Also when I played 4 I noticed at random points when I checked the bed there was an IV drip, and another time there was a bouquet of flowers. Think its possible that the game is just a series of nightmares in the mind of the bite victim?
Maybe it is a nightmare the child is going thru. For all we know the child is comatose in a hospital bed.
Phone guy didn't mention that the child dies after the bite so chances are that the child survived the bite either in a coma or is awake but forever in fear that the animatronics are after him thus creating the illusion of them 'playing hide and seek'.
Maybe it is a nightmare the child is going thru. For all we know the child is comatose in a hospital bed.
Phone guy didn't mention that the child dies after the bite so chances are that the child survived the bite either in a coma or is awake but forever in fear that the animatronics are after him thus creating the illusion of them 'playing hide and seek'.
Yeah, I guess thats why they're all called "nightmare" and look so exaggerated in this one, since theyre literally nightmares of a kid who was hurt by them.
I guess this game was just Scott's way of tying up some loose ends in the series, since it confirmed that Golden Freddy is actually fredbear, shows the purple man working in the party room, and apparently shows what happened to the bite victim
Yeah, I guess thats why they're all called "nightmare" and look so exaggerated in this one, since theyre literally nightmares of a kid who was hurt by them.
I guess this game was just Scott's way of tying up some loose ends in the series, since it confirmed that Golden Freddy is actually fredbear, shows the purple man working in the party room, and apparently shows what happened to the bite victim
Scott probably did fnaf 4 so that the mystery of who caused the Bite of 87 is revealed. People would most probably bug him to death if he did not. Chances are they still will bug him because Springtrap may or may not be alive after 3.
Another theory I have as why Bonnie doesn't appear as a phantom may be because Scott is afraid of him. No seriously. In one of the blurred messages in Fnaf 3 newspaper screen is that Scott had nightmares of Bonnie. Thus the idea of Bonnie being a phantom may actually have made him scared enough not to do it.
Phone guy didn't mention that the child dies after the bite so chances are that the child survived the bite either in a coma or is awake but forever in fear that the animatronics are after him thus creating the illusion of them 'playing hide and seek'.
phone guy mentions the part as being "tomorrow" on night 6
which is the last day you play as jeremy fitzgerald
the next night is the custom night, and phone guy doesn't call you at all.
So I've been thinking of the timeline of these games and I'm starting to confuse myself. If I'm way off track here, feel free to steer me in the correct direction.
Fredbear's Diner closed well before the pizza place in FNAF 2. But there must have been a pizza place BEFORE 2's, with the original four animatronics. Maybe including the spring suits and the original four. Then the restaurant in 2 opened up with the new toy animatronics. This was in 1987, the year of the bite.
In FNAF 4, we have all the animatronics apparently coexisting - the toy models (as indicated by the Mangle toy in the child's house), the original models, and the spring models. Which should have been retired/boarded up by the time FNAF 2 rolled around, and there was no Fredbear in the game itself. So if the Bite of '87 took place shortly after FNAF 2 (during the party that's mentioned in the last phonecall), could it really have been Fredbear? Was the ending of FNAF 4 a different accident? One that prompted the opening of a new restaraunt and new animatronics? There's also the easter egg where you hit enter by the TV in the 3rd(?) minigame and Fredbear and Friends 1983 pops up.
If the ending of FNAF 4 took place in a restaurant after the diner but before 2's restaurant, why do the toy models exist? Or is Mangle just thrown in for no reason? Scott, why???
So I've been thinking of the timeline of these games and I'm starting to confuse myself. If I'm way off track here, feel free to steer me in the correct direction.
Fredbear's Diner closed well before the pizza place in FNAF 2. But there must have been a pizza place BEFORE 2's, with the original four animatronics. Maybe including the spring suits and the original four. Then the restaurant in 2 opened up with the new toy animatronics. This was in 1987, the year of the bite.
In FNAF 4, we have all the animatronics apparently coexisting - the toy models (as indicated by the Mangle toy in the child's house), the original models, and the spring models. Which should have been retired/boarded up by the time FNAF 2 rolled around, and there was no Fredbear in the game itself. So if the Bite of '87 took place shortly after FNAF 2 (during the party that's mentioned in the last phonecall), could it really have been Fredbear? Was the ending of FNAF 4 a different accident? One that prompted the opening of a new restaraunt and new animatronics? There's also the easter egg where you hit enter by the TV in the 3rd(?) minigame and Fredbear and Friends 1983 pops up.
If the ending of FNAF 4 took place in a restaurant after the diner but before 2's restaurant, why do the toy models exist? Or is Mangle just thrown in for no reason? Scott, why???
Maybe mangle wasn't a brand new character? I mean I know it's supposed to be a replacement Foxy, but maybe it was a pre-existing character they brough back instead of Foxy because they thought it was more kid friendly? Its also possible that Scott just threw in a mangle cameo since its a relatively popular character, I dunno.
Actually I think the spring models did exist in the second game, alongside the toys. Remember phone guy mentions in the sixth night that they keep wearable yellow suits for the employees in 2? As far as we know, the only yellow wearable suits in the series are springtrap and golden freddy/fredbear. And a few kids in the minigames in 4 are seen playing with plushes modeled after the toys and the spring suits.
Maybe mangle wasn't a brand new character? I mean I know it's supposed to be a replacement Foxy, but maybe it was a pre-existing character they brough back instead of Foxy because they thought it was more kid friendly? Its also possible that Scott just threw in a mangle cameo since its a relatively popular character, I dunno.
Actually I think the spring models did exist in the second game, alongside the toys. Remember phone guy mentions in the sixth night that they keep wearable yellow suits for the employees in 2? As far as we know, the only yellow wearable suits in the series are springtrap and golden freddy/fredbear. And a few kids in the minigames in 4 are seen playing with plushes modeled after the toys and the spring suits.
He mentions that there was a yellow suit in the back and "someone used it" but didn't get much more detailed than that.
The simple answer is that Scott was making shit up as he went so things were retconned, but I'd like to believe there is some actual lore to be figured out.
He mentions that there was a yellow suit in the back and "someone used it" but didn't get much more detailed than that.
The simple answer is that Scott was making shit up as he went so things were retconned, but I'd like to believe there is some actual lore to be figured out.
As much as I want to hate this guy for his awesome success, his relentless pimping of his properties, hell, even his Christianity (*tips fedora*), there's no way this guy is not admirable.
He is the anti-lolcow. He was criticized because some of the things in one of his games looked creepy. People said look at these fucking beavers, they're creepy.
Someone like Dobson would have crawled into a corner and claimed to have developed PTSD.
This dude actually turned the creepiness into one of the most successful franchises in indie game history.
Now look at this from a lolcow perspective. What would a bad artist do when confronted with criticism about flaws in their style? Rant and rail about the evil horrible monsters who were attacking them. Imagine what Dobson would do, that's what bad artists do.
What did this guy do?
Looked at the criticism, realized it was actually accurate, realized it was actually part of his style as an artist, and then turned it into a phenomenal success.
I was hoping he would address why each game has come out so quickly. I would assume Scott's aware that people don't just hate on FNAF because it's popular; maybe he thought the other reasons weren't worth mentioning.
I was hoping he would address why each game has come out so quickly. I would assume Scott's aware that people don't just hate on FNAF because it's popular; maybe he thought the other reasons weren't worth mentioning.
they aren't big games, they are very quick to make
just make the visual assets (mostly pictures of 3d models in 3d rooms)
record some sounds (i do love the sounds in these games though)
and work on AI
fun fact: scott puts in all the visual and audio assets before playtesting and trying out the AI. he basically test plays the games in their finished state
they aren't big games, they are very quick to make
just make the visual assets (mostly pictures of 3d models in 3d rooms)
record some sounds (i do love the sounds in these games though)
and work on AI
fun fact: scott puts in all the visual and audio assets before playtesting and trying out the AI. he basically test plays the games in their finished state
I was mostly referring to why Scott chose such early release dates. If it's just because he wants his fans to be able to play the games as soon as possible, that's fine, but it's as @Lucky Wildcard said - there's a lot of criticism he receives about them being cash cows. Which, tbh, I find very understandable.
