With hindsight vision, was Far Cry 2 good?

Stopped playing it after the terrible micro-stuttering on AMD cards. I had a 4870 at the time, and it was infuriating to try and play.

I liked it at the time it came out, though I haven't played it since.

the main thing that stood out to me compared to more recent FC games is the effort they put in to make it immersive - minimal HUD, map was a physical object you pulled out and looked at, healing system had those crazy animations etc.

it could be bland and repetitive at times but overall I remember having a great time with it.

I think i'd still say FC3 is my favourite in the series but I do think FC2 was good as well.

Best far cry game by far. much better than 3, 4 and 5. and also original game too since original got ruined after second half.

what makes Far cry 2 great was. it was immersive game in unique africa setting. something other games didnot do. no hand holding, having best map ever ie map on hand that also influnce metro, amazing weather effects etc.

It was a snore to me....the walking part especially. Not being able to climb a simple ant hill (forcing me to go around a long way) got old fast. I definitely liked the map and minimap. I couldn't stand the greenish tint. The only games with worse tint were Fallout 3 and New Vegas.

Gaaah. Yek. I have vanilla FC2 installed on the laptop.

I guess I did play it last year.

as a whole, no

but it seemed to have some interesting parts to it

It was annoying but I spent a lot of time with it so it can't have been as bad as I remember.

You get malaria and your car and guns break down every 5 minutes:

You take a guess.

Someone described Far Cry 2 best as a tech demo, that's all it was.

The re-spawning check points killed the game for me, I got so fed up having to fight the same battles over and over again.

malaria add more immersion and challenge in game. later far cry games are cinematic QTE fest hand holding.

far cry 3, every mission has 10 minuts of cutscene, every boss fight has QTE, too cinematic, arrow show where to go and giant arrow show where enemies are coming.

nothing like that in Far cry 2. when enemies hide behind tree. you have to figure it out where they are instead of xray vision and see through walls.

A couple of things that YT-er didn't mention is the HUD in FC4 can be customized and FC2 also has fast travel. The player isn't forced to travel the long way.

nope. twas f*ckin awful. too many faults to list.

landing several months after crysis showed just how good a shooter with huge open environments could be didn't help though tbh.

always remember the quote on the back of the box from pc gamer "by god it's incredible! 94%" that quote did get me to revisit it several times convinced i must've overlooked something, like i'd be playing without realising i had annoying mode set to ultra or something

far cry's 2 combat was nothing less of groundbreaking, an so was the depiction of africa's nature. I didn't need hindsight for that. It was quite obvious when you played the game.

The game did have some flaws though, for starters this wasn't really a far cry sequel, respawning enemies were a bit of chore and it had a bit of a lackluster story.

At reception the game had to compete with the first one and that means also cryteks geniality, but ubisoft did pretty well in that regard, this was a class act, and pretty much the last good far cry.

Far Cry 2 was good the atmosphere and fire fights with the attention of detail are what made it good but respawning enemies are annoying as hell and the ending was trash. Here's some screenshots I took last year with some Sweetfx.

crysis didn't run on consoles though, and I wouldn't say crysis console port is better than far cry 2.

i was talking about the pc versions of both dude

No

yes but far cry 2 like many other games from back then was mainly designed for xbox 360/ps3, crysis was a pure pc game. You're basically comparing games that are a gen apart.

not really. far cry 1 was a pc game first and foremost. and i'm one of the few who also bought crysis on the 360 believe it or not and i still would take it all day long over far cry 2 on the pc. i'm judging them on their gameplay

far cry 1 yes, but far cry 2 no, and far cry 2 wasn't really a far cry game either, just like all the ones that followed, far cry 1 is the only far cry made by crytek

I bought crysis on the x360 as well, and I prefer far cry 2 by far, the console version of crysis doesn't have any atmosphere imo

It was horrible. AI that could see you through bushes from a mile away. Enemies that respawned if you went 30 feet in the other direction and back again. A story that was terrible, and to boot, they didn't know how to program factions, so instead of just saying it outright, they disguised it each mission by saying, "You'll be undercover, so our guys will shoot at you, too." Also, the horrible voice acting didn't help.

Enemies that could drive insane speeds to catch up with you, and every vehicle had limited physics and could turn on a dime means you didn't have any actual good chases where you outrun the enemy by making them crash or anything of the sort. They were all basically invincible unless you shot at them.

It was just a horrid game, in general.

It was okay. It was too overambitious for what it wanted to be and ultimately fell flat in the delivery.

It's fantastic for the first quarter of the game, but gets old very quickly. But it does have an X-factor that the others don't have.

Farcry 2 was my favorite of the whole series.

Of course it did alot of things wrong, but it got so many things right.

The main thing it did wrong was you could only save at a safehouse, which made it alot less spontaneous. Also the enemy bases would regen at a ridiculous speed, like you would clear it out, drive down the road, drive back 5 minutes later and it's reset. And you kept having to fight base after base after base just to drive 3 miles to your quest. With no savegame so if you died you lose hours of progress.

The other Farcries had different problems.

