GamerSyndrome writes:
"We’ve been bombarded for months with a plethora of mindboggling trailers, sort of giving you this ‘Beach meets Rambo’ the game feel and to be honest I was really excited and my expectations were through the roof. I kind of expected there to be this long set up intro where you travel to the island, look about a bit, meet some shady characters, then you get taken hostage. You know, give you some time to get to know the characters and the island itself but no, ten second intro video and bang, you’re in a cage. It was trying to be vaguely shocking but the only thing shocking is that they expect you to care about characters you’ve never even met."
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.
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?
I believe 2 did. I highly doubt it was the only game like that though. I imagine the writer isn't old enough to have played part 2 but I also feel it wasn't the first game to introduce stuff like that
They bring up mass effect 2. I felt mass effect 1 was better. It just seem cut down. The citadel was a joke in part 2 compared to 1. How do you cut back on that.
Having just replayed the entire me trilogy yeah I think 1 was my favourite I think 2 had better cover and shooting mechanics but everything else in 1 was better
Mass Effect 1 was the best . It played like an RPG . The other games were more shooter and lost the feel the first game had unfortunately
I played it on PC when it came out, might play it again some time
Far Cry 3 is the best of the series, it was ahead of it's time
It seems the blogger didn’t even play RDR1 if he thinks FC3 brought these elements to the AAA table. Tiktokers always have a new surprise. Smh
"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.
i disagree. 9/10 at least.
I'm seriously not enjoying this game but playing through it non stop for whatever reason. If the story and voice acting were better I would easily give it a 9 but I can't help but agree with the review.
Although this is a far cry (haha) from a well-written review, and the author makes no mention of the multiplayer modes I can't help but feel 7 or 8 is the score the game really deserves to get. When I first purchased the game I felt it was definitely worth a 9 or 10, much like many of the first reviews. I was enthralled by the world, Vaas, and the gameplay. However, as I started to get to the second half of the game I just didn't really feel the same thrill. Not to say I didn't enjoy it, but whole game seemed to switch from something unique to something more like Call of Duty. What really knocked the game down a score or so for me was the multiplayer. Many of the reviews I have read mention it in a paragraph or so, basically noting that it's nifty and decent. The problem is, to a certain degree it's got some pretty bad issues. Co-op specifically is a hot mess, as it uses an antiquated matchmaking system where the game/server sets up the game or the host sets it up. The main issue with that is that it's very hard to play through all the missions, as it seems that there is a constant emphasis on one or two, namely the first and then the one that is popular for the players. Moving along, the co-op campaign as a whole is nowhere near as expansive as the main game. Everything that makes FC3 unique is gone, pushed into a linear shooting gallery which plays more like Left 4 Dead. In theory that's good, except that it's still supposed to be Far Cry. Finally the story and characters and pitiful, as the story even doesn't always connect (at the start of one mission one of the characters was fixing a car, at no point did we ever use the car), and the characters are a bunch of no-personality thugs that use every excuse imaginable to drop curse words.
I know this has drug on rather long, but I'm hoping to provide some perspective. Did the game astound me at times? Absolutely. Was I let down as well? Definitely. In writing this I merely hope to provide context for those who haven't played the game yet, so that they don't get their hopes up as much since most reviews are giving the game almost perfect reviews.
I give it a 7/10 regardless. The SP is fun, but the WHOLE game isn't there. The multiplayer sucks really bad and Co Op is almost unplayable. The Map Editor is useless because unlike FC2, you have to wait in a playlist of maps just to get to play your map online, and that's not going to happen because there are thousands of maps out there.