Reviews Videogame / Five Nights At Freddys 2

I still don't agree with reviews harping on a fanbase as an 'excuse' to bash the game instead of focusing solely on the game itself but whatever. I would say this if I read a review on a game I hated and it too used 'der fanbase luvs it so i h8 it durp'. Even if that was only part of the reason.

Reviews focused on the fanbase are questionable, but Flaky Porcupine here only mentions it in one sentence

Except that the fanbase is the least of F Na F 2's concerns, although it certainly suffers from massive [1] and the fans [2] which just adds onto my dislike for the game more than anything else.

Also, that comment about Toy Bonnie's lunging jumpscare "springing to mind" wasn't a pun when I wrote it, but fuck it.

Fair enough that you don't dwell on the fan base as ridiculously as reviews for the first game did. The one mention near the end still seems unnecessary though when you had legitimate criticism about the game itself. I'm not enough of a fan to jump on this review specifically but it just popped up on my watch list and I tend to be think the same rubbish will rear its ugly head and be the driving force.

I've noticed that games that are approachable to the masses tend to do best. Best selling racing game? Mario Kart Wii sold over 33 million copies, so if it's not the best selling, it's one of them. Smash Bros sells damn well for a tournament fighter.

Sometimes a game catches on by being "new" to people who'd never played anything like it before. Halo caught on because there was a big market of console gamers who hadn't played a first-person shooter before, and they were impressed by what was arguably an average game.

I think Five Nights at Freddy's caught on because many people hadn't played a horror game before, and this one was approachable and easy to learn. It's something they hadn't experienced before, and they can pick it up and play easily. Thus its success.

I'm pretty sure it's only popular because of Rule 34 and Markiplier.

Well, I had a well thought-out rebuttal that disappeared down the drain when my computer BSOD'd but now I'm glad it never got posted. There is good news, however; your self-righteous, clickbaity bias is liable to land you a cushy job at IGN at some point.

Harr harr.

Not giving into popular demand, having balls to not wet my pants over half-assed jumpscares and giving actual criticism = self-righteousness. K.

I'm pretty sure saying that people like this game because they're sexually interested in animal robots and because of some Let's Player leads to some self-righteousness.

Also: "The sequel doesn't bother to try to change the formula of the original outside of the mask and "no doors" gimmick"

"It doesn't change anything, except it does" is what I'm getting here.

Honestly, the whole game kicked off for those reasons. They're not the sole reasons, but the game probably would never have kicked off as much as it did if Markiplier and PewDiePie, as examples, never played through the original game (the latter didn't even finish it!). With the growing community of furries (keep in mind that I'm not trying to look down on or degrade them in any way) and the rise of popularity of rule 34 images for Five Nights at Freddy's, it certain got the word out there in a different, non-traditional way. It's become so big in the fandom that said Let's Players often remarked the growing amount of 'Freddy's porn in their videos. If you look on furry hot-spots like say e621, F-List or FurAffinity, they are ripe with these images, starting to now rival the then-popular MLP and Pokemon drawings. Believe me, I checked out of curiosity after the L Ps made a huge note of them along with anybody else who regularly uses the Internet.

What I was saying in regards to the change concept was that it tried to pass off the fact that it doesn't attempt to change the formula or gameplay of the original other than replacing the battery use with the flashlight, and the doors with the mask. The formula is the exact same and the animatronics now hardly differ from each other than their basic attack locations save for the Marionette, Foxy and Balloon Boy with Golden Freddy being thrown in at the last minute and hardly changing a thing in that regard.

Let's compare to the first for a second, something I thought the original did a lot better. In the first game, Bonnie and Chica were almost exactly the same. Even so, they both had some memorable impact on the player (let's list Chica's loud banging noises while in the kitchen and the "secret Bonnie" face in the backroom which both seemed to startle and surprise players as examples of that). Foxy and Freddy were radically different from both each other and the other animatronics in their own ways; with Foxy outright rushing the player if they slipped and Freddy being the most aggressive out of the bunch and refusing to leave his post outside the door if he reaches it (as opposed to Chica and Bonnie teleporting throughout the building at odd intervals).

In the sequel, all of these animatronics except for Foxy now have the same avoidance methods, which hampers Freddy in particular as he is considerably watered-down. You can say that it is because it's a prequel, but by making almost all of the animatronics the exact same as each other with little to no difference, it doesn't make them as memorable and, to me, really shows how Christmas-rushed the sequel truly is in addition to the dip of quality and animations as I said in the OP.

