F.E.A.R 1 or 2 - which is better?

(this is different from my usual newsletters. But with the holidays, I’ve been taking time off from projects. So I wanted to share something a little different, about my many other interests)

I wanted to treat myself this Christmas. I’ve been busy with overlapping projects + an upcoming course.

I wanted to unwind a bit. Relax. Lower my much-too-high cortisol.

So, naturally, I bought the first two F.E.A.R games.

As I installed them, I noticed a common debate online: which one is better? Despite the second one’s graphics upgrade, many to this day still insist the first one is better.

I had only played a demo of the second one and learned parts of its story out of curiosity (including its ending), but I never played them before. Feeling like a “third party” of sorts, I figured I’d play both, note the differences, and say which one I think is better.

So, I played F.E.A.R Platinum and F.E.A.R 2: Project Origin from GOG. I didn’t use mods other than basic fixes and support my ultrawide monitor. I finished both vanilla campaigns on normal difficulty (I’m comfortable with first-person shooters, but definitely not Call of Duty worthy).

The Differences

I will break down the most significant changes seen in F.E.A.R 2, for better or worse:

More detailed, varied levels: F.E.A.R 1 is a victim of its time. It was built as a 32-bit program, only allowed to use 2 GB of RAM (which I did change via mod to go up to 4 GB). So the renderer is severely limited in what it could handle.

The second one supports 64-bit (popular not long after the first game got released) and takes advantage of more memory. It has more spacious level design, whereas the first one is left with tighter, Doom-like mazes heavily reusing textures. Not to say the first one doesn’t have verticality, and the second one isn’t maze-y, but you can feel the difference.

The second one beats this out, but mostly because of better technology available.

Smoke/dust: while the first game has its hardware limits, this particle effect is completely missing in the second one. Nearly every time you shoot in the first one, dust clouds appear.

While initially frustrating, I grew to appreciate it. It became a weird mechanic: grenades and clumsy gunfire meant it got harder to see. Then you can surprise and ambush each other. So you had to be precise in your shooting. Point to the first one here.

Story and Scares: the first game’s story is more Crysis-like (I know Crysis came out afterward, I’m just making connections I understand, okay?): fun-and-games typical FPS, until everything turns on its head after the midpoint. While a proven structure, it subverts expectations as you play. I liked the ending, had well-earned twists.

Second one tries to weave and flow horror and FPS together from the beginning. Lets newcomers feel the horror without going too far into the game. There are a few genuinely scary moments at the beginning (when Alma appears right next to you without introduction). But apart from the crazy ending, I never jumped out of my seat. It has more story-based horror, such as the school (I was literally saying aloud, “that’s sooo messed up”).

(Note: I turned off the “full violence” setting — I get squeamish. But that affects scares in both games).

F.E.A.R 2 has a more tense and thought-provoking story, but the first one had better scares overall. So for me, I will say the second game won here.

Gunplay, Enemies, AI, and Difficulty: what the series is known for. Since these are all related, I put them all together. Again, I played both on “normal” difficulty.

Overall, the first game is far less forgiving. I even played a bit of the first one after finishing the second one — died immediately. The first one quickly teaches to use slow-mo. The second game’s AI is also quick, but more forgiving (could also be due to how the health system has changed, more on that later). But both games impressed me in AI; enemies attack, retreat, and make cover.

I also noticed difficulty even is related to the guns themselves. The guns in the first one are less accurate. I immediately noticed the second game’s shotgun has a faster rate of fire than the first one’s. The first game’s guns all felt different. It felt necessary to switch from the shotgun to machine gun to “sniper” rifles. You had to be more careful of where you shot, as it could save you valuable ammo.

Way more ammo to be found in the second one. And I can hold four weapons and four grenade types in the second one? A lot to manage. But an aspect that improved in the second one is more “horror” enemy types, particularly the crawlers.

Also, the first game’s flashlight had to recharge after 10-15 seconds of use, whereas the second one is unlimited (but turned off during scripted horror moments). The first game’s AI call you out for leaving it on, giving away your position. But not audibly mentioned at least in the second one.

(P.S. Was I the only one that, at the beginning of the second game, thought, “Oh good, finally some friendly AI”? Only for it to be barely used? 😭)

(P.P.S Hearing Cortana’s voice actor, Jen Taylor, as Stokes made me nostalgic for Halo.)

I’ll say the first one. But it very much depends on how intense you want your gunplay. Those who want more forgiving, universal FPS would prefer the second one.

User Interface: apart from downloading bigger textures online, the first game worked fine (albeit some overlap with the health and shield interfaces). I found it less readable (especially the gun icons) or tech-y.

The second game’s HUD doesn’t stretch to ultrawide, so it’s kept tighter onscreen. But it is far more readable to me. It overall feels very Star Wars: Republic Commando of them. I think I prefer F.E.A.R 2’s UI for that reason.

Health and slow-mo system: the first one is more Doom-like: the more armor you had, the less health damage you took. In the second one, apart from a few types of attacks, you only take armor damage before losing health. I like the medpack mechanic in both, scouring areas for them, albeit the second one is less reliant on it.

The second game’s system does make when you get armor more important; save it for when your armor just expired, whereas the first game’s is more “get it as soon as possible.”

In terms of the slow-mo, the second one seems to allow far more slow-mo time. Whereas the first one, you had to be careful, build it up while taking cover, and then fire.

It’s a tough choice. But I’ll go with the first one here.

Movement: I’m usually not a “leaner” when it comes to FPS’s.

But it started to grow on me in the first game. It was very helpful to prevent getting hit. So when the lean controls disappeared in the second one, I missed them.

It got very annoying in the first game when I couldn’t jump through some windows. So being able to mantle in the next game was a nice surprise, along with pushing objects around more and lift them aside to reveal doors.

I think the movement in the first one felt more unique with the leaning, but the second one contributed to the level design. I’ll go with the first one.

Overall

From a tally standpoint, the first one beat out here. But there’s tradeoffs. There’s mechanics I love from both games.

The thing is, the first game felt so unique. It felt different from other shooters. The second one, while polishing many mechanics, felt closer to “typical” first person shooters.

Why are these games so different?

In short, the three biggest factors that affected the differences:

1. Better, more accessible hardware - this means more flexibility and breathing room for what the game can handle. F.E.A.R 2 simply had better technology available to use.

2. Multiplatform support - the first game didn’t release to consoles until a year after it’s PC-exclusive release in 2005. So initially, it was only expected to run on PC. The second game released to PS3, Xbox 360, and PC together. As any game developer will tell you, testing gets far more complicated when developing for multiple platforms. They could have probably pushed graphics, mechanics, and story even further were it not for the console requirement, which also affected:

3. Audience - sequels often move to expand, or diversify, their audience. Studios want to make a profit, after all. But that comes at a cost - developers trying to appeal to experienced players and newcomers, gamers of horror and shooter genres. A sort of blandness or “too easy” feeling comes with that. F.E.A.R handled it better than most series in my opinion, but definitely at a cost.

What do you think?

I intentionally didn’t look at any news or behind-the-scenes to not taint my first impressions. But if there were other production changes or factors that made a difference, I’d love to hear them. Which game do you prefer? Or maybe: what’s your favorite horror or psychological thriller game?