That's not true for the console versions. The 360 version would've looked like a decent launch title (and looks slightly worse than Half-Life 2), but it's far from a good looking title today. It's definitely worth playing though, since it's still a good game and graphics aren't everything. Besides, it should now be pretty easy to snag a cheap copy of it.
Demo was unique. It was a bunch of different scenes in the game melted into a demo. I love it when Devs do that rather than just stick up a level or part of a level.
The ending was surprising, lame from a satisfying perspective but it was all for setting up another sequel obviously. Since we do not know what actually happens to pointman, I am willing to bet he is going to be the lead once again and try to stop his mommy and step sibling from being born. The kid is going to be godly if it were to be born. Poor Becket throughout the game.
Demo was unique. It was a bunch of different scenes in the game melted into a demo. I love it when Devs do that rather than just stick up a level or part of a level.
wow at some of you guys finishing this in 6-7 hours. I was going to pick this up this week but at 7 hours it sounds like a rental, unless MP is amazing.
wow at some of you guys finishing this in 6-7 hours. I was going to pick this up this week but at 7 hours it sounds like a rental, unless MP is amazing.
...and I kinda regret it. Not the game mind you, but playing it on that difficulty.
As I mentioned a few posts earlier, playing it on hard just basically means you'll be playing the game in slowmo almost the entire time as the enemies are too good a shot and are too fast for you when moving. This, for me at least, began to really make things unfun and made the game feel more tedious than I know it really was.
The last couple hours I wasn't enjoying at all and I know the difficulty was a big culprit. This was MY FAULT.
I applaud Monolith's dedication to making this one crazy ass polished game (considering the delays, it better be). I'm only dissapointed in the fact that there really isn't a whole lot going on in FEAR2. There isn't much story ....wait, fuck, there's even less story than in FEAR1 now that I think about it!
The gameplay, while solid (if you play on normal) is still stretched so thin to the breaking point that it's a good thing FEAR2 isn't really that long.
Monolith is crazy talented I believe tech-wise, so It's just disheartening that they're still coding away at what is still a series of killrooms with some more varied enviroments this time around.
FEAR2 isn't scary, but the spooky factor is alot more honed and well implemented ....and it too starts to become forumalic with the shooting.
Overall I'd give it a 7.5 and I really hope Monolith moves on from this franchise. I mean, it's was a good ride but I just don't see where the hell else they can go with the creepy girl + guns, guns, guns! hook...
In regards to the ending ...yeah it was abrupt, but I don't think it was terrible
Though the way your partner died was a total cope out and utterly bullshit
. It totally makes sense also if you got to read Genevive File... It was kinda sexy too in a Ninth Gate sorta way =P
Finally, to pay the game another compliment, I would like to play through it again on Normal this time. That way, I can have some more fun with the excellent combat system and have time to be elaborate with it...
Your one of the only people I have seen actually praise the combat...
It was generic and incredibly easy for me (hard mode). It just really bothers me... so many issues could be fixed by having a difficulty option on par with the first games... Keep your "Normal" and "Hard" but damn it, at least leave something for the old fans.
The ending was surprising, lame from a satisfying perspective but it was all for setting up another sequel obviously. Since we do not know what actually happens to pointman, I am willing to bet he is going to be the lead once again and try to stop his mommy and step sibling from being born. The kid is going to be godly if it were to be born. Poor Becket throughout the game.
Just finished the game and I liked it. I thought the graphics were great, *shrugs* But the story blew my mind and I'm not sure if it was in a good way or not. Gunplay is still god awesome though.
Overall I enjoyed it, however I think I enjoyed FEAR1 much much more.
Pros
- Satisfying combat
- I like the graphics/lighting/shadows
- Sound was good
Cons
- Unlike the first game, it seems the soldiers realize you are there when you cross a certain threshold. In the first FEAR the soldiers would respond to your flashlight or if you made noise but it was entirely possibly for you to sneak up to them without them knowing. Here they automatically "see" you even if they are looking the other way as soon as you take that third step into the room and they open fire on you.
