Far Cry 5 - set in the exotic open world of MONTANA

[Makabb]

Crysis 1 is still the best type of this game and doesn't look that much worse

 

[Tehdagah]

Yeah I don't get the whole behind trying to portray FC2 as some kind of a forgotten gem. It was a banal shit boring game with some gimmicks, most of which were really annoying. I have no doubt FC5 is BSB too

But dude you can destroy some small tree's branches in FC2

 

[Teut Busnet]

Crysis 1 is still the best type of this game and doesn't look that much worse

Thanks for reminding me of Crysis! I couldn't play it when it came out and bought it a while ago on a sale for a Euro or so (in a package with 'Wars' and 'Warhead').

Installing now.

 

[Tehdagah]

Big tree vs small tree, quality comparison.

 

[Outlander]

Big tree vs small tree, quality comparison.

Wait, you're saying that a game from 2018 has better graphics than a game from 2008?

 

[Stavrophore]

Funny thing is Far Cry 4 has comparable graphics to the Far Cry 5, and 4 years have passed since. That's really telling, but FC4 had really high requirements, so maybe they didn't want to push the limits, to prevent a big market share -all those people with 970 cards, to not buy the game.

 

[Assisted Living Godzilla]

 

[sexbad?]

far cry 2 is better because you can shoot trees. end of story.

 

[agentorange]

 

[Assisted Living Godzilla]

The game is fun. Eliminating the HUD nonsense is great after I got to terms with having to use the big map.
The exploration and missions here are better than in previous games and the world is gorgeous, I am fairly sure it is my favourite FarCry since FC2.

Things I would like to see improved and added so that FarCry 6 could be my favourite shooter ever:

• keep all the good stuff from FC5
• add the stuff that FC2 had (handheld map, weather, attention to small details, gun jamming - to enemies as well…)
• non-silent protagonist
• nonlinear quests with more options to solve them (narratively and gameplay-wise)
• interactive dialogue (Deus Ex)

They should just make proper FPSRPG hybrid.

Given how much better Bethesda's games have done since Skyrim, it's kind of weird they haven't just tried their hand at a FPS "RPG" with the Dunia Engine. They already do gameplay better than Bethesda, they already do cinematic conversations better than Bethesda, their engine already allows cooler shit to be done in the environment. If they did what they do in some sci-fi or fantasy setting while dropping in some modern adventure game shit and branching paths, (and maybe some kind of loot system) they'd probably be able to put that Bethesda Elder Scrolls/Fallout audience to them.

 

[Santander02]

Crysis 1's first half is still the best type of this game and doesn't look that much worse

Fixed again, ruining a perfectly good gameplay formula by introducing some retarded super powered alien/mutant enemies that are not only are frustrating to fight but also completely change how the player approached encounters and throw the up to that point carefully constructed pacing out of the window seemed to be some sort of tradition over at crytek at the time. Levels also generally became less open after encountering said enemies, to add insult to injury

Warhead struk just the right balance to me, for what is worth, great soundtrack too.

 

[unfairlight]

far cry 2 is better because you can shoot trees. end of story.

This but unironically.

 

[Paul_cz]

KCD with guns then? :D

Yeah, I wish.

Given how much better Bethesda's games have done since Skyrim, it's kind of weird they haven't just tried their hand at a FPS "RPG" with the Dunia Engine. They already do gameplay better than Bethesda, they already do cinematic conversations better than Bethesda, their engine already allows cooler shit to be done in the environment. If they did what they do in some sci-fi or fantasy setting while dropping in some modern adventure game shit and branching paths, (and maybe some kind of loot system) they'd probably be able to put that Bethesda Elder Scrolls/Fallout audience to them.

FC5 is very reminiscent of what I would imagine under the term Skyrim with guns, actually.

 

[Dexter]

I don't get this entire "discussion" at all. Are people genuinely and without any sort of sarcasm trying to argue that what makes a game fun to play in the end is being able to shoot lightbulbs, condiments and boxes or an unrealistic dynamic fire-system that sets fire to an entire forest if you fire a rocket-launcher?

Far Cry 2 was shit. That said, I'd definitely love a new Crysis.

