Giant Bomb Review

183 Comments

Far Cry 3 Review

5
  • X360
  • PS3
  • PC

Even when Far Cry 3's story eventually falls short of its promising start, you won't have as much fun hunting tigers, crashing hang gliders, and stabbing pirates in any other game.

So much mayhem awaits on this island. You have no idea.

Far Cry 3 takes the ambitious background mechanisms of the last Far Cry game--things like roaming wildlife and dynamic fire--and wraps an immensely fun and rewarding open-world game around them, set in one of the lushest jungle environments ever seen in a game. Far Cry 2 felt as much like an experiment in mashing together a handful of self-propelling simulations as it did a shipping product, but this third one is a real, honest-to-God video game that restrains those dynamics in the spots where they might infringe on the fun you're having roaming around a tropical island, taking over pirate outposts, hunting rare game, and crashing hang gliders into the sides of mountains. If you like shooters and open-world gameplay at all, you will have a lot of fun with all this.

The story mode has one of the strongest starts I can remember in years, as your prep-school party boy Jason and his idly rich friends skydive onto the wrong tropical paradise and get themselves kidnapped by pirates and slave traders. The short introduction is wonderfully effective at both making you resent the privilege of the protagonist and his ilk, and filling you with greater revulsion at their inhuman treatment by the psychopathic pirate leader Vaas. This guy is one of the most genuinely and believably chilling video game villains in ages, leading a cast made up of pretty colorful and well-acted characters who play out the struggle between the pirates and the native Rakyat people for control of Rook Island.

What follows is a lengthy campaign comprising Jason's attempt to ingratiate himself to the Rakyat and other influential figures on the island, in an effort to spring his friends from captivity and get the hell out of there. The succession of story missions presents an uneven mix of great outdoor setups--where the kind of unpredictable mayhem and destruction inherent to open-world games prevails--and a few too many basic corridor crawls, which end up feeling a bit like a slog and are not where this game excels. The best part of Far Cry 3 is when you're running around out there in that enormous open jungle environment, where just about anything can happen. With pirates, mercenaries, native rebels, and both docile and predatory animals all going about their business (and constantly getting in fights with each other), a host of controllable vehicles from ATVs to trucks to hang gliders, an entire arsenal of military-grade weapons hardware at your disposal, and the ability to set practically everything on fire, hilarious and unique events aren't just an occasional delight, they're the norm.

The free-form combat really encourages you to play the way you want.

Far Cry 3 takes some concepts whole cloth from other great open-world games like Assassin's Creed and Red Dead Redemption, but it's easy to look past the direct inspirations since the lifted elements just make this game way more fun. You'll need to climb and fix up a number of disabled radio towers, each of which acts as a unique platforming challenge unto itself, to reveal the surrounding map and side missions. Getting those transmitters back online also adds more guns to your ever-growing arsenal. Hunting and gathering herbs are important early-game activities, since you can craft the resulting items directly into better equipment and power-up items, and it's just fun to stalk your prey in the underbrush--and things get ridiculous quick when it turns out a tiger has been stalking you at the same time. There's even a leveling system and a full three-way skill tree that lets you spec out your character in ways that cater to the way you like to play. You'll probably end up with all the skills unlocked by the very end of the story, because Far Cry 3's prevailing ethos seems to be about making sure you're having fun in the open world as much as possible. All of these elements combine to give you a constant feedback loop of character progression that makes it really rewarding to get out there and do as much of this stuff as possible. Some of the formal side missions are pretty simplistic and don't stay entertaining for long, but there's so much else to do out there that you're not likely to get bored in this game.

Enemy-held checkpoints--one of the weakest points of Far Cry 2, due to their neverending stream of respawning enemies--become maybe the best part of Far Cry 3, since they're now a formal type of side mission. The enemy-tagging mechanic of the original Far Cry, and Crytek's subsequent efforts with the Crysis series, is especially useful here since you can now tag an enemy on the fly just by aiming at him for a second, and once he's tagged, you can see his movements clearly through walls. Each one of the roughly three-dozen outposts on the island thus becomes its own little self-contained combat puzzle, which you can approach from any angle and deal with however you want, whether by picking off enemies from a distance with a silenced sniper rifle, going in with a blaze of gunfire, or sticking the guards in the back with some amazingly fun combo takedown moves, better versions of which you unlock as you level up. There are even two levels of bonus experience if you manage to clear out an entire outpost without alerting anyone. Taking over outposts is one of the most interesting things to do in the game all the way up to the end, and they just get more satisfying the more special attacks you've unlocked.

It's a good thing Far Cry 3 gets so much mileage out of just about every aspect of its gameplay, because by the time the credits rolled I felt extremely let down by the squandered potential of the plot. At the outset, the game goes out of its way to stress what a pampered scaredy cat Jason is, but then never justifies why he's immediately able to skin animals, operate high-level military hardware, and gun down hundreds of soldiers like some kind of special forces survivalist. The game repeatedly relies on that tired old video game cop-out, the dream sequence, to avoid actually having to address major plot points, which usually leaves you asking "What the hell just happened?" But you never find out. And the story has a fundamental problem with momentum. There's a protracted sequence in the middle made up of repeated fetch quests, and the whole thing really starts to run out of steam in the last third or so, after it prematurely wraps up some story threads that should have formed the basis of the entire game right up to the climax. The only reason I care enough about the story's failures is because it's so darn good early in the game, and if it had matched that quality evenly through to the end, we'd probably be talking about this as one of the best games of this entire console generation.

You'd be surprised how often the wildlife does your job for you.

You sure can't accuse the game of lacking for content, though. In addition to the massive open-world story mode that you could spend dozens of hours in, there's a healthy suite of multiplayer modes too. The developers set out to include a full cooperative campaign that's more than a little similar to Left 4 Dead, right down to the four stereotypical characters (such as an Eastern European mobster and a Trainspotting-esque Scottish hoodlum) you can play as. There's a neat story justification for all this, with a lengthy CG cutscene setting the whole campaign up, and the things that happen in the co-op campaign tie into the world the game creates in a reasonably clever way.

The scenarios in the co-op campaign are linear, standard first-person shooter affairs that don't offer the sort of open, varied gameplay that the main campaign is so good at. You're basically moving from one area to the next, fighting off a bunch of enemies, and occasionally completing some objective. There's some amusing variety here and there, though, like a sequence where all four players are positioned up on a ledge and can only use an unlimited supply of grenades to take out a horde of enemies rushing in (and a player ranking afterward awards bonus experience based on how well you did). There's quite an elaborate loadout and class system here that lets you unlock not only new weapons and attachments but basic passive bonuses and even some team area-of-effect buffs like you'd see in an MMO. That leveling system also carries over to a perfunctory competitive multiplayer mode replete with its own leveling system, unlocks, and ability to prestige. It's fine that this mode is in here if you're really looking to wring as much time out of this game as you can, and there's even a pretty easy-to-use map editor in here if you want to make a map where you dig a big hole in the ground and fill it with sharks. But none of this stuff is required for me to recommend Far Cry 3. The game more than justifies its existence with the single-player mode alone.

The player progression makes it really satisfying to keep doing side activities and leveling up.

You'd be remiss when talking about Far Cry 3 not to mention how good this game looks on the PC, with the sort of DirectX 11 features that will stress any hardware currently on the market. I had plenty of those "Wow, games look like this now?" moments while creeping through the brush or sailing over the island on a hang glider. It also scales quite well; I was able to get perfectly acceptable performance out of my nearly three-year-old machine at home on above-average settings, though I was having so much fun with the game that I couldn't resist upgrading my video card just to max it out. The console versions retain a surprising amount of the PC version's fidelity, down to the density of the island's foliage and the shafts of sunlight peeking through tree branches, but they do so at a terrible cost to the frame rate. The game is generally playable, and if you haven't seen the PC version you won't know what you're missing, but with performance well below 30 frames per second that dips down to 20 or worse in the heaviest action, you shouldn't play this game on a console unless you have no other choice. Even a modestly equipped PC will offer a much better experience.

