Did Matpat Ever Solve FNAF's Lore?
Вставка
- Опубліковано 16 жов 2024
- Hello Internet! Welcome to Sandwichly's Channel! A place where we review the past 9 years of Matpat covering FNAF. It's crazy to even think of Matpat without FNAF and FNAF without Matpat. Despite that cursed reality where he doesn't talk about FNAF, Matpat would create videos, shorts, and Livestreams discussing FNAF. So in today's video, let's discuss Matpat in regards to FNAF. HOPE YOU ENJOY THE VIDEO!
#fnaf #fnaftheory #fnafsecuritybreach
Written by Sandwichly
Edited by Diego Cato
Thumbnail by @lotodots (massive thank you, subscribe to lotodots if you want more FNAF content)
thanks Matpat for the memories. Will keep you and your family in thoughts and prayers.
I mean it’s kind of hard to make a solid theory when your dealing with the guy who admitted to moving the goalpost every time you got too close to getting it right
Counternarritives are key!
Yea. It's hard to solve the story that isn't written down. Cawthon admitted himself that he just keeps changing the story.
so true, how can you solve a story that's constantly changing and moving itself away from what people are thinking/theorizing about?
Literally
Eh ? The issues is when Mat keeps pushing his ideas into stuff more then what’s actually is happening
Think pushing the line
3 come to mind
The Zelda games
Hollow knight
And sane is ness
More come to mind
Matt sometimes makes his ideas the truth
Before fnaf 3 came out, he successfully solved fnaf 2. I'd count that
Most of it, yes
Love how scott keeps on changing the lore to stretch out the franchize smh then he dipped
@@janekilIer Scott could have changed the lore like only One time (maybe)
No,because he said that purple guy was phone guy,and scott said about that theory that mat got"almost everything right"
@@janekilIerhe never did that,matpat was just wrong
I’ll never forget how matpat correctly guessed that glitchtrap was an ai, then backpedaled into thinking it was afton until the books spelled it out.
He also guessed Casey’s dad is Bonnie bro with barely any evidence
@@AustinPlayzNothing he could say that he smells the secrets in the air and I would believe him /j
I refuse to accept that part of the lore. Fnaf6 is the end of it. That is all
@@smtandearthboundsuck8400 that’s fine by me. The new games are a soft-reboot anyway.
@@smtandearthboundsuck8400 Until we get something like mike actually being in glamrock freddy or whatever it should be fairly safe to just split the games there. This is a new arc
"First host of game theory" why do these words hurt so much
because now we are onto the next era of theorists also his retirement vid was sad he admitted it himself
He was the first, and he has seen everything.
I would use the words "The Founder of Game Theory"
@mh6987 not "founder" more "creator" since if it wasn't for him creating game theory, it would not exist
They always will. I don't really watch them anymore tbh
tbh at this point i don't think the fnaf lore CAN be solved because of all the retcons and plot holes
you're absolutely right, i really doubt scott had a consistent story in mind while creating the first games so rapidly. not saying they're bad, i genuinely love fnaf
I agree with you 100%. I sometimes think that Scott built the lore on the fan theories (even the wrong ones other than matpat) so there is a chance there is a plot hole, a plot hole that will make solving fnaf's lore inevitable.
But I still think that Scott had a lore and a plan in his mind after fnaf 2 though.@@frinkywinky
@@bonabbyteit1516 that's very likely! i think the main 'issue' with the storytelling is that fnaf 1 and 2 taught the fanbase to inspect every detail, while the plot wasn't yet thought out in every detail (in the beginning at least, hence why you get codes clarifying dates in later games). i think scott is a really enthusiastic writer with lots of cool ideas that he wants to implement, but with that loses sight of what's already there, if that makes sense? that's just my theory though, a GAME THEORY!
(also side note: did we ever figure out why chica's beak is missing in the pixelated minigame?)
H@@frinkywinky holy shit ball Monokuma
@@AtlasBozan ball🤖monokuma🤖
I have always held the belief Scott Cawthon had no solid clue what he was doing and just let MatPat make the lore with occasional tweaks for stuff he didn’t like
Doubt
yeah this would be interesting, but its like.. REALLY stupid.
without scott having lore, the games wouldnt have hints for matpat for them to piece together.
@@HabitualThinkerPeople will connect anything whether it’s meant to be or not. A coherent time line does not need to pre-exist for one to be fabricated from seemingly related information. I also agree I don’t think Scott had it all planned out. I think he changed things on the fly as the community or Matpat reacted to them, and I think at times Cawthon changed details to spite Matpat who quite frankly had more coherent ideas.
I don’t think Cawthon had an A to B. FNAF is certainly an evolving idea for him.
@@heroichitsuji As much as I want to disagree and say Cawthon has everything together. Was just sitting back laughing at what theorist got wrong. After hearing that the team working on the game changed something because Mat guessed it strengthen your statement in my opinion.
I believe the truth, as it so often is, is somewhere in the middle. I think Scott always goes into every game with a general idea of what he wants to convey, in his own, frustratingly cryptic way. But he's also outright admitted to changing things in response to external factors, or retconning things, or even outright altering things in response to Game Theory directly. I don't think it's a stretch to believe that Scott will occasionally throw something out with no clear goal for what it means, whether that's just to mess with people or to base lore off of what people interpret it as, that's up for debate. The Box is a perfect example of what I'm saying. I believe that Scott did have an idea of what was in the box when he released FNAF 4. He said things like "I guess everyone assumed I filled the game with random Easter eggs this time. I didn't." and "What's in the box? It's the pieces put together, but would the community accept it that way?" He then later admitted to realizing that the contents of the box had changed AFTER Matpat implied it in a theory.
You can't solve something that never had an end solution.
Then you solve the end solution
@@fewkeyfewkey5414 There's no end solution to be solved
That’s a bar!
I mean scot cowton probably has a paper sheet or a word document with the whole story and the storyline. And he tries to throw it in the games books ext. So there is an end, he just doesn't know how to give it slightly, and not just say:"yea actually the crying child is a cat"
Matt solved four, but people despised the dream aspect so much that Scott jumped the shark. It doesn't help that Scott lost control of his story years ago.
I find it funny that people are more satisfied with a mimic than they are with a coma dream.
I also find it funny that they seem to ignore the second retcon in help wanted!
It always seemed like the dream theory was what Scott was trying to do to me
@@frostycane5134 I fully agree and honestly, I loved it. It tied everything together beautifully. It wasn't lazy like some authors do with it
@@SnackCakesIt really wasnt. You guys are just looking back with rose tinted glasses. I was there, and it was just as stupid then as it is now. Fnaf 2 literally has dream segments between nights. What are those? Dreams within dreams? What are the minigames? How does Scott go from a concrete timeline to dreams after 3 games of consistency? Etc. Etc.
