RANDOM VIDEO GAME NEWS - FREE WHITE HOUSE MONTAGE

[Lexx]

 

What to explore?

The world itself. There ain't much besides the jackal audio tapes and diamonds but the world is so well built that it makes you want to traverse and see every little hill, waterfall, hut etc. The emptiness gives you a sense of solitude that you don't get with other Far Cry games and it is also closer to 'reality' because there ain't much to do or see in a savanna except for the savanna itself.

 

 

Such things never spark my interest. I need something to do in a game. Just getting on the top of a hill and then looking around in all the empty just isn't enough for me. Maybe it's because I'm doing too much world building, etc. by myself, so I'll see empty space for what it is, no matter the pretty graphics. There might be a nice view, but I'll turn around in 10 seconds anyway.

[SonicMage117]

If I remember correctly, Far Cry 2 doesn't have a mini-map so you have to know where you're going.

 

I'm VERY surpirsed to see that Far Cry 5 is the lowest rated/reviewed Far Cry game on Steam. Maybe that will change in the future but you'd figure the hype surrouding the launch would manipulate the reviews in a more positive and rewarding favor.

 

I agree that the inclusion of micro-transactions is weird. Talked to some people on facebook about this, they argued the fact with "The micro-transactions are for useless things you don't need" so my reply was "Why have them at all then?"

 

I understand transactions in mobile games but in single-player/co-op console and pc games, why? Money. That's why. That's not a justification by any means though.

 

 

I just wish they would remake the first Far Cry on Dunia engine without dlc, microtransactions, etc. The first Far Cry still had the best world, the best story, the best gameplay and far better physics. It's so srange because that seems so long ago and I wish it were just my nostalgia talking but hey, the game's simplicity is really what drives my opinion here.

 

My favorite thing about Far Cry 5 is the that it's actually located in America but I haven't played it yet so I can't really comment on it any more than that.

 

My favorite thing about Far Cry 4 was the variry of vehicles. Snowmobiles, hovercrafts, 4-wheelers, mini-copters, etc. It was enough without getting silly.

 

My favorite thing about Far Cry 3 was the atmosphere. From the very first scene, it just drops you into an action thriller film type situation. Reminded me of the movie "Touristas" with Olivia Wylde.

 

Far Cry 2 had it's own thing going on. I'd say it felt less like a Far Cry game than any of the others and I believe that's because not only was it Ubisoft's first attempt but because alot of the systems were experimental and never seen again in a Far Cry game.

[Katphood]

Such things never spark my interest. I need something to do in a game. Just getting on the top of a hill and then looking around in all the empty just isn't enough for me. Maybe it's because I'm doing too much world building, etc. by myself, so I'll see empty space for what it is, no matter the pretty graphics. There might be a nice view, but I'll turn around in 10 seconds anyway.

Well, you can do more stuff in Far Cry 3, 4, 5 compared to Far Cry 2 but Far Cry 2 is more detailed and that makes encounters with enemies and outposts a whole lot more believable. In Far Cry 3 on the other hand every outpost feels the same. One look and you know where the alarm is, where the heavy gunner is, where the animal cages are and if you throw a bait in the outpost, immediately a bear appears out of nowhere and starts attacking baddies. Sure, it feels as if there are more things to do but those activities quickly become boring because they are predictable.

 

But I gotta agree that Far Cry 2 does looks a bit light on content, but I take quality over quantity any day.

[mkreku]

Far Cry 2 looks so good on paper, as they took the reactivity straight from the Cry Engine and continued in the same vein (seriously, go play Crysis to see what Crytek was up to at the same time). But actually playing the game.. I guess whoever made that video forgot how utterly broken the actual game is.

 

You're hunting collectibles in an ever respawning world. You have a vague map that's somewhat difficult to use so you will go the wrong way quite often. Every time you do you will run into outposts and angry drivers. These angry drivers never give up. Ever. They will drive their crappy little car way faster than you no matter what kind of super car you are driving and they will ram you off the road. Every time. Happens every three minutes. Guess how long before that gets old? Two and a half minutes.

 

The outposts respawn instantly. Not fast, instantly. You clear an outpost, take the wrong way 100 meters and turn around. Lo and behold, the outpost is back, exactly like it was.

 

All those 'cool' animations you saw? Built-in lag. It's NOT cool to see your character dig a bullet out of his arm the one hundredth time. Trust me. It just takes unnecessary time after the first few viewings.

 

I played Far Cry 2 to completion and while it's a decent game, the Far Cry series did get better, even if reactivity went down. May not look as fancy in a video but there's a difference between video footage and actually playing the game.

