F.E.A.R. PC

User Score
8.2

Generally favorable reviews- based on 653 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Negative: 41 out of 653

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. May 1, 2011
    7
    Nicely scary. The intrigue is well exploited and starts with a nice mysterious intro. Although the slowmo ability gives an interesting gameplay as well as some karate moves (which you rarely use), the gameplay itself is flat and very repetitive. Graphics are okay and graphic designs are so-so.
  2. JoshC.
    Oct 20, 2005
    6
    Ive been playing 1st person shooters since the earliest of days - for anyone who is looking for a new experience, dont bother with FEAR. Its all hype these days and the game offers the same as the last generic shooter. Graphics are good but have obvious problems. Sound design is good but sound positioning and placement isnt up to standard and has all sorts of problems like sounds not Ive been playing 1st person shooters since the earliest of days - for anyone who is looking for a new experience, dont bother with FEAR. Its all hype these days and the game offers the same as the last generic shooter. Graphics are good but have obvious problems. Sound design is good but sound positioning and placement isnt up to standard and has all sorts of problems like sounds not coming from proper direction, not affected in volume/tone/texture by walls etc.. For me the most disappointing aspect is that EVERYTHING is safe and spelt out - the scary bits arent scary cause nothing can harm you during those parts. Whenever there is some moment where the mind wonders and enjoys imagining ''what if..'' there is a frustrating music cue to SPELL OUT that this is a scary bit. The AI is good but not amazing as some of the big reviewers have noted - nothing special at all! Again, whats worse is the enemy tends to talk far too much and this GIVES AWAY THEIR POSITION as well as kills the suspense. Game was too easy and last but not least apart from the end the scripting was very average and quite pathetic during some parts - FEAR is overly hyped even though it does a good job and will impress new comers or people who havent played 1st person shooters before. I have to bite my tongue yet again and hope for something amazing. (i thought HL2 was totally overrated though *BORING* - so take not of this in reading my comments) Expand
  3. Nov 8, 2011
    6
    "F.E.A.R" is a good solid game. But is it a horror shooter? No, it's just a solid FPS shooter with ridiculously smart AI. There are some moments where you go WTF, but that's 'some' moments; it doesn't happen very often. However, what also keeps "F.E.A.R" from becoming a great game is the repetitive monotonous levels that create a dejavu of "I played this kind of map before...". You want"F.E.A.R" is a good solid game. But is it a horror shooter? No, it's just a solid FPS shooter with ridiculously smart AI. There are some moments where you go WTF, but that's 'some' moments; it doesn't happen very often. However, what also keeps "F.E.A.R" from becoming a great game is the repetitive monotonous levels that create a dejavu of "I played this kind of map before...". You want some old fashioned fun? Then grab this game. You want some epic **** Get something alse. Expand
  4. Jan
    Mar 5, 2007
    5
    After the good start this game sadly gets boring and repetitive pretty fast. It consists of only like 5 different types of enemies, no boss enemies, very simple and boring looking level design without any alternation to the repetitive gameplay. Well but the worst part is that it isn't very spooky at all, the name of the game made me expect far too much of it. 5 of 10 points since After the good start this game sadly gets boring and repetitive pretty fast. It consists of only like 5 different types of enemies, no boss enemies, very simple and boring looking level design without any alternation to the repetitive gameplay. Well but the worst part is that it isn't very spooky at all, the name of the game made me expect far too much of it. 5 of 10 points since this game is not more than mediocre. Expand
  5. LauriS.
    Oct 20, 2005
    5
    The level design is mostly quite annoying and unoriginal. The makers seem to have some kind of obsession with sewers. Graphics are nice but we saw most of this stuff in Doom 3 already. Way overrated game in my opinion.
  6. JulienC.
    Apr 8, 2007
    6
    I can't believe HL2 is only 7 points away when I compare the true design genius and thinking process that was put in HL2 and the relatively flat design of FEAR, which does not bring much creativity to the table. All elements of design are copied from other games, the slow motion, the laptops that can be activated to retrieve data, and the overboring maps (trucks, large areas, enemies I can't believe HL2 is only 7 points away when I compare the true design genius and thinking process that was put in HL2 and the relatively flat design of FEAR, which does not bring much creativity to the table. All elements of design are copied from other games, the slow motion, the laptops that can be activated to retrieve data, and the overboring maps (trucks, large areas, enemies coming for whatever reasons... a few good stuff: the weapons impact on enemies is pretty cool, the lighting, though super annoying because you can't do anything without your flashlight which goes off after 20 seconds... So, I give this game a 6. Expand
  7. Carlos
    Mar 22, 2009
    6
    Very much of the same... it looks like Doom, the 1st one, just with better graphics.
  8. Aug 31, 2013
    7
    Cool game from the heyday of slo-mo and "HDR lighting". Gameplay is a tad boring at times, since there's only like less then 5 types of enemies. Story is a bit crude and cruel, but then it's a horror game. Good graphics and fun enemy AI probably the best use of slo-mo to day (and for a long time to come with the fad falling out of favor with the devs and users alike years ago).
  9. Nov 19, 2013
    6
    Single Player/Multi Player (1/2)

    (If the single player is better than the multiplayer, review this section as if it had no multplayer) (If the multiplayer is better than the multiplayer, review this section as if it had no single player) Gameplay (2/2) Visuals/Story (1/2) (If the visuals are better than the story, review this section as if it had no story) (If the story is
    Single Player/Multi Player (1/2)

    (If the single player is better than the multiplayer, review this section as if it had no multplayer) (If the multiplayer is better than the multiplayer, review this section as if it had no single player)

    Gameplay (2/2)

    Visuals/Story (1/2)

    (If the visuals are better than the story, review this section as if it had no story) (If the story is better than the visuals, review this section as if the visuals didn’t matter)

    Accessibility/Longevity (1/2)

    (Review this section only on Accessibility if the game has no longevity) (Review this section only on longevity if the game isn’t accessible)

    Pricing (1/2)

    Wildcard (0)

    This is a guideline for how to properly review games. Many reviewers like to get a “feel” for a game, and arbitrarily give a game a score that they believe it deserves. This results in wildly different scores between different reviewers, and vastly different scores between similar games. This guideline addresses these problems and scores games fairly and consistently. This guideline also gives scores that are usually similar to the metacritic score.

    The review score is based out of 10 points. There are no “half” or 0.5 increments. It is impossible to have a score above 10 or below 0. The review score will change as the game gets new dlc, drops in price, or if more secrets are found through the game increasing its appeal.

    The scoring is split into 6 sections. The first five sections can add a possible 2 points to the final score. The first 5 sections are Single Player/Multi Player, Gameplay, Visuals/Story, Accessibility/Longevity, and Pricing.

    Notice that 3 of these sections have two parts. These particular sections will be scored based on the stronger part of the game of the two. For example, if a game has a lousy single player campaign, but an excellent multiplayer component, that section will be based solely on the multiplayer as if the single player did not exist. This allows games to be based on their own merits, as many unnecessary features are shoehorned into video games by publishers to reach a “feature quota”. Games that excel in both areas of a section don’t receive should be noted in the written review, but cannot increase the score past 2 in that section. However, it can be taken into account in the final section

