F.E.A.R. Review

By Kristan Reed Published 14 November, 2006

Wave of mutilation.

Version tested: Xbox 360

Loud-Quiet-Loud.

Music aficionados will know this term to refer to the song structure dynamic favoured by noiseniks down the years (think Pixies, Nirvana and beyond), where the chaos of fractured guitars and ravaged vocals gives way to contrasting sweet melodies and calm reflection. F.E.A.R adopts a similar approach in gaming terms; constantly amping up the gunplay to almost unbearable levels of intensity before giving way to quiet exploration. And back again.

But, in truth, F.E.A.R. is a game where the pressure's never really off.

It's a shooter experience where the tension of dire expectation is almost as intense as the actual combat itself. It's the perfect game for late nights, drawn blinds and low lights - much like Monolith's debut 360 effort, Condemned.

In fact, both have a lot more in common than the same developer (although to be fair, the 360 port was handled by others). Both games share the same engine, a very similar gloomy visual style and intensity, and both even manage to contrive to share a plot centred on an insane madman that's able to control the actions of a united enemy. But while Condemned encourages you to skulk slowly and silently in the shadows with a mighty iron bar and wrap it around the head of filthy tramps, F.E.A.R. encourages players to skulk silently in the shadows before unleashing a hail of bullets into the skulls of well-drilled clone soldiers. In slow motion.

Enter the Max Payne Matrix

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

Yes, Bullet Time is back. Stop yawning at the back. Yes, if you wanted the laziest approximation possible, it's an FPS with slow-mo, but it's so much more than that. As Tom succinctly noted in his 9/10 PC review over a year ago, "F.E.A.R. isn't a game of specific set-pieces, it's a game about making your own". Ok, it's perhaps too much of a backhanded compliment for Vivendi to stick it on the box, but it completely nails the fact that Monolith's paranormal shooter is very much a game that doesn't prescribe the fun the way that other shooters do, and that the fun you make is of the very highest calibre.

But it's also the archetypal game of two halves, and one that has been the subject of intense debate over whether it deserves to be spoken of in the same breath as the true greats of the genre. In some senses it's, without doubt, one of the best shooters ever conceived, thanks to some of the most astounding, intense and unnerving combat sequences you'll come across. Sequences that change every time you play them, and make you want to keep playing until every last clone soldier is defeated.

The first weapon up Monolith's sleeve is that the game is blessed with effective, reactive and above all unpredictable AI, and this instantly gives what could have been a standard corridor shooter the kind of unscripted excitement that's sorely lacking in rival titles. F.E.A.R. consistently pits the player against the sort of enemy that knows your weaknesses. Rather than simply appear in front, above or below you, you'll soon begin to notice how good they are at exploiting the environment. They may well start off above you, but if you skulk off into the shadows and try to merely pop out from cover now and then, forget it.

"He's flanking!"

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

They'll flank, track back, work as a team, make decent use of cover, and radio in your position to their fellow clones. Very quickly, you'll realise they genuinely are hunting you down and willing to use very human tactics to flush you out from your hidey hole, rather than just wandering down pre-determined sentry paths. They'll spot your errant torchlight glow from afar and notice when you clatter and bang against objects, and they'll report back once they realise you've moved on. You can never, ever relax until the radio chatter is gone for good, because if you let your guard down for a second, it could be your last. Time and again, they'll second guess where you're heading to, creep up behind you from behind, lob a grenade in to force your hand, send a second set of units to approach from the front and leave you with no choice but to fight back. They're an enemy worth having, and after playing against so many shooters with insipid, boring 'duck and peep' scripted AI it feels like a true progression. It's as if Monolith took the Opposing Force enemies that enlivened the original Half-Life all those years ago, made them even more aggressive, built a host of environments tailored to show off their capabilities and essentially fashioned the entire game from there.

If this was just any old shooter, you'd genuinely struggle to cope without your slow-mo abilities. Okay, for the first few hours you can generally squeak by in real-time thanks to the ability to store up to 10 medi-packs on your person at any one time, but without the PC's cheating quick-save ability, you're forced to be a lot more skilful for concerted (but manageable) chunks of the combat. When you begin to come across enemies that are as fast as your are in slow-mo (like those cloaking Ninjas that leap from the ceiling) then you know there's no choice but to even the odds and use those oh-so-handy heightened reflexes. (Incidentally anyone who can manage to play the game on Normal difficulty or above without using slow-mo gets awarded a special achievement - but that will take supreme reserves of skill.)

Using your recharging slow-mo ability isn't just an easy means of dealing with being massively outnumbered - it gives you the perfect means of sending multiple foes to their doom in the most spectacular fashion currently possible in videogames. With some extremely impressive rag-doll animations, destructible scenery and a multitude of explosive particle effects, otherwise standard scenes of FPS carnage are instantly transformed into a balletic bloodbath, with bullets and explosions that rip apart the very fabric of space around them In so many ways that matter, F.E.A.R. looks, feels and plays like no other shooter before it. Yes, you could quite justifiably call it next generation.

Horror, hurrah

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

And yet you could just as readily question many of the game's less celebrated elements - such as why Monolith thought it was a good idea to often set the game in bland and repetitive environments that appear to cut and paste the office/warehouse template to the game's detriment. It's not fair to say that the game's always like this, but it's enough to be noticeable. Repetition is certainly one of the key arguments used to rail against the game (and, believe me, it will be again), such as the unavoidable truth about how a significant chunk of the game pits you against the same clone enemy - the very same ones you meet at the beginning of the game. It's also a game where the storyline never grips hold of you and plays as big a part as it perhaps should, where it's hard to be truly engaged by yet another generic 'hunt down the insane bad guy' storyline, especially when the supporting characters are given so little room to impose themselves on the proceedings. Even the spooky Asian horror influences aren't used as well as they could have been. The horror interludes are all a bit like walking down Max Payne's rocky path to madness, rather than anything truly horrifying, to be fair.

F.E.A.R. tries to make up for the lack of character interaction by filling in the blanks via voice mail messages left in the many abandoned offices - but the sound quality of the voice recordings is so badly mixed (even on a high quality surround sound set-up) and sampled at such a low rate that you have to strain to hear what's being said. And even when you can discern what's being said, it often adds little colour to the narrative other than various stern warnings being from concerned staff members about the goings-on around them. Standard stuff.

Combat rocks

So, essentially what helps the game transcend such concerns is a game with exceptionally strong combat and the promise of the occasional new weapon and new baddie to fight against. In this department, it might look a bit hit-and-miss, with a selection of standard variations on shotguns and sub-machineguns providing a solid but unspectacular base - until you see how much more fun it is when you're busy unloading them in grooooooaning slow motion and watching the explosive chaos unfold. You won't know whether to grin or grimace half the time, but your heart will want to beat out of your chest half the time. Better still is the best use of a nailgun ever seen in a videogame, literally pinning enemies to the wall and even through the head- which has to go down as one of the most satisfying ways to finish an enemy off ever. Topping even that for absolute "have some of that" impact is the terrifying and uncompromising particle ray gun that allows you to zoom in on your target and strip the flesh right off their bones in one deliciously satisfying hit. Even the obligatory rocket launcher has to take a back seat to that one.

'F.E.A.R.' Screenshot 4

In terms of delivering frantic, blood pumping thrills, there hasn't been a game this all-out exciting since Burnout 2 first burst onto our screens, and no-one had any problems with the repetition or storyline in that one, did they? When the core experience is this well honed, this refined, you're more than happy to forgive the repetition. The qualms over repetition are rendered meaningless waffle once it dawns on you that every single encounter plays out differently every single time.

Perhaps the only reason that F.E.A.R. hasn't had the build-up and attention it perhaps deserves is that it's only a PC port - and a PC to console port that's followed over a year after the original's release to boot. In this case, the usual pre-release mystery, hype and speculation isn't there, when the reality is that it's arguably the 360's finest shooter right now, and one that has been ported by Day 1 Studios with a great deal of care and attention. Played in high-def on a big screen set-up, it's easily the equal of the game running on a high-spec PC, albeit on a pad. And even in that sense, the transition to the 360 has been handled flawlessly, with a control set-up that's intuitive, perfectly responsive and sensibly mapped.

Living daylights

'F.E.A.R.' Screenshot 5

Visually, the game is a dazzling array of effects when the combat gets underway, but never really that amazing for the rest of the time. You always get the sense that if only Monolith had spent more time on livening up the environments that people would have warmed to the game just that little bit more. As it is, the fact that the game looks so incredible during the slow-mo combat more than makes up for any daft quibbles people might have about the wall texturing or the general repletion of the game environments. In my experience, that soon pales into the background.

As a special 'bonus' the 360 comes with an extra mission that unlocks after Mission 10 (Blindside), but it's a rather pointless ten-minute exercise in fleshing out a part of the story that didn't really require any embellishment. What it does do, though, is force players to experience what the game might have been like if you had no slow-mo abilities - which is to say frantic, skilful and dangerous!

Elsewhere, the 360 version also comes with four 'Instant Action' missions, which are essentially segments of the main campaign (with some changes, specifically the fourth one) set against the pressure of the clock. With 15 minutes to successfully clear the mission at hand (and no check points or saving allowed) you're forced into an all-or-nothing sortie where the pressure's on. Regardless of your success or failure, you're given a score at the end based on your performance (related to how many enemies killed, time taken, ammo left, etc) which is then uploaded to a worldwide leaderboard - with separate leaderboards for Moderate, Hard and Extreme difficulty modes.

Xbox Lives

'F.E.A.R.' Screenshot 6

But where the game really takes advantage of Xbox Live is the game's eight online multiplayer modes. With 16-player support as standard, you get the usual array of standard solo and team-based modes in the game, including perennial favourites such as Deathmatch, Capture The Flag and the one-kill-and-you're-out DM variant Elimination. Played with the more interesting weapons that F.E.A.R. offers, they're superb fun with - from our real-world playtest - little evidence of any lag-related issues to spoil the fun, although given that none of these modes support slow-mo, the single-player's key novelty factor is notable by its absence.

But where F.E.A.R. differentiates itself from the shooter herds online is the three slow-mo modes, with Deathmatch, Team Deathmatch and CTF all adding a reflex booster to the map, and giving one player the added advantage of being able to slow everyone else's time down while they carry on as normal - essentially allowing them to react far quicker than anyone else. The only problem, dammit, is that the player with the booster glows blue and becomes visible on everyone's HUD. Once the person with the booster gets killed, they drop the power-up and it becomes available to pick up - and so it goes on. It's excellent, uncomplicated online fun, and certainly adds an extra incentive to continue playing long after you've cracked the 12-15 hour solo campaign.

As far as shooters go on the 360, deciding whether to buy F.E.A.R. is a simple decision to make. Stood next to its direct competitors like Call of Duty 2 and 3, Quake IV, Perfect Dark Zero and Far Cry Instincts it's leagues ahead, and there's simply no better on the 360 right now. F.E.A.R. is the 360's first shooter to score a nine on Eurogamer for the simple reason that it's such a consistently exciting game that gets the core of the experience so absolutely spot-on that most of the niggles are swiftly swept aside. Slow-mo gunplay and cunning AI don't sound like next generation ideas, but somehow Monolith combines the two so expertly that it feels more alive and more exciting than could ever seem possible. With a more exciting and varied set of environments and a more polished narrative it'd be an effortless 10 - but for now a celebratory and 9 seems entirely justified for what is easily one of the most richly entertaining action games released this year - or any other year for that matter.

9 / 10

Read the Eurogamer.net scoring policy
Picture of Kristan.

About Kristan Reed

Kristan is a former editor of Eurogamer, dad, Stone Roses bore and Norwich City supporter who sometimes mutters optimistically about Team Silent getting back together.

Read more articles from Kristan by visiting the Kristan Reed archive page.

You may also like...

Comments (272) Latest comment 5 years ago

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

  • Nige #1 5 years ago

    Really? Wowser... I'll have to go back to this... the demo left me a bit cold.

  • ram #2 5 years ago

    It is a very good shooter, even better if you buy if for £23 from various import sites, as it's region free. Sound effects are fantastic on digital surround sound.

  • Flabio #3 5 years ago

    I remeber being very surprised that Monolith went with Condemned as their first 360 title rather than this, they use almost identical engines don't they?

    Pity I've played it to death (along with it's expansion) on my PC last year.

  • petebritish #4 5 years ago

    Can imagine the Gears of war fans not liking this review. a remake of a year old PC game scores a 9? Amazing

  • andya #5 5 years ago

    Yep, superb review. Picked this up with CoD3 on Friday, CoD3 is still in wrapper, one of the most intense and fun FPSs I've played for years.

  • espadachin #6 5 years ago

    ooh, i opted to play cod3 last night instead of this, not gonna make that mistake tonight. And for £23 a total bargain to boot!

  • krudster #7 5 years ago

    Yeah, the demo's really not showing the game off to its potential. I was unconvinced after that too.

  • attep #8 5 years ago

    This is a bit like Chromehounds then. IE the demo is pants and no-one likes it but the game is great. For £23 this is definately worth a look.

  • Huntcjna #9 5 years ago

    petebritish wrote:

    "Can imagine the Gears of war fans not liking this review. a remake of a year old PC game scores a 9? Amazing"

    Thats actually a point which should be openly addressed considering Kristian reviewed both. However there will likely be many 360 owners picking this up who will not have played the PC original (like myself) and as a result its hardly fair to judge a game harshly based on format.

    It is still interesting to me what FEAR brings to the shooter other than admittedly excellent AI and a bullet time feature that warrants it as a more impressive experience than Gears.
    Edited by 2 at 14/11/06 @ 09:14

  • Der_tolle_Emil #10 5 years ago

    My wallet is crying already.

  • YoJimbo #11 5 years ago

    Hell hath no fury like a Gears of War fan after reading this review!

  • UncleLou #12 5 years ago

    Great review, krudster.

    /broken record

    The best FPS since Half-Life 1.

