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

[Multidirectional]

(still better than any shit Bethesda has written for its games)

That's a pointless comparison as I don't think Bethesda even write their games. They must be using a dialogue generator Radiant Dialogue.

 

[Great Deceiver]

HDR in this game is the most blinding nuclear shit I've ever seen (actual HDR if you have a HDR-compatible display).

Graphically, I thought it's actually a step down from Primal - characters definitely look a lot worse. I've only played a couple of hours and running around like a retard shooting stuff is okay, I just can't imagine people playing this for any longer period of time.

 

[Toffeli]

Is it a problem with my GPUs low memory (2 GB , 16GB regular ram), that I have a problem with disappearing npcs and vehicles? Seems like the ones that are not in immediate proximity tend to dissappear quite often after I turn camera away from them. Yesterday 3 deer corpses disappeared that were about 100m away right after I had shot them when I took a couple of steps backwards and jumped in to my helicopter and flew right to them. I was on a cliff so I didnt' want to climb back to the helo. Happens all the time while not above ground too. Distant cars disappear and appear out of nowhere when I'm turning camera. Really reminds me of older GTA games and not in a good way.

 

[ortucis]

HDR in this game is the most blinding nuclear shit I've ever seen (actual HDR if you have a HDR-compatible display).

Graphically, I thought it's actually a step down from Primal - characters definitely look a lot worse. I've only played a couple of hours and running around like a retard shooting stuff is okay, I just can't imagine people playing this for any longer period of time.

Personally, I think the characters look better than Primal. I actually had Primal installed cause I kinda liked the setting (never finished though, as usual). I think skin shaders in FC5 are slightly improved than Primal. Game is definitely a fun shooter, if you don't try to compare it with other games or over analyze it too much.

Is it a problem with my GPUs low memory (2 GB , 16GB regular ram), that I have a problem with disappearing npcs and vehicles? Seems like the ones that are not in immediate proximity tend to dissappear quite often after I turn camera away from them. Yesterday 3 deer corpses disappeared that were about 100m away right after I had shot them when I took a couple of steps backwards and jumped in to my helicopter and flew right to them. I was on a cliff so I didnt' want to climb back to the helo. Happens all the time while not above ground too. Distant cars disappear and appear out of nowhere when I'm turning camera. Really reminds me of older GTA games and not in a good way.

On ultra, the game is using like 2.7 GB on my 6 GB GPU, so I think at high or lower, it's going to run just fine on 2 GB card. There are some weird glitches in-game. I had flickering shadows (fixed on restart), weird flashes and even game freeze that froze my computer (first time it has happened in a while cause of a game). Though unlike GTA, turning around doesn't make things disappear (probably cause there are only few vehicles and NPC's on road). I think it's game glitching out.

 

[DeepOcean]

https://archive.is/N0Xg3

There is no way to win with those people, they will complain just for complaining sake.

 

[Abhay]

After finishing my (almost near completion) second play through, I found this game utterly forgettable. It's fun in very small doses and most of them really demand good amount of patience for the lazy level design and simplistic gameplay with nothing interesting to re-visit in order to make it satisfying to play. I think this is really the most boring far cry, if not the worst. There's absolutely nothing in this game that makes me feel like giving it another chance to take a look at the game. Far cry 1 and 2 are so much better in comparison. They may not have a lot of content to offer, but the details and brilliant immersion of those Far cry kept the game interesting in the long run. Far cry 5 is so fuckin casual that its just not the kind of far cry veteran players would enjoy, instead new players might be more suitable for this game as they have no past experiences to get upset with this game

 

[AwesomeButton]

second

 

[Multidirectional]

He needed two playthroughs of Ubishit sandbox game to decide it's not so great. Just when I thought I've seen all kinds of retard there is.

 

[Belegarsson]

Yeah, I like the game enough to finish it but mainly because it was quite short compared to other Ubisoft's games, I don't see myself taking another playthrough.

 

[Abhay]

second

I don't know what you trying to say, but if you meant second play through isn't enough to call this game boring, then it does not cover the many hours I have spend simply messing around in the open world. By play through, I mean playing the game from start to finish for the "second" time, which only includes the checklist of official content the developers have to offer, namely, story missions and extra tasks, and quite frankly, majority of those missions/side stuff are made up of repetitive tasks that aren't so interesting on the second run. Even the so-called freedom of doing the way you want hasn't evolved much from the past FC's had to offer. It's still limited to using different weapons and time of day. It doesn't bring any significant or noticeable changes to those missions, at all.
This is where In FC2 stands out - the fire propagation system, malaria, realistic weapon system, etc all made the repetitive tasks much more tolerable, leading to some creative and different outcomes on several playthroughs.

