F.E.A.R. 2: Project Origin Triple-Format Face-Off

By Richard Leadbetter Published 16 February, 2009

Things that go bump-mapping in the night.

Page 1 of 3

With the blood barely dry on the walls surrounding last week's F.E.A.R. 2: Project Origin review, it's time to return to Monolith's F.E.A.R. 2 with more critical comment, combined with a technical analysis on all available versions of the game.

But first, let's remind ourselves briefly of Kieron Gillen's conclusions about the game itself, partly to refresh memories, and partly to dodge the inevitable lower-page battle between that stupid sticky-out advert and the full-width video just over the horizon:

"It's a checklist of genre-tropes, well performed. If you're just looking for more well-polished shooting, this will while away the hours pleasantly enough. If you've never played a first-person shooter before, you'll probably be in love - this is as archetypal a corridor-shooter as has ever been made, and there's a reason why it works. But for anyone who's been running down corridors with shotguns for most of their adult life, this is so uninspired that you worry for the spark of Monolith's soul. You guys made No One Lives Forever, remember? You're smart. You're better than this." FEAR 2 isn't terrible. That's the most terrible thing of all. Is mere competency enough to garner gamers' love? I don't know. But it's the one thing I really do fear.

Here, it's the usual form: lossless digital captures give you the full picture on what's going on, taking the form of video presentations and full 720p resolution shots in our beautiful comparison gallery, available for your viewing pleasure right through the magic blue words. Switch between the same scene from each version of the game at the press of a button. Try it, it's fun.

But to get the ball rolling, here's our usual h.264-powered comparison video, played back via the digital wonder of the excellent Eurogamer Flash player. Be sure to have the 'high quality' option enabled. Again, as is usually the case, one pixel in the player equates to one pixel on your HDTV, with the video slowed down to ensure that as much detail as possible is retained.

360 vs. PS3.

A montage of clips from F.E.A.R. 2 on console, played back at 50 percent speed. Check Eurogamer TV for the equivalent Xbox 360 vs PC face-off video, and the PS3's shot at the title.

In common with most multi-platform titles these days, in terms of the actual content there's little to tell these games apart, whether you're gaming on PC or console. You're getting the same art, the same levels, and the bare bones of the gameplay are essentially identical on each format. The days where we'd be picking out the missing environments and dodgy textures on PS3 are thankfully a thing of the dim and distant past (disregarding Quantum of Solace for a moment). The advent of DualShock 3 means that even the active feedback of rumble is essentially consistent across the consoles.

So what you're left with are the usual suspects. The Xbox 360 game looks nicer, owing to its full-on 4x multisampling anti-aliasing - the best that the console is able to produce - up against the more usual lack of edge-smoothing on PS3 cross-platform titles. A more subtle difference is the inclusion of ambient occlusion on Xbox 360, seemingly absent on PS3. Consult all-powerful Internet oracle Wikipedia if you want, but the bottom line is that AO helps deliver more depth and realism to any given scene, although its impact on the look of F.E.A.R. 2 is fairly limited when comparing one version to the other.

On a more incidental note, the presence of what seems to be macro-blocking indicates that PS3 is using movie-playback for some of its cut-scenes - for example, the nuclear blast at the beginning of the game. They're either being generated by the engine on PC and 360, or else the movies are being encoded to a much higher standard on those platforms, which seems unlikely.

Page 1 of 3

Comments (151) Latest comment 3 years ago

Comments threads automatically close after 30 days, but please feel free to continue chatting on the forum!

  • Rodchenko #1 3 years ago

    Oh no...

  • stepneg #2 3 years ago

    Lol...

  • teabagger #3 3 years ago

    And.... they're off!

  • ChadSexington #4 3 years ago

    Isn't it totally pointless to do triple-format face-offs? The PC is always going to win and I'm sure there are a lot of people reading who couldn't care less about how in runs compared with the consoles. Also, F.E.A.R. 2 is the same insipid, uninspired game on the PC as it is on the consoles, so saying it's improved is BS.

    Rich has been harping on about how if you really want full-HD gaming you should get a PC and they're a lot more affordable now, but he's really out of touch. If you've spent the best part of £1,000 on your HDTV and console of choice, shelling out another £500 (and let's be honest, for anything worthwhile, it's going to cost at least that much) for a PC and then dealing with all the associated headaches is just too much for most people.

  • Monkey_Puncher #5 3 years ago

    The AI isn't as advanced as Killzone? The AI in Killzone is pish....

  • Rodchenko #6 3 years ago

    I want a face off on 'Destroy all Humans', because it's really important to me on which platform a shit game looks shittier.

  • Ninja_Tino #7 3 years ago

    I only rented the game for the 360 but I'm having a blast (A PUN) with it. Is Killzone's AI really better though? From the demo and the odd video, the enemies only seem to duck and cover. In FEAR they're running and gunning non-stop. Not saying you're wrong, I ain't played Killzone yet, but just curious.

  • GamesConnoisseur #8 3 years ago

    But.... but ....people reallly want to know how SFIV fares on each system rather than FEAR2?!!

    Especially with upcoming release and IGN head to head did say GTAIV did bit better on PS3 but we know EG was only one who pointed out that PS3 actually had a lower resolution (but still looking fine!).

    We all know pad is better on PS3 and stick on X360, so aside from that ..give us the anal pixels and frames count for SFIV SOON plleeeeaaasse!!

  • metalangel #9 3 years ago

    Yeah, what is the point of these articles apart from providing nourishment for fanboys?

  • UncleLou #10 3 years ago

    I'm sure there are a lot of people reading who couldn't care less about how in runs compared with the consoles.

    Maybe they should, like, not read it, then?

    Astonishing how anything positive said about PCs always immediately leads to defensive reactions like this.

  • jaluuk #11 3 years ago

    The point of these articles, in case anyone was in any doubt, is so Eurogamer can continue to get top of the line PCs and graphics cards sent to them by grateful kit manufacturers.

    Allegedly.

  • Katsumoto #12 3 years ago

    Based on the demo of the ps3 and pc version I could barely tell the difference (apart from the fact I could actually hit things on the pc version). But Richard does go on to say it's only really noticeable in the larger outdoor areas, which seemingly the demo didn't showcase, so who knows. I suppose I was also sitting further from the screen when trying the ps3 version! I do get the impression these visual/performance differences are always a lot more "niggling" than "catastrophic", though.

  • TheComedian #13 3 years ago

    I think that's fair tbh.

  • MasterNameless #14 3 years ago

    "But.... but ....people reallly want to know how SFIV fares on each system rather than FEAR2?!!"

    Bloody good point there.

  • Bagpuss #15 3 years ago

    "The Xbox 360 game looks nicer, owing to its full-on 4x multisampling anti-aliasing - the best that the console is able to produce - up against the more usual lack of edge-smoothing on PS3 cross-platform titles."

    FFS....are Sony consoles forever fated to suffer from a lack of Anti-Aliasing and jaggy gfx or something....

    The PS2 was shit for the exact same problem.....why dont Sony learn from their mistakes.

  • Darren #16 3 years ago

    I really don't see much point in this article considering that Eurogamer apparently don't like the game that much. Why take the time to go into so much depth about a game that you deem mediocre? Odd.

    Whatever, I agree that the game is better on the PC and that's the version I decided on having played the three demos. Sharper, higher resolution visuals plus a solid 60 fps framerate, 8Q AA and much more responsive controls... the console demos feel hopelessly sluggish and clunky in comparison IMO.

    That said, the PC version has almost certainly suffered at the hands of the consoles. Unlike the first F.E.A.R. for example when patched to v1.08, there is no support for full-screen on 16:10 monitors so we end up with top and bottom borders, there's no support for the third and fourth mouse buttons and, most annoying of all, the lean feature has been removed completely. Yet enemies are clearly seen in-game using objects for cover and leaning out of it to take shots at you!!! Also the HUD is a bit too intrusive, having been designed for the consoles not PC.

    Hopefully all those issues will be fixed via a patch but even with them, I'm really enjoying this game. The story is a bit crap but it retains the same moodiness/creepiness, over-the-top gore and excellent combat and A.I. of the superb original while adding more variety to the environments. Love it.

  • ChadSexington #17 3 years ago

    @ Uncle Lou: Hey nobhead, if you care to read my whole comment, you'll see that I said including the PC in these things is pointless because it's always going to win. As a console and PC gamer, I feel no need to be 'defensive', but maybe a PC-only 'tard like you has to?

  • StooMonster #18 3 years ago

    Played demo on 360, and it was a bit "meh". Maybe I'll download the PC demo from Steam, and run it at 2560x1600. :)

  • Darren #19 3 years ago

    P.S. I can't understand why this game looks and runs so inferior on the PS3 compared with the 360. The PS3 can do anti-aliasing and smooth framerates as seen in the Killzone 2 demo so there is really no excuse for such lazy "ports" IMO.

  • MattyD #20 3 years ago

    I have the exact same rig as they tested this for the PC (Q6600, 8800GT, 4Gb RAM) which is a middling spec at best these days, and it absolutely destroys this game. I have everything turned up to max, 4x AA, 4x anisotropic flitering and a bunch of other acronyms I don't really understand, and I still get constant >/= 60 FPS.

    I've also played the 360 demo and the difference in visuals isn't *that* noticeable to be honest, framerate aside, but the controls feel all floaty and weird on the 360. Not had that problem on the PC.

  • RedPanda #21 3 years ago

    Post deleted at 14:31:59 28-01-2012

  • Bagpuss #22 3 years ago

    "and in many games, a relatively inexpensive investment can give you a gameplay experience massively improved over console."

    This is so true....today you could build a PC for less than £400, that has 3-4 times the power of a 360 or PS3.

    Of course, that dosent mean shit if developers are writing the game code on the least powerful platform.

  • Ryuken #23 3 years ago

    "dealing with all the associated headaches is just too much for most people. "

    Agreed, dealing with a game that's clearly designed for a console first is a serious headache I'd say. While performance may be great on PC everything else about FEAR 2 is really substandard fare here, not only with the lack of technical options or the dumb HUD.

  • Wastelander #24 3 years ago

    Is there any way to enable the FPS count in game without using FRAPS?

  • Darren #25 3 years ago

    @StooMonster - If you thought the demo was "meh" then I don't think running it at 2560x1600 will change your mind about it, somehow. I could be wrong though... ;)

    @MattyD - PC owners generally sit closer to the screen than console owners, particularly as this game only supports the keyboard and mouse on the PC meaning you pretty much have to sit at a desk to play it. At that distance, you do tend to notice more detail in the visuals even at the same resolution but more so if you play at higher resolutions. I play PC games on a 22" widescreen monitor at 1680x1050 so I can see a big improvement over the comparatively softer, blurrier visuals on my 32" Sony HDTV.

    Granted the 360 version is still very good and a good choice if you don't have a capable PC but as the saying goes: why have cotton when you can have silk? ;)

  • Weezer #26 3 years ago

    Kind of off-topic, but I have to agree with the AI comments for Killlzone2. When a bloke in a Darth Vader helmet and red sunglasses behind a machine gun (ie, massively compromised vision) can tell that I'm specifically targeting him from 200m away and behind cover, that's not A.I. that's just fucking cheating. Similarly irksome when they can see one pixel of me and score a direct hit.

    It might give the impression of A.I. but I haven't seen an awful lot of smart or unexpected moves so far. Still loads of fun, mind.

  • RedPanda #27 3 years ago

    Post deleted at 14:31:59 28-01-2012

  • Darren #28 3 years ago

    LOL @ farticusmaximus reference to the "grill"!

  • VandelayIndustries #29 3 years ago

    Damnit Leadbetter soundtrack comparisons as well please! From the two console demos it did look slightly better on 360 (the version I went for) but the DD 5.1 soundtrack sounded like a wet fart compared to the PS3's crisp take on it. Sound design is a big part of the experience in gaming (and spook house games in particular). It would also be nice to see what formats are included on the Blu ray, (Do PC games use different sound formats too?)

  • Dizzy #30 3 years ago

    I wonder how you guys can see that the 360 version has ambient occlusion and the PS3 version has not. I understand how you can see drops in framerates.. but AO? Was that in a spec sheet from the developer?

    "Isn't it totally pointless to do triple-format face-offs? The PC is always going to win and I'm sure there are a lot of people reading who couldn't care less about how in runs compared with the consoles"

    Yes a kick ass PC ofc... I guess for PC users who are not upgrading every year it might be useful to find out how smooth it runs on PC platform. Not all PC ports have been great (*cough*GTA*cough*).
    Edited by 1 at 16/02/09 @ 15:32

  • MattyD #31 3 years ago

    @ RedPanda

    I actually have my PC wired up to my living room HDTV (A 32" Sammy LCD) and, as someone else mentioned in the thread, it only cost me a shade over £400 to build and that includes shipping fees for all the parts I bought online. You can even use a wired 360 pad on most games, if you *really* wanted to, but I prefer to use a wireless keyboard and mouse :)

  • Wastelander #32 3 years ago

    "Gaming on the sofa in the comfy lounge > gaming at a computer desk, regardless of how slightly better the graphics are."

    EPIC GROAN

  • Widge #33 3 years ago

    Now I've got a better monitor and a £300 chair, gaming at the PC is a bit more appealing. Just need a new graphics card!

  • Widge #34 3 years ago

    I'd like to see Rich's take on the performance improvements that happened on Bioshock PS3 too. Mainly from a curiousity point of view.

  • kangarootoo #35 3 years ago

    Glad to see the controls got a mention. The key differentiator for me in this case is that stick controls are simply not very good. And that trumps all else in my book, as not being able to control a shooter properly sort of breaks it in quite a fundamental way.


    "there is simply nothing that can touch the precision and accuracy of the mouse/keyboard combo once things are set up to your liking"

    I don't quite agree with the above statement fully. A decent stick system can make a console FPS perfectly controllable and enjoyable. There might be some question over which gives the very greatest degree of control, but frankly who cares. FEAR 2 should not be held up as an example of why mouse control is better than sticks, simply because the stick control in FEAR 2 is an example oif bad implementation.

    Halo and CoD4 got it right, FEAR 2 did not. For me that makes the PC the platform of choice (not my choice, I don't play PC games, so in my case I simply won't be playing FEAR 2) over any of the minor graphical differences noted.

  • MattyD #36 3 years ago

    RE: Ambient occlusion:

    You can spot the presence / lack of ambient occlusion by comparing stills where an object or model stands in the mid-ground between the player and the light source. Check out this GIF for an example: http://ww w.tweakguides.com/images/ClearS...

  • merkdot #37 3 years ago

    http://i41.tinypic .com/2iupax5.jpg

  • Moonprince #38 3 years ago

    Rich ya sad little cnt I can't see any differences in the vids wtf!!!11!

  • UncleLou #39 3 years ago

    @ Uncle Lou: Hey nobhead, if you care to read my whole comment, you'll see that I said including the PC in these things is pointless because it's always going to win. As a console and PC gamer, I feel no need to be 'defensive', but maybe a PC-only 'tard like you has to?

    Yeah, the PC always wins. Like in GTA IV, or Saint's Row 2, or the Call of Duty 5 comparison.

    God, where do all these idiots come from?

  • Widge #40 3 years ago

    PC may win, but stuff like Devil May Cry, Burnout, GTA... just feels more at home on a console. having just hit L4D up on Steam however, thats just dandy on the PC!

  • beckyh #41 3 years ago

    Considering they gave the game an undeserving 5/10 I don't know why they are bothering with this.

  • Gaol #42 3 years ago

    If only the original review was as meticulously researched as this fanboy baiting dribble.

  • andijames #43 3 years ago

    Honestly why does it have to turn into a war of consoles everytime something like this goes up. Whatever platform you own and prefer you buy it on. Simple. If you're in the lucky position of having 2 or more of them then buy it on the one you think's best.

  • istandfreed #44 3 years ago

    Isn't this comparison stuff getting old now? Buy it for whichever console you prefer we're past the days of dodgy conversions.

  • Kenshin001 #45 3 years ago

    "For owners of Sony's box, it's pretty much a write-off, not just because of the very poor performance issues, but because it arrives in the same time period as Killzone 2 - a game I've spent a lot of time with recently and is perhaps the most magnificent technical achievement I've seen on the current generation of consoles. In every sense that matters, Guerrilla Games' effort serves to make F.E.A.R. 2 an almost completely redundant release for PS3 players."

    Not so interested in FEAR 2 after the demo but after reading this I'd like to see an article about what was so special about KZ2.

  • Dave52 #46 3 years ago

    Pants game in not very well ported shocker. Really - who cares. Killzone2 just a few days away...

    And before I get flamed, would you Xbox Fanboys care about an article like this just days before the new Halo...? Nah, because FEAR2 wouldn't challenge for your DVD ROM Space...

  • ThePissartist #47 3 years ago

    Hang on, it may look better on the PC, but it's a game that's been developed firstly for that platform.

    Killzone 2 is widely considered the best looking game and that runs on the PS3 at a higher framerate and looks a shit load better than this tosh. Gears of War 2 (and 1 for that matter) looks better than this too.

    PC Renaissance, my arse.

    Buy a new PC and FEAR 2 if you want last generation gameplay/graphics at a REALLY high resolution and framerate.

  • Widge #48 3 years ago

    yeah that about sums it up, FEAR 2 ... the game of yesterday

  • UncleLou #49 3 years ago

    Killzone 2 is widely considered the best looking game and that runs on the PS3 at a higher framerate and looks a shit load better than this tosh. Gears of War 2 (and 1 for that matter) looks better than this too.

    PC Renaissance, my arse.

    Buy a new PC and FEAR 2 if you want last generation gameplay/graphics at a REALLY high resolution and framerate.

    Considering KZ2 is said to be a rather solid, but pretty old-fashioned FPS, that's a strange thing to say.

    What's the "this generation" gameplay KZ2 offers?

  • Darren #50 3 years ago

    @ThePissartist - Killzone 2 might be the best looking *console* shooter but nothing comes remotely close to Crysis or Crysis Warhead on the PC on maximum settings. I'm not just talking about the quality of the graphics here either but the scale, the sense of freedom, the physics, the A.I. and the environmental interaction... they make all console FPSs look hopelessly dated IMO and Crysis is almost 18 months old now.

  • Collymilad #51 3 years ago

    Year of the PS3!!!!!

    I thought that after nearly 2 and a half years devs would have worked out the PS3.

    Guess it IS just shit to programme for unless you have an army of Sony engineers at hand.
    Edited by 1 at 16/02/09 @ 16:53

  • BillyBrush #52 3 years ago

    sheep in human form...follow your sheperd, Keiron, follow him home, in the pen, no no, no trying things yourself, you just beleive the slapdash review, and definately, definately, don't read Edge...or form your own opinion, that can lead to you straying from the flock, then the wolfTM will get you

    @Tech man Richard

    whilst the tech in KZ may be better, and the game on PS may be better, how can a hoo rah style Halo/COD (basically War) game make dark comic book style stuff redundant...surely it doesn't literally cover ultraviolence, slo mo, and psychic powers (or does it?)...does it also feature a gravity gun as i was wondering if HL2 is also ticked off on the checklist of things KZ2 does.






  • b00n #53 3 years ago

    Good articles. If you have all platforms, it helps deciding what to get it for. Simple as that.

  • chicknstu #54 3 years ago

    I looked up moribund in my dictionary, and it means "Dying, or about to die"

    I ask you, is the hospirtal level about to die?

  • DrDamn #55 3 years ago

    Moribund of a thing is different and means in terminal decline; lacking vitality or vigor. Get a new dictionary ;)

  • Chufty #56 3 years ago

    For fucks sake.

    5/10.

  • Slabbathepave #57 3 years ago

    I like FEAR 2. As much as i ever did the original. Its just as solid and entertaining and i do enjoy a linear blast'em up from time to time. Its simple and classic polished to a sheen.

  • TRUTH #58 3 years ago

    I can't see what was so special about KZ2...Nice graphics , but very static and hardly destructible - also very liner. GoW 2 seems to be throwing a lot more around, with more particle effects and better textures & explosions. Also the AI seems fine; but F.E.A.Rs AI still works better and less pre-fixed (Play KZ2 & just stay back, you'll notice the AI is fairly routed).

    I think PS3 have finally seen after 4yrs of development that a game can run fine on a PS3 (Uncharted was another decent but over-rated game!). But if already experienced GoW 2, the Ai in Halo & F.E.A.R, the graphics on Far Cry 2 (360/PC) or COD 4 - KZ2 doesn't impress as much.

  • Calgon #59 3 years ago

    "For owners of Sony's box, it's pretty much a write-off, not just because of the very poor performance issues, but because it arrives in the same time period as Killzone 2 - a game I've spent a lot of time with recently and is perhaps the most magnificent technical achievement I've seen on the current generation of consoles. In every sense that matters, Guerrilla Games' effort serves to make F.E.A.R. 2 an almost completely redundant release for PS3 players."

    Pretty much confirms my suspicsions of that reviewers mindset... absolute bollocks(not bashing killzone2 and Im not a Fear fanboy), Keiron will have zero credibility for me from now on.

    Ive heard from people with both games and not one of them had this notion of there being a big difference between the 2(when a reviewer is coming off way more biased than PS3 fans something is very wrong)... seems bitter that the PS3 version wasnt as good to me(probably the version they reviewed).

    IMO opinion they both deserve solid 8s, neither of them are risky or innovative affairs, or ahead of the competition in any respects they are just well polished, well executed traditional shooters. Infact Id give the fun factor, atmosphere and story to Fear 2 over Killzone2, I too am interested in seeing how the hell Fear2 got a 5 and Killzone2 got a 9 theres nothing that seperates KZ2 by 4 marks nothing not even the claims of better AI which barely anybody agrees with whos played both full games.

    Sort this crap out, regardless of exclusivity or platform, measure the games by the same stick and leave your special fanboy one to the side or the Fear2 reaction will be even more common around EG(even PS3 fans are disagreeing with you).

  • Postumo #60 3 years ago

    Now I understand Kaz Hirai's crazy 10 years plan.

    If devs need 5 years to develop a decent game la KZ2, they'll need at least 10-15 years to get a decent catalogue

  • Law07 #61 3 years ago

    I don't really mind it going 5 or 10 frames below as long as it isnt like it for ages. GTA had it and I was fine with it.

    You're all blowing it out of porportion. We can see by many games such as WipEout, COD4/5 amongst others that it can do 60fps. They're lazy developers.

  • Darren #62 3 years ago

    @Calgon - I think Keiron's entitled to his opinion as, unlike us, he has played both games.

    As for the redundant comment, well two first person shooters get released in close proximity; one gets 5/10 and the other gets 8/10, and generally the professional reviews rate Killzone 2 higher so which game do you think most people are going to put their hard-earned pennies toward on the PS3? Clue: it's unlikely to be F.E.A.R. 2. ;)

    It would be the same story if this game had been released on the 360 two weeks before Halo 3 or Gears of War 2. Most people would simply wait for the better game rather than buy two similar games in the space of a fortnight, especially as not everyone can afford both.
    Edited by 1 at 17/02/09 @ 09:43

  • Rodchenko #63 3 years ago

    But if already experienced GoW 2, the Ai in Halo & F.E.A.R, the graphics on Far Cry 2 (360/PC) or COD 4 - KZ2 doesn't impress as much.

    Yes, let's single out one game developed by one single studio and pitch it against every blockbuster title under the sun developed by the biggest assembly of talent modern gaming has to offer. What a massive surprise that it will come short in one or the other category.

    Idiot.

  • Skinme #64 3 years ago

    £200 for a 1GB 4870 from Sapphire? What planet is this guy living on? Maybe for the 512MB version.... Hell, I can't even find anywhere that's selling them full stop.

  • Hellform #65 3 years ago

    I played the F.e.a.r. 2 demo on HARD and while the AI was very active, shifting from cover spot to covers spot, shooting from the hip while they moved, and knocking objects to produce cover, they didnt do anything surprising or unexpected
    KZ2's AI surprised me several times.
    I've chased an AI around a corner, only to be outflanked and mauled from behind by the same AI, I've walked by explosive barrels and had the AI yell (shoot those barrels), I've had AI storm friendly NPCs, clean house, retreat to cover, then start blind firing....
    The AI in Killzone 2 did seem more a touch more advanced than F.e.a.r. 2s.
    Which I certainly didnt expect, given the pedigree of both developers. I expected KZ2's AI to be about as good as Uncharted's and I expected F.e.a.r.'s AI to be better than the AI of its predecessor. What the fuck happened, Monolith?
    Edited by 1 at 16/02/09 @ 19:02

  • noTHINGface #66 3 years ago

    ... I love these platform comparison articles, it's a proper good grenade into the fuk-tard bush and you can watch 'em all come a runnin'

    PC version looks better than the 360 version which, in turn, looks better than the PS3 version. Welcome to the established order of things.

  • septimus #67 3 years ago

    Noticed the poor frame rate on the PS3 demo, which is why I opted for the 360 version. But since Killzone 2 is coming (as mentioned) it shows there is really no reason for the PS3 version to be as poor as it is.

    Expected more of Monolith, but they seem as lazy nowadays as most multiplatfrom devs. Shame.

    Edit - oh and the AI in FEAR2 is pretty shit. Yes they duck once or twice, but 8/10 they just run at you.
    Edited by 1 at 16/02/09 @ 19:22

  • Hellform #68 3 years ago

    No, the F.e.a.r. 2 AI was flanking me, and chucking grenades. It was quite solid, just nothing truly outstanding.

  • mkreku #69 3 years ago

    Skinme: Check out Newegg for example: [link url=http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N 82E16814102801
    ]http://ww w.newegg.com/Product/Product.as...[/link]

    Free shipping and £150 after mail in rebate. Less than £160 if you don't bother with the rebate.
    Edited by 1 at 16/02/09 @ 21:26

  • FooAtari #70 3 years ago

    @skinme
    £200 for a 1GB 4870 from Sapphire? What planet is this guy living on? Maybe for the 512MB version.... Hell, I can't even find anywhere that's selling them full stop.

    How does 183.99 sound

    Didnt look very hard did you.

  • Chufty #71 3 years ago

    mkreku: Newegg that American company that don't ship internationally? Not exactly entirely relevent to Eurogamer's demographic, especially with the UKs crazy import duty on technology.

    You CAN find a 1GB 4870 for under £200 if you shop hard enough but this factory overclocked Sapphire model will set you back a bit more.
    Edited by 1 at 16/02/09 @ 22:50

  • UncleLou #72 3 years ago

    Maybe these days it needs all the pimpage it can get...

    Well of course. The console fanboy industry marionettes are so loud everywhere, you hardly hear anything else.

  • Wastelander #73 3 years ago

    Why the hell would you need a 1G 4870? I get 70+fps with maxed out settings on a 9800gtx+
    You'd likely get a solid 60fps with 2x AA and high details on a £70 9600GT

  • IneptPercy #74 3 years ago

    Playing this now, got my 360 pad going on the PC version using pinnacle game profiler so very happy now. I refuse to use KB+M as that means I am curled around a 20" monitor, with a pad I can sit back and have it in 40" 1080p

    I am actually running it on a 1GB 4870, very good card and can be got at a good price (not much more than the 512mb versions if you shop around)

    I am liking the game and do think the original review score was a bit harsh and would give it a 7-8 so far, but this is my opinion alone.

  • des #75 3 years ago

    PC Fear 2>Killzone 2

  • deathdealer619 #76 3 years ago

    come on killllzonnneeee

  • Krelle #77 3 years ago

    This sounds like they try to "cover up" the failure that was the 5/10 review.
    Even thou this aint a review, it reads like "hey, this is a nice game, try it out if you like shooters".

    Also, where is the SFIV face off?

  • kangarootoo #78 3 years ago

    @BillyBrush

    "sheep in human form...follow your sheperd, Keiron, follow him home, in the pen, no no, no trying things yourself, you just beleive the slapdash review, and definately, definately, don't read Edge...or form your own opinion, that can lead to you straying from the flock, then the wolfTM will get you "

    Are you ill?

  • Darren #79 3 years ago

    @hammerhead666 - Tomb Raider Underworld looks better on the PS3 because it runs at a resolution of 1280x720 whereas the 360 version, like the previous two current gen TR games, runs upscaled from 1024x600. This also explains why the PS3 version suffers from more slowdown. I still don't understand why the 360 cannot manage a high def version of Tomb Raider given that it's hardly the most graphically accomplished of games. The engine it uses must be crap or something...

    P.S. The PC version is, of course, superior to both, naturally, with none of this upscaling nonsense that developers use to cheat high def on the consoles. ;)

  • Buran #80 3 years ago

    Another game in which a low-end PC witha 120 € graphic card such old 8800 GT or better utterly destroys the console versions in terms of resolution, framerrate and stability.

  • BillyBrush #81 3 years ago

    @Kanga

    No, not ill....seeing everyone dig the shoe into Fear2 though (i've played it, i really really enjoyed it) on the basis of Keiron's review and /or the fact they can't wait for Killzone2 (which doesn't really affect whether this game is good or not) is indeed making me a little queasy though

    anyways, i shall now hand the floor back to the people who haven't played fear2 and aren't going to buy it to carry on the critical analysis, i am badly placed having played through it to comment further

  • UncleLou #82 3 years ago

    It would look like shit on my PC so no, it's not 'naturally superior' on the PC, it's highly dependant on how much cash you inject into your rig.

    The console version would look like shit on my 10 inch black and white tele.

  • tnt_2008 #83 3 years ago

    this article is bull,ihave both consoles and downloaded both demos there is no diffrence at all.as for killzoneit pisses all over the fear demo.as for the gears1/2 debate graphically it blows gears killzone will not be beaten by 360.gears was just gearsnothing diffrent at all in both games in fact in 2 i had the feeling of deja vu allthe way through it.iwasvery disappointed by it.asfor left for dead good fun in multiplayer crap single.graphics were terrible and the whole package far 2 short.street fighter is identical on both consoles apart from a tropy glitch and something to do with xmb.but graphically and framerate wise identical.but u do need to do the install for faster load times.as an owner of both consoles both are grt for diffrent things.but to be truthfull iam starting to play on ps3 more.gears 2 broke myheart i wasexpecting somuch more not more of the same.

  • Darren #84 3 years ago

    @farticusmaximus - You'd need to have a pretty shite PC to make TR Underworld look and run worse than it does on the consoles at 600p! My previous PC, a three year old dual-core Athlon64 X2 CPU with 2 GB of RAM and GeForce 7900 GT graphics (equivalent to the PS3's GPU), ran the game at 1680x1050 and 2X AA at around 30 fps and that was hardly cutting edge. ;)

    The Xbox 360 version couldn't even manage a solid 30 fps and it wasn't even running in hi-def for goodness' sakes!

  • Darren #85 3 years ago

    @tnt_2008 - In what way is the article "bull"?

    I, too, have played both console demos and the PS3 version clearly lacks anti-aliasing, which the 360 version has, and has a noticeably lower framerate in places. I noticed that much even without this article so all EG have done is confirmed what I already knew anyway.

    If I was buying the game for the consoles then the 360 would be the one I'd buy, it's the better version of the two, period.

  • Buran #86 3 years ago

    farticusmaximus @ ""PC Fear 2>Killzone 2" Any game that favours gameplay over the number of graphical effects on screen at the same time > Killzone 2. "

    I strongly disagree. The F.E.A.R. 2 multiplayer gameplay isn't at the same level as COD 4 or Bad Company, and KZ2 has better multiplayer than both WITH much better graphics.

    Also, F.E.A.R. campaign was very good in 2005 despite the repetitive levels, but even with the less repetitive enviroments a very linear game as F.E.A.R. 2 can hardly compete in the sp campaign with open-ended shooters as S.T.A.L.K.E.R. or Crysis. Also, in the atmosphere department, games s Cryostasis or Dead Space had surpased what F.E.A.R. franchise cand do.

    So, don't await on your feet that F.E.A.R. can compete vs KZ2 in gameplay and popularity; probably a lot of COD 4 players in PS3 will leave the game and change to KZ2, you will not see a similar movement towrds the Monolith game.

  • tnt_2008 #87 3 years ago

    i didnt suffer any framerate hitches what so ever and i thought both versions were identical so i suggest u look at ur console

  • tnt_2008 #88 3 years ago

    u thought killzone 2 was the same level asgears lol i think gears has good graphics but they do not compare to killzone 2 in fact in some instances y uncharted looks better fact .gears 2 was a rip off a buggy un finshed shit story and really they should have called it gears 1.5 overhyped to the max .l4d graphically poor blew gears online which was what i loved about the 1st game

  • tnt_2008 #89 3 years ago

    buran so u havent played killzone 2 the ai is amazing and it aint no duck shoot corridor shooter it is and i love both my consoles but it is judging by the short demo prob the grtest fps on consoles

  • tnt_2008 #90 3 years ago

    oh and this is my third xbox elite .wereon myps3 i can play and not worry about it fucking up fact

  • tnt_2008 #91 3 years ago

    it is linear but the fantastic ai more than makes up for it and if u think for 1 sec that gears is in the same league then u havent played killzone.

  • DrDamn #92 3 years ago

    @Farticus
    You are basing your view on a good one minute of play yourself and watching the demo played out by someone else once. From previous videos you claimed it was a standard run and gun shooter like CoD because they didn't use the cover mechanic. Then after seeing the cover mechanic used to good effect in the demo it's now a duck shoot.

    I've played the demo through about 6 times now and each time - even in the limited demo environments - it's played out differently. From comments in reviews and trusted friends who have played the full game the AI of both the enemy and team mates gets more impressive in the full game. The levels also open out more too.

  • tnt_2008 #93 3 years ago

    graphically gears is no where near it so i dont where u are drawing that comparsion fromnearly every site has stated as well asmy own eyes have said this is the best looking gameonany console .sodont be pathetic esp if u have hardly played the demo.gears looks like gears 1 killzone is the firts game that comes close toahigh end pc game.

  • DrDamn #94 3 years ago

    @Farticus
    "but there was no need to as there was no challenge in the AI"

    You played up to the rocket launcher as I remember? The first minute or so of the game where it breaks you in reasonably gently. You didn't see or experience what happens in the rest of the demo - or the game for that matter - without using cover so what are you basing the above on then?

    "If that isnt duck hunt AI then please do tell me what is?"

    Ducks tend not to have high powered rifles. Enemies flank you, move with purpose and chuck grenades. Several times I've been surprised by what the AI does or tried to do in the limited scope of the demo. The AI by all accounts is exceptional - they act more like well developed bots than the usual scripted battles of other games. If all this happens in what you call "Duck Hunt" AI then fine it's "Duck Hunt" - I'd call it bloody good AI though.

  • TONYgr #95 3 years ago

    okey.now i would like to compare SF IV please!

  • tnt_2008 #96 3 years ago

    i got gears 1 and 2 ,and i got the killzone 2 demolisten the graphics in noway compare with killzone 2sostopbeing a360fanboy andrelisethat killzoneis superiourtoanythingon the 360 and that isthe general thought through out the games industry i suggest spec savers mt

  • BillyBrush #97 3 years ago

    And the Fear2 thread becomes 'arguing about KZ2 thread'

    sigh

  • tnt_2008 #98 3 years ago

    spacer bar acting up onlaptop loll

  • DrDamn #99 3 years ago

    @Farticus
    Oh and Gears combat has always been described by you as a wonderful "Visceral" experience (*) never once before now have you described it as a duck hunt.

    (*) A term used about KZ2 in a number of reviews.

  • tnt_2008 #100 3 years ago

    farticus or i shall just call by ure real name shit head ,they are not comparable u might not want to believe it but the ps3 has prouduced a gamethat 360 couldnt do mind u uncharted looks just as good as gears forme.gears 2 was a load of hype to similar to the first 1 .killzone 2 isnt as good because u say so okay then mt the whole gaming industry is wrong about the ai and graphics and ure right lol.forrest gump u are indeed mt

  • DrDamn #101 3 years ago

    @Farticus
    I think you saw what you wanted to see. Excellent AI is the stand out comment in every single review - even Edge. I'd put in some quotes but it wouldn't make a difference.

    One example from the play through at your place was in the second battle in the room. You go down the stairs with your team mate and a battle ensues. I went back up the stairs to take the high ground whilst my AI team mate covered the ground floor. He got taken down and I then had to head down the stairs as my flank was exposed. There was a Helghast at the bottom using the corner as cover - I ran down and went round the corner to shoot him but he had repositioned and was shooting me through the window of the room to the left.

    As I say I've played it through a number of times and have seen a lot more than this. Enemies waiting for you to reload before coming out of cover. Grenades thrown in when you stay in one place too long. Flanking you when possible etc. This is stuff I've experienced in the demo on the standard difficulty.

  • DrDamn #102 3 years ago

    @Farticus
    "Edge scored it right"

    And this is what they said about the AI and gunplay ...

    "With each wave they give a masterclass in squad-based tactical warfare,‭ ‬suppressing,‭ ‬flanking,‭ ‬f-ing and blinding with nary a breath in between.‭"

    "This intimate,‭ ‬sizzling combat feels a lot like that of FEAR"

    "‬A gun game in the truest sense,‭ ‬its bullets and ragdolls offer a literal take on the‭ ‘‬theatre‭’ ‬of war,‭ ‬a rare pleasure since GoldenEye.‭"

    "And it gets extraordinary mileage from piling lots of bodies into simple spaces,‭ ‬letting cutting-edge AI do the rest.‭ ‬A quasi-tactical shooter,‭ ‬its action rivals any in Stalker or COD4."

  • DrDamn #103 3 years ago

    I see you snipped "cutting-edge AI" from one of the quotes. The comparisons are of specific elements where they rival best in breed in that area - it gives some perspective to the reader - but feel free to take them further out of context to back up your view.

    Bottom line is that every review mentions the exceptional quality of the AI - from the demo that was the stand out feature of the game for me too.

  • tnt_2008 #104 3 years ago

    dr damn i wouldnt bother trying to convince some 1 whoj ust wants to argue for arguments sake u have brought valid points to the argument and further backed up ure point with proof ,fartcius cant comprend what all the gamining industry can see and play,that the ai is far in advance of any other game at the mo.and that is fact

  • DrDamn #105 3 years ago

    @tnt_2008
    I wouldn't say far in advance, but it seems to be well clear of the majority. There are other shooters which live on the strength of the AI - such as FEAR for example. Whilst the elements of KZ2 can be seen in other games I can't think of another game which does what in does in the package it does it in. The quasi-tactical approach in first person with a good cover system and excellent AI led combat. Can't think of anything else - certainly on consoles - which provides that sort of experience.

  • DrDamn #106 3 years ago

    @Farticus
    "I prefer to make up my own mind after sampling a game, which is what I've done."

    And you'd never be proven wrong in that regard at all?

  • DrDamn #107 3 years ago

    @Farticus
    "I think playing grill exclusive shooters much may have lowered your expectations of what constitutes good controls and gunplay. ;)"

    Playing and owning both platforms gives me a more balanced perspective I think you'll find. Shall we take a quick straw poll to see who finds your views balanced?
    Edited by 1 at 17/02/09 @ 15:09

  • UncleLou #108 3 years ago

    I want to have a list with these games with similar AI, I must have missed a lot of them. There's nothing I appreciate more than great AI in an FPS, but the examples since the first Half-Life can be counted pretty much on one hand. Far Cry 1/Crysis, FEAR, Stalker, Halo.

  • DrDamn #109 3 years ago

    The "pretty facade" is not what you should be trying to see through.

  • Calgon #110 3 years ago

    Darren what was the point in your reply? Other reviewers and the majority of people who have played Fear2 show Keiron is way off mark, hint: you fail ;)

    Before being all protective consider that I wasnt actually bashing KZ2, I said Ive heard from people who have played both games(these are obviously PS3 owners/fans) and none agreed with him... Ive also seen plenty of Fear2 now so I know myself its bollocks(so regardless of whether KZ2 desrves a 9 or not; Fear 2 is way better than any 5 or even 7/10 released this year or last IMO... I just used that because it shows blatantly obvious inconsistency).

    Also Killzone 2 isnt "far and away the best graphics on a console to date"(in some ways Fear 2 looks better, far better visual/frame buffer effects on that engine) maybe if you are ignorrant and dont know what constitutes good graphics or the difference between impressive art and impressive technical acheivements. Id say its one on the best looking console games out there sure but thats just it, its 'one of' the top games. After the unmatched hype(about how it will blow everything away), dev cycle and budget thrown at it; its pretty much the least I expected of the game. It is a must have for PS3 only owners who happen to like FPS' beyond that though nothing Ive seen or heard has convinced me its any more than that.

    Also can the idiots with no common sense stop blaming the devs now... GG had 4-5 years and more money to make their game with only PS3 to consider, so no KZ2 doesnt prove Monolith or many other devs of recent titles have been lazy on PS3 ports(says theyve been doing pretty well to me).

    Id rather they skip the PS3 ports all together than start to give Sony special treatment(delaying games longer or putting more effort into Sony's machine than PC or 360... how is that fair? the platforms should all get the same amount of attention, you dont reward shoddy design work.) for not being able to build an efficient gaming machine thats not painfull to program for.
    Edited by 3 at 17/02/09 @ 16:15

  • DrDamn #111 3 years ago

    Maybe you don't get it? Maybe in the 10 minute demo you saw there wasn't the whole game? What's clear is that they don't just gush over the graphics - in fact that tends to be an aside. You'll also find even Edge called the controls "tight". Of course your opinion is the only one that really counts for you, but you have to accept you are flying in the face of popular opinion on this.

  • Calgon #112 3 years ago

    The quasi-tactical approach in first person with a good cover system and excellent AI led combat. Can't think of anything else - certainly on consoles - which provides that sort of experience.

    Well Ive heard people compare it to Rainbow6 in not such a positive light.

    Im sorry, a good game? yes(solid, well polished), unique or innovative though? I think you may be stretching it.
    Edited by 1 at 17/02/09 @ 15:48

  • DrDamn #113 3 years ago

    @Calgon
    I'm a big fan of the Rainbow 6 shooters from what I've played. They are much more of a squad based tactical shooter though - great but not the same thing. Killzone 2 tends to sit in a nice midway point on the run'n'gun -> tactical scale. I'd say Rainbow 6 is a fair bit closer to the tactical end. You have a couple of controllable squad members and can set up moves like how to storm rooms with them etc.

  • Calgon #114 3 years ago

    I didnt want to turn this into KZ2 vs Fear2(different games that are equally good in their own rights) I just really think the review of it was atrocious and not fair on the devs.
    Edited by 1 at 17/02/09 @ 16:16

  • ronuds #115 3 years ago

    What does this have to do with KZ2 or Gears?

    And if you're going to compare AI's to come up with which is best - at least use the 360's #1, which is of course Halo 3. Flanking, surprising, grenades, cover...it's got all of that and then some.

  • ThePissartist #116 3 years ago

    "Far Cry 1/Crysis, FEAR, Stalker, Halo."

    I'm guessing you don't own any consoles then? Most PC devs have converted, I suggest you do too (as did I). You'll find some wonderful gaming experiences - I got totally re-inspired by gaming when I got a 360 (as I would with a PS3).

    Although, I’m fairly sure you’ll stick with ‘ignorance is bliss’.

  • DrDamn #117 3 years ago

    Except again it's not the pretty graphics they are all gushing about. They are all gushing about stuff to do with the core mechanic of the gameplay. You've come up with any number of reasons to not like the game, shifting as required. Now it's here and people think it's pretty good they are all obviously deluded and shocked by the pretty graphics. All of them. Every single one.

  • septimus #118 3 years ago

    @tnt_2008: Wow... I think Farticus is as much of a 360 fanboy and a bit of a twat as the next person, but at least his bullshit is coherent. WTF are you smoking before you hit the keyboard?

    The 360 version of Fear 2 is better than the PS3, really, get over it. In the demo at the helicopter crash is the first sign of slowdown, just turn the torch on to accentuate the problem. It is development in a time frame for 2 very different consoles, not an example of hardware power.

    I own both consoles, personally prefer the PS3, but you aren't helping the 'cause' with your ranting. /"cause" being sarcasm
    Edited by 2 at 17/02/09 @ 16:24

  • DrDamn #119 3 years ago

    "Your point is?"

    Just establishing that really.

  • ronuds #120 3 years ago

    @ DrDamn

    I think you're fighting a losing battle for 2 reasons:
    1) farticus doesn't like the game...I highly doubt you're going to convince him otherwise

    2) I'm sure KZ2 is a really good game, but for 360 owners we've seen it all before. It's not going to impress those of us who have been playing Gears, Halo, COD for the last however many years. I'm not saying KZ2 doesn't match up to those games, I'm just saying it's nothing we haven't been playing for years already.

  • UncleLou #121 3 years ago

    Far Cry 1/Crysis, FEAR, Stalker, Halo."

    I'm guessing you don't own any consoles then? Most PC devs have converted, I suggest you do too (as did I). You'll find some wonderful gaming experiences - I got totally re-inspired by gaming when I got a 360 (as I would with a PS3).

    Although, I’m fairly sure you’ll stick with ‘ignorance is bliss’.

    *sigh*

    No, I do own consoles. Although I have no idea what that has to do with my question? What are all these FPS games with great AI that I have missed? That was my totally platform-independent question. Hard to understand for people with console-wars mindset, I know.

    In case you hadn't noticed: I was asking farticus, who claimed that the pretty good sounding AI in KZ2 was standard fare. I wish it was.

    Edited by 1 at 17/02/09 @ 16:51

  • tnt_2008 #122 3 years ago

    septius u get over yourself i have not encountered any slow down onany version of fear 2 .u 360fan boys cling to anything latley. look killzone blitz s any thing on my 360right now fact is as good as cod 4 is the ai is just not as good graphically cod 4 is better on ps3 as well.thats y i bought that version,on the xbox aprt from fear u aint got nothing to match the ai in killzone.but a sad fact is fear is not superior on 360 .tobe truthfull i dont knowwear euro get their footage, cos some of their game footage looks nothing like my ps3 games.the ps3 is starting to show its superior hardware now throught its games like i said uncharted matches gears in graphics and ai and how old is that game gow3 killzone gt5 hard rain are graphically better this yr iam looking more forward to my ps3 games this yr rather than my 360s.

  • DrDamn #123 3 years ago

    @tnt_2008
    EG use very sophisticated capture techniques to do these articles. Personally I'd rather see the money spent on articles about games (*) and a basic summary of the stuff they over analyse here - but the validity of the stats they produce is really not in question.

    (*) E.g. How about spending the money on some second opinions of the games? A three page article on the performance differences of a game they only spent 2 pages reviewing and ended up with a controversial 5/10 score. Priorities?
    Edited by 1 at 17/02/09 @ 17:09

  • tnt_2008 #124 3 years ago

    dr damn id agree with u about the review score doesnt add up

  • VandelayIndustries #125 3 years ago

    Calgon
    "Also can the idiots with no common sense stop blaming the devs now... GG had 4-5 years and more money to make their game with only PS3 to consider, so no KZ2 doesnt prove Monolith or many other devs of recent titles have been lazy on PS3 ports(says theyve been doing pretty well to me).

    Id rather they skip the PS3 ports all together than start to give Sony special treatment(delaying games longer or putting more effort into Sony's machine than PC or 360... how is that fair? the platforms should all get the same amount of attention, you dont reward shoddy design work.) for not being able to build an efficient gaming machine thats not painfull to program for."

    GG had 4-5 years in R&D, PSP game development and PS3 game development as well.

    And yes Monolith are lazy if the PS3 version falls short, this is their second game for the platform and if they haven't figured it out then they should hire people who know what they're doing. Burnout Paradise and CoD4 were first attempts at making games for PS3/360 for their respective studios and they both still shame most other efforts. Pride in ones work I feel. (and lack thereof)

    If other studios need to take longer to develop PS3 games, so be it, because when it comes right down to it they charge the same money for a shoddy piece of shit port as the they do for the working version.
    Edited by 1 at 17/02/09 @ 17:22

  • ronuds #126 3 years ago

    "If other studios need to take longer to develop PS3 games, so be it, because when it comes right down to it they charge the same money for a shoddy piece of shit port as the they do for the working version."

    And it burns, burns, burns - in a ring of fire. In a ring of fire.

    That's the video game industry I think Johnny C is talking about? Who cares how much development costs, especially when the industry is already reeling! I just want my PS3 version, and I want it to be as good as every other version, dammit!
    Edited by 1 at 17/02/09 @ 17:37

  • Calgon #127 3 years ago

    GG had 4-5 years in R&D, PSP game development and PS3 game development as well.

    What kind of arguement is that? Other than a really poor one?... the PS3 game is platform exclusive where the developers were enabled longer to develop it than any other FPS on PS3 or 360 and a higher budget to boot, think your replies through or dont bother. Also its really stupid to expect first party/AAA budget/proprietary engine level stuff from a multi platform game/developer... you wouldnt even get that if they led on the PS3 and they dont do that for 360 either.


    @Ronuds: Good point, Sony loyalists who lash out at devs are simply ignorrant fanboys, some devs can afford to do it, others cant; either for lack of dev time or lack of budget. COD4(Activisions biggest money maker of recent years?) and Burnout Paradise(very successfull EA IP) were not only bigger budget titles but they were funilly enough developed in favour of the PS3... it still doesnt make PS3 development much faster/cheaper(see Killzone2 ;) ), it doesnt help devs compete on other platforms either.

    360 has been a great place to lead on(unlike the PS3 even for their own 1st party devs)... they have good hardware and good dev tools and porting to other platforms such as the PC and Wii is easy. The arguements for leading on the PS3 have been very weak and selfish to say the least, slow up development on all platforms for the sake of Sony "deliberately hard to program for" PS3? What an idiot Kaz Hirai was to say that. :/

    If it's between choosing the best platform to realise your vision on with a dev environment fit for it on hardware that has a gentler learning curve for whats expected of it(the tricker, more demanding stuff will require better/deeper knowlege of the hardware... so there's plenty of "untapped potential" too ;) but again that wouldnt be suitable for multiplatform most likely) or leading on the platform that is the most time consuming(least rewarding for what you get back from what you put in) then any none PS3 fanboy knows the most sensible/wisest answer is the former.

  • tnt_2008smum #128 3 years ago

    Hey tnt_2008 where have you been? Are you going to start getting angry and offering to beat people up again? Come on tough guy start making threats over the internet like you did the last time you raised your stupid wooden head.

  • IneptPercy #129 3 years ago

    tnt_2008, is you PS3 a special edition which has the words 'Microsoft' and '360' on it?

    Don't get me wrong sometimes the differences are that small that it doesn't matter, but when many people report the same thing it seems odd that you don't have the problem and the rest of the world is just imagining it.

    PC ftw anyway.

  • VandelayIndustries #130 3 years ago

    Calgon

    Just to lay my cards on the table for one moment, I'm a 360 owner as well as PS3 owner and I wouldn't be without either. Somehow defending the PS3 nets you the Fanboy tag which is quite sad really, but my point is that the time its taken to get Killzone 2 here has not just been in designing the game but also a whole other game on another platform as well as making all the tech they needed to get the two games made. Saying it took 4-5 years for one game is misleading and is seeming used to lessen GGs achievements. (Killzone 2 being a decent game really seems to have ruffled some feathers 'round here).

    And what does budget have to with this? Just look at GTA IV, it's compromised on both consoles.

    Put simply.

    FEAR 2 (and most multi-plats)
    £30-40 for a well made 360 game.
    Vs.
    £30-40 for a less than well made PS3 game.

    How can that be defended?


    Edited by 1 at 17/02/09 @ 19:26

  • tnt_2008smum #131 3 years ago

    ‘Ah, the joy of interthreats! I had some spastic threaten to shove a kungfu pole right up my ass a couple weeks ago on this very forum, tnt_2008 will have to top that to earn the title of king intertwat!’

    Ha! Yeah I remember reading that one. Trust me this one’s a real tool. In one of the face off threads he actually offered to meet up with about 3 people for a fight! Best of all though was when one took him up on his offer and he pissed his little pants and had to back down! It was hilarious. Seriously you couldn’t make this stuff up!

  • Buran #132 3 years ago

    @farticusmaximus said:


    "Very few people give a toss about PC gaming. It's expensive, time consuming and unsociable.

    You may not have noticed but this is primarily a console gaming website. Your PC stories are not even vaguely interesting. ignore poster

    @Buran

    I found KZ2 looked nice (about at the same level as gears) but had very poor controls with awful deadzone and acceleration, static boring corridor level design consisting entirely of duck-hunt shoot-the-glowing-eyes combat and hackneyed macho marine scripting.

    Nothing we haven't all played many times before."





    PC gaming is expensive "as premium cars", but if you look the streets are full of nice, expensive cars, which are drived with great enjoy by his proud owners. The same with PC gamers, I'm sorry for the people that can't afford a graphic card that cost 1/2 of the Wii price and have x2 the power of 360/PS3, but as owner of 2 PC,a PS3 and a 360 I must say that the differences in price are less that the huge leap in terms of technical quality.

    If PC gaming is unsociable then probably you are a covert PC gamer, because you historial of trolling against any thing close to good PS3 news/reviews reacting in hysterical anger can't be worse.

    About the controls, I agree with you: both KZ2 and Halo 3 and Resistance 2 and any shooter played with pad has dull controls and nerfed interface compared to other shooters played with keyboard and mouse (except if Jook is using the pad). But even with bland controls KZ2 is a generation ahead the graphics that the Unreal Engine 3.5 can bring in Gears 2, so it will be nice to see how the mp in KZ2 obliterates COD 4, which is to date the most played shooter in this generation in both PS3, Xbox 360 and PC. I highly doubt that your "better gameplay in F.E.A.R. 2" will sell 1/2 of the copies of KZ2 even adding the numbers from all consoles & PC combined. Monolith couldn't have chosen worst date to ship F.E.A.R. 2 than against KZ2.

    Oh well, maybve MS launching Halo Wars vs Dawn Of War II...
    Edited by 2 at 17/02/09 @ 19:40

  • ronuds #133 3 years ago

    @ Vandelay

    Your point is good, but unfortunately not based in reality. Sony screwed you over from it ever happening. Well, at least on a consistent basis. Only the largest of publishers is going to be able to afford leading on both platforms.

    When you bought a PS3, you should have bought it with this knowledge. Whether or not it makes much of a difference to you is something only you can decide.

  • Calgon #134 3 years ago

    VandelayIndustries no you are spinning it to suit your arguement... the engine or engine optimisations are part of it(most other first party games have done the same without taking nearly as long)... its still taken them longer than any other and the PSP team will be completely different(again other devs have done the same too). Also you are ignoring that its difficult to compare first party proprietary engine games to multi platform... you always get better results from the former.(really was it that difficult to understand the first time I said it? Maybe some of the R&D can be used/implemented in future multiplatform releases but its not always feasable, it's the same for 360 too. Nobody with any basic knowlege of game development should be expecting them to match first party titles released AFTER they launched though... not even in the same year is likely)

    FEAR 2 (and most multi-plats)
    £30-40 for a well made 360 game.
    Vs.
    £30-40 for a less than well made PS3 game.

    How can that be defended?

    It runs better on the 360 and PC yes... does that automatically mean sloppy development? So far you've failed on your attempts back that up with any facts or logic. Perhaps its a problem with the PS3 not the devs(ie it takes too long to bring them at parity... maybe they should have delayed the PS3 version like others have but that would cost them more and maybe they cant afford it)... the ignorrance is just pointing the finger squarely at the devs Ive explained why that is well enough I think, the sooner Sony realises they have to look after the devs interests the better. Also the PC and 360 versions deserve a little better credit that that poor excuse for a review gave it at the very least, the PS3 version may be a little slower running and slightly less sharp but it still deserves better(its not how you review multiplatform games either if thats their excuse... as a way of punnishing the devs for the sake of the PS3? They wouldnt do it for MS thats for sure) and using Killzone2 to 'prove'(it doesnt prove or change a damn thing) its not the hardwares fault and assuming the devs are lazy is stupid(and thats as nice as I can put it).

    Well anyway, let me lay my cards on the table Ive come accross many PS3 fanboys with 360s and vice versa really it doesnt strengthen any of your arguements here, I never said KZ2 wasnt good is the hilarious thing... you've jumped in defending it without thinking, so yes you do seem to have bias. I've said Fear2 is far better than its been credited for here(that is the most popular opinion by all accounts too) and its far closer in quality to KZ2 than these scores suggest... which many a PS3 owner has agreed with.

    And what does budget have to with this?

    Please tell me that was sarcasm... GTAIV is a pretty damn good acheivement on both consoles that could have done with a little extra polish.

    Budget, dev time/man hours, talent... are all vital aspects of how well you can expect a game to turn out, especially with multi platform. If you dont have the budget to match the titles you are competing against, you are going to have to have lots of time(which will mean money by default too) and talent to make up for it.

    Infact you seem pretty naive and ignorrant, there doesnt seem much point in continuing this discussion. It seems like untill the people who have bought into the PS3 hype hook line and sinker see the things how they 'beleive' they should be(ie. even or better than 360 versions on PS3) rather than how they really are then devs will get no credit for anything they acheive this gen which is just sad:

    "Wow that looks great, I wasnt expecting that... Oh wait! Whats that? The 360 version turned out better? OMG its the worst game ever... lazy devs, fire them all!"
    Edited by 15 at 17/02/09 @ 20:44

  • septimus #135 3 years ago

    Oh look, another 360 only owning fanboy. Go away ronuds. /ignore

  • ronuds #136 3 years ago

    I said something that wasn't true?

    Oh, no...please don't ignore me. Oh, please...oh, God...oh what will I do.

    Oh...like I really care! :D

  • VandelayIndustries #137 3 years ago

    Calgon

    I don't know what I've said to get that kind of reaction. Oh well :(

    Briefly back to Killzone 2, I was simply pointing out that GG were doing more than one game in that time, people weren't acknowledging that fact in regards to the time frame, and using that time frame to knock it. So they also spent time on the tech, consider that an investment. Do you think the KZ2 follow up would take that long to make?

    Also i don't believe I made a comparison between Killzone 2 and FEAR 2. I did however compare CoD4 and Burnout Paradise (two games that I own on both consoles) to FEAR 2 and I think that that's valid. Both of those games were the second time their developers had worked on the 360 and the first time they worked on the PS3 - they did whatever they had to do to make them work beautifully on both platforms and without any apparent delay. So yes Kudos to them.

    And no I wasn't joking about GTA IV. For me its achievements are in the scope of the city and the ambition of its story and not in how it runs - which I believe to be compromised, I didn't say it was bad game or unplayable.

    While I can buy my multi-plats on 360, those with just a PS3 are essentially told that they are not worth the time and effort, though their hard earned cash is always welcome. Which is fundamentally wrong.

    EDIT: spelling.

    Edited by 4 at 17/02/09 @ 21:30

  • Hellform #138 3 years ago

    I'm not sure why farticusmaximus seems so intent on dismissing Killzone 2 at every turn, but one thing I take issue with is the suggestion that Killzone's AI is nothing special.
    That is bullshit.
    Its AI is fucking excellent.
    Having played a good many shooters, I can count on my hands the number of games with similarly advanced AI: Half Life 1 and HL Episode 2, the Halo games, F.E.A.R. 1& 2, S.T.A.L.K.E.R. and to a MUCH lesser extent, Uncharted.
    That's it. Good, solid AI is a fucking rarity 10 years after Half Life 1. Sad as hell, but good AI is hard to do and not many developers are willing to dedicate the time and resources advanced AI systems demand.
    Edited by 2 at 18/02/09 @ 03:00

  • Svecke #139 3 years ago

    ....where do you guys get the energy from? o_o

  • Krelle #140 3 years ago

    Are you all stupid? Why argue with Farticus? Its a battle you cant win, and Im sure he laughs at you, while trying harder and harder to come across as a jerk.

    Ive personally Ignored farticus since long ago, couse I cant stand people like him. But I give him one thing; that he is smarter than all of you trying to rip his already broken arguments apart.
    Its amazing how one person can steal hours after hours from others with just a few well placed stupid comments.

    Farticus wins EG, and you all act like his bitch.

  • Edwin #141 3 years ago

    as usual farticus is the only one makeing sense... you can ague, but why bother.. he usually wins as he knows what he is talking about.. to even get qouted in the flower review shows how highly though of he is on EG. I also remember that pole tool, you totally owned him, fair play to you.

  • tnt_2008 #142 3 years ago

    by the way imythrid xbox sorry about not elite this ismysecond elite red ring on all3.dont get me wrong i love the xbox and some multiplatformgames have suffered eg the darkness and a few ohthers turockand the like were worse on ps3 .but for me on fear 2 i couldnt seeany diff or any slow down .so iam not gonna lie and say i have .oh and the ai in the demoaint no where near killzones demo

  • DrDamn #143 3 years ago

    @Farticus
    "No, actually Halo 3 is the most played 360 game. CoD topped it for a while but overall Halo has seen vastly more Live time."

    That's not strictly correct. Halo 3 has seen more individual players play the game whilst connected to Live - there have been no stats release that Halo 3 is the most played in terms of time. I would suspect given the addictive nature of the CoD4 ranking system it would come out on top personally - but MS won't release those stats.

  • DrDamn #144 3 years ago

    @Farticus
    It depends on how you define "most played". I still think the structure of online element of CoD4 would have had more people play *online* for longer. The MS stats counted if you are connected to live and playing the game - not whether you are playing multiplayer or not too.

    You'd think more people played the campaign of Halo 3 - though that may just be personal taste again.

  • DrDamn #145 3 years ago

    It wasn't a matter of winning. The point is that there are no stats released. The idea that there was is down to games sites - like EG - misreporting the info they did put out.

  • DrDamn #146 3 years ago

    Ok fair enough - Halo 3 is rightly getting a lot of sales and playtime - that's not in dispute. It gets a lot of playtime because it is well supported post release too. There is actually a hell of a lot more variety to the online modes. Probably got personal preference and what people play on my friends list shading my opinion. It's got to be close between the two though. Maybe Halo is more of a choice for the younger generation or Americans. (Sales do show a slight preference to the US in terms of percentage). The majority of my friends list are aging foggies like you and me ;)

  • ronuds #147 3 years ago

    Haven't either of you seen the weekly report Major Nelson releases for top played Live games?

    COD4 hasn't been on top of Halo for a long time now.

  • Hellform #148 3 years ago

    Gears of War is third person. You cant get as close to textures in GeoW 2 as you can in Killzone.
    Furthermore, some of the textures in the KZ2 demo retain their fidelity when looked at head on.

  • DrDamn #149 3 years ago

    @Ronuds
    Yes Halo was at the top of the Major Nelson list for the whole of 2008 too. The lists just give unique users not amount of time though. It also makes no distinction between playing single player or multiplayer. So 'most played' is up for debate. Maybe Halo is but there was reasoning behind my thought that it was CoD4. Had a little play tonight and checked the leaderboards. Over 5 million players have played enough of the online game to get 800+ kills, over 4 million players have played the online multiplayer for more than 24 hours. From 7.5 million games sold those are some impressive stats whether the game is top or not.

    @Hellform
    Some of the close up textures in KZ2 are surprisingly good - I'd probably caveat that with "for a PS3 title" - but as you say they are not all blurry up close. Gears 2 is in a different class in this area though. KZ2 graphically plays very much to the strengths of the system with lots of fullscreen post processing - to impressive effect. Gears 2 does the same for the 360 and here it's texture quality and a nice crisp image. Different approaches both with great results. Which one is better comes down to a personal preference of the aesthetics though.
    Edited by 1 at 19/02/09 @ 09:02

  • ronuds #150 3 years ago

    @ DrDamn

    I'm not going to argue with you about how good COD4 is. I've put weeks of my life into that game.

    Just saying I think Halo 3 is played more...based on Major Nelson's reports, anyway.

  • Calgon #151 3 years ago

    VandelayIndustries I was explaining the PSP side of things is irrelevant... they will have seperate teams for that so its not excuse for the time frame, the "tech" by which you mean the engine is nothing new... they really have taken alot longer than any other first party developer so far. No it wont take as long next time around because the engine is there take a look at some other first party devs like insomniac before correcting anyone though because it would appear you havent.

    . Both of those games were the second time their developers had worked on the 360 and the first time they worked on the PS3 - they did whatever they had to do to make them work beautifully on both platforms and without any apparent delay. So yes Kudos to them.

    No delays? Did they ever give a solid release date untill they knew they were close enough to completion? Both games favoured the PS3 and as I said both were bigger budget (which has everything to do with it... thats what I asked if you were joking for at the very least this would mean more man hours spent on them Id wager). How? Well Infinity Ward stated their best guys were assigned to the PS3 version of COD4 and Burnout led on the PS3 IIRC(that benifitted nobody but Sony and PS3 only owners who are in the minority btw).

    If you used common sense you'd see the PS3 falls short but its likely a delay would have give them time to optimise a little further, they could have released the PC and 360 versions on time and held back the PS3 version but: a) The same people would still whinge about that b) Perhaps they just couldn't afford to do that, spent their budget, werent given the green light to delay it?

    Its fair to say that development moves slower on the PS3 than it does elsewhere everything we've seen so far supports that notion, so I think I was fair in calling the idiots always keen to berate the devs and question their competency when alot of the problems are Sony's doing to some extent.
    Edited by 1 at 19/02/09 @ 19:00