Monica Bellucci
It's not perfect, and there are some major flaws in the mechanics. Pretty much everyone who has expressed an opinion seems to agree that the enemy respawning could be improved. From my experience it appears that guard posts are repopulated as soon as you leave the local area (with the game being essentially open and seamless, there are no obvious "chunk lines" or anything, but the respawns didn't seem to be on a timer either). In practice this is a bad thing. Many missions, the vast majority in fact, involve attacking someone or some thing that is located in a "major" location. These major locations are, more often than not, located next to or near one or more guard posts. Completing a mission therefore involves fighting past the guard post(s) to reach the objective, and because of the way the game is designed as multiple missions in a single environment rather than a progression through multiple environments, you end up having to fight your way back out past the guards you've already killed once, because they respawned in the few minutes it took to complete the mission objective.
Personally I think it would be better if respawns took at least half a (game) day or so. And not just for the enemy npcs, but also for the buildings and other landmarks you destroy.
Another curious design issue concerns the whole notion of "factions" in the game. Most of the primary missions in the game are given by one or the other of two main political factions, the idea being that they're at war with each other. So right away you've got the odd situation where enemy factions are both happy to work with you even though you've been slaughtering their own people. And never mind they fact they both have headquarters a couple of blocks away from each other. The bigger issue is that the factions make absolutely no difference during the actual missions. You see their respective logo painted around the place, but ultimately you're "kill on sight" to absolutely everyone. The faction leaders who hand out the missions always make some wank excuse about how the mission is top-secret so even their own soldiers will attack you. There's also a flare gun in the game which is supposed to attract enemy troops to the area that will engage the locals and cause a bit of mayhem, but I never saw that happen. It only seems to be useful for setting fire to the brush.
The notion of being KOS to everyone is itself an issue which I think could be improved. There are no civilians in the game, outside of resistance safehouses. It would have been that much more immersive if there had been neutral npcs going about their business. I can see how that would be quite complex to implement, especially if you had proper faction allignment where there would be any number of contacts between enemy factions. But while it would be hard to balance, it would also add a lot of depth to the game, as you see little mini-battles going on that have nothing to do with you or your current objective. You could, and should have other freelancers going around the place doing their own thing, and maybe even competing with you for your own objectives (or attempting to thwart them).
Apart from that, I found few of the commonly-voiced criticisms had much validity. The fact that enemy vehicles are able to travel more quickly than your own is obviously necessary if you want to prevent the player blasting through every checkpoint or waterway without any difficulty. As for "fast travel", I thought they got the balance between fast and regular travel spot-on. Just like with MMOs, fast travel is always demanded by people who have no interest in immersion and simply want to push through the campaign as quickly as possible. It's something which destroys the sense of scale in the world if it's made too easily accessible. On the other hand, there are some dubious missions in the game which require excessive travel between opposite corners of the world, and in those instances the buses are just the ticket.
In fact that seems to be the root cause of some people's displeasure with the game. I can easily imagine how tedious and frustrating the game would seem to someone who is only interested in "beating" it as quickly as possible, to prove how godlike they are at first-person shooters. The numerous random patrols, and respawning guard posts would be a real chore to work through if you're not content to accept them as a part of the core game play. It seems that some people have a very close-minded attitude to how FPSes ought to be designed. Which is to say, they think every FPS should be just like CoD4. Far Cry 2, on the other hand, demonstrates that it's possible to have a different style of narrative progression and world design, and while it might not suit everyone that doesn't make it wrong or bad.
Ultimately the conclusion to the storyline is quite poor. The designers were obviously attempting a sort of poor man's Colonel Kurtz in the character of The Jackal, but unfortunately the pacing of the story is all over the place and the ending is spectacularly unsatisfying. It would have been great if the atmosphere had really been cranked up at the end, instead of being just another mission but in a locked-off part of the map.
Oh, and the bit where (spoiler alert!) you're thrown into an arena to fight all your previous "buddies" is fucking stupid. For a start half of them were supposed to be dead by that stage, and the whole scenario is horrendously out of place. Definitely the low point of the game for me.
This has turned out to be a discussion of the flaws of the game, and might make it sound like the steaming shit-pile that some people have attempted to claim it is, but I definitely found it more enjoyable than, say, Warhead. I spent about 5.5 hours playing Warhead, and have absolutely no inclination to return to it. Some people regard the "train" sequence as a particularly impressive part of that game, as if it's the Crysis version of Medal of Honor's Omaha Beach landing or something, but really it's like "Crysis meets Gears of War", taking the notion of "on rails" to a whole new level. No surprise that people who enjoyed that sort of spoon-fed set-piece wouldn't enjoy the freedom of FC2. Meanwhile, according to the in-game stats I've spent nearly 26 hours playing FC2, and that was without doing all the side-missions (in Act 1, at least). I will almost certainly play through again (after I've replayed The Witcher). As such, and even considering the fact that Warhead is cheaper, FC2 has been much greater value for money, and more enjoyable too.
Graphically FC2 might not be as "rich" as Crysis, but it often comes close, especially at sunset and sunrise. The random weather is great, storms are rare but impressive (although they could be more violent). The game is perhaps best seen from the water, as some of the waterways are stunning. The fire system, while it might sound quite gimmicky, is actually very well-implemented. From the way you can set fire to enemies and (some) buildings, to the way it spreads through the brush, to the way your own rocket launcher can create fires in it's exhaust. One top moment for me was watching an enemy soldier fire a signal flare, only for it to ricochet off a branch above him and set him on fire. Great stuff. The sense of destruction as you rocket boats or trucks or buildings, and the explosions starts secondary fires, is excellent, if short-lived.
For me it's the immersion that keeps me coming back to the game. As usual, I often caught myself thinking "I wish there was an MMO that looked like this". The sense of scale in FC2 works well without being annoying, but also without feeling confined. Of course it could be bigger, but within the technical limits (of the xbox, unfortunately) it does it's job very successfully. The missions are undoubtedly repetitive, but if you enjoy it then that's no bad thing. Plus, the alternative would be to "spice up" the game with mutants or aliens, things people have been very quick to criticise in Far Cry 1 and Crysis respectively.
So, in conclusion, great game. Expect to see this one on the Field Marshal's New Years Honours List.
