This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
F.E.A.R. 2: Project Origin article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find video game sources: "F.E.A.R. 2: Project Origin" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk |
Wikipedia is not a strategy guide or instruction manual. Wikipedia articles should focus on the games themselves, not on how to play them; they should not contain tips, tricks, or cheat codes. That information is available elsewhere (such as on our sister project, Wikibooks), in printed guides and online, and does not belong in an encyclopedia entry. Please do not add your own hints or opinions of the game. Verifiable content about the history, design, and overall description of the game is welcome. If you have questions about whether specific information should be added, ask here first. |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Does anyone know what engine the F.E.A.R. sequel will be using? Will it use the same engine as the original F.E.A.R.? Or some new version of the Jupitor Engine? IGN got a 15 minute video of the sequel, which I cited in the article itself and added, but did not mention anything about the game engine or graphics, which I find very odd. 72.49.194.69 21:35, 19 July 2007 (UTC) Joshua
Are you guys sure it's using Lithtech: Jupiter EX (the very same engine as the first game)? No citation or source is stated. 72.49.194.69 05:16, 26 July 2007 (UTC) Joshua
All I can say is I hope they manage to use a mix lighting style of real-time and lightmapping. FEAR's realtime lighting is gorgeous, but limiting. The engine still supports lightmapping (since the way-back-when original Jupiter ONLY had lightmaps and static vertex), and if they gave the processor a radiosity simulator, then lightmapping would be great for filling out the dark areas without resorting to ambient light. If they want to make the mood more elaborate, a lightmap/dynamic hybrid is the way to go.
Please stop adding Extraction Point. Monolith does not view it as having ever happened. It's in the first magazine article about the game; I don't have it with me right now, but when I get home I'll cite it for you all. Enfestid ( talk) 14:24, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Official word that the two F.E.A.R expansion packs, Extraction Point and Peresus Mandate are viewed as never happened.
http://www.projectorigingame.com/forum/showpost.php?p=5928&postcount=7 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.149.86.223 ( talk) 19:08, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
It was announced unofficially in the UK PC gamer of this month (jan 08) that Vivendi was working on a sequel to FEAR, called FEAR 2, that they will be unveiling after Project Origin is released. i propose that the FEAR 2 re-direct be removed, because this will almost certainly cause confusion and difficulties when FEAR 2 is officially announced. 3rdTriangle ( talk) 17:12, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
there's a 18 minute video on youtube of a demo that was shown at E3, in 2007. there's alot of content in there, which we could use to update the main page? 3rdTriangle ( talk) 17:26, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Anyone know when the release date is? I know their are some trailers for it, meaning it is coming soon (unless it goes they way of GTA 4 and releases the game a year after the trailer comes out) if anyone know anything about this, please post it —Preceding unsigned comment added by Not G. Ivingname ( talk • contribs) 04:07, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
I just added this part of the article, is it up to Wikipedia standards? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.31.47.38 ( talk) 09:37, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
Has anyone else seen or heard about people getting packages in the mail related to F.E.A.R. 2? Would this be important to add to the article as well? ShippoIsHip ( talk) 21:14, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
The demo for FEAR 2 has been released on PC, X-box 360, and Playstation 3. The demo is available on Steam (PC) and the Steam store indicates it will release the full game online though pre-ordering is not available at the moment. -- 204.112.191.178 ( talk) 01:42, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
-- According to numerous forums and the company itself, Fear 2.0 does not support cooperative gameplay either on or offline —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
65.213.208.2 (
talk) 16:57, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
Under the plot, in the last paragraph there is a sentence that reads:
Alma approaches Becket, and he is sent into another hallucination, where he fights off apparitions of a maddened Sergeant Keegan while trying to activate the amplifier to destroy Alma, interspersed with images of Alma crying out as if in orgasm.
