conclusion of Tales Games being intentional as said “SB’s cut content” but I believe the community is more likely ignoring inconsistencies, thus making it more frustrating on how they’ll neglect errors from the books. Also, the games seem to have lack of confirmation of whenever the books are within the Gameline- here we go again, most people started assuming newer games are supporting the books but from the look of it, it’s just lack of confirmation. But instead, cherry picking Game Theory’s theories. Ngl, I think the books kinda over complicated things by just telling the story and then let the games not tell the story. Problem is the mob mentality of “books are not canon, but parallel the games’ story” I believe were in this Era where people are getting tired of the games not telling the story and now start digging through the books to see if they give us answers, let along another game and we don’t get a lot of confirmation. And now with the books, the community had developed an echo chamber. And I rather not solve the lore but instead hang out with the community and just throw out silly theories to the community. So this video was indeed worth my time 👍
@@at_witts_end3470 ITP? That doesn’t really convince me. ITP Game makes several plot holes if it’s saying the Frights books are within continuity coexisting with the ITP Game. But saying “the new game is literally set in a location first introduced in the books” isn’t really convincing to me. So most likely, Frights and Tales are in the games but the definitive version from the books is inaccurate to what’s in the games.
@@at_witts_end3470 How do we know with the teasers shown right now? Just wait until the full release says that it’s Edwin’s factory. And just because you’re making an excuse for saying the games show the things from the books doesn’t really add up. I mean we had William Afton’s name back from the Silver Eyes (a book that’s a separate continuity) and we also got Henry and Charlie from those books. And of course, Freddy’s Pizzeria, Circus Baby’s, The MCI, and the Pizzaplex are canon to both games and books but have differences. We don’t know if we’re in Edwin’s factory or not in those teasers!!! But I know SOTM is going to clarify it! (Sorry if this came off to be offensive)
@@Cross_Corp64 everyone who has played the demo says it features a factory with fall Fest costumes And props. The factory is said to be in disrepair and the Mimic lives there. The gator costume and dog costume from the book reportedly show up. Also, a giant octopus is seen, apparently, who is likely the origin of the "spider form" in the books.
i mean i believe in some measure we should apply the concept of occam's razor especially when it comes to looks take for example the withereds from fnaf 2 that supposedly get refurbished into the classics, not only are their outer shells different the endos are also different, but we know scott likes to design robots based on his previous games before fnaf and maybe he simply just made the withereds model from scratch springtrap and scraptrap are so different in design that it logically makes no sense how scraptrap is william trying to repair himself after the fnaf 3 fire burntrap and the mimic look so different in design that if there was not enough enviromental storytelling to imply that they are the same thing, based on design alone it would make no sense to come to that conclusion my take is that designs should be roughly ignored (since complete redesigns have happened, in the scott era of games and after)
The whole Mimic/Burntrap Situation, Phone Guy being the killer and Midnight Motorist debates come to mind in terms of overcomplicating. Ruin literally shows in it's enviromental storytelling that Burntrap is the mimic, the Fnaf 2 phone calls very obviously allude to the Purple Guy working the week before Jeremy (completely deconfirming PG's case too in the progress) and Scott needed the most straight forward pointing at Mustard Man's identity with a spin off racer even tho it was narretively only possible to be William with overwhelming levels of evidence against one UCN line and a simple recolour. The community often overthinks little details like toes and endoskeletons instead of actually trying to look at the bigger picture.
There's scratches on the vent in the Mimics room and Burntraps room that use the same textures. The lighting in the Mimics room is purple now, while Burntraps is orange. They're the same. If Burntrap actually mattered and was William, he wouldn't have been entirely ignored in Ruin and then replaced/retconned (which wasn't the case. Scott said Steel Wool just didn't know his plan at first).@@TheHaddonfieldRegistry
I do think it's becoming an unruly monster now, the methodology behind finding the "truth" that is. Largely, by accident too. I think the story was unfinished and a little poorly told through the first 3 games. We the fans dug deeper to draw connections where there truthfully weren't any, and it began a cycle of expectation and deliverance. We are at a point now where we have gone through extreme lengths to almost create a deeper story for some small indie games that grew in admiration, size and ambition beyond belief. So from those humble beginnings, it grew into what it is today. A multimedia mega-hit! With the efforts previously shown by the fans to desperately get "ahead" of Scott's initial rapid, and even dare I say early release schedule. It felt like it was a game in itself encouraged by Scott and his unique approach to fostering his audience. Later games gave answers to larger questions held by a growing audience. But as with every new game, came more questions and less answers. We are getting past the point of diminishing returns and sadly have now come full circle. The same point Scott feared we would reach with the reveal of the box's contents. So the story expanded outside of the games, into different media and I feel the story telling as a result suffers for it. It now feels like there's too many similarities that just aren't quite the exact fit, to help navigate the difficult maze of FNaF lore. The book VS game diegetics and eerily similar continuities are only confusing things further. Stoking the flames more. I sound horribly negative about it. I'm not, in truth I'm anxious that the community is coming from so many different angles that the "truth" may never be fully explained as there are so many theories to subscribe to that we will undoubtedly have very mixed feelings about something being conclusive. I just had hoped for a more concise story with a conclusion. My fear is we won't see that, or worse still the conclusion to the original stories has happened and as such wasn't satisfying. For me at least. The writing has never been top bar, but it's inconsistency leaves a lot to be desired. Same with the ambiguity not being a consistent thing by default. Somethings are just easier to understand than others and some methods used to convey details doesn't always land first try. Leading to further confusion. In short, a few less questions with each new game and a few more conclusions would be welcome to bring back some focus. Or maybe I'm just too old to keep up any more. I was a young lad when I first started this series. I'm old now, and feel it! Yap over. Sorry. This video struck a chord with me it seems. Liked and subbed!
So many details are ignored, missed, or misinterpreted all the time. There are so many people in comment sections that I’ve quoted the FNAF 1 newspapers at. I also have had so many people pointing out evidence pieces that I use that are actually fanon or rely on other theories that aren’t fully proven. How is anyone supposed to solve anything?
