Talk:F.E.A.R. (video game)

Archives
First Archive Second Archive (May06 - Aug06)

IMI Tavor vs. SA80

It's clearly the Tavor. The SA80 scope is in the wrong place, and doesn't have a trigger guard. Xihr 22:56, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Second Archive of past discussions

I took once again the liberty of archiving past discussions. They all seemed to be concluded and are all still available if anyone feels the need to consult them. Berserker79 08:50, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Weapons list

Following the deletion of the "weapons' article" I've been the one to first come up with the table layout for the list of weapons in F.E.A.R., but to be honest I never liked it much: it somehow disrupted the layout of the page according to my own taste... I remember I've turned it into a bulletted list with shorter descriptions, but it was reverted to the table. Now, I think I've come up with a better idea: a collapsable sidebar. The list is there, the reader just has to click to show the full list with the descriptions.

If you don't like it revert, but please drop a line here. If someone likes better to have the list shown when the article loads and have the reader choose if to collapse it, then change the code to suit this need. The only thing that still bothers me is the arrangement of the paragraphs: what's the use of having the weapons paragraph before the game features and synopsis? That ought to be moved down imho. Berserker79 09:41, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Features should be at the top, not Gameplay IMO. The layout just doesn't seem right. CABAL 12:50, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Definitely agree that Features should be on top, then follows Gameplay, and then maybe Atmosphere. Good job with the weapons, Berserker! Delta 20:06, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Looks like we are back at discussing what is the better layout for the sections. So, "Features" get moved to the top after the intro. "Atmosphere" comes next (not sure about this one). Then "Gameplay". "Synopsis" follows with "Plot" "Characters" and "Arsenal" as its subsections. I'd keep the rest as it is.

BTW, a further issue I've been thinking of: should we "merge" F.E.A.R. Combat into this article? There's almost nothing there and Combat shares the multiplayer features of F.E.A.R. which are described here. Berserker79 07:45, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

As long as the article doesn't grow large enough to rival Godzilla... (You just KNOW someone's going to stick a Merge request on that page sooner or later) CABAL 11:02, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Done. Merged Combat with F.E.A.R.. Don't know if I overlooked something, but there wasn't pretty much to merge anyway. Also, I've done some additional editing, rearranging the layout, adding the Combat logo picture, removing some redundant wikilinks and sentences (e.g. the Combat stuff from "Future developments"). Berserker79 13:29, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

• For some reason, this list has once again become a section. Upon deleting it, my edit was reverted. This section needs to go, per WP:NOT. JimmyBlackwing 23:49, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • I agree with Jimmy. If people here want this article to be featured, the list will need to go. That there is an article on Half-Life 2 weapons doesn't mean much. FAs are judged based on the article itself, not any subarticles. However, lists of game elements have been prone to deletion via AfD, so at this rate the article onHL2 weapons is much more likely to be deleted via AfD than to make FA or even GA. And, even beside that point, lists detract from the brilliant prose required of featured articles and should be used only sparingly. — TKD::Talk 00:46, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
    • The current layout for weapons is just plain bad, I agree. I had become quite fond of the collapsable sidebar on the other hand. :) All right, if getting to GA or FA needs the "Weapons List" to be sacrificed, so be it. Couldn't we just add some kind of mentioning of the weapons included? I'll try to put my hands on it now, then see if it's worth something or should be cut as well. I just hope we shall not have the usual round of anonymous edits adding weapons lists back anyway... Berserker79 07:32, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Extending my prev comment: I've cut the list and reworded the paragraph to simply give an overview of the available kinds of weapons in the game. I think this could be something satisfying everyone, unless it is against WP:NOT as well. Berserker79 07:58, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
      • This is much better, and should be perfect with a bit of fine-tuning. Great job. JimmyBlackwing 08:12, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Article title

With the name being "F.E.A.R." and not "Fear", "FEAR", "FeAr", or something of the sort, I find the addition of "(video game)" unnecessary. Someone would not accidentally stumble into this article if it was gone. It is also misleading, as F.E.A.R. is, in fact, a computer and video game. I propose a move to F.E.A.R.. JimmyBlackwing 22:33, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

