Games: Rate and Discuss

[Dinnesch]

Crysis
7/10

A lot of fun in the first part, but from the part where you go in the cave it gets horribly annoying, and those aliens just suck.
A shame that the awesome tactical gameplay of an otherwise great game is replaced by frustrating fights with brainless monsters at the second half. The first part is also boring unless you play on Delta difficulty, the difficulties are very poorly balanced.

Crysis Warhead
8/10

More freedom than you get in the original Crysis, and the game luckily doens't become linear towards the end. It never gets boring, but I hated it to see the aliens appear again on my screen. Crytek started making this horrible mistake with Far Cry(Trigens), and they still haven't learnt from their fault.

Another complaint about both games: they don't run on the advertised minimum requirements. My PC(Athlon 3000+, 1.25GB, X1650 Pro) is faster than the minimum, but the framerates drop below 10FPS, which is unplayable for me, and that is on minimum settings and 800*600.

 

[Xendance]

Mirror's Edge - 10/10.

Whilst I wasn't a fan of the demo, I saw this game on eBay for £5.99 as a Buy It Now, so I bought it and had a little go. It was a fun game. Took some getting use to, but I enjoyed it very much and will play it again some other time.

 

[Reflex]

Mirror's Edge - 10/10.

Whilst I wasn't a fan of the demo, I saw this game on eBay for £5.99 as a Buy It Now, so I bought it and had a little go. It was a fun game. Took some getting use to, but I enjoyed it very much and will play it again some other time.

Did you get it for the PC?

 

[FrostedxB]

Mercenaries 2:World In Flames - 6/10

I was bored and wanted to do some free-roaming, bought up 80 Nuclear airstrikes. Used 5. got bored.
Gets very boring fast, but I imagine having a co-op partner makes it more "fun"

 

[Saturos]

Fallout 3: 8/10

Pretty damn cool game imo. Probably because I never played the first two and have no biased fanboy opinions which also makes me pretty ignorant to any plotholes and inconsistencies Bethesda left out from the first two games. I felt the same way about Oblivion too since I never played Daggerfall or Morrowind. Thankfully though, Fallout 3 is actually a much better game and despite some bugs here and there, it's much more playable. (and enjoyable)

Graphics are pretty tight even though it's the same engine that Oblivion runs on. Bethesda has actually taken note from one of Oblivion's biggest mistakes and actually made exploration interesting. I actually want to explore the vast wastelands unlike Oblivion's 50+ ancient ruins and temples that all look identical thanks to all the detail that went into these locations. Every single place has a gizzly and unique story to tell relating to either pre-war events leading up to the apocalypse, or more recent situations that had happened. Minus some points for the limited character creation options though.

One of the best FPS/RPG hybrids I've played in a while next to Mass Effect. My only gripe so far however is that I'm not sure if I can buy the expansions in traditional retail fashion instead of going through Xbox Live though. This is mainly because I don't have Xbox Live due to the lack of broadband service available in my area.

Oh, I also hope I don't run into any of the major game-breaking bugs others have experienced. That is, one that's not recoverable from a previous save. I truly want to like Fallout 3 and that would just spoil everything for me. Much like PC Oblivion's bugs spoiled my experience.

 

[dfc05]

Punishment - 7/10

I was bored, so I tried out a couple of games off 1up's "101 Free Games" list for 2008. Punishment was one of them. It's a really DIFFICULT (as the name would suggest) platformer. You basically try to jump onto ledges to reach the top of the screen. However, all the screens are connected so you might fall back down several levels and have to redo them. Also, there are some really weird things like screens that rotate around or things that switch your Left and Right arrow keys. It's insane. I played until I got to the 4th screen and had to quit. I feel dizzy now and the forum actually seems slightly askew since I've been looking at rotated screens for so long. The music is pretty funny -- carnival style music that speeds up the higher you get.

