Saturday, November 05, 2005
F.E.A.R. Mini Review
Sometimes I go to one of those "gourmet hamburger" places to eat. You can get all kinds of new twists on the basic hamburger idea, like getting chile verde and avacado on your burger. It's an interesting flavor, but it doesn't change the fact that you are still just earing a hamburger. But you know what? That's okay, sometimes. Even though I've had lots of hamburgers in my life, they still taste pretty good, and sometimes I'm in the mood for them.
That's pretty much how I'd describe the game F.E.A.R., which I just finished last night (WAY too frickin' late, especially for a creepy horror game). F.E.A.R. should be a textbook example of how you can take an almost painfully generic First-Person-Shooter and make it really stand out with solid execution and a really cool theme / story. Like a gourmet hamburger. I DID enjoy it, and wanted to just write up a short review from a game-developer's point-of-view.
The enemies include soldiers, heavily armored soldiers, corrupt security forces, big battle-mech type robots, automatic defense guns, ninja-types in stealth suits that make them temporarily invisible (with a predator-style effect behind them), and flying laser-shooting robots. Except for some spooky stuff at the end, that's pretty much it. If that was all there was, the game would be another ho-hum entry in a long list of first-person shooters.
The special effects and graphics are top-notch, so it gets all kinds of props for the eye-candy category. Graphical wows don't tend to age well, though. My computer wasn't even close to being capable of cranking up the effects to their proper levels, so maybe I'd have been more amazed if my machine was closer to cutting-edge. I also can't really comment on multiplayer - I haven't tried it, and really doubt I will. I just don't see how it could be anything but a poor cousin to, say, UT 2004 or the Battlefield games. But it's more-or-less obligatory in a first-person shooter, so they hit the marks for having it in there.
I can't say my F.E.A.R. experience was bug free - I got some really annoying sound glitches that forced me to quit and reload, and sometimes my proximity mines would develop anti-gravity drive and just slowly start rising up in the air without arming. But aside from those occasional flukes, the game still ran pretty solidly (even on my krufty old machine).
The artificial intelligence is pretty dang good. One thing that they did with this game is make the enemies chatterboxes. They speak very loudly and clearly so that you can hear their plans. This is key. AI typically all happens "under the hood," and so players don't have a clue what kind of decision-making processes are happening. (As a developer who has done videogame AI, I can tell you it's often hard for the PROGRAMMER to know what's going on in the AI's "head"!) Usually the only time you really notice the AI is when it's doing something stupid, like trying to hide behind an open window. The simple act of having the AI broadcast their intentions and perceptions to the player by very loud talking goes a long way to making the AI feel "smarter." It's kind of amusing how smart the AI seems when it is capable of something as simple as counting ("I've got two men down!") or being worried.
The AI does behave itself pretty well most of the time. The AI soldiers seek cover (pretty much ALL the time), even knocking down a shelf to use it as makeshift cover. When the player is behind cover they try to flush you out by using grenades. They will also use alternate routes when available to get around behind you. They yell warnings and run when you toss a grenade at them (except for the heavily armored guys). Consequently, the firefights have a visceral punch that rings true.
The storyline and mood is of course the primary selling point of the game. It wasn't what I expected. So many games with the "horror" theme inundate you with hordes of ravenous zombies and other monsters - to the point that they quickly cease to be horrific and become just more targets for your gun. F.E.A.R. has long stretches of game that are pretty mundane. When it does it hit you with the supernatural - usually in the form of stumbling upon the scene of impossible deaths, or visions that your character has that nobody else can see - it makes it all the more creepy.
The chief villains of the game are a little girl named Alma, and a big defense contractor that is trying to bury a secret involving something they did to the girl. The girl only appears (until the end) in visions that you can't really interact with - giving her a presence throughout the game, but without the feeling that you can do much about her. Mostly it's plumbing the depths of the mystery of her past, your own past, and your quarry - a man who is obsessed with setting the girl free, somehow (though it's clear that she's been dead a while). The presence of the defense contractor and certain chief people within the company is established by a series of voice-mail messages you can listen to as you chase the bad guys through the company (after most of the employees have been slaughtered), or through files you are able to download on their laptops.
The twists along the story are mostly pretty predictable and often unsatisfying. In nearly every chapter, you succeed in your mission only to have your victory get snatched away from you by some event. Sort of "Sorry, but the Princess is in another castle!" type flavor throughout the game. Once or twice it adds to the tension, but beyond that it just gets annoying. I found myself wondering, "Oh, how are my allied forces going to screw this up this time?" And a lot of the "bits" in the storyline looked they were lifted from the pages of every single tired device from every B-movie script ever written. But the state of storyline in most games is so bad that even borrowing from hackneyed B-movie stories is an improvement.
The climax of the game - and epilogue - is pretty well-done and appropriately creepy and twisted. It's also not so insanely hard that you lose all the tension the game had built up for repeated re-loads. If you've seen the movie, "The Ring," a lot of the exposition will sound a little bit familiar, but it's still well-executed and is genuinely scary.
As can be seen from this review, they got a lot of mileage (from MY perspective) by just executing well and providing a unique presentation. Now, some folks may blast me for praising these things instead of pushing the concept that the gameplay should somehow be more unique and original. And they wouldn't be wrong. But I've also learned that when you are doing a commercial game, the audience doesn't usually seek out the unique and original too much. They want something just original enough to feel fresh, but still comfortably familiar. I think F.E.A.R. accomplished that pretty well, and provides an experience that may still be fundamentally the same as other games, but has a very unique flavor. And in THIS case, it made it worth the price of admission for me.
Labels: Mainstream Games
- posted by The Rampant Coyote @ 9:08 AM (Permalink)
Comments:
Links to this post:
<< Home
Jay,
Great writeup. One comment:
As can be seen from this review, they got a lot of mileage (from MY perspective) by just executing well and providing a unique presentation. Now, some folks may blast me for praising these things instead of pushing the concept that the gameplay should somehow be more unique and original. And they wouldn't be wrong.
I think they *would* be wrong. And demonstrating insufferable priggishness.
I'm a huge advocate of the "indie's should try something different" school of thought. But "try something different" doesn't have to mean "something completely new and innovative." It could be something as simple as taking the FPS genre and standing it on its head, as "Thief" did (you *can* shoot everything in sight, but it's hardly the ideal solution). Did "Thief" really *add* anything to the gameplay? Not really. But by changing the context of the game and the goals of the character within a traditional FPS framework, the game started a new trend.
It's all about the content of the game. And the content of the game is not fully represented by the "gameplay elements". The content includes the context of the choices available and the results of the actions taken. Something as humdrum as "swap these two items" can have a very different feel just by changing the context of the items and, therefore, the consequences of the swap.
All match-3 games don't have to be about humdrum, inanimate objects (or furry creatures) and boring pops and whizzes and floating bonus numbers.
All FPS games don't have to be combat simulators. Nor do all RTS games.
There are so many possibilities if we as game designers would just look at "what else" we could do with the technology and gameplay options we already have.
-David
Great writeup. One comment:
As can be seen from this review, they got a lot of mileage (from MY perspective) by just executing well and providing a unique presentation. Now, some folks may blast me for praising these things instead of pushing the concept that the gameplay should somehow be more unique and original. And they wouldn't be wrong.
I think they *would* be wrong. And demonstrating insufferable priggishness.
I'm a huge advocate of the "indie's should try something different" school of thought. But "try something different" doesn't have to mean "something completely new and innovative." It could be something as simple as taking the FPS genre and standing it on its head, as "Thief" did (you *can* shoot everything in sight, but it's hardly the ideal solution). Did "Thief" really *add* anything to the gameplay? Not really. But by changing the context of the game and the goals of the character within a traditional FPS framework, the game started a new trend.
It's all about the content of the game. And the content of the game is not fully represented by the "gameplay elements". The content includes the context of the choices available and the results of the actions taken. Something as humdrum as "swap these two items" can have a very different feel just by changing the context of the items and, therefore, the consequences of the swap.
All match-3 games don't have to be about humdrum, inanimate objects (or furry creatures) and boring pops and whizzes and floating bonus numbers.
All FPS games don't have to be combat simulators. Nor do all RTS games.
There are so many possibilities if we as game designers would just look at "what else" we could do with the technology and gameplay options we already have.
-David
I'd argue that Thief is a bad example here. In my mind, the components of gameplay are the player's interactions with the game, and the risk / reward structure of those interactions.
With that in mind, they really DID add a huge amount to the gameplay. The concept of stealth - and all the different ways you could interact with light and darkness and different places and ways you could move for added silence - really changed the level of interaction on a fundamental level. Add to that the amazing array of tools that were designed not to kill the AI targets, but to confuse them or manipulate them into allowing you to go about your business (or to allow you access to the environment beyond the traditional run / jump / open / use list).
This would have all been for naught if they hadn't dialed down the player's competency in combat- all those stealth options would have been available, but players would still have been blasting the bad guys in traditional Quake style. Instead, getting into a fight with enemies and playing it like a true FPS was not only extremely difficult, but it would fail you out of most missions.
So I'm not really arguing with your basic tenet - just that Thief is more of a counterpoint to F.E.A.R. F.E.A.R. changed the context, but the goals and gameplay was largely the same. Thief changed the context, the goals, and the possible interactions to the point where it ceased to be a First-Person Shooter, and became something else entirely (some have termed the subgenre the "First Person Sneaker", along with the Rainbow Six series).
Another example of where context alone can change not just the look but the feel of the game was the ancient "Star Wars Total Conversion" mod for Doom - before the Dark Forces came out and did basically the same thing. The fans changed the graphics, sound, and music (IIRC) - and the game lost its scary edge completely and really FELT more like an action movie. Another EXTREMELY well-done Total Conversion for Doom was the "Aliens" T.C. - same deal. It was just as scary as the original Doom - maybe more so - but they did the same kind of things with the levels to make it play just a little bit differently to build up the tension (like the fact that there was not a single monster on the first level - but you expected the attack at ANY TIME).
