Metascore
79

Generally favorable reviews - based on 49 Critics

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 39 out of 49
  2. Negative: 0 out of 49
  1. Monolith addressed the flaws of the original, improved themselves and delivered a fantastic follow-up. Highly Recommended!
  2. 91
    You'll, fire thousands of rounds in hundreds of white-knuckled shootouts facing everything from soldiers to grotesques to specters, and tromp around in a totally bad-ass mech suit. Most importantly, you'll love every minute of it.
  3. It might not have the jaw-dropping visuals to rival Killzone 2, but it's a hugely satisfying shooter that'll have you clinging onto that controller or mouse throughout its tension-filled campaign. If you like your combat meaty and with a solid dose of supernatural scares, there's every chance this will rank as one of your favourite games of 2009.
  4. Excellent horror shooter brings Hollywood-like action to the PC with an uncompromisable atmosphere of dread. Thumbs up for the fantastic ending! [Feb 2009]
  5. The F.E.A.R. series is top notch when it comes to digital horror. Very good sequel of a horror classic.
  6. F.E.A.R. 2 doesn’t depart much from the original formula, retaining what was good about the first game while punching up the weaker areas. The improved variety in weapons, locations, and enemies is great, but standards have increased a great deal since Alma’s debut. What you get is an atmospheric shooter with a lot of tried-and-true concepts that fails to push the envelope. Fans of horror and first-person shooters will find it a nice blend of the two.
  7. Project Origin isn’t a bad game. It’s pretty nice and you can recommend it to your friends without remorse.
  8. Graphically, F.E.A.R. 2 looks leaps and bounds better than its predecessor.
  9. F.E.A.R. 2 is almost exactly as we wanted it to be: scary and entertaining. Thank you Monolith for sticking close to the prequel and not trying to freshen up the series with fancy new ideas!
  10. As you can see, F.E.A.R. 2 is a very competent and enjoyable game. As a shooter, I was very impressed with the title. Unfortunately, I never really felt the fear that gave the game its moniker. Certainly the game is disturbing, but it is definitely not frightening.
  11. F.E.A.R. 2 doesn’t offer anything particularly new, which – in my opinion – is a bad thing. But on the other hand that’s just what I personally hoped for, as both F.E.A.R. 1 and F.E.A.R. 2 are brilliant horror shooters with good graphics and awesome multiplayer components.
  12. 83
    It’s a good shooter, bordering on great at times, but it’s not as groundbreaking as its predecessor. Still, it’s definitely faithful to the idea of F.E.A.R., which is mainly trying to get under your skin using a combination of tried-and-true horror elements, not the least of which is a creepy little girl.
  13. After the embarrassment of The Perseus Mandate, F.E.A.R. 2 should be in consideration for comeback player of the year. While the multiplayer is weak and the mood won’t make people forget Dead Space any time soon, the solid action core makes it worth a play.
  14. Hardcore-gamer and newbies should take a look at this game: If you aren´t afraid of violence and thrilling horror situations, you’ll find an amazing atmosphere in F.E.A.R. 2: Project Origin. Creepy, but very good!
  15. Considering Monolith's track record, this isn't really much of an accomplishment. The concept behind F.E.A.R. leaves plenty of room for improvement and this sequel doesn't strive to achieve any breakthroughs in that respect.
  16. When the burning plume of smoke from the last battle clears, F.E.A.R. 2: Project Origin's fan service delivers plenty of reasons to sign on with Armacham's best.
  17. It may seem like a retrograde step for a modern FPS, but FEAR 2 still ticks all the boxes in terms of no-holds barred action. [Mar 2009, p.94]
  18. FEAR 2 doesn't manage to cause panic like its predecessor because Monolith uses the same well-known techniques again. But it's still fun to follow Alma. This time, it's more uncertainty than fear that keeps you playing.
  19. The presentation is top-notch, with tight level design and no shortage of jump-out-of-your seat moments. Multiplayer is somewhat empty, with only a few modes that all feel the same. There's no reason you should avoid F.E.A.R. 2.
  20. This solid shoot'em up valued by the extreme thrill seekers and fans of gore opens an entirely new chapter. So new, in fact, that the game had lost somewhere a few nuances coveted in the first rendition. [Mar 2009]
  21. The main problems are more accurately missed opportunities, and much of the time playing the game will be spent wondering what could have been created if Monolith would have taken more creative risks instead of allowing themselves to craft a game too deeply within their comfort zone.
  22. 80
    A contemporary classic — but not necessarily in a good way. Yes, slightly antiquated design elements like health and armor packs give it a familiar feel. And quite a few genuinely scary moments are guaranteed to make you feel a little silly for being so freaked out. But the game tries to be too many things at once, and the transparent, jarring transitions from horror to next-gen action sequences break the otherwise carefully executed atmosphere.
  23. Although predictable and clichéd, action and horror have seldom been blended together so sublimely.
  24. Monolith could’ve done so much more with the nuked city in regard to level design, instead you find yourself still exploring generic offices and buildings like you did in F.E.A.R. And come on now, no mouse side button binds? Seriously? How hard could that have been to implement.
  25. What it adds - the more capacious level design, the daylight, the mech bits, the cover system - doesn't amount to much more than a garnish of new ideas on an old chicken salad of a game. But as I said, the magic of F.E.A.R. is certainly in position. That basic pleasure of time slowing, of watching a death ballet unfold as glass shatters, masonry crumbles and bodies cartwheel with morbid elegance - it's all intact, and it's as incredible to behold as ever. [Mar 2009, p.56]
  26. FEAR 2: Project Origin leaves us quite an uneven sensation. On one hand it has offered us truly spectacular and full of tension moments, very different from the ones which other games in the genre offer. Moreover, its carefully made atmosphere, fueled by the solid graphics engine developed by Monolith, make the immersion sensation total. The problem is that although FEAR 2 knows what makes itself stand out from the other shooters, it insists on offering quite generic moments during most of the game, and, worse indeed, it's not quite polished.
  27. 80
    In short, if you like FEAR, you will love FEAR 2. It may be too scary for some and the wobble of your character walking might induce a slight bit of motion sickness, but it’s a well constructed horror/action title.
  28. 80
    For shooter fans, the combat is still outstanding, and you'll get a great eight hours or so by the time you reach your final encounter with Alma, although fans of the first game may feel like they've done this before. In many ways, F.E.A.R. 2 feels like the middle chapter in a trilogy, and there's certainly enough momentum here for at least one more run.
  29. 80
    Now, the spine tingling sequel, Project Origin is here to continue the story of the psychic and psychotic Alma with damn good results. [Mar 2009, p.78]
  30. Ultimately, this flipping from scary to stupid, from harrowing to humdrum, leaves FEAR 2: Project Origin a competent but slightly unsatisfying experience. [Mar 2009, p.72]
  31. In order to define F.E.A.R. 2 we should use the word solid with all the good and bad things that it entails. On one hand are the obvious virtues that it inherits from the original, but at the same time this game lacks the spark and pace necessary to achieve its level. It does not give the impression that Monolith would have needed more time of development to improve the game but it seems that Project Origin, despite being a very good shooter, needs some extra points of inspiration.
  32. Mixing a strong horror atmosphere and a solid “slo-mo” gameplay, F.E.A.R. 2 Project Origin shines for the extension of the new levels. Its linearity isn’t necessarily a drawback (at least not for “old style” FPS fans), but it could still spoil the fun for next gen gamers, used to much more “open” games. Despite all of this, Monolith’s baby delivers a solid experience, and every FPS fan should at least give it a good try.
  33. New scare techniques aside, the graphics, gameplay, and multiplayer have all been accomplished by other developers. F.E.A.R. 2: Project Origin is a shinning example of how to top a well regarded original title.
  34. The somewhat disappointing result of all this is that F.E.A.R. 2 isn't different enough from the first game to surprise us, and with such a lack of innovation, even this polished horror shooter just won't get the rise out of players that the original did.
  35. It’s hard to play through Monolith’s F.E.A.R. 2 and not get a feeling of déjà vu. Between F.E.A.R., Condemned, and their sequels, this is the fourth scary, first person game that they’ve given us in a row, and unfortunately the experiences aren’t getting any fresher.
  36. Fans of the original game seeking more of the same will not be disappointed, however overall the game lacks the underlying menace of the original. There's a good first person shooter to be had, but it lacks the fire and innovation of the original.
  37. Alma is back, with a game too similar to the original F.E.A.R. The same great gameplay, along with a few good scares, aren't enough to cover all the issues present in the game: graphics-wise is almost the same game, but with a different story. A good game, but it could have been so much better that it's a bit of a disappointment.
  38. F.E.A.R 2 is a great game to experience, but repetitive gameplay keeps it from achieving classic status.
  39. Sure, there’s fun to be had shooting baddies in the face for 10-12 hours over the course of the 14 missions, but sadly F.E.A.R. 2: Project Origin isn’t nearly as remarkable as the original.
  40. FEAR2 is a game that is evolutionary and not revolutionary but also seems to take a step back in many departments. The ending leaves the player hanging, Alma doesn't really make as many appearances as in the first game, the dumbed down AI, and the lack of a multiplayer community might spell death for the game before it even starts to take off.
  41. F.E.A.R. 2 fails to innovate, which would make it merely a respectable but forgettable shooter if not for some good scares. [Apr 2009, p.80]
  42. This somewhat scary sequel is a solid shooter, but it can't keep pace with its lauded predecessor.
  43. F.E.A.R. 2: Project Origin is average. It's got some high points and some low points, but overall just isn't that memorable.
  44. F.E.A.R. 2 is a middling shooter at best, and while the bare-bones mechanics are all tightly oiled, you’re left with a stale taste in your mouth. It may be the first big release of 2009, but it’s also the first big disappointment.
  45. F.E.A.R. 2: Project Origin offers players its share of great moments, but on a whole, this is just an average game.
  46. The fact remains that F.E.A.R evolved shooters back in 2005, but there appears to be very little progress in the four years since with F.E.A.R 2.
  47. I honestly did not really mind that the game closed without fully explaining itself; the problem was that as the credits rolled my mind harked back to earlier points in the game, trying to give those supposedly standout moments a second thought, and realising none of them really stood out firmly in my mind.
  48. The biggest problem of F.E.A.R. 2 is the triteness of its gameplay rather than dumbed down enemies. Four years ago, F.E.A.R. stood out in a crowd with its then-novel slo-mo effects and bold AI. Nowadays you can find all this even in value-priced shooters from Poland.
  49. If you played the first few FEAR games and you want to know what happens next to the faceless, characterless, protagonist then you could do a lot worse than FEAR 2: Project Origin. I really can’t recommend this to players that are new to either the series or the genre. The lack of reiteration of the first game’s story is rather perplexing.
User Score
7.8

Generally favorable reviews- based on 441 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Positive: 65 out of 96
  2. Negative: 15 out of 96
  1. SteMot
    Mar 1, 2009
    9
    People saying this is consolised really have no idea what they are talking about. For one thing, the PC version has higher res textures for one thing, being double the size of the console versions, also the better precision you get with a mouse makes playing the game more about skill and less about struggling with the analogue sticks. The fact you can't even use a 360 pad on this shows that it was not ported directly from the 360. As for the game itself, well, the lighting Some people mistakenly say that the lighting in the original is better without realizing that the reason you got so many dynamic lights in the original was due to the closed off badly detailed levels. The sequel has much more detail in it's environments and it's actual lighting quality that they had to cut some of the dynamic lights in the game to make it playable on modest systems, replacing it with static lighting, which overall is a massive improvement over the old system. Those wanting full dynamic lights back better be reay to go back to the closed, dull levels of the original for the next game. As for someone saying it relies more on shock, you've got it the wrong way round, the original was the one that used the shock tactics, making you jump all the time. The sequel has a couple of these too, but it builds a more prevailing sense of unease throughout the game rather than Doom monster closet moments. The character models are fantastic for the game, with your team mates being nicely detailed and animated, which also goes for the enemies as well. The AI for me has been fine, but I know some people wanted a bigger challenge which is one of the improvements in the next patch which has been confirmed by the devs, along with DLC. The game has been bug-free for me the whole 3 times I have been through it, so I can't comment on any bugs in the game. The lack of lean is distracting, but anyone who lets something like that put them off this brilliant game is a fool. The story does enough to keep you held throughout, and unlike the first game, it is told well enough that you do not need to seek out external material to explain everything to you. For me it's alot more interesting than the first, more detailed and more variation, don't let the naysayers put you off, try the demo, if you like that you'll love the full game. Full Review »
  2. EwanM.
    Feb 15, 2009
    3
    Consolised pap! There's only one thing you really need to know about this and that's MOUSE ACCELERATION. The game isn't great but i reckon it would be a competent if mediocre shooter if not for this one thing rendering it completely unenjoyable. Even with the mouse sensitivity at its lowest setting a fast twitch of only a milimetre is enough to spin 180. It's no fun to control and just managing where to look gives me a sort of motion sickness and unease. It doesn't compare well to the original either. Even technically, the one thing you can almost guarantee will improve in a sequel, it comes up short. The enviroments are less destructible and the effects are poorer whch detracts from the combat. The weapon sounds are also less meaty. The slow mo effect is not as nice and it, along with the cartoony blood, makes the battles less visceral which is strange as the actual viscera has been upped. The loss of lean also negatively affects the combat. It's now more about charging in and spraying than creeping forward. To compemnsate the enmies are considerably less challenging and appear dumber. As a whole the game is brasher and more in your face. it's ringu isnpiration is obvious but it's approach to horror is noticeably more American. It focuses more on shocks ans frights rather than creepy and scary. More slasher flick than psychological horror. When you compare it to the underground levels of Stalker it comes up badly short. Also if you don't play in HD res (1920x1080 or 1280X720) you're going to have black bars cutting out a portion of your screen. Going by the Steam survey that's about 99% of people that play PCgames. Congrats Monolith you've now joined the ranks of sell out devs may the fleeting cash before your consumed into a publishers development arm prove worth it. Full Review »
  3. RayM
    Oct 1, 2009
    6
    Good, but way too short. I finished it in a weekend of non-hardcore gaming. Seemed to have about half the content of either FEAR or Extraction Point. Don't pay full price for this game! Full Review »