[SonicMage117]

Soul Calibur 6 will be the best selling fighting game in history and just for this reason...

[Fenixp]

Far Cry 2 is a bit of a misery simulator - whether it's by design or technical limitations, the game ended up becoming this relentless game of constant adaptation and attempts to survive. I also believe it's one of the most ambitious AAA products Ubisoft has ever released.

 

Its systems are universally designed to take power away from player - every plan will inevitably go wrong, your weapon will break, your malaria will send you into spasms at the worst possible times, you'll get ran over by a car while trying to snipe an objective from a street, you'll get shot in the back by a soldier who you thought dead and is lying on the ground in a pool of his own blood, you'll explode yourself by accidentally standing next to an ammo cache while it catches wildfire.

 

It's a surprisingly complex games, with a ton of unexpected details (A rocket from RPG will not explode until its engines fire. So shooting a rocket straight under ones legs will just drop it to the ground, where it'll ignite and fly in a random direction. The rocket propelled grenades themselves will eventually run out of fuel and just stumble down to the ground. And when you fire a proper rocket launcher, it'll actually exhaust from the back side of the weapon, potentially setting dry grass on fire.)

 

It's an extremely ballsy game, in an African setting of young kids fighting other young kids, actively trying to make player feel bad about what he's doing.

 

Far Cry 2 is ambitious, filled with unique ideas and innovative design. It's also unfinished and broken, sadly.

 

It's the very antithesis of Far Cry 3+, which are very much sterilized in order to become more predictable and controllable for the player, giving player all the power.

 

Far Cry series did get better, even if reactivity went down. May not look as fancy in a video but there's a difference between video footage and actually playing the game.

I'll take a proper systems-driven approach over sterile, entirely predictable gameplay any time - in spite of Far Cry 3 being excellent, turning down on reactivity ended up harming the gameplay and throwing the game into a 'generic shooter' category.

 

Edit: Added things.

Edited April 5, 2018 by Fenixp

[SonicMage117]

It's basically the Kingdom Come Deliverance of FPS lol Dares to be different.

[injurai]

Everyone so often a game comes around that I just know is doing something special. Far Cry 2 was one of those games, even in a post Crysis world. I can't say the same for any of the successors.

 

In fact, I don't think any FPS games have really done anything interesting since, other than Doom's return to form. Which is progress in an orthogonal direction. I'm sort of skimming over L4D where "The Director" was a pretty novel idea. Just mechanically FPS as really ceased evolving. MP-centrism really killed whole categories of mechanical experimentation.

[Katphood]

I'll take a proper systems-driven approach over sterile, entirely predictable gameplay any time - in spite of Far Cry 3 being excellent, turning down on reactivity ended up harming the gameplay and throwing the game into a 'generic shooter' category.

 

Edit: Added things.

Agreed.

 

Dear gaming industry, please give me more ambitious misery simulators so I don't have to replay the same games over and over again.

[Drowsy Emperor]

The issue I've had with Far Cry, Skyrim and similar open world games is that once you play a 'vertical slice' and try all the components at least once - drive or glide, attack one base camp, use the props, execute a silent kill or a rambo approach - the game is done. From there, it's all just repetition that is either well disguised (Skyrim) or poorly disguised (Far Cry 3, Oblivion).

 

You could make a case that all games are like this in some way. What kills the enjoyment for me is how obviously the game world is a sandbox for the player - yes, you can do 'anything' but at the end of the day you just shifted some sand from here to there and none of it has any significance - the world is essentially static and like in a play, someone behind the curtain just resets the scenery and props when you aren't looking. 

[SonicMage117]

I wouldn't say Far Cry 2 is amazing by any means or all that better than the other Far Cry games... just more different. The first game is still better in some ways. Each Far Cry has it's equal share of problems but the most thought out game is definitely the first game (the only one non-Ubisoft). It just offers a more wholesome feeling than the others. I really wish that CryTek never stopped developing the games just to see how different the games would be today.

 

The issue I've had with Far Cry, Skyrim and similar open world games is that once you play a 'vertical slice' and try all the components at least once - drive or glide, attack one base camp, use the props, execute a silent kill or a rambo approach - the game is done. From there, it's all just repetition that is either well disguised (Skyrim) or poorly disguised (Far Cry 3, Oblivion).

 

You could make a case that all games are like this in some way. What kills the enjoyment for me is how obviously the game world is a sandbox for the player - yes, you can do 'anything' but at the end of the day you just shifted some sand from here to there and none of it has any significance - the world is essentially static and like in a play, someone behind the curtain just resets the scenery and props when you aren't looking.

