FEAR 3

i know exactly what you say and judging from the lack of replies, FEAR aint a popular game :(

FEAR 2 was crap because the gaming mechanics were screwed up and the new Pointman (Beckett) became slow as hell, plus it wasn't scary/ too many naff special effects.

my worry is, the 3rd game looks too similar and adding Fettle as a co-op player is ridiculous. the first FEAR was a classic liquid smooth shooter but they screwed up the ingredients that made this first game so good.
 
arc@css said:
The first was brilliant, the second average. I don't think the third will be any worse than the second, however, I don't see it being that much better than the previous title either.

Is it being developed by the same people that put together Fear2?
Click to expand...

no this is a different bunch, Monolith didn't want to make the 3rd game.

this is the one urban shooter that could've been the best, unfortunately they sexed it up and forgot what makes a good shooter in the first place, they lost loads of fans... my guess is the 3rd game will be a disaster too, because the clips all look too similar to the 2nd game.

DOOM 3 worked ( as a horror shooter) but FEAR didn't, why this is so complex, it's not as straightforward as we think.

i often wonder why some shooters simply fail :confused:
 
Last edited:
arc@css said:
It's usually going to be difficult when making the next game in a series since it will lack freshness, that 'first strike' appeal. Not the case every time but damn nearly always, at least for me anyway.

I though that the second game was made by a different developer compared to the first, or maybe I'm thinking of another title... most likely.
Click to expand...

yup, i'll still get the game; i have to because i'm a fan of the original, plus there isn't a lot else coming out this year
 
JoeFX69 said:
Just been running through the first FEAR with mature eyes....

AI is fantastic, but for me, thats about it. The story is daftly following cliches only to not do those cliches justice in the end game, level design is dire at times using terrible excuses to funnel you to new areas or block your path which destroy any sense of immersion that you feel the game is trying to achieve.... Big ideas, weakly executed. It tries to assume the players emotional involvement far too much, computer gaming equivalent of Eric Idles "Ay? AY?" character...

I feel Monolith fluked the first FEAR. Many critics at the time took sequences as intentional, and yet to me, its too random and not utilised enough.

The IP as a whole was broken and convoluted and misdirected from the off (shameless Japanese horror plagerisms +1), so im hardly surprised the second game was guff and the third is being handed over to a different party.

FEAR 2 was a hard lesson to learn clearly.

Blood 3 now?
Click to expand...

yes FEAR was excellent for fighting only, great AI, great MELEE, DUEL WIELDING PISTOLS etc, but it was too linear and the maps were too bland, too many offices/ warehouses/ hospitals and finally sewers

the horror was as you say, too japanese and Japanese horror is pretty crap anyway, especially young girls looking like Alma ( the grudge)
 
arc@css said:
It could become overkill. I remember how Paxton Fettel and Alma were able to set the mood and add to the atmosphere in the first game, but in the second that lost its effect to some degree. It was overused, so less effective. More bark than bite. ;)
Click to expand...

yea the Alma/ fettel thing went too far, the story became boring and then when she got pregnant at the end, totally ridiculous; how the hell can an evil spirit get pregnant, now this goes beyond stupidity doesn't it..... the problem is; in the 3rd game they're carrying on with this bull**** and she's about to give birth :D:D

but basically in FEAR 2, the new pointman was slower/ poorer melee than in the first game and this killed the game, he could no longer run and kick as well as he once could, many of us complained about this on the FEAR forum
 
i'll definitely get this game, because at least the AI is very good and it's a great shooter (unlike Crysis 2 )

ok it'll be a bit camp and naff in places, but FEAR 2 was visually very good..... FEAR is a proper shooter, it's rough, loud and very gory :D:D
 
Last edited:
SmokeKingGun said:
Agreed fear 2 had better variation on landscapes (not just same grey office buildings) but that was it.

The original Fear had great graphics effects for it's time and yes it was very linear but it ran great and most important combat felt very solid. The hit registry seemed pretty good and it moved at a nice pace. The only thing what was bit annoying was the slide/jump kick insta melee kills but they were fun pulling off.

Games just seem to throw more rank ups perks at you and forget about how the fighting feels.

Black ops, fear 2, wolfestein all the originals I loved, all the sequels meh to terrible (wolfestein I'm looking at you)
Click to expand...

yes FEAR was a fast paced shooter, pointman was much faster on his feet than any other guy i've ever played, he was also excellent at Melee.... FEAR simply makes you feel invincible, it boosts your ego.... the maps in FEAR 2 were very good, but you moved much slower, not nearly as slick!

the 2nd game was a disaster for serious FEAR fans, i think this is why Monolith gave the 3rd game to someone else, we gave them too much grief on their forum.
 
Ravenger said:
FEAR 2 is another classic example of a PC shooter casualised for consoles - low FOV, 16:9 only, user interfaces obviously designed for gamepads, no quicksave.

There's a lot of similarities in that respect between it and Crysis 2.

I still enjoyed playing it though.
Click to expand...

yes, this is a classic case of a pc game being screwed up due to console, but it was also ruined by the developers trying new tricks/ gimmicks, a good pc shooter is dead easy to get right, but so few can get it right....

all FEAR 2 needed was better and more detailed/ varied maps/ improved textures, the gaming mechanics not altered...NEVER and simply the guns upgraded, now this to me is quite easy to get right... but no!

A GOOD FPS BASICALLY NEEDS:-

1..... fast framerates
2...... good duck for cover system (vegas2)
3.......great weapons, one headshot only/ 2 body shots to kill.... not like Fallout 3...guns here are way too poor, they're bloody ridiculous
4....... great melee; he must be able to use his fists
5.......he must be able to sprint continuously and not just for only 20ft.
6.......great AI
7......GRAPHICS, dont need to be as good as Crysis, but need to be far better than Vegas/ Graw
8......Openworld ?..... no, not like Far Cry 2, more like Crysis 1
9.... your health?.....you die from one headshot, as per your enemy, this makes the game hard to play, yes; but it teaches you the value of cover/ tactics..... but included in this game is a much ``easier`` mode...if you're killed there is an instant respawn 20 seconds earlier in gameplay AND NO BORING DELAY!


i havent got Crysis 2 and i'm glad i havent, i might only get it if they release loads of patches and when it's cheap on STEAM :p:D...i'm only after crysis warhead. ...crysis 2 seems a bit like Painkiller, too many AI to kill all at once and a mad linear rush from map to map, i like to plan my attacks, this gives you great replay value

this year i'm after RAGE, FEAR 3 AND WARHEAD and that's enough gameplay for me....right now i'm playing Borderlands
 
Last edited:
arc@css said:
I share similar feelings with your fifth point, seems to be growing number of games where you are only able to run fast for a very short distance. It needs to be a little longer at least imo.
Click to expand...

yea' VEGAS 2 :mad:, he sprints and stops exactly at the same time as a terrorist is shooting him in the back, it looks so silly.

in my opinion a good FPS must be as quick/ nimble as you, he must be able to run continuously, jump, leap etc, he cant even jump in GRAW/ VEGAS 2 :eek:

in addition, the guns must be able to kill as efficiently as they do in real life.... or be only 100% out ( FEAR).......... but definitely not totally useless like in FALLOUT 3, i do not buy the excuse ``it's an RPG`` NO, it's simply not good enough and absolutely ruins the game.

i played F3 the other day, and i shot a Talon Merc in the head 5 times with the .44 magnum and he didn't even move, just looked at me.... and this is all the time, it is totally annoying.

i still play F3.... YEA' i only play with cheats and with the laser gattling.... the game isn't a good enough shooter to play normally, it's way too anoying
 
arc@css said:
I bought the GRAW pack during a Steam sale and I can't get in to one of them. I find tactical shooters good one moment then a bit of a let down the next. A great feeling of immersion followed by some clunky game mechanics or key mapping problem. Bit of a shame since I recall quite enjoying playing one of them when I had an Xbox 360.

I sympathise to a certain extent with your feelings about games where the enemy is a bullet sponge. I actually do happen to like FO3 rather a lot though when I was younger I used to play games on all difficulties, it didn't bother me then in if it took most of a whole magazine to take down a regular soldier or standard enemy in the game. Nowadays I tend to play on what I consider realistic or balanced, like Farcry, great game, played it through on realistic and completed not too long ago.
Click to expand...

i like F3 due to the maps/ music on the radio and the 50s theme, but hate it due to the guns...:cool:

GRAW is very hard to play, because it's far more unforgiving than VEGAS 2, you die twice as fast in GRAW :eek: and the game reloads at the last checkpoint which is miles back, now this annoys me big time.

in GRAW you have to fire first at close range or you die... no ifs or buts; you simply die, you never get wounded first.

dieing quick is ok; but not this quick...FLIPPING HECK :eek:, and also the reload must be instant and about 10 seconds earlier.

both these games have the most realistic guns but have heavy controls and a bit too old nowadays, i play VEGAS 2 terrorist hunt or Borderlands

the worst thing anout GRAW is when a sniper kills you, you might have to die a further 6 times until you finally spot him. ;)
 
my guess is it'll be like FEAR 2, because all the videos definitely look similar, but will it be faster paced than FEAR 2 like the first game was ?

i cant tell, because what ruined FEAR 2 was that it was quite sluggish, not nearly as good for Melee' and not as focused for pure combat as the first game.

this vid looks great, but in FEAR 2 the scares seemed to be a distraction, the scares dont work like they do in DOOM 3... even so, FEAR 2 is loaded with effects, it's a far more visual and explosive game than something like Fallout 3 / Borderlands

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tUdEcUwNJLg&feature=player_detailpage
 
Last edited:
we're all looking forward to FEAR 3 on my other forum, it looks way better than the 2nd game, some of the scares look pretty good, plus MP looks good too, everyone is happy about the return of Point Man, we'll just have to wait and see

the game is supposed to be as gory as hell

www. fearfans.com
 
Last edited:
some of us have played it already ( on our FEAR forum) and it's pretty good, it's definitely better than the 2nd game and it's way superior to BRINK or DUKE (according to them)

but i cant get it here in the U.K till friday, which is totally bloody frustrating :cool:
 
FEAR 3 gets better as you level up, it takes about 3 playthroughs, as a shooter only it's pretty damned good, but as for the story/ graphics etc it is quite poor..

but as FETTLE it's fantastic, the things he can possess are amazing, he can use loads of different weapons, playing as him is maybe the best fun i've ever had in a shooter, he can throw knives which is cool, plus use crow bars etc or be Just like Point Man, he can also become a zombie :D.

the FEAR gaming mechanics/ melee are awesome, but it has faults, you can only carry two weapons, which is really bad, plus you loose these between levels, so you start off each level unarmed, to me these two things kill the game, it's still the perfect shooter, but this is like a kick in the balls.

Summary:- crap and tiresome story/ old graphics etc, but as a fun shooter it's close to the best game i've ever payed, it's smooth, lightning fast, guns are very powerful and finally, it's very gory and hard hitting...you can seriously mutilate these ********, even after they've been dead for 10 mins

it's a miles better shooter than Crysis 2, but this is as a shooter only :cool:
so dont buy this game for anything else

why is it poor with regards to everything else, it's been made on the cheap and by a poor team of developers.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom