Far Cry 3?

S

stop!theradio

2[H]4U
Joined
Jul 13, 2007
Messages
3,523
So, after a year of keeping my copy of Far Cry 2 on the sidelines, I've decided to get back into it. X amount of hours later, I've come to determine that this game should have been called...I dunno...just nothing close to "Far Cry", because it is nothing like Far Cry. It has it's own kind of thing, and by itself it's not ABSOLUTELY terrible...but, I have to admit - this game kind of sucks. Same old crap over and over again, all throughout the game. No new enemies, no feral creatures, no sci-fi stuff that I enjoyed from the first one. No recognizeable characters, etc.

I know I'm sort of late on bringing this stuff up, because I'm sure it's been talked about before, but I figured what the hell.

What do you guys want in Far Cry 3? I understand that it is being developed, so I'm really hoping it brings back elements and characters from the first game. I wanna see crazy sci-fi stuff again, not this gritty, dirty, war-themed "realism" brought about in part 2. What are you thoughts on it? What do you want out of Far Cry 3?
 
I don't want Far Cry 3.

Don't get me wrong, I absolutely LOVED Far Cry, but Far Cry 2 killed the series.
 
I want FarCry 3 to be nothing like FarCry 2. I haven't been disappointed in a game in a long time, but FarCry 2 took the cake. It was so repetitive and uninspired... And I was excited for it too when they were showing the day to night transition and the way fire spreads in all the tech videos before it came out but I was really disappointed. The original FarCry was way better.

I honestly am not expecting much from FarCry 3. The only thing i'm curious about is what type of setting are they going to go with. Crysis went from jungle to urban jungle, and FarCry went from jungle to African desert (basically). FarCry 2 can't go urban because that would be a blatant rip of Crysis 2 so I would imagine it would be back to the jungle again or maybe something else I can't think of right now.

FarCry 2 was so different from the first that I think they strayed too far from what was enjoyable about the first game. Granted not everyone will agree but I replayed FarCry a bunch of times and I still like it... not to mention the graphics are still very impressive. I thought it was fun the way it was even though the story was humorous and silly but the sandbox gameplay and just the awe of being in that environment was impressive and entertaining.
 
Dan_D said:
We did get a proper Far Cry 2. It was called Crysis. :D.
Click to expand...

QFT. Crysis was so much more of a sequel to the original Far Cry.

I would like to see a Far Cry 3, but not developed by the extremely shitty Ubisoft, who still haven't adequately patched Far Cry 2 of its random save file corruption, let alone make anything about the game interesting or fun.

Give the game back to Crytek, for chrissakes.
 
I like the little information that's available.
"...likely to remain in Africa, though Antarctica is also mentioned as a possibility."

Cause, ya know, the African setting wasn't boring enough...

Here's to hoping we get a REAL sequel as opposed to that bs they gave us.
 
I gave Far Cry 2 a more than fair try. Worst thing about it was having to drive past those check points and getting jumped on your way to and from different missions. I don't think I've ever experienced a more annoying game play element.
 
stop!theradio said:
So, after a year of keeping my copy of Far Cry 2 on the sidelines, I've decided to get back into it. X amount of hours later, I've come to determine that this game should have been called...I dunno...just nothing close to "Far Cry", because it is nothing like Far Cry. It has it's own kind of thing, and by itself it's not ABSOLUTELY terrible...but, I have to admit - this game kind of sucks. Same old crap over and over again, all throughout the game. No new enemies, no feral creatures, no sci-fi stuff that I enjoyed from the first one. No recognizeable characters, etc.

I know I'm sort of late on bringing this stuff up, because I'm sure it's been talked about before, but I figured what the hell.

What do you guys want in Far Cry 3? I understand that it is being developed, so I'm really hoping it brings back elements and characters from the first game. I wanna see crazy sci-fi stuff again, not this gritty, dirty, war-themed "realism" brought about in part 2. What are you thoughts on it? What do you want out of Far Cry 3?
Click to expand...
Well, FC 2 was a different developer than the first one, not Crytek, right?

But yeah, everything you say about it is true. The game itself isn't horrible but it's not great either and should not be called "Far Cry". I make the same argument for RE 4 and 5 but nobody listens. Everything else you say about FC 2 I agree with.
 
Quake 1 & 2 are classics (if not originals, too), but I don't seem to remember reading complaints about similar names to games that had nothing to do with one another in any way at all...

