Snipped because he made an ass of himself and rendered my defense of him moot.
I didn't think Mattpat would be that much of a baby, but I can't find Scott's comment.
[QUOTE=Conro101;48342265][sp]The TV says 1983 on it in a cutscene, so it isn't the bit of 87.[/sp][/QUOTE]
I'm pretty sure that's meant to basically show [sp]how old Fredbear as a company was. Why wouldn't a fanboy who potentially works there have his children watch old stuff?[/sp]
[QUOTE=ysd64;48338984]Itd be funny if the movie gets an R rating meaning that half of the fanbase cant watch it[/QUOTE]
only half?
[QUOTE=redBadger;48342496]Apparently MatPat deleted the comment.[/QUOTE]
So... What the hell MatPat...
Scott Cawthorn pointed out a mistake and then you delete the comment...
Not Cool...
He deleted Scott's comment.
Holy shit.
He has the fucking balls to delete the game's creator's comment.
What a spineless baby. Hope he gets what's coming to him.
If Scott Cawthon was more inclined to internet drama than he currently is, he could totally get a copyright strike on the video and get away with it.
But Scott seems like he's above this kind of shit so he'll probably not do anything regarding some random crybaby halfwit.
Sometimes you can win an argument just by saying nothing at all.
What if Scott deleted it just to fuck with people
Matpat is like that annoying homosexual sounding flamer that makes people wanna beat his ass; me especially
[QUOTE=Ganerumo;48343301]If Scott Cawthon was more inclined to internet drama than he currently is, he could totally get a copyright strike on the video and get away with it.[/QUOTE]
He probably couldn't. I'd think the video would definitely qualify as fair use since it's explaining an idea behind the game.
[QUOTE=Man in Space;48343526]He probably couldn't. I'd think the video would definitely qualify as fair use since it's explaining an idea behind the game.[/QUOTE]
Videos have been unfairly removed by youtube for doing more legit things than that with video game content, so I wouldn't be surprised if it worked.
[QUOTE=RikohZX;48342868]I'm pretty sure that's meant to basically show [sp]how old Fredbear as a company was. Why wouldn't a fanboy who potentially works there have his children watch old stuff?[/sp][/QUOTE]
I was trying to work with that too, but...
[sp]Fredbear was defunct in '87. Phone Guy himself, a huge fan of the franchise, doesn't remember the diner, only what he knows from working at the company. If this was the bite of '87, Fredbear wouldn't be there, or we'd see the toy animatronics or something similar. Plus, the Toy robots were the ones scrapped at the end of 2. Why would that be if Fredbear, someone not seen at the location at all, was the reason for it? Why scrap any robots other than Fredbear at all? It wasn't autonomous, it was some kids fucking around with an unsafe object.
If we move back the bite shown in this game to 83, then the problems are solved: 1. Phone Guy doesn't know about Fredbear because Fazbear Ent. built a restaurant with the old robots, minus Fredbear, since that's bad publicity. 2. A Toy robot can now be responsible for the bite, own its own accord, giving a reason to scrap the whole line. 3. We can also explain Golden Freddy as a retooled Fredbear robot, which could be why it has significance, as it was the thing that spurned everything terrible on.[/sp]
Remember the twist at the end of 2? People were confused by that too, and there was a lot of arguing, but it's essentially the same principle. It could be what you say, sure, but it'd confuse the fuck out of everything and Scott's bamboozled and misled us before.
[sp]What if the diner in 4 is a sister location that uses older Animatronics? I wouldn't put it past them...Maybe we will find out in the film, since that is canon.[/sp]
[QUOTE=Xonax;48343576][sp]What if the diner in 4 is a sister location that uses older Animatronics? I wouldn't put it past them...Maybe we will find out in the film, since that is canon.[/sp][/QUOTE]
Again, [sp]if that were true, why were the toy ones the guys who bit the dust, and not the older models, which 2 explicitly states were kept around for another location?[/sp]
[editline]31st July 2015[/editline]
also if we look at it like this matpat's dumbass theory isn't wrong so everyone wins! :v:
[sp]Cause they are cheaper to maintain I guess....Explain this then, if FN@F4 is set in 83, why is Mangle in one of the rooms?[/sp]
[editline]1st August 2015[/editline]
[sp]Also in one of the min-games when you leave the Diner and go home, you can find a girl in a playground playing with the Toy Animatronic Figures.[/sp]
[sp]The thing is that the kid clearly sees Freddy and the modern animatronics, rather than Fredbear until the last nights. Fredbear is an old suit presumably put up for use on the birthday alongside the Springsuits because of factors involving the other ones that may've made them unable to be put up. Plus the reason the Toys were scrapped are implied to be because they basically blew too much money and the reputation of the Bite forced the company reformatting to ditch the more expensive and hard to maintain 'modern' animatronics for refurbishing the originals. If not arguably downgrading them too.[/sp]
[QUOTE=RikohZX;48343756][sp]The thing is that the kid clearly sees Freddy and the modern animatronics, rather than Fredbear until the last nights.[/sp][/QUOTE]
[sp]Well, the TV has all FIVE animatronics in the ad, including both Fredbear and Freddy. We don't know what any of the designs of the animatronics were save for Fredbear, and even that through Minigame-Vision™. Nightmare Freddy doesn't have the spots on his cheeks like the original does, much like his design in 2, which toy freddy does.
