Fear 3 Review

[Wuggy]

No one seems to mention that the campaign of this game is like less than 4 hours long.

 

[InsanityRequiem]

No one seems to mention that the campaign of this game is like less than 4 hours long.

What did you play it on? Easy? Or not at all? /facepalm

It took me at least 8 hours to play. Standard fare on Normal difficulty.

 

[Hobonicus]

I think they should have just stated that this is not meant to be that scary of a game. The devs said before, even with F.E.A.R. 1, that the series is always an action shooter first (they even referenced John Woo films on multiple occasions) and the horror aspect is just meant to make the plot a little more interesting instead of doing something generic.

Despite that, every single review I've seen criticizes it for not being scary more than anything else. Even this review spent most of it's time complaining about the lack of scariness, while only giving a nod to the incredibly fun gunplay. In other words, every reviewer seems to be looking at it backwards. Yes, obviously if they're gonna try horror they gotta do it right, but why is that always the main focus in these reviews?

The game wasn't perfect, I've always hated kamikaze enemies which appear at some parts, the plot was meh, and there were some crazy difficulty spikes, but the firefights were some of the best I've ever experienced. Better than dedicated FPS series like CoD could ever dream to be.

I've played a ton of FPS games and F.E.A.R. 3's firefights were absolutely the best there are in linear shooters, yet they usually get sent to the background with a "Yeah, the gunplay was fun, but man this game just wasn't scary at all!"

 

[DJDarque]

Hmmm. I may look into this game, but that whole level up system seems to be incredibly stupid. Still, I did have fun with the previous two games and playing as Fettel sounds awesome.

Playing as Fettel is the best part of the game. Despite the level up system it's still a fun game.

 

[Wuggy]

No one seems to mention that the campaign of this game is like less than 4 hours long.

What did you play it on? Easy? Or not at all? /facepalm

It took me at least 8 hours to play. Standard fare on Normal difficulty.

I watched a friend play it start to finish on normal on a livestream.

 

[Waaghpowa]

I think they should have just stated that this is not meant to be that scary of a game. The devs said before, even with F.E.A.R. 1, that the series is always an action shooter first (they even referenced John Woo films on multiple occasions) and the horror aspect is just meant to make the plot a little more interesting instead of doing something generic.

Despite that, every single review I've seen criticizes it for not being scary more than anything else. Even this review spent most of it's time complaining about the lack of scariness, while only giving a nod to the incredibly fun gunplay. In other words, every reviewer seems to be looking at it backwards. Yes, obviously if they're gonna try horror they gotta do it right, but why is that always the main focus in these reviews?

The game wasn't perfect, I've always hated kamikaze enemies which appear at some parts, the plot was meh, and there were some crazy difficulty spikes, but the firefights were some of the best I've ever experienced. Better than dedicated FPS series like CoD could ever dream to be.

I've played a ton of FPS games and F.E.A.R. 3's firefights were absolutely the best there are in linear shooters, yet they usually get sent to the background with a "Yeah, the gunplay was fun, but man this game just wasn't scary at all!"

Though it may be true that the intentions of the first FEAR wasn't to be scary, the atmosphere and setting were enough give you a sense of unease. So when something did jump out at you, it spooked you, even if what actually happened wouldn't be considered scary. I stated this in my own personal review of FEAR 3, the constant action left little to no opportunity for that same atmosphere.

 

[Hobonicus]

I think they should have just stated that this is not meant to be that scary of a game. The devs said before, even with F.E.A.R. 1, that the series is always an action shooter first (they even referenced John Woo films on multiple occasions) and the horror aspect is just meant to make the plot a little more interesting instead of doing something generic.

Despite that, every single review I've seen criticizes it for not being scary more than anything else. Even this review spent most of it's time complaining about the lack of scariness, while only giving a nod to the incredibly fun gunplay. In other words, every reviewer seems to be looking at it backwards. Yes, obviously if they're gonna try horror they gotta do it right, but why is that always the main focus in these reviews?

The game wasn't perfect, I've always hated kamikaze enemies which appear at some parts, the plot was meh, and there were some crazy difficulty spikes, but the firefights were some of the best I've ever experienced. Better than dedicated FPS series like CoD could ever dream to be.

