What I want to know is the same thing IGN asked in their review of the game (though I was wondering this before said review):
What the hell does this game have anything to do with Far Cry? No Jack Carver, none of the story elements from the game, nothing. Fancy visuals and a big world, yeah, Far Cry did that, but that's not enough to warrant calling it a sequel. It's like brand recognition is the only reason Ubisoft named the game Far Cry 2.
Man, they seem to have killed the franchise after EA bought Crytek from them. Far Cry Vengeance on Wii was just horrible in every way, for example. Drastically bad model and texture pop-in (like, ten feet in front of you, no joke), bad graphics overall (and its not just because its the Wii), even worse-looking pre-rendered cutscenes, horrible voice acting (and not even that so-bad-its-awesome kind of bad), and finished off with controls that make me want to commit seppuku with my Wii remote.