Talk:Five Nights at Freddy's 2

Prequel or Sequel? How about Follow-Up or Second Installment?

Really. It has not been confirmed whether the game is a prequel or a sequel. On the five Nights at Freddy's wiki. It says it follows up the previous game. So could we leave it at follow-up so that we don't have abunch of angry people on the Wiki? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vacuumfan7072 (talk • contribs) 21:16, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

The wiki for the game isn't a reliable source, so the only thing regarding it is the title of the game itself. 2 = Sequel. TheMeaningOfBlah (talk) 21:36, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Thing is tho.. That wiki has been overviewed by Scott Cawthon himself. Vacuumfan7072 (talk) 08:19, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

It's pretty much confirmed that the game itself is a prequel, but it doesn't openly state that anywhere aside from the paycheck. So it is still *technically* speculation. Also, there are still a lot of people who think FNAF 2 takes place after FNAF 1, so changing it to "prequel" would cause debate. "Sequel" can refer to taking place before or after, so leaving it at that is generic enough. Killerwhale24680 (talk) 8:55 PM, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

"Sequel" simply identifies it as being released after another game. It does not take into account any fictional timelines.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:59, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

I think it does (that's how I use the word, anyway) so I would opt for "second installment" instead. I like how the Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace article handles such words: "It is the fourth film in the Star Wars saga to be released, the first of a three-part prequel to the original Star Wars trilogy, and the first film in the story chronology." Qoby (talk) 13:20, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

The issue here is that we know Phantom Menace is a prequel but FNaF2 is questionable.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 19:22, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

This discussion was never resolved. Given the apparently strong preferences on both sides would "second installment" (as mentioned above) be a reasonable compromise? 166.137.252.56 (talk) 15:17, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

There is no such agreement here that "second installment" should be used. It is a sequel. Just because everyone thinks that the word suggests that the game comes after the other in the fictional chronology that they've come up with after watching Mark play the game doesn't mean anything on Wikipedia. Game #2 is a sequel because no one has discussed this in any other terms. Unless you can find reliable sources that avoid using "sequel" in favor of "second installment" or perhaps even use "prequel", we will use "sequel"..—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 16:44, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

My aim is to establish an agreement with this discussion; I didn't intend to suggest we had one. It's clear Ryulong prefers sequel. My preference is for "second installment" which is no less precise and would end what seems to be an ongoing disagreement. I'll wait for other options and arguments for/against before taking any action. 166.137.252.118 (talk) 19:33, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Sequel is best, it means the same thing as 'second instalment' and is more concise. — Strongjam (talk) 19:38, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

That's partially what I was saying, I just didn't really word it very clearly. Killerwhale24680(talk) 12:20 AM, 12 December 2014 — Preceding undated comment added 00:21, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

It is a prequel.for proof:<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d1kw1RmzrPc&list=UUo_IB5145EVNcf8hw1Kku7w&index=12>

famoter (talk)19:10 5 June 2015 (UTC)

You Picked The Wrong Night to Type in the Plot's Last Paragraph

On the page, under the section "Plot", there is a typo in the last paragraph.

In the game, the person leaving the voice-mails (commonly referred to as "Phone Guy") does not call Jeremy Fitzgerald on the fifth night about some supposed killer wearing a spare yellow Freddy Fazbear suit, he calls about that on the sixth night. However, Phone Guy does mention that the place is on lockdown, which means that no one can get in, and no one can get out, so Jeremy is trapped in there for the night anyway. He also mentions getting promoted to the day shift after a vacancy "became... *pause* available."

If someone can make those changes, it would make everything so much clearer.

76.25.43.119 (talk) 07:56, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

These aren't really typos but errors in content but they have been fixed.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 08:32, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 December 2014

Please state that the Windows Phone version of the game is no longer available for purchase. This was due to hardware compatibility issues. GamerDave14 (talk) 21:31, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

We need sources that say this.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:32, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

More sources needed

Scanning through this article, I found that the majority of the article is completely unsourced, except from the lead and the Reception section. If anyone can find any sources to back up these claims, it would be greatly appreciated. George Edward C – Talk – Contributions 17:36, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Fnaf3 could have more then one animatronic

Under the section called Sequel, it says that fnaf 3 will only have one animatronic. However, this could be not true. There could be more, the onl trailer released was the teaser, not the main trailer. It is like in Five Nights one, we only saw Freddy, Chika, and Bonnie and the trailer, yet the game also included Foxy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:cd64:13e0:69ea:d08a:8b3e:5244 (talk) 15:58, 2 February 2015‎ (UTC)

I've replaced the content with everything I could find from reliable sources, which is admittedly not much. If you find any other RS with more details feel free to ping me or add them to the talk page. — Strongjam (talk) 16:23, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

there is Phantom Freddy,Phantom Bonnie,Phantom Chica,Phantom Foxy,Phantom Mangle and Phantom BB(Ballon boy) famoter (talk) 13:58 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Advertising

Under the reception heading there is a quote from a YouTube channel with very few views or subscribers. It seems to me that this is an attempt to gain the channel more traffic, rather than provide opinions from well-known/reputable sources. The quote in question is from "zynthesia gaming" or something like that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.17.146.34 (talk) 20:41, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

NUMBER OF ANIMATRONICKS.

