Far Cry 2

[microwavefriendly]

i mean seriously, it seems like nobody has played this game.

It is a surprisingly good game, nothing epic, but solid.

[Fei Mao]

It's a shame that Uwe Boll had to make a movie out of this game..

[burning_phoneix]

Could have been an amazing game but they ruined it. :(

[Fox]

I've used the map editor more than I've played the actual game.

[Celice]

I've been meaning to, but by the time I will I probably won't care enough to bother :/

[Der Kommissar]

Far Cry 2 has the framework of a breakout success, but it's like they got bored and just launched what they had. I wish Oblivion had had Dunia. Then Cyrodiil might have actually ended up being a jungle. Even if not, it would have been significantly prettier and more playable. I also liked the firefights: enemies can actually lose track of you (save FUCKING snipers, rocketeers, and mortar crews), and show varying levels of upset depending on how famous you are and how many of them you've killed in an engagement. That's part of what kept FEAR 1's firefights alive for me, too - hearing one of those clone soldiers yell "He wiped out the whole squad!" in dismay or blind fire as he retreats due to a gimped leg helps to relieve the sensation of shooting cardboard cutouts. The map maker is, as Fox mentioned, very fun and intuitive, though it could have seriously done with some item packs.

Far Cry 2 just basically boils down to doing the same run and gun missions over and over. That's okay in most FPSes, where you have a plot or genuine setting progression. FC2 barely has the former and has none of the latter - you'll revisit setpieces multiple times for multiple missions. Because there's so little to do besides missions, the travelling through the huge world quickly becomes a chore. The checkpoints exacerbate this problem: the only way to deal with them is to kill everyone or go around them. Running doesn't work. You can't bargain or kowtow like the taxi driver from the opening. About the only interesting thing in the game, once you get used to the pretty African landscape, is the Jackal himself, and his tapes are few and far between.

It's a shame the game gets so boring after a while, really. It's one of the few in recent memory that I actually uninstalled before completing. I'm generally a trooper when it comes to finishing games. I wouldn't recommend this title at all unless you get it in a bargain bin or as a gift. Your 50bux will thank you.

Edited July 22, 2009 by Der Kommissar

[microwavefriendly]

Far Cry 2 has the framework of a breakout success, but it's like they got bored and just launched what they had. I wish Oblivion had had Dunia. Then Cyrodiil might have actually ended up being a jungle. Even if not, it would have been significantly prettier and more playable. I also liked the firefights: enemies can actually lose track of you (save FUCKING snipers, rocketeers, and mortar crews), and show varying levels of upset depending on how famous you are and how many of them you've killed in an engagement. That's part of what kept FEAR 1's firefights alive for me, too - hearing one of those clone soldiers yell "He wiped out the whole squad!" in dismay or blind fire as he retreats due to a gimped leg helps to relieve the sensation of shooting cardboard cutouts. The map maker is, as Fox mentioned, very fun and intuitive, though it could have seriously done with some item packs.

Far Cry 2 just basically boils down to doing the same run and gun missions over and over. That's okay in most FPSes, where you have a plot or genuine setting progression. FC2 barely has the former and has none of the latter - you'll revisit setpieces multiple times for multiple missions. Because there's so little to do besides missions, the travelling through the huge world quickly becomes a chore. The checkpoints exacerbate this problem: the only way to deal with them is to kill everyone or go around them. Running doesn't work. You can't bargain or kowtow like the taxi driver from the opening. About the only interesting thing in the game, once you get used to the pretty African landscape, is the Jackal himself, and his tapes are few and far between.

It's a shame the game gets so boring after a while, really. It's one of the few in recent memory that I actually uninstalled before completing. I'm generally a trooper when it comes to finishing games. I wouldn't recommend this title at all unless you get it in a bargain bin or as a gift. Your 50bux will thank you.

i understand, to an extent, what you are saying. i agree that the game isn't quite as realized as it could have been, but i don't think any game really gets to be what everyone wants it to be or what the creators/makers set out for. And as far as leaving the game "unfinished," this is a Ubisoft Montreal game, and look at how dead-pan and repetitive their prized Assassin's Creed turned out to be?

so it shouldn't come as too much a surprise how it turned out in an over all sense.

and i do have to disagree about not suggesting it, because i am with starting this topic. I found the game enjoyable for a play through, and didn't find it too annoying. I do agree about price though; don't shell out more than $20 for it, but that is how i treat all games. I'd say most games are not worth running out and buying the first month or four they come out, since $50 bucks is an outrageous price (and yes i am aware of production costs and how economy works).

Anyways, i say the game is good and worth a play (so go rent it). I like the action for the sake that the AI isn't an idiot waiting for you to shoot them. nor are they "hard" because they have better aim and hp than you. They are worthy opponents because they have to follow the same game principals that you do such as taking cover. they are not merely thugs or minions that the AI throws at you just for the sake of you needing something to fight, give you damage, and make you expend ammo. they actually fight you in Far Cry 2.

I found the environment/world to be rather pleasing. it looked amazing and i really haven't seen light/dark effects that good and have a function in the game. I also really loved the fire of the game. I mean, you can set fire to things and it operates just like a real fire. You can set an entire field on fire, and i know haven't seen that anywhere else. Sure there isn't much or anyone to interact with outside of missions, but if you want to go have a conversation with someone or head to the bar with some people and have a fun time, do that in real life. You're playing game where.

But i have a question for you, Der Kommissar, and really for anyone who says that this game got too repetitive: What's the difference between Far Cry 2's "go here and kill this guy" formula, and Grand Theft Auto's "Drive your car across town and kill this guy or steal that car?" other than GTA is urban set with you being a gangster?

Now i am not just asking this question to be stubborn and a nay-sayer. This is actually something i've spent a fair amount of time thinking about.

I am playing GTA 4 now, and i see very little difference, and in fact, say that Far Cry 2 is a better game because the game play is more enjoyable. I find GTA to be more repetitive in its action sequences where enemies are not smart, just far out number you. All GTA does is answer your call for different environments in which the same "shoot these other guys with guns" take place. I find Far Cry's world better looking and more aesthetically pleasing than Liberty City, or even the entire State of San Andreas (though i do still find that to be impressive). I find GTA worlds to be rather limiting in the vein of "hey, there's another building i cannot go to." or "hey, here's a kind of cool place that i go to just for a mission and shoot a few guys in, then it becomes useless like an old level in any FPS game." While i felt like wandering around Far Cry 2's wilderness fom time to time.

Far Cry 2 makes it apparent that your character is not wanted in any of the places of the game world, and that's why you get shot at. GTA, you only get shot at during missions, or by cops (sometimes frustratingly and unnecessarily both). Also, i am not to fond of GTA's constant glamoring of the criminal underworld, and making you think that criminals are wayyy cool. GTA has been using the same motif for its games for a while now, but nobody seems to complain about it. I don't mind it so much.

GTA's gun system is EXTREMELY broken, while Far Cry 2's, not perfect, forces a certain mentality for gameplay stratagem. you cannot just load up on ammo and carry a limitless number of guns with you at all times. you have to make strategies on the fly in Far Cry 2, GTA you can now use a rudimentary cover system (or not), and . And to say something about GTA and guns, for being a series that constantly attempts to emulate and satire reality, there gun control is extremely two generations old and exceedingly unrealistic. I mean, GTA and Golden Eye on the N64 are on par with one another on the guns you can carry. That is out dated and unchallening....and you watch your character pull these guns from thin air. And i only make these comments because of how "realistic" GTA tries to be as a video game. No one can realistically walk around with a handgun, a shotgun, a uzi, an ak-74, a rocket launcher, and grenades without looking suspicious, not to mention the limitless ammo you are carrying.

As far as plot and characters go, sure Far Cry doesn't have much going for it. But why the hell does everyone want an epic story with their game? if you want a story, go read a book. I don't need GTA's constant over the top and cliched story arcs that are "rags to riches" kind of stories that use basic stereotypes for everything. I prefer the stale and hardly existent characters of Far Cry 2 to the constantly annoying and i don't want to spend time with characters of GTA games who i want to shoot. Sadly, not every game is Fall Out 3 where i can actually do that ninety-nine percent of the time.

And in GTA, there is little that isn't mission that amounts to much. You can sleep with hookers. great...but they take your money. You can now drink in it. cool....i can steal cars for people and get lots of cash, i can pretend to be a cop and kill other criminals...but that doesn't advance the plot anywhere, or develop any kind of reputation. and all money does is allow you to get more money that you end up spending on guns and ammo or hookers and friends because there isn't anything else to do with it. Fable 2 had a more realistic sense of property ownership in the sense that you paid for it all the time, and that was a fantasy game. Reputation is actually imaginative in both games, you have to believe that by completing mission the people of the world have more and more faith in you, and that's why they keep employing you.

Wow, that was long, but it is true. I am sure there are plenty of people who will disagree with me and say that GTA is an epic game. however, it isn't epic and people need to stop degrading that term (along with "tragedy"). GTA is fun, but it has a good many short comings and becomes dull and repetitive very often (which makes me wonder why i am still playing it). Far Cry 2 is similar, but i found it more challenging (because there is also higher difficulties)of a game because of various mechanics, and, ultimately, a more enjoyable experience. Unless you are a power gamer who is interested in making your character more improved than the npcs around...because all you can do is buy guns and kind of enhance your character, but it is very basic.

