Jump to content
Spin Attaxx

Five Nights at Freddy's - Help Wanted in Virtual Reality

Recommended Posts

I was just about to post that.

The idea of the Puppet being in the box makes sense, so much so that I'm almost annoyed at the sheer simplicity of the answer. However, he's right that the story of the ghost children makes more sense if the child is instead Golden Freddy. If that's the case (which is what I'm leaning towards, not only because a golden bear is the child's best friend and thus he has an affinity for him, the same as the brother and his friends are associated with their particular animatronics through their masks, but remember the Bad Ending image in 3? The face in the background is generic animatronic helmet, not the puppet's head), then we have to ask ourselves about the identity of the Puppet and the Fredbear Plush.

GT themselves said that the Puppet did not exist in 4 yet due to its sheer absence from the game, meaning that if the first child killed at Fredbear's Diner was the Puppet as alluded to by the jump scare that happens in that mini-game, then it wouldn't have physically been able to inhabit the Puppet, or probably any suit for that matter. After all, the child wasn't stuffed into anything but instead left outside of the establishment. Logically that child would have had to have been hanging out somewhere else in the meantime, and I theorize that that somewhere is the Fredbear Plush that the child in 4 manages to get ahold of somehow.

And it makes sense to me; the Fredbear plush has knowledge of the underbelly of the franchise's history, naturally as the first victim, and is trying to help the child avoid a similar fate, the same that the Puppet tries to help the other children's souls and to preemptively stop more victims. It also says that it wants to put the child back together, showing a habit of messing about with things.

So to me, Fredbear Plush is the Puppet. The Puppet is created later, the Plush switches bodies, transfers the child's soul into Golden Freddy/Fredbear, yada yada yada.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think it'll fade quite as quickly so long as the movie's development goes well (and the director continues the teaser tradition).

Also, not gonna lie, I would love a Fredbear plush from that line. They look positively adorable.

On the other hand, the FNAF fanbase has been spoiled in a manner that makes the Sonic one look tame by comparison, with new installments every few months.

 

If that slows to a stop... oh boy.

 

I don't doubt the movie will go ahead as planned, but without more installments I can see the fanbase drying up quick. There will still be fans, just not a fanbase/community.

 

The same way there are Crash Bandicoot, Klonoa, etc. fans but no real community (that is, a small active site doesn't count) for those at this point. At least in the same way that Sonic, Pokemon, FNAF, etc. can currently claim.

Edited by Ty the Tasmanian Ogilvie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was just about to post that.

The idea of the Puppet being in the box makes sense, so much so that I'm almost annoyed at the sheer simplicity of the answer. However, he's right that the story of the ghost children makes more sense if the child is instead Golden Freddy. If that's the case (which is what I'm leaning towards, not only because a golden bear is the child's best friend and thus he has an affinity for him, the same as the brother and his friends are associated with their particular animatronics through their masks, but remember the Bad Ending image in 3? The face in the background is generic animatronic helmet, not the puppet's head), then we have to ask ourselves about the identity of the Puppet and the Fredbear Plush.

GT themselves said that the Puppet did not exist in 4 yet due to its sheer absence from the game, meaning that if the first child killed at Fredbear's Diner was the Puppet as alluded to by the jump scare that happens in that mini-game, then it wouldn't have physically been able to inhabit the Puppet, or probably any suit for that matter. After all, the child wasn't stuffed into anything but instead left outside of the establishment. Logically that child would have had to have been hanging out somewhere else in the meantime, and I theorize that that somewhere is the Fredbear Plush that the child in 4 manages to get ahold of somehow.

And it makes sense to me; the Fredbear plush has knowledge of the underbelly of the franchise's history, naturally as the first victim, and is trying to help the child avoid a similar fate, the same that the Puppet tries to help the other children's souls and to preemptively stop more victims. It also says that it wants to put the child back together, showing a habit of messing about with things.

So to me, Fredbear Plush is the Puppet. The Puppet is created later, the Plush switches bodies, transfers the child's soul into Golden Freddy/Fredbear, yada yada yada.

I dunno, the idea of the child being one of the animatronics, be it the Puppet or Golden Freddy, dosen't seem right to me. I mean, it's implied that the animatronics are gunning for adults because they're possessed by kids who hate this one guy and perceive all adults as him, right? And that the Puppet haunted the other animatronics to help other kids get their revenge/use them to get his?

