Five Nights at Freddys: Separating continuities

[OrangeFR]

AKA, none of them are, because we are not gonna guess on this wiki.

Suspiciously shaped “possibly” descriptor:

 

[DaReaperMan]

Suspiciously shaped “possibly” descriptor:

Possibly isn't for guessing. never has been.

 

[DaReaperMan]

You know, maybe the remnant/agony pages could be split as thought of in the OP, but characters that currently have abilities not originating in their continuity get a “possibly” for them.

Like all these passives and abilities they never show!

 

[OrangeFR]

Possibly isn't for guessing. never has been.

Nah you right, that was a bit more of a joke reply, but also like kinda trying to refer to my idea.

Like all these passives and abilities they never show!

Lowkey only applies to the agony stuff, which applies to like 3 games characters, and didn’t get a good opportunity yo do so in the story onscreen.

 

[Nullflowerblush]

A vague ass statement is not solid proof. Prove this was made in response to Remnant specifically and not something else.

That isn't burden of proof works; you have to prove that "takes place in the FNAF universe", for some reason, does not mean that the novels share a canon with the games because you are the one making the argument against the evidence. If Word of God says the novels can be used to further explain and better interpret the lore of the games, why are we to assume that the novels's interpretation of Remnant, which I don't believe anybody has actually proven contradicts the games's interpretation yet, is suddenly the exception to the rule?

 

[Comiphorous]

Yes, as explained above. Yes, Henry Emily from the original novel trilogy, "Cassette Man" from Freddy Fazbear's Pizzeria Simulator, and Henry Emily from Five Nights at Freddy's 2 (2025) exist within separate continuities and, thus, have experienced different events. However, throughout said continuities, the three versions of Henry Emily share a common lore: co-founder (alongside Afton) of Fazbear Entertainment, father of the spirit inhabiting the Puppet (Charlotte Emily), primary inventor of the Fazbear Animatronics, etc. Throughout said continuities, the ghosts of dead children are capable of inhabiting and possessing metal, and powerful spirits (e.g., Charlotte, Golden Freddy, Elizabeth, etc.) are born of strong emotion and self-awareness, and Animatronics are given life through artificial intelligence. The timelines are unique, but the lore forms the foundation for every continuity.

Great, different continuities, doesn't matter they're similar. should be separated. They're the same guy in different continuities no shit they're gonna be similar. We aren't going to composite together marvel profiles from different continuities because they're the same character who acts similar because they're the same fking guy. This isn't an argument.

Does Remnant "act completely different" in the Fazbear Frights novels, or has the Fazbear Frights novels simply revealed information about Remnant (and Agony) which has yet to be properly introduced and/or expanded upon in the games? Are you thinking: "The concept of Remnant in the games and the concept of Remnant in the Fazbear Frights series are fundamentally contradictory"? Or are you thinking: "The concept of Remnant in the games is nowhere near as detailed or defined as in the Fazbear Frights series"? Because the latter is not a valid argument against the two mediums sharing a canon, which has been stated by the original creator of both mediums on numerous occasions.

Has any of the animatronics in the games created a giant storm throughout any of the games? Has William Afton in the games turned into a 15 foot tall trash monster? Didn't think so. Yes it acts differently. Remnant is utilized differently for the sake of the stories at hand in the continuities.

There's a reason miscreation was removed from game william's profile.

 

[That_moron2]

Has any of the animatronics in the games created a giant storm throughout any of the games? Has William Afton in the games turned into a 15 foot tall trash monster? Didn't think so. Yes it acts differently. Remnant is utilized differently for the sake of the stories at hand in the continuities.

Just because they did not do something, it does not mean they cannot do something. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

 

[Comiphorous]

Just because they did not do something, it does not mean they cannot do something. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

No, but when it happens in a completely different continuity where the only canonicity between the two continuities is a single vague statement about some stories being canon it’d help to have the energies to be somewhat similar, which they aren’t.

Taking an energy system, trying to claim it’s the same between all its appearances between different canons, then trying to cross scale them based off the a vague ass statement is just disingenuous.

 

[Nullflowerblush]

Has any of the animatronics in the games created a giant storm throughout any of the games? Has William Afton in the games turned into a 15 foot tall trash monster?

As far as we are aware, the story Blackbird does not occur during the games's continuity. As far as we are aware, the Stitchwraith Stingers do not occur during the game's continuity. Doesn't mean they couldn't.

For comparison, in Earth-6160 of the Marvel Comics canon, Peter Parker doesn't get superpowers from a spider bite as a teenager; doesn't mean he couldn't've, though. In the present timeline of the Dragon World, Goku survives a nearly-fatal heart virus thanks to a cure Trunks brings back from the future; doesn't mean he couldn't've died otherwise, though. In the Sonic the Hedgehog game canon, Sonic and co. go back in time and erase the events of Sonic '06 from continuity, preventing the main antagonist Solaris from ever existing in their time; but that doesn't mean he couldn't've been created by the Solaris Project, it simply means he wasn't.

Taking an energy system, trying to claim it’s the same between all its appearances between different canons

Again, that's your problem; they aren't "different canons", they're different continuities. They're parallel timelines existing within the same multiverse under roughly the same logic. As previously established, Scott has already conceded that they take place in separate continuities, but that they are also still equally as canon as one another.

 

[Perequeliri993]

No, but when it happens in a completely different continuity where the only canonicity between the two continuities is a single vague statement about some stories being canon it’d help to have the energies to be somewhat similar, which they aren’t.

Taking an energy system, trying to claim it’s the same between all its appearances between different canons, then trying to cross scale them based off the a vague ass statement is just disingenuous.

I mean... They are not very dissimilar, are they? Both are used for illusions and perception manip, both are ghost juice, both can mess with minds, both are used to help troubled souls, both are weak to fire.

Even the Afton amalgamation has some precedent (or post-cedent? It was shown in the books before the games) in the games, with the Blob. Now, I'm not going to say they are the same, they aren't, but the Blob is an entity composed of haunted metal that collects more, even if not necessarily haunted, like puppet's mask (Although most of it is haunted). Then the afton amalgamation is a pile of metal that gets haunted to amalgam. Is not the same concept, but you can see that it's not outlandish to think one could happen after knowing the other does.

Why do you say they are that different, while FF is just some better feats of stuff that either has been done, or is reasonably feasable in the games?

 

[That_moron2]

No, but when it happens in a completely different continuity where the only canonicity between the two continuities is a single vague statement about some stories being canon it’d help to have the energies to be somewhat similar, which they aren’t.

Taking an energy system, trying to claim it’s the same between all its appearances between different canons, then trying to cross scale them based off the a vague ass statement is just disingenuous.

You've yet to prove they aren't similar. Remnant is mostly unexplained in the games, the books featuring usages we don't see in the games doesn't mean anything. Calling a statement vague is not a proper counterargument, and its not even true tbh. The statement says that the books can be used to fill in gaps in the lore, which remnant falls under.