• Upon further investigation, I have discovered F.E.A.R. (single). However, this may be remedied by simply placing "{{otheruses}}" at the top of this article. It is infinitely more likely that someone would be looking for this topic (evidenced by F.E.A.R. redirecting to this page). JimmyBlackwing 22:39, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

As far as I remember this article was once called F.E.A.R. before that was turned in a disambig page, then a redirect (since there were only 2 entries in the disambig and most people looked for the game). Until a while ago this was "F.E.A.R. (computer game)", but owing to the incoming release of the Xbox360 and P3 ports someone moved to "F.E.A.R. (video game)". I'm all in favour of renaming it to just F.E.A.R. and use the {{otheruses}} tag. Berserker79 12:06, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

I support this move as well. It seems far more likely that someone typing in "F.E.A.R." is looking for the game, rather than the single. And I appreciate your help Jimmy for getting this article up to FA status. Delta 15:43, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

No problem. JimmyBlackwing 21:34, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Just throwing in my vote too. CABAL 07:12, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

• I was looking into what is needed to make such a move: apparently the wiki software does not like to do moves to an already existing article unless it is a redirect with no history and apparently this does not apply to F.E.A.R.. I'm going to try it (and hope I don't mess the whole thing) otherwise we're going to need to place a request on Wikipedia:Requested moves for an admin to do the job. Berserker79 09:12, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

• • You need to place a tag on this page. Most proposal have a more formal discussion area - proposal, and then support / oppose. -- Beardo 12:22, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Adding it now. Got an edit conflict while adding the tags, probably we were editing at the same time. :) Berserker79 12:25, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was move —Mets501 (talk) 02:39, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Requested move

F.E.A.R. (video game) → F.E.A.R. – The addition of "(video game)" has been deemed unnecessary after discussion, as most people typing F.E.A.R. are likely to search for the game. The F.E.A.R. (single) can be conveniently linked with a {{otheruses}} tag. Needs admin intervention because of redirect history. Berserker79 12:25, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Survey

Add "* Support" or "* Oppose" followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~

• Support as per request. Berserker79 12:26, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose; not convinced most people will be looking for the game - I for one had heard the song, but had never heard of the game. I think disambiguating as current helps. Aquilina 19:31, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support I think it would make sense. -- Psi edit 19:50, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support. The game is more topical and popular. Xihr 19:54, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support The game is most likely more notable than the single. Delta 20:29, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support. The current system is extremely clumsy and nonsensical. JimmyBlackwing 22:47, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support. The probability that one is looking for the game is considerably greater than the odds for the single. CABAL 04:39, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

Add any additional comments

• In response to User:Aquilina's opposition, I present the fact that "F.E.A.R." does not redirect to a disambiguation page. Instead, users are redirected here. A user searching for the single would have better luck with the proposed system, as the single would be linked directly from this page via {{otheruses}}, without the hassle of the enormous Fear (disambiguation) page. JimmyBlackwing 02:20, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

• • That's assuming the status quo is the correct position! I would have F.E.A.R. redirecting to a F.E.A.R. disambig between the single and the computer game. I would just like to see some proof that the game is more searched for than the single, that's all. Everyone seems to be sure of it, but no-one has justified it yet. Aquilina 11:17, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, the need for some proof is understandable, however I'd just like to point out thay F.E.A.R. had been briefly a disambig, until someone came up with a "having a disambig page with just two entries is useless" concept and turned to a redirect. Moving the game to F.E.A.R. and placing a {{otheruses}} tag on top of both articles seems the simplest thing to do in my opinion, I'll try to see to get the proof you ask in the meantime. Berserker79 11:42, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

• Only if you are sure no-one will come up with anoyher F.E.A.R. in the future. If they do, we may want a dab page as the main page.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Beardo (talk • contribs) 17:46, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but that's a pretty silly criterion. No one can ever possibly know that any page won't develop further ambiguities from new terms that come along. Furthermore, plenty of Wikipedia pages already exist with this model, where the main entry is not hidden behind a disambiguation page, but instead points to other uses. By your criterion none of these should exist, and yet there are so many of them that criterion cannot be sensible. Xihr 22:23, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

JimmyBlackwing

While I have no problem with your edits or see any errors, please use the preview feature to limit your edits. It makes it hard for users trying to compare previous versions or look over changelogs. If you need, try copy and pasting the article into notepad, editing it there, then copy and pasting it back into Wikipedia to preview it. Thanks. Enfestid 12:39, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

