Install Steam
login
|
language
简体中文 (Simplified Chinese)
繁體中文 (Traditional Chinese)
日本語 (Japanese)
한국어 (Korean)
ไทย (Thai)
Български (Bulgarian)
Čeština (Czech)
Dansk (Danish)
Deutsch (German)
Español - España (Spanish - Spain)
Español - Latinoamérica (Spanish - Latin America)
Ελληνικά (Greek)
Français (French)
Italiano (Italian)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesian)
Magyar (Hungarian)
Nederlands (Dutch)
Norsk (Norwegian)
Polski (Polish)
Português (Portuguese - Portugal)
Português - Brasil (Portuguese - Brazil)
Română (Romanian)
Русский (Russian)
Suomi (Finnish)
Svenska (Swedish)
Türkçe (Turkish)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamese)
Українська (Ukrainian)
Report a translation problem
Discussions Rules and Guidelines
Report this post
Don't get me wrong, I don't support dream theory (When used to simply hand wave the story existing), but this ideology of something being scientifically impossible means it's figuratively impossible is very destructive to the creative process. Walking animatronics in 1987 doesn't prove the game is a dream, because it only proves the game is a work of fiction. Feeling fear with a missing frontal lobe doesn't mean the game can't be a dream, it just means the game is a work of fiction. Impossible things happen in fiction all the time; Tornadoes take houses to magical worlds, Dragons raze towns outside of medieval cities, and James Bond is missed by hundreds of hired gunmen firing at him.
Suspension of disbelief is powerful, but it's easy to break it open when you critically look at a work of fiction. This is exactly why Fan Theories are a thing in the first place, it shows people are looking at works critically and not just for the standard entertainment. Whether it's time traveling Dumbledor or Darth Binks, we are using rational critical thinking skills and applying them to something inherently irrational.
Dream theory isn't impossible. Proving anything within the game, definitively, is impossible. The real mark against dream theory is that it's un-asking the question of what happened within the lore, suggesting it was meaningless because it was a dream. Plenty of works were written within a dream and perfectly viable stories; Alice in Wonderland, Wizard of Oz, a few of Shakespeare's works, etc. These all still have stories, they just happen to take place in a fictional world of a dream. Not putting effort into beginning, middle and end is the issue, not the logistics.
The only evidence people have for the brother being the one havbing the nightmares is only that it would make a little bit of sense with the guilt trip factor.
But what confuses me is if we were to assume they were the brother's, wouldn't it JUST be Fredbear? There would be no reason for him to be afraid of the other four, let alone view them THIS terrifying.
1. The child is always crying and was the one afraid of the animatronics in the first place.
2. We know for sure that Plushtrap is a sort of Nightmare finger trap. Menaing that since the brother did not have this nightmare since he never even saw the plush and wouldn'tt even be afraid of it anyways if he did, then it seems pretty coincidental of how they would have very similar dreams. Flashlight, don't let the scary monsters get you, etc. And also the fact how Fun With Plucktrash affects the normal nightmares, connecting the two.
The plushies are his friends. We see these plushies in the nightmares. They're the ones turning into the nightmares, since he believes that after he saw them get stuffed, they were rage-induced children out for revenge making sure that all other children suffer the same. This is further encouraged by the rumor the gilr told him:
"You'd beter watch out! I hear they come to life at night. And if you die they hide your body and never tell anyone."
JUST like he remembers that the chidlren were hidden and never found, and is now extremely worried that it will happen to him.
And what do we see in our death screen?
Blood.
I wonder where that could have come from exactly.
List a few for me, please.
Maybe he saw himself and his friends as monsters after what they did to him?
And why would he be afraid of the animatronic characters themselves rather than his friends having some part of them? Like just them wearing masks or something.
And he would probably have nightmares of maybe his little brother crying or something, asking why he did it, or re-living the memory somehow.
And notice how Fredbear's jumpscare is his jaw moving up and down and getting closer and closer. This would make sense for the child to be experiencing it since he was the one who was drawn closer, but less so the older brother.
There is. He hides and waits and jumps out if the player ignores him, just like the brother used to hide and jump out at his younger brother when he least expected it.
He thinks of Fredbear as a monster too, since he killed his brother. Since he also thinks he and his friends are monsters for causing it, his mind blends the aspects of Fredbear, teeth (because BITE), and his friends together to make the Nightmare Animatronics.
Maybe he dreams of the minigames as well? Only one doesn't contain him (Night 2's minigame), and it could be him in a first person view looking at him across the dining area.
He could be imagining what it would be like to be shoved into Fredbear's mouth, it's an empathy for his brother transformed into a gruesome scene.
