FEAR 3

I've only played the first one which I thought was very good, but haven't read good things about the expansions/sequel.
This might turn out to be quite good.
 
Curunen said:
I've only played the first one which I thought was very good, but haven't read good things about the expansions/sequel.
This might turn out to be quite good.
Click to expand...

The unofficial expansions, Extraction Point and Perseus Mandate, imo were quite good so if you see them going cheap I'd recommend them. It's a shame that the second 'real' game was no more for me than average to quite good at best, depending on what section I am referring to.
 
When the first one came out the GTX 7800 had just come out and you needed SLI to run everything on max with a decent FPS!
 
I'm going and wait and see basicly. L4D1 worked pretty well on coop when you first start playing it on expert the witch really does send a chill down the back of your neck when you hear here crying. Hopefully FEAR3 will be done quite well as well. It will never be as good as the first one, but hopefully the coop element will add a new dimension to the game.
 
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:
I liked FEAR2. At least it didn't consist of endless office corridors and cubicles, like the first game did. I'm interested in FEAR 3, if only out of curiosity rather than a burning desire for more FEAR games.
 
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)
 
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.
 
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.
 
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:
I share similar feelings with your fifth point, seems to be a 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.
 
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
 
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.
 
Last edited:
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. ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom