Support NeoGAF

[Brandon F]

Somewhere in Interval 08 and I just want to sell this game.

-Gunporn sure, but the AI is overrated. Normal enemies react well, but are still too dumb to handle my Q/E lean behind some desk or wall. Way too easy, I never feel threatened walking into a room with 4-6 of them.

-Heavy armored thugs and walking tanks are total suck. Heavy thugs have no real strategy but slowly chipping away at their enormous health as they sit there dumb as a rock waiting for you to emerge. Rockets/nailguns/railguns/grenades all do equally pithy damage, no visceral exchange when facing these dumb clods. Giant tanks are equally as irritating if not moreso, but mostly just involve backpedaling while unloading. Total yawn.

-Where is the Fear? Walking corpses that never shutup are not scary. I can count more times I've circled around stuck looking for the next checkpoint than I can recall creepy girl moments.

-Plot seems to keep me as detached and disinterested as I am of the environments. I've been chasing Paxton Fetell through ratmazes sexed up to look like warehouses, sewers, and office buildings the entire game and my only reprieve is that I may end up actually killing that fat techguy jerk.

It's been a struggle and I can't even care to finish. 6/10 and that is being generous. The old Monolith is dead.

 

[Acosta]

Sell it. I couldn´t disagree more about your opinion, but It makes no sense you play something if you don´t feel to.

 

[Mr Gump]

You seem like a cool guy.

 

[Suburban Cowboy]

i played the demo and could not help but feel like it was just another generic FPS. Really, what is so unique about it? The fact that you get BOTH bullet time and melee function on weapons?

 

[Brandon F]

It's Max Payne minus the campy rhetoric.

 

[dark10x]

I agree with all of that.

The level designs are straight terrible, the story goes absolutely no where, the combat itself grows thin after a while (nowhere near as engaging as, say, Halo's...which became more enjoyable as you learned the game rather than the opposite), they totally under-used the best enemies in the game, the game doesn't actually FEEL good most of the time, the graphics engine is crap (some very specific things look great, but the rest could be mistaken for a 2001 game...only with awful performance at higher resolutions), and the flashlight beam is straight ugly (I know, odd thing to mention, but I disliked using the light as it looked awful).

There were moments of greatness in there, but those moments are few and far between. I maintain that the level based on the ORIGINAL showing of the game is the only REALLY good area in the game.

The game has you constantly moving forward through some of the worst designed locations I've ever seen and you never seem to accomplish anything. The fact that half the loading screens literally refer to your current objective as "...STILL in pursuit of Paxton Fetell you make your way through..." is another tip-off that you're going nowhere.

The game just feels completely unfinished and rushed. It's really shocking when you consider something like NOLF2, which was full of lush, variety filled locations with loads of unique enemies and objectives. If someone told me that every level in FEAR took place in the same junky building, I'd believe them. I still have a couple more "areas" left in the game, I suppose, but it's becoming quite tedious...

 

[Acosta]

just another generic FPS. Really, what is so unique about it? The fact that you get BOTH bullet time and melee function on weapons?

Seriously, what is a "generic FPS"? I don´t know. All game in first vision gets the seal of "generic FPS" nowadays.

In few words, whats make it unique it´s combat, from gameplay and visual viewpoint. There is no game that can expose the intensity of a gun combat the way that F.E.A.R show right now.

 

[Daigoro]

the demo bored me enough to give this one a pass. i saw not much to like in it. seemd like a cool idea, but the execution was pretty dull. too bad.

You seem like a cool guy.

as a pro-wrestling fan, you would know. right?

 

[shpankey]

I also agree... it is a very dull and boring game after about level 3. The whole damn game is just the same level over and over again. Same mission objective, in the same looking level, always at night... always everything the same. The only thing it has is some decent graphics and some reasonable AI, but even those are both overrated. I cannot believe the shallowness of such a game as this gets praised by some gamers. It boggles the mind.

 

[DCharlie]

meh, i'm playing it in "broken PC -o-vision" and i'm loving it so far.

chasing down the enemies is a laugh a minute! watching them scurry under pipes and panic is pretty awesome

 

[dark10x]

I'm glad that you're enjoying...

I really really wanted to love it.