Ultimately, Far Cry 3 left me a little conflicted. It's a smartly designed open-world game with a ton of stuff to do, and the random acts of hilarity that occur out in the jungle will constantly leave you with unique stories you'll be desperate to tell your friends. If the story had made good on the strength of its initial premise, Far Cry 3 would have been shoo-in for best game of the year. As it stands, it's still the most fun I've had in an open world in ages, a game that plays so well and looks so good, I wish every other piece of it reached the same high bar. But you should play it anyway.

Brad Shoemaker on Google+
186 Comments
  • 186 results
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
Posted by ShakeItBaby

I beat this game in like 3 days and I haven't done that in years, this game was really fun

Posted by smcn

Man, this game was great until the second island. It really feels like they added it because they needed to hit some arbitrary content numbers. By the time I got there, there was nothing left to craft and I had every skill and weapon I wanted. Ultimately I stopped playing because I had a feeling they could never deliver on the crazy acid trip of a story... Guess I was right.

Posted by Kraznor

Video Game criticism. To paraphrase, a third of the game is weak, the story is unsatisfying and ends on a poor note, never justifying its very premise of a college-aged douche becoming an expert survivalist, but hey, perfect score.

Also, going to be one of those guys, you clearly didn't get Far Cry 2 to speak of it so. Killing people in a perpetual conflict in Africa isn't SUPPOSED to be fun. More men would likely be stationed at an outpost if it was attacked, for one, and the nature of the story in that game supported that mechanic. Its not fun, its war. That game also did a ton for system-derived storytelling with its buddy system, resulting in a much more personalized narrative experience. Bold experiments are inherently more interesting to me than derivative, fun-at-all-costs sandbox murder sims like this one, so I shall disregard your final word of advice and skip this one.

Posted by KittyVonDoom

It's not a shoo-in for Game of the Year? Well, you know we're all going to judge you and question your ability as a professional journalist if it doesn't win. Because that's how it works, right?

Posted by Nerolus

This game has amazing voice acting. A complete 180 from Far Cry 2, which isn't saying much since it was some of the worst voice acting I had ever encountered in a video game. The acting in this game is just great. I totally agree about the villain, Vaas. My only complaint is that I wish there were more of him in the game.

Posted by Brad

@Kraznor: You invalidate your entire argument by complaining about a "perfect score."

Staff
Edited by Death_Burnout

@murisan said:

@mbr2 said:

Bad menus, gimmicky crafting, unintentionally hilarious story, writing and characters keep trying to be serious, annoying notifications all the time that you can't turn off. 5/5 stars.

Opinions. how do they work?

Oh I don't know, if you don't find the constant notifications and hand-holding annoying, I guess you would be part of the problem.

I feel most of my problems with this game could be fixed with a single ini. file

@Nerolus said:

This game has amazing voice acting. A complete 180 from Far Cry 2, which isn't saying much since it was some of the worst voice acting I had ever encountered in a video game. The acting in this game is just great. I totally agree about the villain, Vaas. My only complaint is that I wish there were more of him in the game.

Err...that's what made it great, it wasn't voice acting! It sounded completely real, it was unparalleled. Aside from the main characters, this game truly has some terrible voice acting, the guards have about 5 lines. Far Cry 2 had outstanding guard communication.

Posted by trolipo3

@Kraznor said:

Video Game criticism. To paraphrase, a third of the game is weak, the story is unsatisfying and ends on a poor note, never justifying its very premise of a college-aged douche becoming an expert survivalist, but hey, perfect score.

