That's what I was thinking. I know everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but 66% seems a little too harsh on such a great game.

Yes lots of good reviews. Guild Wars 2 had really good review. I Bought it. Played it for one day. I hated it. I just dont like the way it controls. The graphics bored me. There were tooo many things going on all very close to each other. Maybe thats just how MMO is and i guess MMO is just now my cup of tea. So i hesitate to buy this game just cuz lots of ppl gave it a good score. The score means nothign if they dont touch upon the things that matter to me!

PPl give good score to Call of duty (for a lack of better example) but i dont like that game. But its still a good game to people that like to do fast pace shooting. Arma 2 did not get a good review, but i thoroughly enjoyed the game. Infact i pirated the game first, but i loved it so much i bought it. same goes for XCOM and Reckoning.

I played far cry 2 and really did not like it. It was just repetitive and not really an open world as i expected it would be. So im not saying this may not be a good game....Iam just wondering if this is a game id enjoy.

But this is not a RPG shooter. This is an open world FPS with some RPG elements. There's a big difference. If you expecting something like Fallout with dialogue trees, moral choice, putting skill points into melee or stamina or speech, then you may be disappointed

And this isn't Just Cause 2, with jungles, deserts, snowy mountains all on a supposedly tropical island. It's a realistic South Pacific island

How's this for diverse:
(From another review)...
Signs of attempted industry litter the landscape - a sawmill here, a small oil refinery there. Clearly, some have tried to establish honest businesses here in preceding decades, but they have never stuck around.

Before that, Japanese forces used the island as a base during World War II, with the most obvious signs of their occupation being the many hillsides forts and land-to-sea cannons that dot the landscape. Here and there are crashed Japanese fighter planes as well, and if you look hard enough you can find letters from the troops to their superiors and loved ones, letters never delivered. The story revealed when you read them is a heartbreaking tale of madness and obsession, and I hunted down every letter to learn how it all ended for the doomed soldiers.

There are signs of exploration and habitation even further back. The coast is full of shipwrecks, most of them modern steel, though now rusted hulks, but a few are tall-masted wooden vessels from longer ago, and some still hold valuable cargo if you're willing to brave the deep water and the ravenous bull sharks. The native people have left their own mark on the land, from small hilltop shrines to extensive temple and palace complexes, all built from carved stone.

Nah, I wouldn't call Far Cry an RPG shooter. The amount of NPCs you interact with, duration of conversations, scavenging for items & managing inventory are not found in Far Cry 2, which I prefer. But Far Cry 2 got repetitive w/ like 50 enemy lookout points you had to take over, all pretty much the exact same and a lot of driving in a slow jeep on the same looking dirt road in the jungle.
I don't think one or the other (FPS vs RPG FPS) deserves higher praise over the other. It just depends on your preference. I thought I would love Mass Effect but I'm just not into the genre I guess, it's still a quality game to a lot of people.

Yep, 2 is my favorite by far as well, and one of my favorite singleplayer games of all time. It was probably one of the last games Ubisoft made before they started homogenizing their franchises to be open world collect-a-thons with unnecessary RPG mechanics tacked on. I enjoyed 3 for what it was, but it was clearly an attempt to make the franchise appeal to a mass audience (which, in fairness, was successful).

Yeah like even Far Cry 4 was decent, not as great as FC3 but they still gave us an interesting story, setting and villain. Pagan Min's random calls to Ajay were pretty funny.

They just got lazier and lazier, pumping them out while making it a little more streamlined each time. I mean Jesus, they gave us a silent protagonist with FC5 which really hurt the main story and are obsessed with pleasing everyone by trying to do two characters, male and female rather than just settling on one to tell the best story they can.

I have found that the more recent FC games work better as what I call "background games." Basically what I mean is it's nice to have an active save in one of them going for those times you have 45 minutes to play games and just want to have fun and don't want to get bogged down playing a game online or starting a new game and spending all your time into an annoying tutorial. Like I haven't touched FC4 in years but I know if I had 30 minutes to an hour to play I could hop in and easily be back in the swing of things and attack an outpost and have a good time.

I think a lot of people use big RPGs like Skyrim or Cyberpunk in a similar way.

Enemies respawn in Far Cry 2? Terrible! It's a broken system! Make me a one-man army who can inexplicably hold an entire region!

Enemies respawn in Dark Souls and Zelda? Brilliant! So much more hardcore! Glad the devs took risks!

The problem isn't them respawning. It's that they respawned after just 5 minutes. Like you'd still be in the area looking for diamonds, loot, exploring, etc, and the enemies would just respawn with you there.