-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
LTTP: Far Cry 4. Far cry...bore.
- Thread starter Boy Wander
- Start date
LookAtMeGo
Member
I gave up on FC4 before I finished as well. I did have fun with the time I had though. Co op was fun.
Kaji AF16
Member
I agree completely with the OP. I enjoyed FC and FC2, even if I consider they were eventually overrated. FC3 was great, but in FC4 I found these exact same problems and got burnt out with the franchise.
Somehow I got to play a few hours of the tedious Primal before quitting. FC5 doesn´t interest me at all
.
Somehow I got to play a few hours of the tedious Primal before quitting. FC5 doesn´t interest me at all
even if the enemies are hipsters
autoduelist
Member
i enjoyed and plat'd Far Cry 3, 4, and Primal. Don't get any of the hate. I like base attack games.
Boy Wander
Member
Yes , I played BOTW prior to this. I'm not sure that is a factor though. As I said earlier, I played Far Cry 2 about 8 years ago and I enjoyed that a lot more. If I had time, I'd be I interested to see if that game holds up.
FC 4 felt like it was computer-generated.
Basically:
Generate a grid of outposts that are certain distance from each other;
Each one must have a vehicle, alarm panel, a number of enemies based on the level, maybe animal cage. There's a saferoom that's always the same.
Do the same for towers. Each one must have 3 points of interest, one of which must me some wild animal, ancient ruins and one with some bad guys.
I can go on describing much more minor things, like loot crate or poster placement, enemy positions and such. In the end everything adds up to that.
Almost all of the side activities like racing or hostage rescue are repetitive and not impactful in any way, just a checkmark to get.
These and many more things just didn't feel like they were made by a creative human, but just an algorithm with a bunch of rules.
Basically:
Generate a grid of outposts that are certain distance from each other;
Each one must have a vehicle, alarm panel, a number of enemies based on the level, maybe animal cage. There's a saferoom that's always the same.
Do the same for towers. Each one must have 3 points of interest, one of which must me some wild animal, ancient ruins and one with some bad guys.
I can go on describing much more minor things, like loot crate or poster placement, enemy positions and such. In the end everything adds up to that.
Almost all of the side activities like racing or hostage rescue are repetitive and not impactful in any way, just a checkmark to get.
These and many more things just didn't feel like they were made by a creative human, but just an algorithm with a bunch of rules.
CecilRousso
Member
You don't really have to finish these games. I beat Far Cry 3, but the last third of that game was completely unneccesary, and the story ended up being almost offensively stupid.
Would maybe have bought Far Cry 4 if it had let me save anytime/anywhere, with the save system in FC3 working against the sandbox gameplay, but it seemed like FC4 kept all the flaws from FC3.
Played FC3 for almost 30 hours and loved almost every minute.
Played FC4 for less than 10 and gave it up. I was really excited for the setting but it actually turned out to be just a really dull game in almost every respect. It's weird because so much of it is just FC3 with a different setting stuck on it - but then again, maybe that was exactly the problem.
I played Primal for about 15 hours and enjoyed it a lot but ultimately never went back to it after a gap in playing. In hindsight, it was a pretty poor game. I thought they nailed the setting in it though.
Played FC4 for less than 10 and gave it up. I was really excited for the setting but it actually turned out to be just a really dull game in almost every respect. It's weird because so much of it is just FC3 with a different setting stuck on it - but then again, maybe that was exactly the problem.
I played Primal for about 15 hours and enjoyed it a lot but ultimately never went back to it after a gap in playing. In hindsight, it was a pretty poor game. I thought they nailed the setting in it though.
They probably mean Blood Dragon, even though it has the exact same gameplay complete with annoying fetch quests that even the protagonist says are boring.
Triggerhappytel
Member
Best thing about Blood Dragon is that it doesn't overstay its welcome.
MAX PAYMENT
Member
I couldn't get into it at all.
Alpha Phoenix
Member
It's your typical UbiFormula game, but unlike FC3, it had a super lame protagonist and antagonist, with a generally soulless feel to the whole thing.
Personally, I'd recommend Primal over it. At least it had a better theme/setting.
Personally, I'd recommend Primal over it. At least it had a better theme/setting.
Boy Wander
Member
Interesting because I liked Far Cry 3 and 4 but absolutely hated 2, mostly because of the constant combat, malaria and the ridiculous level design connected by narrow tunnel-like paths thru the jungle. Figuring out how to conquer the outposts as silently as possible was the most fun part of 3 and 4 to me plus the wingsuit was fun.
FC3 and 4 really have a lot of issues that plague the Assassin's Creed series as well. The side quests are super repetitive and basically play no part in what happens in the main plot and offer poor rewards so they are literally just checkboxes on a map for busywork to pad the length of the game. Only getting to kill bosses in QTEs in 3 was so bad and unsatisfying. Plotwise 4 is terrible as nearly all characters are someone you'd rather punch than take orders from. The player character in 4 is some sort of silent yes-man at all times. I also really dislike how much emphasis especially the 4th game puts on killing wildlife for upgrades and to have wildlife that is always aggressive towards you is just bad enemy AI.
So far I haven't seen anything in FC5 that would make me want to buy the game.
Mr.Deadshot
Member
Best FarCry game. Loved it, even did the platinum trophy.
Psychoward
Banned
Yup
shortsoptional
Member
This was me...however, as excited as I was for FC5, when I saw the gameplay my excitement became pretty deflated. Feels like I already played the game.
Monocle
Member
OP didn't talk shit about Pagan Min, so I'm not going to complain about the questionable claims about FC4's quality. Personally I enjoyed it much much much more than FC3. FC3's setting was fine but I found Vaas truly obnoxious. Not even scary. Just some generic craAzY d00d.
Pagan Min is my bro. He deserved the clean getaway I gave him in my playthrough. I was overjoyed when that turned out to be an option at the end of the game. My allies were stupid. He was snazzy and witty and likeable and awesome.
Pagan Min is my bro. He deserved the clean getaway I gave him in my playthrough. I was overjoyed when that turned out to be an option at the end of the game. My allies were stupid. He was snazzy and witty and likeable and awesome.
Mr. Phellps
Member
I loved FC3 to bits. It felt fresh back then, it had a silly, cliche story about young adults acting like they're still 17 and the improbable hero's coming of age turning into a murdering psycho. It almost felt like parody, it played into its gameplay and setting.
FC4 was more of the same, but somewhat unsure about taking itself seriously. It felt uninspired, I couldn't bring myself to finish it, and I tried it twice.
FC4 was more of the same, but somewhat unsure about taking itself seriously. It felt uninspired, I couldn't bring myself to finish it, and I tried it twice.
Boy Wander
Member
As I said in the OP, I much preferred Min to either Sabal or Amita. Just a pair of annoying characters who seem more concerned with scoring points against each other than furthering their cause.
Darklor01
Might need to stop sniffing glue
I never played FC before 4, didn't play Primal, have 5 pre-ordered.
Maybe it's because I didn't play the previous games, maybe it's because I am way less critical than a lot of people with entertainment choices, I enjoyed 4. I played solo for the most part. Hoping 5 pays off on the narrative they're portraying so far.
Maybe it's because I didn't play the previous games, maybe it's because I am way less critical than a lot of people with entertainment choices, I enjoyed 4. I played solo for the most part. Hoping 5 pays off on the narrative they're portraying so far.
Too easy.
Horizon is third person Far Cry with a good story. But it's just as repetitive.
The only one of these consolized stalker clones I thought was ever really that decent was probably dying light, and that game at least had some fun platforming mixed in alongside with a lot of cool secrets and wasn't ever afraid to laugh at itself and how silly the game was at times. The main plot was entirely boring and the leveling system plus loot was much too shallow given how long it was, but it was a fun romp that until the dlc expansion I never felt overstayed its welcome.
I only tried out the demo for DL and didn't really see the point, but honestly BOTW is the closest any console game has gotten to STALKER for me.
If I'm being really honest, I doubt DL would have grabbed me that much had I not been sidelined at home due to surgery and needed something to pass the time with.
