bit-gamer.net

Far Cry 2 is Underappreciated

Comments 51 to 75 of 130

Reply
Niode 19th April 2010, 15:16 Quote
Did they fix the absolutely horrid mouselag on the PC version yet? I just can't play the game because it feels like I'm playing an xbox FPS but with one of those SmartFRAG adaptors. Really odd mouse acceleration that seems to get worse the more sensitivity you apply. Extremely annoying. That broke the game for me, I think I persevered for about 45 minutes before getting completely fed up with not being able to acquire targets fast enough.
Salazaar 19th April 2010, 15:27 Quote
There was the tiniest kernel of cracking gameplay in there, unfortunately it was bundled up in a game that was for the most part utter dross.
theflatworm 19th April 2010, 15:28 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Niode
Did they fix the absolutely horrid mouselag on the PC version yet? I just can't play the game because it feels like I'm playing an xbox FPS but with one of those SmartFRAG adaptors. Really odd mouse acceleration that seems to get worse the more sensitivity you apply. Extremely annoying. That broke the game for me, I think I persevered for about 45 minutes before getting completely fed up with not being able to acquire targets fast enough.

Count yourselves lucky. I had no mouse issues, and played through the entire game, convincing myself that the money I spent wasn't wasted because all the good stuff was just around the corner. After all, so many PC mags couldn't get it so spectacularly wrong... could they?
pimlicosound 19th April 2010, 15:37 Quote
My goodness! I can fully understand why some people didn't like FC2, but the vitriol being poured out here is astonishing, especially the enmity aimed at anyone who DID like the game. I fall squarely in the latter camp - I loved FC2.

Now, before any of you scream at me, a few things to consider:
1. I'm not a console fanboy who wouldn't know an FPS if it shot him in the face.
2. I'm not claiming that you all "played it wrong".
3. I'm not a retard.

That said, a few comments on this article and on the comments here:

1. Understanding the article
A lot of you critics seem to have misinterpreted this article. You claim that the game was over-appreciated, not under-appreciated, and you cite the overwhelmingly positive review scores. Please notice how, on page 1, the author writes that he is referring to the popular consumer perception of the game, not the critical reception.

2. Not liking the game
I can fully appreciate how a lot of you don't like the game. Even while playing it and loving it, I could see the other side of the coin. You had to spend a lot of time travelling, vehicles broke down frequently and were repaired with a repetitive operation, checkpoints respawned quickly, and there were hardly any civilians or other features to make the world feel like a real country where your actions had a persistent effect. I get it: if those were the features that stood out for you, then the game sucked.

3. Liking the game.
Here's the crucial point: those things mentioned above didn't stand out for everyone who played it. For me, I loved the sense of immersion (however much it could have been improved by fixing the above criticisms); I loved the tactical options (they WERE there for me); I loved the open world (yes, it felt unnecessarily restricted in places, but on the whole it was great); I loved the progression in weapons and the way the world responded to your advancement, making you feel more powerful.

4. Being dogmatic.
In general, I'm no post-modernist, but this really does seem to be a case where truth is entirely relative. For me, and gamers like me, FC2 was a true gem - a treasure-trove of survival, destruction and reward. For the critics, it was a dull, repetitive slog that crushed all your expectations. Now maybe it really is the case that we were playing two completely different games (I was obviously playing the Reviewers Edition!). More likely, FC2 revealed a gaping rift between gamers that other games tend to paper over more successfully. Some games love the way FC2 works; others hate it. I'm not sure how to define that dividing line: maybe it's expectations, maybe it's imagination, maybe it's a left / right brain activity thing. Whatever it is, people have reacted to this game very differently, and neither position is necessarily right.

5. Conclusion.
I think the article made a good point, but only from a certain point of view. Perhaps it should have done more to explore the reasons for the criticisms, but in general it is reporting on a very real phenomenon observed by lovers of FC2, and offers a good justification of the lovers' position.

PS: sorry if this comment is so long it has driven you to suck out your brain with a bendy straw.
alpaca 19th April 2010, 15:40 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by thehippoz


the guys who loved it.. I know exactly who they are- console gamers XD no I'm serious.. every console guy who owned a jacked up computer that's on the botnet loved it

i feel insulted. now i'll have to ask my older brother and his gang to hit and steal your lunch money tomorrow. i never had a console, and my computer is not on a botnet. nah.
i think it was quite a good game. it has his flaws, but so does crysis, monkey island and chuck norris.

on the other hand. where did this article come from?

edit: pimlicosound i love you.
PureSilver 19th April 2010, 15:43 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Krikkit
With a few tweaks FC2 could be a truly epic game imo, it's crying out for a mod pack.

^ This. If we could tweak the damned respawns and fix just a few of the really annoying elements, this could be one of the all-time greats. Unfortunately those that have tried (there was a notable attempt on ModDB) have discovered that without an SDK you're basically f***ed.
oMonarca 19th April 2010, 15:48 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by pimlicosound
snip

I totally agree.

And to those that say the game had no stealth, indeed learn to play. You have a ton of things to help out. Camo suit, silenced makarov, crouching, night time and one shooting guards so they don't call for help. That's all it takes.

Just because you don't have a guy with throat cancer whispering "Maximum Stealth", doesn't mean it's not there.
Hamish 19th April 2010, 15:49 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by D-Cyph3r
No. FarCry 2 was just a really bad game and always will be.


EDIT: It kinda peeves me off that alot of people say things like "FarCry 2 wasn't that bad" and "it had some really great ideas, just messed up on a couple of key points like driving and re-spawning enemies" yet almost everyone says Crysis was poor tech demo of a game. It genuinely baffles me how anyone could even remotely consider FC2 a superior game to Crysis, which had more ideas, more gameplay options, far better AI, more outright action and looked better.

this sums up how i feel about FC2/Crysis too
one of the absolute worst things about FC2 was the utterly abysmal driving physics and then forcing you to drive everywhere
that and the semi naked africans taking whole mags to die
i used to use the 'record game demo' button as a turbo in the car because it would unhook the engine from the framerate so everything would go about 3x as fast :P

FC2 did have 1 or 2 nice ideas but as a whole? ****ing ****
glad i pirated it and deleted after an hour or so of play

i was genuinely stunned at all the glowing reviews it got (iirc the warez version was out a couple days before release so i'd already played and discarded it by the time a lot of reviews came out)
Evildead666 19th April 2010, 17:14 Quote
Bought FC2 thinking it would have some of Far Cry in there, the great outdoors, huge map, and guys that stayed dead once shot.....

The storyline may have been good in FC2, but the implementation was awful.
Technically, great.
Walking 10 feet forwards, to turn around and find the 5 guys you just killed shooting you in the back.
Ammo lying everywhere, infinite and plentiful, along with medikits....where's the difficulty in that.

I THOUROUGHLY LOVED Far Cry 1, still love it, and will still play it.

Crysis was better in storyline etc, just very very bad coding. terrible coding.

Games are not getting better, they seem to be getting worse...
Buy a working franchise - put out as much crap as quick as possible to cash in on it, complain people don't like it or think its crap...

FC2 is good enough for the dustbin, If I wanted a multiplayer game with bots, i would have bought one....

Really annoyed I paid money for it...
Unknownsock 19th April 2010, 17:22 Quote
Funny thing is, i have 2 copies, one i got with my graphics card, the other i bought on release (oh god.
I've tried selling them, to no avail. Hell i even trie to give them away.
No luck.
frontline 19th April 2010, 18:44 Quote
Excellent game engine, with some awesome scenery. Just a shame about the repetitive gameplay and lack of atmosphere - a whole country populated by mercenaries? It wasn't far off being a classic, and hopefully they will rectify the shortcomings in a sequel.
cjb119 19th April 2010, 18:52 Quote
mmm, article does capture the good points of the game. But it was also flawed, mainly by the checkpoints, which were just badly done, and broke the atmosphere...no way would they be resupplied that quickly.

But also by the lack of stealth, you couldn't sneak because the game didn't consider the grass to be obscuring you so the guards saw you right away, and once they saw you, the entire gang then seemed to know were you are, even if you killed the first bunch.

So your best bet seemed to be sniper from such a massive distance the game didn't even think you were at the objective (ie before the map swapped zoom levels).

This game would be immensely better if they implemented something like visibility meter from the Thief series. Where your sounds etc and amount of cover would change the ability for the guards to detect you.
Evildead666 19th April 2010, 18:52 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by pimlicosound
My goodness! I can fully understand why some people didn't like FC2, but the vitriol being poured out here is astonishing, especially the enmity aimed at anyone who DID like the game. I fall squarely in the latter camp - I loved FC2.

