• 51 results
  • 1
  • 2
Posted by gogosox82 (424 posts) 1 year, 27 days ago

Poll: Fear Series worth playing? (154 votes)

Yes, definetely play it 33%
Maybe but you don't need to play the whole series 59%
Meh, do whatever you want 21%
No, avoid it like the plague 6%

So the Fear series is on sale on Steam right now so I was wondering what the consensus was on it. I was always interested in playing it but never really got around to playing them. Are they worth playing?

#1 Posted by JasonR86 (9604 posts) -

I really liked the first game. The second and third games are alright. I doubt any of them have aged particularly well though.

#2 Posted by Sticky_Pennies (2019 posts) -

The first game I thought was really great. Nice atmosphere and such. The second one's okay, and the third one, well, you can forget that one. Like, don't even worry about Fear 3.

#3 Posted by ShaggE (6325 posts) -

I like all three games, but I honestly can't recommend FEAR 3 as a "good" game. It's a weird sequel that shouldn't have been anything more than a curious spinoff thingie.

The first two are great, though. Just don't expect much in the way of horror.

#4 Edited by Ghost_of_Perdition (735 posts) -

F.E.A.R. and F.E.A.R. 2 are really great. I never played the expansions (Extraction Point and Perseus Mandate), so I can't tell you about their quality. If you do try those, know that they're not canonical to Monolith's story. Avoid 3 like the plague.

#5 Edited by gogosox82 (424 posts) -

I think maybe I'll just get Fear 1 and Fear 2. Seems like Fear 3 is kinda forgettable.

#6 Posted by WickedFather (1730 posts) -

First one is crap. It really hasn't aged. The others are ok. Play Prey instead of the first one if you want to put yourself through an old shooter.

#7 Posted by wjb (1636 posts) -

Eh. I think the first game was cool at the time, and 2 had cool moments, but I dunno. Do what you want.

#8 Posted by gaminghooligan (1407 posts) -

Play the first one, maybe the second, but I wouldn't waste your time on 3. It wasn't scary and the weird coop fixation made the single player feel poorly constructed.

#9 Posted by oraknabo (1453 posts) -

Condemned is better, but judging by the ending of 2, it's third installment might have the same problems as FEAR3.

FEAR2 does some really interesting stuff with AI if you're interested in that sort of thing.

#10 Posted by CornBREDX (4792 posts) -

The first one is great, the second one is alright, the third is trash and you can ignore that it exists (different developer- they don't seem to even understand what made the game so good).

Online
#11 Posted by TheHT (10871 posts) -

The first game is some of the finest first person action gameplay I've experienced. Haven't gotten around to playing the third one and picked up the second one today, so I can't speak for those.

But goddamn if it isn't tons of fun to slide kick one guy, shoot another across the room, then jump kick finish the last guy in an encounter. I also picked up the first one again since why the hell not. We'll see if it holds up I guess.

#12 Edited by Savage (316 posts) -

F.E.A.R. 1 and F.E.A.R. 2 are both great B games. They're basically 90's-era corridor crawling shooters with bullet time and some fun atmosphere. They both also happen to have been made by Monolith. The third game (F.3.A.R.) is a co-op Call of Duty style of game made by a different developer, and is, in my opinion, a derivative trashy game that most people should N.E.V.E.R. play.

#13 Posted by Hamst3r (4450 posts) -

Play the first one, skip the rest.

#14 Posted by HellknightLeon (448 posts) -

I had an awesome time with the games. That said... FEAR 1 and FEAR 2... after that... you get the idea and should call it.

#15 Edited by davidwitten22 (1708 posts) -

First one is great, second one is fine, third one I have yet to play.

#16 Posted by BisonHero (6155 posts) -

Really just play the first game. It had promise, and the end of F.E.A.R. 1 has some crazy plot developments, but man, just stop there.

F.E.A.R. 1 also serves as an interesting look at the kind of shooters being made at the very start of this generation, before Call of Duty came along and everything had to be just like it. It really isn't that different in terms of controls, as far as having aim-down-sights, though no regenerating health and you don't see a lot of horror shooters.

#17 Posted by Cold_Wolven (2210 posts) -

The first is a cool game and I enjoyed the second as well which delves much deeper into the fiction. I wouldn't bother with any of the expansions since they don't really add anything to the overall story. As for the third I didn't get far past the beginning and what I played of it felt run of the mill and Ryan Davis who reviewed it was disappointed with the game.

#18 Posted by Humanity (8801 posts) -

F.E.A.R. 2: Project Origin is probably the highlight of the series as it actually has a budget. People will tell you FEAR 1 is the best and thats fine if you don't mind running around through abandoned office buildings the entire game. The sequel on the other hand has some really neat graphical effects, an interesting story that goes completely insane by the end and most importantly varied environments.

#19 Edited by BaconGames (3290 posts) -

@humanity said:

F.E.A.R. 2: Project Origin is probably the highlight of the series as it actually has a budget. People will tell you FEAR 1 is the best and thats fine if you don't mind running around through abandoned office buildings the entire game. The sequel on the other hand has some really neat graphical effects, an interesting story that goes completely insane by the end and most importantly varied environments.

While not best in class I though FEAR 2 had some appreciable writing and some characters you could actually care about. With that said, unless you already care about the franchise, then the second one isn't going to give nearly as unique or even historically meaningful experience as the first FEAR. If you're dead set on only playing one, than obvious the first one is a must if only for curiosity's sake. If you do like the franchise, then the second one is a solid follow-up that admittedly required putting on hard difficulty during its first half. Besides, I think FEAR 2 is worth it just for the elementary school level.

Either way both games are enjoyable to play and have a certain style you rarely see in shooters. The third one wasn't made my Monolith and as far as I'm concerned doesn't exist.

#20 Posted by Sploder (917 posts) -

I like Fear 2, that game was worth playing. Only played a demo of the first game so I can't really comment.

#21 Edited by SaturdayNightSpecials (2309 posts) -

FEAR is worth playing.

FEAR 2 is worth playing if you can tolerate mediocre gameplay for some good atmosphere and interesting expansion on the FEAR fiction.

FEAR 3 is worth playing if you can tolerate its nonsense fever-dream version of the FEAR fiction for some pretty good gameplay. It's really not bad, divorced from any pretense of being a proper third FEAR game.

#22 Posted by mylifeforAiur (3482 posts) -

I'll blithely profess that F.E.A.R. is a game that I am very fond of--a game I feel is justified as being considered a 'must-play' PC game--and recommend wholeheartedly.

#23 Posted by Subjugation (4718 posts) -

I really enjoyed the first two games. I've largely heard that the third should be avoided, and from what research I've done it seems that is good advice.

#24 Edited by Humanity (8801 posts) -

@humanity said:

F.E.A.R. 2: Project Origin is probably the highlight of the series as it actually has a budget. People will tell you FEAR 1 is the best and thats fine if you don't mind running around through abandoned office buildings the entire game. The sequel on the other hand has some really neat graphical effects, an interesting story that goes completely insane by the end and most importantly varied environments.

While not best in class I though FEAR 2 had some appreciable writing and some characters you could actually care about. With that said, unless you already care about the franchise, then the second one isn't going to give nearly as unique or even historically meaningful experience as the first FEAR. If you're dead set on only playing one, than obvious the first one is a must if only for curiosity's sake. If you do like the franchise, then the second one is a solid follow-up that admittedly required putting on hard difficulty during its first half. Besides, I think FEAR 2 is worth it just for the elementary school level.

Either way both games are enjoyable to play and have a certain style you rarely see in shooters. The third one wasn't made my Monolith and as far as I'm concerned doesn't exist.

SHOGO 2 coming any day now.. I... I just know it.

#25 Posted by RedCream (704 posts) -

F.E.A.R probably has the smartest AI I've seen in a video game and it's worth a look for that alone. It is also scary and fun though environments can get repetitive after a while. F.E.A.R 2 is more action-oriented and is still a good game. The third is the weakest because it was handed over to a different studio who failed to capitalize on the strengths of the first two games.

#26 Edited by Svenzon (713 posts) -

Absolutely. Despite having relatively few enemy types, both 1 and 2 manage to keep the combat engaging, thanks to the AI and cool guns. It's one of very few FPS games where the default pistols aren't completely worthless (more like the other way around). The second one also has mech sequences that are pretty awesome.

The story is actually really interesting and reminds me of Akira in places. Some would probably argue that FEAR 2 goes completely off the rails, but I liked it.

The only major downside is that the environments can be very repetitive, especially in the first one. You'll go through a lot of abandoned warehouses and office buildings, though the devs are pretty good at sprinkling out little narrative details that break up the tedium. 2 is way more varied when it comes to scenery and the school level in particular is really atmospheric.

EDIT: Never played the third game, so I can't vouch for that. It seemed rather bland to me.

#27 Posted by Dauthi693 (130 posts) -

1st game yes definately 2 & 3 are meh

#28 Posted by GIyn (202 posts) -

@oraknabo said:

Condemned is better, but judging by the ending of 2, it's third installment might have the same problems as FEAR3.

FEAR2 does some really interesting stuff with AI if you're interested in that sort of thing.

The AI in Fear 1 and 2 is absolutely amazing. It makes me wonder why every game is not like that.

#29 Posted by BleedingStarX (279 posts) -

I personally enjoyed all 3 of them (I enjoyed the expansion add on too). I'd probably say the 1st was my favourite, but the 2nd and 3rd are really enjoyable too

#30 Posted by Cheesebob (1231 posts) -

FEAR 1 is a fantastic game. I haven't played the other two beyond the demos but I thought they were decidedly meh

#31 Edited by ViciousReiven (818 posts) -

The second game is definitely the best IMO, the first one was pretty good and the third while really fun as an FPS doesn't really feel like a FEAR game, but it's a blast to play co-op.

Don't play the first game's expansions though, they're really bland.

#32 Posted by mason20 (135 posts) -

Fear was always a game I just couldn't understand what made it so scary. I've seen it on many lists as one of the scarier games of all time but I just can't see it. Environments are good and the AI seems smart but the scary little girl thing just baffles me. A decent shooter.

#33 Edited by BillyTheKid (484 posts) -

My brother bought all of them on steam for the cheap so I will state his opinion. "I thought the first game was actually really good, other than that the other games lost the FEAR of the first FEAR." I don't know what that means but I think he is saying that the game changed direction a bit.

#34 Posted by believer258 (11629 posts) -

@gogosox82The first game has really repetitive environments that you can occasionally get lost in. However, the actual combat of that game is some of the best first person shooting I have ever experienced, especially with a mouse and keyboard. It nails difficulty, pacing, the feeling of a gun, making the player feel really badass, etc., and this is what really holds up the whole game. The story is OK but it's nothing special and the graphics have aged well enough, but they aren't going to wow you. It's the gameplay that you go into that game for, and that part is fantastic.

The second game evens everything out a little. Somehow, the gameplay isn't as good. It's still pretty fun to play, but I don't think that the gameplay alone could hold this game up. The atmosphere, story, characters, level design, and graphics are all taken up quite a notch, though, and combined they all make for a pretty good package. Also, that ending is just... um... odd. I don't know about "bad", but it certainly sticks in your head.

I like the third game but it isn't really a good game. Like the first one, it has some pretty good gameplay (though, notably, nowhere near as great as the first one's), and the levels are more varied, but the level design itself is simply terrible and the story is almost as bad. If you can find a friend to play the multiplayer mode "Fucking Run" with, then this version is definitely worth a few dollars, but otherwise it's just an OK shooter good enough for a Saturday afternoon.

So, if you only play one of them then it should be the first. The second one is a worthy follow up. The third one is totally skippable.

#35 Posted by OneKillWonder_ (1692 posts) -

F.E.A.R. 1 is excellent, and the second is even better. Some would disagree, but those people are wrong. 3 is just.....it's a fun game in its own right, but really nothing at all like the others. It's very arcadey with a scoring system. It's also really, really short, so even if you do play it, you won't spend much time on it.

#36 Posted by Iron_Tool (215 posts) -

Fear 1 and Fear 2. Fear 3 if you get it cheap in a bundle sale (like recently on Steam)

#37 Edited by phrosnite (3518 posts) -

The first F.E.A.R. is awesome and everybody should play it. If you loved the 1st then you may want play the 2nd too but don't expect a better game. Never played the 3rd and probably never will. Maybe in co-op...

#38 Posted by EpicSteve (6471 posts) -

The first FEAR is considered one of the best PC shooters, ever. Great AI at the time. Not too sure how it has aged. But worth checking out if you like game history.

#39 Edited by GaspoweR (2793 posts) -

The first FEAR has left a great impression on me to this day. Also just play through FEAR 2 as well if you want. The ending is kinda NUUUUUTS.

#40 Edited by TheCreamFilling (1224 posts) -

I only played Fear 1 and it was really good, for the time at least. Going back may be a little tough.

#41 Posted by EarlessShrimp (1631 posts) -

if you have the time, play them all. The first is definitely the best of the series. But, the other two are good time killing shoot that guy kind of games. I never really paid attention to the story after the first game, so that also helps shape my opinion of 2 and 3

#42 Posted by djou (858 posts) -

I recently tried to go back and play FEAR 1, but the controls show their age. The shooting mechanics are stiff and movement awkward and lumbering. The atmosphere is still good and the AI is top notch, better than some modern shooters.

#43 Posted by EvilNiGHTS (1093 posts) -

For some reason I made a point of playing the first two back to back a few months ago. They both favour story over mechanics, but the second one has a little more substance. Eventually they wear out their welcome though; the slow-motion thing seems like a one-trick pony, the motivations of the characters get increasingly stupid, and eventually you start to wonder if every desk really needs to have a TPS report and a stapler on it.

I'd suggest playing the first one, skipping the expansions and moving onto the second, then playing the third for some closure.

Also, as someone mentioned here, the controls for the first one are duuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuumb. There's also a weird bug with Logitech Setpoint that caps the framerate for the first game. So a little tweaking may be required.

#44 Posted by TooWalrus (13135 posts) -

I actually really liked F.E.A.R. 2

...well, I remember really liking it. I can't quite remember anything about the game itself, other than I remember it having a cool nail gun. Oh, and the ending, of course. Couldn't forget that if I wanted to.

#45 Posted by Kaiserreich (684 posts) -

1>2>3

It really is that easy.

#46 Posted by yinstarrunner (1182 posts) -

FEAR 1 is incredible. It's got good atmosphere, fantastic enemy AI, and the action makes it the best Matrix game ever made. The only problems with it are lack of enemy variety and repetitive environmental design.

FEAR 2 is alright, but nowhere near as special as the first. I actually thought it was scarier than FEAR 1, though.

I haven't played FEAR 3 and never will. Fuck that shit.

#47 Posted by Itwastuesday (932 posts) -

If you really end up liking FEAR, play FEAR 2. I wouldn't play 3 under any condition. 1 and 2 are the best sci-fi games about J-horror ghosts and bicycle kicking super-soldiers in the head in slo-motion.

#48 Posted by afabs515 (1010 posts) -

FEAR is a must. FEAR 2 is a maybe. F3AR is a stay the fuck away.

#49 Posted by ottoman673 (480 posts) -

Play 1 and 2. Skip 3.

The ending in 2 is one of the most fucked up things in video games ever, though. You won't see it coming...

#50 Posted by bananaz (253 posts) -

Never played 3, but do play the first two. The first one is like a better, scary Half Life 1. The enemy AI in the first Fear was pretty good, too. Enough that I noticed.

The second had a AAA budget and is pretty great. It's not as scary, though, and more actiony, which is still cool. There are mech sections that destroy any pretense of being afraid, but they're not bad.

They both have a really cool story.