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 sizu
sizu

443

Forum Posts

487

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 1

Edited By sizu

Another recent review from Ryan which seems out of touch with general opinion.   First Eden, and now this
 
This game has faults, and as a fan of the Fear franchise it is weak in areas.  But 2 stars or 40% as Metacritic likes to call it is completely inaccurate.  
 
I think this quote from Edge's review summary covers it best
 

"Much in FEAR 3 is better in concept than execution, and that, sadly, won’t save it from the preowned shelves or stop its servers becoming graveyards. You have to cheer the almost ubiquitous splitscreen and bot support, then, which keeps the game’s fate in the hands of the individual. Whether that person kicks the bucket upon realising what Day 1’s done to the series is another matter. We absolutely applaud and appreciate FEAR 3, and it deserves whatever fans it gets. It’s a broad package with a progressive approach to online/offline play, and a brave one for being in the wrong place at the wrong time genre-wise.

But we also hate FEAR 3. We hate that a series Monolith should have finished has instead developed this strange and often COD-shaped growth, with its constant swapping of guns into your dual weapon slots, recharging health that saps challenge, and melee-rich combat. We hate its impotence, its utter lack of a scare beyond an aversion to getting shot. And with its market-led features and Skinner-box mechanics, we hate that a series that began as a lesson in horror – of the B-movie kind, admittedly – now feels so afraid of the competition. [7]"

Avatar image for vlad_tiberius
Vlad_Tiberius

205

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By Vlad_Tiberius
@PandaBear: I was saying that Jeff usually reviews FPS games, while Ryan is a 3rd person action/adventure/shooter/sandbox reviewer. What's more absurd is this: how can you rate Homefront higher than this? Are they mad?!
Also, whether you like it or not, the name of the publisher matters very much in this industry. Start yourself a gaming website and see if some EA/Activision or big time developers are willing to tell you anything if you invite them.  There are untold affinities, old and established business relations, exclusivity deals and such. And reviews are also part of these relations.
I'm not saying that FEAR 3 is a great game, but I feel it was judged harshly because of the previous games in the franchise or the big expectations regarding how this game should have been, instead to be judged as a standalone game, because for many people, this IS the first game in the series that they played.
Games like Homefront, on the other hand, are judged more lightly because they're supposed to be new IP, even though itching the xenophobic nerve with the obsession of the US invasion and the US patriotism/nationalism crap is already old and stupid.
Also, I wouldn't be hanging around this website if I didn't share opinions or like the content these guys offer. 
They make good reviews, but there are a few which are bad, like this one, in my opinion: if you compare this title with the other ones in the series, then why don't you also compare it to other games in the genre. Again, Homefront is better than this?! Or Medal of Honor?!  Really?!
Avatar image for hourai
Hourai

2738

Forum Posts

925

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 2

Edited By Hourai

Two stars? Really? This is better than a 4/10. 

Avatar image for chilipeppersman
chilipeppersman

1319

Forum Posts

4

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 26

User Lists: 4

@rafamolina3: unfortunately, its hard to do that when the only demo is on pc. And even then it was pretty linear. an overall dissapointment, and I was thinking about picking it up too. If the multiplayer is the draw on a niche game like this, I cant imagine many(or any) people are going to be playing. I certainly will not. Good review Ryan!

Avatar image for theht
TheHT

15998

Forum Posts

1562

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 9

I just finished chapter 3, or "interval 3" and don't want to go on. I figured it was only $2.50, so I'd play it and get some Steam cheevos, but fighting bullet sponge zambies that sometimes blow up and sometimes throw shit at me isn't fun, certainly not by F.E.A.R. standards.

I was saving F.E.A.R. 2 to play after this, since it's the actual developer what made the first game that did that and I heartell it's the better sequel, but maybe I'll jump into that sooner rather than later. Granted, soldiering on may make the jump back all the more refreshing, and I'll feel better about buying the damn thing.

Avatar image for zlimness
Zlimness

649

Forum Posts

25

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 4

Playing this right now and it's forgettable, average, dull, soulless and mediocre. I'll probably finish it, just so I can say I've played a bad game.