I’m a huge Far Cry fan. I have been ever since Crytek’s mind-blowing 2004 original, which I picked it up tried in vain to get it running on my utterly useless HP Pavilion PC. For me, the game represented a sense of scale and freedom I’d never seen before, walking that difficult tightrope between linear story and open world. Fast forward to Far Cry Instincts: Predator, which I played on the Xbox 360, and the experience perhaps strayed too far towards a structured sandbox designed more for player experience than a necessity to survive.

This was followed by Far Cry 2, the game that dictated the formula for the series every since. Now, with 3, 4, Primal, 5, New Dawn, and 6, all of these games walk the same tightrope. Far Cry 2 leaned more towards hyper realism, for better and for worse. Far Cry 3 is arguably the strongest of the series with a strong balance of player choice and narrative drive. Ever since then, the series has largely been the same.

Far Cry now is entrenched in formula: liberating camps and sweeping enemy strongholds (which is a staple of most Ubisoft games) still felt fresh by the time of the fourth game, but by Far Cry 5 the dynamic started to grate. In fact, it revealed a tired formula where the only point of difference was the map, and the series has never escaped its own imposed prison of repetition.

Far Cry 6 felt tired, so the series needs a reset

Far Cry 6 was one of the first Far Cry games I really didn’t enjoy. It felt massively familiar and didn’t really do anything to take the series forward. There were new additions, yes – you can now do an RPG-like Ultimate Ability and the loot system is different – but its inherent structure has not changed since the days of Far Cry 3. Since the days when clearing camps was still unique. 14 years ago.

Sometimes when you have a winning formula, and shareholders to appease, why would you change it? But 6 was a stark warning that the series needed a huge overhaul. The sales numbers reflected this fatigue. At the time of launch, despite ultimately being considered a commercial success, digital sales for Far Cry 6 were 50% on 2018’s Far Cry 5. With unconfirmed reports that Far Cry 7 is going through development ‘Hell’, it suggests that perhaps Ubisoft is toying with the idea of making some significant, and much needed, changes.

So, what needs to change in Far Cry 7?

Far Cry’s entire issue is structure, and when you play the same tune for a decade-and-a-half, the notes don’t hit the same. Three games after Far Cry 3, and liberating enemy camps now feels pointless, especially as that formula is still used by other Ubisoft games such as Assassin’s Creed Shadows.

There’s nothing worse than bringing up the map and seeing camp-after-camp that you need to take down to the point where even the main missions start to feel like filler. Sure, there’s the odd reward, but when you look at the variety found in RPGs like Cyberpunk 2077, who’s gigs do a great job at creating variation and depth, Far Cry’s ‘camp clearing’ mechanic feels too surface-level by comparison.

Player choice is another largely unexplored element in the Far Cry series. Of course, there are some ‘pretty horrific’ choices you can make (especially in Far Cry 3), but the majority of the games, NPCs just wonder around and populate the largely soulless worlds.

Being able to interact more and build bonds like you do in Cyberpunk would help bring the world alive. Maybe Far Cry needs to look more to immersive sims like Deus Ex or System Shock with players able to invest in builds that allow them to tackle camps in unique ways. Maybe we can spec as a Watch Dogs-like hacker, disable cameras and use gadgets, but at the risk of being less useful in a firefight. Then, if you’re playing co-op with a friend who has specced the complete opposite, you make a well-rounded team.

All we know is that Far Cry 7 is being designed with a new multiplayer focus, a way of extending the game’s lifespan outside of the first year of sale. This is completely unsurprising given the last few titles with co-op modes and map making tools, but is it really what the franchise needs?

They start so well, but risk tailing off

It’s not like everything about modern Far Cry is bad, they’re still great games. Take the intros, for example: many consider the openings of Far Cry 3 and 5 amongst the best in any videogame, ever. However, as the series bows down to repetition, the game’s simply pitter out as they continue.

We know Ubisoft is capable of starting the games well, but the challenge they face in Far Cry 7 is keeping that momentum and player interest. Perhaps it’s due to the design of Ubisoft’s recent maps where they exist largely to serve one or two types of biomes while other games, such as Red Dead Redemption 2 or The Witcher 3, do a much better job at making you not feel trapped in a same-y feeling zone.

It’s also not unfair to say that Far Cry has felt less competent in the design of its enemy AI. In Far Cry 2, enemies were almost FEAR-like with their movement and their use of the environment around them with enemies dragging them out of the line of fire. Additionally, as your weapons would jam, you felt like you were part of the world itself. None of this is present in current Far Cry.

Maybe a fresh injection of realism with more lifelike AI and even Battlefield-esque destruction physics could make be a shot in the arm for the series. Maybe that’s not what the series needs at all. The reality is that Far Cry is tired, and a lot of its fans want something new and bold. I don’t stand here as a hater of the series, I stand here as someone who loves it, but where Far Cry 2 took the original and truly expanded it, modern Ubisoft has done little but try to repeat the successes of the past, and that’s just how a franchise dies.

Far Cry 7 is a chance to hard reset. Ubisoft will be aware of the interest drop. This is a series that deserves to be around for a very, very long time – and it can be, if it chooses to now take risks and offer something different.