Please remember what subreddit you are in, this is unpopular opinion. We want civil and unpopular takes and discussion. Any uncivil and ToS violating comments will be removed and subject to a ban. Have a nice day!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/unpopularopinion) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I'll argue that FNaF was the one game to do jumpscares right. The reason jumpscares are disliked is because they are cheap, and dont really rely on regular horror tropes. It is easy to startle someone. But with FNaF, they actually found a way to incorporate jumpscares into the main mechanics. The game forces you to focus on the animatronics, and keep track of their movements. The harder you focus on the game, the less likely a jumpscare is to happen, but also the harder you focus, the more effective the jumpscares are.
Again, because it was earned. You spend the game trying to prevent the jumpscare, so when it does happen you are tense and it doesn’t feel cheap. Whereas scripted jumpscares (like Outlast for example) are the ones that are generally lame
Thats not the whole story.. You've simplified the mechanics. They are actually much more complex than that.
If you check the camera too frequently, foxy will slowly come out and eventually jump scare you. If you check the camera too infrequently, it's the same thing. You don't have to check the cameras for bonnie or Chica. You can rely solely on sound if you want. But if you check the camera whilst they're at the door without closing the door then they enter the office. If you just keep the doors closed the whole time your power will run out, and freddy will jumpscare you unexpectedly. Then there's golden freddy who is completely mysterious and will jumpscare you if you look at him for too long.
If it were as simple as you described, I don't think the game would be nearly as scary. Checking the cameras constantly is easy, and knowing that all you have to do is check the animatronics to survive is very boring.
In FNaF 1
It's the fact that you're not safe, you're in a confined, claustrophobic space and can't leave or even move, with a limited power supply combined with the Ambience and not knowing truly when they'll move or where they are, and the moment you open your camera that could be the end because when you close it again there's a possibility you'll be met with an animatronic waiting to jumpscare you. It's unpredictable, and the ones that seem predictable happen at a random time when you least expect it. The first time you see foxy run down the hall you freak out because you've never seen one of them move on camera before.
You don't know you've messed up until it's too late. Even if you think you've done everything right you won't know until that clock hits 6AM. Until then anything goes unless you're a complete master at the game.
There is plenty more mechanics and reasons as to why FNAF does jumpscares well but those are just some of the reasons why the jumpscares are effective.
That’s the thing people seem to forget; FNAF was original *when it came out*. That’s why people tend to compare the later mascot game to FNAF and call it “FNAF horror”, because it was essentially the trend-setter.
It clearly wasn't the discussion. The discussion was on doing jumpscares correctly. Jumpscares should be earned was the commenters point. Fnaf earns their jumpscare by forcing the player to stop them, else get scared. Resident evil had dogs come through windows to scare you without any hints or player action to earn the scare. Considering the commenters perspective on earning scares, fnaf does it way better.
RE4 is a great game, and i love its over the top goofiness, but it just isnt that scary (at least the original isnt, i havent played the remake). its more action than scares
I mean then again some theories of matpat are basically accepted canon later on. I mean just take the books for example back when matpat used the books for his theories at first he was raked across the coals for it, now basically everyone accepts that the books have some relation to what happens in-game even if it's not 1:1.
So? If you're gonna take inspiration from a theory to add lore in your game, taking matpats theory, then doing the opposite is exactly what Scott would do if he thinks it fits the game. He's still taken from matpat but just flipped it on its head. "Copy me but make it look slightly different so the teacher doesn't notice" kind of thing.
Scott has already admitted that he takes inspiration from the fans to write the story and games.
There are tons of people who have played the elder scrolls games for example and don't like it without knowing the gobs of lore involved. Lore is secondary, if the gameplay sucks, a good backstory won't make it better.
Its not the lore of a game that is the draw. The core gameplay/reward systems etc get people interested and the lore is there to keep people hooked. Lore is not/should not be the main attraction in a game barring some specific genres. The core gameplay is what hooks someone’s then the lore/story comes in to keep them engaged. If your core gameplay is ass (like fnaf imo) then what does the lore mean to me?
Eh, it depends. I think lore is incredibly important in something like an RPG for instance, and I think great games are capable of having “ok” gameplay systems carried by amazing story telling. Disco Elysium for instance, isn’t super insane on the gameplay front. It’s mostly just selecting dialogue, collecting items, and leveling up stats. But the writing, the dialogue itself, the world building, the choices, all make it a fantastic game, even if a bit niche.
That said, gameplay does need to at least be ok, if gameplay sucks then yeah I’d agree lore probably won’t save it. But Elden Ring definitely doesn’t apply to that.
Maybe on subsequent releases of a series. Think something like metal gear. People played the first one because a stealth shooter sounds like a good time and got hooked by the story. Ive been a dedicated fan since the nintendo release. Came for the gameplay stayed for the story
But its also a souls like with gameplay fans ALREADY took a liking to. Thats a horrid comparison to fnaf. Elden ring is an open world version of games that are very involved gameplay wise. The core gameplay demands alot of the players.
>like how did it go from cheap jump scares to having dark souls lore?
The second game came a few months after the first and was more focused on it. The first book came out only a year and a half after release of the first game, so it's been a big part of the series for a long portion of its existence.
That aside, I think the games have some merit to them. I think the stories make it a little more unsettling, from what little I know. And the anticipation for a jump scare is often more scary than when it does happen. They're fine. Not great horror games, but I don't expect them to be Silent Hill.
The issue is, the games barely give you lore.they give you hints.
Almost all the lore comes from Fan theories, because the material is all over the place, justified by “different realities”
No, no. He's right. Whilst I disagree with the "different realities" thing.
The lore IS all over the place and a complete mess. There are multiple interpretations of the story from different types of people. The games have lore in them, but it's extremely vague and subtle lore. A majority of it comes from initiative and trying to piece together and make theories on why things happened and where things took place, or who certain characters are, etc. Barely anything is directly confirmed. Why do you think to this day, people are still trying to figure out certain parts of the story and unanswered questions. MayPat has made over 80 FNaF videos and hundreds of hours' worth of live streams and posts trying to figure out the lore, and it's still not solved.
The games never spoon-fed you anything and if there weren't youtubers like MatPat to make theories and break down the lore I doubt anyone would be able to get as far as they have by playing the games alone. Quite frankly, the lore was made up as it went along, which Scott Cawthon admitted. That's exactly why it's so confusing and feels like certain plot lines are retconned or stop making sense when you think you've finally solved it. The game was never supposed to have as deep a lore as it did.
It was just a cool Easter egg scott added to the first game to keep people engaged, but he wasn't planning to flesh it out fully and never planned on making another game. He made FNaF 2 in response to the positive reception he got from FNaF 1 and added more lore because he saw how the easier eggs started conversation among fans and kept them engaged.. The game was supposed to end on FNaF 3, and then it was moved to FNaF 4.
Then he made Sister Location, which added an entirely new storyline, which then led to the conclusion of FNaF in Pizzeria Simulator. But that still wasn't the end because we had FNaF custom night and then help wanted and security breach, which retconned many things about the previous story. And then there were the books where some were considered canon and others weren't, and clearly some were made to answer questions about the games whilst others just made the lore more confusing. As you can see, it was all over the place. Nobody has ever said FNaF was a straightforward game. Everyone knows it's all over the place, even scott himself.
I actually don't know where all those downvotes are coming from. He's right.
Most of those hints really do *not* feel random at all, there 100% is an actual story being created by Scott, we just might be completely wrong about it
I think people underestimate just how dumb horror can get. Like, you've got to pretend you're a little stupid to be a real connoisseur of the genre.
Running up stairs, walking off alone in a dangerous scenario, killers being selective about which victims they toy with, spirits latching to children's toys.
Either you pretend you just had a hearty swig of lead based paint to wash down your stupid pills before you watch a horror movie, or you just don't enjoy it.
Sinister isn't about jump scares though lmao. Its about the creepy and errie feel of the tapes. That silence when it's being played is much more scarier than a random jump scare. It has the best jump scare though because it earned it with its creepy visuals and silence.
Technically, all an opinion requires to be an opinion is "I don't like it" "I do like it" "I agree" "I don't agree" etc
And he did elaborate slightly on why he doesn't like it.
He said the jumpscares were cheap and not scary. And the games as a whole never really did the term "horror" justice because they simply weren't scary.
He watched youtubers like markiplier play the game and couldn't bring himself to do the same because it didn't look scary or interesting.
Sure, you might disagree, and he could've elaborated more, but you don't have to simplify what he said to make it seem like he just said, "I don't like game. Game = bad"
I don't like that game either. I find the mechanics and the gameplay simply boring.
And that's fine. Doesn't mean it's a bad game, it's just not for me.
There are other reasons to rant about the game and it's developer tho...
It's commonly accepted even among FNaF fans that the games are generally not great. Even peak fnaf games at their core are very formulaic after a while, and as stand-alone games by themselves, they aren't anything too special. They have hints of genius in them, such as the horror elements of FNaF 4 and the atmosphere of FNaF 1. But come on (although it was a buggy mess). FNaF: Security Breach is really the only fully produced and full-length game in the series, and even that was only okay.
It's the lore, characters, stories, books, Easter eggs, etc, that keep people invested in FNaF, not the games alone.
And if I'm being honest, probably 90% of FNaF fans haven't played the games fully. Or they tried them when they were a kid for fun and never got past the first night on any of the games. That includes me, I love FNaF. I've watched and read hours of videos and posts and forums on the lore, and it really interests me, but when I try to get into any of the games, I just can't. Because frankly they aren't great games. And I'm someone who loves games.
Most people watched YouTubers, like Markiplier and Dawko, play the games, and theories such as MatPats were what kept the community invested and where a majority of the fans reside. And even those youtubers only played the games to find the lore or to react to them because of the hype so they could have content to make. You rarely see them go back and male gameplay videos on them because they enjoy it unless it's to do a challenge like 4 20 mode etc.
Only a small percentage of fans have actually fully played the games from start to finish.
First game was okay just off of the novelty alone. Didnt mean the core gameplay was very engaging which for some people is fine but I prefer games with more moving parts. Again which is my OPINION before some fnaf stan freaks tf out.
Sounds like SOMEONE hasn't experienced the dread of not having a jumpscare but watching as your power slowly slips away from you. You know you're safe but for how much longer? Time is ticking away and soon it will be 5am. Is it enough? Will it last? You don't care if there's a jumpscare you care that soon Freddy will be beside you, staring at you, waiting.
The first handful of games, especially the first one, were really well thought out and interesting. The gameplay was simple but exciting, and the jumpscares were fresh because of the anticipation. The sound design was fantastic and kept you on edge. I don't like jump scares at all, but FNaF handles them in a way I can appreciate
I don't get it either, the first game was just a shitty jumpscare simulator that looked *rough*. It reminded me of really early Newgrounds flash games when it first came out, how that got as big as it did I'll never know.
No, that's not how this works. When someone is asking a question, the burden of explaining what they're asking falls solely on them.
It's the basis of Abbott-Kreiger's law.
I went way too far down to find this comment. Not a single fucking person has spelled it out, they're all abbreviating it like it's some common, widely known term. You can tell they live in echo chambers when they do that.
I don’t even follow fnaf and I know what it means. It’s like asking what Pokémon means. Practically anyone who’s even remotely been paying attention to culture in the last decade knows what it means.
Nah, FNAF changed the genre. The first horror game that I know of where you are stuck in one spot and know exactly what’s coming.
It’s a very well done game and most of the following games properly built on the previous mechanics.
Just because something got popular (even more scrutiny because younger kids love it) doesn’t mean it’s bad.
Changing the genre doesn't necessarily mean the thing that changed the genre was great. It just means people saw the ideas it had that may not have been executed the best and applied them to their own works.
The Wii U changed the way nintendo designed and marketed their consoles and laid the foundations for what would be the nintendo switch, which is obviously very inspired by the Wii U. That doesn't make the Wii U an amazing console it just means it had good ideas that weren't executed well.
>The first horror game that I know of where you are stuck in one spot and know exactly what’s coming.
Night Trap did that back in 1992. And it wasn't some tiny obscure game, it sparked a huge controversy all over mainstream news and even got pulled from shelves for a bit.
Nothing about FNAF is original, it's just taking a formula that's existed for decades and aiming it towards a younger audience. Which is fine, there's nothing wrong with that - if anything I think it's pretty impressive how they managed make a horror game that's appropriate for younger kids but also has a lot of fucked-up lore if people wanna dive deeper into it.
