Counter-point:
How appropriate the hunting aspect is I think is down to interpretation of intent. I see it as hunting is there as a means to provide a way to upgrade your capacities in order to be better equipped to take on the enemy, whilst being prepared to do so, so it has that contextual relevance. I see it less as randomly deciding "I'll just go hunting instead of fighting the enemy" and more along the lines of "To stand a chance at defeating this overwhelming foe, I need to be able to carry more ammo. Not exactly finding a sportsman's outfitters out in "Hickville, MT," so I'll kill a moose and craft a makeshift ammo pouch from it's hide" May not be the most logical or realistic solution, but FarCry (yes, even far cry 2) is not the most realistic game in the world. I would also add that, unlike playing hopscotch in the middle of a street rather than running across it under sniper fire, hunting does not out-right expose you to the enemy.
Whilst I agree not every side activity relates directly to the story of the game (how is racing a quad bike through checkpoints with a "goBro" helping over throw the local dictator?) many of them did have justification for taking part in them. All the hostage rescue & assassination missions were "freeing the oppressed people" or taking out commanders in the royal army, both of which hurt the operations of "the enemy" in the game. While these may not have direct ties into the main narrative, they are contextually appropriate activities someone who is trying to "liberate" the country would take part in.
Also, what animations are you talking about that are automated that you think should be in more direct control by the player?
We are in agreement. My main concern is that hunting (if included) be relevant to the game and the story/goals. Personally I wish they would lose the crafting pouches routine altogether primarily because you have all sorts of guns in the game. To think there would be all those fancy guns available in the game world and not find the relevant gear that goes with them just seems like a stretch to me. I know the idea is to "create" a need for crafting but the foundation for having crafting in the first place is just plain thin.Originally Posted by HorTyS Go to original post
It seems to me the formula for Far Cry (post FC2) appears to always include crafting (to give the player something they need to do in order to carry more stuff), finding stuff whether you need it or not (as a reason to explore the map beyond what you would explore completing missions) and take downs (the proverbial skills ladder that shows up in other games as access to better equipment, powers, vehicles etc.). I want the skills to be how well I play the game (me...literally) and not some sort of in-game program tree that I get to gradually unlock regardless of whether I'm a 10 year old or a seasoned gamer. As far as the rest is concerned in Far Cry 3 and 4, it's all tedious busy-work that gives you optional things to do to maintain the sandbox game play feeling. Primal appears to have taken this to such an extreme a lot of people complained it was just too much.
People criticize that Far Cry 2 was too empty. I can understand that. But at least what you did do in the game was relevant. I think the solution is to be a bit more creative and fill the game with optional things to do that all tie together. I think Ubisoft could stand to hire some people who are better able to do this as developers. Perhaps there would be tasks within tasks or something so the player needs to complete several unrelated missions that each contributes something at the end which when added together provide a major key piece that moves the bigger picture along. Keep the activities relevant so they have meaning. Who wants to do stuff just to do stuff? I'm sure you get my point.
Also...towers...having towers in Montana is hard for people who have lived there or still do. All the other games are fictional locations but this time the setting is Montana. The town and county may be fictional but the land isn't. And there are no towers in Montana. Not like you find in the more recent Far Cry games. Perhaps they could put in power lines. But those would have to be in a somewhat continuous line. Or maybe there could be wind turbines. But these would have to be either on mountain tops or out on the plains region.
I see many of those ideas differently myself. I don't think everything you do needs to tie into the central narrative. I think there should be multiple side-quests that are legitimately side-quests, i.e. completely unrelated to the goings on with Joseph Seed & the cult. Just because this cult has begun to wreak havoc on the area doesn't mean the local's other problems magically melt away, so there would be people who could use our help for something other than cult related affairs.
Maybe someone's horse got loose, and they enlist us to help find & return it, thus giving us access to horses (if they're in the game). Maybe a woman's husband is missing and she assumes it was the cult but knows he would never join them so asks us to look into it and through a chain of missions we find out something else happened, but she rewards us with some thing in the end. There are a ton of little stories that could be told parallel to the main quest that would still benefit you but do not have to relate to the cult directly, and I think that is more realistic honestly. The Witcher 3 is a perfect example, they handled side-quests wonderfully. Some of them were better than the main narrative, and while some had ties to it, they were not all beholden to it.
As for skills, your suggestion sounds like you dislike the unlocking of skills through progression but want it to be simply based on your own ability? So you're basically capable of everything at the start of the game as you are at the end? Sounds a bit mundane to me. The skills system gives me something to work toward, motivation to try things, in order to gain access to the ability to try even more things. To me the skills foster creativity & experimentation and represent the progression of our character in a tangible, gameplay-effecting way, which personally I thoroughly enjoy. While I sometimes agree that less is more, it isn't always true by my estimation....
I think skills make sense given the context of them within the last few games. FC2 we played as a mute mercenary sent to take down the jackal. Obviously if they're sending one man to take out a prolific arms dealer it stands to reason he's got a reputation for being top tier am I right? So it would make sense to assume he's a capable individual. Now think about who we played in FC3, some California surfer-bro type doosh-bag who'd never shot a gun in his life, don't you think it is actually more realistic that after what he goes through he'd come out the other side with skills & abilities he didn't have before?
In FarCry5 given that our character is customizable and mute, we won't get much in the way of established backstory, but that title of "junior deputy" makes me think our character is a rookie, or a new recruit. Seems to me that they'd learn a thing or 2 over the course of rising against the cult...
To your first paragraph...yes...whatever is included in the game, just make it relate. Everything does not and would not need to be tied directly to the main game story and theme. But at least make it relative to the context. As you said, there's a crisis to deal with but that doesn't make everything else magically disappear. Just don't put stuff in the game that stands out like a sore thumb...doing so spoils the immersion and excitement.Originally Posted by HorTyS Go to original post
Second paragraph...no...I do not like the skill tree. But I am not suggesting I must somehow prove how well I have mastered the controls I use or have all the abilities up front. Rather, make me work for whatever betterment I can achieve. Other games achieve this by making it very difficult to play through a particular task or mission ending. Or perhaps you get rated on your performance and the higher the rating the more stuff you get access to. But above all, make the take downs optional and make it possible to do take downs using the controls (game pad or keyboard/mouse) so you can bypass the quick time event videos (I really do hate those things...they are so lazy and again, spoil immersion). As with everything else, make the skill system relate in a realistic way.
Far Cry 2 didn't really have skills beyond becoming a good shot and quick to react and take in situations without delay. It is very easy to get killed in that game if you don't stay focused when things get tight. In short, you were not given a lot of room to screw around. You wouldn't be able to do that in real life either. So my hope is they build that into the game as much as they can and preserve or improve it as each new release comes out...not take it away with automated game play as the sole means of performing tasks and/or combat maneuvers. I think this adds a great deal to the game's feel and would be enjoyed by more people than many might think. What's wrong with making the game challenging?
Do things that pull the player's imagination into the game to foster realism. Don't try to subsidize it with second guessing on what creativity should look and feel like. Let people react to situations and come up with their own solutions on the fly. They will either succeed or fail. That's part of the fun! Use the environment in the game and the control systems programming to empower people to do this. Don't box them in by making the game simple and Simon Says like. I think this should apply to any game...especially sandbox games.
You make a good point with this post. Looking back I really didn't like the FC3 character. His reaction to skinning an animal was pathetic. Maybe it was like that because I have actually cleaned game from hunting in my life. But more importantly, you make the point that how we perceive the character we are playing has its own impact on the game experience.Originally Posted by HorTyS Go to original post
Oooph, be careful throwing that word "fun "around, some folk don't like it! hahaOriginally Posted by scrapser Go to original post![]()
That is why I think it's interesting to be controlling and living through another character vicariously. You may not like JB's reaction to it, but most people in the world do not skin or butcher animals, so while you may see it as pathetic, it at least made you think about it from another perspective right? I think even that says something about the power of playing a defined character. Being able to provide players with a different perspective, something that I think anyone could benefit from even if it is to learn how not to think or act.Originally Posted by scrapser Go to original post
So don't unlock skills or craft anything, that'll do wonders for the difficulty level for you as well, if thats not 2 birds one stone I dunno what is! Also, with FC5, this is the first time we are not playing a defined character but rather it is designed that we are the character. Even in FC2 you played as Quarbani or Frank Bilders or whoever you chose, though it was ultimately meaningless. I personally don't really like that but not about to suggest they change it just 'cause I happen not to like that one small aspect that overall will have minimal impact on the amount of fun I'm gonna have with it.Originally Posted by Sabotur Go to original post