Far Cry 2's Incendiary Nonsensibility

 Pages 1 2 NEXT
 

Far Cry 2's Incendiary Nonsensibility

Bust out the pliers and grab on to your hang glider - it's time to take a tour through Far Cry 2.

Permalink

I did'nt like FC 2 that well.

I didn't really like that FC2. I gave it a rent, but put it down before I finished it.

CoverYourHead:
I didn't really like that FC2. I gave it a rent, but put it down before I finished it.

Exactly what I did!

Well, to make up for the disdain you guys had for it, I absolutely loved it. Sure, the guard post respawn issue could use a rework or patch; but that's ultimately the only thing I felt was wrong with the game.

I enjoyed the mechanic where you had to destroy convoys to get new weapons (especially once you get the IEDs), and I wasn't expecting such an interesting story. The combat was dynamic, and, if you were smart, being stealthy was easier than it seemed. One VIP in particular met a nasty end by my hand, all without a shot fired by either side.

One of my favorite games of the year, with more replay value than people think.

The only awesome parts were when you could see your body and such during interactive cutscenes.

I love Far cry 2. Like what MercFox1 said, the only problem was the respawning Guard Posts. I think they should have set the spawn at one in-game day. Enough to give you a little bit of peace but also so you don't start to wonder where everyone has gone.

The review was also pretty well written. I like the style.

I'm glad that this review came out I've been looking at Farcry 2 for a while and wondering if I should go for it. It would be either that or STALKER shadow of (some wierd name) but I cant find ant reviews on that.

i dont know why everyone hates far cry 2 i loved it and so does my friend and all of his friends. The only gripe i have about it is unbalanced multiplayer such as the four barreled grenade launcher, maybe people dont like it because they were expecting it to be more like its prequel.

Hated Far Cry 2, wish I had rented it instead of purchased it. :( An interesting story? Where? I finished it, it's "two" we'll call it "two", but it's really just one lame ending, which made little sense. The game itself was extremely boring, way to much driving through uninteresting areas. I played GTA4 and I like driving, through interesting areas, and not every dumb ass is out to crash his jeep into you like a torpedo. The AI felt as though it has mental problems, sometime not even looking at me, you know the guy emptying clips into the shirtless guy that won't go down, I mean how strong is the sun block they use?!?!! Shooting into bushes and trees for no reason. On the plus side, fire was cool, and that about covers Far Cry 2's plus side. Far Cry 2 is definitely my worst game of the year.

Here's me blowing up a convoy with IEDs:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NP9EbFEgRl4

**Spoiler**
Here's the "two" endings as well, not much of a spoiler trust me:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1phAz4rYTNI

Awesome review!

I like playing Far Cry2 one hour at a time, its not a game you play continiously I find.

Like Burnout Paradise..

-Joe

mokes310:

CoverYourHead:
I didn't really like that FC2. I gave it a rent, but put it down before I finished it.

Exactly what I did!

As did I. I just got annoyed with the ultimate engine repair simulator and medical game ever made.

Man, this story almost makes Far Cry 2 sound good.

It really was a huge disappointment. Not just the respawns and the kamikaze Land Rovers, but the rubbish sound effects (I have airsoft guns that sound more impressive than the FAL in the game), the simplistic and over-hyped fire effects, and the utterly linear storyline. Never mind the not-really-choice of endings. And how come all the cars are rubbish? All have identical top speeds, and the only real difference is that the Land Rovers (of all things) can pull handbrake turns. (Try pulling a handbrake turn in a real Landy and you'll pulverise the diff.)

It was pretty, certainly. And quite fun for the first hour, until you realised that every hour afterwards is a photocopy of that first hour. And with an infinite ammo trainer activated, it's quite good fun to shell guard posts and settlements from long range with RPGs and M79 rounds. But it's a bad sign for a game when I find myself having more fun in the map editor than in the game.

I did like FarCry2 however, I couldn't play it for too long each time, as the sheer amount of time spent travelling kind of broke the gameplay a bit. Also, I thought the first map area was the whole game, discovering there was another huge area was met with a mixture of joy and anguish.

I hope if they do a third game, that not everyone will attack you on sight, before trying to figure out if you're a friend or foe.

Map editor is awesome though

Nicely written article. I really liked the style and humor in it.

I ddint like far cry 2- the faction system was totally screwed and it had 'console friendly' written all over it. I was expecting a much more Stalker like game. The story line is crap too.

I'm playing it now and absolutely loving it.

