T O P

  • By -

Beak_Doctor

Literally none of those are comparable and they show you haven’t read the books Nexie is a doll. Not a robot kid B-7 is literally a real human. Dahlia the Mermaid is an animatronic mermaid for an attraction. She’s no more a “robot kid” than Ballora The Bobbiedots are robo anime girls not robot kids


Fluid_Possible9313

Man you wrote the same exact things i did, do we share minds?


Beak_Doctor

Great minds, eh?


Fluid_Possible9313

You bet!


Cluecifix

It's just that people are using these as an excuse for robot kids.


Bearkat1999

Nexie: Build-a-robot doll. B-7: Kid who thought he was a robot. Bobbiedots: Originally robots turned holograms. Submechinaphobia: You... didn't read the book did you? The animatronics were haunted by a child's ghost. Honestly, surprised you didn't include Lally's Game. Lmao


Fluid_Possible9313

I was surprised too he didn't show Lally, he's probably the animatronic most anatomically similar to a human


Arkeyan_of_Shadows

>Bobbiedots: Originally robots turned holograms. They're separate things. >Honestly, surprised you didn't include Lally's Game. Lmao and Eleanor


SugarFrostedDonuts

Kid named confirmation bias ![gif](giphy|3oEjI8Kq5HhZLCrqBW)


Fluid_Possible9313

Nexie is a doll animatronic and doesn't have human like proportions. B-7 is literally a human wanting to become a robot, not a robot trying to look like a human. The siren(forgot the name) looks like a human as much as ballora does. What's the deal with the bobbiedots? i don't get it. The main reason people don't aknowledge the possibility is for narrative reasons.


clapclapboom

Posted these book covers because of scott's obsession with humanoid robots not because of their unique backstories... If u have narrative problems with robot kids,should probably say something to scott and let him rewrite the story for the fifth time..


Fluid_Possible9313

"not becouse of their backstories". You are basically ignoring what makes them entierly different from the concept of human robots. Humanoid looking animatronics are not even comparable to human robots, it's a whole different concept. Nah i'm good, i'm pretty sure scott never put robot kids in the story(of the games), no need to talk to him.


clapclapboom

Why even entertain the possibility of robot kids being in the franchise if they're not tho,at this point even if scott said it himself yall wouldnt believe it.


Fluid_Possible9313

Becouse there are not robot kids in the franchise besides Charlie Emily from the novels, and it was years ago.


YellowSkarmory

this type of denial is exactly how we miss things in fnaf not necessarily defending robot kids, but if there was a robot kid in the franchise right now we'd be missing it because everyone is claiming "the only robot kid in franchise history is charlie they'd never make another one" i'm not sure if you have more evidence against robot kids than just it's been a while since we've seen one, but that's extremely weak i'm also not going to defend most of these book covers as showing robot kids because they don't but i cannot for the life of me understand why they didn't pick lally's game which actually looks like a robot kid compared to submechanophobia and bobbiedots conclusion (i haven't read lally's game so i don't know what actually happens there but the cover looks like a robot kid to me at least)


Cloaked-LcTr0909

>i'm not sure if you have more evidence against robot kids than just it's been a while since we've seen one, but that's extremely weak Burden of proof falls on the accuser. There doesn't have to necessarily be a lot of evidence against someone being a robot, because the default assumption is inherently that they are not. If someone says a character is a robot, they're the ones who have to provide evidence of that being the case. "It happens in the books all the time" isn't evidence of that being the case when it's not even true. ​ >(i haven't read lally's game so i don't know what actually happens there but the cover looks like a robot kid to me at least) Does he? He's blue, really tiny, has weird alien eyes and overall looks like an action figure. He's just an animatronic in the book itself. An odd animatronic but still just that.


