FEAR 2 impressions

LordBritish

LordBritish

2[H]4U
Joined
Jan 28, 2001
Messages
2,062
I've been playing FEAR 2 for a while and I must say, I'm not impressed.

It brings nothing new to the FPS genre.

In fact, it's almost a step backwards from it's predecessor.

I'm playing the SP game and I'm bored senseless !!

It seems that games aren't really evolving :confused:

Or perhaps I've been gaming for too long :(

Damn, I've been a member of [H] for over 8 years now !!!!!!
 
LordBritish said:
I've been playing FEAR 2 for a while and I must say, I'm not impressed.

It brings nothing new to the FPS genre.

In fact, it's almost a step backwards from it's predecessor.

I'm playing the SP game and I'm bored senseless !!

It seems that games aren't really evolving :confused:

Or perhaps I've been gaming for too long :(

Damn, I've been a member of [H] for over 8 years now !!!!!!
Click to expand...
I get a little irked when people say that a game is bad because it brings nothing new to the genre. Is there anything wrong with a game that takes what works well and puts it together in a solid package?
(Come to think of it, that statement describes Halo to a tee. :p)

The first FEAR was a pretty decent shooter blended with a pretty riveting sci-fi/horror story, resulting in a really good game. The highlight of FEAR, in my opinion at least, was the very smart and sometimes punishing AI. The second game doesn't have quite as good a story driving it, but the gameplay feels a lot more refined. The AI feels dumbed down a bit (or maybe I'm getting better... but what are the odds of that??) but the gunplay is a lot more intense. From an artistic and technical standpoint the game is better than ever, with a lot more colour and variety in the world and some interesting new elements. This game is on an upgraded version of the original engine, so it does look better but it doesn't quite have the WOW factor that the original FEAR (an early next-gen shooter) had going for it.
 
I agree with noobman here. We can't expect every new game that comes out to bring something new and unique of its own, there's only so much new concept we can have, fps is still what it is, an fps game

While I haven't got the game itself (waiting for patch, and I still have other games at the moment), I'm satisfied with how the demo played. And i like how they added more variety to the game play with the outdoor part, where we have some sniper action and the mech thing. To me, I think its certainly an improvement over the first FEAR
 
Hey I'm having a fairly good time playing this game on the PC but , there are some frustrations involved in playing it.
1. There is no leaning - this is a major asset in any modern FPS and not to include it was a mistake.
2. No save or quick save feature, only save points - I hate having to repeat long areas after dying.
3.The AI of the game is one of the stupidest I've seen in quite awhile - the enemy will stand there and let you blast away without seeking proper cover.
4. Letterbox effect (not full screen) - what the ... hey, i don't have a widescreen monitor sue me! Why should I have to play on about half my screen?
Is this a bad game no not at all but, in my opinion FEAR 1 was a much better game. The developers could have changed this from a good game to a great one if they would have put a little more thought into it.
 
The only thing that bothers me is the stupid film grain and letterbox, other then that its a damn good game i enjoyed it and varied environments and lots of gore and action.. what did u expect something new to the whole fps.
 
Cajunheat, not having quick saves is to make the game harder ;) No complaining!

AI were not as smart as FEAR1's. Or maybe I just got WAYYY better, because I cleared it the first time through on the hardest difficulty and only had trouble once...
 
All the negatives I hear voiced here are linked to "consolitis".
Where a game gets dumbed down, because otherwise the kids on consoles will whine from now to eterneity...either about preformance, to many controls used...or the game being to hard...
 
Nothing really stands out about the game. Its not great, its not bad at all, but somewhere in between. In short, it will be forgotten in a few months.
 
Atech said:
All the negatives I hear voiced here are linked to "consolitis".
Where a game gets dumbed down, because otherwise the kids on consoles will whine from now to eterneity...either about preformance, to many controls used...or the game being to hard...
Click to expand...

I know it's minor, but they took out the lean function. I played the first FEAR on Xbox360 because my PC wasn't powerful enough at the time for me to really enjoy it (medium is unacceptable) and I found that the controls mapped pretty poorly. I'd always throw errand grenades, and I'd never be able to lean and aim at the same time.
 
I think some folks are remembering the first FEAR through rosy colored glasses.

I'm as big of a FEAR fan as anyone and I slogged through Extraction Point and especially Perseus. I feel that part 2 is certainly way better than those and a decent continuation of the series. Not earth shattering.

I think the PC version needs a patch to address a number of PC gamer's complaints and I think the grace period on multiplayer is about to run out. People are losing interest and giving up in droves.

