[Cartoon Corpse]

and they LIKE it. (played at E3)

2000 square miles of no load map (probably need a heavy hitter rig) (for some reason US pc gamer said 24 sq km...and yet last month said 2000 sq miles)...1/2 the size of Jamaica! (UK reports map is 29 times larger than Oblivion)...sounds bigger than that to me.

tropical island goodness.

free roam.

300 missions

300 settlements.

cars, planes, boats, bikes

cities as large as GTA's Liberty City.

dynamic weather sysytem
(to the point the devs cannot tell you where/when a thunderstorm might occur)

graphics (beautiful)...UK PCG reported "Think farcry bumped UP a couple of notches"

STILL slated for September release (UK says parachuting in right on the mark...however US didn't even list it on the release calendar).

hope that's not bad news for US market.

i've been REALLY looking forward to this title for a while.

[pjbliverpool]

Originally Posted by Cartoon Corpse

and they LIKE it. (played at E3)

2000 square miles of no load map (probably need a heavy hitter rig) (for some reason US pc gamer said 24 sq km...and yet last month said 2000 sq miles)...1/2 the size of Jamaica! (UK reports map is 29 times larger than Oblivion)...sounds bigger than that to me.

tropical island goodness.

free roam.

300 missions

300 settlements.

cars, planes, boats, bikes

cities as large as GTA's Liberty City.

dynamic weather sysytem
(to the point the devs cannot tell you where/when a thunderstorm might occur)

graphics (beautiful)...UK PCG reported "Think farcry bumped UP a couple of notches"

STILL slated for September release (UK says parachuting in right on the mark...however US didn't even list it on the release calendar).

hope that's not bad news for US market.

i've been REALLY looking forward to this title for a while.

Oooooh baby! This just shot to the top of my must have list! I remember seeing a preview of it a while back in a magazine and thought it looked great but kinda forgot about in the wake of the next gen consoles. But the description above just sounds... amazing! Im picturing a mixture of Farcry and GTA with next gen visuals! I hope it lives up to my expectations.

[Albuquerque]

Couldn't agree more with the above poster... GTA-esque size and gameplay methods with FarCry+ visuals would be excellent. Definitely will watch for this one when it comes out...

[elementOfpower]

xboxyde has two lengthy videos of gameplay, and it does look awesome. There's one scene where he drives a jeep off a cliff and parachutes out of it to keep from crashing.

The environments are huge. The video they showed covered a lot of ground, but the guy showing it pointed out that it was just one tiny little section of the overall map which extends to several different islands.

Is this game being made for the PC? I've only seen/heard of a 360 release.

[Snyder]

Originally Posted by elementOfpower

Is this game being made for the PC? I've only seen/heard of a 360 release.

Well, since this a thread about Just cause previews in PC Gamer...

[elementOfpower]

Doh. Missed that.

[Dresden]

Originally Posted by pjbliverpool

graphics (beautiful)...UK PCG reported "Think farcry bumped UP a couple of notches"

This worries me..... alot. Anyone who reinstalls Farcry nowadays will immediately notice that the graphics are subpar, at best. Why use outdated technology?

[Albuquerque]

Originally Posted by Jim Norton

This worries me..... alot. Anyone who reinstalls Farcry nowadays will immediately notice that the graphics are subpar, at best. Why use outdated technology?

Depends on your definition of "anyone"... My neighbor, my boss and my younger brother all though FarCry was the shiznit and a half on my 50" LCD 720p television; none of them guessed it was almost three years old.

I still very much enjoy the graphics of FarCry, even moreso than Half Life 2. But that's my opinion, and you may not share it

[pjbliverpool]

Originally Posted by Albuquerque

Depends on your definition of "anyone"... My neighbor, my boss and my younger brother all though FarCry was the shiznit and a half on my 50" LCD 720p television; none of them guessed it was almost three years old.

I still very much enjoy the graphics of FarCry, even moreso than Half Life 2. But that's my opinion, and you may not share it

I agree, I think Farcry's graphics are anything but sub par, even today. At high res with MSAA/AF, SM3 and the 64bit enhancements I think it still looks on a par in many ways with the current "next gen" titles. And obviously well beyond anything on the "last gen" consoles which joe average would probably still consider the benchmark for graphics.

Personally, im looking foward to playing through Farcry again at pimped out settings when I get my G80 . My poor olf 9800pro just couldn't do it justice

[Dresden]

Originally Posted by Albuquerque

Depends on your definition of "anyone"... My neighbor, my boss and my younger brother all though FarCry was the shiznit and a half on my 50" LCD 720p television; none of them guessed it was almost three years old.

I still very much enjoy the graphics of FarCry, even moreso than Half Life 2. But that's my opinion, and you may not share it

I'm certainly not saying that in it's prime Farcry's graphics weren't UNPRECEDENTED, but there's absolutely no way it can even be held in the same light as HL2. HL2's technology was GROUNDBREAKING, I'm not saying Farcry's graphics weren't stunning in it's day as well for Crytek's game was hands down the largest sleeper hit the gaming community has witnessed, but my friend, you're comparing Farcry to possibly the most successful game to date.

Originally Posted by pjbliverpool

My poor olf 9800pro just couldn't do it justice

I own an X1900XTX and I've destroyed the framerates on Farcry, for lately I had an urge to play it and reinstalled it to see it maxed out to oblivion, which is where I'm basing my opinion.

[pakotlar]

Originally Posted by Jim Norton

I'm certainly not saying that in it's prime Farcry's graphics weren't UNPRECEDENTED, but there's absolutely no way it can even be held in the same light as HL2. HL2's technology was GROUNDBREAKING, I'm not saying Farcry's graphics weren't stunning in it's day as well for Crytek's game was hands down the largest sleeper hit the gaming community has witnessed, but my friend, you're comparing Farcry to possibly the most successful game to date.



I own an X1900XTX and I've destroyed the framerates on Farcry, for lately I had an urge to play it and reinstalled it to see it maxed out to oblivion, which is where I'm basing my opinion.

What was grounbreaking about HL2, or rather Source technically? Far Cry is, IMO a more advanced engine today (1.3). I think the most impressive thing about HL2 was its art direction and not the tech it used.

[Dresden]

Originally Posted by pakotlar

What was grounbreaking about HL2, or rather Source technically? Far Cry is, IMO a more advanced engine today (1.3). I think the most impressive thing about HL2 was its art direction and not the tech it used.

You're kidding! Name me a game prior to HL2 that was graphically superior, and believe me Farcry certainly wasn't one of them. Everything ranging from the water reflections to the use of the physics was mind blowing. As far as art direction is concerned, HL2's wasn't too impressive. I've seen games of remarkable beauty, artistically, that make HL2 pale in comparison.

[SugarCoat]

It looks quite a bit worse then farcry to me. The city areas remind me of Mafia.

[Skrying]

Originally Posted by Jim Norton

You're kidding! Name me a game prior to HL2 that was graphically superior, and believe me Farcry certainly wasn't one of them. Everything ranging from the water reflections to the use of the physics was mind blowing. As far as art direction is concerned, HL2's wasn't too impressive. I've seen games of remarkable beauty, artistically, that make HL2 pale in comparison.

You're fighting a lossing arguement here.

Anyone who installs Farcry for the first time today will go "Whoa, beautiful island." No doubt about it, frankly I'd have to say you're blind other wise.

Sub par? Compared to what exactly? To me Farcry blows any Doom 3 engine to date out of the water still, it also holds its own against games VERY well.

No game as yet to match Farcry for the draw distance. Oblivion? Give me a break, the game looks like shit from anything further than 100 yards out, you have to replace the textures before the long out visuals even start to look good.

Farcry struck such a well balance of high resolution textures and great model detail. Something no other engine has managed, IMO, to do at a decent amount of performance (FEAR? Possibly, but it performs terribly and has no draw distance really).

Frankly, Farcry still looks beautiful today, out shines many of todays top engines as far as looks, and runs EXTREMELY well with high settings on cards all the way back to the 9700 Pro. Only the Source engine can match that sort of thing, but even the the Source engine has its issues, like craptastic effects.

[AlexV]

Humm, I`ve yet to see something from Source that could be considered as mindblowing. The Dark Messiah game could change that, but I`ll reserve judgement. One must have in mind that HL2 for example looks great mostly due to its art, it`s lighting model is primitive(as it was implemented in that game, I`m sure that the engine may be convinced to do more), it`s shadowing is horrendous, and the models save from the faces are sub-par.

[Dresden]

Originally Posted by Skrying

You're fighting a lossing arguement here.

Anyone who installs Farcry for the first time today will go "Whoa, beautiful island." No doubt about it, frankly I'd have to say you're blind other wise.

Sub par? Compared to what exactly? To me Farcry blows any Doom 3 engine to date out of the water still, it also holds its own against games VERY well.

No game as yet to match Farcry for the draw distance. Oblivion? Give me a break, the game looks like shit from anything further than 100 yards out, you have to replace the textures before the long out visuals even start to look good.

Farcry struck such a well balance of high resolution textures and great model detail. Something no other engine has managed, IMO, to do at a decent amount of performance (FEAR? Possibly, but it performs terribly and has no draw distance really).

Frankly, Farcry still looks beautiful today, out shines many of todays top engines as far as looks, and runs EXTREMELY well with high settings on cards all the way back to the 9700 Pro. Only the Source engine can match that sort of thing, but even the the Source engine has its issues, like craptastic effects.

No, I'm really not. No one has still given me any examples of exemplary games prior to HL2 which set the standards graphically. I'm not denying Farcry had a great draw distance. But there are games like Battlefield 2 which have spectacular draw distances, and also maintain a state of realism which easily surpasses that of Farcry's. But the fact is, compared to today's standards now, Farcry's graphics look like an array of bright cartoonish graphics. F.E.A.R doesn't NEED any sense of draw distances seeing as every single level in that game is restricted to an indoor environment. And if you think Farcry's engine is better than Doom 3's, you're out of your damn mind. First off, Farcry's lighting and shadows are amongst the worst I have ever bore witness too, and I if you're going to use the fact that the sheer magnitude of the game itself prevents and real time lighting effects to be put into play, that's not acceptable. Farcry's player models are laughable when held in the same light as games like Oblivion. I'm not saying Farcry wasn't a pinnacle of gaming, but you can't honeslty sit here and say it surpasses all of today's games.

[see colon]

Originally Posted by Jim Norton

No, I'm really not. No one has still given me any examples of exemplary games prior to HL2 which set the standards graphically. I'm not denying Farcry had a great draw distance. But there are games like Battlefield 2 which have spectacular draw distances, and also maintain a state of realism which easily surpasses that of Farcry's. But the fact is, compared to today's standards now, Farcry's graphics look like an array of bright cartoonish graphics. F.E.A.R doesn't NEED any sense of draw distances seeing as every single level in that game is restricted to an indoor environment. And if you think Farcry's engine is better than Doom 3's, you're out of your damn mind. First off, Farcry's lighting and shadows are amongst the worst I have ever bore witness too, and I if you're going to use the fact that the sheer magnitude of the game itself prevents and real time lighting effects to be put into play, that's not acceptable. Farcry's player models are laughable when held in the same light as games like Oblivion. I'm not saying Farcry wasn't a pinnacle of gaming, but you can't honeslty sit here and say it surpasses all of today's games.

i what way does HL2 surpass Farcry on a technical level? much of HL2's visual flair comes from good use of high res textures and a solid polygon count on what needs it. but what's under the hood is old technology. it still uses code from the quake (quake 1) engine!

