Massassi Forums Logo

This is the static archive of the Massassi Forums. The forums are closed indefinitely. Thanks for all the memories!

You can also download Super Old Archived Message Boards from when Massassi first started.

"View" counts are as of the day the forums were archived, and will no longer increase.

ForumsDiscussion Forum → FEAR is terrible
12
FEAR is terrible
2006-01-03, 2:43 PM #1
I got it for Christmas...played it and it barely ran on my computer. I reformatted hoping there was something wrong with my PC, and it still ran like crap. I give up on it for a few days. I have an A64 3200+ with a 6600GT and 1g ram. I know thats not the greatest, but I can play Half Life 2 on high super smooth and FEAR runs like crap even on low. The fact that a game looks this bad and still runs bad is absolutely pathetic. Constantly jolting as it loads new sounds to try and scare me with. I consulted a technical forum for help with the game, and I could not get it running any better.

So I give it another chance and play for an hour. It looks like JK, and still jolts every 10 seconds or so to load a sound clip or something. The story is all over the place and poorly written, the attempts to scare me are almost laughable because it freezes for a second right before something "scary" happens so I know what is on the way.

The game overall just seems to be poorly made on almost all points. The story is stupid, the engine seems sloppy and completely un-optimized as compared to Half Life 2 and Doom3, which are older games that look better and run better, BOTH of which are more scary. I had to turn off something as simple as shadows, to make the game run above 30 FPS at all, something that even quake 3 does better. The physics is bad, I would shoot skeletons/corpses on the ground once and limbs would start bouncing all over the place without stopping as if I was unloading a whole clip into it.

Theres my rant. I'm going to try and take it back to the store, if they dont give a refund i'll sell it to one of you guys. Send me an offer.
2006-01-03, 2:44 PM #2
yes clearly the problem is with the game and not your computer as everyone else has had this issue as well and has forgot to mention it until now

:p
2006-01-03, 3:02 PM #3
I also got FEAR recently. It did seem promising in the begining but it ran horrible and my system has had no problem before running BF2, HL2, and Doom 3 at realitivly high detail and resolution(it is a little better than rendar's). I dunno it wasn't that fun either. My freind likes it so he plays it when he's over, but i stopped after the first part.
I know that you believe you understand what you think I said, but I'm not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.
2006-01-03, 3:08 PM #4
I had the demo and it worked fine on my not-upgraded computer.

AMD something something processor
512mb RAM
ATI Radeon 9800 256mb
"Jayne, this is something the Captain has to do for himself"

"N-No it's not!"

"Oh."
2006-01-03, 3:10 PM #5
My friend's comp has about the same specs as yours (lesser graphics card though), and it runs fine on his.
2006-01-03, 3:21 PM #6
the problem was definitly with your game. i have a athlon 64 3200+, 6800gt, 1gb ddr400 ram and it runs super smooth.
it really is an awesome game for any of you that don't know already. the story is a bit odd, it takes some time to figure it out. but it really is kinda creepy.
free(jin);
tofu sucks
2006-01-03, 3:35 PM #7
You have a 6800GT, I have a 6600GT. Huge difference there, but it should still run moderatly well on a 6600GT. I'm still trying to play it, giving it yet another chance. Its getting a bit better, but still runs like crap and isnt very fun. HL2 set some very high standards for me.
2006-01-03, 4:40 PM #8
Originally posted by Dash_rendar:
I got it for Christmas...played it and it barely ran on my computer. I reformatted hoping there was something wrong with my PC, and it still ran like crap. I give up on it for a few days. I have an A64 3200+ with a 6600GT and 1g ram. I know thats not the greatest, but I can play Half Life 2 on high super smooth and FEAR runs like crap even on low. The fact that a game looks this bad and still runs bad is absolutely pathetic. Constantly jolting as it loads new sounds to try and scare me with. I consulted a technical forum for help with the game, and I could not get it running any better.

So I give it another chance and play for an hour. It looks like JK, and still jolts every 10 seconds or so to load a sound clip or something. The story is all over the place and poorly written, the attempts to scare me are almost laughable because it freezes for a second right before something "scary" happens so I know what is on the way.

