• Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!

So what Neogaf think about the Far Cry series ?

Glad to see more people liking Far Cry 2, The Jackal remains the best written and voiced antagonist in the series, Vaas was cool but felt inferior, Jackal had motives while Vaas was just a lunatic.
 
I've only played Instincts on the Xbox which was a bit crap,and Blood Dragon which really great.

I own the rest via steam sales but just haven't found the time to play them yet. I tried the first but the controls seemed a bit dated.
 
So far I haven't seen anybody disliking the FC3 : Blood Dragon.It is just awesome.
And I would say that each Far Cry game is good based on its merit.

Most of us loved FC3 because it introduced new advancements and nearly redefined fps elements.But still it lacked some aspects (I loved FC2 map) that earlier games had.I put more than 70 hours into this game and it still has very high replayability value for me.

The very first Far Cry is still my beloved one and the graphics were top notch for its time.

Far Cry 2 has very good graphic engine and some environments actually look better than Far Cry 3.And gameplay is harder than FC3.You have to plan everything including time of day and seasonal changes.Also it is about decisions and strategy.

I didn't play FC4 but I will certainly do that in this summer.
 
FC1 - Great gameplay and graphics for it's time, it had an uninteresting story, weird difficulty spikes, and one of the most awful endings I've ever seen.

FC2 - Played it for 3 hours, and it was a tedious mess.

FC3 BD - Fun, fun, fun, heaps of mindless fun.

FC3 - I'm "currently" playing it (DiRT Rally has taken over my free time in the last week), and it's fun, but a tad repetitive, and the dudebro characters are really unappealing to me.

FC4 - Haven't played it yet.
 
Far Cry seemed fun, didn't play too much though.

Far Cry 2 looked stunning, but was kind of dull.

Loved Far Cry 3, and Blood Dragon was fun too.

Far Cry 4 is also solid, but I didn't enjoy it as much as 3.
 
Far Cry 2 is a fantastic game despite some game breaking bugs. On its hardest setting, the immersion of planning how you are accomplish your next mission is awesome.

Far Cry 3 & 4 are enjoyable but feel like you become a one man army unlike FC2s survival style.
 
Far Cry 2 was a very neat concept but kind of boring. 3 was great, characters and story were pretty interesting. 4 kept the good gameplay, but I found the story pretty awful
 
1. awesome until the alien part
2. awesome but very strange (pc)
3. meh story, the rest awesome gameplay.
4. awesome and love the fact that its 50 hour + to 100%
 
If you are only playing on console then I'd honestly recommend just skipping strait to FC4. FC1 is a pretty basic shooter that is good but not really necessary to go back to. FC2 had some cool ideas and there is some fun to be had there, but it can get really frustrating at times, so it is a love it or hate it kind of game. FC3 is amazing and my personal favorite in the series, but it runs like absolute shit on consoles. If you can play it on even a five or six year old PC then by all means buy it and enjoy, but at this point I wouldn't bother with it on consoles unless you play FC4, love it, and really want more. FC4 looks beautiful on the current gen consoles, runs really well, and the gameplay is pretty much the best of what FC3 had to offer. I found the setting of FC3 to be more enjoyable, but the setting in FC4 is still pretty cool and can be a lot of fun.
 
Far Cry was mind blowing back in the day. Far Cry 2 had a great world and was a very good game. Then it became Ubisoft Game Builder - Version: Far Cry. I don't like it anymore.
 
Predictably this thread becomes a war over whether Far Cry 2 was good or not.

The game had huge potential ruined by a few dumb design decisions. I absolutely love its focus on player choice in all the missions as well as the chaos that can happen at any moment. Planning the route and execution of each mission in an open world is a feeling other shooters just haven't accomplished, and that's immensely disappointing. Far Cry 2's first problem is how compressed it is. Running into a random enemy patrol on your journey is a nice change of pace, but not when it happens every two minutes like clockwork. The other problem is how every last NPC wants to kill you. Far Cry 2 should have had random civilians and fighters clearly identifying as one side or the other. Far Cry 3 adds a little bit of this, but through out the sandbox-style main campaign missions.

I think the people who consider Far Cry 2 boring probably just play around with it enough. Maybe the standard difficulty is too lenient and just let's people barge in and shoot. Maybe the game doesn't communicate its options enough. Maybe the typical shooter audience just wasn't ready for it. I don't know.

Let's just leave it at this: Far Cry 2 is an interesting but very flawed game. Far Cry 3 was much better executed but is also safe and typical.
 
Ok so from what I understood from you guys:

Far Cry Classic: starts out decent but at some point it falls apart.

Far Cry 2: Great ideas but can get pretty tedious and frustrating.. It's a love or hate game.

Far Cry 3: Plays great and present good environment but the second half isn't as good as the first.

Far Cry 3 Blood Dragon: The best in the series and very stylish.

Far Cry 4: Basically more of the same and feels like FC 3.5 than a total new game.



Hmmmmmm yeah I think I can rest my mind off and skip the series.... But thank you guys so much for your time to answer my question I really appreciate it.
 
I think Far Cry 2 done a lot of interesting things that contributed to the uniqueness of the franchise and shouldn't have been ignored going forward.

Far Cry 3 and 4 are solid games but nothing special.

Sijil said:
Glad to see more people liking Far Cry 2, The Jackal remains the best written and voiced antagonist in the series, Vaas was cool but felt inferior, Jackal had motives while Vaas was just a lunatic.
Click to expand...

BestvoicedIdon'tknowwhatyou'retalkingaboutMccafferyputsinasolidperformancebutthedirectionisjustterribleit'slikewhatweretherecoringsessionstooexpensivethisisfrustratingtolistentothejackalmayhavehadsomewellwrittenmomentsbebestvoicedhahidisagree.
 
Never played the first.

LOVED the second.

Liked the third until 2/3 of the way through. Terrible decision to
keep the game going for another 5 hours after you kill the main antagonist.

Thought 4 was absolutely gorgeous and had good story, but it was far too similar to the previous game and the Ubisoft openworld formula really grated on me, I felt like was just hoovering up the minimap. I also thought the campaign missions were poor.

Overall FC2 was the best IMO
 
The first one is more part of the Crysis series than the Far Cry series as Ubisoft reimagined the entire thing from then on. FarCry2 was an attempt at reimagining the game into an open world FPS. However this open world felt empty, boring and slow.

FarCry3 added tons of interesting twists to the open world formula that absolutely worked and made it a tight, interesting experience. The map was beautiful and animal hunting was a great way to upgrade your things.

FarCry 4 continued to add stuff, but to the point of exhaustion with thousands of stupid little things to do at every step. It was just too much and made the whole thing a grind.

These are just my personal opinions of course.
 
My first Far Cry game was Blood Dragon, and I absolutely loved it. The game is total lunacy, anchored by some of the smoothest FPS mechanics I've ever experienced.

Then I played FC3, and stopped after about 10 hours of play. Even though the game had the same great mechanics, it was lacking in panache, and soon became tedious.

Blood Dragon may have also benefited from its short length.

I haven't played FC4 because it looks just like 3.
 
I play FC1 every once in a while to the point where the mutants come into play, then just quit. I have finished it once, but I didn't find the later stages very fun. First half is one of the best FPS experiences there is.
FC2 was pretty meh. FC3 and blood dragon were super fun. Haven't played 4 yet.
 
4 was good but just a reskinned 3 with less interesting environments, much much worse story with scenes and characters that really were the game equivalent of a Uwe Bol movie, laughable (and literally comedic 'vilian').

People hated the story and main character in 3 and yet somehow rave about 4 which blows my mind given 4 feels like it was written in a day by a school kid.

And I agree with those that like 2, still an enjoyable game despite its flaws.
 
I haven't played 1 and 2, are they worth it?

Finished 3, really enjoyed it. GREAT shooter mechanics (especially for a console).

I also have Far Cry 4 on PS4, but haven't played it for a couple of months. Put about 17 hours in and hardly touched the story.

More of the same and there's just too much stuff out at the moment that has taken my time up - but I will return to it one day.
 
Fantastapotamus said:
I really loved the first half of Far Cry 1, until the mutants showed up. (Same with Crysis 1 btw)
Far Cry 2 was a boring drag
Far Cry 3 was amazing, I loved it.
Far Cry 4 is a great game but it's basically just 3 with some more stuff. I didn't even finish it. It's the Ubisoft model that killed the game for me.
Click to expand...


This is how I feel. Far Cry 1 was great when it came out and Far Cry 3 is the modern pinnacle of the series.

You might as well skip FC3 now and go right for 4. FC2 wasn't very good.

Just play FC4, honestly. Skip the rest.
 
I've only spent a good amount of time with 3 but I get the impression the series is at a cross roads. If it continues the way it is going then it will end up in the same basket of other Ubisoft titles like Assassin's Breed. It needs to go in a bolder direction with 5 and surprise for me to be in.
 
My experience with Far Cry 3:

*Really good sandbox gameplay....
......that the annoying save system tries to take as much fun out of as possible.
*Some really fun and enjoyable missions.....
.....That works until you realize just how truly awful the story is.
*A crafting system that looks interesting....
.....that just end up annoying you when you battle against the inventory system.
*A really interesting skill system.....
.....that's hard to put to any use considering the amount of enemies and how fast they kill you.
*A great looking and interesting island.....
....that you soon realize doesn't contain that much worthwhile stuff to actually do, and where too much of the content and locations are just recycled.

I really liked Far Cry 3 to begin with, but it ended up destroying my interest in both the series and Ubisoft games in general.
 
Far Cry was great, put Crytek on the map. Pretty groundbreaking, for its time, both in graphical technology and open-ended level design. Famously turns to shit about 3/4 of the way through.

Far Cry 2 was too obtuse for my tastes.

Far Cry 3's repurposed jungle setting didn't do much for me. Pitiful story and characters causes me some disdain for this game.

Blood Dragon was amazing. A complete steal for that $15 price point.

Far Cry 4 fixed a lot of my issues with 3, mostly by adding new traversal options and placing the setting in the mountains instead of another jungle.
 
I think what I most enjoyed about Blood Dragon was that it didn't overstay its welcome. That, and fighting dragons in a crazy neon soaked orgy of throwing stars, lasers, robots, absurd explosions, and overall weirdness. I never knew what to expect, which is increasingly rare in gaming nowadays.

My only beefs with the game were little bits that felt out of place which were clearly leftover from building it on Far Cry 3 and the
animated fight against the antagonist in place of a boss fight or even just the ability to target him with your blood dragon and blow his head off
at the end. In fact, that point nearly soured the experience for me, as it
took away agency from the player at the climax, which is the worst possible thing a game could do. That's the moment where I most want some interaction, not a cutscene.
I would happily play another Blood Dragon or other humorous spinoff, but I find it unlikely I would have finished Far Cry 3 or 4.
 
I played Predator before the original Far Cry, so the first one's a bit rough to go back to. I loved Far Cry Instincts. The Most Dangerous Game influences were notable. Instincts: Evolution was a kind of the classic "expansion" game. New content was added, a new story was created, but it wasn't quite as thought out, and everything felt a bit rushed. It was still an enjoyable game, but it didn't really add much to the previous entry (though it certainly didn't take anything away, which is the important part). Didn't much care for Far Cry 2 or Crysis.
 
antitrop said:
Far Cry was great, put Crytek on the map. Pretty groundbreaking, for its time, both in graphical technology and open-ended level design. Famously turns to shit about 3/4 of the way through.
Click to expand...

trigens first appear in, like, stage 4... of 20. everyone says its around the halfway point but the game is pretty damn long and i wouldn't be surprised if almost no one actually finished it.

the trigens aren't even that bad and you fight mercs in equal numbers for the rest of the game. i'd argue it only 'turns to shit' in the very last level, since it's such an unfair mess. it's not like crysis where everything you loved about the first half of the game completely vanishes in the second.
 
