Doom 3 vs F.E.A.R.

I liked Doom 3 more myself. If nothing else I think Doom 3 should have received a 9 for how well made the game was. In this day when games have to be patched 3 times before they're stable, you would think people whould have appreciated it more. I liked FEAR too but I think they're different. FEAR seems like more of an action game where as Doom seems more like a horror. I do not see how FEAR is a rip off of Half Life but I do think FEAR was over rated. The Slo-Mo feature is a gimmick, not revolutionary.

In a nutshell, Doom 3 got rated down a bit for story and multiplayer. It's story had more potential then it was given, and it's multiplayer sucked. As far as the in-game environment etc; Yeah, it was pretty nice. Visuals and 5.1 sound made it (overall) a great experience.

FEAR did better on it's story and it's multiplayer, while keeping it's visuals and sound quality just as high. That's why it was rated higher overall.

Doom has had a longer life than FEAR. Doom's been around for 14 years and therefore has more fame than FEAR, but they're both great games.

Doom 2 over Q-Modem! Now THAT'S multiplayer action! :D

I had more fun playing FEAR, the AI was just fun to fight against. Doom 3 got uninteresting pretty fast.

I'm confused about your comparison to HL2. I don't see that at all. They couldn't be any more different IMO.

HALF LIFE 2 is an overdose for FPS fans.

FEAR is a good REPLICA of HL2, but its not better than HALF LIFE2. Being a doom lover since the DOOM, what made me leave this game aside after one run , is its plot, copy of HL tactics (medstation etc ) , lack of surprises,A very Gigantic Villian to beat with pea shooters, some minor gameplay problems and having a TORCH in one hand instead of a mount on helmet or shoulder. Hell, its DOOM, father of all FPS, then why Id followed the others. Even Quake4 is better than DOOM3.

No comparison, FEAR is better than DOOM3.

You dont have to tell me that

i played HL1 AND DOOM 1&2 AND I LIKE THEM VERY MUCH.

HL2 is good game but please it is not the best game ever.

Actually valve didn't make Havok. Hell, Max Payne 2 used the Havok engine and came out almost a year before.

FEAR had superior AI and did a great job implementing bullet time in a FPS. I found the gameplay great.

Half Life 2 combined really amazing level design, with awesome phsysics, and really boring gameplay. Great game overall, but I prefer FEAR.

what i dont still get is that fear is 9.1 and doom 3 8.5 :S, okay Fear is a good game of course its fun, but it has not revolutioned anything the game is based and the havok physics engine so i really didnt create a hole new engine it has just taken the Havok engine from Hl2 and maybe upgraded a bit , and I still like hl2 physics than fear. While doom3 had created a total new graphic and physic engine that let many people shocked when it came out thats why i dont get that doom3 be less rated than fear because fear is a good game among other good games ,but nothing revolutionary and putting doom3 whith 8.5 is the same than saying that it is a good games from the rest , and it inst just that.Pablo_SL

I think the reason for the ratings being lower than expected was because it wasn't like previous Doom games and so it wasn't what people were expecting, at least from what I've read (I didn't play the previous doom games). It's a more slow moving horror FPS rather than the fragfest that people wanted. The biggest sin any game or any person can commit is not living up to people's expectations. Even if it was good, it wasn't what people wanted at the time.

Im not saying that hl2 is the best game ever .. and it really has nothing to do whith this theme. But tell the truth has fear changed anything? or it is just another FPS (and i think so), about doom3 it is true it wasnt like doom and doom2 , but it still left everybody shocked, in my opinion fear its not even a half of doom3, and thats why i've to complain about the rating ok the multiplayer was bad.. so? the game itself stills revolutionary it can't have a 8.5:? while fear has a 9.1 which really is another FPS.

F.E.A.R.

Doom 3 is boring and not scary at all

I personally like FEAR better. Just because of the MP. I still play it a lot, although its way too hacked.

Doom 3 did cause more of an impression on me though the firs time i saw it. More of a graphical leap forward.

Both still great games.

F.E.A.R.

Doom 3 is boring and not scary at all

Darth_Kane

But you found F.E.A.R scarey? :lol:

Doom3 is one of the best single player experiences i've had. The atmosphere, all the mails, videos, audio logs, extremely cool monsters. The story was pretty good too, it reminded me a lot of the mission to mars movie. I just loved walking around in that mars base, never bored me for one sec and ive completed the game more then 4 times.

Fear was good, great action, but sometimes it felt like a choire to go from office building to office building, and the little girl was just a pain in the rear, i guees they thought she was scary.

Im a huge sci fi horror nut :) So doom3 is the ultimate experiene in that area.

And even to this day im still blown away by the sounds in doom3 and still the graphics when you watch a hell knight walking towards you.

Fears premise also had me thinking the game was more then it was. Fear is almost like the game version of the tv series the x files, hunting paranormal stuff, but that part was pretty vague in fear.

Doom 3 isn't the slighest bit revolutionary. The game pretty much showed the game's graphical engine while the gameplay and scare factor were weak. FEAR actually was a game worth playing.mo0ksi

If doom3 was not revolutionary I don't know whats left for Fear ... also as you said Fear its just a game that worth playing .. nothing more than that. and you can't deny that doom 3 its revolutionary all critics i've read says that and I've experienced it my self. As a fan of Doom series and HL series I've to say that FEAR it just a good game next to the true good games .. and well everybody know that the fathers of FPS were Doom and HL1

Doom 3 isn't the slighest bit revolutionary. The game pretty much showed the game's graphical engine while the gameplay and scare factor were weak. FEAR actually was a game worth playing.mo0ksi

Isn't the slightest bit revolutionary, or WASN'T. If you are judging it against current games, I agree... if you are judging it against games that came out at the same time as Doom 3, you are off your nut.

[QUOTE="mo0ksi"]Doom 3 isn't the slighest bit revolutionary. The game pretty much showed the game's graphical engine while the gameplay and scare factor were weak. FEAR actually was a game worth playing.weirjf

Isn't the slightest bit revolutionary, or WASN'T. If you are judging it against current games, I agree... if you are judging it against games that came out at the same time as Doom 3, you are off your nut.

Doom 3 was not that great. Quake 4 wasn't even that good (a boring cookie-cutter FPS imo). FEAR kicked it up with awesome fast gameplay and probably the best pacing I have ever seen in a FPS (besides HL/HL2 of course).

HL2>FEAR>.......................Quake 4>Doom 3

[QUOTE="weirjf"]

[QUOTE="mo0ksi"]Doom 3 isn't the slighest bit revolutionary. The game pretty much showed the game's graphical engine while the gameplay and scare factor were weak. FEAR actually was a game worth playing.mo0ksi

Isn't the slightest bit revolutionary, or WASN'T. If you are judging it against current games, I agree... if you are judging it against games that came out at the same time as Doom 3, you are off your nut.

Quake 4 was quake, it woundt have been a doom game if doom 3 was like quake 4.

And what is really innovative? Seriously, we havent really moved that much forward in the fps genre since duke 3d. Far Cry is the closest to a innovative, but innovative dosnt mean better. Doom3 was a extremely well made game. And the graphics wasnt just there for show, it was to suck you into its world, and it did that extremely good.

Both games are excellent from the tehnical point of view.

Doom 3 was the first game in which real time rendering was done and it proved that one of carmack's idea was a revolutionary one that helped maintain good FPS.

In FEAR we have both really good graphics and a good physics engine.

But these two games differ a lot. And this is where FEAR wins in front of Doom 3. In FEAR the story is excellent the fast pace action is combined with a little bit of survival horror elements. Otherwise in id Softwares game you knew exactly where the monster will pop out... so yeah...where is the element that would keep me hooked on this game?

Tehnicaly they are both superb, in terms of storyline and gameplay FEAR has the upper hand

Well, I´m playing Doom3 again, and I´ve been playing it since it´s debut. Obviously I´m a series fan, Doom was one of the first color games I ever played (Yeah, i´m too old, but who cares)

This game addicted me, not because of shinny graphics and fancy sound, but mainly because it´s a CLASSIC!!! The UAC is probably one of the oldest make-believe companies in game industry, the concept of FPS was reinvented by doom, the LAN gaming was reinvented by doom, and so on.

How can a new kid in town named FEAR steal all it´s glory and history?? No way!!!!

Doom 3 had a great story, you just had to read all the pda emails and listen to the audio logs. If you didn't do that then you would definitely miss the story. I love doom 3 and the expansion. F.E.A.R is ok but not nearly as optimized as Doom. Overall I like Doom 3 better.