    The final section can add 1, add 0, or subtract 1 to the final score. This final section is the “wildcard” section. This section is for how the reviewer “feels” about the game, but limits this only to this section, rather than the entire 10 point review. This section can include any positive or negative point that was not covered in the previous 5 sections.
    Expand
  10. Alexi
    Nov 6, 2005
    7
    I have no idea which part of my expensive system showed in this software. Honestly, if this site had the feature to support, i'd show u the year 1998 maps i'm running around in. the models and effects are only typical for today's standards, but the environment (walls, floors, stairs and all) are rivaling Deux Ex (one). Doom 3 and Half Life 2 was great on my system before i I have no idea which part of my expensive system showed in this software. Honestly, if this site had the feature to support, i'd show u the year 1998 maps i'm running around in. the models and effects are only typical for today's standards, but the environment (walls, floors, stairs and all) are rivaling Deux Ex (one). Doom 3 and Half Life 2 was great on my system before i got it upgraded. The enemy behaviour is ok cool, but i somehow get the feeling that my guns are too big for them. there's this gun that sticks rods in them bad guys too, which i never understood it's implication. I should have bought Quake 4. Expand
  11. MarcC.
    Oct 20, 2005
    6
    The play was good, the AI was above average. Graphics are nice, nothing very special but nice. My disappointment was in that the single player game was very very short.
  12. LukeK.
    Oct 20, 2005
    5
    Its a fun game but its a bit boring, especialy because the slow time runs out fast.
  13. Eon
    Oct 2, 2006
    5
    Wow. F.E.A.R is as much overrated game as Capote is an overrated movie. Level design sucks, graphics are nothing special (given the fact that Half Life 2 looks much nicer and perform much better on lower end PC's , this actually gives the idea that.. game's engine sucks). And don't get me started about "various" enemies you'll have to battle. Im giving this game 5 Wow. F.E.A.R is as much overrated game as Capote is an overrated movie. Level design sucks, graphics are nothing special (given the fact that Half Life 2 looks much nicer and perform much better on lower end PC's , this actually gives the idea that.. game's engine sucks). And don't get me started about "various" enemies you'll have to battle. Im giving this game 5 point score, because I didn't finish it, in fact, I didn't even get the patience to play it till the middle, so I'm afraid to give this game too low score, cause "maybe something good happens in the second half of the game". Expand
  14. RobR.
    Jun 10, 2007
    6
    Now here you have a mix of horror and awesome bullet-time action. What can go wrong right? Well, it seems quite a bit. For one, the story line leaves MUCH to be desired. Although it has its brilliantly planned spooks, they are re-used a million times over to the point where you can predict exactly when Alma is going to make her appearence and either crawl on the wall or stand there, all Now here you have a mix of horror and awesome bullet-time action. What can go wrong right? Well, it seems quite a bit. For one, the story line leaves MUCH to be desired. Although it has its brilliantly planned spooks, they are re-used a million times over to the point where you can predict exactly when Alma is going to make her appearence and either crawl on the wall or stand there, all creepy-like. The game is very well done visually, the atmosphere sets the tone of the game, which is again over-used to the point where you see a dark corridor, you know that Alma's coming out. The weapons are very fun to use, especially the "Penetrator", nailing soldiers has never been so fun (get your mind out of the gutter ;)). The ending is also pretty good, and leaves with a cliff-hanger. Which would've been great, had the voice-acting not been so dismal. Your this super-soldier, killing everything in the whole city, blowing it up, having this awesome climactic rise, and all the people say is, "Good job buddy." The multiplayer is really quite fun, especially now with it being released for free, anyone can get it, but gets old pretty fast. Would've been a great game, had they utilized their creepy atmosphere better than just some little girl crawling. Expand
  15. BoB
    Oct 16, 2005
    5
