FARCRY 3 in Development
Trimble Bracegirdle
".....it's mostly guess work so far on what we should expect from Far Cry 3.
Last year though narrative designer Patrick Redding did mention that a
sequel would likely retain an African setting, though he also mentioned
Antarctica as a possibility.
It's also probable the third game will be based around an improved version
of the Dunia engine, OPM points out, which was specifically built to handle
complex real-world physics within a sandbox environment."
Sounds mostly like a 2nd Farcry 2 than the first Farcry or near relative
Crysis.
(\__/)
(='.'=)
(")_(") mouse(Antarctica !!???)
Mike T.
That would be a good thing, IMO. I enjoyed the MP game of FC2 more
than any game I've ever played. If they can just overcome the
punkbuster issues this time....
Unknown
<no-...@never.spam> wrote:
...
>Sounds mostly like a 2nd Farcry 2 than the first Farcry or near relative
>Crysis.
I think Far Cry blew Crysis out of the water in every way except for
hardware-software-gfx developments, where there is no contest.
Just my unsupported opinion, of course ;)
FC2 doesn't have FC's adventure component - it lacks cohesiveness, it
lacks a PLOT to take a player from here to there in a game, and not
just in a narrative linking rather generic NPCs in a plausible
scenario.
Tim O
<no-...@never.spam> wrote:
I'm very glad to hear this, and I hope they learned from criticism of
the first release. Far Cry 2 was about 80% of the way to being the
greatest game I ever played. A couple of really stupid gameplay
decisions like the unnecessary malaria side story and a bit too much
go-here-go-there shuffling got tedious.
The respawning checkpoints were probably the most maligned thing. One
of the developer commentaries I read that this was more of an
engine/memory limitation than a gameplay decision. The jist of it was
that areas were just "reset" when you got a certain distance from them
so their states didn't have to be remembered throughout the game.
I hope the engine upgrades they are doing can address this. I don't
want to wind up driving around in an empty world after 3 hours of
play, but there had to be a better way of handling it than how FC2 did
it.
CJM
"Tim O" <timo56...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:171qg5hlgmeeuouqm...@4ax.com...
> A couple of really stupid gameplay
> decisions like the unnecessary malaria side story and a bit too much
> go-here-go-there shuffling got tedious.
>
Given that that the game consisted almost entirely of these elements
(malaria, needless travel, respawning checkpoints), I don't see how you can
say it was 80% towards being the best game ever. Another element I think you
missed is the way other vehicles could always catch you up, and how easily
the vehicles a) caught fire and b) we repaired/extinguished with a single
ratchet.
The game had decent graphics (though it was relentlessly brown!), an
interesting implementation of fire. and the physics was generally sound. But
the gameplay was a the biggest disappointment I've ever experienced in
gaming.
> The respawning checkpoints were probably the most maligned thing. One
> of the developer commentaries I read that this was more of an
> engine/memory limitation than a gameplay decision. The jist of it was
> that areas were just "reset" when you got a certain distance from them
> so their states didn't have to be remembered throughout the game.
> I hope the engine upgrades they are doing can address this.
As I understood it, it was nothing to do with the engine, but to do with the
limitations of consoles. The games were designed for consoles were bound by
their limitation. However, I agree with you that the problem still could
have been avoided with a more imaginative design. How about [random] roaming
patrols rather than fixed checkpoints?
Basically, I think the devs got the engine sorted, looked back at their
handiwork and thought 'Job Done!'. Then they realised that they needed a
story and a gameworld and cobbled together the rest as quickly as they
could.
Elias Fotinis
> As I understood it, it was nothing to do with the engine, but to do with
> the limitations of consoles. The games were designed for consoles were
> bound by their limitation.
It probably wouldn't be possible to keep the whole state of the world in
memory, but they could at least leave the checkpoints unoccupied for, say,
an (in-game) day cycle. It wouldn't cost anything and it would certainly
make more sense than the current "turn around a corner and have everything
respawned again" approach.
I don't mind the current system (I'm a sucker for punishment), but I can see
why most people are annoyed by it.
Benjamin Gawert
>> The respawning checkpoints were probably the most maligned thing. One
>> of the developer commentaries I read that this was more of an
>> engine/memory limitation than a gameplay decision. The jist of it was
>> that areas were just "reset" when you got a certain distance from them
>> so their states didn't have to be remembered throughout the game.
>> I hope the engine upgrades they are doing can address this.
>
> As I understood it, it was nothing to do with the engine, but to do with
> the limitations of consoles.
No, this is not a limitation of consoles, it is just a stupid decision
made by the game designers.
Benjamin
Tim O
<cjmu...@gmail.removethis.com> wrote:
>
>"Tim O" <timo56...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:171qg5hlgmeeuouqm...@4ax.com...
>
>> A couple of really stupid gameplay
>> decisions like the unnecessary malaria side story and a bit too much
>> go-here-go-there shuffling got tedious.
>>
>
>Given that that the game consisted almost entirely of these elements
>(malaria, needless travel, respawning checkpoints), I don't see how you can
>say it was 80% towards being the best game ever. Another element I think you
>missed is the way other vehicles could always catch you up, and how easily
>the vehicles a) caught fire and b) we repaired/extinguished with a single
>ratchet.
>
>The game had decent graphics (though it was relentlessly brown!), an
>interesting implementation of fire. and the physics was generally sound. But
>the gameplay was a the biggest disappointment I've ever experienced in
>gaming.
The travel didn't have to be needless. Nearly all the mandatory
missions and many of the "in order" side missions made you go from one
side to the other. Given the huge size of the map, this padding wasn't
necessary. It would have been OK a few times, but just relied on it a
bit too much.
I had no problem with the enemy vehicles. I mapped one of my extra
mouse buttons to switch between the driver/gunner seat and smoked them
as they came. I'm no super-gamer and I just can't understand how it
was that big of an issue.
Did you play through the whole thing? Some of the second half missions
and weapons were incredible. Sniping base camps at dawn, exploding
fuel storage tanks and burning dudes up. It was just so frigging cool.
There was a truck with a grenade launcher in the second half of the
game that made the checkpoints fun.
I noticed a lot of people that complained about the checkpoints and
enemy vehicles didn't play it past the first act. They didn't get to
see nearly all the game had to offer.
X-Fire tracked my hours played... 58 hours in the single player
campaign. That is a hell of a bang for the buck. I did spend a lot of
time exploring, finding the hang gliders, diamonds, etc.
The only game I have more hours on is the original STALKER, but that
includes a second playthrough. I should also add that I was initially
just as dismayed with the game as you. I loved the first Far Cry
(still in my top 5 games ever) and saw this one as a failing.
Only when I gave it a chance and just stopped when I got frustrated
did I start to like the game. By the halfway point I was playing it
for 2 hours at a time, something I rarely ever do.
Tim
Jonah Falcon
was never a time someone would drive by you.... and NOT screech the brakes,
turn around, and try to kill you. I mean e-v-e-r-y-o-n-e wants you dead. Can
I PLEASE be able to drive from one place to another and not have to expend
ammo almost immediately?
Sheldon England
You do make it sound fun.
I got as far as early missions and at one point I had to make my way to
a house where a superamazingunrealninjaghurkakhmerrougekgb sniper kept
repeatedly taking me out from 500,000,000 miles ... so I lost interest.
Maybe 2% into the game I expect.
- Sheldon
WDS
> I noticed a lot of people that complained about the checkpoints and
> enemy vehicles didn't play it past the first act. They didn't get to
> see nearly all the game had to offer.
All games should have sucky first halves and "good" second halves to
punish people.
I did play to the second half and the weapons got silly on both sides.
Tim O
<sheldon...@netscape.net> wrote:
>You do make it sound fun.
>
>I got as far as early missions and at one point I had to make my way to
>a house where a superamazingunrealninjaghurkakhmerrougekgb sniper kept
>repeatedly taking me out from 500,000,000 miles ... so I lost interest.
>Maybe 2% into the game I expect.
>
>
> - Sheldon
If you'd like to try a later level, I could go through my saves and
try to find the beginning of one of the fun later missions.
I know there is one where I have a .50 sniper rifle that is really
cool.
Tim
BrunoN Bluthgeld
> Did you play through the whole thing? Some of the second half missions
> and weapons were incredible. Sniping base camps at dawn, exploding
> fuel storage tanks and burning dudes up. It was just so frigging cool.
> There was a truck with a grenade launcher in the second half of the
> game that made the checkpoints fun.
>
> I noticed a lot of people that complained about the checkpoints and
> enemy vehicles didn't play it past the first act. They didn't get to
> see nearly all the game had to offer.
>
That's exactly how it went. After few quick respawnings and that
out-of-nowhere ninja cars I decided the game's insufferably stupid and
removed it from my computer (whilst being annoyed as hell since game was
rather expensive). I expected ton of free-roaming fun, not constant
space invaders 3D.
> X-Fire tracked my hours played... 58 hours in the single player
> campaign. That is a hell of a bang for the buck. I did spend a lot of
> time exploring, finding the hang gliders, diamonds, etc.
> The only game I have more hours on is the original STALKER, but that
> includes a second playthrough. I should also add that I was initially
> just as dismayed with the game as you. I loved the first Far Cry
> (still in my top 5 games ever) and saw this one as a failing.
> Only when I gave it a chance and just stopped when I got frustrated
> did I start to like the game. By the halfway point I was playing it
> for 2 hours at a time, something I rarely ever do.
You really make it look fun, the fact you liked Stalker and first FC
makes you even more credible for me. Maybe I should give the game
another chance.
Ayatollah of rock 'n' roller
Mike T.
Well I'd have to disagree.. there were allies in the game, and they
often appeared in the more intense battles to help you out. I never
got a feeling it was me against the world. Plus the feeling of
actually driving freely around Africa, things like the animals in the
environment, made me feel more at one with nature than any game I
remember :)
Mike T.
<efotinis@y@h00.com> wrote:
>"CJM" wrote:
>> As I understood it, it was nothing to do with the engine, but to do with
>> the limitations of consoles. The games were designed for consoles were
>> bound by their limitation.
>
>It probably wouldn't be possible to keep the whole state of the world in
>memory, but they could at least leave the checkpoints unoccupied for, say,
>an (in-game) day cycle. It wouldn't cost anything and it would certainly
>make more sense than the current "turn around a corner and have everything
>respawned again" approach.
Your idea is a good one, even if not in-game time approached, they
could still optimize for fun a little bit by having checkpoints
repopulate based on some other well-thought out variable (for example,
if the user has cleared X checkpoints in the last 30 minutes, give or
take a random 10-15 minutes, don't repopulate etc).
I think part of the reason they did what they did is they
overestimated the average gamer's attention span, and went for epic
play time. The last few COD games last all of 5 hours or so in single
player and look how well they sell. FC2 had a massive world with
incredible design. What's more important is what they did with
multiplayer and the map designer... have you ever loaded up the level
editor? Over-the-top user friendly and easy to use, perhaps more fun
than the game itself. The multiplayer network code was brilliantly
smooth, however the punkbuster kick rules were brutal.
Benjamin Gawert
Well, you had your "allies" which could rescue you if you got shot down
but otherwise spend the hole day in one of the stupid bars. Not much
considering that as you say everyone in this game wants you dead and
immediately shoots at you.
FC2 being one of the best games? Certainly not. I'd say even 20% is
overrated, considering the lame story, the repetitive tasks, the stupid
driving, the endlessly respawning enemies, and the malaria thing. If it
hadn't been named "Far Cry" then it would be just another crappy shooter
barely anyone remembers (like Boiling Point).
Benjamin
Benjamin Gawert
> FC2 is what happens when PC games are dumbed down for console newbies.
Nope, it is what happens when the publisher rushes out a half-done
sequel of a very successfull game. It has nothing to do with consoles.
There are many multi-platform titles that are much better than FC2.
Benjamin
Mike T.
wrote:
I'm not sure what my single player time was like, but it had to be
alot. Multiplayer hours were more easily trackable via the online
menus, and I cash in at 400+ hrs and still playing. Alot of the
appeal there is the appeal they put into custom maps and the whole
upload/download community thing -- pure brilliance and never a dull
moment. The fact this game got abused so badly in reviews upon its
release is an omen toward why GOOD pc gaming is headed toward what it
is. A lot of spoiled betwetters complain when things don't result
with them being spoonfed their perfect cup of tea, and one bad apple
spoils the bunch. I get tired of hearing what people don't like,
there's no shortage of bitches... I'd like to hear more of what people
do like even if it doesn't agree with my taste.
