Man, I love 30 Rock.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Far Cry 3 seems to take one step forward, two steps back (RPS impressions inside)
- Thread starter Ledsen
- Start date
Man, I love 30 Rock.
cleveridea
Member
Yes, this is exactly how I felt. Read FC3 stuff - sounds awesome way to address this.
The issue with challenge is sooo easy to fix relative to this. Games like new vegas hardcore mode that remove instant healing for example. Making enemies dangerous (adjusting attack or AI aggressiveness parameters based on difficulty/mode) and removing plenty of instant healing items would fix this surely. 1999 mode in bioshock infinite is an example of a developer supporting both a wider audience and a hardcore audience. If FC3 devs dont do such a thing, they have upset an audience for very little incremental effort.
Yeah, I won't get too hopeful about it, but it would be great if difficulty levels do more than just raise enemy HP and lower player HP. Something similar to FO:NV's hardcore mode would be great, especially if the concept was fleshed out a bit. Good options mean everyone can be happy!
Seriously? The original Assassin's Creed suffered the same fate. They built a whole slew of systems without any consideration for fun. There's no design here.
There isn't exactly a lot of freedom either. The core mechanics feel like shit, the driving is awful, and the world is limited. You just fight respawning enemies for hours on end without any real purpose.
At least you could see that MOST PEOPLE around here do not like what Far Cry 2 offered and are thrilled by the change.
captainnapalm
Member
Seriously, how can devs keep up with gamers and their constant changing opinions.
'Far Cry 2 was crap, please never again!' 'Actually, we love Far Cry 2, it's so unique!'.
'Please, never again with all the respawning enemies!' 'Ooh, that constant sense of danger was so awesome!'.
'Far Cry 2 was crap, please never again!' 'Actually, we love Far Cry 2, it's so unique!'.
'Please, never again with all the respawning enemies!' 'Ooh, that constant sense of danger was so awesome!'.
What I hated about FarCry 2 and other open-world shooters is that the game world seems to be inhabited mostly by people who want to kill you at sight.
A 1:1 ratio of friendlies to hostiles (with hotspots of enemies of course) is my ideal for an open world game. Otherwise its is just an unusually large shooting range.
A 1:1 ratio of friendlies to hostiles (with hotspots of enemies of course) is my ideal for an open world game. Otherwise its is just an unusually large shooting range.
I am just glad that respawning checkpoints are gone. Sorry, that is not the kind of tension I want. I'll gladly take the bases I take over becoming mine. A place I can go back to in order to customize weapons, craft gear and pick up new side quests, such as hunting. As for having to watch an animation while I skin an animal, so what?
By the way, I think having to be wary of the wildlife, in addition to human foes will add plenty of tension. But I also can appreciate a bit of downtime in huge, beautiful open worlds as well. Be it hunting, riding a quad, hang gliding, riding a jet ski, looking for upgrades and ingredients, etc. In which case, there is plenty to do outside of the more structured missions and I am thankful that I will not have to deal with a bombardment of respawning enemies which totally kill that exploration aspect.
Anyone remember just taking a waltz around the world in Far Cry 2, only to have a jeep full of guys from a base down the road you just destroyed come crashing into you from out of nowhere? This happened over and over again. Yeah, no thanks. An open world game has to give you some downtime and room to explore and enjoy all of the side stuff on offer. Else it becomes far too tedious, and quite frankly, boring. The way it is structured here looks like like it is more balanced with fun and freedom in mind, and less annoyances.
By the way, I think having to be wary of the wildlife, in addition to human foes will add plenty of tension. But I also can appreciate a bit of downtime in huge, beautiful open worlds as well. Be it hunting, riding a quad, hang gliding, riding a jet ski, looking for upgrades and ingredients, etc. In which case, there is plenty to do outside of the more structured missions and I am thankful that I will not have to deal with a bombardment of respawning enemies which totally kill that exploration aspect.
Anyone remember just taking a waltz around the world in Far Cry 2, only to have a jeep full of guys from a base down the road you just destroyed come crashing into you from out of nowhere? This happened over and over again. Yeah, no thanks. An open world game has to give you some downtime and room to explore and enjoy all of the side stuff on offer. Else it becomes far too tedious, and quite frankly, boring. The way it is structured here looks like like it is more balanced with fun and freedom in mind, and less annoyances.
To be fair, nearly everyone in this thread is in support of this change. There seem to be a small number of people that actually enjoyed what they did in FC2. I can't imagine how, though.
The "sense of danger" from respawning enemies absolutely destroyed the game for me. 100% ruined it. Every was was completely aggressive at all times. Enemies were either unaware or completely aggressive. There was no middle ground.
I approve of this. More innocents to prey on is always a good thing.
Constantly changing opinions? Really? Have you not considered the possibility that different people have different opinions, and want different things? Come on, man...
Well to me, the systems in Far Cry 2 are all fun. As evidenced by the FC2 stories on Idle Thumbs (they talk about the game so often that it's become an in-joke to at least mention it as an example of interesting game design once in every episode), the "perma-death Far Cry 2" blog and other places, it's a game that inspires people to create and tell stories. The systems all interact in unpredictable ways to form a unique experience for each person who is playing the game. The "purpose" comes from the complete freedom to use the systems at your disposal (the weapons, the environment layout, the objective etc etc) to approach each mission in a whole new way. Planning and executing your missions only to have everything go to complete hell in a handbasket, to be forced to improvise to survive, that's the essence and joy of Far Cry 2. And from my examples and other people's stories in the OT you can see that I'm far from alone. I don't care what the detractors think or how many they are, that has nothing to do with my experience.
Thats not what I meant, you psycho.
There's barely any emergent systems in the AC games.
captainnapalm
Member
Yeah, totally agree. I'm completely behind having the open world have plenty of safe areas to explore, or do a bit of hunting, or whatever.
I didn't bought the second game exactly for those reasons, can't wait for this one so I guess it worked what they did.
I want to play a game with some realistic stuff here and there and that's it, no need for malaria or weapon degradation or respawning enemies all over the place.
This is great news to me.
I want to play a game with some realistic stuff here and there and that's it, no need for malaria or weapon degradation or respawning enemies all over the place.
This is great news to me.
I have no problem with weapon degradation. They could have left that in there - maybe toning it down a little bit.
I like realism in my open-world games. And exploration. Excessive combat thrown at me every two minutes is a detriment to my enjoyment.
If I want to be constantly shooting I will play Gears of COD.
I like realism in my open-world games. And exploration. Excessive combat thrown at me every two minutes is a detriment to my enjoyment.
If I want to be constantly shooting I will play Gears of COD.
captainnapalm
Member
I've been noticing this trend where games are initially loved, then hated, then at some point in the future, loved again. This process can even repeat itself.
See, that all sounds great when written, but while actually trying to play the game I don't find it even remotely fun.
The game has a broken world simply because nothing is constant. There is no sense of accomplishment when everything resets itself if you walk around the corner.
It was based on different systems but it felt equally soulless.
Messofanego
Banned
The warrior ally AI looks like the buddy system actually, with hopefully better AI. The buddies in FC 2 were awful shots and always on edge even if it was just 1 enemy 300 metres away.
You edited your hyperbole!
And that's perfectly fine. But me and many others do enjoy it, and we enjoy it a lot. Again, the feeling of accomplishment comes from the interaction of systems and the outcome of those interactions, not (as it seems to be in Far Cry 3) from XP popups and skinning minigames to create bigger wallets. The journey is the reward.
Can't comment on the "soulless" part because I have no idea what that means.
Eh, it's just an exceptionally divisive game. There is no ever-changing consensus. People tend to love it or hate it, and if anything their opinions become more solidified and extreme over time. Maybe a few people here and there have a change of heart, but I highly doubt that people are changing their opinions willy nilly. That just doesn't make sense if you actually think about it.
