The next main Far Cry game will have dinosaurs.
Why? Because if they don't do it, that means Ubisoft's poll they did over a year ago regarding what people wanted to see in the next Far Cry game was a complete and utter lie.
Most users voted for a Jurassic Park - style dinosaur island for the next Far Cry's setting.
I like what realism Primal has so am not convinced by the just throw dinos ontop of Oros. If we were to have dino DLC I would prefer they indeed create something akin to Blood Dragon and do some new landscaping even if they reuse many Primal assets. Otherwise a lost world area that is a little separate to Oros.
If they could do new landscaping with Blood Dragon they could do it again with Primal or even in a new game - as mentioned - a Jurasic Park style island would be fun.
I am pretty sure however that they said that the poll was about - gathering ideas - not about the community picking the winner of what Ubi would do next.
To be honest I imagine it would be very easy to go broke if you blindly let the voiciferous side of the public decide what you do in any business. It can be good to listen - very good - but with prejudice. For a start the vocal, polling folk are usually just the louder part of the marketplace and not necessarily overly representative.
Thinking a little deeper just adding dinos without making them behave in new to us and in suspected prehistoric ways would be akin to the reskinning people complain about online. So maybe it would be better to wait for a full game for dinos rather than a quick DLC after all. Any DLC would probably be less involved. I mean if we are going to have dinosaurs at some point in FC it would be good for it to be done right.
Blood Dragon didn't use a new landscape though. It was the exact same area as the south island from Far Cry 3, but the retro color filter and clutter on the screen made this almost impossible to notice.Originally Posted by vic_must_play Go to original post
For obvious reasons, the same copy-and-paste approach for Oros to a seperate DLC wouldn't work because without Blood Dragon's retro future kind of effects slapped on top, people will immediately notice the similarities.
I agree though. It's amazing how many people say "Dinosaurs wouldn't matter, Far Cry isn't realistic anyway". True, but that doesn't mean Ubisoft should just slap some random dinosaur spawns onto Oros as a DLC. Far Cry Primal has its flaws and isn't meant to be a super realistic game, but I think they did a fairly good job as far as realism goes anyway. The atmosphere, ambience and immersion is just right.
I'd love a Far Cry game with dinosaurs but like you said, they'd definitely need to make a seperate valley or something for that to work. Simply throwing dinosaurs into Oros isn't gonna cut it.
Nah man, not saying we can't discuss it, I'm all about discussing it! And I was just saying that I think Primal is the best game for them to add Dino DLC to, because when you think stone age and cave men, even though it is known they never co-existed, we tend to kind of lump dinos in with that, so aesthetically Primal is the best game to add dinos to....Originally Posted by mercuryspooning Go to original post
I disagree with you here, and think thats a dangerous way of looking at marketing surveys. That poll was never meant to be a "pick the next setting for Far Cry" type scenario. They never once said "whatever gets the most votes will be exactly what the next FC is!" or anything like that. It was just to get a feeling or general consensus of where the community was at, and judge how accepting they'd be of the more outlandish ideas. I don't even really remember them releasing the results, do you have a link to the info about how "Most users voted for a jurassic park style dino island"? Personally I voted for the drug-fueled jungles of peru, and I know I'm not the only one who didn't vote for dinos, so I'd be interested in seeing those results if you've got a source to those claims. God help us if somehow the terrible vampire idea ever plagued this franchise.... *shudders*Originally Posted by Rickvs64 Go to original post
Blood Dragon's map was not just FC3's south island.Originally Posted by Rickvs64 Go to original post
Blood Dragon's map may use part of the south island, but they did change geometry and other elements, its not like they just took part of the pre-existing island and did nothing with it, also there is nothing wrong with it being the same map, it's not like they need to find a way to disguise that they would re-use the map of Oros for what is still a completely imaginary potential dino dlc...
I don't think anyone suggested that that should be all there is to it... The only thing I've suggested is that they can use the map we currently have, but I agree there would need to be more to it than simply throwing in an additional dino population, if it's the things I've written that you inferred those ideas from that was never my intent, I always thought there would need to be more to the idea than simply spawning in dinos and that being all there was to it, my only argument is that they do not need to create all new landmass, not that I'm against that idea, I just don't think it is absolutely necessary. Why would they need to make a new area for dinos "to work"? There would be some issues with things like navigational meshes & the dinos being able to move through the environment, but they could put the bigger dinos in areas that are more open. My only point is that it would be feasible to do within Oros, not to imply that I'm actively against a new area, just that I don't agree that using Oros is out of the question.Originally Posted by Rickvs64 Go to original post
Absolutely agree - why people who don't want can't just NOT buy it and stick with the campaign...?Originally Posted by HorTyS Go to original post
I want Dino's dammit!!!!)
When I first had issues with the Oros thing it was mostly in my mind if the dinos were added to the existing game map and play as sort of thrown in extra wildlife on the side as to me that would probably murder game balance and the current games atmosphere. I have nothing against the general land mass being somewhat altered and reused - as a starting point - if a new game mode in say a different additional save slot that is if such arrived as a DLC Primal add on.Originally Posted by HorTyS Go to original post
The problem with the above at present is the old one of - only having one save slot - in Primal.
A Dino Far Cry 5 would be a different story altogether but then I do not see reworking the landscape more, as such a big deal for a whole new game so why go with the old known. As I belatedly mentioned a DLC dino experience might be too watered down to be worth it: potentially becoming just reskinning reshaping the animals. Therefore it might be better to have a full dino FC game imo if we ever get dinosaurs at all. After all I think such creatures would deserve new behavour mechanics and maybe some fresh game ideas in general.
Think about some of the gripes about Primal being content light and short in its development time. Sure resuse assets that are universal enough but otherwise why ask for less than a new fully integrated product. For example they might need much deeper bodies of water and to rethink the environmental spacing again if you included some of the biggest creatures. Now I am thinking if we ever get a dino Far Cry it should go all out or we would miss out.
Why? I think we have explained why, in great detail, to the point of apparently overthinking it.Originally Posted by HorTyS Go to original post
It should also be appreciated that no opinion is more valid than the next. Given that we are likely to only get one substantial DLC, isn't it reasonable that some of us don't want the opportunity wasted (in our opinion) on a half-arsed re-skinning of Primal? And for reasons that Vic has stated, I do indeed think that it would be half-arsed. Nothing short of brand new game mechanics with a larger map to accommodate the mega-fauna/flora would be adequate.
I'm going to have to disagree with the idea that people 'naturally' think of cavemen and dinosaurs together. Who on earth thinks that besides 'young Earth' Creationists and children? And I only slightly mean that as a pejorative (mostly aimed at Creationists, which I'm sure you're not). There really is no more reason to place dinosaurs with cavemen than with contemporary humans. In fact, plot-wise, I think you would have an easier time with the latter.
I think we have more than adequately listed our concerns with this concept - saying just don't buy it (LaMoi), or rejecting the reasons outright and arguing that no one has really explained it is a bit of a non-sequitur. By all means, disagree, but please acknowledge that these are valid and well thought out reasons.
I recall you saying at one point, HorTys, God help us if Far Cry is plagued by that horrible vampire idea: Well you're damn right about that - and I feel pretty similar about cavemen and dinosaurs being thrown together in a poorly executed DLC with the thin plot device of 'lost island where dinosaurs didn't go extinct'.
Maybe it could be great, maybe not. I think our reservations about it, however, are well placed.
Originally Posted by vic_must_play Go to original post
Aaaha, see and thats much more along the lines of what I had in mind, not simply throwing in dinosaurs in the mix and having it be the "same game" so to speak....
Oh yeah, in my mind the DLC would be quite a separate thing from the original Primal narrative, whole other option from the main menu the way I was thinking about it.Originally Posted by vic_must_play Go to original post
Yeah, if the next "full" Far Cry game were centered around dinos they'd obviously need to build it from the ground up with that in mind. My thoughts on dino DLC is really just to satiate the appetite people have for dinosaurs in far cry without making a full fledged entry into the series about it, because personally I'd rather not have the next game centered around dinos,Originally Posted by vic_must_play Go to original post
Originally Posted by vic_must_play Go to original post
Right, again I agree with this, if a full fledged retail game was centered around dinos & what not, obviously I'd want them to go all out and make that as good as it can by, honestly the only reason I support dino DLC for primal is so that they can use that to satisfy those who want dinosaurs without committing an entire game to it, as is well known by now I just want another modern day conflict "fish-out-of-water" game again, I think thats the most fun and still has alot of potential stories capable of being told there....
When I stated I thought you were "over-thinking it" that was in reference to all the historical accuracy and misrepresentations in films & such that you were pointing out. My whole point about doing this DLC is just to have fun with it and throw any conformity to historical accuracy out the window. None of what was said there had any sort of reason why they couldn't use the current Oros map, it was why the DLC itself shouldn't be done, another thing we don't quite see eye to eye on, clearly.Originally Posted by mercuryspooning Go to original post
In reality, all this debate is about something that hasn't even been rumored to actually exist, there is nothing to suggest that we'll get any more DLC for the game, significant or otherwise, so all this is completely hypothetical, which is another reason the opposition to the idea is perplexing to me. Obviously I would want this DLC to be done well and not "half-arsed", I just see no real reason a new landmass is mandatory for such content.
Honestly, I was raised christian, and as a child I suppose I did sort of just believe that because thats what I'd been raised believing, but at this age obviously I've realized that is a somewhat antiquated notion. As soon as they announced primal though I was sort of assuming dinosaurs. Even if it may not be accurate thats where my mind went right away, was sort of disappointed honestly when they said it wouldn't be. Maybe it's just me then who's mind automatically went there, but I don't think it was, cause alot of people were bummed when they said no Dinos...Originally Posted by mercuryspooning Go to original post
Apologies if any of my replies have implied that I don't think you've got valid reasons or concerns, I certainly appreciate that you do, my debating has actually mostly been in effort to discover them, because I see it differently, so I'm curious about the opposing opinion. Your reservations are no less valid than my support of it, of course. I guess the specificity of your concerns may have been lost on me or indeed never clearly stated. As I mentioned before, I think that earlier when I'd asked the "why not use the current map" thing, the argument seemed to me to just be against the DLC and never directly the reasons the current map wouldn't work, beyond the trivial navigational issues, of which I already mentioned solutions to.Originally Posted by mercuryspooning Go to original post
I think everyone can agree vampires & far cry would be a strange and wholly out of place mix, so I think I'm entirely justified in calling that idea "god awful", but why are you equally against Dinos in primal exactly? What is so bad about the concept of having those creatures to contend with in a stone-age setting? Thats really what I don't get, because to me the idea of spearing a T-rex to death or taming a mis-represented raptor sounds just as fun as the actual Primal really is, maybe more-so if I'm being frank. Plot-wise I was never in support of a "lost island where dinos never went extinct" route myself, I never gave much thought as to the justification for co-existance at all, just have dinosaurs exist within the world, you never really need to address the why of it, it's a videogame, and as I've said, the DLC (which doesn't actually exist, so, theres that) should be most concerned with fun...
"i never gave much thought as to the justification for co-existance at all, just have dinosaurs exist within the world, you never really need to address the why of it, it's a videogame, and as I've said, the DLC (which doesn't actually exist, so, theres that) should be most concerned with fun."
I can see what mercuryspooning is getting at - fun is fine HorTyS - but for me part of what makes Primal special is the consistancy of the setting ignoring the bomb dropping owl and a few other mechanics such as the Udam surviving somewhat beyond their time.
Overall however the actual background of Primal the setting dressings is pretty straight and does not overly stretch disbelief when playing. I would like more of that with Primal love that survivor stopped the owl dropping bombs for example. Still I agree if it was a separate Blood Dragon style entity then realism is not such a big deal. However such an unnrealistic dino DLC might mean no other big DLC for Primal and that would be a sad loss especially if we just got a few rather cheapened dinos because of short DLC development time.
To be honest I agree the next FC should be mainstream modern for all the traditional FC players who did not get the Primal concept then perhaps a full on madcap DIno game after that in a turn about sort of way. I could be wrong but just getting a few dinos in a DLC would probably just result in many players feeling a bit disappointed left wanting more developed and comprehensive dino action. In the end such a DLC might satisfy few desires.
Using up a DLC development time opportunity to poorly satisfy with one gimmick on reflection just seems a waste of the current potential of the Primal setting. Lots of interesting new animals could be added to Primal without breaking the timeline and naking the game less real.
Moving slighly off topic with Primal: increasing animal and npc behaviours and player weapons and skills could be more fun than just adding more animal types too.