🛈 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
    I met some of them at Game Developers Conference, their passion for game development gave me wood.
    Share this post

  2. #12
    HorTyS's Avatar Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Posts
    5,227
    The question this thread poses assumes the people who actually make the games are also the one's who set budgets & deadlines, which is not the case...
    Share this post

  3. #13
    Steve64b's Avatar Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2016
    Location
    http://steve.farcry.eu/
    Posts
    1,628
    Originally Posted by Bambihunter1971 Go to original post
    I agree with the comment above about largely due to hardware and engine changes is why anymore it is NOT beneficial to be in development for 4 years. Largely, you can utilize a larger team and get the same exact polish as longer development. In some settings, more minds help because of new ideas, evolving programming for engines, etc. In the end it comes down to man hours. You can get that from a small team for longer, or a larger team for shorter time. Of course once a team reaches a certain size there is kind of a disconnect where you no longer feel as invested in the project.
    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:
    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
    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.
    Share this post

  4. #14
    Game of Games! Metacritic won't deceive!
    Share this post

  5. #15
    Ubi-CJ's Avatar Community Manager
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Posts
    664
    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
    Share this post

  6. #16
    Steve64b's Avatar Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2016
    Location
    http://steve.farcry.eu/
    Posts
    1,628
    Yep, credits don't say much about direct development team activity. I was looking for a universal metric to express "the number of people involved or related to the project" and all the games had the credits file. It's just a random fact anyways.
    Share this post

  7. #17
    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
     1 people found this helpful
    Share this post

  8. #18
    Far Cry is my favourite. Ubisoft's Assassin's Creed also good. AC 3 Remastered reminds me of Far Cry 5. North American nature.....I like how Connor merged with nature! Far Cry theme. We should merge with nature more and more in the game.
    Share this post

  9. #19
    crunc01's Avatar Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2018
    Location
    SO-CAL
    Posts
    329
    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..
    Share this post

  10. #20
    Originally Posted by crunc01 Go to original post
    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.
    Share this post