LordOfChaos
Member
Tried 3, tried 4, didn't finish either, got bored, gaming-ADD or whatever you want to call it, moved on, forgot them.
-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
So what Neogaf think about the Far Cry series ?
- Thread starter The Praiseworthy
- Start date
2 was legitimately great. A few missteps in execution but I really admire what they tried to go for. 1 was okay but I played it waaaaay after the fact so my opinion is a little skewed. 3 was technically sound but really uninspired and ultimately boring. Didn't play 4 but by all accounts it is the same as 3.
lowrider007
Licorice-flavoured booze?
Loved the original, it was probably the first game for me that really gave me a true sense of freedom, I must of played it through at least half a dozen times and MP for a good few years, used to love playing hide and seek on the islands with friends.
And of course at the time it was a very beautiful game, made my Ti 4600 cry.
And of course at the time it was a very beautiful game, made my Ti 4600 cry.
mercenar1e
Member
It's starting to feel repetitive but I guess that's what Ubisoft considers a successful formula. I couldn't make it through Far Cry 4. Climb some towers, fetch some items, open chests, take down propaganda and witness "random" shoot outs... with 700+ brains at Ubisoft you would expect new ideas or a world that really feels alive but it's the total opposite.
Nizz
Member
Just for context. I played Far Cry Instincts: Predator back on the 360 and liked it. Got a bit weird later on with the mutants but I still thought it was cool. Got a PS3 and bought Far Cry 2. I fell in love with the setting, the graphics, and just the all around freedom of its open world.
The main problem I had with FC2 was that the analog control had some terrible acceleration where you would start to move the stick it felt like movement wouldn't register till a certain point then suddenly it would kick in and I would end up overaiming targets and I had to constantly correct my shots. Cranking up the sensitivity made up for it somewhat. But I kept playing because of the atmosphere the game had and pushed through despite the controls.
Skipped Far Cry 3 because I heard it ran terribly on PS3 and by then I was focusing on jumping to next gen. Far Cry 4 released and I got it as a Christmas gift and I've been hooked. The game really grabbed me. I guess it's because I skipped 3 so the game feels fresh to me but I've been having a great time with it. Plus it looks and runs nicely on PS4, and the controls are a lot better. I can understand how people who've played 3 could probably be feeling fatigue but the one thing I like about the Far Cry games is the freedom you have to play it the way you want.
Hell, for the first maybe month or so I had the game I probably played 2 (?) of the main campaign missions. I spent most of my time searching for those masks of Yalung or hunting different animals to craft better versions of things like my wallet or a bigger quiver for my bow. Oh yeah, that bow feels really satisfying to use on enemies.
The main problem I had with FC2 was that the analog control had some terrible acceleration where you would start to move the stick it felt like movement wouldn't register till a certain point then suddenly it would kick in and I would end up overaiming targets and I had to constantly correct my shots. Cranking up the sensitivity made up for it somewhat. But I kept playing because of the atmosphere the game had and pushed through despite the controls.
Skipped Far Cry 3 because I heard it ran terribly on PS3 and by then I was focusing on jumping to next gen. Far Cry 4 released and I got it as a Christmas gift and I've been hooked. The game really grabbed me. I guess it's because I skipped 3 so the game feels fresh to me but I've been having a great time with it. Plus it looks and runs nicely on PS4, and the controls are a lot better. I can understand how people who've played 3 could probably be feeling fatigue but the one thing I like about the Far Cry games is the freedom you have to play it the way you want.
Hell, for the first maybe month or so I had the game I probably played 2 (?) of the main campaign missions. I spent most of my time searching for those masks of Yalung or hunting different animals to craft better versions of things like my wallet or a bigger quiver for my bow. Oh yeah, that bow feels really satisfying to use on enemies.
Far Cry 1 was fine for the time and I remember enjoying my time with it when I played it though I was pretty young. Might be worth a revisit.
Far Cry 2 is garbage. I gave up on this game a long time a go and in the last year decided to give it another chance based mostly on some GAFers praising it.