    This game is unplayable on my machine(P4 3.2GHZ, 2gb ram, Geforce 5600/256mb). I get an average of 16 FPS in 640x480 with every option turned to minimum. If i force the game to use DX8 shaders, i can get an average 39 FPS in 800x600 still with every setting to minimum. But then it looks worse than both Farcry and Half-Life 2. To be fair I should mention that a friend of mine with a X800 This game is unplayable on my machine(P4 3.2GHZ, 2gb ram, Geforce 5600/256mb). I get an average of 16 FPS in 640x480 with every option turned to minimum. If i force the game to use DX8 shaders, i can get an average 39 FPS in 800x600 still with every setting to minimum. But then it looks worse than both Farcry and Half-Life 2. To be fair I should mention that a friend of mine with a X800 ati card thinks it looks super good and get good frame rates. So in conclusion, only buy this game if you have a really good gfx, otherwise dont bother. Expand
  16. LemintrinD.
    Oct 19, 2005
    5
    Why is everyone saying the graphics in this game are good? they may have realistic looking textures, but thats about it.... Not even as good as Half life 2, or doom 3, however it runs about a third the speed. the programmers are either lazy or not very good im afraid, cause this game runs SLOW even on a high end system. Dont bother unless you have a $3000 pc, and even then dont expect Why is everyone saying the graphics in this game are good? they may have realistic looking textures, but thats about it.... Not even as good as Half life 2, or doom 3, however it runs about a third the speed. the programmers are either lazy or not very good im afraid, cause this game runs SLOW even on a high end system. Dont bother unless you have a $3000 pc, and even then dont expect anything special (graphics wise) Expand
  17. Romero
    Oct 19, 2005
    6
    The A.I. and game play are amazing but the enviorments are boring. I thought the big hardware demands would = amazing graphics, but this game can't even come close to HL2 or Doom3 with twice the hardware requirements. Be prepared to have at least a 6800GT or X800 and 2 gigs of ram to get decent framerates with this game.
  18. GregM.
    Oct 23, 2005
    7
    Utterly, horribly average. The first 3 hours are awesome- tense, really scary, and the firefights are awesome! After that it becomes a boring hallway crawl. The enemies are somewhat challenging on the harder difficulty levels, but the main reason for it is that most of the level design is very linear, so the enemies strength is derived from their (almost) always defensive position. There Utterly, horribly average. The first 3 hours are awesome- tense, really scary, and the firefights are awesome! After that it becomes a boring hallway crawl. The enemies are somewhat challenging on the harder difficulty levels, but the main reason for it is that most of the level design is very linear, so the enemies strength is derived from their (almost) always defensive position. There is too much ammo and health lying around and they really don't let you have fun with the weapons too much. The pistol is a very cool weapon, but after a little while there isn't enough ammo + dual wielding is really retarded. Come on now, it's 2005, can we still watch someone run around onscreen with two arms outstretched and not feel our OWN arms getting tired?? It's much much cooler to be holding a pistol with both hands, walking slowly around and waiting for some enemy to pop out and then squeeze a few rounds off into his cranium. Shotgun is great, but the enemies aren't close enough often to use it, so I end up with 150+ runs extra. All the other weapons are ok, the scoped weapons are great, but you don't use them as much as I'd like given the level design. I'm sorry, but Monolith: You should be ashamed! I has so much hope for you. I though I could buy a game from you based on your cred alone. sigh. Expand
  19. MattN.
    Oct 28, 2005
    7
    The game's graphics are great, the fire fights spectacular (makes Max Payne's bullet time look like cr@p), the AI is impressive but unfortunately it's not enough to save the game as whole from the pedestrian level design which you will cursing by the end, it's a little bit easy too. Had no trouble at all running it with everything turn up (3.4Ghz/2Gig RAM)A bit more The game's graphics are great, the fire fights spectacular (makes Max Payne's bullet time look like cr@p), the AI is impressive but unfortunately it's not enough to save the game as whole from the pedestrian level design which you will cursing by the end, it's a little bit easy too. Had no trouble at all running it with everything turn up (3.4Ghz/2Gig RAM)A bit more like Far Cry and this would have been an all time great (could have used more types of enemies and a few more weapons as well). Expand
  20. WesTaylor
    Aug 5, 2005
    7
    My review is based on both Singleplayer and multiplayer demos and betas. This game offers probably the best graphics, sound and physics ever see on a First Person Shooter game. The gameplay is mixture of many games, like Max Payne, Perfect Dark and Doom 3. Just somewhat weaker experience which is sad because the game looks ace. Its heavily story driven so theres not much freedom in this My review is based on both Singleplayer and multiplayer demos and betas. This game offers probably the best graphics, sound and physics ever see on a First Person Shooter game. The gameplay is mixture of many games, like Max Payne, Perfect Dark and Doom 3. Just somewhat weaker experience which is sad because the game looks ace. Its heavily story driven so theres not much freedom in this game to choose how you want to play. This combined with the fact that scary events lose their effect after you have seen them once means that theres not much replay value in this game. Multiplayer is weak, nobody should buy this game because of MP, also because Vivendi is famous for their bad post-release support which lowers the lifetime of the MP side of the game. I suggest you check the SP demo before buying, some may like this game even more than i did. Just dont believe all the hype. Expand
  21. NikosP.
    Sep 24, 2005
    7
    although it has awesome graphics , as a fps is not something innovative.Taking some good ideas from halo n mixing them with those of doom 3,will not make a new gaming experience.Still i find it somehow interesting so i rate it with a 7.
  22. Jake
    Mar 13, 2006
    7
    A mixture of Max Payne, Silent Hill and Doom, which are some of my favorite games, so naturally I would enjoy this one......but alas, I played this right after I finished half-life 2 and I yearn for the gravity gun and physics engine....The swearing is more distracting than anything (yes, there are f-words galore) and the level designs are pretty uninspired. Most of the fighting takes A mixture of Max Payne, Silent Hill and Doom, which are some of my favorite games, so naturally I would enjoy this one......but alas, I played this right after I finished half-life 2 and I yearn for the gravity gun and physics engine....The swearing is more distracting than anything (yes, there are f-words galore) and the level designs are pretty uninspired. Most of the fighting takes place in dark hallways, which are creepy at first, but later monotonous and repetitive. BUT, the fighting is intense, and the bullet time rocks. It's too bad there's only like four types of enemies.....and they all have the same voice, lol. Anyway, fighting gets 5/5, and add 2 more for some creepy moments.....took off points for crappy level design,repetitiveness and a lame story.....but overall a great fps. Expand
  23. ScottB.
    Jul 31, 2006
    5
    Nice graphics, interesting lighting, great A.I., terrible environments, story and gameplay. If you enjoy playing FPS games circa 1995, this is the game for you.
  24. RaphaelP.
    Nov 2, 2007
    7
    ok first i want to say that this game is one of the few out there you'll see with user scores way lower than critic scores. I think the game was overrated by critics. Simply put the game is fun but does get repetitive after a while.
  25. LucasW.
    May 20, 2007
    7
    I feel the same as most people here, that F.E.A.R looks totally awesome, and runs fairly average on my system which is an AMD64 2.4Ghz SLI GeForce7600GS, 2 gigs of RAM, but the game is repetitive, no airboats or dunebuggies to tear up roads with like HL2, and the cookie-cutter level designs are a shame, considering that fear's graphics blow HL2's out of the water. (except for I feel the same as most people here, that F.E.A.R looks totally awesome, and runs fairly average on my system which is an AMD64 2.4Ghz SLI GeForce7600GS, 2 gigs of RAM, but the game is repetitive, no airboats or dunebuggies to tear up roads with like HL2, and the cookie-cutter level designs are a shame, considering that fear's graphics blow HL2's out of the water. (except for the water, which is the only thing HL2's engine can render better.) AI is good most of the time, except a few moments when you can just sneak right up behind one of the replica soldiers without being noticed and cut im' in half with the shotgun. Cmon' people, even programmers are just human, every game hiccups every now and then. Expand
  26. AnonymousMC
    Feb 13, 2008
    6
    A reviewer once wrote that a game without narrative has no lasting power. The biggest gripe about this game is the levels. You literally spend 15 hours walking around the same labyrinthine : Warehouse, Office, Labs, Ruined house. What architect designed these locations? Why is every door locked, every elevator offline-- and the ones that are offline only go up three floors? How many timesA reviewer once wrote that a game without narrative has no lasting power. The biggest gripe about this game is the levels. You literally spend 15 hours walking around the same labyrinthine : Warehouse, Office, Labs, Ruined house. What architect designed these locations? Why is every door locked, every elevator offline-- and the ones that are offline only go up three floors? How many times can you pull off that cliche. Apparently a lot. Every mission briefing begins with the same objective "Find Mr. XYZ. His locator has been spotted in the area!" to the point that it becomes comical.

    I got this on sale a few years after its release and at the moment I'm just grinding through it to say I've finished it. The graphics are nice, and they were nicer for their time, but that's not enough to give the game any sort of special significance in history.
    Expand
  27. MathewM
    Jun 19, 2009
    5
    If you are exceptionally bored right now, it's worth your time, but probably not your money. If you feel curious, borrow it from someone. You'll regret the purchase.
  28. Agemo
    Oct 16, 2005
    7
    It's not so bad, but its quite overrated. Original on a first sight, but annoying with the pseudo-horror full of cliches. Glamourous graphics like a swank hooker, but poor code reveals the true abbreviation of F.E.A.R. - F*cking Engine And Requirments ;)
  29. Agemo
    Oct 16, 2005
    7
    It's not so bad, but its quite overrated. Original on a first sight, but annoying with the pseudo-horror full of cliches. Glamourous graphics like a swank hooker, but poor code reveals the true abbreviation of F.E.A.R. - F*cking Engine And Requirments ;)
  30. HenryR.
    Oct 21, 2005
    6
    Have to say I was disappointed. Level design was lazy, a severe lack of variety. Nice ending, some good gameplay here and there. Found it a bit too easy on medium level. Enjyable while it lasted but nothing as special as I thought it was going to be.
  31. Mike
    Dec 1, 2005
    7
    Physic sucks, levels are tooo much linear, corridor based and predictable. Gameplay is good, story telling is awesome but could have benefited from having more "loud heart beat" sequences. Finally, we get to see our feets and shadow. Graphics are awesome but I don't understand why softshadows are so heavy to render (SCCT got them pretty well at not much cost).
  32. FunnyBoy
    Jan 18, 2006
    7
    Ok I bought the game and play it! But after the first quarter it got so boring,same enemy over and over,same enviroment over and over, the ai wasnt so great, I mean in so narrow empty places there wasnt much room for tactics anyway. Story was interesting and some moments were cool and some ideas at the end, like the flying skeletons, also nice, but to finish the game was really painfull Ok I bought the game and play it! But after the first quarter it got so boring,same enemy over and over,same enviroment over and over, the ai wasnt so great, I mean in so narrow empty places there wasnt much room for tactics anyway. Story was interesting and some moments were cool and some ideas at the end, like the flying skeletons, also nice, but to finish the game was really painfull and dull. There was a big hype about this game but if you think about it as a whole thing,its very average and I would never play it again. Expand
  33. Charles
    Dec 1, 2006
    7
    I decent enough game. Game looks pretty... but nothing amazing. I was able to max out everything on a midrange system and graphics card. Somebody somewhere must have played "The Suffering" and said... "I wonder what I'd be like as a FPS". Well, a couple years later, here you go. Definately worth a try for those liking Max Payne/The Suffering along with some classics like I decent enough game. Game looks pretty... but nothing amazing. I was able to max out everything on a midrange system and graphics card. Somebody somewhere must have played "The Suffering" and said... "I wonder what I'd be like as a FPS". Well, a couple years later, here you go. Definately worth a try for those liking Max Payne/The Suffering along with some classics like Phantasmagoria, 7th Guest, Blood etc. For those that are interested in 'story' ... well ... try some other games. They may not be modern FPS but there's other older games that have a much better story. A good attempt, and an above average game. Expand
  34. AltairN.
    Feb 12, 2006
    7
    Overall very disappointing. I expected that half-life II would bring first person shooters to a new level - but FEAR is not even close.
  35. ShaunT.
    Oct 28, 2007
    6
    FEAR is a mixed bag. The enemy AI, weapon effects, and graphics are all superb. But the levels themselves are bland and lifeless, and you are tasked with fighting basically the same exact enemy throughout. I wanted to like FEAR, and tried to force myself to ignore the repetitiveness and admire the better aspects of the game. But ultimately, I uninstalled it and went back to playing FEAR is a mixed bag. The enemy AI, weapon effects, and graphics are all superb. But the levels themselves are bland and lifeless, and you are tasked with fighting basically the same exact enemy throughout. I wanted to like FEAR, and tried to force myself to ignore the repetitiveness and admire the better aspects of the game. But ultimately, I uninstalled it and went back to playing Half-Life 2 and Quake 4. For all the hype, I felt that FEAR was purely a missed opportunity and a let-down. A good game without creativity and variety is nothing. Expand
  36. AnonymousMC
    Jul 14, 2008
    6
    If you're a fan of horror games, this is one of the best you'll find, with great gameplay that's fun but tainted with the repetitiveness of the levels and the enemies. It's a very linear, very corridor shooter, and the gameplay is decent
    The presentation is excellent. The graphics are top notch, the scary effects are all there, and the sound makes it all the more
    If you're a fan of horror games, this is one of the best you'll find, with great gameplay that's fun but tainted with the repetitiveness of the levels and the enemies. It's a very linear, very corridor shooter, and the gameplay is decent
    The presentation is excellent. The graphics are top notch, the scary effects are all there, and the sound makes it all the more scary. If you're one of those people who thought Doom 3 was a joke in its attempts to scare, FEAR may offer you a good dose of, well, itself - fear.
    As I am not a horror fan, I did not enjoy this game as much as I might have, but I did not take that into account when giving the game this score. It's well-built, but lacks the diversity, variety, and innovation that separates games like Half Life 2 and Far Cry.
    Expand
  37. Dalek
    Mar 26, 2009
    7
    It's an ok game, but it seem to repeat alot of the time, and look the same really.. They mostly worked on the shadows and light fx rather then the graphics, they are ok and my PC could handle it almost very smooth but, I am never gonna buy organ project since its just killing soldiers half of the time and not being freaked out by alma.
  38. LeeP.
    Nov 15, 2005
    7
    People were way too excited about this game. The action is really cinematic and cool; I really like the slowmo and sparks flying off guys, the way the enemies react when you shoot them. I like the graphics and really a lot about his game. HOWEVER: The story is beyond crap. The scary little girl ghost thing is so cliche I could just throw up, and the game ends like a sneeze. There is all People were way too excited about this game. The action is really cinematic and cool; I really like the slowmo and sparks flying off guys, the way the enemies react when you shoot them. I like the graphics and really a lot about his game. HOWEVER: The story is beyond crap. The scary little girl ghost thing is so cliche I could just throw up, and the game ends like a sneeze. There is all this whispered ghost junk about "she knows you" and "you are home" and crap, and in the end you're like "HUH?" Anyway, this is a great used/bargain bin game. But it's only about half a game. Make a game with all the action and physics, but a totally different story and you'd be in great shape. Expand
  39. Jul 3, 2011
    7
    This is one of the few games that really scared the pants off of me the 1st time through. Really does keep your blood pressure high (figure of speech). The game mechanics feel too basic compared to other games and feels like not much work has been put into it.
  40. Mar 15, 2014
    7
    A great action game with lackluster horror themes. IF you're looking for a good horror game, don't bother with FEAR. FEAR gives you a decently long and solid shooter experience. Unfortunately it's hampered by repetitive levels and enemies, but that doesn't create too much of a problem. The game itself is still well worth checking out for shooter fans.
  41. Dec 1, 2011
    6
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. F.E.A.R. (besides it's obnoxious title) isn't bad. In fact I'd say it's quite good. But I'm only saying that because I paid $5 for it, which is what I feel is all it's worth. It's not a very long game, and, due to the extremely muddled and stock story, not a very memorable one either.

