Very open and beautiful, but incredibly repetetive and an untrue sequel to the original Far Cry.
Far Cry, while it did not have the most innovative gameplay and was frustratingly hard sometimes, was a great FPS with non-linear levels and strategic combat/ interactive features that were not seen in, but fit for, Half Life 2. Visuals and physics for its time were stunning. Crytek did not make this sequel though. It was done by the famous Ubisoft Montreal. I often have high expectations for them when they release a game, but it was a bit of a disappointment to me this time.
The game is very openly explorable and visually stunning (graphics have one of the best, if not the best, lighting and textures I ever saw). The fire is more realistic than ever in a video game. Healing animations are the most detailed and believable I have ever seen. Missions can be tackled in different ways. Day/night cycle is realistic and you have a sleep function. The gameplay music by Mark Canham is average, but fits well, but the main menu theme in particular is a stunning song that sets the right mood. You are in a 50 square kilometre world which looks beautiful, though may be a bit too big. Hearing all this, it sounds like an amazing game, but its not quite there and I will tell you why.
First to start off, this is not a Far Cry sequel. Characters are totally different even though the Jackal can be compared with Jack Carver in some ways. The story is well done with a good twist two-thirds of the way through even though the synopsis is quite simple. However, it is not in any way connected to the first game's. Although the sequel's story is a bit better than the first game's, relating the two would be trying to compare "Star Wars" with "Independence Day". The gameplay has a few tiny features that are similar, but the game is still very, very different. Combat for example, is intense fun at first but not so enjoyable after a while.
I once read a review from a person, saying that the game has a few original ideas (which is true), but has many, many other ideas taken off other games in order to seem more impressive. At first I thought he was just spoiled and expecting too much from a video game after I played other games that were well reviewed but still taken some other ideas from different games. It was not until I played S.T.A.L.K.E.R that I realised he was quite right. This is more of a sequel to STALKER only it has less features and is less realistic (seeing that enemy corpses disappear and respawn quite quickly which destroys the realism of the game) and unlike STALKER, is extremely repetetive. I recognised the main plot of finding a hidden person in the game world, and a reputation rating, and a mission system, and style of artifact hunting (in this case: diamonds) and several other things which were in STALKER alone. Recycling ideas is not a bad thing as even those would eventually turn into genres of their own, but in this case they just feel so forced. It still has things that STALKER didn't (like vehicle driving), but so few in total.
Like I said before, the game is repetitive. During the first thirty minutes, from the (at first) relaxing car ride to the rescuing of buddies, I was very excited about the game despite the fact that it was not related to the first game in any way. Then, when the missions, and side missions arrived, I had to endure the frustration of travelling long distances and bumping into checkpoints in which every one was hostile for no reason, and missions despite offering freedom, would conclude in only one way. Side missions are not only same in objective, but also same in briefing. If you want to earn diamonds to purchase weapons and upgrades you are tasked to find an available 'target of opportunity' with the exact same briefing said every single time that when you recieve it on your characters cellphone, you will end up hanging up immediately. Not only that but it goes for side missions to unlock weapons. Your weapons dealer tasks you to ambush a convoy in return for having something new available. Not only is it always about 'ambushing convoys', but it is always for the same reason too: weapons dealer says 'They're bringing a load of $h!tty AKs and the like.' Even Assassin's Creed wasn't as frustrating as that.
The main missions feature objectives which differ slightly, but they are usually accomplished the same way. It is mainly "destroy this, destroy that" or "kill them, assassinate him" with only a couple of exceptions for different mission variety. You are given 2 ways to accomplish them: either do it like you are told to, or to change a few things by accepting tasks from your 'best buddy'. It is usually the same when your buddy gives you an alternative: You have to find a radio operator, or guard, whatever, and intimidate them with your machete. You'd really think that Ubisoft would learn from Assassin's Creed, but it seems they learned a bit too late for Far Cry 2 and only soon enough for the AC sequel.
The game is still good, and I can see that Ubisoft put a lot of effort to make this game as environmentally and culturally accurate as possible, and its still something I will not return to the gaming shop. However, I can't help, despite my positive rating, be critical seeing that STALKER is less well reviewed just because of a few bugs when it is much less repetetive and more open-ended and realistic than Far Cry 2, and also because Far Cry 2 is not a true sequel. I liked Ubisoft's idea of choosing between some characters that were all from different ethnicities (especially since one of the good guys is originally Yugoslavian just like me), but it still doesn't help save this game. The first twenty minutes are a bit linear though still open and I think that that would have worked better without having a world so huge it takes ages to get to an objective filled with boring driving and constantly respawning and hostile checkpoints. Therefore, I think that games like STALKER and the first Far Cry are better choices, because these two games are better than this one.