FANDOM


  • I am aware that a lot of people here believe it is set in 1987, and how this theory is generally despised, but despite that, please bother to read the whole thing. I do not want simple responses of "It's not 1983" without any bit of information to back it up.


    Countering why FNaF 4 is set in 1987 (and not in 1983)

    A big portion of the fandom believes that FNaF 4 is set in 1987, and I think that it would be best to start this by disproving why it is set in 1987 first before I go and present why it is set in 1983 instead.

    "It depicts a Bite"

    This is a surface analysis of the game itself. It is simply straightforward, which is something we DO know isn't what Scott commonly does. The details regarding this Bite is different from what we have established, and what the results were (to be discussed later).

    The Toys

    People also say that FNaF 4 is set in 1987 due to the presence of the Mangle toy, as well as the Toy Animatronic figurines found with a girl outside. However, I do not fully believe that it's the case. Aside from the theory that the Toy Animatronics could've been potentially designed after these very toys (not necessarily fully inspired), this also falls apart when you consider that we have the original squad around. Mangle is a remake of Foxy. There is no point in keeping Foxy for this time (being actually presented as both merch and still used character for Fredbear and Friends) when we supposedly have Mangle to take his place instead. This circumstance implies that the company, or at least the sister companies, keep multiple iterations of characters alive at the same time. This does not make sense, even if they were sister companies.

    Nightmare BB

    Another counter that would support 1987 is the fact that Nightmare BB is considered canon. This would've made sense, except that the boy with the balloon fits his place as well. It might make you think why we have someone named "Nightmare BB", but isn't someone related to the actual BB, but think of it. Nightmare BB, considering that he was made canon later, only means that he was not originally supposed to be a canon character. Nightmare BB only came as a replacement for Plushtrap for the Halloween update, which more or less implies that he's made just for that- he wasn't just thought of much, like how we get Nightmare Mangle, Jack-o-Bonnie, and Jack-o-Chica be literally just tweaked models. This explains why he, assuming he represents the kid we see, is named such and looks similar to BB.

    Aside from that, we see the origins of every canon nightmare in the game. If he really is based on BB, how come we do not see BB in the game? Furthermore, why did we only get Nightmare BB? If the game's events took place on 1987, then we should've seen Nightmarionne and Nightmare Mangle make their way in. In fact, it would have been extremely better if we had Nightmare Mangle, since the only explanation was that it would represent the Toy- which outright confirms 1987. But it wasn't.

    87 codes

    This is one of the reasons people believe that the game is set in 1987. Before the game came out, the website was filled with 87 codes, which hugely implied that it would have something related to 1987. However, this is still in the developmental stage. Things can change while it's not yet released. This is further made obsolete due to the 83 codes appearing recently before release.

    "It's too complicated"

    One of the reasons why people believe that FNaF 4 is not set in 1983 is because they believe that it would make the story more complicated. However, I believe it's the opposite (to be explained later). The story wouldn't be made complicated by 1983, because it exactly fits in there. 

    "It doesn't add to the story"

    It does add to the story, if it was set in 1983. We see more insight about Fredbear's Family Diner, why it shut down, and still gain some information regarding the characters, whether you believe the child or Purple Guy is literally whoever.

    "No other bite was mentioned"

    This was the case for FNaF 2- we got two more murders, despite being introduced with only one. The thing with FNaF is that we get introduced with more and more things every game. FNaF 1 didn't have The Puppet, and it also didn't have FFD. FNaF 2 didn't have Springlock Suits. FNaF 3 didn't have specified identities of characters. FNaF 4 didn't have Funtime Animatronics, or even more information about the killers. This is simply a case of Scott adding something later to the series.

    However, if we want to delve into how it would work with the lore, it's just simple. Phone Guy, being unfamiliar of Fredbear's Family Diner (that he stopped for a moment and was unsure of the name when he mentioned it in FNaF 2), would likewise be unfamiliar of any events surrounding that restaurant as well.

    "It's the finale, we shouldn't get something like that"

    It's the finale, yet we get a completely different story to what we've set in FNaF 1 - 3. The dead children are not concerned in FNaF 4, and we're introduced to another family. Whether or not the game is set in 1987, Scott gave us a different point of the story- it's not unlikely that, even if it's a little odd, we supposedly got another Bite.

    FNaF 4, out of the four games, is the oddest one, whether it's set in 1983 or not. It has no big connection to the dead children, and offers us more specific characters than night guards, and its gameplay is far different than the other three. We get a new child, a new brother, a new family, a new setting, and those are honestly overwhelming already even without a new Bite incident.

    "There are no consequences for this incident"

    Yes there is. FFD was closed due to this incident. This is a stronger reason than murder outside the establishment for the restaurant to close. Even if they were FFP (which I don't really believe), they could've actually left Fredbear already as he is going to bear the bad image.

    The FNaF 1 Phone Call

    Another reason why people insist that it's set in 1987 is because of this phone call. It's sometimes heard in the game, as a distorted audio clip. However, manipulating the audio file reveals that it is the FNaF 1 phone call audio, simply manipulated and distorted. Due to this, people have linked that it's related to The Bite of '87, especially that this is the only phone call to mention that event.

    I do not believe this, for it's too unusual for an easter egg. Scott rarely hinted us anything using audio files, and he rarely hinted us with something as obscure as this. And simply telling us that FNaF 4 is set in 1987 because we have a phone call like that doesn't make sense either. You can't just tell me that it's a hint to 1987 when how it is presented is literally senseless.

    "1983 is a copyright date"

    Even if that is true, it may have meant that the show on the TV was more of an anniversary celebration or something similar. It still does not fully contradict The Bite of '83.

    Why FNaF 4 is set in 1983 (and not in 1987)

    Now that I've finished why FNaF 4 is not set in 1987, let me not present why it's instead set in 1983, and NOT in 1987.

    The timeline is too cramped for 1987

    The timeline, should we follow that FNaF 4 is set in 1987, would be too cramped. 1987 would hold three different iterations of animatronics, two different restaurant names.... and more on the lore. It's honestly too much. It's like we're solving for just one year instead of the whole timeline itself.

    Scott's words on our progress

    You know, when I released the first game over a year ago, I was amazed at how quickly everyone found every bit of lore and story. Then the same happened with part 2, fans and youtubers dug in and found everything. Game Theory did an incredible video on part 2; getting almost everything right. Then part 3 came out, and once again the story was uncovered by the community. It seemed that there was nothing I could hide!
     
    — Scott Cawthon

    While this is self-explanatory, I still want to elaborate that Scott has implied that our progress on the games have been exceptional. If we got things primarily wrong, I don't think he'd be exaggerating to the point of telling us that we found "every bit of lore and story". It is very likely that we got The Bite of '87 right, with more or less Phone Guy being Purple Guy as the thing (or one of the things) that we got wrong.

    It's very likely that our old theory on FNaF 2's relation to The Bite of '87 still stands.

    FNaF 2 Paycheck

    One of the most intriguing details in FNaF 2 is that the paycheck included a year. 1987, to be specific. And to think that the only other event we linked with 1987 was The Bite of '87, now, that people say that FNaF 4 depicts The Bite of '87, only directly implies that the 1987 in FNaF 2 is useless, which contradicts Scott's statement on our progress as well (and would actually make the year a red herring, as it led us to believe that The Bite of '87 relates to FNaF 2).

    I find it hard to see that the paycheck would become useless. Scott doesn't plan his story out directly, but he doesn't directly contradict what we, as a community, have established regarding his lore.

    Toys and Springlocks don't mix up

    Like I've said, if FNaF 4 was really set in 1987, then we would have three iterations simultaneously active. It doesn't make sense. They made the Toys to replace the old animatronics, and we know they shifted to animatronics due to deeming the Springlock Suits unsafe (otherwise they'd be using Springlocks still, even in FNaF 1). We have supposedly the Toys (in 87's case, due to the Mangle Toy), the old animatronics (we see them in Fredbear and Friends, and merchandise of them), as well as the Springlock Suits (Fredbear and Spring Bonnie). That doesn't make sense, especially considering that they're most likely designed consecutively due to the failures of the former models.

