PDA

View Full Version : F.E.A.R. In House Review


bapenguin
10-17-2005, 12:22 PM
F.E.A.R. review by Qoz (http://www.evilavatar.com/forums/member.php?u=1152)
Edited by: Nick "bapenguin" Puleo

F.E.A.R. is influenced in many ways by Max Payne and also the horror imagery from "The Ring" (particular the US version). For the past year I have been waiting to play a good shooter. I thought perhaps HL2 would become the ultimate FPS but it left me unsatisfied. I want a shooter where you stir things up with big explosions, a shooter that has some movie-atmosphere, and shooter with game play rewarding actual skill.

F.E.A.R is just what I needed.


Graphics
The graphics fit the game perfectly. I don't think screenshots do the engine justice, as there is so much detail around. The shadows are great and are used heavily throughout the game. I was a little disappointed that you couldn't shoot some lights completely out. They just flicker and move around. This would have been an interesting gameplay feature if used alongside night vision goggles combined with the melee combat moves. The water is beautiful and reflections move realistically if you drop something into it.

Physics are applied to almost any object although some barrels seemed to not move at all. Blocking tree-planks are smash able just like in HL2, but some aren't. This is a bit confusing sometimes (because it's inconsistent). It was far worse in Max Payne2, but hey.. that’s a long time ago.

Textures are heavily influenced by the art style from Max Payne ("photorealistic") and almost all of the F.E.A.R. location-themes have been seen before in Max Payne. We have hospital rooms, an old-worn-out-building (paint peeling and all), office rooms, an underground parking lot etc. The game could easily be Max Payne 3 if you replaced the horror with a cop-out-for-revenge story. This is not a bad thing for me, as Max Payne did some fantastic work graphics-wise.

There is rag-doll physics applied to the characters. Sometimes an enemy or object is jittering/vibrating on the floor because of this, but that’s rare and it's cool to see phones dangling by the string after an explosion.

You will experience jaw dropping moments - mostly due to the grenades blowing everything around so realistically. Every room has basic furniture like most previous shooters (statues, lights dangling, phones, books, chairs and tables), but when a firefight begins and/or a grenade is detonated everything just changes. All objects are scattered around realistically. It's important to mention, that the objects behave as they should when manipulated. You won't see a chair flying around like it has no mass (as in the silly game "Devastation").

Physics are not used to solve puzzles (like HL2) and thats a relief for me. I personally thought the physics puzzles in HL2 were boring - created only to show of the system.

System Demands
The game is a system hog. My settings were at Medium for System and High for graphics. I have an AMD64 3500+, a Geforce 6800GT.
Loading is not a problem. When you die you are almost instantly back in action at a previous auto-save point.

I did have some trouble with hic-ups or small "lag-spikes" just before something was about to happen. It seems the system need to fetch textures and other data and it lags the system. Sometimes this happens during a firefight and is really annoying (didn't happen alot though). A few times I died before I even had time to react, because of all the things going on. It happens especially when scripted events are happening or are about to happen. It seems the AI (and/or model rendering?) is pretty CPU intensive, as the framerate slow down quite a bit when enemies are alive, but speeds up when they are dead.

Perhaps they needed a bit more engine polish/optimization regarding on-the-fly loading at certain scripted events.

Combat
The gameplay is in the combat.

You run around different locations and blow up people trying to kill you.
Games are often not fun when they present you with an objective (kill person) and very few different ways to do it. Doom3 was extremely boring to me for this very reason - you could not get much better at killing monsters except for aiming a little better. F.E.A.R. introduces a whole lot of options to optimize your killing-effectiveness.

The SlowMo ability (ala Bullettime from Max Payne) offcourse slow things down but also make you harder to hit and a bit quicker. The ability grants a huge advantage, but is to be used with caution to maximize the damage done. When the effect wears off you better have killed everyone in sight or be behind cover. The effect is explained in the cut-scenes as being "super-reflexes". You are apparently a unique person able to do these extremely fast actions. When you are not in SlowMo the enemies kill you ALOT quicker.

Other factors to decide a battle are the weapons, the architecture, and the use of different grenades.

Weapons of course provide some different tactical options (as in all shooters). Many weapons stun the opponent for some time (shotgun) and if faced with two enemies in SlowMo, an option could be to change target every other shot to keep them stunned.

Grenades have 3 types - the normal throw-and-forget type, proximity grenade and the remote controlled (think Duke Nukem3D pipe bombs that stick to everything). These are extremely fun and effective to use. They can turn the tide when faced with hard opponents. The mech robot (from the end of the F.E.A.R. demo) seem a bit unfinished combat-wise. It shoots rockets that hardly do any damage and its hard to not get hit (fires instantly at you). It's quite easy to kill it, but I just didnt feel I had the same options as when faced with human opponents. Still a fun fight though.

The levels are fantastic and provide a lot of different strategic scenarios. Anyone who played CS can testify to the fact that every room has a different tactical approach. Monolith created these levels to create interesting strategic challenges. You will be presented with a lot of different rooms, stairways and balconies that all need to be approached with care.

There is not much diversity regarding the different enemies, but I was satisfied (because the AI was so superb). Every time you get near some enemies (often 2-3) you can hear them chatter on the radio. You know when they spotted you (or your flashlight) and when they are looking for you (put out a proximity mine?) or staying put (an ambush?). They act upon where you are, what you shoot at and the surroundings - every battle is different if you approach it differently.


Sound
The audio is perfect and sucked me right in.
The horror sounds are perfect. The weapon sounds are perfect. The speech is great. The music fits the mood always and often enhances the frantic battle you are in.

Grenades explode with a huge bang. HL2, Max Payne2 and even Call Of Duty 2 have these sissy-grenades with little sound-effect and a small visual explosion (realistic perhaps? not fun). F.E.A.R. grenades have an impact, they sound great and look amazing. It's very rare that I play games where sound is perfect in every aspect and F.E.A.R. delivers.

Multiplayer
I tried some multiplayer, but its really not for me. I would imagine Counterstrike being awesome with this engine. It has a lot of different modes just like the MP Demo. Not much to say that hasn't already been covered in the demo.

Game Play
Some people on forums tend to dislike most modern FPS games because of the linear nature. They don't like how you can't run around like in GTA and do your own thing, but are limited to the path created for you. That is true for F.E.A.R. Sometimes corridors branch but they always meet up again shortly after. I don't really care about the path being linear. The core gameplay in F.E.A.R. is not walking from A to B, but the things happening on the way. Every battle is a new non-linear situation.

There are scripted events happening (horror, explosion, building collapse), but seldom during the battles. I love how they let the AI figure out what to do, instead of scripting the combat to make the experience the same every time.

For me everything works perfectly. It's not too short and it can be replayed on different difficulty levels with perhaps an alternate approach to the battles.

I like the sense of danger when the SlowMo is about to time out and things are about to get hectic.
I love the over-the-top explosions causing everything to scatter around with smoke and debris everywhere.
I love the perfect audio experience.
I love how the levels force me to rethink my strategy at almost every encounter.

Pros and Cons
- the on-the-fly loading causing lag-spikes
- some repetitive enemy models
+ everything else

Rating: 5 out of 5 EvilEyes
http://www.evilavatar.com/images/icons/e5.jpg

Liquidize105
10-17-2005, 12:28 PM
5/5 EE? I didn't think EvAv would become IGN that fast!

J/K, fear's must buy.

Atorak
10-17-2005, 12:38 PM
I cannot wait for my copy tomorrow. Good review bap, your review sounds like the type of review I would give a game.

EV > IGN > Gamespot

bapenguin
10-17-2005, 12:40 PM
I cannot wait for my copy tomorrow. Good review bap, your review sounds like the type of review I would give a game.

EV > IGN > Gamespot

Wasn't I that reviewed it, Qoz did it, I just made it readable. ;)

The Iron Weasel
10-17-2005, 12:41 PM
Oh god one more day....one more day!!!!

StoneGut
10-17-2005, 12:53 PM
Good review Qoz !

I'm getting my copy tomorrow..!!..

Atorak
10-17-2005, 01:00 PM
Wasn't I that reviewed it, Qoz did it, I just made it readable. ;)

Oh...oh great! I feel so.....deceived.

