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
Oh yes you are right !
Didn't Scott quote the fact that the story is complete and it can be solved, we just haven't put it together yet? I can't find it right now but i am 100% sure of that...
Yes he did. Anyway I like your symbolism theory (don't agree with it as my own head-canon, but it's a valid hypothesis at this stage). I actually went the other way and stopped trying to attach meaning/symbolism to everything, and came up with a pretty concise and consistent working theory out of it.
Here you go http://steamcommunity.com/app/388090/discussions/0/527274088381684612/#p1 I bookmarked it a while ago >:D It's paid off.
I liked your thread, nice correlations between both games.
I am intruiged, can you explain it in a short comment or is it too long?
The problem i find with most non symbolic theories is that they often create plotholes or can be easily disproven.
Thank you! So we can solve the story.
It's similar to Rydi's (actually it's probably all Rydi's now, since a lot of my specific details were debunked).
The short version is:
The training tapes in FNAF3 are synonymous with FNAF4, the "bite" we see is either the "springlock failures" incident or just after it (depends on if you think there's a body in the suit), and it branches off into two theories here (one for 83 and one for 87).
If 83, the restaurants soon shut down and reopen in 87 at FNAF2, and the toy animatronics were based on the actual toys merchandise, and "Mangle" that we see is either the prototype "Funtime Foxy" or a broken toy of the "Funtime Foxy" (I lean towards the former for this theory).
If 87, the FNAF2, FNAF3 tapes and FNAF4 all happen at the same time (note: not a 1:1 night correlation).
Crying Child is Mangle.
The "Bite of 87" occurs after FNAF2, and is the reason for the new animatronics being scrapped. Toy animatronics weren't possessed until the FNAF2 murders, they were simply malfunctioning as described, then tampered with as described, then possessed when "none of them are acting right".
Friendbear is either the Puppet or Shadow Bonnie (Shadow Bonnie acts as a guide in FNAF3 where Friendbear does the same in 4, and I couldn't find a place for him anywhere else).
Eeeeehhh, there is a lot wrong with both sides of your theory.
The Toy animatronics are just toys in 83 part is easily debunked by the following phone guy line Uh, by now I'm sure you've noticed the older models sitting in the back room. Uh, those are from the previous location. We just use them for parts now. The idea at first was to repair them...uh, they even started retrofitting them with some of the newer technology, but they were just so ugly, you know? The smell...uh, so the company decided to go in a whole new direction and make them super kid-friendly.
He is implying that they first just wanted to use the old animatronics and THEN decided to design the toys instead, implying the toy's design was made in 87 itself.
The crying child is mangle
This would just be very dissapointing, with mangle just appearing in fnaf2 out of nowhere and being scrapped straight after, there was not much mystery surrounding her, and whatever soul inhabited her was either never freed or freed with the scrapping of the toys. Not the epic sendoff that the kids from the happiest day got.
Since you're messing with my theory I feel the need to step in and defend it. In that call Phone guy does tell us they decided to go in a new direction and make them kid friendly. Now. What it doesn't say is that they designed them by themselves from scratch. Which is why, with the recent addition of FNAF 4 and the tv easter egg, that Fredbear & Friends was actually a cartoon show aimed at entertaining and educating children through dancing and singing, pretty much like Barney & Friends. It was the cartoon show that inspired the opening of themed restaurants and other merchandise, not the other way around. Hence why there's merchandise of characters that didn't exist in 1982 (mangle, toy collection of toy animatronics) but also why there's stuff of characters that no longer existed in 1987 (Fredbear, Spring Bonnie).