    You are Some Guy on an elite task force sent in to go investigate Some Thing. But then things go wrong for some reason and you have to kill That Other Guy. I literally had no idea what was going on from moment to moment in the game. "Go kill him", "go find that"...nothing seemed to matter. There's no way to fail unless you get killed against the intelligent, yet still pretty stupid AI. The story is built around a mysterious corporation and their relation to a "Project Origin" (I only remember the name because it's in the title of the sequel), which (SPOILER...sort of) at you'll guess early on is some kind of super-soldier program gone wrong. Sound familiar? It should if you've watched television, seen an action film, or played a video game since the 90s. It's a very common plot, and it gets used in a lot of refreshing, original ways. F.E.A.R. is not one of those ways. The big twist is (ANOTHER SPOILER...sort of) that you were part of the program, and the game reveals that its failure to provide any background or third dimension to your character was completely intentional! Except that playing as a stock Spec. Ops. soldier is about as exciting as killing hordes of them for hours. And if that does sound exciting to you, well, then you'll probably actually enjoy F.E.A.R.

    The game has somethings going for it. The slow-mo feature, though a bit overused in shooters at this point, makes for some creative and eye-pleasing battle situations, especially with some unique weapons you pick up later in the game. There were points in the game where I generally was scared due to the great lighting and sound design. And above all, for all its simplicity, F.E.A.R. is pretty damn fun...for the first few hours. The game's biggest fault is the repetitive, uninspired level designs, missions, and enemies. With such little variety in gameplay, things get very boring after the first act.

