1. It seemed perfectly consistent to me. I mean any other story combining multiple elements could be considered just as bizarre. What matters is that it's consistent within itself, which it was. Trepang2's feels more disjointed though, probably due to the mission style. Gmanlives was critical of that too.
2. There's only 2 assassin fights in the main game. 7-8 assassins total. It's not that big a deal, but them constantly dogging you kept you on your toes for potential encounters. As for the ghosts, they're only at the end. which is linear for a reason since you're trying to escape an exploding bunker. Due to the weapon loadout, ATC, Nightcrawlers and Replicas are all a little different in combat though.

It's not as if the slow-mo is needed. Even I can get by on Extreme without using it at all despite my poor aim. Just don't use it. But that is the game's main draw/feature. You don't get the nice looking grenade explosions with it off. You also can't shoot the grenade in the air.

True, the first couple of heavies you encounter can be hassle to take down. Your best bet is headshots with the bolt gun from a safe distance. They are tough, but they are wearing a heavy full body armor suit, so they should be able to take a decent amount of punishment. They are also much slower than regular soldiers. If everything in the game died to 1-2 headshots, it'd become momotonous pretty fast.

As for the particle effects, I actually like that aspect. Combat is messy and visceral. Having to consider even things like dust from bullets hitting walls is yet another tactical aspect you have to play around. You can either wait until the dust settles, spray in the general direction of the enemy and hope you hit or reposition. The amount of decisions you have to make in this game in combat still leaves most FPS games "in the dust" so to speak, to this day :)

Thanks for the info. I will most likely get the game in a couple months.

Further proving my point that we are arguing about subjective nonsense. I mean, every criticism is inherently subjective, but some are more reasonable than others. Criticizing FPS game for story consistency is kinda stupid considering the whole genre sucks in it anyway with some exceptions, and the games generally considered the genres greatest like og Doom completely sucked in it anyway. My point is - original F.E.A.R. had a very bad story and the only reason why the game was considered good was because of its shooting.

Hey man, you're the one who ragged on me for agreeing with Gmanlives about Trepang's story being a little lackluster compared to F.E.A.R.'s. If it's so pointless, why chime in? I vehemently disagree that it's nonsense and I also disagree that FPS as a genre inherently means there can be no story. I rarely play FPS' unless they have interesting ideas, either story or gameplay. F.E.A.R. ticked my boxes on both, Trepang more ticks it only on the latter.

You're free to disagree, but again, I think F.E.A.R.'s story was good. DId exactly what was needed and no more.