Talk:F.E.A.R./Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Half-life: Opposing Force reference?

Okay, something I just noticed today...(playing through it again on 'extreme' hehe.) The 'SOFD-D Coordinator', when you get radio signals from him, is listed as being 'Shepherd, A.' Adrian Shephard is the protagonist of Half-Life:_Opposing_Force. The names aren't quite spelled the same which leads me to wonder, but it's at the least a curious coincidence, if not a deliberate reference. -Graptor

I noticed that when I started my second run through the game, but didn't think anything of it. Probably because it'd probably raise problems with Valve if they used the suspected full name. CABAL 10:21, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

I wrote a few words about it on Adrian Shephard page--sturm 16:32, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

This isn't about Opposing Force, but rather the Dr. Green segment. Is there really a connection? Delta 00:17, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

I honestly think there is a connection. In Half-Life Green's fate was unknown. And I think VU was trying to make a joke on it. Implying that the Half-Life characters are acctually in the story. But it could be just a coincidence too, but I dont think so. I didnt play Half-Life Decay, and I didnt see the prequal, so I dont know if they EXACTLY put Green there. And Shepard never talks in Half-Life so there's no way of conferming. AWP_Lizard

Sequel planned

Just thought I'd mentioned this in preparation for future article revisions and expansion. You can read the thing here, but I will summarize it here for convenience.

  1. Monolith plans to continue the game universe.
  2. They cannot use the original F.E.A.R. name as it is owned by Vivendi.
    1. Therefore they will be using an alternate name, as of yet unannounced.
  3. Monolith owns the rights to the game itself.
    1. Therefore Vivendi can use the F.E.A.R. name if they wish, but not a single thing from the original game.
  4. Massive recruitment drive by Monolith.
    1. Nature of positions indicates next-gen console development ability.
    2. Assurances that development will still take place for the PC.
  5. No dates of any sort have been given.
  6. Vivendi might be attempting to port F.E.A.R. to the Xbox 360 platform.
    1. Third-party would have to be called in to do it.
  7. Likelihood of Vivendi actually using F.E.A.R. name in new titles next to zero.
  8. Too soon to expect any details at E3 '06.

CABAL 20:54, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good, thanks for the info. Delta 21:21, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

More info ahoy! The immediate and upcoming expansion pack, F.E.A.R. Extraction Point, will be developed by TimeGate Studios and published by Vivendi Universal. Have a look. CABAL 12:56, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

The story summary doesn't feel right

I haven't kept track of the story maintenance of this article for a while, but honestly, it feels funny. Very fan-boyish feel to me, and nothing close to a real article. Even the data in the story section is very point-by-point, "I'm writing this as I'm playing the game" feel. Not sure how we can fix this, but it's not sitting too well for me. Maybe a more concise break down of the story would work better. Thoughts? --LifeStar 19:49, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Standard procedure. Reduce redundancy and remove unnecessary extra detail. Do we really need to read "The New Guy" a hundred times? CABAL 22:18, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
Well, back a few weeks ago I "created" the current Story paragraph by simply putting together the story-related sentences scattered throughout the previous revision of the article. The idea behind this was to have a... "placeholder" paragraph until anyone had time to write something better or enhance the current version. IMO, I think it would be better to fully rewrite the paragraph... Any volunteers? Berserker79 11:16, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
Well, I don't know if I could fully rewrite the paragraph any better, but I'll be going through the page changing anything I see that's wrong with it. And I agree with CABAL that it's annoying to read the words "New Guy" every time the main character is mentioned. Wouldn't it be more accurate (and sound cooler) if we just called him the Pointman? That's how they refer to him throughout most of the game... as I remember, they only call him the "New Guy" in the instruction manual, and in the very beginning. --Wikivader 16:20, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
I think Wikivader did a fairly good job rewriting the section, but to me it still seems a little off. Seeing as how I have a little free time to myself right now, I am going to attempt to rewrite it as well. Feel free to revert my changes, as long as you give me a good explanation. Delta 00:09, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
As an afterthought, maybe we could use "protagonist" instead of "New Guy". Either or, it doesn't make a difference to me. Delta 00:23, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
That's a good idea... I already replaced "New Guy" with "point man" in my edits, but "protagonist" is even better, since it clarifies that the point man is the playable character. And there are a few things that could be rewritten (or omitted completely), but I didn't want to change too much of it all at once. I just fixed up sentences, and added some important information (like Aldus Bishop's assassination, and Alice Wade's death). --Wikivader 02:59, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
I've written a new story section and put it into my sandbox here. It seems to me a bit smoother than the previous with some events condensed rather than expanded: if a reader finds himself looking for more info he might check out the characters' bios page who supplies more in depth data about the F.E.A.R. characters and organizations, projects, etc... If we find a consensus about it we might use this new version to replace the current. Just post your opinion here and let me know. Berserker79 09:18, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

"I've tried to forget"

Whose voice says, "I've tried to forget. I've tried so hard to forget" in the cutscene at the end of the first chapter? The cutscene involves Alma giving birth (though at this point she is not pictured) and a man in a labcoat twitching while facing a corner, and turning around slowly to reveal that he is bald and has bulging veins in his forehead (but we don't see his face). I've seen speculation that this was Fettel, Wade, and even Habegger (as earlier in this talk page), but none of the voices sound right. (Not to mention that Fettel wasn't born yet/was being born, and Wade has hair.) Is there anything authoritative from Monolith that indicates that this is indeed supposed to be Habegger? Xihr 09:18, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

As far as I know no reliable source has cleared this very question. Personally I believe that was Habegger, I seem to remember the cutscene you refer to plays shortly after finding Habegger's body. Also his phone calls seemed to suggest he was trying to avoid anything that was related to Origin, like someone who want to forget. Berserker79 09:34, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
It sounded like Fettel to me. I always assumed that line was in relation to what he received from Alma when he was still a kid, and not with regards to the scene in particular. CABAL 17:32, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
I think it was Habegger. At first I thought it was Wade, but he didn't look like Wade or Fettel and doesn't sound too much like either (maybe Wade a little). But from what I heard of Habbegar's voice on the answering machine, it has a very similar sort of sneering quality to it. (I don't know, that's just what it sounds like to me.) Delta 19:15, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
I'm positive it's neither Fettel's or Wade's voice. The problem with supposing that it's some projection of Fettel is that the cutscene shows an unidentified man (who is bald and thus neither Fettel nor Wade). I'm willing to buy that it's Habegger -- as that seems a sensible conclusion -- but it's not obvious to me that it's the same voice as in his answering machine messages (but then, I'm not positive that it isn't). I was just wondering if there were some official confirmation that it is indeed supposed to be Habegger. This is the same voice that asks, "Why did you bring me back?" by the way. Xihr 01:27, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
I think it's Fettel. It's in relation to how he wished that he could forget the day of his birth, not the potanganist's. He asked the hero what he remembers in an earlier cut scene, and then the player is shown a cut scene with the hero having just been borned. If the hero can remember his birth, it would make sense to me that Fettel and Alma would remember Fettel's birth.--LifeStar 15:18, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
Except the problem there is it's not Fettel's voice. Xihr 20:19, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

My friend keeps saying it's Iain Hives. But I believe it's Habegger. I dont think Fettel is born yet, it seems to be in the process of being born. And a different scene with Wade clearly shows that it's not him saying that. Honestly it's likely to be a Armacham employee, and not a project. AWP_Lizard

The list of people speaking that line keeps growing up! ;-) Fettel, Wade, Habegger and Hives. Uhmmm... why does your friend suggest it's Hives? That character is never seen in game and only heard a couple of times through his phone messages. Honestly I can't even remember what his role in Origin/ATC was at all... Berserker79 07:24, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
Hives was on the taskforce...and.....well.....that's it. Well, that's all I can remember that is. It's not Hives because it sounds nothing like him. THe voice has a very deep and gravelly tone to it while Hives sounds more or less like (no offense intended) a nerd. Delta 19:57, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
At this point it sounds like people are just picking random unseen characters' names as proposals, which is just speculation. Which I suppose answers my ultimate question, which is that nobody really knows who the voice is supposed to be. So here's my executive summary: That it's supposed to be one of the Armacham employees is pretty obvious (he's present at the birth of one of the prototypes -- either you or Fettel). Therefore it's not Fettel (he's either not born yet or is being born). And we see his forehead which is bald so it's not Wade. That means it's one of the characters we've never seen. The voice is deep and gravelly (but clearly neither Fettel's nor Wade's), and it's probably supposed to be the voice of one of the unseen characters we've heard in the voicemail messages, but it's not obvious which one (at least to me). That leaves any number of possibilities, although it would have to be somebody senior in the project since he'd be present for the birth. Habegger seems a reasonable choice since he was closely involved with the project (so it's plausible he would be present at one of the births), and also his body (the first encountered by the player) is found around the same time as the player starts hearing these voices/seeing these cutscenes. If I had to bet on one, I'd bet it was Habegger (the timing with discovering his body is most relevant here), but I there's really no way of knowing for sure without Monolith actually making a statement about it. Xihr 22:20, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Personally I can't see why it would be anyone but Fettel, since all of the visions in the game are either memories of alma's, fettel's or your own and the voice in the vision sounds like a narrater figure to the event so then it must be the voice of the person that is remembering it. Since it is clearly a male voices this cuts alma out of the equation and it's very unlikely that its your voice so that for me leaves only Fettel. Yes I know some people have said it can't be Fettel because he wasn't born yet BUT at one point fettel says 'are these my memories or her's' which suggests that he shares memories with alma. As such its quite possible that alma would remember the birth of the protagonist and that fettel is just receiving that memory from her. Most likely Alma is forcing the memory upon him in order to justify the anger she has and to explain to him why she wants everyone killed, this then also explains why he can't forget. fildon

The main problem with that theory, as I pointed out above, is that it's clearly not Fettel's voice. Furthermore, the individual pictures is bald and is also clearly not Fettel or any other character we see elsewhere in the game. Xihr 22:58, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
I agree with the above user. The voice is not Fettel's. -- Psi edit

I've gone through and played Interval 01 again and I'm quite convinced at this point that the voice is intended to be Habegger. Habegger is the first victim you encounter, and the voice you hear ("Why did you bring me here?" "Why did you bring me back?") starts after you've had the first vision regarding him (you flash on his mutilated face shortly before you come across his body). Furthermore, his appearance (though mutilated) does match the appearance of the figure in the vision shortly after his body is discovered ("I've tried to forget." "I've tried so hard to forget.") -- bald on top with short-cropped hair on the sides. This is indeed the only body you encounter in the game that matches this vision. In retrospect the clues are pretty hard to deny and they all take place in a very short period of time and at the very beginning of the game, but when reflecting on the whole game after having played it through it can be easy to mix up the ordering. I'd say with extreme confidence at this point that the voice (and person) in the vision is indeed Habegger. Xihr 06:12, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Relations to other games

I don't quite understand all that was added to the "References to popular media" section. What's with all those terms and such? Delta 02:28, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

To be real honest I don't have the foggiest idea what that means... I hate to sound like a "deletionist", but unless anyone can explain, I'm in favour of a removal. Besides, if that stuff really has some importance, it ought to be reformatted: the current text layout sucks badly. Berserker79 07:16, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
I agree as well. I have no clue what they're supposed to mean. I've also seen no trace of them in the game, it the whole sections is worded rather badly; someone new would have no idea what is going on. I'll leave it up for another day or two for anyone to make comments on, then I'll probably take it down. Delta 20:04, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Full story or brief summary?

Recently I've been discussing with Delta about the "Story" paragraph for this article. It has been pointed out the current paragraph has a "fan-boyish" feel, it's overly detailed and maybe a brief summary would work better. So, the real question is: should we use a simple summary, describing the basics of the story, providing links to the characters/organizations/projects for those who wish to gain more in depth details, or should we aim to a complete, detailed full story paragraph similar to what we already have?

Besides, I also wanted to put something about the story background in the intro paragraph: most CVG related articles do so and I think it would be a nice addition here as well. Comments/suggestions anyone? Berserker79 09:55, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

A shortened story section? Go ahead. Just don't make it so short that it becomes ridiculous, for example: Hey look! We have more data in trivia than we actually do for the story!. CABAL 13:31, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
Ok, put both a "short" and a "long" version of the story on my sandbox. I think the "short" version could get the job done. The fact it's short means a good deal of details have been omitted, but I believe interested readers could find all that data reading the characters page. Unless there's any complaint I'll put it on the article in the next few days.
Sorry guys, I've changed my mind about waiting: the new story is already up and running. If you don't like it revert, rewrite, expand. Berserker79 16:19, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

True sequel?