- The environment: I guess the word I'm looking for is "tired". That's how I felt as I kept running through corridor after corridor.
- Not as scary as the first game. The "ghost" portions of the game were pretty lame.
- I didn't feel there was any kind of story to help you progress throughout the game. I felt like the main character was just told to go forth and kill anything in your way by the LT and that was it. Along the game (except for the intel found) there wasn't really any story until you meet Snake Fist. But even that part is pretty lame and he doesn't really advance the story.
- The ending sucked. What happened to Genevieve <sp?> ? I thought we were told that going into that enhancer thing
was supposed to let you kill Alma? But no she isn't dead in the end? Of course she died already so she isn't dead a second time I mean
So I needed to buy the special edition for the story? As in, story costs an extra $10? b/c I was pretty thorough, got 61 pieces of intel, and really have no idea what happened to many of the principles from the first FEAR. Not to mention how light FEAR 2 was on narrative as well.
Good game overall, but damn did that hospital level drag. And I'm a little surprised how disingenuous Monolith was pre-release. re false statements about gamepad support and about clarifying first game's story.
So I needed to buy the special edition for the story? As in, story costs an extra $10? b/c I was pretty thorough, got 61 pieces of intel, and really have no idea what happened to many of the principles from the first FEAR. Not to mention how light FEAR 2 was on narrative as well.
Good game overall, but damn did that hospital level drag. And I'm a little surprised how disingenuous Monolith was pre-release. re false statements about gamepad support and about clarifying first game's story.
For clarification, it wasn't a "special edition" that the book came with, it was just if you preordered.
I do agree that it is lame though that so many people will miss out on those details. Like I said, Monolith really should make that thing available via PDF on their website or something...
Just beat it, took about 8-9 hours while taking my time to find the intel. The first 3 missions were pretty weak and it felt very similar to the first game (office buildings, hospital, etc) but after that it picks up and the environments become much more varied.
Game was kinda easy, there was always lots of ammo & grenades, armor, medkits etc lying around and that combined with the fact that you can hold so many weapons and the slow-mo makes fighting enemies no contest at all. I rarely play games on hard mode the first time, but I kinda wish I did that here (especially since you can notch down the difficulty at any time - something more games should do).
It also wasn't scary at all, though maybe I've just gotten used to Monolith's methods. The few times they did attempt to scare you by fucking with your flashlight/vision etc it was more annoying than scary.
I'd give it a 7.5 or so, it was a very fun rental but it didn't wow me or anything. Not interested in the MP either. Personally I prefer the Condemned universe to FEAR.
The pc version has one huge flaw (besides being a port from a console).
Every time a check point is reached and saves the game, you know shit is about to happen. The game always always always saves before someone appears for you to shoot.
It kills the mood for me. Pavlov effect.
The game hicks while saving too.
but, as a FEAR game should be, the shooting is very good.
I've been putting some time into the PC version and enjoying it. I decided to take my time and really try to take in the environment rather than run through it. It feels less repetitive and tedious when you look around, actually.
The game certainly isn't really scary, but there are a few nifty tidbits that certainly feel a tad unsettling. Did anyone wander into one of the classrooms with the slide projector? They are showing images with words below them while a tape plays behind it saying the word. It seems to be intended for teaching words to children, but the tape is behind the images and each word is said after the next image is being shown by the projector. The sound of the voice (distorted and slow) and the look of the slide show was actually a tad creepy. I found a few moments like this which I found more interesting than any of the flashy scares. It seems to me, however, that one could easily miss such details if you were just blasting through the environments at high speeds.
I do much prefer this to the original FEAR, however. They solved a lot of the issues I had with the original. Environments can still be a tad repetitive but are much more detailed and interesting overall. Each room is filled with lots of objects and the detail level is high, unlike the original, which had you moving through boxy, empty hallways most of the time. I also feel that the general act of shooting is a lot more satisfying due to the inclusion of iron sights and the smoother animation. There also seem to be a great variety of enemies this time around.
