All this Far Cry 2 bashing...

Is Fucking Annoying

The African Sunset
Yes, the game is not perfect, but wtf did people expect? Just because it is named Far Cry it doesn't mean it has to be perfect or like the original. Just because it has a huge scenario with great graphics doesn't mean it has to be like Crysis.
 I bet if the game was named some other thing then Far Cry 2 people wouldn't be judging the game like they are.
Sure it has his problems - The outpost guards respawn too fast, the driving can be a bit boring and the game is hard, you have Malaria. - Only one of this points actually counts and it is the first one.
 Yes, the driving can be boring, but guess what? It's on fucking purpose - You are a mercenary in Africa, you have to get to places in some way, and if you prefer clicking on a location in the map and be instantly teleported there then go play Oblivion or Fallout.
 People say the game is hard? Yes, I died quite some times in the beggining as well, until I understood the game is not the usual FPS and you have to take it easy when you play, you have to play this game the right way, and if you can't do that, don't blame it on the fucking game and don't blame it on yourself either, just face it and say "this game is good but it's not for me". And yeah, you spent 70$ or whatever in a game that is not for you, now get the fuck over it instead of bashing a game that is actually good.
 Not liking a game =/= The game is bad.
 Like you can see in my previous blogs I was not liking the game at first, but as I kept playing and understood how it is meant to be played I'm actually having a blast with it now.
 Please stop bashing the game. You might not like it, it might not be a game for you, it might not be what you EXPECTED, but it sure is NOT a bad game, it is actually a nice and fresh open world FPS.

That is all. Take care
Blinck
 
15 Comments
15 Comments Refresh
Posted by Blinck

Is Fucking Annoying

The African Sunset
Yes, the game is not perfect, but wtf did people expect? Just because it is named Far Cry it doesn't mean it has to be perfect or like the original. Just because it has a huge scenario with great graphics doesn't mean it has to be like Crysis.
 I bet if the game was named some other thing then Far Cry 2 people wouldn't be judging the game like they are.
Sure it has his problems - The outpost guards respawn too fast, the driving can be a bit boring and the game is hard, you have Malaria. - Only one of this points actually counts and it is the first one.
 Yes, the driving can be boring, but guess what? It's on fucking purpose - You are a mercenary in Africa, you have to get to places in some way, and if you prefer clicking on a location in the map and be instantly teleported there then go play Oblivion or Fallout.
 People say the game is hard? Yes, I died quite some times in the beggining as well, until I understood the game is not the usual FPS and you have to take it easy when you play, you have to play this game the right way, and if you can't do that, don't blame it on the fucking game and don't blame it on yourself either, just face it and say "this game is good but it's not for me". And yeah, you spent 70$ or whatever in a game that is not for you, now get the fuck over it instead of bashing a game that is actually good.
 Not liking a game =/= The game is bad.
 Like you can see in my previous blogs I was not liking the game at first, but as I kept playing and understood how it is meant to be played I'm actually having a blast with it now.
 Please stop bashing the game. You might not like it, it might not be a game for you, it might not be what you EXPECTED, but it sure is NOT a bad game, it is actually a nice and fresh open world FPS.

That is all. Take care
Blinck
 
Posted by English

I don't think it's at all excusable for Ubisoft to title this Far Cry 2. As you said, the two games are entirely different. It's a complete cash in on the name.

In terms of features, it's complete preference. I think however, that in this day an age, for a game built with such a large world to make travel so difficult and to lack a quick travel option for those who wish to use it is inexcusable.

You're saying that the game is "good". What makes you any more right the someone that says the game is bad? Because you say it's good, people should "get over" thinking it's bad.

We all have to remember that without people expressing their opinions and feelings on games, it would be impossible to decide which games to buy at holiday season. People can read why people dislike the game and decide for themselves whether it's right for them. All the "haters" serve a need to a certain degree and are necessary to keep companies making decent games.

Posted by Jayge_
English said:
"I don't think it's at all excusable for Ubisoft to title this Far Cry 2. As you said, the two games are entirely different. It's a complete cash in on the name.

In terms of features, it's complete preference. I think however, that in this day an age, for a game built with such a large world to make travel so difficult and to lack a quick travel option for those who wish to use it is inexcusable.

You're saying that the game is "good". What makes you any more right the someone that says the game is bad? Because you say it's good, people should "get over" thinking it's bad.

We all have to remember that without people expressing their opinions and feelings on games, it would be impossible to decide which games to buy at holiday season. People can read why people dislike the game and decide for themselves whether it's right for them. All the "haters" serve a need to a certain degree and are necessary to keep companies making decent games."
It blends the same open philosophies of the original Far Cry into it. While Crysis might be the definite spiritual sequel, Ubisoft still tried to capture the feel of it in their game. They own the right to the Far Cry franchise, and as long as they deem it a sequel to a Far Cry game, we treat it as a sequel to a Far Cry game. Just because it changes it up hugely doesn't mean it doesn't justify the name. Look at Prince of Persia, for instance.
Edited by DualReaver

I dun think game good, gameplay is pooey and annoyin' but sumetimes stuff goes boom which makes dr happy but all thd drivingin makes like ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhh and it got overhyped and dr bought it and dr not happy. :|

oh and story is crap

Posted by Blinck
English said:
"I don't think it's at all excusable for Ubisoft to title this Far Cry 2. As you said, the two games are entirely different. It's a complete cash in on the name.

