Review: F.E.A.R. 2: Project Origin

First-person shooters comprise one of the most well-developed video game genres in existence. The number of high-quality games and franchises practically demands that any new entry must have an interesting concept and a rock-solid engine. Otherwise, it will quickly get buried under an avalanche of award-winning titles. When the original F.E.A.R. came out in 2005, a well-crafted horror theme, the AI, and a few gameplay innovations allowed it to succeed despite direct competition from established franchises, such as Quake 4 and Call of Duty 2, among others. F.E.A.R. 2: Project Origin draws on the strengths of its predecessor and adds a few improvements. The question that now remains is whether or not the additions make up for the fact that the game's concept is no longer new and unique. Read on for the rest of my thoughts.

• Title: F.E.A.R. 2: Project Origin
• Developer: Monolith Productions
• Publisher: Warner Bros. Interactive Entertainment
• System: Windows, PS3, Xbox 360
• Reviewer: Soulskill
• Score: 7/10

The game starts out with a bang; the first act is extremely well designed. You begin in much the same manner as the first game, given little information and left to wonder what, exactly, is going on. You start in a military transport headed to pick up the president of Armachan Technology Corporation — the typical big, evil corporation developing things they really shouldn't. You're introduced to your squad-mates and then quickly separated from them while being taught some of the gameplay basics. The first serious firefight in the game is located within a room filled with antiques, ceramics, and vases stored in huge glass display cases. It's a brilliant choice in setting — priceless decorations shatter and glass flies everywhere. It's almost theatrical; like being a part of a high-budget action flick. As you shoot your way through the increasingly porous living quarters, hallucinations are induced by Alma, the deranged, telepathic, and telekinetic girl from the first game. The act ends when you witness a nuclear explosion far closer than is healthy, and shortly thereafter struggle to remain conscious as the corporation's doctors do something to you.

It's worth saying again — the first level is incredibly cool. Unfortunately, subsequent levels aren't able to match it. I suppose that's to be expected; after all, it's a horror-themed shooter rather than an epic adventure shooter, but the first level does tend to set expectations. For the next few acts, F.E.A.R. 2 treads mostly on familiar ground. You spend a great deal of time escaping an underground hospital/science facility, and wander your way through broken streets with crumbling buildings. That's not to say it's bad, or even unenjoyable ; the settings are still polished and full of detail, and the plot is continually prodded along in an interesting manner. It's just been done before, and often. If you've played a wide variety of first-person shooters, these levels will probably bring a sense of deja vu . Things pick back up after a while, though. You'll navigate your way through a school that was the site of much violence and destruction, go down into the subway, and even further into a high-tech underground tram. The less you know about any given setting, the more easily it lends itself to creepiness, so the more unique environments in F.E.A.R. 2 keep you focused on the horror aspect much better than the stereotypical science labs.

The visual effects that contribute to the horror theme are integrated quite well into the gameplay. The transition from your normal perception to hallucination is often gradual and seamless. Other times, it's sharp and distinct, using the shock of the immediate change to add an ominous vibe. Sometimes your flashlight will start to flicker in a dark area, and you'll begin to hear your character's panicked breathing and rapid heart rate. I'm on the fence about that; it's used to great effect in a few situations, but since fear in the character isn't mirrored by fear in the player, it also tends to serve as an indicator that something surprising is going to happen — thus negating the surprise. Other horror standards come in to play too. Every so often, Alma will flash into existence somewhere near you, and then disappear. Almost too often... but they find ways of keeping it interesting. The music and sound effects are very well done, laying the foundation for tense scenes, the foreshadowing of a terrible discovery, or giving your fight-or-flight reflexes a little boost.

The art team doesn't hesitate to try and scare you with gore, either. The scene I mentioned earlier where you see portions of a medical procedure being performed on yourself is interspersed with hallucinations of zombie doctors tearing out your insides, with gouts of blood flying in every direction. At one point, you sneak up behind a couple of enemy soldiers trying to decipher a huge section of wall that is covered with random words, symbols, and obscenities — all painted with blood. It really does look like something drawn by a psychotic killer, such that I wondered if they contracted the design from a local loony bin. (And presumably, your character feels no cognitive dissonance from gunning down those soldiers, which itself is kind of surreal.) Bloodstains are used liberally, as are all manner of brutal killings. This is definitely not a game for kids or people who faint at the sight of blood. Even aside from the violence and gore, the other artwork is also well done. The attention to detail is refreshing; rooms and objects are correctly proportioned to a greater extent than most shooters. A malfunctioning X-ray machine with throw a series of disjointed X-ray photographs onto a nearby computer monitor. You'll even see T.P.S. reports scattered about an office desk. Everything looks like a real environment, not just an approximation pasted onto an abstract level design.

One of the signature gameplay elements of F.E.A.R. 2 is "reflex time," an ability carried over from the first game. Press a button and, for a short duration, time slows down, giving you a massive advantage over your opponents in a fight. The intention is to make the player feel like an action hero, able to dodge and aim with supernatural speed, and it works. It also makes most fights very easy; I'd recommend going through the game on Normal if it's your first FPS, and on Hard if you have any significant experience. The weapons are another area where F.E.A.R. 2 sets itself apart. There really aren't any bad weapons. They all have their strengths and weaknesses, but you won't spend much time wishing you had a different gun. Even the basic pistol and your melee attack are powerful enough to be interesting. There are definitely some weapons that are more fun, like the missile launcher, the napalm gun, and the laser, but in the end you just wind up switching weapons fairly often as ammo runs out, which does a lot to keep the fights from getting boring.

Another instrument they use to keep the fights interesting is the AI, which, as with the first game, is better than average. Enemies are constantly shifting position, finding new cover, and ducking out from behind an obstacle to shoot at you. It forces you to remain active; camping out behind a barrel will get you killed as enemies advance on you. That's not to say it's without flaws; sometimes a soldier will decide to crawl underneath some hanging metal — a very slow maneuver — while you stand five feet away holding a machine gun. The effectiveness of the AI also varies depending on the type of enemy you fight. There are quite a few different kinds, but you wind up fighting the standard soldiers a disproportionate amount of the time, and they handle the AI better than any others. Other enemies tend to be used for dramatic effect. You'll encounter zombie-like creatures that scuttle quickly on all fours, though they are much less scary when you can slow down time. Another type is almost invisible until they attack hand-to-hand. One of the tougher creatures reanimates dead soldiers, and then finds something to hide behind. They take quite a bit of firepower to kill, so you can expect to deal with the revived grunts repeatedly.

Scattered throughout the game are a few situations where you interact with the environment, and a few QTEs. Both are underutilized to the point where they don't really add anything to the gameplay. The QTEs just involve hammering on a button until you win; it's very simple and doesn't really require any effort or brainpower. Granted, most QTEs are added as a way to keep the player connected to a few mini-cutscenes, but the end result isn't very satisfying. The times when you interact with objects are also very shallow; hold down a single button to move an obstacle out of the way, or to close a valve, or to open a set of elevator doors. The added seconds don't really have any affect on what happens to you, so why take the extra time when you can open a regular door with a single click? I'm going to lump the new part of the cover system in with this as well. You can now flip over tables and crouch behind them to shield yourself from enemy fire. It's neat, but there's really no advantage to doing that instead of hiding behind a crate or the corner of a wall. Existing cover is plentiful.

F.E.A.R. 2 infrequently offers a few different ways of fighting. The vast majority of the time, you're on foot holding a weapon of some sort, but you occasionally get to control a turret or a mech. Turrets are very much an upgrade in firepower. Far more enemies swarm than you could normally handle, but the turret cuts them down with ease. Controlling the turret is very easy; some games put silly restrictions like very slow rotation or poor accuracy, but F.E.A.R. 2 gets it right. It's quite fun, and my only complaint is that there aren't more opportunities to use them. The mechs, or "Powered Armor" units are even more powerful, but still very fun and easy to control. You get a couple of mini-guns and a set of rocket launchers, as well as a thermal imaging mode (think Predator). Aside from those two scenarios, there aren't a lot of variations in gameplay. At one point, you're riding on a speeding tram, but you're just walking around on top of it while enemies come to you. There isn't much scenery, and you wouldn't have much time to watch it anyway. The sequence is still fun, but it doesn't hold a candle to similar situations in, say, Gears of War 2.

The game's multiplayer falls into the same trap as the early single-player campaign. It's good, it's fun, and it's interesting, but there's nothing to set it apart from the multiplayer mode of half a dozen other good, fun, interesting shooters. The horror aspect is, of course, completely gone, and the signature time-slowing ability doesn't work because it'd be impossible to code. It has all the standard FPS modes of play (deathmatch, team deathmatch, CTF), and a few other team games that focus on controlling particular points of the map. Armored Front has five such points aligned in a linear manner such that only one is in conflict at a time. You either push the enemy back through successive points or get pushed back yourself. You can use turrets andmechs as well. As I mentioned earlier, all the weapons are relatively powerful in F.E.A.R. 2, and this becomes quite evident in multiplayer games. Players die very quickly without studious use of cover. It may be the case that all the weapons are tuned to be more powerful than they should be. The fights aren't always decided by the first shot, but it happens often enough to be a problem. The maps themselves are, for the most part, very good. There are perhaps a few too many intersections, and a few to many directions you need to watch for enemies, but otherwise they flow quite nicely.

F.E.A.R. 2 is an entertaining game. It's almost exactly what you'd expect out of a triple-A first-person shooter — no more, no less. If you're looking for a quality game and have no problem putting yourself in a state of mind to be creeped out, it will do the job nicely. If you're looking for a title that will push the boundaries of the genre, you're probably better off waiting for another game. There are some great parts to F.E.A.R. 2, and Monolith deserves a lot of credit for making them work as well as they did. This game had the misfortune of coming out after a wave of other, equally compelling titles. It doesn't fall behind, but it doesn't really stand out, either. The bottom line is that if you enjoy horror and first-person shooters, you'll enjoy this game. If your tastes run elsewhere.. well, there's plenty more to pick from.

Comments

No More - No Less

[wild_quinine]

It's almost exactly what you'd expect out of a triple-A first-person shooter -- no more, no less.

File under mediocre. I love my consoles, and I love the vast audience that have been introduced to gaming through their living room charms. But I've hated, hated, hated the way that, somehow, games like Halo have come to be seen as groundbreaking.

People - we have been here before. We have done it before. I do not wish to do it again, only this time prettier. That is not a game. That is a tech demo.

I am quite simply astounded that MOST games have not yet equalled the functionality or interactivity of Duke Nukem 3D, let alone surpassed it. The game is THIRTEEN YEARS OLD. It has been out for a number of years approaching half of my life, and we still don't see our reflections in the mirror in most games. And we still don't get blood dribbling down walls in most games. And we still don't get bloody, or slimy footprints, or shrink rays, or jet packs, or aliens sitting on fucking toilets.

It's been thirteen years and every time a new game does ONE of these things it's hailed as a goddamn miracle.

I know that, with the switch to true 3D, a lot of these things got harder to do. But it has been THIRTEEN YEARS. We've come far enough to tackle some of them.

Re:No More - No Less

[Smidge207]

we still don't see our reflections in the mirror in most games. And we still don't get blood dribbling down walls in most games. And we still don't get bloody, or slimy footprints, or shrink rays, or jet packs, or aliens sitting on fucking toilets.

Agreed. I'd stick w/ Doom II any day of the week. Not quite sure about the aliens on toilets, though. I don't seem to recall...facilities... aboard the Enterprise.

=Smidge=

Re:No More - No Less

[Anonymous Coward]

Have you even played it? I understand your rant and share your opinion on many games lately but I don't think it applies to this one.. The gameplay and atmosphere is fantastic.. And by the way you say it's a 'tech demo' but then you rant how games lately don't have this and that TECH feature. FEAR2 was great in my opinion, and the engine is pretty good from a tech perspective also. Only complaints for the game: it's a bit too linear (it's always 100% obvious were you need to go) and it was kind of short. But well worth playing IMO

Re:No More - No Less

[shadowrat]

So you think every game should take >13 years to develop? Cause that's how long it's taking 3d realms to give us more aliens on toilets.

Re:No More - No Less

[Steauengeglase]

I couldn't agree more. How long has it been since a game like Duke 3D (the multiplayer never gets credit for being damn smart), System Shock 1 and 2 and Deus Ex came out? We may have smarter physics and prettier graphics these days (enemy AI is still debatable), but gameplay mechanics are almost regressive.

Re:No More - No Less

[wild_quinine]

I understand your rant and share your opinion on many games lately but I don't think it applies to this one..

I disagree. I think my rant - and it is a rant, I recognise that - applies to the BETTER games more than it applies to the worse ones. At least the bad games are just bad, and there was never much to hope for them. No, my rant applies directly to F.E.A.R 2 and Killzone 2, and games of that quality and ilk, because these games are best-in-show examples of what we've come to expect from an FPS. They're expertly polished, and almost flawlessly presented.

And somehow that's supposed to be enough for anyone. But progress is about continuing to improve on ideas, not just on principles.

Do you have any IDEA how amazing it was to have a pool table where you could kick the balls around, in 1996? If we'd kept up with that level of innovation, I don't even know where we'd be today. Fully destructable environments, and phonecalls where you could have a realistic conversation with the AI via your headset, I would imagine.

Re:No More - No Less

[Krneki]

I agree but, ....

This is the same as bitching to Matrix that is only a Ghost in the Shell rip-off and GiS is a rip-off of Blade runner.

Each new good movie, game, will add a new layer and reuse whatever worked in the past.

You can't expect from every new game to be a revolution.

You have to accept that a lot of new stuff is only a visual remake of whatever was here before.

Re:No More - No Less

[Chyeld]

So, boiled down to it's essentials, your beef is that despite all the actual advances, evolvements, and improvements games have made in the past 13 years, you can't be truly innovative unless you cut and paste from a schlocky game that's almost a decade an a half old?

"I agree, this goes for movies too, I never hear anyone murmmer "Rosebud" as they die anymore, and WTF is with all this CGI crap. Claymotion was good enough for Rudolph, it should have been good enough for Shrek. Now that's innovation mother fuckers!"

