Oh look, Baranga's lazy again!

So here comes another paste from something I wrote with another purpose. This one was made for Destructoid in mid-September, and unfortunately for you I'm going to censor it here. But hey, I'll add an exclusive Gamespot fragment at the end! How awesome is that?!

*clears throat*

I'm seriously pissed off by Far Cry 2 bashing. It's not a perfect game, but for BUNNY'S sake, most gamers act like it's Turning Point or something!

So here's a rant. Please excuse the (again) disjointed ideas and the grammer, I'm cobbling it together from a few angry forum posts I made or wanted to make these days. And keep in mind that I'm a Crysis and Stalker fanboy.



With all its faults, Far Cry 2 is a much better sandbox experience than Crysis (which yes, counts as a sandbox since it allows so much freedom and gives you so many toys), and in some ways even better than Stalker's random madness. It doesn't reach Stalker's cult status because it's not cool to like a game from a major publisher.

Above: Not Cool.

They're not even gamebreaking faults - seriously, who cares that the convoy runs in circles? How is it different from Warhead's hovercraft pursuit? Are you not employing the same tactics in taking it down as if it would've just went across the map? Seriously, all I see when someone bashes Far Cry 2 is that the roads are empty, yet they're pissed when they meet another car. I see people acting like they have to fight at checkpoints and they have to pull over jeeps. They have to destroy the jeeps and then they have to repair their car. They have to drive on the exact same route every bloody time. These people only play the game to finish it, to hang another trophy to their gamer belt. If you don't experiment with the world, if you don't take advantage of the sandbox environment, if all you do is ticking off the missions on your agenda, ignoring 80% of the surrounding area, and then you start bashing the game because it's not varied - then your opinion is worthless. It's like driving in the opposite direction in a racing game - sure, you analyse the graphics and get a taste of the driving. But you're defeating the purpose of the game, you're acting against it.

Some of the complaints are contradictory. You drive too much? Well that's why there are so many checkpoints! You can blast your way through them, you can engage in Mad Max sty1e car combat, or you can plan an assault.

Oh but then you fight at every checkpoint! This is a shooter, what else are you supposed to do? What, you want civilians and neutral factions? Sure, they're cool. But here's the catch: creating a hybrid game, like Stalker, was the easy way out. There are already enough of those games. Far Cry 2 is a beast of its own, a pure shooter set in a world built for something else. It's a world that feels real, yet it doesn't act accordingly. Hence an effect that can be best described as the uncanny valley. Some people don't get over this effect, and I pity them. I don't understand why they just can't accept that only the leaders of the faction know you're working for them. You're like the goddamn Batman in Nolan's movies, everybody's against you! Why is this so hard to accept?

It's not lazyness, and it's not the famous Bethesda syndrome either. If you're wondering what the syndrome is, here's the explanation: Bethesda (or others) makes a game that fails as both an action game and as an RPG. When someone says damn, the shooting sucks ass!, Bethesda answers – yes but you see, this isn't a shooter! It doesn't matter you're shooting someone from 30 centimeters and you don't hit! When someone tries to argue that the RPG portion is downright broken, Bethesda says – yes, but this is an action game! It doesn't matter the stats are completely BUNNY'd up!

Just sayin'.

In Far Cry 2's case, it's not lazyness simply because the amount of work and details put in the game is incredible. You can't deny that. The world WORKS. It's real. TIA, as Danny Archer would say. You think they implemented the idle AI behaviour, the weather system and an economy and then didn't took it one step further because they're lazy? That's just stupid.

It's not affected by the Bethesda syndrome because everything simply works, despite what the uncanny valley tells you. The world works, the combat works, moving from point A to point B works. It's a rock-solid effort all across the board.

Ubisoft was right when it said that Far Cry has three main hooks: driving, shooting and flying. I admit the flying is a bit broken - but my God, what a pleasure it is to feel the wind rushing past your ears, to raise above the jungle or the savannah... and then to fall like a very concerned brick, because you'll land right on top of an unsuspecting enemy jeep.

I see everybody focusing on the sometimes stupid AI. How is that affecting the visceral combat? It's so raw, so filled with energy! It's a beautiful, chaotic mess. The brutal act of pulling bullets out of your wounds and cauterizing them with a bunch of matches brings the delicios cartoon logic of 1980s movies to life. This is the game you wanted to play when you watched Rambo 2: a perfect mix of tactics and butchery. I never get tired of planning my missions, and I love it when everything goes wrong and I must improvise.

Also, I don't need a storyline for going medieval on someone's ass, only a context - and the context, the background story, is good. The actual story - I write it. The missions may be a bit similar, but various elements – like the time of the day (that affects enemy behaviour) or the incredible freedom to approach them – create a very unique experience, a lot like Stalker's randomness. Not to mention that the buddy system is absolutely brilliant. Have you ever had to choose between shooting or saving your friend after, or in, or even before a new fight?
I see a lot of people wanting Valve-sty1e scripted events - they pretend they don't see the barge, the greenhouse crash, the giant cargo plane, the militia mortars, the train and so on.

Far Cry 2 loses one mark for the outrageous lack of Arnold Vosloo.

As a sandbox game, it's sometimes better than Stalker. I'll use the diamonds to prove my point. A lot of people are complaining about the diamonds, acting like it's the equivalent of banging your head in a brick and collecting a gold coin. But I don't see too many noticing the small, implicit stories that acompany them. Someone had a plane accident. A car was pulled off and the driver was executed. Someone else hid the case in a small cave and carefully masked its location. This attention to details is something that's missing from Stalker. I love Stalker. I know they nailed the atmosphere perfectly, I live in a similar environment (minus bloodsuckers – we only have the old fashioned suckers here). But, like almost everything coming from the Eastern Bloc, it's massive, impressive, awe-inspiring... and it's missing details - Call of Prypiat says it'll fix this though. The little stories Ubisoft's code monkeys created add so much to the overall feel of Far Cry 2! The best part about it is that they have the common sense to not shove every little detail down your throat. Subtlety is wonderful, as long as you notice it. But „powerleveling" through the game instead of just dicking around doesn't allow players to notice it – hence a lot of the bad word of mouth.

So many people complain about the lack of variety in the environments! I rarely see anyone mentioning the various areas that are basically standalone levels, like the Polytechnic, the Postal Office, the Airport, the Shantytown, the Fort and so many others. You can't drive 5 minutes without stumbling upon such a location! I don't see anyone praising the little details of this world. Instead I see a lot of gamers taking the fantastic world of Far Cry 2 for granted, without appreciating the titanic amount of work put into it. And a lot utter this phrase: it's the perfect example of graphics over gameplay.

This is BUNNY.

Graphics are gameplay in most games of today. Imagine Far Cry 2 in Trespasser clothes. In Source clothes. No fire propagation (which is just as important as the physics of Crysis), no weather system, no shadows, no bullet penetration... How come so many people always separate graphics and atmosphere from gameplay is a mistery to me. Some games simply don't work without proper support, and this one is one of them. I know it, I played about 15 hours on a system that only met the minimum requirements. When I finally afforded a new system, I was amazed. Instantly immersed. Something was missing from my minimalistic Far Cry 2! It was like playing Mario rendered in ASCII – sure, the idea and the basic gameplay is the same, but I'll be damned if it doesn't suck compared to the original happy, colourful Mario. I appreciate that Far Cry 2 works on lame-ass systems, but I'm telling you: it looks like a big bowl of pudding and the whole atmosphere is thrown right out the window. All that remains is the basic shooting and driving. The game was designed as an experience, and it only works when all the elements come together.

An intense and atmospheric combat scene in Far Cry 1998.

You see, every time I start Far Cry 2, it's like I'm travelling to Africa. I'd even say that the best part of the game is simply wandering around, and the combat is just for spicing it up. I boot the game very often, even for only 15 minutes. I simply don't care about respawning checkpoints or weird economy. These are the same kind of features that so many hermits accepted in Stalker – annoying, strange bits that somehow grow on you and you come to accept as natural. You don't have to turn off your brain to enjoy it, this is not BUNNY G.I. Joe. You have to accept the rules of the game. If you don't, then your brain is already shut off.

With the exception of destructible environments (seriously, wtf happened to them?), Ubisoft delivered everything that it promised. But again, gamers hyped themselves for an imaginary game and then got angry when reality didn't live up to the fantasy.

Some game developers ask themselves: how can we make this game realistic? And the end result is usually an empty shell like GTA4, that receives praise from the same type of people that treat Far Cry 2 superficially and transform it into a linear experience.

Other ask how can we make this game fun? And they create an outrageous masterpiece like Prototype or Saints Row 2 - hated by the people mentioned above.

Ubisoft asked itself how can it make the game both realistic and completely balls-to-the-wall insane. It's an experiment that succeeded.

They usually make sequels that although feel familiar, are quite different from the original. Judging by the example of Assassin's Creed 2, Far Cry 3 will be a much improved game. I'm very curious to see it.

I'm also hyped for the next game built on the Dunia engine, Avatar. It looks a bit mediocre, but so did Far Cry 2 – it looked like a goreless Soldier of Fortune, actually. I think there's no such thing as a „movie-based game curse". BUNNY games like Transformers are made with no budget, in two months by anonymous devs. Riddick, Wolverine and even King Kong proved that if there's will, the games will be at least good. I have faith in Avatar.

Many months ago, a girl told me "I know that Far Cry 2 is awesome, but you should really take some time off the computer". I listened to her back then. Later, when she decided she never wants to talk to me anymore, I returned to this game. I played the **** out of it, pouring all my rage and frustration in the little brown land of Fictionesia, acting 100% like Rambo after spoilers that Asian girl dies end spoilers. Video games as escapism at its best!

You know what?

It never works. I still dream her every night, and every time I see or do something related to this game I remember happier times. This is one of the main reasons Far Cry 2 has a special place in my heart.