Something went wrong. Try again later

Giant Bomb Review

206 Comments

F.E.A.R. 3 Review

2
  • X360

After the previous games' high standards for chilling atmosphere and cinematic intensity, it's hard not to be disappointed by the common FPS trappings of FEAR 3.

No Caption Provided

If F.E.A.R. were a movie franchise, F.E.A.R. 3 would be the direct-to-video sequel. Even though it picks up--and, ostensibly, ties together and concludes--the disturbing, apocalyptic threads left dangling by the first two F.E.A.R. games, the handoff from series developer Monolith Productions to Day 1 Studios is palpable. Rather than focusing on enhancing and exploring the stark atmosphere and high-tech tactics that has defined F.E.A.R. thus far, Day 1 seems more interested in incorporating elements from brand-name shooters like Call of Duty and Killzone, adding features without adding value. Even to this end, F.E.A.R. 3 doesn't crib with particular inspiration. It's an experience that feels diluted and common, a horror game afraid of its own shadow.

For what it's worth, Monolith left the series in a pretty crazy place at the end of F.E.A.R. 2, one that would require some serious commitment to top. After the all-out psychic warfare between the sinister Armacham Corporation, multiple paranormal/paramilitary F.E.A.R. teams, and that unkillable, stringy-haired J-horror arch-psychic Alma Wade, the seemingly quaint every-berg of Fairport is essentially a smoking hole in the ground populated by equally murderous psychos and mercenaries. Worse yet, Alma--having evolved from spooky ghost girl to spooky ghost teen--is pregnant, leaving all surviving parties scrambling to either harness her awful powers or put an end to her, once and for all.

No Caption Provided

Permanence, though, doesn't seem to mean much in F.E.A.R. 3. Paxton Fettel--the cannibalistic boogeyman from the first game--bounces right back from the point-blank trepanning provided by the Point Man, his brother and returning F.E.A.R. protagonist. Surprisingly cool about the whole attempted fratricide thing, and seemingly more powerful than ever in his ethereal new incarnation, Fettel frees the Point Man from Armacham clutches, and accompanies him as Pointy races towards some kind of resolution, acting as a bad conscience along the way.

More than Alma's tortured existence, her incredibly disturbing supernatural pregnancy, or even the increasingly imminent End of Days that have loomed large, the uneasy alliance between Paxton Fettel and the Point Man is the crux of F.E.A.R. 3. It's a direction that seems dictated by the decision to make cooperative play a big focus in F.E.A.R. 3, rather than a natural progression for the fiction.

Though the initial single-player experience puts you behind the Point Man's brooding beard, with all of the time-slowing abilities that accompany it, a second player can leap in at any time as Fettel, whose abilities contrast significantly. No bullet-time, and, in fact, Fettel can't even use conventional weapons by default, but he can possess enemies, simultaneously eliminating them as threats and turning whatever firepower they carry against their ill-fated compatriots. A new first-person cover system for both characters differentiates the overall feel from previous F.E.A.R. games.

No Caption Provided

With its shared, relatively short single-player and co-op structure, F.E.A.R. 3 seems to operate under the presumption that you'll want to play through these scenarios repeatedly--even if you have no interest in co-op, you can replay chapters as Fettel--but it's a flimsy premise at best, for a few reasons. Notably, the situations F.E.A.R. 3 puts you in just feel shopworn. There are a few sequences where you'll pilot powerful-if-trudging mechs, something that F.E.A.R. 2 did, and did better, but it's a lot of flavorless corridor crawling while peeking out from behind crates, punctuated by what are essentially wave-based survival encounters. Separate from the story, F.E.A.R. 3 has a handful of multiplayer modes that, at this point, shouldn't surprise you to learn feel an awful lot like the wave-based survival modes found in games like Call of Duty and Gears of War. Even the promisingly titled "Fucking Run" mode, where you have to chew through enemies while trying to outrun a constantly looming wall of death, is better in theory.

