F.E.A.R. 3

[h1] Score: ◆◆◆◇◇ (3/5) [/h1] [b]TLDR:[/b] Not as bad as I was expecting, but may as well not be a FEAR game. Gameplay is more fun than FEAR 2 though and I hear co-op is actually quite good if you can rope a friend into playing this. Just barely escapes a thumbs down from me. Going into FEAR 3 I was expecting a trainwreck based on the negativity surrounding the title. Maybe those bottom of the barrel expectations proved to beneficial to F3AR since I come away just thinking it wasn't all that bad. FEAR 3 is what I'd call a competent FPS that has the unfortunate baggage of being a FEAR game. I was not impressed with FEAR 2 as much as some people, mainly because the combat feels so unsatisfying in it compared to the original. FEAR 3 feels like an inverse of FEAR 2 where my issues mostly lie with everything outside of the combat. Fire fights in neither of these games enthrall me the way the cinematic battles of the first game did, but FEAR 3 at least has the decency to once again have fun, weighty firearms. So what does FEAR 3 do to keep it on par with the 2nd entry of the IP? To start, this is honestly probably the best the environmental variety ever got in the franchise. I loved my time with FEAR 1, but it really tests your love for cold, concrete interiors. Aside from the slums level which is a real stinker, FEAR 3 keeps levels fresh and interesting as you blast your way through a (NOT) Costco, suburbs, an airport, and more. As I previously mentioned, combat is also much better than the previous entry. It is also really apparent this game was designed specifically for co-op and from what research I've done, is very fun in that format. The co-op is asymmetric meaning you have 2 characters to choose from between Paxton and Point Man each with their own playstyle that comes together in a surprisingly well-executed mix. I did not play this game co-op nor did I play any of the multiplayer modes as they are dead (and likely have been for a while). Multiplayer has existed for all the FEAR games, but that is not why they are remembered so the huge focus on it in this 3rd entry is strange regardless of how well the execution is. The shotgun feels a bit better than the pathetic representation we got in FEAR 2, but still pales in comparison to the OG. The rest of the arsenal feels pretty good, however, with the sniper rifle and assault rifle feeling especially meaty as you pop enemy heads with them. Grenades also find a nice balance between the first two games, once again detonating on impact whilst still letting you cook them for cases when you want to toss a nice surprise behind enemy cover. They've gamified the levels a lot as well adding combat challenges and a point system with the ending of the game in co-op being decided by which player got the most points. This feels like it doesn't belong in a FEAR game, but if you ignore the connection the game has to the series, it is quite addicting to try and go for a high score instead of relying on one weapon/strategy. I don't think this series has ever had a great story, but it has played with interesting plot points and occasionally had memorable characters. Paxton Fettel is pretty one note and gets tiresome over the course of this campaign since he does 95% of the talking. I'm not really sure why they brought back Jin from the first game. She doesn't add anything here and her character model looks off to boot. Why is Point Man still mute? A silent protagonist really only works if you stay in first person, but they got him showing up in every single cutscene. They got a voice actor for the returning FEAR 2 silent protagonist, so why not Point Man? This is more thought than this game's story deserves to be honest, no one is going to play this and come away with any lasting memories. This should probably have never been a FEAR game. Being part of that series actively works against it by having certain expectations place upon it. The game attempts horror in some cases, but then you remember this game is best played in co-op where having a buddy with you would remove any tension the devs were going for. This is the furthest from horror the series has ever been. I do think the gameplay is genuinely fun but anyone thinking about buying this is probably doing so expecting a certain experience that it just fails to deliver on. I'd only get if it is on sale and you don't mind what I've criticized.

Well I don't understand what the game developers were thinking about this game. Wow what a giant slap in the face. This is like a arcade call of duty. I played both F.E.A.R 1 and 2 and I had a really good time. This game feels like you are on rails which isn't always a bad thing but then there's all this filler. Ton's of enemy's and I mean tons and tons and 99% of the time there exactly the same enemy's. Over and over and over one area you fight tons of enemy's next level your fighting ton's of the same enemy's and your stuck in most of the area's till you defeat the same old enemy's. It was a slog for me unlike the older F.E.A.R games. I was excited to get this game finished instead of enjoying it. I couldn't enjoy it.

I went into F.E.A.R. 3 expecting it to be terrible, but I ended up thoroughly enjoying it. I would argue that this game very overhated in my opinion. Sure, it's a little different when compared to the first two entries in the franchise, but it still contains that essence that makes it a F.E.A.R. game. If you're curious, I recommend giving this game a try, but if you're worried about not liking it, buy it when it's on sale just in case.

F.E.A.R. 3 is a decent FPS, but a terrible sequel to F.E.A.R. The first game was an incredible combination of fast and satisfying gunplay, intelligent enemies, disturbing atmosphere, and genuinely effective horror. F.E.A.R. 2 already moved further toward action, but still managed to retain much of that identity. F.E.A.R. 3 basically throws most of it away. The horror is almost completely gone. Alma is no longer frightening, the atmosphere is much weaker, and the game constantly breaks immersion with score pop-ups, challenges, perks, and other arcade-like systems. Instead of feeling like a tense horror FPS, it often feels like a generic military shooter with a few supernatural elements. The level design is also much more linear and restrictive than in the previous games, while regenerating health and the reduced weapon variety make the gameplay feel considerably less interesting. The AI and gunplay can still be fun, but the encounters rarely have the same tactical intensity as the original. The story doesn't help either. The F.E.A.R. mythology was already complicated, but F.E.A.R. 3 makes it even harder to follow, while the narrative feels secondary to the action. The one genuinely interesting addition is the co-op campaign, especially playing as Paxton Fettel. It's a fun idea and probably the game's strongest feature, but it also reinforces the feeling that this was designed around multiplayer rather than the tense single-player horror experience that defined the series. F.E.A.R. 3 isn't a terrible FPS. It's just a terrible F.E.A.R. game. If you want the real experience, play F.E.A.R. and F.E.A.R. 2 instead.

Simply gutted the whole FEAR experience for me. Me and my friend have headaches due to the graphics, which is a setback from project origin. Cover system is trash, the story is a bad joke. Avoid it, play the original once more...

Джин умерла в первой части F.E.A.R.: Extraction Point, и она воскресла в 3-ей части игры?? Сценарист гений Куча надоедливых испытаний... зачем? F.E.A.R. 3 не требуемая чем предыдущие части ибо слабый движок игры -_- Сюжет настолько скучный и провальный 3/10

FEAR 2 might have been a bit divisive with its more bombastic approach to the original, but I doubt there will be many people (if any) who are divided on the quality of this last entry. If it was any other series then it wouldn't be the worst game you've ever played (because it isn't), but for this series? It's a painfully average finale. When I think of FEAR it brings to mind three things: (1) glorious shooty-shooty-bang-bang, (2) effective jump-scares, and (3) a creepy atmosphere. Whatever their failings, the previous games did have all of those things in abundance. Other than point number one, this does not. The shooting is great, with the same punchy feel to the weapons carried over and an increased level of dynamism to the action. Unfortunately everything else around it is weak-sauce, from the worse graphics to the pitiful "jump-scares", to the utter lack of any atmosphere, this is mediocre at best. On the graphical side of things this is...okay(ish) technically, but everything is so sterile. FEAR 1 mostly took place at night and had a desolate empty feel to it. Now, it was somewhat criticised for that, but oh boy! When you're playing a game where all of the early levels are well lit and bland as f**k it really rams home how devoid of ambience this is. Where's the grimy sense of a decaying city that the first title had? Where's the post-apocalyptic vibe that the second game had? Even when you have areas that are clearly meant to be off-putting or intimidating, the engine just can't convey the squalor or devastation inherent in the previous titles. It also can't match the slickness of FEAR 2, or the scale and ambition, so it winds up being rather underwhelming by comparison. The combat is fun, but trots out the same old same old for the most part. The horror aspect is limp and seen-it-all-before. Making a successful third game would probably still have been a big ask even for the original developer, but handing it over to a new and inexperienced studio didn't result in fresh creativity. It just resulted in a game that wouldn't be dog-sh*t if it was any other series than FEAR, but it is the follow-up to two pretty decent games and is much poorer for that association. It isn't awful, but it isn't good either.

Fear 3 is not a fear game to be honest. Story got worsen as compared to Fear 1 and Fear 2. I didn't enjoy the story. Combat is not enjoyable, felt like Call of Duty.