I've played a ton of FPS games and F.E.A.R. 3's firefights were absolutely the best there are in linear shooters, yet they usually get sent to the background with a "Yeah, the gunplay was fun, but man this game just wasn't scary at all!"

Though it may be true that the intentions of the first FEAR wasn't to be scary, the atmosphere and setting were enough give you a sense of unease. So when something did jump out at you, it spooked you, even if what actually happened wouldn't be considered scary. I stated this in my own personal review of FEAR 3, the constant action left little to no opportunity for that same atmosphere.

Yeah, and I agree that the atmosphere wasn't nearly as good as the first FEAR. My issue is that most reviewers I've seen review it as a horror game. Like they see the word FEAR and decide to judge it primarily on it's atmosphere. FEAR 3 should lose merit because it pretends to be scary when it mostly isn't, but that factor shouldn't so heavily overshadow the excellent firefights.

The incredible AI, easily moving around cover, smoke and blood flying everywhere, lining up perfect shots in slow motion, slide tackling one guy and spinning around to slo-mo jump kick another while headshotting a third, these things are often given a little nod of approval while focusing on how the immersion was so totally lacking omg not scary.

And while I definitely agree that the constant stats popping up and the faster pacing hurt the atmosphere, I still played the game wishing the whole way through that those firefights could become the standard in linear shooters. For someone like me, who has played so many FPS games that the prospect of a shootout now often sounds boring, to actually get exhilarated during the gunfights says a lot. I don't think FEAR 3 gets enough credit in that department because nobody can get past the lackluster story and atmosphere.

Again, not saying it was perfect, because those other elements do matter. But credit where credit is due guys.

 

[Hristo Tzonkov]

"Justin Clouse wasted so many shotgun shells on Alma freaking him out in the first Fear." - Hehe, that made me chuckle, so true.

I may give this game a shot as I was a huge fan of the first Fear, but I've avoided Fear 2 due to bad recommendations from friends.

Also, let's keep in mind that the third game was made by Day 1 and not Monolith, although that's not much saying, as they wasted quite much potential that Fear 2 had.

Also, the name stands for First Encounter Assault Recon, not just issue with "Alma is pissed, she want to kill everyone", there's still quite some potential for the name alone, with a different story and a different setting. Maybe nothing of Fear 3 really happened and it was just a dream and they moved into other things, I don't know, but just a little change wouldn't hurt anybody.

Being honest play FEAR2.It got unfair scores just because of the changes with Alma.The scares were absolutely genuine and there were areas where my skin crawled waiting to be scared shitless and you never see the moment coming.Also despite making it more linear they have nailed the best possible gameplay mechanics of old style shooters.Like I'd call it the ideal.Just the flamethrower was bad but I've yet to see a game do that properly .

As for FEAR3 it actually moves the story from FEAR2 in the manner it was intended to.There was a DLC that came out a few months prior to the FEAR3 announcement where

Spoiler

Fettel compels cloned soldiers to go to him so he can reincarnate

It isn't all that scary sadly but it gives some justification to the brother's actions and it opens up for another sequel.

What it really does properly is making a system that encourages both single player and online play,doing gameplay in a way that it takes the absolute best of both worlds - console styled cover based shooters and PC styled shooters of the past.I could use either and never ever felt forced to do one or the other unless it genuinely helped me to beat an encounter.The game is neatly randomized.And what's worth mentioning is the MP.The horde styled game actually has a twist where Alma shows up for a bit and if you look at her for too long you get thrown to some point of the map where your teammates aren't just when the baddies are spawning.Nothing that different but it's a neat twist.F**king run encourages people to help each other since if one fails they all fail rather than leaving 1-2 to continue in a duo/alone.Infact you'll want to run into the mist to save a person cause you all fail.Soul king is just suspensful and unpredictable.You never know who will win since it's a risk reward system.I didn't like it much tho since I prefer the more coop styled modes.

Bottom line.I felt some things weren't mentioned but it's a good review.The game could've been so much more with what it does right and does wrong at the same time.

 

[ExileNZ]

Okay, so the big problem here seems to be it's not scary. But then again, let's examine a couple of basic facts about it: right form the word go, Paxton is on your side and, if I hear right, so is Alma.

