Far Cry 2

DarkJager

Prosperous Dave wrote: »

Nope no gripe, just my opinion (and like you I'm allowed to have one), this game is boring, just another in a long line of repetitive fps with nothing new to offer.

COD4 is a different kettle of fish in that it does what it says on the tin so you know what you're getting, i.e. a quality shooter. Far Cry 2 used the title of an earlier, ORIGINAL, game to pull people in but is is just another generic game that was all hyped up, al la GTA IV, but is nothing compared to its predecessor. If you like it then fine, you won't feel as if you've wasted your money then, unlike me. I prefer something different, like Resistance, Bioshock, Dead Space, and dare I say it again, the original Far Cry

Not a gripe?? You seem to be posting across any forum where FC2 is mentioned saying how much you dislike it (PS3, Games, Xbox 360). Sure everyone can have opinions but I don't see how its an opinion if you are trying to ram your hatred for this game into the ears of anyone who will listen...

humanji

Prosperous Dave wrote: »

If I want mercs fighting in Africa, I'll watch the news.

This is what I don't get. It's a game about fighting mercs in Africa. Why would you get something if you don't even like the concept of it?

Maximilian

Having played it a good bit now, I would agree that parts of it are repetitive, the AI is not the best and the re-spawning can be irritating when you are just trying to get somewhere but overall, it's a great game with some brilliant ideas.

No doubt, if there's a Far Cry 3, it will be even better but I cannot agree that the game is actually boring. Having said that it's a matter of taste. Why argue about it?

Kashkai

I appear to have really annoyed some people with my negative opinion of this game. Relax guys, its a democracy, we are all entitled to our views whether others agree with them or not.

To the guy who stated that I hate this game, eh get a life pal as (a) its just a game (and not a very good one) and (b) hate is a very strong word that I'd reserve for something important like "I hate the scumbag who trashed my car". I do not hate Far Cry 2, I just think its a major let down as I was expecting so much more from a game that carries the title (and nothing else) from the first game. Why call this game Far Cry2 if it has nothing to do with the first game? Why not call it "The Long walk in the Jungle" or "An introduction to malaria" or "The A-Z of African tribal Warfare"?

IMO (and I'm sure I'm still allowed one unless the Boards online mercs have staged an online coup) if this was supposed to be Far Cry 2, then why didn't it follow on from the original? My thoughts are that Crysis stole that idea and that a sequel to the original Far Cry would have been too close to Crysis which in itself is an off-shoot of Far Cry (tropical isalnd setting, initial firefights with enemy soldiers, and then a twist, i.e. aliens instead of mutants).

If this game had had another title, then I wouldn't have given it a second glance. I just got suckered into buying it as I thought it might be a tie in to the original in some way (it has the same name for God's sake). Next time I go to buy a game, I'll wait until the reviews are out and then I'll think about spending the hard earned on a game that is worth playing for its originality (falling down from malaria is not myt idea of originality).

AlmightyCushion

Prosperous Dave wrote: »

Why call this game Far Cry2 if it has nothing to do with the first game?

Prosperous Dave wrote: »

I just got suckered into buying it as I thought it might be a tie in to the original in some way (it has the same name for God's sake).

You answered your own question. The named it Far Cry 2 because they own the brand and they know that people who liked the original would buy it.

BlitzKrieg

I appear to have really annoyed some people with my negative opinion of this game.

i think you've more confused people by the bizarreness of some of your claims (Far Cry 1's amazing story coupled with how amazingly original it was) coupled with some incorrect statements (that there are no handgliders in the game etc).

They were not the most constructive of points.


On the topic of originality with far cry 2. In the current wave of FPS and sand box games I would actually say its original enough, not amazingly original but enough to warrant a look.

its setting is one I dont think we've actually seen in a fps. We have had games in the jungle of south america, the eastern blocs of the soviet union and so on, but africa, the only other games that come to my mind when I think games set in africa is the upcoming RE5 and a few missions in the original command and conquer.

And it feels like Africa, its hot and dirty and its jungles and deserts have that arse end of the world feel about them unlike lush water soaked jungles of south america (maybe its a stereotype I lock onto, but thats always been the difference between south american jungle and african jungle for me)

in fact i wish they didnt have the maleria bollocks and instead had it that your character got heatstroke if he played in the sun too much but thats the little niggles i keep thinking of that keep the game a 8/10 for me.

On the plot...its slow as hell and trickles out at a painful rate, but the jackal plotline is quite good, he has this whole heart of darkness vibe about him (I think he even quotes the book at one point not sure though) for those who dont read heart of darkness is the book Apocalypse Now is based off, except its set in africa and not vietnam. I havnt finished the game but if they keep playing up that character (more of those tapes a few more encounters) then I'll be a happy bunny when I finally get the put my knife across his throat and decide to kill him or not.

pixelburp

Playing it a little more & yeah, those checkpoints are annoying, mostly for the speed with which they're re-populated. For example, I had a simple convoy destruction mission for an arms dealer. Fair enough, I took my time, enjoyed the ride & made a point of taking the route through the bush (dear god this game is beautiful). I get to a checkpoint, clear it out & make my way to the target. It was gone without problem but no sooner had I turned around then the checkpoint had miraculously become full with Afrikaans

Please please Ubisoft patch up those game, or at least let some amateurs fix it for you with some mods. It's ruining an otherwise immaculate experience. I love love love the graphics & setting

keane2097

Can anybody put a timeframe on when a patch is likely to be released??

L31mr0d

keane2097 wrote: »

Can anybody put a timeframe on when a patch is likely to be released??

2 weeks, 3 days and 5 hours

Personally, I wish there was more animals. As well as predatory animals like pumas, lions and cheetahs. I think it would add a lot more to the tension suddenly hearing growling behind you as you creep up on a checkpoint.

Wonder why they left them out?

humanji

Prosperous Dave wrote: »

I appear to have really annoyed some people with my negative opinion of this game. Relax guys, its a democracy, we are all entitled to our views whether others agree with them or not.

I think BlitzKrieg hit the nail on the head there that nobody has a problem with you not liking the game (many don't) it's the bizarre reasons you give.

Your claim that the graphics are at best equal to the original make me wonder if you've ever played either game or know what graphics are.

I'm curious as to what you were expecting from this, as it's never been sold as anything other than what it is. It's got pretty much everything Far Cry had (except monsters) but on a grander scale. What were you hoping for?

I don't think it's the greatest game in the world, but it's fun. Once the user mods start coming in, it'll beef the game up a hell of a lot. I said elsewhere that where Far Cry was trying to be an Arnie action blockbuster movie, this was trying to be Apocalypse Now. And for the most part it succeeds. It has a slower moving plot that aims to make you think about war. A tad preachy for some, but at least it's trying something new.

Wossack

Played this up to the start of the south area - really enjoying it so far. Getting around can be a bit of a chore sometimes, though I havent had much bad experience with respawning checkpoints... actually, havent had any issues with em

My good points:
Just looks epic
Fire, how it spreads with wind, how it doesnt spread after rain etc
Immersion - seeing your arms do stuff other then just holding guns (open doors, 'stabilise health', setting your alarm clock, popping pills etc)
Explosions! IED's in particular are great
The weapons - condition, and jamming is a great touch - they just sound real meaty and business like too
The malaria mechanic is cool - might get a bit annoying later on I guess though

Bad points...
Dialogue - its just attrocious, its as if they were paying by the minute at the recording studio, its so fast, its frankly ridiculous
Repetative missions, all of my weapons ones (so far anyway), have been 'blow up a convoy' for example
Everyone outside the ceasefire zone is hostile
Stealth just aint workin for me...

As said though, really enjoying it Maybe my experience with vista64 (just built new rig, not tried FC2 on it yet) may sully things though..

L31mr0d

this game is very odd as it peaks and troughs for me.

I think its a game that you get what you make of it.

I've begun preparing myself for checkpoints so that I can get through them as fast as possible without stopping. I always have my RPG equipped so that as I get past the checkpoint I can hop out and blow up the inevitable jeep thats started tailing me. I also try and remember where the dune buggies are located on the map so I can always be driving one. They tend to be able to outrun every other vehicle I've encountered and are a lot more responsive.

I think once I stopped viewing it as a linear FPS (which gives you a handy stockpile of new weapons and ammo before any battle) and started putting thought into how I was going to approach the next situation or task I started enjoying it more. Before going to the next objective I always plot out a route on my map that passes through the least checkpoints. It might work out longer but will usually take me less time as I won't have to stop and repair my vehicle after each checkpoint.