Five Nights at Freddy's 2 is way too systematic and similar to the first game, repeating several mistakes the original had with no attempt made to correct them. It promised to also dip into the backstory more, but a lot of it was mostly hand-waved and the fact that it's a prequel is all too easy to figure out. It doesn't expand on or change the original's gameplay and plot, it takes several steps back. As a sequel, it failed to deliver and should have had more time worked on in my opinion.

Well how is a game supposed to get a fanbase and loads of attention without the need of L Pers like Markiplier or Pewdiepie, seeing as it is an indie game done by an indie developer that only released one trailer before releasing the full thing?

It did build on the story of the first game, and the stories of Freddy Fazbear's locations before the settings of either game. Sure, it was easy to tell that it was a prequel, but it also opened new questions that there still aren't answers to.

At least note that it tries to be different, rather than just more of the same. The mask was something that the fans had said would be better than two blast doors, so Scott put it in. The flashlight actually has more use than the door lights in the first game, rather than being something just used to tell if you're gonna die, the flashlight can be used to tell if you're gonna die, and ward off those about to do the deed.

Yes, it's far from perfect, and doesn't offer much replayability, but at least it does some things different from the first game, with a much higher difficulty from the get-go. It's better than just a re-hash of the first one, even though it looks like one.

Yet another terrible review that poorly disguises itself, but doesn't do well enough. Can we please focus on the game as in, characters, setting, and plot, and not have another whiny and pretentious mouth piece that can't stop itself from taking pot shots at the fanbase.

^ Only one sentence in his entire review is about the fanbase. I agree that it's unneeded, but the vast majority of the review is about the game itself.

"Can we please focus on the game as in, characters, setting, and plot, and not have another whiny and pretentious mouth piece that can't stop itself from taking pot shots at the fanbase."

What characters, setting and plot? You mean the Phone Guy whose only job is to provide exposition? The faceless, voiceless protagonists? The animatronics who serve no other in-game purpose than killing you? The pizzeria with less atmosphere than the first, which I covered in the review? The plot, which is a series of loosely-connected events more than anything else? With a "plot-twist" that is easy to predict if you pay attention and use just a small portion of your brain? There isn't a lot to cover, which is why I am going by gameplay above everything else.

And talk about being whiny, you just waltzed in here bitching about the review I posted up, just calling it "terrible" with no explanation why aside from calling me "pretentious" for making ONE ill comment about the fan-base in the entire review. Yes, I don't like the game. Explain to me why I should or try to change my perspective, or get the fuck out.

The only thing that Five Nights at Freddy's 2 really built on, from a story perspective, was the events demonstrated in the "death minigames" (which, mind you, I thought was a neat touch... until you replay the same one for the umpteenth time), aside from Golden Freddy's costume being the one that the child kidnapper used in an article from the first according to the Phone Guy. Otherwise, the game provides us information we already know, glosses over the fact that there is more than one Fazbear locale, and then presents us even more questions and leaving more to speculation. While some of it is justified and adds to the experience, others just seem like it's baiting for the third installment which could very well just bury this one to the ground.

I'm leaving out a lot of details like the Phone Guy possibly being the killer because that is unconfirmed and (so far) just fan theory, which may or may not be expanded on in the next installment. Until then, I'm withholding talking about that.

The edition of the mask and flashlight didn't do much for me, as they really were replacements for the scrappy door and power mechanics of the original. And unlike the first pizzeria, there isn't a whole lot of reason to look throughout the building. I mostly used the monitor to check the vents (along with slowing down the animatronics) and wind up the music box, because there isn't anything noteworthy to look at.

As a side-note and expanding on that "for the umpteenth time" comment, I ended up pressing the ESC key every time I was killed or Balloon Boy slipped in the office early for that reason. That isn't a good thing.

I don't understand this criticism against jumpscares. Even if they're easy to do, if they're effective at getting the reaction they want, shouldn't they be praised for that? After all, it's actually easy to mess up with jumpscares, and it's really the games' jumpscares in addition to the setting that makes both more effective.

Jumpscares only work if they have proper build-up and when you're still least expecting it. This is why Five Nights fail at this, because you are only ever jumpscared after you die. So if you were spooked the first time, you shouldn't be spooked the second. And with both games increasing the difficulty over time and feeding off of your attention and reaction time, you're probably going to make a few mistakes along the way, so these jumpscares are going to be annoying more than anything after your third time dying or so.

