🛈 Announcement
Greetings! Far Cry forums are now archived and accessible in read-only mode, please go to the new platform to discuss the game.
  1. #11

    Everything is relative

    Originally Posted by HorTyS Go to original post
    "hey takkar, drink this rat blood & eyeball soup. "
    "gulp"
    To be honest I did not think anyone asked anything too extravagant of Takkar in relation to his own general motivations / nature. A tribal fellow should really know Shamen are into - hallucinogenic stuff - spiritualism plus wild concoctions and so on and also in that age be a lot less squeemish about what they eat in general. Also he did hesitate a bit which seemed just enough to me. In addition, after the first mystical journey worked to emplower him going back for more is not so unlikely. Finally just about everything Takkar does is about securing his tribe - his people - and I think that just makes him a much less motivationally ambiguous character.

    Not sure about buddies in games beyond the Primal pets generally when buddies come with if AI is involved they often prove more hindrince than help and if we are talking coop then that excludes people who do not play online. If you are going to have a coop feature it needs to be something on the side not what the game is all about or you will lose a lot of folks who are dedicated FC single players including myself. Just as this franchise would lose me if it went third person. To me Far Cry is all about the First Person Single Player experience take too much of that away and it is no longer FC.
    Share this post

  2. #12
    UbiBooma's Avatar Community Representative
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Location
    NCSA
    Posts
    1,715
    Originally Posted by Hunt3rKill3r2 Go to original post
    Women are inferior when it comes to brute strength and in 10,000BCE, women were not looked up to as true warriors. The role of the main character is exactly what's the game is about.
    I see what you're saying, Hunt3rKill3r2, but be careful when you start sentences with "[all people within a particular group] are inferior." This kind of thing can lead to flame wars.

    I love this game. It has got me re-reading some of the material from college, when I was a cultural anthropology major. If anybody's interested, there's a great piece called WOMEN IN PALEOLITHIC & NEOLITHIC TIMES. Link: http://web.clark.edu/afisher/HIST251/prehistory%202.pdf

    An excerpt:

    Anthropologists have surveyed nearly two hundred hunter/gathering cultures in Oceania,
    Asia, Africa and the Americas, and have developed some fundamental points on these studies.
    While hunting was almost exclusively done by males, it was inefficient as a means for providing
    food. Meat from the kill comes in irregularly and infrequently, and cannot be stored adequately.
    Kung Bushmen of Botswana hunt strenuously for a week, and rest the other three weeks. Thus,
    women's gathering of the food stuffs not men's hunting, sustains the tribe of these present-day
    Stone Age cultures. Hunting by men provides twenty percent of the nourishment, but women
    regularly produce eighty percent of the tribe's total food consumed. These conclusions can then
    be transferred backward to the hunting/gathering societies of prehistoric cultures. Women in
    these ancient times must not have relied on the men for food. Through teeth analysis it has been
    discovered that grain, nuts and fruits were the major foods not meat. It was long thought that the
    "Ice Man" found in the Italian Alps in 1991 was a hunter who had died on a quest for big game.
    New analysis of his hair shows that most of his proteins came from vegetable sources, which his
    teeth corroborate. He ate very little meat, and in the months before he died, his diet did not
    include meat. Successful gathering demanded and developed skills of discrimination, evaluation
    and memory. The range of seeds, nutshells and grasses discovered at primitive sites in Africa
    indicate careful and knowledgeable selection rather than random gleaning.
    The rest of the article is extremely interesting, especially if anybody in this thread is an anthro nerd like me.
    Share this post

  3. #13
    ^^^ That is really interesting and makes me wonder about the validity of the meat eating helped us humans grow a bigger brain theory stuff. Enjoy history but never took too much of an interest in really early times more Dark Age and Medieval so Primal and all that goes with it - period wise - is inspirational to me too now must consider delving a little further back into an even murkier past as well.
    Share this post

  4. #14
    UbiBooma's Avatar Community Representative
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Location
    NCSA
    Posts
    1,715
    Originally Posted by vic_must_play Go to original post
    ^^^ That is really interesting and makes me wonder about the validity of the meat eating helped us humans grow a bigger brain theory stuff. Enjoy history but never took too much of an interest in really early times more Dark Age and Medieval so Primal and all that goes with it - period wise - is inspirational to me too now must consider delving a little further back into an even murkier past as well.
    Right, the expensive tissue hypothesis. I'm not sure if it's completely supported since neurons eat glucose (not protein). Also, brain size is not a determinant of intelligence; elephants and dolphins have huge brains but don't design video games (yet!).
    Share this post

  5. #15
    So true makes you wonder what they do with all those grey cells and what they dream about. Rather like the idea that they are actually smarter than us rejected the materialistic lets domineer alter / change our environment in favour of just living in and making the most of it but I know that is just too perfect and too rational.

    PS Forgive me it is sort of the weekend and I am under the influence of a few glasses of wine.
    Share this post

  6. #16
    HorTyS's Avatar Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Posts
    5,227
    Originally Posted by vic_must_play Go to original post
    To be honest I did not think anyone asked anything too extravagant of Takkar in relation to his own general motivations / nature. A tribal fellow should really know Shamen are into - hallucinogenic stuff - spiritualism plus wild concoctions and so on and also in that age be a lot less squeemish about what they eat in general. Also he did hesitate a bit which seemed just enough to me. In addition, after the first mystical journey worked to emplower him going back for more is not so unlikely. Finally just about everything Takkar does is about securing his tribe - his people - and I think that just makes him a much less motivationally ambiguous character.

    Not sure about buddies in games beyond the Primal pets generally when buddies come with if AI is involved they often prove more hindrince than help and if we are talking coop then that excludes people who do not play online. If you are going to have a coop feature it needs to be something on the side not what the game is all about or you will lose a lot of folks who are dedicated FC single players including myself. Just as this franchise would lose me if it went third person. To me Far Cry is all about the First Person Single Player experience take too much of that away and it is no longer FC
    .
    Not suggesting the game should only be playable in coop, just that if coop were to return, that I'd like for the ability to play the entirety of the game in coop. Buddies in FC2 I never found to be a hinderance....
    Share this post

  7. #17
    In FC2 it was a bit magical the way your buddy would suddenly appear just when most needed to get your butt out of the fire. My fear with pushing coop is that it might encourage ubi to think about turning Far Cry into just another multiplayer format game and take the focus of dev time away from adding to the single player experience. I guess I am feeling a bit - overly - defensive these days about that issue because there seems to have been a big migration at one point by AAA away from single player campaigns towards multiplayer in a lets get on the money train manner.

    I hate games that have ridicously short single player campaigns because they offer online multiplayer as the meat of the gameplay as if that is an excuse for cutting single player content. I now refuse to purchase such titles as for me they are a rip off and a waste of money.

    Having said the above if they could implement coop functionality without compromising the effort put into the single player side of things I can understand the appeal of fighting alongside a buddy through a single player campaign.
    Share this post

  8. #18
    HorTyS's Avatar Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Posts
    5,227
    Trust me I'm in no way suggesting they diminish the game from a SP perspective. I just would like the option to enjoy it cooperatively as well... Even if they did it the way FC4 had it so you can't do the narrative missions I'll take it, but the way to improve & iterate upon what they did in 4 would be to enable coop play in the campaign missions. Don't worry though vic, not suggesting they lessen the SP experience for the sake of coop at all and I would not want that to happen, but I mean, look at primal, that game is literally single player ONLY and its shorter and with less to it than FC4 which DID have coop. 14 main missions in primal..... 14!!! certainly wasn't a multiplayer component that did that....
    Share this post

  9. #19
    Realised I was being a bit overly defensive about the sanctity of single player games before in this thread.

    Just sick of the whole lets turn this game into multiplayer which I know was not what you were about. For example Skyrim excellent single player game - ignoring some system hanging crashes - would have loved another iteration sometime soon but instead they put out Elder Scrolls Online which I am pretty sure is just another mmo with an Elder Scrolls skin over it - boring to me and not realy what I considered Elder Scrolls was ever about. I cannot imagine having atmosphere breaking chattering all over Elder Scroll gameplay never mind all the other standard multiplayer mechanics.
    Share this post

  10. #20
    HorTyS's Avatar Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Posts
    5,227
    Originally Posted by vic_must_play Go to original post
    Realised I was being a bit overly defensive about the sanctity of single player games before in this thread.

    Just sick of the whole lets turn this game into multiplayer which I know was not what you were about. For example Skyrim excellent single player game - ignoring some system hanging crashes - would have loved another iteration sometime soon but instead they put out Elder Scrolls Online which I am pretty sure is just another mmo with an Elder Scrolls skin over it - boring to me and not realy what I considered Elder Scrolls was ever about. I cannot imagine having atmosphere breaking chattering all over Elder Scroll gameplay never mind all the other standard multiplayer mechanics.
    Well ESO was not made by the same studio that did skyrim. ESO was made by zenimax online, and is basically just utilizing the established universe and brand to make an mmo, being that it is basically a separate entity, I don't mind, bethsda softworks, creators of Skyrim/ oblivion/ morrowind and the newly released Fallout 4 are the makers of the single player elder scrolls games and I'm sure we'll get another of those in a few years. I will say thats another brand I wouldn't mind seeing coop in though, that could be a helluva lotta fun, but again, I wouldn't want it at the cost of the SP portion of the game. I do think SP takes priority in FC & the elder scrolls and many other series, but there is value in coop on top of that for me, moreso than in primals case where the SP only aspect of the game barely makes it worth the cost of the game. I think primal should have released at a lower price point honestly for what we get... if it had coop, i would probably think it worth full price, without it, not so much....
    Share this post