File: Five Nights at Freddy's Review.swf-(9.76 MB, 480x272, Other)
[_] Anonymous 08/07/15(Fri)00:18:57 No.

Marked for deletion (old).
>> [_] Anonymous 08/07/15(Fri)01:31:05 No.

  good

>> [_] Anonymous 08/07/15(Fri)02:12:33 No.

  nice

>> [_] Anonymous 08/07/15(Fri)02:14:36 No.

  I ain't saying fnaf is a good game, but I am saying that this guy doesn't seem to understand how
  the doors work and none of the gameplay clips are from anything past night 1.

>> [_] Anonymous 08/07/15(Fri)02:17:16 No.

  >>2868479
  And I'm saying you're a casual furry idiot who doesn't know a game from a gone home.

>> [_] Anonymous 08/07/15(Fri)02:24:08 No.

  >>2868485
  k.

  And I'm just saying, more people are killed by vending machines than sharks.

>> [_] Anonymous 08/07/15(Fri)02:43:35 No.

  >>2868479

  I didn't think FNAF was blatantly horrible either but I gotta say I think everything past night 2
  is just a let down. The first two nights are slow enough to establish a setting and create
  suspense, allowing the horror elements to register with full impact. Past that though, the game
  is an RNG clusterfuck that won't impress anyone who's played any survival horror within the past
  decade. What's so bad about that is if you've gotten one game over you'll already have a very
  good idea of when and how the 'jumpscares' occur. Not helping matters is that the camera is
  nearly useless and you have to play a set routine defensively just to beat night 3 and beyond.
  Having that door shut in just the nick of time before getting attacked is indeed scary, but it
  stops being scary when you've done that 40 times in under 8 minutes. The word I'm looking for is
  "restraint" and I think that's what stops SC's minimalistic pre-rendered venture from being an
  awesome indie.

  I stopped following the games after FNAF 2 but I feel like that one took all the problems from
  the original and compounded them. The lack of replay value, questionable price and mistake of
  thinking more animatronics would make the game scarier as opposed to more convoluted...all of
  those things are indeed worse in FNAF 2.

  There's fun to be had with it, but I have to say FNAF is not the masterpiece people make it out
  to be and the LP crowd would have infinitely more fun playing basically any well-developed horror
  game for themselves.

>> [_] Anonymous 08/07/15(Fri)02:57:00 No.

  >>2868509

  Define well developed. Thing is FNAF had something for about everyone:

  - For the OCD people it had story that was deceptively deep, with people trying to tear it apart
  and guess what happened.

  - Nights are short, so it's very quick to pick up and play. Silent Hill 2 has better gameplay
  IMO, but at FNAF you learn the controls in about 30 seconds. Even my mother who doesn't play
  videogames learned it in 30 seconds.

  - The short nights have a quick build up of tension then jumpscare. F.E.A.R. built up it's
  jumpscares longer, but it had an entire game. A lot of people may not get the psychological
  horror of Silent Hill, so this is a quick thrill for them.

  The main reason I find FNAF scary though is that I have a phobia of mascot costumes, so even
  watching this game makes me feel as if I'm going to have a fucking heart attack.