As a fan of Far Cry, I cannot wait for the release of Far Cry 5. Because of that, I wanted to go back to all of the Far Cry games and rank them, like I did with the Resident Evil series. Unfortunately, one more parallel can be drawn from that list: an entry in the series that I personally do not like to the point that I write an entry about how why I don't like it. That game: Far Cry 2. I first tried it awhile ago and didn't like, I just came back to it and finished it but didn't like, and now here I am talking about it.

Usually, I like to talk about the positives of a game I dislike, and their are positives to be found in this game. At its core, the game feels like a Far Cry game. The shooting feels good, the graphics are alright, and the freedom to take on missions in whatever way you see fit is in this game. So why is it so bad? Going back to this game, I found that their were a lot of systems that had one or two good little aspects to it, but was surrounded by so many bad aspects that I just couldn't stand playing the game. When I was thinking about writing this, I was going to talk about how this game should be given credit for really starting what we now know as Far Cry, but after thinking about what this game brings new to the table I realized that this game doesn't do much new for the series. I thought how this game brought the freedom of taking on missions in your own way into Far Cry, but then I realized that the first Far Cry had that, and I personally think it did that better than this one. The more I thought about contributions FC2 brought to the series, I realized that it actually originated from the first game. In the end, the only thing I can think of that Far Cry 2 brought to the series was making it open world (and open world elements like gun stores, etc.), and even then it wasn't a radical new step as for the first game had some pretty open levels. Really, the only things I can get out of FC2 that I liked are the fact that it is open world, and only because it got the rest of the series to be open world, and the map system where I could pull up a map without the need to pause the game.

Speaking of doing things usually, I would usually start with the thing I hate the most after talking about the things I like. The issue with that is I hate multiple aspects of this game equally. So I will start with the weapons; more specifically the durability system. When it comes to the weapons, I felt that they were just meh. I felt that no gun truly packed a punch, and none of the weapons were customizeable. But most of my issue with the weaponry lies in the weapon rusting systems.

Generally, I am not a fan of weapon durability in games, but I can usually live with it if it's a good system. Far Cry 2's system is not. By the way, this theme of a system I like surrounded by garbage like I said previously will come up more. Back to the point; the weapon durability system isn't good at all. The weapons rust way too fast, and it's hard to tell when a gun is beginning to break down because the color difference isn't that substantial. Having a clean weapon then picking up an enemy weapon is usually pretty noticeable, but having a clean weapon and using it until it's dirty isn't. On top of that, I feel that weapon jams where happening too soon in a gun's life cycle. I can't say I am entirely opposed to weapons jamming, as for it speaks to its survival aspects, but with them jamming so fast I felt constantly annoyed that it will jam any time soon and I felt like I had to constantly go back to the gun store and get fresh guns. If you were to ask me on what should've been in place, I would say that weapons you pick up from gun stores don't rust and jam, while weapons you pick up from enemies do jam. But the weapon system can be fine if their are enough gun stores and they can be fast-traveled to. Well, that's what leads to the next big issue.

The map is split up into two parts. These parts can only be accessed one-at-a-time, not as something that unlocks the second half and is attached to the first half. In each half, their are only four gun stores (and one maybe near a bar, but isn't shown on the map) and five fast travel points. And you cannot fast travel to the gun stores, only to the designated fast travel points placed at each corner of the map (roughly) and the center. If you want to break down my weapons, fine; but at least allow me an easy access to the gun stores to pick up the new weaponry. Some of the stores are pretty close to the bus stops, but if I need to go to the southwest part of the map for a mission but the closest gun store to a bus stop (the bus stops are the fast travel stops) is in the northwest part of the map, then I feel like that extra journey to that gun store is too much of a hassle and I end up not doing it. I can get not giving fast travel points at first to force the player to explore the area, but do I really need to experience that same area for the sixth time? Not having more fast travel points was an annoyance, but what I am going to talk about next turned this annoyance into frustration.

