Far Cry 2 and Far Cry 5 share some similarities, but differ hugely in other areas. The question is: which one is better?
No, story-wise and gameplay-wise, Far Cry 5 is simply the far superior game, especially because FC2 had some mayor annoyances built-in, that ruined the whole experience for many. However, certain aspects of the game were much better in Far Cry 2: Enemy AI, and physics. And it's a bit of a shame they couldn't manage to keep those great things from Far Cry 2 and implement them into their recent releases.
I've just started Far Cry 5 and I'm a little disappointed at the fact they've given the game a silent character in this day and age. Even the character in Far Cry 4 had one and he hardly spoke as much as Jason in Far Cry 3 All for what? Because they let you choose your gender and didn't want to record two sets of voices even though you never see your character. Felt the story could be more personal so far if there was dialogue between the two characters as a Rookie cop is tasked to take down someone like Joseph
I'm not disappointed by that at all. Personally, the player voice in both FC3 and 4 were both really cringey and broke the immersion. I think most FPS games are better off with silent characters, since it's just too easy to break immersion. The cases in which it works is where there is an already established character, with their established voice, you're playing as (Master chief in Halo being a prime example).
Whaaaa? I think it breaks the immersion more when people are talking to you and you literally just stand there like a plank of wood.
But when it's done right, like FC5 has done, where the phrasing and dialogue is framed in a way that doesn't suggest the player character has to respond and say something: there is no standing like a plank of wood effect.
Nope, Far Cry 5 is better by a long shot. Far Cry 2 is the worst of all the Far Cry titles.
You've definitely never played it.
I don't think I've ever had a stranger experience with a game than I've had with FC2. The first few hours I was blown away and I thought it was one of the best games I'd played at the time, but after a while I absolutely hated it. Those damn checkpoints, the malaria, guns breaking far too soon and, probably the main reason why I began to hate it, just trying to get around that bloody map completely ruined it for me. A false sense of an open world that constantly forced you down narrow passage ways with endless respawning checkpoints. It turned into more of a chore than anything. The physics and a.i. were absolutely amazing, but the bad points far outweigh the good for me and completely ruined the overall experience.
@PhantomS42 - Disagree. The only things annoying about FC2 were the constantly respawning enemy camps and the bullet-sponge enemies. Apart from that it was a very solid sim-like shooter. I replayed that game again and again. I loved it. While FC3 improved on some things, it also started feeling like an arcade shooter again. FC4 was horrible, I could barely force myself to finish that shit. It felt like a hammed-up parody of FC3. If I want that, I'd go play COD games instead.
I really liked far cry 2 I know I'm a minority. It introduced a lot of series staples and I liked that funds could be unbreakable and break. I also loved the fire, which felt like such a fresh tactic at the time. I know it's still there but I just don't seem to bother with it as much as in 2.
FC2 was really good but that effin' malaria was an unfun chore plus a bronze trophy for finding those 250 diamonds???... GTFO with that.. lol
Ha. Yeah. Forgotten that.
Not only No...but HELL NO!
Retarded Malaria. Retarded weapon degradation. Corridor like natural barriers (cliffs) covering whole map. Shitty stealth mechanic. Super human enemy. Endless checkpoints in every meters. Boring mission. I could go on on how Far Cry 2 sucked.
Apparently, decent AI (Which the newer FC games took away) and no extremely cheap tagging mechanic (which FC3-5 have) = "super human enemy" in your world. Sounds like you only like games that hold your hand. Far Cry 2 was the best in the series, but of course, unlike 3 onward there were no cheap autokill takedowns and overpowered RPG-powerups, so people who need their hand held at every turn did not like it.
I agree with ya and to me it's more hardcore! More realistic and looked amazing! When I started part 3 I was shocked by how downgraded it looked compared to part 2! The only thing I'd change would be the saving system.
In terms of “realism” and being a simulator FC2 is ahead however in terms of being an actual game that’s fun and enjoyable to play FC3-5 take the cake
Yes. But then again, you could eliminate "Far Cry 5" from the question and fill in the blank with basically any SP-focused shooter released since, and the answer would still be an emphatic yes. Cue the disagrees from everyone who likes to have their hand held with cheap mechanics and overpowered abilities.
Wow. You must be sooo hard-core for having played Far Cry 2! ...or you're autistic or some shit, and simply can't handle change. Maybe you just want eeeeeeverybody to know that you're a REAL gamer, cuz you played big boys games all the way back in 2008 :'D
I burst out with a 'HAAA!" Far Cry 2 had a lot of potential, and possibly had the best setting in the series.. but it wasn't fun to play. Far Cry 5 is the best shooter in years, even with a rather poorly told story.
"in years"??? So you haven played shooters in years then?
Well, it's on my top three, along with Doom and Titanfall 2
Farcry 5 feels like a game that is giving 50%
I don’t like how you need to hold square for everything.
So maybe if it was triangle, the game would be max'ed out? :'D "7/10 - too much square"
No, Brett.. It just feels like i’m holding square for every interaction with an object. That isn’t my only gripe with the game... but one that is noticeable to me when i play it.
Ok :) fair enough
Part 2 is still my fav! I liked how intense it was and how you had to survive! If you had enough meds to stave off an attack or if you weapons were in good shape. Hell I even liked looking for diamonds lol. Just wish the saves were better. Edit: To this day I haven't had the crazy and intense unscripted moments that I had with FarCry2! Also the fire was amazing in how it looked and moved! I thought I was the only one who liked it.
The roadblocks completely ruined it for me also it was a strange map really compared to rival 2008 open world games like GTA IV The tech was fantastic but if there was more a focus on storytelling and less on roadblocks and trying to prevent the player from getting to point b it would be awesome
Definitely yes! (better than FC3, FC4 IMO too). I still think it's poor they don't add local MP / local map making anymore to these games. My mates and I spent ours building maps and sitting on the sofa with Far Cry Predator Instincts - good laughs. These games have become so serious and political, it ruins the fun times.
im not a fan of how long the new bullet tracers are.
This topic is really getting old.
I know the malaria, cliffs and auto spawning was a pain in FC2 but at least it wasn't holding your hand and it was trying to be different. I think FC3, 4, Primal and 5 are so cookie cutter in their design. They aren't "bad" games as I have played them all and got some enjoyment but the sense of difference and originality has died on the Ubisoft alter. After AC Origins I was hoping for a big re design of the FC series but was disappointed.
N4G is a community of gamers posting and discussing the latest game news. It’s part of NewsBoiler, a network of social news sites covering today’s pop culture.