Minigame-Vision could explain the action figures too, but who knows with Mangle. Why would Mangle be there in 1987 anyway? Bad marketing?[/sp]
[url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FMJ2jZtW7cw&lc=z12mhjwadliatlfbu04cirdx5tjth31zd2w]I can still see Scott's comment on the video[/url].
[QUOTE=Man in Space;48344486][url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FMJ2jZtW7cw&lc=z12mhjwadliatlfbu04cirdx5tjth31zd2w]I can still see Scott's comment on the video[/url].[/QUOTE]
Well I guess MatPat didn't delete it after all... which now begs the question why did it disappear?
[QUOTE=OmniConsUme;48344520]Well I guess MatPat didn't delete it after all... which now begs the question why did it disappear?[/QUOTE]
It just got buried in Google's dumb comment system. It didn't actually disappear.
[QUOTE=Man in Space;48344486][url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FMJ2jZtW7cw&lc=z12mhjwadliatlfbu04cirdx5tjth31zd2w]I can still see Scott's comment on the video[/url].[/QUOTE]
I like how this comment almost comfirms the fact that the game takes place in '83, yet we still have people fighting over it and saying it's '87. If the TV wasn't a big enough hint then surely Scott flat out telling Matt he is wrong for saying it's '87 should calm people down. This really is FNAF2 ending all over again xD
Also whats with all the hate on Matt? I normally don't even watch his videos, but I can tell he wasn't really trashing Scott in his video.. if thats what got fans in a bunch. All the hate reminds me of steam comments. You guys are better than that. :/
Someone's theory from Tumblr. Linked due to spoilers.
[url]http://i0.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/000/998/988/42e.jpg[/url]
[QUOTE=Pyron92;48344635]I like how this comment almost comfirms the fact that the game takes place in '83, yet we still have people fighting over it and saying it's '87. If the TV wasn't a big enough hint then surely Scott flat out telling Matt he is wrong for saying it's '87 should calm people down. This really is FNAF2 ending all over again xD
Also whats with all the hate on Matt? I normally don't even watch his videos, but I can tell he wasn't really trashing Scott in his video.. if thats what got fans in a bunch. All the hate reminds me of steam comments. You guys are better than that. :/[/QUOTE]
Doesn't mean it takes place in 83, for all we know he could be talking about something else....Though, a lot of people did say he skipped the 83 stuff, but it still doesn't mean it's confirmed or almost.
[QUOTE=Ryu-Gi;48344761]Someone's theory from Tumblr. Linked due to spoilers.
[url]http://i0.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/000/998/988/42e.jpg[/url][/QUOTE]
It's really solid mid way to the end, especially. But isn't the [sp]bite not in 87?[/sp]
i wish there was some way to adjust the jump scare volume in 4
the only volume level that's loud enough for me to even hear crucial things is still loud enough to destroy my ear drums on the jump scares.
[QUOTE=bradleigh;48345002]i wish there was some way to adjust the jump scare volume in 4
the only volume level that's loud enough for me to even hear crucial things is still loud enough to destroy my ear drums on the jump scares.[/QUOTE]
he def did that on purpose
[QUOTE=Ryu-Gi;48344761]Someone's theory from Tumblr. Linked due to spoilers.
[url]http://i0.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/000/998/988/42e.jpg[/url][/QUOTE]
Aside from a few misspellings; this is actually the best summary/theory of all the games I have ever seen; it's truly a sad end for such a great series but I also kinda feel like the game needed a somewhat complex story line like this to keep it fresh n interesting, I can only imagine why scott was so happy to own that theorist fuck at how wrong he was in his video, cause even scott himself knows his own series Lol and thats probably another reason why scott made it so complex
[QUOTE=Ryu-Gi;48344761]Someone's theory from Tumblr. Linked due to spoilers.
[url]http://i0.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/000/998/988/42e.jpg[/url][/QUOTE]
So Purple Guy goes all Supervillain Dr. Wily by killing the kids who caused the bite, then stuffs the bodies into the suits and reprograms them?
I'm sorry but why is everyone saying this is solid?
Also it's debunked halfway through because the Puppet is the one who put the bodies into the suits as told by the minigame in FNAF2.
[QUOTE=redBadger;48345215]he def did that on purpose[/QUOTE]it sucks. it really doesn't add any tension or make me more scared that i'll fail, it just leaves me pissed with my ears hurting.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