Ok so Monolith Productions is developing an unnamed sequel right? While Vivendi Universal Games is working on a expansion (F.E.A.R. Extraction Point). So which will be the true continuation of the story? -- Psi edit 01:47, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Probably the Monolith one will be the true sequel because the Vivendi one is only an expansion, a developing further of the original plot. I'm guessing that Monolith will create an entirely new plot in their game. Delta 21:56, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
Actually now I think the stories will be linked. In an interview with one of the head-people for the expansion, he said that they are working together with Monlith to make the story. -- Psi edit 00:56, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

More bold edits (11 June 2006)

As you see I've been doing another round of changes across the article that I hope have enhanced its quality, rather than making it worse:

  • Story: it has been rewritten in a short form, keeping out a lot of details, but still reporting the plot in its whole lenght. Readers seeking more details will find them in the List of F.E.A.R. characters & organizations article.
  • Features & Atmosphere: these two paragraphs have just seen some movement of text that was already in the article; I just thought some portions of text would have made a better appearance in other sections, so I moved them around. In particular I tried to collect all the "horror element" details in the "Atmosphere" section, moving the data on Japanese movies from "References to popular media" as well.
  • References to popular media: as I already said the "Japanese movies" paragraph has been integrated above; I felt that was a piece of important information would didn't deserve to be left in a corner of this clumsy paragraph. I also made my mind up to delete the "name similarities" stuff, most of it is already duplicated in the characters pages; the only real deletion is the HL: Decay bit: what's the chance a character from a secondary HL game is referred to in a few minutes long prequel video? Besides, the name "Green" is as common as dirt or enough to make the whole thing a simple coincidence. Had the characters shared both first and second name I'd have been inclined to give it a go, but as it is I make it just a coincidence.
  • Trivia: moved the IG-88 entry to "References to popular media".

That's all folks. Berserker79 16:22, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Further articles upgrades

I'd like to propose a few more upgrades to this F.E.A.R. article (I'd like to get it in into "featured article" shape). First, I'd like to "shuffle" some of the paragraphs to give the article a more coherent look. I know this may depend strongly on one likings, but I'd like to move paragraphs in the following order: Intro, Story, Gameplay, Arsenal, Characters, Features, Atmosphere, Engine, Director' Cut, Sequels, Reaction, Popular media, Trivia and Ext links. The "gameplay" paragraph may include info about the new multiplayer modes introduced with patch 1.05. The "reaction" paragraph could be expanded to something more readable rather than a simple "on xx/xx/xx the game won XYX award"; further we could write something about how many copies F.E.A.R. sold (anyone knows?) and report any criticism (if there's any - maybe the engine too demanding in terms of HW?). Finally a couple more screenshots could be interesting: I'm going to check out the other pics on the F.E.A.R. website/community site today. So, if anyone has comments/suggestions regarding the above points, please reply here. Thanks. Berserker79 14:03, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Criticism? I can think of a few. Most of the game took place in the same bloody environment. Oh look! Its...AN OFFICE. Which goes to...A HALLWAY. Which goes to...ANOTHER OFFICE. With...MORE HALLWAYS. Oh, and the horror was a bit underwhelming in the latter half, although in their defence psychological horror tends to be harder to put into game terms. Also, wouldn't it be more proper to list "Features" somewhere closer to the top of the article? CABAL 14:41, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
I agree wholeheartedly that this article should be worked upon on bringing it up to FA status. For reaction, I noticed that it garnered fairly good reviews (around the 90% or so range) with the minor criticisms as noted by CABAL. It might be said that it was a bit of a sleeper game in that it was something that sort of came out of the blue (I personally hadn't really heard of it until my brother told me about it when it came out). As to myself, I thought that the hardware requirements were exceedingly high. From one gamer magazine, I read that even with 2 Nvidia 7800 cards in SLI, with all the settings on HIGH the gameplay was a little sluggish. As to the order of the topics, I thought that an order of Intro, Gameplay, Features, Story, Characters, Arsenal etc. would be more appropriate. Just a thought, though.
P.S. What was included in patch 1.05? I never bothered downloading it. Delta 16:17, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
Two new multiplayer modes and maps. CABAL 17:09, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
Ok, as for the layout everyone has his own preferences. :) I thought weapons and characters should be next to gameplay (because they are somewaht part of the gameplay); I wouldn't separate features and atmosphere with other paragraphs, but we can place them both after intro or after story, etc... Alternatively we might just leave them as they are. Still, that "pop media" thing ought to be moved down, besides its just a huge "trivia" paragraph. I've uploaded another screenshot and I'd like to add one more to show the SlowMo effect, but Vivendi/Monolith do not have one good enough and I haven't been able to take a decent one myself so far.
Criticism: CABAL would you like to volounteer to write something about this? ;-)
Patch 1.05: it's a huge >400Mb patch and I haven't finished the download yet. I've read it contains two new multiplayer modes, but this is all I know about it. Berserker79 09:22, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
Nothing that a line or two couldn't fix. The game's Armacham HQ sequence felt drawn-out and dull, given how essentially most of the game takes place in there, which wouldn't be that bad if they didn't constantly reuse the same textures and uninspired linear layout. Also, the "BOO!" form of horror used by the game in general has a stigma attached to it because it is traditionally seen as a very cheap and unimaginative way to introduce scares, reserved for the realm of B-grade movies and lousy contemporary works. The better, nay, SUPREME alternative would be well-done psychological horror, like the Shalebridge Cradle from Thief: Deadly Shadows. Additionally, what kind of slow-mo shot are you looking for? Stuff flying everywhere, people doing things, smoke and dust all over? CABAL 10:18, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
Screenshot: I was thinking about a shot with bullet trails, replicas shot and dust/particles around. If you've got something like this or any screenshot you think would be suitable to show a reader the SlowMo effect it would be welcome.
Criticism: agree with you, other than the heavy HW requirements, those you mentioned are probably the biggest flaws in F.E.A.R. If you've got some time to write about it in the article I think it would be good.Berserker79 16:15, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
The article seems huge enough as it is. I'll put in my two cents after reorganization begins in earnest. CABAL 12:31, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Added a third screen (thanks Delta) and reworded the "Reaction" paragraph so far. You can contribute to the latter whenever you want. Next I'll add some bits in "Gameplay" and shuffle some paragraphs. Before a more complete "paragraph shuffling" I'd like better to reach a consensus of sort among us. Berserker79 14:25, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

