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

[Emabulator]

VideoGamer, Game Informer and Eurogamer have each posted a review of Monolith's latest shooter, F.E.A.R. 2: Project Origin.

VideoGamer (http://www.videogamer.com/pc/project_origin/review.html) - 9/10

If you haven't already cottoned on to what I'm trying to say; I can't recommend Monolith's sequel highly enough. It might not have the jaw-dropping visuals to rival Killzone 2, but it's a hugely satisfying shooter that'll have you clinging onto that controller or mouse throughout its tension-filled campaign. If you like your combat meaty and with a solid dose of supernatural scares, there's every chance this will rank as one of your favourite games of 2009.
Game Informer (http://gameinformer.com/NR/exeres/B5650CF1-9A64-4157-A8D1-347CA6BB6840.htm) - 8.25/10

F.E.A.R. 2 goes about spooking the gamer in a disjointed way. The pacing transitions from hallucinogenic sequences that wouldn’t be out of line in The Ring and encounters with supernatural beings to intense firefights with skilled soldiers. During these pacing shifts, the eerie mood often gets lost in the cacophony of gunfire and explosions. One particular sequence, where you take control of a mech and lay waste to everything around you, completely betrays any sense of horror the game otherwise imparts. There isn’t anything frightening about controlling a nearly invincible death dealer. Some of the wince-inducing attempts at humor on the commlink (particularly from the horribly named character Snake Fist) also betray the atmosphere and sense of tension. While this schizophrenic approach robs the game of escalating tension, the game isn’t without some frightful moments. One particular poltergeist-heavy moment in the darkened elementary school hallways made me jump out of my seat.
Eurogamer (http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/fear-2-project-origin-review) - 5/10

It's a checklist of genre-tropes, well performed. If you're just looking for more well-polished shooting, this will while away the hours pleasantly enough. If you've never played a first-person shooter before, you'll probably be in love - this is as archetypal a corridor-shooter as has ever been made, and there's a reason why it works. But for anyone who's been running down corridors with shotguns for most of their adult life, this is so uninspired that you worry for the spark of Monolith's soul. You guys made No One Lives Forever, remember? You're smart. You're better than this.
Update: IGN (http://pc.ign.com/articles/953/953061p1.html) - 8.3/10 "Impressive", GameSpy (http://pc.gamespy.com/pc/fear-sequel/953074p1.html) - 4/5 "Great!", GameSpot (http://www.gamespot.com/pc/action/fear2/review.html?tag=topslot;img;1) - 7.0/10 "Good".

[Zetsuei]

While Eurogamer gives extremely low scores to Triple-A titles frequently, and they seem to have a perpetual stick up their ass, I tend to gravitate toward their opinion on a lot of games.

[Mr.Green]

While Eurogamer gives extremely low scores to Triple-A titles frequently, and they seem to have a perpetual stick up their ass, I tend to gravitate toward their opinion on a lot of games.

And what about their opinion on sticks?

[abso]

Sounds like they found the right sticks if they are comfortable with it up their ass all the time. You should probably trust their stick opinion as well. =P

[Mozgus]

Eurogamer's description of Fear 2 sounds exactly like my description of Fear 1. This is exactly what I was worried about.

[greenapple]

Eurogamer's description of Fear 2 sounds exactly like my description of Fear 1. This is exactly what I was worried about.

You were worried that the sequel would bear similarities, especially in basic gameplay, to its predecessor?

Not every game is for everyone. It sounds like FEAR isn't your thing (or Eurogamer's).

Personally, I would think it would be reasonable to avoid the franchise than to expect the sequel to take a completely different approach than the original.

[Morpheus]

Sounds awesome. I loved the first game, and I think I will definitely love this game too.

[AspectVoid]

I learned to not trust reviews back when I got burned on Black or White. So many review sites pumped that thing as a triple-A title, and I found it to be boring as all hell. The thing with reviews about anything is that its about 10% fact and 90% opinion. With games, after you get through the few technical aspects (are there bugs, how are the graphics, how's the sound) everything else is opinion.

[temmink]

EDGE passes the perpetual AAA Title bashing hammer to Eurogamer, heard to say 'Tag! Your it!'

[drowsy]

See, Eurogamer got it right. They found the game very average, and gave it 5/10. That's how you review games. Pretty much everyone else would have given it at least an 8/10 because of the stupid 7-9 scale.

[AspectVoid]

See, Eurogamer got it right. They found the game very average, and gave it 5/10. That's how you review games. Pretty much everyone else would have given it at least an 8/10 because of the stupid 7-9 scale.

Its not a 7-9 scale that they're running on. The fact is that we are a generation or two of people who were raised on using a school scale to determine whether something is good or not. The school scale from kindergarten through College is:

90 -100 is Excellent
80 - 89 is Good
70 to 79 is Average
60 to 69 is Poor
59 and below is failure.

When people view game reviews, this is the scale that they are using. Its why I personally think we need to get rid of the number scale completely and just go with what it means. I would love to see a publication completely get rid of numbers, stars, even Evil Eyes and simply judge a game by Excellent, Good, Average, Poor, and Terrible.

[modeps]

Its not a 7-9 scale that they're running on. The fact is that we are a generation or two of people who were raised on using a school scale to determine whether something is good or not. The school scale from kindergarten through College is:

90 -100 is Excellent
80 - 89 is Good
70 to 79 is Average
60 to 69 is Poor
59 and below is failure.

When people view game reviews, this is the scale that they are using. Its why I personally think we need to get rid of the number scale completely and just go with what it means. I would love to see a publication completely get rid of numbers, stars, even Evil Eyes and simply judge a game by Excellent, Good, Average, Poor, and Terrible.

Correct, there is a disparity in how reviews are done. I mean, just look at the way we do reviews. They are set to an out of 5 scale. Effectively its a 10 point scale when you factor in half points, but the Eye system does not translate directly to a score out of 10 (or 100).

[Sonic Wang]

Once again, Eurogamer prove their utter worthlessness in the game reviewing world. I found the FEAR2 demo FAR more interesting than the KZ2 demo (i could fucking aim the gun for a start) with great atmosphere, weapons, enemies and environments. Can't wait to get it on friday

[Mozgus]

You were worried that the sequel would bear similarities, especially in basic gameplay, to its predecessor?

Not every game is for everyone. It sounds like FEAR isn't your thing (or Eurogamer's).

Personally, I would think it would be reasonable to avoid the franchise than to expect the sequel to take a completely different approach than the original.

Well fuck me for expecting the creators of NOLF and Shogo to correct their mistakes!

[Virtuoso]

See, Eurogamer got it right. They found the game very average, and gave it 5/10. That's how you review games. Pretty much everyone else would have given it at least an 8/10 because of the stupid 7-9 scale.

What the hell does average mean?

A "generic shooter" if done extremely well is not average. If it was done extremely well (this being relative to other FPSs) then it is by definition not average. If they had said "a generic shooter done averagely" then a 5 would be appropriate. They did not. So they either lied about it being done well or they are paying more attention to the sticks than the game.

[greenapple]

Well fuck me for expecting the creators of NOLF and Shogo to correct their mistakes!

What I'm getting at is what you think are mistakes appear to be what the developers consider "hallmarks" of the series.

Where I lose Eurogamer is they're DEMAND that FEAR and NOLF follow the same design goals.

Hello?! One was a story driven, fun FPS alternating between stealth and quick action sequences. The other is a tactical, cover-driven FPS with kick-ass AI. Apparently, it isn't cool for one studio to make two different types of FPS'es.

FEAR is not NOLF part 3. Rather than complaining that the meatloaf isn't pot pie, Eurogamer should focus on how good of a meatloaf it is.

[Zurik]

All I'm hearing from these posts is "Eurogamer doesn't agree with my opinion, so they're wrong." Is anyone shocked that people that like the first game like this one, and vice versa? Anyone have some good input, like if I hated the first game and found it boring, does this one do enough things different and better to turn me around on it?

[AspectVoid]

Well fuck me for expecting the creators of NOLF and Shogo to correct their mistakes!

See, I have to disagree with you. Frankly, I can't stand NOLF as a game. The gameplay is just completely uninteresting to me. I don't want more NOLF. I am quite content with a complete lack of NOLF games.

FEAR, on the other hand, I enjoyed immensly. I found the gameplay to be extremely fun. It's a fast paced set of playmats that have outstanding visuals and a great physics engine. The slowdown effect was also very well crafted, IMO, and I am looking forward to FEAR 2 especially if its more of the same.

Shogo, however, does rock. Extremely. The world needs Shogo 2.

[Virtuoso]

All I'm hearing from these posts is "Eurogamer doesn't agree with my opinion, so they're wrong." Is anyone shocked that people that like the first game like this one, and vice versa? Anyone have some good input, like if I hated the first game and found it boring, does this one do enough things different and better to turn me around on it?

Really? Because what I heard was 'the way Eurogamer developed their opinion is stupid".

And that sentiment is pretty accurate in my estimation.

[Wyrm]

I found the F.E.A.R. 2 demo infinitely more entertaining than the Killzone 2 demo, though that may not be any indication of the actual games, it was a lot more fun to kill things in F.E.A.R. than it was in Killzone.

To me, anyway.

[Emabulator]

I've updated the article with links to reviews from IGN and GameSpy.

[cliff_burton]

Eurogamer 5/10
WTF ????

[Zurik]

Really? Because what I heard was 'the way Eurogamer developed their opinion is stupid".

And that sentiment is pretty accurate in my estimation.

Looking at their quote, I get the feeling that they wanted something about the caliber that NOLF set, and they feel that FEAR isn't above that. Didn't seem like they were saying that FEAR should be along the same lines. Whether or not it actually deserves a 5/10 is another story, but they pretty much summed up my feelings on the first FEAR game. It felt too generic after playing the first hour, once you get past the beginning.

[saran_js]

In my case, my opinion of whether a game is good actually really depends on one thing and that one thing can actually make me like the game or hate it utterly no matter what others may say about it.

The magic thing : ----> the game controls.

Somehow, if the game controls are natural to me, I would usually be enticed with the game, if not, I'd hate it totally, no matter whether the graphics is good or not.

[Emabulator]

Update: Added GameSpot to the review roster.

[Bibowski]

Wow, I actually agree with Eurogamer a bit. However, the game is STILL fun, as they even stated in their review.

Not every game can reinvent the genre. Fear 2 does what it does... and does it well. It's a very nice looking, well polished game and is very enjoyable (well at least so far, 4 hours in).