Yes, many would prefer Far Cry remained a Crytek project.
Yes, many would prefer Far Cry remained a Crytek project.
Far Cry 3 wasn't catered to the drinking drug Party scene as much as you think. The game (according to some, and I hold the belief as well) is intentionally ridiculous. It's story is satirical of the typical male power fantasy. "Wooh I'm a rich party kid like I always wanted to be when I was younger! Oh cool, now I get to be the super bad ass hero and get all the chicks! Yes nailed that island princess lady!" As for it being a more mature title if it was on the PC, like the Witcher series, there's no basis for that. As much as we all like to think that the PC is somehow less dense with the annoying pot heads and wailing 13 year old's, it's not as true as we think. The Witcher series is more mature because CD Projekt RED is more mature, not because it's on PC. I've never really looked at Crytek as a "mature" company.
FC2 was one of the worst PoS I've ever encountered. Even after many years since its release, it still had a problem where you couldn't leave the initial area where you regain awareness. And why should you be so concerned about maturity levels? Far Cry 3 offered solid gameplay; if the immature story somehow damaged what was otherwise decent, I don’t see much chance for you. And are you suggesting that Crysis was mature? It was...for the first half, then it switched to ALIENS and became completely immature.
It was a disaster watching Crysis fall apart; I’m grateful it didn’t linger with them. We wouldn’t have reached FC2, 3, or 4. I really value the FC games Ubisoft created—thankfully it wasn’t a mess like Crysis 2 was. Crytek lost sight of what made Crysis 1 special, focusing too much on linearity after introducing multiplatform support. Crysis 3 was decent, but still not the freedom we loved in the original.
Alien presence doesn't indicate the game is simplistic. It offers science fiction elements, yet the characters and environments are crafted to feel authentic and convincing. Ubisoft's Far Cry focuses on intensity and action.
Far Cry 2 had its strengths, while 3 and 4 leaned more toward intense action and explosions. Crysis 2 and 3 kept a compelling story going, though they might have benefited from an open world approach similar to Crysis 1. In 2015, it seemed feasible for open worlds to deliver rich narratives, but at the time, Crytek likely didn’t have the capability.
You're asking for more of what's in FC 2? That would have been so much better. I’d still choose Crysis 1 and the later FCs over what Crytek is now doing with games like Ryse and other low-quality titles. People need to grasp what we’re discussing. If I wanted something mature, I’d prefer watching a movie instead of spending time playing those repetitive, uninteresting games where there’s nothing to explore. I want freedom to explore things on my own, just like in F2/3/F4.