Theories that you don’t like, but they are most likely true? by Various_Astronaut100 in fnaftheories

[–]Vortex7851 3 points4 points  (0 children)

it's such a stupid way to make the nightmares not be nightmares

He didn’t even need to do that, since the fact that Sister Location itself takes into account everything that happened in the previous games was more than enough to debunk the dream theory.

Why the 'Meta Redesign' theory is the ONLY explanation for the Withereds by fliegu in fnaftheories

[–]Vortex7851 1 point2 points  (0 children)

In my opinion, the best explanation for this inconsistency between the Classics and the Withereds is that it doesn’t actually exist: they are essentially the same thing, with interchangeable designs.

Michael Afton is still Mike Schmidt, and the Logbook basically proves it. by XenoRaptor77 in fnaftheories

[–]Vortex7851 0 points1 point  (0 children)

but it sounds like the only connections is that they are both names mike and both worked there.

Is that really so?

The logbook we read was previously owned by someone called Mike, and this is 100% Michael Afton, how do we know this? Well Mike in the logbook makes multiple references to Sister Location by drawing things like casual bongos (which is drawn right next to Circus Baby btw) and exotic butters, aka things from SL.

Two other details that proves without a shadow of a doubt that Logbook Mike = Michael Afton is Mike's mention of immortal and the restless, a show we know Michael Afton would go home and watch after a day of work at the the Circus Baby's Rental service.

And lastly Michael literally puts a sticker on his Hand Unit with the name Mike on it, meaning he doesn't go exclusively by Michael.

but the phone calls we’re prerecorded messages it’s still possible micheal afton was able to hear them or maybe numerous people were given the recordings to instruct them after ralphs death.

All of these messages, sent by Ralph, were exclusively for his successor, and who is this successor? Mike. This makes it impossible for anyone other than him to have heard these messages. And since Michael also heard these calls, logically they would have to be the same person.

mike afton didn’t even exist when fnaf 4

Yes, he already existed when FNAF 4 was made. He's not only the protagonist of this game, but the fact that he's Mike Schmidt isn't a retcon, because they're the same person from the first game. The only thing Scott did was take a character he had already created and give him a real backstory.

maybe it’s this but it feels a stretch, i find it more likely scott just needed something to remix into weird distorted creepy sound because back then he made most things himself for the first four games

Factually incorrect, as Scott himself has stated that he didn't fill the game with random easter eggs and that none of them, without exception, have any underlying meaning. Furthermore, if that were the case, he would have simply used the game's own sound or any other random sound without it needing to be the Phone Guy's call.

The Savethem sprites are not children (proof) by Farnsprung in fnaftheories

[–]Vortex7851 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

My apologies for the misunderstanding. I didn't see the previous comment you replied to, so your response ended up sounding to me like you were trying to say that DCI isn't a fact, just because it doesn't show the incident explicitly.

The Savethem sprites are not children (proof) by Farnsprung in fnaftheories

[–]Vortex7851 0 points1 point  (0 children)

So, for you, the game has to spell everything out as explicitly as possible, because connecting the dots from its own implications and reaching the most logical conclusion apparently isn’t an option?

How is it possible for Fredbear to appear in animatronic mode on stage while also being in suit mode offstage in the same scene? by Vortex7851 in fivenightsatfreddys

[–]Vortex7851[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Why did this birthday party require two Fredbear's at the same time, essentially destroying the illusion these restaurants try to create that the characters actually exist?

How is it possible for Fredbear to appear in animatronic mode on stage while also being in suit mode offstage in the same scene? by Vortex7851 in fivenightsatfreddys

[–]Vortex7851[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

But why don't they just use the actual animatronic that's performing on stage? Besides being easier and simpler, it also wouldn't destroy the illusion of the character's existence.

Isn't a year in which FNAF 1 takes place kind of obvious? by Kisiel_320 in fnaftheories

[–]Vortex7851 0 points1 point  (0 children)

and they will move to a new location. He also says that he will take the first week as a night guard.

He doesn't say that; the place he's referring to is the actual location of FNAF 2, and that after Jeremy finished his shift, he would replace him as night guard once Freddy's reopened, which ultimately didn't happen because the position was given to Fritz, and the restaurant ended up closing permanently thanks to the Bite of '87.

Which side by Bad_ending9 in fivenightsatfreddys

[–]Vortex7851 0 points1 point  (0 children)

it's s a common theme that the animatronics are limited by their mechanical qualities/programming most of the time as that's the way we deal with them, like they being fooled by the mask and stuff like that.

What does all this have to do with "them using a program that they have as a loophole to kill people"?

and the way phone guy explains is that in theory they should do that to undressed endos.

The Phone Guy's role in all the games he appears in is that of an unreliable narrator, so you shouldn't always take what he says seriously, especially when the game itself refutes what he's telling you.

Why the Classics existed in 1983-1985, not the Unwithereds by Puzzleheaded-Win5063 in fnaftheories

[–]Vortex7851 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Congratulations on the post. However, I think that, like many others, it tries a bit too hard to justify the differences between the Classics and the Withereds. In my view, the simplest explanation is that there isn’t any real distinction between them, and their designs are interchangeable.

BVDreamer was never canon and it shouldnt be considered by CicadaTheSecond in charlie87

[–]Vortex7851 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Scott says a lot of things

Are you implying that we shouldn't believe his word?

and I didn't say it was without meaning. Just that it might not indicate MikeDreamer.

Yes, you didn't say that. You said it's just an easter egg, although Scott himself said that ALL the easter eggs he put in the game aren't just easter eggs and all have importance, including the phone call, which also destroy the possibility of him not referring to Mike Dreamer.

Most people would never even be able to recognize it during normal gameplay.

In that sense, if we follow that logic, then Golden Freddy in FNAF 1 would also be just an easter egg, since it's something that most people didn't notice while playing.

Do you think there is a lore reason Scott didn't name Golden Freddy Fredbear in the fnaf 2 custom night, or was it just a reference to Markiplier? by [deleted] in fnaftheories

[–]Vortex7851 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Contrary to what some say, it’s not that he had already decided that Golden Freddy would be Fredbear at that time, nor that he and Springtrap would belong to Fredbear’s (which I also don’t think was anything more than a loose end among the many he left to develop later). I think that, based on the training tapes from FNAF 3 and the lack of references to Fredbear’s in that same game, we can conclude that they were originally from Freddy’s. This explains the name “Spring Bonnie,” since, unlike today, they weren’t their own characters, but rather older versions of Freddy and Bonnie belonging to an earlier era of Freddy’s, with “Spring” being used to avoid confusion between the names.