Also, graphically, I can understand peoples gripes. This game was heralded as having an equal, if not better, engine to Crysis. It does not. Not even close. I've pinpointed this to the shaders used, there isn't near enough dynamic shading in the game. Also night time is abysmal, I mean the ground isn't even dark. I understand that there's a full moon out but this would at least cause shadows. When I'm sneaking up on a base I never feel like I am in complete darkness, no matter where I am, even if I'm under complete tree cover.

Some other minor gripes: No melee attack, no leaning, no ability to go prone, no cover button and no ability to mark locations on your map

Maximilian

Out of interest - are people using DX9 or DX10. Lighting etc is much better in DX10

DarkJager

I find that if you don't drive everywhere, you can have a lot more fun. It gets more tactical as well - checking for routes through rivers or over mountains, every so often attacking a guard post to restock. I only use the jeeps if I'm driving from a safe house to a relatively close mission briefing or gun store, the rest of the time I'm practically Rambo

PogMoThoin

Maximilian wrote: »

Out of interest - are people using DX9 or DX10. Lighting etc is much better in DX10

DX10, cos I can

I've another Xp pc downstairs with an 8800GT that runs it in DX9 and it doesn't look as good, although it runs it much faster, very high with 4xAA @ 1280x1024 with 40+ fps

Kashkai

humanji wrote: »

I think BlitzKrieg hit the nail on the head there that nobody has a problem with you not liking the game (many don't) it's the bizarre reasons you give.

Your claim that the graphics are at best equal to the original make me wonder if you've ever played either game or know what graphics are.

I'm curious as to what you were expecting from this, as it's never been sold as anything other than what it is. It's got pretty much everything Far Cry had (except monsters) but on a grander scale. What were you hoping for?

I don't think it's the greatest game in the world, but it's fun. Once the user mods start coming in, it'll beef the game up a hell of a lot. I said elsewhere that where Far Cry was trying to be an Arnie action blockbuster movie, this was trying to be Apocalypse Now. And for the most part it succeeds. It has a slower moving plot that aims to make you think about war. A tad preachy for some, but at least it's trying something new.

First point, some people do have problems with me not liking this game, e.g. someone gave me the honary title of "Boards retard of the year" following my initial comment about the game. Pretty immature and not very nice I'm sure you'll agree.

Second point, on the graphics, I've read through the whole thread now and perhaps I can see where you might get the idea that I don't know what I'm talking about when it comes to graphics. When I got the First Far Cry, I had to buy a Radeon X800XT (which was the latest and greatest graphics card on the market at the time) to run this game as my original NVIDIA FX5200 was hopeless, i.e. stuttering, freezing etc on even the low settings. I installed the X800XT card and the game ran perfectly on high settings. I now have Far Cry 2 on my PS3 as my pc is hopelessly out of date and it was cheaper to buy a ps3 than to upgrade my pc. This is why I'm stating that the graphics are not as good as the original. I know I'm not comparing like with like but the original Far Cry is 4 years old (which is a long time in the game industry) and my ps3 is supposed to be a "next gen" console thats running through a 46 inch Samsung series 6 full HD tv so I thought I'd get all the visual goodies. Thats why I claim that the graphics are not as good as the original. Perhaps Far Cry 2 is brilliant looking on a pc, I just have no way of knowing unless I spend a couple of grand on a new pc.

Third point, forgive me for being sarcastic but if a game has the same name as the original i.e. it sounds like a sequel, then I'd expect it to follow on from the original in some way, whether it was the mutants following Carver off the island or else Carver and his girlfriend can't be cured and go on to mutate themselves and then you have to take them down. Far Cry 2 has nothing in common with the first game. It might have mercs to fight against but that doesn't mean a thing as this is the premise of a dozen other games. It has a flimsy story that after a couple of hours is tedious in the extreme and doesn't keep me hooked playing for hours like Far Cry 1 did (or Uncharted on the ps3). These games had great stories that were like a good book that keeps making you turn the page to see what happens next.

On your last point, I do prefer the "Arnie" blockbuster type stories over the slower moving ones, thats why I go for the COD4, Uncharted, Resistance and Far Cry 1 storylines. Far Cry 2 is too damn slow and boring for me and it doesn't move fast enough to keep me interested in the storyline similar to GTA IV.

On a final note, I'd agree with other posters that its annoying and unrealistic (for a game thats trying to be realistic) where I can wipe out a checkpoint and move on only for it to be re-populated when I come back.

I know I appear to be the lone dissenting voice here but check the interweb, this game is disappointing a lot of people who like me were suckered into buying it purely on the basis that the name brought back memories of a great and enjoyable game.

pixelburp

Uh, you're not the lone voice. Get over yourself you're not some crusader of the truth, a lot of people including myself have called this a disappointment. It's just a question of how much you're willing to let its faults stop you from enjoying the game. You can't but c'est la vie.

But you still think Far Cry 1 had an awesome plot so that makes you wrong. Just like in general

PaddyTheNth

Prosperous Dave wrote: »

I know I'm not comparing like with like

Yet you continue to do so? :pac:

L31mr0d wrote:

Personally, I wish there was more animals. As well as predatory animals like pumas, lions and cheetahs. I think it would add a lot more to the tension suddenly hearing growling behind you as you creep up on a checkpoint.

Yeah it would be fecking awesome alright. Apparently the reason given by the devs is that all the predators were just killing all the other animals, and apparently the NPCs too, so the player just wound up running around in a land devoid of mobile life.

There's a bit of inconsistency there though, as it has been stated elsewhere that the checkpoints are spawned on a proximity rather than timer basis, so I don't see how the wildlife could be killing all the other people.

SecuROM sucks major ass...I just borrowed this from a friend and it won't run on an effectively vanilla install...apparently I'm running emulation software, despite that fact that there's nothing of the sort installed:rolleyes:

Off to get a crack so....

L31mr0d

Maximilian wrote: »

Out of interest - are people using DX9 or DX10. Lighting etc is much better in DX10

DX10, 1920x1200, everything at very/ultra high and 4xAA (could handle 8xAA but it makes everything look smudgy imo)

For atmosphere I'd rate this game, graphically, below CoD4, GoW and Crysis. Crysis is just very pretty, I have screenshots I took from it as my wallpaper in work.

CoD4, had an excellent way of using hues to change the atmosphere (look at the Chernobyl level or the first sniper level when you are in camo)

GoW has an amazing artstyle and uses shadows and darkness perfectly to create an atmosphere.

Far Cry 2, while nice looking, feels very plastic. Personally I don't like a PC game that my PC can run comfortably. I'd rather the game be so taxing that I can just about run it with bearable framerates.

Maximilian

L31mr0d wrote: »

DX10, 1920x1200, everything at very/ultra high and 4xAA (could handle 8xAA but it makes everything look smudgy imo)

For atmosphere I'd rate this game, graphically, below CoD4, GoW and Crysis. Crysis is just very pretty, I have screenshots I took from it as my wallpaper in work.

CoD4, had an excellent way of using hues to change the atmosphere (look at the Chernobyl level or the first sniper level when you are in camo)

GoW has an amazing artstyle and uses shadows and darkness perfectly to create an atmosphere.

Far Cry 2, while nice looking, feels very plastic. Personally I don't like a PC game that my PC can run comfortably. I'd rather the game be so taxing that I can just about run it with bearable framerates.

I'm running it the same resolutions as you. I don't think the graphics are up to Crysis alright but I think they are still very pretty, good effects and what not. Some of the scenery is fantastic and it runs far smoother than Crysis.

All in all, I can't see any reason to complain about the graphics.

Sephiroth_dude

The pics I posted are in DX10.

pixelburp

PaddyTheNth wrote: »

Yeah it would be fecking awesome alright. Apparently the reason given by the devs is that all the predators were just killing all the other animals, and apparently the NPCs too, so the player just wound up running around in a land devoid of mobile life.

I dunno, the idea of wild predators sound cool, but to be honest, I could see how it would be a tad irritating if you found yourself savaged by an angry Hippo (more dangerous in Africa than lions etc I'm told) while on the way to a mission.

Branoic

got this on the ps3 as my PC is off for repairs and I'm really not liking it. Will prob trade it in this weekend. The shooting mechanics on the console anyway are just very frustrating. Shooting from the hip is ineffective but when you try to use the sights the gun obscures your view too much. The game mechanics like constantly respawning enemy checkpoints and only being able to save in safe houses etc are pants.

BlitzKrieg

Far Cry 2, while nice looking, feels very plastic. Personally I don't like a PC game that my PC can run comfortably. I'd rather the game be so taxing that I can just about run it with bearable framerates.