@@TheRatOnFire_ Maybe you're right, either way I like it
He didn't solve it, he helped create it
He didn't create it
@@lokimiguel2452that’s why he said helped
@@jerrywizliz he didn't help either lol
@@lokimiguel2452 Bruh yes he did
@@siei3i37 not at all
MatPat deserves more credit than he is given because I don't know anyone else with the patience that he had in trying to solve the most unnecessarily convoluted story that a video game series has had in recent years.
If a video game doesn't tell you a coherent and complete story from its beginning to its end, it's not really worth playing. One thing is a first part with its due sequel, another is to sell you a story in parts so that you will spend more money to understand it.
I understand that part of the appeal of games is the puzzles to solve the story, but if I have to buy a book or see the source code of a website to find out the name of a character or a date, I am not going to waste my time and money on it. But MatPat always did it for us.
Most of what I know from Fnaf is FROM Game Theory. Hell it’s the only reason I can make heads or tails on any of it
If the game is still fun to play then it’s fine
@@turbo_jake As fun as point and click games or buggy and clearly half-made 3D games, I guess.
@@Theunloved1738 Me too. Ain't nobody got the time or the money to buy a bunch of books that sound like fanfics just to see what detail of the games' history they reveal in one or two pages, lmao.
I 100% disagree with this sentiment. There are TONS of fantastic games with stories that aren't spelled out for you entirely. I mean just look at every From Software game. You literally need to go watch a VaatiVidya series to understand the lore of dark souls and yet it's one of the best series of games to a lot of people.
Destiny 2 also fits this bill. Having an insanely deep and complicated story told through item descriptions. And yet people love to play D2.
He actually managed to solve a large portion of the overall story after FNAF 3 but it all kept getting retconned because Scott couldn't make up his mind. Obviously he hit a lot of bumps in the road but I'd say the majority of his theories still hold up decently well when it comes to what we think of the Lore now.
I love that your character is just a man with a cartoon profile picture of a sandwich or burger for a head.
El Sandwiche
phone guy dsaf but awesome
@@cunkjunk Exactly. Lol
@@Sandwichlysandvich and i are coming for you
What I found really funny is that, just a day after his retirement, he went to Scott Cawthon's house like: "Allright, I'm out Wtf was going on back there?"
lol he did?
@@MajinEvelynno
@@MajinEvelynyes he did, watch his retirement video and it was towards the end, after he gets out the car with Stephanie and he knocks on a door which slowly opens to Scott cawthon saying I’ve been expecting you
@@JordanDuffy49 thank you!
@@MajinEvelyn it’s okay 😊
From "Is foxy phone guy?" To "Has a seriel killer tranferd his consciousness into a mimicing robot from the 1970's?"
Who you going to call psychic friend fredbear
The flashbacks….the flashbacks…
He's here he's there he's everywhere....
Fedy
@@BunnyOfDoom89who ya gonna call?
@@reallegendgamer379 Psychic friend freadbear
Matpat may have more wrongs than rights, but without him, the fnaf theorist community wouldn't be as big as it is today
That Golden Freddy point you made in the first 3 minutes to give more context, Phone Guy said “Someone used one of the spares, a yellow one, now none of them are acting right.” The same night in the video game this line was present, it had Golden Freddy’s AI active. So the game was deliberately telling us it was the Golden Freddy suit at the time until 3 said “it was another suit.”
Or mabey afton used 2 suits
eh
golden freddy can actually show up on any night, it's just extremely rare
@@Zoxiry Not in Fnaf 2. In Fnaf 1, yes, but it extremely rare. In Fnaf 2, his AI only becomes active on Night 6 and the Custom Night.
Think of it like this. Freddy in Fnaf 1 has his AI set to like 5/20 in Night 5 of the first game. Like the custom night.
Bonnie and Chica would be at 10/20 for their ai by night 5. The only difference is their ai becomes like 12-15/20 later in the night.
Freddy in this game didn’t get that increments, his ai would be hard stuck at 5/20. Golden Freddy fits this category. His ai was 0/20 from nights 1-5 in Fnaf 2. Then he’s set to like 5/20 for night 6 when the phone call happens.
@@vibezonegaming you don't need to explain the ai to me i know how it works
@@Zoxiry You might be mixing his fnaf2 behaviour up with fnaf1. In fnaf2 hes a regular animatronic that appears constantly starting night 6 when that yellow suit phone call happens. It was only fnaf1 that he had a small chance to randomly appear on any night.
16:05 Springlocks were never set off. Remember, when there is a wearer, then Springlocks activate. However, Fredbear was already in Animatronic mode, meaning it couldn't be the Springlocks. And Springlocks are designed to keep the Animatronic parts in place, so that the wearer can wear the suit.
I think that’s just a mistake on Scott’s part.
The Springlock suits in general don’t make sense if you think about them for too long. But the implication in FNAF4 was that the kid squirming around and crying make the animatronic chomp down when it wasn’t supposed to.
@@e-man7418 No??? The minigame clearly shows Fredbear already was "chomping" to make it look like he was singing. He chomped CC's head because that was what he was programmed to do. Literally like you put something into an active hydraulic press, it will still try to finish what is was meant to do
@@audax117
The problem is that it carries 2 implications
1. Michael somehow thought the mouth would stop moving with no evidence showing it would, which is dumb, and makes a "prank" seem more malicious.
2. That Freddy's mouth by default has enough bite force to crush a human skull and no safe guards. Which is worse than the springlock suits.
Everything just fits better if you assume some kind of mechanical failure occurred that caused the bite to happen.
@@e-man7418 bro, how old are you?
1. The game shows time and time again Michael was mean to his brother, he was a dumb teen and did maliciously, he probably didnt thought the robot would crush the kid's head tho.
2. Mangle exists, thats enough to show you how much Freddy Fazbear Entertainment cares about the safety of their costumers, it's actually a pretty big plot point in the latest games lil bro
@@audax117
I'm old enough to know that if Scott wants to be vague about the story then I get to interpret it however I want.
I also know as a brother, you can go too far with a sibling, but the idea that Michael just put his brother in the bear's mouth with no clear idea that it would stop moving is beyond believability for me. It fits better if we assume he thought the mouth would stop moving because he's seen the robots work. And some failure caused it to snap.
As someone who's worked with machine parts, I prefer assuming it doesn't crunch that hard by default. Mangle is a special case because 1. I don't think you ever see her bite someone and 2. She's... Well mangled. Any safety features would be broken.
You wanna think everyone was missing a couple (more) braincells throughout the plot then fine.
short answer? yes he did, and it was glorious.
goodbye matt, you gave us a wonderful childhood.
You missed some key building blocks that created the more outlandish or older theories.
The 87/83 bite confusion being linked to the teasers leading up to the release of fnaf 4. Scotts website code had repeating lines of 87, then some random numbers, then ended on 83. This teaser built the expectation that the story was linked to the 87 bite.
