Rate FarCry 2 as far as meeting Expectations?
I haven't had a chance to get this game yet (along with the ton of others) but wanted to know on a scale of 1% to 100% (1 being the worst and 100 being the best) where this game stood.
I give the game a 15%
problems with it,
most of the time spent on each mission, is spent getting to the mission location because you are forced to battle through endless enemies from each outpost, which respawn on the way to the mission place and also respawn on the way back home
this makes it feel like your playing the same mission over and over again with only a slight change near the end
the weapons break after you shoot out a few clips so you will often wind up failing a mission because your player decided to throw the gun away in the middle of a fire fight
if you are attacked at a weapon store and a explosion happens too close to the weapon warehouse, it causes all explosives stored in there to explode and they don't come back and the store reads it as you already bought them so you permanently loose your good weapons
if a enemy car so much as taps you, your player automatically dies
why shoot someone in the head when shooting them in the leg does just as much damage? (the head may do more but it is hard to tell)
your team is useless as they only stay in the safe house and only leave when they want to meet you at a location to give you advise, so there useless
fire doesn't spread more than 2-3 feet
the party of the city under a cease fire are takes literally and they seem to be in a part of the world where it rains fire extinguisher fluid and the wind is made up of flame resistant foam that is invisible because safe zones seem to be fire proof
your player moves too slow so driving is a must, and the vehicles are completely useless for everything else but getting from point A to point B
all vehicles have the same stats so they all go slow
weapons are highly in accurate so even if you disable the AI and empty a clip into someone, about 60-70% of your shots will miss even though your only a few feet away (sniper weapons suffer from this same inaccuracy also )
while farcry 2 has more weapons, farcry 1 has a much better combat system
the game runs well even on mid range systems which is good
your player gets sick no matter what every 40 minutes to an hour which is very annoying
I do like Far Cry 2, but I wouldn't say it's groundbreaking by any means, so I give it 87%/100
The game does starts slow, but as the game progresses Far Cry 2 gets much better. I think to many bought the game expecting Crysis type game play,but Far Cry 2 is a different experience to Crysis.
Graphics: Far Cry 2 has some of the best graphics seen in a PC game, but because it's behind Crysis, it's criticized. The Shadows and lightening effects are very Good in Far cry 2, Characters within the game do seem to lack definition though that's my criticism. Crysis set a benchmark, but Far Cry 2 still looks better than most other games I reckon.
Gameplay: I really like the huge map and the fact that I can do missions at my own pace. Many games are linear, Crysis is a linear game covered up with some pretty environments. There's not many games that allow such freedom and I think it that makes Far Cry 2 a welcome change.
Overall a Good a game
To actually answer the OP's original question unlike everyone else (MEETING EXPECTATIONS)
The only expectations which the game really failed to deliver on were lack of a full physics system - thats really the only "expectation" which they claimed but didn't come through with.
Everything else about the game was obvious from the pre-release demo footage that they've done in the pipeline mission.
I think the game could be improved upon and could've been better to begin with, but its basically exactly what I expected it was going to be.
And Far Cry 1 was terrible.
I watched the videos, read previews and saw initial screenshots. By large, they showed off the few miliseconds in the game where certain things happen (during the time in the game, where the sunrays are at their highest towards the evening, blasting through trees and stuff). The rest of the game, not those tiny seconds of actual "wow" are musty, bland, and frankly silly. The game fell so far short of the expectations I had. It's like when you take that beautiful tomato from your salad at the fancy restaurant and just take the whole thing in and in one bite, realize just how rotten that thing actually was and you can't help but grab for that napkin because it just has to come out; there's no toughing it out and stomaching that thing. And yes, you will be wary of the rest of that salad after that. This little analogy is pretty much what FarCry2 is. A pretty tomato that came on a nice dish with an expensive price, like all nice dishes, but was actually rotten and not something worth consuming.
The absolute worst part of FarCry2 is the game play itself and by and large, the missions. The game is beautiful--I can't believe people knock this game for it's graphics, they're nice, they're not `break the limits' Crysis nice, but come on, they're great and the game runs fantastic so it's a very accessible game (unlike Crysis) for more people. But the rest of the game is so unpolished and really `noob' feeling that I just can't even finish it at this point.
The missions are exactly the same, way too repetitive and have you chasing your own tail. So you do this mission, you go to this place, you kill some dudes or you blow up a bunch of crates or a truck. Next mission, you do it again. And again. And again. You repeatedly go to the same site even. What are you doing this for? For someone you don't even know who you just randomly follow and who gave you a cell phone? You just drive all over the place for hours on end, for missions that take about 5 seconds to complete: "Pop, pop, pop, BOOM" mission complete, cell phone rings. Yawn city. I had more fun driving through out posts and hitting fools who got too close to the road or didn't get out of my way fast enough. They respawn anyways.
