User Score
8.0

Generally favorable reviews- based on 131 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Positive: 89 out of 131
  2. Negative: 6 out of 131
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
  1. FPSMaster
    Feb 14, 2009
    7
    In some ways better than the first, but in some ways worse. It looks good at times, sometimes better than the original, then at others it looks very blurry and it has a grain filter over it like the developers were trying to hide something. The flashlight no longer casts dynamic shadows, so this was a huge letdown since the original from a game engine designed in 2005 had this feature and In some ways better than the first, but in some ways worse. It looks good at times, sometimes better than the original, then at others it looks very blurry and it has a grain filter over it like the developers were trying to hide something. The flashlight no longer casts dynamic shadows, so this was a huge letdown since the original from a game engine designed in 2005 had this feature and some other older engine games like Half Life 2 and Left 4 Dead also do it. It plays like the original almost to a T, except you can now pilot the power armor and there's a few new weapons. I never thought the original was scary at all and wondered why others found it scary because you're armed to the teeth like Rambo. But this game is even less scary than the first. The enemy A.I. doesn't seem as lifelike as the first game and doesn't move around and flank as much. If the game didn't show the symtoms that only the FEAR 1 port to PS3 had (choppy framerates, blurry look and just half-assed) it would score higher. It looks like this series was better when only on PC and 360 but now like most other multiplatfrom games that come out at the same time on PS3 and 360 this game shows symtoms of developers making it for the weaker PS3 graphics card and porting it over to 360 using none of it's more advanced features. It's obvious when looking at what the first game did when it was on 360 long before it was on PS3 then looking at this one that came out on both consoles at the same time and seeing it having the same problems that only PS3 games normally have and seeing things the first game did on 360 were cut out so it could perform decent on PS3. Expand
  2. CRobb
    Feb 14, 2009
    7
    *sigh* I literally bought this game yesterday, played it for about 4 hours and only about 3 today, to have me complete it. Dont get me wrong this game is graphically impressive and better paced then the 1st one. But they havnt pushed a single boundary when it comes to horror, not one. Im sorry but they are capable of much more then what was delivered in this sequel. Which aggrivates me *sigh* I literally bought this game yesterday, played it for about 4 hours and only about 3 today, to have me complete it. Dont get me wrong this game is graphically impressive and better paced then the 1st one. But they havnt pushed a single boundary when it comes to horror, not one. Im sorry but they are capable of much more then what was delivered in this sequel. Which aggrivates me even more is that they pulled the same stunt they did at the end of Fear 1! WRAP IT UP! You never find out what happened to the 1st guy, the 2nd one in Persious Mandate and now you dont have a clue whats happening to this guy now. If Monolith is doing it to drag out the story so they can make more money then I surely wont be buying the next couple of predictable expansion packs. Expand
  3. ApocalypseBrown
    Mar 8, 2009
    7
    I must first have another go at EuroGamer, as their reviewers are getting more ridiculous by the month. To give this game five, and Killzone 9 is a joke quite frankly. Neither game is above seven, though I'd say Fear 2 is the better of the two. But obviously objectivity is sadly replaced by big wads of cash at Eurogamer, so I'd advice scrapping their reviewers full stop. Anyway I must first have another go at EuroGamer, as their reviewers are getting more ridiculous by the month. To give this game five, and Killzone 9 is a joke quite frankly. Neither game is above seven, though I'd say Fear 2 is the better of the two. But obviously objectivity is sadly replaced by big wads of cash at Eurogamer, so I'd advice scrapping their reviewers full stop. Anyway Monolith have produced a game that does things in a very pleasing yet unspectacular way, basically it's a good pop corn game if you don't expect Gears of War 2 from it. The story is quite interesting in a subtle way, Alma is back to some nasty shite and has now turned her focus on the lead figure a soldier called Beckett. The repeating back-drops of offices in the original are replaced by schools, subways and ghost town streets, which definitely gives the game more appeal. But never did I really feel overly excited about playing this as every set piece (well they weren't too many to begin with), to the slow-mo gun play and enemy AI has been since and bettered before. And online is an embarrassment, which kills the game dead after you finish it. It's no more than a slightly above average game, just like Project Snowblind was on the PS2. But it is definitely worth a run through if you enjoyed the original, though it isn't even as remotely scary as it's predecessor. And it's very obviously Fear 3 is coming soon, so Monolith make sure you hit the jack-pot when it does arrive please. Expand
  4. DavidT
    Apr 26, 2009
    6
    Had good game play but it never scared me why in hell wouldnt a fear game scare u u know why because she never pops out
  5. CharlemagneO
    Mar 10, 2009
    6
    I only played the single player since this is a story driven FPS so this is all my review covers. Also, I never played the first F.E.A.R. game. Well, first of all, it seemed very unnecessarily dark. Is that their method of covering up graphical shortcomings? Okay, I'm over that hump and I adjusted to that fault. Alright, so here is the show stopper for me (and the reason why I never I only played the single player since this is a story driven FPS so this is all my review covers. Also, I never played the first F.E.A.R. game. Well, first of all, it seemed very unnecessarily dark. Is that their method of covering up graphical shortcomings? Okay, I'm over that hump and I adjusted to that fault. Alright, so here is the show stopper for me (and the reason why I never finished the game). The save system is horrible. The game autosaves whenever you finish a level or some significant event occurs. Because of this save system, I was locked out of a room when I decided to turn around to explore the area further. The only means of progressing the story is now in that locked room. Even after exiting to the menu, there is no method of choosing the previous save point. No thanks. I'd expect a more sophisticated gamesave system in place. Maybe when they release this as a platinum game in 6 months they can fix this egregious error and allow you to save as you please like Halo or Bioshock did. Expand
  6. VinnyB
    Feb 15, 2009
    6
    Right where do i start with this. On the plus side the single player mode is quiet good with some highlights here are there, graphics are improved and the sound draws you in to the scary parts of the game, and there is a good ending also. Now to the bad part. I had preorderd this game a month before release has i had previously enjoyed the multiplayer in fear. O.M.G this must be the worst Right where do i start with this. On the plus side the single player mode is quiet good with some highlights here are there, graphics are improved and the sound draws you in to the scary parts of the game, and there is a good ending also. Now to the bad part. I had preorderd this game a month before release has i had previously enjoyed the multiplayer in fear. O.M.G this must be the worst online game i think i have ever played, what a disapointment. The aiming system on it is awful with no accuracy and who ever designed the levels is a idiot. Kill someone then get killed youself almost every time, i mean what a joke this game is. The weapons are garbage with far to much recoil on most and it seems to me that they have not even bothered to put any effort into the multiplayer part of the game. The first fear is better in everyway so my advise to you is that if you want a game for a decent single player mode then its just about o.k but for online gaming, save your money and don't buy this trash. Expand
  7. Jul 16, 2013
    7
    The gameplay was solid and fun. I had so high expectation for this game since a lot of folks talked highly on how scary of this game. Not that much for me. But I like the violent and bloodish in this game.
  8. May 31, 2013
    7
    The game doesn't follow the original story, but it's still scary as f**k! A new silent protagonist and story makes this one original to the series. However, the graphics, plot and MP need work. It looks like a PS2 game, which is bad in this generation of games. F.E.A.R. 2 is still a good scary game from start to finish, even if the plot isn't as good.
Metascore
77

Generally favorable reviews - based on 68 Critic Reviews

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 50 out of 68
  2. Negative: 0 out of 68
  1. 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]
  2. It feels a lot like that last "007" movie: plenty of fun, but nowhere near as awesome as we hoped it'd be. [Mar 2009, p.76]
  3. 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.