Personally, I really love the game. It explores an interesting setting, utilizes a pretty good gameplay system, and just lacks in a few things like combat animation reactions to melee weapons. I've played all of the far cry games, but I found 3 and above to be superior to the first two. Maybe it's because I played crysis before the first far cry, but it just felt meh to me. 2 showed an early version of what would be perfected in 3, and is a pretty good immersion simulator. But it put too much importance on the realism to me.
I don't see why the series has to reinvent the formula every time a new game comes out. 3 was awesome, it let us explore a tropical environment with a heart of darkness esque story. Blood dragon reeked of the eighties and was just fun as hell. 4 explored the true stories that exist in civil war struggles, showing that not everything is as plain as it may seem, along with a wonderful india esque setting. Primal puts forth the Stone Age setting which isn't explored as often as it could be, along with a more savage gameplay type.
It's not the next silent hill 2, doom, mario 64, etc. But it is a fantastic game and the series is certainly in a better place than assassins creed, which has been rotting since unity.
I don't see why the series has to reinvent the formula every time a new game comes out. 3 was awesome, it let us explore a tropical environment with a heart of darkness esque story. Blood dragon reeked of the eighties and was just fun as hell. 4 explored the true stories that exist in civil war struggles, showing that not everything is as plain as it may seem, along with a wonderful india esque setting. Primal puts forth the Stone Age setting which isn't explored as often as it could be, along with a more savage gameplay type.
It's not the next silent hill 2, doom, mario 64, etc. But it is a fantastic game and the series is certainly in a better place than assassins creed, which has been rotting since unity.