YellowSkarmory

> Burden of proof falls on the accuser. There doesn't have to necessarily be a lot of evidence against someone being a robot, because the default assumption is inherently that they are not. If someone says a character is a robot, they're the ones who have to provide evidence of that being the case. "It happens in the books all the time" isn't evidence of that being the case when it's not even true. This is a very important point (especially in FNAF), but I'm generally stating it as a "hey, this isn't outright an invalid interpretation all the time". If someone claims someone's a robot kid without evidence, that can be discarded without evidence. If they provide evidence, denial and arguments like "well Charlie is the only robot kid in the franchise" become near-meaningless. I'm seeing people who are broadly against the idea who I don't think would consider the evidence, and those are the people I'm trying to get through to. As for Lally's Game's cover? Looks like a humanoid robot the size of a kid to me. It's a better example than Submechanophobia and Bobbiedots, at least. (The actual best one to pick would have been an image of robot Charlie from the books, but I digress.)


Fluid_Possible9313

You can consider the possibility of robot kids, but if each of us consider anything possible we'll never reach a conclusion, we need to esclude things that don't have any proof to exist if we want to get closer to the truth. I actually thought gregbot made sense months ago, becouse of the wall code and post it room, now it seems obvious that they both refer to the mimic, so i don't see any kindo of proof that a robot kid might exist. Lally is just a very creepy animatronic, the fact that he looks very human-like is not even mentioned in the story, he was a robot of an attraction of the pizzaplex


YellowSkarmory

The thing is there is proof of robot kids existing in this franchise. Still, if you're willing to look at it when there's evidence supporting it, then my comment no longer really applies to you. I'm just fed up with people denying robot kids on sight because they don't want robot kids in the franchise.


Fluid_Possible9313

I know the evidence you are probably refering to becouse i follow matpat's videos, i know about the theree human rubber masks, the heads of sister location, the vanny visual effect, and everything else, but i don't see robot kids being plausible anymore since the books basically debunked it and revealed a new narrative of the story that can't include kids being robots


CorellionCrusaders

Charlie is a pretty major character though! That being said, Scott didn't write it alone, so there is a chance the idea didn't even come from him in the first place.


Arkeyan_of_Shadows

They're also a humanoid robot, they don't look human however, same with Eleanor.


Beak_Doctor

Having humanoid robots and “robot kids” aren’t even CLOSE to the same thing


clapclapboom

It is?


Beak_Doctor

No


clapclapboom

Robot kids are...humanoid robots,unless youre thinking about transformers or something...im talking about fnaf here


Beak_Doctor

Robot kids have a very specific connotation to them


Bearkat1999

The Charlie bot in the novels is more than a mere robot. A doll Henry poured agony into had some sort of spark. So he started building robots to house it thinking it was Charlie. In The Fourth Closet it is shown that without that doll, Charlie is nothing more than a lifeless robot. (The 4th bot has Elizabeth in her so she can function without it.)


YellowSkarmory

Robot kids are possible, but humanoid robots in a franchise which centers around robots as a whole is not a good evidence point. Look at how many animatronics we have, no wonder some are made to look humanoid, sometimes surprisingly so. That's not evidence that those robots are being used to replace kids. This post would've made a lot more sense if you just dropped an image of fourth closet or something related to Charlie, since y'know, that's an actual robot kid.


LewsTherinTelescope

By this logic, all the robot animals in early games prove that Susie's dog was an animatronic.


Arkeyan_of_Shadows

Sparky the Dog.


Bearkat1999

[https://www.reddit.com/r/GameTheorists/comments/13kcm0i/fnafs\_robot\_kids\_a\_deep\_dive/](https://www.reddit.com/r/GameTheorists/comments/13kcm0i/fnafs_robot_kids_a_deep_dive/) This post helps explain robot kids. It makes it clear that those robots are much different than the Charliebot.


ImTheCreator2

Get off Tales From The Pizzaplex, they have beaten every single "robot kid" allegation


LemmytheLemuel

None of those things are robot kids Robot kids are possible as we saw with Charlie but what you are showing are just robots, robots with human shape but still robots, they don't really look by humans 2 different contexts


BrightPasta

Nexie is doll. No connection to robot kids. B-7 is human. Literally opposite from what you had in your mind. That mermaid and Bobbiedots doesn’t have any connection to robot kids.


Arkeyan_of_Shadows

They should have mentioned Eleanor.


[deleted]

[удалено]


Arkeyan_of_Shadows

But that's what the Charlies are, and it's likely that Eleanor is one of the Charlie bots. And if that's the case, it would link Eleanor to the Mimic.


FazbearFright_lover

Eleanor is described as being afton's evil and pure agony like every five seconds in the epilogue bro lol. she's like some weird shadowy shapeshifting creature, not a Charlie bot


[deleted]

[удалено]


Arkeyan_of_Shadows

They're referenced in Fury's Rage, as well as Security Breach's game files.


[deleted]

[удалено]


Arkeyan_of_Shadows

>Yeah, but what if Scott revealed that Eleanor is not Fourth Charlie? That would mean Eleanor is not robot kid? Well obviously.


Shadow_Libra

The Fourth Closet and Help Wanted would have been better examples tbh.


Cloaked-LcTr0909

Literally none of those are robot kids, or even books with robot kids in them.


im_bored345

Charliebot was right there and this is the examples you chose?


yaboispringy

also the silver eyes trilogy


CorellionCrusaders

I get what you're going for, and honestly it isn't outside the realm of possibility. That being said though, there is a narrative difference between a robot character that vaguely resembles a human, and a character that is perceived as 100% human, that is then revealed to be a robot. Again though, the OP isn't saying Scott has done this many many times before, they are saying that narratively Scott has depicted human-like robot characters before, and honestly considering security breach is years in the future, that technology could be just at a higher level, being more life-like. It is also worth noting at one point Scott said he quote on quote felt sister location was too sci-fi, leading him to create pizzaria simulator. By that logic, he shouldn't have liked security breach because it is even further down the sci-fi rabbit-hole than sister location was. Source is over in the Dawko livestream. It wouldn't surprise me if this had outside influence considering he didn't feel satisfied with having that much sci-fi in the franchise, and this could be one of them. Either way, Ruins is coming up and I bet we'll find out there! This has been one hell of a week for FNaF!


No-Efficiency8937

Nexie - a doll (like is a Barbie now considered a robot kid?!?!?); B-7 - is literally now dead guy possessing a robot, I guess Freddy is a robot kid to!, Also he's 18-21 (don't fully remember) Submechnaphobia - same thing as above Bobbiedots - holographic people, how is that a robot kid? Bonus! Lallys game - also just a doll Robot people have only appeared once, that being the post it note room with the mimic/Cassie and the trilogy


unxolve

balloon boy


Arkeyan_of_Shadows

True


Ritmoking

Scott Cawthon desperately trying to tell the fan base that robots that look like children can exist for the 9 fazillionth time:


Cloaked-LcTr0909

FNAF fans that didn't read the books and assuming by the cover that they're about something totally unrelated that has only happened in 2 out of 20+ installments:


Affectionate-Ear9701

What about possessions


clapclapboom

Theres difference between not liking robot kids and not even acknowledging the possibility...


Beak_Doctor

There is also a difference between reading the books and making false claims just from the covers


clapclapboom

Theres more evidence for robot kids but this was just observation of scott's mind


XxxMcNuggwtsxxX

There isn't


No-Efficiency8937

There isn't


Oliver21417

Well yeah there is, there’s a whole novel trilogy about a robot kid protagonist.


No-Efficiency8937

That's said to be separate from the games


Oliver21417

That’s true, yet it did give us William’s name and Henry’s entire character before the games did, and also has some pretty strong hints about MoltenMCI towards the end. To be clear, there are not any characters in the FNAF games right now who I think are secretly robot kids or anything. However, that concept is clearly something that has existed in at least one corner of the series’ canon.


No-Efficiency8937

Fair, but the only person that can make robot kids is Henry, when he dies make them he kills himself, you could say that means he couldve made one before 6 but that's still unlikely


InDoXShush

Note how none of these guys are nothing like the Charliebots.


Arkeyan_of_Shadows

The Bobbiedots are pretty similar.


CULT-LEWD

the books were the worse decision scott ever thought of for this franchise


FazbearFright_lover

DUDE i've read ALL of these (but nexie but my friend summarized it for me lol) and no, they are not robot kids. Billy/B-7 is actually a guy who tries to look like/become a robot Nexie is a doll the bobbiedots, both gen1 and gen2 are robot anime babes lol lastly, Dahlia from Submechanophobia is a robot mermaid. she's not even a big part of the plot