Misinterpretation(?) of the survival log book created the mikevictim theory.
16:43
It doesn't ever make sense for Elizabeth to die first though? The way she died was because of an animatronic built for killing, and William never wanted her to get near Baby. The Empty girl's room is most likely just a way for Scott to say "there is a girl in the family". And the Fredbear stomach mouth... Let's come back to Scott's "what is seen in shadows is easily misunderstood in the mind of a child." This most likely is a reflection of CC seeing someone being put in a Springlock suit, or in the worst case, dying in a Springlock accident, most likely an employee. That IF the nightmares are from CC's perspective, which they could be, but they could also be from Michael's perspective, since he KNOWS how Nightmare looks like, as seen in the Survival Logbook.
Everything points out to either Nightmare Fredbear representing a misunderstanding in CC's mind, or a mix of Michael's trauma of losing both his siblings to animatronics, CC to Fredbear, and Elizabeth to Baby's stomach mouth.
But we don't know his motivation though. Resting any theory on William's motivation is like trying to build a Jenga tower on the side of a hill. It rests on nothing. Scott's idea for William is non existent. William was canonically British for about three games. And then they said fuck that shit and now he's American. William is an old cardboard cutout held together by silly string. He can change to anything at anytime. Expecting Scott to have good plot is not a basket you should let your eggs within 20 feet of. If you want to know the plot you have to follow only exactly what has explicitly been shown. Anything else is as real the fucking illusion disks from the books.
@@frankyboy8513 I'm not even resting it on his motivation, but on the fact that the robots themselves were built for killing, when we have a pretty good progression of murder outside -> murder with a suit -> murder robots. There is absolutely no reason or logic for Baby, one of the more advanced robots in the franchise, to have been built before Fredbear.
@@kamiwriterleonardo6345 uh yeah there is if you ignore motivation. He just wanted to make murder robots. Simple. He was just a murderer who liked to murder. That's as far as we know of his character.
You're blatantly ignoring FNaF 4's evidence. Again, the only thing FNaF 4 says about Elizabeth is that she existed. Other than that, the evidence goes to show William's motivation, in one single line: "I will put you back together." There, this single line, said on CC's deathbed, pretty much affirms that he NEEDS to die first. Otherwise, you're trying to ignore pieces of the puzzle that build the whole picture while making other pieces fit on places they do not fit.
@kamiwriterleonardo6345 that doesn't say that's why he's murdering people. For all we know it was just another nail in the coffin. If his goal was to resurrect cc. Than why would he murder other children? By this logic he wants to use remnant correct? How would he know remnant exists? If he has no haunted robots. Than he has zero clue that would help. In order for him to even think cc CAN be brought back to life another child has to die first for him to know what remnant is.
16:57 no it isn't. Baby mentions that the room was empty when she killed Elizabeth, how could he witness that?
Also ''What is seen in the shadows is easily misunderstood in the mind of a child'', theres no misunderstanding if he saw elizabeth die
@@Ben-zg8xk What that refers to in that context is that, if a child were to see that, they could potentially misinterpret that situation as Elizabeth being eaten by Baby
@@Invisibool but being eaten and being killed would be basically the same thing. He would be scared of both. The hint just cant refer to that since sister location wasnt a thing at the time, SL says elizabeth was the only one in the room, AND elxiabeths death ahppened later
@@Ben-zg8xkwell Fnaf 4 was supposed to be last game and it was supposed to be a dream, Scott was quite literally bullied into continuing the story and had to connect the dots and fill the gaps of past games, thats why we don’t have clear timeline and why we can’t say for certain who was killed first with evidence
@@stefan.marsenicc I don’t really know what part of my comment you’re responding to, but dream theory was never confirmed canon and we can say pretty definitely that crying child died first
It's a flawed question because the lore and solutions would change every release bc Scott had no idea what the answers to his own mysteries would be
i love how it seems matpats mewing with a third hand during 4:35
I really enjoyed this video. It was fun to look back at Matpat's theories and remember what I was theorising at the time too. I had a solid MichaelCC phase around the same time as Matpat due to certain evidence at the time. I quickly stopped after the next game was out lmao. Great work.
Glad you enjoyed the video! Took a lot of time on this one
16:51 Baby doesn’t kill if there’s other people in the room tho
Yeah and springlocks aren't supposed to crunch children's heads. Toy animatronics aren't supposed to follow kids into the bathroom. Animatronics in the world are extremely unreliable.
@@frankyboy8513 ermm theyre not springlocks hes in animatronic mode therefore the springlocks are already active 🤓☝
I freel like Scott really ruined the ganes lore by moving the goalpost every time the story made sense
Indeed. Each game had its problem, but scott always prefer to apply the "double clue" idea and so lore become just more complicated and with many flaws ...the lore itself was just at the beginning about a bad payed security guard against ghost possessed robots and a killer
As someone who has never once played a FNAF game, Yes MatPat solved fnaf and more than that, he answer every question i had very succinctly.
6:15 why do we keep calling this a springlock failure despite nobody wearing fredbear?
He never said springlock failure. He said, "...the crying child's death is caused by the springlocks in the fredbear costume."
woah you have a point
@@tristagobut the springlocks are already set off since the suit is attached to the endoskeleton
@@Matrix77776it’s not the springlocks the robot just bit down hard, it’s just so annoying people can’t start pointless arguments about what the robots can and can’t do
@@RaisinHook that’s what im saying it wasn’t the springlocks
Seeing as the goalposts kept on changing, he did. He cracked it and scott was embarrassed lol
I am a defender of dream theory, and always will be. MatPat solved the lore, scott still wanted to keep going.
I dont remember where I heard this, probably one of the interviews with Scott, but Dream Theory was supposed to be the real ending of the FNAF 4 and FNAF as a whole (being the "final chapter"). But people hated that so much he had to retcon it with future games like Sister Location. Scott probably wanted that in that frontal lobeless coma from the bite caused his fears of the whole franchise to come to life. Things he's seen like the kid with a balloon and broken toys from the tv show showed up, all the way until they haunted him in a version of his own house.
At the same time, if it was ended there, it would kind of be like a butterfly effect on the rest of the internet. I know many youtubers who skyrocketed in views and popularity because of games like Sister Location and Security Breach.
yesss i remember this, i wonder why he didnt include that…. that was like a huge dub in matpats part fr
@@jpsinsanewrld Because there's plenty of evidence that Dream Theory was never canon. There's a really good video that goes into the FNAF timeline and lore by GiBi's Horror Homestead where he makes a very solid case of MatPat missing evidence from the live stream because they got too caught up in Dream Theory.
Cool video, but I have some clarifications I would like to make.
6:14 It's not caused by the springlocks, as it's already in animatronic mode and not suit mode. They're already shut, so they can't clamp onto him.
