DARK SOULS ^

Oh and BTW, I completely agree with you

I can see why you're having problems with "-snip- nate's acting friend". You don't have enough hairs to play it.

IMO he's just trying to tell a (really good) story through this series.
It may seem like a cash grab and the gameplay is very repetitive, but it's more of a theorist game.

He leaves clues and hints within the game, shows a few backstories, then waits for you to join it up.
He's focusing on the story, because that's what makes FNAF a good game.
He knows that.

I'd rather play a game than read a book, and FNAF's story is much better than a book anyways.

The main gameplay has been the same, Guard and not die, but that is not where the effort is put into. Scott is great at making a story! The story behind FNAF is the reason why I played the second and third game. I can tell most of his effort is in the story, Most people who make a successful game that sold well, will try to make more money and to get it out, no matter what series, but people tend to use it more of an excuse for more popular games that they dont like or for bad games in general. Gameplay in the first game was good, it was something different that not a lot of games did. The second game added some new things to learn about and was all in all pretty good. The third one kind of disappointing me, the story part was amazing, but the gameplay not so great. If there were more than one, I would like it better. The hallucinations I thought were done very well and were nice! The mini-games after each night were the same, but they are different giving you different clues to know what to do to get to "hidden" mini-games that most people just dont know. (Watch Markipliers last FNAF video where he played these five minigames, they are not the ones after each night, they are all different). The end I thought could have been better. I bet you if people weren't like I want it now, he would have spent more time on the game. If people knew the story and did some research on it, they would be interested. I loved the story, I thought the gameplay was OK, but in this series, its all about the story. I still have questions that still remain, what happened to the kids, who is purple man and what all exactly happen. This game was very interesting, but a lot of people dont like mysteries or the type of story this game had. Scott put a lot of time and effort into this story, but for the main gameplay he slacked, but I think he was mostly working on the story and mini-games within the game. That is my little rant. Sorry if it was all over the place or confusing!

RedshirtMiner

That quote right there basically explains my feelings about FNAF. I feel that the guys who made it aren't putting any effort, let alone imagination into their "great" game.
I mean, all three games are basically the same thing: Play as a guard who doesn't see the logic in risking his life to look after a kids restaurant. Try to prevent monsters that kill from coming into the room. Survive as long as you can.

I remember when mobile games were orginal, like Temple Run and Angry Birds. Now they are just ripping off Dong Nyugen to get hard cash. It feels like the old Philips Zelda games (both of which were almost identical and were terrible).

To me, good mobile games are like Injustice, Doctor Who: Legacy, and most important of all, Minecraft PE.

REMEMBER THAT THIS IS MY OPINION AND I DO NOT WANT TO INSULT FNAF FANS!!!!! I JUST WANT PEOPLE TO KNOW WHAT I THINK ABOUT IT!!!!!!!!!!!

I literally agree with you on everything. Especially the good mobile games part.

It's not to offend anyone in here but:

I understand that the Gameplay is pretty much the same in every single game, BUT! If you take a look at the storyline behind the games, the whole game will become both scary and interesting.

If you haven't watched it, GameTheory has done 2 episodes on FNAF, the first FNAF and the second FNAF.

Innovation: People complain that they like things the same.

Things kept the same: People complain about innovation.

See: Apple, Call of Duty. People are still gonna buy it.

You all are saying it has no creativity but have you ever played a game similar to that? I can't think of one game that has a mechanic like that. In each game he does something different too so the gameplay is not exactly the same. People have to change their strategies from older games if they want to win, I have literally seen people fail hard by trying to do the same stuff they did in other games.

Whether it is "Good" or "Bad" I don't know but at the very least I think Scott made something very interesting. I find it eyerolly whenever something becomes popular and there becomes a "hipster" backlash, chill guys.

FNAF is just a cash grab series. Sure it has a pretty interesting back story (watch Game Theorist's videos on it) but there is absolutely no creativity behind ANY of them. It is literally the same game released 3 times in a row with slight additions and changes. Why are people so obsessed with such a generic and boring series? Not to mention Scott releases them within months of the last version. He doesn't even wait 6+ months to a year like every other normal game. Theres 0 hype behind each release because of this. These games should not even be a series because of the fact each new version seems like a patch and not a $7 new game. In all honesty I'd rather play Flappy Bird for 3 hours instead of FNAF.

It was pretty fun, I like all 3, But I liked it in 1,3,2
I found two kind of Tedious.

I dunno, I think it was interesting back when the first game theory came out for FNAF but that was about it. The second one released and everyone just kinda went

It's not just a mobile game, it was originally for PC, but yes, I agree. Scott Cawthon has a severe lack of creativity.

Did you have to bring David Tennant in?

+1