Advanced Search Beta »
Basic Search Fields
ie8 fix
F.E.A.R. 2: Project Origin PC
User Score
7.9 out of 10

Generally favorable reviews- based on 270 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Positive: 217 out of 270
  2. Mixed: 24 out of 270
  3. Negative: 29 out of 270

Review this game

  1. Your Score
    10 out of 10
    Rate this:
    out of 10
  1. Submit
  2. Check Spelling

  3. Characters remaining: 5000 out of 5000

view
per page
  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.… Expand
    • 5 of 6 users said yes
  2. 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!
    • 4 of 7 users said yes
  3. 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.… Expand
    • 2 of 4 users said yes
  4. RobertC
    Sep 15, 2009
    10
    One of my favorite FPS of all time. Good fear factor, Alma is one scary b*tch, and a slow-mo feature make you hang onto the edge of your seat. And don't forget the graphics rock, and it has a good deal of realism / gore. Awesome game!
    • 1 of 2 users said yes
  5. Angrynuts
    Sep 15, 2009
    1
    This game gets a 1 for looks. And for giving me food for thought on how NOT to make a Horror/FPS. Having outdated technology on your system really hampers gameplay - Skipping during cut scenes ruining any scares, Overheating of your computer, and most things look shoddy. But thats obviously my fault, I dont sell my blood and/or body parts to get the extra necessary money to keep upgrading my computer to the futures standards of gaming. *Spoilers ahead*. The first interval blew me off my feet. It really did. When I jumped into the pool and became Alma in the Vault for a cut-scene, it got me really excited - The whole game felt like it would jump from between the now and in the past, explaining things to returning and new players alike in new depth. My hopes for this were mercilessly crushed. Attention to detail all through this first level was between average and high, although always having to vault over things movie style was a tad annoying. Soon after this, cracks appear. The game doesnt give you any free will. First time you see Genevieve Aristide, all you can do is turn your light on and off and walk around the room while she does her Monologue. This brings me to the first problem with the game - the player wants to change the course of the game and there is no way for this to happen. The player gets further frustrated when told to do this, meet here, explode that. For a game targeted at a Teenage audience who dont want to be ordered around, this is a big no-no. Back to what I was ranting about: After Genevieves pointless blabbing, things get a bit weird in a Fear1 fashion. But there is something missing in the graphic, something in the mood, it all feels fake. You walk back the only way you can, and watch the Vault facility explode in a cacophony much like you did in the first game. Also, dont turn on your flash light during this cut-scene, for you will glitch and end up standing again for some reason. Playing through the story after the first interval is confusing at first, until you realise how little attention to detail there is in this game. Its like the whole game team got tired and gave up after the first inteval. I put on my usual act of walking around this strange hospital, looking for perhaps some cut-scene which plummeted me into Almas world again. Or something that was at the very least interesting. Behold the amazing amounts of doors that wont open because theyre blocked. I got my first Wtf moment when i tried to open the toilets to find them all blocked. Not locked, but blocked somehow. WTF? The only bathroom which opened had a scary dead body in there. Whod of guessed? Gameplay has little fidelity to Fear1 - Fear2 suffers from Farcry2-itus. You really have to get in there and bash up a dude instead of saving before the room and thinking of stratagem. Also, Slo-mo is not an integral part of gameplay any more - Its a bit like Well, you can if you want to, but its slow enough as is. Another problem i had was that you cannot save during a firefight and try different ways to clear a room. That was half the fun in Fear1. Not being able to save was also a pain when trying to destroy one of many cliché giant robot things. This blatant infidelity in how this game plays really made me angry. My last point about gameplay is the disregard of a player being an independent entity, wanting to go where he or she wants, but being locked into a singular track with no options. Finally, if you have actually read through all of that, I come to my last point. Story. Trying to find out what the heck happened to Alma kept me playing Fear1. Fear2 made me think "This is not worth my concentration, Im not getting any at all story from it" as i threw myself up from my chair in disgust. Game should be renamed F.E.A.R. 2: Invisible walls Mania. Thanks for reading.… Expand
    • 1 of 3 users said yes
  6. Kronox
    Nov 30, 2009
    8
    I didn't expect a ground breaking "OH WOW LOOK AT THIS!!!" game when I bought FEAR2. What I did expect is a long single player play and to get some scares while blowing stuff up and to get deeper into the Alma story. The game delivered exactly what I expected. Never expect ground breaking genre shaking changes.. in a sequel "a big LOL at all reviewers that nixed this sequel because of this. The gameplay is solid, the graphics look better than they did in the original FEAR, and the story is believable. The game also had some memorable occasions like when you have to climb down into the blast crater of a small nuclear explosion and getting knocked off your feet earlier in said blast. Also the elementary school level was very scary. The scenes with Alma are truly creepy and I jumped in the game more than once. It really makes me laugh when a reviewer states as a negative "too many cheezy attempts to scare you" when that is what FEAR and FEAR2 are all about. Next they will complain that shooters use too many bullets. I wanted a game with creepiness and guns and if you also are looking for this, FEAR2, like its predecessor, does not dissapoint. Highly recommended. Also in response to Angry Nuts review, this game is rated M for Mature not T for Teen, go play a game that is designed for your age group and let the Adults have their fun.… Expand
    • 1 of 2 users said yes
  7. MikeS
    Feb 18, 2009
    5
    In short: average shooter. As with most other PC games - just a console port - so expect cuts & dumbing down. Including, but not limited to: AI is terribly simplistic, no leaning (with incredibly silly excuse by designers / producers), no manual savegames of any sort, graphics often worse than in the first installment (which is 3+ years older), the horror/fear parts barely noticable. The worst is that the game is incredibly easy - hard level corresponds to easy in FEAR 1 roughly. If you completed that one on extreme difficulty (not even present in the 2nd title), FEAR 2 will feel more like film than a game.… Expand
    • 0 of 0 users said yes
  8. JoshP
    Feb 11, 2009
    5
    It is a solid shooter, well paced and beautiful in graphics as well as design. It just doesn't live up to it's predecessor, it actually took steps backwards. It's a disappointment for any fan of the first installment and really doesn't offer any original twist, creativity or innovation. Like I said though, it's a solid shooter, just not one that you'll remember.
    • 0 of 0 users said yes
  9. TimE
    Feb 14, 2009
    9
    Sure it's no perfect game, but it does things right. I think ratings under 80% are to low, this game is a hell of fun and you can see the enhancements from the first game. I can reommend it to everyone who likes shooters, give it a try. Also I like the Steam platform, it updates the game automatically, the friends and community system is great. I have Steam now for over 3 years and I was really happy to see, that FEAR 2 needs it.… Expand
    • 0 of 0 users said yes
  10. ChrisK
    Feb 16, 2009
    9
    Looks different... obviously some people can not tell the difference. It's the same bloody engine Jupiter EX. The visuals are the same, the only thing different is the main character himself in terms of story. Game play is pretty much the same if not more tactical than before. I can't say there's no reason to flip tables over while getting shot at but running holstered or dual wielding pistols have been taken out. The game is fun, there's more interactivity, there's more questions to be answered, and of course there's more fear. Every step of the way feels unique though the weapons were never meant to be "truly original" like the gravity gun. It felt good... really good, yes like "John Woo" good.… Expand
    • 0 of 0 users said yes
  11. AdredB
    Mar 20, 2009
    10
    I think this game plays in the same league as the first part of Fear! I Love the horryble atmosphere.The sound in the game is quiet amazing!!The levels were designed with so much details and (If you have all Video Settings set to Maxiumum) I think the Graphics (+Effects) are a mixture between R6Vegas 2 and Crysis... so it definitely can keep up with presently FPS! 10/10 points.
    • 0 of 0 users said yes
  12. chases
    Mar 27, 2009
    8
    Pretty good game, the graphics are amazing and i was only playing at 1280 by 1024 res since my monitor is old. its ALOT scarier than fear 1, but for the bad aprts, the ai for some reason just is not as good as fear 1. they basically kinda run around and flip little things over for cover which in the end just get them kiled, in the first they would go thru rooms and hallways while keeping u pinned down and sneak up behind you, i dont even think they did this once in fear 2, its not about startegy like fear one just rushing in and spraying. the weapon sounds also are crap idk y but just listen i eman the smg n rifle are ok but listen to the auto shotgun the sound is like a bb gun its so awful, pretty good game tho honestly wouldnt pay 50 $ for it but a friend of mine gave me a free cd key so im not complaining, decent game just not as great as the first.… Expand
    • 0 of 0 users said yes
  13. Arch
    Mar 5, 2009
    10
    Great game. Needless the fact I've never played games like Killzone 2 or any other FEAR game, this one has surpassed any first person shooters I've ever played, much rivaling Fallout 3. I got this game for the PC, and i couldn't stay off of it. This game may prove to its name, but that definitely adds to the suspense of the game. Gameplay, visuals, even the fact that you can pilot an "elite armor unit" which is essentially a mech on steroids, makes this game awesome. Two thumbs way up.… Expand
    • 0 of 0 users said yes
  14. CarlS
    Mar 7, 2009
    9
    I really thought this game was going to be boring, along the lines of "Oh well, another installation. What could they possibly do to top the first F.E.A.R.?" I saw considerable changes although some of the graphics were lacking. The amount of 'scare' and combat were pretty well balanced. I got hung up a couple of times! I really had to use a little strategy. The ending was surprising and disappointing at the same time but I feel there just HAS to be another installation. Great way to piece the story together. I did enjoy playing this game.… Expand
    • 0 of 0 users said yes
  15. sieni
    Jun 1, 2009
    9
    Great game. The graphics are quite good and the lighting is very nice. It's fun to play and at the end I wanted more fo this. Scary at first but I got used to it soon. And that's a nice thing because I don't like games that scare the shit out of me. Hallucinations are nicely made. I like the story and the pieces of text that can be found during the game. And last but definitely not the least: the atmosphere is great.… Expand
    • 0 of 0 users said yes
  16. RickJ.
    Jun 4, 2009
    6
    a mediocre horror shooter. if you like doom 3 this will please you too, if you like half-life probably you will be bored. story is as unimpressive as the ways to create horror (you have this high tech equipement and will find weapons and ammunition all over the place but no new flashlight to replace the poor flickering one you have) . probably nice graphics but as you run around in the semi or completely dark you won't notice. lots of gore and blood (head rolling in the wash machine etc.) but it didn't work for me to create suspense or horror. all in all quite disappointing.… Expand
    • 0 of 0 users said yes
  17. SvenR.
    Aug 2, 2009
    2
    If you have played the first parts of F.E.A.R., you'll expect something from the second part. I felt not satisfied of it, there are absolutely no horror moments, it's like Alma becomes a normal girl and not the evil in person. The graphics are also very low. It's just no satisfaction to paly this when you know how brutal and bloody FEAR one was.
