FEAR 3 review

  • Strong shooter core
  • Co-op is playfully evil
  • Creative, fun multiplayer
  • It's just not scary
  • Single-player campaign never rises above competent
  • Can we be done with black-haired little girls now?

When you name your game FEAR, it had better be scary. The original FEAR jumped on the J-horror bandwagon and practically copy-pasted the black-haired ghost girl from The Ring, and it worked well the first time around with its “is she there out of the corner of my eye?” antics. The effectiveness of Alma, the FEAR series’ villain, has diminished significantly over time. Part of the problem is that “creepy little girls” aren’t creepy anymore – we’ve been there and done that to death. The other part of the problem is that she’s not even a threat – she just pops up now and then to yell “Boo!” but she is utterly harmless. FEAR 3 confuses atmosphere with terror: atmosphere is only scary if it actually contains tangible threats.

Above: Oh noes...

As a shooter FEAR 3 holds its own just fine, using the previous games as its foundation. As a single-player experience it does almost nothing to improve on the series’ formula, keeping mostly the same enemies, similar mech suits, almost all the same weapons, and the same scare tactics. As a co-op campaign, the game becomes significantly more interesting, but we’ll talk about that in a bit. Despite the lack of changes to the formula, the shooting is still solid, the slo-mo is still satisfying, the gore is nice and crunchy, and the weapons have hefty power. The level design still hasn’t strayed all that much from the much-criticized “gray corridors” of the first FEAR – sure, you explore suburban houses, a Costco-like store, a huge bridge, and even a forest, but much of the time you’re still in monochrome corridors.

We really dug the atmosphere throughout the game for aesthetic reasons, even if we didn’t find it actually scary. A walk through a meat locker, creeping between slightly swaying slabs of beef, is a really cool touch. Tiny details like altars of candles and teddy bears or the rustle of scurrying rats bring a nice combination of the mundanely realistic and the utterly surreal. The weird part is that even though these atmospheric elements look and sound great, they are rarely actually creepy because the game telegraphs its “haunted house” sections so obviously. You’ll be moving through a level and it becomes all too clear you’re in the “haunted house” part – we call it that because this section invariably bumps up the atmosphere, has things jump out and try to spook you, but there won’t be any actual danger. When you know for certain that the next few minutes of the game will not contain any actual enemies, then the atmosphere and jump scares lose all their power.

Above: This room full of TVs is an example of great atmosphere... but then nothing interesting happens in it

There are a handful of times when the game breaks from this formula and actually has enemies show up, but none of the enemies in FEAR 3 are remotely scary. We already mentioned how Alma has lost her scare factor (plus she never attacks you), but there are essentially only five other enemies in the whole game: soldiers (not scary), cultists/cannibals (could be scary, but the design of them is not scary at all), mechs (obviously not scary), gargoyle-like monsters (scary if you’re eight years old), and finally, a mysterious, somewhat hideous thing that stalks you relentlessly. The latter enemy is the only one that had potential to be scary, but its “disturbing” design is totally generic – it looks like a reject from Silent Hill, with no eyes and the seemingly required mandibles of all grotesque beasties these days. It also makes non-frightening appearances, showing up over and over but not attacking. A major problem with this creature is that it’s so generic that we actually had no idea it was supposed to be a unique, nemesis-like enemy until almost the end of the game – we just figured we were running into different monsters of a single type. When your nemesis doesn’t even register as a nemesis, it’s time to consider a redesign.

We need to emphasize after all the bitching about the lack of scares that FEAR 3 is still fun to play. Firefights with the regular soldiers are almost always engaging, with well-designed “arena” type rooms to move about in, find cover amongst, and especially flank enemies in. The AI is smart and will do things you don’t expect. There are also the sections where you drive powered armor, both small and large, and these moments are always hilarious and fun - stomping along and literally turning enemies into red mist with your massive cannons doesn’t get old. The game also does a good job of making you feel like an intimidating one-man army – blow a guy’s leg off and the other soldiers will freak out in terror, and whenever you take out every guy except one he’ll say “My whole squad’s been wiped out!” which makes you feel like you’re the bad guy in a horror movie.

Above: Giant, crumbling bridge plus mech on mech action means this level is fairly awesome

So the campaign is variable in effectiveness: it’s decently fun as a shooter, but fails to deliver as a horror game. If you know the only way you’re planning on playing FEAR 3 is as a single-player campaign, it’s a competent but skippable experience. Of course, if you’re a devout FEAR-head you probably won’t want to miss out on the familiar experience and progression of the story, but don’t expect anything groundbreaking. However, if you plan to join up with other players, FEAR 3 becomes considerably more interesting.

More Info

Release date: Jun 21 2011 - PS3, PC, Xbox 360 (US)
Jun 24 2011 - PS3, PC, Xbox 360 (UK)
Available Platforms: PS3, PC, Xbox 360
Genre: Shooter
Developed by: Day 1 Studios
ESRB Rating:
Mature: Blood and Gore, Intense Violence, Partial Nudity, Strong Language


  • JCBlueNose2011 - July 4, 2011 11:01 a.m.

    I just wanna know wat is the point of having that girl in the game if she does nothing just seems pointless to have a character in the game that does nothing
  • xavier-kedgley - July 20, 2012 5:46 p.m.

    Well fine sir if you knew anything about fear you'll know that alma is huge part of the story line mmkay.
  • BertTheTurtle - June 27, 2011 11:26 p.m.

    I thought the second one was amazing, personally. I haven't actually finished this one yet, but at around the fifth or sixth Interval its already proven to be quite a frightening adventure, at least I think so.
  • ildamos - June 25, 2011 11:45 p.m.

    I clocked in 7 hours when I finished the campaign . More like 7 hours 40 minutes judging by the way the counter changed to "8 hours played" after I fiddled for a bit with the options after finishing the campaign . I wrote a F.E.A.R. 3 review. The write-up is a “first impressions” article meant to clear up speculative comments. (Here's the link: ) I’ve finished the first F.E.A.R. about four times, the sequel 2x. I've also bought all the FEAR games . Impressive series although the installments do have some issues.
  • Yeager1122 - June 24, 2011 4:03 p.m.

    The multiplayer does sound unique and clever if i ever got it would probably just be for that.
  • GamesRadarMatthewKeast - June 22, 2011 1:14 a.m.

    The ending can vary a bit, but it does what you'd expect: conclude this segment of the story while leaving open a thread for more sequels, and it does a decent job of it.
  • hester2 - June 22, 2011 1:02 a.m.

    Without spoiling anything, does this game conclude the story of the series? Or at least give you what could be an ending but leaves smaller threads open for sequels?
  • bass88 - June 21, 2011 11:57 p.m.

    Was hoping it would be a bit scarier considering John Carpenter was involved in the making. Still, will pick it up sometime. Liked the first one and really enjoyed the second one (some vitality was injected into the corridors).
  • FOZ - June 21, 2011 11:06 p.m.

    Not surprising at all that it isn't scary. The series lost its way with the second game. I didn't jump even once the entire game, but even worse, apparently none of the developers realized FEAR wasn't just well-received because it was "scary." The awesome combat was what made the game. But for some reason FEAR 2 sees fit to remove every single particle effect, dust cloud, vision-distorting explosion, and kicks that make guys fly across the room. They really messed that one up.
  • JasonStatham - June 22, 2011 12:41 p.m.

    @PlainLikeVanilla I was referring the unintentional typo on "toothepaste", not the intentional one on "Calancys".
  • LIKEUCARE - June 22, 2011 1:48 a.m.

    I really preferred the first FEAR game. I had better action and scary moments than FEAR 2 IMO. FEAR 2 was still good in its own way but like this review mentions, the scary elements were copied pasted mainly from the first game. In FEAR 1, just these assassins were scary... you knew they were there in the room, but couldn't see them, but hear them. Once you move around, you hear a zap and once you turn around and look behind you... ouchy! Heh... good old gaming... and I can't believe that game is already 6 years old... Furthermore, FEAR 1 had decent expansions, even if they weren't canon to the franchise. So, as with FEAR 2, it was still fun, even with the consolized feel of the game, lack of gameplay mechanics (no peeking), graphics are actually sub-par compared to F1, new protagonist felt average. Now with this FEAR 3, I wasn't expecting much (and by the way, great review) but I do know I'll still pick this game up... eventually on a Steam sale! It does seem like frantic co-op gameplay though... if only the game would've been more single player focused and scarier too...
  • EwoksTasteLikeChicken - June 22, 2011 1:08 a.m.

    Thanks for the review. I'll probaly just wait until Silent Hill: Downpour comes out, and if that game turns out it's not scary, well, I'm out of luck.
  • Baron164 - June 21, 2011 11:55 p.m.

    I loved the first one and I really enjoyed the second one even though it wasn't scary. I'm only on the second level of 3 but so far it seems solid. I'll agree with the whole not scary thing but I still enjoy it. I'm really looking forward to trying out the campaign coop.
  • PlainLikeVanilla - June 21, 2011 11:29 p.m.

    @Jason Statham his name doesn't have a typo that's just how Mr. Caffeine said it. The multiplayer has me interested in this but with so much else out that I want this might have to wait.
  • JasonStatham - June 21, 2011 11:05 p.m.

    Bleh, single player should be the main draw of a horror themed title, looks like I wont be picking this up till it comes down a fair bit. Also @TomClancys, nice username typo you got there :P
  • JohnDagger - June 21, 2011 10:57 p.m.

    Great review, I'll probably pick it up first time it comes up on Steam as a deal.
  • TomCalancysPoopOnYourToothePaste - June 21, 2011 10:32 p.m.

    thats strange because i loved the first and couldnt have hated the second one more.
  • sniper141 - June 21, 2011 10:28 p.m.

    Im very "hmmmmm" about this game.Hated the first loved the second, so I will either buy it in about a month or rent. Also thanks to Talkradar I have a rough idea of what Matt's personality is, making the review seem more human so TALKRADAR EVERYBODY! Thats my plug............Where's my money?

Showing 1-18 of 18 comments

Join the Discussion
Add a comment (HTML tags are not allowed.)
Characters remaining: 5000