The problem being with he actually called it a sequel, when it's not even a sequel to any of the Far Cry series. That's where his credibility goes out the window. He can compare aspects of the game all he wants but that one sentence really should raise a flag to any one who has the slightest cognitive skill. It seems this so called "reviewer" seems to give good games a low score just to stir controversy. Player reviews are great and even other game critic reviews are great. Tom is the only one to give it a bad rating and actually calls it a sequel, which it's not the case. He could easily have not stated such thing and may be add more credibility to his review but that, that just proves he's a troll. Not to mention the fact he compares this game to Skryim and uses it as a mockery. Every one knows Far Cry 3 takes certain aspects from many games like Red Dead Redemption, Crysis, Skryrim, Assassins Creed, and even Call of Duty to make it's own unique single player game. It's funny how Tom didn't he compare Black Ops 2 to Battlefield 2142, Rainbow Six: Vegas, Halo, or Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare. I mean, it's basically the same thing as Call of Duty 4 and any other shooter that has come out before it, just set in the future which Battlefield 2142 already did years ago. It brings out the question of what were Tom's true intentions behind this review? If he reviewed every single game that he gave a good review to with that method, I'm sure no game would get a perfect score. I mean after all, Call of Duty and Assassins Creed have not really changed much for he past years.
This is the most discerning review of Far Cry 3 I've read. Acknowledging the good while not shying away from pointing out the bad. Bravo sir, game criticism is better for having you in it. You have my attention going forward.
Mr. Cat, I think that's the key to enjoying Far Cry 3. You have to accept that Ubisoft is turning its back on the bold choices they made in the last game to instead deliver a more conventional but still very good open-world shooter.
It's a shame that so many people seem to think a 3-star review is some sort of condemnation or dismissal. :(
If I'm deleting comments, I'm doing a pretty lousy job of it! I don't delete comments. On the contrary, I have to scrape some of them out of Disqus filter system before they appear. Rest assured that all your contributions to the discussion will show up eventually!
I wonder if the trials of the Rakyat might be intended to give you replayable areas. However, the few I've done feel too canned.
Why are you "against" this review? If anything, I'd think it would sell you on Far Cry 3, which 1) I liked and 2) was made precisely for guys like you!
Far Cry 2 was an incredibly annoying and broken game. Enemies that can see you from a mile away making any form of stealth gameplay utterly broken, camps respawning in minutes, the game was no fun at all.
Why do you say I think Borderlands 2 is "perfect"? I actually think there are some pretty serious flaws in Borderlands 2. As you'll note this site's ratings system, the rating only means that I loved the game, not that it's attained any sort of ideal Platonic Form.
I feel like something as serious as a letter of injunction should be capitalized. Letter of Injunction. It looks much scarier like that.
Isn't the conventional wisdom about Far Cry 1 that it jumped the shark when the mutants showed up? Personally, I kind of respect a game that changes things up like that. See also Space Pirates vs Zombies for an example of that sort of thing on a larger and more pervasive scale.
That said, no such thing happens at the end of the Far Cry 3. It is, overall, a very safely made game.
Ah, I see.
Yeah, I don't think it works out if that was the intention. It's really facile overall. And I don't see how they tried to make Jason's friends anything other than pitiable and sympathetic. The raped banker, the stoner, and the two interchangeable hot chicks.
And, yeah, that ending is really poorly conceived. I thought I was choosing whether to go back to Santa Monica or stay and finish the game. Oops! Turns out I was deciding something else entirely. Oh well. Sorry, interchangeable hot chick!
Far Cry 3 is a sequel to Far Cry 2. It's absurd to claim it's not. You're better off arguing that the sky isn't blue.
Also, I didn't give Far Cry 3 a bad rating. Please leave your preconceived notions about game scores at the door when you come here, along with your silly insinuations about my motives. Unless you angry people are clicking on ads or using the donation button, I don't benefit one whit from increased traffic.
And, yes, Call of Duty and Assassin's Creed have changed quite a bit over the years. The question is *how* they change.
So where can I get this job as a bikini model body reviewer?
Holy shit you just used Platonic Form on the Internet.
FAR CRY 2 was a shit game. Fuck tastes, that game was garbage, end of fucking story. But you know what was more shit then FAR CRY 2, CRYSIS 3!!! CRYSIS 3 IS THE BIGGEST PIECE OF CONSOLIZED GARBAGE I EVER SEEN!!! That piece of shit game was more of a tech demo to show of their shiny engine. But FAR CRY 3 is actually a decent game.
Nice comeback...NOT!
???
Terrible review. Attention hungry reviewer. You should be ashamed of yourself.
Far Cry 2 was a shitty, boring game. If you ever played the first one )not this predator bullshit the first one that ever came out) you would realize that. FC3 can't be different enough from FC2 to be any good.
I disagree with you, but thanks all the same.