#matt patt fnaf theories

[notthewriteryourelookingfor]

Incloming rant and a thought about MattPatt, his theories, and 5 Nights At Freddy's:

I want to preface this by saying that I have nothing against MattPatt, he seems like a cool dude, a swell guy even, he obviously has fun, and a lot of his ideas are creative and entertaining.

I also want to point out that this is not being said "now that he's retired", I have come into the fandom very late (only really got into it due to wanting to go see the movie cuz the Jim Hensen company made the animatronics and I am an autistic slut for physical props and effects. If I'd been in the fandom earlier, this may have come up before his retirement.

.

.

So MattPatt's first FNAF theory was that the game was referencing a real life shooting that happened at a Chuck E Cheese.

And I literally cannot let that go.

I realise that the internet in general was very different back then, it was more "edgy", I was like 20 at the time, so I was online and I know how the internet was. Im p sure I was on tumblr where shit like that was very common.

But it makes me see MattPatt's theories, all of them, in the light of "this is a man who played a jumpscare video game obviously based on Chuck E Cheese as a concept (tho I'm p sure in like the 70s-80s animatronic restaurants were a big thing and considering Scott's age it wouldn't be surprising if he'd gone to a few for fun/parties/family outings) and went "ah yes this is referencing a real life mass shooting."

Maybe it's cuz I'm not American, maybe y'all are a lil more comfortable with mass shootings than I am (im Australian, we've had maybe 3 since 2000) but that not only seems like a massive reach, it also feels really disrespectful.

I know that MattPatt was very "respectful" in the video and said he didn't want to make light of the event or joke about it but I feel like just making this video to begin with did that.

Videos aren't something that just appear out of the ether with no way to control what it says: he thought it up, sat down, wrote a script, filmed, ans edited it, and never once went "Oh wait I'm making light of an actual tragedy where people actually died maybe I shouldn't put this out"?

Like even if you have no other ideas, just say that? Just be like "wow this is a doozy, guys, let's break down the game play and maybe reference the event but not make a full video about it"?

But let's say that MattPatt was correct and that Scott was referencing a real mass murder that killed real people with jumpscare animatronics: that's a shitty game. That's a shitty idea for a game.

I mean I'm probably going to get people coming at me like "You're too sensetive" "you're reading too much into it" or "you never heard of true crime?" To which I answer, in order, "yes I am very sensitive it's unfortunately who I am as a person I spent too much of my childhood trying not to be and it really hurt me and decimated my mental health. So fuck off", "FNAF fandom is literally 'there is no limit to how deep you can read into it' that's why it's so popular and why there are so many ideas on what it's really about", and "yes I know about true crime, I also have an issue with some true crime, generally those who make light of horrible things and also my general rule of thumb is "if the parents/children/significant other of the victim(s) are still alive and could see your media, maybe don't make it." I mean an average of 50 years is about what I'm comfortable with if it's being used in the "true crime" space. But that does have exceptions based on why it's being talked about. But I think that's another rant."

What I'm trying to say is that I have trouble with MattPatt, and his theories in general, not because of "Gregory is a robot recreation of the Crying Child" (cuz that's fun and interesting and also is actually understandable if u look at the mimic???) But because he likened FNAF, which at the time was a silly lil indie game about animatronic animals (that are possessed by children but rarely actually talk about it) to a real murder spree.

He compared a digital bear, chicken, bunny, and fox, to real people who lost their lives.

And that makes me look at everything he does, even now when it's been like 9 years, and he's definitely grown and changed and maybe even apologised for that, in that lense.

He's like 37 now, meaning that he was 28 at the time. It's not like he was an edgy teen with no understanding of how his actions impact others.

I realise this looks like I hate him, that I'm holding his past mistakes against him, and I want to confirm: I don't hate him, he's entertaining to watch and I'm sad hes not doing theories any more,

But at the same time, I wish he'd not have made that one video and I can't not think about it with every theory he puts out. It's why I can't watch his other channels (also I looked at style theory & some of the ideas seemed lazy to me but that's my own bias) because it has poisoned his ideas slightly in my mind and I'm now very wary of what he's saying.

.

.

.

I will add that I have a similar problem with a fair few theoriest were they're like "I've solved this" and then shill out for a very obvious scam company or a company like BetterHelp or HelloFresh months after we all found out they were trash so it's not like they had a few more contract obligations. It's like "I realise that you need to make money, but you're actively promoting harmful stuff in an Advert (at least it's labelled as that) and it makes me feel like I can't trust your judgement on things."

.

.

.

