Metascore
79

Generally favorable reviews - based on 49 Critics

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 39 out of 49
  2. Negative: 0 out of 49
Buy On
  1. 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.
  2. PC Gamer
    72
    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]
  3. This somewhat scary sequel is a solid shooter, but it can't keep pace with its lauded predecessor.
  4. 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.
  5. 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.
  6. 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.
  7. 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.
  8. 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.
  9. F.E.A.R. 2: Project Origin offers players its share of great moments, but on a whole, this is just an average game.
  10. 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
7.7

Generally favorable reviews- based on 543 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Positive: 54 out of 105
  2. Negative: 16 out of 105
  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 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 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 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 »