I played 4 and on. Went back to play 3 and I just couldn’t do it. The lag was unbearable. pulled me out of any sort of immersion. would love to have played it when it came out
For real. Each time Ubi has come out with a "next gen" version, I've bought it and installed it right away to see if this has been addressed at all.
Each time I've been predictably disappointed to find nothing has changed, whatsoever.
I have only played far cry instincs predator, far cry 3, and far cry 6 so far. And 3 takes the cake for me. I adore Dani Rojas. But something about the third game just feels so right!
I bought them all. I just have been out of the series for a while. Working on platinuming all the games eventually. About quarter way through 3. Then blood dragon and moving onto 4 and then primal.
Really interested in primal. But I just want to experience all of them. 6 might not have been the best. But it was enough to pique my interest to return to far cry.
Primal is probably my personal favorite actually. One of the things I really hated about 6 is the addition of 3rd person cut scenes. It may sound like a small thing to be mad about, but I felt like it really takes you out of the 1st person immersive experience that the rest of the games are so good at.
Agreed. The series peaked with 3. 5 is solid too but 3 was prime far cry. I played on pc, 360/ps3 were systems with limited hardware not sure how it is on there.
It wasn't bad on those systems from what I remember, the game had to be made around those constraints, the graphics were great at the time. I think the issues tend to pop up more on later consoles for whatever reason and the graphics show their age there.
Potentially controversial take but 6 has imo the best gunplay for sure, and the gameplay mechanics that are shared throughout the series are most refined there, as it's the newest title and devs have combined the best tweaks from each iteration into one cohesive gameplay experience.
- Controls are tight and responsive, and extremely customizable [esp compared to other titles in the series].
- Gunsmithing is the most comprehensive the series has ever seen.
- And controversial changes aside, with the right gear pieces it fulfills the one-person-army power fantasy all the games sell arguably better than the rest.
The story and characters receive the most hate [apart from the switch from skill tree to gear pieces granting unique abilities, but this is the very thing that maximizes the power fantasy aspect versus the others], so if you're not here for that at all, you should have a pretty good time.
4 is also an extremely solid choice; it's basically Far Cry 3.5, as most of the changes are simply tweaks to enhance end-user experience, but in making all those small changes Ubi Montreal [goated studio of the company for sure] managed to fix every single "yeah, but" complaint I had about 3.
*edits: formatting
For me it’s the animals. 4 just has more chaos going on with the rhinos and more animal spawns and I also found the AI to be a bit more fun with stealth. They felt slightly smarter but dumb in the right ways.
My vote is 4 but I can respect 6. It is stunning and the exploration is great.
And there are multiple guns that disprove this, even when used in the tutorial island.
The first enemies you actually fight in the game take a double tap to the dome with AP rounds in your first FAL before they drop.
Which is wild considering it's 7.62x51 NATO
Try it on guerilla difficulty in Esperanza with the FAL you receive during the intro/tutorial and get back to me.
Shit, that FAL firing AP rounds won't even one shot the unarmored grunts on the tutorial island in *action mode*. 3 or 4 full campaign replays prior to the addition of new game+ are backing me up on this.
Best gun play?
You can finish the damn game with a single weapon using an AP single shot. Horrible AI as well...
6 dropped the ball with the mechanics of the game. If I can't kill a coyote with a 50 cal something is seriously wrong...
You can finish all these games with only melee on the hardest difficulty in each (Hard/Infamous/Guerilla etc), aside from scripted encounters that make you use a weapon. 2 or 4 is probably the hardest of the modern ones, 5 is far and away the easiest due to the cheesy attack helicopters that the AI are too stupid to deal with (6 rectified this). 6 is somewhere in the middle.
You complain about AP headshots making the game too easy (they actually won’t one hit kill enemies higher level than you very reliably, so if you want a “challenge” just go explore the higher level areas early), and then complain that you can’t one shot a coyote (skill issue, use soft target and headshot). Is it too easy or too hard?
The mechanics are stupid. An AP should kill \*anything\* no matter where it is shot (it doesn't). It'll blast through a helmet but not a shirt? That's plain stupid. Having "soft target" rounds is a horrible idea. If an AP is already equipped, why the need to change to kill a damn coyote? If a 50 cal regular bullet can't kill a coyote no matter where it's shot (body or head) what's the point of having a 50 cal at all? If an AP round can blow the helmet and head off a soldier but can't kill an animal, it's a stupid game design.
The mechanics (micro management of bullets etc) is/are a stupid idea.