Anyway, please don't hate on me, this is just something I've been struggling with for a few months now and I'm curious to see if anyone else thinks the same or had any helpful thoughts they would like to share.

Also if MattPatt has apologised for it, please let me know where I can watch/read it cuz part of me feels like if I see him acknowledge that it was probs not a great thing to do, it probs won't feel so weird about it anymore.

It's like our parents always said: we need to be careful of what we put online cuz it could follow us forever.

[michaels-living-hell]

watching game theory and making note of every time he gets something right

[trezoblossoming]

This morning I played Fnaf alone for the first time and died to golden Freddie, am I Matt patt? lol

[webbedphantom]

Woe, nightmare gas be upon ye!

[saltciphblr]

(waves at you) Hi.

Just wanted to say welcome to the FNAF fandom, but like the subculture area of the subculture. So like the DCA fandom??? Anyways, we're glad to have you and we're excited for your excitement. I got sucked into this fandom little under a year ago. I saw a lot of DCA fan art on Pinterest but I was balsa about it until I came across people gushing over Bamsara's fic Solar Lunacy and I was like... Okay, guess I'll give it a shot... Then several hours and one sleepless night later I became hooked. And just between you and me, I never even played a FNAF game before. I've only ever watched Matt Patt's Game Theories and Markiplire's playthroughs. But it's still fun to be here and I hope you can have that same fun. Bye <3

i have seen so many people talk about bamsara's solar lunacy fic so i must look into this.

THANK YOU for your welcoming words you reassure my lack of fnaf knowledge self :D

[constellationsnightsharmer]

A theory about the game "baby in yellow" that i think will cover a lot of things

Ok hear me out

I am gonna respond to 3 questions

Who are Baby in yellow's parent ?

Who work for them ?

And who is the white rabbit ?

If you are a theory fan this post is for you !

Ok to answer the first question i need to make sure of a thing

Baby in yellow's name is "hastur" , why ? Well the name is present in one of the stories for the spoiled prince

and also the creator couldn't make it more obvious by adding to the escape chapter "hastur plead" for us not to leave

Then in the first 3 chapter or night, if you go to where the blue cat paw lead you you will find a recording device

This is just to show you that there is a recording device

Now the third recording says "we spoke of hastur and cassilda" hastur being the baby then logically cassilda is the mother

baby in yellow may not even have a Father, but hey! Do we care ?

Cassilda is then his parents

and there is another point i wanna point out is that she may be friend with miss pickman , the person that live in the fabulous house we found in the "king's diary" and "cassilda's dreamscape "(one of the CD in the wall)

that lead us to the second question !

I know of only 3 people who are likely to work for them

First the doctor, he work as a spy

We can see that in pickman's maddness where his doll is in thoes tunnel and ironically after getting out of the said tunnel monster hastur find us

We also see a big version of him 2 times

The first time is a corner after we pass the white bridge (i forgot the screen shot it sorry)

The second time i saw him by pure luck

after playing the game for the hundred time searching for clues

In the don't watch the TV arc we see him behind a door

That bitch be spying on us using the thousands killer TV for sure bro

Then the second ally is the sheep

Why ?

Well in the spoiled prince's stories the sheep give him his soul to eat and become a slave and/or a loyal subject

Or he might be dead but that won't be fun would it ?

We also see a sheep with a crown drawing on hastur's bedroom door

Then the third is of course pickman

A young woman

Wait hold'up a woman ?

Sigh (the need to explain every detail ... I feel a art of your pain now matt patt)

Well we know that it's A.Pickman (it's literally on the door to her house)

If you don't see it well there is a ALICE there

Of course the letter comes from her dad

And before you say something like "but they can both have a name that starts with an A "

Then look at the photo again

See that blue book ? The author is R.Pickman , maybe Robert or anything really

And you want to hear some drama ?

Robert (my theory name for him) = the white rabbit

Then i will respond to the third question which turned into

Why is R. Pickman the white rabbit ?

Why isn't it Alice ?

If Alice and Cassilda know eachother so much that Alice know hastur's lullaby and maybe was the one who composed it judging by that one music sheet , how could cassilda not realize it ?

So let me tell y'all

Alice may have been friends with cassilda and when she realized what she does she decided to stop her , her father was probably the one who told her the truth

She stayed friend with her to know more of her plans

It was all an act and if you read the letter the rabbit gave his daughter Alice "keep that creative fire alive" we can see it as keep acting

He used such a sentence to not make cassilda suspicious if she ever see it

She would think "oh it's about music or her new competition" or anything really

But yeah you guys are reading this while saying

"But why do you think he is the rabbit in the first place ?" (Don't read too much into it or do) here is why :

Happy ?

