Dismissing games as just being good for their time can be a contentious idea. If Doom can hold up even as the father of its genre, doesn't that invalidate the idea that subsequent games should be given a pass for being dated? Of course, there is a lot more complexity to the question than that, but it does raise the point that it's difficult to judge games outside of the historical context into which they were released. F.E.A.R. received a lot of praise for its atmosphere and enemy design back in the day, but through today's lens its accomplishments seem much less impressive. The horror elements are certainly an interesting inclusion, but the way they're so disconnected from the rest of the game makes them feel like a random gimmick more than a key element. The enemy AI does make smart moves, but it's plain to see how much of it is scripted. Enemies flipping over a table to take cover seems cool until you notice how they stand behind it for no particular reason until you enter the room. However, just because something's a gimmick doesn't mean it can't be appreciated. Even though movies are obviously fake, it's not something you hear complaints about, because the important part is that the fictional setting stays internally consistent. In essence, playing F.E.A.R. feels like watching an old horror movie where you can tell how all the effects were done. It can be immersion breaking, but getting hung up on those details just isn't worth the time. The real question is if the shooting mechanics are still just as satisfying as intended and if the horror elements are still interesting enough to spark your imagination, and both goals are met. It's not going to be impressing anybody the way it used to, but you can still have a lot of fun with it, and that's more than a lot of games in general can say.