All those details have been she'd from FC5, and those that are added are mainly cosmetic or something that doesn't serve any important purpose to consider them as "game changing".
It's just shoot, shoot, shoot, drive, shoot idiots, drove again and shoot. Nothing interesting to break the monotony of doing those same old missions, which is why I said - fun in only small doses.
I'd rather play GTA SA which has still loads of fun to offer than this boring game

 

[ortucis]

second

I don't know what you trying to say, but if you meant second play through isn't enough to call this game boring, then it does not cover the many hours I have spend simply messing around in the open world. By play through, I mean playing the game from start to finish for the "second" time, which only includes the checklist of official content the developers have to offer, namely, story missions and extra tasks, and quite frankly, majority of those missions/side stuff are made up of repetitive tasks that aren't so interesting on the second run. Even the so-called freedom of doing the way you want hasn't evolved much from the past FC's had to offer. It's still limited to using different weapons and time of day. It doesn't bring any significant or noticeable changes to those missions, at all.
This is where In FC2 stands out - the fire propagation system, malaria, realistic weapon system, etc all made the repetitive tasks much more tolerable, leading to some creative and different outcomes on several playthroughs.

All those details have been she'd from FC5, and those that are added are mainly cosmetic or something that doesn't serve any important purpose to consider them as "game changing".
It's just shoot, shoot, shoot, drive, shoot idiots, drove again and shoot. Nothing interesting to break the monotony of doing those same old missions, which is why I said - fun in only small doses.
I'd rather play GTA SA which has still loads of fun to offer than this boring game

Haha, Far Cry 2 was a shit game where outposts you destroyed on your way to a mission, came back to life on your way back. I still remember trying to finish that fucking game, getting so bored and giving up. I thing I completed it eventually after like a year of release (I had to, I paid for it).

Also, both FC2, 3, 4, 5 have similar gameplay. Use stealth, don't use stealth or use a bit of both. Are you saying that malaria made FC2 a much better game? Cause fire propagation still exists, weapons are fine (it's an arcade shooter, not ArmA) and there is no 'etc'. Hell, you can even have two team mates with you now, making the chore easier to sit through, so technically, repetition is much more bearable in FC5. Not to mention, there are hidden stashes which are basically like mini puzzles to go through, along with variation in quest design (like I mentioned, defending an objective).

 

[Okagron]

I'm pretty much not touching this game because it's just another Ubisoft open world game. They have made so many open world games at this point that they are starting to bleed into each other. I'm just tired of Ubisoft open world games and i wish they would do something else.

 

[ortucis]

I'm pretty much not touching this game because it's just another Ubisoft open world game. They have made so many open world games at this point that they are starting to bleed into each other. I'm just tired of Ubisoft open world games and i wish they would do something else.

But why do something else when what you've been doing over and over again is making you so much money? None of these games have made them a loss.

 

[Abhay]

Haha, Far Cry 2 was a shit game where outposts you destroyed on your way to a mission, came back to life on your way back.

So, what do you expect? Restarting the game all over again and facing those checkposts on each playthrough over a simple respawning mechanic which was flawed but it isn't as annoying as made out by people. If you read in detail about the guard posts then there are ways to avoid many of them.
In fact, all those hypocrites who used to complain about the respawning issue, later complained during FC3 that they should be allowed to take over outposts again to make the game more challenging, which is why Ubisoft released a patch that resets the outposts. So, I don't understand why is this still an issue for FC2?

I still remember trying to finish that fucking game, getting so bored and giving up.

Like I said, FC2 did lack content to make the beautiful open world worth staying after completing the checklist of things to do, which also included quite a number of repetitive and uninteresting tasks. That's a valid criticism that goes against FC2, but the fans still loved and enjoyed FC2 simply because of all the amazing details and care given to make the African setting so fuckin brilliant for a shooter game. The gun mechanics in addition to several other details (available on youtube, if you think there's no 'etc') together made the stay in the game so immersive that the lack of side stuff and whatever else to make use of the open world didn't really bother that much. Everything fits perfectly to the theme and story w/o any unnecessary crap being shoe-horned in the game. The way you look at the map, stay in first person throughout, no cutscenes whatsoever except for the ending missions, and E T C made a unique kind of experience that still stands out from other shooters.
FC2 was a gift for shooting enthusiasts with shooting done right! Its still awesome to play, including FC1.

Also, both FC2, 3, 4, 5 have similar gameplay.

That's the biggest criticism I have regarding the titles released after FC2. Instead of releasing a proper successor to FC2, Ubisoft has only released expansion packs downgraded to appease the mainstream casuals instead. I don't find even the presence of so-called variety in FC5 nothing new compared to other open world titles. Its still a boring game and there's nothing in this game to make the shooting enthusiasts crave for more.

 

[AwesomeButton]

People complaining about repetitive tasks simply need to learn to play open world games right. This is the KCD debate all over again.

I wonder why there is no such retardation about M&B. Probably because it doesn't have awshum graphix and the usual retards are not attracted to it the way they are to FC.

 

[ortucis]

People complaining about repetitive tasks simply need to learn to play open world games right. This is the KCD debate all over again.

I wonder why there is no such retardation about M&B. Probably because it doesn't have awshum graphix and the usual retards are not attracted to it the way they are to FC.

I played the first M&B.

The barren lifeless villages created through C&P were enough torture for a while. "Indie" shouldn't be an excuse for "shit level design". Let's not even get started on the generic fantasy setting with nothing interesting going on..

As I grow older, my interest in games exploiting same shtick over and over again, grows thin. Games like FC and M&B are designed to appeal to people who are OK with doing same thing over and over again for hours. Meh!

 

[Modron]

Well actually the level design was pretty good in the Mount and Blade games so much missed potential with all the cool but largely empty castles/forts/towns devoid of anything worthwhile to do in them.

 

[ortucis]

Well actually the level design was pretty good in the Mount and Blade games so much missed potential with all the cool but largely empty castles/forts/towns devoid of anything worthwhile to do in them.

CnP villages/castles is NOT good level design. Even in new M&B game they are not focusing on anything other than visual improvements.

 

[agentorange]

People complaining about repetitive tasks simply need to learn to play open world games right. This is the KCD debate all over again.

I wonder why there is no such retardation about M&B. Probably because it doesn't have awshum graphix and the usual retards are not attracted to it the way they are to FC.

I played the first M&B.

The barren lifeless villages created through C&P were enough torture for a while. "Indie" shouldn't be an excuse for "shit level design". Let's not even get started on the generic fantasy setting with nothing interesting going on..

As I grow older, my interest in games exploiting same shtick over and over again, grows thin. Games like FC and M&B are designed to appeal to people who are OK with doing same thing over and over again for hours. Meh!

In the context of video games I would hardly call the setting of M&B "generic fantasy." Generic fantasy tends to apply to those fantasy settings that are an uninspired pastiche of elements from LotR and D&D, whereas there is barely anything fantastical in M&B, it is simply a fabricated world based on about 1100-1500 AD European history.

The castle towns and villages were certainly boring to look at and walk through, to the point where I think they should have stuck to doing everything in a text and static image based screen (like Darklands). I wouldn't necessarily call it shit level design though, since they are not levels in the sense that they are not where the primary gameplay takes place, they are just hubs. The randomly generated battlefields are the real levels, and they are perfectly suited for the type of game M&B is.

The thing about the repetitive nature of M&B quests though is that they are an avenue for acquiring resources to amass an army and initiate conquest, a means to an end. Those quests are not the crux of the game, and as your character and army grow you are perfectly free to ignore the most basic quests. And while you could technically say that you are doing the same things over and over (conquering, raiding, laying siege, etc), the important difference is that the world and your character are continually changing throughout the game, which is where FC5 fails. An early battle between you and the 4 villagers you recruited against some desperate bandit scum is not remotely the same as a late game battle between your 150 man strong army with cavalry and archers against your opponent's similarly numbered army. Whereas in FC5 capturing an outpost in the first hour of the game is basically the same as capturing one 30 hours into the game (you have perks sure, but they are mostly inconsequential, and your weapon choices make little difference). Managing equipment, stats, resources, money, relations, and everything else in M&B lends that element of constant change and growth to the gameplay that FC5 lacks. Even 50 hours in an M&B campaign you can end up in a tense situation with major repercussion, like after establishing your own kingdom and acquiring some territory two rival factions ally against you and take everything from you. In FC5 if you had to recruit and form your own group of rebels (something more complex than the buddy system it has), who you then had to maintain and train, and could send out to fight against the enemies own troops, it would probably make for a far more dynamic experience. As it is you just go along capturing one outpost after another, without any danger of losing these outposts, with repetitive quests that remain repetitive because neither the character nor the world is changing in any meaningful way.