Yeah, some of it is a bit gimmicky (fixing your car, weapon jams, malaria) and the guardposts sure are irritating, but everything else is spot on.

Set it down half-finished. The repetitive gameplay made this the prettiest game I never want to go back and play. A big box of tedium wrapped in glittering gift paper.

The problem is that everyone went into this game expecting an incredibly typical and mundane shooter. What did you get instead? A genre-bending title that at times could be said to border on art, featuring some of the most immersive and beautiful locations ever to be put on screen, set in a for once truly realistic situation, with subtle socio-political commentary. And you hate it because it's actually different from every other mindless shooter?

Fuck you guys. You say you want innovation, then you're slapped in the face with it and you toss it in the trash. It's not a perfect game, but my faith in the human race takes a tumble every time some Call of Duty-playing mouth-breather says he wants more variety in his games, only to attack that variety when it hits him point-blank and goes back to pissing into his Xbox Live microphone.

Regarding the article itself, it is well written, but I can't actually figure out what it's really trying to say. I've already played the game, and I know what it's about. Tell me what it means, not what it is.

searanox:
The problem is that everyone went into this game expecting an incredibly typical and mundane shooter. What did you get instead? A genre-bending title that at times could be said to border on art, featuring some of the most immersive and beautiful locations ever to be put on screen, set in a for once truly realistic situation, with subtle socio-political commentary. And you hate it because it's actually different from every other mindless shooter?

Fuck you guys. You say you want innovation, then you're slapped in the face with it and you toss it in the trash. It's not a perfect game, but my faith in the human race takes a tumble every time some Call of Duty-playing mouth-breather says he wants more variety in his games, only to attack that variety when it hits him point-blank and goes back to pissing into his Xbox Live microphone.

Regarding the article itself, it is well written, but I can't actually figure out what it's really trying to say. I've already played the game, and I know what it's about. Tell me what it means, not what it is.

Your overall point in this is true, that people whine about innovation not being there and knock games that do innovate. But here, you're not quite so much in the right, and you're being a dick about it. Yeah, I quite liked Far Cry 2, but it has major flaws and is incredibly repetitive. How is it really innovative anyway?

"Border on art"? I assume you mean 'cos it looks pretty. See Crysis, NOT innovation.
"In a for once truly realistic situation"? One that has no civilians AT ALL? C'mon, it has flaws. And realism isn't innovation either, really. Plenty of games have it.
"Subtle socio-political commentary" I'll give you that, but this is hardly the first game with a bit of a commentary, is it? So, maybe just talking out of your arse on the innovation front. It's barely doing anything new, let alone genre-shattering.

Plus, all your lovely goodness points were remarkably evasive of the actual gameplay. And it can be a wonderful example of beauty, realism and comment, but if it sucks to actually play, it still sucks. Because, you know, games are too be played. Go alter Titanic with distorted sound and psychedelic visuals so you can barely watch it. The content might be good, but the experience would be awful.

Singing Gremlin:
Your overall point in this is true, that people whine about innovation not being there and knock games that do innovate. But here, you're not quite so much in the right, and you're being a dick about it. Yeah, I quite liked Far Cry 2, but it has major flaws and is incredibly repetitive. How is it really innovative anyway?

"Border on art"? I assume you mean 'cos it looks pretty. See Crysis, NOT innovation.
"In a for once truly realistic situation"? One that has no civilians AT ALL? C'mon, it has flaws. And realism isn't innovation either, really. Plenty of games have it.
"Subtle socio-political commentary" I'll give you that, but this is hardly the first game with a bit of a commentary, is it? So, maybe just talking out of your arse on the innovation front. It's barely doing anything new, let alone genre-shattering.

Plus, all your lovely goodness points were remarkably evasive of the actual gameplay. And it can be a wonderful example of beauty, realism and comment, but if it sucks to actually play, it still sucks. Because, you know, games are too be played. Go alter Titanic with distorted sound and psychedelic visuals so you can barely watch it. The content might be good, but the experience would be awful.

I kinda just wanted an excuse to say "fuck you guys". Don't take it personally or all that seriously.