But even if we were to take the fictional setting out of the equation here, it still doesn't change the matter of the argument being all-around incorrect. To put it bluntly, MatPat got his science wrong. For one thing, there is no designated part of the brain that controls dreams (at least that we know of), the fact that MatPat tried to sell the point of the frontal lobe in charge of such a task was pretty foolish of him considering anyone that did the proper amount of research can find out that that's blatantly false. Then there's the part about the frontal lobe controlling fear, which is also false. The part of the brain that controls fear, most specifically "fight or flight," which is the kind of fear that the Crying Child suffers from, is the amygdala, located in the temporal lobe which is located somewhat underneath the frontal lobe. So as much as I love the guy, MatPat got his science wrong in this video and he fails to acknowledge that. I may not be a supporter of the Dream Theory or '87, but I'm not going to rely on false information in order to push my own agenda, I'm not a politician.
I got this from this website if you want to check: http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/exchange/node/228
as you can see, the information was not all incorrect, as this kind of side effects of the loss of the Frontal lobe can occur.
just to clarify somethings here, not all the facts have to be precise, like reality, it´s just a game after all, but as we all know, Mr.Cawthon is a very smart man, and I don´t think he would just place something over there and don´t even know what it is for. pretty much all he does makes some sense or has some good base behind it, but it does not need to be 100% real.
I think that a little reference is necessary here so here goes: It´s just a theory! A GAME THEORY! (don´t kill me, please)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/3645576.stm
A woman, who suffered from a stroke, received brain damage in the back of her brain. This resulted in her to lose the ability to dream (as well as a few visual impairments, but that's not the focus here).
As you can see here, this contradicts with the studies and conclusions in the article that you provided since it involves the back of the brain and not the front. So with that being being established, let's go back to my original argument. MatPat incorrectly assumes that the frontal lobe controls dreams. That, for the most part, is true.
True, it is a game and doesn't have to adhere to facts. But one can argue that Scott included the detail of a loss of the frontal in order to obtain a humorous, yet disturbing, scenario for the player, like what he did with the "filing a missing person's report." So while I do have my faith in Scott, there's still the chance that he may not have been that knowledgable on the functions of the frontal lobe. The doubt is still there. But even then, fiction is fiction, and whether it works in real life or not is not of the story's concern if it provides a flowing narrative.
Oh god, My worst nightmares are becoming true! I am turning into a were-professor!
In all seriousness, I'm glad to see you support the concepts. It can be hard to accept the fact that fiction doesn't necessarily reflect real life. It can be easier to look at the how Cawthon chose to write the games lore, rather then what he wrote of. The bite of '87, as you said, was likely to simply be a gratuitous violent thing; We call these 'Noodle Incidents'. The point is that it's simple world building outwards that hints to more being beyond the boundaries of the work.
In FNAF1, this was true, in FNAF2 this was hinted to being false again (By placing the game in 1987). While humans aren't naturally neurophysists, we usually associate brain damage with three things; Comas, Death and Memory loss (Or personality change, but that's usually excused by memory loss). If FNAF4 does show the bite of '87, it would hint to Victim being comatose and is supported by the medical supplies shown around him, literally in the corners of his mind.
Ultimately, this is similar to the argument that you can't read in dreams, therefore it can't be a dream. The only conclusion these arguments can lead to is it neither follows real world physics or dream realities, which in turn means it can only be a work of fiction... which we already knew.
I would like to point out that the typical dream theory (As proposed by Game Theory) is inherently flawed, and MatPat shouldn't have taken credit for ShanerGamer's work; Especially, if he wasn't going to see it through to completion as ShanerGamer has. It's easy to just ignore any reasonable plot and just say 'lol, anything can happen in a dream'. Shaner works hard at creating a story that happens to be in a dream, and even if I don't support it, I support the work he's doing on his front.
Not convinced because "The Toys were there!"? The toy animatronics only exist during FNAF 2, aka a dream, so the strict connection between "Toy animatronics and 1987" vanishes into thin air, making it possible for FNAF 4 to have the toy animatronic toys without it being 1987. So, with FNAF 4 not taking place in 1987 and the only references to the bite coming from a dream, there's no way to prove the FNAF 4 child was the victim of the infamous bite of '87, in fact, we can't prove the bite of '87 happened at all beyond his dreams.
The Toys are in a box in FNaF 3.
FNAF 3 is a dream as well, that's the point I'm trying to make. Their existence and connection to 1987 was only estabilished within the dreams of the child, not in the game we consider to be the "reality" aka FNAF 4. So with all the toy animatronics events and references being connected to the dreams, we can't say FNAF 4 happens in 1987 because the evidence to support that comes from dreams, which did not actually occur in real life.
What I am understanding from all this is...
You think that FNaF is all a dream. Nothing of it actually happened, it was all just the imagination of a child.