#videogametheory

[redtoondevils]

The DCA from Security Breach. Was trying to fix himself in RUIN.

I believe that the DCA was also trying to repair himself. There is a new thing found in Ruin, gives a clue for their repair attempt. Specifically, Sun. Before, in the base game, at the back of the attendants head, there was no attachment available at that time. To refresh memories, I have an Image here. To show the full head.

This is the biggest full shot, I could ever take from a Screenshot. This is a pretty big view. And just how it's shown, there is no extra piece.

This is the side shot from the Ruin attendants port. There is a piece. So, how did it get there? Did an employee attempt to put one in, but failed? Or did Sun?

Well, it is speculated from base game that Sun had been trying to fix himself, since the very start. To fix the problem.

But since, he's got all sorts of programming, it was not easy for him to do. It was not accessible for him to do it, but it was clear that he tried to find ways to change something.

To customize himself, even. While Moon was trying to get rid of Sun, by pulling out the plugs on the port, he couldn't do it completely, because it was a risk.

All of this time while Sun was fighting for freedom, he was also trying to find a solution. He tried all he could, to find new parts, to find a solution, while fighting to keep Moon at bay, to stop him from destroying himself.

That, when he met Cassie, he found the perfect tool for the perfect solution, because he eventually found a part, and install it in and wait for someone to come around and fix him. Because, he couldn't do it himself.

But, it's likely that he found something to use, and install for the idea to use a gadget to fix the problem. And that gadget was the Faz Wrench. The Faz wrench was the only missing piece of the Puzzle. That's the solution, to fix the problem.

To reboot the programming of the evil one, to bring it back to its default state. The state to bring back the Moon from when he was reprogrammed, to watch over the kids.

[redtoondevils]

Moon's redemption. (Building up.) (FNAF-SB Ruin.) Discussion.

Scattered around the daycare are scrapped Endo part's that are found in peculiar places, that makes this observation interesting.

I have a short AU story of my version of Eclipse, getting into a fight with an Endo to protect Cassie. From DA. And I also have a WIP Image, (In completed.) Of them Protecting Cassie. You get my Head cannon.

But this, this observation makes things even more spicy. In fact, I'm all down for an arc, or a redemption for Moon where HE is fighting the Endo's to protect the daycare! I hope so!

IMAGINE THAT! I Imagine, if that's what he would be doing! (That would be for one reason, because he's protecting his territory.) Furthermore, it would build up on his potential!

Since there is a subtle trace of evidence of him being a security bot. With a secret plushie on one of the Officers desk, sitting beside a coffee mug.

Then this would have to link up with this! Even in the guidebook, it says about the daycare attendant "He is for sure a hardworking animatronic!" The Information is right there!

Which means, he is much more Important, and should qualify a major role in a future game! And shows us previous cutscenes, of him FIGHTING Endos!

As a sucker for enemies fighting each other. I'd LOVE to see it! Even for this one? Where you see Moon fight? HELL YEAH! Come to think of it, if Moon fought ALL of the Endo's, and was able to WIN?

Jesus! He is one strong animatronic! Hardy, and really proves. Yep, he is one that SHOULD NOT BE MESSED WITH!

[redtoondevils]

Moon had a Safety Mode chip once. (My thoughts.)

I think Moon had a safety chip once he was caring for kids. And I think it was keeping his programming at a balanced manner. The idea goes along with, how Chica has this chip, that is messing with her programming. I think that, with the new theory of the attendant having a safety chip that had Eclipse in it, got removed. When the safety chip got removed from Moon, it caused him to go violent.

If the virus theory is not true, then this speculation of having the chip removed Moon caused him to go banana's. He's programmed with a mischievious nature. Not meant to harm anyone. But when it got removed, his programming went unbalanced, and Sun couldn't control him.

Because, Sun was able to control him back then. Until it's been tampered with. That's what I think about the attendant having the safety chip. Even for Moon, because of how worse he's gotten.

I hope you enjoyed my theory!

[redtoondevils]

The giant doll baby theory. (Little Nightmares 3.)

My giant doll baby theory is this. I think that the giant doll baby is perhaps a robot. With/or the concepts of it being a vehicle, or a cyborg. Part organic, part robot. An artificial being crafted by the dark magic by someone. Or an ancient demi god, summoned by the Mirrorman./Northwind. Very much like the robot's from War Of The Worlds.

