@CallMeDuraSouka: I think you can summarize this entire debate as Arcade Vs. Simulation. Ubisoft changed their entire initial lineup of games such as Rainbow Six / Ghost Recon / Splinter Cell from a simulation (one shot one kill) into arcades by removing realistic elements in favor of faster rewards to please the crowds. If you are a simulation dude, then obviously Far Cry 2 wins.
They basically took everything that the movie "Saving Private Ryan" did and reused it. Zero originality. And BTW, all other WW2 games that had a Normandy beach landing scene did the same. Just proves again that this is just a money grabber, no originality or creativity.
This game will never be realistic as they claim it to be. Not with those mechanics anyway. Only thing realistic about it is the visuals and the setting. The ARMA series and Squad are the only realistic options these days on a PC.
Thanks GameSpot for the preview, I appreciate it. It made it easier for me to understand that yet another "Tom Clancy" brand has been completely stripped out of realism and any sense of connection to real world special ops teams.
I'm sure it will please the masses (like Siege did), but for someone looking for tactical, realistic fights this is pure garbage. If you want to have fun blowing stuff up in an open world game you can play GTA. This is supposed to be a "Tom Clancy" game after all, no?
So sad to see such good titles go to waste by all the developers. Gone are the days that games were created to serve a specific purpose, and not just to fill out wallets.
Really want to remain positive about this game, since I loved the ME games so much. After seeing the recent trend in EA games, I think I am in for another disappointment.
ME2 was my favorite - despite its flaws. It still felt like a BIOWARE game. Also DAO was amazing (again a Bioware game). Then the changes started to come - EA marketing decisions probably. "Hey, let's dumb down the RPG elements, Leveling up and skills should focus on COMBAT. Also, let's remove any tactical elements and focus on fast COMBAT". Looks like those decisions were implemented, as I was extremely disappointed with DAI. Not because of its production values, its story, or characters.Those were not amazing, but good enough. What totally ruined it was the "new" combat system. It felt so limited, frustrating and anything but tactical. They basically killed any meaningful tactical decision making. Just mash your controller / mouse button until they are all dead. All of these changes were made in order to appeal to a larger audience (more money). I see the same thing happening here again with MEA. The combat looks more and more like COD in 3rd person - no tactics or a smarter way to play. It looks like the only skill you will need is fast button pressing, again. I hope that I'm wrong here, but I've been into gaming a long time now, so my current intuition tells me that I may be right.
@MarcRecon: Unfortunately, it's not Ubisoft, it's the "market". Ubisoft is just adapting itself to what will make more profit. So sad that most people prefer to buy these iterations of what used to be amazing IPs. We won't see Rainbow Six, Ghost Recon or Splinter Cell remakes that match the deep tactical, and realistic simulations that they were (originally). Today it's all Call of Duty style..
So from a business perspective, you can't blame them, only "us".
Looking good but alas, where is the new X-Wing Game?????? No force, no lightsabers and no gimmick, just pure space fighting. Maybe one day in a galaxy far far away...
Jazz_28's comments