I have never played the first Far Cry, outside of the XBLA version's trial, but I have played Instincts. I guess it's a new campaign, though, on the original Xbox?

I enjoyed Instincts, quite enjoyed Far Cry 2, and loved Far Cry 3/Blood Dragon/4. FC4 was my GOTY.
 
2 is mediocre at best. 3 has flaws (storytelling particularly) but it is the best in the series. 4 and Blood Dragon are solid but underwhelming. Overall, it's a great series.
 
I've only played 3, Blood Dragon and 4 but enjoyed them all a lot. Only problem I have with the series is when animals get too annoying. Wish there was some master skill that made animals complacent around you
 
The Far Cry style of game is one of my absolute favourites. They're nearly perfect imo. I'm also partial like that to open-world first and third person western RPGs and sandbox titles (when they're done right).
 
If Far Cry 2 just didn't have those respawning outposts, I think it might have been the best single player shooter ever made. But damn those respawing outposts.
 
I've only played 3 and 4. 3 is amazing, 4 is pretty much a better version of 3. Which they can get away with once because 3 was so good.

The story was the weak point of both though.
 
Played a bit of the first one and thought it was alright but never got any serious time with it so I dunno. Played the latest one after reading praise for it but that game was just really meh.
 
never played 1
2 was ok, but i played it after the fact (after i tried 3)
3 is the best one to date imo
blood dragon is like a cheesy 80's movie (deliberately) and it's mixed into the fc3 gameplay style
4 is basically a slightly expanded 3 so it's excellent but not as novel.

wanted to add; fc3 and 4 are easily the best fps' i've played in a long long time. the most fun i've had in an fps since probably doom 2 i think.
 
Never played 1, played a little bit of 2, was put off by everything re-spawning as soon as I turned a corner. Played a good chunk of 3 and was really enjoying it but once i got to the second island all the enemies became massively stupid bullet sponges and I quit.
 
I've only played 3, Blood Dragon and 4. I think they're great and one of Ubisoft's few redeeming qualities.

Blood Dragon in particular, though... geyatdamn.

There are plenty of things I would change about them and critique on a deeper level, but that's really just nitpicks for me.
 
Far Cry 1 was outstanding. The freedom within each environment was quite an eye-opener compared to other PC shooters at the time. If it weren't for the borked AI setting at the highest difficulty, I would've really like to challenge myself again someday.
 
Far Cry 1 was groundbreaking, 2, 3 and 4 are pure popcorn free roaming shit, but entertaining to some extent

haven't played Blood Dragon
 
FC1 = Amazing.

FC2 = Incomplete, unrealized game.

FC3 = Good open-world, FPS take on the Ubi gameplay document.

FC4 = More of the same, just tweaked slightly.

Ubit gets a pass on the last one because of the time between releases and the limited offering available in the market at the time, but it better do a lot more (or be a lot more creative) with the next FC game.
 
1 ) Great !!
2) Broken game. Lame.
3) Great !!!
4) Its just 3 setting in the Himalayas , boring story. So a lame game oeverall compared with 3.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Project Helix: What We Know So Far
23
989
Yautja_Warrior replied
Far Cry Series Adaptation In the Works at FX
Business 
43
1K
March Climber replied
Does your spouse also game? What does he she they think about gaming?
2 3
115
707
Bondo replied
IGN Best games of 2026 so far . . .
2
54
478
HRK69 replied
Crimson Desert has better player retention than Elden Ring so far
2
65
303
DavidGzz replied
Top Bottom