  • repairmanjack #13 5 years ago

    Daren't read the review in case it contains spoilers (FEAR is completely new to me). I've played it for about thirty minutes. Surprised to see it score so highly, but really looking forward to running through it now.

  • onyxbox #14 5 years ago

    I've been playing this all weekend and I second this opinion, the gunplay is superb in this game.

  • Machiavel #15 5 years ago

    Totally agree with this review. A fantastic game, playable in all its glory on the 360. The absence of quick saves ratchets up the tension considerably and even now, I find myself distracted in awe at some of the matrixesque bullet effects during particularly intense firefights.

  • gizmo #16 5 years ago

    Amazing. I thought the demo was really poor. Think I'll stick to GOW.

    Only on EG.

    EDIT: Was the demo misrepresentative?
    Edited by 1 at 14/11/06 @ 09:23

  • BillGaitas #17 5 years ago

    In the office no one will hear you scream

  • krudster #18 5 years ago

    I resisted the comparisons in the review as a) FEAR is an FPS, and therefore shouldn't really be judged against a game which is a third person action game with a compeltely different control set-up and gameplay style, and b) this is a FEAR review, not an article about the relative merits between unrelated games. You may as well compare FEAR with Tomb Raider if we're going to go down that road.

    Seeing as we're in the comments and everyone wants to bring up GoW (inevitably as it's out this week), firstly, I prefer FEAR to Gears of War as a single player game, hence the 9. It has the more exciting combat, better AI and is simply more enjoyable a gaming experience. It's simply one of the tensest action games imaginable. A definite 9, and with excellent multiplayer to supplement it.

    Gears of War is excellent too. I'm moving onto the multiplayer now, so that side of the game will be fully addressed in a real world setting against (and with) actual players rather than against a limited number of fellow journos on Partnernet.

    To be clear, I did play GoW multiplayer for several hours before review, but was determined to wait until I could play it *properly* before coming to a definitive verdict. I think that's a point that's been lost in all the ranting that's been going on in the past week.

  • space_ace #19 5 years ago

    i'm digging for fire

  • cooper #20 5 years ago

    FEAR is great.

    GoW fans are just embarrasing to listen to (at least those who are posting in forums).

  • Khanivor #21 5 years ago

    Best damn shooter to come out since HL1.

    It's all in the firefights chaps. Nail them and you have a winner.

  • Xerx3s #22 5 years ago

    Better than GoW then.

    /coat

    EDIT: CURSE YOU LD! I will chainsaw your arse! ;)
    Edited by 1 at 14/11/06 @ 09:28

  • ram #23 5 years ago

    What I would say against it is I am now on Interval 3 (Level 3) and you can't tell the difference between it and the first level. The environments are almost identical. I've had a brief glimpse of a ninja and fought 2 super soldiers but thats about it in differences so far. I did play the PC version in slideshow-a-rama a year ago or so and I can't remember if the environments change later on. I hope so.

  • TripSkyway #24 5 years ago

    Great review. I thought the demo was ace, but had nearly been persuaded out of buying this. I think I'll be getting this now, ta.
    Edited by 1 at 14/11/06 @ 09:32

  • ccfb #25 5 years ago

    The weapon balance in mp seems totally shot to me. Penetrator WINZORS in most cases.

  • lambtron #26 5 years ago

    Pixies rule.

  • Super_Zee #27 5 years ago

    Totally agree with the review - the fights are awe-inspiring and it's amazing how the same situation can play out completely differently on replay. The enemy AI makes this game - you really feel like you're fightly an intelligent, responsive enemy rather than ploughing through cannon fodder.

  • Masarin #28 5 years ago

    Pixies rule.

    Haha. I second that!

  • trevd72 #29 5 years ago

    got mine yesterday from playasia for £21. this game rocks....just need the broadband turned back on for some online killing.

  • krudster #30 5 years ago

    For those underwhelmed early on, I think the fun really kicks in at around the end of Interval 3 when it becomes apparent that you have to use Slo-Mo with skill. Up until that point, you can pretty much breeze through playing it like any other shooter out there.

  • Martin #31 5 years ago

    What, no mention of the giant ads for FEAR all over the site along with a score of 9, bordering on 10?

    Perhaps the the conspiration theorists/trolls haven't woken up yet...

  • krudster #32 5 years ago

    Yeah, because ads *really* influence our thinking.
    /sigh

  • krudster #33 5 years ago

    And you've played all of the above, yes?

  • Steve007 #34 5 years ago

    Where are people getting this for £23??

  • haowan #35 5 years ago

    Oh yes let's bring Gears into every review thread now. Reviews are so worth comparing.

    Better than Gears Of War!

    You morons.

  • DiscoMike #36 5 years ago

    "Where are people getting this for £23??"

    Try play-asia.com

  • gazareth #37 5 years ago

    Steve007 - [link url=http://www.play-asia.com
    ]http://www.play-asia.com
    [/link]
    It's region-free :)

  • kangarootoo #38 5 years ago

    @martin

    "What, no mention of the giant ads for FEAR all over the site"

    Well first off, let me add my slap to the big pile heading your way for oh so originally suggesting that ads influence reviews on this site.

    Secondly "with a score of 9, bordering on 10". When exactly can a 9 NOT be bordering on 10? (this isn't a real question, it just amused me).


    @EuroSexMachine

    "I'm sorry but this is not as good as Gears of war"

    Your apology is accepted. But Kristan disagrees, so who is right? Perhaps neither of you, because there is no "right", because reviewing games is subjective. Subjectivity. THATS WHY PEOPLE DISAGREE!!

    [link url=htt p://dictionary.reference.com/browse/subjective
    ]http://di ctionary.reference.com/browse/s...[/link]

    Now everyone read the bloody link and lets NEVER have this conversation again.

    /mumbles under breath about how education has really been slipping this last decade.

  • Clive_Dunn #39 5 years ago

    As others have said, it's the best FPS since HL1 in my opinion.

    However - the demo is crap. I played it on PC and thought "meh" and didn't bother for a year. Big mistake, as the game is monsterously better than the demo portrays. I can't believe Sierra made the same mistake twice.

  • kangarootoo #40 5 years ago

    And where is smelly?

    A thread about FEAR just isn't the same without smelly appearing, saying "FEAR is shit", and then getting all annoyed when people say he is trolling.

    :)

  • Talha #41 5 years ago

    FEAR firefights rule!

    Although it got slightly underwhelming (for me) later on, as a shooter it is exceptional.

  • krudster #42 5 years ago

    Thank you Kangarootoo. Someone needed to say it.

    Besides, the GoW review isn't even complete yet. People need to put their toys back in their prams for a few more days...

  • rotmm #43 5 years ago

    I haven't played FEAR on the 360, but I've been through it a couple of times on the PC and while it is an enjoyable game, it is definately not a 9/10. It is a solid shooter, but far from extraordinary. Much is made of the AI, but play through the same scenario 3 or 4 times and you see that the primary aim of the AI is to move toward you into your firing range. It's rare when an AI character will lie in wait, and if it does it's always in exactly the same places which shows it's a scripted action.

    There are occasions that the AI will pull down some piece of furniture as cover. Again, there are very specific furniture pieces they will use and even if there are 4 sets of the same shelves in an area, only the same one will be "pulled down" to use as cover every time. It's "smoke and mirrors" impressive only, because it is yet again a clearly scripted piece of in-game actiion. More importantly, the player cannot even move these pieces of furniture. How is it that the AI can use these immovable in-game objects?

    The environments are extremely repetitive, notwithstanding those areas that you are forced to play through 3 times.

    The initial story elements are a breath of fresh air, but very soon lose their impact. The only saving grace is that they really pick up again in the last couple of levels, therefore giving reviewers who want to score the game high the self-justification in doing so. But really, it's a six-hour game with 4-hours of story-time stretched over to make a 10-12 hour experience.

    7/10 or 8/10 would be fair.
    Edited by 1 at 14/11/06 @ 10:10

  • gizmo #44 5 years ago

    Bah, just read the word 'cloaking' and this instantly became a no-go.

    Developers, if I wanted invisble enemies, I could simply turn off my tv, okay?

    Don't include invisible enemies, they're rubbish. Thanks.

  • Psychopompus #45 5 years ago

    So gameplay is outstanding, but when I played the demo I was struck by the poor graphics. Can anyone who played the full XBOX360-version confirm that the graphics are much better then in the demo-version?

  • captainrentboy #46 5 years ago

    This whole Gears of War thing is getting a bit tiresome now,the reviewer thinks this game is better,so fucking what?It's his opinion at the end of the day.I mean if this game had got a 7 today whereas last year it was deemed a 9 then you'd have something to moan about,and you EG conspiracy madmen would have a tiny reason to go off on one.But until you've actually played G.O.W these silly rants are a bit pointless.
    To be honest even I,the big 360 lover,am beginning to think maybe G.O.W is worth an 8,as looking at the vids online it does seem very repetitive with some pretty dense acting enemies(Well definitely compared to FEAR's anyway)
    I'm still buying it come Friday,as well as F.E.A.R,but i'm not expecting anything more than some pretty standard run of the mill 3rd person gameplay,albeit combined with an amazing graphics engine.
    Edited by 1 at 14/11/06 @ 10:13

  • nickthegun #47 5 years ago

    Wow, good review. Would have bought it too had the ending not been spoilered by the PC expansion pack review.........(jk)

    Will probably pick this up at lunchtime and maybe leave GoW until Xmas.

    On a slightly different note, out of all the games recently that have had PDAs, collectable voicmail and all that other crap, how many people actually read/listen to them? Doom3 was terrible for it and they even put it in Tomb Raider and a bloody SSX game .

  • NthSimulachum #48 5 years ago

    Do 'asian' games have japanese subtitles?

    *tempted by incredibly low-priced overseas stuff*

  • MrWonderstuff #49 5 years ago

    Good game on the PC (with 2gig RAM). Environments got very samey after a while.

  • Harlequeen #50 5 years ago

    Silly question, but just how many FPSs does one console need?

    Where people question an interest in such ideas as Viva Pinata, don't forget we've got HalfLifeE2 and Halo2 coming as well. As well as the classic fishing game COD of course. By the end of next year will we have 20 in the genre on the 360?

  • #51 5 years ago

    After spending some time with FEAR on my PC, and GOW on my 360 I know which I prefer.

    One game is simply more fun than the other. Can you guess which one it is?

    Can you?

    CAN YOU?

  • Darren #52 5 years ago

    I completely agree with that score having been playing F.E.A.R. for most of the weekend. The single player is great fun; atmospheric, occasionally creepy and frequently exciting and the slow-mo mode never gets boring. Online the game is superb too and one of the best multiplayer games on the 360 in my opinion bar Call of Duty 3. All the games I played were fast and lag-free (although admittedly only with 8 players).

  • krudster #53 5 years ago

    Not really - everyone was handed the same embargo, and some publications chose to go down a different route, and that's their choice. I've played games online components via Partnernet and pre-arranged system link sessions before, and it absolutely does *not* give a fair indication of what it's really like to go online. If other sites and mags are happy to review GoW's multiplayer on the basis of that, good luck to them, but I'd rather take the flak and do it our way.

    We decided to, you know, actually wait until we could *properly* play the multiplayer side of GoW on the real-life Xbox Live that people actually will be playing it on. Meanwhile, what we could comment on, the single player, was reviewed - the part that most people are interested in.
    Edited by 1 at 14/11/06 @ 10:24

  • kangarootoo #54 5 years ago

    @gizmo

    "Developers, if I wanted invisble enemies, I could simply turn off my tv, okay?"

    Lol, thats good. +1


    @TheBlackLodge

    Kristan was talking about the multiplayer review, without which the game can't be viewed as a whole.

    "with the review going up before you could even play it properly, you guys where just trying to wind people up, generate traffic etc,"

    And that is just conspiracy madness. How does misinformation generate "more traffic" exactly? I know people keep saying it, but no-one seems to know why that might be case or if indeed its true (here's a clue, its bollox).

  • Fatfish #55 5 years ago

    If this is a direct port from PC (as the review says it is), then I can safely confirm that this is a fantastic title that really gets the blood pumping.........up until about the 5th or 6th level, when you realise that (apart from stepping out on to some roof tops, a couple of sewers/air ducts and the odd warehouse), the environment doesn't really change, neither do the enemies or the style of playing. Don't get me wrong, it's good fun while it lasts, but it does become tedium personified after a while - although it's entertaining and bareable tedium right to the end (saying that, I've yet to complete the game after losing interest arounf the 8th or 9th level - and from what I'm told, the ending is definitely worth seeing so may even go back to it tonight to finish off).

    If you've never played this on PC, then I seriously suggest you give it a go. But I think the lesson here is........if you've been there before, then don't bother going there again.

    edit: And can't you fanboys just accept that this and GoW are two different games. Both have their merits and their downfalls. Accept them for what they are, enjoy them for what they offer.......and kindly shut the fuck up. That is all. :)
    Edited by 1 at 14/11/06 @ 10:28

  • JayPee #56 5 years ago

    Krudster.

    Please answer me these questions:

    What new does FEAR do for the genre? - Are we now judging a game by the platform it runs on (as in FEAR is brand new as it is on the 360 now and thus different)?

    If this is true (which seems to be the case) why then was GOW marked less for "doing nothing new" (despite having some genuinely new gameplay features) as the only other 3rd person shooter available for the 360 is GRAW, and it seems just a little different!?

    If the intention was to re-evaluate GOW in the context of it's multiplayer "properly" why did you feel the need for a definitive score out of 10 for the review?

    I am not comparing the two games, but comaping the two reviews.

  • rhinoxious #57 5 years ago

    Partial reviews of games should be marked as Previews, without scores.

    Either that or games with online components could recieve a pair of scores? One for single player and one for multi-player.

    I've been playing COD3 since friday and I haven't touched the single player yet, it simply doesn't interest me as much as the multiplayer.

  • ccfb #58 5 years ago

    "After spending some time with FEAR on my PC, and GOW on my 360 I know which I prefer.

    One game is simply more fun than the other. Can you guess which one it is?

    Can you?

    CAN YOU?"

    No. But thanks for your contribution.

  • Notorious_LRO #59 5 years ago

    Can't for the life of me understand the 9. I'm thinking 6 or 7. Played the first few chapters on the PC, and then tried the 360-version a few days ago. This leaves me wondering how bad acting in a computer game has to be before it hurts the score. Didn't like how the game undeniably looks like a PC port either.

  • sharpfish #60 5 years ago

    Dunno how a ported FPS with a console controller (and obvious PC heritage) can be "better" than (geOW) a Third person shooter, designed from the outset to work with the gamepad and take advantage of the target platform, pushing it further technically than any previous game! Especially as it's gameplay isn't "lacking".

    Seriously though, the FEAR demo left me cold and I never got into it on PC either, were I to buy it though it would be the PC version.

    GeOW offers something not available on PC and makes use of the graphical caps of the 360 (and HD). Fear looks old. If it really is good gameplay wise I will pick it up for £5 for the PC and run it in higher res with a decent FPS (mouse/keyboard) controller.

    I think the 9 is to stir controversy with the recent 8 rating for "the other game". No way is this ancient port still a 9 in the face of modern competition. 7 or 8 for fear, especially taking into consideration the poor environments and distinctly old-hat texture and geometry work going on.



    Edited by 3 at 14/11/06 @ 10:43

  • krudster #61 5 years ago

    There's no confusion - there has been a single player "review" of GoW and there will be a mutliplayer review that's equally in-depth because of the fact that it's such a blockbuster title. The final score will be the average of the two elements. This has been done before on EG (with Halo 2 for similar reasons), and it will no doubt happen again.

  • JayPee #62 5 years ago

    "Gears of War sticks to a well-worn recipe.

    8/10"

    Direct port of an old PC game that didn't really do much new when it was new? - 9/10.

    I simply don't understand. I am not disputing the scores, but the methodology behind them.

  • kangarootoo #63 5 years ago

    "Partial reviews of games should be marked as Previews, without scores."

    Rubbish. That assumes that the readers have no brains of their own. Hmmm, perhaps you are right.

    If I read "single player review" and the text of the review then makes it clear that only the single player mode of the game is being reviewed, I know exactly what I am getting. Maybe I don't care about multiplayer, so the review serves me just fine. What on earth is wrong with that? What kind of bizarre universal law says that isn't perfectly OK.

    Sure, it hinders a minority of mad people people in their eternal quest to compare game scores directly as if they were the same thing. Maybe it fucks with gameranking.com as well.

    But as I previously suggested, people and sites who compare scores in that way are delusional, so who really cares what they think?

  • #64 5 years ago

    I don't know about scores, they don't really mean a huge amount but one thing I can categorically say is that Gears is a much more fun game to play than FEAR.

    So, if you don't care about scores and just want to play the game that will put the biggest smile on your face, then Gears is where it's at. Hands down.

  • tiddles #65 5 years ago

    FEAR really suffers from the repetitive environments, imho. The excellent gameplay can only go so far, especially as there aren't really that many different enemies. The spooky bits wear thin pretty quickly too, mainly as the ghosts mostly can't hurt you, so the fear element feels quite cosmetic.

    Still a good game though, if you haven't played it on PC... Slo-mo is always good value - my favourite moment in the PC version involved jumping off a balcony in the warehouse area, engaging slo-mo and bouncing off various shelves shooting 3 unsuspecting enemies before finally hitting the ground...

  • Martin #66 5 years ago

    Heh, I can accept that kangaroo doesn't know me but I'm a bit surprised that krudster reacted the way he did.

    Unless I missed the sarcasm in *his* post...

    Anyhoo, nice review and all that. :)

  • SlackMaster #67 5 years ago

    Better than GoW then? :p

  • Darren #68 5 years ago

    @rhinoxious - I completely agree with you there... games that have not been reviewed thoroughly should not be rated as was the case with Gears of War. I think EG were pressured into reviewing and rating the game because everyone else had when they should have posted that review but without a score until they'd had thoroughly played the multiplayer mode. They would still have been able to post the full review complete with its score before the game's release this Friday as well.

  • OhWiseOne #69 5 years ago

    A better game than Gerars of War - YOU ARE HAVING A F*KING LAUGH - THIS SITE IS A JOKE!!!!

  • Inquisitor #70 5 years ago

    Please don't change the review score unless either the multiplayer is amazing or you didn't play the apparantly astonishing co-op mode.

  • krudster #71 5 years ago

    Martin, fair comment - but far too many people make serious accusations. Maybe a winky next time eh :)

  • krudster #72 5 years ago

    Fair enough Mapster, and fair enough to anyone who prefers GoW to FEAR. Good luck all, but that's not how I felt about it, and that's all this and all any review can convey. If you think that's a 'joke', well, there's nothing more to add, really.

  • enzima #73 5 years ago

    Just watch how EG will compare this crappy game (1 year old!!!1!) to resistance and give them both 9. Like this they ll prove they' re not biased towards $ony....and that GOW deserved 8

  • Martin #74 5 years ago

    @kangarotoo: Forgot to adress your "9 bordering on 10" argument.

    It all depends on the scale we're using; if we use whole numbers then I'd say it's hard for the 9 to not border on a 10 (unless we stop the scale at 9 that is) but seeing how krudster mentioned that it was close to a 10 with only bland environments and somewhat lackluster story keeping it from rising to true glory I felt that there's an implied scale that's using fractions - albeit somewhat fuzzy fractions.

    Thus! A 9 can border more on a 10 if it's implied that it has a fuzzy fraction of "Bloody good indeed!" than if it had a fuzzy fraction equivalent of "Not all that great, really." Which FEAR had according to the text (please, next time try and read the review and not just the score).

    I didn't feel the need to be more precise in my original post as I was sure that my comment would plummet the thread into gutter-esque territory. I forgot the ever vigilant scum-busters of EGCP (Eurogamer Comments Patrol) though, constantly fighting an up-hill battle to keep the comments as little migrain inducing as possible. ;)

  • krudster #75 5 years ago

    Don't presume to know what we're going to score Resistance.

  • OhWiseOne #76 5 years ago

    I see from tracking back that Krudster has the dignity to read the forums, to see the effect of his shambolic journbalism. Nice touch.

    A little re-cap Krudster:

    Play Magazine 12/1/2006 10 out of 10 100.0%
    Games are Fun 11/13/2006 10 out of 10 100.0%
    G4 11/9/2006 5 out of 5 100.0%
    UnderGroundOnline 11/8/2006 A+ 100.0%
    Games Radar 11/7/2006 10 out of 10 100.0%
    PopCultureShock 11/7/2006 A+ 100.0%
    GameSpy 11/7/2006 5 out of 5 100.0%
    1UP 11/6/2006 10 out of 10 100.0%
    Voodoo Extreme 11/11/2006 9.8 out of 10 98.0%
    Wham Gaming 11/12/2006 9.7 out of 10 97.0%
    GameBrink 11/7/2006 97 out of 100 97.0%
    Cheat Code Central 11/11/2006 4.8 out of 5 96.0%
    Gaming Horizon 11/9/2006 9.6 out of 10 96.0%
    AtomicGamer 11/9/2006 96 out of 100 96.0%
    Xbox 360 Advanced 11/7/2006 9.6 out of 10 96.0%
    GameSpot 11/7/2006 9.6 out of 10 96.0%
    TeamXBOX 11/7/2006 9.6 out of 10 96.0%
    Game Informer 12/1/2006 9.5 out of 10 95.0%
    GameZone 11/10/2006 9.5 out of 10 95.0%
    Deeko 11/10/2006 9.5 out of 10 95.0%
    GamePro 11/7/2006 4.75 out of 5 95.0%
    IGN 11/7/2006 9.4 out of 10 94.0%
    Gamer Within 11/10/2006 9.3 out of 10 93.0%
    GameTrailers 11/7/2006 9.1 out of 10 91.0%
    Official Xbox Magazine UK 12/1/2006 9 out of 10 90.0%
    MS Xbox World 11/12/2006 9 out of 10 90.0%
    Gaming Age 11/9/2006 A- 90.0%
    GameDaily 11/8/2006 4.5 out of 5 90.0%
    TotalVideoGames 11/8/2006 9 out of 10 90.0%
    Computer & Video Games UK 11/7/2006 9 out of 10 90.0%
    Yahoo! Games 11/7/2006 4.5 out of 5 90.0%
    Daily Game 11/7/2006 9 out of 10 90.0%
    360 Gamer Magazine UK 12/1/2006 8 out of 10 80.0%
    Eurogamer 11/7/2006 8 out of 10 80.0%

    Now I do hate ranting and fuming in forums as it's all so pointless, but bloody hell, this one made my blood boil. I've played both to completion and you are as wrong as it's possible to be. Admit it.

  • rhinoxious #77 5 years ago

    "There's no confusion - there has been a single player "review" of GoW and there will be a mutliplayer review that's equally in-depth because of the fact that it's such a blockbuster title. The final score will be the average of the two elements. This has been done before on EG (with Halo 2 for similar reasons), and it will no doubt happen again."

    Good news, I'm not bothered about the average score, it's just a number. I just feel that the first review was written in a style that seemed to criticised the game as a whole, when it was just intended to be a partial review.

  • JayPee #78 5 years ago

    I would really have no problem at all if the main siting for GOW's 8 wasn't that it supposedly does nothing new.

    This game is a direct port!

    Like I asked before - are we judging games now by what else is available on that platofrm already or not?

    At least GOW bothered with new IP.

    ED: "360 Gamer Magazine UK 12/1/2006 8 out of 10 80.0%" A score from the future? O_o
    I would like to re-iterate. I am not disputing the score. I am trying to understand the review methodology. If you just write a few words and try then to pin an 'overall impression mark' onto a game then fine, but it hardly instills me in confidence of the review system on this site (which I have upto now held in very high regard).
    Edited by 1 at 14/11/06 @ 10:54

  • krudster #79 5 years ago

    It's pretty simple, really: read the text, follow the argument, decide if it sounds worth having a look for yourself. This isn't some holy gaming gospel we're writing here.

  • espadachin #80 5 years ago

    why is everyone pissed? they are both great games and both on the 360, move on.

  • krudster #81 5 years ago

    JayPee, as best as we can, we try and review in the context of the platform, yes. Therefore it's pretty pointless comparing what a game scored on the PSP or Live Arcade with a next gen system. As things stand, what I'm saying is FEAR is the best *first person* shooter available on 360. Sod the fact that it's a port of a 1 year old PC game, that's utterly irrelevant to the discussion. If such things bother you, don't buy it.

  • Martin #82 5 years ago

    @krudster: Yeah, I know - the EG that I used to call "home" isn't what it used to be, for better and for worse. I'll try and avoid confusion in the future.

    And for the record - for those that don't know me (the majority of you) - EG is the only gaming site I read just because they never let ads or other perks influence their opinions.

    If they do, kudos to them for doing it unnoticed. ;)

  • #83 5 years ago

    I dunno how Kristan puts up with you lot, you're like a stuck record :)

    There is one thing and one thing only more important than the current review scores.

    Where is the 360 Tiger Woods 07 review?*

    *This was a public service request brought to you on behalf of:

    morriss

    Now just play whatever game takes your fancy and stfu as you're giving me earache.

  • Huntcjna #84 5 years ago

    Im have both GoW and FEAR winging their way to me as we speak and to be honest I think I will enjoy them both massively. I don't think we should have review scores at all anyway to be honest. Just a solid editorial on the reviewers opinions and lets all choose our own scores, us gamers are such sheep at times.

  • Martin #85 5 years ago

    OhWiseOne wrote: "I've played both to completion and you are as wrong as it's possible to be. Admit it."

    That one actually made me laugh out loud (yeah, no acronyms - I'm that old).

    "Steak is better than chocolate mousse. Admit it!"

  • sharpfish #86 5 years ago

    Yeah, I think there is too much self-awareness for reviewers around here, what to give, what to avoid giving to avoid calls of bias etc.

    The bottom line is NO single person can ever just slap a number on a game and call it an "official" score. Thousands of people playing these games right now are far better at getting a "true" score, but they don't work for review sites. The guy has to put a number to a game and inevitably it is never done in a vaccum. I'm not saying "bias" but environmental influences come in to play. Games that people didn't expect much from (FEAR, and OLD PC PORT) can suprise you and you mark it up. A hyped game like GeOW, which before release is thought to be "the best game ever" is going to have it's flaws stand out more and thus get marked down. It is not neutral in the slightest, but it's not easy for the reviewers either... the whole scoring thing in reviews everywhere is completely flawed. You have obvious BAD games, mediocre games and "good" games (which Fear and geOW are), that should be enough. The finer scoring comes down to the individual player who plays both and decides he prefers game-x over game-y. No one can decide this for you not even the "best" reviewer in the world.

    Even aggragate user scores are biased/influenced on sites like gamespot etc.

    I look forward to a time when a game's release is more about how it feels for a player, the anticipation, excitment and fun (or eventual lack of it) rather than a number out of ten or a hunded.

    Having said that, it's still plainly wrong to give "1 more" to a year old port that doesn't do ANYTHING new (but copies from Max-payne and silent hill and mixes with a bit of far cry gameplay), compared to geOW that while not groundbreaking is at least full of effort and polish and is a kick in the teeth to EPIC sending out a signal that "it's ok to rest on your laurels, forget new orginal I.P and just port your old stuff over from PC" that is the one thing that annoys me, if PC ports score prestigious scores like 9s while new solid IP purpose built for the hardware scores less, it's just non conducive to original/creative game development.

    Don't worry Epic, we still love ya! ;)

  • rhinoxious #87 5 years ago

    "Please don't change the review score unless either the multiplayer is amazing or you didn't play the apparantly astonishing co-op mode."

