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

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

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.

My god, this thread is embarrassing.

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.

"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.

"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...

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.

@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.

grr smelly is angry!!!

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 :)

"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.

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

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

@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.

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.

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.

@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.

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!

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

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

http://www.gamespot.com/pc/action/fear2/...

"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?

IGN US - 8.1/10

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

Haha noobs eurogamer... no objective website... exemple 8/10 farcry 2? hahaha 10/10 fallout 3 hahaha... noobs!!!

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?!"!!!!!

...except fear itself.

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!

"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.

"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.

"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.

@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.

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

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

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.

"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.

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.

>...except fear itself.


.. or the comments thread on an exclusive shooter

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

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.

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

DOES NOT COMPUTE.

"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.

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.

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.

@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?

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.

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.

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 here. 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"

@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.

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.

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.

@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?