What Exactly Happened in Five Nights at Freddy's 4?

What Exactly Happened in Five Nights at Freddy’s 4?

Many a FNAF fan rejoiced when the fourth instalment of this devious franchise was released early. Many of these same fans then finished rejoicing after they’d experienced the game and sat with a confused look on their face, myself very much included in that. Being the last instalment meant many were expecting some answers to the many questions. What we got however was more questions, however Scott Cawthon has said himself he’s happy with the game and the Halloween dlc won’t be adding to the story so somewhere in there are the answers. Time to try and find them.

 

Any time when discussing FNAF 4 there’s always something looming overhead which I’ll get out of the way. Fredbear and his chomp on the child’s head, is this the famous bite of 87. Short answer no … I think. Even when I first saw the night 5 cut scene my eyebrows were raised, I thought something wasn’t quite right and there’s a lot of evidence saying that this cannot be the bite. Firstly and most obviously the child dies after night 6. We hear the heart monitor flat line which surely means the child’s death. Phone Guy tells us on night 1 in FNAF 1 (The only mention of the bite throughout the series interestingly) that the victim survives. FNAF 1’s year is vague but it is later than 1987. The child could have been in a coma (Although phone guy never mentioned this) for all that time and eventually passed after FNAF 1 but this seems unlikely.

 

There’s more too, the bite has to have taken place before FNAF 2 due to the presence of Fredbear and Spring Bonnie. However this isn’t possible due to one more damming piece of evidence. The bite of 87 is the reason animatronics cannot walk around during the day as said by phone guy on night 1 of FNAF 1. Fredbear bites the child while on stage performing (Not moving around) and in FNAF 2 phone guy tells us the animatronics can walk around during the day meaning this ‘bite’ cannot take place before FNAF 2.

 

I’ve seen many theories where people try to prove loopholes to make this event the bite of 87. There are many theories like this out there, saying that maybe the child died after FNAF 1 or that Phone Guy in FNAF 1 said that people can live without a frontal lobe and didn’t actually specifically refer to the victim and they can walk around in FNAF 2 because they’re toy animatronics. They’re well put together and interesting theories and they had me believing something like this to when I started putting this together put unfortunately I just don’t think it’s possible. Maybe it was the intention for this to be the bite of 87 but it’s just not possible when following the events of the previous games.

 

So what did we actually see? A spring lock failure is what springs to my mind. Terrible puns aside we already knew there was an incident with “multiple and simultaneous spring lock failures”. The bite in FNAF 4 fits the description and also explains how the purple man wore the spring Bonnie suit safely for all that time, the problem was with Fredbear. However if this is the case and this was the reason the spring suits we stopped being used by the pizzerias then what happened to this child. From the night 6 cut scene in FNAF 4 it seems highly probable he became a recurring figure in the series. There are multiple theories. Firstly and perhaps the obvious idea is Golden Freddy due to the Fredbear plush and obvious link to Fredbear in general. The problem with this is Golden Freddy was bought to life by the Puppet as seen in the FNAF 2 mini game Give Gifts, Give Life. The Puppet is strangely not in FNAF 4 (Although I think he’s in the locked chest) and it’s the Fredbear plush that is scene saying he’ll put the child back together. Even this however is not cut and dry as it could be the older brother saying this to the child who is at this point slipping away for good.

 

So maybe this child is the Puppet? The problem with this is the Take Cake mini game in FNAF 2 where we see a crying child being murdered followed by a jump scare by the Puppet. I think we all agree this is the first event we know of in the timeline (When else could it be) and if the Puppet ins’t being created here why the jump scare. Some think this is Fredbear being created and not the puppet but I do not believe this to be true and the proof lies in Golden Freddy.

 

Are Golden Freddy and Fredbear the same entity? Sort of but not really. Fredbear is a physical animatronic as we know but notice how we never see the physical animatronic after the event we see in FNAF 4. Instead we get Golden Freddy who can go through closed doors and seemingly teleport. He’s been speculated to be a hallucination in the past but I think he’s a ghostly entity. The Puppet in the Give Gift mini games is seen putting the bodies in the suit but we don’t see this with Golden Freddy and the fifth child. What happened I think is the dead child’s soul was bought to life in the form of a ghostly version of Fredbear that we all know as Golden Freddy. Watch the Give Gifts mini game this is clearly what happens.

 

Another issue I’ve had with placing this child as an animatronic is that the animatronics all want revenge on the man that murdered them right? Isn’t this why they attack night guards in the first place. Remember what phone guy said in FNAF 2, they react to the kids’ just fine but when they encounter an adult they just stare. The FNAF 4 child has no reason to attack adults and night guards after being killed by Fredbear but due to the final cut scene we know he’s likely around somewhere as an animatronic. The answer I think lies in Nightmare, the brand new animatronic. It’s a dark version of Fredbear which sounds awfully familiar. FNAF 2 has a dark version of Golden Freddy, the infamous Shadow Freddy. Shadow Freddy doesn’t kill the Night Guard, he sits around in the parts and services room and leads Animatronics to purple guy which leads to the children’s souls being released.

 

In my previous theory (Which is linked below, a lot of it still holds strong) I suggested Shadow Freddy and Bonnie were early renditions of phantoms. Where my new idea leaves shadow Bonnie is unknown to me but I think most logical evidence points towards the child in FNAF 4 becoming Shadow Freddy.

 

So who actually was this child before his unfortunate demise? Many have suggested he’s purple guy’s son and there is evidence to support this. We know purple guy works at the pizzeria (we see him helping someone into Spring Bonnie in what looks like a safe room. This would explain how the child keeps ending up at the pizzeria, how he has all the toys and how he has access to the mangle in the other room. The house layout is also very similar to the office and corridors in FNAF 1 and the pizzeria we see in the game I think was before the one in FNAF 2 opened which happens to be the same building used in FNAF 1.

 

The problem with this I have is how the Purple Man murdered the children for the revenge of the death of his younger son. Firstly, his older son was one of his children, if he cares so much about his child to murder in revenge why would he actually kill another child of his own. Secondly, the murder in the Take Cake mini game has a child completely unrelated to that incident so why murder that child (This murder took place before the events of FNAF 4) and finally more murders appear to take place in FNAF 2 which would mean the purple man continued murdering children after taking revenge.

 

There’s one more point I wanted to discuss, the Fredbear Plush. At first I thought it was an imaginary friend type thing as it spoke to the child but as the game went on it seemed very apparent it was possessed. The question is possessed how or by who. The only answer I can come up with is it’s the Puppet talking to the child through this plush. However I admit that is a bit of a stretch as is quite a lot of this theory, honestly I’m still not sure if I missed something that proves Fredbear’s bite was actually the bite of 87. For the record I’m not claiming this is a bite of 83 rather that it was a spring lock failure took place at some point.

 

So that’s what I’ve got, I’m working on a complete timeline so if you enjoyed this look out for that and if you think I’m wrong tell me why, I doubt anyone could figure out this lore without help. Finally check out the previous theories linked below for the identity of the purple guy, on that FNAF 4 changes nothing.

 

http://thecoolstuffblog12.blogspot.co.uk/2015/06/what-exactly-happened-in-five-nights-at.html

(Part 1)

 

http://thecoolstuffblog12.blogspot.co.uk/2015/06/what-exactly-happened-in-five-nights-at_11.html

(Part 2) 
 
 
 
https://www.facebook.com/pages/Thecoolstuffblog12/1807956062763462

Which is the Best Mass Effect Game?

Which is the Best Mass Effect Game?

The Mass Effect trilogy is one of the most well know, well-loved and arguably best trilogy’s in gaming. There are many high points throughout all three games but I’m asking the question which is best? I’ll put it down to categories to find the best Mass Effect game in my own humble opinion.

 

Plot.

It’s important to understand what plot actually is as it is pretty confusing. The plot is the events that make up the story and these events will relate in a sequence to create the story. This isn’t the same as premise which is the idea of what is going to happen. So with that in mind we can quickly eliminate ME2 from this category as thinking about it, it barely even has a plot.  The premise is to stop the Collectors but the events don’t really lead up to this ultimate goal. The side stories with the characters and loyalty missions are interesting but don’t build up to the Collector threat in any way.