I'd agree its not as pretty as Crysis, and the nighttime effects are a bit dull, but I find during the high noon, the graphics emulate the atmosphere of Africa perfectly, very dirty, very harsh. I personnally really really like the atmosphere of Far Cry 2. More so then the atmosphere of Crysis, which was insanely pretty but didnt captivate me at all times (it did at some points, the tank bit, the alien ship and the frozen island)

Sephiroth_dude

I love placing mines on the road when you have to blow up those convoys for the arms dealer .

uberpixie

pixelburp wrote: »

I dunno, the idea of wild predators sound cool, but to be honest, I could see how it would be a tad irritating if you found yourself savaged by an angry Hippo (more dangerous in Africa than lions etc I'm told) while on the way to a mission.

Bah, sounded like a cool idea that they couldn't get working in time so they cut it. I would see how annoying it would be to get mauled by an angry hippo, no doubt while being chased by a load of guards or in the middle of a gun fight.

Tbh it is not a very well balanced game: look at the amount of health they throw at you just to keep you alive. (never a good sign)
The enemies seem to soak up a lot of damage from even an LMG at close range before they seem to die, the enemy seem a little too acurate as well.
They are well able to pick off your health as you drive away at high speed and seem to be well able to hit you at extreme range.

Still niggles and bad game play choices aside I am having fun playing the game.
They def got setting stuff on fire and using nade launchers to dispense indiscriminate justice right .

I admit to being a big fan of jeeps that have a mounted nade launcher instead of a machine gun. Makes life much easier in the game.
Nothing better for pwning bases at range or flipping incoming jeeps.

L31mr0d

BlitzKrieg wrote: »

I'd agree its not as pretty as Crysis, and the nighttime effects are a bit dull, but I find during the high noon, the graphics emulate the atmosphere of Africa perfectly, very dirty, very harsh. I personnally really really like the atmosphere of Far Cry 2. More so then the atmosphere of Crysis, which was insanely pretty but didnt captivate me at all times (it did at some points, the tank bit, the alien ship and the frozen island)

Yeah, whenever I'm at a safe house I change the time to around 5am, just before sunrise. The world seems to look its best imo either at sunrise or sunset as the sun is at an angle to cast the most shadows. I'll usually always play during the day as night time is just too boring. If I need to do a stealth mission I'll just stop at the nearest safe house and change it to night.

I guess it's bad that the last game I played through was Crysis: Warhead, as I'm noticing all the little reasons why Crysis' engine is so superior to the one used in Far Cry 2

Anyway, heres a sunrise screenshot I took yesterday:

Mongo_Solo1984

I was a massive fan of the first Far Cry for PC. The visuals,the world created,the overall gameplay was brilliant and you found it scary at times entering a large part of the jungles knowing there could be guys around any corner. the ending was great too. overall the balance between atmosphere and gameplay was perfect.
I dont think i've ever had as much fun on multiplayer as a sniper.Needless to say i played that ALOT. alot of the levels were massive, and people that made there own maps made some great ones for all out war.

The new one, i was really lookin forward to because of the experience i had with the first. It seemed like it was recreating the atmosphere of the first but on a larger better scale. However i was VERY dissapointed.
I bought this for my PS3. and having played it for a few hours i started to realise this was very different to the original. For one thing, the name...FARCRY 2...its just a sales ploy, to attach a name to sell more copies to the people who were fans of the original and newcomers alike. It bares no relation to the first game (Unfortunetly).
After 15 hours of play im getting through it now just for the sake of finsihing it..and the hope it might get better.
Some areas in terms of graphics look good. At night, it doesnt look that great. Needless to say they arent exactly cutting edge. In saying that, we all no graphics arent everything. It seems like alot of those who make FPS forget to get the fundamentals of gameplay correct. In this,there is not crawl or peaking around corners. Things that in my opinion should be a given in next gen.
yes the world is vast and impressive at times but it sometimes becomes more of a chore than an adventure getting from mission to mission. Sometimes if you dont have a jeep it takes you so long to get from one point to another.
And when you do have a jeep or car i find myself constantly looking at the map to ensure im going the right way. the GPS is crap.
When travelling to a mission the militia outposts are a hinderance after a while and they get repetative having to get out and fight the below average AI enemies in order to continue on to the real mission.
As for the multiplayer, its mediocre. Nothing to keep me playing more than a few times. Put it this way, its not on par with Call of Duty 4.
needless to say i wont miss thre game when im done. I dont get why people are giving this 5 stars in reviews. Its not a tap on the original

L31mr0d

deja vu

AlmightyCushion

Big thread about far cry 2 here (http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055139695). Seems quite a few people are saying it's a bit of a let down.