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...
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.
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.