Whatever happened to F.E.A.R ?

[Kaftan Barlast]

Did I miss something or did the hype just die out once the game was released? I noticed its been on sale for a reduced rice a while now.

 

 

 

I just got it and I have to say that performance is very bad, an AMD64 4000+ with a G6800u and a gig of fast RAM should be able to run more than 25FPS at 1280x960 with 4xFSAA.

 

The same setup in Q4 gives almost twice as much FPS.

[Haitoku]

Did I miss something or did the hype just die out once the game was released? I noticed its been on sale for a reduced rice a while now.

 

 

 

I just got it and I have to say that performance is very bad, an AMD64 4000+ with a G6800u and a gig of fast RAM should be able to run more than 25FPS at 1280x960 with 4xFSAA.

 

The same setup in Q4 gives almost twice as much FPS.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

It's pretty widely known that anything higher then 1024x768 = bad performance on MOST systems. Even those sporting 7800.

 

I have a setup similar to yours. 1024x768, 4xFSAA, high detail/cpu settings... I got very "acceptable" frame rates.

 

It's a good game... way better then Q4. But only because the fire fights are much more involved.

[alanschu]

To be honest, I think the engine for FEAR kicks the living crap out of the Doom 3 engine, which is probably why you can run Quake IV so much faster.

 

I was able to run the FEAR demo pretty good with my Athlon64 3500+ and Radeon 9800 Pro at 1024x768. Though I'm not someone that needs to have Anisotropic filtering, and I never use FSAA either (unless I'm looking for them, I have zero problem not noticing the aliasing).

 

I'm still planning on picking this up, now that Christmas has passed and I didn't get it (got Civ4 and CoD2, which were higher up on the list)

[Haitoku]

Your right.

 

The problem with the F.E.A.R engine is that it's so kick ass, most people can't see how kick ass it really is.

 

I've played it at my buddies house with dual 7800s. Looks incredibly good (still has stuttering with those cards btw... >.>) Much better then Doom 3, especially the models.

[BattleCookiee]

Well, I believe it is gone now because of that very reason...

 

A graphical update that will soon be obsolete, and a new AI that doesn't really matters that much since it also has Quake/Doom type of gameplay... which is just cleaning level after level.

 

Not as "refreshing" as a Deus Ex or so was in that time, and thus not being able to interest people for very long...

[Judge Hades]

First rule of gaming: Never believe the hype.

[Slowtrain]

F.E.A.R was a far above average FPS title, not a DX or SS2 or NOLF but just the next level down. ANd it ran fine at 1024*768 with most graphic options on high on my p4 3.4/ati 9800 Pro. If FEAR got bad sales that desn't bode well for FPS titles becoming more interesting and involved in the future.

[Judge Hades]

I rather see CRPGs becoming more interesting than FPS.

[BattleCookiee]

F.E.A.R was a far above average FPS title, not a DX or SS2 or NOLF but just the next level down.  ANd it ran fine at 1024*768 with most graphic options on high on my p4 3.4/ati 9800 Pro.  If FEAR got bad sales that desn't bode well for FPS titles becoming more interesting and involved in the future.

 

Seems like F.E.A.R has more love for ATI than Nvidia...

 

And why wouldn't it bode well for interesting, involving FPS. It isn't like F.E.A.R really was such a FPS...

Or do you really think that the AI made it more involving than a Doom3/Quake 4?

[Haitoku]

F.E.A.R was a far above average FPS title, not a DX or SS2 or NOLF but just the next level down.  ANd it ran fine at 1024*768 with most graphic options on high on my p4 3.4/ati 9800 Pro.  If FEAR got bad sales that desn't bode well for FPS titles becoming more interesting and involved in the future.

 

Seems like F.E.A.R has more love for ATI than Nvidia...

 

And why wouldn't it bode well for interesting, involving FPS. It isn't like F.E.A.R really was such a FPS...

Or do you really think that the AI made it more involving than a Doom3/Quake 4?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

I started a new game today, on the Extremely hard difficulty.

 

The game is a lot more involving then both Doom 3 and Quake 4, which both become nothing but frag fest towards the end of the game.

 

The AI is incredible. Nothing like a tactical squad trying to flank you, smoke you out, lure you out. All I see the Doom 3 and Quake 4 enemies doing is just standing there, shooting in in your direction... just waiting to get killed.

[BattleCookiee]

Difficulty does not define a "immersive game"

 

And even if is more difficult, and you need more thinking than in a Doom 3, it is certainly not a DX, SS2 or Thief-kind immersive, it still is "Kill all, then some more"...

[Slowtrain]

@BW: It doesn't bode well because if a game like FEAR, which does make SOME attempt to create a more interesting FPS dynamic, doesn't sell well then publishers are going to conside that effort wasted time and are going to force devs to churn out more Doom clones.

[BattleCookiee]

Nope.

 

First of all. F.E.A.R isn't that renewing as you make it appear to be. It is a Doom clone by itself, just with pretier graphics, and an AI that has been fine-tuned...

 

And the "sequel machine" seems to hit a death-end, since there have been reports that sales have drastically reduced in "sequel-period" oppossed to the "new game-series" period. So we might be heading the good way anyways.

[Child of Flame]

Cookie, have you actually looked what they did to make the A.I. that effective compared to traditional methods. I'd border on saying they revolutionized it. I haven't played it yet as I'm waiting to upgrade.

[Gabrielle]

Easy come easy go. Seems to be the motto these days with games.

[Slowtrain]

Nope.

 

First of all. F.E.A.R isn't that renewing as you make it appear to be. It is a Doom clone by itself, just with pretier graphics, and an AI that has been fine-tuned...

 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I'm not saying its a great game. But it makes a stronger than usual attempt at story and atmosphere than is bothered with in most FPS games, especially ones that class as "shooters". I found the game interesting enough to play despite its overall reliance on standard FPS mechanics. WHich is unusual for me.

 

 

 

And the "sequel machine" seems to hit a death-end, since there have been reports that sales have drastically reduced in "sequel-period" oppossed to the "new game-series" period. So we might be heading the good way anyways.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Well, that can also be interpreted to mean other things than just sequels don't sell any more. ANyway, I don't think sequels or series are inherently any better or worse than "original" games. A fun game is a fun game regardless of whether it is entry number 9 in a series or something wholly unique. Ideally, I think a mix of sequels and originals is generally a nice compromise.

[BattleCookiee]

Cookie, have you actually looked what they did to make the A.I. that effective compared to traditional methods.  I'd border on saying they revolutionized it.  I haven't played it yet as I'm waiting to upgrade.

 

Yes. I did. But that doesn't change that it is a Doom/Quake styled "Kill anything that moves" shooter, just with a little better AI added to it. An immense good AI doesn't make a game "more interesting, immersive or involving", as that would also mean that MP of ANY game would be exactly that too. Doom3 MP, UT2004, BF2 MP are all more involving and immersive in MP than any other SP game out there? Sometimes they are, but sometimes they are not (compare Doom3 MP to Deus Ex for example)

[Haitoku]

Difficulty does not define a "immersive game"

 

And even if is more difficult, and you need more thinking than in a Doom 3, it is certainly not a DX, SS2 or Thief-kind immersive, it still is "Kill all, then some more"...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

This game was never trying to be SS2 or DX. Those are RPGs, not true Shooters.

 

And it is immersive, just not in the same way as those two games. Those games gave you choice and paths that let you take on the role of the character. FEAR is immersive because you have to pay close attention to your surroundings, listen carefuly for enemies and use all your resources wisely. SS2/DX were great games, but as shooters alone, they are nothing more then generic.

 

EDIT - Well, SS2 atleast... I barely got started on DX. Combat might get more complex later, but I seriously dout it.

Edited December 29, 2005 by Haitoku

[Slowtrain]

SS2/DX were great games, but as shooters alone, they are nothing more then generic.

 

EDIT - Well, SS2 atleast... I barely got started on DX.  Combat might get more complex later, but I seriously dout it.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

No, you are right and its a good point. A game needs to be evaluated on how well it does what it wants to do. DX and SS2 would both be pretty bland as straight shooters. Not awful, but they would lose the elements that make them special. FEAR, as you say, was never meant to be a CRPG, but, I think, it does try to push FPS "shooter" based gameplay to a more involving level. Single-player-wise, that is. Multi-layer shooters have to be evaluated differently.

[BattleCookiee]

That would be like stating that AoE 3 is an amazing advantage in RTS involvement due to the Havok engine...

 

Meh, I don't see games as "more or less involving" due to Technical Additions, but more due to the overall spirit and goal...

Edited December 29, 2005 by Battlewookiee

[mkreku]

No matter what, F.E.A.R. has the best enemy AI I've ever seen in a videogame. Sometimes it feels like the enemies have some sort of imagination as they come up with new, unique ways of getting to you over and over again. F.E.A.R. manages to be awesome for short bursts because of the AI, but ultimately the simplistic shooter mechanics shine through too much and brings the game down to "pretty good game" level.

[213374U]

FPSs are FPSs are FPSs.

[alanschu]

Well, I believe it is gone now because of that very reason...

 

A graphical update that will soon be obsolete, and a new AI that doesn't really matters that much since it also has Quake/Doom type of gameplay... which is just cleaning level after level.

 

Not as "refreshing" as a Deus Ex or so was in that time, and thus not being able to interest people for very long...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Yes, people aren't up with just playing "run and shoot" type games cleaning level after level. That would explain why games like Halo, Half-Life 2 (and the original) and all that were not very popular...

 

As good as Deus Ex was, and financially successful, it still doesn't touch the success of those games that have just mere clearing out of the levels. Just like Half-Life's AI didn't matter much because it was just a cleaning level after level type game, or Halo's.

[angshuman]

Can't comment on FEAR's gameplay since I gave up on the game pretty quick. I liked HL2 and Halo's gameplay though (hated Quake 4), so I think I might have enjoyed FEAR's too.

 

As far as FEAR's graphics engine is concerned, I have serious complaints. If I have a $600 video card (that's how much a 7800GTX 256 used to cost when I bought mine) living in a $2000 machine, I have the right to demand to play any game at 1280x1024 with 4xAA/8xAF at 60fps, at least a game that claims to be a class-A title.

 

It's not about how many shader effects you put into the graphics engine. Clearly, FEAR's engine was too bloated with crazy shaders that even ridiculously expensive hardware available when the game was launched couldn't handle. This, in my opinion, was a flaw in the design decisions that the engine developers made. They should have cut down on the features of the engine. And if such a cutting down resulted in the game looking horrid, then the engine was crappy to begin with. The souped-up Doom 3 engine used for Quake 4 is great-looking. Subjectively speaking, IMHO overall it looks better than FEAR.

 

And subjectively speaking, Source beats the living daylights out of all of all of these. Unified lighting be damned, real-time shadows be damned, parallax mapping be damned. Give me a game that looks gorgeous and plays smooth. Half Life 2 accomplishes both. FEAR accomplishes neither.

[alanschu]

I agree that the Source engine rocks. Though it is rather silly that their shadowing cuts through walls. Makes everyone a wallhacker on some maps in CS:Source.

 

 

I still feel that FEAR's engine blows it out of the water, even at poorer video settings.

 

As for your video card purchase, I don't think it gives you the right to anything. You can still play the game with much better graphical options than people who own inferior options. That's the only priviledge you were given when forking over $600 for a video card. IMO the engine looks nicer at 800x600 with no FSAA or AF than most games at higher resolution with those features. I guess I just have lesser standards for resolutions and FSAA and AF. I'd much rather spend my resources on increasing the shaders, and polygon counts, with normal mapping etc. etc. etc. It's those reasons why Half-Life 2 looks so good. The character models have so much detail, and the animations (which is not really dependent on graphics card performance) create the visual feast that is Half-Life IMO.

 

FSAA, particularly at higher resolutions, is an absolute waste IMO. Far too much performance hit for the "gain" in graphical integrity. Exceptions being games with long distance viewing like a flight sim. The biggest advantage of FSAA comes with resolution limitations. Such as flatpanel or widescreen monitors. I'd rather just play a game at 1600x1200 with 0x FSAA. I get increased precision (more pixels actually existing on the screen), negigible graphical quality difference (particularly if aren't stopping to squint an inch away from your screen actually LOOKING for flaws, rather than playing the game), and much, much better performance.

 

I do like AF though, as it does wonders to eliminate the blurring of mip-mapping (well, at least it did in the original Half-Life engine), and creates a nice crispness to a game. But I still wouldn't consider FEAR to be graphically inferior to Quake 4 or Half-Life 2, even if FEAR had no AF enabled and the other two had full 16x enabled.

 

 

Give me the stuff that makes the world look more immersive and detailed. Pixels are a wash, and only really noticed if looking at them. And this comes from experience playing games at all resolutions. As long as it doesn't get too low (I played through the original Half-Life at 320x240...now THAT was pixelation) I really couldn't care less about the pixel count. I'd much rather have a nice shiny engine otherwise.

 

Though I guess it must be a bit of a piss off to buy something with the expectations of having certain settings all the time (although your card IS over half a year old now...it's reaching middle age graphics card age). I suspect this bitterness unfairly affects your opinion of FEAR's graphical capabilities. I'd much rather have beautiful, realistic looking shadows rather than shadows that cut through walls (Half-Life 2) or shadows that aren't actually cast on other creatures (Doom 3). I also like the fact that the game character is actually rendered in engine, meaning that HE actually casts a shadow. I haven't played Quake IV, so maybe they changed this, for that version (in addition to no shadows on character models).

 

To each his own I guess. I'd much rather play at a lower resolution with much better graphical standards elsewhere, rather than they take anything out of the game simply so you can have small pixels.