Current Events > Far Cry series. Where to start?

(+) Yeah! (+)

I played the first one, and I know it's VASTLY different. Is the second worth starting with, or do I start with 3?
---

3 > 4 > Primal
---

I'd start with 2, and then 3, Blood Dragon and 4. Primal is worth skipping, as is the original imo.
---

I'd just start with 3 or 4. The stories are pretty much all standalone anyway aside from references and some silly YT theories that they're all connected (that have mostly been debunked by now anyway).

It's worth noting that 3 and 4 are functionally the same game in different locations and with a few mechanical changes. It's super super easy to burn out with that in mind; I beat FC3 a few years ago and played FC4 as of like a week ago (and beat it last night) and still got a bit burnt out since it was so same-y. I knew what I was getting into when I started it, but it's just something that's worth noting.

You may consider just doing FC3 + Blood Dragon and waiting a while for 4, or just doing 4 and going back to 3 if you really like it.

Just my opinion as a casual fan of the series at least.
---

Play them all. All worth it for different reasons. 3 if only to see when Ubisoft started losing their shit. 4 is honestly worth skipping since its a lazy copy paste.

2

Most people don't like it because they want a straightforward action game like 3 and 4 but it's an incredible atmospheric game despite the technical flaws.
---

^2 is still one of my favorite games of all time. Ridiculously immersive.

weapon_d00d816 posted...

2

Most people don't like it because they want a straightforward action game like 3 and 4 but it's an incredible atmospheric game despite the technical flaws.

I agree entirely. I think 2 was my favorite of the series.
---

weapon_d00d816 posted...

2

Most people don't like it because they want a straightforward action game like 3 and 4 but it's an incredible atmospheric game despite the technical flaws.

This guy knows what's up. Plot is also amazing and imbues something you'll take with you.
It'll be hard to go back to 2 after 3 and 4, so don't skip it.
Just avoid Primal tbh
---

randy_123r posted...

I hated 2. I hate respawning enemies that constantly harass you where-ever you go. I didn't enjoy the game at all. I liked 3 but never finished it. I got 4 for free but hardly played it. Start with 3.

The fact you could go a few feet from an outpost and then come back to find all of them respawned was extremely annoying

Skip second game. It really sucks. Some bad stuff:

Story and voice acting are shit. The setting is nice though.

The missions you can do feels huge chore. Go to the one end of the map, drive through annoying check points, be constantly chased by enemy cars with mounted guns that appear out of nowhere, do the mission and all you get for your 15 to 30 min is "ok, ty bye".

Side missions are boring shit. Nothing special about those. They are just mostly go there and kill this and come back to me.

There's no animals, only enemies in maps.

Enemy A.I is horrible. They either see you from miles away through bushes at night and gets alarmed immediately unless you score headshot. Headshotting is the only way to play stealth btw. Even with silenced weapons if you don't get headshot alarm will go off and everyone knows your location.

Fucking check points where enemies respawns really fast. Those fucking check points are everywhere, and they make traveling huge annoyance.

"The play by your own way" is a lie. The game is flawed and riddled with annoying shit + terrible voice acting, and lacks story that i would pay maximum of 5usd for it.
---

2 is definitely a game that invokes debate. Lots of strong opinions both ways. You should definitely give it a chance to see it it's for you.

If you're going to skip one it should be either 3 or 4 because they're the exact same game, just different settings.
---

2 is like 50 hours long, and a lot of driving, but has really good atmosphere.

If FC2 would have been moddable to take out the respawning of NPCs at every half mile chasing me down with machine gun turrets, it would have been a lot better, but it is annoying having to kill people and find medkits constantly.

3 was a wet dream for me because they took most of the BS out of 2, but 2 had a really cool feel to it that 3 or 4 couldn't capture.

A Far Cry 2 reboot without respawning NPCs and better textures would be an instant 60 bucks from me, but I'd say 3 is the best one.
---

I dont know why everyone complains about the checkpoints. Do you know how easy it was to just blow through every single one without looking back? If a truck starts following you take 5 seconds to hop into the gun and blow them away. I'll take that over a game where one of the core mechanics is making it so there are no enemies on the map before you can really play.

All of the checkpoints in 2 (with maybe one exception) are easily avoidable by going off road.
---

My answer depends on your answer to the following questions:

- How quickly do you think you'd burn out on an open world first person shooter/soft stealth* game with an emphasis on taking over enemy territories and light RPG mechanics?

- How open are you to looking into a more focused and unusual FPS/light stealth game that has technical/design problems that is set in an open world of sorts but one that is more oppressive, restricted, and with a bit of a sense of survival to it?


*by soft stealth I mean the kind of stealth game where it's generally entirely optional and even if you blow your biscuit you can get back into a stealthed status if you wish, albeit likely with enemies on higher alert.


