F.E.A.R is a very overrated video game trilogy

[Maggle]

4 hours ago, Redneckerz said:

I was not making that statement indeed, so i am not sure why you chose me as the recipent of your disagreement.

You responded. To a point that evidently you don't seem to disagree with, but you misinterpreted it massively. I tried to patiently explain the point i was trying to make multiple times but you're still not understanding. So for one final time:

I did not say old games aren't or cannot be technically impressive either through graphics, physics, detail, or mechanical depth. What I also didn't say is that retro games aren't impressive on any level. I didn't say that. What I did say is they generally aren't technically impressive compared to games made nowadays, (Doom 3 and Half-Life 2 came out nearly 17 years ago. So, not recent.) so saying that a game is "nothing special nowadays" is a moot point because you can say that about basically anything. That's it. Can we move on, now?

[Redneckerz]

1 hour ago, Maggle said:

You responded

And that right there was the crime.

Quote

To a point that evidently you don't seem to disagree with, but you misinterpreted it massively. I tried to patiently explain the point i was trying to make multiple times but you're still not understanding.

Still don't get it, but ill appreciate your willingness to explain, no mattee how often i read your comment however.

Quote

What I did say is they generally aren't technically impressive compared to games made nowadays, (Doom 3 and Half-Life 2 came out nearly 17 years ago.

I guess this point was confusing because it is so gleefully obvious. I do have to stress i was not making a direct comparison with a 2004 game and, say, a 2021 one.

Quote

so saying that a game is "nothing special nowadays" is a moot point because you can say that about basically anything. That's it. Can we move on, now?

You know, i did literally not say what is under the brackets, and the person you ushered that first to, was to Spooner. 

 

Heck, the person who said those exact words, was the OP.

 

Fwiw that's why i got confused.

Edited August 12, 2021 by Redneckerz

[Liberation]

Can we all cool off a bit please, otherwise the thread will be locked.

[D4NUK1]

3 hours ago, Alfonso said:

Old school fps are the pinnacle of the genre.

Half Life and FEAR can't even compete.

Open ended sandbox gameplay will be always superior than linear fps garbage.

Need confirmation* 
 

2 hours ago, The Strife Commando said:

Was Fear revolutionary or evolutionary to begin with?

I'm sure it was neither revolutionary nor evolutionary.

But it was original. Let's take a look at some game of the same year.
 

Spoiler

Warsow

Brothers in Arms: Road to Hill 30

Star Wars: Republic Commando

Combat Arms: Reloaded

TimeSplitters: Future Perfect

Doom 3: Resurrection of Evil

SWAT 4 Irrational Games

Area 51

Boiling Point: Road to Hell

Medal of Honor: European Assault

Battlefield 2

Tom Clancy's Rainbow Six: Lockdown

Day of Defeat: Source

Brothers in Arms: Earned in Blood

Serious Sam II

F.E.A.R.

Land of the Dead: Road to Fiddler's 

Quake 4

Call of Cthulhu: Dark Corners of the Earth

Vietcong 2

Call of Duty 2

Far Cry: Instincts

Starship Troopers

Call of Duty 2: Big Red One

Star Wars: Battlefront II

Perfect Dark Zero

The Stalin Subway

2006

Black

Tom Clancy's Ghost Recon Advanced Warfighter

Red Orchestra: Ostfront 41-45

SiN Episodes

Urban Chaos: Riot Response

Half-Life 2: Episode One

Call of Juarez

Tom Clancy's Rainbow Six: Vegas

Battlefield 2142

Medal of Honor: Vanguard

You Are Empty

Call of Duty 3

ARMA: Armed Assault

Red Steel

 

I'm only highlighting the ones that are still relevant or talked (including their sequels, for that I'm counting CoD, Half Life and Battlefield.). But for F.E.A.R, being at 16 years old, being still talked, and used of inspirations of many games. Says too much of how they nailed the style of game and flow of this style of game, that even their sequels make it (I'm a fan of Fear 2, but falls short for their level design and how many tactics of the first game it's not working)

Maybe was not evolutionary in a year plagued by online console type of shooters, but it's the basic of some newer games to come.

[leodoom85]

Quote

F.E.A.R is a very overrated video game trilogy

Haven't played it and probably...knowing me...that I won't play it, not because I don't like or blatantly hate it but because my interest for videogames are fading away...

 

One thing that I can say, however, is that every franchise or a specific game has a subjective taste.

Wanna label it as overrated? Sure thing, it's a valid opinion as long as if it doesn't fall into a chain of hate. Same if anyone find anything underrated.

And...what I saw from some gameplays, it seems fun to play.

[roadworx]

4 hours ago, The Strife Commando said:

Was Fear revolutionary or evolutionary to begin with?

according to wikipedia, it was the first game to use a certain technique in enemy ai that's now become the standard, so yes

[Rudolph]

58 minutes ago, roadworx said:

according to Wikipedia, it was the first game to use a certain technique in enemy ai that's now become the standard, so yes

The Half-Life 1's Marine AI did not use a similar technique?

[A Nobody]

2 hours ago, leodoom85 said:

not because I don't like or blatantly hate it but because my interest for videogames are fading away...

A real shame.

[hybridial]

13 hours ago, Maggle said:

These games were nowhere near as non-linear as some people seem to think they are. With the exception of something like Hexen which has hubworlds, level progression was always fairly straight forward. Sure, there would be a branching path here and there, secrets to find, the occasional moment when you'd have to backtrack a bit, but for the most part these are point A - point b games. Look at Hangar. Can you seriously tell me that level is suddenly "non-linear" because you can push a button at the beginning that opens the window and takes you a path that ultimately takes you to the same exact place anyway? Even something like Wolf 3d which is a series of mazes isn't really "non-linear", and definitely isn't open-ended. Your straight-forward path from beginning to end being confusing and having a shit-ton of deteurs and taking a long time doesn't suddenly make it non-linear. It's semi-linear at best.

 

I wanted to have a think about my response to this, but I agree generally describing the old FPS style as a sandbox or open world is incorrect, that's not what they actually were.

 

But they were open to a degree, and they were utilised in more organic fashion as spaces. Backtracking with new encounters were a thing, multiple paths of progression were a thing, and enemies that could move and follow you around the map were a thing. Also Doom in general, has been proven to be a game experience defined by its level design. There is such a difference between what an amateur might do and what someone who really knows the gameplay might do. This is what I believe is the something special about that era of the FPS genre that is both addictive, and makes those far more replayable than the later era of FPS games. Which I frankly felt had no replay value at all. Granted, not just a problem in the FPS space, but I felt it the worst with them. They often felt downright oppressive with the lack of open design, it's just move from one shooting gallery to the next, and FEAR as I've said is pretty bad for that given how boring the locales are. It's "level design" is just a term for what was actually setpiece design. Individual room layouts made to make the combat operate the way as intended. And really after a while it's pretty boring. 

 

My attitude even applies to Doom Eternal, which I liked, I thought in terms of raw action its great, but the replay value isn't quite there for me and the gameplay is too complex I think to encourage casual pick up and play. 

[Alfonso]

Yeah there is a reason why no nostalgia for 00's shooters exist unlike old school fps.

Level design sucked.

[Maggle]

8 hours ago, hybridial said:

 

I wanted to have a think about my response to this, but I agree generally describing the old FPS style as a sandbox or open world is incorrect, that's not what they actually were.

 

But they were open to a degree, and they were utilised in more organic fashion as spaces. Backtracking with new encounters were a thing, multiple paths of progression were a thing, and enemies that could move and follow you around the map were a thing. Also Doom in general, has been proven to be a game experience defined by its level design. There is such a difference between what an amateur might do and what someone who really knows the gameplay might do. This is what I believe is the something special about that era of the FPS genre that is both addictive, and makes those far more replayable than the later era of FPS games. Which I frankly felt had no replay value at all. Granted, not just a problem in the FPS space, but I felt it the worst with them. They often felt downright oppressive with the lack of open design, it's just move from one shooting gallery to the next, and FEAR as I've said is pretty bad for that given how boring the locales are. It's "level design" is just a term for what was actually setpiece design. Individual room layouts made to make the combat operate the way as intended. And really after a while it's pretty boring. 

 

My attitude even applies to Doom Eternal, which I liked, I thought in terms of raw action its great, but the replay value isn't quite there for me and the gameplay is too complex I think to encourage casual pick up and play. 

"Openness to a degree" still just means semi-linear, because for the most part you are taking roughly the same path every time even if it deviates a bit. Alternate pathways and secrets can contribute to making the game feel fresh on multiple playthroughs, but that doesn't make it non-linear. I'm not really sure what you mean by "enemies that could move and follow you around the map". This sounds like pretty basic pathfinding, which pretty much every game had at the time and every game has now, and I don't see what it has to do with linearity in the game's level design. And I reject the notion that backtracking automatically makes a game less linear. If I took the entirety of Bioshock Infinite, changed nothing about its level design but just locked half the doors in the game and made the player find a key or switch to open it, that doesn't suddenly make the game less linear. It does pad the hell out of the game's length, though. Key and switch hunts generally aren't my favorite level design approach.

 

Secondly, non-linearity isn't automatically good and linearity automatically bad. A game like FEAR may be a series of arena fights with corridors connecting them, but they're good arena fights so i don't see the problem. It's good at what it does. A game like Redneck Rampage may be fairly non-linear, but not in anyway that i feel works in its favor. Every level is a long, drawn out trial-and-error key hunt with no focus or sense of direction whatsoever. Every single level in that game would take the average player 20+ mins on a first playthrough. That's a game where non-linearity wasn't done right. 

[Jello]

20 hours ago, Rudolph said:

The Half-Life 1's Marine AI did not use a similar technique?

I haven't really taken the time to examine FEARS AI, but it does seem similar. Half-Life used a squad AI, where one person was designated as the Squad Leader, and the individual grunts would be assigned to that squad. The Squad Leader can issue commands such as "Suppressing fire" "Fall back" "Attack" "Retreat" "Flank him". Once the Squad Leader is dead, they basically do their own thing, there's no real direction to it. Which is really neat. They'll flank, fall back, attack, but it's the individual H-Grunt making those decisions based on their health. If they're low on health, they'll fall back and toss more grenades, high on health, they'll attack.

 

But once the Squad Leader is dead, they become individual units; it really was a neat system they used in Half-Life. It also used node points for wayfinding, primarily for the Grunts. So when making a level, you could place specific nodes for pathfinding, and the Grunt's AI would make them use them as stopping points. So if you wanted the Grunts to look for cover behind this specific object, put a waypoint there. If you want a zombie to go to a specific location, put a target waypoint and assign the zombie to that location. It's amazing what they managed to do as far as scripting with the Quake engine.

 

But it sounds like FEAR was similar as far as Squad dynamics, although from what I've read soldiers can become part of other Squads once their leader is dead in FEAR, which wasn't possible in Half-Life. Once the leader was dead, they couldn't become part of another Squad, they acted independently. 

 

And yes, I still think FEAR and FEAR 2 are great games, Monolith had a really good history of making fantastic games. They made Blood, NOLF one and two, and Condemned. I will give them a pass forever.

[Rudolph]

Do not forget about Aliens Versus Predator 2 and Tron 2.0!

 

I wonder what they are up to now. After Condemned 2: Bloodshot, I remember them making a Batman-themed Team Fortress 2 clone, followed by the two "Middle-Earth: Shadow of" games, and then nothing.

 

9 minutes ago, Jello said:

I haven't really taken the time to examine FEARS AI, but it does seem similar. Half-Life used a squad AI, where one person was designated as the Squad Leader, and the individual grunts would be assigned to that squad. The Squad Leader can issue commands such as "Suppressing fire" "Fall back" "Attack" "Retreat" "Flank him". Once the Squad Leader is dead, they basically do their own thing, there's no real direction to it. Which is really neat. They'll flank, fall back, attack, but it's the individual H-Grunt making those decisions based on their health. If they're low on health, they'll fall back and toss more grenades, high on health, they'll attack.

