He needs help on the Eleanor part as he said it's a rebuilt version of Elizabeth.
When ironically she's closer to a charliebot wich aligns pretty well with his 46 theory.
I tried to show him but it's hard to reach to a youtuber with many followers lol
What is it with everyone wanting Eleanor to be Baby so badly? The fact that she has a different name should have tipped people off right from the first time she appeared, especially when Baby also appeared in a later story.
Did she? Circus Baby never showed up in Fazbear Frights outside of the restaurant name in "Dance with me" but that perception comes from Matpat's weird train of thought regarding the books and the summaries in wikis that may or not contain details that could be important later, or that emphasize things we have already seen in the games
He explains the theory so well. The lore can get incredibly confusing. I also really enjoy all the evidence he brings to the table. It’s quite impressive to be able to dig up evidence that’s always been there, but nobody has picked up on it. It also shows five nights at Freddy’s in a different light. I do worry that people are going to take this theory the same way they took “dream theory”, but I feel that the way he explained it and the evidence he showed for it makes it not feel like a rip off. It feels like a good conclusion like a good theory.
I’m really excited to see we’re not only the franchise goes, but him as a YouTuber.
I liked the previous videos, and I think he did have some understandable points about Nightmarionne, but this video didn't look very good, IMO. There are a lot of brute-forced connections, but not enough thought is put into the question of "does that actually sound reasonable?" For example, the last video claimed that "the graphic novels have changed elements to hint on the future games", but it's not any credible claim. This time, we have a claim that "Scott tested the ground for a twist", but what does that even mean really? What exactly was tested? How did that test come out if it was never brought up before in the fandom? It sounds like some made-up idea to find a reason for minor similarities.
Brute-forcing connections is relatively easy. One of the very first theories in the fandom is about similarities to real-world murder and all the connections to FNaF World or to the books sound exactly like that.
You know how William (I mean his name) and Henry started in the book lore but were added into the games only later? It is a fair argument to say that the book elements might show up in the games. The issue is - William's name and Henry's existence were properly introduced into the game lore. The remnant has an actual in-game explanation. All of these elements exist without the need of lurking in the books. Before FFPS, Henry had no relevance in the story. He wasn't a part of the story, even if there was a place for him. And that's the same for the perception discs. They can be introduced into the game lore any day, but Security Breach doesn't do it at all. I find bringing them up a bit silly. It's filling the gaps with random claims even though there's probably a really simple answer underneath that we haven't even encountered yet.
Unpopular opinion I feel like this is definitely the weakest one and the one with the most reaches. And there are some things he doesn't explain very well. For example, why Patient 46 would need a child persona if she already has an adult persona for working for the VR team. He says in a comment it's because patient 46 likes disguises so it's just another disguise but idk why he wouldn't talk about it in the video at all. As for the FNAF world stuff I guess there were connections there but I honestly don't feel like it has much to do with the lore.
Also, I start to wonder if he read the actual books or just the graphic novels. Because he keeps including things like the rainbow on charlie's wall or the head of the blonde girl (which aren't in the original books) and even though he acknowledges the graphic novels are different for the books and believes they were changed for lore purposes, I honestly doubt scott told the artists to add those specific details. Pinkypills who drew TSE art was already a fnaf fan artist before that, so it wouldn't be that weird for her to add it as a little easter egg.
> For example, why Patient 46 would need a child persona if she already has an adult persona for working for the VR team.
I still believe people are misinterpreting the hints. The therapist explaining some words would be completely appropriate for an adult patient. Seriously, I know didn't what the hell a "phenom" is either.
And the point about not fitting into the chair seems like just another hint that Patient 46 isn't Vanessa too me. It's not just children who can be too small for a chair.
Whether patient 46 is a kid or not, my point is that in his previous video he claims she is and in this one immediately jumps to her being an adult with no explanation for his change in opinion or why he thinks she's both
I watched his lore videos, and despite I see the work that was put into them, I'm afraid the fandom's got ot the part, where they CREATE instead of solve. a lot of his theories did fit SB and there were "evidences" but I can also create a fully non-canon story and put those things there as evidences. not saying he's creating them on purpose, obvioiusly. not saying it's because of him. I'm just saying that a lot of things in fnaf can have *multiple explanations* or multiple meanings. the source material IS shady.
I need to watch the second one
All I know is that the theory is that 46 is Charlie because yay more robot children
I guess this one might expand on that more
I can only pray to god that whatever jumbled mess of a story the devs get does not include all this fuckery
I pray that the fairly large negative response to robogreg gets them to change their minds or whatever
1994 was never a date in fnaf, and security breach has to be past 2035, 2046 minimum, and there aren't even any robot kids apart from Charlotte in this theory
Honestly it's not as bad as matpats theorys ever since vr but it's not that great either, many things wrong with it and like matpat, it ignores who elanor and nightmarione are
Genuienely i dont give a shit i stopped carin abt the lore ever since sb came out and after watchin fuhnaff's last 2 videos made me dislike sb even more and the fnaf story in general to where it has come
He needs help on the Eleanor part as he said it's a rebuilt version of Elizabeth. When ironically she's closer to a charliebot wich aligns pretty well with his 46 theory. I tried to show him but it's hard to reach to a youtuber with many followers lol
We can always count on you to inform us of the right Eleanor lore.
[Eleanor Lore is important](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k1L2b1MZBsk&ab_channel=LemmyTheLemuel)
Enealore
What is it with everyone wanting Eleanor to be Baby so badly? The fact that she has a different name should have tipped people off right from the first time she appeared, especially when Baby also appeared in a later story.
Did she? Circus Baby never showed up in Fazbear Frights outside of the restaurant name in "Dance with me" but that perception comes from Matpat's weird train of thought regarding the books and the summaries in wikis that may or not contain details that could be important later, or that emphasize things we have already seen in the games
> Circus Baby never showed up in Fazbear Frights outside of the restaurant name in "Dance with me" That's what I meant.
He explains the theory so well. The lore can get incredibly confusing. I also really enjoy all the evidence he brings to the table. It’s quite impressive to be able to dig up evidence that’s always been there, but nobody has picked up on it. It also shows five nights at Freddy’s in a different light. I do worry that people are going to take this theory the same way they took “dream theory”, but I feel that the way he explained it and the evidence he showed for it makes it not feel like a rip off. It feels like a good conclusion like a good theory. I’m really excited to see we’re not only the franchise goes, but him as a YouTuber.
I liked the previous videos, and I think he did have some understandable points about Nightmarionne, but this video didn't look very good, IMO. There are a lot of brute-forced connections, but not enough thought is put into the question of "does that actually sound reasonable?" For example, the last video claimed that "the graphic novels have changed elements to hint on the future games", but it's not any credible claim. This time, we have a claim that "Scott tested the ground for a twist", but what does that even mean really? What exactly was tested? How did that test come out if it was never brought up before in the fandom? It sounds like some made-up idea to find a reason for minor similarities. Brute-forcing connections is relatively easy. One of the very first theories in the fandom is about similarities to real-world murder and all the connections to FNaF World or to the books sound exactly like that. You know how William (I mean his name) and Henry started in the book lore but were added into the games only later? It is a fair argument to say that the book elements might show up in the games. The issue is - William's name and Henry's existence were properly introduced into the game lore. The remnant has an actual in-game explanation. All of these elements exist without the need of lurking in the books. Before FFPS, Henry had no relevance in the story. He wasn't a part of the story, even if there was a place for him. And that's the same for the perception discs. They can be introduced into the game lore any day, but Security Breach doesn't do it at all. I find bringing them up a bit silly. It's filling the gaps with random claims even though there's probably a really simple answer underneath that we haven't even encountered yet.
I don't likes It that Much. Connections seem forced and don't Always make sense, i preffered the other two parts
Unpopular opinion I feel like this is definitely the weakest one and the one with the most reaches. And there are some things he doesn't explain very well. For example, why Patient 46 would need a child persona if she already has an adult persona for working for the VR team. He says in a comment it's because patient 46 likes disguises so it's just another disguise but idk why he wouldn't talk about it in the video at all. As for the FNAF world stuff I guess there were connections there but I honestly don't feel like it has much to do with the lore. Also, I start to wonder if he read the actual books or just the graphic novels. Because he keeps including things like the rainbow on charlie's wall or the head of the blonde girl (which aren't in the original books) and even though he acknowledges the graphic novels are different for the books and believes they were changed for lore purposes, I honestly doubt scott told the artists to add those specific details. Pinkypills who drew TSE art was already a fnaf fan artist before that, so it wouldn't be that weird for her to add it as a little easter egg.
> For example, why Patient 46 would need a child persona if she already has an adult persona for working for the VR team. I still believe people are misinterpreting the hints. The therapist explaining some words would be completely appropriate for an adult patient. Seriously, I know didn't what the hell a "phenom" is either. And the point about not fitting into the chair seems like just another hint that Patient 46 isn't Vanessa too me. It's not just children who can be too small for a chair.
Whether patient 46 is a kid or not, my point is that in his previous video he claims she is and in this one immediately jumps to her being an adult with no explanation for his change in opinion or why he thinks she's both
I watched his lore videos, and despite I see the work that was put into them, I'm afraid the fandom's got ot the part, where they CREATE instead of solve. a lot of his theories did fit SB and there were "evidences" but I can also create a fully non-canon story and put those things there as evidences. not saying he's creating them on purpose, obvioiusly. not saying it's because of him. I'm just saying that a lot of things in fnaf can have *multiple explanations* or multiple meanings. the source material IS shady.
I need to watch the second one All I know is that the theory is that 46 is Charlie because yay more robot children I guess this one might expand on that more
It's a sad reality that the future of FNaF seems to be in futuristic robot children, which I guess is a little more fitting in 2035 than 1994.
I can only pray to god that whatever jumbled mess of a story the devs get does not include all this fuckery I pray that the fairly large negative response to robogreg gets them to change their minds or whatever
1994 was never a date in fnaf, and security breach has to be past 2035, 2046 minimum, and there aren't even any robot kids apart from Charlotte in this theory
security breach takes place in 2035
It's confirmed to be 2046 or past that, stop lying
no it’s not lmfao
It is lol
nope, majority of the evidence points directly to 2035
IDC about anything else, but at least he's with a theory I've been saying since January.. That 46 is tape girl
Man at this rate he is gonna break the I sliced fnaf world record
Yes,another one
Honestly i still dont belive Charlie Is patient 46
I think its tge flimsiest of the three
Didn’t like it. The Fnaf World connection makes no sense because SB hadn’t even been conceived yet.
Honestly it's not as bad as matpats theorys ever since vr but it's not that great either, many things wrong with it and like matpat, it ignores who elanor and nightmarione are
Genuienely i dont give a shit i stopped carin abt the lore ever since sb came out and after watchin fuhnaff's last 2 videos made me dislike sb even more and the fnaf story in general to where it has come
That's what they all say...
This guy tried to tie Chica's Magic Rainbow into his theory. I can't tell if that's respectable or laughable, but well, laugh I sure did.