Project Origin: First Person Shootings

By Jim Rossignol on June 17th, 2008 at 12:13 pm.

They're called that because you shoot the first person you meet
Proof, if proof were needed that Project Origin is indeed a first person shooter videogame, has arrived in the form of two new in-game footage videos. It really is looking more and more like F.E.A.R. as the days wear on, which is good if you liked that game, and kind of an indifferent shrug “what-else-is-on” kind of situation if you didn’t. But perhaps it will be a kind of Super-F.E.A.R. which is both as good as the original game, and also better in ways that will please us enough to spend many dollars on its purchase and unite us in our taste for Monolith’s particular flavour of horror shootery. We can only dream. Anyway: short clips of supernatural slow-mo dude murder beyond the jump.

Below, zombie thingers. Also: stuff ‘splodes, dudes get shot.

And next: dudes get shot and stuff splodes. In a Penthouse! That’s shooting with a bit of class.

I have a Penthouse, but it’s not the top floor of a building.

, .

41 Comments »

Sponsored links by Taboola
  1. sana says:

    “What the hell was that?!” kinda breaks immersion.

  2. JamesOf83 says:

    Hmmm, looks a bit average to be honest. There was little of the atmosphere from F.E.A.R. Of course these are only tiny glimpses, but it would have been nice to see some scary stuff, slow-mo grenade action and a bit of melee combat to make it feel authentically F.E.A.R-like.

  3. Cigol says:

    Yeah but decidedly less effective on youtube. It looks a lot like FEAR itself to be honest, which I suppose is testament to the engines ability but not very exciting.

  4. duel says:

    I see some lovely liquid blood flying around :)

  5. Rook says:

    Much like Ninja Gaiden II, this looks very much like a last gen game with some extra polish rather than something that was really built with modern hardware in mind.

  6. Al3xand3r says:

    Much like games like Call of Duty 4 it seems that’s the best approach for the best results. Otherwise you end up with technical monstrosities like Unreal Tournament 3. This also ensures people can actually play it at acceptable quality levels even if they didn’t buy their PC with last year’s top end parts. Oh and this has zombies so it’ll be all win (though I hope they’re more aggressive than displayed). Fear is still one of the finest single player first person shooters in tersm of each and every element (aside from the look of the akimbo pistols) so a sequel from the original developers is only a good thing.

  7. Cooper says:

    This kinda makes me want to bother and go buy the original fear. I don’t know why I never did. Seems like the kinda thing I’d have a laugh with. That, and it’s one of the few games I’ve yet to play which would (just about) run on my ancient rig…

  8. James T says:

    It looks a lot like FEAR itself to be honest

    Oh no — I have nothing to fear but that!

  9. Chaz says:

    I didn’t think much of the first one, due to its repetitive, half baked and dull looking boxy levels. This one doesn’t look much different. Unlike Al3xand3r I don’t think Fear has stood the test of time well at all, and it really looks quite aged now.

    So, indifferent shrug “what-else-is-on?”

  10. fluffy bunny says:

    I liked Fear. The environments were kind of boring (mostly generic offices and such – but at least Fear probably had the best looking generic offices around), but from a gameplay point of view they were pretty well designed, and allowed for some very intense fights. It also helped that the AI was as good as it was.

    So, basically, with the gameplay of Fear and some more visual variation, this could be a very competitive shooter. I look forward to playing it.

  11. Rook says:

    Otherwise you end up with technical monstrosities like Unreal Tournament 3. This also ensures people can actually play it at acceptable quality levels even if they didn’t buy their PC with last year’s top end parts.

    Which would be fine if UT3 didn’t run as well as CoD4, but it does. They’re both playable with equivalent settings on my laptop and my 3 year old machine as well as my new desktop. I don’t know where the myth the UT3 and even Crysis don’t scale came from but it’s pretty much totally untrue.

  12. CrashT says:

    Does nobody ever use V-Sync in these videos?

  13. Al3xand3r says:

    Well no, it doesn’t run as good. I have an aged Pentium 4 3.0Ghz cpu with 2GB supertalent ram and a slightly overclocked (but it makes no difference really) new-ish Radeon 2600 pro and Unreal Tournament 3 is completely unplayable on my windows XP pro installation. And no, it’s nothing to do with bloat in my computer, it’s kept clean and tidy in every way with a minimal ammount of services running during gaming and I always use either the latest or the more efficient drivers (according to forums I visit at least, I’m not a tech wiz myself, though I know my way around things) for all of my hardware.