Yeah, I asked because I remember them barking orders, but I was not sure if it was just there for flavour or if it involved actual tactics.

Edited August 13, 2021 by Rudolph

[Jello]

23 minutes ago, Rudolph said:

Do not forget about Aliens Versus Predator 2 and Tron 2.0!

 

I wonder what they are up to now. After Condemned 2: Bloodshot, I remember them making a Batman-themed Team Fortress 2 clone, followed by the two "Middle-Earth: Shadow of" games, and then nothing.

 

Yeah, I asked because I remember them barking orders, but I was not sure if it was just there for flavour or if it involved actual tactics.

The Squad Leaders did actually order the Grunts. I didn't find that out until I started making levels for Half-Life, and noticed a "Squad Leader" check box and delved into it. I believe a five man squad was the most you could make, one leader, and four grunts, but I'd have to double check that.

 

Well, and the Houndeyes used the same Squad mechanic as well. There was one assigned as squad leader, and their attack was more powerful when grouped around a squad leader. It was the one standing up and looking around while the rest were sleeping.

 

If you killed that one, they would have weakened individual attacks at around 10-15%, but all of them together could do up to 75%.

Edited August 13, 2021 by Jello

[roadworx]

20 hours ago, Rudolph said:

The Half-Life 1's Marine AI did not use a similar technique?

apparently not

 

"F.E.A.R is notable as the first game to use the popular "GOAP", "Goal Oriented Action Planning" technique in its AI system. GOAP is a technique that allows the NPC enemies to move beyond simply reacting to the player, to actually planning its goal of defeating the player"

[Jello]

12 minutes ago, roadworx said:

apparently not

 

"F.E.A.R is notable as the first game to use the popular "GOAP", "Goal Oriented Action Planning" technique in its AI system. GOAP is a technique that allows the NPC enemies to move beyond simply reacting to the player, to actually planning its goal of defeating the player"

I suppose that really showed itself in Shadows of Mordor. I keep meaning to go back to that game, but I've only put three hours into. It seem like a really interesting AI system though.

 

I've had a few low level orcs come back and piss on my boots because I didn't kill them hard enough. My hat is off to Monolith if they created this progressive, persistent, AI that dates back to FEAR.

 

[Rudolph]

26 minutes ago, roadworx said:

apparently not

 

"F.E.A.R is notable as the first game to use the popular "GOAP", "Goal Oriented Action Planning" technique in its AI system. GOAP is a technique that allows the NPC enemies to move beyond simply reacting to the player, to actually planning its goal of defeating the player"

I must say, it really does not feel like it. Maybe it is because of the Slow-Mo mechanic and the ability to carry many medikits, but I do not remember fighting Replica soldiers being any harder than fighting HECU Marines in Half-Life. I played the game on the highest difficulty setting and the hardest fights I had were the ones where enemies had instakill weapons.

 

I wonder if it would become more apparent if I were to play without Slow-Mo or Medikits.

[roadworx]

1 minute ago, Rudolph said:

I must say, it really does not feel like it. Maybe it is because of the Slow-Mo mechanic

it probably is. whenever i've played it i had a bad habit of forgetting that bullet time was a thing, so i didn't use it too often. trust me, playing without it is hard af lol (not that i'm complaining!!)

[Murdoch]

6 hours ago, Alfonso said:

Yeah there is a reason why no nostalgia for 00's shooters exist unlike old school fps.

Level design sucked.

 

For every 90s shooter remembered fondly plenty more were forgotten or didn't reach the heights of Doom etc. Plenty of people look back on some 00s shooters fondly. You just dont see it so much due to the circles you travel in. Your opinion is just that. Opinion. Not fact.

[Rudolph]

43 minutes ago, roadworx said:

it probably is. whenever i've played it i had a bad habit of forgetting that bullet time was a thing, so i didn't use it too often. trust me, playing without it is hard af lol (not that i'm complaining!!)

Then again, a game does not need strong AI to be difficult: I remember the weapons hitting hard and fast, so it may be hard to observe the AI doing its thing. I guess that is the whole dilemma with artificial intelligence in video games.