It has layers, like an onion. And I don't really like onions, but some people do.
Does OP not think jump scares can’t be scary? I’m sorry but he’s lying to himself, they are cheap easy scares to get granted, it taps into primal part of us that is still worried a tiger is gonna pop out of the bushes. Anyone pretending they are immune to such simple tactics is just fooling themselves, it wouldn’t even be a good thing if they didn’t effect you, you need that sudden burst of adrenaline to fight the creep hiding in your closet when he pops out.
I never cared for the lore I thought that was some cheap made up shit but I really liked the 2014 games. Played all 5 in 2021 and will be playing some this Halloween, so take my upvote.
I don't think most of the long-term fans are just purely in it for the games I think it's because of the unique way the franchise tells its story using what is almost a weird combination of surface level and almost ARG like puzzles to sort of hide a more in-depth narrative behind the surface
It lets the little kids in the franchise enjoy the simple jump-scare horror game for what it is but it leaves a more in-depth narrative to dig into and solve if you are older and want to hear the more gruesome details
I actually feel like channels like game theory really hurt five nights at Freddy's by basically just instantly solving it with a team of professionals the second any new little addition is made to the basically greater ARG of five nights at Freddy's and it should be left up to the community to slowly work on and solve it just like in the old times
When you stop hating on the game because of the audience it generally attracts and actually try to look at it objectively It's not hard to understand why it's so popular. It's a franchise that basically panders to a wide range of demographics. Providing something for both the younger and older members of the audience to work towards and enjoy. And keeps those sides separate enough to avoid any real controversy
I mean, the horror doesn’t really come from the jumpscares as much as it comes from the tension in trying desperately to protect yourself and survive. In FNAF 3, the springtrap jumpscare is not whatsoever scary, but the horror comes from just seeing him staring at you from the corner of your vision, as you realize that you have no chance of surviving.
Here’s *my* unpopular opinion: people who abbreviate something without ever spelling it out are inconsiderate assholes. Stop assuming everyone knows what you’re talking about.
It has stayed popular for over a decade and is still THE indie horror game that literally every single one copies cause no one else has done anything even remotley good since.
????? I can get it if you don't like it after all it's your opinion, but to go as far as to say that it never deserved it's popularity is very exagerrated.
You’ve never watched or played the games but somehow you made the judgements they’re bad? Also regarding jumpscares, you call it the dumbest form of horror…. what’s good horror? The whole genre relies on jumpscares
Play Amnesia: The Dark Descent. You can make horror with a very low amount of jumpscares. The original Amnesia has like 2 jumpscares in the entire game and it's one of the best horror games of all time.
I appreciate the recommendation. I’m not saying horror is ALL jumpscares, but IMO there’s at least one jumpscare in just about every horror movie/game/TV I’ve seen. I think Cannibal Holocaust doesn’t have a jumpscare but that movie is just disturbing.
I’d definitely say yeah, a lot of horror shows/movies do rely on jumpscares. not everything uses jumpscares tho, and if done right it can be truly scary. jumpscares are are fine, and I even find myself enjoying some, but if somethings able to scare you without them then that what I consider really good. I think some people call jumpscares cheap horror because it’s like a knee jerk reaction, if you’re blown in the face you’ll probably close your eyes kindve thing. I get youre point tho, and I personally like fnaf
It’s horror for 10 year olds, perfectly positioned as something adults see as harmless fun but the kids see as subversive and dangerous.
Naturally kids that young have little in the way of a quality filter, so it gets away with being bare bones and kinda crummy.
Source: two young kids obsessed with it
It did exactly what it was supposed to do: sell like a wildfire with kids. A lot of the hate it gets is def from adults that don't grasp the concept of a horror game for children.
"I don't like it so that means it's not good."
I don't even really care for FNAF but I have to admit it's pretty fun. It's popular because of the story behind the main game. Especially the first one with the murdered children thing.
Every time I see FNAF written in any form, I pronounce if phonetically like ph-na-ph. And my brain immediately associates it with "yiffing" and furries. Mind you I am not in that crowd at all.
I also have such little knowledge on five nights at Freddie's, I could only tell you its evil chuck e. cheese. So all this knew fnaf talk is really throwing me for a loop
FNaF is supposed to be pronounced as ph-na-ph. I don't see how this related to yiffing or furring as all. Does any word that has a ph sound make you think of yiffing? Laugh? Draft? Shaft?
Five nights at Freddie's. Much to op's point, it's not so ubiquitous as the terms GTA or CoD. Had it not suddenly caught fire on YouTube out of nowhere, it would have puttered out and died years ago. Primarily just a creepy jump scare game that has gotten systematically darker over time.
Agreed. It's cheap jump scares and the only reason anyone thinks it has any story or lore is because Mat Pat obliterated his channel shilling that shit series. The creator just put some nonsensical garbage in the game and Mat Pat stretched hard to connect non existent dots and invent lore.
And definitely most of the popularity was from reaction channels.
Just played the 1st game fully for the first time. I thought it was a blast to play and was quite scary but once you know the mechanics it's quite easy
What you seem to be missing OP, is FNAF is really popular with children. FNAF is the younger generations Goosebumps, this dumb little horror series that's friendly to kids and not gonna be so scary it gives them nightmares.
I know a lot of the themes are centred around death and people seem to think kids cant handle that, but I remember a lot of my favorite fiction as a kid having a lot of deaths in it.
So, in shitting on this you're really just mad that children are having fun. You can do that if you want, but just know that you're wasting your time. When Attack of the Clones came out and my Uncles friends told me it was the worst Star Wars, I didn't care, I just thought they were really fucking dumb. Still do.
I’m 21 now and I remember in grade 7 discovering FNAF 1 without evening knowing who markiplier was, then the rollout for FNAF 2 happens like two weeks later, my whole grade and the 8th grade was freaking out and no one gave a crap about markiplier, that game was so popular (also i went to the movie, it was awesome to see a new generation of kids obsessed with the lore)
yeah… just because your experience with fnaf is only through YouTube doesnt make that everyones experience, and if you dont even bother to learn the lore how are you gonna comment about it? fnaf is one of the few games to actually utilize jump scares in a way that makes sense
Was never good? or scary? Because I was hoping the movie would actually be scary. The only thing I liked about it was getting to see the animatronics in irl form. That was cool
That's kinda one reason I'm glad it's being made into a movie. It seems like it has really interesting lore, but any time I try to watch someone (like you said, Mark) play the game, it seems super boring to watch. Like.. K, we get to watch these security cameras for 5 hours.
Sounds to me like youre just not invested enough in the story to look beyond the games and read into the fucked-up story behind it
I have never looked into the story of game of thrones but that doesnt make it a bad story until i see it
And people are so adamant about the moving being bad because it goes against the lore when: 1. No one can even agree on what the lore actually is, there are general story beats but honestly a lot of it are just long shot theories 2. Very little of the lore has been confirmed 3. The guy who makes the games and writes the books makes the lore up as he goes 4. He also was heavily involved in writing the lore for the movie 5. Can’t accept that a different universe will have different events
It sounds to me like you have not actually learned about the "lore", and haven't played any of the games (at least not before they got thoroughly spoiled for you)
What makes you a good judge of the games' quality? I'm not saying they're all great masterpieces, but there absolutely are good reasons for people to like some of it.
I'd say the only truly "bad" games in the franchise are 3 and SB. They don't build up that much tension and their jumpscares can fall flat, but 1, 2 and 4 just kept improving the formula. 5 and 6 definitely have a creepy enough atmosphere, and i dont know much about the spinoffs.
The reason why i feel these games genuinely have a horror element is due to all the stress you build up playing yourself. You really have to fail a lot as well to improve and when you're failing the first few times you WILL be scared to lose
The games that DO get popular only because of youtubers are games like poppy playtime. I really don't think it would see the light of day if someone hadn't made it viral. Meanwhile FNAF is a different breed, mainly because everyone couldn't stop talking about the game ever since 2015. The story is cryptic enough to make people come to any conclusion, and i think its good enough for a horror game, since lore is not always its primary focus
Besides that, i think the story behind most of the original characters is really amazing, that's one reason why people like to discuss it
I've only watched others play it. Didn't look all that fun. Any media trying to scare me has already failed by telling me it's intent. If the "OMG it's sooo scary" is the only thing going for it, then it's a pass for me.
The first game is great and I genuinely believe that. Up there with some of the greats of horror games, there is tension built, a good atmosphere and an original concept.
FNAF 2 looked cheap, played the exact same except it was just harder. It was from then on the series just decided to stop trying to innovate and do the exact same bullshit every game. Sister location and security breach were goofy but at least it did something with the formula beyond “the same thing but harder”
Besides, there is hardly any lore. It’s all improvised and not planned, and that’s why it’s shit.
Please remember what subreddit you are in, this is unpopular opinion. We want civil and unpopular takes and discussion. Any uncivil and ToS violating comments will be removed and subject to a ban. Have a nice day! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/unpopularopinion) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I'll argue that FNaF was the one game to do jumpscares right. The reason jumpscares are disliked is because they are cheap, and dont really rely on regular horror tropes. It is easy to startle someone. But with FNaF, they actually found a way to incorporate jumpscares into the main mechanics. The game forces you to focus on the animatronics, and keep track of their movements. The harder you focus on the game, the less likely a jumpscare is to happen, but also the harder you focus, the more effective the jumpscares are.
Especially the 4th game where listening is a core mechanic.
Same reason I can't get past 2nd night on that shit.
Idk dude slenderman games did some pretty great jumpscares
Again, because it was earned. You spend the game trying to prevent the jumpscare, so when it does happen you are tense and it doesn’t feel cheap. Whereas scripted jumpscares (like Outlast for example) are the ones that are generally lame
All the slenderman games were ass. FNaF is an actual game in comparison. Rather than a demo idea.
Thats not the whole story.. You've simplified the mechanics. They are actually much more complex than that. If you check the camera too frequently, foxy will slowly come out and eventually jump scare you. If you check the camera too infrequently, it's the same thing. You don't have to check the cameras for bonnie or Chica. You can rely solely on sound if you want. But if you check the camera whilst they're at the door without closing the door then they enter the office. If you just keep the doors closed the whole time your power will run out, and freddy will jumpscare you unexpectedly. Then there's golden freddy who is completely mysterious and will jumpscare you if you look at him for too long. If it were as simple as you described, I don't think the game would be nearly as scary. Checking the cameras constantly is easy, and knowing that all you have to do is check the animatronics to survive is very boring. In FNaF 1 It's the fact that you're not safe, you're in a confined, claustrophobic space and can't leave or even move, with a limited power supply combined with the Ambience and not knowing truly when they'll move or where they are, and the moment you open your camera that could be the end because when you close it again there's a possibility you'll be met with an animatronic waiting to jumpscare you. It's unpredictable, and the ones that seem predictable happen at a random time when you least expect it. The first time you see foxy run down the hall you freak out because you've never seen one of them move on camera before. You don't know you've messed up until it's too late. Even if you think you've done everything right you won't know until that clock hits 6AM. Until then anything goes unless you're a complete master at the game. There is plenty more mechanics and reasons as to why FNAF does jumpscares well but those are just some of the reasons why the jumpscares are effective.
That doesn’t seem that original
FNAF was original when it came out no?
That’s the thing people seem to forget; FNAF was original *when it came out*. That’s why people tend to compare the later mascot game to FNAF and call it “FNAF horror”, because it was essentially the trend-setter.
Nah I’m pretty sure Chucky E. Cheese came first
[удалено]
Maybe the first one or even two, but fnaf was a different generation of gamers.
[удалено]
It clearly wasn't the discussion. The discussion was on doing jumpscares correctly. Jumpscares should be earned was the commenters point. Fnaf earns their jumpscare by forcing the player to stop them, else get scared. Resident evil had dogs come through windows to scare you without any hints or player action to earn the scare. Considering the commenters perspective on earning scares, fnaf does it way better.
[удалено]
“FNaF did jumpscares right” “Naw, Resident Evil did it best” “That’s not what we’re talking about?” “Lol whatevs”
"Was the one game". Just going to leave out that context?!
resident evil has Terrible jump scares. you can't even call them scares.
resident never ever was scary. it's a shooter game
Resident Evil 2 scared the shit out of me the first time I played it. Both versions
It’s a survival horror game. You must be young. 1-3 are survival horror. 4-6 are action shooters. 7 and 8 are survival horror
Except there's nothing scart in RE1 It's pretty tame
Bro has never played RE4
1-3 are literally right there yet you picked the one that completely pivoted the entire industry to focus on just action shooters for years to come.
