Scott's ironically STILL teasing FNaF6. (Long post)
(Might wanna read this from start to finish)
^Before ^talking ^about ^the ^theory, ^itself.
#Actions
- Mat's
- Scott's
Funnily enough, the exact opposite of what Mat said was gonna happen didn’t happen. Mat's words are going against themselves.
This is not the same as when Scott actually did what Mat said he WAS going to do.
The very next day:
The day of the Game Theory video, just two days after.
Rainbow Freddy and Three kids.
Just like Mat said. But that’s not all.
What is paragraph 4?
”I want to get back to what made game-making enjoyable in the first place. It doesn’t mean that I’m abandoning FNaF. In fact, the first game that I'd like to make would be something for you guys. Remember Foxy Fighters from Update 2? That’s the kind of project that I'd like to work on again. Maybe I’ll try my hand at a pizzeria tycoon game, who knows.”
”It kind of goes back to my older post about the kind of game I would like to make, vs the one I feel I have to make. I don't have to do it anymore, which is actually very freeing.”
This is that game. The pizzeria tycoon.
Scott foreshadowed the tycoon game's actual existence with "paragraph 4", the day Mat uploaded his theory video. This is just THREE days after Mat said Scott would upload something to ScottGames in "a few” days. And he did. This means he revealed technician 3 because of Mat's words as well.
Once again, the day Scott uploaded that first teaser, Matpat said this:
”At this point, we all know he’s just waiting for us to solve the previous games before he releases the new one.”
And Scott responded by doing the opposite. All of these incidents here are because of MatPat's words.
#Words
After "paragraph 4", Scott he'd rather make the tycoon game. The problem is that he was openly teasing both for three months. Just a few days after TFF was 'leaked', Scott teased the tycoon. Even after that, he was openly ‘teasing’ FNaF6, by saying it’s name numerous times, doing VA casting, and talking about FNaF6 Baby fanart.
There are also more problems.
”The new game was really only existing to clear up things that were frustrating people in the community.”
According to Scott, Miketrap was never an implication. So, 6 wouldn’t be existing “only” for that. Mike, and William being literally or not literally purple comes from Miketrap. That would just leave the Bite of 83, meaning FNaF6 only existed to clear up the Bite of 83.
Even though he apparently already did that.
Would Scott really make the Custom Night cutscenes just to tease a game that clears up the Bite a second time? These cutscenes could've been replaced with him clearing it up again? …With Springtrap, and Michael? And Baby? And Ennard? And another new establishment? Would he really add all these characters just to clear up the Bite the second time, or is he doing it, just because he wanted to make a sequel to SL?
The latter. CN revealed Michael's full name, why he went to CBPW, and that he was going to go find William. We wouldn't have found out the first two if it weren't for this cutscene. Meaning Scott was saving this cutscene for after the main campaign. Which means he was planning to make a sequel to SL. The cutscene didn't reveal what year 4 took place in. Instead of making a new game Scott didn’t want to do, he actually could’ve just cleared it up with a simple cutscene. Remember, we weren't forcing him to make SL. He chose to. Just like he chose to make SL2.
Consider that Scott revealed the "paragraph 4" teasers + technician 3 because of Mat's words. He also said FNaF6 wasn’t needed, because of what Mat said. There is a reason why these odd patterns are here. And we’ve seen it before.
.
.
(History may repeat itself)
”Dude. You know Scott can be serious for once, right?”
He can. When his s make sense, and are understandable.
Like the completely serious “FNaFWorld is being pulled from Steam”. Scott made no hesitation to address people about his decisions here. Cause he was serious.
What did Scott do on FNaF’s anniversary? Tease SL2. And also, apart of Baby that we'd see in TFF. Shortly after TFF, rainbow Freddy appeared on the site. This is a strange order of events. It's weird how Scott teased SL2 in the anniversary just a month after he said he was taking a break. It must've been a very short break, since he implied he wasn't on break days before the anniversary.
(Joking about not being on break, after telling us he was? Strange.)
