User Score
5.9

Mixed or average reviews- based on 410 Ratings

User score distribution:
Buy On

Review this game

  1. Your Score
    0 out of 10
    Rate this:
    • 10
    • 9
    • 8
    • 7
    • 6
    • 5
    • 4
    • 3
    • 2
    • 1
    • 0
    • 0
  1. Submit
  2. Check Spelling
  1. Jun 22, 2016
    7
    I was thrilled to hear of a third F.E.A.R., and that it marked the return of the Point Man and Paxton Fettel in earnest. It's an excellent co-op title, offering divergent experiences depending on which character is used. It's generally much more challenging then the earlier titles, affording you meager regen health and many deaths if you do not take advantage of it's somewhat unusualI was thrilled to hear of a third F.E.A.R., and that it marked the return of the Point Man and Paxton Fettel in earnest. It's an excellent co-op title, offering divergent experiences depending on which character is used. It's generally much more challenging then the earlier titles, affording you meager regen health and many deaths if you do not take advantage of it's somewhat unusual first-person cover system. Most people dislike this mechanic, I for one enjoyed it in Killzone 2 and in this game. Fettel's powers are a blast to use and there is a satisfying array of weapons. Mechanically, the game is sound. However, it has some story problems. On the whole it is far less creepy the earlier titles, giving Alma a much reduced role and forgoing many scares in favor of more thrilling gun battles. Much like F.E.A.R. 2, it makes little use of prior story elements and opts to take things laterally, offering some interesting backstory but leaving the continuing narrative stagnant. As it stands, each new FEAR raises more questions then it answers, and here we are years later with only a laughably poor free multiplayer shooter in F.E.A.R. Online to show for it. Expand
  2. Nov 9, 2015
    6
    While as a solo experience, it's just a disappointing followup to the previous games in the series, the inclusion of a second playable coop character with unique powers elevates it to a worthwhile use of your time. It's not especially interesting or polished, but the mechanics of the two player characters together makes it an enjoyable campaign to go through with a friend. It also tends toWhile as a solo experience, it's just a disappointing followup to the previous games in the series, the inclusion of a second playable coop character with unique powers elevates it to a worthwhile use of your time. It's not especially interesting or polished, but the mechanics of the two player characters together makes it an enjoyable campaign to go through with a friend. It also tends to go on sale for very cheap, so if you're looking for a more coop stuff and have a friend to play with, you could do worse. Not my highest recommendation, but I had a good time playing as a ghost who can possess enemies and use their guns against them, because of course I did. Expand
  3. Sep 24, 2015
    6
    What happened to this franchise?! It's an absolute mess. Mouse controls are messed up on PC, the story has degenerated into a confusing and nonsensical mess, and the scares are practically non-existent. What's left is a shallow first person shooter that doesn't do anything original or groundbreaking to separate itself from its predecessor. Truly a disappointing game.
  4. May 19, 2015
    5
    What can I say about F.E.A.R 3? Well, obviously, it's the 3rd game in the F.E.A.R franchise, which, one would expect, would say everything. But in all honesty, it doesn't - in fact, the third installment of the F.E.A.R franchise is much more akin to the generic first person shooter than the trouser-browning horror shooter that the F.E.A.R name is otherwise known for.

    The gameplay is, to
    What can I say about F.E.A.R 3? Well, obviously, it's the 3rd game in the F.E.A.R franchise, which, one would expect, would say everything. But in all honesty, it doesn't - in fact, the third installment of the F.E.A.R franchise is much more akin to the generic first person shooter than the trouser-browning horror shooter that the F.E.A.R name is otherwise known for.

    The gameplay is, to put it in one word, generic. You have guns, they go bang, there are a LOT of enemies to shoot with them, same old. However, the genericness is tempered slightly with a very nice cover system, the slow-mo mechanic which is a mainstay of the F.E.A.R franchise, and the occasional creepy moment, though undoubtedly nothing as trouser-wetting as the previous games in the series, which I have admittedly not actually played a lot of. There is also some geo-mod, but this is needless and hinders more than it helps. However, the game is still relatively fun despite the genericness and shortcomings.

    The story is confusing. Whilst playing through the game I had little idea of what was actually going on, but from what I could gather, Alma, the creepy little F.E.A.R mainstay, has become pregnant for whatever reason, and the main character, the "Point Man" and his brother Paxton Fettel, who was killed in F.E.A.R 1 and who has somehow returned, have to find her and... well, Fettel wants to eat the child and Point Man wants to destroy it. That's as much as I could gather.

    The game takes about 6 to 7 hours to beat, though this is somewhat artificially extended by the game's difficulty. I was playing on "Commando" (Normal) difficulty, and some areas of the game were heavily confusing and others were incredibly difficult, particularly one section where I had to defeat a massive mech which could kill me in a few shots and tear any cover you might choose to use to pieces, and also another where I was attacked by TWO of the most annoying enemy in the game, which needless to say was frustrating.

    To summarise, F.E.A.R 3 is generic, difficult, short, confusing and has stupidly large numbers of incredibly annoying enemies. I'd reccommend this game only if you're a fan of first-person shooters in general and like a challenge, in which case you may find it quite fun (Though you may find yourself not wanting anyone to mention phase casters to you ever again), otherwise save your cash and buy another good FPS, or better, one of the prior F.E.A.R games.
    Expand
  5. Mar 25, 2015
    6
    F.E.A.R. 3 (stylized as F.3.A.R.) is a first-person shooter psychological horror video game developed by Day 1 Studios for Microsoft Windows, PlayStation 3 and Xbox 360. It is the sequel to F.E.A.R. 2: Project Origin, and the third installment of the F.E.A.R. series.Nine months after the events of both games, the Point Man was captured by Armacham soldiers and interrogated at a prison inF.E.A.R. 3 (stylized as F.3.A.R.) is a first-person shooter psychological horror video game developed by Day 1 Studios for Microsoft Windows, PlayStation 3 and Xbox 360. It is the sequel to F.E.A.R. 2: Project Origin, and the third installment of the F.E.A.R. series.Nine months after the events of both games, the Point Man was captured by Armacham soldiers and interrogated at a prison in Brazil, South America. Paxton Fettel, now a "Spectre", interrupts the interrogation and helps free the Point Man. Expand
  6. May 6, 2014
    7
    Graphic is simple, game play is quite short. But atmosphere is okey. One of those FPS you would like to finish but you will forget it soon. I did not tried coop, that might be more funny then single.
  7. Apr 4, 2014
    7
    FEAR 3 is not really FEAR. It's not the same gameplay, it's not horror, it's not a singleplayer focus. Sure, I enjoyed my time with the game, but i certainly won't recommend it for people looking for a good singleplayer experience or a horror fill. FEAR 1 was somewhat scary, FEAR 2 was scary in like 2 parts, FEAR 3 isn't scary at all. They also added a Coop mode. Coop games, byFEAR 3 is not really FEAR. It's not the same gameplay, it's not horror, it's not a singleplayer focus. Sure, I enjoyed my time with the game, but i certainly won't recommend it for people looking for a good singleplayer experience or a horror fill. FEAR 1 was somewhat scary, FEAR 2 was scary in like 2 parts, FEAR 3 isn't scary at all. They also added a Coop mode. Coop games, by definition, cannot be scary. The game honestly felt so consolized and simplified that it has pretty much ruined the franchise. You have tons of multiplayer modes and coop, and a super short campaign (I beat it in 3.5 hours on Insane difficulty). For PC players, there is no local coop, and the FOV is quite low. The game still has serious bugs and glitches. The story has never really made sense or been interesting in FEAR games, but in FEAR 3 it takes that to a whole new level. Not only is it uninteresting, but it's nonsensical and most of the time you won't have any idea what's going on. Despite all these flaws, it's a good shooter in its own right. IF you approach the game by itself and hope for a decent experience, you will most likely find one. If you approach it as FEAR game, you will be very disappointed. Expand
  8. Mar 11, 2014
    6
    Having played all the previous FEAR games I found this to be quite a switch. If the previous FEAR games never existed and this game was released it might have done slightly better, but in the end I think it would still have been considered mediocre.

    Is it mediocre? I think so in a lot of ways. But first I want to talk about the graphics, because I'm not entirely sure what to think about
    Having played all the previous FEAR games I found this to be quite a switch. If the previous FEAR games never existed and this game was released it might have done slightly better, but in the end I think it would still have been considered mediocre.

    Is it mediocre? I think so in a lot of ways. But first I want to talk about the graphics, because I'm not entirely sure what to think about them. In some ways the graphics are really impressive, and the game is very cool to look at. But on close inspection a lot of things seem outdated. Examples would be looking out the windows in the suburbs levels, there is a flat picture texture behind the window, this is also used for landmarks very far away. The resolution on these textures isn't high enough that it looks good, because I think it CAN look good. If you're just passing through sure it looks fine, but I like to look at every little thing in a game and a lot of the time I end up looking at these flat backdrops and just think "a game from 2011 decided to do this." Another example is the mountains in the slums area. These backdrop textures stuck out to me the most. The graphics aren't bad but they're nothing to have a party over.

    One thing about the graphics style I really liked in particular was the BLOOD. It is by far the single most impressive thing about FEAR 3, and I don't mean the static blood that just happens to be thrown around a level, I'm talking about when you shoot a guy in the face as he's standing against a wall. The blood in this game flows down walls and slopes. It's not a perfect flow ALA real life mechanics, but it's still visually impressive and immerses you in the violence.

    Overall though, I wasn't blown away by much in the game other than that tiny blood detail. It was fun to play but it wasn't scary at all. Which was disappointing considering I was hoping for more scares akin to the previous games. The game has potential but it basically Command and Conquer 4'd itself. It changed the original formula TOO much (the second game changed a lot of the combat style, but the tone was still the same) and then wanted to be a multiplayer shooter in an already saturated shooter market. It was almost as if it was trying to be call of duty with the no health kits - and if you're looking to play a game like call of duty, wouldn't you buy call of duty instead of risking your money on a franchise that was supposed to be nothing like COD?

    I give it a 6 because a lot of the multiplayer CO-OP modes, like contractions, are genuinely fun. Single player is ok, but the writing is corny to the point where you can hardly take it seriously and the game itself isn't that scary, and let's be honest, that's what everyone was expecting from a FEAR game.
    Expand
  9. Feb 16, 2014
    6
    Have played every game in the series and by far this is the only disappointing experience. I'm not sure if it's even worth finishing the story.
    Like everyone has said before, this game is very different than what has been the standard for quite some time. Not sure why the developers derived so far from the horror genre. Felt very uninspired with boring settings and awful enemies.
  10. Dec 11, 2013
    5
    What happened to this franchise?! It's an absolute mess. Mouse controls are messed up on PC, the story has degenerated into a confusing and nonsensical mess, and the scares are practically non-existent. What's left is a shallow first person shooter that doesn't do anything original or groundbreaking to separate itself from its predecessor. Truly a disappointing game.
  11. Nov 12, 2013
    6
    As someone who tends to play single player I found this more than a little disappointing. The previous games had all had interesting storylines and managed to get beyond the whole "call of duty with superpowers" thing. But sadly this just isn't as good as the earlier games for that. Story feels disjointed and there are still parts of the map you can get stuck on so you can't move and haveAs someone who tends to play single player I found this more than a little disappointing. The previous games had all had interesting storylines and managed to get beyond the whole "call of duty with superpowers" thing. But sadly this just isn't as good as the earlier games for that. Story feels disjointed and there are still parts of the map you can get stuck on so you can't move and have to reload a checkpoint. Expand
  12. Sep 16, 2013
    7
    Alma está de regreso en la tercera parte de esta serie de FPS la cual a pesar de no haber recibido buenas críticas en su segunda entrega, llega FEAR 3 por parte de WB Games y desarrollado por Day 1 Studios con varias mejoras que analizaremos en esta reseña.

