F.E.A.R. 3

 PC
User Score
5.9

Mixed or average reviews- based on 555 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Positive: 144 out of 555
  2. Mixed: 277 out of 555
  3. Negative: 134 out of 555
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. DanRod
    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
  2. sethman75
    Jul 31, 2011
    3
    What a shame for such a once great franchise to fall so badly into mediocrity. The PC version is like stepping back in time to 1997 when all FPS games were played on the keyboard, that is the amount of control you feel you have while playing with a mouse and keyboard. This crappy console port not only plays badly, it looks worse than the original, has a tacked on cover system that was notWhat a shame for such a once great franchise to fall so badly into mediocrity. The PC version is like stepping back in time to 1997 when all FPS games were played on the keyboard, that is the amount of control you feel you have while playing with a mouse and keyboard. This crappy console port not only plays badly, it looks worse than the original, has a tacked on cover system that was not needed or wanted and just like every other FPS console game has regenerative health system which i'm now sure the only point of is that it lengthens the playtime because you are stuck behind a crate for 60% of the game. Played for a few hours, uninstalled and reflected how good the original game was and what a pile of crap this was. Once again, bad or lazy development has killed this game and possibly the franchise for me. Such a shame.… Expand
  3. ZZAPPO
    Jul 24, 2011
    8
    it is good game but less creepy maybe disappoint you. nonetheless except that, this game is overall well. if you satisfy previous game-FEAR,FEAR2-, you would like it too.
  4. daveyy12
    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
  5. hahc21
    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.
  6. Necrotaur
    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
  7. Jennacide
    Jul 15, 2011
    8
    Despite the numerous, and not totally unjustified, remarks about the game being consolized, none of them really detract from FEAR 3 still being a solid game. The atmosphere and gameplay from the first two games remains, and this entry basically draws the whole story to a conclusion. The real shine to the game is playing as Paxton Fettel, which brings back memories of Messiah, exceptDespite the numerous, and not totally unjustified, remarks about the game being consolized, none of them really detract from FEAR 3 still being a solid game. The atmosphere and gameplay from the first two games remains, and this entry basically draws the whole story to a conclusion. The real shine to the game is playing as Paxton Fettel, which brings back memories of Messiah, except without being suck.

    If I had to say anything negative, it would be the need to unlock Fettel on each level instead of having him playable from the get go, as he is the far more enjoyable character to play.    … Expand
  8. somemadcaaant
    Jul 14, 2011
    4
    Wow how can we play a game that has botched mouse over sensitivity... do they not QA titles any more. First Fear was ground breaking, 2nd was missing its charm and features - @Xanifur agreed this is just money grabbing nonsense.

    -smc
  9. Schmerz17
    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
  10. Abutreca
    Jul 7, 2011
    4
    El juego es monótono hasta decir basta, la historia incoherente, los niveles son una linea recta, no da absolutamente nada de miedo ni susto. Y el hermano con superpoderes se supone que solo lo ves tu, entonces ¿cómo le disparan los marines contra los que juegas si solo le ves tú?
  11. Mithoron
    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...
  12. Galnospoke
    Jul 5, 2011
    2
    This is simply bad game. Nothing else. Terrible GFX and music, stupid gameplay, only AI is good.
  13. Hertston
    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
  14. poloman
    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.
  15. xZippy
    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
  16. sanchokobe
    Jul 2, 2011
    4
    Not as good as F.E.A.R. 2, nowhere near as good as the original F.E.A.R. The game gets points for outstanding enemy A.I. and some originality in the co-op department. I also like the reduced ammo capacity, which forces you to be a little more careful where you shoot, but why only two guns? What was wrong with three?

    The graphics are not as good as F.E.A.R. 2. There's absolutely no    Not as good as F.E.A.R. 2, nowhere near as good as the original F.E.A.R. The game gets points for outstanding enemy A.I. and some originality in the co-op department. I also like the reduced ammo capacity, which forces you to be a little more careful where you shoot, but why only two guns? What was wrong with three?

    The graphics are not as good as F.E.A.R. 2. There's absolutely no excuse for that, even for it being a console port, but Day 1 could redeem themselves somewhat if they follow Crytek's lead and release a DX11 texture pack in the near future.

    The keyboard controls are unnatural and the mouse control is unresponsive. The cover system is an unnecessary addition. There was nothing wrong with how it worked in F.E.A.R. 2.

    What happened to the story?! What happened to exploring every room to find snippets of lore and backstory hidden in files or voice mails?

    Most importantly, what happened to the scare? The game will make you jump at times because oh no a light bulb burst, etc. But it won't frighten you like the first two games did. This is the biggest disappointment. Day 1 simply can't bring the scare the way Monolith did.

    Right now it's 4/10. If Day 1 gives us some patches to smooth out the mouse controls, and if they release a DX11 texture pack, I'll bump it up to 7.    … Expand
  17. dondon
    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
  18. iamthewizard2
    Jun 30, 2011
    1
    What the heck????!!!! i bought this game in the understanding that it would surpase the previous fear 1 and 2 titles.(or at least match it)...and all i got was a poor console port????!!!! so angry right now.
  19. lolmetacritic
    Jun 29, 2011
    4
    If you play this game it feels like it has been made by people who haven't even seen fear 1 and 2... Fear 2 was already worse than 1 but this... This looks, feels and plays like a $10 budget game. It has no atmosphere, it has no story, it has no tutorial even. It has nothing. It's the biggest waste of money you can ever go for. Avoid it at all costs. Fear 1 had 9-10 from me, Fear 2 hadIf you play this game it feels like it has been made by people who haven't even seen fear 1 and 2... Fear 2 was already worse than 1 but this... This looks, feels and plays like a $10 budget game. It has no atmosphere, it has no story, it has no tutorial even. It has nothing. It's the biggest waste of money you can ever go for. Avoid it at all costs. Fear 1 had 9-10 from me, Fear 2 had 7-8, this gets 4.… Expand
  20. Sprock
    Jun 29, 2011
    8
    I was worried about FEAR 3 as it was in the hands of a different developer. But they (day 1 studios) proved fairly true to the FEAR franchise with FEAR 3, although not as many scares or jumpy sections as i would of liked, it still provided a few moments where i did jump. It doesn't really use any new techniques to scare the player either which is partially why i would say its not tooI was worried about FEAR 3 as it was in the hands of a different developer. But they (day 1 studios) proved fairly true to the FEAR franchise with FEAR 3, although not as many scares or jumpy sections as i would of liked, it still provided a few moments where i did jump. It doesn't really use any new techniques to scare the player either which is partially why i would say its not too scary. Graphics have certainly improved compared to FEAR 2, the fog/mist and lighting effects in this game are nothing but SUPERB! I do not understand the few people who claim it has bad graphics, sure it occasionally has a low resolution texture here and there...but they aren't too common. I run this game comfortably at 60fps with vsync on and everything max, although it dips rarely. (i5-750, 4gb ram ATI HD6970) Multiplayer is certainly entertaining in FEAR 3, with 4 different game modes and co-op campaign, there's more to do after you finish single player which is certainly an improvement over FEAR 2. It clearly is a console port, and mouse controls although work fine...just seem and feel a bit weird (i ended up using a 360 controller for it) A new cover system is introduced which works fairly well, which i often made use of during my time playing. FEAR 3 tells and explains the story better than its predecessors as well, through cgi cinematic's, memory playback style technique in-game, and lines the characters say. I have to say AGAIN i love the fog/mist/lighting effects in this game, it is used extremely well which creates a very FEARful atmosphere :) The graphics in this simply surpass FEAR 2 easily, and i have no clue as to why there are people claiming FEAR 2's graphics are better maybe they have crap PC's? Maybe they haven't been through all the video settings? Who knows.......Basically if you enjoy a good shooter, a few scares , and multiplayer/co op then this is a game for you.… Expand
  21. zBedlam
    Jun 28, 2011
    1