The last word i believe to be incorrect. I believe it should read 'pain' instead of 'orgasm'– Elliott (Talk| Cont) 01:11, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
Actually if you've played the game you would know it IS an orgasm she is not in pain..............in a sense —Preceding unsigned comment added by Otto360 ( talk • contribs) 05:34, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
Another problem with the plot section: "Finally, after reactivating the last switch, Becket escapes the hallucination to find himself sealed inside the device." This is a misinterpretion. The wording should be changed, as the player does not find himself sealed in the device. If you look around, you will notice that Becket's physical body isn't there. - 91.153.27.175 ( talk) 13:40, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
The plot section states she's pregnant with Becket's child... how do we know its his? I may have missed something (my copy of the game seems to be a bit odd... the whole Aristide - Stokes conversation at the end just wasn't there when I played through on normal). 81.104.179.66 ( talk) 11:58, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
Fair enough... so the player is meant to assume that Alma somehow has sex with you while you're strapped to a chair and in a dream world...the practicalities of which seem far-fetched enough... and then her pregnancy is somehow accelerated by about 13 weeks so she looks pregnant... oh, and not forgetting that she's not actually biologically alive. Great stuff... its like with every new FEAR game, they just make things confusing to the point where suspension of disbelief isn't psychologically possible! 81.104.179.66 ( talk) 13:43, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
Surely there must be more critics involved with the game than stated on the actual page because last I checked there was a considerable amount of hype for the game. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Otto360 ( talk • contribs) 05:38, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
The reception section needs work. False information (no AA, no physics, no lighting), POV/poor source (forum given as a source) and weasel words ("much") regarding the game have been repeatedly inserted. I have deleted the changes once only see them reentered again. It also seems that the reception section has a negative spin to it even though the game has scored 82 on Metacritic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.231.221.80 ( talk) 12:41, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
Exactly, I've got the PC version of Fear 2 and there is Anti-Aliasing, all the way up to 16xQ. This is false information. Also, the games visuals are fine, the game is VERY well optimised and runs at a constant 60+ FPS on max settings on a system with a 9800 GTX, AMD 5200+, 2gb RAM set up. This game is far from poorly made and this negative attitude is rather abrupt, to praise the game and to then say it has problems (Which it clearly does not) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.130.127.99 ( talk) 04:13, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
With regards to the user forums I do not think it's a reliable source for the reception section because half the time people are criticising the game because they are not fans or do not have the decent hardware to run it. I request that such information be removed
External source has been added. As Gamer 2.0 is an online reviews page, it is as reliable as any other source. The popularity of the other sites quoted is not an indicator of reliability. The insertion clearly states that the graphics issues are limited to console versions, and PC versions are irrelevant. The sentence about forum discussions clearly states that the issues are being raised by members of forums, who are players. Their comments are just as reliable as official reviewers, many of whom openly admit to receiving payments for reviews. The included statement clearly states that this is the opinion of several forum members, and has references to these forums. There is nothing wrong with the inclusion.
Sure, if you assume that the only reviews ARE written by 13 year olds. However, there are MANY people arguing this. The people paid to write the reviews, by very fact that they are paid, are biased. For objectivity, it is necessary to include the perspectives of people that are not paid too. You have no evidence that the many people arguing the graphics are 13. A controversy is a controversy, regardless of who is involved, and the info on wiki clearly states that it is a controversy. Are you saying that the opinion of people who have played the game, and have not received payment for their comments, are irrelevant? Might i point out that the sub-heading says "reception", not "reception of official reviewers"
Why does a red link mean it is not a reliable source? You have to be listed on wikipedia as a reliable source? ROTFLMAO!!! Gamer2.0 is JUST as reliable as any other source. ALL sources are written by humans, and therefore completely subjective. This page is just one of a number of game review sites. What makes it less reliable than, for example, gamespot? Just ask Derrida. Consensus? I thought this was supposedly about objectivity —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eldraque77 ( talk • contribs) 23:29, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
You still have not provided adequate explanation on why this source is regarded as unreliable, while you accept the reliability of the other sources, other than these other sources have descriptions on wikipedia. The only reason they are listed on wikipedia is because someone has bothered to write them. Hence, they are mainstream. Mainstream does not equal reliable, and obscure does not mean unreliable. These are subjective interpretations. EVERY single review on this topic IS personal opinion. Why accept some subjective material and not others? Your perspective on this is essential extremely subjective. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eldraque77 ( talk • contribs) 10:10, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
So, you reject information on a forum unless the material that is posted is by an official reviewer who A. is, despite everything, is still writing his/her opinion. B. Got paid for writing it.
So, essentially, you are saying that information is only reliable if the person writing this opion got paid for it.