In both cases, the game was still Doom - if you used just the map files without any of the graphics or sound, you could see the difference. But the context made all the difference in the world.
Now - imagine what you could do by changing both context AND gameplay (like Thief did - and Rogue Spear - and Deus Ex - and System Shock - etc.)
With that in mind, they really DID add a huge amount to the gameplay. The concept of stealth - and all the different ways you could interact with light and darkness and different places and ways you could move for added silence - really changed the level of interaction on a fundamental level. Add to that the amazing array of tools that were designed not to kill the AI targets, but to confuse them or manipulate them into allowing you to go about your business (or to allow you access to the environment beyond the traditional run / jump / open / use list).
This would have all been for naught if they hadn't dialed down the player's competency in combat- all those stealth options would have been available, but players would still have been blasting the bad guys in traditional Quake style. Instead, getting into a fight with enemies and playing it like a true FPS was not only extremely difficult, but it would fail you out of most missions.
So I'm not really arguing with your basic tenet - just that Thief is more of a counterpoint to F.E.A.R. F.E.A.R. changed the context, but the goals and gameplay was largely the same. Thief changed the context, the goals, and the possible interactions to the point where it ceased to be a First-Person Shooter, and became something else entirely (some have termed the subgenre the "First Person Sneaker", along with the Rainbow Six series).
Another example of where context alone can change not just the look but the feel of the game was the ancient "Star Wars Total Conversion" mod for Doom - before the Dark Forces came out and did basically the same thing. The fans changed the graphics, sound, and music (IIRC) - and the game lost its scary edge completely and really FELT more like an action movie. Another EXTREMELY well-done Total Conversion for Doom was the "Aliens" T.C. - same deal. It was just as scary as the original Doom - maybe more so - but they did the same kind of things with the levels to make it play just a little bit differently to build up the tension (like the fact that there was not a single monster on the first level - but you expected the attack at ANY TIME).
In both cases, the game was still Doom - if you used just the map files without any of the graphics or sound, you could see the difference. But the context made all the difference in the world.
Now - imagine what you could do by changing both context AND gameplay (like Thief did - and Rogue Spear - and Deus Ex - and System Shock - etc.)
Good points, all, though I still consider Thief to be just another example of "run around in a 3D environment and hit the spacebar a lot" (AKA, an FPS). But then, I was never a fan of the FPS genre, so "they all look alike" to me. ;-)
Still, your examples were better than mine. And I'll remember them. =)
I do remember the Aliens TC. That was an excellent mod, like you said. "Game over, man!"
-David
Still, your examples were better than mine. And I'll remember them. =)
I do remember the Aliens TC. That was an excellent mod, like you said. "Game over, man!"
-David
Well, the Tanks sequence in the arcade game Tron, and Pac-Man both had you running around in a maze, but I'd submit the feel and gameplay of the two were substantially different :)
Heh - good to see another fan of the Aliens TC for Doom. I never played the first "Aliens vs. Predator" game, but I heard that the Aliens TC was better. AvP2 (also by Monolith) was very nice though.
To keep moving on with the topic, though --- one of my concerns is how so many game designs, in an effort to "improve" the original gameplay, simply make it more complex. While this might appeal to fans of the original game who are looking for greater challenge, I'm slowly gaining an appreciation for the KISS principle.
An example might be Big Kahuna Reef - a game I do like and enjoy - but it's pretty much Bejeweled with added complexity. Is that really a good thing? Is the simple pleasure of Bejeweled really improved by invoking the higher-order functions of the brain to try and deal with the more complex flow of tiles, "unlocking" tiles, and so forth? And where do you go from there - a more complex version of Big Kahuna Reef? With tiles rotating around a 3D object or something?
Again, not to say anything bad about Big Kahuna Reef - it's a great game, but it illustrates that trend.
It seems to me that the simple game mechanic of swapping tiles could still yield lots more play possibilities than are being exploited, without getting substantially more complex.
Post a Comment
Heh - good to see another fan of the Aliens TC for Doom. I never played the first "Aliens vs. Predator" game, but I heard that the Aliens TC was better. AvP2 (also by Monolith) was very nice though.
To keep moving on with the topic, though --- one of my concerns is how so many game designs, in an effort to "improve" the original gameplay, simply make it more complex. While this might appeal to fans of the original game who are looking for greater challenge, I'm slowly gaining an appreciation for the KISS principle.
An example might be Big Kahuna Reef - a game I do like and enjoy - but it's pretty much Bejeweled with added complexity. Is that really a good thing? Is the simple pleasure of Bejeweled really improved by invoking the higher-order functions of the brain to try and deal with the more complex flow of tiles, "unlocking" tiles, and so forth? And where do you go from there - a more complex version of Big Kahuna Reef? With tiles rotating around a 3D object or something?
Again, not to say anything bad about Big Kahuna Reef - it's a great game, but it illustrates that trend.
It seems to me that the simple game mechanic of swapping tiles could still yield lots more play possibilities than are being exploited, without getting substantially more complex.
Links to this post:
<< Home