Tim O
wrote:
There is no way this game is half done. It is polished, stable and
smooth. You might not agree with the choices they made, but it is in
no way incomplete.
Pia
wrote:
> You do make it sound fun.
>
> I got as far as early missions and at one point I had to make my way to
> a house where a superamazingunrealninjaghurkakhmerrougekgb sniper kept
> repeatedly taking me out from 500,000,000 miles ... so I lost interest.
> Maybe 2% into the game I expect.
I think that's where I also lost my initial interest, but not wanting
to waste the money spent on the game, I decided to give it one more
try and with a different tactics. Rather than taking the obvious route
to the house (ie. driving to the front gate and start shooting like
some Rambo), I instead walked all the way to the back of the house.
That meant walking through some really amazing scenery with an
atmosphere on par with Stalker, sneaking past checkpoints, sniping the
enemy from several hundred yards away and torching the rest with a
well placed bullet in a nearby ammo crate or an oil tank and so on. It
turned out to be such a hugely entertaining experience that I just
kept on going and ended up at around 60 hours of playtime when I
finally finished the game.
FC2 certainly had its fair share of annoyances, but in end the pros
far outweighed the cons, IMHO.
CJM
> I noticed a lot of people that complained about the checkpoints and
> enemy vehicles didn't play it past the first act. They didn't get to
> see nearly all the game had to offer.
>
I can't remember exactly, but I reckon I played around 6 hrs.... But I was
bored after 2 - it wasn't like the tedium or padding was hidden; it was
prominent from the start.
I could see some interesting aspects of the game, but they were brief
moments - the majority of the game was repetitive. The highlights were never
going to be enough to convince me to endure all the negative aspects. I have
a family that place certain demands on me so when I get the opportunity for
some gaming, I'm very demanding and critical, so if the game doesn't cut the
mustard quickly it gets sold before it loses much value.
CJM
"Mike T." <mike...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:7c7sg5pkjt7ptu0el...@4ax.com...
>
> The fact this game got abused so badly in reviews upon its
> release is an omen toward why GOOD pc gaming is headed toward what it
> is.
I disagree completely.
The game had an expectant audience awaiting; there was absolutely no chance
of poor sales, but every chance of disappointment if the game wasn't of a
certain standard. They should have taken the time to design the game
properly given that they knew it wasn't a risk.
The checkpoints, the weapon wear and car repair models, the uber fast enemy
cars, the means of acquiring kit, the safehouses... all ridiculous
implementations that annoy the player and ruin immersion. It wouldn't have
been any more expensive to design it in a way that made sense - just a bit
of forethought and imagination.
I know that most games aren't realistic, but there are certain tricks and
design approaches that we need to make games workable, and by now we have
grown to accept them such that we don't even see them any more. For example,
in many game, we are able to carry half a ton of kit and then run & jump
like gymnasts. We know it is unrealistic but we don't mind. But to me, the
idea of the magical weapons locker that somehow holds your weapon in a
quantum state so that it can be accessed any various parts of sub-saharan
africa seem to break the fragile immersion bubble.
As for bed-wetting, I would guess that the majority of complainers are the
older gamers who are used to better designed games, as opposed to the
younger generation who one might expect to be more volatile.
CJM
>
> There is no way this game is half done. It is polished, stable and
> smooth. You might not agree with the choices they made, but it is in
> no way incomplete.
I agree with this entirely.
The game was a total bag of shit, but it ran reliably and smoothly, and was
certainly complete. The build quality was as good as I have seen; it was let
down by design.
Werner Spahl
> If it hadn't been named "Far Cry" then it would be just another crappy
> shooter barely anyone remembers (like Boiling Point).
Don't be so hard on Boiling Point! Granted, there were lots of small bugs
but it never froze on me regularily already on the loading screen like FC2
often did which I stopped playing because I finally got stuck inside a car
gun emplacement that I couldn't leave anymore. I also read that there was
a huge chance that a bug renders FC2 unfinisheable in act 2 and comparing
the quests, Boiling Point had the more interesting ones until the end when
you discovered that they somehow had to cut the whole alien aspect out...
