@openmind23: Yeah, I really hate how they force story on you at certain points.
The fact that they have the ability to hunt you down & capture you at any point makes the rest of the game seem ridiculous as well. Why are they letting you kill all their cult buddies & blow up all their stuff when they can literally shoot you with a bliss bullet & then slit your throat ant any point?
I think FC3 is the game I enjoyed the most. 4 & 5 are just iterations, small improvements on the formula they nailed with 3. 5 might technically be a better game but it just feels like more of the same to me. It feels like a game built by committee, it's just too safe.
@hushed_kasket: If you like that more hard core experience, try Ghost Recon Wildlands. It's a more modern game with all the UI &graphical niceties gamers have become accustomed to but on harder difficulties, you will get killed by a single bullet. It's that same Ubisoft open world grind but if you're into that, it's much more satisfying than FC5.
It's hard to separate preference from evaluating the debate here but I think Far Cry 2 won.
Far Cry 5 may accommodate plenty of play types but it's a Jack of all trades, master of none. FC2 had identity. FC5 feels like it's trying to appeal to everyone, it has no real confidence in a singular vision.
The worst thing about FC2 was the respawning enemies. The map forced you to travel through certain corridors often & having to kill the same enemies every time became tedious & an annoyance. It also detracted from the feeling that you were making any difference by being there. FC5 gives the player that satisfaction by clearing out outposts & eventually each region. Personally I think there are far too many enemies spawning in FC5, even after taking a significant number of outposts but that seems more to do with the game's love for chaos.
FC5 is a very polished game but there's just nothing new. Imagine being served the same meal, day after day as the chef perfects the dish. When it comes to the final dish, it's great but... it's kinda still the same thing you've been eating every day. That's what Ubisoft games feel like now.
@Terminator95: That comment didn't deserve a response. I'm advocating for consumer choice & he brought out the same comment he probably writes on every comment that mentions PC somewhere. I don't care about fanboy arguments & name calling, we're all gamers and we should band together as consumers rather than allowing big corporations to take advantage of us by locking us into a closed ecosystem.
I'm complimenting Sony's games & saying I want to play them with the best performance available for what I can afford. This game runs at 30fps at 1080P & apparently a rather variable fps in framerate mode. I have 3 year old hardware & I know I could get better performance than that. That's not bragging, it's just making a statement about the hardware I chose to invest in.
@kiloman_74: Yeah, but my point is that games should be hardware agnostic. Consumers should be able to invest in the system they choose, but not have to invest in every system.
I'll happily give Sony money for their games but I don't want to have to buy a computer with Sony's name on it, a computer with Microsoft's name on it, a computer with Nintendo's name on it... I have some money to spend on this hobby, but not infinite money.
With enough of these compliments, can we finally see these games come to Xbox & PC?
PS4 has some great games but I'd much rather play them on PC if I could. A PS4 is still a pricey purchase for what is really quite outdated hardware. I'd happily pay for the games if I could use my platform of choice.
People argue that the modern digital distribution age is much better, that now bugs can be fixed & games can be continually improved upon... and then stuff like this happens. Now the game you paid for has less content than it did at launch. At least they're replacing them this time, I remember reading that article about San Andreas a few years back.
bbq_R0ADK1LL's comments