    It's set in Fredbear's

    No questions here, it simply doesn't make sense to have Freddy Fazbear's Pizza have a Fredbear but not Freddy. Its presence in 1987 contradicts Phone Guy's statement of the place closing years ago, and wouldn't explain as well why he isn't sure of the name, and why he doubts that they'll track the people in question.

    The Consequences

    Phone Guy mentions that The Bite of '87 caused the animatronics to have their free-roaming disabled. While it's there for safety reasons, it is pretty much known that it's the customers' fault, so doing this only makes them look more responsible for what happened. Additionally, it wouldn't be good entertainment experience for customers, since the animatronics cannot roam (and to think of it, they're actually different models now).

    The 1983 on the TV

    One of the reasons why people believe that the game is set in 1983 is because of this very text on the TV. Why it's shown hasn't been fully explained by 87, and is only assumed to be "something important" without explaining what it actually is, or worse, a simple red herring. 

    One explanation I have for the 1983 on the TV, lore-wise, is that it's the anniversary of the franchise. Considering that the animatronics have existed 20 years prior to 1993, the company could've been made by 1973, and fast forward ten years later, we have a potential ten-year anniversary. This makes more sense than the show being a rerun from 1983 that simply got showed on 1987 (which is, essentially, "1983 is a red herring").

    83 codes

    I've mentioned that 83 codes replaced the 87 codes before, but we also now have FNaF SL's 1983 code. We see the FNaF 4 rooms upon putting 1983 as the code. We have here a strong connection between both concepts, which 87 cannot explain yet. This is yet another reason why FNaF 4 being set in 1983 makes more sense.

    SUMMARY:

    • FNaF 4 is not set in 1987 because:
      • Multiple character iterations in a span of a year does not make sense.
      • Nightmare BB could be potentially the kid we see outside.
      • 87 codes were replaced by 83 codes.
      • FNaF introduced new things every game, it's not far-fetched to have a new bite introduced.
      • The phone call is too far-fetched and too obscure, and how its shown doesn't exactly relate to the year being 1987.
      • The story would be made more complicated by fitting a large portion of the timeline in 1987.
    • FNaF 4 is set in 1983 because:
      • Scott tells us we've solved the game, and even exaggerates it. It is likely we got The Bite of '87 correct, which means it is FNaF 2 relating to it and not FNaF 4.
      • The FNaF 2 Paycheck and the 1983 codes would be red herrings, AKA "I have no explanation for this".
        • 87 cannot agree on what 1983 exactly pertains to.
        • 1983 for 87 can mean a multitude of things, none of which explains its sole relevance to FNaF 4.
      • The restaurant is likely FFD, which is closed in 1987.
      • The consequences do make more sense with the old theory of The Bite of '87 than the new one.

    So anyways, that's it for now. Like I said, I don't want to see anyone simply reply "It's not 1983" without any bit of information. And again, I wish that you read the whole thing. The Summary isn't a TLDR portion.

      Loading editor
    • Beautifully written thread, I mean I completely disagree with it but that's besides the point it's very well done. The teasers may sometimes very rarely be developmental but something as huge as that lore detail isn't something you can just change your mind about. Also calling the FNAF 4 place FFD is...well considering the overwhelming amount of FFP merch and the fact the springsuits are usually established to have been created in the FFP era makes that statement a little bit iffy to say the least.

        Loading editor
    • Still...there are much worse 83 defences out there.

        Loading editor
    • As I said before, '83 could be related to something that, would happen in the new FNAF games, cos most of the new FNAF games are prequels.

        Loading editor
    • Starscream1998 wrote:
      Beautifully written thread, I mean I completely disagree with it but that's besides the point it's very well done. The teasers may sometimes very rarely be developmental but something as huge as that lore detail isn't something you can just change your mind about. Also calling the FNAF 4 place FFD is...well considering the overwhelming amount of FFP merch and the fact the springsuits are usually established to have been created in the FFP era makes that statement a little bit iffy to say the least.

      Well, Scott always has a way when he writes his story. Despite being complicated, he tries to make a way to well... actually make it 'make sense' to the lore. I can see him changing his mind in this topic.

      Considering that Fredbear and Friends have the four, it is likely that they even originated from FFD, or at the very least, it isn't FFP merch, but rather F&F merch. We don't know very well when Springsuits were actually used, but considering that the animatronics have been present since 1973 at most, I can only imagine that they existed with the Springlock Suits, or at least are very old animatronic models used before (considering how simple their endoskeleton is compared to others we've seen).

      I still can't shrug off that Fredbear exists there yet it's FFP, it looks unusual that we have FFP but we have Fredbear as the main character.

      Exl111 wrote:
      As I said before, '83 could be related to something that, would happen in the new FNAF games, cos most of the new FNAF games are prequels.

      As of now, 1983 has been just found on the TV in FNaF 4, the surveillance cameras in FNaF SL (which then show the rooms in FNaF 4), as well as the website when it was still teasing for FNaF 4. Even if Scott continues to develop more games, it seems as if solely FNaF 4 has some major relevance with 1983. 

        Loading editor
    • For me, those are some reminders so that, when an incident happens in any of the new games, we can relate the year to it. But if u r insisting that, '83 has something to do with the recent games, then I guess it might be the CC's birth year.

        Loading editor
    • I don't feel like replying to every single point here, so I'll choose some.

      I do not believe this, for it's too unusual for an easter egg. Scott rarely hinted us anything using audio files, and he rarely hinted us with something as obscure as this. And simply telling us that FNaF 4 is set in 1987 because we have a phone call like that doesn't make sense either. You can't just tell me that it's a hint to 1987 when how it is presented is literally senseless.

      So, what's your proposal for what the phone call means? If it's too unusual for an easter egg, and it's not a hint to 1987 (even though considering all the other hints towards 87 we have to contextualize), then what is it?

      There is no point in keeping Foxy for this time (being actually presented as both merch and still used character for Fredbear and Friends) when we supposedly have Mangle to take his place instead. This circumstance implies that the company, or at least the sister companies, keep multiple iterations of characters alive at the same time. This does not make sense, even if they were sister companies.

      While not featuring Foxy himself, Prize Corner features plushies of the old iterations of Freddy, Bonnie and Chica, even though the Toys are the animatronics being used during that time - which weakens the strength of your statement.

      Like I've said, if FNaF 4 was really set in 1987, then we would have three iterations simultaneously active. [...] They made the Toys to replace the old animatronics, and we know they shifted to animatronics due to deeming the Springlock Suits unsafe (otherwise they'd be using Springlocks still, even in FNaF 1). We have supposedly the Toys (in 87's case, due to the Mangle Toy), the old animatronics (we see them in Fredbear and Friends, and merchandise of them), as well as the Springlock Suits (Fredbear and Spring Bonnie). That doesn't make sense, especially considering that they're most likely designed consecutively due to the failures of the former models.

      First, we don't actually have proof of the old animatronics being at use at all during FNaF 4. In fact, you you stated yourself, we only see them in a TV ad and as merchandise, which isn't enough to confirm that.

      Also, your affirmation they shifted to animatronics because of the spring lock failure incident contradicts this: by assuming the animatronics came as the solution for the spring lock suits, you assume they couldn't coexist, which contradicts your previous statement and the fact those characters actually did coexist in FNaF's universe.

      One of the most intriguing details in FNaF 2 is that the paycheck included a year. 1987, to be specific. And to think that the only other event we linked with 1987 was The Bite of '87, now, that people say that FNaF 4 depicts The Bite of '87, only directly implies that the 1987 in FNaF 2 is useless, which contradicts Scott's statement on our progress as well (and would actually make the year a red herring, as it led us to believe that The Bite of '87 relates to FNaF 2).

