Farcry 2 or farcry3? And why?

This topic is locked from further discussion.

#1 Posted by Ariabed (1103 posts) -

I'm thinking I prefer farcry2, for various reasons one being able to choose doin your missions at day or night. I have a bunch of reasons why I prefer it but l want to see what you guys reckon is the best of the two and why.

#2 Edited by SoNin360 (5446 posts) -

I didn't get very far into 2, so by default I have to say Far Cry 3, which I really enjoyed. I think I still might try to go back and play Far Cry 2 at some point, perhaps after giving Far Cry Classic a go. But still, I doubt I'm going to prefer it over Far Cry 3.

#3 Edited by lostrib (35891 posts) -

Far Cry 2 had some cool ideas, but they were not well implemented and the malaria infection definitely brought down the whole flow of the game

#4 Edited by Ariabed (1103 posts) -

@SoNin360: I didn't get very far in to farcry3, I found it a bit repetitive and would get bored after an hour or so. Farcry 2 had a variety of side missions plus tracking down them diamonds. Been a while since I've played 3 and I'm going to give it another try, how many hours playtime u reckon there is in it? I got 50+ hours out of farcry2.

#5 Posted by IMAHAPYHIPPO (2569 posts) -

Far Cry 3. Why? Because it's better.

#6 Edited by ZZoMBiE13 (22911 posts) -

Umm... Blood Dragon.

Why? Because Michael Bien.

#7 Posted by Ariabed (1103 posts) -
#8 Edited by Black_Knight_00 (18420 posts) -

Oh man, this is a hard pick. I love both games for different reasons. I'd say 3 is better because it's way more varied, has better controls, more freedom with your loadouts, more verticality in the exploration, weapon customization, aggressive wildlife, a decent plot with a few great characters and much more. That said, FC2 had that gritty, dirty, realistic feel to it, jamming weapons (which I liked), allowed you to play custom maps with any number of people (FC3 dropped the ball on that aspect imposing a minimum number of players) and more importantly it was hard as balls even on normal, whereas FC3 is easy even on Master difficulty.

Whatever, I love them both.

#9 Posted by sukraj (22608 posts) -

I prefer Far Cry 3 because I love the setting and the weapon customisation was pretty good too.

I didn't like far cry 2 because of the malaria thing and I didn't like the setting and the weapons constantly kept jamming.

#10 Edited by jasonredemption (240 posts) -

I could not get into Far Cry 2. The nigh-instant-re-spawning enemies, guns jamming and malaria thing were annoying. I love Far Cry 3. The crafting, the towers, the forts, the gun customization. The only downside to Far Cry 3 is that they didn't use that sweet paper-map-in-game-menu that Far Cry 2 did SO WELL. Far Cry 3's menu sucked by comparison. I realize it's a small complaint but when your menu gets mentioned in numerous reviews (FC2) you're dumb not to use an upgraded version of it in the sequel.

#11 Edited by Mesomorphin (821 posts) -

Far cry 3 man, no question. FC2 is decent but the story is so boring and the washed out visuals are kinda blaaah. Far cry 3 has beautiful bright, lush green visuals with a very interesting story and especially interesting antagonist. Plus it has plenty to do and explore! And heck Blood dragon is also pretty sweet! I just bought Far Cry classic on XBL, kind of regret it to be honest, especially after playing FC3 there really is no going back.

#12 Edited by evildead6789 (7637 posts) -

I liked the setting of 2 better, the african landscape is very well done. If it had predatory animals in it, i would have been a great addition. Far cry 3 is better at this, there's more variation in the story too and it has bigger production values, but as hard as ubisoft tries, since crytek left them (after far cry 1) they will never make a jungle like crytek does. Far cry is an old game but crytek left ubisoft and joined EA, and then they made crysis which is a game of 2007. Crysis is still a better jungle to me than far cry 3 is, allthough they really did a nice job on the water and the lighting.

But the foliage and the trees, nah, crysis is much better at that.