Also, going to be one of those guys, you clearly didn't get Far Cry 2 to speak of it so. Killing people in a perpetual conflict in Africa isn't SUPPOSED to be fun. More men would likely be stationed at an outpost if it was attacked, for one, and the nature of the story in that game supported that mechanic. Its not fun, its war. That game also did a ton for system-derived storytelling with its buddy system, resulting in a much more personalized narrative experience. Bold experiments are inherently more interesting to me than derivative, fun-at-all-costs sandbox murder sims like this one, so I shall disregard your final word of advice and skip this one.

mlp avatar

Posted by Toxin066

Liked what I saw in the QL, liked what I read in the review, sold on Far Cry 3.

Posted by prestonhedges

Video game reviewers love busywork.

Posted by BillyMethers

This game isn't a 5 star game. The audio production is poor and it's not the smoothest running game around. The story is mediocre and I just don't see how this is worth 5 Stars. The villain does some good acting but that's about it.

This game is only worth 3 or 3.5 stars (not even a full 4 but I know they dont do half stars)

Posted by envane

Ultimately, Far Cry 3 left me a little conflicted. ... fuck it 5 stars

Posted by FesteringNeon

AHHHH Spoilers. If you've watched the QL, don't read Brads tagline for the review!!! grrrrrrrrrr

Party foul Mr. Shoemaker, grab me a beer.

Posted by warxsnake
@Death_Burnout said:


Err...that's what made it great, it wasn't voice acting! It sounded completely real, it was unparalleled. Aside from the main characters, this game truly has some terrible voice acting, the guards have about 5 lines. Far Cry 2 had outstanding guard communication.

  Umm, sure, yeah... totally.
Edited by xite

It sounds like the issues with the story should've cost this game a star. Most of the hype I gave the game was that the story would deliver. Unfortunately that doesn't seem to be the case.

@Kraznor said:

Video Game criticism. To paraphrase, a third of the game is weak, the story is unsatisfying and ends on a poor note, never justifying its very premise of a college-aged douche becoming an expert survivalist, but hey, perfect score.

Also, going to be one of those guys, you clearly didn't get Far Cry 2 to speak of it so. Killing people in a perpetual conflict in Africa isn't SUPPOSED to be fun. More men would likely be stationed at an outpost if it was attacked, for one, and the nature of the story in that game supported that mechanic. Its not fun, its war. That game also did a ton for system-derived storytelling with its buddy system, resulting in a much more personalized narrative experience. Bold experiments are inherently more interesting to me than derivative, fun-at-all-costs sandbox murder sims like this one, so I shall disregard your final word of advice and skip this one.

Every game needs to be fun. At all costs. You're deluded, sorry.

Posted by MattGrant

I have to say that I am interested, particularly given the vehemence of Brad's review; but he also sold Far Cry 2 really well and I hated that game.

Posted by TheSouthernDandy

@Kraznor said:

Video Game criticism. To paraphrase, a third of the game is weak, the story is unsatisfying and ends on a poor note, never justifying its very premise of a college-aged douche becoming an expert survivalist, but hey, perfect score.

Also, going to be one of those guys, you clearly didn't get Far Cry 2 to speak of it so. Killing people in a perpetual conflict in Africa isn't SUPPOSED to be fun. More men would likely be stationed at an outpost if it was attacked, for one, and the nature of the story in that game supported that mechanic. Its not fun, its war. That game also did a ton for system-derived storytelling with its buddy system, resulting in a much more personalized narrative experience. Bold experiments are inherently more interesting to me than derivative, fun-at-all-costs sandbox murder sims like this one, so I shall disregard your final word of advice and skip this one.

Yeah totally, videogames shouldn't be fun, they should be a grind. Cause that makes SO much sense. FC2 was a good game but those checkpoints were a major misstep and killed any momentum that game had. It had nothing to do with immersing you in the experience of African conflict. It was just shitty design.

