calling a spade a spade...Farcry 2 SUCKS!

[MichaelD]

I should receive my copy in the mail sometime this week; I'll post my thoughts then. But as I've said already, it really sounds like this game needs a huge "Patch 1.0." I'm betting it'll be somewhere in the 50-75MB size range...b/c it sounds like they've got a lot of crap to fix.

Graphics-wise, based on what I've read so far, it should run smooth as buttah, with maxxed-out settings @19x12 on my rig.

 

[Raduque]

I lost interest in this once when I heard it was a "sandbox fps".

 

[marmasatt]

Originally posted by: DefRef
Gee, console port whining. Again.

BTW, have any of you complaining about the lack of directions noticed that the road signs turn red to point you where you need to turn?

Once again, wrong forum, pal. This is a PC Gamer forum. You are either a console dweeb or just a troll who tells everyone to "stop whining" in every single thread. This is precisely *where* you are allowed to vent/praise/complain about PC games that you play. Why don't don't you take your trolling elsewhere and stay out of these threads if you think everyone here is a big baby......

 

[spaceman]

the ambition is there, the potential for a great game..which is why it sucks.
the bottomline for me is too many "features" have been added for the sake of realism and it just doesnt translate into enjoyment for me.

i dont enjoy playing it. it doesnt have that "keep me coming back" like the call of duty series the orginal farcry, half life 2 etc.

 

[coked up werewolf]

i really like the bullet format griping:

disclaimer: I make no claims of being anything other than a dumbass so some of these could be my fault and i DO respect other's opinions. nevertheless...

1.No strafe while running? wtf?
2.Running generally seems terrible, there's a weird latency to start running and the whole malaria, foggy vision b.s. gets old real quick.
3.Can only use the monocle while you have the map up?ghey.
4.Also, the monocle thing sucks-no zoom, what was wrong with binocs?
5.The afformentioned invincible t-shirt armor on the baddies.
6.No prone? stupid.
7.General map design problems. somebody on another thread hit the nail on the head: it's just a bunch of narrow canyons with roads down the middle and gay ass checkpoints.
8.The constantly respawning checkpoints are actually really fun... if your idea of fun is sticking your dick in a blender.
9.Gun's jamming=nice touch. not being able to use baddies guns because they jam interminably=way ghey.
10.No leaning to peek around corners.
11.Turning the same dumb ass nut on the radiator with a socket = gimmick with no real immersion value because you do it every 2 mins.
12. I've heard people praising the gun modeling and maybe the sounds are alright from what i've heard so far, but graphic wise? the default hand gun looks pretty terrible imo and the guns generally dont come close to holding a candle to the sense of heft and detail of something like the scar from crysis.
13. I kinda get a sense it was meant to be played with a controller and not a keyboard and mouse. The movement just feels awkward.

14. General "cheap" feeling. Don't know how else to describe it.

How this has a way better metacritic score than warhead escapes me.

 

[Regs]

.1.No strafe while running? wtf?
2.Running generally seems terrible, there's a weird latency to start running and the whole malaria, foggy vision b.s. gets old real quick.

I agree with the running mechanics. It makes the hunt or battles more linear.

 

[43st]

I agree with what's being said here, for the most part. The thing is.. I want to like the game, I really do. Certain aspects are really done well, and are quite immersive as far as gaming goes.

I think in the end they cut too many corners and/or made too many concessions. And on top of all of this, it stutters and skips. Which makes it very difficult to get into it. And then when you know that you'll have to backtrack 50 yards into a infinite respawn you wonder why you're even exploring the world in the first place.

So close Ubi, but it just doesn't work. Ubisoft has one of the best hype machines in gaming, and I fell for it.

 

[AzN]

Originally posted by: Ocguy31
Good game. Not great, but good. People cry about every game, so take the naysayer's with a grain of salt.

There's just 1 to many.

I too am disappointed. What a shame. I even liked the a squeal in original xbox version.

The game is wanna be GTA clone and it's a bad clone at that.

 

[nitromullet]

Originally posted by: 43st
So close Ubi, but it just doesn't work. Ubisoft has one of the best hype machines in gaming, and I fell for it.

Well, I think you have to look at Ubisoft Montreal's last game (Assassin's Creed) instead of the first Far Cry, and you wouldn't be so surprised by the game mechanics. AC was very similar in that it gave you a big, pretty world with some fun stuff to do, but never really gave you anything more beyond that. That being said, I enjoyed the hell out of AC for a while, but I will never finish it. I think the same will probably be true for FC2.

 

[CP5670]

Yeah, Far Cry 2 looks like a very typical Ubisoft game from the comments I'm seeing here, loaded with great ideas but having plenty of infuriating design decisions at the same time. All of their recent games, including Assassin's Creed, have been just like that.

 

[WaTaGuMp]

Anyone else feel you swim way faster then you run?

 

[AzN]

Originally posted by: CP5670
Yeah, Far Cry 2 looks like a very typical Ubisoft game from the comments I'm seeing here, loaded with great ideas but having plenty of infuriating design decisions at the same time. All of their recent games, including Assassin's Creed, have been just like that.

