Support NeoGAF

[Dictator93]

Crysis is the best FPS ever while STALKER is the second best.

This post makes me happy. Just thought I would say that

 

[Zeliard]

He was designed as an everyman, with the entire marketing push behind Uncharted 1 focusing on Drake being an everyman. The back of the box literally says "One ordinary man... one extraordinary adventure."

Just your everyday highly acrobatic mass murderer

 

[dark10x]

It's like you didn't even play the same game as me. Were you doing nothing but driving down the roads? I spent tons of time wandering through the jungle or plains without fighting anything. FC2 had as much combat as you wanted. If you stayed off the road and took some time to map out your route so that you stayed away from checkpoints, you were fine. My favorite part of the game was working my way across the plains by finding a tall hill, scouting ahead with the sniper rifle, and trying to avoid as many enemies as I could.

Again, I had a completely different experience than this. I mostly played with the sniper rifle, and I was always hiding from the AI after picking off a few of them. If you could distract them by starting a fire, or by breaking line of sight, it was easy to lose the AI. I actually thought it was great how the AI would start searching for you once you hid. Timing your missions to occur at night helped too.

I definitely tried to stay off roads much of the time, but so many missions felt like busy work (go from point A to B and perform an open world style task) that I often did resort to driving.

I didn't find the AI to be enjoyable. The way they worked within the game world simply wasn't compatible with how I wanted to play. When you couple that with a deceptively limited map it just wasn't engaging for me.

I tried hard to enjoy the game and went back to it many times but it just never worked for me. What they tried to do was very cool but I just don't think they did a good job with it.

FC3 just looks like another open world FPS game with XP bonuses

Are you really boiling the whole game down to "XP bonuses"?

Would you care to name all of those "open world FPS games"? I sure as hell can't think of many like you describe. Borderlands? That's much more RPG than Far Cry 3. What else? The market isn't exactly being flooded with these games.

That would be akin to writing off Dishonored as "just another Thief style game" as if we have too many of those.

 

[ironcreed]

There is more to the game than just getting XP bonuses. There is a full fledged crafting system that requires you to hunt and gather materials in order to make things like larger ammo pouches, healing items or concoctions that allow you to hold your breath underwater longer. But yes, you do get XP points to spend on skills as well. The skills you select will also be reflected in the tattoo on your arm, each one different depending on the skills selected.

Beyond that, you have to raid and take over bases so they can become your own places to craft, upgrade and customize, take on new side quests and fast travel. Even the weapons are fully customizable down to colors and designs. It is still a shooter at heart, but with all of these addicting hunting, gathering raiding features in a huge open world. The skills are just a nice bonus. Here is a great breakdown of what to expect that Gamespot just wrote.

http://www.gamespot.com/far-cry-3/previews/the-thin-line-between-far-cry-3-and-skyrim-6397971/

 

[Derrick01]

This post makes me happy. Just thought I would say that

He only believes that because the graphics were so good.

 

[Jason's Ultimatum]

There is more to the game than just getting XP bonuses. There is a full fledged crafting system that requires you to hunt and gather materials in order to make things like larger ammo pouches, healing items or concoctions that allow you to hold your breath underwater longer. But yes, you do get XP points to spend on skills as well. The skills you select will also be reflected in the tattoo on your arm, each one different depending on the skills selected.

Beyond that, you have to raid and take over bases so they can become your own places to craft, upgrade and customize, take on new side quests and fast travel. Even the weapons are fully customizable down to colors and designs. It is still a shooter at heart, but with all of these addicting hunting, gathering raiding features in a huge open world. The skills are just a nice bonus. Here is a great breakdown of what to expect that Gamespot just wrote.

http://www.gamespot.com/far-cry-3/previews/the-thin-line-between-far-cry-3-and-skyrim-6397971/

Er, did you even read the article in the OP? That's one of the complaints the writer wrote. It'll get boring after the third attempt or so if you have to kill and skin animals.

 

[dark10x]

He only believes that because the graphics were so good.

You're not being serious, right? Even if you ignore the incredible visuals, Crysis is one of the finest shooters ever made. It walks the perfect line between open ended experience and tightly controlled fire fights while offering players an incredible set of tools and freedom. Absolutely amazing game.

Er, did you even read the article in the OP? That's one of the complaints the writer wrote. It'll get boring after the third attempt or so if you have to kill and skin animals.

Unfortunately that's how many of the systems in Far Cry 2 ended up.

 

[ironcreed]

Er, did you even read the article in the OP? That's one of the complaints the writer wrote. It'll get boring after the third attempt or so if you have to kill and skin animals.

Yes, I read the article yesterday. I was posting the Gamespot article in response to the comments stated that FC3 was nothing but an XP shooter. But in regards to these features becoming boring, I suppose that all boils down to if you are into games that do this or not. As someone who loves these features in certain role playing games, I am more than happy to see more shooters adding them. I want to go hunting and gathering in the jungle for materials to make things with. It suits the setting. XP and skills just add to the flavor.

 

[Messofanego]

IGN Preview

Seems to echo RPS' writeup about being safe. Scripted linear missions but a big open world with all the crazy stuff. I hope that's not true, I hate that about Rockstar's open world games where you're restricted in main missions that create a dissonance with the stuff you can do in the world.

Playing Dishonored with all the options on how to do objectives, and barely any scripting, puts that into contrast.

 

[Derrick01]

You're not being serious, right? Even if you ignore the incredible visuals, Crysis is one of the finest shooters ever made. It walks the perfect line between open ended experience and tightly controlled fire fights while offering players an incredible set of tools and freedom. Absolutely amazing game.

I don't really like Crysis at all but I was talking about Dennis. He's the graphics king

 

[ironcreed]

IGN Preview

Seems to echo RPS' writeup about being safe. Scripted linear missions but a big open world with all the crazy stuff. I hope that's not true, I hate that about Rockstar's open world games where you're restricted in main missions that create a dissonance with the stuff you can do in the world.

Playing Dishonored with all the options on how to do objectives, and barely any scripting, puts that into contrast.

I agree with the Dishonored approach, but they obviously wanted a big focus on certain things happening in the story here, so that part is more guided. Thankfully, the meat of the game is the journey and stuff to do in the open world on the side, which is completely unrestrained.

 

[dark10x]

IGN Preview

Seems to echo RPS' writeup about being safe. Scripted linear missions but a big open world with all the crazy stuff. I hope that's not true, I hate that about Rockstar's open world games where you're restricted in main missions that create a dissonance with the stuff you can do in the world.

Playing Dishonored with all the options on how to do objectives, and barely any scripting, puts that into contrast.

I gotta say, I love the mix of open ended and linear missions.

One thing that is very clear from the footage of the game is that the world itself is much MUCH more open ended than Far Cry 2. It can actually be traversed this time.

 

[Ledsen]

EDIT: Wow, okay, that was a lot longer than I'd anticipated, and what is intended as a chiding tone might sound a bit more aggressive than I mean. Apologies if that's the case. I just want to express an alternative point of view while expressing the great frustration I feel that a game I so very much love is being hated on because it was so deeply misunderstood. Imagine if Dark Souls got turned into a cover-based FPS and you might understand how I'm feeling right now.

I'm genuinely baffled by some of the comments about Far Cry 2 here. I knew it was a game that was easy to play incorrectly, but wow.

Most of the game's faults happened as a result of it trying to be a game. It needed to go all the way with simulation mechanics--because those would have fixed, for instance, the respawn areas, every NPC being out to get you, and stuff like that. At the same time, it failed to communicate just how open it really was; by reading these complaints, it sounds like a lot of people constrained themselves to behaviors learned in other video games, and they were incapable of treating Far Cry 2's Africa like a real space, much less respecting it as one, which hurt their experience a lot.

Still, Far Cry 2 was a superb game. Yes, the checkpoints had fast respawn times, but these weren't an issue at all if you accepted the world as a real world, rather than a game, and stopped trying to play it like every other shooter out there (because it's NOT every other shooter out there), you'd actually have fun with it.

Using all the tools provided--buses, cars, and boats (especially boats), meant that you didn't come across checkpoints all that often, which, in turn, solved all the complaints. Stop using cars all the damn time, and most of your complaints get solved right away. People are talking about cars showing up "every thirty seconds." Bullshit. Cars showed up, but not nearly that often, and a wise use of buses and boats would have helped balance that out.

Look at your gun--notice if it starts getting rusty--and replace it. Pay attention to the game. Malaria showed up once every couple of hours in my playthrough, and I was rarely in a position when it proved to be a problem. You know what, though? In the times it did, I often had a buddy from that awesome-ass buddy system to help me out of the mess, creating a more emergent, interesting experience.

A friend of mine once complained to me that Gears of War 3 wasn't interesting, because the Lancer was the most efficient weapon in the game, so he'd just use that and play the game with one gun all the way through. His absurd sense of efficiency destroyed his ability to have any fun. He never tried to test the game--to see what it could do.

Most of you, from the looks of things, didn't deserve Far Cry 2, because you sure as hell didn't understand it. Your responses read to me like people who hated Dark Souls because they weren't willing to give it the respect it deserved. Where Far Cry 2 says "hey, here's all these things you can have! Go wild!" most of the complaints I'm hearing indicate to me that you guys... well, you didn't.

It almost sounds like, secretly, you all just wanted a linear, corridor shooter that told you what to do.

God, complaints born from ignorance are depressing.

Maybe if Far Cry 2 had led you by the hand, or maybe if you'd been more open to what it was offering, you would have understood just how fucking incredible of a game it was, because it's not near as broken as you seem to think. It was an uncut diamond, which is a helluva lot more valuable than a polished-up, nicely cut bit of glass.

Far Cry 3 should be an improved version of Far Cry 2. The rust system should slow down a bit, the Buddy system should have characters that actually feel like people, the quest system could stand to have better things, ally or neutral NPCs should inhabit the world, checkpoints should respawn more slowly (iirc it's 20 minutes in Far Cry 2) and the game should rely a lot more on AI simulation, with better AI and a focus on enabling players to sneak around. Gamified bits, like all stores functioning the same, or all hideouts being basically identical, should be changed so that they feel like real locations. Far Cry 3 should feel even more like a real world that players can do anything with than Far Cry 2.

Instead, we've just got an open-world FPS with XP systems. At least it does feel a bit stealthier, I guess, and it looks pretty. Some of those missions look awfully on-rails, though--where's the focus on improvisation and immersive simulation that the previous game did so well? :\

Great, great post. Perfectly encapsulates how I feel about FC2 and what I want from FC3. I still don't know how I'll feel about FC3, but from what I've seen they're going in a completely wrong direction.

 

[ironcreed]

I gotta say, I love the mix of open ended and linear missions.

One thing that is very clear from the footage of the game is that the world itself is much MUCH more open ended than Far Cry 2. It can actually be traversed this time.

Yeah, it's been stated that it is the largest world for Far Cry yet. If the whole game was scripted and linear, then I would be turned off. But they just want the main story to have more focus, while giving you free reign of the islands to do all of the side stuff in. Which is where most of the fun will be. Even animals attacking is all unscripted stuff.

 

[smr00]

I detest and loathe Far Cry 2, and I really don't take issue with not being in combat every 10 seconds so I guess Far Cry 3 would be an improvement for me?

This x10000

FC2 was absolute shit to me and from the sounds of it FC3 is going to be much better so consider it pre-ordered.

 

[Derrick01]

EDIT: Wow, okay, that was a lot longer than I'd anticipated, and what is intended as a chiding tone might sound a bit more aggressive than I mean. Apologies if that's the case. I just want to express an alternative point of view while expressing the great frustration I feel that a game I so very much love is being hated on because it was so deeply misunderstood. Imagine if Dark Souls got turned into a cover-based FPS and you might understand how I'm feeling right now.

I'm genuinely baffled by some of the comments about Far Cry 2 here. I knew it was a game that was easy to play incorrectly, but wow.

Most of the game's faults happened as a result of it trying to be a game. It needed to go all the way with simulation mechanics--because those would have fixed, for instance, the respawn areas, every NPC being out to get you, and stuff like that. At the same time, it failed to communicate just how open it really was; by reading these complaints, it sounds like a lot of people constrained themselves to behaviors learned in other video games, and they were incapable of treating Far Cry 2's Africa like a real space, much less respecting it as one, which hurt their experience a lot.

Still, Far Cry 2 was a superb game. Yes, the checkpoints had fast respawn times, but these weren't an issue at all if you accepted the world as a real world, rather than a game, and stopped trying to play it like every other shooter out there (because it's NOT every other shooter out there), you'd actually have fun with it.

Using all the tools provided--buses, cars, and boats (especially boats), meant that you didn't come across checkpoints all that often, which, in turn, solved all the complaints. Stop using cars all the damn time, and most of your complaints get solved right away. People are talking about cars showing up "every thirty seconds." Bullshit. Cars showed up, but not nearly that often, and a wise use of buses and boats would have helped balance that out.

Look at your gun--notice if it starts getting rusty--and replace it. Pay attention to the game. Malaria showed up once every couple of hours in my playthrough, and I was rarely in a position when it proved to be a problem. You know what, though? In the times it did, I often had a buddy from that awesome-ass buddy system to help me out of the mess, creating a more emergent, interesting experience.

A friend of mine once complained to me that Gears of War 3 wasn't interesting, because the Lancer was the most efficient weapon in the game, so he'd just use that and play the game with one gun all the way through. His absurd sense of efficiency destroyed his ability to have any fun. He never tried to test the game--to see what it could do.

Most of you, from the looks of things, didn't deserve Far Cry 2, because you sure as hell didn't understand it. Your responses read to me like people who hated Dark Souls because they weren't willing to give it the respect it deserved. Where Far Cry 2 says "hey, here's all these things you can have! Go wild!" most of the complaints I'm hearing indicate to me that you guys... well, you didn't.

It almost sounds like, secretly, you all just wanted a linear, corridor shooter that told you what to do.

God, complaints born from ignorance are depressing.

Maybe if Far Cry 2 had led you by the hand, or maybe if you'd been more open to what it was offering, you would have understood just how fucking incredible of a game it was, because it's not near as broken as you seem to think. It was an uncut diamond, which is a helluva lot more valuable than a polished-up, nicely cut bit of glass.

Far Cry 3 should be an improved version of Far Cry 2. The rust system should slow down a bit, the Buddy system should have characters that actually feel like people, the quest system could stand to have better things, ally or neutral NPCs should inhabit the world, checkpoints should respawn more slowly (iirc it's 20 minutes in Far Cry 2) and the game should rely a lot more on AI simulation, with better AI and a focus on enabling players to sneak around. Gamified bits, like all stores functioning the same, or all hideouts being basically identical, should be changed so that they feel like real locations. Far Cry 3 should feel even more like a real world that players can do anything with than Far Cry 2.

Instead, we've just got an open-world FPS with XP systems. At least it does feel a bit stealthier, I guess, and it looks pretty. Some of those missions look awfully on-rails, though--where's the focus on improvisation and immersive simulation that the previous game did so well? :\

Don't know how I missed such a massive post but it was beautiful. I wish I had the patience with other people to write out such an amazing post detailing why FC2 was so good and this one looks kind of average.

 

[Deleted member 47027]

FC2 challenged the way you play games and perhaps too subtly tried to get you to act like a person actually should in that environment rather than what people are used to. "Get to this radar tower? Okay let me find a jeep, and I'll take the roads there." In most games, that works fine, and we've been trained to do that. But you need to let the game's environment and tone work with you. Slink your way there. Be creative. Stay OFF the beaten path. That was their entire point - but people have trouble staving off these ingrained habits, and it's not the easiest adjustment to make.

Once it clicked with me...GOTY contender. Loved FC2 and all it did.

 

[The Janitor]

EDIT: Wow, okay, that was a lot longer than I'd anticipated, and what is intended as a chiding tone might sound a bit more aggressive than I mean. Apologies if that's the case. I just want to express an alternative point of view while expressing the great frustration I feel that a game I so very much love is being hated on because it was so deeply misunderstood. Imagine if Dark Souls got turned into a cover-based FPS and you might understand how I'm feeling right now.

I'm genuinely baffled by some of the comments about Far Cry 2 here. I knew it was a game that was easy to play incorrectly, but wow.

Most of the game's faults happened as a result of it trying to be a game. It needed to go all the way with simulation mechanics--because those would have fixed, for instance, the respawn areas, every NPC being out to get you, and stuff like that. At the same time, it failed to communicate just how open it really was; by reading these complaints, it sounds like a lot of people constrained themselves to behaviors learned in other video games, and they were incapable of treating Far Cry 2's Africa like a real space, much less respecting it as one, which hurt their experience a lot.

Still, Far Cry 2 was a superb game. Yes, the checkpoints had fast respawn times, but these weren't an issue at all if you accepted the world as a real world, rather than a game, and stopped trying to play it like every other shooter out there (because it's NOT every other shooter out there), you'd actually have fun with it.

Using all the tools provided--buses, cars, and boats (especially boats), meant that you didn't come across checkpoints all that often, which, in turn, solved all the complaints. Stop using cars all the damn time, and most of your complaints get solved right away. People are talking about cars showing up "every thirty seconds." Bullshit. Cars showed up, but not nearly that often, and a wise use of buses and boats would have helped balance that out.

Look at your gun--notice if it starts getting rusty--and replace it. Pay attention to the game. Malaria showed up once every couple of hours in my playthrough, and I was rarely in a position when it proved to be a problem. You know what, though? In the times it did, I often had a buddy from that awesome-ass buddy system to help me out of the mess, creating a more emergent, interesting experience.

A friend of mine once complained to me that Gears of War 3 wasn't interesting, because the Lancer was the most efficient weapon in the game, so he'd just use that and play the game with one gun all the way through. His absurd sense of efficiency destroyed his ability to have any fun. He never tried to test the game--to see what it could do.

Most of you, from the looks of things, didn't deserve Far Cry 2, because you sure as hell didn't understand it. Your responses read to me like people who hated Dark Souls because they weren't willing to give it the respect it deserved. Where Far Cry 2 says "hey, here's all these things you can have! Go wild!" most of the complaints I'm hearing indicate to me that you guys... well, you didn't.

It almost sounds like, secretly, you all just wanted a linear, corridor shooter that told you what to do.

God, complaints born from ignorance are depressing.

Maybe if Far Cry 2 had led you by the hand, or maybe if you'd been more open to what it was offering, you would have understood just how fucking incredible of a game it was, because it's not near as broken as you seem to think. It was an uncut diamond, which is a helluva lot more valuable than a polished-up, nicely cut bit of glass.

Far Cry 3 should be an improved version of Far Cry 2. The rust system should slow down a bit, the Buddy system should have characters that actually feel like people, the quest system could stand to have better things, ally or neutral NPCs should inhabit the world, checkpoints should respawn more slowly (iirc it's 20 minutes in Far Cry 2) and the game should rely a lot more on AI simulation, with better AI and a focus on enabling players to sneak around. Gamified bits, like all stores functioning the same, or all hideouts being basically identical, should be changed so that they feel like real locations. Far Cry 3 should feel even more like a real world that players can do anything with than Far Cry 2.

Instead, we've just got an open-world FPS with XP systems. At least it does feel a bit stealthier, I guess, and it looks pretty. Some of those missions look awfully on-rails, though--where's the focus on improvisation and immersive simulation that the previous game did so well? :\

Except you didn't adress the biggest problem with FC2, how incredibly repetitive it is. It's just one mission, over and over again. I can live with the respawning checkpoints, malaria and guns rusting but there is zero sense of progression or any excitement when you know exactly what the next mission is gonna be; kill people in camp, drive back to get diamonds. kill people in camp again, drive back to get diamonds again. This is like 90% of the game. It gets boring, and don't tell me I played it wrong and didn't use all the tactics, cause I agree that's a very nice feature of FC2, but it still gets old really fast after maybe the 10th time you've done the same mission and tried everything.

 

[Loudninja]

Yeah, but it sounds like they added a whole new level of shittiness to make up for it.

Like what exactly?

 

[Deleted member 47027]

I'm also the kind of guy who liked Assassin's Creed 1 was more than 2 and on, so...I think you see where I'm coming from. A strong sense of direction and ideals count for a lot. Also loved Kane and Lynch 2 because they had a vision and executed it, even with its problems.

