I don't think I played the same game as you...I played stealth and collected everything and I beat the game in 20ish hours. This is coming from a guy who usually beats games way faster than the average player. My run through the game collecting nothing and killing everyone on the direct path took like 3 hours, so I somehow think you might be underestimating your playtime.
Same thing happened to me twice with the whole losing of saves. I had to replay the first 4 episodes twice. Although I did manage to finish the game, the technical reasons are why it won't be higher up on my game of the year list.
I was just listening to the latest podcast and they (well, really just Brad) made it sound like Far Cry 3 was crap on 360, since it was just "barely playable". I've spent over 4 hours with the game so far, a lot of that was setting stuff on fire, gliding, causing explosions, etc, all of which is technically demanding, and I haven't run into any frame-rate issues at all and the graphics look good. Halo 4 looks better on a technical level, but Far Cry 3 looks better or on the same level as most big 2012 console games, so I'm curious why it's so horrible to play... maybe someone here can shed some light or is it just PC elitism? It definitely looks and runs way better than Red Dead while doing more complicated things, and I don't remember anyone saying Red Dead was "barely playable". I was also surprised at some of their graphic complaints towards AC3, other than a few things like the textures on certain trees and stuff looking plain/bad sometimes, that was a good looking game, especially the faces. Anyone else think they sometimes complain about graphics and/or frame-rate quality when there's nothing bad going on?
If you think sub 25 frames per second isn't barely playable for a first person shooter and shouldn't be considered "an issue", then I feel incredibly sorry for you. Check this out for more information: