Ubisoft is having a FarCry franchise sale on PC. 1, 2, 3, 4, and Primal.
Never played one before. Which one is best guys? In your opinions.
Games have always been on my radar. This sale is my chance to jump in. :)
Never Played A FarCry. Best One?
i'd say 1 although i haven't played it for years tbf so can't say how well it's aged but at the time i remember it being brilliant. made by crytek it was graphically superb. cheesy and over the top but a real challenge, some wide open levels but with specific goals and none of this side mission / content filler crap that all modern ubisoft games come stuffed with.
fc2 was an abomination. one of the most disappointing games of all time.
fc3 went under the full "ubisoft-ication" treatment, mixing it with elements of other ubi titles like assassin's creed and splinter cell and padding it out with tons of clutter and side missions to distract you from what was ultimately a long and tediously drawn out campaign. it had its moments tbf, and was an improvement on 2 but i couldn't recommend it on any other basis other than to experience the level when you get a flamethrower to destroy a weed farm, a la san andreas, which plays out to the soundtrack of damon marley and skrillex's "make it burn dem" (or something), which was the perfect audio accompaniment to that specific task and a lot of fun.
i never played fc4 but by all accounts it's just more of the same as 3. primal didn't seem all that well received either tbh
I haven't played any, but I didn't know about this sale and I've been eyeing Primal for a while. Thanks for the info.
The first one is hard because of cheating AI, but it's got some pretty interesting game design. It was essentially the predecessor to Crysis 1 which is also an amazing FPS.
Probably worth starting at the first game. Just appreciate the whole franchise. But if you really do only want to buy one then maybe Far Cry 3. I don't say that because it's the best necessarily, but Crytek made the first one. All the rest are Ubisoft. So if you want to just jump in you might as well jump into the one that has other games to follow it made in a similar light.
I've enjoyed all the Far Cry games... but I still think that there's something awesome about FC2. It's probably really the weakest entry in the series to most people, but I still think it's my fav.
FarCry 1 is easily the best. it's also hard as balls if you want a challenge. FarCry 2 is also challenging and immersive, but way too repetitive. FarCry 3 (and its glorified expansion pack FarCry 4) are great, but so easy you can beat them blindfolded on the hardest difficulty. Didn't bother with Primal yet.
If you're an old school gamer, liking seeking dungeons and mazes and dealing with enemies who are trying to kill you harder, definitely 1 and 2.
If you're a modern gamer like prefer to watch crazy characters talking and making weird hand gestures in cut scenes, crazy stories, like games like grinding exp and making easy ways by unlocking moves, fast travel anytime..
I mean, IF you like to experience a story more than playing a "game", definitely 3 and 4. Or may be primal.
1 and 2 are my thing. About graphics, the beat one is 4. But I think best one in ps3/360 was 2. 3 was kinda cheap.
@vespuche said:
Ubisoft is having a FarCry franchise sale on PC. 1, 2, 3, 4, and Primal.
Never played one before. Which one is best guys? In your opinions.
Games have always been on my radar. This sale is my chance to jump in. :)
Hmm, depends on what you like.
The early Far Cry is a linear action/Story game where the later has turn into a more open world action game without so much focus on the story.
So what do you prefer? the first then pick 1 or 2 , the latter pick 3 or 4.
I've enjoyed all the Far Crys. Haven't played Primal yet. The first one has the best story. They moved away from mutants to forest warfare in third world countries and now feature open worlds with alot of different stuff to do. They are all worthwhile games imo.
The only one I've played through is 3 and I enjoyed it a immensely. I played 2 for an hour and grew quickly bored of it.
4>3>1>2 (can't say about Primal as never played it, but I'm sure it's better than "bore cry 2"),
4 is just like 3 but with aditional features and a bit improved formula (especialy that you get the wing suit from the get go, so you can fly around the place fast, while in 3 you get that at the end of the game and don't get to enjoy it).
As much as I enjoyed 3 I can safely say don't go for any of them!
@hrt_rulz01 said:
I've enjoyed all the Far Cry games... but I still think that there's something awesome about FC2. It's probably really the weakest entry in the series to most people, but I still think it's my fav.
Far Cry 2's strong points are:
1. The map system which can be used while controlling the player's character.
2. Some of the bad guys will try to heal like those in STALKER.
3. Makes good distinction between cover and concealment. If you're in a shanty and gets shot at from the outside, it's guaranteed the bullets will be flying inside.
4. Weapons corrode and jam
My favorite by far is Far Cry 4. Air, land, and sea attack. Got an AI companion on request who could also ride shotgun (not on air though). Better use of the vertical than Far Cry 3.
@jun_aka_pekto said:
@hrt_rulz01 said:
I've enjoyed all the Far Cry games... but I still think that there's something awesome about FC2. It's probably really the weakest entry in the series to most people, but I still think it's my fav.