 

Same goes for the Just Cause series and the new Tomb tRaider games.

 

Staying in the safe zone is the developers comfort space for success.

 

The last mind-blowing fps I can remember playing, in all honesty, is Halo on the OG Xbox. Half Life, Far Cry, Metro and other games didn't have any huge affect on how I looked at games or played them but the first Halo did. That being said, I didn't care to play the other Halo games and it's very rare for an fps to impact me.

 

As far as sandbox games, there's only one sandbox game that I feel does "sandbox" right and it's not even open world. It's a prison simulation game called The Escapists 2 where you have more freedom than any rpg or open world gives (oddly) so that's my reasoning for placing it above those other types of sandbox games.

[Amentep]

I really liked the idea of Far Cry 2.

 

About 30 minutes in, while driving a jeep did me in though. Motion sickness...so much...motion...sick...ness...

[Katphood]

Same goes for the Just Cause series and the new Tomb tRaider games.

Just Cause 2 was okay because to me it was basically a modern version of Pilot Wings and a huge improvement over the first game. I didn't expect story or good action from the game when I started it but neither did I expect to be able to hijack a jet with a grappling hook. It was advertised as a 'big playground' and it pretty much delivered that. Just Cause 3 on the other hand went for the same route and failed because: a.it had performance issues on the consoles b.wasn't that different compared to Just Cause 2.

 

But man, the original Just Cause had an awesome soundtrack:

Good ol' Rob Lord.

Edited April 5, 2018 by Katphood

[Malcador]

They did a poor job of hiding the treadmill in Just Cause 2.  A  lot like SR3 and SR4, that way, I guess.  I really should try a Far Cry game, eventually, maybe will grab 1 or 2 on GOG when it's cheaper.

Edited April 5, 2018 by Malcador

[SonicMage117]

Yeah, I would have really enjoyed Just Cause 3 had it not been for the super poor support, optimization issues and wonky physics that kill you for... jumping at random times. There was just alot of strange issues. At one point, it just wouldn't start up on either of my 2 pc's. It was a mess at launch and as they patched it, it's only gotten worse.

 

 

I'm the type of guy that likes open world games, I admit I have a few open world games

 

I think open world and linear games both offer their own strengths and weaknesses. Essentially, there's the common misconception of "Linear is always better because it's more planned/put together" which isn't true. There are open world games just as focused as the more focused linear games out there. We have many examples of this.

 

I'm suddenly in the mood to play Saints Row 2 now lol

[Malcador]

 

Just in time for my birthday, w00t.  Earlier than I had expected, have not been following people in the alpha to see what state it's in though.

Edited April 5, 2018 by Malcador

[213374U]

The issue I've had with Far Cry, Skyrim and similar open world games is that once you play a 'vertical slice' and try all the components at least once - drive or glide, attack one base camp, use the props, execute a silent kill or a rambo approach - the game is done. From there, it's all just repetition that is either well disguised (Skyrim) or poorly disguised (Far Cry 3, Oblivion).

 

You could make a case that all games are like this in some way. What kills the enjoyment for me is how obviously the game world is a sandbox for the player - yes, you can do 'anything' but at the end of the day you just shifted some sand from here to there and none of it has any significance - the world is essentially static and like in a play, someone behind the curtain just resets the scenery and props when you aren't looking. 

 

Interestingly, I remember reading that there is evidence in the game files that Beth at some point intended to have the civil war subplot be much more involved and have it affect the world in noticeable and permanent ways. The final version of the quest in the game is basically a stump of what was designed originally.

 

I agree with what you said, at any rate. Repetition in open world games is much harder to conceal than in more linear games. I generally can only put up with it if I'm playing with friends. I don't think I would have been able to finish Dying Light by myself despite the absolutely brilliant parkour mechanics and great atmosphere otherwise, and yet it's my most played game on Steam. Heh.

[Katphood]

I hope Escape From Tarkov will be similar to Far Cry 2:

 

[injurai]

The issue I've had with Far Cry, Skyrim and similar open world games is that once you play a 'vertical slice' and try all the components at least once - drive or glide, attack one base camp, use the props, execute a silent kill or a rambo approach - the game is done. From there, it's all just repetition that is either well disguised (Skyrim) or poorly disguised (Far Cry 3, Oblivion).

 

You could make a case that all games are like this in some way. What kills the enjoyment for me is how obviously the game world is a sandbox for the player - yes, you can do 'anything' but at the end of the day you just shifted some sand from here to there and none of it has any significance - the world is essentially static and like in a play, someone behind the curtain just resets the scenery and props when you aren't looking. 