    Qué bonita familia Primero que nada para aquellos que no conozcan esta serie, les comento que la historia es acerca de una niña
    Alma está de regreso en la tercera parte de esta serie de FPS la cual a pesar de no haber recibido buenas críticas en su segunda entrega, llega FEAR 3 por parte de WB Games y desarrollado por Day 1 Studios con varias mejoras que analizaremos en esta reseña.

    Qué bonita familia

    Primero que nada para aquellos que no conozcan esta serie, les comento que la historia es acerca de una niña con poderes paranormales, llamada Alma, quien es utilizada por una compañía de nombre Armacham, para formar un ejército de soldados replicants o clones, el cual será controlado por alguno de sus generales con poderes psíquicos …….no muy original pero lo interesante es, que en uno de esos tantos intentos de controlar a Alma, se crearon dos prototipos de generales que fueron creados con células de Alma y del director de Armacham, Harlan Wade, quien los crió, si se puede llamar así a tenerlos en un cuarto y hacer experimentos con ellos todos los días, ahora tomaremos el control de estos dos prototipos como nuestros personajes principales Point Man y Fettel.

    La tercera parte de esta saga se lleva a cabo poco tiempo después del final de FEAR 2 pero con el protagonista del primer juego, Point Man, que junto con su hermano Fettel trataran de reunirse con su madre, la cual está a punto de dar a luz, aunque cada uno con sus propias intenciones.

    Pasando a lo que es el gameplay, se trata de un First Person Shooter pero con el toque de terror que caracteriza a la serie, tal vez no sea mucho, pero, lograra hacerte saltar de tu asiento más de una vez.

    Dos protagonistas, dos estilos

    Una de las cosas innovadoras en la serie es el modo cooperativo para 2 personas que te permite jugar la campaña controlando a los 2 hermanos, los cuales tienen sus propias ventajas/desventajas para los diferentes estilos de juego, donde tenemos a Point Man, que tiene el poder de alentar el tiempo para así poder destruir a sus enemigos con mayor facilidad, además de poder utilizar cualquiera de las armas que encuentre en su camino, y a Fettel que puede tomar el cuerpo de sus enemigos, hacerlos flotar, lanzarles objetos o dispararles con sus manos unos rayos de energía que aunque no les hacen mucho daño, son infinitos, pero tiene la desventaja de no poder tomar ningún arma a menos que esté controlando a algún soldado enemigo.

    Juega en línea….. pero con quien

    El modo cooperativo se puede jugar con 2 personas en tu casa o en línea, aunque en estos días que lo estuve jugando no encontré a nadie que estuviera en línea, lo que puede ser una señal de que pronto cerraran los servidores. Pero en lo que es el modo multijugador si había varios conectados, así que pude checar la opción de “sobrevive” en la que te encuentras en una casa en medio de la ciudad y como su nombre lo dice, no tienes mas opción que sobrevivir a las hordas de enemigos que te aparecerán, desde soldados simples hasta criaturas con forma de hombres lobo como las que aparecen durante el modo historia del juego.

    ¿Porque jugarlo?

    Una de las razones que les puedo dar, es que si bien no es un FPS refinado como COD o BF3, no es malo y el agregado de terror creo que le suma los puntos suficientes para que le des una oportunidad, además del modo cooperativo off-line.

    También les digo a todos los que han jugado las anteriores entregas, vale la pena jugar esta tercera parte que es la continuación a la historia de los anteriores y no los decepcionara.

    Algo que me fascino fueron las partes en que esta todo oscuro y solo alcanzas a ver lo que tu lámpara logra iluminar y en algunos momentos hasta se te llega a apagar dándote la sensación de que estas en una obscuridad total, todo esto mientras tienes a varias criaturas detrás de ti, esa sensación vale el juego.

    ¿Porque NO jugarlo?

    Quiero comentar que la primera falla del juego está desde la portada la cual nos muestra a los 2 personajes principales con un look diferente al que tienen en el juego, que la verdad nunca entendí ya que el del juego es mejor al presentado en la portada.

    Si eres de los que buscan los mejores gráficos en cada uno de sus juegos, se desilusionaran con este, porque se nota que no fue su mayor prioridad y casi puedo asegurar que se reciclaron muchas cosas del 2 tanto en los escenarios como en los enemigos que se ven iguales a los del anterior juego de hace 3 años.

    Y al final

    Después de todo lo que les acabo de comentar, creo que si tienen modo de comprarlo a buen precio, vale la pena para unas cuantas horas de acción y tensión en nuestro PS3 o porque no, rentarlo y dedicarle un fin de semana para que logres terminarlo solo o con algún amigo en tu casa.
    Expand
  13. Aug 7, 2013
    6
    This game gets really abusive with the cover tactics. So much so it gets really difficult even when you aren't that far into the game and have to keep changing tactics which is fun for a little while, but with the scoring system this is clearly a game that is made or 2 people and not 1.
  14. Jul 21, 2013
    7
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. As a horror shooter this is a let down BUT as a action shooter game this is a great game. Graphics are great and gameplay exciting.
    The co-op isn't so good in my opinion though. The 2nd user plays as Fettel who is a ghost... who gets killed by getting shot at..
    Playing as Fettel doesn't really work as his character doesn't make sense. If you want this as a single player then it's great but the co-op isn't as fun.
    Expand
  15. Jan 3, 2013
    5
    The levels and enemies are not scary. The gameplay is generic FPS "doable without brains" lame. The guns feel feel like 5 minutes was all the developers had to think and make them in-game. The characters could have been far more interesting but aren't. The game should be better than FEAR 2 but it isn't. Should you pay more than $15? Hell no.
  16. Nov 12, 2012
    6
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. Nothing scary, creepy, mind-f:ing...no nothing, just plain shooting and possessing. If I wouldn't have played any earlier versions of FEAR then I would maybe think that this is good but I have played them and this really isn't good, I'm disappointed! ...and just to make things worse, I played it on xbox...and it was my first time ever truly grabbing a xbox-controller and it only took me 4hours to complete the game at the hardest difficulty level and when I finished that I unlocked one more which was even easier -___-