 

[subversus]

Far Cry 2 isn't repetitive if you treat it like a simulation. Is a waterstream repetitive? Some people can watch it for hours...

 

[Jason's Ultimatum]

I'm also the kind of guy who liked Assassin's Creed 1 was more than 2 and on, so...I think you see where I'm coming from. A strong sense of direction and ideals count for a lot. Also loved Kane and Lynch 2 because they had a vision and executed it, even with its problems.

AC was too damn easy with the map and HUD on. After reading suggestions to turn everything off and read the clues from the menu, I thought it would be more challenging. Turns out I was wrong. It was hard to see anything in those tiny pictures in the menu (a palm tree next to wooden beams), and I've read that using the sun as a map helps, too. That didn't work.

I would just traverse through every building and whatnot hoping I'd get lucky and find my next objective.

 

[dark10x]

FC2 challenged the way you play games and perhaps too subtly tried to get you to act like a person actually should in that environment rather than what people are used to. "Get to this radar tower? Okay let me find a jeep, and I'll take the roads there." In most games, that works fine, and we've been trained to do that. But you need to let the game's environment and tone work with you. Slink your way there. Be creative. Stay OFF the beaten path. That was their entire point - but people have trouble staving off these ingrained habits, and it's not the easiest adjustment to make.

Once it clicked with me...GOTY contender. Loved FC2 and all it did.

Well, one of the issues there is that I don't feel people should always immediately go into full on violence mode the moment they spot someone. In some areas, this may be the case, but all enemies react the same way every time.

Basically, I feel the game is LESS THAN the sum of its parts. Breaking up each individual aspect of the game reveals the mechanics to be very interesting conceptually. There are a lot of cool ideas there.

The main issues I really have with the game are as follow...

1) The AI. Ignoring the respawning checkpoints, I don't like the way the AI interacts with the player. They are much too "on" or "off" about everything. They are either completely oblivious to the player or completely aggressive. There's no middle ground. If the game expects you to treat the world like a real place they should meet the player halfway. The enemies are more like sentry turrets the kill on motion than actual people. If I DO happen to drive up to a checkpoint in a vehicle perhaps they should actually act more like a real checkpoint.

2) The world. I love the idea of an African setting and they nailed certain aspects of this. In the end, however, it was a very artificial world with a lot of limitations in place. Large swathes of the map consisted of moderately narrow paths enclosed by rock walls which you could not climb. You could hide on the left or ride side of the road, basically. Again, if the game wants you to treat this like a real world it should allow you to do as you please. I would find a way to CLIMB the rocks and find ways OVER the threats rather than crouching in nearby grass patches. I hated this limiting factor and felt is destroyed any sense of realism the world may have been going for.

3) The mechanics. To me, the game simply never FELT great to play. The feel of a shooter is important, I feel, and it is something Far Cry 2 didn't quite get right. The vehicles were perhaps the most disappointing aspect. There was no handling model. The vehicles behaved like slot cars. The core driving mechanics were poor.

4) The repetitiveness. Perhaps the thing that was most frustrating is that, if you do play it slow, you'll find yourself basically performing the same tactics and techniques over and over and over again. The pacing just felt off in that sense. The path to your mission objective was littered with the same types of encounters, with the same enemies, using the same tactics, and when you got to your objective it looked a whole lot like all of the places you've been working through along the way. It felt like a slog to me.

The game is nothing like Dark Souls in the sense that there is no feeling of astonishment or discovery along the way. Dark Souls throws new and interesting things at you on a regular basis while upping the challenge along the way.

I think Far Cry 2 sounds incredibly amazing on paper but, man, it just never clicked for me despite putting in loads of hours. I didn't have trouble with the game either so it's not as if I was growing frustrated. It simply wasn't meeting its potential and I wasn't having that much fun.

I will say that I might have enjoyed it a lot more with an actual buddy (ie - COOP). Someone repetition becomes less of an issue when you have a friend with you.

Far Cry 2 isn't repetitive if you treat it like a simulation.

Could you explain that to me? What is it that you are doing which makes it feel less repetitive?

 

[universalmind]

ITT: people make fun of people with different opinions for the sake of it

really gaf?


edit: okay you can make fun of this:

Ya, but for u

Boom

 

[Deleted member 47027]

I can dig it. I remember before release, they had to tone down the fires - which was a major bummer for me - because in a test environment someone eventually managed to get a fire that jumped across paths at exactly the right moment, in the right place, and 45 minutes after starting the fire it had killed important NPCs.

Still wish that mod had made it out with more realistic fire behavior. I loved that fucking fire, man...

 

[dark10x]

I can dig it. I remember before release, they had to tone down the fires - which was a major bummer for me - because in a test environment someone eventually managed to get a fire that jumped across paths at exactly the right moment, in the right place, and 45 minutes after starting the fire it had killed important NPCs.

Still wish that mod had made it out with more realistic fire behavior. I loved that fucking fire, man...

Yeah, the fire simulation was cool as hell. I just wish they had also been able to implement Crysis-like shack destruction and the like. Would be a lot more impressive if you could level an entire checkpoint.