 

[Outlander]

I don't get this entire "discussion" at all. Are people genuinely and without any sort of sarcasm trying to argue that what makes a game fun to play in the end is being able to shoot lightbulbs, condiments and boxes or an unrealistic dynamic fire-system that sets fire to an entire forest if you fire a rocket-launcher?

Far Cry 2 was shit. That said, I'd definitely love a new Crysis.

ITT:

Normal people: "Far Cry 2 engine is more technically advanced than Far Cry 5 engine."

Retards: "b-b-b-but Far Cry 2 is boring and Far Cry 5 is fun!!11!!11!"

What does one have to do with the other? Nada, but retards need to convince themselves somehow that spending $60 on the latest FC popamole was actually a good move.

 

[Dexter]

Normal people: "Far Cry 2 engine is more technically advanced than Far Cry 5 engine."

It's not though, it was part of why it's shitty. Repeating copy-pasted content was all around, the same tree models appear all the time, partly probably because they have to be destructible, you constantly run into camps/checkpoints full of respawning enemies that feel the same, it looks like it has a shitty brown-filter all over its screen and it has "repeating object/NPC" syndrome like it's Fallout 3 leading to quick boredom:

You can literally make a game about a large plain with randomized tree, rock and some NPC placement you can mow down with your machine gun with physics in a few hours or days at most in Unity or Unreal, this doesn't make it in any way a good (or fun) game. It's a lot harder to make a game with proper art design, fun gameplay, real looking woods and varied flora, fauna, encounter design and enemies.

Idiots are now defending this kind of design because "hurdur I'm clever and you can shoot trees and lighbulbs".

Retards: "b-b-b-but Far Cry 2 is boring and Far Cry 5 is fun!!11!!11!"

So the retards are right, then?

What does one have to do with the other? Nada, but retards need to convince themselves somehow that spending $60 on the latest FC popamole was actually a good move.

It's especially funny learning that shooting off tree-branches, lightbulbs and having 20 different healing animations apparently makes a game better than another on a Website that absolutely worships Turn-based and Real-time RPGs that usually had none of that and often featured abstract gameplay.

This is the equivalent of some Skyway getting all autistic and arguing that a top-down 3D Russian shovelware production with constantly repeating assets and respawning enemies everywhere featuring boring encounters, a shit story and generally bland and boring gameplay is better than PS:T, Fallout, Baldur's Gate etc. because you can shoot trees and boxes. It's a really fucking stupid argument.

And I don't even need to defend any purchasing decision, since I haven't even played any of the Far Cry's after 2 so far and wasn't a particularly large fan of the first 2.

 

[Outlander]

Normal people: "Far Cry 2 engine is more technically advanced than Far Cry 5 engine."

It's not though, it was part of why it's shitty. Repeating copy-pasted content was all around, the same tree models appear all the time, partly probably because they have to be destructible, you constantly run into camps/checkpoints full of respawning enemies that feel the same, it looks like it has a shitty brown-filter all over its screen and it has "repeating object/NPC" syndrome like it's Fallout 3 leading to quick boredom

I don't think copy-pasted assets, annoying respawning enemies and the choice of color palette have anything to do with technical engine capabilities, those things have to do with shitty design decisions

You can literally make a game about a large plain with randomized tree, rock and some NPC placement you can mow down with your machine gun with physics in a few hours or days at most in Unity or Unreal, this doesn't make it in any way a good (or fun) game. It's a lot harder to make a game with proper art design, fun gameplay, real looking woods and varied flora, fauna, encounter design and enemies.

Totally agree, now what exactly does this have to do with pointing out that a game from 2008 has more complex physics-based simulation details (which in no way make or break a game as a whole) than a game from the same franchise in 2018?

Idiots are now defending this kind of design because "hurdur I'm clever and you can shoot trees and lighbulbs".

Indeed, people claiming FC2 is a better game than FC5 just because its physics-based simulation details are idiots.

It's especially funny learning that shooting off tree-branches, lightbulbs and having 20 different healing animations apparently makes a game better than another on a Website that absolutely worships Turn-based and Real-time RPGs that usually had none of that.

So because we like turn-based RPGs we shouldn't also discuss inane shit like physics-based simulation details in popamole FPS?