Into the Pit is doing the very thing I was worried about. I sincerely think it's just a "Fazbear Frights" game that might span into more games based on the little fun goosebump style stories. It is *not* a mainline game, it's not supposed to be over analyzed like this. It's so bloated with easter eggs, casual references for fun, and is just one big ten year celebration of FnaF and a Frights call back. Scott talked about how he let them do their thing and just gave feedback rarely. It's not meant to solve things outside of those Frights Stories. >
@@Cryonide Yeah, he mentioned that he was proud of the work they did while talking about how they'd go quiet/silent for stretches of time, then pop back up showing lots of progress.
The problem with saying that Scott letting Mega Cat do whatever they want and expand upon the original scope massively for what originally smaller or just for fun means it isn't important is that the same thing also applies to both Help Wanted and Security Breach, both originally being much smaller in scope until Scott let Steel Wool freely expand them far beyond their original scopes and in the case of Help Wanted, more than just a little VR title for fun. Both Mega Cat and DJ Sterf have also confirmed that they went out of their way to avoid contradicting the series with Into the Pit's content, which shouldn't matter if the game isn't important. This game is a spin off, but it's no different from FNaF World or Special Delivery still being parts of the story. I really don't understand why this of all games is supposedly not important when nothing actually points to such a scenario. Why would a FNaF game as big as this essentially be all for nothing? This is the same series where Scott couldn't not make World, UCN, or Help Wanted canon. He felt inclined to make them canon, so why would he suddenly drop this feeling of necessity out of nowhere? This is also simply ignores the fact that Frights as a whole is meant to be a crucial part of the series no matter if it's one with the games or not. A game adaptation of that same series has no signs of dropping that intent, especially if again it's not meant to contradict anything. And we have the interactive novel which itself is based on the game adaptation and is part of a larger book series that has shown no reason not to be canon to the games, especially with The Week Before explicitly being referred to as a prequel to FNaF1 as well as a book specifically focusing on Cassie's time at the Pizzaplex prior to our first look at that in Ruin. There's nothing about the Interactive novels that implies it's jumping back and forth across continuities, much like how The Silver Eyes trilogy and Tales are consistent to their respective series. Frights was the only one to ever be given a disjointed status, but even then that which is meant to tell us things and those that are just stories for fun should be clear based on the contents of each story. TL;DR: What's with the FNaF community and assuming things as non canon until proven otherwise? No other series works like this nor has FNaF itself, Scott, or anyone involved ever established such a thing.
... OR Maybe the paint on Freddy's foot just got removed and is now showing in RUIN. Honestly, I think this is the case because it's too perfect (with the only issue is the colouring of the box in his chest) and the "Prototype" stamp may also explain why Freddy's personality is so bland in SB, more obviously robotic in the way he speaks.
It's not *just* the coloring of the box though. It's the fact that the box is there in the first place. Someone had to put that there. It's also worth noting that the box is notably crumpled up, as if its been there for a while and has suffered wear and tear like the rest of his body did. That's such a weird thing to randomly add to a character for 0 reason. Weird enough for me to doubt that there wasn't a reason for it.
@@Cryonide Speaking of the box in the chest, I'm confused that in SB, when you grab the Faz-watch, the box disappears when you see the inside of Freddy next, probably just a game thing though.
I Think Scott Started Paying Attention To Stuff Made Post Security Breach, So Things On Ruin, Help Wanted 2 Or Five Laps Of Freddy, He Is Well Aware, And Not Just After The Game's Release (And In The Case Of FLaF, Its Demo)
About details that everyone just ignores. Midnight motorist. Do you remember which side of the road cars are driving? The answer, the left side, which mean that midnight motorist state in UK. And the only charachters from UK we know is Aftons, because William has British accent. Does that make any sense? For me, no
@@ThisIsAHandle-xz5yo ITP and most books take place in or around Utah, USA and lots of details, such as currency and legal practice, suggest a place in America.
The sprite of the Stitch Wraith was never meant to be seen clearly, so the sprite itself tells us virtually nothing other than that something that resembles the stitch wraith is there. Other than that... your suggestion of the consequences of too many creative cooks in the kitchen really does require looking into. We need to learn how much of an effect that has on the games.
I think the problem is less that people are looking too deep into things, and more that instead of coming to their own conclusions, people are relying too heavily on other people's theories to understand the story, to the point where they're acting like literally nothing in FNAF is confirmed so they don't have to think as hard.
Thought part of this would be about HyperDroid finding out the Crying Child's name was Dave via simple deduction of a puzzle that'd been overthought for years from the start, but I mean...I think theorizing as long as it doesn't jump to astronomical absurd concepts is fine, but getting bogged down in the weeds when we have things like Scott admitting how the creative process works makes it kinda clear FNAF isn't meant to be that deep anymore after "The Box" has basically died.
Hear me out, I think the princess quest ending isn’t meant to be the true ending of security breach, and that the true ending is actually the Burntrap ending. The whole reason people say this ending isn’t canon is because Gregory draws a picture of it like he does for the other non-canon endings. This suggests to many people that it’s a figment of his imagination, which is fair. However, in his drawing, we see Burntrap and the animatronic blob. We also see the blob briefly in Ruin, meaning the blob is 100% real. The only ending in which Gregory would encounter the blob and even know what it looks like is the Burntrap ending. Heck, the fact that in Ruin we literally go beneath Roxy Raceway, and the place looks exactly how it does in Security Breach, should imply that the Burntrap ending is canon. But the thing is, there’s still a lot of evidence for the princess quest ending being canon. Do you understand how infuriating the lore of these games is? Edit: I mean, I get that Scott really didn’t intend for the Burntrap ending to turn out the way it did, but that doesn’t change the fact that the evidence for it being canon exists in ruin. Like, how did the pizzaplex come to be in ruins, anyway? The dlc doesn’t take place that long after the main game, so if the PQ ending were canon, the pizzaplex would be mostly intact (with the exception of bots being disabled). It makes more sense for Ruin to take place after the Burntrap ending, during which the whole pizzaplex caves in. Or how about Roxy’s eyes, Chica’s beak, and Monty’s claws being missing? All three of those items are *required* for the Burntrap ending (if you don’t use glitches), so why would they be missing if Gregory didn’t use them to go beneath Roxy Raceway? Yeah, this ending might not have been what Scott intended for the story at first, but it seems like Steel Wool took it and ran with it in Ruin.