Isn't it also weird how he first said he didn't wanna make SL2 anymore when TFF was on the way in nearly two months? Would this not pass the time and give a reason why he wouldn't reveal Baby right away? Because he was waiting for TFF to? And we know this, because he teased her TFF look a MONTH after he said he was on break.
#Sequence of events
Let's start with the first Baby teaser.
What would've been the next teaser? Most likely, her full body. But it wouldn't make sense to get that when we'd only get a silhouette when TFF was meant to tease "what's next for FNaF"... months later. Unless, Scott was waiting for TFF to release first. It's hard to believe that it's coincidential that we didn't get another until very close to TFF’s release.
That leads us to the update post. Only a full month after he teased Baby’s eyes. He said he wanted to make something he wanted to. Notice how he never says, or implies a “break” in the first update. He only says he will stop working on it.
Only after people said he could be saying this, did he decide to call it a break, in the update.
In his update, he said this:
”Would I ever troll you guys?”
This is a red flag.
Now, for Scott’s post.
”You are all right. I needed to make a serious post a few days ago, but couldn't, because I'd made too many troll posts in the past.”
.
”I needed to make a serious post.”
.
”I couldn't.”
.
”I’d made too many troll posts”
...
”...Would I ever troll you guys?”
His Steam post wasn't serious. But his apparent break to make a free game was.
-
SL2 is cancelled’ Steam post.
-
Then, we get technician 3, but only because Mat was suspecting an ‘update’.
-
Then, we get “Paragraph 4” the day Mat uploaded his teaser.
-
Then, a week later, and he makes Baby close her eyes.
-
Same day, he uploades this unfitting, goofy teaser just after saying SL2 is on hold again.
Looking at this order of events, it seems suspiciously planned.
But he obviously didn't plan MatPat's video. Which seems to be a wrench in all this. But it's doesn't have to be.
It's improvised teasing.
Following this all, the one reason Scott would even consider this scenario is because it lowers hype. People were getting too comfortable that the tycoon would tease SL2, but after his recent words, not so much. Which means Scott succeeded.
This is where the "teasing SL2" part also comes into play. Also not apart of the plan, but it works, because again, what Mat said.
#The story
Scott got the memo from Mat's video that he suspected him to do something the day he uploaded his theory video. So, Scott put "technician 3" on Voices.com. The exact day Mat uploaded his video is when Scott did something. Just like Mat said.
Apart from Mat saying Scott would release SL2 after he solved FNaF and Scott saying no to that, there's also the fact that everything Mat mentioned at the very END of his video was brought up the next week by Scott. When Mat uploaded his second video.
- Miketrap
- 1983
And Scott happened to mention both of them. Out of the blue. But why?
Because they "solved" (at least), big parts of SL2. The catch is, Scott put 6 on hold after this. But how did Scott tease SL2 with these points?
Through one word: contradictions.
Let's go by them.
#Miketrap
According to Scott, Miketrap was just a misunderstanding, and wasn't something saved for a big reveal.
”These weren't points in the lore that were supposed to be controversies. These weren't things that were supposed to be saved up for a big reveal, they were just things that were misunderstood.”
But the cutscene is in the same deceptive manner as the previous cutscenes. That would mean he could say the same about that. But it's clear we were supposed to think Eggs was Purple Guy, because of his purple shirt, his purple eyes, and finally his purple body.
”And then we will see what becomes of Eggs Benedict.”
Say what you will about that word, but would clearly make someone think they'd see what becomes of Mike in the cutscene.
It’s hard to imagine that Mike’s dialogue wasn't purposely vague and deceptive.
”I found it”... “They were all there”... “They thought I was you”... “I'm going to come find you”... Springtrap appears.
.
.
.
”And then we will see what becomes of Eggs Benedict.”
.
After being tricked into thinking this guy was the Purple Guy, this same guy's dialogue happened to vaguely resemble the scenario of FNaF3 Purple Guy, before he ends up being Springtrap, and even says "I should be dead, but I'm not." and "I'm going to come find you" in a low tone, before happening to show Springtrap. These are all too specific details to just be things we misunderstood. As specific as a misleading cutscene building up to another misleading cutscene.