So yeah it just made sense...

I mean why have you're friend's enemy symbol in your house

If you have any questions please ask i will be more then happy to investigate in any game (not any game like I can't with fnaf cuz i am poor lol)

[scholar-of-the-abyss]

i ensure you that this is a real video on Matt Patts channel 

[adorablenonsense]

A Response to MattPat’s most recent FNAF Theory

I haven't read the second novel yet, so correct me if I’m wrong. Just some thoughts and speculations I had while watching the video.

Okay, honestly, why did we take Scott’s word on the books and the games being separate canons? All Scott has ever done since he released the first game was troll the fan base. We all believed that and just accepted it, until Scott released Sister Location, bringing William Afton from his books into his games. The only main difference between the books and the games Afton is in the book William Afton became Springtrap, while in the game it was Michael Affton who became Springtrap.

With the new release of his book, The Twisted Ones, Scott created more links between the books and the games, further explaining the motives and animatronics in the games through his novel. The books and the games are becoming too related to be thought of as separate canons. They still could be, but the stories and the lore are becoming too closely related.

Now, if these two stories, the novels and the lore of the games, are in the same universe that leaves major plot holes.  Other than the difference in who Springtrap is, one major flaw is the Sister Location facility being hidden under the FNAF 4 house. In the games, it is speculated that the house belongs to William Afton, which makes sense since the animatronics in Sister Location are under his trademark. It makes sense for this murderous psychopath to hide his malicious creations under his house, away from suspicion and possible thievery that could occur if it were in a facility above ground that could be easily spotted to break into or to be further inspected by those of authority. Yet, according to the novel, The Twisted Ones, it is Charlie’s house that is the FNAF 4 house, and not Afton’s, implying that Afton worked with Henry to develop and create the animatronics we see in Sister Location. In the first novel, we assumed Henry killed himself via his animatronic because of the kidnapping of his son and his wife leaving him as a result, and, to top it off, his industry continuously failing for being connected with a bunch of child abductions and murders, even though he was still caring for Charlie. Knowing that Henry was working with William on the animatronics hidden below his home, he probably was overcome with grief and guilt once he realized Afton’s cruel ambitions with these new animatronics.  Realizing his partner was a twisted man, seeking to kidnap and kill a bunch of children, and the fact that he just helped him create weapons to feed into his sick ambitions, Henry became mad and had his recent creation kill himself. Now, in FNAF World, we see the creator, Henry, killed by Baby. If the games and the books are interrelated, the animatronic that Henry used to kill himself was Baby, who is suspected to be haunted by Afton’s British daughter.

While linking the game and the books as one canon, answers many questions that arise within the game’s lore, it also leaves one major plot hole: the house located above the underground Sister Location facility. In the game, it insinuates that the house above (the house in FNAF 4) the Sister Location facility is William Afton’s home. We learned in the game that Afton had a daughter who he failed to keep safe from his new animatronics, as much as he warned.  So we know he had a daughter and a son, named Michael Afton. So the games tell us William Afton had a daughter and an older son, as the house in FNAF 4 had. But what about the younger son that dies in that game? No information in Sister Location is given about this younger son, given that the house above the location is indeed Afton’s home.

Now with the books, it doesn’t connect with the game. We know Charlie had a twin brother, and no other information is given about an older sibling. That, and in the first novel, it is revealed that Charlie’s twin brother was kidnapped right in front of her by Afton in the Spring Bonnie suit, whereas in the game, the young boy of the house had his frontal lobe bit by Fredbear, later dying in a hospital setting.

So those are the major two plot holes that arise if these two canons are the same and not separate as Scott claims them to be. Who is Springtrap actually, and whose house is above the Sister Location facility?

[fnafcoyote-exe]

Asking here too since twt probably aint gonn do shit

Soo

Anyone know any good and reliable sources for fnaf theories

I'm kinda behind on quite a few things and would like to catch up

(And by reliable I mean not matt patt or game theory)

[sagebaileyspeaks]

Five Nights at Freddy's: The Silver Eyes, is a really boring book. 

I should preface my review by saying that a) I don't usually read horror b) I haven't played Five Night's at Freddy's and c) I don't have a real interest in the lore of the game. 

So why did I pick up this book and its sequel from the library? Well, because of Game Theory. While I haven't played the games I stumbled onto Matt Pat's channel a few years back and his coverage of FNAF is entertaining. He released a new theory about a month ago in relation to the most recent book The Fourth Closet and the lore sounded interesting enough to where I decided that even if I wasn't going to play the game, I'd see if the books were worth taking a look at.

