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

Pro Conclusion 1: The entire horror experience of FNAF is present in the jumpscares, which dissipate in value In light of the principle of desensitization I showed in round 3 in which every game will eventually diminish in value, even if the jumpscares in FNAF are the game's only element of horror they are, again in Pro's words, "absolutely terrifying" to many. As many consumers of horror-related products opt to delve into the product for a limited time (one or two viewings, one full playthrough), as I argued in round 1, the object of anything horror-related is to elicit a fear out of a consumer, whether that fear be shock related (jumpscare), or otherwise a fear derived from tension of any sort, both of which FNAF accomplish, given the nature of the game. In short, it does its job of scaring people and it does its job of scaring people very well. Arguing that the only source of horror of the FNAF are the jumpscares is irrelevant in the context of the horror genre, even if the argument is true, as most horror-related products have one or a few elements of horror whose impact is intended to hit the newcomer, yet inevitably dissipate. Pro Conclusion 2: FNAF merely requires the player to repeat an angorithm, much more so than other horror gamesMost static games seemingly devolve into products whose completion requires only an algorithm to achieve, yet that fact does not detract from the difficulty of any game, as the process of learning or coming up with the necessary algorithm, and the execution of that algorithm can be difficult. Yes, there is a method to defeating FNAF on the hardest difficulty, but the one who came up with the method, according to him, took approximately 23 hours to beat the game. Yes, the gamer Pro referenced, Markiplier, defeated the game on the hardest difficulty using that same method, but he spent hours in order to do so as well. It is apparent that, despite the discovery/formulation of the method necessary to beat the game, it is a challenging game whose nature of incremental difficulty offers a value in replayability, given by the time the formulator and practitioners of the formulator's method have used to defeat it. Pro Conclusion 3: FNAF's lack of options is mostly detrimental, as the game loses its replayability. The premise behind this argument is based on Pro's assumption that free-roaming horror is scarier, which, as pointed out in round 2, is purely a subjective preference. Many would argue that FNAF's unique interface and delivery adds to the horror of the game, just as many would argue that it detracts from the game's horror; it really is a void issue. Conclusion:FNAF is a good game for two simple reasons:1) Its interface provides a unique experience that is phenomenal; it provides both a sense of tension and stress at the prospect of surviving a host of variable circumstances with a great deal of luck towards the conclusion of the successive nights, and effective jumpscares that scare those who are new to it (as any horror should do).2) It is difficult, so much so that so that the game's creator thought its hardest difficulty was impossible to beat until somebody proved it possible after 23 hours;It's because of this run that I added a third star on the title screen for this accomplishment. I really didn't think it was possible. I can't even do it! - Scott Cawthon, creator and developer of FNAFMany thanks for the debate. I would like to, as well, debate you again sometime in the future.