I would recommend Far Cry 2 before GTA 4. though most people would side with GTA because of their deep seated interest in wanting to partake in all sorts of criminal behavior without any real consequence, and all sorts of movies play to that interest as well.

Oh, and to clarify, i am not bashing GTA games because i find them immoral or anything. i just am realistic about the games and have analyzed them.

also to clarify, i am not saying that Far Cry 2 is a phenomenal game that is worthy of a temple or anything. it is merely better. it has its moments and facets that are worth seeing and fawning over for a bit.

i just merely compared the two games. and you can refute. just make sure you have evidence.

(and here's the commercial portion)

so go rent Far Cry 2 from your rental store or NetFlix or whatever it is you use. the game is a worthy challenge if you want a good fire fight that doesn't boil down to "hey, you're the player and need to win" or the opposite "this game is so hard because our enemies are just bitch-ass tougher than you can ever get in the game."

Instead of pretending to be a criminal in a (unrealistically) real world, why not actually delude yourself by interjecting yourself into civil war torn nation and play both sides against the middle, while not actually caring about what is going on (because really, do you? or do you want to shoot people?)

[Der Kommissar]

Considering how long your post is, I'll pick out what I find worth comment.

But i have a question for you, Der Kommissar, and really for anyone who says that this game got too repetitive: What's the difference between Far Cry 2's "go here and kill this guy" formula, and Grand Theft Auto's "Drive your car across town and kill this guy or steal that car?" other than GTA is urban set with you being a gangster?

Flesh. I'll use GTAIV, since I personally considered it genuinely enjoyable. Yes, you get a lot of the same sort of "chase this car, penetrate this warehouse" missions, but with it you often get things like story elements - you chase off a bunch of Albanian scumbags because your cousin got in debt trouble. You kill your former Russian mob employer because he has become steadily more insane. Et cetera. It has a world with people who change. GTAIV's city is a lot more fluid than Far Cry 2's jungle - with the exception of scripted events in some of the car chases, you get a different flavor due to traffic alone. Not so in Far Cry 2, when you visit the same shantytown 3 times in a row, with the only change being bad guy placement. Far Cry 2 lacks flesh and it lacks fluidity. The missions you undertake are entirely mercenary and either get a couple of sentences of who/what (buddy missions) or a short conversation about how X will help a group fight their rivals (faction missions). There's no investment, you're just a silent thug going to the same places over and over, ostensibly to track down the Jackal. Even in a basic corridor crawler, at least you're going somewhere rather than the same respawning places.

Far Cry 2 makes it apparent that your character is not wanted in any of the places of the game world, and that's why you get shot at

Why are you distinguishable from any of the other mercenary mooks that populate the nation? Why is the only interaction anyone offers are immediate attempts to kill you? I point again to the opening scene, where the checkpoints are used for territorial control and for extortion, not just killing any poor fuck who comes along. That had potential.

Also, i am not to fond of GTA's constant glamoring of the criminal underworld, and making you think that criminals are wayyy cool.

Most of the GTA series is very tongue-in-cheek - it doesn't want to be taken seriously, and no one but a troglodyte would do so. GTA IV hardly adds glamor to the criminal underworld; the protagonist is miserable to be a part of it, a great portion of the people you meet are scum and meet violent or otherwise heinous ends. No matter your final choice in GTA IV, Nico ends up just as bitter as he arrived in Liberty City, having lost one of two loved ones due in part to his own criminal mercenary actions.

In any case, it's not really a fair criticism, considering Far Cry 2 puts you in the shoes of a mercenary who apparently doesn't much care about anything but getting his paycheck and getting closer to the Jackal. (Even your goodwill missions are profit-driven - you don't help the Underground because you're a nice guy, you help them because you have malaria.)

But why the hell does everyone want an epic story with their game?

Humans are emotional animals. A challenging final boss fight is great - a challenging final boss fight where you're getting back the bastard who has done everything possible to undermine you and anything relevant to you is even more gratifying in a well-written story. This is why the Jackal is one of the few consistently interesting pieces of Far Cry 2. Why does he help you? Why is it that he seems to be a fairly logical guy, if amoral? The problem is that there is too little Jackal and too much filler that even the player character is apathetic to. Story gives you investment in a game beyond the task of mowing down mooks in ski masks.

In any case, though I indulged you, your post is a red herring. I never made a comparative statement about Far Cry 2, particularly not to GTA 4, which is itself a seriously flawed game.

Edited July 24, 2009 by Der Kommissar