In the Saints Row 2 thread you just said...
No I like the freedom in crysis, but it aint a free roam game, eg. Be in a city, kill a few people, shake cops, race around & listen to radio, stop, change your subaru impreza into a nissan skyline GTR, go onto a bridge, jump into the water, steal a boat, get to shore, steal a jet, bomb a few cars driving on the motorway...
Pointless objectiveless exploring of a city or landscape. Pointless killing...
Not, go to there, but you may choose how...
It's not that though, in some of the early levels in crysis, I don't know which, but one where u had to go into some village and steal some documents I think ( my memory is terrible, I've played crysis ages ago, lets say the first proper village in crysis), the open world annoyed me, Koreans attacked me from everywhere, there was no proper cover as they just came from the opposite direction there was a tank shelling me, blah blah blah.
That's not how Far cry was, I've played farcry to 80% of the game and enjoyed every bit of it, yet it was different. There was more structure to it.
Oh and my my sentance was wrong, I meant not:
It's not only that, It's something to do with the world too, I don't think a totally open world is good for games.
But :
It's not only that, It's something to do with the world too, I don't think a totally open world is good for fp shooters.
I love open games, neither crysis nor farcry is supposed to be one, it's just a fancy shooter with some freedom, not be a gangstah/ psycho killer/ car thief/ explorer/ pilot / mountain biker/ turf conqueror game.