Shame crytek doesn't make a jungle again, if they would have made far cry 3 we could have really seen some next gen graphics. Allthough far cry 3 looks really good, don't get me wrong, but it's been 5 years since they made crysis and when crank up the settings in the ini files, the game still challenges my i5-2500 and 7870 xt

here are some screenshots

#13 Posted by david61983 (156 posts) -

Far Cry 3 was one of the better games of last gen. I absolutely loved it but hated 2.

#14 Posted by CTR360 (7040 posts) -

better graphics better story far cry 3 win easily

#15 Posted by withe1982 (450 posts) -

Taking pills all the time and the blasted re-spawning enemies every 2 minutes put pay to FC2 for me. I did enjoy is for a while but the whole thing just became a slog. having to fight the same guys twice on the same stretch of road going back and forth was too much.

FC3 was just incredible and gave you such a sense of freedom compared to the second game.

Never did get around to finishing FC2 so may play it again in the future.

#16 Posted by SoNin360 (5446 posts) -

@ariabed said:

@SoNin360: I didn't get very far in to farcry3, I found it a bit repetitive and would get bored after an hour or so. Farcry 2 had a variety of side missions plus tracking down them diamonds. Been a while since I've played 3 and I'm going to give it another try, how many hours playtime u reckon there is in it? I got 50+ hours out of farcry2.

Being the trophy hunter I am, I only did enough to satisfy the requirements for all the trophies, which I believe took 25-30 hours. Off the top of my head, that didn't involve collecting absolutely everything, nor did it require every little side mission to be completed, which if I recall mainly involved tracking down and killing someone.

#17 Posted by hrt_rulz01 (5981 posts) -

@lostrib said:

Far Cry 2 had some cool ideas, but they were not well implemented and the malaria infection definitely brought down the whole flow of the game

Yeah I agree. FC2 could have been special, but a few things dragged on it. Having to go and get tablets for friggin Malaria didn't help it, that's for sure. But I still liked it.

#18 Posted by Black_Knight_00 (18420 posts) -

@SoNin360 said:

@ariabed said:

@SoNin360: I didn't get very far in to farcry3, I found it a bit repetitive and would get bored after an hour or so. Farcry 2 had a variety of side missions plus tracking down them diamonds. Been a while since I've played 3 and I'm going to give it another try, how many hours playtime u reckon there is in it? I got 50+ hours out of farcry2.

Being the trophy hunter I am, I only did enough to satisfy the requirements for all the trophies, which I believe took 25-30 hours. Off the top of my head, that didn't involve collecting absolutely everything, nor did it require every little side mission to be completed, which if I recall mainly involved tracking down and killing someone.

You need to get all the diamonds, all because of that "buy every manual and bandolier for every weapon" achievement/trophy, which requires exactly the 1000 diamonds which exist in the game. That means beating the game, doing every assassination mission and finding all 121 briefcases.

I didn't bother, to be honest.

#19 Posted by turtlethetaffer (16722 posts) -

I still need to beat Far Cry 2. I beat FC3 almost immediately after it came out.

Let me put it this way: The initial impression I got from far Cry 2 was not good. It felt clunky, unintuitive and problematic. In the first hour, I got bored and fed up with the map system. In Far Cry 3, I was almost immediately engaged with the gameplay. The first day I played it, I think I played for like 7 hours or something ridiculous like that. It had a great system of open ended upgrading and gunplay. Story was shit, though.

So, going simply off first impressions, Far Cry 3 wins.

#20 Posted by SoNin360 (5446 posts) -

@SoNin360 said:

@ariabed said:

@SoNin360: I didn't get very far in to farcry3, I found it a bit repetitive and would get bored after an hour or so. Farcry 2 had a variety of side missions plus tracking down them diamonds. Been a while since I've played 3 and I'm going to give it another try, how many hours playtime u reckon there is in it? I got 50+ hours out of farcry2.