    • 0 of 0 users said yes
  18. AndrewB
    Aug 9, 2009
    3
    This game continues the F.E.A.R. story but it was lacking in horror, and what little horror they had, didn't scare me as much as the 1st two releases. (F.E.A.R. and F.E.A.R. Extraction Point) The combat has greatly improved but unfortunately is over used making it boring and repetitive. It seemed like some of the fights would never end due to glitches. Don't get me started on multiplayer... just don't.... Some glitches 'caused you to restart an entire chapter over because when you saved the game and went back to it later, things such as: Elevators did not crash like they were suppose to, leaving you thinking there was another way out. (Spent 1 hour doing this until I left the game). Another was the clicking battle of Colonel Vanek, if you saved the game before the fight, you would end up clicking until you gave up and restarted the game. Its powered by steam which requires you to play online even if you which to play single player and to even install the game itself. Has no cheat codes, leaving the gaming experience mono-style. You can't save the game at certain points. This meant if you wanted to play your favourite part you have to replay the entire chapter in which it was in. (That is if you can remember which chapter it was actually in!) Overall this was the best game I have played since FEAR Extraction Point... for 1st time. You can really only play this game 2 or 3 times before you kill yourself. If you have $80 to waste or you're a die-hard fan of the F.E.A.R. series I'd recommend it.… Expand
    • 0 of 1 users said yes
  19. Shaun
    Jan 30, 2010
    8
    This game had it's ups and downs. Several of the good things was the graphics which brought the game up a notch. Along with some new music added on from the old series. For those who played the earlier versions of F.E.A.R found that the scares did not seem to change. Also new people to the game won't understand all the information given since it is based around a Special ops team not a F.E.A.R team. Would suggest renting this game if you are new to the series since the single player mode only makes you want to play it once. Die hard F.E.A.R might want to buy it all together though.… Expand
    • 0 of 0 users said yes
  20. joehennesM
    Jan 4, 2010
    10
    Great,most emotion I ever had by a shooter. I´m deeply moved land ooking forward to part 3
    • 0 of 1 users said yes
  21. LisacT
    Mar 21, 2010
    7
    I give it 6.8 due to several reasons. I wouldn't mind the console port that much, if it's done properly. However, lack of leaning, custom game saving and quite deteriorated shading (yes, shading) even when compared to the first game released 5 years ago, back in 2005, have affected the final score. On the positive side, the ending wasn't that bad, comparing to most of today's FPS and other popular genres. Sticking to the original story, settings and weapons is also for commendation, although I find it way too sci-fi comparing to the "mild" sci-fi atmosphere of the first part. Graphichs are mostly good, except for the shading which probably suffered due to consoles. I'll mention a few more bad moments that ruined the game to an extent: glowing enemies in SlowMo mode, tagged and glowing stuff (intel, weapons, grenades etc.), bad level design in about 1/2 of the game, playing on hardest level is still too easy even after the patch (which should fix it), AI is often not very bright which has been compensated by the quantity... Generally, I don't like killing zillion enemies and have a feeling that I accomplished nothing, which is exactly what awaits you. I'd rather kill 5 guys each level, but they should make me sweat till I do it.… Expand
    • 0 of 0 users said yes
  22. AnonymousMC
    Jul 17, 2008
    6
    Played the demo at E3 -- serviceable (nice gore effects), cool walking mechanical suits, good-looking explosions. But the motion feels unnatural, the controls are not as responsive as they should be, the bad guys look cartoonish... This one is no Call of Duty 4, and the horror themes don't make up for poor execution.
    • 0 of 0 users said yes
  23. PhobosH
    Dec 30, 2009
    10
    Thrill, Action, Grafics, Gameplay = Just love it. Always entertains me very good.
    • 0 of 0 users said yes
  24. MatthewT
    Dec 4, 2009
    9
    Funny and scary at the right point. The graphics are not exceptional, but are lightweights and have a good impact. I recommend it
    • 0 of 0 users said yes
  25. DanielG
    Feb 10, 2009
    9
    One of very few games worth $50 bucks, I like games that have constantly evolving narrative in single player, and replay value in multiplayer, and Project Origin has both.
    • 0 of 0 users said yes
  26. MatthieuD
    Feb 11, 2009
    9
    FEAR was the first and only game that scared the hell out of me. I thought that could never be achieved again. I was wrong! FEAR 2 has more breath-taking moments that scares me alot. It's one in a kind! The effects are great, the graphics had a nice update, beter leveldesign, etc. The only bad thing that's bad is the recyclingpart. Lots of props etc. have been re-used from the original FEAR. But FEAR 2 kicks ass!… Expand
    • 0 of 0 users said yes
  27. MarvinMesch
    Feb 12, 2009
    10
    Fear 2 is another awesome times good shooter from the forge of WB Games. Alma is back and now you can even attack. The graphics are a lot better than the predecessor and also the engine can be clearly seen. There are also lots of shock moments e.g. at the beginning of the game. From me full 10 points.
