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

Taking into account Pro's arguments in Rounds 2 and 3, Pro's entire premise can be summed up as follows: 1) Although FNAF scares many first-time players, its ability to scare a player diminishes or becomes nonexistent as he or she progresses. Its jumpscares, the only valuable horror-related aspects of the game, then become predictable to that player. 2) Players can map out the animatronics’ movements via the Wiki, tutorials, or by playing the game itself after a while. 3) A good horror game would incorporate elements of free roaming or player exploration. Conclusion) FNAF is a mediocre game. NR 1: Desensitization is a universal consequence of any repeated experience. No horror-related media is exempt; any horror, whether it be a game, novel, "creepypasta," or movie, naturally loses its ability to scare a person as he or she continues to engage it. To argue that any horror, particularly in this case FNAF, must continue to scare a person long after it has delivered its payload from the first experiences is really an unfair and unreasonable standard for any horror. Eventually, the task of finding 8 pages in a dark forest while dodging Slenderman loses its fear-inducing effect. Struggling against waves of necromorphs and other grotesquely animated corpses on the USG Ishimura becomes routine (I, personally, found Dead Space to be boring). The Exorcist, being a monumental innovation of the horror genre because of its influence on the audience of the 70s, is corny to today's 21st century audience of commonplace paranormal phenomenon in media. Operating doors, cameras, and door lights in an attempt to survive a stream of nights against animatronics devolves into old hat. Most, therefore, judge the fear-related aspect of a horror on the impact of its delivery and not on its impact after successive hearings. If a horror can scare a person, then it is indeed a good horror to that person. If it cannot scare a person, then it is indeed an ineffective horror to that person. FNAF proves itself to be a horror that can, in Pro's words per R2, render many people such as the arguably professional gamer and vlogger Markiplier "absolutely terrified" as well as frustrated, even mildly insane [1], and that is all that is necessary for a horror game to be great.NR 2: The tendencies of any static game can be mapped out and defeated.This goes with every static game or every static element of any game. Given time, people would figure out how to defeat Halo Reach's campaign on legendary. Given time, one would figure out how to beat Dead Space and its subsequent installments. Given time, people would figure out how to defeat Super Hexagon. Given time, people would figure out how to beat FNAF on the highest difficulty settings. However, this obvious reality does not detract from the difficulty of any static game or any static element of any game, as, for instance, it still took the first person who figured out how to defeat FNAF allegedly 23 hours to do so [2].NR 3: Requiring free-roaming in a horror game is merely a subjective preference.One cannot make it a standard to have free-roaming in a game in order for it to fulfill the simple task of scaring people, as it is not necessary to allow the player to roam in order to scare him or her. FNAF is an excellent example of this in that although it confines the player to one particular space, leaving him or her to merely operate the cameras, doors, and door lights, it still renders people "absolutely terrified."Conclusion: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.Sources[1] [2] ;