And to answer your question, shooting a coyote is neither easy or hard. It's broken.
You don’t understand how bullets work RL and what the system was sort of going for, but that’s fine. It’s not that well communicated.
No, AP actually does less damage to flesh than something like a hollow point or soft point, generally speaking. You get a clean hole the same size as the projectile that passes straight though, wasting most of its energy, instead of a let’s say a .30 caliber mushrooming and expanding to something like .75in, dumping every single ft lb and then stopping somewhere just past the heart or lungs.
It’s actually completely illegal to hunt deer sized or greater animals with AP/FMJ type steel/tungsten cores bullets in most places, since there is a very high risk of simply wounding the animal, it running away and causing it to die a long suffering death days or weeks later, rather than getting the immediate and clean kills a softer ammo type is far more likely to inflict.
Conversely, you wouldn’t want to try and use the hunting type soft/hollow points against armor plates, since the soft lead it will simply flatten against the much harder ceramic/metal and either bounce off or disintergrate. You might knock the guy on his ass but he will be simply bruised under the plate, not bleeding out with his buddy also out of the gunfight having to provide first aid (which is ideal for militaries).
So that part of the ammo system is perfectly acceptable to me. AP for armored troops, soft target (soft points) for hunting or weaker unarmored enemies (though you can still use them even on heavies if you aim at neck, armpit etc). If you just want it arcade style like previous games, where a shitty and weak tec 9 “signature” pistol somehow does more damage than any number of full rifle power assault and battle rifles in the same games, I suppose that’s a viable opinion, but I enjoy the extra complexity of 6’s gunplay enough. Smart players have more options and get rewarded, lazy ones sometimes get punished.
Some people like Call of Duty and some like Tarkov (another game with much more in depth ammo mechanics than FC6’s still rather simple system). It’s preference not “bad” design.
Lol you don't know how bullets work at all
A bullet simply entering someone's body isn't a guaranteed kill. People survive being shot all the fucking time.
The key is creating more trauma than the body [and medical intervention] is able to overcome. One of the best irl ways to increase the lethality of a single round is by designing it to create jagged, unpredictable wound channels which will be more difficult to heal/repair.
AP rounds are made of hardened materials that won't fragment or deform when they enter an unarmored body, and tend to take a straighter, clear path through whatever they hit on the inside. Very little tumbling, and likely no deformation. [it fragmentation, which will be discussed below]
Soft-target rounds are designed to deform on impact, causing them to tumble as they rip through the body. This tumbling creates wound channels that are not only jagged and unpredictable, as highlighted above, they are also likely to be larger than the entry wound.
More damage equals greater lethality.
Furthermore, some rounds are even designed to deform *and then fragment* on impact, meaning that the projectile breaks into multiple jagged projectiles that will now tumble unpredictably through the body of the target, multiplying the internal damage by creating multiple wound channels with a single hit.
*That* is why soft-target rounds are more effective against unarmored targets.
Both in real life, and in Far Cry 6.
>The mechanics (micro management of bullets etc) is/are *much more realistic than just having one type of rounds that's the best for every scenario*
- FTFY
What a long winded reply that you have absolutely idea what you're talking about. You can spin it any way you want, but a 50 cal bullet is going to destroy anything it hits. Ever fired one? I have. Ever been hunting? I have. I'm fully aware of how bullets work in real life...
When all else fails, hand wave the entire *factual* argument against yours and make a claim of expertise that completely sidesteps everything that they actually said
You didn't counter any of my points imagine that.
Spin away...
Again, you \*have not\* answered my questions. That's weak. Have you ever shot a 50 cal weapon? Have you seen the damage it does?
There is nothing "factual" about your argument. You're spinning words because you have no rebuttal to the fact that \*any\* type of 50 cal bullet is going to destroy an animal and Far Cry 6 gets it wrong.
I'm out. Talking with know-it-alls like yourself with absolutely nothing to back it up is exhausting.
This guy gets it. The balancing is all wrong in 6. Why can I sit there torching a guy with a flamethrower for like 10 minutes before he finally falls over to his death?
Also the supremo is absolutely the dumbest thing ever added to a video game. Something you start the game with and all you have to do is press a button to fire a barrage of homing missiles that destroy everything on your screen…. LOL WHAT?
It actually *does* have the buzzsaw, except it's customizable. There's even an overclocked version [special version with enhanced perks [which you can also customize].
