So, you have a gift card, you're excited to jump into a new game, you finally got an Xbox 360, or you just feel like blowing some cash on a recent release. But what should you play? Let's look into the surprisingly equal quality, but very different style of Far Cry 3 and Halo 4 to try to help you choose between these solid shooters.
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.
I recently tried 3 for the first time but the frame rate was a turnoff.
I liked 5 and 6 though.
If you have a Series X or S, the Xbox 360 version runs at 60 fps with fps boost. It's a shame the remaster doesn't.
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.
Far Cry 2, the one with the AI that find you through walls and trees, can one shot you from a mile away and have 100% accuracy? That was frustrating not fun because cheap AI.
Uhh, I mean, it isn't one of these games where once the enemies have detected you they will magically forget you exist because you walked behind a wall or went into a bush. And yeah the AI isn't stormtrooper level accuracy. Again, these are positives, not negatives to me.
To be fair, I'm really directing this at the people most critical of "Modern Ubisoft" or "Modern Open World" design elements. Like the type of people who fawned all over Elden Ring because it had a clean UI because they are so burnt out by the "checkbox" type of open world design.
If you like those types of games, then a later FC game like 3 and especially 4-5 would be more your style.
In Halo 4, 5, and Infinite, Master Chief became a more nuanced, human character.
In spite of the Halo series’ struggles, 343 deserves praise for adding nuance and characterisation to the ever-beating heart of Halo - The Master Chief. Playing through Infinite, it's abundantly clear that the events of the current and previous trilogies have irrevocably changed the iconic hero. He’s no longer the ‘blank slate’ that was previously presented by Bungie. He’s a fatigued, damaged and fallible protagonist, and one who is meandering through currents of grief, while reveling in his newfound agency. Giving the Chief a compelling and meaningful voice was no small feat, and 343 should be proud of that victory.
This article completely misses part of the appeal of the original iteration of character in the original game trilogy. It was the Chief and Cortana vs an entire alien collective. The blank slate Bungie displayed in their games was genius, he was an mysterious hero a wide audience could identify with because he wasn't as clearly defined as most characters.
The books added a lot of lore and backstory but most Halo players just want a fun game with exposition that doesn't get in the way of gameplay, it's why the Cortana level in Halo 3 was derided.
Not every character has to be a damaged soyboy, a soldier has to suck it up and do his duty.
A lot of people give the 343 version of Master Chief a lot of slack.
But Fundamentally he is still the same character, he just has a couple more dialogues. He has not changed in terms of attitude.
"Not every character has to be a damaged soyboy, a soldier has to suck it up and do his duty."
And that's what he has done at the end of the day, he did his duty. Watch his partner die, and was ready to destroy the weapon in Halo infinite....he is still the same soilder that everyone remembers
Halo Infintes one was a nice balance between both.
The 343i Master Chief has is based on the books. However, in Halo 4-Infinite, the Master Chief overtime become. gradually becomes more willing to show some emotion.
"However, in Halo 4-Infinite, the Master Chief overtime become. gradually becomes more willing to show some emotion."
Which is awesome! I love how Master Chief become more John and less soldier.
In fact Far Cry 3 is way better than any shooter of this year but i like multiplayer of HALO 4 .
metacritic
Far cry 3: 91 (PS3)
halo 4: 87
Far cry 3: 86 (user score)
halo 4: 69 (user score)
I thought halo 4 was a better game, a more fun game. But if your going for single player only then prob far cry 3. But the mp in halo 4 is excellent, the campaign is 4 player co op, and spartan ops co op campaign. So if u have friends that want to play it I would say halo 4.
BOTH!!!!
not halo.