28 June: Status report

  • I've just removed the "Blues Brothers" reference from the "Pop Media refs" paragraph; the elevator scene from the movie is found in the chapter "Assault on the Daley Center" and the music there just has a very bare resemblance to that from F.E.A.R. (extracted from the game files with the SDK).
  • I think almost anything worth mentioning has found its way into the article (I'd still like to find out how much F.E.A.R. sold). I'd like to make a small edit in the intro, removing the release dates for the demos (is it really important now?) and put a line there about the upcoming Xbox360 port.
  • Shall we give a new order to the first paragraphs? I still think "Gameplay", "Features", "Atmosphere" and "Story" could be better arranged.
  • Shall we cut something else in "References to Popular Media" or try to short it?

Berserker79 18:52, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

How about a sandbox where we can make the changes first and see how it works out? CABAL 20:07, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
Could be a good idea, so we can avoid messing up the article. I've got my own sandbox here that we could use or would you advise to create a new one for this page? Berserker79 07:11, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
Looks empty at the moment. Let's dump the code for the whole article into it. CABAL 07:58, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
Et voilà... :) I've put there all the code. I didn't resist the temptation to make tiny alterations to "intro" and "characters" though... BTW, as it is, the page slightly exceeds the standard article size. Berserker79 09:03, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
  • On my sandbox I've rearranged the paragraphs of this article in a new fashion . I'd gladly hear some comments from you about this possible layout, before updating the real article. One thing that puzzles me is the following: since in the sandbox version I've placed "Gameplay" before "Features", SlowMo is mentioned before being effectively described. Should I add a brief mention of what SlowMo is or add an internal link to the Features paragraph in Gameplay? Or should I put back Features before Gameplay? And then Atmosphere should follow Features? Berserker79 09:55, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
How about appending "(See below)" or "(See below for more info)" to the thing? Article looks okay as far as the layout goes, but the usual comments still apply; namely that the article appears to be a huge wall of text. That should be easily fixed with heavy editing though (See what I've done with A Colder War as an example). CABAL 11:27, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
A "See below" note is fine with me to solve the issue. I see your point about the article being a "wall of text", I was hoping the addition of screenshots helped easing this aspect, since other than that I can't see a nice solution at present. I checked out A Colder War, but I'm not sure I can pull a similar "trick" with the F.E.A.R. article. BTW, I don't think the article "extra size" should be a worry, other CVG featured articles share the issue, like the Half-Life 2 article. Berserker79 14:20, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
I'll give it a go when I have the time. To be perfectly honest, this is how I optimize for length: 1) Look at the article and see what's the average paragraph size for the sections concerned. 2) Cut down paragraphs exceeding that size so that they match the average one. 3) Repeat steps as necessary until desired optimized length is achieved, with considerations to the new average size during each "cycle". CABAL 01:16, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
Guess the problem with me is I believe the version on the sandbox already has paragraphs of adequate lenght. I think I wouldn't know what to cut, I fear I'd remove content which is useful to mention. The story has been cut down by much and I've laso resized that clumsy "pop media refs" thing. Feel free to tackle the lenght issue when you've got time. In the meantime what do you say? Shall I move the sandbox version over to the official article? Berserker79 09:25, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
Looks okay so far, go ahead. CABAL 10:57, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
Sorry I've been absent from most of the discussion, things have been somewhat hectic lately. The article looks fantastic, I think it looks pretty good, a far cry from what was before. I agree, however, with CABAL on it being a "wall of text". However, I don't see how pruning the paragraphs would do much difference; they seem fairly stable to me and look pretty good. I always thought that adding screenshots would help, but apparently that's not the case. The way I've seen it done with some articles (like Half-Life 2) is that they added lots of pictures but also divided the sections into subsections and arranged the format of the pictures and text so that it appears to the reader that it looks very varied (when it really isn't). They do things like shift pictures to a "left-right" formation and use bullets and graphs to break up what looks like ordinary text. Perhaps we could use these techniques for this article. Delta 14:24, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
Updated with the version on my sandbox. Unless we find something to cut we could try some "buletting" and adding a couple more screenshots. If anyone feels like trying there's always the sandbox... ;) Berserker79 15:07, 4 July 2006 (UTC)