• Thank you for voicing your concerns. Please use User talk:JimmyBlackwing the next time you need to get in touch with me. JimmyBlackwing 23:58, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

GA passed

1. Well written? Pass

2. Factually accurate? Pass

3. Broad in coverage? Pass

4. Neutral point of view? Pass

5. Article stability? Pass

6. Images? Pass

Additional comments :

The only thing I could say is avoid words like currently or so as wikipedia tries to be a time-independent encyclopedia but that is minor and for an expected event, I can't find an expression that would remove this and become less time-dependent.

After a read through, this article has compelling prose requested by GA and FA, it also meets the requirements of GA and A-class and so I have stamped it with A-class. I cannot unfortunately help you more as I do not know the game and can only judge as an external reviewer. Good luck with the progression of the article. Lincher 01:08, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Lincher 01:08, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

• Excellent. Many thanks. JimmyBlackwing 03:16, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Correcting outdated information due to expansion pack

I have removed the line: No artificial intelligence-controlled characters fight alongside the player. as you do fight alongside NPC's (Holiday mainly) in the fear expansion pack extraction point. --Wiki Fanatic | Talk 12:40, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I did a "partial revert" changing the removed sentence to: "No artificial intelligence-controlled characters fight alongside the player in F.E.A.R., except for some sequences in the expansion Extraction Point.". The "No NPCs fight with the player" sentence still applies to the main game, in spite of what is seen in the expansion, so I felt it was better to allow for some clarification rather than removing the whole sentence. Berserker79 13:07, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. Its a lot clearer now and it whats I meant to say. --Wiki Fanatic | Talk 07:19, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Weapons?

What happened to the weapon section?

• It was pure cruft, and game guide material to boot. It has been removed in hopes of getting this article to featured status. Please do not re-add it. JimmyBlackwing 04:09, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

wrong?

"The new engine includes both Havok physics and the Havok "Vehicle Kit," which adds support for common vehicle behavior.[55] This latter feature goes mostly unused in F.E.A.R., as no vehicles appear outside of scripted sequences."

um, there are AI controlled mechs which you must defeat? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.16.160.17 (talk) 12:42, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Style

Doesn't F.E.A.R. borrow some story elements from Pathways Into Darkness? rohith 19:57, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Is there a reference for that? If not, it doesn't belong in the article. JimmyBlackwing 20:36, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Atmosphere

The section on atmosphere is largely about Alma(aswell as audio, but you can't have a picture of audio), so would it make more sense to have a picture of Alma there instead of a hallway? Riphal 23:23, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

The plot synopsis.

Whoever wrote the plot synopsis got plenty of things incorrect, the same goes with the article on Alma. I'll look over this again sometime and add more points that I have forgotten about. The source of these are from a trusted friend who had gotten the information from Monolith.

• Alma was not fully freed from the vault, the vault was attempted to be opened and she gained slight influence outside the vault causing the second Synchronicity Event.
• Fettle was not under control of Alma, she was his, and the main characters mother.
• The point man was entitled to kill Fettle due to that the entire point of Fettle leading the point man to the vault was to "unite the family" through death.
• In the F.E.A.R expansion there was two "versions" of Alma, one being her in her young child mindset, and the other being the completely different tortured Alma with wishes to unite both of her sons with her.
• Harlan Wade was her father.
• There was no father of the point man or Fettle, she was impregnated with her altered DNA.
• The main goal of Project Origin was to create a military commander with the ability to control a batallion of cloned super-soldiers utilizing thought.

I also recommend anyone who intends to re-write anything involving the plot synopsis or character article should read the top post of this IGN thread: http://boards.ign.com/f_e_a_r_/b7699/102174183/p1/

The post is factually accurate and will greatly aid anyone who is unfamiliar with the true plot.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.36.104.216 (talk • contribs) 20:33, January 23, 2007 (UTC)

I've been part of the people who wrote the plot synopsis and, honestly, I think most of the points you bring up for discussion are not correct themselves:

1. this one is correct. By saying she was freed we just wanted to keep the synopsis brief, no need for excessive details.
2. if Fettel is not under Alma's control what is a synchronicity event all about?
3. to me this sounds plainly as conjecture, a theory as valid as anyone else without any data from the game backing it up.
4. this is an article about the main game and info about the expansion should find its way to the Extraction Point own article.
5. it's not fully confirmed. Wade could have adopted her or anything else and the detail is not essential to understand the basic plot.
6. this sounds correct enough.
7. that was Perseus goal, not Origin's.

