The point simply is, William not having a big motive works for the first three games, when he is still just a nameless pixel murderer. It would still work if Scott didn't start adding more sci-fi elements but by Sister Location it's just ridiculous to assume that he doesn't have a motive because Scott gives him far too many traits that aren't connected with him being a serial murderer. He has been monitoring his child, seemingly trying to keep it safe. He is associated with the line "I will put you back together" He is researching remnant scientifically. He tells his daughter not to come close to his killer robot. You could still chuck it up to "The motivation of William is that he is a mad scientist trying to research Remnant" which is fine but, there is so much pointing to him being more than that. If Crying Child dies first, it is a perfect fit for the puzzle. He might have started with good intentions but what happened later slowly turns him into a monster. Perhaps he had traits of a murderous sociopath beforehand, he wasn't necessarily one but had leanings. Perhaps he was arrogant, slightly amoral, maybe narcissistic but cared about his children (in his own way, even if somewhat twisted), and went absolutely insane after one of them died. Also let's be honest- a more complex main villain is FAR more interesting than a bad guy who's evil for the sake of it.

@KannaTheGamer

10 ай бұрын

this reminds me of the time when i was new to FNAF lore, when i learned that the guys with animatronic heads (micheal and his friends, but i didnt know at the time) caused the death of william's child, William murdered them when they least expected it (the first dead children accident) which then the kids possessed the animatronics to get revenge-revenge from William because they thought their murders were unjust and they were killed for something they regretted already

@LeaveMeAlone3omgIgotloggedouta

10 ай бұрын

True

@LeaveMeAlone3omgIgotloggedouta

10 ай бұрын

⁠

@LeaveMeAlone3omgIgotloggedouta

10 ай бұрын

@@KannaTheGamermhh that’s a goofy ahh theory but I’ll cut you some slack cuz you were new

I feel William's first kill was out of emotion, rather than for experimentation. William had just lost his son to the jaws of Henry's robot, so in his eyes Henry is too blame. I could see that in his grief and emotion he lashes out a Charlotte who was stuck outside as she reminds him of what Henry took away from him, so in a moment of madness and anger decided to take away Henry's child as revenge. He then suspects that Charlotte possesses the puppet, inspiring the idea that maybe he can bring his child back through possession, causing him to begin to experiment.

@michaelraymon111

10 ай бұрын

Or he just killed her because he has a killina fetish like most serial killers and it doesn't have have be cringy revenge

@benjaminmapperson1940

10 ай бұрын

@@michaelraymon111 It's not a revenge as such, he just lashes out in anger against Henry

@michaelraymon111

10 ай бұрын

@@benjaminmapperson1940 same thing lol

@sethisevilone02

10 ай бұрын

how is revenge cringy? if you worked your entire life to build your dream and someone else comes along and does it better wouldnt you be mad?@@michaelraymon111

@ArsenTedeev

10 ай бұрын

Interesting fact, Crying child was one of his experiments and he died after Elizabeth. So, it directly means that William already started to kill before any of his kids died. And lol, Henry literally said that everything started since Charlie's death. What can you say about it?

I absolutly love how you explain it, I've seen countless people get agressive or refuse to listen when the topic of William having a motive is brought up. All they ever say is the same "he's crazy and jealous of Henry, that's motive enough" and if you try to continue the conversation they either ignore you and go back to their echo chamber or get needlessly agressive (not all of them but I've seen it happen enough to get this heated about it), and it's refreshing to see someone who agrees with me and can explain it as amazingly as you have

@Astral_Catalyst

10 ай бұрын

I feel like the main issue is just so much of the motive boils down to theories. As in, the best clue we have is that he is a mass murderer, killing multiple children. Any more clarification on that boils into speculation and the like

@anime_world6684

4 ай бұрын

Can’t blame casuals for taking all the information they can get from the creator that fails to convey William aftons motive for everything And for a game with no voice acting, just survive the killer I understand why people assume William is just crazy cause what’s wrong with making a menace worthy serial killer as a character

I saw Aftons line in FFPS more referring to his suit forcing him to go to the location like in Fnaf 3.

I’m glad you got right to the point with the yes he does. I 100% agree, but with Dittophobia I think it’s definitely CC who dies first.

@jadenzombieslayer1569

10 ай бұрын

Wrong

@jadenzombieslayer1569

10 ай бұрын

Elizabeth Afton dies first then Evan afton dies after her death

@D3ZB0T

10 ай бұрын

@@jadenzombieslayer1569 Baby kills Elizabeth, baby cannot exist until Afton knows about remnant. It’s impossible for it to happen before the MCI, which doesn’t happen until after CC and Charlie die. Also, SL takes place after FNAF 1 (this is confirmed by the most recent TFTPP) so there’s no possible way for Elizabeth to die first. Also you opinion is invalid because you called CC Evan which is completely incorrect 💀

@ender01o66

10 ай бұрын

​​@@D3ZB0TAfton knew about Remnant since the MSSF, which occurs before any of the murders. Also, yes, CC is definitely not Evan, a grown man who died in a battlefield.

@michaelraymon111

10 ай бұрын

​@@D3ZB0Tyou are a absolute clown Jesus. A child serial killer doesn't need a cringy motive like revenge. And dittophobia confirms nothing

Just something on Henry, while I don't think he's the best person..I don't think he knows the spirits themselves are aware. By extension this goes for Charlie as well. I believe in the insanity ending..he says "are they still still aware? I hope not" That at least tells me that he really isn't sure if the spirits themselves are still in pain and whatnot.

@amyrodgers4252

10 ай бұрын

He probably doesn't want the spirits to still linger about in pain and just wants them and his daughter to just go to heaven already.

Hmmm, i think personally the biggest point in favour of Charlie dying first is Henrys speech during Fnaf 6; A wound first inflicted on me ...". I've seen people try to read between the lines of this and explain why he's not referring to Charlie but the scene also clearly shows the puppet from the minigame while he says that. edit: actually i was mixing up the visual with the salvage ending and the insanity ending speech disregard that

@ciciinho3968

10 ай бұрын

youre confusing things. the time he said that it was a wound first inflicted on him was in the insanity ending speech, the time minigame puppet appears is in the connection terminated speech.

@raysandrarexxia941

10 ай бұрын

Context for quote: "He lured them all back, back to a familiar place, back with familiar tricks. He brought them all together. Not until I undo what he has done, and heal this wound. A wound first inflicted on me, but then one that I let bleed out, to cause all of this. He set some kind of trap, I don’t know what it was, but he led them there, again. He overpowered them, again. And he robbed them of the only thing that they had, again. I dont know how those tiny breaths of life came to inhabit those machines, but they will never find rest now, not like this. I have to call them all back, all of them, together, in one place." The "wound" is the murders, which excludes CC's and Elizabeths deaths, which means this is not proof of Charlie first.