Have you ever stopped to consider that just because there are a million flavors out there in the world, that doesn't mean every time you hit Subway for a hoagie it has to include all of them? Sometimes, just making a good ham and cheese is the right choice?

FEAR and FEAR 2 are not Halo. They are not games which derive their sole glory from being the 'first good one for a console'. They may have their flaws, and they may not be the best but they are hardly mediocre.

Re:No More - No Less

[elrous0]

In Halo's defense it WAS groundbreaking in some respects. Halo 1 looked and played better than any other FPS that had been released on a console at that time. Halo 2 had one of the best online multiplayer systems ever done on a console. And Halo 3 introduced the "Theater" feature, a feature which was never been seen before (or since) on a console (I still have a bunch of great kills and funny happenings in both single and multiplayer that I treasure, preserved forever and shareable thanks to Theater). So, while not entirely original by a long-shot (PC's did most of this stuff first, it's true), it certainly did break a lot of ground for console gaming.

Re:No More - No Less

[wild_quinine]

So, boiled down to it's essentials, your beef is that despite all the actual advances, evolvements, and improvements games have made in the past 13 years, you can't be truly innovative unless you cut and paste from a schlocky game that's almost a decade an a half old?

You have missed the point so completely that it must either be deliberate, or you're one of the developers of a current gen FPS.

I don't want the same again, same again, same again. That should be obvious. I don't even want the same, but better! I want NEW. I want FUN. I want the answer to the question 'Can I play with that thing?' to be 'Yes, and HOW!', not "No, it's scenery. No, it's detritus. No, it would have been hard to program'.

I want to be AMAZED by something other than graphics. I want to be amazed by the implications of a gameplay action, again. I want to be amazed by the details - not just the details of the pixels, but the details of how one action affects another. I want a game to do something I haven't seen before, and better still, didn't even think a game could do.

Re:No More - No Less

[Anonymous Coward]

Halo 1 looked and played better than any other FPS that had been released on a console at that time.

That's great but the reaction has been that now every game has to be limited enough to run on a console. And then people do their best to gloss over the limitations.

If I created an FPS that can be played on a washing machine display, that would be a great achievement. But afterwards should no games ever be made unless they can run on washing machines? No matter how many compromises that required? I know; there's a lot of washing machines out there.

Re:No More - No Less

[FallinWithStyle]

But it has been THIRTEEN YEARS. We've come far enough to tackle some of them.

The irony in that statement is killing me...

Re:No More - No Less

[Chyeld]

Nope, I've pretty much pegged you exact. You are so full of piss and vinegar over the fact that the developers don't have the resources to program every single little object out there to act 'realistically' that you've forgotten there are actually points to the games, and it's not "oh look, I can play pool by kicking the balls around". While simultaneously, because you are so focused on coding in features that actually wouldn't mean shit to the game and waste precious CPU and developer time, you've failed to notice that the games have gotten to the point where we don't actually need to be able to tip 2d strippers to enjoy the game.

Re:No More - No Less

[Cornflake917]

I am quite simply astounded that MOST games have not yet equalled the functionality or interactivity of Duke Nukem 3D, let alone surpassed it. The game is THIRTEEN YEARS OLD. It has been out for a number of years approaching half of my life, and we still don't see our reflections in the mirror in most games. And we still don't get blood dribbling down walls in most games. And we still don't get bloody, or slimy footprints, or shrink rays, or jet packs, or aliens sitting on fucking toilets.

You have very weird expectations for video games. I can probably think of about 100 things that I'd rather see in games before I'd want some gory blood effects or the ability to see my reflection.

It's been thirteen years and every time a new game does ONE of these things it's hailed as a goddamn miracle.

You've got to be fucking kidding me. The Half-Life series makes Duke Nukem seem like a joke, and it has none of the silly little gimmicks that you mention. Call me crazy, but I want a game thats fun. Shrink rays, jet packs, or aliens sitting on "fucking toilets" do nothing to guarantee that a game will be fun.

Re:No More - No Less

[wild_quinine]

Nope, I've pretty much pegged you exact.

Well that's a bold claim. Thank you for explaining to me what I think. Shame you still completely don't get it.

you are so focused on coding in features that actually wouldn't mean shit to the game and waste precious CPU and developer time,

You must be a dev with that attitude.

Why on earth would I give a shit about development complexity or CPU cycles? I'm after an immersive, surprising, original experience. I don't expect that to be easy for a developer, and I don't expect it not to tax my CPU. Furthermore, I don't CARE if it's hard for a dev. It's their job, and they should do it well. You start caring about how tough devs have it, and the next thing you know you're accepting mediocre games, because good enough is good enough, and Johnny did an honesy days work for his pay. Fuck that - I want to be impressed!

I don't want an on rails shooter. For me, one of the many things that indicates progress is the level of immersion. I don't need an alien sitting on a toilet, or a shrink ray, to make me happy. I need something that surprises me like those things first did, when they were new.

Yes, I'm using examples of things that were - in the past - awesome advancements in immersivity in old games.

The reason I haven't specified what EXACT NEW THINGS I'm looking for should be obvious; it's not my job to think of new things, and frankly if I did they wouldn't be a surprise any more.

Re:No More - No Less

[Yvanhoe]

Duke Nukem 3D was the last blockbuster game made by hacker who knew their ASM code well. Since then, it became an industry...

Re:No More - No Less

[Cathoderoytube]

Bless you sir. I'm glad to see there are other people out there who feel the same way I do.

Re:No More - No Less

[DeatheScythe]

The reason you're not totally impressed and surprised by things like shrink rays and strippers? Ya its because you're not 13 anymore. Been there done that. Welcome to adulthood its boring as hell.

Re:No More - No Less

[Steauengeglase]

The problem isn't the new layers added on, but layers that are removed for, lets face it, the console idiots. I'm not dogging those who play console games, I play them myself, but as games are designed more and more for broad appeal they tend to lose complexity and with each generation we get "dumber" games.

Re:No More - No Less

[Chyeld]

Do you have any IDEA how amazing it was to have a pool table where you could kick the balls around, in 1996? If we'd kept up with that level of innovation, I don't even know where we'd be today. Fully destructable environments, and phonecalls where you could have a realistic conversation with the AI via your headset, I would imagine.

And instead they innovated in different ways, ones that actually improved the game rather than add pointless fluff.

And please stop acting as if the fact that they didn't invent your "fully destructable environments", "Talking AIs", or "fully interactive environments" that they haven't innovated. What you are missing is that for the most part, all of the innovations you've touted so far in all these comments are about as useful as the fabled flying car and haven't been introduced in games for the same reason we don't have flying cars. I.E. They are pointless and inefficient.

Re:No More - No Less

[capebretonsux]

While I agree with you on most points you bring up, I have to ask the question of just what groundbreaking innovation can be brought about at this point? Duke Nukem 3d was groundbreaking because it WAS 3d, and one of the few/first(?) at the time that came about. I can't think of another paradigm-shifting change in video games that has come along since. I saw nothing special in Halo, GOW or many of the games which have come along recently. Sure, some were fun and enjoyable, but nothing groundbreaking. I'm not all that fond of motion control like the WII, but it's an effort. What astounds me is that there hasn't been a real 'jump' in the AI of video games. Personally I'd trade all the shiny reflections and shadows for an ordinary soldier in one of these games that would take half an hour to kill, and not from the usual boss-battle outrageous hit points kind of difficulty, but from tactics and strategy. Of course, I would imagine that this is more to do with the limits of computer science when it comes to 'realistic' AI, and we simply aren't there yet. I think the next 'big' change in video games will arrive when we crack those problems. Until then, more pretty graphics, shiny reflections and the need for outrageously-priced video cards in order to run them.

Re:No More - No Less

[drinkypoo]

That's great but the reaction has been that now every game has to be limited enough to run on a console. And then people do their best to gloss over the limitations.

Is that really a limitation any more? When you have a console that kicks the hell out of the average PC (although this varies during the lifespan of a console) and can be hooked up to an HDTV (hint: this is what my PC is hooked up to, via DVI - even though I have a HDMI port, I still seem to have no trouble playing a DVD on it, either. And the scaler is quite nice.)

The only problem seems to be in the region of controllers, and I have a feeling that as console gaming continues to dominate we're going to see more console games with keyboard and mouse support. If we're lucky, we might even see someone invent a controller that's superior to the keyboard and mouse combo (for FPS and RTS gaming) although, of course, I doubt it :)

Re:No More - No Less

[Anonymous Coward]

B.S.

Halo had oodles of physics effects never before seen. Long before it was destined for an Xbox, Bungie had demo vids out of the master chief riding around in the Warthog.

Everyone gasped in amazement as the driver's body reacted to acceleration and braking, to body roll from the terrain.

The level of immersion was dramatic.

Frankly, your recollection of history is distorted.

Re:No More - No Less

[djnforce9]

Yup. This is exactly why Duke Nukem 3D remains my #1 favourite game of all time (and the newer hi-resolution texture and music packs in combination with the modern windows port (eduke32) assures that it won't be aging all that soon). I loved playing it when it came out in 1996 and my interest hasn't died down even today in 2009 (I still install it after each time I re-format my PC). The amount of interaction with the environment was just astounding in Duke and it also encouraged a lot of exploration to uncover secrets (which might I add were not placed in insanely hard to reach areas like in Serious Sam). F.E.A.R 2 does seem to encourage some sight seeing as well (and it's real joy in certain areas such as the school how realistic everything looks) but not nearly the level of Duke Nukem 3D and more importantly, Duke did NOT have to rely on checkpoints and several "points of no return" (other than completing levels of course). The pool balls were an excellent example of Duke's interaction indeed. They had VERY reasonable physics to the point where you could kick the white ball (or nudge it) and it would literally scatter the other balls like in a real pool game. They even had the "holes" present for the balls to fall into. With a modern physics engines, that concept could have really gone far and I STILL await the day when there's a game with 100% fully destructable terrain. Shooting a rocket launcher at a wall and having that wall not even so much as scathed or charred just doesn't seem right nor does being able to break certain things while other (more fragile) objects can withstand any blast. In F.E.A.R 2, I noticed that quite a bit of detail was put into certain objects but neglected on others. For example, near the beginning you see a bunch of speakers where you can literally knock off the speaker covers just by hitting them uncovering the speaker itself. Given how insignicant this sprite was to the game, it was rather cool that this sort of detail was added. However, it is then ruined by the fact you can break certain PC monitors in the game while others seem to be bullet and explosion proof somehow (so where did the level of interactivity go?). I do like F.E.A.R 2 better than the first one though because at least the levels don't drag on and on with the same repetitive scenary and layouts padding hours to the game needlessly. With F.E.A.R 2, I can enjoy exploring each area I encounter. Oh! Like you, I didn't think Halo was anything special. Definitately fun but not worthy of the level of praise it got.

Re:No More - No Less

[Fallingcow]

From your post, I'm inclined to think we'd like the same sorts of games. Here are a couple that have impressed the hell out of me since Deus Ex (heh, funny, I'm replaying that one for the dozenth or so time):

STALKER: Shadow of Chernobyl

Within 30 minutes of firing this one up it had convinced me that an FPS-style Fallout game could work--before actually playing Fallout 3 un-convinced me. It's got problems, but it's a damn good game, and unlike anything I've seen. Some of the mods out there make it even better. Morrowind meets Fallout meets the old Delta Force FPS games. Haven't played the sequel yet, so I can't comment on it.

Max Payne 2

A film-noir novella in shooter form. Infinitely better than the not-terrible first game. Best played on the highest difficulty setting--trust me, you'll find yourself playing it so differently on that setting that it's like a whole new game. Some complained about its short play time, but in this case I'd call it "quitting while you're ahead" or perhaps "not wearing out your welcome". Damn-near flawless in its execution, IMO. If you don't mind slogging through the (again, not terrible) first game, doing so will improve your understanding of the story (or, more precisely, some of the characters) in the second.

I think HL2 is pretty great, too. That series, IMO, continues to be the perfect specimen of the pure, single-player FPS.

Oh, and Portal. Duh.

Re:No More - No Less

[Anonymous Coward]

Here's two of my favorite games.

Dead Rising
Left 4 Dead

Combine those two and you have one badass game. Supposedly Dead Rising 2 is going to do that?

Re:No More - No Less

[elrous0]

Ever stop to think that maybe the games aren't getting worse, you're just getting older? Seriously, the same phenomenon happens in music. Everyone thinks the music has gotten worse since they were young (no matter what age they are). My grandfather went to his grave claiming the genius of 40's swing was ruined by rock and roll.

Re:No More - No Less

[Alastor187]

Whether the parents specific innovations are of interest to 'you' or not isn't the point. What he is talking about is innovations that would increase the feel of immersion in the game. Obviously, these will differ between people.

Ultimately, Duke3D created an immersive environmental like no other game of the time and most importantly it was fun. I remember putting dozens of pipe-bombs around a laser trip mine just because it was fun. A single trip mine alone would be enough to kill an enemy, but adding some pipe bombs just so Duke says "Let God Sort Em' Out" is classic.

Blowing up an enemy in another room while watching on the security camera or giving money to the strippers when my parents weren't watching, it was great. It was innovative and entertaining.

Jet-packs, subways, earth-quakes, novel weapons, snide comments, and more it really set the bar for all games that would follow. Kicking the final boss' Cyclopes eye through the goal post is just awesome. "Game Over" enough said.

Re:No More - No Less

[elrous0]

The harsh fact is that very few game developers have the time or resources to design to the kind of level of realism you're asking for. Something blowing up requires an animation. And you can't do an animation for every conceivable object in a game, or expect a console (or even a top-of-the-line PC) to be able to handle the physics for thousands of objects and parts of objects onscreen at once. To do a game like that in any reasonable amount of time at any reasonable cost, you would have to cut down the number of objects and locations drastically, which would make the game still seem unrealistic, just for completely different reasons.

Re:No More - No Less

[Talderas]

If I'm not mistaken, Bungie's new game series have always been at the forefront of physics engines in games.

Look at the Myth series. It was a break from the standard resource gathering strategy games, in addition it was one of the first RTS games to feature real physics. It was likely the inspiration for the Total War series of games.

Re:No More - No Less

[Fallingcow]

I can pretty much guarantee that we'll be getting a mall-based campaign for L4D from the community when the SDK comes out in a couple months.

Is that what you're looking for?

Re:No More - No Less

[Ostracus]

PsyX, Mirrors edge. And yes there's a penalty for using that feature.

Re:No More - No Less

[PrimalChrome]

When someone releases a console that includes keyboard/mouse support out of the box, THEN, and ONLY THEN, will you see the slow death of PC gaming on the horizon.

...but the irony is, at that point, the console will have become the personal computer.

Re:No More - No Less

[wild_quinine]

What you are missing is that for the most part, all of the innovations you've touted so far in all these comments are about as useful as the fabled flying car and haven't been introduced in games for the same reason we don't have flying cars. I.E. They are pointless and inefficient.

Fine - you've got me there. I will try to have fun more efficiently from now on.

Re:No More - No Less

[HTH NE1]

aliens sitting on fucking toilets.

I think that would be a bit uncomfortable for the alien.

"Well, Timmy, when a toilet and a urinal really like each other...."

Re:No More - No Less

[Fallingcow]

I'm anxiously awaiting the day I read a review of a console system/game that raves about how cool it is that you can do so many things with a single press of one of its many buttons.

As soon as we get a console game with controls like X-Wing or Tie Fighter or Mechwarrior 2 (or hell, even Deus Ex) we'll have come full circle, and oh how I'll laugh...

Re:No More - No Less

[cripkd]

F*ck, is it so hard to understand what this guy is saying?
Games are going the same path every product on the shelf is going. You can buy shampoo with pearl extract now, and furniture cleaning products with aloe vera. Wow, really? Like that really matters.
Its the same with games. I'm sure the next big thing will be that real time ray traceing I keep hearing about. It will be the same game, but with better graphics, reflections, whatever. Yes, i know, it would be a computational brakethrough.
But MY time will be spent the same way, going down corridors shooting bad persons.
I'm not old, I'm not against consoles, I'm not agains PC's, but you people have to admit that we need a brakethrough in gameplay from time to time, LIKE the one FPS brought. Remeber how you felt when you FIRST played a fps. Now, how do we get to feeeling that again?

Re:No More - No Less

[DrGamez]

[...]the console idiots. I'm not dogging those who play console games[...]

Just calling them idiots, yes.

Re:No More - No Less

[drinkypoo]

It's really not irony. It's just the long way around to bringing users to the realization that they don't want to run more than one program at a time on Windows. In fact, everyone can get away with three or less :D Think I'm wrong? Let me put forth my theory before you throw rocks at it. Then, you know, sling away.

Here we go: At this point the only thing anyone should ever do with Windows is play a game or watch a video. I seem to be able to get pretty much every format and codec to work properly on windows and it's a legal place to play all that copyright-covered DRM-restricted media if I so choose. The Xbox is a prime example - Xbox with XBMC would be just about everything I needed if it had a great web browser and maybe an ssh client. And for anything more, I can't possibly trust Windows!

Anyway, it's only half tongue-in-cheek. What I really love about PC games that don't suck is the ability to remap controls arbitrarily. Some console games have that. If only they had generic HID support. Most consoles DO have support for it...

Re:No More - No Less

[Retric]

I was born in 1980 and I think 95% of the music of my time was crap. I liked Rage Against the Machine, Rhamstine, and a few others but mostly I prefer music from 60's bands. (Many of them produced great stuff after the 60's, but that's when they started.)

Re:No More - No Less

[Cederic]

I really liked the original Max Payne. Very few games have drawn me into their story so effectively.

Re:No More - No Less

[grumbel]

And Halo 3 introduced the "Theater" feature,

Some of us have been recording replays of interesting events back in 1991 in Indianapolis 500 on the Amiga, not exactly a new thing. Going trough the history of gaming shows up tons of cool things have seem to have been lost and forgotten.

Re:No More - No Less

[Fallingcow]

Oh, I liked it too, but the "dream" levels did get a bit annoying after a while and I was sort of sick of the game play by about 3/4 of the way through (though I wanted to see the rest of the story play out). The level design was also pretty weak in many places, IMO (especially the parking garage, which was the only section of the game that I'd call 100% bad).

Also, the first one came with a really nice, thick mouse pad--like the kind you'd pay money for, not the usual thin, plastic-covered freebie kind--in the box. How often do you get a cool extra like that in games these days? Even then it was rare to get something that nice. I don't even remember seeing anything about it on the box; it was just there. They get big points for that.

I just think the second one is a much better game, overall. The developers/designers kept what was good about the first game and threw out what was bad, IMO.

Re:No More - No Less

[Talgrath]

I want to be AMAZED by something other than graphics. I want to be amazed by the implications of a gameplay action, again. I want to be amazed by the details - not just the details of the pixels, but the details of how one action affects another. I want a game to do something I haven't seen before, and better still, didn't even think a game could do.

Might I suggest, then that you try a puzzle game? Most of the most innovative games today are games like Echochrome; and you won't find any other genre where one action can affect another so clearly. Overall, to me, it just sounds like you're complaining; "games aren't what they used to be when I was younger", that's called nostalgia, you're wearing rose-tinted glasses when looking back at the past.

Look, I thought it was amazing when the first shooters came out too; but I also play the more modern shooters and find a lot there that I'm impressed with and that I like. F.E.A.R. was a ground-breaking experience of a game, probably the only game in the past ten years that has actually scared me at times; F.E.A.R. 2 sounds like it's mostly a rehash of F.E.A.R. 1 unfortunately so I may or may not pick it up. However, I don't lament that the second game doesn't have mind-blowing innovation; if every game was innovative all the time, we'd probably get sick of innovation "Oh for crying out loud, I have to learn how to play a whole new genre, again", and ultimately if you don't like a game or don't think it is innovative enough, bitching on Slashdot probably isn't going to change the industry. What might is programming what you want to see yourself (or even work off another engine to build your "dream game") and not buying games you don't find to be innovative enough while buying "innovative" games.

Re:No More - No Less

[Anonymous Coward]

No shit. The Halo series got rave reviews because the first game was the best produced title for the original XBox, complete with a quasi-small studio making it and providing marketing, and then the hype machine carried it forward.

Halo looks like utter shit. The walls in the game are flat with simple textures, every indoor surface is shiny, there is zero grit, dirt, texture or any surface other than metal. Outdoors, the resolution is awful. There is little to no detail in the environment anywhere. Combat is mediocre at best, and so are the weapons. The only sound that stands out is the assault rifle's firing. They managed to make that sound punchy, so they get credit for that. Music is pretty good throughout.

Controls and the feel of the game was shitty. FOV was set awfully low, as it is in many console FPS's, making me feel like my character has some vision problem. Master Chief takes like two seconds to complete a jump, which made me feel like I'm in a low-gravity environment.

Most levels suck. They are small, crowded and due to the total lack of detail, they lack any character. Not to mention the Library (or whatever it was called) that was a shameless copy/paste job. The EXACT SAME setup level after level. The only levels I liked were the outdoor ones, and only because driving a Warthog with an AI firing the machine gun on the back was the most fun part of the game. At least the game showed some character there with the soldiers yelling and cheering.

Halo blew. The early, incomplete tech demos on the Mac looked way more fun than the actual playable game turned out to be. The XBox masses eating up that franchise is a proof that modern marketing works miracles.

Re:No More - No Less

[FrozenFOXX]

Thank you so much. Seriously, you just made my day.

Re:No More - No Less

[Lundse]

You are completely missing the point here.
"Wild Q" is using examples of previous innovation to _exemplify_ the kind of _unexpected_, out-of-the-box thinking he would like to see in games instead of just better graphics.
And you are accusing him of wanting only more of those same things?
I think you are either trolling or simply refuses to read his actual posts.

Portal was innovative, it had a new game mechanic (I know it was not 100% new, it just worked better this time round) and a new-ish storyline (a non-story line of going through chambers, which turns into a real storyline; with a psychopathic and/or moronic AI to boot).
Now - did I claim that Portal was a good game for thinking up something new and executing it well, or did I claim Portal was good for having a portal gun and GLADoS?
If you think the latter, read my post again until you realize you were wrong. Then do the same for "Wild Q..."'s posts.
Arguing that good enough is good enough is rather redundant, when the claim your are arguing against is that good enough is not innovative!

Re:No More - No Less

[MikeBabcock]

F.E.A.R. 2 has some pretty good story and horror effects. They do a good job of drawing you in, its not your typical FPS fare. In fact, the shooting is not the main experience for me when playing F.E.A.R. 2.

Re:No More - No Less

[MikeBabcock]

You need to play Killzone 2. Its not perfect by any means, but it goes a lot further down the 'wow that's a nice side-effect' alley.

My personal beef is that story-based games no longer include alternate plot arcs. The old Wing Commander series is a great example, several other games bothered too. The problem seems obvious: you have a chunk of the game that each player probably won't see due to their play style, but that's the interesting bit -- when my play style affects the outcome in a real way.

Re:No More - No Less

[michael021689]

Yes and thank you. I'm tired of hearing about the death of the PC (in gaming and beyond) while with each generation consoles become more and more like a standard PC. That is great in all, but why not just go for the actual PC and not be locked down by the manufacturer?

Re:No More - No Less

[Chyeld]

Actually, you are missing a number of points.

Mine is that just because they haven't evolved the way he dreamed up back when Duke was 'innovative' doesn't mean they haven't.

You've already provided an example, and I'm sure we both could spend all day coming up with games that have come out since Duke Nukem 3D that have advanced the genre and come up with new, innovative, ideas. Ideas which in many cases have been proven by the number of times that they've been adopted since then.

We could also spend twice as long coming up with games that weren't necessarily innovative but were still good. The ones that took the raw ideas others presented and polished them up.

We aren't in the STNG world of holodecks and AI characters so believable that they come to life and take over the ship. But we don't have to be for the games that are being made now to be GOOD games.

Re:No More - No Less

[Chyeld]

Well the first FPS I played was DOOM and it was a multiplayer game in the computer lab at college. We brought down the network, and got banned from using the lab for a full semester and to top it off, I got walloped fairly hard in the game.

So, I'm guessing the best way to get that feeling again would be to go into work and piss in my bosses mug tomorrow morning.

As far as the "oh wow! new! shiny!" feeling, I tend to get that when I play a good game regardless. I got it when I played each game in the Half-Life series, the System Shock games, the Dues Ex games, Portal, FEAR, and many others.

Maybe, what you really need is a little less jaded cynicism and willingness to pass off everything as "old" the moment you see it.

Re:No More - No Less

[will_die]

Staker 2 is OK, get it when it gets cheap.
They fix some of the problems like adding instant travel, but it is far to short for a stand alone game. It would be a decent length if it was an expansion pack and priced at that but as a stand alone game by the time you start getting into it the game it is over. Also they added better weapons and armor modifications but because of quests and the shortness of the game I only used 3 weapons.

Re:No More - No Less

[krenshala]

Duke Nukem (you're gonna have to wait) Forever?

Re:No More - No Less

[krenshala]

Actually, using raytracing to draw the 3d game world has been done, and is apparently not that taxing on the CPU/GPU. Unfortunatley, I don't remember the name of the engine, but it does real time ray tracing and they ported over some Quake 3 maps to test it. I remember reading about it a couple years ago. I haven't seen anything on it since then, unfortunately.

Re:No More - No Less

[amoeba1911]

I too remember the bitmapped alien sitting on the bitmapped toilet in the movie theater in the first level of Duke Nukem 3D. It's toilet humor that fits well into Duke Nukem 3D world which has a much thinner atmosphere as it is a lighthearted game as evidenced by pigs dressed like cops and the main protagonist has an endless supply of cliche one liners peppered with profanity that he dispenses generously throughout the game as he is kicking and butchering comical aliens.

As amusing as it may be to some, an alien sitting on a toilet would be completely out of place in F.E.A.R. as this game tries to establish a much thicker atmosphere. Aliens caught in comical situations would just dilute it.

Re:No More - No Less

[Fallingcow]

One of the mods--I forget which one--makes the game far more punishing, adding random radiation storm things (I forget what they were called) that spawn enemies, new weapons, and a much richer faction system. It adds a lot to the game, IMO, and makes reaching Chernobyl NPP a real accomplishment.

Re:No More - No Less

[stummies]

I never heard of Stalker, but I'll definitely check it out. Thanks! I've played Deus Ex, Max Payne, and the HL series numerous times. For me, the Star Wars Dark Forces/Jedi Knight series is a slight step below all of the above, but those are games I come back to again and again. One other I'd add is Battlezone, which is a fps/rts combo.

Re:No More - No Less

[caitsith01]

+1 for Stalker - one of the very best, and definitely one of the scariest and most atmospheric, games I have played. Insanely huge and eerie environments, art direction beyond compare, inherently bizarre Russian-ness, excellent sound, excellent guns, interesting and challenging enemies, great storyline.

Also featuring an actual good FPS engine used in an RPG-type way - Deus Ex 1 is close to my favourite game ever, but I will readily admit that the FPS side of it does not compare to a dedicated FPS, whereas Stalker probably exceeds most current gen FPS games.

It's a pity Stalker: Clear Sky seems to have turned some of the games pros into cons.

Re:No More - No Less

[Fallingcow]

One other I'd add is Battlezone, which is a fps/rts combo.

Well, now I know what I'll be playing next :)

Thanks, I hadn't heard of that one.

Re:No More - No Less

[mako1138]

No one will dispute that Halo brought a lot to the console arena. To a PC gamer, though, it was underwhelming.

Re:No More - No Less

[Jake Dodgie]

I want to be able to play a game of pool by shooting the balls round the table.

In the same place if I am attacked I want to be able to spray the pool table with a machine gun and have lethal balls flying round the room.

and in reference to the guy below...."shake it shake it baby"

Re:No More - No Less

[Anonymous Coward]

Deus Ex was the nigh perfect blend of FPS shooter and RPG. Stalker was a close second to this and shared many of the same characteristics. Still, the Deus Ex story still haunts me to this day. I read every book in that mofoing game.

Re:No More - No Less

[Anonymous Coward]

How about a racing game where I actually get to design a car and see how well it runs? How about a Civ 3 meets neo-nectaris (basically a near endless war game with good play mechanics to play with friends)?

