FEAR 2 feb 2009

[C0RR0SIVE]

Same engine as original FEAR games with a few modifications, so it should work on just about any recent PC, whatisfear.com has had the pre-order option for around a year now, placed mine a month ago.

 

[TipsySmile]

Yeah the requirements where released a bit ago,

Min spec
- CPU: P4 2.8GHz (3.2GHz Vista)/Athlon 64 3000+ (3200+ Vista)
- GPU: Fully DX9-compliant graphics card with 256MB (SM 2.0b). NVidia 6800 or ATI X700.
- Memory: 1GB (1.5GB Vista)
- HDD: 12GB
- OS: Windows XP SP2/Vista SP1
- DirectX: 9.0c
- Sound: DX9.0c compliant
- Optical drive: DVD (boxed only)
- Internet: Broadband

Recommended Spec
- CPU: Core 2 Duo 2.2GHz processor family/Athlon 64 X2 4400+ (required for MP host)
- GPU: Fully DX9-compliant graphics card with 512MB (SM 3.0). NVidia 8600 GTS or ATI HD 2900 XT.
- Memory: 1.5GB
- HDD: 12GB
- OS: Windows XP SP3/Vista SP1
- DirectX: 9.0c
- Sound: DX9.0c compliant
- Optical drive: DVD (boxed only)
- Internet: Broadband (768kbit/sec upstream required to host 16 players)

And heres a bunch of screenshots..
F.E.A.R. 2: Project Origin Screenshots

 

[Whirlwind]

Count me in....screenshots look great.

 

[Druid]

So I don't have to buy this game if I'm only going to play multiplayer if it is the same as the first game?

How come the system reqs are basically the same as that of other recent games when this uses an outdated engine and has way worse visuals? This game looks only slightly better than left4dead which had horrible graphics.

So this is a valve game, or does steam sell other stuff?

 

[stb1swat]

FEAR2 may have free MP...but I think people will agree with me that FEAR1's MP was not its strong point. Because alot of other games...require about the same as this game...maybe? Engine's can last for years. Take the Source Engine...
No its not valve. Left 4 Dead, if people would take the time to look past post-processing effects and bloom of the current SUCK, does have nice graphics. I'll point out the fire. It has amazing fire compared to games like Crysis of the CODs. The character models are top notch, and since the game is easily run if you put on 16xAA they're even more so.

 

[Druid]

Well, when I compare graphics, all I compare is what looks better and what looks worse, and left4dead looks worse.

That source engine has reached its limit and they're going to try and stretch it until like 2011 or 2012 or something for Half-life 3. They need to hurry it up with that game.

 

[Poizen22]

So I don't have to buy this game if I'm only going to play multiplayer if it is the same as the first game?

How come the system reqs are basically the same as that of other recent games when this uses an outdated engine and has way worse visuals? This game looks only slightly better than left4dead which had horrible graphics.

So this is a valve game, or does steam sell other stuff?

this game is made by monolith, universal. i think it is universal's debut into the gaming market, with a good title to .( yes i mean universal film studios) Look at team fortress 2 nice gfx still source engine. fear 2 looks like the old fear yes but looks alot better. has more texture and, dynamic lighting. fears engine was very very advanced for its time and was in its primitive stages imo itl be much nicer this time around. another good comparison is fallout 3 and oblivion fallout 3 looks worlds better then oblivion for sure. fear was very known for its amazing physics and ambiance settings. narration was also very good. AI i will have to say is what im exited most for when i played fear originaly i found teh ai to be soem of the smartest and most agressive enemies ive ever fought the game is very chalenging on max difficulty. unlike cod where on max you just duck and cover. fear is very advanced in everyway possible exept maybe the gfx. it does things better then alot of the new games have tried to acomplish. i have yet to meat such a chalening ai loved everything abotu fear and am very exited for this title.

 

[stb1swat]

-delete

 

[stb1swat]

Well, when I compare graphics, all I compare is what looks better and what looks worse, and left4dead looks worse.

That source engine has reached its limit and they're going to try and stretch it until like 2011 or 2012 or something for Half-life 3. They need to hurry it up with that game.

Its limit is relative. You care a lot more about graphics than me. As far as I'm concerned graphics are destroying games because that's what developers are trying to push BECAUSE of people like you who want the latest and greatest graphics.
We then get games like Crysis, Haze, Dead Space, Lair, and Age of Conan.

They're going to "try" and "stretch" it because every release of it becomes the top selling game on STEAM and every release of it wins awards for outstanding gameplay.

 

[Druid]

Well if they had a new engine with better graphics, they're games would sell even more. I mean, my pc can't even max left4dead, but I'm scrapping this and going with a hole new build in a month, so I want games to have good visuals. Just because a game has good graphics doesn't mean a game has to have bad gameplay. I don't think it is too much to ask for both. The only time I would consider getting a game purely on gfx is if there is a breakthrough and the game has the best graphics out of any game ever made such as with the case of crysis. I'll be getting that when I get my new pc.

When you say forget the graphics, you are being counterproductive. There is no reason not to go forward. Most game developers are not sacrificing gameplay for graphics. Most of them are sacrificing graphics so they're games work better with consoles. They're too lazy to push the settings much farther on the pc versions of their games cause all they care about are the dumb consoles. I mean, gfx on the pc versions of games look better, but they can clearly make them look better than what they are making them look like.