Scott has basically confirmed it isn't though. He explicitly stated that Burntrap was never supposed to move, only ever be seen standing still. My understanding is he was supposed to be kind of like GMan in Half Life 1
I think Burntrap was 100% suppose to be the true ending, but then Scott was like "Uh guys, a burned Scraptrap hidden in some ruins as an easter egg was all Burntrap was suppose to be" and so Steel Wool retconned it with Ruin
Scott confirmed PQ is canon. Because Burntrap was never meant to be the big bad. He was just supposed to be Gregorys version of Glitchtrap since he grew up in the FNaF lore, as opposed to Glitchtrap who was based on Mimics mascot costumes and Spring Bonnie
Well, for the stitch wraith thing (which I have put like, surface level thought into.) Maybe since the old mini games got possessed, the kids that died in the past from pit spring bonnie went to have remnant or something go into the machines?
TBH, I sometimes feel like getting into FNaF theorizing takes away your media literacy. Yes. You are overthinking this. All of this. And you will never solve the lore if you keep doing it. Also, as some others pointed out, you misunderstand what Occam's Razor even is.
I’m beginning to think that, while Scott’s comments in the interview has helped to dissuade the idea of the franchise lore being unrecoverable going forward and actually puts some hope into the writing going forward, Ruin onwards minus Into the Pit (because Scott also implies he was pretty hands-off with that one too, sadly), i think it came at the cost of killing speculation for anything Into the Pit and pre-Ruin, even some stuff within Ruin! There’s no confidence in anything we’ve been given outside of that, with 1-UCN being in limbo and Help Wanted/Security Breach/Frights/Stichtwraith Stingers/Tales all being unreliable to look through at best (and most likely Into the Pit because of Scott’s comments). I exclude Help Wanted 2 here because of where it was in the release timeline. While Into the Pit has been in development for years upon years, likely pre SB, HW2 came after SB and Ruin, so after Scott had his wake up call and realized things needed to change. So, while he admits to not play testing the game’s functionality do to how terrifying it is to him, he almost definitely was in more open, direct communication with Steel Wool about the story and direction of the game (probably explaining all of the cut content too, as early work probably started towards the end of SB’s development). It’s sad that faith in these titles being anything worth speculating on is so shot, but I think that’s part of the reason why we were given three extremely likely to be mainline books in a short timeframe, with one likely clarifying the actual lore of Into the Pit proper. That way the fandom has some things to speculate on (HW2, the interactive novels, the upcoming SotM game, parallels from the movies since Scott has been extremely involved in them, and Ruin to a degree).
Interesting bit about the Ruin point, they updated Cassies model with the HW2 one way after Ruin released. Why would they not just update SB Freddys textures with the prototype stamp if he was always meant to be a prototype?
I really feel this. If stuff from the games keep showing up in games of ambiguous canonicity thy also contradict the books then how are we supposed to parse the timeline
That does make it when scott hid the lore behind the details but now that it's different companies making the games. Are they doing the same or are they just making easter eggs?
4:06 doesn’t vanessa also say in the base game that freddy had to be replaced before or smt or did i just make this up 😭? if she did say this it makes sense he would have been supposed to have that on his foot although it’s very likely my memory is lying soo…😅
Security Breach already had to be updated for Ruin to be added, if Glamrock Freddy was always meant to have "prototype" on his foot then why didn't Glamrock Freddy's texture change, all it takes is applying the new Texture to the model instead of adding new model with Shattered Roxy (Roxy haveing a specifically different endo doesn't make sense regardless since Chica, Monty, presumably Freddy, and the other Glamrock Endos are still the same-ish)
@@RaisinHook it's the toy story 2 thing, where the paint on the bottom has rubbed off. It's why Gregorys able to hack into Freddy, unlike the others who are far more connected to Mimic1. What makes more sense? There's 2 broken down Freddy's missing their head and one of them just disappeared, or they're the same and prototype was just covered up with paint? Same reason it makes no sense for Burntrap and Mimic to be different? You're saying there's 2 evil endoskeletons below the pizzaplex with the ability to mess with electronics and with Nightmare claws? Why? That seems contrived.
@@RaisinHook Roxy has a different Endo because in HW2 we give her the security node mask that allows her to be herself in AR. This is explained in game.
@@at_witts_end3470 that’s not how paint works, it worked like that in toy story because it was painted recently, and walking around would do more damage to his feet then Staff bots dismantling him since they would just rip off the foot instead of rubbing it
I find the whole idea of applying Occam’s razor to FNAF problematic. I understand how this concept can be applied to most problems, but is FNAF presenting us with a problem or the solution? Yes, the community does have to make assumptions based off of clues and breadcrumbs in order to piece together the story. However, Scott very much does not have to make assumptions. Because information was being conveyed cryptically, Scott may have created gaps in information that the community has to fill in with assumptions. He has stated before that he views every game as a chance to clarify previous content and has had to correct community assumptions before. If the only argument against a theory is Occam’s razor, is that really an issue with the theory when the whole reason the theory exists is because Scott is purposefully not giving us the full story? I don’t know if any of this makes sense, but it feels like this communities constant parroting of Occam’s razor to dismiss ideas is extremely weak. I see no issue with any theory creating or containing assumptions and no reason to discount one theory because it relies on more assumptions than another.
Most Fnaf clues are relatively straightforward, that's why I believe AftonMM is wrong and the real story is about a father of a missing kid But when I suggested that in the subreddit with all the evidence I have, I got sent to downvote hell because people believe FLaP confirmed AftonMM...
AftonMM is literally the most straightforward answer that require the least assumptions other than "Scott made him yellow for this one". Which i believe he did so there wouldn't be a Miketrap situation again
@@JoblessJimmy AftonMM has no answer for the mascot footprints (the most important clue) and the characters' personalities don't match any of the Aftons Meanwhile MCIMM easily explains the mascot footprints, and the Toy Chica cutscenes confirm it
Scott refusing to tell the current creators his story, but making them follow his outline makes the games literally unsolvable. He has to either tell the current creators the story so that they can't accidentally contradict it, or he has to let them tell their own stories. He can't have it both ways and still have the lore be coherent.
I always found surprising that Chika in ultimate custom night answers how Afton did all the murders but everybody says she is just rambling about nonsense and skip her explaining midnight motorist. Also when it says later that night it doesn't mean it was raining before.