    I'm not bothered about the score issue, but this brings up an interesting point:

    Should co-op modes be included in SP reviews, as you don't need an internet connection to enjoy them in split screen, and they are just a variant of SP play.

    Or should they be mentioned in the MP review (coz they are MP obviously), despite the fact that they have little to do with the online deathmatch style play.

    Or maybe a third section is needed!

    Krudster?
    Edited by 2 at 14/11/06 @ 11:00

  • NthSimulachum #88 5 years ago

    What? They gave Steak an 8?

    *burns embassy*

  • johnboy_johsnon #89 5 years ago

    Played FEAR last year on the PC. Blew me away. Definitely a 9/10 (right up there with HL2). Couldn't understand how some people said it was crap compared to Doom 3. Two totally different games as far as I am concerned. That, plus the fact that Doom 3 is utter shit.

  • Caradog #90 5 years ago

    Once again, trotting out a list of review scores from other places does not prove any kind of point whatsoever. What is your point OhWiseOne? Should all reviews be uniformally the same?

    Sorry for extending the tired GoW forum war. Are we going to have this nonsense in *every* review from here on out?

  • gazareth #91 5 years ago

    Why don't you just scrap the scores altogether and force people to read the articles and come to their own conclusions? Seems it would save a lot of hassle :p

  • JayPee #92 5 years ago

    "JayPee, as best as we can, we try and review in the context of the platform, yes."

    Oh well now it's ON! ;)

    Because I want you to show me another game that 'treads the path' that GOW is treading on the 360 platform.

    GOW is as similar a game to GRAW as FEAR is to COD2.

  • ram #93 5 years ago

    Today children, Eurogamer is brought to you by the numbers 8 and 9.

  • groovychainsaw #94 5 years ago

    Surprised by this score really, didnt enjoy the PC demo, thought the xbox port was worse, graphics looked worse on my hi-def tv, thought the pad controls were more clunky than anything, lacking any real precision (which is a hallmark of many PC ports). I would have given this a 6 at most (bearing in mind i haven't played the whole game, but it sounds like it doesn't change much...?)

  • krudster #95 5 years ago

    What, because you fire a gun? With that argument we could have fun comparing The Godfather's rather excellent duck and cover combat with GoW. Hey, let's bring Time Crisis into the equation. Guns, shooting, taking cover, almost the same game :)

  • mingster #96 5 years ago

    These fps 360 reviews are great for increasing my ignore poster list.

  • krudster #97 5 years ago

    Innit.

  • JayPee #98 5 years ago

    "What, because you fire a gun? With that argument we could have fun comparing The Godfather's rather excellent duck and cover combat with GoW. Hey, let's bring Time Crisis into the equation. Guns, shooting, taking cover, almost the same game :) "

    So that's what you did?

    Because otherwise I fail to see how FEAR is any more innovative or different to it's genre on the 360 than GOW is at this point.

  • rhinoxious #99 5 years ago

    "Why don't you just scrap the scores altogether and force people to read the articles and come to their own conclusions? Seems it would save a lot of hassle :p"

    Edge magazine tried that once, and took the scores off the bottoms of the pages, some people wrote in complaining about the 'typo'

    They then went and printed the scores anyway, making the whole exercise kinda pointless.

  • krudster #100 5 years ago

    [@Jaypee]Then I politely suggest you play both games to completion and come back when you've spotted the differences between them.
    Edited by 1 at 14/11/06 @ 11:10

  • haowan #101 5 years ago

    JayPee, stop being a total loser. You stinking dweeb.

  • NthSimulachum #102 5 years ago

    Without a score you can not effectively measure the difference in penis size...nor the afforded mating opportunities.
    Edited by 1 at 14/11/06 @ 11:14

  • JayPee #103 5 years ago

    Yes I see your point. But if I have to play a game to completion to find out if I like it the reviews really haven't really done anything for me.

    As I said though, the scores/reviews don't bother me in isolation. Not to go round in circles, leave it there methinks. I am slightly more enlightened as to the review ethos and method for this site though, which is good.

  • El_MUERkO #104 5 years ago

    krudster just a reminder, i will give you money if you drop GoW to a 7 when you complete your review, shall we say £10?

  • skillian #105 5 years ago

    Love the Pixies analogy, great way of looking at it.

    Was the demo the same as the PC one? It was definitely short, but I've never replayed a demo so many times in my life - I thought it was fantastic.

    And for those that think it does nothing new, I have honestly never played an FPS like it before or since - combat just stands head and shoulders above anything else out there, making FEAR stick out like a sore thumb.

  • bdc #106 5 years ago

    Kristan/Krudster.

    Did you not think to hold off the Gears of War review until you actually played the multiplayer properly? Splitting reviews into segments really isn't a good idea, and I think you now know why.

    Just do whole reviews, or people are going to get the wrong impression, which is massively widespread all over the comments pages - all because Eurogamer wanted a review and score on the same day as the big websites (gamespot, gamespy, ign etc).

    Edit: not to mention that when you do get around to the multiplayer, and by any unknown reason the score goes up to a 9 - you *will* be accused of pandering to the fanboys. Damned if you do, and damned if you don't. I think you should learn a lesson or two from this.
    Edited by 1 at 14/11/06 @ 11:25

  • AtomicBanana #107 5 years ago

    Hmm, this is a surprise. No I'm not going to throw my toys out the pram because it scored higher than another certain game on the platform ;)

    I'm just surprised a port of a not exactly spanking brand new pc game gets a 9/10. 3 or 4 different enemy types throughout the whole game, and pretty much just the one environment (office). Scary bits that aren't scary, over reliance on slo-mo to make the weapons seem less shit.

    But I'll stop here, I'm sorry I just don't 'get' F.E.A.R. on the PC it was nothing but a bitter disappointment.

  • Inquisitor #108 5 years ago

    I was hoping this would be good, but its yet another game I need to get for the 360. Why the hell couldn't the releases have been spread out a bit!

  • skillian #109 5 years ago

    Suggestions for future ways of changing Eurogamer's whole method of reviewing don't need to be in this thread. Why not start a topic in the forum?

  • Martin #110 5 years ago

    Not to play the devils advocate too much here but I can in a way understand JayPee's frustration - I'll be the first to admit that

    A) I haven't played eny of these games - not even the demos

    and

    B) They are different sorts of game, even though they share similarities.

    When push comes to shove though I won't go to the same lengths as JayPee in order to reveal "the truth" behind these two reviews.

    It's a bit like comparing car games - they're all the same when you get down to it and be perfectly executed but can still get different scores.

    Forza Motorsport vs. Burnout 2 - which do you prefer? I prefer them both, it all depends on what mood I'm in. They're both fun and they're both great games.

    I might award Forza a 10/10 just because it's very well done and is the first real car simulation that I've liked. Burnout 2 gets a 9/10 because it's a quality game full of mindless fun but I've seen it before.

    See what I did there? I more or less described the games as both being well done and very fun but I still gave Forza 10 and Burnout 2 a 9 despite both being car games that's been doen over and over again.

    Why? Because I *feel* that Forza deserves a 10 and Burnout 2 doesn't.

    There's no real logic behind measuring fun and if krudster feels like giving FEAR a 9 and GoW an 8 then it's his prerogative to do so as a reviewer.

    Don't get me wrong - I like a discussion about the mechanics of reviewing as anyone lese (or at least JayPee ;) but what it boils down to is a feeling.

    I'll guess I'll have to get me an Xbox260, GoW and FEAR in order to come back here and tell you if the scores are fair. :p

  • Rusta #111 5 years ago

    After playing the demo I decided FEAR was a no go, but now I'm tempted, only if the multiplayer is really good, as I bore of single player time, multi is so much fun.

    Worth a hire then

  • kangarootoo #112 5 years ago

    @TheBlackLodge

    "and the main Gow thread to see that 'bollux' it's not. IMO of course. "

    Specifically where you say, IMO. Thats exactly my point.

    I don't care how many people favour one game or another, it still remains a subjective issue. Objectivity require empirical fact, and no such fact exists when comparing creative works. I'm being a total pedant I know, I but I just tire of people acting as someone elses preferences are "wrong". If someone prefers FEAR to GeOW then that is just a matter of taste, they CANNOT be wrong as the state does not apply.

    Pedantry over :) (until the next time).

  • martu #113 5 years ago

    I have a favourite game and if you don't like it as much as me, or dare to say another game is as good or better, I'll scweam. I really will.

    FFS.

    Good review of a top game, if you like FPS's get it. Yes on a second playthrough it's not as 'clever' but if that's an issue for you play something else after completion instead, maybe that homoerotic 3rd person shooter everyone is ranting about?

  • Clive_Dunn #114 5 years ago

    "A better game than Gerars of War - YOU ARE HAVING A F*KING LAUGH - THIS SITE IS A JOKE!!!!"

    I've been reading EG for 5 years, and I can catagorically state that there are no jokes here.

  • kangarootoo #115 5 years ago

    @Martin

    "Heh, I can accept that kangaroo doesn't know me but I'm a bit surprised that krudster reacted the way he did. "

    Ah, sorry about that. When the red mist comes down....

  • martu #116 5 years ago

    @Clive Dunn

    Many jokers though

  • krudster #117 5 years ago

    Skillian summed up exactly how I feel about FEAR.

    "And for those that think it does nothing new, I have honestly never played an FPS like it before or since - combat just stands head and shoulders above anything else out there, making FEAR stick out like a sore thumb. "

    That's it in a nutshell.

    If you want me to spell it out again, Gears of War's combat and AI are - in my humblest of humble opinions having played EVERY shooter going - nowhere near as enjoyable as FEAR's. That's why it gets a 9. Can we move on now?

    People have got this fixation that I marked down GoW because of lack of innovation, when the main reason was because the combat and AI just isn't as top-notch spectacular as some people seem to be suggesting. That's the core of what the game's about, and that's how I feel about it!

  • rauper Verified Managing Director, Eurogamer Network #118 5 years ago

    "EuroSexMachine: Eurogamer is the new Joystiq."

    That's pretty offensive.

    But then again your email address has the word "gearsofwar" in it so I will take it with a pinch of salt!

  • Darren #119 5 years ago

    "After playing the demo I decided FEAR was a no go, but now I'm tempted, only if the multiplayer is really good, as I bore of single player time, multi is so much fun.

    Worth a hire then?"

    @Rusta - Remember though, that if you have a decent-spec PC that you can download the enitre multiplayer mode from F.E.A.R. free. It's called F.E.A.R. Combat so if the multiplayer is the only thing that really interests you, you'd be better off doing that and saving yourself £40-£50 really.

  • Clive_Dunn #120 5 years ago

    I honestly have no clue as to why people get so angry and offensive because someone has a different opinion of a game they've never played.

    Sometimes people scare me. It's like some sort of fanboi Jihad.

  • kangarootoo #121 5 years ago

    On this whole "its a direct port" thing. Clearly this is an issue to which each reader should apply their own intellect. It is certainly not the big deal some are suggesting.

    If you own a 360 and haven't played FEAR on PC then it being a port is 100% irrelevant. If you have already playerd FEAR on PC, take this into account when looking at the 360 version by applying your mind. There, problem solved.

    The key thing as I see it is that the review is not there to directly rate the efforts of the developers, but rather to rate the entertainment provided to the player. So maybe porting a game is easier than creating one from scratch, but frankly so f'cking what? If I play a game and have fun, I don't much care whether it was thought up by Jimi Hendrix's mum or carved out of the walls of a salt mine.

  • JayPee #122 5 years ago

    "People have got this fixation that I marked down GoW because of lack of innovation, when the main reason was because the combat and AI just isn't as top-notch spectacular as some people seem to be suggesting. That's the core of what the game's about, and that's how I feel about it!"

    Furrymuff.

    It's probably reading the GOW review that leads people to these conclusions though ;)

    Please, I want to make it clear again, that in terms of journalistic integrity etc etc I have no problem with either review.

  • bloodflowers #123 5 years ago

    The demo had some pretty shocking slowdown as soon as more than one enemy appeared, jerking all over the place, utterly crap. Have they fixed that? If so, I might buy it. If not, why isn't it mentioned in the review? We're talking full-on flickbook animation levels of jerkiness with 4 people in a close area all firing.

  • krudster #124 5 years ago

    I can honestly say I never saw one little bit of slowdown. Apart from the actual slo-motion, of course ;)

  • krudster #125 5 years ago

    What if - bear with me - what if, all those 27 reviews are all getting carried away and I'm actually on the money? Is it possible to imagine?

    Edit: not to mention that we are generally stricter with scores.
    Edited by 1 at 14/11/06 @ 11:55

  • haowan #126 5 years ago

    I don't think it was a response to the other reviews. Seeing as they were all written in tandem ;)

  • jozz #127 5 years ago

    Urgh, give it a fucking rest already. This is about F.E.A.R.

  • PearOfAnguish #128 5 years ago

    Why the obsession with the scores other sites gave a game?
    Here's an idea: if all you want from a review is a score that agrees with your opinion, then just go to gamerankings and only read the ones that have a number you like beside them.


    Man, people are dumb.

  • Rusta #129 5 years ago

    @Darren - thanks for that, I don't have a good PC though (although wishes he did after the Total Ware review!)

    @Krudster - I think you explained that well

  • Darren #130 5 years ago

    Krudster - "I can honestly say I never saw one little bit of slowdown. Apart from the actual slo-motion, of course ;)"

    There are definitely a few points in the game where the framerate drops noticeably and the game feels a little treaclely even when there's nothing happening onscreen nor are you using slow-mo. It doesn't happen that often but it is there and it seems to occur briefly after the loading points so maybe it has to do with caching data or something?

  • johnboy_johsnon #131 5 years ago

    What I find funny about this thread is that the devout XBox360 owners (don't like to use the word fanboys - it's dirty) are getting upset that one game on their system scored a 9 and the other scored an 8. Get over it and be happy that there is such a great choice of quality titles coming up to Christmas.

  • krudster #132 5 years ago

    Really? I would have mentioned that if I'd have seen it.

  • FooAtari #133 5 years ago

    Why are some peoples heads so far up their own asses that they seem to be unable to accetp anyone elses opinion? They seem to have a simple thought process along the lines of

    "If you dont agree with me, you are WRONG!" Followed by much insult and abuse directed to that person

    Sometimes I wonder if the average reader here is older than 10 years old...

    Never mind, it lets me add more people to my ignore list I guess.

    Great review by the way. I have it on the PC though so will give the 360 version a miss :)

  • krudster #134 5 years ago

    Amen, Johnboy.

    Amen to that.

  • welshben23 #135 5 years ago

    JayPee, Rhinoxious and EuroSexMachine, Please SHUT THE HELL UP!! Also people who are giving F.E.A.R 6/10 because of the demo SHUT THE HELL UP.

    All demos leave me cold, because they are demos and not full games. PLEASE play the full game before you stupidly comment on the game.

  • Yossarian #136 5 years ago

    This is a really boring thread for the most part

    Did krudster address whether the full game is superior to the demo, because if so I will probably pick it up on the basis of this review. And Gears of War on Friday, but I fail to see how that's relevant!

  • patlike #137 5 years ago

    This thread's wicked. Are we all joining in?

  • El_MUERkO #138 5 years ago

    What res were you two playing it at?

  • JayPee #139 5 years ago

    "PLEASE play the full game before you stupidly comment on the game."

    Yes. That would work.

  • Steve007 #140 5 years ago

    Why oh why do all threads decent into a farce on Eurogamer these days? I used to really enjoy reading comments after a review but some people's behaviour in recent weeks has been nothing short of embarrassing.

    Those that wish to troll threads day after day please fuck off to somewhere else and leave us proper gamers alone.

  • krudster #141 5 years ago

    FYI, I played in 720p.

  • Rambaldi #142 5 years ago

    Just when I thought the Krudster had gone and shoved one too many copies of Jap RPGs in his orifices, he goes and gives a western sci-fi shooter on the 360 a 9.

    Made my day and couldn't agree more!

  • nickthegun #143 5 years ago

    Its hard to believe, but the level of stupidity in this thread seems to be worse than the original GoW one.

    I mean, jesus, did I just read that somebody hated Eurogamer for lowering GoW's gameranking score?

    I think my I.Q just dropped a notch.

  • rhinoxious #144 5 years ago

    "JayPee, Rhinoxious and EuroSexMachine, Please SHUT THE HELL UP!! Also people who are giving F.E.A.R 6/10 because of the demo SHUT THE HELL UP.

    All demos leave me cold, because they are demos and not full games. PLEASE play the full game before you stupidly comment on the game."


    I haven't posted anything for over an hour now, and i didn't make any comments on the actual games, only on how they were reviewed.

    So what are you on about?

  • Azazel #145 5 years ago

    Hey everyone! OhWiseOne is back! Like Moses descending to us with a God-endorsed list of review scores copy/pasted from gamerankings.com!

  • rhinoxious #146 5 years ago

    "Just when I thought the Krudster had gone and shoved one too many copies of Jap RPGs in his orifices, he goes and gives a western sci-fi shooter on the 360 a 9.

    Made my day and couldn't agree more! "


    Just remember it's a western shooter from some serious japfanboys (they made shogo: mobile armour division, a gundam-alike) and it draws most of its narrative themes from recent japanese horror movies.

    Mystery solved ;)

  • Yossarian #147 5 years ago

    how can their critical opinion be 'wrong'?

  • Azazel #148 5 years ago

    LaterZ.

    @Yossarian - they're wrong for liking it and giving it an 8, remember?
    Edited by 1 at 14/11/06 @ 12:27

  • jozz #149 5 years ago

    I really do like the engine Monolith have built for this and Condemmend. Everything feels solid and the character model is actually there, as a apposed to a disembodied arm holding a gun; which is a rarity sadly.
    Condemmend does look better than Fear, but obviously there are much more particle effects, enemies and such occuring.

    Pretty impressed with the game so far. As mentioned in the review, the gun battles still hold up against the best currently out thanks to the level design and mostly, the AI being just as much the cunning twunts as I'd been lead to believe they'd be. Which is quite a credit considering the game was orginally released a year ago. Playing on Hard to Extreme difficulty is a must though.

    Sadly, the only negative so far is that it really isn't that scary. Especially after playing their newer title.

  • Gulag #150 5 years ago

    The day EuroGamer gives in to this 'Me-Too-MetaScore' thinking is the day I quit reading. Top writers and a sensible disregard for hyperbole are what bring me back here every time.

    I was a little surprised to see that 9 after I finished reading the FEAR review, given that it was a port of a year old PC title, but Krudster is spot on. Why penalise a game based on those criteria? Is a film better on 38mm stock than on 25mm? No it bloody isn't, the CONTENT of the film remains, and it's either compelling or it isn't, no matter what technical differences it has.

    FEAR was a fantastic game when it came out on the PC. If nothing has changed about the game or it's peers since that time, (And quite apart from the fact that GoW is a different type of game, it still displays nothing more ground-breaking than it's shaders and lighting effects.) then it is as deserving of a high score now as it was then.

  • kangarootoo #151 5 years ago

    "Laters, and people need to stop defending Eurogamer over everything, makes you look like a bunch of sheep"

    I can think of worse things to look like.

  • SlackMaster #152 5 years ago

    I think people will remember the score given to GoW like they did with the Halo score. I still think with highly anticipated games like this there should be two different opinions from two different reviewers. If they feel the same about the game afir enough but sometimes you get a different spin on things that gives you a better idea of what the game will be like.

  • lennon #153 5 years ago

    Started playing this last night and although not that impressive graphically the level design (so far) and the AI does seem very good. I am always left wondering where the next baddy (how Austin Powers- brain) will come from.

    Only thing I would say though is that I didnt feel to compelled to take any notice of the story so I have no real idea of whats going on!

  • Uncle_Fishboy #154 5 years ago

    Out of interest with all this 'is this better than that GOW stuff going on' - I just read the original Halo review from Eurogamer. How embarassing. EG should be ashamed of that. It's a bt like that bloke turning the beatles down and Chamberlain holding up a peice of paper. That is a classic bad review, how could one bloke (gestalt) be so horribly out of synch with nearly everyone else. I guess if they diud it once they can do it again. I've played GOW and think it's brilliant. I have also played Fear and thought it was about as thrilling as having my kneecaps licked by James Blunt.

  • krudster #155 5 years ago

    It's funny, now you mention Halo. I don't think John really talked about the multiplayer element of that, did he?

  • TonyBlair #156 5 years ago

    F.E.A.R. Have you got the fear...

  • krudster #157 5 years ago

    To be fair to John, he was coming at it from a hardcore PC gamer's perspective (where top notch shooters had been well established for eight years) and basically failing to see what the fuss was about.

  • nickthegun #158 5 years ago

    Finding Everything And Realising

    Fanboy Eurogamers Are Retarded

    You got the F.E.A.R.....

  • Azazel #159 5 years ago

    Perhaps what EG should do is have every single staff and freelance writer who ever produced anything for the site review it and then they could take an average of those scores with a + or - 0.5 margin of error, then have that score approved by an official panel of gamerankings.com readers, converted to the international standard of % mark and engraved in stone on the games project leaders mothers tombstone.

  • Eighthours #160 5 years ago

    Krudster, will you be reviewing the online co-op of GOW as well as the Live multiplayer?

    I never thought this comments thread would get so big. Hate to think what the Resistance one will be like if it gets that 9!

  • Super_Zee #161 5 years ago

    Don't know if anyone's addressed this yet, but there are definitely elements in the final game that are much more polished than in the demo. The lighting especially has got more depth and scale. The whole thing just feels more solid and absorbing.

    Great game.
    Edited by 2 at 14/11/06 @ 12:41

  • PearOfAnguish #162 5 years ago

    how could one bloke (gestalt) be so horribly out of synch with nearly everyone else.

    Idiot.
    Edited by 1 at 14/11/06 @ 12:41

  • karlidog #163 5 years ago

    Whatever happened to scary games? I replayed the latter half of FEAR (my memory of the first playthrough > reality, sadly) and most of the expansion pack this week, and Enid Blyton could've written a better horror story. I want a horror game people genuinely have to stop playing out of sheer shit-panted terror. I want to be terrified, horrified and morbidly fascinated, not play peek-a-boo with a giggling ghostly sprog and get shown the occasional (and frankly embarrassing) semi-gory sprite overlay in the middle of my vision for no apparent reason.

    I want to love narrative PC FPSes, but they just keep letting me down hard. Oh well, roll on Episode 2 and Portal. And Fatal Frame 4, if there ever is one.

  • Martin #164 5 years ago

    Uncle_Fishboy wrote: "I have also played Fear and thought it was about as thrilling as having my kneecaps licked by James Blunt."

    Context!

    What do we know about your fetishes - nothing, that's what. Unless you tell us how you feel about having Mr Blunt lick your kneecaps we can derive nothing from that comparison.

    For shame.

  • Donjohnni #165 5 years ago

    This game is boring. Full stop. You can't justify 9/10 for a game that has worse graphics than Condemned (released last year), terrible sound, rubbish plot, repetitive gameplay, identikit enemies and unoriginal ideas.

    Online is good, but not great. It's generic.

  • king_skins #166 5 years ago

    I've been really enjoying FEAR. Liked the Review. I really like it when you have been in the middle of an intense and extended gun fight and all the dust has been shot off the walls and your struggling to see where the last couple of replicas are located and you have to wait for the dust to settle.

    Best moment so far. I was attacking a group of clone soldiers in a small open plan office and I'd taken out about 4 of them already and was just covering to reload when I heared the following:

    Replica1: Move in!
    Replica2: Not fucking way!

    :) Genius

    Worst moment so far. My 360 died on me!! Fuck!! Again!! I only just got this one as a replacement in September for my launch day console that died just before Dead Rising came out. Then last night my 360 dies just before Gears of War and while I was really enjoying FEAR :(

    Gutted
    Edited by 1 at 14/11/06 @ 12:51

  • fizzer25 #167 5 years ago

    pretty bad when i have to post in a fear thread to ask if gow will be released earlier in some stores like pes 6 was??

  • rhinoxious #168 5 years ago

    well this has been fun,

    better read the review now ;)

  • SwedBear #169 5 years ago

    It's been asked a few times but not really answered:
    How does the demo compare to the full game (gfx, framerate etc.)? I was quite underwhelmed byt he demo (played it on my PC last year and it felt much better) but it defintiely sounds like they improved the game from demo to final.

    "The day EuroGamer gives in to this 'Me-Too-MetaScore' thinking is the day I quit reading. Top writers and a sensible disregard for hyperbole are what bring me back here every time. "

    I won't touch the whole issue about which game deserves what (I love GoW but loved FEAR on the PC so it probably also is top-notch) but I've said it before and say it again; EG's opinion is just one of many. Just because they score lower sometimes or higher other times does not make them more right or more wrong than others. This "all other scores must be because they bougth the hype" crap must stop just as much as "EG are biased" crap.

    I've read lots of reviews during my few years lurking here and I don't see them as better written or more "true" than many other sites. I often feel they spend to much time trying to be witty than to actually tell me about the games but generally the reviews are good/great.

    What I don't understand though is that some people seem to think it's wrong to dissagree with a review and that you jsut should shut up. The second a review is out people will have opinions. Some games will draw more opinions than others. If you cannot handle people being upset and have other opinions then you should not write reviews. I feel Krudster is doing a fine job trying to explain his reasoning. But I certainly does not hope the discussions end. Heck, maybe EG will pick up some hints on why people are upset (for example, some have commented they think it isn't good to split up reviews in SP and MP, maybe something to consider) and others realize why they score as they have done in a specific review (for example; EG has explained why they did it). And a hint to those who are tired of the discussion - just don't read more and even more important, don't post trolls.

    I'm looking forward to the GoW MP part. I had a blast yesterday with 7 others. The maps area really tight and perfect for those smaller numbers.
    Edited by 1 at 14/11/06 @ 13:19

  • freddymercurystwin #170 5 years ago

    The aiming seemed a bit off/imprecise in the demo, has it been improved for the game itself?

  • JayPee #171 5 years ago

    @ SwedBear

    Probably the best 'comment' I have read for a while. :)

  • Bonus #172 5 years ago

    I find this whole series of comments hilarious.

    Since when did the score one game get relate exactly to a score another game gets? I find it amusing that people are complaining that FEAR shouldn't have got a 9 because GOW only got 8, or that GOW should have been higher because FEAR got 9.

    Surely the scoring system is fluid from game to game, maybe even from reviewer to reviewer and genre to genre. So why complain that FEAR got a 9 when GOW got an 8.

    In my opinion GOW deserves it 8. It's a solid, entertaining and beautiful game which is great fun to sit down and have a blast with. I really wish that reviewers would reserve the highest marks and the greatest scores for things which take you above and beyond that great game, good fun criteria.

    Oh, wait a minute, that's exactly what's happened here.

    GOW is not immersive, frightening or have any immotional impact on the player what-so-ever. I personally feel that 9 and 10 should be reserved for those game in this generation which really hook you and draw you in. FEAR does that on so many levels. Playing Gow (for the whole hour that I have), I've known all along that at the end of the day I was playing in a tunnel. That's what makes the game so good because you can't turn and run away, but it also makes the game nothing more than a good laugh.

    FEAR on the other hand sucks you in, scares the hell out of you and generally immerses you in it's world and constantly throws curve balls at you in ways that you really don't expect. It may not be as big a technical achievement as GOW, but at the end of the day it is a better game in terms of immersion. Something which I feel at least wouldn't have been possible in gameplay terms on the last gen, whereas I really do feel GOW is little more than a shiny Halo 2.

    Great, but no step forward. 8/10 ;-).

