Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Far Cry 2 Review

Last response: in Video Games
Share
October 31, 2008 12:31:18 PM

Review by Travis Meacham.

Ubisoft's newest shooter Far Cry 2 sports an impressive graphics engine, realistic fire propagation and zebras. Find out of the interactive, open-world environments and African-safari flavor can make up for some repetitive gameplay and the many miles spent in a Jeep.

http://www.tomsgames.com/us/2008/10/31/farcry2_review/

More about : cry review

October 31, 2008 2:08:58 PM

My biggest question: why is this game called Far Cry 2?
October 31, 2008 2:13:48 PM

SEALBoy said:
My biggest question: why is this game called Far Cry 2?


Yes, a better name would be Far Drive. :D 
Related resources
October 31, 2008 3:11:10 PM

You're a kind and brave man, Mr Travis, know that you have a place in heaven now for this. Anyone can feed poor children, or help the elderly, but not many can actually sit and play Far Cry 2 without barfing their guts out. A very generous, more down to earth score for this than what the other blind reviewers across the internet have awarded (I would've given it a 4.5 / 10)

I simply cannot fathom why Ubisoft having such a great franchise and having Far Cry at their disposal to understand what made it great, would instead end up releasing such a smelly piece of camel dong with a Far Cry 2 logo slapped on it. I guess Ubisoft will ALWAYS be Ubisoft... I wish they'd just go out of business...
October 31, 2008 3:17:46 PM

I didn't think it was a horrible game... yes it can occacionally get a bit tedious, and the story is pathetic, but overall from an action perspective (and it IS an action game), it certainly delivers.
October 31, 2008 3:57:23 PM

SEALBoy said:
My biggest question: why is this game called Far Cry 2?

So Ubisoft can try to sell copies based on name recognition.
October 31, 2008 4:04:27 PM

Heyyou27 said:
So Ubisoft can try to sell copies based on name recognition.


Only one time use though. The name will be worthless once Ubisoft is done with it. :na: 
October 31, 2008 4:05:03 PM

I totally agree with Trav, though I would've given it an 8. I just got a new HDD installed last night (last one failed), haven't reinstalled FC2 yet, playing Fallout 3. Haven't had the chance to do much though.
October 31, 2008 5:16:37 PM

emp said:
You're a kind and brave man, Mr Travis, know that you have a place in heaven now for this. Anyone can feed poor children, or help the elderly, but not many can actually sit and play Far Cry 2 without barfing their guts out. A very generous, more down to earth score for this than what the other blind reviewers across the internet have awarded (I would've given it a 4.5 / 10)

I simply cannot fathom why Ubisoft having such a great franchise and having Far Cry at their disposal to understand what made it great, would instead end up releasing such a smelly piece of camel dong with a Far Cry 2 logo slapped on it. I guess Ubisoft will ALWAYS be Ubisoft... I wish they'd just go out of business...


Is it really that bad? Shame cause it was the one game I was looking forward to :-(
October 31, 2008 7:24:58 PM

rtfm said:
Is it really that bad? Shame cause it was the one game I was looking forward to :-(


Yep, both gameplay and visually. :p 

October 31, 2008 8:10:29 PM

I'll give it one thing, the Dunia engine does look pretty good, but that's it.
October 31, 2008 8:56:27 PM

emp said:
I'll give it one thing, the Dunia engine does look pretty good, but that's it.


Dunia Engine is made to run on puny console hardware. It looks like crap compared to Cryengine. :p 
October 31, 2008 9:24:04 PM

How the hell did the review come to the conclusion that Far Cry 2 comes anywhere similar to Crysis or Crysis Warhead in terms of Graphics? They are not even close. It is only a lot smother because it actually is showing a lot less. Use some custom configs for Crysis that would downgrade the graphical quality to Far Cry 2 level and you would get an experience probably as smooth as Far Cry 2.

Secondly my biggest gripe was the AI. In short it was HORRIBLE. The enemies were dead robots that were highly unreactive, and on many occasions just magically know your location from a few miles away. Stealth qualities in this game were almost non existent. You could be hugging the ground a mile from an encampment and the AI would still see you.

Finally, why the hell does an FPS game lack some basic qualities FPS games had for years now. For example a shaky weapon reticule that becomes more stable on going prone. None of that was in this game.