Because basically, Far Cry 3 and Far Cry 4 are almost the same game. Far Cry 4 is Far Cry 3: Another One. I would say gameplay-wise it's mildly improved over 3 though. Far Cry 3 though has a more actual like...fleshed out story, whereas 4 is...not that really. In fact there's an interesting shift from 2, to 3, to 4, in terms of tone. 2 is pretty grim from what I remember and fairly straight. 3 still has a surprisingly focused story for an open world FPS, but, it's loosened up considerably. By 4, it's mostly just "Yeah! Gameplay!"

So, the second question I asked is basically talking about Far Cry 2. It's not really a balls to the wall be a badass in an open world game like 3 and 4 let you be. It's much more grim and oppressive of an environment, and you have malaria which sucks, both IRL and also for you the player. >_> "Fun" is a nebulous word, but I think most would agree that 2 is not as "fun" focused as 3 and 4, but whether or not you'd personally enjoy it as much/more than them, I dunno.

I would definitely say 2 isn't as polished as later games, but not to a broken extent or anything. But, it's short on RPG mechanics, yet the enemies respawn very mercilessly to an extent basically everyone, devs included, agreed was dumb. And the fact you're ill and have moments of vulnerability due to it and need to regularly get medicine can kinda suck.

So, maybe start with 2, but if the differences don't sound like your jam, then probably start with 3, unless you think you'd burn out easily, in which case MAYBE start with 4, unless you think you'd value story/characters, in which case 3 would have more of that for you.


I never played 1 so I can't comment on how these relate to it unfortunately. I also never played Blood Dragon but I feel like I really should some day. I didn't play Primal either, but I did watch a lot of gameplay of it and... I can't recommend playing that. >_> Maybe if you play 3, and 4, and still want more, and can get it cheap...then okay I guess.
---

dotsdfe posted...

I'd just start with 3 or 4. The stories are pretty much all standalone anyway aside from references and some silly YT theories that they're all connected (that have mostly been debunked by now anyway).

It's worth noting that 3 and 4 are functionally the same game in different locations and with a few mechanical changes. It's super super easy to burn out with that in mind; I beat FC3 a few years ago and played FC4 as of like a week ago (and beat it last night) and still got a bit burnt out since it was so same-y. I knew what I was getting into when I started it, but it's just something that's worth noting.

You may consider just doing FC3 + Blood Dragon and waiting a while for 4, or just doing 4 and going back to 3 if you really like it.

Just my opinion as a casual fan of the series at least.

I should add a note to this that I've only played FC3, Blood Dragon, FC4, and FC4's DLCs which I'm playing now via the complete edition on PS4.

I haven't actually played FC1 or 2, but I've heard that they're fairly dated and have decently large flaws. It's a bit unfair of me to recommend against a game that I haven't touched, but the advice I got was to skip 1 and 2 in favor of 3 first, and I know that even just playing through 3 + 4 and their DLCs can get fairly repetitive. Just worth noting that I'm not explicitly recommending against FC2 as much as echoing advice I've gotten and adding that repetition can be a big concern if it's similar enough to FC3/4.
---

It's a thematic series and each entry has it's own gimmicks. You can play them in literally any order you want. Choose one with a setting that you find interesting and go from there.

3,4 and primal are p much the same game. Just play 4
---

2, 3, Blood dragon (you can skip if you don't like the feel, i didnt), 4, Primal (can skip, play if you want more 4)
---

randy_123r posted...

I bet there are mods out there that removed the respawning enemies.

I've looked a million times dude. I'd play it again right now if there were. They didn't make it open source.

FC3 actually has a lot of mods for it because they allowed it
---

Far Cry 2 is also my favorite in the series, but you can start anywhere and be fine.

Skip Primal though, unless you get it real cheap.

Also there are some mods for Far Cry 2. I don't know about despawning enemies, but there are ones that edit their behavior so checkpoint guards do not pursue you.
---

I tried playing 2 but I got bored. It was a good game while I was listening to audiobooks, though. I may pick it back up when I'm finishing up the Witcher novels.

Anyway, I say get the Far Cry Collection for starters. You get 2, 3 and Blood Dragon (my favorite). If you get bored with 2, at least you can move on to 3 and BD.

Edit: Oh shit, I forgot about mods. If they can enhance the experience significantly, go for that.
---

Start with Far Cry 3, then play Far Cry 4 if you really liked 3, if a stone age game/setting appeals then give Far Cry Primal a try.

Personally I love 3 and Primal the most of the three.
---

Most people like the story in 3 better than 4 but I think the gameplay improvements that 4 has make it way better than 3.

Primal is fun but they added the new difficulty modes too late. And for some reason Ubisoft will still only let you have one fucking save file, which is completely dumb when you have a permadeath difficulty mode. Wanna try hard mode? Gotta delete your regular file!
---

thronedfire2 posted...

Most people like the story in 3 better than 4 but I think the gameplay improvements that 4 has make it way better than 3.

Its like every other sequel to cross generations imo, the same game but bigger and prettier.
---