Assasin's Creed wasn't that bad. It actually had a decent story and definitely a lot more fun than Fart Cry 2.

 

[CP5670]

Originally posted by: Azn

Originally posted by: CP5670
Yeah, Far Cry 2 looks like a very typical Ubisoft game from the comments I'm seeing here, loaded with great ideas but having plenty of infuriating design decisions at the same time. All of their recent games, including Assassin's Creed, have been just like that.

Assasin's Creed wasn't that bad. It actually had a decent story and definitely a lot more fun than Fart Cry 2.

I liked it overall too, but it did have tons of annoying problems.

 

[QueBert]

Originally posted by: MichaelD
I should receive my copy in the mail sometime this week; I'll post my thoughts then. But as I've said already, it really sounds like this game needs a huge "Patch 1.0." I'm betting it'll be somewhere in the 50-75MB size range...b/c it sounds like they've got a lot of crap to fix.

Graphics-wise, based on what I've read so far, it should run smooth as buttah, with maxxed-out settings @19x12 on my rig.

95% of the crap people on here complain about won't be fixed, because it's a feature of the game. Like running and getting dizzy, that's part of the game. I think 2 things need to be patched.

1. no, or at least much less enemy respawning
2. when I flamethrow a baddie they need to catch in fire and run around screaming. This won't happen I'm sure.

There are no glaring bugs, just things you will either like or not like. And I'd be willing to bet outside of the people on AT, who seem to hate almost everything. This game will go over extremely well with most people. The bottom line is this, it's either a game you'll love, or a game you'll borderline hate. I love it. The shit people are complaining about won't be fixed, because there's nothing wrong it's just stuff they personally don't like.

 

[BladeVenom]

Crysis was better.

 

[the unknown]

Originally posted by: spaceman
the bottomline for me is too many "features" have been added for the sake of realism and it just doesnt translate into enjoyment for me.

I think thats the biggest reason why everyone is complaining here. [please note all You's are not directed at anyone in particular] You're lazy; you want WoW with arrows and quests for your sandboxes. You want GPS that highlights the shortest route like GTA4 and taxis that take you everywhere without having to explore and die and get angry at the stupid guy in a jeep chasing you down. Well guess what, this game tried something different, specifically a game heavily set on immersion based in Africa. WTFAfrica? Yes. And based on these two things, everything gets much more difficult and not handed to you. You use a map; there's little or no HUD; guns jam; the enemies' weapons suck because they can't get their hands on a decent one; things generally don't work like their supposed to. Once you get past the normal gripes "too much respawn at checkpoints, AI actually pursues me and doesn't quit after 100 yards, I can't kill someone stealth or it takes too many bullets because I suck at FPS" you actually see that it's a fun game. I think so anyways.

My take: good mix of STALKER and Far Cry, and very fun if you like to play creatively with IEDs, fire, sniping, and stealth. Oh yeah, don't forget that grenade launcher either

edit: no firefox with spell checker at work

 

[Canai]

Originally posted by: the unknown

Originally posted by: spaceman
the bottomline for me is too many "features" have been added for the sake of realism and it just doesnt translate into enjoyment for me.

I think thats the biggest reason why everyone is complaining here. [please note all You's are not directed at anyone in particular] You're lazy; you want WoW with arrows and quests for your sandboxes. You want GPS that highlights the shortest route like GTA4 and taxis that take you everywhere without having to explore and die and get angry at the stupid guy in a jeep chasing you down. Well guess what, this game tried something different, specifically a game heavily set on immersion based in Africa. WTFAfrica? Yes. And based on these two things, everything gets much more difficult and not handed to you. You use a map; there's little or no HUD; guns jam; the enemies' weapons suck because they can't get their hands on a decent one; things generally don't work like their supposed to. Once you get past the normal gripes "too much respawn at checkpoints, AI actually pursues me and doesn't quit after 100 yards, I can't kill someone stealth or it takes too many bullets because I suck at FPS" you actually see that it's a fun game. I think so anyways.

My take: good mix of STALKER and Far Cry, and very fun if you like to play creatively with IEDs, fire, sniping, and stealth. Oh yeah, don't forget that grenade launcher either

edit: no firefox with spell checker at work

Uh, no. I want a 7.62 firing weapon that drops a guy in a t-shirt in less than five shots. I want a persistent world. I want NO hud and no indication as to where I'm getting shot from. I want to die when I get shot, instead of having some guy magically appear and drag my corpse out of combat before resurrecting me with some voodoo magic. I want enemies that can't see me through walls. I want enemies to not try to shoot me through buildings and walls. I want vehicles that control realistically. I want AI that can't shoot me while facing away from me. I want a machete that can kill silently. I want to be able to run without bullshit artificial 'oh you have malaria so you can't explore the map and have to travel in a car" limitations. I want a map that's not 90% narrow canyons with a road down the middle. I want enemies to not spawn in behind me. I want a responsive mouse control. Bottom line: I want a game that is not console trash.

FC2 is NOTHING like Stalker or FarCry, except maybe that it's a first person shooter.

