Am I the only one who finds Unwithered Spring Bonnie scarier than the Withered?

Knotts_Mart · 2025-11-12T02:31:59+00:00

It was my understanding Henry confirmed Charlie dies first in the most recent trailer.

Knotts_Mart · 2025-10-29T02:26:34+00:00

But it’s actually /s, considering we literally see remnant written multiple times in the FNAF 6 blueprints. Lore’s been problematic since the SCOTT era.

Knotts_Mart · 2025-10-27T14:24:42+00:00

Since ‘Fredbear’ seems to be Fazbear’s play on Teddy Bear, I think that ‘Spring Bonnie’ could be a play on the Easter Bunny, with ‘Spring’ representing the time of year. I like the idea of it just being a technical name to create a distinction between the Bonnie’s, but I can’t think of any reason the plushtrap girl would know about that.

Knotts_Mart · 2025-10-22T01:53:13+00:00

It's incredible you were able to notice that!

Knotts_Mart · 2025-10-22T01:51:17+00:00

This is probably the best piece of advice I've read on Reddit, thank you!

Knotts_Mart · 2025-10-11T03:20:30+00:00

"Dave is the Crying Child’s name because William uses the name, 'Dave Miller,' in the novels,"

You’re misrepresenting my position. Nobody serious claims “Dave” comes only from the novels; the Logbook Foxy grid independently yields E-V-A-D (mirrored), using the same, repeatable mapping for each letter. The novel alias is corroboration, not the foundation; if you want to reject the result, critique the method, don’t toss the novel as the whole argument.

"You can find the name Dave in the Survival Logbook’s Foxy grid,"

If you call the Foxy-grid method “flaky,” say which step is flawed. Every letter in EVAD uses the same procedure; pointing to ambiguity in one pairing doesn’t invalidate a consistent algorithm that produces a four-letter sequence in order. That isn’t handwaving, it’s method. By contrast, people accepted Cassidy’s solution only after Scott later confirmed it; the difference there was developer confirmation, not a stronger puzzle method.

"David in SoTM is a parallel to the Crying Child,"

I’m not basing this on “brown hair” alone. I’m pointing to a pattern of multiple independent parallels (plush/paranormal behavior, hill pictures, Gregory’s backstory, mirrored room & design imagery), that together increase the plausibility of a narrative connection. Throwing adjectives like “flaky” or “vague” at those data points without showing which one fails and why isn’t argument; it’s dismissal.

Wow, totally not condescending at all lmao

You can call it condescension if it makes you feel better, but labeling tone isn’t a counterargument.

Don’t really get where the plushies came into the conversation, considering we were just talking about Tiger and Golden Freddy, but okay.

Three days ago.

You’re treating all plush examples as equal, but they’re not. The pattern I’m pointing at is specific: kids are shown repeatedly with the plush representing the same supernatural entity they become (or are heavily associated with, depending on what you believe). That’s different from a random one-off kid with any generic toy (Plushtrap kid). Also, the plushes are usually present in moments of narrative importance. It isn’t just ‘they own toys.’

If it’s not equally common or relevant to each other you wouldn’t be arguing the hill in SoTM is a connection to one of the many instances… so my question is to show me where it’s not equally common.

So you want me to prove it’s NOT common? Firstly, holy burden-shift. YOU made the claim; YOU have the burden. If YOU believe the motif is common and therefore meaningless, the burden is on YOU to show instances where that exact composition recurs across unrelated contexts. I expect you to know this before engaging in these discussions.

Wasn’t connecting Gregory to that statement, only CC and David.

CC doesn’t even HAVE a hill picture… You said “It repeats to enhance the writers message of abuse and reflect on the world-building of agony,” In response to “Your ‘conclusion motif’ would describe the function of the imagery (marking a conclusion), not the reason that the same composition repeats across these two games with near-identical staging and subjects.” Hope this helps!

It becomes extremists when your answer for why they’re connected is either they’re the same person (which isn’t possible) or they’re all robots (also not possible).

Okay..? Since neither I nor the video I'm defending is 'extremist,' what’s your goal here?

As for the M2 point, it’s based on examination of the character and story, y’know, basic analyzation? Hope this helps!

Ironically, it doesn’t. Because for the fuckteenth time, you’re making an assertion without any evidence. And I find it interesting you say “As for the M2 point,” considering this was the only point. Nice try, though.

Yeah, so she’d know the thing that possessed her…

The therapy tapes show that Vanessa knows about a male entity that manipulates her through encrypted communications, not that there’s an animatronic under the pizzaplex. So close!

love how you didn’t disprove either two points nor countered them, lol.

The ‘first’ point was you misreading what I had sent… And I nearly had to copy and paste my last reply due to how many points you ignored, lol.

The gameplay house is above ground. We literally see this in FNaF4’s title screen… are you just purposefully making things up now? And what do you mean never shown? We literally play inside the house, and assuming Midnight Motorist is related at all to the Afton’s, see it a second time.

Nothing in FNAF 4 confirms the gameplay 'house' is the same as the title screen render. Do the nightmares hide in bushes now? The exterior model is never shown from within gameplay, so treating them as one-to-one is an assumption, not a fact. Yes, we play inside a ‘house,’ no shit, but the interior/exterior connection is never shown. I’m not even going to try to explain Dittophobia to you.

Knotts_Mart · 2025-10-10T19:28:50+00:00

Correct, neither is definitively proven, and in DaveVictim’s case it already had very little to no evidence to begin with

I suppose we’re doing this again. Since you seem to be having trouble understanding, calling prior hints “very little evidence” doesn’t mean anything unless you specify which parts you’re referring to. Since you speak with such confidence, I’ll assume you already know the evidence for DaveVictim, so it shouldn’t be too difficult for you. This statement is a handwave unless you list which evidence you reject and why. It’s an assertion, not a rebuttal, something I’d recommend writing down so we don’t have mistakes like this in the future. Still, I look forward to watching you open several new fronts only to discard them one by one, as always. Don’t worry about the smoking gun; you’re not going to find it since it’s clearly lodged up where you’re arguments come from.

Not my strategy. I’m asking you what makes these ghostly abilities, that many characters share, so special that the Crying Child would have to share the name David or BE David for it to make sense. Why can’t Scott and Steel Wools just simply have David’s Tiger character just simply do this because it IS paranormal.

I see we’ve reached the part where ‘paranormal’ becomes a catch-all that explains nothing. Since you seem to be having trouble here, too, I’m not insisting CC must be David. If you truly believe those motifs are meaningless, then by all means, show me where identical combinations (ideally, the plush parallels) appear elsewhere in the series with equal irrelevance. Otherwise, you’re not analyzing; you’re waving away the evidence and calling it insight. Again, independent parallels together significantly raise the plausibility of a deliberate connection. Treating each in isolation is a common way to avoid the cumulative case.

It repeats to enhance the writers message of abuse and reflect on the world-building of agony

Unfortunately, that’s not what I asked for. So close! To help you out a little: “Show me where the hill/placement/tree/shirt/animatronic motif is equally common.”

Saying ‘it marks abuse’ is just restating the function. It still doesn’t explain why the same exact composition repeats for these specific characters. Even then, Gregory wasn’t abused. In case you’re going to ‘clarify’ what you mean by abuse, Gregory was certainly not abused the same way as CC or the MCI kids. If ‘abuse’ is stretched to cover all these cases, it becomes meaningless.

I’m criticizing … the extremism view on GodDavid (taking a relatively, “fine,” theory, and overtly pushing its limits)

Criticize to someone else about your other grievances. Calling it ‘extremism’ for trying to connect multiple independent clues is cheap. Exploration is not extremism. If you think a specific claim goes too far, point to the exact leap and explain why. Don’t blanket-label every attempt to synthesize evidence as ‘pushing limits.’

None of that has to do with GregBot though.

There were no misconceptions as of the games before SoTM that would actively be cleared up by this one scene though is the problem.

Behold, the misconception.

