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 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.

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 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 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 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 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 pandabear
PandaBear

1484

Forum Posts

238

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 5

User Lists: 0

Edited By PandaBear
@Vlad_Tiberius said:
Just imagine the tone of the review and how many stars this game would've received if it was published by Activision or EA...and if Jeff reviewed it!
Duh yeah! Jeff wears an EA/Activision money hat to work!!!!! EVERYDAY!!!!!  LULZZZZ ... sigh .... you really think they give a shit about the publisher? And Ryan doesn't like it, Jeff might .... so? Different opinions, hence the reviewers name at the top. If you want some faceless authoritative shit go read Edge. 
Avatar image for pandabear
PandaBear

1484

Forum Posts

238

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 5

User Lists: 0

Edited By PandaBear

Ryan, as always, shows his excellent writing skills. I don't even know if I agree with him fully (playing through F3AR now), but his point is valid and well explained. Thanks!

Avatar image for vlad_tiberius
Vlad_Tiberius

205

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By Vlad_Tiberius

Just imagine the tone of the review and how many stars this game would've received if it was published by Activision or EA...and if Jeff reviewed it!

Avatar image for blacklab
blacklab

2025

Forum Posts

22

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 1

Edited By blacklab

I really feel like this deserved thr3e stars.

Avatar image for chris_ihao
Chris_Ihao

103

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 2

Edited By Chris_Ihao

Don't F.3.A.R the reaper!

Just bought the two first F.E.A.R's (c) as I only played halfway through the first years ago. Will probably get this one when its about 10 euro or less.

Avatar image for arx724
arx724

259

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By arx724

Everyone who bitches about the score is completely missing the point of this site compared to others.

Good review, makes it clear how it differentiates from the first games. Considering my love for those (well, the first in particular), I won't be picking this up.

Avatar image for dropabombonit
dropabombonit

1543

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By dropabombonit

I think I called it when I read the first preview of this game and was like co-op isn't scary

Avatar image for rafamolina3
rafamolina3

5

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

Edited By rafamolina3

ive noticed allot of people here are sheep, they see a bad review and they prance towards it. at least play the game before you criticized it.

Avatar image for cousinike
cousinike

10

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By cousinike

You know i found the game to be WAY more involving then the others! Yeah it was short, and the Fettal part was not at all story involved. It's still an amazing FPS whit alot to offer even if no one is online to play with you... My buddy loved the CO-OP and he's a COD only player... so it was nice to get him to be down with something other then ZOMBIES!

Avatar image for kintaro
Kintaro

129

Forum Posts

45

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 0

Edited By Kintaro

FthreeARview!

Avatar image for rafamolina3
rafamolina3

5

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

Edited By rafamolina3

i liked the game, entertaining, harsh review don't get it there's more shit games out there , and the fact that it dint scare you is probably cause your not a little girl anymore

Avatar image for shady
Shady

511

Forum Posts

255

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 6

Edited By Shady
@Lind_L_Taylor said:
Jeebus!  What a shit game.  Glad I never played the other two to be setup for a major disappointment in the end.  A teenage ghost getting pregnant??  God that's stupid!!
Did you actually play the game, or are you just making that assumption based on the review? By the way, the whole pregnant ghost thing was Monolith's fuck up from the end of F.E.A.R. 2. I'd tell you more, but that whole thing is not only incredibly stupid but also disturbing. The weird thing is Ryan really liked that game.
Avatar image for lind_l_taylor
Lind_L_Taylor

4125

Forum Posts

6

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 5

Edited By Lind_L_Taylor

Jeebus!  What a shit game.  Glad I never played the other two to
be setup for a major disappointment in the end.  A teenage ghost
getting pregnant??  God that's stupid!!
 
You mentioning "End of Days" reminded me of that goddamn shitty
Schwarzeneggar movie where Satan kills his buddy then fucks the
wife & daughter at the same time while at the same time genetically
splicing them into one person.  It made little sense & is still one of
the most disgusting things I've seen in a what you would call a 
Hollywood blockbuster.  Thanks for reminding me!
 
It's not a tumah!

Avatar image for shady
Shady

511

Forum Posts

255

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 6

Edited By Shady

I thought the atmosphere in F.E.A.R. 2 was pretty weak compared to the first. The scares definitely felt lame and generic. The story is probably even dumber than the two expansions Monolith wanted us to ignore. Above all else, it was a really boring FPS. Even the mech sections felt bland and uninspired. Still, I can see how someone might enjoy it.

Avatar image for thevampireboy
TheVampireBoy

89

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

Edited By TheVampireBoy
No Caption Provided
Avatar image for karl_boss
Karl_Boss

8020

Forum Posts

132084

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 2

Edited By Karl_Boss

This is currently the lowest rated review on metacritic....think that is a first for Giantbomb.

Avatar image for sins_of_mosin
sins_of_mosin

1713

Forum Posts

291

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 27

User Lists: 7

Edited By sins_of_mosin

So if you enjoy a good FPS with a basic story and not many frights, then you'll love this game?  Sign me up.

Avatar image for finch
Finch

113

Forum Posts

161

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 1

Edited By Finch

An eloquent review. 
 
I was sad to see the tactical elements of the first game watered down in the second and it seems further disappointment awaits if I am to play this game. So I won't.

Avatar image for caligan
Caligan

17

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By Caligan

Have to agree with this review.

Avatar image for chilibean_3
chilibean_3

2406

Forum Posts

324

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 5

Edited By chilibean_3

A lot of people seem to not understand how the stars work.

Avatar image for ryno9881
ryno9881

652

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 4

Edited By ryno9881

@Maginnovision said:

@RYNO9881 said:

Every review now gets this much backlash now...Jeez

Well at least this means GiantBomb is growing. Whether the "growing" part of GB means 12 year old kids who can't take a bad review score is good or not, is another question.

You're so wise and mature. Fascinating.

Thanks man! And so are you!

Avatar image for wiltron
wiltron

5

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By wiltron

This game is far better than this review gives it credit for. Maybe it would have gotten a fair shake if  "FEAR" was removed from the title? The gunplay is solid and the co-op / multi-player modes are a ton of fun with friends. FEAR 3 plays better than FEAR 1 and has more inventive multi-player modes than FEAR 2 that fit the strengths of the series. I'm not saying it should be a 5 star review. The voice acting is overdone, the story is convoluted, and the atmosphere is not as creepy as FEAR 1, but when you pit it's strengths vs. it's weaknesses, it's still a solid package overall. 

Avatar image for thornie_delete
thornie_delete

441

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By thornie_delete

I seriously think it's the time the guys start outsourcing some these reviews for lower tiered games to freelance writers. They should stick to reviewing the blockbuster AAA titles and stay away from games like these. Two stars? Really? So this game is as bad as DNF? Both Ryan and Jeff have become way too jaded. FEAR3 is a mediocre 3 star at the least corridor shooter that does everything it sets out to do extremely well. I can understand being bored with these kind of games, but that should not color you opinion of the game so much that you fail to see the things it does well.

Thank goodness Alex is still reviewing games or else I would have never discovered Shadows of the Damned after reading his fantastic review of the game. SoD is exactly the kind of game that would never get reviewed on this site if not for some of GBs other contributors stepping up. I would love to start seeing some new blood on the site. Just my .02.

Avatar image for thedudeofgaming
TheDudeOfGaming

6115

Forum Posts

47173

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 6

User Lists: 1

Edited By TheDudeOfGaming

Damn...its as bad as Duke Nukem Forever. Didn't see that one coming.

Avatar image for csl316
csl316

17004

Forum Posts

765

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 10

Edited By csl316

@Moonling said:

@lordofultima said:

F.E.A.R. 2 was a big setback compared to F.E.A.R. 1 in my opinion...so the further the third installment is from the second, the better. I haven't played it so I can't say one way or the other, but the defining aspect of F.E.A.R. to me is the incredible A.I. and close-quarters combat, with some scary sprinkled in once in a while. This is something that was in abundance in the first game, but severely lacking in the second.

agree 100%. Funny that people say they COD-ified FEAR 3 when in fact the gameplay in FEAR 3 is closer to the original FEAR than FEAR 2 ever was. FEAR 2 was the bland FPS that played like COD to me, not FEAR 3.

and you'll be glad to know the A.I. in FEAR 3 makes for challenging and fun firefights. They're aggressive; they know when to flank, and know when to stay in cover. The weapons handle great.