It is nothing but shit. Driving around gets boring. A lot of the weapons don't feel that great and the guard checkpoints respawn way too quickly so I feel there is no point in taking them out and I am just driving right by from plot point to plot point. The story is shit and just seems like a bunch of random talking heads telling you to do the same thing.
Far Cry 2 is garbage. I gave up on this game a long time a go and in the last year decided to give it another chance based mostly on some GAFers praising it.
It is nothing but shit. Driving around gets boring. A lot of the weapons don't feel that great and the guard checkpoints respawn way too quickly so I feel there is no point in taking them out and I am just driving right by from plot point to plot point. The story is shit and just seems like a bunch of random talking heads telling you to do the same thing.
I've only played 3 but I kinda love/hated it. I really liked the world and the activities to do in it, but the game feel was awful to me. I felt too heavy and slow, animations take too long and take control away from me and even changed my fov (like opening doors, vaulting over cover etc) made me physically ill.
I want to play 4 but from what I've seen none of that has changed
I want to play 4 but from what I've seen none of that has changed
TheVampire
Banned
FC2 was my favorite!
Glad to see some other people in here also liked it.
I did however play it on easy to compensate for some annoying things like respawning enemies but I think there are even PC mods to fix that stuff.
Glad to see some other people in here also liked it.
I did however play it on easy to compensate for some annoying things like respawning enemies but I think there are even PC mods to fix that stuff.
Pretty much this:
The Co-Op in Far Cry 3 was so much fun. I cant understand why they didnt make FarCry4 like that. Just a little Campaign for 4 players on the side of the Golden Path. Tada, here take my money
The Co-Op in Far Cry 3 was so much fun. I cant understand why they didnt make FarCry4 like that. Just a little Campaign for 4 players on the side of the Golden Path. Tada, here take my money
Far Cry 2 was a brilliant game, great immersion and great combat with lots of intense shit happening everytime. The only issue is the respawning camps, but it's a small one as it leads to more interesting encounters anyway.
Blood Dragon is brilliant too in its own way, love the ambiance, the weapons, and how it all fits the gameplay surprisingly well.
FC1 was a pretty but ultimately meh game.
FC3/4 are shit.
Blood Dragon is brilliant too in its own way, love the ambiance, the weapons, and how it all fits the gameplay surprisingly well.
FC1 was a pretty but ultimately meh game.
FC3/4 are shit.
snickothemule
Member
1. All the non monster bits were great. Had an absolute blast rushing through the jungle, hiding behind big ass leaves and laying waste to a bunch of roided up goons.
2. Setting fire to grass was great, but it couldn't help but feel the game was a bit aimless. The re-setting of checkpoints was a bit overlooked and bugged me a bit.
3. Was pretty fun, but became a bit tiresome at the end. The bow was a lot of fun.
Blood Dragon: magnificent homage to the 80's, sick soundtrack but playing it so close to Far Cry 3 made me not want to finish it. I think if I had played it instead of 3, I would have enjoyed it more.
4. Haven't tried it and probably won't.
2. Setting fire to grass was great, but it couldn't help but feel the game was a bit aimless. The re-setting of checkpoints was a bit overlooked and bugged me a bit.
3. Was pretty fun, but became a bit tiresome at the end. The bow was a lot of fun.
Blood Dragon: magnificent homage to the 80's, sick soundtrack but playing it so close to Far Cry 3 made me not want to finish it. I think if I had played it instead of 3, I would have enjoyed it more.
4. Haven't tried it and probably won't.
From what I gathered
1 is not spoken about much
2 is mixed with some people completely hating it, while others love it and consider it the best of the series
3 is praised by a lot of people, although here on gaf a lot of people do not like the story/ubisoft open world game structure
Blood Dragon is a crazy dlc/expansion thing, loved by a lot of people, and is considered as one of the most unique ideas for additional content to a AAA game
4 is considered a refined version of 3. I've noticed people are more positive on 4 than 3 on gaf.
I've only played 3, Blood Dragon and 4. I enjoyed all of them, and I consider them to be the best games utilizing the ubisoft formula.
1 is not spoken about much
2 is mixed with some people completely hating it, while others love it and consider it the best of the series
3 is praised by a lot of people, although here on gaf a lot of people do not like the story/ubisoft open world game structure
Blood Dragon is a crazy dlc/expansion thing, loved by a lot of people, and is considered as one of the most unique ideas for additional content to a AAA game
4 is considered a refined version of 3. I've noticed people are more positive on 4 than 3 on gaf.
I've only played 3, Blood Dragon and 4. I enjoyed all of them, and I consider them to be the best games utilizing the ubisoft formula.
Northeastmonk
Gold Member
I had high hopes when FC1 was going strong on PC and Xbox. 2 was good, but it really repeated a lot of the same setups back to back. I didn't really get into FC3 because it was a bit juvenile in my books. FC4 is fun, but I really didn't get into the plot or the lore. FC was better for me back with Instincts. You feel like you're up against a huge number of enemies. Like an action movie.
Ubisoft's dialogue in their games have sucked in the last couple years. It has gotten incredibly trendy and almost predicable. I rarely skipped cutscenes last gen and now I'm skipping everything after I read the text at the bottom.
Blood Dragon didn't last long at all. It got most of its praise from people on the internet. I bought it, but I really haven't had the urge to finish it.
What's worse is that they focus on these very generic and not very interesting plots. It's like the writers really don't know how to tell a story. Everything feels so generic and thrown together.
You can tell in newer games that they cut parts out or shorten them up. This is so you don't feel bored doing the same thing you've always done. I blame Ubisoft and FC's trendy nature for that. I use to think FC was up there with the baddest FPS games ever. Now I think its a very generic FPS for the in-crowd. Much like how I vision all of Ubisoft's games to be like.
There's just no weight to what they're trying to achieve in the newer games. I don't want to see Generic Tower 24 completed or have some race to rescue some attractive woman's hut. It just isn't that exciting after you've done much better before this gen even began.
FC has this light weight feel to it. It may be the technology or the engine they're using, but it feels very light. The guns don't have the best aiming to them either.
In terms of Ubisoft's best? Probably
They don't really have anything better (or with a FPS appeal). That's including Ghost Recon. GR is one series that will never reach the same level of hype again. Ubisoft markets off Tom Clancy more than they make games that are as good as a Tom Clancy book. FC is just one series they're crashing into a land fill. They're making it too trendy and they're generating sales from cheap juvenile thrills. I know it's a video game and everyone expects the above the beyond, but they really don't do much for the genre of FPS except market expansive worlds with generic bursts of game play.
I really lost touch with what was considered good story telling in pop culture video games after experiencing Ubisoft over the years. The AC and FC formula is just not doing it for me. I need something more compelling. The models anymore can't do a plot justice unless they've literally spent a couple years working on their design.
Ubisoft's dialogue in their games have sucked in the last couple years. It has gotten incredibly trendy and almost predicable. I rarely skipped cutscenes last gen and now I'm skipping everything after I read the text at the bottom.
Blood Dragon didn't last long at all. It got most of its praise from people on the internet. I bought it, but I really haven't had the urge to finish it.
What's worse is that they focus on these very generic and not very interesting plots. It's like the writers really don't know how to tell a story. Everything feels so generic and thrown together.
You can tell in newer games that they cut parts out or shorten them up. This is so you don't feel bored doing the same thing you've always done. I blame Ubisoft and FC's trendy nature for that. I use to think FC was up there with the baddest FPS games ever. Now I think its a very generic FPS for the in-crowd. Much like how I vision all of Ubisoft's games to be like.
There's just no weight to what they're trying to achieve in the newer games. I don't want to see Generic Tower 24 completed or have some race to rescue some attractive woman's hut. It just isn't that exciting after you've done much better before this gen even began.
FC has this light weight feel to it. It may be the technology or the engine they're using, but it feels very light. The guns don't have the best aiming to them either.