    • 0 of 0 users said yes
  28. SteamForums
    Feb 12, 2009
    0
    I loved FEAR1, and story/graphics/gameplay wise, I'm digging this one. There were a few things the developers neglected to add however, that are pretty standard in any modern PC game, particularly of the FPS variety. 1: No Anticheat or dedicated servers for multiplayer. 2: Not able to bind mouse 4 and mouse 5. 3: 16:9 resolution, but where the hell is 16:10?!? 4: No save feature, no auto save feature. Pretty much, only 1 save slot - period. 5: Glowing enemies? Seriously, slow motion wasn't enough? 6: Amateur shadow work. Dropped the ball there, badly. 7: Glass breaks in a LESS realistic way than Fear 1 (EXTREMELY noticeable in slow-mo) 8: No real time reflections (if there are, there were not on any of the puddles or anything I inspected) 9: Camera clips through your own player's shoulders very frequently, melee animations are not as good as Fear 1. 10: Despite being advertised as "Games for Windows Live" it does not have any 360 controller support, that is actually part of the live certification, and expected to be supported. Not that FEAR2 is a bad game, but it's definitely going in the wrong direction when you compare it to the first game. If you guys continue to make games like this, don't even bother with FEAR3. I don't even want to imagine what that will be like, and how much it will cost.… Expand
    • 0 of 0 users said yes
  29. JamieH
    Feb 14, 2009
    9
    No real complaints. Played well, was fun, ect. If only it wasn't so short it would of gotten a 10 from me. However that's nothing to worry about, multilayer will fill the frustration with the play time and win over any player.
    • 0 of 0 users said yes
  30. RyanT
    Feb 14, 2009
    8
    I'll keep it simple, the graphics and gameplay are awesome. If you love FEAR then you will like number 2. Multiplayer is fun but missing one of everyones favourite game types from the first. However I'm sure they will add this to FEAR 2 eventually. Scary and fun so yeah 8 out of 10, not quite perfect.
    • 0 of 0 users said yes
  31. DavidK
    Feb 14, 2009
    8
    86/100 One of the better first person shooters I have played in a while but it is lacking in ceratin areas. If you liked the other F.E.A.R. games as I do I am sure you will love this one. The beginning may turn you off but the overall length of the game and graphic quality make up for it. It has a fantasic audio and music soundtrack much better then its three predecessors. I remember having to suffer through the first three games with 7.1 and random high pitched static that would happen in ceratin areas making the game unplayabe ending in a restart of the game. In all honesty it is probably the best soundtrack/audio I have experienced in a fps. I think it is that good. Besides the lack-luster feel that most Hollywood back games seem to have the artwork and style is good though I find the slow mo and death effects not as good as in the first game. I found the gameplay erratic and unusually easy on the 'normal' level with easy mob fights and very hard sniper segments but this should hopefully be better at a higher level. The storyline is very strong in this and ties all the rest together contrary to the confusing ending that I very muched liked. It is a fun ride and worth playing. If you like first person shooters it is a must. It is definately a must if you like to be scared. Monolith's horror games are slowly becoming some of the best in the genre. Oh is it worth the price? Are any of the first-run games? I am sure there should be two or three expansions out of this. On a personal note, Ah Monolith, lose Warner Bros Games. Hollywood and gaming does not mix...sorry. Hollywood can ruin a classic series of games and has no business in the gaming industry. They ah have a tendacy to make the quality of things how should I put it...go down. And that is a poltie way of explaining what happens when they get involved and their money is more imporant that the actually art itself. Good game guys.… Expand
    • 0 of 0 users said yes
  32. SteveM.
    Feb 17, 2009
    0
    It seems that the lucky few that are able to run the game have a chance to enjoy it, although, it would appear it doesn't live up to the original. I however have only experienced GROSS disappointment as I am unable to run the game at all, it would seem there are thousands of others in the same boat. Official forums are dead when it comes to developer feedback on fixes but there are some efforts from community members in attempting to fix the issues for people. I am technically savy, but when I am being asked to uninstall audio hardware, delete codecs and remove video files in order to be able to play the game with no video or sound I draw the line. The audio component of the original was one of the compelling features of the game. frankly this should not have been released and I will be returning the box to the store I bought it from at the earliest opportunity. Buyer beware, this will likely NOT run and will lead only to dismay and NO support from Monolith or the publisher..... Very poor performance!!!… Expand
    • 0 of 0 users said yes
  33. AdrianHouser
    Feb 19, 2009
    5
    I enjoyed the play thru, it was great. BUT WHAT IN THE HELL were they thinking when they took away the ability to play the game thru as a fresh start. All intel items you discover are PERMANENTLY saved along with the power ups for your Slow Mo. It's ruined the play thru a second time and that for me is unforgivable.
    • 0 of 0 users said yes
  34. kylebC
    Feb 21, 2009
    7
    It's TOO EASY! I'm a casual gamer and usually play games on medium difficulty. I turned this one up to Hard and I was only challenged near the end. The machine gun you start with takes the heavily armored guys down with 3 or 4 rounds--no head shots required. It would've actually been much more fun if they doubled the hit points of all the enemies. Other than that it9;s a very polished shooter--like a dream after the clumsy Fallout 3 combat engine.… Expand
    • 0 of 0 users said yes
  35. LukeScott
    Mar 2, 2009
    1
    The orginal f.e.a.r was better this one has so many flaws, you can use a gaming controller, you cant map keys to your mouse if you're using a gaming mouse. The story isn't done well, you have to click on little blue discs throughout the game and actually read it to get a full grasp of what's going on. Instead of just including it into the characters speech.