Then there are the animations of the jumpscares themselves. The first game has the shaking effect and the animations of the animatronics moving about on screen are fluid enough. I can especially condone the way that Foxy and Freddy's were handled; with you most likely having a brief glimpse of Foxy running on camera before your death and the slight delay in Freddy actually popping his head out. Here... not so much. A lot of the animaronics look stiff when they move about (especially Bonnie as he reaches for your throat) and most are rather lazy (we have four animations of the animatronics lunging at you, a few more popping in your face and screaming and two biting you) or just look silly (read what I said about Toy Bonnie in the review).

There's a difference between subtly using jumpscares, and relying on them for horror aspect. I'm not going to sit here and deny that some of my favorite horror games like BioShock and Silent Hill don't use jumpscares (or compare them to a small indie game for that matter) but they don't use them every five seconds, or punish you for your failure only.

"I'm not going to sit here and deny that some of my favorite horror games like BioShock and Silent Hill don't use jumpscares (or compare them to a small indie game for that matter) but they don't use them every five seconds, or punish you for your failure only."

Sounds like FNAF's as well.

You only get jumpscares for not keeping up. They don't come out of random.

And that's where the problem lies: they get old quickly.

It's incredibly ironic how your favourite games are both over-hyped as hell with, if anything, far more obnoxious and pretentious fanbases.

I don't find neither Bioshock nor Silent Hill scary. Particularly first Bioshock and Silent Hill 2, and not liking either of those gets you stoned to death in sone countries.

Let's start with Bioshock. Why should I be afraid of the Splicers? I have so many ways of easily dispatching them, and that's even without the vita chambers reducing any sort of threat to begin with. I wasn't scared, I was laughing my ass off when I hacked the turrets or used that one plasmid that makes splicers attack each other. And once you get Hypnotize Big Daddy the game might as well give up. I don't feel scared, I feel on a fucking roll preying on helpless little crack addicts.

Now, Silent Hill 2. That one gets a lot of praise for its symbolism and exploitation of the main character's psyche in ways that the fans, alas, already spoiled a billion times over. It's complex and tragic, yes, but scary? Why? Why should I feel personally threatened when the game exploits the characters, betting on the fact that I identify and relate to him, when I do not? When Angela yells on how much of a misogynistic twat James is by treating her like his damsel in distress, it's meant to shock the player too, but I never cared about her enough, so it fell flat. And the way to beat everyone's beloved Pyramid Head? Run around the room until it gets bored and wrestle with shitty controls, that are the only reason that slow sickly little thing is even a threat.

Want pretentious fanbases who don't know what a horror game is? Look into the mirror, because you might belong to one.

I can't tell if that's your incredibly backwards attempt to defend FNAF, or if you just wanted to go off on a tangent about those games.

Heed my warning. Turn back before it is too late.

@MFM

Just demonstrating that "this is not scary and anyone who thinks otherwise is a dumb fanboy" logic goes for ANY horror game. Horror is subjective like that.

In fact, I'm going to expand on Silent Hill 2 in particular(becase that one has THE mother of all snobby fanbases) and explain why, to me, FNAF is a whole lot scarier.

Silent Hill 2 monsters are aspects of James's psyche, as symbolism with the subtlety of an intoxicated brick tells us over and over. But what do they tend to be the most? Women. Nurses, mannequin things, whatever Maria is. Sexy women in particular. The game requires you to be afraid of sexy women, because running away from Maria at every opportunity is a method to avoid a bad ending. Now I can see why that would resonate with some gamers, but to me it's about as painful and pathetic as Friday the 13th's constant promotion of abstinance.

Bottom line, these are James's fears, not my fears. And I'm not James.

FNAF, on the other hand, is more universal in establishing its horror. The animatronics flat out don't care who you are, they think you're that murderer and you wearing the same uniform is enough of an incentive. Being a target of someone else's raging irrational vengeance doesn't require you to be a certain type of person - anyone can be in that situation. And that's why it's scary.

"the animatronics randomly kill people! How unique and different from every horror movie villain ever!"

I don't like FNAF because indie horror jump-scare games have been in the spotlight since like 2009. When did Slender come out? Because at around the same time, it dragged similar games like SCP Containment Breach into the limelight with it, and I got over the hype when I was still in school.

FNAF looks and sounds like more of the same. So you don't relate to another video game's themes and prefer another game for its more universal take to horror - popping up and scaring the bejeebus out of you because you didn't play the game right. Good for you - honestly, I don't care. I don't like FNAF, but as long as the fanbase doesn't crawl out of the woodwork, I'm fine with it. Live and let live, and all.