In deconstructive terms, you are laying validity on information because money exchanged hands during its production. Thats how we judge reliable now? Derrida and Foucault would be rolling in their graves, gentlemen. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eldraque77 ( talk • contribs) 05:07, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
"It's honestly over." This is a very subjective response from someone who is claiming to be acting in th name of objectivity. You say that the only wiki-worthy information here is that of the reviewer, and that the opinions of others is irrelevant. How elitist! You voted for Dick Cheney, didnt you Kingoomieiii? One of the great things about the freedom of information which is becoming more accessible today is that there are MANY people just as informed on the issue, who have not chosen to either seek formal education or a profession in the industry, whose knowledge on the topic is highly commendable. As commendable as those of a reviewer. You are saying that the opinions of these people are unreliable because they chose not to pursue a profession is gaming critique - a job in which there are so few employed people, given the amount of knowledge and information that is readily accessible on this topic. The contested statement here clearly says that controversy has arisen. It then even makes reference to these controversies. That is an OBJECTIVE statement. By your logic, only the words of a critic needs be noted. Thats SUBJECTIVE. Dont get too arrogant, Kingoomieiii. From here it looks like your fly is down. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eldraque77 ( talk • contribs) 02:40, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
Is "behaving yourself" objective or subjective? Just because you do not happen to agree with me, does not mean that you are "right." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eldraque77 ( talk • contribs) 09:06, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
LOL. You argue well. Touche. If we agree that Gamer 2.0 review stays, then I am content. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eldraque77 ( talk • contribs) 12:27, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
Just simply brilliant, I agree with the utter idiocy. They are simply PAID! So what, a janitor is a reliable source? A paid person who writes a few pages, while some brilliant forum member might write 20 pages, detailing everything from lighting to the feel of weaponry recoil. Perhaps Adolph Hitler should write a review, that'll be accepted, a five second play where he gets his nazis to shoot a copy of Call of Duty when he sees what it is about, and you'll accept that into reception? Moaners ( talk) 08:06, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
An IP displaying as 82.39.69.73 did some VAST vandalism to the page by removing the entire "Development" and "Name Your Fear" sections and then adding a new section called "You Suck" (which has been already removed by another user) with zero text on March 3rd. I just copy-pasted those lost info back here from the history. Sorry I couldn't just simply "undo" it since there were several other times of editing done in between. I think from now on we might need to pay more attention to the vandalism and keep checking history out. As a sidenote, there always appear some new broken codes these days too, which caused the format fail to meet wikipedia's standards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ilovelctr ( talk • contribs) 10:22, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
Alright, we need to take a hard look at the review sites being added to the Reception section. I didn't have a problem with Gamer 2.0, because at least I've HEARD of them, but two other sites have been added that I'm not familiar with. Do these sites fit the notability requirements to be used as sources? -- Kingoomieiii ♣ Talk 13:54, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
Cant be bothered starting this all up again, but i MUST say..Kingoomieiii, why, for a site to be creditable, do YOU have to have heard of it? I thought this whole exercise was an attempt for objectivity, but it seems that if you haven't heard of something, or don't agree with it, you try and ban it. Not just on this discussion, but on several others too. You aren't a wiki-god, you know, I don't think anyone important appointed you to this role, and you certainly aren't omniscient. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.233.40.230 ( talk) 23:30, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
I think you are missing my point. I am very well read on how to write an objective piece. My issue isn't the content this time, my issue with your phrase "at least I've HEARD of them, but two other sites have been added that I'm not familiar with." I am also VERY familiar with academic writing, as it has been my job for the past several years to teach people how to do it, and editing huge quantities of it. I have certainly not misused the word "objective" - and am also very aware that this word is itself a misnomer, as complete objectivity is impossible. Yet we strive for objectivity. My concern is that you have clearly stated that you have issues with a source if you have not heard of it. It is easy to deconstruct every review on anything, as these only equal the personal opinions of the reviewer, regardless of their qualifications and backgrounds. Certainly some sources are more reliable than others, but I do not think that public awareness of these sources guarantees reliability. By following this logic, you will eliminate any new sources of information simply because you have not heard of them. This is unfair to the reader, the writer, and objectivity itself. I didn't say anywhere you were removing links, and if this is a thinly veiled attack, I have not removed them myself. If you remember, I was advocating MORE information on the topic. My main concern is that, given your words above, that you are likely to discredit sources that you have not heard about, simply because you question their reliability based on whether they are well documented or not. I too play a lot of games, and often find that the reliability of the main-stream reviews to be highly questionable, and often find reviews much more to my ideas in less-visited places. Of course, this is a subjective approach, but given that objectivity appears to be finally quite subjective, it is important not to discount sources simply because they are not well documented. Please try and understand that giving space to less prominent sources is not against wikipedia standards, especially when the description of the source clearly explains the origin of the source itself. In doing this, we can clearly quote virtually ALL sources, because we are quoting, not stating the position as fact. Within reason of course. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.233.40.230 ( talk) 05:59, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
p.s. "Goddamn"? Please try not to get so emotional about the issue. This certainly exposes the lack of objectivity here, which immediately undermines certain credibilities. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
220.233.40.230 (
talk) 06:45, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
Ummmm....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_in_brief
I see no mention of the word "Notable" what-so-ever.