The game overall just seems to be poorly made on almost all points. The story is stupid, the engine seems sloppy and completely un-optimized as compared to Half Life 2 and Doom3, which are older games that look better and run better, BOTH of which are more scary. I had to turn off something as simple as shadows, to make the game run above 30 FPS at all, something that even quake 3 does better. The physics is bad, I would shoot skeletons/corpses on the ground once and limbs would start bouncing all over the place without stopping as if I was unloading a whole clip into it.

Theres my rant. I'm going to try and take it back to the store, if they dont give a refund i'll sell it to one of you guys. Send me an offer.


Whine whine whine...oh I'm sorry, you finished.

1) Your problem, nobody else's. The game is awesome, the fact that you couldn't get it running correctly on your setup is unfortunate, but nobody's problem but your own. Also, FEAR didn't win GotY from many people for no reason. It's a great, beautiful, and very awesome game.

2) Stop whining.
D E A T H
2006-01-03, 4:43 PM #9
Originally posted by Dash_rendar:
You have a 6800GT, I have a 6600GT. Huge difference there, but it should still run moderatly well on a 6600GT. I'm still trying to play it, giving it yet another chance. Its getting a bit better, but still runs like crap and isnt very fun. HL2 set some very high standards for me.

6800GT's are NOT that much better than 6600GT's. As long as softshadows are off, and everything's set to ~medium, you should be fine. I got 40-60fps with softshadows off and everything else highest 2xaa 4xaf on my 6800GT.

Also, get it running right. If you can't, contact tech support. They have that register button and tech support for a reason, you know. Don't just automatically assume some random "tech forum" is gonna help you.

Finally, stop judging a game you can't even get running properly. PLBKAC
D E A T H
2006-01-03, 4:43 PM #10
So is my game messed up also?
I know that you believe you understand what you think I said, but I'm not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.
2006-01-03, 4:46 PM #11
Something is. Because it sure as hell shouldn't run like that.
D E A T H
2006-01-03, 5:13 PM #12
damn geeks and your high end spec PC's

I will steal them all!! :mad:
Code:
if(getThingFlags(source) & 0x8){
  do her}
elseif(getThingFlags(source) & 0x4){
  do other babe}
else{
  do a dude}
2006-01-03, 5:25 PM #13
The AI and action sequences are what make FEAR great. I agree the horror is sometimes lame and usually cheesy and the storyline might as well be non-existant, but the shootouts are the best you'll ever have against a computer opponent.
The Massassi-Map
There is no spoon.
2006-01-03, 5:56 PM #14
Yeah, exactly Spork. The AI is the best in any game to date (how many games does the AI kick down doors, flip over tables, plus many more cool things by themselfs? The action is chaotic to the point of being rediculous too. I also love how the room fills with dust and smoke also.
Got a permanent feather in my cap;
Got a stretch to my stride;
a stroll to my step;
2006-01-03, 5:57 PM #15
F.E.A.R. is awesome. End of story. Ranting on it just because it doesn't run well on your computer is stupid. It's like those people that say games suck before they even come out.

I liked that the enemies reacted realistically to your presense; they couldn't magically see you around corners, but you also couldn't walk right up behind them without them noticing. The quick-reflexes slowdown feature was very cool. The game was also very creepy, especially nearing the end with the floating dudes coming out of the portals. I laughed my head off when I saw that the fat sysadmin guy had a belt buckle that said "RTFM" on it.

And the ending cinematic (nuclear explosion / creepy chick climbing in the side of the helicopter) was the best I've ever seen in any video game.
Stuff
2006-01-03, 7:39 PM #16
Funny, I got Fear to run on my old *edit* brain error* it was a amd 2.6 with 512mb's of ram, and a nvida 5700

it was on near lowest setting mind you, But it did it with a fps range around 30-40, some time lower if there were lots of enemys or water in screen..


[braging]
on my new computer I can run it on *just* about highest setting and its smooth has silk
[/braging]

man, its been ages sence I posted any thing here..
2006-01-04, 9:09 AM #17
my machine is a athlon64 x2 4400+ and 2 7800GTX in SLI... still can't max the settings and turn on soft shadows. :p
gbk is 50 probably

MB IS FAT
2006-01-04, 9:59 AM #18
Soft shadows are worthless in my book anyways. Do I really give a damn whether the shadows have a soft edge or a sharp one? :P DIE DUMB FEATURE DIE.

But yea, overall, I totally praise F.E.A.R. Its indeed some of the best action I've been through up to date, cept in Battlefield 2, but thats a whole different story.
Was cheated out of lions by happydud
Was cheated out of marriage by sugarless
2006-01-04, 10:16 AM #19
Yeah. I dont have a good enough card currently to run FEAR... But from the 2 minutes I played i loved it.

Battlefield 2 is a completely different game though. It's awesome, but completely different.

I cant wait to get my X850 Pro in the mail in a few days.. I should be able to run Fear pretty ok on that card.
2006-01-04, 10:27 AM #20
My roommate went and got a 6800 after he bought it, since we both have the blacklisted GeForce 4 MX series, and it runs fine on his system.
$do || ! $do ; try
try: command not found
Ye Olde Galactic Empire Mission Editor (X-wing, TIE, XvT/BoP, XWA)
2006-01-04, 11:41 AM #21
[QUOTE=Dj Yoshi]6800GT's are NOT that much better than 6600GT's. [ /QUOTE]

Yeah, they are. A 6600GT is barely better than a 9800 pro.
2006-01-04, 12:35 PM #22
Originally posted by Obi_Kwiet:
[QUOTE=Dj Yoshi]6800GT's are NOT that much better than 6600GT's. [ /QUOTE]

Yeah, they are. A 6600GT is barely better than a 9800 pro.

No they're not. Take this from someone who actually OWNS the card and has compared it instead of someone who goes "LOL DUDE I KNOW MORE THAN YOU ABOUT COMPUTERS EVEN THOUGH I'M NOT DONE WITH PUBERTY YET."
D E A T H
2006-01-04, 12:38 PM #23
[QUOTE=Dj Yoshi]
Originally posted by Obi_Kwiet:
No they're not. Take this from someone who actually OWNS the card and has compared it instead of someone who goes "LOL DUDE I KNOW MORE THAN YOU ABOUT COMPUTERS EVEN THOUGH I'M NOT DONE WITH PUBERTY YET."


Yes, because flaming automatically makes you right!

:rolleyes:
2006-01-04, 12:49 PM #24
As everyone else said, the game is a bit of a system killer, but that doesn't make it a bad game. I have an A64 3500+, 1 GB DDR400, and a GF 7800 GT, and run with most settings on maximum except a couple (don't remember which, I disabled soft shadows though). I think the horror aspect is pretty stupid, and was probably thrown in to try and make the plot more interesting, but whatever. I'm mainly playing it for the AI and visuals.
2006-01-04, 1:00 PM #25
[QUOTE=Cool Matty][QUOTE=Dj Yoshi]

Yes, because flaming automatically makes you right!

:rolleyes:[/QUOTE]
The flaming was just secondary. The main point is--I own the card ffs, he doesn't, and he's just going off what he's read in reviews. Trust me, it's not that much better.
D E A T H
2006-01-04, 2:34 PM #26
Even though Im usually just a lurker, I had to pipe up to the conversation about whether F.E.A.R. sucks or not.

F.E.A.R. does suck. Im gonna give an extensive review here:

Yes, F.E.A.R. does have excellent AI. That was the main thing I noticed. When I realized for the first time that my enemy had come up from behind me (after they climbed over a vent to get behind me which i wasnt expecting them to do because NPC's dont usually do well with climbing) and I had been outsmarted I was quite impressed. But thats all that impressed me. It stops there. Why? Because its all been done before. F.E.A.R. just steals things from a bunch of games and puts them together. The reason half-life 1 was such an amazing game was because it took a bunch of game elements and innovated the crap out of them. Half-life 2 does the same thing. Now this is a tradition among companies but to make a game good you have to add to that. F.E.A.R. just put it all in there. The fighting style was a combo of games life half-life 2 and max payne. You might as well call "slo mo" bullet time. The fighting even gets old after a while. It's the same old put on slo mo and shoot a bunch of enemies, get the ammo, go through a "scary" sequence and repeat. Also they couldve programmed it better to be easier on the graphics card. Now I know I don't have the best card in the world but I can run half-life 2 just fine on almost max settings and F.E.AR. doesnt have a whole lot more over half-life 2. But I had to turn off a lot of the cool settings on F.E.A.R. (which i later turned on in a lower resolution to see how they were) to get a decent resolution. Plus, the damn game was too short. I probably beat this game faster then I have ever beaten any game. If i'm gonna pay 54 dollars for a game, I want it to be a good long game damnit. Ive played internet games that can last longer. And for the last point: It isnt scary. It aimed at a suspensful horror type game that was supposed to keep you on edge all the time. Rainbow six recon missions are more suspensful then that. Those things are tense (that is my totally my opinion due to the fact that im always scared im gonna get seen). Also, I didnt even get a lot of the story line. Maybe Im stupid here but a lot of it didnt even make any freakin sense and I was left with a feeling of total emptiness when I finished it. And even the elements to the horror were all based on movies. They couldnt come up with something else. Im so sick of seeing little girls like that.

These are the reasons I was so dissapointed though. I was even waiting since October to get it. I was highly anticipating it but it really wasn't worth buying the directors cut DVD and everything.

[/rant]
-Xizor
I was just petting the bunny, and it went into the soup can, and part of my hand went with it. - Red vs Blue
2006-01-04, 2:46 PM #27
[QUOTE=Prince Xizor]Even though Im usually just a lurker, I had to pipe up to the conversation about whether F.E.A.R. sucks or not. I don't care about the vid card part.

F.E.A.R. does suck. Im gonna give an extensive review here.[/quote]
Lolopinions. And if you're talking about production values wise, you're wrong, though you can hate the game all you want, it had excellent production values (sound, graphics, scare factor, etc).

[QUOTE=Prince Xizor]Yes, F.E.A.R. does have excellent AI. That was the main thing I noticed. When I realized for the first time that my enemy had come up from behind me (after they climbed over a vent to get behind me which i wasnt expecting them to do because NPC's dont usually do well with climbing) and I had been outsmarted I was quite impressed. But thats all that impressed me. It stops there. Why? Because its all been done before. F.E.A.R. just steals things from a bunch of games and puts them together. The reason half-life 1 was such an amazing game was because it took a bunch of game elements and innovated the crap out of them. Half-life 2 does the same thing. Now this is a tradition among companies but to make a game good you have to add to that. F.E.A.R. just put it all in there. The fighting style was a combo of games life half-life 2 and max payne. You might as well call "slo mo" bullet time. The fighting even gets old after a while. It's the same old put on slo mo and shoot a bunch of enemies, get the ammo, go through a "scary" sequence and repeat.[/quote]
Okay, so since when was Max Payne 1st person as far as bullet-time goes? Also, if you played the demo, you can expect to pretty much be doing the same thing. It wasn't ever about innovation with this game, that much was obvious. It was about scare-factor and, after you play it a while, AI.

[QUOTE=Prince Xizor]Also they couldve programmed it better to be easier on the graphics card. Now I know I don't have the best card in the world but I can run half-life 2 just fine on almost max settings and F.E.AR. doesnt have a whole lot more over half-life 2. But I had to turn off a lot of the cool settings on F.E.A.R. (which i later turned on in a lower resolution to see how they were) to get a decent resolution.[/quote]
Glad to know you've started programming games. So where do you work? What have you programmed? Since when did you gain such an intricate knowledge of shaders, the performance hit on different cards etc? Also, I think there's a lot of settings that slipped past you on HL2--it's not anywhere near the most graphically intensive game. Especially since you said a lot of the "cool settings" had to be turned off in FEAR. Like what? Soft Shadows? Here's a tip--nobody can run the game with soft shadows. It's the exact same reason Doom 3 didn't have them in it--dynamic lighting + soft shadows = LAG.

[QUOTE=Prince Xizor]Plus, the damn game was too short. I probably beat this game faster then I have ever beaten any game. If i'm gonna pay 54 dollars for a game, I want it to be a good long game damnit. Ive played internet games that can last longer. And for the last point: It isnt scary. It aimed at a suspensful horror type game that was supposed to keep you on edge all the time. Rainbow six recon missions are more suspensful then that. Those things are tense (that is my totally my opinion due to the fact that im always scared im gonna get seen). Also, I didnt even get a lot of the story line. Maybe Im stupid here but a lot of it didnt even make any freakin sense and I was left with a feeling of total emptiness when I finished it. And even the elements to the horror were all based on movies. They couldnt come up with something else. Im so sick of seeing little girls like that.[/quote]
1) It was a little short, but not THAT short. I know people who it took 20-ish hours to beat. They messed around a bit, but stuck to the point, mainly. Republic Commando, Max Payne 2, and HL2 were all around ~10-12 hours. All of them got awards out the wazoo, and were considered some of the best games of their time.
2) LOL OPINIONS (I thought it creeped me the hell out. A girl walking around on the ceiling in a pool of blood? Christ.)
3) The elements of horror were not based on movies. Christ, did we even play the same game?

[QUOTE=Prince Xizor]These are the reasons I was so dissapointed though. I was even waiting since October to get it. I was highly anticipating it but it really wasn't worth buying the directors cut DVD and everything.

[/rant]
-Xizor[/QUOTE]
So you're basically saying you're disappointed because you didn't play the demo, didn't research the game, and was expecting something wildly innovative from an FPS Horror game? Uh...sorry?
D E A T H
2006-01-04, 9:23 PM #28
It's easy to tell movies like The Shining had a strong impact on some of the interactive wtf moment cinema scene thingies.
2006-01-05, 4:46 PM #29
Originally posted by Dash_rendar:
I got it for Christmas...played it and it barely ran on my computer. I reformatted hoping there was something wrong with my PC, and it still ran like crap. I give up on it for a few days. I have an A64 3200+ with a 6600GT and 1g ram. I know thats not the greatest, but I can play Half Life 2 on high super smooth and FEAR runs like crap even on low. The fact that a game looks this bad and still runs bad is absolutely pathetic. Constantly jolting as it loads new sounds to try and scare me with. I consulted a technical forum for help with the game, and I could not get it running any better.

So I give it another chance and play for an hour. It looks like JK, and still jolts every 10 seconds or so to load a sound clip or something. The story is all over the place and poorly written, the attempts to scare me are almost laughable because it freezes for a second right before something "scary" happens so I know what is on the way.

The game overall just seems to be poorly made on almost all points. The story is stupid, the engine seems sloppy and completely un-optimized as compared to Half Life 2 and Doom3, which are older games that look better and run better, BOTH of which are more scary. I had to turn off something as simple as shadows, to make the game run above 30 FPS at all, something that even quake 3 does better. The physics is bad, I would shoot skeletons/corpses on the ground once and limbs would start bouncing all over the place without stopping as if I was unloading a whole clip into it.

Theres my rant. I'm going to try and take it back to the store, if they dont give a refund i'll sell it to one of you guys. Send me an offer.

The game is good. Your system is crap. It runs fine on my machine... then again.. my machine rules... except the ram count... which is only 700 something...
>>untie shoes
2006-01-05, 5:34 PM #30
Dash... Your computer should be able to run it..

I have an A64 3200+ With 1 gig of RAM as well, and currently a **** graphics card, a Geforce FX 5500 with only 128 MB RAM.. And it ran at around 20 FPS with all settings on low.. Not playable, but if you have a better card than what I have and you still cant run it.. You have problems with your computer, it isn't the game. As many have already pointed out.
2006-01-05, 5:36 PM #31
[QUOTE=Dj Yoshi]
No they're not. Take this from someone who actually OWNS the card and has compared it instead of someone who goes "LOL DUDE I KNOW MORE THAN YOU ABOUT COMPUTERS EVEN THOUGH I'M NOT DONE WITH PUBERTY YET."[/QUOTE]