5:53 I do think Prototype was always supposed to be there, HOWEVER, I do find the arguments for multiple Freddys to be convincing as well. Honestly, the main reason I think we are overcomplicating the lore is because we are putting too much focus on everything Pre-Help Wanted.
Yes, but you are technically correct. FNAF fans over complicate the lore because Scott never had any. His game blew up so he had to get a story together. Problem was he's not very good at it. His way of story telling is Retconing. Every big reveal in the series has been measured based on the reaction from the fans. Scott doesn't have a Fnaf story. You do.
Short answer: Yes
Long answer: Yes
Long answer: Yes, we are
Mangle answer: Yes
Non-FNAF fan answer before watching: Yes
For FNAF fan answer is unchanged
As someone who developed this as a Special Interest(TM) around FNAF2/3.
Absolutely.
@@WinterPains I really do wish I had the knowledge of Special Interest™ fan because jesus christ does the lore seem interesting... But alas, I was chosen to be a Persona fan instead not even one of the cool bitchless fandoms 😂
@@Apollo_VonAlmen I have the same sentiment for Persona, lol
That makes sense. Only a non-FNAF fan would think that.
The fact that the community STILL can't agree that mustard man in Midnight Motorist is William Afton shows that people are absolutely complicating FNAF lore.
Occams Razor actually says that the answer that ADDS THE FEWEST ASSUMPTIONS is the most likely, which is a very important distinction
I don't really see the difference in "the answer that adds the fewest assumptions" and "the answer with less assumptions", can you clarify the distinction for me?
@@Cryonide I think what happened here is OP assumed your definition of the Occam's Razor was "the answer with NO assumptions"
@@Cryonide If you hear a loud noise at night in your home and have a pet dog.
Assumption 1:
Your dog knocked over something, this has 2 assumptions
1. your dog is awake
2. they knocked over something
This adds the fewest assumptions because if you assume your dog is awake and you can reasonably assume they knocked over something because it's night so the light are off
Assumption 2:
Someone broke into your house, this has 1 assumption
1. Someone broke into your house
this has the less assumptions but has a massive leap in logic compared to Assumption 1, Assumption 1 already has the cause of the noise inside the house which is the dog and only requires to assume they are awake then them knocking over something which is more reasonable than someone breaking into your house since the cause of the noise needs to get in the house and then cause a noise a loud noise inside the house since the dog was already present in the house as opposed to the burglar needing to go into your home to caused a load noise
Having the less assumptions can just mean the assumptions have a huge leap in logic compared to adding the least amount of assumptions which follow a reasonable starting assumption that follows other assumptions that add fewer ideas, with Assumption 1 just adding the idea of your dog being awake then knocking over something compared to Assumption 2 which adds the idea someone broke into your house
@@Cryonide Pedantic difference between "adding assumptions to arrive at a conclusion" and "arriving at a conclusion based upon presupposed assumptions" imo
English nuances that doesn’t really matter since the general interpretation is the same.
I think at times we do overcomplicate things needlessly but you make a fair point in that oversimplifying things in the lore is just as bad. A nice balance is what's needed. Plus it's more fun to find in-universe explanations than simply arrive at conclusions like "Scott is stupid" or "it was a retcon." Part of the joy of theorising in the first place.
I mean the "ruined freddy is our glamrock freddy" is not weird, looking at SB Freddy we have:
-Vanny ending left him dismantle
-His body is left behind
-With marks on his body that look like a mouth in his stomach
-Freddy is disconnected from the network of the pizzaplex
-He goes feral the moment safe mode is deactivated
So in Ruin we have a Freddy dismantled, without his head, with the marks the look like a maw in his stomach, disconnected from the VR, and more feral like the other animatronics, that's why we can't watch him in the VR, is not that he doesn't exists, simply he's not in connected to the VR
Again occam's razor is the best answer not because assumptions, but because most of the things in this franchise don't have the deeper meaning people wanted to, and when they give us the answer, is so much simpler and that makes people angry
I actually share a similar mentality of wanting a cut and clean answer for everything, and that's also why in making a theory about the timeline of the games I cut it off after ucn, ucn gave a satisfying end to the series before the next chapter and because it answered questions from the past and didn't jump to the future its where chapter 1 of the games end for me and chapter 2 begins but then there's the new problems like how you mentioned Scott didn't tell steelwool the story meaning the secrets of security breach are assumptions making it difficult to come to that clear cut answer so while at some point I'm probably going to start trying to tie up that mess for now I'm focusing on pulling together the story of chapter 1 and in all honesty I think I've cracked it in a way that leaves no plot holes answers every question and anything that doesn't entirely fit well is explained away its as clean cut as anyone can get it to my knowledge, still doing some final checks and then laying it all down on paper then I might make a video on it but idk
It’s funny how in most games we’d recognise small inconsistencies as plot holes while in fnaf they become these big mysteries that go unanswered for years probably because there isn’t supposed to be an answer
Isn't there also the option that the model had that label as it wasn't originally intended for use in the final game? Someone going "that looks fine, put it in" and forgetting to take that off
Admittedly, it'd be weird to label it "prototype" and not "WIP" or "beta" or something, but I honestly originally thought that's where the video was going
It's not about not making assumptions, but rather going with the MOST LIKELY answer. The answer that doesn't have a yon of leaps in logic is the MOST LIKELY answer.
I believe the changes in ruin is a perfect example of Scott’s philosophy when it comes to the games. If something wasn’t conveyed well enough in the game it was introduced then Scott goes out of his way to clarify it in the sequel.
Love your videos so much, glad to see you uploading more.
Finally RIGHT questions, people tend to throw all the stones at Scott, but I feel like he consider other suggestion towards Lore. Come on, Golden Freddy become "golden" ONLY because Mark called him like that (initially it was yellow bear). Why Freddy called "prototype"? If devs put it there, they did it for a reason and most logical reason - explain why Freddy is friendly while others not in SB
7:19 THIS. Scott’s gone and now the story is left in the hands of other people who might do things that don’t line up with the first couple of games. Some details will just have to be forgotten in this transition, as the story is being told from someone else.
that's objectively wrong lol, he still works on the story together with Steel Wool, tf you talking about
@@SouMorse Eh guess I misunderstood. Anyways, Scott’s writing can be pretty…interesting at times so I’d bet there are details even he would like us to forget. Thank you for correcting me though and being respectful about it.
