The F.E.A.R. factor

F.E.A.R. is Monolith and Vivendi's spanking new title which is set to not only become one of the hottest FPS titles to arrive this year, but also provide the sternest of workouts for duel PCI graphics card wielders and worshippers of high end graphics everywhere.

Casting you as a member of the elite special forces group known as First Encounter Assault and Recon (apparently Command Recon Advanced Patrol didn't acronym so well) F.E.A.R. not only adds meaty melee combat and satisfying slo-mo time effects to the traditional FPS mix, but it also boasts a compelling horror-fuelled storyline and looks as saucy as a terrorist attack on a Heinz factory.

We first managed to get a cheeky early look at the game in Paris earlier this year, but further revelations were also on view at last week's GDC, full hands-on impressions of which we'll be bringing you shortly. However we also managed to track down Kevin Stephens, Monolith's director of technology to hear his latest thoughts on the game and check out how F.E.A.R. is progressing.

Here's what we discovered:

What was your core aim when you originally conceived F.E.A.R.?

Kevin Stephens: To create the experience of an action movie, that was the foundation of the game, so when you're watching a movie and the music is blaring and the walls are getting ripped up, bullets are flying, guys are dying - that's what we wanted to capture in the game.

How did the supernatural element creep in?

Kevin Stephens: When we were working on the core concept of the game, we felt it was great but generic. It was just action, and even though it was stylish high concept action we thought it would be nice to add some more flavour to the action. Then we started thinking 'What can we add?' and a lot of people on the team were into horror and stuff, they were into The Ring, Ju-on, Darkwater and all these great Japanese horror movies.

I don't know when the moment happened but someone brought up the idea, we thought it would be good so we talked about how it could work and, as we didn't have a story at that time, it just evolved. And we fell in love it and it started taking over the action element. So now they fight it out - the action versus the horror.

How far has the code come on since we saw it in Paris a couple of months ago?

Kevin Stephens: Quite a lot. The first few levels of the game - it's kind of a tradition on this team - they come last. We know what we want to do but then we change it around and look at things that aren't quite good yet. So the opening cinematic that you saw and the demo level that you played, which is actually the second level, are pretty new. They evolved late - we had the core foundation for them and actually all the levels have advanced.

We're now at the fun part of game development where you get to play around and there's an avalanche of new features being put in and polished. And you're like 'Wow' this is a game and it's a cool game. This is the exciting part.

Your game has often been described as having a 'survival horror' aspect, do you think this is relevant and fair?

Kevin Stephens: No not really. In survival horror you usually get six bullets and you've got to conserve them and there's puzzle elements, at least that's what I understand and F.E.A.R. is not like that at all. It's a first-person-shooter first and foremost. It's action and we give you lots of bullets, guns and things to blow up. And you're going to have fun. It's the story and how you tell the story where the horror elements creep in and you start to feel that things don't seem right.

We know you're keeping it a fairly closely guarded secret, but can you tell us anymore about F.E.A.R.'s plot?

Kevin Stephens: The things you've seen in the demo level, I can't explain them as the game will explain them. When you play, you'll be intrigued by the early levels but you won't fully understand events. It's all tied in to how we want to present the game. If you understand it, then it's not scary. So I can't tell you about the plot as then I'd have to shoot you.

Is the story open-ended?

Kevin Stephens: The gameplay certainly is, we wanted to have lots of ways to approach different puzzles, different ways to get through levels. The story is linear. Things can occur slightly differently, but as far as the actual story goes - it's linear.

Can you tell us about the AI and the work you've done on it?

Kevin Stephens: Well there's a lot of work been done. Jeff Orkin is the senior AI engineer that is involved. People like to talk about flanking and co-ordinated movement, well all of that is in there; but when you start to analyse it, to ask 'What does that mean?' and so you have to look at the systems that have been put in place.

The AI characters look for cover in relation to the player's position. Also they look for opportunities. Fire extinguishers explode in the game, so if the AI see you near a fire extinguisher they might yell out to another AI that has a clear shot of the extinguisher 'Go for that!' and try to lure you out. So they definitely work on trying to lure the player out - they rarely advance on the player, they're much more tactical.

I mean they're not going to run into an enemy shooting at them, so in some situations the players will be like 'Did I get them? Did I kill them?'. But they're there, waiting for you to come out and get the jump on you. So our approach was like when you play Rainbow Six and you're with your squad, but instead of being that group - you're fighting that group.

It's hard as these guys aren't grunts off the street, they are tactically trained, they know how to break down doors and surround someone. We wanted to create an experience where you're afraid of getting hit, rather than just going in blasting. That's what we're trying to balance.

What was you're thinking behind F.E.A.R.'s melee system?

Kevin Stephens: It goes back to our action movie concept. If you look at what's in an action movie and what goes into first-person-shooters - vehicles, shooting, exploration, story - so what's missing? There's hand to hand combat in nearly every action movie and very few first-person-shooters have it.

