fear has infinitely better gunplay, stalker has a cooler world and atmosphere and a refreshing freedom after playing generic_corridor_run_n_gun_500 for the last decade
both games are great in their own way, and each is too unique to be directly compared - but as an overall experience, i found f.e.a.r far more enjoyable in just about all ways...
stalker beats it hands down for lifespan on a one play vs one play run, but i played the fear campaign three times so far, and i doubt i'll ever play stalker again after this run through is over
the thing with fear is, it's singularly focused on one thing - the combat, and if you don't enjoy that combat, and don't feel it will carry your interest for ten or fifteen or whatever hours, then there's just no point getting fear at all - stalker on the other hand starts awesome because it's a genuine tactical shooter, you're extremely vulnerable and have very little supplies, every fight is a fight for your life and you'll have a sense of your own mortality that you may have never experienced in a game - but a couple hours in, once you've got some good armour and a scoped rifle (and ammo and bandages are never in short supply), the game becomes your generic run n gun almost - the essence of its awesomeness fades as the game goes on
so, i'd definitely say stalker is a game that starts great and curves downwards, while fear is - if you enjoy the combat - awesome the whole way through... but you really need to know if you enjoy the combat beforehand before you can really make a guess as to whether or not you'll like the game proper, because fear was probably the love or hate game of 2005
i'd say get both, but get fear first, and stalker later on when it's cheaperÂ
Log in to comment