[BByte]

Originally Posted by Jim Norton

First off, Farcry's lighting and shadows are amongst the worst I have ever bore witness too, and I if you're going to use the fact that the sheer magnitude of the game itself prevents and real time lighting effects to be put into play, that's not acceptable.

HL2 didn't fare much better with it's bland lighting. About the only thing HL2 had going for it graphically were high resolution textures. And even that caused some problems like very frequent level loading.

However, to get back on topic and Just Cause:

graphics (beautiful)...UK PCG reported "Think farcry bumped UP a couple of notches"

Nowhere does it say Far Cry level. And I have yet to see a game graphically superior to Far Cry by more than a few notches.


Overall seems like an interesting game, though these freeform projects tend to suffer from extreme bugginess and are generally unfinished, at least at release.

[mjtdevries]

The most important reason why people are impressed with FarCry are the huge number of trees and foliage.

I can't think of any other game that had such a nice looking jungle. It had the first jungle that actually looked convincing.

HL2 might well be a better engine, but the levels look more like what we are used to see in other games before it: very few plants and trees because that is difficult. But mainly buildings and rocks because those are easier.

[Dresden]

Originally Posted by see colon

i what way does HL2 surpass Farcry on a technical level? much of HL2's visual flair comes from good use of high res textures and a solid polygon count on what needs it. but what's under the hood is old technology. it still uses code from the quake (quake 1) engine!

Why don't we start off by you explaining how it DOESN'T. Obviously you have answers, why don't you bring them to light instead of beating around the bush. And "bland lighting?" How in the name of God does Farcry have a better lighting system? While I admit HL2's wasn't as advanced as games like Doom 3, it was CERTAINLY better than Farcry's.

Please don't make me post screenshots.

[Neeyik]

Right - enough with arguments please. This is a thread about the PC gamer article; stick to the topic thanks.

[elementOfpower]

Originally Posted by see colon

i what way does HL2 surpass Farcry on a technical level?

Character models, for one. HL2's characters are much more detailed and some of the best yet seen on the PC.

FarCry has bright and vivid colors, but it doesn't look as realistic as HL2 or Doom 3 for that matter.

[Bouncing Zabaglione Bros.]

I think what the article is trying to get across is that Far Cry has a very lush, complete environment. It's a realistic looking sandbox, where you can stand on one island and see (or even shoot across) to another island, and then take a jeep, boat, or walk to that island and see it up close. Just Cause provides that same kind of graphically dense, realistic sandbox across a wide area.

That's quite a different style of game and environment from Doom 3 where everything is cut up into tiny little sections and you don't really have much choice in where to go or how to get there. Even HL2, though much more open than D3 is still not as freeform in map or playstyle as FC.

[Albuquerque]

I can give some examples how, technologically, FarCry > HL2:

Total objects on-screen (in the thousands, re: trees, grass, rocks, piers, vehicles, enemies, structures)
Total polys per-frame (~100,000 at useable framerate on nearly all hardware, user-configurable in excess of 1 million at acceptable framerate on 9800+ level hardware)
Draw distance capacity (8km+ even on ti4200-level hardware)
Level size capacity (64km square)
Dynamic shadowing (optionally soft depending on your visual settings)
Weapons detail (weapon scopes still show the environment when you're not looking through it)
Terrain blending (transition from beach to grass to rocks and back)

Those are technology reasons why FC > HL2, not art-direction reasons. You mention "realistic looking" as an indicator of technology? HL2's "realistic looking" settings aren't because of technology, they're from the use of high-res textures and some moody yellow (per-vertex prebaked) lighting.

If this is "Far Cry" bumped up a few notches, then I expect it's going to be quite nice. It may actually not bring new technology to the forefront over what is already there from the original FC, but if the art assets get a good upgrade, that's really all it would need.

[karlotta]

omg lame nana nana. Its all subjective. wtfcs! And a Game based on this size doesnt need great gfx.. just nice playable style gfx. FC is a good buzz word for gfx.... Will like to see the physics.... ect.