In recent Far Cry games, their are tiered enemies. The challenge in the recent games was as you progressed through, different enemy types with better weaponry started to appear. Armored soldiers, flamethrower soldiers, and even helicopters started to appear while the weapons being used by the common soldiers were packing more of a punch. Far Cry 2 does this this to a certain degree. Yes, the enemies have different weapons like assault rifles, snipers, and shotguns, and yes, those guns got better as you progressed through the world (but not cleaner). But instead of new enemy types, this game throws a constant stream of enemies at you in hopes of keeping you constantly engaged, but in the end turned into one of the biggest annoyances I have ever encountered in any game. Remember when I said that gun stores can sometimes be near a bus stop? Well, not only do you have to drive to get over to the store, you have to drive through constant enemies that don't prove to be much of a challenge. Whether it be the vehicles you encounter on the roads that will always be hostile and drive faster than your car, or the many checkpoints that lie on the road that respawn enemies too soon, this game will throw enemies at you until sigh or do a sort of laugh-cry hybrid every time you encounter an enemy along the way to a mission that involves killing more enemies. The game has what I am guessing is around twenty-five checkpoints at each half of the map (fifty-something in total), and all of them lie on the road and all of them have enemies respawn at them way too fast. And just when you think you can out-run the enemies, they will either shoot the car until it gets steamy and slow down or get in their car and catch up to you because their cars are faster than yours. And that isn't counting the random drivers on the road. If you want to restrict fast travel, fine, but don't make every time I travel somewhere a pain. Speaking of pain for both my character and me, let's talk about the hot topic of this game: malaria.

Honestly, I am actually fine with the act of getting malaria pills. If I was given the option to do as many malaria missions as I want, I would just do them all and stack up malaria pills. If they were infinitely generated, that would be alright for me. But of course, Far Cry 2 doesn't do that. Admittedly, having the malaria strike on scripted times was not the worst, although it didn't feel natural. Really, the big issues I had with malaria was that I never knew how many pills I had and I couldn't access the malaria missions whenever I wanted. Like I said, I wish I could stack on malaria, but I couldn't and I didn't know when I would run out, which always lead me to this paranoia of when I would run out. You knew when you would run out and could do a mission directly after running out to stock up, but being forced to do this only when I ran out was annoying, and having a couple of missions only give you one pill meant you had to keep doing it. I can get that the game wants you to have this thought as it could pertain to the thought of running out of life-saving pills in real life, but in real life you could easily pop off the lid and see how many you have left.

The rest of my issues I won't dedicate a whole paragraph each to, but are still issues that are just as bad as the ones stated. I'll start with the high amount of bugs in the game that were at times funny but mostly annoying. The game is almost a decade old, I am going to take a guess that they won't get fixed. The story is pretty bad, but that can be said for all of the Far Cry games so I don't hold this aspect as severely as the others. Despite this, I found the ending to be bad, as for both endings will literally lead to the same exact cutscene, which made either decision pointless. Now I can see the point of saying going back to world after either ending you choose in the recent Far Cry games can also diminish the ending, but having different endings and going back to the world is a lot better than providing different endings, ending on the same note either way, and not going back to the open. Oh yeah, you can't go back to the open world, so anything you want to do you better do before hitting the ending. I can see that the ending doesn't warrant going back, but I'll just refer to what I said earlier about endings for that. The color palette is incredibly dull, something that isn't like every other Far Cry game. It's a common theme I guess for games that take place in Africa to have a dull palette (RE5 for example), but I still feel something could've been done. Having optional missions on top of the normal missions was alright at first as for it was something extra to do, it changed the plot around a bit that strayed from the boring binary APR vs. UFLL, and it didn't really change the main objective. But every optional mission ended with you finding your partner who gave you the mission fighting enemies in which he always died (and I mean dead dead, like he will never be seen again dead), and it was practically impossible to save them. Not only that, picking up optional missions and doing optional missions would sometimes be nowhere near the main one, which meant I had to travel on the roads and it meant I had to keep playing the game. One time, I traveled from a bus stop to an optional mission pickup which required fighting through two checkpoints, which lead to the optional mission being on the same road which meant fighting through the same two checkpoints (they spawn that fast), then the main mission was beyond the optional mission pickup which meant fighting through the same two checkpoints for a third time, then returning back to the bus stop to go back to the center of the map which meant fighting through the same two checkpoints for a fourth time. Fun.

Now, a lot of this can be said to be in the game because the game takes a more survivalist and realistic approach to gameplay. Guns rust in real life (not that fast though), you can catch malaria in real life, and fast traveling isn't a real thing (even though it isn't teleporting, it's just traveling to a point without you being forced to do so). I can respect a game trying to be realistic, but I feel that the game doesn't go all the way with this and I am left on this balance between realistic and video game-y. If this was truly realistic, then why is there a functioning transit system in a war-torn country? Why are there no civilians trapped in this country with you? How can a car be shot up then repaired by tightening a piece in front of the car? This is all nitpicking really, but elements like this made me think that it is like any other open world game while its realistic elements made the game feel more realistic. I found that this balance is terrible because every step of the way I wanted its realistic elements to be dumbed-down. Having elements like fast travel and checkpoints where enemies don't respawn the second you leave is in other games not because it is trying to be less realistic or more realistic, but rather less annoying and more fun. And that is the big issue with this game: it forgot how to be fun. Call me whatever you want for wanting fun over realism, but I think Far Cry 2 does a terrible job at both.

