Far Cry 2 and Far Cry 3 both easily have a spot in my top 20 shooters of all time. That being said, there are some major differences between the two titles. I know fan boys have a tendency to whine at the slightest change, so to break the mold I will confess that I think a lot of the changes made are for the better, but I will definitely miss some things too.
First off the largest change has to be concerning ammunition. In Far Cry 2 when you unlocked a weapon it was available in any quantity from any safe house around the map with a full complement of mags...
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.
GF365: "There are some games with extraordinary visuals that impress us to this day. Here are old games with outstanding graphics."
Same as Killzone 2 and 3, uncharted 2 and 3, Infamous 2, Heavy Rain, Resistance 3
I wish this was entirely true, but you might want to load up Killzone 2 and Resistance 3 again.
@jason I watched some gameplay videos of KZ2 and R3 on my full screen. They are on par or succeed graphically to the first person shooters mentioned in the article that also launched on the seventh generation of consoles. Try the same and see what you think
Killzone 3 was super impressive! I could not believe the graphics back then as I was regularly pausing the game to stand in awe looking at the surroundings! Resistance however did not impress me that much. Heavy rain is also another amazing graphically speaking game. It almost felt next gen
I always thought the first 3 Gears of War games looked great and still hold up for today.
They did for their day. I recently played gears judgement with on the 360 and the draw distance was so blurry. The characters up close look great though
Far Cry 2 was awesome. In addition to having demonstrably better physics and AI than later games in the series, it had a lot of design decisions that, criticized at the time, have since been praised in games like BOTW and Dark Souls.
It might not be super amazing by today's standard but I thought Mgs3 looked really good
Dunno but FarCry is a CLASSIC!!!
It's funny, cus i've been having this strange urge to play Far Cry 2 again.
When I think about it, I did have a lot of fun playing it.
It was LONG and therfor good value for money - But boringly so. Ended up needing to play in short bursts.
It had LOADS'a guns.
I dont know. There was a lot of good about it. The immerison level was brilliant. One thing I don't like the look of in FC3 is the UI. It looks a bit baby-mode.
FC2 Multiplayer was a bit naff. FC3 multiplayer looks a bit naff as well.
When I re-watch the trailers leading up to release I get the urge to play again. When Ubisoft were into using Massive Attack music for their trailers lol.
But yeah, FC1 was the shit. Hell, Instincts and Evolution were fun games imo.
It depends, FC2 ended horribly - an open world wasted.
im gonna start FC3 tonight, can anyone tell me does/is FC3 have as much long ass drives to do anything? I loved almost everything about FC2 except for 20 minute drives to get to places.
Far Cry 3 is more fun than Far Cry 2
But Far Cry 2 was more ambitious and tightly constructed.
3 trades immersion and long drive times for arsing around on hunting and racing quests.
Honestly outside of the open world and the name they have very little in common.
Far Cry 3 is more conventionally good, while Far Cry 2 is more of a flawed masterpiece, but a masterpiece nonetheless.