 

[the unknown]

Well maybe, but mostly what you mentioned just isn't fun. I think they made it as realistic as possible without sacrificing major gameplay elements. Clearly the "omg console port" theme does take away from the game, but it's overused too much on this forum. Shooting through the walls is fine btw; you want them to stop shooting you because you ran behind a piece of sheet metal after you shot them all? The bottlenecking canyons are overused. I totally agree with that. Enemies spawning definitely needs a tune up. Machette just doesn't work for silenced; use a pistol or dart rifle. Mouse control is fine if you turn the ingame sensitivity all the way down and use your mouse settings out of game.

Far Cry 2 is quite similiar to Far Cry except without the linear story that 1 had. Perhaos it's not as much like STALKER (I was thinking ammo rationing and health) as it is GTA, but still I think its very valid.

 

[nitromullet]

Originally posted by: the unknown

Originally posted by: spaceman
the bottomline for me is too many "features" have been added for the sake of realism and it just doesnt translate into enjoyment for me.

I think thats the biggest reason why everyone is complaining here. [please note all You's are not directed at anyone in particular] You're lazy; you want WoW with arrows and quests for your sandboxes. You want GPS that highlights the shortest route like GTA4 and taxis that take you everywhere without having to explore and die and get angry at the stupid guy in a jeep chasing you down. Well guess what, this game tried something different, specifically a game heavily set on immersion based in Africa. WTFAfrica? Yes. And based on these two things, everything gets much more difficult and not handed to you. You use a map; there's little or no HUD; guns jam; the enemies' weapons suck because they can't get their hands on a decent one; things generally don't work like their supposed to. Once you get past the normal gripes "too much respawn at checkpoints, AI actually pursues me and doesn't quit after 100 yards, I can't kill someone stealth or it takes too many bullets because I suck at FPS" you actually see that it's a fun game. I think so anyways.

My take: good mix of STALKER and Far Cry, and very fun if you like to play creatively with IEDs, fire, sniping, and stealth. Oh yeah, don't forget that grenade launcher either

edit: no firefox with spell checker at work

I don't entirely disagree with you, and I am enjoying the game for the most part. However, I get the feeling sometimes that there really isn't that much actual content in the game, so Ubisoft filled out the game with re-spawning AI at checkpoints I've previously cleared (multiple times) and mobile patrols that are extremely easy to deal with. These two features specifically do not add to the difficulty, challenge, or enjoyment of the game at all because all you are doing is repeating the same scenario over and over again.

 

[zerogear]

Originally posted by: Regs

Originally posted by: Eeezee

Originally posted by: Harmattan
Mark me awful confused because I'm loving FC2.

Just because you don't get a blinking arrow saying "go here", doesn't mean it's a bad game. I tend to think the fact you need to track your own position yourself is a good thing.

Okay, so what about the game makes it good? I'd like to hear the other side of this

I actually like the Diamond idea, weapon system, and the fights with other humans. I love that I can injure them and come back later to finish them with my knife. What I don't get is why they don't burst into flames when I hit them with a Molotov or flame thrower. Makes no damn sense to me why they decided to stop there on the gore.

The exploration of a large and open map isn't a total bust. It's missing a detection meter though. The detection meter was a big part of FC1s gameplay, and why they neglected it for FC2 makes no sense to me.

Because the sniper can spot you from 2 miles away in total darkness. And even if you fire a silenced shot, they all try and look for you.

 

[pontifex]

Originally posted by: zerogear

Originally posted by: Regs

Originally posted by: Eeezee

Originally posted by: Harmattan
Mark me awful confused because I'm loving FC2.

Just because you don't get a blinking arrow saying "go here", doesn't mean it's a bad game. I tend to think the fact you need to track your own position yourself is a good thing.

Okay, so what about the game makes it good? I'd like to hear the other side of this

I actually like the Diamond idea, weapon system, and the fights with other humans. I love that I can injure them and come back later to finish them with my knife. What I don't get is why they don't burst into flames when I hit them with a Molotov or flame thrower. Makes no damn sense to me why they decided to stop there on the gore.

The exploration of a large and open map isn't a total bust. It's missing a detection meter though. The detection meter was a big part of FC1s gameplay, and why they neglected it for FC2 makes no sense to me.

Because the sniper can spot you from 2 miles away in total darkness. And even if you fire a silenced shot, they all try and look for you.

to be fair there, the only time they have looked for me after firing a silenced shot is when they found the dead body (or see the guy getting shot) or I miss and the bullet hits something next to them or grazes their ears.

 

[bamacre]

I had a gut feeling I should hold off on FC2. Loved FC1 but this doesn't sound very good.

GTA IV just around the corner, folks.

 

[zerogear]

I think I'd replay GTA4 on PC just to see a (maybe) non-blurry version.

 

[skace]

When you look at all the pro's and cons for FC2, ultimately, it's the lack of original quests that is the death blow to it. Everything else is a minor complaint and more of a bitch than anything else, but the fact that all of the quests are all the same really hurts.

In fact, It's like playing an FPS MMO by yourself and quest grinding for absolutely no reason.

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: zerogear
I think I'd replay GTA4 on PC just to see a (maybe) non-blurry version.

I have not played GTA4 for even a second. I always wait for the PC version. I haven't even watched any gameplay.