    I suppose “acceptable” is subjective but something of the 10-25 fps variety (note, I’m NOT saying 25 constant, that’d be borderline acceptable for a slower paced game, not UT3 though) is unplayable to me.

    FEAR far exceeds that in high settings, Call of Duty 4 achieves constant good rates @ similarly high settings, while UT3 doesn’t reach it in its wet dreams with the lowest possible resolution and settings. Not to mention it barely has any real scalability options even with the ini file tweaks.

    Texture sizes, sure they’re scalable, (and that doesn’t affect my performance much with the amount of ram and vram I have) but nothing much else at all. A gigantic disapointment from the perfectly silky smooth and scalable UT2004 engine which I loved even on my old p3 800mhz with GF2 gpu back then (and it was also an engine that used few “next gen features” and just made amazing use of older technologies instead), and then I got to see its full beauty with the 3.0ghz and GF4 gpu blowing me away with the amount of polygons on screen and details of the maps geometry.

    Crysis can run acceptably on my system fps wise, but then it actually looks like a turd and as if someone attempted to make huge outdoor environments in the HL1 engine with flat beaches and blocky big rocks scattered around them (in the SP demo area) so it’s not really worth it.

    Now given the above, I suppose UT3 could run pretty well on your system, whatever it is, but I’m sure it still doesn’t run quite as good as COD4 given the performance difference I see (even if something was wrong with my computer, it would probably affect the performance of all the above titles, leaving the same performance difference between them). Similar for Crysis.

  14. Jewce says:

    Another title im terribly excited about, I was very impressed by those trailers and the mecha one (espcially since shogo was the first game i ran on my new Voodoo 2 back in the day). I really wish they’d make a sequal to Shogo though, that would be great.

  15. Al3xand3r says:

    Basically there’s a huge difference between titles made for lower than usual hardware, like COD4, games that scale well, like Source titles (before the engine became outdated…), games that don’t scale enough, like UT3, and games that do scale, but not so well (meaning they end up looking horrible, much worse than last gen games or whatever) like Crysis…

    STALKER is another game (and engine) that can look great but also scales well (yeah okay, the actual game can be buggy but cmon, you don’t often see such large scale single player adventure FPS anymore) and keeps the atmosphere and overall look and feel intact. So, yeah, thanks to not every developer jumping on the bandwagon of the latest and greatest hardware I’ve managed to enjoy this PC for several years (except for my last GPU dying and me getting this cheap 2600) and it can still run modern looking games without too many sacrifices and I’m grateful for that.

    But with my first post I also meant they take less time to advance technology or use advanced technology and spend more time in the actual game. COD4 sure can look brilliant thanks to the efficient use of the technically not so top end engine with fantastic art assets and visual tricks and great scripting etc. More time spent developing the actual game than the engine and next gen assets shows really…

    IMHO&E

    Attempted to add this to my last reply but got a powercut halfway through and then I was too late, or my cookies messed, I don’t know.

  16. Rook says:

    Something is wrong with your setup or install UT3 then. Look at anandtech’s benchmarks of the demo, even the ATi 2400 is posting 30fps average http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=3128&p=2. If you’re struggling to get 10-25fps with a 2600, it’s not the game.

  17. Alex says:

    The environments still look like empty, unlived-in spaces. Like running around in a dollhouse.

  18. Al3xand3r says:

    Rook, like I said, I’m not a tech wiz but I do know my way around things and I can tell you that you’re wrong in just looking at the GPU specs as if the GPU is the only thing that matters. If you notice, while they obviously do test lower end cards, their main system remains a Core 2 Duo eXtreme X6800 @ 2.93Ghz, which is close to the current (or at least very recent) top end if I’m not mistaken and it initially cost over a grand in USD. That’s why there’s such a difference, my CPU cost a few hundred (I think, it’s been long) when it was first released all those years back. I noted that while my GPU is even slightly overclocked it actually makes no real difference (in most cases). The reason is that the rest of my system isn’t up to par. So, yes, it’s the game not catering to the low end at all. And obviously it’s my computer for being overall low end. I know, it’s the point I was making comparing all those different games and how each caters to lower or higher end or both.