Crysis in a sense was a much better sequel to Far Cry than this game was.
November 1, 2008 12:18:32 AM

dagger said:
Dunia Engine is made to run on puny console hardware. It looks like crap compared to Cryengine. :p 
The funny thing, I played it on the 360 the other day, and it looks bad for a 360 game!
November 1, 2008 12:20:49 AM

Heyyou27 said:
The funny thing, I played it on the 360 the other day, and it looks bad for a 360 game!


You haven't played many console games, have you? :na: 

Trust me, that's not even remotely bad by console standard. :p 
November 1, 2008 12:39:03 AM

i don't get why do people hate this game since i found it better than crysis.
November 1, 2008 12:39:55 AM

darthvaderkenneth said:
i don't get why do people hate this game since i found it better than crysis.


Yeah, if you run Crysis at Low settings. :na: 
November 1, 2008 6:53:55 AM

i'm not talking about the graphics, and i played crysis on high and i know it looks better than far cry 2 but i enjoyed far cry more
November 1, 2008 1:16:55 PM

darthvaderkenneth said:
i'm not talking about the graphics, and i played crysis on high and i know it looks better than far cry 2 but i enjoyed far cry more


With the long drives, fast outpost respawning, impossible to see where enemy is shooting from, and set save points? Still, yeah, gameplay is a matter of opinions, after all. :p 
November 1, 2008 3:11:01 PM

dagger said:
With the long drives, fast outpost respawning, impossible to see where enemy is shooting from, and set save points? Still, yeah, gameplay is a matter of opinions, after all. :p 


The set save points in the PC version are just remnants of the console code. You can F5 to quicksave anytime, anywhere and also do a full save at the main menu. If the PC version had limited saving I would have crushed it.
November 1, 2008 5:35:44 PM

I think this game is great, I enjoyed crysis, but I think I'm enjoying this more. The driving gets old, but it's easy to see why it's in there, they created an open world. The AI is much better than Crysis. Crysis enemies would just stand and shoot, it was never hard to take them out. While the AI in fc2 isn't perfect and is highly predictable, it's pretty good. The enemies at least split up and will flank you (albeit every time), but they have caught me off guard on a few occasions. The graphics are great, and the game does run better overall than crysis. Dagger that's a funny screen shot you chose, of course it can look like crap using that one. Visually this game is impressive.
November 2, 2008 3:14:27 PM

FC2 has been significantly overrated by the media for some reason I can't quite figure out. If you look at a meta-review site you'll find the media reviews averaging 8 or so out of 10, but player reviews closer to 5 out of 10 (which is where it should be).

It's not that it's a horrible game... it's just not a great one. It's solidly mediocre in every way other than graphics (which are great for the most part). Gameplay is redundant redundant redundant...
.
.
.
redundant.

There are no significant advances on gameplay relative to other similar titles (going back to the quite excellent and underrated "Operation: Flashpoint"). In fact. OFP is in almost EVERY way a better game than FC2... and it's what; a thousand years old?

There are some new minor touches such as gun wear, but how they were implemented is more of a hindrance to immersion rather than a supporting element, and like most of the "realism" touches seems more designed to stage-gate the game rather than to enhance it. AI isn pretty decent but built in cheats given to the opponents to enable them to give you a decent fight are also immersion killing (like the fact that even if you have the zippy dune buggy any NPC in a POS gremlin can run you down with ease).

I find respawn games to in general be a sign of poor design, but in this one they COULD have done it more realistically (reinforcements get dispatched from one of the cities after you take out a checkpoint), but instead they do the usual 'Pop in from nowhere'. It would allow you to get a bit of a payoff as the checkpoint wouldn't be restaffed as soon as you leave the area (avoiding the redundant taking out of the same checkpoint over and over)

The diamond hunt mini-game is silly and redundant, forcing you to run blow a lot of time for a minuscule payoff. Why not have the Player find slips of paper with GPS codes instead of silly proximity blinking lights. And give him a dozen diamonds per cache instead of 1, and put them out in remote areas so the player has to see all the wonderful artistry that went into the environmental work (Class 1 quality there, too bad the rest of the game isn't). I did it a few times but very quickly got bored with the idea and decided if it becomes important as the game progresses to hunt from such small quantities of diamonds I'll just download a hack to give myself the 300 I would have gotten from tracking down all those annoying suitcases.

Missions come from a number of sources but again... redundancy is the name of the game. Cell towers, weapons dealers, resistance cells don't even pretend to variety... giving you the EXACT same missions over and over again... and again... and again. Main plot missions have some variability so far, which (along with the fun of just wandering around sightseeing) has kept me from just chucking the game entirely.

The Malaria thing is another concept that could have been a cool element... but malaria isn't a chronic disease... you get it, you take meds, you get rid of it. In this game it's used to force you to take resistance missions, and it's more like VD... you can't get rid of it (no payoff for doing the missions).

Hint to game makers: if all a player can do through their actions is maintain the status quo... you're just creating an annoyance for them instead of creating a challenge to be overcome.

The plot itself is another serious problem, you're a merc... but for an open ended game this one does a pretty good job of FORCING you to insure your character has no actual personality. You're just a robot who automatically takes missions and executes them, the why's are thrown in as pointless window dressing because you don't really have a CHOICE about it. You HAVE to play both sides, you HAVE to take redundant resistance missions, you take out checkpoints and NPC's over and over with no thought whatsoever to what their role is in the plot... because it doesn't matter - everyone is a target because the back-story is just that - a disconnected story that doesn't really affect what you do in the game.

Open ended gameplay is my favorite style of game, but these folks need to take some lessons in keeping such games engaging... Far Cry 2 had (has) HUGE potential, but weak repetitive gameplay and plot problems are serious flaws that make this title an also-ran.


November 2, 2008 3:22:49 PM

d_kuhn said:
FC2 has been significantly overrated by the media for some reason I can't quite figure out. If you look at a meta-review site you'll find the media reviews averaging 8 or so out of 10, but player reviews closer to 5 out of 10 (which is where it should be).


Isn't that simple? The original Far Cry set the bar too high. :p 
November 2, 2008 3:38:15 PM

The original Far Cry was definitely the better of the two... the single player game got a bit disjointed in the last 5 levels or so but up until then it was brilliant, right up there in ID games territory and just a step or two behind the Half Life series (Half Life is to the FPS what the Lord of the Rings is to fantasy... the yardstick by which other are found wanting).
November 2, 2008 3:41:11 PM

Half-Life never really captured me... I think there is quite a bit of fanboyism devoted to that series. :p 

I love the Call of Duty series, I also liked Crysis a whole lot. And Halo (amazing, I know... but it was fun). I played halfway through the first Half-Life... it was fun, but not mind-blowingly amazing.
November 2, 2008 4:00:22 PM

By today's standards I agree... but it was ground breaking in its day. The only title that comes to mind that impressed me more (at the time) as an innovative take on the FPS was Duke Nukem.

The Call of Duty series is excellent (best of the type IMO), but I tend to break the "realistic" War games out of the FPS pack. Graphics engines might be the same but the idea behind the games seems different enough to me to warrant a separate category. If I had to choose, I'd take HL2 over COD2... but it'd be a tough call (they were both incredibly immersive and technically outstanding games). COD3 failed due to console exclusivity and I have not played CODMW yet.

November 3, 2008 3:00:50 AM

I bought the game for the PC…and will give it to my brother for Christmas…(along with other gifts of course).
-----------------------------
Graphics: Feels like GTA 4 Engine...made for Africa. Great graphics but not like Crysis.

Gameplay: A mix of GTA 4 (open world with transportation) and COD series (for gun handling and arms animations). Its overall fun and entertaining, though it also gets repetitive closer to the end. Adding co-op features would have made this game a lot more considerable.

Story: Almost non-existent. You affiliate yourself with a gang but most missions state that your own team will shoot at you...so be careful. WTF??? It actually feels like they ran out of time to script your gang members and that telling us that our own gang shooting at us would be a sufficient excuse to believe it. Well it didn’t work on me.

Concept: The concept is great. I have been waiting for a long time to see a game that felt like GTA 4 but with a more serious tone. FarCry delivers on that aspect but doesn’t quite satisfy that craving we all anticipated. Even so, it was a great effort.
------------------------------

So I haven't finished it yet (80% done) but when you feel like the reason why you want to finish the game is because you want to get it over with to play other titles...and not because you're having SO MUCH FUN...then you know you're not playing the game of the year. Nonetheless, a good title.

Great review Travis.
November 3, 2008 6:06:41 AM

im just gonna say that it was a really nice review, but im would of given the game about a 5.

and heres a copy and paste from a post i made, in a different thread... BUT BEFORE I DO, i wanted to say something about the graphics ive been talking to some inside people in UBisoft and they tell me there console games are all built to play at 60FPS on the console hence why the graphics are toned down.

ive been playing far cry 2 for the last few days now, and theres a few things i would like to add....

- when using a sniper rifle from a distance to shoot badguys the will get shot, float upwards a few feet then die then fall to the ground.

- the camo suit(45 diamonds) is a complete waste of money and im regretting ever buying it.. the biggest problem is with one of the bugs above, while crouched at a distance a jeep will spawn near you and try to run you over, giving away your position. plus it doesnt actually seem to help.

- i think some of the ai can see through walls? i was in pala and stole a diamond from a restricted area, no one seen me, but soon as i opened the case, the guys shouted that i was trespassing and they all started looking for me, yet because they couldnt actually 'see' me i left without being shot at or followed.

- fire, i love the effect but it doesnt seem to last long enough or spread how i would like it to.

-safe house upgrades, ive had about 6 of these and cant tell what has changed - i think it might be ammo but i raely use the safe house's.

- save game, wtf is the point in the save areas? i think they just left that in from the console version, on the pc you can save anywhere you want but still have these save points? just press f5 in game.

- im about 20% through main story but have done alot of side quests, the respawning too fast and rebuilding is starting to grind now, and im starting to want to play something else.

-also what is up with accuracy upgrades? i havnt noticed an inaccurate gun yet, mabye its cause im using a mouse and keyboard but the guns seem realistic and perfectly fine to me, i have an accuracy rating above 40%(im sure its that low cause it doesnt count explosive barrels :)  ) i havnt bought any of the upgrades yet...

- has anyone left the game area yet? i tried this today, your screen blurs and you pass out, only to re-awake a few hundred yards from the game area, however if you do it in a car like i did, your car will dissapear, it took me forever to walk to a new car.

- i wish you could sell upgrades even if it was just half price you got back.

- weapon dealer missions, there all the same just take place in a different area of the game.
November 3, 2008 2:15:06 PM

I think the "Rocket bouncing off targets and some mission triggers not going off" is intentional. Like dud torpedoes in Silent Hunder 3 add to the realism. I assume the guns lock up (and takes 4 shots to kill someone) to show these guns really do suck. Very different from GRAW or Crysis were the player gets the best guns money can or can't buy (never jams, 1 shot- 1 kill, etc). I didn't play the game, but I will think some guns are high-tech and in excellent condition (very rare).
I can write more after I actually play the game. I didn't read anything yet to make me think Far Cry 2 is anything but excellent. For the complaints I read, they all seem VERY simple to fix. So, there may be an Episode 1 ??
November 3, 2008 2:23:01 PM

SEALBoy said:
Half-Life never really captured me... I think there is quite a bit of fanboyism devoted to that series. :p 

I love the Call of Duty series, I also liked Crysis a whole lot. And Halo (amazing, I know... but it was fun). I played halfway through the first Half-Life... it was fun, but not mind-blowingly amazing.

When Half-Life 1 was released, it was a quantium leap above other games at the time ; finally having cutting edge graphics with a full story and many different environments.. Quake 2 for example, and that game had NO story and all the same basic environment. It wasn't until Far Cry 1 that the first modern FPS was created - created before Half-Life 2.
I can understand Half-Life 1 being just so-so after playing COD-2.
Just 2 cents worth.
November 3, 2008 2:25:59 PM

tmeacham said:
Review by Travis Meacham.

Ubisoft's newest shooter Far Cry 2 sports an impressive graphics engine, realistic fire propagation and zebras. Find out of the interactive, open-world environments and African-safari flavor can make up for some repetitive gameplay and the many miles spent in a Jeep.

http://www.tomsgames.com/us/2008/10/31/farcry2_review/

BENCHMARKS!
I hope THG can include FarCry2 in the benchmarks. I know you gave it only a 7, so this doesn't seem likely?
I am finding very few CF2 benches from any site though..
November 3, 2008 3:17:58 PM

darthvaderkenneth said:
i don't get why do people hate this game since i found it better than crysis.