    • 0 of 0 users said yes
  36. Simons
    Mar 22, 2009
    8
    I love these games. Not innovative but personally I liked the original and I like this. My only real issue is not with this game but with this genre. I hate linear. However in its genre for me its one of the best aided mainly by the great storyline and creep atmospherics. My main criticism would be that its not creep enough if anything.
    • 0 of 0 users said yes
  37. 8489
    Mar 3, 2009
    9
    If you've ever played the first Fear this games a must. Regarding Graphics im able to run the game on max with no problems and there stunning. Gameplay is great, However multiplayer was a little bit of a let down but is overall good. Problems ive noticed & read are that alot of the multiplayer servers are Priate Game Copy's which makes finding a multiplayer game hard. but hosting your own game works out well. My rating Breakdown. Single Player: 8/10 Graphics: 9/10 Gameplay: 7/10 (nothings perfect) Multiplayer: 6/10.… Expand
    • 0 of 0 users said yes
  38. BenA
    Mar 31, 2009
    0
    No Multiplayer Server Files = Non interested gamer. I bought the day it was released hoping to really nail some online noobs, not knowing the server files weren't released for the Multi-player side of the game. Honestly, do you buy a game just for the single player if your a hardcore gamer?
    • 0 of 0 users said yes
  39. BenA
    Apr 6, 2009
    0
    No Multiplayer Server Files = Non interested gamer. I bought the day it was released hoping to really nail some online noobs, not knowing the server files weren't released for the Multi-player side of the game. Honestly, do you buy a game just for the single player if your a hardcore gamer?
    • 0 of 0 users said yes
  40. [ANONYMOUS]
    Sep 27, 2009
    6
    Very fun but VERY short. between 1-2 hours of true game play
    • 0 of 0 users said yes
  41. N.Davidson
    Jan 17, 2010
    8
    I absolutely loved F.E.A.R. 2. So far, I haven't played a scarier game than this one. The music was pure awesome, the characters were well done, and the cutscenes were to die for. I know the first game was known to be better than the first, but the second game is still great. However, the controls felt a bit stiff, and the sprint seemed useless. If there's a F.E.A.R. 3 coming out, I won't skip a beat. Great job Monolith.… Expand
    • 0 of 0 users said yes
  42. JacquesM
    Apr 25, 2010
    0
    I honestly can't give it better than a zero. Why? Because I cannot play it. Even after purchasing the retail DVD package it requires one to create a Steam acocunt. The problem is that Steam won't let you play until you download a huge patch and if you have a poor or slow connection it keeps aborting and starting over. Nor will it go into offline mode, nor obey the setting not to update the game. as a result 5 days after purchase the game is still unplayable, and likely to remain so. Buyer beware! PS. The first FEAR and it's expansion packs were a lot of fun. But I guess the publisher never heard of the saying "if it isn't broken, don't fix it". They ruined an otherwise geat game. I won't even consider getting FEAR 3 due out later this year even if I do get @ working - just too much hassle.… Expand
    • 0 of 0 users said yes
  43. robertol
    Dec 28, 2009
    9
    FEAR 2 is awesome! if you like FPS and horror games.. well, this is it!! i have never seen before a game that could mix a horror tale and a FPS action. But as all games i played, is always something missing.. In FEAR 2 all the mechanics and game play feels great, but the visual part could be alot better, with some shadows and frame rates issues FEAR 2 could be visually a lot better. But i still love it.… Expand
    • 0 of 0 users said yes
  44. LeeW.
    Feb 12, 2009
    7
    The first one was the worst game ever, so I consider this an improvement. The little detail effects are great, but the rest is pretty mediocre. Don't get me wrong, this is a big improvement over Monolith's previous BS of AI, graphics, storyline, sounds, voice acting, and whatnot, but it's no Call of Duty 4 or anything actually scary. The scares are nonexistent, but they9;re not pathetic. Try it, but I would recommend quite a few games right over this.… Expand
    • 0 of 0 users said yes
  45. FaxorU.
    Feb 12, 2009
    5
    The game just doesn't live up to the original, it just doesn't feel like FEAR any more. A word of warning : this game does NOT support 4:3 and 16:10 monitor ratios (90% of the PCs), it will letterbox your screen instead!! It's an unfinished product so I suggest you wait for a patch before buying.
    • 0 of 0 users said yes
  46. TimR.
    Feb 13, 2009
    9
    This game is spooky and fun. There seems to be a surplus of ammo and armor, but if you can get past that, or just not pick it up every time it's there, you will find a decent challenge. Alma continues to creep me out, just like she did in F.E.A.R. 1. I never played Perseus Mandate so I can't compare it to that, but so far it's on par with the original game. Dead Space was scarier, but in my opinion, F.E.A.R. 2 is more fun. This is one to get if you have the money and you're looking for a decent fps game for 2009. Multiplayer is underused as of the time of this post, but I'm sure it will pick up with ranked matches implemented into the game.… Expand
    • 0 of 0 users said yes
  47. BrianB.
    Feb 17, 2009
    2
    Absolutely terrible. The storyline is great, but the comat is downright awful. All saving has been replaced by checkpoints, which are either 30 seconds or 45 minutes of gameplay apart. Enemy AI is far dumber than in the original FEAR, but the random environmental deaths and replicants suicidally charging at you with a rocket launcher make for uninteresting and downright frustrating combat. It's worth playing if you don't mind attempting each death wasting a significant portion of your time as you'll probably have to go back and kill paper-maché soldiers you just finished off, praying nothing lands on top of you or blows up next to you.… Expand
    • 0 of 0 users said yes
  48. MaxP.
    Feb 17, 2009
    7
    Overall fun game. Good enough graphics. Not as good as the first one. The biggest problem I have with this game is how Short it is. 3 days you are done with it. Wish it could have been longer. Also it seems like they were building the game for all three platforms and not just PC (which is what the first game was).
    • 0 of 0 users said yes
  49. ScottP
    Feb 24, 2009
    8
    Fear 2 has some of the same issues that apply to most sequels, it's overly simplistic, too easy, shorter, and can't capture the originality and mood of the original. The sound issues some people have reported appear similar to the one for Call of Duty 4, which I solved on my machine by plugging an extra pair of headphones in the front microphone ports. I wonder if some of the people complaining about the graphics are running it on lower quality settings as I found the graphics amazing, and probably the first game to slow down my 8800GT. Overall amazing graphics, decent storyline, but still lacking compared to the original.… Expand
    • 0 of 0 users said yes
  50. DeanOakwood
    Feb 28, 2009
    8
    The original F.E.A.R. is still my favorite video game - the right balance of story, action, and tension. But this feels too much like a clone of Crysis - more action and less tension. The new qualities seem offset by the lamer AI, the extra backstory is cancelled out by the obtuse last two chapters (including the ending), and the extra battle strategies don't fit in. Don't get me wrong - it's a good game, but if it weren't for the reference to Armacham, Aristide, and Alma, it wouldn't feel like F.E.A.R. at all.… Expand
    • 0 of 0 users said yes
  51. BrentP
    Apr 22, 2009
    8
    Single player is fun and very scary. Online is pretty solid and the toy solider maps are pretty cool. The reason I gave it an 8 is because graphics are AMAZING, single player is very well done, and multiplayer is solid. Only three problems. 1. Not many people are online for this game, makes it a bummer, 2. Even though I bought this game on PC, I usually play Xbox 360, so I need to still get used to the keyboard and mouse control system. 3. Cannot use your Xbox 360 controller with the game. Missed oppurtunity! Otherwise, this game is worth your $50.… Expand
    • 0 of 0 users said yes
  52. JoseE
    Jun 22, 2009
    10
    The game is amazing. I'm a fan of fear and fear 2 kept it's name as one of the best horror/fps game out to date. The graphics are AMAZING, gameplay is GREAT, combat is AWESOME, game is , VERY VERY SCARY though fear was a bit more scarier imo.
    • 0 of 0 users said yes
  53. JamesR
    Nov 22, 2009
    9
    Solid game, although not as good as the first. Worth the money for single player only, if you like multiplayer, its still fun, although less players then big name games.
    • 0 of 0 users said yes
  54. Dalek
    Jan 3, 2011
    8
    This is one addicting fun game, but its too short, I will let you take a guess how long it is? 6 Hours. It took me less than a day to complete it. What a disappointment. But the game itself is still good, the graphics are nice but the key bindings are weird so you might want to re-bind shift to run instead of alt. It isn't as scary. One part made me jump but the rest was just special effects. Entertaining game, only a few servers up left, around 5.… Expand
  55. baseballduder
    Sep 14, 2010
    10
    Awesome game!! It is very intense and totally worth the buy. It scared me almost the whole time of playing and gave me chills up my spine. I loved how the story line was in depth if you follow along with everything that is going on. It is not always dark all the time like other people are saying. The graphics are awesome, and the developers really put thought into the levels and gameplay. If you like to look at things in game while running around this is a good game to do it. The online portion of the game is alot of fun and can get addicting. It follows the F.e.a.r line of freaking you out! Love it!!… Expand
  56. Skull-o-mania
    Sep 30, 2010
    5
    I find that f.e.a.r. one and 2 should be stricken from the records of gaming in general. Both times I've played them I felt cheated for spending my time playing them. The reason for this was a lack of planning on the developers side. I liked the game play, the graphics, the atmosphere; but in both games I got to one point of the game where I ran out of ammo and could not progress nor could I go back to find ammo that had been dropped (This happened on normal). I spent hours trying to inch-forward only to be destroyed by any grunt who had a drop on me. It's hard for me to give any good credit when a core aspect of a game such as having bullets in which to shoot enemies some how falls by the way side. Plus the fact that I felt the multi-player to be bland and out dated for its time, and obvious add on. But seriously most games I play I try my hardest to beat, and to challenge myself with hard difficulty levels. So getting to a point where I was out of ammo made me feel out of options. I could not sneak around enemies nor find other option in which to subdue them. So fear goes back on the self with all the other games I've rented… Expand
  57. theshonen8899
    May 13, 2011
    6
    What I loved about the original FEAR was the atmosphere, scares, and elusive story. Much of that returns in FEAR 2, but not quite as well as you would like it to. While the graphics and gameplay are superb, the enemies are annoying and the story is very disappointing compared to the original. If you liked the first game though you'll definitely want to play this is for the scares alone, as they are definitely just as frightening as ever, if not more so.… Expand
  58. JonesR
    Jun 10, 2011
    7
    This sequel is simply ok. It doesn't provide the same intense horror experience that the original F.E.A.R. does. Original F.E.A.R. players will know more or less what to expect next. But other than the lack of innovation, it still is a decent game.
  59. SambaL
    Jan 9, 2011
    7
    I play titles like this for the single player experience, multiplayer modes in shooters like F.E.A.R. 2 are just an extra for me. I've got multiplayer shooters like the Battlefield series for that pleasure. That said i won't be giving lower points to the online multiplayer part if it's not that great 'cause i simply don't expect it to be. Having played the first game i can say F.E.A.R. 2 continues the series with good effort, although it's not as good on all points. To start off with the good i will say that the story and the given setting is the best part of the game, even though the plot can be a little difficult to follow sometimes the story and places your visit will keep you interested and make you want to finish the game to see what happens, which won't take you very long, 9 to 10 hours of normal play. But it's long enough in my opinion. If a game is too long a game like this can eventually lose your interest in which case you'll most likely never finish it at all. Just Cause 2 being a fine example of this. Gameplay wise not a lot has changed since the original, only improvements on some of the core gameplay mechanics and a few new gameplay elements like iron sighting and the ability to operate a mech suite. In the end nothing shocking really, which can also be said for the gameplay itself, but it's satisfying enough. The graphics never really stand out above other titles in this genre but it's more than adequit to satisfy the ones who love graphics. Design and environments play a mayor part too in this and deserve an extra notice. The levels are well detailed, dynamic, destructable and have a good layout and some nicely placed scripted events too. Most noticable level to back this up would without a doubt be the Elementary School. So what's bad about the game than? Well, it isn't as scary as it used to be for one. Let me put it this way, if F.E.A.R. would be the Japanese horror movie Ringu (which was probably a big inspiration) than F.E.A.R. 2 would be an episode of Ghost hunters. Maybe that's a little exaggerated but you get the point, it's not as scary as you would like and expect it to be in a way the first one was. Next to that the i found the overall sound a bit lacking. In most part this was fine like the music which created some nice tension but i'm talking about the sound effects with the gun sounds in particular. It all sounded a little weak for my taste, especially the shotgun. But these are just small things. In the end there isn't really anything wrong with F.E.A.R. 2 , the problem lies more in what's good. It's just that, good, nothing more. F.E.A.R. 2 never really pops out in any way. So eventually you could say that F.E.A.R. 2 is an above average shooter. Nothing really special, just good. My advise would be that if you liked the original F.E.A.R and it's installments and you digged the story as much as i did or if you're just looking for a good shooter to pass the weekend i'm positive you'll enjoy F.E.A.R. 2. But for those of you who are looking for something new and groundbraking or want a good scare i would recommend to pass on this one, it's not that special.… Expand
  60. Tomwelcome
    Mar 25, 2011
    9
    Gameplay - 8.5 , Graphics - 8.0 , Story - 8.5 , Playing time - 20+hours (MP include). A pretty average shooter. The first play though is fun, and the multiplayer is OK. Don't feel like playing it anymore after 25 hours.
  61. cidian
    May 27, 2011
    4
    I loved the first game and its expansion, but Project Origin left me very disappointed. Uninspiring story, no real horror moments, repetitive gameplay, mediocre graphics, feels like a console port, etc. Really expected so much more from this game.
  62. darkballz_pl
    Nov 28, 2011
    8
    Well, F.E.A.R 2 isn't so impressive as the first one, but still it's decent, solid shooter with nice music and good storyline. Game is short, fear factor is small, however meets present standards.
  63. Zen-Zinxe
    Jun 23, 2011
    8
    After trying every aspect of this game, I want to try to give a fair review. Story: If you liked the first game because of the story, you probably will enjoy this one too. As far as I'm concerned, everything related to the story was quite interesting, and kept me basically glued to the game until the end. The ending made me a bit disappointed but, that's just me, I don't care much for cliffhanger endings, though I should have expected as much considering the ending to the first. Basically, the story is solid, the scares and atmosphere in this one are improved, partially due to graphics. Graphics: This game has exceptional graphics, I knew I was in for something impressive when the download size of this game from steam (including the DLC) was nearly 15 gigabytes, a definite improvement over the original. This is one of those linear shooters where it does well to hide the linear aspect due to graphics. F.E.A.R. 1 did this fairly well with level designs, but it was still limited due to the technological capabilities of the time. F.E.A.R. 2 is just solid bad-assery in the graphics department. If you're computer can handle it on higher graphics settings, you will love it, even for a game released a few years ago, the graphics are top notch in my opinion. Another thing to note is the world detail, all the little things around the world that make it feel real, this game is so real it's almost disturbing, the interactions of the characters, the lighting, the props, it's all great. Gameplay: Well, you can't lean anymore, and I don't mind that it's gone, leaning was just another finger on my keyboard that I couldn't use, does it feel like a console port because they made the interface a little bit simpler? Not at all, the game is a solid PC pickup. It walks a fine line between dumbed down console port and decent PC shooter, the best of both worlds, simple, but not in any way boring. The AI is not worse than in the first, it's basically about the same difficulty, I assume I'm playing on Hard difficulty post-patch, cause everyone is complaining about the difficulty being too easy, yet I had a rough time on a lot of the levels. Sometimes you really gotta keep your eyes moving, and on hard, you really need to abuse the slow-mo to make it out clean (or at all, I doubt I could have beaten it without it). Multiplayer: The multiplayer component is well done it seems, I find the use of gamespy annoying, but that's just me, the maps are cool, I really like the pinball machine map, and the customizable loadouts are a nice touch to keep things fairly fresh and balanced. In fact, the only thing that hinders the multiplayer experience for the PC is the lack of players, from what I saw in my short time after buying this game there were less than 5 player hosted (no dedicated servers it appears) games going on, and the first one I joined happened to be in Russia, I'm in Canada, so my ping was awful, but I ended up joining a game where I had decent ping with the host, and it was fun! If there were more than 3 people in that match, it would have been even MORE fun. But I took what I could get, and had a great time, it almost reminded me of the good ol' AVP2 days. Technical aspects: The technical parts of the game are ok, gamespy run ranked matches I don't care for, but nobody plays ranked from what I saw, the game feels reliable, though some of my tool tips telling me what keys do what in the menus appeared to turn into french? I'm not sure, but "escape" key sure didn't say escape in the tool tip. Other than that, the only technical options this game could use is the option to quick-save (though I understand why you can't), and dedicated servers. But here's the summary, this game is enjoyable; solid graphics (often breathtaking), addictive multiplayer (but a lack of players), fantastic story, very well done, the whole direction of the game is great. The AI is challenging on hard, but certainly beatable. I got this for 10 bucks on steam, USD, and keep in mind the Canadian dollar is higher right now, and I gotta say, it's a better steal than the F.E.A.R. ultimate shooter edition for 10 bucks (FEAR plus the 2 expansions), because those didn't come with multiplayer, but THIS did. 10 or 20$ to romp around in a mech that can shred foot soldiers to pools of blood in seconds is beyond worth it alone, everything else aside. It's not perfect, but it is in no way mediocre.… Expand
  64. shez
    Jul 31, 2011
    8
    Yes⦠Fear 3 is good game, with good graphics (directx 11 too) and a solid gameplay, good atmospheres and cinematic pathosâ¦and also it has a good replay value since the the co-op/multiplayer is well structured. People who played the first chapter will not feel betrayed after all, because the franchise had to be re-modernized to keep the action more updated to modern shooters. The only flaw is that this choice has made this third chapter a little too much âmilitaryâ like the Modern Warfare series, but however the quality of the gameplay will nevertheless keep high the attention of the player. In the end, this game is a good hybrid between modern shooters and the old nice F.E.A.R experience, terrific slow-motions included. Donât miss it.… Expand
  65. sinadoom
    Nov 21, 2011
    6
    First of all compliments to the great game engine. Its shooting physics and gun play are very well done. The campaign plays just like Half-Life 2, with the story being told in the same way. Only difference is that there's random hallucinations mixed in at appropriate times. These are very well-done and although not scary, they create a great, mysterious atmosphere. The biggest disappointment is that there are no ranked multiplayer matches (2011), with only 1 or 2 unranked servers online at any given time. It's a shame since the multiplayer has potential to be fun and perhaps more polished than F.E.A.R. Combat's. The story is short with a lack of varied environments and gameplay. However, what you do get is of fairly decent quality and there's nothing like it out there. I played the demo on Xbox 360 and on PC before purchasing and it's quite clear that this game was made for the PC judging by the wealth of buttons in this game. Overall it's a decent game but not good value for money.… Expand
  66. starsh3ro
    Nov 15, 2011
    8
    i just finished it and i think its a good game. the sounds are nice, it has some creepy moments and also some funny easter eggs, the level design is nice. well the graphics are okay. the animations look realistic, exept the animation of shot enemys, they sometimes just dissapear or beam to the ground after bullet impact. the main game is a bit too easy in my opinion - you can just be rushing without dying a single time, on hard difficulty. the reborn dlc has a few more enemys and is a bit more of a challenge. all together its about 7,5 hours of fun and shouldnt be missing in your games collection.… Expand
  67. Musa3486
    Nov 4, 2011
    10
    A very solid game.A little different from the first but after a while it becomes an game of its own.graphics are great, Al is great and the horror is turned up a level leaving you on the edge of your seat walking down dark areas.overall I loved the game play and highly recommend.
  68. Junior098123
    Dec 29, 2011
    10
    GREAT game i played but finished in less than a day and a half kinda short but LOVE the game-play made me jump i like it recommend it to anyone suggest you buy it and one of my favorite first person shooters
prev next
Page:
  • 1

Recommended Products

  1. F.E.A.R. Perseus Mandate

    • Release Date: Nov 6, 2007
    • Platform: PC
    F.E.A.R. Perseus Mandate Image

  2. F.E.A.R. Extraction Point

    F.E.A.R. Extraction Point Image

Critic Reviews

All reviews »
Metascore
79 out of 100

Generally favorable reviews - based on 49 Critics

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 39 out of 49
  2. Mixed: 10 out of 49
  3. Negative: 0 out of 49
  1. PC Zone UK
    80
    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]
  2. GamePro
    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]
  3. Game Informer
    83
    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.
    Read full review
See all critic reviews »