Uninspired combat scenarios and misguided cooperative elements aside, the biggest tragedy in F.E.A.R. 3 is that it's simply not scary, spooky, unnerving, or even a little bit surprising. Jump-scares and weird visions come predictably, though Alma is apparently too preoccupied to provide those very often. The game feels impatient, unwilling to allow any tension to build, constantly pushing you forward into the next firefight. I feel like it's incredibly telling that, in addition to a number of combat challenges that can earn you enhanced character abilities, each chapter has a pace time for you to beat. It's a point that tells players "don't worry about the mood, just run as fast as you can!" and it's a notion that's anathema to the spirit of F.E.A.R.. F.E.A.R. and F.E.A.R. 2 felt deliberately cinematic, but F.E.A.R. 3 goes in the exact opposite direction, and the naked gaminess robs it of any weight. That lack of weight extends to the game's look, which softens the shadowy, high-contrast feel and caricatures the characters, furthering a safer, cartoony feel, however gory it might be.

Whether you preferred the original F.E.A.R. or its sequel, F.E.A.R. 3 plays to the strengths of neither, almost feeling like a multiplayer spin-off that was begrudgingly upgraded to full-on sequel. There's a categorical compulsion here to play it safe, a mistake that even F.E.A.R. might not be able to return from.

206 Comments

Avatar image for crono
Crono

2762

Forum Posts

-1

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 23

User Lists: 6

Edited By Crono

I love Ryan's voice and tone. It's too bad that Fear3 is such an underwhelming product but at least it makes for an interesting review. I played through the first Fear when it first came out and it was really impressive at the time, but the series didn't interest me and so I never got involved. I'm glad I didn't now seeing how the conclusion of this series seems to have been all for nothing.

Avatar image for beachthunder
BeachThunder

15269

Forum Posts

318676

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 30

Edited By BeachThunder

Duke Nukem Fearever? :o

Avatar image for cornbredx
cornbredx

7484

Forum Posts

2699

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 15

Edited By cornbredx

I could tell all this from the quick look, having said as much in the comments for that.

It's a damn shame it didn't get any better, although from the quick look I didn't expect it would (kept hope there awaiting this review). That's very disappointing, but oh well. I can still go back to F.E.A.R and F.E.A.R 2. For anyone that liked those games, they still hold up fairly well.

Avatar image for deactivated-5c7ea8553cb72
deactivated-5c7ea8553cb72

4753

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 5

User Lists: 0

This is a thoroughly well written review, but you know what? I still want to play it. I still want this game and I have little-to-no idea why.
 
 
EDIT: Also, I would like to point out that this sounds like a 1 star review. I can't recall any positive statements out of the entire text.

Avatar image for skald
Skald

4450

Forum Posts

621

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 11

User Lists: 7

Edited By Skald

The first entry in the series was fantastic, why does it keep getting worse?

Avatar image for theblackpigeon
TheBlackPigeon

335

Forum Posts

432

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 5

Edited By TheBlackPigeon
@bybeach said:
  Extraction Point was supposed to be the correct Expansion pack for Fear One, but this game is not respecting that.
Monolith was not involved with either Extraction Point or Perseus Mandate. They were produced by Vivendi Games. As a result, Monolith have gone on record stating that both expansions are considered non-canon. F.3.A.R. is respecting the official Monolith canon, which is: 
 
  1. The Dark Horse comic book.
  2. The Alma Interviews
  3. F.E.A.R.
  4. The DC Digital comic mini-series
  5. The Armacham Field Guide
  6. F.E.A.R. 2: Project Origin
  7. F.E.A.R. 2: Reborn
  8. F.3.A.R.
However, I will concede that this game isn't really scary. Then again, I never thought the first two were, either. Just....wacky and wonderfully weird. 
 
#uselessknowledge
#nerdgasm
#toomuchinformation
Avatar image for fox01313
fox01313

5256

Forum Posts

2246

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 19

Edited By fox01313

Great review Ryan, loved the 2nd one & will probably enjoy playing this one but it's sad to see them not focusing on some easy things with the writing if not the effects as well to make the game's atmosphere more unsettling. Does look competent but just not moody & creepy.