It may not have the Bushman, but there are 2 different fully-customizable AR-15s [one regular, one overclocked], and you can put lasers and canted backup sights on them [either irons or red dot], in addition to choosing your own preferred optic setup from a much wider array of options.
And you can run either one in semi-auto if you're feeling extra tactical.
And no AMR, sure, but the SA50 is back. Only now, you can load it with explosive rounds anytime you like.
Or some other ordinance, if you don't want to make your enemies feel [and perhaps more crucially *hear* the boom]
Yeah I'm mostly just being nostalgic lol. FC6 did have a great variety of weapons to choose from and the overclock feature was cool.
The PPSH was great.
Far Cry 4 *is* a blast, and all those weapons you named *are* very fun to use! The nostalgia is justified!
But oof, that Bushman was *not* fun to unlock... If somebody offered me the choice between reaching rank 10 in arena all over again and taking Noore's way out?
Let's just say the tigers and bears would be well fed for a day, but possibly gassy the rest of the week due to ginger disagreeing with them.
Basically it can be played as you choose. You can go full Rambo, or full Sam Fisher.
2/3/4 were fun. 4 has a feature called the arena which is amazing and needs to be recreated as a stand alone.
5 has an “arcade”/level builder capability that can use Ubisoft artifacts from other games. People have made some amazing levels/game modes
I’d say 3 was the moment things got more popular.
After FC2, things got more commercialized and playability factor played in with some humor added to it and, imho, less difficulty.
FC2 was the launch of the game but, then devs seem to wanna cater to more crowds. Makes sense. The game is still amazing and they keep adding and removing features here and there. But FC6 doesn’t have so much hallucinations and shit that I saw in FC3, which is exciting to see.
I just started Far Cry myself. 3 is on my all time list with Red Dead Redemption, Fallout New Vegas, Skyrim and COD MW 2.
Playing Far Cry 4 now. Not nearly ad good IMO.
Friend says 2 is the best, that one is next for me.
4, 5, 3, 6 in that order for me. 3 did it first but 4 and 5 did it better and have much better antagonists (though I'd argue Pagan isn't any worse or better than the Golden Path siblings)
There won’t be a definitive answer since people have different tastes. IMO, the most well rounded experience is 4, then 3 or 5, depending on what you like. They all have good stories, memorable characters, decent open world when it comes to activities, upgrade system and so on.
I loved 1 and 2 but they differ from one another and the rest of the games, also not available on ps4 and 5 (sadly).
New dawn and 6 aren’t bad games but they feel like the 2 weakest far cry games to me due to poor game design decisions like bullet sponge enemies, worse upgrade system that isn’t as flexible as it was before, cringy characters and art style, gear etc.
If you need cutting edge graphics play 6 or 5.
If you want the best overall experience Play 4.
3 and 4 are similar but 4 feels sleeker.
Also try to see as much of the story as you can and read the journals. Don’t have a trigger finger if you get the hint. Also DO NOT feel compelled to do all the side shit if you do FC4, you will burn yourself out.
If after playing one you love the bow, stealth, and wildlife, try Primal Survival mode.
Probably 4. It was a direct improvement on the foundation 3 created, and addressed a lot of that game’s shortcomings. Subsequent releases either screwed up/removed mechanics that didn’t need to be, or tried a bunch of new things with varying results, often messing up in the process.
3 and 4 are clsssics but theres a large jump in mechanics between 4 and 5. If you want to play with npc companions id start with 5. 4 started to incorporate a guns for hire but it was a rough draft. 5 is much more fleshed out and easier to use. 5 has real people with personalities and 4 has no name fill ins. 6 has just animal companions. I personally love 5 bc of the companions. Running around hope county with adeliade or sharky or hurk or grace can be hilarious and fun. And peaches can rip anyones throat out.
If you're playing it only for fun/gameplay/gunplay, FC 2 is the place to start. There is a modded "modernized" version available at nexusmods but obviously you can't run that on a PS5 so I don't know if it's going to look nice like the mod does...
Gameplay wise, maybe 5. I'm not so sure which one I consider the best but I had alot of fun with 5. They also have an arcade mode where people can make custom levels and the like. Lots of content in 5 so id probably recommend that.
You've gotten plenty of opinions on mechanics and where to start. I just wanted to offer my opinion on how it doesn't matter where you start.
My roommate played far cry 4 so much that it killed the game for me and I never even wanted to try it. That was in 2015 or so. Fast forward to 2023 and I'm trying FC5 on game pass. I was instantly hooked. After I was done 5, I bought new Dawn. I finished new Dawn quickly, and then played 6. I've now gone back and played 4 for the first time, I actually beat it last night. Next is Primal, and then I may give 3 a shot while I'm at it.
