this post was submitted on 26 Sep 2024
79 points (98.8% liked)
PC Gaming
8505 readers
630 users here now
For PC gaming news and discussion. PCGamingWiki
Rules:
- Be Respectful.
- No Spam or Porn.
- No Advertising.
- No Memes.
- No Tech Support.
- No questions about buying/building computers.
- No game suggestions, friend requests, surveys, or begging.
- No Let's Plays, streams, highlight reels/montages, random videos or shorts.
- No off-topic posts/comments.
- Use the original source, no clickbait titles, no duplicates. (Submissions should be from the original source if possible, unless from paywalled or non-english sources. If the title is clickbait or lacks context you may lightly edit the title.)
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I would argue that the radio tower stuff bleeding in from Assassins Creed already messed up the formula that Far Cry 2 was building on. I do admit Far Cry 3 had some cool points, but overall it's where in my view the series took a step in the wrong direction.
Latter titles doubled down on making combat less meaningful, exploration just like any other Ubi title, and realistic animations, AI and physics thrown out the window in favor of cheap mechanics
Like, in Far Cry 2 enemies would try to heal their wounded or mercy kill them, in Far Cry 5 a baddie hover his hands above a body to revive their mate.
Heard on the radio towers, though I personally enjoyed some of the climbing as a break from the typical far cry chaos. At that point the dead horse had not yet been beaten, though, and it wasn't as much of an annoyance.
Cheaper / shallower mechanics is definitely also fair, and I agree Ubisoft sacrificed that depth for more realistic visual (common AAA loss). The npc ai in far cry 2 was a rare gem though.
I actually spent a lot of time playing with Far cry 2's map editor, and far cry 3 was a big step back there too. I guess I just love the world, characters, and story of Far Cry 3.