F.E.A.R. 2: Project Origin Review

By Kieron Gillen Published 10 February, 2009

There's nothing to fear.

Version tested: Xbox 360

A robot suit and quick-time events.

If you grabbed me in a bar and asked me what was memorably new in FEAR 2 (I'm not using the bloody full stops), that's all I'd be able to come up with. While it's a rock-solid corridor shooter, the lasting impression is one of a woeful lack of inspiration. There's plenty of stuff to talk about but nothing that demands to be discussed over a drink with friends. The most interesting thing about FEAR 2 is the history of its development - Monolith's split with Vivendi, leaving the former without the name, working on a game with the key cast, propagating another title ("Project Origin"), buying the name back when it seemed Vivendi didn't want to make a sequel after all and... Oh, it's quite the epic, exciting saga. Unlike this.

With the two semi-sequels to the first game, made by other developers, removed from continuity, FEAR 2 itself picks up slightly before Monolith left off. You explore an alternate part of the world as another FEAR team, and see the conclusion of the first (a big old explosion) from a distance. In theory, it's a clever method of setting up the devastated city and getting the new gamer up to speed. In practice, it's not totally effective.

FEAR 2 is guilty of the arrogance of videogame sequels which do little to reintroduce their plots - the sort of thing that tarnished Halo 3's experience for anyone who didn't read the tie-in novels. Who are these corporate groups? What's a FEAR team? None of this is explained, which makes it difficult to care too much about what's going on - at least initially. It's been four years since that first game. Pretty much all I remember is the spooky little girl and a lot of slow-mo fighting in corridors. Give me a clue, guys.

'F.E.A.R. 2: Project Origin' Screenshot 1

Project Origin lets you take control of those robot walker things from the first game.

While you start out as a normal chap, the plot finds a way to give you the game's signature slow-down abilities quickly. Things then continue in FEAR's recognisable quick-quick-slow rhythm. Most of the time you're involved in fire-fights against human soldiers (with the occasional monster to deal with). These are interspersed with psychological horror sections where you start experiencing psionic interference, odd visions and visual distortions that make it difficult to locate the exit.

It's an easy structure to dissect critically. The hyper-violence and the psychology make odd bedfellows, but in practice both are executed so solidly that the whole thing just about holds together. Especially with regard to the latter, there are moments of flair reminiscent of Monolith's flourishes in games like No One Lives Forever and TRON 2.0. While most of the game is in tunnels (though no longer always grey), doing things like, say, fighting your way around a school and using bits of stage-production for cover is quite witty. The visions, for their length, are well performed too - in fact, you wish Monolith had pursued that side of the game more.

But this seems to put even more emphasis on the combat, and at its core it's an oddly old-fashioned approach. For example, the game features health-packs and armour-vests, like grandma used to program. You can carry up to three of the former, which makes it a question of resource expenditure - deciding when to top up your bar at the risk of dying because you waited too long.

'F.E.A.R. 2: Project Origin' Screenshot 2

Is that a Shogo 2 t-shirt on Nick Nolte's evil twin?

Elements of the kinetic combat have been removed, oddly. The close-combat flying kicks have been excised, reduced to the standard weapon-bash. You are able to flip furniture and take cover behind it- which your opposition will do too, showing the generally robust AI. Cute, but fundamentally it's not that relevant.

(CORRECTION: Since this review was published, it's been pointed out the information in the above paragraph is incorrect. Kieron writes: "Well, the flying kicks weren't excised - just my ability to notice 'em, either through them not being introduced in the training sequence or me simply missing them. In practice, FEAR 2 seemed to keep the enemy at the range most of the time, with the close-combat being primarily defensive. Returning to discover my error, I realise I *did* actually set off the kick a couple of times, but since it was at the end of the jump, it looked more like a slide along the floor than a dramatic boot-in-face and I presumed it was some kind of slide-to-cover thing." We apologise for the error. After discussion we feel the score below still fits the game.)

This isn't a game like Gears of War where cover-hopping is paramount, because the slow-motion ability tops anything as passive as hiding (except to recharge your slow-motion ability). Get the angle, go into slow-motion, headshot, take cover, repeat. You often feel like you're being a little mean to the poor old bad guys, but this adds a dramatic flair to almost every takedown. I may be belabouring the point, but it's the core mechanic's solidness which makes FEAR 2 impossible to condemn.

What else helps is the sense that Monolith really does care about this little world. As well as in-game cut-scenes and visions, there are logs all over the area for you to collect. These short bursts of information add a lot of colour to the proceedings, and in a BioShock-esque way add light and shade to what at its heart is a Resident-Evil-by-way-of-Akira ooh-those-corporations-they're-bad'uns plot. In fact, the most chilling moment in the game is delivered off-hand in one of these.

Monolith really has developed a setting, even if it's not that interested in explaining it. Take the monstrous creatures you fight - the fairly standard fast-gooey-teary-things, ghosty-telekenetic things and puppet-master-zombie-controller things. Bar the former, I got no sense of what they were there for. I actually knew the story behind them, because a developer explained their background during an interview I did, but it's not made clear in actual play. While I understand the idea that the strange and unknown is fearful, it's not how the monsters come across in the game. Generally speaking, they just come across as something novel to shoot.

As I said earlier, it's a game that leans more towards the combat than the story-concepts. This makes the aforementioned giant robot suit a logical - if predictable - extension. It's a robot suit. You get in it, and shoot bad guys with mini-guns and rockets until you reach the inevitable bump it can't get over. Then you get out. That's it. The quick-time events, thankfully, aren't actually based around complicated button sequences, but rather bashing one button like an old eighties sports game when you're grabbed by a monster. When a couple of major conflicts are reduced to this, you can't help feeling underwhelmed.

'F.E.A.R. 2: Project Origin' Screenshot 3

Corridorable.

Multiplayer exists, featuring four modes and six maps, but I wasn't able to find any games pre-release to play, and there are no bots to just get a sense of the levels. (CORRECTION: There are in fact five modes. "Six if you count Team Deathmatch and plain old Deathmatch as separate ones," writes Kieron. "And while there's six maps in most modes, in Armoured Front, there's three other ones. And also online games to play now, which is nice." Apologies for the error.)

Eurogamer will look at this area again following release if it proves to offer anything more than other shooters, but on the surface of it the most interesting aspect is the character set-up options. You have a set amount of points, and purchasing each weapon or equipment option costs a number of points. So if you buy the highly expensive sniper rifle you're not going to be able to afford fancy armour, let alone a handy helping of grenades.

But back to single-player. FEAR 2 is most notable for being a game that doesn't even attempt to engage with any of the failings of the linear first-person shooter. Playing through on the average difficulty level, what slowed me down most was the handful of occasions when I couldn't locate the one place to progress (a process which the general gloominess of environments exacerbates). While the developers said they were expanding the size of the "corridor", in practice it's still a far more prescriptive game of where you can go than, say, Half-Life 2.

And Half-Life 2's levels made more sense conceptually too. It's rarely obvious why you're going the way you're going. I moved by instinct, knowing that heading in a certain way was what the game wanted me to do - but also knowing it didn't make much sense. FEAR 2 is a game that works off an engine of atmosphere, and the unreality underpinning it all just undercuts that immersion.

'F.E.A.R. 2: Project Origin' Screenshot 4

You're right, that is a pretty hot tramp stamp.

In other words, I found the experience of playing the game to be simultaneously exhilarating and depressing. The smallest fundamental parts - such as the combat - work. But on a higher level, alienation grows as the game becomes a chain of well-worn genre standards. I found myself thinking the back-handed compliment, "Well, at least I haven't done a gun-turret bit yet." Then, predictably, one turned up. Every time I started a new level I ended up wondering whether this one would be the moving-platform-train-bit. Surely it would arrive eventually? And it did.

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.

5 / 10

Read the Eurogamer.net scoring policy
Picture of Kieron.

About Kieron Gillen

Kieron is one of the founders of the lovely Rock, Paper, Shotgun and nowadays writes comics for Marvel starring characters that even his mum has heard of.

Read more articles from Kieron by visiting the Kieron Gillen archive page.

You may also like...

Comments (322) Latest comment 2 years ago

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

  • andywilkie35 #1 3 years ago

    confirmed no buy, bang!

  • NotSoSlim #2 3 years ago

    Finally a proper review as the demo was crap imo

  • ASHBERY76 #3 3 years ago

    The review doesn't read like a 5 score game.

  • absolutezero #4 3 years ago

    Remember EG gave the first game 9/10. and by the sounds of things not much has changed in this follow up, if thats worth halving the score then all games bar the first the series should be under 5/10 aswell.

    Gillenlol

  • Eraysor #5 3 years ago

    Bollocks. I was looking forward to this for ages. Good job I bought Chrono Trigger instead.

  • Xerx3s #6 3 years ago

    "I found myself thinking the back-handed compliment, "Well, at least I haven't done a gun-turret bit yet." Then, predictably, one turned up. Every time I started a new level I ended up wondering whether this one would be the moving-platform-train-bit. Surely it would arrive eventually? And it did."

    I'm not going to buy this game but this raises an eyebrow. EG has - recently - highly reviewed many games that have exactly those bits.

  • Yossarian #7 3 years ago

    Zing!

    Demo pushed me from an instabuy onto the fence, and this confirms it. Money well saved. Monolith are now 2 for 2 this generation when it comes to fucking up good games with bad sequels.

  • Hangman #8 3 years ago

    right, so worse than files? i don't think so.

  • DUFFMAN5 #9 3 years ago

    Really, oh well

  • Katsumoto #10 3 years ago

    EG =! KG. Not a hive mind. No.

    "The close-combat flying kicks have been excised" - they were in the demo! How silly.

    This sounds like something to pick up once the price has gone down. Plenty of other games to get in the mean time, thankfully.

  • Eraysor #11 3 years ago

    "The close-combat flying kicks have been excised" - they were in the demo! How silly.

    I noticed that too >_

  • Hangman #12 3 years ago

    "The close-combat flying kicks have been excised, reduced to the standard weapon-bash"

    Oh dear. Not only are the flying kicks in, but also the melee slide, and the jumping roundhouse.

    " I may be belabouring the point, but it's the core mechanic's solidness which makes FEAR 2 impossible to condemn"

    5/10!




  • Anon_642 #13 3 years ago

    I will copy what I wrote on the IGN Board:
    "I don't think I will be picking this game up unfortunately. I enjoyed the first F.E.A.R on PC which I played at a friends house but when I got the same game on the Xbox 360 it was lacking.

    My PC is not very powerfull so it was always X360 or nothing and I guess in this case in will be nothing, which is a shame as I was looking forward to this game right up until the demo which I honestly thought was EXACTLY the same as the original F.E.A.R albeit with slightly more intresting enviroments and SLIGHTLY better graphics.

    Shame that the developers could not deliver, perhaps I will rent it one day when it is dirt cheap but not worth spending £39.99 on if I am not sure it will be decent or not.
    Anon_642"

  • mkreku #14 3 years ago

    Well, seeing as the first game was horribly overrated by Eurogamer, I guess the sequel is getting a bit of the blame left over from the first review.

  • Katsumoto #15 3 years ago

    "" I may be belabouring the point, but it's the core mechanic's solidness which makes FEAR 2 impossible to condemn"

    5/10!" I don't think 5/10 is condemnation really. Read EG's scoring policy, 5 is marked as "not as disaster" whereas its only at 4/10 they talk about "getting into the realms of poor"

  • Postumo #16 3 years ago

    There are kicks in this game, but not as good as in the first one.

    They were my primary weapon!

  • polaris70 #17 3 years ago

    Jeez, did the reviewer get kicked in the nuts by his girlfriend while opening a letter from his landlord saying he's getting evicted, just before he wrote the review? Maybe you shouldn't write reviews until you've been out for a few pints, won money at the local casino and got the number of the hottest chic in the nightclub. 5/10 lol.

  • muters #18 3 years ago

    Oh dear. With the first FEAR, I could appreciate the mechanics of the AI and gameplay, but couldn't get past how unremittingly dull the level design was. I played the demo of this and liked that it wasn't all offices, but once I got into a mech suit it just felt like any other shooter. And I couldn't see what the hell was going on half of the time. One for the inevitable '£9.99 at play.com' list then, I think.

  • Hangman #19 3 years ago

    edge gave it 8/10, higher than killzone.who to believe?

  • polaris70 #20 3 years ago

    Well, It's still a buy for me, I even thought the demo was worth more than 5/10 lol. Best 15 minutes of FPS gaming I've had for a while, especially considering the deluge of over-hyped garbage that came out at the end of last year :)

  • Snidesworth #21 3 years ago

    I rather liked the demo, and it felt quite similar to FEAR 1 (which is a good thing in my eyes). Is this a case of more of the same with no improvement, or is it remarkably worse than the first? If it's the former I'll still be picking it up.

  • hmmmmm #22 3 years ago

    Must say the demo scared me shitless and thought this would get higher. I don't actually mind, but it will be interesting to read the forthcoming Resident Evil 5 review. 5/10 because it follows the previous formula: small houses, windows, zombies, tunnels, slow turning... ?

  • Ged42 #23 3 years ago

    And there's me hoping it would be good enough to help put enough money Monolith's way, for them to make NOLF 3, oh well 'sigh'

  • local_celebrity #24 3 years ago

    Props to Kieron for the use of belabouring. That's probably the most bedazzling word to befall here for a while.

    Can't say I'm all that surprised at the overall verdict, though. Downloaded the demo for this the other day. Five minutes in, I started dozing off. Now I just fire it up to combat the insomnia.

  • nardop #25 3 years ago

    im sorry, but that review is pretty much BS tbh.

  • Katsumoto #26 3 years ago

    @nardop, STKD - Have you guys played it then? What did you think? What is that you disagree with in this review in particular?
    Edited by 2 at 10/02/09 @ 01:09

  • nardop #27 3 years ago

    yes

  • 3william56 #28 3 years ago

    I thought the FEAR2 demo was ok, with excellent sound design, ok visuals and a bit of style in the ghosts and visions, right up until the ping of the Killzone2 download complete sounded. Comparing the two side by side, and FEAR2 is definitely relegated to the bargain bin. Unless the demo was very different to the final game, the AI was shocking (running brainlessly backwards and forwards between 2 or 3 cover points is about it), little scenery interaction (I spent 5 minutes last night just shooting tables and chairs and barrels and tittatin KZ2 just to see how it reacted) and corridor after corridor after corridor. I resumed the reason I didn't know why I was shooting the other soldiers was demo-itus, but obviously not. Sure KZ2 is a little generic, but it does everything so well that it covers any (deliberate) lack of innovation, which ruthlessly highlights lesser games with neither innovation or KZ2's polish.

    On the PS3 at least, Killzone has changed the game, and other FPSs are going to have their work cut out keeping up. Which is excellent news - a real kick upm the ar$e for a genre that has stagnated so badly recently.

    BTW: anyone else suffer a sound bug where every sound apart from the backgrond wind noise cuts out when you exit the underground train station? Happens every time for me, and nothing will sort it except a die and restart.

  • Hangman #29 3 years ago

    "Well, at least I haven't done a gun-turret bit yet." Then, predictably, one turned up. Every time I started a new level I ended up wondering whether this one would be the moving-platform-train-bit. Surely it would arrive eventually? And it did"

    what, like in Killzone 2, where there is actually a turret sequence on board a fucking train! 9/10 for that one though, make up your minds...

  • Katsumoto #30 3 years ago

    The reviewer for this game had nothing to do with the KZ2 review, though? He's probably not even played the demo, in fact..

  • Sidgo #31 3 years ago

    So far the reviews have been pretty good. IGN UK just gave it an 8.5.

    [link url=htt p://xbox360.ign.com/articles/952/952577p1.html
    ]http://xb ox360.ign.com/articles/952/9525...[/link]

    And VideoGamer just gave the game a 9/10.
    [link url=http://www.videogamer.com/xbox360/project_origin/rev iew.html
    ]http://ww w.videogamer.com/xbox360/projec...[/link]

    All I can say is that I'm not letting one reviewer decide whether or not I buy a game. Especially a review that's inconsistent with the score (his review sounds like he's going to give it a 7 or so). Crapping all over an FPS game because it does all the right things perfectly but doesn't innovate is like bitching about a incredibly well made slasher flick because it sticks to the established rules. If it's well done, it can still be a lot of fun.

    I don't need in innovation every time I fire up a movie or play a game. I just want something that's fun to watch or play and keeps me entertained.
    Edited by 1 at 10/02/09 @ 01:34

  • figaro7 #32 3 years ago

    I purchased the original fear based on eurogamers review, traded it within a month, i just couldnt see what was so special about it. I might pick this up when its cheap later down the road if theres no other decent FPS down the line that is.

  • Pro_Gamer #33 3 years ago

    Shooters nowadays need to meet the bar which was raised by Halo 3. The problem is that's an extraordinarily high bar to reach.

  • Ywap #34 3 years ago

    If the full game is anything like the demo, then 5 seem to be a very generous score. Personally i think it felt as shallow and simple as the junk they call Gow and Cod. Fear 1 was a great game but with the sequel Monolith seem to have lost the magic and sold their souls.
    Edited by 1 at 06/08/09 @ 03:30

  • skillian #35 3 years ago

    I loved the first game - really did love it - but I really couldn't get on with the demo for this.

    Don't know exactly what it was, but the "feel" was all wrong and even the general combat just didn't grab me. It was almost like I was playing at a low framerate although my FPS was fine at around the 50 mark. The shotgun was about a quarter as much fun as that in the original, and by the time I got in the mech suit thing I was just thoroughly disappointed with the whole thing.

    Perhaps the full game could have sucked me in if I gave it some time, but honestly this isn't something I'm going to buy now so I guess I'll never find out.

    edit: talking about the PC, by the way.
    Edited by 1 at 10/02/09 @ 01:44

  • pWnz0r #36 3 years ago


    "You explore an alternate part of the world as another FEAR team"

    Thats just not true.

    "The close-combat flying kicks have been excised, reduced to the standard weapon-bash"

    Neither is that.

    "FEAR 2 is guilty of the arrogance of videogame sequels which do little to reintroduce their plots"

    Its a sequal...

    I can always count on eurogamer for a pretty innacurate, worthless review :D
    Think ill be picking this up on PC.

  • Jim-Bob #37 3 years ago

    "FEAR 2 is guilty of the arrogance of videogame sequels which do little to reintroduce their plots"

    This should read:

    "Keiron Gillen is quilty of the arrogance of a former. Edge freelancer which is most unhelpful in determing whether this game is any good or not"

    Read the review and my brain speaks 7 or 8, but 5 come on - traffic whoring if ever I saw it. Even Edgegave it an 8 Gillen!

  • AdamVGR #38 3 years ago

    More proof that EG has no fucking clue how to score. I've played this game already and can tell you it's definitely not a 5, just like Rise of the Argonauts wasn't a 3. But give them Killzone 2 which is a incredibly short game and they give it a 9, god what a bunch of snobs.

  • Baranga #39 3 years ago

    Oh dear. How on earth could he miss the flying kicks?

  • markgreyam #40 3 years ago

    "Shooters nowadays need to meet the bar which was raised by Halo 3. The problem is that's an extraordinarily high bar to reach."

    I think you're confusing yourself with the bar you raised for Halo 3.

  • Pro_Gamer #41 3 years ago

    n@

    I'd hate to break this to you, EG gave Halo 3 a perfect 10/10 - Killzone 2 only got a 9/10

  • actionfitz #42 3 years ago

    harsh. i've read more scathing reviews that got far better sores on this site.
    confused :/
    - add this to the rent b4 buy pile (just in case).

  • rodpad #43 3 years ago

    Halo 3 raised no bar whatsoever. Utter pish.

  • Ferose999 #44 3 years ago

    I just read d review of fear 2 by eurogamer. In d review i didnt find dat reviewer had any true problem wd game vch is fantastic infact n reviewed fairly by other sites. Isnt it cheap to give a game like fear 2 just 5 out of 10. They cant deteriorate gaming n media dat way. I hav usually seen d reviews 4m eurogamer r not so relevant both in terms of context n rating. They dont speak true gaming...fable 2 got 10 out of 10 despite its so many problems. Amazing na?

  • Ferose999 #45 3 years ago

    I just read d review of fear 2 by eurogamer. In d review i didnt find dat reviewer had any true problem wd game vch is fantastic infact n reviewed fairly by other sites. Isnt it cheap to give a game like fear 2 just 5 out of 10. They cant deteriorate gaming n media dat way. I hav usually seen d reviews 4m eurogamer r not so relevant both in terms of context n rating. They dont speak true gaming...fable 2 got 10 out of 10 despite its so many problems. Amazing na?

  • rob177467 #46 3 years ago

    Ferose999, that is some of the worst English I have ever read.

  • Ferose999 #47 3 years ago

    Rob wts bad wd ma english?

  • Ferose999 #48 3 years ago

    Rob wts bad wd ma english?

  • AlanMcWilly #49 3 years ago

    Thanks EG you've convinced me to get Fear 2. Such a shit review.

  • Dirtbox #50 3 years ago

    This bloke still writes reviews? How quaint.

  • ChthonicEcho #51 3 years ago

    Reminds of the Mafia review. Just from the demo, it's clear the game cannot get any lower than a 6 or a 7. A 5 would be underrating it.

  • hairsuit #52 3 years ago

    let me blow it up here-

    Reviews are opinions. That's it. Everyone has opinions. Smart people and stupid people. People with jobs and people who are bored at their jobs- even if that job is reviewing a videogame. It can get tiresome to be rigorous, and fairly state opinions based on common sense and perpective if you happen to have to do it all the time. So sometimes, like the rest of us one does just half ass something. Now if I were paying someone to do a job, then I, as the business owner, would not tolerate that employee. But that's just me. Again, every organization does as it does.

    The opinion someone gives is just that. Opinions are not stated to persuade one way or another what to do with your money. That's on you, based on all your research, not just on someone else's one time opinion. Believe me, that's not the business model for organizations who review products. The business intention is not to persuade the consuming public where to put their money. It is to state an opinion about a service or product based on that specific transaction or time with the product. That's it. Don't get confused that they are out there to help you out, specifically. There's a distinction.

    Oh, to prove my point, one more thing-

    Stupid people have jobs too, in nice positions- from the lowest to the highest office in the land. Just because a stupid person has a job does not mean that you follow that stupid person's opinion. Again. It's only their opinion. I see people all over the place comment like" oh well, was gonna buy, but not anymore after this ONE review" Let's say stupid one more time.

    In the case here, this wanka of a reviewer is interested in his turn of phrases and wanting to impress us w/ his, "I'll know it when I see it" reasoning and logic, rather than oblige us with any kind of common sense and or perpective. Look, if you played so many god damn fps, and of course only the top % are any good, well then quit wasting your life playing them. Makes sense? Oh, it's your livelihood? Then it sounds like you hate it. Either way, people in jobs they hate don't normally do not do a stand up job. As in life, people who kinda hate their life are kinda depressing, in outlook and perspective. Don't kid yourself or us that you are capable of being wholly objective.

  • blackbriar101 #53 3 years ago

    5/10 bit harsh,fans of the game wont be happy

  • Krelle #54 3 years ago

    Yay, EG continues their rollercoster ride in silly scoring.

    But hey, i guess Clicks are more worth than Credibility these days. EGs a company after all, who wants to make money.

  • Krelle #55 3 years ago

    hairsuit +1
    I cry inside when people say things like "oh well, was gonna buy, but not anymore after this ONE review".
    Do take it into consideration, but dont let it change your mind completly.

  • Ferose999 #56 3 years ago

    Many people buy a game depending upon good reviews only. Reviews shouldnt be misleading n dat 2 4m a reputed website

  • UncleLou #57 3 years ago

    Well, thought the demo was pretty bad, but I loved the original FEAR exactly for the core mechanics the review says are still intact, and for the brillliant AI and level design. No idea now.

  • GamesConnoisseur #58 3 years ago

    EG and EDGE in the opposite corner, EG gave Sony's great hope KillZone2 9/10 but EDGE awarded it only 7/10 saying its story is cack! EDGE awarded F.E.A.R.2 8/10 and yet .....EG says its only worth 5/10!!!

    Gamers who previously expressed that they find EG and EDGE scoring pretty reliable is now up the SHIT CREEK!

    Let the battle commence and the only true reviewer left standing!!


    Yeah, just a number at the end of the article from a reviewer who is always in an impossible position to be totally objective as the act of putting together an article is always subjective.

  • Widge #59 3 years ago

    Well I found FEAR comparable to Haze and Timeshift on my demo run through, so I think I'm more down with this.

  • matrim83 #60 3 years ago

    Great! The TR U review is no longer the most misguided review on the site.

  • morriss #61 3 years ago

    Sounds like it was marked down very heavily for being a fun shooter offering nothing new.

    Strange.

  • t8yman #62 3 years ago

    ferose, learn to speak properly or fuck off.

  • ChaK #63 3 years ago

    I don't buy your arguments, it's still a buy for me :)

    i really enjoyed the demo, loved the 1rst one, so if it's still the same, why shouldn't I enjoy it? :p

  • mrpon #64 3 years ago

    Metacritic average is 8, so this is way off the mark.

  • mcbi4kh2 #65 3 years ago

    @farticus

    Don't like a PS3 exclusive? Complete shocker. I'm sure no-one saw that coming...

  • Zappa #66 3 years ago

    The game looks terrible by the demo.

    pc version has square wheels on the carts..lmao!

  • Widge #67 3 years ago

    Yes. Everyone should review the same with the same scores. BAD KIERON.

  • jlaakso #68 3 years ago

    I don't even care about the review, but SHOGO 2? Please god let it be so!

  • Darren #69 3 years ago

    Hmmm... who do I believe... F.E.A.R. 2 got 8/10 from Edge, who are one of the harshest magazines for reviews, and 5/10 from Eurogamer?

    Well I have the game pre-ordered and I absolutely loved the demo (on the PC) as well as the original game and expansion packs so I can't honestly see myself being disappointed with the full game. I guess I'll know soon enough though...

  • JohnnyWashnGo #70 3 years ago

    Terrible demo, bad control system that isn't nearly as configurable as it should be and hackneyed storyline that presents nothing new... 5 sounds about right to me.

  • des #71 3 years ago

    One point better than Haze,hmm

    Edge,Fear 2 is one point better that Killzone 2,EG Fear 2 is 5/10.*
    That means Killzone 2=Haze in combined EG,Edge review.

    *having fun

    A bit too low 5/10 Fear 2 score is,methinks

  • peak_performance #72 3 years ago

    @Widge:

    Thank you.

  • Krelle #73 3 years ago

    Widge
    I agree that people who look at metacritics and say its "way of the mark" should probably think again.
    But I think what most people ask for is some kind of red line that runs throu the site and its reviews/reviewers. There is just so many weird scores lately that one does not know what to think.
    I dont care if EG score their games in "X potatoes out of X", but Id like every potato to be the same, and id like every reviewer on EG to have a basic understanding of how much one potato is worth.

    Personally I want "critics" to review games for me. I dont have time to test everything myself and its in my interest that I can put some value to Keiron Gillens words/score, weight it against other reviews and my own "feel", and out of that make a decision.

    As it is now, i "trust" farticus opinion about as much as EGs, and while its just ONE persons opinion (and should be), theres a reason (beside Clicks) that EG make money of off this, while farticus dont.

    (Dont ask me while I still read EG, its obviously out of habit and a need for DRAMA.)
    Edited by 1 at 10/02/09 @ 08:38

  • superjag86 #74 3 years ago

    A tad harsh I fear...

  • muscleblade #75 3 years ago

    I like that EG dears to use the whole scale. Not many mags/sites do. Usually 7/10 is really a 5/10 in other words an average game. I do think 5/10 seems a little harsh though. I wasnt going to buy this anyway as SFIV and RE5 are the games for me this spring.

  • kallenai #76 3 years ago

    I had high hopes for the game given the novelty factor of the original, slow motion combat and the plot that threaded through the game.

    The FEAR 2 demo pretty much nulled any hopes for more of the same, my experience from playing the demo left me with a sense that I was playing a half baked console port, from the washed out graphics, lack of lean feature, horrid boxed display in wide screen and weapon sounds that pretty much all sounded the same.

    Obviously thats just my opinion of the demo and maybe I'm just cynical after so many recent PC games feel as though they have sold out to play second fiddle to console focused development.

    I feel that the score is pretty accurate if the full game is a sum of the demo....wasted opportunity Monolith.

  • Dezm0nd #77 3 years ago

    Not gonna change my opinion, it's a shame EG didn't enjoy it. Thought the demo was great at scaring the player in new ways.

    Maybe if EG was advertising the game it'd recieve highers scores

    *runs away*

  • tomnol #78 3 years ago

    More or less expected after one of the most uninspired demos ever.

  • Beek4257 #79 3 years ago

    @Dezm0nd

    Noticed the Rise of the Argonauts banners on the frontpage? EG gave that a 3, so you can probably stop running.

  • Dizzy #80 3 years ago

    5? Wow, that is low compared to other reviews. Anyway... all FPS-ed out at the moment anyway.

  • septimus #81 3 years ago

    Yup, BS review. Not a historic game, but better than the first. At least a 7.

    After playing the demo I was going to get it in one of the Game sales or similar, but that is mainly because Killzone 2 is coming. But 5/10 is pretty ridiculous.

    Seriously, play the demo and make up your own minds.

  • Beek4257 #82 3 years ago

    I played the demo and wasn't impressed (but hey, it's just a demo) and replayed FEAR a bit.
    Really liked it back then, but it hasn't aged very well. If FEAR 2 is actually FEAR "again" (which I gather as much from the review) it's not something I would buy.

    IMHumbleO that is.

  • guernican #83 3 years ago

    "But for anyone who's been running down corridors with shotguns for most of their adult life..."

    Thanks for that.

  • Eighthours #84 3 years ago

    I liked it a lot more than KG did, evidently: [link url=http://www.incgamers.com/Games/1500/reviews /818/FEAR-2-Project-Origin
    ]http://ww w.incgamers.com/Games/1500/revi...[/link]

    Opinions schmopinions.

  • Katsumoto #85 3 years ago

    My GOD KIERON! You gave this game a mark out of ten which is NOT the one I agree with, based on my 10 minutes with the game in the form of the demo! YOU TWAT!

    Furthermore, other magazines have rated this higher! How could you possibly have not checked this before deciding on your own score? You fool! Next time find out the metacritic average before deciding on your own score!

    Also, I haven't bothered to read the Eurogamer marking policy to find out what a 5/10 actually denotes! But I don't need to, because i'm so right, and your opinions based on playing the full game don't match up with my own expectations! Damn you!

  • JayKwon #86 3 years ago

    I love Eurogamer.net, but this review does make no sense. There are so much inaccurate things in the review and also it doesn't read as a 5/10.