Being the trophy hunter I am, I only did enough to satisfy the requirements for all the trophies, which I believe took 25-30 hours. Off the top of my head, that didn't involve collecting absolutely everything, nor did it require every little side mission to be completed, which if I recall mainly involved tracking down and killing someone.

You need to get all the diamonds, all because of that "buy every manual and bandolier for every weapon" achievement/trophy, which requires exactly the 1000 diamonds which exist in the game. That means beating the game, doing every assassination mission and finding all 121 briefcases.

I didn't bother, to be honest.

My memory must be very hazy then. I don't recall having to find ALL collectibles, but it's been a while I suppose. But overall I remember it being an easy platinum and falling into the timeframe I mentioned.

#21 Posted by Black_Knight_00 (18420 posts) -

@SoNin360 said:

My memory must be very hazy then. I don't recall having to find ALL collectibles, but it's been a while I suppose. But overall I remember it being an easy platinum and falling into the timeframe I mentioned.

I double checked and unfortunately you indeed need to get everything for the achievement. I guess it would be quicker with a strategy guide.

#22 Posted by Kevlar101 (6101 posts) -

I never played Far Cry 2. Only FC3.

Far Cry 3 is definitely in my top 3 favorite games ever.

However, it's unfortunate because I have been getting really, really annoyed almost to the point of kind of hating FC3 lately.

The first playthrough worked perfectly fine, and was very enjoyable.

However, all playthroughs after the first are plagued by numerous bugs and glitches, and far too many of them are gamebreaking. It makes no sense how bugs only affect playthroughs AFTER the first one. Point is, I have been driven away from one of the best games ever with little hope of going back. It's sad really, because I love that game to death.

#23 Edited by Ariabed (1103 posts) -

@turtlethetaffer: there's quite a few years in between 2 and 3 so of course 3 will feel better on controller. I think 2 was realistic beautiful game world even though there was no predotary wildlife, loved the fire machanics and the use of the environment to kill enemies like blowing up ammo cache and watching bullets fly around killing enemies and triggering other explosions resulting in a massive fire, using mortars was so cool, drop a few mortars then snipe enimies from a distance b4 comin in close with a silent sub. I didn't mind guns jamming, or having to take malaria pills, it just added to the realism. You had your buddy and best buddy, one would give u missions, and offer alternatives for main missions, while the other would rescue u if you got in trouble. Didn't mind the re spawns of enemies at strong holds, who's to say that these strong holds are not just re manned, I'm sure in real life the check point would just be re manned and not just left unattended. You had safe house take overs, you could upgrade your safe house through buddy missions. The bus system helped out with getting around the map quickly. Wounded enemies would slither and rest up waiting to be finished off. There was a lot of freedom in the game to tackle a mission how ever you wanted you had to think about your weapon load out, would you be stealthy or all out destructor, travel to objective on land or by water, scope out the area for destruct able or useable items, you could go to safe house and sleep through the day to do a mission at night, and there was a whole bunch of missions side missions which never felt pointless and had substance, some of 3's side missions are just like, really? I think for a much older game it does a amazing job, it's not as polished as 3's gameplay wise but I think that's just cos of the age gap, enemy chatter while hunting u down was pretty cool. I'm gonna give 3 another go and I'm looking forward to it, hopefully I can get into it this time.

#24 Edited by mjorh (742 posts) -

Oh man, this is a hard pick. I love both games for different reasons. I'd say 3 is better because it's way more varied, has better controls, more freedom with your loadouts, more verticality in the exploration, weapon customization, aggressive wildlife, a decent plot with a few great characters and much more. That said, FC2 had that gritty, dirty, realistic feel to it, jamming weapons (which I liked), allowed you to play custom maps with any number of people (FC3 dropped the ball on that aspect imposing a minimum number of players) and more importantly it was hard as balls even on normal, whereas FC3 is easy even on Master difficulty.

Whatever, I love them both.

THIS!

+

Enjoyed FC3 more....