Do believe I played on the second hardest, because I'm good at shooters (Yes, really.]
I never said you weren't, but thanks for making that clear.
And I did try to treat them as puzzles (Because the first time I vented about it someone suggested the same thing. And the next time. And the next next time etc) and it lost it's novelty the 5th time I passed the same outpost.
Actually, no, it got boring right away. Why? Because the enemy AI is inconsistent.
It got boring right away? It certainly doesn't sound like you tried very hard. I don't know how exactly you played through the game, so it's hard for me to make any specific suggestions, but one general thing about FC2 is, that it simply requires patience to play.
But thanks for the condescension buddy. The only trained monkey is the one that taught you manners.
Hehe, sorry, that's why there was a smiley. ;-) Anyway, that is really the impression I got from a lot of posts that all sound very similar to yours. In FC2 there is absolutely no point to rushing to all the missions on the roads. The game is simply not fun that way. Of course there is still no guarantee that you will like it, no matter how you play it, but that's as much about the player and his mindset as it is about the game itself.
I know why the enemies respawn. It's still a shitty design. Also not necessary, because Far Cry 3 did not do that and ran on the same hardware using the same engine (IIRC, Dunia I believe it's called) - The respawning checkpoints were by design or an oversight, not a system requirement. If it was a limitation of the current engine, then it's still their fault that it made the game worse, because they made the game and the engine.
Yeah, unfortunately. Still, I never really was bothered by the respawning. It's not like anybody forces the player to do anything in this game.
I believe the version of the Dunia-engine used for FC3 is quite a bit different. At least judging from the physics-comparisons on youtube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=88PHHEziQtU
I know I can sneak past the checkpoints. But the same puzzle 5 times or more isn't a puzzle - It's a chore.
The AI is blatantly cheating in regards to jeeps and seeing through vegetation (Forgot to mention that). Also, sneaking? That means walking across the entirety of Africa instead of driving (Which does save about 5 minutes, due to the constant stops, but still).
"...the same puzzle 5 times..." It can only have been the same if you approached it the same way. Also, why did you keep wiping them out, when you felt it was just a chore? Do you seriously blame the game for your own playstyle?!?
And walking would mean that you could actually enjoy the atmosphere. I was quite a few hours into my first playthrough before I realized that. Sure, it's slow, but that way you can easily avoid combat constantly being forced on you. I fully understand how the latter can become really aggravating. And the worst thing about it is, that if you're constantly being shot at and getting into a weird shooting/driving-rythm without much downtime or planning in between, it really weakens the atmosphere.
Walking across a completely lifeless sandbox is not fun. I don't feel immersed in a sandbox that is completely void of activity, character or purpose. It's just forest, sand, steppe, cliff, forest, river. Why? Because some jerkoffs told us to go across the ENTIRE map to kill some other jerkoff and then report back to the first jerkoff to get assigned to kill another (Or at least break his stuff).
I used to think that way. It's true, there isn't much life in there, but I find the lack of civilians and a faction-system to be far more problematic than the lack of wildlife. In fact, I think the latter is actually pretty well done. There are not all that many of them and they serve no purpose, which are the main reasons why I find the world surprisingly belivable in some ways. I never have played FC3, so I can't really make a good comparison with FC2, but from what I know the map is littered with animals that don't exactly behave very believable and serve as resource for the player. My impression is, that the system goes a bit too far into "gamey" territory. STALKER, to take an example with "animals", doesn't have the problem to the same degree because of it's semi-sci-fi-setting.
Do you feel like defending the character select, malaria pill fetching, indistinguishable factions ("It's an aesop about the futility of war" is a weak justification), the incompetence of the AI, the constantly breaking guns, the repeating side quests (Answer radio, shoot guy in suit) or necessary but tedious collectibles (Diamonds - Inexplicably in briefcases strewn across Africa)?
Malaria felt like a rather half-assed mechanic to me. The fact that the missions to fetch new pills were easily the worst of the whole lot, didn't help that. Malaria itself was never more than a minor annoyance to me, but I still don't particularly like it, because it was mostly unncecessary. Instead of a well implemented mechanic that somehow tried to emulate an actual sickness, we got something that gameplay-wise was basically the same as the unjamming-animation. It simply doesn't add anything aside from the only civilians in the game and an important part of the intro.
I don't see what you problem with the "character select" is, it's just a nice gimmick, no more no less. On factions, I already hinted at it, but let's just say that we probably agree on STALKER having done it better. In terms of them being indistinguishable, somebody might have intended it to be a comment on the futility of war, but personally I believe it's more likely that they just didn't have the time/ressources to implement any kind of system. On the other hand, it's not really better in FC3 is it?
The AI is not incompetent. You can focus on the things that don't work and convince yourself that that's all there is if you want, but that hasn't much to do with actual facts. Same goes for the "constantly" breaking guns. With some planning they almost never break.
On the other hand I have to agree, that the way diamonds are strewn around the landscape randomly being unbelievable. Personally I like them as a reason to explore remote corners of the map, but I wish they had made it a bit more varied. This ties into other problems of the game. Why not have some hostile outposts (in an alternate FC2 where most milita are neutral) which guard 5-10 diamonds. In conjunction with that they could have cut down on the ridiculous number of diamonds one gets through story missions. Gameplay-wise there is no real reason to look for diamonds because of that.
Or how about the plot twists? Got any brilliant insights on those that I failed to touch upon?
Which plot twists? The jackal being "good"? That was kind of obvious from the start. No, I didn't think that the story was great, it's just a failed attempt of emulating "Heart of Darkness". They were somewhat successful with the setting though. The general environment fits and the way the milita-man talk and behave in combat and in cease-fire zones fits the theme. Some of the characters also were quite good (Gakumba and Voorhees mostly, maybe also Kouassi and the Jackal).
I had fun with Far Cry 3. But that was because it was Far Cry 2 without the bullshit. It was worse than Assassins Creed in this regard. Although I did finish Far Cry 2, to be able to better verbalize how shit it is (And I like shooters, so it's a matter of pride to finish them).
As said I can't comment on FC3 for the most part and I have never played any of the AC-games so I'll leave it at that.
Also, Far Cry Instincts for the original Xbox? Also better than Far Cry 2. Far Cry Instincts Evolution, the underwhelming and pseudo sandbox sequel? Also better. Why? They understood pacing, they understood progression, they understood FUN. The original PC Far Cry? Also better than Far Cry 2 (Up until the mutants).
Well, story progression wasn't exactly a strong point of FC2 and I guess the same is true for pacing. The problem here is, that we are talking about a open-world shooter, not some fairly linear shooter. Also, I'm starting to hate that word: "FUN". When I say that I had a lot of fun with FC2 than I probably mean something completely different than you.
If I want methodical and immersive gameplay I'll play STALKER, a game that actually provides that and isn't a chore to play.
I love both Shadow of Chernobyl (Clear Sky and Call of Pripyat less so) and Far Cry 2. Sometimes for similar reasons and sometimes for different ones, but both game have great weather systems, a good enough day-night-cycle and enjoyable gameplay (in my opinon
)) FC2 is better in terms of environmental physics, stealth and the gameplay is more dynamic in my opinion. On the other hand SoC has actual thunderstorms, some great horror-gameplay, very interesting maps and in connection to that probably the most sophisticated AI-system in existence.