  • gallow #173 5 years ago

    Xbox fan boys make me laugh. The GOW and these comments are just the best.

    So how does the Fanal Fantasy score of 10/10 relate to the GOW/FEAR review?

  • SwedBear #174 5 years ago

    So Bonus. On one hand you say that readers should NOT relate games scores to eachother and then you spend the rest of the post doing exactly that explaining why you think GoW deserves an 8 and why FEAR deserves an 9 :-).

    Seriously though - some games tend to be easier to compare scores with (like GoW and FEAR as they are both quite similar even if one is an FPS and the other a Third Person Tactical Shooter). Others are harder. Lets say Viva Pinjata got 9. Quite hard to compare GoW and that game :).

    All the scores tell me is that we got two very good games that we should be happy with regardless the scores. I'm actually tempting to pick FEAR up just for the MP (MP was quite bad on the PC IMHO) but with GoW and CoD3 Mp already I'mnot sure I have the time right now.
    Edited by 1 at 14/11/06 @ 13:28

  • Rambaldi #175 5 years ago

    Anyway anyway aaaanyway: I've bought COD3 and FEAR and LOVE them BOTH. I'm buying GOW this week and will probably love that and R6Vegas is pencilled in for the end of the month too.

    I'm like a dog with two dicks, a pope with three chiorboys, a chef with sharp knives, a European Sonyboy with a PS3...ok scratch that one.

    TH3 R3AL N3XT G3N I5 1N MY L0UNG3!!!!!

    /frothes and has a seizure

  • Bonus #176 5 years ago

    Yes, but in their own rights. I didn't say that because GOW was an 8 FEAR deserved a better score.

    I think FEAR deserves a 9 on it's own right and that GOW deserves an 8 on it's own right.

    GOWs 8 is relative to the game's own achievements for looking nice and playing decently.

    FEAR gets it from pushing immersive gameplay to the forefront.

    There is no link between GOWs 8 and FEARs 9 in my opinion, it may not read like that, but there you go.

  • Feanor #177 5 years ago

    "Music aficionados will know this term to refer to the song structure dynamic favoured by noiseniks down the years (think Pixies, Nirvana and beyond)"

    Smashing Pumpkins would have been the best example! New album coming out soon. :)

  • SwedBear #178 5 years ago

    Damn Rambaldi. Forget about RB6:Vegas :(. It's going to be an expensive month, espcieally if I pick this up. Damn you EG for making me want it.

  • Walshicus #179 5 years ago

    This is a good game, for sure. IT IS NOT better than Gears of War though.

  • RedPanda #180 5 years ago

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

  • Bonus #181 5 years ago

    @Walshicus

    I guess that all depends on the perspective you look at the games at.

    FEAR is a more immersive and encapsulationg experience.

    Playing GOW, you know you are constrained in tight corridors of play just trying to get to the next bit of cover to take a pot shot at a bad guy, in FEAR you feel like you really are trying to push forward to find out what's going to happen next.

    I did anyway.

  • Feanor #182 5 years ago

    If Gears of War multiplayer gets a 10, then overall the game gets a 9, right. So maybe crazy peeps like OhWiseOne should wait and see what happens.

  • krudster #183 5 years ago

    Exactly.

  • jonnyreb #184 5 years ago

    "but without the PC's cheating quick-save ability"

    That's enough for me to cancel my pre-order on this - I'm totally sick and tired of developers not putting quick saves on console games and forcing me to back track through the same arsing stuff over and over again.

    C'mon.......is it really not technically possible to add quick saves??

    For all those who still love checkpoints, put them in by all means, but please, please add quick saves for us who have about 45 mins a day to play games.

    Shame cos I was really, really going to buy this.

    :(
    Edited by 1 at 14/11/06 @ 13:50

  • Bonus #185 5 years ago

    I haven't played the multi-player yet but going on the way the game is structured, I can see it being a decent laugh.

    The decision to have ranked matches with complete strangers just to suit the true skill system may detract from it a bit though, especially seeing as the whole point of the whole point of the game is a team based, you watch my back I'll watch yours mechanic.

    Hopefully people will read the review before complaining about the score.

  • krudster #186 5 years ago

    Don't despair - the lack of quicksave actually makes this a far better experience than it was on PC, where you could effectively cheat your way past any tricky section. Because it forces you to play properly, you get far more tension out of it.

  • jonnyreb #187 5 years ago

    Based on your comments Krudster I might give it a shot then....after I wrote that I remembered being quite happy with the checkpoints on COD2.

    Plus.....in Sweden GAME still have a 10 day return 'no questions asked' policy if you don't like the game :)

  • Yossarian #188 5 years ago

    you're very chatty this morning, Kristan

  • Martin #189 5 years ago

    @SwedBear: You say that you don't feel that EG's reviews aren't "truer" than others but I would have to disagree (which actually is impossible in a way since we're dealing with taste and/or opinion here, but let's just roll with it this once).

    There are numerous sites out there who review a game based on either too short time with the game (4-8 hours of a 40-50+ hour game is not representative) or let their review get influenced by hype and expectations (since we've already brought up GoW about a gazillion times I have no qualms doing so again) - like GoW.

    EG *seems* (again, I have nothing solid to back this up with) to be a lot more honest in their reviews. Yes, some of them mention very little of the game and some are a bit odd but that's part of the charm with EG. If I want cookie-cutter reviews I have a dozen other sites that I can go to.

    Plus, you can't beat the comments here at EG. ;)

  • morriss #190 5 years ago

    Tiger Woods?

  • Martin #191 5 years ago

    @morriss: Please, read the entire thread before chiming in.

  • gazareth #192 5 years ago

    I think it's silly to split the reviews up by multiplayer and singleplayer. For me, reviews are the answer to the question "should I spend my hard-earned cash on this game?", and given that you can't buy the multiplayer and singleplayer sections separately, it's pretty redundant to receive separate reviews. I prefer to read one single article that summarises the complete package - i.e. what I would be getting in my grubby little paws :)

  • UncleLou #193 5 years ago

    Wow, fanboyism taken to a new extreme. Now people even get their knickers in a twist when one game on thesame console is better than their favourite game (which they still haven't even played in most cases).

  • #194 5 years ago

    I already asked about TW 07 morriss, but alas and alack, Kristan is too busy fending off the roundheads :/
    Edited by 1 at 14/11/06 @ 14:07

  • morriss #195 5 years ago

    Thanks Mapster. :)

    Martin: :p

  • Cubfan #196 5 years ago

    "I think it's silly to split the reviews up by multiplayer and singleplayer. For me, reviews are the answer to the question "should I spend my hard-earned cash on this game?", and given that you can't buy the multiplayer and singleplayer sections separately, it's pretty redundant to receive separate reviews. I prefer to read one single article that summarises the complete package - i.e. what I would be getting in my grubby little paws :)"

    Exactly. And that's where Eurogamer went wrong with the GoW review. Doesn't matter if it's the way they've reviewed some games in the past, it just shouldn't be done.

  • Steroyd #197 5 years ago

    I think it's silly to split the reviews up by multiplayer and singleplayer. For me, reviews are the answer to the question "should I spend my hard-earned cash on this game?", and given that you can't buy the multiplayer and singleplayer sections separately, it's pretty redundant to receive separate reviews. I prefer to read one single article that summarises the complete package - i.e. what I would be getting in my grubby little paws :)

    Why? Surely the majority of people who own a console still play their games offline for which a seperate review for SP and MP would do just fine.

    It sounds like the SP from this game has a better SP from "that other game".

  • JayPee #198 5 years ago

    I thought we'd decided on "not better, but different and preferred by Kristan"?
    Edited by 1 at 14/11/06 @ 14:20

  • Feanor #199 5 years ago

    A little off topic, perhaps, but EuroGamer reviews are actually sometimes higher than those on American websites. I bought Midnight Club 2 a few years ago, largely on the 9/10 review it got here which made the game sound exactly like the type of racer I was looking for. And it was. But the lower scores it got at sites like Gamespot were also fair - the reviewer there just didn't enjoy the game as much, it didn't quite click with him.

    Now, Gears fanboys, try to get that idea thru your thick heads before somebody dies.
    Edited by 1 at 14/11/06 @ 14:21

  • Rusta #200 5 years ago

    bah, get them both and we'll all meet up after a few months and discuss the scores then.

    You have to take reviews with a pinch of salt, I don't know how long reviewers spend on games but it is nowhere near as long as I do once I have purchased it, that's when the real scores come out

  • krudster #201 5 years ago

    Well, I can only speak for what I do, but however long it takes to finish the single player bit, and a good number of hours getting my head kicked in on multiplayer.

  • SwedBear #202 5 years ago

    Well Martin, I just think well have to dissagree here :). Of course there are horrible examples out there (I am always very vary of reviews by 'official' websites).

    There are lots of times I've found I dissagree quite strongly with reviews here and also where I felt they've missed the mark a lot (in games I hae myself played of course) and felt the reviews have been quite bad (Chromehouds and Kameo are recent ones) but I try to see which reviewers have a similar taste to me and which don't and then trust the former ones more.

    I didn't mean to diss EG at all. It's just that to often I see people say that just because a game gets a lower score here than many other places means that EG automatically is more correct than the other sites. The most important thing for me whenr eading a review is that the review tells me what the game is about and then clearly explains what the reviewer likes and not like so that I can make a good informative decision on if I think I will like or not like the game. And I feel I get that on many sites in addition to this.

    Bah, it sounds like I'm not liking EG but I do. Just don't think they are above everyone else :). And I do think they could spend a bit less time trying to be witty in their rreviews and fill them with more meatier content ;). But then again, I think it's a problem most UK mags and sites have. You're always trying to be so funny :).

    BTW - sorry for going off topic a bit.
    Edited by 1 at 14/11/06 @ 14:26

  • nickthegun #203 5 years ago

    FWIW, I went out and bought this game at lunch time on the strength of this review.

  • Rusta #204 5 years ago

    You can appreciate that a game may improve in time when you learn to play it better and move up your personal fav list - Like CoD2 for me, at first thought it was ok but now after hours and hours of play it keeps getting better

  • Masarin #205 5 years ago

    Game reviews is quite much like music album reviews. People have different tastes. Kristian has his preferences, I have mine. I wouldn't care about a twee-poppers review of a doom metal record. Maybe this makes the whole matter a bit easier to comprehend.

    Anyway, kudos to a splendid magazine.
    Edited by 2 at 14/11/06 @ 14:30

  • SwedBear #206 5 years ago

    Krudster: Sorry for asking this again but I couldn't find it answered.
    How big is the difference between the demo and the final game? I guess you played them both. If I didn't think the demo was so good, is the final version so much better in terms of gfx and framerate so I would enjoy the game?

  • morriss #207 5 years ago

    Krudter said he to found the demo misleading and not a final representation of the game.

  • Psi #208 5 years ago

    1up for the pixies ref.

  • Machiavel #209 5 years ago

    Demo was very muted - difficulty too low and the consequent AI rather dull. There did seem to be stuttering when it all kicks off, not something I'm recalling from the full game.

  • Turrican #210 5 years ago

    I've always felt that removing quicksave takes a lot more design skill than having it in, so if they've got it right in Fear360 then fair play to them. I mean if you look at Half Life (1&2) for all their superiority they are basically a quicksave-fest, and can therefore presume to throw more unfair obstacles in your path (always look for the "quicksave often" tip in the manual!). Max Payne is even worse for this.

    As for the GoW review hoopla, I commend any review for having the guts to downgrade an expected top rating game on perceived weaknesses, as long as the reasoning is justified in the review (which it is in this case). However, as I was reading the Fear review, I could feel the sentiment bubbling underneath that it was more enjoyable single player than GoW... so here's my question, did you review GoW before having played Fear360 at all? Or were you playtesting them both around the same time?

    As a postscript, I'd just like to say that the quality of Eurogamer reviews is the main reason I no longer subscribe to UK gaming magazines, I think some of the critics and conspirators on the forum should remember that we are getting these reviews *for free* (minus the flashing advert distracting me to the right).
    Edited by 1 at 14/11/06 @ 14:34

  • krudster #211 5 years ago

    The demo's pretty dull, take no notice of it.

  • Feanor #212 5 years ago

    Why do companies keep releasing demos that are so bad they probably lower the sales of the actual game?

  • Martin #213 5 years ago

    @SwedBear: Fair enough. :)

  • SwedBear #214 5 years ago

    Thanks morris/krudster. I completely missed that response earlier. Sorry about that.

    Bloodkult: I think the main problem for FEAR is that many have already played it on the PC or think it's "just" a old port from a PC game. But it has gotten some great reviews so it sounds like a game to pick up then.

    BTW - so it's another game where the demo is quite missleading. Just shows how important it is for developers/publishers to make sure the demos they release is at least somewhat good. I wonder how many will miss the game due to an underperforming demo?
    Edited by 1 at 14/11/06 @ 14:57

  • belziah #215 5 years ago

    yay

  • kangarootoo #216 5 years ago

    @krudster

    "Because it forces you to play properly"

    Gaahhhhhhh!!!!

    I'm sorry man, but I reeeaaly hate that term. Two reasons, glued very closely together. First off I don't like being forced, I like being persuaded. Give me carrots not sticks. I paid money for the game, I'm in charge, thats the rule. Secondly, when I pay money for a game I expect to have fun. To be told the reason its not fun is because I'm not "playing it properly" is a bitter pill.

    I accept that if I buy an RTS and expect tennis than the fault is mine, but affording the player enough freedom to find their own best fit is part of quality design. A game that is only fun when played in a specific way is flawed in my book.

    jonnyreb wrote "and forcing me to back track through the same arsing stuff over and over again" he aped exactly my sentiments on this. Everytime someone says "quicksave kills tension" I feel the need to set fire to something. And everytime I dig out the old AvP example. They added saves with a patch, did it kill tension? Did it bollox. Good quality common garden game design will provide tension irrespective of what save system you choose to employ. Repetition is not tension, its not fun, its just repetition.

    Saving often so you don't have to repeat stuff is not cheating. Its a preference decision. And anyway, this talk of cheating. Who is being cheated? The game? One of the golden rules of design (not decided by me, obviously) is that the game is not competing with the player (aspects of the game can present challenge to the player, but only in pursuit of the ultimate goal, which is provide fun for the player).

    If the player has more fun "cheating" then that is a good thing surely? To prevent them from gaining maximum fun because of some arbitrary moralistic principle about "cheating" is a serious mistake for any dev to make as they have fundamentally misunderstood the purpose of the game (so says me anyway).

    If I was feeling harsh, I would say a game that does not allow me to stop playing after 20mins (as jonnyreb suggested) without losing progress is broken. End of story.

    I know some people (not you) wave their cocks and try and make checkpoints and difficulty some test of manliness (the guy behind Ninja Gaiden gets my badge of shame on that one for example). You can probably guess my response to that sort of childish sentiment.

    As I recall, on the whole, checkpoints were born out of the limited storage space of early consoles. Tomb Raider 1 for example. Save anywhere on PC, checkpoints on PS1. Somewhere along the line it became a design mechanic. Balls to that says me in my little world. Fix the gameplay first, then worry about what the player does when they need to go answer the front door or go put out a chip pan fire.

    Sorry to pick on your post dude, but you pressed my button with that one :)

  • krudster #217 5 years ago

    All your points are spot on.

    But checkpointing, in this instance, makes it a better game. Honestly! It checkpoints very sensibly, basically before and after each major set piece, meaning that all you're essentially forced to 'backtrack' is the start of the fight. It's all very bite sized - but if you really do think that being able to hit save after every single kill is a good thing, then, well, play the PC version.
    Edited by 1 at 14/11/06 @ 15:02

  • Uncle_Fishboy #218 5 years ago

    I wouldn't like james blunt licking my knees, I wouldn't find it thrilling - I'd find it repulsive. Context sorted.

  • Machiavellian #219 5 years ago

    Having Played both GOW and Fear, I can easily see how someone would score each game different or take more fun from one then the other. What is one person Achilles heal is another person flesh wound.

    The reason I say this is that Fear and GOW have their faults but the strength of each game makes certain faults seem quite small while others can be glaring. For Krudster the repetitive environments did not seem that big because the combat in his opinion is so great. For others this will not be the same. Because the environments are so repetitive, it will bring down the combat and make it not that entertaining. Fear combat is defined by the slo-mo while GOW is defined by the cover. Totally different feel for both games and really comes down to a personal taste.

  • nickthegun #220 5 years ago

    I agree, Krudster that it can be complimentary to a games mechanic, but sometimes it is so fundamentally broken it makes you want to kill something.

    I remember having to do the whole Jeep level on Pariah without taking more than one shot as the auto save point kicked in just as the fucking level started. No save slots, so it was either lose all my progress or battle through it.

    Pariah, funnily enough, was one of the reasons i was worried GoW would suck.

  • Yossarian #221 5 years ago

    I like checkpoint saves! huzzah for F.E.A.R.

    I'm actually pretty pleased that the 360 version is so solid, because I missed out on playing it on the PC

  • captainrentboy #222 5 years ago

    Just a small question,am I the only person finding C.O.D3 considerably more enjoyable on its first play through than C.O.D2 was?
    I'm absolutely loving it.Yeah it's irrelevant,but what the hell.

  • kangarootoo #223 5 years ago

    @krudster

    "It checkpoints very sensibly, basically before and after each major set piece"

    Well that is reassuring at least. I don't hate checkpoint systems perse, I just hate ones that are done badly (early Splinter Cell games, I'm looking at you). if it works, I'm happy.

  • SwedBear #224 5 years ago

    "It's all very bite sized - but if you really do think that being able to hit save after every single kill is a good thing, then, well, play the PC version. "

    It sounds like they got it right then. However - I wonder about your comment. Do you think that most people who like quicksaves actually are saving after each single kill and use it for cheating? Just curious. I've always like quicksave because it has made it possible for me to jump out/in whenever I had the time. I'm one of those who sometimes don't have time to finish a game or a level and I always liked the fact that I could save and come back later.

    I really hate games where you can have 5-10 checkpoints but if you quit you must go back all the way to the begining of that mission just because you couldn't keep playing for 20 minutes more.

    Still, game sounds fantastic .... must resist ....

  • krudster #225 5 years ago

    Yeah, that sort of checkpointing is evil. The first Splinter Cell was insane, looking back.

  • enzima #226 5 years ago

    Seeing that the guy who rewieved GOW reads this post (kudos for that) i´ll leave my sarcastic criticism to side, and try to use the chance for something more costructive: if its not too much to ask, a fair answer please: the problem in GOW, was it the art concept? is that the reason for the grade? Honestly, the game has the best graphic ever seen on a 360, and is also the most fluent one, runs very smooth, so technically it´s perfect. The controls seems very good also in your opinion, so i guess what you didn´t like was the art concept; even so, when reviewing a game you should be objective, therefore put your PERSONAL taste on the side (if i dont like fatty characters, it doesnt mean mario 64 sucks!). Since you judging a game for thousands of people, please try not to say "this game is not for me" cause we dont really care!!! we want to know if the game is good, not if you believed the hype too much! oh, that´s my problem with that 8!

    ill try to make this the last time i talk about that review!
    Edited by 1 at 14/11/06 @ 15:35

  • krudster #227 5 years ago

    I'm not repeating myself on GoW again - all I suggest is read through this thread as more or less all of your questions are addressed.

  • enzima #228 5 years ago

    whatever

  • AcidSnake #229 5 years ago

    Hasn't the score of GOW been discussed enough?
    Isn't this about FEAR?

    Anyway, anyone remember the checkpoints of the original Turok on N64?

  • gazareth #230 5 years ago

    The first FarCry had the most evil checkpointing ever.

  • king_skins #231 5 years ago

    There are a few places where the checkpointing was a little to spaced out for my taste and I had to repeat a few long sections but for the most part it works really well.

  • Gulag #232 5 years ago

    @SwedeBear
    (((Gulag - "The day EuroGamer gives in to this 'Me-Too-MetaScore' thinking is the day I quit reading. Top writers and a sensible disregard for hyperbole are what bring me back here every time. "

    SwedeBear - I won't touch the whole issue about which game deserves what (I love GoW but loved FEAR on the PC so it probably also is top-notch) but I've said it before and say it again; EG's opinion is just one of many. Just because they score lower sometimes or higher other times does not make them more right or more wrong than others. This "all other scores must be because they bougth the hype" crap must stop just as much as "EG are biased" crap.)))

    I should have made myself clearer. I'm not taking issue with other game sites, their opinions, or their scores.

    Rather, I find it strange that commenters on this site and others seem to think there must be something 'wrong' with a review or a reviewers perception of a game if his score deviates from that of other (or the majority of) reviewers.

    The day Eurogamer bows to that *fan* pressure, is the day I quit reading. I withhold comment on the editorial practices of any other review site, as it would be largely irrelevant to this debate.
    Edited by 1 at 14/11/06 @ 16:01

  • nickthegun #233 5 years ago

    As I said, Pariah was one of the worst i played. To throw you into a section where you couldnt actually get energy back, without giving you a recharge first, with that kind of checkpoint system was a disgrace.

    And, yeah, Splinter Cell was pretty mean.

    I know its constantly discussed, but actually having to collect typewriter ribbons so you could save in Resi was one of those genius/madness things. I hated that game for making me ration my saves, but it sure as fuck made it more tense.

    Still, i cant play for hours on end now, so I probably would have snapped the disc if a game tried that these days.

  • Batman2100 #234 5 years ago

    You should know I've just registered based purely on how much giggling I did reading every single ranting post in this thread. The folk in my office think i've lost it...

  • Gulag #235 5 years ago

    Welcome on board. This is a light day, you should see the serious discussions...

  • barchetta #236 5 years ago

    Funny, after lacklustre FEAR demo, middling COD3 reviews and my dislike of GOWs 3rd Person controller (FPS GRAW only for me...) I went and purchased a 2nd hand copy of BLACK last night.

    Must say I was impressed (especially with the SFX) but looks like this may go back on the top buy list after BLACK is finished. If the AI is as good as many report then it may have redeemed itself.

  • nickthegun #237 5 years ago

    I bought BLACK on the strength of a lot of reviews and got shockingly bored of it about half way through.

    And its another game with a shitty checkpoint system.

  • barchetta #238 5 years ago

    Only played the first level (on hard) and don't remember a checkpoint - Maybe hard doesn't do checkpoints - or is L1 just a warmup?

  • Kiigan #239 5 years ago

    FEAR is really good. However you can pick up the PC version SO cheaply nowadays. There's no point getting the (more expensive) 360 port if you have a semi-reasonable PC.

  • Batman2100 #240 5 years ago

    Anyone know the minimum specs to run the PC version? My machine is old and creaky, I've been a console gamer for ages now...

  • kangarootoo #241 5 years ago

    @enzima

    "please try not to say "this game is not for me" cause we dont really care!!! we want to know if the game is good"

    But you can't really seperate the two. A game being "good" is not an empirical state. Its simply opinion. Maybe a reviewer writes their own opinion, maybe they try and second guess the opinion of the majority of readers (which seems far from an exact scienece as we can see), the difference seems pretty trite to me.

    Much better that the reviewer simply reports on the game, we then use our minds and apply our much greater knowledge of our own personal tastes, and everyone stop going on about the very least important part of the entire process, the score.

    A lot of people have said they thought this should have been a 9. So for those people the review score was only out by one point. Jesus, thats pretty accurate isn't it? From the way people moan you would think it had a got a 3. THEN accusations of not reading the public might hold water. But we are talking about one point here enzima. The smallest division possible! Taken in context how can any sane person be annoyed with that.

    Some people have been acting like EG reviewed their mum. Get some context, puleeese.

  • Machiavellian #242 5 years ago

    In a lot of people's minds, one point means a lot. A game that gets an 8 means it's good but not great. It means that the game is above par but doesn't take you to the next level. An eight if you based on US school system means that you are a good student but if you were a 9 you would be excellent. A 9 says do not miss this game while an eight says if you get an opportunity get this game. There is a big difference between an 8 score and a 9.

    Off topic but at what setting do you play these games at. There definitely a difference in casual and hardcore for GOW. I know most reviewers like to finish a game quickly in order to write the review so I was wondering if you guys do more than one play through on different settings or just one play through.

  • Martin #243 5 years ago

    I use quicksaves in HL2 on the XBox constantly because I don't want to backtrack more than 3-4 minutes if I bite the dust.

    Cheating? I dunno, perhaps you can call it that.

    Does it make the game less tense? Sure it does, there's no real danger if I fail.

    Then again - I remember having to let my PC stay on all night when playing the first Star Wars FPS... Dark Forces? (Curse my memory!) just because I couldn't save mid-level and *had* to go to bed.

    Ace game though. :)

    Edit: Speling misstake
    Edited by 1 at 14/11/06 @ 18:01

  • enzima #244 5 years ago

    @ kangarootoo

    I see your point. But i think that if you read all my post, you must understand what i meant. That is, if I dont like fatty charcters, it doesnt mean mario 64 isn't a great game. Now, since the objections to the game in that review were criticising the art concept, i think you should take into consideration that gameplay and graphics are more important for a videogame. Maybe not for an art piece, but for a game yes. So saying YOU didn't like the art style of a game, doesnt give you the right to say that it isnt a great game.
    And last thing, there is a BIG difference between 8 (good game) and 9 (great game). But thats all.
    I like EG, even though im fairly new to this site. Generally i like their review, and if i insist on this (something honestly quite pointless, cause i would lose respect for them if they changed the 8 just for the fierce critics) is because im proud of their work and wish they'll do always better. And im speaking from my heart, without any intention to create criticism, but i found that review not on the same standard as the others on the same site. Dont take it personally, but there must be something wrong if the WHOLE world agrees that its a great game, and this site alone says its normal, not bringing anything new to the genre.

  • Martin #245 5 years ago

    @enzima: I hate to be the one to turn this into a "Review the GoW review" thread but the main objection with GoW - as I understood it without putting words into krudsters mouth - was the fact that it didn't do anything really new, including the art design.

    The AI was the biggest concern IIRC and the art direction was one of many factors that contributed to the score.

    Your comparison to Mario isn't fair as no Mario game that I know of rely on Mario being a fat italian in order to convey a feeling. GoW relies on it's beefcake jocks in order to convey a feeling which didn't quite float krudster's boat.

    In the end - it's just one opinion out of many. You have every right to be upset with the 8 but that doesn't give you the right to demand that krudster justifies his score when he has done this not only in the review itself but in pretty much every thread after the review was posted.

    Or so I would assume. :)

    Edit: I missed the part where you argue that just because the rest of the world doesn't agree with krudster, he is somehow wrong.

    This kind of argument just doesn't fly.

    A friend of mine doesn't like cake. He can eat it if he has to but we have to coax him into it. Just because the majority of the world loves cake isn't going to get him to say that cake is great and in no way invalidates his dislike of cake.

    We're discussing taste after all.
    Edited by 1 at 14/11/06 @ 18:11

  • Rambaldi #246 5 years ago

    I'm sorry guys, I was too busy playing FEAR, wtf are we talking about again?
    Edited by 1 at 14/11/06 @ 19:01

  • Feanor #247 5 years ago

    "the problem in GOW, was it the art concept?"

    The fact that the game is quite short was also mentioned in the Gears of War review.

    I think that maybe in FPS games with Quick Saves you should only be allowed to use it once every five minutes or something. I enjoyed Half-Life 2 on the Xbox, but it was obvious there were ceratin segments where the developer expected you to save every 5 seconds and that doesn't make for great gaming. The bit on Highway 17 where airships attcked you nad there was no real cover springs to mind.
    Edited by 1 at 14/11/06 @ 19:41

  • skillian #248 5 years ago

    Machiavellian: There is a big difference between an 8 score and a 9.

    enzima:there is a BIG difference between 8 (good game) and 9 (great game)

    That may be true when it comes to games reviewing on a lot of other sites but, if you think about it, logic will tell you that it's exactly the same difference between a 7 and an 8. ;)

  • GitSomE_UK #249 5 years ago

    or maybe a 5 and a 6...

  • mattigan #250 5 years ago

    I think this whole GOW thing has been blown out of all proportion on these comments sections, and in my opinion this is soley down to the fact that this little UK site has been overrun by the yanks, I mean "all I care about is that your review has lowered GOW's gamerankings score" please, if you've never been to Europe, don't presume to understand the finer points of European gamers preferences and cultural tastes. And for all you Europeans out there droning on and on about the 8/10, shame on you, you should know better.

  • Carrybagma #251 5 years ago

    Wa-a-a-a-ave. :o)

    How many nines now?

  • hoathenfold #252 5 years ago

    Just went to pick this up from Play Asia and saw that Saints Row appears also not to be region locked - can anyone confirm this? cheers.

    Sorry - just had a closer look and it is - didnt open the page properly!!
    Edited by 1 at 14/11/06 @ 20:52

  • Azazel #253 5 years ago

    I actually quite enjoyed the demo and found it moderately challenging. This may well be down to my complete suckage when it comes to FPS console gaming though.

  • Der_tolle_Emil #254 5 years ago

    I generally favor a checkpoint system. I absolutely detest scripted events and trial and error passages. Those are the very reasons I hated Max Payne. I like difficult games but I cannot stand situations where doing something wrong means instant death. "You cannot save anywhere and anytime you want" games usually are much fairer but not necessarily easier. Many games I played offering quicksave options tend to get boring fast because players (myself included) tend use the function as soon as they make a mistake, often because making a mistake makes the following passages just impossible.

    Splinter Cell: Double Agent is a perfect example for a good checkpoint based game. It is damn hard but making mistakes doesn't mean that you have to start all over again. You are making it a lot harder by making mistakes (ie by luring enemies to places where they pose a real problem) but it is still manageable and I rarely felt the need to reload because there was always a way to atone for my mistakes.
    Plus the checkpoint system really encourages the player to stay as stealthy as possible. A lot of players would simply quicksave, shoot a guy, hoping noone is looking and if it did not work simply load again if they had the chance to. This again is pure trial and error and makes a game quite boring after a few hours.
    Edited by 2 at 14/11/06 @ 21:32

  • skillian #255 5 years ago

    Good point.

    I think why Call of Duty 2's checkpoints worked so well was because of the recharging health system, meaning you wouldn't get stuck somewhere with no health and no chance of making it through the next fight.

  • Der_tolle_Emil #256 5 years ago

    @skillian: I totally forgot the recharging health. I like that idea more and more in games.

  • skillian #257 5 years ago

    Yep, I love it - it even works well in multiplayer in CoD2.

    Though obviously it wouldn't really work in slower paced games.

  • pjmaybe #258 5 years ago

    Damn I can't find it but what did the PC version get?

    Peej

  • SomaticSense #259 5 years ago

    Will people please shut up with the "You really think it's better than GoW?" comments for gods sake.

    First of all, have most of you even got Gears? I understand that a few of you may have imported by now, but most of you likely haven't even played it yet, and won't until Thursday or Friday. So how can you even comment on whether something is good or bad or if someone else's opinion (which is what it is) is bullshit? Exactly, you can't. So shut up and keep your opinion of someone else's opinion to yourself until you've actually PLAYED the game.

    I got FEAR on Friday and absolutely love it, so far it is the best shooter I've played on the 360 since CoD2, but will also be getting GoW on Friday (hopefully). If I like GoW will that mean I'll like FEAR any less? No, because I'm not a shallow "jumping to conclusions based on other people's opinions kind of guy, like a lot of you lot seem to be. So please learn to experience stuff by yourself and learn to develop your own opinions before having a go at someone who has stated their's, and who also has incidentally played both so would immediately be in a much more qualified opinion to state what score each game should have at the bottom of the review.

    Fucks sake, I thought it was only the Americans who were obsessed with numbers and are unable to form their own opinions......
    Edited by 1 at 14/11/06 @ 21:53

  • skillian #260 5 years ago

    @ Peej

    9/10, same as this.

    http://ww w.eurogamer.net/article.php?art...

  • RedPanda #261 5 years ago

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

  • The-Bodybuilder #262 5 years ago

    >" The final score will be the average of the two elements."

    I really, REALLY didn't want to be pulled into this whole GOW thing again (I came here to read comments on FEAR).
    But supposing you gave the multipayer a 9 (sic. yes we all know it aint gonna happen. but for future referencing for reviews). So that total average will be 8.5?

  • haowan #263 5 years ago

    What happens if he says yes?

  • RedPanda #264 5 years ago

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

  • The-Bodybuilder #265 5 years ago

    >"What if - bear with me - what if, all those 27 reviews are all getting carried away and I'm actually on the money? Is it possible to imagine?"

    That's a completely arrogant thing to say.
    I wanted to stay away from this, but really, your defence was solid up until you said that line. It's stinks of "we're right. They're wrong" arrogance.

    Just to make it clear, I DON'T CARE ABOUT THE GOW REVIEW. I'm merely commenting on (IMO) a dumb thing to say as a review.
    You should have just stuck to the "It's my opninon" stance. To somehow try and undermine the reviews of 27 journalists (what makes you think you're more informed than 27 other people of the same profession?)

    I just hope it doesn't lead to another EG-EA groping article.

  • Steroyd #266 5 years ago

    ....... so Krudster your going to review Resistance when?

    Maybe if Resistance gets an 8 then people will stop pissing over all these comments sections that are only related to GeoW because they're shooters.

    Or Resistance gets a 9 then these comments sections will really get interesting.

  • kid666 #267 5 years ago

    On the german EG, GoW got a 10!
    So, UK EG 8 and the German 10 makes an overall 9.
    Now quit bitching and play FEAR or GoW, or both:p

    edit: horrible, horrible typos
    Edited by 2 at 15/11/06 @ 10:17

  • NegativeZero #268 5 years ago

    I really don't understand the geek love-affair with this game. I played the PC version a while back, and came away very unimpressed.

    For one thing, the supposedly complicated AI is not actually that complex at all. They simply run towards you. All of the complicated things that it appears to be doing are byproducts of the level design and a whole pile of scripted events. It's smoke and mirrors. The way they appear to be able to hunt you down so efficiently is because they're cheating - their vision doesn't take into account the amount of ambient light. They're no more advanced than the AI in Call of Duty 2, they just have super-human affordances given to them as a bonus.

    Take away the initially impressive AI, and there's very little left. A weak attempt at a plot, poor weapon balance, bullet-time slow-mo to make up for the deficient AI, and loose controls. Maybe it was a byproduct of having played some very good shooters just beforehand, but the controls always felt floaty to me, as if they needed to be tightened up.

    On top of that, the PC version scaled absolutely terribly. It ran like crap on my laptop, even with all of the graphical features disabled. Unless you had an absolute beast of a system, it didn't run well at all, and even on top-end machines it would consume a bucketload of resources, far more than it should have needed. People were going on and on about how it meant that the game was obviously better, but in reality if every other FPS of the same age can be run at a smooth framerate with every graphics option maxed out, but FEAR chokes to death, it means that FEAR has been badly written and very poorly optimised. I bet this is still the case on the 360 - it will be pushing the upper limits of what the system can do when there's really very little reason for it to be doing so.

    This is not to say that it's a bad game, though. It just struck me as a very generic shooter that used a lot of carefully scripted events to give the impression that it was a lot more revolutionary and compex than it actually was.

  • TheRealBadabing #269 5 years ago

    Well, thanks to the rabid idiocy that seems to pervade this thread, I am now convinced that I will buy FEAR and not GOW.

    Let's face it, the fanbois have turned on EG because one of their most poncey reviewers (you know we love it Kristan) did not follow the hype=score rules.

    Why would I buy FEAR? Simply because I would hate to play on Live with the sort of close-minded tards that have defended GOW without even playing it. Stick to wanking over Official 360 mags in Future (see what i did there?) and let sites like EG get on with being as close to honest as they can be.

    Even if EG give GOW a 10 for the multiplayer aspect, why would I want to play as a WWF reject with a pack of screaming adolescents for team-mates? Seems to me that FEAR could be the new Chromehounds (god am I balanced or what?) in that it will provide a nicely exclusive community compared to the GOW/Halo2 numpties.

  • Mordum #270 5 years ago

    Interesting. I did'nt have this down as a must buy at all after playing the demo. But from what I'm reading (the review and here) the demo does'nt reflect at all how good the game is. So looks like another one to think about.
    This is already an insane couple of months for games, what I did'nt need was for this and Viva Pinata to join my 'to get' list!

    Also, I wish people would just stop bringing up Gears of War every five minutes (hang on... that sentence seems hypocritical in a way), I'll just get both, eventually, and hopefully enjoy each of them.

    Just do away with review scores. That'll hopefully stop all these score comparisons and arguments.

  • mustardkid #271 5 years ago

    Just gonna throw in my two cents having been annoyed by the criticism of the "incomplete" GoW review.

    Most gamers don't give a fuck about the online game. Why should we have to wait til the online review is complete to read the only bit we are interested in- the campaign review? I wish more games followed the Half Life 2 example of releasing the campaign as soon as poss with the online game following when it was ready, I mean why should I have to wait for my game while they finish off a component I will never use. I am in the majority in that I never play the online component and my XBOX has never been connected to the net despite sitting a foot from my router.

    And no it's not because i Sux0r, I used to Pwn quake3 and pso on the dreamcast, but got bored of the whole online thing back then. I don't want to play against you or chat to you while i'm doing it. So get a life and accept that for many of us the online review is irrelevant and that is why EG are well justified in reviewing the campaign only.

    PS

    GoW isn't that original the cover and shoot dynamic has been nicked from 8bit lightgun classic time crisis so nyah!


    EDIT: Fear rocks btw, just dont ask about online because im never gonna find out.
    Edited by 1 at 15/11/06 @ 07:56

  • ice_freezer #272 5 years ago

    Bravo, Kristan, well-written review. The game itself is more than good, worth all praise it's got. Played it through twice on PC. Curious to see how it runs on the 360.

  • silver-jon #273 5 years ago

    My experience of this since buying it 4 days ago - I'm about 2/3rds through, and playing it for good 2-3 hour chunks. 32" HiDef LCD really helps draw you into the action (especially when sitting about 3 feet away so it fills your vision). The combat is excellent the AI good (reminds me of the AI in Far Cry - the way enemy soldiers will find ways to sneak up on you or run round a corner, hide nearby, and then pick you off as you follow them round the corner, etc). I love the fact that when you grab a medpack sitting on a bench next to a spanner, you'll nudge the spanner and they hear it and react. Someone's clearly thought about the real experience.

    Some of the "shock moments" genuinely have me jumping. What's weird is, I can watch a film and not react to it, but in a game . . . all I'll say is the moment when I went down a ladder in F.E.A.R. and the little girl had been standing right behind me I think I hit every button on the controller and shrieked like a girl. It's like having a minor electric shock about once an hour when you least expect it (and for some reason we pay for this ???) The atmosphere, in this regard, is excellent - alternating between all-out combat, and the spooky exploration.

    In addition, I would say a big vote of “\o/” for the difficulty curve. Playing it first time through one standard difficulty, and I’ve only died about 4 times. When I want a tougher challenge, I'll play it again at a higher difficulty. At no point has there been an insurmountable difficulty spike. The challenge increases as the number and quality of enemy both increase and (if like me you tend to get a bit gung-ho) you gradually run out of ammo. But so far there’s been no “Oh for crying out loud, it’s impossible – how the hell am I expected to take on five end of level baddies, with no health and only a wilted tulip for a weapon”. Glares at the end of Far Cry.

    Main gripes would be with the unimaginative plot and the way it is related through inaudible voicemails. Every time I play a phone message I have to raise the volume on the TV by 6 notches just to make out someone saying "Hey, what's going on over there. I heard an explosion. Are you guys alright ?" (and then 6 notches down again). I would agree that the kind of half-hearted inclusion of peripheral characters leaves you not really caring about them and also slightly confused as to why they're included at all. It's certainly not Half Life 2 in this area. Alyx's gentle peck on her father's cheek still stands out for me as a gobsmacking moment of gaming because from that moment I cared for both of them. It gave you a sense of humanity to fight for and set a benchmark for future games. Even Halo has banter with Cortana to balance the intense conflict.

    F.E.A.R. feels like a cross between Doom3, Far Cry, and (slightly) Half Life 2. I don't see that it does anything new and revolutionary, but what it does it does very well. I'd give it a firm 8.

    There. A full comment on F.E.A.R. without once mentioning Gears of W . . .D’Oh !!

  • JayPee #274 5 years ago

    "Well, thanks to the rabid idiocy that seems to pervade this thread, I am now convinced that I will buy FEAR and not GOW. "

    That has to be one of the dumbest things ever said in a comments section.

    /Is bored

  • darkbhudda #275 5 years ago

    Well the demo didn't do much for me. I understand that the game is better than the demo, but how am I supposed to know that? Game developers, make sure the demo is a good indicator. Bad/average demo = lost sale.

    Now, the important question, how does it compare to Brute Force and Rogue Trooper? Those and Gears of War, Halo 1 and Halo 2 are my type of shooters. Not a huge fan of the genre otherwise.

    /can't wait until the Viva Pinata review so people can start comparing it to the Gears of War review.

  • spookyzombie #276 5 years ago

    Which idiot/s have rated this 1 out of 10 on the reviewer score section? Twats.

  • Vin #277 5 years ago

    Christ, this really is utter rubbish.

    And it's a NINE?

    Good lord.

    BUY LOST PLANET.