User Score
5.8

Mixed or average reviews- based on 439 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. 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
  2. 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...
  3. 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
  4. 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
  5. 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
  6. 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
  7. 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
  8. 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.
  9. 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.
  10. 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
  11. 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
  12. 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.
  13. 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
  14. 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
  15. Nov 5, 2016
    6
    In my humble opinion it beats the second part that bored me strongly. Seeing the new approach to the franchise (the two sons of Alma) is most definitely a positive surprise. Although the developers didn't manage to do better than decent. Poor mix of opponents, spawning everywhere, cheap jump-scares (c' mon...) and on top of that boss fights. It's not 2000's anymore. The plot on the otherIn my humble opinion it beats the second part that bored me strongly. Seeing the new approach to the franchise (the two sons of Alma) is most definitely a positive surprise. Although the developers didn't manage to do better than decent. Poor mix of opponents, spawning everywhere, cheap jump-scares (c' mon...) and on top of that boss fights. It's not 2000's anymore. The plot on the other hand directed better than in previous parts. Expand
  16. 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
  17. 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
  18. 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.
  19. 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
  20. 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
  21. 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)
  22. 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
  23. 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
  24. 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
  25. 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.
  26. 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
  27. 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
  28. 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.
  29. 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.
  30. 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
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]