The idea that golden freddy represents the bite victim's fear of being stuffed into a suit makes "It's Me" finally make perfect sense.

Hi guys bite victim playz here and today we are doing our 500128th fnaf 4 speedrun

Making fnaf4's gameplay "real" post-retcon was one of the worst decisions Scott made imo. I imagine he got nervous about the reception of dream theory and tried to overcorrect, but it just makes the story look extremely silly, especially since it's so obviously *supposed* to be a dream.

I think the worst part of the retcon was how CC was pretty much sidelined as a Character, outside of the bite of 83’ he’s pretty much unimportant to the rest of the franchise

Something you didn’t mentioned that supports the idea that the child could be golden freddy, is the quote “it’s me”, as in the crying the child saying that it’s him stuffed in the suit

It'd be interesting, as a thought experiment, to try to construct an overview of FNAF's story based on everything *except* FNAF 4.

I tend to never like Dream theory stuff but this is easily the best Dream theory video! Unlike most Dream theory concepts I would believe it if Scott said this used to be canon. Keep up the good work!

I love the theory that the box was originally the crying child’s lock away toybox, the memories they bring are so painful they’re best left forgotten for now

This does actually cover the broken Foxy toy. Grieving kids, even tweens, tend to get really, really, really frustrated in their grief and usually physically lash out. I can imagine Proto-Mike/FoxyBro pulling apart her Foxy toy in his grief. In fact, her being dead would also explain why he's being such a twonk in the minigames.. aside from the typical older brother past time. It's more narratively satisfying.

scott was like "im not satisfied with how the story ends" my brother in christ, you made the story

