Any reason to not include UCN? Scott has stated that he wanted to tie every game into canon, so leaving it out simply because the premise of it is to make custom nights seems counterintuitive
I have Charlie first before the MCI. The security puppet minigame.
Charlotte has to die after CC, since the extended Midnight Motorist minigame is called 'Later that Night'. The only night this would be later on in is Charlie's death, since in the FNaF 2 minigames William is shown to drive to Charlie, kill her behind the pizzeria, then drive off again, leading directly into Midnight Motorist, leading into Later that Night, which shows CC is dead and possessing Fredbear at this point
I can see how you got confused. I don't think Midnight Motorist and Later That Night have anything to do with Charlie. I believe the character in those minigames is the parent of one of the victims of the MCI, because the "go to his house and break a window" is mentioned as one of the methods William got one of them in the Toy Chica cutscenes you mentioned. Again people interested in this thread should go watch most of the popular FNAF YouTubers like Tdreads, GiBi, Ryetoast, IDsFantasy and a few others. A lot of these theories are covered there
Read the message I just sent as I explain that I don't think those minigames have anything to do with Charlie.
That just... can't be true. Usually I'm usually open to theories, but the MCI are stated in a newspaper to have disappeared at the Pizzeria, not the victim's houses. That's why Fazbear was incriminated in the first place, because 5 children went missing over 5 days, as well as 2 previous child deaths at Fredbear's, one of which being a murder, led to Fazbear being massively suspicious due to the connection to 7 child deaths'disappearances. Also, the father-son relationship shown in Later that Night is clearly implying it to be Mike and William
Then why is there animatronic footprints outside the house where the broken window is? I feel like it's pretty clear William went to that house as Springtrap, and then broke the window like the toy chica story said.
There are 2 animatronic footprints, that go nowhere. How would William lead a child without going anywhere? Perhaps the footprints are those of a teleporting animatronic...
What would be the point of the toy chica cutscenes mentioning the methods William used them? They would serve no purpose if it wasn't to come to this conclusion
They are obviously not exact descriptions of what happened. William did not tell a child his house was on fire, then when the child got to William's house, told them that he threw himself on the flames to put them out. William actually did kill Susie's dog. William did not wait for Cassidy to regain consciousness, then tell them that they were kidnapped, but that he saved them. He would have said things like "The building is on fire, come help me put it out" or "Your dog is dead" (well, he'd say the same thing there, but the dog would actually be dead) or just drag Cassidy to the backroom and kill her brutally. Also, the window cutscene you're referring to is the fifth cutscene, where Chica invites a guy over to her house (shown as the puppet, but none of the animatronics shown in the cutscenes line up anyway) but if he doesn't come, she'd show up to his house. If he doesn't answer, she'd use a window, or the chimney, or set his house on fire... if Later that Night was post-victim, William would have gone to the door first. Which he obviously wouldn't do anyway, because the mother was home. So, if the theory that the Chica descriptions are to be taken literally is true... then Later that Night can't be post-kidnapping.