      I find it hard to see that the paycheck would become useless. Scott doesn't plan his story out directly, but he doesn't directly contradict what we, as a community, have established regarding his lore.

      How would FNaF 4 make the paycheck useless? That paycheck tells us when the second game happens and confirms it as a prequel. Not only the paycheck helps to make the connections between FNaF 4's bite to the year of 1987 - by presenting characters exclusive to that point in time - it's what makes us set a solid base for the overall timeline. Even if the Bite of '87 has no direct connection to the second game, nothing is rendered useless.

      By the way: the "83" didn't replace the "87" in ScottGames' code; they coexisted.

        Loading editor
    • Starscream1998 wrote: Beautifully written thread, I mean I completely disagree with it but that's besides the point it's very well done. The teasers may sometimes very rarely be developmental but something as huge as that lore detail isn't something you can just change your mind about. Also calling the FNAF 4 place FFD is...well considering the overwhelming amount of FFP merch and the fact the springsuits are usually established to have been created in the FFP era makes that statement a little bit iffy to say the least.

      Would it make more sense if that location originally was FFD and it transformed after the Fazbear company bought it in 1983.

        Loading editor
    • Nam Elprup wrote:
      1. So, what's your proposal for what the phone call means? If it's too unusual for an easter egg, and it's not a hint to 1987 (even though considering all the other hints towards 87 we have to contextualize), then what is it?
      2. While not featuring Foxy himself, Prize Corner features plushies of the old iterations of Freddy, Bonnie and Chica, even though the Toys are the animatronics being used during that time - which weakens the strength of your statement.
      3. First, we don't actually have proof of the old animatronics being at use at all during FNaF 4. In fact, you you stated yourself, we only see them in a TV ad and as merchandise, which isn't enough to confirm that. Also, your affirmation they shifted to animatronics because of the spring lock failure incident contradicts this: by assuming the animatronics came as the solution for the spring lock suits, you assume they couldn't coexist, which contradicts your previous statement and the fact those characters actually did coexist in FNaF's universe. I find it hard to see that the paycheck would become useless.
      4. How would FNaF 4 make the paycheck useless? That paycheck tells us when the second game happens and confirms it as a prequel. Not only the paycheck helps to make the connections between FNaF 4's bite to the year of 1987 - by presenting characters exclusive to that point in time - it's what makes us set a solid base for the overall timeline. Even if the Bite of '87 has no direct connection to the second game, nothing is rendered useless.
      5. By the way: the "83" didn't replace the "87" in ScottGames' code; they coexisted.


      1. It's just for the atmosphere. Like I said, it's too unusual, and too obscure. It's not very necessary since in the first place, it's so hidden, which Scott has mostly never done before. He'd have us click at things on the screen but not actually get the time to manipulate distorted sounds (which is more unlikely for us to do since he mostly uses stock sounds). He could've simply used the sound and distorted it and put it in the game because it fits in the atmosphere.
      2. Those are simply merchandise. However, in the game, we see him in Fredbear and Friends. It's too unusual to have two Foxies present at the same time. Whether or not he existed as an animatronic at that time, it would still be confusing to have both Mangle AND Foxy, who are essentially one character, be present. 
      3. Both of them do coexist. However, I am thinking that the newer animatronic models (AKA Toys and Old Animatronics) were made due to this very incident. They have more complicated animatronic models compared to the FNaF 1 Animatronics. What I'm saying is that, Springlock Suits and Animatronics coexisted, it's just that another group of animatronics were made to replace the Springlock Suits- and later on, since these would malfunction/Bite/be possessed, they went back with the original twenty-year-old animatronics.
      4. FNaF 2's setting in 1987 isn't the major evidence why it was a prequel. The ending of FNaF 2 and the existence of Phone Guy were the major reasons why people believed it. Even then, Scott could've actually used another year, or he could've left the year "xx" for us to guess like what we did with FNaF 1. I find it hard to believe that he put such a specific and notable year to FNaF 2 only to be completely irrelecant to The Bite of '87. And if he even wanted to tell us that FNaF 4 was set in 1987, perhaps more "87" than "83" could've worked. 
      5. Which is still left unexplained by 87. I hate to say it, but both codes can be rendered useless due to only existing during development. I'm just weighing 83 more because it's more recent, and is more linked to FNaF 4 than 87 is.
        Loading editor
    • At the end of the day I suppose if 83 gets the official green thumb from Scott I can live with it...I mean it will still be an utterly stupid move from the standpoint of story telling but hey not my games so not my decision to make. I mean c'mon Scott, I wasn't too thrilled about the idea of you blowing off something as important as the final chapter for the bite of '87 which feels like scraping the bottom of the barrel for ideas when there were so many other questions that needed answering like who was the Purple Guy (not counting SL because if that's meant to be a Purple Guy origin story it's retconnish as fuck s'cuse my French). But I can actually reason with that as the direction for the finale...shoving in a completely unnecessary extra bite just doesn't do it for me.

        Loading editor
    • 1. Assuming this has no meaning would follow under a category similar to "random easter eggs" Scott mentioned this game didn't have - which to me means he didn't add meaningless elements to the game. If it was just for atmosphere, he could've used any other that wouldn't cause controversy. Assuming this has no meaning is just a lazy way of dealing with it. (Sorry for having two similar sentences).

      2. Then what's the "Mangle" toy in the bedroom? If not a Mangle merchandise coexisting with Foxy?

      3. So, you are assuming the Withered =/= Classics, because? I don't see a reason for this to be the case. I mean, it would even literally mean having two Foxy withered in the same manner. And how are the Classics possessed, then?

      4. I said it confirms, not it's the major or only evidence. And I mean, we literally have more indications to 87 than to 83, in the game itself. Be it because of the Toys, how Plushtrap's hallway mirrors FNaF 2's hallway, Nightmare BB, Mangle, Purple Guy's design matching his SAVETHEM design, the reversed phone call literally mentioning it. Quantity of evidences wise, 87 wins. Even if 1983 is the true answer (which I'd be fine), most of it is based around interpretations, which can go either way; you must just find the one that fits better, something I believe no one accomplished yet.

      5. I was just correcting you.

        Loading editor
    • Yeah on point 3 that reminds me, does anyone know if Bossi still thinks the FNAF 1 animatronics were refurbished, broken, rebuilt and then broken again whilst the company is one breath away from bankruptcy and going out of business because I've had time to mull that over (like 2 to 3 years) and it still makes very little sense.

        Loading editor
    • Jesus Christ I don't wanna read all that

        Loading editor
    • Nam Elprup wrote:
      1. Assuming this has no meaning would follow under a category similar to "random easter eggs" Scott mentioned this game didn't have - which to me means he didn't add meaningless elements to the game. If it was just for atmosphere, he could've used any other that wouldn't cause controversy. Assuming this has no meaning is just a lazy way of dealing with it. (Sorry for having two similar sentences).

      2. Then what's the "Mangle" toy in the bedroom? If not a Mangle merchandise coexisting with Foxy?

      3. So, you are assuming the Withered =/= Classics, because? I don't see a reason for this to be the case. I mean, it would even literally mean having two Foxy withered in the same manner. And how are the Classics possessed, then?

      4. I said it confirms, not it's the major or only evidence. And I mean, we literally have more indications to 87 than to 83, in the game itself. Be it because of the Toys, how Plushtrap's hallway mirrors FNaF 2's hallway, Nightmare BB, Mangle, Purple Guy's design matching his SAVETHEM design, the reversed phone call literally mentioning it. Quantity of evidences wise, 87 wins. Even if 1983 is the true answer (which I'd be fine), most of it is based around interpretations, which can go either way; you must just find the one that fits better, something I believe no one accomplished yet.

      5. I was just correcting you.


      1. It's not that this is a meaningless easter egg, it's that it's simply not an easter egg. Like I said, I find it hard to believe that Scott actually thinks that we'd be able to solve the lore if he hid clues to THAT extent. I'm not Scott, but you gotta make sure that whatever you want to be found, has to be very accessible. As I've said earlier, it's very unlikely that someone from the fandom would take the time to actually do this, since Scott's never hinted at something before through hidden sounds.
      2. It's just a Foxy toy, personally. The coexistence of three different generations just seems too out of the realm for me, and it still doesn't make sense that they'd have both Foxy and Mangle at the same time.
      3. The FNaF 1 Animatronics are possessed by the Go!Go!Go! children, while the Old Animatronics could have been possessed by the Save Them children. The FNaF 1 Animatronics are not the Old Animatronics simply due to the fact that they have different endoskeleton models and appearances.
      4. The Toys make the timeline only more convoluted, we have two periods already with FNaF 2 and it doesn't help that we would have FFD and the Old Animatronics exist at this time too. Nightmare BB is likely to be based on the kid outside and not the actual BB, and Nightmare Mangle isn't canon. Purple Guy could've worked with FFD before and just followed FFP. And like I said, the phone call is still too obscure. 87 mostly twists the lore and it seems to me as if Scott simply forced a dramatic reveal to fit on a hole we HAD potentially solved. Three generations of characters don't fit, FFD did not exist in 1987, Scott implies we have primarily solved the lore, etc.
        Loading editor
    • 1. I forgot to say something. If I'm not mistaken, the blueprints for Sister Location's robots aren't accessible in the game itself, but were found by people dumping the sprites and images. But maybe I'm wrong.

      2. So, to you it makes more sense to have an unexplicable pinkish broken Foxy toy with a second endo-looking head that resembles Mangle but isn't Mangle?

      3. But how are the Withereds possessed by the SAVETHEM kids when this incident happened after the Toys were created and the Withereds were decomissioned because of their awful smell, connecting it to the smell the animatronics were said to have after the murders and, consequently, having children stuffed into them?

      4. I wasn't talking about Nightmare Mangle, but about the Mangle-looking toy you say isn't Mangle.

      Also, FNaF 4 set in 1987 =/= 3 simultaneous generations. It would be the Withered decomissioned, the spring lock suits at FFD and the Toys at FFP. Because if it's 1987, then the 1983 from the ad doesn't represent the year we're at, so it doesn't mean those animatronics are in use. Also, let me contextualize how I view the 1987 alternative: it happens after the phone calls were recorded.

      It solves problems you present to be why 1987 isn't the year 4 is set. FNaF 2's location opened in the Summer and the paycheck is from November - yet, it was only opened for weeks. Thanks to Phone Guy, we know the restaurant temporarily closed, explaining this discrepancy. IF FNaF 4's location is FFD to any kind, for all we know it could have opened after the FNaF 2's location first opened - removing the "FFD closed years before 1987" issue. As well as the "different generations coexisting", that seems to be an issue to you.

        Loading editor
    • HTFMime wrote: Jesus Christ I don't wanna read all that

      I the son of God hear your prayer and say unto thee...tough shit, I'm sure as hell not simplifying it.

        Loading editor
    • Thanks Jesus

        Loading editor
    • You're welcome

        Loading editor
    • Starscream1998 wrote: At the end of the day I suppose if 83 gets the official green thumb from Scott I can live with it...I mean it will still be an utterly stupid move from the standpoint of story telling but hey not my games so not my decision to make. I mean c'mon Scott, I wasn't too thrilled about the idea of you blowing off something as important as the final chapter for the bite of '87 which feels like scraping the bottom of the barrel for ideas when there were so many other questions that needed answering like who was the Purple Guy (not counting SL because if that's meant to be a Purple Guy origin story it's retconnish as fuck s'cuse my French). But I can actually reason with that as the direction for the finale...shoving in a completely unnecessary extra bite just doesn't do it for me.

      I thought you argue that it's Scott's story when I mention that there is bad writing associated with the 'conflict' between purple guy and the children.

        Loading editor
      1. Even if that was true, that was a common activity back then. Manipulating images and looking for image files were some things people would do when digging up information from the game. Manipulating audio files, however, especially knowing that Scott mostly uses stock sounds, is a rare thing. In fact, the only other prevalent information we have regarding manipulating sounds is Mangle's static- but even then, it's likely to be stock sound, therefore doesn't mean anything at all.
      2. Anyone could've played with it. And like I said, three generations present in one time is just too much. We've settled the timeline mostly, more or less having these generations separate.
      3. Phone Guy simply said "the smell....". It's not much that points to them being stuffed with the Go!Go!Go! kids. In fact, they did plan to repair them (which is likely not what you'd do if you get suits stuffed with children), but, as Phone Guy tells you, "they were just so ugly". Additionally, Phone Guy tells you that the company went to a new direction, making the characters "super kid-friendly". Comparing the Toy Animatronics to their old counterparts, it seems that it's not the smell that prompted them to the Toys, but rather their appearance.
      4. In FNaF 4, we see three generations already simultaneously existing, by 87. First, Fredbear, which is pretty obvious, then we have the old characters, which are present on the TV Show, and their replacements on restaurants (since we supposedly have Mangle at this point). Your alternative view still poses a problem, though. There is no reason for FFD to be actually open at this point, whether they're sister locations with FFP or not. The sudden return is unexplained, and adding that the company prompted to the FFD owner when Purple Guy struck (Save Them), it's likely that Purple Guy have done something to them as well (which, considering they're just a Diner, they could've closed for good already). In fact, THIS very event we're discussing is why I think they went to the FFD owner. Additionally, like I said, this still sounds as if Scott forced a dramatic reveal on the lore. It is established that FFD was closed for years in 1987. Scott shows us FFD, as if he just suddenly added that "FFD was closed for years in 1987- at that time. Here's after that".
        Loading editor
    • Timetoscare wrote: I thought you argue that it's Scott's story when I mention that there is bad writing associated with the 'conflict' between purple guy and the children.

      Key difference is TTS the conflict between Purple Guy and his victims is visually given precedence over everything else and also note that while I am saying I don't like certain plot decisions I'm acknowledging they happened contrary to my opinionated feelings on the story.

        Loading editor
    • Starscream1998 wrote:

      Timetoscare wrote: I thought you argue that it's Scott's story when I mention that there is bad writing associated with the 'conflict' between purple guy and the children.

      Key difference is TTS the conflict between Purple Guy and his victims is visually given precedence over everything else and also note that while I am saying I don't like certain plot decisions I'm acknowledging they happened contrary to my opinionated feelings on the story.

      How? The kids are too stupid and heartless during that conflict.

      I've seen a animated movie about the children - the protagonist - becoming sea creatures and the main character won by tricking the intelligent antagonist into performing suicidal drowning. By the way, the antagonist in that movie was played by the same guy who performed as Professer Snape in the Harry Potter movies.

        Loading editor
    • The kids are anything but stupid, ask any infuriated lets player after a crazy Custom Night.

      Hey I know that movie where they turn into fish and the fish antagonist dies from becoming human what was it called? Now that is interesting.

        Loading editor
    • Starscream1998 wrote: The kids are anything but stupid, ask any infuriated lets player after a crazy Custom Night.

      Hey I know that movie where they turn into fish and the fish antagonist dies from becoming human what was it called? Now that is interesting.

      I wonder it's because they are only facing one night gaurd.

        Loading editor
    • Hey they're limited by programming and slow metallic bodies, what's the excuse for a fully grown male human adult who to my knowledge possesses no handicaps. If anyone is the idiot in these games it's the nightguard for not getting out of dodge or at least finding a better method than playing along with the whole 'sharks around a cage' game.

        Loading editor
    • Starscream1998 wrote: Hey they're limited by programming and slow metallic bodies, what's the excuse for a fully grown male human adult who to my knowledge possesses no handicaps. If anyone is the idiot in these games it's the nightguard for not getting out of dodge or at least finding a better method than playing along with the whole 'sharks around a cage' game.

      Technology only gave them strong and powerful bodies. If they were smart, they wouldn't kill every adult they see.

        Loading editor
    • They've also been stuck in said bodies for years. Vengeance and blind anger rarely includes discernment.

        Loading editor
    • Starscream1998 wrote: They've also been stuck in said bodies for years. Vengeance and blind anger rarely includes discernment.

      Why didn't Nightmare fall into this mindset yet GF does?

        Loading editor
    • Because Nightmare and GF are completely different characters who died completely different deaths and they don't actually have anything in common except for the fact they are ghost type animatronics.

        Loading editor
    • Starscream1998 wrote: Because Nightmare and GF are completely different characters who died completely different deaths and they don't actually have anything in common except for the fact they are ghost type animatronics.

      I don't care, Nightmare had a worse childhood and he was killed by the same guy in the most emotional way possible. GF has no excuses.

        Loading editor
    • Yes because getting murdered and stuffed into a suit clearly isn't a viable excuse.

        Loading editor
    • Starscream1998 wrote: Yes because getting murdered and stuffed into a suit clearly isn't a viable excuse.

      And Nightmare saw that happening and feared for his life. Instead of having that fate, he becomes mentally broken instead.

        Loading editor
    • Dude no kid in this series is going to be not mentally screwed up in some way or another.

        Loading editor
    • Starscream1998 wrote: Dude no kid in this series is going to be not mentally screwed up in some way or another.

      It doesn't give them the right to be stupid.

        Loading editor
    • Since when do mentally screwed up people have a reputation for rational thinking?

        Loading editor
    • Starscream1998 wrote: Since when do mentally screwed up people have a reputation for rational thinking?

      The killer had twisted logic, the animatronics are retarded.

        Loading editor
    • You know what else the animatronics are...actually physically present in most of the games and take an active role throughout the series. Having seen 10/20 mode I'm not getting any real 'retard' vibes just imminent danger.

        Loading editor
    • Starscream1998 wrote: You know what else the animatronics are...actually physically present in most of the games and take an active role throughout the series. Having seen 10/20 mode I'm not getting any real 'retard' vibes just imminent danger.

      Just because they're physically dangerous, it doesn't mean they're smarter than Baby and Nightmare.

        Loading editor
    • True, but there is a difference between being not very bright and being a full on retard. The kids are more confused and angry than retarded really.

        Loading editor
    • Starscream1998 wrote: True, but there is a difference between being not very bright and being a full on retard. The kids are more confused and angry than retarded really.

      Baby is possessed by a child who experience torture even in death, yet she never acted like these five morons.

        Loading editor
    • She never acted much at all, Baby seems to behave like an independent entity from the girl anyways.

        Loading editor
    • It there were two bites, and ome happened with Fred bear, and one happened with withered foxy, so a bunch of bullies take the crying Chile and shove his head into fredbear and he dies and 4 years later, the ffd has shut down, the toy animatronics are being used after fredbears family diner had shut down after fredbear and springbonnie had been replaced by Freddy Bonnie Chica and foxy, in between those two, they replaced fredbear with golden freddy, but that didn't work out and fast forward to 87 and some kid (likely) gets dared to go into parts and service, and he approaches foxy and foxy bites his head, some employee finds out calls an ambulance and police, and maybe gets fired and arrested, he had charges dropped, and phone guy mentioned that in his phone call (fnaf 1 and fnaf2) and the toy animatronics were scrapped, due to a drop in customers and they moved to an new location

        Loading editor
    • Starscream1998 wrote: She never acted much at all, Baby seems to behave like an independent entity from the girl anyways.

      Or like Nightmare, she simply change.

        Loading editor
    • And that new location is fnaf 1

        Loading editor
    • Plus the afton experiments theroy, than my theory would be golden

        Loading editor
    • Timetoscare wrote: Or like Nightmare, she simply change.

      If by change you mean a fractured identity disassociation sure.

        Loading editor
    • I read this with 87% battery life on my tablet lol

        Loading editor
    • Good to know I guess?

        Loading editor
    • Pokeproboyz wrote: It there were two bites, and ome happened with Fred bear, and one happened with withered foxy, so a bunch of bullies take the crying Chile and shove his head into fredbear and he dies and 4 years later, the ffd has shut down, the toy animatronics are being used after fredbears family diner had shut down after fredbear and springbonnie had been replaced by Freddy Bonnie Chica and foxy, in between those two, they replaced fredbear with golden freddy, but that didn't work out and fast forward to 87 and some kid (likely) gets dared to go into parts and service, and he approaches foxy and foxy bites his head, some employee finds out calls an ambulance and police, and maybe gets fired and arrested, he had charges dropped, and phone guy mentioned that in his phone call (fnaf 1 and fnaf2) and the toy animatronics were scrapped, due to a drop in customers and they moved to an new location

      That might explain Mangle's static.

      Mangle static says: Sir we have a boy...... missing his frontal lobe...sir the signal is 101.

      And something else.

        Loading editor
    • Exl111
      Exl111 removed this reply because:
      fghhj
      21:12, August 22, 2017
      This reply has been removed
    • Doesn't Scott mostly use stock sound files, I doubt that's what Mangle is saying exactly.

        Loading editor
    • You're stupid! Now get a life and accept that the FNaF 4 location is a Sister Location to the FNaF 2 location!

        Loading editor
    • The Freddy Files referred to the 1983 TV easter egg as a copyright date so I guess it sucks to be Team 83 right about now.

        Loading editor
    • Starscream1998 wrote: Doesn't Scott mostly use stock sound files, I doubt that's what Mangle is saying exactly.

      Don't forget that he does have his own interruptions. Perhaps the file itself has inspired the bite of 87 idea in the first place.

        Loading editor
    • Starscream1998 wrote:
      The Freddy Files referred to the 1983 TV easter egg as a copyright date so I guess it sucks to be Team 83 right about now.

      I remember about Scott saying that the novel is AU and that it's not there to solve anything. I do not know whether or not it's still applied to the recent book/s (like I've said before, I'm not very informed about SL, I'm sure wouldn't be more informed about the books).

      And even if it is the copyright date (for what, exactly?), it's still not much of a problem, it can still be starting at the same year. Additionally, this can still tie with my anniversary guess, since they probably wanted to do something new on the anniversary. But then, I do not exactly know what the copyright date is for, so I may be wrong on what I've said.

        Loading editor
    • Timetoscare
      Timetoscare removed this reply because:
      Out of topic.
      01:05, August 31, 2017
      This reply has been removed
    • It's copyright date for Freadbear and Friends tv cartoon show. And You do not usually use the date for the shows that are currently airing, You use it for shows that gets new version and copyright date is the way to tell them apart and avoid confusion. For example we have TMNT (1987), TMNT (2000) and new TMNT that have 5th season in production

        Loading editor
    • CannibalWife wrote:

      Starscream1998 wrote:
      The Freddy Files referred to the 1983 TV easter egg as a copyright date so I guess it sucks to be Team 83 right about now.

      I remember about Scott saying that the novel is AU and that it's not there to solve anything. I do not know whether or not it's still applied to the recent book/s (like I've said before, I'm not very informed about SL, I'm sure wouldn't be more informed about the books).

      And even if it is the copyright date (for what, exactly?), it's still not much of a problem, it can still be starting at the same year. Additionally, this can still tie with my anniversary guess, since they probably wanted to do something new on the anniversary. But then, I do not exactly know what the copyright date is for, so I may be wrong on what I've said.