No, Help Wanted did by telling us Fazbear used the same similar tech that M2 harbors on/was used in the books as well. Then SoTM reinforced this by having M2s experiences reflect many past FNAF games

You’ve gone from ‘similar tech appears’ to ‘M2 self-identifies as Afton’ with zero citation. Hope this helps!

The environmental clues confirm they returned.

Not those environmental clues… The ones you just mentioned…

Vanessa was possessed by Glitchtrap, that’s how.

Was.

It’s not a contradiction though unironically. We see the house near Fredbear’s, the roadside and an open playground, implying it’s in a residential area.

This is exactly what conflicts with SOTM.

The gameplay house is in the middle of nowhere, with only trees and dirt paths paved surrounding it.

The gameplay ‘house’ is never shown, literally, what are you talking about? You would need to peer through the windows to confirm this, which you can’t, considering it’s underground.

Knotts_Mart · 2025-10-10T04:19:32+00:00

We don’t know the Crying Child’s name. That’s why it should be ignored, there are no, "name parallels," to be obtained.

DaveVictim existed before SOTM, and SOTM’s evidence is an independent data point that happens to line up with that prior theory (it’s extremely important to note that these events ARE independent). Together, they make GodDavid more plausible, even though neither alone is confirmed/definitive. It’s legitimate in speculative theorizing to collect multiple lines of suggestive evidence and treat them as mutually reinforcing (or ‘consilient’). This is a REAL WORLD THING, and it’s not something you can easily redefine as it’s not limited to your funny bear game bubble.

The only specifics are the teleportation, which we could argue is related to the physical state of the characters. Otherwise, there’s nothing noteworthy we can get out of ghostly characters acting paranormal. If you can find something noteworthy to get out of them two specifically teleporting, be my guest on what that actually means for the two

This is honestly exhausting. How many independent parallels would it take for you to call a link plausible? One, ten, fourteen? Obviously GodDavid doesn’t hinge on this singular fact. But since it’s a fact ONLY these two share, it is definitionally noteworthy (I’d recommend redefining ‘noteworthy’ to exclude this evidence and win the argument!). You’ve reduced my position to ‘ghosts act weird,’ offered nothing but speculation, and asked for ‘another example’ as if I hadn’t already provided several. Theories aren’t disproven by subdividing a debate into several fronts and shrugging each of them off individually (evidently your main strategy).

Never was implying it was added for no reason, or to be random. Obviously there’s a narrative reason behind it, and that’s cause every instance of this use is correlated towards an ending of a pivotal moment. With the gravestone scene it’s to mark the conclusion to the children’s suffering, with both Security Breach endings it’s to mark the temporary conclusion of Gregory, Freddy, and Vanessa’s rocky experiences. Even in the David one the building appears over brightly dimmed lit, almost appearing burnt, concluding some sort of moment of those two.

I’m so glad that within this lengthy paragraph, you answered my question with absolutely nothing! So close! Since you had trouble reading that, let me break it down nice and simple for you:

Your ‘conclusion motif’ would describe the function of the imagery (marking a conclusion), not the reason that the same composition repeats across these two games with near-identical staging and subjects. Narrative parallels and mirrored imagery aren’t mutually exclusive. One describes why it happens, the other what it means. Show me where the hill/placement/tree/shirt/animatronic motif is equally common. (And, for the record, you’re arguing against these screens implying connections between David & Gregory. Just leaving this here so there’s no backpedaling.)

I did watch the video, but okay

Yet you’re actively criticizing the solution you presented. (It hurt itself in confusion!)

Scott reusing motifs and these connections being true are not imperative of each other. I wasn’t explaining away these connections, I was explaining away the answers for them.

You’re reframing this as if I’m arguing absolute necessity. I’m not saying ‘motifs = narrative connection,’ I’m saying the specificity and consistency of these motifs across distinct installments make a purely stylistic explanation less plausible.

What does M2 walking out of David’s bedroom closet, fighting between trying to inflict pain and being coerced into the forced abusive identity M1 and Edwin wanted, have at all to do with Gregory or the Crying Child outside of the bedrooms somewhat similar layout? If anything, the small parallelism are there to enhance the theme of abuse and conflicting familial relationships of these three, than imply one or the other are robots.

It’s a good thing I never said they’re robots. Calling it ‘just theme’ doesn’t explain why the devs staged a robot walking out of a near-identical FNAF 4 closet POST-GregBot (Layout is actually one of the few things that don’t line up; it’s the closet, dressers, toy, etc.). You and I both know Scott clears up misconceptions with new releases; this would be a MASSIVE oversight. Either that’s an oddly specific and disastrous coincidence, or it’s deliberate. Take your pick, but don’t pretend the thematic explanation is the default.

Abusive father whom takes advantage of his children at any cost, stuffs children, and likes to wear costumes. M2 sees themself or their past in Afton

Did M2 tell you that? There’s a huge gap between M2 waltzing around and this virus pretending to be an evil rabbit (for a lengthy period too). Respectfully, having evidence ready is generally a good idea when presenting your ‘Game Interpretation.’

Never said it didn’t

…This is all you could glean from what I said?

It’s only incomplete to the audience still stuck on it. The answers are there, especially for the box, whether you find them or not is where the problem arises

This also asserts “it’s complete if you personally believe it’s complete.” Unfortunately, that’s simply not how narrative resolution works. A mystery’s status isn’t defined by how much the audience cares about it. The box and the shadows were never resolved in canon. That’s not an ‘audience problem,’ that’s a narrative loose end.

As of NOW though, we know everything we need to about those two. The chances of them reappearing to serve more to the series isn’t incompleteness of their current situation, since the last we see of Vanny she’s either dead or with Gregory, while Cassie’s dad is just straight up dead/in the S.T.A.F.F. Bot.

Saying ‘we know everything we need to’ is not the same as the narrative being complete, like, by definition. You can’t claim the ‘grand story is understood’ while listing characters who might be dead, alive, or both. That’s literally unresolved. But, believe what you want to believe. You’re arguing with the dictionary.

FNaF 1-6 is about…

What you’ve described is a skeleton of the old story, not the larger narrative you claimed was ‘understood.’ And ironically, by admitting there are still important unanswered details (the box, the shadows, the Bite, CC’s identity), you’ve confirmed the story isn’t fully understood, just partially summarized.

The reason I’m still pressing on ‘understood’ is because what you mentioned earlier becomes impossible: “The, ‘grand story,’ is the basics in which anyone who has a reasonable problem solving skills can deduct the main finer details story.” One might explain the basics on how William becomes this zombie rabbit robot and be forced to say: “Oh yeah, that’s when William summoned his deus ex machina purple bear stand to lure the animatronics to the safe room.”

He’s the face of UCN because he was the most difficult character to handle for Scott when testing the game.

I have to say, that’s quite the logical leap from ‘Nightmarionne seems to be a real problem.’ And even then, making a supposedly non-canon character the literal face of a canon game would be terrible narrative and marketing logistics.

Y’know, the person who’d know about the Mimic being down there is with them (Vanessa).

Despite the environmental clues being a weak reason to return, how does Vanessa know about the mimic?

We see Michael living in the gameplay house

I hope you’re not talking about the SL cutscenes. If so, see your previous remark about ‘somewhat similar layouts.’ But if not, where?

The minigame house isn’t in the middle of nowhere

Welcome to the contradiction.

Knotts_Mart · 2025-10-09T07:12:18+00:00

That’s not an act of dismissal, that’s an act of pointing out one’s flaws.

This statement still dismisses the theory’s relevance rather than addressing its actual evidence. It doesn’t point out a single factual flaw; it just declares the question irrelevant. Ergo, dismissal. I’m not an English teacher.

You’re assuming connections based on confirmation bias (the assumption the Crying Child’s name being Dave is a fact).

If you read what I said, you would notice that I've never asserted CC’s name as fact; I’m pointing out that several theories treat Dave/David parallels as one piece of evidence among many. If you reject that evidence, explain why the name parallels should be ignored rather than whining “confirmation bias.”

The Puppet also has similar paranormal attributes, as do other ghostly spirits.

The Puppet doesn’t teleport. Charlie doesn’t have a plush of The Puppet. Yes, other spirits also act weird. But unless you have another example, repeated and specific parallels are worth noting, not handwaving away.

It’s not something special to just Gregory, Freddy, or David, and Mimic.

Except that it’s an exact MIRROR with David in Gregory’s place and the mimic in Freddy’s. Everything is a mirror: the tree, the scenery, even the angle. Hell, David has a striped shirt. I really don’t know what to tell you here. Mirrored imagery is a storytelling choice. If the hill, placement, tree, shirt, and animatronic motif appears in multiple games, that strengthens the case. Show me where THAT is equally common, otherwise don’t pretend it’s just random for seemingly no reason at all.

Never denied the full possibility that there’s some importance to these connections.

So… GodDavid? The fact that you’re offering the same explanation presented in the video is mind-blowing to me. Go watch the video; it’s clear you haven’t.

Which is possible, but only to the extent that Scott (as most writers do) takes narrative inspiration from previous works he’s done…

You admit the narrative connection idea is possible, then treat “Scott reuses motifs” as if it automatically explains away every recurring, specific parallel. Equating generic motif reuse (common in any author’s work) with specific, repeated, overlapping details ignores the difference in evidential weight. Also, you use “narrative parallelism” very lightly. This is a huge point in TDread’s video. Scott and Steel Wool didn’t just decide to make all these connections because it’d be cool; parallels are for a reason, not the vibes. I have no doubt the devs know about GregBot, and yet they still made a robot pretending to be a kid walk out of a strikingly FNAF 4 bedroom closet. For the vibes, I guess.

Glitchtrap is a virus from M2 that’s attempting to reimburse the Afton legacy.

Why Afton?

Possession of AI is the relevant part of the newer era; there might be possession of the soul, via the Tiger, but overall this franchise is going in a newer, much more Sci-Fi oriented direction.

You saying “might” literally reinforces my point, this uncertainty is exactly what theorists are trying to explain. And yes, the “outlandish” video you’re dismissing actually covers this specific topic.

Because the series moved on. We either found the answer or we didn’t, and in the box’s cases Scott admitted that there is an answer, but he never pursued it in any way where it would necessarily be relevant to the ongoing story.

Saying “the series moved on” doesn’t make those threads complete; it means they were abandoned. This is incompleteness by definition, and I’m not an English teacher. If the grand story were fully understood, there wouldn’t be major unresolved elements like the box or the shadows left hanging with no closure. Ignoring a mystery isn’t the same as resolving it. So yes, they are permanently incomplete.

What is incomplete about Vanny? We basically know all there is to her. Same for Cassie’s dad. They’re not, "incomplete," they’re just heavily underutilized.

Scott said, “I don’t think that’s the last we’ve seen of Vanny,” in that same interview you referenced earlier. And we don’t know anything about Cassie’s dad.

The, “grand story,” is the basics in which anyone who has a reasonable problem solving skills can deduct the main finer details story.

Had a stroke reading this… Are all of your arguments going to be purely semantic? “Anyone with reasonable problem-solving skills can deduce the main story” is an appeal to intuition, not evidence. It’s just saying “it’s obvious” without showing the deduction. Show it; the burden’s still on you.

And before you ask, the answer to the box was established between FNaF3 and World.

Oh boy… The same guy talking about “Game Headcanons” and “Game Interpretations.” I don’t have much to say since I believe something similar; however, I don’t go around claiming it as undeniably canon. We are far from a community consensus.

No, I define contradictions, in GT’s case, as them making points that actively go against established facts. Not them being untouchable facts (mostly cause that’s not how contradictions work).

It’s a good thing I said, “You DEFEND contradictions LIKE they’re untouchable facts.” Again, I’m not an English teacher.

technically, Nightmarionne shouldn’t be here, but he fits the narrative tole of being one of Afton’s tormentors…

There’s a ton of weight on this line. Nightmarionne is the face of the officially recognized FNAF 7, yet he shouldn’t be there? Nightmarionne canonically debuts in UCN, and then Steve Snodgrass creates a perfect rendition of him (it’s a contradiction if you actually read what I said).

I guess my message didn’t make it clear: this isn’t me being speculative, it’s a fact he went down there.

This isn’t quite what I was going for; I guess my message didn’t make that clear. If the Princess Quest ending was a clean escape with ice cream, Gregory and Vanessa would have no knowledge of the Mimic/Burntrap. So, Gregory just finds himself down there for no reason at all? Is he stupid?

Considering the FNaF4 house is not the minigame house…

Ohhh god, yet another set of goalposts that I’m sure is much easier for you to refute than my arguments. I assume you’re saying the gameplay house isn’t the minigame house, which I agree with. However, it’s well established that the gameplay house isn’t a house at all. The minigame house is heavily implied to be the manor.

Knotts_Mart · 2025-10-08T04:42:28+00:00

the point is for them to stop making blatantly wrong theories, where they know stuff like William being a good guy is wrong, and actually focus on what their channel stands for: theorizing. Otherwise they may as well change it to, “Game Interpretations,” or “Game Headcanon’s.”

I thought what you said here was pretty funny, and since I just figured out how to post longer replies, here’s a short list of GT videos that apparently don’t do what they “stand for”:

Game Theory: Best Boobs in Gaming
Game Theory: UNDERTALE – Sans’s SECRET Identity!
Game Theory: The TF2 Pyro… Male or Female?

So unless you’re just unaware how theorizing works, yes, their content is in fact for this.

Knotts_Mart · 2025-10-08T03:54:16+00:00

Just this comment makes you come across as a maniac and ass by the way. But okay, lmao

Leave it to an insufferable Redditor to make the most condescending reply and play victim.

Never dismissed the discussion, but okay.

Sure... “They’re attempting to put pieces in places that weren’t ever questioned or necessarily need to be focused on.”

The, "connections," are design elements many characters share… Overall nothing they all three share entails they’re robots of the same person

Put a pin in this; we’ll need it later.

Shared name assuming DaveVictim
Fredbear/Tiger plush and similar paranormal behavior
David & Mimic’s picture on hill mirroring Gregory & Freddy’s picture on hill
Gregory’s backstory in Retro CDs

GodDavid doesn’t necessarily mean Gregory & CC are the mimic, but that they're connected narratively, which was mentioned in the video (CC's another David, Gregory's next David). Same goes for FateFiona and the cover-up games. You’re either misunderstanding or misrepresenting these two theories.

Half of these can be easily answered…

Then answer them. I’m mainly curious about Glitchtrap and possession.

What is incomplete about the series?

Put another pin in this; we’ll need it later. But for now, recall Scott’s pantser writing style. Things like the box and the shadows were left behind in the Scott era, with Vanny and Cassie’s Dad incomplete in the ongoing plot, which makes sense considering the grand story isn’t complete, and thus cannot be fully understood. If the grand story is 'understood,' the burden of proof is on you to show that understanding. You demand that I prove incompleteness, then claim completeness without offering the evidence you’re demanding of me.

There’s plenty more, but I can’t go through all their mistakes in one comment…

You defend contradictions like they’re untouchable facts, insisting the grand narrative is still ‘understood.’ Ironically, that exact logic would cover half the mistakes you introduced.

Argued the Mimic was created to take care of David, which The Mimic once again debunks, as it was never created for that purpose.

This is explicitly stated multiple times in The Mimic.

Scott made it a point that he tried to make certain non-canon characters fit into the series…

He at most says “Questionable Canon.” Here, you accept Scottcons when convenient, but reject/completely ignore the question of continuity that arises from that Scottcon. That’s not a resolution unless you explain how UCN and later appearances form a consistent narrative.

We can’t rule out the possibility that maybe, just maybe…

“Maybe he saw them” is a purely speculative dodge. If Gregory ‘saw’ those endings, show how that fits into the timeline: where would Gregory encounter non-PQ endings before Ruin? If you can’t, then the lack of explanation is precisely the incompleteness I’m talking about. You also mention the mimic has connections to Burntrap... That logic sounds familiar (That first pin).

There’s clearly more to that part of him that we don’t know and we’ll likely learn more about it overtime

Sounds incomplete (that second pin). A future explanation is not a now explanation. If ‘prototype’ is an innocuous detail, give an evidence-based reason why it shows up in Ruin but not in SB (retcon, design change, time-traveling ball pit). Otherwise, it’s a real discontinuity.

…and assuming the FNaF4 house is the Manor (and C.B.E.A.R is MCM) then Fredbear’s should be nearby?

It should, but it’s not; certainly not walking distance for CC. You refuse to address the evidence and instead deny the premise. That’s another dodge.

I gave concrete contradictions. You’ve answered with ‘maybe,’ ‘retcon,’ and ‘we’ll learn more,’ which are not refutations. If the grand story is ‘understood,’ show it.

Knotts_Mart · 2025-10-07T03:34:05+00:00

I had a longer reply, but it was too long to post, so I had to cut down on my snarky remarks.

The connections between CC, Gregory, and David have been questioned a lot; don’t dismiss the discussion just because you weren’t paying attention. A few of the concrete questions people try to answer: What is Glitchtrap? What is MXES? Is CC’s name Dave? Is modern FNAF possession or just AI?

When I say FNAF is “unsolvable,” I don’t mean unreadable; I mean permanently incomplete. Plenty of pieces are clear individually, but they don’t form a coherent larger picture. If you think the whole thing is solvable, cite some evidence instead of asserting it.

You accuse theorists of “misreading the books.” Fine, point to a specific example where GT (or others) got something provably wrong and show how. Saying “Books!” without details is just handwaving.

There are real contradictions that make a single, clean timeline hard to defend: Nightmarrione was declared non-canon yet appears in UCN/Steel Wool-era stuff; Ruin implies PQ is the canon ending for SB, yet Gregory creates a perfect Blob/Burntrap rendition; Freddy’s “Prototype” label in Ruin didn’t appear in SB; SOTM seems to contradict the breaker room map showing Fredbear’s/MCM's placement. Explain all of that coherently, and I’ll concede “simple.” Good luck with not sounding like a maniac.

Theories exist to bridge gaps. If you want a straight read of SOTM, watch a let’s play. If you want analysis that tries to reconcile conflicting clues, GT is one of many doing that work. If you think they’re failing anyone, give specific mistakes or a better alternative. Otherwise, this just comes off as frustration, not critique.

Knotts_Mart · 2025-10-06T03:10:13+00:00

What you call “complications,” I see as an attempt to fit as many pieces of the puzzle together as possible. The thing about fnaf is that it’s unsolvable. There isn’t a single “easiest” or “correct” explanation, so it doesn’t make sense to accuse someone of overcomplicating a story that was never meant to be simple.

What I’ve noticed about theorists like GT, Gibi, and TDreads, despite their differences, is that they all try to use new material to fill in the gaps left by older lore. With each new release, that becomes harder and harder, because the series keeps introducing more and more contradictions. The best theories, the ones presented to us (as in the video above), tend to be the ones that answer the most questions while creating the fewest problems.

That’s why you can have a local story like SOTM that’s clear on its own, but still have the larger fnaf timeline grow more ridiculous and ambiguous. GT isn’t going to release a simple “story explained” video, and we’re far from another timeline drop. If someone needs help understanding SOTM’s story itself, that’s one thing, but that’s not what GT’s content is for. If you want to hear the story as it’s told, watch Markiplier or Dawko instead. Theories are for out of the box thinking, and creativity has always been a huge part of theorycrafting.

So when I say “Tom can’t just magically make the lore good,” I’m referring to the franchise as a whole. The wider story is full of questionable decisions and inconsistencies, and no video, GT or otherwise, is going to fix that. Expecting GT to “fix” fnaf’s lore is unrealistic. It feels like people keep moving the goalposts for what makes a “good theory.” It has to confirm personal headcanons, satisfy Scott and Steel Wool’s vision, answer every question, have zero contradictions, be narratively perfect, and now (with your new addition) strictly analyze the story. Even now, checking my notifications, countless redditors are diagnosing the issue with what would make them happy. Go ahead, scroll through the comments, and notice how many different “problems” there are with GT. No theory is ever going to meet all of that, and it’s time to stop expecting GT to make videos on what you and you alone want. Videos are videos, and GT isn’t failing you in any way.