In terms of Ubisoft's best? Probably
They don't really have anything better (or with a FPS appeal). That's including Ghost Recon. GR is one series that will never reach the same level of hype again. Ubisoft markets off Tom Clancy more than they make games that are as good as a Tom Clancy book. FC is just one series they're crashing into a land fill. They're making it too trendy and they're generating sales from cheap juvenile thrills. I know it's a video game and everyone expects the above the beyond, but they really don't do much for the genre of FPS except market expansive worlds with generic bursts of game play.
I really lost touch with what was considered good story telling in pop culture video games after experiencing Ubisoft over the years. The AC and FC formula is just not doing it for me. I need something more compelling. The models anymore can't do a plot justice unless they've literally spent a couple years working on their design.
I hope they do. I hope they noticed the mostly muted, and slightly negtive reaction to AC: Syndicate's reveal, and the fact the watch dog's team said they would take more risks with the sequel indicate ubi is realizing they need to change the formula.
I think the problem is that after AC:Brotherhood, they adapted that formula to all their open world games, and kinda removed an identity with far cry and watch dogs, because that formula started with AC.
I really hope they figure it out, because seeing that video of how the dev team desperately wants syndicate to be great, the fact I was so muted to their reveal kinda depresses me.
evilromero
Member
I only played 1 or 2. Can't remember which. It was pretty underwhelming.
D
Deleted member 471617
Unconfirmed Member
First one I ever played was Far Cry 3 which ended up being a 9.5/10 and my 2012 game of the year. The FPS genre is also my least favorite so that definitely tells you how good the game was/is. There's a few things that I didn't like about the game and if it wasn't for that, I probably would have rated the game an 9.8/10.
Played and finished Blood Dragon. Good game. 8.5/10. Played and finished Far Cry 4. Excellent game. 9/10.
Tried Far Cry Classic on PS3 and it was horrible. Happy I started with Far Cry 3. Never played Far Cry 2 or Instincts nor do I want to.
From Far Cry 3 forward, im a fan and look forward to Far Cry 5.
Played and finished Blood Dragon. Good game. 8.5/10. Played and finished Far Cry 4. Excellent game. 9/10.
Tried Far Cry Classic on PS3 and it was horrible. Happy I started with Far Cry 3. Never played Far Cry 2 or Instincts nor do I want to.
From Far Cry 3 forward, im a fan and look forward to Far Cry 5.
1 - Amazing. Until that difficulty spike in the end.
2 - Frustrating at times but most of the time it's a really immersive and well thought out game. But it requires a lot of patience.
3 - Surprisingly fun game, it was just a good time all the time pretty much.
4 - More of the same formula, and I can't manage myself to finish it. I think my open world Ubi soft tolerance is gone forever. And after playing countless of hours in Destiny I could never get comfortable with the controls. I just suck at FC4, it's not fun to play at all.
2 - Frustrating at times but most of the time it's a really immersive and well thought out game. But it requires a lot of patience.
3 - Surprisingly fun game, it was just a good time all the time pretty much.
4 - More of the same formula, and I can't manage myself to finish it. I think my open world Ubi soft tolerance is gone forever. And after playing countless of hours in Destiny I could never get comfortable with the controls. I just suck at FC4, it's not fun to play at all.
daninthemix
Member
For me, Far Cry 2's Africa was the most atmospheric and interesting setting.
But in terms of gameplay and structure the games just keep getting better. Far Cry 4 is absolutely fantastic - just a few niggles shy of perfection, really.
I do think the games are a little too animation-bound. FC3 was even worse, as you had to watch an animation every time you looted a body, but thankfully 4 allows you to turn that off. But stuff like the eagles are just idiotic - you get locked up in an animation watching the eagle swoop in and attack when it's about a mile away from you.
