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 vexxan
Vexxan

4642

Forum Posts

943

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 3

Edited By Vexxan

Definitely staying away from this game.

Avatar image for thecheese33
TheCheese33

399

Forum Posts

1246

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 8

User Lists: 0

Edited By TheCheese33

@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 his review is bad because it's not a carbon copy of the rest of the reviewer's opinions? I'm sorry, but you're wrong, and you're ignorant.

Avatar image for killem_dafoe
KillEm_Dafoe

2739

Forum Posts

249

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 6

User Lists: 6

Edited By KillEm_Dafoe

While there are some good points made in this review, overall I do not at agree with this at all. FEAR 3 is still an incredibly fun good time, even in spite of it not really feeling like the other games in the series. It has some of the most solid shooting action I've played in any shooter. The campaign is still a blast, and the multiplayer is far, far better than Ryan gives it credit for. I don't really see how Fucking Run is only "better in theory" when it is exactly what it looks like. I find this review to be incredibly harsh considering how good the game actually is as just a fun-as-hell video game.

Avatar image for vhold
vhold

577

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 1

Edited By vhold

I'd give it a chance if it had a demo.

Avatar image for mnzy
mnzy

3047

Forum Posts

147

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By mnzy

More like F.2/5.A.R., am I right?
 
I'm here all week.

Avatar image for bybeach
bybeach

6754

Forum Posts

1

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 1

Edited By bybeach
@TheBlackPigeon said:
@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

I just went digging through my games, but I did read the article. I am suprised. I have both games(can't find disk 1 for Ext. point  ;() and the boxes. Extraction point was a add-on, needed Fear 1 for installation and was supposed to be the expansion favored by Monolith. Perus Mandate, which is a full stand alone, was done completely by someone else(though it does have monolith's stamp om the box), and as I understand at the time, outside of Monolith's hands. Now they are not favoring either...okay.  I gave some thought anyways over some of this and the confusing start of Fear 3 to even Fear One, and maybe Ryan is right for his numerical score. But I look to Monolith a the real cuprit here. There is a lack of honesty(referring to fucking comic books for cannon in a PC game, jeez). Things keep getting screwed up, then they blame other ppl. Truth is, Fear 2 was divisive for good reason, though I liked it.  Seems to me this franchise has been screwed over.
Avatar image for hef
Hef

1239

Forum Posts

486

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 7

Edited By Hef

@oroboros: They specifically chose a 5 star system for the exact reasons you just said. "Well on metacritic it has a 7.8 while in this aggregate it got blah blah blah." You never see any have stars right? This is because they don't want people looking at the stars for how good the game is, but what the review actually says. They obviously have to have some sort of rating system, so they chose the most basic one simply because they do not look to be part of the metacritic average. Jeff made a post a long time ago about how they're stars system works.

5 Stars = You should play this game

4 Stars = This game has some obvious faults, but you couldn't go wrong playing it.

3 Stars = A middle of the road game, fans of the genre/series will enjoy, has a lot of issues.

2 Stars = This game is playable, but only for fans or people willing to look past it's flaws.

1 Star = Don't play this game

I'm not saying they always get it right but you can't just look at 1 persons review. There is ALWAYS going to be someone with the lowest score on metacritic. Ryan just thought this game had more faults than other people. Do you like every game I do? Probably not. I bet there are games we have large differences in opinions on. So stop being a baby and go read someone else's review if this one upset's you so damn much. That is if you even read the review in the first place.

Oh an user reviews are bullshit when a game first comes out, because most of the people rating it are people who already know they are going to buy it. So it's going to be higher until people who look at the game objectively come along.

Avatar image for jeanluc
jeanluc

4062

Forum Posts

7939

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 11

User Lists: 13

Edited By jeanluc  Staff

I'll probably still play it just because I'm invested in the series, but as a huge fan of the first 2 games I find this very disappointing.

Avatar image for maginnovision
maginnovision

819

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By maginnovision

It's unfortunate that Ryan thinks this game is no better than duke nukem forever. I played through the game in about 2 days. Played it 3 hours when I got it, and played it 5 more hours and finished it the next time. The game was structured differently from the other games in that scares were not the main focus. It played well, and for me it didn't seem long enough to get totally monotonous. Once you did something for so long they would change it up on you. The shooting was satisfying and the difficulty kept me from just blowing through it. Also, I NEVER beat the par times, and I don't care. Sometimes reviewers seem to get a first impressions about a game and then try to blow through it just to finish the review. Overall... It's not FEAR 1/2 but it's still a pretty decent game. Just a quick note, I played the PC version.

Avatar image for deactivated-6620058d9fa01
deactivated-6620058d9fa01

484

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 4

@oroboros said:
I won't respond
You won't respond because you're wrong.
Avatar image for maginnovision
maginnovision

819

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By maginnovision

@Death_Burnout said:

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.

I just want to say, that quickook was a terrible representation of this game. Also, the first two levels, or intervals, kind of set up the rest of the game and are the most lackluster parts of the entire game.

Avatar image for brendan
Brendan

9414

Forum Posts

533

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 7

Edited By Brendan

@Maginnovision said:

It's unfortunate that Ryan thinks this game is no better than duke nukem forever.

That's not how the stars work. Two stars does not necessarily mean numerical equality between games, it only means that "The good qualities are outweighed by the bad."

Avatar image for dbz1995
dbz1995

4962

Forum Posts

3989

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 2

Edited By dbz1995

'A horror game that is afraid of its own shadow' is all you needed to put

Avatar image for kowalskimandown
KowalskiManDown

4170

Forum Posts

3525

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 19

Edited By KowalskiManDown

@JEC03 said:

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 at 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 bell and whistles and make it great again and smarter.

I thought F.E.A.R. 2 was a huge improvement over the original game. It was paced better, the "scares" worked better, the gunfights were actually fun, there was more variety in scenery (rather than the boring and bland hallways crawls of the first game), the shooting felt better, the weapons were more fun to use, the graphics were not a huge improvement but I do feel like the game looks slightly better than it's predecessor. The only part of F.E.A.R. 2 that I thought was slightly lacking was the story. I can't speak for the multiplayer as I never played it in either, but overall I really do believe that Monolith did a better job with the sequel.

I went back and played the original about a month ago, and the entire thing just felt like a chore.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not gonna sit here and defend F.E.A.R. 3, but I don't understand the flack that you're giving the second game (and probably never will).

Avatar image for maginnovision
maginnovision

819

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By maginnovision

@Brendan: Then yes that is how it works. the bad to good ratio is the same in both games. If looking at the good and bad things don't measure a games quality then I don't know what does. They're also saying if they had to play one, it'd be a complete toss up for which they had to play. Which is fine, it's just a review. But looking at what he WROTE, i'd assume he wanted to give it 1/5. Not one positive thing said in the review.

Avatar image for sheira
sheira

148

Forum Posts

7

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 5

Edited By sheira

Finally someone gave this game a rating that it deserved. Great review GB!

Avatar image for mrhammeh
MrHammeh

210

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By MrHammeh

F.E.3.R. without the fear is not the fear for me. Good review, thanks Ryan.

Avatar image for csl316
csl316

17004

Forum Posts

765

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 10

Edited By csl316

@mnzy said:

More like F.2/5.A.R., am I right? I'm here all week.

This is the worst thing I've ever read.

Avatar image for nocturnusfatalis
NocturnusFatalis

77

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By NocturnusFatalis

Two out of five? Really, Ryan? 
 
I don't know. It feels like FEAR to me. It has the creepy moments with Alma, and intense firefights with AI (at least indoors). If I hump cover, a grenade is tossed at me. If I move too far forward, some guys stay back, and a couple guys try to move up and get around me so that I'm either shot from the side, or from the front if I try to stand up. Guys with shotguns try to move in range, guys with SMGs stay back and peck. If I approach with a shotgun, everyone backpedals and peppers me. What exactly are you looking for? What difficulty are you playing on?  
 
FEAR has always been about two things, creepy moments and engagements with tough AI, and this has both. Also, FEAR 2 did nothing to expand on that formula, this, for better or worse, attempts to with the whole co-op thing, which is admittedly pretty fun.
 
Also in the quick look, you're wondering where the hell you are locale-wise in the story, but the guy talking to you right at the beginning clearly says "You can't help her. We're 1000 miles away." (in reference to Jin on the radio), so I don't really get how the game is unclear unless you're not paying attention (which is possible if you're talking). Also, psychic links WERE explained in my new game.
Avatar image for claude
Claude

16672

Forum Posts

1047

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 18

Edited By Claude

Pew, pew out of pew, pew, pew, pew, pew.

Avatar image for b_heart
B_Heart

178

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By B_Heart

I disagree with the review, but after seeing the quick look it has made me want to buy this game. So Win-Win !! YEA!

