Without a doubt, when I first discovered FC Primal, I was both psyched and disappointed. I really wanted to see the two-player co-op from FC4 return, but it's not, and I'll get over it.
Otherwise, I'm stoked with the new idea, and I believe you folks know that we players, for the most part, know that you guys listen. We know you're not going to take a chance on an idea and put forth all your effort into a game fans won't like.
You can't please everyone, but some of us have chose to believe you guys don't listen to your fans. But I think you do, and I believe most fans do as well. We all have different ideas on what we'd like to see in a new game, but we can't have it all. It doesn't mean you're not listening; it just means not all ideas are good. Or even feasible.
As far as I'm concerned, you're not duplicating modern war games, post-apocalyptic games, zombie games and outer space games. Each Far Cry is known for NOT taking place in these played-out clichés, and as long as you guys stick with that, the fan base will always be there.
In short, if you guys think Primal is a cool idea, then it probably is.
I think the game looks cool, I just think that it seems like there is not enough to it to be asking full retail price considering how diminished it seems feature wise because they've removed so many other modes & such. I also think this game would be a helluva lotta fun with coop, so the lack of it (considering the last game had it, so the infrastructure for it was already there) is puzzling...
Well, once more, each one has a different opinion on the subject.
For me:
.Setting: Best idea ever, since I'm actually working in that very science branch.
.Gameplay: well, spears, fire and giant creatures remind me Ubi's version of King Kong, best game ever for me.
.Cast: for now, we don't really know about. FC3 was almost perfect, FC4 had some memorable characters and others that didn't deserve attention so we'll see when it comes to Primal.
.Ecosystem: That's number 1 reason why I buy FC games and this one sounds already awesome.
.Survival: FC3 and 4 had low survival expectations, for this one I'm totally thinking of a true hard and engaging fight for survival.
.Coop: played coop in 4 for trophies, game was way too easy in Master difficulty alone, so with 2 players it was even more easy. No fun at all for me.
.MP: FC4 Mp was great. I played for hours on it. Yet everyone said it was nothing but **** so I don't see why they would be crying about its lack.
.Map Editor: Map editor has always been fun but being able to create SP maps was best in FC4. MP were lacking players in 2 and 3 even if these multiplayer were awesome, so I never had fun playing on a player-made map with only 2 other players in the match. I hope SP map editor is still there, but I don't care about MP map editor anymore.
I get it. They're usually called "Askholes", I believe. People who ask for advice, but doesn't follow any of it.Originally Posted by legacyzero Go to original post
I'm not sure what exactly the development team can do to make most people happy, as just on these forums alone, there are so many differing opinions. I certainly understand your frustration; there's plenty I'd like to see in Far Cry and have never seen. But I don't know if the team can really do anything at this point without dissatisfying someone. Sales tend to dictate where a future game goes, so I think most ideas coming from us won't get implemented unless they see the idea financially benefits the game.
I find it curious to know you're relieved. I mean, after all, if you're a SP-only kind of player, you may play alone. But since co-op doesn't impede your single-player experience in the slightest, why be relieved? You're not gaining anything from it.Originally Posted by angstik Go to original post
I'd understand better if co-op smacked you around as a kid, but since SP-only players can remain so unimpeeded, I'm having a hard time understanding why stripping a feature that you don't have to touch relieves you. It's not as if you'll get more SP content out of the game. In fact, a shorter development cycle for this game could very well mean less content.
That's what I don't get about SP-only players WANTING the developers to ditch features, whether it be co-op, multiplayer, map editor, etc. You never have to access these features, but by ditching them, you're only screwing yourself, because there's no guarantee of additional content. And if there IS additional content, you might be paying more for it in the form of UbiSoft's famous "season pass".
As they said, Coop was a huge work for them. They did it in 3, most of the players said it was worthless. They did in 4, a lot of people *****ed because it was only 2 players coop. Whatever you do, people are crying because they want more, or different things.
I've played coop in both games to get the trophies that were linked to this mode, and just for that. The game is ultra easy even in master setting and playing with a coop buddy just makes it even easier. The game (and especially outposts) are not having more ennemies or more challenging ones if you play coop, meaning that in 5 min you can take half the outposts of the game without stopping. Played with a friend I've been carrying around for both FC MP, we liberated south Kyrat in less than an hour. No challenge. No fun.
I'm not expecting anything more from the disappearance of this mode, except the disappearance of achievements/trophies tied to this (with is a good thing for me), and if I find it interesting, I'll buy the season pass. The game looks good, it's an SP game... well why I should care about others? I'm not making the game, just buying it.