Reliable is mentioned several times though.....
"Articles may state, neutrally and factually, which people hold what opinions, but must not judge."
Maybe you should go read the rules of wikipedia.
While you are at it... I recommend
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deconstruction
and
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivity_(philosophy) —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
220.233.40.230 (
talk) 13:46, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
It's pretty obvious that a child can be heard saying "Mommy" at the end of the game, but here's a slightly louder version of it found on YouTube, Since I don't have the PC version, I can't pull the exact sound file itself. If it helps, turn the volume all the way up just after Alma places Becket's hand on her stomach. The voice occurs just as the music stops. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xaZ6tM5L8vQ AlessaGillespie ( talk) 23:48, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
Link to sound file pulled from PC version of FEAR 2 in which a child's voice can clearly be heard saying 'Mommy'. http://www.filefactory.com/file/ag34g85/n/alma_mommy_wav AlessaGillespie ( talk) 05:22, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
Quick edit: it was 4 months since the April 1st announcement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Serverfiles ( talk • contribs) 01:38, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
Recently it was discovered that Monolith will not be releasing server files, anti-cheat or SDK for PC. This was officially released in April. Yet it was recently discovered a Article on a Australian website dated January 1st stated this.Monolith had not released any information on this article.Forum members who did divulge this information were quickly edited & banned.
Monolith also has not released full patch notes when this game was updated.Patch 1.1 (the day 1 patch) has not disclosed it notes. Patch 1.2 contains changes not mention in patch notes also. It would be wise to warn readers of Wikipedia, about these.Many people make judgments of products of Wikipedia. Another Controversy is a moderator for Monolith has stated they would make announcements on this before (I'll be posting sources if needed).
Here is the original announcement that was buried by Monolith: http://www.ausgamers.com/features/read/2699165
This is when it was officially announced by Monolith 3 months after its original article. http://www.projectorigincommunity.com/forum/showthread.php?p=147797#post147797
If you view this Marauders past post in that forum. He stated he does not know the current status. Even though 2 months prior to this annocement it was clearly started in the article above.
This link below shows that the Monolith representative was going to make a announcement.
http://www.projectorigincommunity.com/forum/showthread.php?p=145497#post145497
Look at his post. Clearly 3 months have gone by since Monolith has done this article. Its obviously lying on the subject matter.
I submit that we need a section of Controversy of Monolith's business tactics because its clearly out right lying.Using false information of "not knowing" for a full 3 months since January 1st. I'd do the article myself but I'm not good with Wiki. I joined under the assumed name because that is the only reason I joined to bring it up.
The fact is they knew on January first before the demo was even released (see demo release date here: http://www.projectorigincommunity.com/news?page=2 ). So on January 22th they released the demo and were still not releasing anything about Multiplayer development server file wise. Stating in Forums by official representatives that the Current status is unknown. This after 21 days after the article was released. Instead of linking consumers with the answers. They blatantly played the dumb card and said they do not have a current status on the matter.
By this time F.E.A.R. 2 Project Origin had gone gold.
I believe consumers buying this game need to be advise of these tactics. the fact that the Monolith Community consultant Marauder hasn't posted the announcement of server files or link the original January 1st article before his April 1st post. He still hasn't posted a announcement in the Announcement thread or the official community sites.
Many consumers must know the current status of these tactics so they can make a wise decision when venturing into a purchase of this game.