@synapse6140

10 ай бұрын

a would inflicted on me - referring to charlie, which i then let bleed out - the murders later (henry didn't do enough to stop him then) and the kids then possessing the animatronics. Im sure if you look hard enough you can come with so many ways to interpret these lines but i don't think that's needed at all

@D3ZB0T

10 ай бұрын

He means that Charlie was Afton first kill, not that she was the first death. CC had to have died first for Afton to have a motive to kill Charlie, also the Security Puppet wouldn’t have existed without someone dying/ something bad happening at Fredbears first. It’s obviously not Elizabeth because Baby can’t exist until William knows about remnant, which can’t happen until the MCI, which we KNOW doesn’t happen until 1985, 2 years after CC and Charlie’s deaths. It’s such a brain dead take. Also the newest TFTPP pretty much confirms that CC does first.

@michaelraymon111

10 ай бұрын

​@@D3ZB0Tno he doesn't have to. Stop obsessing with making william tragic character that killed out of revenge. Serial killers don't kill out of revenge you psycho

Maybe the Crying Child was bit but hadn’t yet passed when Charlie dies (as in he’s in the hospital after the bite, but barely clinging to life when Charlie gets killed…) it could be that William just lost control when he attacked Charlie, killing her by mistake when he’d meant to simply hurt her to the extent that his kid was hurt, but went too far out of rage… Thoughts?

@ZirconiaGacha

10 ай бұрын

This is an idea I never thought of. Like, *yes* Charlie dies first, but Crying Child is still dying as we speak. It's a nice middle ground on the argument.

william really needs a clear origin story and motivations, i feel like this is one of the two things that william really lacks in order to be considered a great villain, scott has really gone out of his way to make it clear to us how cruel william is and what He didn't really care much about his children, that's not necessarily bad, I really like the cruel and evil William a lot since the fact that a villain does not have tragic origins does not mean that he is a flat villain, but we really need something to explain how William became the way he is, it would not have to be something tragic, it could be something less dramatic, like the fact that William had traits of psychopaths from a young age, which were never treated together with his fear of death, which would shape his personality and only worsen over time. and some of the events such as the death of his wife or the bite of 83 have only been the straw that broke William's mental health until he no longer contained himself and began to experiment

He should have a motive, imo without one Williams story is pointless

Also some thing that I keep mentioning is The fact that it’s actually implied in ultimate custom night that William created the puppet. Nightmare puppet said “ I am the fearful reflection of what you’ve created” This sentence means that he created the puppet and if that’s true then that means that William created a animatronic to protect Charlie and keep her safe . Also the animatronic design matches it Williams instead of Henry’s and if that’s the case then that means that something had to of changed in William

@BadRozZSFM

10 ай бұрын

Maybe the "you created me" thing is because he technically brought puppet to life by killing Charlie

@michaelraymon111

10 ай бұрын

Just making stuff up now lol

@michaelraymon111

10 ай бұрын

He created the charlie puppet by killing her.

@goblinslayer5383

10 ай бұрын

Right, that’s nightmarionette not the puppet.

@aresrivera9744

10 ай бұрын

@@goblinslayer5383 according to statement he’s just a fearful reflection of the puppet . Which makes sense considering nightmares and fear and trauma are limping together with agony

I think that crying child died first, then william got jealous at henry for having a perfect family and then killing charlie, after he found out that she posseses the puppet now, he started to study remnant and expierementing by killing kids

@jadenzombieslayer1569

10 ай бұрын

Evan afton is his name

@D3ZB0T

10 ай бұрын

@@jadenzombieslayer1569 it’s not. That was deconfirmed idk why tf people still think this shit

@0urple_

10 ай бұрын

@@jadenzombieslayer1569 evan is a name found in one of the books pretty sure, but its not confirmed that its the crying child

@manuelgonzaledominguez1149

10 ай бұрын

Interesting I think if you look at Aftons family it isn't perfect Mike bullying his younger brother. William being annoyed by Elizabeth, and Afton himself being a bit abusive and, being a neglectful father. I also think he was jealous of Henry's success because he made the animatronics he was a more well known owner. While William just made Freddy's into a business he had money he did the bills, and stuff. So I think it's both Henry being a bit of a better version than William.

@D3ZB0T

10 ай бұрын

@@manuelgonzaledominguez1149 no Henry was just as abusive and neglectful, he brings it up in his speech at the end of Fnaf 6, and we see it first hand in the books him yelling at Charlie and breaking her toys

I like to think that if he had some care for his family that have him a motive it's probably gone by the time of FNAF6/FNAF 3. BUT again; if it's true he's the one talking and watching trough the fredbear plush then he knew about Bite Victim's bad situation and extreme fear of the Fredbear Diner...

To answer the question in the title: Yes, he does; or at least he should. I always liked the idea that he didn't start off as evil, I imagined him being a decent guy who got struck with tragedy (CC's death/being badly injured), and started to go downhill from there. Like the "I'll put you back together" line, although delusional, he had good intentions (at first). Just really fucked up means of achieving it. As time went on, it started to be less about "putting together" CC and more about himself, and what he could achieve with his experiments, ultimately becoming evil. A la Walter White. It really flattens his character if he was evil from the start, which really bothers me. Like another comment said, Scott gave William too many traits for just being a crazy serial killer. He tried to protect Elizabeth; told CC he'll "put him back together"; etc. He cared for his family, not in the healthiest way, but still cared. Also, I do believe that Charlie's murder was out of spite/revenge due to what happened to CC; but I don't think CC died first. I imagined that it went down like this: CC gets bitten; gets badly injured -doesn't immediately die - but has to stay in the hospital; William out of revenge/spite goes and kills Charlie; goes back to his house/hospital/workplace whatever; a couple of days pass and CC tragically dies. I always thought that CC's and Charlie's death happened around the same time.

@fakeorchestra4260

10 ай бұрын

I think we cannot call the pre-bite William "decent". I'm pretty sure he was still a bit of a piece of shit, but the more common piece of shit. A person who is absorbed in himself, but not straight up evil. Cares about his family but is still distant, to the point his older son becomes a troublemaker. But then a son he loved dies, and he breaks, all of his narcissistic and borderline sociopathic traits come to light as he goes further and further into evil.

