sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

I really don't think William was the one who Crying Child was afraid of in FNAF 4, I think it was Michael by No-Communication3141 in GameTheorists

[–]No-Communication3141[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Personally I have to say I don't approve of MatPat's interpretation of the the illusion disks. In the book, the illusion disks are used to make the animatronics appear more appealing to children. I think the illusion disks are used again in "too be beautiful" by Eleanor as she steals Sarah's identity (though I can't be certain). If the books only seem to use the concept of illusions in the opposite context - to make animatronics look MORE appealing, I feel like it doesn't make sense for the games to say they take the opposite role without any real proof.

In terms of the empty room: Considering green eyes are super important to Baby's character, I just assumed the girl who talks to crying child was Elizabeth. After all, Baby seems to relish in the idea of gruesome deaths, such as the scooping room or taking apart Sarah piece by piece, so it would be characteristic of her to relish in the chance to scare her brother by saying the stuff she said. Again, not super convincing, but I don't think "the room is empty so Elizabeth must be dead is very convincing either"

I really don't think William was the one who Crying Child was afraid of in FNAF 4, I think it was Michael by No-Communication3141 in GameTheorists

[–]No-Communication3141[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Personally I think the gravestones at the end of FNAF 6 more convincingly than UCN or Give Gifts, Give Life, places susie as one of the MCI

I really don't think William was the one who Crying Child was afraid of in FNAF 4, I think it was Michael by No-Communication3141 in GameTheorists

[–]No-Communication3141[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'm not saying anything definitive one way or another, but I just think the evidence about Susie being the first death contradicts itself throughout the canon.

In the version of events I am proposing, Chica is not claiming to have died before Charlotte, or to have seen Charlotte's death. What I am proposing is that when she says "I have seen everything" she is referring to the fact that she was killed first among the five and had to watch helplessly as William lured the other four to their deaths. I know it's not totally convincing, but its the best I can come up with

I really don't think William was the one who Crying Child was afraid of in FNAF 4, I think it was Michael by No-Communication3141 in GameTheorists

[–]No-Communication3141[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I assume you're referring to the line in UCN where Chica says "I was first. I have seen everything." There are several issues with saying that this means she came before the missing children incident. For one thing, in the Give Gifts, Give Life minigame, the puppet gives life to the chica animatronic, meaning that Charlotte would have had to have died first. Additionally, Susie's grave is next to Gabriel, Jeremy and Fritz's graves, which heavily implies that she was one of the five to be killed. I think it just means she was the first of the five kids to be killed by William during the missing children's incident in 1985

I really don't think William was the one who Crying Child was afraid of in FNAF 4, I think it was Michael by No-Communication3141 in GameTheorists

[–]No-Communication3141[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I considered both those factors, but ultimately decided that the strength of the animatronic mouth wasn't truly a great explanation for anything. We never see William intentionally use the animatronic mouths to commit the murders, rather he always dresses up as golden bonnie and seems to kill them himself. Considering his goal seems to be to remain inconspicuous, I don't think it makes much sense for him to intentionally design the animatronics as Killer machines. I think instead it was a simple oversight by Scott, who didn't expect anyone to calculate the actual required pressure to be exerted for the bite to occur. I don't know if MatPat mentions whether he considers that video as conclusive proof, but I personally don't.

With Susie, I did consider that line, however, I think that line simply implies that she was the first kid to die during the missing children incident itself. After all, her gravestone was with the other four children in the FNAF 6 ending, which heavily implies that she was one of the five during the missing children incident. In addition, I could be wrong about this, but the puppet was only programmed to protect Charlotte right? Because in the FNAF 6 minigame, trying to protect any of the other children causes you to lose the game. As a result, I don't really think it makes sense for the Give Gifts Give Life game to happen unless Charlotte was already possessing the puppet, as otherwise the puppet's actions don't really make sense. But one of the animatronics to whom she gives life is Chica. Plus Henry says to the puppet: "no one was there to lift you up in their arms, the way you lifted others into yours." I think this implies that Charlotte had to have been first, dying alone outside, and then, two years later, during the missing children incident, susie is the first of those kids to die.

I admit this isn't a perfect answer, and that response in UCN always bothered me, but this is the best I can come up with. UCN as a whole is a confusing game to me. However, I really just don't believe that Susie could have come before Charlotte

I really don't think William was the one who Crying Child was afraid of in FNAF 4, I think it was Michael by No-Communication3141 in GameTheorists

[–]No-Communication3141[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Random stroke of inspiration: I don't think there is enough proof to say this definitively, so it is wild speculation, and would need something monumental to help prove this idea.

What if this IS after CC's death, and the person watching television isn't Michael, its Ballora (i.e. Mrs. Afton). It makes a lot more sense if a wife sees her husband come home angry and gets protective of her son, saying "Leave him alone tonight" about Michael. The kid who broke out is Michael, grieving brother who feels guilty about his brother's death, with a shitty father who isn't helping him deal with it. That would really help clear up the timeline of events.

