It's the same Ubisoft open world formula. You can't bash Watch Dogs then say Far Cry got it right because they're so damn similar. That said I look forward to getting Far Cry 4 but I hope this is the last time Ubisoft makes a typical Ubisoft game.

The details matter. Watchdogs is far more buggy and the general gameplay and story are vastly different between watchdogs and FarCry 4. It might be a similar open world mechanic, but generally speaking most open worlds operate using the same mechanics (watchtowers to reveal map fog, taking over enemy territory, side quests, etc.) but at the end of the day what matters is how they design that world (physically and aesthetically) and how the gameplay fits in and compliments that world. Simply put FarCry does a much better job of all this than Watchdogs or assassins creed, even though yes, they share similar features. Details matter.

Watch Dogs was only buggy in multiplayer (Ubisoft hadn't done multiplayer right since Rainbow 6 Vegas) and of course the gameplay is going to be different between a third person and a first person game and of course the story is going to be different for different franchises. The open world mechanics you listed are fairly exclusive to Ubisoft open world games.("side quests" is not a mechanic btw because the word is broad enough that developers can have their own interpretation of side quests like those in Fallout compared to Mass Effect). Look at GTA, Saints Row, Fallout, Dragon Age Inquisition( yes Dragon Age did have split up areas but one area alone is larger than watch dogs and they give you the same freedom as you have in an open world game most of the time.) and Elder Scrolls. They don't make you climb a tower for 3 minutes to magically find out what's on the map, they don't have outposts and the only real similarity between all of those games is that it's in an open world but they all have their unique take on the open world genre and offer something different. You may think the world you are placed in is the most important factor but I think that no factor is more important than the other because even a games sound design can instantly make it better. Now here is why Far Cry 4 gets a pass why I am going to buy it and accept it for what it is, a great game. It's because first person open world games are sparse and Far Cry is something different. Now you may wondering why I would make this post if I think Far Cry 4 is an amazing game. It's because I don't want Far Cry to turn into Assassins Creed. I don't want the same game mechanics. I don't want the same weapon models. I don't want the same animations. I don't want Far Cry 3 to compare to Far Cry 5 in the same way it does to Far Cry 4 . I want the same difference Ubisoft delivered between Far Cry 2 and Far Cry 3 because Far Cry 3 at the time was innovative and I know that Ubisoft is capable of making great games.

You do make a very valid point that this could lead to an already disturbing trend with ubisoft. Yearly launches for major franchises are becoming a poison that is impacting quality across the board. The truly spectacular games are ones like Dragon Age: Inquisition, where they give it a full development cycle and don't oversaturate it with yearly launches. That being said, my main point was to look at FarCry 4 on its own merits, rather than the trend it's become a part of. I still think it's a solid game that adds enough new content to be worth the purchase.