More F.E.A.R

Rasczak

Distinguished Member
Monolith have announced that they are developing a sequel to F.E.A.R for PCs and "next generation consoles":

Monolith has confirmed it's working on F.E.A.R. sequels for PC and "next-generation consoles", but for one reason or another they won't be called F.E.A.R. No release date or publisher info has been released yet.

Last year's PC FPS, published by Vivendi, was a big critical success - largely thanks to some wonderful technical accomplishments, slow-motion work and brilliant enemy AI - so it's good news we'll be getting some more, but what's going on with the name?

Well, as you may remember, Monolith was swallowed up by Warner Bros. Interactive Entertainment some time ago, and although that didn't affect its deal with Vivendi for F.E.A.R., the question of follow-ups is obviously a different matter - and Vivendi owns the name.

[snip]

As to the content of Monolith's titles - Ryan told GameSpot that the firms believe "PC needs to be a focus". "We believe that next-gen will also be awesome, but again, it has some differences and this is the approach that we're going to try." In other words, the PC version will be the flagship - similar, perhaps, to the way Activision developed separate versions of Call of Duty 2 for current and next-generation formats.

We'll let you know more about It's-not-called-F.E.A.R. as soon as we do.

The last bit is quite interesting...it's good to see that the next F.E.A.R will push the technical bar rather than being constrained by multi-platform development.

Source:
http://www.eurogamer.net/article.php?article_id=63007
 

CAS FAN

Distinguished Member
That is good to hear. The PC and consoles have different requirements and whilst the likes of COD2 & Quake 4 were just ported over to the 360 it's good to see that they will actually be developing separate versions for PC & Consoles for future games. I guess this follows along the lines of say PC Farcry and the console "Instincts" franchise. There are strengths to each type of platform and it's good when developers utilise the relevant strengths.
 

Tejstar

Distinguished Member
This is good news, I only played the demo of FEAR but liked what I saw. The only reason I didn't buy it is that my pc is just too old to do it justice.

Therefore the move to console is welcome. :)
 

Pete Delaney

Well-known Member
I have to say that this is a great game....as a 40+yrs gamer I am still proud to be a big kid and I'm delighted that the days of 'ping-pong' on a black and white telly are well and truly over. My kids are so lucky to be growing up in the middle of the pc technology revolution:eek:
 
I hated F.E.A.R for the fact that the framerate made it unplayable even on the most powerfull Rig at 1024*768, I mean my system is farely decent Dual Core P4 3GHZ, RAdeon X850XT, 1 GB DDR2667 and i'm playing at 1024*768 with 4*AA and 8*AF and everything set to high except soft shadows, but it's barely playable...whatever it's down to made the game a let down in my opinion..played it for 10 minutes then gave up, couldn't even Aim the gun withoout it going in all direction when shooting...I mean the resolution is not that high and these days AA is a must...and the quality of the graphics compared to the performance of the game was utter crap...
 

semiskimmed

Distinguished Member
i thought it was utter crap tbh. far too boring and linear.
looked pretty good though.
 

wormvortex

Member
meansizzler said:
I hated F.E.A.R for the fact that the framerate made it unplayable even on the most powerfull Rig at 1024*768, I mean my system is farely decent Dual Core P4 3GHZ, RAdeon X850XT, 1 GB DDR2667 and i'm playing at 1024*768 with 4*AA and 8*AF and everything set to high except soft shadows, but it's barely playable...whatever it's down to made the game a let down in my opinion..played it for 10 minutes then gave up, couldn't even Aim the gun withoout it going in all direction when shooting...I mean the resolution is not that high and these days AA is a must...and the quality of the graphics compared to the performance of the game was utter crap...


