Is Far Cry 2 Better Than Far Cry 5?

No wonder GS is dying, Far Cry 1 was the best.

I love all FC's (even the forgotten "Primal" lols), but I have actually still always liked FC 2 the best.

I think FC 2 was harshly reviewed in it's own time and I suppose even now, likely due to the aggravating Malaria, difficulty, & clunky guns. For now I am running FC 2 on my PC with SweetFX / Reshade, no Malaria mod, and weapon balance mod and it looks AWESOME and plays much better

I do wish Ubi would do a true "remaster" (not another terrible PORT like Ezio Trilogy or Rogue) of FC 2 with balance changes, and even the option to enable or disable the Malaria from the game, and other little things to improve it and I think it would sell well and be well received (more so than the original, for sure)

Check out this crazy glitch I found. https://youtu.be/E96fA65gJ_s

1. Farcry

2. Farcry 2

3. Farcry 5

Objectively, probably 5... and rightly so. Ubisoft has a rigid formula, they stick to it, focus-test it to shit, perfect it, and I would hope that they're good at it by now. But that's what makes Far Cry 5 boring to me. I might as well install Far Cry 3 and play that because what's the difference? If you're looking at it in terms of what game tried new things, which game had more ambition, which game helped define the genre as we know it now, then Far Cry 2 without hesitation. It wasn't incredibly different from the original, but it didn't feel derivative.

Look, it's pretty simple. For the AVERAGE gamer, FarCry 5 is much better. It's more polished, more fun, and more flexible for varying play styles.

For the DIE-HARD gamer (and really even only a subset of this group, willing to sacrifice fun for a challenge), FarCry 2 is better, because it offers a more challenging, less forgiving, but ultimately more rewarding experience upon completion — if you're able to finish it — especially if you are able to pull off a no-death playthrough.

But that's just it: you kind of have to be that glutton-for-punishment type to have "fun" with FarCry 2. It's unforgiving and relentless — beating FarCry 2 is like beating cancer... sucks during, but emotionally meaningful after.

I've played both. I felt slightly more immersed with FarCry 2, and a little more accomplished after skirmishes, but it was extremely frustrating at times. I had more fun with FarCry 5. At the end of the day, just ask yourself which you prefer to experience and choose accordingly.

Both are worth playing, but if I had to choose only one of these for a "desert-island" pick, I'd go with FarCry 5. At least that would be an escape. If I were on an actual desert island and I wanted to experience malaria, I'd just put the controller down and traipse off into the jungled interior.

FarCry 2 is trash. It's full of game breaking bugs and a grotesque checkpoint save system. I still wonder to this day how FC2 was even allowed to be released.

5 is superior entertainment. finishing second play through soon.

I never played Far Cry 1. But have played Far Cry 2,3,4 Primal and Now Far Cry 5 (PC). I bought the Gold Edition of this fifth outing after watching some gameplay footage prior to it's release.

For the similarities between 2 & 5, I have to say that the third is similar too in terms of game & story design. But for me, Far Cry 5 is a much better game fun-wise than 2.

I enjoyed Far Cry 2, but it was, at the time, a very demanding game to run. Far Cry 5 is very optimized and I am running Ultra at 1440p & getting around 75-80FPS.

In order which Far Cry games I like. Far Cry 5 is my favourite, then 3, then Primal, then 4 & then 2.

Far Cry 4 was a step backwards for me except for the arena. I played the arena more than the rest of the entire game lol.

One thing I dislike about Far Cry 5 (which I haven't finished yet) --SMALL SPOILER ALERT-- is having a hunting party grab you without a choice, & how many times! --SPOILER FINISHED-- I hate having something in an open-world game you cannot opt-out of or change via gameplay to your liking or being able to fight your way out of it, just doesn't make sense to me.

For me, I am not thinking about the story & that isn't particularly that good in Far Cry 5 imo, although some characters are good. What I am thinking about when playing Far Cry 5 is what guns or bow am I using, when to get stealthy and when to go in loud. How best to approach an enemy camp; should I bring along some help or go it alone. And Far Cry 5 is the best hunting & fishing simulator currently available, which takes up an unbelievable amount of my play time. Just creeping through a sunlit forest with my bow ready, just standing listening (with my Sennheiser GSX 1200 & Sennheiser HD599) at how fantastic the sounds are is awesome. For me, the story is the last thing I concern myself with in Far Cry 5 and the only reason I don't give this game a score of 10.

I have so far put in 44 hours of Far Cry 5 & only gotten through half the story (because I don't do the main missions first). And I shall be playing it for a long time to come and I haven't even looked at the Arcade Mode yet either, plus there is DLC to come, so lots of content to make me content :)

FarCry 2 definitely stuck with me more than any of the newer games.

Farcry 2 - In its own right (at that time in gaming), it had an engrossing story...nice open world gameplay. And this w/o DLC or any sort of game add-on; you truly felt like you were in the middle of a conflict. The game detail is awesome (again) for that era of gaming, it set the standard for what the series is now.

Farcry 5 - Although I have not spent a lot of time with it, the consensus is that with so much content in the game it is easily understood why its a given choice. But...but if the story is removed, and the outrageous sidequests are removed...then you have a pretty meaty & nice-looking Farcry 2.

Oscar won without a doubt, and he didn't even argue the best assets of Far Cry 2 very well. He's right, Far Cry 2 has never been bettered since. Far Cry 5 is really just Far Cry 3.3.2. FC2 was one of the last Ubisoft games to not insult the player. It didn't hold the player's hand, you were an unknown man thrown into a war torn environment. The game does not revolve around you, you are treated like dirt from the start. But as you start building a reputation, you find that people trust you more, you become more renowned, enemies start becoming afraid of you. This change throughout the game is very subtle and well executed.

Which takes me onto the AI. The AI in FC2 was genius. The enemies were always taking the piss out of each other and had really good banter. Also as Oscar mentioned, if one of them got injured, another enemy would come out and pull him into cover. Or if the player got injured, your buddy would pull you into cover and keep the enemies at bay until you heal yourself and reload.

The environment in FC2 was stunning, the mountains, the streams, the plains, were all meticulously layed out to either work to your advantage or cause your demise. I can remember my heart pounding as I waded my way up streams to infiltrate enemy camps without being caught. I was then able to strategically plant bombs throughout the camp, find my way to a safe vantage point, blow up the bombs and watch the carnage as the fire engulfed all the enemies.

I loved the weapons. The game punished players for expecting reliability from guns they just pick off the ground. I also remember that there are 2 golden AK47s well hidden in the world that never break or jam.

I agree with Oscar. FC5 just follows the same old formula of creating a constant positive feedback loop, it holds your hand and rewards you for insignificant contributions.

I don't think its fair asking people to decide who wins as the newer game always wins by default as people typically blindly support the latest game released in the series. But I guarantee, in 50 years time FC2 will be more fondly remembered and celebrated. (Its just a pity so many people slammed the game for two very miniscule reasons: the respawning camps and the lack of fast travel. I had zero issue with these two things and I urge anyone who has never played FC2 to give it a try)

Farcry 5 is definitely better mainly because it can be played from start to finish with no worries. Farcry 2 had game ending bugs which Ubisoft acknowledged as an issue with the save file becoming corrupt however they never bothered to fix it and this bug exists in the game today. I got through farcry 2 right to the ending but on my first playthrough I was over halfway through the game and didn't know about the game ending bug which i got where an npc moved to another spot on the map and it was now impossible to complete that main story mission so I had to start a new game from the start....this can be avoided by having multiple saves and loading an old one if npcs aren't were they should be but you still need to know when your game was in a good state. I really like Farcry 2 but it is impossible to recommend because of the game ending glitches as well as the frustrations of malaria and guns jamming.

I finished FC2 on the hardest setting and it was a nightmare. You got shot from miles away every time you started walking and the moment a car spotted you got shot from miles away too. But the setting was ok and the malaria wasn't that bothersome.

far cry 2 did not hold my attention on 2 tries. fc5 has been a blast truly looking forward to finishing.

finished 1 3 4 and will 5. 2 and primal negative...

Are you guys really scrounging content from Crowbcat?

"Who is he? Who the hell is he? Is he CIA?!" - any and all enemies in Far Cry 2

"You can hide from god...sinner" - any and all enemies in Far Cry 5

Needless to say improvements were required from both. Gameplay obviously goes to FC5 in every way. But the story of FC2 is vast VASTLY better. Contrarily FC5 had Clutch Nixon who could be the hero of any man. The legend of heaven, the legend of hell, and his first name was Clutch (who does that?!).

We play games and so gameplay is most important. I have to give it to 5 even though I really do not want to. But you should know that our family does not send STATUS UPDATES.

far cry 2 was the only one that sucked

Far Cry 5 is better in every way! IMO

FC2 was the weakest in the series. Attroucius respawn of guardpost constantly. Loooooong boring drives from A to B. Malaria.. ??
FC 2 had a couple good things though.. It had some amazing detail to game physics too many to mention. Check this rather long video here.. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FCeEvQ68jY8
It still looks gorgeous almost 10 years later.

No way.

FarCry 2 was annoying.
Re-spawning guys in wife-beaters that take full clips before going down, that if your weapon doesn´t break or malaria gets you.

I finish every game I start, but not this one, f**k that game.

When Real FarCry will come from Ubisoft? The real FarCry was the original FarCry 1. It was awesome.

FC5 is dumb down, simpler easier game to get into then FC2. I like the gun jam, not being reload while running

Far Cry 2 was a fkn chore to play, and utterly turned me off of the series. Note that I didn't say "hard," as it wasn't, but the goddamned constantly respawning checkpoints and silly camp system made it a real waste of time.

I bought Far Cry 2 when it first came out, but it would not even run on my, at the time, high end gaming PC, without a really choppy framerate. So I just returned it. After that I was kinda glad because of the negative reviews, pointing out things like your gun jamming, unrealistic respawn rates and the malaria thing.

I'm currently replaying Far Cry 4. The negative stereotypical portrayal of conservatives and Christianity turned me off of Far Cry 5, but all the hype got me in the mood to play a Far Cry game.