  19. Turin Turambar says:

    Rook, benchmarks are irrelevant, the are only benchmarking the gpus, so they use a uber high end for the rest of the components: mobo, ram, cpu, hard disk, etc, everything top of the line.

    CoD4 requisites are lower than UT3, even if UT3 doesn’t have crazy requisites like Crysis. Which, btw, doesn’t scale very well. Yes, you can play Crysis in low detail but it looks like shit, worse than Far Cry. Artistically they made the game thinking in the high settings.

  20. Rook says:

    People put way to much importance on the CPU, Tom’s Hardware actually has a great roundup of this.
    http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/cpu-gpu-upgrade,1928-7.html

    Look at how often the CPU matters in games like CoD4, it’s inherently GPU bound. Even in cards like the 7900 where going from a dual core 1.8ghz to a 3.2ghz quad core results in about 5% performance improvement at low resolutions.

    I’m pretty sure that’s the case with UT3 as well considering anandtech’s CPU scaling, even running 1 core was more than enough to push UT3 to 100+FPS http://www.anandtech.com/printarticle.aspx?i=3127

    So, regardless of the CPU used in the benchmark, it’s not going push it to 100-200% performance increase in a GPU bound game like UT3.

  21. Kareem says:

    I really liked FEAR as well, but it got insanely repetitive. I picked up the platinum edition so I played through the main game and the two expansions in a row. Still, the gunplay was some of the most enjoyable I’ve ever experienced, so I’m tentatively looking forward to this.

  22. Al3xand3r says:

    That Tom’s Hardware first link is a tad irrelevant as I’ve been praising COD4’s scalability saying it runs great even on my system, whereas UT3 doesn’t. That chart just proves my praise…

    For the rest stuff, they still only use some very modern CPUs in all those benchmarks from what I saw with a quick glimpse Rook. Obviously multi threading is still at its infancy so dual and quad core won’t make much of a difference just yet (though dual does already offer a considerable improvement in certain games, including UT3).

    But you still need an efficient CPU and even a much lower clocked core 2 duo performs much better than a Pentium 4 northwood @ 3.0Ghz. I thought AMD had proven clock rates aren’t everything years ago. Anyway, people are actually putting too little importance on the CPU, thinking a GPU upgrade will allow them to run the latest and greatest games at high settings when that’s really not the case if their CPU is outdated (which mine is).

    The large cache is also of great help to such games, even according to some of the pages you linked to, so if I had invested in some much higher priced editions back then (I believe they had those extreme models since), which came with a larger cache, then perhaps I’d get more acceptable fps in such games.

  23. Pidesco says:

    While I thought the action in FEAR was awesome fun, the scary bits were poorly done and didn’t fit the rest of the game at all. Now you kick ass in a rewarding away, now you feel artificially scared, and repeat ad nauseam. It was like they glued two games with duct tape, and one of the games sucked.

    So I guess I’m in a wait and see approach regarding this. See what they do with the combat AI this time, and hope they decided to axe the scary parts entirely(fat chance, of course).

  24. Arsewisely says:

    It doesn’t bother me that it looks a little samey. If it has a big stompy mech and a few good scares that’ll make it worth a play through in my books. It has a danger of being burried if released near Far Cry 2 or Clear Sky though, both of which I am looking forward to more.

    Edit, @ Pidesco: “artificially” scared? How can a game make you actually scared? Do you mean more like the Silent Hill psychological stuff? As a fan of Japanese horror, I liked the original scary parts on the whole.

  25. El_MUERkO says:

    “I have a Penthouse, but it’s not the top floor of a building.”

    under’t mattress were mum will nowt find

  26. KindredPhantom says:

    It doesn’t seem to stand out particularly, but it doesn’t look bad.

  27. wcaypahwat says:

    Whoo! Tech fight!

    Well, I seem to have the exact opposite issue as alexanderwithnumbersin.

    UT3 runs silky smooth cranked up on max, whereas I can only play CoD4 on mid settings at an embarassingly low resolution. So uhh…. one of you can use that for some ammo for your little fight there.

    Back to our feature story though, didn’t watch the footage, but I’ll probably get it anyway just to check it out. Besides, it can’t be too bad since our RPS chums give us a report on it every couple of weeks.