Even the AI problems can be address by making games multi-player, and designing the game mechanics around that.

The point is that even with established genres, there are new ways to approach those genres (see Portal or the Unfinished Swan for FPS) and ways to address AI concerns. While admittedly the polish of games has gone up, novel and interesting approaches have been pretty much been abandoned.

Re:No More - No Less

[Anonymous Coward]

Note how all of this is "on a console".

Re:No More - No Less

[Anonymous Coward]

OK, thanks for the suggestion. I will do that from now on. Or not, no disrespect :)

But to be honest the Portal example should have been MINE, no idea how it slipped my mind. That's exactly what I mean. A NEW game on an already existing engine, I don;t care about the gfx, i care about the new idea, and you have to admit its a nice idea. No multiplayer, no other characters, just smth new to occupie my mind aside shooting down the same aliens. But I know, I'm wrong.

Another example was Max Payne. Great story, great voices, athmosphere. The decision to NOT have multiplayer or sequels, aside the add-on has to be respected. They cared about the story, not about making yet another game. But I'm wrong.

Re:No More - No Less

[Lundse]

Actually, you are missing a number of points.

Mine is that just because they haven't evolved the way he dreamed up back when Duke was 'innovative' doesn't mean they haven't.

I did completely miss that. I do not recall Wild claiming that the problem is they have not innovated in the exact way which Duke Nuken innovated (which would be kind of contradictory, actually). I do not recall you telling us any examples of how innovation has occured. Wild's argument quite clearly goes that 'technical advances in themselves does not innovation make'. If you actualy agreed with this, but believed that there are plenty of innovations since (which I agree with, except perhaps the 'plenty' part), then I (foolishly?) assumed that you would say so and give examples of such innovation. Instead of just denigrating the innovation that did occur in Duke Nukem...

We aren't in the STNG world of holodecks and AI characters so believable that they come to life and take over the ship. But we don't have to be for the games that are being made now to be GOOD games.

You are right, they don't. In order to be great games, though... We are just saying that innovation in gameplay and immersion is more than technical and graphical breakthroughs. Noone is saying the way to do that is more aliens on toilets, or interactive dust-flakes. We are just saying we want innovation, and insisting that good enough is, in fact, only good enough and in no way worthy of praise, nor to be commended for pushing any envelopes.

Re:No More - No Less

[elrous0]

Yes, as I acknowledged, PC games did a lot of this stuff first. But doing this stuff on a console; and in such a simple, elegant package; was nonetheless a major achievement (no one had ever done it before in that form, after all). PC games will always be cutting edge. But they don't enjoy anywhere near the popular impact of console games (with the exception of World of Warcraft maybe, itself not a particularly ground-breaking original achievement).

Re:No More - No Less

[Full Metal Jackass]

Now that you mention it, Duke Nukem 3D was an awesome game. I wonder if they've thought about making a sequel.

Re:No More - No Less

[Anonymous Coward]

Dude... you're a total douche.

There isn't one point in your argument that doesn't paint you as a lazy developer. Don't misconstrue my irritation with a distaste for developers, either.

You, sir, are an uninspired tool.

Bad tag

[Reddragon220]

I noticed that this has been tagged with "nextbadconsoletopcport". The F.E.A.R. series started out on the PC and the PC has always been the lead development platform on the development of this project.

Re:Bad tag

[thepotoo]

Except that if you play the game (at least the demo), you'll notice that you're locked into a D-pad style weapon select system, an inane FOV, a HUD that interferes with vision (why is there a box in the middle of my screen?) and forced widescreen. Also, when you go to click on buttons with the mouse, you often click on the button below it, forcing you to use the keyboard to select menus.

The original F.E.A.R. nailed the interface (only showed it when I was switching weapons, similar to HL2), and was one of the most immersive shooters I've ever played (admittedly, I don't play a lot of shooters).

The demo for this was amazingly fun, and the AI seems better than the original (similar animations and communication, but better use of cover and flanking). However, I'm holding off on buying it until a patch comes out to address the HUD and FOV issues. If anyone knows how to fix these (command line options?), please post below.

Re:Bad tag

[curmudgeous]

"...a HUD that interferes with vision (why is there a box in the middle of my screen?)..."

I've not played the game, but from the description and the screen shots your character is supposed to be a soldier with (presumably) a helmet and full face shield. From the curvature of the HUD it looks as though it's projected on the inside of that face shield.

BTW, I agree with the previous post regarding STEAM. If this game requires installation of the STEAM client and access to the internet just to install (much less play) then I'll not likely be buying it. I always buy the physical media for games and I expect to play them whenever and on whichever machine I choose. License keys and SecuROM are bad enough, but anything that requires me to authenticate with a remote server just to play a game that I purchased ...nope, sorry, ain't going to happen.

Re:Bad tag

[spyrochaete]

It seemed immediately obvious to me which platform FEAR2 was designed for the first time the interface prompted me to answer a yes/no question. Instead of displaying 2 buttons it simply showed ">". It takes 2 clicks to answer no.

The graphics (which aren't mentioned at all in this review for some reason) are very dated which means they run at a great frame rate but seem obviously optimized for underpowered consoles. The screen aspect ratio is locked at 16:9 even though no such monitor exists for PC, so whether your monitor is 4:3, 5:4, or 16:10, you will always see black bars. The font size is unnecessarily huge and the HUD is simplified and also too large.

I found nothing compelling or innovative about this game, but I found it insulting that it's so obviously such a half-assed console port. This is a disappointing anticlimax after the first game which was lauded so positively for its groundbreaking game engine. The end result is a budget game on sale for full price.

P.s., there's no mouse sensitivity slider so it's lucky my laser mouse has adjustable resolution or the controls would be ridiculously sensitive.

Re:Bad tag

[AlmondMan]

You're not locked into any selection system. You can use the mousewheel or assign any key you like to change to the weapon of your choice.
There is no box in the middle of the screen either, and the hud does not interfere with the vision, it just sits there, like in a bunch of other games. Calling that a consolification makes no sense, as a game developed heavily for consoles, Far Cry 2, has had the hud almost completely removed! Which is quite awesome. Calling a graphic part of the hud intended to increase immersion a console thing is stupid, though.

The demo wasn't amazing, it was dull and tripe, showing you that the GAMEPLAY was consolified, not the interface (except the "pda" part). The AI is stupid and never given time to use cover or flanking. It just stands there in the middle of the room or starts jumping over stuff leaving it completely exposed and vulnerable all the time. Or maybe they're busy knocking over tables or opening cardoors to hide behind. None of it is "smart" it's just stupid as the animations are long and slow. Just so for someone's greasy fingers on the gamepad torturously pushing that right-stick towards the intended target...

Re:Bad tag

[Shadow of Eternity]

You forgot that no matter what you bind your keys to the "E" button always makes you exit the mech and there's no support for more than 3 mouse buttons which is really inexcusable because thumb buttons have been around since before the FIRST one came out.

Re:Bad tag

[spyrochaete]

Er, sorry about the sloppy tag. The yes/no prompt looks like:

<< YES >>

Re:Bad tag

[spyrochaete]

Right you are. I used both my thumb buttons in the original game (for bullet time and grenades) but apparently they couldn't be bothered this time around.

Re:Bad tag

[RogueyWon]

No idea if it's maybe something they added for the UK version, but I know for a fact there's a mouse sensitivity slider in my version of the game. I had to turn it down a ways before the game felt playable, but that's normal for me.

The aspect ratio thing is, I admit, annoying. However, the font size seems absolutely fine to me (running in 1680x1050, not tried lower resolutions). The HUD's fine. It tells me everything I need to know and doesn't clutter the screen unnecessarily. To be honest, for a game like this with heavy horror elements, I would almost have preferred a no-HUD approach (a la Dead Space).

And the graphics? They're not Crysis, but let's face it, even 18 months on, nothing else is. They compare reasonably well to anything else I've seen recently.

I honestly do think all the people crying "OMG console port" are completely overdoing it. To me, the game looks and feels like a PC game. Sure, there are a few clues that it was developed for consoles in parallel - the radial weapon select menu being the best example - but there are perfectly PC-friendly alternatives to these (you can still bind specific weapon selections to whatever key you want).

Re:Bad tag

[Anonymous Coward]

> there's no mouse sensitivity slider

um, yes there is. options -> game settings -> aim sensitivity. or smth like that.

Re:Bad tag

[rahvin112]

It's a pair of sunglasses. In fact the first time you put them on and they "boot" you up you see "linux kernel loading..." in the upper corner of the screen before the HUD loads up. I thought that was pretty a pretty interesting addition.

Re:Bad tag

[TheSambassador]

Good thing Steam isn't the only place you can buy it.

Maybe having to be on the internet is a "con" to some people, but seriously, this is 2009. If you have a PC that can play this game you are 90% likely (yes, made up stats) to have a half-decent internet connection.

I like that I can delete the game off my computer and not have to worry about keeping a CD and CD key laying around. Whenever I need to download it, it's there, and it downloads REALLY fast.

Re:Bad tag

[MartinSchou]

The screen aspect ratio is locked at 16:9 even though no such monitor exists for PC

While I won't argue that it's stupid to have a locked aspect ratio, you are very much mistaken in your claim. Even if we ignore the fact that you can easily hook up your PC to your full HD tv or projector, there are quite a few 16:9 monitors on the market.

BenQ has at least one series of Full HD monitors
Samsung has at least one full HD monitor
Acer has 8 models tagged as 16:9 HD
Fujitsu Siemens has at least two models

Re:Bad tag

[spyrochaete]

Right you are. My mistake.

Re:Bad tag

[MmmmAqua]

Right you are. My mistake.

The rarest two sentences on Slashdot. Bravo. ;)

If the story line holds true to the original....

[SGDarkKnight]

The question that now remains is whether or not the additions make up for the fact that the game's concept is no longer new and unique. Read on for the rest of my thoughts.

If the story line holds true and they continued with it; and they didn't butcher the engine, then this game will be great. The concept is still unique to this particular title. Take a look at Half-Life/2/EP1/EP2: They stuck with the story line, made some new additions as they continued with it, and were extreamly sucessful with the franchise. I for one know that the first time I played F.E.A.R., it was by far one of the only games that actually made be jump at different times throughout the gameplay. Can't imagine this doing bad (like i said above, so long as they dont fuck with the story line -- or butcher the engine).

Get Psyched!

[Windows_NT]

Although i havent played the first FEAR, i think im going to go and buy it. It looks fun. Ive always liked the FPSs. I remeber shaking (from adrenaline) when i beat the boss of the first episode of Wolf3D (i was like 7?) and then on to getting up at like 5am to play Quake before school. Know after owning all the Quakes,Doom trilogy, Wolfenstein, ET, all the half-lifes, i think im ready for another game. Its coming out for PC right? know i just hope it will run on Wine(cedega).

Re:Get Psyched!

[A. B3ttik]

I _highly_ suggest playing the first FEAR. It is still a great game, and _no_ AI has come close to it yet. FEAR and FEAR 2 are the only games that I have ever played that made me feel like I was playing against other human players.

The FEAR2 storyline also directly follows from the original FEAR, so you might be a little bit lost if you never played it.

Re:Get Psyched!

[Kral_Blbec]

I would go that far. It was good AI, but not the best. IMO it was about par with HL2.

Re:Get Psyched!

[Kral_Blbec]

wouldnt*

Re:Get Psyched!

[Chyeld]

If you do, save yourself some effort and switch to FEAR 2 after playing the base FEAR 1 game. The two expansion packs (Extraction point and Perseus Mandate) were developed by a third party studio after Monolith lost the rights to the FEAR name. Monolith considers them non-canon and FEAR 2 completely ignores anything from them. And yes both are PC games.

Re:Get Psyched!

[spyrochaete]

Be forewarned, the original FEAR doesn't support widescreen and it doesn't really hold up so well by modern standards. For its time it was quite groundbreaking but today it seems a pretty average corridor/flashlight shooter that was stretched out unnecessarily.

Re:Get Psyched!

[A. B3ttik]

IMO it was about par with HL2.

Maybe in your opinion, but not in fact.

In HL2, you can sit in a doorway waiting for the Combine to come after you. They will. They will keep swarming through like stupid ants even after you've killed 50 of their guys in the same doorway. You can also hold up a barrel and walk right at the guy and he'll continue to shoot at the barrel until you're close enough to crowbar him (or launch the barrel at him from point-blank range.)

Not in FEAR, though. In FEAR they -will- wait for you. They'll also try and go around and flank you if there is any other way. I remember one instance I entered a room and took some cover. I waited for them to come get me. They didn't. I kept waiting. They never popped out. Just as I was about to leave, a guy shoots me in the back. He had traversed no less than four hallways, countless turns and obstacles, and climbed a ladder to reach me. THAT's good AI.

Or another example, there was no way around to reach me. I was on a doorway looking into a room. A guy sprints through the doorway, running too fast for him to shoot me, and too fast for me to shoot him. Obviously I turn and shoot him, he's now behind me and easy prey. But as I turned to shoot him, another guy stepped through the door and capped me. THAT's good AI.

The reason for this is simple: HL2 AI is written into every enemy exactly the same, location unspecific. You can plop 50 combine into a field you created and they'll function just as well as anywhere in game. FEAR2 AI is written using waypoints and maneuvers specific to every location. That one soldier knew how to get around me because there were waypoints telling him to. They knew the specific "rush through the door" maneuver for that one location only. Sure, it's probably more programming intensive, and not as scalable, but as a Player, I don't see any of that. I see only great AI and alright AI.

Re:Get Psyched!

[Wooky_linuxer]

Never played FEAR, but I'd like to point that an AI that uses waypoints is somewhat less independent and, in a sense, real, than otherwise. Of course, to the player there might be no difference.

In HL2E2 the hunters, aka mini-striders, do exhibit some (or most) of the traits you talked aboutt. They will corner you, they will flank you, they will pack together to get you. I found their weapons somewhat underpowered, and that is probably needed. Had they been as deadly as a run of the mill Combine it would take a very experienced player to beat them. Nice stuff.

Re:Get Psyched!

[Ostracus]

"Not in FEAR, though. In FEAR they -will- wait for you. They'll also try and go around and flank you if there is any other way. I remember one instance I entered a room and took some cover. I waited for them to come get me. They didn't. I kept waiting. They never popped out. Just as I was about to leave, a guy shoots me in the back. He had traversed no less than four hallways, countless turns and obstacles, and climbed a ladder to reach me. THAT's good AI. "

The AI in the original Far Cry was good as well. I had one of those mutants come all the way around the mountain I was on to get me.

Re:Get Psyched!

[HTH NE1]

Be forewarned, the original FEAR doesn't support widescreen

IIRC, for a short time the developer was giving licenses for multiplayer for free. I'm sure I played it on a 3840x1024 screen. If that's not wide....

Then again, for some reason the sound didn't work.

Re:Get Psyched!

[spyrochaete]

Well, I tried installing my old copy a few weekends ago, updated it to the latest version, and could only choose 4:3 resolutions. It didn't even support 1280x1024.

Re:Get Psyched!

[HTH NE1]

I remember now. The Matrox TripleHead2Go support software creates a special launcher for games that enables playing it at 3840x1024. There's probably a way to alter the launcher to do 1920x1200 or other widescreen resolutions. Of course, for games not designed for that wide of field-of-view, there can be some major distortion on the peripheral screens. But that tends to make F.E.A.R. even more strange.

Re:Get Psyched!

[Kral_Blbec]

Actually to me that stinks of bad AI. A guy wandering away and coming back to exactly where you are via a different route is fishy as they should loose track of you. Good pathing is not a substitute for real AI. In FEAR with limited path options it makes more sense for flanking, but on a mountain that is just a prescripted action.

Re:Get Psyched!

[Satertek]

I was annoyed FEAR 2 couldn't do the opposite. It forces me to use widescreen on my 5:4 monitor.

Re:Get Psyched!

[Anonymous Coward]

It actually does support widescreen, you just have to hack it a little.

You must start the game one time then save & exit & go into the folder for FEAR.

Open the settings.cfg file (you must have started the game once for this to be present) - open w/ notepad. See below - adjust "screenwidth" and "screenheight" to the X&Y of your preferred widescreen resolution. The below example is for 1920x1200

"GammaB" "1.973183"
"GammaG" "1.973183"
"GammaR" "1.973183"
"BitDepth" "32"
"HardwareCursor" "1.000000"
"ScreenWidth" "1920"
"VSyncOnFlip" "1.000000"
"ScreenHeight" "1200"

Re:Get Psyched!

[spyrochaete]

Holy moly that's awesome. 3 monitors, eh? Did you have them aligned or did you angle them inward, around you?

Re:Get Psyched!

[Anonymous Coward]

Then why Am I able to run it at 1920*1080?

Re:Get Psyched!

[Tyrannicsupremacy]

The AI was trash. the game had a wonderful amount of pitch black areas to hide in- for your enemies. you couldnt hide at all. as an experement, i heard some enemies bash into a room ahead of me, so i backtracked to a place i had specifically decided on. it was a pitch black office room, with one doorway, i hid under a desk that was hidden from the doorway and waited. less than a minute later, i heard the enemies tromping over and low and behold, running right over to me and blasting away. That's not good AI, that's really cheap programming putting a homing beacon on you.

Re:Get Psyched!

[HTH NE1]

Slightly angled. For FEAR they'd have to be greatly angled to account for the distortion, but not so much for Unreal Tournament. The big problem is the size of the bezels on the CRTs I use. The newer all-DVI version of the TripleHead2Go includes support for accounting for bezel thickness, though it does create dead pillarbox bars on the peripheral displays as well as blind spots where the bezels are. That feature isn't available for the VGA version I have. And meanwhile I'm watching for some 1280x1024 LCDs with VGA inputs and very thin (or removable!) bezels to drop a bit further in price.

Since the multi-head is all in an exterior box that presents itself to the computer as one display, you get full graphics acceleration on all the screens, without installing drivers. With drivers, you can make the computer aware of the screen's nature and e.g. maximization can work on a per-display nature. I tried it out on a Redhat 6.2 system at work before taking it home.

I just wish it could run three displays each in portrait orientation but in an overall landscape configuration. 3072x1280 would be better than 3840x1024 and allow displaying 1920x1080 HD video without cropping. If it also had 120Hz display support for use with NVidia's 3D card....

Re:Get Psyched!

[spyrochaete]

That's a pretty sweet setup, and I read about that TripleHead2Go technology being invisible to most software, and that it "just works". The first thing I thought of was the bezel situation (well, the second.. the first thing being the cost of 3 monitors).

Glad to see it works so well with some games, but is that true of the majority of games? I'm the skeptical type - I waited a long time to even get a widescreen monitor because I valued my legacy app support so much.

Re:If the story line holds true to the original...

[lymond01]

True...FEAR had great effects, really put you in the middle of a firefight with dust flying, bullets sparking off metal (debunked by MythBusters I believe...), strong soldier AI. But what separated FEAR from most FPSes was the story. Still creeps me out just thinking about what happened to that girl. Almost makes me want to help her.

It's a disappointment.

[AlmondMan]

I reviewed it and gave it a 6/10. The game is simply not worth more, there's nothing new brought to the table from the first in the series. Indeed they take away from it. The difficulty, even on Hard, is bottom rung due to the excessively fast recharge and duration of the slow-motion ability. In the first game you had to figure out some of the encounters, save the slowmo ability and use it and grenades to great effect. In this version I've hardly ever anything but full HP/armor, full all grenades (cause I never need them) and full ammo for most weapons. The scary effects are ALL OVER the place, it's like the developers thought "Oh, hey, this worked in small amounts, let's use HUGE amounts in the sequel, cause more of a good thing is better, right?". Sometimes it is, granted, but not in this case. It desensitises you to the scares, and the oppressive expectant mood of the first game is gone. What it feels like is a console shooter. The pace is slow and the difficulty suitably low for people to play it with gamepads. Using the mouse and keyboard you just plow right through everything like a breeze. Should you fumble the entire place is riddled with healthpickups and armor anyway. It'll still score 9/10 and so on on major gaming sites no doubt. I wouldn't recommend it unless you're a diehard shooter fan. If you're on a tighter budget, don't bother.

Re:It's a disappointment.

[Tyrannicsupremacy]

amen to that! the first game was so very overrated. the ONLY thing i found enjoyable about it was the melee attacks which were pretty neat, but i remember an old HL1 mod that added martial arts moves and bullet time to be like the matrix so FEAR wasnt even innovative in that respect. it was nothing but not special AI, cheap scares (if you could even call them scares, i mean, is seeing the ghost you expected to appear at the bottom of the ladder when you turn around appear really that scary?) and run-n-gun game play styling in environments that beg for a more tactical approach. how can fast paced knee jerk reaction twich gaming make for a horror game? answer: it cannot. the horrendously buggy STALKER was ten times scarier than FEAR.

Sounds like something I can wait for on discount

[ChrmnMa0]

I would LOVE another no one lives forever and another SHOGO!!!!

THANK YOU

[Anonymous Coward]

"...hated the way that, somehow, games like Halo have come to be seen as groundbreaking."

I love you. I've been saying this for ages. There is absolutely no single aspect of Halo - absolutely none - that hasn't been implemented better in games that have come out years beforehand. Story, graphics, gameplay (both single player and multiplayer). Halo is 100% average in every regard.

Re:THANK YOU

[A. B3ttik]

Yes, but Halo gave people a reason to own X-Boxes. I remember those days... everyone bought an X-Box because it had the best specs (better than PS2 or Gamecube) but no one made games for it.

Suddenly, Halo comes out, it's not only the _only_ FPS at the time for X-Box, it's one of the only GAMES. So everyone who has an X-Box _has_ to play it, and they like it by default.

Re:THANK YOU

[Fallingcow]

I'm glad I'm not the only one.

I've noticed that console games in general seem to be held to very different standards from PC games. I only rarely play a supposedly-great console game that would qualify as anything other than mediocre in the PC world.

Halo's a biggie. Talk about average--hell, maybe even a bit below average. Metroid Prime? Playable. An average-at-best retreading of already-covered ground. Reminded me more of The Gunman Chronicles than anything else, which would be AWESOME if it had come out in 1999. Oblivion? Flawed beyond belief. Morrowind got a pass on its flaws (which were numerous, though less critical IMO than those in Oblivion) because it was giving us something new. Oblivion was a step back in nearly every way except graphics, yet it was hailed as the second coming because it was a console release (so was Morrowind--it was ported to the X-box--but I don't think anyone actually bought the console version, and it was awful)

God of War? Good? It's a boring version of Painkiller with a slightly better theme.

Re:THANK YOU

[wild_quinine]

I've noticed that console games in general seem to be held to very different standards from PC games. I only rarely play a supposedly-great console game that would qualify as anything other than mediocre in the PC world.

The ones that are exceptional are the ones that have given us something new. Shadow of the Colossus - wow.

Re:THANK YOU

[jollyreaper]

"...hated the way that, somehow, games like Halo have come to be seen as groundbreaking."

I love you. I've been saying this for ages. There is absolutely no single aspect of Halo - absolutely none - that hasn't been implemented better in games that have come out years beforehand. Story, graphics, gameplay (both single player and multiplayer). Halo is 100% average in every regard.

It's the Quentin Tarantino effect. Us PC gamers represent a narrow slice of the gamer pie, especially when looking back all those years. Most people who game are doing so on consoles and so most gamers did not see a shooter until Doom was ported to the PSX. They were amazed by Goldeneye on the N64 while I had no idea what the fuss was. I wasn't particularly impressed by Halo but it was a revelation to all the console gamers.

This is no different than a QT film. He scarfs up all the foreign cinema he can lay his hand on, cherry-picks the best ideas and then puts them in his films. To the average American audience that doesn't have the time to keep up with foreign cinema, it's a revelation. To those who do, they're quicker to insult the audience than Tarantino. But really, it's completely understandable. I thought the Beastie Boys were geniuses until my dad sat my ass down and introduced me to Zeppelin, the source they were ripping off.

Re:THANK YOU

[PrimalChrome]

Halo was available when the XBox launched.

Re:THANK YOU

[Gizzmonic]

I'm glad I'm not the only one.

You're one of the only ones who still has a stick up his arse about playing console games. God of War is Painkiller? Give me a fucking break. Metroid Prime was a retread? What other game seamlessly blended story, action, and precision control?

What's your next nonsensical utterance? Mario Galaxy was Commander Keen? Little Big Planet was Starcraft without the Protoss? Look, I can fallaciously equate completely different games as well!

Re:THANK YOU

[jaraxle]

Morrowind got a pass on its flaws (which were numerous, though less critical IMO than those in Oblivion) because it was giving us something new.

And even there you're wrong, as many fans of TES say that even Morrowind is a pale comparison to Daggerfall (which had its fair share of bugs as well). Personally I've loved every TES game that I've played since Arena (never played Redguard or Battlespire) and am enjoying Oblivion very much, despite what many others say.

Face it, when you break it down video games are just like movies. Everything's been done before and there's almost nothing original coming out.

My step-son told me I *had* to play Halo 2 because it was the greatest thing ever. I just looked at him and said something along the lines of "I played it 10 years ago, when Quake was released" (which of course, if you want to be pedantic, is just a derivative of Doom).

~jaraxle

Re:THANK YOU

[Fallingcow]

I'm very excited to try that one. Actually bought it used a few months ago, but my wife played it, hated it, and sold it back, thinking that I'd told her I'd already played it and hadn't liked it either (I'd been talking about a different game--Metroid Prime or REIV, I can't remember). Grrrr...

She didn't like Sands of Time, either. Some times I wonder what's wrong with her. Oh well, at least she likes Left 4 Dead :)

Re:THANK YOU

[Fallingcow]

Metroid Prime was a retread? What other game seamlessly blended story, action, and precision control?

Hm. Either we have vastly different backgrounds in gaming, or each of us played a different Metroid Prime. Or perhaps you're using different definitions from the ones I'm familiar with for some of those words.

What's your next nonsensical utterance? Mario Galaxy was Commander Keen? Little Big Planet was Starcraft without the Protoss? Look, I can fallaciously equate completely different games as well!

Haven't played either yet--I'm only up to last-generation in consoles so far. I've dug every Mario game I've played. Commander Keen is an interesting game to bring up, because it's one of the only platformers on the PC that's even remotely in the same ballpark as console platformers (I'd put Hunter Hunted and Duke Nukem 2 in that category, as well). Platformers remain the domain of the console, as do JRPGS and 3rd person adventure games, and there are some spectacular console games in those genres.

I never said there aren't good (even great) console games--I've just found that a lot of the ones that get big press and are very highly reviewed don't even come close to living up to their reputations when I actually get around to playing them. Hell, a lot of them I've even played primarily on the PC (Halo and Oblivion, for instance) and still find them to be simply average, so it's not a matter of what system I'm playing them on.

I like plenty of console games, and I don't even hate the other games I've mentioned--I just fail to see what the fuss is about. Some of the blockbuster "10 out of 10" games are, IMO, more like a 7-out-of-10, and especially don't deserve to be anywhere near the best-games-ever lists that they frequently end up on. That last bit especially is what gets me--they frequently stick an OK console game on those lists at the expense of a much, much better PC game in the same genre. I don't get all upset over it or anything--hell, not like it makes my favorite games any less good when I play them--I just find it perplexing.

Oh, another not-very-good game that got rave reviews: Resident Evil IV. I was really looking forward to it--sounded right up my alley--but damn, that thing's a mess. There's no excuse for such clumsy-ass controls in a game these days, especially not in a survival horror game where such things will ruin the immersion that's the whole damn point. Jesus christ, I haven't seen a console shooter-type game with such bad controls since some of the worst ones on the N64. Guess I'll just go replay goddamned Silent Hill instead.

Re:THANK YOU

[the white plague]

I don't care that console games are retreads. It does irritate me that mediocre games, Halo for example, are hailed as wonderful games. I hate dual-development brain damage in UIs. I hate seeing marketing tie-ins lead to technology decisions to use shitty systems like games for windows live.

Re:THANK YOU

[Pervaricator General]

Wow! I finally found out what the crap Adam Sandler was playing obsessively in Reign Over Me. Crap, now I've got Billy Joel stuck in my head...

Re:THANK YOU

[rm999]

I kind of hate Halo, but there is one aspect of the original game that I consider extremely innovative, and which was ripped off in one of my favorite PC games of all time, Unreal Tournament 2004: actual vehicle integration with a first person shooter (and I don't mean every other level is a "vehicle level"). This innovation should not be ignored, because it entirely changed the design of levels and gameplay.

Re:THANK YOU

[drinkypoo]

Halo's a biggie. Talk about average--hell, maybe even a bit below average.

I actually played Halo on PC (being allergic to joypad FPS, although I do play SW:BF2 on my Xbox) and I enjoyed it thoroughly. It had a good setting, epic feel (although some of the later parts DID have a repetitive "this level needs to be bigger so I'll just copy these other parts" feel that everyone else and their mom has already noted) and pretty tolerable voice acting. I haven't exposed myself to the sequels so I can't comment on them. I am thinking about getting an Xbox 360, but I think I'll wait for refurb prices to drop a bit more.

But really I think that most of those games are going to be more or less forgotten in time. It's only the really notable games that you'll still be thinking of and remembering memes about years down the road. They have big big sales numbers because the console gamers feel like they're catching up to the big boys or something, I don't know. Personally I would be pleased as punch if PC gaming would just die already. I reject the notion that there is anything inherently superior about it that can't be solved with a cluster of consoles, and still for less money; the Xbox 360 has hardware capable of acting as a fairly credible PC and I think it's safe to say that the next generation of consoles will probably come with at least 1GB of RAM (maybe not Nintendo's.)

Don't think for a second Microsoft doesn't realize this. They know the PC is going away, and they want to still have a reason to exist when it does. (By "going away" I don't mean vanishing entirely. But the PC as we know it is going to become a scarce beast.)

Re:THANK YOU

[elrous0]

The Beastie Boys ripping a Zepplin off?!?! WTF? I think you managed to simultaneously insult them both with that bizarre statement. Very few bands ripped off Zepplin even back in the day (and Zepplin themselves shamelessly ripped a number of their predecessors, so it would be hard to even tell). The only band I would call a "Led Zepplin ripoff" would be Kingdom Come.

Re:THANK YOU

[Fallingcow]

I haven't played Daggerfall yet, but what I was talking about wasn't so much the size of the world (huge free-roaming world and enormous character customization possibilities in an old game? Darklands is where it's at) as how immersive it was. Before Morrowind, I don't think I'd ever seen a game that gave me that sense of being in a real place like it did. Locations felt unique and had a sense of history. I found myself taking walks in scenic areas as I might in real life. It was strange, and it was new (to me; I guess there might have been something like it before, but I've not seen it). It wasn't just the graphics (which were finally "good enough" to support that kind of experience) but the design, the art, and the stories in the world.

Re:THANK YOU

[Gizzmonic]

I'm with you 100%, I just don't like snooty people trying to reduce games (or music) to "it's exactly like x, but with y. For the most part, it's just smug posturing. For example, you could say Chuck Berry is just Big Bill Broonzy with more twang, but that really doesn't do him justice, does it?

Re:THANK YOU

[cripkd]

Exactly, I kinda hope he comes back explaining Zeppelin without the "Led" is another band, cos I kinda dug his post.
Especially the bit about QT's movies, and I'm not trying to flame.

Re:THANK YOU

[grumbel]

You could say the same thing about every FPS that followed MIDI Maze. That still doesn't change the fact that Halo pretty much defined the console FPS as we know it today and that it had plenty of original elements that differed from your average PC FPS. Rechargeable shields, one-button grenades, only two carryable weapons, decent AI, vehicles and stuff were maybe not 100% new, but in days where most FPS followed the Doom formula and gave you a dozen carryable weapons, healthpacks and a grenade that you had to select from menu before you could use it, it was quite a refreshing change. And yeah, the whole online thing of course was kind of a big deal for console users as well.

Re:THANK YOU

[grumbel]

God of War? Good? It's a boring version of Painkiller with a slightly better theme.

What has God of War to do with Painkiller? Those are some very different games you try to compare there.

Re:THANK YOU

[jaraxle]

Point taken. I actually feel more that way about Oblivion than I did about Morrowind, but only because I found much of Vvardenfall to be a bit too "alien" for my standard high fantasy tastes. Whereas Cyrodiil fits my minds eye image of, I suppose, the world I'd want to immerse myself in. However that's just a matter of taste.

To Bethesda's credit, one thing I just thought about but initially forgot to include that I consider if not somewhat revolutionary then definitely unique and innovative is the implemenation of V.A.T.S. in Fallout 3. I really enjoy how they blended the strategy and roleplay of the original Fallout games with the FPS style. I know many people think Fallout 3 is a terrible game compared to Fallout 1 and 2, but I personally disagree and am having a great time with it, and really love how V.A.T.S. is used.

~jaraxle

Re:THANK YOU

[Talgrath]

While I generally agree with you, comparing God of War and Painkiller is a mistake. Painkiller is a first person shooter and God of War is an action game; exactly how God of War can be a "boring version of Painkiller" I'm not exactly sure. God of War is a third-person action game and a hell of a lot of fun; the storyline isn't really that deep, though it is a lot deeper and less ridiculous than most action games. What makes God of War (and its sequels) fun is the brutality and violence that you can inflict on opponents if you do well; and the fact that the game is still challenging despite your herculean strength.

Re:THANK YOU

[Fallingcow]

Point taken. I actually feel more that way about Oblivion than I did about Morrowind, but only because I found much of Vvardenfall to be a bit too "alien" for my standard high fantasy tastes. Whereas Cyrodiil fits my minds eye image of, I suppose, the world I'd want to immerse myself in. However that's just a matter of taste.

If you liked stock-Oblivion in that way, you'll love it with the Unique Landscapes mods. They're kind of a pain because you have to download a separate one for each region, but it's well worth it.

(I think that This forum post may contain more up-to-date info and download links for UL than the wiki does)

To Bethesda's credit, one thing I just thought about but initially forgot to include that I consider if not somewhat revolutionary then definitely unique and innovative is the implemenation of V.A.T.S. in Fallout 3. I really enjoy how they blended the strategy and roleplay of the original Fallout games with the FPS style. I know many people think Fallout 3 is a terrible game compared to Fallout 1 and 2, but I personally disagree and am having a great time with it, and really love how V.A.T.S. is used.

I love the first two Fallout games, and that's actually one of the things I think they did right in F3. I've got loads of other complaints about it (the poor writing in the main storyline and the scarcity of interesting, important non-storyline quests relative to F1 and F2 being the main ones) but VATS isn't one of them.

Re:THANK YOU

[Fallingcow]

Oops, correction: the latest release thread for Unique Landscapes is here

Re:THANK YOU

[Fallingcow]

God of War
Painkiller

Why, I have no idea how the two could have become linked in my mind as being similar :)

Though I did remember Painkiller as being a 3rd-person-perspective game, and it appears that it wasn't. Hm, Weird.

Anyway, they're both games where you slash your way through hordes of generic enemies and fight huge battles against gigantic gods (or demons). in Painkiller you hold down the left mouse button for long periods of time, in GoW you bash X (or whatever the plain "attack" button was) a bunch. GoW is more Gauntlet-ish than Painkiller, but they're not completely dissimilar.

Re:THANK YOU

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, then we'll get our flying cars and robots as well!

Re:THANK YOU

[Fallingcow]

I like mindless smash-the-minions games. My friends and I played the hell out of Guantlet: Legends on the N64. Fighting Force? Great. Those old Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtle arcade games? Wonderful. NARC? Loved it.

God of War didn't do it for me. I thought for a while that I should give it another try, but a couple of my friends who actually finished the game told me not to bother as it doesn't get any better. I'll probably try one of the sequels eventually.

Re:THANK YOU

[jollyreaper]

The Beastie Boys sampled scandalously from many Zep songs, that's what I was saying. I thought those songs were entirely their own creations but they weren't. It's just as awful as when Puff Dickless sexually violated Kashmir on the Godzilla soundtrack.

Re:THANK YOU

[MikeBabcock]

I agree with most of your rant, but what's your problem with the controls in RE4? If its the fact that you can't shoot and move at the same time, that's a feature of the game since the beginning and adds to the concept. Its not a first person shooter, its a survival horror.

Re:THANK YOU

[cripkd]

I'm no fan of either but for that kind of music sampling is not ripping off or stealing.
Whoever liked a BB track only because it sampled Led Zep has a weird musical sense,but,hey, whatever gets you into good music is ok.

PS. I knew that was Kashmir in the background from the start, i never thought of it as a rip off,but as something between a cover and sampling. That's just hip-hop. For example i like 2Pac's Changes and whenever i hear the original piano song it uses in the background, i find it too simple and flat, kinda like 2Pac did it a favour.

Re:THANK YOU

[Fallingcow]

I agree with most of your rant, but what's your problem with the controls in RE4? If its the fact that you can't shoot and move at the same time, that's a feature of the game since the beginning and adds to the concept. Its not a first person shooter, its a survival horror.

1. My main complaint? Slow, slow, slow, slow. Turning 45 degrees should not take 5 full seconds. Remember how slow aiming was on old FPS games like Goldeneye? Yeah, it's like that, except without the autoaim and without slowing all the rest of the action down to compensate for the weaknesses of the control system.

2. I don't care about the lack of running+shooting--I love the Metal Gear Solid series, and it's got a similar mechanic.

Its not a first person shooter, its a survival horror.

Well, whatever you call it it has a shit-load of shooting, and it's clumsy, slow, and amazingly inaccurate. Most games make you a better shot than you are (or, in some cases, anyone could be) in real life, but this one makes you shoot like a five-year-old wielding a .45 Magnum. Someone firing a gun for the first time usually handles themselves far, far better than the main character--who is definitely not firing a gun for his first time.

I have no problem with realistic levels of randomized inaccuracy, or with some kind of fright-level affecting your ability to aim and fire accurately as is done in some games. REIV, on the other hand, just makes the whole process of aiming and firing EXTREMELY difficult and awkward 100% of the time, especially if it involves a close(!?) or moving target, and then requires you to do it a whole bunch. I was way, way too busy being pissed (and surprised--again, I haven't seen anything this bad in a long time) at the controls to get in to the game, and consequently it wasn't scary or tense at all. Totally ruined it for me.

I wasn't having a hard time because the enemies were particularly difficult or numerous, or because ammo was scarce, nor was I afraid of my next surprise encounter with a baddie; rather, I was having a hard time because I couldn't hit shit with my gun, and I was dreading my next encounter with a baddie because it would mean more of that stupid "aim, damnit he moved, SLOWLY turn, still turning, still turning, ok now he's hitting me but I'm aimed at him, fire once, scored a hit, damnit he moved around to my side, turning, turning, turning, FUCK now I'm dead, load save..."

Again, I've played and enjoyed the MGS games which have a very similar combat style, and I had no trouble with them. IIRC, Eternal Darkness made you stop and deliberately aim to fire projectile weapons, too, and that was no problem (great game, too). It isn't that I'm inept--it's that the controls blow goat balls.

I kind of liked the game when I wasn't having to shoot. Unfortunately, it was forcing me to shoot quite a bit.

Re:THANK YOU

[Anonymous Coward]

I was completely floored by Shadow of the Colossus. Doesn't seem like it made it as far as many other games, though--I hardly meet anyone who's heard of it at all, let alone played through it.

Re:THANK YOU

[ion.simon.c]

Team Fortress predates Halo by five years. TF1 had a one-button grenade and limited weapons. :D

Also, (IMO) Unreal Tournament (1999)'s AI was far better than the enemy AI in Halo.

Re:THANK YOU

[s3n10r d1ngd0ng]

Alright, I'll bite. What FPS('s) before did you quickly regenerate all your health if you can go a few seconds without getting shot? I'm not trying to be snarky, I'm genuinely curious; I'm a pretty seasoned FPS vet, and as far as I know, Halo was the first game to use this kind of system, which has since become the standard for first-person shooters. There were a few other big things that set Halo apart from the pack. Split-screen co-op is one. While it's not exactly original, I can't think of any good FPS's before Halo that had decent splitscreen co-op. (Perfect Dark tried, but the framerate was pretty terrible.) Seamless vehicle integration was another. While certainly not the first game to incorporate vehicles, few games at the time had vehicles that were as much fun to drive as Halo's warthog, banshee and scorpion tank, and that you could jump into and out of at any time.

Re:THANK YOU

[goose-incarnated]

Decent AI?

Anyway, IIRC (and I'm pretty certain I do) I played quake 2 without needing to select a grenade from a menu.

Re:THANK YOU

[giuda]

Just play REIV on a Wii. 10/10

Re:THANK YOU

[Anonymous Coward]

Yep, regenerating health, limited weapons, responsive AI. All copied from other games. Those bastards.

Re:THANK YOU

[jaraxle]

Thanks for the mod link. Unfortunately I'm playing on the XBox360 so nothing but official mods for me. :) I just can't afford to keep up with the upgrade cycle for my computer (reason why). I just use my computer for browsing, email, some coding when I get in the mood, and NWN2 with a buddy of mine.

Some mods I drool over, but even some of the most popular Morrowind mods (which I played on PC) I couldn't get into because they just didn't seem "right" or look "right" to me. Again, matter of taste.

But again, thanks for the link. I checked it out anyway despite not being able to use it. :)

~jaraxle

Re:THANK YOU

[Skuldo]

Halo is a polished, accessible game, what more do you want?

Re:THANK YOU

[AIkill]

I agree that Halo is receiving praise where praise is not due. As for Metroid Prime, to me it was meant more as fan service for those of us who are Metroid fans. In terms of Oblivion, it had more steps forward than graphics (namely in physics), not to mention its one of the few RPGs out there that is truly open world.

Re:THANK YOU

[Anonymous Coward]

It isn't that I'm inept--it's that the controls blow goat balls.

I can tell you that from my person experiance that RE4 (on the Gamecube) had (at least at the time) great controls and this whole goat balls theory of yours has more to do with you than with the game. It doesn't make you wrong for hating the controls, it just makes you incompatible with them. Which, from the rave reviews by critics and players alike, you must be one of the few who have had such an issue.