Avatar image for tmthomsen
tmthomsen

2080

Forum Posts

66835

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 3

Edited By tmthomsen

@NocturnusFatalis said:

Two out of five? Really, Ryan? I don't know. It feels like FEAR to me. It has the creepy moments with Alma, and intense firefights with AI (at least indoors). If I hump cover, a grenade is tossed at me. If I move too far forward, some guys stay back, and a couple guys try to move up and get around me so that I'm either shot from the side, or from the front if I try to stand up. Guys with shotguns try to move in range, guys with SMGs stay back and peck. If I approach with a shotgun, everyone backpedals and peppers me. What exactly are you looking for? What difficulty are you playing on? FEAR has always been about two things, creepy moments and engagements with tough AI, and this has both. Also, FEAR 2 did nothing to expand on that formula, this, for better or worse, attempts to with the whole co-op thing, which is admittedly pretty fun. Also in the quick look, you're wondering where the hell you are locale-wise in the story, but the guy talking to you right at the beginning clearly says "You can't help her. We're 1000 miles away." (in reference to Jin on the radio), so I don't really get how the game is unclear unless you're not paying attention (which is possible if you're talking). Also, psychic links WERE explained in my new game.

I guess Ryan just wanted to get the review done and just blasted through on easy without paying much attention.

Avatar image for jakonovski
jakonovski

328

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 1

Edited By jakonovski

This is a perfect opportunity for a new feature: second opinion. Have Vinny or whoever play the game and do a small writeup. Would give us some needed perspective, because right now many of us are a bit taken back by Ryan's vehemence in the review.

Avatar image for deactivated-5b531a34b946c
deactivated-5b531a34b946c

1251

Forum Posts

7

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 1

Get over it.

The point of a review is to inform people before making a purchase. If you've already bought the damn game, then why do you care what any review says? If you disagree with the review and buy the game anyway, bravo, you're a human being who can make their own informed decisions.

If you're seriously so hung up that someone doesn't like a game that you like and you feel the need to justify your purchase by calling foul in the comments section of a review, then you need to take a step back and reevaluate just what you're doing with your life. Finally, if you're crazy enough to think someone's professional opinion is jeopardized because they don't like a game you like, then please by all means stop giving them traffic and money, and leave.

Avatar image for jakonovski
jakonovski

328

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 1

Edited By jakonovski

@animathias: If that was targeted at me, you need to chill. I'm just participating in the Giant Bomb community by making what I think is constructive criticism.

Avatar image for sooty
Sooty

8193

Forum Posts

306

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 3

Edited By Sooty
@emem said:

@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.

It's only worth reviewing a game on multiple platforms if the game is substantially different, like Dragon Age: Origins, PC and console are completely different. The console versions are really poor in comparison.
Avatar image for maginnovision
maginnovision

819

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By maginnovision

@animathias said:

Get over it.

The point of a review is to inform people before making a purchase. If you've already bought the damn game, then why do you care what any review says? If you disagree with the review and buy the game anyway, bravo, you're a human being who can make their own informed decisions.

If you're seriously so hung up that someone doesn't like a game that you like and you feel the need to justify your purchase by calling foul in the comments section of a review, then you need to take a step back and reevaluate just what you're doing with your life. Finally, if you're crazy enough to think someone's professional opinion is jeopardized because they don't like a game you like, then please by all means stop giving them traffic and money, and leave.

I think it has less to do with him not liking it and more with him only saying it was pretty much all bad. If he really felt that way he should have given it 1/5 stars. I think you're reading more into our comments than you should be. Most of us who have played the game disagree with him and we'll say as much. By having a comments section they pretty much give us that right. Maybe you just need to calm down some.

Avatar image for fuzzylemon
FuzzYLemoN

1609

Forum Posts

2558

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 1

Edited By FuzzYLemoN

Welp, that's a shame.

Avatar image for megacrain36
Megacrain36

15

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By Megacrain36

This quite unfortunate to hear. I thouroughly enjoyed the first two.
Avatar image for spartyon
SpartyOn

529

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 1

Edited By SpartyOn

This game seriously got the same score as Duke Nukem Forever?  ....Having played both I strongly disagree, just sayin'

Avatar image for spazmaster666
spazmaster666

2114

Forum Posts

42

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 9

User Lists: 16

Edited By spazmaster666

I played about an hour of the game and I pretty agree with Ryan's sentiments. There's really nothing about the game that makes me want to continue playing it. I mean the shooting is fine enough the graphics are decent (I'm playing on the PC right now on with max settings) but there's nothing unique about the game to differentiate it from other FPSs out there.