Those eagles would've been really neat if they attacked you rarely - just a couple times in the course of a playthrough, rather than constantly. That would've been a spectacle, rather than a pain in the arse. And constantly hearing terrified natives yelling "aargh! Eagle!" then firing their weapons in vain gets really old and breaks immersion. Rest of the wildlife is pretty neat though, although it's kindof dumb how an entire assault rifle clip is needed to kill even medium size animals. When you unlock the Bull its a two-shot kill even for rhinos and bears, but new players may not know that and consequently the wildlife could be frustrating simply because it comes out of nowhere and you feel somewhat defenseless. Also, I've been stunlocked to death by yaks and rhinos before - the canned animation knocks you down, robbing you of control. You get back up and are immediately knocked down again by the goring animal, having never regained control. Repeat until dead. Didn't happen often but when it did it made me curse Ubisoft for being such control freaks, always on the lookout for some petty opportunity to remove your agency.
'Press Y to extinguish fire', and other healing animations are just tedious. I want the next Far Cry to get out of my way more.
However adding the Buzzer was a masterstroke, as it takes away basically any traversal complaints someone might have. Now you can use the roads (and almost certainly get attacked en-route, a'la Far Cry 2), or you can go offroad, or simply fly. In a game where traversing is your main activity, giving players this amount of freedom just makes more sense than you suspect Ubisoft are capable of. Very impressed.
EDIT: but fucking hell Ubisoft can you give the drug sequences a rest? Between 3 and 4 we've had enough of them. Why bother unlocking a ton of weapons if you're going to insist on the bow in some tripped out bullshit segment? There's far too many of them, and no, Ubisoft, your storytelling doesn't warrant the regular eradication of player agency like this.
But in terms of gameplay and structure the games just keep getting better. Far Cry 4 is absolutely fantastic - just a few niggles shy of perfection, really.
I do think the games are a little too animation-bound. FC3 was even worse, as you had to watch an animation every time you looted a body, but thankfully 4 allows you to turn that off. But stuff like the eagles are just idiotic - you get locked up in an animation watching the eagle swoop in and attack when it's about a mile away from you.
Those eagles would've been really neat if they attacked you rarely - just a couple times in the course of a playthrough, rather than constantly. That would've been a spectacle, rather than a pain in the arse. And constantly hearing terrified natives yelling "aargh! Eagle!" then firing their weapons in vain gets really old and breaks immersion. Rest of the wildlife is pretty neat though, although it's kindof dumb how an entire assault rifle clip is needed to kill even medium size animals. When you unlock the Bull its a two-shot kill even for rhinos and bears, but new players may not know that and consequently the wildlife could be frustrating simply because it comes out of nowhere and you feel somewhat defenseless. Also, I've been stunlocked to death by yaks and rhinos before - the canned animation knocks you down, robbing you of control. You get back up and are immediately knocked down again by the goring animal, having never regained control. Repeat until dead. Didn't happen often but when it did it made me curse Ubisoft for being such control freaks, always on the lookout for some petty opportunity to remove your agency.
'Press Y to extinguish fire', and other healing animations are just tedious. I want the next Far Cry to get out of my way more.
However adding the Buzzer was a masterstroke, as it takes away basically any traversal complaints someone might have. Now you can use the roads (and almost certainly get attacked en-route, a'la Far Cry 2), or you can go offroad, or simply fly. In a game where traversing is your main activity, giving players this amount of freedom just makes more sense than you suspect Ubisoft are capable of. Very impressed.
EDIT: but fucking hell Ubisoft can you give the drug sequences a rest? Between 3 and 4 we've had enough of them. Why bother unlocking a ton of weapons if you're going to insist on the bow in some tripped out bullshit segment? There's far too many of them, and no, Ubisoft, your storytelling doesn't warrant the regular eradication of player agency like this.
I still wonder if I should play Far Cry 1 and just think of it as Crysis 0. People tell me Crysis 1 basically makes its unnecessary at this point.