Far Cry 2's strong points are:
1. The map system which can be used while controlling the player's character.
2. Some of the bad guys will try to heal like those in STALKER.
3. Makes good distinction between cover and concealment. If you're in a shanty and gets shot at from the outside, it's guaranteed the bullets will be flying inside.
4. Weapons corrode and jam
when those are the things you pick out as an open world shooter's "strong points" you're actually making the opposite point you think you are, if you're trying to make a case for the game being good, i can't tell for sure
@Macutchi said:
when those are the things you pick out as an open world shooter's "strong points" you're actually making the opposite point you think you are, if you're trying to make a case for the game being good, i can't tell for sure
There's not much to like about Far Cry 2 as a whole because its flaws are more serious that its good traits. Still, the game has some good features that should have been kept for future games. Plus, as you can read in this thread, there are a few who do like the game.
At least, I gave the OP some info about the game. Look at the previous posts. How many actually gave reasons on why FC2 is bad or good.
@jun_aka_pekto said:
@Macutchi said:
when those are the things you pick out as an open world shooter's "strong points" you're actually making the opposite point you think you are, if you're trying to make a case for the game being good, i can't tell for sure
There's not much to like about Far Cry 2 as a whole because its flaws are more serious that its good traits. Still, the game has some good features that should have been kept for future games. Plus, as you can read in this thread, there are a few who do like the game.
At least, I gave the OP some info about the game. Look at the previous posts. How many actually gave reasons on why FC2 is bad or good.
when the "good features" you can name are stuff like you can view the map whilst controlling the character and weapons corrode and jam the fact is you're really scraping the bottom of the barrel.
but yeah some people liked the game, to each their own. my point was that even though you were trying to put forward some things that were good about the game, because of what you chose to list you were inadvertently making the case for why it's a bad game
@Macutchi said:
when the "good features" you can name are stuff like you can view the map whilst controlling the character and weapons corrode and jam the fact is you're really scraping the bottom of the barrel.
but yeah some people liked the game, to each their own. my point was that even though you were trying to put forward some things that were good about the game, because of what you chose to list you were inadvertently making the case for why it's a bad game
We don't know what the OP likes. For all we know, the stuff I listed might be the Holy Grail for him. ;)
I know those are what kept me playing FC2 despite the well-known flaws. The only flaw I didn't like in the game was the rather limited movement of the character. It is the biggest one to me because it's the most basic thing I do in the game. I didn't mind the other so-called flaws such as re-spawning bad guys and their eagle eyes.
@jun_aka_pekto said:
@Macutchi said:
when the "good features" you can name are stuff like you can view the map whilst controlling the character and weapons corrode and jam the fact is you're really scraping the bottom of the barrel.
but yeah some people liked the game, to each their own. my point was that even though you were trying to put forward some things that were good about the game, because of what you chose to list you were inadvertently making the case for why it's a bad game
We don't know what the OP likes. For all we know, the stuff I listed might be the Holy Grail for him. ;)
I know those are what kept me playing FC2 despite the well-known flaws. The only flaw I didn't like in the game was the rather limited movement of the character. It is the biggest one to me because it's the most basic thing I do in the game. I didn't mind the other so-called flaws such as re-spawning bad guys and their eagle eyes.
yeah you never know, one man's game killing, soul crushing feature is another man's... holy grail. it's possible ;).
and yeah the lack of character movement i.e. the ability to go prone pissed me off too. i think its because i was expecting crysis in africa or something as equally sophisticated and, well, didn't get it.
how could they make a game set in the african outback and not allow you to go prone and use stealth? crazy. then there was the whole always on the verge of death from malaria thing?! then the fact that as soon as you left a village every single person you encountered chased you down to the death. even your allies lol. why?? just think, for all these things there was someone at ubi who put them forward as suggestions - "hey i've got a great idea that's going to be so much fun" - and somehow convinced his / her colleagues to agree.
and these things in addition to, as you say, the guard posts that re-spawned t-shirt wearing bullet sponge enemies after only moving several feet away from them with their super human ability to spot and shoot you from miles away. and the repetitive missions. and the lack of fast travel (i.e. lose your vehicle miles away from your goal and get ready for a looooooong walk).
other than those things, and lots of other little smaller annoyances, it was great ;)
I think FC3 and 4 were much more repititive. each time you can reach a destination very quickly. Every place is very plain and looks same. Some random things happen like animals or mini missions, cut scenes or "the trip of minds" things like that. I felt only devs trying to show me differences, it's very superficial. But it's not the game itself.
Talk about the mini map of 3 and 4. That's cheap right? What's the point of seaching treasures with the minimap that shows exact points of them? It's like "doing a game" but not "playing a game". So cheap. But things like this everywhere these days.
Anyway, If you willing to beat FC2 quickly or easily, this game would hit you really hard. It's very long and almost everything opposes you. I think that's why some people really hate this game. A nightmare for modern gamers.