 

[Jason's Ultimatum]

I actually FC2's MP. I loved the deserted train station level. Camping out behind a rock with sniper rifle was great.

 

[luxarific]

Does anyone know if the MP in Far Cry 3 is going to be Steamworks or if Ubi will handle matchmaking some other way?

 

[Derrick01]

Does anyone know if the MP in Far Cry 3 is going to be Steamworks or if Ubi will handle matchmaking some other way?

Ubisoft doesn't use steamworks at all. They use their uplay garbage.

 

[Rufus]

Yeah, FC2 could get repetitive. I varied my load outs and with that the approach to combat to mix it up (mortar was surprisingly fun), but my trusty bolt action didn't leave me for a long, long time.

Again, I had a completely different experience than this. I mostly played with the sniper rifle, and I was always hiding from the AI after picking off a few of them. If you could distract them by starting a fire, or by breaking line of sight, it was easy to lose the AI. I actually thought it was great how the AI would start searching for you once you hid. Timing your missions to occur at night helped too.

And the camo upgrade, too, so you can kneel in tall grass. Hard to spot unless you make a sound. If the silenced Makarov (?) had been any better than it was I'd have made my why through camps with that thing. Picking them off with the bolt action was fun though.

 

[Kinyou]

Bloody hell, the hate that FC2 is getting is bizarre. One of my favourite games this gen, because you know, reality is and Africa in particular is dangerous and frustrating.

lol, do you know that in Africa not every guy who's driving around in a Jeep is some mad guy who is trying to kill you?

Worst part was how lazy the whole faction system was. "Hey you're doing a mission for us, but your undercover, so our guys will shoot at you as well" AND THEY SAY THAT EVERY GODDAMN TIME

 

[Messofanego]

At least NPCs won't be speaking on fast forward monotone, made the voice acting so bad it was good!

 

[dark10x]

lol, do you know that in Africa not every guy who's driving around in a Jeep is some mad guy who is trying to kill you?

Worst part was how lazy the whole faction system was. "Hey you're doing a mission for us, but your undercover, so our guys will shoot at you as well" AND THEY SAY THAT EVERY GODDAMN TIME

Ha ha ha, yeah, that was terrible. They explained away the AI's lack of opinions with that line all the time.

I'm not suggesting the type of AI this game needs would be easy to design, but damn, they surely could have created something better than what we got.

 

[bishoptl]

All of this talk about FC2 just makes me want to play it again.

 

[Deleted member 47027]

Worst part was how lazy the whole faction system was. "Hey you're doing a mission for us, but your undercover, so our guys will shoot at you as well" AND THEY SAY THAT EVERY GODDAMN TIME

That was infuriating, I will admit. Marred the experience.

 

[dark10x]

All of this talk about FC2 just makes me want to play it again.

I'll admit, despite my distaste, I'm tempted to load it up yet again and give it another shot. I want to understand what it is that people love so much.

 

[Sid]

I'll admit, despite my distaste, I'm tempted to load it up yet again and give it another shot. I want to understand what it is that people love so much.

Just don't rush to your objective and you'll the find game to be much better.

 

[Deleted member 47027]

I'll admit, despite my distaste, I'm tempted to load it up yet again and give it another shot. I want to understand what it is that people love so much.

Lots of moments that I'll remember for a long time. Quietly coasting along in a tiny little boat in the night, slowly rolling up on a camp...planning my attack. Setting fire to the fields behind me, filled with enemies, and grabbing a glider to make my escape. Trying the mortar for the first time and missing the first shot, only to nail my second one perfectly and clearing out the enemies.

Man, a lot to love about that game and moments that kind of transcended the gameyness of it all. Just...soaking it up. Ahhh.

 

[MYeager]

I'm torn by the impressions because while I'll enjoy not having to fight the same guys every time I drive down the road, it sounds like there's less freedom on how to complete missions and pointless QTEs. Still sounds interesting though.

 

[Snuggles]

Lots of moments that I'll remember for a long time. Quietly coasting along in a tiny little boat in the night, slowly rolling up on a camp...planning my attack. Setting fire to the fields behind me, filled with enemies, and grabbing a glider to make my escape. Trying the mortar for the first time and missing the first shot, only to nail my second one perfectly and clearing out the enemies.

Taking out an enemy convoy from afar with a few well placed IED's along their route. That shit was always so satisfying.

 

[Deleted member 47027]

Taking out an enemy convoy from afar with a few well placed IED's along their route. That shit was always so satisfying.

Felt like Hannibal from the A-Team when that would work out. Reaching for the cigar I didn't have.

 

[Of All Trades]

Just don't rush to your objective and you'll the find game to be much better.

I tried that and wound up with a repetitive walking simulator because there aren't any risks from animals and the majority of the first map is extremely confining, with not enough buses or river routes to break the monotony.

Do those of you praising the setting live in industrial steel towns or something? If I want to go for a nature hike I'll go three blocks from my house for an actual nature hike (and will likely see more animals).

Lots of moments that I'll remember for a long time. Quietly coasting along in a tiny little boat in the night, slowly rolling up on a camp...planning my attack. Setting fire to the fields behind me, filled with enemies, and grabbing a glider to make my escape. Trying the mortar for the first time and missing the first shot, only to nail my second one perfectly and clearing out the enemies.

