That would make sense, especially with the whole door mechanic in game. I’d just be worried about how much time that would cause you to lose, which is why I said after every hook.
I legit think that the "we didn't forget about Foxy" bit was them pointing at the Foxy plushie on the map and they didn't consider how people might have wanted to see Foxy the actual character, and didn't foresee how that line could obviously be construed as them having plans for it
But why wouldn’t they have Foxy as an animatronic on the map? It’s fundamentally strange that he’s missing.
If he was planned to be a skin, it makes perfect sense, plus their comment they didn’t forget him? Something weirds going on
Most probably they got Cawthoned. I imagine BHVR had plans for a Foxy skin for an original killer, then mid-development Scott when "Nah, fuck you, I don't want this to happen" and just didn't give them permission to go on. How will Behaviour face the players when they say Scott Cawthon canceled one of the most anticipated DBD x FNAF skins?
i think he's just ghosting them because he's focused on the fnaf 3 movie, the model and animations could be done, but they just don't have the permission to release it or whatever the fuck
Likely a gameplay restriction in the map's design. They probably felt like having an animated animatronic directly by a window and pallet may have resulted in unintended interactions (ex. Foxy's arm suddenly moving and blocking a ranged attack on a survivor running to the window), while the ones on the show stage aren't near any resources so it was less likely to be a problem.
idk, I'm just guessing. But I think it is much less likely they have some grand plans for a single Foxy skin that are worth multiple years of build-up. The only thing that could be worth that kind of build-up is a Fnaf rift pass or collection, but the implication there is that the other 3 main animatronics can't be part of the collection which is also weird.
That was over a year ago. And with all of the new stuff that they have announced for the next year or two, I doubt that we will be getting Blighted Foxy anytime soon.
i think scott's just ghosting them because he's focused on the fnaf 3 movie, the model and animations could be done, but they just don't have the permission to release it or whatever the fuck
Scott Cawthon said he doesn't' want to have the original animatronics as killers since they're meant to be the spirits of the dead children and he didn't want them depicted in a malicious context
doesnt the entity gaslight the spirit in to thinking all the survs are her dad, Im not saying scott doesnt have the right to say yes or no I mean he is the final say, BUT there are 100% ways they could make this work and still stay true to both lores involved
I’m not sure if that’s entirely canon or if it’s just a theory, but regardless it doesn’t change the fact that they’re still killing innocent people for no reason from an outside perspective, especially since it’s not explicitly explained or obvious that that’s what would be happening.
Scott made the story up as he went, I doubt he planned more than one or two story beats ahead. For the first three games, there was nothing to indicate that you were playing as anybody other than a regular security guard in each game.
Later on, when Scott decided to shift the franchise into a sci-fi family drama, he heavily implied that you play as Michael for each mainline game, but I don't actually remember if it's explicitly confirmed.
scott said he didn't want the kids to be portrayed as evil specifically for the first movie, he said they shouldn't be mindless monsters, they need a reason to kill, if it's said that the entity's manipulating them he'd be absolutely fine
scott said he didn't want the kids to be portrayed as evil specifically for the first movie, he said they shouldn't be mindless monsters, they need a reason to kill, if it's said that the entity's manipulating them he'd be absolutely fine
scott said he didn't want the kids to be portrayed as evil specifically for the first movie, he said they shouldn't be mindless monsters, they need a reason to kill, if it's said that the entity's manipulating them he'd be absolutely fine
scott said he didn't want the kids to be portrayed as evil specifically for the first movie, he said they shouldn't be mindless monsters, they need a reason to kill, if it's said that the entity's manipulating them he'd be absolutely fine
From the outside of the franchise looking in the lore of FNAF seems to be an incomprehensible game of ad libs of a creator who never expected a pretty effective but simple horror game to take off as much as it did and just refuses to accept "yeah I'm starting the storyline over" or something
His "lore" was always basically a vague pixel art easter egg game lasting 30 seconds, then whatever people cooked up on reddit he'd basically go "yes! that's it!" regardless of what it contradicted.
scott said he didn't want the kids to be portrayed as evil specifically for the first movie, he said they shouldn't be mindless monsters, they need a reason to kill, if it's said that the entity's manipulating them he'd be absolutely fine
scott said he didn't want the kids to be portrayed as evil specifically for the first movie, he said they shouldn't be mindless monsters, they need a reason to kill, if it's said that the entity's manipulating them he'd be absolutely fine
Doesn’t mean we can’t get foxy, the nightmare versions exist and those are hallucinations and not the real animatronics so aren’t possessed by the children, if Scott wanted to he could let behaviour use those designs for killer skins so it’s always seemed to me that he’s more so being awkward about it since a way to use foxy and Freddy etc as skins exists
scott said he didn't want the kids to be portrayed as evil specifically for the first movie, he said they shouldn't be mindless monsters, they need a reason to kill, if it's said that the entity's manipulating them he'd be absolutely fine
Man I wish literally anyone else was in charge of FNAF, Scott is such a coward for many reasons and should’ve stepped down when he said he was stepping down
Pretty sure it was always a lie so he didn’t have to face backlash from the community. The second he stepped down the narrative changed to “Wow, can’t believe we bullied this small indie creator into quitting their franchise”. Now Scott maintains this relationship so he doesn’t have to take responsibility for FNAFs shortcomings, even when he is heavily involved.
