What's wrong with pushing graphics forward? There is plenty of room for them to noticeably improve. Also I think games are getting better and better each year.Originally Posted by scrapser Go to original post
There's nothing wrong with good graphics. The issue I have is how so many people equate good graphics with realism in general and put so much praise on them. The companies latch on to what people talk about the most. It's another example of, "The squeakiest wheel gets the grease." So stop talking about the graphics and focus on good game mechanics, design structure, story originality and things like that. The graphics will always be improving...the hardware developers will see to that or else they lose cash flow and/or market share. It's really simple when you think it through.Originally Posted by usmovers_02 Go to original post
With respect I just looked out my window and don't see any rain so I guess there's no rain falling anywhere. That's not scientific and neither is your post. There is a lot of discussion about the quality of game graphics not just with Far Cry games but all games in general. That is the context of my point. It would be so great to see the emphasis shift over to game design instead of the graphics. If enough people did that the developers would take notice.Originally Posted by usmovers_02 Go to original post
As an example, take the main problem Ubisoft has been dealing with since FC2 was released...how to keep a sandbox game interesting as you move through the story and clear the map.
Yes!!! Not graphics related, but it would be nice if one enemy seeing you for a split second at the far end of an outpost didn't result in every nearby enemy instantly knowing your exact position! GRW does this really well.Originally Posted by nyrue Go to original post
Now this guy's speakin' my language, even if he's not spelling it correctly! More gore would be welcome indeed. The game is for sure gonna have an M rating, may as well take full advantage of it...Originally Posted by Gr4nt8r0dy Go to original post
It does seem to have a wider, more vibrant color palette. FC2 was very tan/ light brown, FC3 was very, very green with the jungle and grasslands on the 2nd island. FC4 just didn't have a lot of variety in the colors, it seemed both northern & southern maps were all pine-foresty. FC5 already looks like it has some lush open fields and farmland with mountain forests, but also meadows and birch trees growing along rivers & all of which seem to contribute to colors overall having more variety to them.Originally Posted by AW LOST SOLDIER Go to original post
just look at these side by sides:
![]()
![]()
Wider color variety is pretty clear I think....