I was on there last night, a Sunday night when people are home and not doing much, and it was an absolute ghost town in terms of people playing and number of servers across both ranked and unranked games.

If they don't get dedicated servers and a few other fixes up soon, then that's all she wrote for this game. They're running out of time.

The MP has grown on me and I find myself strangely addicted to it for quick 15 minute sessions here and there. I hope the game doesn't get abandonded and forgotten but it's pretty close to happening.
 
The original FEAR scared the crap out of me. Playing in the dark with surround sound was a blast. FEAR 2, though I enjoyed it didn't grab me like the first. I do like the hint of a FEAR 3 at the end. :)

Sequels are very tough to pull off since you are building on what was a unique idea/experience. I don't feel it was money wasted getting FEAR 2.
 
Kowan said:
I don't feel it was money wasted getting FEAR 2.
Click to expand...

Neither do I, but the console-itis is rather unmistakeable to the point that the multiplayer is about to be abandoned outright very soon.
 
LordBritish said:
In fact, it's almost a step backwards from it's predecessor.
Click to expand...
"Almost"?

The AI is practically gone. So are most of the shadow effects and the parallax maps. So is most of the challenge; the amount of health lying around is quite frankly insulting. So are most of the "creepy bits" during gameplay, the bulk of which have been replaced by Alma popping in and out 15 feet down the corridor, possibly accompanied by flickering lights and/or excessive post-process effects.

Plus it's now got quick time events, a letterboxed display format, a handful of unbindable keys and an obnoxious blue border around the screen.

Oh, and everything's obscured by film grain, and everyone glows bright yellow when you turn on bullet time.

It is a fairly decent game - the combat is enjoyable enough, and some of the cutscenes are superb - but it's definitely a step backwards form the original.
 
I finished the other day, it's basically FEAR but for the consoles.

If you liked the original for what it was then this is more or less just more of the same albeit dumbed down some. It's FEAR 2, why are some of you moaning like you were somehow expecting it to be fresh and brand new and full of innovation, it's called FEAR 2 because it's following on the same franchise of course it's going to be similar and bring nothing significantly new to the table...what game/sequel combo has brought you significantly more with only a few years apart?

Its suffers from consolitis, theres what feels like fairly hefty mouse acceleration, messed up widescreen and pretty average graphics for today, although they do come up with some nifty effects I have to say. The guns are cool and ammo is plentyfull, the game is still reasonably linear although 1-2 areas open up nicely, theres better variation of locations, it has some neat bosses.

The combat is easy, if you want even a small challenge then play on the hardest settings, guns and ammo are everywhere. There's some great scares in the game and the ending is seriously FUBAR.

Overall it's dumbed down from the original, the graphics technology isn't really any better but they have a far greater library of meshes/textures, the weapons and bad guys are more varied and interesting, the biggest improvement is in the cinematic quality to the game, the cutscenes and the scripted events are very well executed with some really neat effects, it's almost like watching a really cool 6 hour long movie.

Lets put it this way, I cant stand consolitis in games, I think the awful traits kept over from multiplatform games on the PC version are diaolical, but they almost feel forgivable here, I liked the game despite these elements so I guess It was good in its own right.
 
What, pray tell, would you have it bring to the FPS genre? How much can you really do in a First Person Shooter that isn't shooting in the first person, and still have a First Person Shooter?
 
Mark_Warner said:
What, pray tell, would you have it bring to the FPS genre? How much can you really do in a First Person Shooter that isn't shooting in the first person, and still have a First Person Shooter?
Click to expand...

You could start by not dumbed the game down to console levels...that would make a good start.
 
Atech said:
You could start by not dumbed the game down to console levels...that would make a good start.
Click to expand...

Well I agree..the quickfire events really ticked me off, and the rampant health boxes and ammo dumps were annoying as well.

But if we're talking about core FPS features, what is there really to be added? You roam around a specific area, taking out the bad guys. You open doors to progress further, maybe you need to find a key first. What else is there really to do?
 
LordBritish said:
I'm bored and jaded with FPS gaming
Click to expand...

^Fixed.



I personally liked it. It could have been a bit longer (as with a lot of FPS), but overall I enjoyed it. There were more environment changes this time around. The visuals and creep factor were well executed. The graphics were smooth as silk (and seems so on older systems too) which is a HUGE win I think. Game play was fun.

Downsides for me were the weapons, less intelligent A.I. (from the first game) and the sometimes confusing story. Overall I've liked the FEAR franchise. I'm even giving Perseus Mandate a second chance now :)
 
Mark_Warner said:
Well I agree..the quickfire events really ticked me off, and the rampant health boxes and ammo dumps were annoying as well.