The cartoon existed before the restaurants and thus all the animatronics came from the cartoon show, same for the toys, plushies, masks and cosplays. The first generations of animatronics were based off the characters from the TV show: Fredbear, Freddy, Bonnie, Chica and Foxy. Whereas the second generation of animatronics, the toy animatronics, were designed based on the TOYS the cartoon show producers had been selling for years. What better way to regain the hearts of children than to bring their toys to life? Thus they designed the new animatronics following the design of the toy collections the children had. Thus Toy Freddy, Toy Chica and Toy Bonnie were based on the toy collection we see in the backyard minigame whereas Mangle, whom was originally a hook-and-loop toy/plushie was built so that the animatronic counterpart could also be put apart and back together. Toy chica's beak is removable because the toy she was modeled after had removable and customizable parts as well, it's a girl's toy after all.
The toys were modeled after the toy collections sold by the cartoon show producers. Why do you think they are called TOY animatronics?
If you want to know more check my theory out here http://steamcommunity.com/app/388090/discussions/0/496879865902817647/ it will be less confusing than this blurb of text.
___
As for the Mangle thing, doesn't it seem strange that Mangle is almost the only animatronic from FNAF 2 to appear out of FNAF 2? (Puppet comes from the first pizzeria already, Scott is starting to imply that BB already existed in the first pizzeria too so that one is a mystery). Mangle is seen in FNAF 2 (causing the bite of 87 btw, whether you want to admit it or not but that's the real truth), he's in FNAF 3 as a phantom and in the minigames receiving cake and she's back in FNAF 4 as a torn apart plushie. She definitely has more to do with the story than we're crediting her for.
Why the FNAF 4 child becomes mangle:
- The child in FNAF 4 is bullied by the teens to the point of "breaking him" and needing to be "put back together" by the fredbear plush/Puppet. Mangle is bullied by the toddlers to a "breaking point" needing to be put back together by employees after every shift.
- Mangle's Quest minigame shows a huge kneeling crying figure with black and white stripes. This automatically made us think of the puppet but now it resembles the exact pose the child in FNAF 4 had when he died, kneeling on the ground with tear streams falling to the floor and his striped shirt. http://imgur.com/zcYnE0h
- Mangle doesn't comfort any child but instead gets a cake. Why would Mangle get a cake but not deliver it to anyone? Maybe it's Mangle's way of making amends with what happened to him many years ago? Making peace with having his life taken from him so early? Cake comforts crying spirits, we see it in the rest of the minigames. Mangle getting a cake means he comforted himself.
- He wasn't killed by purple man, he's the odd man out. That's why he receives cake but doesn't show up at the happiest day party.
- Why it's not disappointing, the child that became Mangle died after being "bitten" (more like crunched) by an animatronic and, in return, he's the one to cause the infamous bite of '87. It comes full circle!
He can't be Golden Freddy, the child that became Golden Freddy died at the Freddy Fazbear's Pizza! And he died waaaay before FNAF 2 opened, we would also be short of an animatronic for the five missing children incident, so things just don't add up. He can't be the puppet either because that's not how the child that became the puppet died and the puppet is most likely inside the fredbear plush at this point. So, Mangle's the best fitting choice for him.
-- I refer to mangle as a she or a he randomly now, since the animatronic seems to be female but the spirit is male.
Even if your theory is the best on the page, Scott never EVER awnsed a single theory post. And guess what? He only sayed stuff on Theorys of MatPat. This means a bad thing. Only Scott will say something to a theory, if it is MatPat's sacrifice. So yeah, we are doomed. No way Mat will do another theory video. Say goodbye to the Lore.
Actually uuuhm https://youtu.be/qmLvWL3_mOA?t=14m18s
I would think designing animatronics off your toys instead of toys off your animatronics IS taking things in a whole new direction.
I'm working on a theory now that explains why this isn't disappointing. I won't have it ironed out for a little bit though.
Edit: There is some mystery surrounding Mangle, though. Mangle's presence in FNAF3 (it's sufficiently different to the phantoms but similar to the Puppet. This is part of the theory I'm working on)
But anyway, Scott also never gived a hint, other than a part of his theory on Fnaf2 being right, about something we never knowed right or whatever else.