I had everything maxed and my average framerate was above 40, i had no problems at all with the game, it looked great on my pc heres a shot:

 
L

Logitek

Guest
F.E.A.R. for PC isn't designed well at all. It is up there for one of the biggest systems hogs out there. It also seems like the game punishes you for putting it on low or medium with the features turned down. The game is actually not that fun if you don't have all the cool effects and it looks horrible. I played the game on my friends rig..Sli 7800 GTX 256mb, P4 3.6 ghz and 2 gb ram and the game is amazing. The whole game is about gun fights with particles and stuff flying everywhere, if your PC can't handle all of that, than your not getting even near the full experience.
 
wormvortex1337 said:
I had everything maxed and my average framerate was above 40, i had no problems at all with the game, it looked great on my pc URL]

40 is not acceptable, need at least 60....
 

wormvortex

Member
meansizzler said:
40 is not acceptable, need at least 60....

no u dont, 30 is acceptable, even less is fine unless your in a heated battle. As long as the game doesn't become laggy the fps means **** all. and i said above 40 not bang on 40!

F.E.A.R Looks terrible without the settings high, my mate borrowed mine and i thought i'd lent him Doom1 by mistake
 

semiskimmed

Distinguished Member
fps seems to be a very subjective topic.
someone can be very happy with 30fps, others it takes 60+ to be happy.
ive also read that the human eye cant see any difference once you get over 40 and ive also read that we cant see any differences over 60. so i think even the scientist bods have there own beliefs on it.
 

mercapto

Standard Member
meansizzler said:
I hated F.E.A.R for the fact that the framerate made it unplayable even on the most powerfull Rig at 1024*768, I mean my system is farely decent Dual Core P4 3GHZ, RAdeon X850XT, 1 GB DDR2667 and i'm playing at 1024*768 with 4*AA and 8*AF and everything set to high except soft shadows, but it's barely playable...whatever it's down to made the game a let down in my opinion..played it for 10 minutes then gave up, couldn't even Aim the gun withoout it going in all direction when shooting...I mean the resolution is not that high and these days AA is a must...and the quality of the graphics compared to the performance of the game was utter crap...


Isn't 1GB memory a bit low for that config ? Your "Powerfull Rig" seems to kill F.E.A.R. cos of it..., even pentium2 players use more... ;)
 
L

Logitek

Guest
meansizzler said:
even if it runs and 10 FPS?

Yes.

Frames Per Second doesn't soely apply to shooting games, many other types of games do not need high fps for the gameplay. As long as it isnt choppy, which would be the case in a game like F.E.A.R. but...there are alot of other games out there that dont need to be played at over 30 fps, strategy and rpgs for example but it really all come down to the individual I suppose.
 

wormvortex

Member
meansizzler said:
even if it runs and 10 FPS?

its just a number, if it played perfectly at 5fps thats fine. The human eye can't see 60fps anyways so it makes no difference if your running 30 or 60 or 100 as long as the game is running smoothly and not giving that laggy feel
 

CAS FAN

Distinguished Member
meansizzler said:
40 is not acceptable, need at least 60....

Why? Do you avoid all TV broadcasts and cinema showings because they only run at between 25 & 30 FPS?

30FPS is more than adequate for a game, OK it looks a little smoother if running at a higher FPS but the gameplay isn't affected at all.

wormvortex1337 said:
The human eye can't see 60fps anyways so it makes no difference if your running 30 or 60 or 100 as long as the game is running smoothly and not giving that laggy feel

Not true, try playing PGR3 (30FPS) on the 360 and then Ridge Racer 6 (60FPS) on the same said console and tell me there's no difference. 60FPS does look better buy I certainly wouldn't be bothered if a game ran at just 30 or 40. Games are ofen very playable at only 10 - 20 fps and 30 is more than adequate to give a great gaming experience.
 

Synchronicity

Well-known Member
CAS FAN said:
Not true, try playing PGR3 (30FPS) on the 360 and then Ridge Racer 6 (60FPS) on the same said console and tell me there's no difference. .

:confused:

Of course theres a difference,they are 2 completley different games!If you had the same game running at different FPS then that would be a diferent matter.How can you pinpoint that the extra smoothness or whatever it is you say you are seeing is due to the extra FPS?

It is not as simple as the human eye can only see 30 FPS or whatever because smoothness can be dependant on what you are viewing.Far too complicated for me though:zonked:
 

CAS FAN

Distinguished Member
Mr Jason B said:
:confused:

Of course theres a difference,they are 2 completley different games!If you had the same game running at different FPS then that would be a diferent matter.How can you pinpoint that the extra smoothness or whatever it is you say you are seeing is due to the extra FPS?