16:45 The stomach mouths are based on the springlock suits, since they are _only_ on Nightmare Fredbear, whose original was a springlock suit, and Nightmare, who's an NFredbear recolor. Plus, CC had to not only see but _misunderstand_ something, and Elizabeth's death is _very_ straightforward. It makes much more sense for him to see someone getting into a springlock suit, misunderstanding it as someone getting eaten by a robot animal, and then getting traumatized from that.
The empty girl's room only indicates that she's not present in the room. She could be one of the kids outside, like the girl with pigtails and green eyes (sound familiar?).
Yeah, it always drives me a little mad when people argue Elizabeth HAD to die first purely because of the three details of: Empty girls room, Stomach Mouth Nightmares, Why kid so scared? Because like...
Scott specifically said "What is seen in shadows is easily misunderstood in the mind of a child." This explains the kid being so scared ---> We can even see a shot of someone helping a worker into a suit. To a kid in the dark, it looks like Golden Freddy is "eating" him.
Most accepted lore (due to evidence from books) is that the nightmares are Michael's regardless. Why would Crying Child be having nightmares about his "friends" trying to kill him? He was only scared of Fredbear, specifically the animatronic springlock suit, as shown by him running away from the coworker and panicking when his brother brought him close to stage. Besides, Crying Child COULDN'T see Elizabeth chomped. Baby literally counts all children to verify that there's only one. And she counts as they enter and exit. If four kids walk in, she registers four children in the room. If three exit, she registers one child in the room. No way for Crying Child to somehow be hiding. And if he was able to see her, Baby could see him. Count him. Recognize more than one child present. Do not chomp.
Ya know what else isn't shown in the house? Michael's room. The parents' room. Do they not have rooms? Just because a room is empty, doesn't mean the girl is dead. She's just not in there. If she was meant to be dead, I feel like Scott would've added something a touch more on the nose. The girl's room was just meant to show that a sister does exist. Michael is shown via gameplay. Parents are taken for granted. So the girl's room just meant to show "Hey, a sister exists!"
Besides, narratively, William needs the motivation. Sure, in real life a person can just... Be a killer. But for a story to feel satisfying (When attempting to weave a story as complex as FNAF) there needs to be a path of logic a person can follow for it to feel complete. William jealous -> Kid died -> William kill Charlie because mad/jealous/playing blame game -> Puppet Possessed -> William wanna bring his son back -> MCI -> William trying to figure out how it works -> DCI or Circus Baby (Whichever a person feels should narratively come first) -> Circus Baby or DCI (Whichever a person feels should narratively come second) -> Elizabeth chomped -> William sunk cost fallacy at this point. There's the line of logic. Do we agree with his actions? No, but we can see how he made the choices he did.
@shaelynmartin1996 fnaf a satisfying story? Hilarious idea. Anyway. As for crying child having dreams of his friends killing him. Need I remind you of the masks his brother and his friends wore?
Foxys plush head in the mini games was literally torn off. That kid is terrified of them. And if it were Micheal what's with the IV tube beside the bed? Micheal would have no reason to be in the hospital at any point. Wtf would the hospital do unscoop him?
As for Elizabeth's room and it being empty not meaning she's dead. I think you will find it interesting that not a single other room is shown. Now. Why would Scott show one girls room and no others?
Could it be that the room has significance? I agree that Scott likes Easter eggs too much for his own good. But even Scott is not so stupid as to include a room for no reason. And then in the very next game. Have a girl child as the main ghost.
This ain't keyboard spam the shadow rabbit. This is a recurring character. Now I do think there's room to doubt the broken mangle in the room as mangle doesn't ever reapear in any significance beyond help wanted 1 and 2, AR and ucn. But that room being empty is absolutely important. Considering this is the same game where we are supposed to question why a random Chica toy has a missing beak. There is nothing you could possibly say that could convince me that Elizabeth is alive during the bite of 83. And don't say motives.
I said it before and I'll say it again. William canonically has no motives. In the books he's a scumbag buissness man and supergenius. And he's mostly the same in the games. The only possible sign of empathy he ever shows. Is telling Elizabeth not to go near baby. And supposedly that he built her just for her. Why he made it child murderer we have no clue.
@@frankyboy8513 Ignoring your condescending tone, I'll address the Michael part first. Why would Michael be in a hospital? Hm, perhaps because his little brother died in one. And we very clearly see him apologize to his brother in that hospital at the end of FNAF4. So, yes, him seeing hospital equipment when he's having nightmares about his brother's death makes perfect sense. There's also the fact that the Night 1 phone call from FNAF1 plays with reversed audio during the nighttime gameplay. All the characters behave as they did in FNAF 1 (Bonnie from the left, Chica from the right, Freddy from behind, Foxy having to constantly check on). Then there's the fact that Michael literally draws Nightmare Fredbear in the Security Logbook.
Again, the empty room says nothing expect that a sister exists and is not in the room. If that's the only piece of evidence you have, it's the weakest piece of evidence imaginable.
In the books, William also has no children. Henry builds Baby. Henry ends his own life.
You're also wrong about the game after FNAF4 being Sister Location. Because it's not. It's FNAF World. FNAF World is canon and has lore important aspects to it, which is something Scott has said.
Honestly, I recommend watching a video by GiBi's Horror Homestead who really breaks the entire franchise down, helping explain different things and making it make sense in a satisfying way.
Oh, and about the Foxy plush with its head removed... Yeah, Crying Child literally calls them his friends there. How is that him "terrified" of them? He doesn't stop seeing them as his friends until after he gets chomped.
But I'm not going to even try arguing with you anymore, because it's relatively clear that you don't care for an honest debate and won't listen to anything I have to say because "girl room empty Scott bad writer my headcanon is canon."
@shaelynmartin1996 fnaf world is not Canon I'm sorry but what? There are parts. Like the Henry scene that are Canon sort of. But we know Henry isn't dead cuz we know he's alive in fnaf 6. Fnaf world is a vague metaphor and that's it. There's a reason you're not calling it fnaf 5.
Also I disagree meaning nothing. Again. Why would the toy Chica be missing her beak? If 6 fucking pixels are enough for Scott's lore than an entire room means a whole lot. The reason we know when the bite of 83 is. Is because of a fucking TV screen in the living room.
Now. As to address the reverse phone call I'll admit I have no idea why that's there. Just as I have no idea why in fnaf 3 you press buttons into tiles on the wall and why shadow bonnie makes its second appearance that seemingly means nothing.
The reason the room means something is because the next ACTUAL game. Is sister location. Now as to address ccs friends. Need I remind you that one of his best friends is psychic friend Fred bear? Aka. A plush of his most extreme fear possible. Aka. Fredbear himself. The plushies don't mean he's not afraid of them. Only that he's not afraid of the plushies.