The original argument was 'FC2 has more physics-based simulation details than FC5', which is undeniable true. Then clueless FC5 fanboys foaming at the mouth tried to play it down by pointing out FC2 bad design decisions

 

[Zer0wing]

Technically, Far Cry 5 engine = Far Cry 2 engine, so the question is not which one is more advanced or what game is better. The question is - where are our destructible trees, shooting through walls and other lost features, Ubisoft? And the FC2 engine version is not bad, at least it was multithreaded, unlike Crysis. Could be used better, yes but bad? Not really.

 

[Tehdagah]

Big tree vs small tree, quality comparison.

Wait, you're saying that a game from 2018 has better graphics than a game from 2008?

No, false equivalent in Crowbcat's video to pass an illusion that all vegetation in FC2 is destroyable.

 

[Bocian]

 

[agentorange]

Making something is not a process where all the good elements of everything that came before are added up to eventually make something perfect. It's a process of picking and choosing the most important components, altering others, and removing others that are seen as unnecessary, based on the subjective decisions of many different people. I never once heard FC2 being talked about in such high regard up until about a week ago, conveniently when so many videos came out on youtube talking about what a lost masterpiece of technical brilliance it apparently was, and certainly never heard anyone bring up the fact that you could shoot the limbs off trees; people did, however, complain about the malaria, checkpoints, and instant weapon degradation, all of which were removed or improved upon in the sequels. I was usually on the defending side in these conversations because I liked FC2 despite its problems, and even I never thought about or once brought up the possibility of shooting the limbs off trees. It's a feature that is impressive when viewed in isolation, as a technical showcase, but one that is almost instantly forgotten about in view of the game as a whole; so why, then, would Ubisoft feel the need to re-implement such a feature, one that would only be more difficult to implement now due to increased graphical fidelity and asset variety? It's very likely they did try to implement it but found that it was an unneeded resource hog, that it went unnoticed by most game testers, or a combination of both in addition to considerations about how much time and money it would take to implement the feature. Same goes for changes made to the FC2 fire effects (which, by the way, were specifically designed for use in an area composed almost entirely of Savanna dry brush, known for being highly flammable, as opposed to the lush greenery of Montanan that does not burn in the same way; so why then implement the same exact fire effects, which many people liked but many other people found incredibly aggravating due to it interrupting firefights when a single spark set off an inferno, in an area that would not see it nearly as much).

Anything in FC2 that's good should be a given in 3; not missing in 5. Especially since it's on the same engine.

Maybe I'm a fool to die on the FC2 (or rather, on the "what FC2 coulda been") hill but time will tell. Mr. Hocking, I salute you and your ambition. Even your decision to make animals 1-touch-dead "in order for players to focus on the story rather than hunting" or whatever that was, which was questionable at best even without the power of hindsight.

And? The point isn't that it's a shit game, the point is to show the cool shit Far Cry 2 did back in 2008 that for whatever reason isn't there in a new Far Cry in 2018...despite running on the exact same engine. (Not following these games I didn't know they were still running on the same engine) Who gives a shit if they're making money doing those videos, good for whoever runs that channel making some money pointing that shit out.

Normal people: "Far Cry 2 engine is more technically advanced than Far Cry 5 engine."

I don't think copy-pasted assets, annoying respawning enemies and the choice of color palette have anything to do with technical engine capabilities, those things have to do with shitty design decisions

Two things here. First: either the games are running on the exact same engine, which would mean the basic tech behind any of these features has in no way regressed but that those features were edited as design decisions, or the games are not running on the same exact engine and the engine has been modified over the years to focus on more critical elements as well as make various graphical and system improvements, modifactions that were not in FC2. It is, of course, a combination of both; the engine has, in fact, been altered over the course of the decade since FC2 was released, and there are many design decisions involved in making a game on this scale. The FC5 engine is able to handle far larger areas, has global illumination, dynamic water effects, improved AI, improved animal behavior and flora variety, improved animations, etc.