Theory 1. The baby is a robot, because of it's movements and it's robotic eye. That has the same magic found in the Maw, when the eye solidifies kids, if they get spotted.

This detail would explain how the eye in the Maw works. It's like it's connected. It's operational electronically between the eye and the doll baby.

The clue is the eye's movement, it moves side to side. It acts like a camera. It probably is, the lenses you see through it on those counters, you see in the secret rooms. That operates, through the lenses of a Robot.

Theory 2. Tied with 1. It is possible that the Robot is a vehicle. It's unclear who is driving it. This idea, comes with the fact that it looks like it's been driven. It's destroying buildings. And it's a very big robot, thus giving it's headspace plenty of room, for someone to sit in it. And control it.

This would also explain why it's eye movements are rigid. And is glowing the same light through the eye. The person behind it, is shooting their magic out of the eye. That's making the kid's freeze. This concept is very common in many robot movies.

Theory 3. Another likelihood of it's creation. That the doll baby is artificially made by someone, as a security drone or something. Designed to guard the secrets with in the Nowhere. Locked up somewhere, for centuries until it get's activated again, by it's creator whenever it's needed.

Final theory: The giant doll baby is was summoned by the Mirror Man. After being buried for a long time. (Or like the artificial theory, it was created by somebody else. And then summoned by Mirror Man, after it's been discovered by him.)

Then the Mirror Man started to use it as a weapon, and gave it commands to do his bidding. That would too explain why it was behaving so hostile. Then lastly, the Mirror man gave it some of his powers, that gives it the ability to freeze kids.

Those are my theories about what I think about the giant baby doll monster, and hope you enjoyed!

[kimaruspell]

So I'll admit, I'm not the biggest fan of Sonic Boom or just about any of the designs. I know some other fans really throw the show and story to the dirt, however- when you think of previous Sonic material, you see proof in several Zones (dimensions) that occur throughout StH history. In the original StH comic (Archie comics) titled "Night of 1,000 Sonic's", our blue hero travels on the Interdimensional Interstate (name could be wrong) to several Zones to gather different versions of himself. Another noted point is in Super Sonic Special 48 (I believe), where Sonic is revealed to more than just the different Zones he knows of, but another Zone that is perpendicular (whereas all others were parallel). The version found here, Zonic, helps maintain the parallelism of the other Zones. The characters of the Boom Zone are more than likely just that, different versions of our favorite characters (as much as we like/dislike them), living in a totally different Zone than our current game Sonic(s). #videogametheory #sonicthehedgehog #sonictheory #sonicthehedgehogtheory #sonicboom #knightofthewind

[interactivecommunity-blog]

Bartle's taxonomy is a concept that classifies players of multiplayer games. Bartle did years of research back when MUD's were popular, and even though that was a long time ago, his discoveries have still influenced how the games of today are made. According to him, players fall into four different categories when playing multiplayer games. These four groups are the Achievers, the Hunters, the Socializers and the Explorers. Achievers play the game so they can become the best, they're there to get to the highest level, get the best items, and complete the best achievements. Hunters are there to kill other players and induce rage. Socializers are there because they like talking to people and forming guilds. Explorers want to find everything interesting in the world, and they'll go to great lengths to find it. While this is mostly true in multiplayer games, I think that this could apply to single player games as well. Of course, the behaviors of each type of player would need to adapt to the type of game they're playing, but we'll look at how Bartle's taxonomy could fit into The Witcher 3 and This War of Mine. In Witcher 3: Wild Hunt, you role play the character of Geralt, and you have a lot of freedom to do what you want. The achievers would probably be out to complete the quests and obtain the best sets of Witcher armor, the hunters would probably be out to kill the toughest monsters and kill whatever NPC's they can. The Socializers would be out to meet the people of the Northern Kingdoms and learn about their different cultures, as the game hosts a variety of people and how they interact. The Explorers have an entire world built for them to discover, and even though it is only semi-open world, the game is packed with content for these types of players. This War of Mine could be very different, though. The achievers just might try to keep the characters alive with as much health and comfort as possible. The hunters may be out to destroy anyone within a 10 block radius of their start. Socializers may be more interested in trading with others to keep their people well, and they would probably be more interested in the lives of the characters and NPC's before the war happened. Explorers are probably more likely to seek the solutions to heir problems in far away buildings, going there just to see what they can find. In This War of Mine, all of these kind of blend together if you want to keep your alive, and it is unlikely that you'll never have to kill someone, trade, explore, or keep your characters healthy in order to even complete or last in the game. I think that Bartle's taxonomy could work the same in many single player games, but sometimes it would be more difficult to have certain groups in certain games. It's not really socializing if you're just listening to GLaDOS talk crap about you in Portal 2. Only in rather open world games, that involve characters to interact with/ kill could all four categories be fulfilled. To which single player games could Richard Bartle's research apply? What are some games where it doesn't apply?