I think if they brought out a demo of this, it could convince a lot of people in terms of its gunplay.

Absolutely agree. Part 2 was crazier than the first, but I thought the gameplay suffered a great deal on a basic mechanical level. I don't know why, but maybe it's because the first was so well-tuned (with much more powerful-feeling guns). Gotta say I was pleasantly surprised with how will 3 plays, and you're right about it being way closer to the original.

Avatar image for priorityseven
priorityseven

352

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 1

Edited By priorityseven

@buzz_clik said:

Jeff said recently (I can't remember which podcast) that if you find you always disagree with his opinion, and that disparity helps inform your purchasing decisions, then his review has been just as worthwhile as one that another person agrees with. Just chucking that out there as food for thought.

Sound reasoning.

Avatar image for maginnovision
maginnovision

819

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By maginnovision

@RYNO9881 said:

Every review now gets this much backlash now...Jeez

Well at least this means GiantBomb is growing. Whether the "growing" part of GB means 12 year old kids who can't take a bad review score is good or not, is another question.

You're so wise and mature. Fascinating.

Avatar image for necroyeti
necroyeti

9

Forum Posts

2

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By necroyeti

Good review, but bummed it doesn't look so great.

Avatar image for ryno9881
ryno9881

652

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 4

Edited By ryno9881

Every review now gets this much backlash now...Jeez

Well at least this means GiantBomb is growing. Whether the "growing" part of GB means 12 year old kids who can't take a bad review score is good or not, is another question.

Avatar image for buzz_clik
buzz_clik

7590

Forum Posts

4259

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 9

Edited By buzz_clik

Jeff said recently (I can't remember which podcast) that if you find you always disagree with his opinion, and that disparity helps inform your purchasing decisions, then his review has been just as worthwhile as one that another person agrees with. Just chucking that out there as food for thought.

Avatar image for buzz_clik
buzz_clik

7590

Forum Posts

4259

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 9

Edited By buzz_clik

@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.

Ahem. Yep, jaded as hell. Those men both have tiny hearts of frozen coal.

Avatar image for bybeach
bybeach

6754

Forum Posts

1

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 1

Edited By bybeach
@NumbThumb said:
@Bumbuliuz said:

@iAmJohn said:

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.

This is the issue with the 5 star rating and not even using the half stars also. I wish more sites would use the 10 point scale. It's too easy to use and hide a bit behind the 5 point scale.

Yup, This is why I've never liked a true 5 star system - but it's their site. And the previous post is right - it isn't right to compare DNF and FEAR 3 because it IS different reviewers - but then again, you're reviewing for an audience that uses the same standard - so no matter who the reviewer is ...they abide by those 5 stars...when they see DNF get 2 and FEAR 3 get 2...it's going to mean the same to THEM, even if it doesn't to the reviewers for each individual game.  That's a problem. Even if it's only in perception.

I don't like it either. I feel it has a almost artificial effect on metacritic that I would not by surprised was resented, and it leads to false quick impressions because of it's lack of nuance..though reading the written review is in theory (at least) the antidote to that. However when I finally read in some statement by Jeff and or staff why they have the simple 5  full star, I realized they felt pretty adamant about it. I think half stars may help that, but as far as the staff at GB seem to think, that is a slippery slope. And perhaps so. Depends on maintaining what they seem so rigid about now, holding an established line.
Avatar image for kerse
kerse

2496

Forum Posts

42

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 8

Edited By kerse

@Moonling said:

@lordofultima said:

F.E.A.R. 2 was a big setback compared to F.E.A.R. 1 in my opinion...so the further the third installment is from the second, the better. I haven't played it so I can't say one way or the other, but the defining aspect of F.E.A.R. to me is the incredible A.I. and close-quarters combat, with some scary sprinkled in once in a while. This is something that was in abundance in the first game, but severely lacking in the second.

agree 100%. Funny that people say they COD-ified FEAR 3 when in fact the gameplay in FEAR 3 is closer to the original FEAR than FEAR 2 ever was. FEAR 2 was the bland FPS that played like COD to me, not FEAR 3.

and you'll be glad to know the A.I. in FEAR 3 makes for challenging and fun firefights. They're aggressive; they know when to flank, and know when to stay in cover. The weapons handle great.

I think if they brought out a demo of this, it could convince a lot of people in terms of its gunplay.

Yeah the ai is pretty awesome in 3, thats the only thing keeping it fun for me. But I still can't help feeling disappointed at everything else that I loved about fear and fear 2.

Avatar image for moonling
Moonling

64

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By Moonling

@lordofultima said:

F.E.A.R. 2 was a big setback compared to F.E.A.R. 1 in my opinion...so the further the third installment is from the second, the better. I haven't played it so I can't say one way or the other, but the defining aspect of F.E.A.R. to me is the incredible A.I. and close-quarters combat, with some scary sprinkled in once in a while. This is something that was in abundance in the first game, but severely lacking in the second.

agree 100%. Funny that people say they COD-ified FEAR 3 when in fact the gameplay in FEAR 3 is closer to the original FEAR than FEAR 2 ever was. FEAR 2 was the bland FPS that played like COD to me, not FEAR 3.

and you'll be glad to know the A.I. in FEAR 3 makes for challenging and fun firefights. They're aggressive; they know when to flank, and know when to stay in cover. The weapons handle great.

I think if they brought out a demo of this, it could convince a lot of people in terms of its gunplay.

Avatar image for numbthumb
NumbThumb

87

Forum Posts

458

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 25

User Lists: 2

Edited By NumbThumb
@iAmJohn: I'm in agreement with you, mostly. I actually like larger scale systems if they're well established and explained - I don't think Giant Bomb has done a good enough job of that, compared to say the 5 star system of Joystiq, That site goes out of its way to tell people what those ratings mean. Yon know a 2 star is an "only if you're a fan" and a 5 star is "anyone should play this". Those definitions are left vague here. If that's on purpose...then cool.
 
But I don't hold it against readers for not  reading reviews. It's nothing to me if they only have time or patience to look at scores. But knowing that (and whiskey media does), the health of the games and the sites reviewing them depends on those impatient readers having something they can count on and trust, even if they are just a bunch of 'idiots'. Those people are still traffic, traffic needed for a site like this to survive and grow. So, while your point of Ryan and Jeff just not liking these games is salient - I think clarity is what's missing. In a case like DNF and FEAR 3, where people see games that are obviously not on equal footing, its understandable that people are off put by them both having the same score  (though, personal insults to the staff are unnecessary and pathetic). Ultimately, it doesn't matter. The scores the score and people are free to like whatever the Hell they want. But these debates are good to have, because it's feedback that can help everyone in the future.
Avatar image for iamjohn
iamjohn

6297

Forum Posts

13905

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 5

Edited By iamjohn

@NumbThumb said:

@Bumbuliuz said:

@iAmJohn said:

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.

This is the issue with the 5 star rating and not even using the half stars also. I wish more sites would use the 10 point scale. It's too easy to use and hide a bit behind the 5 point scale.

Yup, This is why I've never liked a true 5 star system - but it's their site. And the previous post is right - it isn't right to compare DNF and FEAR 3 because it IS different reviewers - but then again, you're reviewing for an audience that uses the same standard - so no matter who the reviewer is ...they abide by those 5 stars...when they see DNF get 2 and FEAR 3 get 2...it's going to mean the same to THEM, even if it doesn't to the reviewers for each individual game. That's a problem. Even if it's only in perception.

This has only been an issue if you're one of those idiots who feels an incessant need to compare scores. There's nothing to hide behind with the scale - it's a general indicator that gives you a cursory glance of how the writer feels about the game, which is how it should be. There's absolutely no reason to be specific when it comes to scores, because not only is that how you get stupid bullshit where IGN and Gamespot used the hundred-point scale for years (god knows why), that's what the text is for. There is only one qualitative comparison you can make between Duke Nukem Forever and F.E.A.R. 3 based on these reviews, which is that they're both games that Jeff and Ryan respectively did not enjoy and don't think you should buy.

Avatar image for maginnovision
maginnovision

819

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By maginnovision

@lordofultima said:

F.E.A.R. 2 was a big setback compared to F.E.A.R. 1 in my opinion...so the further the third installment is from the second, the better. I haven't played it so I can't say one way or the other, but the defining aspect of F.E.A.R. to me is the incredible A.I. and close-quarters combat, with some scary sprinkled in once in a while. This is something that was in abundance in the first game, but severely lacking in the second.

That's pretty much what Fear 3 is. In some games you see an area where you know there is going to be a big firefight and just start thinking about a way around it. In fear though It just gets me ready to go. A few of the scenarios I'd just straight die from the get go, then I'd figure out how I could do it and get right through it. This has my favorite weapon in it too. Riot shield W/Maching gun. Awesome.

Avatar image for numbthumb
NumbThumb

87

Forum Posts

458

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 25

User Lists: 2

Edited By NumbThumb
@Bumbuliuz said:

@iAmJohn said:

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.

This is the issue with the 5 star rating and not even using the half stars also. I wish more sites would use the 10 point scale. It's too easy to use and hide a bit behind the 5 point scale.

Yup, This is why I've never liked a true 5 star system - but it's their site. And the previous post is right - it isn't right to compare DNF and FEAR 3 because it IS different reviewers - but then again, you're reviewing for an audience that uses the same standard - so no matter who the reviewer is ...they abide by those 5 stars...when they see DNF get 2 and FEAR 3 get 2...it's going to mean the same to THEM, even if it doesn't to the reviewers for each individual game.
 
That's a problem. Even if it's only in perception.
Avatar image for numbthumb
NumbThumb

87

Forum Posts

458

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 25

User Lists: 2

Edited By NumbThumb

A little surprised in the 2/5 - While the ideas aren't overly original, the game is still highly polished and tight. 2 starts feels one to few for an otherwise solid shooter. At least in terms of the standard set out on this site - and if you (the reader) rate this the same as Duke Nukem Forever - you're seriously drunk. 
 
Still love you guys - but I really disagree on this one.

Avatar image for tennmuerti
Tennmuerti

9465

Forum Posts

1

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 7

Edited By Tennmuerti

@jakonovski said:

@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!

The GB staff is extremely limited in number. They don't even have time to review all major releases. Asking them to pretty much review games twice or more at this point is silly.

The Giant Bombcast is a huge part of this site and like has been said before if you are looking for opinions of other staff members on certain games they can be frequently found there. There is no "only" to the Bombcast.

Avatar image for bumbuliuz
Bumbuliuz

218

Forum Posts

5

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 3

Edited By Bumbuliuz

@iAmJohn said:

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.

This is the issue with the 5 star rating and not even using the half stars also. I wish more sites would use the 10 point scale. It's too easy to use and hide a bit behind the 5 point scale.

Avatar image for krakn3dfx
Krakn3Dfx

2746

Forum Posts

101

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 4

User Lists: 3

Edited By Krakn3Dfx

2 stars? For a second I thought this must be an Alex review.

Played about halfway through, more of a 3 star title to me, definitely a disappointment, but not on the level of Duke. To each his own I guess.

Avatar image for jackgordon86
JackGordon86

34

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By JackGordon86

"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."
 
I couldn't have said it better myself .  'Oh, how the great have fallen.'

Avatar image for lordofultima
lordofultima

6592

Forum Posts

25303

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 4

User Lists: 9

Edited By lordofultima

F.E.A.R. 2 was a big setback compared to F.E.A.R. 1 in my opinion...so the further the third installment is from the second, the better. I haven't played it so I can't say one way or the other, but the defining aspect of F.E.A.R. to me is the incredible A.I. and close-quarters combat, with some scary sprinkled in once in a while. This is something that was in abundance in the first game, but severely lacking in the second.