This is a re-post from the GSC-Gameworld-forums. There is some discussion missing and I didn't mention some points in the original post, like the comparably simple weather-system in FC3 or my additional comment on how damn awful most of the dialogue really was, but I think most of the things I didn't mention are reflected in the tone of the review anyway. Oh, and by this time I have actually finished the game (33 hours).
A comparison between Far Cry 2 and Far Cry 3
I have finally decided to get Far Cry 3 in a sale and after having played it for about 20 hours, I'm ready to talk about it a bit. I'm going to try and do a point-by-point comparison of both games and to make it a little more interesting, I will award points. Just so you roughly know what to expect: I'm a huge fan of Far Cry 2 and have played it around 100 hours. Still, in spite of reading a lot of things about Far Cry 3 that made me fear that I would end up hating it, it didn't turn out quite as bad. I actually think that the game does at least some things better than its predecessor. (By the way, since I have only played this about 23 hours, I might still edit this, if some of my opinons change.)
Weapons & Economy:
I would say that the games are quite even on this point. There is a good variety to the weapon selection and the upgrades in FC3. I also have not yet encountered any weapon-sounds which just sound weak, as was occasionally the case in FC2. Weapons can be acquired by simply unlocking the towers, so there is no real point to the economy. However, the ridiculous amounts of diamonds one could quickly accumulate in FC2 through doing main-story-missions, was not much better.
Another thing which is problematic in FC3, is the fact that many of the upgrades just feel redundant or simply unnecessary. (It?s even worse with the RPG-systems, but FC2 didn?t have those, so I?m just going to ignore this point.) I just don't need more ammo for the weapons and why would I get an inferior scope for an assault rifle, when I can use a sniper instead? Silencers, big magazines and scopes for half the weapons simply reduce the uniqueness of the weapons by levelling out the differences. But still, while the upgrade system is problematic for balance it is still nice, that I have some freedom to customize according to my own preferrences. Also, FC2 has the problem of at least some of the weapons being somewhat redundant as well. All in all, I don't really feel all that enthusiastic about both games in this respect. Both offer the means to explode, burn down and otherwise shoot the environment, so that's fine for both of them.
The jamming and differences in reliability as you have them in FC2 are a nice additional touch to set the weapons apart in my opinion, and the fact that weapons dropped by enemies are in extremely bad condition makes them serve as an emergency option only. As long as you keep exchanging weapons in the storehouses and only pick up weapons when you have run out of ammo, the system makes for some interesting dynamics without getting frustrating.
Far Cry 2 7/10
Far Cry 3 7/10
Stealth:
I'm not going to talk about the combat here, because there is no way I can keep this apart from the weapons. I will just focus on the stealth systems here.
At least as far as this point is concerned, there are worlds between both games. On the one hand, the visual senses of the AI-soldiers in both games are not particularly good. It's hard to tell without a direct comparison, but I feel that it is even worse in FC3. That's not too big of a problem for me. What definitely is a problem for me however, is that the AI in FC3 is almost completely deaf. Unless you start shooting, they won't hear you. Even if you are murdering their buddies two steps behind them (death screams inclusive), they won't notice. They still will notice you, if you don't take your time and plan your takedowns, but it's certainly not due to their sense of hearing. (And you don?t need to pay a lot of attention, since you can see them through solid obstacles.) The way the "stealth" in FC3 works is bad for immersion, doesn't feel rewarding and doesn't make me feel any better about the AI.
In FC2 on the other hand they seem to hear even the slightest sound, if it is close enough. Bump against a physics object like some empty container or cause some rustling, while sneaking through some plant and they will often notice it. Try killing someone with a machete and they will almost certainly hear you. The only way to kill someone silently seem to be headshots with silenced weapons. Don't hit the head and they will cry out before dying. And the others will hear you. It's not perfect, since silenced weapons can make the AI look quite incompetent at times, but most of the time their acute sense of hearing will make their behaviour feel quite believable. There even seem to be a lot of details, which I have never noticed, as this guide on Steam attests to:
https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=181803593
Far Cry 2: 8/10
Far Cry 3: 4/10
Artificial Intelligence and Life-simulation:
I already have talked about how the AI deals with Stealth and I have to say that the situtation is similarly dismal in other areas as far as FC3 is concerned. I do not have as much experience with the behaviour patterns as I have for FC2, but in terms of combat it seems they behave relatively similar. They take cover, spread out to search for the player, call reinforcements and so on. However, there seems to be no way to wound the AI and their squad-mates can thus never try to rescue them, as they did in FC2.
Another problem concerns the way the AI is behaving outside of combat. In FC2 the map was pretty much just empty and lacked civilians and a faction system. However, FC3 tried to adress this issue in a halfhearted way, which actually makes the game worse in my opinion. Aside from the enemies, there are now allied Rakyat-warriors, some civilians and animals. The pirates and warriors patrol their areas and occasionally fight each other or animals. Personally I felt, that these encounters could be somewhat interesting, as long as only humans were fighting each other.
When animals come into play it quickly becomes apparent how bad the animations are and how supposed ?animals? really just serve as ?monsters? as they usually do in videogame-terms. I can?t really say too much about their behaviour, but basic behaviour doesn?t seem to be very varied aside from aggressive/passive. Carnivores and other dangerous animals first threaten and then attack. I think I saw a dog checking some corpses, but I simply have not taken the time to examine the Fauna more closely so far.
The fact, that the island is inhabited by a random collection of all kinds of different animals certainly isn?t a point in favor of the system, however. A big part of my dislike is probably due to how randomly the groups of animals are placed. It almost seems like Ubisoft didn?t have much of plan aside from ?emergent, chaos, fun? or something.
The upgrade-system has a similar problem. ?Skin blinking corpses to make equipment from flesh/skin/whatever?? Seriously?!? If Ubisoft wanted to have Crafting in the game, they shoud?ve made more of an effort, instead of just turning animals into ?monsters? and into a resource to be exploited.
Don?t get me wrong: The fact, that the map is a bit more lively is a good thing. The patrols and occasional civilians, as well as the neat detail, that civilians often serve as prisoners of pirates, help to make the map more interesting. Something similar was in the game in FC2. Personally I really like how you can ocassionally meet militia-men in strange places. Some people having got out of their car, to check on something or a single guy sitting around at a boat in some godforsaken corner of the map? Such things were hard to experience however and don?t quite amount to an actual system. Still, I like the fact, that such little details remain interesting, precisely because they happen so rarely. In FC3 it was the other way around: Encounters happen pretty often and usually play out more or less the same way. There is also not much variety to how civilians are used.
Another point in which both games are very different, is how people talk and what they do outside of combat. In FC3 comments repeat constantly and at a frequency which is much too high. This kind of repeating also happens in FC2, as they say some comments in combat far more often than others and they often repeat certain stories or dialogues. There is still much more variety however, which is partly due to much of it changing based on the reputation of the player. The voice-actors and especially the writing for pirates, civilians and Rakyat are pretty weak in comparison. Most of the people also don?t sound like they are actually natives, whereas FC2 at least made the attempt. Somewhat successfully in my opinion.
When it comes to what they do outside of combat, I have seen people in FC3 smoking, searching through garbage and walking around. My current impression is, that this is another point where FC2 is superior, but it?s also the kind of thing which I haven?t paid too much attention to so far (at least not in FC3). Maybe I will edit a few more sentences in, as soon as I have played more.
Far Cry 2 is completely lacking in interaction between the factions and there are basically no civilians in the game. But whatever is in the game is rather finely crafted and of very good quality. Far Cry 3 on the other hand suffers from the same problem in this area as it does in others. Too much stuff thrown in relatively randomly, without enough attention to detail.
Activity on map: Far cry 2: 5/10 Far Cry 3: 7/10
Dialogue & Behaviour: Far Cry 2: 8/10 Far Cry 3: 4/10
Plot, Characters, Setting, Quests & Presentation
While I am grateful, that the writers were trying to talk about meaningful topics in FC2, I feel that the execution was off. No matter what Jeffrey Yohalem intended it to be, the story of FC3 can be called silly without much consideration. Also a case of bad execution.
There were some interesting, somewhat well-written characters in both games. Dr.Earnhardt, Buck, Gakumba and Voorhees come to mind. Nothing too impressive, but still with some bright spots.
The setting is where FC2 does a much better job of conveying to the player what it is about. Buildings and outposts look like they should (ramshackle huts, garbage, pile of tires, references to colonialism and so on) and the militia-men talk about all kinds of related topics constantly. The main-quests are similarly well done in that regard. FC3 on the other hand could have taken place anywhere. There was no good reason, for the game-setting being a tropical island. The ?Alice in Wonderland & Colonialism? idea of Yohalem ended up as an incoherent mess.
That is not to say however, that the presentation of FC3s story couldn?t be well done at times. Especially since FC2 focused on people and setting moreso than on the actual story. It was rather minimal in comparison. FC3 could be pretty annoying with the incessant cutscenes, but some of the drug-induced dreams/visions were really well executed. A big point in favor of FC3 in my opinion.
There are more types of sidequests in FC3 than there are in FC2, but most of them don?t really seem to serve any purpose. Especially since you can also hunt or kill pirates without doing any missions. You don?t need more money or experience, since all weapons are unlocked through the towers. And by not doing quests you are even rewarded by not randomly getting restricted in the way you want to do that. In FC2 the variety of quests was limited and the way they worked didn?t exactly feel believable. Convoys driving in circles, nameless assassination targets pointlessly standing around in the landscape to be killed? The main quests were better in both cases, though I can?t say I found FC3s attempt at a story tob e anything but embarassing.
I almost forgot, but I guess I should also adress buddies and malaria here: Malaria is theoretically a point in favor of FC2s setting, but the developers made no attempt to implement it in a believable way. It does also not add to the gameplay in any way, since a Malaria-attack is bascially the same thing as when a weapon jams. Just without the more complex systems to support it. The quests to acquire new medicine are the worst in FC2: You are forced to drive to a location, where people are randomly shooting walls and the houses which they are shooting contain the only civilians of the game.
The buddy-mechanics on the other hand are exactly that: It is far too obvious that you are not dealing with people but with systems. The quests they offer you depend on the main-story-mission you are doing, not the buddy in question. Which is to say: They are always the same independently from the who gave the quest to you. The writing for them is also pretty weak most of the time and the voice-acting doesn?t help. Sure, many people in FC2 are talking quite fast, but this actually fits some of them. With the buddies this is never the case in my opinion. The sequence in which the buddy-rescue takes place is far too long and I usually just reload, because it is detrimental for my immersion in the game. It is not a bad idea, but I feel that they would have to have made a number of different shorter sequences and use blackouts more.
Far Cry 2: 7/10
Far Cry 3: 6/10
Landscape & Exploration, Physics and Soundscape/Soundtrack
My first impression of FC3 was, that the landscape looked like plastic. At this point it?s not quite as bad anymore, but the plants still all have the same green, overly bright color. The physics-engine does still exist in the Dunia Engine 2, but it?s application seems to have become diminished. The grass and trees don?t move in the wind as convincingly (in FC2 according to strength of wind!) and fire and its spread are less detailed (not much smoke or sparks, fire spreads to trees in an odd manner, trees don?t lose leaves etc.). Plants and buildings are not destructible for the most part in FC3, while in its predecessor many of the improvised huts could be destroyed through explosions. The same is also true for many of the plants, only some of which were destructible in FC3. All in all FC2 is just much more detailed in this respect. And it doesn?t just apply to graphics.
But there are two redeeming features for FC3: While the general landscape looks and feels notably inferior, the water seems much more interesing and varied in comparison. Water surfaces were beautiful in FC2, but there was nothing in it. In FC3 it contains fish, jellyfish, Mantas, sharks, plants and so on. There?s also fast flowing water and the waterfalls look much better than in FC2. Second: In FC2 it was often impossible to get up to the high ground, while FC3 is much less restricted in this respect.
There are quite a few reasons to explore the maps in both games. While on the one hand, there is not much of a point to searching for additional diamonds in FC2, the way they are placed still sometimes tells little stories and it is a nice excuse to explore the map. This is enjoyable because, as already explained, FC2s landscape is incredibly well done and very varied. There are so many places in the game, which are worth seeing for their own sake. With FC3 it turned out similarly for me. I was not particularly interested in doing gratuitous quests or wiping out the wildlife, but rather in seeing as much of the map as possible. In the case of FC3 it was mostly mountains and the ocean, but I also found many of the little streams and waterfalls to be quite beautiful and varied. The caves and ruins, plane wrecks and bunkers, which are scattered across the landscape are also intersting at times. I just wish they had avoided putting ?content? wherever you go. Even in FC2 the suitcases did usually not feel particularly believable.
The soundscape in FC2 seems more detailed and believable to me, but it?s hard to describe. I have never done a direct comparison, but it still seems like nature-sounds are more detailed and pronounced and maybe even louder in relation to the rest of the soundscape.
The soundtrack might partly be a matter of taste, but I think it says something that I can?t play FC2 without Marc Canhams great soundtrack, while I quickly turned off the music in FC3.
Far Cry 2: 9/10
Far Cry 3: 7/10
Weapons:
Far Cry 2: 7 /// Far Cry 3: 7
Stealth:
Far Cry 2: 8 /// Far Cry 3: 4
Activity on map:
Far Cry 2: 5 /// Far Cry 3: 7
Dialogue and Behaviour:
Far Cry 2: 8 /// Far Cry 3: 4
Plot, Characters, Setting, Quests and Presentation:
Far Cry 2: 7 /// Far Cry 3: 6
Landscape & Exploration, Physics and Soundscape/Soundtrack:
Far Cry 2: 9 /// Far Cry 3: 7
Final Score:
Far Cry 2: 44/60 /// Far Cry 3: 35/60
Edit: By the way, in traditional rating terms I end up with 73 % and 58 %, so I guess nobody can accuse me of being a fanboy
A comparison between Far Cry 2 and Far Cry 3
I have finally decided to get Far Cry 3 in a sale and after having played it for about 20 hours, I'm ready to talk about it a bit. I'm going to try and do a point-by-point comparison of both games and to make it a little more interesting, I will award points. Just so you roughly know what to expect: I'm a huge fan of Far Cry 2 and have played it around 100 hours. Still, in spite of reading a lot of things about Far Cry 3 that made me fear that I would end up hating it, it didn't turn out quite as bad. I actually think that the game does at least some things better than its predecessor. (By the way, since I have only played this about 23 hours, I might still edit this, if some of my opinons change.)
Weapons & Economy:
I would say that the games are quite even on this point. There is a good variety to the weapon selection and the upgrades in FC3. I also have not yet encountered any weapon-sounds which just sound weak, as was occasionally the case in FC2. Weapons can be acquired by simply unlocking the towers, so there is no real point to the economy. However, the ridiculous amounts of diamonds one could quickly accumulate in FC2 through doing main-story-missions, was not much better.
Another thing which is problematic in FC3, is the fact that many of the upgrades just feel redundant or simply unnecessary. (It?s even worse with the RPG-systems, but FC2 didn?t have those, so I?m just going to ignore this point.) I just don't need more ammo for the weapons and why would I get an inferior scope for an assault rifle, when I can use a sniper instead? Silencers, big magazines and scopes for half the weapons simply reduce the uniqueness of the weapons by levelling out the differences. But still, while the upgrade system is problematic for balance it is still nice, that I have some freedom to customize according to my own preferrences. Also, FC2 has the problem of at least some of the weapons being somewhat redundant as well. All in all, I don't really feel all that enthusiastic about both games in this respect. Both offer the means to explode, burn down and otherwise shoot the environment, so that's fine for both of them.