In short,
Pros: Implements a couple of cool/crazy ideas. Recommended if you like weird stuff.
Cons: Too difficult; can be disorienting/nauseating

 

[stemot]

Bionic Commando PC - 7.5/10

To be honest, after the console reviews pretty much panned it I wasn't expecting much from BC when it hit the PC. I enjoyed the Re-armed remake from the same dev team though so I decided to give it a go.
What I found was a game that, despite it's flaws, kept me entertained and immersed in the world until the end.
The game employs a swing mechanic as the main way of getting around the destroyed urban environments, making you swing from anything that sticks out or overhangs from a building. It works quite well, with a cross-hair to show you what your arm will grab if you fire it off which can be changed by looking at something else with the mouse. As usual for games with this type of feature, momentum plays a big part getting around these swing points. The grapple arm later on in the game can also be used to fling objects at enemies or even pick them up and throw them at their friends.
The environments graphically range from nice to stunning, with the devastated city levels really looking like they could have been major metropolises before their fate.
Weapons can be a little average save for the rocket launcher and grenade launcher, but you'll rarely use them when you reach the stage of arm combat.
The level design can be infuriating sometimes which is one the reasons I couldn't give it an 8, with there being these massive swinging playgrounds to look at, yet portions of it will be off limits with insta-death radiation if you even so much as clip it, which essentially limits you in your ways around the levels with only a couple of routes usually being offered, which for a game that already has "go anywhere" mechanics, clipping it's wings just seems unnecessary.
The checkpoints were also a bit sketchy with me sometimes missing them because I didn't approach an opening a certain way, which was infuriating when you have to play the same segment over 3 times only to hit the save point the next time through after going through the same opening on foot rather than swinging.
The story was a very generic testosterone fuelled one but it kept my attention and made me want to find out what happened at the end, besides making me really want to kill the big bad guy as soon as possible.
The game was a good length for an action game, and the story and it's conclusion left me wanting more, which is unfortunate seeing as how the game didn't sell that well on console to warrant a sequel.

All in all though, I enjoyed the game and it's not as bad as the console mags say, this maybe due to how easy I found mouse control though, as I quit playing the 360 version as I couldn't get used to the controls yet the PC version never gave me this problem.

Also, don't go into this expecting the same kind of game as Prototype as you will end up disappointed with it's linearity.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oo8hlbKLQCs

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QyloUVAbGjg

 

[Ennui]

Mirror's Edge - 10/10.

Whilst I wasn't a fan of the demo, I saw this game on eBay for £5.99 as a Buy It Now, so I bought it and had a little go. It was a fun game. Took some getting use to, but I enjoyed it very much and will play it again some other time.

You really think Mirror's Edge is a 10/10 game unsurpassed by any and worthy of sitting among titles like HL and HL2? What about the sometimes sketchy freerun mechanics (that can totally throw off your groove when they don't work properly), the repetitive gameplay, and the almost complete lack of a compelling storyline?

 

[Mutley]

You really think Mirror's Edge is a 10/10 game unsurpassed by any and worthy of sitting among titles like HL and HL2? What about the sometimes sketchy freerun mechanics (that can totally throw off your groove when they don't work properly), the repetitive gameplay, and the almost complete lack of a compelling storyline?

Sadly, this is why these threads fail. People vote from one extreme to the other, with no balanced out thought before hand.

Still, it's good to read stuff the intelligent people post.

 

[Qonfused]

Text following rating >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> actual number score

 

[Warped]

I have Mirror's Edge on the PS3 (got it for like $13) and have yet to try it yet. I have a pretty decent PC, should I wait till its back on Newegg again for $6 and play it on PC instead?? I'm kinda of collecting a lot of games now anyway so my kids/relatives can make a lot of dough or I can be rich when I retire.

 

[Warbie]

Wii Sports Resort - ?/10

An easy 8/10 which will quite possibly become a 9 or 10 over time. The Wii motion plus works better than I'd hoped - you can slice and topspin with ease - and some of the new activities are instant hits. There were about 10 of us playing this yesterday, mainly toggling between archery, frisbee golf, and table tennis, and 8 hours vanished in frantic team battles and grudge matches. Very cool, lots of fun - party gaming at its best

 

[Deleted member 56031]

Seriously mirror's edge is about a 7/10. If anyone honestly thinks it is worth more than an 8 then you need to play more ****ing games.