Crysis is actually a very innovative game. The ability to modify your tactics in such extreme ways at any time to completely change the way that you approach a situation in the game, as well as how the game reacts to your approach, is something that I have not seen previously. Switching to stealth mode suddenly turns the game into a solid stealth-action title by giving you silencers and tranquiliser darts for your weapons, but also keeps tension high by requiring you to jump between cover quickly. Switch to strength mode and you can smash the ceiling off of a building and shoot the people inside. Put a scope on your assault rifle and suddenly you can snipe with it, using speed mode to run from place to place so the enemy can't figure out your position. That sort of versatility in a shooter is simply unmatched. Its visuals are excellent both technically and artistically, but that is not the extent of the game's appeal, and anyone who actually bothers to play for more than the first level or two will realise that.

Far Cry 2 has some very noticeable breaks from reality, made more noticeable by the fact that they often come out of attempting to add realism in the first place. I never said it was a perfect game, but it definitely tries a lot harder than some others. For the record, by "realistic" I meant that it takes place in our own world, in the present, in a fictional situation based very heavily upon ones that do actually exist. Furthermore, how can you say it isn't doing anything new? It's the first open-world shooter, along with the first game to do realistic and proper fire propagation that has tactical merit. It also heavily borrows elements from S.T.A.L.K.E.R. (progression through an open-ended environment by means of acquiring new weapons and items, very similar to a role-playing game), which is something very few games in the genre have done before.

As for whether it is fun to play or not... I don't know. I've spent about fifty hours on it, which is more than what I can say for most single-player shooters, especially ones released in the last few years. It's enjoyable for me every time I play it, even if it is repetitive. I think the game deserves a lot of praise for what it's done, and will get a sequel based upon its foundations that really stretches itself into even more exciting directions. It's one of those titles that you can't quite play so much as you need to experience, in isolation, over time, to truly appreciate. If you pop it in after coming home from work for a quick half-hour of gaming, I think you will be disappointed, because the game is not built to accommodate that sort of playing.

Singing Gremlin:

"In a for once truly realistic situation"? One that has no civilians AT ALL? C'mon, it has flaws.

I actually feel that the lack of civilians is subtle socio-political commentary in and of itself. The fact is that these low intensity guerrilla wars in Africa, (or the Caribbean, or South America, or Asia, or anywhere else) are never about the people. The civilians are in fact a sideshow. Nobody is doing it to make their lives better, just to make their own wallets fatter or push their own dad into power or whatever. The people's lives will be the same miserable grind it was before the conflict. Look at what is going on in Gaza. Hundreds of people dead yet all the blabbering fools on TV are talking about some abstract BS that has little to do with the fact that, umm, yea, people are getting blown up.

So yea, Far Cry 2 doesn't even really need civilians, now does it? The conflict's not about them. It has nothing to do with him. They won't benefit from it one way or the other no matter what side wins. You could walk up to a civilian and kill him point blank and no one would care, because it happens every day in a conflict like that. So what's the point of Ubisoft putting them in? So you can have a little GTA style rampage at the end of every gaming session. Please. The civilians have suffered enough.

My best moment:
Killing the VIP with a sniper rifle from a kilometer outside the village, the perfect shot, after i used an hour scouting around the village trying to find the perfect sniper spot. One shot, one kill, and his little army of guards didn't even have a clue where the shot came from...

My most evil moment:
In the middle of the night i brought with me the flamethrower, and setting fire to all the grass around the village, then as the sun rose, listen to the screams of burning soldiers. Two minutes later a little notice came up on my screen, telling me that my target was dead.

Seriously, this sniper-simulator/stealth-game/action-movie was incredible, but a bit repetive. At least, thanks to the weapons, the AI and the enviroment, no gun-fight became the same (unless you act like a robot and do the same tactic every fight, not bothering to try out new stuff because.. well, it worked last time).

searanox:

Snip

Alright, I'll give you that. I think this stems from a difference of opinion about what being innovative. I'd only personally use it with someone really new and ground breaking, but I suppose your use is more accurate. New ideas to an old concept are still new ideas.

But surely there have been other open FPSs? It only beat Fallout by about a week... Although I really can't think of any others. STALKER doesn't quite count. Hmmn, I'll have to get back to you on that one.

searanox:

Far Cry 2 has some very noticeable breaks from reality, made more noticeable by the fact that they often come out of attempting to add realism in the first place. I never said it was a perfect game, but it definitely tries a lot harder than some others. For the record, by "realistic" I meant that it takes place in our own world, in the present, in a fictional situation based very heavily upon ones that do actually exist. Furthermore, how can you say it isn't doing anything new? It's the first open-world shooter, along with the first game to do realistic and proper fire propagation that has tactical merit. It also heavily borrows elements from S.T.A.L.K.E.R. (progression through an open-ended environment by means of acquiring new weapons and items, very similar to a role-playing game), which is something very few games in the genre have done before.