My point is, is that it is a master class of a game series and every game has its own intricacies and reasons to love it. None of the games have made me want to put down the controller and stop playing far cry.
4 is the best, and if you can get friends to play with you they have a team death match game within it and it’s totally fucking awesome with different objectives and abilities
You're going to get different comments. I love the entire series. I agree 3 was groundbreaking, but I think 4 is superior. I LOVE the 5 story--as an american and with our current social climate that is such a scary realistic option. 6 is pretty good. In order for ME it's 4,5,3,6,New Dawn,2,1.
I think 5 is the most convenient if you can call it, with a lot of options you can travel the world, the fast travel system, the people that helps you in fight.
overall 4 is my fav, but i didnt play 1-3 yet.
I thought far cry 4 or 3 were excellent. Far cry 5 is also good but derivative. Far cry 6 is just fucked up. It don't matter which gun you have, if you don't have the right ammunition. You may as well be using a water pistol.
Probably 5 in my opinion. They all suffer from similar ailments from 3 onwards. Some weapons are so OP you feel bad using them, to others just not working how you feel they should. It’s either ammo type or it’s the weapon itself. Honestly the takedown skills are the funnest to learn, but I’ve had issues getting them to work in 3. I would say 4 does it pretty well along with 5. 3 it sometimes is a little too choppy gameplay to make it fun, and 6 requires a lot of work and or inside knowledge to get to something you want to do like that.
Ive played 2, and got the platinum for 3, Blood Dragon, 4, Primal, and 5. What I mean is that I have played a lot of Far Cry over the years.
That said, I had the most fun with Blood Dragon. That's not a mainline game in the franchise, though. For mainline games, in regards to your question, you really can't go wrong with 5. Far Cry games are mostly the same, and Im okay with that. Aside from the unusual way that the AI works in 5 at times, the gameplay and mechanics feel the most polished. 4 is a VERY close second. However. What makes 5 better, I believe, are the variety of vehicles. From the land, to the sea, to the air. There's just more. Correct me if I'm wrong, but 4 doesn't have animal companions either. I loved having a pet cougar running around everywhere with me. So, mechanics wise, 4 and 5 are damn near the same. Gameplay, much as I loved 4, 5 is just an overall improvement.
You gotta try 2 when you get a chance, though.
Edit: Stay away from 6.
Honestly? I don't think it matters (as long as you don't start with the first two). I started with 5. Most start with 3. Some with 4 or 6. Each game is pretty unique. But if you wanna be basic start with 3. On second thought, I wouldn't play things like New Dawn (it's a sequel to 5) or Blood Dragon to start.
Far Cry 3 is the blueprint for all following games in terms of gameplay, I'd start there.
3 may be the blueprint, but at least on console the aging, laggy, poorly optimized controls guarantee that it is **not** the best gameplay.
I played 4 and on. Went back to play 3 and I just couldn’t do it. The lag was unbearable. pulled me out of any sort of immersion. would love to have played it when it came out
For real. Each time Ubi has come out with a "next gen" version, I've bought it and installed it right away to see if this has been addressed at all. Each time I've been predictably disappointed to find nothing has changed, whatsoever.
To be fair, they are advertising it as "classic". Not remastered or anything that implies improvement.
4 is a better experience now
Do you mean 3? Because I never said 4 was lacking
I meant it more as an agreeement with you but I get it didn’t sound that way
Also, are you playing it on console or PC?
FC4 is my all-time favorite game of the franchise. It has pretty much all the good aspects of Far Cry 3 plus much more.
100%
I have only played far cry instincs predator, far cry 3, and far cry 6 so far. And 3 takes the cake for me. I adore Dani Rojas. But something about the third game just feels so right!
You skipped the best ones. 6 is by far the worst of the series. It shouldn’t even be considered a Far cry game IMO.
I bought them all. I just have been out of the series for a while. Working on platinuming all the games eventually. About quarter way through 3. Then blood dragon and moving onto 4 and then primal.
This is the way.
Really interested in primal. But I just want to experience all of them. 6 might not have been the best. But it was enough to pique my interest to return to far cry.
Primal is probably my personal favorite actually. One of the things I really hated about 6 is the addition of 3rd person cut scenes. It may sound like a small thing to be mad about, but I felt like it really takes you out of the 1st person immersive experience that the rest of the games are so good at.
6 is better than 5.