@@depressedcakke3877 he specifically said tha Security Breach was made in a moment where he wasnt confortable with telling the lore of the games to a bunch of people, so instead he told them what to put in the games and where to put it, like lore hints etc. But they put those things in places that pointed to a story that was different from what he was trying to tell, and other things were totally changed like the Burntrap ending. His intention from what I remember was that Burntrap would appear very quick like the Blob in Ruin, but Steel Wool turned it into a whole boss fight. Then he said that the games that came after were meant to correct the path the games were in and fix the mistakes made by Security Breach, cause currently he is actually working with the studio instead of just telling to put stuff in the game. The Burntrap ending being revealed as just Gregory's imagination is part of the course correction he mentioned. It was never supposed to happen that way so they simply said "none of that happened, Gregory made it all up", Which means that, with the context we have from the games that came after SB, we can look at security breach nowadays and actually use the things it gives us to solve the lore, cause whatever thing it presented in a way that could potentially point us in the wrong direction, the other games give us context that will prevent that from happening.
He said he wasn't going to repeat the mistake he did with SB. ITP, the books and the FLaF are completely under his supervision
This video might be filler, but I really loved it, and it really does make you think about theorising.
It makes you question, what are we even trying to figure out when theorising? In FNAF 1,2, and 3, it was obvious, the lore, but more precisely the intended lore by Scott Cawthon. But even when the Scott was still making the games, there became issues with that. When? Clearly Scott’s intentions for the lore have changed, with every game release but also whilst a game is out. And then you don’t know what should be used as evidence or not. Many assume Dream Theory was canon (I don’t believe so) and then discard all evidence in FNAF 4 (which I also don’t agree with doing) but these are simply the results of a developer making a changing story.
But then, once Scott. got others to help, we had a much bigger problem at our hands. I don’t even know you’re supposed to begin theorising about SB with our knowledge from the Dawko interview. When it comes to theorising I personally stay away from post-UCN stuff, one reason being because the lore was already a mess, and now it is so much worse.
I feel always trying to find the logical and intended lore, will lead you into realising that nothing works and that you hate Scott and FNAF theorising as a whole. At the end of the day you’ll get a theory you don’t even like. Personally, I’ve taken the approach to take the pieces given by the games, and make my interpretation of the lore and a theory that I myself like narratively, even if I don’t believe it’s intended. One example is Midnight Motorist. I really like RunawayMCI, and I did think it was intended, but after the release of FLAF, I know the chances are slim. Mustard Man is probably intended to be Purple Guy but I really don’t like that and I thought there was so much more to my theory, so I still stand by it as my favourite theory for MM, even if I don’t think it was intended.
This is a topic we don’t talk about much and we often start theorising without thinking about theorising as a whole and what we’re trying to do. This was a great video thank you so much for it :3
Honestly, I kinda blame Scott for not telling Steel Wool the story of Security Breach. Because it seems like were jumping to the conclusion of Tales Games being intentional as said “SB’s cut content” but I believe the community is more likely ignoring inconsistencies, thus making it more frustrating on how they’ll neglect errors from the books.
Also, the games seem to have lack of confirmation of whenever the books are within the Gameline- here we go again, most people started assuming newer games are supporting the books but from the look of it, it’s just lack of confirmation. But instead, cherry picking Game Theory’s theories.
Ngl, I think the books kinda over complicated things by just telling the story and then let the games not tell the story. Problem is the mob mentality of “books are not canon, but parallel the games’ story”
I believe were in this Era where people are getting tired of the games not telling the story and now start digging through the books to see if they give us answers, let along another game and we don’t get a lot of confirmation. And now with the books, the community had developed an echo chamber.
And I rather not solve the lore but instead hang out with the community and just throw out silly theories to the community.
So this video was indeed worth my time 👍
@@Cross_Corp64 the new game is literally set in a location first introduced in the books
@@at_witts_end3470 ITP? That doesn’t really convince me. ITP Game makes several plot holes if it’s saying the Frights books are within continuity coexisting with the ITP Game.
But saying “the new game is literally set in a location first introduced in the books” isn’t really convincing to me.
So most likely, Frights and Tales are in the games but the definitive version from the books is inaccurate to what’s in the games.
@@Cross_Corp64 Secret of the Mimic is set in Edwin's Factory from the books
@@at_witts_end3470 How do we know with the teasers shown right now?
Just wait until the full release says that it’s Edwin’s factory.
And just because you’re making an excuse for saying the games show the things from the books doesn’t really add up. I mean we had William Afton’s name back from the Silver Eyes (a book that’s a separate continuity) and we also got Henry and Charlie from those books. And of course, Freddy’s Pizzeria, Circus Baby’s, The MCI, and the Pizzaplex are canon to both games and books but have differences.
We don’t know if we’re in Edwin’s factory or not in those teasers!!! But I know SOTM is going to clarify it!
(Sorry if this came off to be offensive)
@@Cross_Corp64 everyone who has played the demo says it features a factory with fall Fest costumes And props. The factory is said to be in disrepair and the Mimic lives there.
The gator costume and dog costume from the book reportedly show up. Also, a giant octopus is seen, apparently, who is likely the origin of the "spider form" in the books.
i mean i believe in some measure we should apply the concept of occam's razor especially when it comes to looks
take for example the withereds from fnaf 2 that supposedly get refurbished into the classics, not only are their outer shells different the endos are also different, but we know scott likes to design robots based on his previous games before fnaf and maybe he simply just made the withereds model from scratch
springtrap and scraptrap are so different in design that it logically makes no sense how scraptrap is william trying to repair himself after the fnaf 3 fire
burntrap and the mimic look so different in design that if there was not enough enviromental storytelling to imply that they are the same thing, based on design alone it would make no sense to come to that conclusion
my take is that designs should be roughly ignored (since complete redesigns have happened, in the scott era of games and after)
The whole Mimic/Burntrap Situation, Phone Guy being the killer and Midnight Motorist debates come to mind in terms of overcomplicating.
Ruin literally shows in it's enviromental storytelling that Burntrap is the mimic, the Fnaf 2 phone calls very obviously allude to the Purple Guy working the week before Jeremy (completely deconfirming PG's case too in the progress) and Scott needed the most straight forward pointing at Mustard Man's identity with a spin off racer even tho it was narretively only possible to be William with overwhelming levels of evidence against one UCN line and a simple recolour.
The community often overthinks little details like toes and endoskeletons instead of actually trying to look at the bigger picture.
Isn't glichtrap dead by the time of ruin? And the mimic looks nothing like the burntrap 3d model
Burntrap being the Mimic makes 0 sense
Ruin does no such thing lmfao
You talking about the UCN stuff is funny because there's someone in the comments doing that lmao
There's scratches on the vent in the Mimics room and Burntraps room that use the same textures. The lighting in the Mimics room is purple now, while Burntraps is orange. They're the same. If Burntrap actually mattered and was William, he wouldn't have been entirely ignored in Ruin and then replaced/retconned (which wasn't the case. Scott said Steel Wool just didn't know his plan at first).@@TheHaddonfieldRegistry
I do think it's becoming an unruly monster now, the methodology behind finding the "truth" that is. Largely, by accident too. I think the story was unfinished and a little poorly told through the first 3 games. We the fans dug deeper to draw connections where there truthfully weren't any, and it began a cycle of expectation and deliverance.
We are at a point now where we have gone through extreme lengths to almost create a deeper story for some small indie games that grew in admiration, size and ambition beyond belief. So from those humble beginnings, it grew into what it is today. A multimedia mega-hit!
With the efforts previously shown by the fans to desperately get "ahead" of Scott's initial rapid, and even dare I say early release schedule. It felt like it was a game in itself encouraged by Scott and his unique approach to fostering his audience. Later games gave answers to larger questions held by a growing audience. But as with every new game, came more questions and less answers. We are getting past the point of diminishing returns and sadly have now come full circle. The same point Scott feared we would reach with the reveal of the box's contents.
So the story expanded outside of the games, into different media and I feel the story telling as a result suffers for it. It now feels like there's too many similarities that just aren't quite the exact fit, to help navigate the difficult maze of FNaF lore. The book VS game diegetics and eerily similar continuities are only confusing things further. Stoking the flames more.
I sound horribly negative about it. I'm not, in truth I'm anxious that the community is coming from so many different angles that the "truth" may never be fully explained as there are so many theories to subscribe to that we will undoubtedly have very mixed feelings about something being conclusive. I just had hoped for a more concise story with a conclusion. My fear is we won't see that, or worse still the conclusion to the original stories has happened and as such wasn't satisfying. For me at least.
The writing has never been top bar, but it's inconsistency leaves a lot to be desired. Same with the ambiguity not being a consistent thing by default. Somethings are just easier to understand than others and some methods used to convey details doesn't always land first try. Leading to further confusion. In short, a few less questions with each new game and a few more conclusions would be welcome to bring back some focus.
Or maybe I'm just too old to keep up any more. I was a young lad when I first started this series. I'm old now, and feel it! Yap over. Sorry. This video struck a chord with me it seems. Liked and subbed!
This video will probably be your biggest one. Shi hella good. And when you said fans could be making cheeky references everything clicked .
So many details are ignored, missed, or misinterpreted all the time. There are so many people in comment sections that I’ve quoted the FNAF 1 newspapers at. I also have had so many people pointing out evidence pieces that I use that are actually fanon or rely on other theories that aren’t fully proven. How is anyone supposed to solve anything?
Into the Pit is doing the very thing I was worried about. I sincerely think it's just a "Fazbear Frights" game that might span into more games based on the little fun goosebump style stories. It is *not* a mainline game, it's not supposed to be over analyzed like this. It's so bloated with easter eggs, casual references for fun, and is just one big ten year celebration of FnaF and a Frights call back. Scott talked about how he let them do their thing and just gave feedback rarely. It's not meant to solve things outside of those Frights Stories. >
Did he say that he let them do their thing in the interview with Dawko, or somewhere else? It sounds familiar, but I don't remember exactly.
@@Cryonide Yeah, he mentioned that he was proud of the work they did while talking about how they'd go quiet/silent for stretches of time, then pop back up showing lots of progress.
The problem with saying that Scott letting Mega Cat do whatever they want and expand upon the original scope massively for what originally smaller or just for fun means it isn't important is that the same thing also applies to both Help Wanted and Security Breach, both originally being much smaller in scope until Scott let Steel Wool freely expand them far beyond their original scopes and in the case of Help Wanted, more than just a little VR title for fun. Both Mega Cat and DJ Sterf have also confirmed that they went out of their way to avoid contradicting the series with Into the Pit's content, which shouldn't matter if the game isn't important. This game is a spin off, but it's no different from FNaF World or Special Delivery still being parts of the story. I really don't understand why this of all games is supposedly not important when nothing actually points to such a scenario. Why would a FNaF game as big as this essentially be all for nothing? This is the same series where Scott couldn't not make World, UCN, or Help Wanted canon. He felt inclined to make them canon, so why would he suddenly drop this feeling of necessity out of nowhere? This is also simply ignores the fact that Frights as a whole is meant to be a crucial part of the series no matter if it's one with the games or not. A game adaptation of that same series has no signs of dropping that intent, especially if again it's not meant to contradict anything. And we have the interactive novel which itself is based on the game adaptation and is part of a larger book series that has shown no reason not to be canon to the games, especially with The Week Before explicitly being referred to as a prequel to FNaF1 as well as a book specifically focusing on Cassie's time at the Pizzaplex prior to our first look at that in Ruin. There's nothing about the Interactive novels that implies it's jumping back and forth across continuities, much like how The Silver Eyes trilogy and Tales are consistent to their respective series. Frights was the only one to ever be given a disjointed status, but even then that which is meant to tell us things and those that are just stories for fun should be clear based on the contents of each story.
TL;DR: What's with the FNaF community and assuming things as non canon until proven otherwise? No other series works like this nor has FNaF itself, Scott, or anyone involved ever established such a thing.
... OR Maybe the paint on Freddy's foot just got removed and is now showing in RUIN.
Honestly, I think this is the case because it's too perfect (with the only issue is the colouring of the box in his chest) and the "Prototype" stamp may also explain why Freddy's personality is so bland in SB, more obviously robotic in the way he speaks.
It's not *just* the coloring of the box though. It's the fact that the box is there in the first place. Someone had to put that there.
It's also worth noting that the box is notably crumpled up, as if its been there for a while and has suffered wear and tear like the rest of his body did.