 

[Bebpo]

i played the demo and could not help but feel like it was just another generic FPS. Really, what is so unique about it? The fact that you get BOTH bullet time and melee function on weapons?

Yeah, the demo did nothing for me except show me that it was a game that could wait until the bargain bins. Besides having a terrible engine performance-wise, nothing about the gameplay really stuck out.

If I find some time to play a FPS I'll just stick with CoD2 since I liked the original (never played the expansion though) or Quake IV since people general sound like their enjoying it in the official thread.

 

[Lil' Dice]

While playing the demo all i could think about was how utterly generic this game is.....

 

[SantaC]

While playing the demo all i could think about was how utterly generic this game is.....

I played the game at my brother's place last week. While it's pretty, It's just another fps. I can't believe reviewers still score these games in the 9s and above.

 

[Acosta]

The game is fantastic for me, I´m sorry some of you are not enjoying it. But not every game is for everyone, even if it´s very good.

I passed a 15 hours non stop session playing it when I reviewed it and I was delighted. I find some of the complains here debatable (but perfectly fair, don´t misunderstood me).

I can´t go deep, sorry, I have a ton of work and I already dedicated lot of time to review this title (and now I have to work in a guide for it), so I´m quite tired of speaking about it. But I have played lot of FPS and I can´t see how the word "generic" comes here. The combat feels completely different from any other game (I wouldn´t name Max Payne here, the only common point is the bullet time, but the rythm, feeling and intensity of the combat is completely different).

You have to enjoy games, they are mostly for that. There is no point of keep playing something you don´t like (at least you have to test or review it). And about the demo, didn´t play it, don´t know how it is, but I wouldn´t hesitate to reccomend this game to anyone with some interest in action driven FPS.

I can't believe reviewers still score these games in the 9s and above.

If so many experienced people thing it´s great, maybe is because the game has something, don´t you think?

 

[hukasmokincaterpillar]

Can someone give me a list of what wasn't "Just Another Generic FPS" in the last three years? And please dont say Halo 2. I swear Ive heard that complaint for every game in the genre, even the good ones.

 

[Dr Zhivago]

I do think FPSs are a bit stuck in a rut at the moment, but some non-generic ones are : Far Cry, HL2, Metroid Prime & (yes) Halo 2.
The thing that screams 'generic' about FEAR are the locations. More interesting settings would have worked wonders for it.

 

[Acosta]

So boring scenarios means generic FPS? In that case don´t touch F.E.A.R, Quake 4 will be a more interesting and satisfactory experience.

Each game has it´s own strenghts, I don´t feel FEAR as unifinished. Its locations, situation and enemies are coherent with the plot. I think it´s intentional, because at the end it´s a game that focus on combat, and the good thing of scenarios is that they offer a good rank of different situations.

I mean, if Monolith would have wanted to include more variety on scenarios, they could have done it. But they keep certain monotony, mostly because they want the player to focus in small things and because they want that the player feel certain feeling of boring realism (given the plot, there is no need to include lot of scenarios) . Dark, as you can see I´m agree with your point about small things looks better that the general view, but I find this desirable and appropiate for the title, different views I suppose.

Just some thoughts, as debatables as the next ones.

 

[Sathsquatch]

Can someone give me a list of what wasn't "Just Another Generic FPS" in the last three years? And please dont say Halo 2. I swear Ive heard that complaint for every game in the genre, even the good ones.

I really hate it when people like Suburban Cowboy pop into a thread and just say something like "this is just another generic FPS" as if the entire genre were terribly boring. All genres have a number of "me-too" games that do not try to break the mold and don't seem particularly inspired. It's not like platformers or 2d fighters were ever all "generic" because the 16-bit era was dominated by these games.

The reason that FPS's are singled out is because they are so focused on combat, and for some reason, a vocal minority of gamers can't figure out how playing as a soldier with a gun can still be fun after all these years. They usually have this view that games should be fanciful rather than serious and rooted in realistic imagery. These kinds of gamers just can't understand that some people simply love the thrill of combat, and many FPS games deliver some of the best combat in gaming today.

