Install Steam
login
|
language
简体中文 (Simplified Chinese)
繁體中文 (Traditional Chinese)
日本語 (Japanese)
한국어 (Korean)
ไทย (Thai)
Български (Bulgarian)
Čeština (Czech)
Dansk (Danish)
Deutsch (German)
Español - España (Spanish - Spain)
Español - Latinoamérica (Spanish - Latin America)
Ελληνικά (Greek)
Français (French)
Italiano (Italian)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesian)
Magyar (Hungarian)
Nederlands (Dutch)
Norsk (Norwegian)
Polski (Polish)
Português (Portuguese - Portugal)
Português - Brasil (Portuguese - Brazil)
Română (Romanian)
Русский (Russian)
Suomi (Finnish)
Svenska (Swedish)
Türkçe (Turkish)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamese)
Українська (Ukrainian)
Report a translation problem
Discussions Rules and Guidelines
Report this post
Well that makes FC2 sound very interesting, as I'm not the biggest fan of Ubi's gameplay loop "find the base and secure it and discover more of the map" mechanic, I tend to like more freedom in an open world game.
The game gives you very simple objectives, and then leaves everything else up to you. I think a lot of people expect their games to deliver the experiences to them these days. And that's why you see a lot of people complaining about the game being "boring".
In technical terms, this game is much more polished and PC-centric. It has much higher resolution textures and less of a reliance on fancy shaders and blur effects. Even today the game looks remarkable, especially at close and medium distance.
At first, it may seem simple, but that is an illusion. The game is composed of interlocking emergent systems that are simple on their own, but combine in really exciting, unpredictable and mostly believable ways.
It's too cheap not to try, but FC3 should only really inspire you to play this game if FC3 seemed too flashy and juvenile. Also, there is no hunting or crafting at all in this game; I know that can be a real deal-breaker (or maker) for some players.
I'd say that buying all your equipment with conflic diamonds, while perhaps boring, is very thematic to FC2's story and tone, whereas FC3 had much more of a focus on survival.
Anyway, my assessment, for better or worse:
Combat: FC2 has a much more run and gun feel to it than FC3. It's more about gunplay than stealth. And this gunplay is harder than FC3 too. Enemy AI will try to flank you, surround you, and ambush you, and if you don't get a headshot it will take multiple rounds to do more than stun them. You will often think you've found a spot of cover in FC2 only to be shot at a moment after that thought. You don't "clear" areas permanently in FC2 except for safehouses. FC3 has more weapons (I think; could be wrong on this), weapon customization, and way more gimmick kills.
Story: FC2 has very little story and doesn't really need one, whereas FC3 was more concerned with wacky bigger-than-life characters and cinematics, which it did really well. While the FC3 story is pretty stock, if you like story then FC3 is much, much better.
Graphics: FC2 had such amazing graphics in 2008 that the game still looks good today. FC3 is mostly better, as one would expect from a later game, though has some dreadfully low-res, low-poly stuff going on at times. Humans and animals are way better looking in FC3. It was rather shocking to me to see how badly they rendered a downed Japanese Zero fighter in FC3, though. Game physics in FC2 are generally better, with destructible and deformable objects, etc.
Atmosphere: Enormous plus points for making a game in sub-Saharan Africa with FC2. Waves of plus points for that, as nobody seems ever to put games in this area, whereas South Pacific tropical islands have been done quite a bit, including the first iteration of Far Cry. I also like the muted color scheme in FC2 as opposed to the nuclear fluorescent greens in FC3. Jungles feel denser in FC2, etc. Spelunking element comparatively lacking in FC2 though, and there are frustrating low rocks that look like they can be jumped on but can't.
Other variables: FC3 has a lot more open world filler, with poker, racing, skeet shooting, knife throwing, etc, and it has a fairly decent leveling system, plus a parkour puzzle element with the towers. FC2 has nothing like this. It's kind of a one-note game. You drive places and kill people on the way, and the puzzle element is all about finding diamond caches, which are indeed sometimes cleverly hidden. Level up element low in FC2. Mostly it's buying simple upgrades. I found vehicles more fun in FC2. FC2 also lacks QTE, a plus in my opinion.
inablility to have multiple missions active
driving/boating/running to your destination (90% of the game is trying to get to point B)
inconvienient fast travel spots that are out of the way (at least compared to FC3)
the fact that your precence has no affect on the world. You'll constantly be clearing out the same outpost over and over again and it's quite belittling.
Other than those things that drove me insane, it's a quite beautiful world. Story is ♥♥♥♥ though.
TL:DR
Play it before FC3. If you already played FC3, don't waste your money.
Sold. I'll pick up FC2 in the next sale.
I think of FC2 as being a really dark and somber documentary about the depredations of war and the moral aimlessness of conflicts. It's thought-provoking, it's arresting, and its primary focus is on immersion and introspection. It's a good game too.
Which one is better? That depends on the player, in a huge way. Personally, I loved the moral shades-of-grey presentation in FC2, the gritty horrors of the missions you undertake ("we need you to bomb these medical supplies... because they're helping our enemies"), and the desperation of malaria and rusting guns in the jungle. FC3 is nice and shiny and fun. FC2 made me sit back in my chair many times and just think "Wow... damn."
Both are well worth a look.
If I hadn't already owned FC2, I would've instantly bought it, solely based on your post.
The "atmosphere" in FC2 is evil. Some of the conversations the militants have between each other are so close to real-life happenings that more than a few times I've stopped and thought "Did he just say..?"
If anybody has any doubts, see a movie/read a book called "Hotel Rwanda".
I've played FC2 many more hours overall than DooM. And I've been playing DooM since 1995.
In far cry 3 your are a yound guy forced into a bloody conflict and emerge a hardened fighter. Weapons are boring (i never used much outside of the bow), the action falls short a bit compared to far cry 2. the environment is more tropical with better ai for the wild animals and they are plentiful in far cry 3 though. More varyiety of vehicles in far cry 2. Far cry 3 could have been a bit better if there were more weapons and enemies respawned in areas rather you having to use the reset command in the options.