It had a **** story, was way too short and became quite frustrating at points due to the limitations of the parkour gameplay. It is still overall a good game though but nothing more (at least it tries something new and the soundtrack is good).

 

[stemot]

If anyone honestly thinks it is worth more than an 8 then you need to play more ****ing games.

I play a lot of games thankyou, I'd still give it over a 7.

 

[Deleted member 56031]

wipeout HD fury - 8/10

short but really enjoyable and IMO better than the actual main HD game (I'd probably only give HD a 7). It's got better designed tracks, more interesting game modes instead of the usual time trials, speed laps and tournaments and in fury you seem to get to the faster speed classes quicker than you do in HD. Plus it does seem that overall Fury is easier than HD (which is a plus for me anyway cos I'm not great at racing games).

 

[Warped]

F.E.A.R. 2 9/10

OMFG!! amazing game, through and through, highly polished, great framerate (on the xbox HDD) and amazing graphics/aesthetics. I liked this game much more than the 1st game and it flows much nicer. There is more variety than just the drab sewer levels and there were many memorable moments in the game. I'm a sucker for scripted events, and this game had plenty of them for me to drool over. Highly Recommended, and its only about $20 used now

 

[stemot]

F.E.A.R. 2 9/10

OMFG!! amazing game, through and through, highly polished, great framerate (on the xbox HDD) and amazing graphics/aesthetics. I liked this game much more than the 1st game and it flows much nicer. There is more variety than just the drab sewer levels and there were many memorable moments in the game. I'm a sucker for scripted events, and this game had plenty of them for me to drool over. Highly Recommended, and its only about $20 used now

I fully agree with all of this. I can't wait for the Single Player DLC.

 

[Lucid]

...What...the...****...?
FEAR 2 was much much worse than the first which wasn't even that great to begin with but atleast it was fun.

 

[PimpinPenguin]

9/10!!!! I have lost all respect for you're ratings.

 

[TheOneFreeMan]

BioShock - 7/10

I went into BioShock aware of the hype and that it was a supposedly "overrated" game, so I was prepared to not be awe-inspired. That was a good idea.

Fantastic graphics and environments which were clearly highly polished and well conceived. A fun combat system with original weapons in the form of the plasmids, a hard commodity to find in FPS's these days. The story is of the highest quality and very effectively implements a "get involved as much as you feel like" system with the audio tape cassettes (an idea clearly with its roots in F.E.A.R's "phone messages" technique, although learning greatly from their mistakes), and is backed up by superb voice acting and character development, the driving force behind my continued involvement for most of the game, which contrary to other people's opinions I found to be just the right length. And let's not forget one of the best intros in gaming history.

The game is very pleasing on so many points, and that's why I'm so disappointed that it went so far of the way towards brilliance and then let errors creep in at the last hurdle. Plot points created a serious sense of anticipation for what I was heading towards, yet generated a huge anti-climax, something I mainly put down to one of the worst endings I have experienced in my game-playing history. Massive "wtf was that?" moment after I'd finished. The weapons/ammo system, while innovative and fun for a while, is overly complicated and then worst still defeats itself by falling into the trap of unbalanced, overpowered weapons (Chemical Thrower, anyone?) And for a game so driven by narrative, memorable set pieces were few and far between, and you get barely any character interaction in person; usually you only get to communicate with the characters in the game over the radio, with any physical meetings usually resulting in some factor holding you back from the character itself, or worse yet ... a cut-scene. I felt uninvolved and unsatisfied as a player.

It's still worth playing for the great visuals and fun gameplay ... just don't expect to be blown away.

 

[Sheepo]

Disclaimer: I have not played Bioshock from start to finish. I have seen the vast majority of it and have a general feel for the gameplay and story.

Bioshock has a beautiful setting, good style, and great atmosphere. The story, writing, and gameplay are pretty not good.

