Far Cry®

Even today, the graphics look pretty good, but personally, having played Far Cry Instincts on the original Xbox, I think that game was much better in terms of plot and overall atmosphere. Sure, this is not a game you might want to play for the plot, and even the Xbox version is quite cliché plot-wise, but still. The PC version might be much more impressive from a technical POV, but I feel that it definitely does not have a soul. The stages sometimes feel like a hodgepodge without anything to actually unite them, and the enemies you will encounter during the final levels of the game feel too out of place. Yep, it does have sandbox elements, but I feel like this aspect of the game is hugely overrated, since you still have to complete objectives in a certain order, and given that the game uses a checkpoint system, you will be using them as much as possible since you'll have no desire whatsoever to lose your progress, considering how challenging some portions of the game can be even when played on easy (some of the enemies will kill you in just one or two hits during the final phases of the game). Is it overall still a good game? Yes, sure, it is still quite fun, but frankly, I feel like it's slightly overrated. The antagonists feel pretty generic, with the main villain being the standard tough guy in a cowboy hat, whereas the one found in the Xbox version was menacing or downright scary. I know you'll be wondering why I even gave this game 4 stars, but I do believe this game is definitely worth it, especially if bought at a discounted price.

Far Cry is undoubtlessly one of those cases where the idea behind it was scrapped and repurposed. Basically, the saga kept the name as a commercial move: for attracting the players base who grew fond of the game. Question is: was it worth it to change completely the formula from the original? Short answer: maybe? The first entry of the usually open world franchise is exactly the opposite: its level design, while granting the player the opportunity to visit large maps, is clearly thought for the classical single mission campaign, which was the most common practice back in the day. Speaking of common, Far cry does sometimes something seen rarely, and other times it follow the mainstream ( of its time, mind you. never pull out a game from its temporal context). Gameplay wise, its a shooter from early 2000', and that really about it: common weapons, common enemies ( for its genre). Although, to be frank, the shooting is done with more of a strategical idea behind it, albeit the player suffers a quick death due to the excellent aim of the enemies or to the ambush zones ( almost 60 percent of the game). Another thing worth mentioning is that the game has a problem ( it's not a feature, I consider a serious problem) in dealing with its unfair difficult spikes ( which again I must remind you that are inherently a bad attributes, but it can be a detriment for the whole experience when does not follow a well made pace). For other things: the story is unworthy of mention ( sometimes its actually hilarious how the ''edginess'' of the protagonist was handle), and the soundtrack is nothing to write home about. Graphics wise, it's one aspect that must be put into context: for its time, magnificent, but for a more contemporary point of view: decent even now. So not so bad. So, was it worth deviate from the path of the original? yes and no . The game is perfectly enjoyable for nostalgia gamers and retro, for all the rest? a mild yes. still worth playing. But nothing major.

This game sure was ahead of it's time and aged surprisingly well.

Difference between challengin & hard. Normal mode is unbearably hard - To the point that It is just not fun. Gunplay is great, gameplay has potential... But sneaking is not an option @ all & GL with trying to fight head on.

The best PC First Person Shooter Game.