 

It's true, but I've gotten more unique experiences over my 90 hours in Skyrim than some 10 hours of bespoke content. I never force myself to complete an open-world game, not even the critical path. GTA is a game that gave me hours of fun just as a sandbox, even if many aspects repeated. Testing the limits of a games system and internal logic is just fascinating. To this day my favorite open-world game (and even in general) is RDR because I made consistent progress and found that most of the games experiences are opportunities that arise as you travel between mission points. That game stayed fresh right up to the end, and unlike GTA where you can distract yourself at any moment, RDR had an encouraged pacing that remained none-the-less open ended.

 

Contrast RDR to the density of Skyrim, and you simply can't keep up with all the quests you build up. It's like there are mouse-traps setup up to dynamically hand you quests, which makes travel and exploring both fun but also means you're half-starting a dozen guests that you might not get to for a while. I actually like what Skyrim did, but in the long term you feel like you are touring different Parks at Disney World. The content is all stashed away and you just tour around different parts of the park. RDR felt much more organic simply because it used the landscape naturally. TW3 took design cues from RDR, but seeing as 2077 will be hyper-dense and vertical it will be interesting how that game contrasts. I think both approaches work but they have to be balanced differently, because the illusion in dense worlds is far more fragile. A lot has to be going on in dense worlds, while at the same time you can't let the player burn through initial interactions.

[mkreku]

Far Cry series did get better, even if reactivity went down. May not look as fancy in a video but there's a difference between video footage and actually playing the game.

I'll take a proper systems-driven approach over sterile, entirely predictable gameplay any time - in spite of Far Cry 3 being excellent, turning down on reactivity ended up harming the gameplay and throwing the game into a 'generic shooter' category.

 

Yeah, me too. Luckily the later Far Cry's are neither sterile nor predictable.

 

You're confusing reactability with predictability. Sure, it's cool to see individual branches being shot off from a tree. But how long did you play 'shoot branches off trees'? Even five minutes? Did it actually matter once you were in a firefight (cue the forced stories about how much difference it made in that particular firefight YOU had blah blah)? In reality.. it didn't matter at all. Cool on paper (and in a video), pretty much non-existant when playing the game. Weapons falling apart after two magazines? Fun or annoying? Cars breaking down after (predictably) exactly 10 kilometers no matter how you drive? Still having fun?

 

Want to talk about predictability? How about we mention those outposts again? You know with 100% certainty what will happen when you see one. They are never empty, they are never friendly, there are never even different types of soldiers (or even number of soldiers!). Go play any of the newer Far Cry's and tell me they're predictable once you've attacked an outpost, been attacked from behind by a patrol while a plane crashes into a mountain in the distance and a honey badger eats up your last sliver of life. You can criticize a lot of stuff in the Far Cry series, but predictability is not one of them. Unless.. you mistake reactability for predictability and think shooting a tree into smaller chunks is unpredictable.

 

Like I said, Far Cry 2 looks great on paper, so many systems, so much reactivity. Just in a below average game.

 

Edit: added an example of what I consider unpredictability (taken from Far Cry 5):

 

https://i.imgur.com/K0JCpIY.mp4

Edited April 5, 2018 by mkreku

[Drowsy Emperor]

 

The issue I've had with Far Cry, Skyrim and similar open world games is that once you play a 'vertical slice' and try all the components at least once - drive or glide, attack one base camp, use the props, execute a silent kill or a rambo approach - the game is done. From there, it's all just repetition that is either well disguised (Skyrim) or poorly disguised (Far Cry 3, Oblivion).

 

You could make a case that all games are like this in some way. What kills the enjoyment for me is how obviously the game world is a sandbox for the player - yes, you can do 'anything' but at the end of the day you just shifted some sand from here to there and none of it has any significance - the world is essentially static and like in a play, someone behind the curtain just resets the scenery and props when you aren't looking. 

 

It's true, but I've gotten more unique experiences over my 90 hours in Skyrim than some 10 hours of bespoke content. I never force myself to complete an open-world game, not even the critical path. GTA is a game that gave me hours of fun just as a sandbox, even if many aspects repeated. Testing the limits of a games system and internal logic is just fascinating. To this day my favorite open-world game (and even in general) is RDR because I made consistent progress and found that most of the games experiences are opportunities that arise as you travel between mission points. That game stayed fresh right up to the end, and unlike GTA where you can distract yourself at any moment, RDR had an encouraged pacing that remained none-the-less open ended.