As someone who used to agree with Dream theory being the original story, in the past year or so I've discovered some alternatives floating around the community, and I think I have a good understanding of what Scott was *actually* trying to get at with all these clues which seem to point to Dream Theory. So, here are my thoughts. I know you're aware of a bunch of this, but I'm gonna try and put it all together from scratch. First, it's always been strange to me that everyone seems to interpret that old Steam post as Scott being unsatisfied. He outright says the opposite at the end, saying, "The fact that the pieces have remained elusive this time strikes me as incredible, and special, a fitting conclusion in some ways." His point was not to express disappointment that the fandom didn't figure things out, his point was that he liked the fact that the FNaF series ended with a big, unsolved mystery, and he didn't want to ruin it by opening the box for us. "Would the community accept it that way" isn't Scott saying the truth would be controversial, he means "Would the community accept my decision not to show off what's in the box?" That was the main point of the post, I think, while also seeding in a few clues about "pieces" so that we at least weren't left completely empty handed. He didn't become unsatisfied with it until later on, as explained in the Dawko interview. As for the 3 big clues: Something people seem to forget is that they don't exist in a vacuum, they were a live reaction to the discussion on the original Game Theory livestream. In particular, I think "Four Games One Story" was a response to MatPat starting to consider that FNaF2 was just a dream. In the end, Mat interpreted the clue as "So he's saying they're ALL a dream", when in reality I think this was Scott trying say the opposite, to course-correct him *away* from Dream Theory, to remind him that all the games are one connected story. The Steam Post established this recurring language of "pieces" being "put together". This directly parallels the lines "You're broken", and "I will put you back together." The leap of logic I think Scott wanted us to make is that the Bite Victim's soul is *broken into pieces*, pieces which need to be put together for him to rest. The post also gives us a hint for where to find the pieces: "I guess most people assumed that I filled the game with random easter eggs this time. I didn't." With this in mind, I honestly think FNAF World spells everything out pretty clearly. There, the pieces are represented by the clocks you have to set; this is implied by the dialogue "The pieces are in place for you" finishing the Clock ending, followed by "Rest", implying that Bite Victim's ("BV" from now on) soul is given rest by putting together the pieces. Furthermore, there's the open box in the files with the text "He put the pieces back together" reinforcing all of this. The box contained the pieces, we "leave breadcrumbs for him" so he finds the box, takes the pieces out, puts them together, and is able to rest. So, what are the pieces? As everyone knows, those clocks are references to the FNaF3 cake minigames, the ones which build up to Happiest Day. This is where things are really interesting, because like I mentioned earlier, Scott suggested that the pieces were FNaF4 easter eggs. Turns out, they're both! There's a 1 to 1 correlation between cake minigames and weird details in the FNaF4 minigames: The kid who looks like BB connects to BB's Air Adventure, Mangle in the sister's room connects to Mangle's Quest, the Tiny Toy Chica missing her beak connects to Chica's Party (Which stars Toy Chica specifically), Stage01 is just Fredbear's family Diner, RWQFSFASXC's minigame connects to the Shadows on the wall at Fredbear's, and obviously Happiest Day is the final scene flipped backwards. *The Cake Minigames are BV's memories of things he saw leading up to his death, the pieces which need to be put together for him to be freed*. That memory part was a small leap of logic, but I think it's pretty straightforward when you look at BV's association with forgetfulness in the Logbook ("What do you remember," "Do you remember your name"), and the Fazbear Frights series' fixation on Agony and emotion/memories haunting things. Point is, the reason for all these connections between things BV saw and random other parts of the story isn't that it's all just a dream: These recurring elements are because everything is being haunted by BV's memories. There's A LOT more to say about this. Here's a few more things: - I don't think the Golden Freddy kid in Happiest Day is BV. BV's role in the larger story is that his memories were used to free the MCI kids; I don't think he really possesses anyone. Many people claim that they're the same because of the parallel between his death and Happiest Day: Happiest Day has 4 masked kids, then the Puppet, then the Golden Freddy kid. BV's death has the 4 masked bullies, then BV, then Fredbear. Really, BV is parallel to the puppet in this scenario, not Golden Freddy. I think that's why his design matches the Puppet's. This doesn't imply any connection between BV and the puppet, it's just one part of this larger parallel which was made to imply that Happiest Day is a memory. - Michael's "I put her back together" line implies a similar thing happened with Elizabeth. In short, I think Elizabeth's pieces/memories haunted the Funtimes, so Ennard was literally her pieces put together, hence Baby not recognizing you or realizing she's possessed until Night 5, when suddenly she thinks you're William and is using Elizabeth's voice. She also literally says "I'm broken." at one point. - There's also the final clue, "What is seen in shadows...", which could still refer to a couple things. Here's my favorite: In the first Fazbear Frights (Into the Pit), a ball pit is haunted by the memory of the MCI, and the Spring Bonnie from the memory is able to enter the real world, taking the form of a weird hallucination that only Oswald sees. This matches really well with RXQ (Shadow Bonnie). I think BV was afraid of the shadows at Fredbears, so his memory of them took the form of an evil shadow monster, which then enters the real world as a weird hallucination thing. I'm not sure this applies to ShFreddy, but I'm pretty confident this is the explanation for RXQ. - Ever notice all the Jeremys experience major head injuries? Jeremy Fitzgerald is probably the victim of the Bite of 87, Jeremy from Help Wanted cuts his face off, and the MCI Jeremy possesses Bonnie, who loses his face in FNaF2. Could it be a result of BV's memory haunting the events, suggesting BV is named Jeremy? - There's also the fact that Scott said the box changed: Specifically, he implied that it subtly changed as the story changed direction. I think the modern box is the FFPS location, but how exactly is that a subtle change? It implies the FFPS location's 5 pieces might be subtly connected to BV's pieces somehow. Here's my explanation: There's an implication that the 5 pieces are especially connected to the 5 classic animatronics, hence why the missing Children are hanging out in the Cake Minigames, and how the pieces seem to be represented by BV's 5 plushies fading away as he dies. We know the MCI souls were present in FFPS, so it works out. If you can accept MoltenMCI for just a moment, that would suggest that Molten Freddy is BV's pieces put together. I'll point you to the FFPS poster with the ventriloquist, clown, and bear, which everyone thinks represents the Afton family. The bear would be BV, which I think is a better match for Molten Freddy than Golden Freddy, with it's chained connection to the clown (Baby), sharp teeth, muted gray color, and a party hat which perfectly matches Ennard's. Keywords for anyone interested in others' thoughts are "freevictim", "shattervictim", "destinyvictim", and "memoryvictim".

Another detail tying Crying Child and Puppet together is Mangle's Quest in Fnaf 3. One of the screens is of the puppet crying and kneeling while Mangle moves across the screen at its feet. The puppet is scaled up to fit the frame of the mini-game so Mangle is toy-sized in comparison. This mirrors how Crying Child is sat crying and kneeling on his rug with his plushies at the end of Fnaf 4. The puppet is also the only other character depicted with black and white stripes. I know this next point is just from the books but Henry was known to tinker around and make small versions of animatronics for Charlie, including a little dog and she did have a twin brother named Sammy.