Lol... no. No it is not.
Agreed. The series peaked with 3. 5 is solid too but 3 was prime far cry. I played on pc, 360/ps3 were systems with limited hardware not sure how it is on there.
It wasn't bad on those systems from what I remember, the game had to be made around those constraints, the graphics were great at the time. I think the issues tend to pop up more on later consoles for whatever reason and the graphics show their age there.
Potentially controversial take but 6 has imo the best gunplay for sure, and the gameplay mechanics that are shared throughout the series are most refined there, as it's the newest title and devs have combined the best tweaks from each iteration into one cohesive gameplay experience. - Controls are tight and responsive, and extremely customizable [esp compared to other titles in the series]. - Gunsmithing is the most comprehensive the series has ever seen. - And controversial changes aside, with the right gear pieces it fulfills the one-person-army power fantasy all the games sell arguably better than the rest. The story and characters receive the most hate [apart from the switch from skill tree to gear pieces granting unique abilities, but this is the very thing that maximizes the power fantasy aspect versus the others], so if you're not here for that at all, you should have a pretty good time. 4 is also an extremely solid choice; it's basically Far Cry 3.5, as most of the changes are simply tweaks to enhance end-user experience, but in making all those small changes Ubi Montreal [goated studio of the company for sure] managed to fix every single "yeah, but" complaint I had about 3. *edits: formatting
For me it’s the animals. 4 just has more chaos going on with the rhinos and more animal spawns and I also found the AI to be a bit more fun with stealth. They felt slightly smarter but dumb in the right ways. My vote is 4 but I can respect 6. It is stunning and the exploration is great.
I agree with this take 100%
nah 6 is too easy, AP ammo = one-shot kill every enemy in the game
With the right weapon and all headshots on story mode, sure. Not my in-game experience, whatsoever.
What the hell does that even mean? \*Any\* weapon with a single shot AP round kills.
To the head.....so like real life ...
And there are multiple guns that disprove this, even when used in the tutorial island. The first enemies you actually fight in the game take a double tap to the dome with AP rounds in your first FAL before they drop. Which is wild considering it's 7.62x51 NATO
Try it on guerilla difficulty in Esperanza with the FAL you receive during the intro/tutorial and get back to me. Shit, that FAL firing AP rounds won't even one shot the unarmored grunts on the tutorial island in *action mode*. 3 or 4 full campaign replays prior to the addition of new game+ are backing me up on this.
Best gun play? You can finish the damn game with a single weapon using an AP single shot. Horrible AI as well... 6 dropped the ball with the mechanics of the game. If I can't kill a coyote with a 50 cal something is seriously wrong...
You can finish all these games with only melee on the hardest difficulty in each (Hard/Infamous/Guerilla etc), aside from scripted encounters that make you use a weapon. 2 or 4 is probably the hardest of the modern ones, 5 is far and away the easiest due to the cheesy attack helicopters that the AI are too stupid to deal with (6 rectified this). 6 is somewhere in the middle. You complain about AP headshots making the game too easy (they actually won’t one hit kill enemies higher level than you very reliably, so if you want a “challenge” just go explore the higher level areas early), and then complain that you can’t one shot a coyote (skill issue, use soft target and headshot). Is it too easy or too hard?
The mechanics are stupid. An AP should kill \*anything\* no matter where it is shot (it doesn't). It'll blast through a helmet but not a shirt? That's plain stupid. Having "soft target" rounds is a horrible idea. If an AP is already equipped, why the need to change to kill a damn coyote? If a 50 cal regular bullet can't kill a coyote no matter where it's shot (body or head) what's the point of having a 50 cal at all? If an AP round can blow the helmet and head off a soldier but can't kill an animal, it's a stupid game design. The mechanics (micro management of bullets etc) is/are a stupid idea. And to answer your question, shooting a coyote is neither easy or hard. It's broken.
You don’t understand how bullets work RL and what the system was sort of going for, but that’s fine. It’s not that well communicated. No, AP actually does less damage to flesh than something like a hollow point or soft point, generally speaking. You get a clean hole the same size as the projectile that passes straight though, wasting most of its energy, instead of a let’s say a .30 caliber mushrooming and expanding to something like .75in, dumping every single ft lb and then stopping somewhere just past the heart or lungs. It’s actually completely illegal to hunt deer sized or greater animals with AP/FMJ type steel/tungsten cores bullets in most places, since there is a very high risk of simply wounding the animal, it running away and causing it to die a long suffering death days or weeks later, rather than getting the immediate and clean kills a softer ammo type is far more likely to inflict. Conversely, you wouldn’t want to try and use the hunting type soft/hollow points against armor plates, since the soft lead it will simply flatten against the much harder ceramic/metal and either bounce off or disintergrate. You might knock the guy on his ass but he will be simply bruised under the plate, not bleeding out with his buddy also out of the gunfight having to provide first aid (which is ideal for militaries). So that part of the ammo system is perfectly acceptable to me. AP for armored troops, soft target (soft points) for hunting or weaker unarmored enemies (though you can still use them even on heavies if you aim at neck, armpit etc). If you just want it arcade style like previous games, where a shitty and weak tec 9 “signature” pistol somehow does more damage than any number of full rifle power assault and battle rifles in the same games, I suppose that’s a viable opinion, but I enjoy the extra complexity of 6’s gunplay enough. Smart players have more options and get rewarded, lazy ones sometimes get punished. Some people like Call of Duty and some like Tarkov (another game with much more in depth ammo mechanics than FC6’s still rather simple system). It’s preference not “bad” design.
Beautifully [and accurately] stated.
Lol you don't know how bullets work at all A bullet simply entering someone's body isn't a guaranteed kill. People survive being shot all the fucking time. The key is creating more trauma than the body [and medical intervention] is able to overcome. One of the best irl ways to increase the lethality of a single round is by designing it to create jagged, unpredictable wound channels which will be more difficult to heal/repair. AP rounds are made of hardened materials that won't fragment or deform when they enter an unarmored body, and tend to take a straighter, clear path through whatever they hit on the inside. Very little tumbling, and likely no deformation. [it fragmentation, which will be discussed below] Soft-target rounds are designed to deform on impact, causing them to tumble as they rip through the body. This tumbling creates wound channels that are not only jagged and unpredictable, as highlighted above, they are also likely to be larger than the entry wound. More damage equals greater lethality. Furthermore, some rounds are even designed to deform *and then fragment* on impact, meaning that the projectile breaks into multiple jagged projectiles that will now tumble unpredictably through the body of the target, multiplying the internal damage by creating multiple wound channels with a single hit. *That* is why soft-target rounds are more effective against unarmored targets. Both in real life, and in Far Cry 6. >The mechanics (micro management of bullets etc) is/are *much more realistic than just having one type of rounds that's the best for every scenario* - FTFY
What a long winded reply that you have absolutely idea what you're talking about. You can spin it any way you want, but a 50 cal bullet is going to destroy anything it hits. Ever fired one? I have. Ever been hunting? I have. I'm fully aware of how bullets work in real life...
Yes, I *do* have absolutely idea what I'm talking about. On that we agree. You, however...
When all else fails, use spelling errors to try to make a point. You didn't answer the questions. Imagine that. Spin away...
When all else fails, hand wave the entire *factual* argument against yours and make a claim of expertise that completely sidesteps everything that they actually said You didn't counter any of my points imagine that. Spin away...
Again, you \*have not\* answered my questions. That's weak. Have you ever shot a 50 cal weapon? Have you seen the damage it does? There is nothing "factual" about your argument. You're spinning words because you have no rebuttal to the fact that \*any\* type of 50 cal bullet is going to destroy an animal and Far Cry 6 gets it wrong. I'm out. Talking with know-it-alls like yourself with absolutely nothing to back it up is exhausting.
This guy gets it. The balancing is all wrong in 6. Why can I sit there torching a guy with a flamethrower for like 10 minutes before he finally falls over to his death? Also the supremo is absolutely the dumbest thing ever added to a video game. Something you start the game with and all you have to do is press a button to fire a barrage of homing missiles that destroy everything on your screen…. LOL WHAT?
I can finish it without firing a shot, apart from what's scripted. How is that an argument for or against?
Perhaps you're right, but Far Cry 6 doesn't have the Bushman, Buzzsaw or AMR 👀
It actually *does* have the buzzsaw, except it's customizable. There's even an overclocked version [special version with enhanced perks [which you can also customize]. It may not have the Bushman, but there are 2 different fully-customizable AR-15s [one regular, one overclocked], and you can put lasers and canted backup sights on them [either irons or red dot], in addition to choosing your own preferred optic setup from a much wider array of options. And you can run either one in semi-auto if you're feeling extra tactical. And no AMR, sure, but the SA50 is back. Only now, you can load it with explosive rounds anytime you like. Or some other ordinance, if you don't want to make your enemies feel [and perhaps more crucially *hear* the boom]
Yeah I'm mostly just being nostalgic lol. FC6 did have a great variety of weapons to choose from and the overclock feature was cool. The PPSH was great.