1 and 3 are the best ones IMO
farcry 3 is a good place to start as farcry 2 was ok but the stupid thing was you got sick from an insect bite farcry 4 was not that bad and riding an elephant onto an enemy controlled base and having the elephant grab an enemy and do to them what hulk did to loki in the avengers movie felt good but from what i hear farcry 5 should be being made so if you want to jump on the farcry train and you have a PS3 or Xbox 360 Try out Farcry 3 first then if you like it hop on over to farcry 4 But if you take one piece of advice from anyone here let it be this BEWARE: THE HONEY BADGER You Don't Find Him He Finds You!! He Will Haunt Your Nightmares
@drr_djtitan said:
Try out Farcry 3 first then if you like it hop on over to farcry 4 But if you take one piece of advice from anyone here let it be this BEWARE: THE HONEY BADGER You Don't Find Him He Finds You!! He Will Haunt Your Nightmares
I find the rhinos in FC4 far more dangerous. They toss jeeps aside like they're nothing. It doesn't take much to irritate them. Try shooting at them up close and see what happens. ;)
I find the honey badger fun to watch, especially when it takes on a pack of wolves all by itself.
I would pick the 1st and the 3rd.
the first is pretty much the grand daddy of that kind of games, it is clunky and does not hold up in some areas, but can still be fairly fun to play despite the age.
The 3rd is the best of the new wave of Far cry games I think. the 3rd and 4th are fairly similar, but the 3rd has the better characters in it. Sadly it does have pretty shitty quick time events too..
By all accounts I should like FC2, it has all the things I would like in it, but I really REALLY dislike FC2, the constant search for pills, the weapons which degrade and break at an abnormal pace (and does not get repaired, you simply grab a new one from the cache. the mind numbing driving, and the almost instant respawns of the before mentioned.
FC4 is much like FC4, they are infact almost identical, It has more verticality, so if you like flying you might like 4 more, otherwise I think it is a case of how much you can stand the few QTEs of FC3, and the characters in each game. Primal I haven't played so can't comment.
I've only played FC4. Didn't think they'd be my thing. But I've been pleasantly surprised. It's not complex, but it's gorgeous, has diverse mechanics, and offers good plain fun. Without being able to compare to the others, I'd definitely recommend 4 on its own merits at least
Far Cry 3 and Far Cry 4 are arguably the most fun
Far Cry 1 has a special place in my heart, but is grossly outdated at this point (but also a lot of fun still!), so if you did not play it at release, I would say don't bother with it.
Primal was neat, but I would say do not bother because it was kind of a cash-in on Ubisoft's part and not really a worthy installment. Fun but not really great. Wait until it's 10 dollars.
Far Cry 2 was a worthy effort but it's frustrations make it tough to play; still, if you can look past a handful of really annoying design decisions, there's a pretty awesome game in there!
So, to answer your question: Far Cry 3, and Far Cry 4
*Oh yeah and Blood Dragon is just plain cool, but more of a DLC/add-on to Far Cry 3 than a full-on game....still worth getting, though!
Far Cry 3 Blood Dragon is a freebie at Ubisoft (at least the preceding few days). Get it while you can.
I don't smile that much at humor in FPS games aside from a few such as "His name is Buck and he likes to....." Blood Dragon made me smile a lot. ;)
Blood Dragon, bar none.
It is 3 without the absolutely awful story holding it back. And it had enough 80's camp dripping from all it's orifices, that it was hilarious from start to finish. The best games are the ones that don't take themselves seriously.
That all said, I would recommend any of the FC games from 2 on.
If you're looking for a straight FPS experience with a certain degree of mission freedom, I'd say the original. Although it's story kinda descended into stupidity.
However, FC 3 for me is the best as it has the environment of the original but improved movement, additional vehicles and just an overall more fluid shooting experience with lots to explore. The downside is that it can be a grind going through so many similar mission types and side missions.
FC2 is also a good but it has some bugs which can detract from the overall experience and the whole idea of degrading weaponry becomes problematic when you just wana shoot stuff up. BUT it did introduce the awesome fire mechanic which is even better in FC 3.
I havent played the others.
@soul_starter said:
FC2 is also a good but it has some bugs which can detract from the overall experience and the whole idea of degrading weaponry becomes problematic when you just wana shoot stuff up. BUT it did introduce the awesome fire mechanic which is even better in FC 3.
No. You don't understand. Why your weapons get weaken because you suppose to spend diamonds to buy weapons. You got a weapon which is very strong like one that used in late game, then you can use it like you own it? No. Doesn't make sense, Like radio towers in Far cry 3. In that game, spending money is almost worthless. But in Far cry 2, every part of the game makes sense. Even the parts of illness and long walking that people whine about. Illness is just a bonus mission, it's not optional it forces you to do but, make sense because of in Africa. long walking is making sense too. You either choose facing a danger to get supply, or taking a bit of time to avoid fights. Seriously, hate walking, but wanna play an open world game? I don't get what these people think.