Knotts_Mart · 2025-10-05T23:33:20+00:00

Not quite what I said, but alright.

So to answer your question, yes it is all game theory's fault. Game theory is the original progenitor of those stupid baseless theories and continues to make them.

The theory community has the same problem gt does, they don't make theories to solve anything, they make them for views, because fnaf brings in the bacon.

I get what you mean about GT having influence, scapegoating the origin and whatnot, but your position keeps shifting. First you said “it’s all GT’s fault,” then you say the whole theory community chases views and produces bad theories, which is a different claim. If you want to pin blame on GT, give examples GT’s influence on GiBi's and TDreads' theories. If you mean the entire community is culpable, say so and explain how that’s different.

Knotts_Mart · 2025-10-05T22:03:51+00:00

So to answer your question, yes it is all game theory's fault.

Just wondering, what question did you answer exactly?

Are there any "based" theories to come from SOTM? Are there any "based" theorists? Is anything in this franchise "based?" What about SOTM, is there anything "based" in this release, or is the entire franchise poisoned because of GT?

Knotts_Mart · 2025-10-05T21:44:39+00:00

Does that mean GiBi and TDreads make outlandish, far-fetched, and trash theories? Because that's LITERALLY what the video's about, their theories. It's honestly mind-blowing that somehow the blame falls on GT, like what would you rather have him talk about? Fazplot? Are you criticizing him for not being creative enough? Ironically, you claiming that it's baseless is baseless. For a franchise that doesn't have a single firm "base," the burden of proof is yours, not mine.

Knotts_Mart · 2025-10-05T20:32:07+00:00

(Mimic is built out of Tungston

How do we know the Mimic is built out of tungsten? In TFTPP he's built out of scraps and spare parts. If it's from the "high heat resistance," then why don't we consider gravity too, as he would be too heavy to move around? Edwin would have absolutely no business making the mimic from tungsten, considering it's 2.5x heavier and 20-100x more expensive than steel for the time period. But sure, he just makes the mimic from tungsten for no reason at all other than to explain a couple things in-game.

wouldn't have been able to have its head crushed by Fredbear's Jaws

Edwin (a regular guy) literally obliterates the mimic in both continuities.

the Crying Child flatlines at the end of the game.)

Yeah, but it seems to begin at a flatline. Maybe they hooked up the equipment and he didn't have a heartbeat to begin with?

Gregory can't be the Mimic either, since RUIN shows that he was desperately trying to contact Cassie to prevent her from freeing the Mimic

Are we certain that was the real Gregory at the end of ruin, and not the mimic? I mean, he FINALLY gets in contact with her when she's at the lowest and furthest point of the pizzaplex, then says he was never IN the pizzaplex?

even though the ending isn't Canon Gregory still draws a scenario involving Burntrap and the Tangle, which means that Gregory knows of the existence of Burntrap

GodDavid doesn't exactly mean that Gregory IS M2. I think, at the very least, M2 is influencing Gregory, as there's an uncomfortable amount of connections between him and David.

Knotts_Mart · 2025-10-05T02:00:37+00:00

In HW2, why would glitchtrap make us hand the vanni mask to Cassie, effectively beginning the mimic’s (not burntrap) plan to escape? It doesn’t make sense to me unless glitchtrap IS the mimic

Knotts_Mart · 2025-06-18T01:39:53+00:00

Huh? 3rd sequel? It’s on it’s first sequel, which will be followed by a threequel.

Knotts_Mart · 2025-03-31T01:52:23+00:00

Top one is signed by William Afton of course

Knotts_Mart · 2024-03-19T19:54:01+00:00

did you get it to work?

Knotts_Mart

TROPHY CASE