--
Dr. Werner Spahl (sp...@cup.uni-muenchen.de) Freedom for
Wesp5 @ Vampire: The Masquerade - Bloodlines Vorlonships
Andrew MacPherson
> Sounds mostly like a 2nd Farcry 2 than the first Farcry or near
> relative Crysis.
I tried really hard to like FC2. But after about six hours and several attempts to
care about the story and gameplay, I have completely given up on it and placed it
on The Shelf of Shame, where all my mistakes live. So FC3 registers roughly nine
tenths of bugger-all on the giveafuckometer.
Far Cry remains one of the best gaming experiences I've had this decade. But that's
where the franchise began and ended. Fortunately FO3 recently restored my faith in
the potential for gaming... though yesterday I finally discovered the ending and
was a bit disappointed.
****spoiler*****
I was quite attached to that character. So much so that I've gone back to an
earlier save to continue exploring. I had hoped it would be more open ended, with
the hope for a continuation in FO4. Still, maybe FC2 teaches us that sometimes
you're better off dead than getting old & senile. :-)
Andrew McP
Elias Fotinis
> [The game was a total bag of shit], but it ran reliably and smoothly,
> [...]
The game crashes to the desktop for many people (including me) after 30
minutes or so. I've lost countless hours of progress before I started
quicksaving every 10 minutes.
The problem affects people with ATI and nVidia, XP and Vista, x86 and x64,
DX9 and DX10, high and low settings, overclocked and standard-clocked
hardware, legit and cracked -- i.e. all kinds of systems. There must be
something wrong with it.
Nothing personal; just letting off some steam. :o)
CJM
"Elias Fotinis" <efotinis@y@h00.com> wrote in message
news:1259252281.913220@athprx03...
Clearly the problem is not with the graphics elements of it. It could be
related to processor, BIOS, RAM type or speed, AV software, printer
drivers... anything at all. Sometimes the devs write buggy software and
sometimes they are just unlucky.
> Nothing personal; just letting off some steam. :o)
I'm not doubting you at all and I'm sure that you are not alone, but the
proportion of people who struggled is comparatively small, especially when
you compare it to games like STALKER.
For all it's faults, FC2 was one of the better games when it comes to
graphics quality and game reliability. If 0.1% of people suffered similar
problems, there would be enough people give the game a bad name in terms of
reliability; but that is still a tiny proportion of players. Given that FC2
was fairly well regarded in that respect, it suggest the proportion is
probably even smaller.
Of course, you are entitled to be pissed off. You might be in the minority
but it doesn't make your experience any better. And unfortunately, although
you have a standard PC with properly maintained software, you don't even
have any rights to a refund. :(
Tim O
58 hours in single player, one crash to desktop.
Abit P5KC, Core 2 duo 6850, 8800GT, 32 bit XP, 3 gig of RAM.
I'm now getting ready to play it on the upgraded version of the same
machine.
Same processor and RAM, but now with a NVidia 285GTX and Windows 7 64
bit. I know the game plays great, but haven't played long enough to
measure stability.
rms
[good stuff]
What he said. I enjoyed this game a lot.
rms
Dre
news:henbjk$5rg$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
Yep, me too, so much so I'm keen to fire it up and play it through again,
really great atmosphere...
Cheers Dre
Unknown
mcp.a...@DELETTHISgmail.com (Andrew MacPherson) wrote:
>no-...@never.spam (Trimble Bracegirdle) wrote:
>
>> Sounds mostly like a 2nd Farcry 2 than the first Farcry or near
>> relative Crysis.
>
>I tried really hard to like FC2. But after about six hours and several attempts to
>care about the story and gameplay, I have completely given up on it and placed it
>on The Shelf of Shame, where all my mistakes live. So FC3 registers roughly nine
>tenths of bugger-all on the giveafuckometer.
>
I never put it on any "shelf of shame", even tho' Iike a lot of others
I don't think the game lived up to its potential.
"does not live up to its potential" doesn't in any way mean "is not
worth shit" or "is deserving of shame".
What a lot of people mean when they say that a game doesn't live up to
its potential is just that in their opinion the development cycle
could have gone thru' another iteration, rather easily, to an
exponentially better effect.
It's an oblique way of paying homage, is all.
Toby Newman
How would Far Cry 2 play on my system, do you think?