      To be fair there are a few typos in the book and logical mishaps but it's still Scott saying all this so I can't really offer you any higher counter argument than the literal Word of God when it comes to all things FNAF.

        Loading editor
    • CannibalWife wrote:

      Starscream1998 wrote:
      The Freddy Files referred to the 1983 TV easter egg as a copyright date so I guess it sucks to be Team 83 right about now.

      I remember about Scott saying that the novel is AU and that it's not there to solve anything. I do not know whether or not it's still applied to the recent book/s (like I've said before, I'm not very informed about SL, I'm sure wouldn't be more informed about the books).

      And even if it is the copyright date (for what, exactly?), it's still not much of a problem, it can still be starting at the same year. Additionally, this can still tie with my anniversary guess, since they probably wanted to do something new on the anniversary. But then, I do not exactly know what the copyright date is for, so I may be wrong on what I've said.

      Well, even if both of them occured at the same time, kids wouldn't watch a bear that caused the death of a child, and the show would stop being aired.

        Loading editor
    • So long as nobody says FNAF 4 is the first in the timeline I'm cool.
      Purple Guy Helping Suit

      Because this scene...

      AftonWalk6

      ...ain't happening before this scene.

        Loading editor
    • I'm pretty sure FNAF4 happenss before SL and whole "purpling of Mike" thingy. PuG from FNAF2 and 4 is most likely Will while FNAF3 and SL is Mike. Even though it seems like shameless retcon...

        Loading editor
    • SenshiNoRyu wrote: I'm pretty sure FNAF4 happenss before SL and whole "purpling of Mike" thingy. PuG from FNAF2 and 4 is most likely Will while FNAF3 and SL is Mike. Even though it seems like shameless retcon...

      There's only so much my bullshit-o-meter can handle, I can let off that William is a Pink Guy and Michael is a Purple Guy but that's ALL the retconning you're gonna get out of me.

        Loading editor
    • Starscream1998 wrote:

      SenshiNoRyu wrote: I'm pretty sure FNAF4 happenss before SL and whole "purpling of Mike" thingy. PuG from FNAF2 and 4 is most likely Will while FNAF3 and SL is Mike. Even though it seems like shameless retcon...

      There's only so much my bullshit-o-meter can handle, I can let off that William is a Pink Guy and Michael is a Purple Guy but that's ALL the retconning you're gonna get out of me.

      If Michael was the pink guy, there wouldn't be any retcons.

        Loading editor
    • ...Yes there would, for starters Michael Afton's mere existence.

        Loading editor
    • Bird.png

      this is bird

        Loading editor
    • So cute yet so badass

        Loading editor
    • Starscream1998 wrote: ...Yes there would, for starters Michael Afton's mere existence.

      No, it's just his name. He already had a provable existence in fnaf4 - unlike the little girl.

        Loading editor
    • Timetoscare wrote:

      Starscream1998 wrote: ...Yes there would, for starters Michael Afton's mere existence.

      No, it's just his name. He already had a provable existence in fnaf4 - unlike the little girl.

      Pigtailed girl

      Yep...totally unlike the little girl.

        Loading editor
    • Do u think this is the ICG?

        Loading editor
    • Exl111 wrote: Do u think this is the ICG?

      Why not, she looks like Baby i.e. the robot her dad made for her and she even has green eyes.
      Foxy Bully

      As for the tan...well it is hot weather outside and even the brother seems to have this kind of skin...

      FoxyMask

      ...as well as this kind of skin.

        Loading editor
    • Starscream1998 wrote:

      Timetoscare wrote:

      Starscream1998 wrote: ...Yes there would, for starters Michael Afton's mere existence.

      No, it's just his name. He already had a provable existence in fnaf4 - unlike the little girl.

      Pigtailed girl

      Yep...totally unlike the little girl.

      That's not a sister, that's a random redhead.

        Loading editor
    • Its just a coincidence. There is a girl in FNAF 4 that resembled Ballora.

        Loading editor
    • Exl111 wrote: Its just a coincidence. There is a girl in FNAF 4 that resembled Ballora.

      Seriously?

        Loading editor
    • I am sorry Idk how to upload a picture on this Wiki.

        Loading editor
    • Exl111 wrote: I am sorry Idk how to upload a picture on this Wiki.

      Go to imgur, post it, then copy the link and post it on your Wiki comment.

        Loading editor
    •   Loading editor
    • Is it working?

        Loading editor
    • Exl111 wrote: Is it working?

      Yes.

        Loading editor
    • Timetoscare wrote: That's not a sister, that's a random redhead.

      Who also happens to look like Baby and have green eyes.

        Loading editor
    • Starscream1998 wrote:

      Timetoscare wrote: That's not a sister, that's a random redhead.

      Who also happens to look like Baby and have green eyes.

      And neither her or Baby look like the little blonde cunt that was killed by Baby.

        Loading editor
    • Timetoscare wrote:

      Starscream1998 wrote:

      Timetoscare wrote: That's not a sister, that's a random redhead.

      Who also happens to look like Baby and have green eyes.

      And neither her or Baby look like the little blonde cunt that was killed by Baby.

      I dunno, besides clearer skin and lighter hair along with different clothes the changes aren't that massive.

        Loading editor
    • Starscream1998 wrote:

      Timetoscare wrote:

      Starscream1998 wrote:

      Timetoscare wrote: That's not a sister, that's a random redhead.

      Who also happens to look like Baby and have green eyes.

      And neither her or Baby look like the little blonde cunt that was killed by Baby.

      I dunno, besides clearer skin and lighter hair along with different clothes the changes aren't that massive.

      Star, you're stretching this shit for far too long. It's pissing me off. I'm so sick of the endless inconsistencies logic you follow. Everytime I fucking try to rid of it, you don't like it even though it's the professional way to depict the characters' appearances.

        Loading editor
    • Starscream1998 wrote:

      Timetoscare wrote:

      Starscream1998 wrote:

      Timetoscare wrote: That's not a sister, that's a random redhead.

      Who also happens to look like Baby and have green eyes.

      And neither her or Baby look like the little blonde cunt that was killed by Baby.

      I dunno, besides clearer skin and lighter hair along with different clothes the changes aren't that massive.

      I can't deny that the older brother changed in the last minigame, but the only change was that he used Donald Trump's tan spray, nothing else changed.

        Loading editor
    • Exl111 wrote:

      Starscream1998 wrote:

      Timetoscare wrote:

      Starscream1998 wrote:

      Timetoscare wrote: That's not a sister, that's a random redhead.

      Who also happens to look like Baby and have green eyes.

      And neither her or Baby look like the little blonde cunt that was killed by Baby.

      I dunno, besides clearer skin and lighter hair along with different clothes the changes aren't that massive.

      I can't deny that the older brother changed in the last minigame, but the only change was that he used Donald Trump's tan spray, nothing else changed.

      Although his black eyes and mask have change, he might actually be the guy with the Freddy mask at the very end of the room. The guy himself does have Michael's black eyes from the previous two mini-games. The guy in the Freddy mask also has blonde hair instead of black hair. The reason why I have to point that out is because of the influences the sun has on blonde hair. If a person hasen't been out in the sun for a while, their hair will darken to a brown. Since Michael hasn't been in the sun that much since he works at SL during the nights and sleeps during the day, his hair will appear to be brown.

        Loading editor
    • Remeber the guy who was laughing outside the location? that's him. Its the Freddy mask guy.

        Loading editor
    • Exl111 wrote: Remeber the guy who was laughing outside the location? that's him. Its the Freddy mask guy.

      Nope. He has darker hair. Kid_5_Laugh.gif

        Loading editor
    • Freddy Bully

      Not a big deal

        Loading editor
    • Besides TFF basically told us the older brother was wearing a foxy mask in every instance, no need to make it convoluted.