It is not as simple as the human eye can only see 30 FPS or whatever because smoothness can be dependant on what you are viewing.Far too complicated for me though:zonked:

If them being different games is a problem then just run a PC game at 30fps and a PC game at 60fps (i.e. fiddle with the settings so that the game is running at different FPS). The human eye doesn't view in frames per second, they are a human invention used to convey animation by tricking the eye. The eye is actually very well tricked at just 10fps and the brain fills in the gaps to create the illusion of smooth movement. The more frames there are to start with the less work the brain has to do and the more realistic the effect. The real trick with FPS is to get the get the framerate constant as the brain detects variances in FPS much more than say a slow but constant framerate as being slow.

The eye is easily capable of detecting higher framerates though and if you compare a 60FPS scene to a 30FPS scene then you will be able to tell which is which. Generally the 30FPS mark is regarded as the limit where the eye is pretty much fooled but that doesn't mean that higher FPS rates are not detectable by the human eye.
 

semiskimmed

Distinguished Member
its still all subjective so theres little point in discussing it to be fair as i could be happy at 30 and someone else might only be happy at 60. we all have different sets of eyes with varying ability.
 

CAS FAN

Distinguished Member
semiskimmed said:
its still all subjective so theres little point in discussing it to be fair as i could be happy at 30 and someone else might only be happy at 60. we all have different sets of eyes with varying ability.

Oh indeed, fully agree. I don't mind if a game is 30 or 60 fps as long as it's a decent game and the main thing is a constant framerate. My only point is that you can tell a difference if you compare, but is anyone really that sad?

Enjoy gaming, whether it's running at 30, 40, 50, 60 or whatever fps is my advice.:) Varying and unsteady framerates kill games for me (NFSMW & Full Auto on the 360 are two recent examples) as the illusion is constantly broken and it affects how you react to things in the game.
 

Lord Midas

Novice Member
Rasczak said:
From the Quote:
We'll let you know more about It's-not-called-F.E.A.R. as soon as we do.

This is because the Publisher, Sierra, has the name F.E.A.R as it's copyright. However, Monolith have the game world, characters and engine as their copyright property.

So, we could see a game in the same world with similar characters, etc, but they cannot call it F.E.A.R 2 :eek: . Or F.E.A.R: The Next Scare :eek: or F.E.A.R: Spooky Shenanigans :eek: , etc, etc. :rolleyes:
 

semiskimmed

Distinguished Member
i re installed this today, thinking i was going to give it another go. the visuals have impressed me again, but the gameply is somewhat dissapointing again. the one major gripe ive got with it, is that no matter where you hit the enemies it has little or no effect to putting them down quicker or slower :(
and the constant corridors, argh!!!
 

avanzato

Active Member
I liked the game, even on an old POS computer it still played and looked good.
Once you get used to using Slow-mo the tactics change and the game's very enjoyable. I'm glad they toned down the instant death everytime for headshots.

There are a lot of corridors.

I hope the next version will have some open plan levels even if like HL2 they're actually linear to play.
 
Games that run at 30FPS always run slower than games that run at 60FPS, PGR2/3 run at 30FPS and you can tell cause the controls are slow, they are not as smooth as 60FPS, hence the crappy turning...anyway who played PGR2 knows what a nightmare the handling was, and I put this down to the 30FPS...and who goes to the cinema nowadays, the picture there is pants as well as the sound system..., and FEAR runs like crap at 40FPS it's just so jerky....
 

The latest video from AVForums

Podcast: Trinnov Room Optimiser: A full explanation of Trinnov and its room optimiser technology
Subscribe to our YouTube channel

Latest News

Paradigm launches Founder speaker series
  • By Andy Bassett
  • Published
AVForums Podcast: 3rd March 2021
  • By Phil Hinton
  • Published
Music revenue in U.S. sees vinyl sales overtake CD
  • By Andy Bassett
  • Published
Philips TV to offer Mimi Sound Personalisation
  • By Andy Bassett
  • Published
Disney predicts shorter theatrical release windows
  • By Andy Bassett
  • Published
Support AVForums with Patreon

Top Bottom