See, I remember doing all of those things but at the same time having the broken elements of the game being thrust in my face a minute later, like the enemy having built-in radar on my position, or just the lack of any lasting world impact from setting that field on fire.

It's like the game was designed by someone who wanted to tell people on message boards how cool it was that one time something happened, but not that it took two hours of boredom to get that to happen, or that the F9 key fell off the keyboard from having to quickload so many times.

 

[fallagin]

Farcry 2 was a glitchy piece of shit. If they cleaned up the bugs then it will be infinitely better than farcry 2

 

[Rufus]

At least NPCs won't be speaking on fast forward monotone, made the voice acting so bad it was good!

Haha, I was sure something was wrong with the game when I first heard that. Did the developers every comment on that? They must have whipped the actors through their lines, it's ridiculous.

All of this talk about FC2 just makes me want to play it again.

Me too. But XCOM and Dishonored take precedence right now.

 

[sixghost]

Taking out an enemy convoy from afar with a few well placed IED's along their route. That shit was always so satisfying.

My favorite trick was observing the convoy's route and parking my car in the middle of the road. Then when they stopped at my car, fire an RPG at the car in the back and fling molatovs in the grass to cause chaos.

 

[Sid]

I tried that and wound up with a repetitive walking simulator because there aren't any risks from animals and the majority of the first map is extremely confining, with not enough buses or river routes to break the monotony.

Stop playing it then,clearly forcing yourself through a game is frustrating.If you have already then great.

 

[staticneuron]

He was designed as an everyman, with the entire marketing push behind Uncharted 1 focusing on Drake being an everyman. The back of the box literally says "One ordinary man... one extraordinary adventure."

He is ordinary as in he has no superhuman abilities or potential. The implications I was trying to speak against is the idea he was "tossed" into dangerous situations and became an instant expert at something.

As the series illustrated this was not the case. He KNEW and were associated with some of the antagonists. He was doing this stuff as child. He PUTS himself in dangerous situations and constantly messes around with dangerous people for a living.

Trying to Compare the FC3 dude and Nathan is just ignoring "Everything" that was conveyed in the uncharted games to make a flawed point.

EDIT: Wow, okay, that was a lot longer than I'd anticipated, and what is intended as a chiding tone might sound a bit more aggressive than I mean. Apologies if that's the case. I just want to express an alternative point of view while expressing the great frustration I feel that a game I so very much love is being hated on because it was so deeply misunderstood. Imagine if Dark Souls got turned into a cover-based FPS and you might understand how I'm feeling right now.

I'm genuinely baffled by some of the comments about Far Cry 2 here. I knew it was a game that was easy to play incorrectly, but wow.

Most of the game's faults happened as a result of it trying to be a game. It needed to go all the way with simulation mechanics--because those would have fixed, for instance, the respawn areas, every NPC being out to get you, and stuff like that. At the same time, it failed to communicate just how open it really was; by reading these complaints, it sounds like a lot of people constrained themselves to behaviors learned in other video games, and they were incapable of treating Far Cry 2's Africa like a real space, much less respecting it as one, which hurt their experience a lot.

Still, Far Cry 2 was a superb game. Yes, the checkpoints had fast respawn times, but these weren't an issue at all if you accepted the world as a real world, rather than a game, and stopped trying to play it like every other shooter out there (because it's NOT every other shooter out there), you'd actually have fun with it.

Using all the tools provided--buses, cars, and boats (especially boats), meant that you didn't come across checkpoints all that often, which, in turn, solved all the complaints. Stop using cars all the damn time, and most of your complaints get solved right away. People are talking about cars showing up "every thirty seconds." Bullshit. Cars showed up, but not nearly that often, and a wise use of buses and boats would have helped balance that out.

Look at your gun--notice if it starts getting rusty--and replace it. Pay attention to the game. Malaria showed up once every couple of hours in my playthrough, and I was rarely in a position when it proved to be a problem. You know what, though? In the times it did, I often had a buddy from that awesome-ass buddy system to help me out of the mess, creating a more emergent, interesting experience.

A friend of mine once complained to me that Gears of War 3 wasn't interesting, because the Lancer was the most efficient weapon in the game, so he'd just use that and play the game with one gun all the way through. His absurd sense of efficiency destroyed his ability to have any fun. He never tried to test the game--to see what it could do.

Most of you, from the looks of things, didn't deserve Far Cry 2, because you sure as hell didn't understand it. Your responses read to me like people who hated Dark Souls because they weren't willing to give it the respect it deserved. Where Far Cry 2 says "hey, here's all these things you can have! Go wild!" most of the complaints I'm hearing indicate to me that you guys... well, you didn't.

It almost sounds like, secretly, you all just wanted a linear, corridor shooter that told you what to do.

God, complaints born from ignorance are depressing.

Maybe if Far Cry 2 had led you by the hand, or maybe if you'd been more open to what it was offering, you would have understood just how fucking incredible of a game it was, because it's not near as broken as you seem to think. It was an uncut diamond, which is a helluva lot more valuable than a polished-up, nicely cut bit of glass.

