Five Night's at Freddy's Is a Mediocre Game
I am arguing that the Five Night's at Freddy's game is a mediocre game, and that it isn't all the "hype" people seem to believe it is. At best, it's a mediocre game.
BoP is on me to prove this. It will be Con's goal to prove the opposite.
R1: Acceptance from opponent.
R2: Opening Arguments.
R4: Rebuttals and conclusion.
Unless I'm mistaken, I'm assuming this debate concerns Five Nights at Freddy's and not Five Nights at Freddy's 2.
Smear the game.
Thank you Con, and no, you are not mistaken, I am referring to the original.
of only moderate quality; not very good. 
To clarifiy, I do not think FNAF is a bad game, simply mediocre. As such, I have no intent to "smear it", but I will list its pros and cons. It could have turned out a lot better, yet the overall design of the gameplay limits its ability to do so. As such, Con must prove it is either a really good or really bad game, while I simply have to prove it is a mix between the two, or just mediocre (as the BoP is clarified in R1). Con needs to prove a lot more than Pro does, so keep this in mind.
To start, I'll list out the negative elements.
One aspect of making a game good is the ability to play it over and over again experiencing a new adventure and journey each time. FNAF does not do this well, in fact, it does it rather poorly. The first few times, you get scared easily as the pattern is unknown to you and you're trying to learn what to do. However, once you learn how to properly manage the camera, doors, and percentage, and expect jumpscares, it becomes relatively boring. It doesn't pump your veins, it doesn't get you excited or scared at what will happen the next moment. You simply sit there, repeating the algorithm you learned reading the wiki. My opponent may argue about the difficulty of the game itself, and how you can adjust the levels. While the difficulty has the chance to increase, it's still undeniable that's it's boring, you simply need to, as I said before, repeat a set number of steps over and over again until you win. It's just a boring game, and boring games aren't that good.
A good horror game will put the user in a position in anticipation, anxiousness, and scaredness of what will happen to them the next moment. The best horror games give the user a glimpse of hope, in almost a teasing way, then simply destroy it all by frightening the player and ending their game. I'm referring to games such as Outlast, Dead Space, an The Evil Within. They give the player options, using a lot more cunning and strategy than any game in the FNAF series, which is simply repeating steps over, and over, and over again. And that, simply put, is boring after a while.
FNAF has a very limited number of mechanics. It simply requires the player to check the cameras and battery, monitor the doors, and that's it. You aren't allowed to explore, you can't do anything else apart from sitting there, hopeless, just checking the camera, doors, and lights. It doesn't give the player an opportunity to explore, search around, and personally avoid the animatronics. If FNAF added more mechanics, and possibly had the security guard area as a "last resort", it would have turned out far more interesting than its current output.
A good game will not make its paths or methods predictable. The patterns of the FNAF characters are specific and highly predictable. Just simply watch this camera here, shut this door there, etc. etc. Repeat the pattern and you've won. If you're able to predict what the animatronics do, then it isn't that huge of a rush.
Now, I shall head onto the pros.
1. Graphics/Art Style
The graphics of FNAF are relatively good, and have a unique art style to them. It seems the design of the game is simply a façade: a mask of happiness and joy, which, when revealed, show a seemingly demonic and evil personality that is depicted in all of the animatronics and the Pizzaeria. This can create a feeling of uneasiness for the player, a sense of false security, even, from the animatronics, with the existence of the doors. Many have praised the game for its art style.
2. Feeling of Anxiousness
I have said in the above that after a while there is no more rush. However, the feeling on anxiousness, nervousness, and anticipation. This is partly why FNAF is so loved. Under pressure, the player needs to make the proper decisions and not freak out, and plan their decisions accordingly. The predictability of the game, while a negative, also provides a positive boost as people can plan and train accordingly and practice their methods, perfecting them in order to win (as shown in the video above). It requires the player to plan ahead, and not let the uneasiness get to them. Because the player is under pressure, they must learn to make the precise decisions within a certain amount of time allowed. As they progress the calculations become more precise and even a single mistake can lead to their demise.
A community can make or break a game. Even if a game is really good or really bad, the community can affect the game as a whole, and the experience the users have with it. While the game itself isn't that great, the community by far makes up for it. With many fanfics, art creations, and music videos, the FNAF community keeps the game alive. Because of them, even, the creator has decided to make many sequel's based on the community's demand, making FNAF 2 and currently working on the third installment. The community's work and the amount of time they have put into the game, making videos, and overall supporting the creator led the game to become one of the most recognized in 2014.
Throughout my argument I have proved reasons why FNAF is an "ok" or mediocre game. With both good and bad elements, those combine to make a game that is "ok" but not overly good or bad. As such, I have fulfilled the BoP, and Con must prove the game is overly good or bad as said in the BoP. As I have fulfilled my BoP, and it is extremely hard for Con to fulfill his, a vote for Pro is warranted.
On Fear: Initial Impact
Opponent has decieded to prove the FNAF game is exceptionally good. Assuming this stance, I expect opponent shall refute from this standpoint. Keep in mind the huge BoP opponent has to fill.
However, sadly, it seems opponent is simply listing things that I have already addressed in the first round. I shall still rebut opponent's points, however.
Opponent brings in the idea of frightening first-time players, and providing a great experience for them. However, he seems to have not noticed my point above: after a while, you expect it. It goes from you being absolutely terrified to "Ugh, Foxy got me again." No good horror game should do that. A good horror game SHOULD have jumpscares, which FNAF does, but granted that's all it is. Jumpscares. No wandering, no exploring, no trying to avoid the monsters. All it is, is a jumpscare. The thing is, with jumpscares, after a while of playing the game they start to become expected. The best jumpscares are ones which the person doesn't expect, but FNAF, in its later stages and when the player gains experience and knowledge about the game, expects the jumpscares and learns why they were scared, and if you know why you got caught as opposed to doing nothing wrong and facing a jumpscare (which really good horror games do), it isn't...well...scary. And this is when FNAF starts to lose its value; when the people expect the jumpscares, because the entire element of the game is based on not getting jumpscared. And after a while, it gets boring. It offers no new experience, no new adventure, no new path to take. Simply, it repeats the same aspects over and over again, with no variation (except which animatronics get you). Which leads me straight to my next point:
Opponent seems to make the assumption that the animatronics are unpredictable. This is simply not true, and Freddy's and Foxy's patterns are completely laid out.   The only ones with randomized movement are Chica and Bonny, and even them follow a set algorithm people can decipher if they play the game long enough. Once a player learns to anticipate these patterns and learn the animatronics' set conditions, he must simply repeat these steps over, and over, and over again. And there's no real value of fear to it, it's simply repeating a set amount of actions over and over. Managing % and the doors is really easy, as, I said before, it's just a set algorith. Watch the cameras, close the doors, etc. It's just repeating algorithm. Opponent makes it sound extremely hard to manage this, when in reality, it's not, you just need to be able to watch the right cameras, close the right doors, and that's it. It gives the user little to no options as they're stuck in one spot, simply repeating the same process over and over again. And quite frankly, it's boring.
A really good horror game includes elements of free roaming or player exploration. Slender is an example of this. While the mechanics were rather simple and the game itself rather hard (like FNAF), it gave the player the option to roam freely while eluding the Slenderman. This added more strategy than FNAF could ever pull off. The player has to know where they are going, and be able to roam in the proper way in order to retrieve all eight pages. Thus, it allows for a far greater playing experience than FNAF, as its playing experience is rather limited, only giving the player a certain amount of options while roaming games give the player seemingly infinite amounts.
To conclude, FNAF is a mediocre game, with its main focus relying on jumpscares, which start to lose value as the player progresses in their skill level of the game, and the fact that they start to expect jumpscares more frequently. While I don't deny it is good for the newer players, FNAF's replayability is very limited (as I have addressed above and in the previous round). Good horror games frighten far beyond jumpscares, but seeing as jumpscares are the crux of the reason why FNAF is a horror game, once the jumpscares lose their value it isn't a horror game anymore, it's simply a precision one; one of learning the patterns and following them.
Thus, it makes the game mediocre.
I await refutation.
Taking into account Pro's arguments in Rounds 2 and 3, Pro's entire premise can be summed up as follows:
First and foremost, I thank my opponent, NNEye, for his time and effort put into this debate, as it certainly has been refreshing for me, and I assume he had a fun time with, as did I.
However, there is something I would like to address before continuing:
Con assumes I have full BoP, when in fact this isn't the case. He has a lot bigger BoP to fulfill, which is to prove FNAF is overly good or overly bad. He goes with overly good, and as such he should refute from that standpoint. I have a smaller one, which is to prove it is mediocre. Opponent neglects this BoP often, and I will explain why below.
ARGUMENTS TO EXTEND:
Extend replayability in R2. Opponent ignores this entirely, leaving it an uncontested argument, and it's a vital one as well.
Extend jumpscare reliability in R3. Opponent fails to address this as well, and seeing as its so core to FNAF, hold this argument against him as well.
Opponent might state that some of his arguments weren't contested, however they were already refuted in my R2 before his were even posted; he simply needs to check.
Now onto the rebuttals:
I'd like to start with opponent's closing R3 statement:
"Pro fails to affirm the resolution thus far, as he neglects to address the one element that makes FNAF so great and justifies its fanbase: its ability to scare people in an interface that has not been attempted in other great horror games. Pro would need to argue how it fails at or is merely mediocre in scaring even the most experienced of gamers, something Pro affirmed in R2."
Again, loops back to BoP. This isn't my BoP, however. My BoP is to prove it is a mediocre game.
As well, Con seems to confuse scaring and surprising. Many of the people who have played the game for a while are surprised upon the animatronics popping up, but it doesn't scare them; they aren't frightened or terrified of the animatronics, they are simply surprised about the jumpscare. And since said players have gone so long anticipating it, it seems pointless to still refer to it as "scared". In the early stages of the person playing the game they will be scared, but those used to the game will no longer be fearful of the jumpscares, simply surprised.
May I remind opponent the definition of mediocre?
of only moderate quality; not very good.
I concede some elements of FNAF are good, as I said in R2, which were initial feeling of anxiousness, graphics style, and community, and this is part of my BoP. However, opponent is overstepping my BoP and neglecting his own, which is to prove FNAF is an overly good game (as he decides in R2), yet he concedes the whole entirety of his argument in R3. Con has obviously not fulfilled his BoP, and simply stating I have not because I didn't argue that it "was merely mediocre in scaring even the most experienced of gamers", and I believe overall opponent is making fallacious claims here.
I shall now refute to what opponent says in R3.
Overall this is true. The more a user takes part in an activity, the less they'll react to it. However, in the case of FNAF, the only element of true fright is the jumpscares. When someone becomes desensitized to the jumpscares of FNAF, they become desensitized to, almost, all of the fright associated with the game, as the jumpscares are the only fear associated with it. With other horror games, they have a lot more elements that contribute to the fear, such as the overall atmosphere, music associated with it, and the type of objective involved. FNAF's atmosphere is a good thing about the game, but other horror games can pull off an immersing atmosphere a lot better than the capabilities of FNAF. When it comes to music, some games have extremely eerie vibes, causing you to be extremely worried in whatever state you're in, even to lull you into a false sense of security then destroy your hope. When it comes to objective, FNAF's is surviving, while other horror games make you look for a quest or goal. I believe this to be subjective preference myself.
As well, opponent appeals to authority, quoting Markiplier and later using this against me, which I ask be not considered, as appeal to authority is simply fallacy. Simply one famous YouTuber claiming to be "absolutely terrified" should not be the reason Con wins by far.
Any static game can be mapped out and defeated.
Again, a good point from opponent. Each static game has a map and patters within the map. The problem with FNAF is that is relies WAY too heavily on patterns. Other games, like Slender, incorporate a random element as to the location of the pages and where the Slenderman goes, but it does follow a specific amount of places it could be. With FNAF, a huge majority of it is learning the maps, the character patterns, etc. and the only true chance of randomness, I would say, is at the end, but even then there is no such thing as true randomness. But now I'm going off topic. My point here is that other horror games give far more possibilities than FNAF can with learning the map and the things in said map, again, such as the pages and Slenderman's paths. In FNAF, it's simply memorizing the animatronic patterns and how much % each task uses. Once you've done those, and are able to act accordingly, you've won FNAF.
Requiring free-roaming is subjective
Again, while true, free-roam horror arguably is a lot scarier, and more preferrable, as it gives the player more options and a wider range of decisions to choose from, and with that comes more threats against you (most of the time). While I do not deny FNAF's style is unique, it certainly gets boring after a while, not being able to move and simply repeating algorithms. Again, another area where FNAF loses its value.
I believe I should win for the following reasons:
1. Opponent has failed to fulfill his BoP.
2. I have provided reasons as to why FNAF is a mediocre game, while opponent concedes essentially his entire argument.
3. Opponent makes false assumptions about my BoP and assumes it is a lot larger than it is, while neglecting his own.
REASONS FNAF IS MEDIOCRE:
1. The entire horror experience of FNAF is present in the jumpscares. While those who are relatively newer to the game are more susceptible to the jumpscares, those resilient lose value in FNAF. When those jumpscares are taken away, or lose its value, as does the game, as its entire horror focus point is on jumpscares. Remove those and the game isn't horror anymore, while other good horror games, without jumpscares, manage to classify as horror (Outlast, DS, and Slender are good examples).
2. FNAF, while requiring fast movements and reactions from the player, is merely repeating an algorithm and memorizing patterns, much more so than other horror games.
3. FNAF's lack of options, while appealing to some, is mostly detrimental as the game loses its replayability.
4. Even so, FNAF's art style and community are good parts of the game itself and allow it to continue to stay alive.
While I thank opponent for the fight I believe my reasoning stands uncontested. For the reasons above, FNAF is a mediocre game, and not overly good, as opponent wishes to believe. I believe his only valid argument in this entire debate was the original view on horror, and if it scares on first sight it is indeed good horror, however, the whole point of a "jumpscare" is to scare the user upon first seeing it. A true, good horror game will continually frighten the user throughout the entirety of their experience, and not simply at one moment.
With both Pros and Cons about the game, Pros being community, anxiousness upon first experience, and art style, the cons are great as well, including replayability, lost horror value, and the entire game simply being pattern memorization.
For the reasons above, and the fact that opponent has little to no arguments to prove his side correct, I believe a vote for Pro is warranted.
I thank NNEye for the debate, it's been fun debating a topic like this. I hope I have the pleasure of debating you in the future!
This has been a fun debate, chiefly because of Pro's ability to incorporate a sense of objectivity into a subject that is overwhelmingly subjective, yet there are a few closing points that have to be made before concluding this debate, most of which have been made in the preceding rounds.