I actually loathe Far Cry 3 with the alchemy (plant icons dotted all over the map) crafting and the overall gameplay design was terrible, I don't know why it look 4 years to develop, the campaign was so sparse, maybe 15% of the hours you put into the game, and they filled the rest with outposts, side quests. Enemies now become visible through environment once tagged (I hated this) so now the appeal isn't "hey casuals, we've created a realistic world, go explore" it's now become a very niche, methodical "go here, do that" etc. I can actually easily detect a Ubisoft open world now, FC 3 and 4 looked identical in that sense. The world's just don't look realistic or interesting anymore. Maybe the developers had OCD and felt the need to sort every element into a very literal format where it forces you to look at map and tick off each icon where the quality and fun of each objective is gone. It was just such a painful boring game. Too much filler content.
Far Cry 2 had the most immersive take on Africa I've seen in a game, the soundtrack was intense, emotional, evoked a sense of dread, it had a minimal HUD so the world was designed around being realistic. It was never boring to me. I've seen this quoted somewhere "the world in FC2 wants you to die. the world in FC3 wants you to succeed." and while I understand accessibility, the way Ubisoft have done it, it's come at a cost of eliminating an immersive, cruel world. I feel like I'm looking at a children's book and being expected to let my imagination compensate. Whereas FC2 any emotion the developers want you to feel is actually in each frame. You can't avoid it.
Far Cry 1 is unique in that it's the only linear sandbox in the entire series. Playing it as a kid, I could've sworn it was an open world. But it was like Doom 2016 in that sense, each level was sooooo fun and you never felt exploration was lacking. Each level was also unique and the locations varied. People say they hate games built on the premise of being a "tech showcase" for CryEngine but that cliche-feeling story, characters and gunplay is what made Far Cry 1 succeed.
Maybe the simplest way to put it, Far Cry 1 & 2 had the strongest identity. The rest, just had no soul.
Yes, Breakpoint failed. So realistically the next game we'll see to gauge this new internal restructuring Ubisoft has had, will be the next Ghost Recon. In 2021. (Valhalla doesn't count as Breakpoint failed exactly halfway through its development cycle. They didn't have time to change much.)
I mean they literally said they're working on making their games more original (a strong identity for each game to differentiate it between other games in brand), so I think that confirms my taste was correct. As disjointed and ineffective this post might be to readers… I have a point ☝️
(On a side note, I hate the logo for Assassin's Creed Valhalla. Marketing departments, specifically those who create the poster and brand are supposed to be showing in an instant, what's in store and capture the essence of the game world developers have created. We got a very literal flat blue VALHALLA it just looks so generic and lacking detail. Like they're trying to say, exact same as previous games but just a different colour / setting.)
Origins = Egypt.
Odyssey = Greece.
Valhalla = Blue.
- The Problem With Assassin’s Creed and Ubisoft [Minor Spoilers]
- Now That I Think About It…
- Did you all know this game is amazing! (rhetorical)
More about Far Cry 5Post: "Unpopular opinion: Far Cry 1 & 2 were the best in the series" specifically for the game Far Cry 5. Other useful information about this game:
Top 7 NEW Games of February 2021
Looking for something new to play on PC, PS5, PS4, Xbox, or Nintendo Switch in February 2021? Here are the notable video game releases.
Top 20 NEW Open World Games of 2021
2021 will bring us tons of open world games for PC, PS5, Xbox Series X, PS4, Switch, and beyond. Here's what we're looking forward to.