Far Cry 3 should be an improved version of Far Cry 2. The rust system should slow down a bit, the Buddy system should have characters that actually feel like people, the quest system could stand to have better things, ally or neutral NPCs should inhabit the world, checkpoints should respawn more slowly (iirc it's 20 minutes in Far Cry 2) and the game should rely a lot more on AI simulation, with better AI and a focus on enabling players to sneak around. Gamified bits, like all stores functioning the same, or all hideouts being basically identical, should be changed so that they feel like real locations. Far Cry 3 should feel even more like a real world that players can do anything with than Far Cry 2.

Instead, we've just got an open-world FPS with XP systems. At least it does feel a bit stealthier, I guess, and it looks pretty. Some of those missions look awfully on-rails, though--where's the focus on improvisation and immersive simulation that the previous game did so well? :\

I didn't have a negative opinion starting the game, but it grew as I was playing it. And I played it even longer hoping it would get better.

In my opinion in failed as a game and even as a "Real" world. It had nothing to do with how a gamer approached (or ignorance) it it was simply a crappy game.

As far as a gamer is concerned many people have voiced their opinions about what made it bad. Main causes were repetition, unrealistic encounters and time consuming traveling and missions with little or no substantial reward.

While dark10x brings up a lot of valid points about how "real" the world wasn't. Let me take it a step further.

The world while large and pretty, was boring and barren. Almost every Character was out to get you. Do you know how long in the real world it takes for a weapon to rust and go bad? Most guns do not rust easily and those that do, normally happens when they are neglected. There were almost no friendly people in the world. No dangerous animals. Problems with AI repeated in this thread prevented you from taking the enemies as real. The respawn times, the rate at which things breakdown, the mission structure, the emptiness of this world. When all this is put together it is amazing that the idea that the FC2 world would have been better received if people treated it as a real world.

The way I see it. The game has a lot of crappy things that most people can see and agree on. The only big difference is how forgiving you want to be and what elements you hold in higher esteem than others.

For a gamer like me, FC2 failed on both counts because it was broken as a game and as an open world it was boring and in no which way or form would I consider that game realistic.

I tried that and wound up with a repetitive walking simulator because there aren't any risks from animals and the majority of the first map is extremely confining, with not enough buses or river routes to break the monotony.

Do those of you praising the setting live in industrial steel towns or something? If I want to go for a nature hike I'll go three blocks from my house for an actual nature hike (and will likely see more animals).

See, I remember doing all of those things but at the same time having the broken elements of the game being thrust in my face a minute later, like the enemy having built-in radar on my position, or just the lack of any lasting world impact from setting that field on fire.

It's like the game was designed by someone who wanted to tell people on message boards how cool it was that one time something happened, but not that it took two hours of boredom to get that to happen, or that the F9 key fell off the keyboard from having to quickload so many times.

Well, I am not alone on this.

 

[Tankshell]

This game has Sharks. More games should have sharks.

 

[Messofanego]

This game has Sharks. More games should have sharks.

More games should have you punching sharks!

 

[AlphaDump]

Most of the game's faults happened as a result of it trying to be a game. It needed to go all the way with simulation mechanics--because those would have fixed, for instance, the respawn areas, every NPC being out to get you, and stuff like that. At the same time, it failed to communicate just how open it really was; by reading these complaints, it sounds like a lot of people constrained themselves to behaviors learned in other video games, and they were incapable of treating Far Cry 2's Africa like a real space, much less respecting it as one, which hurt their experience a lot.

Still, Far Cry 2 was a superb game. Yes, the checkpoints had fast respawn times, but these weren't an issue at all if you accepted the world as a real world, rather than a game, and stopped trying to play it like every other shooter out there (because it's NOT every other shooter out there), you'd actually have fun with it.

Using all the tools provided--buses, cars, and boats (especially boats), meant that you didn't come across checkpoints all that often, which, in turn, solved all the complaints. Stop using cars all the damn time, and most of your complaints get solved right away. People are talking about cars showing up "every thirty seconds." Bullshit. Cars showed up, but not nearly that often, and a wise use of buses and boats would have helped balance that out.

Look at your gun--notice if it starts getting rusty--and replace it. Pay attention to the game. Malaria showed up once every couple of hours in my playthrough, and I was rarely in a position when it proved to be a problem. You know what, though? In the times it did, I often had a buddy from that awesome-ass buddy system to help me out of the mess, creating a more emergent, interesting experience.

A friend of mine once complained to me that Gears of War 3 wasn't interesting, because the Lancer was the most efficient weapon in the game, so he'd just use that and play the game with one gun all the way through. His absurd sense of efficiency destroyed his ability to have any fun. He never tried to test the game--to see what it could do.

Most of you, from the looks of things, didn't deserve Far Cry 2, because you sure as hell didn't understand it. Your responses read to me like people who hated Dark Souls because they weren't willing to give it the respect it deserved. Where Far Cry 2 says "hey, here's all these things you can have! Go wild!" most of the complaints I'm hearing indicate to me that you guys... well, you didn't.

the game's obvious faults aside, this post is 100% spot on. I was sitting here scratching my head reading all of the complaints, too.

I guess one could argue that it did try to have those RPG elements but it wasn't even close to being as fleshed out as it could have been - and that's what kept it from being truly great.