Jump to content

Talk:F.E.A.R. 2: Project Origin: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous edit
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
No edit summary
 
(103 intermediate revisions by 29 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{talk header}}
{{talkheader}}
{{Game}}
{{cvgproj|class=Start|importance=Low}}
{{WikiProject banner shell|collapsed=y|class=B|1=
{{HorrorWikiProject|class=Start|importance=low}}
{{WikiProject Horror|importance=Low}}
== Game Engine ==
{{WikiProject Paranormal |importance=Low}}

{{WikiProject Science Fiction |importance=Low}}
Does anyone know what engine the F.E.A.R. sequel will be using? Will it use the same engine as the original F.E.A.R.? Or some new version of the Jupitor Engine? IGN got a 15 minute video of the sequel, which I cited in the article itself and added, but did not mention anything about the game engine or graphics, which I find very odd. [[User:72.49.194.69|72.49.194.69]] 21:35, 19 July 2007 (UTC) Joshua
{{WikiProject Video games|importance=low}}

}}
Are you guys sure it's using Lithtech: Jupiter EX (the very same engine as the first game)? No citation or source is stated. [[User:72.49.194.69|72.49.194.69]] 05:16, 26 July 2007 (UTC) Joshua

:I don't think it's been disclosed yet, since it's still early. I would imagine it would use a further-enhanced version of the Lithtech engine from Jupiter EX. -[[User:Deuxsonic|Deuxsonic]] 09:22, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

All I can say is I hope they manage to use a mix lighting style of real-time and lightmapping. FEAR's realtime lighting is gorgeous, but limiting. The engine still supports lightmapping (since the way-back-when original Jupiter ONLY had lightmaps and static vertex), and if they gave the processor a radiosity simulator, then lightmapping would be great for filling out the dark areas without resorting to ambient light. If they want to make the mood more elaborate, a lightmap/dynamic hybrid is the way to go.

== TimeGate Expansions ==
Please stop adding Extraction Point. Monolith does not view it as having ever happened. It's in the first magazine article about the game; I don't have it with me right now, but when I get home I'll cite it for you all.
[[User:Enfestid|Enfestid]] ([[User talk:Enfestid|talk]]) 14:24, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Official word that the two F.E.A.R expansion packs, Extraction Point and Peresus Mandate are viewed as never happened.

http://www.projectorigingame.com/forum/showpost.php?p=5928&postcount=7 <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/78.149.86.223|78.149.86.223]] ([[User talk:78.149.86.223|talk]]) 19:08, 20 December 2007 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

: I added the citation to the main text. However, it must be said that a citation from a public forum is not really ideal; it would be better to find an official statement from Monolith, and/or something officially stated in a notable trade Web site, like ''Gamespot''. [[User:Xihr|Xihr]] ([[User talk:Xihr|talk]]) 22:40, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

: Never happened seems like an extreme term. I'd also want to see a solid citation. [[User:Xe7al|Xe7al]] ([[User talk:Xe7al|talk]]) 13:33, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

:: Well, it's certainly true that [[Monolith]] does not consider the plot that has taken place in the two expansion packs to be canonical, and so has stated they will just ignore them. The citation is true; it's just not a particularly notable one. I'll dig around for a better one. [[User:Xihr|Xihr]] ([[User talk:Xihr|talk]]) 04:53, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
::: Perhaps it would be good to have them on the same page for the character lists, yet make it clear there are two different continuities? [[User:Theodorel|Theodorel]] ([[User talk:Theodorel|talk]]) 19:52, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

:::: Well, I think the problem with that is that the continuity for the expansion packs isn't much of one; it's a dead end and there isn't much to say except essentially all the main characters are gratuitously killed off, or that the new characters introduced are unceremoniously killed. (Except for Mapes, who inexplicably survives, but obviously it's just intended for comic effect.) [[User:Xihr|Xihr]] ([[User talk:Xihr|talk]]) 21:09, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