Is Far Cry 2 a hardcore experience in my eyes? No. I would say Far Cry 2 is an endurance experience. It's a game that tests how long you can go with with its systems, but not in a good way. Despite being unique from all of the future Far Cry titles (not in a good way), some core elements of Far Cry, some pretty impressive graphics, bringing the open world to the series, and the map system, Far Cry 2 in my eyes is terrible for so many reasons. Is Far Cry 2 the worst game I have played? Quite possibly. But can I also respect why people love the game? Yes. This game does have some good elements, but for me its like the needle in a crap haystack that can never be found, whether by accident or by design.

There's a part of me who definitely respects Far Cry 2's weird simulationist/immersive sim ambitions, and I certainly didn't hate it when I played it back in 2008. However, I think the people who will stamp their foot down and declare that it's one of their favorite shooters (or games in general!) are lunatics fighting for a cause I cannot agree with. I get that Far Cry 3 and 4 are basically silly, consequence-free murder sandboxes slavishly following the Ubisoft open world template, but there comes a time when tedium trumps any level of immersion or novelty for me and I definitely remember FC 2 crossed that line more than a few times. That also said:

Is Far Cry 2 the worst game I have played? Quite possibly.

If Far Cry 2 is the worst game you've played, you've done pretty well for yourself thus far duder.

Reading half of it I do disagree but also agree with a bunch :) I hated it in 2008 but when I came back to it a couple years back with another mindset and playing on the second highest difficulty I had a blast.

But then again I kinda dislike the new far cry's. I wish they wouldve tried to fix what was wrong with 2 instead of throwing out the baby with the bathwater. Imo Far cry 1+2 have very little in common with the rest of the series.( Besides being fps games set in big open exotic locations ofcourse :p)

Dont have time to read the rest though or leave a long reply atm. Ill just leave this here:

I agree theres plenty....less than stellar about Far Cry 2 but it still has the best mapsystem (although I'd prefer it if you could remove moving elements from it such as your own location like you could in firewatch, making navigation a primary part of the gameplay experience) and fire propagation tech of them all. And I like that there aren't a billion "activities" sprinkled all over the fucking thing yet.

I guess what I'd want is some kind of Far Cry:ARMA edition.

Good write up though, Ill read the rest later.

It's definitely a bizarre game! But I have to admit that I did like sniping people with the poison dart rifle, and also using the flare gun to trap people in burning brush was pretty amazing to see at the time. But overall 3 and 4 were much more memorable.

I wish it had a better story and more interesting characters among other things. The setting is pretty drab, but there's a little variety from jungle to desert. The voice work isn't great either. Otherwise, I eventually became to really like the game. I've played the game on and off several times, overall putting well over 20 hours into it, but I never finished the game. I originally really disliked the game. The last time I played it was when they recently released it as backward compatible. I don't know about the map, but is there an entirely different area that's later in the game? If so, I never went there. The most I ever spent with the game was just hunting down every diamond on the (first?) map.

I love Far Cry 2. It adds a level of preparation the others throw out the window. Even if that preparation is just, "How long since I refreshed my guns or since my last malaria attack?" Plus I like the idea of being a mercenary. You fight because you're paid to rather than some gap year gone wrong trope.

Guardposts respawning is dumb but I add that to the planning. Trying to skirt around them at least gives you something to consider as you reach your next objective.

I remember enjoying the early bits of it (never finished it) for things like getting out and cranking the car, and yes having to deal with malaria, which all felt oddly novel at the time. I'd never played much that had that kinda survival thing going on, and back then I had a minor fascination with doing things in first-person in video games (let alone mundane things), rather than the game changing to a cutscene or going third-person.

I also remember it being an ugly mess compared to something like Crysis. Now that's a hell of a game.

It sure was pretty boating through the jungle when the sun was setting down. That and the spreading fire were the only good things about it, the rest was forgettable and/or mediocre.

Well, killing a zebra by slamming it with a car door was also great, even if I never did that myself.

I had a lot of fun playing far cry 2 when it came out, maybe going back to it now might be bad (I remember enjoying the survival aspect of it, but it seems everyone shits on the malaria thing).