But if we're talking about core FPS features, what is there really to be added? You roam around a specific area, taking out the bad guys. You open doors to progress further, maybe you need to find a key first. What else is there really to do?
Click to expand...

So FEAR is the same as COD as are the same as Prey as are the same as Bioshock?
 
Atech said:
So FEAR is the same as COD as are the same as Prey as are the same as Bioshock?
Click to expand...

Did I say that?

No I did not, so get off your indignant high-horse.

Fundamentally, they are all First Person Shooters, so they all contain many of the same elements. The specific personalities (art direction, sound, etc) of each of those games are vastly different. BioShock is probably the least standard in terms of a core FPS, because of the "crafting" and such.

All of the games you mentioned have certain similarities. The character of each game is determined by the time in history, the art-direction (including sound effects and music), the voice-acting, and the specific behavior of the weapons and bad guys.

A FPS is made unique by the peculiarities of the individual gameplay elements, not by the gameplay elements themselves.

For example: in almost every way, UT99 and Q3 are functionally identical games. But the idiosyncrasies of the levels, character models, and weapons are very different, so the games feel very different.

The same could be said about Doom 3 and F.E.A.R.
 
I really enjoyed the game, it gets much better after the first 1/3rd so I'd give it a try until you leave the stupid boring hospital.
 
Earlier in this thread I stated that not having a save or quick save was frustrating. Someone claimed this was the way the game was made harder. This is probably very true but, it is a very lazy way of implementing it. Instead of making the AI opponent work in a smarter fashion let's up their numbers and force saves on longer intervals ... sloppy, very sloppy. Still I did have fun with this game.
 
I thought it was a great game. I would play online more if there were more people online. I would love to get all my achievements.
 
Just got this today. The enemies go down like wimps, even on hard difficulty, but this could be that I am still near the beginning (interval 02). Also, the letterboxing is annoying and I am getting mildly motion sick playing it. I also noticed that the scares are much more predictable. Still, so far I am enjoying it.
 
I'll be honest, I beat this on hard and COD was WAAAAAAAAAAAY harder than this game. Of course then again I play a lot of games on hard these days.
 
I payed $50 for the game. I got just over 10 hours of game play after I beat it. The multiplayer is non existent. I feel a little gyped. Of course I feel the same way about a game that puts everything into multiplayer and nothing into single. I'm a picky bastard. :)
 
LordBritish said:
I've been playing FEAR 2 for a while and I must say, I'm not impressed.

It brings nothing new to the FPS genre.

In fact, it's almost a step backwards from it's predecessor.

I'm playing the SP game and I'm bored senseless !!

It seems that games aren't really evolving :confused:

Or perhaps I've been gaming for too long :(

Damn, I've been a member of [H] for over 8 years now !!!!!!
Click to expand...

sounds a lot like you are having a mid life gaming crYsis.
 
First was groundbreaking, second could've been so much more. It's lost potential. Not a bad game by any means, but not worthy of the series name.
 
FEAR 2 is EXACTLY everything that is wrong with the FPS genre.

Mindless rail game with scripted events, wandering through boring environments and corridors and generic places shooting generic soldiers over and over again. Every now and then they throw in a tired gimmick like a mech or a turret sequence. Maybe a "turn the valve" or "find the key" puzzle which haven't been new for 15 years.

People wonder why I hate modern games so much. This is it. Also, it's obviously designed for consoles the way the gui and weapon select is. Terrible everywhere. You can put a large part of the blame on consoles. Consoles have dumbed down and slowed FPS innovation on PC quite a bit. The difficulty on this game is obviously set for consoles and innacurate thumbsticks. That's why it is so boring and unchallenging. Monolith knows this though and are coming up with a patch to improve PC difficulty. I doubt it will do anything other than make the enemies aim faster or hit harder rather than address core AI (or lack thereof).

Somebody talked about core FPS features. I can't believe developers and gamers alike can be so stupid to be putting up with crap that hasn't changed since Wolf3D, Quake, Doom, etc. FPS shouldn't just be about shooting enemies, going through doors, finding keys, shooting more badguys, meeting a boss, etc. I find the entire concept of ONE guy shooting through 10-20 hours of hundreds of thousands of soldiers/aliens/zombies/alien soldiers/alien zombies/zombie soldiers, etc. to be completely ridiculous and tedious and simply not in the realm of believability.

