F.E.A.R VS Bio-shock?

F.E.A.R is considerably better in all ways.fatshodan

[QUOTE="fuchuzz"]fear was good a while ago when it came out, but right now its old, and it dosent stand up to the rpg/fps goodness that is bioshock, fear is just a fps, while bioshock has more than that in it, although bioshock is short, it is stil a better game, not to mention you can reaplay it a bunch and it dosent get really get old....Elann2008

Dude, you cant compare it that way. He's asking you to compare the games on how great they were in their time.

No he's not, he asked which game is better. He said nothing about comparing which games were better in their times.

They were both great games, but Bioshock gets my vote.

F.E.A.R. was far too easy with the slow-mo, and the only truly unique thing about the game was the melee combat. The enemy A.I. was good, but certainly not the best to ever come out. And it did get really repetitive. Still was fun, but not better imo.

Bioshock at least had many different options of killing things when you got bored of one, and you have a guarenteed 2 enjoyable times through.

Still loved both but Bioshock wins for me.

fear was good a while ago when it came out, but right now its old, and it dosent stand up to the rpg/fps goodness that is bioshock, fear is just a fps, while bioshock has more than that in it, although bioshock is short, it is stil a better game, not to mention you can reaplay it a bunch and it dosent get really get old....fuchuzz

Bioshock is a sub-par FPS and a sub-par RPG. It does neither well, the only thing it does well is present a better story and better environments than FEAR. I think both FEAR and Bioshock are average, look to STALKER if you want a great FPS/RPG hybrid, although more of FPS.

The [F.E.A.R's] AI was outstanding when it came outjfcundiff

It still is - F.E.A.R still easily has the best FPS AI out there. S.T.A.L.K.E.R and Crysis both come close in some aspects, but F.E.A.R's AI is still the most advanced, and it's getting on for three years later.

Two good PC FPS games facing off each other, which is a better game, Fear or Bio-shock?gogators4life

Bioshock is the overall better game, but if I had to choose one it would be Fear.jfcundiff

Anyone else confused?

Confused about what? Bioshock is overall the better game, but if I had to choose I would choose Fear. Whats so confusing about that? I know the poll says better game and I said personally Fear is more fun to play than Bioshock.

Bioshock hands down.

FEAR was fun for a while, but the extreme dullness and repetitivness made me quickly tired of it, also the cheesy horror startling trick never worked for me.

Bioshock is much more vivid, the gunplay is as good as FEAR's and the game's ambience is brilliant, Bioshock keeps me on the edge of my seat every minute I play it.

Confused about what? Bioshock is overall the better game, but if I had to choose I would choose Fear. Whats so confusing about that? I know the poll says better game and I said personally Fear is more fun to play than Bioshock.

jfcundiff

If you think F.E.A.R is more fun to play, why did you say Bioshock is the better game? Wouldn't the game that is more fun to play be better?

FEAR. It was a lot more intense and a lot more challenging. It's probably one of my favorite FPS games ever.

Not always. Everyone praises RE4 saying its the best Resident Evil. While it might be the better game, I enjoy and have more fun playing RE2. Same thing with GTA series. I think personally San Andreas is the best game in the series, but I always have more fun playing with GTA3 or 4. jfcundiff

Well, I always think the game that is more fun to play is the better game. Course I've always thought that having fun was the point of gaming, but i guess not to some people.

These are sad times we live in when a quality game like F.E.A.R. gets beat by the likes of BioShock. I'm really, really sad. :cry: See, I'm crying!augustlight

Fear was quite good. Yeah, Bioshock has set somewhat of a new standard, but Fear was outstanding when it first came out. Graphics, AI, sound were topnotch in that game when they first came out in 2005.

Bioshock:

• More to do (more depth)
• Longer
• Better graphics
• Better art style
• more variety in it's gameplay
• Much better, more interesting setting

Bioshock:

• More to do (more depth)
• Longer
• Better graphics
• Better art style
• more variety in it's gameplay
• Much better, more interesting setting

-Unreal-

FEAR is definitley longer than Bioshock. And the setting fits logically into the story and as to variety: Bioshock gives you guns and plasmids and I'd say the plasmids are the real innovation while the gunplay in Bioshock is average. The actual gameplay in FEAR was much more challenging and in terms of combat, you were able to do alot more.

Come on people F.E.A.R. is 10x better then the wannabie joke Bioshock. You don't even die in Bioshock. It holds your hand the whole time. It was made for 5yr olds. Ok maybe that was a bit exagerated and I was too hard on it. It's just not the game it was expected to be. -Master_St3ve-

This is a pretty poor statement.. Ok for one vita tanks can be turned off in options.. Secondly we have already had a system like that called, QUICK SAVES.

The actual gameplay in FEAR was much more challenging and in terms of combat, you were able to do alot more. Weredawg

I couldn't disagree more. In Bioshock, until you get the hang of what each of the plasmids can do and what weapons and ammo are good against what, the game is very challenging, and that was just on the normal difficulty. I imagine the game would be very challenging on the harder difficulties. FEAR was far too easy with the abundance of medkits and the slo-mo. I played through the hardest difficulty with no trouble whatsoever. It got to a point where I played through without useing slo-mo because it was just too damn easy.

Also, how could you do more in FEAR? In Bioshock you have tons of possible combinations of weapons and plasmids, in FEAR you have your weapons and slo-mo. You may not like the possibilites Bioshock has, but you can't say there are more in FEAR.

