F.E.A.R. 2: Project Origin

 PC
User Score
7.7

Generally favorable reviews- based on 682 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Positive: 430 out of 682
  2. Mixed: 199 out of 682
  3. Negative: 53 out of 682
Buy Now
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
view
per page
  1. Tomle1202
    Apr 24, 2022
    6
    Project Origin is too incredibly mediocre to be a F.E.A.R's sequel. At least the ending is memorable, but I digress.
  2. LisacT
    Mar 21, 2010
    7
    I give it 6.8 due to several reasons. I wouldn't mind the console port that much, if it's done properly. However, lack of leaning, custom game saving and quite deteriorated shading (yes, shading) even when compared to the first game released 5 years ago, back in 2005, have affected the final score. On the positive side, the ending wasn't that bad, comparing to most of I give it 6.8 due to several reasons. I wouldn't mind the console port that much, if it's done properly. However, lack of leaning, custom game saving and quite deteriorated shading (yes, shading) even when compared to the first game released 5 years ago, back in 2005, have affected the final score. On the positive side, the ending wasn't that bad, comparing to most of today's FPS and other popular genres. Sticking to the original story, settings and weapons is also for commendation, although I find it way too sci-fi comparing to the "mild" sci-fi atmosphere of the first part. Graphichs are mostly good, except for the shading which probably suffered due to consoles. I'll mention a few more bad moments that ruined the game to an extent: glowing enemies in SlowMo mode, tagged and glowing stuff (intel, weapons, grenades etc.), bad level design in about 1/2 of the game, playing on hardest level is still too easy even after the patch (which should fix it), AI is often not very bright which has been compensated by the quantity... Generally, I don't like killing zillion enemies and have a feeling that I accomplished nothing, which is exactly what awaits you. I'd rather kill 5 guys each level, but they should make me sweat till I do it.… Expand
  3. LeeW.
    Feb 12, 2009
    7
    The first one was the worst game ever, so I consider this an improvement. The little detail effects are great, but the rest is pretty mediocre. Don't get me wrong, this is a big improvement over Monolith's previous BS of AI, graphics, storyline, sounds, voice acting, and whatnot, but it's no Call of Duty 4 or anything actually scary. The scares are nonexistent, but The first one was the worst game ever, so I consider this an improvement. The little detail effects are great, but the rest is pretty mediocre. Don't get me wrong, this is a big improvement over Monolith's previous BS of AI, graphics, storyline, sounds, voice acting, and whatnot, but it's no Call of Duty 4 or anything actually scary. The scares are nonexistent, but they're not pathetic. Try it, but I would recommend quite a few games right over this.… Expand
  4. MaxP.
    Feb 17, 2009
    7
    Overall fun game. Good enough graphics. Not as good as the first one. The biggest problem I have with this game is how Short it is. 3 days you are done with it. Wish it could have been longer. Also it seems like they were building the game for all three platforms and not just PC (which is what the first game was).
  5. Fresh3gg
    May 24, 2013
    6
    No longer be able to lean left or right. Sprint fast while no longer need to holster your weapons first. Infact no longer be able to hoster weapons. Still no prone. Be able to crouch, jump and stand. Melee attack (gun butt), able to jump-forward kick or slide-ski-kick across the floor, I think the player only able to do that after he has that critical operation? Press the X key to switchNo longer be able to lean left or right. Sprint fast while no longer need to holster your weapons first. Infact no longer be able to hoster weapons. Still no prone. Be able to crouch, jump and stand. Melee attack (gun butt), able to jump-forward kick or slide-ski-kick across the floor, I think the player only able to do that after he has that critical operation? Press the X key to switch grenade types, but sometimes you need to press the X again to be able to throw out a grenade, though there is only 1 type of grenade to choose from by then (bugs?). New feature to the grenade’s explode time, now you can hold onto a grenade in hand, it’ll kill you if you don’t throw it out in time before it goes out with a BANG. There is a “seconds” meter in your crosshair when you’re holding onto a grenade. Slowmo, when ever you use the slowmo, there is a “slowmo” meter in your crosshair when it’s resource drains, it auto recharges the slowmo when it was all used up. Now the player has a new trick as to move chairs and tables (or other obstructibles) so as to use them as a shield (hiding behind them). The tricks on the chairs and tables are: Slide Cover, Flip Cover, Topple Cover, etc Has those shotgun and other gun models copy-styled from other games such as Sin and Crysis, Quake Wars, etc Has changed the gameplay to more the like to other games like GoldenEye: Rogue Agent, Half-Life 2 and SiN Episodes: Emergence. It’s turning to more console-favoured game. This is a very good hybrid game, but all hybrids has a limited score… Expand
  6. potatoes351
    Jul 31, 2012
    6
    F.E.A.R 2: Project Origin takes all that was good about the previous game and dumps it in the bin. It then takes the bad bits and makes them either better or worse depending on how you feel about things. F.E.A.R 2 is not how you make a shooter. However the game has a stronger story focus and looks a lot better than number 1 which is always nice.
  7. kg1992
    Jan 6, 2013
    5
    Meant to be F.E.A.R., but Call of Duty. It is pretty good shooter full of fun, but never scared me at all. The arid and mysterious atmosphere of the original disappeared with greasy and distracting environment and effects.
  8. MikeS
    Feb 18, 2009
    5
    In short: average shooter. As with most other PC games - just a console port - so expect cuts & dumbing down. Including, but not limited to: AI is terribly simplistic, no leaning (with incredibly silly excuse by designers / producers), no manual savegames of any sort, graphics often worse than in the first installment (which is 3+ years older), the horror/fear parts barely noticable. The In short: average shooter. As with most other PC games - just a console port - so expect cuts & dumbing down. Including, but not limited to: AI is terribly simplistic, no leaning (with incredibly silly excuse by designers / producers), no manual savegames of any sort, graphics often worse than in the first installment (which is 3+ years older), the horror/fear parts barely noticable. The worst is that the game is incredibly easy - hard level corresponds to easy in FEAR 1 roughly. If you completed that one on extreme difficulty (not even present in the 2nd title), FEAR 2 will feel more like film than a game.… Expand
  9. JoshP
    Feb 11, 2009
    5
    It is a solid shooter, well paced and beautiful in graphics as well as design. It just doesn't live up to it's predecessor, it actually took steps backwards. It's a disappointment for any fan of the first installment and really doesn't offer any original twist, creativity or innovation. Like I said though, it's a solid shooter, just not one that you'll remember.
  10. RickJ.
    Jun 4, 2009
    6
    a mediocre horror shooter. if you like doom 3 this will please you too, if you like half-life probably you will be bored. story is as unimpressive as the ways to create horror (you have this high tech equipement and will find weapons and ammunition all over the place but no new flashlight to replace the poor flickering one you have) . probably nice graphics but as you run around in the a mediocre horror shooter. if you like doom 3 this will please you too, if you like half-life probably you will be bored. story is as unimpressive as the ways to create horror (you have this high tech equipement and will find weapons and ammunition all over the place but no new flashlight to replace the poor flickering one you have) . probably nice graphics but as you run around in the semi or completely dark you won't notice. lots of gore and blood (head rolling in the wash machine etc.) but it didn't work for me to create suspense or horror. all in all quite disappointing.… Expand
  11. AnonymousMC
    Jul 17, 2008
    6
    Played the demo at E3 -- serviceable (nice gore effects), cool walking mechanical suits, good-looking explosions. But the motion feels unnatural, the controls are not as responsive as they should be, the bad guys look cartoonish... This one is no Call of Duty 4, and the horror themes don't make up for poor execution.
  12. AdrianHouser
    Feb 19, 2009
    5
    I enjoyed the play thru, it was great. BUT WHAT IN THE HELL were they thinking when they took away the ability to play the game thru as a fresh start. All intel items you discover are PERMANENTLY saved along with the power ups for your Slow Mo. It's ruined the play thru a second time and that for me is unforgivable.
  13. [ANONYMOUS]
    Sep 27, 2009
    6
    Very fun but VERY short. between 1-2 hours of true game play
  14. FaxorU.
    Feb 12, 2009
    5
    The game just doesn't live up to the original, it just doesn't feel like FEAR any more. A word of warning : this game does NOT support 4:3 and 16:10 monitor ratios (90% of the PCs), it will letterbox your screen instead!! It's an unfinished product so I suggest you wait for a patch before buying.
  15. Kulkuri
    Dec 5, 2013
    5
    I am not usually in the "PC Master Race" wagon, screaming that a game is a game console port if it has been released also on other platforms at the same time. But F.E.A.R. 2 is the very definition of that and an epitome failure to make a decent sequel to good if not great Windows-PC game. Everything has been made more linear, less faster, more "larger", less controllable. There's NOI am not usually in the "PC Master Race" wagon, screaming that a game is a game console port if it has been released also on other platforms at the same time. But F.E.A.R. 2 is the very definition of that and an epitome failure to make a decent sequel to good if not great Windows-PC game. Everything has been made more linear, less faster, more "larger", less controllable. There's NO ABILITY TO SAVE THE GAME AS YOU WISH, no quick saves, no manual saves, ONLY AUTOSAVES AT PREDETERMINED PLACES!!! If you die, you'll lose 5-15 minutes of play time and you need to replay certain spots. F.E.A.R. 2 has terrible FOV, mouse acceleration, you can't bind all mouse buttons to a functions, plain ugly HDR, and oh god the motion blur is so bad. Everything uses very large font and everything has been adjusted TV in mind. There's also ALMOST TOTAL LACK OF COOL PARTICLE EFFECTS, and worse map design, bad jumpscares that aren't even effective, it's really short game, maybe 6-7 hours long, and worst of it all, it looks, feels, sounds, and acts like it's a Playstation 2 title. AI has been dumbed down by a large factor... And allow me to highlight how dumb the map design is by noting that the game has SEVERAL DIFFERENT "SECRET" UNDREGROUND FACILITIES with ALL THE POSSIBLE VIDEO GAME CLICHÉS IMAGINABLE. Maps are also more linear pipes than they were in first F.E.A.R. game. I didn't even sink into everything what's wrong with this title. Just stay away from it. It's one of the worst FPS games ever made. F.E.A.R. 2 lacks self-image and instead is more like bad imitation of Halo 3 from every aspect. F.E.A.R. 2 has no taste at all, and people who call this a good game have no taste at all either. Or are too inexperienced FPS gamers to understand what's wrong with this title.… Expand
  16. SgAkErRu
    Apr 15, 2021
    5
    Короче, игра не очень. Вроде как сиквел, но хуже первой части по всем фронтам (даже с технической точки зрения).