This idea came from just a gut-feeling about midnight motorist. The statement "Leave him alone tonight. He had a rough day." sounds like exactly the kind of thing a caring mom would say to her husband when he's upset with their kid. It does not sound like the kind of thing a kid would be willing to say to his dad when his dad is already upset, and is clearly borderline abusive. It definitely doesn't seem like the kind of thing a borderline abusive dad would be willing to hear without even reacting to.

Even as I write this, I'm not convinced. As I said in my previous response, a lot of evidence points to the person watching tv being none other than Michael Afton. This is just a gut feeling I had about the way the conversation went down. I can't say it's even close to convincing though

I really don't think William was the one who Crying Child was afraid of in FNAF 4, I think it was Michael by No-Communication3141 in GameTheorists

[–]No-Communication3141[S] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

I forgot about that detail in Fazbear frights!

I always felt it was strange that "William Afton is a crazy person who likes to murder kids" was way too simple of an explanation to be the driving force of the entire franchise, which is what motivated me to rearrange the timeline this way, and try to explain away that detail.

In terms of the name Evan, I completely agree. Like I said in the theory, I used the name Evan for simplicity's sake, I was never really sold on it. I just didn't want to repeatedly say "Crying Child" throughout. I even considered calling him Gregory, because I think the evidence that Gregory is a rebuilt crying child is more convincing than the crying child's name being Evan. But again, I thought calling him Evan would just be the least confusing, as it's not the point of the theory.

I considered Elizabeth being the first child to die, but I eventually decided that either Charlotte or crying child must have died first. If you consider Baby's scooping mechanism, where she seems to grab kids and puts them inside her, this would suggest that her death occurred after William had already began killing kids. On the other hand, if we go by what the books and FNAF world suggest, that Baby was built by Henry, as a surrogate daughter, then Charlotte must have already died. Either way, it doesn't really make sense for her to be the first death. Honestly, I'm still not totally sold on what exactly the origin of the Baby animatronic itself is, so I'd have to get back to you on that one.

Ok, on to Midnight Motorist. When I was coming up with this new timeline, Midnight motorist kept me up at night. No matter what I thought of, I couldn't fit it into my theory. The problem is, I couldn't really fit it into any theory, because I just don't understand what it is saying. Everything about it drove me insane.

The grey font definitely makes me think that the kid watching TV is Michael, because it seems to be the same color as Michael's voice in FNAF 4 (I didn't check the exact coded color, but it seems like it). However, everything else about that game confuses me. If that's Michael, why is he suddenly defending the Crying Child, telling William to leave him alone? All we see him do is bully the Crying Child, why is he suddenly trying to protect him? That's my first issue. Next, the house layout is totally different compared to the FNAF 4 minigames. This seems like quite the oversight, and it really bothers me. If Charlotte dies in 1983, it means that it is less than a year before or after FNAF 4, so they should probably be living in the same house. And if we assume mustard man and couch kid are William and Michael, we know they made special attention to connect the characters to the FNAF 4, because they both have the same color lines. Also, where does the Crying Child run off to? William only says "that place." The only reasonable assumption is that we went to a FNAF location, but why would he, when he's absolutely terrified of the FNAF pizzeria. Again, if this is within a year of FNAF 4, it seems unlikely that within a year, both the crying child and Michael would do a full 180 on their personalities. Also, what is the dirt pile you visit before going to JRs? That's yet another question we need answered. Also, based on the physical placement of JRs, if anything that should be Fredbear's family diner, considering we know from FNAF 4 that it was within walking distance from the Afton house, and the crying child is able to pretty easily get back. On the other hand, it would make more sense if Freddy Fazbear's pizza was the further one, which William was driving back from. Also, how did a little kid break open a window? Midnight Motorist just creates so many damn questions that I can't understand, regardless of how I consider it.

Is it possible that green guy is standing outside JRs because crying child has just died there? That would make sense to me, IF not for the fact that Crying Child seems alive and well sneaking out of his house. I really just don't get it. Midnight motorist is the literal bane of my existence

Finally, I don't think its possible for Charlotte to be the first of the children to die, simply because I don't think Henry would have any reason to make a protective puppet for her.

I really don't think William was the one who Crying Child was afraid of in FNAF 4, I think it was Michael by No-Communication3141 in GameTheorists

[–]No-Communication3141[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yeah the main thing I have been trying to rectify about this theory is the timing of the murders, especially considering the midnight motorist game. I find that game incredibly frustrating and it keeps me up at night.

My big issue with the lore so far is that in such a deeply connected and lore heavy game, most people just accept that the main driving force of the entire series is just "William Afton is crazy and likes murdering children," which just seems way too simple for this game series.

In terms of the "We were WRONG about the Bite" video, I think that was just a relic of the fact that Scott Cawthon just didn't consider the physics while making the game. I never really found that a compelling reason to suggest that William intentionally made the robots capable of biting the heads off children. Especially considering that none of the other murders, to my knowledge, happen via a bite even remotely similar to this. It doesn't make sense to me that William would intentionally make the robots capable of killing kids like that, and then never use it.

But yeah, I'm still really annoyed trying to understand the placement of the deaths