GR's DeShaun Zollicoffer writes:
It's almost 2013 so it's time to look back at some of the best and worst games of 2012. But before we do that let's look at some of the ones that didn't live up to their full potential. These aren't 'bad' games, per se, but they could have been twice as enjoyable with a few simple tweaks.
There have been plenty of great villains in video games over the years. Now it's time for the VGU crew to name a few of their favorites.
If you’re new to this long-running franchise, we’ve got you covered.
2 and 3, pretty much the only ones i really enjoyed. 1 was amazing for the time but aged quite poorly. 4 has the elephant gun, all i can praise from any entry after 3 lol
Ummmm 3 than stop.
Okay maybe two as well. But yeah probably 3 and then move on.
Far Cry 2. People constantly rant about games now being too easy, holding your hand, having too many unnecessary RPG-lite leveling features, etc. People specifically complain about open world games being too focused on tons of collectibles and "checkmarks" that just waste time.
Far Cry 2 is an answer to all of those complaints. It was made by Ubisoft before they fell into all the traps discussed above (and before they started inserting towers into their games to defog the map). It has respawning enemies, weapons that degrade, and the collectible diamonds are very useful in the game (which you find in a similar way to the way you find shrines in BOTW with a radar system). The map you have is an in game item you pull out while playing, not a pause menu that is unnecessarily detailed. Also the enemy AI and physics are much better than later entries in the series.
It has a mixed reputation because people at the time said it was too hard, the weapon degradation was annoying, and then respawning enemies were annoying. FC2 came out in 2008, so this was before games like Dark Souls and BOTW had come out and made it cool to like these types of features.
TheGamer Writes "Far Cry 3 is a time capsule of what game design was like in the early '00s"
Beat it twice; once on PS3, and once a couple of months ago on PS5.
Doesn't Far Cry 2 have some of the things they are talking about here? Diamond hunting, healing, malaria medication?
"Far Cry 3 is a time capsule of what game design was like in the early '00s"
>Came out in 2012
Okay then
If we are going to talk early 2000's game design how about start in the year 2000 with games that are a far cry better than something released 12 years later.
"Chrono Cross, Baldur's Gate II, Diablo II, Dragon Quest VII, Final Fantasy IX, The Legend of Zelda: Majora's Mask, and Tony Hawk's Pro Skater 2, along with new intellectual properties such as Deus Ex, Jet Set Radio, Perfect Dark, The Sims and Vagrant Story."
The article names things Ubisoft has shoved into games to dumb them down and then claims we should rush off to play it. Maybe instead look back at it as the death of originality from Ubisoft and gaming in general.
Far Cry 3 & Assassin's Creed VI: Black Flag are 2 of the very best games from Ubisoft. All Ubisoft games since then are all just copying these 2 games.
SSX was plenty of fun. Largest thing it was missing was live multiplayer rather then racing ghosts of friends.
I literally just beat Far Cry 3 the other day and the story was kind of all over the place at times but all in all still a fun game.
I honestly never had any interest in Inversion so I never played it.
PSASBR is a good concept for playstation considering how many exclusive characters they have. I think with some DLC the game has real potential to be awesome. Right now its good but this is the only one that's semi-questionable.
Aren't 99% of games under this listing? I mean, who determines where the potential for a game ends and begins? I always see a ton of things that could have been done to improve a game when I play, even if it's a 10/10 game.
It's called nitpicking.
I agree with Ubi's use of Vaas. He disappears shortly after you begin the game, then shows back up for a brief encounter later on...and that's it. He's not the primary villain in the game by a loooooong shot, yet they did indeed market him that way. Maybe the actor that was playing Vaas wanted a ton more $$ or something, so they cut him out of most of the story, and sent him packing.