FC2's great in almost every way once you wrap your head around the fact that you are a mercenary playing both sides in a civil war...

The only real thing that hurts the immersion is the checkpoint baddies re-spawning much too quickly. Since the baddies are seen driving around, I'm not sure why they didn't have the baddies drive out from the main city whenever a checkpoint went silent. It would only take them minutes to get there which isn't all that long (the checkpoint could be manned again before you reach it again if you're off to a mission and then returning from it minutes later...), and would be much more realistic in every way.

I loved the game. And like Prey, there was a moral to the story at the end...
 
stop!theradio said:
No new enemies, no feral creatures, no sci-fi stuff that I enjoyed from the first one.
Click to expand...


I disagree here; when the mutant creatures appeared in Far Cry, it really ruined the experience for me. I was having a blast with the game until the super-creatures appeared. Then it jumped the shark.

I would like Far Cry 3 to be closer to the original, but they can keep the annoying, super-fast bullet-sponge monsters.
 
TexasAg05 said:
I would like Far Cry 3 to be closer to the original, but they can keep the annoying, super-fast bullet-sponge monsters.
Click to expand...

That's all I wanted FC2 to be. More of what made FC1 good before the monsters showed up with expanded features and souped up production values for the time. If they make an FC3, that's all I want.
 
In FC1 I honestly didn't mind the first few trigens. They were tough, fast, and deadly which really did liven up the gameplay for me. I would have preferred if the game had stayed as a primarily outdoor shooter fighting humans, but sprinkling a few nasty jungle creatures in for surprises. The super mutants and the storyline that followed... bleh. Although my favorite part of the game was easily the mission where you're dropped off in a jungle full of tridents with only a few bullets. You couldn't possibly shoot them all, so you had to hide and run to survive. Got my adrenaline going...

I'm not sure where I'd like Far Cry 3 to go. The jungle island shooter gameplay has been pretty much done to death with FC1 and Crysis, as fun as it was. Far Cry 2 was not Far Cry. *Shrugs*. I'd be totally okay if the franchise died away.
 
Kaldskryke said:
I honestly didn't mind the first few trigens. They were tough, fast, and deadly which really did liven up the gameplay for me. I would have preferred if the game had stayed as a primarily outdoor shooter fighting humans, but sprinkling a few nasty jungle creatures in for surprises. The super mutants and the storyline that followed... bleh.
Click to expand...

Exactly!
 
TexasAg05 said:
I disagree here; when the mutant creatures appeared in Far Cry, it really ruined the experience for me. I was having a blast with the game until the super-creatures appeared. Then it jumped the shark.

I would like Far Cry 3 to be closer to the original, but they can keep the annoying, super-fast bullet-sponge monsters.
Click to expand...

I figured it was common knowledge that you'd be fighting "creatures" in Far Cry 1. I'm surprised it came as a surprise for you when you played it lol. I think it's a bit different with Far Cry 2, though. Part 1 established what sort of content one would expect in a sequel, but the sequel was Far Cry, just minus the Far Cry. I dunno, the sci-fi aspect/cheesiness was part of what made the first one fun to me. It goes deeper than that, of course, but I'm just using that aspect as a rough example.

But yeah, the enemy respawn thing in Far Cry 2...ugh. I'll take out a small enemy "base" and no more than a couple minutes later, an entire group has the place locked down again. And I swear...it seems like EVERY damned time I get in a vehicle, all the sudden I'm being shot at from some impossible distance away. It gets annoying as hell.
 
Tolyngee said:
Quake 1 & 2 are classics (if not originals, too), but I don't seem to remember reading complaints about similar names to games that had nothing to do with one another in any way at all...
Click to expand...

There was a huge fallout over the Strogg in Quake 2. IMO it took a large amount of community multiplayer mods to make Quake 2 even worth playing. Though, some of those mods made the game excellent.

To me, FarCry2 was a great tech demo that fell flat on its face as far as variety goes. If you approach the game differently, it ended up kinda fun if you sandbox it.

I for one hope FarCry 3 is still sandbox, but much more like the first
 
LeninGHOLA said:
There was a huge fallout over the Strogg in Quake 2. IMO it took a large amount of community multiplayer mods to make Quake 2 even worth playing. Though, some of those mods made the game excellent.
Click to expand...