It's a shame no gamepad support was included in the PC version, however. I tried Pinnacle Game Profiler, which generally works well, but with FEAR 2 the mouse filter seems enabled by default and this results in what appears like framerate loss (but is not) when the analog stick is held at a certain point. I hope they add actual gamepad support sometime soon.
I have it on pc (via steam) and running maxed out the game looks fantastic especially all the various effects.
Im only up to the elementary school but am loving it so far, I was a big fear fan (original pc release that is) so its not surprising im loving it as its basically more of the same but with cooler environments and a huge frigging mech which was awesome to use.
The pc version has one huge flaw (besides being a port from a console).
Every time a check point is reached and saves the game, you know shit is about to happen. The game always always always saves before someone appears for you to shoot.
It kills the mood for me. Pavlov effect.
The game hicks while saving too.
but, as a FEAR game should be, the shooting is very good.
Im not sure thats a HUGE flaw.... if nothing attacked you after/before it wouldnt be muich of a game.... also every game in the last 5 years has done that too!
Im not sure thats a HUGE flaw.... if nothing attacked you after/before it wouldnt be muich of a game.... also every game in the last 5 years has done that too!
Agreed. It's not a flaw at all. The game is designed around a series of individual scenarios rather than a constant stream of enemies. It's good design for any shooter.
It's a shame no gamepad support was included in the PC version, however. I tried Pinnacle Game Profiler, which generally works well, but with FEAR 2 the mouse filter seems enabled by default and this results in what appears like framerate loss (but is not) when the analog stick is held at a certain point. I hope they add actual gamepad support sometime soon.
I like the subtle rumble support in this game, not only when you're shooting, but also during reloading. Just reloading something like the auto shotgun feels so satisfying. It's a small thing, but much appreciated.
Also, I agree completely with the rest of your post. They've improved on almost everything I felt could be better in the first game.
it was absolute trash in comparison to the narrative the rest of the game followed. What exactly happened to Keegan? What the fuck was Genevieve up to the whole game and how was she able to survive the ordeal? And what about Stokes? That was the biggest coup out Ive ever witnessed in modern gaming. Mono should be absolutely ashamed, the ending nearly ruined the entire experience
it was absolute trash in comparison to the narrative the rest of the game followed. What exactly happened to Keegan? What the fuck was Genevieve up to the whole game and how was she able to survive the ordeal? And what about Stokes? That was the biggest coup out Ive ever witnessed in modern gaming. Mono should be absolutely ashamed, the ending nearly ruined the entire experience
Yeah, it felt a little rushed and ad hoc. I asked myself the exact same questions thinking they're probably setting up for an add-on later this year (hopefully better than the other two abysmal efforts by the other teams). Overall, I'd still give the game an 8.5 due to the over the top intense firefights and gratuitous gore and violence. I actually had fun getting some of the combat acheivements (i.e. 'Raining men, 'Bankshot', 'Deadly Ballet'). I think most reviews some this game up perfectly. Innovative...no, fun action first person shooter game...hell YES!! The multiplayer mode 'Armored Front' is a blast. To each his own, but FEAR2 was a good time. This game was never intended to redefine the genre, so I'm not going to knock it for that.
yes. aside from the obvious tweaks they've made, the AI on fear is dependent on how much information you put into the surfaces of the maps. it's not a standalone package which you can dump into any map and expect to automatically pick up and make decisions.
I haven't beaten it yet, but I think I'm getting to the end (
On my way to Still Island
). But here are my impressions so far:
Graphics: It's definitely an improvement over the first. I think people expecting a major upgrade in visual style were probably disappointed. It seems to me that the main difference is that there's "more" on screen now, especially in the environments. IMO, I don't care for the grain filter at all and I hope they patch in a way to disable it. I think that actually makes the game look a little inferior to the first which had crisp (though perhaps too "plastic looking") visuals.
