View RSS Feed

DJ Ms. White

F.E.A.R.

Rate this Entry
7 Comments
by
DJ Ms. White
, 03-27-11 at 09:04 AM (4806 Views)
So, as I woke up at 3AM today I decided to load up F.E.A.R. I consider it a classic game with some of the best AI I've encountered and some scary moments (not gory scary, but "oh shit something is happening out of my control" scary). It also has a pretty demented story line if you take the time to learn in game.

After it finished loading, I got to playing. 16 minutes later I stopped. The graphics were just sub-par especially the smoke. Mind you, I'm not comparing the game to say Metro 2033, but games that came out at the same time like HL2 and Doom 3. Those games still look pretty good and at the time had amazing graphcis. The water effects in HL2 (especially Lost Coast) were something else. It just felt like lazy and/or rushed programming on the part of the devs of F.E.A.R.

I was honestly going to write a retro game review, but I don't think I could play through the game again with the above in mind. I would be so focused on how bad the graphics are that I couldn't focus on the game or story.

Submit "F.E.A.R." to Digg Submit "F.E.A.R." to del.icio.us Submit "F.E.A.R." to StumbleUpon Submit "F.E.A.R." to Google

Categories
Uncategorized

Comments

    SovietDooM's Avatar
    Sub-par! What settings where you playing at? Yea, it's no Crysis but as good as Doom 3, which is still nothing like revisiting Morrowind or BF V.
    DJ Ms. White's Avatar
    High settings since the system requirements are pretty low. I still appreciate the LOD for shadows that the game had, but the rest was just blah. I also tried playing the expansions, but they're locked in at 4:3 monitor resolutions. I couldn't stand the stretched figures.
    SovietDooM's Avatar
    I never got into the expantions, but I have to say I disagree with you finding of poor graphics. I would consider them better then BF 2 even though the game play is completely different. Great game for a laptop.
    DJ Ms. White's Avatar
    BF2 is a whole other type of game though. The graphics can't be as good as a standalone single player game for the sheer fact that is incredibly intensive on a computer when you have to render in 63 other moving players with projectiles being modeled everywhere. That being said, 2142 on High settings was a sight to behold. I'm sure BC2 is something else, too.

    Think of Crysis though. Amazing looking game (sucky AI though ). You go to the multiplayer and things are toned down. Same settings but lower quality. It still looks good but without all of the bells and whistles. It's my reasoning as to why you can't compare a multiplayer game to a single player game in terms of graphics. The are both intensive, but in different ways. Apples to oranges.
    SovietDooM's Avatar
    BF2 was the only game I could think of being from 2005. I've had the "I can't play this it's so crappy looking" happen to me but not with a game that looks like F.E.A.R. Yet, I've even gotten passed it. Perhaps it's because I played the game back and the day, but games like Red Fraction 2, Renegade, Morrowind. While I don't spend a load of time on them these days, hold the weeks on Renegade a few months ago but that was computer limitations. Personally, I find Left 4 Dead 1 to have equal perhaps a whee bit better graphics. Granted it's a [limited] multiplayer game so perhaps you will view it as an orange. DooM 3, with my limited experience, appeared equal to F.E.A.R. and Half Life 2 I would agree is better.
    Toad's Avatar
    If you want a great scary game, try Amnesia: The Dark Descent! It's very atmospheric and fun.
    maximusboomus's Avatar
    Just re downloaded all the fear packs plan to play em since I haven't even touched my fear2 yet... Great fun SP action...
Title