yeah I caved and reinstalled.

Some observations (most of them I already knew but i find them interesting none the less).

1) At release I thought this game was crap. Sure it was beautiful and had a very movielike story but I thought it was a terrible shooter. As years went by and games became more and more movielike and the gameplay resembled less and less the classic fps gameplay of let's say doom, quake or duke; F.E.A.R. became better and better. I know regard it as a very good shooter.

2) The pacing is still off though. You spend way too many levels at the same location making it a bit boring at points. This was even wrose at release since games (specially shooters) at the time tried to give as varied levels as possible. (as much levels in different locations). Prime example in philosophy (not in execution) is Daikatana: John Romero intended every level per episode to be different then the last and to introduce a new enemy and weapon.

3) Modern games (or age or both) have deminished my skill at shooters. This is something i have known for a while now and this is another prime example. I am sure that a couple of years ago I laughed at extreme difficulty in F.E.A.R. as being a walk in the park with no challenge what'soever. So cocky as I am, I started at extreme and got my ass kicked over and over again. So I lowered it to hard ;)


EDIT: As far as the two expansions are concerned: I liked them because the pacing is better. Not sure if they still hold up.

I like the second one at release because it tried to use a lot of color so I liked the graphics. I replayed it 2 years ago and to my surprise I didn't like it much.

The third one I enjoyed for what it was: Like others said call of duty paranormal edition. It played well but was very consolish and very simple. Still the basic gunplay wsa okay and I bought it knowing what it was so I enjoyed it as a light snack between better games with a slight F.E.A.R. vibe. I remember liking the perk system a lot even if it kinda forced you to play the game using a set of rules... (if you played by them which wasn't forced).

Neither game is bad. FEAR 2 is a very solid, enjoyable FPS. Its biggest issue is just that it pales in comparison to the original. F3AR is... average. It's playable and sometimes quite enjoyable. There are some things it does better than FEAR 2. But it really lacks all the touches that made FEAR 1 so memorable. The bullet time is particularly painful to experience. So bland and uninspired.

Don't get the hate for Fear 2, it kept the formula of the first game. Flashy firefight with goons - scary bit - repeat. The console inspired touches are the only reason it doesn't match up with the first. Not being able to lean or slide kick was lame, but its cover system was a neat idea. The weapons still have nice feedback, and the shit flying everywhere mixed in with the sparks and gore is just like the first game.

Fear 3 completely changed the formula and it felt like a CoD mod. Its focus on a co-op experience instead of a single player one didn't help things. The whole thing is a slogfest.

FEAR 2 was all about the little problems. Seemingly inconsequential things that made the experience less effective. For instance, when time slows down in FEAR 1, all the sopunds slow down as well. In FEAR 2, some sounds (like background noise) don't. Or, in FEAR 1, firefights would leave clouds of dust hanging in the air, obscuring your vision. Not so in FEAR 2.

I think it's a good game, but things like that (there are more than just those two) kept it from being as good as the first. And yeah, F3AR just wasn't a FEAR game.