 

[ortucis]

People complaining about repetitive tasks simply need to learn to play open world games right. This is the KCD debate all over again.

I wonder why there is no such retardation about M&B. Probably because it doesn't have awshum graphix and the usual retards are not attracted to it the way they are to FC.

I played the first M&B.

The barren lifeless villages created through C&P were enough torture for a while. "Indie" shouldn't be an excuse for "shit level design". Let's not even get started on the generic fantasy setting with nothing interesting going on..

As I grow older, my interest in games exploiting same shtick over and over again, grows thin. Games like FC and M&B are designed to appeal to people who are OK with doing same thing over and over again for hours. Meh!

In the context of video games I would hardly call the setting of M&B "generic fantasy." Generic fantasy tends to apply to those fantasy settings that are an uninspired pastiche of elements from LotR and D&D, whereas there is barely anything fantastical in M&B, it is simply a fabricated world based on about 1100-1500 AD European history.

The castle towns and villages were certainly boring to look at and walk through, to the point where I think they should have stuck to doing everything in a text and static image based screen (like Darklands). I wouldn't necessarily call it shit level design though, since they are not levels in the sense that they are not where the primary gameplay takes place, they are just hubs. The randomly generated battlefields are the real levels, and they are perfectly suited for the type of game M&B is.

The thing about the repetitive nature of M&B quests though is that they are a means for acquiring resources to amass an army and initiate conquest, a means to an end. Those quests are not the crux of the game, and as your character and army grow you are perfectly free to ignore the most basic quests. And while you could technically say that you are doing the same things over and over (conquering, raiding, laying siege, etc), the important difference is that the world and your character are continually changing throughout the game, which is where FC5 fails. An early battle between you and the 4 villagers you recruited against some desperate bandit scum is not remotely the same as a late game battle between your 150 man strong army with cavalry and archers against your opponent's similarly numbered army. Whereas in FC5 capturing an outpost in the first hour of the game is basically the same as capturing one 30 hours into the game (you have perks sure, but they are mostly inconsequential, and your weapon choices make little difference). Managing equipment, stats, resources, money, relations, and everything else in M&B lends that element of constant change and growth to the gameplay that FC5 lacks. Even 50 hours in an M&B campaign you can end up in a tense situation with major repercussion, like after establishing your own kingdom and acquiring some territory two rival factions ally against you and take everything from you. In FC5 if you had to recruit and form your own group of rebels (something more complex than the buddy system it has), who you then had to maintain and train, and could send out to fight against the enemies own troops, it would probably make for a far more dynamic experience. As it is you just go along capturing one outpost after another, without any danger of losing these outposts, with repetitive quests that remain repetitive because neither the character nor the world is changing in any meaningful way.

Sooo, just like I said. Generic fantasy setting and repetitive gameplay.

Also, growing your army doesn't mean the game world suddenly becomes interesting (or anything other than your army and size of your enemy armies changing). Dumb AI bots running at each others in a barren lifeless world.

Generic fantasy setting done right, Kingdom Come.

 

[agentorange]

Sooo, just like I said. Generic fantasy setting and repetitive gameplay.

Also, growing your army doesn't mean the game world suddenly becomes interesting (or anything other than your army and size of your enemy armies changing). Dumb AI bots running at each others in a barren lifeless world.

Generic fantasy setting done right, Kingdom Come.

No.

 

[ortucis]

Sooo, just like I said. Generic fantasy setting and repetitive gameplay.

Also, growing your army doesn't mean the game world suddenly becomes interesting (or anything other than your army and size of your enemy armies changing). Dumb AI bots running at each others in a barren lifeless world.

Generic fantasy setting done right, Kingdom Come.

No.

I know, that's what I said, M&B has shit story and level design.

 

[Spectacle]

I know, that's what I said, M&B has shit story and level design.

Mount & Blade doesn't even have a "story" or "levels" in the conventional sense, how can they be shit?

 

[sullynathan]

it's sad that I don't even play these games and still comment on them

 

[Phanax]

it's sad that I don't even play these games and still comment on them

Bah, it's not that sad. I browse /r/games on reddit for example and have no intention of playing the vast majority of anything people talk about there, but I like to read anyway just to keep up with what's happening in the biz. Sometimes it's more fun to talk about games rather than actually play them. In some ways that's more of an indictment of the state of modern gaming than anything else.