To be fair to it the game does get much better later on though, only for the leveling system to completely fall apart by midgame lol >.>
Also agree about BOTW. That game despite the weird comparisons reminded me much more of games like Ultima Underworld and thus STALKER than it ever did an Ubisoft game.
Sniffynose
Member
I had a ton of fun with this game but that was likely because I did the entire thing co-op with my wife and the hilarious shit that happened constantly between us made it even better.
That being said I skipped Primal because of lack of co-op and plan on getting 5 because they put co-op back in.
I think playing with a friend and being able to screw around while doing the objectives and having the funny random things happen makes all difference in the world.
That being said I skipped Primal because of lack of co-op and plan on getting 5 because they put co-op back in.
I think playing with a friend and being able to screw around while doing the objectives and having the funny random things happen makes all difference in the world.
This is my biggest issue with a lot of open world games. Just Cause 2 and 3 are very similar that way.
It´s a shame, because I really enjoy games where I can just knock off an outpost or two and then just move on to something else. It´s fantastic mindless shooting action, but the endless repetition makes me feel like I have already seen 95% percent of assets in the first five hours. Same with Skyrim, to be honest. Massive worlds made up of the same handful of elements.
Playing GTAV in comparison was a really eye opening experience - every single street corner feels unique and recognizable. But that´s Rockstar - only a massive budget and brutal crunch time can produce a world as detailed as that.
I still enjoy Far Cry and Just Cause, though. I don´t expect a lot of them other than some fun base mechanics and "clear this map of icons". It isn´t exactly deep or challenging, but a fun disctration to listen some podcasts to.
I think FC3 just had more breathing room for you to screw around in. Random encounters with enemies and animals weren't as common so you could spend a lot of time just exploring and clearing bases at your leisure. Those are the two parts of the current FC formula that recall the sandbox nature of Far Cry 2.
And BOTW gets the comparisons it does because the Minecraft resource elements it lifted hearken back to older PC immersive sims. BOTW treats the individual elements of the environment as systems and resources in a way FC3 and 4 don't. That sandbox immersive sim sandbox however rears its head for brief moments in FC3.
I hated 4. It felt to much like a copy/paste of 3 only they didn't copy the fun stuff. The environment was boring, the frame rate tanked on PC when you were driving and the story up through the first few hours I played wasn't that great.
FC 2 is still my favorite of the series. So little hand holding and it's design felt new and fresh.
I liked 3 a lot (up until a specific point in the game) because the mechanics were again, relatively new and that formula fatigue hadn't set in. Vaas was also incredibly interesting and well written/voiced.
They absolutely needed to scrap the formula after that game though and do something different with 4 but they got lazy and I will be really surprised if 5 is much different. I hope I'm wrong but I seriously doubt I will be.
FC 2 is still my favorite of the series. So little hand holding and it's design felt new and fresh.
I liked 3 a lot (up until a specific point in the game) because the mechanics were again, relatively new and that formula fatigue hadn't set in. Vaas was also incredibly interesting and well written/voiced.
They absolutely needed to scrap the formula after that game though and do something different with 4 but they got lazy and I will be really surprised if 5 is much different. I hope I'm wrong but I seriously doubt I will be.
bati
Member
I think Primal was a near perfect fit for the Ubi FC formula. Game systems (stealth, hunting, etc) worked much better in this setting and the focus on melee and thrown weapons really emphasized this - what good is stealth if you can snipe people from 300m away? Playing on survival with 2nd chance was a sublime experience and easily ranks among the best singleplayer survival games in my opinion.
Also, the writing didn't seem nearly as stupid as in other FC games. I mean it was, completely over the top, but it didn't feel so out of place because of the setting.
CecilRousso
Member
He was? Interesting? Incredibly so?
The actor did a fine job, sure, but was there really anything more to his character then him being a psycho for the sake of it?
Saint of Killers
Member
I enjoyed 3, *loved* 4 but worry 5 will be just one game too many for me in the series. Still a day one "purchase" (I'll rent it), but my hype level are in check.