SO I BOUGHT Far Cry 2 as part of some steam deal a while back. I didn't enjoy it much due to it's emphasis on all that tedious commuting, and when some glitch destroyed all 20 hours of my game progress last year, I left the game to one side to rot. But recently I've gave it another go. And you know, now that my expectations were suitably lowered since the first time, I actually started to enjoyed myself.
Sure having to drive everywhere was still as annoying as hell, but I spent less time griping about it and more time enjoying the setting and the literary allusions to Heart of Darkness. And then I discovered this elaborate fictional blog online [http://www.reubenblog.typepad.com/] written from the perspective of one of the characters, which is really quite an impressive effort. Apart from the sucky ending, the story telling aspect was unusually well done for a game, which I appreciate.
Incidently, about literary referencing in games: isn't it annoying when you're enjoying a game's more cerebral moments, and then the game shoves its own intelligence down your throat? Whilst playing through Far Cry 2, I spotted the game's similarities to Heart of Darkness for myself. But then at the ending, the game outright calls the last section "Heart of Darkness", incase you hadn't made the connection. It's like they're putting something clever in the game for the reader's to enjoy, only to then assume they're too stupid to notice it. They assumed that I'd only be able to notice their literary allusions as long as they telegraph them as loudly as possible. Lots of "intellectual" games do this. Especially Bioshock, which couldn't have made the satire of objectivism any less subtle unless they carved "Ayn Rand Sucks" on an anvil and dropped it on your head.
TL;DR Far Cry 2 is a lot more interesting than people give it credit for. If you have it but gave up on it, I suggest you give it another go. In the meantime, what crappy games have you revisted, only to realise they didn't suck so much? I heard that even Indiana Jones 4 isn't so bad on a second viewing, once you've seen it and lowered you expectations accordingly.
Sure having to drive everywhere was still as annoying as hell, but I spent less time griping about it and more time enjoying the setting and the literary allusions to Heart of Darkness. And then I discovered this elaborate fictional blog online [http://www.reubenblog.typepad.com/] written from the perspective of one of the characters, which is really quite an impressive effort. Apart from the sucky ending, the story telling aspect was unusually well done for a game, which I appreciate.
Incidently, about literary referencing in games: isn't it annoying when you're enjoying a game's more cerebral moments, and then the game shoves its own intelligence down your throat? Whilst playing through Far Cry 2, I spotted the game's similarities to Heart of Darkness for myself. But then at the ending, the game outright calls the last section "Heart of Darkness", incase you hadn't made the connection. It's like they're putting something clever in the game for the reader's to enjoy, only to then assume they're too stupid to notice it. They assumed that I'd only be able to notice their literary allusions as long as they telegraph them as loudly as possible. Lots of "intellectual" games do this. Especially Bioshock, which couldn't have made the satire of objectivism any less subtle unless they carved "Ayn Rand Sucks" on an anvil and dropped it on your head.
TL;DR Far Cry 2 is a lot more interesting than people give it credit for. If you have it but gave up on it, I suggest you give it another go. In the meantime, what crappy games have you revisted, only to realise they didn't suck so much? I heard that even Indiana Jones 4 isn't so bad on a second viewing, once you've seen it and lowered you expectations accordingly.