The Difference Between Far Cry 2 And Far Cry 4

The Difference Between Far Cry 2 And Far Cry 4

Mark Brown is clearly a fan of Far Cry 2 over Far Cry 4, and you might disagree with that, but it’s still an interesting, super accessible look at how changing a few mechanics and tweaking how certain things work can dramatically change how we react to a video game. Interesting stuff.


  • Great comparison, I do agree with what he is saying and loved both games, but personally I prefer FC4. When you’re limited for time when it comes to playing games, checkpoints/quicksave systems like FC4 are a godsend. It’s not just that, I love the freedom, the weapons, the explosions, the characters and the scenery that FC4 provides. For me, it’s just a more enjoyable experience. I don’t need my games to be stressful or stupidly hard to enjoy them. FC4 provided a nice challenge and allowed me to take in the scenery and just fly around if I wanted.

  • Far Cry 4 has far better combat, much better stealth mechanics and a much better dynamic options for a variety of combat choice engagement. But it’s way too easy and is really made to have no stress in a playground/power fantasy way . In that way, I do wish it was more like FC 2.

    But, Far Cry 2 had much worse combat engagement, weapons satisfaction and bad AI. And that was the majority of the players action engagement in that game. I tried playing it twice in the last year, and I simply can’t do it. It plays too poorly and the repetitive and slow travel of the game world is far to punishing and boring. I did finish the game when it first came out, but wasn’t that satisfied.
    But FC 2 does have a far superior authentic sense of place, where you felt a small sense of that African location, which FC 3and 4 doest even try to achieve.

    Just compare Vass in his acting in FC 3 to the main bad guy in FC 2. The staggering difference in quality is absurd.

    For all the small things FC2 does better, It is severely outweighed by it’s poor action engagement, not only within it’s own game, but much more so compared to Far Cry 3 and 4.

    • Funny how all those who say far cry 2 is the better game, they always leave out the The poor combat engagement. All their points of; malaria when you least want it, jamming weapons etc, are all supporting elements to what exactly ? That’s right, the boring combat which is a far more core element, and that has far more content to it then those supporting aspects of the combat, but that hardly ever gets a mention.

    • Pretty sure I can answer that for you:

      “Far Cry 2 is the best.” πŸ˜›

      Though David would probably put it more eloquently than that.

  • I think I forgave a lot of the poor combat in FC2 (I ended up relying heavily on that armoured truck and sniping) because I got lost in the world. I spent hours exploring and happily doing side missions because I actually felt immersed in the world. Screw the weapon degradation tho… who decided that would be fun? Never finished it unfortunately, ditched windows from my mac before I could make it all the way through.

  • now whilst i have yet to play FC4 yet as i have a bit of a backlog of games to get through, FC2 was a horrible, horrible game.

  • One of the FC2 crowd here. While I enjoy the latter games in the series, they all felt too gamey for me. The stress of Far Cry 2 just gave it so much atmosphere and a heightened sense of accomplishment while playing.

    I can just keep going back to that game over and over and over.

    • That and it took on a mature and dark subject matter that most studios don’t ever try to convey without camping it up or trivialising it.
      But I think a lot of old school PCPPers would pick FC2 just like we would still recommend Deus Ex 1.

  • I can’t agree about FC2. I felt like it was far too much of a drag, the shooting mechanics were lackluster, the whole degradation system, malaria system, lack of save points etc just made it incredibly tedious to progress anywhere. Ended up overly frustrated with what I was expecting to be a fun engaging experience.

    FC4 I was initially so very frustrated with. It just annoyed me for some reason, overly scripted events, frustrating instead of engaging combat. Now that I’ve unlocked the weapons I want to use, have familiarised myself with the game a bit better and generally run amok I am absolutely hooked. I managed to squeeze in Molten Core in WoW on Sunday night but for half the run I was wishing I could be running around in Kyrat pew pewing, sniping people with a bow from ridiculous ranges and trying to take down various outposts in crazy ways. Like luring everyone through a house without them spotting me only to detonate the thing with as much C4 as I could put down. Seriously 5 people in one blast was, well a blast πŸ˜€

    FC2 did have a pretty good environment (not great imo) but FC4 is a much better GAME πŸ™‚

  • FC2 was not perfect but it had atmosphere and immersion and tension and character in spades. It was a far better and more memorable experience.
    Have not played 4 but 3 was just a bloated, by the numbers, shooting theme park. Fun for a while but ultimately shallow, repetitive and forgettable.

  • FC 2 was good (ish) until the impossibly acurate bad guys with mortars came in to play. [email protected]#k those guys. Oh and the “turn your back and they respawn” bullsh!t. Actually the more i remember it the more i dislike it. Great ideas, but such a chore.

Log in to comment on this story!