Avatar image for ghost_of_perdition
Ghost_of_Perdition

751

Forum Posts

1376

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 8

Not reaching the pedigree of a Monolith-made F.E.A.R. was my main concern. It should have never changed developers.

Oh well. Thanks for the review, Ryan.

Avatar image for unrealdp
UnrealDP

1342

Forum Posts

1908

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By UnrealDP

Yeah your totally right on with this review, but i really like this game. If your looking for a fear game it will feel like a bad, 2 star, game and thats the developers fault for calling it F.E.A.R 3. This game has no connection to the other F.E.A.R games and was unfortunatly named, lets say.

This game is more of a left 4 dead game then anything else, i had fun playing with three other friends tearing through levels and just having a blast, then i would get with one of them and play a co op level, which plays just like a left 4 dead level only for 2. Like left 4 dead this game has a paper thin story to set you up for running through levels, shooting dudes, and trying to get good times.

This ain't a F.E.A.R game and i love it, but your totally right and i wish this was just a silly spin off instead of a story ruining third act.

Avatar image for nert
Nert

33

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By Nert

@Lucidlife said:

With Ryan and Jeff you can expect low scores on any game that isn't MK or some overly hyped indie bullshit....or bastion. Frankly, they both seem like they really need to take a break from actually PLAYING games for awhile and see if their jaded gauge can lower a bit.

Any comments that make assumptions about the reviewers themselves, instead of discussing the content of the actual reviews, come across as completely useless. What part of the review betrays him as being "jaded" instead of just disliking this particular game?

Avatar image for buck3tm4n
BUCK3TM4N

544

Forum Posts

1

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By BUCK3TM4N

the first one is still the best

Avatar image for kikarote
Kikarote

28

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By Kikarote

2 Star was really a blow, one more and I was OK ^^

Avatar image for saturdaynightspecials
SaturdayNightSpecials

2593

Forum Posts

92938

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 26

If F.E.A.R. were a movie franchise, F.E.A.R. 3 would be the direct-to-video sequel.

That brilliantly describes the impression I've had of this game since they first showed it. Everything about it seems cheap and thrown together.

But I'll rent it to see for myself (read: give me the authority to shit on it, if I so please).

Avatar image for dany
Dany

8019

Forum Posts

416

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 4

Edited By Dany

@Lucidlife said:

With Ryan and Jeff you can expect low scores on any game that isn't MK or some overly hyped indie bullshit....or bastion. Frankly, they both seem like they really need to take a break from actually PLAYING games for awhile and see if their jaded gauge can lower a bit.

Try that again buddy.

Avatar image for csl316
csl316

17001

Forum Posts

765

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 10

Edited By csl316

I'm having a hell of a time with this game, and playing on the higher difficulties make each firefight tense and unpredictable. Co-op's fun as well, but it's true that it's not exactly scary anymore.

Can't say I regret my purchase, since the gameplay's a ton of fun. Although Project Origin had a more interesting campaign, I'd say.

Avatar image for solh0und
Solh0und

2189

Forum Posts

10

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By Solh0und

Just as I F.E.A.Red....Buh-Zing!

Avatar image for oroboros
oroboros

39

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By oroboros

Not all official reviews are in, of course, but this review would be the lowest of all 15 critic scores thus far recorded.  By far.  In fact, given that 2 stars is effectively 40/100 (if zero stars is allowed), Ryan's score is currently 20 points below the worst review thus far in (60 from Gameractor Sweden, of all places) that I know of.  I tend to believe score averages are generally more valid, which is why I seek out collective user/critic scores rather than singular critic reviewer scores.  Case in point, this review, with a score so far out of the norm from either critic or user averages it seems highly suspect to me.
 