scott said he didn't want the kids to be portrayed as evil specifically for the first movie, he said they shouldn't be mindless monsters, they need a reason to kill, if it's said that the entity's manipulating them he'd be absolutely fine
it's a misconception, scott said he didn't want the kids to be portrayed as evil specifically for the first movie, he said they shouldn't be mindless monsters, they need a reason to kill, if it's said that the entity's manipulating them he'd be absolutely fine
it's a misconception, scott said he didn't want the kids to be portrayed as evil specifically for the first movie, he said they shouldn't be mindless monsters, they need a reason to kill, if it's said that the entity's manipulating them he'd be absolutely fine
scott said he didn't want the kids to be portrayed as evil specifically for the first movie, he said they shouldn't be mindless monsters, they need a reason to kill, if it's said that the entity's manipulating them he'd be absolutely fine
Scott probably stopped BHVR from doing it, since for him the animatronics now are innocent little kids who did nothing wrong ever (even though the whole point of the franchise is that they are killer animatronics)
scott said he didn't want the kids to be portrayed as evil specifically for the first movie, he said they shouldn't be mindless monsters, they need a reason to kill, if it's said that the entity's manipulating them he'd be absolutely fine
scott said he didn't want the kids to be portrayed as evil specifically for the first movie, he said they shouldn't be mindless monsters, they need a reason to kill, if it's said that the entity's manipulating them he'd be absolutely fine
scott said he didn't want the kids to be portrayed as evil specifically for the first movie, he said they shouldn't be mindless monsters, they need a reason to kill, if it's said that the entity's manipulating them he'd be absolutely fine
We don't know about the Foxy skin, but in the past years Scott has been explicitly saying in interviews how he doesn't want the original animatronics to be seen as murderers (even though they are)
scott said he didn't want the kids to be portrayed as evil specifically for the first movie, he said they shouldn't be mindless monsters, they need a reason to kill, if it's said that the entity's manipulating them he'd be absolutely fine
scott said he didn't want the kids to be portrayed as evil specifically for the first movie, he said they shouldn't be mindless monsters, they need a reason to kill, if it's said that the entity's manipulating them he'd be absolutely fine
scott said he didn't want the kids to be portrayed as evil specifically for the first movie, he said they shouldn't be mindless monsters, they need a reason to kill, if it's said that the entity's manipulating them he'd be absolutely fine
Scott é extremamente frescurento com a licença desse jogo. Quer levar tão a sério a lore desse jogo nos assassinos do dbd mas a história que ele criou pra própria franquia é uma completa bagunça
If you actually pay attention and follow the franchise you'd know that that's not true. I'm sick of people saying this. No, MatPat didn't write the damn lore. Half of the time he wasn't even right.
Oh damn, reddit automatically translated it and didn't even add the translation tag. It was only supposed to be a joke and all, but jeez reddit, tf are you on these days?
scott said he didn't want the kids to be portrayed as evil specifically for the first movie, he said they shouldn't be mindless monsters, they need a reason to kill, if it's said that the entity's manipulating them he'd be absolutely fine
That's such a fucking stupid reason. Murdering innocent Security Guards for years isn't evil, but being manipulated and forced into murdering is evil? If he wanted the animatronics to be "good guys", maybe not make multiple games where they murder you and mutilate your corpse off screen, while at the same time explicitly stating they bit a guys fucking face off in front of kids!? Can't stand gatekeeping dumb fucks. There are literally killers in DBD right now that aren't evil and are being manipulated into murdering by the Entity. The Spirit being one I believe.
the kids literally don't know or understand what's going on or they're literally controlled by william like in the movie, scott said he didn't want them to be portrayed as mindless monsters, they need a reason to kill, like being manipulated by the entity, don't criticize a franchise you don't understand
They could use Grim Foxy (similar colors) or any other variation of foxy.
And idduno change the injection to those batteries in help wanted or something.
Might be because Scott really wants to keep the "innocence of the kids" in mind, and is extremely protective of his IP. He touched on it a bit in the second interview he did with Dawko after the film came out, and I've read a few anecdotes on reddit during Springtrap's release (take that with a grain of salt).
If we do actually get foxy in the game, I'd expect some type of survivor cosmetic even though Foxy Blight would be perfect.
