Has anyone here played F.E.A.R. Perseus Mandate?

Billyzeke

Senior member
Jul 7, 2006
652
1
0
I really enjoyed F.E.A.R. and Extraction Point was ok. I am looking for opinions on the latest expansion.
 

BFG10K

Lifer
Aug 14, 2000
22,139
1,352
126
Pay no attention to the reviews - if you are a Fear fan you will love this.

You get to witness the events from the first game + Extraction point expansion from another angle and they give you brand new locations like a railway yard and underground mines. You also get the new weapons and enemies from Extraction Point in addition to more new stuff from this expansion pack.

Plus the game is about 12-15 hours which is longer than many full priced games so it's greart value for money.

I enjoyed it more than Extraction Point and almost as much as the original game.
 

Captante

Lifer
Oct 20, 2003
28,229
9,036
136
Its a lot better then Extraction Point but still only a glorified level-pack ... it does very little to further the storyline & Alma hardly ever shows her face.

Bottom line is its worth playing if you can get it cheap. (I paid $20 with a coupon at BB)
 

manimal

Lifer
Mar 30, 2007
13,560
8
0
I got this one waiting for when I get crysis'd out and I finish all the other eye candy games of the last month, The devs could have released this this summer when the hottest game ticket was Extreme Cricket manager or prison tycoon.
 

RedArmy

Platinum Member
Mar 1, 2005
2,648
0
0
Does anyone here have a save file of some sort that I could have that starts from around the beginning of 'The Plaza Chase' level? My computer froze up right as it was done loading...but apparently freezing during cut scenes causes an error when you try to reload the saved game. After I restarted I couldn't load any other saved file from around the same time so I was wondering if something was botched and I just un-installed the game and re-installed it making sure not to delete the saved game files.

Well, to make this already long story as short as possible...I started a new game to try and load from in game...but apparently that deletes all your save files unless you create a new profile...which I didn't. :-(

So, in conclusion, if you're feeling generous I would really appreciate it...if not, no big loss.
 

Captante

Lifer
Oct 20, 2003
28,229
9,036
136
If you can hold out till late tonight I'll see what I can do for you (not home atm) ... I may have over-written all my early saves though.

Edit: If you can't wait, just run through in God-mode till you hit the plaza. (press T & type God at the chat-prompt)
 

AzN

Banned
Nov 26, 2001
4,112
0
0
I finished it. It was lame same old stuff. You are wasting your money if you buy it. Extraction point was better.

Graphics are looking way dated. It looks horrible now compared to any of the newer games.

Wait for the sequel with update graphics and new moves.
 

BFG10K

Lifer
Aug 14, 2000
22,139
1,352
126
Graphics are looking way dated. It looks horrible now compared to any of the newer games
Sure, if you think the eye-searing HDR and the ?I have butter smeared on my monitor? blurring in today's games looks good.

Don?t be fooled into thinking this engine is somehow inferior just because you don?t get ugly effects modern games force down our throats.

Two years later I'm still impressed by the Fear engine's ability to make things look just like real life. Every surface it gives us - concrete, steel, wood, rock, plastic, etc - looks real.

Also the soft specular highlights they have on surfaces look amazing and the shadowing is as clean as a whistle without the muddled blur you get in some ?next gen? engines.
 

zagood

Diamond Member
Mar 28, 2005
4,102
0
71
Finished this last night, and while it was just a rehash of the same old stuff, if you had as much fun as I did with that same old stuff, it's really fun. Worth $30? Probably not. But if you like the FEAR engine and gameplay, it's a good twist on it. I found myself in a lot of situations going...wait...I've been here before...but backwards.

The one thing that bugged me though is that a lot of the horror cutscene stuff that was completely new just looked like crap. It was almost like the developers just figured out how to use existing models but didn't pay much attention to new ones.

-z
 

AzN

Banned
Nov 26, 2001
4,112
0
0
Originally posted by: BFG10K
Graphics are looking way dated. It looks horrible now compared to any of the newer games
Sure, if you think the eye-searing HDR and the ?I have butter smeared on my monitor? blurring in today's games looks good.

Don?t be fooled into thinking this engine is somehow inferior just because you don?t get ugly effects modern games force down our throats.

Two years later I'm still impressed by the Fear engine's ability to make things look just like real life. Every surface it gives us - concrete, steel, wood, rock, plastic, etc - looks real.