Personally, having seen how Ryan played this game in the QL, I'm thinking the problem might perhaps have less to do with the game and more to do with the player.  I'm sure Ryan fan boys will jump to his rescue here, but seeing him play, reading his review, and seeing his score, I don't think the problem here is so much with the game itself.  I'm not saying it's a great game, it definitely doesn't have the atmosphere the first two (and especially the first one) had, but it's not a 40/100 game either.  Hate my comments all you want, but the current metacritic official average is 7.8, metacritic user average 8.4, gamespot pc user average 7.6, gamespot xbox user average 8.0, and gamespot ps3 user average 8.1.  That's collectively quite a difference - around a 40/100 point difference - from Ryan's score!  Not even remotely close to any average.  Hell, even the GB user score (such as it is thus far) is 3.8/5, or 76/100, nearly twice his score.
 
Obviously everyone is entitled to their opinion.  And I'm entitled to mine.  Which is that Ryan's professional score for this game is bullshit.
 
Hate away, defend your gaming guru icon all you want, I won't respond.  This is a crappy, undeserved score.

Avatar image for omega
Omega

916

Forum Posts

270

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 6

Edited By Omega

I appreciate Ryan's commitment to the periods in the FEAR name. I must be lazy because I'd have stopped that after writing the title.  

Avatar image for zipcrash
ZipCrash

228

Forum Posts

8414

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 5

User Lists: 9

Edited By ZipCrash

I agree that 2 stars seems a bit low to me. I personally give it 3 stars. However, everybody getting really upset about Ryan's score is pretty ridiculous. Seriously guys, find a better game to get into arguments about.

Avatar image for maskedarcstrike
maskedarcstrike

792

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 0

Edited By maskedarcstrike

Ugh I don't know, I liked the game and respect Ryan's opinion F.E.A.R 3 is not great but it was fun.  During the quick though look he played it on easy and only used slow mo like twice.......  When I played the game it was on normal difficulty and used slow-mo all the time and rarely used cover.  So maybe I just had a different experience than him, I don't know if he played the whole game like that.
 
He didn't really mention the cutscenes before each interval though about the brothers in the containment cell.  I thought they built a good sense of a good relationship gone bad.  At first they were just normal kids having fun making the best of the situation but then the doctor takes Fettel away and does something to Fettel and he becomes more estranged each time.  Story wise I thought this game really wrapped up the trilogy nicely.
 
I thought the mood was similar to other F.E.A.R games, I played it on solo.  Got creeped out at certain moments and had fun.  The only thing that didn't make sense to me was the "why am in South America?" portion during the beginning of the game.  Maybe I missed something but why is the point man in South America?
 
I really enjoyed the single player campaign but I can't really comment much on multiplayer or co-op.

Avatar image for stingingvelvet
StingingVelvet

596

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 6

User Lists: 0

Edited By StingingVelvet

It's not like FEAR, that's for sure, but I felt FEAR 2 already went down the Halo/CoD route to appeal more to console gamers and FEAR 3 just continues that. I do think that is a shame, because more unique shooters are rare right now, but at the same time if I ask myself if this is a quality game the only answer I can give is yes. The shooting feels solid, the cover system works well, the graphics are alright, Fettel is really interesting and fun to play as and the multiplayer stuff is really fun.

Also, as I said in the quicklook comments, I can't really trust that this review is fair considering how I saw Ryan play the game, which is to say poorly. Maybe he did that for entertainment purposes or because he was distracted, but in the end it just looked like someone who didn't know how to play the game, whose opinion therefore on things like Fucking Run is quite suspect.

Avatar image for csl316
csl316

17001

Forum Posts

765

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 10

Edited By csl316

@oroboros said:

Not all official reviews are in, of course, but this review would be the lowest of all 15 critic scores thus far recorded. By far. In fact, given that 2 stars is effectively 40/100 (if zero stars is allowed), Ryan's score is currently 20 points below the worst review thus far in (60 from Gameractor Sweden, of all places) that I know of. I tend to believe score averages are generally more valid, which is why I seek out collective user/critic scores rather than singular critic reviewer scores. Case in point, this review, with a score so far out of the norm from either critic or user averages it seems highly suspect to me.