But an even bigger gripe I have, is the audio. Totally lacking. Completely dull. No positional audio. What year is this? This is DOOM3 class audio. Back then, it would have been ok. But today, with games that support multiple channel sound and 3d positioning in the game environment with multiple channels playing back at the same time--this game simply doesn't do that, and it's unacceptable. And to make it an even more important thing to me, how do you find enemies when you're attacked? Do you see them? Do you? What's that red line? Why did my screen just blur? Where are they? I can't hear where they are either. I just hear random noise and there's no direction to it. I can only find them when I SEE them. That's pathetic and really unreliastic feeling for a game that hyped and toted realism so much.
They spent too much of their budget on making sure the animation of getting into a car was proper and totally skipped out on hiring some audio people to make this game sound like gold. Instead, it's an audio-turd.
FarCry2 scale rating in my opinion, just so it's clear, I'll use several:
1 to 10: 4
1 to 5: 2
Out of 100%: 40%
Average (5, 2.5, 50%) would be a game that had everything required to function, but didn't have anything unique, overlly exciting, fun, etc. It's just average. Nothing important. Thus, why would you care since there are so many other games to look at. Average games are boring and bland. People who play them got them as terrible christmas gifts from some random relative for an occasion and forced a smile out of you.
Below average is a game, like this game, that isn't just average, it's less than average because it doesn't have everything that it should have to be what it is. If you release a game and claim that the environment is destructible, that the game is extremely realistic, and that it's a whole new ball game that is going to wow everyone and you not only don't deliver but literally lied about it as most of it simply isn't in the game, sorry, you didn't even release an average product, you did something inferior. You get this rating when you advertise "You must have this awesome game" and sell people a turd. If you just slipped under the radar and put this game on the shelf with little advertising, you'd have gotten nearly average ratings.
Graphics: A (they're excellent)
Story: D (so weak it might as well not have one)
Sound: F (total failure, just because it has audio doesn't mean it's worth jack in 2008/2009 release in this genre!)
Game Play: D (repetitive and not innovative at all and sometimes not even functional)
Value for Cost: F (No, just no)
Verdict: This game is just a benchmarking tool, for $40.
I'd only give it about 4 out of 10..
It's nothing whatsoever to do with the original Far Cry (10/10) and I'm sick of driving all over the place doing the same missions over and over again...
Ubisoft should be ashamed to put the Far Cry name to this game..it's only there to part suckers with their money.
I give it 8 out of 10... 80%
I think it focuses a lot on "realism" which is different, yet, kind of challenging.
to the guy that said the fires only spread 3 feet, um no... lol I dont know what your fire settings are at but they spread like a California wildfire on my machine.
The game is not perfect by any means but it is fun, runs great, and will keep you busy for more then 6 hours unlike most games. Give it another patch or two and it will probably be much better.
The weapons sound great, the lighting is flawless, the game is the first of it's kind, and I do not regret spending $50 on it.
If I went to metacritic right now and looked at the 10 top games I think anyone could tear the crap out of the majority of 90+ rated titles on there too.
I really think that the only games which've come out in the last while which actually deserved their rating were Company of Heroes, Call of Duty series, and the Half-Life series.
The fact is that not every game is going to be like one of those 3 titles and opinions vary so much given the nature of the games.
The thing is that I actually liked Far Cry 2 because it was loose and you just felt like you were doing **** for the hell of it, it was a fun game to play through for me but I like sandbox games a lot - people are very critical of sandbox titles always; but they aren't for everyone and I think people set themselves up to be disappointed.
Games like Far Cry 2, Crysis, Stalker, Assassin's Creed, even Grand Theft Auto - these games (with the exception of GTA) don't really have the mass-appeal of games like Call of Duty and Half-Life, and while those are great games for their genre, they are nothing like sandbox games in anything but the inclusion of shooter-gameplay.
I wanted to add this too
If I were to put all the sandbox games against each other and pick a top 3, i'd put GTA at the top followed by Far Cry 2, followed by Assassin's Creed - Stalker/Crysis are good sandbox games, but they really don't compare to the freeplay of FC2 or GTA.
I enjoyed Crysis Warhead a lot, however it is NOT a sandbox game really at all - its a very linear path, compared to Crysis 1 which was a relatively linear game at points, Warhead doesn't deliver sandbox gameplay at all really in comparison.
Thats the thing even about Warhead compared to Crysis - people regularly shoot Crysis down for any number of reasons; but honest to god it was the better sandbox game - I really think that when people start "rating" these games they forget the intentions of them.