In far cry 3, the mini map indicates everything. treasures, and even enemies. You drive through almost plane fields, looking at the mini map, stop the vehicle, gather the treasures. But they prepared a high budget but you suppose to look at the tiny little map almost always? Doesn't make sense. You can turn off the mini map but now when you wanna know where you are, game poses. They downgraded map. 2's was much better.
Every part of FC3 doesn't make sense But people loved it because of the cartoon like characters, dramatic cut scenes, talking emotional protagonist, easy game play like stealth stuff and the mini map, many easy mode add-ons which are called "leveling". If you just wanna beat enemies, worth it but like me, an old school gamer, 3 was just a nightmare. It's all my opinion but 3 was just CHILDISH CHEAP BOREDOM for me.
Sorry for a long text. I quoted yours but I'm not pointing only you. I just can't stand how 3 was stupid but beloved. But I understand this is modern game's age and people just love beating games without strategies or challenges. Even there's a game of mashing buttons to win people would love it if the elements other than gameplay look neat I can say.
@skeletone said:
@soul_starter said:
FC2 is also a good but it has some bugs which can detract from the overall experience and the whole idea of degrading weaponry becomes problematic when you just wana shoot stuff up. BUT it did introduce the awesome fire mechanic which is even better in FC 3.
No. You don't understand. Why your weapons get weaken because you suppose to spend diamonds to buy weapons. You got a weapon which is very strong like one that used in late game, then you can use it like you own it? No. Doesn't make sense, Like radio towers in Far cry 3. In that game, spending money is almost worthless. But in Far cry 2, every part of the game makes sense. Even the parts of illness and long walking that people whine about. Illness is just a bonus mission, it's not optional it forces you to do but, make sense because of in Africa. long walking is making sense too. You either choose facing a danger to get supply, or taking a bit of time to avoid fights. Seriously, hate walking, but wanna play an open world game? I don't get what these people think.
In far cry 3, the mini map indicates everything. treasures, and even enemies. You drive through almost plane fields, looking at the mini map, stop the vehicle, gather the treasures. But they prepared a high budget but you suppose to look at the tiny little map almost always? Doesn't make sense. You can turn off the mini map but now when you wanna know where you are, game poses. They downgraded map. 2's was much better.
Every part of FC3 doesn't make sense But people loved it because of the cartoon like characters, dramatic cut scenes, talking emotional protagonist, easy game play like stealth stuff and the mini map, many easy mode add-ons which are called "leveling". If you just wanna beat enemies, worth it but like me, an old school gamer, 3 was just a nightmare. It's all my opinion but 3 was just CHILDISH CHEAP BOREDOM for me.
Sorry for a long text. I quoted yours but I'm not pointing only you. I just can't stand how 3 was stupid but beloved. But I understand this is modern game's age and people just love beating games without strategies or challenges. Even there's a game of mashing buttons to win people would love it if the elements other than gameplay look neat I can say.
I understand why it happens and it's suppose to show a more realistic take on travel and survival but it's an FPS, more time and effort should have been made on improving gun play rather than on all that stuff. That's all I'm saying. FC 2 is a good game but it lacks the tight shooting of the original or the more accessible and honestly, more fun elements of FC3.
Each to his own I suppose.
@skeletone said:
@soul_starter said:
FC2 is also a good but it has some bugs which can detract from the overall experience and the whole idea of degrading weaponry becomes problematic when you just wana shoot stuff up. BUT it did introduce the awesome fire mechanic which is even better in FC 3.
No. You don't understand. Why your weapons get weaken because you suppose to spend diamonds to buy weapons. You got a weapon which is very strong like one that used in late game, then you can use it like you own it? No. Doesn't make sense, Like radio towers in Far cry 3. In that game, spending money is almost worthless. But in Far cry 2, every part of the game makes sense. Even the parts of illness and long walking that people whine about. Illness is just a bonus mission, it's not optional it forces you to do but, make sense because of in Africa. long walking is making sense too. You either choose facing a danger to get supply, or taking a bit of time to avoid fights. Seriously, hate walking, but wanna play an open world game? I don't get what these people think.
little in far cry 2 make sense.
illness is a bonus mission? it's not at all, it's an ever present part of the game. if you went to africa would you expect to get malaria? was it a fun experience for you having to constantly manage injecting yourself with medication? no it wasn't. it was a huge pain in the arse.
and you can't understand why people hate walking but want to play open world games? if a game is so poorly designed that if your vehicle gets destroyed you've no choice but to walk for miles which takes tens of minutes game time to get to your next location, then that's poor game design. it might be realistic if it genuinely happened to you in the african outback but in a game context it's not fun. like a lot of things in far cry 2 for that matter
edit:
@soul_starter said:
I understand why it happens and it's suppose to show a more realistic take on travel and survival but it's an FPS, more time and effort should have been made on improving gun play rather than on all that stuff.
exactly
@Macutchi said:
illness is a bonus mission? it's not at all, it's an ever present part of the game. if you went to africa would you expect to get malaria? was it a fun experience for you having to constantly manage injecting yourself with medication? no it wasn't. it was a huge pain in the arse.
and you can't understand why people hate walking but want to play open world games? if a game is so poorly designed that if your vehicle gets destroyed you've no choice but to walk for miles which takes tens of minutes game time to get to your next location, then that's poor game design. it might be realistic if it genuinely happened to you in the african outback but in a game context it's not fun. like a lot of things in far cry 2 for that matter
edit:
@soul_starter said:
I understand why it happens and it's suppose to show a more realistic take on travel and survival but it's an FPS, more time and effort should have been made on improving gun play rather than on all that stuff.
exactly
I know 2 wasn't perfect. But I don't agree if you think 3 was better as a fps. effort should have been made on gun shooting? You're saying like defending fc3 and say this? Look at 3, cut an enemy's body from his behind and make noises, but nobody notices you. And more easy add ons you can get from exp like cut enemies 2 or more at once, or make quick time events to deal with them easily somehow. Are these really fps elements you think?
You're saying like you expect fun elements from a war game? sure. I expect more survival adventure stuff. Not cartoony weird ways like 3's.
About destroyed vehicle. You really didn't realize that makes sense? If you're vehicle destroyed, you have to walk. very simple logic. I know I say 2 wasn't perfect. If you're on a vehicle you can't shoot. but there are other ways you can deal with enemies who drive cars. shoot the big gun that attached on your vehicle, or stop your vehicle, take cover behind a rock or a tree, enemy car will stop, so you can deal with them easily. I know there are very few people who noticed these strategies. may be this game was lack of training for casual gamers.
One more thing. I don't think you have to walk that long like you said. Like I said, you can take a risk to get a vehicle from enemy outposts. Or you can do hitchhike. Wait until a enemy car passes near you. If the enemy went away, you can shoot a gun to let him know you're there. Of course there is NO way you could notice these strategies. I know. That's the problem.
I hope game developers try to add more training or tutorial or tips to make people good in the future. I can't enjoy games like 3 like these people do. casual gamers don't know how to deal with AIs and that's the problem. Nobody noticed but 3 was just a game that has so many many options that just only make easy ways. no strategic. no make sense. just easy shit.
@skeletone said:
@Macutchi said:
illness is a bonus mission? it's not at all, it's an ever present part of the game. if you went to africa would you expect to get malaria? was it a fun experience for you having to constantly manage injecting yourself with medication? no it wasn't. it was a huge pain in the arse.
and you can't understand why people hate walking but want to play open world games? if a game is so poorly designed that if your vehicle gets destroyed you've no choice but to walk for miles which takes tens of minutes game time to get to your next location, then that's poor game design. it might be realistic if it genuinely happened to you in the african outback but in a game context it's not fun. like a lot of things in far cry 2 for that matter
edit:
@soul_starter said:
I understand why it happens and it's suppose to show a more realistic take on travel and survival but it's an FPS, more time and effort should have been made on improving gun play rather than on all that stuff.
exactly
I know 2 wasn't perfect. But I don't agree if you think 3 was better as a fps. effort should have been made on gun shooting? You're saying like defending fc3 and say this? Look at 3, cut an enemy's body from his behind and make noises, but nobody notices you. And more easy add ons you can get from exp like cut enemies 2 or more at once, or make quick time events to deal with them easily somehow. Are these really fps elements you think?
You're saying like you expect fun elements from a war game? sure. I expect more survival adventure stuff. Not cartoony weird ways like 3's.
About destroyed vehicle. You really didn't realize that makes sense? If you're vehicle destroyed, you have to walk. very simple logic. I know I say 2 wasn't perfect. If you're on a vehicle you can't shoot. but there are other ways you can deal with enemies who drive cars. shoot the big gun that attached on your vehicle, or stop your vehicle, take cover behind a rock or a tree, enemy car will stop, so you can deal with them easily. I know there are very few people who noticed these strategies. may be this game was lack of training for casual gamers.
One more thing. I don't think you have to walk that long like you said. Like I said, you can take a risk to get a vehicle from enemy outposts. Or you can do hitchhike. Wait until a enemy car passes near you. If the enemy went away, you can shoot a gun to let him know you're there. Of course there is NO way you could notice these strategies. I know. That's the problem.
