Far Cry 3 announced

[N00b]

Did you happen to see any civilians in FC2?

First there are some civilians inside the buildings (plus there are some at the very end). Second, what do you need civilians for? I guess they made a conscious decision not to put civilians on the outside, so people cannot kill them. Fine with me. What gameplay purpose would they have served anyway?

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.

Sorry, but we are talking about a game, actually about a whole genre, where people can effortless carry around hundres of kilos of weapons and ammo, run around at 40-80 mph for days without any signs of fatigue or hunger, heal from even the most critical wounds in mere seconds by "applying a medkit", where earth is invaded my aliens and monsters, where viruses turn people into zombies and you really want to argue about realism and logic? WTF!? We are talking about a game here, not a simulation of reality.

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?

I played the game through. I think it was very easy to avoid the snipers and escape the other boats. Same for the mortars. When you know where they are, just drive 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...)

Pleeeeeease. That's like saying "last time I checked every building can be entered, but I can't in Assassing Creed or GTA so they must be bad games." Would have item persistence added anything to the game? I don't think so. Story continuity? Many games let you steal/plunder/murder without any serious consequences. Because if there were serious consequences the game would be over. There are tons of games that handle that just the same. So what?

 

[N00b]

[EDIT]

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

Yesterday I finished the dragon age: origins prologue for mages. Guess what? Nothing I said or did was able to change the outcome regarding Jowan. Does that mean it's a bad game in your book?[/EDIT]

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 see that differently. It starts out like most shooters. You are the good guy. You are sent in the kill the baddie.

In order to get to him, you get your hands dirty. Maybe dirtier than you like, but hey, it's for a good cause. Somewhere along that road you start to worry if you are really doing the right thing.

And in the end it turns out that the baddie isn't quite as bad as you imagined. Maybe he is even a hero in a "the end justifies the means" kind of sense? It's not an easy call.

The line between good and bad is very blurry in this game and I really prefer that to all those oversimplistic black and white, we are good they are evil, borderline fascistic hero stories that shooters usually tell.

 

[Neb]

The game is still quite fun and enjoyable in short burst from time to time if not only to absorb the excellent athmosphere. Though it pains me that it isn't deeper with more life to the savanna world in style with say S.T.A.L.K.E.R. Such jaw dropping graphics that is IMO the only game to even start to challenge Crysis and with some tweaks it even strengthens it's stance. This games makes me stare in awe as the screenshots in screenshot thread shows I tend to take a tour to get my eyes raped.

I also would like to see the DUNIA engine used in more UBI games. I know the vegetation system went into AC2 but AC2 looks not well in comparision with FC2. Granted it was console version and it has lots of characters etc but if difference between console and PC version is same as in AC1 then it will just be a moderate improvement. Only if modable then we can start to talk but until then no way.

 

[Bludd]

[EDIT]
Yesterday I finished the dragon age: origins prologue for mages. Guess what? Nothing I said or did was able to change the outcome regarding Jowan. Does that mean it's a bad game in your book?[/EDIT]
I see that differently. It starts out like most shooters. You are the good guy. You are sent in the kill the baddie.

In order to get to him, you get your hands dirty. Maybe dirtier than you like, but hey, it's for a good cause. Somewhere along that road you start to worry if you are really doing the right thing.

And in the end it turns out that the baddie isn't quite as bad as you imagined. Maybe he is even a hero in a "the end justifies the means" kind of sense? It's not an easy call.

The line between good and bad is very blurry in this game and I really prefer that to all those oversimplistic black and white, we are good they are evil, borderline fascistic hero stories that shooters usually tell.

It is not for a good cause, you are a mercenary, it is money in your pocket which you can only use to buy guns and explosives. You end up becoming the bad guy and it is The Jackal who ends up killing you. This game is not good and bad in a very blurry way. You are bad and you are forced to do good so you don't faint all the time. That does not mean you are good, it is simply deus ex machina and it is bad in a supposedly sandbox game.

Regarding Dragon Age, it is not a sandbox game.

 

[N00b]

It is not for a good cause, you are a mercenary, it is money in your pocket which you can only use to buy guns and explosives. You end up becoming the bad guy and it is The Jackal who ends up killing you. This game is not good and bad in a very blurry way. You are bad and you are forced to do good so you don't faint all the time. That does not mean you are good, it is simply deus ex machina and it is bad in a supposedly sandbox game.

I think you're confusing something here. First of all, right at the start your mission is to kill the Jackal because he a major arms dealer and his death could possibly lead to peace or less killing. So I'm the good guy, he's the bad guy.

At the end of the game you discover that the Jackal played both parties (AFC and UFLL) in order to get enough diamonds to bribe the border guards, so the civilians can escape certain death. But in order to achieve this he fuels the fights, selling arms and stuff and becomes responsible for many deaths. He has blood on his hands and while his cause seems noble, his means are definitely not. So what is he? Good or bad. You tell me.

Then, you're are wrong again. The Jackal did not kill me. At the end I choose to delivery the diamonds so the refugees would be allowed to cross the border, while the Jackal goes off to detonate the dynamite (maybe killing himself, the games leaves that open). It's not even 100% clear if I die.

 

[Grall]

and you really want to argue about realism and logic? WTF!? We are talking about a game here, not a simulation of reality.

You have a point here, sort of. A game like Left 4 Dead for example kind of winks at the player and kindly asks you to run with it and not get too caught up in the prepostrous idea that rotting corpses can walk around and attack you.

However, if you make a game in a realistic setting, but make gameplay UNrealistic, then the suspension of disbelief is broken. The contrast becomes too jarring and you get caught up on all the deviations from reality. Or well, you don't, apparantly, but I do. And Bludd as well it would seem.

I liked the original FC quite a bit, until you ran into those stupid apes. That was the point where FC broke my suspension of disbelief. I could deal with the puppet-like enemies that had infinite ammo and aimed right at you with rocket launchers from 200+ m away, but those damn stupid mutant apes were simply too much.

It simply deviates too much from the mood of the game that has been built up so far, and that's something that easily occurs in today's games now that computing tech allows us to make settings increasingly more realistic.

 

[Bludd]

I think you're confusing something here. First of all, right at the start your mission is to kill the Jackal because he a major arms dealer and his death could possibly lead to peace or less killing. So I'm the good guy, he's the bad guy.

At the end of the game you discover that the Jackal played both parties (AFC and UFLL) in order to get enough diamonds to bribe the border guards, so the civilians can escape certain death. But in order to achieve this he fuels the fights, selling arms and stuff and becomes responsible for many deaths. He has blood on his hands and while his cause seems noble, his means are definitely not. So what is he? Good or bad. You tell me.

Then, you're are wrong again. The Jackal did not kill me. At the end I choose to delivery the diamonds so the refugees would be allowed to cross the border, while the Jackal goes off to detonate the dynamite (maybe killing himself, the games leaves that open). It's not even 100% clear if I die.

AFC and UFLL are the same, doesn't matter who you join. Doesn't matter if you set off the dynamite or the Jackal does it, the game still ends with a patronising documentary style text berating all you did in the game. And he does kill you. He is the one who says "either detonate the dynamite (oh and you die) or go to the border (oh and you have to shoot yourself here is a gun)". It does not leave it open.

This is a psychotic and schizophrenic game which doesn't know what it is, it thinks it is an open world sandbox game with choices and stuff, but it is really a patronising morality lesson delivered so awkwardly and so heavy-handed, it loses all its effect.

 

[Blazkowicz]

You have a point here, sort of. A game like Left 4 Dead for example kind of winks at the player and kindly asks you to run with it and not get too caught up in the prepostrous idea that rotting corpses can walk around and attack you.

However, if you make a game in a realistic setting, but make gameplay UNrealistic, then the suspension of disbelief is broken. The contrast becomes too jarring and you get caught up on all the deviations from reality. Or well, you don't, apparantly, but I do. And Bludd as well it would seem.

I liked the original FC quite a bit, until you ran into those stupid apes. That was the point where FC broke my suspension of disbelief. I could deal with the puppet-like enemies that had infinite ammo and aimed right at you with rocket launchers from 200+ m away, but those damn stupid mutant apes were simply too much.

It simply deviates too much from the mood of the game that has been built up so far, and that's something that easily occurs in today's games now that computing tech allows us to make settings increasingly more realistic.

I like the apes, you got to fight a secund kind of enemy, I like the difficulty and they were more frightening than the stupid blocky imps from doom 3.

 

[Grall]

Oh, if you liked the mutant chimps that rocketjumped all over the place like their arses were smeared with mustard, then you must have loved the mutant gorillas that ate five RPG rounds to the chest before going down (1 round is enough to knock out a modern fuckin battletank btw)... Stupidest enemies I ever saw in a game.

 

[Blazkowicz]

if you stab Hitler's mecha-armor about 80 times with a knife, it tears apart ; then it's 80 more stabs again to finish the job

 

[Acert93]

I thought the MP editor was cool (consoles) but without some gameplay modifiers it didn't have legs. Hopefully they take a look at games like Halo and the MP modifiers available to flesh out the package.

 

[Neb]

If editor would allowed to edit singleplayer maps it would have been ace. Edit respawns etc. For now there is some script with respawn stuff based on radius from spawn spot.. blehhh.

