Five Night's at Freddy's Is a Mediocre Game

However, there is something I would like to address before continuing:Con assumes I have full BoP, when in fact this isn't the case. He has a lot bigger BoP to fulfill, which is to prove FNAF is overly good or overly bad. He goes with overly good, and as such he should refute from that standpoint. I have a smaller one, which is to prove it is mediocre. Opponent neglects this BoP often, and I will explain why below. ARGUMENTS TO EXTEND:Extend replayability in R2. Opponent ignores this entirely, leaving it an uncontested argument, and it's a vital one as well. Extend jumpscare reliability in R3. Opponent fails to address this as well, and seeing as its so core to FNAF, hold this argument against him as well. Opponent might state that some of his arguments weren't contested, however they were already refuted in my R2 before his were even posted; he simply needs to check. Now onto the rebuttals:I'd like to start with opponent's closing R3 statement:"Pro fails to affirm the resolution thus far, as he neglects to address the one element that makes FNAF so great and justifies its fanbase: its ability to scare people in an interface that has not been attempted in other great horror games. Pro would need to argue how it fails at or is merely mediocre in scaring even the most experienced of gamers, something Pro affirmed in R2. "Again, loops back to BoP. This isn't my BoP, however. My BoP is to prove it is a mediocre game. As well, Con seems to confuse scaring and surprising. Many of the people who have played the game for a while are surprised upon the animatronics popping up, but it doesn't scare them; they aren't frightened or terrified of the animatronics, they are simply surprised about the jumpscare. And since said players have gone so long anticipating it, it seems pointless to still refer to it as "scared". In the early stages of the person playing the game they will be scared, but those used to the game will no longer be fearful of the jumpscares, simply surprised. May I remind opponent the definition of mediocre? of only moderate quality; not very good. I concede some elements of FNAF are good, as I said in R2, which were initial feeling of anxiousness, graphics style, and community, and this is part of my BoP. However, opponent is overstepping my BoP and neglecting his own, which is to prove FNAF is an overly good game (as he decides in R2), yet he concedes the whole entirety of his argument in R3. Con has obviously not fulfilled his BoP, and simply stating I have not because I didn't argue that it "was merely mediocre in scaring even the most experienced of gamers", and I believe overall opponent is making fallacious claims here. I shall now refute to what opponent says in R3. DesensitizationOverall this is true. The more a user takes part in an activity, the less they'll react to it. However, in the case of FNAF, the only element of true fright is the jumpscares. When someone becomes desensitized to the jumpscares of FNAF, they become desensitized to, almost, all of the fright associated with the game, as the jumpscares are the only fear associated with it. With other horror games, they have a lot more elements that contribute to the fear, such as the overall atmosphere, music associated with it, and the type of objective involved. FNAF's atmosphere is a good thing about the game, but other horror games can pull off an immersing atmosphere a lot better than the capabilities of FNAF. When it comes to music, some games have extremely eerie vibes, causing you to be extremely worried in whatever state you're in, even to lull you into a false sense of security then destroy your hope. When it comes to objective, FNAF's is surviving, while other horror games make you look for a quest or goal. I believe this to be subjective preference myself. As well, opponent appeals to authority, quoting Markiplier and later using this against me, which I ask be not considered, as appeal to authority is simply fallacy. Simply one famous YouTuber claiming to be "absolutely terrified" should not be the reason Con wins by far. Any static game can be mapped out and defeated. Again, a good point from opponent. Each static game has a map and patters within the map. The problem with FNAF is that is relies WAY too heavily on patterns. Other games, like Slender, incorporate a random element as to the location of the pages and where the Slenderman goes, but it does follow a specific amount of places it could be. With FNAF, a huge majority of it is learning the maps, the character patterns, etc. and the only true chance of randomness, I would say, is at the end, but even then there is no such thing as true randomness. But now I'm going off topic. My point here is that other horror games give far more possibilities than FNAF can with learning the map and the things in said map, again, such as the pages and Slenderman's paths. In FNAF, it's simply memorizing the animatronic patterns and how much % each task uses. Once you've done those, and are able to act accordingly, you've won FNAF. Requiring free-roaming is subjectiveAgain, while true, free-roam horror arguably is a lot scarier, and more preferrable, as it gives the player more options and a wider range of decisions to choose from, and with that comes more threats against you (most of the time). While I do not deny FNAF's style is unique, it certainly gets boring after a while, not being able to move and simply repeating algorithms. Again, another area where FNAF loses its value. CONCLUSIONI believe I should win for the following reasons:1. Opponent has failed to fulfill his BoP.2. I have provided reasons as to why FNAF is a mediocre game, while opponent concedes essentially his entire argument.3. Opponent makes false assumptions about my BoP and assumes it is a lot larger than it is, while neglecting his own. REASONS FNAF IS MEDIOCRE:1. The entire horror experience of FNAF is present in the jumpscares. While those who are relatively newer to the game are more susceptible to the jumpscares, those resilient lose value in FNAF. When those jumpscares are taken away, or lose its value, as does the game, as its entire horror focus point is on jumpscares. Remove those and the game isn't horror anymore, while other good horror games, without jumpscares, manage to classify as horror (Outlast, DS, and Slender are good examples).2. FNAF, while requiring fast movements and reactions from the player, is merely repeating an algorithm and memorizing patterns, much more so than other horror games.3. FNAF's lack of options, while appealing to some, is mostly detrimental as the game loses its replayability.4. Even so, FNAF's art style and community are good parts of the game itself and allow it to continue to stay alive. While I thank opponent for the fight I believe my reasoning stands uncontested. For the reasons above, FNAF is a mediocre game, and not overly good, as opponent wishes to believe. I believe his only valid argument in this entire debate was the original view on horror, and if it scares on first sight it is indeed good horror, however, the whole point of a "jumpscare" is to scare the user upon first seeing it. A true, good horror game will continually frighten the user throughout the entirety of their experience, and not simply at one moment. With both Pros and Cons about the game, Pros being community, anxiousness upon first experience, and art style, the cons are great as well, including replayability, lost horror value, and the entire game simply being pattern memorization. For the reasons above, and the fact that opponent has little to no arguments to prove his side correct, I believe a vote for Pro is warranted. I thank NNEye for the debate, it's been fun debating a topic like this. I hope I have the pleasure of debating you in the future!