    From a fan of the original and a PC gamer this is quite a saddening release. Fear 2 didn't do the franchise justice but it didn't completely butcher it like this release did. I couldn't care less about graphics, but the entire atmosphere is gone, the gameplay is mediocre at best and it feels like more of a console port than any PC release I have played so far. If you liked fear at all,From a fan of the original and a PC gamer this is quite a saddening release. Fear 2 didn't do the franchise justice but it didn't completely butcher it like this release did. I couldn't care less about graphics, but the entire atmosphere is gone, the gameplay is mediocre at best and it feels like more of a console port than any PC release I have played so far. If you liked fear at all, stay the hell away from this title.… Expand
  22. hmjhoss
    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
  23. directx11frank
    Jun 28, 2011
    9
    I really like that kind of 3D shooter "horror movie", so very good graphics Directx 11, superb audio atmosphere, AI is very interesting.., the level of difficulty is correct (checkpoint). The game is fun, I give 9 score.
  24. shrinen
    Jun 26, 2011
    3
    Don't waste your time. Better games than this with better stories and better gameplay were released 10 years ago. There's no atmosphere here, no interesting characters, no interesting gameplay. It's like ordering a pizza in 1999, getting it delivered in 2001, and eating it in 2011. You can probably swallow it down somehow and trudge through, but I can't promise you won't regret it. TheyDon't waste your time. Better games than this with better stories and better gameplay were released 10 years ago. There's no atmosphere here, no interesting characters, no interesting gameplay. It's like ordering a pizza in 1999, getting it delivered in 2001, and eating it in 2011. You can probably swallow it down somehow and trudge through, but I can't promise you won't regret it. They likely took the old engine, through together some levels in a few minutes, and made the textures blurry to make it look 'better.' Go play the original (again, if need be), but don't support this garbage.… Expand
  25. Panev
    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)
  26. Melancholy
    Jun 26, 2011
    4
    If you're looking for the same hair-raising horror game driven by an immersive and interesting story that the previous two titles had, best look somewhere else. As an avid fan of the F.E.A.R. series, I was fairly disappointed with this latest installment. Despite boasting that the game had the expertise of John Carpenter and Steve Niles used in development, it remains largelyIf you're looking for the same hair-raising horror game driven by an immersive and interesting story that the previous two titles had, best look somewhere else. As an avid fan of the F.E.A.R. series, I was fairly disappointed with this latest installment. Despite boasting that the game had the expertise of John Carpenter and Steve Niles used in development, it remains largely uninteresting, incredibly short, and hardly frightening for a good majority of the game. An obvious console port, F.E.A.R. 3 at its best is another generic shooter placed in a bloody box with paranormal wrapping. Much of the paranormal happenings that were commonplace in the first and second titles are no longer present, and the ones that are there are hardly anything terrifying. The single player campaign suffers the same problem as the majority of FPS title produced these days by being too short, easily forgettable, and un-note worthy as a whole. I do like that Point Man makes a return as main character, with the psychic visage of his brother Fettel acting as a companion of sorts. The level-up based progression system implemented is enjoyable too, though I found myself many times performing differing actions for the sake of gaining experience rather than progressing through as I normally would in a FPS game, which takes away from the immersion some. The cover system, while easy to use, is largely unnecessary

    I bought this game because I thought what I was buying was another F.E.A.R. title. But instead, I got a mediocre, run-of-the-mill FPS game with little in common to its namesake, dressed up and propped up by its multiplayer co-op fanfare that cheapen the feel of what I thought was going to be a great story driven horror title. Good to rent, but not to buy.    … Expand
  27. siedem
    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.
  28. Psimon
    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
  29. Sussex_Man
    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
  30. Egor
    Jun 25, 2011
    9
    I love the FEAR franchise!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Page:

Awards & Rankings

93
#93 Best PC Game of 2011
47
#47 Most Discussed PC Game of 2011
52
#52 Most Shared PC Game of 2011

Critic Reviews

All reviews »
Metascore
74

Mixed or average reviews - based on 34 Critic Reviews

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 20 out of 34
  2. Mixed: 14 out of 34
  3. 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. Gamer.no
    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.
    Read full review
  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]
See all critic reviews »