I hope game developers try to add more training or tutorial or tips to make people good in the future. I can't enjoy games like 3 like these people do. casual gamers don't know how to deal with AIs and that's the problem. Nobody noticed but 3 was just a game that has so many many options that just only make easy ways. no strategic. no make sense. just easy shit.
for the record i'm no fan of 3 as i said in my earlier post although it was much better than 2.
what you don't seem to realise whilst you're sat on your high horse patronising us "casual" gamers is that all these "solutions" you cite didn't escape us. you're not some gaming guru who noticed these things whilst the rest of us plebs sat there scratching our heads like a bunch of simpletons wishing there were more tutorials and hand holding. we know how to deal with enemies who drive cars. use the turrets. lob some grenades at their car. stop and engage them in a gun fight and pick them off when they get out the vehicle. it's hardly rocket science despite how much you want to pat yourself on the back because you "got it."
the point is that the feature of the game that initiates this kind of thing is not FUN. why, when i leave any village, does EVERY single person or vehicle i encounter, including my allies ffs, chase me down to the death? maybe that makes sense to you because you seem to have an uncanny knack of justifying some god awful gameplay decisions as realistic but to the rest of us it was f*cking annoying when it happened time after time after time after time after.... it's simply not fun.
just like the fact that you would clear out a guard post only for it to fully respawn minutes later. "everything in far cry 2 makes sense" you say. no it doesn't. those things make no sense whatsoever. that weapons can last just a matter of minutes before they jam and become useless makes no sense in a game in which weapon shops are spread out so widely. sure have them degrade, but so quickly? why? is it realistic? maybe it is, i'm no guerrilla mercenary. but is it fun? no of course it's not. it's excruciating. like so many things from the game. no stealth, no prone, eagle eyed enemies who spot you from miles away, bullet sponge enemies who can take several rounds to the head before they drop. all don't make sense. all are not fun.
of course there is NO way you could notice these things. i know. that's the problem. you're a patronising egotist who's great at excusing shit game design because, through your twisted logic, you justify it as realism. if only us casual gamers were as hardcore as you then maybe we too could focus less on having fun and more on the important things like pseudo realism.
and you say that if your vehicle is destroyed, then you have to walk, its simple logic... brilliant, thanks for that insight. the point you're missing, once again, is it's not FUN. i don't care if it's realistic, walking for miles to my objective is not fun. just like the malaria thing. the point is it makes little sense for ubisoft to include this kind of "realism" in the game when instead they could have focused on much more important core gameplay mechanics, which they got badly wrong, in my and many others' opinion. if you find all these things fun then you're one of very few people with a tolerance for boredom that goes well beyond us casual gamers who can only aspire to be as magnanimous and hardcore as you
@Macutchi said:
@skeletone said:
@Macutchi said:
illness is a bonus mission? it's not at all, it's an ever present part of the game. if you went to africa would you expect to get malaria? was it a fun experience for you having to constantly manage injecting yourself with medication? no it wasn't. it was a huge pain in the arse.
and you can't understand why people hate walking but want to play open world games? if a game is so poorly designed that if your vehicle gets destroyed you've no choice but to walk for miles which takes tens of minutes game time to get to your next location, then that's poor game design. it might be realistic if it genuinely happened to you in the african outback but in a game context it's not fun. like a lot of things in far cry 2 for that matter
edit:
@soul_starter said:
I understand why it happens and it's suppose to show a more realistic take on travel and survival but it's an FPS, more time and effort should have been made on improving gun play rather than on all that stuff.
exactly
I know 2 wasn't perfect. But I don't agree if you think 3 was better as a fps. effort should have been made on gun shooting? You're saying like defending fc3 and say this? Look at 3, cut an enemy's body from his behind and make noises, but nobody notices you. And more easy add ons you can get from exp like cut enemies 2 or more at once, or make quick time events to deal with them easily somehow. Are these really fps elements you think?
You're saying like you expect fun elements from a war game? sure. I expect more survival adventure stuff. Not cartoony weird ways like 3's.
About destroyed vehicle. You really didn't realize that makes sense? If you're vehicle destroyed, you have to walk. very simple logic. I know I say 2 wasn't perfect. If you're on a vehicle you can't shoot. but there are other ways you can deal with enemies who drive cars. shoot the big gun that attached on your vehicle, or stop your vehicle, take cover behind a rock or a tree, enemy car will stop, so you can deal with them easily. I know there are very few people who noticed these strategies. may be this game was lack of training for casual gamers.
One more thing. I don't think you have to walk that long like you said. Like I said, you can take a risk to get a vehicle from enemy outposts. Or you can do hitchhike. Wait until a enemy car passes near you. If the enemy went away, you can shoot a gun to let him know you're there. Of course there is NO way you could notice these strategies. I know. That's the problem.