Personally, having seen how Ryan played this game in the QL, I'm thinking the problem might perhaps have less to do with the game and more to do with the player. I'm sure Ryan fan boys will jump to his rescue here, but seeing him play, reading his review, and seeing his score, I don't think the problem here is so much with the game itself. I'm not saying it's a great game, it definitely doesn't have the atmosphere the first two (and especially the first one) had, but it's not a 40/100 game either. Hate my comments all you want, but the current metacritic official average is 7.8, metacritic user average 8.4, gamespot pc user average 7.6, gamespot xbox user average 8.0, and gamespot ps3 user average 8.1. That's collectively quite a difference - around a 40/100 point difference - from Ryan's score! Not even remotely close to any average. Hell, even the GB user score (such as it is thus far) is 3.8/5, or 76/100, nearly twice his score. Obviously everyone is entitled to their opinion. And I'm entitled to mine. Which is that Ryan's professional score for this game is bullshit. Hate away, defend your gaming guru icon all you want, I won't respond. This is a crappy, undeserved score.

Don't get too hung up on Metacritic's grading system. Keep in mind that most gaming reviews are in the 6 to 10 scale. Since this site uses a star system, the limited options for a "low" score makes some GB reviews seem unnecessarily scathing. If you see a 40 next to a 65, the review's tone may be similar and Metacritic loses that completely.

With that being said, I do disagree with Ryan. And the Quick Look was set to easy, which kind of eliminates one of the strengths of the series (challenging AI). Monolith's atmospheric touch is also poorly imitated here, so I can see why he doesn't like this much. If you watch his Fear 2 review, he keeps talking about the crazy shit that happens in the game, and how it's a cool ride. This is less atmosphere, more action.

The game's fucking fun since the gunplay is so solid, which is all I want out of this series. Obviously, our opinion's differ, but it's his professional review. And showing math isn't gonna change that.

Avatar image for hadestimes
HadesTimes

969

Forum Posts

13

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 6

User Lists: 8

Edited By HadesTimes

Since I've played all the F.E.A.R games to completion, I will probably rent this one. But this review is making me too positive about it.

Avatar image for egocheck616
EgoCheck616

820

Forum Posts

37

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 1

Edited By EgoCheck616

As a fan of the previous two games, I can't help but strongly disagree with this review. I have been enjoying the hell out of F.E.A.R 3.. but then again, I've been playing it on the PC. So the visual complaints don't really seem to be something I notice. No, it may not be scary. But guess what? Neither is Dead Space 2. Let's give it a 2/5.

At the end of the day the mechanics are solid and the game is a lot of fun. If people take issue with bland textures then maybe they shouldn't be playing on a $300 piece of plastic.

Avatar image for kerse
kerse

2496

Forum Posts

42

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 8

Edited By kerse

Yeah I kinda feel the same, the game is way too impatient with its "scares" half the time I don't even notice that alma was even there til her disappearing animation catches my eye. She always pops up in front of you and pretty far away so you're just kinda like wait was that her? Although I disagree about the combat its basically the same as the first 2 the shooting and slow mo and all that feels just fine, however the removal of the health bar and being able to collect reflex boosters, armor and health packs really sucks for this series, thats one of the things I really liked in the other ones.

Avatar image for tordah
Tordah

2604

Forum Posts

621

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 10

Edited By Tordah
@Danishmaggot said:
After seeing the first 5 minutes of the quick look, it was clear that Ryan already made up his mind after playing the first level. That disappoints me a little bit, but oh well.  
Yeah, that's the impression I got as well. I don't think this looks that bad at all.
Avatar image for smcn
smcn

975

Forum Posts

1625

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 2

Edited By smcn

Great read. Thanks Ryan.