That's such a weird thing to randomly add to a character for 0 reason. Weird enough for me to doubt that there wasn't a reason for it.
@@Cryonide Speaking of the box in the chest, I'm confused that in SB, when you grab the Faz-watch, the box disappears when you see the inside of Freddy next, probably just a game thing though.
I Think Scott Started Paying Attention To Stuff Made Post Security Breach, So Things On Ruin, Help Wanted 2 Or Five Laps Of Freddy, He Is Well Aware, And Not Just After The Game's Release (And In The Case Of FLaF, Its Demo)
About details that everyone just ignores. Midnight motorist. Do you remember which side of the road cars are driving? The answer, the left side, which mean that midnight motorist state in UK. And the only charachters from UK we know is Aftons, because William has British accent. Does that make any sense? For me, no
Idk, might be a game play mechanic
Is there any direct confirmation where the games take place? Cause the games could just be taking place in Britain
@@ThisIsAHandle-xz5yo ITP and most books take place in or around Utah, USA and lots of details, such as currency and legal practice, suggest a place in America.
@@ThisIsAHandle-xz5yo FNAF 6 takes place in Washington County, Utah, per the legal documents when you get sued
The sprite of the Stitch Wraith was never meant to be seen clearly, so the sprite itself tells us virtually nothing other than that something that resembles the stitch wraith is there.
Other than that... your suggestion of the consequences of too many creative cooks in the kitchen really does require looking into. We need to learn how much of an effect that has on the games.
Peak thumbnail
I think the problem is less that people are looking too deep into things, and more that instead of coming to their own conclusions, people are relying too heavily on other people's theories to understand the story, to the point where they're acting like literally nothing in FNAF is confirmed so they don't have to think as hard.
Aucoms razor was also used for the cassidy name snswer as the last solutions for the letters break the pattern the first few established
Thought part of this would be about HyperDroid finding out the Crying Child's name was Dave via simple deduction of a puzzle that'd been overthought for years from the start, but I mean...I think theorizing as long as it doesn't jump to astronomical absurd concepts is fine, but getting bogged down in the weeds when we have things like Scott admitting how the creative process works makes it kinda clear FNAF isn't meant to be that deep anymore after "The Box" has basically died.
Explanation for Freddy: the mimic saw what happened to real Freddy and used its influence to repeat (or mimic) the event on a prototype Freddy
The title is exactly what I've been thinking for a moment lmao 😭😭 (The crossover Yttd x Fnaf is incredible omg)
Hear me out, I think the princess quest ending isn’t meant to be the true ending of security breach, and that the true ending is actually the Burntrap ending.
The whole reason people say this ending isn’t canon is because Gregory draws a picture of it like he does for the other non-canon endings. This suggests to many people that it’s a figment of his imagination, which is fair.
However, in his drawing, we see Burntrap and the animatronic blob. We also see the blob briefly in Ruin, meaning the blob is 100% real. The only ending in which Gregory would encounter the blob and even know what it looks like is the Burntrap ending.
Heck, the fact that in Ruin we literally go beneath Roxy Raceway, and the place looks exactly how it does in Security Breach, should imply that the Burntrap ending is canon.
But the thing is, there’s still a lot of evidence for the princess quest ending being canon. Do you understand how infuriating the lore of these games is?
Edit:
I mean, I get that Scott really didn’t intend for the Burntrap ending to turn out the way it did, but that doesn’t change the fact that the evidence for it being canon exists in ruin.
Like, how did the pizzaplex come to be in ruins, anyway? The dlc doesn’t take place that long after the main game, so if the PQ ending were canon, the pizzaplex would be mostly intact (with the exception of bots being disabled). It makes more sense for Ruin to take place after the Burntrap ending, during which the whole pizzaplex caves in.
Or how about Roxy’s eyes, Chica’s beak, and Monty’s claws being missing? All three of those items are *required* for the Burntrap ending (if you don’t use glitches), so why would they be missing if Gregory didn’t use them to go beneath Roxy Raceway?
Yeah, this ending might not have been what Scott intended for the story at first, but it seems like Steel Wool took it and ran with it in Ruin.
Scott has basically confirmed it isn't though.
He explicitly stated that Burntrap was never supposed to move, only ever be seen standing still.
My understanding is he was supposed to be kind of like GMan in Half Life 1
I think Burntrap was 100% suppose to be the true ending, but then Scott was like "Uh guys, a burned Scraptrap hidden in some ruins as an easter egg was all Burntrap was suppose to be" and so Steel Wool retconned it with Ruin
@@EighmyLupin just watch the scott interview 2.0, this is simply isnt the case
Scott confirmed PQ is canon. Because Burntrap was never meant to be the big bad. He was just supposed to be Gregorys version of Glitchtrap since he grew up in the FNaF lore, as opposed to Glitchtrap who was based on Mimics mascot costumes and Spring Bonnie
Well, for the stitch wraith thing (which I have put like, surface level thought into.) Maybe since the old mini games got possessed, the kids that died in the past from pit spring bonnie went to have remnant or something go into the machines?
Yes we are definitely making it complicated 100%
I just want to solve the original story before delving in fully to the new story.
YTTD is peak
TBH, I sometimes feel like getting into FNaF theorizing takes away your media literacy.
Yes. You are overthinking this. All of this. And you will never solve the lore if you keep doing it.
Also, as some others pointed out, you misunderstand what Occam's Razor even is.
Mind explaining what you think it is? Because this google search result lines up pretty well with what I said at the start of this video.
I'd also like your examples of what I'm overthinking, if you don't mind.
waiting for the day that this guy uses midori or sou's theme in a fnaf video
I’m beginning to think that, while Scott’s comments in the interview has helped to dissuade the idea of the franchise lore being unrecoverable going forward and actually puts some hope into the writing going forward, Ruin onwards minus Into the Pit (because Scott also implies he was pretty hands-off with that one too, sadly), i think it came at the cost of killing speculation for anything Into the Pit and pre-Ruin, even some stuff within Ruin! There’s no confidence in anything we’ve been given outside of that, with 1-UCN being in limbo and Help Wanted/Security Breach/Frights/Stichtwraith Stingers/Tales all being unreliable to look through at best (and most likely Into the Pit because of Scott’s comments).
I exclude Help Wanted 2 here because of where it was in the release timeline. While Into the Pit has been in development for years upon years, likely pre SB, HW2 came after SB and Ruin, so after Scott had his wake up call and realized things needed to change. So, while he admits to not play testing the game’s functionality do to how terrifying it is to him, he almost definitely was in more open, direct communication with Steel Wool about the story and direction of the game (probably explaining all of the cut content too, as early work probably started towards the end of SB’s development).
It’s sad that faith in these titles being anything worth speculating on is so shot, but I think that’s part of the reason why we were given three extremely likely to be mainline books in a short timeframe, with one likely clarifying the actual lore of Into the Pit proper. That way the fandom has some things to speculate on (HW2, the interactive novels, the upcoming SotM game, parallels from the movies since Scott has been extremely involved in them, and Ruin to a degree).
Interesting bit about the Ruin point, they updated Cassies model with the HW2 one way after Ruin released.
Why would they not just update SB Freddys textures with the prototype stamp if he was always meant to be a prototype?
I really feel this. If stuff from the games keep showing up in games of ambiguous canonicity thy also contradict the books then how are we supposed to parse the timeline
That does make it when scott hid the lore behind the details but now that it's different companies making the games. Are they doing the same or are they just making easter eggs?
frights parallel theory overcomplicated the entire lore
Y’see, this is why I don’t get into FNaF lore post Pizza Sim. Theories are fun and all, but NONE of this crap is worth my time.
4:06 doesn’t vanessa also say in the base game that freddy had to be replaced before or smt or did i just make this up 😭? if she did say this it makes sense he would have been supposed to have that on his foot although it’s very likely my memory is lying soo…😅
FNAF fan answer before watching: Yes.
Simple answer
YES
Uhm yeh, but i love the speculations people come about the lore.
I know what's in the FNAF 4 box
Security Breach already had to be updated for Ruin to be added, if Glamrock Freddy was always meant to have "prototype" on his foot then why didn't Glamrock Freddy's texture change, all it takes is applying the new Texture to the model instead of adding new model with Shattered Roxy
(Roxy haveing a specifically different endo doesn't make sense regardless since Chica, Monty, presumably Freddy, and the other Glamrock Endos are still the same-ish)
@@RaisinHook it's the toy story 2 thing, where the paint on the bottom has rubbed off. It's why Gregorys able to hack into Freddy, unlike the others who are far more connected to Mimic1.
What makes more sense? There's 2 broken down Freddy's missing their head and one of them just disappeared, or they're the same and prototype was just covered up with paint?
Same reason it makes no sense for Burntrap and Mimic to be different? You're saying there's 2 evil endoskeletons below the pizzaplex with the ability to mess with electronics and with Nightmare claws? Why? That seems contrived.
@@RaisinHook Roxy has a different Endo because in HW2 we give her the security node mask that allows her to be herself in AR. This is explained in game.
@@at_witts_end3470 that’s not how paint works, it worked like that in toy story because it was painted recently, and walking around would do more damage to his feet then Staff bots dismantling him since they would just rip off the foot instead of rubbing it
I think the answer is simply: the player is not meant to see under Freddy's foot in Security Breach. That moment in Ruin is supposed to be a reveal.
@@matti.8465 you literally enter the Upgrade machine looking at the bottom of freddy's feet
I find the whole idea of applying Occam’s razor to FNAF problematic. I understand how this concept can be applied to most problems, but is FNAF presenting us with a problem or the solution? Yes, the community does have to make assumptions based off of clues and breadcrumbs in order to piece together the story. However, Scott very much does not have to make assumptions. Because information was being conveyed cryptically, Scott may have created gaps in information that the community has to fill in with assumptions. He has stated before that he views every game as a chance to clarify previous content and has had to correct community assumptions before. If the only argument against a theory is Occam’s razor, is that really an issue with the theory when the whole reason the theory exists is because Scott is purposefully not giving us the full story?
I don’t know if any of this makes sense, but it feels like this communities constant parroting of Occam’s razor to dismiss ideas is extremely weak. I see no issue with any theory creating or containing assumptions and no reason to discount one theory because it relies on more assumptions than another.
It was probably an oversight
Yes. Absolutely.
Short answer: absolutely not
Most Fnaf clues are relatively straightforward, that's why I believe AftonMM is wrong and the real story is about a father of a missing kid
But when I suggested that in the subreddit with all the evidence I have, I got sent to downvote hell because people believe FLaP confirmed AftonMM...
AftonMM is literally the most straightforward answer that require the least assumptions other than "Scott made him yellow for this one". Which i believe he did so there wouldn't be a Miketrap situation again
@@JoblessJimmy AftonMM has no answer for the mascot footprints (the most important clue) and the characters' personalities don't match any of the Aftons
Meanwhile MCIMM easily explains the mascot footprints, and the Toy Chica cutscenes confirm it
Are we over complicating it? I fell like that’s a bit redundant to ask 😂
Yes.
yeah.
I like your videos
Scott refusing to tell the current creators his story, but making them follow his outline makes the games literally unsolvable. He has to either tell the current creators the story so that they can't accidentally contradict it, or he has to let them tell their own stories. He can't have it both ways and still have the lore be coherent.
Yeah he's stated that he fixed this with Ruin and HW2 which have realigned the story with where he wanted to go originally.
I always found surprising that Chika in ultimate custom night answers how Afton did all the murders but everybody says she is just rambling about nonsense and skip her explaining midnight motorist. Also when it says later that night it doesn't mean it was raining before.
Yeah probably
Short answer before I watch all this video... Yes.
5:53 I do think Prototype was always supposed to be there, HOWEVER, I do find the arguments for multiple Freddys to be convincing as well.
Honestly, the main reason I think we are overcomplicating the lore is because we are putting too much focus on everything Pre-Help Wanted.
Finally
scott cawthon is just an unironically bad storyteller, or at least when it comes to fnaf
Fun video keep up the good work and remember jesus loves you all god bless
YES LMAO
Fans didnt overcomplicate it, Scott did
not even kinda of true
Yes, but you are technically correct. FNAF fans over complicate the lore because Scott never had any. His game blew up so he had to get a story together. Problem was he's not very good at it. His way of story telling is Retconing. Every big reveal in the series has been measured based on the reaction from the fans. Scott doesn't have a Fnaf story. You do.
Wasn't scott at some point commenting on Game Theory videos, confirming or denying stuff?