/tg/Station 13

Bottom post of the previous page:

Ricotez wrote:It was very cleverly set up to lead you to believe that the game is a sequel, but if you pay attention there is no direct evidence that the old animatronics come from the first game's location.

In fact, the newspaper article you see after Night 6 explains that, while the new animatronics were scrapped, the company decided to hold onto the old animatronics and see if they could restart their business on a smaller scale. Then there's also the matter of your check being dated 1987, the year of the "Bite of 87", and heavy implications that that bite takes place during FNaF2. Not to mention the murders taking place.

It also explains why Phone Guy is still alive in the second game; in the phone call of Night 6 he explains to you that he will take the night shift after you. Phone Guy was the night guard after the player in FNaF2 and before the player in FNaF1.

In the end, the animatronics were shitty from the start. But the murders drove them completely insane.

Remie Richards wrote:

Maccus wrote:It's not a prequel you retard. All the animatronics from the first game are worn down more than they were in the first game, it's literally referred to as a re-opening

There's a 3rd location, Fredbear's. all the links to the first game imply that Bonnie, Freddy and Chica and foxy all come from the first game's location, they don't, they come from Fredbear's.
And the re-opening is the rebranding of Fredbear's by Fazbear entertainment as "Freddy Fazbear's pizza" Fazbear entertainment made all the "Toy" versions of the animatronics, with the originals being from Fredbear's.

also

Maccus wrote:you retard.

Nice ad hominem.

XSI wrote:Guess who modded the first FNAF?

If you guessed "The bronies", then you've already lost so much faith in humanity that this won't hurt any more.
If not, click here

Spoiler:

Maccus wrote: Ad hominem implies i only relied on the insult and didn't say anything else. I see that I'm wrong after Dezzmont's post though.

P.S. ad hominem this dick

Maccus wrote:Isn't that from Manhunt?

Maccus wrote:https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/ad-hominem

""Ad hominem attacks can take the form of overtly attacking somebody, or more subtly casting doubt on their character or personal attributes as a way to discredit their argument. The result of an ad hom attack can be to undermine someone's case without actually having to engage it."

I was not trying to discredit his argument by calling him a retard. I was calling him a retard as well as engaging his argument. I wasn't even using it as a point, casually dropping "retard" at the end of a sentence is not making a point. Ad hominem is using insults TO discredit someone's arguments, not insulting them itself. We could all benefit a little by knowing what we're talking about before we post, I think.

nsos wrote:this thread is worse than