    On top of all this is a bigger matter that bugged me throughout the game. Everything F.E.A.R. does right, Half-Life did better. In 1998. Simplified guns with satisfying shooting mechanics? Half-Life did it. A mysterious antagonist that taunts you, but you can never quite reach? Half-Life did it. Camouflaged cyber-ninjas? Half-Life did it. In fact about the only thing F.E.A.R. has over Half-Life is slow motion and better graphics. The game frequently reminds you that there are "multiple solutions" to situations on each level, but they're aren't. The barely-there stealth elements of F.E.A.R. (Christ that's annoying to type) never quite come through, forcing you to go in guns-a-blazing to every room full of nonchalant baddies you come across. And that's a shame because a gameplay mechanic like that would have really set F.E.A.R. apart from other shooters. Instead it's just another one on top of the pile.

    PROS: Cool weapons, slow motion, near invincibility.

    CONS: Muddled story. You've played this game before. Repetitive gameplay.

    VERDICT: For $5, it's worth picking up. Whether it's worth your time to play through another FPS you'll hardly remember afterwards is up to you.
    Expand
  42. Sep 12, 2014
    6
    Worth playing at its time a lot of reused environments get old, but the gore and kill satisfaction is still one of the best to date which is sad for how old it is.

    Worth $5
  43. May 15, 2013
    5
    Fear Is so bland,boring and not vary scary. 90% of the scares are just cheap and lazy jump scares and the gameplay is bland and boring. i think the slow motion thing was supposed to be the thing that separates itself from the fps pack but it gets old quickly and dosent improve the overall quality of the gameplay. overall its a vary mediocre fps with a decent story and atmosphere
  44. Sep 28, 2012
    7
    In 05 graphics and Ai where at top,also slow motion is a good feature. However, Alma with the progress inspires less and less fear,always using the classic "jump scene".
  45. Nov 23, 2012
    7
    F.E.A.R as a FPS was solid but somewhat dated. The AI was quite good (I played on hard) with enemies that would routinely flank you. The level design was somewhat drab and repetitive and the weaponry was fairly cliched FPS fare. The combat centers heavily on the use of bullet time- which was innovative back in
  46. Jan 3, 2013
    7
    A fantastic twist on the horror genre with amazing (for their time) graphics, enemy AI that work together in groups against you, a story that you feel compelled to piece together through exploration, and explosive combat with amazing sound design and environmental decay. Starts off great, lulls in the middle for a while going through the normal FPS motions and then pulls out all the stopsA fantastic twist on the horror genre with amazing (for their time) graphics, enemy AI that work together in groups against you, a story that you feel compelled to piece together through exploration, and explosive combat with amazing sound design and environmental decay. Starts off great, lulls in the middle for a while going through the normal FPS motions and then pulls out all the stops for the last few levels with a finale to remember. Highly recommended for FPS and horror fans alike; just don't go into this expecting a first person Resident Evil because it's no "survival horror." Expand
  47. Dec 27, 2012
    5
    F.E.A.R is a pretty fun game but it has not aged well at all in my opinion, don't get me wrong the graphics are fine but the levels are too repetitive and so are the enemies that you see. I actually found it hard to sit down for a long period of time to play it, I was never really interested, the lack of story does not help. That being said the last hour of the game actually freaked me outF.E.A.R is a pretty fun game but it has not aged well at all in my opinion, don't get me wrong the graphics are fine but the levels are too repetitive and so are the enemies that you see. I actually found it hard to sit down for a long period of time to play it, I was never really interested, the lack of story does not help. That being said the last hour of the game actually freaked me out and made me want to check the second one out to see what it's all about. If you want to get involved in the series to try the new games go ahead and play this, if not it really is not worth your time. Expand
  48. Nov 11, 2013
    7
    It's got insanely good gunplay and particle effects, but also very repetitive, square level design, and pacing that only really works for short bursts, otherwise it becomes rather tedious. The AI is nothing special, but I've mostly played Halo and Half life games in FPS terms, so maybe I'm just used to smarter foes. The plot is also pretty sh*t but who really cares. It's a 7.5 for me butIt's got insanely good gunplay and particle effects, but also very repetitive, square level design, and pacing that only really works for short bursts, otherwise it becomes rather tedious. The AI is nothing special, but I've mostly played Halo and Half life games in FPS terms, so maybe I'm just used to smarter foes. The plot is also pretty sh*t but who really cares. It's a 7.5 for me but Metacritic only allows 1 to 10 ranking so I just flipped a coin and gave it a 7. Expand
  49. Jun 10, 2014
    6
    Pese a ser un correcalles y muy lineal, es uno de los videojuegos que mejor usan las estructuras sonoras para generar tensión, además de varios sustos muy en la línea del cine de terror japonés. Tal vez no es buena compra pero sí vale la pena echarle un vistazo si lo tiene un amig@.
Metascore
88

Generally favorable reviews - based on 57 Critics

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 55 out of 57
  2. Negative: 0 out of 57
  1. F.E.A.R.'s troopers try so hard, you almost hate not fighting fair. [Jan 2005, p.96]
  2. Is it the next "Half-Life"? It may very well be since anticipation for a sequel is rising every day as more and more play F.E.A.R. for the first time.
  3. But the fantastic graphics, sound, and firefights all blend to make F.E.A.R. an excellent game, though in order to enjoy the graphics and the game to its fullest, you must have a high-end computer system. In closing, F.E.A.R. is definitely one of this year’s best games.