 

[Deleted member 56031]

F.E.A.R. 2 9/10

OMFG!! amazing game, through and through, highly polished, great framerate (on the xbox HDD) and amazing graphics/aesthetics. I liked this game much more than the 1st game and it flows much nicer. There is more variety than just the drab sewer levels and there were many memorable moments in the game. I'm a sucker for scripted events, and this game had plenty of them for me to drool over. Highly Recommended, and its only about $20 used now

Oh come on! It was way worse than the first!

Shatter - 8/10

Wonderfully creative, simple and addictive game. I urge you to play it if you have a ps3 and it's only £4

Ninja gaiden sigma - ???/10

Okay I can't rate it because I don't like it but at the same time I know it's not a badly made game so I'm quite confused I admit defeat to you itagaki-san I am not man enough to play your game

 

[Dinnesch]

Research and Development
8/10

2-3 hours of puzzling, it really keeps you thinking which is great for a free mod.

 

[Warped]

how is FEAR 2 worse than the 1st?? I thought it was much better, but oh well for the majority. i also took the game in pieces and it took me 2 weeks to finish because i've been busy. I love it when people go, "it was way worse than the first!" but don't back up anything. HOW was it worse?! explain yourselves children! sheesh

 

[Sheepo]

I played the demo and it seemed pretty bad.

 

[Deleted member 56031]

how is FEAR 2 worse than the 1st?? I thought it was much better, but oh well for the majority. i also took the game in pieces and it took me 2 weeks to finish because i've been busy. I love it when people go, "it was way worse than the first!" but don't back up anything. HOW was it worse?! explain yourselves children! sheesh

Well in short it was consolised and dumbed down for more casual players. Combat was nowhere near as satisfying, enemies were much dumber, not as scary, weapons weren't original, plot was complete crap (fear 1's plot was silly yes but it was interesting and had some cool ideas (oh BTW why is it called fear when no one from the fear team is in it?)), horrible ending and not as much interesting set pieces.

Don't get me wrong I enjoyed it as a serviceable FPS and overall I really like the fear franchise but a 9/10? You mad?

 

[stemot]

Well in short it was consolised and dumbed down for more casual players.

The only thing that was changed gameplay wise from the original was the lack of lean, how exactly does this make it "consolised"?

Combat was nowhere near as satisfying

That's a matter of opinion, as I found the combat to be just as good as the original if not more engaging as we actually got to fight with some teammates this time without our team of highly trained commandos being wiped out in the first level ala F.E.A.R. Not to mention the variatian in the type of combat, with the sniper and mech sections which the original never had, added a bit of much needed variety.

enemies were much dumber

You never installed the patch and played on Hard eh?

not as scary

Different kind of scary, less shock moments but a more general sense of unease. The school is a perfect example of this, nothing in the first F.E.A.R. even touches this.

weapons weren't original

Something that can be levelled not only at the original, but pretty much any FPS grounded in some sort of reality.

plot was complete crap (fear 1's plot was silly yes but it was interesting and had some cool ideas

F.E.A.R. 2's plot was not only far superior to the originals (hell, it needed to explain the originals patchy story as well telling it's own) but also very well told, with you understanding more if you search your environments and take time to read all the journals etc. How anyone can say the story is worse than the first one when the sequel goes so far out of it's way to explain the originals by containing pretty much all of the important things from it, then expand on it further and show what Alma actually went through as a child, well, to me they just haven't taken the time to get the full story.

(oh BTW why is it called fear when no one from the fear team is in it?)),

It's a continuation of the original game using the same story and many of the same characters, why wouldn't they use the same name if they could, regardless of having the team in or not.

horrible ending and not as much interesting set pieces.

I just flat out disagree with this. The ending was amazing and such a brilliant twist after you thought the reason you were being stalked was to be destroyed. Set pieces in the game are also far better than the first one, not only in their actual technicality but also in the way they give you snippets of the story but never quite explain it fully (I'm speaking more about Alma's encounters than the ones with team mates etc ).

Don't get me wrong I enjoyed it as a serviceable FPS and overall I really like the fear franchise but a 9/10?