In terms of features, it's complete preference. I think however, that in this day an age, for a game built with such a large world to make travel so difficult and to lack a quick travel option for those who wish to use it is inexcusable.

You're saying that the game is "good". What makes you any more right the someone that says the game is bad? Because you say it's good, people should "get over" thinking it's bad.

We all have to remember that without people expressing their opinions and feelings on games, it would be impossible to decide which games to buy at holiday season. People can read why people dislike the game and decide for themselves whether it's right for them. All the "haters" serve a need to a certain degree and are necessary to keep companies making decent games."
I say the game is good because it has good production values, it is a good game. It has good graphics, good gameplay, good sound, whatever. It IS a good game, you might not like it and you have all the right not to like it, but you can't say it's bad. I don't like the latest Metal Gear Solid games, but I recognize them as great games anyway. I don't like GTA 4, and I still think it IS a GREAT game. I don't have the "right" to say the game is good, I have the right to say I like it, because the game being good is a fact. It's a solid game, you not liking it, or other people liking it doesn't make it any better or worse.
You might not like a movie like The Dark Knight or The Godfather, but you don't have the right to say they are bad movies, because they are great achievments in the movies standards. Just like Far Cry 2 is a nice achievment in the video game industry.

And it is not inexcusable that there is not a fast travel system, I bet they could have done that easily if they wanted to, if it is not in the game it's on purpose, and it's understandable. You are in Africa, you are forced to travel to one place to another in order to do a mission, and you might get killed during that travel, this only gets you more into the world the game was set to create. When you are out of medicine for Malaria then you would never worry about it, you would just fast travel to the Underground Quest Giver and then travel to the mission spot and get the medicine, but without fast travel you will actually get worried because you might not make it in time, and that is what the developers wanted to do.
I respect the fact that you don't like to travel by car, but the game is ment to be this way, it is NOT a game flaw.
The guards take allot of bullets to kill? Sure, that is a game flaw.
The outpost guards respawn too fast? Yes, another game flaw.
No fast travel? No, that is not a game flaw...that is not something they would fix with a patch, it is the way it was mean to be.
You have to think about what the developers wanted to create here, and if that suits you.
Posted by ParanoidFreak
English said:
"I don't think it's at all excusable for Ubisoft to title this Far Cry 2. As you said, the two games are entirely different. It's a complete cash in on the name."
  I think people way over hyped this game (some people were even saying GOTY). I did not hype this game at all, and I think it's a great game, with some annoying features. I agree with "English" though, this game should not have been called Far Cry 2.
 
Posted by MB
Blinck said:
No fast travel? No, that is not a game flaw...that is not something they would fix with a patch, it is the way it was mean to be.

There is fast travel - the bus stations.  You can't exactly just warp to any point on the map at any time, but it's better than nothing.
Moderator
Posted by English

I think I have a better idea of what you are saying, but I still disagree.

I think it  would be agreed upon that each decision and choice that developers make have to be classified as good decisions or bad decisions by each individual, as each game is really a whole lot of big and little decisions when you get down to it. So, it's in my opinion up to interpretation of each and every gamer whether Far Cry 2 is a good or great game or not.

I don't agree that Far Cry has good gameplay. I see that as being up to every individual to decide for themselves. Because of weapon jamming, because of malaria, because of random camps, etc, I think the gameplay is terrible. I think those were terrible design decisions.


I don't think there can ever be a set standard for any game. We're all people, and we all have our own opinions. None of us is any more correct then anyone else. You say that any movie is considered great because those elements are commonly thought to be great like in the case of a metascore. A majority doesn't make anything true or untrue. Measuring any media's value will always be up to each individual. That the dark knight was a great movie is commonly perceived, but it can never be considered a fact.

The key difference is between what we think and what is actually there. Thinking there is a rock on the ground, no matter how many believe it, is an opinion. Whether the rock is actually there, is a fact.

Posted by Blinck
English said:
"I think I have a better idea of what you are saying, but I still disagree.

I think it  would be agreed upon that each decision and choice that developers make have to be classified as good decisions or bad decisions by each individual, as each game is really a whole lot of big and little decisions when you get down to it. So, it's in my opinion up to interpretation of each and every gamer whether Far Cry 2 is a good or great game or not.

I don't agree that Far Cry has good gameplay. I see that as being up to every individual to decide for themselves. Because of weapon jamming, because of malaria, because of random camps, etc, I think the gameplay is terrible. I think those were terrible design decisions.


