Far Cry 3

[Mighty Hatman]

Finished this. Haven't 100% completed it but I did anything that mattered in the game. I think my favourite part of this game is how there's no unbelievably weak part of the story. Considering the size of the game it all went nicely from start to finish. I was expecting some bullshit moment to happen but it never did. It wasn't too predictable either.

[NotoriousBIG420]

Well gosh. It's always about the cock with you people.

I mean it is, "Also, cocks." isn't it?

[Gorilla Gravy]

Was thinking about Redboxing this to see if I could stomach all the screen tearing and framerate drops.

[noobspoon]

I didn't really have any problems with either of those things, fps never dropped below 30 and with vsync it was all good.

[DpadJoe]

I'm enjoying this game immensly at the moment, I have rented it so haven't got the online code, do you guys think it's worth picking up a online code on ebay, is the online any good?

[Sir Legendhead]

Was thinking about Redboxing this to see if I could stomach all the screen tearing and framerate drops.

This is the best description of a menstrual cycle I've ever read in my life.

[arglactable]

I love how they took Far Cry 2, removed most of the interesting parts of it, and added a bunch of stale shit from as many high-selling AAA sandbox games they could manage. You would think adding detail would make the world seem more alive, but it just seems like a big sandbox with bunch of pointless toys for gamers with no attention span to be distracted by. The hunting is shallow and stupid, the RPG elements seem to just be there so they could put "Skyrim with guns" on the cover, the loot boxes every 10 feet are tedious and add absolutely nothing of worth to the experience, the side activities are pointless padding, and the main story missions are linear series of set pieces that pretty much force you to play the game in specific ways each mission, undermining what actually makes the game fun to begin with.

[Mighty Hatman]

I love how they took Far Cry 2, removed most of the interesting parts of it, and added a bunch of stale shit from as many high-selling AAA sandbox games they could manage.

Removed most of the interesting parts of Far Cry 2? Like what exactly? The only thing taken away from Far Cry 2 that was actually good was how the map didn't require the game to be paused. If you want to say the mediocre story, repetitive missions, boring range of weapons, monologue scenes, malaria, ridiculously fast spawning enemies and brown environment were some of the greatest bits of Far Cry 2 then tell me so I can laugh at you.

You would think adding detail would make the world seem more alive, but it just seems like a big sandbox with bunch of pointless toys for gamers with no attention span to be distracted by.

Entertainment itself is a distraction from life. Adding content and varied areas to explore like caves, Japanese bunkers and ancient Chinese temples is a good thing by the way.

The hunting is shallow and stupid

Nope. Hunting is needed to craft items giving the player the ability to hold more weapons and ammo. Each craftable item needs a different kind of hide which makes use of the varied wildlife the game has including land and water based predators. This is as deep hunting will get in a game.

the RPG elements seem to just be there so they could put "Skyrim with guns" on the cover

Adding more depth to a game by adding RPG elements to give the player a more involved experience has been a thing developers have done long before Skyrim. Skill progression, crafting and customisation aren't limited to just conventional RPGs.

the loot boxes every 10 feet are tedious and add absolutely nothing of worth to the experience

Are you saying collecting the diamonds in Far Cry 2 wasn't tedious? lol. Most people see the worth in being able to purchase weapons, ammo and weapon attachments. I guess they're just crazy.

the side activities are pointless padding

Far Cry 2 has side missions and activities too. The difference is with Far Cry 3 they increased the variety of missions and the sheer number of activities to do. Far Cry 2 missions were either bomb a convoy or kill a guy, copy pasted several times in different areas of the map.

the main story missions are linear series of set pieces that pretty much force you to play the game in specific ways each mission, undermining what actually makes the game fun to begin with.

You have a point, some of the missions can be linear. Only some though and for the most part the game doesn't care what you do unless you do something to fail the mission. Far Cry 2 let you try to play through a mission however you wanted somewhat. The problem is the stealth mechanic was basic and pretty much broken. Given how little weapons you have a firefight will go pretty much the same way every time. Far Cry 2 might have tried to give you a better illusion of choice but the basic gameplay limited your options. Stealth actually works in Far Cry 3 either range or close up.

Normally I wouldn't bother replying to this as it's not worth my time but how wrong you are on every part of what you say warranted a response so well done I guess.

Here's a picture of a red panda looking heroic to lighten the mood.

[noobspoon]

Oh snap.

[Sir Legendhead]

The main thing I dislike is the first person perspective. Just can not get used to that for some reason. I'm used to having 360 degrees of peripheral vision. FPSs make me feel like I'm wearing blinders or something.



I also wish I could see the main character. It would be so much easier to relate to the guy if he were visible.

[Mighty Hatman]

You can increase the FOV if that bothers you on PC.

[Sir Legendhead]

I'm on Xbox. It'd be awesome if they had a Fallout thing where you could switch between 1st and 3rd person.