I like parts of Far Cry 3, particularly the parts that involve running around, clearing bases, doing some of the side missions, and getting into random gunfights. The simulation-based action game Far Cry was supposed to be is still hidden within Far Cry 3 (and presumably 4), but is buried underneath the Ubisoft Game Formula. It pokes its head out whenever you aren't doing main missions which are just boring attempts at Call of Duty. I liked Blood Dragon much more because losing the burden of being realistic allows it to focus mostly on what was actually fun about Far Cry 3. The level design of the bases you capture is a lot more expansive and elaborate. It adds crazy shit that only makes the gameplay more fun instead of tedious. Even the main missions are better. All-in-all Blood Dragon is just a more condensed and better distilled version of Far Cry 3.
For Far Cry 5 I hope Ubisoft uses the power of the new consoles to really expand the game. Mainly I want a bigger map that accommodates full-blown aircraft (not just gyrocopters).
I like parts of Far Cry 3, particularly the parts that involve running around, clearing bases, doing some of the side missions, and getting into random gunfights. The simulation-based action game Far Cry was supposed to be is still hidden within Far Cry 3 (and presumably 4), but is buried underneath the Ubisoft Game Formula. It pokes its head out whenever you aren't doing main missions which are just boring attempts at Call of Duty. I liked Blood Dragon much more because losing the burden of being realistic allows it to focus mostly on what was actually fun about Far Cry 3. The level design of the bases you capture is a lot more expansive and elaborate. It adds crazy shit that only makes the gameplay more fun instead of tedious. Even the main missions are better. All-in-all Blood Dragon is just a more condensed and better distilled version of Far Cry 3.
For Far Cry 5 I hope Ubisoft uses the power of the new consoles to really expand the game. Mainly I want a bigger map that accommodates full-blown aircraft (not just gyrocopters).
Crysis is a better game but it frontloads all of its best levels, and even taken as a whole is much, much shorter than FC1. FC is much more consistent throughout, although it can get pretty unfair at times. It's definitely worth playing.
As someone who only made it about 30% of the way through Far Cry 2 and about the same for Far Cry 3 I really loved Far Cry 4. Great setting, great character in Pagan Min and the gameplay felt better than it ever has.
So I guess the series is a mixed bag for me. I've liked them all but only really got sucked into 4.
So I guess the series is a mixed bag for me. I've liked them all but only really got sucked into 4.
Noisepurge
Member
i think you got that wrong, 1&2 are horrible, especially by today's standards
3, 4 and Blood Dragon are amazing and great fun to play.
grosvenor_92
Member
Far Cry 2 - Its fun but can be frustrating at times
Far Cry 3 - I enjoyed it despite the issues it has. MP was okay as well imo
Blood Dragon - Fun over the top gameplay and I liked it more than 3
Far Cry 4 - Haven't played it but its not much different than 3 from what I've read. The story is apparently better though
Far Cry 3 - I enjoyed it despite the issues it has. MP was okay as well imo
Blood Dragon - Fun over the top gameplay and I liked it more than 3
Far Cry 4 - Haven't played it but its not much different than 3 from what I've read. The story is apparently better though
brokenbeans
Banned
If I loved FC2 but only got half way through 3 and was not compelled to go back I should not bother with 4 right?
No. Far Cry 4 is just an improved 3 in a lot of ways so its best if you don't bother if you didn't enjoy 3 enough
wipeout364
Member
Despite all the negative answers I think if you like FPS you need to play the far cry series. I don't think you need to play them all as that is a serious time commitment. I would pick up that collection and play three or buy 4. These games have really taken FPS in a very different direction you may like or not but any fan of the genre can appreciate what ubisoft has tried to do with the series.
For the record two is my favorite, it's african heart of darkness vibe is unforgettable. I've enjoyed them all, two has serious flaws but I am a sucker for characters and atmosphere which two has in spades.
For the record two is my favorite, it's african heart of darkness vibe is unforgettable. I've enjoyed them all, two has serious flaws but I am a sucker for characters and atmosphere which two has in spades.
plasmawave
Banned
Blood Dragon, man.
I need a sequel to that. I wouldn't mind FC5 going full 80's cyber action.
I need a sequel to that. I wouldn't mind FC5 going full 80's cyber action.
GoonerTRON
Banned
1,2,3 and 4 have all been GOTY tier games for me.