If you think about working on the plot, please keep discussing the changes you're interested to add here. Berserker79 11:14, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Wasn't Alma freed by Harlan Wade in the end? Delta 18:36, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. The proposed modifications are either already stated, incorrect, or are speculation. Rumors heard second- or third-hand supposedly from the developers isn't credible, and certainly isn't verifiable (WP:V). And I also agree that Extraction Point material should be in a separate article, rather than trying to include its additional storyline modifications into the main article. Xihr 19:55, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Compatibility?

• Vista Compatibility? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.69.26.32 (talk • contribs)

I do believe that F.E.A.R. is compatible with Vista, since many older games were compatible with XP (as long as some settings were adjusted). However, I admit that I have no concrete sources to back up my claim. My advice is to download a demo of F.E.A.R. and see if that is compatible with Vista. If it is, chances are that the full version will be as well. Delta 02:29, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

The issue is probably much more dependent on stable Vista video card drivers than Vista itself. --Cmsjustin 21:17, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Quasi-3D bullet holes

I note that bullet holes in walls in this game aren't just flat 2D black marks like in many other games, but appear to be massive chunks blasted out of the concrete -- looks like they work with a false 3D perspective (i.e. they're flat sprites with a kind of "hologram" view given to the player). Was this the first (significant) game to feature this tech, and is it worth mentioning in the spiel? (As you can probably tell, all I know is that they're there :-$) Dave-ros 10:30, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

That effect was achieved using parallax mapping. It's mentioned in the engine technology section of the article, but where it's used is not mentioned.124.184.147.34 01:25, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

PS3 version delayed?

Anyone know if this is true? Gamefly shows 4/15 as the release date, it used to be 3/13. If so I can update the approprate articles. --Cmsjustin 18:18, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Gamespot now shows a new date also --Cmsjustin 00:44, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Elfen Lied

Does anyone else see any similarity between Elfen Lied's Lucy and Alma? See this video (starting at 1m30s) for an example of what I mean. It's a known fact that much of F.E.A.R. is inspired by Japanese horror, and EL is kind of seminal in that regard. dethtoll 05:25, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Unless we can find a reliable source that links the two, we can't add that to the article. Right now, that falls squarely into original research territory. -- Kesh 05:47, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, I don't see how the reference to Alma being similar to Samara isn't "original research" as far as the FiringSquad article is concerned. The similarity to Lucy is just as evident, if not moreso, than the similarity to Samara. If the only difference is what some columnist on a website says, bringing up the most obvious comparison as everyone and their dog has seen the Ring but not many have seen Elfen Lied, and despite the fact that neither Lucy nor Samara has to my knowledge been directly referred by Monolith to as an inspiration for Alma, then I don't see why the Samara reference should be there. The Hubbard interview only brings up that comparisons to Samara has been made- which leads us back to a columnist on a website. Either allow the Lucy comparison or drop the Samara comparison, because, as the original research page says, "alternative reliable sources are used when scholarly publications are not available - such as in topics related to popular culture or current events." I should say the anime itself would classify as an "alternative reliable source" for anyone who isn't blind. dethtoll 06:05, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Just adding that it's also really unfair to keep a comparison to a character who, aside from a purely superficial standpoint, is not very similar to Alma at all, whereas Alma's very character and behaviour (shut up in a lab for most of her life, kept sealed away for safety reasons, the slow walking, head bowed, large groups of people dying horribly) seems lifted directly from Elfen Lied. dethtoll 06:17, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry you feel that way. The comparison to Samara was made by FiringSquad, a notable publication. If you can find a source which compares her to the character from Elfen Lied, I would have no problem adding it. However, we cannot simply say "she resembles X" because that is original research. Someone else from a reliable source needs to say it. -- Kesh 06:32, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but as I've pointed out, it's not really a good comparison, now, is it? Monolith have even gone so far to say that no one specific character was a direct inspiration for Alma. Hence the FiringSquad reference is irrelevant. Not to mention that FS isn't all that reliable a source to begin with, as it's merely a gaming blog, and so such things like the Samara comparison are- suprise! original research. dethtoll 06:49, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but that does not fit WP:OR as written. -- Kesh 22:32, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