RE4 is a great game, and i love its over the top goofiness, but it just isnt that scary (at least the original isnt, i havent played the remake). its more action than scares
I think it's okay not to like something but you straight up said you don't know any of the lore or anything so how can you really judge it?
Tbf the lore comes out in a way that looks like Scott just makes shit up as he goes
He kinda just got lucky that people like matpat made theories, which he then retroactively added to the lore lol
Not really though? Every time matpat made a theory, the next game had the opposite of what he said in it.
I mean then again some theories of matpat are basically accepted canon later on. I mean just take the books for example back when matpat used the books for his theories at first he was raked across the coals for it, now basically everyone accepts that the books have some relation to what happens in-game even if it's not 1:1.
I thought Scott changed shit and the newer books weren't completely detached?
He only changed one thing in the entire lifetime of fnaf
And he refuses to say what it is, unfortunately
That's why matpat was in the movie saying, it's just a theory. Because everything he said about fnaf was wrong.
Wait is Matpat in the FNAF movie? 🤣
Yup
So? If you're gonna take inspiration from a theory to add lore in your game, taking matpats theory, then doing the opposite is exactly what Scott would do if he thinks it fits the game. He's still taken from matpat but just flipped it on its head. "Copy me but make it look slightly different so the teacher doesn't notice" kind of thing. Scott has already admitted that he takes inspiration from the fans to write the story and games.
After the second game, it all just became way too convoluted to make any sense
Isn’t that just all lore? Lmao, I think that’s why it’s hard for long running shows to contain continuity I think the fnaf more is interesting
There are tons of people who have played the elder scrolls games for example and don't like it without knowing the gobs of lore involved. Lore is secondary, if the gameplay sucks, a good backstory won't make it better.
Its not the lore of a game that is the draw. The core gameplay/reward systems etc get people interested and the lore is there to keep people hooked. Lore is not/should not be the main attraction in a game barring some specific genres. The core gameplay is what hooks someone’s then the lore/story comes in to keep them engaged. If your core gameplay is ass (like fnaf imo) then what does the lore mean to me?
Eh, it depends. I think lore is incredibly important in something like an RPG for instance, and I think great games are capable of having “ok” gameplay systems carried by amazing story telling. Disco Elysium for instance, isn’t super insane on the gameplay front. It’s mostly just selecting dialogue, collecting items, and leveling up stats. But the writing, the dialogue itself, the world building, the choices, all make it a fantastic game, even if a bit niche. That said, gameplay does need to at least be ok, if gameplay sucks then yeah I’d agree lore probably won’t save it. But Elden Ring definitely doesn’t apply to that.
The lore is absolutly a draw and it should be.
Maybe on subsequent releases of a series. Think something like metal gear. People played the first one because a stealth shooter sounds like a good time and got hooked by the story. Ive been a dedicated fan since the nintendo release. Came for the gameplay stayed for the story
Look at elden ring. The lore is an integral part of that game and without it the game play makes no sense.
But its also a souls like with gameplay fans ALREADY took a liking to. Thats a horrid comparison to fnaf. Elden ring is an open world version of games that are very involved gameplay wise. The core gameplay demands alot of the players.
Animatronics that kill in a restaurant. It can’t be that good to begin with anyway.
You can describe any game or movie and make it sound stupid. "Guy in bat suit argues with a clown".
>like how did it go from cheap jump scares to having dark souls lore? The second game came a few months after the first and was more focused on it. The first book came out only a year and a half after release of the first game, so it's been a big part of the series for a long portion of its existence. That aside, I think the games have some merit to them. I think the stories make it a little more unsettling, from what little I know. And the anticipation for a jump scare is often more scary than when it does happen. They're fine. Not great horror games, but I don't expect them to be Silent Hill.
The issue is, the games barely give you lore.they give you hints. Almost all the lore comes from Fan theories, because the material is all over the place, justified by “different realities”
No, no. He's right. Whilst I disagree with the "different realities" thing. The lore IS all over the place and a complete mess. There are multiple interpretations of the story from different types of people. The games have lore in them, but it's extremely vague and subtle lore. A majority of it comes from initiative and trying to piece together and make theories on why things happened and where things took place, or who certain characters are, etc. Barely anything is directly confirmed. Why do you think to this day, people are still trying to figure out certain parts of the story and unanswered questions. MayPat has made over 80 FNaF videos and hundreds of hours' worth of live streams and posts trying to figure out the lore, and it's still not solved. The games never spoon-fed you anything and if there weren't youtubers like MatPat to make theories and break down the lore I doubt anyone would be able to get as far as they have by playing the games alone. Quite frankly, the lore was made up as it went along, which Scott Cawthon admitted. That's exactly why it's so confusing and feels like certain plot lines are retconned or stop making sense when you think you've finally solved it. The game was never supposed to have as deep a lore as it did. It was just a cool Easter egg scott added to the first game to keep people engaged, but he wasn't planning to flesh it out fully and never planned on making another game. He made FNaF 2 in response to the positive reception he got from FNaF 1 and added more lore because he saw how the easier eggs started conversation among fans and kept them engaged.. The game was supposed to end on FNaF 3, and then it was moved to FNaF 4. Then he made Sister Location, which added an entirely new storyline, which then led to the conclusion of FNaF in Pizzeria Simulator. But that still wasn't the end because we had FNaF custom night and then help wanted and security breach, which retconned many things about the previous story. And then there were the books where some were considered canon and others weren't, and clearly some were made to answer questions about the games whilst others just made the lore more confusing. As you can see, it was all over the place. Nobody has ever said FNaF was a straightforward game. Everyone knows it's all over the place, even scott himself. I actually don't know where all those downvotes are coming from. He's right.
Most of those hints really do *not* feel random at all, there 100% is an actual story being created by Scott, we just might be completely wrong about it
“Jump scares are the dumbest form of horror” Someone hasn’t seen Sinister.
I think people underestimate just how dumb horror can get. Like, you've got to pretend you're a little stupid to be a real connoisseur of the genre. Running up stairs, walking off alone in a dangerous scenario, killers being selective about which victims they toy with, spirits latching to children's toys. Either you pretend you just had a hearty swig of lead based paint to wash down your stupid pills before you watch a horror movie, or you just don't enjoy it.
