Brian, I have not seen the PC version. But I didn't have any technical issues with the 360 version with the exception of one lock-up, which was literally at the very end of the final freakin' mission. So I got to do that mission twice.
I haven't played it, no. My comment is that Tom felt it average and thus gave it a 3/5. I can't comment either way on the score (I have disagreed with many of Tom's scores in the past, but it is hard to argue the facts he cites for his reasons). My comment is more directed to the review industry, as a whole, that seem to think a score below 80 is a crime against humanity.
In this case, he obviously came to the game expecting a sequel and rated it as such. Fair? Probably not. Useful to a consumer that is looking into the game? I say yes.
Then how do you explain that he gives games good scores too? Why don't you illiterate butthurt kiddies take it up with Metacritic and quit shitting up the discussions here?
The PC gamer review is a much more accurate description of this game. This guy was only looking for ways to tear it down. Totally overlooking the fact that Its the best game this generation.
Can you new guys come read the War in the East article too? It has The Lord of the Rings in it!
Nailed it.
It feels like the reviewer just wanted to play FC2 the whole time. You admit it's a good game, but since it's not FC2 it gets a bad score? I'm not angry or anything, the score just feels unjustified.
Then continue to fight the good fight. Never let injustice in the land stand. And god bless you.
I'd wager he's been reviewing games longer than you've been playing them. It's funny that you get so angry over it, though. GRRRRRRRRRRRRRR!
I beat it and I thought it was average.
Tom, what do you think of the argument that the story is supposed to be subversive? I've seen a couple sites mention it, but I didn't really notice it in game. Also thanks for the review.
I haven't really heard that argument. Can you tell me a bit about it? I get that it's supposed to be dark and edgy and occasionally trippy (there are scenes that are basically lifted directly from the Scarecrow sequences in Rocksteady's Batman games).
But I don't get the feeling that it's subverting anything other than good writing. It really does feel like a videogame take on a crappy Hostel story in which snotty and privileged twentysomethings undergo baptisms by fire/violence and embark on orgies of redemptive violence, or whatever. But in a videogame instead of a crass horror movie.
Fortunately, the story doesn't get all up in your face very much. Unlike, say Max Payne 3, the story is a pretty marginal part of the overall experience.
I don't consider 3 stars a bad score. 3 stars very simply means "I like it".
Why would you use the same name if you don't want to have it seen as a sequel?
Nuts. I have yet to read a single review that compares Far Cray 3 with Far Cry. Is there like some rule that you can only compare it to Far Cry 2? Come on Mr. Chick, you were my last hope! Does it get all weird at the end like Far Cry did?
Sorry, can't. Too busy reading about Pytheas of Massalia.
Why are you reviewing anything, you are a half wit dipshit with no common sense. You suck all the fun out of gaming and break it down till there is no way for enjoy what you are actually playing in the first place. You oppose what others are saying just to appear intelligent, but in actuality are completely clueless of the standard of gaming. What a miserable person you are and I will see to it that you are removed from Metacritic for life.
sin151 has spoken.
Yet his opinion looks and reads like it was written by a 10 year old everytime?
Yeah buddy, those are not emus, their cassowarys.
They have 3 knives on there feet, have the kick of an ostrich, and literally will run you down in real life in they see you. Steve Irwin was hesitant about messing around with one. These bloody things will kill you dead, by rupturing your internal organs or by disemboweling you.