So, concievably, I could get a friend to write up an article for that site that said "blah blah Lucy and Alma are similar blah blah" and you'd accept it because it's on FiringSquad? I mean, after all, it wouldn't count as original research. dethtoll 16:53, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

If a notable site (like FiringSquad, IGN, etc.) were to publish an article that made that connection, yes. Original research is when we add something to the article that has not been independently reported elsewhere by reliable sources. If an independent, reliable site/magazine/book were to make the connection, we could validly mention it here with the proper citation. Firing Squad is not a blog any more than IGN. It has an editorial staff, like a magazine, and not just anyone can publish reviews there. -- Kesh 17:15, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

You didn't really answer my question- and yes, I know what original research is (and frankly I don't see what the problem with OR is when the topic at hand is not scientific or otherwise "academic", but that's an argument for another day.) dethtoll 04:06, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

I've added another reference that compares Alma to Samara, from GameSpy. -- Kesh 17:23, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I too agree that an uncited comparison like that has no place in Wikipedia. Furthermore I have to say that I see very little similarity between Lucy and Alma in the first place. ChibiKareshi 07:03, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Trivia

What happened to the trivia section. I liked reading about the "Event Horizon Found" magazine. Muldoon X9 02:14, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

It was unencylcopedic and didn't have any references. Basically, any trivia section doesn't belong in Wikipedia. Delta 01:42, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. I read most articles for the trivia section.

~~Lazyguythewerewolf . Rawr. 13:06, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, that's a pity, since that's one of the things that Wikipedia is not. See also Avoid trivia sections. Xihr 21:13, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I too disagree... such a shame... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.71.156.105 (talk) 01:45, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

FEAR template?

I'm thinking of creating a template for this series, as we have Perseus Mandate and FEAR 2 coming out eventually. This template could be helpful for newcomers to navigate their way through the games and expansions.—Theodorel 10:08, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Not sure we're quite there yet with only 3 confirmed games. Isn't Perseus Mandate the official name for F.E.A.R. 2, anyway? Xihr 10:22, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

No. See their articles.

Enfestid 16:46, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Ah, right you are. I mixed up the names/details. So with four confirmed shipped or upcoming games, I'd say a template isn't unreasonable. Xihr 16:57, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

System Requirements

Would someone from the "League of Copyeditors" please check to see whether the system requirements section is correct? The current info seems too modest and doesn't jibe with other sources I've seen. In any event, I am sure you mean Radeon "9600" rather than "9000." Still, I've seen Geforce recommended. Also the name "League of Copyeditors" sounds silly. Forgive me if you already know that. Thank you. Pulsadinura 05:39, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Page Coding Is Messed Up

For some unknown reason, I tried to add the release dates for the PS3 and 360 versions, and even though the wiki coding is correct, the page itself displays the wrong code. I then removed the coding I did and it's still like that... Help please. -_- ShinraiTS4 20:38, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

I reverted to the last working version. Try adding it again, I'm not too sure how to add them. Delta 22:54, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

J-pop Song

In one of the final levels, there is a secret area which can be accessed by closing a valve and doing some backtracking. After a news report, a j-pop song plays on the radio there. Does anyone know the title or artist of this song? ChibiKareshi 07:40, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I take it this is from the very first game and not one of the expansion packs? CABAL 12:40, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Best way to find what you want is to search on easter egg sites. A quick Google search found this right away, which looks like what you're talking about, and indicates its origin. Xihr 21:34, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Good work. Funny, I've played Shogo myself, but for some reason didn't recognize the opening theme (this must have been before I started learning Japanese). A google on one of the lyrics I recalled led me straight to it. The song is titled "Negai" and sung by Miho Nemoto. Personally, I would include this in the article, but I'll leave the final decision to the more experienced editors. ChibiKareshi 06:08, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

It's a minor Easter egg and such is pretty unimportant trivia; it's not really suitable for the article. Xihr 08:47, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Organization

In gameplay, there is a small add-on that seems out of place: "The game's environments are largely urban-styled and indoor; this element has received criticism." "This element has received criticism," should be removed and added into a part in the Reception section. Furthermore, reviewers did not see the environment style as the problem but the repetitive level design from level to level. I remember a few reviewers actually said that the urban environment added more to the scare. What do you guys think? Xe7al 08:35, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Good to see you agree, Xihr. The change makes that section flow much better. Xe7al 08:45, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Yep. Be bold. Xihr 19:20, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Multiplayer shotgun section.

