F.E.A.R.

By Rob Fahey Published 21 February, 2007

First encounters of the third kind.

It's perhaps not the kindest thing to say about the PS3's launch line-up, but it's undeniable - for anyone who plays PC games or has already bought into the next generation courtesy of the Xbox 360, it's looking like Sony's entry to the market is more of a chance to revisit old friends than anything else. A limited selection of exclusives in the range are bolstered by a third-party line-up that looks suspiciously like an edited showreel of the 360's greatest hits - not, perhaps, the image that the pricely wunderkind ought to be projecting at this point in time.

On the plus side, though, being able to cherry-pick some of the finest from the 360's range does mean that the PS3 will be getting some very polished (if rather familiar to many of us) games in the first weeks of its life. Among those is F.E.A.R. - a stunning first-person shooter from American developer Monolith, which combined some of the most over the top and pyrotechnic action sequences ever seen in a game with well-directed horror elements lifted from Asian films like Ring and Kairo. F.E.A.R. (which stands for First Encounter Assault Recon, the rather cumbersome and unlikely name of the military unit in the game) first spooked PC gamers back in 2005, before landing on the Xbox 360 last year; this March, it'll take a late bow on the PS3.

A Tale of Two Systems

Now that we've got beta code of the game whirring away in our debug PS3, one thing is immediately apparent - there is pretty much no major difference between the content of this version of the game and the excellent Xbox 360 version which came out last year, one obvious exception being the inclusion of a single PS3-exclusive weapon (a rapid-fire shotgun which is a rather nice room clearer, but comes at the cost of the Xbox 360 exclusive weapon, namely dual SN15 machine pistols).

'F.E.A.R.' Screenshot 1

A cohort of enemies prepares to break into an impromptu performance of Riverdance.

Like the Xbox 360 version, the content is the same as the 2005 PC game, bar one extra level which reveals a previously untold part of the story through the eyes of a Delta Squad member whose team gets smeared all over the walls before the arrival of the main character. As with the weapons mentioned above, each next-gen console gets its own exclusive version of this level, so in the PS3 port you'll play as a different member of the Delta Force squad and experience events from yet another perspective. There's also a console-specific "instant action" mode which drops you into a level and allows you to get blasting away without any regard for the storyline - instead, the whole thing is on a timer, so the emphasis is on rushing through, taking out the bad guys and getting great stats in the detailed end-of-level statistics page.

Aside from that, what you'll find in the PS3 version of the game is no different from the game that's been around for two years - F.E.A.R. is very much a direct port (it was actually developed alongside the Xbox 360 version). The exclusive weapon and level are nice bonus content, but almost certainly not enough to entice even the most dedicated fan of F.E.A.R. on another platform into a purchase. As such it's solely going to be of interest to people who don't own a gaming PC or Xbox 360, and haven't played the game in the time since its launch.

To those people, it almost goes without saying that F.E.A.R. is shaping up to be an incredibly attractive prospect. The PC game was a high watermark for first-person shooters, with a wonderfully creepy atmosphere, brilliant level design, spectacular set-pieces, pleasingly chunky and powerful weapons and enough sparks, flames, explosions and general mayhem to keep even the most dedicated action game fan happy for weeks. The console port of the game, as evidenced by last year's Xbox 360 version, transplanted the game extremely effectively onto a television-and-joypad setup, with well-balanced controls, good multiplayer support and the clever inclusion of the instant action mode. It's not for nothing that Eurogamer awarded it a richly deserved 9/10, in spite of protests that it was a year-old PC port; it remains one of the best games around on any system, frankly.

Fear the Future

'F.E.A.R.' Screenshot 2

Arch bad-guy Paxton Fettel. He munches people's faces, which would probably earn him a dressing down from Gillian McKeith.