Far Cry 4 the animals were out of control, you fighting wolf and eagle attacks you, you turn to fight eagle and enemy patrol shows up, fight enemy patrol and you got rammed by a ram. It's like being attacked by an entire zoo.

Thematically I liked FC2 the best. Africa was just beautiful. The Jackal. NGO's. It was just really good.

FC3 did everything right and was probably the most perfect of the series. But it was very safe. Very "pedestrian." White guy shows up and gets crowned king. Just very....formulaic and 'casual friday.'

I haven't played the one in Montana yet.

PS - If you liked FC2 the best, try Ghost Recon Wildlands. It made me fall in love with Bolivia.

You can turn all those HUD elements off so I don't see the issue.

I even turn off see enemies through walls, red outlines.

you cannot turn on QTEs, you cannot turn off long and unskipabble cutscenes and hand holding.

none of them are present in Far cry 2 and thus it was superior game.

I thought it sucked. Like with all Ubisoft games, you don't need to play them for more than ~5 hours, cause in that time you've seen the whole game and will just repeat doing the same shit. I wanted a sequel to the first FarCry. Not a copy/paste Ubishit checklist game.

doesn't look like you have any evidence to support far cry 2 being built specifically for consoles other than it launched across three platforms.

as for preference obviously that's your call. i'd rather stick rusty malaria infected needles in my eyes than play far cry 2 but that's just me

New Far Cry games are overloaded with icons on digital map. It makes Far Cry 2's map feel unique and stuff but it is not enough to fix rest of the game which was terrible, bland, boring and so on. I don't even wanna think about it.

Far cry 2 was better open world game than witcher 3.

it wasnot typical ubisoft open world. it was immersive and atmospheric game with no cutscene and handholding.

It was typical of FPS games from that time. Hard Reset didn't have cutscenes and handholding either. Bioshock had a couple as did Crysis.

Of the ones iv played 1, 2, 3, Blood Dragon and 4; 3 was my favorite and 2 was easily my least favorite (I really didnt like it).

Worst Far Cry game by far:

- brown

- dull characters

- monotone voice acting

- bland soundtrack

- repetitive, slow and boring gameplay

+ fire physics

+ decent AI

Real Africa does make the game look a bit better. Cool.... I might replay FC2 again.

Far Cry 2 really annoyed me because it has so much potential. Some ways ahead of its time with attention to detail. Yet ruined when you need to put a magazine full of bullets into someone, and then have a camp respawn 10 minutes later.

I probably would have been amazing if Ubisoft had the foresight to build modding into it.

As it stands, the mods are very limited.

I consider it one the worst games ever made.

I also consider it one of the worst sequels of all time, like Far Cry 1 was incredible, and this was bigger piece if shit than any sequel you can possibly name.

I liked what they were trying to do with all the systems they programmed, but it was not executed well as a game.

it was fine

FC2 has always been a different experience and while rough around the edges a hell of a fun game.

This.

@warmblur said:

Far Cry 2 was good the atmosphere and fire fights with the attention of detail are what made it good but respawning enemies are annoying as hell and the ending was trash. Here's some screenshots I took last year with some Sweetfx.

Damn I remember last gen saying "These graphics are amazing!" Looks so dated now. Oddly enough Crysis still hold well.

Mixed bag of what makes it better than other FC games and what makes it worse. The AI sucked, canvt do the kind of stealth reliably you could from 3 onward, but the Dunia build was in many ways better, the day and night cycle was by far the best, the weather effects and lighting were also much etter, judging in from console standards. But, again, AI sucked and mission designs weren't as good as Far Cry 3 or 4, and it lacks the activities to pad the game out in a fun way. The design of world was better, aside from the square borders of the maps that seems very artificial. Fire was also much more beneficial in FC2 over other games and generally more impressive.

Its been a while since I played it but i remember having more fun searching for diamonds than playing the actual game.

I thought it was really good. I found the respawning rate of the enemies to be too much though.

@blackballs said:

@warmblur said:

Far Cry 2 was good the atmosphere and fire fights with the attention of detail are what made it good but respawning enemies are annoying as hell and the ending was trash. Here's some screenshots I took last year with some Sweetfx.

Damn I remember last gen saying "These graphics are amazing!" Looks so dated now. Oddly enough Crysis still hold well.

It does look dated especially the character models I agree Crysis still holds up really well. Interesting note Far Cry 2 was originally going to be a PC exclusive. I just wonder how better it would of looked if it stayed as a exclusive I wish we got that version.

Those screenshots are the modded ones and it didn't come out until years after release. The vanilla graphics was much worse with an ugly green/gray tint. The ugly green look seemed pretty common for the time just looking at Far Cry 2, Fallout 3, and STALKER.....and finally winding down with Crysis 2/BF3.

I remember the sensation of regret while playing Far Cry 2.

I think if Ubisoft toned down the malaria, weapon deterioration, and enemy respawns, FC2 would have been quite decent.

Unfortunately, weapons rust right away during the rain that causes it. But, there are high terrain I can climb in the second map. It's strange that I couldn't climb some areas of much lower terrain back in the first map.

It just started raining and my machete is already rusted.

I think when you compare this to something like BOTW Korok seeds, you see the huge difference in creativity between the two companies.