I think Dream Theory was better than the convoluted mess we have now.

I love thinking about the "old" lore, or where the story would be if the book trilogy was canon to the game. Maybe Michael Afton would've given the speech at the end of FFPS

Here's my interpretation: FNAF 4 was indeed a nightmare BV was having. After he died, William brought those nightmares to life to torment his son Michael as punishment for his actions.

Scott literally wasn't satisfied with how the story ended... but... he created the story!

Honestly, I really like the silly plot we got instead. It's so bizarre and weird but it is actually what got me into the games. Beforehand I had the approach of "Oh, it's another haunting story" before I learned about Time Travelling ballpits and what not.

I’m ultimately still glad that dream theory was retconned. Even when expanded upon, making anything a dream when it isn’t 100% clear from the beginning that it’s a dream will always be lame in my opinion. Like it was the most reasonable theory when 4 released, but good lord is it not fun to uncover the story of a bunch of games only to discover a lot of it wasn’t even real. I don’t blame the entire community for desperately trying to prove it false and even with sister location’s patch work, it’s still better and more satisfying.

Thank you for making this video whilst adding onto the original dream theory video GT made (thanks for not completely dumping on it; I know that took restraint) Alot of Fnaf fans now pretend like Dream Theory was totoally never meant to be a thing because of the way Scott writes now but anyone with even a semblence of a brain could tell what was the intention between 1-4 (and whilst you can retroactively explain things like "Why was toy chica missing her beak?", you CANNOT divorce it from the original time and purpose) Sometimes I wonder what Fnaf would've become had we stuck down the "it was all just a dream" route.... who am I kidding dawg that shit would be ASSSSSS 💀💀💀

This is a really good pre-SL theory honestly, it's a good expansion of dream theory and explains The Puppet and Fredbear Plush pretty well. And it's probably the most believable interpretation of pre-SL fnaf I've ever heard. (However, Puppet CC will remain as the original canon, in my heart. 👊😔)

Thumbnail goes hard

I keep coming back to this video, this specific theory has really stuck with me. This is my fourth time back. I think it's just the story painted here is such a somber one. In the end the one story being told is a sister trying her best to protect her brother from the afterlife, and then give him the birthday he never got to have. It's actually incredibly emotional. Even the idea of being a child stuck in your own mind and being forced to experience the first three games, a mish mash of traumatic memories, is kind of a horrifying idea There's also the way it feels SO right. Like it was really meant to be canon, and that leaves me with a very empty feeling.I actually almost like it, it's upsetting and dark, but almost sweet. But so ignored, if it's true that this was what Scott wanted I feel almost upset that it wasn't looked at with the same depth back in the day as you go in with this video. It's such a simple story too. Idk if it's just the fatigue with the multi media fnaf lore we have today, but I revel in the simplicity of this and how it comes together just by piecing the games together. I think this theory just needs more attention. THIS specific theory has struck such a major chord with me lol. Fr I just want you to know I LOVE this video, this theory, and even this story being told tbh. Ofc maybe I'd be saying something different if Scott really did end it here, but where we are now, it's sitting with me. Again, could just be fatigue with what we have now

Aw man, I was hoping this was a parody theory of “what if dream theory is still canon?”.

I’ve never thought of the idea that the CC and the Puppet used to have been related but that honestly does make sense from what you’ve said. Great video! I really enjoyed it

I always liked how dream theory "put the pieces together" basically perfecty, well, except the freadbear plush, and i got pretty much the same conclusion as you before except for the psychic friend fredbear, i would say only the gameplay from previous games was a dream but the minigames happened , there was some employee who killed 6/11 kids, there was a puppet who gave them life and the killer died in his suit scared of the spirits, for me the key to this is the line "i will put you back together". I kinda don't buy it meaning giving the crying child a party, put back together implies that there was something and it got broken, not that it didn't happen. The other key line for me is the crying child calling the plushies his friends tho he's scared of the mascots (not only of animatronics sinse he's scared of plush bonnie) and in the end they say they're still his friends. So what i think happened, the kid saw his friends murdered in Freddy's causing trauma, he dies on his birthday where one of the spirits promisis to put them back together as in put the friend back together, then some time after the fnaf world and happinest day happen and all can rest