        Loading editor
    • Starscream1998 wrote: Besides TFF basically told us the older brother was wearing a foxy mask in every instance, no need to make it convoluted.

      Get me a citation.

        Loading editor
    • Timetoscare wrote:

      Starscream1998 wrote: Besides TFF basically told us the older brother was wearing a foxy mask in every instance, no need to make it convoluted.

      Get me a citation.

      I've asked Bossi to send me a link, give me a mo.

        Loading editor
    • Actually while I'm waiting take a look at the picture bottom row third one along from the left https://imgur.com/a/0vRxH?grid

        Loading editor
    • Exl111 wrote:
      Freddy Bully

      Not a big deal

      I agree. Besides, the possible reason why his hair is a lighter shade of brown with the mask on, is so his hair wouldn't blend in with the mask.

        Loading editor
    • Here's Bossi's just to confirm my previous link was legit https://imgur.com/gallery/pEegs

      Oh and just as a side note the Mangle toy is explicitly called a toy just throwing that out there.

        Loading editor
    • Tricakay27 wrote:

      Exl111 wrote:
      Freddy Bully

      Not a big deal

      I agree. Besides, the possible reason why his hair is a lighter shade of brown with the mask on, is so his hair wouldn't blend in with the mask.

      I wonder why Scott couldn't just put more time into improving his sprites? If you look at pixelated Sonic Games and Castlevania, those games generally have sprites that are smaller than any of the characters from the fnaf game series but they are very consistent in their appearance.

        Loading editor
    • Starscream1998 wrote: Here's Bossi's just to confirm my previous link was legit https://imgur.com/gallery/pEegs

      Oh and just as a side note the Mangle toy is explicitly called a toy just throwing that out there.

      Actually, you might want to look into the night 5 description for the mini-game. It's actually very unspecific on what mask the older brother is wearing.

      The Mangle toy is still mechanical and unfinished.

        Loading editor
    • Quickly going back to the OP yeah no I'm still on Team 87 even if it boils down to the reasoning of the logical progression of the narrative.

        Loading editor
    • But, TFF explicitly state that it's a toy, not an actual working robot.

        Loading editor
    • Starscream1998 wrote: Quickly going back to the OP yeah no I'm still on Team 87 even if it boils down to the reasoning of the logical progression of the narrative.

      Nightmare is the bite victim, he can simply influence William to build it without breaking the continuity.

        Loading editor
    • SomeOrdinaryUser wrote: But, TFF explicitly state that it's a toy, not an actual working robot.

      Then why does it have robotic body parts?

        Loading editor
    • Who ever said it had robot parts?

        Loading editor
    • It literally says toy here ZsYNQK6.png

        Loading editor
    • The endo parts are because it's based on Mangle which means FNAF 4 is happening in a time period where Toy Foxy has already been mangled i.e. further cementing the year as 1987.

        Loading editor
    • Starscream1998 wrote: The endo parts are because it's based on Mangle which means FNAF 4 is happening in a time period where Toy Foxy has already been mangled i.e. further cementing the year as 1987.

      Or the older brother just created the toy and was experimenting with animatronic technology like any artist that push themselves.

        Loading editor
    • Timetoscare wrote: Or the older brother just created the toy and was experimenting with animatronic technology like any artist that push themselves.

      So what you're saying is that the older brother made a Mangle toy out of actual animatronic parts?

        Loading editor
    • SomeOrdinaryUser wrote:

      Timetoscare wrote: Or the older brother just created the toy and was experimenting with animatronic technology like any artist that push themselves.

      So what you're saying is that the older brother made a Mangle toy out of actual animatronic parts?

      And the toy Foxy head he ripped out of his little brother's Foxy toy.

        Loading editor
    • So the Mangle toy is made of real endoskeleton parts, and the big bro is making a animatronic with the Foxy head?

        Loading editor
    • SomeOrdinaryUser wrote: So the Mangle toy is made of real endoskeleton parts, and the big bro is making a animatronic with the Foxy head?

      It's more correct to say that the Mangle toy was made with animatronics parts and a toy Foxy head - which is dyed in pink.

        Loading editor
    • Timetoscare wrote:

      Starscream1998 wrote: The endo parts are because it's based on Mangle which means FNAF 4 is happening in a time period where Toy Foxy has already been mangled i.e. further cementing the year as 1987.

      Or the older brother just created the toy and was experimenting with animatronic technology like any artist that push themselves.

      ...quick question TTS, is there any scenario you've entertained in your head where you're wrong?

        Loading editor
    • Starscream1998 wrote:

      Timetoscare wrote:

      Starscream1998 wrote: The endo parts are because it's based on Mangle which means FNAF 4 is happening in a time period where Toy Foxy has already been mangled i.e. further cementing the year as 1987.

      Or the older brother just created the toy and was experimenting with animatronic technology like any artist that push themselves.

      ...quick question TTS, is there any scenario you've entertained in your head where you're wrong?

      Is there is a scenario in your head that the killer isn't a boring one-dimmonsinal guy that you can easily find in a MYSTERY story but be unable to find out why he's after the victims he killed in the first place?

        Loading editor
    • Yes plenty actually, but what about my question?

        Loading editor
    • Starscream1998 wrote: Yes plenty actually, but what about my question?

      I only imagine that being the case when Scott is a shitty writer.

        Loading editor
    • Timetoscare wrote:

      Starscream1998 wrote: Yes plenty actually, but what about my question?

      I only imagine that being the case when Scott is a shitty writer.

      Well aren't you the modest one.

        Loading editor
    • Starscream1998 wrote:

      Timetoscare wrote:

      Starscream1998 wrote: Yes plenty actually, but what about my question?

      I only imagine that being the case when Scott is a shitty writer.

      Well aren't you the modest one.

      I'm serious because William doesn't work well as a villain. Look at characters like Evil Morty and look at William in fnaf3 and SL - William looks like a complete dumbass that casually makes dumb decisions without second thoughts.

        Loading editor
    • Personally I thought he was great as a villain in the novels, sure as hell beats mr daddy issues who only got formally announced in SL.

        Loading editor
    • Starscream1998 wrote: Personally I thought he was great as a villain in the novels, sure as hell beats mr daddy issues who only got formally announced in SL.

      Yup. "Dave" seems like the heartless Purple Guy we've known since Fnaf 2. I seriously wonder what he meant when he said he "chose" Charlie, not Sammy.

        Loading editor
    • Charlie seems to have some weird connection to Sammy's spirit, William's doing perhaps.

        Loading editor
    • Starscream1998 wrote: Personally I thought he was great as a villain in the novels, sure as hell beats mr daddy issues who only got formally announced in SL.

      If I was right about Michael, would he be a great villain?

        Loading editor
    • He is a savage, if u believe in "Mike is the Purple Guy" theory.

        Loading editor
    • I can definitely see Mike doing more harm than his ol' man.

        Loading editor
    • Tricakay27 wrote: I can definitely see Mike doing more harm than his ol' man.

      He already did, he basically created child killing animatronics - the SL animatronics - so William will be punished once their deadly programming is used. What makes it scary is that Michael is willing to kill random people he doesn't know to achieve this goal, doesn't care if it's immoral, and he will get away with it.

        Loading editor
    • After knowing that Springtrap is both dead and alive I don't think SL exists.

        Loading editor
    • Exl111 wrote:
      After knowing that Springtrap is both dead and alive I don't think SL exists.

      How does SL not exist? It's in The Freddy Files with the other games.

        Loading editor
    • Timetoscare wrote:

      Tricakay27 wrote: I can definitely see Mike doing more harm than his ol' man.

      He already did, he basically created child killing animatronics - the SL animatronics - so William will be punished once their deadly programming is used. What makes it scary is that Michael is willing to kill random people he doesn't know to achieve this goal, doesn't care if it's immoral, and he will get away with it.

      But I thought William made those animatronics, or at least Michael did something to them while William wasn't watching.

