X360 Magazine: "We want to love it because there’s so much to love, but instead we just like it, and wish that the rules it set for its open world could have been carried across to its campaign mission structure. Freedom is not free, and if Ubi won’t throw in its buck o’ five, who will?"
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.
**X360 Magazine**
I bet these guys only give high scores to Halo and CoD games.
8/10?! WOW THESE GUYS ARE SO BIASED, WHY WOULD THYE GIVE THIS GAME SUCH A SHITTY SCORE! THIS GAME DESERVED AT LEAST A 9, NOT A SHITTY 9. WOW, x360 magazine you lost all credibility!
[/pretentious-reenactment-of- overzealous-fanboys-and-reviews cores]
He brings up interesting points though. One of which is that enemies DO NOT spawn, so if you clear out all the pirate camps there is nothing else left to do, which kind of defeats the purpose of having an open world/sand-box type game
yes one of the biggest criticism of Far Cry 2 was the spawning but mostly because of how fast enemies spawned not because of them spawning at all. Enemies should instead spawn every few game days like how Skyrim does it. Wonder if this can be implemented through a patch
This game looks compelling, however I read some stuff in the GameSpot review and this one that look rather troublesome.
I imagined the story missions would be a bit linear but I didn't think you would be constrained by "return to the combat zone"-type prompts like this review says. It's got to feel really artificial and weird in a sandbox game. I thought the limits would be more physical, like walls, caves and such.
I'm also a bit worried of what GS said about respawning at a checkpoint after getting shot, with enemies revived but the ammo you had picked before you died still gone.
Reminds me of the Battlefield Bad Company 1/Borderlands type of design, which is annoying.
@Mounce
I haven't long finished the sp campaign and 8/10 is about right, imo.
Whilst Fc3's narrative and story missions are very good. However, outside of the story missions the open world acts more like backdrop than a legitimate in-game world. The issue coming from many of the games features cancelling each other out after a few hours of play.
Knocking the radio towers out gives you free weapons at the stores. Making the money system pretty much irrelavent bar weapon attachments and ammo, which after a few hours are pocket change. All the challenges 'Knife throwing etc' just give you money. Loot is everywhere but never gives you anything significant.
Dealing with outposts gives you fast travel locations. The more fast travels you unlock the less you need vehicles. The outposts themselves only contain 8 enemies tops so even though the game gives you a variety of weapons there is hardly any need for them. Gone is all the tactical stuff found in Fc2.
Once the outposts have been cleared there are no enemies about removing any sense of danger from travelling around.
All of the collectibles don't do anything. The skill trees don't force any type of choice and so on, and so on.
In the end, what is the point of having a large open world. When the incentives to explore it are rendered increasingly more pointless as progression is made.