Cc is a kid. Kids are not known for logical consistencies. Now as for hoptal. Again I don't really see why Micheal would be having a dream as his brother in his bedroom hiding from animatronics. I mean sure dreams are random but if it's the plot of a game I don't really see why it would exist.
@@frankyboy8513 I don't believe I ever said Michael was having a dream where he was his brother. I said Michael was having the nightmares. Further, Crying Child was in a *coma* in the hospital before he died. He couldn't see anything. How would he see hospital equipment? Furthermore, it's clearly not the same house as in the day time section of the game. It's even shown as not being the same location in Sister Location. How exactly is Crying Child meant to be having nightmares in a place he's never been?
And yes. FNAF World is canon. And lore relevant. Scott has said so himself. Has he said he regretted that decision? Sure. But that doesn't change the fact that FNAF World is canon and lore relevant. I don't call Sister Location FNAF 5. I call it Sister Location.
And again, Scott likes using things to point out small details. Like the Crying Child has a sister. So he put a girl's room in the house. It's not that hard of a stretch. There's no other evidence that supports her being dead at this point. Hell, the Mangle toy in the room looks *played* with.
But again, I'm not going to bother arguing with you. You are clearly uninterested in an actual debate and discussion, nor are you interested in being proven wrong. Even when a simple google search can prove you wrong. And that's on you. Seriously, just type into google "Is FNAF World Canon?" and there's your answer.
And this is why I don't like books. They only make everything even more complicated and add unnecessary and redundant characters that we don't need
I Agree, as if You Have to Go to Another Medium (ARG's, if Done Right, are Exceptions, as They Usually Just Add to the Story Already Present) to Complete the Lore, You Had Already Screwed up
same here, The direction of the books should have been cannon stories and built upon what we already know from the games. The games should be providing everything we need. Instead we get a ton of nonsense stories where some things are cannon and not and the games borrowing too much from it. Meanwhile the games especially in the modern era lack too little of a story.
Example: If the books weren't supposed to be cannon, Henry and the Mimic shouldn't be falling into the main games without any buildup and hints from the games. If you didn't read the books it doesn't make much sense.
you could say that to most adaptations to other mídia, like movies and shows too
@@BirbWhoLikesDragonsfor me depends on the context and how well it's made, I think it can be cool to expand the story in other media but it can be affected by how much you like that type of media, if you don't like books you may not like a book adaptation
it could work as a spin off maybe @@DusterDan35
I believe the true original motivation of William Afton killing kids is CryCry's disturbing fate. CryCry was constantly bullied by other kids. William originally wanted to punish the kids from fnaf 4, but he didn't expected the children's ghosts to possess his animatronics. when he discovered this, William became obsessed with the idea of immortality.
He was bullied by his brother and co. I don't really think he killed his second son, because, well... He didn't.
scott was changing shit on the fly every time somebody got something right, the purple guy was the phone guy and he was the killer until it was retcon. That's why the story is a cluster fuck
Give me a singular scrap of evidence that phone guy was originally purple guy
@@wolfietronic356nothing concrete with what exists in 1&2. Mostly circumstantial evidence at that point. Phone Guy being uncomfortable around Puppet (an animatronic possessed by one of Purple Guy’s first victims), Phone Guy self professing a love for Foxy (mirrored by Purple Guy watching Foxy in the Foxy Go Go Go death minigame in 2 with a big smile on his face) and probably most circumstantial is the fact that the Atari graphic style of Purple Guy’s sprite in the Save Them death minigame looks like he’s holding a phone.
Though I think the most important piece of evidence that supports the theory didn’t come until FNAF 3 with the secret room that was sealed off being mentioned by Phone Guy and Purple Guy using that secret room to dismantle the animatronics in safety.
@@wolfietronic356 the purple guy had a motherfucking phone in his hand lol shit was clear as day
@@therealharshlycritical why would he be carrying a landline phone on him through a building
@@wolfietronic356 I don't know ask Scott.
This video needs to be looked at by matpat.
He’s retired
@@StarfallsupersonicNot on GTLive. He still plays games and reacts to stuff in there.
@@Starfallsupersoniche still does gt live
I guess Tom could
Tom could do it with matpat
Its unsolveable, because it never had an overarching story to begin with
Despite him having more than enough theories to be proven crazy, he *does* provide enough evidence to be one of the BTS people for FNAF.
Clearly, everyone who’s watched MP for the past years recognize that.
He did solve fnaf 2 back in the day…then we went on a roller coaster of theories.
The retirement thing was just an excuse, matpat had to sacrifice the channel to learn the whole truth. He has indeed solved fnaf
This video was a fun find. I stopped watching game theory after a while but I always respected the hustle MatPat had.
It was so weird to come back a little after his retirement announcement and see people dog on his theories or him in general.
This was a nice retrospective that was fair and informative.
Hope he’s doing well with whatever he’s doing.
16:50
Empty room doesn’t mean anything. It just means she’s not there.
Nightmares aren’t crying child’s their mikes
The nightmares are C.C’s
@@UniformPlayz do research
Imma just say the nightmares are mikes, not for lore accuracy, just cause the idea the kid was fighting off nightmares until he died is a bit too depressing to accept.
I think the girls room was meant to be nothing OR a teaser for sister location
Boy Scott provides consistent plot for once and the fans decide to completely ignore it. I almost feel bad for the man.
But then again it's his fault for writing a story with more contradictions than a southern Baptist preacher trying to extract dollars out of his congregation.
He might only have one win
But he made you a theorist
And that’s a Bigger W in my opinion.
this video has blown up straight away. Congrats Sandwich!
i love how thick and juicy this video is. keep it up!
According to Scott, his FNAF 2 video was the closest he ever came to getting everything right.
(The part of that video that's wrong is the final part, Phone Guy is not Purple Guy. Even circa FNAF 2 that was impossible, everything pointed to the Dayshift Guard/Week 1 Nightguard and he's a different person)
I personally think his first FNAF theory was spot on, at least at the time. It is pretty clear from Cawthon's interviews that FNAF 1 was meant to be a one off game and that the lore wasn't building to a sequel. Matpat's theory was really compelling, and I think that FNAF 1 was absolutely based on those murders at that Chuck E Cheese.
Scott cawthon would not do that
@@wolfietronic356 Scott Cawthon is a man who made FNAF 1 out of pure spite at people calling his previous Bible thumper games creepy, regularly rewrote lore to spite the community for figuring it out, and spent the profits donating to politicians who call for the extermination of minorities. There's not much I put past him.
matpat didn't solve the lore, he WROTE the lore
Last time I checked
Afton's wife still has no relevance
It's fun to think how different the lore of fnaf in the games would be presented if Scott knew what he wanted the story to be from the start
One of the important things that he didn’t bring up is that some of these theories, (and a lot of the evidence in them) were the community’s findings and it took a lot of us working together to make enough of it.
Matpat was really good at putting all of the parts together
I kinda want to give matpat more credit since a bunch of the fnaf was still changing as he theorised. Plus Scott has admitted to changing things as he got close
Its kinda difficult to make a consistent theory for something that was originally just a jump scare game that ended up growing, game by game from there
And where exactly did Scott say that
@@wolfietronic356 I'll be honest I don't remember, I haven't been a part of fnaf for years. I think it was mentioned with the fnaf 4 chest? Its kinda all blurred together a bit.
It wouldn't surprise me if he changed things without meaning to, its kinda difficult to keep a story together when you haven't planned it all out from the start, its tempting to just pont at something in the past and just say that was a hint to something bigger all along.
I’d say he solved it with the dream theory, but when Scott saw how people were unhappy with that conclusion, he changed the lore
yes he did in the finale he met with scott at the end and he basically told him all the lore. Its why its called the lore keeper ending.
I think its safe to say he at least indirectly helped in the creation of the lore
he did solve that fnaf was ment to end at fanf 4 and saying it was all a dream (dreamtheory) and insted continued for a younger audience
Yea, I'm pretty sure Scott played 4D Chess with Matt here, letting him "solve" the story was actually Scott's way of continuing it, changing bits and pieces he didn't like and putting them back together
All in all, give my boy Mattpat more credit, no one else would be crazy enough to try solving a ever moving goalpost of a story
6:05 Matpat's issue here is that both Golden Freddy and The Puppet were accounted for, and he found it easier to shoehorn The Crying Child into Take Cake over GOGOGO, it was a closer fit.
He even admits Golden Freddy makes sense as it both matches Happiest Day(which I'll get back to), fits the mask motifs, and fits the fact that's what chomped him. But he concluded it couldn't be Golden Freddy because we saw him die alongside the other 4 in Foxy Go Go, while the Puppet minigame died alone and thus if you squint it fits. Plus at the time he thought PFF was a ghost and not a walkie talkie.
Matpat's mistake was thinking only one spirit could be in each animatronic. He was right about the parallels of Happiest Day. That IS The Crying Child, and he is tied to Golden Freddy. His missed the fact that the GF in Happiest Day isn't the same GF in Take Cake or in FNAF 1 and 2. That's Cassidy.
And other people had this same issue. TheLooneyTurtle concluded that The Crying Child wasn't ANYONE, as both of the main suspects couldn't be him. Again, failing to consider 2 spirits in one suit. And in fact this whole drama is what initially prompted Dream Theory, Dawko felt the fact that this seemingly important character couldn't logically fit anywhere was proof we were looking at the series wrong and our assumptions about how the world worked were wrong. Which was half right, an assumption WAS wrong, just not 'the games not being a dream'. The wrong assumption was a hard rule of 1 spirit per suit.
It actually took the community a little bit to catch on even after we knew about Cassidy. People thought him being the vengeful spirit was a Happiest Day retcon and complained, not realizing the guy at the Birthday party having his spirit calmed ISN'T him. It's Crying Child and the others. Cassidy isn't there.
matpat walked so that dual process theory could *run.*
Matpat is the inspector gadget to Scott's Dr Claw
16:50
Okay I can actually debunk this.
1: Just because Elizabeth’s room is empty doesn’t mean she’s dead, we don’t see William at home, that doesn’t mean he’s dead though
2: also you say the “Nightmare Animatronics” have stomach mouths, when it’s specifically only Fredbear.
3: how would Evan/CC have witnessed Elizabeth’s Death? Baby would’ve only gone into Ice Cream Kill mode if there was one kid in the room?
But we do see William. He's in the back putting on a suit on a guy. We see Micheal like all the time. And we never see William's or Michael's rooms. Hers is the only other room in the whole of the house. Why would Scott include only one room for no reason? And in the very next game. Have Elizabeth be the main plot? He may stupid but he's not that stupid.
@@frankyboy8513 my other points are still pretty good points as to why Elizabeth didn’t die first.
@My_Name_Isnt_Cinnamon your other two points just explain why cc didn't see Elizabeth's death. That I likely agree. That doesn't mean she's not dead tho. If a robot murders a child in a room when no one else can see is the child still dead? Answer is yes.
@@frankyboy8513
The maker of this video used Evan seeing Elizabeth’s death as proof as to why she died first
@@Cinnamon_Rolls_Out_Of_The_Oven yeah I never said I agreed on that point.
No matter if he one or not “ITS JUST A THEORY”
To mats credit he was fighting an uphill battle with writer himself being inconsistent and changing the story
Still have no idea why people debate about which major event came first. CC dies to a freak accident, Charlie is murdered by drunk William Afton, William kills 5 kids, he uses nightmare gas on Michael, and then Elizabeth dies to the baby.
Whatever Midnight Motorist is puts almost every piece from the OG timeline that's currently unclear into a strange vacuum.
Many people want to advocate for William just being a serial killer without a human reason and building state of the art robots that far exceed Henry's creations as early as the 70s.
Cause the death order is shown in help wanted 2 and the puppet (Charlotte) dies last. Otherwise one of the few straightforward pieces of information we got makes no sense. That death order with the plushies next to the grave stones was very clear.
The Overall story of FNaF is super simple but the things that actually matter are super complicated for no real reason, it just sort of tries so hard to be a puzzle to "fix" with mismatched pieces and to make matters worse completely lost pieces.
at the end of mats run he was invited in by scott, i have a feeling mat was involved in the lore the whole time
3 stars in an ending aren’t always a confirmation that it’s the real ending. Since Fnaf sl’s one star scooped ending is the real one
Both endings in sl give you one star
At this point, I think the biggest thing Scott can clarify for us is who the first kill definitively is
He didn't solve FNAF because Scott Cawthon just retconned most of the time and left out super vague hints so he can always "come back" come back as in pretend like last popular theory is wrong cuz "new game has solved misconception"
Infact Fnaf is probably the only franchise Mat was allowed to be wrong on because of how Scott himself purposefully made it vague/non existent and retcon so many stuff while pretending he only had one major retcon.
Or
Hear me out
Matpat actually got stuff wrong
@@wolfietronic356 Or, hear me out, both aren't contradictory.
"Infact Fnaf is probably the only franchise Mat was allowed to be *wrong* on"- my words. I'm Basically admitting that yeah he probably did misinterpret things or get details wrong, I mean, he does that even with franchises that DON'T have confusing retconing lore, but I give him some slack on Fnaf specifically because Scott played dirty himself, constantly making new game contradict previous one's and even admitting to having one retcon(it has to be more than one)
I just outa to root for MatPat in this case, he went from being a villain of all fandoms for getting lore wrong so many times, but Scott is SO much worse I just started to root for Mat eventually, sort of.
all this in 19 minutes props to you man
there isnt an overhwleming amount of evidence for elizabeth being first. It literally makes no sense
"sigh* I guess I'll watch another matpat fnaf playlist again
He solved most of fnaf 3 and fnaf sl and pizzeria
As I i think Henry could free william afton to then trap it
I remember he did a big theory back around the release of fnaf 6 and Scott said he got stuff about 80/90% correct, so I'd day he did better than anyone else that's for sure
Saw a theory the other day by Duel Process Theory that says the crying child is Cassidy and the “one you should not have killed” is Michael, that honestly seems like one of the most plausible theories.
