Far Cry 2 vs Far Cry 5 shameful physics, a lone exception or the trend this generation?

[HBRU]

ah yes, marketing ...
but in that case it was ok I think

 

[CSI PC]

There's no denying that video games sell mostly based on how pretty they appear. The imagination fills in how it might be fun to play in the world those visuals display.

Sandbox physics are appealing too. At this point if there's some thing missing there I'm sure it's a design decision. It's all been done before. We're on iteration 10000000 of these games now.

Lets think back to Trespasser Jurassic Park which had lots of physics simulations running on Pentium MMX.

Yeah Goat Simulator comes to mind, that did have quite a high popularity.
I think this is also exacerbated in modern games that are designed to be greater multiplayer interactive than before and designing the physics into the game engine in a way that maintains synchronisation between players/their consoles; more complex the physics/environment-objects trickier it becomes.
If I remember Goat Simulator mentioned this challenge for their sandbox when looking to make it multiplayer.

And it is fair to say the pressure from publishers on studios-devs means allocating resources result in design choice limitations-scope needing to be made, and higher interactive multiplayer game with complex environment physics is far from trivial on consoles or even PC.

 

[Jupiter]

]

Just like I've thought: Crysis was the competition.

Part of it is cultural. Far Cry 2 is from that time early on ps360 gen where "gritty realism" wad all the rage. People remember thr piss filter well, but there was more to it: moody atmosphere, perpetual hdlf overcast sunsets everywhere, over realistic violence, and dynamic physics. Half Life 2 had been released recently putting physics on the radar for everyone. FC1 sold people on the more versatyle big engines such as Crytek's. And doom sold people on highly dynamic lighting. All trends seemed to point to a future highly simulated games. Program real life and the game builds itself, seemed to be the idea. Cell was tounted as the next big thing. The 360 didn't have a weak cpu either. There was a strong focus on physics back then, which now has lost some of the hype. Devs were experimenting a lot back than. And many of those experimental games floped. Remember the Splinte Cell convicion prototype that was canned? Or the Alone in the Dark Reboot? And that Euphoria driven Indiana Jones game that never saw the light of day? FC2 was not very succesful either. Even GTAIV was criticized for loosing some of the fun in its apriach to a more down to earth world. Not only did the hype on physics eventually die off, but devs got tired of trying to make them work as expected and fail so often. More directed, pragmatic solutions became popular again.
GTAV, FC3/4/5 and a couple other recent games are part of another new trend. One that is exactly the reaction to the "gritty realism" one. Games that are not trying to be realistic, but rather like a Hollywood Action Blockbuster. Like HL2 FC1 and Doom helped pave the way to that style back then, Uncharted and COD did it for this one. It's all about fun. The industry settled to more tried and true production techniches to try and restore some sanity into the extremely risky endeavor that is AAA game creation, which did bankrupt so many studios and publishers on the early ps360 days...
Sistemic worlds are not entirely dead though. But they are not coming so much on the form of procedural physics and animation, but through other elements of game design. Games are more and more open, levels more broad and experimentation-inviting. Missions have become less directed. All big titles have their share of RPG elements, and even Japanese studios who seemed to be behind the curve on this push for simulation-based open world sandbox games caught up with MGSV, FFXV and Zelda BoTW..

Some of your aspects are in it as well.

 

[Mobius1aic]

As everyone else is saying, FC2 --> FC3/4/5 and GTAIV --> GTAV was all about refinement. Not only was it a gameplay thing, but allowed the devs to put processing power towards more meaningful things depending on your point of view. GTAV I think is a great example, as it's a much better playing and running game than it's predecessor. To this day, the PC version of GTAIV is still a god awful unoptimized mess. I'm actually in the opposite camp for Far Cry, as I greatly enjoy and find more meaning in Far Cry 2 than Far Cry 3 (I haven't played any other FC since). FC3 wasn't about achieving that "gritty realism". Far Cry 2 forced players to fight through dirty outposts full of rusted physicalized objects that enemies could hide behind and shoot through, and hence needed to be physicalized. FC3's AI also felt more predictable and simplified, and generally put itself out in the open because they were out to get you like the crazies they were.

 

[CSI PC]

Digital Foundry done a nice video with much of it relevant to what posters have said:

Also threw in Crysis into the mix as they felt it was one of the games to push a certain direction in terms of engine/game direction at the time and so others were marketing/competing with that focus; still looks pretty good even now considering what it implemented.

 

[OCASM]

 

[Cyan]

]

Just like I've thought: Crysis was the competition.



Some of your aspects are in it as well.

Digital Foundry done a nice video with much of it relevant to what posters have said:

Also threw in Crysis into the mix as they felt it was one of the games to push a certain direction in terms of engine/game direction at the time and so others were marketing/competing with that focus; still looks pretty good even now considering what it implemented.

I said this in the DF thread, but this video is unsubstantial for the most part. It doesnt say anything to put FC5 in a better light than FC2 and the arguments are quite mundane, imho.