I hope game developers try to add more training or tutorial or tips to make people good in the future. I can't enjoy games like 3 like these people do. casual gamers don't know how to deal with AIs and that's the problem. Nobody noticed but 3 was just a game that has so many many options that just only make easy ways. no strategic. no make sense. just easy shit.
for the record i'm no fan of 3 as i said in my earlier post although it was much better than 2.
what you don't seem to realise whilst you're sat on your high horse patronising us "casual" gamers is that all these "solutions" you cite didn't escape us. you're not some gaming guru who noticed these things whilst the rest of us plebs sat there scratching our heads like a bunch of simpletons wishing there were more tutorials and hand holding. we know how to deal with enemies who drive cars. use the turrets. lob some grenades at their car. stop and engage them in a gun fight and pick them off when they get out the vehicle. it's hardly rocket science despite how much you want to pat yourself on the back because you "got it."
the point is that the feature of the game that initiates this kind of thing is not FUN. why, when i leave any village, does EVERY single person or vehicle i encounter, including my allies ffs, chase me down to the death? maybe that makes sense to you because you seem to have an uncanny knack of justifying some god awful gameplay decisions as realistic but to the rest of us it was f*cking annoying when it happened time after time after time after time after.... it's simply not fun.
just like the fact that you would clear out a guard post only for it to fully respawn minutes later. "everything in far cry 2 makes sense" you say. no it doesn't. those things make no sense whatsoever. that weapons can last just a matter of minutes before they jam and become useless makes no sense in a game in which weapon shops are spread out so widely. sure have them degrade, but so quickly? why? is it realistic? maybe it is, i'm no guerrilla mercenary. but is it fun? no of course it's not. it's excruciating. like so many things from the game. no stealth, no prone, eagle eyed enemies who spot you from miles away, bullet sponge enemies who can take several rounds to the head before they drop. all don't make sense. all are not fun.
of course there is NO way you could notice these things. i know. that's the problem. you're a patronising egotist who's great at excusing shit game design because, through your twisted logic, you justify it as realism. if only us casual gamers were as hardcore as you then maybe we too could focus less on having fun and more on the important things like pseudo realism.
and you say that if your vehicle is destroyed, then you have to walk, its simple logic... brilliant, thanks for that insight. the point you're missing, once again, is it's not FUN. i don't care if it's realistic, walking for miles to my objective is not fun. just like the malaria thing. the point is it makes little sense for ubisoft to include this kind of "realism" in the game when instead they could have focused on much more important core gameplay mechanics, which they got badly wrong, in my and many others' opinion. if you find all these things fun then you're one of very few people with a tolerance for boredom that goes well beyond us casual gamers who can only aspire to be as magnanimous and hardcore as you
Pretty much this.
I actually like FC2 but FC3 is better in location and toning down a lot of the stuff that made FC2 falter, mainly mechanical aspects which were included and then not properly built on.
Like you mention, re spawning guard posts or enemy/ally intelligence was all improved upon in the next iteration.
for the record i'm no fan of 3 as i said in my earlier post although it was much better than 2.
what you don't seem to realise whilst you're sat on your high horse patronising us "casual" gamers is that all these "solutions" you cite didn't escape us. you're not some gaming guru who noticed these things whilst the rest of us plebs sat there scratching our heads like a bunch of simpletons wishing there were more tutorials and hand holding. we know how to deal with enemies who drive cars. use the turrets. lob some grenades at their car. stop and engage them in a gun fight and pick them off when they get out the vehicle. it's hardly rocket science despite how much you want to pat yourself on the back because you "got it."
the point is that the feature of the game that initiates this kind of thing is not FUN. why, when i leave any village, does EVERY single person or vehicle i encounter, including my allies ffs, chase me down to the death? maybe that makes sense to you because you seem to have an uncanny knack of justifying some god awful gameplay decisions as realistic but to the rest of us it was f*cking annoying when it happened time after time after time after time after.... it's simply not fun.
just like the fact that you would clear out a guard post only for it to fully respawn minutes later. "everything in far cry 2 makes sense" you say. no it doesn't. those things make no sense whatsoever. that weapons can last just a matter of minutes before they jam and become useless makes no sense in a game in which weapon shops are spread out so widely. sure have them degrade, but so quickly? why? is it realistic? maybe it is, i'm no guerrilla mercenary. but is it fun? no of course it's not. it's excruciating. like so many things from the game. no stealth, no prone, eagle eyed enemies who spot you from miles away, bullet sponge enemies who can take several rounds to the head before they drop. all don't make sense. all are not fun.
of course there is NO way you could notice these things. i know. that's the problem. you're a patronising egotist who's great at excusing shit game design because, through your twisted logic, you justify it as realism. if only us casual gamers were as hardcore as you then maybe we too could focus less on having fun and more on the important things like pseudo realism.
and you say that if your vehicle is destroyed, then you have to walk, its simple logic... brilliant, thanks for that insight. the point you're missing, once again, is it's not FUN. i don't care if it's realistic, walking for miles to my objective is not fun. just like the malaria thing. the point is it makes little sense for ubisoft to include this kind of "realism" in the game when instead they could have focused on much more important core gameplay mechanics, which they got badly wrong, in my and many others' opinion. if you find all these things fun then you're one of very few people with a tolerance for boredom that goes well beyond us casual gamers who can only aspire to be as magnanimous and hardcore as you
Yea, ok. It wasn't fun for you. But for me, 3 was so boring but 2 I could enjoy. And this it true.
