Far Cry 2's Incendiary Nonsensibility

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.
 

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
 

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.
 

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