Second, as I stated before, no, "anything in FC2 that's good should be a given in 3; not missing 5" is not a sound statement based on any sense of reality but purely on ideology. It's a notion that arises from cynicism and having a detached, hindsight informed view entirely divorced from the creative process. Making a game at this level, or any level, is a complex endeavor that involves having to make constant compromises and alterations. There are creative decisions, technical decisions, and various mixtures of the two. In the history of the entire universe I don't think there has ever been a case where a creative work was followed up by a subsequent creative work that only featured the good parts of the previous work and was thus a universally agreed upon total improvement over the previous. Look at games like Thief 2, Fallout 2, Doom 2, games that are generally considered great but are all still routinely criticized by many as being inferior to their predecessors--why did the designers of these games not just take all the good things, improve them, cut out everything that was bad from the previous games and thus end up with a perfect sequel? Because humans and creativity are involved in making them. You say this design process is reflective of an assembly line mentality, but it would be more assembly line like to make decisions based purely around retaining everything from the previous game (this is ignoring the basic fact that some elements of a previous entry are considered good by others and bad by others). The only time one gets such universally agreed upon incremental improvements is with actual assembly line products--the pop top soda can is a technical total improvement over the church key soda can, although even then I can guarantee there are people who prefer the previous version for various subjective reasons.

The funny thing is that people are so focused on the tree branches thing being absent in FC5, but I would wager a guess that absolutely no one would give a shit if FC5 did have breakable tree branches--it would end up getting a short side-by-side shot in some graphics comparison video on youtube and that would be it.

It's also fucking hilarious to see codexers leaping to defend some game based entirely around aesthetic, visual concerns, when usually one gets called a graphics whore on this forum for daring to say that visuals matter in a primarily visual medium, or time consuming "realistic" features. I guess being an immersionfag is prestigious now. I personally think it's a great improvement that I don't have to sit through a repetitive 4 second animation every time I gather materials from a dead animal.

 

[Outlander]

It's also fucking hilarious to see codexers leaping to defend some game based entirely around aesthetic, visual concerns, when usually one gets called a graphics whore on this forum for daring to say that visuals matter in a primarily visual medium.

What is there to discuss about Far Cry if not its graphics? Its non-existent ballistics system? Its brain-dead AI? Its profound and compelling story?

 

[Dexter]

Btw. if anyone cares to go back and find out what everyone thought about Far Cry 2 before and maybe collect some quotes: http://www.rpgcodex.net/forums/inde...-looking-pretty-cool.26055/page-3#post-613585

 

[unfairlight]

Overall it's a great shooter, much better than STALKER and Crysis.

Awesome!

 

[sexbad?]

It's also fucking hilarious to see codexers leaping to defend some game based entirely around aesthetic, visual concerns, when usually one gets called a graphics whore on this forum for daring to say that visuals matter in a primarily visual medium.

What is there to discuss about Far Cry if not its graphics? Its non-existent ballistics system? Its brain-dead AI? Its profound and compelling story?

Well, yeah. You could just discuss those and have something of a good time. That stuff matters more than how realistic the fire looks or whether you can shoot limbs off of plastic looking trees. Of course, you're all retarded, so you don't do that and instead argue for ten pages about minute changes in nature simulation.

Probably in the last page or two, a video brought up the vastly improved lighting and fog tech present in this game. This is a major step forward in simulating a wide open natural environment, because it leads to some very realistic and cinematic weather effects not present in the games of a decade ago. You could compare this pretty easily to other cosmetic features like tree deformation and realistic fire effects (and propagating fire appears to still be in FC5 and behave mostly the same way, just without looking as realistic). It's yet another way advanced graphics and physics technology allows us to mimic real life in a detailed way without hogging performance. And it has the benefit of looking really pretty. It also could be seen as tech that gets in the way of the fun by obstructing visibility, similar in a sense to how fire would suddenly engulf your battle in FC2. One of you morons totally shooed it away for that specific reason a little earlier in the thread, presumably not realizing that muh propagating fire has the same sort of drawback.

Now what I'm predicting is that Ubisoft will look at these retarded cherrypicking videos like Crowbcat's, because they have millions of views by now, and say the next Far Cry game has to have better propagating fire effects and procedural tree deformation again. This is going to be met with no enthusiasm outside of the commoner's response to marketing, and Crowbcat will compile another video that completely ignores FC6's improved fire effects and procedural tree deformation. The video will showcase the tradeoffs that took place to budget for that new tech downgrades from FC5's lighting and fog engine, mainly, and there will be a 562-page Codex thread where people argue about how improved nature simulation tech is purely cosmetic and it's all about that fog and the day-night cycle in good old FC5.