Far Cry 2 is fucking doooope. I blitzed through it a third time a couple years back, and it was even better than I remembered. That whole Heart of Darkness vibe gets intense by the end. It is basically a rough template of FC3 -- which was a better game, absolutely -- but that's because of the things FC2 got right, the hardcore elements it (FC3) left behind (severe weapon degradation, etc.,) and the ones it retained (near-constant enemy encounters in the environment, limited health).

The games are so vitally linked that it's hard for me to criticize FC2 harshly. It got so much right, and the stuff people claim it got wrong are actually just the things they didn't enjoy participating with, like vehicle damage, malaria, and a vastly limited map/fast-travel system than we were used to. I found those things refreshing at the time, and my masochistic side got a real kick out of it. I love all that shit, not gonna lie. It's FPS Dark Souls in a lot of ways, ha.

I was a big fan of Blood Diamond and The Last King of Scotland at the time, so to explore Africa, and these two warring factions, in a way that felt adequately harsh and unpleasant -- dare I say . . . authentic . . . to a degree -- was one of my top gaming experiences, period. It's just a very good game that a lot of people happen to dislike/hate like hellfire. Like Dark Souls.

The gun jamming complaint is a bit exaggerated, based on my memory. Guns you just pick up from bandits and whatnot do jam very frequently, which isn't unrealistic; hella annoying, yes, but guns you purchase rarely do. I was rocking the same two guns the entire game.

Edit: It was totally its own thing, and with confidence, you can't deny that (I encourage it), but I'm glad FC3 wasn't just a prettied up continuation of that same design ethic. It would have gotten extremely dull and outdated, fast. Each game has its unique qualities.

I was fine with the malaria and gun maintenance (as you said, part of planning and preparing), and I'm not against the guard posts re-spawning as a concept. The issue was the frequency and short distance with which the posts re-spawned made navigating the world actively difficult and a grind.

If you moved a single world cell away from the post, the entire thing would reset immediately. This translated to an experience where you could drive a few hundred feet, immediately hit reverse, travel backwards, and find that the entire thing had repopulated, dead bodies were gone, ammo drops reset, etc.

If they had enlarged spawn distance or added a timer, it would have been fine. Instead, it meant that taking a wrong turn and doubling back a few seconds later would result in another gunfight.

Far Cry 2 is definitely a better template than Far Cry 3 ever was and I will stand by that. By which I mean, it's a game whose systems could use some cleaning up, which is what should've happened with Far Cry 3. Instead, Far Cry 3 was just another Ubisoft icon chasing game, which is a shame. I still love FC2 better than most open world shooters. I'll even say it's my favorite in the flawed franchise. Experimenting with different guns makes the game way more enjoyable and makes the slow progression satisfying.

I think the first Far Cry for PC is still my favourite. It hasnt aged well but that game was really impressive at the time. None of the other games wowed me in any way. I also remember Far Cry 2 being really poorly optimized on PC. Crysis ran better on the highest settings. I played the rest of them on console after that. They're fun and forgettable like most Ubisoft open world games.

Austin Walker sends his regards.

Things I remember from my playthrough:

• The mission which started with me jumping off a bridge because I misread where the marker was. Landed it, did the mission. Felt amazing.
• A rocket launcher I had failed and blew up in my face. I recovered and realised everything was on fire. EVERYTHING.

I never really got those moments from FC4. Even the pigs being stolen by eagles felt too scripted and mechanical.

I loved Far Cry 2

Best part about FC2 is the consistency of the voice acting. Each character speaks as though punctuation does not exist. This is, I assume, is immersive world building on the part of the Devs, showing us that war not only destroys lives, but sentence structure.

This would solve the only problem I have with FC2. And actually this problem was only bothering me in the first half of the game. Once I acquired better guns and got used to combat dynamics I started recklessly jumping into every fight, no matter the consequences.

It's a pity that this game looks so dated now. Even when it released it looked gray and desaturated compared to Crysis.

I always thought it was super weird how Austin Walker and the crew of Idle Thumbs latch on to this game. To them, it was a beacon of interesting systemic open world design. Their whole take on the game got encapsulated in the phrase ''the grenade rolls down the hill''. Meaning something like a grenade, pushed by the game's physics system could end up rolling down a hill and cause some crazy chain reaction of unexpected events.

Unfortunately, in the reality of FarCry 2, systemic interactions are minimal. The wild fires barely spread a few meters, the enemy AI is too good at shooting and too dumb to react to the various situations, your guns don't jam because you buy brand new ones from the dealer. So basically, ''the grenade barely rolls down the hill''.