 

Contrast RDR to the density of Skyrim, and you simply can't keep up with all the quests you build up. It's like there are mouse-traps setup up to dynamically hand you quests, which makes travel and exploring both fun but also means you're half-starting a dozen guests that you might not get to for a while. I actually like what Skyrim did, but in the long term you feel like you are touring different Parks at Disney World. The content is all stashed away and you just tour around different parts of the park. RDR felt much more organic simply because it used the landscape naturally. TW3 took design cues from RDR, but seeing as 2077 will be hyper-dense and vertical it will be interesting how that game contrasts. I think both approaches work but they have to be balanced differently, because the illusion in dense worlds is far more fragile. A lot has to be going on in dense worlds, while at the same time you can't let the player burn through initial interactions.

 

 

A linear experience won't necessarily be better, for sure.  My favorite games aren't even strictly linear, PST,BG and the like flip back and forth between the concepts. It's more like a progression, and I liked at least a few games from even the extreme ends. I loved both Max Payne and GTA Vice City and those are polar opposites in design.

[injurai]

 

 

The issue I've had with Far Cry, Skyrim and similar open world games is that once you play a 'vertical slice' and try all the components at least once - drive or glide, attack one base camp, use the props, execute a silent kill or a rambo approach - the game is done. From there, it's all just repetition that is either well disguised (Skyrim) or poorly disguised (Far Cry 3, Oblivion).

 

You could make a case that all games are like this in some way. What kills the enjoyment for me is how obviously the game world is a sandbox for the player - yes, you can do 'anything' but at the end of the day you just shifted some sand from here to there and none of it has any significance - the world is essentially static and like in a play, someone behind the curtain just resets the scenery and props when you aren't looking. 

 

It's true, but I've gotten more unique experiences over my 90 hours in Skyrim than some 10 hours of bespoke content. I never force myself to complete an open-world game, not even the critical path. GTA is a game that gave me hours of fun just as a sandbox, even if many aspects repeated. Testing the limits of a games system and internal logic is just fascinating. To this day my favorite open-world game (and even in general) is RDR because I made consistent progress and found that most of the games experiences are opportunities that arise as you travel between mission points. That game stayed fresh right up to the end, and unlike GTA where you can distract yourself at any moment, RDR had an encouraged pacing that remained none-the-less open ended.

 

Contrast RDR to the density of Skyrim, and you simply can't keep up with all the quests you build up. It's like there are mouse-traps setup up to dynamically hand you quests, which makes travel and exploring both fun but also means you're half-starting a dozen guests that you might not get to for a while. I actually like what Skyrim did, but in the long term you feel like you are touring different Parks at Disney World. The content is all stashed away and you just tour around different parts of the park. RDR felt much more organic simply because it used the landscape naturally. TW3 took design cues from RDR, but seeing as 2077 will be hyper-dense and vertical it will be interesting how that game contrasts. I think both approaches work but they have to be balanced differently, because the illusion in dense worlds is far more fragile. A lot has to be going on in dense worlds, while at the same time you can't let the player burn through initial interactions.

 

 

A linear experience won't necessarily be better, for sure.  My favorite games aren't even strictly linear, PST,BG and the like flip back and forth between the concepts. It's more like a progression, and I liked at least a few games from even the extreme ends. I loved both Max Payne and GTA Vice City and those are polar opposites in design.

 

 

Well, I wasn't talking about a linear experience at all. The hybrid system that you are eluding to are "partial-orderings" which is where the tuning ultimately comes down to in any open-world game.

[injurai]

 

Oh man, and that BOC cover!

[Katphood]

Sure, it's cool to see individual branches being shot off from a tree. But how long did you play 'shoot branches off trees'?

Lots of trees, lots of firefights which look more intense in a 'reactable' environment. I like shooting an rpg into an outpost and seeing all manner of things fly into the air, tree branches included.

 

Weapons falling apart after two magazines? Fun or annoying?

Fun! Because it does matter whether you are picking up a rusty gun off a dead body or buying a new one from an arms dealer with the diamonds you have found.

 

Cars breaking down after (predictably) exactly 10 kilometers no matter how you drive? Still having fun?

Actually, the cars are a whole lot more user friendly compared to many other games. At least you can get out and fix it without the need of driving all the way to a repair shop.

 

a honey badger eats up your last sliver of life.

 

 

Edit: added an example of what I consider unpredictability (taken from Far Cry 5):

 

https://i.imgur.com/K0JCpIY.mp4

 

Seen that a couple of times in different video games as well but why do they make every game world after Far Cry 2 look like a goddamn safari park?!

[Hurlshort]

To be fair, I spent at least a couple hours trying to spell things out in bullets in Goldeneye for the N64.