Also the soft specular highlights they have on surfaces look amazing and the shadowing is as clean as a whistle without the muddled blur you get in some ?next gen? engines.
FEAR looks like crap. Looks crappier than Half Life 2 which is older than FEAR. Everything is either blue, grey, or black. Every corridor looks the same.

Lot of newer games look like crap too but FEAR looks like you are playing a 5 year old game with no thought involved into level designing and art work involved.
 

CrystalBay

Platinum Member
Apr 2, 2002
2,175
1
0
Originally posted by: Azn
Originally posted by: BFG10K
Graphics are looking way dated. It looks horrible now compared to any of the newer games
Sure, if you think the eye-searing HDR and the ?I have butter smeared on my monitor? blurring in today's games looks good.

Don?t be fooled into thinking this engine is somehow inferior just because you don?t get ugly effects modern games force down our throats.

Two years later I'm still impressed by the Fear engine's ability to make things look just like real life. Every surface it gives us - concrete, steel, wood, rock, plastic, etc - looks real.

Also the soft specular highlights they have on surfaces look amazing and the shadowing is as clean as a whistle without the muddled blur you get in some ?next gen? engines.
FEAR looks like crap. Looks crappier than Half Life 2 which is older than FEAR. Everything is either blue, grey, or black. Every corridor looks the same.

Lot of newer games look like crap too but FEAR looks like you are playing a 5 year old game with no thought involved into level designing and art work involved.


Well , while agree with you on the art assets, but if you ask me the lighting on HL2 looks five years older than FEARS awesome lighting and particles . OK lets talk about HL2's awesome weapons against FEARS again no comparison...


You just came in here to troll , because you don't like FEAR , I get it...
 

BFG10K

Lifer
Aug 14, 2000
22,139
1,352
126
FEAR looks like crap. Looks crappier than Half Life 2 which is older than FEAR.
No it doesn't; Fear looks like real life but because people don't see "OMG butter blur" like in new games they somehow think it's dated.

Everything is either blue, grey, or black. Every corridor looks the same.
Much like an office building or back-alley in real life.

Lot of newer games look like crap too but FEAR looks like you are playing a 5 year old game with no thought involved into level designing and art work involved.
You're flip-flopping between graphics, artwork and level design now. You might not like the level design but that doesn't mean the graphics are dated like you originally claimed.
 

AzN

Banned
Nov 26, 2001
4,112
0
0
Originally posted by: CrystalBay
Originally posted by: Azn
Originally posted by: BFG10K
Graphics are looking way dated. It looks horrible now compared to any of the newer games
Sure, if you think the eye-searing HDR and the ?I have butter smeared on my monitor? blurring in today's games looks good.

Don?t be fooled into thinking this engine is somehow inferior just because you don?t get ugly effects modern games force down our throats.

Two years later I'm still impressed by the Fear engine's ability to make things look just like real life. Every surface it gives us - concrete, steel, wood, rock, plastic, etc - looks real.

Also the soft specular highlights they have on surfaces look amazing and the shadowing is as clean as a whistle without the muddled blur you get in some ?next gen? engines.
FEAR looks like crap. Looks crappier than Half Life 2 which is older than FEAR. Everything is either blue, grey, or black. Every corridor looks the same.

Lot of newer games look like crap too but FEAR looks like you are playing a 5 year old game with no thought involved into level designing and art work involved.


Well , while agree with you on the art assets, but if you ask me the lighting on HL2 looks five years older than FEARS awesome lighting and particles . OK lets talk about HL2's awesome weapons against FEARS again no comparison...


You just came in here to troll , because you don't like FEAR , I get it...
If having an opinion than I guess I'm a troll. So are you.
 

AzN

Banned
Nov 26, 2001
4,112
0
0
Originally posted by: BFG10K
FEAR looks like crap. Looks crappier than Half Life 2 which is older than FEAR.
No it doesn't; Fear looks like real life but because people don't see "OMG butter blur" like in new games they somehow think it's dated.
Fear does not resemble real life. It has bunch of boxes and square cars. Every cubicle looks exactly the same. Can't even see the textures on the ground. It's low poly dated game. Half life 2 looks more real than this and the engine is older than FEAR.


Much like an office building or back-alley in real life.
You telling me every back alley or office buildings look exactly the same in real life?

You're flip-flopping between graphics, artwork and level design now. You might not like the level design but that doesn't mean the graphics are dated like you originally claimed.
Yeah but I also didn't claim that newer games look good because it looks shiny did I? But you put it in my mouth so you can go on about how you feel about shiny butter graphics.

It's the whole experience how the game looks. It looks like crap either way. I'm not the only one who thinks the game looks dated with current graphics a like.

http://www.gamespot.com/pc/act...ary&tag=summary;review


The Good

* Some cool and scary moments.

The Bad

* Rehash of first two FEAR games
* Graphics engine looks downright primitive now
* Annoying difficulty
* Not much new.
 

CrystalBay

Platinum Member
Apr 2, 2002
2,175
1
0
So it is a rehash unlike EP2 and their PG Game story no thanks , The lighting is and particles is far above HL2....
 

BFG10K

Lifer
Aug 14, 2000
22,139
1,352
126
Fear does not resemble real life.
It?s much closer than most other games, even new ones.

Half life 2 looks more real than this and the engine is older than FEAR.
HL2's lighting & shadowing system is positively primitive compared to Fear's, as is it's particle system.

Every cubicle looks exactly the same.
Again just like real life. Have you ever been into an office building where an entire floor is a bunch of identical cubicles? I don't think you have or you wouldn?t be surprised at what you?re seeing in Fear.

Can't even see the textures on the ground.
Then you might have a graphics issue with your system.

It's low poly dated game.
LOL, do you even know what a poly is? Demonstrate to us with screenshots where Fear suffers in this regard.

You telling me every back alley or office buildings look exactly the same in real life?
No, I'm telling you that the way the game renders them looks close to real life. When I go outside I don't see a bunch of blurring or blinding light like most modern engines give me. What I see are surfaces quite close to how Fear renders them.

Yeah but I also didn't claim that newer games look good because it looks shiny did I?
You claimed it looks dated so therefore you must be comparing it to modem engines.

But you put it in my mouth so you can go on about how you feel about shiny butter graphics.
Except I never made any claim about anything being shiny, I was talking about brightness and blur.

http://www.gamespot.com/pc/act...ary&tag=summary;review
Gamespot also told us Halo for the PC is great. :roll:
 

AzN

Banned
Nov 26, 2001
4,112
0
0
Originally posted by: BFG10K
It?s much closer than most other games, even new ones.
That's your opinion and I'm glad you have one.

HL2's lighting & shadowing system is positively primitive compared to Fear's, as is it's particle system.
It still looks better than FEAR.

Again just like real life. Have you ever been into an office building where an entire floor is a bunch of identical cubicles? I don't think you have or you wouldn?t be surprised at what you?re seeing in Fear.
Yup I used to work in one. Some people have diff. things on their cubicle. In FEAR every cubicle had exactly the same thing. Computer, phone, and files.

Then you might have a graphics issue with your system.
Nope played FEAR Persues Mendate at the highest settings with 4xAA.

LOL, do you even know what a poly is? Demonstrate to us with screenshots where Fear suffers in this regard.

http://www.gamespot.com/pages/...d.php?pid=941968&img=4


No, I'm telling you that the way the game renders them looks close to real life. When I go outside I don't see a bunch of blurring or blinding light like most modern engines give me. What I see are surfaces quite close to how Fear renders them.
When you run or move your head quickly things can blur. Keep on playing FEAR then if it's life like to you.


You claimed it looks dated so therefore you must be comparing it to modem engines.
So did I say all modern games look great? Some new modern games look terrible.

And it does look dated. It felt like I was playing quake 2 and just moved up to quake 3.

Except I never made any claim about anything being shiny, I was talking about brightness and blur.
Either way you want to go on about brightness and blur when I didn't mention such things.

Gamespot also told us Halo for the PC is great. :roll:
Your opinions matter more than gamespot I suppose. :p

 

CrystalBay

Platinum Member
Apr 2, 2002
2,175
1
0
I'm just waiting for the real "Monolith" EP2 to come out and than we can have a real pissing contest...
 

BFG10K

Lifer
Aug 14, 2000
22,139
1,352
126
It still looks better than FEAR.
By your reasoning GLQuake looks better than HL2.

Yup I used to work in one. Some people have diff. things on their cubicle. In FEAR every cubicle had exactly the same thing. Computer, phone, and files.
I thought your issue was Fear's texturing but now you're complaining about the contents of cubicles?

Nope played FEAR Persues Mendate at the highest settings with 4xAA.
Then you must be blind as I don't know anyone else that had issues seeing floor textures, except for floors intentionally dark ("void") that is.

http://www.gamespot.com/pages/...d.php?pid=941968&img=4
Thanks for proving you don't know what a poly is.

When you run or move your head quickly things can blur.
But things don't blur when you're standing till unless you have a vision problem.

Keep on playing FEAR then if it's life like to you.
I play Fear because it's fun. That the graphics engine is great at rendering life-like scenes is a bonus.

Some new modern games look terrible.
Which ones and why? I want to hear it in your own words.

And it does look dated. It felt like I was playing quake 2 and just moved up to quake 3.
The same thing applied to HL2 when compared to Doom 3 or Far Cry back in 2004 yet even today you claim it looks great.

Also in terms of visuals all they?ve pretty much added to the HL2 engine is HDR but you?re claiming brightness isn?t what you?re referring to when you think HL2 looks good.

Either way you want to go on about brightness and blur when I didn't mention such things.
So by what metric do you base HL2 as looking good given other than HDR the visuals are pretty much the same as they were in 2004, visuals that were already inferior to Doom 3 or Far Cry?
 

AzN

Banned
Nov 26, 2001
4,112
0
0
Originally posted by: BFG10K
By your reasoning GLQuake looks better than HL2.
Half Life looks a lot better than GLQuake or FEAR.

I thought your issue was Fear's texturing but now you're complaining about the contents of cubicles?
Everything that I see. It's the whole presentation.


Then you must be blind as I don't know anyone else that had issues seeing floor textures, except for floors intentionally dark ("void") that is.
Still playing single textures are we?

Thanks for proving you don't know what a poly is.
It proves you have no idea what you are talking about but think you do. Instead of acting like you know it all why not show an example?


But things don't blur when you're standing till unless you have a vision problem.
I haven't seen a single game when it blurs while sitting idle.

I play Fear because it's fun. That the graphics engine is great at rendering life-like scenes is a bonus.
It used to be fun 3 years ago. but it's crap now.

Which ones and why? I want to hear it in your own words.
Probably Timeshift. Crappy level design. Bad artistic taste.


The same thing applied to HL2 when compared to Doom 3 or Far Cry back in 2004 yet even today you claim it looks great.

Also in terms of visuals all they?ve pretty much added to the HL2 engine is HDR but you?re claiming brightness isn?t what you?re referring to when you think HL2 looks good.
Either way it still looks better graphically.


So by what metric do you base HL2 as looking good given other than HDR the visuals are pretty much the same as they were in 2004, visuals that were already inferior to Doom 3 or Far Cry?
Inferior? Not so.. I think Half life looks better than Farcry. Doom 3 looks terrible too.

 

BFG10K

Lifer
Aug 14, 2000
22,139
1,352
126
Half Life looks a lot better than GLQuake or FEAR.
Not using your reasoning. Using your reasoning one could claim GLQuake looks better than HL2.

Everything that I see. It's the whole presentation.
In otherwords more goal-post shifting on your part, aka trolling.

You were telling us Fear looks "dated" and "low poly" but the best evidence you can come up with is how the office cubicles are populated and some random screenshot that shows nothing of merit.

Still playing single textures are we?
Huh?

It proves you have no idea what you are talking about but think you do. Instead of acting like you know it all why not show an example?
You told us the game was "low poly" and when I asked you for an example you provided something that wasn't even remotely capable of demonstrating what you were talking about, thereby proving you don't know what you're talking about.

I haven't seen a single game when it blurs while sitting idle.
I would suggest getting your vision checked as you appear to have some serious issues.

What do you suppose Bioshock's "high detail post processing" setting does? It basically blurs the whole image whether you?re moving or not. Other games like Jericho don't even allow you to control it and just blur everything all the time. Hell, pretty much every UT3 based game since R6 Vegas blurs the image without requiring motion.

Have you actually played a game made in the last two years other than HL2 and Fear? I have my doubts.

Probably Timeshift. Crappy level design. Bad artistic taste.
Neither of which make a game look dated which is what you originally claimed. Again your goal-post shifting (aka trolling) is simply comical.

It used to be fun 3 years ago. but it's crap now.
No it isn't.

Either way it still looks better graphically.
HL2 when it shipped looked dated compared to Doom 3 or Far Cry. It also looks dated today against modern games.

Inferior? Not so.. I think Half life looks better than Farcry. Doom 3 looks terrible too.
Ah, it makes perfect sense now. What we're dealing with is a HL2 fanboy, the kind that can?t accept how graphically inferior that engine was to games back in 2004, much less against today?s games.

You should have just said so right from the beginning.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY