User Score

Generally favorable reviews- based on 505 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Negative: 39 out of 505

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. Nov 13, 2012
    The story line nearly doesn't exist- it isn't told in any kind of logical fashion, and it makes no sense. The graphics are great, and the ability to slow time is useful at first, but eventually you develop a dependence upon it that becomes a crutch. Enemies do so much damage that you can't risk going into battle without it, but then it makes the game too easy. The weapons are very limited- you either have a machine gun, a rifle, or dual pistols. There are no other legitimate options. The game is scary at first, but after about the third level, the whole shock factor is depleted. I would not recommend this game to anyone- even if you can buy it cheap, you're better off re-playing any of the other FPS's you have in your library. Play ANY one of them. Expand
  2. Dec 20, 2011
    To be very honest, I was quite disappointed. I was actually really hoping to like this game, and I did enjoy it a lot in the first couple of hours or so. But after that I realised that there was nothing more to this game but mindless repetitive shooting. Let me explain. First the good bits. F.E.A.R. has some distinct strength, no doubt. It has very nice and realistic use of lighting and shadows, and also a very clever enemy AI, so enemies actually use teamwork and take cover instead of just running at you. The ability to go into bullet time (slow motion) is also very nice, but that ability is pretty much the leverage point of the entire game. You aren't encouraged to use it, you are forced to use it. If you don't, you die too easily. This makes every single gunfight a mindlessly slow drudgery. You are also given cool melee attacks, but you can be sure you won't use them past the first level, because you almost never get a chance to get that close to the enemy. Action in general - as I said, it's fun for the first couple of hours, but then you realise that every single gunfight is virtually the same as the hundred you've had before. The same types of enemies, the same types of arenas, the same types of guns. Nothing changes! This is boring! And speaking of boring... the levels. I have played more than half of the game, which is quite a number of hours, and I've only encountered 3 types of areas throughout - sewers, warehouses and offices. That's it. It's the same kind of areas repeating themselves all the time. And there are even several parts of the game where you walk corridor after corridor with nothing happening whatsoever. No enemies and no suspense, just corridors. That heavily detracts from the pace of the game. As for the horror element. Well, it sort of works at first, but after first few levels you realise that none of those "scares" actually have any effect on you. They are just images. In games like Doom 3 for example, things that jump at you out of nowhere are actual monsters that can KILL you. In F.E.A.R. nothing that jumps at you can affect you in any bad way. It's totally harmless, so why get scared about it? By all means, F.E.A.R. is a well-made game, I have not encountered any bugs and such, but it's not entertaining at all. It doesn't have interesting puzzles, no story to encourage you to play on. It's just a repetitive shoot em up. Expand
  3. Nov 28, 2011
    I picked up F.E.A.R cheap on Steam, as you do, expecting an engaging and enjoyable horror shooter. What I got was something different entirely. After the second level it becomes a drag of just more of the same. Bland, grey rooms, leading into bland, grey rooms. Hey, if you were lucky you might get one with a blood splatter in it, but that was the extent of it. The graphics were nothing special, even running on the highest setting and the gameplay just awful. It eventually became and endless cycle of 'slow-mo on - shoot the crap out of everything - slow-mo off.' Rinse and repeat. A horror experience absent of horror or atmosphere, and this is coming from someone who can barely sit through a horror flick. A thoughtless ending was the climax of a story desperately crying out for some more detail and attention. Save your money, seriously. Expand
  4. AnonymousMC
    Jan 19, 2009
    Great graphics, horrible gameplay. It suffers from Far Cry syndrome where every enemy magically knows where you are, gets 100% headshots, and throws grenades with 100% accuracy. It's not unusual in this game to be killed within 3 seconds of an enemy seeing you because they immediately throw a grenade at you and it explodes when it hits you. It's almost as bad as STALKER.
  5. AnonymousMC
    Oct 5, 2008
    Utterly overrated game.
    1. To me, "Minimum Requirements" means you can play the game in minimum audiovisual settings. And "Recommended Requirements" means you can play the game high or highest settings. My system specs are exceeding the Recommended ones in every aspect but I still have to play the game in medium settings, and low screen resolution.

