Should You TRUST the FNAF Character Encyclopedia?

I couldn't find a natural spot to include it in the video, but I also find it amusing that Henry, the guy who invented springlock suits, solves his problems by setting them on fire, and goes a bit crazy building robot people after Charlie dies, is called the voice of reason. Anyway, what are your thoughts on the book?

I’m still mad that Twisted Chica, a character that only appears in merch, is apparently more deserving of a page than Michael

The character encyclopedia is like a double edged sword, on one hand it can drop lore details that would seem to confirm some theories (mainly looking at what matpat got from the book), but on the other hand there are just so many inaccuracies that you wouldn't know what's intentional and what isn't. This could definitely be a resource to back up theories, but relying heavily on it would be foolish. Epic video per usual.

The more these fnaf books come out, the more I start to believe that Scott doesn't have any say in them.

The thing that's been tripping me up this entire time is... who actually made this? Even when he's used assistant writers in Fazbear Frights and TFTP, Scott has had a pretty distinct sound to his writing that seems absent in this book to me. I also wonder how much the book is the same/different from the one Dawko signed off on.

Two other things that blatantly conform Mike isn’t the crying child - Pete (the Foxybro stand in for Fazbear Frights) heavily parallels Michael…chewing gum habit, staying attached to his body after death etc - The table of Afton Family staff bots in Security Breach have Michael and the crying child represented via different staff bots

It's really difficult for me at least because I feel like The Freddy Files (especially The Ultimate Guide) and the Character Encyclopedia are at LEAST trying to give us some more defined answers. But the huge problem is that there are always errors or contradictions, and for theorists that rings alarm bells. I genuinely think we should be able to use these books as evidence, but again it's difficult because if there are even just one or two errors then who is to say that any of it is truly trustworthy? I hate FNAF, great video! :)

I think that the way the Character Encyclopedia is structured... Its possible that it is suppose to be something made for people in the world of FNAF would buy. Since in Help Wanted it is confirmed that an inde game Dev made games for Fazbear. So I wouldn't be surprised if Fazbear had someone write the books that Charlie shows up in. And eventually made sure the Ultimate Guide and Character Encyclopedia have incomplete/wrong information in them. Trying to keep some sort of truth hidden from the public and maybe even hidden from members of staff. Which is weird as in universe there would be die hard fans who made their own guides regarding the animatronics that exist. It's as if Fazbear wants those fans to be considered wrong.

The list of characters they could have included is so long, and it makes me really sad that they just made page after page of AR reskins. Apart from the obvious exclusions of Mike and the missing children, they missed a lot of animatronics that I am sure could have made nice pages too. Coils the Birthday Clown made it into the Ultimate Guide, so it was sad to see him excluded from this book. And poor Rosie Porkchop is always overlooked, we don't even have official art of her :( I also can't believe they didn't include Fetch! Another thing about the book characters is that they have so much detail already given about them, so it isn't like it would be spoilers to have a page on them which is the assumption for why they did not include the missing kids. And I think people would be more interested in book characters than AR skins.

I'd say yes and no. The AR skins seemed to just be there for filler, even though there are other characters that could have been mentioned. So yes we should trust the book to give us answers, but we shouldn't have to take everything in it seriously. Shadow Freddy is one example that should be taken seriously, because he and shadow bonnie are 2 of the most mysterious characters that we still know little about, but are important enough where they're either mentioned separately in a game or both mentioned at the same time.

Feels like whomever was hired to compile this encyclopedia knows next to nothing about FNAF. The duty of compiling the encyclopedia should have fallen to a dedicated person who knows the franchise super well (who is also not Scott). They wouldn't make so many, if any, inconsistencies.

I am very much let down by the encyclopedia, I hoped it would be an easy (official) way to get up to date on the fnaf lore. I planned to buy the book myself and try to think of a bonkers theory or two. Missunderstanding what the book was meant to be, led me to wanting to at least try theorising(?) as a hobby, I think ill try to pick up writing instead.

I get the feeling that to have a good encyclopedia, it would have to be put together by fans and theorists, lol. These official encyclopedias seem to never seem to release without leaving out things or containing a lot of inaccuracies.

Also funtime foxy's and lolbits genders errors are important to the community cuz it makes a lot of people upset that they called them a he/him even if there are people that think that they are girls

There's also the whole "the William Afton pages only have images of him after getting springlocked" thing.

Glad to know I wasn't the only one who thought that Michael should be having nightmares in 1993. Though the reasoning to why he's in a child's perspective in terms of height could be that Michael had seen William's illusion as a kid (if we go off of Matpat's illusion disc theory), and now he's having nightmares reliving that awful experience again. Or it could be CC projecting its nightmares or tormenting Michael with monsters since he bullied and caused his death. Plus Golden Freddy says the message "It's me" and attacks the player. Edit: I just remembered about the UCN nightmare lines and it could very well be Micheal having nightmares about William's illusions. Nightmare Freddy: "I am remade but not by you . By the one you should not have killed. Nightmare Fredbear: "This time, there is more than an illusion to fear"

Yeah them going to Dawko is like Scott going to matpat to help with fnaf lore......like they are going to be unbiased as possible, but things will still slip though the cracks. I feel as if dawko let loose some of his own lore into the book on accident. And I wouldn't be ok with that from anybody not even matpat. If they needed lore help they should have gone to scott not dawko.

"OH BOY do I have THOUGHTS about this thing" could be a great summary of any and every FNAF piece of media.

uhh at least the new art was pretty good, plus the crying child one makes Gregbot like 15% more likely with the bandaid and the brown eyes and all, the Henry one is also really good, a lot of people agreed he would have a beard and glasses wearing flannel for some reason so it's cool that's canon now, the rest of the book is hither to AI generated though so I hope I don't see it in too many theories moving forward

When there is not a page on Michael, you know something is wrong.