You hear the excuse that 'You can't do it', but I'm like well that's what they said about vehicles five years ago. I believe that anything you see in a movie you can get in a game if you spend the time and energy. We felt that with our technology we had the advancements that could help with that as you have a whole body that can be looked down upon. And that helps a lot as with the lighting you can get scared by your own shadow sometimes. But then after you play for a bit you get used to your own shadow - as you do in real life. In other first-person-shooters where you don't have a body, you feel you're missing something.

So the melee came out of you having this body so it seemed natural that you could swing your leg and fist out. So we tried it, it started as an experiment and we thought it was cool. Then we realised that most of the game has ranged combat so how often could you use it? But this comes back to our key gaming concept in that we give the gamer a bunch of tools and let them decide what to do with them.

So you don't have to use them. It's fun to use them, but you don't need to. Sometimes it's advantageous, same with the slo-mo, it's gratifying and gives you an advantage. Combing the slo-mo and the melee together gives you a gaming experience you've never had in an FPS, but you don't have to combine them. It's a case of 'Here's all the tools, pick the ones that are fun'.

Close quarter combat is what we focused on so we wanted 'over the top action', but what does that mean? So we have the AI, melee, slo-mo all supporting the concept of 'over the top action' and something the gamers can use. Or they can just play it like normal FPS.

How's the multiplayer beta test going?

Kevin Stephens: I wish we had more people in the beta tests as the more you get playing, the more feedback you get. It's been a mixed reaction as people didn't really know what to expect, so some wanted it to be slower and more tactical, while others wanted it to be faster like Unreal.

It's funny as we had the same internal debates and we kind of like it in the middle and we have lot of server options so you can adjust it to be slower or increase the weapons damage. Or raise the run speed and make it faster. Obviously we are still messing with it to find the sweet spot but we do like the fact that it's in the middle - not arcadey nor a tactical sim. That was on purpose. In terms of gameplay people are enjoying it and having lots of fun and we are getting lots of feedback and ideas.

Are people using the melee attacks in the multiplayer? Are they the ultimate prestige kill?

Kevin Stephens: Oh definitely. Actually I think the slide kick is too powerful as it's a fast move and you do it over and over again. It's like the bunny hop in Quake 3 - people are starting to find they can exploit it as you can move fast and use it to move around the level quickly. So that's something were going to have to tweak as we don't want one move to be the be-all-end-all move.

We'll stop allowing you to do it so quickly so that will solve the problem. We still want it to be fast and deadly but not too powerful. The other problem we've got is that it makes you harder to hit. It should be the case that if you're up against a guy with a machine gun and you miss with the slide kick, the guy with the machine gun should win. But that isn't happening as you can repeatedly do the slide kick. It feels cheap at the moment.

Iwata-san in his keynote speech at the GDC said that better graphics don't necessarily make for better games. How do you feel about that seeing as part of F.E.A.R. selling point is its fantastic graphics?

Kevin Stephens: I think he's right that better graphics don't make for a better game, it all depends on how you use the graphics. A big part of any game is the environment and part of the experience is suspension of disbelief. You want to feel like 'I'm in here' so the more realistic it is, the more it feels like a real place. Also for a game that's trying to scare you, if you feel it's actually you who is going to get hurt or suffer, it makes it a more visceral experience.

I feel that better graphics used well will always inspire any experience. Same with CGI in movies. But just making it look better won't make a better game, you have to look at the gameplay, always.

Here the graphics do improve the gameplay. The lighting is the biggest one for us as seeing your own shadow in a game where the shadows can bite you makes it scarier. Also you see the shadow of enemies around corners and this is happening in multiplayer matches, people are using the shadow and realising that if they run down a corridor with the light behind them it may give their position away. Therefore they change their pattern of movement around the level.

Also you can shoot out the lights so there's no shadows but then it's harder to see. All these advantages go back to the technology. So you have to take the advantages that come from the better graphics and make them work for the gameplay.

What the one thing you're most proud of in the game?

Kevin Stephens: There's the graphics, there's some really cool water stuff in there. I'm proud of the technology. The technology guys really stepped up to the plate. Our architect John O'Rourke has built some great systems and been very focused on the end product. He's worked on some unglamorous systems, some back end systems like the Special FX systems. He spent time not on the flashy front but the back end making them tiny and really fast which allows for the over top effects that we have.

So I'm most proud of the work that the team put into it. Often unselfish work. A lot of people want to work on the stuff people get to see but our engineering group is very unselfish that way. We set out with a goal of making this 'over the top action', we didn't have any tech - and we did it! If we tried to re-create the Matrix lobby scene with our engine, I'm sure we could do it and make it look exactly the same. When we started, that's what we wanted but we felt in the back of minds we might not be able to hit that. But we have.

Just a last comment: the damage effects are brilliant and F.E.A.R. has the best fire effects we've ever seen in an FPS...

Kevin Stephens: Thanks. For me, because I've worked on a lot of first-person shooters I fundamentally believe that if you have a box level, no AI and you have weapons and you have fun shooting against the wall - you're half way there. And we have that. A lot of games don't have that, you shoot the guns and they're not satisfying! It's a shooter! How can the weapons not be satisfying?

The fire? Thanks I'll be sure to tell the guys about the fire effects!

John Houlihan