Thinking about it, AC is the epitome of the exact opposite of a systemic game; the entire game is super designed to the point where even the 'free-roaming' (climbing) is made up entirely of pre-created pathways. So while you may or may not have a point about feeling soulless, your comparison is bonkers.
I played a little at a preview thing a while back. The hunting is basically an excuse to go on more systemic adventures. I needed to get me a boar hide so I went looking in the jungle, found some pigs being attacked by dogs. As I'm angling to shoot them in as few shots as possible (ammo being relatively scarce), a deer bursts out of the bushes, followed by two military guys. We have a little firefight, some rebels drive up the road and join in, someone calls backup, three minutes later I'm half a mile away, burning vehicles lighting the sky behind me, i see the goddamn pig I was following, I shoot him and turn him into a knapsack.
It's still got it.
I absolutely hate the idea of XP popups and the skinning mechanic, but to suggest that those somehow define Far Cry 3 is just being dramatic.
This is just how Far Cry roles. Every installment in the franchise has been completely different from the last.
When you posted this thread, did you expect others to agree? That's what I find mystifying. Nearly everyone here was excited by the article and changes to the game.
All I can say is that both games, to me, felt like empty shells. They created a world and systems that functioned a specific way and failed to do anything interesting with them. Those systems may be completely different, but the results for me were the same. Both games were incredibly boring and frustrating to play.
Figured it was already said enough by people who are very correct.
No more dramatic than the majority of the people in this thread claiming Far Cry 2 apparently consisted of nothing but roaming jeeps, respawning guards and malaria. I'm sure you can understand my frustration. I agree that it adds little to the discussion though.
Anyway, my point in making this thread was that FC3 seems to be throwing the baby out with the bathwater in that they are not only fixing the glaring flaws of FC2, but also completely removing the many great ideas it did have instead of iterating on them, while adding unnecessary bar-filling chores and tasks similar to the AssCreed games. Sadly everyone seems to be ignoring that part and focusing on the "Oh god they fixed the jeeps and respawns" part exclusively.
I don't even mind the XP system if it's implemented well, it's just that I don't think it will be implemented well. That's the problem with all these games copying RPGs, they copy the elements but don't know or don't care to properly balance them or design them well. Hiding an ability that I used to be able to do in most FPS behind a level 3 unlock that requires 8000 XP and hours of playing is not good design, but that's what most of these wannabe RPGs do.
Hunting just seems like a desperate cash in over what they perceive to be the new popular thing after Red Dead did it. At least it seems like animals are more important in this game than they were in RDR. I just hope they didn't remove too many sim-like elements from FC2. The map system gone in place of an always on minimap, weapon jamming gone completely, enemy checkpoints reduced completely after taking them and who knows how much else worries me. They run the risk of making it just another modern game that takes elements from other games and is too homogenized and streamlined to be memorable for more than a month.
Hunting just seems like a desperate cash in over what they perceive to be the new popular thing after Red Dead did it. At least it seems like animals are more important in this game than they were in RDR. I just hope they didn't remove too many sim-like elements from FC2. The map system gone in place of an always on minimap, weapon jamming gone completely, enemy checkpoints reduced completely after taking them and who knows how much else worries me. They run the risk of making it just another modern game that takes elements from other games and is too homogenized and streamlined to be memorable for more than a month.
AlimNassor
Banned
I liked FC2, but, it had huge flaws. It was so very repetitive. There was nothing to do, go talk to X, go destroy X, but, our friends will be hostile so kill them all. It was the same everytime, and the enemies constantly respawned, it was fun the first few minutes, but, going back and killing the same few outposts is boring. It's no fun being forced to walk everywhere because the enemy have respawning outposts every 5 feet and a constant barrage of trucks.
There was nothing to really do either. So many great ideas and FC2 did nothing with it. The MP was terrific and probably my favorite MP game on the 360. I wish more games had a map maker. If FC3 had one, I'd be rushing to pre-order, hell if any game had it I'd be rushing to pre-order.
There was nothing to really do either. So many great ideas and FC2 did nothing with it. The MP was terrific and probably my favorite MP game on the 360. I wish more games had a map maker. If FC3 had one, I'd be rushing to pre-order, hell if any game had it I'd be rushing to pre-order.
Of course not, I know GAF has a seething hatred for FC2. I just felt like posting what I thought was a great article with an interesting point, regardless of the outcome. An interesting thing I've noticed is that game developers, or people who are otherwise interested in thinking about the mechanics of game design beyond what's happening on the screen in front of them, generally love FC2. It's the normal "gamers" who hate it. It doesn't apply to everyone obviously, but from listening to podcasts and reading forums that's the general impression I have. It's obviously a very interesting and unique game from a systems standpoint.
I H8 Memes
Member
So they Ubisofted the shit out of another game. Took a fantastic atmosphere and slathered it with boring and repetitive arcadish gameplay elements. Tattoos, penicillin, and memory walls, oh my!
So what exactly do you feel they are removing again? Re-iterate for me.
There were "chores" in Far Cry 2 as well, as the article states, but he finds disappointment in the fact that there is not always danger while engaging in these actions boiling the complaint down to "there isn't enough respawning guards".
The world they are creating in Far Cry 3 seems to be much more interesting simply because you're not constrained by the constant artificial barriers seen in FC2 (the rock walls). It never felt truly open. FC3 seems to allow for a much greater level of traversal.
In addition, the mechanics themselves seem more refined and there appears to be potential for genuine stealth now as the AI seems more comprehensive. AI in FC2 was either ON or OFF. Nothing in between.
The missions themselves seem more tightly designed, but there also appears to be plenty of side missions that rely on the systems.
I absolutely LOVE the idea of Far Cry 2, I'll admit, but I absolutely hate playing it. The problems I have are simply that the systems DO NOT WORK well, for the most part.
So what did you expect them to do? Shit out another Far Cry 2?
Here is a new interview with gameplay. Game is gorgeous, and huge. The main missions are going to be more linear and structured, but you still have all that wide open world to go off in and explore as you please, and with plenty to do. It's a fine balance between keeping the story focused, yet leaving all of that wide open freedom to do what you want, when you want without the annoyances like respawning enemies and such. It's what I wanted.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A81scf9moe0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A81scf9moe0
AlimNassor
Banned
Yes, that's exactly what FC2 was a stalker-lite, but, without the fun or tension. Stalker had tension because it was legitimately hard, FC2 had stupid tension because the AI was psychic and because if you died you had a lo0ng walk back across enemy territory-oh wait malaria, AGAIN!
The underwater environments look amazing. I'm gonna spend so much time just swimming around.
FC2 was one of the truly ambitious big budget games. From interviews and playing the game you can tell they scaled it back. Either because they didn't have the time to do it or because it just wasn't feasible on current hardware. It takes a lot to design believable AI that is limited to just attacking in a game like FC2 where its open and there are so many options. Even when working in 2D there are some great AI algorithms that can't be implemented in a video game that would potentially make the enemy encounters great.
If you told me FC3 was similar to/a refinement of FC 2 I wouldn't even throw it on a gamefly que or a 5$ steam sale.
Seeing all the fans of 2 hate it? Makes me much more hopeful.
Indeed, and no jeeps or boats full of guys respawning out of thin air to ruin it.
Ha ha, yes, that's a good way to look at it. Fans of FC2 hating on FC3 is a positive thing for me.
The game can be different from Far Cry 2 without turning into a cheap Call of Duty rip-off. Just because they're making changes doesn't mean they're "selling out".
Jason's Ultimatum
Member
-Fix broken AI
-Fix respawnable checkpoints
THAT'S IT. That's all you had to fix from the previous game. Maybe improve the plot, BUT only through gameplay, where you can find new clues to enhance the story.
The missions look more linear for some reason. In FC2, you could tackle missions wherever and however you wanted.
And it's true the sense of danger was great in FC2. I remember one mission where you had to drive a boat or swim to some big home or compound on the edge of the water. There were guards on boats patrolling the waters. It took me awhile to figure out how to plan my way to the compound without being seen.
God, FC2 was amazing, but there's no way I can go back to playing the game.
-Fix respawnable checkpoints
THAT'S IT. That's all you had to fix from the previous game. Maybe improve the plot, BUT only through gameplay, where you can find new clues to enhance the story.
The missions look more linear for some reason. In FC2, you could tackle missions wherever and however you wanted.
And it's true the sense of danger was great in FC2. I remember one mission where you had to drive a boat or swim to some big home or compound on the edge of the water. There were guards on boats patrolling the waters. It took me awhile to figure out how to plan my way to the compound without being seen.
God, FC2 was amazing, but there's no way I can go back to playing the game.
I feel like an asshole but it's the same for DMC.
You tell me a new devil my cry with ridiculous white haired dante/nero? Couldn't be less interested.
New character design/art style, new combat lead? Fuck it I'll give it a shot.
No kidding. The only interaction you had at a freaking bus stop was with a map pinned to a board. No NPC to talk to? Really? No townsfolk or bar patrons? No traffic besides fully armed nutjobs? Would have enjoyed the game far more this way.
The Janitor
Member
The only thing I'm gonna miss from FC2 is the gun jamming animations and the hudless approach (with map/GPS instead of minimap) cause there's way too much shit on the screen in FC3.
Other than that it looks way better.
Other than that it looks way better.
I H8 Memes
Member
They Ubisofted the shit out of Farcry 2 as well. It's just what Ubisoft does. Incredibly lame gameplay elements that do nothing but pull the player out of the atmosphere of the game. They make cheap feeling arcadish games set in some of the best worlds around. Shame really.
The main story is more structured and linear to keep it focused, but all of the side stuff is wide-open. You can still approach missions using stealth, Rambo-style, burning foes out of bases with dynamic fire, or whatever. That freedom is there in an even larger world that has even more stuff to do. Minus the annoying shit that made the FC2 more of a respawning shoot-fest, with no downtime for other side stuff. Looks like a more balanced and more fun game on the whole.
Rickenslacker
Banned
I loved Far Cry 2 for what it was, like Snuggler mentioned I always thought of it as a STALKER-Lite. I don't have much of an opinion on FC3 based on previews and whatnot just yet, but it was obvious from the start that it would take a different approach just on the different team working at it and that there really is little consistency in Far Cry as a series.
Shame that some people think that FC2's concepts are irredeemable. I think they just sided too far into badgering the player, simply having more persistence and time between guard post repopulating would've changed the game considerably by itself. Still, say what you will about it Far Cry 2 is one of the standout shooters of this gen for me.
Shame that some people think that FC2's concepts are irredeemable. I think they just sided too far into badgering the player, simply having more persistence and time between guard post repopulating would've changed the game considerably by itself. Still, say what you will about it Far Cry 2 is one of the standout shooters of this gen for me.
Depends on what they "streamlined" or stripped out. I just hope that this game is as open-ended as Far Cry 2 was. That's what I really liked about that game. At the same time, I hope they've added some depth to its world, just something to convince me that it isn't a massive shooting gallery. That's all I want.
Compared to what, Far Cry 1?
Now THAT was a mess of a game. Interesting concepts for its day, but terrible TERRIBLE design all around.
CryTek made enormous strides in developing Crysis, which is one of the finest FPS games I've ever played.
bonesmccoy
Banned
I am happy to hear that there are times, in the wilderness, when you'll feel isolated and safe. One of the worst aspects of Far Cry 2 was the constantly spawning enemies (BARRRRRROOOOM!)