That being said, I agree with most of what Brandon F and dark 10x say about this game. I would like to add that I actually think the slo-mo mode really hurts the game. The slowing down of the pacing removes the visceral feel of the combat and makes the game too easy. Because the game is too easy and gives the player too much time to react to enemy movements, the player never really has to rely on those cool melee attacks for the instant kill. I played through a couple of gunfights without using slow-motion, and it was great. I was forced to actually use the best weapons for the situation and use the damn melee attacks.

 

[Funky Papa]

FEAR does not suck. The level design and the mangled plot do indeed suck, though.

I am in love with the gameplay, and the enemy AI rocks (I played it in hard mode), as I said in the official thread it is almost evident that something went wrong with the development, because the whole experience feels rushed as hell.

So boring scenarios means generic FPS? In that case don´t touch F.E.A.R, Quake 4 will be a more interesting and satisfactory experience.

I find that kind of funny. Quake 4's level design is every bit as bad as FEAR's, but it is not as repetitive because there are more variety of scenarios (like open door areas) and the corridors don't look damn freaking empty like FEAR's. Other than that Quake 4 is tripe and a disgrace to the series.

 

[dark10x]

The combat feels completely different from any other game

That's the problem (in a round about fashion)...

The combat IS incredible and rather different from most games...but that's all the game has to offer. You fight essentially the same type of enemies the entire game in locations that all look virtually the same. It's a one trick pony and that doesn't do it for me.

I could actually forgive the repetitive scenery if each encounter with a group of enemies was actually unique or special. It just felt as if I was performing the same actions over and over and over again. It's as if they took a 30 minute game and extended it to 10 hours.

Quake 4's level design is every bit as bad as FEAR's

Oh no it's not. It's on an entirely different level from FEAR in that regard...

Heck, you just described one of many reasons why the level design is better. There are actually a large variety of areas to explore and they aren't all empty, square rooms.

 

[Acosta]

I find that kind of funny. Quake 4's level design is every bit as bad as FEAR's, but it is not as repetitive because there are more variety of scenarios (like open door areas) and the corridors don't look damn freaking empty like FEAR's. Other than that Quake 4 is tripe and a disgrace to the series.

Sorry, I should have said that I don´t know much about Quake 4. That commentary came from the feeling I got from the last Quake 4 thread.

Are you enjoying FEAR Funky Papa?

I played through a couple of gunfights without using slow-motion, and it was great. I was forced to actually use the best weapons for the situation and use the damn melee attacks.

Well, what´s the problem them? you can play without using the slow-motion. Myself prefer using it, I like the feeling I can control the situation and choose the best option with relative calm. Maybe because I have never been a big fan of extremely fast FPS.

 

[Funky Papa]

Heck, you just described one of many reasons why the level design is better. There are actually a large variety of areas to explore and they aren't all empty, square rooms.

Those are just aesthetics to me as they add nothing to the gameplay (the vehicular combat is shit, large areas be damned) It is the same thing, a single path that goes to the end of the level and a few parallel ones truncated with a small storage of weapons and medkits at the end of them. Less boring to watch, equally horrible to play. At least FEAR's enemies do use the environments to take cover.

Are you enjoying FEAR Funky Papa?

I don't really know, it has been a bittersweet experience to me. As I said the gameplay mechanics are amazing but the level design is boring, horrible and sometimes braindead and senseless. The plot has a lot of potential too, but it is baddly told and the "fear factor" is nearly absent for most part of the game. It surprises me, because the lead level designer is the same from the NOLF series IIRC. Here you have my impressions.

 

[Zer0]

i think fear is way overrated,its too generic,need a big pc without a good reason ( gfx on far cry are superior and run on more modest pc)and the levels are boring and repetitive

 

[DenogginizerOS]

I am enjoying it and feel very entertained. I wonder what the trade-in value is at EB for those who want to get rid of it already?

 

[commish]

I'm willing to bet that 99% of the people who saying the graphics are overrated are running it on a weak machine. But if you are all running 7800's in sli, my apologies. I don't care for the game myself (single player fps = the suck), but when the graphics are turned all up, it's awesome looking.

 

[Acosta]

I don't really know, it has been a bittersweet experience to me. As I said the gameplay mechanics are amazing but the level design is boring, horrible and sometimes braindead and senseless. The plot has a lot of potential too, but it is baddly told and the "fear factor" is nearly absent for most part of the game. It surprises me, because the lead level designer is the same from the NOLF series IIRC. Here you have my impressions.

I see... I found that the combat level design was fantastic and mostly well placed. But I´m a agree that the design of scenarios while you were not combating were quite odd. However, the fear factor did a lot to get the adrenaline up, because I passed all the game seeing little details (and the feeling of fear of another sudden vision).

I´m getting a little surprised of the little effect that has the fear effect here. I´m agree that the plot is nothing to call home about, but the tricks they added and the moment they chose were very nicely designed. I won´t never forget when

Spoiler

I fall in the water by a hole and suddenly the waters becomes blood with cadavers floating

for example. I was in tension all the time. Maybe I should see more horror movies before I attempt to review another scary game...

By the way, about performance. A game doen´t have to be visually fastous to be graphically complex. There are tons of small visual effects in F.E.A.R, the physics and the particule manager are extremely advanced and the engine have to manage lot of small things. Far Cry can look very nice, but F.E.A.R demands an advanced equip because it´s more complex to do what it does that what Far Cry does.

 

[Fallout-NL]

I really hate it when people like Suburban Cowboy pop into a thread and just say something like "this is just another generic FPS" as if the entire genre were terribly boring. All genres have a number of "me-too" games that do not try to break the mold and don't seem particularly inspired. It's not like platformers or 2d fighters were ever all "generic" because the 16-bit era was dominated by these games.

The reason that FPS's are singled out is because they are so focused on combat, and for some reason, a vocal minority of gamers can't figure out how playing as a soldier with a gun can still be fun after all these years. They usually have this view that games should be fanciful rather than serious and rooted in realistic imagery. These kinds of gamers just can't understand that some people simply love the thrill of combat, and many FPS games deliver some of the best combat in gaming today.

Sure, I love combat gaming just as much as the next guy. But that doesn't mean F.E.A.R. isn't pretty generic. Besides, the only thing that has evolved in FPS games is graphics. Half-Life 2 isnt better than the first one, and F.E.A.R. sure as hell isn't better than Duke Nukem 3d for instance.

 

[Acosta]

Sure, I love combat gaming just as much as the next guy. But that doesn't mean F.E.A.R. isn't pretty generic. Besides, the only thing that has evolved in FPS games is graphics. Half-Life 2 isnt better than the first one, and F.E.A.R. sure as hell isn't better than Duke Nukem 3d for instance.

Take your copy of Duke Nukem Forever 3D. Play it for an hours. Then put some hours on F.E.A.R.

After that you surely won´t be able to tell me that the style of combat and the way you play it´s the same. That is what makes F.E.A.R a non generic game, for me at least.

There is a lot of fair critics in this thread, but I can´t see how it´s generic a game that plays and look as no other game in the same genre.

 

[ZombieSupaStar]

had to choose between fear and quake 4, I chose quake 4.


If only with the hopes the mutli will be good someday.

 

[dark10x]

I'm willing to bet that 99% of the people who saying the graphics are overrated are running it on a weak machine. But if you are all running 7800's in sli, my apologies. I don't care for the game myself (single player fps = the suck), but when the graphics are turned all up, it's awesome looking.

Wow, I didn't think resolution would make THAT much of a difference...

I'm using a 3.6 GHz P4 + 6800u and the performance is just fine...provided I stay within lower resolutions. I am running with all details set to their maximum values EXCEPT soft shadows (which eat up performance and look odd). The only thing I have turned down is resolutoin, which is set to 1024x768. So, max details at 1024x768 with 60 fps a good majority of the time.

With 7800s, you must be at, like, 1920x1200 or something even higher with AA and AF.

The graphics are overrated, in my opinion, simply due to the fact that they are so uneven. The shaders are incredible looking at times and the special effects used during gunplay look amazing. However, the actual environments are so damn simple and plain looking. When in battle, the game looks great...but while doing anything else, it usually does not. It reminds me of a PC game from 2001 half the time...just with fancy shaders applied to various surfaces.