While I don't think he *needs* a motive, I really like to think the death of Crying Child was what caused him to start killing and doing so to "put him back together". From what I can tell, outside of maybe Michael, nothing in the games really suggests he *hated* his children. Distant and neglectful, yes. But no hatred. William as Fredbear Plush shows he does care for Crying Child since he tries to encourage him to be brave and cautious but does it in a way that is sooo father from the 80's (that is, trying to get his son to face his problems through "tough love"). And he tells Elizabeth to stay away from Circus Baby and she even thought he built it for her. Plus, the Puppet makes no appearance whatsoever during the FNAF 4 minigames despite every other animatronic getting some sort of cameo (the Shadows as literal shadows and even freaking Springtrap as a Spring Bonnie plush). The Puppet is one of the most significant characters in the entire series so it really stands out that they just aren't there. I don't think they existed yet.

@damkylan3

10 ай бұрын

Worth pointing out that CC's final death pose looks like the Shadow Puppet in one of the FNAF3 minigames, along with numerous other connections to the Puppet (his tear streaks, his striped shirt, his connection to the OG4 as plushies and "friends"). It's possible he was meant to be the Puppet in some capacity (dream or real) originally. The "Take Cake" minigame does contradict this... unless that wasn't meant to be the Puppet's origin like we thought. Like, the Puppet jumpscare is just its rage regarding a child it couldn't save, or that *you* couldn't save which it tried to get us to do by saying "Save him". Plus, Fredbear Plush obviously wasn't going to be William at the time of 4's release. All of which doesn't matter anymore, of course lol. But your remark about the Puppet's absence just reminded me.

@Takejiro24

10 ай бұрын

@@damkylan3 Oh, I agree. Crying Child was seemingly so telegraphed to become the Puppet. It would have been so much better if he was. But, like you said, there was always the major contradiction with the Puppet's origins in the SAVE HIM minigame. I like your interpretation of how one could reconcile the difference, though.

Steel Wool said that antagonists need a good motive. They aren't born to do evil, something happened. So I'm sure William DOES have a motive. And I think he absolutely needs one. It doesn't necessarily need to be because his kid died, but he needs a motive. He'd be one-dimensional without it. Evil-to-be-evil villains are so incredibly boring. I know people worry that a motive will make him more sympathetic, but.... seriously? Real murderers often have some terrible event they've gone through, yet we don't sympathize with them, so what's the issue? William could've always been a wicked, jealous man, but he just snapped because something that happened.

@hahathatisfunnybro

9 ай бұрын

me personally, i just don't think it makes sense for him to be experimenting with remnant right after Charollets death. like think about it. who is this guy? damn albert wesker from resident evil? i think its stupid to say he was doing it for experiments right from after Charlie. it doesnt make sense until way later in the timeline. like yea i agree he needs a motive, but that doesnt mean it needs to be remnant from the start. and the fact that his motive is not remnant does not mean he has no motive. did Jefferey Dahmer have a motive? yes, his motive was horniness and power. who is to say william doesnt have similar motivations? it kinda tracks for him to get off on killing kids. just look at the big f*ckin smile on his face in the foxy go go go minigame from fnaf 2

@anjelloproductions

6 ай бұрын

Do you remember which interview Steelwool Studios said that? I've been trying to find it. I know I've seen it before tho

I personally think Will's Motive is Ego and Jealousy. Jealousy caused him to end those lives, Jealousy caused him to try and be more successful than Henry, making Afton Robotics. Ego is what made him climb into that faulty springlock suit, Ego is what makes him so eager to brag even when he is at a disadvantage. The murder impowers him, he continues because it makes him feel like he's better than Henry. He doesn't care his family, not anymore. all he cares about now is that he is William Afton, and he WILL always come back. oh, and I know this still has holes. but regardless I think it fits pretty well.

I always preferred the idea that BV/CC died first causing William to kinda spiral, whether William was an okay person prior or not. I didn't know for a while that the theory was unpopular lol (I have another unpopular...well not quite a theory, so whatever is between theory and headcanon, I have one of those, and it seems to be pretty unpopular, but it makes sense to me like this also does)

@FuntimeVictimerFNAF

20 күн бұрын

Say It pls

My headcanon is that Vanessa's family situation parallels the Aftons, William forces his kids to lie during the custody battle after he divorced with his wife, and after she lost the battle, it caused so much grief that it caused Mrs Afton causing to commit suicide, and seeing how William made Ballora in memory of her, i think it's safe to assume this was his "snap", since despite what he did, he probably still cared about her. After seeing the happy family life Henry supposedly had, a drunken, jealous Afton would go on to commit his first murder, with the death of each child being karma for his actions, (CC for Charlie's death, and Elizabeth for the MCI).

4:15 Actually, pretty simple explanation for an alternative... He discovered *THE* Absolute Holy Grail that an *untold* number of people have killed and died for a mere WHIFF of. Immortality. Being able to live on after you should have died. Much like Charlie... (It beats huffing Mercury, for sure) As for 4:54 I DO have to admit, i subscribe to the "killed without a Greater Purpose" theory, although it STILL had a justified reason, rather than "lul ima kill a kid now". CC died first, at the hands of what's likely "Henry's Robot". Henry may not see it that way ("A wound first inflicted upon me"), but William likely did. Either out of hatred, a need to "get even", jealousy, or just having a REALLY bad day (or a mix) combo'd with the stars practically aligning... he catches Charlie as he's leaving work, and kills her in a spur-of-the-moment hot-blooded decision, before dumping her corpse in the alleyway and speeding off. Afterward, the Puppet begins acting Strange. More importantly, it acts like Charlie/reacts to him. This, likely, directly leads into the whole Scientific Research aspect, use the MCI to confirm it WASNT a fluke/is reproduceable how he thinks it is, for example...

My theory is that William began experimenting with remnant after the death of his wife. Something happened that caused him to have an irrational fear of death to the point where begins his experiments with remnant. He creates the funtimes only for one of them to end up killing his daughter. He sees how happy Henry is with his daughter and in a drunken rage William murders Charlie. After this the bite of 83 happens and this is when William fully snaps and completely loses it, murdering many children.

William doesn't need a known motive to kill. I'm leaning towards Charlie dying first. They finding the security puppet beside the body. They fixed the puppet, but they don't act the way they use to. More protective over children and gets aggressive towards adults, very aggressive towards William. They put the puppet away for awhile until they can fix what's wrong. William theorizing that something of Charlie took over the puppet, starts experimenting. Then the events of FNaF 4 happen. Being sure that he can bring him back like Charlie, increases his experiments. Otherwise, how is he sure he can put him back together. Might be wrong but it's a thought.

"title: does afton need a motive?" first 2 seconds: "yes, he does." well that settles that, thank you for keeping things concise. ❤️

Yeah…that’s like what a well written character would have.

Ok about Henry being evil, he put the souls into the Rockstars because they were going to get freed at the end and what's another 5 nights after 4 decades? Henry at the end of FFPS says Michael wasn't intended to be there and there was a way out, him saying this tells me he knows its Michael and why would Michael want to live after all his family is dead and he's permanently a rotting corpse? And about Lefty, it says a steady stream of electricity, not an electric shock. The voltage is high enough to make Charlotte not violent and but low enough to cause damage. If it hurt her, wouldn't we be hearing her screaming or her mention it in FFPS or UCN? But she doesn't, she never shows any signs of being hurt. The only thing I'll say is the Lefty suit itself is pretty cruel but aside from that Charlotte seems to be doing pretty well. The other points could be refuted by William making Henry do it but there's nothing to imply that as far as I'm aware

@runin12

10 ай бұрын

michael wouldnt be a rotting corpse anymore due to remnant, the remnant would of healed his body as if he was a rotting corpse he literally wouldnt of been able to stand up as they scooped out his organs and his literal skeleton. Also its not about a feeling henry 100% knows its michael afton he is working with why wouldnt he?, Also charlotte is not doing well, do you actually know how lefty is designed? the puppets body isnt even wearing lefty like a suit, its literally mangling her inside of it putting the puppets body in an extremely uncomfortable position. and the puppet is most likely not even fully controlling lefty. Henry isnt some good guy, sure he isnt as bad as afton but he literally ran a company were ppl consistently died at but didnt care at all knowing full well the risks and such, he even admits he isnt the best person, ''a wound first inflicted on me, and then one I let bleed out'' key word LET so yeah no matter what way you look at it, henry is not the best person, not at all. And his plan didnt even work, remnant doesnt even burn in fire

@rafsandomierz5313

10 ай бұрын

@@runin12 It wasn't supposed to burn in the fire the temperature hypothesis that William put in his blueprints suggest that temperature would diminish the effects of remnant while also destroying the bodies of animatronics to free the souls.

@mr.monkey354

10 ай бұрын

​@@runin12remnant doesn't burn in fire, it neutralizes it. His plan did work

@runin12

10 ай бұрын

no it didnt, literally no one caught in the fnaf 6 fire died but henry himself, michael is still arguably alive, afton is still alive charlie and elizabeths souls are also probably somewhere else, and if you believed in molten mci, the mci kids are in the blob, so the only one who died was henry himself lol@@mr.monkey354

Micheal has to be one of the earliest victims of this experiment as Micheal would go down to the Bunker and William then would account for this by making the message. Plus William didn't tell Micheal to go down there to begin with, he was just told to help Baby/Elizabeth which can mean William told him when he figured out about Micheal going to the bunker.

Yes, he needs motive, but I don't think we need to know his motive.

As revealed in the new book you mentioned, 10 years after the experiments were abandoned, the funtimes were still there when Rory escaped. This means SL gameplay must happen after fnaf 1, during which Michael has already drawn Fredbear as a nightmare, so he MUST have been in the observation room. Regarding the children deaths, HRY223 implies Charlie died first; but either way, I see no reason why the fredbear plushie would have to be possesed, it's just William talking to his son. And since as soon as CC dies William tells him he'll put him back together, he must already understand remnant; kinda the same for Elizabeth, she was killed by Baby, designed with remnant in mind. It could only be Charlie Lastly, in the books it's shown that William was jelaous of Henry's creations, so he kills Charlie in revenge. I don't see why a person interested in experimenting with remnant would automatically make him a good person with a motive. It's made very clear he's abusive and just killed Charlie out of spite, later to realize the puppet was possesed by Charlie, so he made the funtimes to extract remnant but Elizabeth gets killed and posseses Baby; so William does his best to scare CC and probably doesn't tell Michael so that he won't get scared and will keep scarying CC. Btw, wtf do you mean rockstars MCI 💀, literally explains why you think Charlie wasn't the first

I’ve been dying to see an intro where it immediately answers the question in the title

It had to be crying child. The puppet doesn't even exist in fnaf 4 mini games. Therefore CC died first. Then the puppet and Charlie came after. Therefore his motives started after CCs death and only got into the remnant stuff after puppet started acting strangly.

I like to also think that Henry's springlocks suits were a mistake, remember he also basically kills himself in the end of Pizerria simulator. I think he feels quite a lot of guilt over his actions and wants to atone somehow or at least take responsibility.

I think he first kills Charlie out on hatred towards his old friend Henry, then kills the MCI kids because he’s obsessed with it and then the SL kids because of the fact that he realized remnant was a thing and wanted to become immortal and then he just gave up after getting spring-locked.

6:46 “And to you, my brave volunteer. Who somehow found this job listing not intended for you. Although, there was a way out planned for you,”

Eh. An evil character doesn't need some great motive to be interesting. Some people are just evil.

@D3ZB0T

10 ай бұрын

But then it’s not interesting.

@manuelgonzaledominguez1149

10 ай бұрын

​​@@D3ZB0TNot really some villains with an unknown motive are interesting. Makes us think "Why does this person even do this ?". Not only that but back then when we only had FNAF 1, 2, and 3 Purple guy had no motive he was just a mysterious murderer in Freddy's. Back then Afton was more creepy and mysterious just being a random psychopath killing kids with an unknown motive. I hope in the movie he isn't some tragic villain I hope he is just bad because he is just hiding his identity as Steve Raglan being friendly being the smug career counselor he is. To late be revealed he was the killer all along returning to Freddy's to finish Mike and Abby.

@D3ZB0T

10 ай бұрын

@@manuelgonzaledominguez1149 but he is a tragic villain, he’s not just bad. Also what you’re describing of someone just being evil is not an interesting character. They are literally what is called a “flat” character in writing. Someone who just is, and doesn’t have a motive or anything.

@manuelgonzaledominguez1149

10 ай бұрын

@@D3ZB0T He was never tragic those are just theories or what people think. Nothing is confirmed that he is tragic it's all speculation there is more evidence of him being awful the only evidence of him being good was telling Elizabeth staying away from Circus baby and the "I'll put you back together." That's it the Books, his personality and how there is not that much evidence to point him as a tragic character which ruins him because people will now feel sorry for a man who took the lives of children and the parents suffered more than William. Here is a video that explains it more well. kzread.info/dash/bejne/faGotrWdccrXm8Y.htmlsi=4oaaWS2uNutzhgjJ By: NotRealname NotAtAll

@D3ZB0T

10 ай бұрын

@@manuelgonzaledominguez1149 no it doesn’t ruin it, it makes it better. That is why tragic villains are so great, they create a moral dilemma in the reader that makes them want to feel sorry for the villain, but know they are a horrible person. Yes William was always flawed but he wasn’t a killer or genuinely evil until he lost his son, who he obviously loved, because if he hadn’t he wouldn’t make such a bold promise to “put him back together” he IS a tragic character. Idk why you’re denying it.

