F.E.A.R Review IGN - 8.1

[Grovestreet]

Review (http://uk.ps3.ign.com/articles/782/782476p1.html)
7.0 Presentation
The menus are stylized and the story is interesting, but I could have done without the lengthy load times.
5.5 Graphics
They're not bad, but they're simple. Is this what the next generation is supposed to look like?
9.0 Sound
I haven't been in a slow-motion particle weapon fight yet in real life, but when I am, I hope it sounds this cool.
8.5 Gameplay
It's just fun to play. Leaping over ledges, raining bullets on your enemies and watching them rag doll dance in SloMo is beyond cool.
8.0 Lasting Appeal
If you fall in love with the gameplay, Instant Action mode, online play and leaderboards are going to have you ghostbustin' for a while.
8.1
Impressive OVERALL
(out of 10 / not an average)

5.5 in graphics? What the hell! This is horrible to see the graphics of the PS3 version getting knocked so hard like this. They said the graphics on the PS3 version look very simple with muddy textures. This just proves again how hard it is for devs to squeeze some power from the system. It also suggests that the rumors that PS3's GPU may in fact be inferior to the 360's since we know the Cell is not being fully utilized yet. This puts more demand on the GPU. This could be the result of a lazy port but either way, it's not good that devs are giving the PS3 the scraps while 360 gets the gravy train, this is one sloppy port....shame on the devs.

[Matt]

That's ridiculous, the 360 version gets 9.1 for graphics. Surely there can't be that much difference between the two?!

[Kabbage]

From what I have been reading **Unofficially** the difference is negligible between the GPU's, more shoddy cash in dev work. If Bethesda managed to improve not only the look but the load times of their game, what the hell were these noobs doing :)

[Kabbage]

That's ridiculous, the 360 version gets 9.1 for graphics. Surely there can't be that much difference between the two?! I looked at a screen and it does look well, below average. Especially coming off a fresh game of Resistance.

[Applefiend]

It's a sloppy port, my antique PC with a GPU a quarter the power of RSX and 128MB of video ram can run FEAR much nicer.

5.5/10 for graphics is probably on the money.

[Matt]

So in that case, is 9.1 for the 360 version right?

Here's all the scores for the 360 version:

Presentation - 8.6
Graphics - 9.1
Sound - 9.3
Gameplay - 9.0
Lasting Appeal - 8.2

They're not particularly consistent. I know that there's going to be some differences, but surely things like gameplay, presentation and lasting appeal should be the same? Or am I wrong?

[Applefiend]

Actually I got my FEAR demo disk for 360, I'll tell ya...

[Kabbage]

So in that case, is 9.1 for the 360 version right?

Here's all the scores for the 360 version:

Presentation - 8.6
Graphics - 9.1
Sound - 9.3
Gameplay - 9.0
Lasting Appeal - 8.2

They're not particularly consistent. I know that there's going to be some differences, but surely things like gameplay, presentation and lasting appeal should be the same? Or am I wrong? Nope... presentation took a hit because they somehow managed to worsen the load times, sound and gameplay I dont have the foggiest idea why they are different. Different reviewer I guess.

[Ocelot9]

This is 360s year I guess, I keep seeing crappy ports for the PS3 versions being dished out. I have no doubts it is Dev lazyness but for some reason I sometimes feel like my PS3 will continue down the same road as PS2 and remain graphically inferior to the Xbox brand. C'mon Phil give 360 a good fight!

[VonGak]

Review (http://uk.ps3.ign.com/articles/782/782476p1.html)
It also suggests that the rumors that PS3's GPU may in fact be inferior to the 360's since we know the Cell is not being fully utilized yet. This puts more demand on the GPU. This could be the result of a lazy port but either way, it's not good that devs are giving the PS3 the scraps while 360 gets the gravy train, this is one sloppy port....shame on the devs.

Sorry but that's just rubbish, textures being muddy got nothing to do with CELL or the performance of RSX.
It's about the devs only using the PS3's 256MB GDDR3 RAM for textures and them loading entire level segments into the RAM instead of streaming the data.
By having a unified RAM pool the 360 has more space for textures where as the textures in the PS3 version are compressed at a lower bit-rate to fit on 256MB hence the muddyness (a good dev would have avoided the issue by also using the 256MB XDR RAM and/or texture streaming and/or half the segment loaded into the RAM).

Had it had anything to do with RSX being inferrior then all games would have muddy textures but that's obviously not the case. It's not like CELL handles the texturing in games.

[Applefiend]

At the time on PC FEAR was the shiznit. It had the graphics of Doom III, the physics of half life 2, the AI of ermm... some game with really good AI. :) Not Doom III that's for sure.

No, I wouldn't say that's a 9.1. It doesn't compare to the kind of games you'd give high graphics marks to, Graw, Gears,Lost Planet, which aren't maxxing out a 360 yet as it's still early in the 360s life.

Popped in Doom III under emulation on 360, it compares to FEAR on 360 pretty damn well, and when your XBox game looks nearly as good as your 360 game, 9.1 my butt.

7/10 for graphics on 360.

It's a sloppy port folks, avoid avoid. Pick up the PC version first for next to nothing.

As the man says, you shouldn't use sloppy ports to get an idea of the power of RSX, you should use 1st/2nd party games coded from the ground up for PS3.

[Matt]

I wasn't planning on getting it anyway, I wasn't overly impressed when I played the 360 demo months back. It's just that IGN's reviews piss me off sometimes, no matter how hard I try to ignore them.

[VonGak]

This is 360s year I guess, I keep seeing crappy ports for the PS3 versions being dished out. I have no doubts it is Dev lazyness but for some reason I sometimes feel like my PS3 will continue down the same road as PS2 and remain graphically inferior to the Xbox brand. C'mon Phil give 360 a good fight!

Sorry but Phil is only in charge of SCE WW published games, 3'rd party relastions are a handle by a completely different branch.

But there's no doubt about SCE WW will show what the PS3 really can do and when has PC ports ever been a selling point for Playstation consoles? :)

[Smokey]

crazy crazy times

[Matt]

when has PC ports ever been a selling point for Playstation consoles? :)

Actually that's pretty true. I can't really think of any decent PC ports.

Anybody?

[Kabbage]

This is 360s year I guess, I keep seeing crappy ports for the PS3 versions being dished out. I have no doubts it is Dev lazyness but for some reason I sometimes feel like my PS3 will continue down the same road as PS2 and remain graphically inferior to the Xbox brand. C'mon Phil give 360 a good fight!Inferior :laugh: This is on the devs not the hardware, well somewhat the hardware...but not the fact that it is inferior it is just harder for devs (Especially port happy devs) to get the most out of it. Now when you get devs that actually try (Media Molecule, Insomniac, Ninja Theory, Naughty Dog, Evolution, ect.) you start to see what the system is capable of even early on.

[woundingchaney]

Moving from pc to PS3 is going to be more problematic then moving from pc to 360 this is a give in (although not in all circumstances really looking to see how well UT fairs on the PS3). Although everything I can see and have seen on the net about the title the ports to consoles are near identicle. For whatever reason this one scored less than the 360 version, be it some slight game issues, different reviewers or the time span between releases etc.

Its not as simple as saying well other devs are doing this or they can use the hardware in this way or that. Lets not forget that while both the RSX and Xenos are competent cards in their respective consoles they fall short in comparison to pc gpus in many areas (clocks, rops, etc). In the end this game was tailored around the pc and porting to any console is not going to be a good show for the capabilities of the console.

This is a 2005 pc game and most likely shouldnt be on anyones "radar", unless of course they simply are bored.

[VG Aficionado]

Sorry but that's just rubbish, textures being muddy got nothing to do with CELL or the performance of RSX. It's about the devs only using the PS3's 256MB GDDR3 RAM for textures and them loading entire level segments into the RAM instead of streaming the data.

Had it had anything to do with RSX being inferrior then all games would have muddy textures but that's obviously not the case. It's not like CELL handles the texturing in games.

As the man says, you shouldn't use sloppy ports to get an idea of the power of RSX, you should use 1st/2nd party games coded from the ground up for PS3.Thank PSINext for some common sense in this thread.

F.E.A.R. on PS3 is a must don't-buy. It should have a sticker on the case with the following message: "Warning: You're about to waste your money. Shouldn't you be getting another game?"

[dnpmakkah]

The difference in graphics are not THAT huge. If you go to gamevideos.com they have an HD comparison video of the two and honestly I don't see a differnce of 3.6 in quality.

The only reason I can see it is being rated that much lower than it's 360 counterpart is if a person had tremendous expecations for the PS3 and none whatsoever for the 360. That rating is even more silly then the 2 point knock Splinter PS3 got in the sound department....sound. Yes I actually said sound department.

This sort of stuf is absolute FUD in my opinion. Maybe...maybe the graphics aren't as good as the 360 verison but is it that much worse? And the reason why I think it's FUD most of the time is because they always seem to gear the reviews into saying the 'PS3 this' or the 'PS3 that'. When in fact the PS3 had nothing to with this. This was just a lousy port by the developer and that's how it should have been discussed.

Notice how when there is a superior version of a PS3 game (Oblivian) the 360 verison is very close in ratings. But when it's the other way around the PS3 verison gets very low scores.

[Derrick Barra]

The difference in graphics are not THAT huge. If you go to gamevideos.com they have an HD comparison video of the two and honestly I don't see a differnce of 3.6 in quality.

The only reason I can see it is being rated that much lower than it's 360 counterpart is if a person had tremendous expecations for the PS3 and none whatsoever for the 360. That rating is even more silly then the 2 point knock Splinter PS3 got in the sound department....sound. Yes I actually said sound department.

This sort of stuf is absolute FUD in my opinion. Maybe...maybe the graphics aren't as good as the 360 verison but is it that much worse? And the reason why I think it's FUD most of the time is because they always seem to gear the reviews into saying the 'PS3 this' or the 'PS3 that'. When in fact the PS3 had nothing to with this. This was just a lousy port by the developer and that's how it should have been discussed.

Notice how when there is a superior version of a PS3 game (Oblivian) the 360 verison is very close in ratings. But when it's the other way around the PS3 verison gets very low scores.


I wouldn't call it FUD, the PS3 version is incredibly crappy when you compare side by side with the 360/PC version (PC version being the best). If your going to play this game then do what the previous posters said and play the PC version, it kicked major ass last year.

Now for Oblivion, I can't wait to see how it turned out, my Gamefly copy is coming soon and I'll be putting it through it's paces. I'm tired as hell of the buggfest that is the PC version.

[Kabbage]

I saw the comparison video, and I honestly didnt see much if any differences, the PS3 version always seems too look brighter.

The PS3 version didnt look "Crappy" at least not compared to the 360 version.

Unless darker = Better.

[IEatFriedPikmin]

Sounds like a sloppy port to me. I am not a developer, but I am think it was probably just complicated to get it over to ps3, and they just got lazy.

[mario25]

So, why did bethesda managed to improve oblivion o the ps3? yet all other developers throw a crappy version for the ps3........

[Kabbage]

So, why did bethesda managed to improve oblivion o the ps3? yet all other developers throw a crappy version for the ps3........ Because the extra time it took was actually spent making the game work on the PS3

[curryking1]

Who cares, F.E.A.R. is not deserving of a total 8.1, especially with the graphics problems, on the PS3.

It's simply not that great of an SP, but at least it has a moderately fun MP.

[Derrick Barra]

I saw the comparison video, and I honestly didnt see much if any differences, the PS3 version always seems too look brighter.

The PS3 version didnt look "Crappy" at least not compared to the 360 version.

Unless darker = Better.

:rotate:

They use a lighter color for the PS3 on the right so that you know which is which.

[VG Aficionado]

:rotate:

They use a lighter color for the PS3 on the right so that you know which is which.Not at all. All multiplatform games look brighter on PS3 for some reason. It probably has something to do with the RSX being an Nvidia chip, as the dark/bright thing also happens on PCs when comparing the same game running on ATI/Nvidia GPUs respectively. Unless someone can give a technical explanation, that's pretty much what Internet knowledge tell us.

[makeitlookreal]

When developers are making a PS3 game they can do two things to overcome the 256MB of RAM of the RSX.

They can use some of the XDR RAM to hold textures.

They can stream textures to the RSX via the HDD.

Quite frankly, with the power of cell and the extra texture bandwidth allowed via Flex IO I believe developers have NO EXCUSE to make pathetic looking ports.

I believe that the textures in a PS3 game can be just as good as the textures in a 360 game. The issue is that you may have to work a little harder to get them in the PS3 game.

And by the way, if a developer is not going to spend the time, energy, and money to make the graphics of the PS3 version of a game just as good as the 360 version then they should not make the game at all!

I'm tired of these pathetic ports!

Developers need to STOP making them unless they are willing to spend the time it takes to make them top notch.

Also, Sony needs to REFUSE to allow them to be published for their system, period.

[VG Aficionado]

When developers are making a PS3 game they can do two things to overcome the 256MB of RAM of the RSX.

They can use some of the XDR RAM to hold textures.

They can stream textures to the RSX via the HDD.

Quite frankly, with the power of cell and the extra texture bandwidth allowed via Flex IO I believe developers have NO EXCUSE to make pathetic looking ports.

I believe that the textures in a PS3 game can be just as good as the textures in a 360 game. The issue is that you may have to work a little harder to get them in the PS3 game.Unless there are insurmountable technical hurdles I'm not aware of, and I don't think there are, I simply have to agree with this 100%.

[Matt]

Developers need to STOP making them unless they are willing to spend the time it takes to make them top notch.

Agreed. For people who don't know that the developers are being lazy, they're just going to think that the PS3 is inferior in some way, which of course isn't the case.

[curryking1]

They shouldn't stop making the games.

They should just do better, or risk a bit more popularity that they would have if they did in fact try to actually make at least half the game. I mean honestly, put some more effort into it, I'm sure I'd appreciate FEAR on the PS3 more if it wasn't so half-assed.

[Matt]

That's what he meant though. They need to put more effort into these games.

[VG Aficionado]

I just think that this time, when rival systems don't have specs on paper where one clearly surpasses the other in some aspect (Xbox had twice as much RAM and a true GPU compared to PS2), multiplatform games will never be the best way to compare both systems.

We've seen some multiplatform games performing/looking better on PS3 than on 360 (Oblivion, FNR3) while others just seem to be inferior (most of the ones where 360 was the lead development platform). Unless something changes from now on in the development process, only the exclusive games will be the way to show everyone what each system can really do. Which is going to make discussing interesting because there won't be many hard-hitting arguments to counter everyone's opinions, but it will make fanboys fill the hell out of the boards with crap.

[mario25]

I think the main problem here is the amount of userbase of the consoles. With ps3 there is a far lower userabase than 360 so developers don't think is worth the extra effort, which sucks for ps3 owners like me!!!

[Matt]

I think the main problem here is the amount of userbase of the consoles. With ps3 there is a far lower userabase than 360 so developers don't think is worth the extra effort, which sucks for ps3 owners like me!!!

I can see where you're coming from, but if the developers were to actually put the proper effort into these games, then the userbase would grow.

[VG Aficionado]

I can see where you're coming from, but if the developers were to actually put the proper effort into these games, then the userbase would grow.Precisely.

[cliffbo]

when PS3 hits a 6 million installed userbase this will change, and that's going to be down to first party titles

[Applefiend]

I don't think it's a texture problem,or a GPU problem. FEAR looks much nicer on my old PC with a my graphics card which is half as fast as a 6800U with 128MB of RAM.

I suspect this game is only running it's code on the PPE. Doing that turns our supercomputer into a 1.6Mhz Pentium 3.

Without it's SPUs the Cell is 70 pound weakling getting sand kicked in it's face.

Get the PC/360 version instead or save your cash for Resistance 2, KZ2, all dat.

[VG Aficionado]

save your cash for Resistance 2, KZ2, all dat.It'll be nice to see Killzone putting FEAR to shame with its destructible environments and streaming engine.

[curryking1]

That's what he meant though. They need to put more effort into these games.

I know lol, just drawing it clearer I guess. I'd still rather have the game, than the game not at all. Having a quality game is one more step up the ladder, and I'd rather have that over just the game lol.

It'll be nice to see Killzone putting FEAR to shame with its destructible environments and streaming engine.

Guaranteed, otherwise...

:gunner:

[Applefiend]

For those that care there's a video review of F.U.B.A.R. up on IGN.

http://media.ps3.ign.com/media/848/848829/vids_1.html

Going to watch the hd version on the old PS3 before I hit the sack. Quite tempted to buy it actually....

For 360 2nd hand. :)

[Applefiend]

GS Review http://www.gamespot.com/ps3/action/fear/index.html

Sloppy port of a old PC game gets you... 7.1/10

Exactly what it deserves. Yeh Gamespot.

[D3adcell]

I have two screenshots of FEAR PC on maxed out settings on my xfire account http://www.xfire.com/screenshots/d3adcell/ss_file-9665beca8b28fc107a493f6b1cc280e0e7db30bc.png

I don't know how the ps3 version is, but the only reason it could possibly suck would be a bad port.

[Applefiend]

Take that cool game. Crank the res down as low as it goes, screw the textures, add glitches and horrible load times, don't forget wobbly frame rates. How you like them apples?

Resistance is way better. COD3 is way better. Lousy port.

[Applefiend]

I actually bought it on PS3, nearly finished it too. (cos I got it cheap).

It's not too bad actually. I'll write up impressions after I beat it. They seemed to have fixed the glitches the 360 version was filled with.

[Applefiend]

Finished F.E.A.R. A nice 3 day shooter.

The bad:

Awful, awful frame rate. Killzonesque

The most repeated rooms and objects I've seen in a game ever. Buildings full of labs again, and again. Many many corridors with offices and Dell PCs.

Huge lack of bosses, including no end of game boss

Enough with the wading through pools of blood already.

Weapons quite simple, no alternate fire modes.

Loading times so bad it should be called S.L.E.E.P. Zzzzz..

5.1 surround sound is kinda broken, you can hear people in your back speakers when they're right in front of you.

The good

If you don't care about frame rates... you might like this

Nice weapons, shotguns that tear dudes in half, rocket launcher that turn solders into bloody red stains on the back wall, particle weapons that fry a dude and just leave his steaming skeleton.

"blurryness" over stated, it's like it's a notch below 720p, but not 480p. Looks fine to me, not sharp, but not a blur fest either.

Awesome sound track

Bonus missions included

Some of the glitches in the 360 version has mysteriously dissappeared. Played right through and got no dudes with their hands sticking through wall, bad physics, any of that. Hurrah for the latest versions with bug fixes.

Actually made me jump a couple of times. Spooky.

A.I. awesome, they let you watch a couple of fights and you can watch them take cover, flank regroup, etc. Terriffic.

Funny in parts. You can locate the enemies because they talk on their radios so much, near the end oner of them says "Shut the hell up!", little gags like that.

Yeah, not too bad, definately not the worst shooter I've played, although if you're sensitive to frame rates avoid, avoid, avoid.

COD3 is better, Resistance is way better, but it's rather decent to be honest.

I give it... 7.5/10.