anyone given the fear 2 demo ago? i've never played the first one but i was a little underwhelmed to be honest. the graphics dont appear that great. i was running at 1650x1080 4AA and 16AF and they just didn't seem too impressive tbh for a new game. i didn't find it overly scary either like i expected. maybe i need to give it another run through. also does anyone else get random little freezes now and then for a split second? surely a 4870 is enough for this game?
I played the 360 version, I liked FEAR and this one looks cool IMO! I do happen to get chills from this game, never had them with anything else before! Great stuff.
Yeah, played the demo and thought it was ok but the graphics were 'wierd' its like they took a 800x600 image and resized it to fit my 1900x1200 screen res, it appeared grainy? Just like what happens when you go full screen on a low res video. And yes it did appear to freeze every now and then for no reason, (not much was happening on screen). Try the previous games they were cool i thought. Oh i was playing on a 8800gtx with a e6400@3.2ghz on Vista x64.
i felt the same! graphics did appear grainy and not designed for my resolution! maybe driver updates will sort this
I tried it and enjoyed it. I enjoyed the original fear, but the expansions were not so good. I'm looking forward to fear 2. I also had a few random freezes, my guess is it's a bit of a loading zone? And I don't mind the graphics, they look nice. I completely dissagree with the small image being resized comment. It looks sharp and smooth with quality textures, but then with shaders added on top. The grain is an artistic effect, It adds a nice film like quality to it, gives it some fine detail. And the performance was great on my system, don't think it ever dropped bellow the vsync 60fps limit (at 1920x1200 maxed out).
This is what I thought of the first game, it got really hyped up (must have been a slow few months), when I did get my hands on it, it was ok, not that great though. Anyone think FEAR 2 has improved on the first? I really hated how it would be combat or horror and no inbetween.
Played it. It's pretty fun, but I'm kinda disappointed that the gameplay is sooo similar to the original. Not that the gameplay in the original was bad, but it's getting a little repetitive. It looked better but played pretty much the same. With the same old scares to boot. Not sure if I'm gonna go for this one.
->bubsterboo "And I don't mind the graphics, they look nice. I completely dissagree with the small image being resized comment. It looks sharp and smooth with quality textures, but then with shaders added on top. The grain is an artistic effect, It adds a nice film like quality to it, gives it some fine detail." I wasn't saying the the graphics were bad, thats why i used 'wierd' and the upscale video analogy to try and explain what i was seeing. The grainy effect must be this artistic effect you mention, just seems strange to me.... Sorry forum newb, don't know how to quote. Could someone tell me how to??
Heheh, so simple. Was looking for some similar thing after i pressed the reply button... DOH Cheers man
I thought the whole thing was awesome. Well, I played a far as the falling Bus in the subway, and got smushed. It seems to be everything the first game should have been. They've kept the same formula, which for me isn't a problem. Those complaining it's too similar, I'm not sure what you were expecting - the FEAR games hold a precarious niche, if you make them less atmospheric you've got half-life, if you make them more action-oriented you've got max payne. I think the balance can work well - the only problem in the first game was it was too jarring: the transition between 'scary bit' and 'fightey bit' was so clean-cut and obvious they may as well have had signposts. The tone seems more mixed in this game though, with combat merging into the horror bits and vice versa, which is good. The graphics are alright. I think you're spoilt if you complain about them, especially at the pre-release stage. Everyone whined that Crysis was too hard to run, and was all graphical glory and no gameplay. Now we've got a game that just looks 'average' but has good immersion and gameplay. Tradeoffs, y'know. And at least you'll be able to run this game on a moderate machine. I don't think I'll get it, though, for all my enthusiasm. I just don't have the mental endurance to play through an entire game of that, it rips my nerves to shreds, especially now that the two tones of gameplay are merging. You used to be able to just shrug and laugh at the horror bits because they never hurt you in FEAR 1, but now you never get a break - even the ghosts can kill you.
Played it yesterday on the 360 and the graphics have definitely improved, they aren't amazing but definitely good enough for a console I think. Gameplay-wise...what elephant^ said. It was decent, although I did find the mech section a bit meh as well.
in terms graphics, does the flashlight cast shadows when shined on objects now or is it still just a brightness texture from the last fear?
The part where you walk through the smashed cinema screen spooked the hell out of me. I thought it was very good overall.
yea i thought it was good overall. However, i was saddened that there was no nail gun available in the demo. wasn't it fun nailing the soldiers to the wall
I remember the first time I got a head shot with the nail gun and the body was pinned to the wall at the head. I would shoot the legs and he would pivot around the nail. awsome.
I played through it this weekend and i thoroughly enjoyed. I didn't find the grainy textures you guys are talking about. Also my system played pretty much flawlessly even at my monitors native res (2560x1600) which i was pleasently surprised.
It looks like there are some shadows being cast, this is pretty much the best screenshot I could manage: Pretty sure that's max shadow detail, I'll check now...yup max everything, runs silky smooth except for the odd 1sec freeze, anyone else getting that?