I don't think there can ever be a set standard for any game. We're all people, and we all have our own opinions. None of us is any more correct then anyone else. You say that any movie is considered great because those elements are commonly thought to be great like in the case of a metascore. A majority doesn't make anything true or untrue. Measuring any media's value will always be up to each individual. That the dark knight was a great movie is commonly perceived, but it can never be considered a fact.

The key difference is between what we think and what is actually there. Thinking there is a rock on the ground, no matter how many believe it, is an opinion. Whether the rock is actually there, is a fact.
"
This is a very delicate and old topic, and as you said, each one of us has our own opinion.
From my point of view, the developers wanted to create a game where you would be in the world of Africa as they see it. I've never been in the middle of a civil war in Africa, but I think the developers must have studied some of this events.
The world they invented in Far Cry 2, is a  world where there are enemy camps all over the place in a time of civil war, where the player has a natural disease that can only be controlled with medicine, where a weapon after some use eventually jams - and I think this are believable things in the kind of world they wanted to create. They wanted a gameplay where the player would really have to go through all of this events because it is the best way to actually make the player feel he is in this world, and this is where I think the game actually succeeds, but only to people who are willing to accept it and like this style of play. But this is still a videogame, they can't be too extreme, that is why there are the buses, why your character can take bullets off his body in the middle of a fire fight, etc...
I understand that you think the game had the bad design decisions you mentioned, but I don't think those were actual bad decisions, they were just decisions. They made those specific decisions according to the world they created, and according to that world they are not bad and not good, they are just there, we can like them or not. However the fact that the camps have such a fast respawn - That I would say that is a bad design decision, because it's something more technical, it's a detail that missed (obviously not the only one ), it's something that is not so much up to the player to like or not, it is an actual flaw that they will probably resolve in a patch or something.

To be honest, I didn't follow the game progress that much before it was released...I watched some videos and saw some screens but nothing too much, and maybe that is why I actually enjoy it, because I didn't know what to expect, I was willing to try whatever the game had to offer. And yes, in the beggining I thought it was a somehow "different" formula than what we are used to, but after I shifted my prespective and tried to see the game in the way I think the developers wanted us to look at, I actually started enjoying the game allot more.

I'm not trying to say this game is perfect, it won't probably be on my top 10 or 15. But I don't think it is a BAD game, I think it is pretty good, it's different with a different playstyle, and I think we should all accept that, because I think the developers really tried to make a nice game in their own way. It is ok not to like it, it is OK to hate the game, but I don't think it's Ok to blame that on the developers.

 About the movie example, I was not saying the movie is good "because those elements are commonly thought to be great", I say it is great from a technical point of view. The Dark Knight, is an amazingly well done movie - People might not like it, but it doesn't make the movie "NOT well done".
It's like when the first Star Wars came out - some people might not like it, but they could not say the special effects were crap.
You might have liked the movie " Alien vs. Predator 2 ", but from a cinematography point of view it is bad. - And I say this because I actually studied some aspects of cinematography in school.
People might not like Far Cry 2, but it is still a good game, the developers succeded in most of the things they wanted the game to be. They had a great vision for a game, and they accomplished a good part of that vision, and I think that is what makes it a good game.

Again, this is my opinion (and although I know what I think, it is a hard opinion to "transmit" to others, so I'm sorry if it is a bit confusing"), I respect others opinions as long as they know how to argument them like you did.
Cheers
Posted by HoNgKoNgPh0oEy

Im not bashing it I just plain and simple am on a budget two games this fall and Fallout3 is much better than Far Cry 2 for me and of course the given gears 2

Posted by RHCPfan24

I love this game. i don't know what other people are talking about.  The graphics, sound and overall setting make up for any small problems here and there.

Edited by English

Yeah Blinck, I skipped through your post real quick and read the last bit. I don't think this is going anywhere, and It's not worth either of our time, so let's call it quits on that subject :]

Posted by MiasmaFett

I think farcry 2 was incredibly average and i find when sometimes playing i have to force myself to enjoy it . However alot of fun can be had. Fallout 3 on the other hand is brilliant i deffinatly recomend you buy that game.

Posted by lame

I can see what they were trying to do, but for what ever reason they didnt quite get there.

took a while to get into but im finally starting to see past the initial frustration with far cry 2. (all the things mentioned here)  - its definitely got some ill concieved elements.

my main gripe is the check points - as you can't avoid them or rush through them because you pretty much always get caught up by another jeep,
i dont really mind the driving if you could by-pass the check points occasionally  (take a "back road" or get to climb over some of the "road-walls" to gain a better sniping position.)
it definitely helps (boredom) to vary your attacks on the checkpoints, a bit of head sniping, rushing, sniping the ammo/barrels/gas cannisters nading etc.
 just rocking up to them, then jumping on the jeep-mounted machine gun get pretty f-ing repetitive.


i dont know if anyone else has teck issues with this game, but the non main story characters faces are clearly busted in my version (PC-vista-9800GX2),
they have no eyelids, joker-smiles and an occasional inverted cheek bone !


-