F.E.A.R. 2 (demo) looks bad


Supreme [H]ardness
Oct 6, 2008
Downloaded this for the 360, and I must say, it looks horrible. I'm playing on a Sony Bravia 1080p LCD, and everything is so bland and dull. There is a very distracting motion-blur that seems to serve as only a way to hide how bad the textures are. It's not a realism-enhancing motion-blur either...it just makes looking at the game more painful IMO. The blood is the exception, as it looks like fluorescent cherries are fleeing out of enemies as you shoot them. Gore is supposed to be off-putting, but they've gone the wrong way about achieving that here...

So, like the title says, it looks like ass. Games coming out in 2009 really should lok better than this. I'm a believer of 'gameplay over graphics', but when the game is actually painful to look at, I have to draw the line.

As for the gameplay, it seems a lot more run and gun than the original FEAR, so whether or not that's a good thing is subjective. The same could be said about the graphics, but guh...not visually appealing, for me at least. Maybe the PC version will look better...

What do you think?
I'm sure the PC version will look better. I'd assume the overuse of motion blur is partially there to help hide weak frame rates.

honestly, wasn't a huge fan of the original... it was a fantastic game but got very bland very quick. Hopefully they used more than 3 wall textures in this one :p
Didn't know this was out. I'll have to give it a try. The first one was pretty bland and the slow-motion made the game either too easy or too hard (if you didn't use it). It had some fun moments, and the expansion had some epic battles, but I never really felt it was the next big thing. Plus, considering the hardware you needed to run it back when it first hit, it never looked THAT great.
The demo is beautiful on my sig rig. The only issue is momentary pausing which some are thinking is auto saving going on.
The demo is beautiful on my sig rig. The only issue is momentary pausing which some are thinking is auto saving going on.

I don't have any momentary pausing whatsoever so I highly doubt it's autosaving cuz I would've experienced it as well.

As for the console version of FEAR 2: yes, it's pretty ugly. lol
haha well on my i7 pc the game looks gorgeous. not as nice as crysis etc but still pretty beutiful
I played the 360 version last night and I thought it looked fine. If you liked the original (I thought the PC version was overrated, but still good) you'll like this one. The gameplay, weapons, and feel of the game were the the same but better looking.
The only issue I had is that the mech combat was horrendous. The control was bad, the UI makes everything tough to see, and I just didn't care for it in general. I'll hope the final game doesn't overdo it.
Looks good on PC and PS3.

Maybe that 7 gigs space on 1 dvd is catching up to the 360?
To be fair the game was developed before 2009, we aren't even a month into the new year. Maybe adjust your TV sharpness/color/contrast settings or in-game settings if available?
i played it on the 360 as well. I loved the graphics but they looked hazie, fuzzy, blurry, or as if someone put a tv set, set to show white snow in the background (was it just me?).

Demo was really fun, but not one bit scary though. I will buy it when it comes out though.

I saw some game footage when the demo finished at the end and the graphics looked really crisp. I hope it comes out like that for 360.
Looks good on PC and PS3.

Maybe that 7 gigs space on 1 dvd is catching up to the 360?

very doubtful that the PS3 and 360 versions look any different.... if anything, I would assume that the 360 version is using AA and might help image quality a little. Especially since they are ports of the same game.

either way, storage capacity really has nothing to do with image quality (with some obvious exceptions), if anything it comes down to the GPU and the amount of memory available to it... just a heads up.

edit: you can see for yourself :)

A guy took a screenshot of the same poster with a 360 and then PC and the 360 did look like ass. Very blurry and jagged edges. I played the PC completely maxed out and I have to say that I was quite impressed. Not what i was expecting at all. Then again i had everything cranked up.
I think it's one of those situations where screenshots don't do justice to a comparison. The PC one looked better than the 360, but considering the pacing of the game, it's not always noticable in real-world play. Kinda like Motorstorm 2 looks average in stills, but in motion it looks on par with MGS4.
I loved the graphics but they looked hazie, fuzzy, blurry, or as if someone put a tv set, set to show white snow in the background (was it just me?).

think i figured out the fuzzy looking visuals. I believe (for me) is that film grain is active in the demo. I got the same effect in mass effect and when i turned off film grain it cleaned up the graphics big time. I cant find a film grain option in the demo for 360. Might be different for ps3.

If theres an option to turn off film grain in the final version the graphics will look good for the 360 on my end.

If there is a film grain option in the demo let me know.
I donot like the fear games. I tried it on pc and the graphics were good just not my kind of game.It is a demo so dont expect perfection.
I played around with the PC version more and while I personally find aiming to be much quicker, the game is still very much the same. I played it at 1920x1080 with everything maxed and while it does look better, I think in a fast paced game like this it honestly doesn't matter much. The film grain effect isn't really in the PC version as much (not like Mass Effect or L4D at least) so that might be to keep the 360 framerates up.
If you liked the first game, you'll like this one. If not, you won't like this one either.
I've gotten pretty good at aiming with a gamepad, but this is one of those games where headshots from a decent distance really do matter. Slo-mo helps a ton, but on the PC I found myself pretty much slaughtering enemies without even needing it. In the first FEAR, it was all but essential as for some reason enemies didn't seem to take much damage when you weren't in slo-mo.
The only available option in the Video section of the (360) demo is for brightness...

I stand by my original post. The game looks awful, even for console standards. The very first part of the game, where everything is red and you can see Alma...that looks cool. Once you're in the actual gameplay part, everything takes a dump visually.
tried it on the PC over the weekend. Very nice visuals :tup: I'd agree though that it's the "same" game as the first. I may pick it up when it comes out
What a terrible piece of garbage that demo was. I'm no graphics whore but it looks like ass and plays even worse.
Weird, I played it on my PS3 and it looked fine. I didn't try it on my 360 but if you're like me and your 360 doesn't have hdmi only component, I find games to look more "washed out". The game looked even better on my pc though.
Game looks fine on my 360... playing in 1080p on a calibrated 47" LCD, and I think it looks pretty good.
I think it looks the way it does just so it'll play well. Too often we have shooters with low framerates because they're too next-gen for the hardware running them.
FEAR 2 isn't Crysis or anything, but it looks as good as most console shooters. Certainly better than CoD4 and Halo.
Just a friendly reminder,
(7) No CUSSING in the thread title. It is permitted in the thread body, but please refrain from using excessive profanity dammit.