[Mighty Hatman]

I can appreciate their choice to keep to first person. You can tell they put a lot of time into creating all these lovely animations for people to see in first person. Dammit if I made animations that good I'd be forcing everyone to watch it.

[Sir Legendhead]

Oh yeah, don't get me wrong, I like the game. This isn't even a Far Cry 3 complaint, it's more like an observation on personal...perception, I guess you could call it. I couldn't get into Dishonored either for pretty much exactly the same reason.

Everything else is great though. And they do put the FPS thing to really good use, with the mindfuck perspective changes and such. Idk if you saw my post in What Are You Playing but I especially enjoyed the scene in the mushroom cave, where you seamlessly transition from climbing up a vine to walking straight ahead on a level surface. That was pretty great.

[Mighty Hatman]

People usually get motion sickness from games in first person more too. It's a shame.

[Sir Legendhead]

I never get that. I just hate the lack of peripheral vison. Driving a car is nearly impossible for me in this game. Man I can't wait 'til that Oculus VR thing comes out. The Sir really could use one of those.

[Arttemis]

Optical implants are the future, after we get contact lens screens. http://gajitz.com/bionic-vision-cybe...ds-up-display/

[Sir Legendhead]

Gawd that really is scary as hell. We should just cut out the middleman and become psychic. :P

[arglactable]

Removed most of the interesting parts of Far Cry 2? Like what exactly? The only thing taken away from Far Cry 2 that was actually good was how the map didn't require the game to be paused. If you want to say the mediocre story, repetitive missions, boring range of weapons, monologue scenes, malaria, ridiculously fast spawning enemies and brown environment were some of the greatest bits of Far Cry 2 then tell me so I can laugh at you.

Spoiler!

Far Cry 2 put you in a consistent and unforgiving world and didn't feel the need to have the player in a retarded power trip the whole game. The combat was unpredictable (I do not deny that the factions interacting and the greater variety of wildlife in 3 does add to this), but it wasn't always in your favor. The fire propagation took into account a bunch of different factors like winds speed and direction and was actually useful (plus your car would exploded if it fell 15 feet). It didn't have an OBNOXIOUS HUD in your face all of the time (this is especially bad at the beginning of FC3). The missions were only repetitive if you approached them the same way every time, which judging by most negative accounts most people did. The weapon attachments and more flexible load-out in 3 are an improvement, though it should have been more limiting, the fact that you can put a silencer on a sniper rifle is ridiculous and the only really "new" thing is the bow (which I enjoyed). The actual story of 2 is quite interesting, if the delivery is poor, where FC3's is a god-awful, over-the-top power fantasy about a self entitled prick rich kid who immediately turns into the biggest bad-ass ever because he's trapped on an island and his brother died. Yeah, the voice acting is well done and the (QTE-ridden)linear-as-fuck delivery is more cinematic, but the actual story is embarrassing As for the visuals, FC3 looks like one of those shitty mods for games that "fix" the graphics by upping the color saturation and the contrast. But I suppose the cartoonish palette really fits the cartoonish, ridiculous premise and execution of the entire game. The ending was incredibly predictable and the one point in the game where the fuck-wit main character gets a chance to redeem himself.

Entertainment itself is a distraction from life. Adding content and varied areas to explore like caves, Japanese bunkers and ancient Chinese temples is a good thing by the way.

Spoiler!

Yes, and certainly they could have added interest to the word in ways that actual made sense in the context of the setting instead of copying and pasting simplified versions of the dungeons from Skyrim and the pointless mini-game side missions from GTA. They took what could have been a detailed and immersive setting and made it into a toy box full of little games to play.

Nope. Hunting is needed to craft items giving the player the ability to hold more weapons and ammo. Each craftable item needs a different kind of hide which makes use of the varied wildlife the game has including land and water based predators. This is as deep hunting will get in a game.

Spoiler!

They could have implemented hunting in a way that actually mattered in the context of the story or the world. They could have used it to enhance the feeling of struggling for survival that the game creates in the first mission of the game and nowhere else. Instead they turned it into yet another senseless form of progression; yet another nest of menus for you to navigate; yet another way that the game pats you on the head and tells you you did a good job for some stupid, menial task; yet another shallow RPG-lite element they threw in because free roam RPGs sell these days. Instead of doing things that actually make sense, it's just a stupid fetch quest. Get 4 pig skins so you can hold up to 2 grand! But of course you can't make a bigger wallet with pig skins. That would just be silly! You have to get 4 of ANOTHER animal on the most densely populated island in the history of the world. I loved the predators and the element of danger that added for both you and the NPCs but no, the hunting is terrible.

Adding more depth to a game by adding RPG elements to give the player a more involved experience has been a thing developers have done long before Skyrim. Skill progression, crafting and customization aren't limited to just conventional RPGs.

Spoiler!