Avatar image for notgerry
NotGerry

12

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By NotGerry

Too bad.  Was looking forward to this

Avatar image for bybeach
bybeach

6754

Forum Posts

1

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 1

Edited By bybeach
@Maginnovision said:

@animathias said:

Get over it.

The point of a review is to inform people before making a purchase. If you've already bought the damn game, then why do you care what any review says? If you disagree with the review and buy the game anyway, bravo, you're a human being who can make their own informed decisions.

If you're seriously so hung up that someone doesn't like a game that you like and you feel the need to justify your purchase by calling foul in the comments section of a review, then you need to take a step back and reevaluate just what you're doing with your life. Finally, if you're crazy enough to think someone's professional opinion is jeopardized because they don't like a game you like, then please by all means stop giving them traffic and money, and leave.

I think it has less to do with him not liking it and more with him only saying it was pretty much all bad. If he really felt that way he should have given it 1/5 stars. I think you're reading more into our comments than you should be. Most of us who have played the game disagree with him and we'll say as much. By having a comments section they pretty much give us that right. Maybe you just need to calm down some.


The comments are here for our use, pretty much for agree or disagree. 'Get over it ' is starting to end up in the same shit-pile as 'opinion'. Both were at least decent internet responses at first, but they have become rather thin. If I say were trolling, abusing the reviewer or just blindly throwing out what I think, thats one thing.  Something constructive is another. I still think his numerical score is wrong, I've already said why. But in going over the comments and thinking about it, I kinda see why it happened.
Avatar image for nightfang
Nightfang

409

Forum Posts

4819

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 3

Edited By Nightfang
@Rufi91 said:

Never been a fan unfortunately.

Avatar image for emem
emem

2063

Forum Posts

13

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 6

Edited By emem

@Ygg: Hmm I sort of agree and disagree at the same time. Anyway, it's the way it is and there's no need to argue about it. :)

Avatar image for deactivated-5e49e9175da37
deactivated-5e49e9175da37

10812

Forum Posts

782

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 14

What I get from this review is not that Fear 3 is a bad game, but that Ryan has some rose colored glasses in regards to Fear 2. I'm playing through Fear 2 at this moment, and it looks and plays almost identical to the QL and all media I've seen for Fear 3. Expectations and perhaps nostalgia have more to do with this review. I expect a 2 star rating to mean the game is bad and should not be played. But the tenor of Ryan's review speaks more than it doesn't live up to what he believes a Fear game should be, not that it's actually a miserable experience. I can agree that the 'gamification' of Fear 3 probably detracts from its impact as a purely cinematic vessel, but he gives no regard to whether or not the game elements are good, just that they are there. It seems like the score is based on the quality of the 'Fear experience' and not on the quality of the game as a whole.

If I were to name each GB editors faults or blind spots when it comes to reviews, it would be that Jeff has powerful biases that can render him completely subjective, Brad can be suckered in by 'artistic' sensibilities more than actual gameplay, and Ryan has a low attention for details that affects his experience and expectations.

Avatar image for emmzyne
Emmzyne

23

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By Emmzyne

Nicely written review Ryan! 
F.E.A.R has always been in the 'want to play but never got round to it' pile, this review makes me want to take it out of the pile and forget it altogether.   
 
It does sound like Day 1 have been left in the shadow of what Monolith seemed to have achieved with the series.  Seems a crying shame of sorts.

Avatar image for supercubedude
supercubedude

573

Forum Posts

226

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 5

Edited By supercubedude

@jakonovski said:

This is a perfect opportunity for a new feature: second opinion. Have Vinny or whoever play the game and do a small writeup. Would give us some needed perspective, because right now many of us are a bit taken back by Ryan's vehemence in the review.

I think they've said before that that's what the podcast is for. If someone else plays it and disagrees, it'll be addressed there.

Avatar image for loopy_101
loopy_101

366

Forum Posts

6093

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 76

User Lists: 4

Edited By loopy_101

Haters gonna hate but the quick look video said it all. F.E.A.R 3 is nothing special. Hell, I came out of F.E.A.R 2 being disappointed so it really doesn't come of a surprise that F.E.A.R 3 isn't as good as the original. The game looks generic, bland and almost completely uninspired. It is a polished shooter, I'll give it that, but there is no need to rush to it's defense despite the legacy Monolith's series might have.

