IllegalPaladin said:
The AI wasn't too bad, but you were in small and enclosed areas nearly 90% of the game. As for the story, it wasn't that great especially because you don't even know who you're playing as. Yes, I know the playable character is part of the story, but I think it really fails in the 'you are that character' thing. Honestly, I think the Half-Life approach would have been better so that the F.E.A.R pointman at least had a name and a face. Most of the delivery of the story was just boring to be quite honest. Lastly for the graphics, yes, they were indeed nice for their time. That doesn't excuse the fact that the environments feel repetative as you're going through the game, and you're going through enclosed areas so there isn't a sense of scale. At least unlike Doom 3, there aren't enemies at every corner in the room so dark rooms isn't as annoying. |
Comparing visals of doom3/quake 4 to fear is fine...but gunplay of FEAR compared to those 2 games is not even in the same league.
As far as the small closed ad repetitive environments, the game did not have a large budget at the time. They did the best they could with the resources they had. The game engine was internally developed and it rivals Half Life 2's engine and sound FX were amazing as well. they fell short on variety of environments for sure...but the awesome gunplay made up for it.
Online multiplayer was good too...but it could be improved quite a bit since Halo 3 came out.