Far Cry 3 may be good, but it’s a far cry from Far Cry 2

Far Cry 2 was one of those rare games with unique vision. It dropped you into a shattered African country controlled by warlords. Everyone with any sense had fled. Even the beasts had fled. The new beasts were the other men with guns. It was frequently quiet and vast in the same way that ruined buildings are quiet and vast. You were racked with malaria. Your guns were often broken. You were miles from where you needed to be. Your rides were rattling dusty jeeps that ran on regular gasoline and needed a tune-up. Your friends weren’t even your friends in the end. It was a broken world of fire, misfires, disease, distance, loneliness, and betrayal. Even the ending sucked.

Understandably, some people wanted a straight-up player-friendly game designed to deliver maximum thrills per minute. They fled Far Cry 2 in droves to enjoy their Saints Rows and Calls of Duty.

After the jump, Ubisoft makes Far Cry 3 for them

Far Cry 3, a pretty good open-world shooter, is a terrible sequel to Far Cry 2. One of the hallmarks of Far Cry 2 was that you never left the game world, even to check your map. But like many good games, Far Cry 3 is brimming with gamey stuff that takes you out of the world and into the gaminess. You will pause the game to check your map and teleport to a new area. You will pause the game to ponder where to spend your skill point. You will pause the game to shuffle through screens to see how many dingo skins you need to upgrade your backpack to carry more bear skins to upgrade how many RPG rounds you can carry. You will pause the game to make a medical syringe to heal yourself during a shootout. You will pause the game to see how many yellow flowers you have. You will pause the game to see how many more doo-dads you have to find to unlock the next signature weapon, which you don’t even really need considering how fast and furious and free the new guns come. You might never use the cool bow or flamethrower except for the missions where you have to use them. You’ll probably never even use the flare gun.

This nifty shooter is interwoven to a fault with crafting, exploration, collectibles, and activities. These are the resources you feed into the often artless gameplay progression economy. You will often have to dive layers deep into screens, as if the gameplay design got away from the interface design. Three skill trees will seem tantalizing at first, but they’re not very good skill trees. Why would I put a skill point in being able to fire a pistol from a zipline? There are perhaps five times in the game it would be useful, and it’s unlikely you’d have squandered a weapon slot with a pistol at any one of those five times. So naturally you spend the skill point on more health. Do you want to swim 25% faster — why are you even bothering with swimming? — or do you want to shoot more accurately? These are the kinds of faux decisions you make. These are the things that would have been tuned out of a better game.

The world progression is very Assassin’s Creed with the way you climb rickety radio towers to unfog the map. Once you reach the top, you get your vista with camerawork by Michael Bay, followed by a zip line ride where the swan dive would be. Now you can see where you’re going. By pausing the game to check the map, of course, because that minimap isn’t really cutting it for anything but picking flowers.

The awkward interface and questionable gameplay progression are just one aspect of how Far Cry 3 is no Far Cry 2. It is, instead, the Bethesda-ization of the series. Far Cryrim. The most notable example of this is how the world is densely packed with stuff to do, calculated to keep people from retreating to their Saints Rows, Calls of Duty, and even Assassin’s Creeds. Now over every hill there’s an animal to hunt, a kill quest to set up, a dungeon to explore, a tower to climb, an outpost to conquer. All you people who complained about the respawning checkpoints in Far Cry 2, a game in which you were not Rambo and therefore did not get to single-handedly defeat the entire military of a Third World country, will finally get the chance to stop bad guys from spawning so that you can depopulate your open-world shooter of meaningful content. Congratulations. I hope you’re also enjoying getting to hunt boars with an assault rifle, which I’m pretty sure is in there because people whined that there were no lions and tigers and bears in Far Cry 2. Also, Red Dead Redemption.

I don’t mean to be too critical of Ubisoft’s me-too decisions, because they’re effective at a certain level. Far Cry 3 might not be a good sequel to Far Cry 2, but it’s a good game with a suitably sexy elevator pitch: Skyrim meets Assassin’s Creed, set in the same place as Just Cause and Crysis. But the game Ubisoft has built doesn’t quite live up to its own goals, because it doesn’t understand the accomplishments of the games it’s imitating. Bethesda’s stuff has an epic sweep with rich social systems and extensive storytelling. Assassin’s Creed has crowded cities and ornate historical trappings. Just Cause 2 explodes into wild episodes of unfettered mayhem, often from a helicopter or jet. None of this is in Far Cry 3.