How would toysnhk be Michael if William didn't kill Michael
@@wolfietronic356 he technically did. When William sent Michael down to the bunker with Baby to “put her back together,” William surely knew that there was a very real chance he would die. He may not have directly killed him, but he sent him on a mission knowing he’d die.
The way the theory was described in the video was really believable, I’d give it a watch if you have the time.
this isn't possible but its a cool theory
I like the theory, it's not the best, but IT HAS enough merit as a story. The landscape for FNaF theories is super toxic and overall stinky that there is no space for theories that go against the "popular" or rather accepted things. (TBH it's only the crazy people that take the funny bear games's story WAY too seriously)
In my opinion at some point Scott made the story identical to MatPats theories, fnaf 4 was 100% solved by matpat but with such an ending Scott thought it would leave everyone unsatisfied and left to be continued, MatPat definitely had a role to this franchise and his theories are why fnaf has a even more complicated story
... yeah no, Elizabeth did NOT die first lmao
I'd argue that, while you're correct that no one could have guessed the name 'William Afton' prior to the books, there was 'A' correct answer that got swept over because it wasn't interesting.
The Original FNAF 2 Nightguard. The Dayshift Guard.
Phone Guy mentions in Night 1 the prior nightguard survived his week, but complained about the animatronic attacks, hence on Night 1 and Night 2 of the game they're looking into why it's happening. He got transferred to Dayshift. (The Night 1 dialogue is a bit of a misdirect designed to make you think it's Mike Schmidt from Game 1 for a sec).
On Night 3, there's signs that something is terribly wrong. Kids are missing. Dayshift Guard is reporting 'everything is fine' though... Night 4 is when he flees, Phone Guy still doesn't know exactly what happened, but there's an opening and the police are investigating. Night 5 is a full lockdown and seemingly they know it was the prior guard, and by Night 6 they've found evidence of somesort(maybe video footage, maybe the bodies, unclear).
Matpat even briefly mentions it in his FNAF 2 video, but basically dismisses it as a misdirect and goes into the Phone Guy theory(suggesting Phone Guy is lying or passing the buck).
Except...it can't be Phoneguy. We know from Save Them and the Newspaper clipping that he's describing true events that happened, if the police weren't onto him, why make up a story to tell Jeremy about them suspecting someone else? Wouldn't that raise more questions?
Oh and Purple Guy in Save Them has a Nightguard badge. Phone Guy isn't a nightguard yet. He wasn't the first week guard, he's not Jeremy, he's not Fritz. He mentions at the end of the game having to take the job himself if they open up again, but he wouldn't have it in time to do the DCI.
People just really didn't want the answer to be 'The Dayshift Guard, Guard 001". People wanted it to be someone we knew. And after Matpat came out and said he thought the whole thing was a misdirect, people abandoned the straight forward answer. Cue the BIG 3 suspects for the next 3 games, Mike Schmidt, Fritz Smith, and Phone Guy, with Jeremy, Phone Dude, FNAF 3 Protag, and Foxy-Bro in tow.
If Matpat had just gone over the FNAF 2 phonecalls and explained the logistics of what happened and SAVE THEM, he'd have been right. He overthought it
Dont really agree on the Elizabeth dies first because baby cant kill any kid if theres anyone nearby. Also it feels weird that the girls room wouldnt be empty if she was dead.
Matpat did solve the lore and is the main reason people even do fnaf theories
He solved the intended, first story (fnaf 1-4)
Matpat: “Nah I’d win”
What? Elizabeth is stablished in every continuity as Afton's younger daughter. We know that she was going to a kinder during 1984-85 from The Fourth Closet and that her death was the reason for Afton to do the MCI. We know thanks to the "Cancelled. Due to leaks." teaser and HandUnit's words that the Circus Baby's franchise existed around the MCI date. We pretty much can state that Elizabeth was a baby during 1983 because FNaF: Special Delivery made a reference to her room; the bed being replaced by a cradle. We even got Abby's birth three years after Garrett's kidnapping on the Movie. How could she have died before The Crying Child?
The books are alternate universe. Unless you think robot Charlie is walking around in the pizza plex. The movie is so far off from Canon that it could not matter less. And I'm not sure what cradle you're talking about but the girls room has a full bed. Unless Micheal is really into pink. I don't see another explanation. As for circus baby's I don't recall any canonical dates for when exactly that existed or was shut down. I'm happy for you to provide correct universe sources though.
@@frankyboy8513 "whatever is released is what's canon"
@yisusito2553 no? Again. Robot Charlie. William having an alive daughter. That's not how that works buddy boo. The games are very clearly there own universe.
He won, multiple times. He also lost every time Scott retcon the story
Me when I spread misinformation
19:00 tales is cannon because mimics leg has springlocks from the jester costume if you look closely at the design
Tales has a story about frailty connected to Eleanor and into the pit game exist so the books canon
Your points on Elizabethfirst:
1. Just because the bedroom is empty, doesn’t mean she dies
2. Michael is the main protagonist of the night fnaf 4: the logbook confirms it, the fnaf 1 phone call can be heard in the game and the animatronics behaviour and movement pattern parallel the fnaf 1 animatronics movement and Scott said there was no random Easter eggs in fnaf 4. This means that the crying child doesn’t see the nightmares, at least now michael sees them, and so the mouth on the chest means something else.
3. Crying child most likely saw nothing due to the Scottgames message “what is seen in shadows is easily misunderstood in the mind of a child”.
4. Circus baby confirms that no one was in the room when Elizabeth got killed
5. Why would William build animatronics that are designed to kill and study possession in 1983 or before?
So I haven't watched this all the threw, Mat Pat solved the story when Fnaf 4 was the ending to the series, he cracked the code, he had discovered that everything was a dream, this was all but confirmed, and it made a lot of sense not a single thing couldn't be explained by this theory, take Fnaf 1 for example: It explains why the doors open when the power goes out, why the newspapers and posters appear and disappear, why the animtronics come to life, why the security guard gets fired for bad odour especially snice he is a night guard,
This is a really fun video I enjoyed it a lot! But now I feel the urge to rewatch the entire gametheory fnaf playlist 😭
I still say he solved the game in FNAF 4 with dream theory, no other theory has came so close to explaining absolutely everything
I’m not the first one to mention this but I’m almost certain he definitely solved it with the theory that it was all a dream but Scott completely changed the truth because admittedly, it’s a pretty frustrating conclusion.
The crying child couldn't have seen Elizabeth's death. In sister location, Baby is said to have counted the number of children in the room, so that there can be no witnesses. In order for CC to see Elizabeth's death, he would have had to be in the room with her, but we know for a fact that he wasn't because Baby said there was only one child, Elizabeth herself.
Technically this isn't proof against ElizabethFirst theory, but it does remove a core piece of evidence for it. The only other real piece of evidence is the empty room, which could literally just mean nothing. The fnaf 4 minigame house doesn't have a master bedroom for example, does this mean William slept on the roof? Of course not. Absence of evidence ≠ evidence of absence.
As for the whole stomach mouth thing, I question why specifically Fredbear has this feature. Why not every animatronic. In fact, why does this even matter at all? Dittophobia establishes that fnaf 4's gameplay is not a dream at all, but a purposely designed torture scenario designed by William. For what purpose does William have to put a stomach mouth on Fredbear? I suppose it might be a warning not to get close to the stomach but again, why Fredbear? Fredbear didn't have a child abduction claw like Baby.
In conclusion, ElizabethFirst theory is imo unlikely and based on weak evidence, and the idea that CC witnessed Elizabeth's death is just wrong.
BUT HEY THAT'S JU-
The fact that William's room isn't there proves she's dead though. We see William. We see Micheal. In terms of story we don't need there rooms to know they are alive. That room is the only evidence Elizabeth exists at all before sister location. Now to be fair I could totally see Scott retconning her into the series with no prior warning but based on that room that just can't be the case. She was in Scott's mind. Meaning that if she was alive. Her room wouldn't be there and she would be a character instead.
William’s consistently inconsistent motives are part of what got me to see Dave from Dayshift as a rare example of a fanwork’s version being truly superior to the original.
with every game coming out, MatPat solved the lore each time. It's just that Scott doesn't know how to be consistent
Matpat did not get everything right each time a new game came out. Stop lying to yourself.
This comment Is just pure wrong
He didn't. But yeah, they don't know how to make a consistent well-told and interesting story.
Ngl we all know dream theory was right at the time ( despite Matt’s small mess up with the fnaf 2 animatronics)
No It wasnt
Support that claim with proof
@@paul-burger8269 the reason I believe it is because of the clues that Scott gave Matpat.
Chica missing her nose and the one about shadows. Dream theory is obviously what Scott was hinting at with these clues.
And in the games up to that point, it only makes sense that everything was a dream.
Ballon boy resembling an actual kid, chica missing her beak, the withered animatronics, I could go on and on.
@@DimeDaniel that would just be super lame, do you really think Scott made all thats shit just for It to be some "its just a Dream" bullshit?
@@paul-burger8269 it was lame and that is exactly why sister location was made. It expanded the story way further than just a dream.However, we can’t ignore the fact that matpat was correct when making dream theory.
I'm so glad someone can summarize all his videos
I still firmly believe that fnaf 4 is the death dream of crying child:
1. the minigames are played from CryCry's perspective and he's the only one driven into being scared witless of the animatronics
2. the characters Freddy, Bonnie, Chica and Foxy approach you the exact same way Michael and his bully friends approach CryCry.
3. Foxy's head hides in the closet like Michael was hiding under CryCry's bed.
4. Plushtrap appears in CryCry's death dream because kids told him horror stories about how Plushtrap would bite his fingers off.
Several reasons it was Micheal. the log book shows drawings of the nightmares and the logbook is owned by Micheal. We hear a distorted audio from a FNAF 1 phone call in FNAF 4. There is a common misconception about what is happening in FNAF 4, we are not playing as Micheal as a kid we are playing Micheal in a nightmare, hence "nightmare animatronics". We are playing as Micheal some time after FNAF 1 and he is having nightmares because he is having revelations about his dead brother which is why we see the drip tubes, and bandages, and plushies in the room that he is too old for. This also explains why he is short because it's not real. There are no actual real animatronics going around despite the fact that it fades to red if you are caught as if you die. Also at the end of the night there is an alarm going off, why put an alarm next to a coma patient.
Also the set of fanf 4 night gameplay is an actual place based off the sister location secret floor plans that show sister location connected to the FNAF 4 night time house. However, it is not the same house that Evan was at before getting bitten which is also based on the secret floor plans that show the house Evan was navigating in the day time minigames in a completely different area. So why would Evan be in a coma having nightmares at a different location that he may or may not have even seen and not just his own room?
I could argue the way the animatronics attack in FNAF 4 resembles how they attacked us in FNAF 1.
Here is a question for you. If "Evan" is in a coma and we are playing as him in FNAF 4 how does he even remember seeing bandages and a drip tube, I would understand sounds from a hospital but we literally just see bandages and a drip, those don't make sounds.
@@mesaplayer9636 who says he remembers them? 😉 I think these objects are just there to show the player what the actual situation is. the fact alone that the nightmare battles take place in CryCry's bedroom (and not at a replica of the diner) speaks rather for my theory. the books don't matter, since they have their own universe and continuity.
Crawthorn just adds more to the story whenever matpat figures it out
11:14 Williams motivation is simple he had further he wanted to experiment with fear because emotion is the most powerful thing in the Fnaf series
He created the nightmare experiments
Bv After he died, he kidnapped the kid called Andrew and he died too. He didn’t create the Funtime animatronics to capture kids so he could have more experiment victims however Elizabeth fucked up his plan she accidentally died inside baby. Her accidental death lead William to discover possession which led to to him causing the MCI
William does not care about his kids in the situs and he killed Charlie because he was getting jealous of Henry
I feel like we’re in the era where every new release isn’t a new clue, it’s the lore of the franchise being built bigger and bigger
1: game theory theory
2: matpat theory
VOTE NOW!
Game theory theory theory : maybe the name is just a theory
he didnt solve it, he straight up created it
MatPat should’ve dropped FNaF lore a LONG time ago. He oversaturated the hell out of it and the theories just got ridiculous at times. He shouldn’t have been in the FNaF movie (or any UA-camr) either.
Why not? The series would’ve have gotten popular without him. Least Scott could do was a cameo.
Plus the theories kept paying so MatPat kept making them. That’s how it works, I stopped watching them but I respect the hustle.
The cameo was a little funny at first but ultimately felt cringey, immersion-breaking and like crappy fan service. MatPat helped to popularise FNaF sure, but I still don’t see why he should be in the movie. That goes for Kory as well. It felt like these scenes took up valuable screen time that otherwise could’ve been used for something else. If anything, the UA-camr cameos should’ve been like Dawko and the others, that being in the background and not taking up the screen. I’m just glad Markiplier couldn’t appear. I can only imagine how people who knew nothing about FNaF felt watching the movie.
@@dankster1156 You're just a hater man.