If you've played the first game (couldn't say for the second), there is no way to make that scary. Horror comes from the unknown, from a sense of vulnerability, from the odds being stacked against you, all this exacerbated by an unknown element, a boogieman, if you will.

This worked well in FEAR, because even as an indestructible superman in squad combat, Alma always put you in your place - in a matter of seconds, you went from being the over-powered Hunter to the helpless Hunted, capable only of running to save yourself.

By FEAR 3, you already know what's going on (goodbye unknown), you're even more of a badass with regenerating health and your brother at your side (goodbye vulnerability) and the odds aren't even stacked against you any more because on top of all that, the boogieman (Alma) seems to be on your side (or at least you're on hers).

There's just no way to make that combination scary, beyond perhaps the odd "boo" scare. Might as well make it a glorified massacre.

 

[DJDarque]

Okay, so the big problem here seems to be it's not scary. But then again, let's examine a couple of basic facts about it: right form the word go, Paxton is on your side and, if I hear right, so is Alma.

If you've played the first game (couldn't say for the second), there is no way to make that scary. Horror comes from the unknown, from a sense of vulnerability, from the odds being stacked against you, all this exacerbated by an unknown element, a boogieman, if you will.

This worked well in FEAR, because even as an indestructible superman in squad combat, Alma always put you in your place - in a matter of seconds, you went from being the over-powered Hunter to the helpless Hunted, capable only of running to save yourself.

By FEAR 3, you already know what's going on (goodbye unknown), you're even more of a badass with regenerating health and your brother at your side (goodbye vulnerability) and the odds aren't even stacked against you any more because on top of all that, the boogieman (Alma) seems to be on your side (or at least you're on hers).

There's just no way to make that combination scary, beyond perhaps the odd "boo" scare. Might as well make it a glorified massacre.

Alma and the player aren't necessarily on the same side, as much as you share a common enemy. She does still cause problems that can screw you over if you're not careful.

 

[GrimSheeper]

I played both sides in single player. What I really found to bring me out of the experience was the point system, as mentioned in the video. I was more focused on "Did I use this gun 25 times before? Do I have enough slow-motion kills for a good rating? Does meleeing a guy in slow motion give me a different reward?" than I was on being drawn into this games atmosphere. It is not a bad game, I would never say that. I just don't like playing with others terribly much and while I can see how working against the one person you need to rely on for the highest rating can build tension, it is not a substitute for engaging, genuinely scary horror like FEAR provided.

It's hard to keep Alma scary after she already was in every game since FEAR (Extraction Point, Pegasus Mandate, FEAR 2, Reborn, FEAR 3) and she's not an unknown force of malicious intent so much as the games' Mascot. I think this game series needs a re-imagining to either concentrate more on the scary elements that made FEAR 1 really damn haunting or become a more co-operative experience and a hardcore shooter. Being a superpowerful badass with guns and supernatural backup makes you more of the horror movie monster than the movie hunted.

 

[Slycne]

I think they should have just stated that this is not meant to be that scary of a game. The devs said before, even with F.E.A.R. 1, that the series is always an action shooter first (they even referenced John Woo films on multiple occasions) and the horror aspect is just meant to make the plot a little more interesting instead of doing something generic.

See I just can't buy that wholly. That might very well be where the series is now heading, but you don't bring in big names like John Carpenter and Steve Niles to work on such a minor element of the experience.

Also

From Silent Hill to Project Zero and Dead Space, the games industry has become pretty good at terrifying its consumers. Could F.3.A.R be the scariest game yet?
Yes. We indeed do believe F.E.A.R. 3 will continue carrying on the franchise's tradition of scaring the pants off players in unsettling atmospheres and through unpredictable events.

In fact, we have developed a generative system that allows players to experience the scares of F.E.A.R. 3 in a fresh and dynamic way each time they play. Whether playing co-operatively with a friend or alone in the dark by themselves, the generative system will keep the players on the edge of their seats.

FPS has become a very crowded genre. Are you confident F.3.A.R can compete with the likes of Halo: Reach, Crysis 2 and CoD: Black Ops?
The FPS genre certainly is a competitive market but we are quite confident that F.E.A.R. 3's unique take on co-op will enhance the F.E.A.R. games' hallmark features of paranormal horror, intense close quarters combat, and immersive story-telling to make it stand out from the crowd

The devs still very clearly think they have one of the scariest games on the market.

 

[DanDeFool]

You want to know what's scary? The way Alma is spreading her legs. Ewww...

I mean, filthy, disgusting, scary horrors that keep people awake at night are frequently found in regular vaginas. I don't want to know what you'd find in one that's owned by someone who is themself a filthy, disgusting, scary horror.

Rule 34 dictates that somewhere on the Internet is Ringu porn. Realizing that made me die a little inside.

 

[Neko Federovna]

The amount of ammunition I wasted on shadows that I thought I saw something hiding in, I know the feeling. I remember contemplating buying F.E.A.R for months before I grabbed it. I was worried it wouldn't be a good game but when I grabbed it I LOVED F.E.A.R. The graphics were perfect where it mattered, how they developed the storyline was the best I have ever experienced. I had to shut the game off so many times because I couldn't take anymore. Finally I found safety in the fact that Alma would never interact with you directly.
I hated the third party expansions because they butchered the original storyline. Thank god the original company didn't make them.

F.E.A.R 2 was a nice graphic update and interesting storyline. At the time it seemed strange that they would step aside like that but now I understand with how F.E.A.R 3 went. I shit my pants in the first few seconds on the second game. I now knew that my protection from Alma interacting with me was gone. But otherwise great storyline. It was more a WTF game then OH GOD ITS COMMING AT ME oh wait SHIT ITS BEHIND ME, type game. The fights were to direct. I remember replica soldiers coming from doors behind me in any firefight that I got in with them. Backtracking I discovered how they got behind me. The second game was being assimilated into direct firefights.

F.E.A.R 3 I felt like the graphics were toned down GREATLY. I used to use the first game as a benchmark program. Single player was too quick through the levels, the fights to easy, the AI was dumb, no variation in opposition. F.E.A.R had your own mind as the barrier not bosses. Now in 3 the "Tough" bosses were easily overcome by guns not your own willpower to keep going. Not the fear that I remembered. But the game was fun. And in the long run if you can enjoy it then it?s playable.

If anyone wants to play online multiplayer for computer send me a message. I haven't tried it yet.

 

[ExileNZ]

Alma and the player aren't necessarily on the same side, as much as you share a common enemy. She does still cause problems that can screw you over if you're not careful.

In that, I am willing to believe you - even the trailer shows a number of supernatural enemies that only Alma could provide and they don't look friendly.

That said, "problems that can screw you over if you're not careful" are still a far cry from "Alma shows up, murders everybody around you and sets the room you're in on fire", because shes's quite clearly trying to kill you and I'm sure you'll agree this is fucking Alma we're talking about.

Not since the Many from System Shock 2 (or before that, Pennywise the clown) has anyone so disturbed my sleep (and especially my occasional late-night trip to the bathroom).

Alma going out of her way to hunt you instead of merely killing you because you're in her way is a Scary Thing (TM).

 

[ExileNZ]

(snip)
If anyone wants to play online multiplayer for computer send me a message. I haven't tried it yet.

I would love to, but I don't have any FEAR beyond the first one. That said, if you're up for a little F1 multi I am all over that.

 

[Rad Party God]

I fully expect Yahtzee to rip this one into pieces.

OT: Good review Justin. I kinda want to get into the Fear story, but three whole shooter games is also kind of a big investment...

If you're into PC gaming, you can get both Fear 1 (with it's non-canon-but-still-great expansions) and Fear 2 with all the DLC for $9, in fact, I may grab it just for Fear 2 alone, even if I already have Fear 1.

 

[Xerosch]

Point Man is mute? That's a big design flaw.

And even though I played F.E.A.R. 1+2 and the Addons, I don't remember Point Man being in prison. Is that explained somwhere in the game?

A shame all the horror aspects are gone, seems as if this series is heading the way of 'Condemned'. The first one is still creepy as hell, the second a pile of stupid.

 

[Unesh52]

Does anyone else think that the VO for this review sounded a little awkward? It felt slow, like he was coming off some medication when he did the recording.

...

Oh, and the game looks half decent. But I don't much care for FPS's. The horror elements would probably just make me lament the fact that my laptop can't run Amnesia.

 

[Caveworm]

Bring back Monolith I say.

What are those wonderful chaps up to these days?

FEAR3 still looks an enjoyable romp.