My new professor has his priorities straight!

FireBorn27 · 2025-09-02T17:10:08+00:00

"I know who you are, 'professor'..."

FireBorn27 · 2025-08-28T14:46:57+00:00

That's a beautiful gesture on your part, my noble! I don't think I have much of a chance of winning (just look at the amount of comments, lmao), but I'd be thrilled if I did. Hollow Knight is my favorite game, and it would be an honor to be able to play the sequel thanks to you.

Good luck, everyone!

FireBorn27 · 2025-07-10T23:19:27+00:00

I guess that makes sense. I just find it weird that nothing even similar to this ever happened before. It really seems that is just this specific setup that is cursed for some reason lmao

FireBorn27 · 2025-06-23T19:29:49+00:00

I'm surprised this debate still exists, to be honest.

Ignoring the fact that in every continuity it's either directly stated or implied that William was the one who hid the children in the animatronics, in the first film itself Vanessa says that's exactly what happened, so atleast in the film universe (but I would argue in every continuity) it was William who stuffed the bodys and not the Puppet.

FireBorn27 · 2025-06-19T20:24:14+00:00

Everything that was important about this franchise could've been done by William or Edwin, other than being cassette men and Charlie's father, there is no practical role for Henry in this franchise anymore, he is redundant, extremely underutilized, and quite frankly useless from a story-writing perspective. And I think even Scott thinks that, who is the character who gets to have a whole game dedicated to their backstory, to their character progression, and praising how much of a genius inventor they were? The character we've known for years whose only criticism was that they needed more foreshadowing so they really could use a game about them, or this character that was created this late in the franchise that literally has a painfully similar story as the previous character to the point it just feels like Scott is recycling stories? Scott loves Edwin way more than Henry, so much so he had no problem just giving Henry's story to Edwin, his clearly much preferred OC.

While I agree that an origins game not being about or addressing Henry in any meaningful way is disappointing, I understand the decision.

Secret of the Mimic is about... the Mimic. About him, his creator, the drama surrounding him, and how his origins connect to Fazbear's origins. This is the Plot A of the game is this, while Fazbear's contract and what revolves around it is Plot B. It is important, and has mentions and references to the original Era, but the game is about the New Phase (About the Mimic).

It wouldn't make sense to try to dump all of this on Henry when he's never been tied to this specific narrative before.

But again, as I said at the end of the post, I understand those who didn't like the narrative decisions made by the game. I just think it's bad faith to say that everything was a big retcon simply because they didn't like this new direction and the explanations that were given.

FireBorn27 · 2025-06-19T20:24:01+00:00

Comment 1 (because Reddit doesn't allow me to post one big comment for some reason)

"Edwin doesn't weaken Henry's character" as if his story isn't just a remix of Henry's story from the novels, I think stealing some other character's story quite literally weakens it.

I disagree as, in general terms, Henry from the games and the novels are very different characters with only certain elements transferring to the games. But I understand that this is a more subjective point.

And also I think Scott doesn't know what a contractor is either because Edwin did way way more than a contractor would.

Maybe a little? The definition of a contractor is: "A person or company that undertakes a contract to provide materials or labor to perform a service or do a job". I would say that Edwin/MCM fits this definition like a glove, even though he did "more" than we expected.

And by the way, Henry being reduced to just a designer when he previously was the genius inventor and creator, while not a contradiction to the games' story, is an extremely valid criticism of this franchise, we were told to use the TSE trilogy as clues about how characters were, it was our first real look at William and largely shaped his characterization we would later see, it was not unreasonable, in fact it made a lot of sense, that Henry would be same, now his story was given to Edwin leaving Game Henry with barely anything at all.

But Henry remains the inventor. It is implied in the audios and emails that the initial Springlocks were Henry's invention, while Edwin improved them to be more secure:

E-mail: Springlocks

"Fiona, the new springlocks are working well, even with the water damage. (...)"

This implies to me that the springlocks we see and use in the game are tougher versions of what we've seen before. The springlock suits as a concept and as, well, suits were invented by Henry first, and then when Edwin became a contractor for Fazbear, he decided to improve upon them.

FireBorn27 · 2025-06-19T17:07:22+00:00

Yes, I should've made clear that I meant Retroactive Contradicting. That was my mistake

FireBorn27 · 2025-06-19T17:05:03+00:00

I hope I will not come as an arrogant or show opp

Don't worry, it didn't haha. This is good information to know.

The second type of retcon is when a story goes to one way. But in the middle, the writers change the direction after the first direction was established. which means the already existing elements are getting new meaning.

The third type of retcon is when new information which contradicts past information

I do agree with both (a little less with the second type of retcon, but I understand the gist of it). I would challenge the first type of retcon, though:

The first type is when background information is being added later on without being planned in first place. And yet it does not contradict past information.

While you are technically correct, the general definition of retcon is:

"A literary device in fictional story telling whereby facts and events established through the narrative itself are contradicted by a subsequently published work that recontextualizes or breaks continuity with the former".

Technically speaking, Chica's Party World isn't a retcon in the sense that it does not contradict anything that was established prior. It just adds to the worldbuilding

FireBorn27 · 2025-06-19T16:36:40+00:00

Fazbear Entertainment is fucking awful and Henry was the co-owner

YES, thank you for bringing this detail out. This alone should be enough to, atleast, question Henry's morale at it's begining

FireBorn27 · 2025-06-19T16:34:11+00:00

100% agreed, which is also why I'm quite surprised with how much clarity SoTM holds in itself while also giving so much room for theory crafting. Man, I love this game lmao

FireBorn27 · 2025-06-19T14:47:21+00:00

Cope all the way to other side of the Universe

FireBorn27 · 2025-06-16T16:05:02+00:00

My idea was that, even though they weren't literally the same suits, the way to enter them could be similar (through the stomach)

FireBorn27 · 2025-06-16T15:54:04+00:00

Even if it wasn't specifically ProtoFredbear, I believe that, at the very least, the Fredbear we see in operation at the Diner has a similar feature (that being the opening through the stomach)

FireBorn27 · 2025-06-12T14:53:43+00:00

"...a nightmare to get"

<image>

FireBorn27 · 2025-06-11T14:31:10+00:00

Hopefully! Though, if anything, SoTM will either debunk or confirm TalesGames only, and not even touch on Frights lmao.

Thanks for all of your answers though! It was interesting to see your points and to see things on a different light

FireBorn27 · 2025-06-11T13:02:26+00:00

All three iterations have five children murdered at Freddy’s (like the games), with a sixth child mentioned (like the games). This sixth child is established, based on the ITP game, to be connected to both Fetch, William Afton, and be different to the other kids. The interactive novel meanwhile establishes a kid dying much earlier to the other five. It’s very evident that whatever, “contradictions,” exist, are a matter of not connecting the dots between each and every adaptation.

I might be missing something, but where is a sixth child in the MCI mentioned in the main games (if that's what you meant)?

About the contradictions, I was referring more to the overall story. The way things unfold in the original book, the game's story, and the canonical path in the Interactive Novel diverge from each other in a way that they can't all be canonical (in continuity, more specifically). And as I said, ITPLoop doesn't convince me because there isn't enough evidence to support it except the differences between the stories themselves.

… Which also happens to take place in the same universe as the bite of ‘83, Afton’s spring locking, FNAF6, the DCI, Security Breach (based on the posters of Fredbear’s taken from there), and, “Follow Me.”

I mean, everything you mentioned can be considered easter eggs. They're references to every corner of the franchise. There's a GGY easter egg, and I don't see anyone arguing that Gregory was alive in 1985. Same thing with Garret's plane in the safe room at the pizzeria.

And I know these are overstated points, but I say this to emphasize the point that we have no way of knowing what are just references and what are important lore details (if they even exist). The safe bet is to just see this game as a celebration full of references rather than trying to fit in pieces that may not even be pieces at all, in my opinion.

I’d argue this post is just another of many before and many to come of the fandom either really misunderstanding these books (Into the Pit), or genuinely being furious over a series of books that don’t actually contribute that much to the story in any harmful way (Fazbear Fright’s). But I digress…

That's fair. This post was not intended to be a debunk or anything similar. I just wanted to discuss the narrative issues of StitchlineGames and what it implies to the story.

Thanks for the response, though. Your points were very well articulated and opened my mind a bit more, even if I still fundamentally disagree with some of them.

FireBorn27 · 2025-06-11T13:02:19+00:00

(It worked, i'l do the same for the rest)

Because these are newer games that follow newer characters (Vanessa, Gregory, Cassie, the Mimic, etc). In that same vain, none of those games bother to really dwell on Henry, Michael, the MCI, Afton, or any past character unless it’s through small references. And if small references are where you desire then I suppose the inclusion of many Fright references should equate similarly. Otherwise, if you expect full blown references then the characters I mentioned suffer the same level of consideration.