Your video clicks in with the CE's odd details about FNAF4 that are still cannon in current lore. Without repeating myself too much, the CE on pg. 8 & 9 says Crying Child's upset/disturbed state in FNAF4 is because he previously had visited the FNAF1 location and had "seen something" occur/existing at that location and that his mood in the cutscenes of FNAF4 is him continuing to be upset about that off-screen event PLUS his daily life experiences. If dream theory and the details from the Encyclopedia were both concocted at the same time (of course, everything in the CE was written down post-reconning dream theory so we can't confirm when this detail first solidified), then that would suggest the FNAF series is largely the dream of a child, but that his dream isn't expectedly based on "misunderstandings" and backs up your idea that something bad had previously happened to CC's sister, which is why she is not at the house. I seriously wonder at this point if we have the family trees of the Emilys and the Aftons correct, or if one of the biggest mystery elements is that if we got it all "wrong" with who is who, then we can't make the pieces fit. That that both wives are just absent in the story is interesting, alone with there being two little girls that are both dead. The two boys seem to be very much brothers, except... We see the sister's room, but never the big brother's room. There are many explanations; clearly the house is simplified on purpose; we are shown only what is important (implying an empty girl's room with a crying boy standing inside of it is an important visual) and everything "non-important" is omitted. I just wonder sometimes if more of the books are not 1-1 with the games narrative and if we're still assuming to many direct things.

I do get why Scott probably felt like tying everything together into dream theory was the only way to coalesce the narratives of the previous three games into one story, but to me one of the main reasons dream theory is so unsatisfying is because it's a child's dream. I will fully admit that this is just me nitpicking, but all three games are so SPECIFIC when it comes to things like dates, the monetary amount on paychecks, the facts that there are paychecks at all, and things like the corporate-speak used in the various phone calls... to include so many ultra-specific details and make the first three games feel 'realistic' and plausible in-universe, and then say "actually an eight-year-old imagined all this" feels really inconsistent with how hard Scott worked to make the first three games feel like they had at least some basis in real-world ideas and concepts like crappy jobs. It would make more sense for an adult to have nightmares about working jobs like these, but WOULDN'T make sense for an adult to have been lifted up into an animatronic's mouth like crying child ultimately was, so I get why "any of the big inconsistencies and story gaps/logical leaps happened because a little kid dreamed it all" is what Scott went with at the time, but something about all the tiniest of minutia in the first three games being imagined by a small child makes dream theory feel super disappointing and like it just raises more (again, admittedly SUPER nitpicky) questions.

If Dream Theory was the original intention behind FNaF 4, I'm glad it was changed, as it would devalue the previous games.

We just have to pretend Scott somehow didn't know that "it was all a dream" plots are terrible.

This is probably the first I've 100% agreed with one of your videos. At the time I remember the Dream Theory and while it did feel the most logical, admittedly did feel a tad unsatisfying. And I thank you for clarifying the time frame and meaning of Scott's reckon. After watching so many theories and explanations, certain details that were once more clear have gotten way too concluded over the years.

5:59 *singing* He's here He's there He's everywhere Who are you gonna call Psychic Friend Fredbear

14:30 I think it does tbh, and it puts a far more tragic element to everything.

Its fun that fnaf sl is a patch for fnaf 4, but sl has been patched by the books

I think things would have at least made sense if at least fnaf 4's gameplay itself was a dream because of how things in it mirror what the fnaf 4 cutscene stories showed

It seems to me that the crying Child was the original Michael Afton. But the Michael Afton role was switched to Foxybro.

Finally, an acceptance of the hard cuts between retcons, shout out loud.

Great video. I actually really like this story.

@Sire Squawks, you’ve just solved the One Problem I had with Dream Theory, and I can most definitely say that I would’ve loved this conclusion way better than the really messy situation that the franchise and most certainly the fandom is in right now! Good on ya’

and THAT'S why Scott wanted people to forget about the box! it had no bearing (heh) on the story anymore! i love this theory

I feel like I'm the only one who actually likes dream theory. I know I like things that are objectively bad though so it could just be another case of that. I understand how saying "It's just a dream!!" would be unsatisfying, but if it was meant to be a dream all along, and the creator put evidence in place for it to be a dream, what makes it so bad?

Was not a fan of Dream Theory, but the way this was presented here actually makes sense and sounds believable.

A question that could turn into a suggestion for a future video. When do you think the follow me minigames in FNaF 3 take place? I just can’t justify the evidence that people have that it’s before FNaF 1 all because of Freddy & Bonnie’s buttons. It’s literally just a inconsistency/misconception that Scott made in my honest opinion.

Fnaf had at least 3 retcons. We know from the interview with Dawko that Scott had originally planned it to be a trilogy. I mean, no wonder he had a good and bad ending on fnaf 3 where the souls of the kids are freed or not. I think the main reason he did 4 was because he took the criticism of the fnaf 3 jumpscares being too weak (also from the interview). So the lore was indeed supposed to be real. Then on fnaf 4, he reimagined it with a fitting conclusion of it being a dream, with far more intense jumpscares, but got backlash for people not accepting dream theory. Then he carried it out to fnaf world, but didn't like it himself, made SL and finished off with pizzeria simulator and UCN. Then again, rebooted everything with fnaf vr and on fowards.

This video doe’s better then most dream theory interpretations. But im confused about happiest day under dream theory right now.

This is definitely the best I have heard on dream theory! This is satisfying for me!

If Dream Theory was originally intended, why is there the detail of 1983 in FNAF 4? It’s not a reference to anything previous in the series. In fact, it seems to be making way for FNAF 4 to fit in the timeline since in FNAF 2 (1987) we hear Phone Guy say Fredbear’s been closed for years now. If the timeline of events doesn’t matter, why put this specific detail in to make it fit with the timeline?

Then why the kid in the puppet minigame is called HIM?

My interpretation of the puppet is that HE was the Puppet. That why in that red dark minigame with Ballon boy the puppet as the form of him

This is such a good video

This makes a lot of sense, this was probably what Scott had in mind, or at least something similar, at the time

6:50 THANK YOU I feel like no one even considers the puppet having anything to do with fnaf 4 but given what Scott was going for with the story it makes sense that the 'puppet master' role would also overlap with psychic friend fredbear's role

It's absolutely insane to think how much direct effect Matt Pat has had on the development of five nights at Freddy's. With this video, you've definitely convinced me that the first four games and FNaF world are supposed to be taking place in the bite victim's dream but was changed by Scott because Matt Pat was such a huge influence over the child audience of FNAF saying he didn't like dream theory caused Scott cawthon to panic. All this led to the whole five nights at Freddy's franchise being a complete mess as George R. R. Martin once famously said "if the internet correctly guesses that the butler did it, you Stick with the original ending that you set up. Otherwise it will just be unsatisfying if you try and make it twist"

You can nake a video about if fnaf 1 was the only game, golden freddy is the phoneguy? if the animatronics stuffed the guy in the suit, but his angry made this manifestations in the pizzaria

I honestly just cannot believe the dream theory. Part of me believes Scott tried to make it so it was easy to interpret it that way, but the story of the other games and the ending to fnaf 4 is way too in depth for a kid to be having nightmares about even if they are extremely traumatized. For this game i can see that obviously with the nightmare animatronics, but not the entire franchise. It just feels like a switcharoo. Especially considering certain aspects if this game such as that lil plushie of his just...teleporting and speaking to him, and how he even got locked in the storage closet. Idk. I do believe it had to be a gotcha moment towards fans because theres just no way. I've been hyperfixating on this series again and this has been driving me nuts 😭😭😭

scott should release a revised version of fnaf 1-4 made to fit with the retconned storyline

The only thing I can think of The Puppet not being here in this game (which, as you mentioned, is *beyond* sketchy) is that it was either at Freddy Fazbear's Pizza (I've been told it existed alongside Fredbear's) or it just didn't exist yet.