 

So we have ME1 and ME3 and personally I think ME1 has a better plot. ME1 certainly has the most coherent narrative of the trilogy and while ME3 has the more epic and emotional moments ME1 has the events build on top of each other to build the plot and impact the characters. I also think the twists work better in ME1 and I’d be remised to not mention that infamous ME3 ending. So the winner here is ME1.

 

Protagonist.

Which game did Shepard the best? I understand he/she is a blank slate to project ourselves onto but I’d argue the character still needs to grow as a result of the experiences throughout the trilogy. ME2 Shepard doesn’t really grow at all and as I said earlier is not really relevant to the plot. So once again I’m left with ME1 and ME3.

 

ME3 is interesting as we do get to experience Shepard’s loss of sanity at parts of the games through his stresses and pressures of what he’s doing. The dream sequences in particular appear to focus on this but the interactions with characters on the Normandy (the one where Shepard snaps at Joker stands out to me) show how he’s being affected by what’s going on. ME1 also does well with Shepard as this game really makes us feel the progression of the character from soldier to Spectre and then throughout the plot. This was a tougher one to call but again I think I’ll need to go with ME1 as I think Shepard has more relevance on the Plot in ME1 than in ME3.

 

Side Characters.

It probably sounds like I’m just going to say ME1 is better in every way, maybe say that the second 2 games are just pandering to the filthy casuals who have the nerve to play the games the hard-core and far superior gamers like. Yes that was a joke and ME2 wins this category without question. All three games are excellent in this category but I feel that ME2 was the one where they got the most focus and development, especially through loyalty missions for the squad mates.

 

I liked the characters in ME1 but I didn’t find myself getting really attached until ME2. You deal with things that are far more personal in ME 2 and as a result these characters begin to feel far more real. ME3 meanwhile has those characters return but you were already so invested because of ME2.

 

There are anomalies of course, a lot of these characters weren’t even in ME1 and the first game had squad mates that weren’t accessible in ME2. The difference is I found the plot more interesting than side characters in ME1 while in ME2 the side characters and their stories could easily make their own game.

 

Visuals.

I don’t mean graphics when I say visuals, I mean which game had the most interesting environments and style. ME1 had an interesting style with its grainy look to make it look like an old Sci-Fi television show. ME 2 and 3 meanwhile discarded the grainy look and overall went for brighter colours.

 

ME1 has the advantage of having all those worlds to explore in the Mako, the issue however is they pretty much all looked the same. ME2 had the most interesting locations to explore with the Citadel, Omega and Illium. ME3 only had the Citadel while ME1 meanwhile also had multiple explore able worlds with the likes of Noveria. For the places you visit and the ones I remember most I’m giving this one to ME2 for having the most interesting visual locations.

 

Emotional Impact.

Which game got those feels going? Well in all three games characters can die and they all have monumental choices to make. All three have emotional impact but really ME3 cannot be matched in this regard. This game had some of the saddest deaths I can think of in my time gaming, Not just individual deaths impact you either, everything is on such an enormous scale and worlds being destroyed and possible extinction is something that really has Shepard on edge.

 

The sad moments are big but the lighter moments can but just as emotional. Chances are if you’re playing ME3 you enjoy the camaraderie and friendship between characters and moments like shooting bottles with Garrus can be just impactful as any other. These games make you feel like you’re really attached to these characters and moments like this really highlight that so without doubt ME3 wins this one.

 

Gameplay.

These are games so gameplay is important. The shooting element is obviously important in a game where you shoot bad guys and ME3 naturally has the best shooting mechanics. They refined the shooting in ME2 which has already refined the shooting in ME1 and added some good new features such as the ability to roll and the improvement to the melee system. I also thought ME3 had the best level design in terms of what you had to do as you played through. The focus on verticality was nice as it made the levels feel less like walking from shooting gallery to shooting gallery and put greater emphasis on a tactical approach. Despite the occasional turret section ME3 combat was best without doubt.

