Image Credit: Bethesda
Forgot password
Enter the email address you used when you joined and we'll send you instructions to reset your password.
If you used Apple or Google to create your account, this process will create a password for your existing account.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Reset password instructions sent. If you have an account with us, you will receive an email within a few minutes.
Something went wrong. Try again or contact support if the problem persists.

Will there be a Five Nights at Freddy’s 4? I hope not

Haven't the first three games told us enough? We don't need another.
This article is over 9 years old and may contain outdated information

I really hate to say that I hope there isn’t another entry into Scott Cawthon’s unique horror series, but really — where else could he go with it?

Recommended Videos

The first Five Nights at Freddy’s was great because it came from a developer no one knew, the gameplay itself was unique, and there was just enough of a sprinkling of lore hints around the game. It really came out of left field and I would even go so far to say it was mysterious.

We fast forward to the release of Five Nights at Freddy’s 2, which was highly anticipated by fans both to see where Scott would take the game and what lore hints it might have held. The game itself was lacking in comparison to the first.

Freddy’s 2 lacked the subtle little things that made picking apart the first game great — and it didn’t help that you spent most of your time winding up the music box. It was an interesting experiment on Scott’s part, but ultimately the game fell on its face. If I could forget the second game (sans Mangle and the Marionette), I would. 

The lore in Freddy’s 1 and 2

Before I go into the third game, I do want to touch on the lore up through the first two. The lore, after all, is what’s kept people so interested in the series. It’s pretty spooky, sure — but without all the theorycrafting about the bots, the Freddy’s games would have far less play mileage. You know it, I know it, and Scott probably knows it too.

Through the first two games, the community wanted to know who killed the children, which bot did the bite of ’87, and what was making the bots try to kill the buildings’ security guards.

We got bits and pieces in Freddy’s 2, enough for most fans to determine either Foxy or Mangle did the bite of ’87; and to come to the conclusion that a security guard had murdered the children.

Now, don’t get me wrong: The way hints were handled in the second game was done well. The minigames were a really nice addition. But ultimately more questions arose than answers.

Enter Freddy’s 3

If you turned your back on the series after or during the second game, you should definitely turn back around and give Five Nights at Freddy’s 3 a shot. Trust me.

You can tell Scott listened to the community feedback over the music box and the lack of time to look at the cameras in the second game, because the third does away with all the unnecessary additions seen in its predecessor. At the same time it has its own unique gameplay aspects that can be infuriating in their own way.

Freddy’s 3 is a good game if only for one reason: It wraps up the biggest questions on the fans’ minds.

I would argue that the third game is less scary than the second, but has a much better atmosphere than its predecessor. But all of that takes a backseat to the lore. That’s what’s most important in the third game.

Five Nights at Freddy’s 3 has several more minigames than the second, with the notable ones being secret. The minigames themselves are not scary, but they do provide important lore hints as they did in the second game — and completing all of the secret minigames unlocks the good ending.

What you really get in this game is story closure. There’s not much left up in the air, sans which bot did the bite and who exactly committed the murders.

I don’t want to give too many spoilers (for those who haven’t played the game), but Freddy’s 3 tells us what happened to the killer and, upon completion of the good ending, what happened to the souls of the children. Go take a look at the fan wiki if you’re in the dark on this in particular.

The game tells us what we need to know. I don’t feel like knowing any more about the Freddy’s universe is going to be doing the fanbase any favors.

Do we really need another Freddy’s?

So the question is, where else could the series go from here? We know the gist of what happened, and it revealing all the secrets of Freddy Fazbear’s Pizzeria would demolish discussion among the games’ active community. So really, where could it go from this point?

Scott Cawthon has done an amazing job of creating a universe that can get people interested. The fact it was all done in Macromedia Fusion is also very impressive. But honestly, I don’t feel there’s a need for a fourth game.

We have all the information we need to have fun theorizing with, and finding out every little bit of lore would take the mystery out of the series. I also don’t want to see another game made that won’t be able to stand up to the others. The three games we have now may vary from a quality standpoint, but they form a cohesive story. A fourth may not be able to do the same considering what we now know about Freddy’s lore.

I don’t feel a Five Nights at Freddy’s 4 could add anything worthwhile to the series. I could very well be wrong, but I don’t want to find out otherwise. We know all we need to know.

Except maybe knowing about the Marionette would be nice.

GameSkinny is supported by our audience. When you purchase through links on our site, we may earn a small affiliate commission. Learn more about our Affiliate Policy
Image of Tobbpitt
I just like to help.