The thing I really remember from Far Cry 2:

@notsosneakyguy: I forgot about those tapes. Those are some pretty good collectibles.

@ascagnel: I personally think if they either made it like FC4 where you can reset a checkpoint to fight again or (I wouldn't want this one as much) made a Dark Souls system where the enemies won't spawn until you do a specific action (like going to a bonfire in Dark Souls). What that action would be, I don't entirely know.

@sumbog: Their voices were as dull as the color palette. Despite that, I think the side characters giving you missions were still the best characters in the game and the best part of the story.

@boozak: I actually enjoyed the first Far Cry game more than I thought I would.

@shivermetimbers: I can totally see why you and everyone else doesn't like the more modern FC games. The games totally did drop everything that made the game unique and made it into the basic Ubisoft open world formula. Maybe if FC2 was cleaned up in ways while still ditching crappy mechanics, then it could be a better game. Maybe if the checkpoint system had at least a different way of spawning enemies, the game had more checkpoints so I don't have to go through the same areas over and over, and they kept the optional missions without the side characters constantly dying, then the game could be better. As for weapon experimentation, I would say I had more of that feeling in FC3 and FC4 than FC2, but that's just me.

Yeah, the respawning enemies at outposts after 3 minutes away is an annoying feature of the game. Not gonna deny it. I actually liked the /idea/ of the malaria mechanic, it was just too scripted as you mentioned. I'll still take it over the drug sequences of the later games. It needed retooling, but the idea was sound. As for checkpoints, you can quick save on PC (which is the version to get, IMHO), so I never had the issue of having to use safe houses. The game really needed civilian life, which the sequels did offer. Again, the game just needed some more polish and I'd think we'd look upon it more fondly than we do now.

I'll also say that I like the visuals. They managed to make brown look beautiful, which is not an easy task. Hell, I'll say it trumps the looks of some of today's open world offerings.

@shivermetimbers: When I talked about checkpoints I meant the outposts that were on the road where you get supplies, not saves. Sorry for the confusion

I haven't played it in a while but I have more fond memories of it than of 3/4 (or *cough* primal *cough*), I liked the extra tension from shit going wrong all the time. Not sure if I'd ever go back to it but I'd like to see them try some of the ideas again, 3/4/5 seem like the same (admittedly great) game in 3 different settings.

Far Cry 2 was an honest effort, with some good work put into it, that was also flawed, undeniable. I enjoyed 60% of the game, to where it wore out it's welcome. I've thought of another go at it over the years, but would rather watch some one else played it from GB or Waypoint, say.

I fully agree that Far Cry one and two were unique games that have been lost to a formula. Far Cry 2 could be said of being a progenitor of later efforts, but they sure did not keep the depth of what made Far Cry 2 interesting.

All I really remember from Far Cry 2 isthateverycharactertalkedsofastthattheymusthavepassedoutfromexhaustionbecausetheyforgottobreathebetweensentences

The only interesting Far Cry game

I fully recognise that Far Cry 2 has problems, but it's still one of the most audacious shooters I've ever played. It makes me so sad that Clint Hocking hasn't shipped a game since.

I'm going to say up front that I've 100%ed FC2 twice and "beat" the game four times. While it has rough parts, particularly in the story and malaria scripting, Far Cry 2 is one of my favorite games because of what it requires of you. It also has a really good variety of weaponry that feels different and isn't all the same bland stuff with different skins like FC3 and on.

With the right planning and tactics, most of the annoyances are avoidable. For example, you should never have a weapon jam outside of the very early game. Buying the weapon crates early allows you to have two sets of new guns every time you leave a gun shop which lasts hours (especially if you buy the durability upgrades).

Checkpoints can be annoying early as well but are easily dealt with. You can either drive a short way around them (excepting maybe a few into combat areas), or you can just barrel through and then shoot the pursuing vehicle once you've gotten far enough away from the other troops.

The gun shops could be closer to some of the bus stops, but having fast travel to everything you want to do becomes extremely linear and boring. I find newer FC games suffer from this where you're never more than a minute away from everything so the open world setting is entirely wasted. Some areas in FC2 are breathtaking even today because of how good the lighting and atmosphere are.

My main complaints with the game are the story, stealth, and damage resistance of the enemies.

The main story isn't good in pretty much any way. To add on to that, the buddy options in main missions require you to backtrack a TON for no reason just to talk when they could have just let you go directly to the extra objectives. Bad writing and unnecessary travel get annoying really quickly.