 

ME3’s gameplay falls down with the more auto dialogue included in the game however. ME2 was better in this regard I felt as was ME1 however the interrupt system makes me prefer ME2 as you can impact conversations in more proactive ways. Overall though ME3 didn’t have so much auto dialogue that it made the game feel like I wasn’t contributing and having less focus on the paragon/renegade system was a positive so this category is ME3’s.

 

Verdict.

This blog post hasn’t been very conclusive has it? Each game has won 2 categories and I genuinely didn’t plan it like that. Maybe I could do more categories but I think what it shows is it depends on what matters most to you in a game. My personal favourite is ME3 but a strong argument could be made for any game in the series. I guess that makes sense really, it’d explain why the series is so popular with such a large range of gamers and why people cared so much about controversies such as the ending. If nothing else it proves gaming can tell epics as well as anything else if you’re dumb and still won’ believe it so that’s something.

 

 

https://www.facebook.com/pages/Thecoolstuffblog12/1807956062763462

Was Patrick Star secretely a Sociopath?

Was Patrick Star secretly a Sociopath?

SpongeBob Square Pants was a happy childhood show of mine. I was blissfully unaware of what was going on back then and while I missed many adult jokes including a scene of SpongeBob watching sea urchin porn and a joke about prison rape looking back I can laugh at how this stuff was put in such a show. Some things are not a laughing matter however, this thing being the monster that is Patrick.

 

First things first in the title I used the word sociopath for a reason. The reason I use sociopath is because I think Patrick has antisocial personality disorder which means the person has a long term pattern of manipulating, exploiting or violating the rights of others. Let’s take a closer look at Patrick and prove this accusation.

 

First things first Patricks’ most defining characteristic is stupidity. Sure there was a time where you could describe it as charming and often it wasn’t particularly destructive. The key thing here is manipulation is clearly mentioned in the definition of antisocial personality disorder. Someone with this disorder would manipulate people into believing they’re harmless and what they’re doing has no malicious intent.

 

That being said maybe things are more questionable when Patrick becomes malicious, destructive cruel. I’m going to discuss a few examples although it should be noted that I could never possibly go over every example of Patrick’s monstrosities in one blog post. I will talk about what I think are some of the worst however starting with an episode I actually remember disliking for its mean spirited nature as a child, I’m With Stupid. As an adult I like to over analyse everything and look into connotations and implications of everything but as a child I was kind of easily pleased and hence an episode that bugged me back then shows the evil intentions of Patrick.

 

The episode starts with Patrick preparing for his parents coming over. He’s worried because they think he’s stupid so SpongeBob offers to act stupid to make Patrick look better. This starts off okay but eventually Patrick supposedly forgets (Although could purposefully be ignoring) that SpongeBob is just acting. The levels of verbal abuse thrown at SpongeBob, Patricks supposed best friend aren’t funny and are kind of uncomfortable to watch. SpongeBob eventually snaps and runs away and some strange ending happens where these aren’t Patrick’s real parents. The important thing however is Patrick gets away with all his bullying towards SpongeBob free of any consequence or repercussions.

 

My next example is another episode I remember from when I was younger, Valentine’s Day. Patrick thinks SpongeBob hasn’t got him a present despite the fact that he gave SpongeBob a broken up rock and the gift is on its way Patrick goes insane and threaten innocent civilians and nearly destroys an amusement park. He threaten random people because he can’t get what he wants. Guess what, at the end he gets his gift and faces no consequences.

 

There’s one more example that I want to talk about, it’s an episode called Karate Star. As the title suggests Patrick learns karate and becomes an expert as he can karate chop through anything. Naturally he nearly destroys the town but this is not the worst part. He walks over the pram with an infant inside and if he had not been stopped by SpongeBob would have murdered a baby. HE NEARLY MURDERED A BABY! Later on he apparently feels guilty and it’s supposed to be redeemable. I’ll repeat, we’re supposed to accept his redemption AFTER HE NEARLY MURDERED A BABY!