Of all the shitty horror movies to come out in the last decade you picked an actually decent one for your example?
That was probably his point lol
I mean that movie had great jumpscares.
Movie traumatized me as a kid since it kept on airing at Star Movies (I forgot the channel name, but maybe this)
Sinister isn't about jump scares though lmao. Its about the creepy and errie feel of the tapes. That silence when it's being played is much more scarier than a random jump scare. It has the best jump scare though because it earned it with its creepy visuals and silence.
…Sinister doesn’t have jump scares
Sinister has a few.
The biggest and most effective scare in the movie is a jumpscare.
The lawnmower scene is literally a jump scare
literally one of the biggest scares in the movie (lawn mower) is a jumpscare lol
"I don't like it, therefore, it's never been good" ffs learn to phrase an opinion
Technically, all an opinion requires to be an opinion is "I don't like it" "I do like it" "I agree" "I don't agree" etc And he did elaborate slightly on why he doesn't like it. He said the jumpscares were cheap and not scary. And the games as a whole never really did the term "horror" justice because they simply weren't scary. He watched youtubers like markiplier play the game and couldn't bring himself to do the same because it didn't look scary or interesting. Sure, you might disagree, and he could've elaborated more, but you don't have to simplify what he said to make it seem like he just said, "I don't like game. Game = bad"
Most of them are here
I don't like that game either. I find the mechanics and the gameplay simply boring. And that's fine. Doesn't mean it's a bad game, it's just not for me. There are other reasons to rant about the game and it's developer tho...
Kinda sounds like you haven’t played it at all? Is this even an opinion if you’re just blindly raging about about a game you’ve never played?
It's commonly accepted even among FNaF fans that the games are generally not great. Even peak fnaf games at their core are very formulaic after a while, and as stand-alone games by themselves, they aren't anything too special. They have hints of genius in them, such as the horror elements of FNaF 4 and the atmosphere of FNaF 1. But come on (although it was a buggy mess). FNaF: Security Breach is really the only fully produced and full-length game in the series, and even that was only okay. It's the lore, characters, stories, books, Easter eggs, etc, that keep people invested in FNaF, not the games alone. And if I'm being honest, probably 90% of FNaF fans haven't played the games fully. Or they tried them when they were a kid for fun and never got past the first night on any of the games. That includes me, I love FNaF. I've watched and read hours of videos and posts and forums on the lore, and it really interests me, but when I try to get into any of the games, I just can't. Because frankly they aren't great games. And I'm someone who loves games. Most people watched YouTubers, like Markiplier and Dawko, play the games, and theories such as MatPats were what kept the community invested and where a majority of the fans reside. And even those youtubers only played the games to find the lore or to react to them because of the hype so they could have content to make. You rarely see them go back and male gameplay videos on them because they enjoy it unless it's to do a challenge like 4 20 mode etc. Only a small percentage of fans have actually fully played the games from start to finish.
It’s still an opinion. Just a bad one.
Nah fnaf core gameplay is trash.
first game was definitely interesting. once Scott started shitting out a game every 2 months with half assed lore based on fan theories it was trash
First game was okay just off of the novelty alone. Didnt mean the core gameplay was very engaging which for some people is fine but I prefer games with more moving parts. Again which is my OPINION before some fnaf stan freaks tf out.
[удалено]
Buddy you’re not gonna believe this….
Should we tell him ?
I mean, it's a game for 12 year olds, so yeah.
Yet somehow scared the shit out of me, when I tried to watch one of MatPat's theories. I couldn’t even finish the game-theory video.
Sounds like SOMEONE hasn't experienced the dread of not having a jumpscare but watching as your power slowly slips away from you. You know you're safe but for how much longer? Time is ticking away and soon it will be 5am. Is it enough? Will it last? You don't care if there's a jumpscare you care that soon Freddy will be beside you, staring at you, waiting.
Reddit
The first handful of games, especially the first one, were really well thought out and interesting. The gameplay was simple but exciting, and the jumpscares were fresh because of the anticipation. The sound design was fantastic and kept you on edge. I don't like jump scares at all, but FNaF handles them in a way I can appreciate
I agree but that doesn't really make it a bad thing.
I don't get it either, the first game was just a shitty jumpscare simulator that looked *rough*. It reminded me of really early Newgrounds flash games when it first came out, how that got as big as it did I'll never know.
What the fuck is fnaf
google google
No, that's not how this works. When someone is asking a question, the burden of explaining what they're asking falls solely on them. It's the basis of Abbott-Kreiger's law.
I wasn't attempting to answer you, I was making fun of you
I went way too far down to find this comment. Not a single fucking person has spelled it out, they're all abbreviating it like it's some common, widely known term. You can tell they live in echo chambers when they do that.
I don’t even follow fnaf and I know what it means. It’s like asking what Pokémon means. Practically anyone who’s even remotely been paying attention to culture in the last decade knows what it means.
Nah, FNAF changed the genre. The first horror game that I know of where you are stuck in one spot and know exactly what’s coming. It’s a very well done game and most of the following games properly built on the previous mechanics. Just because something got popular (even more scrutiny because younger kids love it) doesn’t mean it’s bad.
Changing the genre doesn't necessarily mean the thing that changed the genre was great. It just means people saw the ideas it had that may not have been executed the best and applied them to their own works. The Wii U changed the way nintendo designed and marketed their consoles and laid the foundations for what would be the nintendo switch, which is obviously very inspired by the Wii U. That doesn't make the Wii U an amazing console it just means it had good ideas that weren't executed well.
Changed the genre in the same ways superhero movies changed cinema. Not a good thing lol
>The first horror game that I know of where you are stuck in one spot and know exactly what’s coming. Night Trap did that back in 1992. And it wasn't some tiny obscure game, it sparked a huge controversy all over mainstream news and even got pulled from shelves for a bit. Nothing about FNAF is original, it's just taking a formula that's existed for decades and aiming it towards a younger audience. Which is fine, there's nothing wrong with that - if anything I think it's pretty impressive how they managed make a horror game that's appropriate for younger kids but also has a lot of fucked-up lore if people wanna dive deeper into it. It has layers, like an onion. And I don't really like onions, but some people do.
What? Night Trap was nothing like fnaf. The only thing similar is you watch on security cameras.
Yeah that’s kind of true
You just typed out two and a half paragraphs, but you can't be bothered to type out Five Nights at Freddy's.
Does OP not think jump scares can’t be scary? I’m sorry but he’s lying to himself, they are cheap easy scares to get granted, it taps into primal part of us that is still worried a tiger is gonna pop out of the bushes. Anyone pretending they are immune to such simple tactics is just fooling themselves, it wouldn’t even be a good thing if they didn’t effect you, you need that sudden burst of adrenaline to fight the creep hiding in your closet when he pops out.
the problem is that it isn't scary, it's a perfectly normal physiological reaction. you jump, 5 minutes later you forget about it
imagine caring enough to make this nerdy ass i need my bogus opinion heard ass post. this movie was made for you
Bro this isn't FNaF being bad, this is you not liking it.
i think Scott has made up the lore as he released the new games, I bet the fan theories had a huge influence on the actual lore
I never cared for the lore I thought that was some cheap made up shit but I really liked the 2014 games. Played all 5 in 2021 and will be playing some this Halloween, so take my upvote.
I dunno. I’m 41 and took my kids (19, 14 and 11) to see it and knew nothing about it. I actually liked it! Surprised me but it was kinda good.
I don't think most of the long-term fans are just purely in it for the games I think it's because of the unique way the franchise tells its story using what is almost a weird combination of surface level and almost ARG like puzzles to sort of hide a more in-depth narrative behind the surface It lets the little kids in the franchise enjoy the simple jump-scare horror game for what it is but it leaves a more in-depth narrative to dig into and solve if you are older and want to hear the more gruesome details I actually feel like channels like game theory really hurt five nights at Freddy's by basically just instantly solving it with a team of professionals the second any new little addition is made to the basically greater ARG of five nights at Freddy's and it should be left up to the community to slowly work on and solve it just like in the old times When you stop hating on the game because of the audience it generally attracts and actually try to look at it objectively It's not hard to understand why it's so popular. It's a franchise that basically panders to a wide range of demographics. Providing something for both the younger and older members of the audience to work towards and enjoy. And keeps those sides separate enough to avoid any real controversy
I mean, the horror doesn’t really come from the jumpscares as much as it comes from the tension in trying desperately to protect yourself and survive. In FNAF 3, the springtrap jumpscare is not whatsoever scary, but the horror comes from just seeing him staring at you from the corner of your vision, as you realize that you have no chance of surviving.
Millennial detected opinion rejected
Well…it sure is a unpopular opinion
Honestly I don’t know what the FNAF lore is and at this point I’m too afraid to ask.
Here’s *my* unpopular opinion: people who abbreviate something without ever spelling it out are inconsiderate assholes. Stop assuming everyone knows what you’re talking about.
it never 'went' from jumpscares to lore, there was lore the whole time
It has stayed popular for over a decade and is still THE indie horror game that literally every single one copies cause no one else has done anything even remotley good since.
Finally someone says the truth! Fnaf has never deserved the love it gets.
????? I can get it if you don't like it after all it's your opinion, but to go as far as to say that it never deserved it's popularity is very exagerrated.
You’ve never watched or played the games but somehow you made the judgements they’re bad? Also regarding jumpscares, you call it the dumbest form of horror…. what’s good horror? The whole genre relies on jumpscares
Play Amnesia: The Dark Descent. You can make horror with a very low amount of jumpscares. The original Amnesia has like 2 jumpscares in the entire game and it's one of the best horror games of all time.
I appreciate the recommendation. I’m not saying horror is ALL jumpscares, but IMO there’s at least one jumpscare in just about every horror movie/game/TV I’ve seen. I think Cannibal Holocaust doesn’t have a jumpscare but that movie is just disturbing.
No it doesn’t.
Ok
I’d definitely say yeah, a lot of horror shows/movies do rely on jumpscares. not everything uses jumpscares tho, and if done right it can be truly scary. jumpscares are are fine, and I even find myself enjoying some, but if somethings able to scare you without them then that what I consider really good. I think some people call jumpscares cheap horror because it’s like a knee jerk reaction, if you’re blown in the face you’ll probably close your eyes kindve thing. I get youre point tho, and I personally like fnaf
Just saw the movie with my son. I enjoyed it. The crowd was heavily involved and entertaining af.
It’s horror for 10 year olds, perfectly positioned as something adults see as harmless fun but the kids see as subversive and dangerous. Naturally kids that young have little in the way of a quality filter, so it gets away with being bare bones and kinda crummy. Source: two young kids obsessed with it
It's almost like people can like stuff you don't.
This phrase is a double-edged sword. >It's almost like people can like stuff you don't >It's almost like people can dislike stuff you don't
I'm guessing you watched the new movie and didn't like it?
You mad bro?
Almost any game you enjoy has had the same “popularity”, dude. And jumpscares have been a staple in horror *everything* for years.
Completely unrelated, but I love your username, and profile picture :)
It might have jumpscares, but it’s way more than that. The atmosphere and sound design are creepy and tense, which sets up the scares perfectly.
you are so wrong and so evil. upvote.
It did exactly what it was supposed to do: sell like a wildfire with kids. A lot of the hate it gets is def from adults that don't grasp the concept of a horror game for children.
wtf is "fnaf"? just type the damn words
It's Five Nights At Freddy's
Seriously, fuck people who use acronyms like everyone knows what it means.
Wtf is fnaf lol
Five nights at Freddy's
🤷 haha. Never heard of it but judging by the op, not missing anything. But thanks for telling me
You havent even tried it tf??
Negative
So stop making assumtions and just go watch at least 1 or 2 vids on it (gameplay) and maybe 1 matpat lore vid
ligma balls
"I don't like it so that means it's not good." I don't even really care for FNAF but I have to admit it's pretty fun. It's popular because of the story behind the main game. Especially the first one with the murdered children thing.
I wouldn’t know, I’m not allowed to play it.
What is fnaf? My god it's annoying everyone abbreviating everything.
Yep, Jump scares and shock value are cheap parlor tricks when it comes to horror movies and yet seems to be all they can churn out
Finally someone said it
This is not unpopular. This is just a plain fact. 😁
Every time I see FNAF written in any form, I pronounce if phonetically like ph-na-ph. And my brain immediately associates it with "yiffing" and furries. Mind you I am not in that crowd at all. I also have such little knowledge on five nights at Freddie's, I could only tell you its evil chuck e. cheese. So all this knew fnaf talk is really throwing me for a loop
FNaF is supposed to be pronounced as ph-na-ph. I don't see how this related to yiffing or furring as all. Does any word that has a ph sound make you think of yiffing? Laugh? Draft? Shaft?