GeForce 8600 GTS
Intel Core 2 Quad Q6600 2.40GHz (1066FSB)
2GB RAM
I'm thinking it might be time to get a new GFX card to keep pace with
my CPU.
--
-Toby
Add the word afiduluminag to the subject to circumvent my email filters.
Tim O
wrote:
Not sure of the perfomance of 8600 vs my old 8800, but I played it
with everything set pretty high on that card. I think I shut off the
HDR lighting, not because of framerate issues but because I didn't
like the glaring washed-out look it gave everything.
Its a very smooth running game. I expect if anything hurts you, its
going to be your vid and not CPU.
Good luck!
Trimble Bracegirdle
& a lot of wandering around.
Got bored, with the feeling that many game mechanics
were 'phony ...after getting a few weapons I did not really need to work
at
finding upgrades to play OK.
The whole reward system seemed damn silly as an idea & in implementation.
The mission structure did not get my interest & give me any
sense of story & overall purpose.
I abandoned it . But recently went back & just tried rushing around &
shooting whatever turned up as needed .
I've found that giving myself very basic mission goals ..e.g.. travel to
the top of the
gameworld ...& e.g. .maybe make it to that funny square on the far east .
..& now lets see how the Gameworld edges work ?
Then I find enough situations appearing to hold my interest.
I'm going to run FC2 up one more time with my 'new final mission' of
traveling all the way right round that Gameworld on its edges ....quite
looking forward to that.
Then it's uninstall.
Just Cause was like that for me. Once I gave up the main mission territory
thing
& just rushed around on whatever missions I happened into I enjoyed it.
Lots like we will have to forget any true Sequel to the very 1st Farcry
(sob!)
(\__/)
(='.'=)
(")_(") mouse (Just Cause 2 is on its way)
Benjamin Gawert
>> If it hadn't been named "Far Cry" then it would be just another crappy
>> shooter barely anyone remembers (like Boiling Point).
>
> Don't be so hard on Boiling Point! Granted, there were lots of small
> bugs
Well, I wouldn't call them "small" by any means. Being run over by
invisible cars, broken quest system, cars that need refuel after a short
trip and many other glitches really made it one of the worst games in
the last decade (for me personally it still holds the top rank, though).
> but it never froze on me regularily already on the loading screen
> like FC2 often did which I stopped playing because I finally got stuck
> inside a car
> gun emplacement that I couldn't leave anymore. I also read that there
> was a huge chance that a bug renders FC2 unfinisheable in act 2
Can't complain but then I played FC2 on the PS3 (I had doubts the
different shades of brown look much better on the PC and I got t for
less than 10EUR).
> and
> comparing the quests, Boiling Point had the more interesting ones until
> the end when you discovered that they somehow had to cut the whole alien
> aspect out...
I can't really remember about the quests but I remember it had (even for
that time) awful graphics, a terrible voice acting, and a really
annoying background music.
Benjamin
johns
> Crysis.
I've never finished Far Cry 2. I have started it maybe 5 times, but
it is simply too boring to continue. Far Cry 2 reminds me of
Oblivion. It simply has no character.
johns
Trimble Bracegirdle
Agreed. Totally , tragically correct.
(\__/)
(='.'=) This is Bunny. Copy and paste Bunny into your
(")_(") signature to help him gain world domination.
Werner Spahl
[Boiling Point bugs]
> Well, I wouldn't call them "small" by any means. Being run over by
> invisible cars, broken quest system, cars that need refuel after a short
> trip and many other glitches really made it one of the worst games in
Strange, these never happened to me. At least as far as I remember...
Scatter
> Far Cry remains one of the best gaming experiences I've had this decade. But that's
> where the franchise began and ended. Fortunately FO3 recently restored my faith in
> the potential for gaming... though yesterday I finally discovered the ending and
> was a bit disappointed.
You might want to try the DLC "Broken Steel" - it's a continuation
from the end of the main campaign that involves a small "twist". At
retail it also comes with "Point Break" which is another adventure in
mutant redneck populated swamps.
Andrew MacPherson
> You might want to try the DLC "Broken Steel" - it's a continuation
> from the end of the main campaign that involves a small "twist".
Don't worry, the GOTY edition is on my post-Xmas shopping list. :-)
Andrew McP