I loved Far Cry 3, but didn't like 4 that much.
For the most part this was no fault of the game, but nonetheless, I still stand behind my two main criticisms:
1. The game is WAY too similar to Far Cry 3. I understand the desire to build on a solid mechanical foundaiton, but why was the scenario and story almost exactly the same as well? The story, characters, and campaign structure are usually more liable to change from one installment of a series to the next (and consider, none of the Far Cry games' stories are related anyway!) than the lower-level game mechanisms and yet I think you could say they made more changes to the latter, if there were some way to measure such things.
Also, I liked Jason way more than the protagonist of Far Cry 4. I loved the "amoral" character development of Far Cry 3, screw the detractors.
2. There's a widespread criticism of games (esp. Ubi's open-world output) these days: you spend more time looking at abstract symbols (mini-maps, icons, quest markers, arrows) than the actual game. For some reason, this really irked me in Far Cry 4. I felt like I was just rushing from one little dot to the next little blip, staring at a tiny drawing the whole time.
By the way, how did this thread turn into random musings about anything videogame related?
