F.E.A.R. 2: Project Origin Comments by Kieron Gillen

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

@ 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

"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.

"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.

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.

@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.

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.

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

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

@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.

@ 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.

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.

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

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.

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!

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.

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.

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.

@ 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

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.

"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.
"

especially if you've no PC for the critically acclaimed Crysis or 360 for the Critically acclaimed Halo 3 or Gears of War 2.

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........

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.

@ 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!

YAY!!! ANOTHER SHOOTER!!!

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

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 ;)

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!

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.

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

Heh.

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

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

Eurogamer, suggest you get some reviewers in who aren't suffering fatigue from playing too many FPS!

How about a different review?

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

That doesn't change the fact that Halo 3 has an average campaign mode. I had miles more fun with the Killzone 2 demo that I did with several playthroughs of Borelo 3.

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!

And Eurogamer have re-earned my respect in their reviews.

Finally, 5/10 means AVERAGE! its not bad...Just nothing special.

I am still planning on buying this game on friday but I'm ok with average after the mear stream of cack thats been released over recent months.

And to the reviewer...
Damn fine job...

Oh and "D4rKy22" (Which btw could be considered a slightly racist handle there) You need your eyes tested...
And your head

5/10 is not bad on EG?lol

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

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?

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

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

-

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.

@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.

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!

The first FEAR was a pile of generic shit anyway.

I doubt this is any different.

"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.

"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, 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?

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.

@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.

@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.