Far Cry 3 best mimics Just Cause 2, but the mayhem in Far Cry 3, as thrilling as it can be, is always earthbound and conspicuously fettered, limited to a handful of enemies at a time, select breakables in the environment, and yet another tiger in a cage for you to shoot open. Don’t forget to pause the game to go into the crafting screen to make another medical syringe, because you wasted your last one healing the single bar of health you lost when you jumped down from a roof. That, too, would have been tuned out of a better game.

The story draws from modern horror movies like Hostel or Turistas more than anything from the Far Cry universe. But whereas Hostel was trashy and disgusting — those aren’t compliments — Far Cry 3 is just coy and grating. Also not compliments. The lead character, voiced by a reedy Tom Cruise soundalike, is enough to make you long for another mute protagonist. He’s one of a bunch of privileged white kids who get kidnapped to be sold into slavery by a pair of villains, one of whom randomly tags in as soon as you dream-kill the other. Oddly enough, the horror angle is safely muted to avoid anything too uncomfortable. The only murder — besides the hundreds that occur in the course of the playing the game — is front-loaded before you get a chance to care about anyone. The only rape happens to a dude and we don’t talk about that. The only torture is performed by you. But by the time you’re holding A to shove your finger into the bullet hole, Far Cry 3′s story has gotten far too silly, juvenile, and tedious to be effective. It’s not bad enough that the ending, at least the one I picked two minutes before the game was over, is laughable. The ending is entirely ignored when Far Cry 3 drops me back into the world to finish clearing out the bad guys, collecting the doo-dads, and unlocking the guns. “You know that stuff that just happened?” Far Cry 3 asks. “Let’s pretend it didn’t happen so you can keep playing.” That sort of oversight would been tuned out of a better game, or at least one that bothered to care about its story.

The normal multiplayer, like the normal multiplayer in Far Cry 2, will likely wilt in the shadow of better multiplayer games soon enough. Then there’s the co-op multiplayer, which includes almost nothing that’s good about Far Cry. It’s a decent enough unlocking grind down long and mostly narrow canyons of bad guys, with an odd “decoding” bonus system that reminds me of waiting for my strawberries to grow in Farmville, complete with an incentive to gift-nag my friends by sending them special boosts I’ve unlocked. I suppose it could be worse. I could be buying temporary booster packs in Mass Effect 3.

The “it could be worse” philosophy is Far Cry 3 in a nutshell. This is a good open-world shooter, with plenty of satisfying open-world gunplay, and it fits neatly into the annals of the usual open-world games, even if it doesn’t quite understand many of them. But the most notable fact about Far Cry 3 is that it’s not a sequel to Far Cry 2. It is instead a response to Bethesda’s success.

3 stars
Xbox 360

  • Barac Wiley

    Neither was Far Cry 2 a very good sequel to Far Cry. I guess it comes with the territory. But as someone who, despite liking Far Cry 2, was frustrated with it for many of the reasons you apparently enjoyed it, I am very much looking forward to what Far Cry 3 doesn’t take from its predecessor.

  • http://profiles.yahoo.com/u/IEQAV4SRSNUKRWWVWMLLLMXSXY Petra

    I can certainly understand your perspective here, and there are definitely things in Far Cry 2 that should have been put in Far Cry 3, but I would argue that FC3 isn’t so much a “me-too” but a realization that FC2 didn’t do that much with what it had either. There are merits to making a “player-unfriendly” game, but FC2 isn’t the one to hold up as the example, or at least what it did with that isn’t enough to justify holding to that “vision”.

    Perhaps if FC2 were originally closer to Clint Hocking’s vision, then FC3 could be more effectively faulted for not sticking to it, but Ubisoft can’t be blamed for not wanting to take that risk without him.

    Heck, if you ask me, the “it could be worse” scenario here is if Far Cry 3 were more like Far Cry 2.

  • thebigJ_A

    So what you’re saying is, they fixed Far Cry 2. It was boring and didn’t know what to do with its interesting ideas, and now it’s fun. Gotcha.

  • RedHerb

    Mmm, I’m only an hour or so in but the difference between this game and its predecessor is pretty clear. More focused and way-pointy.

    I did enjoy a bit where I randomly stumbled upon a group of my buddy faction fighting the opposing faction. I joined the fray and we won the little skirmish. While I was busy looting and listening to my buds talk about dinner plans, I heard someone shout ‘Komodo dragon!’ followed by gun fire. I looked around to see what the commotion was, when I saw one of my buddies get ‘eaten’. Running over I dealt with the monster handily with a quick shotgun blast. That’s when the two other Komodo dragons attacked, picking off my buddies one by one before coming for me!

    After the ensuing battle died down and grossly hacked away at dragon flesh, I pondered that this kind of encounter was what I wished for in far cry 2. Everyone was hostile to you in that game, and though I’m glad for this kind of thing in FC3, I do miss the a lot of other interesting design decisions ubisoft seemed to have excercised for whatever reason. I guess becareful what you wish for?

  • Chris

    Thanks for articulating what made Far Cry 2 one of my personal favorites in over 25 years of computer gaming. It’s the immersion, stupid. The way that all the systems combined to keep you in the environment, and in a brutal, real-world environment that could stun you with its beauty. No dragons, elves or space marines. Just a dying country and a desperate personal struggle to survive.

    I can completely understand why Far Cry 2 isn’t loved by many. Yes, the respawning checkpoints… etc etc. But it did so many things right in what it was trying to achieve, I just wish it had been more successful so that Ubisoft felt secure in crafting a true sequel. Hopefully someone else will see the tremendous success of Skyrim and all the realism mods, the immersion mods, etc and realize there’s a market there, one that might be tapped by leaning even further into what made Far Cry 2 special and “tuning out” the ridiculous elements that made it so frustrating for many. Here’s hoping…

  • That There

    All of Far Cry 2′s attempts to be immersive felt like a game; by trying to draw you into the world, it pushed you out. Turn the same screw over and over again to fix a car. Mash A to unjam your weapon, which will always jam if it’s something you just picked up. Press the bumper to pop pills. The magic minimap is a magic piece of paper instead. Artificially populating the map with enemies by respawning the checkpoints too often.

    This is not immersion, this is a game trying its hardest to be immersive but failing at every turn. At least with Far Cry 3 I’m not stopping at every turn to think about how poorly executed some element of the game design was. Argue that those elements should have been fixed rather than thrown out. Fine. But don’t pretend Far Cry 2 did any of it well.

  • http://profiles.yahoo.com/u/IEQAV4SRSNUKRWWVWMLLLMXSXY Petra

    I kind of wished they had kept the magic piece of paper map thing. It reminded me of Harry Potter’s Marauder’s Map, which brought to life many fantasies of Harry’s future career.

    Also, if Far Cry 2′s protagonist(s) were indeed wizards, it would explain a lot things:

    - Why does this paper map show my position in real-time? I’m a wizard.
    - Why does turning one screw fix my shot-up car? I’m a wizard.
    - Why do I know this gun will jam immediately after I pick it up? I’m a wizard.
    - How does just mashing A magically fix my jammed gun? I’m a wizard?
    - Why does popping two pills heal my malaria instantly (albeit temporarily)? I’m a wizard.
    - Why are these enemies all back ten minutes after I killed them? They’re wizards, too.

  • http://profiles.yahoo.com/u/IEQAV4SRSNUKRWWVWMLLLMXSXY Petra

    There’s always Metro 2033…

  • Matt

    after this guy gave halo 4 a 2/10 i will never trust another review from him. he is full of it

  • Bsmith

    I wonder if Tom Chick will ever admit that he’s just being a contrarian in order to drive up traffic on this pitiful excuse for a gaming website (the irony that I came here isn’t lost on me). He did it when he wrote for 1UP, and he’s doing it here, folks.
    Don’t feed the Super Troll, for it only makes him stronger.

  • Bob

    Your a joke of a critic. Gaminess isn’t a work. Your successful cutting this games metacritic score with you dumbass review. Your the only critic that doesn’t seem to “get it” which probably means you suck at your job

  • superslug

    when my 2 favourite games writers disagree it makes buying decisions difficult.

    http://www.pcgamer.com/review/far-cry-3-review/

    *shakes fist*

  • Giaddon

    Francis says it’s awesome. Chick says it’s a solid open world shooter. No one is saying it’s bad. Chances are you’ll dig it. It’s a very easy game to dig.

  • Hazmatt360

    Even if any of what this man says is true, it still does not justify the score. There are many other aspects of a game review. This seems more like a personal opinion, not a professional one.

  • Joseph Shaffer

    Then why do you bother showing up here?

  • Quarter to Lame

    Here we go again, I just had to see why this was the lowest MC score. Then I remembered this crappy website…

  • Unaha-Closp

    I’m having fun with Far Cry 3 but it is no Far Cry 2. They listened to all the people who moaned and bitched and took all the cool stuff out and crammed it with less cool stuff. This is sad. Luckily I still have my copy of Far Cry 2.

  • BLAM!

    What the heck is up with that screenshot with the white shirt and the mess of torso, head, and arms? None of those body parts look like they’re attached to the same person.

  • http://twitter.com/jdhas jdhas

    Go away and never come back.

    -Sméagol

  • http://twitter.com/jdhas jdhas

    It’s amazing that you made your account name based on something you so despise. Did you name your cat “Hitler”?

  • http://twitter.com/jdhas jdhas

    ^^This.

  • Barac Wiley

    Actually, many of the systems didn’t combine to keep me in the environment. Like, you know, the respawning enemies. I would have had no objection to them periodically getting a fresh new wave of enemies (probably stronger, since someone killed off the last set). They’re military checkpoints, after all. But they literally repopulate the second you’re out of sight, with exactly the same enemies. Similarly, magical respawning weapon huts that provide the only vaguely reliable weapons that I pay for by somehow uploading conflict diamonds into the computer and then having them immediately spontaneously generate in said weapon huts. Or the magical cross country teleports masquerading as “bus stops”.

    Now, I wouldn’t really say most of those things were a detriment to gameplay (other than the respawning enemies), but they certainly didn’t immerse me. But then, I am one of those fellows who would on the whole prefer a game to be enjoyable (not, note, necessarily -fun-. There is absolutely a place for games that attempt to evoke other sorts of experiences than fun as long as it’s not “frustration” or “controller flung across the room”) rather than immersive, if one cannot figure out how to deliver both.

  • bob h

    Tom Chick is merely incendiary and irresponsible as a critic. The only reason he gave it a 6 was to knock it out of the “90″ bracket from the metacritic review aggregate. Like the release of all highly rated catalog titles, this reviewer gives a critical assessment to a game long after its release, not to appear judicious and balanced, but to merely lower its high median average. Far Cry 2 was dull, monotonous, broad, and without any discernible narrative. To say of Far Cry 3 that it’s hampered by the lofty standards of its predecessor is to say that Resident Evil 6 was better than Resident Evil 4. Numerous people have contacted metacritic moderators, and this website is currently under scrutiny. Armond White’s reviews are no longer included on metacritic; hopefully the same will happen to this tawdry and ramshackle site.

  • http://larsenb.tumblr.com Larsen B

    So are Halo 4 fans also Far Cry fans or just “big game” fans?

    If you come here to complain that Tom’s wholly subjective reviews are to drive traffic, then why come here to say that and thus become the traffic you don’t think he deserves to get?

    Wait. Don’t answer that.

  • Nitronomicon

    Why can’t I ever read a review on this website without some dumbass whining in the comments. If you want a review where the score is always above a 90 there are other websites for you. If you want a review that only has praise for a game, go write your own review. Otherwise read the reviews and opinions on this website and stop whining. This is not to say stop discussing in an intelligent manner, but using one or two low scores from past games as a basis to dismiss all of the other reviews on this website is absurd.

  • My Opinion

    He didn’t give it a 6 he gave it a 3/5, blame Metacritic for making the score fit their out of a hundred system if you have to blame anyone.

  • http://www.facebook.com/allen.gilmore.12 Allen Gilmore

    LMAO. This tom chick guy better enjoy his 15 mins of fame cause when metacritic finally gives this guy the boot, which they will, He will be on the street corner begging for a nickle. Its so obvious that hes driven traffic, when i saw the meta score for this game dip below 9 i already knew it was this moron. After this little gig is up for him he’s not even going to be able to review his own underwear cause not only will he be begging for nickles on the corner he’ll be doing it butt ass naked.

  • Tim W.

    Your reviews are dumb and stupid because they don’t fit on the 90-100 scale! How dare you rate a game you felt as average as a 3/5! Everyone nows that an average game should be rated 95/100! Clearly, you are part of a traffic driving scheme masterminded by the underpants gnomes! Also, you are dumb!

  • Fraser Wilson

    Tom’s been writing about games longer than you’ve been using a cap to hide your bald spot. Also, why do you care so much?

  • mixmixmixmix

    I’m quite enjoying my romp through the island, but the ending better involve these kids getting re-sold into slavery.. this is an apt review, regardless of some of these dumb comments. This is indeed the Skyrim of FPS.

  • Jordan

    This website is a joke.

  • wisdomchild

    “To say of Far Cry 3 that it’s hampered by the lofty standards of its predecessor is to say that Resident Evil 6 was better than Resident Evil 4.”

    I love the various ways that this makes no sense.

  • Denelor

    They’re all personal opinions. You think that because a writer has an IGN or Gamespot banner above their review it makes it somehow magically impersonal?

  • tomchick

    If the first Metro was an open-world game, it would be Far Cry 2. It is the corridor shooter version of Far Cry 2!

  • tomchick

    Isn’t “butt ass naked” redundant?

  • tomchick

    What does “this website is currently under scrutiny” even mean? Is it like double secret probation?

  • tomchick

    As silly as some of the wildlife is — I have been killed by an emu — it does add some excellent emergent chaos. I loved coming across a bunch of soldiers at a roadblock under attack by a bear. The bear lost, unfortunately.

  • BRYLYNT

    You obviously have not played this game if you are referring to it as “average”.

  • BRYLYNT

    This reviewer is a troll. He rates awesome games low to generate web traffic to this nobody site. The secret is out.

  • tomchick

    What’s on earth is the difference between a personal opinion and a professional opinion?

    As for the score, I have a handy guide to the ratings system linked at the bottom of every page. But I’ll save you the click and tell you that 3 stars means “I like it”. It’s not intended to be a failing score. These aren’t letter grades.

  • http://twitter.com/kentdoggydog Brian Kent

    I see that you reviewed the 360 version. Did you spend any time with the PC version to see how it compares? I’m concerned that my PC isn’t up to snuff, but heard some complaints about some technical/visual issues 360.

  • Frankie Godskin

    I can’t wait until you’re removed from Metacritic. You intentionally review low to increase traffic, and these biased low scores permanently drive down the average for some great titles. The system is broken, and it needs to change, but for now, you’re a bunch of cunts for exploiting it.

  • Truth

    We show up because for some reason Metacritic believes this guy is a legit reviewer and not someone who gives games bad scores so he can stay in the spotlight a little longer

  • Quarter to Lame

    I hate cats almost as much as erroneous outlier reviews.

  • tomchick

    Brian, I have not seen the PC version. But I didn’t have any technical issues with the 360 version with the exception of one lock-up, which was literally at the very end of the final freakin’ mission. So I got to do that mission twice.

  • Tim W.

    I haven’t played it, no. My comment is that Tom felt it average and thus gave it a 3/5. I can’t comment either way on the score (I have disagreed with many of Tom’s scores in the past, but it is hard to argue the facts he cites for his reasons). My comment is more directed to the review industry, as a whole, that seem to think a score below 80 is a crime against humanity.

    In this case, he obviously came to the game expecting a sequel and rated it as such. Fair? Probably not. Useful to a consumer that is looking into the game? I say yes.

  • Nunya

    Then how do you explain that he gives games good scores too? Why don’t you illiterate butthurt kiddies take it up with Metacritic and quit shitting up the discussions here?

  • BRYLYNT

    The PC gamer review is a much more accurate description of this game. This guy was only looking for ways to tear it down. Totally overlooking the fact that Its the best game this generation.

  • Broooski

    Can you new guys come read the War in the East article too? It has The Lord of the Rings in it!

  • http://twitter.com/Atomos350 Josue Flores

    “Far Cry 3, a pretty good open-world shooter, is a terrible sequel to Far Cry 2…” His review went out the window as soon as I read this line. Hahaha! Not surprised coming from a guy who gave a 88 to Black Ops 2 and seems to be showing his love to Activision’s penis on this review. Tom version 2.0 is the cheap slut of video game reviews, not as good as Tom version 1.0 because he’s full of “reviewy” “gamey stuff.” If I had to review this guy, that would be my Tom quartertothree review. It seems any one can review games “professionally” on Metacritic now. I’m going to start my own website that rates game reviewers. It’s going to be rated from Tom Chick to 10; Tom Chick being the lowest score. No reviewer wants to fall under the Tom Chick score.