    - way too short
    - too easy
    - bad/non existing story

    + graphics + controls
    Expand
  17. Aug 15, 2012
    6
    I recently acquired all the FEAR games through the 2012 Steam Summer Sale having never played any of them before. I played them all in order and FEAR 3 is not as bad as people on metacritic make it out to be. In fact, it's somewhat comparable to FEAR 2 in terms of gameplay with the twist that it incentivizes replayability in allowing players to control Fettel. The story mode is similarI recently acquired all the FEAR games through the 2012 Steam Summer Sale having never played any of them before. I played them all in order and FEAR 3 is not as bad as people on metacritic make it out to be. In fact, it's somewhat comparable to FEAR 2 in terms of gameplay with the twist that it incentivizes replayability in allowing players to control Fettel. The story mode is similar in length to FEAR 1 and 2 and is more similar to FEAR 2 in terms of gameplay. The player will fight hordes of Armacham goons and mechs and bland supernatural enemies that do nothing but lunge at you. As you play through each level as Point Man or Fettel, you earn huge score bonuses by completing challenges a la Call of Duty. Each level is scored and your final score tallied after the last boss fight. Depending on who has the higher score, Point Man or Fettel, one of multiple endings will be unlocked. This encourages players to replay the game as Fettel, attempt to top their previous high score as Point Man, and view the game's alternate ending. I find this a very creative approach to unlocking multiple endings and preferable to pressing a magic button during the last few minutes of play. Playing as Point Man, players must use slomo, cover, and a slim but solid variety of weapons to get through the game. Playing as Fettel, players can shoot psychic energy from their hands, possess enemy soldiers and slaughter their friends, and use telekinesis to throw objects. Despite the games linear level design, I was impressed by how well the layouts supported both drastically different styles of play. The gameplay, while fun, does nothing to innovate and brings absolutely nothing new to the series. The game is full of obnoxious scripted moments, blocked off areas players might be eager to explore, and tons of "Hey, player! Look at this and then we'll let you progress!" scenes. The game is also WAY too easy, even on the hardest difficulty. Your health and slomo bar simply regenerates way too fast. Removing health packs was a terrible design choice for FEAR. The enemy AI, as in the previous games, is more than competent, but your slomo lasts forever and your health regenerates super fast, you have no fear of death. The game is not scary at all either. It's full of cheap jump scares. There is never any genuine tension because the enemies are neither difficult to kill nor deadly. I would really recommend FEAR if you want closure to the FEAR story or are looking for a great co-op game. I wouldn't recommend this at all for multiplayer. I was unable to find a multiplayer match of any type running. Expand
  18. Jul 22, 2012
    5
    Went into FEAR 3 hoping for what had warmed my heart to the series in earlier installments--strong visuals, difficult firefights against foes using tactical advances and flanking, a unique combat system (3 weapon slots instead of the standard 2, health being a strategic resource instead of regenerating over time, and a developed melee system), and a mythology that made FEAR more than justWent into FEAR 3 hoping for what had warmed my heart to the series in earlier installments--strong visuals, difficult firefights against foes using tactical advances and flanking, a unique combat system (3 weapon slots instead of the standard 2, health being a strategic resource instead of regenerating over time, and a developed melee system), and a mythology that made FEAR more than just another shooter. FEAR 3 really didn't bring any of that. Upon first loading the game, I discovered that my monitor's native resolution (1280X1024, hardly exotic) wasn't supported natively, meaning I had to play the game at a blurry 1024X768. The firefights had become much simpler, concentrating on throwing waves and waves off foes at the player who seem to spend more time swearing than actually fighting. The weapons system has been downgraded to the standard two slots, and health now regenerates...this was where I realized what was going on. The entire game has been changed to make it more reminiscent of Call of Duty/Battlefield, and has discarded its own unique properties to instead ape those of the giant franchises. There is still FEAR's signature Slo-Mo power, but since the enemies don't fight tactically anymore, it's rarely necessary. Bizarrely, an arcade-style points system was included, complete with a flashy rewards placard that pops up in the lower left of the screen. This is a real immersion breaker, which is awful--horror games rely on immersion like few other genres. Nothing makes a scary situation boring than having a dialogue box pop up, rewarding you for spending 100 seconds behind cover. All in all, it just feels like Monolith has scrapped their neat franchise in favor of making a generic shooter. Oddly, the game is pretty good in this regard. The cover system is simple and intuitive, and the best I've seen in a first-person game (I especially like that it always stays first-person, instead of jumping to the third like many do). While the aforementioned arcade popups break the horror element, they are conducive to adrenaline-fueled heavy firefights. While the enemies are dumber, they are also more numerous and so some "pop-and-stop" cover-based shooting is required. None of it is deep, but it is pretty fun. Overall, I would say don't go into this expecting a horror shooter, and you can still have a good time. Expand
  19. Jul 20, 2012
    5
    I got this game with a buddy in July 2012 when it was on Steam's Summer Sale for 5 bucks. We played through the co-op storyline, on normal, which took roughly 7 hours. The game wasn't too bad, we didn't play the first two, and I think that contributed to enjoying the third more. The graphics were ok, there were some low res parts that made us laugh, like when we were inside one of theI got this game with a buddy in July 2012 when it was on Steam's Summer Sale for 5 bucks. We played through the co-op storyline, on normal, which took roughly 7 hours. The game wasn't too bad, we didn't play the first two, and I think that contributed to enjoying the third more. The graphics were ok, there were some low res parts that made us laugh, like when we were inside one of the houses and looked out a window, there was a very low res sky box that reminded us of DOOM. There was also the helicopter drops, every time (spoiler!) Alma would have a contraction a copter would drop out of the sky. Wish I kept count, it happened a lot. All around I give the game a 5, because it is average. It had a lot of good "scary" parts, and the environment really helped, but when you got into the combat arenas, and there were a lot, you could tell it's a shooter, and not so much survivor horror. Also, Point Man never said any words, ever. Maybe it was his character, due to his memories being wiped? I dunno, but the cut scenes left something to be wanted when every conversation between the brothers was one way. So, you got a buddy and wanna spend an evening shooting monsters? Get the game for 5 bucks, but don't pay anymore then that. Expand
  20. Jun 19, 2012
    6
    You know, the more first person shooters I play, the more I realize that game developers are completely unable to increase a game's difficulty without making it annoying. I only play games as long as they're fun (I don't care about forcing myself to complete them), and it seems like lately, I only get as far as the last level on 8/10 shooters. Including this game.You know, the more first person shooters I play, the more I realize that game developers are completely unable to increase a game's difficulty without making it annoying. I only play games as long as they're fun (I don't care about forcing myself to complete them), and it seems like lately, I only get as far as the last level on 8/10 shooters. Including this game. !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! This game is not scary. At all. It is kinda fun anyway, though. The gun sounds/reactions are addicting (the assault rifle's burst fire especially), the "slo-mo" is as fun as ever, and the A.I. is fairly smart. Shotgun dudes will rush up to you, machine gun guys will stay back and run from cover-to-cover, etc. Nothing mind-blowing, but acceptable nonetheless. The graphics are good too, although it froze like CRAZY until I forced it to run in DX9 mode instead of DX11. Funny, since Nexuiz, Crysis 2, and AvP don't mind being in DX11 and fully maxed out. Anyway, it seemed like a pretty decent shooter until the last few levels, when the game decided to start spawning the little demon-dog things over and over and over and over and over and over and over. If I have to fight 20 of the things, then for the love of all that is holy, let me fight them all at once! Making me fight them one-at-a-time or two-at-a-time repeatedly is nothing but tedious and aggravating. Also in the later levels, when you have to fight the force commanders (I think), they have the most insanely, annoyingly, rage-inducingly horrendous voices ever. I get that they're supposedly talking through walkie-talkies or some other communicator, and therefore their voices should be midrange-heavy, but when they talked, I seriously had to take my headphones off of my head because it hurt so freakin' bad. It wasn't overly LOUD, per se, just absolutely the worst fustercluck of mish-mashed midrange noise EVER. Plus they were insanely annoying to fight in groups. !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Overall, I'm glad I only spent $5 on this game. I wouldn't recommend anyone else spend any more on it, unless you're a diehard F.E.A.R. fan, but then again, as this is so different from the others in the series, fans might hate it too. Expand
  21. May 29, 2012
    7
    Not the best in the series, but entertaining none the less. As previous F.E.A.R games, this one is everything but scary (Calling any of them scary is stupid). It's a nice action shooter with minimal RPG elements that is entertaining. I wouldn't say it brought anything new compared to previous games, but it's still worth playing.
  22. Mar 24, 2012
    7
    F.E.A.R 3 may not be good like 2 first F.E.A.R games but story is really good.
    Graphics are ok but not the best and it's lame console port.
    Gameplay is relly good but only problem is that mouse control is too fast or too slow, you just can't get it right. Level desing is the worst in F.E.A.R series it's too linear and theres some parts where you really get your self lost and finding right
    F.E.A.R 3 may not be good like 2 first F.E.A.R games but story is really good.
    Graphics are ok but not the best and it's lame console port.
    Gameplay is relly good but only problem is that mouse control is too fast or too slow, you just can't get it right.
    Level desing is the worst in F.E.A.R series it's too linear and theres some parts where you really get your self lost and finding right plase might take 5-20 min.
    Co-op is nice to have but i don't have tested yet.
    Overall 20â
    Expand
  23. Jan 27, 2012
    5
    This game was a little bit fun. It was a good game, but just a bad F.E.A.R. game. FEAR 1+expansions were all AWESOME! Simply awesome. The second was good as well, because it still had that original feel to it sometimes. But the third is just bad. Just...bad. It ruined the story, it seems to completely ignore major plot twists and facts from previous F.E.A.R. games. And the textures areThis game was a little bit fun. It was a good game, but just a bad F.E.A.R. game. FEAR 1+expansions were all AWESOME! Simply awesome. The second was good as well, because it still had that original feel to it sometimes. But the third is just bad. Just...bad. It ruined the story, it seems to completely ignore major plot twists and facts from previous F.E.A.R. games. And the textures are almost all extremely low-quality. Possessed enemies having low-res hands can be accepted, but multiplayer hands being 1x1 pixels? No. Just no. The FOV is sickeningly low, too. At least it can be changed in a config.

    This game is just a bad F.E.A.R. game. Only buy it if you have all other F.E.A.R. games. Otherwise, skip this game and play the others first. See how great they were.
    Expand
  24. Dec 5, 2011
    5
    It pains me to give this game such a low score. I love the original F.E.A.R., it was so innovative at the time it came out, and scared the crap out of me. I had such huge anticipates for the sequels, and both have fallen flat for me. For one, the sequels are not as scary, and while graphically prettier, they have lost the "soul" of what made the original game so great. While F.E.A.R. 2It pains me to give this game such a low score. I love the original F.E.A.R., it was so innovative at the time it came out, and scared the crap out of me. I had such huge anticipates for the sequels, and both have fallen flat for me. For one, the sequels are not as scary, and while graphically prettier, they have lost the "soul" of what made the original game so great. While F.E.A.R. 2 was a bit of a letdown, F.E.A.R. 3 was a major letdown. I understand that all 3 games where very linear, but at least the first one scared you and enthralled you as to the fusion of shooter and horror. But F.E.A.R. 3 was just dumb, it did not scare me, it was predictable, the premise idiotic, the conclusion left a sour taste in my mouth. It felt like the studios where looking to bank on reputation, and just put a mediocre product on the market knowing that the brand would pull all the suckers in. I was a sucker, but luckily at a discounted price from steam. I hope and prey, somebody brings this Franchise back from the level of mediocrity. Expand
  25. Sep 18, 2011
    7
    Although I am in agreement that this game doesn't hold a candle to the first two, the graphics that I experienced were very nice on my system. I didn't like the cover system too much (probably because I hated that concept in 007 Goldeneye for Wii) and the regeneration of health was a bit too easy. Perhaps I will try this on the hardest setting next. The story was fun and there were someAlthough I am in agreement that this game doesn't hold a candle to the first two, the graphics that I experienced were very nice on my system. I didn't like the cover system too much (probably because I hated that concept in 007 Goldeneye for Wii) and the regeneration of health was a bit too easy. Perhaps I will try this on the hardest setting next. The story was fun and there were some scary moments. I have to say overall that it was worth playing the game and the multiplayer is enjoyable. I am indifferent about the purchase but have been about many game simply because of the price tag vs. the actual value I'm getting. i.e. How long is game play, innovation, controls, etc. I think it should have come with a slightly lower price tag but it seems the industry just keeps charging the same for all the new games coming out, only having to either drop the price or have them resold as used games (which doesn't apply to the PC version of this title). I recommend this title, but if you can find it used for the console or borrow a copy from a friend before you decide what port to buy. Expand
  26. Aug 23, 2011
    6
    I had high hopes for this latest installment of Fear. I have played all of the Fear games. The first still being my favorite. Although 3 has better graphics and gib effects. It lacks the tension and horror that the first one had. The sound on the 3rd is quite good and as I mentioned the graphics are better but that doesn't make up for how short the single player game is I was veryI had high hopes for this latest installment of Fear. I have played all of the Fear games. The first still being my favorite. Although 3 has better graphics and gib effects. It lacks the tension and horror that the first one had. The sound on the 3rd is quite good and as I mentioned the graphics are better but that doesn't make up for how short the single player game is I was very disappointed with the sudden short ending. Expand
  27. Aug 11, 2011
    6
    Horror games r always fun to play, but there is something in this game that didn't really catch my eye. Ah yes the Graphics, the cover system, the time it takes to regenerate your health, the number of enemies that come to kill you at the same time and the off course the sad ending to the series. But still the game isn't that bad. For example The Co-op campaign, the sweat scoring system,Horror games r always fun to play, but there is something in this game that didn't really catch my eye. Ah yes the Graphics, the cover system, the time it takes to regenerate your health, the number of enemies that come to kill you at the same time and the off course the sad ending to the series. But still the game isn't that bad. For example The Co-op campaign, the sweat scoring system, the Scary moments, all of these things makes the game playable........thats why i have rated this game 6...not great but not bad as well. Expand
  28. Aug 8, 2011
    7
    Great co-op game play and achievements, who cares if its not scary at all, its the game play that counts and if people are expecting a fright then they should be able to deduce that its "co-op" not the classic single-player spooky campaign some traditionalist love and can't handle the change.
  29. Aug 1, 2011
    7
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. An okay game if it wasn't under the F.E.A.R. name, otherwise this is just a pathetic attempt to make a horror game. Multi player seems to be the best part of the game and most developed, especially if you play through the campaign in 5 hours. Graphics are okay but not up to par and very unoptimized, sound is good, UI is okay, and weapons are balanced. The single player is repetitive with each chapter having you fight off against Aramcham soldiers and a few replicas (except for the last chapter). Only play this game if you want to know how the FEAR series will end, or find it in discounts and rental. Expand
  30. Jul 22, 2011
    5
    This is not one of the better games in the FEAR series. On the positive side, the story line continued to be compelling. Also, the graphics were somewhat better than the earlier series, with the exception of FEAR 2. The slo-mo feature is very convenient, especially when you're a neophyte gamer like myself. The downside for me was that Pointman seemed to be a very weak character, or theThis is not one of the better games in the FEAR series. On the positive side, the story line continued to be compelling. Also, the graphics were somewhat better than the earlier series, with the exception of FEAR 2. The slo-mo feature is very convenient, especially when you're a neophyte gamer like myself. The downside for me was that Pointman seemed to be a very weak character, or the enemies were stronger. Speed was down and health was problematic. I liked the earlier games where you had control over the health. All of the enemies seemed to have an overabundance of grenades which they used liberally. While this added to the challenge, it became very annoying to me as the game progressed. Overall, I suggest waiting until this game goes on sale before rushing out to buy it like I did the other games in the FEAR series. Expand
  31. Jul 20, 2011
    7
    This is a shame. What we've loved more from F.E.A.R. is gone, and now we play a Crysis clone game that aims to the general shooter industry instead of the well-known horror fans that throughout the years have supported the series. I'm not saying the game is bad, it's just simply good, and that's very sad is a series in with excellence is the common factor.
  32. Jul 18, 2011
    5
    Fear 3 (I'm not calling it F3AR or whatever) tries to do many things but winds up being, at best, average at all of them. For example, they added a cover system, which, while it isn't the most clunky one I've experienced, it's also not the best and makes me wonder why it was included at all. The effectiveness of bullet time has been reduced by a large degree, making it quick to get usedFear 3 (I'm not calling it F3AR or whatever) tries to do many things but winds up being, at best, average at all of them. For example, they added a cover system, which, while it isn't the most clunky one I've experienced, it's also not the best and makes me wonder why it was included at all. The effectiveness of bullet time has been reduced by a large degree, making it quick to get used up and slow to charge, perhaps due to the aforementioned cover system. There's a 2 weapon limit and some really overpowered melee abilities (there are youtube videos of people clearing levels with only melee). Effective use of grenades is nearly impossible. I can count the scary moments on one hand. There's a strange RPG-esque in-game levelling up system. etc. etc. etc... Fear 3 tried to be many things it's not, and it shows. Expand
  33. Jul 15, 2011
    7
    7.0

