FC2
1) Weapon degradation & gun jamming
2) Non linear missions
3) More immersion
4) Better engine (better graphics, realistic fire, better enviroment, realistic time cycle, better physics, better weather)
5) Nice characters
6) Mute protagonist
7) Nice multiplayer and not forgettable like FC3 and FC4
8) Dedicated servers
9) Server Browser
10) Custom maps
11) Custom lobbies
12) No supernatural/non realistic crap like FC3/FC4
13) More challenging experience
14) Real time map
I've liked them all equally well, each for different reasons ... actually the same reasons the environment and game play.
I did not like the re-spawning guard posts of FC2, but that is probably the only real gripe I have about any of the 3 (or 4) FC games.
I probably go more for the tropics and jungle than the highlands, but I was surprised how much I liked the Kyrat environment. A pleasant surprise.
Dude, you saved me from saying all that. Got to say I would love to see FC2 redone with the positive elements of FC3 and FC4. Imagine being able to go on Safari in Africa to get pelts for crafting?Originally Posted by xRaDRoacHx Go to original post
+1Originally Posted by xRaDRoacHx Go to original post
Because of the addition of Outpost Master, Hostage Rescues, Fortresses etc., I would say FC4 was better. I thought the main missions superseded the ones in FC3 too.
The only aspects about FC4 I didn't like were the unrealistic Reggie and Yogi missions and the Shangri-la ones. Another slight gripe was that it was too easy to make money. I stopped fleecing dead enemies in the end.
FC2 has the most challenging and rewarding combat system though, despite it being the most annoying of the three. I had to play it twice to fully appreciate it. Is it a rough diamond? Well it's certainly rough but falls short of being a diamond due to various irritations. Definitely warrants a 8/10 as does FC3, with FC4 at the summit at 8.5/10.