The stealth system in the game is really bad and I'm surprised you didn't mention this. To start, there's very few stealth weapons in the game and your melee weapon doesn't kill quietly. So you're forced into pretty much one specific loadout that you have to unlock a little way into the game. In addition, there are no vision cones or UI hints pointing to the sight range of enemies. You have to learn that by trial and error what lighting conditions and distance others can see you at. This MIGHT not be so bad if the stealth wasn't binary. You are either completely undiscovered or the entire area is alerted. Getting discovered is as easy as not getting perfect headshots on the first try with your suppressed weapons as body shotting someone or missing past them can lead to the entire camp alert with no way out.

You mentioned how weapons don't feel powerful and I agree. Enemies take WAY too much damage to take down outside of sniper rifles or explosives. It's nuts that some dude in a tshirt is taking half a mag of hits to take down. I've actually played a few mods that improve this aspect of the game and it's much more enjoyable. If they had maybe made it adaptive in ways like Metro 2033 (you AND enemies do more damage on different difficulties) then maybe it would have been alright.

In any case, FC3 and on have lost pretty much most of what I liked about FC2. Everything is so streamlined and easy that you just kind of whirlwind your destruction everywhere and watch your level go up. I've never had such long and engaging firefights in any of the new games and they become boring once you've spent a few hours clearing the trivially easy outposts and there's no enemy presence on the map.

P.S. Fire is incredible in FC2, you just need to use it near the ammo dumps to get a huge chain reaction going that can wipe out whole camps or outposts. It's been toned down a ton in later games and I barely remember it even being in FC3 outside of the weed level.

@r3dt1d3: The issue I had with combat wasn't how easy or hard it was, but how often I was doing it. I'm fine with having constant encounters, but their was a point where I just wanted to skip them and get to my mission, and I found this to be extremely difficult because most enemies I encounter on the way to an objective would either be in a car or near a car, and they drive faster. Most checkpoints I did just barrel through and shoot the followers afterwards, I was just pissed with how often the checkpoints would respawn and how often I was doing that.

I did actually buy crates and durability upgrades for most guns throughout the game, but I still felt that nagging need to swap out guns. But that was just me though. I can definitely see how more checkpoints can make things linear (I usually just go to the nearest checkpoint whenever I do a mission in most open world games), but their also comes a point for me personally in every open world game where I don't feel like I need to constantly be exploring. I enjoy exploring the open world, but I also enjoy getting from point a to point b faster. And I actually would be fine with driving from place to place if it wasn't for how annoying it was to get from point a to point b. I think that their should at least be a checkpoint at the gun stores, even if they are near the bus stops.

I would say when it comes to the guns, now looking back their are more guns in the game than in the future titles. It's kind of funny how Far Cry has regressed in some ways (FC1 has controlled leaning and prone). Their is more diversity in FC2 guns, but I felt that their were some guns that felt pretty similar to me, which looking at every FC game is an issue.

When it comes to the missions, I agree that the buddy missions sucked for its back traveling, but I personally liked them better than the main missions. The buddy missions felt like me learning what is really happening in these missions I am taking. Plus, they weren't as stupid as one group telling me to destroy a possible malaria vaccine instead of stealing it and having a stranglehold on people with malaria.

As for the stealth, I do agree that it sucks. I tried a few times and gave up on it. Every time I shot a gun at any distance with or without a silencer, the enemies instantly knew where I was. The game did need stealth indicators, but I think the game purposefully didn't put them in for its survival realism approach to the game and the stealth for me was borderline impossible so I didn't really mind (because I didn't interact with it). I guess the reason why I didn't talk about was because I am generally not great at stealth in games, I didn't do it much in this game, and I didn't know if I was the only one with this issue. I think that something like stealth is partly skilled based (where I think mostly what I talked about doesn't have anything to do with how good or bad you are at the game), and I felt that if I talked about it then I would have most of the comments saying how I suck at games and that the stealth is fine (I have had that happen in previous blogs, and it's just annoying to me). But yes, I think the stealth in this game sucks and is borderline impossible for me to do.

Oh jeez I didn't realize how much I wrote. I do read all comments and I do want to reply to all of them because I have my own thoughts and opinions on every single one, but I also don't want to constantly sound like I am one the defensive and that is why I don't reply to many others. I didn't mean for this to sound like me undermining your own opinions, because their are no wrong opinions. If it did come out like that, then I apologize. Thank you for reading and I definitely do appreciate yours and everyone's response as for I enjoy seeing everyone's point of view on the matter.