    2. Game slows down in Vista after
    20-30 minutes of playing, so I have to exit the game and re-run.

    3. Exiting the game takes about 5 to 6 minutes. 2-3 minutes to exit to desktop, and other 2-3 minutes to get my original screen resolution back. So not compatible with Vista (see 2.). And yes I have good specs, defragmented drive and minimum background programs.

    4. Bad and boring level/enemy/weapon design. No silencers, no secondary modes in weapons e.g "Single Shot", "Burst" or "Rifle Granade".
  6. AnonymousMC
    Sep 9, 2008
    This is the most boring, clichéd, slow, ugly, and unfightening video game I have ever played in my life. Like it's worse than Star Trek: Elite Force II and Big Rigs Over the Road Racing is what I'm talking about.

    First off, the main problem is the gameplay. You can't go any faster than at most 5 KPH. The only special feature of the game is that you make it

    Then comes the actual story. It's supposed to be horror, but where's the horror? Oh some decapitated bodies and the player apparently seeing random visions everywhere of some little girl with black hair over her face or some fat guy walking around and then disappearing.

    The sound is awful. The only thing I heard throughout the (probably) first quarter of the game were these two repetitive tri-tones being played on some kind of synthesized instrument.

    The graphics suck. There's no widescreen. Everything is horribly pixelated with no crappy setting in between it and high anti-aliasing, which is horrible for people with moderate video cards. The textures are crappy, player models are ugly, and the only thing I can think of that redeems this aspect is the three-dimensional wall-marks.

    All that being said, I played for two and a half frustrating hours of walking around shooting people that also can't even go faster until I traded it for Quake 4, which is the best game ever.