Playing through the early chapters of F.E.A.R. again on PS3, we're reminded of how bloody brilliant the game is when it really gets into its stride - even on a second play-through, it's still a hugely entertaining experience, and the sparing but effective use of horror movie techniques is still fresh, interesting, and largely unrivalled within the genre. Although the code we're playing is beta standard, and there are noticeable bugs and problems remaining, the framerate is pretty solid even when taking on multiple enemies and making lots of things blow up at once - with some final tweaks, it should hopefully run very smoothly on the PS3, although that's really the least you'd expect from a game which is, after all, almost two years old now.

That aspect is one which does show through to some extent; while F.E.A.R. does look great, some of the environments are rather low-detail compared to more recent games, and new PS3 owners expecting this to showcase the power of their new toy will be sorely disappointed - next to games like Gears of War, F.E.A.R. is starting to look a bit dated on the visual front, even if it more than holds its own in terms of pure gameplay and entertainment. Perhaps the biggest graphical disappointment, though, is that F.E.A.R. doesn't support 1080p in the current code - not something that will bother too many people given the paucity of 1080p displays out there, but still a shame given that PCs have been able to run in the game in resolutions that high for at least a year now.

One thing prospective PS3 owners will be pleased to hear is that the multiplayer support of the game is present and correct, and while we weren't actually able to try out the online multiplayer on our beta version, the range of options and features available in multiplayer looks exactly the same as it does on the Xbox 360. The primary strength of F.E.A.R. is its superb single-player mode, but the multiplayer mode on PC and 360 was fast-paced, entertaining and brilliantly over the top, so it's good to see it making the transition to the PlayStation 3's network intact.

'F.E.A.R.' Screenshot 3

Lessons learned from foreign films: Tiny girls are intrinsically evil.

On the downside, we're not entirely convinced by the control system adopted by the game. Aside from the peculiar decision to assign firing to R2 in all of the control configurations (we ended up finding the one which placed the least potentially lethal option on R1, after a few too many embarrassing self-grenading incidents), the game also highlights the dead zone problem of the PS3 pad - which is far less noticeable on the Sixaxis than it was on the Dual Shock 2, but continues to pose a slight problem when manoeuvring in FPS games, often forcing the user to over-compensate and hence overshoot their target. It's something which developers can overcome with a bit of tweaking (as demonstrated by games such as Resistance: Fall of Man), so hopefully the team working on the PS3 port at Day 1 Studios will spend some time on that. While they're at it, it might be nice to reduce the complexity of the control layout by moving the vital-but-annoying controls for leaning from side to side off the D-pad and onto the Sixaxis' motion sensors - leaning by tilting the pad is a shoe-in for motion sensing, and it's disappointing that F.E.A.R. doesn't seem to take advantage of this aspect of the PS3 at all.

Fear Itself

Whether you want to interpret F.E.A.R.'s appearance on the PS3 as a sign of weakness in the line-up, or as an opportunity for a new group of people to get their hands on a bloody brilliant game, is entirely up to you. For our part, the glass is definitely half-full on this one. F.E.A.R. is one of our favourite games of the last two years, and we're delighted to see it being ported competently to yet another platform; the more people that get to experience it, the better, frankly. Aside from the minor niggles outlined above, F.E.A.R. is shaping up very well on PS3 - and while all eyes should be on the prospects for a proper sequel to the game, anyone planning to pick up a PS3 early in its lifespan really should add this to their watchlist.

Picture of Rob.

About Rob Fahey

Rob Fahey is a former editor of GamesIndustry.biz who spent several years living in Japan and probably still has a mint condition Dreamcast Samba de Amigo set.

Read more articles from Rob by visiting the Rob Fahey archive page.

You may also like...

Comments (65) Latest comment 5 years ago

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

  • repairmanjack #1 5 years ago

    "there is pretty much no major difference between the content of this version of the game and the excellent Xbox 360 version"

    Mantra for the coming year?

  • LeD #2 5 years ago

    What's the point of that preview again? I'm not even sure this warrant its own review, being identical to the PC and 360 versions, let alone a preview, a first impressions, etc.

    What about reviews for new games, like Virtua Fighter 5 that's out in the States, Magical Starsign on DS, and so on?

  • trevd72 #3 5 years ago

    i thought the game was a little on the long side so the extra level would do my head in. i got the point after level 8. I had to go on gamefaq to make head and tail of the story cos i got sick of patching together the answermachine messages. good game though i guess.

  • kissthestick #4 5 years ago

    looks good

  • PlugMonkey #5 5 years ago

    "I'm not even sure this warrant its own review, being identical to the PC and 360 versions,"

    Did you know it was going to be identical before you read the article? I didn't. That's why I read it.

    F.E.A.R. completely slipped through the cracks for me. It came out on PC a bit before I upgraded and on X360 a bit before I got one. I may have to go and seek it out.

    But not on PS3, obviously. Sorry Sony. You're going to have to do a bit better than that. Sending the money truck round to Pandemic to keep Mercenaries 2 a PS3 exclusive might do it, mind.

  • Zafrano #6 5 years ago

    Will I be able to use a mouse and a keyboard in this game ?? Currently I have a xbox 360, but I just can`t get used to a joypad. Im going back to PC unless I can use the M&K on the PS3...

  • mkreku #7 5 years ago

    How can anyone say that FEAR has "brilliant level design"? Yeah, sure, if you consider the same gray office corridors for ten hours in a row to be brilliant. The action was superb, the AI was impressive and the weapons were meaty enough.. but the game really suffered because of its totally uninspired and dull level design.

  • Goodfella #8 5 years ago

    ^^Absolutely. The core mechanics ie shooting stuff was great but the repeated drab level design was very dull.

  • TakeTheVeil #9 5 years ago

    i just cant play FPSs with the PS pad.. it just doesnt work for me.. the position of them and the fact that they are convex rather than concave just means i slip off ever time..

    actually having not play my PS2 since FFXII and only playing the 360, the PS pad just feels weird and uncomfortable.. like the first time i picked it up

  • Max_Powers #10 5 years ago

    "Whether you want to interpret F.E.A.R.'s appearance on the PS3 as a sign of weakness in the line-up, or as an opportunity for a new group of people to get their hands on a bloody brilliant game, is entirely up to you."

    Sign of weakness

    And I agree with LeD. Why do a preview on a game that has been reviewed twice already?

  • Arwin #11 5 years ago

    Wow, that question is easily answered. Because a publisher bothered to send you a preview copy obviously. :)

    Hopefully they read this preview as well, because in this case the lack of sixaxis use for leaning is an obvious oversight.
    Edited by 1 at 21/02/07 @ 09:38

  • IAmBatman #12 5 years ago

    > Did you know it was going to be identical before you read the article?

    I was 95% sure, yeah.

    This is a very boring game.

  • trevd72 #13 5 years ago

    just to add to my comment, the reason it was too long was because it was the first 2 levels cut and pasted. no variation in the job you had to do, and in the same environment. I would put COD2&3 GRAW, R6:V GoW even quake4 Battlefield 2: Modern Combat, Perfect Dark Zero ahead of this. I know most of these are not coming to the PS3 but perhaps there is a reason not to get one yet. if you don't have a 360. Oh! i love them FPS do I, yum yum.

  • Eighthours #14 5 years ago

    Aside from the peculiar decision to assign firing to R2 in all of the control configurations (we ended up finding the one which placed the least potentially lethal option on R1, after a few too many embarrassing self-grenading incidents)

    Does this show how poor the triggers on the SIXAXIS are, if EG are complaining about fire being assigned to them?

  • samk #15 5 years ago

    "richly deserved 9/10"

    haha, I see someone has been reading all the negative feedback about the 360 review from those of us who bought it.

    "in spite of protests that it was a year-old PC port"

    I think you'll find the negative comments weren't about it being a year old port, but that the scary bits aren't scary at all, the levels consist of endless drab offices and warehouses, etc etc.

    "it remains one of the best games around on any system, frankly"

    O_O

  • andromeda #16 5 years ago

    "the PS3 version of the game is no different from the game that's been around for two years - F.E.A.R"

    Except that you have to pay over 425 squid to be able to play it.

  • andromeda #17 5 years ago

    I'll stick to Formula One Champ Edition, thanks.

    Oh wait...that's a waste of my time too...

  • Machiavel #18 5 years ago

    Fantastic game, and for me at least, I seemed to notice much more variety in the levels on my second and third playthroughs (which perhaps damningly implies I found it as repetitive as other people on the first)

    The repeater shotgun is presumably different from the repeater shotgun at the end of the game - though the 360 dual-pistols were rather rubbish, lacking the oomph of the regular weapons.

  • UncleLou #19 5 years ago

    How can anyone say that FEAR has "brilliant level design"? Yeah, sure, if you consider the same gray office corridors for ten hours in a row to be brilliant.

    I think you're confusing "level design" with "pretty setpieces". FEAR doesn't have the latter, but it sure has the former. While being linear, there are always dozens of possibilites to play different sections, enter at different doors, and different ways the AI can take you to surprise you. The level design is infinitely superior to, say, Half-Life 2 (but then, HL2 unfortunately doesn't have the AI that would take advantage of clever level design, anyway).

    FEAR doesn't care about cosmetics, it cares about getting the core gameplay mechanics 100% right. And that's where it's leaps and bounds ahead of any other FPS on the market.

    edit 1763:

    yet more typos :p
    Edited by 4 at 21/02/07 @ 10:33

  • UncleLou #20 5 years ago

    Yeah, I am with you, it's a bit shocking that the PS3 can't even reproduce the brilliant looking, nearly 2 years old PC game. :p

  • UncleLou #21 5 years ago

    Yeah, MGS looks nice. It's also a game that will be out - what, 3 years after the original FEAR? From what I've seen of the PS3 so far, there is absolutely no reason to be snobbish about FEAR's graphics. Certainly not when I look at games like Resistance, or Genji.

  • mkreku #22 5 years ago

    I'm seriously beginning to think the RSX just isn't up to scratch.

  • Shinji #23 5 years ago

    UncleLou hits the nail on the head regarding level design - yes, you could certainly say that the environments look quite similar throughout, but the actual design is second to none. The way in which F.E.A.R. builds areas with multiple entry points, cleverly positioned cover and tricky bottlenecks - all of which the AI is designed to take advantage of - makes it into one of the most exciting FPS games ever made. The levels may stick to the warehouse / office building template (although so did Die Hard - did you moan at the time that Bruce Willis didn't move the action to the North Pole or a tropical jungle, just for some variety?), but the design in gameplay terms is magnificent.

    As for the graphics, they're by no means the best thing on a next-gen console, but it's a bit harsh to say that the game can't handle two-year-old PC graphics - aside from the omission of a 1080p mode, which is admittedly very disappointing, it does a pretty good job overall. The only issue is some dodgy framerate in places, and this being beta code, we'd expect them to have patched that up by launch.

  • spongebob #24 5 years ago

    Err.. And I think F.E.A.R. was pretty damn demanding on PC when it came out. You had to have a seriously expensive setup to run it in full detail.

  • samk #25 5 years ago

    @Shinji "The levels may stick to the warehouse / office building template (although so did Die Hard - did you moan at the time that Bruce Willis didn't move the action to the North Pole or a tropical jungle, just for some variety?)"

    Die Hard lasts a few hours tops, not a trudge through endless identikit environments for a dozen+ hours. Additionally the narative in Die Hard is pretty good which breaks things up nicely, while even fans of Fear will probably readily admit the narative isn't a high point of the game. So, not really a good comparison tbh.

  • GitSomE_UK #26 5 years ago

    Still not convinced about the PS3, F.E.A.R is sooo 2 years ago.

    Next gen to me means something that'll give me the chub I need to part with my cash, a fresh take on gaming, new graphical and AI experiences something that'll make full use of my 37" LCD 1080p bad boy. I want to be wowed and entertained HL2, GoW, HALO and many more classics all did that.

    Ports of 2 year old PC games is so weak.

    So far only MGS3 and the announced Wipeout give me the chub... not much else... as good as they are I can't justify spending 500+ GBP on a PS3 rig for 1 game and a maybeware sometime in the future.

    Sony I've got money with your name on it... tempt me with the reasons I should bin my PS2 and sideline my 360/PC/GC. Surely you've got other goodies in the release bag?

    Oh, VF5... meh!

  • krudster #27 5 years ago

    Given the game came out in October 2005, it's not a "2 year old game" is it?

  • SuperAl81 #28 5 years ago

    The key thing everyone seems to miss is that many of these games ARE ports to completely different architecture. Yes FEAR is two+ years old but when it came out (and to some extent today) you needed a very high spec PC c£1,000+ to play it - bringing it to home system running semi-native x86 code, optismised for PC's is not a fair comparison.

    I agree though that the 360 will have a much easier time due to it's similarites with the PC, if/once developers learn the PS3 quirks we should see games be developed in tandem or in isolation of the 360 and PC versions meaning better usage of the system and it's strenghts.

    Obviously it could go the other way and we see second rate ports with poorly optimised PC/360 coded junked onto PS3!

  • morriss #29 5 years ago

    This is going for £20 in Denmark on the 360. I'm gonna pick it up I think.

  • UncleLou #30 5 years ago

    Next gen to me means something that'll give me the chub I need to part with my cash, a fresh take on gaming, new graphical and AI experiences

    You won't find any better AI than the one in FEAR in any "officicially next-gen" game.

  • skillian #31 5 years ago

    @GitSomE UK:

    Er, what the hell is a chub, and why do you need one so badly?

  • silver-jon #32 5 years ago

    So far on the 360 I've FPS'd my way through Far Cry, GoW, and this.
    F.E.A.R. was by far the better game. A consistent difficulty curve, good level design (already discussed above - actual level design compared to aesthetic decoration), decent AI, genuine shocks from a creepy atmosphere, decent graphics - okay not leading edge, but nevertheless good - and when you get into a shoot-up, that fantastic slo-mo so yo ucan enjoy the mayhem !
    And best of all ? I got to play the whole thing through.

    Far Cry was also good except for the mine-trap river guarded by rocket launching mercs and after about 40 tries I just gave up. Slight disappointment that it doesn't have the same openness as the PC version - the approach you can take to each cluster of enemies is more limited, but still good fun.
    Gears of War I found to be a bigger disappointment than Halo 2. Graphically sumptuous but the gameplay was turgid and limiting (run here. Stand there. Wait on this corner. Run to another corner). And the whole over-blown muscular jock thing I just found boring. It's been done in so many 80s films (anything with Van Damme, Lundgren, Schwarzenegger) and maybe I'm just too old. :-)

    I can see why people would buy F.E.A.R. for the 360 or the PC, but on the PS3 ??? This is not a system-seller. It's not a Halo or a GT3.
    Surely most gamer with half an interest will already have a PC or a 360, and won't need to fork out £425 for a new system and then another £45 to buy the game !

  • GitSomE_UK #33 5 years ago

    @skillian
    When men get excited in the trouser dept it's also known as a chub on.

    Gaming is my viagra :-)

  • Calgon #34 5 years ago

    SuperAl81: I agree though that the 360 will have a much easier time due to it's similarites with the PC, if/once developers learn the PS3 quirks we should see games be developed in tandem or in isolation of the 360 and PC versions meaning better usage of the system and it's strenghts.

    With the exception of the CPU(although Xenon is still a cusomised PPC... which you dont find in PCs) 360 is more of a true console(custom hardware) than the PS3(Sony themselves want people to see it that way too). Which would mean 360 would benifit just as much from such a scenario, if not even moreso than the PS3. The fact that 360 handles PC ports so well is just a testament to the good job MS did of the Dev kits and software provided to developers and perhaps the power/effeciency of the hardware itself.

    Although I doubt anyone was expecting it to look any bettter despite the extra time theyve had, it's looking as I predicted it would for the PS3 - 360 situation overall. Theres hardly anything in the PS3 pipeline that would make anyone with a 360 turn their heads, if anything they look behind the 360 developement progress which will most likely continue to move at a faster rate. Don't get me wrong though there are some good looking games on PS3 and that will continue to improve too but for the price tag, the fact that it's a year after the 360 launch and the fact that we had to listen to Sony PR and their many fanboys hyperbole on the power of the PS3 and the importance of Cell(powerfull CPU but not brilliant and not flexible enough) and blueray(great capacity but with slower speeds and do we really need it for games or is its greatest advantage High def movie playback?).

    If your an existing Sony fan then I'm sure a year or more down the road it would be a worthy purchase for you(even loyal Sony fans agree its too expensive at this price), it's a good console but then again so is the 360(dare I say the 360 is slightly better overall...) which is where Im coming from... theres more reasons Im seeing to switch to the 360 rather than vice-versa.

  • JediMasterMalik #35 5 years ago

    Good lord Calgon, you don't have to do this every time you post you know?

    How can this possibly be bad for the launch, surely more good games = good? Or does this no longer apply to Sony?

    And no, no one would buy a PS3 to play this game, but they may buy a PS3, then want this game. See the distinction? I'm sure no one bought a 360 FOR CoD2 either.

  • Calgon #36 5 years ago

    JediMasterMalik: Oh a strawman... thankyou!

    I never said anything about this game being a poor port or a bad game, this is one of the big multi-format games available at the PS3 launch though(and theyve had more time to optimise than 360 devs did). My post was mearly outlining the accuracy of my prediction pre-launch, the launch line-up isnt all that bad for the PS3 really(although nothing that excites me personally) and there are a few good games in the pipeline(I say too few but that my opininion ;) ) but is any of this £425+ good? Is the PS3 looking in the least bit the stronger of the 2 consoles? Not for me, infact I've read posts from the most loyal Sony fanboys saying as much.

    Why was there any need to get uppety JediMasterMalik ? You dont have to do that about every post that doesnt praise the PS3. ;)
    Edited by 1 at 21/02/07 @ 18:05

  • smelly #37 5 years ago

    >surely more good games = good?

    Im gonna stick up for him a bit here (not much mind)

    1. Im not convinced this is a good game.. But i keep saying that about this game, so i dont want to sound like a scratched record.
    2. What the ps3 needs isnt good games.. it's exclusive good games.

    What's the use in just having conversions of year old games? Especially when in most cases those games arent quite as good graphically (or the same) or have online play missing, etc etc.

  • UncleLou #38 5 years ago

    What's the use in just having conversions of year old games? Especially when in most cases those games arent quite as good graphically (or the same) or have online play missing, etc etc.

    Aren't you usually saying that graphics don't matter?

    Don't understand the problem - great game at launch available for those who don't have a 360 or gaming PC. That's, rough estimation, about 80 million people who play videogames worldwide.

    God only knows why it would be better not to have this at launch.

  • JediMasterMalik #39 5 years ago

    Calgon, I should have made my post more clear. I did not mean you with the rest of my piost, just the first 2 lines. :) I honestly couldn't give a rat's hind quarters which is more powerful.

    It was more directed to people complaining about the PS3 version, I already played it on PC, thought it was ok, last year. But if people didn't, and did not play the 360 version, and are now looking forward to the game, what's the problem? Late or not.

    Anyone who says the PS3 launch line up is bad is clearly not looking objectively. Motorstorm and Resistance probably make it easily the best launch since the original X-box, with Halo. Or, dare I say, better. Just because you personally have played some of these games before, does not make the launch line up bad, yes it has alot of multiplatform titles, but there are also a few really good exclusives, which for a launch, is a great thing imo.

    This game does not have online missing btw smelly.

    I also disagree about the need for more great exclusives, I think there will be plenty of great exclusives, but for some reason gamers refuse to give the PS3 time like they do with any other platform, for gods sake the thing hasn't even launched worldwide. Any platform near release, or soon after, will be in need of more great exclusives, that much should be pretty obvious to anyone.

