Video Game Review: ‘F.E.A.R. 3’ Replaces Scares With Action

Printer-friendly versionE-mail page to friendPDF version

CHICAGO – Having played through dozens of survival horror games and become pretty knowledgeable on the entire universes of “Resident Evil” and “Silent Hill,” it’s rare for this video game critic to honestly experience fear while playing a new title. And yet I’ll never forget the day I got to the school in 2009’s “F.E.A.R. 2.” It was simply terrifying. I was hoping “F.E.A.R. 3” would build on what that unexpectedly-great title did so well. Instead, it’s another disappointing sequel in a season of them although this one’s more of a slight step down than a total nose dive.

Video Game Rating: 3.5/5.0

“F.E.A.R. 3” undeniably switches the focus from atmosphere and fear to balls-to-the-wall action. It’s a brutal, violent experience that hits you over the head instead of getting under your skin. At first, the switch in tone and style is truly disappointing. I knew something was wrong when I first spotted the ghostly Alma and it had no impact on me whatsoever. It happens all the time in horror movie franchises — sequels that are nowhere near as terrifying as the one before either through repetition or inept production. “F.E.A.R. 3” simply isn’t scary. And it’s almost as if it’s barely even trying to be.

F.E.A.R. 3
Photo credit: Warner Bros. Interactive Entertainment

Once you get over that fact — that this is a horror/action game missing the horror — there are elements of “F.E.A.R. 3” that work. It’s far from a complete disaster if you approach it the right way. Believe it or not, the right way pretty much requires co-op play. The single-player campaign is the least successful aspect of the title, one that changes drastically with co-op play and the game becomes even more action-oriented through team-based multi-player missions. It’s a bizarre trend to me that horror games feel the need to embrace co-op and multi-player play when everyone knows that there’s nothing as scary as being on your own.

F.E.A.R. 3 Photo credit: Warner Bros. Interactive Entertainment

The closing chapter of the “F.E.A.R.” trilogy does make a solid attempt at trying to unite the series on a story level. In a single-player campaign, you take the role of Point Man from the original title. At the end of the last game, Alma became pregnant and it’s up to Point Man and his imaginary friend Fettel to stop this child from being born. Fettel is a powerful character that is actually playable in co-op mode or as a single-player through any campaign interval that you’ve already completed. Point Man is a basic firepower machine but Fettel is something very different in that he can possess enemy soldiers and control them. The game changes significantly based on which character you’re playing or if you have a friend willing to take both into the fray.

But how does it play? OK. The graphics are a bit underwhelming for 2011 (although never distractingly bad) and some of the A.I. can be a bit frustrating. Notice, the emphasis on “a bit.” Players are unlikely to complain about the aesthetics or the look of the game even if they’re not overly impressive. On the other hand, the sound design is stellar. It can be a bit over-the-top but a game like this should be and audio is a key component to what works about “F.E.A.R. 3”.

It looks good, it plays relatively well, what’s the problem? I just didn’t care. Great horror games immerse you in their story, they don’t just slam you over the head with it. I couldn’t wait to get back to the world of “F.E.A.R. 2” just to see what was going to happen next while “F.E.A.R. 3” often felt like a chore. And there are minor complaints all over the place like the limited weapon choices, ineffective grenades, inconsistent cover, etc. It’s how those little things add up that ultimately decide whether or not you like a game and the little things kept distracting me from the overall experience. It’s hard to be scared when you’re annoyed by a developmental decision.

F.E.A.R. 3 Photo credit: Warner Bros. Interactive Entertainment

What about multi-player? Once again, it’s pretty cool but not addictive enough to stand out. I do have to give the developers credit for refusing to bow to the standard MP structure of picking a few locations, a bare-bones upgrade system, and setting people loose. There’s more to it here and I respect the effort.

Multi-player games have often gone with a more is more philosophy, throwing as many people into the arena as the system can handle. All of the “F.E.A.R. 3” modes are more co-op than deathmatch with only four players at a time and each mode has its own unique set of maps, making them almost more like mini-campaigns than what we’ve come to expect from MP. In Soul King, you possess the enemy to use them on fellow players and collect their souls. That’s neat. Contractions will be familiar to those addicted to the zombie mode in “Call of Duty” while Soul Survivor features one player who can possess the others and must do so before the clock expires. The most headline-grabbing mode is the best thing about the game — “F**king Run”. The title pretty much says it all as you and your new online buddies better live up to it while you dodge and kill waves of enemies or be engulfed by a massive cloud of evil.

There’s a lot of variety in “F.E.A.R. 3” in that the single-player campaign, co-op campaign, replayable-with-new-character campaign, and multi-player allows for more depth than we’ve been seeing in titles like this one lately. The game will almost certainly hook some players — it does enough well to do so. It just never hooked me. Like a horror movie that’s well-made but just not scary, it’s not as memorable as I hoped it would be.

By BRIAN TALLERICO Content Director HollywoodChicago.com brian@hollywoodchicago.com