There is a small section (just a few sentences) under the "Multiplayer" heading about how the game's shotgun is a bit unwieldy and generally considered to be hard to use. Reading through the article, this felt extremely out of place, considering that the rest of the multiplayer section had no mention of weapons or how players felt about their difficulty (the closest thing would be a mention of the function of slow-mo in Multiplayer, but that functions well in conjuction with the single-player section). I wasn't sure whether there was a specific reason for keeping it around, so in 3 days (1-5-08), I'll check back to see if anyone's said anything in its favor, and then delete the section if not. Jpouliot (talk) 04:55, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I actually came across that and adjusted it before reading your comment. It was either original research, or game guide material (if true, which I agree with you, it isn't); in either case, it's not appropriate here. I've edited the article to reflect this. Xihr (talk) 06:45, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Just noticed someone put back that same piece of original research on shotgun in mp you're talking about. I've removed that stuff again. If anyone feels that information should find its place in the article please comment here. Berserker79 (talk) 17:22, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Fear 2 & Project Origin

it was confirmed in the latest UK edition of PC gamer, that Vivendi will be putting forwards their own, alternate sequel to FEAR, probably titled 'FEAR 2'. not to be confused with Project Origin, which is Monolith's sequel. this means there will be 2, different storylines, as i believe the two games are splitting the storyline. do we need a section on this? because i dont think this has ever happened in pc/video games before. also, the article's timelines will need split and so forth once Project Origin is released. 3rdTriangle (talk) 17:07, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Turns out that there was another source confirming this all along: http://ve3d.ign.com/articles/news/252/F-E-A-R-F-I-G-H-T

but I guess we will have to wait until more of the "official unofficial" project comes to light.Royboy5371 (talk) 01:51, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

ATC laptop hacking

An anonymous user has recently changed the sentence in the plot relating to who provides background info by hacking into the ATC laptopts from Commissioner Betters to the Point Man. I changed it back to Betters because I believe that's him and not the Point Man who actually analyzes the stuff on the laptops and then reports the findings. I believe the Point Man simply makes possible for Betters to log in the laptop and nothing more. I know all this discussion is more speculative than anything else, still I didn't feel like sort of reverting that edit without explaining.

So, if someone wishes to change the edit above again to "Point Man", please provide some good reasons about it here. I suppose every other user has so far considered referring to Betters correct after all... Berserker79 (talk) 18:25, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Release dates

Is there a reason why Xbox and PlayStation versions' release dates are not mentioned? --Mika1h (talk) 21:15, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Nope. I think this has been overlooked till now. Back then when the infobox was added F.E.A.R. was out only for the PC. If you have the relevant data I can't see any reason why the x360 and PS3 dates shouldn't be added. Berserker79 (talk) 18:04, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I added them. I used GameSpot as a source. --Mika1h (talk) 20:57, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

No dialog from hero?

Right before the scene where Alma, slowly walks down the hallway, in the treatment plant, and the point man flys through the window, I think I hear him say "someone there?". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mazman34340 (talk • contribs) 01:39, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

No, that's Jankowski's voice. He's heard saying that multiple times during the game. Xihr (talk) 05:57, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Mods

I think we should make a list of F.E.A.R. Mods article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.47.112.61 (talk) 00:17, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Akira Similarities in Vault Sequence

The sequence in the Vault, from entering it, descending down and finally opening Alma's cryogenic storage unit, is a carbon copy of the same sequence in AKIRA. Is this worth mentioning somewhere in here, or would it be rendered as Original Research? I think it's noteworthy as it is one of the major events of the game (ie. all games have sections inspired from other sources if you look hard enough, but this is a very distinct setup). 208.251.140.163 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 20:09, 19 October 2008 (UTC).

