Far Cry 2 or 3?

[Blood Brain Barrier]

2 is the smarter game but a difficult one to enjoy, 3 is a game to be enjoyed in the more typical sense, although it can come across as quite game-y at times.

2 really is, quite appropriately, equivalent to how it feels to watch Apocalypse Now. Far Cry 3 a decently-written, well-acted blockbuster.
.

Finally some sense. The FC3 story was rubbish and it is no more than a shooter, although a pretty good one.

All the FC2 criticism only made Ubi withdraw from doing anything unique at risk of losing customers.

 

[Bat Vader]

Personally, I think Far Cry 3 is the better purchase. mainly because it actually feels like you are hurting the enemy when you take over their strongholds and kill their soldiers. In Far Cry 2 after you took out an outpost the guards there would respawn and you would have to fight them again. In far Cry 3 once you kill all the enemies at an outpost you take it over.

It is really nice.

 

[jehk]

Personally, I think Far Cry 3 is the better purchase. mainly because it actually feels like you are hurting the enemy when you take over their strongholds and kill their soldiers.

I really didn't feel like this was true at all. I took over both islands before certain major plot points and it didn't do a damned thing. Effectively all I got was achievements and uplay points. Driving around was more boring because I wouldn't run into enemy troops as much.

 

[Eclectic Dreck]

I've not played 3 but I wouldn't play 2 without being paid. While there were a few minor problems with the game I didn't like, they aren't worth going into. The real problem is that the game often asks me to go to the other end of the map. Making this trip requires using a car. Every few hundred yards, you must stop your car, have a gun fight, fix your car, and do it again. It was like they actively tried to undermine the pacing at every opportunity.

After the hundredth time I watched a tattooed hand use a socket wrench to tighten a nut on a radiator I just couldn't do it any more.

 

[xefaros]

Obviously the number 3.But both was equally empty and pointless.Both was focused on consoles only.
Buy a game worth 60$ and spend time doing sandbox missions to replenish your money's worth.
Thankfully enough 3 had a more engaging world than 2.Both open world FPS as they liked to be called intrigued me less than the original so i would rank far cry 2 as crap and far cry 3 as less than crap

crap=3.0/10.0

Let's not put the first game on too high of a pedestal. The best part of the game, the part everyone praises to the heavens is the mostly empty (save for the odd WWII Easter Eggs) sandbox world which allowed you to approach areas in a variety of ways... and upon arriving, they'd usually just spam the hell out of you with waves of reinforcements.

And it notably faltered when it took a turn toward the sci-fi or went indoors with some okayish corridor shooting. And, seriously, we're dealing with a PC shooter that had already internalized most of the so-called "dumbed down" elements of the console shooters, such as the limited weapon slots and no proper save feature.

Far Cry 3 could use some more variety in its shooting galleries and the interior locations are just screaming to be made into enemy/animal lairs, but the game does a hell of a lot right... and doesn't go completely off the rails like Far Cry 1 did.

We are talking about a 2004 game that had more difficulty than its children picking their nose(2 and 3) on a massive landscape rendering a hell more than number 3 with more strategic involvement than the third installment tried to do with including stealth.And a multiplayer that included many ways to be played,there a camper was just a strategically stationed dude with a good eyesight not a 13yr old blowing its nose while killing those that passed by showing in the map.Also on single player side it was better paced than number 2 and 3 that told you go explore the island to find enemies to kill or track down the campaign to have a limited pre-scripted dudes to kill that go down with a sling shot.

Thinking about it why 3 didnt added a sling shot it would make a better hunting simulator.Task 1:Find rocks Task 2:Shoot down the stupid AI bots Task 3:Claim price

 

[OldDirtyCrusty]

I´m having a great time with FC3. All i`ve done so far are ten main missions and lots of freeroam stuff. It`s better than the second on so many levels. I only miss the music from FC2 and they toned down the physics (can`t burn houses down or destroy them with explosives). Is this console only or did Ubisoft limitate the pc version too?

 

[kyoodle]

I haven't played FC3 yet but the second one was awful; crappy shooting, enemies respawning at the same camps, the world feels like a series of wide corridors and every now and then you have to mash a button because the gun jammed or you need to take some malaria medication.