Come on people F.E.A.R. is 10x better then the wannabie joke Bioshock. You don't even die in Bioshock. It holds your hand the whole time. It was made for 5yr olds. Ok maybe that was a bit exagerated and I was too hard on it. It's just not the game it was expected to be. -Master_St3ve-

Thats a negative. I played my first run with vita-chambers turned off, and on the hard difficulty. Believe me, it was a pretty damn good challenge for an experienced FPS player.

FEAR is a good game... and many aspects are solid, but they did nothing really new in the game. Its certainly a worthwhile game to own if you enjoy FPS games, but it never really broke out of or tried anything new.

Bioshock, while it certainly IS a flawed game, and in terms of FPSRPG games there are ones that are much better (DE/SS2/VTMB... STALKER was more of just a FPS in my opinion).. there was a lot I liked about the game. I really thought the story was solid and presented in a very good way, especially with the voice tapes. The art direction and theme were also fantastic and they had interesting plot twists and complex characters. The combat was fairly varied albeit a bit simplistic... and the character choices while they left something to be desired, was not that worse than the choices offered by games like Deus Ex.

In the end I think people should own both games (15$ for bioshock was a fantastic deal btw).. but I'm going to say I liked Bioshock just a little bit more than FEAR.

[QUOTE="Weredawg"] The actual gameplay in FEAR was much more challenging and in terms of combat, you were able to do alot more. chesterocks7

I couldn't disagree more. In Bioshock, until you get the hang of what each of the plasmids can do and what weapons and ammo are good against what, the game is very challenging, and that was just on the normal difficulty. I imagine the game would be very challenging on the harder difficulties. FEAR was far too easy with the abundance of medkits and the slo-mo. I played through the hardest difficulty with no trouble whatsoever. It got to a point where I played through without useing slo-mo because it was just too damn easy.

Also, how could you do more in FEAR? In Bioshock you have tons of possible combinations of weapons and plasmids, in FEAR you have your weapons and slo-mo. You may not like the possibilites Bioshock has, but you can't say there are more in FEAR.

Yeah but really teh game was small on rpg elements.. There was really only two builds that was pheasable.. Wrench lugging juggernaut.. Or armored ranged machine gunner.. Alot of the plasmids were "cool" but many just weren't worth having.. For example freeze seemed pretty cool at first intill you realized that it destroyed items the guys were carrying from doing it..

Difficulty in that game was also a mixed bag.. This isn't to say the vita tanks are bad, not even talking about that.. But the fact I can't stand difficulties that make enemeis take a million more rounds of ammunition.. It isn't fun and becomes tedious rather then challenging.. They could have thrown more guys at your or better equiped the splicers.. INstead they just made the guys have a ton of hit points.. It got old real fast.

fear because of the combat system, story and scary moments. multi-player mode is fun as hell too.

project origin is coming!

Personally i enjoyed the story and atmosphere more in Bioshock. But FEAR did have the better combat imo.

Overall i did enjoy Bioshock a little more though, as i beat Bioshock 2 times and only have wanted to play thru FEAR once.

Bioshock,

I really enjoyed Bioshock, I thought the setting, atmosphear and immersiveness of the game was outstanding, in some areas setting a new industrys best (though failing in other areas).

I found FEAR to be mediocre to be honest, by the third or fourth level I was bored, in spite of it's slow-mo and cover system it didnt really feel much diffrent from the last 20-30 generic 'got from A to B and kill everything FPS's'.

[QUOTE="chesterocks7"]

[QUOTE="Weredawg"] The actual gameplay in FEAR was much more challenging and in terms of combat, you were able to do alot more. sSubZerOo

I couldn't disagree more. In Bioshock, until you get the hang of what each of the plasmids can do and what weapons and ammo are good against what, the game is very challenging, and that was just on the normal difficulty. I imagine the game would be very challenging on the harder difficulties. FEAR was far too easy with the abundance of medkits and the slo-mo. I played through the hardest difficulty with no trouble whatsoever. It got to a point where I played through without useing slo-mo because it was just too damn easy.

Also, how could you do more in FEAR? In Bioshock you have tons of possible combinations of weapons and plasmids, in FEAR you have your weapons and slo-mo. You may not like the possibilites Bioshock has, but you can't say there are more in FEAR.

Yeah but really teh game was small on rpg elements.. There was really only two builds that was pheasable.. Wrench lugging juggernaut.. Or armored ranged machine gunner.. Alot of the plasmids were "cool" but many just weren't worth having.. For example freeze seemed pretty cool at first intill you realized that it destroyed items the guys were carrying from doing it..

Difficulty in that game was also a mixed bag.. This isn't to say the vita tanks are bad, not even talking about that.. But the fact I can't stand difficulties that make enemeis take a million more rounds of ammunition.. It isn't fun and becomes tedious rather then challenging.. They could have thrown more guys at your or better equiped the splicers.. INstead they just made the guys have a ton of hit points.. It got old real fast.

Its not about "worth having". The fun of the game is experimenting with the different plasmids and the different combat possibilities that they openup.

And to the other fellow: it is a bit unfair to say that FEAR's combat was better - true as this may be - because FEAR is a far more standard shooter and is polished in that way, with conventional FPS weapons - Bioshock is certainly not!