Posted by Andy_117

@xite said:

It sounds like the issues with the story should've cost this game a star. Most of the hype I gave the game was that the story would deliver. Unfortunately that doesn't seem to be the case.

@Kraznor said:

Video Game criticism. To paraphrase, a third of the game is weak, the story is unsatisfying and ends on a poor note, never justifying its very premise of a college-aged douche becoming an expert survivalist, but hey, perfect score.

Also, going to be one of those guys, you clearly didn't get Far Cry 2 to speak of it so. Killing people in a perpetual conflict in Africa isn't SUPPOSED to be fun. More men would likely be stationed at an outpost if it was attacked, for one, and the nature of the story in that game supported that mechanic. Its not fun, its war. That game also did a ton for system-derived storytelling with its buddy system, resulting in a much more personalized narrative experience. Bold experiments are inherently more interesting to me than derivative, fun-at-all-costs sandbox murder sims like this one, so I shall disregard your final word of advice and skip this one.

Every game needs to be fun. At all costs. You're deluded, sorry.

I disagree. Kind of. I think a game can focus inherently on story, on emotion... hell, Walking Dead? Heavy Rain? I don't think a game needs to be "fun," but I think a game needs to be enjoyable. You can enjoy horror, you can enjoy heaviness of narrative, even if you wouldn't say you're enjoying it in the same way you would, like, a puzzle, or a toy. You won't say you're having "fun" with The Walking Dead, but you could say you're engrossed in it, that you're being entertained by it, even as you're making terrible shades-of-shit decisions.

Far Cry 2 might not want to be "fun" in the sense that it's placing you into a war-torn Africa to be immersed. It's true. That can be entertaining. Far Cry 2's problem is that it's also boring.

Posted by The_Nubster
"a real, honest-to-God video game" -Bradley Shoemaker, Anime Editor

Back-of-the-box.

Posted by DeltaDreamer

This is going to be text so of course it would sound like a bitching little internet buttwad but I in no way mean it that way. Brad, from what you and Jeff said on December 4th's podcast that the ending was a let down. You made a very large case that this game's story partly ruined your overall feeling for the game. Then how can that get a 5 star rating? a 4 sure, but a full 5? to me that means the game has little to no issues what so ever. The story not being the best to me is a larger issue than something simple like a texture looks odd in one level.

Again not at all trying to be snarky and an ass, I just am a bit confused.

Posted by Fawkes

I haven't played enough to say much about anything in the review other than yes it does look good.

I don't like the menus on PC, might try playing with a controller just because of how shitty they are. And the ability to look around in some cutscenes is pretty awful with the mouse too, not even sure why it's a thing. Unless the main character is supposed to be inebriated or doing an impression of D'Lo Brown.

Also this Uplay thing is still bad, I wish they would give up already.

Posted by CSat

I have never been able to run a PC game as well or with as many options maxed as Far Cry 3. It is stunning.

Edited by Terjay
Posted by outerabiz

@DeltaDreamer said:

This is going to be text so of course it would sound like a bitching little internet buttwad but I in no way mean it that way. Brad, from what you and Jeff said on December 4th's podcast that the ending was a let down. You made a very large case that this game's story partly ruined your overall feeling for the game. Then how can that get a 5 star rating? a 4 sure, but a full 5? to me that means the game has little to no issues what so ever. The story not being the best to me is a larger issue than something simple like a texture looks odd in one level.

Again not at all trying to be snarky and an ass, I just am a bit confused.

i feel the same way about the ending and some of the plot stuff, but it's a solid playing and really fun open world game and easily one of my top 10 games this year. Kinda like sleeping dogs. Also i believe on the GB scale 5/5 isn't a perfect game, but a game you would go YEAH! when talking about.

Posted by Tomlazy

Am loving this on the 360

Posted by OneManX

@outerabiz said:

@DeltaDreamer said:

This is going to be text so of course it would sound like a bitching little internet buttwad but I in no way mean it that way. Brad, from what you and Jeff said on December 4th's podcast that the ending was a let down. You made a very large case that this game's story partly ruined your overall feeling for the game. Then how can that get a 5 star rating? a 4 sure, but a full 5? to me that means the game has little to no issues what so ever. The story not being the best to me is a larger issue than something simple like a texture looks odd in one level.

Again not at all trying to be snarky and an ass, I just am a bit confused.

i feel the same way about the ending and some of the plot stuff, but it's a solid playing and really fun open world game and easily one of my top 10 games this year. Kinda like sleeping dogs. Also i believe on the GB scale 5/5 isn't a perfect game, but a game you would go YEAH! when talking about.

There is just WAAAAAAYYYYY more than just the story. And it's not like the story is... awful, the ending just happens and ends. But everything else just sounds awesome.

Posted by Korolev

I absolutely hated Far Cry 2. I really like Far Cry 3, because it fixed virtually all the crap that was in Far Cry 2 while preserving the few good bits of Far Cry 2. It's not a perfect game, but this 5 star review is justly deserved.

Online
Edited by Luck702

Aww, I was really hoping the story would maintain its quality. I'm about 7 hours in and just hit that string of fetch quests Brad mentioned. He's not wrong, they're by far the most monotonous sections of the game so far.

Posted by Sooty

A little surprised at the remark about the graphics when Crysis still looks better, so it's not really a case of games only looking like this "now".

Posted by Zippedbinders

Cor blimey, THIS is why I stopped reading comments on staff reviews.

Anyway, great to know you loved it Brad. I've been hearing mixed things on how all of the story winds up, but I'll definitely have to see it for myself.

Edited by Incapability

I think 5 stars is overreaching. The game is a kick-ass time with only a few exceptions, right up until the point where you start the story.

The story made me want to slit my own throat - it was so grotesquely bad, I didn't even have adequate words. 5 stars seems willfully ignorant of that, reviewing the product not as a whole, but taking only the best parts into account. Not to mention, when the checkpointing didn't work, it was soul crushingly bad. It was awful. And again, something mostly related to the story.

Oh, and the really gross racial implications with the characters in that game. Dark-skinned pirates with bad accents who all have gonorrhea, dropping "meth pipes" and "cocaine packets" while professional white, well-off mercenary dudes drop things like "toothpaste" and "chocolate bar."

The racial bullshit is thick in that game.

Posted by honkyjesus

You guys are handing out fives like spare change.

Posted by Bell_End

@honkyjesus said:

You guys are handing out fives like spare change.

name the 5/5 this year then.

Posted by Sharpless

I honestly can't believe we're still having these conversations about review scores. Unless there is some great scandal to be found here, why do any of us care? Five-out-of-five stars does not imply that a game is perfect. Every game that gets the highest possible rating from a video game website has flaws. There is no such thing as a flawless game. (WWE '13 not withstanding.) No reviewer in their right mind would ever seriously suggest that there is. You might rate a game using different criteria, your opinion of a game might be completely opposed to Brad's. That doesn't invalidate anything about this review. Just accept that your mileage may vary.

Posted by GunsAreDrawn

I'm still not sold, I just think this will end up being another Sleeping Dogs. 90 on metacritic usually means its crap; see Mass Effect 3, Black Ops 1, Modern Warfare 3, Gears of War 3, etc...

Posted by Death_Burnout

@warxsnake: I, umm, sure, yeah. I have no clue what you're getting at. Opinions, how do they work?

Posted by Bell_End

@GunsAreDrawn said:

I'm still not sold, I just think this will end up being another Sleeping Dogs. 90 on metacritic usually means its crap; see Mass Effect 3, Black Ops 1, Modern Warfare 3, Gears of War 3, etc...

but none of those games are crap?