Think about a blood twist that William first experiment to him self because why he is purple in the games i know it could be anybody I'm not sure

@rad1165

10 ай бұрын

Yeah I think William did experimented on himself injected himself with immortal remnants souls in the past and all maybe the missing children and experimenting on them to and his own kids experimented on them and made them immortal remnants souls injected it into them in the past and all

You know about the therapy tapes from security breach? You know, where Vanessa explains about her mom killing herself after losing the custody case in the court?? What if, that's what happened to Mrs. Afton, that explains why William decides to kill Henry's Daugther Charlotte, because Henry had a perfect family unlike he's.

@sh1zuh31

10 ай бұрын

Why wouldn't he kill his wife instead? Why continue to kill children specifically, over and over again?

@janrafhael2885

10 ай бұрын

@@sh1zuh31 Apparently he and his wife had a rocky relationship, she plans to divorce him and take custody of their kids, but it fails miserably.

Honestly, Scott should have never made William be the one who started Circus Baby’s pizza world, the Rental bunker or anything Dittophobia related. William was great in the first 3 games, he continuously humiliated his victims even long after their deaths, until he finally ran out of lives. I’m not saying SL never should’ve happened though. Anything Circus Baby related could have started with a man that worked in Fazbear Entertainment who is aware of everything William did and wanted to discover immortality and resurrection of his own child that died to his creation like Elizabeth. That way we have two great antagonists. William being a classic serial killer that doesn’t need a proper motivation, just needs to kill and needs to be good at it. And then we have this other dude who’s mad scientist like ways lead to the death of his daughter and continued on with his experiments on pain, remnant, agony and suffering to bring her back. It would’ve also improved SL itself by indicating it’s in the same timeline as the first 4 games, it’s just telling a different story that happened as an aftermath. Referring to things like the MCI and even though the MCU has nothing to do with the story SL could tell. But no, it all just had to be what we got, it all just had to be William.

“A wound first inflicted on me” implies either Charlie died first or William wasn’t torn up about CC’s death.

@erfanthered9801

10 ай бұрын

Not really, it only implies that Charlie was the first murder. It doesn't have anything to do with the bite of 83 since that wasn't an "inflicted wound" on anyone. It was simply a freak accident where nobody was really responsible. Michael was just a dumb teen who didn't know any better, and William and Henry never expected anyone to get that close to the animatronics when not in suit mode. But every action that William specifically takes *is* an inflicted wound. Whether it be murder, abduction, experimentation etc. The reason TBO83 fits so well as the first death in the series is because it's the only time we see a purely accidental death in the series and it makes perfect sense to be the first incident because it sets both the protagonist Michael and the antagonist William up with proper motivation for every single action they take further down the road.

@Markcrazeer

9 ай бұрын

@@erfanthered9801 yes, but i do think henry in that moment would have taken all the blame and expanded on the line one i let fester. he wasnt there to help wiliam through his grief and so henry lost his daughter. at that moment if henrty had any idea of what and why it happened he would have implied that that so called wound was caused by his negligence in helping his busness partner through the death of his kid, that it was caused by something of his design. no he is absolutley implying charlie was the first domino. not crying child.

He didn’t need a motive until the sci-fi elements were added

Henry is actually good because he's trying to stop william and save the kids that died from william when he stuffed them into the animatronics suits and Henry daughter aka puppet she brings back the kids to alive and make them processed the animatronics suits and wanted to kill william and Henry use Michael Afton to save the kids souls by freeing them burning down animatronics suits during fnaf 6 and stopping william afton aka springtrap by burning him to death

After looking into it, we don't have a motive on why he started all the evens because he likely plan on harming people before any death happen, Springlocks, Baby being worked on shortly after there launch, experiment bedrooms.

That's a good point about Henry creating and allowing the springlocks to be used as long as they were. I hadn't considered that ever before. However, I don't think the other points against him have much merit. Like, not watching his daughter... yeah, that's what happens when you're a working parent lol. It's up for debate if he was a single dad, could/couldn't get a babysitter, blah blah. But what he actually DID was allow his daughter to have fun at a place that kids loved, rather than leave her cooped up at home or force her to sit in the back all night. Which is what non-helicopter parents do at places like that anyway. It was just bad luck that a roving pack of assholes decided to sabotage his protector and lock Charlie out. And the same for shocking the Puppet to "keep her calm"... because that raises the valid question, what happens when she isn't calm? Is she safe? Because she doesn't have a reputation for being safe going by FNAF2. It's actually a bit of a characterization issue whether Charlie is actually more aware than the others, or just as dangerous. Ah, the pitfalls of retcons. Now that said, Lefty is clearly still a threat anyway, so wtf Henry? lol That's also a good point against him, even though Michael was probably like "yeah yeah, I'm used to it". RockstarMCI comes with its own host of issues, but I'm a MoltenMCI believer, so I'll leave that up in the air.

He doesn't need a motive. Most serial killers just kill because of a desire to dominate another person, which ultimately ends up taking shape in the form of taking another person's life. It's explained perfectly in the silver eyes that William spent his entire life fighting like a cornered rat, so now he developed a bitter sadism and wants to dominate others and take their lives in order to feel in control.

EXACTLY!! NOBODY ARE GOOD PEOPLE!!! (expect Evan and Susie)

Yeah, wendigoon had said something like that when he did his FNAF recap and I really gotta agree, giving him a motive only after killing is a little :| for a character but to be fair fnaf does tend to waste characters that could have interesting backgrounds for the sake of putting out more content

1:12 oh actually... I think if that's canon then we know who funtime freddy is possessed by. That's been my only unanswered question recently. Most people (especially if you go by game theory theories) think its the MCI kids. But that just doesnt line up timeline wise. If it is instead this kid, then that makes sense. 6:35 that would make the most sense to me. MCI molten freddy doesnt make very much sense. My only question still remains who funtime/molten freddy is possessed by. We can maybe assume its possible ballora is possessed by ms. afton, nothing confirmed but just kind of the most obvious route. That does leave Foxy if we assume funtime freddy is this Rory.