Avatar image for rolvtd
rolvtd

58

Forum Posts

168

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 7

Edited By rolvtd
@oroboros said:
Not all official reviews are in, of course, but this review would be the lowest of all 15 critic scores thus far recorded.  By far.  In fact, given that 2 stars is effectively 40/100 (if zero stars is allowed), Ryan's score is currently 20 points below the worst review thus far in (60 from Gameractor Sweden, of all places) that I know of.  I tend to believe score averages are generally more valid, which is why I seek out collective user/critic scores rather than singular critic reviewer scores.  Case in point, this review, with a score so far out of the norm from either critic or user averages it seems highly suspect to me.
 
Personally, having seen how Ryan played this game in the QL, I'm thinking the problem might perhaps have less to do with the game and more to do with the player.  I'm sure Ryan fan boys will jump to his rescue here, but seeing him play, reading his review, and seeing his score, I don't think the problem here is so much with the game itself.  I'm not saying it's a great game, it definitely doesn't have the atmosphere the first two (and especially the first one) had, but it's not a 40/100 game either.  Hate my comments all you want, but the current metacritic official average is 7.8, metacritic user average 8.4, gamespot pc user average 7.6, gamespot xbox user average 8.0, and gamespot ps3 user average 8.1.  That's collectively quite a difference - around a 40/100 point difference - from Ryan's score!  Not even remotely close to any average.  Hell, even the GB user score (such as it is thus far) is 3.8/5, or 76/100, nearly twice his score. Obviously everyone is entitled to their opinion.  And I'm entitled to mine.  Which is that Ryan's professional score for this game is bullshit.  Hate away, defend your gaming guru icon all you want, I won't respond.  This is a crappy, undeserved score.
So essentially what you are saying is: since everyone else gave it a higher score, so should he.   Sorry, but I have more respect for the people saying they played the game and completely disagree with his score than:  "This review sucks cause you didn't go with the crowd."
Avatar image for emem
emem

2063

Forum Posts

13

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 6

Edited By emem

@EgoCheck616 said:

As a fan of the previous two games, I can't help but strongly disagree with this review. I have been enjoying the hell out of F.E.A.R 3.. but then again, I've been playing it on the PC. So the visual complaints don't really seem to be something I notice. No, it may not be scary. But guess what? Neither is Dead Space 2. Let's give it a 2/5.

At the end of the day the mechanics are solid and the game is a lot of fun. If people take issue with bland textures then maybe they shouldn't be playing on a $300 piece of plastic.

Well, it says "360 review", it's a bit of a shame though.. I feel like reviewing a game should include all 3 main platforms, not just one (or it should say so on the main page, imho).

I haven't played the game yet, so I can't say what I think about it, but it's Ryan's review.. he oblivously didn't "get" it, so what? That's no reason to be angry at the 360, it's not the console's fault.

Avatar image for tennmuerti
Tennmuerti

9465

Forum Posts

1

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 7

Edited By Tennmuerti
@oroboros
/facepalm
The fact that you are comparing a 5star rating system of GB to the standard 100 scale used by other sites shows a complete lack of understanding of how both function.
Avatar image for egge
Egge

565

Forum Posts

583

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 4

Edited By Egge

I played the 30 free minutes on OnLive and really appreciated the strong enemy AI (which is nowhere to be found in Giant Bomb's Rookie-based Quick Look), fast and responsive shooter gameplay and OCD-inspiring points/upgrade system. The extremely overrated "horror" elements of Monolith's average-but-uninspired first two FEAR games always felt predictable, strangely derivative and even downright exploitative at times, so I have no problem whatsoever with Day One Studios rebooting the series into a pulpy arcade-like FPS with some asymmetrical co-op mechanics thrown in for good measure.

Avatar image for pieguy
PieGuy

332

Forum Posts

2

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 1

Edited By PieGuy

Monolith should have concluded F.E.A.R in the sequel rather than push it on to another dev who aren't as familiar.
I buy these games for the atmosphere and thrills, seems to have been lost with this game.
 
Shooting looks solid, the game as a whole looks solid. It would have benefitted from being placed in a new IP instead of added onto an established franchise. 
 
A real shame as I was interested in the story of the game, looks like I'm going to have to wiki it.

