Having played every single FC game, I think FC5 was the worst in the series. It’s so bland and loses everything that made the series fun, including exotic locale.
I think Blood Dragon is the best overall, and FC4 is the next best for gameplay. FC3 is great, but people overrate it and either didn’t play it or don’t remember it. Vaas isn’t even the main boss. He’s a sub-boss and you literally only see him like 3 times. I think Hurk has more development than Vaas.
FC2 is an underrated gem I wish people would have patience for, cause for all it’s frustrations and faults, no other FC is what FC2 was trying to be, and it’s such a unique experience.
The original premise was “you set out to accomplish something and everything keeps going wrong.” FC2 does this better than any of the others.
My biggest consistent gripe with the series is the lack of main boss development. They tease the shit out of the main enemy every time, but it winds up being barely a part of the story. I wish there was more character development and buildup to the end. But ultimately, FC is about the gameplay, kind of like Just Cause. We’re hardly there for the story.
Also FC6 was excellent and a massive improvement in fun over FC5. I don’t care what most people say.
FC1 campaign was not fun, but building and sharing custom maps on Instincts Predator on Xbox 360 back then was so much fun.
Far Cry 2 also had the buddies system, which I have missed greatly in every entry since. Far Cry 3 was an awesome game but I do wish the series after had taken more inspiration from 2 and less from 3. Subverting missions and then losing your favorite buddy in a firefight is an experience unlike anything in the rest of the series.
Ah yes, the buddy thing was pretty neat, and in some ways your choices even from your starting character had some meaning. They could have done so much more with that by now.
But, they are Ubisoft. As is the theme with this new Star Wars game. I’m almost wary to wish for a sequel to Rayman Legends, feels like the monkey’s paw with AAA (sorry, AAAA) studios now.
I quite liked the locale in FC5, but the (nearly?) unavoidable captures the game would force on you when you did too much open world stuff annoyed the hell out of me.
Then I had the ending spoiled for me and I just got too annoyed at the story planners and never touched it again.
FC2 was fucking awesome, loved that shit. Actual challenging and smart NPC enemies, not wave upon wave of stupid bullet sponges. You had to actually think about how to approach areas and combat.
I enjoyed 6, it was an improvement story wise compared to 5 (which was a railroad slog. Kill in a region till you get kidnapped, 3rd time, you can kill a mini boss as a treat!)
Exactly. I remember this really being an issue with Far Cry 4. The villain there had me on the edge of my seat since the intro and I still think FC4 was one of the best far cry games to exist. The setting was amazing, mechanics worked really well, and the vehicles rocked.
The thing it flopped on completely was interactions with the main bad guy and any semblance of story development. It wasn’t nonexistent, but the main villain is criminally underused in that game and is on screen for maybe 15-20 minutes total.
But now we have the issue of far cry doing the Ubisoft signature multi-zone storytelling thing where the story is not linear and it’s completely wrecked by that. This game has the same exact issue that’s been here since FC5 and I hate it. I’d rather they keep the lookout points around and have a worse world and a better story with actual progression and characters. It’s like they’re determined to make games at a 6 or 7 out of 10 level.
Having played every single FC game, I think FC5 was the worst in the series. It’s so bland and loses everything that made the series fun, including exotic locale.
I think Blood Dragon is the best overall, and FC4 is the next best for gameplay. FC3 is great, but people overrate it and either didn’t play it or don’t remember it. Vaas isn’t even the main boss. He’s a sub-boss and you literally only see him like 3 times. I think Hurk has more development than Vaas.
FC2 is an underrated gem I wish people would have patience for, cause for all it’s frustrations and faults, no other FC is what FC2 was trying to be, and it’s such a unique experience.
The original premise was “you set out to accomplish something and everything keeps going wrong.” FC2 does this better than any of the others.
My biggest consistent gripe with the series is the lack of main boss development. They tease the shit out of the main enemy every time, but it winds up being barely a part of the story. I wish there was more character development and buildup to the end. But ultimately, FC is about the gameplay, kind of like Just Cause. We’re hardly there for the story.
Also FC6 was excellent and a massive improvement in fun over FC5. I don’t care what most people say.
FC1 campaign was not fun, but building and sharing custom maps on Instincts Predator on Xbox 360 back then was so much fun.
Far Cry 2 also had the buddies system, which I have missed greatly in every entry since. Far Cry 3 was an awesome game but I do wish the series after had taken more inspiration from 2 and less from 3. Subverting missions and then losing your favorite buddy in a firefight is an experience unlike anything in the rest of the series.
Ah yes, the buddy thing was pretty neat, and in some ways your choices even from your starting character had some meaning. They could have done so much more with that by now.
But, they are Ubisoft. As is the theme with this new Star Wars game. I’m almost wary to wish for a sequel to Rayman Legends, feels like the monkey’s paw with AAA (sorry, AAAA) studios now.
I quite liked the locale in FC5, but the (nearly?) unavoidable captures the game would force on you when you did too much open world stuff annoyed the hell out of me.
Then I had the ending spoiled for me and I just got too annoyed at the story planners and never touched it again.
FC2 was fucking awesome, loved that shit. Actual challenging and smart NPC enemies, not wave upon wave of stupid bullet sponges. You had to actually think about how to approach areas and combat.
I enjoyed 6, it was an improvement story wise compared to 5 (which was a railroad slog. Kill in a region till you get kidnapped, 3rd time, you can kill a mini boss as a treat!)
Exactly. I remember this really being an issue with Far Cry 4. The villain there had me on the edge of my seat since the intro and I still think FC4 was one of the best far cry games to exist. The setting was amazing, mechanics worked really well, and the vehicles rocked.
The thing it flopped on completely was interactions with the main bad guy and any semblance of story development. It wasn’t nonexistent, but the main villain is criminally underused in that game and is on screen for maybe 15-20 minutes total.
But now we have the issue of far cry doing the Ubisoft signature multi-zone storytelling thing where the story is not linear and it’s completely wrecked by that. This game has the same exact issue that’s been here since FC5 and I hate it. I’d rather they keep the lookout points around and have a worse world and a better story with actual progression and characters. It’s like they’re determined to make games at a 6 or 7 out of 10 level.