As for whether it is fun to play or not... I don't know. I've spent about fifty hours on it, which is more than what I can say for most single-player shooters, especially ones released in the last few years. It's enjoyable for me every time I play it, even if it is repetitive. I think the game deserves a lot of praise for what it's done, and will get a sequel based upon its foundations that really stretches itself into even more exciting directions. It's one of those titles that you can't quite play so much as you need to experience, in isolation, over time, to truly appreciate. If you pop it in after coming home from work for a quick half-hour of gaming, I think you will be disappointed, because the game is not built to accommodate that sort of playing.

The first open world game? Where did you come up with that? It's certainly not the first. The breaks in reality are from trying to make the game more realistic? I think not, a shirtless guy taking a whole clip into the head and chest is not realistic. I do like how you say it's innovative and in the same paragraph how it borrows heavily from S.T.A.L.K.E.R. which is of course, a much better open world game despite it's flaws, whereas Far Cry 2 is a poor example of an open world world game because of it's flaws. I would also like to see an example of how Far Cry 2 adds an element of RPG to the FPS genre, I for one don't see it. Even S.T.A.L.K.E.R. had a very watered down RPG element, but certainly more than Far Cry was able to muster. Far Cry 2 is a console gamers FPS, nothing could save it. Too long, far to boring and only bringing one thing to the table did not help, fire was nice, but the novelty wore off quickly when faced with weak game play and monotonous quests. I have barely touched on the faked open world, which anyone who actually played the game knows, the game corrals you through set paths with unclimbable cliffs. Only to face a legion of suicidal NPCs in jeeps and completely unrealistic spawning checkpoints, sorry the smoke and mirrors did not fool me. The lack of civilians to me seems less of a political statement and more of a lazy developer unwilling to add another level to the gameplay to an already lackluster game, almost seems like Ubisoft themselves saw that the game was extremely weak and phoned the rest in, which would explain the poor ending. Think of what could have been done with civilians added, how it would change how you take objectives faced with collateral damage. It could have even added to the endings (I use the plural here loosely as Far Cry 2 did not really have multiple endings) creating multiple endings for how you handled situations with civilians involved. I'm sorry in no way other than fire is Far Cry 2 innovative, in fact it's not even good. I am glad you liked it, but to me, a PC gamer this console garbage can't be tolerated.

I really enjoyed Far Cry 2. Maybe it was my childhood love of Heart of Darkness, or the ability to play the missions how I saw fit (admittedly they were a bit repetitive), or maybe just because I never had to pick someone up and take them bowling or to a bar (GTA IV). If I want to go bowling or out for a drink I'll get off my ass and actually do those things.

I didn't like the whole malaria thing though.

I didn't like FC2 when I first played it. It was the respawns that did it for me. The things mentioned in that review didn't really bug me - I've learned to accept over the years that a medkit will fix all kinds of injuries, that games where you shoot people don't tend to have many random civilians in them, and I just assumed that when you were in trouble you dropped a flare like your buddies do and they came running to help - of course there's no way of knowing how long actually passes between you blacking out and them grabbing you. But those respawns and constant gunfights with the same guys at the same places got me.

But when I went back to it a few weeks later (to finish the story at least so I could trade it in) I actually found it wasn't quite as annoying as I originally thought. If you can get over the respawns and having to jump back and forward between driving and gunning it's pretty good. The missions are a little repetitive, but if you take the buddy suggestions into consideration you can break it up a little, and the story isn't bad either.

I think I'll still end up trading it in, but at least I no longer feel like I completely wasted my money!

Darkness62:

searanox:

Far Cry 2 has some very noticeable breaks from reality, made more noticeable by the fact that they often come out of attempting to add realism in the first place. I never said it was a perfect game, but it definitely tries a lot harder than some others. For the record, by "realistic" I meant that it takes place in our own world, in the present, in a fictional situation based very heavily upon ones that do actually exist. Furthermore, how can you say it isn't doing anything new? It's the first open-world shooter, along with the first game to do realistic and proper fire propagation that has tactical merit. It also heavily borrows elements from S.T.A.L.K.E.R. (progression through an open-ended environment by means of acquiring new weapons and items, very similar to a role-playing game), which is something very few games in the genre have done before.

As for whether it is fun to play or not... I don't know. I've spent about fifty hours on it, which is more than what I can say for most single-player shooters, especially ones released in the last few years. It's enjoyable for me every time I play it, even if it is repetitive. I think the game deserves a lot of praise for what it's done, and will get a sequel based upon its foundations that really stretches itself into even more exciting directions. It's one of those titles that you can't quite play so much as you need to experience, in isolation, over time, to truly appreciate. If you pop it in after coming home from work for a quick half-hour of gaming, I think you will be disappointed, because the game is not built to accommodate that sort of playing.

The first open world game? Where did you come up with that? It's certainly not the first. The breaks in reality are from trying to make the game more realistic? I think not, a shirtless guy taking a whole clip into the head and chest is not realistic. I do like how you say it's innovative and in the same paragraph how it borrows heavily from S.T.A.L.K.E.R. which is of course, a much better open world game despite it's flaws, whereas Far Cry 2 is a poor example of an open world world game because of it's flaws. I would also like to see an example of how Far Cry 2 adds an element of RPG to the FPS genre, I for one don't see it. Even S.T.A.L.K.E.R. had a very watered down RPG element, but certainly more than Far Cry was able to muster. Far Cry 2 is a console gamers FPS, nothing could save it. Too long, far to boring and only bringing one thing to the table did not help, fire was nice, but the novelty wore off quickly when faced with weak game play and monotonous quests. I have barely touched on the faked open world, which anyone who actually played the game knows, the game corrals you through set paths with unclimbable cliffs. Only to face a legion of suicidal NPCs in jeeps and completely unrealistic spawning checkpoints, sorry the smoke and mirrors did not fool me. The lack of civilians to me seems less of a political statement and more of a lazy developer unwilling to add another level to the gameplay to an already lackluster game, almost seems like Ubisoft themselves saw that the game was extremely weak and phoned the rest in, which would explain the poor ending. Think of what could have been done with civilians added, how it would change how you take objectives faced with collateral damage. It could have even added to the endings (I use the plural here loosely as Far Cry 2 did not really have multiple endings) creating multiple endings for how you handled situations with civilians involved. I'm sorry in no way other than fire is Far Cry 2 innovative, in fact it's not even good. I am glad you liked it, but to me, a PC gamer this console garbage can't be tolerated.

You know Darkness, while I agree with most of your points on the game not being particularly innovative, you certainly could have done it without coming across like a pretentious twat.

It's funny how everyone always complains about microsoft fanboys or whatever, but PC gamers are just as bad, if not worse. "This game sucks because it's low brow console garbage and I can't tolerate it" is just as bad as "ZOMG THIS GAME SUXZORS CUZ MICRO$UCK MADE IT!!!!1!11 GO BAK TO YOUR HALOEZ!! LULZ". It's still obnoxious, ignorant, and ridiculous, just in a different way.

I will never understand people hating another plastic piece of electronic equipment because they have a different piece of plastic electronic equipment, just as I'll never understand people who don't play games on that piece of plastic electronic equipment looking down on people who do. A great gaming experience is a great gaming experience no matter where it's played (keep in mind I never played Far Cry 2, so I don't know if it is or isn't, but regardless...). Maybe it makes you feel superior over anonymous denziens of the internet. Good for you.

Also, cocks

btw: there are a lot of $h1tty PC FPS that couldn't be "saved" either

I unlike the other poster did not start with a "fuck you" to all who disagreed with him, but sincerely and from the bottom of my heart fuck you console tard. Add to that you have never even played this game? How can you comment on whether or not it's innovative or not? Fucking idiot.

btw: there are a lot of $h1tty PC FPS that couldn't be "saved" either

Duh... That said, all we need as PC gamers is more used up console trash to wash up as well. Thanks for contributing nothing to the conversation.