I enjoyed because it was realistic? no. Because it was a very long campaign and always kept me in fight. That's why. So respawning enemies was good for me. I'm not delighted in having friendships with AIs. I'm not having fun when I see AIs shooting each other. Some times it is hilarious though, not every time I want to see. It is only ME who plays the game. So I wanna fight. On my own. I play games because I wanna play, I wanna control characters then fight with AIs, I play for gameplay not for cut scenes or characters. Sometimes they are impressed but, I think these "other than gameplay" stuff just too much these days. In my opinion.
I said "make sense" that meant for gameplay. Not about background of its story. Car crushed, so you walk, or you attack an outpost then steal their car, in far cry 2, each time you have to choose, manage risks, your health/ammo and reach save points to save your progress. When you finished a mission, go back to a store then change your weapons, or buy new ones with diamonds you got, then go get a mission again. This, whole things are 1 track. you do this track over and over then reach the end. or reach another map. this is the gameplay of far cry 2. which you may think boring, but it was something for me.
Far cry 3, cars don't make sense because there is a fast travel that takes you every single location. Money don't make sense because of radio towers. I know there are special weapons that can be purchased with a lot of money. So I can take money in this game as optional stuff. I know. So may be I couldn't say "make no sense". But in far cry 2, money, car, everything is for beating enemies, for make game progress. It was very solid choice. That's why I liked it. And disliked 3. I wanna feel thrill man. 3 was very easy, like every option is an easy mode. whiny girly protagonist dealt everything for no reason. Yes, I personally hate this protagonist, may be that's why I hate this game like crazy.
Far Cry Instincts Predator is the best, but it's exclusive to Xbox and 360. It's Island of Dr. Moreau themed and you play a guy who gets genetically modified so you can turn into a monster.
On PC I find Far Cry 3 to be the best. It's pretty much the Green Arrow's origin story.
Haven't played Primal yet, but it looks really really good too. Plan to get it during the Christmas sale.
@gkmogglemog said:
Far Cry Instincts Predator is the best, but it's exclusive to Xbox and 360. It's Island of Dr. Moreau themed and you play a guy who gets genetically modified so you can turn into a monster.
On PC I find Far Cry 3 to be the best. It's pretty much the Green Arrow's origin story.
Haven't played Primal yet, but it looks really really good too. Plan to get it during the Christmas sale.
That is some leap and before people unfamiliar with Farcry 3, the basic principal of the stories have similarities but that is slim at best, the two have absolute nothing in common otherwise
And the only thing Primal has to do with Farcry is the name and the open world, other than that Primal is it´s own game. But then again so is 1,2, 3 and 4.
@Jacanuk said:
@gkmogglemog said:
Far Cry Instincts Predator is the best, but it's exclusive to Xbox and 360. It's Island of Dr. Moreau themed and you play a guy who gets genetically modified so you can turn into a monster.
On PC I find Far Cry 3 to be the best. It's pretty much the Green Arrow's origin story.
Haven't played Primal yet, but it looks really really good too. Plan to get it during the Christmas sale.
That is some leap and before people unfamiliar with Farcry 3, the basic principal of the stories have similarities but that is slim at best, the two have absolute nothing in common otherwise
And the only thing Primal has to do with Farcry is the name and the open world, other than that Primal is it´s own game. But then again so is 1,2, 3 and 4.
Rich spoiled brat gets stranded on an island and has to adapt to the brutality of the island so not to get killed by the psychopaths that live there so he gradually becomes a deadly killer over time and eventually gets strong enough to take down the super villains that rule the island.
Am I describing Green Arrow's origin or Far Cry 3's plot? I'm describing both. Because Far Cry 3 is pretty much Green Arrows origin story.
Edit: Bought Far Cry Primal earlier today and I have no idea what you were talking about when you said it's not a Far Cry. It's definitely a Far Cry and is now my favorite in the series. It builds on features we've had for a long time now while giving something original and artistic. It's going to suck when they go back to the normal series.
Definitely 4 for me. Not the campaign. But, the Reset Outpost Mode.
Plus, the UI can be turned off totally if you like that sort of thing (I do)
I like flight sims. So, the Buzzer was a good addition. It in combination with the grenade launcher, is probably the best weapon system in the game. Plus, I think it's fun to dogfight other helicopters. The glider and parachute also allow firing at targets below.
Boarding vehicles does not guarantee safety anymore from animals. The rhinos are especially pesky if they get pissed off.
You can call for an AI buddy to follow you around and even ride shotgun with you.
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment