How did this game manage to achieve such high scores in most reviews?
It was an extremely repetitive game,constant fighting was more than a bit tiresome,there were no lean controls(in a shooter game?WTF?)which practically nullified benefits of cover,most weapons were underpowered and it often took a whole magazine to kill someone,enemies were dumbed-down kamikazes,stealth was broken etc etc
AND STILL THIS GAME GETS BETTER SCORES THAN SOME TRULY EXCELLENT GAMES OUT THERE,LIKE DEUS EX?WTFFFFFF?
I finally realized what those reviewers were smoking.They were smoking Ubisoft's money.
I'll never believe those reviews again.EVER.What a waste of my money.

Got bored of it very quickly. So repetitive. 6/10 on a good day.

Overrated? I think was only tepidly received at best back in 2008.

I for one quite enjoyed it, though it did have some quite big flaws, like the respawing guards and the lacklustre story. My biggest problem was the level editor though - why? Because it should have been a fully blown SDK. Could you imagine the Far Cry 2 world with a TES or Fallout level of mods, that would have been AMAZING.
I really enjoyed the environment, the weapons felt great, the fire was the best in any game ever; hands down awesome, cars were fun to drive, the gameplay is really quite good, kind of for the same reasons as Just Cause 2, you can just play around for a while and cause some chaos.

You can get it for like $5 on sale, it's worth a try.

I thought that most people didn't like it :huh:

Never played it.
Wouldnt even consider it if the stupid mutated monkeys with rocket launchers are back from the first one.
Worst video game enemy ever. (for me)

Trigens are not in FC2 ,though there are some stupid drunk kamikaze drivers to replace them.
I actually enjoyed the first game.

No, it's got nothing to do with the first one.

Found it to be alright however I was disappointed with the little direction it gave. Only finished 1 play through then gave up on the second one since it didn't feel any different to be honest. Only thing I would praise it on is the vast open landscapes littered with lush Jungle but the missions and such really left something to be desired. Feels like someone took a beautiful picture then decided "There's nothing in there except scenery QUICK PHOTOSHOP SOMETHING NOW!!!" with them slapping some god awful kid grade stuff into it.

that is one of the main reasons i hate this game.The only thing those two games have in similar is that they are both first person shooters

Ok so yeah I did play this game. Had to refresh my memory. I played it for a very short time and got bored with it extremely fast. Not my cup-o-tea.

Yep, in my opinion it was extremely underrated. It was one of the best games I played in '08.

I got about half way through a playthrough then I just couldn't be bothered finishing it.


I don't like the way everyone is hostile except for in cease fire zones, makes it a bit annoying when travelling far. Also the guns felt very underpowered and I thought the game felt a bit clunky.


However, I liked the way you could take your own approach to a mission and I liked the fire. The animations for pulling bullets and putting your arm back into place when you had really low health were cool as well.

I played for a couple weeks before I found out it had better uses as a frisbee. :hehe:

I picked it up cheap on sale and I wasn't expecting much, the gameplay was actually pretty decent, it just got rather repetitive very quickly. Had some good shooting mechanics and I've never seen fire as impressive as that. I didn't complete it because the story was rather weak, but as others have said, it's okay for mucking about.

There was a story? :confused: All I was aware of when I was playing was that I was in Africa, had malaria, and for some reason everyone wanted to kill me.

I was also under the impression that a lot of people didn't like it.

It was repetitive and the respawn rates drive me nuts, but I still like it.

Given the hate it tends to recieve, if anything I'd call it rather underrated.

The major criticisms are justified. Guards re-spawning and the repetitive nature of the game is enough to justify people hating it. It had good first person mechanics though.

This. I really enjoyed it.

A game with great potential hamstrung by a few bone-headed design decisions. Glorious visuals, heat visibly radiating off the savanna, and I really liked how it committed itself to maintaining a complete first-person perspective - something Bethesda could take a few pointers from (instead of copping out and switching to third-person for certain animations.) Leaping from the backseat to the front, digging bullets out of your forearm with a pair of pliers, even glancing at the map in your lap, all of these actions nicely enhanced the sensation that you're actually there, being slowly eaten alive by malaria. Unfortunately, that was the problem: they saddled you with that ridiculous, game-halting disease, forcing you to go on wild goose chases instead of doing what you wanted. And the checkpoints, with those crazy, mind-reading patrol drivers... I swear the roar of their engines sounded like some bloodlusted animal as they burst through the brush straight at your hidden position (nice cheating AI.) With them respawning as quickly as they did, I usually ended up just taking the bus to get across the map. All that great scenery, and I'm taking a bus because it's less tedious! What a game...

The fire effects were damn cool, however. Could've maybe lasted a bit longer, but watching it spread from grass to tree to house to oh god it's coming for me was quite mesmerising. Aside from the combat though, there's nothing to do. Empty towns with identical factions giving identical missions - I don't know if that was a subtle bit of political commentary, or just lazy design. What was the villain after? What's my motivation here? Whatever the case, when I got to the second half of the game and realised it was just going to be a complete rehash of the first half, I turned it off and never went back.

Over-rated, under-rated... These are terms people use when they feel they've been had. Perhaps it would be simply wiser to put less stock in the opinion of people you've never even met in the first place?

I agree 100% with everything in this post. If Far Cry 3 takes all of the good stuff from FC2, and fixes the cheating AI, the fact that enemy vehicles go twice as fast as yours when they're chasing you, the infinitely respawning checkpoints, makes stealth a more viable option and has some more variety in the missions (and no stupid malaria), it could be one of the best shooters ever.

I too was under the impression that everybody disliked it for the respawning enemy camps.

Personally I thought it was underrated by the community, as the gameplay was fairly fun.

I'm not sure I agree, though I can certainly understand people disliking it for those reasons. It has it's flaws, but it also does a lot of things well. People really seem to focus on the negatives when it comes to FC2. Meanwhile, despite the respawn rates and uninspired mission design, there's few games I have so many awesome memories and anecdotes of as Far Cry 2

Edit: also, I can't imagine how annoying this game must be to play at times when you're stuck with checkpoints. On PC you can save anywhere at any time, which might be a bit of a saving grace.

That I definitely disagree with. The stealth mechanic is pretty reliable in FC2. You can only hide in grassy areas (or behind cover) while crouching in shadow and/or concealment. Movement ruins your stealth, and if the enemy gets too close they'll notice you (how quickly depends on how well you're hidden). That's it. You can even regain stealth after losing it.
I've snuck through and even eliminated everyone at countless checkpoints and bases without being detected.