Edited by whitespider

I hate the follow the leader mentality of the internet (nothing I can do about it other than this post, I understand that). To elaborate what I mean - Mass Effect 3 had what many considered a disappointing ending to a series known for it's storytelling. On a base level I totally get why there was outrage - however the majority of the experience was an extremely solid - in my opinion. And the core game is rarely mentioned by these anger infused, viewpoint elongated -internet people-. It's like someone performs a single misstep in this industry and they are doomed to a single judgement because someone, somewhere, on some messageboard threw the first stone.

Farcry 3 also has incredible story promise, and ultimately fails at the end - and it's an incredible game regardless. People are far too magnetic with their influence these days. We need to have opinions that and less about 'group mentality' and more about sitting alone in a theater and saying "yeah, I liked southland tales, i really did. Why? Because I liked it. That's why."

Posted by Bourbon_Warrior

Does the 5 star stand for consoles too?

Posted by Anupsis

After the way they talked about it, isn't saying the story doesn't come together a massive spoiler in a way? Basically says the story doesn't become self aware or whatnot, at least don't put it in the title, I'm a little pissed off about this.

Posted by Spongetwan

Having alot of fun with the game so far. Still getting the hang of it. i cant just run and gun at this point. Cant wait to get my stealthy perks up

Posted by dropabombonit

Great review, putting this off to Christmas but seems like an awesome game. Any word on the PS3 version? Only option I have got

Posted by MysteriousBob

@Bourbon_Warrior said:

Does the 5 star stand for consoles too?

"This review is for the PS3 and X360 and PC release of Far Cry 3."

I guess so.

Posted by ProfessorEss

@Brad said:

Had more fun with it than anything else this year.

That would be the long and short of it for me. Story can be damned when I'm having this much fun with a game's world and mechanics.

Far Cry 3 is this year's Just Cause 2, an easy Game of the Year call for me.

Posted by Castigatore

Great review!
I' m currently playing the game and I agree pretty much wirh Brad! The game is awesome and it runs smoothly on my mid 2010 Macbook Pro with bootcamp! Obviously the settings are on love but still it is visually great! I'm really surprised!

Posted by mrcraggle

@Bourbon_Warrior: It's hard to really assume as Brad was pretty blunt on the Bombcast about the 360 version being shit. I guess at the core, the game is awesome for what it does despite the technical issues.

Posted by Beb

@Anupsis said:

After the way they talked about it, isn't saying the story doesn't come together a massive spoiler in a way? Basically says the story doesn't become self aware or whatnot, at least don't put it in the title, I'm a little pissed off about this.

Feels more like an anti-spoiler to me. Like, does telling you I'm not throwing you a surprize party ruin the party I am not throwing you?

Posted by Luck702

Scores don't matter people. Read the review, listen to the opinion being expressed. I hate that people feel they have to quantize everything to help it make sense to them. I wish there was no rating system, just the opinion of the reviewer.

Posted by Bourbon_Warrior

@ProfessorEss said:

@Brad said:

Had more fun with it than anything else this year.

That would be the long and short of it for me. Story can be damned when I'm having this much fun with a game's world and mechanics.

Far Cry 3 is this year's Just Cause 2, an easy Game of the Year call for me.

Its this years Skyrim for me, hoping someone mods in a hardcore survival mode like FC2. 1 life, limited ammo, how many camps can you liberate. Or a Day Z mod in Far Cry 3 with zombie animals would be sweet.

Edited by Advancedcaveman

I feel the biggest problem with Far Cry 3 is that it's not Turok. Imagine the same game, but with dinosaurs and aliens and monsters and crazy sci fi weapons.

All those random encounters where a tiger jumps out of nowhere and starts attacking everyone? Imagine if it was a dinosaur. With a gun on its face. And then you shoot it with a gun that fires electric bees or something.

And then Vaas rides around on a T-rex and yells "DO YOU KNOW WHAT THE DEFINITION OF INSANITY IS? CAN YOU HEAR ME OVER THE ROARING?"

  • 186 results
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4