Now, before any of you scream at me, a few things to consider:
1. I'm not a console fanboy who wouldn't know an FPS if it shot him in the face.
2. I'm not claiming that you all "played it wrong".
3. I'm not a retard.

That said, a few comments on this article and on the comments here:

1. Understanding the article
A lot of you critics seem to have misinterpreted this article. You claim that the game was over-appreciated, not under-appreciated, and you cite the overwhelmingly positive review scores. Please notice how, on page 1, the author writes that he is referring to the popular consumer perception of the game, not the critical reception.

2. Not liking the game
I can fully appreciate how a lot of you don't like the game. Even while playing it and loving it, I could see the other side of the coin. You had to spend a lot of time travelling, vehicles broke down frequently and were repaired with a repetitive operation, checkpoints respawned quickly, and there were hardly any civilians or other features to make the world feel like a real country where your actions had a persistent effect. I get it: if those were the features that stood out for you, then the game sucked.

3. Liking the game.
Here's the crucial point: those things mentioned above didn't stand out for everyone who played it. For me, I loved the sense of immersion (however much it could have been improved by fixing the above criticisms); I loved the tactical options (they WERE there for me); I loved the open world (yes, it felt unnecessarily restricted in places, but on the whole it was great); I loved the progression in weapons and the way the world responded to your advancement, making you feel more powerful.

4. Being dogmatic.
In general, I'm no post-modernist, but this really does seem to be a case where truth is entirely relative. For me, and gamers like me, FC2 was a true gem - a treasure-trove of survival, destruction and reward. For the critics, it was a dull, repetitive slog that crushed all your expectations. Now maybe it really is the case that we were playing two completely different games (I was obviously playing the Reviewers Edition!). More likely, FC2 revealed a gaping rift between gamers that other games tend to paper over more successfully. Some games love the way FC2 works; others hate it. I'm not sure how to define that dividing line: maybe it's expectations, maybe it's imagination, maybe it's a left / right brain activity thing. Whatever it is, people have reacted to this game very differently, and neither position is necessarily right.

5. Conclusion.
I think the article made a good point, but only from a certain point of view. Perhaps it should have done more to explore the reasons for the criticisms, but in general it is reporting on a very real phenomenon observed by lovers of FC2, and offers a good justification of the lovers' position.

PS: sorry if this comment is so long it has driven you to suck out your brain with a bendy straw.

Have you played Far Cry (the original) from start to finish ?
THAT was a game that was worthy of a Great Sequel....It reminded me of how I felt when I played Half Life for the first time.......
knuck 19th April 2010, 19:05 Quote
I started the game once and during the intro when you're a passenger on a Jeep, I had 20fps with a 9800GTX+ OC even at lowest details

uninstalled it
Woodspoon 19th April 2010, 19:42 Quote
It's a bad game, simple.
CardJoe 19th April 2010, 19:58 Quote
Far Cry 1 was a pretty pap game in my opinion. Great scenery. Great sniping. A handful of brilliant levels (the first two, the three islands, the dam), but it was balanced out by too much dross. The mutants, the inside levels, the lack of proper saves, the mutants, the vehicles, the mutants and the later levels were all rubbish.

I like Far Cry 1 to a degree, have finished it many times, but it's still indefensible pap from many a' angle.
GregTheRotter 19th April 2010, 20:00 Quote
Re-spawning enemies, too many checkpoints, etc etc. Good game, but I've tried playing it a second time, and failed. I.e gave up.
Chombo 19th April 2010, 20:28 Quote
This article is really well written and it almost managed to fool me. The article does focus on the thing the game did well which was pre-carnage planning, and then the execution of said plan. However that nugget is just one corn kernel in a large peice of crap.

While I enjoyed peeking over a ridge to survey the target, picking out the explosive objects that I could use to light the area on fire, it all became very repetitive and so became my plans. Sniper rifle, RPG and an uzi, every, single, time. It was the only loadout that made sense. You NEEDED an RPG for the inevitable jeep or boat that would interrupt your travel, you NEEDED a sniper rifle because of the open areas providing to long a travel distance to traverse with a closer range weapon, and then you needed a CQB weapon. Anything else left you unprepared IMHO.