Problem is, from what we see, the child has no real reason to go after the Purple Man - he only ever sees him in an optional and rather easy to miss easter egg where he's not even doing anything wrong, and he's not killed by him. If the child was Golden Freddy, it might be more sound due to how passive he is in the first game (you basically have to let him kill you)... but not the second, where he's far more aggressive.

And then there's the matter of whether or not this was the Bite of '87 we saw, and if it was then logically the murders should've already happened and the animatronics should already have been haunted.

Also, a little detail I've noticed regarding Mangle - it's always a kid in blue trousers and a green shirt that torments her/it - a drawing in 2 shows him tearing Mangle apart, we see him as the one obstacle in Mangle's Quest, and though it may not be the same guy, there is a boy with that getup in one of 4's minigames. Yeah, it really seems like it should be happening in 1987 despite Fredbear and the springlock suits paradoxically walking around.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I dunno, the idea of the child being one of the animatronics, be it the Puppet or Golden Freddy, dosen't seem right to me. I mean, it's implied that the animatronics are gunning for adults because they're possessed by kids who hate this one guy and perceive all adults as him, right? And that the Puppet haunted the other animatronics to help other kids get their revenge/use them to get his?

Problem is, from what we see, the child has no real reason to go after the Purple Man - he only ever sees him in an optional and rather easy to miss easter egg where he's not even doing anything wrong, and he's not killed by him. If the child was Golden Freddy, it might be more sound due to how passive he is in the first game (you basically have to let him kill you)... but not the second, where he's far more aggressive.

And then there's the matter of whether or not this was the Bite of '87 we saw, and if it was then logically the murders should've already happened and the animatronics should already have been haunted.

Also, a little detail I've noticed regarding Mangle - it's always a kid in blue trousers and a green shirt that torments her/it - a drawing in 2 shows him tearing Mangle apart, we see him as the one obstacle in Mangle's Quest, and though it may not be the same guy, there is a boy with that getup in one of 4's minigames. Yeah, it really seems like it should be happening in 1987 despite Fredbear and the springlock suits paradoxically walking around.

Well Game Theory did say that the Golden Freddy made sense from a story point while the puppet made sense from an evidence point. I admit I took the puppet side but it still leaves a lot of questions like "Why would the Frebear plushie talk to this one kid?" and etc. Also add in the fact that I think when Scott said "Everyone thought I filled the game with random Easter Eggs, which isn't the case." meant not that there were no secrets but rather that every easter egg meant something, that mean there's a whole bunch of more unsolved pieces such as "Why is Nightmare's scare a slowed down and reversed version of Phone Guy's Night 1 Call? Why does Night have something that looks like a chunk of brain if this isn't the Bite of 87? Why is there pictures of Scott in the home? Why is there a torn up Mangle plushie in what looks like a girl's room? etc."

Ugh, leaves me to wonder if someone has figured out all the pieces yet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why is Nightmare's scare a slowed down and reversed version of Phone Guy's Night 1 Call?

... yeah, I don't hear it. Like, not even remotely.

Why does Night have something that looks like a chunk of brain if this isn't the Bite of 87?

Call it the Bite of '83 or the Bite of '87 or the Bite of Whatever, I think it's fair to say that either way the kid got brain damage. Also something about referencing the ghosts in the machines or whatever.

Why is there pictures of Scott in the home?

Probably as cute little easter eggs and nothing more. I doubt this means we're playing as Scott's kid or that the kid is related to Phone Guy or whatever.

Why is there a torn up Mangle plushie in what looks like a girl's room?

Y'know, if that is a plushie, then why the fuck are there bits of endoskeleton among the parts? Unless it's an electronic action figure, but I highly doubt that electronic action figures from the '80s had proper endoskeletons with the apparent level of complexity demonstrated by FNAF's animatronic endoskeletons.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I dunno, the idea of the child being one of the animatronics, be it the Puppet or Golden Freddy, dosen't seem right to me. I mean, it's implied that the animatronics are gunning for adults because they're possessed by kids who hate this one guy and perceive all adults as him, right? And that the Puppet haunted the other animatronics to help other kids get their revenge/use them to get his?

Problem is, from what we see, the child has no real reason to go after the Purple Man - he only ever sees him in an optional and rather easy to miss easter egg where he's not even doing anything wrong, and he's not killed by him. If the child was Golden Freddy, it might be more sound due to how passive he is in the first game (you basically have to let him kill you)... but not the second, where he's far more aggressive.

And then there's the matter of whether or not this was the Bite of '87 we saw, and if it was then logically the murders should've already happened and the animatronics should already have been haunted.

Also, a little detail I've noticed regarding Mangle - it's always a kid in blue trousers and a green shirt that torments her/it - a drawing in 2 shows him tearing Mangle apart, we see him as the one obstacle in Mangle's Quest, and though it may not be the same guy, there is a boy with that getup in one of 4's minigames. Yeah, it really seems like it should be happening in 1987 despite Fredbear and the springlock suits paradoxically walking around.

The kids are gunning after security guards because they know the Purple Guy was one and they're trying to protect more kids from getting killed. There's really no reason why the kid would have no stake in something that serious, particularly since it's implied that he not already saw a kid getting stuffed, but that his brother (who did apologize to him in the end and was trying to set his birthday right as per the mini-games in 3) was also a victim too. So he has personal stake in this too. And again, the only reason it makes the most sense for him to be Golden Freddy is because that's how his story ends in 3. Unless we went to get way off track and start theorizing that the ghosts in 3 do not actually represent any of the children we come to know about in 4 but not even Scott would be that deliberately obtuse.

I'm willing to concede however that this might not be the Bite of '87, simply because if it's true that Fredbear was responsible, then it doesn't make sense for it to have happened during a time when he would have been completely decommissioned.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 

... yeah, I don't hear it. Like, not even remotely.

Call it the Bite of '83 or the Bite of '87 or the Bite of Whatever, I think it's fair to say that either way the kid got brain damage. Also something about referencing the ghosts in the machines or whatever.

Probably as cute little easter eggs and nothing more. I doubt this means we're playing as Scott's kid or that the kid is related to Phone Guy or whatever.

Y'know, if that is a plushie, then why the fuck are there bits of endoskeleton among the parts? Unless it's an electronic action figure, but I highly doubt that electronic action figures from the '80s had proper endoskeletons with the apparent level of complexity demonstrated by FNAF's animatronic endoskeletons.

Understandable that you didn't here it, the audio has to be really cleaned up to catch it. Here's the video where they showed it. Also I made a mistake, it wasn't reversed but rather had the pitch lowered.
 

And as for Mangle, I get what you were saying but I also doubt that animatronics from the 80s could have face scanning technology either. The reason I said she was a plushie is because I noticed that she's the same size as the other plushies shown in the game. Eh who knows?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mangle is still an outlier, if not an outright plothole if we're saying that this is in 1983. Remember, she was actually a functioning animatronic in 2 who had the bad fortune of wanting to be pulled apart by kids. The employees there continually tried putting her back together under the guise that she was supposed to be a functioning piece, but made her an off-the-cuff "take apart" attraction in the end to avoid having to fix her everyday in the face of overwhelming dissent from the children. It was literally just a random idea they had due to the futility of having her as a standing robot. So it makes no sense for her to be a "take apart attraction" before the establishment in 2.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mangle is still an outlier, if not an outright plothole if we're saying that this is in 1983. Remember, she was actually a functioning animatronic in 2 who had the bad fortune of wanting to be pulled apart by kids. The employees there continually tried putting her back together under the guise that she was supposed to be a functioning piece, but made her an off-the-cuff "take apart" attraction in the end to avoid having to fix her everyday in the face of overwhelming dissent from the children. It was literally just a random idea they had due to the futility of having her as a standing robot. So it makes no sense for her to be a "take apart attraction" before the establishment in 2.

Yeah that's why I admitted that the 1983 theory wasn't completely stable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So hey, that final picture of all the animatronics was sweet right?

91iJGei.jpg

I mean, the gang's all...

...wait a damn minute here...

8uJKACG.jpg?1

Who the ruddy balls are YOU?!

AND WHAT HAVE YOU DONE TO THE NEWER-CHRONOLOGICALLY-BUT-STILL-CHEAPER-LOOKING FNAF1 ENDOSKELETON?!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

*sees new picture*

That's it I'm done! Nothing makes sense anymore in Scott's tospy turvy town! GAHHHHHH! *runs off a cliff*

In serious talk I still sticking with that those animatronics might be the twist to the Plushtrap minigame... that's the best thing I could come up with to explain why Scott is making chibi robos. Please ignore unintentional pun.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

You must read and accept our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy to continue using this website. We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.