    Большую часть времени надо стрелять клонов/монстров, но это очень скучно, так как стрельба ни о чем, пушки не чувствуются, и еще очень как-то странно бегает персонаж. Графика тоже стала хуже, и на сегодня выглядит довольно плохо, чего не сказать про первую часть. С точки    Короче, игра не очень. Вроде как сиквел, но хуже первой части по всем фронтам (даже с технической точки зрения).

    Большую часть времени надо стрелять клонов/монстров, но это очень скучно, так как стрельба ни о чем, пушки не чувствуются, и еще очень как-то странно бегает персонаж.

    Графика тоже стала хуже, и на сегодня выглядит довольно плохо, чего не сказать про первую часть. С точки зрения геймдизайна - тоже какая-то шляпа, вот недавно перепрошел игру и вообще ничего не запомнилось.

    Хоррор-составляющая выглядит глупо, все пугалки и прочее выглядит как-то очень нелепо. Как следствие, атмосфера никакущая. Сам сюжет тоже потерял свою загадочность и стал каким-то слишком прямолинейным и глупым. По-моему единственное тут хорошее случается, это когда включается саундтрек из первой части.

    В общем если не играли, то лучше и не надо. А если проходили 10 лет назад (как я) и вам кажется что она была неплоха, то лучше не переигрывайте и не портите себе воспоминания. Ну по крайней мере, у меня такое мнение.

    [5 солдатов-клонов из 10]    … Expand
  17. Silhouette
    Apr 16, 2020
    6
    Very good graphics even in 2k20. But shooting got worse than 1st game. Nothing special but atmosphere is VERY good because of the graphics
  18. TiesTorN
    May 5, 2012
    7
    the overall game is mostly "meh"... but the ending is really interesting :) I don't even bother to mention about consolization cuz it's normal, every game is consolized these days... which is bad btw.
  19. RayM
    Oct 1, 2009
    6
    Good, but way too short. I finished it in a weekend of non-hardcore gaming. Seemed to have about half the content of either FEAR or Extraction Point. Don't pay full price for this game!
  20. kylebC
    Feb 21, 2009
    7
    It's TOO EASY! I'm a casual gamer and usually play games on medium difficulty. I turned this one up to Hard and I was only challenged near the end. The machine gun you start with takes the heavily armored guys down with 3 or 4 rounds--no head shots required. It would've actually been much more fun if they doubled the hit points of all the enemies. Other than thatIt's TOO EASY! I'm a casual gamer and usually play games on medium difficulty. I turned this one up to Hard and I was only challenged near the end. The machine gun you start with takes the heavily armored guys down with 3 or 4 rounds--no head shots required. It would've actually been much more fun if they doubled the hit points of all the enemies. Other than that it's a very polished shooter--like a dream after the clumsy Fallout 3 combat engine.… Expand
  21. Skull-o-mania
    Sep 30, 2010
    5
    I find that f.e.a.r. one and 2 should be stricken from the records of gaming in general. Both times I've played them I felt cheated for spending my time playing them. The reason for this was a lack of planning on the developers side. I liked the game play, the graphics, the atmosphere; but in both games I got to one point of the game where I ran out of ammo and could not progress nor couldI find that f.e.a.r. one and 2 should be stricken from the records of gaming in general. Both times I've played them I felt cheated for spending my time playing them. The reason for this was a lack of planning on the developers side. I liked the game play, the graphics, the atmosphere; but in both games I got to one point of the game where I ran out of ammo and could not progress nor could I go back to find ammo that had been dropped (This happened on normal). I spent hours trying to inch-forward only to be destroyed by any grunt who had a drop on me. It's hard for me to give any good credit when a core aspect of a game such as having bullets in which to shoot enemies some how falls by the way side. Plus the fact that I felt the multi-player to be bland and out dated for its time, and obvious add on. But seriously most games I play I try my hardest to beat, and to challenge myself with hard difficulty levels. So getting to a point where I was out of ammo made me feel out of options. I could not sneak around enemies nor find other option in which to subdue them. So fear goes back on the self with all the other games I've rented… Expand
  22. theshonen8899
    May 13, 2011
    6
    What I loved about the original FEAR was the atmosphere, scares, and elusive story. Much of that returns in FEAR 2, but not quite as well as you would like it to. While the graphics and gameplay are superb, the enemies are annoying and the story is very disappointing compared to the original. If you liked the first game though you'll definitely want to play this is for the scares alone, asWhat I loved about the original FEAR was the atmosphere, scares, and elusive story. Much of that returns in FEAR 2, but not quite as well as you would like it to. While the graphics and gameplay are superb, the enemies are annoying and the story is very disappointing compared to the original. If you liked the first game though you'll definitely want to play this is for the scares alone, as they are definitely just as frightening as ever, if not more so.… Expand
  23. SambaL
    Jan 9, 2011
    7
    I play titles like this for the single player experience, multiplayer modes in shooters like F.E.A.R. 2 are just an extra for me. I've got multiplayer shooters like the Battlefield series for that pleasure. That said i won't be giving lower points to the online multiplayer part if it's not that great 'cause i simply don't expect it to be.
    Having played the first game i can say F.E.A.R. 2    I play titles like this for the single player experience, multiplayer modes in shooters like F.E.A.R. 2 are just an extra for me. I've got multiplayer shooters like the Battlefield series for that pleasure. That said i won't be giving lower points to the online multiplayer part if it's not that great 'cause i simply don't expect it to be.
    Having played the first game i can say F.E.A.R. 2 continues the series with good effort, although it's not as good on all points. To start off with the good i will say that the story and the given setting is the best part of the game, even though the plot can be a little difficult to follow sometimes the story and places your visit will keep you interested and make you want to finish the game to see what happens, which won't take you very long, 9 to 10 hours of normal play. But it's long enough in my opinion. If a game is too long a game like this can eventually lose your interest in which case you'll most likely never finish it at all. Just Cause 2 being a fine example of this.
    Gameplay wise not a lot has changed since the original, only improvements on some of the core gameplay mechanics and a few new gameplay elements like iron sighting and the ability to operate a mech suite. In the end nothing shocking really, which can also be said for the gameplay itself, but it's satisfying enough.
    The graphics never really stand out above other titles in this genre but it's more than adequit to satisfy the ones who love graphics. Design and environments play a mayor part too in this and deserve an extra notice. The levels are well detailed, dynamic, destructable and have a good layout and some nicely placed scripted events too. Most noticable level to back this up would without a doubt be the Elementary School.
    So what's bad about the game than? Well, it isn't as scary as it used to be for one. Let me put it this way, if F.E.A.R. would be the Japanese horror movie Ringu (which was probably a big inspiration) than F.E.A.R. 2 would be an episode of Ghost hunters. Maybe that's a little exaggerated but you get the point, it's not as scary as you would like and expect it to be in a way the first one was. Next to that the i found the overall sound a bit lacking. In most part this was fine like the music which created some nice tension but i'm talking about the sound effects with the gun sounds in particular. It all sounded a little weak for my taste, especially the shotgun. But these are just small things. In the end there isn't really anything wrong with F.E.A.R. 2 , the problem lies more in what's good. It's just that, good, nothing more. F.E.A.R. 2 never really pops out in any way. So eventually you could say that F.E.A.R. 2 is an above average shooter. Nothing really special, just good.
    My advise would be that if you liked the original F.E.A.R and it's installments and you digged the story as much as i did or if you're just looking for a good shooter to pass the weekend i'm positive you'll enjoy F.E.A.R. 2. But for those of you who are looking for something new and groundbraking or want a good scare i would recommend to pass on this one, it's not that special.    … Expand
  24. sinadoom
    Nov 21, 2011
    6
    First of all compliments to the great game engine. Its shooting physics and gun play are very well done. The campaign plays just like Half-Life 2, with the story being told in the same way. Only difference is that there's random hallucinations mixed in at appropriate times. These are very well-done and although not scary, they create a great, mysterious atmosphere. The biggestFirst of all compliments to the great game engine. Its shooting physics and gun play are very well done. The campaign plays just like Half-Life 2, with the story being told in the same way. Only difference is that there's random hallucinations mixed in at appropriate times. These are very well-done and although not scary, they create a great, mysterious atmosphere. The biggest disappointment is that there are no ranked multiplayer matches (2011), with only 1 or 2 unranked servers online at any given time. It's a shame since the multiplayer has potential to be fun and perhaps more polished than F.E.A.R. Combat's. The story is short with a lack of varied environments and gameplay. However, what you do get is of fairly decent quality and there's nothing like it out there. I played the demo on Xbox 360 and on PC before purchasing and it's quite clear that this game was made for the PC judging by the wealth of buttons in this game. Overall it's a decent game but not good value for money.… Expand
  25. JonesR
    Jun 10, 2011
    7
    This sequel is simply ok. It doesn't provide the same intense horror experience that the original F.E.A.R. does. Original F.E.A.R. players will know more or less what to expect next. But other than the lack of innovation, it still is a decent game.
  26. fedak
    Nov 23, 2012
    7
    A much more modern title (in both graphics and game mechanics) than the original F.E.A.R.

    As a FPS it is a much more varied experience than the first game- the environments and level design are tied to the story and far more interesting than the endless repetitive drab corridors of the original. The combat still centers heavily around the bullet time mechanic and there are several    A much more modern title (in both graphics and game mechanics) than the original F.E.A.R.

    As a FPS it is a much more varied experience than the first game- the environments and level design are tied to the story and far more interesting than the endless repetitive drab corridors of the original. The combat still centers heavily around the bullet time mechanic and there are several levels where you get to don a near-indestructible mech suit.

    As a survival horror title is has all of the same flaws of its predecessor- the horror is mostly QuickTime events and simply isn't in any way frightening. (Especially if you've had your fill of     … Expand
  27. sft
    May 22, 2013
    7
    Battle of the Boing

    Visually F.E.A.R 2 is impressive. It features some terrific maps (although it’s still a bit too much of a corridor shooter), cut-scenes, and in-game animations, the character modelling is good and it has a host of nice atmospheric touches. It also introduces some imaginative new enemies not seen in the original, including the reanimators, who bring dead grunts back    Battle of the Boing

    Visually F.E.A.R 2 is impressive. It features some terrific maps (although it’s still a bit too much of a corridor shooter), cut-scenes, and in-game animations, the character modelling is good and it has a host of nice atmospheric touches. It also introduces some imaginative new enemies not seen in the original, including the reanimators, who bring dead grunts back to life as flailing, gun-toting zombies, and pesky, shrivelled guys in shorts, who scurry about like Gollum on speed. F.E.A.R 2 is also pretty creepy at times it actually made me jump once or twice. It’s a shame, however, that these jolts are isolated to brief sections of the game with long gaps between. The story’s okay though unremarkable. The combat ranges from quite easy to pretty tough (on the normal setting). The tasks are typical: finding keycards and whatnot nothing particularly inspiring. So far so whatever it’s a good game but not a great one. On to my main criticisms. The PC controls are a bit twitchy, but more of a problem is the way your character moves. The amount of head-bob is insane. I mean truly bonkers. Beckett bounces along as though on a pogo stick. It irritated the hell out of me and significantly reduced my enjoyment of the game. Then there’s the lack of humour. Aside from a few quips within the intel reports there is none. Overall this is a visually and technically striking game that’s well worth playing but won’t linger fondly in the memory or have much replay appeal.    … Expand
  28. Neddy
    Jul 3, 2013
    7
    I was just about to write a 10/10 review for this game, because it's solid and extremely good looking. I was about ten hours in and loving it lots. I thought I'll play on a little further before reviewing, then one hour later it ended.

    Recap then, it is excellent FEAR content, if you like the first trilogy as I did. It looks fab, gets livelier sooner, and plays like a dream. Only it's    I was just about to write a 10/10 review for this game, because it's solid and extremely good looking. I was about ten hours in and loving it lots. I thought I'll play on a little further before reviewing, then one hour later it ended.

    Recap then, it is excellent FEAR content, if you like the first trilogy as I did. It looks fab, gets livelier sooner, and plays like a dream. Only it's just too short.

    My real overall rating is probably 7.5/10, but 8/10 is too much given its length. I'd estimate its probably slightly more than half length of any of the first three games.

    I was lucky and bought it for £2.50 Steam sale, so I have no complaint, but think before you pay full price. (I imagine it has good replayabilty, as I imagine I most certainly will replay.)

    The expansion F.E.A.R.2 Reborn isn't so hot either, and it's extremely short. You play as a replica soldier, so it's an aside to the game, and not part of it. It's OK and fun to play at, as all the weapons and slo-mo are there. It is a strange and interesting little side story, but it's just way too short. Don't pay top price for it    … Expand
  29. jcasetnl
    Nov 25, 2016
    5
    A not horrible but mostly forgettable shooter. Cliche "dropped into a meat grinder" story. Gun play and movement aren't very satisfying. You can't dive or roll like in Max Payne, so the bullet time is just basically a slow-motion cheat button. The jump scares are formulaic to the point that you start to ignore them and just charge forward. Speaking of which, running is in very shortA not horrible but mostly forgettable shooter. Cliche "dropped into a meat grinder" story. Gun play and movement aren't very satisfying. You can't dive or roll like in Max Payne, so the bullet time is just basically a slow-motion cheat button. The jump scares are formulaic to the point that you start to ignore them and just charge forward. Speaking of which, running is in very short bursts because it's limited by a tiny stamina meter, which is just... odd. A highly trained soldier can't sprint for more than 30 feet without running out of breath?… Expand
  30. csabber
    Nov 30, 2013
    7
    Project Origin is a direct follow up to the original game released in 2005. It took Monolith 4 years to cook up a sequel and they decided not to change much on the formula that has worked once. But 4 years is a long time and sometimes innovation is better than playing it safe. That's exactly why Project Origin falls short of its predecessor. The formula remained the same, but the audienceProject Origin is a direct follow up to the original game released in 2005. It took Monolith 4 years to cook up a sequel and they decided not to change much on the formula that has worked once. But 4 years is a long time and sometimes innovation is better than playing it safe. That's exactly why Project Origin falls short of its predecessor. The formula remained the same, but the audience has changed.

    The game picks up right the time when the first games is about to end. To be precise, it starts a couple of minutes before the end of F.E.A.R. You are a part of Delta Squad and you're sent to place the head of Armacham Technology Corporation into protective custody. It's when sh*t starts to get serious and a nuclear blast bakes most of the city as a result of the original F.E.A.R. team's endgame. In the rest of the game you move in and out of underground facilities trying to achieve your ultimate goal. Even though the campaign lasts only around 7 hours the story is detailed and interesting. On the other side, you have to pay attention to every detail that happens around you or told to you on the comm because if not you'll find yourself lost in the web organisations and projects thrown at you in every couple of hours. At least if you do get lost eventually right before the end of the game everything will be cleared up in 5 short minutes.

    The gameplay is very similar to the first game. Little has changed; slow-mo shooting is still great but the novelty has faded in the past four years. You will meet various enemies during your gameplay starting from soldiers, genetically modified monsters, mechs to ghosts even. The game will always try to throw something new at you which is nice, but eventually you'll immediately recognize the spacey room where a firefight is going to take place in 3...2...1.

    AI was a strong part of the first game and it returns in the second one too. However, it doesn't always work like it meant to be. Sometimes the enemies will be clever enough to kick over tables and take covers, but in other cases they will try to rush you through the same door where you'll stand and shoot them one by one. The Delta Squad, your mates aren't the most brightest either. Most of the times you'll see them splitting up and getting killed (because of the story) and the writers could've written better lines for the voice actors too. Being a psychological game you'll never feel surprised of your team members being killed off. What is worse you'll never feel pity for them because they're unlikable, two-dimensional dolls.

    Visually F.E.A.R. 2 is a real mystery. On one hand it presents a great world with some stunning lighting effects and great destructibility, on the other hand it's ugly. Everything looks sharp when you move, but stop for a moment a take closer look at minor objects, like consoles or books on desks. They look downresd, blurry and pixelated. The devil is in the details as they say. In the year when hardware pushing games like Modern Warfare 2, Resident Evil 5 or Killzone 2 were put on the shelves of retailers this kind of laziness is disappointing. One can look aside when it comes to these problems, but then there is the audio. The sounds of guns are just atrocious; every one of them sounds like they were taken out from an 80s Atari 7800 game. Every shot you have to take with the shotgun or machine gun irritates your ears. It's like firing with toy guns from the crappiest Chinese manufacturer.

    F.E.A.R. is a sharp shooter with its flaws and assets. The formula that made the first game great has aged greatly and the horror factor is M.I.A. in most of the game. Great number of "tricks" has already been used up in the previous title or other games. When the horror is present the game feels like a real successor of the prequel, but those moments sadly end quickly. It definitely has its moments when it comes to shooting (the mech scenes are great), but drawbacks won't allow to have an experience like with the original F.E.A.R. game.

    Rating: 68/100; Replay Value: 2/5; To Beat: 7 hours; Played on: normal.    … Expand
prev
Page:

Awards & Rankings

51
#51 Best PC Game of 2009
22
#22 Most Discussed PC Game of 2009
16
#16 Most Shared PC Game of 2009

Critic Reviews

All reviews »
Metascore
79

Generally favorable reviews - based on 49 Critic Reviews

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 39 out of 49
  2. Mixed: 10 out of 49
  3. Negative: 0 out of 49
  1. PC Zone UK
    80
    What it adds - the more capacious level design, the daylight, the mech bits, the cover system - doesn't amount to much more than a garnish of new ideas on an old chicken salad of a game. But as I said, the magic of F.E.A.R. is certainly in position. That basic pleasure of time slowing, of watching a death ballet unfold as glass shatters, masonry crumbles and bodies cartwheel with morbid elegance - it's all intact, and it's as incredible to behold as ever. [Mar 2009, p.56]
  2. GamePro
    80
    Now, the spine tingling sequel, Project Origin is here to continue the story of the psychic and psychotic Alma with damn good results. [Mar 2009, p.78]
  3. Game Informer
    83
    After the embarrassment of The Perseus Mandate, F.E.A.R. 2 should be in consideration for comeback player of the year. While the multiplayer is weak and the mood won’t make people forget Dead Space any time soon, the solid action core makes it worth a play.
    Read full review
See all critic reviews »