    Instead of making your way through a lot of scary looking houses, you end up fighting against the authority. The intelligence of AI is always somewhat a focus point in these games, and while the AI in FEAR has improved, itâ
  34. Jul 13, 2011
    6
    Unlike FEAR 1 and 2 there is no Medpacks or Armor in this one, so now we get the baby's first blinking red screen version of FPS health. It really ruined the gameplay and the fear aspect of the game knowing that you could just regen your health by cowering in a corner for a bit. Never felt "scared" in this game once because of it. If you enjoyed the story of the first 2 and want to see howUnlike FEAR 1 and 2 there is no Medpacks or Armor in this one, so now we get the baby's first blinking red screen version of FPS health. It really ruined the gameplay and the fear aspect of the game knowing that you could just regen your health by cowering in a corner for a bit. Never felt "scared" in this game once because of it. If you enjoyed the story of the first 2 and want to see how it "ends", then play this one. If not, honestly just play FEAR 1 and 2 again they were much better. Expand
  35. Jul 6, 2011
    6
    Being a fan of the FEAR series, I have been waiting for this game for MONTHS. Sadly, it does not deliver. Console ports should never make it to a PC...it is a step backwards in a game that was initially PC-based. This should have never been written for PC's, plain and simple. As a console game, it would be great, but as a PC game, a solid 6 is all it is worth...
  36. Jul 4, 2011
    5
    A complete trainwreck of a game. Or at least of a F.E.A.R. game, I suppose it qualifies as a not-to-bad shooter, saved from total oblivion by the option to play as Fettel, which is actually quite fun for a while. There might have been a great multiplayer game in there based on design alone ; but the implementation is so completely broken by incompetent programming (basically, the browserA complete trainwreck of a game. Or at least of a F.E.A.R. game, I suppose it qualifies as a not-to-bad shooter, saved from total oblivion by the option to play as Fettel, which is actually quite fun for a while. There might have been a great multiplayer game in there based on design alone ; but the implementation is so completely broken by incompetent programming (basically, the browser and matchmaking are totally kaput) it will already be stone-cold 'dead' by the time you read this.

    So what went so terribly wrong? First up, gameplay. F.E.A.R 3 is so on-rails it makes Crisis 2 look like STALKER. Closed, claustrophobic levels that follow the same pattern of start, kill stuff over and over, hunt for the way out (the one door that you can actually open), rinse and repeat. This is 2001 design, not 2011 design. And it doesn't stop there. On one early level walking exactly-where-you-are-allowed-to-go along ramps in what is supposedly a bombed-out superstore you encounter a bunch of scripted guys looking suitably identical and throwing neverending knives at you; for a minute I thought I was playing Painkiller (only nowhere near as good). Destructable environments? Aside from a few bits of degrading 'cover', you are having a laugh. Interactive environments? What are they. And I can only assume anyone praising enemy 'AI' is having a laugh. Garbage.

    Next, atmosphere. None. Everything from the previous games has been tossed away in favour of kiddie console rubbish that totally destroys it. How are you supposed to have scares when every few seconds you are notified of a new 'achievement' with suitably stupid names, or collecting another Alma doll? I think the idea is to encourage people to play each level more than once in order to get higher scores. If so, that's delusional on huge scale, nobody in their right mind would wish to repeat the experience except in MP. If it worked. Which it doesn't; did I mention that?

    Next, graphics. Poor. Not awful, but just typical multi-platform stuff with no additional loving for the PC. Ridiculous FOV, unless the idea is to make your 16:9 feel like a 4:3. Frame rate limited to 30 fps - why ?? DX11 'features' just create a blurry mess; turn them off before you start. A great franchise ruined. Very, very, sad. All gamers should avoid, at least until they fix the MP. F.E.A.R. fans should avoid totally if it isn't already too late; F.E.A.R 2 (let alone the first one) is pure gaming genius compared with this.
    Expand
  37. Jul 3, 2011
    6
    Not a bad game but wait for the bargain bin and don't pay more than $15 for it. It's a rip-off at the asking price. 8 hours in the campaign and that's playing it slowly and looking at every little dead end.
  38. Jul 3, 2011
    6
    I was really hoping Monolith would develop this game instead of Day 1 Studios. The different feeling game engine and controls really disappointed me. The first two F.E.A.R. games (and their expansions) were nothing but pure brilliance. It's as if Day 1 Studios were intentionally trying to take the franchise a few steps back. The previous games were fun the entire way, while this game wasI was really hoping Monolith would develop this game instead of Day 1 Studios. The different feeling game engine and controls really disappointed me. The first two F.E.A.R. games (and their expansions) were nothing but pure brilliance. It's as if Day 1 Studios were intentionally trying to take the franchise a few steps back. The previous games were fun the entire way, while this game was more "Meh, I just wanna finish this game so I can see the ending already..." for me.

    This was a good game, but it fell so far below my expectations. The story was bland, and the game got horribly repetitive at times. Toward the end of the game is awesome, but everything before that just isn't that interesting. If I could rewind time and make Monolith take the chair for this game, I would.
    Expand
  39. Jul 2, 2011
    6
    Game is still a major console port despite the recent patch for the pc. Story is about 4-5 hours long. Story will confuse people who haven't played the previous ones. If your looking for scares, this game has lost all touch of it even with some Hollywood horror celebrities involved with FEAR 3. Multiplayer is great, but has no Deathmatch or Capture the flag maps, for those interested inGame is still a major console port despite the recent patch for the pc. Story is about 4-5 hours long. Story will confuse people who haven't played the previous ones. If your looking for scares, this game has lost all touch of it even with some Hollywood horror celebrities involved with FEAR 3. Multiplayer is great, but has no Deathmatch or Capture the flag maps, for those interested in that type of play avoid getting the game. Graphics aren't the best unless people have high end rigs able to play it with DX11. Co-op campaign isn't really anything huge to gripe about, but it's there for people to try it. Despite everything it's still a solid shooter. Expand
  40. Jun 28, 2011
    6
    This game has a more varied environment than the first, the combat is better than the second and Point Man is back. All in all its a good time if you like the series. Point Man is still the badass silent type. It's weighed down by bad parts though...... You gain XP during each interval for doing mundane stuff, you get very large very annoying pop up achievements during gun play thatThis game has a more varied environment than the first, the combat is better than the second and Point Man is back. All in all its a good time if you like the series. Point Man is still the badass silent type. It's weighed down by bad parts though...... You gain XP during each interval for doing mundane stuff, you get very large very annoying pop up achievements during gun play that show the XP you get..... You only get two weapons at a time, the pistol (Which is actually a well done weapon) takes a rifle slot.... The cover system is a joke and is clearly made for consoles, its obvious because you get the popups with key needed to activate cover or other interactions (annoying, keep that in console games.)... Theres a good shooter in this title, the weapons are well done (unlike the SMG from HL2...), however this game suffers from console influence. The prone and lean left/right that made FEAR1 a good shooter is replaced by a console style cover system. Also the awesome radio operator from FEAR1 is gone... 6/10, this game is kept above water by the face its shooting is good. Expand
  41. Jun 26, 2011
    7
    I remember how i was scared in original FEAR, i barely even finished that game. In second FEAR it wasn't scary that much, but still, i could say that im playing FEAR. Now, its not FEAR anymore, yeah i had great time with my friend playing co-op, but its not scary at all. (7.0)
  42. Jun 26, 2011
    7
    Enjoyable, a bit scary, bloody and solid FPS. SP's worth a play. In terms of special and light effects F.E.A.R. graphics engine deserves a medal. In terms of textures it does not. There could have been less of that funky console stuff. You know... collectibles etc. Horror game is not a good place to put such fireworks in.
  43. Jun 25, 2011
    5
    Neither a bad nor great game, just middle of the road. Not scary, so the horror element is wasted - in fact, it gets in the way most of the time when you want to shoot something. Graphics range from the good (enemies, soldiers, mechs) to the awful (low res environmentals). Cover system, regenerating health, yawn. Unimaginative, poor story, worse horror, and COD-borrowed combat mechanics.Neither a bad nor great game, just middle of the road. Not scary, so the horror element is wasted - in fact, it gets in the way most of the time when you want to shoot something. Graphics range from the good (enemies, soldiers, mechs) to the awful (low res environmentals). Cover system, regenerating health, yawn. Unimaginative, poor story, worse horror, and COD-borrowed combat mechanics. Enemy AI is so-so. Skip it or buy it when it's cheap. Expand
  44. Jun 25, 2011
    5
    I'm a big fan of the FEAR series and this comes as a huge disappointment. Apart from the odd few creepy moments this feels like a generic console shooter like Call of Duty. I spent the first few levels doing nothing but crouching behind strategically placed barricades whilst being shot at by relentless waves of soldiers. I moved on a few yards and did the same thing again...and again. ItI'm a big fan of the FEAR series and this comes as a huge disappointment. Apart from the odd few creepy moments this feels like a generic console shooter like Call of Duty. I spent the first few levels doing nothing but crouching behind strategically placed barricades whilst being shot at by relentless waves of soldiers. I moved on a few yards and did the same thing again...and again. It felt like one of those dumb amusement arcade shoot-em-ups and not the worthy sequel to the creepy, immersive and sometimes shocking games I have played previously.
    Just to underline the fact that this is a game aimed firmly at console CoD players you are frequently notified by an irritating pop-up message that you have attained some "achievements". This may appeal to some people but I couldn't care less if I've shot ten people in a row or hidden behind a barricade for 60 seconds. The achievement system does nothing but pull you out of the game and remind you that it's just a duck shoot.
    The game's single player campaign is therefore sadly very disappointing. The two player co-op mode and the multiplayer scenarios are apparently very good (I haven't played them) and I suspect the game designers had this much more in mind than an immersive single player experience.
    The graphics are also below par, giving the game a fuzzy and unfocused appearance and the level design, while quite intricate and detailed, is extremely linear - so much so that in some places there are even black arrows on the walls of buildings showing you which way to go in case you're too dumb to work it out for yourself.
    So there we have it: another dumbed down console port for trigger happy teenagers. Maybe I'm getting too old now but I prefer something with a little bit more depth, variety and strategy and not just a frantic button-mashing experience.
    Expand
  45. Jun 22, 2011
    7
    Loses a point for not having the jump kick (why take that out that was so sweet!!!) and the new automated melee. Also some funky key assignment features. For a game that does not look that cutting edge and has some low res textures the game still feels it could have been optimized better for PC. Hopefully a patch can fix this. The FPS seems a little to erratic and yes I have a beast of aLoses a point for not having the jump kick (why take that out that was so sweet!!!) and the new automated melee. Also some funky key assignment features. For a game that does not look that cutting edge and has some low res textures the game still feels it could have been optimized better for PC. Hopefully a patch can fix this. The FPS seems a little to erratic and yes I have a beast of a PC. FOV seems a little consolish to me. I've had a game for two days and have not seen but one game online yet .Hopefully more people will pick it up and play the online portion. I like the CO OP aspect of the game and I think that is a nice addition. Over all, the game is still a lot of fun to play, still creepy and AI is still top notch especially on harder difficulties. A decent shooter that everyone can enjoy but original FEAR fans might find some grips with it. Expand
Metascore
74

Mixed or average reviews - based on 34 Critics

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 20 out of 34
  2. Negative: 0 out of 34
  1. Pelit (Finland)
    Oct 19, 2011
    80
    The third installment of the Fear series sees the once fresh shooter descending into the mire of modern mainstream gaming, but it is still a fairly compelling play and a fun co-op. [Aug 2011]
  2. Sep 16, 2011
    50
    This game would have been a lot more exciting if it either way genuinely scary or embraces its action parts a lot more. Instead it's stuck in purgatory, as a generic shooter with superficial horror elements.
  3. LEVEL (Czech Republic)
    Aug 29, 2011
    70
    Fear 3 is just good shooter – more thriller than horror game. Duels are almost perfect so you'll be satisfied with them even when they are the only contents this game offers. [Issue#207]