The setting was terribly handled, there's a civil war going on but outside of a couple of scripted points the two sides never fight so luring enemies patrol into one another isn't an option. The story is supposedly about playing the sides against each other to help the civilian population but every mission involves destroying the country's infrastructure.

From what I've heard 3 fixes the mechanical problems and doesn't make a crass attempt at social commentary in it's narrative so I'd go for that one.

 

[VladG]

FarCry3, without a doubt. FarCry2 was extremely repetitive and dull, your actions seemed to have zero consequence, the AI was awful, the story was bad, the world was bland and uninteresting and the game mechanics weren't that great (except for the fire physics... those were cool)

FarCry3 has a great story carried by some of the best voice acting I've seen in a game, interesting and fun characters, good gun and driving mechanics, much more varied gameplay and a LOT of stuff to do on the side while exploring the island.

It looks better too (both because of the tropical island aesthetic and because of the graphical improvements to the engine)

The only thing about 3 is that you have to start playing on the highest difficulty. The others just aren't challenging.

 

[Bertylicious]

Before I start let me say, for the record, that Far Cry 2 is a terrible game.

I fucking love Far Cry 2. I love the fact that it is in Africa and you are fighting over blood diamonds. I love the fact that the 2 factions are just criminals that lie to the people to serve their own ends. I loved the weapons and the way you could just hop into a weapon store and totally change your tactical approach. I loved the fact you could set the whole area on fire. I loved the immersiveness of taking medicine, pulling bullets out of your arm with pliers and driving a jeep into a tree whilst reading a map and steering with your knees. I even loved the way that enemies kept respawning at checkpoints.

Far Cry 3 is a good game but I'd say they reward stealth too heavily. Bit like Deus Ex: HR in that regard.

 

[teh_gunslinger]

Far Cry 2, no doubt.

The new one is alright, but it's incredibly video gamey with all the collection and crafting bullshit. FC2 has a much better sense of place and immersion. The degrading guns and malaria means you'll never know when things will turn to shit in a fight and it adds so much tension. The game overall is much more oppressive and hostile towards the player while FC3 is basically just a toy box that revolves around you.

The setting in Africa is also a lot better and allows for greater variety while FC3 is just monotonous green plasticy forest.

Then there's the god awful UI in FC3. What a bother. FC2 did this much better and had a perfect map function that actually was a part of the game world. No more having to look down in your lap for the map and risk driving off a cliff in FC3. Just a boring map screen that pauses the world.

Edit: also the stealth is hilariously broken in FC3. You can basically hide behind a sapling. It makes the game way too easy.

 

[fix-the-spade]

Thanks for any help in advance!

<spoiler=I'll just let this helpful little slug answer the question for me>
<youtube=ltxct3o-gQw>


Seriously, it's a better game in every measurable respect, better AI, less (and less serious) bugs, better world, more fun.

Also, you can go shark huning. That is the most awesome thing in a FPS ever, of all time, it's like getting Revenge on the Crysis 2 shark!

 

[Netrigan]

Obviously the number 3.But both was equally empty and pointless.Both was focused on consoles only.
Buy a game worth 60$ and spend time doing sandbox missions to replenish your money's worth.
Thankfully enough 3 had a more engaging world than 2.Both open world FPS as they liked to be called intrigued me less than the original so i would rank far cry 2 as crap and far cry 3 as less than crap

crap=3.0/10.0

Let's not put the first game on too high of a pedestal. The best part of the game, the part everyone praises to the heavens is the mostly empty (save for the odd WWII Easter Eggs) sandbox world which allowed you to approach areas in a variety of ways... and upon arriving, they'd usually just spam the hell out of you with waves of reinforcements.

And it notably faltered when it took a turn toward the sci-fi or went indoors with some okayish corridor shooting. And, seriously, we're dealing with a PC shooter that had already internalized most of the so-called "dumbed down" elements of the console shooters, such as the limited weapon slots and no proper save feature.

Far Cry 3 could use some more variety in its shooting galleries and the interior locations are just screaming to be made into enemy/animal lairs, but the game does a hell of a lot right... and doesn't go completely off the rails like Far Cry 1 did.

We are talking about a 2004 game that had more difficulty than its children picking their nose(2 and 3) on a massive landscape rendering a hell more than number 3 with more strategic involvement than the third installment tried to do with including stealth.And a multiplayer that included many ways to be played,there a camper was just a strategically stationed dude with a good eyesight not a 13yr old blowing its nose while killing those that passed by showing in the map.Also on single player side it was better paced than number 2 and 3 that told you go explore the island to find enemies to kill or track down the campaign to have a limited pre-scripted dudes to kill that go down with a sling shot.

Thinking about it why 3 didnt added a sling shot it would make a better hunting simulator.Task 1:Find rocks Task 2:Shoot down the stupid AI bots Task 3:Claim price

Far Cry 1 was stupid hard, but a lot of that was the awful save system and spamming you with reinforcements.

And while Far Cry 3's main missions have some pre-scripted sequences that channel you down a particular course, there's nothing wrong with a well-paced linear mission so long as your game isn't nothing but linear missions. The original Far Cry's open world tended to fall away when you walked inside. Interior locations at their best were a reasonably large space which forced you to worry about being flanked (the mechanic F.E.A.R. made the centerpiece of its series), but could often be rather linear.

The further you progressed into the game, the more often you're put you into really hard encounters at chokepoints (featuring endless waves of reinforcements coming through a door or corridor and your retreat blocked off), where your tactical options are pretty much reduced to "find a spot with a bit of cover, shoot anything that enters your line of sight, and pray you don't have to reload your gun at inconvenient time because you'll quickly be over-whelmed and have to restart before the cutscene." And the last mission is a Doom-style gang bang with minimal cover against mutants with rocket launchers. Good luck trying to use stealth in that one.

Yeah, it's tough as hell, but IMO not always the enjoyable kind of tough where you're forced to think through a situation, but the awful kind of tough where you're hoping to string together a series of favorable encounters before you hit the next checkpoint. And no game drew a line in the sand between the two like Far Cry did, where encounters in the open-world of the surface were the good kind of tough, while the encounters in interior locations were the bad kind of tough.

Would I like to see the good kind of tough in Far Cry 3? You betcha. I love the base assaults in FC3, as I enjoy reconning a location and figuring out a fun plan of attack... but I'd love to see a better fortified HQ which required infiltration rather than an easily sniped rag-tag camp. But the video game industry was moving away from truly hard long before they made the move to consoles. I remember being really disappointed by the lack of difficulty in Doom 3, then remembered the same lack of difficulty in Quake 1 & 2. Mainstream games don't tend to be very hard.

 

[Nachiketa Mishra]

Far Cry 3 is a game that took 4 years of time to develop over 2. It must be better technically. I played 30% of 2 sometime back and lent the disk to a friend for sometime. He lost it and I didn't buy another. But now that I am playing Far Cry 3, I am having a strong urge to play Far Cry 2 again. There is something in it that I miss. The randomly spawning outposts in FC2 have been widely criticized. But they, I feel are the biggest reason for me buying the game again. If I like a game, I don't want it to end as long as I get bored of it. In Far Cry 3, once you clear all outposts, rest of the story is just like a cakewalk, without any unexpected enemy encounters, spare the animals that rarely come to the main road and will be virtually harmless if you are driving.

But Far Cry 2 was different. Once you finish a mission or a side quest and get a new one, reaching the site is a challenge in itself. After all who would like to play a video game that only has 10-12 bosses to fight. I think you understand what I say. And if you are loving the game of far cry 2 and don't want it to end, just pick a jeep and keep driving, you are sure to encounter many hostiles. Keep driving and fighting them unless you want to pick another mission. Malaria attacks also made it more interesting - after all unexpected elements are always welcome in games.

All in all, I love the cautious feel of being in an enemy territory all the time in Far Cry 2. In Far Cry 3, once you have cleared an area of outposts, little remain to be done. It feels like you are enjoying a safari.

NEW PATCH TO RESET OUTPOSTS
The new patch that allows you to reset outposts in Far Cry 3 has to some extent made it more playable. But CLICKING THE RESET ALL OUTPOSTS MAKES ME FEEL AS IF I AM HIRING PAID ENEMIES TO FIGHT WITH ME. JUST LIKE PLAYING SOME ARCADE GAME. START THE GAME PLAY FOR THREE HOURS. CLEAR IT. THEN IF YOU WANT TO PLAY MORE, RESTART IT AND PLAY FROM THE BEGINNING. The random spawning created a more immersive world. Ubisoft could have made the different difficulties with different settings:

EASY: No respawning of outposts
MEDIUM: Spawning every 7 hours after being cleared
HARD: Spawning every 4 hours
INSANE(WARRIOR): Spawning once every hour

They could have even shown real enemies heading towards the cleared outpost to populate it in jeeps.

I am 30, a hardcore gamer, willing to get into a gaming industry. I am very creative, have strong analysis and a natural troubleshooter.

$$NM$$
nachiketa_om(AT)rediffmail(DOT)com

 

[the clockmaker]

Far cry 2 is a beat up old car that you get to know really well. Having done a fair bit of travel in Africa it managed to capture the character of the conflicts fairly well, as well as the feel of the terrain.

That being said, 3, while having a laughably bad (seriously, I have explained how ludicrous the idea of the 'rakyat' is previously and will do again at the slightest provocation) idea of the 'feel' of the region it was set in, was much more polished and had generally better gunplay.

Overall, I would recommend 2 for its character as a game and 3 for its quality. I very much doubt that anyone who can afford a platform to play them on can afford just one, as I have seen 2 for sale at 10$ AUD.

 

[Smooth Operator]

Well if you get Far Cry 2 cheap might as well start with that, otherwise just go with 3, they are the same sort of thing but no.3 is the more refined one and they are actually both equally goofy.

 

[aaronobst]

Number 2 infuriated me, driving around looking tediously at a map is the only thing I remember about that game

Far Cry 3 was amazing.

 

[Rickin10]

Far Cry 2 was beautiful, but it sacrificed any semblance of fun for realism. Also, ironically, the enemies were anything but. Their thousand yard insta-spot vision made stealth broken and they were total bullet sponges.

Far Cry 3 is a much superior game but with many faults of it's own. For all it's open world and pretensions of freedom, the story missions fall back on monotonous, standard FPS tropes, and don't allow much freedom traversing the environment because the jumping mechanics are so unpredictable and limited. I lost count of how many enemy camps had me salivating at the potential ways in which I could use the plethora of take-downs on offer,only to get myself into a position and my character steadfastly refuse to climb a perfectly climbable object, or do a takedown from below. Oh, and the animal kingdom took on the bullet sponge role from FC2.

 

[Dandark]

Far cry 2 would be a waste to get now that the third game is out, i'd recommend Far cry 3. It's a really good solid game and much more fun to play than 2 is now.

 

[Grivahri]

I hated Far Cry 3 on so many levels its hard to express my feelings.

The story is marred by the Noble Savage [http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/NobleSavage]. Following the main story is no better than a spunkgargleweewee. They lead you around by the nose, passing you from one set piece to the next,while presenting completely unsympathetic characters.

The missions totally curb stomp the game's open world nature. If you fail or leave the mission's zone you have to reload. This means missions won't be far away and you cannot do anything besides complete that mission. Its not like Skyrim where you're delighted to see a quest half way across the world because it means hours of adventuring fun as you hike your way over there (Yahtzee quote, see Skyrim review).

I was on my way to finish a mission. However, I ventured too close to a baddie base. So the base called for endless reinforcements. I couldn't clear out that base because I would leave the mission's zone and be forced to respawn half way across the island. I couldn't finish the mission because the base was calling for constant reinforcements that would drop down on my head.

The skill system is pointless because you can get every skill well before the end of the game. Why try to customize your character?

I really want my money back. I've never regretted a purchase as much as this.

It sounds like that is not the game for you.

 

[piinyouri]

I fully recognize that FC3 is the better designed game and play(ed) it extensively, but it wasn't a simple case of a complete overarching upgrade(like say Borderlands 2)

FC 2 with all it's faults still has something that FC3 doesnt have. I can't explain it really. Maybe the a greater sense of isolation, of survival. The atmosphere and freedom were quite wonderful.