Far Cry 3
Far Cry 3
I appreciated FC4 more, likely giving it an 8.2 out of 10. The four Shangri-La levels stood out to me; I found the towers to be far more engaging climbs compared to FC3, and the mountain backdrop felt more appealing than the beach setting in FC3. Also: Far Cry 3 had a few plot twists that became less exciting after Vaas was defeated—he should have been the ultimate antagonist. Still, it remained a solid game, though it seemed to lose its momentum midway through the narrative. I enjoyed the story until then. In Far Cry 4, I thought the ending twist about Kyrat being either a fundamentalist theocracy or a narcostate was quite funny.
It seems like a strange inquiry. It appears to be a well-received title that many appreciated. However, if you don’t find it enjoyable, then it won’t suit you. I had a decent experience with it, but I haven’t felt the need to play it again or any other Ubisoft titles since.
I first experienced Far Cry 3 when it came with blood dragon on my Xbox 360 with Live Gold. I enjoyed it a lot and followed the story. It had some rough areas but was entertaining. Later, I purchased the PC version and played it for a short time, mostly shooting guns and driving a jeep. It was enjoyable at first, though I haven't played it much now. The narrative wasn't particularly engaging.
Well, it worked out okay. The story was enough to keep you engaged and moving forward, which isn’t always the case with Farcry 4. Looking at the endings, the 3 ending feels more clear-cut, while in 4 it seems like you just avoided the main conflict. I’m pretty sure most folks enjoy these games more for the gameplay than anything else. It’s similar to how people play the first two level editors—focusing on the mechanics rather than the narrative. I really liked Instincts, since it was more about players’ curiosity and trying to uncover what was happening.