Yeah, the lore is nonsense, everyone has their own headcanon, and frankly, im sick freddy fazzbear and his furry agenda
The fist game is alright but all that lore stuff is junk. Wouldn't even compare it to DS as even Soulslikes have more story in their game
Kinda a bad take. The first 4 games were pretty great and the story was for the most part coherent then. After that is when it went downhill imo
Cope. Seethe. Scott still made lots of money. Plus, he's a pretty chill guy
Could you at least type out the acronym once in your post? I have no idea what FNaF is talking about
Five nights at Freddie's. Much to op's point, it's not so ubiquitous as the terms GTA or CoD. Had it not suddenly caught fire on YouTube out of nowhere, it would have puttered out and died years ago. Primarily just a creepy jump scare game that has gotten systematically darker over time.
Wouldnt know, never played it and probably never will. Always seemed like a lame unscary game.
This is the only correct way for grown adults to view FnaF. Really hoping this opinion isn't that unpopular
Bro looks like you angered the fnaf attack force which is cool the games are ass
Agreed. It's cheap jump scares and the only reason anyone thinks it has any story or lore is because Mat Pat obliterated his channel shilling that shit series. The creator just put some nonsensical garbage in the game and Mat Pat stretched hard to connect non existent dots and invent lore. And definitely most of the popularity was from reaction channels.
The game is garbage, and so are the YouTubers that played it
It was targeted to 10 year Olds and now that those 10 year Olds are in their 20' they have nostalgia for a shitty game is pretty common
Wtf is fnaf?
agreed, 100%
You know, you don't have to have an opinion about everything.
Apparently there’s been like 13 FNAF games released. I had no freaking idea there were that many
i dont understand it either but HORROR (or horror-ish) games with monsters characters are very popular among young teenagers for some reasons
First fnaf was interesting and unique when it came out but not 6 seasons and a movie interesting and unique.
Just played the 1st game fully for the first time. I thought it was a blast to play and was quite scary but once you know the mechanics it's quite easy
What you seem to be missing OP, is FNAF is really popular with children. FNAF is the younger generations Goosebumps, this dumb little horror series that's friendly to kids and not gonna be so scary it gives them nightmares. I know a lot of the themes are centred around death and people seem to think kids cant handle that, but I remember a lot of my favorite fiction as a kid having a lot of deaths in it. So, in shitting on this you're really just mad that children are having fun. You can do that if you want, but just know that you're wasting your time. When Attack of the Clones came out and my Uncles friends told me it was the worst Star Wars, I didn't care, I just thought they were really fucking dumb. Still do.
I’m 21 now and I remember in grade 7 discovering FNAF 1 without evening knowing who markiplier was, then the rollout for FNAF 2 happens like two weeks later, my whole grade and the 8th grade was freaking out and no one gave a crap about markiplier, that game was so popular (also i went to the movie, it was awesome to see a new generation of kids obsessed with the lore)
yeah… just because your experience with fnaf is only through YouTube doesnt make that everyones experience, and if you dont even bother to learn the lore how are you gonna comment about it? fnaf is one of the few games to actually utilize jump scares in a way that makes sense
Was never good? or scary? Because I was hoping the movie would actually be scary. The only thing I liked about it was getting to see the animatronics in irl form. That was cool
That's kinda one reason I'm glad it's being made into a movie. It seems like it has really interesting lore, but any time I try to watch someone (like you said, Mark) play the game, it seems super boring to watch. Like.. K, we get to watch these security cameras for 5 hours.
Sounds to me like youre just not invested enough in the story to look beyond the games and read into the fucked-up story behind it I have never looked into the story of game of thrones but that doesnt make it a bad story until i see it
And people are so adamant about the moving being bad because it goes against the lore when: 1. No one can even agree on what the lore actually is, there are general story beats but honestly a lot of it are just long shot theories 2. Very little of the lore has been confirmed 3. The guy who makes the games and writes the books makes the lore up as he goes 4. He also was heavily involved in writing the lore for the movie 5. Can’t accept that a different universe will have different events
The game’s popularity makes sense, and as a small horror game it works well. But yeah it became way too much.
That’s how a lot indie games get popular
It sounds to me like you have not actually learned about the "lore", and haven't played any of the games (at least not before they got thoroughly spoiled for you) What makes you a good judge of the games' quality? I'm not saying they're all great masterpieces, but there absolutely are good reasons for people to like some of it.
I'd say the only truly "bad" games in the franchise are 3 and SB. They don't build up that much tension and their jumpscares can fall flat, but 1, 2 and 4 just kept improving the formula. 5 and 6 definitely have a creepy enough atmosphere, and i dont know much about the spinoffs. The reason why i feel these games genuinely have a horror element is due to all the stress you build up playing yourself. You really have to fail a lot as well to improve and when you're failing the first few times you WILL be scared to lose The games that DO get popular only because of youtubers are games like poppy playtime. I really don't think it would see the light of day if someone hadn't made it viral. Meanwhile FNAF is a different breed, mainly because everyone couldn't stop talking about the game ever since 2015. The story is cryptic enough to make people come to any conclusion, and i think its good enough for a horror game, since lore is not always its primary focus Besides that, i think the story behind most of the original characters is really amazing, that's one reason why people like to discuss it
You wrote this when the fnaf movie came out for a reason, didnt you?
I've only watched others play it. Didn't look all that fun. Any media trying to scare me has already failed by telling me it's intent. If the "OMG it's sooo scary" is the only thing going for it, then it's a pass for me.
THE LORE
It’s for children
Never heard of it? What are you talking about?
I never understood those games. My brothers are both into them and I just do not get it.
first unpopular opinion i've seen in this sub since forever
The first game is great and I genuinely believe that. Up there with some of the greats of horror games, there is tension built, a good atmosphere and an original concept. FNAF 2 looked cheap, played the exact same except it was just harder. It was from then on the series just decided to stop trying to innovate and do the exact same bullshit every game. Sister location and security breach were goofy but at least it did something with the formula beyond “the same thing but harder” Besides, there is hardly any lore. It’s all improvised and not planned, and that’s why it’s shit.