🛈 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
    HorTyS's Avatar Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Posts
    5,227
    Originally Posted by Anorexic_Buddah Go to original post
    Tree traps were good in the Instincts games, I would also love to get trip wires.
    Can't see either in this game though.
    Yeah, highly doubtful at this point. Even Primal, where traps probably would have made the most sense, only had the one spike trap that was pretty underwhelming in it's execution.
    Share this post

  2. #12
    My new idea for crafting would be to have less crafting...preferably none. It's unrealistic, tedious and silly. Maybe it would fit well into a survival game or keep it with games like Primal but it's non sequitur here.
     1 people found this helpful
    Share this post

  3. #13
    HorTyS's Avatar Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Posts
    5,227
    Is hunting & crafting in FC totally realistic? No, not really. Is it tedious? A little bit, especially for the amount of pelts needed for later upgrades. Is it silly? Yeah, it is kinda silly. Is it there for a reason? Yes, it provides a system of progression for the player to accumulate higher carrying capacities for various items like ammo and consumables. Does it add anything to gameplay? Yes, it provides incentive to hunt specific animal types and explore the various areas of the map in search of them. What would be an alternative? I dunno, buying quivers or loot-bags in a store I guess, even though based on the rural nature of the setting a store that sells that sort of specialty gear wouldn't necessarily exist in small towns with populations as low as 38 people, so having a specialty hunting gear store is the real stretch in logic going on. Does the alternative have any sort of additive gameplay value? Nope, none.
    Share this post

  4. #14
    I think a lot of the activities now found in the Far Cry series are there as a way of giving the player something to do in an open world, sandbox game. I'm serious. I think the developers are challenged with how to keep an open world game interesting as the player gradually clears the map as the story progresses. Look at what has been introduced since Far Cry 2...skinning animals (for wallets and holsters), picking flowers (for potions and poisons), collecting artifacts, engaging in games of skill like delivering packages before the timer runs out on an ATV or a shooting contest. None of this is critical to the story or the game world and does stretch the imagination more than a little.

    If you were in a real Far Cry world wouldn't you expect to be buying equipment for the bush at the store you buy weapons? Would you really be bothering with collecting old Japanese letters from WW2? Would you be collecting little statues and figurines? As a person surrounded by potential enemies nearly everywhere you go would you really be stopping to shoot balloons or racing on a Sea-Doo or ATV? Would you expect to meet a Sherpa on a mountain trail who just happens to have a virtual store of weapons and ammunition right there on the spot? Would you expect to actually climb a cliff wall or push a button and watch yourself magically ascend to the ledge? Who in their right mind would go hunting wild dogs with a flame-thrower in order to score some sort of points?

    Aside from the dumbed down player controls and other not so challenging in-game features, these are part of the host of things that the franchise now includes to the detriment of realism. I watched a video on Youtube describing the goals of Far Cry 2 just recently. It states how Ubisoft was particularly focused on making Far Cry 2 as realistic as possible. But apparently the majority of people are more interested in fantasy elements, exotic locations and not being presented with much of a learning curve in terms of skill; hence the popularity of the series beginning with Far Cry 3.

    Far Cry has morphed into a purely entertaining arcade experience where realism is limited primarily to graphics and everything else is mild and easy game play. The gaming world could be so much more...so very much more. It is truly sad the company cannot see its way to providing the series with realism on a sliding scale so it appeals to enthusiasts and average players alike.
    Share this post

  5. #15
    HorTyS's Avatar Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Posts
    5,227
    Originally Posted by scrapser Go to original post
    Far Cry has morphed into a purely entertaining arcade experience where realism is limited primarily to graphics and everything else is mild and easy game play. The gaming world could be so much more...so very much more. It is truly sad the company cannot see its way to providing the series with realism on a sliding scale so it appeals to enthusiasts and average players alike.
    Seems to me you are mis-directing your frustration at Ubisoft. From where I'm sittin', they're just doing what any company would do. If you create a product that is moderately well received, but you had hoped for better results, you go back to the drawing board, make some fairly significant changes but keep a few core elements and the result sells 3x better, isn't it pretty obvious a company would sort of lean more toward replicating the version that sold far better than the one that didn't? Why would they try to go back to the drastically less successful iteration? It seems your frustration is with all the people who didn't buy FC2, not Ubisoft, who're just doing what businesses do and trying to maximize profits.
    Share this post

  6. #16
    Originally Posted by HorTyS Go to original post
    Seems to me you are mis-directing your frustration at Ubisoft. From where I'm sittin', they're just doing what any company would do. If you create a product that is moderately well received, but you had hoped for better results, you go back to the drawing board, make some fairly significant changes but keep a few core elements and the result sells 3x better, isn't it pretty obvious a company would sort of lean more toward replicating the version that sold far better than the one that didn't? Why would they try to go back to the drastically less successful iteration? It seems your frustration is with all the people who didn't buy FC2, not Ubisoft, who're just doing what businesses do and trying to maximize profits.
    Yeah...my passions get the better of me. Far Cry 2 gave me a taste of something unique when it was first released. That's why I have played it so long. I was a big fan of military sims when they were regularly being released. Realism is a major emphasis with them. It carries over to Far Cry with what was done in 2. It really sucks the franchise is being driven by the average gamer who really could care less about details.