well i was looking for this two games at gamespot and i saw that fear was better rated than doom3 .. i think that should be changed, because .. fear its a copy of hl2 (a cheap one in my opinion, in the sence of graphics and physics) and i've played the two games so i cant believe that doom 3 a revolutionary game be so low rated in my opinion it diserves a 9 as minium .. well i just made this topic because i would like to read your opinion as gamers and know what do you think about this .. thanksPablo_SL

what does that even mean? the f.e.a.r engine doesn't look at all like source to me - but even if it did have a similar visual style (and i don't think it did), why is that such a bad thing? it's an original engine from 'lith, and it looks great - even if there will similarities, the word copy is just completely incorrect

and you mean to imply that having realistic physics in a game, and making good use of it, is somehow copying half life 2- then just about all fps games, and most other games for that matter, are copying half life 2

but half life 2 has guns, so it's copying every game that preceeded it with guns - your logic is deeply flawed - everything can be said to plagiarise everything else, you have to learn to understand what is reasonable and natural within the genre and what is inappropriate "inspiration"... show me a gravity gun in f.e.a.r and gravity/physics box stacking puzzles, and you've maybe got a point

as for doom 3, it's low rated because it's basically a tech demo for an engine no one really cared about anyway - doom 3's gameplay is based around the tedious concept that you can see or shoot enemies who have a tendency to hide in shadows... it's an interesting mechanic in the early stages, but it's easy for the player to become adjusted and after that the game becomes a very generic run n gun corridor shooter, albeit a technologically brilliant one - but doom 3 did nothing new, and it did nothing great (besides the technology)- that was its biggest flaw, id just repeated quake 2 with better visuals and some fancy shadows... and the audience of 2004 expected better

the other problem with doom 3 is it was all set to be the second coming, id was still a major name on the pc gaming scene, and doom is widely considered to be one of the best fps games ever made, even by modern standards (i play doom & doom 2 even today), and when something gets put on such a high pedestal, it ends up (every single time) failing to meet the expectations of everyone and the boasts it made itself

doom 3 is good, but not great

f.e.a.r, on the other hand - f.e.a.r has two things down perfectly - it has easily the greatest ai in any fps i've ever played (stalker is a close second, though) and f.e.a.r also has perhaps the greatest firefights in a computer game - you've got magnificent visuals, you've got awesome ai, you've got a cool selection of great looking, sounding and feeling weapons, you've got awesome particle effects and objects that respond to physics, you've got awesome melee attacks, you've got enemies that are great looking and sounding and fun to fight, and you've got slow motion - it's not to everyone's tastes, but combine it all and i feel (as do many others) that you've got just about the best firefights you can get in a single player game

some people dislike the repetitive enemies and bland, repetitive environments - and hell, some people don't even like the gunplay... but me? i find it heaven - i can't wait for the perseus mandate, and i can't wait for project origin

i'd say f.e.a.r is a great game, purely for its firefights

[QUOTE="Pablo_SL"]well i was looking for this two games at gamespot and i saw that fear was better rated than doom3 .. i think that should be changed, because .. fear its a copy of hl2 (a cheap one in my opinion, in the sence of graphics and physics) and i've played the two games so i cant believe that doom 3 a revolutionary game be so low rated in my opinion it diserves a 9 as minium .. well i just made this topic because i would like to read your opinion as gamers and know what do you think about this .. thanksmfsa

what does that even mean? the f.e.a.r engine doesn't look at all like source to me - but even if it did have a similar visual style (and i don't think it did), why is that such a bad thing? it's an original engine from 'lith, and it looks great - even if there will similarities, the word copy is just completely incorrect

and you mean to imply that having realistic physics in a game, and making good use of it, is somehow copying half life 2- then just about all fps games, and most other games for that matter, are copying half life 2

but half life 2 has guns, so it's copying every game that preceeded it with guns - your logic is deeply flawed - everything can be said to plagiarise everything else, you have to learn to understand what is reasonable and natural within the genre and what is inappropriate "inspiration"... show me a gravity gun in f.e.a.r and gravity/physics box stacking puzzles, and you've maybe got a point

as for doom 3, it's low rated because it's basically a tech demo for an engine no one really cared about anyway - doom 3's gameplay is based around the tedious concept that you can see or shoot enemies who have a tendency to hide in shadows... it's an interesting mechanic in the early stages, but it's easy for the player to become adjusted and after that the game becomes a very generic run n gun corridor shooter, albeit a technologically brilliant one - but doom 3 did nothing new, and it did nothing great (besides the technology)- that was its biggest flaw, id just repeated quake 2 with better visuals and some fancy shadows... and the audience of 2004 expected better

the other problem with doom 3 is it was all set to be the second coming, id was still a major name on the pc gaming scene, and doom is widely considered to be one of the best fps games ever made, even by modern standards (i play doom & doom 2 even today), and when something gets put on such a high pedestal, it ends up (every single time) failing to meet the expectations of everyone and the boasts it made itself

