mckmas8808 said:
Hold on you took it extremly too far.
I kind of agree
F.E.A.R. is a technically excellent title. Where it grinds on me is the art, which i think is very plain, dark, and boring (not to mention repetitive) and everything feels "square". Ugly is a word that has come to mind more than once. The world has a lot of 90 degree corners. The picture from Wunderchu is a good example of how many stiff angles there are.
I am a big believer that graphics is the sum of visuals and animation; visuals being that fine dance between art direction, art assets/quality/diversity and technology and reaching that fine balance. On the one end, the technological end, F.E.A.R. is a good example of the evolution of FPS graphics and is technically excellent and at the front of the pack. On the more subjective "art" end of the spectrum I would say F.E.A.R. did not excite me at all.
The big three from last year (Half-Life 2, Doom 3, Far Cry) all had a really nice balance of technology and art. They all leaned in different directions in regards to technology but then chose a theme that fit that technology well to show case it and then worked hard to build art assets that filled their word.
I just don't get that from F.E.A.R. That is my opinion of course, so feel free to disagree
Games, like HL2, D3, and FC, if you turn down the visual features you get a really pretty game due to the variety of the art. HL2 in DX7 mode is still HL2. You turn down the features in F.E.A.R. and, IMO, the art does not carry it very far.
Graphically I prefer CS:Source. F.E.A.R. is more technically advanced but the end product, what you see on the screen, I much prefer CS:Source. Not to mention it runs better (and plays better imo, at least the MP).
: