Far Cry 2's Incendiary Nonsensibility

Adam LaMosca

New member
Aug 7, 2006
153
0
0
Far Cry 2's Incendiary Nonsensibility

Bust out the pliers and grab on to your hang glider - it's time to take a tour through Far Cry 2.

Permalink
 

CoverYourHead

High Priest of C'Thulhu
Dec 7, 2008
2,514
0
0
I didn't really like that FC2. I gave it a rent, but put it down before I finished it.
 

MercFox1

New member
Jun 19, 2008
131
0
0
Well, to make up for the disdain you guys had for it, I absolutely loved it. Sure, the guard post respawn issue could use a rework or patch; but that's ultimately the only thing I felt was wrong with the game.

I enjoyed the mechanic where you had to destroy convoys to get new weapons (especially once you get the IEDs), and I wasn't expecting such an interesting story. The combat was dynamic, and, if you were smart, being stealthy was easier than it seemed. One VIP in particular met a nasty end by my hand, all without a shot fired by either side.

One of my favorite games of the year, with more replay value than people think.
 

Slayer_2

New member
Jul 28, 2008
2,475
0
0
The only awesome parts were when you could see your body and such during interactive cutscenes.
 

Fire Daemon

Quoth the Daemon
Dec 18, 2007
3,204
0
0
I love Far cry 2. Like what MercFox1 said, the only problem was the respawning Guard Posts. I think they should have set the spawn at one in-game day. Enough to give you a little bit of peace but also so you don't start to wonder where everyone has gone.

The review was also pretty well written. I like the style.
 

pantsoffdanceoff

New member
Jun 14, 2008
2,751
0
0
I'm glad that this review came out I've been looking at Farcry 2 for a while and wondering if I should go for it. It would be either that or STALKER shadow of (some wierd name) but I cant find ant reviews on that.
 

rabidmidget

New member
Apr 18, 2008
2,117
0
0
i dont know why everyone hates far cry 2 i loved it and so does my friend and all of his friends. The only gripe i have about it is unbalanced multiplayer such as the four barreled grenade launcher, maybe people dont like it because they were expecting it to be more like its prequel.
 

Adam LaMosca

New member
Aug 7, 2006
153
0
0
Hated Far Cry 2, wish I had rented it instead of purchased it. :( An interesting story? Where? I finished it, it's "two" we'll call it "two", but it's really just one lame ending, which made little sense. The game itself was extremely boring, way to much driving through uninteresting areas. I played GTA4 and I like driving, through interesting areas, and not every dumb ass is out to crash his jeep into you like a torpedo. The AI felt as though it has mental problems, sometime not even looking at me, you know the guy emptying clips into the shirtless guy that won't go down, I mean how strong is the sun block they use?!?!! Shooting into bushes and trees for no reason. On the plus side, fire was cool, and that about covers Far Cry 2's plus side. Far Cry 2 is definitely my worst game of the year.

Here's me blowing up a convoy with IEDs:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NP9EbFEgRl4

**Spoiler**
Here's the "two" endings as well, not much of a spoiler trust me:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1phAz4rYTNI
 

CrafterMan

New member
Aug 3, 2008
920
0
0
Awesome review!

I like playing Far Cry2 one hour at a time, its not a game you play continiously I find.

Like Burnout Paradise..

-Joe
 

Dommyboy

New member
Jul 20, 2008
2,439
0
0
mokes310 said:
CoverYourHead said:
I didn't really like that FC2. I gave it a rent, but put it down before I finished it.
Exactly what I did!
As did I. I just got annoyed with the ultimate engine repair simulator and medical game ever made.
 

awmperry

Geek of Guns and Games
Apr 30, 2008
222
0
0
It really was a huge disappointment. Not just the respawns and the kamikaze Land Rovers, but the rubbish sound effects (I have airsoft guns that sound more impressive than the FAL in the game), the simplistic and over-hyped fire effects, and the utterly linear storyline. Never mind the not-really-choice of endings. And how come all the cars are rubbish? All have identical top speeds, and the only real difference is that the Land Rovers (of all things) can pull handbrake turns. (Try pulling a handbrake turn in a real Landy and you'll pulverise the diff.)

It was pretty, certainly. And quite fun for the first hour, until you realised that every hour afterwards is a photocopy of that first hour. And with an infinite ammo trainer activated, it's quite good fun to shell guard posts and settlements from long range with RPGs and M79 rounds. But it's a bad sign for a game when I find myself having more fun in the map editor than in the game.
 

richasr

New member
Dec 13, 2007
353
0
0
I did like FarCry2 however, I couldn't play it for too long each time, as the sheer amount of time spent travelling kind of broke the gameplay a bit. Also, I thought the first map area was the whole game, discovering there was another huge area was met with a mixture of joy and anguish.

I hope if they do a third game, that not everyone will attack you on sight, before trying to figure out if you're a friend or foe.

Map editor is awesome though
 

johnman

New member
Oct 14, 2008
2,915
0
0
I ddint like far cry 2- the faction system was totally screwed and it had 'console friendly' written all over it. I was expecting a much more Stalker like game. The story line is crap too.
 

devilondemand

New member
Dec 14, 2007
110
0
0
I'm playing it now and absolutely loving it.

Yeah, some of it is a bit gimmicky (fixing your car, weapon jams, malaria) and the guardposts sure are irritating, but everything else is spot on.
 

PopcornAvenger

New member
Jul 15, 2008
265
0
0
Set it down half-finished. The repetitive gameplay made this the prettiest game I never want to go back and play. A big box of tedium wrapped in glittering gift paper.
 

searanox

New member
Sep 22, 2008
864
0
0
The problem is that everyone went into this game expecting an incredibly typical and mundane shooter. What did you get instead? A genre-bending title that at times could be said to border on art, featuring some of the most immersive and beautiful locations ever to be put on screen, set in a for once truly realistic situation, with subtle socio-political commentary. And you hate it because it's actually different from every other mindless shooter?

Fuck you guys. You say you want innovation, then you're slapped in the face with it and you toss it in the trash. It's not a perfect game, but my faith in the human race takes a tumble every time some Call of Duty-playing mouth-breather says he wants more variety in his games, only to attack that variety when it hits him point-blank and goes back to pissing into his Xbox Live microphone.

Regarding the article itself, it is well written, but I can't actually figure out what it's really trying to say. I've already played the game, and I know what it's about. Tell me what it means, not what it is.
 

Singing Gremlin

New member
Jan 16, 2008
1,222
0
0
searanox said:
The problem is that everyone went into this game expecting an incredibly typical and mundane shooter. What did you get instead? A genre-bending title that at times could be said to border on art, featuring some of the most immersive and beautiful locations ever to be put on screen, set in a for once truly realistic situation, with subtle socio-political commentary. And you hate it because it's actually different from every other mindless shooter?

Fuck you guys. You say you want innovation, then you're slapped in the face with it and you toss it in the trash. It's not a perfect game, but my faith in the human race takes a tumble every time some Call of Duty-playing mouth-breather says he wants more variety in his games, only to attack that variety when it hits him point-blank and goes back to pissing into his Xbox Live microphone.

Regarding the article itself, it is well written, but I can't actually figure out what it's really trying to say. I've already played the game, and I know what it's about. Tell me what it means, not what it is.
Your overall point in this is true, that people whine about innovation not being there and knock games that do innovate. But here, you're not quite so much in the right, and you're being a dick about it. Yeah, I quite liked Far Cry 2, but it has major flaws and is incredibly repetitive. How is it really innovative anyway?

"Border on art"? I assume you mean 'cos it looks pretty. See Crysis, NOT innovation.
"In a for once truly realistic situation"? One that has no civilians AT ALL? C'mon, it has flaws. And realism isn't innovation either, really. Plenty of games have it.
"Subtle socio-political commentary" I'll give you that, but this is hardly the first game with a bit of a commentary, is it? So, maybe just talking out of your arse on the innovation front. It's barely doing anything new, let alone genre-shattering.

Plus, all your lovely goodness points were remarkably evasive of the actual gameplay. And it can be a wonderful example of beauty, realism and comment, but if it sucks to actually play, it still sucks. Because, you know, games are too be played. Go alter Titanic with distorted sound and psychedelic visuals so you can barely watch it. The content might be good, but the experience would be awful.
 

searanox

New member
Sep 22, 2008
864
0
0
Singing Gremlin said:
Your overall point in this is true, that people whine about innovation not being there and knock games that do innovate. But here, you're not quite so much in the right, and you're being a dick about it. Yeah, I quite liked Far Cry 2, but it has major flaws and is incredibly repetitive. How is it really innovative anyway?

"Border on art"? I assume you mean 'cos it looks pretty. See Crysis, NOT innovation.
"In a for once truly realistic situation"? One that has no civilians AT ALL? C'mon, it has flaws. And realism isn't innovation either, really. Plenty of games have it.
"Subtle socio-political commentary" I'll give you that, but this is hardly the first game with a bit of a commentary, is it? So, maybe just talking out of your arse on the innovation front. It's barely doing anything new, let alone genre-shattering.

Plus, all your lovely goodness points were remarkably evasive of the actual gameplay. And it can be a wonderful example of beauty, realism and comment, but if it sucks to actually play, it still sucks. Because, you know, games are too be played. Go alter Titanic with distorted sound and psychedelic visuals so you can barely watch it. The content might be good, but the experience would be awful.
I kinda just wanted an excuse to say "fuck you guys". Don't take it personally or all that seriously.

Crysis is actually a very innovative game. The ability to modify your tactics in such extreme ways at any time to completely change the way that you approach a situation in the game, as well as how the game reacts to your approach, is something that I have not seen previously. Switching to stealth mode suddenly turns the game into a solid stealth-action title by giving you silencers and tranquiliser darts for your weapons, but also keeps tension high by requiring you to jump between cover quickly. Switch to strength mode and you can smash the ceiling off of a building and shoot the people inside. Put a scope on your assault rifle and suddenly you can snipe with it, using speed mode to run from place to place so the enemy can't figure out your position. That sort of versatility in a shooter is simply unmatched. Its visuals are excellent both technically and artistically, but that is not the extent of the game's appeal, and anyone who actually bothers to play for more than the first level or two will realise that.

Far Cry 2 has some very noticeable breaks from reality, made more noticeable by the fact that they often come out of attempting to add realism in the first place. I never said it was a perfect game, but it definitely tries a lot harder than some others. For the record, by "realistic" I meant that it takes place in our own world, in the present, in a fictional situation based very heavily upon ones that do actually exist. Furthermore, how can you say it isn't doing anything new? It's the first open-world shooter, along with the first game to do realistic and proper fire propagation that has tactical merit. It also heavily borrows elements from S.T.A.L.K.E.R. (progression through an open-ended environment by means of acquiring new weapons and items, very similar to a role-playing game), which is something very few games in the genre have done before.

As for whether it is fun to play or not... I don't know. I've spent about fifty hours on it, which is more than what I can say for most single-player shooters, especially ones released in the last few years. It's enjoyable for me every time I play it, even if it is repetitive. I think the game deserves a lot of praise for what it's done, and will get a sequel based upon its foundations that really stretches itself into even more exciting directions. It's one of those titles that you can't quite play so much as you need to experience, in isolation, over time, to truly appreciate. If you pop it in after coming home from work for a quick half-hour of gaming, I think you will be disappointed, because the game is not built to accommodate that sort of playing.
 

HenryTheHorse

New member
Jan 7, 2009
1
0
0
Singing Gremlin said:
"In a for once truly realistic situation"? One that has no civilians AT ALL? C'mon, it has flaws.
I actually feel that the lack of civilians is subtle socio-political commentary in and of itself. The fact is that these low intensity guerrilla wars in Africa, (or the Caribbean, or South America, or Asia, or anywhere else) are never about the people. The civilians are in fact a sideshow. Nobody is doing it to make their lives better, just to make their own wallets fatter or push their own dad into power or whatever. The people's lives will be the same miserable grind it was before the conflict. Look at what is going on in Gaza. Hundreds of people dead yet all the blabbering fools on TV are talking about some abstract BS that has little to do with the fact that, umm, yea, people are getting blown up.

So yea, Far Cry 2 doesn't even really need civilians, now does it? The conflict's not about them. It has nothing to do with him. They won't benefit from it one way or the other no matter what side wins. You could walk up to a civilian and kill him point blank and no one would care, because it happens every day in a conflict like that. So what's the point of Ubisoft putting them in? So you can have a little GTA style rampage at the end of every gaming session. Please. The civilians have suffered enough.
 

emptyother

New member
Feb 12, 2008
101
0
0
My best moment:
Killing the VIP with a sniper rifle from a kilometer outside the village, the perfect shot, after i used an hour scouting around the village trying to find the perfect sniper spot. One shot, one kill, and his little army of guards didn't even have a clue where the shot came from...

My most evil moment:
In the middle of the night i brought with me the flamethrower, and setting fire to all the grass around the village, then as the sun rose, listen to the screams of burning soldiers. Two minutes later a little notice came up on my screen, telling me that my target was dead.

Seriously, this sniper-simulator/stealth-game/action-movie was incredible, but a bit repetive. At least, thanks to the weapons, the AI and the enviroment, no gun-fight became the same (unless you act like a robot and do the same tactic every fight, not bothering to try out new stuff because.. well, it worked last time).
 

Singing Gremlin

New member
Jan 16, 2008
1,222
0
0
searanox said:
Alright, I'll give you that. I think this stems from a difference of opinion about what being innovative. I'd only personally use it with someone really new and ground breaking, but I suppose your use is more accurate. New ideas to an old concept are still new ideas.

But surely there have been other open FPSs? It only beat Fallout by about a week... Although I really can't think of any others. STALKER doesn't quite count. Hmmn, I'll have to get back to you on that one.
 

Adam LaMosca

New member
Aug 7, 2006
153
0
0
searanox said:
Far Cry 2 has some very noticeable breaks from reality, made more noticeable by the fact that they often come out of attempting to add realism in the first place. I never said it was a perfect game, but it definitely tries a lot harder than some others. For the record, by "realistic" I meant that it takes place in our own world, in the present, in a fictional situation based very heavily upon ones that do actually exist. Furthermore, how can you say it isn't doing anything new? It's the first open-world shooter, along with the first game to do realistic and proper fire propagation that has tactical merit. It also heavily borrows elements from S.T.A.L.K.E.R. (progression through an open-ended environment by means of acquiring new weapons and items, very similar to a role-playing game), which is something very few games in the genre have done before.

As for whether it is fun to play or not... I don't know. I've spent about fifty hours on it, which is more than what I can say for most single-player shooters, especially ones released in the last few years. It's enjoyable for me every time I play it, even if it is repetitive. I think the game deserves a lot of praise for what it's done, and will get a sequel based upon its foundations that really stretches itself into even more exciting directions. It's one of those titles that you can't quite play so much as you need to experience, in isolation, over time, to truly appreciate. If you pop it in after coming home from work for a quick half-hour of gaming, I think you will be disappointed, because the game is not built to accommodate that sort of playing.
The first open world game? Where did you come up with that? It's certainly not the first. The breaks in reality are from trying to make the game more realistic? I think not, a shirtless guy taking a whole clip into the head and chest is not realistic. I do like how you say it's innovative and in the same paragraph how it borrows heavily from S.T.A.L.K.E.R. which is of course, a much better open world game despite it's flaws, whereas Far Cry 2 is a poor example of an open world world game because of it's flaws. I would also like to see an example of how Far Cry 2 adds an element of RPG to the FPS genre, I for one don't see it. Even S.T.A.L.K.E.R. had a very watered down RPG element, but certainly more than Far Cry was able to muster. Far Cry 2 is a console gamers FPS, nothing could save it. Too long, far to boring and only bringing one thing to the table did not help, fire was nice, but the novelty wore off quickly when faced with weak game play and monotonous quests. I have barely touched on the faked open world, which anyone who actually played the game knows, the game corrals you through set paths with unclimbable cliffs. Only to face a legion of suicidal NPCs in jeeps and completely unrealistic spawning checkpoints, sorry the smoke and mirrors did not fool me. The lack of civilians to me seems less of a political statement and more of a lazy developer unwilling to add another level to the gameplay to an already lackluster game, almost seems like Ubisoft themselves saw that the game was extremely weak and phoned the rest in, which would explain the poor ending. Think of what could have been done with civilians added, how it would change how you take objectives faced with collateral damage. It could have even added to the endings (I use the plural here loosely as Far Cry 2 did not really have multiple endings) creating multiple endings for how you handled situations with civilians involved. I'm sorry in no way other than fire is Far Cry 2 innovative, in fact it's not even good. I am glad you liked it, but to me, a PC gamer this console garbage can't be tolerated.
 

photog212

New member
Oct 27, 2008
619
0
0
I really enjoyed Far Cry 2. Maybe it was my childhood love of Heart of Darkness, or the ability to play the missions how I saw fit (admittedly they were a bit repetitive), or maybe just because I never had to pick someone up and take them bowling or to a bar (GTA IV). If I want to go bowling or out for a drink I'll get off my ass and actually do those things.

I didn't like the whole malaria thing though.
 

Dajmin

New member
Jul 18, 2008
41
0
0
I didn't like FC2 when I first played it. It was the respawns that did it for me. The things mentioned in that review didn't really bug me - I've learned to accept over the years that a medkit will fix all kinds of injuries, that games where you shoot people don't tend to have many random civilians in them, and I just assumed that when you were in trouble you dropped a flare like your buddies do and they came running to help - of course there's no way of knowing how long actually passes between you blacking out and them grabbing you. But those respawns and constant gunfights with the same guys at the same places got me.

But when I went back to it a few weeks later (to finish the story at least so I could trade it in) I actually found it wasn't quite as annoying as I originally thought. If you can get over the respawns and having to jump back and forward between driving and gunning it's pretty good. The missions are a little repetitive, but if you take the buddy suggestions into consideration you can break it up a little, and the story isn't bad either.

I think I'll still end up trading it in, but at least I no longer feel like I completely wasted my money!
 

Leviathan902

New member
Dec 18, 2008
42
0
0
Darkness62 said:
searanox said:
Far Cry 2 has some very noticeable breaks from reality, made more noticeable by the fact that they often come out of attempting to add realism in the first place. I never said it was a perfect game, but it definitely tries a lot harder than some others. For the record, by "realistic" I meant that it takes place in our own world, in the present, in a fictional situation based very heavily upon ones that do actually exist. Furthermore, how can you say it isn't doing anything new? It's the first open-world shooter, along with the first game to do realistic and proper fire propagation that has tactical merit. It also heavily borrows elements from S.T.A.L.K.E.R. (progression through an open-ended environment by means of acquiring new weapons and items, very similar to a role-playing game), which is something very few games in the genre have done before.

As for whether it is fun to play or not... I don't know. I've spent about fifty hours on it, which is more than what I can say for most single-player shooters, especially ones released in the last few years. It's enjoyable for me every time I play it, even if it is repetitive. I think the game deserves a lot of praise for what it's done, and will get a sequel based upon its foundations that really stretches itself into even more exciting directions. It's one of those titles that you can't quite play so much as you need to experience, in isolation, over time, to truly appreciate. If you pop it in after coming home from work for a quick half-hour of gaming, I think you will be disappointed, because the game is not built to accommodate that sort of playing.
The first open world game? Where did you come up with that? It's certainly not the first. The breaks in reality are from trying to make the game more realistic? I think not, a shirtless guy taking a whole clip into the head and chest is not realistic. I do like how you say it's innovative and in the same paragraph how it borrows heavily from S.T.A.L.K.E.R. which is of course, a much better open world game despite it's flaws, whereas Far Cry 2 is a poor example of an open world world game because of it's flaws. I would also like to see an example of how Far Cry 2 adds an element of RPG to the FPS genre, I for one don't see it. Even S.T.A.L.K.E.R. had a very watered down RPG element, but certainly more than Far Cry was able to muster. Far Cry 2 is a console gamers FPS, nothing could save it. Too long, far to boring and only bringing one thing to the table did not help, fire was nice, but the novelty wore off quickly when faced with weak game play and monotonous quests. I have barely touched on the faked open world, which anyone who actually played the game knows, the game corrals you through set paths with unclimbable cliffs. Only to face a legion of suicidal NPCs in jeeps and completely unrealistic spawning checkpoints, sorry the smoke and mirrors did not fool me. The lack of civilians to me seems less of a political statement and more of a lazy developer unwilling to add another level to the gameplay to an already lackluster game, almost seems like Ubisoft themselves saw that the game was extremely weak and phoned the rest in, which would explain the poor ending. Think of what could have been done with civilians added, how it would change how you take objectives faced with collateral damage. It could have even added to the endings (I use the plural here loosely as Far Cry 2 did not really have multiple endings) creating multiple endings for how you handled situations with civilians involved. I'm sorry in no way other than fire is Far Cry 2 innovative, in fact it's not even good. I am glad you liked it, but to me, a PC gamer this console garbage can't be tolerated.

You know Darkness, while I agree with most of your points on the game not being particularly innovative, you certainly could have done it without coming across like a pretentious twat.

It's funny how everyone always complains about microsoft fanboys or whatever, but PC gamers are just as bad, if not worse. "This game sucks because it's low brow console garbage and I can't tolerate it" is just as bad as "ZOMG THIS GAME SUXZORS CUZ MICRO$UCK MADE IT!!!!1!11 GO BAK TO YOUR HALOEZ!! LULZ". It's still obnoxious, ignorant, and ridiculous, just in a different way.

I will never understand people hating another plastic piece of electronic equipment because they have a different piece of plastic electronic equipment, just as I'll never understand people who don't play games on that piece of plastic electronic equipment looking down on people who do. A great gaming experience is a great gaming experience no matter where it's played (keep in mind I never played Far Cry 2, so I don't know if it is or isn't, but regardless...). Maybe it makes you feel superior over anonymous denziens of the internet. Good for you.


Also, cocks

btw: there are a lot of $h1tty PC FPS that couldn't be "saved" either
 

Adam LaMosca

New member
Aug 7, 2006
153
0
0
I unlike the other poster did not start with a "fuck you" to all who disagreed with him, but sincerely and from the bottom of my heart fuck you console tard. Add to that you have never even played this game? How can you comment on whether or not it's innovative or not? Fucking idiot.

btw: there are a lot of $h1tty PC FPS that couldn't be "saved" either

Duh... That said, all we need as PC gamers is more used up console trash to wash up as well. Thanks for contributing nothing to the conversation.
 

searanox

New member
Sep 22, 2008
864
0
0
Darkness62 said:
The first open world game? Where did you come up with that? It's certainly not the first. The breaks in reality are from trying to make the game more realistic? I think not, a shirtless guy taking a whole clip into the head and chest is not realistic. I do like how you say it's innovative and in the same paragraph how it borrows heavily from S.T.A.L.K.E.R. which is of course, a much better open world game despite it's flaws, whereas Far Cry 2 is a poor example of an open world world game because of it's flaws. I would also like to see an example of how Far Cry 2 adds an element of RPG to the FPS genre, I for one don't see it. Even S.T.A.L.K.E.R. had a very watered down RPG element, but certainly more than Far Cry was able to muster. Far Cry 2 is a console gamers FPS, nothing could save it. Too long, far to boring and only bringing one thing to the table did not help, fire was nice, but the novelty wore off quickly when faced with weak game play and monotonous quests. I have barely touched on the faked open world, which anyone who actually played the game knows, the game corrals you through set paths with unclimbable cliffs. Only to face a legion of suicidal NPCs in jeeps and completely unrealistic spawning checkpoints, sorry the smoke and mirrors did not fool me. The lack of civilians to me seems less of a political statement and more of a lazy developer unwilling to add another level to the gameplay to an already lackluster game, almost seems like Ubisoft themselves saw that the game was extremely weak and phoned the rest in, which would explain the poor ending. Think of what could have been done with civilians added, how it would change how you take objectives faced with collateral damage. It could have even added to the endings (I use the plural here loosely as Far Cry 2 did not really have multiple endings) creating multiple endings for how you handled situations with civilians involved. I'm sorry in no way other than fire is Far Cry 2 innovative, in fact it's not even good. I am glad you liked it, but to me, a PC gamer this console garbage can't be tolerated.
Could you please respond to things I actually said?

Far Cry 2 is the first open-world first-person shooter, not the first open-world game period. Games like Fallout 3 and S.T.A.L.K.E.R. do not qualify because the former is a role-playing game and the latter is not a truly open-world experience, created and designed that way from the ground-up; the game is broken up into very distinct segments and maps, and the plot progresses linearly from one to the next. You can spend time lingering in them and returning to previous ones, but the story does not really make use of the open world in any way.

I never said the lack of civilians was a political statement. It is somewhat justified by the fact that they are in hiding and only really visible before the war breaks out, inside Underground safehouses, etc. I agree that it was a mistake to turn the game into an "everything trying to kill you" sort of experience, and it was likely done because play-testers either did not want to or could not make the distinction between friend or foe in a shooter without distinctly having their weapons taken away to physically prevent them from firing. The same thing was done with the jeep patrols and bullet damage - play-testers didn't think that there was enough action, and that the enemies died too quickly. However, I don't think it ruins the game... and you have to remember that the highbrow PC gamer who can appreciate the subtleties of a more complex game is not the target market for this title.

And yes, it is a console title from the ground up. I am a PC gamer, not a console gamer (if you'd bother to read any of my other posts I think that that is fairly obvious). The interface, the field of view, the awkward mouse aiming, these are all blemishes on what I think is a great title. The fact of the matter, though, is these blemishes do not ruin the game, and I think its successes - creating a living and breathing natural world to explore and inviting player experimentation, exploration and tactical versatility - outweigh those issues. I objected the same way you did when I first played it, feeling like I had been cheated because the game felt like a console title. Then I got over it and had a lot of fun anyway. Your attacks towards it seem a lot more like niggling technical complaints over the PC conversion than any sort of genuine arguments about the game's design - which, in case you had not noticed, is what we are discussing, and what I was praising, not the somewhat rushed and lazy PC version which I think could have been a lot better with minimal effort, but frankly I find it hard to knock Ubisoft as a whole too hard because usually these issues arise due to rushed development schedules, lack of necessary funding, etc. rather than any malicious intent on behalf of the developers. When you've got a month left to bring the game out, would you rather spend that time fixing the interface, or game-breaking bugs across all platforms? Furthermore, there are absolutely some design decisions that are a result of multi-platform development, but take that up with the Ubisoft executives, not the developers. It's a sad reflection on the state of the industry, that the emphasis on console development comes at the expense of truly high-quality PC versions, but Far Cry 2 shines despite that and the developers definitely would have improved the state of the game if they had the time to. Being able to spend five years bringing a game to perfection is not the rule, it is the incredible exception.

In any case, I find your "fuck you console 'tard" attitude to be discouraging, to say the least; my ire was pointed at those who beg for innovation and freshness only to object when they receive it, not people whose choice of gaming platform is apparently a direct result of a deficit of grey matter. I always thought most PC gamers were pretty reasonable people, but apparently there's just as many blithering idiots among them. Ah well, another day, another brick out of the pillar of my faith in humanity.
 

RussDCA

New member
Nov 3, 2007
16
0
0
I think FC2 is extremely under rated. Yes it has it's problems, but what games don't?

A very enjoyable game!

FuZion.
 

L.B. Jeffries

New member
Nov 29, 2007
2,175
0
0
searanox said:
Regarding the article itself, it is well written, but I can't actually figure out what it's really trying to say. I've already played the game, and I know what it's about. Tell me what it means, not what it is.
http://infovore.org/archives/2008/12/22/africa-wins-again/
 

Uncompetative

New member
Jul 2, 2008
1,746
0
0
I don't attempt to review games, but I am interested in game design and why things don't quite work.

Far Cry 2 is one such example. I know how they could have programmed it so that the guard posts didn't instantly respawn so unrealistically, but I think it would be more helpful to focus on improving the controls.

Africa is a big place with few landmarks and the signposts you encounter aren't all that much help. I still find myself toggling the map on/off an awful lot and have come to the conclusion that this should have been a "hold the Left Trigger in" to raise the map into view by degrees, thereby avoiding an explicit modal state in the control interface. This would then mean that the Left Bumper would have to be Aim, just as it had been in Goldeneye. In the Long Run control mapping Sprint would have to go on the Right Bumper just as it does in Frontlines: Fuel of War. This then presents a problem: Grenades.

However, these can be first equipped by holding down the Back button the pin pulled with the Right Bumper, optionally "cooked", then thrown with Right Trigger - as neither of these controls do their default actions whilst the Back button is held. This is what is called a Quasimode and is equivalent to you typing on a keyboard whilst holding down Shift or Alt.

I had also thought that you could peruse the open map with the Right Thumbstick and then click this stick to toggle a series of enumerated waypoints which would then appear on the GPS.

The next issue is the enemies, which can spot you through thick grass as if it isn't there, and storm out of nowhere in a noisy jeep which you really ought to have been able to hear in the distance and avoid. You can crouch, but not go prone. You can shoot enemies, but they take as much damage as if they were wearing full body armor even when they are bare chested. Yes, everyone is attacking you all the time and it gets old. Surely if you only work for the UFLL they would leave you alone and you could scope settlements and chart a course through the map. Yes, it is very open world, but it is as if the designers panicked that there wouldn't be enough happening, but in adding action around every corner they hampered your freedom. Ironically, it is hard to appreciate the astounding graphics because you are in a constant state of paranoia.

Finally, at some point in the future the issue of Saving will have to be addressed in these massively open-world games. It just takes too long to reattempt a failed mission from a Safehouse, even when you've unlocked all of them. I'd like to be able to push the Xbox Guide button and Shutdown the console and resume from that point the next time I power up if all I had done was Pause. This isn't Quicksave as you only get one slot. Reattempting missions could be done with a single separate save slot (user-defined checkpoint) which is activated by using the phone prior to the mission proper. This would mean that the player could collect multiple mission contacts and then seek more work "in the field". Also you wouldn't be rung up by a buddy in the middle of a Stealth mission! You would call them. In fact, the GPS could be combined with the phone (after all, it already finds diamond briefcases and Jackal tapes).

Anyway, I would rather make constructive suggestions than condemn Far Cry 2 as boring.
 

Leviathan902

New member
Dec 18, 2008
42
0
0
Darkness:

Thanks for proving my point over and over in your successive posts. It is YOU, my friend, who contributes nothing to this thread by using far cry 2 as a vehicle with which to drive through your unreasonable and ignorant angst towards anything that's not played with a mouse.

Furthermore, I don't have to play the game to comment on your ignorance, stupidity, and baseless rage. Nor do I need to have played the game to comment on the features of it which I am well aware of through media coverage. I don't need to play a game to know that driving around an open world shooting things isn't revolutionary.

As for your "fuck you console tard" statement: The list of games I have played is quite long and spreads across a variety of platforms from the intellivsion to the PC to the 360. In fact, some of my favorite gaming moments of all time (Fallout, Fallout 2, Half-Life, Counter Strike, Team Fortress, Age of Empires, Warcraft 2) were all had on the PC. Yet again you are proving yourself to be quite ignorant by throwing baseless personal attacks against people without all the facts.

Wait a minute, why am I trying to reason with you? Let me speak to you in a language you'll understand...
FUCK YOU, you ignorant, stupid, elitist asshole.

ANYwho, I was thinking about picking up this game, but was really conflicted about it due to some of the stuff I read. On the one hand, hang-gliding and driving through the savanah sounds amazing, on the other hand getting attacked by insane suicidal jeep drivers doesn't. Also, in open world games a lot of times, i just want to drive to a mission and get started, it sounds irritating having to drive through scores of checkpoints full of instantly-respawning enemies. One question I have: can't you just keep of the roads and drive avoiding those checkpoints?
 

new_age_reject

Lives in dactylic hexameter.
Dec 28, 2008
1,160
0
0
Uncompetative said:
I don't attempt to review games, but I am interested in game design and why things don't quite work.

Far Cry 2 is one such example. I know how they could have programmed it so that the guard posts didn't instantly respawn so unrealistically, but I think it would be more helpful to focus on improving the controls.

Africa is a big place with few landmarks and the signposts you encounter aren't all that much help. I still find myself toggling the map on/off an awful lot and have come to the conclusion that this should have been a "hold the Left Trigger in" to raise the map into view by degrees, thereby avoiding an explicit modal state in the control interface. This would then mean that the Left Bumper would have to be Aim, just as it had been in Goldeneye. In the Long Run control mapping Sprint would have to go on the Right Bumper just as it does in Frontlines: Fuel of War. This then presents a problem: Grenades.

However, these can be first equipped by holding down the Back button the pin pulled with the Right Bumper, optionally "cooked", then thrown with Right Trigger - as neither of these controls do their default actions whilst the Back button is held. This is what is called a Quasimode and is equivalent to you typing on a keyboard whilst holding down Shift or Alt.

I had also thought that you could peruse the open map with the Right Thumbstick and then click this stick to toggle a series of enumerated waypoints which would then appear on the GPS.

The next issue is the enemies, which can spot you through thick grass as if it isn't there, and storm out of nowhere in a noisy jeep which you really ought to have been able to hear in the distance and avoid. You can crouch, but not go prone. You can shoot enemies, but they take as much damage as if they were wearing full body armor even when they are bare chested. Yes, everyone is attacking you all the time and it gets old. Surely if you only work for the UFLL they would leave you alone and you could scope settlements and chart a course through the map. Yes, it is very open world, but it is as if the designers panicked that there wouldn't be enough happening, but in adding action around every corner they hampered your freedom. Ironically, it is hard to appreciate the astounding graphics because you are in a constant state of paranoia.

Finally, at some point in the future the issue of Saving will have to be addressed in these massively open-world games. It just takes too long to reattempt a failed mission from a Safehouse, even when you've unlocked all of them. I'd like to be able to push the Xbox Guide button and Shutdown the console and resume from that point the next time I power up if all I had done was Pause. This isn't Quicksave as you only get one slot. Reattempting missions could be done with a single separate save slot (user-defined checkpoint) which is activated by using the phone prior to the mission proper. This would mean that the player could collect multiple mission contacts and then seek more work "in the field". Also you wouldn't be rung up by a buddy in the middle of a Stealth mission! You would call them. In fact, the GPS could be combined with the phone (after all, it already finds diamond briefcases and Jackal tapes).

Anyway, I would rather make constructive suggestions than condemn Far Cry 2 as boring.
Thank you for bringing some insightful comments to this thread that has quickly become a flamewar.

On topic: I found the article to be well written and whilst it did beat around the bush, made a few good points of the better side of the game.

However, I believe that Ubisoft tried to focus on making a really big 'open world' game and severely neglected the actual gameplay elements of the game. It's like they didn't actually play test the whole game, just focused on the main points.
I do think that this is a vast improvement on the rather dire first game and is certainly a great spring board on which to build another improved Far Cry game.
 

Adam LaMosca

New member
Aug 7, 2006
153
0
0
searanox said:
Your post is nothing but defamatory drivel, ad hominem attacks against me and Ubisoft-directed anti-console angst so thick you couldn't cut it with a Linkin Park CD. You even admit that you didn't even read half of my post, yet still feel you can make a reply that approaches even a modicum of relevance to what I have said? Get the fuck out of my face, you disgusting, pathetic child. I won't tolerate a discussion with sniveling dipshits who don't even read half of what I say and then attack me for imagined statements.
You started the attacks useless fuck nut you are. I couldn't read most of your post as whenever I looked at it all I could hear was the slurping sounds from your bobbing head between the legs of Ubisoft execs. Everything I stated is a direct response to cranial diarrhea emanating from your mostly empty head. I guess this is the response I should expect when a weak mind faces the reality that his argument is limp and useless, likely not the only thing about you that is limp and useless. Oh well, still no facts that your precious Far Cry 2 is innovative and cutting edge, I guess I will wait a bit more, at least till you stop crying.

Leviathan902 said:
Thanks for proving my point over and over in your successive posts. It is YOU, my friend, who contributes nothing to this thread by using far cry 2 as a vehicle with which to drive through your unreasonable and ignorant angst towards anything that's not played with a mouse.
Really? I put forward an opinion and was faced with gibbering, ravenous fan spouting "fuck you" at everyone for not likeing his precious shit storm of a game. Then an ignorant dumb ass (this is you stupid), butts in claiming I have the problem, and shouldn't retaliate. You still contribute nothing to this thread and your still a useless console tard. Remind me again, did your interruption even have a point?

Leviathan902 said:
Furthermore, I don't have to play the game to comment on your ignorance, stupidity, and baseless rage. Nor do I need to have played the game to comment on the features of it which I am well aware of through media coverage. I don't need to play a game to know that driving around an open world shooting things isn't revolutionary.
I imagine that is just the start of the list of things you don't know. As a side not it's not baseless rage remember I paid the inflated console price for this utter piece of shit to infect my computer. I think I have every right, that and defend myself from two feces chucking mentally handicapped baboons like you and your boyfriend.

Leviathan902 said:
As for your "fuck you console tard" statement: The list of games I have played is quite long and spreads across a variety of platforms from the intellivsion to the PC to the 360. In fact, some of my favorite gaming moments of all time (Fallout, Fallout 2, Half-Life, Counter Strike, Team Fortress, Age of Empires, Warcraft 2) were all had on the PC. Yet again you are proving yourself to be quite ignorant by throwing baseless personal attacks against people without all the facts.
Oh wow was that supposed to impress me princess? I started with Atari, Coleco, Vic-20 and Commodore 64, then I grew up, fucking useless button masher.

Leviathan902 said:
Wait a minute, why am I trying to reason with you? Let me speak to you in a language you'll understand...
FUCK YOU, you ignorant, stupid, elitist asshole.
Reason would have had you reading the entire thread before sticking your Grey matter deficient pin head into the situation.

Leviathan902 said:
ANYwho, I was thinking about picking up this game, but was really conflicted about it due to some of the stuff I read. On the one hand, hang-gliding and driving through the savanah sounds amazing, on the other hand getting attacked by insane suicidal jeep drivers doesn't. Also, in open world games a lot of times, i just want to drive to a mission and get started, it sounds irritating having to drive through scores of checkpoints full of instantly-respawning enemies. One question I have: can't you just keep of the roads and drive avoiding those checkpoints?
Well at least you listen, I give you bonus marks for that fuck-tard.
 

tijuanatim

New member
Sep 24, 2008
677
0
0
I rented it, tok it back the next day, I just couldnt get into it. When I took it back I bought Call of Duty 4 and I am LOVING it. I beat it once already and now I'm trying on Veteran....emphasis on 'trying'.
 

tijuanatim

New member
Sep 24, 2008
677
0
0
Leviathan902 said:
ANYwho, I was thinking about picking up this game, but was really conflicted about it due to some of the stuff I read. On the one hand, hang-gliding and driving through the savanah sounds amazing, on the other hand getting attacked by insane suicidal jeep drivers doesn't. Also, in open world games a lot of times, i just want to drive to a mission and get started, it sounds irritating having to drive through scores of checkpoints full of instantly-respawning enemies. One question I have: can't you just keep of the roads and drive avoiding those checkpoints?
Are you sure you haven't played the game? Because you just hit the nail right on the head...
I say rent it, for me it wasn't really my cup of tea mostly because of the aforementioned suicidal Jeep drivers, instantly respawning enemies, and countless checkpoints killed the experience for me. Although you may be a more patient person than I am and you may well enjoy it.

And to answer your question, No you can't just drive around. Trees, rocks, and ditches/creeks/whatever make offroad travel all but impossible. You can however try to just drive past the checkpoints really fast and pray a Jeep with a minigun mounted to the top isnt going to chase you...but it will....they always do.

EDIT: Sorry for the double post, but I didnt realize I could actually respond to this before I made my first post.
 

Leviathan902

New member
Dec 18, 2008
42
0
0
Darkness:

For the record: In my OP I never said "F you" nor did I ever say you can't like Far Cry 2. In fact, I actually agree with most of the points that you had. All I ever said is that maybe your point would have come across better if you didn't go around calling everyone who plays games on consoles (of which there are many) a retard. U know I was going to go through all of your silly little comments and reply to each one, but most were so rambling, incoherent, and contradictory that I really couldn't make you sound any more ridiculous than you do yourself. Just one more thing:

[quote/] Oh wow was that supposed to impress me princess? I started with Atari, Coleco, Vic-20 and Commodore 64, then I grew up, fucking useless button masher.[/quote]

You clearly missed the point there, notice that most of the games I listed are PC which means I play alot of games on PC which means I'm not a console button masher because I play games on the P-fuckin'-C. Can't you read? Or do you only see what you want to in order to justify your hate? Yea, the latter I suspect.

Tijuanatim:
Thanks for the info, that may very well be a deal breaker for me. I think I might take the game off my goozex request list and just give it the old college try via rental. Then again, I've got a stack of about 8 games I have to get through right now anyway I can seem to be able to put Command and Conquer: Red Alert 3 down. I <3 my RTS's :p
 

Adam LaMosca

New member
Aug 7, 2006
153
0
0
Leviathan902 said:
For the record: In my OP I never said "F you" nor did I ever say you can't like Far Cry 2. In fact, I actually agree with most of the points that you had. All I ever said is that maybe your point would have come across better if you didn't go around calling everyone who plays games on consoles (of which there are many) a retard. U know I was going to go through all of your silly little comments and reply to each one, but most were so rambling, incoherent, and contradictory that I really couldn't make you sound any more ridiculous than you do yourself. Just one more thing:
You and your boyfriend are easily confused, without reading the entire thread you popped your arrogant over inflated head in and told me how to address a hostile retarded fanboy. Please give me an example of any where where what I said was incoherent. Fuck, poke your nose in somewhere else ignorant half wit, I grow weary of your defending your pointless blather in a matter that you knew nothing of nor had any part in.
 

josh797

New member
Nov 20, 2007
866
0
0
this is an incredible peice of writing that highlights the game, is poetic, yet informative, has a tremendous sense of style, and reminds me about the reason i frequent this site for my gaming media. thanks guys!
 

Uncompetative

New member
Jul 2, 2008
1,746
0
0
new_age_reject said:
Uncompetative said:
I don't attempt to review games, but I am interested in game design and why things don't quite work.

Far Cry 2 is one such example. I know how they could have programmed it so that the guard posts didn't instantly respawn so unrealistically, but I think it would be more helpful to focus on improving the controls.

Africa is a big place with few landmarks and the signposts you encounter aren't all that much help. I still find myself toggling the map on/off an awful lot and have come to the conclusion that this should have been a "hold the Left Trigger in" to raise the map into view by degrees, thereby avoiding an explicit modal state in the control interface. This would then mean that the Left Bumper would have to be Aim, just as it had been in Goldeneye. In the Long Run control mapping Sprint would have to go on the Right Bumper just as it does in Frontlines: Fuel of War. This then presents a problem: Grenades.

However, these can be first equipped by holding down the Back button the pin pulled with the Right Bumper, optionally "cooked", then thrown with Right Trigger - as neither of these controls do their default actions whilst the Back button is held. This is what is called a Quasimode and is equivalent to you typing on a keyboard whilst holding down Shift or Alt.

I had also thought that you could peruse the open map with the Right Thumbstick and then click this stick to toggle a series of enumerated waypoints which would then appear on the GPS.

The next issue is the enemies, which can spot you through thick grass as if it isn't there, and storm out of nowhere in a noisy jeep which you really ought to have been able to hear in the distance and avoid. You can crouch, but not go prone. You can shoot enemies, but they take as much damage as if they were wearing full body armor even when they are bare chested. Yes, everyone is attacking you all the time and it gets old. Surely if you only work for the UFLL they would leave you alone and you could scope settlements and chart a course through the map. Yes, it is very open world, but it is as if the designers panicked that there wouldn't be enough happening, but in adding action around every corner they hampered your freedom. Ironically, it is hard to appreciate the astounding graphics because you are in a constant state of paranoia.

Finally, at some point in the future the issue of Saving will have to be addressed in these massively open-world games. It just takes too long to reattempt a failed mission from a Safehouse, even when you've unlocked all of them. I'd like to be able to push the Xbox Guide button and Shutdown the console and resume from that point the next time I power up if all I had done was Pause. This isn't Quicksave as you only get one slot. Reattempting missions could be done with a single separate save slot (user-defined checkpoint) which is activated by using the phone prior to the mission proper. This would mean that the player could collect multiple mission contacts and then seek more work "in the field". Also you wouldn't be rung up by a buddy in the middle of a Stealth mission! You would call them. In fact, the GPS could be combined with the phone (after all, it already finds diamond briefcases and Jackal tapes).

Anyway, I would rather make constructive suggestions than condemn Far Cry 2 as boring.
Thank you for bringing some insightful comments to this thread that has quickly become a flamewar.

On topic: I found the article to be well written and whilst it did beat around the bush, made a few good points of the better side of the game.

However, I believe that Ubisoft tried to focus on making a really big 'open world' game and severely neglected the actual gameplay elements of the game. It's like they didn't actually play test the whole game, just focused on the main points.
I do think that this is a vast improvement on the rather dire first game and is certainly a great spring board on which to build another improved Far Cry game.
I'd pay for a sequel in the not too distant future - and I haven't even finished the Campaign yet. Finally, a game that is value for money.

I've already got the DLC, which was worthwhile. You get a crossbow that fires explosive bolts among other things...

It would be nice if you could store weapons in your vehicle, at the cost of carrying only two. Although you would have to replace them if the vehicle was destroyed.
 

Adam LaMosca

New member
Aug 7, 2006
153
0
0
This was really very-nicely written.
The flamewar was less nicely written, but fairly amusing, until it devolved into "NO FUCK YOU," but that's just life, I guess.
 

ZP---Fanatic

New member
Dec 29, 2008
343
0
0
i think it was Average (other NPC people talk fast,very fast though) the flames where the best I have PROBABLY NOT CERTAINLY (Cod5 is quite good 2) ever saw.
 

Liverandbacon

New member
Nov 27, 2008
507
0
0
Well, I'm happy with it. Of course it did come free with my graphics card, so that takes away any not worth $50-ness. The guard post respawns could use some work. If Ubisoft would release a damn SDK, the problem would be fixed within a day. In my mind, the perfect setup would be that checkpoints nearest bus stops and the central city would respawn fastest, and the further you got away from one of those, the longer a respawn would take. That would add some realism. But again, that's not going to happen unless Ubisoft releases an SDK or a fan puts in a metric ton of work to make one.
 

awmperry

Geek of Guns and Games
Apr 30, 2008
222
0
0
Could those in the flamewar just, I dunno, get a room or something? It's getting tiresome, and I'm sure I'm not the only one who'd be more interested in the sort of constructive analysis that Uncompetative provided...

In my view, Far Cry 2 had a number of key failings:

- The enemies; bulletproof string vests, close combat with M2HB machine guns, and utterly unrealistic detection and accuracy stats. Not to mention the respawning checkpoints and the lazy, clumsy way of dodging the need for factional AI; "Oh, it's a secret mission, yeah, that'll be it."

- The vehicles; utterly homogenous in behaviour and feel, except that the Land Rover clone is much better than the others at handbrake turns. (Incidentally, the handbrake on a Defender acts on the centre diff, so trying a handbrake turn would be quite expensive...)

- Over-hyped. The story *isn't* adaptive, and really doesn't try to be. There are no major choices involved, just illusions of choice. The graphics are pretty, but with noticeable shortcuts here and there. And the much-vaunted fire propagation? It's not realistic, it's not accurate, and it doesn't even look realistic up close.

There were a few things that would have been unequivocally good had they been handled better; the wound system works well, but its claims of realism force reviewers to measure it with a different yardstick, by which it fails miserably. The ambush missions would have been interesting had they not been on small, infinite loops.

I could go on - in fact, I have done quite frequently - but the basic result is that Far Cry 2 is full of unattained potential. It could have been good, if they'd just *thought* about it a bit. But they didn't, so it wasn't.