:::::I would say that it really doesn't make a difference because it's a different story basically. You can assume that the past expansions are being ignored because they have no effect on what happens in the next story. That is unless they throw something in about the Nightcrawlers capturing that DNA sample. That's probably the only thing I can see coming out of the expansions. [[User:Xe7al|Xe7al]] ([[User talk:Xe7al|talk]]) 01:31, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

:::::: Heres a site talking about this issue: http://www.gamepro.com.au/index.php/id;644716573;fp;32768;fpid;1242214376--[[User:Lakecityransom|Lakecityransom]] ([[User talk:Lakecityransom|talk]]) 10:58, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

==FEAR 2==
It was announced unofficially in the UK PC gamer of this month (jan 08) that Vivendi was working on a sequel to FEAR, called FEAR 2, that they will be unveiling after Project Origin is released. i propose that the FEAR 2 re-direct be removed, because this will almost certainly cause confusion and difficulties when FEAR 2 is officially announced. [[User:3rdTriangle|3rdTriangle]] ([[User talk:3rdTriangle|talk]]) 17:12, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

==E3 Demo==
there's a 18 minute video on youtube of a demo that was shown at E3, in 2007. there's alot of content in there, which we could use to update the main page? [[User:3rdTriangle|3rdTriangle]] ([[User talk:3rdTriangle|talk]]) 17:26, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
:seeing as no-one has objected, i've added the information under a new section [[User:3rdTriangle|3rdTriangle]] ([[User talk:3rdTriangle|talk]]) 13:31, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

==Release date==

Anyone know when the release date is? I know their are some trailers for it, meaning it is coming soon (unless it goes they way of GTA 4 and releases the game a year after the trailer comes out) if anyone know anything about this, please post it <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Not G. Ivingname|Not G. Ivingname]] ([[User talk:Not G. Ivingname|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Not G. Ivingname|contribs]]) 04:07, 19 May 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

: I don't think it's been announced yet. [[User:Xihr|Xihr]] ([[User talk:Xihr|talk]]) 04:39, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

:: I think I saw a October 28, 2008 US release date on Amazon.com website. Don't know if it is official, but setting the release date of a game with Project Origin's background so close to [[Halloween]] seems more than coincidental... [[User:Berserker79|Berserker79]] ([[User talk:Berserker79|talk]]) 17:48, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

:::Official website says Fall 2008 at the bottom. Dunno how long it's been since it's been updated though. I'm going to change it to Fall 2008. If anyone can show me a different date, please do. [[User:Delta759|Delta]] ([[User talk:Delta759|talk]]) 21:31, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

:::: That's old data. A delay was just announced, pushing it back to Q1 2009. [[User:Xihr|<span style="color: white; background: black; font-weight: bold; padding: 1px;">&nbsp;Xihr&nbsp;</span>]] 04:46, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

:::::Saw it on IGN right after I changed it. Meant to rv myself....uhm, oops. [[User:Delta759|Delta]] ([[User talk:Delta759|talk]]) 01:37, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

:::::: The main page states that it was released earlier this year. Are those dates meant to be for next year, and it was just a typo, or are those dates made up? [[Special:Contributions/97.118.245.155|97.118.245.155]] ([[User talk:97.118.245.155|talk]]) 22:07, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

::::::: That was a typo, sorry about that. I meant to put next year. [[Special:Contributions/216.114.214.12|216.114.214.12]] ([[User talk:216.114.214.12|talk]]) 00:10, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
:::::::: Sweet, thanks for fixing that. [[Special:Contributions/97.118.245.155|97.118.245.155]] ([[User talk:97.118.245.155|talk]]) 03:56, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

==Refusal of Classification in Australia==
I just added this part of the article, is it up to Wikipedia standards? <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/211.31.47.38|211.31.47.38]] ([[User talk:211.31.47.38|talk]]) 09:37, 26 November 2008 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

==Marketing Campaign?==
Has anyone else seen or heard about people getting packages in the mail related to F.E.A.R. 2? Would this be important to add to the article as well? [[User:ShippoIsHip|ShippoIsHip]] ([[User talk:ShippoIsHip|talk]]) 21:14, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

: I don't really see why. Ads by mail are not abnormal, especially if you have some prior relationship (say, registering a game) with a publisher. [[User:Xihr|<span style="color: white; background: black; font-weight: bold; padding: 1px;">&nbsp;Xihr&nbsp;</span>]] 21:24, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
:: Yeah, but not Instructional DVDs and Keys to a Storehouse with a Code locked Suitcase! (Watch the new video by Sxephil to see what I mean: http://youtube.com/watch?v=nNv0zY9fPhA ). Also, there's a viral website: http://www.armacham.com/ [[Special:Contributions/83.26.56.156|83.26.56.156]] ([[User talk:83.26.56.156|talk]]) 22:37, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
::: Oh, okay. But still, attempts to do this are not abnormal either. There are several (failed) attempts in the past, though it's late and the names of the games (mostly online Web games) aren't coming to me now. They're just sending them to people their marketing information suggests will be interested, or, as I said, are known fans of the series through registrations. Indeed, talking on the Internet about exactly what's going on and why and revealing the details is precisely what the goal is. [[User:Xihr|<span style="color: white; background: black; font-weight: bold; padding: 1px;">&nbsp;Xihr&nbsp;</span>]] 08:47, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
:::: I've watched the video and it's really obviously itself an attempt at spreading a viral video. The people who are "filming" the video are clearly actors. There's nothing to see here, and at this point it falls fall short of being notable. [[User:Xihr|<span style="color: white; background: black; font-weight: bold; padding: 1px;">&nbsp;Xihr&nbsp;</span>]] 23:02, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
:::::Yes but this is exactly what they did for The Blair Witch project. They did abnormal marketing techniques to build up hype for the movie. It is mentioned in the Blair Witch article, when can't it be mentioned here? [[User:Woodcutter631|&#39;Scaper &#124; ŴööđÇüŦŦëř]] ([[User talk:Woodcutter631|talk]]) 23:25, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
:::::: If it's mentioned there then it's probably inappropriate and should be removed, unless it was 1. the first time that was done for a movie or 2. it is something that in and of itself became notable (say, because it made the obscure movie a huge success). (Either or both of these may be true in the case of ''The Blair Witch Project''; I honestly wouldn't know offhand. Obviously ''Blair Witch'' was a huge success but it's hardly likely that it was ''because'' of their viral advertising campaign; it was word of mouth.) The first clearly can't be true for ''F.E.A.R. 2''; it may turn out in the fullness of time that most people agree that this avenue of viral marketing is in and of itself notable for the game, but we certainly can't know that now, so giving it special emphasis in the article has [[WP:UNDUE|undue influence]] and [[WP:N|notability]] problems. [[User:Xihr|<span style="color: white; background: black; font-weight: bold; padding: 1px;">&nbsp;Xihr&nbsp;</span>]] 05:41, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
:::::::Of course the guy in the shadow is an actor, but still I personally think this deserves a mention, since apparently it's not being sent to registered users, but more-or-less popular Internet persona's (Phil said that it's "kind of scary that they have his real address"). But that's really just my opinion. If anything, at least the website should be put in the External Links section. (much like ApertureScience.com is linked in [[Portal (video game)]]). [[Special:Contributions/83.26.190.245|83.26.190.245]] ([[User talk:83.26.190.245|talk]]) 10:42, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
:::::::: It seems quite clear to me that they're all actors. The entire story is completely staged. I mean, how do you think that material came together to be edited in that movie? [[User:Xihr|<span style="color: white; background: black; font-weight: bold; padding: 1px;">&nbsp;Xihr&nbsp;</span>]] 03:22, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
::::::::: An actor? You're kidding me, right? The dude makes videos on YouTube for a living, almost all of them being completely unscripted and edited in his apartment, why the hell would he be making it all up? He even commented that he hates the fact that some marketing company was using him for publicity for their game. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/24.165.150.118|24.165.150.118]] ([[User talk:24.165.150.118|talk]]) 04:13, 10 December 2008 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