This book was a let down in the sense that from the outside looking in, FNAF is a game series about possessed animatronics that kill people. So why the writers spent so much time focusing on this group of friends (whose names I actually can't remember) instead of a haunted pizzeria is beyond me.  The first time the kids break into Freddy's nothing happens. The second time, one of the kids kinda sorta sees something up with the drawings but nothing. It isn't until page 160 that a child abduction is described and honestly I just skimmed because it seemed like nothing was ever happening. Eventually, the security guard goes in with the, abducts one of them, a bunch of yada yada happens and main character, Charlie, kills main antagonist - William Afton - with a springlock suit and the spirits of the dead children drag him away like those demons in Ghost.

The crime of this book is that there is so much talking about what Charlie remembers, how her dad built the animatronics and how one of the group's friends was killed a long time ago but it's to no end. There's no suspense because it's just a bunch of exposition over and over and over again to the point that even when they finally get to the point where they have the child murderer and the possessed animatronics there's no sense of urgency or excitement, it's just pieces moving around.

Listening to Matt Patt explain the lore of the game on YouTube is more fun than reading this book. There are some old Goosebump stories that have more of an impact in terms of actual horror. 

I give this book a 2.5/5 and wouldn't recommend it unless you're a fan of the games.

[mrriot64]

The problems with Matt Patt’s Theory & My own interpretation of the FNAF lore

Now, before I get people going berserk on me and accuse me of taking crap about game theory, just hear me out,

One, the timeline for fnaf is pretty correct, but some details he found are just somewhat questionable, First I’m gonna talk about what really happens to the Crying child, first off, if he was put back together, he couldn’t just become golden freddy way after that, there is also the chance that he could become nightmare. Now that you think about it, Nightmare doesn’t appear much in the game until after night 6. and that is when the child dies, some might say that nightmare is the child’s vision of death, but its unlikely to me. Even if it is true then why does he only appear after the child dies? did he showed up the last minute while someone else did it for him? besides, does anyone even remember the 5 missing children? there is a chance that one of them is golden freddy. plus a person thinking of death looking like a recolored version of someone...  Not really creative....

Now about springtrap. there is still the chance michael is springtrap.

The only way that william would get away with all those murders and not get caught is framing someone else, and that is michael, older son, being that he would never have forgave him for torturing and accidentally killing his brother,

What michael did his brother made him the perfect cover for william,

years after witnessing the sister location, he finally realizes that his father, is a monster and therefore must fix the problems, so he hired Fritz smith (FNAF 2) and Mike schmidt (FNAF 1) to become night guards in the pizzerias to tinker with the animatronics. one of which pulled it off more quickly. this also caused them to smell badly after what is done, eventually mike destroys the animatronics in the Fnaf 1 location, and sadly met his fate by becoming what we all know he is know....

[that-one-underfell-comic]

how do you know??????

oh my gosh. the fact that the dead crying child is in the box in fnaf 4? that is going to be difficult to explain since scott cawthon has created the most convoluted plot of all time. but i’ll do my best

so, the basics. the crying child, his brother, and the girl with the green eyes and red pigtails are all children of purple guy. i dont know if he adopted them or if somehow he managed to convince some woman(women?) to have children with him and she(they?) left him. but it doesnt matter. because purple guy loves his children very much and he would do anything for them. including killing children who hurt his youngest. :) 

cause you see, what happened was his youngest happened to witness a couple of guys in some golden suits suddenly start bleeding to death while they screamed uncontrollably. luckily his brother and sister were in school at the time, but unfortunately purple guy couldnt protect his youngest in time. :(

so now the little guy has ptsd and is horrified of the golden animatronics. and he cant help but cry a lot now. so purple guy made some non-golden animatronics and humans cant die inside them now! yay! :D this helps a bit, but still the crying child cries so much. purple guy is very protective so much so that he becomes a morning security guard. (also purple guy didnt bother to tell his other children what happened to the crying child, because look at how much his one child got hurt. he doesnt want the others to get hurt too! D: [and, of course, the other children who witnessed the guys dying didnt ever come back to the restaurant, for obvious reasons])

and, the other children are making fun of his youngest because he cries so much! what to do? simple enough, kill the little bastards. they were just gonna grow up into shitty people anyway. cant take any chances. and, as we know, the older brother starts to make fun of him too and pulls bad pranks just to scare him. if you told purple guy this he’d be like, “what? what are you talking about? we are a loving family who cares for each other very much and I dont quite like your insinuation. >:l” and then he might cut your brakes.

