FarCry 2?

[Saturos]

I've heard alot of FarCry fans hated the sequel. I think it's pretty damn awesome game tbh, but maybe that's because I never played the first one?

Same scenario, different game. I've seen it with Morrowind/Oblivion and Deus Ex/Invisible War.

So what do you FarCry fans think of the sequel? It reminds me of Mercenaries:World in Flames, except without the "blow up everything" gimmick and over-the-top action. It's really just more like a realistic merc sim than the Mercenaries series imo.

Well?

 

[Lucid]

It got way too damn repetitive with the way you travel around and the enemy AI was actually worse than FC1, methinks.

 

[Xevrex]

All I can say is:

Don't.

 

[Escaep]

I enjoyed it.

 

[staticprimer]

Considering that Far Cry 1 was simply awful, yeah I would say it's a step up.

 

[Wanted Bob]

I loved the game to be honest, certainly a nice step up from the first one.

 

[Stigmata]

Sucks. I got bored of it within about an hour. The AI isn't very good, the gameplay is kind of clunky, the story is bad...

 

[Saturos]

Sucks. I got bored of it within about an hour. The AI isn't very good, the gameplay is kind of clunky, the story is bad...

The AI's better than HL2's, but then again HL2 is not a new FPS either.

They're at least smart enough not to fall for the old, bait and then blast them as they come through the door/around the tree trick, which HL2 is notorious for.
It's a tired cliche that plagues many older FPSs.

The story admittedly is impossible to follow, but then again so is real politics and mercs don't give a damn about ideology and politics anyways.
The gameplay is fine imo. Just turn up the analog sensitivity, as the default is way too low. (360 version)

 

[Krynn72]

The story is far from "impossible to follow." Its just that it simply doesnt really exist. I remember maybe one or two cuscenes that attempt to move the plot forward, but frankly I didnt give a ****. The only motivation I had to continue the game was that I wanted the new weapons.

That said, I had fun with it for a solid 15-20 hours or so. I love open ended games, and I had lots of fun trying out different methods of attacking outposts and such. The most satisfying of which was lighting an acre wide fire around them and watching them scramble to get away and end up burning. Can't really say I've had that experience in a game before, so I was happy with the purchase.

 

[Kadayi]

Sucks. I got bored of it within about an hour. The AI isn't very good, the gameplay is kind of clunky, the story is bad...

You played it for an for an hour and then gave up? JFC, thats like judging a film on its opening credits......


If you accept the game for what it is 'an open world FPS' and acknowledge its limitations accordingly (short of mission givers & buddies pretty much everyone wants to kill you), then the game can be quite good fun, as long as you're no so stupid to assume you can drive everywhere without consequence (your in a Warzone, sneak about fool..the rivers are a good means to get around relatively safely).

The missions are little bit repetitive and mainly consist of 'go here, kill that' or variations 'Go here, rescue/relieve that (by killing them)'. However the fun comes in the planning and implementation. Even the best schemes go tits up occasionally and you can find yourself in some tight spots, but its all good fun if you know what your doing.

Certainly a game I'd recommend you at least experience if you're a fan of the FPS genre simply because its a different take on what an FPS can be.

 

[Warped]

I bought the 1st game for $10 and thought it was wayyyy too open to be fun. then I got the sequel for $20 during Christmas time on amazon.com, played 4 hrs and stopped. Its fun but traveling around is frustrating and the mechanics of the game are not those i like. heard the multiplayer was fun but never got around to playing it. Maybe I'll give a whirl someday but I have much more engaging games to play

 

[Asuka]

Its a good game its just i dunno. I had a hard time getting into it.

 

[staticprimer]

Some of the best moments I've had in Far Cry 2 were when a plan went awry, when I end up completely surrounded and fighting for dear life. Sure the game has some serious weak points, but the combat itself makes up for them.

 

[Reflex]

Never played the first one and I haven't played FC2 singleplayer but the multiplayer is quite good.

 

[Remus]

I had fun with it for a while. Played it from start to finish. However I haven't replayed it since, and if i had to choose to replay either FC1 or 2 I would choose 1. Despite the name, Far Cry 2 just isn't a Far Cry sequel.

 

[Deleted member 56031]

I didn't like far cry 1 and I got quickly bored of far cry 2.

 

[Bob_Marley]

They're very different games. FC1 had alot of variety in mission local and game style (a little too much if you ask me, I don't particuly enjoy fighting insta-death monkeys in pitch black corridors) but it had good combat, especially when fighting the human mercs, had a cleche but OK story and was very pretty.

FC2 on the otherhand got very repettive very fast. Drive to point W, blow up object Y, if you want blow up object Z as well with your mate and be aware that whatever you do the bad guys at point X will respawn time and again. It had alot of promise, but it falls down in virtually every area where gimiky new effects and prettyness arn't concerned. My biggest gripe is the choice you have, or rather lack there of. Nothing you do actually matters, you always end up with the same ending. Its the illusion of choice, which is one of the things I really hate in games. Give me a choice or don't, don't make it look like I've got one when I havent, it just pisses me off. Oh and the ending, the horrible, horrible ending. It felt tacked on, didn't fit with the rest of the story or feeling of the game and felt entirely counter intuitive as to what I would have done in that situation. Oh and the whole malaria thing, I really didn't like that.

It would have been much better if you could actually take part in this conflict rather than just happening to be there. A system so you could capture checkpoints and bases for your faction would have been great, where the blow crap up missions actually had an effect on your or the enemy's capability (for example, blow up thier petrol dum and they'll have less viechles rolling about for a time).

Rather than simply having troops respawn at the check points they have to be brought in from HQ (allowing you to capture & defend them and worry about things like reinforcements, so you could, for example mine the road between the enemy HQ and the checkpoint concerned, making your job easier), a resource system so your faction has to take control of, for example, diamond fields, which in turn allows them to get better weapons, viechles, better trained soldiers, etc. Also, having to maintain your own positions, have secure supply routes, etc, would have been awesome.

Its not a bad game as such. But the story is rubbish, the missions (and even going from point a to point b) are repetitive, apparent choice and freedom are lies and it feels like the game was rushed out and used the story to try to paper over the HUGE cracks in gameplay (like why the factions are all entierly concerned with shooting you and only you no matter who you may be working for). Its simply no where near what it could have been.

Theres so much material for a merc based game set in africa (from Mad Mike and his mercs in the Congo, to Cormorous Bob and his repeated take over of the same country, Mad Dog Callaghan in Angola to Executive Outcomes and Sandline in Sierra Leone. And films like The Wild Geese or The Dogs of War) and most of it seems to have been simply ignored or implimented poorly. It could have been a great leap into a new setting for FPS games, getting out of the rut of WWII, Vietnam or fighting Russians and Muslims in the modern day. But it felt half hearted and rushed.

 

[Musk]

Haven't played the first. I did enjoy FC2 thou I wasn't driving around aimlessly.

 

[jimbo118]

Blowing up jeeps with the grenade launcher was quite fun indeed.

It reminded me of what Ubisoft also did with Assassin's Creed. An outstanding premise with a fab engine but ultimately hugely flawed. Repetitive missions, stupid design choices etc.

 

[mechanicallizard]

the only thing good about the game was the fire. and that was a novelty that wore off
rather quickly.

 

[Eejit]

Tried it, hated it.

 

[Dalamari]

Game's fun for the first hour, then you get sick of doing the same shit over and over, and getting shot by everyone sucks a big dick

 

[Dinnesch]

No. Far Cry is the most enjoyable game I've ever played, because it contains a ton of action, you always need to be concentrated and careful as hell. It keeps surprising you with new things, new types of environments and other stuff.

Far Cry 2 is just a game where you drive through a boring african landscape. You shoot down a few guys, and drive to the next camp. Then you shoot down a few guys, obtain a new mission and drive to the next camp. Then you shoot down a few guys, obtain a new mission and drive to the next camp. Then you shoot down a few guys, obtain a new mission and drive to the next camp. Then you shoot down a few guys, obtain a new mission and drive to the next camp. Then you shoot down a few guys, obtain a new mission and drive to the next camp. Then you shoot down a few guys, obtain a new mission and drive to the next camp. Then you shoot down a few guys, obtain a new mission and drive to the next camp. Then you shoot down a few guys, obtain a new mission and drive to the next camp.

I think Far Cry 2 has some good amounts of realism in it, but to keep the game playable(not too hard) it contains a lot of extremely unrealistic things you don't see in other games. For example you can always carry some magic injections with you which make you instantly forget all the pain. Of course most games have med packs, but you usually can't carry them with you, so you get challenged when your health is low while you still have to kill some guys.


I understand that a lot of gamers like Far Cry 2, but it shouldn't be called Far Cry. I was really disappointed to see the gameplay was so different, because the original Far Cry gameplay was the best ever IMO.
Crysis was more like Far Cry 2, but the Nanosuit kills the strategic part a bit(while it adds some very innovative new ways to attack enemies).

 

[kupocake]

I never thought much of Far Cry to begin with. Reusing the franchise name was pointless. On the right day, standing in front of the right bargain bin, I may pick Far Cry 2 up, but it's pretty clear it's an FPS also ran.

 

[CR0M]

Firstly, if Farcry 2 had been called something else it would've been a lot more popular. As it is, cashing in on the name did the game no favours as it is related to the first not at all.

Secondly, in it's own right, it was good fun. It doesn't play like a regular fps and if you just like to run n gun, then you're going to be disappointed. The AI is quite smart, the game mechanics are interesting, and the atmosphere is good with a lot of free-roaming. But the feeble storyline begins around 90% of the way through (by which time you're totally bored), and suddenly ends, like it was tacked on as an afterthought. Nothing has consequence. Nobody is worth sympathizing with. It's repetetive.

But on the whole I liked it, even though the end was rubbish. Like most games.

 

[Acepilotf14]

I liked it a lot more than 1.
Now, if they had taken out the freaking traveling, it would have been even better. I loved the combat.

 

[TwwIX]

It's a repetitive piece of crap. Multiplayer on the PC version doesn't even work.

 

[Escaep]

It's a repetitive piece of crap. Multiplayer on the PC version doesn't even work.

Works fine for me.