Completed F.E.A.R - now feeling a bit empty :(

Soldato
Joined
4 Sep 2005
Posts
11,453
Location
Bristol
nein, and ive been playing this loads today as well :D the bit where the invisible soldiers that jump off the wall appear really scared me :(
 
Associate
Joined
20 Jul 2005
Posts
1,653
Location
Nottingham
sniperpenguin said:
I cant help feeling that this game is crying out for a sequel / expansion pack.

thats its major downfall imo, it was far too short. i feel sorry for anyone who paid top whack for it, they should get the expansion free of charge!
 
Soldato
Joined
3 May 2004
Posts
3,286
I thought it was worth every penny myself.
Havent had a game where ive got so immersed into for such a long time.
F.E.A.R, although short was a real breath of fresh air.
 
Associate
OP
Joined
3 Feb 2006
Posts
30
Agreed, top comp AI, although the plot began to fall apart at the end :(

- wierd floating ghosts?
- No confrontation with Fessler / Alma
- Weapons disappearing

But still a top game. completed three times - enjoyed every minute of it :D Must admit multiplayer was a nit disappointing tho.
 
Soldato
Joined
1 May 2003
Posts
11,071
I had really enjoyed playinf F.E.A.R, and thought it was well worth the 26 squid, even though its relly easy to complete, even on the toughest level.

Best thing to do now is install Farcry and play that on the hardest level, you will feel very satisfied completing this game ;)
 
Associate
Joined
28 Oct 2004
Posts
742
Location
Somewhere, in a field in cheshire... alright!
Ive felt a little dissapointed by F.E.A.R. as I was expecting a lot more considering the hype and 90+ ratings it got.

The action is superb but the game as a whole feels like its lacking something. Maybe its calling that guy Fettel and not Fessler is where they went wrong. ;)

Im glad to say I only paid 16 squid for it so cant complain really, its just about worth it.
 
Associate
Joined
20 Jul 2005
Posts
1,653
Location
Nottingham
well i forgot the plot half way through the game and gave up on it for weeks, then i started playing again and got bored of running through the corridors and back again it wasnt really anything new for me tbh, pretty boring. i kept with it and then it ended very abrubtly :(
the only thing that i did like about it was the fire fights and how they looked, that imho doesnt warrant a £25 price tag though.
 
Suspended
Joined
12 Dec 2005
Posts
1,790
Location
Leeds
play it again but this time with cheats on so you can really take your slow mo time to shoot everyone with the shotty at point blank range, watch the blood fly!
 
Soldato
Joined
9 Jan 2003
Posts
21,000
Location
Cornwall
tbh, most recent games I've played seem to be crying out for 50-100% more levels, Quake 4/Doom 3 being the BIGGEST EVER letdowns in lenth of levels EVER, Fears not too bad, HL2 wasn't too bad but could still have done with more REAL levels!
 
Man of Honour
Joined
25 Oct 2002
Posts
31,706
Location
Hampshire
VeNT said:
Doom 3 being the BIGGEST EVER letdowns in lenth of levels EVER, Fears not too bad, HL2 wasn't too bad but could still have done with more REAL levels!

Can't agree with that really, Doom3 is a pretty lengthy game compared to a lot of FPS - took me around twice as long as FEAR I think (at least +50%).

I think what is happening nowadays is that developers are focussing more on quality over quantity - i.e. they are creating very detailed levels, with things concentrated together. Max Payne 2 is the perfect example in my book of a game which was branded "short" by many, but which I would call "highly polished". It has tremendous attention to detail and packs a lot into each section.

Look back at the old days - FPS would often have quite a few levels (say 30), but many of them would be filled with bland corridors and 'samey' sections, simply mixing up the enemies to try and create their variety. There wouldn't be much 'extra' detail in the environments like diaries to read, phone messages to listen to, video discs and stuff like that (there were exceptions, of course, such as System Shock 2).

Admittedly most FPS are a bit shorter nowdays but each level must take so much longer to create (in terms of adding all the extra details). Some FPS managed to be genuinely huge in scale, such as Unreal - that was an absolute monster of a game - but I don't think we are likely to see anything like that in the near future. Modern WWII FPS like CoD for example tend to be so action packed and concentrated that the actual gametime is under 10 hours - but it is a highly focussed experience, with very little filler. It's not like Doom2 where you were aimlessly wandering around some levels trying to find the exit.

Far Cry is a good example of a game which I thought got the combination of detail and length about right. You get 20 levels, most of which are pretty sizeable, and an engine capable of rendering large chunks of it at once.
 
Permabanned
Joined
5 Dec 2004
Posts
1,958
Location
South West
I thought F.E.A.R was good, I really liked the action bits in the game, infact they are so good that every FPS game should have its combat compared to it. But I actually found Quake IV more engrossing and because of it, i still haven't completed F.E.A.R and since the the second patch stopped my game from working without disconnecting from the internet, I can't complete it
 
Back
Top Bottom