    Good trade.
  7. AnonymousMC
    Mar 21, 2008
    Very overrated. First of all, the level design was very poor. I felt like I was going through one whole level the whole game. Second, the enemy variety. 80% of the time you are fighting super-soldiers who all look the same. The plot may have been quite scary, but at the same time it was extremley stupid. Whoever thought a little girl was scary? And why can she kill 10 people in 5 seconds with her telekinesis powers? The ending came out of nowhere and it seems like it was the first thing they did. Also, much of the story was spaced out so you almost forgot about it at some times. The multiplayer is nothing special and is not anything you can't find in most other games. The graphics are mediocre, yet some pretty good machines still have trouble running it. In other words, wait until this shows up in the bargain bin. Its simply not worth more than $20. Expand
  8. PSORngr
    Jan 27, 2008
    The Graphics aren't very good for this game. It felt like I was playing the same level over and over again and fighting the same enemies. My biggest gripe with the game was that I felt it had little to know story.
  9. AndrewY.
    Apr 21, 2007
    Too boring and repetitive. Seen a thousand times before. Good point from the review about the scary girl which is becoming obsessing.
  10. Scott
    Dec 6, 2006
    Levels sucked, all looked the same. Its so repetitive. Enemies are all the same. Its cool for the first couple hours, then I was just waiting for it to be over so I could check it off and not say I wasted my money. Even though this game is a waste of money.
  11. TheMagicalHippieKiller
    Nov 29, 2006
    Pure garbage. I almost don't even know what to say. What the hell were they trying to accomplish with this? This was just Rainbow-Six, by yourself, versus even dumber ai and a little girl. LITTLE GIRL?! What the hell is so scary about that? Oooh, she's a ghost. Man, this was as painful as watching The Ring. Actually, this WAS the Ring with soldiers and ridiclous weapons. I would have given this a ten if a got a chance to spray the little girl's ghasty ways all over the walls, regardless of the game to that point. Lame story, the kind of story that would be used in a crappy 80's Steven Stegal Movie. And the game ran so bad, I had to turn off the shadows to make it work. Unfortunatly, the shadows ARE the game, so it loses half the darkness and spookiness. And for making my comp run so slow for not even that great of graphics? HL2 takes a while to load, but it runs smooth with way better graphics. This game should just be freeware if anything, and I hate myself for paying $50 for it. Expand
  12. AnonymousMC
    Nov 11, 2006
    F.E.A.R is: overpromise; underdelivery. It doesn't offer something really new. The 'horror' aspect failed to give me creeps; and didn't add much to the gameplay. The graphic is pretty much average and very monotonous. I expect something better.....HL2, on the other side, is much better, smoother, unforgettable. FEAR is a great game only when compared to the old Wolfenstein 3D. I'm REALLY disappointed!! Expand
  13. BrentH.
    Jun 20, 2006
    The programers thought that graphics would overcome a bad, disjointed story line. Hey through in some cursing and forget the plot even more. Wondered why I was playing it when the ending came out of nowhere and made no sense. Dont not buy unless you like all your levels to be essentially the same. I even played it on the hardest setting hoping the ending would change... NOPE waste of time. Not scary not novell. Expand
  14. AdamM.
    May 10, 2006
    Not worth the $55 i spent on it! It may be scary, but is not in anyway a good game. Bad plot, enemies sucked, and so did the weapons. The graphics are barely better than a $5 Milkshake!! Spend your money on something else!
  15. KarlW.
    Mar 16, 2006
    Disjointed story. Boring environments and enemies. Cliched weaponry. No style.
  16. Jim
    Dec 26, 2005
    Boring, monotonous, tedious, and completely overrated.
  17. PiiozoesA.
    Nov 3, 2005
    Nice graphics. nice sound. as a demo, might work well. else: it SUCKS! all the same, lame gameplay over and over again. If the AI is so smart, then let it play by herself. Cheers!
  18. jp
    Nov 2, 2005
    The horror element was done better in the demo cause they pieced together several scenes in close sucession. In the full game they're so spaced out that you don't even care anymore. Especially when you find out they don't add to the gameplay in anyway. The gameplay is just one pointless gun battle after another just like any other first person shooter excep without the flare. The garphics are ok, but are extremely repetitive. Expect to see the same water cooler and blue water tank thing hundreds of times. The battles are also repetitive, using a copy of max payne's slow time to make up for the boredom(which it doesn't do). Shame on the critics for giving this game glowing reviews when the community says something completely different. Don't fall for the hype! Expand
  19. PcFan
    Nov 1, 2005
    What all the main reviews dont tell you is that the score they gave it was based on you have a PC that has Quatum nanotechnolagyc posatronic CPU running at 57.4ghz and having 300.00.00 Organic quad DDR memory, because if you dont then this game is going to run like a brick. shame the programers didnt know how to write in code, im under the impressions that the whole game was programd usinf ASCII
  20. Mobius
    Nov 1, 2005
    My rig meets the system requirements and it just looks awful. i guess there are only about 2000 people in this world that have a rig that can run this game at an acceptable lv. all of you who are not sure if your rig can handle this game these are the system specs that i would recomend 3.4ghz CPU 3gig memory latest 256mb Graphics card and i do mean the latest. you will probly get away with using 2gig of memory. Anyway what im saying is that this game is just to system hungry for most of the PC population, so unless your those type of people who always have to spend money on the latest equipment your not going to get much from this. Expand
  21. Rink
    Oct 23, 2005
    Overrated. I cant beleive such mediocre graphics can run SO SLOW. even on expensive hardware this doesnt run well (at least not compared to games with better graphics, i.e Doom 3, Far cry, half life 2). the programmers need to learn to optimise code.
  22. NoahL.
    Oct 22, 2005
    Boring, repetitive, terrible online.
  23. MikeM.
    Oct 21, 2005
    I was expecting Half-Life2ish but I couldn't find it. Where is the challenge in walking down hall after hall shooting the same enemy over and over again? The sound was great but that's about it. I have a high end gaming computer but the graphics didn't appear to be anything special unlike what I see when I play Quake4. Save your money kids!
  24. Saber
    Oct 21, 2005
    Its again and again and yet again the nerd pc games that we are encountering. Nothing new to deliver, no cinematic speciality, no panoramic orchestra, there is nothing TOO good done in FEAR that can actually seperate it from the rest of the pack our pc's are littered with for the most of last 3 or more years. The graphics are sharp but character detail is simply bum !!!. I don't know how you consider antilaliasing being enough for low polygon count. If you loose polys, its clearly an overall loss, just sharpening up the low-poly models with enough antialiasing isn't gonna do the job here. Rag-doll physics is back but hey ! haven't we seen that so many times already?! Just drop it folks, its basicly a mindless brawler. I feel sorrow for what direction pc games are heading in. Expand
  25. Jun
    Oct 2, 2005

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.