I really like this theory! It would be great to explore what the story couldve been and it wraps up most of the loose threads of that time. “Save them” “you cant” was probably meant for the puppet whose trying to save others from her fate but cant. Plus with current lore there so many characters with inly vague mentions on their relations to eachothers that i wish we could flesh out more

The puppet was originally the crying child.

plot twist: its a dream within a dream within another dream :)

My only critique I have so far is with the gender of the kid outside of the pizza location in the minigame where purple guy shows up and kills them and how this leads into Psychic Friend Fredbear being an actual supernatural occurrence. It was "save him" originally, so I don't think this ties in at this point. I always felt like the CC was the puppet as strange as it would be. He's the one who gave all of the animatronics life. My interpretation of the overall theory is this- It is all in his mind and made up. There was never a killer. He saw himself as the puppet originally because he was the one who was giving his friend's "life." Psychic Friend Fredbear is a manifestation of his imagination that he created. I think the used to do the same thing with all of the other animatronic toys as well. It's possibly even a game that he and his father played together hence "Phone Guy" being a part of the story. I know Scott had mentioned that his photo on the wall was just an Easter Egg, but is it? He ALSO said that nothing in FNaF 4 was an Easter Egg which is a strange contradiction. So, my guess is that Scott was the stand in for the father. They used to play some kind of Freddy game together. Maybe he even worked at the location which is why they lived so close by. He got busy one summer (was it ever said when the FNaF 4 minigames took place? I always FELT like it was during summer vacation for some reason) and has his older brother watch him while he's at work. Then the bite happens and he dies. As he's fading out, he imagines his psychic friend speaking with him until that final line with the font change comes in to represent his father's voice. Happiest Day and the FNaF World section setting up Happiest Day I think is simply his father putting the memories of his son together so that he can confront the box. I believe after the events took place, he threw all of the toys and masks and plushies into the box and locked it not able to cope with the grief. Happiest Day is a metaphor for him overcoming the grief and being able to finally open the box. I think the ending of FNaF World where the box becomes open is basically saying, "Congratulations. You put the pieces in place to heal the father's grief, and now the box can be opened." BUT that's just been my theory. There's nothing that even supports a father existing in this story, it just always... made sense to me for some reason.

Huh, seems there's no need to make the post I was outlining anymore, this hits my thoughts to a T. More time to focus on all the _other_ theories I've told myself I really need to write up... Edit: Oh, one other thing, I think this explains the retcon about Charlotte's death date. In _The Silver Eyes_ it was 1982 because that date made it clear she died before Bite Victim would have had he existed in this timeline, while in _The Fourth Closet_ it's 1983 because Scott is trying to say HEY ACTUALLY IGNORE THAT SHE DEFINITELY DIED AFTER HIM PRETEND I NEVER SAID ANYTHING. Additionally, this explains Bite Victim's absence in the novels: his entire story at the time was Dream Theory, so setting _The Silver Eyes_ in an AU where it was all real nullified any reason to have him.

Godzilla noise at the end. I've caught you puppet man

i don't know if puppet being the sister is needed but i thought everything else worked really well. I was also sad about why things seemed to point out to dream theory. After all golden freddy was established as the different one in first games. And i don't know if scott had thought of a satisfactory set up for the two mysteries, golden and bite of 87 at the time but this difference was also continued at the fnaf 3, too. It seemed as if their revenge was taken finally but one of them was unhappy despite this. And they were in this together. They were gonna move on only if all of them were content. So they make golden freddy happy and finally move on, primary helper most likely being puppet as ''the'' aware one. Still no conclusion to why goldie is different and boy do i want to staisfactory conclusions to all interesting fnaf stuff, i am evne ready to write one myself if i can interest myself, but point is once again he is different. Then 4th story showing the child died on his own would be perfect way to show both the goldie child and 4 victims died around the same time but seperately or something would be good maybe? at least it also shows why goldie doesn't attack most of the time and why murderer's death is not enough to satisfy him. I mean just tkae the story to a different path, not this. And 87. IT added to the creepy factor in first game but how would that wwork if you wanted to continue it? once again it doesn't work. also the fact that we don't have 87 even in dream theory version anymore because scott wanted to make a 5th game or changed his idea and therefore changed the code in website so it wasn't 87 anymore i don't know man. i ahh.. Puppet was so cool when he was added in second game. But bad guys have to win in fnaf universe to continue, so we never got puppet content.

If Scott truly does/did listen to what Game Theory says/said that much, then I find that very annoying. Letting theorists define your narrative is bad for many reasons. Not only does it totally ruin the structure of your story, but also it gives too much power to someone who shouldn't have it and doesn't want it, which in turn puts way too much importance on what they say which will cause people to become way to extreme around them.