I almost cared about the characters, except that once I realized that it was random about who would live and die kind of annoyed me. Then the endign was just a slap in the face for all of the hours that I had slogged through.

Deauthorized. Uninstalled. Sold. One playthrough.
Star*Dagger 19th April 2010, 20:30 Quote
This game is one of the better FPS's in the last 10 years.
This was during the time that only 5% of the population had DX10 capable computers, and morons were still running XP.
If you played this in dx9 you opinion means zero.
I will also say that this game was light years ahead of MW2, it was more of an open game than an amusement park ride on wheels.
There was also the side game of finding the diamonds, how many nay-sayers found all of them (or even challenged their ADD minds to find ANY of them.

I have great memories of this game, so much in fact that I am thinking about playing it through again from the beginning. I bought the limited edition which came with a bunch of cool stuff as well as a map of the two sectors.
I think the only single player game better than this in the last 5 years was Dragon Age:Origins.

Yours in fiery flame-thrower Plasma,
Star*Dagger
Helz 19th April 2010, 20:55 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hovis

Have to wonder if there has ever been a case of franchise necromancy (where a company picks up a 'dead' intellectual property and makes a sequel to it without any of the original devs) that has ever been any good.

Fallout 3 comes to mind. I know there are a lot of haters out there, but personally I thought it was fantastic. I'm a longtime fan of the original games too.

KotOR 2 is another sequel that was made by a different developer. Unfortunately it was released before it was finished and the plot becomes incoherent towards the end. Still I believe its superior to the original in a lot of ways.
Action_Parsnip 19th April 2010, 20:58 Quote
If you think Crysis was badly coded (under DX9) you have an inch deep understanding of pc technology. The DX10 executable was a showcase pointless waste of time.

I gather your not a native English speaker. No biggie, but sentences should be ended, just trailing off with '... ' is annoying to read.
Action_Parsnip 19th April 2010, 21:00 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Evildead666
Bought FC2 thinking it would have some of Far Cry in there, the great outdoors, huge map, and guys that stayed dead once shot.....

The storyline may have been good in FC2, but the implementation was awful.
Technically, great.
Walking 10 feet forwards, to turn around and find the 5 guys you just killed shooting you in the back.
Ammo lying everywhere, infinite and plentiful, along with medikits....where's the difficulty in that.

I THOUROUGHLY LOVED Far Cry 1, still love it, and will still play it.

Crysis was better in storyline etc, just very very bad coding. terrible coding.

Games are not getting better, they seem to be getting worse...
Buy a working franchise - put out as much crap as quick as possible to cash in on it, complain people don't like it or think its crap...

FC2 is good enough for the dustbin, If I wanted a multiplayer game with bots, i would have bought one....

Really annoyed I paid money for it...

If you think Crysis was badly coded (under DX9) you have an inch deep understanding of pc technology. The DX10 executable was a showcase pointless waste of time.

I gather your not a native English speaker. No biggie, but sentences should be ended, just trailing off with '... ' is annoying to read.
Blackie Chan 19th April 2010, 23:44 Quote
I didn't like it. Had to cheat to make it any fun at all.
pimlicosound 19th April 2010, 23:56 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Evildead666
Have you played Far Cry (the original) from start to finish ?
THAT was a game that was worthy of a Great Sequel....It reminded me of how I felt when I played Half Life for the first time.......

I have played FC1, start to finish, but I agree with Joe on this one. It had some good stages, mainly at the beginning, but it had a hammy story, the mutants were terrible enemies, and the final stage was a joke. I think FC1 is often over-rated, and idolised by the people who like to demonise FC2 for not offering more of the same. It didn't feel anything like HL to me - a game that is in another league entirely.

@Chombo - my usual weapons combo (when I'd unlocked them) was auto shotgun, heavy machine gun and grenade launcher. I very rarely used sniper tactics (there are always ways to use the terrain to get close to your targets safely), and tended to shoot the drivers rather than blow up the vehicles.
chrisb2e9 20th April 2010, 00:07 Quote
Loved it for a little while. Now I won't play it. Its just too boring.
Log in

You are not logged in, please login with your forum account below. If you don't already have an account please register to start contributing.



Discuss in the forums