Ike Turner
Veteran
Hold-on...so all the footage we've seen so far (from E3..) was just the PC version being played with an X360 controller?
Far Cry 3 announced
- Thread starter Dresden
- Start date
Hold-on...so all the footage we've seen so far (from E3..) was just the PC version being played with an X360 controller?
Quoted for exceptional TRUTH.
FC2 at least looked quite a bit better on the PC but yeah, the gameplay was a bit boring. It had a lot of good elements and the environments were amazing but for some reason it doesn't all come together as a good game. It's still sitting on my shelf waiting to be finished while I completed better games like Star Wars: Force Unleashed (1+2), GTA4:EFLC and Assasins Creed 2
ewww, I thought it looked pretty good for a console, but for a PC it looks like ass. So nothing new here, just like every other multi-platform game being released, move along.
I actually finished it. What a waste of time
You are a better man than I. I tried really hard but got the pants bored off of me.
In the original Far Cry 2 thread, I started by being very happy (almost elated) with the game. But as you progressed through, it became far worse. The health of the baddies went crazily high, being able to "run away" became impossible as all NPC-driven vehicles could suddenly out-accelerate your own, NPC's began obtaining ridiculous aiming and shooting abilities, missions were purposefully strewn all over the map as to necessitate driving through multitudes of the unavoidable, un-run-away-able checkpoints, and what was supposed to be a sandbox game actually became a network of tunnels as they purposefully boxed you in with near-90* hillsides and valleys everywhere.
I eventually finished it, months after I started, and generally gave it about a 3.5/10 if I recall. The graphics were fine, and it made a good first impression, but the longer you played, the worse it became.
I'm fully UNinterested in FC3 based on my experience with FC2.
I eventually finished it, months after I started, and generally gave it about a 3.5/10 if I recall. The graphics were fine, and it made a good first impression, but the longer you played, the worse it became.
I'm fully UNinterested in FC3 based on my experience with FC2.
This made me LOL in real life! Now everyone in the restaurant is looking at me.
Edit:
Crap! I just realized this is an old thread, and I already LOLed at the venom spewed. Still funny though.
Last edited by a moderator:
k I'm scoping out Boiling Point because it was described as STALKER + Fallout 3 + vehicles. Looks like Just Cause too....
I probably would have picked it up out of curiosity already if it was on Steam or Impulse. I don't see it on any download stores.
I probably would have picked it up out of curiosity already if it was on Steam or Impulse. I don't see it on any download stores.
I'm not too fond of what I've seen so far, regarding FC3. The setting is almost identical to the first one, the whole tropical island thing has been done to death. There was a rumor that the third installment was going to take place in Antarctica, which would have been bad ass. Instead Ubi chose to play the same tune as the first, only without mutants. They better spice this game up significantly to draw my interest.
There's only 2 really decent jungle based FPS's and one of them's the first Farcry. The other game which doesn't need to be named takes place 50% in a frozen wasteland anyway so I'm not sure how an Antartica based setting would be that original.
True. I guess what really attracted me about FC2 was the setting being in Africa. Not many FPS', if any, that I can remember have actually chosen that as a setting.
Hardly more to death than urban, or random corridor environs. Rather, open-world nature settings are quite uncommon in games.
Uh, I don't know about you, but I didn't buy 2.8 billion transistor video cards to have them draw nothing but white pixels on the screen, thankyouverymuch. Antarctica would suck ass as a setting. If you want snow and ice an shiet, why not check out Lost Planet...
The original farcry but without the stupid mutants would be just fine with me. I hated those damn monkeys, they ruined everything in that game. The rest was great, the mutants were not.
I never even considered playing FC2 because the setting wasn't anything like the first game, the main character was different, the story was different... NOTHING in the 2nd game had anything to do with farcry, it was just an idiotic cash-in on the name. It totally wouldn't have surprised me if the game that became FC2 was originally intended to be sold under a different name...
So if they backtrack a bit, Ubi get on that whole genetic manipulation stuff crytek had going in the first game, I'd be all over that like white on rice. More totally-unconnected-to-the-first-game crap...not so much.
Oh, well, I forgot I'm boycotting Ubi games on general principle because of their treatment of their paying customers. So I guess it doesn't matter how good this game is because I won't buy it regardless.
I have no memory of half of the original Turok for the Nintendo64 taking part in any frozen wasteland AT ALL...
(Yeah, I totally dug that game. Except for the bits with the supermario pillar hopping, that wasn't so great.)
Crysis was Far Cry 2. Pretty much everybody knows that.
Blazkowicz
Legend
I dunno, I didn't really like it, there was too much crytek hubris and I prefered being a muscle guy with a hawaian shirt rather than a faceless nanoborg.
so I would like a fun and challenging far cry sequel.
the controls in Crysis were too complex, far cry had offered a lot already (lean, crouch, prone, stamina run, toggle burst mod, throw rock/grenade) and getting along the terrain was fun.
Crysis made you almost run out of keys by adding features on top of that, I kept dying at 15/20 fps in firefights because of hitting the weapon mode key, or I had trouble micromanaging the suit "magic spells" along with grenades, weapon, proning etc.
Not fun. I'm not a warcraft III player.
I also like old gameplay with healthpacks and hitpoints but maybe that's asking too much
so I would like a fun and challenging far cry sequel.
the controls in Crysis were too complex, far cry had offered a lot already (lean, crouch, prone, stamina run, toggle burst mod, throw rock/grenade) and getting along the terrain was fun.
Crysis made you almost run out of keys by adding features on top of that, I kept dying at 15/20 fps in firefights because of hitting the weapon mode key, or I had trouble micromanaging the suit "magic spells" along with grenades, weapon, proning etc.
Not fun
. I'm not a warcraft III player.I also like old gameplay with healthpacks and hitpoints but maybe that's asking too much
Last edited by a moderator:
I can't tell if you're trashing the concept of open-world game play, or agreeing with me, here. Personally, I'm a fan of open-worlds, so long as there enough interaction and it's not just a blatant display of eye candy.
My point was switching up the setting a bit wouldn't hurt, not to question why you bought your GPU. It feels like old hat to play the third game of a trilogy taking place in almost the same location under a different name as the first. Albeit, I'm sure when actually rendered with modern graphics, it's bound to be breathtaking. Neither the setting nor the story, thus far, really struck me.
The mutants and the lead character and his shitty dialogue, which also plagued the first Crysis, ruined the first game for me. It looked and played amazingly, in fact it was the first game I ever played that had a draw distance as far as it's.