http://www.guru3d.com/article/Videocards/229/16/

http://www.gpureview.com/show_cards.php?card1=187&card2=180

Sorry to ruin a flame war with facts. :rolleyes: And what he heck does puberty have to do with anything? I've seen eight year old who are way more mature than you.
2006-01-05, 5:37 PM #32
....try a different video driver. Drivers DO have the potential to make or break the performance of a game.
2006-01-05, 7:04 PM #33
Originally posted by Obi_Kwiet:
http://www.guru3d.com/article/Videocards/229/16/

http://www.gpureview.com/show_cards.php?card1=187&card2=180

Sorry to ruin a flame war with facts. :rolleyes: And what he heck does puberty have to do with anything? I've seen eight year old who are way more mature than you.


1) 1 broken link and one link showing tech specs of a card. In real life implementation, you take the settings you'd use on a 6800GT, and knock it down a notch for some special particle effects and you'd get the same framerate. I've tried it on identical systems.

2) Ouch, that 6th grade insult ALMOST burned. But puberty has a lot to do with it--mainly it detracts from fanboyism, elitism, and if you're out of puberty you've got a lot more experience in life in general (though I'm not saying I have a lot of experience in life, I know I have quite a bit in this area at least).

3) Actually giving some sort of argument usually helps in a retort.
D E A T H
2006-01-06, 8:53 AM #34
Neither of the two links are broken, Yoshi.
2006-01-06, 1:35 PM #35
[QUOTE=IRG SithLord]Neither of the two links are broken, Yoshi.[/QUOTE]
First one 404'd on me the first 5 times I tried it in Firefox, and the one time I tried it in IE. The second one never was.

To respond to the first link--on the same settings, the 6600GT will perform about 60-70% as well as a 6800GT. However, knock the settings down one notch and you've got easily comparable performance.
D E A T H
2006-01-06, 5:09 PM #36
Quote:
"LOL DUDE I KNOW MORE THAN YOU ABOUT COMPUTERS EVEN THOUGH I'M NOT DONE WITH PUBERTY YET."


That is the most retarded thing I've ever read on this forum.
"Well ain't that a merry jelly." - FastGamerr

"You can actually see the waves of me not caring in the air." - fishstickz
2006-01-06, 5:29 PM #37
Originally posted by Acharjay:
That is the most retarded thing I've ever read on this forum.

1) You must really not come here that often.
2) You used retarded as an insult.
3) You lose.
D E A T H
2006-01-06, 9:39 PM #38
Come on guys, I thought it was obvious that any game that doesn't run on every person's system is terrible, and the graphics have to be spectacular even on lowest settings.

AND HOW MANY TIMES have we been through this? FLAMING MAKES YOU RIGHT. I can't even believe this is a question anymore.




Your opinion is wrong, btw.
2006-01-06, 9:52 PM #39
Originally posted by RingMaster481:
Come on guys, I thought it was obvious that any game that doesn't run on every person's system is terrible, and the graphics have to be spectacular even on lowest settings.

AND HOW MANY TIMES have we been through this? FLAMING MAKES YOU RIGHT. I can't even believe this is a question anymore.


You definitley win the most informative and best post of hte year. I'll send your cookie in a PM :).
"His Will Was Set, And Only Death Would Break It"

"None knows what the new day shall bring him"
2006-01-06, 9:59 PM #40
[QUOTE=Dj Yoshi]1) You must really not come here that often.
2) You used retarded as an insult.
3) You lose.[/QUOTE]
A) Numbers suck.
B) You have anger problems.
C) Dont get so worked up about stuff, if you get this freaked out about someone having problems with a game, then your going to have a heart attack if you ever run into any actual stress.


[QUOTE=Dj Yoshi]Glad to know you've started programming games. So where do you work? What have you programmed?[/QUOTE]

You dont program games either, so your reasoning is void. The great thing about this, is that humans can form opinions without knowing every little detail. If something -does not work- it doesnt matter if you can make it better, it still sucks.


PS: I havent played FEAR, I didnt even know what it was till this thread.
PPS: All above text is purely my own opinion and is not to be considered factual.

o.0
12

↑ Up to the top!