    Now it just feels as if it gets a bad score for not being innovative but still a good game. I mean, it still is different from the crowd with freaky original horror elements, superb A.I., hardcore action and amazing (sound/weapon/visual) effects, right?

    Almost looks like EG wants to score games badly (Rise of the Argonauts a 3?), so it looks like they can be strict and have raised the bar for this year's games or something.

    I just don't get it. How the hell did Resistance 2 score a 9? That was one of the most uninspiring shooters I played and much worse than Killzone 2 wich scored the same. Because Resistance 2 could support so many people online?

    An explanation please! I trust Eurogamer.net, it's my favorite review-website, and their opinions is almost always the same as mine, but this just doesn't feel right. I loved the original F.E.A.R., I want to know how the (imo) good story ends and this seems like a solid sequal with small improvements, but I don't wanna waste my money, just as I did on other games Eurogamer.net scored badly.

  • Vanmunt #87 3 years ago

    TBH Edge is going down the pan, really needs a shake up in its format... probably dwindling sales = controversial scores.

    I subscribe to both Edge and GamesTM every month, and GamesTM is consistantly the better mag. (although they gave KZ2 a poor preview last month)

  • Dave52 #88 3 years ago

    Farticus: "was so turned off with the KZ2 controls that I couldnt be arsed to finish the demo"

    One of the alternative control setups will give you COD4 controls for Killzone2. Stop being such a dick.

  • Tyronne #89 3 years ago

    The more reviews that go by, the more I realise that zzap 64 had the right idea.They had one person reviewing something and then had 2 other people throwing their own thoughts in as well.

    I think a game should only have a review score once its been round a few people and not just one but then I guess that would upset the apple cart too much.

  • PearOfAnguish #90 3 years ago

    Not a surprise. FEAR 1 was a painfully average and hugely overrated corridor shooter, this is more of the same. Are there any warehouse maps? I hope there are, I do so love chasing bad guys around crates in a warehouse.

  • Masarin #91 3 years ago

    t8yman says: learn to speak properly or fuck off.

    learn to speak properly or fuck off, t8yman.

  • Widge #92 3 years ago

    At the end of the day, even though they put their views forward as the opinion of a publication, you're still effectively buying into one person's perspective. The score tends to become more important if you like to wave numbers around at people as some sort of set in stone official benchmark of goodness.

    Its like the way some people love Fallout 3, some people think its over-rated. Disagree and you get "but this is a 10" waved in your face. For the record, I think Fallout 3 is a 10 for me, I'm sure people are allowed to disagree. Everyone is correct.

  • Masarin #93 3 years ago

    To me it may be more relevant(?) what Kristian (Reed) thinks about this one. He loved the original...

  • Widge #94 3 years ago

    How did R2 score a 9? I seem to remember Dan backing that up by saying he genuinely enjoyed it. What did you expect? Him to call you and make sure his opinion was the right one first?

  • Katsumoto #95 3 years ago

    "Dear god... "

    Uh yeah, that wasn't an entirely serious post :p. For all those who love numbers, this got 78% in PC Gamer. As I say, i'll probably be picking this up when it gets cheaper. It does seem to lack that touch of genius t hat the original had, and going by the demo, the atmosphere has been "exaggerated" to its detriment.

  • derFeef #96 3 years ago

    lol - looks like someone is sick of shooters. But thats no reason to give this game such a low score.

  • makariel #97 3 years ago

    5/10?

    I liked the demo, but now I'm getting second thoughts...

  • derFeef #98 3 years ago

    @makariel
    Dont you have our own opinion?

  • DB2k #99 3 years ago

    how annoying... the adverts in the article overlay the image viewer.

  • mazzl #100 3 years ago

    so, you slag off a perfectly well executed game for not being innovative....

    not that fair, it's not fear's fault the reviewer is fed up with FPS games.

  • pinchofsalt #101 3 years ago

    I don't get it.
    The review details a game that is decidedly average and is then given an average score.
    What's the beef with everyone?

  • Rayn #102 3 years ago

    Good review, I couldn't agree more. I even think 5 was just a wee bit generous, as I think it's a slightly below average game.

  • UncleLou #103 3 years ago

    Not a surprise. FEAR 1 was a painfully average and hugely overrated corridor shooter, this is more of the same.

    It wasn't what people usually mean when they say "corridor shooter", even if it took place in corridors.

    Weirdly enough, I think it's one of the most consistently underrated FPS games, to the point where I despair about gamers not recognising how a dev finally concentrated on developing Half-Life 1's finest moments into a full game of its own instead of just doing pretty surroundings, and brought the genre forward by marrying stellar AI to brilliantly open (despite the corridors) level design and absolutely perfect shooting mechanics. FEAR 1 stands proudly next to Half-Life 1, Stalker and the original NoLF on my shelf as one of the best shooters ever. ;)
    Edited by 2 at 10/02/09 @ 09:44

  • Warmtape #104 3 years ago

    "Elements of the kinetic combat have been removed, oddly. The close-combat flying kicks have been excised, reduced to the standard weapon-bash." Wrong.

    The validity of this review is suspect if statements like the above are made. The ability to do the flying kick and sliding kick are still in the game.

  • JayKwon #105 3 years ago

    @ Widge, I know, but oh well, I just can't get my head around the fact that R2 was such an uninspiring game, although much fun, and scored a 9, and F.E.A.R. 2 scores a 5 ?!

    I don't know, I'm going to buy it anyway I think and see if Eurogamer.net was right once more, but hopefully not, the review does not totally read that way anyway. Furthermore I at least hope the games sucks you in and makes you feel exhausted in a strange kind of way after a while, just as the original game!

    I know this game could've been better, Monolith has all the capabilities for it, but this just doesn't sound fair. EG should've scored this higher, or all those other good, but rather uninspiring games lower.

    I'd love to read some further explanation from EG self for all of this.

  • Hangman #106 3 years ago

    There's nothing to fear. except this shit review!

    i fully expect Resident Evil 5 to score 5 as well - cause that is a re-skin of 4, except in the daylight.With solid shooting mechanics. it doesn't matter about the online options eurogamer doesn't take those into account.
    Edited by 1 at 10/02/09 @ 09:55

  • Tyranix #107 3 years ago

    I think taking a stand against the wave after wave after wave of utterly generic first person shooters is a great thing to do. I could tell from the demo that this was just *yawn* another fps, like we don't have enough of those. It does what it does well, but since you could get the exact same thing for £5 instead of £40 why bother?

  • ChrisS #108 3 years ago

    And VideoGamer just gave the game a 9/10.

    VideoGamer give EVERYTHING 9/10. It's become a running joke for me and a few mates.

    Fair play to Gillen for going against the grain. I'm still interested enough from the other reviews (the Edge one is positively evangelical in places) to give it a try, but my expectations have now been tempered slightly.
    Edited by 1 at 10/02/09 @ 10:00

  • Moonprince #109 3 years ago

    farticusmaximus - KZ appears to be your life at the moment. Move on, watch a film, get a girl, play a game. Get over it son. People love it, it's reflected in the scores. Deal with it :(

  • septimus #110 3 years ago

    "Shooters nowadays need to meet the bar which was raised by Halo 3. The problem is that's an extraordinarily high bar to reach."

    Hahahahahahahahaha....hahahahahahahahahahahahahahaaaaaaaaaaa ! That was good.

    Halo > Halo 2 & 3. 3 sucked ass unless you are a racist 14 year old homophobe who is also gay.

  • robg #111 3 years ago

    Perhaps I've played too many FPSes, but F.E.A.R. was a spectacular, tense corridor shooting section stretched out over a whole game. Never letting up the tension is bad, people. As is being less colourful than Quake.

    Although the "psychological" bits were cool to start with, they got a bit old.

  • UncleLou #112 3 years ago

    Ah, not played Crysis? What a pity for you.

  • actionfitz #113 3 years ago

    can open...
    worms everywhere...

  • Widge #114 3 years ago

    Well I'm sure Dan was on just one big LYING FEST with his Killzone review. For kicks.

  • ps3owner #115 3 years ago

    I like Doom.

  • Widge #116 3 years ago

    @JayKwon I think the only explanation would be that its down to the reviewer. If they can stand up and justify their feelings for a title then so be it I guess. Of course we don't have to agree, and unless the score matches our own internal benchmark, we don't!

    like this:

    [link url=h ttp://www.eurogamer.net/articles/r_starwarskotor_x
    ]http://ww w.eurogamer.net/articles/r_star...[/link]

    is about 3/10 for me!
    Edited by 1 at 10/02/09 @ 10:19

  • Tiiti #117 3 years ago

    Not as good as the expansions then?

    FEAR Files 7/10

  • bdc #118 3 years ago

    Ouch

  • Gearskin #119 3 years ago

    Everything I've seen and read puts FEAR 2 ahead of the original in every way. It's as if Monolith took the list of complaints received in 2005 and addressed them all.

    I've been playing the original recently and it's aged quite badly, mostly thanks to the tech. FEAR 2, as a visual upgrade, looks incredible.

    How can Killzone 2 receive a 9/10 for being a bog standard shooter with pretty graphics and this sequel receive a 5/10 for doing the exact same thing whilst, at the same time, improving on everything that made the original great in the first place?

    This is, hands down, the lowest score FEAR 2 will receive. By quite a margin. Even EDGE scored it 8/10!

  • jonsaan #120 3 years ago

    Edgelol

  • Dave52 #121 3 years ago

    Farticus: "Terrible missed opportunity"

    Yeah, Guerilla had the chance to please you, and only you... it was in their grasp... then, at the last moment they fucked up. That's £40 they've missed out on - I bet they're really gutted. If only they allowed you to bounce around like demented kangaroo like you can in Halo - that would've sorted it all out...

  • schachmatt #122 3 years ago

    Low scores bother me less than high scores combined with lenient reviews.

    What bothers me though is when someone can't do his job right and does the huge mistake of drawing attention to his failure.
    How could he even miss the melee part, and why didn't anyone bother to correct that at EG?
    Hope that bothers enough people to stop visiting here for a while.

  • mikeck #123 3 years ago

    My GOD KIERON! You gave this game a mark out of ten which is NOT the one I agree with, based on my 10 minutes with the game in the form of the demo! YOU TWAT!

    Furthermore, other magazines have rated this higher! How could you possibly have not checked this before deciding on your own score? You fool! Next time find out the metacritic average before deciding on your own score!

    Also, I haven't bothered to read the Eurogamer marking policy to find out what a 5/10 actually denotes! But I don't need to, because i'm so right, and your opinions based on playing the full game don't match up with my own expectations! Damn you!

    Funniest, yet most truthful, comment here. Instead of people bitching about the score, just buy the bloody game for yourself and try it. If you like it, then hey you've got a game you enjoy, if you don't like it then...oh tough really ;)

  • mikeck #124 3 years ago


    /see's someone actually say KZ2 is somehow better than H3

    /walks out

    It is though. :)

    Okay, well in MY opinion it is. I'm halfway through the game and am enjoying it more than I ever did Halo 3. Sorry if that offends ;)

  • DrDamn #125 3 years ago

    @Farticus
    Are you complaining about scores again. Or is that only a bad thing when they agree with your opinion?

    I thought the demo was very solid and a big improvement on the demo of the first. It felt like a decent console shooter where I found the first to be a PC shooter put on a console with very few concessions to the format. I find it interesting that people like UncleLou didn't like the demo - I remember several old threads where he has defended the original as one of the best FPS ever.

  • Kami #126 3 years ago

    Oh boo-bloody-hoo people. FEAR2 got a 5. Waa waa. EG is biased. I dunno if anyone remembers a few years ago when the shit did hit the proverbial fan with the take on the (as then unnamed) Wii, and the article header proudly displaying Nintendo withdrawing from the market. Even I had to say I thought EG had a bias at that point, it was a horrendous moment that I'm sure the big chaps running EG would rather I didn't bring up - but we've been through this whole 'biased' crap before for far worse than this. I think for a long time EG rightly has been very careful. They wouldn't have authorised this to be published if they felt it wasn't representative of the actual game. You might disagree, but reviews are always opinion. If you disagree, write your own. See that thing called a reader review? Have a go a writing a review yourself.

    From the demo, I wasn't sure. It seemed like FEAR. That was its main problem. It didn't feel like it had progressed much - and it's been four years now? - and that's usually not something you take lightly. We've had plenty of good, nay, great FPS blending sci-fi and horror into the mix. From initial impressions (and I will be picking the game up) the biggest problem I felt about this game was that it thought more of the same was good enough, but in truth even at the time FEAR was hardly pushing the boat out in the FPS world. It just added some nice freaky moments - although it must be said you could almost hear the game creaking as it switched between the psychological-head-fuckery and the shooty bits. It had a gimmick that was rather fresh at the time, but it's aged now by four years and isn't quite as peachy as it was then.

    It might be the full game is better, but I haven't tried it yet. Probably will soon. I may even enjoy it, I mean, reviews hammered Martian Gothic back in the day for being slow and conffusing and clunky but I got a hell of a lot of enjoyment out of the game - partly down to the story, which was acted out so badly that I was compelled to put up with the crappy mechanics and awful visuals just to see the next truly awful bit of acting and plot development. I do like my horror, even when it's substandard. For me, what I take away from the review is when I get around to the game, to expect more of what I got in FEAR and its two near-stillborn spinoffs. It's a message that I have to be careful. It may not be terrible, but there comes a time in a games life when your ideas and gimmicks wear a little thin... FEAR2 is probably a victim not of being a terrible game, but thinking that more of the same would work in a market that's been bastardising the original in parts for years.

    But as I said, FEAR got away with it because it had a clever gimmick. Well, two actually. And even one of those - the time-slowing - was already in full milkage mode at the time. It was never the most well-designed game, or the most pretty, but it had good scary bits and a decent bit of plot. It wouldn't have worked now if this were the original, at a time when even Ubisoft have moved Prince of Persia away from the time-mechanics and every third or fourth game has some semblance of horror and/or sci-fi (that is an over-exaggeration. Just.).

    So FEAR2 is more of the same. Hey, if you loved FEAR then I'm sure FEAR2 is worth more to you. Go and enjoy it. The reviewer tries to be objective... seriously, when I play or reader review a horror game I have to lay my prejudices aside after all.

    I mean, I see Project Zero 2: Crimson Butterfly as potentially the closest evidence on the planet that there may be a god... and that he was thinking of me when he made one of the best horror games ever...

  • Dave52 #127 3 years ago

    Farticus: "No, Guerilla had 4 years to make a good game, but instead 'pulled a treyarch' and left us with a slightly naff CoD 4 reskin"

    LOL, no further questions your honour...

  • OllyJ #128 3 years ago

    Again I have to ask, why does the sound design not get a nod?

    It was really very good from the demo!!!

  • Eighthours #129 3 years ago

    VideoGamer give EVERYTHING 9/10. It's become a running joke for me and a few mates.

    That Videogamer.com scoring scale in full (from bottom to top):

    9 - Really shit
    9 - Shit
    9 - Kinda shit
    9 - Alright
    9 - Average
    9 - Above average but with many flaws
    9 - Well worth picking up
    9 - Good stuff
    9 - A really good game
    9 - Best game ever

    Fair play to Gillen for going against the grain. I'm still interested enough from the other reviews (the Edge one is positively evangelical in places) to give it a try, but my expectations have now been tempered slightly.

    :(

  • drumbaby #130 3 years ago

    Monolith, they single handedly killed the AvsP franchise, and now they're peddling crap like this. Give it up already.

