I wouldn't say the story is complete crap. It was just average when compared to other games in the market. So I would say that it is just bad. As for the storyline... FEAR is basically like XFiles, only more ass kicking. Some fag takes over a battalion of clone troopers and you're job is to stop them, pretty simple. Too simple though.
As for the rip off thing. I guess we have to agree to disagree... I feel that F.E.A.R. presented those regurgitated aspects of games from the past and basically reinvented and expanded on them in a new and creative way. For example, intergrating melee with FPS fighting, much like Halo does. But.. FEAR added a whole new depth to that gameplay feature, including a large number of different melee attacks that have different affects on your opponent.
Again, I feel that flashlights are a good tool when establishing atmosphere in a video game. Let me give you an example. You're walking down a dimly lit hall and you hear something from behind you. You spin around and scan various parts of the room(because a flashlight doesn't illuminate everything) and find out that it was really nothing. I think a situation such as that serves in creating a deep, immersive and creepy atmosphere. If whole rooms were lit, suspense and surprise would be completely eliminated.
As far as the game level design being linier. I suppose I agree. However, again I feel that linier level design is apparent in every FPS game on the market, and don't necessarily feel that it's a bad thing. Half-Life2 had fairly open environements and levels, but when it comes down to it, it was extremely linier. You still need to go through a certain door, and follow a certain path to beat the level. This same aspect is found in F.E.A.R. Personally, I wish more games took the Vampire The Masquerade: Bloodlines approach to games, but FPS shoot-um-up killer games such as Doom, HL2, and FEAR are all very linier. I agree that some levels do give the repeative feel(more so than games such as HL2), and you get the sense that you've already been there(a number of times).
Again, I guess this is a difference of opinion and a differing gaming experience, because I felt immersed in the game(not necessarily the story )thus making the scary moments more enjoyable to me. I was immersed in the graphics, gameplay, sound and atmosphere, the story was just average.
The AI in F.E.A.R. was amazing in my opinion. The soldiers act like humans. They will knock shit down for cover, jump through windows, work together, flank positions, provide cover fire for one another while they attack or defend certain positions, and toss grenades extremely well(almost too well). The AI in HL2 was very good, but a great deal of their actions were pre-programmed. For example, them propelling from the ceiling when you reached a certain point on the map, or them jumping over a barrier once you reached a certain point. In F.E.A.R. I got the sense that their actions were evolving and changing as the gun fight progressed, and that their reactions reflected my actions. FEAR and HL2 have arguably the best AI of any game ever made. So I believe that your expectations are too high with regards to that if you only expressed feelings of indifference towards the AI in both those titles.
I agree that story is a large and important part in games. However, FPS titles have been notorious for making horrible storylines. HL2, Doom, Unreal, Quake, etc have all had mediocre to decent stories. I feel that the majority of immersion into FPS titles stems from gameplay, graphics, sounds, and creative atmospheres. There was hardly anything compelling(although I would say it was interesting) or amazingly creative about the story in F.E.A.R., I agree.
Edit: Again... Points taken out because the lack of variety of the opponents(although it makes sense), some story issues, the fact that the game is a god damn system hog, **and some repeated and overly linier levels**... I would STILL give it a 8.9-9 out of 10
Last edited by [LoD]plex; 11/01/05 09:42 PM.
