darthspudius: So what game came out that had the same ideas as F.E.A.R.? I recall it being very unique for it's time. Between the horror element, the shooting mechanics (slow mo to the kids) and the evil smart AI, it was very unique for it's time.
The only reason it could lack any fresh ideas NOW would probably be because of all the mediocre sequels and the fact the formula has been done on a lot more occasions since 2005.
XYCat: Well the dull grey offices as the only thing you see throughout the entire game was rather fresh to the shooters. Timeslowing was everywhere since max payne and horror themes in shooters existed since wolfenstein's zombies or perhaps doom to be precise. Cheap rip off of a longhair ghostgirl mania was also rather new because the rest of the horror shooters actually went through the trouble of making at least some effort to create a horror story.
But other than that?
Although I've always wished that its environments showcased more post-firefight demolition, there are still very few shooters (if any) that nail the feeling of visceral slomo chaos the way that FEAR did. No, not even Max Payne. Max Payne was a game of elegance. Bullet time was used to highlight the almost dance-like style of its firefights. FEAR had no elegance. It was just brutal violence, and its incarnation of bullet time was used to highlight that instead. Between the fantastic sound and effects work, the great mechanical balance, and the unforgiving AI, every firefight felt awesome. Its style of horror is also rather notable. It was an adrenaline-laden ego shooter with the sort of supernatural creepiness of Japanese ghost stories, set in abandoned offices and warehouses (which IIRC was a pretty original horror setting at the time). While I think that both the horror and the action suffered a little from being married together, it's still remarkable that the game was able to take genres that are so incredibly dissimilar and make them feel even somewhat cohesive. It's a unique gaming experience in that sense. There wasn't anything like it then, and there isn't anything like it now (with the possible exceptions of its sequels).
That being said, I recognize that FEAR is not perfect, and its tendency toward bland environments and repetitive encounters can be rather offputting to people who don't fall in love with its combat or its creepy atmosphere. Also, I'd be the first to say that the idea of combining action and Japanese horror was a flawed idea from the very start. It's a game for people who really like shooting things, and if you don't really like shooting things chances are you're going to be less than impressed.
darthspudius: F.E.A.R. all the way for me. Not just on gameplay, graphics etc. But there is so many bugs and problems with S.T.A.L.K.E.R. it was just not very fun. I do love the idea of S.T.A.L.K.E.R. but it just plays like shit.
F.E.A.R. on the other hand, looks good, plays good and has never been a problem to run. That in itself is enough reason to like this game more. Never mind the dark, creepy corridors, weird ass story, tricky AI and great horror elements.
Call of Pripyat really showed me just how under-realized and rough Shadow of Chernobyl was. It was a flawed gem. A VERY flawed gem in some ways. Which makes it hard to enjoy for some people. However, I'd argue that FEAR has just as many issues, in other areas.
It's really unfortunate that GSC never got a chance to get the STALKER series definitively "right." Every game has parts of the perfect STALKER game, but none of them ARE the perfect STALKER game. SoC was the most frightening and most oppressively atmospheric, but also the most linear. CS was the most dynamic and open, but also the most broken and least frightening. CoP was the most polished and the most well-realized, but also the least survival-oriented. Personally, I prefer CoP, just because I think the number of things it got right outweighed the number of things it broke.
EDIT: formatting inexplicably broken