  • patchbox360 #131 3 years ago

    "Well, at least I haven't done a gun-turret bit yet."

    amen for hating the gun-turret

  • BillyBrush #132 3 years ago

    Monolith are great imo....certainly not peddling crap...I'm looking forward to playing this still
    Edited by 1 at 10/02/09 @ 10:57

  • spudsbuckley #133 3 years ago

    I thought the demo was pretty good so this review score suprised the hell out of me until i saw who wrote the review. Way to give the review to the complete wrong person EG.

    Kieron 'Too Cool For The Room' Gillen is only fit to review quirky indie stuff because that's the kind of tat he laps up. It's idiotic having him review a blockbuster action game because he's obviously going to hate it.

  • ps3owner #134 3 years ago

    so, are EG's reviewers specialists in their respective field? or does everyone get a shot at reviewing everything... even though they are not into it? Would be interested to know. is there a list somewhere? like, the name + what they are responsible for... MMOS so on.?!

    I know that I would be really bad at judging something like Flower. I would be good at judging an FPS or an RTS. that's it though... damn it. I am shallow ;)

  • JHuxley #135 3 years ago

    @spudsbuckley

    Que? GTA IV? Left 4 Dead?

  • makariel #136 3 years ago

    @derFeef:
    I do have my own opinion, but I also had my share of bad experiences when buying a full game after playing the demo. And with FEAR2 my biggest fear was (is) that the parts I couldn't stand about the first one - endless corridors after corridors - would be back with a vengeance. The demo was different, but I can't tell if after this level there wouldn't be 20 or more hours of the same corridor ;-)

    So I guess I wait for some more reviews to roll in before buying.

  • Gecks #137 3 years ago

    given how everyone seems to have preconceived ideas about how EG and indeed KG respond to games like this, isn't the review therefore a success? if he finds it all well-trodden and generic FPS fare, yet you lap that stuff up, then clearly this is game is for you. job done.

    i miss the early days of OPSM when the score really did reflect the text, like in this one.
    Edited by 1 at 10/02/09 @ 11:09

  • UncleLou #138 3 years ago

    I fully expected Lou to hate the demo with a passion regardless of the franchise's history, because as you said it's a console game, not a PC game ported to a console.

    Says more about your attitude to games than mine. Hint: Mass Effect and Fallout 3 were two of my favourite games last year.

    That the FEAR2 demo is a bit shit has nothing to do with it being a multiplatform game, and a lot with it being too easy and not really showing the level design and AI goodness the first had. For all I care, it could be a PSP port if it had that.

    edit: That said, the demo of the original FEAR wasn't great, either, but the reviews (not just this here, also a couple of printmag reviews I've read) don't exactly fill me with confidence.
    Edited by 2 at 10/02/09 @ 11:12

  • Xerx3s #139 3 years ago

    "O_o


    Replace Halo 3 with Killzone 2=(y) "

    Errr, no, not if the demo is anything to go by.

  • the_mtfr #140 3 years ago

    It's amazing how the reviewer punches the game for not having flying kicks because he was too lazy to find them. Can the game punch him back?
    Edited by 1 at 10/02/09 @ 11:13

  • Xerx3s #141 3 years ago

    Reading through this thread, it's good to know that the halo haters are still so bitter about how awesome H3 is. Very entertaining. :D

  • jimboton #142 3 years ago

    @JayKwon

    That's certainly true. I'm currently playing Resistance 2 and it is one of the most uninspired shooters ever. If the difference (between a 5 and a 9) is to be found in multiplayer then there is really no excuse for this:

    'Multiplayer exists, featuring four modes and six maps, but I wasn't able to find any games pre-release to play, and there are no bots to just get a sense of the levels. Eurogamer will look at this area again following release if it proves to offer anything more than other shooters'

    So you didn't even bother to wait so you could try one game's possible saving grace before slapping it a 5?

    I think Kieron makes some very valid points about the terrible lack of fresh content in FEAR 2, but it's also apparent that he wasn't ready to appreciate a very well made and potentially enjoyable fps. He could have done this to a number of recent games including but not limited to Resistance 2, Gears of War 2 and Killzone 2. And he probably would have. Was it fate that Kieron got assigned this game instead of the guy who gave the first FEAR a 9?

    Eurogamer needs very badly to start providing different points of view in each review, each with its own score ala Famitsu to have some consistency. Because yes, it's only a number, and it's subjective and all that, but we obviously care about it as this thread alone shows. Having four different opinions for each major release would be way better than this 'Euro lottery'.

    Edited by 4 at 10/02/09 @ 11:39

  • miiiguel #143 3 years ago

    FEAR was upgraded to a "blockbuster action game" ? Damn, I missed that episode...

  • gaselite #144 3 years ago

    This'll sound wanky but I'm good at that. This feels like a watershed review. A big budget, well marketed game that is definitely not bad but is conservative all the same is given a 5/10 review that reflects a certain subjectivity on the part of the author when a more conservative 7 or 8/10 would be the norm for almost any video game journalist. This is a fantastic thing. Diversity of opinion is sorely lacking in video game journalism, compared to say film, where movie's like doubt can we given 1 star by peter bradshaw and 4/4 (out of four! imagine!) by Roger Ebert.

    That's not to say any of these people are right, but jesus, isn't it more interesting, broadly speaking and in terms of this medium, reading a review that goes a bit against the grain and shows a bit of dissent to broadly accepted convention than playing another by the numbers first person shooter or reading another by the numbers review of a by the numbers first person shooter?

    I'm not trying to brown nose Gillen, I'm sure he's a wanker in some capacity, but semantic arguing over scoring, like a score means something, is more irritating than ever but I hope that more people will grow out of it. If you think 5/10 is harsh for some inexplicable reason pertaining to someone relating their subjective opinion to an arbitrary numeric scale, think about it like this for a moment: If FEAR 2 was a movie in a sea of similar movies, no matter how excellent its technical values, would any reviewer who thought about it the same way as Gillen did about this (different media I know but try and transpose the two to humour me) hesitate for a second in giving it a 2.5/5

    In terms of the actual content of the review, well I related to this most of all:

    "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."

    Amen, it's been a little bit dispiriting to go from games as wonderful as nolf 1 and 2 and then seeing the utterly witless approach they've taken to these games. Not to say they're not compelling at some level or that they don't work, points which Gillen mentions, but they're just uninspired. Especially relative to those two minor classics. I was watching some clips from the two games the other day and while the humour is a bit dated and not especially ingenious, to have been experiencing it in a game at the time it was released was a breath of fresh air. The other humourous flourishes in the game outside of the cutscenes were fantastic as well. I desperately hope for a third No One Lives Forever game. Or if the current iteration of Monolith can't create that for legal/rights reasons, a game of that ilk.

  • UncleLou #145 3 years ago

    FEAR was upgraded to a "blockbuster action game" ? Damn, I missed that episode...

    That's not very astonishing, you seem to miss everything that's not spoon-fed to you as THE NEXT BIG THING by the hype machinery of platform holders.

  • miiiguel #146 3 years ago

    " we live in a post- KILLZONE2 "
    oh man... KZ2 is already "post" ? This is going way too fast...~

    edit: anyway, I think the only shooter that stood the test of time is Halo. It still messes with a lot of heads.
    Edited by 1 at 10/02/09 @ 11:45

  • lasersrule #147 3 years ago

    Fuck all this shit, Monolith. I remember when you used to make interesting FPSes instead of recycled horror-junk bullshit.

    Where *THE FUCK* is NOLF3 and Tron 3.0?

    :(

  • skillian #148 3 years ago

    I'm currently playing Resistance 2 and it is one of the most uninspired shooters ever.

    So what would you give it? a 5? The internets would condemn you more than they have the author of this review. Likewise with those that call Halo or Killzone shit but complain about this review.

    Surely if you think either of those games are "shit" they would get a score less than 5 if you reviewed it, so why complain about this review just because it gets an average score?

    edit:@ gaselite, you are right, but the ironic thing is most of those complaining would agree with you. These are people who regularly give their opinions on how crappy they think games like Gears of War or LittleBigPlanet are, but then complain that's EG's review is 3 points away from the Metacritic score. It is senseless.


    Edited by 1 at 10/02/09 @ 11:53

  • systems #149 3 years ago

    Stop fixating on the score number. According to the EG scoring scheme, a 5 means:

    "Five is where you really start to fear (ho ho!) for a game's quality. It's the score that says "don't buy it unless you're the sort of person who has to have all the games in a particular genre". It's a game that had the potential to be good, but simply ended up saddled with a catalogue of issues that the majority of gamers will not put up with. It's still playable, but the chances are it's so generic and uninspired that you begin to question how it was released in the first place."

    Kieron has played it through and finds it playable but generic and uninspired. So a EG 5 it is. That's the scoring scheme.

  • TheComedian #150 3 years ago

    Is it me, or does this read like the review for KZ2?

    Pretty game that does all that is asked for it, but is a corridor shooter through-and-through.

  • Domovoi #151 3 years ago

    ANGRY NERDS ARE ANGRY

  • Snooz #152 3 years ago

    If you like a game like this go buy it, it's old school and allright. How the original got a 9 was a mystery to me, it was fun for 2-3 levels, that nailgun and the zapper was fun. Still i finished the game because I'm a cheap bastard, played in on hardest to make it last longer :p Slow-mo made it easy though, but of course I died lots of times.

  • UncleLou #153 3 years ago

    Statements like that always amuse me. Is there a really a site or mag where you agree with every review? If that's the case, that would be worrying in itself.

  • Snooz #154 3 years ago

    I sense a market opportunity:

    http://www.theno nbiasedreviewer.com - where everybody knows your scoooore (mel:cheers)

    gaming your way in the world today takes everything you've got.
    Taking a break from all your worries, sure would help a lot.

    Wouldn't you like to get away?

    Sometimes you want to go

    Where everybody knows your game,
    and they're always glad you came.
    You wanna be where you can see,
    our troubles are all the same
    You wanna be where everybody knows
    Your game.

    You wanna go where people know,
    people are all the same,
    You wanna go where everybody knows
    your Game.
    Edited by 2 at 10/02/09 @ 13:13

  • DrDamn #155 3 years ago

    @Snooz
    :)

    Slight problem - where are you going to find non-biased reviewers?

  • tomnol #156 3 years ago

    Anyone keeping count on how many times farticus has mentioned KZ2 in a discussion about FEAR up until now? I lost count at 9.

  • Snooz #157 3 years ago

    hey, it's a bizniz opportunity not a bizniz plan! I'm getting there. I'm thinking people with autism..or making myself the dictator, problem solved.
    Edited by 1 at 10/02/09 @ 13:35

  • tiny_mahoney #158 3 years ago

    I wasn't expecting this from Gillen - he gave Perseus Mandate somewhere in the seventies for PC Gamer, and that is a slice of unshaven ass pie. I don't know what to think any more

  • HolyJebus #159 3 years ago

    Get a life you losers. How can ye argue so much about what a stranger thinks of a game. It was a good review that made it quite clear that if you play FPS non stop then it's nothing special, but for everyone else out there its a competent game that should be tried before buying.

  • Snooz #160 3 years ago

    but.... but it really,really read like a 6/10... and should then get at least a 8 from EG? Shouldn't it?


    Yeah, I'll shut up now, I think the score looks fair. and HolyJebus sums it up nice.

  • Bitkari #161 3 years ago

    The review doesn't read like a 5 score game.

    That's because Kieron actually uses 5 as an average rating, which according to most editorial policies is supposed to be average.

    Many reviewers tend to use 7 as average. ¬_¬


  • Widge #162 3 years ago

    Which is why waving around some EG score as a defining bottom line when trying to organise games into best -> worst order is a bit silly.

  • Feanor #163 3 years ago

    Is the review going to be edited to fix the inaccuracies or some sort of P.S. added?

  • Widge #164 3 years ago

    I want to try R2 to see if its more entertaining than RFOM. Of all the FPS games on this current crop that I've played, only Bioshock and Killzone 2 have really stirred any "yes please" sensations.

    And before anyone goes on, I've not touched Halo 3 but I'm sure I'd love it.

  • Widge #165 3 years ago

    Is the flying kick thing going to make some sort of drastic game changing experience?

  • dravin369 #166 3 years ago

    Is eurogamer trying to get more hits than Edge.Loosing faith in all game journalism.
    Edited by 1 at 10/02/09 @ 14:30

  • miiiguel #167 3 years ago

    @trebell:
    Buddy, EG.pt gave R2 a 10 (ten!; yeah... like the one after nine!).

  • Widge #168 3 years ago

    Well, I remember asking Dan what he preferred out of KZ2 and R2 when he was doing the KZ2 multiplayer hands on, I just guess he found two games that he like equally for different purposes.

  • DrDamn #169 3 years ago

    @trebell
    Why do people assume that differing opinions to their own are rooted in bias rather than simply having different tastes? The maturity of the games market is such that games are all about variety and there is something for everyone. Instead of seeing this as a good point people would rather bitch about how a particular review doesn't match their opinion and is obviously wrong/biased in some way. Blind to the fact that others might enjoy what they don't or hate what they do.

  • PearOfAnguish #170 3 years ago

    "After this site gave Saints Row 2 9/10 I have given up trusting their opinions and/or 'expertise'."

    I know, it should have got 10/10.

  • Iora #171 3 years ago

    If review sites are going to make a stand against game design then they have to make that stance bold, loud and clear.

    Picking on an FPS that isn’t regarded of 'that' highly to push their notion of perfect game design is pretty hypocritical when compared with their own statements on other big releases.

    I certainly don’t want to see the Eurogamer of old where they lost there number stamps and were left with 8, 9 and 10’s

    But if they are going to take a stance as a review site against these sorts of game mechanics it has to be genre wide and developer be damned.

    I’d respect the 5/10 score far more if they were consistant.


    and as for the arguement about reviewer opinions... that's rubbish. As a site Eurogamer should have a clear mission statement something that all it's reviewers should look for in each game they review. Be it ingenuity, gameplay or good olde fashioned 90's Graphics > all.

    If they don't have this it's basically a hang out ground for reviewers and their 'opinions' Why should this be a draw for someone wishing to read a good review. If Eurogamer decides that it wants to take this high brow approach then it should be equally critical with every release. At least then people will know where to come if they want to read about genuine development within our games.

    Having one review chew out a game for features that another game laud's is fine and their 'opinion' if they were seperate entities floating about the net, but brought under the same roof it becomes pretty unprofessional.

    But then thats my opinion. 7/10 Nice site but lacks focus.

  • Gecks #172 3 years ago

    "If they don't have this it's basically a hang out ground for reviewers and their 'opinions'"

    isn't that surely the only way you can do these things? games aren't like films - one guy can't be expected to review every game coming out in a week, like a film critic would do for films. so, with that said you have to expect a certain disparity when it comes to game critic a and game critic b's views on any given game.

    i mean, imagine the conversation:
    writer: "i give it 5/10 - pretty average"
    editor: "ahh but i think most of our reviewers would like this game - please append "but i liked it quite a bit, actually" to the end for continuities sake"
    writer: "... ok"

    besides, whether or not you agree with a review is missing the point. a good critic (as i believe KG is) will articulate what they do/don't like in a game. if you read their review and think "I DISAGREE, SIR!!! I WOULD REALLY LIKE MORE TURRET SECTIONS" then that's absolutely fine - you will probably like that aspect - stick another point on the score and move on.

  • MattyD #173 3 years ago

    Why oh why does Eurogamer continue to give this man a platform for his 'New Games Journalism' twaddle?

  • PearOfAnguish #174 3 years ago

    I'm more confused about why Eurogamer gives a platform to the hordes of dribbling morons that come crawling out the woodwork whining about the score whenever a review doesn't match their expectations, even though they haven't played it. OHMIGOD THE REVIEWER SAID THIS GAME WAS A 7.2 AND I THINK IT IS 7.3 BLAH BLOO BLAH

    Aside from the slight cock-up with the kicking thing, there's nothing wrong with the review. A competent FPS that does nothing new. Middle of the road game gets a middle of the road score.
    Edited by 1 at 10/02/09 @ 15:28

  • Ryuken #175 3 years ago

    Demo sucked horribly; way more linear/one-small-street-feeling than the original FEAR (and its both addons), meaningless cluttered-HUD, useless black bars on top and bottom, oversized text and just not a lot of inspiration as KG noted. The melee kicks were in though, just as the kick-door-open feature from the addons and turning a table up to create your own cover is cool as well but everything else felt too overdone (even the colours).

    This went totally wrong if you ask me, and then they even scrapped bullet-time from the multiplayer. Get back on the good track soon, Monolith. :(

  • Iora #176 3 years ago

    @ Gecks

    Look at the UK gaming magazines. Edge's approach is more of a (and i hate saying this) High brow approach to the games industry it reviews all it's games with it's eye on ingenuity blah blah blah.

    Other magazines care little for this aspect, or they believe that their readerbase doesnt (fair enough) so their reviews are based more on simple gameplay, fun (and jesus) graphics.

    It is the job of the editor the site as a whole to direct the reviewer not in their opinion but in the scope in which they review the game. Nowbody expects to read serious current afffair issues in Marie Claire.

    Imagine picking up Edge only to read how WWF got 10/10 because of how totally rad it is to do (Whatever move the kids are doing now-a-days)

    A publications/website should be consistant.

    As I said i'd have more respect for this arbitrary number 5/10 if the site were more consistant. You don't need the one reviewer for that.

  • Gearskin #177 3 years ago

    Iora has it right.

    Tom reviewed the original game. I would rather have had him post his thoughts, seeing as this is a sequel. Compared to FEAR how does Project Origin stack up.

  • mikeck #178 3 years ago

    But that's not what this thread is about, it's about one middle-of-the-road game scoring nearly twice as much as another middle-of-the-road game. The score isnt the issue, the inconsistency is.

    When did we start discussing Halo...sorry, sorry couldn't resist (I do like Halo before anyone starts) :D

  • Iora #179 3 years ago

    @ Mikeck

    I enjoyed Halo 3 about as much as I enjoyed a pot noodle. Was cheap and warm and it got me through the day but i always felt cheap and nasty afterwards. ;p

  • PearOfAnguish #180 3 years ago

    "But that's not what this thread is about, it's about one middle-of-the-road game scoring nearly twice as much as another middle-of-the-road game. The score isnt the issue, the inconsistency is."

    Irrelevant. Different game, different writers. This inconsistency thing is a load of crap, it would only matter if Gillen had given different scores for the same game.

    If you want a site where every review sounds like it's written by a robot then head over to GameSpy, and don't come back. EG uses well known writers and their name is on every article, making it very clear that it's the opinion of that person, not the EG hive mind. If you have a problem with this approach then by all means fuck off elsewhere and stop spewing your mind-numbing bullshit over every review comments thread.

  • Feanor #181 3 years ago

    "This inconsistency thing is a load of crap, it would only matter if Gillen had given different scores for the same game."

    I wish a freelance reviewer would do that sometime, just for laughs.

  • mikeck #182 3 years ago

    I enjoyed Halo 3 about as much as I enjoyed a pot noodle. Was cheap and warm and it got me through the day but i always felt cheap and nasty afterwards. ;p

    Good analogy, I know what you mean.

    In regards to the ill-feling towards KZ2, well I'm about halfway through the game and I think it's a very tense and well put together FPS, and in that regard I think it's far superior to Halo 3. You will fail if you try to run and gun you way to completion (that said there are moments when a forced push could work well), and I like the more tense, gain an iinch by inch nature of the game. Whilst they are both in the same genre, they are both very different games, and therefore the endless comparisons that are happening/will happen (I realise the irony, seeing as I just compared them) should stop. It's only heading into console wars anyway...both are good shooters, and games in general, but offer very different experiences.

    As for FEAR 2, I thought the demo was okay, maybe worth a look once I've worn out my copy of KZ2 perhaps.

  • Gecks #183 3 years ago

    @Iora
    edge's anonymous reviews (are they still doing that?) aren't fooling anyone. i daresay there's quite a bit of editorial input over their reviews and how they are weighted, but ultimately that is only ever at the cost of the writing quality itself. if you chose to limit scope - well i don't even know how you'd do that! if a writer decides that the most important aspect of any game is how many helicopters are in it, you'd probably not hire them (or, in the case of PC gamer, promote them, ho ho).

    an aside: there's a classic example from an ancient review of one of the 2d mario games where they were forced to give it 101% after they scored the previous mario title 100%, and this one was better. lets not go down that path.

  • Ellie #184 3 years ago

    Hands up time! There were a couple of factual errors in this review. Thank you to those who pointed them out. We've had a chat with Kieron and the review has been amended accordingly. Please accept our apologies.

  • Ferose999 #185 3 years ago

    Hey guys y do u think ma english is so bad. I guess i speak good english.

  • Ferose999 #186 3 years ago

    I guess ma english is good. I m a passionate gamer n i love to talk about games

  • DrDamn #187 3 years ago

    @Farticus
    "But that's not what this thread is about, it's about one middle-of-the-road game scoring nearly twice as much as another middle-of-the-road game. The score isnt the issue, the inconsistency is."

    Maybe this is a case of the score helping clarify the reviewers overall feel of a game which can't be clearly and obviously expressed in the text. You can't simply look at all the plus points and compare them to the minus points then come up with a number. This versus Killzone 2 is not simply a case of "middle-of-the-road" versus "middle-of-the-road" as you put it. Kieron sounds like he didn't enjoy playing the game - for what ever reason, Dan Whitehead did. The distinction is made in the score and not just the text.

    "Edit: Whoever suggested having a main review and then a mini-review by the other reviewers and a combined score is spot on. That will at least remove a great deal of opinion from the review and allow a little more objectivity."

    I would welcome second opinions too - though practically the second opinion would not have the same time to play the game as the main reviewer, so I would be dubious about an influence on the score.

  • Iora #188 3 years ago

    @ Gecks

    I'm not even close to proposing what you are speaking off : /

    Each sort of publication from Jugs to the Telegraph have writing styles. Each is full of different opinions but there direction is the same. Tits or politics (one in the same?!?)

    If you as a reviewer value ingenuity, originality you should be drawn to publications that has the same values.
    If we have umpteen different reviewers all running off in different directions some condeming old game mechanics while others lauding them then you will have a fragmented... schizophrenic publication. There is plenty of room in there for opinion Loads of room. Then it's a role of the dice to see who reviews it... the guy who likes change or the bloke who fears change.

    But when one person reviews Halo3, Half-Life 2, etc etc and gives it the lofty score of 10/10 praising it for it's ingenuity while another reviewer slates another game for using the same mechanics, and all under the same roof... Which is it.

    If you are to be this critical on one games dated approach to the genre then as a publication you should be equally critical of other titles that follow the same path.

    I'm not saying this guys review is wrong, but it is hard to stomach when it sits alongside reviews from his peers.

    I'm of the personal opinion that in this case it is his peers that are wrong to have been awarding such praise to the titles of late.

  • Kenshin001 #189 3 years ago

    5/10 is not a bad score if you don't own a PS3 and can not play the critically acclaimed intense shooter, Killzone 2.

  • ronuds #190 3 years ago

    What's up with the same girl in every horror movie/game these days?

  • polaris70 #191 3 years ago

    The smallest fundamental parts - such as the combat - work

    Erm correct me if I'm wrong but I would say the combat in an FPS is more than just a small fundamental part. It's a huge whopping great chunk of the game along with the A.I. I play shooters to shoot things, if I want a great open-world story I'd play Mass Effect or Fallout. The combat mechanics and A.I are the cornerstones of any FPS, everything else like story etc follow on. Playing the demo the combat mechanics have been well improved from the first game (including a proper ironsight view), and the A.I seems good. Still a buy for me.

  • Iora #192 3 years ago

    Unless the AI has changed drastically since FEAR it has some of the best AI out there. Trying camping in FEAR you will be waiting awhile as they will never come strolling around a corner into view of your camped position one at a time. Never ever!

  • ronuds #193 3 years ago

    How did this turn into a discussion about Halo vs. KZ2? You guys!!!

    Anyway, when are people going to realize that their personal preference is of very little importance when compared against the entire populace? Why does everyone feel the need -- mostly haters of course -- to voice their opinion of Halo 3 in every fucking article about any FPS? It's so stupid!!! Yes, we know, everyone hates Halo and it's the worst FPS ever made - that's why it sells so many copies, garners such critical acclaim, and is one of the most beloved franchises of our time. Yep...it's a really horrible game.

    And if you are going to insist on comparisons, the mention of how many elements Halo 3 adds to the genre that 99% of FPS's don't have should probably show up at some point. It's not just about SP, it's about the entire package. I mean, shit, even the SP has tons of different things to do with it: co-op, meta games, competitions, skulls, etc., etc. How many FPS's offer so much? None that I can think of. But all anyone ever focuses on is SP and how they hated it. Well, who gives a shit what you think if you're going to be so shortsighted.



  • mikeck #194 3 years ago

    How did this turn into a discussion about Halo vs. KZ2? You guys!!!

    :D It only started as a joke, and then a few points were shared that was all. Unfortunately at the moment any article on EG about an FPS will get comments from a certain few posters decrying KZ2 as the devil's work, and then consequently saying nothing beats Halo etc etc. It'll pass, eventually.

  • Iora #195 3 years ago

    Must not fall into Halo 3 talk,....... nnnnrrrraaaa i failed.

    Halo 3 multiplayer is good, well actually the execution of the multiplayer aspect is second to none its incredible... the actual multiplayer gameplay is average. It offers nothing more over say BF.

    The single player game and what as you say everyone moans about is meh at best...

    So yeah Halo3's features are fantastic they truly are i wish all my games could record as i play etc. But actually playing with the Master... bator is nothing to write home about.

  • ronuds #196 3 years ago

    @ Iora

    That's fine if it's not your thing. Isn't that true of any game for everyone? It's either "your thang" or it isn't. No problems, the butter keeps churning. Some of these comments, though, I get so damn tired of reading over and over and over again. And you can so easily tell when someone's just spouting bile, which is what 99% of Halo comments end up being.

    But how can anyone argue with constructive criticism?

    Anyway, can anyone tell me why this undead girl is showing up all over the place? I don't think she's that scary, tbh - yet she's in every movie and game lately. The Ring, The Grudge, Fear, etc., etc. Get a new idea! :p

  • LewisResolution #197 3 years ago

    A predictably uninteresting comments thread, for the most part, on what I thought was an excellent, thoughtful and considered review. People are calling it misleading. Really? 'Cause I don't see how it is, at all. It's in-depth and well-argued, and - to be honest - didn't put me off buying the game at all. It sounds pretty much exactly like what I expected: that is to say, a well-crafted and refined game that sticks rigidly to genre conventions. Concerned that Eurogamer is inconsistent with scoring? Well, it probably is. Because its reviews are written primarily by writers who aggressively resent how much emphasis is put on an arbitrary number at the bottom of a page. Think the site's scoring is out? Grand - stop looking at the score, then. There are a lot of words to glance over, as well.

    I'm curious as to how well the robo-suit bits are implemented. The demo showed them to be bloody good fun, but didn't contextualise the idea in any meaningful way, which was a slight worry - even though I know that the demo isn't actually a "proper" part of the game.

  • mikeck #198 3 years ago

    Think the site's scoring is out? Grand - stop looking at the score, then. There are a lot of words to glance over, as well.

    Don't be silly...where would we be without numbers...the numbers tell me what games to buy, the numbers! Aaaragh, they're in my eyes, scrabbling through to my brain to remove any reasoning or rational thoughts - words, words they is evil they says, evil........
    Edited by 1 at 10/02/09 @ 17:09

  • LewisResolution #199 3 years ago

    mikeck: I think this game should have received 5.29463 out of 10. Oh, and if anyone disagrees with me, that means they're gay and own a different console to me.
    Edited by 1 at 10/02/09 @ 17:13

  • Iora #200 3 years ago

    @ ronuds

    True i'd agree with you. Most of the comments are trolls. A lot are from fan boys, but there are a fair few from people who were promised a truly awesome game. Only it just wasnt any better than half the titles they already owned.

    As you say though still a huge success. I hope that if the future generations copy anything from Halo it will be its multiplayer infastructure... But thats it!

  • smelly #201 3 years ago

    YAY!!! ANOTHER SHOOTER!!!

    The world needs another fps game as much as the wii needs another minigame collection!

  • mikeck #202 3 years ago

    mikeck: I think this game should have received 5.29463 out of 10. Oh, and if anyone disagrees with me, that means they're gay and own a different console to me.

    This is the only part of your comment that made sense to me...what does the rest mean ;)

  • D4rKy22 #203 3 years ago

    this is epic fail i am a hardcore pc gamer, F.E.A.R 1 where much much and much better!, this more a console game than a pc game, and the graphcis are even lower than the first game!, EPIC FAIL!

  • mikeck #204 3 years ago

    Anyway, can anyone tell me why this undead girl is showing up all over the place? I don't think she's that scary, tbh - yet she's in every movie and game lately. The Ring, The Grudge, Fear, etc., etc. Get a new idea! :p

    I think she's in the next range of Imagine titles for the DS...could be mistaken there though.

  • w00t #205 3 years ago

    "We apologise for the error. After discussion we feel the score below still fits the game."

    Heh.

  • ASHBERY76 #206 3 years ago

    flying kicks are in the demo? This needs to be re reviewed.

  • Gearskin #207 3 years ago

    Has Kieron been fired from a cannon yet? Into a wall of Spikes?

  • Gaol #208 3 years ago

    Eurogamer, suggest you get some reviewers in who aren't suffering fatigue from playing too many FPS!
    Edited by 1 at 10/02/09 @ 23:01

  • w00t #209 3 years ago

    How about a different review?

  • JayKwon #210 3 years ago

    Iora says: " I’d respect the 5/10 score far more if they were consistant. "

    Seconded. I'm getting confused. I saw some fair reactions in this thread though. I'd like Eurogamer.net to be more strict then, and get back to the times when a 9/10 really meant something :)! Still this review didn't have the high quality writing I'm accostimed to from Eurogamer.net, or atleast, that's my opinion.

    Oh and don't listen to D4rKy22, he's a massive PC and Wii fanboy from gamer.nl, how strange that may sound :p!

  • des #211 3 years ago

    5/10 is not bad on EG?lol

    The basic problem for this game is that it doesn't have hype...

  • silentbob #212 3 years ago

    I played the PS3 demo first, I wouldn't have been far from scoring it a 5-6. I then played it on the PC, completely different feel - loved every second - would score 7-8.

    Conclusion: ConsoleFPS-LOL!

    Which version is this review written about incidentally?

  • LewisResolution #213 3 years ago

    Given that it's Kieron, I'd guess PC.

  • TRUTH #214 3 years ago

    Reviews have been pretty good so-far.

    Game Informer: 8.25 out of 10
    VideoGamer: 9 out of 10
    GamePro: 4 out of 5
    PlayStation Official Magazine US: 4 out of 5
    Xbox360 Official Magazine: 7.5 out of 10
    PC Gamer: 8.5 out of 10

    -

  • Dr_Lobster #215 3 years ago

    What a sloppy review, ugh. So many vagaries, and the corrections don't inspire faith. There's just so few specifics here to form a clear idea of the game. Why are we comparing it to Half-Life 2, again? How does Alma feel? Are the Remnant minibosses interesting? Lord, what are the damn weapons like? "The smallest fundamental parts - such as the combat - work." What a contradiction! This write-up has done well not only to completely confuse me as to what FEAR is about, but lower my expectations for Kieron's contributions.

  • polaris70 #216 3 years ago

    @Dr_Lobster
    Yeah that's the feeling I got reading the review, a bit vague. It seems like the reviewer is reviewing FPS's in general, and the fact that the article has FEAR 2 in it's headline is incidental, you could've put one of a thousand FPS's in the headline and it still would've read the same. I can only think of two FPS's that have tried something new in the last five years (STALKER and Far Cry 2). I don't know why the reviewer needed to take his frustrations out on one game, maybe he should of wrote an arcticle and let someone else write the review.

  • smelly #217 3 years ago

    Just a thought...

    Those moaning about score.. have any of you actually PLAYED the game?


    And:

    >"I'd hate to break this to you, EG gave Halo 3 a perfect 10/10 - Killzone 2 only got a 9/10 "


    ARRGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!! I hope you're joking - if not GET A FUCKING LIFE YOU SAD FUCKING FRIENDLESS NO LIFE TOSSER!

  • Setaro #218 3 years ago

    The first FEAR was a pile of generic shit anyway.

    I doubt this is any different.
    Edited by 1 at 10/02/09 @ 19:34

  • LewisResolution #219 3 years ago

    "Why are we comparing it to Half-Life 2, again?"

    Because the level design is very typically Valve in style and approach, I'd assume.

    A review doesn't have to tackle all of the specifics to be a successful piece. It has to make a convincing argument about a game's quality. I fail to see how this does anything but.
    Edited by 1 at 10/02/09 @ 19:36

  • smelly #220 3 years ago

    "It seems like the reviewer is reviewing FPS's in general, and the fact that the article has FEAR 2 in it's headline is incidental, you could've put one of a thousand FPS's in the headline and it still would've read the same."


    .. Erm.. And erm.. you're point being?

    Surely the point is that the "thousands of FPS" games which would all review the same.. Then by definition they all play the same (albeit with a different story each time).. which is kinda the problem?

    I.e. why would i play this game when i've played it thousands of times before under different names?

    Personally i never considered "fps" as a genre anyhow.. just a way of playing the game..

  • smelly #221 3 years ago

    "@smelly, Given the simple factual errors that Kieron has made, it's not clear that the reviewer played much of the game either."

    So you havent played the game you're criticising the reviewer (who has played the game) for?

  • LewisResolution #222 3 years ago

    The simple factual error (singular) Kieron made, and has since accounted for, is an understandable one, from what I've played. The combat mechanics have been streamlined and simplified, and although it is still possible to kick the opposition, the game does little to introduce you to this combat, and little to allow you to achieve a decent foot-whack whenever you want.

    EDIT: Oh, didn't see the multiplayer one. Can't comment on that.
    Edited by 1 at 10/02/09 @ 19:43

  • polaris70 #223 3 years ago

    @Smelly
    My point was in my post if you finished reading it. But if you didn't I'll try and explain. You could apply the negatives in this review to most FPS's out there. It seemed like the reviewer was having a pop at FPS's in general, and used this review as his platform.

  • Darren #224 3 years ago

    @Dr_Lobster - I agree that it's not a terribly informative review as no mention is made of the weapons at all and the two corrections make me wonder what other inaccuracies there are in there. Strikes me as a review that has been written with very little care or interest for the genre actually.

    Many of the criticisms of this game can be applied to other FPSs such as Resistance 2 and Halo 3, both of which scored higher. I mean what did Halo 3 do differently that made it stand out from Halo 2 for example? Answer: nothing, it was just more of the same, made to appease the fans. If F.E.A.R. 2 is considered uninspired then what was Halo 3?

    The first F.E.A.R. game got a 9 or 8 from EG if I recall correctly and was praised, quite rightly, for its combat, weapons and A.I. Yeah, the environments were a little repetitive but what made the game stand out for me was that it felt cool and it had bags of atmosphere, something many other FPSs lack IMO. The only other game that came close to matching the style and creepiness of F.E.A.R. was Monolith's other first person game, Condemned. That married to the slow-mo combat and over-the-top gore made the game enjoyable and memorable for me. From the 30 minutes playing the demo of the sequel I get the sense that this is more of the same but a little slicker and that will hopefully be enough for me.

    EG are a little inconsistent with their reviews because, obviously, different people review different games and often the person who reviews the sequel isn't the same one who reviewed the original (as has happened with F.E.A.R. 2). Many of the criticisms of F.E.A.R. 2 strike me as purely subjective rather than objective and I didn't get a sense that anything was particularly wrong with the game bar the fact the reviewer clearly didn't think much to it. In other words, the review really wasn't much use for me in gauging how good or bad the full game is and if I hadn't have already played the demo then I'd have been none the wiser as to whether I'd even like it or not. Not a great review in that respect. Sorry, Kieron.

    I agree with the person that suggested having a second or third opinion for reviews so that we can get a wider range of opinions about the game. For example, I'd be interested to read what Dan Whitehead thinks of it because I believe he reviewed the first game. I'm not saying that his opinion is right but if a reviewer liked a game and so did you then it makes it easier to trust their opinions on other similar games or sequels. I notice Edge don't reveal the names of the reviewers but even then their reviews are generally much more consistent across the board with none of this "F.E.A.R gets 9/10, F.E.A.R. 2 gets 5/10" confusion.

  • LewisResolution #225 3 years ago

    Could it not be, perhaps, that Kieron just thought Fear 2 wasn't anywhere near as good as the first one?

  • local_celebrity #226 3 years ago

    My, what a boring thread this is. Can someone disable it, please?

    I'd rather be anally shafted by a broken bottle than read any more of this cack.

  • Katsumoto #227 3 years ago

    My god, this thread is embarrassing.

  • HolyJebus #228 3 years ago

    I wonder if there are as many normies on this site as there are fucktards but just can't be bothered posting because of the fucktards? Hmmm.

  • ronuds #229 3 years ago

    "I wonder if there are as many normies on this site as there are fucktards but just can't be bothered posting because of the fucktards? Hmmm."

    99% of these comments aren't worth replying to.

  • smelly #230 3 years ago

    "Sorry? I don't really understand your question. It seems totally and utterly irrelevant. I haven't run a country for example but I can still say that Iraq wasn't the best planned war ever. I haven't run a bank, but I (and others) can say that the last crop of bank bosses left something to be desired."


    That's the most dumbest fucked up stupidest fucking argument i've read on the internet. Well done!

    The only way those two examples would make any sense in relation to what we're talking about if you were to say that BEFORE the Iraq war or BEFORE the banks collapsed...

  • smelly #231 3 years ago

    A better analogy is if you were telling a movie reviewer his opinion on a movie is wrong - but you've only ever seen the 30 second trailer for it.

  • Setaro #232 3 years ago

    @dunkelDog
    "Yes Setaro, you are right and the numerous reviewers and hundreds of thousands of very satisfied gamers are wrong about FEAR. It is, as you say 'a pile of generic shit'. As is your non post. Twat."

    Ahhh the ever-logicial 'millions of people like it, so you're wrong for not liking it' argument.
    Millions of people listen to the Pussycat Dolls, it doesn't suddenly make them not shit.
    Millions of people like the Halo series, but that's shit too. It just so happens that the majority of the population is content with mediocrity in all forms of media.

    I do actually own FEAR 1, I just died of boredom about 3/4 of the way through it, and I had to inject Half-Life 2 directly into my heart to revive myself and remember what a FPS should be like.

  • Bennicus #233 3 years ago

    grr smelly is angry!!!

  • IronGiant #234 3 years ago

    So Edge gave this 8/10 and EG give it 5/10.

    Then Edge gave Killzone2 7/10 and EG give it 9/10.

    I'll buy Killzone2 and rent Fear2 i think :)

  • subtlesnake #235 3 years ago

    "Ahhh the ever-logicial 'millions of people like it, so you're wrong for not liking it' argument.
    Millions of people listen to the Pussycat Dolls, it doesn't suddenly make them not shit.
    Millions of people like the Halo series, but that's shit too. It just so happens that the majority of the population is content with mediocrity in all forms of media."

    Or people simply have different tastes to you. The logic "I don't like this game, therefore everyone who does is deluded" isn't particularly compelling.

  • silents #236 3 years ago

    Pardon live up to the bar set by halo 3 are you kidding in my opinion halo 3 and the other 2 are some of the dullest boring overated games ever and the fact that eurogamer gave them top marks says more to me than the score they give fear 2
    Edited by 1 at 10/02/09 @ 22:22

  • creepylizard #237 3 years ago

    theres no point in contesting whether something is rubbish or not when its all subjective..
    suffice it to say whatever I say is rubbish IS rubbish

  • Setaro #238 3 years ago

    @me
    "Ah Setaro, the 'I think it's shit ergo it is shit' argument. Checkmate to you I fear..."

    I didn't know we were playing Chess. Now that's a good game, much better than FEAR. I'll move first, I'm black. A7 to A6.

  • UncleLou #239 3 years ago

    I do actually own FEAR 1, I just died of boredom about 3/4 of the way through it, and I had to inject Half-Life 2 directly into my heart to revive myself and remember what a FPS should be like.

    I thought Half-Life 2 was a significantly weaker game. Infinitely better art direction and story, but the core mechanics couldn't hold a candle to FEAR's. I enjoyed both games for very different reasons. The ideal FPS would marry Half-Life 2's art and universe to FEAR's clever level design, weapons and AI.

  • mikeleddy83 #240 3 years ago

    Solid review, I'd personally rate it a 6 but I can agree with 5. It can be a fun game though and it's fun in a nostalgic way with the doom 3 new graphics on old gameplay thing going on.

  • Dr_Lobster #241 3 years ago

    @LewisResolution A review doesn't have to tackle all of the specifics to be a successful piece. It has to make a convincing argument about a game's quality. I fail to see how this does anything but.
    I'm really baffled where you'd derive a convincing argument from what's written. The text is so entirely reliant that a reader has fully played other F.E.A.R. releases. Let me pull out some sentences that mean absolutely nothing without having any hard details, anecdotes, or analysis attached to them.

    -The visions, for their length, are well performed too - in fact, you wish Monolith had pursued that side of the game more. But this seems to put even more emphasis on the combat, and at its core it's an oddly old-fashioned approach.
    -Most of the time you're involved in fire-fights against human soldiers (with the occasional monster to deal with).
    -The hyper-violence and the psychology make odd bedfellows, but in practice both are executed so solidly that the whole thing just about holds together.
    -You often feel like you're being a little mean to the poor old bad guys, but this adds a dramatic flair to almost every takedown. I may be belabouring the point, but it's the core mechanic's solidness which makes FEAR 2 impossible to condemn.
    -FEAR 2 is most notable for being a game that doesn't even attempt to engage with any of the failings of the linear first-person shooter.
    -The smallest fundamental parts - such as the combat - work. But on a higher level, alienation grows as the game becomes a chain of well-worn genre standards.
    -Monolith really has developed a setting, even if it's not that interested in explaining it.
    -This makes the aforementioned giant robot suit a logical - if predictable - extension. It's a robot suit. You get in it, and shoot bad guys with mini-guns and rockets until you reach the inevitable bump it can't get over.

    What's a lacking here? One single, actual example of something that happens in the game. It's telling, not showing; if part of Kieron's point is that F.E.A.R. is a by-the-numbers shooter, he's doing an awfully good job at mirroring that generic, supervague tone.

    Also: y'all really, really, need to stop agonizing over scores. Decide to raise the level of discourse over something other than comparing numbers, please.
    Edited by 2 at 11/02/09 @ 02:39

  • Treadstone07 #242 3 years ago

    What an absolute garbage review. a 5 out of ten is reserverd for BAD games. a 5/10 is FAILURE. fear 2 is FAR from being a failure. its certainly not perfect but its good, even very good. from the looks of this review i assumed it would get a 7 but all of a sudden BAM! an F grade. what a load of crap. Ign gamesradar, and just about every other site or magazine has given it a score in the 7-high 8 range. I HAVE the game and i can personally PROMISE you that it is far better than the Fear Files expantion that eurogamer gave a 9/10 to. this site just lost all its credibility. And im not even a fear fanboy! i just got into the games recently!

  • FiOth #243 3 years ago

    The sheer suckness of this game became apparent from the first second into the demo...too bad, F.E.A.R is still considered one of the best FPSs ever, looks like the new dev team really meesed this title up.

  • Baranga #244 3 years ago

    This is hilarious, Lamespot said there's no cool melee too!

    http://ww w.gamespot.com/pc/action/fear2/...

  • PearOfAnguish #245 3 years ago

    "What an absolute garbage review. a 5 out of ten is reserverd for BAD games. a 5/10 is FAILURE."

    5/10 is for average games. Y'know, because 5 is half of 10. Clever eh?

  • Gearskin #246 3 years ago

    IGN US - 8.1/10

    http://uk .pc.ign.com/dor/objects/812589/...

  • DarkHand #247 3 years ago

    Haha noobs eurogamer... no objective website... exemple 8/10 farcry 2? hahaha 10/10 fallout 3 hahaha... noobs!!!
    Edited by 1 at 11/02/09 @ 10:58

  • Snooz #248 3 years ago

    I guess it's a 8/10 for those who like to run and gun in a FPS, nothing wrong with that, that's just how I wanted the original to be after a while I just skipped or ignored the story. It wasn't really that deep anyway was it and the videos told the important things anyway.

    It's a 5/10 for those who also in addition wanted an intricate story revealing a (logical and understanable) explanation to why Alma now is a grown woman (after the explosion). They also want a new innovative way to get healthpacks and armour other than just picking them up like in a 90s game. They want to be intrigued by the story, surprised by a new kind of game mechanics apart from the (just like in Max payne) bullet-time and horror/dreamy parts, turret gunning segments etc etc. They want the story to be told ingame and not by phone messages and notes left here and there.

    How to solve these typical FPS shoot-em-up standard solutions is not easy to say, but being given more of the same, only slightly better in most places, is just like in the movie industry not particulary intereting for the viewer and critics.

    To me this sounds like a tom cruise Mission impossible movie I and II only that the second movie does not care about explaining much of the story (let's say it continues in the sequel) or doing anything original apart from SOLID action parts. I like a good action movie, I can ignore plot holes and enjoy it for the action and coolness.

    Some people will give MI:II (or fear 2) a top grade since it's a well done action movie/game with all that is expected and others will subtract some of the score since it's been done to death and offers little new apart from the good old entertainment....


    ...or just to make my self clearer... what the hell... Fuck you all fucking fuckers are you blind fucking twats or what? Its just a fucking game fucking like it or fucking not fukcin gkicng fuckers, do we fukcing have to agree all the fuckig time?!"!!! !!




    Edited by 1 at 11/02/09 @ 11:56

  • Amazing Bryan #249 3 years ago

    ...except fear itself.

  • JackBravo69 #250 3 years ago

    The review is a joke. How did this guy even get a job reviewing games? He doesnt even have his facts straight. This review is an embarrassment to this site. C´mon!

  • subtlesnake #251 3 years ago

    "It's a 5/10 for those who also in addition wanted an intricate story revealing a (logical and understandable) explanation to why Alma now is a grown woman (after the explosion)."

    She was always a grown woman, even in the original game (otherwise how did she give birth to you?). Her appearance as a child was just manifestation of part of her psyche, representing what she looked like before she was captured and imprisoned in the vault.

  • TheNinkyNonk #252 3 years ago

    "FEAR 2 is most notable for being a game that doesn't even attempt to engage with any of the failings of the linear first-person shooter"

    Which means I'll like it

    "Playing through on the average difficulty level"

    Again, clear evidence that EG need to employ poeple CAPABLE of playing FPS on Hard i.e. what they were meant for

    I mean really, it's like someone reviewing a car and calling it shit when they only ever had it in second gear.

  • PearOfAnguish #253 3 years ago

    "Again, clear evidence that EG need to employ poeple CAPABLE of playing FPS on Hard i.e. what they were meant for"

    Or clear evidence that reviewers don't always have time to tackle games on the harder difficulty settings. If you have a day to play a game and write a review you can't be faffing about with the Ultra Hardcore difficulty setting just in case some nitwit on a forum disagrees with the score. And if a game is MEANT FOR hard difficulty why bother have the option at all.

  • Snooz #254 3 years ago

    @subltesnake:

    Oh, I remember that now, finished the game a month ago(!), but it obviously didn't leave an impression on me. ALso that question was in Gamespot's video review.

  • dryden555 #255 3 years ago

    the review is vague to a fault sorry to say. EG has done better.

  • Ryuken #256 3 years ago

    Wait, there are even less difficulty settings now as well compared to the original? Another step back, way to go Monolith.

  • Lunaticorc #257 3 years ago

    Well despite the harsh criticism in this thread it seems another site agrees with Eurogamer. Gamespot gave it 7/10 and even though according to their scoring policy it means "good", it usually really means average. I don't recall ever finishing a game that got 7 points from Gamespot, even though i might still get some initial enjoyment out of them.

    I've always been able to get a pretty good idea of a game between reading Gamespot and Eurogamer reviews so i've come to the conclusion FEAR2 is likely one of those games that will draw you in with cool new visuals and effects, but then after a while just starts to feel like a drag. Even though you'll be playing it for the first time, it still might have that second playthrough feel to it.

    I loved pretty much everything about the original FEAR and if FEAR2 had come out right after i finished the first one i'd have been all over it, reviews be damned, but now i'll just wait for the bargain bin offer.

  • subtlesnake #258 3 years ago

    "EG are just plain inconsistent with their scoring...example: GTA4 gets a perfect 10/10 on console.....the enhanced version of GTA4 for PC gets 9/10!"

    Different reviewers, and the PC port was plagued with performance issues.

  • knightofwind #259 3 years ago

    Ha Ha, perhaps the reviewer got shocked by Alma, cried out "mxther fxcker"!
    Or he didnt like the old school film-viewed horror game, especally the spectre that is a quite damn thing.

    From playing so many FPS games, just like to ask
    When can i carry a enemy to build a great wall to cover me from fighting or throw the enemy to the monster?
    At least, FEAR series let me to kick some enemies.

    By the way, Fear2 has NINE MP maps..not SIX.. lol
    I start to think he is not playing right game.
    Edited by 2 at 11/02/09 @ 23:50

  • smelly #260 3 years ago

    >...except fear itself.


    .. or the comments thread on an exclusive shooter

  • Texter #261 3 years ago

    Lets give it a cock on the ass-scale because of a lack of swear words...

  • PuppyFiddler #262 3 years ago

    Seems to be there's no doubt Fear 2 is a good shooter but this reviewer just seems jaded and I suggest he takes a break from gaming for a couple of years. Imagine all the hard work gone into Fear 2 by the developer only to have some tired bored reviewer decide he's bored of games and hands out an unwarranted low score simply because he was able to predict things.

    Eurogamer badly needs some sort of second opinion for it's reviews from now on.

  • PearOfAnguish #263 3 years ago

    "video review from IGN"
    "objective"
    "rounded"

    DOES NOT COMPUTE.
    Edited by 1 at 12/02/09 @ 09:09

  • Haloboy #264 3 years ago

    "Eurogamer badly needs some sort of second opinion for it's reviews from now on."

    My bet is KG will be driving a bus by this time next week. And rightly so, awful review ahoy.

  • Gecks #265 3 years ago

    there already is a "second opinion" - it's called other websites!

    i often wonder how the gaming public would cope with film reviews. check rottentomatoes.com - whatever your favourite film is, i can almost g'tee there will be at least one critic who absolutely hates it. that's the human condition, boys - there's no such thing as "objective good".

    it's a good thing.

  • LewisResolution #266 3 years ago

    I very much doubt that a single review people aren't happy with would ruin the career of one of the UK's most respected videogame critics.

    If one good thing comes out of this review, I hope it's the destruction of the offensive notion that journalists are somehow obliged to award high scores to heavy advertisers. Fear 2 ads adorn EG at the moment, yet the score remains mediocre. I hope people think about that the next time they make ludicrous comments insulting the integrity of proffessional writers.

  • jimboton #267 3 years ago

    @PearofAnguish

    "5/10 is for average games. Y'know, because 5 is half of 10. Clever eh? "

    Except average doesn't mean 'the middle of the scale', but the score that an average game does usually receive. Which can be well estimated as the mean score of all the games that have been reviewed so far, 6.5 in Eurogamer's case. Smart huh?
    Edited by 1 at 12/02/09 @ 10:43

  • PearOfAnguish #268 3 years ago

    The average of all EGs reviews as compiled by an external agency are irrelevant when we're talking about their internal scoring policy. Unless you're suggesting that they consult metacritic before scoring to ensure that a game which is average fits the current mean score. That would be silly.

  • jimboton #269 3 years ago

    The average of all EGs reviews is the average of all EG reviews whoever happens to compile them. And it's the only possible measure of EGs actual scoring policy. Of course nobody needs to consult metacritic, for most of us it's pretty evident what good scores and bad scores are.

  • PearOfAnguish #270 3 years ago

    The mean score of all reviews is nothing to do with how they choose to score a game. An average game shouldn't get a 6.5 because 'that's the average of all our game reviews'. If there was a spate of amazing games getting 9s and 10s that average would change. Scoring policy and overall average of all reviews are a separate thing.

    EGs scoring policy is <a href="http://ww w.eurogamer.net/scoring_policy.php">here</A&g t;. Their criteria for a 5 fits this game.

    "It's still playable, but the chances are it's so generic and uninspired that you begin to question how it was released in the first place...A five won't be a disaster. In fact those who won't have played the better games in the genre might even get a great deal of enjoyment out of it...We'll always try to position a five as our opinion of what an average game represents"

    Edited by 1 at 12/02/09 @ 11:50

  • Gecks #271 3 years ago

    @jimboton
    well, that's on the assumption that eurogamer review all games, but they don't - look some of the shite on the DS shelf at the moment. do we just discount that when thinking of the "average game"?

    if 5/10 is for an "average game", i think this review makes a far better case for fear 2 being middle of the road than, say, the GOW2 and Killzone 2 reviews made for them being just shy of perfection.
    Edited by 1 at 12/02/09 @ 11:57

  • Calgon #272 3 years ago

    I said this in another thread but since this is still on the front page I will say it again.

    After this review and score I thought "fair enough pretty bog standard affair then" or "not as good as KZ2 then?", but then I watched quite a big chunk of this game being played the other day though and I was genuinely quite annoyed to see how unfair the impression I'd been given seemed.

    Im not bashing KZ2 here but really its relevant because that recently recieved a 9 and lofty praise where it doesnt seem to do anything to warrant those extra 2 points. Fear2 is a great looking shooter itself, so a good match for it presentation wise(lots and lots of attention to detail), Fear2 looks to be easily as playable(although different styles of play, both good in their own rights), has more atmosphere(noticed that in the first 30 seconds) and to me looks to have more of the fun factor, Ive not seen much of the story of KZ2 but Im going to guess its not on par with Fear2s judging by their first effort.

    I wasnt going to bother even checking this game out, infact I almost groaned and said "Oh I heard this isnt much good..." thats what was most annoying because thats just a tad unfair for a game thats obviously had a lot of effort and time poured into it.

    I agree with what seems to be a popular sentiment for those who have bothered to check the game out, this makes EG seem very inconsistant.
    Edited by 2 at 12/02/09 @ 14:19

  • dryden555 #273 3 years ago

    Lewis you make good points but on the other hand this isnt exactly the first time this reviewer wrote a vague review and then lobbed a low score. his review doesnt help me to decide if I want the game or not.

  • LewisResolution #274 3 years ago

    @dryden555

    Still struggling to see how you've come to that conclusion. Crux of review: It's a highly-polished first-person shooter that nevertheless relies on overused genre conventions and as such feels a little stale.

    If you're not bothered by the latter half of that statement, buy it. If you are, perhaps don't. Do you really need to know specifics about the inner-workings of a game to know whether you should try it out or not?

  • smoison #275 3 years ago

    Great Review, I can totally agree where the reviewer is coming.

    FEAR 1 was a very well done PC game.

    FEAR 2 is a rushed console game, ported to PC.

    Thank you for you honesty.




  • JeremyRPS #276 3 years ago

    Yowsers, this really has confirmed my suspicions of a subpar game hidden beneath production values. I swear, I am beginning to hate this trend of "OMGWTFBBQ" when a reviewer, heaven forbid, actually reviews a game as it relates to him. Does it injure your sense of pride to know that you like video games that are rubbish? Have you even played the game? I have not, but I wasn't planning on getting it anyway, but all this talk of inconsistency is garbage. How can you honestly compare a score between GTA4 and FEAR 2? Seriously, 'splain me. So, this review is... (looks back over posts) "inconsistent"... because, you, the gamer, have decided that GTA 4 and FEAR 2 are equivalently awesome and both deserve exactly the same score? Remember, the review scale goes from 1 t o 10, not 7 to 10 and takes a reviewers taste into account as well. You want more "balanced" reviews, aka, everyone gets at least a 7, start your own trash review website. Or go to IGN.

  • Calgon #277 3 years ago

    JeremyRPS you havent even checked the game out yet you are telling everyone the reviewer is right?

    I did check a very large chunk of this game out, its not a game that was even on my radar... yet even I was annoyed by being given the wrong message(I might actually buy it after checking it out and there were alot of people saying the same thing), is it the first time a reviewer got it wrong? No it isnt, but its one of the first times I can remember a review from Keiron being so "off"(and well... he can do better than that).

    So far I have seen far more disagreements with the EG and Gamespot reviews than agreements, you know of people who have played it(rather than saying "but he's a reviewer he cant be wrong his word is final";) and from what Ive seen that will probably be even more apparent in a week once more people have bought it and had the chance to see what they think of it.

    It really doesnt seem to do alot wrong so why rate it differently than games released recently making the same "mistakes", it could easily sit beside games that have scored 8-9 recently is the crux of it... so yes its worth pointing out that there does appear to be inconsistency creaping in. Think of it as constructive critisism. Some of us expect more of Eurogamer than we do of *uggh* Gamespot and IGN.
    Edited by 4 at 12/02/09 @ 19:07

  • JeremyRPS #278 3 years ago

    Hate? Maybe a little displacement on your part. You still haven't explained how that makes it inconsistent... which is the question I asked, you've just said that it is obviously inconsistent. As can be seen from your lack of education (honestly, a pube joke, and I'm the child?), you still have no way to back up this claim of inconsistency. Just that it disagrees with your unquestionable talent at reviewing games.

    Second response.

    I don't recall mentioning the reviewer was "right", did I? Perhaps a reread is on the menu. I simply said the review has confirmed my suspicions that it wasn't going to be great, just an average game masked by high production values. Isn't that a valid opinion to have?
    Edited by 2 at 12/02/09 @ 19:12

  • Calgon #279 3 years ago

    Isn't that a valid opinion to have?

    What a silly question that is, every opinion is valid to some extent but it's when you justify them with statements that make your judgements inconsistant, you open yourself up to be called on them.


    just an average game masked by high production values.

    The reason given for it being average being it doesnt do anything different/new/innovative/original correct? Take a look at the majority of 8-9 out of 10 scoring games this gen and you can level the same arguement... and thats not even limited to FPS's(within their own genre obviously... which is why someone mentioned GTA4) it would be all well and good if all games were reviewed with such sentiment consistently but they are obviously not.

    You have to admit this has sparked alot of disagreement and its not a game that has a rabid following either, that in itself doesnt happen often.(I suppose Dead Space got a similar reaction)
    Edited by 2 at 12/02/09 @ 19:32

  • JeremyRPS #280 3 years ago

    Again, there's that word inconsistent again. The question I asked was rhetorical, not an attempt at self-affirmation. Sure, scores on games are always going to be debated over, even 10/10 scores get attacked, as we've seen with the recent release of Killzone 2. My point, however, has stayed consistent (even if, arguably, nothing else is). Debate the quality of the game and what you like about it, not the number attached to the review. Disagree? Fine, tell us why, not how much the reviewers opinion is "OMG".

    Take away the number and most people would probably agree with the review.

  • Calgon #281 3 years ago

    JeremyRPS again with the ignorrance though... the main critism leveled at this game being it's standard affair coupled with the score you would assume its not even done as well as other games... this is simply not true and since you havent checked it out I suggest you do so(infact I dont care if you do or not really, I was just stating what I made of the Fear2 reception and I dont think it was judged fairly).

    I had the same suspicions as you, as I said it wasnt on my radar but when I did check it out it does seem considerably better executed, more atmospheric and polished than your average 8/10 scoring FPS on EG and thats why I had to say something... you can take away the score sure but those critisisms have been too heavily relied on in this review(from what little is there) where its barely touched upon usually in other reviews which would have been every bit as valid... its called inconsistency my friend, you might not like it but its the only appropriate term to describe peoples quarrels with the review here. ;)

    Im done with this boring discussion... you are now starting to strike me as someone just determined to have the last say, even though you've ignored most of what Ive said and we are now repeating ourselves. I commented because this is less than what Ive come to expect from EG.

    edit: Now Im not sure its been mentioned which version Keiron reviewed but the version I saw was the 360 version, I cant see there being a big difference between the two.
    Edited by 9 at 12/02/09 @ 20:09

  • JeremyRPS #282 3 years ago

    I'm not trying to just get the last say, I just wanted someone, or anyone, to explain why they thought it was inconsistent, which you just did, so thank you :) I think anyone that can explain their opinion is justified to have it, but when there's a lot of OMG shenanigans going around, it honestly just bothers me.

  • polaris70 #283 3 years ago

    @JeremyRPS
    I think the reaction to the review is based on the main theme of the review. Its theme is that the game tries nothing new even though it's a competent shooter. I don't know about you but I think that's a bit unfair to mark a game down so badly for the same criticism that can be levelled at 99% of FPS's (STALKER and Far Cry 2 exempt). What did Halo 3 or Crysis or Resistance do better that makes FEAR 2 so spectacularly mediocre in the reviewers opinion?

    From just the demo I learnt that it is a well balanced shooter (weapons) with a smoother control scheme than the first game, very good A.I (both these points are essential for a shooter, although some AAA games have even got that basic wrong recently) and above average graphics. There are a lot more to games than these few points I've mentioned, but not much more to FPS's, and this is a criticism of the genre as a whole.

    I have no problem with the reviewer saying that FPS's need more innovation, and maybe he is correct, but to single out one game when he could've picked practically any FPS out there is a bit unfair, in my opinion.
    Edited by 1 at 13/02/09 @ 00:41

  • PuppyFiddler #284 3 years ago

    I wouldn't mind a copy myself. I enjoyed the demo and can tell it's predictable but that doesn't mean it's a bad game for fs. I won't be buying it until it's half price though.