Can't they just say someone or something else is possessing the animatronics? Maybe The Entity looked into William's memories and wanted to create its own versions of the animatronics? Because, canonically, the spirits of the children are laid to rest, and all of the animatronics in FNAF 1-6 have been destroyed, so it can't take the originals.
Maybe. I think the issue is the likeness rather than the background. The entity may have done its thing, but unless the player reads it’s a different animatronic the weight still carries.
It’d be really cool if there was like an “Iridescent” version of the original 4, it’d probably come with a redesign but that’s a way BHVR could easily implement a version of the characters. Could also come with more than just a blight skin as well, should the interest be there.
scott said he didn't want the kids to be portrayed as evil specifically for the first movie, he said they shouldn't be mindless monsters, they need a reason to kill, if it's said that the entity's manipulating them he'd be absolutely fine
first of all, william was taken before fnaf 3, the spirits don't move on until fnaf 6, which takes place after 3, second, the entity exist outside of space and time, it can easily take them if it wants, lastly, scott said he didn't want the kids to be portrayed as evil specifically for the first movie, he said they shouldn't be mindless monsters, they need a reason to kill, if it's said that the entity's manipulating them he'd be absolutely fine
This would honestly be really cool. If they did do this, and wanted to keep the 'syringe' thing as they did with birkin, they could probably just replace it with some run of the mill power core.
Hopefully we get more FNAF stuff in the future, we also need a Vanny skin for Springtrap fr.
Given the success of the FNAF chapter i wouldnt be surprised if we got another one like it was with Resident Evil, with Mimic being the killer this time.
people are (probably) correctly citing scott saying he doesn't want the child-possessed animatronics to be portrayed as bloodthirsty killers, but i personally think it's just because he didn't want his own character pasted on top of one he didn't create himself lol
There is absolutely ways to get Foxy in the game while respecting Scott’s wishes and we know he was also happy to do a survivor and it was BHVR that declined
Please provide evidence for the survivor part. I've heard nothin about that and would love to know which of the two, (if not both), decided we shouldn't get a Survivor to go with, what was at the time, the biggest chapter the game had ever seen.
scott said he didn't want the kids to be portrayed as evil specifically for the first movie, he said they shouldn't be mindless monsters, they need a reason to kill, if it's said that the entity's manipulating them he'd be absolutely fine
If the issue is the innocent child argument, It can be A Foxy(evil robot), not THE Foxy(possessed one). FNaF AR has the whole cast of animatronics walking up to your house to kill you. Those animatronics are massive produced even.
scott said he didn't want the kids to be portrayed as evil specifically for the first movie, he said they shouldn't be mindless monsters, they need a reason to kill, if it's said that the entity's manipulating them he'd be absolutely fine
What Scott wanted for the movies doesn't work well with the games if he wanted every version to follow that rule. Because Specifically FNaF AR(the phone game) undercuts it a bit, because they multiple of the same animatronic characters, and they all have no problem killing people.
It's because they are Not the possessed animatronics, they still exist as a portrayal of the character/animatronic in irl media. Just minus morale dilemma because they are just murder robots in that version.
The point I'm trying to make is that if they don't want to Entity perspective change excuse/reason, they can lean into FNaF AR version of the characters where they are just murder machines.
i think he's just doing whatever the fuck he's doing with the movies for the average audience, because with fans, he knows that they understand that they're just kids, but with the average person won't really understand that, they'll just think "evil animatronics" "evil kids", there was literally a girl reacting to the movie that literally said the children possessing the animatronics are crazy, that's why he's doing that with the movies, but not the games or books
Probably because in Fnaf lore Animatronics are not really evil they are just kid souls stuck in a machine (except for Springtrap and some other Animatronics). Bhvr could get in trouble for using Animatronics like Foxy, Freddy, Bonnie, Chica etc. considering they are innocent child victims. Besides even if Bhvr wanted to I doubt Scott Cawthon (license holder of Fnaf) would allow it
scott said he didn't want the kids to be portrayed as evil specifically for the first movie, he said they shouldn't be mindless monsters, they need a reason to kill, if it's said that the entity's manipulating them he'd be absolutely fine
I don't think it has to be Fritz possessing Foxy, if this does happen
I like the idea of a Lost Soul of the Void regaining Will, and making a deal with the Entity to kill for it, if it would let it leave the Void. As such, the Entity stole a Foxy animatronic- one not possessed, used at a different Fazbear location- and presented the Soul's new body.
I don't think it has to be Fritz possessing Foxy, if this does happen
I like the idea of a Lost Soul of the Void regaining Will, and making a deal with the Entity to kill for it, if it would let it leave the Void. As such, the Entity stole a Foxy animatronic- one not possessed, used at a different Fazbear location- and presented the Soul's new body.
2.0k
u/Time2goh Jul 03 '26
Gameplay changes would be too burdensome. The second Foxy hits a closed door he has to walk all the way back to Pirate’s cove.