FC2 and Crysis share this weird backwoods love triangle where they are all cousins. Crysis feels like the original FarCry with a hint of Halo but still feels more like the original FC than what FC2 does. FC2 feels more like a GTA addition but is supposed to be related to FC. The real debate is who the F is the baby daddy?
November 3, 2008 4:08:24 PM

enewmen said:
BENCHMARKS!
I hope THG can include FarCry2 in the benchmarks. I know you gave it only a 7, so this doesn't seem likely?
I am finding very few CF2 benches from any site though..


I believe the lab boys do have their hands on a couple copies of Far Cry 2 and are putting it through the paces, but I'm not sure when they'll have an article up.
November 3, 2008 5:36:58 PM

I'm still having a tough time getting into this game. The graphics are just not very impressive (the scenary is nice but the actual graphics are just not doing it). I think the AI is terrible, way worse than the NKs in Crysis, about on par with aliens but a lot easier to kill. Maybe I haven't "built up my rep" enough yet or something to get better reactions but it seems that whenever I hit a group of AI they seem to scatter and all I have to do is pick them off 1 by 1. The Crysis AI seemed more interested in attacking in groups. If you started to attack them they would fall back and regroup more and become harder to kill if you didn't get them quickly.
Besides the AI being not that great, how you kill them is generally wierd and leaves a lot to be desired. I think this has a lot to do with the game being designed for consoles first with little put into the PC version. For example it's cake to hit a target at 200 yards with a scoped rifle, and any hit will almost always result in a kill. Yet standing 20 feet away you can unload a handgun into an enemy and not even knock them down.

But what really has me not getting that interested in this game is the lack of a linear storyline. People rip on Crysis for being "too linear" but am I the only one who thinks a good linear storyline is essential to a good FPS? If I wanted choices and varying storylines I'd play an RPG (ie I would have bought Fallout 3). To me a FPS should have a solid storyline to keep me interested in what's going to happen next, otherwise the game just ends up being a lot of shooting. Right now in the game I'm playing I have no real mission. My objective is to "find another job". So when I get home tonight and think about what I game I want to play "finding another job" in FC2 doesn't get me real excited.
November 3, 2008 6:29:47 PM

Graphic's wise FC2 was developed by Ubiosoft almost independently per system, other than story line etc. But with Crysis it was made only for PC and the developers just made a game that only High-end hardware can play. FC2 appeals to a wider range of hardware, and I think more eye candy per $ spend on a system.

I also noticed sometimes the AI wasn't looking at me but still shooting pretty much parallel to me and hitting me :S
November 4, 2008 6:02:15 AM

brendano257 said:
Graphic's wise FC2 was developed by Ubiosoft almost independently per system, other than story line etc. But with Crysis it was made only for PC and the developers just made a game that only High-end hardware can play. FC2 appeals to a wider range of hardware, and I think more eye candy per $ spend on a system.

I also noticed sometimes the AI wasn't looking at me but still shooting pretty much parallel to me and hitting me :S


no offence but thats what low, medium and high setting are for, when im on a pc playing far cry 2 on its highest settings i dont expect it to look like a bad graphic anomally from a console, i expect it to look great.....and since its graphics appear to be the only thing going for it, i dont understand why it doesnt.
November 4, 2008 8:07:45 AM

purplerat said:

But what really has me not getting that interested in this game is the lack of a linear storyline. People rip on Crysis for being "too linear" but am I the only one who thinks a good linear storyline is essential to a good FPS? If I wanted choices and varying storylines I'd play an RPG (ie I would have bought Fallout 3). To me a FPS should have a solid storyline to keep me interested in what's going to happen next, otherwise the game just ends up being a lot of shooting. Right now in the game I'm playing I have no real mission. My objective is to "find another job". So when I get home tonight and think about what I game I want to play "finding another job" in FC2 doesn't get me real excited.


