Well, imho, it is a yes all the way. Far Cry 2 was unique. That's what got me hooked to it in a time where most of my gaming time was focused on Call of Juarez online -my brother got totally addicted to it, sooooo fun- and CoD4 was a thing.https://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2018-far-cry-engine-tech-evolution
Is Far Cry 2's tech really more advanced than Far Cry 5's?
The answer is yes - but also categorically no.
In fact I had never played a FPS like that, originality wise, ever since (and also before it was released). I could spend LOTS of time watching how the fire had an effect on the vegetation, the physics, the per pixel hit detection... Breaking a low branch of a tree, or a high branch, any branch or stick, just exactly where you hit with a precision never seen before, was amazing.
Using a turret gun and shooting at every single tree nearby was a sight to behold. The AI -too bad the respawn-, the fauna and those effects got me totally hooked to it (the campaign itself wasn't that fun 'cos of certain reasons and a slow start, but still...) and also made me try its fun multiplayer mode. I was also very surprised at the fact that the game just took 3GB of space on the X360 (just like the PC version).
The PC version is the best way to play it today -as I showed in some screenshots on a PC gaming thread I created time ago-, and its only flaw is that for whatever reason, to get the game running you must install it on C: drive (shrug).
This video is quite enlightening as to why the game is leaps and bounds more advanced technologically wise than any FPS ever created -save for Crysis perhaps-.