Five Nights At Freddy’s Creator Gives Worst Reason For Possible Delay

Five Nights At Freddy’s Creator Gives Worst Reason For Possible Delay

Five Nights at Freddy’s: Sister Location is supposed to be released on October 7… unless Scott Cawthon decides his game is too scary. Over at Sister Location’s official Steam page, Cawthon has posted the following update informing fans of a potential delay:

Hey guys, I wanted to post an announcement that this game might be postponed, and I’m not really sure when it would be released.
There are certain plot elements that are very dark, to the point where I sometimes feel sick. There would be no easy fix to this. I either release it Friday as it is, or I delay it by several months to completely rework the plot into something kid-friendly.
I’m unsure what I’m going to do. As always, thanks for your support.

I don’t even know how to parse this. Is he serious, or is this a troll? Cawthon might delay a horror game, which was set to release in the spookiest month of the year, because it might be dark? Give me a break. Cynically, Cawthon’s announcement comes off more as a, “Hey guys, remember Five Nights at Freddy’s? I swear, it’s still scary!” At the very least, it’s not like FNAF is known for releasing on specific dates; Cawthon has made a habit of releasing stuff early.

Cawthon’s post almost reads like a publicity stunt, which I’m signal boosting mostly to remark on how weird it is that we may have reached the end of the Five Nights at Freddy’s hype train. This isn’t how older games would have marketed themselves. They didn’t need it.

Maybe I’m being unfair and Sister Location is actually too much for any human being to handle. Maybe Cawthon is genuinely concerned over the younger fans who play his games (though my understanding is that they like the franchise BECAUSE of the terrifying story, hence all the focus on the lore). Some folks reading Cawthon’s post seem to be taking it fairly seriously, and the forums have some people begging Cawthon not to delay the game. Guess we’ll know what’s what soon enough.


    • Why? It’s not like it’s inappropriate content, its Young Adult at worst, definitely not MA or R level.

        • Already have, I’m aware of its rating I just don’t believe it really warrants that actual one, maybe M at worst, but I’ve seen far worse PG movies growing up to be honest. I’ve been letting my son play them since the first was released. I’m well aware of all the content in it, as a *responsible* parent, I actually play games, check out the content and decide based on *the content in the game* if it’s suitable for my child. I don’t trust a sticker to merely tell me if it’s ok or not. Hence why my boy is say, allowed to play GTA Online *without a microphone, voice chat turned off and only in my presence* but is not allowed to play GTA V’s storymode due to the content it contains. He’s also allowed to play COD4, Blops Nazi Zombies but generally not the campaigns for the main COD games (not that they interest him). Simply looking at a label is the first step but to truly be responsible you must *know* what your kids are playing otherwise you risk becoming an alarmist.

        • Indeed, you’re also talking 6 and 7 btw which in term of cognitive development is actually a significant difference. But these games are merely jumpscare games, giving a fright and a little backstory, it’s not like they’re being immersed in GTA V. There’s no visual violence, only a few scares and nothing actually graphic in them, the rating is based purely on the jumpscare nature. If a parent feels their kid can handle it, good on them. If they feel otherwise, good on them.

          • it’s not like they’re being immersed in GTA V.

            That reminds me of the Year 1 class I once did relief in where the kid told me his dad was buying him GTAV on the weekend. I asked if he knew it was for adults and he said his dad knew that’s why he had to stay at home while he went and bought it. :/

            If a parent feels their kid can handle it, good on them.
            I wish it was a case of the parents knowing what the game was about.

          • Indeed, and 90% of the time, parents don’t, which is a true pity. But regarding GTA V, that really only goes to strengthen the point, that I’d much rather a kid play something like FNAF, with its lack of gore, lack of language, lack of… well really *anything* and have a bit of a scare, possibly with friends like my kid does, than something like GTA V. Or maybe I’m one of those parents who doesn’t want to roll his kid up in cottonballs and protect him like a special snowflake?

  • The story of Five Nights at Freddy’s is an interesting one. The developer originally made a terrible Christian game. Critics hated his game and thought his characters looked weird and scary.

    In a fit of pique, he made Five Nights at Freddy’s using the same (or similar) character models and it became a huge success. Pretty crazy turnaround.

  • Totally legit. I’ve had the same thing happen to me numerous times, but with a slightly different application.
    I had to tell multiple girls, on multiple occasions, that I just couldn’t make love to them because the result would just be far too pleasurable for them, so they would have to wait a few months until I knew they were ready for the love rollercoaster I would put them on.

    I swear it’s true.

    *crawls into fetal position and cries deeply*

  • This article is genuinely baffling. It’s like the plainly clear explanation of the game’s creator is so outside of Patricia’s understanding of how human bings work that she needs to weave an entirely new narrative around it to make sense of it.

    He wants to make a “scary” game (that is, provide the player with that giddy thrill that comes with dead or anticipation), but he doesn’t want to make a game that will genuinely upset or traumatise players. It’s a perfectly logical and understandable position. He wants to make engaging games, but he doesn’t want to contribute something to the world that could actually leave payers worse off.

    This article really feels like the kind of reasoning predatory guys have about gentlemen.

    “Wait, this man held a door open for a woman but then says he’s not interested in having sex with her? I don’t understand why he is playing the long game here, the woman is clearly open to sleeping with him! Why is he so keen to pretend that isn’t his aim?”

  • Preeetty sure that guy is trolling/joking. “Kid-friendly” gave it away.

    The game delay is most likely real, though.

Show more comments

Comments are closed.

Log in to comment on this story!