Why not? I enjoyed it easily as much as the other top rated FPS such as CoD or Riddick.

You mad

I thought these kind of comments were not permitted in this thread

 

[Deleted member 56031]

Crap you've wrote too much for me too care now. At the end of the day it's all opinion like you said but I believe where fear 1 had excelled and pioneered in is where the sequel falters and it just seems to be a run of the mill churned out shooter.

 

[unozero]

...What...the...****...?
FEAR 2 was much much worse than the first which wasn't even that great to begin with but atleast it was fun.

I fapped when alma raped me


so yeah


9/10 at least.

 

[Deleted member 56031]

OMG

 

[Murray]

I've been playing Monster Hunter Freedom Unite with three friends lately on the PSP. I have to say, for a PSP game, it sure is impressively huge (I've been playing for 80 hours and are only half-way through) not to mention it's very good-looking (impressive skyboxes, good draw distance, great design). It can be annoying at times with the battles as you need to steer your characted and at the same time manage your camera, but in the end I like a good challange, because we need more hard games I think.

8/10

 

[stemot]

Crap you've wrote too much for me too care now. At the end of the day it's all opinion like you said but I believe where fear 1 had excelled and pioneered in is where the sequel falters and it just seems to be a run of the mill churned out shooter.

Hmm, it was the other way around for me. When F.E.A.R. was first released I could barely run it with all the slowdowns, crashes etc. Kind of pissed me off considering all it was was dull grey room after dull grey room. After I got my new PC, I kind of forgot about it. Then the sequel was released when I had two weeks off work due to a nasal operation so i bought it and had no problems running it at all. Fluid combat and none of the same dull environments of the first. Needless to say I enjoyed it enough to make me remember the original. I re-installed it, whacked up all the settings to max and played it through. The same things struck me after all this time about the same grey box environments. I still enjoyed the game (and found I was only one level away from completing it the first time I played) but thought that compared to the sequel it just didn't measure up.

It's opinion, and it's great that we have a choice of which one to play, but there are reasons some people prefer this to the original even though most nay sayers say it's just a consolised port because it didn't push the tech advancements as much as the original game. Like there are reasons people prefer the combat of the first.

 

[PimpinPenguin]

Yeah, i'm one of those who much prefer the original. I don't know why but it seemed more cinematic. When ever i think of FEAR i think of going slow mo into a room and shooting it up with stuff exploding and flying around, and the room clouded in dust. That's what i really missed in FEAR 2. The physics weren't as good and they removed the dust particle effects. Having the AI glow ruins slow-mo for me and the oversized HUD.

For once i actually felt the gore was over the top it was satisfying shotgunning a limb off in FEAR yet in FEAR 2 everything shreds them it's like they are made of paper. The environments aren't that much better than FEAR's as you spend alot of FEAR 2 in boring in door areas as well.
The mech fights were a pathetic add-on, with no challenge whatsoever.

When i played FEAR i was a bag of nerves and admit it really freaked me out, and perhaps FEAR had desensitised me because FEAR 2 didn't scare me. It startled me once or twice, but that's it. Alma didn't feel like a threat since bashing 'E' makes everything fine. Switching the lights on and off didn't scare me but really pissed me off as i couldn't see where the hell i was going and ended up going round in circles for half an hour.

The AI were dumb. I remember one encounter where i came face to face with a shotgun wielding solider in a corridor and i expected my face to be blasted off, instead he turned and ran the full length down knocked over a bookcase then started shooting.

I couldn't get into the story, there were to many boring journals with pointless or repeat info. In FEAR i felt compelled to find out what happened and hearing family and friends find out what happened to their loved ones. In FEAR 2 they seemed to keep trying to take it a step to far. Oh, i know let give them a school and say they were doing all these nasty stuff on kid's that should horrify. It was nice to learn more about Alma but these new character felt unnecessary and i had no feelings for them. I actually felt sad when i couldn't save Holiday and that Korean chick in Extraction point. I
FEAR got me intrigued in the story while FEAR 2 ruined it for me personally.