== Demo ==

The demo for FEAR 2 has been released on PC, X-box 360, and Playstation 3. The demo is available on Steam (PC) and the Steam store indicates it will release the full game online though pre-ordering is not available at the moment. --[[Special:Contributions/204.112.191.178|204.112.191.178]] ([[User talk:204.112.191.178|talk]]) 01:42, 23 January 2009 (UTC)


-- According to numerous forums and the company itself, Fear 2.0 does not support cooperative gameplay either on or offline <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/65.213.208.2|65.213.208.2]] ([[User talk:65.213.208.2|talk]]) 16:57, 10 February 2009 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

== Is this correct? ==

Under the plot, in the last paragraph there is a sentence that reads: <blockquote>
Alma approaches Becket, and he is sent into another hallucination, where he fights off apparitions of a maddened Sergeant Keegan while trying to activate the amplifier to destroy Alma, interspersed with images of Alma crying out as if in orgasm.
</blockquote> The last word i believe to be incorrect. I believe it should read 'pain' instead of 'orgasm'&ndash;&nbsp;[[User:e smith2000|Elliott]]<span style="letter-spacing:0px;font-size:8px"><span style="vertical-align:3px">[[User_talk:e smith2000|(Talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/e smith2000|Cont)]]</span></span>&nbsp; 01:11, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually if you've played the game you would know it IS an orgasm she is not in pain..............in a sense <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Otto360|Otto360]] ([[User talk:Otto360|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Otto360|contribs]]) 05:34, 16 February 2009 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:I did play the game, i found the game very entertaining but short lived (it only took me 7 hours to beat it the first time on normal, and 5 hours the second time on hard) It could be that i was not paying attention. &ndash;&nbsp;[[User:e smith2000|Elliott]]<span style="letter-spacing:0px;font-size:8px"><span style="vertical-align:3px">[[User_talk:e smith2000|(Talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/e smith2000|Cont)]]</span></span>&nbsp; 16:52, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

: Just played the game for the first time as well, and it's not clear to me that's the implication. [[User:Xihr|<span style="color: white; background: black; font-weight: bold; padding: 1px;">&nbsp;Xihr&nbsp;</span>]] 08:44, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

:: I just replayed it and in retrospect it ''is'' pretty obvious that this is the intended implication. [[User:Xihr|<span style="color: white; background: black; font-weight: bold; padding: 1px;">&nbsp;Xihr&nbsp;</span>]] 00:03, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Another problem with the plot section: "''Finally, after reactivating the last switch, Becket escapes the hallucination to find himself sealed inside the device.''" This is a misinterpretion. The wording should be changed, as the player does not find himself sealed in the device. If you look around, you will notice that Becket's physical body isn't there. - [[Special:Contributions/91.153.27.175|91.153.27.175]] ([[User talk:91.153.27.175|talk]]) 13:40, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

: I'm not sure why you conclude this, since you can't see yourself during the hallucinations anyway. It is clear from Aristide's comments that her intent is to seal you into the chamber with Alma. [[User:Xihr|<span style="color: white; background: black; font-weight: bold; padding: 1px;">&nbsp;Xihr&nbsp;</span>]] 00:03, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

== Reception ==

Surely there must be more critics involved with the game than stated on the actual page because last I checked there was a considerable amount of hype for the game. <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Otto360|Otto360]] ([[User talk:Otto360|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Otto360|contribs]]) 05:38, 16 February 2009 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

The reception section needs work. False information (no AA, no physics, no lighting), POV/poor source (forum given as a source) and weasel words ("much") regarding the game have been repeatedly inserted. I have deleted the changes once only see them reentered again. It also seems that the reception section has a negative spin to it even though the game has scored 82 on Metacritic. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/60.231.221.80|60.231.221.80]] ([[User talk:60.231.221.80|talk]]) 12:41, 19 February 2009 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