Wikipedia is a common source sited for multiple areas of peoples life, from systems, to even news, to articles on history. People who come to see F.E.A.R. 2 Project Origin for information on the product should be advised on these subjects. Serverfiles ( talk) 01:27, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
On her official page (not a fan page), she's listed as the voice of Alma in F.E.A.R. 2. The official credits for F.E.A.R. 2 list an Alicia Glidwell. Does this pass notability requirements for listing? http://www.alesiaglidewell.com/bio.php AlessaGillespie ( talk) 05:22, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
Multiple gaming sites has recently reported on a sequel to F.E.A.R. 2: Project Origin apparently revealed by an unknown Spanish gaming magazine under the name of F.3.A.R., no this is not a typo, I have added this information with citations to the main article. KSweeley ( talk) 10:10, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
I think the system requirements on this page is incorrect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.247.74.98 ( talk) 06:07, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on F.E.A.R. 2: Project Origin. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 14:00, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on F.E.A.R. 2: Project Origin. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 19:19, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
F.E.A.R. 2: Project Origin article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find video game sources: "F.E.A.R. 2: Project Origin" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk |
Wikipedia is not a strategy guide or instruction manual. Wikipedia articles should focus on the games themselves, not on how to play them; they should not contain tips, tricks, or cheat codes. That information is available elsewhere (such as on our sister project, Wikibooks), in printed guides and online, and does not belong in an encyclopedia entry. Please do not add your own hints or opinions of the game. Verifiable content about the history, design, and overall description of the game is welcome. If you have questions about whether specific information should be added, ask here first. |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Does anyone know what engine the F.E.A.R. sequel will be using? Will it use the same engine as the original F.E.A.R.? Or some new version of the Jupitor Engine? IGN got a 15 minute video of the sequel, which I cited in the article itself and added, but did not mention anything about the game engine or graphics, which I find very odd. 72.49.194.69 21:35, 19 July 2007 (UTC) Joshua
Are you guys sure it's using Lithtech: Jupiter EX (the very same engine as the first game)? No citation or source is stated. 72.49.194.69 05:16, 26 July 2007 (UTC) Joshua
All I can say is I hope they manage to use a mix lighting style of real-time and lightmapping. FEAR's realtime lighting is gorgeous, but limiting. The engine still supports lightmapping (since the way-back-when original Jupiter ONLY had lightmaps and static vertex), and if they gave the processor a radiosity simulator, then lightmapping would be great for filling out the dark areas without resorting to ambient light. If they want to make the mood more elaborate, a lightmap/dynamic hybrid is the way to go.
Please stop adding Extraction Point. Monolith does not view it as having ever happened. It's in the first magazine article about the game; I don't have it with me right now, but when I get home I'll cite it for you all. Enfestid ( talk) 14:24, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Official word that the two F.E.A.R expansion packs, Extraction Point and Peresus Mandate are viewed as never happened.
http://www.projectorigingame.com/forum/showpost.php?p=5928&postcount=7 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.149.86.223 ( talk) 19:08, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
It was announced unofficially in the UK PC gamer of this month (jan 08) that Vivendi was working on a sequel to FEAR, called FEAR 2, that they will be unveiling after Project Origin is released. i propose that the FEAR 2 re-direct be removed, because this will almost certainly cause confusion and difficulties when FEAR 2 is officially announced. 3rdTriangle ( talk) 17:12, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
there's a 18 minute video on youtube of a demo that was shown at E3, in 2007. there's alot of content in there, which we could use to update the main page? 3rdTriangle ( talk) 17:26, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Anyone know when the release date is? I know their are some trailers for it, meaning it is coming soon (unless it goes they way of GTA 4 and releases the game a year after the trailer comes out) if anyone know anything about this, please post it —Preceding unsigned comment added by Not G. Ivingname ( talk • contribs) 04:07, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
I just added this part of the article, is it up to Wikipedia standards? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.31.47.38 ( talk) 09:37, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
Has anyone else seen or heard about people getting packages in the mail related to F.E.A.R. 2? Would this be important to add to the article as well? ShippoIsHip ( talk) 21:14, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
The demo for FEAR 2 has been released on PC, X-box 360, and Playstation 3. The demo is available on Steam (PC) and the Steam store indicates it will release the full game online though pre-ordering is not available at the moment. -- 204.112.191.178 ( talk) 01:42, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
-- According to numerous forums and the company itself, Fear 2.0 does not support cooperative gameplay either on or offline —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
65.213.208.2 (
talk) 16:57, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
Under the plot, in the last paragraph there is a sentence that reads:
Alma approaches Becket, and he is sent into another hallucination, where he fights off apparitions of a maddened Sergeant Keegan while trying to activate the amplifier to destroy Alma, interspersed with images of Alma crying out as if in orgasm.
The last word i believe to be incorrect. I believe it should read 'pain' instead of 'orgasm'– Elliott (Talk| Cont) 01:11, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
Actually if you've played the game you would know it IS an orgasm she is not in pain..............in a sense —Preceding unsigned comment added by Otto360 ( talk • contribs) 05:34, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
Another problem with the plot section: "Finally, after reactivating the last switch, Becket escapes the hallucination to find himself sealed inside the device." This is a misinterpretion. The wording should be changed, as the player does not find himself sealed in the device. If you look around, you will notice that Becket's physical body isn't there. - 91.153.27.175 ( talk) 13:40, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
The plot section states she's pregnant with Becket's child... how do we know its his? I may have missed something (my copy of the game seems to be a bit odd... the whole Aristide - Stokes conversation at the end just wasn't there when I played through on normal). 81.104.179.66 ( talk) 11:58, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
Fair enough... so the player is meant to assume that Alma somehow has sex with you while you're strapped to a chair and in a dream world...the practicalities of which seem far-fetched enough... and then her pregnancy is somehow accelerated by about 13 weeks so she looks pregnant... oh, and not forgetting that she's not actually biologically alive. Great stuff... its like with every new FEAR game, they just make things confusing to the point where suspension of disbelief isn't psychologically possible! 81.104.179.66 ( talk) 13:43, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
Surely there must be more critics involved with the game than stated on the actual page because last I checked there was a considerable amount of hype for the game. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Otto360 ( talk • contribs) 05:38, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
The reception section needs work. False information (no AA, no physics, no lighting), POV/poor source (forum given as a source) and weasel words ("much") regarding the game have been repeatedly inserted. I have deleted the changes once only see them reentered again. It also seems that the reception section has a negative spin to it even though the game has scored 82 on Metacritic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.231.221.80 ( talk) 12:41, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
Exactly, I've got the PC version of Fear 2 and there is Anti-Aliasing, all the way up to 16xQ. This is false information. Also, the games visuals are fine, the game is VERY well optimised and runs at a constant 60+ FPS on max settings on a system with a 9800 GTX, AMD 5200+, 2gb RAM set up. This game is far from poorly made and this negative attitude is rather abrupt, to praise the game and to then say it has problems (Which it clearly does not) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.130.127.99 ( talk) 04:13, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
With regards to the user forums I do not think it's a reliable source for the reception section because half the time people are criticising the game because they are not fans or do not have the decent hardware to run it. I request that such information be removed
External source has been added. As Gamer 2.0 is an online reviews page, it is as reliable as any other source. The popularity of the other sites quoted is not an indicator of reliability. The insertion clearly states that the graphics issues are limited to console versions, and PC versions are irrelevant. The sentence about forum discussions clearly states that the issues are being raised by members of forums, who are players. Their comments are just as reliable as official reviewers, many of whom openly admit to receiving payments for reviews. The included statement clearly states that this is the opinion of several forum members, and has references to these forums. There is nothing wrong with the inclusion.
Sure, if you assume that the only reviews ARE written by 13 year olds. However, there are MANY people arguing this. The people paid to write the reviews, by very fact that they are paid, are biased. For objectivity, it is necessary to include the perspectives of people that are not paid too. You have no evidence that the many people arguing the graphics are 13. A controversy is a controversy, regardless of who is involved, and the info on wiki clearly states that it is a controversy. Are you saying that the opinion of people who have played the game, and have not received payment for their comments, are irrelevant? Might i point out that the sub-heading says "reception", not "reception of official reviewers"
Why does a red link mean it is not a reliable source? You have to be listed on wikipedia as a reliable source? ROTFLMAO!!! Gamer2.0 is JUST as reliable as any other source. ALL sources are written by humans, and therefore completely subjective. This page is just one of a number of game review sites. What makes it less reliable than, for example, gamespot? Just ask Derrida. Consensus? I thought this was supposedly about objectivity —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eldraque77 ( talk • contribs) 23:29, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
You still have not provided adequate explanation on why this source is regarded as unreliable, while you accept the reliability of the other sources, other than these other sources have descriptions on wikipedia. The only reason they are listed on wikipedia is because someone has bothered to write them. Hence, they are mainstream. Mainstream does not equal reliable, and obscure does not mean unreliable. These are subjective interpretations. EVERY single review on this topic IS personal opinion. Why accept some subjective material and not others? Your perspective on this is essential extremely subjective. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eldraque77 ( talk • contribs) 10:10, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
So, you reject information on a forum unless the material that is posted is by an official reviewer who A. is, despite everything, is still writing his/her opinion. B. Got paid for writing it.
So, essentially, you are saying that information is only reliable if the person writing this opion got paid for it.
In deconstructive terms, you are laying validity on information because money exchanged hands during its production. Thats how we judge reliable now? Derrida and Foucault would be rolling in their graves, gentlemen. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eldraque77 ( talk • contribs) 05:07, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
"It's honestly over." This is a very subjective response from someone who is claiming to be acting in th name of objectivity. You say that the only wiki-worthy information here is that of the reviewer, and that the opinions of others is irrelevant. How elitist! You voted for Dick Cheney, didnt you Kingoomieiii? One of the great things about the freedom of information which is becoming more accessible today is that there are MANY people just as informed on the issue, who have not chosen to either seek formal education or a profession in the industry, whose knowledge on the topic is highly commendable. As commendable as those of a reviewer. You are saying that the opinions of these people are unreliable because they chose not to pursue a profession is gaming critique - a job in which there are so few employed people, given the amount of knowledge and information that is readily accessible on this topic. The contested statement here clearly says that controversy has arisen. It then even makes reference to these controversies. That is an OBJECTIVE statement. By your logic, only the words of a critic needs be noted. Thats SUBJECTIVE. Dont get too arrogant, Kingoomieiii. From here it looks like your fly is down. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eldraque77 ( talk • contribs) 02:40, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
Is "behaving yourself" objective or subjective? Just because you do not happen to agree with me, does not mean that you are "right." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eldraque77 ( talk • contribs) 09:06, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
LOL. You argue well. Touche. If we agree that Gamer 2.0 review stays, then I am content. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eldraque77 ( talk • contribs) 12:27, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
Just simply brilliant, I agree with the utter idiocy. They are simply PAID! So what, a janitor is a reliable source? A paid person who writes a few pages, while some brilliant forum member might write 20 pages, detailing everything from lighting to the feel of weaponry recoil. Perhaps Adolph Hitler should write a review, that'll be accepted, a five second play where he gets his nazis to shoot a copy of Call of Duty when he sees what it is about, and you'll accept that into reception? Moaners ( talk) 08:06, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
An IP displaying as 82.39.69.73 did some VAST vandalism to the page by removing the entire "Development" and "Name Your Fear" sections and then adding a new section called "You Suck" (which has been already removed by another user) with zero text on March 3rd. I just copy-pasted those lost info back here from the history. Sorry I couldn't just simply "undo" it since there were several other times of editing done in between. I think from now on we might need to pay more attention to the vandalism and keep checking history out. As a sidenote, there always appear some new broken codes these days too, which caused the format fail to meet wikipedia's standards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ilovelctr ( talk • contribs) 10:22, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
Alright, we need to take a hard look at the review sites being added to the Reception section. I didn't have a problem with Gamer 2.0, because at least I've HEARD of them, but two other sites have been added that I'm not familiar with. Do these sites fit the notability requirements to be used as sources? -- Kingoomieiii ♣ Talk 13:54, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
Cant be bothered starting this all up again, but i MUST say..Kingoomieiii, why, for a site to be creditable, do YOU have to have heard of it? I thought this whole exercise was an attempt for objectivity, but it seems that if you haven't heard of something, or don't agree with it, you try and ban it. Not just on this discussion, but on several others too. You aren't a wiki-god, you know, I don't think anyone important appointed you to this role, and you certainly aren't omniscient. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.233.40.230 ( talk) 23:30, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
I think you are missing my point. I am very well read on how to write an objective piece. My issue isn't the content this time, my issue with your phrase "at least I've HEARD of them, but two other sites have been added that I'm not familiar with." I am also VERY familiar with academic writing, as it has been my job for the past several years to teach people how to do it, and editing huge quantities of it. I have certainly not misused the word "objective" - and am also very aware that this word is itself a misnomer, as complete objectivity is impossible. Yet we strive for objectivity. My concern is that you have clearly stated that you have issues with a source if you have not heard of it. It is easy to deconstruct every review on anything, as these only equal the personal opinions of the reviewer, regardless of their qualifications and backgrounds. Certainly some sources are more reliable than others, but I do not think that public awareness of these sources guarantees reliability. By following this logic, you will eliminate any new sources of information simply because you have not heard of them. This is unfair to the reader, the writer, and objectivity itself. I didn't say anywhere you were removing links, and if this is a thinly veiled attack, I have not removed them myself. If you remember, I was advocating MORE information on the topic. My main concern is that, given your words above, that you are likely to discredit sources that you have not heard about, simply because you question their reliability based on whether they are well documented or not. I too play a lot of games, and often find that the reliability of the main-stream reviews to be highly questionable, and often find reviews much more to my ideas in less-visited places. Of course, this is a subjective approach, but given that objectivity appears to be finally quite subjective, it is important not to discount sources simply because they are not well documented. Please try and understand that giving space to less prominent sources is not against wikipedia standards, especially when the description of the source clearly explains the origin of the source itself. In doing this, we can clearly quote virtually ALL sources, because we are quoting, not stating the position as fact. Within reason of course. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.233.40.230 ( talk) 05:59, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
p.s. "Goddamn"? Please try not to get so emotional about the issue. This certainly exposes the lack of objectivity here, which immediately undermines certain credibilities. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
220.233.40.230 (
talk) 06:45, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
Ummmm....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_in_brief
I see no mention of the word "Notable" what-so-ever.
Reliable is mentioned several times though.....
"Articles may state, neutrally and factually, which people hold what opinions, but must not judge."
Maybe you should go read the rules of wikipedia.
While you are at it... I recommend
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deconstruction
and
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivity_(philosophy) —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
220.233.40.230 (
talk) 13:46, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
It's pretty obvious that a child can be heard saying "Mommy" at the end of the game, but here's a slightly louder version of it found on YouTube, Since I don't have the PC version, I can't pull the exact sound file itself. If it helps, turn the volume all the way up just after Alma places Becket's hand on her stomach. The voice occurs just as the music stops. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xaZ6tM5L8vQ AlessaGillespie ( talk) 23:48, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
Link to sound file pulled from PC version of FEAR 2 in which a child's voice can clearly be heard saying 'Mommy'. http://www.filefactory.com/file/ag34g85/n/alma_mommy_wav AlessaGillespie ( talk) 05:22, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
Quick edit: it was 4 months since the April 1st announcement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Serverfiles ( talk • contribs) 01:38, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
Recently it was discovered that Monolith will not be releasing server files, anti-cheat or SDK for PC. This was officially released in April. Yet it was recently discovered a Article on a Australian website dated January 1st stated this.Monolith had not released any information on this article.Forum members who did divulge this information were quickly edited & banned.
Monolith also has not released full patch notes when this game was updated.Patch 1.1 (the day 1 patch) has not disclosed it notes. Patch 1.2 contains changes not mention in patch notes also. It would be wise to warn readers of Wikipedia, about these.Many people make judgments of products of Wikipedia. Another Controversy is a moderator for Monolith has stated they would make announcements on this before (I'll be posting sources if needed).
Here is the original announcement that was buried by Monolith: http://www.ausgamers.com/features/read/2699165
This is when it was officially announced by Monolith 3 months after its original article. http://www.projectorigincommunity.com/forum/showthread.php?p=147797#post147797
If you view this Marauders past post in that forum. He stated he does not know the current status. Even though 2 months prior to this annocement it was clearly started in the article above.
This link below shows that the Monolith representative was going to make a announcement.
http://www.projectorigincommunity.com/forum/showthread.php?p=145497#post145497
Look at his post. Clearly 3 months have gone by since Monolith has done this article. Its obviously lying on the subject matter.
I submit that we need a section of Controversy of Monolith's business tactics because its clearly out right lying.Using false information of "not knowing" for a full 3 months since January 1st. I'd do the article myself but I'm not good with Wiki. I joined under the assumed name because that is the only reason I joined to bring it up.
The fact is they knew on January first before the demo was even released (see demo release date here: http://www.projectorigincommunity.com/news?page=2 ). So on January 22th they released the demo and were still not releasing anything about Multiplayer development server file wise. Stating in Forums by official representatives that the Current status is unknown. This after 21 days after the article was released. Instead of linking consumers with the answers. They blatantly played the dumb card and said they do not have a current status on the matter.
By this time F.E.A.R. 2 Project Origin had gone gold.
I believe consumers buying this game need to be advise of these tactics. the fact that the Monolith Community consultant Marauder hasn't posted the announcement of server files or link the original January 1st article before his April 1st post. He still hasn't posted a announcement in the Announcement thread or the official community sites.
Many consumers must know the current status of these tactics so they can make a wise decision when venturing into a purchase of this game.
Wikipedia is a common source sited for multiple areas of peoples life, from systems, to even news, to articles on history. People who come to see F.E.A.R. 2 Project Origin for information on the product should be advised on these subjects. Serverfiles ( talk) 01:27, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
On her official page (not a fan page), she's listed as the voice of Alma in F.E.A.R. 2. The official credits for F.E.A.R. 2 list an Alicia Glidwell. Does this pass notability requirements for listing? http://www.alesiaglidewell.com/bio.php AlessaGillespie ( talk) 05:22, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
Multiple gaming sites has recently reported on a sequel to F.E.A.R. 2: Project Origin apparently revealed by an unknown Spanish gaming magazine under the name of F.3.A.R., no this is not a typo, I have added this information with citations to the main article. KSweeley ( talk) 10:10, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
I think the system requirements on this page is incorrect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.247.74.98 ( talk) 06:07, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on F.E.A.R. 2: Project Origin. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 14:00, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on F.E.A.R. 2: Project Origin. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 19:19, 26 September 2017 (UTC)