There are actually 14 animatronics if you include some "Easter eggs". such as shadow bonnie, red and repaired foxy, balloon girl, and endoskeleton (golden Freddy's). 71.190.24.224 (talk) 21:30, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. --I am k6ka ^{Talk to me!} _{See what I have done} 21:44, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Prequel or Sequel

I was about to change sequel to prequel, then I noticed the talk page discussion. No updates since last year except famoter's youtube link which I haven't had a chance to watch, so lets start discussion again: prequel or sequel and why?

• Prequel: Based on the paycheck. We use the game as the source for most info in this article, I don't see why this should be an exception. 168.1.75.44 (talk) 04:20, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
• If I have to pick between the two, Sequel: As Ryulong said in the initial discussion, ""Sequel" simply identifies it as being released after another game. It does not take into account any fictional timelines." FNAF2 came out after FNAF, therefore, sequel. I'd like to propose, though, that it be changed to simply noting that this is the second game in the series, which neatly avoids any debate. NekoKatsun (talk) 19:15, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
• Neutral - The fact that it is released after FNAF1 would make it a sequel, but the history is like a prequel. There are games (such as Super Mario World 2: Yoshi's Island) that look like sequels but are actually prequels. --TL22 (talk) 00:50, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Five Nights at Freddy's 2. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.clickteam.com/interview-of-the-author-of-a-top-paid-game-in-appstore.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:05, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Five Nights at Freddy's 2/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: ForksForks (talk · contribs) 03:31, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Did FNAF 4, so I think this will be an easy one to dig into now.

Comments

• Lead: Would love a sentence or two extra about the reviews of the game. "criticized it's difficulty" is a little light imo.

Expanded a little.

• Gameplay: In my opinion paragraph three especially reads too much like a guide. I don't think the details of how to ward of Foxy, Chica, etc. are particularly relevant as compared to describing broadly that you can do X, you can do Y, Z can also happen. But overall this section is close.

I disagree. Reviewers gave commentary on all of these gameplay mechanics in their reviews, and WP:GAMEGUIDE concerns typically concern truly excessive listings of mechanics with far more detail than is listed here. Take a look at Skyrim for a gameplay section that may be getting into GAMEGUIDE territory.

Noted, thanks for the comp. ForksForks (talk) 21:28, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

• "The player is killed" this phrase comes up a few times, it's worth being specific at least once if this means it's a game over or if dying is normal.

Clarified.

• I changed "unnamed purple figure" to "purple-colored" but I am squeamish about the phrase. I think it makes sense to work the 'purple guy' thing into the article, but I'm not sure if it makes sense to a totally uninitiated reader. No action requested, but if you have an idea about this feel free to take a crack at it.

Probably working the whole purple guy thing in would be confusing to the average reader, and I would personally just leave it at purple-colored

Agreed. ForksForks (talk) 21:28, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

• Reception: The last paragraph is especially weak in my opinion. It reads more like a list, I'd prefer two or three really good example sources with blurbs strung together with prose, like in the FNAF article.

The problem is that there are only five reviews from reliable sources listed on Metacritic, which is much less compared to the original game's critical reception. The reviews for this game also appear to be shorter overall that the original's giving less details to work with. Really it seems like most of the reviews are saying "FNAF 2 is just more FNAF 1, for better or worse" and there sadly isn't much to work with besides summarizing each individual review in a large paragraph of information, which is discouraged in WP:VG/REC.

ForksForks query here. The Night Watch (talk) 15:56, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Here to say real quick that what The Night Watch said applies to basically every Five Nights at Freddy's game after the first one. Not a whole of options on what can be done in that regard. NegativeMP1 18:13, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

On a reread and with the minor changes that were made to the section, I think it reads fine. Definitely have to make the best out of some imperfect sourcing, and it's a good call not to give undue weight to individual reviews. ForksForks (talk) 21:28, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

• Citations: I deleted some, but there are a lot of mid-sentence citations, and there are a lot of paragraphs that seem over-cited in general. Especially since this is material that's unlikely to be contentious, I think with respect to visual flow we have leeway to cut down citing the same source multiple sentences in a row and try to move cites to the end of sentences where possible.

Some of the details have been mixed between several sources, which is why the article seems over-cited when in actuality I'm just trying to make sure the information is attributed to the correct sources. This is not an unusual method of citing, see Katana Zero, The Longing, Pizza Tower etc.

Per the method of mixing multiple sources per sentence, and the comps, I'm OK with this. Thank you. ForksForks (talk) 21:28, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

• References, images, neutral, stable, etc. These all seem fine to me. I'll do some reading in the meantime to see if I can come up with anything that is needed to broaden the article but this seems good so far.

Conclusion

Happy to pass this article. Well maintained shorter articles that can pack a lot of detail and are tightly written really improve the encylopedia, and also serve as good models for other video game articles in terms of form, tone, and sourcing.

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.