so he trusts the older brother to take care of the youngest, so much so that he doesnt supervise them. (cause apparently i have a job to do and cant spend time with my child. >:( {also gotta take care of all those kids in the back room. springtrap suits are very handy dandy}) so the inevitable happens. the bite of 87 occurs with the older brother and his friends shoving the crying child into golden freddy’s mouth. 

the crying child is in the hospital with purple guy and his brother visiting. turns out he’s in a coma and the doctor says that his son will never wake up again. although he can be kept alive on life support. but thats as good as him being dead!! purple guy just has to find a way to get his son back. 

hmm, actually, some weird spooky things have been happening back at the restaurant. and purple guy has felt some chills lately. its almost like ghost children are haunting the place. and purple guy has been noticing some hallucinations recently too. they kinda attacked him. felt more like jumpscares honestly. so, it looks like ghosts do in fact exist. if purple guy can just figure out how to get his brain-dead son’s ghost to inhabit an animatronic… or maybe a puppet, then he’d get his son back and they can be one big happy family again! 

and since these ghosts came to be after they were dead, that means its not necessary to keep his son alive. purple guy says he’ll take his son off life support and have a private funeral. of course, itd be really difficult to get his corpse once its buried 6 feet underground. so lets just, keep him in this locked chest. once me and my older son michael figure out how to get his soul to possess a puppet then we’ll unlock it. 

but until then, perhaps some things are best left forgotten, for now. 

*cue the plot of fnaf sister location with micheal being the character you control*

*once thats over, fnaf 1 begins, also playing the character michael*

*then fnaf 3, with micheal being springtrap*

i have spent so many hours agonizing over this plot. and i skipped over a bunch of details cause this is already long enough. there is no such thing as a coincidence in these games. 

for example, remember the pink slip mike schmidt got? it says he tampered with the animatronics and he had odor? yeah, he had that smell cause he was actually a ghost possessing his own corpse. what was once a funny joke suddenly now has creepy implications. 

and did you know that scott told us who did the bite of 87 in fnaf 1? when you type in 1987 into custom night you get the golden freddy jumpscare. crazy right? 

scott is insane and he’s driven me insane with his crazy 20,000 piece puzzle. but luckily he has, in fact, given us enough puzzle pieces to figure out the entire plot. it just takes, in total, several days worth of thinking to figure it all out. 

umm, as to how i pieced it together from the games info. i questioned why the box could be important. tools? animatronic parts? dead children? it was really difficult to tell, and i wasnt convinced by matt patts theory of it being the puppet. 

lets see, the game ended with the crying child surrounded by his toys as they slowly fade away. i kinda assumed that they signified that purple guy murdered their counterparts. his other son and his friends. and then the crying child also slowly fades away after purple guy says, ‘i will put you back together.’ and then in sister location they describe how purple guy made these robots to kidnap children. and these seem like pretty extreme lengths to go to kidnap somebody. he typically kills kids. why kidnap? and these animatronics are now possessed by ghosts. and things just kinda fall into place. 

its all connected. he kidnaps the kids to figure out how they keep on living despite being dead and how they connect themselves to inanimate objects. and at the end of sister location we hear micheal talking to himself about how hes going to find his dad with springtrap walking into the scene. with micheals words we can tell that he knew about what his father did and perhaps was even involved. and perhaps because he was involved he knew how to keep his own soul living and attached it to his own corpse. (which means that purple guy didnt kill his own son. how dare i assume)

but why would they need to know how to attach a soul to an inanimate object? well, the son with a chunk of their brain ripped out and is currently in a coma would be a very good motivator. and, of course, having the body is necessary since the soul has an attachment to it. though its kinda hard to steal a body from a hospital. better play the ‘dad making the harshest decision of his life’ card and take his child off life support and keep the body. we’ll have a private funeral, family only. thats the easiest way to get nobody to question things. 

now where to put the body until we need it? a locked box sounds perfect

[sleeping-satan]

I started watching YouTube when I was like 12 or 13 and even though I don't watch it now it's incredible to see how far some of them have come

Like one went from recording in his parents house to moving into his own place, got a dog I'm pretty sure, and married his girlfriend.

Another one was natewantstobattle and he went from less than 100,000 to over a million subscribers. It was cool too because even though I've moved on from YouTube I still listen to his music and the music he made went from minecraft and pokemon parodies (you know, what my 12 year old self would like), to original songs about games like his fnaf ones, anime covers, and eventually started making albums that weren't based on video games just his creativity and life. He went from being around poketubers to markiplier, jacksepticeye, and matt patt from game theory for a few videos from what I've seen.

I don't know it makes me feel proud of them even though I've never even met them before and simply watched their videos.