I judge visuals based on the entire package, not just individual technical features. Half-Life 2 isn't doing nearly as much "stuff" as FEAR is, but it looks quite a bit better. FEAR focuses on individual elements rather than the entire scene and it suffers as a result...

 

[Fallout-NL]

Take your copy of Duke Nukem Forever 3D. Play it for an hours. Then put some hours on F.E.A.R.

After that you surely won´t be able to tell me that the style of combat and the way you play it´s the same. That is what makes F.E.A.R a non generic game, for me at least.

There is a lot of fair critics in this thread, but I can´t see how it´s generic a game that plays and look as no other game in the same genre.

May I introduce you to:

(And the first thing I noticed when playing DN3D is that 3Drealms must have actually had some level designers on the payroll.)

 

[Acosta]

May I introduce you to:

I already said it in this thread. It has nothing to do with Max Payne, just the bullet time. It´s the way they put combat, mixed it with the Havok 2.0 engine, the I.A, the weapons.... a sum of things

Combat in F.E.A.R doen´t feel as any other game you know, that is my point here. That is not an opinion, is a fact. Other thing is that you like the game more or less that is something completely debatable.

(And the first thing I noticed when playing DN3D is that 3Drealms must have actually had some level designers on the payroll.)

Very few games can compete with DN3D at level design. That is why is considered a classic. I don´t say F.E.A.R is better than DN3D, just that is different.

 

[YakiSOBA]

I agree with you, FEAR is teh overrated

It's more or less the FPS "flavor of the month" IMO.

 

[Fallout-NL]

Combat in F.E.A.R doen´t feel as any other game you know, that is my point here. That is not an opinion, is a fact.

I dont know man, you've probably gotten past junior high at some point and if that is the case, you would know your statement is pretty f*cking far from fact.

 

[Acosta]

I dont know man, you've probably gotten past junior high at some point and if that is the case, you would know your statement is pretty f*cking far from fact.

I won´t answer that type of commentaries. If you want to have a discussion with me, we can do it reasonably, or not doing anything at all.

 

[Sinatar]

My opinion of FEAR degraded the furthur I got into it. Started real good, but by the end it had gotten really awful, especially interval 10 and 11 which are the worst levels ever.

 

[Funky Papa]

I dont know man, you've probably gotten past junior high at some point and if that is the case, you would know your statement is pretty f*cking far from fact.

With or without slo-mo you can't tell us a FPS with better action mechanics.

People tend to confuse "generic" with "numb". FEAR has its fair share of numbness, but it is not generic by any means.

BTW, the graphics are good from a technical perspective, but they doesn't look too hot from an artistic one. While the character art and the cutscenes are great, the actual levels aren't. Assets are way too repeated, I swear that FEAR is the game with most hammers lying over the scenarios ever. Toolboxes, big pipes and power generators are pretty damn ubiquitous too. It doesn't help either that there is a notorious lack of detail, and while most textures are fine (they could use some details texturing, though) most scenarios are just square corridors with no finesse at all.

 

[Zer0]

I, but F.E.A.R demands an advanced equip because it´s more complex to do what it does that what Far Cry does.

sure? fear scenaries are confined and limited,far cry are enormous,a lot of vehicles,enemies,foliage,etc etc ands runs like butter on mi pc,fear not

 

[commish]

Wow, I didn't think resolution would make THAT much of a difference...

I'm using a 3.6 GHz P4 + 6800u and the performance is just fine...provided I stay within lower resolutions. I am running with all details set to their maximum values EXCEPT soft shadows (which eat up performance and look odd). The only thing I have turned down is resolutoin, which is set to 1024x768. So, max details at 1024x768 with 60 fps a good majority of the time.

With 7800s, you must be at, like, 1920x1200 or something even higher with AA and AF.

I doubt this could be true...a 6800gt, at 1024x768 with no soft shadows and 4aa/8af gets 35 fps... i don't see how your 6800u is getting 60. A single 7800 gtx only gets 56. This info is from anandtech

Anandtech goes on to say "Generally, the best way to get a better experience from a game is going to be increasing resolution."

I've played around with the graphics on this game quite a bit, and I just gotta say the difference in graphics is quite pronounced the more features you turn on and the higher resolution you go.

What game out there looks so much better that it's so easy to call fear's graphics overrated?

 

[Acosta]

sure?

Yes.

It´s not because scenarios, it´s because is much harder to run the physic and particles engine of FEAR that run the engine of Far Cry. You can look both and say that you prefer Far Cry, that look more fastouos and runs fine in your computer. Perfect. But, from a pure technical viewpoint, it´s much harder for the hardware running what FEAR does.

but they doesn't look too hot from an artistic one.

I agree... but, didn´t you have the impression that the scenarios were designed on purpose to look ugly and monotonous? I really think (and I could be be perfectly wrong), that all suited well with the depressing feeling of the game. Maybe they could have achieved that feeling of other way.

 

[Fallout-NL]

I won´t answer that type of commentaries. If you want to have a discussion with me, we can do it reasonably, or not doing anything at all.

I thought it was pretty reasonable, your "fact" is just another opinion. Its not backed up by references to valid scientific research. Max Payne 2 had slomo, havok physics, a pretty decent particle engine, debris flying around and real weapons that didnt feel as flimsy. I dont see whats so special about the combat in F.E.A.R.

 

[dark10x]

I'm not getting a constant 60 fps by any stretch, but I see a lot of 60 throughout each session. This is obviously with v-sync disabled...

I could rattle off plenty of games I feel look superior, but I don't feel like dealing with the arguments. Point is, I feel that FEAR is not a good looking game on the whole. Some aspects of its technology are very impressive and far beyond many other games I could list...but technology alone does not impress me. Of course, they also fail on the front of actual detail.

FEAR was clearly designed with the same mindset that I thought PC developers had abandoned 5 years ago. That is, I feel that they focus far too heavily on individual surfaces, textures, and "fancy effects" while letting everything else fall flat. I hate to sound like a broken record, but almost all of the areas are composed of very simplistic, block-rooms.

The basic gist here is that I am not judging FEAR from, say, a "pure technology" standpoint...because I don't care. Technology is a part of it, obviously, but it does not stand alone.

but, didn´t you have the impression that the scenarios were designed on purpose to look ugly and monotonous?

Umm...think about that comment...

"Yeah, but they PURPOSELY made the environments ugly and boring!"

OK, so they did. They made ugly, simple environments...

 

[SantaC]

If so many experienced people thing it´s great, maybe is because the game has something, don´t you think?

Well I guess some people don't mind the flaws in the game. As dark pointed out, the problem is the boring level design and essentially fighting enemies that look the same.

I played Quake 4 the other day, and I am actually enjoying it more.

 

[commish]

Well Dark10x, let's just agree to disagree.

 

[SantaC]

Well Dark10x, let's just agree to disagree.

:lol I am actually agreeing with dark here, and that isn't everyday

 

[Mrbob]

Haha, GAF does seem to be bazarro world sometimes. The only forum I see which constantly has people complaining about FEAR. Of course, it does seem to be the same main two culprits complaining about it all the time. One of which has always seems to always have something negative to say about Monolith.

Oh well. Enjoy your generic sci fi action game.

I'm haven't finished this game yet, so I don't want to comment on it too much at the moment until I'm done. But I won't compare it to NOLF or NOLF 2 because they are a different brand of FPS. At the moment do I think FEAR will be better than NOLF or NOLF 2? I doubt it. Those are my two favorite single player FPS games since they both offer such a unique experience and a ton of varied locations to go too. If you were expecting to travel to a ton of different areas like NOLF I can see where disappoinment would break in. But the level design isn't a dealbreaker for me. I like it because I think it leads to some intense battles.

 

[Fallout-NL]

If so many experienced people thing it´s great, maybe is because the game has something, don´t you think?

Like the matrix reloaded?

 

[commish]

:lol I am actually agreeing with dark here, and that isn't everyday

Turned up to the max, I haven't seen many better looking games, if any, but if others think there plenty better looking games out there, more power to them. Sure, there could be more variety, and I like the wide open areas and jungles of Far Cry more, but FEAR looks awesome.

 

[Belfast]

Its a bit cliche to bitch about the AI, now isn't it? You should know better by now that every FPS for the past 10 years has claimed to have "THE MOST ADVANCED AI EVAR!!!"