Second was not as good as the first one, but OK. Lack of proper saves were annoying, and before one of the patches, it was, indeed, quite easy. Leaning didn't bother me so much though. Though my play style in the first F.E.A.R. and its expansions consisted of running at the enemies, guns blazing, then jump kick them in the face; even at the higher difficulty settings (provided that they weren't heavily armored, that is).

Well, there is one Monolith game here. The problem is that their games are scattered between many publishers. Too bad they are not independent any more.

I can't help but feel that this game is ONLY getting a release due to the fact they can put a 3 in it's acronym.
FEAR didn't really need a sequel. FEAR2 sure doesn't need a sequel.
Get your asses in gear and make SHOGO and NOLF sequels monolith! (or something new)

As long as it's better than Driv3r.

I only played the demo of the second one, but I think I will buy it eventually.
I guess that the lack of saves wouldn't be a problem for me, because that was the way I was playing through the first one. It was necessary, so that the game game would be at least remotely challenging. But it still should be an option (possibly restricted for the lower difficulty settings).
Leaning is another thing. F.E.A.R. was one of the few games where I actually used it. The annoying part was that the enemies could do it, but the player could not. And somewhat ironically that was the reason why they allowed "creating" cover from the parts of the environment in the sequel.
Did they patch the 16:10 monitor support eventually? I know that it was repaired for the 4:3 with the first patch, but not 16:10.
F.E.A.R. didn't need a sequel? The ending basically confirmed a sequel.
And they can't make sequels to the games you mentioned. They don't have the rights to them (unless Warner acquires them like they did with F.E.A.R.). I can't be sure about Shogo, but NOLF is definitely in Activision's hands.

Yay. I like the FEAR games. And I don't know why everyone is freaking out about the title. Oh noes, a game about running up to super-soldiers and dropkicking them isn't fully serious! :p
And I actually really enjoyed FEAR 2. Yeah, it was a lot easier at times But the battles were also a hell of a lot more entertaining. Yeah, Beckett was all about taking on hordes of enemies, rather than ambushing a few, but it was fun.
As for the lack of quicksave: meh. I found the checkpoints to be spaced in a manner that I never really got annoyed.

I think so, but I'm not entirely sure. Could check it out when I get home.

I would appreciate it. Thanks in advance.

In the graphics settings, under advanced settings; there's a setting called "widescreen". The only thing that does is change the picture accommodate a 1.5cm thick black bar at the top and bottom, regardless of resolution. Disabling it will make the game fullscreen. Tested on a 19'' 4:3 @ 1280x1024 and a 24'' 16:10 @ 1920x1200.
EDIT:
Note (for those who care): The thickness probably varies depending on monitor. I only measured on the 24'' screen, just for the hell of it.
EDIT2:
Quotation borked by editing once again.

Won't that be F.4.A.R.?

Then they'd better be prepared to face a lawsuit against Ubisoft, when it trademarks F4rcry.

I found the first FEAR to be boring. :\

Dragon Ag3.

I replayed NOLF not long ago, and I think it actually still holds up surprisingly well. It's still a great game. Blood 2 was a different case. I really loved the first one (I actually still do ;)), but the demo of the second one didn't convince me at all.