[TheMagicMushroomMan]

1 hour ago, Murdoch said:

 

For every 90s shooter remembered fondly plenty more were forgotten or didn't reach the heights of Doom etc. Plenty of people look back on some 00s shooters fondly. You just dont see it so much due to the circles you travel in. Your opinion is just that. Opinion. Not fact.

I have to agree with Murdock, Alfonso. There Is plenty of nostalgia for stuff like FEAR, Deus Ex, Bioshock, HL2, Timesplitters, RTCW and even (maybe especially) cult console shooters like Black. There is even nostalgia for old Call of Duty games that are pretty much exactly like the Call of Duty games released today.

 

I think you just don't hear about it as much because none of those games have huge modding scenes. But in a way, this only fuels nostalgia further. I don't really have "nostalgia" for DOOM because it's still alive via the community. Once a game dies, people will start to miss it.

 

If an old game/franchise you like happens to die, follow this guide:

 

1- Talk about it on an internet forum. Modern developers care about your brand loyalty.

 

2- Amass some cronies with jingling pockets. Send them to reddit and have them make posts like "x game was my childhood I'd give anything to see a new one/remake".

 

3- After gathering at least 10,000,000 cronies, bring them to The Altar of Forgotton IPs, located in a hidden Wisconsin villa. They will show their willingness to part with $60.00+tax+microtransactions. The video game gods will hear their call.

 

4- Success! If you followed the steps listed above, the developer you prayed to will partner with Epic and your beloved franchise will get some representation in the form of a rad skin for Fortnite! Or maybe Fall Guys, if that's still a thing!

[OliveTree]

It's not exactly a secret that I'm orders of magnitude more predisposed to like a piece of media than I am to actively dislike it. With that being said, I played FEAR 1 and 2 + their expansions when I was 17 and although I have flirted with the idea, I've never had much of a drive to replay any of them. But I liked FEAR 1 a lot and had a respectable time with 2.

 

At the risk of triggering the fight or flight response of particular doomers, I sincerely think (and thought) Doom 3 is a better action-horror shooter than either FEAR game. Of course, my opinion, FEAR 1 is VASTLY superior to Doom 3 on a pure action front, but the attempts at atmosphere (imo) don't just fail, they compromise the engagement of the entire experience and its tone. You aren't exactly riding a tide of uncertainty, panic and vulnerability contrasted by escalating empowerment and badassery in FEAR 1, as you are in better horror/action blends (Dead Space, The Evil Within, Doom 3, Resident Evil 4, etc). I would say even Quake 1 is better at that.

 

You start and end as a badass and at every turn along the way you remain a badass. You never stop feeling like that either, even with figurative plastic skeletons in the rafters like a vintage showing of House on Haunted Hill.

I thought FEAR 2 was a lot creepier overall but the action was also worse. That said, even if the peaks of quality were far lower than in the first game, they were also less abrupt to me. I didn't feel like I was being asked to turn my brain off for portions of FEAR 2 like I found myself having to do with FEAR 1. Instead I had to turn my brain off for the entire campaign, which in some respects is preferable. The climactic mental projection set against your physical body being r*ped by a ghost didn't exactly leave me with a good taste in my mouth, though.

 

The word "overrated" also kind of leaves a weird taste in my mouth, and I find I rarely have any use for it. I genuinely don't find media criticism of this find helpful, even if I've indulged in it here. With the active participation of art, to me, it's more valuable and interesting to see what it says or does and how, to listen earnestly and have a wide bar for acceptance. I'm not one of the people who thinks every, or even most, media has some kind of profound social or philosophical underpinning. But I don't think dissecting art like we do broken cars confronts what's actually significant about art in the first place. I don't think art has "worth" assigned to it by its "proficiency" or something. It's all in all a very bizarre, faux-academic, consumerist mindset, imo, and a lot of people on the internet seem very obsessed with it.