Avatar image for iamjohn
iamjohn

6297

Forum Posts

13905

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 5

Edited By iamjohn

/!\ ATTN WHINERS! IMPORTANT NEWSFLASH! /!\

They don't play the same way in Quick Looks as they do when actually trying to critically evaluate the game since, you know, it's kind of hard to hold a conversation with someone while playing a game at the same time, and also because they want to show as much of the game as they can in the allotted time, so bitching about the review by hating on the Quick Look is pretty silly. Just in case you were wondering.

Avatar image for phrosnite
phrosnite

3528

Forum Posts

1

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 5

Edited By phrosnite

No surprise here but still disappointed. This franchise is dead to me now. Disappointed in FEAR 2 and now I won't even bother with this.

Avatar image for rmanthorp
rmanthorp

4654

Forum Posts

3603

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 14

Edited By rmanthorp  Moderator

Never been a fan unfortunately.

Avatar image for twolines
TwoLines

3406

Forum Posts

319

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 5

Edited By TwoLines
@oroboros said:
Obviously everyone is entitled to their opinion.  And I'm entitled to mine.  Which is that Ryan's professional score for this game is bullshit.  
Heh, I'm just gonna save this quote somewhere. 
 
2/5, eh? Well, I've never liked the FEAR series, so I'd probably like it even less. But my brother will be pretty bummed, he liked the other ones.
Avatar image for dastly75
dastly75

119

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By dastly75

I disagree with the review simply because it's entirely negative.   As far as FPS go, FEAR 3 has one of the more varied and compelling co-op campaigns I've played.  The game isn't effectively scary though I don't think we're supposed to be taking this story line that seriously to begin with.  It's less Issac Clarke fighting necromorphs and more Marcus Fenix stomping locusts.  The multiplayer additionally has some unique modes that while very limited, is at least momentarily interesting as opposed to the run of the mill deathmatch which would instantly be outclassed by COD and Halo.  At least with the twists on the FEAR 3 multiplayer, there's a reason to turn to it.  I personally see this game as on par with Homefront in terms of quality.  There's something to be said for a first-person shooter that can nail cover mechanics better than Killzone with nearly the fluidity of COD.

Avatar image for jakonovski
jakonovski

328

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 1

Edited By jakonovski

Yeah, the 100% negativity is a bit much, and betrays disappointment affecting the review. I mean, Ryan and Vinny actually had fun playing co-op in the QL. Why was this part of the game left completely unexplored in the review?

Avatar image for portis
Portis

1295

Forum Posts

7315

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 1

Edited By Portis

Admittedly, the Quick Look was the only footage I've seen of this game, but it didn't look that bad. But whatever, I was never going to play this game anyway.

Avatar image for carnaged
Carnaged

22

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By Carnaged

Disagree with this review with all you get from the package its at least 3 stars

Avatar image for tmthomsen
tmthomsen

2080

Forum Posts

66835

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 3

Edited By tmthomsen

What a shitty review. It was well-written and structured, but the reviewing part was bad.

It boils down to: Ryan didn't get scared and he liked the previous titles better. Therefore 2/5. How about reviewing what actually there instead of what isn't?

Avatar image for webonauta
webonauta

5

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 1

Edited By webonauta

Well, another unispired game that is just rushed out to the market. 
 
I kind of miss the days when games were more a work of art and devs loved their jobs.

Avatar image for little_socrates
Little_Socrates

5847

Forum Posts

1570

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 16

User Lists: 23

Edited By Little_Socrates

For some reason, this seems strangely dismissive and I have trouble believing it. I don't really know why, though; maybe it's because I never finished either of the previous games (though I WILL FINISH F.E.A.R. 2!)

Avatar image for stubee
Stubee

411

Forum Posts

102

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By Stubee

Holy crap man, 2/5 is fuckin harsh! I didnt like the first two FEAR games at all but the stuff in the quick look for 3 looked pretty awesome! Cant help but think what Vinny would of given it had he reviewed it. He seemed much more into it.

