I think you mean S.T.A.L.K.E.R. If you haven't played Shadow of Chernobyl, you should. And, bonus fun fact: 4A Games was (is?) made up of former GSC employees, who worked on the first S.T.A.L.K.E.R. game.
Far Cry 2 always seemed like it was a "big-budget STALKER game," if that makes sense (it probably doesn't). The inconsistencies and issues with GSC's X-Ray engine just didn't really exist in Far Cry 2's Dunia (I think that's the name). The gunplay and survival aspects (and hostile wildlife) were all done better (imo, obviously) in the S.T.A.L.K.E.R. games (at least, Shadow of Chernobyl and Call of Pripyat - never really got into Clear Sky, the most broken-on-release of the 3 games).
In fact, everyone who reads this should play a S.T.A.L.K.E.R. game (... assuming it will run on your system - the games and the engine are notoriously picky about what they do and do not play well with). Call of Pripyat is pretty much stable, and looks good - one of my favorite hobbies in both The Zone and Far Cry 2's Unnamed African Country was taking pictures at dawn or dusk, with sunlight streaming through trees and colorful skies. Shadow of Chernobyl is much less forgiving (more like Far Cry 2 as far as the world actively trying to kill you pretty much constantly, except rather than just 'guys with guns' it's 'guys with guns, mutated animals, and THE ZONE ITSELF').
No vehicles in S.T.A.L.K.E.R., but a lot more guns and a better sense of "immersion," as Chris up there mentioned.
I'm glad I'm not the only one who HATES this game. On top of everything the reviewer said, it's also FUGLY compared to Just Cause 2 and every other game is tries to copy from. What a waste. Don't understand the high scores AT ALL.
"All you people who complained about the respawning checkpoints in Far Cry 2, a game in which you were not Rambo and therefore did not get to single-handedly defeat the entire military of a Third World country"
I think it's more accurate to say that the respawning checkpoints forced you to single-handedly defeat the entire military of a Third World country every time you wanted to go for a drive.
This untalented piece of trash is never correct and all his reviews are idiotic. This idiot is same guy who gave halo 4 a 2 because it didn't do anything "new" but gave BO2 an 8 praising them for staying the same. He is clearly a moron who has no business reviewing games and is clearly part of the drooling masses than games like CoD are targeted at.
This is the mistake too many often make, they take a game, and instead of using logic and reason to find out why the designers might have done certain things say to themselves, "I liked that thing, where is that thing? Well if I can't have that thing, I guess I'll just find every other thing I can't have anymore, and use that frustration to overlook the good elements of this game, and constantly compare this game to others." Listen, if a game is similar to another game, and that upsets you, fine, but if the thing from another game worked in the other game, SHUT UP! This game takes Far Cry 2 and every good thing about all the other successful games and does a great job with it. Now, instead of constantly having to deal with enemies, I can clear an outpost out, and have a certain radius around the outpost be safe. Oh, and I don't have to constantly deal with malaria! The whole malaria thing was stupid, it made sense, but was an annoyance rather than an amazing thing the game had done. Also, I agree, the SP does get ridiculous at times, because it's supposed to be, and the story just works, it flows and makes sense, and the characters are great. I haven't beaten the game yet, but I did get to the bullet whole part you referenced, and did you ever think maybe the designers thought, this part is important, they shouldn't just be able to walk away as the scene plays, they should pay attention to it, and even if they were going to watch it, now they will feel more immersed. I admit, the game isn't perfect, but it's much better than FC2, since there is also a variety of different animations when you heal yourself. FC3 evolves from FC2, and uses elements of other games to make the game better and immersive
Oh, once again this guy. i didn't play the game, but it's kind of noticable, that this reviewer ofthe goes against the tide. Kind of like the Armond White of Video game reviewers. :)
Every paragraph in this review is a criticism, apart from the last one, which also happens to be the shortest. Then you admit that it's good, yet with no real details as to why. No mention whatsoever of the best acting I've seen in a video game, or the incredible attention to detail put in by the graphic artists. The thrill of skilfully taking down an enemy base without being spotted? Ignored. Any praise of the level of polish and (from my POV) bug-free experience of what is a massive and detailed game world? Nope. And you reviewed the XBox version. This is a PC game through and through.