Exactly, I've got the PC version of Fear 2 and there is Anti-Aliasing, all the way up to 16xQ. This is false information. Also, the games visuals are fine, the game is VERY well optimised and runs at a constant 60+ FPS on max settings on a system with a 9800 GTX, AMD 5200+, 2gb RAM set up. This game is far from poorly made and this negative attitude is rather abrupt, to praise the game and to then say it has problems (Which it clearly does not) <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/86.130.127.99|86.130.127.99]] ([[User talk:86.130.127.99|talk]]) 04:13, 20 February 2009 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

: Remember, editor's opinions about whether the game is good or not are [[WP:NOR|not satisfactory for Wikipedia]]. What matters is what [[WP:V|verifiable]], [[WP:RS|third-party, reliable sources]] have to say about the subject of the article. [[User:Xihr|<span style="color: white; background: black; font-weight: bold; padding: 1px;">&nbsp;Xihr&nbsp;</span>]] 00:04, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

With regards to the user forums I do not think it's a reliable source for the reception section because half the time people are criticising the game because they are not fans or do not have the decent hardware to run it. I request that such information be removed

: Neither point of that new paragraph that keeps getting added and reverted are. The redline should be enough of a hint that something is amiss, especially combined with the editor's total lack of edit descriptions accompanied with his persistent adding of the comments. [[User:Xihr|<span style="color: white; background: black; font-weight: bold; padding: 1px;">&nbsp;Xihr&nbsp;</span>]] 09:34, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

External source has been added. As Gamer 2.0 is an online reviews page, it is as reliable as any other source. The popularity of the other sites quoted is not an indicator of reliability. The insertion clearly states that the graphics issues are limited to console versions, and PC versions are irrelevant. The sentence about forum discussions clearly states that the issues are being raised by members of forums, who are players. Their comments are just as reliable as official reviewers, many of whom openly admit to receiving payments for reviews. The included statement clearly states that this is the opinion of several forum members, and has references to these forums. There is nothing wrong with the inclusion.
:Yes, there is. Forum users are not reliable sources, sorry. I'm not taking the word of a 13-year old kid over the guy PAID TO WRITE REVIEWS. By your argument, I can post whatever opinion I want to any forum, and then cite it here. [[User:Kingoomieiii|Kingoomieiii]] ([[User talk:Kingoomieiii|talk]]) 16:36, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Sure, if you assume that the only reviews ARE written by 13 year olds. However, there are MANY people arguing this. The people paid to write the reviews, by very fact that they are paid, are biased. For objectivity, it is necessary to include the perspectives of people that are not paid too. You have no evidence that the many people arguing the graphics are 13. A controversy is a controversy, regardless of who is involved, and the info on wiki clearly states that it is a controversy. Are you saying that the opinion of people who have played the game, and have not received payment for their comments, are irrelevant?
Might i point out that the sub-heading says "reception", not "reception of official reviewers"

: It is not a [[WP:RS|reliable source]], so whether you like it or not is irrelevant. It is inappropriate to use as a reviewer, citation or not. The redlink should have been a big hint. In the future, please follow consensus rather than blindingly entering an [[WP:3RR|edit war]]. [[User:Xihr|<span style="color: white; background: black; font-weight: bold; padding: 1px;">&nbsp;Xihr&nbsp;</span>]] 11:03, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Why does a red link mean it is not a reliable source? You have to be listed on wikipedia as a reliable source? ROTFLMAO!!!
Gamer2.0 is JUST as reliable as any other source. ALL sources are written by humans, and therefore completely subjective. This page is just one of a number of game review sites. What makes it less reliable that, for example, gamespot?
Just ask Derrida.
Consensus? I thought this was supposedly about objectivity

Latest revision as of 19:02, 4 December 2024

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:F.E.A.R._2:_Project_Origin&oldid=1261184431"