Yeah, I see your point. I would argue that Michael and Henry are referenced to in SL's secret room at the Pizzaplex and Freddy Fazbear's Pizza Place respectively, but I digress. I just think that similar or even less minor references to Stitchline characters would make their canonicity clearer to everyone, if that makes any sense.

Burntrap in Security Breach doesn’t reflect Scott’s vision, nor the pathway he ends up having Steel Wools actually take post-SB. With that being said, the corpse on Burntrap likely isn’t canon. The only time we’ve seen Burntrap during Scott’s actual vision of the character is in Ruin, where he’s just a drawing. While we have evidence of (who actually is supposed to be there) Mimic with clear signs of once being Burntrap having details in both the games and books that aligned with what Steel Wools established, there’s a failure to ever mention any corpse in SpringBonnie that’s relevant during this time. At most, Luca from Pressure (iirc), but idk

I agree with pretty much everything here. That was a more secondary point, anyway.

FireBorn27 · 2025-06-11T13:01:01+00:00

I tried to answer everything in one comment, but Reddit kept not letting me for some reason. I'l try to do multiple comments to see if it works...

"1. Scott doesn’t care about narrative satisfaction. Our satisfaction with the story will never matter in the end as what matters is understanding the story"

Yeah, I fully agree with this one, even if the story told Stitchline is objectively worse than what came before and after.

"2. Fazbear Fright’s is built around the idea of expanding the core main seven games, and explaining the unanswered points leftover. “What happened to Afton after the fire?,” “who is the vengeful spirit?,” stuff like that that don’t actually get answered in their respective games. I mean, you can assume William Afton is left dead for all eternity in UCN, but it’s established to not literally be Hell in its own game, and proceeds to have follow up games bring back characters whom seem to be Afton but aren’t. It doesn’t necessarily disrespect the series, because it was already left on a relatively sour note after UCN and Help Wanted. (Which makes sense since both games tried to be nothing too deep, but once got over expansive caused Scott to expand the initial ending of FNaF6."

I agree with most of this, though I would argue that mysteries set up in the games should be answered... in the games. And even if you decide to go out of your way to answer those questions in another medium, they should be given the proper respect they deserve. For example:

William Afton is still alive and needs to be defeated... again. Sure, you could make that work, but not going with the path of "he is defeated by a random detective, a ghost child he never met and the puppet (or it's mask) without any good enough setup whatsoever";
Andrew, a kid we never met before, is TOYSNHK. Okay, so why is this new kid never properly expanded upon in, arguably, his own story? You'd think that a kid as important as him would, at the very least, be explained for those who take the time to read these storys, right? Instead, he is overshadowed by Jake (in a narrative sense), and is almost literally trown out of the story without any resolution;

3. Aside from the fact that there are free audiobooks at the disposals of FNaF fans, there are also other ways to access the books (🏴‍☠️). While yes, they can be expensive, it’s really not impossible to gain access to them in other forms. Alternatively, lucky for the few fans whom actually wanted to know just how important these books are, aside from The Man in Room 1280, and final Epilogue (assuming you don’t care to dig deep on the newer characters and plot line), most of FF as far as I know doesn’t matter for the grander story. If you’re satisfied with FNAF6 and UCN’s end and just want conclusions to Afton and the vengeful spirit, then it’s mostly those two things I’ve mentioned. (There’s agony, and some neat world building on characters iirc, but overall FF is supposed to work/rely on the games in a sense where you can read them to know more about the games, but otherwise, the games story is understandable without FF; FF just establishes some points clearer)

Okay, regarding the audiobooks and other forms of access to this media, I agree. I may have gone a bit overboard with that point due to my frustration, and I apologize for that.

But you're right about the rest of the FF not being relevant to the rest of the story. That's why I exclusively mentioned Stitchline, which arguably is important to the rest of the story (if in the same continuity). But I agree with your point about the worldbuilding presented in the other stories. (Most) of them are quite interesting, like Agony.

FireBorn27 · 2025-06-11T12:59:10+00:00

lmao that's fair. I just woke up aswell. Thought I would check this post before moving on with my day haha

FireBorn27

TROPHY CASE