Five Nights At Freddy's

Lucky Wildcard said:
I'm guessing because he thinks Scott is churning these games out quickly for a quick buck.
Click to expand...
That sort of thing is why some of us can end up disliking him and/or FNAF. It's due to the fact that he kept making them after the first that many of us could see as him pandering to furries and spergs all while making money off a series that has a formula that can get stale. Not only that, some would at least like to see him make something else. He has made other games before and it would be nice if he made another game like this rather than FNAF:
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Lascannon
Lucky Wildcard said:
I'm guessing because he thinks Scott is churning these games out quickly for a quick buck.
Click to expand...

People want them.

They're willing to pay for them.

He's willing to crank them the fuck out.

Why is there anything wrong with this?

This is capitalism at its best. People want things, someone is willing to produce them, then they pay that dude for producing them.

This is good, as far as I'm concerned.

What's the problem?
 
  • Agree
  • Winner
  • Like
Reactions: HIVidaBoheme, Cosmos, Splendid and 6 others
While i do think Scott put the games out way too early one after another, i gotta say i do have a lot of respect for him. He's a pretty smart guy, i mean he didn't rely soley on making games, he also busted his ass working retail jobs on top of working on his stuff, and he was willing to admit his failures and even work them into new ideas. And i have to hand it to him, hes pretty creative. I mean he's made four insanely successful games about sitting in a room by giving them an interesting hidden story and unique gameplay, and he made all four of them in under a year all by himself. He's also a pretty cool guy when it comes to talking to his fans.

All in all he's pretty much the exact opposite of Brianna Wu.
 
  • Agree
  • Like
Reactions: Scribbler, Mourning Dove and Ohoolihan
AnOminous said:
People want them.

They're willing to pay for them.

He's willing to crank them the fuck out.

Why is there anything wrong with this?

This is capitalism at its best. People want things, someone is willing to produce them, then they pay that dude for producing them.

This is good, as far as I'm concerned.

What's the problem?
Click to expand...
The only problem one would think is that it could end up selling the same product with little change. That is what FNAF 2 and 3 had.

Count groudon said:
While i do think Scott put the games out way too early one after another, i gotta say i do have a lot of respect for him. He's a pretty smart guy, i mean he didn't rely soley on making games, he also busted his ass working retail jobs on top of working on his stuff, and he was willing to admit his failures and even work them into new ideas. And i have to hand it to him, hes pretty creative. I mean he's made four insanely successful games about sitting in a room by giving them an interesting hidden story and unique gameplay, and he made all four of them in under a year all by himself. He's also a pretty cool guy when it comes to talking to his fans.

All in all he's pretty much the exact opposite of Brianna Wu.
Click to expand...
Especially since he isn't some guy living some rich sort of life like Wu. Plus he actually plays games rather than makes a claim to of play them.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Count groudon
R.A.E.L. said:
I was mostly referring to why Scott chose such early release dates. If it's just because he wants his fans to be able to play the games as soon as possible, that's fine, but it's as @Lucky Wildcard said - there's a lot of criticism he receives about them being cash cows. Which, tbh, I find very understandable.
Click to expand...
everything is a fucking cash cow nowadays
just by making a sequel he's automatically a whore milking a huge cash cow.
hell, if 2 came out today people would still be bitching about milking and whoring out and selling out and how dare he do that.

c-no said:
The only problem one would think is that it could end up selling the same product with little change. That is what FNAF 2 and 3 had.
Click to expand...
there is a big enough difference between 1,2,and 3 to warrant a release imo.
each game is different enough for a new challenge, and they expand the story a little bit.
there is DLC that is more expensive that each game that does less.
 
  • Agree
  • Optimistic
Reactions: Count groudon, R.A.E.L. and Assorted Nuts
I thought the film was going to be done in CGI like the Pixar and Dreamworks films. Cool that they're actually making animatronics of the animatronics.
 
Okay, I think I finally figured out how this game makes sense...

The game is about a young version of Mike from the first game fighting off his nightmares while trying to "keep in touch" with his plushes (hence the black Fredbear) in 1983. I'm not joking, I literally think that's the plot. Bite of 87 me all you want.
 
  • Informative
Reactions: Coldgrip
Betachu said:
Okay, I think I finally figured out how this game makes sense...

The game is about a young version of Mike from the first game fighting off his nightmares while trying to "keep in touch" with his plushes (hence the black Fredbear) in 1983. I'm not joking, I literally think that's the plot. Bite of 87 me all you want.
Click to expand...
Actually the bite happens in the second game at freddy fazbears pizza, fnaf 4 takes place in 1983 according to an ad you see in one of the minigames at fredbears diner.

Also the kid in 4 has his whole head crushed and its implied he dies at the end, whereas the bite victim had his front lobe bitten and apparently survives.
 
Last edited:
Count groudon said:
Actually the bite happens in the second game at freddy fazbears pizza, fnaf 4 takes place in 1983 according to an ad you see in one of the minigames at fredbears diner.
Click to expand...

I now believe there were two bites. The 83 one was probably covered up though. They covered up the springlock failures (which I believe created the shadows) and most-likely the second child murders so why not that?
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Count groudon
ZehnBoat said:
how do we know 4 takes place in 83?
Click to expand...

The fact Fredbear's was said to be closed for years before, the random appearance of a TV that specifically says 1983 for no reason and also the fact they said the bite happened because of the animatronics' free roaming mode. Fredbear was on a stage and could've even been in suit mode for all we know.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Count groudon
ZehnBoat said:
how do we know 4 takes place in 83?
Click to expand...
In one of the end of night mini games (the one where you play as the kid walking home from the restaurant) when you make it into the living room, if you hold the mouse on the tv it comes on and shows an ad for fredbears diner with Golden Freddy/Fredbear, foxy, bonnie, chica, and Freddy with the number 1983 at the bottom. Even though the number could probably mean anything like the address or the date when the place first opened, most people assume it's the year the game takes place.
 
  • Informative
  • Agree
Reactions: Scribbler and Betachu
yeah_thank_you__by_angrybirds514-d93x7an.jpg
 
  • Feels
  • Like
  • Dumb
Reactions: TrippinKahlua, Cosmos, & Knuckles and 8 others
Mourning Dove said:
So I assume this is when the player is playing BEAST mode, where they're fighting off all 20+ animatronics from all time periods at the same time, but the animatronics all end up in the office anyway...
Click to expand...

Actually, this is on Scott's site. That would be an awesome idea though. Only problem would be that 4 plays nothing like the previous games.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Count groudon and Mourning Dove
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back