The Environments this time around are definitely better than the first in terms of variety. The Outdoor areas especialy, plus I also enjoyed the
Underground Hospital with the fake sky and the "Nurse's Office" of the Elementary School
. You'll still definitely get your share of corridors, but I've found them much more palpable compared to the first game.
Sound: Not that much to say here. It's pretty much identical to the first game sound-wise. Lots of SFX, voice and music re-used from the first clearly.
Gameplay: It's definitely FEAR. I didn't use the lean functionality very much at all in the first game so I didn't really notice it was taken out. Hard mode does not seem all that hard compared to what I feel a "Hard" mode should be like (definitely feels more like Normal to me). The soldiers AI has definitely been changed somehow, but that's been covered. They did seem to be less "smart" that what I felt they were in the original (heh, maybe that's what happens without Fettel to control them? ). I pretty much find the game satisfying, in a "more of the same" way I felt from the original.
Oh, but the mech suit totally kicks ass and should have been used more in the game.
Story: A continuation of the first one. I've had no problems or issues following it (
You and your team are made up of recruits for Project Harbinger which was created by Harlan Wade to make soldiers like Paxton Fettel. After the nuke, Genevieve beleives she can use one of you to bring Alma under control against the wishes of "Snake Fist" who thinks she can only be stopped by being destroyed. The Armacham board however sends in their own teams to erase all traces of these projects and things go from there with clashes with the Replica soldiers now under Alma's control
. And of course a ton of backstory on these and events from the first game too), but I enjoy picking up the story files and intel scattered across the game. Though, I guess I had better temper my expectations for what is to come.
So it's been a relatively solid gaming experience for me so far. I've heard that the ending is quite a letdown though, so I'll keep my expectations low. I am definitely glad I purchased it and will definitely play it again.
Agreed. It's not a flaw at all. The game is designed around a series of individual scenarios rather than a constant stream of enemies. It's good design for any shooter.
I meant I'm never caught off guard because the message "saving game" always appears right before bad guys show up... Its like a warning. It takes the "suspense" factor away in my opinion.
I meant I'm never caught off guard because the message "saving game" always appears right before bad guys show up... Its like a warning. It takes the "suspense" factor away in my opinion.
I couldn't agree more. As a massive fan of the FEAR series' story and narrative (maybe I'm doin it wrong...>.<) I would love to hear what your thoughts are after the you complete the game!
Sinatar said:
Again this happens in just about any game you care to mention that autosaves. Why single out this one?
Because there are tons of games that do a better job of it. Hell, the first FEAR saved between levels. EVERY single time you see an autosave prompt you KNOW something is going to happen, as it was said before, it absolutely kills any sense of tension.
Just finished this earlier. Much better environment variety than the first game, but I agree the combat seems to have somehow taken a step back. Overall I think I liked Condemned 2 a little bit more but this was still pretty good.
So I'm playing the PC version of the game on max settings at 40-60fps, but God does it look good. I haven't seen or played the console version of the game, but since I've also played Killzone 2 on my PS3, I can say for sure the PC version at least looks way better/more appealing than Killzone 2. This could however just be because it's the PC version, so what's the opinion on the console version?
So I'm playing the PC version of the game on max settings at 40-60fps, but God does it look good. I haven't seen or played the console version of the game, but since I've also played Killzone 2 on my PS3, I can say for sure the PC version at least looks way better/more appealing than Killzone 2. This could however just be because it's the PC version, so what's the opinion on the console version?
Well, I wouldn't say it looks better than kz2 on a technical level, but since I can run it at 1080p 4xAA at a rock solid 60fps the trade-off is worth it because I agree it is still a DAMN good looking game. The textures are absolutely phenomenal and there are rooms that even on my second playthrough I just had to stop and take it all in. That first subway tunnel with the rats still amazes me because you can literally see how still the air is. The detail in every corner is incredible.
Unfortunately, those things need a high resolution and image quality to appreciate and that is something the console versions really lack. Texture quality took a serious hit.
Well I'm on the Interval 4 (Hard) I think too - basically in the
underground facility/cave
and I really like what I played thus far - the combat is really good and satisfying and the environments are really detailed though my main complaint is the lack of challenge even on the hard mode..a harder mode plus an option to remove the film grain effect via an update would've been awesome - well that won't happen but one can still hope.
On the technical side I'm playing the 360 version and it looks and plays great, the IQ is crystal clear, the frame-rate rock-solid and the controls are responsive and tight - overall a much much better work than the crappy port from Day One on the first game.
Finished it today. Took 4 2 hour play sessions, on hard. I think it's worth playing if you're a fan of FPS, especially the single player campaigns. Give it a rental or something.
I feel like Monolith are very good at your basic corridor shooter, the problem is that they never really step out of that comfort zone, not even a little. It's a solid game, but I bet that you won't remember any particular firefight or level even 2 months from now.
So I finished the game yesterday. The ending was a big WTF, but overall I enjoyed the story. The thing I didn't understand about the ending was
that Alma tried to kill you throughout the game, but then became friendly in the end. Why?
I really liked the end fight though. As for the game length, I spent around 10-11 hours on the campaign, and although I know I'm a turtle, that's roughly the same amount of time I spent on the first game as well as on Dead Space (another game I've played recently). I can see people doing this game in 8-9 hours, but 6? That's just crazy.
So I finished the game yesterday. The ending was a big WTF, but overall I enjoyed the story. The thing I didn't understand about the ending was
that Alma tried to kill you throughout the game, but then became friendly in the end. Why?
I really liked the end fight though. As for the game length, I spent around 10-11 hours on the campaign, and although I know I'm a turtle, that's roughly the same amount of time I spent on the first game as well as on Dead Space (another game I've played recently). I can see people doing this game in 8-9 hours, but 6? That's just crazy.
Isn't she the one controlling the replicas? And what about the various times you meet up and has to button mash to survive?
Also,
who were the ghosts you were fighting in the end fight? Obviously, Keegan was the one up front between each panel, but were the others the rest of your squad?
Because there are tons of games that do a better job of it. Hell, the first FEAR saved between levels. EVERY single time you see an autosave prompt you KNOW something is going to happen, as it was said before, it absolutely kills any sense of tension.
Saving between levels is a terrible design, though. The levels are not short and dying would send you back quite a ways. Quick saves are NOT the answer.
Mr. Durden said:
So I'm playing the PC version of the game on max settings at 40-60fps, but God does it look good. I haven't seen or played the console version of the game, but since I've also played Killzone 2 on my PS3, I can say for sure the PC version at least looks way better/more appealing than Killzone 2. This could however just be because it's the PC version, so what's the opinion on the console version?
You really think so? I'm playing on the PC on max settings at 1080p with a rock solid 60 fps and I think it's a pretty average looking game. It's nice to have the high resolution and framerate, but I don't think it looks anywhere near as impressive as Killzone 2. The environments are very boxy and unnatural, the shadows are very hard edged, the animation is nowhere near as good, and the scale of the environment is very small.
The console versions look very similar, however. The resolution is 1280x720 and the framerate is 30 fps (with minor slowdown), but virtually everything else is the same. The only real difference in detail is the change made to minor textures such as posters and signs (they are higher res on the PC).
Isn't she the one controlling the replicas? And what about the various times you meet up and has to button mash to survive?
Also,
who were the ghosts you were fighting in the end fight? Obviously, Keegan was the one up front between each panel, but were the others the rest of your squad?
it was one thing that she was "controlling" Keegan to lead you to still Island, but why did he suddenly care that Alma only wanted the PC.
And when it comes to Alma's
feelings toward Beckam, or whatever the hell your name is, she clearly wants to kill you. She is the one controlling the Replicas and she sends all matter of hellish ghosts to rip you apart. Snakefist mentions a number of times that Alma is "pissed" or"mad" that she lost or couldn't find Beckam.
