All the fnaf games are diffrent versions of the same story.

[Your Local Sasquatch]

This is something that i have been thinking about for a little while. What if, all the fnaf games 1,2,3,4, and sister location are all just diffrent version of the same story. Think about it. What is the same story we here in all the games. A person dresses up in one of the mascot costumes and kills children and their bodys are stuffed into the robotic suits and then they get possesd by the souls of the children out for revenge. We hear or see about this in proubably every game we played. But each are told a little bit different, just like a myth or legend. One example would be in when scott said "Four games, one story" This was made before sister location was out, but if SL came out when he posted this it may have said Five games, one story. another example of how each fnaf game ids a diffrent version of the same story is Purple man or pink man uses a mascot coustume to kill kids, And we hear about this alot. I the first game we thought the suit as golden freddy, in the second game, same thing, in the third game it was springtrap, but each are mascot coustumes that you could wear. Same thing with the bite of 87. In the first game foxy, second game, mangle or foxy in third game springtrap or mangle, in the fourth game, fredbear. You see how this makes sence. If you agree comment back and tell me your opinion. But im not saying this is true, just my stupid opinion. Thanks for reading and have a good day guys. (:

[JenkoRun]

Unlikely.

SL is cannon btw.

[Hunter #357]

In 1, it was seven kids who were murdered by a mascot man who was arrested.

In 2, at least six kids were murdered, and it's lightly implied that they used the Golden Freddy suit recently to do it.

In 3, no new children were murdered besides the six that were established in 2. It's implied that the Springbonnie suit was used for murders as well.

In 4, the only death in the game is not caused by a mascot man, but rather by foolish children who were messing around with dangerous machinery.

In SL, the robots were designed to trap/kill children, and on record only got one. No mascot man to be found.


So only 3/5 games involve a murderer in a suit.

[Your Local Sasquatch]

Well its just my opinion and i know sister location is canon

[JenkoRun]

Originally posted by Hunter #357:

In 1, it was seven kids who were murdered by a mascot man who was arrested.

In 2, at least six kids were murdered, and it's lightly implied that they used the Golden Freddy suit recently to do it.

In 3, no new children were murdered besides the six that were established in 2. It's implied that the Springbonnie suit was used for murders as well.

In 4, the only death in the game is not caused by a mascot man, but rather by foolish children who were messing around with dangerous machinery.

In SL, the robots were designed to trap/kill children, and on record only got one. No mascot man to be found.


So only 3/5 games involve a murderer in a suit.

It's possible that the kid we play as in 4 are actually multiple kids that were captured by the SL Animatronics.

[Your Local Sasquatch]

Mabye, Another theory for another day.

[Your Local Sasquatch]

But mainly the story in all the games is kids getting murdered and possesing robots.
Again my opinion.

[bordanka]

This sounds very interesting. Good job!

[d]

na

[Your Local Sasquatch]

Thanks

[AirFreshener]

Scott said MatPat got almost everything right in FNaF 2's video. A lot of it was connecting it to 1.

[Your Local Sasquatch]

@ShanerGamer: True, but did you consider that he ment to say he got everything right in that version of the story(Fnaf 2) and the part were you said a lot was connected to fnaf 1 maybe just the main lore part of it. Just my opinion plz dont kill me. XD

[Rollerwings]

Great theory! It might be added that in each game, we (as the player) are part of the story, going up against the "bad guy" of that game. And with the possible exception of the FNaF3 guard, it never ends well for the player (Mike gets fired, Jeremy gets bitten, the FNaF4 main gameplay child suffers severe nightmares, Eggs Benedict gets scooped.)

[Your Local Sasquatch]

You got the right idea

[Metbert]

Well, interesting.

[Doctor Script]

You aren't wrong for thinking this, but there is a much better result from the observation.

In Literary Theory (specifically, Formalist Criticism), there is a concept called the M.H. Abrams Model of Story Telling. It's a triangle with a point in the center. At the top, you have The Universe, on the lower corners, you have The Author and The Audience, and in the middle, you have The Work.

Basically, each of the four points connect to one another, each demonstrating a different way to look at how the four elements interact with one another. The Author can pull information from the Universe, and trust the Audience has a similar perspective of the universe and use this information to influence how he writes, for example.

Example Depiction [upload.wikimedia.org]

So, with a direct connection from the author to the universe to the audience, we have the Literal layer of story telling (important for Mimetic works, like autobiographies and historical depictions), Between the Author, the work and the audience, we have the Narrative layer of story telling (Which I usually call the 'Figurative' layer, as each of these are narrative layers, uncapitialized. I find the redundancy unnecessary. This is for expressive works, like poetry and just about anything by Kafka). The Final connection, the direct link between the Author and the Audience is the Reflective layer of story telling, the 'rules' for writing that make works good or bad at depicting what the author is trying to convey.

With each successive game he releases, his Figurative Layer is changing. Cawthon is developing skills to make the game more expressive, while still shaving away the Literal to make it more elusive. Because of how drastically different FNAF1 and 2 are, I can tell he went through a major rewrite; He started using framing devices in his works, the story's cast of characters became more pronounced and developed, the scope was defined and became rigid, and he started using throw away lines in FNAF1 as set-ups for pay offs in FNAF2.

Since then, he's maintained a pretty standard use of thematic elements and produced a personal guide of writing that enables him to have a strong story that we unconsciously recognize but cognitively understand. It's to a point that people have dug their heels into the clear and simple solutions to evidence we hear, but can't reconcile letting them go; leading to people declaring that evidence is contradictory and that Cawthon doesn't actually have a story in mind.

I applaud this different direction though, taking each game as their own individual retellings of the same base story; I just disagree on the principle. The 'stories' of each game are interdependent on one another. The Puppet doesn't even appear in FNAF4, for example, while Micheal Afton is superfluous to FNAF1-4. While we know that the suits (or specifically, the masks) are haunted due to FNAF1, we wouldn't have that to go off of in FNAF3.

The answers are here, we just need to step back from failed postulates and look at the old evidence under new eyes.