This topic was introduced to me through Extra Credits on YouTube. They're fantastic with their videos and if you're interested in what I post, you'd be more than interested in what they teach. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yxpW2ltDNow

[interactivecommunity-blog]

Lore in video games can be a very powerful tool in making a good story and an immersive world. I’m sure anyone who’s played a lot of Skyrim has read at least one lore book, and anyone who plays fallout knows at least some lore, just by completing the quests. A lot of lore usually predates the time when the game is set, and the developers would be wise to make sure that they make the past stories accessible to the players in an easy and fun way. The Elder Scrolls games are packed with lore, there’s a whole website about it with hundreds, if not thousands of pages containing events that happened outside of the games. But how do the players know about these events if they couldn’t have experienced them in the games? Well Bethesda makes use of the books in the game to tell of the expanded universe, as the Elder Scrolls series is a role-playing game, it encourages people to sit down at the fireplace with a mug of mead and read the lore of Mundus. Fallout lets the player in on the expanded universe through dialogue mostly, or even in the environment. For example, in vault 11, the posters on the walls indicate that the leader was elected, but no one wanted to be leader for some reason. Gives you a good quest to figure out doesn’t it? Irrational Games incorporates the lore ingeniously into Bioshock. While you run around shooting, completing the puzzles and killing anything that stands in your way, you can pick up the Audio Tapes and Voxophones, and they’ll clue you in to not only to the story of the game, but to the events that lead up to the conflicts you’re participating in. Some games use other media to display the lore, like Halo. Halo lore is in a lot of books, and when you want to discover what goes on behind those visors, you’ll have to purchase some books or do some heavy digging online. Some Halo lore can be discovered simply by playing through the campaigns, as the campaigns show a lot of what inhabits the Halo universe. But I think Halo could’ve added more lore into the game itself, and selling individual books isn’t the best way to give background to a story, though it does make more money. Imagine going to the side and talking to a retired ODST and learning about their experiences in the early years of the Human-Covenant War, or sitting down at a computer terminal and looking at files of the history of certain people and events. Do you think that the way Bungie incorporated the lore into Halo is substandard? Of the ways Bioshock, Fallout and Skyrim do it, which way do you most like game lore to be incorporated?

[interactivecommunity-blog]

Augmented Reality Games (not to be confused with Alternate Reality Games) are games that include the real world, usually GPS position and location among landmarks, in their game. Some iOS games let you use the camera function on your phone to play the game on a real world backdrop. Ingress and Pokemon GO use the location of the player as a function. Each of them has features that are dependent on where you are, Ingress has portals and war-zones in certain locations, Pokemon GO puts specific Pokemon in places around the real world. Since these games are using the real world but changing it to fit the game, this is Augmented Reality. The recent trends in Google Glass have opened new doors for AgRG’s, since it’s made to be worn all the time and you’re supposed to get immersed into them either way. Imagine sitting on the shore of the pond behind your house, and you see a Blastoise peek above the water. Obviously if you took the glasses off, it wouldn’t be there, but the thought of it is still really cool. Augmentation of reality is awesome but it is also very dangerous. Imagine flying down the highway at 70 mph and seeing a shiny Mew on the side of the road. Half of Pokemon players would be willing to crash their car for that creature, me being one of them. Augmentation and Reality should be companions, and Augmentation can very easily get in the way of reality. Doors are flown open for advertisements here. Imagine if you were playing an AgRG that was an RPG, and you had a quest to kill a monster that only spawned at a McDonalds. Some of us would be likely to order something while we’re there. Advertisers dream of advertising being this easy and effective. Do you think that Augmented Reality Games are a good idea? Do you think that actual reality is a decent place to set a game? What kinds of games would play well like this and what wouldn’t?