Avatar image for death_burnout
Death_Burnout

3847

Forum Posts

1617

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 5

User Lists: 6

Edited By Death_Burnout

Sums up how i felt after the QL. It's a damn shame 'Day 1' just didn't get what makes F.E.A.R great. I loved 2, it was one hell of an experience.

Avatar image for zameer
zameer

637

Forum Posts

11759

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 7

User Lists: 3

Edited By zameer

Very brutal review; was expecting a 3/5 from what I've played of it so far.

Avatar image for rvone
RVonE

5027

Forum Posts

8740

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 6

Edited By RVonE

@rolvtd said:

@oroboros said:
Not all official reviews are in, of course, but this review would be the lowest of all 15 critic scores thus far recorded. By far. In fact, given that 2 stars is effectively 40/100 (if zero stars is allowed), Ryan's score is currently 20 points below the worst review thus far in (60 from Gameractor Sweden, of all places) that I know of. I tend to believe score averages are generally more valid, which is why I seek out collective user/critic scores rather than singular critic reviewer scores. Case in point, this review, with a score so far out of the norm from either critic or user averages it seems highly suspect to me.

Personally, having seen how Ryan played this game in the QL, I'm thinking the problem might perhaps have less to do with the game and more to do with the player. I'm sure Ryan fan boys will jump to his rescue here, but seeing him play, reading his review, and seeing his score, I don't think the problem here is so much with the game itself. I'm not saying it's a great game, it definitely doesn't have the atmosphere the first two (and especially the first one) had, but it's not a 40/100 game either. Hate my comments all you want, but the current metacritic official average is 7.8, metacritic user average 8.4, gamespot pc user average 7.6, gamespot xbox user average 8.0, and gamespot ps3 user average 8.1. That's collectively quite a difference - around a 40/100 point difference - from Ryan's score! Not even remotely close to any average. Hell, even the GB user score (such as it is thus far) is 3.8/5, or 76/100, nearly twice his score. Obviously everyone is entitled to their opinion. And I'm entitled to mine. Which is that Ryan's professional score for this game is bullshit. Hate away, defend your gaming guru icon all you want, I won't respond.
This is a crappy, undeserved score.
So essentially what you are saying is: since everyone else gave it a higher score, so should he. Sorry, but I have more respect for the people saying they played the game and completely disagree with his score than: "This review sucks cause you didn't go with the crowd."

Well said.

Avatar image for deactivated-5a00c029ab7c1
deactivated-5a00c029ab7c1

1777

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 1

This series just gets worst and worst this is just another classic case of a series getting dumbed down  to appeal to the mainstream casuals out there.The series went downhill after WB became there publisher on FEAR 2.Everything great about  the first game is gone. FEAR 1 the PC version being 6 years old still looks better and plays better then fear 2 and 3 by a long shot.But not only have the graphics got worst the audio from the guns sounds weak and not even close to what it was in the first game.But more importantly the Ai has been dumbed down. It's just a damn shame this series had so much potential they took the low road hoping for bigger appeal but in the end they became  just another mediocre fps franchise. I hope this series dies if not they need to go back and look at fear 1 and see what made it so special compare to the shovel ware they created from 2 and 3 go back to the roots make it a PC lead build give it the bells and whistles and make it great again and smarter.

Avatar image for ildamos
Ildamos

5

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By Ildamos

I clocked in 7 hours when I finished the campaign.   More like 7.67 hrs, given that Steam’s clock displayed “8 hours played” after I fiddled with the Options menu for 15 minutes or so.

 I wrote a F.E.A.R. 3 review. It's a "first impressions" article meant to dispel some of the things I've read in different forums. (Here’s the link:

http://imbacore.blogspot.com/2011/06/fear-3-review-first-impressions.html

)

I've played the first game about four times, the second twice. I've also bought all the FEAR games.   Impressive series although the installments do have some glaring problems.
 
I agree with Ryan Davis about FEAR 3 not capitalizing on the franchise's heavy atmosphere. Solid shooter gameplay though. Still it's a bit of a letdown.