Level list

I've added a list of levels which the game F.E.A.R. contains, because I think it is a good idea to see how many levels the game contains and how it is structured. But the user called "Xihr" is deleting it every time without discussion and by simply referring to the wikipedia directive "WP:NOT#GUIDE". I've read it and I cannot see how adding a level list is hurting this directive. It's just a simple list, not a guide nor an advice nor an suggestion or something else what is conflicting the directive. It would be very nice if Xihr would explain it before he simply removes something by arbitrary behavior. I'm not playing a game with Xihr, I just don't' like it when someone simply delete the work of another one without consultation like in this discussion thread. 84.63.194.11 (talk) 09:55, 27 December 2008 (UTC) James

Well I'm a wee bit curious as to how the level list improves the article. Delta (talk) 02:29, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps it's a "wee" improvement, but the point is, it doesn't hurt really, or does it? If it does so tell me, because then it makes me a wee bit curious. It was the last time I've added something here. You can make whatever you want with this article, I don't care anymore. I'm not getting paid for the time I've spend to "improve" any article here, especially when it's getting reverted back without proper reason. 84.63.197.143 (talk) 10:25, 28 December 2008 (UTC) James

It is still Wikipedia policy that this sort of thing is not appropriate for the project. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a game guide.  Xihr  08:27, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I've read the WP:NOT#GUIDE, too, but I also cannot see how a simple level list is conflicting this policy and directive. A list of levels has nothing to do with a game guide. If so, please tell me where you see this in the WP:NOT#GUIDE, Xihr, but please stop deleting the list by just simply appointing to the WP:NOT#GUIDE without telling the line you mean and that is possibly violated. It's very frustrating when you destroy the work of another just because you don't like it, and I doubt that anyone will keep improving this article if you keep stubborn and thankless. It's important that we can discuss about everything, but the teamwork ends, if someone decides everything by arbitrary behavior and is not willing to discuss.84.63.201.247 (talk) 12:49, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

If a list of levels is not a game guide, then what purpose does it serve? In terms of the article, how does it improve this article? If it doesn't improve the article, then it doesn't belong here. In Wikipedia, all the content added must be notable. Otherwise, anything could be added and it would cease to be an encyclopedia. Delta (talk) 23:28, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

A Guide is a kind of receipt, a kind of manual to play the game or to solve a problem. It's serves as an advice, a collection of hints if you get stuck in a game. A level list just shows, how the game is structured, how many level it contains and that it is a linear game, divided in chapters. Perhaps it's not a very notable improvement for you but I think it has the right to be added. And by the way, I haven't seen a PC game in any encyclopedia, so why don't you remove the whole article? You have no real reason to remove the list. As long as you don't tell me how it hurts the wikipedia directive WP:NOT#GUIDE I will keep adding it. Until now Xihr is the only one who is violating the policy by destroying my work. 84.63.192.113 (talk) 09:30, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

