When I saw F.E.A.R's metascore (75) I was really surprised. Even more surprised when I saw what the reviewers had to say...."Possibly the worst version of F.E.A.R. available"..."A glaring disappointment considering it looked and played miles better on PC"..."It's aged badly. The PS3 version looks like the PC version running on low detail..."
This must be great news for the 360 fanboys...even though it must be noted that this can't be blamed on the console as another game "Oblivion" which is equally impressive in graphics was actually praised by some as being better than the lot...so the developers are to be blamed for being lazy on the port (pointed out by swordmasterphoen).
F.E.A.R. leapt out from behind the TV to scare gamers witless and ruin their underpants in 2005. Amalgamating elements of Hong Kong action films like Hard Boiled with the Japanese terror of The Ring, Monolith hit the nail(gun) on the head. Apart from a large number of grey corridors, it was a tremendous game and one that has had many playthroughs.
Between battling Replica soldiers and keeping in touch with his family, Point Man took some time to off of F.E.A.R. operations to talk about his life behind the scenes. Although Point Man could not provide any real personal information and didn’t seem to have much of a personality, he did give us some tidbits about his likes, dislikes and opinions about his missions. We had to get the best typist in the industry to keep up as the interview went really, really fast.
The Merriam-Webster'a dictionary website defines an achievement as a "successful result brought about by hard work." However, the following achievements could not be classified as either being considered successful or the result of hard work, mostly since these achievements are boring.
Personally, I think most achievements are lame. But for me, nothing is worse than ones that require you to either watch the opening sequence, do the tutorial, or watch the ending credits. I also hate story-based achievements. It's so silly to give an achievement for doing things that have to done in order to advance the storyline. I think the Half-Life 2 achievement is clever. Besides, it's not the points that matter; it's the fact that you did it in the first place. I don't think points should be rewarded for achievements, but maybe that's just me.
Don't forget Quake 2......the full version was a bonus game with Quake 4.You get achievements after every chapter (around 8) with........0 points.
I'd have to say the achievement for watching the credits in Assassins Creed. I just left it running whilst I got something to eat, got back and 50G. Definitely earned that one, that sandwich didn't make itself.
Also any online achievements in general, especially in games with terrible multiplayer.
Where do I sign?
I don't have a 360, and don't know the achievement system deeply, but I'll just assume that what I'll say is reasonable for both.
It's totally bull in an age where I still have to get most games way after they release just because in it's launch there where like 5 other tittles that I wanted more, I barely can complete the trophy list. Take Burnout as and example. Can't get that 8 player meet in baseball stadium simply because it almost never show up and when it does, other player will let the time run out. How cool is that? A trophy you'll be expanding many hours waiting to have the chance to complete and you have no guarantee that you'll get it, even doing the right thing...
Also, since I mentioned Burnout, what's up with that trophy that request the Eye camera? It's pretty dumb to add a trophy, necessary for that platinum, that need a totally optional (and unnecessary) peripheral.
And what happens when everyone left the game? I still having problem trying to get an online match in Brutal Legend (a shame, the strategic batle in the game is GREAT).
Some single player trophies are also dumb as them depend on pure luck. Like that Demon's Souls max bladestone forged weapon... The weapon itself is a piece of crap, the pure bladestone will take you days (or minutes, that's how random it is) to drop and the skill involved, if any, is patience.
Also sucks for gamers that don't play online as they also buy games that have an online part purely for the single player segment. Arguable maybe because trophies are an online comparative feature, but I would argue that some people still like to make 100% of the game for the pure fun of it.
Those were all great games for me, but this online achievements/trophies shouldn't be there or, at least, don't count any point/don't count toward the platinum trophy. That's the reason why the only platinums I got for online games are from Uncharted 2 (which only require you to give the multiplayer a try) and Resident Evil 5 (trophies could be done off or online, probably one of the few good decisions in a Capcom game this gen). All of my other online trophies were got as I was playing with friends, not while trying to get anything done.
I'm no trophy whore, I like the system because it adds some replay value to a good single player not capable of saving a bad one) since you can trace some usually simple objectives that will move you to another one or two playthroughs. Really, except for online-only games (Crackdown, Socom, etc), devs should think a thousand times before attaching games to trophies or achievements that require you to go online, some online trophies are ok, most are just boring and require time much more than skill.
do we NEED a article like this every 6 week ??
do we really need that ?
"the most easy/lame achievement/trophies "
Seriously
My Beatles Rockband only came with 3 instruments but I have played it with friends and all 4 of tapping and singing along. But who is this guy to tell us how many people should be playing a game to make it fun? Screw that guy.
The MetaCritic score for the Xbox 360 version of the game (85) was based on the review ratings of 43 websites/magazines and the PS3 version is based only on 4 ratings.
I haven't played either version of the game and am trying to remain unbiased. All I humbly ask therefore is, is this statistically significant?
Well, it's of no consequence for the PS3 as a console. The machine (or Sony) has nothing to do with poorly ported games. That's entirely the creator's fault.
In fact, you could simply look for "Need for Speed: Hot Pursuit 2". The game was HORRIBLE on PC, and it was just passable on XBox; yet it was spectacular on PS2. It's not the console, it's the game.
So I don't agree with the comment made by the news poster: "This is not good for the PS3...not good at all."...it should be on the lines of: "Why did the F.E.A.R. team do such a horrible job on this version?, are they trying to make the PS3 look bad?".
If everyone praised Oblivion on PS3, why does F.E.A.R. look bad on the same console?. Well, it's probably just because the team in charge of it just didn't care too much about this version of the game. And once again, this just proves my point of view on why Multi games are not always the way to go.
even the 360 version looked ugly when i got it off xbl, this game is ugly period
I just tried and I can run this game on 1 of my 7800gt's with a single core cpu with 4xaa 16af and still average 30fps in their benchmark...
But whatever like I said before the game has dated so much why even release it. Plus its free for PC's anyhow.
They wasted there time obviously.
Why would I want this game to run good on a Ps3? That would be pretty pointless...