Avatar image for joey_ravn
JoeyRavn

5290

Forum Posts

792

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 3

Edited By JoeyRavn

This topic is hilarious. I think the "fucking comic books are canon for a video game, geez" comment takes the cake. Keep it classy.

Avatar image for dastly75
dastly75

119

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By dastly75
@Brodehouse said:

If I were to name each GB editors faults or blind spots when it comes to reviews, it would be that Jeff has powerful biases that can render him completely subjective, Brad can be suckered in by 'artistic' sensibilities more than actual gameplay, and Ryan has a low attention for details that affects his experience and expectations.

and Vinny, Drew, and Dave are just awesome :)
Avatar image for nocturnusfatalis
NocturnusFatalis

77

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By NocturnusFatalis
@Megacrain36: 

Then you'll like this one
Avatar image for maginnovision
maginnovision

819

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By maginnovision

@loopy_101 said:

Haters gonna hate but the quick look video said it all. F.E.A.R 3 is nothing special. Hell, I came out of F.E.A.R 2 being disappointed so it really doesn't come of a surprise that F.E.A.R 3 isn't as good as the original. The game looks generic, bland and almost completely uninspired. It is a polished shooter, I'll give it that, but there is no need to rush to it's defense despite the legacy Monolith's series might have.

I'd rather have a Blood 3 that was more like the original Blood than Blood 2. Blood was my favorite game of its time. That's one I'd defend if it were made, good, and bashed. Fear I've always liked, but I've never been a super fan. I didn't even finish the second one. I finished this one though and would think it deserves a better review than,"it's not fear or fear 2, it has these gameplay elements and whatever. You probably shouldn't play it." Although in the end, I don't care, because I bought, played, and enjoyed it. I could've spent my 50 bucks in much worse ways.

Avatar image for spookie
Spookie

53

Forum Posts

257

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By Spookie

@davissc9 said:

This game seriously got the same score as Duke Nukem Forever? ....Having played both I strongly disagree, just sayin'

Same. Duke Nukem is a superior game.

Avatar image for jakonovski
jakonovski

328

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 1

Edited By jakonovski

@supercubedude said:

@jakonovski said:

This is a perfect opportunity for a new feature: second opinion. Have Vinny or whoever play the game and do a small writeup. Would give us some needed perspective, because right now many of us are a bit taken back by Ryan's vehemence in the review.

I think they've said before that that's what the podcast is for. If someone else plays it and disagrees, it'll be addressed there.

True that, and I do like it. But it's "only" a part of the podcast, I'd really like it to exist as part of their written output. Would reflect really well on the site too, more quality games journalism!

Avatar image for wafflez
wafflez

583

Forum Posts

2441

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 3

Edited By wafflez

thats too bad, I had hopes for this game. But after watching the quicklook and seeing that a ghost can be killed with bullets, I lost most of my faith in it. Oh well

Avatar image for foolishchaos
FoolishChaos

515

Forum Posts

2

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 1

Edited By FoolishChaos

I pretty much gave up hope with giantbomb liking the fear series when jeff said "I'm sure the shooting was okay" when speaking on FEAR

The first game pretty much gave us video games best shotgun (and the spike launcher isn't bad either)

Avatar image for moonling
Moonling

64

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By Moonling

I playing through this now and really enjoying it. This is A LOT better than FEAR 2 in terms of sheer in enjoyment in the gameplay mechanics, I feel. I dunno about some people, but for me, FEAR games are about challenging and satisfying combat, and I feel FEAR 3 really delivers on that front.

The atmosphere and 'scariness' was always secondary to the combat for me, I don't know why some people get so hung up on that. This is a fine, fine FPS, and certainly a GREAT deal better than the frankly awful Duke Nukem Forever-- just in terms of the robustness of the combat mechanics, unique multiplayer modes and progression system.

Avatar image for danw547
DANW547

58

Forum Posts

8

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

Edited By DANW547

I can't say as I agree with this review. This seemed like a decent addition to the FEAR franchise to me rather than a Black Sheep.

Avatar image for iamjohn
iamjohn

6297

Forum Posts

13905

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 5

Edited By iamjohn

ANOTHER FUNNY THING SOME OF YOU MIGHT NOT BE AWARE OF:

F.E.A.R. 3 and Duke Nukem Forever having the same score does not mean they think F.E.A.R. 3 is qualitatively the same as Duke Nukem Forever. In fact, that's a patently retarded thing to say considering Ryan hasn't played DNF and Jeff hasn't played F.E.A.R. 3.