http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bMcJwvbVXLM&feature=channel_page

This guy is spot on with his analysis, this game is definitely important because it does show how non linear games can be interactive. It's a game where the player decides how he or she should play the game, not the game itself.

Already posted. BTW the graphics were really dissapointing, i thought it was supposed to be like Crysis. The game itself is a big mess.

the arm spaz run is funny

i liked the game but the repetitive missions and the extreme amount of time traveling killed it for me...fire effects were epic though

The missions are repetitive but the multiple ways you can approach them aren't

I think a lot of people complain about the missions being repetitive because they expect to be given a very specific set of tools to do the job at each point, i.e. the sniper mission, the rocket mission, the stealth-based C4 mission, and FarCry 2 for the most part doesn't do this. It gives you a huge set of tools to do each mission how you like, and that is where it succeeds for me. Some good points Rev, and an interesting view on a game I liked a lot more than I thought I would.

Didn't get far enough into the game, but didn't enjoy. Maybe since I have time during the summer I'll give it another shot.

Just play through missions in a different variety of ways with tactics and creativity.

Far Cry 2 was awful. Though I played it on a console. The graphics were a mess, firing did not feel right, explosions were ridiculously over the top, it was impossible to GET anywhere because there were hardly any vehicles and EVERYBODY just had to SHOOT at you, making it WAY too difficult!

It was a great idea, and a great concept, with poor execution.

that pretty much sums up all Ubisoft Montreal's non Tom Clancy games.

i thought this game was garbage and an absolute waste of the time i spent on it.