 

[Mize]

I bought FC2 on a whim based on FC's graphics. I'm a graphics whore and was completely disappointed with FC2 on every level but graphics. Fighting the same respond areas over and over is boring at best. This was also no sandbox but a typical Wolf3d series of corridors with some outdoor textures. Hated it beyond belief. I probably tried to like it for two hours before filing it in the back of the drawer where it's stayed ever since.

 

[Silent_Buddha]

Oh, if you liked the mutant chimps that rocketjumped all over the place like their arses were smeared with mustard, then you must have loved the mutant gorillas that ate five RPG rounds to the chest before going down (1 round is enough to knock out a modern fuckin battletank btw)... Stupidest enemies I ever saw in a game.

Just like how in about any FPS you play you can take a few hundred bullets during the course of a game? I don't see too many real people taking that many bullets. Stupidest players I ever say in a game...

If you got bothered about super baddies taking multiple RPGs, I can imagine you must absolutely HATE every single FPS game ever made except for the Rainbow 6 and Ghost Recon series.

Regards,
SB

 

[Mize]

There's something to be said about R6 and the GR series. Taking three bullets and healing in 12 seconds whilst being able to run full speed and make head shots is a bit...uh...too much sometimes?

 

[Mobius1aic]

How I would "fix" FC2 for a sequel:

1) Make the world less of a box and design it more like the shape of an actual country (I hated this about GTA San Andreas too!)
2) Keep missions more varied, or less missions that are longer and more drawn out in gameplay
3) Let me skip having to drive 20 minutes to the target. Just get me within a half mile and let me do the rest unless I actually do want to drive (to pick up weapons along the way)
4) Why did the enemies have much faster cars than I did even if they were driving the same model vehicle? This was absolutely the most annoying thing about FC2 for me, there was no real chase, just catching up to you and starting to pump you full of lead until you actually stopped and took care of the enemies. SO ANNOYING. Give us a real chase if you have to make it such, have them do stupid things like run into trees and drive off cliffs. That would be exciting and fun. This point leads to:
5) All the checkpoints across the map. If I destroy/caputre a checkpoint, I shouldn't have to deal with getting through soldiers there ever again. I could stand to be notified that "it has been recaptured" though.
6) A ballistics system could be very interesting, it would make sniping alot more challenging, and make suppressive fire a must.
7) The rusty/worn down weapons issue gets annoying when you crucially need that gun to be working so at least give me the ability to clean it with weapon cleaning kits if you want to be realistic.
8) No more respawning AI.
9) The guns need to feel like they have more "punch" when they hit a target. When I hit an enemy, it looks way too "animated". Some guns lack the feeling of real "punch" when shooting them. (Less treble, more bass!)
10) I want dangerous wildlife to worry about!
11) Armour customization would be very cool.
12) Create more of a "team aspect" to the missions instead of you or one buddy being a one/two man army. This could bring more focus to the missions and their immediate objectives, instead of purely "go here, kill him" all the time.
13) I don't know whether the area in FC2 was supposed to be a whole country or just part of a country, but whatever, even the poorest nations have paved roads somewhere. I wish FC2 had played out as taking place in a "region" and not a country as a whole.

 

[Daozang]

What I'd mostly like to know, is were did some of you guys see the sandbox in FC2... Is driving for 1 minute to a loading screen sandbox?
I really got bored of that game really fast... Stalker compared to this is the "game of the century"...
As for the morality part, I wouldn't know, I couldn't get my self to play half the game, let alone finish it
The point though is that when you go for story, you either go all the way, or not at all.
Deus Ex was a good example of a story driven FPS. And it might be the only one
Seriously, FC2 was a flawed game from every aspect imaginable. The story couldn't hold me to the end of the game, the driving was horrid, (I mean even if they actually wanted to have chase sequences and cars that didn't drive at speeds of light when driven by the enemy, the maps were so small and corridor like, that it would be awfull anyway), and the shooting was so-so...
Add the endless spawnning, and the pace breaking unavoidable enemies on vehicles and you got yourself a nice package that belongs to the trash.

Oh, yeah, it had nice graphics, I forgot
I guess the only reason to own this game is that bench you can run and boast at your amazing framerate

 

[swaaye]

The PR for the game raised red flags with me. They were touting worthless stuff like how the trees grow. They were dumping time into useless features.

My opinion of this game is quite low and the high reviews it received put the final nail in the coffin for my opinion of game reviewers. I regret buying it on Steam because I couldn't sell it back and get some of that wasted $50 back.

 

[DuckThor Evil]

Heh I still think it was a solid 8.5/10 game. Nothing spectacular and I hated the spawning too, but you could pretty much get around those situations.

 

[Neb]

Dunno if this would work by putting it in "GamerProfile.xml".

<setting id="SpawnPeriod" string="3600"/>

Else in XXX.bat file as SpawnPeriod 3600 .