But where do you ever see level lists? I've only ever seen them in game guides. On a different note, I have yet to see how this level list improves the article. If it doesn't improve the article, it has every right to be removed. Delta (talk) 04:31, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Not to mention that it's well-established Wikipedia policy that this kind of thing is not appropriate. Disagreeing with consensus doesn't mean that it's changed.  Xihr  07:40, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Xihr, I'm not willing to discuss the policy with you again as long as you cannot point the exactly line in the policy that is violated from your point of view. I never said that I'm disagreeing with the wikipedia directive I just see that you misunderstood the policy. I think that I have annotated depletive the difference between level list and game guide above. Just because you keep stubborn doesn't mean that I have violated the policy. And now to the point with the improvement. Who decides this? Just you, Xihr and Delta? I thought that wikipedia is a team project, but it seems that both of you are believing that only you can decide what kind of improvements are allowed. And by the way, why don't you delete the plot summary? This is truly a violation of WP:PLOT, why don't you delete this? The plot summary is too detailed, too long to fit with the policy, but you are discussing with me about a simple level list. Some game guides are containing plot summaries, does this automatically mean that plot summaries are game guides? I don't think so. The level list is really not so important to me that it must be kept in this article, it just makes me angry that people like you are thinking that they can wipe out the work of others just because it doesn't fit in their personal concept. I spend some time to write something in this article and on the next day I have to see that it's been deleted without a reasonable explanation. Again, tell me, how the level list degrades the quality of this article and I delete it personally. But don't tell me something about violation against the wikipedia policy unless you tell me which line of the policy is violated.84.63.207.23 (talk) 10:59, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Here is an archived peer review in which level lists were discussed. Check out the Half-Life 2 article as well, you'll notice no level lists in there. In fact, check out this list of featured video game articles, and try to find one that has a list of levels in the article. I agree that I have yet to find an official policy explicitly stating that level lists aren't allowed, but Wikipedia policies and guidelines are much like the Constitution: not every single rule is explicitly stated. The policies and and guidelines are designed to be general and cover a wide range of topics. There are plenty of "rules" that have been defined by consensus in discussions; these just haven't been explicitly documented. On a different note, your comment about the plot summary is true; it's gotten quite bloated since I last saw it (which was about a year ago). You're welcome to improve it. Delta (talk) 17:09, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I believe you Delta when you say that there are no level lists in the articles you have mentioned. On the other way, does this automatically mean that adding level lists is a bad idea? Just saying that I cannot add a level list because other persons also don't do is not a good argument for me. It just means to me that adding a level list makes the F.E.A.R. article unique which means improvement for me ;-) No really, I'm still missing a good argument to remove the list, and I'm a little bit disappointed that you still can't give it to me when it is so obviously. Just saying it's not an improvement is not very constructive. You say it doesn't improve the article, but you didn't mention why. I'm happy that you agree with me that I have not violated the rules, because this is not my intention. The discussion Here also tells me nothing that could help us in this situation. I suggest something: Until you find a really good reason to remove the list, you should concentrate yourself to the real problem with the plot. You've also agreed that this is a real violation against the policy WP:PLOT. From my point of view this should be the first priority for this article. I will see if I can do something about that. As a first gesture of friendship I won't remove (like Xihr would do ;-) ) the whole plot because of the violation. ;-) I wish you a happy new year guys! 84.63.207.23 (talk) 18:29, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

The reason I pointed you to this discussion was because the Doom 3 article originally had a list of levels much like the one you are trying to add. The result of that discussion was that the list of levels were unnecessary because the plot summary was sufficient. In the case of the FEAR article, I say it doesn't improve the article because there is no useful information gleaned from a list of levels. If I were a random reader stumbling upon this article, there would be no benefit to me (the reader) by reading a list of levels. Is a list of levels significant? Do these level names refer to some grand theme or motif? If not, I don't really see a need for it's inclusion. With that in mind, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information.Check out this Wikipedian's edit, and why it was reverted. Finally, see the discussion on video game article guidelines and the guideline itself, which states that it is inappropriate to include "lists of gameplay items, weapons, or concepts", in which list of levels falls under.

As a side note, I really do appreciate you being patient and taking time out of your day to engage in this discussion. I find that your edit was in good faith and you really were trying to help out. I have been trying to find the discussion in which it was decided that level lists are inappropriate, but I have been unable to find a single, all-encompassing page that states this consensus. However, all of the data that I have found so far has pointed me in the direction that a list of levels in an article is unnecessary and perceived as fancruft. I ask that you join me in this search, perhaps looking for a discussion it which it was acceptable for a list of levels to appear in an article. Delta (talk) 23:27, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

You've convinced me Delta. You've also been very patient and fair, and I really respect your opinion. I've just asked for was a reasonable explanation why the list should be removed, but Xihr's reaction wasn't adequate and helpful. The guideline is indeed a good argument that I can accept, so I will remove the list as I promised. At last we can work all together now to improve the plot summary ;-) 84.63.205.18 (talk) 09:48, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

I quoted WP:NOT#GUIDE, which is policy.  Xihr  02:03, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

You have still quoted nothing, my friend. You just named the whole policy, but you haven't quoted a single line. It doesn't matter anymore, because Delta convinced me after he found a valid argument, but in future you should learn how to argument exactly. You've accused me for something I haven't done, and I see, that you still don't understand and are keeping stubborn.

Plot Summary

A good point was brought up in a discussion. The current plot summary is way too in-depth and detailed for what's appropriate according to WP:PLOT. I propose reverting the plot section back to this one, as I feel it was concise, had plenty of references and wasn't overly detailed Delta (talk) 16:43, 31 December 2008 (UTC)