    Why I wrote so much in a thread about a game I care so little about is beyond me ;)

  • mcwildcard #40 5 years ago

    If you're going to use the native name for 'Pulse' (Kairo), then you really should use the native name for Ring as well (Ringu).
    Btw, if you like those films then you should check out 'Shutter', it's excellent.

    http://www.imdb. com/title/tt0440803/
    Edited by 1 at 21/02/07 @ 19:02

  • Shinji #41 5 years ago

    jonestm - I noticed no difference between the AI in this version and the AI in the PC version of the game.

  • Goodfella #42 5 years ago

    I think that a lot of people don't realise that a lot of people don't own and don't want a 360, they don't have a PC up to the job of FEAR or/and they don't like playing FPS's on a PC.

    However you look at it, a PS3 version of FEAR is a brand spanking new game to a lot of people.

  • smelly #43 5 years ago

    >Aren't you usually saying that graphics don't matter?

    Nope. I say that gameplay, framerates, etc are more important than graphics. I'd rather play a game a 60fps, than have the same game run at 20fps with prettier graphics at higher resolutions or whatever.

    Here the gameplay hasnt changed between them.. And you're paying 300 quid more for the console to play it on.. So you'd hope the graphics WERE better, it ran at better framerates, and had extra features (such as better online play)...

  • smelly #44 5 years ago

    "they don't have a PC up to the job of FEAR"

    for the price of a ps3, they could easily get one!


    "or/and they don't like playing FPS's on a PC."

    Who doesnt prefer playing fps games on mouse/keyboard over joypad? Are they insane?

  • ronuds #45 5 years ago

    On the ps3 this game looks borderline ugly.

  • UncleLou #46 5 years ago

    Sorry smelly, I hadn't realised the concept of system selling exclusives on the one and crossplatform games that are nice to have on that system as well on the other hand is a new one to you.

  • The-Bodybuilder #47 5 years ago

    >"effective use of horror movie techniques is still fresh, interesting, and largely unrivalled within the genre"

    Even to condemned?
    And people didn't just moan because it was old, but simply because it is not a 9/10 game (in the VAST majority of opinions in ithe forum).

  • UncleLou #48 5 years ago

    A majority? Doubt it. Besides, you'll find people disagreeing with every review. Metacritic score for FEAR on the 360 is 85, 88 for the PC version, so EG's review wasn't exactly especially peculiar.

    Condemned isn't even in the same league, despite being made by the same developer with the same graphics engine.

  • The-Bodybuilder #49 5 years ago

    You know, just because you SAY condemnded is not as good, doesn't make it so.
    And when I said majority, I'm talking about those who posted in the relevant thread (the same thread he vehemently defended the game).

  • UncleLou #50 5 years ago

    You know, just because you SAY condemnded is not as good, doesn't make it so.

    Good, pretty much the point I wanted to make.

    And if you talk about the 360 review thread - lots of people there loving the game, and a vocal handful of puffed up Gears of War fanboys.

  • Donjohnni #51 5 years ago

    This game is boring tripe. Incredibly repetitive, uninspiring and featuring a poor engine re-worked from Condemned - how you gave it 9/10... twice... is a joke.

  • smelly #52 5 years ago

    @Donjohnni : Im glad im not the one to say that for a change :-)

  • Shinji #53 5 years ago

    I like how you claim the engine was re-worked from Condemned, when actually F.E.A.R. came out first :)

    By the way, I do consider Condemned to have much better horror elements - but then again, it's a survival horror game, not an FPS. FEAR's strong point is absolutely brilliant FPS gameplay - the horror stuff is window dressing, and in that context, it's done quite nicely. Condemned is all about the horror element and astonishing layers of atmosphere; it's really not sharing a genre with FEAR at all, imo.

  • smelly #54 5 years ago

    @jonestm : Not planning on getting anything good then?

    Then again.. you are getting a ps3.. :-)

  • bonker #55 5 years ago

    "And no, no one would buy a PS3 to play this game, but they may buy a PS3, then want this game. See the distinction? I'm sure no one bought a 360 FOR CoD2 either. "

    They did after they'd seen/played it on their mate's 360 ...

  • bonker #56 5 years ago

    "I also disagree about the need for more great exclusives, I think there will be plenty of great exclusives, but for some reason gamers refuse to give the PS3 time like they do with any other platform, for gods sake the thing hasn't even launched worldwide. Any platform near release, or soon after, will be in need of more great exclusives, that much should be pretty obvious to anyone.

    Why I wrote so much in a thread about a game I care so little about is beyond me ;) "

    I suspect the impatience is generated from the perceived 'extra year' that Sony have had to deliver the PS3 and when they finally do, it barely seems to be up with the standards set by MS' 360 release back in 2005 ...

    It's tough I know but late-to-market is rarely a good thing especially given the yawning chasm between this-gen and last-gen gaming (not with every game obviously). I've no idea what the PS3 release schedule is like but Sony need to get something first-party and uber out by this Summer to show they're not just still playing catch-up ...

  • bonker #57 5 years ago

    >>"they don't have a PC up to the job of FEAR"

    >for the price of a ps3, they could easily get one!

    LOL

    I hadn't actually thought of that but with a game or two you're probably right! :)

  • JediMasterMalik #58 5 years ago

    They did after they'd seen/played it on their mate's 360 ...

    I played it on PC, so could they have.

  • mike_mgoblue #59 5 years ago

    Game Informer magazine compared F.E.A.R. for the two systems in the March 2007 issue, and they make it perfectly clear that the Xbox 360 version has the graphic advantage.

    It is also worth noting that the Playstation 3 version of this game does NOT have the ability to use rumble or vibration in the controller, because the Playstation 3 controller does not have that ability.

    Playing a shooting game like this without the ability to FEEEEEL the guns in your hands is a terrible thing.

    The Xbox 360 version of F.E.A.R. is definitely the superior version.

  • mike_mgoblue #60 5 years ago

    Sony has now announced that the European version of the Playstation 3 will not include the Playstation 2 hardware, because they are cutting back on costs. This means that the European Playstation 3 is only backward compatible with a "limited number of Playstation 2 games," according to Sony's announcement!!!

    This means that the European Playstation 3 has been redesigned in a way that SUCKS!!!

  • JediMasterMalik #61 5 years ago

    Playing a shooting game like this without the ability to FEEEEEL the guns in your hands is a terrible thing.

    FEAR on the PC is the most superior version, and incidentally has no rumble...

  • rebe #62 5 years ago

    Ps3 versions looks blurry compared to the pc and 360 version. A 2-3 year old pc seems to run this game better than the ps3.

  • TRUTH #63 5 years ago

    The image on PS3 is actually less sharper and slightly blander then 360 version. Check ign for PS3 vs 306 of F.E.A.R.

  • m0thr4 #64 5 years ago

    I don't know what the author of this preview was smoking when he played this beta code. F.E.A.R. is out and in the shops and it's completely cack compared to the Xbox 360 version.

    Interminably long loading times for each level (anywhere from 30 to 60 seconds, or sometimes longer), dull and dreary graphics (that are missing many of the cool effects the Xbox 360 version had) and a really choppy framerate.

  • m0thr4 #65 5 years ago

    @mike_mgoblue

    The only PS2 hardware Sony 'removed' for the European PS3 is the 'emotion engine', which is emulated in software instead. It's not a big deal. The PS3 is a powerful machine and is more than capable of handling that task in software.

    The only downside is that you may have to wait a bit for some games to be made compatible, but I would not pay attention to the misleading BC site Sony have. There are many games not listed on that site which work fine, others that Sony give a low compatibility rating yet I'm damned if I can find any problems, etc, etc.

    But surely, you spent all that money on a PS3 to play PS3 games (and maybe watch a few Blu-ray discs), didn't you?