1)
Soviet partisan setting. The tutorial/prologue would be the player surviving the German onslaught June 22nd 1941 and finding a small band of survivors that decides to carry on the fight behind enemy lines.
Then we would proceed to try and survive and increase our strength in numbers and weapons. And that's as far as I have gone with this idea.
This will give us access to a bunch of both German, Soviet and potentially weapons from all over as the German security units had all sorts of captured equipment.
2 and 3)
Is pretty much the same as number 1 but you move the setting to either Greece or Yugoslavia. These settings would add a possibility of competing partisan factions that can be either enemies or allies or both, and the addition of potentially Italian and Bulgarian forces.
4)
Set during the North African campaign and we will be playing as members of the Long Range Dessert Group.
Again this will give us access to a wide range of both allied and axis weapons and equipment.
The major drawback would be a limited variation in bio domes.
No matter where or when the next game takes place I strongly believe it need to have way more weapons than we had in FC5.
Slapping a paintjob on an existing weapon and calling it a variant simply isn't good enough. The number of different weapons in FC5 compared to FC4 is close to a joke, and on top of that many of the FC5 weapons are types we have been toying with since at least FC3 and in some cases FC2
i am opposite of this big aspect i like about far cry is that it a modern fps not in a war if i want military game i just get call of duty or battlefield far cry is special because it a shooter in modern times not set in a full on warzoneOriginally Posted by Unsaneboi Go to original post
Yes exactly, you'd lose one of the most compelling unique aspects of Far Cry by setting it in a militarized war, I agree it would be a big mistake and I am hopeful they never go that route. All of those conflicts have already been done to death. Yes, a far cry in those settings would not be the same as say battlefield, but why set a a far cry in the middle of a setting & premise that has been done 100x over by others? It's just throwing all the potential unique settings in the trash to put a "far cry spin" on something that's already been done....Originally Posted by NasioFontaine Go to original post
I smell Stereotype here. COD and Battlefield are corridor shooters. Far Cry - not. Far Cry and millitary, Far Cry and war - not far from each other.
Warring factions and war....So close.
Far Cry can be as usual Far Cry but closer to the end we may find ourselves in a real large-scale military operation or war. Game can develop itself from simple to complex.
Far Cry and War - I see no contradiction. We won't be running around the battlefield all game.
Originally Posted by briangade Go to original post
How have people still not learned that the main flagship (numbered) titles are all set in modern day, NOT historical periods?
Jesus tapdancing christ...