Can't say I remember that. At all. And I thought I lived Quake 1/2 back then. The only mods I remember are MP.

But anyway, what does that have to do with two different games with the same name that have nothing in common? This issue goes back to the original classics.

Not that I agree, but a friend who's not a gamer bought Q2 and absolutely loved it vanilla. But I don't think he played anything else at all, so he had nothing to judge it against. I think he just liked fighting robots. Doubt he ever tried MP.

Since FC's aged I could be off on judging it, but I think I'd rate FC2 higher... Maybe in FC you weren't always (but were sometimes) stuck down narrow corridors, but even when out in the open, it was still linear. I don't game enough to know if it's the first, but for me FC2 was the first game where what I do next was completely up to me, 'til you start running out of missions and the game's wrapping-up.
 
Crytek developed the original Far Cry for Ubisoft.

EA inked Crytek for a "new intellectual property" sometime in 2004, which eventually became Crysis. As a result, Ubisoft had to go elsewhere (Ubisoft Montreal) for Far Cry 2. In fact, every other Far Cry game (console versions... Instincts, Evolution, etc etc) were all developed by Ubisoft Montreal.
 
Once I finished Far Cry 2, I de-authorized my install and sold the game. That game was horrible, especially the ending.
 
Chombo said:
Once I finished Far Cry 2, I de-authorized my install and sold the game. That game was horrible, especially the ending.
Click to expand...

Wow you finished that game? I salute your endurance and patience for tolerating so much repetitive tedium.

I've never seen a game that's more of gorgeous glass bubble tech demo than Far Cry 2. Nothing you do makes any difference in the world. You can't kill anyone off. You can't even burn down foliage. Everything respawns forever into eternity.

I daresay I've rarely seen something that was more ANTI-motivation/motivator than Far Cry 2. Gorgeous production values, decent gunplay, zero purpose.
 
I'd like FC3 to be like a cross between FC2 and GTA4. Although that would pretty much be Just Cause 2. So really, a less cartoony version of JC2, with more attention to detail, and more variety of things to do (and better voice acting).
I liked FC2 a lot, although I acknowledge its flaws. I liked FC1a lot too, but the last two or three levels were awful and much worse than anything in FC2. I liked that FC2 went more sandbox, especially if the alternative is a dumb story like Crysis, but there was plenty of room for improvement.
But, with all the hate for FC2, I bet FC3 will become another shitty storyline rails shooter.
 
Q-BZ said:
Wow you finished that game? I salute your endurance and patience for tolerating so much repetitive tedium.

I've never seen a game that's more of gorgeous glass bubble tech demo than Far Cry 2. Nothing you do makes any difference in the world. You can't kill anyone off. You can't even burn down foliage. Everything respawns forever into eternity.

I daresay I've rarely seen something that was more ANTI-motivation/motivator than Far Cry 2. Gorgeous production values, decent gunplay, zero purpose.
Click to expand...

I still haven't finished it, but I keep it installed. Sometimes I load it up to run around the countryside causing havok, finding diamonds, exploring (there are some really cool areas). I can't play the game seriously though, and I usually have several beers before I do play it :)
 
LeninGHOLA said:
I still haven't finished it, but I keep it installed. Sometimes I load it up to run around the countryside causing havok, finding diamonds, exploring (there are some really cool areas). I can't play the game seriously though, and I usually have several beers before I do play it :)
Click to expand...

Sounds about right. ;)
 
Far Cry 2 is pretty much the worst game I've ever played. It was in no way fun. I could get absolutely no joy from it. It was so bad you couldn't even laugh while playing it because it was bad, all it did was make you angry. Worst game of all time.
2w2ij6f.jpg
 
I think the real problem is that they start out as a solid game (or what appears to be one) and as you progress it just falls off. FC1 did it with the super mutants and this one did it after you get to the second island. And like someone else said, it didn't matter what you did. You can make any number of choices in the game and your outcome will still be the same... That was my biggest complaint about the game.
 
SixtyWattMan said:
oh good, it's that idiotic FC1/2 comparison picture again
Click to expand...

Yeah, they should have made FC2 look like a saturday morning cartoon for ADHD kiddies, because that's what central Africa looks like. And they should have used static photos of skies instead of creating it procedurally to allow for day/night cycles and weather.
Every one of those FC2 shots looks better than the FC equivalent.
 
Litfod said:
Yeah, they should have made FC2 look like a saturday morning cartoon for ADHD kiddies, because that's what central Africa looks like. And they should have used static photos of skies instead of creating it procedurally to allow for day/night cycles and weather.
Every one of those FC2 shots looks better than the FC equivalent.
Click to expand...

Foliage = brown
Vehicles = brown
Guns = brown
Ground = brown
People = brown

IT'S BROWN, THE GAME.
 
Hey, in defense of FC2, it's the first time in a game I've actually just stood on a hillside and watched a sunrise; watching the dynamic shadows, the way the first rays played through the leaves of the trees as a few zebra grazed nearby, was pretty damned cool.
 
TexasAg05 said:
Hey, in defense of FC2, it's the first time in a game I've actually just stood on a hillside and watched a sunrise; watching the dynamic shadows, the way the first rays played through the leaves of the trees as a few zebra grazed nearby, was pretty damned cool.
Click to expand...

It certainly does have gorgeous production values and graphics. More diverse color would have been nice in spots, though.
 
Q-BZ said:
It certainly does have gorgeous production values and graphics. More diverse color would have been nice in spots, though.
Click to expand...

I would say I agree with this; and it could have been solved by placing the action in a coastal area of the continent, with some more lush areas and a view of the ocean from time to time. You could still have your war-torn muddy-river areas, but have the color here and there as well.

They also could have chosen not to pussy-foot around the animal violence issue. We can go through and slaughter hundreds-if not thousands-of African people, but when it comes to the animals they didn't want to 'reward' the player for being sociopathic. I'm not saying I wanted to go on a safari rampage, but when I accidentally hit a zebra with my brown jeep, I should have more of a reaction than turning to my imaginary passenger and saying, "Did you just feel something?"
 
The in-game effects are undeniably gorgeous. Textures and shading are brilliant as well...but it all feels so bland with the color scheme. Also, while the bloom is nice, it washes everything out even more. The effect is way overused.

But that's just me being picky about the graphics, because overall, they are damned nice. It's the gameplay that bothers me. It's great at first...but aside from driving a vehicle and manning the occasional turret, it's the same shit throughout the whole game, never changing.
 
I couldn't even stand still in that game and enjoy the scenery because all I could think about was how FUCKING BORING IT WAS.
 
Q-BZ said:
I daresay I've rarely seen something that was more ANTI-motivation/motivator than Far Cry 2. Gorgeous production values, decent gunplay, zero purpose.
Click to expand...

Gunplay is just as bad as anything else about the game. Hit detection is truly horrific - bullets go through enemies more often than not...plus it takes ridiculous amounts of firepower to kill anyone. Enemies shrugging off fire from a .50 machine gun is extremely lame. Grenades are iffy too...sometimes they can explode right next to the enemy and have no effect at all.

I recently tried to play the game again...I got sent on a mission to rescue a buddy, but the door to his cell refuses to open.

One of the most bug-ridden, unfinished pieces of shit to ever grace gaming. Fuck Ubisoft.
 
Last edited:
I find most of the criticism of FC2 a little baffling. It's a sandbox game, for fuck's sake. If you're finding it repetitive, then stop repeating yourself.
 
Plague_Injected said:
What about everything else wrong with the fucking game, for fuck's sake?
Click to expand...

You know what really pissed me off? When people started taking philosophical approaches to the story of the game.

"The story wasn't bad, you all just did understand."

And thats when my fist went through my previous 22 inch LCD.
 
Plague_Injected said:
Gunplay is just as bad as anything else about the game. Hit detection is truly horrific - bullets go through enemies more often than not...plus it takes ridiculous amounts of firepower to kill anyone. Enemies shrugging off fire from a .50 machine gun is extremely lame. Grenades are iffy too...sometimes they can explode right next to the enemy and have no effect at all.

I recently tried to play the game again...I got sent on a mission to rescue a buddy, but the door to his cell refuses to open.

One of the most bug-ridden, unfinished pieces of shit to ever grace gaming. Fuck Ubisoft.
Click to expand...

Agreed. I said "decent" gunplay not good or great. I was trying to throw this thing half a bone but what the hell. It's a polished turd.



LuminaryJanitor said:
I find most of the criticism of FC2 a little baffling. It's a sandbox game, for fuck's sake. If you're finding it repetitive, then stop repeating yourself.
Click to expand...

I love sandbox games. This one sucks.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top