 

[Warped]

for me i can't remember much of the original game but slowdown and boring environments. stem was right in that the entire school level was complete unease, in fact most of the game was for me. but yet again you all probably played this back in October last year and i'm playing this in the summer and it felt like a nice blockbuster movie. i understand everyones complaints and it sounds like the majority of the gamers who had played both. but yeah there are always 2 sides of the coin. also keep in mind my game was a simple rental and i threw maybe 7 hrs into it on easy looking for just about everything though. i play games on easy in the summer because i tend to not have a lot of free time to myself. anyway i feel like a freakin casual gamer saying all of this but i really enjoyed FEAR 2, but come this fall....I'll be a better gamer

 

[stemot]

The environments aren't that much better than FEAR's as you spend alot of FEAR 2 in boring in door areas as well.

Nah mate, sorry, that's just wrong. The environments in the sequel, even in a basic place such as a cave, were so much more richer and detailed with more variation and finally some colour.

The mech fights were a pathetic add-on, with no challenge whatsoever.

The point of them was to add a little variety and to show the scale of the replica army, while giving the player a reasonable explantion as to how the delta's could have taken on such a large force.

When i played FEAR i was a bag of nerves and admit it really freaked me out, and perhaps FEAR had desensitised me because FEAR 2 didn't scare me. It startled me once or twice, but that's it. Alma didn't feel like a threat since bashing 'E' makes everything fine. Switching the lights on and off didn't scare me but really pissed me off as i couldn't see where the hell i was going and ended up going round in circles for half an hour.

Like I said, they went for a different kind of scare in the sequel. The originals scares were the "pop out" monster closet type. What some consider the cheapest. F.E.A.R. 2 actually kept the feeling of dread and unease over the course of the game, which while it watered down the jump shocks the areas where the lights did go out I felt beat any of the scares in the original. Then again, it doesn't take much to scare me in games.

The AI were dumb. I remember one encounter where i came face to face with a shotgun wielding solider in a corridor and i expected my face to be blasted off, instead he turned and ran the full length down knocked over a bookcase then started shooting.

Patch it and play on hard, the AI complaints are not relevant anymore.

I couldn't get into the story, there were to many boring journals with pointless or repeat info. In FEAR i felt compelled to find out what happened and hearing family and friends find out what happened to their loved ones. In FEAR 2 they seemed to keep trying to take it a step to far. Oh, i know let give them a school and say they were doing all these nasty stuff on kid's that should horrify. It was nice to learn more about Alma but these new character felt unnecessary and i had no feelings for them. I actually felt sad when i couldn't save Holiday and that Korean chick in Extraction point. I
FEAR got me intrigued in the story while FEAR 2 ruined it for me personally.

It's not F.E.A.R. 2's fault you wanted the story fed to you instead of doing the extra leg work to find out about it. You can't call it boring if you didn't get all of it. F.E.A.R. 2 went a long way to helping explain the badly told story and ridiculous plot holes of the original.

 

[Deleted member 56031]

battlefield 1943 - 8/10

I am not a big MP fan but after trying the demo I had to get this. It's really simple, fast and addictive plus it doesn't rely on twitch reflexes and getting the most kills v deaths to get far in this game. It doesn't come with a lot of content but it does make up for it in its gameplay

 

[jimbo118]

Monolith's FEAR1 dev team didn't make FEAR2? Wat.

 

[PimpinPenguin]

Nah mate, sorry, that's just wrong. The environments in the sequel, even in a basic place such as a cave, were so much more richer and detailed with more variation and finally some colour.

Sure they had a bit more colour but a room is a room. The added details were good but it was let down with the graphical features lost from the original such as parralex mapping and dynamic lighting. Also WTF was with the film grain? In Mass Effect i could understand it as it was suppose to recreate the old 70's style and was optional why was it compulsory in FEAR2?

The point of them was to add a little variety and to show the scale of the replica army, while giving the player a reasonable explantion as to how the delta's could have taken on such a large force.

Variety is good as long as it's fun. Again walking around in a overpowered giant mech shredding the replicas was boring. What's the point of playing a FPS if it doesn't challenge you? The Mech fights felt like me playing Half-Life with god modes and infinite ammo.

Like I said, they went for a different kind of scare in the sequel. The originals scares were the "pop out" monster closet type. What some consider the cheapest. F.E.A.R. 2 actually kept the feeling of dread and unease over the course of the game, which while it watered down the jump shocks the areas where the lights did go out I felt beat any of the scares in the original. Then again, it doesn't take much to scare me in games.

Where was the scare factor in FEAR 2? Where does it keep the feeling of dread? FEAR had me on my toes. Seeing Alma creeping around in the corner of my eye and fearing her cause wherever i see her bad shit happens. FEAR 2 didn't have any scary bits. Half-Life 2 was more scary than FEAR2

Patch it and play on hard, the AI complaints are not relevant anymore.

Ok, fair enough. I've only played it pre patch, so if you say it's been fixed i'll take your word for it.

It's not F.E.A.R. 2's fault you wanted the story fed to you instead of doing the extra leg work to find out about it. You can't call it boring if you didn't get all of it. F.E.A.R. 2 went a long way to helping explain the badly told story and ridiculous plot holes of the original.

The bit's of story i got from FEAR 2 bored me. FEAR had this corporation doing horrible unethical stuff to Alma and you learned more about it as you progressed. FEAR 2 made it seem to far fetched. I know let's give this bad company a school and add all these different projects as well. I felt that the FEAR story finished in FEAR and Monolith made an half-assed attempt to continue it. I don't see any plot holes in FEAR. Sure it was a bit dumb but it was pretty solid.

Overall from what i've seen FEAR 2 has been a flop. It's reviews are generally poorer than FEAR's and the Metacritic rating is lower. FEAR 2 only sold around 300,000 copies on the 360 in the US that is poor. Monoliths attempt to make it for the 360 backfired on them. They made a great game on the PC and they blew it by making the second for the console. That's like Valve saying we know that Half-Life is a successful PC game but now we are going to take inspiration from Call of Duty and build it for the 360.
The thing i did like is that a poll in Monoliths forum asking how fan's wanted FEAR 3 to be over 70% wanted it to be like FEAR.
I suppose this is one game where we will never agree on.

 

[Deleted member 56031]

The thing i did like is that a poll in Monoliths forum asking how fan's wanted FEAR 3 to be over 70% wanted it to be like FEAR.

You got a link for that? I would like to see that

Monolith's FEAR1 dev team didn't make FEAR2? Wat.

Yes they did.

 

[stemot]

Sure they had a bit more colour but a room is a room. The added details were good but it was let down with the graphical features lost from the original such as parralex mapping and dynamic lighting. Also WTF was with the film grain? In Mass Effect i could understand it as it was suppose to recreate the old 70's style and was optional why was it compulsory in FEAR2?

What good are those features when used in a room so bland? Besides, those were features used only on bullet decals, I would much rather have the added detail in the environments and world than a slightly prettier bullet hole and the drab, boring, repetitive ones from the first.
Again use the patch, Film grain is an option. Try updating before complaining.

Variety is good as long as it's fun. Again walking around in a overpowered giant mech shredding the replicas was boring. What's the point of playing a FPS if it doesn't challenge you? The Mech fights felt like me playing Half-Life with god modes and infinite ammo.

I found them fun. They give you sense of being an unstoppable machine. It's a tool used to add a little variety when the the usual running and gunning starts to wear thin. I think the mech levels worked perfectly for what they were intended for.
Besides, patch the game up and play on hard, this complaint no longer applies.

Where was the scare factor in FEAR 2? Where does it keep the feeling of dread? FEAR had me on my toes. Seeing Alma creeping around in the corner of my eye and fearing her cause wherever i see her bad shit happens. FEAR 2 didn't have any scary bits. Half-Life 2 was more scary than FEAR2

F.E.A.R.'s Alma scares were monster closet scares. A little girl in the corner that suddenly disappears is scarier than walking through a school canteen with blinking lights, voices all around you whispering, flashes of Alma and still alive soldiers pulled up the walls and wriggling around? That's the feeling of dread. You say that in the sequel you were not scared of her because all you had to do was tap a button to stop her attacking you. At least she made some effort to interact this time. There was no reason to fear her in the original as she never once harmed the player in her little girl state, only actually trying on the final level. Don't level a criticism at one game when the game your using as a benchmark is guilty of the same thing. What bad shit happened exactly when you see her in the original? Nothing to the player, that's for sure. As for implying HL2 was scarier than F.E.A.R. 2, that's just poppycock.

Ok, fair enough. I've only played it pre patch, so if you say it's been fixed i'll take your word for it.

That's the thing, they have fixed a lot through patching the game.

The bit's of story i got from FEAR 2 bored me. FEAR had this corporation doing horrible unethical stuff to Alma and you learned more about it as you progressed. FEAR 2 made it seem to far fetched. I know let's give this bad company a school and add all these different projects as well. I felt that the FEAR story finished in FEAR and Monolith made an half-arsed attempt to continue it. I don't see any plot holes in FEAR. Sure it was a bit dumb but it was pretty solid.

F.E.A.R. 2 tells more of what the company did to Alma if you bothered to take any of it in past what was delivered to you via the characters. The school was set up to make Psychic soldiers by grooming the children from an early age, the very school Alma attended when she was a child and was put through many of the same things before being locked away on Still Island. Tha's basically not even touching on the story. If you had a better understanding of it it wouldn't have been boring for you as it delves more closely into the life of Alma.
F.E.A.R. had so many plot holes it had to be explained by more material released in other sources. Maybe my use of plot holes is not right, I mean the story is so badly told that what you get in the game doesn't give you all the details and you end up having to read up the finer missing elements on Wikipedia or through the fan forums. This is different to the sequel and having to search for the clues to the story in game and not on a website because the developers couldn't get it across properly.

Overall from what i've seen FEAR 2 has been a flop. It's reviews are generally poorer than FEAR's and the Metacritic rating is lower. FEAR 2 only sold around 300,000 copies on the 360 in the US that is poor. Monoliths attempt to make it for the 360 backfired on them. They made a great game on the PC and they blew it by making the second for the console. That's like Valve saying we know that Half-Life is a successful PC game but now we are going to take inspiration from Call of Duty and build it for the 360.
The thing i did like is that a poll in Monoliths forum asking how fan's wanted FEAR 3 to be over 70% wanted it to be like FEAR.
I suppose this is one game where we will never agree on.

I'd like to see these figures seeing as how Monolith has never released them. That forum is also overrun with people butthurt over Monoliths decision to lead development on the consoles, so the poll isn't exactly unbiased.
The game must be doing sufficient for them to keep pumping out the DLC. They wouldn't waste their resources if the game didn't have a proven user base willing to buy them.
How exactly did it back fire on them? The reason people are eaten up about F.E.A.R. 2 on the PC is because unlike the first game, it didn't break any new ground technically. The lighting system was reduced to include static shadowing to work alongside the real-time lighting so they could employ more detail in the environments. Sure, they could have gone the route of "screw the consoles" and made the game require a monster rig to run again, but as Crysis shown, more people complain when they can't run the game due to this bullshittery, and they would have sold much less by going PC only. People got more pissed off about it being the same as the console version (even though it still looks loads better than the first) that they refused to be drawn in by the story and instead concentrated on the missing engine features from the first game.
Also, the game has quite higher user ratings on other sites, like Gametrailer where it's a 9.1, there are loads of ways to use these kind of sites to favour your own arguments.

I felt the sequel, patched up, is a more than a worthy single player follow up to the original, and if I reflect that by giving what I feel is a higher mark than the original then so be it. It's personal preference.
The multiplayer side I will admit has suffered from the lack of dedicated server files, but to be honest, the multi is the same generic half arsed crap they usually pump out with a decent SP title, which really doesn't concern me.

I guess your right, we'll just have to agree to disagree.