Far Cry 4 *is* a blast, and all those weapons you named *are* very fun to use! The nostalgia is justified! But oof, that Bushman was *not* fun to unlock... If somebody offered me the choice between reaching rank 10 in arena all over again and taking Noore's way out? Let's just say the tigers and bears would be well fed for a day, but possibly gassy the rest of the week due to ginger disagreeing with them.
primal is goated but has mixed opinions (you should try it) 6 is good just good 5 is best imo but between 5,4,3 those are the best options
Why exclude primal ?
they are probably looking for a more modern setting
Just what thr guy below me said. If I want something like Primal, I just play Primal, since there is no comparable Far Cry game
Basically it can be played as you choose. You can go full Rambo, or full Sam Fisher. 2/3/4 were fun. 4 has a feature called the arena which is amazing and needs to be recreated as a stand alone. 5 has an “arcade”/level builder capability that can use Ubisoft artifacts from other games. People have made some amazing levels/game modes
I recently started 6 and I think it is the best entry gameplay wise
start with 3 then move forward
I’d say 3 was the moment things got more popular. After FC2, things got more commercialized and playability factor played in with some humor added to it and, imho, less difficulty. FC2 was the launch of the game but, then devs seem to wanna cater to more crowds. Makes sense. The game is still amazing and they keep adding and removing features here and there. But FC6 doesn’t have so much hallucinations and shit that I saw in FC3, which is exciting to see.
I just started Far Cry myself. 3 is on my all time list with Red Dead Redemption, Fallout New Vegas, Skyrim and COD MW 2. Playing Far Cry 4 now. Not nearly ad good IMO. Friend says 2 is the best, that one is next for me.
5 by far
Farcry 5 is the beat mechanics/gameplay wise. It also has the best villains
Best music too
None of that Peggy shit tho
PEG shit is the only video game music I listen to unironically.
I think farcry 3 has the best music
Falling into a dream and further are peak
I started with fc6, non of the rest have been as good as that one
You're just being silly, right?
FC2 is the most realistic
It’s 5.
4, 5, 3, 6 in that order for me. 3 did it first but 4 and 5 did it better and have much better antagonists (though I'd argue Pagan isn't any worse or better than the Golden Path siblings)
Pagan is awful compared to vaas 🤦🏼♂️
Jason was also a more compelling MC imo, Ajay was basically silent outside of a few scenes from what I remember
There won’t be a definitive answer since people have different tastes. IMO, the most well rounded experience is 4, then 3 or 5, depending on what you like. They all have good stories, memorable characters, decent open world when it comes to activities, upgrade system and so on. I loved 1 and 2 but they differ from one another and the rest of the games, also not available on ps4 and 5 (sadly). New dawn and 6 aren’t bad games but they feel like the 2 weakest far cry games to me due to poor game design decisions like bullet sponge enemies, worse upgrade system that isn’t as flexible as it was before, cringy characters and art style, gear etc.
If you need cutting edge graphics play 6 or 5. If you want the best overall experience Play 4. 3 and 4 are similar but 4 feels sleeker. Also try to see as much of the story as you can and read the journals. Don’t have a trigger finger if you get the hint. Also DO NOT feel compelled to do all the side shit if you do FC4, you will burn yourself out. If after playing one you love the bow, stealth, and wildlife, try Primal Survival mode.
Probably 4. It was a direct improvement on the foundation 3 created, and addressed a lot of that game’s shortcomings. Subsequent releases either screwed up/removed mechanics that didn’t need to be, or tried a bunch of new things with varying results, often messing up in the process.
You didn't read the post.
Oh I did, but I’d still strongly recommend they get 4 if they want the best one mechanics-wise.
3 and 4 are clsssics but theres a large jump in mechanics between 4 and 5. If you want to play with npc companions id start with 5. 4 started to incorporate a guns for hire but it was a rough draft. 5 is much more fleshed out and easier to use. 5 has real people with personalities and 4 has no name fill ins. 6 has just animal companions. I personally love 5 bc of the companions. Running around hope county with adeliade or sharky or hurk or grace can be hilarious and fun. And peaches can rip anyones throat out.
I have played every Far Cry with the exceptions of 1 and 4. OP, play either 5 or 6. Flip a coin. Both have very good gameplay.
