F.E.A.R. review (360) IGN

Nah, I don't think I ever saw 60fps, I think it might be capped at 30fps and I did see it drop a bit below that but nothing absurd. By 'smooth' I simply meant I didn't see any of the hitching like I've seen in the 360 versions of games like Oblivion and Prey.
 
The PC version has bloom effects like Condemned, the 360 version of Fear has intensely bright light sources like some of the lights in Double Agent.
 
The demo that was released was a pre-E3 build. Most of the textures have been replaced with the higher resolution textures that would be available to people with a high-end PC. Anything outstanding is being evaluated and will be included at the highest resolution we can get them in at without sacrificing performance.

As for framerate issues (which I have noticed a few comments) in the E3 demo during heavy firefights and with lots of grenades going off you could experience some issues. But, this happened on the PC also (unless you had an ultra-fast rig). These issues have been cleared up and its pretty solid - no matter how much stuff is thrown at the screen the framerate is maintained.

http://forums.xbox.com/6544699/ShowPost.aspx
 
9.1 definitely seems a tad high if it's more or less the same as the PC version.

Is this one of those exclusive review situations where they are inevitably inflated? I haven't seen any other reviews of it.

Should be a decent fps to pick up if you haven't played the PC version though! Sounds like it's a rather good port too.

9.1 is fine for Fear, the fact that it's basically the same as the PC-version shouldn't make any difference to the score it receives.
 
9.1 is fine for Fear, the fact that it's basically the same as the PC-version shouldn't make any difference to the score it receives.

Scores don't mean much in the end really... that said, FEAR has a couple big selling points. The graphics are still very good -- competitive on the 360 and PS3 -- and the MP, minus the lobby issue, is well done. The gameplay balance is solid and adds new features to the genre and the game is truly creepy to many gamers. Those are all valid points, regardless of age, considering the market it is competing against on the consoles. But there is one last point that I think deserves extra emphasis: Quality AI. Rarely do you hear that term. Not all FPS need it to be a great game (i.e. killing hoards of baddies can be fun and fitting for certain FPS experiences), but the fact so few games have truly good AI, this is worthy of note.

On could knock the score as, "Been there... done that... on the PC in 2005" but then one would have to consider the cost of a gaming PC and realize that FEAR on the 360 and PS3 isn't competing on the PC platform. There are many ways to look at a game -- on a platform, within a genre, within a franchise and series, etc -- it all really boils down to individual gamers and what options they personally have at their disposal and their tastes. e.g. It would take a killer turn based RPG to pique my interest, yet other gamers may ignore a great turn based RPG based on the fact their platform may have a ton and yet another gamer on a more neglected platform may proclaim it the best thing since sliced bread. A single score cannot really convey much other than general quality and whether the reviewer liked/disliked the choices.
 
I'm saying the PC version wouldn't deserve a 9.1 either. The game wasn't that good.

Yeah, maybe, but it's a good F¨PS. Americans are lucky, it's gonna available before Gears and R6 in the US while in Europe, it's gonna be released after them.
Vivendi marketers must be nuts !
 
IGN gave the PC version a 9.5 in graphics iirc

The 360's FEAR graphics score isn't my issue -- it's the total score that seems a bit high. There are a lot of patently better games that IGN have given a lower score to. I suppose it's an issue with review sites in general -- lots of inconsistencies!

Fear does have pretty good graphics (if not a bit dull and generic most of the time -- but it can get hectic and pretty to watch)... So I'd say a 9 or so in graphics is fine.
 
The 360's FEAR graphics score isn't my issue -- it's the total score that seems a bit high. There are a lot of patently better games that IGN have given a lower score to. I suppose it's an issue with review sites in general -- lots of inconsistencies!

isnt this more of an opinion and preference? after all a review is just that persons opinion
 
isnt this more of an opinion and preference? after all a review is just that persons opinion

I suppose it is. Looking at Gamerankings it got an 88.7% for the PC version (which is more of a score I agree with), but IGN gave it a 9.2 -- this is in line with IGN's previous score it seems.

It was a personal gripe more than anything else -- also didn't realize IGN's original PC score was in the same range.
 
I myself thought FEAR on PC rocked and I tried the 360 demo and it rocks too. and yes AI was the biggest selling point in thsi game i I thought. 9.1 is good- I wouldve given the game 8.7 on both PC and 360.
 
F.E.A.R is a very enjoyable and satisfying game.I wouldn't exactly call it a great game but it is fun.The firefights are extremely enjoyable.
 
Not quite sure whats so special about these graphics. The environments bring me back to Splinter Cell 1....just plain bland and boring. Unless I'm missing something here, if there are people praising this game for graphics, then nobody should be giving Resistance Fall of Man a hard time. For all I can see, the too have similar styled textures (not too bumpmapped) and similar enemies but Resistance has the upper hand in both.
 
Back
Top