-
Game feedback
Okay, Ubi, I spent all week in Oros and grabbed the Platinum trophy. Needless to say I have literally explored every inch of the map.
It really comes down to give and take. I see that the game cuts a few corners and even skips basic fundamentals. Either you rushed the game out or you simply don't care.
Oros. Grand, alive, and enjoyable to explore. You created a beautiful location for the game. But despite the night cycle being good you skipped the dynamic weather system entirely. Did it not rain in 10,000 BC? Why no rain? It adds atmosphere to the game.
Melee. Now this is depressing. Tap R2 or hold R2? The game is limited on weapon choice. So instead of giving the weapons more diversity ie block or the ability to dodge and counter, you opt for button mashing? Poor.
Village. Upgraded it only to find that everything becomes redundant. Ubi, you have zero end game content. Saving villagers and searching for collectables amounts to nothing. You stop the XP gain entirely towards the end of maxing out and force the player to complete more side quests to earn Skill points.
Again this is a problem. I was levelled and fully armed ten hours prior to grabbing the Platinum. But those hours were tedious because the game frazzled out.
You need end game content.
Character Models. So I burn some Udam and they don't actually show damage. Infact anything killed, skinned, burnt, impaled or otherwise is not physically represented.
Why?
Primal gives a lot but it also breaks immersion with design choices that conflict with the games ambition. I enjoyed the game a lot until the cracks began to appear. Having played FC3 and 4 I knew that things would not get any better.
I do not mean to sound harsh, Primal had more potential than I gave credit for. If there is to be any form of sequel please dig deeper , Ubisoft.
-
Wow. I couldn't agree more to everything you just said.
Especially the dynamic weather and end-game.
Dynamic weather was already in Far Cry 3 but hasn't returned in either 4 or Primal ever since. No idea why.
The simple block functionality has been asked for since the first gameplay video we've seen back in October or December, can't remember exactly.
It's absolutely astonishing how something like that wasn't included to the game. Such a simple mechanic that would've fit so nicely can't possibly just have been "missed", I don't believe that.
So what's your reasoning behind not having added it to the game, Ubisoft? Lack of time/resources or did you just not think it'd fit in a Far Cry game?
Not bashing, just really curious as to why you opted to leave any form of weapon defense out of the game.
The end-game part is just very disappointing. This might not be the exact point you were trying to make @Wtich-Finder-Neo, but for me this is what kills any sense of progression:
A not particularly scary villain, short and basic campaign and a huge amount of sidequests.
The sidequests thing is obviously good, but it only adds further insult to the mediocre final impression left by the game because players do sidequests to get stronger.
It's very easy for a game with many optional content to go from fun to tedious.
In Primal's case, the lack of satisfying endings and the presence of a not-particularly-terrifying-villain make it so that you really don't feel like all those sidequests you did before the main story conclusion amounted to anything. If either of the 2 villains (better yet, both) had a truly impactful presence in the game and were as dangerous as Vaas was in Far Cry 3, the player would actually feel like he needed to get stronger and as such playing all those sidequests would feel worth it.
And finally a more personal opinion regarding one major gameplay aspect: the Beastmaster mechanic.
I liked it. Some people thought there was a lack of depth there but I think it was just right. It's simplistic. They're beasts that serve as temporary allies, not pets. And as such I liked that it was a simple "point-at-whoever-you-want-to-be-killed" system.
However, I don't understand the huge amount of copy-paste in the selection of beasts.
It feels like a huge missed opportunity. Different kind of wolves, different kind of wildcats, etc. That's all really good.
But what killed it for me is that an already limited selection of creatures felt even more limited due to many beasts being stronger in every way than their earlier counterparts.
Like the different wolves that were available. I can understand that 1 wolf is easier to obtain than the other, but that doesn't mean that the other has to be better in every possible way, does it? You could've at least made it so that the earlier wolf would still at least have some reason to be called, such as a slightly higher stealth factor or whatever.
Instead, it's currently the case that as soon as you tamed the "best" creature, you might as well forget all about the other ones. Which means that at any point of the game, there's really no more than 3 or so different beasts to pick from, each being the best of their class available to you at that moment.
Does every wolf have to reveal the same amount of extra area for example? Could it not perhaps have been a good idea to at least give the earlier wolves a reason to use by having a slightly higher speed rating, perhaps? A wider range of the map that they discover for you?
This is especially true in the beginning of the game, as you're required to tame a wolf that will most likely be your first tamed creature at that point. Which makes it silly that, after taming said wolf, it turns out he's already better in every possible way than another, weaker kind of wolf that you haven't tamed yet.
-
No game manages to tick every box but basic mechanic should be nailed down tight.
The undercooked land of Oros maybe needed more dev time? Well not just that part of the game.
Anyway it's time to move on from here. Hopefully future installments will match the ambition and talent of the devs. Because Ubi, as much as you frustrate me you can make excellent video games.
I'll be playing The Division on PS4 next week.