Well, so far so good, this article received a "B-Class" ranking on the assessment scale. According to this table a B-Class means we have one of the following problems: "significant gaps or missing elements or references, needs substantial editing for English language usage and/or clarity, balance of content, policy problems such as copyright, NPOV or NOR". My only problem is I can't see in which of these categories F.E.A.R. is falling. No gaps or missing stuff imho, maybe a few more refs would be good, but I've added some after the article was assessed. Some minor English correction would probably be required, but I haven't come across anything serious. Balance of content? Copyright? NPOV? NOR? I don't see any of such. True, we have that layout issue (the "wall of text"), but considering Half-Life 2 is similarly a "wall of text" and made it to FA I don't think that's too much of a problem. Any suggestion? What is the issue we should focus on? Or are we ready to call for a peer review? :) Berserker79 13:34, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I vote for the peer review. Beats stumbling around in the dark. CABAL 15:27, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
Ok, I agree with the CVG peer review option. I'm putting the article up for review now. Berserker79 10:19, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of F.E.A.R. weapons article

Please, be advised the list of F.E.A.R. weapons article is being considered for deletion. Interested users can partecipate in the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of F.E.A.R. weapons. BTW, merging of the weapons article contents with the main F.E.A.R. article has been suggested, albeit I strongly suggest this is not done considering F.E.A.R. is already oversized as it is now: suggest we cut the contents of weapons down by much and then merge if that should be the only solution. In the meantime I'm removing the merged contents, until the "deletion proposal" discussion is over. You can always revert or merge later. Berserker79 07:04, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Since the weapons page is likely going to be deleted I've moved ahead with the "merge" operation. Martial arts stuff included in the "Features" paragraph, intro text included in "Arsenal" paragraph, weapons descriptions included as a table in "Arsenal". I know most of the contents have been wiped, but had to remove "game guide" stuff, speculation and game hints in order to keep the size of the article in check and still keep relevant weapons info. Berserker79 10:12, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
On a related note, I've always had this strange feeling that fancruft article lifespans are based on how popular it is. Look at the individual pages for Pokemon and expanded articles for games like Half-Life 2, and compare with say... the recent CnC purges. CABAL 11:57, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Well, I hate to sound polemic, but I got that same feeling myself. Also, don't you ever wonder about the weird fact that first they ask to split the page due to size concerns then they come back telling you have to "merge & delete"?
BTW, I remember you've been doing quite some editing on the weapons page; if the "condensed" version I've worked on doesn't look too good feel free to work on it. Berserker79 13:00, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Combat is coming.

This reverted edit was not vandalism. Follow its link. It should have been worded much better though. --Colossus 86 14:25, 28 July 2006 (UTC)


I doubt that FEAR will have a template until the release of the expansion and sequel. But here is possible template. -- Psi edit 19:11, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Be sure not to forget to include weapons. CABAL 00:59, 19 July 2006 (UTC)