@rigged_sosboy The series is ruined? Sounds like you're upset over spilled milk. I can see two reasons why there are no dropped enemy weapons. One, they want us to explore the world and obtain their guns by other methods like shops or exploring than simply killing enemies. Two, when you already have better weapons, what's the point of picking up these weapons? We can already gather ammo from dead bodies, and it does get annoying when I pickup a dead cultist's AR-C and drop my own gun with attachments and weapon skin.

As for no looting animations, no it is not a lazy implementation. It's simply faster to auto loot than look at a body and press a button for every single body. I can see why, because looting animations is time consuming and I think the game developers would rather focus on combat than waste time watching the same animations over and over again.

@cgeist762 Yeah and I'm enjoying Far Cry 6 a lot. What's funny is that other game developers and gamers who learn how to appreciate actually love these games. The amount of bandwagon hate and with unjustified extremely unrealistic expectations is so asinine and ridiculous, people like you are getting worse and worse. Gamers were awful 10 to 15 years ago, but gamers these days are so repugnant... it's disgusting. I used to be like you when I was younger, but as I got older I start to appreciate things more. I didn't continue to hate games, and if there's a game I don't really like... I don't warn people. It's much better to form your own opinion through your own experiences than rely on someone else's opinion. So if someone likes this game, don't warn them. Let them form their own opinion. If they don't like it, so what. Let them dislike it. If they like the game, stop trying to influence them to dislike it.

Comparing Far Cry 6 to Colonial Marines is simply absurd. That's all I have to say.

@unhappylawbro Seriously man, go back to FC 3 or 4 and do a test. Using basic weapons, you kill high level enemies such as those heavy machine gun dudes just as quickly as in FC 6. I still remeber emptying most of a mag of an SMG on a single enemy in FC3 at least. I’m sorry but I fail to understand what exactly you are hoping for here. A realistic shooter? When has this series EVER been realistic? FC has never been and will never be a mil-sim or anything similar. It will always be an archady wacky fantasy that aims at a certain portion of the market.

And most importantly, I do not agree with any remark that defines this direction as “ruining the series”. For me personally, I can enjoy Takov, Squad, and FC at the same time, almost equally.

Far Cry's attempt on realism is the game Far Cry 2, but people found jamming weapons that break, malaria sickness and constantly repairing vehicles to be annoying. So Ubisoft addressed all of the problems Far Cry 2 had and made Far Cry 3 fun.

As soon as the the intro video finished and you can control your character for the very first time I was completely stuck. Couldnt move. I had to reload save for it to work. Others experienced same issue as well and posted in player support section. So I was experiencing terrible bugs directly from the start. Which immediately brought down the experience. The amount of bugs that I encountered going forward in game was just bad.

What are your specs?

The game's world feels so empty. There is absolutely no life in it. NPC's that are in the world make it feel worse. Seeing someone spray paint the same thing on the same wall over and over again is pretty sad. Thats just one example. You know, RDR2 you can actually see life in cities and when they are building something those structures actually get built. Not sure why ubisoft continues to make such crap open worlds void of life. There is always just you, your allies and the enemy in the world.Thats it. And some random animals that were pointless to kill. Oh, and whats with all the damn pointless fishing spots? Is this bass masters game or fishing simulator?

Entirely subjective. Animals are not exactly 'random' when they are located in specific habitats. Fishing was introduced in Far Cry 5, and it's no surprise it came back for the sequel. How is this a valid complaint? Fishing is simply another activity the player can do, but they don't have to do them.

The graphics were ok but things at a distance look terrible. Especially the amount of pop ins and draw distance was garbage. Parts of the map where you are in deep parts of the jungle game looks great but once you out in the open with things being further in distance the experience goes out the window. I also find that AMD sponsored titles such as this have terrible AA. I really do not like the cheap tools AMD offers devs as it makes the quality of game poor. AMD should stop with these open source poor man method of tools. It really makes the games look bad.

Exactly what are your specs? When I ran Far Cry 6 on my 3090 with the HD Pack installed, I don't recall pop ins or draw distance problems. I seriously don't recall.

Gameplay was fine and that really hasnt changed much at all in the series. New game, different weapons, but same feel. Character customization was bad though. A lot of the gear and I mean a lot were totally useless. Could of done a much better job there. The supremo was a bad change and def could of done without. I didnt like it at all. There was no balance there either as you had super weapons but enemy had basic things. Same thing with resolvers. Way OP when other things like GL and pipe bombs got nerfed. Im sorry but a rocket should bring down a heli in a shot or 2. You shouldnt need add ons to take them down easier. Pointless upgrade system.

Again, entirely subjective. Honestly I had no problems taking down helicopters in this game even without the backpack.

The spawn system was terrible. I was inside a restricted zone and was inside a building. It was empty. I jumped out a window but than immediately turned around to jump back in and than there was a whole army inside that just popped in. There is also a huge thread on this as well. Very poorly done.

Where was this? The only spawning issue I experienced is that one island during a mission. Everywhere else, I had no issues.

The insurgency mode to me is pointless. I already captured bases, checkpoints, destroyed AA, and acquired plenty of pointless gear. Why would I want to take them over and over again for more pointless gear? The add ons were meh and I can see why they were free. Nothing much going on inside their heads at all. I liked the missions with Trejo, Rambo, and stranger things way more. Those were actually good and was were the game actually felt fun to play.

Then don't? Insurgency is just post game content if you have any desire to complete. Sure they can be pointless to you, but I can't see how is a genuine complaint?

The story overall was ok. Nothing special and seems Ubisoft took a generic safe dicatator plot approach. Towards the end where you need to meet Juan it gave a warning about continuing the story as your actions would effect the outcome. However, you made no decisions at all and story just continued without your input. So there was only one ending. Pointless to even have a warning than. Plus, Juan is a terrible person and without spoiling anything story related you couldnt have a choice to do anything about his actions. Or why he was still able to do what he did. Really dumb.

If anything, it's more like reminding the player that the end is about to come. Far Cry 3 did this even if that game had two different endings. The warning is about story consequences, not necessarily a player decision. Other games made by other game developers did this too, and even they don't have any decisions for the player. They're not made by Ubisoft and they would do the same thing.

Felt like it was not a AAA game. Well, lets be honest. It wasnt. Ubisoft has not evolved anything for the better in the series and its the same old stuff. I am glad I waited for sale which i got the game half off. I can see why they are now open to a buyout before there stocks really take a hit and the company loses a lot of value. These games are releasing in worse shape and not getting any better. Way too many studios working on the game internally and its making these games a complete mess.

Like many gamers, you don't seem to pay attention to the details. Exactly how is 'too many studios working on the game internally' a bad thing? No really, how is it a bad thing? Do you want less people to work on the game and feel more fatigued and exhausted?

Far Cry 6 introduced

1. Tanks
2. Flying cars
3. Brought back hovercrafts
4. New wildlife with more animations
5. FND Bases have optional objectives
6. FND Bases actually look like important locations like in Far Cry 5, instead of generic looking outposts in Far Cry 2, 3 and 4.
7. Expanded the weapon arsenal, throwable gadgets, weapon attachments, and other customizations.
8. Able to deeply customize vehicles you can request whenever you're on a road on foot
9. Cockfighting
10. Dominoes
11. Destructible trees
12. There's now a city and bigger towns in a Far Cry game
13. Brought back healing animations
14. Like Far Cry 5, there are optional activities like races and treasure hunts
15. Dani singing while driving/flying with the radio turned on

People like you only pay attention to the negatives. Like, always negative. You seriously think Far Cry 6 is the worst Far Cry game to date? Perhaps out of the games you've played, but there's no way Far Cry 6 would be worse than Far Cry Vengeance. Whenever someone mentions the word 'worst' and only mentions anything negative (which is entirely subjective), I seriously start to question what kind of games you actually play? While people love to mention Red Dead Redemption II and uses that game as an example to set a standard, you have to keep in mind Rockstar Games overworked their employees in the span of what, 8 years? That is a actually pretty controversial topic in 2018. Everything you mention, I could say Red Dead Redemption II is boring. For example, you have to watch each and every single looting and skinning animation for every dead body and animal. Red Dead Redemption 1 was notoriously buggy in 2010 before the patches, but no one seems to bat an eye. People like you seriously need to stop bringing in Red Dead Redemption II, because 8 years is not exactly always a good plan for making a game. For some odd reason, Grand Theft Auto V came out on three separate generations of gaming. Why didn't Grand Theft Auto 6 come out during the Xbox One and PlayStation 4 era? They were able to make GTA 1, GTA 2, GTA 3, Vice City, San Andreas and GTA IV in a span of 11 years. Plus I'm not even mentioning other titles like London, Liberty City Stories, Vice City Stories and Chinatown Wars. They managed to release GTA V 5 years after GTA IV came out, but GTA V is rereleased twice in the span of 9 years? 9 years later and GTA 6 is nowhere to be found.

What boggles my mind how gamers expectations go absurdly unrealistic these days is pretty asinine. When Crysis came out in 2007 with the best graphics at the time, gamers did not try to compare every single game in the market to Crysis. Sure they'll keep saying Crysis was unbeatable in terms of graphics, but at least people managed to view other games on their own merits. Why is it that every single game must be compared to Red Dead Redemption II after 2018? Even Red Dead Redemption II has its own problems. Like why does Rockstar keep the outdated aiming lock on mechanic since 2001? RDR2 even has frame rate drops below 30 fps on Xbox One and PlayStation 4. People even have a lot of issues with Red Dead Online. Speaking of online, I remember how broken and literally unplayable GTA Online was during its inception in 2013. After that, GTA Online has some serious money grinding problem where everything is overpriced. The game actively encourages online griefing to the point that they expect you to spend real money on shark cards.

Red Dead Redemption II might be a good example for you, but sometimes I often prefer gameplay over realism. I'd rather have fun than be bored out of my mind.

whoever thought it would be a good idea to hide the minimap every single time you change zones needs to get the axe. its the most profoundly stupid design decision i have seen in the history of video games! what could possibly be worse than trying to deliver a vehicle to a destination when the minimap disappears nearly every single time you have to make a turn?

having fun otherwise.. but not even remotely joking, give the fool their pink slip. they have no place in the video game industry.

The fact you even wrote that you're not even 'remotely joking'. The level of your exaggeration with 'most profoundly', 'in the history of video games', 'what could possibly be worse' is simply laughable. What could possibly be worse? I bet a lot of people could name a thousand things that could be worse without even breaking a sweat.

@sofajockey I pre-ordered the collector's edition on Xbox Series X a long time ago, but I will be playing Far Cry 6 on PC through Ubisoft+

@sofajockey I stopped caring about review scores when a reviewer got fired over his own opinion in 2007. I began to learn to appreciate games because forming your own opinion is more important than relying on someone else's. Expectations have also grown so unrealistically high to the point of ridiculousness, both user and critic reviews have become irrelevant to me.

@mortilla_ 15 hours in and i'm having a blast. Clearly your mileage varies. Personal taste.

So am I. Gamers' absurd attitudes and expectations these days are so much worse today than over 10 years ago. It'll only get worse in the future unless gamers learn how to appreciate.

@mortilla_ Except it's not subpar. So you honestly think the graphics, gameplay, acting, and everything else... is subpar? Are you serious? Gamers are not treated like garbage. You know what's garbage? Gamers who never even play the games would have strong opinions and start review bombing and calling games garbage even if they never played it for one second. Throughout the years, I've seen complaints that are unwarranted and ridiculous. I understand the complaints when people talk about glitches, microtransactions, and some game mechanics. What I don't understand would be trivial complaints that are somehow deal breaking that demands a refund.

When I made a multiplayer map in an older Far Cry game back in 2005 and 2006, 1 random person who joined my game and spent less than 5 seconds playing my map. The first words the guy said, 'this map sucks'. I actually spent a lot of time working on my maps, making sure it plays well and it looks great. Someone already formed an opinion without even playing it. This is what is happening with gamers these days who have asinine opinions. You think critiquing a game without justified explanation without finding any positives is reasonable? You honestly think all the professionalism is suddenly subpar? Who are you to judge? I remember asking someone's opinion of a game years ago and he said only one swear word that starts with the letter S. He didn't spend 1 second to explain why but it's somehow justified enough for a lot of people. How is that even remotely fair? Why is a worthless one worded opinion is more important and outweighs all the praises? That doesn't even make any sense.

Subpar... explain to me in detail WHY it's subpar. It better be worth reading, otherwise you're wasting my time.

@unhappylawbro You obviously never played Far Cry 1, Far Cry Instincts, Far Cry Instincts Evolution, Far Cry Instincts Predator or Far Cry 2. In Far Cry 2, there are shirtless enemies who are still alive after being shot into their chest and back.