  • Svecke #285 3 years ago

    Been playing the game for a few hours now, and I wouldn't call it bad. I've had a blast.

  • derFeef #286 3 years ago

    heh, this review got pulled from metacritics. Anyone knows why?

  • Snooz #287 3 years ago

    Heh, I didn't know so many people cared about FEAR, is it really just as big as Halo, KZ and GTA-series? Is the budget for this game as big as those mentioned?

  • Gearskin #288 3 years ago

    Three difficulty modes, whether one unlocks I don't know. Plenty of challenge regardless.

    Played through to level 6/14 last night... it's FEAR on steroids. Screw this review. If you enjoyed FEAR, to this day, you'll enjoy this, easy. Looks and sounds amazing. Oh, and ignore the demo. The demo isn't an actual level, it's just a bunch of random set pieces and sections stitched together.

  • pha #289 3 years ago

    I have no problem with the reviewer saying that FPS's need more innovation, and maybe he is correct, but to single out one game when he could've picked practically any FPS out there is a bit unfair

    AGREED!!!

  • LewisResolution #290 3 years ago

    "heh, this review got pulled from metacritics. Anyone knows why?"

    It hasn't. It's been moved from the PC page to the 360 page - presumably Kieron played it on the XBox and not the PC, and they've just updated it.

    Aaaanyway. Initial impressions of the game, which I've been playing this morning: it's alright. Nothing special so far. Very much FPS-by-numbers, and nothing's impressed me anywhere near as much as the demo yet. Feels like it's building up to something good, though, so I'll crack on with it and report back, most likely.

  • GM_ #291 3 years ago

    This review is utterly useless and absurd. The one who reviewed F.E.A.R 2 couldn't help but throw in too many personal statements and opinions rather than actual facts. They also jumped the gun and instantly made several assumptions and even just added complete lies all together. Unless this site learns how to properly review video game software then I am no longer going to be a reader. They lost all my respect because of this biased piece of garbage.

    Also, for those that buy games solely dependent on review scores, shame on you. That is sad how conforming gamers are these days.

  • LewisResolution #292 3 years ago

    @GM_

    "too many personal statements and opinions" ...yes, that's what reviews are.

    "jumped the gun and instantly made several assumptions and even just added complete lies all together" ...according to Kieron's blog, the factual inaccuracies were due to his deadline falling when he was out of the country, the result being he had to write the review from memory, as opposed to actually sitting down with it again and double-checking certain things. Unfortunate, but probably unavoidable in this case.

  • devplasma #293 3 years ago

    Played it last night for about 3 hours and I am really enjoying it. To me it is a great shooter with great atmosphere, graphics and gameplay. . . . nothing new but it is FUN!!

  • onelifecrisis #294 3 years ago

    "...in practice it's still a far more prescriptive game of where you can go than, say, Half-Life 2."

    That's not saying much seeing as Half-Life 2 is one of the most "prescriptive" games ever made. It's one thing having scripted events running all around the player (that's fine with me) but in Half-Life 2 even the player has a script which must be adhered to, and that script doesn't just say where you should go but also (frequently) when to go there and what to do when you get there.

    The original FEAR was a corridor shooter but it separated itself from the croud with it's superb AI. On the so-called "Extreme Difficulty" setting the opponents in FEAR would give quick, intelligent, realistic and unscripted reactions to all of the player's actions. Most combat areas featured multiple routes from A to B and multiple choices for cover, and the AI would take full advantage of both. So even though you were fighting the same enemy over and over (even in "samey" rooms as well) you never actually had the same fight twice. That's a pretty rare quality in a FPS, and I'm disappointed to see no comparison of that brillance against FEAR 2's AI in your review. Has the AI been dumbed-down and slowed-down to console levels, so that players can actually hit what they're trying to aim at with their thumbs? Or can we expect the same sort of unpredictable and hectic shootouts that we got in FEAR? Or did the developers even manage to improve on FEAR in this respect? I guess I'll have to download the demo to find out, since the only thing this review said about the AI is that it's "generally robust". Next time you review a sequel, EG, you might want to say more than two words about the aspect of the game which made the original so great.

  • LewisResolution #295 3 years ago

    @onelifecrisis

    The AI falls into the awkward category of being "almost brilliant" for me. Mostly, it's blisteringly good... but then, occasionally, an enemy seems to forget what he's doing and stand still for a bit.

    Right. Up to about the four hour mark now, and it's certainly improving. I'm actually really enjoying how completely linear this is - none of the 'getting lost among grey corridors' syndrome that the original suffered from. The melee combat is so useless this time it might as well not be there, though, which is a huge disappointment. But Monolith have certainly learnt from Valve about how to do set pieces. Some of them are spectacular.

    After a slow start, this is getting really good. It's not blown me away yet, but then I didn't really expect it to. Mightily solid first-person shooter with a few annoyances and a lot of generic, mindless blasting.

  • Gearskin #296 3 years ago

    Mindless? The enemies put up more fight here than in numerous other shooters. Some of the best enemy behavior this side of Halo 3.

  • BillyBrush #297 3 years ago

    Yawn...been playing 2 days straight now...game is absolutely badass...

  • GamesConnoisseur #298 3 years ago

    I m having lots of fun, though I noticed the moments of 'heck another bunch of X-ray rooms hub in a single hospital?' in where the tendency is to push for more firefights using same textures/geometries to add more game playing time.

    However, I m having more fun than I did with Resistance 2 simply due to the enemies AI, slow mo and powerful guns and the destructions I cause!

    Letting steams off in a healthy way!

  • Pikol #299 3 years ago

    Other sites gave it around 8/10. im gonna buy it.

  • LewisResolution #300 3 years ago

    I am reminded - quite a lot, actually - of Red Faction. Having a pretty good time with it, whilst being acutely aware of how much better it could (should?) have been.

  • citizenHUNTER #301 3 years ago

    I can't say anything much that I can back up, since I only played the demos of FEAR 1 and 2, but I found both those demos to be very fun, very atmospheric experiences, especially the FEAR 2 demo in the school. The graphic and sound design are excellent and really invoke a very creepy feeling. The fact it's basically a standard, perhaps now 'dated' FPS in terms of it's control schemes and machinations, I really do disagree that it deserves the score to be marked down so much for these issues. It's just what people were playing before Gears came out, and frankly, I prefer this to Gear's clunky covering mechanic. It's a different way to do a shooter, but it doesn't mean this is the wrong way just cos it lacks gimmicks. The core gameplay experience is awesome I feel.

    Also, I'll be keeping my eyes glued for the Resi 5 review because I played the demo to that for about 2 minutes before the hideously dated (pointlessly so) control scheme aggravated me so much, and in my mind would make purchasing the final game just not even an option, nevermind how nice the graphics may be (or not). Needless to say though it will get at least a 7, maybe even an 8 despite the fucking stupid controls that break the game to me and really make it not fun to play.

    Grr, so yes, I sway on the side of those defending this game against what I feel must surely be a ridiculous score, but of course I've not played the game, just the demo, so who knows...

  • LewisResolution #302 3 years ago

    @citizenHUNTER

    To be fair, around half way through, I've still not come across a single bit that's as good as anything in the demo.

  • devplasma #303 3 years ago

    Completed single player yesterday. Thoughts on single player only. . . . compared to recent games I have played (not completely apples with apples) the single player to me is easily better than resistence 2 ( which is a 4/10 for me) but not as good as Dead Space (8/10 for me) so I think 7/10 would be fair for this game if you are a experienced gamer or 8/10 if you haven't played many games like this (horror/shooter). Gameplay is very similar to the first game in series but I enjoyed that one. Art and variety has improved a lot since first game and is on par to recent releases. Highlight to me was the shooting felt really great. Level design is very linear but I liked not getting lost or stuck. Enemy AI was good but maybe more aggressive and not as sneaky as first game. I seem to remember in the first game the enemy circling around me in warehouse level but I can't remember the AI doing the same in this game. On normal difficulty it was relatively easy, I only died a few times usually by being dumb. Bottom line I enjoyed it and thats what matters.

    Back to Farcry 2 :)
    Edited by 1 at 15/02/09 @ 21:34

  • LewisResolution #304 3 years ago

    "Back to Farcry 2"

    ...and that kinda sums it up, really, doesn't it?

  • devplasma #305 3 years ago

    "...and that kinda sums it up, really, doesn't it? "

    Yes it is probably a experience you will forget in a month. . . . but it is not a 5/10 game. To me 5/10 is borderline and it is not a poor game, I think it is good 7/10 game. It is a game you pick up if you like first person shooters and have cash and time to burn like me.
    Edited by 1 at 15/02/09 @ 13:45

  • hairsuit #306 3 years ago

    I'm still wainting for my preorder to come in the mail. And then I'll blow it up again with some analysis after I play it. But I can dish about the cover art. It's a piece of shit. Not only is it the first cover all over again, but they accomplished the impossible- it's worse! Inexcusable. Maybe that was the marketing plan when they didn't have the rights to the franchise name, to have the cover signify continuace of the brand. But after they won the rights, there is no excuse. Now this, Kieron, is when a critic would rightly accuse the artist or creator of doing the same thing with no value whatsoever to add to the F.E.A.R. saga or FPSs or art in general. Cover score = 0 (ZERO).

  • TheComedian #307 3 years ago

    Did Kieron do the Deus Ex review? Or was that Kristen?

  • litote #308 3 years ago

    yeah game is not innovative so what, well i ll tell you , i have nothing against reusing old formulas, as long as you put some variation, as you improve on it, and fear 2 does neither.

    it does not only not improve upon itself : fear 1 , it manages to become a more basic typical corridor shooter, where the AI , thanks to poor scripting and corridor like level design, doesn t have even room to be fully exploited.

    its like the team responsible for programming AI didnt communicate with team responsible for level design.

    and on top of that, there are some " aesthetic" choices in the game that feel really curious for a horror game. what did they think to obtain with all this noise and those pastel colors?!! instead of razor sharp models, the cold blue and green of the first, now we have such overly lighted areas, where everything blends, with pastel blue, pastel green, pastel yellow....

    the hospital level, man did anyone played the hospital level in "extraction point", first fear expansion? THAT was tense and scary.

    the only thing i found more deep and rich was the background story. every thing else is ...average. neither bad nor good.

    so 5 , why not?

  • Mordonius #309 3 years ago

    Wow, why is it that Eurogamer gets reviews wrong so often. Yet another example. These guys give consitently bad reviews to good games. This game is in no way deserves a 5/10.

    Graphically appealing, good sound, voice acting, effects. Amazing atmosphere and attention to detail. Basically this game trumps it's predeccessor in every way. Hell, the idiot reviewing complains about how melee kicks, slide kicks, and roundhouses are absent from the game only to come back later to correct himself.

    Wonder what else was missed, I mean damn, all you have to do is jump and melee. During the course of the game you will probably do this accidentally, and anyone that has played the original (this guy claims he has) know that even in that game if you are standing perfectly still you punch, but if you move and melee or jump and melee you will kick, just like in this game.

    Once again, inferior review from an inferior reviewer. Don't believe a word of this review, atleast rent it, but I would recommend a purchase to anyone who was a fan of the first as this is superior in just about every way.

  • Mordonius #310 3 years ago

    This same reviewer gave Earth Defense Force 2017 a 9/10. Quality work my good sir, quality.

  • litote #311 3 years ago

    if you want a reviewer who says the same about this game but gives it a 7, go to the gamespot review, who despite all those shortcomings chooses 7/10

    but basically, he notices the same (and gives more arguments too.)
    Edited by 1 at 17/02/09 @ 09:57

  • Calgon #312 3 years ago

    From what I can see litote you are in the minority though, most people Ive heard from are prefering it to the original as Mordonius said... one of the comments that was most interesting is the horror and combat are more evenly spread out so the game flows much better as a result(probably why it seems so atmospheric).

    Defending a poor review is even more pointless than defending a poor game IMO.
    Edited by 4 at 17/02/09 @ 15:11

  • devplasma #313 3 years ago

    The question I have is 5/10 a fair score? I really don't think so. It is a score that anyone with slight interest in the genre would ignore this title. To be honest my time is short . . . in most cases I wouldn't even read the review if I saw a score this low. If I knew nothing about the game and it was scored 7/10 then I would read the review to see if it was something I would be interested in. To me the score is a disservice to a quality game that doesn’t do anything new but is still entertaining.
    Edited by 1 at 17/02/09 @ 16:51

  • litote #314 3 years ago

    @ calgon

    i ll ignore your scorn, i think THAT is really pointless. i am not "defending" this review , i say it matches my impressions and others, who are certainly not the minority ( if it were i wouldn t care)

    but horror ? no Gore? yes. doesn t affect me. combat evenly spread? yes . good , tense , entertaining combat? No.

    those are my impressions, i cant fail here, because i know at least if i am correctly entertained or not... i knew it playing fear 1, at least. and every other game i played. but this review, i ll give that, doesnt care too much to defend itself, or to prove thoroughly his point. but search others, even users reviews, and you ll find that more or less the same issues, shortcomings disappointed SOME people. you dont belong to them and your very proud. congrats.
    Edited by 1 at 17/02/09 @ 16:48

  • Gearskin #315 3 years ago

    Almost done now, and it's been very cool. Absolutely lives up to what I was expecting.

  • spudsbuckley #316 3 years ago

    Just finished this game there now.

    Kieron is a terrible reviewer. This game was brilliant. I can only presume that Kieron either didn't play it or played it for a few minutes and it wasn't an indie game or quirky enough for him so he gave up and decided to give it a shit mark.

    EG should get someone else to re-review it. You know, someone who likes actual games.

  • czrsink #317 3 years ago

    I have also just finished FEAR2 and loved every minute of it. I had a quick scan through these threads and feel most of the negative stuff appears to coming from console users (note: I'm simply assuming). Any gamer who played the original FEAR on PC will really, really struggle to find anything wrong with FEAR2 aside from the fact the Monolith seemingly 'dumbed it down' to a degree to make it easier for console users (I'm thinking the menus, then new 'spaz' HUD etc).

    This is a classic corridor/on rails shooter interspersed with some classic gaming moments - the first time you step out on the streets after the nuke has flattened it, the thick, plumes of grey pillars of smoke going up to the sky, pierced by what's left of the sunlight, the pastelly shades from Alma's childhood for a moment before taking you back to the industrial grind...etc.

    I'm not sure what this reviewer was thinking (aside from stirring up a hornet's nest of forum activity) when he posted a 5/10 for FEAR2, but I can assure you, if you are a lover of the FEAR series, do NOT be put off by this score. Simply revel in the beauty of it and admire all the nods Monolith have given us battle weary and hardened PC FPS gamers.

    Bring on FEAR3, is all I'll say.

  • Zanuah #318 3 years ago

    czrsink: My thoughts exactly! Finished it also recently and I enjoyed every minute of it, even more so then the first one. :)

  • ChadSexington #319 3 years ago

    Has anyone noticed in FEAR 2 you only kill Americans (even the clone soldiers are American)? That's racist.

  • Vandit96 #320 3 years ago

    i really enjoyed this game and all his predecesors.

  • Rezler #321 3 years ago

    Just finished this on the PC. 5/10 my arse. This is a 7 or 8. The most wrong score I've ever seen given to a game.

  • Adaptor #322 2 years ago

    Needlessly harsh and pretentious review. This is a fun game and for the great action and scares alone I'd give it higher marks.