F.E.A.R.

Ratty, if you don't like FPS games don't fucking post in the thread. If you don't have anything better to add than "FPS games suck compared to Adventure and Strategy games" or whatever, then shut the fuck up. Your post is just trolling, which is kind of irresponsible for a moderator.

On topic though, I've just played a lot more of this game, and I suspect it is longer than I previously expected, which is cool especially considering it's an FPS. Not that many weapons unfortunately, but they ARE good and you can only carry three at the same time, so meh. I especially like the double pistol (insane damage). The creepiness has really picked up, too. I was going to take screenshots but I forgot, I might post some later, after playing some more.
 
So, I take it F.E.A.R. is substantially better than the demo?

I played the demo, and was rather under-whelmed. I haven't been considering picking up the game, based on my experience there, but perhaps it was simply a badly made demo.
 
The only cool part about the demo was the creepy part with the girl at the end. The kind of intense firefights you get in the game weren't really there in the demo.
 
The Overseer said:
The only cool part about the demo was the creepy part with the girl at the end. The kind of intense firefights you get in the game weren't really there in the demo.
Click to expand...
Very true.
 
The Overseer said:
Ratty, if you don't like FPS games don't fucking post in the thread. If you don't have anything better to add than "FPS games suck compared to Adventure and Strategy games" or whatever, then shut the fuck up. Your post is just trolling, which is kind of irresponsible for a moderator.
Click to expand...
I don't hate first person shooters, nimwit. Deus Ex is one of my all-time favorites, for a while I was crazy about Operation Flashpoint, and I also have fond memories of Duke Nukem 3D for its good atmosphere and style. My point is that F.E.A.R., like pretty much all modern first person shooters, is formulaic and has little or no features that would substantially distinguish it from dozens of other titles that have been flooding the market year after year. Fuck, every now and then a game like Far Cry at least tries to be innovative, but F.E.A.R. seems to have rolled down the same assembly line as Doom 3 and HL2, offering the same monotous routine that ceased to be enjoyable once I nailed Shub Niggurath into a wall back in 1996.
 
You still haven't played it, so don't say bullshit like that. It's a very good game. Originality isn't always related to good. And I for one think it's pretty original.
 
Played it at my mates for a few hours. Pretty underwhelming really. Didn't find it that creepy, or even atmospheric for that matter. The AI seemed lacking at best and the weaponry was in my opinion unsatisfying.

For a good FPS i seriously reccomend Boiling Point Road to Hell. Lately it seems stylish to critisize it, but most of the bugs that these complaints are based on have been ironed out in the latest patch. It may not be perfect but if you are willing to look past the imperfections there is a genuinely good game inside.

Sorry to hi-jack the thread but seeing as we were on the topic of fps's and such.... Yeah.
 
I too, found it underwhelming while I was playing the demo, or even the beginning of the retail version. But it gets a LOT better. I don't see any problem with the AI, enemies take cover like they should, flush you out etc, and shoot out of cover without aiming, all the stuff needed for a cool firefight.


I remember reading about Boiling point: Road to hell a few years ago, and when it came out recently I read and review and thought "Blech! How unexpected..." Face it, it was bound to failure. I don't think I could get past the bugs, medoicre graphics or bad AI.

It might have been a good game at the core, and it's an interesting concept, but maybe it should have been made by more experienced developers. I think this is one of the developer's first games (Atari is just the publisher, right?) and they should have started off making an simpler, good game instead of throwing themselves into this epic endeavour that in the end, failed. Something that seems to be a little common among beginners in the gaming industry (STALKER anyone?).
 
Graz'zt said:
I don't hate first person shooters, nimwit. Deus Ex is one of my all-time favorites, for a while I was crazy about Operation Flashpoint, and I also have fond memories of Duke Nukem 3D for its good atmosphere and style. My point is that F.E.A.R., like pretty much all modern first person shooters, is formulaic and has little or no features that would substantially distinguish it from dozens of other titles that have been flooding the market year after year. Fuck, every now and then a game like Far Cry at least tries to be innovative, but F.E.A.R. seems to have rolled down the same assembly line as Doom 3 and HL2, offering the same monotous routine that ceased to be enjoyable once I nailed Shub Niggurath into a wall back in 1996.
Click to expand...
Ratty, you're not Rosh, and calling The Overseer a nimwit doesn't make you look any cooler. It only makes you look like you're flaming. So don't. And The Overseer was right, you should not come into a thread and say 'this sucks' and then leave again. That's just being spammy, and in this case troll-y as well. If you don't like the game, then come up with some decent arguments as to why it sucks. FYI, I'm looking forward to playing it, simply because it's supposed to have a great atmosphere, some good scares (not the shock, but really the creeping kind of fear) and good action.

And Overseer, don't try to tell Ratty what to post and what not to post. That's just silly for a non-moderator.
 
It seems I may have to purchase this F.E.A.R game you're all talking about.

I played the demo, and thought it was pretty cool, but not worth buying. But since ya'll are saying that the demo is not as good as the rest of the game, I'll give it a go. I've been looking for a good old fashioned shoot 'em up recently anyway. Too much Silent Hunter III and JA2 gets to you after a while. All that thinking gives me a headache.
 
Screenshot012.jpg




Screenshot013.jpg




IMO, these aren't really spoiling anything.
 
Just finished playing it.

Graphics are fantastic, ai is pretty good, feew problems with how they use cover, but they flank wel, use their resources well. Pretty much the standar FPS fare whn it comes to weapons and tactics, but the story line really adds something I've not seen before in FPS games. Even though it's kind of cliche, the horror bit works well. Scared the shit out of me on more than one occasion.
 
fear was awesome for the environment and story. very very reminiscent of ... damnit i cant remember.

it wasnt like duke nukem or doom 3, it was much more psycho-thriller FPS type.

only real problem, it has very little replayability.
 
F.E.A.R in my opinion is the second most hyped game after HL2.

Reason:

1. The AI is predictable. Yes most games AI are predictable but I expect more after playing the demo.
2. The special move is nothing. If I want special move I would stick with street fighter or Tekken. Special move in FPS is gimmick.
3. Psycho-thriller FPS type? The only FPS game that makes me piss my pants is System Shock2. And it's not a FPS game at all.
4. Finally, FEAR is a byproduct of The Ring and Counter-strike. Nothing special.

Just my thought. :D
 
if you find the AI subpar, it's probably due to your settings.

as you pull the details & such down, the AI gets downgraded as well because they assume your pc wont be able to handle it.

granted the AI isnt 'real life', but it's one of the best FPS AI's up til now...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top