User blog comment:Dialgaofpower/Who wants to rant about FNAF things?/@comment-25010571-20150528183422/@comment-16359680-20150528202559

I am fond of this phenomenon.

The first one was good because it provided unusual gameplay in a world where every horror game had a Slender or "Run away from _" basis.

- You sit in one spot, although this may sound boring, for many it seemed to produce a sense of "It's just a matter of time". You also couldn't run or move, and for frequent horror game players, this was very out of the box. Imagine that you played Amnesia: The Dark Decent a million times, then went to playing Fnaf. Although Amnesia had better graphics, better physics, and even scarier looking monsters, playing a different game with different objectives changes your outlook on it, making the game seem:

A. Scary

B. Creative

C. Mysterious

The reason Scott has lost interest in the game to older viewers is that the same experience can't fool you (As he didn't add much between the 1st and 3rd game), and creative things will become uncreative given time.

"A reason to make a sequal to a game is simple, you are doing it to introduce the same experience but to a younger audience, or you are changing the game to perfect it, and provide a different experience in the same base world/plot."

The audience gets younger because older people are not fooled by the same experience over three games, they quickly dispatch it as uncreative and that leaves the newer generation to look at the game and say whoa, this is different!

It's the same exact reason Call Of Duty is around, they push their audience to a lower group because YOU HAVE TO, if you are not adding enough to be creative to a older audience, your audience will decrease, until only young people play it.