Game rating: Far Cry 2

[Art Blade]

Game title
Far Cry 2

Category            Rating            Category Details Story line 4 At first you think wow, I'm going to change history, or wow, I can influence how the game plays out. Then you realise you can't. Not very immersive, either.. basically you get to see "characters" when you are going to ask for a new mission, and if a mission includes killing a target. Not very original. Graphics 8 Sunsets and sunrises are stunning, same goes for mist and rain, day and night, desert and jungle.. cool. Even today. Not so cool: People (more like a comic/cartoon than real life) and rocks (almost like Doom). Sound 8 The developers went to Africa and actually recorded every little bit of sound over there, so background sounds are excellent. I like the merc voice acting. Different languages, accents and moods, cool. The merc lines are hilarious, the whole core of OWG still is on the lookout for more lines we haven't heard yet, splendid :) The mission dialogue voice acting is not so convincing. Some characters are not very believable. Game play 8 Well, general movements are cool but I hate invisible barriers and you can't climb. Weapon degrading is not really a feature to look forward to, and upgrades are laughable. Collecting 1,000 diamonds is a science, without D_B's maps and vids about impossible to solve. Hang gliding could have been a lot more fun. But free roam and playing with (teasing) mercs and then post stories about that is great fun. Without OWG's uncountable posts and topics the game wouldn't be nearly as great as it is with OWG. Replay value 8 Pro: Lots of little things to discover, various ways of doing the same thing. Fun with mercs.. see the countless topics and tips and posts here at OWG. Cons: You can't do much of a difference, it doesn't matter which character you choose to play, they're all the same. Once you've played every mission, there are no more surprises. You need to replay if you like the game because it is not open end: Game over. Either stall playing story missions or start from savegames if you want to avoid a replay. Replays may be good for trying out different approaches for the same missions (as would savegames) or to accidently find stuff you had missed out on before (well.. savegames..) Final thoughts Far Cry 2 is an experience that is based on how willing you are to accept the game. Respawning enemies and areas may be annoying or big fun. If you listen to mercs chat, you're likely to enjoy their banter and lines. Story is erm, yes. Free roam and freedom of choice (open world game) is very good. Replay value is based on that. Overall, the game can be replayed with joy even if you know how it's going to end, the single events that are not story-bound (respawning areas and mercs) are what makes this game great, and the graphics are cool spite of some blocky rocks. Don't forget FIRE, you can torch most of the stuff :) The real fun is based on this community's incredible creativity to make more of the game than anyone would ever have expected. I played it for more than a year almost exclusively :) Edit: explained my rating.

[JRD]

Funny how our perception of a game changes as new titles come out and we start comparing games. On release (2008) FC2 was one of the most beautiful games of all times with all lights and shadows and fire. If we compare it with today`s games (2010), well, it still stands out from most games, but is not that eye candy anymore.

But again, I remember playing the very first Tomb Rider and being truly impressed with how open and wide some levels were and the movement of Lara and some enemies was incredible!

We are so spoiled!  ;D ;D ;D

[PZ]

Indeed we are - in fact, it is not a bad idea to take the date that the rating was made into consideration.  I can remember how impressed I was with Microsoft Flight Simulator 1 back in 1985

[JRD]

I admit my FC2 rating was based on how I felt about the game when I fired it for the very first time. It`s a fond memory and something I like to keep  ;D

I know, so nostalgic, but I rather keep good memories and overlook minor flaws!  ;)

[PZ]

I rated FC2 somewhere between what I would have rated it back then, and what I would rate it now if I'd never seen it.  Graphics is everything for my gaming experience, and after the stunning (for me) vistas in JC2, FC2 just doesn't cut it.

[spaceboy]

yeah it's a tough call, but I think you have to rate it a bit based on the time it came out.  I feel it's a bit unfair to compare older games to newer games.   Someone brand new coming into FC2 should still really like it even if better graphics are available now - it's still an incredible game.

I'm still not sure any game has topped the fire in FC2.

[Art Blade]

Thanks for your thoughts, guys :)

Just a short aside on rating dates before I get back to FC2. Imagine a visitor gets to read a rating about 1980-ish pac man or space invaders or defender and sees a graphics rating of 10 (based on what it was like back in the day). He'd probably think the person rating it is a) insane, b) living in the past, or c) is rating a completely different game than the one everybody else thinks is being rated.

When I rated FC2 I indeed rated it just "today" and that is a pretty good rating still. The replay value even to me looks a bit lower than the rest of our giant FC2 boards suggests but honestly I never thought the story was worth a lot of replays. It was just due to the fact that the game ends and you can't play on (trapped in the heart of darkness jungle) so there was no choice but to either stall the gameplay or start from scratch, aka replay. The fun factor during the replays wasn't the choice of characters (it didn't matter which one of those buddies you played except you missed out on that one's side missions) and you couldn't change the outcome of the game either. The fun factor was our forum, reading about how we decided to deal with those beloved mercs and guard posts during free play or free roam sessions when not following the main story. Or during the main story, how we decided to play tricks on those mercs that were part of the story. Most of the stories we shared were based on free roam stuff or teasing mercs, but not about the story or game-related choices. My rating is based on my experience and trying to be as little biased as possible, and I agree I would have rated the graphics a higher back then when it was new (9 or 10) but an 8 today is better than other games deserve that are indeed brand new.

[Art Blade]

Oh, I might add: I'd never have replayed FC2 so often if I hadn't got the cheats  ;D

[PZ]

yeah it's a tough call, but I think you have to rate it a bit based on the time it came out.  I feel it's a bit unfair to compare older games to newer games.   Someone brand new coming into FC2 should still really like it even if better graphics are available now - it's still an incredible game.

I'm still not sure any game has topped the fire in FC2.

You're correct about it being a tough call - the date that the review is made makes all the difference.  For instance, if I were to rate the game a couple of years ago, I'd have given it top marks for graphics - i.e., the best graphics I'd seen particularly regarding the fire, waving grass that you "wade" through, and other things.  However, after experiencing some of the spectacular graphics of today, I can't say the same thing.

The dilemma is that a reader interested in the game today would not want to read my dated rating - if I were the person deciding to play the game, I'd like it compared to some of the graphics/technology we have today.

Maybe the best thing to do is to rate however we want, but to be clear in the summary why we rated it the way that we did so the reader gets the maximum benefit.  As Art mentioned, the date of the rating is an important piece of information.

[spaceboy]

very true PZ.  the most important part is the "why".  When I review something I don't write like a professional reviewer but rather a fan/gamer that just tells what I thought & why I liked it.  I think the comments section is almost the key to it all (thought I do like the weighted averages...  ;)

[Art Blade]

I think something else is important: the rating itself, how your perception of those numbers is. For me a "5" means average, so a "4" is slightly below average. If someone thinks "0" equals "crap" (agree) but "5" equals "rather good" then we might be interpreting that rating differently.

[PZ]

That's a good point - maybe something to add on the rating form is a bit of instruction on how to numerically rate the game for consistency.  :-X

[JRD]

Very well said Art

For me, an average game is a 7, so a 6 or 5 equals bad aspects of a game, anything below 5 isn't worth playing, let alone buying!

8 and 9 are for aspects very good with some flaws... 8 if the flaws somewhat breaks the mood of a game, 9 if you can tell it's there but pretend it's not because it won't ruin your overall experience. A 10 is for something really good, even if not perfect on a game... it can be the fun factor speaking or something else, but I don't need to be stupefied by a game to rate some aspect a 10!

[PZ]

Sounds like JRD is explaining the basis of a grading scheme like in school: 7 (70%) is average, 8 = above average, 9 = excellent, and 10 = perfect.  Anything less than 7 expresses increasing dislike as the numeric value falls.

Art feels like 5 is an average game and the ratings go up or down from there.  The advantage of JRD's method is that it is simple, and most people can easily relate to it.   Art's scheme allows there to be a greater range in positive values - i.e., in JRD's method there are 3 numbers higher than the average (7) while in Art's there are 5 values above his average (5).

What do you think we should adopt as our standard (the one we put into the directions in the form)?

[JRD]

You are right PZ, I`m thinking like in my school days when anything below a 7 was reason for concern!  ;D

Art`s method has the advantage of allowing more flexibility when rating a game as you have four values above the average and four below, besides, five IS an average number from 1 to 10, so we can stick to Art`s method and I`ll change my ratings so far.

[PZ]

I'm like you JRD - I rated the same way, but using the midpoint does make sense   :-X

[Art Blade]

cheers, guys :)

I'm going to re-evaluate the games I already rated, due to the new fields per category (formerly a template explaining what is being rated there).

[PZ]

Looking forward to your thoughts  :-X

[Art Blade]

Done. I changed the colour to orange to "make a difference" ;) Also I added horizontal rules after each category so the explaining text gets seperated from the next category.

[Art Blade]

edited again, added something about sound rating explanation, the voice acting: mercs cool, rest not so cool. Background excellent.

[PZ]

I like the horizontal rule - will add it to the template  :-X

[Art Blade]

 :)

[Art Blade]

Man! I didn't like my rating because something was still missing. Now I got it right: I added a Pro and Con in the replay value and a few last lines on the final thoughts. Check it out again :)

[PZ]

Looks good!  :-X

[Art Blade]

Thanks :) I know I'm quite straight and a bit hard with my rating but I believe it's a fair one, putting aside personal affection, so someone who doesn't know the game will get to see my opinion what the game really is. What was missing was the fact that OWG's members found ways of dealing with what everyone else on other forums was complaining about, we re-invented the game and started to have a lot of fun. Really, I found this site because I was looking for cheats (didn't find them here) so I could cope with a game that seemed to have a lot of potential but turned out not to be what I had expected. I didn't find cheats here but gee, what a community! Only after reading posts like your "fun with mercs" kind of posts, I realised that there was another way.. how much fun you guys were having.. and that changed everything. Still, without cheats I wouldn't have played it for so long :)