I don't think your points are unfair, but you clearly approached this game with only one eye open and because of that you don't do what is an incredible game justice.
All true. In Far Cry 3's defense, the shooting and stealth mechanics - i.e. the core gameplay - are way better than any of the open-world competition from Rockstar, Bethesda or even Just Cause 2. This is a game where the open world is just a way to create interesting encounters with bad guys, as opposed to a game like Skyrim where the bad guys are just a way to create interesting stories while you're exploring the world.
It's just a shame that they took away all the good parts of Far Cry 2 to get there.
I don't always agree with Tom, but at least he has interesting things to say. The mass fellatio that came from most H4 reviewers was embarrassing.
I enjoyed FC3 a lot(and a lot more than FC2), but I think that Tom's points are pretty valid. Plus, I appreciate a reviewer who actually reviews critically.
Most modern games are mostly crap, you're just too young and stupid to see it. Far cry 3 is the zillionth first person shooter in a slew of mass produced shooters going back to the early 90's. The idea that farcry 3 is somehow the second coming of fun in videogames is just more proof how retarded and unintelligent the mainstream is.
Maybe if your attention span and memory can only remember a few years of games you've played at a time. But if you've been playing first person shooters since the dawn of the genre. Far cry is JAFPS (just another fps).
So by him not spelling 1 word correctly, makes his entire argument invalid? And you having to correct his 1 word to show him how smart you are, makes YOUR argument valid? All on a site catered to personal opinion? Gotcha...
It disturbs me to be in agreement with your review, but I am. The main difference being that I think that FC3 is a great game. In many ways it is clearly mechanically superior to the previous game. The shooting is better, the weapon customization is something I found myself wanting in FC2 (mostly because there were pretty much no silenced weapons), the expanded wild-life element adds depth, the fire propagation is nastier, the way that the two factions actually interact makes the conflict feel more believable, etc. Generally speaking, it is a better "game."
My issue with the game is in how these things are presented. The hunting element had a lot of potential for adding an interesting layer of survivalism to the game (after all, you are supposed to be some spoiled rich kid stuck on a jungle island), but it comes off as a contrived means of progression. It doesn't feel like killing and skinning these animals is necessary IN THE GAME WORLD. It feels like a reward to the player for utilizing a mechanic, not a resource you have to use in order to survive. Need a bigger wallet? Get a certain number of this kind of skin, because Pig skins can only make a certain size wallet. Need a health syringe? Find some "green" leaves. It takes elements of Far Cry 2 and refines them in many ways, but without any attention paid to integrating them with a consistent world. Scouting out an enemy base? Here, let us mark all of those enemies on your HUD that was not explained at all in-game and let you see them through walls. It's a useful mechanic, but it is presented as a part of the "game" instead of part of the "world." You wipe out a base? Now that section of the map is replaced with sunshine, daisies and your favorite tattoo-bearing natives and is rendered effectively pointless for the remainder of the game. You have a GPS, but it doesn't work in each area until you climb a tower, pull on some things and jump off into a bale of hay - Er, zip line.
Was Far Cry 2 realistic? No, but it had a consistent world and its presentation appealed to that. Far Cry 3 seems like they noticed all of the complaints about 2, missed about half of the positive feedback, and as a result removed at least half of what made FC2 appealing to its fans. It has the fantastic game-play element of interacting dynamic elements that make the encounters interesting, but the presentation constantly highlight the fact that they are "GAME MECHANICS," instead of simply elements of a world that they created. It has more detailed systems, but they mostly boil down to nests of menus that you can navigate through. Far Cry 3 is a great game, nonetheless, but it is not what I would have wanted Far Cry 2 2 to be like, given the choice.
The only point I was making is "People in glass houses..." If you're going to criticize someone for making up a word, then please make sure you do not get the right words wrong. You should take it easy, man.
Sure, man, but if you're going to make up that word at least call it "grammArnaziness," sexier that way when the root "grammar" is spelled properly. It's your made-up word though, your choice; whatever floats your boat.
Are you fucking kidding me?!! Far cry 2 was boring as fuck i couldn't even play it more than half an hour, Far Cry 3 in the other hand is FAR FAR better than FC2, it is much more addicting and its Epic as fuck and youll never get bored with it, this is the worst review website ive ever seen lol, ..ok just wanted to say that goodbye :D
