Talk:F.E.A.R. 2: Project Origin

Game Engine

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. 72.49.194.69 21:35, 19 July 2007 (UTC) Joshua

Are you guys sure it's using Lithtech: Jupiter EX (the very same engine as the first game)? No citation or source is stated. 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. -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. 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 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.149.86.223 (talk) 19:08, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

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. Xihr (talk) 22:40, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Never happened seems like an extreme term. I'd also want to see a solid citation. 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. 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? 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.) 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. 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--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. 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? 3rdTriangle (talk) 17:26, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

seeing as no-one has objected, i've added the information under a new section 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 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Not G. Ivingname (talk • contribs) 04:07, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it's been announced yet. 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... 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. Delta (talk) 21:31, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

That's old data. A delay was just announced, pushing it back to Q1 2009.  Xihr  04:46, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Saw it on IGN right after I changed it. Meant to rv myself....uhm, oops. Delta (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? 97.118.245.155 (talk) 22:07, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

That was a typo, sorry about that. I meant to put next year. 216.114.214.12 (talk) 00:10, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Sweet, thanks for fixing that. 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? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.31.47.38 (talk) 09:37, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

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? 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.  Xihr  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/ 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.  Xihr  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.  Xihr  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? 'Scaper | ŴööđÇüŦŦëř (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 undue influence and notability problems.  Xihr  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)). 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?  Xihr  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. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.165.150.118 (talk) 04:13, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

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. --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 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.213.208.2 (talk) 16:57, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Is this correct?

Under the plot, in the last paragraph there is a sentence that reads:

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.

The last word i believe to be incorrect. I believe it should read 'pain' instead of 'orgasm'– Elliott(Talk|Cont)  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 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Otto360 (talk • contribs) 05:34, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

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. – Elliott(Talk|Cont)  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.  Xihr  08:44, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I just replayed it and in retrospect it is pretty obvious that this is the intended implication.  Xihr  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. - 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.  Xihr  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. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Otto360 (talk • contribs) 05:38, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

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. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.231.221.80 (talk) 12:41, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

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) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.130.127.99 (talk) 04:13, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Remember, editor's opinions about whether the game is good or not are not satisfactory for Wikipedia. What matters is what verifiable, third-party, reliable sources have to say about the subject of the article.  Xihr  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.  Xihr  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. 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 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 edit war.  Xihr  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 than, for example, gamespot? Just ask Derrida. Consensus? I thought this was supposedly about objectivity —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eldraque77 (talk • contribs) 23:29, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

It needs to be a reliable source, not in your personal opinion reliable. Why not read the actual policies and guidelines for Wikipedia rather than starting edit wars and picking fights on various pages?  Xihr  06:16, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

You still have not provided adequate explanation on why this source is regarded as unreliable, while you accept the reliability of the other sources, other than these other sources have descriptions on wikipedia. The only reason they are listed on wikipedia is because someone has bothered to write them. Hence, they are mainstream. Mainstream does not equal reliable, and obscure does not mean unreliable. These are subjective interpretations. EVERY single review on this topic IS personal opinion. Why accept some subjective material and not others? Your perspective on this is essential extremely subjective. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eldraque77 (talk • contribs) 10:10, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Citing forum posts is like citing something somebody wrote with marker on a newspaper. Yeah, it's on a notable, reliable source of information. But no, it's not relevant, even in the case of personal opinion.

We do not cite or reference forum posts as a source of information. Kingoomieiii (talk) 16:25, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

So, you reject information on a forum unless the material that is posted is by an official reviewer who A. is, despite everything, is still writing his/her opinion. B. Got paid for writing it.

So, essentially, you are saying that information is only reliable if the person writing this opion got paid for it.

In deconstructive terms, you are laying validity on information because money exchanged hands during its production. Thats how we judge reliable now? Derrida and Foucault would be rolling in their graves, gentlemen. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eldraque77 (talk • contribs) 05:07, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm about done with this. It's honestly over. An unreliable source was quoted, and was removed. Your argument that "opinions are opinions" is pointless. If we can cite member posts on open forums, I might as well add "But a bunch of threads on 4chan /v/ says it's awesome". The fact that the reviewer is PAID isn't the deciding factor. The fact that he IS A REVIEWER, an actual, accepted INDUSTRY CRITIC, is. You know, as opposed to a semi-anonymous post in the COMMENT BOX of said review. Kingoomieiii (talk) 16:20, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

"It's honestly over." This is a very subjective response from someone who is claiming to be acting in th name of objectivity. You say that the only wiki-worthy information here is that of the reviewer, and that the opinions of others is irrelevant. How elitist! You voted for Dick Cheney, didnt you Kingoomieiii? One of the great things about the freedom of information which is becoming more accessible today is that there are MANY people just as informed on the issue, who have not chosen to either seek formal education or a profession in the industry, whose knowledge on the topic is highly commendable. As commendable as those of a reviewer. You are saying that the opinions of these people are unreliable because they chose not to pursue a profession is gaming critique - a job in which there are so few employed people, given the amount of knowledge and information that is readily accessible on this topic. The contested statement here clearly says that controversy has arisen. It then even makes reference to these controversies. That is an OBJECTIVE statement. By your logic, only the words of a critic needs be noted. Thats SUBJECTIVE. Dont get too arrogant, Kingoomieiii. From here it looks like your fly is down. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eldraque77 (talk • contribs) 02:40, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Please learn to behave yourself.  Xihr  07:27, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Is "behaving yourself" objective or subjective? Just because you do not happen to agree with me, does not mean that you are "right."