FEAR 3 If you've not followed developments in the FEAR franchise of late then you might be left somewhat puzzled by FEAR 3's initial goings-on – the game plunging the player into a set-up which is never particularly embellished or explained. Waking in a prison, series protagonist 'Point Man' must not only put up with his rather mundane …
I knew this game was going to suck, FEAR was a masterpiece, the AI was cunning and the supernatural was used sparingly and to good effect, Alma was both an omnipresent terror and someone that on some level you developed a certain degree of empathy for (much like Sadako if you'd seen Ring 0 and gained more of her and her mothers back story.) The enemy in in FEAR was much more the people that had done what they did to Alma you reserved your hatred for them, dealing with Alma was a tragic necessity that you didn't relish in.
The second game, though developing the story some more also broke with the first games sense of pace and narrative, it became a bit more pop action with only a few memorable moments the AI had become a bit of a joke and the game became more of a "shoot at these waves of enemies for no particularly good reason whilst hiding behind cover." Learning more about Alma was really the only reason I finished the game.
When I got whiff of the third game and its co-op theme I knew the series was good and buried, not that I had much hope for a resurrection anyway. As it is I'll wait till it costs a fiver on steam as I want to see how they ruin the promising story set up in the original.
or do all these new games look crap, play crap and generally are crap?
I dont want to get in to the whole PC vs console thing but everything thats come out recently looks the same, it all looks like a console game with minimal depth. I dunno if this one is a console port or not and thats not my point, it just kind of looks like it is. infact if you take Doom3 and replace a few skins you more or less have every FPS game produced since. yeah i know D3 was a PC title but i think it makes the point where console games currently are.
FEAR was a great game that looked great, Doom3 was too, Crysis as well, Half Life 2 but since these greats i dont think ive played a game that really moved forward, infact most of them look like they have gone backwards
Perhaps it is console related, i dunno, but i do know that I dust off BF2142, Crysis1 and half life a lot more than anything newer.
I feel a little disappointed, as I really liked the first two games, the eeriness of them got my heart pumping. If I wanted to play a shoot shoot shoot game, I'd play Call of Duty (which I also liked).
But I'll give it a try sometime. Still have to try Dead space 2 yet, and Mass Effect 3 is on the way, can't wait.
Oh well, roll on Friday.
I have always hated those parts in games where they throw an almost impossible challenge at you and the only way to get past it is to save the game, die 60 times whilst figuring out the exact steps to get through it, and then finally progress to the next level/room/plane of existence.
The early games did it as a demarcation point with their "Boss" levels but we have moved on a little since the awesome (at the time) Wolfenstein 3D.
The only games I have enjoyed in the last 2 years were Fallout3 & NV, and GTA4.
I am bored of online Deathmatches and I find the Muds (WoW, etc) difficult as I am only an occasional game player and so cannot get involved in a protracted campaign with others.
One of the better games of previous years was Prey.
It had challenges that could be solved with some thought, had action, had a storyline that was mildly creative, and had that addictive "I'll just play one more level" feel.
The first F.E.A.R. was bloody scary but the gameplay wasn't all that.
It was good enough for me to buy the 1st expansion pack but nothing since.
Come on games designers & developers. Stop acting like Hollywood producers with their endless rehashes of the same old shite and try something a little off the wall. Yes, you may make a PoP (Pile of Poop) but you may also create a GTA3 or a Duke Nukem 3D.
A PC game needs to be original, entertaining, and involving.
If you can't provide these then you need to look at working in another industry.
Unfortunately due to the money and companies involved the main stream games industry is exactly like the holywood industry, games developed by committee and marketing teams based on "market research", the last "big thing", or a "recognised brand." Unfortunately after awhile all you have is a never ending stream of so so action flicks and a few rom coms and sit coms with the occasional piece of goreography.
Remember when horror films were fun? Or scary? There was a lot to be said for the tongue in cheek teen slasher era of films (from Halloween to I know what you did last summer and across to Freddie) Not anymore, they're either shot with a handycam or are full of people being vivisected. Most films have gone the same way being railroaded into insignificance. You can almost have a check sheet next to you and tick off the required events "martial arts style fight where they stand in a circle for no reason", "car chase with predictable crashes and whitty banter", "scene in a ware house", etc, etc, etc.
Then all the "re-imagining" of titles.
le sigh.
Reviewed on the XBOX 360? Why?
Looking at things objectively the PC is leagues ahead when it comes to playing FPS games. The mouse and keyboard combo hasn't been bettered to date and the graphics are always going to be so much better.
If you are going to review games on here why not view them in their best light?
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