Qoz
10-17-2005, 01:08 PM
Thx for all the love.
Give Monolith some too - buy their game already!
:)

51|RandoM
10-17-2005, 01:08 PM
I went to bb at lunch, wasn't on the shelf yet. boooooo.

Taco
10-17-2005, 01:12 PM
Always up for a good non sequel FPS. Count me in.

I could use some more NOLF goodness though ;).

Qoz
10-17-2005, 01:15 PM
One other thing.. if you don't have a great 5.1 sound system I suggest playing through headphones. I tried going back to my stereo system (with a small sub-woofer), but headphones were just so much more intense. Try it out..

score
10-17-2005, 01:27 PM
- the on-the-fly loading causing lag-spikes

Accoding to this tweak guide (http://www.tweakguides.com/FEAR_1.html) the game uses 900mb of system memory when running so loading pauses/spike are probably down to low system ram.

Out of interest, how much ram did you have in your machine? By the sounds of things you'de even be struggling with a 1gb...

Taco
10-17-2005, 01:32 PM
Glad I decided to go with 2gb.

And people called me nuts.

Grimgrock
10-17-2005, 01:33 PM
The demo had loads of options for getting the game to run on a particular system. Even still, it would seem to require a fairly decent sytem. I'm ready. Should arrive Wednesday? One day shipping from Gamestop? Perhaps tomorrow? Obviously depends on when they ship it.

I'm curious about the use of mood and atmosphere. Are the "scares" effective or are they just obligatory and predictable.

Taco
10-17-2005, 01:35 PM
I haven't been following this game at all. I'm assuming it's a new version of Lithtech? That engine's always been a slug. But NOLF2 showed a good game can more than make up for it.

Qoz
10-17-2005, 02:35 PM
I have 1gb fast ballistix ram.

Qoz
10-17-2005, 02:41 PM
About the scares .. I thought they were pretty good.
Sometimes a scary image just pop out at you for 1 second, and thats pretty annoying and primitive.

I think we hardcore gamers are just a tad numb to these effects.
We can tell when they happen mostly.
Many situations are Max Payne rip-offs. Like walking slowly in a dream-like state with blood all over the walls.

As I said I played the game with headphones and it made a big difference. I could hear all the subtle details much clearer (perhaps my 2.1 system sux badly). I played in a dark room with no-one bothering me.

Getting a good scare often depends on timing - both in the images and the sound. If you are not playing the game with 100% focus you will ofcourse never be really scared.

TheKeck
10-17-2005, 02:45 PM
5/5 EE? I didn't think EvAv would become IGN that fast!

J/K, fear's must buy.

I don't know that you should be "J/K". 5/5 for me suggests near perfection. Almost every part of the review had little "but this" and "annoying that". I'm not saying that it should have been given a low score, but come on, at least a 4.5 or something. If every part of the review looked like what he wrote for the Sound category, than a 5 would make sense.

Oh well, I guess you can get more out of reading the whole review than just looking at the arbitrarily assigned number.

agentgray
10-17-2005, 02:47 PM
I don't know that you should be "J/K". 5/5 for me suggests near perfection. Almost every part of the review had little "but this" and "annoying that". I'm not saying that it should have been given a low score, but come on, at least a 4.5 or something. If every part of the review looked like what he wrote for the Sound category, than a 5 would make sense.

Oh well, I guess you can get more out of reading the whole review than just looking at the arbitrarily assigned number.
Exactly. It was a good review, but not a perfect game. That's what a 5/5 should be. With all the minor gripes, the 5/5 sounds like hype.

thecrazyd
10-17-2005, 02:57 PM
I don't know that you should be "J/K". 5/5 for me suggests near perfection. Almost every part of the review had little "but this" and "annoying that". I'm not saying that it should have been given a low score, but come on, at least a 4.5 or something. If every part of the review looked like what he wrote for the Sound category, than a 5 would make sense.

Oh well, I guess you can get more out of reading the whole review than just looking at the arbitrarily assigned number.
On a 5 point review scale, 5 points mean it is excellent, not perfect. I see it as being:

5 Points - Excellent, would recommend to anyone.
4 Points - Good. Would recommend to fans of the genre.
3 Points - Could go either way. Would recommend to big fans, but they would need to ignore major flaws.
2 Points - Bad. Would not recommend to anyone.
1 Point - Terrible. Unplayable mess, would strongly advise against playing.

I perfer this system, as it keeps people from bitching about games being better based on small numerical differences. Just avoid the half eyes.

*Edit* By the way, what is the point of having a perfect score if a game will never get it? There is no game without flaws.

Kefkataran
10-17-2005, 03:05 PM
Exactly. It was a good review, but not a perfect game. That's what a 5/5 should be. With all the minor gripes, the 5/5 sounds like hype.

Check my post in the Age of Empires 3 news thread. There's no reason a 100% score NEEDS to mean perfection.

Also: what CrazyD said. :p

Qoz
10-17-2005, 03:06 PM
I actually gave it a 97%
Bap. converted that into 5/5 as that is the Evil way to do scores.
I think the game is closer to 5 than 4.5. Perhaps 4.9.
:)

Liquidize105
10-17-2005, 03:10 PM
Don't worry about it.

I said "J/K" because that's your opinion. It's higher than what I'd give (possibly ever), even more so in percentage where 100% DOES mean perfection (duh).

I'm reviewing EiB and will likely score it a little higher than agentgray.

Qoz
10-17-2005, 03:11 PM
I wrote the quote at the end, but bapenguin changed that to 5/5 score.
No hard feelings because I like that system even better (if ppl use it like thecrazyd described).

Rating: 97%
I know alot of people dislike the percentage score used in most reviews.
The score is my subjective impression, so read the above and decide a score for yourself.

My rating is probably influenced by the feeling that I finally got to play a shooter I liked in almost every way. But people are different I guess.

Kefkataran
10-17-2005, 03:15 PM
even more so in percentage where 100% DOES mean perfection (duh).

Only if that's what it means to you.

Liquidize105
10-17-2005, 03:18 PM
100% as in all, full, everything, doesn't mean perfect to you?

You, yourself, and who else? :D

TheKeck
10-17-2005, 03:35 PM
I was a little disappointed ... This would have been an interesting gameplay feature ... although some barrels seemed to not move at all ... but some aren't. This is a bit confusing sometimes (because it's inconsistent) ... Sometimes an enemy or object is jittering/vibrating on the floor because of this, but that’s rare ... The game is a system hog ... I did have some trouble with hic-ups or small "lag-spikes" ... Sometimes this happens during a firefight and is really annoying ... A few times I died before I even had time to react ... Perhaps they needed a bit more engine polish/optimization ... seem a bit unfinished ... didnt feel I had the same options ... There is not much diversity regarding the different enemies ... I tried some multiplayer, but its really not for me ...

For me, that's just a lot of negativity for a 5/5 rating. A lot of the comments people posted make a lot of sense, and I'm not trying to knock the review.

Again, it's the content of the review that really mattered, not the number at the end. Good review, Qoz.

51|RandoM
10-17-2005, 03:36 PM
a 5/5 scale isn't very granular. you figure 4/5 = 80% and 5/5 = 100%, so if they gave it 5/5, it has to be between 90-100% rating.

thecrazyd
10-17-2005, 03:39 PM
a 5/5 scale isn't very granular. you figure 4/5 = 80% and 5/5 = 100%, so if they gave it 5/5, it has to be between 90-100% rating.
Why think of it as a percent? It is just stupid. I see 5/5 as being an excellent game that is highly recomended. It works just fine as that. Quantifying games with a percent does not work. It is too subjective. What is a 97% to you, may be a 73% to me. I am all for simpler rankings. I would love the Evil Eye system, if they didn't allow half eyes.

Morratut
10-17-2005, 03:58 PM
Good review. Can't wait to play this.

100% doesn't mean perfection for me either. 5/5 means its a must buy. Get it now.

Plus what thecrazyd and Kefkataran said.

Kefkataran
10-17-2005, 05:04 PM
100% as in all, full, everything, doesn't mean perfect to you?

Nope. Perfect is an impossibility. There is nothing that will ever be made that will not have some small errors or that, at the very least, some people will not enjoy.

To mean, 100% (r 5/5 or 4/4 or two thumbs up, etc.) means it's a good enough game that people can see past those errors and still really find a lot of enjoyment and beauty in it.

Taco
10-17-2005, 05:05 PM
There's a million interpretations. Not worth arguing. I think everyone got the gist of this review whether it was 4, 4.5 or 5.

thecrazyd
10-17-2005, 05:08 PM
Nope. Perfect is an impossibility. There is nothing that will ever be made that will not have some small errors or that, at the very least, some people will not enjoy.

To mean, 100% (r 5/5 or 4/4 or two thumbs up, etc.) means it's a good enough game that people can see past those errors and still really find a lot of enjoyment and beauty in it.
I disagree. I believe that on a 100 point scale, that 100 means the game is absolutly perfect. That is why 100 point scales are so stupid. Why include unsurmountable scores? I do not think that 5/5, or two thumbs up = perfection, however, and that is why the simpler scoring is superior.

Kefkataran
10-17-2005, 05:13 PM
I believe that on a 100 point scale, that 100 means the game is absolutly perfect. That is why 100 point scales are so stupid. Why include unsurmountable scores?

That's all opinion-based. But it seems silly to have double-standards. Why would the highest score on a 100-point scale = perfect when the highest score on a 5-point scale does not? It's all based on how you look at it, and I have one simple standard for all.

That said, I vastly prefer smaller-level scoring as well. When I write reviews, I rate them out of four stars, Ebert-style.

thecrazyd
10-17-2005, 05:20 PM
That's all opinion-based. But it seems silly to have double-standards. Why would the highest score on a 100-point scale = perfect when the highest score on a 5-point scale does not? It's all based on how you look at it, and I have one simple standard for all.
Because, there are more variables to take account of on a larger scale. If you are grading something on a percentage scale, then you are grading it in comparison to a completely and utterly flawless game, i.e. this game is 79.6 percent perfect. For a lower point scale, you are basically stating if it is good or not. For a higher point scale, you are judging how good it is. You need to be able differentiate a 99.9 and a 100.

Liquidize105
10-17-2005, 05:28 PM
0-100 scale is not subjective (I think everyone can agree that on such a scale, 100 is larger than all the numbers below it), where you put that game on the scale is.

It's not a double standard either. It's precisely because there's no one objective reality everybody can agree on that we have the 5 Star system, because that way there could be several 5-star games, and it's pointless to differentiate between games in the same star range.

...just like this discussion. In the end everybody agrees, bloody christ.

agentgray
10-17-2005, 05:32 PM
Check my post in the Age of Empires 3 news thread. There's no reason a 100% score NEEDS to mean perfection.

Also: what CrazyD said. :p
After reading the explanations, I'd have to say I agree on a 1 to 5 scale.

However, let's lower our standards and not expect perfection from developers.

TheKeck
10-17-2005, 05:58 PM
I say we get rid of scales completely. Just write an in depth review and let the reader decide if that equals a 76.2% or 3 1/2 Big Johnsons or 57/57 or what have you.

Achilles
10-17-2005, 06:15 PM
Unfortunately my machine couldn’t run the demo maxed out without going at about 20fps, so I’ll be waiting for this to come out on the 360, and hoping that it’ll be coming out soon. Glad to hear it’s good though, I like Monolith, but everything they do seems to commercially fail, so here's hoping this sells well.

thecrazyd
10-17-2005, 06:21 PM
I say we get rid of scales completely. Just write an in depth review and let the reader decide if that equals a 76.2% or 3 1/2 Big Johnsons or 57/57 or what have you.
You got to admit, scores do have their purpose. I agree that the review itself is more important, but it is good to see a quick synopsis. If I see 1 out of five, then I know it is not worth the time to read it.

Taco
10-17-2005, 06:35 PM
If you are only looking at the score is there really any difference between 4/5, 5/5, 90, 95 or 100? Is there a line in there you'd draw between a game you'd buy and a game you wouldn't? This whole argument is weird and pointless.

TheKeck
10-17-2005, 06:35 PM
You got to admit, scores do have their purpose. I agree that the review itself is more important, but it is good to see a quick synopsis. If I see 1 out of five, then I know it is not worth the time to read it.

Ok, forget I ever said anything about anything. ;)

thecrazyd
10-17-2005, 06:42 PM
If you are only looking at the score is there really any difference between 4/5, 5/5, 90, 95 or 100? Is there a line in there you'd draw between a game you'd buy and a game you wouldn't? This whole argument is weird and pointless.
Of course there is. If a reviewer I trust gives a game a 1 or 2, I probably won't give it a second look. If they gave it a 3-4 I will probably read their review closer. If they give it a 5, I will skim the review for features, but it is pretty much in the bag. I do not understand your issue with this.

Taco
10-17-2005, 06:53 PM
I didn't say 1, 2 or 3, obviously there's a difference there. The argument has been about perfect scores vrs almost perfect scores and I'm saying it doesn't make a bit of difference.

thecrazyd
10-17-2005, 06:58 PM
I didn't say 1, 2 or 3, obviously there's a difference there. The argument has been about perfect scores vrs almost perfect scores and I'm saying it doesn't make a bit of difference.
Are you saying you don't see a difference between a 98 and a 99, or between a 4 and a 5? Because 4 and 5 is the difference between saying "This FPS is awesome if you are a fan of FPSs," and "This game is awesome."

KJAX
10-17-2005, 07:02 PM
Always up for a good non sequel FPS. Count me in.

I could use some more NOLF goodness though ;).


I will buy this game based on the fact that it is from the creators of the ab fab NOLF series. Monolith deserves my gaming dollars.

Taco
10-17-2005, 07:07 PM
I'm sorry, if you are not a fan of FPS even a 5/5 is not going to be awesome. No, I don't see a difference. If you were going to buy a game based on a 5/5 rating, you'd buy the game based on a 4/5 as well.

People can split hairs all they want, all things being equal I'll never believe someone will look at a 4 and say "Oh that's to low" then look at a 5 and say "I'm buying that".

thecrazyd
10-17-2005, 07:09 PM
So, you don't have any games that you would recomend to anyone, regardless of genre preference?

Taco
10-17-2005, 07:11 PM
If I knew specifically someone did not care for a certain gametype, no, I wouldn't recommend any games of that type to them. If they were open to trying it I'd be recommending 4 and 5 rated games, because there isn't any difference. The same goes for any 90+ rating.

thecrazyd
10-17-2005, 07:14 PM
I don't buy it. How can you not see the diference between good and great?

Taco
10-17-2005, 07:27 PM
If I'm into a genre, 4/5 in all likehood are buys, any other deciding factors apply to both. 3's are read the review and decide. 1's and 2's are forget about it. That's how I divide it. Good, excellent, crap, call it what you like.

Qoz
10-18-2005, 02:54 AM
I agree with thecrazyd.
4 = very good if you like the genre.
5 = awesome, and anybody should try it.

Sims2 for example could receive a 4 and I still would not buy it, because the genre is not for me. If it received a 5/5 I would perhaps reconsider trying it at least. The score interpretation thecrazyd posted is excellent and should be posted by every EA review score.

KDups
10-18-2005, 03:11 AM
Good LORD are you people still talking about review scores? How tired is this subject? What, it wasn't completely exhausted in the letters section of EGM and Diehard Gamefan nearly a decade ago?

ON F'N TOPIC - nice review. The demo was really enjoyable, some genuine scares and creepy moments. Can not wait until tomorrow (or Wednesday, whatever), I'm ready.

Taco
10-18-2005, 05:02 AM
Yeah, I said it was a tired and stupid argument.

Then I joined in.

/stupid :)

TheKeck
10-18-2005, 04:06 PM
Actually, I think we should change to a 256 point system that I can really sink my teeth into.

"Well, I promised myself that I wouldn't buy F.E.A.R. unless it got at LEAST a 191, but it came in at 187. Oh wait, IGN gave it a 249. Come to think of it, IGN gives every game at least a 235. Hmmmmm....."

Kefkataran
10-18-2005, 04:41 PM
I'm for it.