I am well aware of this fact as a fan of RPGs and RPG hybrids. Here's the problem: this system does not add depth. They took away abilities you should have so they could give them back to you, and don't give me the argument that the progression works in the context of the story, because Jason is a skilled, cold-blooded killer by the FIRST MISSION of the game. I can sneak up behind someone and jam my machette into their throat, but I have to get some experience points before I can do that from above or below? It's not a progression that makes sense. It's not even a progression that correlates very directly to your abilities. It's just a set of special moves that they string out in front of you. They don't make you even close to weak at the beginning of the game. And, sure, FPS's with light RPG elements existed before Skyrim, but given all of the other poor RPG elements that are clearly inspired by this game (Treasure chests? SERIOUSLY?), that comparison makes sense. Pretty much every feature that they added to this game was taken directly from another big selling AAA sandbox game. What other free roam RPGs sold near what Skyrim did?

Are you saying collecting the diamonds in Far Cry 2 wasn't tedious? lol. Most people see the worth in being able to purchase weapons, ammo and weapon attachments. I guess they're just crazy.

Spoiler!

No, I'm not. I'm saying that they didn't feel the need to fill every square foot with that shit. The diamonds made sense in terms of their grounded setting and they were carefully placed. You got plenty of them from the main missions and side missions. I don't particularly like collectibles in general, but FC2 was pretty tasteful about it. Where as the relics in FC3 are just sort of there and I wouldn't have a problem with that if it weren't just one of MANY meaningless elements that clutter the game world, so that people don't get bored while they move from a fast travel point for 30 seconds to their objective.

Far Cry 2 has side missions and activities too. The difference is with Far Cry 3 they increased the variety of missions and the sheer number of activities to do. Far Cry 2 missions were either bomb a convoy or kill a guy, copy pasted several times in different areas of the map.

Spoiler!

They increased the variety to 3 really repetitive activities that they don't really bother to explain in the context of the world, the Rakyat trials, which are just weird linear high score runs, and a bunch of REALLY terrible attempts at RPG quests that are entirely forgettable. The side missions in 2 were all about paying attention to your environment to make sure each situation played out in your favor. That was demonstrated best on higher difficulties. 2's side missions weren't the greatest either, but frankly most of the pointless side content in free roam game is shit by nature of the design. I have no idea why people like padding in their games.

You have a point, some of the missions can be linear. Only some though and for the most part the game doesn't care what you do unless you do something to fail the mission. Far Cry 2 let you try to play through a mission however you wanted somewhat. The problem is the stealth mechanic was basic and pretty much broken. Given how little weapons you have a firefight will go pretty much the same way every time. Far Cry 2 might have tried to give you a better illusion of choice but the basic gameplay limited your options. Stealth actually works in Far Cry 3 either range or close up.

Spoiler!

If by "something to fail the mission," you mean "not do exactly what they wanted you to do in the mission." Fuck, there's even a forced stealth mission where you fail if you DIVE INTO THE WATER. Why? Because if you did that, you wouldn't have to go through the path that they laid out for you. As for the stealth in FC3, it's not particular great and it's made by the fact that the NPCs are a bunch of morons. It boils down to the "awesome" magic rock mechanic and a bunch of taken down chains. It's pretty satisfying, but it's far from an exemplary stealth experience, even for this year alone. FC2 could have used a bit more feedback to tell the players what they did wrong and the AI perception could be a bit inconsistent (the same problem exists in 3), but their solution to that in this game was to give all of the enemies Down's Syndrome. FC2 was all about planning and controlling every encounter, even with all of the moving parts that could go wrong. You could wound enemies instead of killing them to draw their team mates, you could set fires and they would spread consistently and realistically (at least to the point that was balanced in a game's context). All the game ever told you was your objective, not how you had to accomplish it.

Normally I wouldn't bother replying to this as it's not worth my time but how wrong you are on every part of what you say warranted a response so well done I guess.

Spoiler!

Yep. Sure. That's cool. Let me make myself clear. Simply put: I do not hate Far Cy 3. Far Cry 3 is generally a pretty good game. It's stable, the shooting is generally solid (even if you cannot hit someone at more than about 150M with a FIFTY CAL), the story is generally entertaining if stupid, but it's a shitty sequel to Far Cry 2. They played it as safe as humanly possible by removing every single feature that anyone might have at some point complained about in 2 instead of improving the ambitious ideas and replaced them all with elements taken directly from other recent big-budget sandbox titles with no regard whatsoever to creating a cohesive experience. Instead of creating a world to become immersed in, it is simply a sandbox for kids to play around in with guns. FC2 was a unique free roam experience, where this game goes back to the same worn out structure that basically everyone has been using since GTA 3. By no means am I saying that FC2 is without it's flaws, but it was unique, ambitious, and once I learned how to have fun in it, I had a blast.

[Sir Legendhead]

FC3 > Dishonored