Gamasutra writes: I just couldn't take it anymore.
I was about 15 hours into Far Cry 3, and the next mission involved sitting down to play a game of poker with the game's main villian, Hoyt.
It was sure to lead to an intense prison breakout of his heavily armed fortress, which would have been a lot of fun, but it didn't matter.
I just couldn't handle another 7 minute monologue about the nature of good and evil, or the true nature of fear or whatever I would surely be forced to watch.
Far Cry 3 is a good game. It's one of my recent favorite games, but enough was enough.
Following a series of repetitive games, a formulaic approach, and a disappointing last entry, the Far Cry series has been run into the ground.
The trouble with most criticisms of this franchise is that they insist Far Cry 3 was the best game, but the things they claim to hate about the franchise are all the elements that 3 introduced.
Couldn't agree with you more! I've always thought that, my personal favourite is two, the whole atmosphere, mystery, adrenaline, my vehicle steaming up because I've crashed too many times trying to escape and then getting in a shootout, having to pull a bullet out my arm while fire rages and bullets fly, can't beat it
Yep, 2 is my favorite by far as well, and one of my favorite singleplayer games of all time. It was probably one of the last games Ubisoft made before they started homogenizing their franchises to be open world collect-a-thons with unnecessary RPG mechanics tacked on. I enjoyed 3 for what it was, but it was clearly an attempt to make the franchise appeal to a mass audience (which, in fairness, was successful).
That's not the issue. If Far Cry 3 never existed and they just made another 5 or 6 games that were increasingly generic copies of Far Cry 2 instead, would that make FC2 the real problem?
No. It's the lack of creativity and effort that followed that's the real issue.
And there are things that are genuinely different about FC3. Simple example - the story was easily the best. Best main villain by far too but it also has strong themes and wasn't afraid to explore controversial topics. The sequels are much blander.
Comparing the fun and creativity of Blood Dragon to the DLC in the sequels ... also says a lot about how Ubisoft fell off.
Yeah like even Far Cry 4 was decent, not as great as FC3 but they still gave us an interesting story, setting and villain. Pagan Min's random calls to Ajay were pretty funny.
They just got lazier and lazier, pumping them out while making it a little more streamlined each time. I mean Jesus, they gave us a silent protagonist with FC5 which really hurt the main story and are obsessed with pleasing everyone by trying to do two characters, male and female rather than just settling on one to tell the best story they can.
I started FC6 and yes the game works fine but I just wssnt Fun. Do many Ubi games are huge playgrounds but feel empty and doesn't give the feeling of a world which is lived in
I have found that the more recent FC games work better as what I call "background games." Basically what I mean is it's nice to have an active save in one of them going for those times you have 45 minutes to play games and just want to have fun and don't want to get bogged down playing a game online or starting a new game and spending all your time into an annoying tutorial. Like I haven't touched FC4 in years but I know if I had 30 minutes to an hour to play I could hop in and easily be back in the swing of things and attack an outpost and have a good time.
I think a lot of people use big RPGs like Skyrim or Cyberpunk in a similar way.
Yes because FC3 executed those aspects better. Every game since FC3 has just been Frankensteined off the bones of FC3 with half the effort.
Ubisoft gets a lot of hate for their content filling of maps. Personally I enjoy the mechanic when i play an open world game I like revealing hte entire map and doing all the side mission stuff before i go into main missions. Far Cry and the RPG AC maps where a joy to play.
Far Cry 2 was soo unique ... it was ahead of its time and is often misunderstood (thank you Clint Hocking, can't wait for his next game Assassins Creed Hexe)
(yes, FC2 was a departure from from FC1, so in strictest sense, Crysis 1 & 3 are the truer successors)
Yep. Unfortunately there has been so little since then that has scratched the same itch. Really the closest thing has been BOTW, which uses a lot of similar systems (though ironically FC2 came out before Ubisoft put the Assassin's Creed towers in Far Cry, while BOTW had Ubi towers). Obviously it isn't a shooter though. I keep hoping that that some indie dev will put an FC2-esque game out on Steam, but so far I've been left wanting.
I actually enjoyed Far Cry 5 and New Dawn. Far Cry 6 was a joke. It was a step backwards in every way. That was probably the worst Far Cry I have ever played.
Far Cry 3, an open-world masterpiece that redefined the series. Gameplay and storyline makes it a timeless classic that still inspires today.
It's gotta be Far Cry 2 for me, the feeling of that game I'm still yet to find again, just everything about it, I'd kill for a remaster, I'd even be happy with just a bump in resolution and frame rate, occasionally go back to it, think I'm gunna have to do just that now 😂
A remaster of Far Cry 2 would be amazing, especially with the mods that fixed the broken stealth system and the dumb checkpoint respawns. Include those fixes and it would be a huge upgrade over the original.
Enemies respawn in Far Cry 2? Terrible! It's a broken system! Make me a one-man army who can inexplicably hold an entire region!
Enemies respawn in Dark Souls and Zelda? Brilliant! So much more hardcore! Glad the devs took risks!
The problem isn't them respawning. It's that they respawned after just 5 minutes. Like you'd still be in the area looking for diamonds, loot, exploring, etc, and the enemies would just respawn with you there.
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.
Why I stopped reading this article... it's lame.
The real question is "Why would we care?"
Why would you stop playing right at the end of the game.....???? I don't care how bad a game has gotten if I'm near what I think is the end I push through. But far cry 3 is amazing so no forced pushing was involved.
This game is definitely overated imo anyway. I have played a total of two hours and just like any other open world game its just full of a huge open space, few enemies, and repetitious sub missions and missions.
It is beyond me how this game received 9 and 10's when the mp is so garbage. The graphics are grainy, the mp design and animations are garbage and the red lazer kill cam is so badly done. Not to mention you can hardly get into an online game because the servers suck.
I get it the sp for some may be good and i admit they did try to add diversity as opposed to other open world games i also dislike, but come on the mp should have dropped the game down to like a 7. Games like Starhawk that are known for mp get thrashed by some reviewers for its weak sp, but almost all reviewers for Far Cry 3 just gave it a pass and didnt even factor in the mp? Wow!!!!
Whoever wrote this article is insane.