Far Cry 3 announced

Dresden

Dresden

Celebrating Mediocrity
Veteran
Whoa :oops:

http://www.bluesnews.com/cgi-bin/board.pl?action=viewstory&threadid=104665

http://www.computerandvideogames.com/article.php?id=228138

Computer and Video Games quotes Ubisoft writer Kevin Shortt speaking with Official PlayStation Magazine saying Far Cry 3 looks "pretty exciting," confirming development of a third installment in this first-person shooter series. "No I'm not," the writer replied when asked if he was working on Far Cry 3 during a junket for Avatar. "But I know the team are and what I've seen looks pretty exciting."
Click to expand...
 
If this is going to be anything like the mess that Far Cry 2 was, in gameplay or muddled story or worthless open worldiness or patronising morality full of hypocrisy, I will make it my mission to see the game fail.

I hate Far Cry 2.
 
Bludd said:
If this is going to be anything like the mess that Far Cry 2 was, in gameplay or muddled story or worthless open worldiness or patronising morality full of hypocrisy, I will make it my mission to see the game fail.

I hate Far Cry 2.
Click to expand...
I liked it. Once I adjusted to the respawning enemies (by using waterways and/or simply not stopping at road blocks), I really enjoyed it. Some of the best combat situations in a game for me so far. End was a bit weak, tough.
 
N00b said:
I liked it. Once I adjusted to the respawning enemies (by using waterways and/or simply not stopping at road blocks), I really enjoyed it. Some of the best combat situations in a game for me so far. End was a bit weak, tough.
Click to expand...
Did you notice how none of your choices made any difference? Did you notice how the game tries to make you think they did? Did you notice how the game patronises you with "war is bad, genocide sux, you're evil lolol" and then force you to kill hundreds of people because stealth doesn't work?
 
I loved FC2, but I'm a sucker for sandbox games. The respawn issue, however, was quite obnoxious.
 
Ink said:
I loved FC2, but I'm a sucker for sandbox games. The respawn issue, however, was quite obnoxious.
Click to expand...
But this wasn't a proper sandbox game. The missions you could do were totally irrelevant, your "friends" gave you nothing unique for your troubles and there was no humour and nothing interesting to do in the cars except for drive on endlessly.

I used the bus all the time and pretty much says it all. I would go out of my way to avoid gameplay just so I could finish the game.
 
You guys should just put your Farcry 2 impressions in your sig. That way you wouldn't have to re-type it out every time your worried people might have forgotten what you think.
 
Bludd said:
Did you notice how none of your choices made any difference? Did you notice how the game tries to make you think they did?
Click to expand...
So? That's better than giving you no choice at all, which is what most games do.
war is bad
Click to expand...
It's not?
genocide sux
Click to expand...
So you're implying that it doesn't?
and then force you to kill hundreds of people because stealth doesn't work?
Click to expand...
Having a working stealth system would definitely have been a goog think, still I think FC2 handles the topic better than most games, that simply glorify killing and violence. Not your cup of tea? Why not go play Modern Warfare 2 and kill some civilians!
 
Unfortunately for Ubi, after spending my hard earned £40.00 on FC2 I'm not going to do the same mistake for FC3, not unless it proves itself first (which means I will need to have a friend brave enough to buy it or ...)
 
N00b said:
still I think FC2 handles the topic better than most games, that simply glorify killing and violence. Not your cup of tea? Why not go play Modern Warfare 2 and kill some civilians!
Click to expand...

Did you happen to see any civilians in FC2? At least in the original Far Cry (and it's true spiritual successor, Crysis) the story centered around an island that was entirely occupied by "evil" forces. The story here revolves around war-torn Africa; where are the Africans? This blatant omission seems a bit disingenuous to me.

Further, why would everyone in the ~100 square miles that you can cover want you dead immediately? If anyone sees you from a quarter mile away while you're travelling at ~50mph, they instantly know who you are and that they want you dead. No questions, unless of course you're in a "no fire" zone...

Here's another imponderable for you: why can a "baddie" unload five clips worth of ammo in my general direction, I kill him, steal his gun, and it jams on the first clip? This isn't a random occurrence; this was the defacto method for any weapons you gleaned from dead baddies.

And waterways you say? I guess you didn't get to the second map then. Waterways were a JOKE in the second map, as you'd have snipers on all the little islands that would lob mortars at you with marksmanship not seen outside of a SEALS team. And we need not discuss the epic mountain of boat-mounted baddies that would follow you around?

As for being a sandbox? My geography is a bit rough, but last I checked, Africa wasn't made of thousands of miles of stone corridors. They promised some epic number of square miles you can cover, but a significant chunk of that number wasn't reachable period. Other notable sandbox failures of FC2: item persistence (was there ANY?), enemy persistence / respawn (100 meters and suddenly that whole outpost you just wiped out is entirely re-manned and re-stocked?), storyline continuity with the world (I could completely EFF up the no-fire zone, and they let me right back in so long as I drive about 1km out and turn around...)

I think anyone who mentions that they are hoping Far Cry 3 is absolutely nothing like Far Cry 2 has a valid point -- the gameplay was fundamentally broken in a vast multitude of different ways.
 
N00b said:
So? That's better than giving you no choice at all, which is what most games do.It's not?So you're implying that it doesn't?Having a working stealth system would definitely have been a goog think, still I think FC2 handles the topic better than most games, that simply glorify killing and violence. Not your cup of tea? Why not go play Modern Warfare 2 and kill some civilians!
Click to expand...

Choices. It is better they don't give us any if the ones we make do not matter, yes.

War and genocide. Yes, it is terrible. The game tells you this in a patronising fashion while it forces you to kill hundreds of people for money. It rewards you but does not show you the bad side of the evil you are doing and then it fucks you in ass repeatedly with The Jackal who is an emo prick who should have just killed himself before the game even started; or killed you at the very beginning.

The game portrays an entire country full of mercenaries out to kill JUST YOU. Towns full of mercenaries, mercenaries at every crossroad gunning for you, ramming their cars into yours. Great stuff, nice way to build an emotional attachment. Where are the civilians? You see civilians in the non-interactive intro to the game (Ubisoft's "homage" to Half-Life 1) but either they have been killed by the evil mercenaries (i.e. the same people of which the player is one of) or they are in hiding in churches or whatever.

And what about the deus ex machina that is the malaria you get at the start? That is the most unnecessary thing I have ever seen. It is simply there so that the player gets a reward for helping people who are inside huts that the armed mercenaries cannot get inside. The game forces you to help them, because without the medicine, you faint all the time. So yes, the game is the pinnacle of hypocrisy: on the one hand it says "you are an evil mercenary, war is bad, but you can choose your path" but on the other hand it says "you must be a good guy or else you will have a debilitating disease oh and btw, you have to die at the end because you are really a bad, evil mercenary, sorry about that lolol, ps. kill all the people *wink*". This is a psychotic game, if it were a person, it would be institutionalised because it poses a danger to itself and the community at large. It is a terrible game, in concept and in content. It is a terrible game because nothing in it matters even though it tries to convince you all you do does indeed matter. It is a terrible game because Ubisoft ruined the franchise. It is a terrible game because it patronises the player and then shits in her mouth, and I hate it very much and I resent anyone liking it and I resent Ubisoft for making it and for buying the rights for it. I hope Crytek ripped Ubisoft off.

I am not a violent man, but if Far Cry 2 were a guy, I'd walk right over to him and punch him in the face.

I. HATE. FAR. CRY. 2.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Bludd I :love: u. I envy your formidable ability to put forth a coherent persuasive intarweb suparpost.
 
I'm so glad I borrowed this from a friend instead of buying it after hearing some of the comments on this forum months ago. What a horrible game. I couldn't even muster the will to finish the first half of the game and move onto the second map.

Graphics were really nice... That's about all I can say that was good about it.

Here's hoping FC3 goes back to the some resemblance of FC1 and avoids the crap that was FC2.

Regards,
SB
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top