  28. OldmanTick says:

    I’ll corroborate Al3xand3r, I have a Pentium 4 3.4 and a 8800GT run at 1280×720 (LCD projector).
    For a lot of games it’s only the boss battles where I run into framerate issues. I just finally finished ep. 2 and the strider boss battle at the end was a terrible experience but most of the rest of the game was fine. COD4, Stalker and MOHA were pretty much the same.
    In contrast the Crysis and UT3 demos become slideshows as soon as there is ANY action.
    I just got a MacBook Pro w/ 256MB 8600M for a new job and suspect it will be pretty decent for gaming. Be interesting to compare the 2 systems.

  29. Radiant says:

    “Rook says:

    Much like Ninja Gaiden II, this looks very much like a last gen game with some extra polish rather than something that was really built with modern hardware in mind.”

    You what?
    So modern hardware is going to deliver us mind controlled games or something?
    Polish is ALL you are going to get with modern hardware as opposed to what we could have got if only we used steam punk era computology.

  30. Radiant says:

    Lots of gas burns and a very sweaty work environment I would imagine.

  31. Pidesco says:

    @Arsewisely: What I meant is that the scares in FEAR are always of the things suddenly surprising you type, instead of creating an ominous, freaky atmosphere through images, sounds and gameplay like Silent Hill or System Shock did.

  32. Where Now For Man Raised By Puffins? says:

    Proof if proof be need be.

  33. Bogulmon says:

    At the end of the 2nd vid, did it say Sgt. Jancowski at the left hand side?

  34. windlab says:

    @OldmanTick

    I just finally finished ep. 2 and the strider boss battle at the end was a terrible experience but most of the rest of the game was fine. COD4, Stalker and MOHA were pretty much the same.

    I have an AMD 2.5Ghz DC with 7300GT @ 1440×900 and found that the only jerky parts in Ep. 2 were the bridge and portal destruction scenes, each of which only last for a few seconds.
    Incidentally, I turned dynamic shadows and all the lighting options ON in Stalker, and was glad I’d played the X11 labs without it beforehand, it’s that scary.

  35. Alex says:

    STALKER, yes, that was the game I always give as an example of a game that is actually scary, unlike FEAR, which is just someone going “boo!” over the course of a couple of hours.

  36. Radiant says:

    Nah it was more like a slow booooOOOOOOOOO00000oooooo.

    Actually what would have made FEAR a better scare fest would be to actually have the player fear for their life.

    Not in the sense that one of the dev team would threaten to come to your house and knife you but if the game was paced so the scares came when your life was at its lowest point.

    Actually to be honest; in the og FEAR you were never in any danger of dying [infact I don’t remember having to restart once or worry about my health, ammo or armour] so when the bloody lass walked across the screen it was more a case of “huh?” rather then “FUCK I MADE IT…” *noise* “SHIT MORE BAD GUYS… HELP!” *creepy thing* “WHAT THE FUCK WAS THAT????” *reloads pants*

  37. vic says:

    The Fear Combat multi-player was great in the first few weeks after it was released. Running amok in a more or less realistic office pace was just so … liberating. And FPS games need more jump kicks to the head for melee attacks. I think COD4 has borrowed a little from FEAR in the dynamics of the combat – (swift) lets hope that FEAR:PO borrows back.

  38. Skalpadda says:

    The original F.E.A.R. felt like an action game with scary bits glued on to me. The combat was enjoyable enough and the scary bits, while not very scary, at least had some surreal fun factor, they just didn’t come together very well (I wasn’t into the whole “The Ring”-hype thing either, so maybe that’s why it didn’t work for me).

    I have to agree Stalker is a really good example of a game being genuinely scary, not because it had a lot of “OHMYGAWD!”-moments but because I was almost constantly feeling unnerved and uneasy while playing it. Partly due to the atmosphere (every post about Stalker has that word, I know..) and also because you weren’t a superhero; If you got were careless and got shot in the head or something ate your face, you’d die.

    I hope they focus on making this a cool action game with good combat.

  39. WCAYPAHWAT says:

    well, the Ring movies weren’t particularly scary either (any of them).

    cant we just take this as a “supernaturally themed slow-motion head kicking action game”?

  40. Radiant says:

    Actually

  41. Pod says:

    I’m glad to see the return of bullet time into games.