Don't get me wrong, though. There is overweighing proof for Willtrap. But saying Miketrap wasn't implied would mean that this is an extremely unfortunate coincidence.
But, you could apply this to the PG cutscenes. But they were meant to mislead us. And you could say the same about Mike's purple eyes in the mirror. There's an underlying theme of "They thought I was you" in SL, and the cutscene happens to fit into this.
There are too many examples of Scott misleading us to lead to a big reveal, and they're so specific, you couldn't just call them "unfortunate coincidences".
They're bait and switch.
-
A yellow animatronic? Maybe Golden Freddy? Nope. Those are bunny ears. Bait and switch.
-
Freddy Fazbear's is reopening after we learn that it will close by years end? Nope. It's a prequel. Bait and switch.
-
There's only three animatronics in FNaF1? Nope. There's a fox. Nope. There's a yellow Freddy. No, there isn't. Yes, there is. Bait and switch.
-
This is self explanatory. But I'll get into that later. Scott knows very well how to do red-herrings.
It's either a coincidence, or Scott wasn't being truthful.
How does this tease the story?
Well, considering that the cutscene sort of alludes to Miketrap, then you'd suspect that any outcome would be a 'big' reveal, right? So, why would he say Willtrap is canon? There's only one reason he'd implicate Miketrap with that cutscene, and then say "Willtrap". post-Mat's video, going off all of these scenarios. Bait and switch.
The evidence weighs more in favor of William being Springtrap. So, for Scott to "confirm" Willtrap again in SL2, he'd have to make matters more confusing before confirming it again in the game. Scott likes to do red-herrings, like the list showed. This, it'd still be a big reveal.
These are just some ideas in case this is confusing:
-
William apparently died before the FNaF3 minigames even happened.
-
Springtrap acts in "a way" that he didn't before.
And it's not the first time Scott wouldn't be truthful about something, storywise, before surprising people in the game, like the example with GF & Foxy in FNaF1.
#Mike's voice
"You probably should've just asked the voice actor to do another take."
.
"The rest of the lines were so good that I didn't want to risk another take."
Scott considered fixing this before releasing the cutscene, but didn't, because he didn't wanna do another take. But he didn't need another take. He had the file for the line reading, and he knew about what it sounded like slowed down. That means he simply would've fix the mistake he made by slowing down, and it would not have been that difficult.
A problem with saying that the effect was an accident is that in nearly every game, he slows down voices, and there's never a robotic effect.
Neither of these sound 'robotic', like Mike does. Scott was even careful with the slowed down Baby’s voice. But, somehow, this is the only out of place attempt out of the many other attempts.
Here's Michael's raw voice file.
"The "robotic" sound in the voice was actually an unintended side effect of me slowing down the end of the line reading"
Try slowing down the first "I'm going to come find you" in any audio editor you have, and try matching the "slow down" tone with the last line. Most likely, you won't get a match, and just slowing it down would make it sound much lower than the second line. So, you raise the pitch, and now, it sounds closer. However, Scott only said he slowed down the line reading. And the final product is what he got.
There's also a possibility of no "robotic" effect at all after slowing it down yourself.
If the slow motion was for dramatic effect, it's completely random. Because it goes from Mike speaking normally, to his last line’s tone being lowered. Not to mention, it's not properly slow-mo, like the examples I showed.
The real reason Mike sounds robotic is because there's a slight tempo-like reverb that's prevalent throughout the dialogue. Almost like he's speaking through a can. There's almost a metallic ring to it. I'm not talking about the echo, cause it's in every character's voice in SL. But it sounds strangely filtered.
"I'm going to come find you" also seems to have slight tempo, which is the main reason it sounds 'robotic'. While you'd get this by slowing stuff down on YouTube, or any amateur audio editor, regularly, the "tempo" effect always comes separate from the "speed" effect, which slows it down. Evidently, Scott changed the pitch, and messed with the tempo. Yet, Scott said he only slowed down the voice.
Let's compare his voice to the humans in SL.
-
Board member, and William Afton. Nothing too weird here. Just echos in their voices. They don't sound “robotic”.
-
The sister. Same thing. Just a heavy echo. It's not 'robotic'.
-
The technicians. Again, apart from the heavier echo, it sounds natural, and not odd.
-
Now, Michael. There's a weird reverb that's not prevalent in the other voices. Like I said, there's an odd filter in Michael's voice that's not the same for the other humans.
Michael should not be able to talk clearly, considering this:
"Just image your torso as a jack-o-lantern, and you've got the right idea. And then if something is crawling inside of you, it could probably manually empty out the rest."
.
"Ennard scoops your insides out, and replaces your skeleton with itself."
.
.
Ennard's endoskeleton is forcefully spewed through Mike's THROAT.
.
So, how does he talk like this? The only possible way for him to pronounce words as good as he does is if the voice isn't actually from his vocal chords. Is this a major oversight, or Scott not caring about these details? Maybe not, since Scott knew Springtrap wouldn't be able to talk. By process of elimination, Mike's voice is artificial. Which explains the odd way he talks, and the inconsistent claim of Mike's slowed down voice being for "dramatic effect".
And by artificial, I mean robotic.
"Why would he lie about this?"
Because it served as a reason for believing Mike is Springtrap. And following the context clues of Mike's voice, and the deceptive scenario in the final cutscene, that was the point. So, in SL2, we may hear this "robotic voice" again.
#The Bite of 83
This is a big one. The biggest one.
This is the biggest one, because I'll be more prone to being called "in denial" then with the other two points. This is the longest debate. But when there are legitimate inconsistencies, and things that don't match up (like everything else here), they have to be pointed out. So, bare with me here.
"These weren't points in the lore that were supposed to be controversies."
"These weren't things that were supposed to be saved up for a big reveal"
"They were just things that were misunderstood."
The fact that these things are stuff we'd only see in 87 in a game supposedly in 83 means that they were there to mislead us. There's no point in putting tiny versions of the Toys in the game unless you wanted people to think it was in 87 at first.
The only way for the teasers to not be misleading would be if, either:
- Scott changed his mind mid-development (three days before release). Not likely, because he firmly said this:
"The last thing that I want is for anyone to think that I recklessly CHANGE details on a whim. I assure you, that’s NOT the case."
Or
- Scott was teasing the Bite of 87, too. This isn't possible, either. Because the teasers imply Fredbear did the Bite of 87. Not even the 83 three days (along with an 87 in the same source code) before release makes it seem like he was teasing 83 all along, unless he was trying to mislead us. Which he said he wasn't trying to do.
If they were teasing GF did the Bite, they didn't do a good job, because the only time we ever see GF face-to-face, he's an apparition, and seemingly empty. Sure, there's the drawing of GF in FNaF2's office, but that seems to be an actual man in a suit.
Teasing that the game will lead to, and reveal the Bite of 87, but leading to, and revealing the Bite of 83 is misleading. It's unlikely that Scott would mislead us, and lie about not doing so, considering he said: "I have way too much respect for the community".
But it may be likely he'd lie about not not misleading us, if 87 is true.
"(Or not conveyed properly by me)"
Notice how this option is unsure. It's not "And not conveyed properly by me". That means were weren't meant to be be confused by Mangle in the bedroom.
And that we weren't supposed to be confused by the other times he seemingly happened to be leading towards 87:
MatPat, p1
"Why would the tiny toy chica be missing her beak?"
The correct term would not even be "the tiny chica toy" (why emphasize "tiny", when tiny Toy Bonnie's almost as big as Freddy's microphone?). It would just "the chica toy". Otherwise, this line can be read as:
"Why would the tiny Toy Chica be missing her beak?
Which implies it's a toy of Toy Chica. If it missing it's beak wasn't already meant to be a connection.
"The tiny toy Chica" implies it's either a Tiny Toy Chica (capitalized, since "the" implies it's a proper noun/no proof it's an actual name), or a tiny toy Chica. Neither actually make sense.
What's even more interesting is the timeline Scott posted this line.
"These talks were primarily the easter eggs relating to the “87”s littered in the source code. They were expressing their frustration at the potential red herrings, and how they muddied the timeline."
"Therefore, this question can be seen as “you say there are no easter eggs, but why are there so many red herrings?”, to which, Scott replies with “In the FNaF4 minigame, why would the tiny toy chica be missing her beak?"
Exact timestamp of discussion.
Context: 4 seemed to be in 83, yet there were the "87" 'red-herrings' in the game. It seems like either "toy chica's beak" was meant to hint at 83, or 87. But how can it hint at 87 by implying it's a toy of Toy Chica, and pointing out it's missing beak? No one would've used that for definite proof for 83. But they would have for 87.
It seems that Scott was trying to show that (like Chica's beak) there aren't red-herrings in 4, and aren't random easter eggs. So, not only were the teasers not red-herrings, but neither was tiny Toy Chica's beak.
MatPat, p2
Scott's on Mat's old theory video.
"One crucial detail".
There were two major details the section pointed out.
-
It's the Bite of 83.
-
We're playing as the brother. Not the BV.
-
"I have a feeling it's his brother's nightmare."
-
"Scott stop trying to trick us by never telling us about the bite of '83."
With the revelation that Mike is most likely the player in FNaF4, and the brother of the BV, it seems like we were the brother all along, and not the BV. That crosses out 83, since that was commonly mentioned in that section. And it can't be both, because he didn't say "two crucial details". This explains the gameplay similarities between FNaF1 and FNaF4. And the phone call.
...Which also mentions the Bite of 87.
Last few things to point out about this
-
"Mangle is in the room due to symbolism:" Scott has never done FNaF storytelling like this where we have to consider "symbolism", and not "this game is in 87". If it's symbolism, that implies there was already overweighing evidence for 83. But if anyone considered this as an option, post "confirmation", most would not consider their evidence. If anyone uses only "symbolism" for anything other than 83 vs 87, their evidence would not be substantial. Scott must've we'd tie the Mangle toy to the game being in 87 when he put it there. Which is why we'd have to come up with another reason not implied in any other game, but 4. He must've known it would cause controversy.
-
"Mangle is based on Funtime Foxy:" Scott said we could draw a definitive, satisfying conclusion to all the questions in FNaF. And he said FNaFWorld would not add onto the main story. This was while Funtime Foxy was already teased for World. We wouldn't have been able to assume FT Foxy existed in 83 without SL, either. Just saying "Mangle is in 83 because there was an animatronic pre-87" (despite Phone Guy's) words would not count as proof.
-
The Toy animatronics were based on the toy figures: The thing is, this is useless info we don't need. In 2, we're told the Withereds were designed and that's it. Just the sight of the toy figures wouldn't be proof that it's in 83, or that they spawned the Toys. More like, the game is in 87. And Scott would've known this, putting the game in 83. It's unlikely he didn't know it'd cause controversy.
Some people say Scott was "throwing things at the wall and seeing what sticks, but:
There wasn't, and really isn't, 'true' substantial proof for 83, besides the TV show and the source code, which has a confirmed copyright date, via TFF. Which means it can take place anytime after 83. But there was apparent proof against 87.
-
"Fredbear wasn't walking:" This is actually proof for 87, more than it is for 83. You'd expect a company to restrict daytime animatronic mobility, after one was able to bite a child standing up, and you'd expect them to incorporate rules like "Don't touch Freddy." But it'd be incompetent to allow the Toys walk around years later in a deemed "safest place on earth" after an animatronic was able to bite a child onstage.
-
"The Bite Victim died. Not lived:" Phone Guy says this:
"It's amazing that the human body can live without the frontal lobe."
Indeed, it would be amazing how it can live without the frontal love. Especially when it's at the hospital.
If we go off the teasers, AND Scott’s "controversy"claim, then unfortunately, that means that either Scott was lying when he said that part, or he was teasing 87, somehow revealed who did it in the game. That still means he kept 87 purposely hard to figure out for the final game.
