Random fact: here's a table showing the number of lines in these games' credits files, alongside OP's Metacritic score. A credit basically has a title/position line, followed by one or more people (lines) filling that position:Originally Posted by Bambihunter1971 Go to original post
Granted, I haven't looked at the specifics of the differences (more studios? More people working on components? More languages supported? More voice actors?), but I do get the impression that more people involved with/working on a title isn't necessarily a good thing. Also, times may be changing and scores obviously don't say much with Zeitgeist and all in mind.
Title # of credits lines Metacritic Far Cry 3 2990 91/100 Far Cry Blood Dragon 1651 82/100 Far Cry 4 4218 85/100 Far Cry Primal 3118 77/100 Far Cry 5 7095 81/100 Far Cry New Dawn 5353 75/100
Hi everyone
@Steve64b I would just like to point out that only a part of the names in the credits are actively involved in the development of the game.
So I'm not sure how accurately you can gauge the size of the direct development team based on the length of the credits.
My name is in the credits of FC5 and New Dawn, for example, and my involvement in those games before launch is not really linked to its production.
/CJ
I enjoy the Far Cry games WAY MORE than any other Ubisoft franchise.
My own rating
FC 3 - 8.5/10
FC 4 - 9/10
FC Primal 6/10
FC 5 8/10
Far Cry ND 7.5/10
Never played FC 1,2, or Blood Dragon. I play on console. I did watch some video of FC 2 compared to FC 5. FC 2 had a way more realistic environment. Too bad it's not like that now. It would be even better.
This video shows the difference. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FCeEvQ68jY8
FC2 did have more realistic damage mechanics over all.. yes.. but realistic gfx environment has gotten way better since then... a shame they cannot make them only for PC.. its the fact they have to make them also for consoles but want to improve the gfx that they have to take away some of the environmental damage mechanics .. wish they did as they used to do and have 2 totally different engine versions.. one for PC then the limited one for the consoles..
I don't see how it has anything to do with console. Battlefield games have very realistic physics on console, as do other games like Red Dead 2. I believe Ubisoft does not care about making the game realistic. The less time they take to put out a game the more games they can put out. The more money they make. Some companies take the time to make sure their games are what they should be on release. Rock Star, Naughty Dog, Project CD Red. Then you have EA, Ubisoft and Bethesda in the money first business. That's my opinion.Originally Posted by crunc01 Go to original post