Forgoing the usual Far Cry arsenal of armoured vehicles and massive guns, Far Cry Primal, set 12,000 years in the past, is a pretty original game.
However, it might not be as different from its predecessors as it seems.
It appears that the patterns of the rivers, reservoirs, and some roads and villages are exactly the same in both games, suggesting Ubisoft simply used the old map in the new game.
This could be explained if Ubisoft said the two games were set in the same 'universe' - in other words, if the land of Oros, which you explore in Far Cry Primal, was in fact the same place in which Far Cry 4 is set, just in 10,000BC.
However, Far Cry Primal's opening makes clear it's set in ancient Europe, not in the Himalayas like Far Cry 4.
As Kotaku points out, Ubisoft did the same thing with the map in 2013's Far Cry Blood Dragon, which was based heavily on the south island in Far Cry 3.
But Blood Dragon was just a £10 expansion to Far Cry 3, whereas Primal is meant to be a completely new game which costs the best part of £50.
Some gamers have reacted with disappointment to the news, especially given the game's price. A reskinned map would be fine for a small expansion, but for a full-size game?
Then again, Primal is a very different game to Far Cry 4, and it's likely that most fans of the series would never notice the similarities between the maps without having it pointed out to them.
Still, that's not likely to cheer up those players who feel like they've been short-changed.