        Loading editor
    • Tricakay27 wrote:

      Timetoscare wrote:

      Tricakay27 wrote: I can definitely see Mike doing more harm than his ol' man.

      He already did, he basically created child killing animatronics - the SL animatronics - so William will be punished once their deadly programming is used. What makes it scary is that Michael is willing to kill random people he doesn't know to achieve this goal, doesn't care if it's immoral, and he will get away with it.

      But I thought William made those animatronics, or at least Michael did something to them while William wasn't watching.

      Do you think the killer would be so stupid he'll take the credit for obvious death machines?

        Loading editor
    • Timetoscare wrote:

      Do you think the killer would be so stupid he'll take the credit for obvious death machines?

      So, William took credit for it then?

        Loading editor
    • Tricakay27 wrote:

      Timetoscare wrote:

      Do you think the killer would be so stupid he'll take the credit for obvious death machines?

      So, William took credit for it then?

      Because he's too naive to believe that Michael doesn't have any devious intentions.

        Loading editor
    • Timetoscare wrote:

      Tricakay27 wrote: So, William took credit for it then?

      Because he's too naive to believe that Michael doesn't have any devious intentions.

      That actually makes sense.

        Loading editor
    • Tricakay27 wrote:

      Timetoscare wrote:

      Tricakay27 wrote: So, William took credit for it then?

      Because he's too naive to believe that Michael doesn't have any devious intentions.

      That actually makes sense.

      I know. It explains why William never bothers to actually put the little girl's soul back together even when his staff can easily transport the animatronics or take them apart with the scooper. Plus, it establishes why William wants Michael to try put the little girl back together at the SL, so Michael would be killed by his own daughter.

        Loading editor
    • Tricakay27 wrote:

      Exl111 wrote:
      After knowing that Springtrap is both dead and alive I don't think SL exists.

      How does SL not exist? It's in The Freddy Files with the other games.

      Its a loooooong story.

        Loading editor
    • Exl111 wrote:

      Tricakay27 wrote:

      Exl111 wrote:
      After knowing that Springtrap is both dead and alive I don't think SL exists.

      How does SL not exist? It's in The Freddy Files with the other games.

      Its a loooooong story.

      Fnaf4 was the final chapter and SL wasn't a thing when it was released.

        Loading editor
    • Timetoscare wrote:

      Exl111 wrote:


      Tricakay27 wrote:


      Exl111 wrote:
      After knowing that Springtrap is both dead and alive I don't think SL exists.
      How does SL not exist? It's in The Freddy Files with the other games.
      Its a loooooong story.
      Fnaf4 was the final chapter and SL wasn't a thing when it was released.

      Exactly. Now that SL is a thing, we can't really call the 4th game the  "Final Chapter" anymore. Although, Scott really should've just stopped at 3 or 4 but I think 3 would've been better.

        Loading editor
    • Tricakay27 wrote:

      Timetoscare wrote:

      Exl111 wrote:


      Tricakay27 wrote:


      Exl111 wrote:
      After knowing that Springtrap is both dead and alive I don't think SL exists.
      How does SL not exist? It's in The Freddy Files with the other games.
      Its a loooooong story.
      Fnaf4 was the final chapter and SL wasn't a thing when it was released.

      Exactly. Now that SL is a thing, we can't really call the 4th game the  "Final Chapter" anymore. Although, Scott really should've just stopped at 3 or 4 but I think 3 would've been better.

      We wouldnt know shit about the four characters introduced in fnaf2 without fnaf4 and fnaf3 is underwhelming at best when it comes to story and gameplay.

        Loading editor
    • True. But like I said before, Scott should've just stopped at either 3 or 4 games.

        Loading editor
    • Timetoscare wrote:

      Exl111 wrote:

      Tricakay27 wrote:

      Exl111 wrote:
      After knowing that Springtrap is both dead and alive I don't think SL exists.

      How does SL not exist? It's in The Freddy Files with the other games.

      Its a loooooong story.

      Fnaf4 was the final chapter and SL wasn't a thing when it was released.

      Nah, its not how I think about SL.

        Loading editor
    • Exl111 wrote:

      Timetoscare wrote:

      Exl111 wrote:

      Tricakay27 wrote:

      Exl111 wrote:
      After knowing that Springtrap is both dead and alive I don't think SL exists.

      How does SL not exist? It's in The Freddy Files with the other games.

      Its a loooooong story.

      Fnaf4 was the final chapter and SL wasn't a thing when it was released.

      Nah, its not how I think about SL.

      Scott publicly stated that fnaf4 was the final that game in public.

        Loading editor
    • Tricakay27 wrote: True. But like I said before, Scott should've just stopped at either 3 or 4 games.

      Or with properly done remakes of those games.

        Loading editor
    • Timetoscare wrote:

      Exl111 wrote:

      Timetoscare wrote:

      Exl111 wrote:

      Tricakay27 wrote:

      Exl111 wrote:
      After knowing that Springtrap is both dead and alive I don't think SL exists.

      How does SL not exist? It's in The Freddy Files with the other games.

      Its a loooooong story.

      Fnaf4 was the final chapter and SL wasn't a thing when it was released.

      Nah, its not how I think about SL.

      Scott publicly stated that fnaf4 was the final that game in public.

      .....WHEN....?

        Loading editor
    • Exl111 wrote:

      Timetoscare wrote: Scott publicly stated that fnaf4 was the final that game in public.

      .....WHEN....?

      Before SL was even planned.

        Loading editor
    • What's happening again?

        Loading editor
    • Not a clue.

        Loading editor
    • Timetoscare wrote:

      Starscream1998 wrote: Personally I thought he was great as a villain in the novels, sure as hell beats mr daddy issues who only got formally announced in SL.

      If I was right about Michael, would he be a great villain?

      Oh yeah, if you gave him enough fleshing out he could work.

        Loading editor
    • Starscream1998 wrote:

      Timetoscare wrote:

      Starscream1998 wrote: Personally I thought he was great as a villain in the novels, sure as hell beats mr daddy issues who only got formally announced in SL.

      If I was right about Michael, would he be a great villain?

      Oh yeah, if you gave him enough fleshing out he could work.

      We already have the sets for him, it just needs some attention.

        Loading editor
    • Michael Afton: total bastard

      Hobbies: Making masks and robots that kill.

      Occupation: technician and kiddie strangler

      Species: Human-robot-zombie thingy

      Skills: Being a 5 star wanker to family and random children.

      Cause of death: violently scooped out organs and skeleton...not that he wasn't an empty husk of a human being before.

      Goals: Kill kids, make murder bots, bully/traumatise brother, make father's life difficult.

        Loading editor
    • Starscream1998 wrote: Michael Afton: total bastard

      Hobbies: Making masks and robots that kill.

      Occupation: technician and kiddie strangler

      Species: Human-robot-zombie thingy

      Skills: Being a 5 star wanker to family and random children.

      Cause of death: violently scooped out organs and skeleton...not that he wasn't an empty husk of a human being before.

      Goals: Kill kids, make murder bots, bully/traumatise brother, make father's life difficult.

      He doesn't wear ordinary and cheap mask to trick kids with, he wears a mask that has a robotic voice and a accurate appearance of the original animatronic. Since his mask resembles Foxy, he lures kids from pirates cove to the inventory room. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=6XMtCFAQ_l0 https://fivenightsofpodcast.files.wordpress.com/2015/05/5532.png https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Ms0uWzrfoj8

        Loading editor
    • A FANDOM user
        Loading editor
Give Kudos to this message
You've given this message Kudos!
See who gave Kudos to this message

Ad blocker interference detected!


Wikia is a free-to-use site that makes money from advertising. We have a modified experience for viewers using ad blockers

Wikia is not accessible if you’ve made further modifications. Remove the custom ad blocker rule(s) and the page will load as expected.