But I will say this. Silent Hill 2 might be revered as a perfect specimen in regards to survival horror, when as you said horror is subjective. However, at least Silent Hill's fanbase have material to go on regarding crazy fan theories. There's considerably less guesswork involved in decrypting the backstory behind a gross, bloody monster-nurse - due to actual, existing documents - than there is assigning souls, personalities and ships to barely-established animatronic monsters. And that's where FNAF and other dedicated horror fans split - 9 out of 10 horror franchises have some source material to flick through, even Slender had some sort of pre-established stuff to go through. FNAF just sort of exists, and its fanbase have gone bonkers trying to build the characters and their canon personaities from a handful of fan theories and voice clips.

"the animatronics randomly kill people! How unique and different from every horror movie villain ever!"

Way to not get anything I said. They don't "randomly" kill people. They kill people who they think are the real villains. You are the bystander caught in someone else's understandable revenge. That is not "every horror movie ever". That is a lot better.

"There's considerably less guesswork involved in decrypting the backstory behind a gross, bloody monster-nurse - due to actual, existing documents"

If you have played the game, which I'm going to guess you haven't, you'd know it has "existing documents" as well. this, for example◊. And that's the first game. While the second game uses the minigames to establish backstory. It is, at the very least, not less subtle than "James is scared of boobs".

There's also a crucial thing that separates it from Slender and every other horror game. The most natural response to being hunted is to run. That's what you expect every horror game to let you do. But you can't in this one. It forces you to try your best at actually defending against the monster, rather than just high-tailing it like in Slender.

LOL at anyone thinking FNAF is any scarier than Silent Hill.

That game is horror. FNAF is just a series of jumpscares. It is slenderman in scary, which is to say not at all.

You want horror? Try Amenisia, P.T, and Aliens Isolation. Now those are ho

^ "I'm correct because I say so! I don't need reasons! Forming arguments are for stupid people!"

• is

Was going to say "Reasons are for stupid people". Changed it, but forgot to change the "are".

These comments are in dire need of an edit feature.

They kill people because they want revenge? That's what Jason does. He kills people due to a misguided vengeance and territorial fear of everyone that steps into his "property".

Besides, when was that ever actually made canon? As far as I can tell, that's never been stated, and the second game kinda screws it up what with the "It's set before the murders, and adds more animatronics than there were dead kids."

No, because you aren't wearing a shirt saying "I did it". Jason kills random people. The animatronics mistake you for their murderer because you have the same job and wear the same uniform. It's taking the blame for something because you belong to the same group, a damn real concept.

Before the murders? No. Before that particular murder. It shows another one in a minigame, with the kid outside.

Must I also add that the same people that are like "oh mai gad Silent Hill is so subtle I never got that James is gynophobic." are complaining that FNAF isn't directly stating things? I don't think that FNAF is particularly subtle, but come on.

Ok, first off, the ONLY thing I know about Silent Hill is that Pyramid Head is a representation of severe sexual issues. I actually didn't know the protags name until just now.

And actually, Jason aggressively assumes that everyone who's come to the camp is coming to attack him. In the second movie, he killed the teenagers at the camp because he assumed they were a part of the same group that killed his mother (Granted, that comes from the novelization). He associates everyone with the same feelings of misanthropy caused by the torment he recieved as a child, until the day he drowned (Or nearly drowned. It's never been terribly clear.)

Yeah. A rapist monster representing severe sexual issues. Subtlety, thy state ist "not here".

Ok, that explanation is pretty cool. Does it explain that from his POV? If yes, that's even cooler.

To be fair, it's probably a lot worse when you know ahead of time. Granted, I actually enjoy surrealists psychological horror more than any other kind. But I also love me some Slasher movies.

As far as I know, unfortunately not. There are some comics though, that give the same gist from his perspective.

Sadly, most of these tend to prey on specific traits the player may or may not have. Some manage a more universal experience(select scenes in Arkham Asylum), but most fall flat if they read you wrong, like SH 2 and Spec Ops: The Line fell flat for me. And there's a reason everyone singles out SH 2. Because half the other games in the franchise is following a dumb cultist plotline with less self-awareness than Resident Evil 4 and the other half is progressively more desperate attempts to remake SH 2 again.

Damn. Still pretty cool though.

I agree with this review. I already find horror games that rely too heavily on jumpscares to be terrible, mostly because jumpscares are, well, NOT scary after the first or second time they happen. And you practically go into FNAF expecting jumpscares, so already they lack the impact they could have.

While I don't mind the attempt at bringing in more story, I personally do not think story should be added into this type of horror game. Either bring in a really damn good story and focus on that or just don't bother with a story: you have animatronics trying to kill you. That's it, no need for anything more.