Board Thread:General Discussion/@comment-26006155-20190425222457/@comment-33352190-20190524225241

BlackfootFerret wrote: I'll say it again, Ambassador.

Bendy and FNAF share a great many plot and design elements.

So if the public can accept Bendy's improbable story, the public can also accept FNAF's.

Claiming something is improbable is not a legit grounds for dismissing evidence in a mystery. Because great mystery stories will hit us with something we don't expect, and will be improbable by design. With all due respect, most of BatIM is in a world that exists outside of normal reality. As such, it's easier to accept more mystic elements due to the nature of the story.

This isn't a case of acceptance being the only problem, it's a case of understanding too.

How can the public understand something that keeps on changing with each new release? With BatIM, the revelations are mostly constructive, but with FNaF that's no longer the case. All these different dimensional planes, all these different takes on events along with new ones- how can anyone keep up with that? The lore just keeps expanding, yet the old questions are the ones we still can't answer. I'll confess, some stuff has been helpful and easier to understand, but it feels like the larger questions are just ignored, with nudges that seem to deliberately push us in the wrong direction, like the whole '87 V '83 scenario. A great mystery story is meant to be improbable, yes, but it shouldn't cause fans to turn on each other.

We can't accept a story if we can't understand it.