Think about this: Why would Scott spend three months teasing 87, if we were settled on Mangle doing the Bite (even though the newspaper said "possible malfunctions", which means no major malfunctions happened yet, like the Bite)? Why switch up the year when the game comes out? It's that misleading. Hypothetically, the game doesn't have a focus on 87, like the teasers clearly do.
It's misleading to lead people to believe that your game will focus on/lead to/show the Bite of 87, when it exists to show the Bite of 83 as a focus. If you lead people into believing the former, but show the latter, you're showing a ”big reveal” that we weren't expecting. The twist in FNaF4 would be that it's not the Bite of 87 getting closure for the last game; it's the Bite of 83.
If the best explanations for these are "Scott was just throwing things to the wall" (like he said he doesn't do) or "Scott changed his mind" (like he wouldn't have done) or "It's just a big inconsistency", then something must be wrong.
And something may be wrong. Once again, it started with Mat's livestream, and led to "paragraph 4". Which put SL2 on hold. These story bits are likely here to semi-tease the story, in that they're meant to mislead us, and lead to a big reveal.
#How THIS teases SL2's story
But how does this tease the story? Well, with Scott seemingly hinting at 87 prior, but having "1983" on the keypad in SL, that can mean this, if 87 is true:
- Fredbear & Friends is connected to the FNaF4 nightmares.
How is that possible? Actually, it's quite possible.
Following the theory that the Nightmares are based on the BV's plushies, who seem to be based on the TV show, it makes sense. (speaking of murders, since the five kids in 4 may be the Toys, it makes sense for them to be murdered the year we see them--87--then four years later...this ties the game to 87, also)
Apart from this, it's also likely that year is when the murders take place. The order of characters in the show matches up with the order of children reported missing in FNaF1.
Considering the vague placing of the keypad in SL, and Scott's own hints that 4 is in 87, it would seem like the SL keypad is not only a red-herring, but a hint at the show's involvement with 4's gameplay. It's very likely we're supposed to get a big revelation following this year, and the show, considering the keypad, and Scott's words. And because of that, that year is what he decided to hint at after Mat's video. What's less talked about? The Bite of 83, or what purpose the show has? The less talked about would be brushed upon, just like the fact that the FNaF4 bedrooms were real, and were created by William was revealed, after never being talked about.
"Scott would get backlash for lying about things like this. He wouldn't do this. "
If the outcome is executed well, then he can't actually get backlash. These aspects would either have to play a somewhat big part in the story, or be executed in a way that's harmless, and easily explainable. Miketrap to Willtrap wouldn't be a problem, since that was already 'confirmed' by Scott, and would just be a bait and switch. The Bite on the other hand, may be, but slightly, but only if it's explained well, and if the year "1983" wasn't all for nothing, afterall. That way, the reaction would be the same as it was when it turned out Eggs Benedict was Michael Afton. Not William. Or, when it turned out he was lying about SL being delayed.
Just remember. Scott once said this:
And this:
Which may or may not be a bad thing here.
#Timeline Recap
-
Custom Night implies that Michael is Springtrap, after implying William was him in the cutscenes. This is to cause controversy.
-
Scott teases Ennard kicking out Baby months after.
-
Scott reveals Baby's eyes.
-
A month later, Scott claims SL2 is cancelled.
-
A month later, Scott teases SL2 on FNaF's anniversary…
-
Later, we get technician 3, but only because Mat was suspecting an ‘update’ days before.
-
Leading to “Paragraph 4” the day Mat uploaded his teaser. Foreshadowing that Mat will "solve" the lore, so there's no need for SL2.
-
Leading to Scott pointing out the three details he mentioned last a week before, and calling them confirmed.
-
Those details happen to be major parts in SL2. This is an opportunity to have a red-herring.
-
Scott refers back to "Paragraph 4", and updates fnafworld.com.
-
Scott uploads this unfitting, teaser just after saying SL2 is on hold again.
-
Now, Scott wants to wrap up that game at the end of the year.
Question is... will that tycoon tease SL2?
Going off these scenarios, that seems like a strong possibility.
TL;DR: First sentence in this post.
Posted Dec 2, 2017, 9:25 PM UTC · edited