Re:THANK YOU

[enderjsv]

Maybe because it's not a mindless smash-the-minions game. That's a common misconception made about God of War, usually from people who've only played it a couple of hours or who played it on easy. Truth is, after the second hour, mindless smashing doesn't work anymore. You really have to learn which combos work against wich creatures. You have to learn how to counter-block. You have to learn how to use your magic. I really, really enjoyed God of War and it pains me when people call in a mindless smasher. I'm forgiving, though, since that's exactly what I expected to get when I first saw it. I was pleased to find it had much more depth.

Re:THANK YOU

[enderjsv]

There's no use trying, man. This is slashdot, home of the PC elitists. Honestly, for some reason, admitting Halo did ANYTHING worthy of noting is a sin to most PC players. It's probably because, for years, the FPS genre was seen as a PC only thing. It was one of several good reasons to be a PC gamer. But lately, the PC has been suffering a bit. I suppose that could account for the instant defensiveness a PC gamer gets when you suggest that, just maybe, a good FPS game has been done on the console. What kills me the most is I absolutely LOVE Half-life 2. It's my favorite FPS. I played it on the 360. It pains me to think what I would have missed out on if I had dismissed it simply because it did not premiere on my system of choice.

Re:THANK YOU

[djnforce9]

"God of War? Good? It's a boring version of Painkiller with a slightly better theme." I can't say I can agree to that simply because God of War is a third person action game while Painkiller is a first person shooter. Therefore, they don't match in terms of gameplay styles making them incomparable. What I do agree with you on is your statement about the different standards between PC and console gaming. This is likely why I can't seem to enjoy certain games people have been praising on their respective console versions (Fallout 3 was actually one of them). Maybe it's because the PC is capable of doing so much more given the complexity and efficiency a keyboard can have in certain cases.

Steam exclusive!

[snarfies]

Sounds good. Too bad I will never own this game, as it is a Steam exclusive. I will only buy a PC game if 1) I own the physical media and 2) I can install it on any of my computers, any time I want, without the need for additional payments or permission.

Re:Steam exclusive!

[Kral_Blbec]

This has been hashed a million times. Steam is good. Offline mode works like a charm.

Re:Steam exclusive!

[AndrewNeo]

I assume you can still buy it in store, and I'll also have to assume you mean you can install it on any of your computers any time you want without the need for additional payments and permission.. and run them all at the same time, too. Steam isn't stopping you from installing it on multiple computers, in fact that's one of the things I love about it.

Re:Steam exclusive!

[Gadget_Guy]

No. Even with the boxed version of games you still need to connect to their servers to get permission to install the software. Depending on the game, you may have to download all the updates before you are allowed to play in offline mode.

I have a computer that I use to install all the software that I do not trust. That includes games since PC copy protection can cause as much harm as a virus. This computer does not have any network access, so I can't play any game that requires activation.

Even if I did go online, I only have dial up access at home (because I surf more at work!) so that would probably cause dramas when downloading all the required updates.

I do realise that I am in the minority when it comes to maintaining the complete separation between trusted and untrusted systems, so I am sure that most people don't understand the resistance to Steam. I don't care - I just play old games and have moved more to independant games.

Re:If the story line holds true to the original...

[AlmondMan]

Sadly, even though an interview with the devs said differently, the dust and destruction in FEAR2 is not at all on par with the first. I remember countless times getting into a firefight and shortly the whole room would be clogged by plaster dust and debris from the walls, maing it almost impossible to see. This gave some really great moments. In 2, there's no great dustclouds or anywhere near the feeling of destruction in the environments that you got after blowing your way through a group of enemies in the first game.

Monolith has a past man...

[Cathoderoytube]

The problem is Monolith made Blood, which is the greatest first person shooter ever made. So any subsequent first person shooters they make are going to be compared to that. Unfortunately their latest foray into the horror FPS genre doesn't even come close to the genius of Blood.

Re:Monolith has a past man...

[A. B3ttik]

Except that:

Blood wasn't scary, it was much more action-oriented. (YOU were the dead guy)

Nobody really knows about Blood, and as such, nobody is comparing FEAR or FEAR2 to it.

FEAR came out so much later than Blood that they are incomparable. Yes, Blood was a great fun game, with great environments, weapons, powerups, and cutscenes... but FEAR came out after Halo, and damn near HL2. AI at the time of Blood was limited to "Shoot in the player's direction." Controls were choppy and you could barely use the mouse to aim. The game wasn't even "true" 3D.

You can claim that FEAR isn't as good as Blood _for its time_ but I recently tried to go back and play Blood and simply couldn't. Maybe I've been spoiled by modern games.

Re:Monolith has a past man...

[Anonymous Coward]

Made Shogo too. Where the hell is my Shogo 2? http://www.n4g.com/industrynews/News-276093.aspx

Re:Monolith has a past man...

[Cathoderoytube]

Blood does a better job with the horror genre. Doesn't matter that it's not scary. They pulled off the atmosphere beautifully.
I mean spooky carnival? C'mon.

You can compare anything to anything, regardless of the time in which they were released. It just depends entirely what criteria you're judging them on. A good example is the Star Wars movies, and their atrocious prequals.

The AI in blood worked just fine. It's true it doesn't have any complex AI, but that doesn't detract from the gameplay. It is also true that the mouse support for blood was dodgey. I managed to get it working properly on Dosbox though, and it plays just like any proper keyboard and mouse FPS. Mind you there is something to be said for cutting your teeth on FPS's that only used the keyboard..

I claim that FEAR isn't as good as Blood because I've seen the sort of quality Monolith can produce, even in this ancient game. Then I look at FEAR; which is just a generic shooter with no style to speak of. If Monolith could bring back the genius they had in Blood and incorporate it into something with modern graphics they'd actually have something worth selling.

Re:Monolith has a past man...

[Joelfabulous]

I played Blood and its expansions through for the first time a year ago, as I was a fairly young kid when it came out. I remember seeing the box at the store and being wowed by how gory (and therefore awesome) it must be.

I enjoyed it a great deal especially because they don't make games like that any more. Sure, the controls are archaic in retrospect, but the level design was excellent, the weapons inventive, and the quips and homages, most meant in jest, were brilliant. Most games seem to jump for flashy crap and cut the heart right out of things. The humour made it more immersive, oddly.

It's too bad what little I played of the sequel seemed mediocre at best and killed the franchise off.

Re:Monolith has a past man...

[Anonymous Coward]

No, their best game was Shogo: Mobile Armor Division. :)

Re:Sounds like something I can wait for on discoun

[AlmondMan]

Speaking of SHOGO, there's a researcher guy in FEAR2 that you meet underneath the Wade Elementary who is wearing a SHOGO 2 tshirt! Silly easteregg, devs teasing, or an early announcement? :D Let's hope for the latter!

Demo

[Spad]

I played the demo on Steam a few weeks ago and from that it seems that they've Deus Ex'd it - that is, butchered it for the benefit of Consoles.

Unreasonable large install - Check
Implausably shiny textures, especially on enemies - Check
Weapon "quick menu" - Check
Dumbed down HUD - Check

I blame Halo really - pre-Halo FPS games were generally devloped purely for the PC and benefitted greatly from it. Now, almost every FPS has to be designed for a simultaneous release on PC & console and thus suffers from having to cater to lower resolutions, lack of a keyboard and the rather strange desire to have everything looking shiny.

Re:Demo

[A. B3ttik]

Implausably shiny textures, especially on enemies - Check

I wouldn't know, my graphics card can't handle it.

Weapon "quick menu" - Check

What do you mean? Selecting the weapons via numbers? That's been done in every FPS since Wolfenstein 3D. The scrollwheel select? That's been done since HL1. I'm not sure what you mean here.

Dumbed down HUD - Check

I really like this HUD. It looks like a mask and has just the information that you need. It offers health, armor, stamina, and slowmo bars, weapon ammo and total ammo. What more are you looking for?

I blame Halo really - pre-Halo FPS games were generally devloped purely for the PC and benefitted greatly from it. Now, almost every FPS has to be designed for a simultaneous release on PC & console and thus suffers from having to cater to lower resolutions, lack of a keyboard and the rather strange desire to have everything looking shiny.

I'm going to receive flak for this, but I also blame Piracy. The console markets just make more money, even though there are far more potential gamers in the PC crowd.

Re:Demo

[Anonymous Coward]

The weapon quick menu:
If you hold Mouse3 in the PC version it will pop up a menu showing all your weapons, allowing you to move to any weapon you have with out cycling through them.

I like the HUD myself but it is meant to be a basic information HUD as the Character is supposed to see it. Several times in the game it reactivates after an explosion or event to show this.

As to piracy, I don't think that's why PC sales are lower comparatively. I think it's the easy learning curve a controller. Some people can't get the hang of gaming on a keyboard with a mouse. Also some people try to game with a trackball mouse (which usually doesn't work out) or even a touch pad. Those will up the learning curve even more.

Re:Demo

[Anonymous Coward]

Ooh! Did you say shiny?

Re:Demo

[revlayle]

Dumbed-down hud? It is almost identical in information to the first game... the first game didn't have much of a hud either.

Shiny textures? Only in slow-mo, I think it was to simmulate "sense enhancement" while in slow mo. Slow mo is pretty implausible already.

Large install? Like every other recent game with a large amount of art assets for current gen graphics?

Quick menu? Who cares? Just another interface top access weapons, it does not get in the way at all.



I mean, yeah this game is not a second coming or the most critically acclaimed sequel, but the points you mention have little bearing on the argument of "dumbing down"... do you know what dumbing down is?

Re:Demo

[westlake]

they've Deus Ex'd it - that is, butchered it for the benefit of Consoles.

and any PC gamer with a 40 to 70 inch HDTV?

I'd be quite content with HDMI and 1080p -

a quiet - cool running - affordable - video card for media play and PC gaming that powers down gracefully for less demanding tasks.

Re:Demo

[jgtg32a]

Weapon "quick menu" - Check

Are you talking about mouse 3 and then gesture to the weapon that you want?

I actually like that system it was great in Crysis, but I guess it is kinda pointless for choosing weapons.

Re:Demo

[caitsith01]

I've been following the development of DX3, and despite myself those Canadian bastard developers have given me hope for the future again.

So far everything they have said and done has been consistent with the philosophy and design behind DX1, and they have explicitly said that they recognise the mistakes of DX:IW and intend to undo them and bring back the goodness of the original.

Couple that with unbelievable looking environments (it's a sort of Baroque/Cyberpunk hybrid) and super-cool weapons and I am, sadly, excited once more. Please Eidos, don't beat me like a mean drunk again...

Re:Demo

[ion.simon.c]

<3's playing with my gargantuan trackball mouse. I've been using it for three, four years now. It's fucking fantastic.

Re:If the story line holds true to the original...

[Anonymous Coward]

Almost makes me want to help her.

The way I remember it, the weakest part of the storyline of the first game was the way you didn't even get the option to try to help her.

The background gradually became clear as you progressed through the game - the girl had been imprisoned, impregnated, had her children ripped away from her etc etc. and finally, understandably insane, had managed to strike back at the company that had done this to her. Having found all this out, you track down some guy who had been instrumental in these atrocities and who was busy trying to destroy the evidence. You finally catch him and he tells you to go into the vault where they imprisoned her, and kill her by setting off a nuclear explosion or something. So you do it??? WTF? There could have at least been a bit of debate about it.

My issues...

[Anonymous Coward]

"Press Space to begin" - Sweet, a console game. But on my PC!

Unable to assign actions to del-end-pagedown. Crippling to someone refusing to go WASD. Forcing me to use arrow keys for navigation in places (oops, apparently the PC has a fancy thing called a mouse that we forgot all about).

Average FPS gameplay. It's fine, I'm sure, but nothing special. Not worth a purchase. I deleted it after an hour.

Impossible to code?

[FTWinston]

and the signature time-slowing ability doesn't work because it'd be impossible to code

I gotta be fickle here. It would be perfectly possible to code. It would, however, suck to play. Especially for everyone far away from the player using reflex mode.
Unless the author meant that it would be impossible to have players experience different time rates, without going out of sync with other players in the game. And the impossibility of that isn't a coding issue, its simple physics. If it were even possible to accelerate players and their computers up to relativistic speeds and back down again in the timeframe of a few seconds, they'd be turned to mush.

Re:Impossible to code?

[MoriaOrc]

I have to agree with this. I player a matrix mod for Unreal Tournament once that allowed one player (at random?) to be "The One" and gave that player a time-slowing ability. One of my friends would use this exclusively for himself, and most of the rest of us would have the fun of walking down a hallway very slowly (at the best of times) or having our timing completely thrown off by the seemingly random in-and-out bullet time (at the worst of times). I can only imagine what it would be like if anyone could initiate the slow mode.

Conclusion: Perfectly code-able (since at least 2000), terrible mechanic for multiplayer.

Cate Archer, man!

[antdude]

For me, it was No One Lives Forever games (not Contract JACK).

7/10 is not AAA, imo

[mfh]

7/10 is kind of a death sentence for a game today. Unless you can reasonably predict getting a 9/10 or above overall (and not on astroturfing sites), you might as well just give up.

Nothing in this review compels me to play this game. I enjoy shooters, but really the basic problem is that they are predictable.

I'm looking for the next game to be a huge conflict of moral senses with a philosophical debate surrounding it.

Give me a reason to play that is fun and challenging.

Blood dribbles, effects, and engine features are not reason enough to play. They are all supposed to be in the background and just part of the action. Don't write about them, because they are supposed to be just an aspect of a good game.

Measure it in the realism factor of the game, but focus on the story, the conflict and possible paths to resolution. Also look at the reliability of the various scenarios in delivering ENJOYMENT.

The gaming industry has a huge problem ahead of it... and that is the dawn of more and more realistic engines, without the uniformly applied philosophical conundrums that really showcase character development and drive the plot towards something truly enjoyable.

Re:If the story line holds true to the original...

[spyrochaete]

They butchered the engine. Low resolution textures, DirectX 9, and no dynamic shadows. A lot of what made the original game unique is missing from the sequel, and has been replaced with horror cliches featuring grungy film effects. It's a very console-feeling game and it disappointed me greatly.

Re:If the story line holds true to the original...

[Anonymous Coward]

If I recall correctly (it's been a while), I think he had some kind of mind control over you.

Re:If the story line holds true to the original...

[billcopc]

Sadly, I won't bother with Fear 2 because it looks like a half-assed console port. The graphics look worse than the first, I'd say 2004-era polygons and jerky unrefined animation.

Part of what made the original Fear so great is the level of immersion and rather tastefully done "superhero effects". You really could get into character and feel your nerves tense up as you turned the next corner in slo-mo, hoping to catch your enemy by surprise.

This new game looks corny, repetitive and just plain cheap, feels almost like a 3rd party bargain-bin expansion pack for Half Life 2.

Good game

[Anonymous Coward]

I loved the Original F.E.A.R. and it's STILL in my top 5 best games ever. I would have given it a 9.5 easily on a scale of 1-10. Project Origin lost some of the... atmosphere, I guess, that the first one had. I enjoyed playing it very much, but I'd only give it an 8-8.5 out of 10. The big mechs, while a cool feature, isn't very f.e.a.r like. And the damn shields? Who the hell thought THAT fit into the same universe? If I thought of it as a separate universe than the first, or completely unrelated to f.e.a.r., I might have enjoyed it more.

Not as good...

[CaptnMArk]

I've tried the PC demo and it's not as good as the first parts. They've been messing with the UI in bad ways (some say it's consolitis, it may be true).

adulthood

[hierophanta]

"Welcome to adulthood its boring as hell" FTW!!!

Decent game, but with serious shortcomings (PC)

[knavel]

Gameplay-wise, it's not a bad game, but from a technical standpoint, it's a train-wreck (the PC version at least).

The memory usage is off the charts, even leaving Left 4 Dead in the dust, and L4D *loves* memory and cpu.

And the multiplayer is a joke. There is no anti-cheating system in place, and no dedicated server is available, so one of the players must host the server. Worse yet, once a round ends, the hosting player must re-launch it every time, so you can't just set it up and walk away.

Cynical? Me?

[Quiet_Desperation]

First-person shooters comprise one of the most well-developed video game genres in existence.

Fix: First-person shooters comprise one of the most cliche ridden and boring video game genres in existence.

Well, at least it doesn't take place during World War II.

I didn't get that far in the advertis^H^H^H^H^H^H review. Does it have a multiplayer mode so I can play along with 13 year old racist homophobes with gamer tags like "BeeyotchMaster69"?

YES! THANK YOU!

[Quiet_Desperation]

Thanks you addressing this vitally IMPORTANT issue of OUR TIME!

The misconception of Halo's legacy is the NUMBER ONE problem, and the cause of our current economic woes! I expect, nay, I DEMAND fully 50% of the stimulus package to be applied to this dire situation!

NO, THANK YOU!!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

Video game discussion, in a thread about an article on VIDEO GAMES? Who would have thought? No, seriously, WHO WOULD HAVE THOUGHT?

If it's politics you wish to discuss, head to the link on the left conveniently labeled "Politics". Otherwise, go blow the attitude out of your ass and come back when you have something to contribute.

Console port confirmed....

[out0v0rder]

To me, the original F.E.A.R. feels like the last "PC" FPS built from the ground up, and THEN ported to consoles. The sales of the PC versions and Console versions reflect this. I wish more developers would hire a "pc gamer" to come in before the game ships in order test out their UI and HUD on multiplatform games. This "pc guy" would tell the developers that alot of pc gamers like being able to select weapons with a number key. Also, he would check all menus and get rid of all messages saying "press start to play" on the pc versions. There is no start button. Has anyone played Unreal Tournament 3. Bleck.

Re:Console port confirmed....

[michael021689]

I assume this doesn't count PC exclusive shooters, right? Both Stalker games pulled off the FPS on the PC wonderfully (assuming you play them a month after release...).

I have to agree with you about the PC guy thing. It makes me wonder if they playtest at all anymore. Pay someone fifty bucks to play your PC release for an hour a month or two before release (he'd probably do it for free!!), and he will get the first five patches out of the way for you.

Re:Console port confirmed....

[Anonymous Coward]

Far Cry 2/Crysis?

Re:Console port confirmed....

[FloodSpectre]

Lost Planet on PC is a huge offender on the "press start" port issue. The dumbest part is that the releases were not simultaneous, the PC version was after the 360 release, so they had plenty of time to iron something so simple out. And yet the game tells me to press A to pass this message, and the tutorial messages tell me to hit the black button or my L trigger. Fucking lazy port of a mediocre game, and it runs like shit too.

Re:If the story line holds true to the original...

[csartanis]

What???? Are you serious? I am playing it on a GeForce7950GX2 and it seriously strains that card at medium detail. The graphics are amazing and a 100% improvement over FEAR1. The effects are better too with motion blur and hallucination scenes that blow everything in FEAR1 out of the water.

Re:Sounds like something I can wait for on discoun

[Ostracus]

"I would LOVE another no one lives forever and another SHOGO!!!!"

I suspect the mech level was a nod towards SHOGO.

And the Whos all go boo hoo hoo

[Quiet_Desperation]

Don't cry, wee little one.

Console Trouble

[RobinEggs]

Many folks have debated Halo here, and I have to agree with almost all of them: it broke ground for consoles in some ways, yet Halo absolutely sucks compared to any quality PC shooter

The problem isn't even development quality, it's in development capacity. It's far easier building a fluidly navigable 3D environment, from the first-person perspective, when people have a highly responsive mechanism, and joysticks aren't *half* responsive enough. The same goes for using a keyboard, 3 button mouse, and a scroll wheel for menus versus using less than a dozen buttons on a joypad for navigating menus.

When it comes to any sort of visual quality, computers simply have more freedom to push the envelope. If your PC can't handle FEAR, it's your problem. If your 360 can't handle Halo, that becomes Microsoft's public relations disaster. Consoles have far greater obligations to remain compatible and developers to keep their titles playable on a platform up to eight years old.

This brings up, of course, the fact that a brand new game can be running on a system that is eight years old. Graphics will usually favor PCs, and it's not always a bad thing, but for a genre with a strong investment in immersive shininess, it's kind of a liability.

DRM garbage

[Windwraith]

This game is pure garbage, that's all I can say.
My brother in Europe spent 50 for it only to discover it doesn't install. Why? Because it requires online Steam activation.
You'd say it'd be as easy as going online, but we are from a borderline poor family, hence we cannot afford broadband connection or connection at all. The box fails to specify this only showing a small logo of Steam, that is completely unknown if you haven't used it beforehand. No "Requires internet connection" line or small print at all. (At least in the one he purchased, I didn't check the US version myself).
This is just the worst. A person with little financial income makes the big effort of purchasing a 50 game (way more than $60) because he loved the first one and he has two 50 shiny round mirrors instead of a game. DRM only serves to mess around with players like him.
Of course, he's tremendously angry, he needed a lot of time to save the cash and the shop is refusing to refund him because "once the videogame's box has been open it cannot be returned because it'd have been copied (pirated)". WHAT!?
As far as I am concerned FEAR2 and all computer games that aren't of indie nature can rot away in hell. Adding to the expense of a computer powerful enough to run that souped-up Doom you also need to have a (very expensive where my brother lives) working broadband internet connection (dialup makes Steam go stupid, it timeouts all the time so you are in 0% ALWAYS, so you can't do the trick with a cheap one). It's abusive, discriminating and stupid.
I tried to get a crack for him but those only cover what seems to be the "calling home" when the game is run, which is useless if you can't get the freaking thing to install. So those 50 are going nowhere it seems.

My main conclusion is: A game that locks down players is not a game. A game should be "get, run" and not this freaking circus.
And, how are the developers going to act? Because it's very easy to count piracy cases (that aren't loses, are non-profits), but how about the one who was just scammed (because this IS a scam)? That one will never be mentioned.

F.E.A.R. *DID* have slo-mo in multiplayer

[w0mprat]

FEAR 1 had slo-mo so TFA is wrong/misinformed, it's not impossible to code.

Then again it is patently clear the reviewer had not really played the original at all.

It took on the form that once activated, the other team, or all other players would have lower fire rate, and movement speed. It would feel like being stuck in treacle. Overall physics of the game was slowed down too, so the slo-mo holder would have improved aim.

The necessary drawback is while you are in possession of slow-mo you'd have a position marker (and glow brightly, and make a booming noise), and everyone would hunt you down in the 20-25 seconds for it to charge up. If you could run long enough to charge it up, you could then deliver serious pwnage for a few seconds. A very interesting gameplay dynamic and it worked well enough in deathmatch.

It worked best in team deathmatch however, and was a hell of a lot of fun - the slo-mo worked on your whole team. Only one person holding the slo-mo would be marked, so the other players could defend. For a few seconds your team could rampage and completely own (turn gore/particle settings right up for maximum results). This had the necessary effect of forcing players to work together and strategise otherwise you'd have your ass handed to you by a bunch of noobs should they have some form of organized play. It was definatley quite fun, provided your not a set-in-your ways FPS gamer like the reviewer implies he is.

Otherwise the game was mediocre when played online. Often, overpowered weapons in small maps with too many players and many choke points meant the game was just messy carnage if players treated it like run-and-gun shooters. Although it meant that you could drop your weapon and go chuck norris with unarmed attacks. Fun.

Mutliplayer made F.E.A.R. worthwhile because the SP, while good, didn't have much replay value. If F.E.A.R 2 doesn't have slo-mo in multiplayer I'm not going to buy it, because this really does sound like more of the same with a graphics upgrade and a console port. F.E.A.R. Combat is a free download and will just do fine for now.

Tripuldation

[Quiet_Desperation]

Three point two seven alpha plus nine

Re:If the story line holds true to the original...

[Anonymous Coward]

I have a GTX260 and a friend of mine has a 7600.

I'll tell you that the engine scales to a lot of lower end hardware, but it looses a whole lot on the way.

Even the 360 version looks horrible after playing it on a $600 gaming pc.

Some things change, others don't.

[incognito84]

F.E.A.R. 2, like many FPS games of late, is a beautiful game to look at. Also, like many FPS games of late, the quality of the visuals greatly surpasses any other kind of innovation found therein.

After nearly twenty years of FPS games, the single player experience has only been enriched a fraction of what the visuals have. The mechanics have hardly changed. Sure, games have disposed with the key-finding and switch-flipping that plagued earlier titles, but they still have a long way to go in order to fully please the same audience that had it's breath taken away back when Doom, Quake and Duke Nukem 3D were still new. Back when those games were new, "gamers" only referred to a small group of basement-dwelling pseudo-hobbyists, a group far smaller than that of movie goers.

Now that the numbers have changed, the innovation has seemingly stopped.

I haven't been blown away by an FPS gameplay experience in a long time and thats unfortunate. With today's processing capabilities there is no reason why I shouldn't be blown away regularly. There is so much potential.

The game industry, because of it's size, is becoming more and more like Hollywood: horrified of changing the formula for great F.E.A.R. of losing $$$.

Anonymous Coward

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't lie to us, this game is a pathetic short echo of the original FEAR with downgraded sound quality and heavy console syndrome.

It's a tumor upon the face of the world of video games.

OH GAWD IT'S JUST AWFUL!!! How can you give it more than 5/10?!

FEAR was an extremely boring game.

[master_p]

The first few fights were interesting, due to good "AI". But then it was all fighting. No spectacular events in any form whatsoever. Just endless corridors with fighting, and the occasional horror scene that did not blend well to the fighting atmosphere of the game.

Compare that to HL1...the giant squid monster that hunts with sound, the monster you had to kill using the controls of a satellite, the Indiana Jones-like tunnels roller coaster level, the Grand Canyon level etc!!! one surprise after the other.

FEAR is, to me, a very mediocre game. The list of superior games is long...

DRM?

[KlausBreuer]

Yeah, probably fun for a bit (I did like the first F.E.A.R., even though it seemed a bit rushed).

However, these days my very first question is: DRM? And if so, which one?
SecuROM and the like have taught me to have a long, hard look at the DRMs of games before even thinking about possibly wanting to buy it.

Re:DRM?

[KlausBreuer]

...and here it is:

http://citizengame.ca/2009/02/11/fear-2-and-drm-the-case-for-piracy/

You require Steam. No Steam, no game. No internet connection, no game. No owning the game, either (ergo, cannot sell it on eBay).
And, in the example given in the link above, the lovely error message "Steam - error: The game is currently unavailable. Please try again at another time."

No thanks.

Re:If the story line holds true to the original...

[Tyrannicsupremacy]

What rubbish! are you telling me that you found *yet another* "spooky little girl" cliche to be compelling? honestly... Ringu The ring the shining the exorcist Poltergeist others that i am forgetting... wow a scary little girl what well executed originality! are you one of those people that gets surprised when the piezoelectric igniter on your stove starts fire? do you get scared of sci-fi original movies? do you run away from shiny ribbons hung over gardens?

STEAM=DRM. FEAR2 is a non-starter

[cynon83]

Well, I'll probably get flamed for this, but I don't mean it to sound snotty or anything. Just the way I feel... Console games have destroyed the market for gaming. In my opinion. Never liked 'em, never will.

Be that as it may....
I thought F.E.A.R was awesome, but I'm really bummed that I won't get to play F.E.A.R. 2. Why? Simple: Steam.

Steam is simply a steaming POS. I got totally screwed on HL2 and vowed to never given them a single penny of mine again. Ever. So... no FEAR for me.

There is no excuse on this earth why a single player game should REQUIRE an internet connection in order to play and load it. There is no defense for steam (other than the same ones used for DRM and greed) and I just can't support the idea that game sellers think they own my PC. Sorry, but that's it.

As for FEAR 2 well... bummer for me that I can't play it, but whatever.

Re:If the story line holds true to the original...

[Five Bucks!]

Yea, these days I'm sick of movies with 'Human' actors. God, it's been done so many times!! I prefer my plotlines to be completely randomized and unique.

Fuck off, you pretentious shit stain.

unique?

[rjolley]

A game should just be fun, who cares about unique? If a game is fun, it's worth playing unique or not.

Re:STEAM=DRM. FEAR2 is a non-starter

[rjolley]

Steam works a lot better now, you should give it a second chance. I have never had a problem with it (including half life 2 *shrug*) and offline mode works just fine.