My old interpreatation of Dream theory : nights 1-4 we were playing as crying child then after the bite crying child give his older brother the nights 5-8 and he was nightmare fredbear and nightmare after geting his revenge fnaf world happned and bv had his happest day and rest

everything fits perfectly (apart from one thing i noticed but cant remember), but it just seems like its invalidating everything the community had figured out already by that point.

Am I the only one who thinks this is more satisfying than the endless milking of the modern era?

I never really liked Dream Theory (tho mostly because I find theories that "*Blank* was in a coma/dreaming/dead/imagination" to be lame and stupid)

1:38 YOU'RE JUST THROWING RANDOM BUZZWORDS I love that.

I bet future games and books will clarify everything. 😮

I just remembered that game theory literally did a poll and since most of the fans voted for "it's no dream." then, scott was like damn ok ig

Thank god none of this is cannon anymore

11:25 unless you count every instance that he's mentioned the puppet after pizzeria simulator where he says that charlie is the puppet, since she is explicitly said to be the puppet in that game

Ayo, why'd you change the thumbnail? It was actual 🔥

While these all fit well, but some things don't fit that with some other evidence in 1-4. Also, I just listed these what's coming out on the top of my on a whim. 1. FNaF 4 takes place in 1983, which is the Bite of '83. What explains the Bite of '87 in Dream Theory? 2. Who's the Phone Guy? 3. Who is the Purple Guy? 4. How does BV know about hourly minimum wage and how robots work and even the complex springlock suits 5. If BV is supposedly having the dreams in the hospital, in 1983, how could he have heard the FNaF 1 Night 1 phone call from 1993? That phone call itself also mentions the Bite of '87. 6. BV dies on Night 6 but the gameplay still continues on in Night 7. 7. An Ivy stand, flowers and pills can be seen beside the bed in FNaF 4's gameplay. If BV's in a coma, how would he be able to see any of these? The older brother visiting him and feeling guilt about seeing him in the hospital bed makes more sense. That's all the points I can think about at the moment. If Dream Theory was true then it sure does have its own holes it couldn't explain and or have pieces that don't fit that well together. The same can be said for the story that has been told by Scott once SL came out, in that the evidence in 4 don't fit well with the narrative that's going on now.

I always liked dream theory

WTF does Godzilla have to do with this. WHY is he coming???

Hey, Sire Squawks! There's this madlad, JoeDoughboi, he made a theory to weave FNAF 1 to 4 cohesively without it being a dream and, gotta say, I love it! Give it a watch man, it's some good and interesting stuff. Plus, you can talk about it later with us or give your own tweaks to it.

Maybe all of FNAF is a dream and we just haven’t woken up yet.

I think its noteworthy did not abandon the idea that Dream theory(Or Coma theory as he calls it) in 'FNAF 6, what was in the BOX' he talks about how the contents of the box have changed over the years and that he does think this is the original intent(And came to similar conclusions as you, saying there was indeed some murder happening in the 'real' world). And this is notable as this was the video Scott specifically calls out as having been 'absolutely right' when confirming that the contents of the box have indeed changed over the years.

Sir you've inspired me to make this a real story.

The puppet is explained by the crying child himself, she is stripped black and white like him, she is crying like him

Sounds a bit like you used FNAF World for this theory.

Wow, mind blown. I'm really glad this isn't canon anymore.

I think you thru out the possibility of Crying Child being the puppet too easily While the puppets death dosent match Crying Childs death, it does match his fears crying child in fnaf 4 is repetitively shown being locked in rooms, neglected and that he fears the purple man meanwhile SAVE HIM we see a child be locked out of a birthday party, neglected by everyone and then killed by a purple man (also you dont really justify the fredbear plushie being his sister or the puppet... since the puppets ghost at this time was refered to with he/him i think scott deciding to retcon that in fnaf 4 would be werid)

The point of fnaf 4 is to revive BV memories (soul) and find where he is Michael hint is only FNAF 1 as he doing job he see flash "it's me" and a dream he got in FNAF 2 So with help of Fritz Smith after taking something in FNAF 1 animatronic (this part a theory) They recreate the same situation as FNAF 1 gameplay with BV item around it After seeing all BV memories in night 5, Michael stopped by puppet as nightmare who have task to protect all the 5 MCI souls

I still don't believe that Dream Theory was supposed to be the original story. I mean, Scott made it clear that the fandom hadn't figured out part 4, yet, dream theory was being discussed since the game was released and even before. If dream theory was truly the original story of this franchise, Scott wouldn't have said that the community didn't figure out what part 4 was all about. Also, from a narrative standpoint it doesn't make sense. A lot of us theorists, try to solve FNaF from this technical standpoint and forget that this is still a *story*, with narrative elements that every story should have. So, from the narrative standpoint, things such as Purple Guy, Springtrap, the missing children and Give Gifts Give Life don't have any narrative meaning.

Dream theories was never Canon cause of one thing In the bad ending of fnaf3 you see the heads if the original 5: Freddy foxy Bonnie and Chica and in the shadow presumably golden Freddy. The original 4 have one light on and golden Freddy two. To get the good ending you have to set the souls of the children free with the happiest day minigame. And when you do that you get the good ending and you see the the original 4 deactivated, you don't see golden Freddy in the good ending cause he has still one soul left. Scott already planned for golden Freddy to have 2 souls. Fnaf 4 just explains why happiest day set one of the golden Freddy spirits free.

Interesting...

I've always disagreed that dream theory was unsatisfying. Has nobody seen Jacob's Ladder? (Not that FNAF is anywhere near Jacobs Ladder, but anyway..) It was all a dream/coma can be incredibly effective and terrifying if done well, and for people to dismiss it because they've hated the badly-done instances of the trope has made it so they (and the community) missed a lot of the darker aspects of it in FNAF. Maybe we've all lost our memories of how it was to be a kid, but I personally had a lot of anxiety and fear when I was younger, and really felt my physical vulnerability... I can't imagine going through the real/imagined/hallucinated events of these games as a kid and not being a tearstreaked mess myself tbh. I also think the parallels between Crying Child and the Puppet are stronger than between CC and any other character, as far as the first four games are concerned. If CC was meant to be represented by anyone, I'd think the tear marks, striped clothing, and music box winding/clocks needing winding connections kinda seal the deal for me. Someone more well-versed in the lore could probably make more connections between the two, but those are just off the top of my head.

My biggest question with the old dream continuity is: why the two homes? Since fnaf 4 the house of the minigames isnt the same as the gameplay. And the Last one fits more with the menu one. In modern fnaf we Have an answer go that, but in the context of the old one, what was the point?

cool

3:08 AMOGUS Bed

scott basically decided he didn’t want 4 to be the last game, but he realized he couldn’t continue the story if everything was just a dream and the child is dead. so instead of rebooting the whole series or creating a new story, he wanted to expand more on the already existing characters. had he not retconned dream theory i think fans would’ve hated the “it was all just a dream” conclusion to 4 games. so he created sister location which made everything that’s happened real, which pretty much made fnaf4 go from being an interesting game to the worst one in the series imo. by this point the timeline was already in shambles so scott decides to stretch out the afton story for another 3 games (4 is security breach wasn’t retconned to mimic). had scott not released the first four games one after the other in the span of just 2 years, i think we would’ve had a more coherent story. the success of the first game made him rush out with sequels and just dumped more and more lore without taking the time to map out a better story.

Hi

14:34 Well I quite like it

I'm still not convinced. Especially since G.Freddy has had two souls since at the very least 3. You don't make both eyes glow while making sure everyone else only has one lit.

Are we just gonna ignore the yellow suit with someones brown hair coming out of it during night 4s minigame

Yeah I'm pretty much with you on this. In fact I'd say the intro to Fnaf World (the one that plays once) proves that Psychic Friend Fredbear is the puppet since you see two little yellow dots, exactly like the Puppet's eyes in the Fnaf 2 cutscenes and the Fnaf 3 jumpscare.

I don't see your take on Scott's "retcon issue" post. Like, read it all out loud. It's very evident that it's not what you described. Scott used SL to "clear up a MISCONCEPTION with FNaF 4". He made a whole paragraph to explain that he tries to "lead us towards his ORIGINAL intentions" and Sister Location is trying to do exactly that. If Dream Theory was ever correct, then this is just plain wrong. Because all Sister Location does for FNaF 4 is introducing the Experiment Theory. It gives us 1983, real rooms, real Nightmares and "the observation". It connects William to Bite Victim and hints at plush Fredbear being controlled by William Afton. And it's not described as "this is what the story is now, after retcon". It very clearly says "fixing a misconception" and "explaining the original intentions". There's no possible way to interpret this post, where Dream Theory was ever considered real.