« Back to the Friday nights at Freddie’s Forum

FNaF 2 was very underutilized

Does anyone else feel like fnaf 2 was one of the weaker installments from the original series?


I love FNaF 2 and its inclusion to the story. The animatronic designs in that game are some of my top favorites and I love the more polished aesthetic of it in comparison to other games like FNaF 1 or FNaF 3 which were intently made to look more worn down and decrepit. FNaF 2 does everything the first game wished to accomplish but more; with a wider cast, more bits of lore, and more gameplay mechanics. But looking more deeply into it, all those features feel very shallow and honestly a bit bad.


FNaF 2's roster of characters I would say was one of it's biggest selling points, with two sets of the same characters in widely different styles from the originals in the first game. But there's not much that were really done with them. It's said in the ending of FNaF 2 that the new toy animatronics get dismantled and shipped away literally a few weeks after the restaurant opens. That genuinely upsets me because they toys had a great concept as more kid friendly versions of the originals and were even implemented with criminal facial recognition tech as a response to the first MCI. But that just becomes pointless as they were only used in that one pizzeria and that kind of tech was never really mentioned again.


Also something I think more people can agree on is the gameplay. For having "more cameras" as another selling point, it's very depressing as in later nights you literally only need to check the puppet cam to wind the box. The gameplay loop boils down super simply into just 3 things you need to do on repeat: flash vents and hallway, wind music box, put on mask immediately, and that's it. There's literally no other reason to use the cams other than wind the box because you can counter every other animatronic off from the office. It would've been far more interactive to have other threats on the cam you need to check on as well as protecting yourself in the office, and it would've made the gameplay less of a redundant cycle.


I'd say that the most that FNaF 2 adds to the series is it's inclusion of the minigames (and just it's massive advancement to the lore.) The minigames became a core part of Fnaf after their inclusion in the second game. It introduced us to several important characters like Charlie Emily and William Afton. I'd say that FnaF 2's biggest contribution to the series was advancing the lore of the story around it. But the location itself gets shut down instantly and also reveals the bit of '87. Which I certainly thought was gonna be a more vital part of the story as a whole. But sadly it's relevance was given off to the bite of '83, as that event has WAY more importance to the story than the bite of '87.


I certainly wanna know if anyone feels the same, disagrees or has anything else to mention about the game. FNaF 2 is one of my favorite games in the series with it's aesthetic and characters. But I can't help but criticize it for its obvious shortcomings.


Report Topic

1 Reply

Reply by Carboniferous

posted
updated

I have to agree, FNAF 2 was very obviously not thoroughly playtested before launch. So much stuff was in it, yet in the end most of it was shallow nonsense. I genuinely had to use the C D + skip in this game because it was annoying as hell to play through. FNAF 2 is my least favourites of the original trilogy.

On the topic of story? It gave us a wealth of information, I remember looking over it for hours back in 2015 trying to find the next big breakthrough XD. Also loved how lots of webcomic creators, video makers, animators, etc from back then tried to introduce the Toy animatronics to the original cast in their own little universes. Heh, what I'd give to go back to that time...

Don't know anything about this Bite of 83 though, I thought 87 was the defining point of the serious? Personally for me, FNAF ended at 3 and I stopped keeping up with the lore at FNAF 6.


Report Reply