If you're playing it only for fun/gameplay/gunplay, FC 2 is the place to start. There is a modded "modernized" version available at nexusmods but obviously you can't run that on a PS5 so I don't know if it's going to look nice like the mod does...
Gameplay wise, maybe 5. I'm not so sure which one I consider the best but I had alot of fun with 5. They also have an arcade mode where people can make custom levels and the like. Lots of content in 5 so id probably recommend that.
3 and 5 are top. 3 is the best intro to the series. 4 is great, but not as good as 5. 6 is fun, but its missing something compared to the previous
You've gotten plenty of opinions on mechanics and where to start. I just wanted to offer my opinion on how it doesn't matter where you start. My roommate played far cry 4 so much that it killed the game for me and I never even wanted to try it. That was in 2015 or so. Fast forward to 2023 and I'm trying FC5 on game pass. I was instantly hooked. After I was done 5, I bought new Dawn. I finished new Dawn quickly, and then played 6. I've now gone back and played 4 for the first time, I actually beat it last night. Next is Primal, and then I may give 3 a shot while I'm at it. My point is, is that it is a master class of a game series and every game has its own intricacies and reasons to love it. None of the games have made me want to put down the controller and stop playing far cry.
FC4 is probably the most solid one out there.
4 is the best, and if you can get friends to play with you they have a team death match game within it and it’s totally fucking awesome with different objectives and abilities
I actually liked 5 and New dawn alot. Prior to that my favorite was probably 2 or Blood Dragon.
Far cry 3 for true far cry feeling Far cry 5 is a close second with more features
3 and 6 3 is the baseline 6 is more the best refine in gameplay and what not
You're going to get different comments. I love the entire series. I agree 3 was groundbreaking, but I think 4 is superior. I LOVE the 5 story--as an american and with our current social climate that is such a scary realistic option. 6 is pretty good. In order for ME it's 4,5,3,6,New Dawn,2,1.
5 is my favourite
FC5 just barely over 4, then New Dawn, there’s nothing after 5, don’t ask about it.
5 is SO fun!!
My first experience was FarCry 5. I still play it all the time. Would like to try 3. I couldn’t get into 4 for some reason.
4 or 5.
Far Cry 2, multiplayer sniper servers!
I think 5 is the most convenient if you can call it, with a lot of options you can travel the world, the fast travel system, the people that helps you in fight. overall 4 is my fav, but i didnt play 1-3 yet.
3 if you deal with slight jank. 4 is not.
I thought far cry 4 or 3 were excellent. Far cry 5 is also good but derivative. Far cry 6 is just fucked up. It don't matter which gun you have, if you don't have the right ammunition. You may as well be using a water pistol.
Probably 5 in my opinion. They all suffer from similar ailments from 3 onwards. Some weapons are so OP you feel bad using them, to others just not working how you feel they should. It’s either ammo type or it’s the weapon itself. Honestly the takedown skills are the funnest to learn, but I’ve had issues getting them to work in 3. I would say 4 does it pretty well along with 5. 3 it sometimes is a little too choppy gameplay to make it fun, and 6 requires a lot of work and or inside knowledge to get to something you want to do like that.
Ive played 2, and got the platinum for 3, Blood Dragon, 4, Primal, and 5. What I mean is that I have played a lot of Far Cry over the years. That said, I had the most fun with Blood Dragon. That's not a mainline game in the franchise, though. For mainline games, in regards to your question, you really can't go wrong with 5. Far Cry games are mostly the same, and Im okay with that. Aside from the unusual way that the AI works in 5 at times, the gameplay and mechanics feel the most polished. 4 is a VERY close second. However. What makes 5 better, I believe, are the variety of vehicles. From the land, to the sea, to the air. There's just more. Correct me if I'm wrong, but 4 doesn't have animal companions either. I loved having a pet cougar running around everywhere with me. So, mechanics wise, 4 and 5 are damn near the same. Gameplay, much as I loved 4, 5 is just an overall improvement. You gotta try 2 when you get a chance, though. Edit: Stay away from 6.
Honestly? I don't think it matters (as long as you don't start with the first two). I started with 5. Most start with 3. Some with 4 or 6. Each game is pretty unique. But if you wanna be basic start with 3. On second thought, I wouldn't play things like New Dawn (it's a sequel to 5) or Blood Dragon to start.
5 for sure
4 and 5 4 is more intense and challenging in a fun way 5's gameplay and storyline are the best in the series
Probably 3 or 5 if you are looking for a great story and game then 3 if just gameplay then 5