    But to get off that. I mean it when I say I think we are witnessing the company being challenged with how to keep an open world game interesting as the story winds down. Even Far Cry 2 would have that problem if not for the re-spawning checkpoints. I'd like to see more discussion about this one aspect and hopefully catch the attention of developers so they can offer their side of things.
    Share this post

  7. #17
    HorTyS's Avatar Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Posts
    5,227
    Originally Posted by scrapser Go to original post
    Yeah...my passions get the better of me. Far Cry 2 gave me a taste of something unique when it was first released. That's why I have played it so long. I was a big fan of military sims when they were regularly being released. Realism is a major emphasis with them. It carries over to Far Cry with what was done in 2. It really sucks the franchise is being driven by the average gamer who really could care less about details.

    But to get off that. I mean it when I say I think we are witnessing the company being challenged with how to keep an open world game interesting as the story winds down. Even Far Cry 2 would have that problem if not for the re-spawning checkpoints. I'd like to see more discussion about this one aspect and hopefully catch the attention of developers so they can offer their side of things.

    I'd venture to guess you'd lump me into the label of "average gamer", but I have nothing but support & respect for details, however I place higher importance on gameplay, and to me, the gameplay of the more recent FC entries I would say is superior in a number of ways to FC2. Less realistic in some respects, sure, but more entertaining and with less frustration in many ways as well. While I don't have nothing but praise & utter devotion to FC2, I did thoroughly enjoy it in it's time, though even then I recognized it had a myriad of issues. When FC3 came around, and improved on so many things I thought FC2 could've used a little work on, I was over-joyed. Seeing that it did so well and that they've continued to progress the series from this new evolution has me very happy and excited for it to progress further still.

    Also I would hardly consider the respawning checkpoints a legitimate attempt to keep the world interesting. Creative Director of FC2 has gone on record saying that the checkpoints respawned because they did not have the capability left to make it so that a checkpoint having been cleared was put into the game's memory so any time a part of the map that had a checkpoint in it streamed into the cache it did so with the enemies in place. It was quite literally a technological incapability for the game's original code.
    Share this post

  8. #18
    I would just prefer replacing the crafting system with a proper inventory and loot system. I don't really care about "progressing" the character at all, some skills I do unlock but I don't feel the extra ammunition pouches and such are worth the effort with the annoying hunting, since every animal is a bullet sponge rather than having good AI, but I could deal with and prefer simply being able to pick up things from dead enemies.

    The stupid AI is more of a trademark for the series by now I guess- just running out in the open to get closer to you, or having the cover detection algorithm blow up in your face and the enemies take cover in the worst way possible.
    Share this post

  9. #19
    HorTyS's Avatar Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Posts
    5,227
    Originally Posted by razorfinnish Go to original post
    I would just prefer replacing the crafting system with a proper inventory and loot system. I don't really care about "progressing" the character at all, some skills I do unlock but I don't feel the extra ammunition pouches and such are worth the effort with the annoying hunting, since every animal is a bullet sponge rather than having good AI, but I could deal with and prefer simply being able to pick up things from dead enemies.

    The stupid AI is more of a trademark for the series by now I guess- just running out in the open to get closer to you, or having the cover detection algorithm blow up in your face and the enemies take cover in the worst way possible.
    I don't feel like they're all bullet sponges, some of the bigger predators are to make them a challenge, but you can take out a wolf with a single arrow if you shoot it in the head. Relegating the carrying capacity upgrades to nothing more than an loot or economic based system would devalue the whole inclusion of animals in the game, which I believe is an integral component of the series now. Removing incentive to hunt would diminish a lot of exploration as well. I think there is plenty of room for improvements in the hunting/ crafting/ loot & economy systems, but I enjoy all of them being a part of the game and removing one and shoving all those systems into another I feel like would be detrimental.


    I think it would be kinda cool if they made the hunting more in-depth. Having accurate lethality to hit-locations (head/ heart shots) which could result in superior loot components (double baits etc.), having to track animals or being able to use elk calls and such. I do think they could reduce the amount of of bags & pouches that you have to craft, and your total capacities could stand to be a bit lower (carrying 15 grenades is a bit over the top)...
    Share this post

  10. #20
    Originally Posted by HorTyS Go to original post
    I'd venture to guess you'd lump me into the label of "average gamer", but I have nothing but support & respect for details, however I place higher importance on gameplay, and to me, the gameplay of the more recent FC entries I would say is superior in a number of ways to FC2. Less realistic in some respects, sure, but more entertaining and with less frustration in many ways as well. While I don't have nothing but praise & utter devotion to FC2, I did thoroughly enjoy it in it's time, though even then I recognized it had a myriad of issues. When FC3 came around, and improved on so many things I thought FC2 could've used a little work on, I was over-joyed. Seeing that it did so well and that they've continued to progress the series from this new evolution has me very happy and excited for it to progress further still.

    Also I would hardly consider the respawning checkpoints a legitimate attempt to keep the world interesting. Creative Director of FC2 has gone on record saying that the checkpoints respawned because they did not have the capability left to make it so that a checkpoint having been cleared was put into the game's memory so any time a part of the map that had a checkpoint in it streamed into the cache it did so with the enemies in place. It was quite literally a technological incapability for the game's original code.
    You don't come across as an average gamer. I wouldn't put you in that group. Every population has an average. Every population creates a bell curve. It's inevitable.

    I will say once again open world games are presenting companies with challenges and I think eventually they will come up with creative ways to keep things edgy and interesting.
    Share this post