As far as I am aware from the story… The other suits used to contain the bodies of children, who are a lot smaller. As such the arm of the child, if put into the arm of the Foxy ‘puppet’ would likely not have been long enough to have any issue via the hook.
Alternatively they were stuffed inside the suits, so they could just be contained in the middle, head and legs.
I think he means how are these spring-lock suits. like Springtrap, they would be made to fit a employee…so why the hook?
Since when were these springlock suits? For all we know, they’re just disturbingly reimagined versions of the normal ones, or even nightmare figures from the victim of the bite.
8-bit did some videos on it back when the first teaser came out, so we were just debunking it.
Ah, okay. Yeah, they aren’t terribly credible. They clearly don’t want to lose the popularity they’ve built up and thus are trying to create bogus theories and filler videos to hold their audience’s attention until Halloween.
Indeed.
“Terribly credible”? They’re more credible than most other sites and sources these days. And they’re a fan channel - they aren’t going to be 100% credible, just as most others won’t. It’s nearly impossible to be a fan channel and also be 100% credible. On that topic, your context of "credible’ is kind of vague in itself. The whole channel is based around speculation. In the world of theorizing, any theory could technically be possible. Likewise, any theory could be false. If they predict something that doesn’t end up happening, that doesn’t make them non-credible; it means their theory was wrong. Theories work like that. On the flip side, all of their reporting thus far has been credible.
“Bogus theories”? The theories they’ve proposed make more sense than most any other theories you could find found in the fandom. I’d also like to point out that a good percentage of their theories actually come from other people and sites (whom they appropriately credit), meaning by calling their theories “bogus”, you’re calling the collective theories of a ton of people “bogus”.
Now, I will admit that a lot of videos recently seem to be filler videos. And yet, they’re still much better than whatever people are coming up with in the comments section on the FNaF Wiki.
Purple man caused the bite of 87.
Phone guy is purple guy.
there are more then one purple guy.
phone dude is phone guy’s son.
Freddy is a girl.
ChicaxFoxy…
potato is phone guy.
Bonnie is the killer.
Springtrap is nice.
and the list goes oooooooooonnnnnnnnnnnnnn…
sorry I was thinking up some stupid theories that I have read.
( ._. )
I know right?!?
First of all, yes, I suppose I am calling the collective body of theories sprouted in the FNAF community bogus. Simply put, because they are. Seriously now, if you’re going to pick the game apart to the point where slightly different shades of purple, the direction and color of the light on a scenery-lacking teaser image,or a couple of handicrafts hanging on the wall are the bases of your theories, you’re really overthinking it.
And I’m not just saying that most of their theories are silly because I want to hate on them in particular; by Mata Nui’s mask there’s worse out there.
However what rustles my jimmies the most(wow, the late 20th century terms are brotally real today!) is that they’re spending their time and ours making tons of clickbait videos of theories with liquid bases. If you’re going to take the time to promote your theory to the world, you might as well base it on solid evidence, not trivial visual ambiance. Scott may be a riddle maker, but he is also a story teller. If he wants his story to resonate, then he’s not going to hide the keys to his riddle in the magenta color he used to portray his antagonist.
I’m not saying that they, nor anyone else should stop theorizing, I’m just saying that they should move back to the realm of plausible if they’re going to popularize their theories so much.
Agreed.
Okay, with FNaF, “solid evidence” - again, this is a subjective term - is pretty lacking. Not to mention the theories backed by “solid evidence” have been torn apart and examined multiple times, inside and out, by a ton of people. There’s nothing wrong with going into the more “trivial” details, especially since that’s what we have left.
While I can’t find the exact quote, Scott himself said that the story will be uncovered by those who look really closely into the details. I think this indicates there is something to be found in such profound things, e.g. the paper plates, wall posters, etc.
For that matter, the paper plate theories (aside from the BB one in your office) were great ones, and made a good amount of sense. And if the “slightly different shades of purple” you’re referring to are the two different shades of the Purple Man, take notice that both “Purple Men” are also designed differently, for no apparent reason. And the colors actually aren’t just “slightly different” - they’re different enough to be categorized as two separate colors: pink and purple.
He may not hide game-changing keys in such trivial things, but this also doesn’t mean he won’t hide anything in these details.
Like I said above, this is kind of hard to do when such subjects been covered, both by them and others, numerous times. And again, in FNaF, “plausible” is extremely subjective.
First of all, in some scenes he was just laughing/happy with his deeds, and secondly, by that logic we could go ahead and say that toy bonnie just happened to be in the follow me minigames and thus real bonnie is still out and about.
If anything includes the central character of the story, then yes, I dare say it’s a stretch.
And thus clickbaiting and filler ensues? I understand that they need to stay afloat as a channel, but that doesn’t make my opinion on their content waver.
Like I said, I don’t think they should stop theorizing, but there are far to many people that take their theories for fact, and the way they promote their videos certainly doesn’t help.
…What? Dude, they weren’t just different mouth-wise. Both were completely different sprite models. Completely different. Tell me, why would Scott do this if they were meant to be the same character? It’s not logical in any way.
Which is why I said I agreed about not hiding game-changing subjects.
I would, in no way whatsoever, consider them clickbait videos. 8-bitGaming seems to really enjoy the topic, which is proven through their participation with other YouTubers on it. Does it ever occur to people that channels like this may actually post videos continuously because they enjoy it (the subject, I mean)? Same with YouTubers like Smike and Yamimash, who constantly get bashed and hated on for their videos.
Ah, until you consider the graphic style scott was going for. Take into account that the sprites were made to emulate atari style old fashioned graphics that didn’t always apply proportions.
Secondly, it makes literally no sense from a storytelling standpoint. Why on earth would anyone, especially an employee of Fazbear Entertainment, aid a murderer giving said company a bad rep? Furthermore, it would honestly downplay the darkness of the story if there was more than one psychopathic killer. It would just make the whole thing kinda comic booky, not to mention rob the killer of his unique identity. That would defeat the individuality of the killer’s signature act; something serial killers have shown to take very seriously.
It’s not so much emphasis on the topic that qualifies as clickbait, but rather the very declarative titles and lack of the “theory” tag in said titles. Not all of them are like this, but many make almost provocatively bold claims in great volume.
Okay, don’t make me strangle myself. This has nothing to do with proportions - this has everything to do with the fact that Scott, for no reason at all, used two completely different sprite models for what you’re claiming is the same character. Moreover, they were featured in the same game, in the same mini game style. No logic behind this reasoning whatsoever. Another note: this particular sprite appeared in only one of the mini games. Why would Scott got to the trouble of making a completely different character model just for a single appearance?
One, it’s a game.
Two, why wouldn’t somebody aid a murderer? Do you realize how many results would pop up if I Googled/Binged “murderer accomplices”? Again, this is a game. There are an infinite number of reasons why this person could be aiding the murderer - and there are just as many reasons this situation could take place IRL. Or, hey - what if he isn’t involved in the murders? I never said he was - that was an assumption you made. He could be something else entirely.
You said it yourself - not all of them are like this. In fact, after looking back, most aren’t like that. I’m an active subscriber, and never once have I read a video title and thought “Wow, these guys have discovered the truth!” Also, they state at the very beginning of their videos that all they are are theories. It’s not like you;re halfway through the video before you realize it’s just a theory.
As for the way you say “declarative titles and lack of a theory tag”… I can understand a theory tag, but why wouldn’t the titles be declarative? Now that I think about it, most video titles on YouTube are declarative and bold. So if you want to be technical, you could say the majority of YouTube videos concerning topics such as gaming are practically clickbait.
Those two aren’t even psychopathic killers - they’re moronic burglars!
Unless he wasn’t certain which one he liked better…
Furthermore, wouldn’t we have seen more of an accomplice in the third installment? You know, helping dismantle the animatronics. Sure, it’s possible within the realm of reality but then again, so is the bonnie thing.
Have you ever heard of Occam’s Razor? I think it applies here. It takes fewer assumptions to assume that scott didn’t have/wasn’t decided on an official model for the purple guy when he made the Foxy minigame than to assume that there was not only 2 people involved in the murders, but one is alive and one isn’t. This leads to more possibilities and the implication such as since the “pink” model was in the room with the dead children, he killed them, whereas the purple model killed the children in the “save them” minigame.
Ah well, believe what you’d like; I’m not terribly convinced.
As for 8 bit gaming in general, I don’t hate them, in fact I enjoy their theories when they seem to be backed with more relevant evidence. Sure Scott may have meticulously added details to the game, but not every nook and cranny hides a secret. I’m sure some do, but many of them are just aesthetic. You mentioned that you were never convinced, shocked, or otherwise by the titles, but there are many people that will believe anything they hear. That’s really the biggest part of it. It bugs me how so many people treat their theories(even and particularly) the outlandish ones as confirmed fact.
So no hard feelings; different perspectives and in turn, opinions, keep us thinking and I dare say that’s a good thing.
Half of what you said here really doesn’t make sense, but okay.
I never really stated what I believed. But okay.
Alright, I see where you’re coming from.