I disagree, 3-6 were virtually the same, you hunt down the protagonists , is that not the entire plot of each and every story? My favorite however was Far Cry 4, I did think that was the best of the series, and I did like the addition of helicopters, in that one it was little ones but eventually they got to helicopters,besides I said there wasn't much difference I didn't say I don't like the franchise.Far Cry 6 just wasn't all that great, the dlcs royally sucked they were exactly the same except for different villains.There was also a mission where you go to a bunker and lo and behold and golly gee willikers someone hit me on the head and took all my equipment, like that hasn't been done to death resurrected and done to death again! Sorry dude, I do like the series I just think they're way too much the same.You are right though I didn't play far cry 1 or 2 so I'll reiterate that 3-6 were virtually the same.

You didn't answer my question. You're just complaining. Exactly how do you want each Far Cry game to be different? Why should the sequels abandon the gameplay structure that has been established by previous games? Games like Halo and Call of Duty have been structurally the same in the last 21 years. Halo 5 tried to be different and suddenly it's among the least popular. Far Cry 1 had set the standard when it comes to graphics and level design back in 2004, and Far Cry Instincts on Xbox helped established a Far Cry game be compatible on consoles in 2005. Far Cry 2 is the first Far Cry game to be open world and the game also set the standard for graphics in 2008. It's up there with Crysis and any Unreal Engine 3 games at the time.

Based on what you wrote, you don't care about about other efforts. For Far Cry 2, Ubisoft sent a team to Kenya and some parts of Tanzania to try and study the environment and culture, so they can recreate it in Far Cry 2. They did the same by sending a team to Nepal for Far Cry 4, Montana for Far Cry 5 and Cuba for Far Cry 6. You don't care how each game has its own unique music or how Ubisoft managed to create a fictional national anthem that feels authentic enough to be compared to a real life national anthem from Latin America. You don't care about how much research the dev teams had spent on. Far Cry 6 introduces tanks and has a massive arsenal of weapons compared to previous games. No, it doesn't matter to you. You think they are all 'virtually the same', well you can use that argument on any game series. Oh Doom has been virtually the same 'first person shooter' since 1993, all you do is shoot demons, find secrets and go from point A to point B. Actually, let's make your argument sound even more absurd. What's the difference between the motor wagon from 1886 and a Lamborghini in 2022? They're both automobiles. All you do is drive from point A to point B. You know how absurd that sounds? While you may think Far Cry 6 may be 'virtually the same' as Far Cry 3, well you don't fly helicopters or airplanes in Far Cry 3. You don't commandeer tanks or play a street fighter minigame in Far Cry 3. Co-op in Far Cry 3 is also different compared to later entries. Far Cry 3 helped reimagined stealth and restructured how takedowns work for the series. Why should Ubisoft abandon anything the previous games have established and suddenly make the sequel be completely different? I don't know what's wrong by simply letting Far Cry having its own identity. Just let Far Cry be Far Cry.

Unfortunately there's only so far you can go with the same idea over and over again , there's nothing really different in the Far Cry series that set them apart from each other, if you've played one you pretty much played them all but with a different protagonist. Take the dlcs, the exact same thing in each one of them with the exception of playing a different villain,it was by far some of the worst dlcs I've ever played.I finished the first two with no problem then, after finishing the statue of seed it tells you to take a leap of faith,I did, hit the water,and was then told You died...3 hours wasted, I don't go for that kind of garbage gaming,It's not inventive, it's boring and you die doing exactly what the game tells you, I deleted the entire game after that nonsense.

Except I can easily tell the difference. It sounds like you didn't play any Far Cry game before Far Cry 3.

I seriously don't get this. Exactly how do you want each Far Cry game to be different? If Ubisoft took the Assassin's Creed approach where the games suddenly started becoming drastically different in 2017, many Assassin's Creed fans yearn for the games to return to its roots from 2007 to 2015. Those familiar with Far Cry games from 2004 to 2008 may not like how Far Cry 3 came to be. Do you want Far Cry to really come back to its roots and be a linear first person shooter that lasts for 10 hours? Should Far Cry abandon the open world structure the series had set up since Far Cry 2 and Far Cry 3? If you pay attention to the setting, culture, level design, and time period, you'll realize each game is unique in its own way. They're not exactly the same.

@c-pick Unfortunately there's no New Game+, but they added a new difficulty called Guerrilla Mode.

@endros853 I wouldn't say everyone. It's more like people have very subjective opinions and they have a platform to voice them. Too many people can't seem to form their own opinion and give games a chance, and they would rather listen to someone else and follow the bandwagon. Throughout the years, expectations have skyrocketed and people have already made their own predetermined biases against game developers and their games. There are people who would look at reviews to find their own opinions validated, not necessarily be open to see an honest review. It's unfortunate, and many people would skip the whole article or video and just pay attention to the numbered score in the end.

If they are more open minded and actually form their own opinion than follow some hate bandwagon or finding only the negatives, they might actually appreciate the game more.

@krayzee_ by crappy and nonfunctional wrapons, of course I mean they don't work. As in, they don't fire at all. Like a glitch, which I've reported. It's quite aggravating. The revolver and ALL sniper rifles do NOT function under ANY circumstances for me. No ammo type fixes this. Not the end of the world, but annoying enough to get me to report it

And by treasure hunts, I mean actual treasure. As in valuables. Did you know it was rumored Jesse James had hidden caches of gold and silver coins to pay his men all over the south and west? That could've been a fun addition. Outlaw treasure. Old gold mines to explore. A crashed 1880s train. That kinda stuff. Prepper stashes were ok, I wouldn't remove them, but the actual adventurous treasure hunts are better.

In terms of gameplay and functionality, Prepper Stashes in Far Cry 5 is just a different wording to Treasure Hunts. In Far Cry 5, we would have Guns for Hire and Fangs for Hire, but it's called Amigos in Far Cry 6. In Far Cry New Dawn, it's called Expeditions, but it's called Special Operations in Far Cry 6. It's just like how Clutch Nixon missions in Far Cry 5 would be Gran Premio Races in Far Cry 6.

@db9 I think they're finished with Far Cry 6. I hope it comes back for Far Cry 7 or as a completely separate game that could be free-to-play.

As soon as the the intro video finished and you can control your character for the very first time I was completely stuck. Couldnt move. I had to reload save for it to work. Others experienced same issue as well and posted in player support section. So I was experiencing terrible bugs directly from the start. Which immediately brought down the experience. The amount of bugs that I encountered going forward in game was just bad.

What are your specs?

The game's world feels so empty. There is absolutely no life in it. NPC's that are in the world make it feel worse. Seeing someone spray paint the same thing on the same wall over and over again is pretty sad. Thats just one example. You know, RDR2 you can actually see life in cities and when they are building something those structures actually get built. Not sure why ubisoft continues to make such crap open worlds void of life. There is always just you, your allies and the enemy in the world.Thats it. And some random animals that were pointless to kill. Oh, and whats with all the damn pointless fishing spots? Is this bass masters game or fishing simulator?

Entirely subjective. Animals are not exactly 'random' when they are located in specific habitats. Fishing was introduced in Far Cry 5, and it's no surprise it came back for the sequel. How is this a valid complaint? Fishing is simply another activity the player can do, but they don't have to do them.

The graphics were ok but things at a distance look terrible. Especially the amount of pop ins and draw distance was garbage. Parts of the map where you are in deep parts of the jungle game looks great but once you out in the open with things being further in distance the experience goes out the window. I also find that AMD sponsored titles such as this have terrible AA. I really do not like the cheap tools AMD offers devs as it makes the quality of game poor. AMD should stop with these open source poor man method of tools. It really makes the games look bad.

Exactly what are your specs? When I ran Far Cry 6 on my 3090 with the HD Pack installed, I don't recall pop ins or draw distance problems. I seriously don't recall.

Gameplay was fine and that really hasnt changed much at all in the series. New game, different weapons, but same feel. Character customization was bad though. A lot of the gear and I mean a lot were totally useless. Could of done a much better job there. The supremo was a bad change and def could of done without. I didnt like it at all. There was no balance there either as you had super weapons but enemy had basic things. Same thing with resolvers. Way OP when other things like GL and pipe bombs got nerfed. Im sorry but a rocket should bring down a heli in a shot or 2. You shouldnt need add ons to take them down easier. Pointless upgrade system.

Again, entirely subjective. Honestly I had no problems taking down helicopters in this game even without the backpack.

The spawn system was terrible. I was inside a restricted zone and was inside a building. It was empty. I jumped out a window but than immediately turned around to jump back in and than there was a whole army inside that just popped in. There is also a huge thread on this as well. Very poorly done.

Where was this? The only spawning issue I experienced is that one island during a mission. Everywhere else, I had no issues.

The insurgency mode to me is pointless. I already captured bases, checkpoints, destroyed AA, and acquired plenty of pointless gear. Why would I want to take them over and over again for more pointless gear? The add ons were meh and I can see why they were free. Nothing much going on inside their heads at all. I liked the missions with Trejo, Rambo, and stranger things way more. Those were actually good and was were the game actually felt fun to play.

Then don't? Insurgency is just post game content if you have any desire to complete. Sure they can be pointless to you, but I can't see how is a genuine complaint?

The story overall was ok. Nothing special and seems Ubisoft took a generic safe dicatator plot approach. Towards the end where you need to meet Juan it gave a warning about continuing the story as your actions would effect the outcome. However, you made no decisions at all and story just continued without your input. So there was only one ending. Pointless to even have a warning than. Plus, Juan is a terrible person and without spoiling anything story related you couldnt have a choice to do anything about his actions. Or why he was still able to do what he did. Really dumb.

If anything, it's more like reminding the player that the end is about to come. Far Cry 3 did this even if that game had two different endings. The warning is about story consequences, not necessarily a player decision. Other games made by other game developers did this too, and even they don't have any decisions for the player. They're not made by Ubisoft and they would do the same thing.

Felt like it was not a AAA game. Well, lets be honest. It wasnt. Ubisoft has not evolved anything for the better in the series and its the same old stuff. I am glad I waited for sale which i got the game half off. I can see why they are now open to a buyout before there stocks really take a hit and the company loses a lot of value. These games are releasing in worse shape and not getting any better. Way too many studios working on the game internally and its making these games a complete mess.

Like many gamers, you don't seem to pay attention to the details. Exactly how is 'too many studios working on the game internally' a bad thing? No really, how is it a bad thing? Do you want less people to work on the game and feel more fatigued and exhausted?

Far Cry 6 introduced

1. Tanks
2. Flying cars
3. Brought back hovercrafts
4. New wildlife with more animations
5. FND Bases have optional objectives
6. FND Bases actually look like important locations like in Far Cry 5, instead of generic looking outposts in Far Cry 2, 3 and 4.
7. Expanded the weapon arsenal, throwable gadgets, weapon attachments, and other customizations.
8. Able to deeply customize vehicles you can request whenever you're on a road on foot
9. Cockfighting
10. Dominoes
11. Destructible trees
12. There's now a city and bigger towns in a Far Cry game
13. Brought back healing animations
14. Like Far Cry 5, there are optional activities like races and treasure hunts
15. Dani singing while driving/flying with the radio turned on

People like you only pay attention to the negatives. Like, always negative. You seriously think Far Cry 6 is the worst Far Cry game to date? Perhaps out of the games you've played, but there's no way Far Cry 6 would be worse than Far Cry Vengeance. Whenever someone mentions the word 'worst' and only mentions anything negative (which is entirely subjective), I seriously start to question what kind of games you actually play? While people love to mention Red Dead Redemption II and uses that game as an example to set a standard, you have to keep in mind Rockstar Games overworked their employees in the span of what, 8 years? That is a actually pretty controversial topic in 2018. Everything you mention, I could say Red Dead Redemption II is boring. For example, you have to watch each and every single looting and skinning animation for every dead body and animal. Red Dead Redemption 1 was notoriously buggy in 2010 before the patches, but no one seems to bat an eye. People like you seriously need to stop bringing in Red Dead Redemption II, because 8 years is not exactly always a good plan for making a game. For some odd reason, Grand Theft Auto V came out on three separate generations of gaming. Why didn't Grand Theft Auto 6 come out during the Xbox One and PlayStation 4 era? They were able to make GTA 1, GTA 2, GTA 3, Vice City, San Andreas and GTA IV in a span of 11 years. Plus I'm not even mentioning other titles like London, Liberty City Stories, Vice City Stories and Chinatown Wars. They managed to release GTA V 5 years after GTA IV came out, but GTA V is rereleased twice in the span of 9 years? 9 years later and GTA 6 is nowhere to be found.

What boggles my mind how gamers expectations go absurdly unrealistic these days is pretty asinine. When Crysis came out in 2007 with the best graphics at the time, gamers did not try to compare every single game in the market to Crysis. Sure they'll keep saying Crysis was unbeatable in terms of graphics, but at least people managed to view other games on their own merits. Why is it that every single game must be compared to Red Dead Redemption II after 2018? Even Red Dead Redemption II has its own problems. Like why does Rockstar keep the outdated aiming lock on mechanic since 2001? RDR2 even has frame rate drops below 30 fps on Xbox One and PlayStation 4. People even have a lot of issues with Red Dead Online. Speaking of online, I remember how broken and literally unplayable GTA Online was during its inception in 2013. After that, GTA Online has some serious money grinding problem where everything is overpriced. The game actively encourages online griefing to the point that they expect you to spend real money on shark cards.

Red Dead Redemption II might be a good example for you, but sometimes I often prefer gameplay over realism. I'd rather have fun than be bored out of my mind.

this game was just ok but def the worst FC game to date.

You've obviously never heard of Far Cry Vengeance.

I'd like to see this happen, but I doubt it will. When Ubisoft launched several games exclusively for Nintendo, like Far Cry Vengeance for the Wii back in 2006, they weren't really well received. If the Crysis Remastered trilogy can be played on the Nintendo Switch, then the Far Cry series can.

Just want to say that Far Cry 6 is beautiful and amazing to play, lot's and lot's of fun.
Thanks for making this game.
But where does the name Far Cry comes from?

This question is as old as the first game. This has been asked for the last 18 years. So here's a little history lesson:

The original Far Cry is developed by Crytek, a video game company founded by the Yerli brothers. One of them, who goes by the name Cevat Yerli, uses his initials as a brand. Crytek made the CryEngine for Far Cry. The title is used in the plot as 'Project Far Cry'. Once Ubisoft acquired the rights for Far Cry in 2006, Crytek moved on to CryEngine 2 and made the spiritual successor to Far Cry called Crysis in 2007. So Ubisoft continued the story of Far Cry Instincts and made the sequel Far Cry Instincts Evolution, the Xbox 360 enhanced version (In modern terminology, it would be a remaster or definitive edition) called Far Cry Instincts Predator and made a Wii port Far Cry Vengeance. By the time Ubisoft moved on to make Dunia Engine and made Far Cry 2 in 2008, the title 'Far Cry' loses all of its meaning. Based on what Far Cry 1 had already established in 2004, Far Cry has always been a first person shooter set in exotic locations. They brought a lot of elements from Far Cry games released in 2005 and 2006 to Far Cry 2, and they experimented on the open world format for the first time.

Why is Far Cry still called Far Cry since it's no longer made by Crytek? Well, Ubisoft owns the license and they can do whatever they want with it. Ubisoft conducted a poll about Far Cry 1 and the protagonist Jack Carver in 2006. The people who answered didn't really like Jack Carver or trigen enemies. So for the first time you can select your silent protagonist in Far Cry 2 and you only have human enemies. The fact that we now have different protagonists for every Far Cry game starting from 2008, including the exotic setting out in the wilderness became a staple in the series.

A lot of people tried to answer this question for the last 14 years, and most of them get it wrong. When anyone thinks of Far Cry these days, we don't think of it as a military shooter. It's typically about an individual who somehow ends up in a violent conflict they're not really a part of and usually has nothing to do with it. Jack Carver is ex military who is employed by a reporter and then gets ambushed by mercenaries after her departure. The Far Cry 2 protagonist is just a mercenary who is meant to kill the Jackal, but he ends up in a civil war instead. Jason Brody is a tourist who ended up in a war in Rook Islands. Ajay Ghale traveled to Kyrat to fulfill his mother's dying wish, but he becomes caught in a civil war. The Deputy is sent to arrest The Father, but ends up leading the resistance. Now we have Dani Rojas who wants to go to America, but she ends up helping Libertad wage their war against El Presidente.

The way Ubisoft defines Far Cry, it's about someone who typically doesn't want to fight ends up fighting anyways in an exotic open wilderness with a charismatic villain they have to deal with. The original meaning of Far Cry is the fact it's made by game developers who are obsessed with the word 'cry' and has a habit of putting that word everywhere.