6:57 I agree and that there are characters in the franchise that aren’t good but are Anti-Afton like Cassidy

and Henry didnt really care about cleaning his restaurant

what if he had a motivation? just not a loss of a child? in matpat's timeline he proposes the idea of jelousy, that William was envious of Henry's creation. And from one of the pizzaplex books (I heavent read it I heard from a youtuber) there was a parralel to Henry being bought out by fazzbear. What if William's jelousy led him to swore that he would completly destroy Henry? Hence buying him out, killing his daughter, and stuffing his first body in one of Henry's creations, Chica... also the later that night or midnight motorist suggests that Charlie died before CC if we belive them to be the Aftons which has the highest probability, therefore CC still being alive after Charlie is dead. I belive that the events unfolded like this: William opens his own restauran where the two main attractions are Golden Freddy and Golden Bonny(being Williams own creation his favourite) After becoming while becoming more and more succesful he overhears some of his guests complaining that Chica is better than the stupid bunny, he learns about Henry's own restaurant, and infuriated he offers to buy him out while not suing for copyright, and even seeing him as a rival he realizes that his animatronics cant compete with Henry's so he offers him a partnership rather. they create the core four and on Henry's notion golden bonny is replaced with blue bonny. All these minor events leave William frustrated with Henry so much that he swears to destroy him. He becomes so obsessed over this that his relationship with his wife becomes so bad they are either living seperatly or even went through a divorce hence her and Elizabeth not being home during midnight motorist. After his divorce he starts frequenting a local pub and drinking. Meanwhile Henry only cares for his daughter, making the puppet to supervize only his children, and making baby(mimic) to play with her. One rainy in late february or early march of 1983 after drinking a lot in JR's he comes to the conclusion that everything bad that happened to him was caused by Henry, he then in his rage stirs trouble at the bar and get's thrown out. William decides he has to get back at Henry, he took his wife, now he also takes something important from him. He remembers that Charlie is currently at the restaurant, hoping he could lure her into the backrooms and kill her and stuff her in chica so that he can send a message to Henry, however he is even luckier when he gets there he sees Charlie locked out of the pizzaria in the back alley, in his drunken rage he kills her, cold bloodedly feeling a bit satisfied, but he soon realized what he did and has to run away, he's speeding back to the bar so that he still may have an alibi, however they don't let him back in, he then drives home. So yeah... I am going to post a full theory on reddit of the time line... so yh if you read this thank you so much^^

ok but if William really wanted to resurrect his son then why didn't he do it if he had the remnant to do it and then what does FNaF World mean if Charlie is not the one who says "I will put you back together"

@sh1zuh31

10 ай бұрын

1. He didn’t understand remnant until around the time he dies 2. She is, but mimics William because it’s the same voice as Fredbear, who he trusts

Yes I think William has a motive multiple motives reasons he is main antagonist character that started the whole FNAF story franchise Afton family ect 👾 but some villains don't have need a motive like William also William always come back because he wanted to accomplish death immortality Remnant souls experiments with it and eternal life live eternity and all because that why he immortal that the whole point of him coming back and Cassidy could be keeping him alive to or he alive cuz of immortal Remnants souls and all like it did for Michael and William to Michael soul is bound to his body like William is also William kill Charlie out of Envy jealousy hate resent of Henry ect and losing have his family made him insane broken losing his two kids and wife and William kill Charlie for her immortal remnants souls and all I heard William fear hell death or doesn't but fear what comes after death he refuses to pass away like Cassidy refuses to back down Because William had a near life death experience with almost getting spring lock or William prefers death and prefers to live in agony Yeah William was trying to achieve immortality he wants death for his plan to work so he immortal and all so he doesn't fear death at all so I'm thinking William went insane after losing two of his children and wife like Henry did after losing Charlie and William could have experimented with immortal Remnant ect on the missing kid and his own kid for immortal to see if it would work if they somehow lived after I mean William was the only one that program circus baby to be violent and did tell Elizabeth not to go near circus baby maybe because he knew she would disobey him and wanted that to see if she somehow lived after or maybe because he wanted to protect her to and he cared about her and it was kinda Elizabeth fault for getting kill but also William to kinda and William could have did something to Fred bear and unscrew the jaw of fredbear and William know about Michael prank somehow and he cause the bite of cc to happen and William put the blame on his son for thinking he did it and wanted to see if cc lives somehow after I mean William did say fascinating what they become so I think that William experimented injected immortal remnants into his kids in the past maybe missing children to because he wanted his kids to be immortal because of the loss of his wife maybe and and for the missing children he wanted to see if they lived after or Michael could have actually killed his own brother two by accident not William somehow because Henry and William probably didn't know that they were going to do the prank and they never thought that somebody crazy would put their own head in animatronics mouth they probably told them not go near the animatronics William Henry did.

Having watched this video and having looked at the comments that agree that Henry is evil I can safely say that you're all starting to sound like Blackfootferret. If you don't know Blackfootferret has a theory that Henry is more evil than William because he is the one running Fazbear Entertainment. What do you think of the fact that you and some of those who have commented on this video share an opinion with Blackfootferret?

I don't think he needs a motivation but i will say i know people think that most villains now should actually be evil instead of having some reason to be bad but i think William can have a motivation he doesn't need one but idc if he does i mean losing a child even if you don't really care about them is for some people still really hard i also think that charlie dies second too but in the case of an actual murder i don't think he was drunk that would be the only slight defense he would have but I don't think so i also think cc being the player in fnaf 4 was never a recon or anything like that i mean tbf micheal doesn't need to be the player at all for him to see anything especially knowing he probably lived in that house anyway so him seeing something would still be a big possibility especially if he actively possibly went hunting for it also with henry i honestly agree i think he's more sane yes but a good guy that's very debatable i feel like the security puppet if he couldn't watch charlie often shouldn't have been so easily trapped under a box and him literally technically hiding the deaths of multiple people in general is enough to say he's not that great like i said losing a kid is hard but that doesn't give him the right or even defense of doing nothing like at all he probably could have even went to charlie instead of trapping her in lefty she was perfectly aware of her situation as stated in ucn plus remember she stuck around not just to stop Afton but to also save other kids debatable if those kids were the funtimes or not but even still she probably has way more work to do and henry just decided one day "im gonna shock my child kill the murderer and burn down a building that could possibly burn down other things in the process"

don't forget me bruh i've been here since before 1000

He's sadist

The crying child name is Evan afton

I think Yes William have multiple motives reasons we don't know if he does or not Also most villains don't have to have a motive at all like William also William is manipulative ect And plotting out plans because he wanted to accomplish immortality and all but I think he does I think CC dies second before Charlie because Elizabeth dies first to before Charlie so William killed Charlie after they died William was jealous and envy obsessed ect with Henry I think William had journals of Henry it like a Elizabeth and Charlie situation in the book William so since I can't have any kids I might as well take yours out instead to So I think William killed Charlie because he was jealous angered envy and driven insane he was broken that he lost two of his kids and wife he thought this is unfair that William got his kids tooken away and wife and Henry gets to have this perfect good life like William always wanted you know it's like Elizabeth wants to be Charlie because she's jealous ect in the books but also William kill Charlie for her immortal remnants souls and all because William wanted to accomplish immortality that why he a villain I do have a feeling that what about he killed Charlie after he lost two of his kids and William was driven insane broken or what about he killed Charlie because of Elizabeth because he told her not to go near circus baby he cared about his daughter I mean he wouldn't tell Elizabeth if he was a psycho to not go near circus baby he cared about his daughter William did William cared about his only daughter because it reminded him of the wife I think but wait CC could have died first and Elizabeth died second and that driven him insane cuz Elizabeth could have been in a room with William or somewhere else and all also William is the main character antagonist main horror attraction William Afton started the whole FNAF story lore franchise Afton family ect and all so he does have motive but I really don't think a villain really needs a motivation like William. William is like a slasher like Micheal Myers Ghostface Jason Voorhees ect His other motives for killing was him getting a laugh thrilled enjoyment and suffering out of it ect cuz he's a maniac psychopath sadistic serial killer he likes to suffer he likes others to suffer to like the pain also I think he planned his kids death to make them immortal remnants souls and all after his wife died or something?? Also William had a near-death experience with a spring-lock suit and Henry saved him and maybe that's why he wanted to accomplish immortal remnants souls and all so his kids would be immortal and him to also the missing children so maybe William wanted to make everyone immortal remnants souls kids Missing children because he experimented on them and wanted to see if it would work if they lived a long time maybe he wanted to make the missing children and his own kids himself have eternal life live eternity forever immortal remnants souls and all? Also William wanted to make his family immortal and himself and missing children and he experimented tested immortal remnants on them himself his family to see if they would live or not so he was trying to achieve immortality as his goal.

Midnight M supports the idea of the crying child dying first, with there being a dirt mound grave near their home despite the fact he never took Charlie’s body and it taking place right after killing her. If she’s Williams first kill as confirmed by Henry, then it can’t be another victim either. Also, his son (some thought to be the crying child) broke out and was lured by an animatronic as seen by the footprints, but if Charlie is the only one possessing an animatronic at this point then who’s footprints would match the description? Not only that, but William (as yellow guy) mentions he’s done this multiple times, which meant he had to have done this before Charlie’s death as well. It makes more sense it’s micheal lured by the crying child in golden Freddy.

@jadenzombieslayer1569

10 ай бұрын

Actually the first afton that died was elizabeth afton because in sisters location she dies first and she processes circus baby in fnaf 4 when your at the mini game when you are at your house the empty room with the mangle plushie and painting of flowers that's her room

@jadenzombieslayer1569

10 ай бұрын

Evan afton dies second by a prank by his older brother Michael Afton by shoving his head into fredbear

@legalza0843

10 ай бұрын

@@jadenzombieslayer1569 I can’t see Elizabeth dying first because that would mean killer animatronics were built before William even knew that possession of animatronics was possible.

@jadenzombieslayer1569

10 ай бұрын

@legalza0843 well sisters location is way before fnaf 4 because william owned circus baby pizza world because it got closed down after the death of children and elizabeth afton death in fnaf 4 after her death william his 2 son's with him that are still alive and william works at fredbears family diner after circus baby pizza world shutdown

@jadenzombieslayer1569

10 ай бұрын

@@legalza0843 and william made circus baby into his killing machine

The puppet is Henry daughter Charlotte

And Fredbear Is Cassidy

the current day take of making Henry out to be evil is dumb

@user-gd4fu3sf5i

7 ай бұрын

I mean considering he's willing to literally lobotomize Mike for finding out his plans early doesn't exactly scream "Heroic Guy"

@FuntimeVictimerFNAF

20 күн бұрын

Makes him more interesting for me at least

nice

Oh no! B7-2 SPOILERS

Wrong elizabeth wanted to be near and play with circus baby and william was trying protect her and saying his daughter elizabeth that circus baby is dangerous which she is because william made circus baby into a killing machine

@sh1zuh31

10 ай бұрын

?!? Who are you arguing with?

@justapotato1623

10 ай бұрын

​@@sh1zuh31his demons

What's rockstar mci?

@sh1zuh31

10 ай бұрын

In the files of FNAF AR, there is a list of scrapped “fazfacts” which confirm dates like 1993, as well as Springlocks being the first suits. It states that the Rockstar Animatronics were created from the “originals”. The souls are still in them, allowing them to burn without being in molten Freddy

@ArtieFNAF

10 ай бұрын

​@@sh1zuh31It's actually not like that. Faz-Fact only mentions that Rockstar Bonnie was based on the original Bonnie, which makes us think that Rockstar Bonnie has more similarities to the Original Bonnie in terms of visuals.

@sh1zuh31

10 ай бұрын

@@ArtieFNAF The word used is not “based on”. It’s “developed”. What a weird word to use for inspiration rather then remaking.

Long story short Its Elizabeth And that new fnaf book is not to be trusted

@D3ZB0T

10 ай бұрын

I disagree 100% it wouldn’t make sense for Elizabeth to die first. Also Dittophobia can 1000% be trusted because TalesGames is confirmed. CC died first, and that was Williams motive for everything else. It makes the most sense and makes the narrative come together to make a story that isn’t just 1 dimensional

@noobhabs5884

10 ай бұрын

@@D3ZB0T Charlotte dies on the fourth night of fnaf 4 so CC wasn't the first even if Elizabeth was still alive by 1983 wich she wasn't.

@D3ZB0T

10 ай бұрын

@@noobhabs5884 dawg what are you on? Where did you get this information? We know that she dies outside of Fredbears, but the security puppet is inside, which we DO NOT see in the Fnaf 4 minigames. It has to happen after, plus there is no reason for a security puppet until someone dies. Also, elizabeth dies to Baby, who wouldn't be created unless William knew about renmant, which again, couldn't happen until the MCI. Dittophobia again shows us this, because it confirms SL comes after fnaf 1

Didn't William kill Charlie because he was jealous of Henry. Wasn't he abusive and neglectful towards his children. Not all villains need a motive to be evil they can be evil and be interesting. William is just a neglectful father and is just a business man who made Freddy's a business then later becoming a killer.

@Remisaku

10 ай бұрын

William is not interesting anymore lol

@sh1zuh31

10 ай бұрын

His only time (excluding Micheal because he yk, killed CC) being "abusive" was after Charlie's death, because he already had a motivation at that point, that being immortality, yk like I mentioned in the video? And what does he have to be jealous of?

@WilliamAfton-py3go

10 ай бұрын

@@Remisaku Haha who said you were interesting to you're not interesting anymore to you annoying brat.

@rad1165

10 ай бұрын

Yeah William was jealous and Envy and had a healthy obsession with Henry because he wrote journals about him I heard and all it's like the Charlie and Elizabeth situation in the books they both represent their dad and William killed Charlie to because he need her immortal remnants souls for immortality because he wanted to accomplish immortality Remnant souls Eternal life and all William has multiple reasons.

donttry208 doesnt deserve that pin 😒

Chica was the first

@sh1zuh31

10 ай бұрын

... MCI victim. You're right!

Lol

1:44 Dream Theory was first created during the production of Sister Location, through SL's teaser game's teasers- Plus Scott has gone on record to say that he had planned Sister Location since FNaF 2, and is why there's Sister Location endoskeleton wires in the previous games- While Dream Theory was popular, it was never once canon. Scott even addressed this is his retcon post, where he mentions there was a small retcon that no one had noticed, not a very noticeable and popular idea such as Dream Theory, with Scott also comparing it to Kane Carter's Adult Theory, which was created alongside Dream Theory, due to it being equally as ridiculous. Scott has also constantly made fun of Dream Theory and how stupid it is since its conception. While FNaF does contain some plot points that contain dreams and dream-like VR situations, the actual Dream Theory is incorrect. 3:06 I don't recall William possessing the Marionette... 3:22 Because the FNaF 4/World final speaker never talks through the plush? If you insist they must, then so must Michael by this logic- Plus the plushies shown aren't literal, they represent his memories of his friends fading, so if you insist the final speaker must be talking from the plush, then it'd be Cassidy speaking instead. The Crying Child also fades, as he loses the memories he has of himself, only leaving him as the Shadow. 3:25 I don't recall Henry possesing the fire that killed him and becoming a fire spirit... Or Phone Guy possesing Fredbear and becoming the second coming of Golden Freddy... Plus, most of the spirits either never fully died, or were dead but brought back by Remnant which bound them to the animatronics. Plus, we're told spirits can transfer into different bodies in the games, so there's that too- And none of the humans killed by the Mimic possessed it at all. 3:53 The footprints match those of the stitched Bonnie costume, which contains no springlocks. Plus, they're specifically made by a being who can teleport who can actually interact with their environment, unlike a ghost. 3:57 The one who kills the kids is the Dark Remnant Entity within Spring Bonnie, who needs to create more Dark Remnant via killing vulnerable kids in the most agonising ways possible. It's literally the most primal of motivations, if you don't want to die, capture your prey and eat it. Whist also finding a way to live forever. It's simple, yet effective. 5:12 Indeed, William is an interesting character, weather he was a good person and father or not before he's manipulated into throwing it all away is fascinating. He really reminds me of Nox from Wakfu in that regard. It's also interesting how Henry would later end up doing something similar, following in William's footsteps, making similar mistakes. 6:05 The Safe room is just a back up room for a springlock failure, and isn't the main bleed-out room.

@brianco28

10 ай бұрын

i'm not sure where you got that scott planned sister location since fnaf 2, but that's, like, verifiably not true. scott's said multiple times that fnaf 4 was supposed to be the final game. it was advertised as the final chapter and was followed by a "thank you!" image on his website. one which, when he was giving hints about the lore, said "four games one story." which is pretty blatantly saying that the four games were supposed to tell a concrete story, no sister location needed. whether dream theory was intended or not is up to you -- but it's clear fnaf 1-4 was meant to be it.

@burner555

10 ай бұрын

There's no way SL was planned since 2

@ender01o66

10 ай бұрын

@@burner555 They're Scott's words, not mine, he lists off elements of the future games he was planning to make after FNaF 2 (not FNaF 1, as he hadn't realised how popular FNaF would become). With him deciding the basics of FNaF 5 during FNaF 2's creation, such as the sci-fi setting, including the use of the "SL" wires (which are used in FNaF 1-3), and that the main colour should be purplish.

@ender01o66

10 ай бұрын

@@brianco28 Please watch Dawko's Scott interview... And, no, the "Four games. One story." is Scott's response to FNaF 2 being a dream, that even if FNaF 2 was a dream, it's still an important piece in solving the story of FNaF 1-4 (and yes, it confirms FNaF 2 was a dream had by Mike after being stuffed inside Freddy after the first game, lol) And guess what, these teasers were made during the development of FNaF 5... soo, it has nothing to do with the story being complete or not, just that FNaF 2 is required to solve the lore of FNaF 1-4, wheras it's not important to solve FNaF 5, especially since you can go into FNaF 5 without playing any of the previous games, while mostly understanding everything being told to us. As for the phrase "Thank You", he made a post of the same name recently, I guess the movie is cancelled 😔

No, Fnaf 4 was never a retconned and Dream Theory was NEVER a canon

@sh1zuh31

10 ай бұрын

Scott has confirmed FNAF 4 was a retcon????

@sebastianszyrwinski9325

10 ай бұрын

@@sh1zuh31 No?

@sh1zuh31

10 ай бұрын

@@sebastianszyrwinski9325 Yes, he did. www.reddit.com/r/fivenightsatfreddys/comments/6y0qb1/the_retcon_issue/

@sebastianszyrwinski9325

10 ай бұрын

@@sh1zuh31 This is not a retcon, whose Scott telling

William would have a Motive for Charlie tho Jealousy

@sh1zuh31

10 ай бұрын

Jealous of what?

@GJMinions

10 ай бұрын

@@sh1zuh31 Henry this was already is motive Willys motive in the novels

Bro i swear that the MCI is first in the timeline. It explains everything as long as u take the exact dates in the books as not 1 for 1

@sh1zuh31

10 ай бұрын

Henry states "a wound first inflicted on me" and given yk even if CC dies first, would Henry really consider his daughters death justified? Why mention how "oh yeah, his son died first tho" in a moment thats not about him and making him look good. He was an evil being killed from their perspective.

@KanderUdon

10 ай бұрын

@@sh1zuh31 i mean, you can favor cc or charlie dying first but if the mci is before both it explains plush fredbears warnings, MM, the security puppet, and the sound illusion disks

a pin would be nice please

@gaminganimators7000

10 ай бұрын

No you don't deserve it