Yeah, sometimes open ended gameplay is over rated. I don't mind linear shooters at all. In fact, they make you feel like part of the story even more. I also find it ironic that you're goal is to take out this weapons dealer, but your character keeps buying weapons and going around killing everyone. Also, where's the women and children? This game makes it seem like Africa is populated by only gun totting men who try to kill everyone they see. enewmen don't buy the game, believe the user's who have been giving this game low ratings. I bought into those gushing reviews and was extremely put off, the one review on meta-critic gave it a 70, I should have payed more attention to that one because I'm $50 out with no way to get it back. It's not a very good PC FPS.

If you want an open ended FPS go with Fallout 3. It has a great storyline that can be played straight through or you can go off and do side missions or just explore. I've put about 12-13 hours in the game and I still haven't been to 75-80% of the map. Plus, not everyone is trying to kill you for no reason, and there's even women and children in the game.
November 4, 2008 8:59:58 AM

San Pedro said:
enewmen don't buy the game, believe the user's who have been giving this game low ratings. I bought into those gushing reviews and was extremely put off, the one review on meta-critic gave it a 70, I should have payed more attention to that one because I'm $50 out with no way to get it back. It's not a very good PC FPS.

If you want an open ended FPS go with Fallout 3. It has a great storyline that can be played straight through or you can go off and do side missions or just explore. I've put about 12-13 hours in the game and I still haven't been to 75-80% of the map. Plus, not everyone is trying to kill you for no reason, and there's even women and children in the game.


So, think Fallout 3 is just better or more fun? Do you suggest I go with Fallout 3 if I prefer "thinking games"? As in GRAW1, EmpireEarth1, Crysis, GTA, Galactic Civilizations 2, Oblivion, etc - NOT Gears of War, most games made for consoles. Usually I pick just one really good title and put over 100 hours on it.
Thanks!
November 4, 2008 2:43:06 PM

You won't want to put a 100 hours into FC 2. I think you might be able to do it in Fallout. I think it's a better and funner game. Definitely more addictive. It's one of those games you keep saying I'm got to just finish this one last mission before bed, but you end playing 3 more.
November 4, 2008 3:17:46 PM

WARNING: Fallout 3 is not really a shooter, especially early in the game when all your skills suck. Later in the game you can pretty much play as a shooter but there are still dice rolls and percentages going into each shot. It isn't just a matter of having the reticule on someone's head for a headshot (although it certainly helps).

But, Fallout 3 is a better game than Far Cry 2.
November 4, 2008 4:03:10 PM

San Pedro said:
You won't want to put a 100 hours into FC 2. I think you might be able to do it in Fallout. I think it's a better and funner game. Definitely more addictive. It's one of those games you keep saying I'm got to just finish this one last mission before bed, but you end playing 3 more.



I think that is a major downfall for FC2. Not sure if fallout plays this way but in FC2 the missions don't really tie together to where they feel like you are working on the overall mission. The idea is good IMO...drop you off in a huge map with one objective...get rid of the Jackal....it doesn't quite play out like that though. It seems like the missions don't tie into that whole theme of tracking him down.

The mission about scoring some Khat though is pretty funny. They should have allowed you to use it as a temporary energy/speed/bullet resistant boost. But that ties into my disappointment...the missions seem pointless disconnected. A lot more creativity could have been implemented.
November 29, 2008 8:59:17 PM

SEALBoy said:
Half-Life never really captured me... I think there is quite a bit of fanboyism devoted to that series. :p 

I love the Call of Duty series, I also liked Crysis a whole lot. And Halo (amazing, I know... but it was fun). I played halfway through the first Half-Life... it was fun, but not mind-blowingly amazing.



The Half-Life series is one of the best around. System Shock and Bioshock were good too. The thing I find wrong with most FPS games is the constant spawning. I mean even in COD4 you'd get droves and droves of enemy coming at you until you hit that invisible line, then it would go to the next area. It would be nice to have a game that you not really get rid of all the enemies but you can kill all the enemies in that area. In an open world game like FC 2 they should have had it that you'd clear out an outpost and it would respawn after a couple hours or days of game time. I mean in reality if you have an outpost that you cleared if the enemy does come through at some point and sees its cleared they will put people back on it but it would take time.

The game itself isn't horrible (maybe I think that because I got it for free with my video card), it just could have been much, much better.
!