Share this article: Digg.comFacebookGoogle BookmarksN4GGamerblipsdel.icio.usRedditSlashdot.orgStumbleUpon Hmmm, I don't think the fact the game isn't scary detracts from the overall quality. Sure, it's one of the game's USPs but while the reviewer may not have found this scary, other people might.
It's a silly reason to dock a game points. It's superb and while it falls prey to the whole 'fight a cluster of enemies, search around a bit, fight more enemies' forumla, it's one of the better shooters out there.
You also say the story stinks. Did you pick up the intel items and not read them?
As always, each to their own though ;) I was so excited about this...usually I don't buy games that got under 8/10 but I'm gonna have to make an exception.
I loved the first one, up there amongst my top 5 shooters so surely this one will be even better?!
/facepalm I dunno, when the game is called "FEAR" and the original was scary as hell you kinda expect it to be scary. Agreed it might not bring down the overall quality but I reckon it was to be expected from this.
Mind you, when (and if) I buy it I'll probably shit my pants as I'm quite the wimp. say what you want. the game is at least an 8 and i'd say personally it's a 9. i played it for an hour yesterday and it's far superior to the original. the graphics are stunning, the combat is ****ing extremely weighty, you feel like you are really killing when you kill. the lighting is absolutely brilliant and honestly, it doesn't matter that it isn't scary, the concept makes it creepy without a doubt. people need to play the game before conforming with all the average reviews (this one included). "you feel like you are really killing when you kill."
On what do you base this?? Your own personal experience of slowing down time and flowing majestically through the air pumping round after round into faceless clones? no, i mean in some games like bioshock you never felt like you were really getting the reaction to your action from the combat. with F.E.A.R 2 you most certainly do. Seems more of the same to me, very similar to the original.
FPS games have pretty much reached their peak i think. No real new ideas and all play the same.
A great story will always draw you in, but this is no half life 2 in that department. notice they haven't marked down an FPS for having no co-op this time? I've just player the game and my verdict: Play it, but if you're looking for scares, only play it once. I found it scary the first time round, but the second time around, it didn't scare me as much as it did. But hey: I enjoyed it and you might too. Although I will say that ending is a bit flat, but what alma was able to do at the end I found it somewhat chilling. Mostly every game review you read online is fake anyway, and it doesn't matter if the game scored 1/10 or 11/10.
Look at reviews for things like GTAIV and Killzone 2, nobody can tell me they aren't either A: Payed out, and/or B: Aimed at a casual market (who is the only people who would take reviews seriously anyway).
I generally get worried when a game gets 10's all round these days, as most games Ive bought which have gotten scores like that turn out to be generic, casual crap with about as much character as a tin of spam.
Mostly every truly great game in recent years has been a sleeper hit or scored around 7/10 from these "proffesional" (lol?) reviews.
Anyway on topic - FEAR 2 is awesome, Ive only played it for around 3 hours but its bloody brilliant and it IS scary. Quite a harsh review really. Have been playing this all evening and it seems much scarier than the original to me. Freaky little girls scare the shit out of me anyway! I tried the demo and thought it played very nice and it has certainly improved in the visuals dept. i cant believe how stupid some of the above comments are.
Someone said that all fps's are the same. Ok so half-life, Left 4 Dead, gears, cod are all the same are they? Please.... gimmie a break.
And then TezChi - i dont even know where to start with your comments. Shocking.....
- Online reviews are fake?! lol
- The only people who take any notice of reviews are the casual market?! That is one of the most ridiculous statements ive ever heard. Have you even ever picked up a copy of edge magazine or games tm?? The wii sells buckets loads of ridiculously bad games because it caters to the casual market - and THEY dont bother with reviews.
- You dont like it when games get a good review beccause games that get 10's are generic and for the casual market? Yeah ok so littlebigplanet is really generic isnt it - and fallout is gonna be played through by the same person who completed my little pony on ds? LMAO
- What are all these amazing games that keep getting 7/10's ???? LOL
Also, on FEAR2 - i think the review was spot on. The game is called FEAR for petes sake so if its not scary then thats a bit rich of them isnt it? Resi, Eternal Darkness, Dead Space - all so much scarier than FEAR2 that its ridiulous.
PS. TezChi you are either a misguided 12 year old, or you are a complete idiot lol.
rant over It appears its you who is an "idiot" I'm afraid. If you really beleive that internet reviews are genuine then you either have no idea how business and advertising works, or you are a complete sheep.
Do not call me "12 years old", I have most likely more expereince than you in both the fields of proffesion and of the gaming industry.
I would suggest developing an indepednent mind, rather than believing the bile you read from the likes of Gamespot. It is a well known fact that those sites take money from advertisers AND aim their reviews at mainstream/casual audiences.
And yes it is only casuals that take notice of reviews. You may mentioned EXTREMELY casual games, though I am not talking about that market. I am reffering to the young teenage demographic of casual gamers who started gaming with Gears or something.
And if you really can't tell that some overrated rubbish gets 10/10 while underrated gems get 6 and 7, then maybe you shouldnt be gaming in the first place. I think I comprehend your point and I can appreciate what you are trying to convey...However, while I personally can, and do, enjoy the simulated destructive firepower in some FPS games and others it still just doesn't quite match up with the weight, noise and recoil of firing an assault rifle coupled with the dull thud of the beating of your heart as you vaguely become aware of sweet adrenaline flooding your system creating both a tingling sensation and a slight sense of time warp with increased focus. Nor the slight ripple you can feel from the accompanying "Swoosh!" sound of rocket propelled ordinance being fired in the distance. Time spent in the military taught me that amongst other things. That said, I don't actually expect any existing game to succeed in simulating actual combat training nor combat related material 100% as current hardware can only do so much. What it has been made to do in some games is pretty damn impressive though in my opinion. I dont entirely agree with Tezchi but he makes some decent points.
There have been a lot of quality games that got lower reviews than they should of.
Crimson Skies, Ico, Metal Arms, Strangers Wrath, Psyconauts and Beyond good and Evil mostly got 7's and 8's from the first few mags that reviewed them. It was only months and years later that any fuss was made about them.
I remember years ago most Megaman games would struggle to score 70% but now they looked upon as classics. |