The jamming and differences in reliability as you have them in FC2 are a nice additional touch to set the weapons apart in my opinion, and the fact that weapons dropped by enemies are in extremely bad condition makes them serve as an emergency option only. As long as you keep exchanging weapons in the storehouses and only pick up weapons when you have run out of ammo, the system makes for some interesting dynamics without getting frustrating.
Far Cry 2 7/10
Far Cry 3 7/10
Stealth:
I'm not going to talk about the combat here, because there is no way I can keep this apart from the weapons. I will just focus on the stealth systems here.
At least as far as this point is concerned, there are worlds between both games. On the one hand, the visual senses of the AI-soldiers in both games are not particularly good. It's hard to tell without a direct comparison, but I feel that it is even worse in FC3. That's not too big of a problem for me. What definitely is a problem for me however, is that the AI in FC3 is almost completely deaf. Unless you start shooting, they won't hear you. Even if you are murdering their buddies two steps behind them (death screams inclusive), they won't notice. They still will notice you, if you don't take your time and plan your takedowns, but it's certainly not due to their sense of hearing. (And you don?t need to pay a lot of attention, since you can see them through solid obstacles.) The way the "stealth" in FC3 works is bad for immersion, doesn't feel rewarding and doesn't make me feel any better about the AI.
In FC2 on the other hand they seem to hear even the slightest sound, if it is close enough. Bump against a physics object like some empty container or cause some rustling, while sneaking through some plant and they will often notice it. Try killing someone with a machete and they will almost certainly hear you. The only way to kill someone silently seem to be headshots with silenced weapons. Don't hit the head and they will cry out before dying. And the others will hear you. It's not perfect, since silenced weapons can make the AI look quite incompetent at times, but most of the time their acute sense of hearing will make their behaviour feel quite believable. There even seem to be a lot of details, which I have never noticed, as this guide on Steam attests to:
https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=181803593
Far Cry 2: 8/10
Far Cry 3: 4/10
Artificial Intelligence and Life-simulation:
I already have talked about how the AI deals with Stealth and I have to say that the situtation is similarly dismal in other areas as far as FC3 is concerned. I do not have as much experience with the behaviour patterns as I have for FC2, but in terms of combat it seems they behave relatively similar. They take cover, spread out to search for the player, call reinforcements and so on. However, there seems to be no way to wound the AI and their squad-mates can thus never try to rescue them, as they did in FC2.
Another problem concerns the way the AI is behaving outside of combat. In FC2 the map was pretty much just empty and lacked civilians and a faction system. However, FC3 tried to adress this issue in a halfhearted way, which actually makes the game worse in my opinion. Aside from the enemies, there are now allied Rakyat-warriors, some civilians and animals. The pirates and warriors patrol their areas and occasionally fight each other or animals. Personally I felt, that these encounters could be somewhat interesting, as long as only humans were fighting each other.
When animals come into play it quickly becomes apparent how bad the animations are and how supposed ?animals? really just serve as ?monsters? as they usually do in videogame-terms. I can?t really say too much about their behaviour, but basic behaviour doesn?t seem to be very varied aside from aggressive/passive. Carnivores and other dangerous animals first threaten and then attack. I think I saw a dog checking some corpses, but I simply have not taken the time to examine the Fauna more closely so far.
The fact, that the island is inhabited by a random collection of all kinds of different animals certainly isn?t a point in favor of the system, however. A big part of my dislike is probably due to how randomly the groups of animals are placed. It almost seems like Ubisoft didn?t have much of plan aside from ?emergent, chaos, fun? or something.
The upgrade-system has a similar problem. ?Skin blinking corpses to make equipment from flesh/skin/whatever?? Seriously?!? If Ubisoft wanted to have Crafting in the game, they shoud?ve made more of an effort, instead of just turning animals into ?monsters? and into a resource to be exploited.
Don?t get me wrong: The fact, that the map is a bit more lively is a good thing. The patrols and occasional civilians, as well as the neat detail, that civilians often serve as prisoners of pirates, help to make the map more interesting. Something similar was in the game in FC2. Personally I really like how you can ocassionally meet militia-men in strange places. Some people having got out of their car, to check on something or a single guy sitting around at a boat in some godforsaken corner of the map? Such things were hard to experience however and don?t quite amount to an actual system. Still, I like the fact, that such little details remain interesting, precisely because they happen so rarely. In FC3 it was the other way around: Encounters happen pretty often and usually play out more or less the same way. There is also not much variety to how civilians are used.
Another point in which both games are very different, is how people talk and what they do outside of combat. In FC3 comments repeat constantly and at a frequency which is much too high. This kind of repeating also happens in FC2, as they say some comments in combat far more often than others and they often repeat certain stories or dialogues. There is still much more variety however, which is partly due to much of it changing based on the reputation of the player. The voice-actors and especially the writing for pirates, civilians and Rakyat are pretty weak in comparison. Most of the people also don?t sound like they are actually natives, whereas FC2 at least made the attempt. Somewhat successfully in my opinion.
When it comes to what they do outside of combat, I have seen people in FC3 smoking, searching through garbage and walking around. My current impression is, that this is another point where FC2 is superior, but it?s also the kind of thing which I haven?t paid too much attention to so far (at least not in FC3). Maybe I will edit a few more sentences in, as soon as I have played more.
Far Cry 2 is completely lacking in interaction between the factions and there are basically no civilians in the game. But whatever is in the game is rather finely crafted and of very good quality. Far Cry 3 on the other hand suffers from the same problem in this area as it does in others. Too much stuff thrown in relatively randomly, without enough attention to detail.
Activity on map: Far cry 2: 5/10 Far Cry 3: 7/10
Dialogue & Behaviour: Far Cry 2: 8/10 Far Cry 3: 4/10
Plot, Characters, Setting, Quests & Presentation
While I am grateful, that the writers were trying to talk about meaningful topics in FC2, I feel that the execution was off. No matter what Jeffrey Yohalem intended it to be, the story of FC3 can be called silly without much consideration. Also a case of bad execution.
There were some interesting, somewhat well-written characters in both games. Dr.Earnhardt, Buck, Gakumba and Voorhees come to mind. Nothing too impressive, but still with some bright spots.
The setting is where FC2 does a much better job of conveying to the player what it is about. Buildings and outposts look like they should (ramshackle huts, garbage, pile of tires, references to colonialism and so on) and the militia-men talk about all kinds of related topics constantly. The main-quests are similarly well done in that regard. FC3 on the other hand could have taken place anywhere. There was no good reason, for the game-setting being a tropical island. The ?Alice in Wonderland & Colonialism? idea of Yohalem ended up as an incoherent mess.
That is not to say however, that the presentation of FC3s story couldn?t be well done at times. Especially since FC2 focused on people and setting moreso than on the actual story. It was rather minimal in comparison. FC3 could be pretty annoying with the incessant cutscenes, but some of the drug-induced dreams/visions were really well executed. A big point in favor of FC3 in my opinion.
There are more types of sidequests in FC3 than there are in FC2, but most of them don?t really seem to serve any purpose. Especially since you can also hunt or kill pirates without doing any missions. You don?t need more money or experience, since all weapons are unlocked through the towers. And by not doing quests you are even rewarded by not randomly getting restricted in the way you want to do that. In FC2 the variety of quests was limited and the way they worked didn?t exactly feel believable. Convoys driving in circles, nameless assassination targets pointlessly standing around in the landscape to be killed? The main quests were better in both cases, though I can?t say I found FC3s attempt at a story tob e anything but embarassing.
I almost forgot, but I guess I should also adress buddies and malaria here: Malaria is theoretically a point in favor of FC2s setting, but the developers made no attempt to implement it in a believable way. It does also not add to the gameplay in any way, since a Malaria-attack is bascially the same thing as when a weapon jams. Just without the more complex systems to support it. The quests to acquire new medicine are the worst in FC2: You are forced to drive to a location, where people are randomly shooting walls and the houses which they are shooting contain the only civilians of the game.
The buddy-mechanics on the other hand are exactly that: It is far too obvious that you are not dealing with people but with systems. The quests they offer you depend on the main-story-mission you are doing, not the buddy in question. Which is to say: They are always the same independently from the who gave the quest to you. The writing for them is also pretty weak most of the time and the voice-acting doesn?t help. Sure, many people in FC2 are talking quite fast, but this actually fits some of them. With the buddies this is never the case in my opinion. The sequence in which the buddy-rescue takes place is far too long and I usually just reload, because it is detrimental for my immersion in the game. It is not a bad idea, but I feel that they would have to have made a number of different shorter sequences and use blackouts more.
Far Cry 2: 7/10
Far Cry 3: 6/10
Landscape & Exploration, Physics and Soundscape/Soundtrack
My first impression of FC3 was, that the landscape looked like plastic. At this point it?s not quite as bad anymore, but the plants still all have the same green, overly bright color. The physics-engine does still exist in the Dunia Engine 2, but it?s application seems to have become diminished. The grass and trees don?t move in the wind as convincingly (in FC2 according to strength of wind!) and fire and its spread are less detailed (not much smoke or sparks, fire spreads to trees in an odd manner, trees don?t lose leaves etc.). Plants and buildings are not destructible for the most part in FC3, while in its predecessor many of the improvised huts could be destroyed through explosions. The same is also true for many of the plants, only some of which were destructible in FC3. All in all FC2 is just much more detailed in this respect. And it doesn?t just apply to graphics.
But there are two redeeming features for FC3: While the general landscape looks and feels notably inferior, the water seems much more interesing and varied in comparison. Water surfaces were beautiful in FC2, but there was nothing in it. In FC3 it contains fish, jellyfish, Mantas, sharks, plants and so on. There?s also fast flowing water and the waterfalls look much better than in FC2. Second: In FC2 it was often impossible to get up to the high ground, while FC3 is much less restricted in this respect.
There are quite a few reasons to explore the maps in both games. While on the one hand, there is not much of a point to searching for additional diamonds in FC2, the way they are placed still sometimes tells little stories and it is a nice excuse to explore the map. This is enjoyable because, as already explained, FC2s landscape is incredibly well done and very varied. There are so many places in the game, which are worth seeing for their own sake. With FC3 it turned out similarly for me. I was not particularly interested in doing gratuitous quests or wiping out the wildlife, but rather in seeing as much of the map as possible. In the case of FC3 it was mostly mountains and the ocean, but I also found many of the little streams and waterfalls to be quite beautiful and varied. The caves and ruins, plane wrecks and bunkers, which are scattered across the landscape are also intersting at times. I just wish they had avoided putting ?content? wherever you go. Even in FC2 the suitcases did usually not feel particularly believable.
The soundscape in FC2 seems more detailed and believable to me, but it?s hard to describe. I have never done a direct comparison, but it still seems like nature-sounds are more detailed and pronounced and maybe even louder in relation to the rest of the soundscape.
The soundtrack might partly be a matter of taste, but I think it says something that I can?t play FC2 without Marc Canhams great soundtrack, while I quickly turned off the music in FC3.
Far Cry 2: 9/10
Far Cry 3: 7/10
Weapons:
Far Cry 2: 7 /// Far Cry 3: 7
Stealth:
Far Cry 2: 8 /// Far Cry 3: 4
Activity on map:
Far Cry 2: 5 /// Far Cry 3: 7
Dialogue and Behaviour:
Far Cry 2: 8 /// Far Cry 3: 4
Plot, Characters, Setting, Quests and Presentation:
Far Cry 2: 7 /// Far Cry 3: 6
Landscape & Exploration, Physics and Soundscape/Soundtrack:
Far Cry 2: 9 /// Far Cry 3: 7
Final Score:
Far Cry 2: 44/60 /// Far Cry 3: 35/60
Edit: By the way, in traditional rating terms I end up with 73 % and 58 %, so I guess nobody can accuse me of being a fanboy