doom 3 is good, but not great

f.e.a.r, on the other hand - f.e.a.r has two things down perfectly - it has easily the greatest ai in any fps i've ever played (stalker is a close second, though) and f.e.a.r also has perhaps the greatest firefights in a computer game - you've got magnificent visuals, you've got awesome ai, you've got a cool selection of great looking, sounding and feeling weapons, you've got awesome particle effects and objects that respond to physics, you've got awesome melee attacks, you've got enemies that are great looking and sounding and fun to fight, and you've got slow motion - it's not to everyone's tastes, but combine it all and i feel (as do many others) that you've got just about the best firefights you can get in a single player game

some people dislike the repetitive enemies and bland, repetitive environments - and hell, some people don't even like the gunplay... but me? i find it heaven - i can't wait for the perseus mandate, and i can't wait for project origin

i'd say f.e.a.r is a great game, purely for its firefights

If doom3 was a tech demo then far cry and hl2 was that too. So that dosnt fly man.

If doom3 was a tech demo then far cry and hl2 was that too. So that dosnt fly man.mimic-Denmark

maybe - but farcry and half life 2 are both great games that stand alone irrespective of their engine andtheir popularity (the farcry engine was profoundly unpopular in the licensing world (assuming crytek was willing to sell it, i dunno for sure), so people don't tend to think of farcry as an engine with a game wrapped around it as much as an engine built for a game - and despite its popularity amongst other developers, i'd say the same is quite true of source)

doom 3 didn't really have this- it was an okay game, but the game itself was overshadowed by the technology - and the doom 3 engine is probably more popular than doom 3, thanks to games like quake 4 and prey

doom 3's legacy is really its engine - the game has some fans, but it is already fading into obscurity while its engine is still being used

perhaps i was a little hyperbolic, though - it's not just a tech demo, and people did care about it... but man, it's not far off

[QUOTE="mimic-Denmark"]If doom3 was a tech demo then far cry and hl2 was that too. So that dosnt fly man.mfsa

maybe - but farcry and half life 2 are both great games that stand alone irrespective of theengine andits popularity(the farcry engine was profoundly unpopular in the licensing world (assuming crytek was willing to sell it, i dunno for sure), so people don't tend to think of farcry as an engine with a game wrapped around it as much as an engine built for a game - and despite its popularity amongst other developers, i'd say the same is quite true of source)

doom 3 didn't really have this- it was an okay game, but the game itself was overshadowed by the technology - and the doom 3 engine is probably more popular than doom 3, thanks to games like quake 4 and prey

doom 3's legacy is really its engine - the game has some fans, but it is already fading into obscurity while its engine is still being used

perhaps i was a little hyperbolic, though - it's not just a tech demo, and people did care about it

Thats not true, doom3 is atleast as popular as hl2 and far cry here where i amand sometimes more. Doom 3 is far from a tech demo, you can clearly see the developrs nack for details in that game.

But doom 3 is a love or hate it game. Its like the aliens movie, which i think is one of the best movies made, but does it get the huge attention from the puplic, nope. And thats because of the genre. Half Life 2 is a lot more mainsteam, another reason why many more like that one.

the game has some fans, but it is already fading into obscurity while its engine is still being used

Well since you're not a fan, I think it would be hard for you to say. As a fan I can say that it still has a very active community of modders and the game overall is still selling very well three years later. I always see copies of it at best buy or circuit city and at a price $20 so people are still buying the game. MP is not Doom 3's strong suit, SP is where it shines, so if people are not playing much on-line that is to be expected and not a good indicator of whether or not its still popular. FEAR is a great game and it is one of the best pure shooters on the market but it just doesn't compare to the story-telling and environments of Doom 3, which for me is more important.

[QUOTE="Pablo_SL"]well i was looking for this two games at gamespot and i saw that fear was better rated than doom3 .. i think that should be changed, because .. fear its a copy of hl2 (a cheap one in my opinion, in the sence of graphics and physics) and i've played the two games so i cant believe that doom 3 a revolutionary game be so low rated in my opinion it diserves a 9 as minium .. well i just made this topic because i would like to read your opinion as gamers and know what do you think about this .. thanksmfsa

what does that even mean? the f.e.a.r engine doesn't look at all like source to me - but even if it did have a similar visual style (and i don't think it did), why is that such a bad thing? it's an original engine from 'lith, and it looks great - even if there will similarities, the word copy is just completely incorrect

and you mean to imply that having realistic physics in a game, and making good use of it, is somehow copying half life 2- then just about all fps games, and most other games for that matter, are copying half life 2

but half life 2 has guns, so it's copying every game that preceeded it with guns - your logic is deeply flawed - everything can be said to plagiarise everything else, you have to learn to understand what is reasonable and natural within the genre and what is inappropriate "inspiration"... show me a gravity gun in f.e.a.r and gravity/physics box stacking puzzles, and you've maybe got a point

as for doom 3, it's low rated because it's basically a tech demo for an engine no one really cared about anyway - doom 3's gameplay is based around the tedious concept that you can see or shoot enemies who have a tendency to hide in shadows... it's an interesting mechanic in the early stages, but it's easy for the player to become adjusted and after that the game becomes a very generic run n gun corridor shooter, albeit a technologically brilliant one - but doom 3 did nothing new, and it did nothing great (besides the technology)- that was its biggest flaw, id just repeated quake 2 with better visuals and some fancy shadows... and the audience of 2004 expected better

the other problem with doom 3 is it was all set to be the second coming, id was still a major name on the pc gaming scene, and doom is widely considered to be one of the best fps games ever made, even by modern standards (i play doom & doom 2 even today), and when something gets put on such a high pedestal, it ends up (every single time) failing to meet the expectations of everyone and the boasts it made itself

doom 3 is good, but not great

f.e.a.r, on the other hand - f.e.a.r has two things down perfectly - it has easily the greatest ai in any fps i've ever played (stalker is a close second, though) and f.e.a.r also has perhaps the greatest firefights in a computer game - you've got magnificent visuals, you've got awesome ai, you've got a cool selection of great looking, sounding and feeling weapons, you've got awesome particle effects and objects that respond to physics, you've got awesome melee attacks, you've got enemies that are great looking and sounding and fun to fight, and you've got slow motion - it's not to everyone's tastes, but combine it all and i feel (as do many others) that you've got just about the best firefights you can get in a single player game

some people dislike the repetitive enemies and bland, repetitive environments - and hell, some people don't even like the gunplay... but me? i find it heaven - i can't wait for the perseus mandate, and i can't wait for project origin

i'd say f.e.a.r is a great game, purely for its firefights

well well well ............................... you speak nonsence .. doom 3 is as popular as HL2 and more popular than far cry in my country people doesnt even know what far cry is .. but doom and hl are the favorites. also saying that abour the doom 3 engine is totally wrong becuase doom 3 invented his own engine wich the graphs were totally insane for the time it came out and the physics were really good also. Doom 3 is one of the most revolutionary FPS of the last years while FEAR well .. if you could tell what did it chage? it just a remake of older game nothing new original created by them ! , so thats why FEAR is just another FPS because to be a revolutionary one you must no only be a good game also you have to develope a total new engine that diference from the rest. Respect the HL2-FEAR similaroty its obvius FEAR stole the physics engine from HL2 and did not create one as doom 3. If games producing were that way , I would just see wich game had more popularity and steal his engine to make mine.

Will the fanboyism stop...

Both games are great, FEAR is better imo because it doesnt lack the surprise.

Both games are known by the majority of gamers and not the casual ones.

So stop thwroing mine is better, yours suck.

well well well ............................... you speak nonsence .. doom 3 is as popular as HL2 and more popular than far cry in my country people doesnt even know what far cry is .. but doom and hl are the favorites. also saying that abour the doom 3 engine is totally wrong becuase doom 3 invented his own engine wich the graphs were totally insane for the time it came out and the physics were really good also. Doom 3 is one of the most revolutionary FPS of the last years while FEAR well .. if you could tell what did it chage? it just a remake of older game nothing new original created by them ! , so thats why FEAR is just another FPS because to be a revolutionary one you must no only be a good game also you have to develope a total new engine that diference from the rest. Respect the HL2-FEAR similaroty its obvius FEAR stole the physics engine from HL2 and did not create one as doom 3. If games producing were that way , I would just see wich game had more popularity and steal his engine to make mine.

Pablo_SL

i really don't think e played the same doom 3. i doom 3 which i played was reptitive had dull enviorments and used the philopshy of suddenyl bringing out creatures from dark area to frighten you. btw what did doom3 had revolutionary in it (don't tell me those pda reading things)?

Will the fanboyism stop...

Both games are great, FEAR is better imo because it doesnt lack the surprise.

Both games are known by the majority of gamers and not the casual ones.

So stop thwroing mine is better, yours suck.

LPXGirl

In the end its just opionins, so you cant say fear is better because its not fact its only your opinion.

In the end its just opionins, so you cant say fear is better because its not fact its only your opinion.

mimic-Denmark