 

But I'm straying from the topic at hand, and while I've tried to explain my perspective on all of that before, nobody ever seems to follow me, so I'm probably just being pretentious lol

 

FEAR 1 and 2 are both pretty good imo, all in all. They kind of came out around that whole Condemned Criminal Origins era of console horror shooters which really captivated the market for a hot second. I think Dead Space came out around the same time too. I think FEAR's impact on the horror genre was never as profound as those titles, but the reactive, aggressive AI certainly has, and for its sort of degraded novelty, FEAR 2 is still an amusing rollercoaster ride with its own challenge as well.

 

FEAR 3 is garbage, lmfao. Even I dont have anything to say on that subject. Holy cow-

[Rudolph]

1 hour ago, OliveTree said:

You start and end as a badass and at every turn along the way you remain a badass. You never stop feeling like that either, even with figurative plastic skeletons in the rafters like a vintage showing of House on Haunted Hill.

I would not say you feel as a badass so much as just a passive observer. Sure, you will kick ass during action scenes, but there seems to be an infinite supply of Replica soldiers, so killing them does not feel like much of an accomplishment. Your character does not talk and has no input whatsoever on the story (apart from killing Paxton Fettel near the end, but he gets resurrected the next expansion or game anyway, so who cares), and thus nothing you do as the player ultimately matters.

 

Both Gordon Freeman and the Doom Marine had a lot more agency in comparison.

Edited August 14, 2021 by Rudolph

[Tetzlaff]

8 hours ago, Maggle said:

"Openness to a degree" still just means semi-linear, because for the most part you are taking roughly the same path every time even if it deviates a bit. Alternate pathways and secrets can contribute to making the game feel fresh on multiple playthroughs, but that doesn't make it non-linear.

 

Maybe we should differentiate between non-linear leveldesign and non-linear game design (multiple alternate story progressions etc) on a higher level? Alternate paths and optional areas (secret or not) are the core elements of non-linear leveldesign. It allows you to have a different experience on multiple playthroughs.

 

It's not just "semi-linear". It makes a huge difference if you have a rigidly linear level where you only can travel a pre-defined path (practically a tunnel or one long zigzagging corridor) or if you have choices.

[Alfonso]

12 hours ago, Tetzlaff said:

 

Maybe we should differentiate between non-linear leveldesign and non-linear game design (multiple alternate story progressions etc) on a higher level? Alternate paths and optional areas (secret or not) are the core elements of non-linear leveldesign. It allows you to have a different experience on multiple playthroughs.

 

It's not just "semi-linear". It makes a huge difference if you have a rigidly linear level where you only can travel a pre-defined path (practically a tunnel or one long zigzagging corridor) or if you have choices.

This, it's sad that people praise Half Life, COD, Halo or FEAR as classics when they ruined the genre.

[[McD] James]

Oh noes, we can't play boomer shooters anymore. 

[Mr. Freeze]

I'm glad COD exists and shook up the FPS formula. In fact I might buy the next one just to spite you people. Already got Battlefield 2042 preordered too. 

 

The fact of the matter is, these are the popular games at the moment for a reason. They're fun, engaging, have many modes of play and are casual enough to pull in the essential demographic of 18 to 25 year old men. Not a single boomer shooter does that in 2021, not on a large scale. And Strafe, Dusk, Ion Transphobe, Ultrakill etc etc make zero mark in the gaming sphere. They sell their 2000 copies and that's it. There's no room for growth in a dead zone, so why would people make more? 

Edited August 14, 2021 by Mr. Freeze

[D4NUK1]

11 minutes ago, Mr. Freeze said:

I'm glad COD exists and shook up the FPS formula. In fact I might buy the next one just to spite you people. Already got Battlefield 2042 preordered too. 

Cod better, 1 vs 1 me on rust-

PD: I like more of the CoD Gameplay, but Battlefield 2042 feels really great, but need to try fist.

[Maggle]

"Non-linear level design is when there's locked doors and you have to backtrack sometimes. Unlike those shitty modern games where all you do is walk in a straight line and literally nothing happens!"

 

Some people in this thread, apparently.

[Liberation]

3 hours ago, Alfonso said:

This, it's sad that people praise Half Life, COD, Halo or FEAR as classics when they ruined the genre.

 

The only thing that is sad, is that you can't change the record.

 

If you don't like those games, fine. But stop going on about it.