 

Those are three big examples and believe me there are many more. I know what you’re thinking (Yes I can read minds) you’re thinking that Patrick is just stupid and doesn’t realise what he’s doing. I’d argue that this shows he has no concept of right and wrong and simply does what he pleases out of selfish desires but the argument that he’s really that stupid is just as valid … if it wasn’t for one more episode called the card. In this episode Patrick has a valuable trading card SpongeBob wants. At one point Patrick walks into goo lagoon with the card and SpongeBob lifts up Patrick too keep the card undamaged. Afterwards SpongeBob asks why Patrick walked into the lagoon. Patricks reply says it all, he says SpongeBob you can’t always expect my usual brand of stupidity, I like to mix it up, keep ye on yer toes. He’s fully aware of how stupid he acts, it’s all a ruse.

 

I think this proof is blatant of Patrick’s intentions, he causes destruction and misery because he wants to. His stupidity has been a façade all along to allow him to get away with his malicious acts. I don’t think there’s any doubt he’s a sociopath. Of course some of you are thinking that I’m taking this kids cartoon too seriously. It’s not like you need to put effort in during a Kids Cartoon right? Wrong, kid’s television can really influence a child, after all children watching SpongeBob can often be at an age where they are innocent and easily influenced. A good morale with characters they can relate to is important as cartoons can be a good way to teach children important lessons in a fun and colourful way. Having a character act selfishly is fine as long as it is portrayed as wrong and they face consequences for what they’re done.

 

You’ll often hear people say something along the lines of “it’s just a kids show, you don’t really need to try”. Patrick was a loveably stupid character at first but whether it was intentional or not he became a sociopath and he’s now a very evil man … Star. Is this what we should be showing our kinds, the attempted murder of a Baby, I’ll let you make up your own mind on that.

 

 

 

https://www.facebook.com/pages/Thecoolstuffblog12/1807956062763462

Anyone else remember the Big Al game on the BBC website

Anyone else remember the Big Al game on the BBC website

So recently I was shockingly at a friend’s house and we were looking for something to do after playing many hours of Mass Effect 3’s multiplayer. Suddenly we remembered a brilliant little game on the BBC’s website about Al the Allosaurus. We went onto the internet, found the link and discovered it had been replaced by a boring game where you out a tree on the floor and then come back later to see if your Dinosaur has eaten it. Today I will reminisce about Big Al and hopefully someone from the BBC will see this and bring Big Al back. That’s likely right? Maybe …

 

 

Big Al was created in order to promote The Ballad of Big Al, a special episode of Walking with Dinosaurs. It was a text adventure/Role Playing type game where you play as Al, a baby Allosaurus newly born into the late Jurassic period. The premise was simple, survive and live the life of an Allosaurus.

 

At the start of the game you’re in a nest. You then need to go and find food you can hunt. Naturally as a baby you cannot be hunting big dinosaurs straight away but after you start hunting small insects you move onto bigger and bigger animals until you get big enough to leave the starting area and attempt to cross the river to where the big Jurassic dinosaurs live like Stegosaurus and Diplodocus (If you were thinking T-Rex when I mentioned Jurassic dinosaurs then you go to the back of the class). Chances are you’ll eventually die of starvation but the games aren’t long enough to make starting again feel like a chore.

 

My memories of the exact game mechanics are a bit hazy as it’s been so long since I played it but I remember them being easy to use and pick up. It wasn’t a long game but was highly replay-able and an excellent time filler and it would’ve been fun to play now. So where has it gone?

 

The BBC for some strange reason has taken the Big Al game away and made it completely inaccessible to anyone wanting to play it. The Planet Dinosaur game that has replaced it is by contrast a dull program (I don’t want to say game) where you pick a dinosaur and check on it every few hours. Instead of the genuinely difficult and engaging Big Al game we have a boring thing where we watch a dinosaur walk up and down.

 

Did you ever play the Big Al game when it was still available and what did you think of it. Finally are you a member of the BBC? If yes do what should be done and bring Big Al back to us.

https://www.facebook.com/pages/Thecoolstuffblog12/1807956062763462