Fear 3 Review
- Thread starter Slycne
- Start date
Well obviously that's PR, they have to say it's scary when the question is worded like that. Like I said, it should lose points for trying to be scary when it isn't, but reviewers are overwhelmingly focused on that aspect when there's also terrific gunplay not being given enough credit. I never said it was a minor feature, but it is less significant than the game's core mechanic.Slycne said:
It's difficult to hype up a firefight with PR, it's easy to advertise horror. I feel that most reviewers were biased by FEAR 3's marketing to the point where 75% of every review is dedicated to how the game lacking in scares. Yeah it didn't quite live up to it's marketing, but can't we get beyond that at least a little and review the whole game?
The first F.E.A.R. game (and to a somewhat lesser extent the second) did a MUCH better job at scaring me than this one, gameplay was good, but for a game with a name like this it didn't scare me much.
Want a really scary game? Check out Amnesia: The Dark Descent.
Want a really scary game? Check out Amnesia: The Dark Descent.
Alright but how is "we wanted to recreate the feel of the tea house scene in Hard Boiled" any less PR speak?Hobonicus said:
There's a balance too it all though. On the flip side, I don't think it's fair to ignore portions of a game for a review either. For example, there were comments about one of the latest sonic games that if you just ignored all the werehog levels then it was at least 7-9/10 or Final Fantasy XIII gets good after 20 hours in.
There are also plenty of games are sold on their action alone, and I have every confidence that the devs could successfully market a mostly action based FPS with some horror elements. They still choose to push horror as being a major focus, so people are understandably dinging them a little. All told the game is still reviewing fairly well. I'd certainly recommended it, but I want people to know what they are getting.
That's kind of the gist I picked up from the written review, and the video pretty well stamped it in gold. Which is a pity, because the first FEAR did a great job with tension (not so much with actual fear, but hey) and the second one at least had its moments. Also, mandatory-for-all-intents co-op does not sit well with me (see: Resident Evil 5).Nurb said:
lol, dead space isnt scary. it was in the first 2 levels but after that it was over. you saw the monsters already from a distance. cant say thats scary. nothing surprised me or created a tense atmosphere. the sound was good though. always hear here and there something (if you have a surround sound system).Subject7 said:I have a confession to make. I'm actually grateful that they toned down the horror cause I can't stand being constantly tense. Heck the only reason I played Dead Space was because I'd already seen a walkthrough of it on youtube.
Shameful I know
It's not mandatory-for-all intents like RE5. The game never makes you pause at a door, call your AI partner to come help, have her get stuck on a rock and make you restart checkpoint. And then force you to manage inventories together and shit.The Rogue Wolf said:
It's just STRONGLY encouraged.
Why is Alma portrayed as this lustful seductress in this game promo, honestly brutal psychosis aside such things induce a boner and urge to use said boner rather than go off to kill her
honestly, did anyone ever actually find any of the fear games scary? being shocked every now and then and being scared are two very different things, and fear has always relied on shock scares. also, most of the scares required you to be looking in the right place at the right time, and usually i wasnt. ive never been crazy about the fear series but at the end of the day, they are one of few pc shooters that actually has a single player campaign with a decent length, and for that reason ill probably get this.
one question though, they said its meant to be played co-op. has anyone played it single player? i prefer to play shooters single player and would like to know if its still fun even if youre just playing it by yourself
one question though, they said its meant to be played co-op. has anyone played it single player? i prefer to play shooters single player and would like to know if its still fun even if youre just playing it by yourself
Except the issue I see with that solution is that the bullet time causes the enemies to move slower, grenades, bullets (and the contrails), seeing the point man move faster wouldn't account for that....00slash00 said:
Anyone who's played the game care to shed a little light on the matter?
In fairness, FEAR 2 was a good 12-14 hours. I felt ripped off by the FEAR 3 campaign too.LordOfInsanity said:
They really should have kept this exclusive to the co-op. Or just not had fucking co-op at all. I loved the first two games but felt very let down by this one.GrimSheeper said:
Goddamn multiplayer craze ruining SP games
FEAR3 is getting alot of flack for not being so scary...but I dont really think it wants to anymore. I mean, by now you know whats up, AND you are not only playing as super soldier Pointman, who certainly is not afraid at all, but also his ghost brother who was 50% of the scares in FEAR1. How scary can a game be when YOU are the scary?
Though, FEAR also follows a scary/action/scary/action formula, so if you aint fighting in epic battles, you're watching for Alma cameos. (My favorite being on the moving sidewalk in the airport)
Though, FEAR also follows a scary/action/scary/action formula, so if you aint fighting in epic battles, you're watching for Alma cameos. (My favorite being on the moving sidewalk in the airport)