FPS is the perfect genre to viscerally put you in the eyes of another person in ANY SITUATION. Take the freaking "S" out of FPS and really learn how to make a game that can really be an experience like humans have been creating in novels, literature, film, etc. I would die to have a modern first person Blade Runner game that was about detective work in dystopian megacity where shooting was only a small part of it or needn't even actually happen. I don't want to pay to be brought into another world simply to be shooting hundreds of cookie cutter generic enemies over and over again while searching for keys and exits (that literally is what FEAR2 is) with a few gimmicks tossed in.
 
FEAR 1 was way better demo wise.
I never played any of the games, but I played both FEAR 1 and 2 demos and 1 was way better and scarier as well.
 
Spare-Flair said:
FPS is the perfect genre to viscerally put you in the eyes of another person in ANY SITUATION. Take the freaking "S" out of FPS and really learn how to make a game that can really be an experience like humans have been creating in novels, literature, film, etc. I would die to have a modern first person Blade Runner game that was about detective work in dystopian megacity where shooting was only a small part of it or needn't even actually happen. I don't want to pay to be brought into another world simply to be shooting hundreds of cookie cutter generic enemies over and over again while searching for keys and exits (that literally is what FEAR2 is) with a few gimmicks tossed in.
Click to expand...


Hear hear! I also would love to play a game like that. I thought bioshock was not a bad attempt at moving in that direction, although it was very limited. I frequently avoided conflict in bioshock instead of running and gunning.

But it would be nice for a FPS/RPG hybrid to be more RPG and less FPS.
 
man this is nothing new.

You could start by not dumbed the game down to console levels...that would make a good start.

All games have to be made for 5 yr olds so the most games can be sold to the most people.

I don't think we will ever see a good game again. Thats just the way it is.
In the late 90's and early 2000's all pc games were made by players for players. Now its make some flashy graphics and big ads ....3 levels about 200 hrs to develop and get it out.
Hell I think the ads are bigger than the damn games.
 
After going through FEAR 2, you can see that the demo was completely fake to draw you in. They took all the best parts of the game and mashed them together in a hodgepodge sequence.

There's almost no supernatural happenings at all in this game. All those cool moments where you are maybe walking in a corridor and it flips upsidedown and turns to blood doesn't happen. At most, you get a vision or something blurry. You see spectres but they disappear with one shot of anything.

Its just mindlessly shooting replica soldiers over and over and over and over again.
 
I have noticed something in the past several years. Games have STOPPED being referred to as an art form. And to me that is sad. When games were art we had great games like System Shock... and really MANY others. The games were there to be enjoyed by those that could appreciate them.

Now games are tuned to the lowest common denominator that the developers can stomach. Sometimes even more so.

What I say to the game companies out there is make your crap games but treat your development houses like the movie companies treat there pride and joy actors and directors and so fourth. Give them the reigns from time to time to see what they can create when they create for the JOY of making the art form that they believe to be a great game. If you can do that you will stop loosing your great talent and see a few flops for sure but the successes will gain you such notoriety that you can bank on that alone.
 
Since they started, they should come out with another Mech game, FEAR is ok, and you cant expect every fps to do something crazy and new.

make it like MechWarrior 3 with impact physics and actual balancing that you have to do on the Mech, so that its slower and doesnt turn on a dime. They already took the first step forward, so they should continue. It can be a cyberwar game or some other mech alternative universe.
 
FEAR 2 PEOPLE

FEAR2

FEAR................2

Yes a lot more could be done with the FPS genre and mixed genres could appear etc etc, but this game specifically is a sequel, it's a sequel because people expect more of the same from the game. FEAR was a decent game and they wanted to do more of the same because it was a forumula that worked well, and kudos for doing it in such a cinematic and engaging way, despite the consolitis that was heavily apparent in the game.

Learn to alter your expectations to be more realistic, Doom3 was years and years after the original doom but despite its grapical upgrades it was essentially the same basic corridoor shooter with key cards and locked doors. People didn't buy Doom3 because it was new and innovative (at least not gameplay wise), they bought it because they knew what they were getting and they wanted more of a good thing.

FEAR was a good idea and worked, FEAR 2 is undoubtably more of the same, if you were expecting different then you were somehow massively mislead.
 
I knew this game wouldn't bring anything technically new to the plate, but did i like it? I loved it.

+1 Frostex

You have to think of fear2 as a movie of sorts. you're not there to be creative with how you accomplish things (which always ends in you completing things the same way everytime anyway)....you're there for the story and experience. in that regard, i felt it delivered quite a lot.

i feel sorry for the people who give it "10 minutes and then uninstall it" cause its so offensively horrid for the FPS genre........give me a break.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top