Darkness62:
The first open world game? Where did you come up with that? It's certainly not the first. The breaks in reality are from trying to make the game more realistic? I think not, a shirtless guy taking a whole clip into the head and chest is not realistic. I do like how you say it's innovative and in the same paragraph how it borrows heavily from S.T.A.L.K.E.R. which is of course, a much better open world game despite it's flaws, whereas Far Cry 2 is a poor example of an open world world game because of it's flaws. I would also like to see an example of how Far Cry 2 adds an element of RPG to the FPS genre, I for one don't see it. Even S.T.A.L.K.E.R. had a very watered down RPG element, but certainly more than Far Cry was able to muster. Far Cry 2 is a console gamers FPS, nothing could save it. Too long, far to boring and only bringing one thing to the table did not help, fire was nice, but the novelty wore off quickly when faced with weak game play and monotonous quests. I have barely touched on the faked open world, which anyone who actually played the game knows, the game corrals you through set paths with unclimbable cliffs. Only to face a legion of suicidal NPCs in jeeps and completely unrealistic spawning checkpoints, sorry the smoke and mirrors did not fool me. The lack of civilians to me seems less of a political statement and more of a lazy developer unwilling to add another level to the gameplay to an already lackluster game, almost seems like Ubisoft themselves saw that the game was extremely weak and phoned the rest in, which would explain the poor ending. Think of what could have been done with civilians added, how it would change how you take objectives faced with collateral damage. It could have even added to the endings (I use the plural here loosely as Far Cry 2 did not really have multiple endings) creating multiple endings for how you handled situations with civilians involved. I'm sorry in no way other than fire is Far Cry 2 innovative, in fact it's not even good. I am glad you liked it, but to me, a PC gamer this console garbage can't be tolerated.

Could you please respond to things I actually said?

Far Cry 2 is the first open-world first-person shooter, not the first open-world game period. Games like Fallout 3 and S.T.A.L.K.E.R. do not qualify because the former is a role-playing game and the latter is not a truly open-world experience, created and designed that way from the ground-up; the game is broken up into very distinct segments and maps, and the plot progresses linearly from one to the next. You can spend time lingering in them and returning to previous ones, but the story does not really make use of the open world in any way.

I never said the lack of civilians was a political statement. It is somewhat justified by the fact that they are in hiding and only really visible before the war breaks out, inside Underground safehouses, etc. I agree that it was a mistake to turn the game into an "everything trying to kill you" sort of experience, and it was likely done because play-testers either did not want to or could not make the distinction between friend or foe in a shooter without distinctly having their weapons taken away to physically prevent them from firing. The same thing was done with the jeep patrols and bullet damage - play-testers didn't think that there was enough action, and that the enemies died too quickly. However, I don't think it ruins the game... and you have to remember that the highbrow PC gamer who can appreciate the subtleties of a more complex game is not the target market for this title.

And yes, it is a console title from the ground up. I am a PC gamer, not a console gamer (if you'd bother to read any of my other posts I think that that is fairly obvious). The interface, the field of view, the awkward mouse aiming, these are all blemishes on what I think is a great title. The fact of the matter, though, is these blemishes do not ruin the game, and I think its successes - creating a living and breathing natural world to explore and inviting player experimentation, exploration and tactical versatility - outweigh those issues. I objected the same way you did when I first played it, feeling like I had been cheated because the game felt like a console title. Then I got over it and had a lot of fun anyway. Your attacks towards it seem a lot more like niggling technical complaints over the PC conversion than any sort of genuine arguments about the game's design - which, in case you had not noticed, is what we are discussing, and what I was praising, not the somewhat rushed and lazy PC version which I think could have been a lot better with minimal effort, but frankly I find it hard to knock Ubisoft as a whole too hard because usually these issues arise due to rushed development schedules, lack of necessary funding, etc. rather than any malicious intent on behalf of the developers. When you've got a month left to bring the game out, would you rather spend that time fixing the interface, or game-breaking bugs across all platforms? Furthermore, there are absolutely some design decisions that are a result of multi-platform development, but take that up with the Ubisoft executives, not the developers. It's a sad reflection on the state of the industry, that the emphasis on console development comes at the expense of truly high-quality PC versions, but Far Cry 2 shines despite that and the developers definitely would have improved the state of the game if they had the time to. Being able to spend five years bringing a game to perfection is not the rule, it is the incredible exception.

In any case, I find your "fuck you console 'tard" attitude to be discouraging, to say the least; my ire was pointed at those who beg for innovation and freshness only to object when they receive it, not people whose choice of gaming platform is apparently a direct result of a deficit of grey matter. I always thought most PC gamers were pretty reasonable people, but apparently there's just as many blithering idiots among them. Ah well, another day, another brick out of the pillar of my faith in humanity.

I think FC2 is extremely under rated. Yes it has it's problems, but what games don't?

A very enjoyable game!

FuZion.

searanox:

Regarding the article itself, it is well written, but I can't actually figure out what it's really trying to say. I've already played the game, and I know what it's about. Tell me what it means, not what it is.

http://infovore.org/archives/2008/12/22/africa-wins-again/

 Pages 1 2 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Registered for a free account here