Some describe the latest Far Cry installments as boring and generic, I actually enjoyed those to the point of considering some of these as the best games I played in the last few years. Taste is like colours, no one has the same and calling others'tastes dull or bad makes no sense.
I had a blast playing every single Far cry since the first one and I ll keep doing so without feeling even remotely concerned by map editors. Some would certainly say that I have bad taste in videogames but, hey, why should I care? If I have a good time, that s what matters. And as far as I m concerned, I hope the franchise keeps going this way.
Because UBISOFT just wants a quick cash grab. All UBISOFT franchises been regressing for multiplayer. FAR CRY 2 multiplayer and map editor was great. Other then clunky player movement and the brown blur screen. But was 8vs8 and server browser and host a playlist of maps and respawning vehicles and decent game modes.Originally Posted by WildCassowary Go to original post
FAR CRY 3 map editor was weird since couldn't host a public lobby. Could only host private lobby and only 1 map. So if bored with that map. All had to leave and make another lobby. Also was 7vs7 only.
FAR CRY 4 they went against the mappers extremely with no multiplayer map editor. Only boring co-op map editor.
FARCRY 5 no server browser and was later patched in later when the community died off. Also only 6vs6 in a kiddish looking multiplayer kids arcade theme. No respawning vehicles. Boring team death match and death match. Also the early goings of being picked then votes for maps were what killed it off for me. Time they patched in the server browser and hosting. I didn't care to play anymore or bother putting in hours making anymore maps. Also all the errors trying to publish a map was a joke. The community had to work around figuring out to fix it and publish. UBISOFT didn't bother helping at all. They were busy with the last cash grab of 3 DLC's then they wanted to race off making New Dawn.
I know UBISOFT always been secretive all the time before getting the hype train in full gear. But seems most the time they probably know any of their multiplayer games cant hold up to other AAA companies. Reason UBISOFT hype train is exclusive to story mode campaign for reveal trailers. Yet they show campaign and kinda spill the beans and have spoilers before you even play it.
Some would maybe call me wrong but actually multiplayer aspects of franchises nowadays tend to be the "quick cash grab" parts, with limited assets, DLC and cosmetics to buy... It surely takes more money to build an open world game without a multiplayer rather than a game where multiplayer is dominant (ex: modern shooters, BRs, etc).
Some may get frustrated because multiplayer is tossed out slowly but others (me included) are more than happy to see more single player/coop games rather than generic shooters/TPS where the only originality is the looks of the characters or the maps. That s my point of view and I guess that since that is where the franchise is heading, it is also the vision of the creators and what lots of people are looking for.
Standing for the map editor is a good point if you like it. But it s like Call of Duty. You can t blame them for putting more effort in MP or BR if it s popular, even if the campaign is popular too.
Thing is, Ubisoft was so close with Far Cry 5. Far Cry Arcade marked the most mature map editor to date, including tonnes of (retexturable) assets, nifty scripting features and the return of multiplayer (12 players in a single map).
It should have been trivial to allow for a Last Man Standing/Battle Royal game mode. Just limit the number of respawns per player, and optionally create a +1 life pickup item to make the plain Deathmatch mode more interesting. Then, if scripting worked properly in multiplayer, map makers could create weapon drop randomization scripts and even spawn in danger/kill zones.
There were some shortcomings (limited number of (non-respawning) vehicles per map, initial lobby system that didn't work, the "Arcade" vibe of it all, only DM game modes. If they managed to add to what Arcade was in 5, it'll be a treat.![]()
When I read comments about the map editor hardcore fans (hardcore seems to be the right word to use since I see fans call the franchise senseless without the editor or else), it just surprises me to see how harsh they talk of the franchise.
I mean, if the games weren't featuring any real MP map editor besides 2 and 5 (that is criticised), games like 3,4,Primal and Blood Dragon/New Dawn were probably not of any interest to those fans. I understand their passion for the editor but actually millions enjoyed these games and what was in it despite this lack of editor. That s my point of view but that s just like if people would stop playing RESIDENT Evil if it didn't had his Mercenaries mode. This feature was a big hit but demands and player base do change and so does the franchise.
My view on the things is an easy one to have, as I m extremely satisfied with the actual formula. Best was the one of FC4 in my opinion. So yeah, 6 could be a single player game and I d still be very happy about it. People have their right to be passionate about map editor being a key element of the franchise to them as others have the same right to consider it is not. And I guess these ones are the ones enjoying the heavy emphasis on open world of the latest games, making Ubisoft put more effort in such way.
It's mostly those from Far Cry Instincts, Far Cry Instincts Evolution, Far Cry Instincts Predator and Far Cry 2. Some are from Far Cry 3 and Far Cry 4. I would mention Far Cry 1 but I highly doubt it was as popular as its Xbox counterpart. There's definitely a map editor for Far Cry 3 and Far Cry 4, but Far Cry 3 lacked multiplayer vehicles and based its multiplayer on Call of Duty's progression and loadout system. Far Cry 4 introduced the map editor for single player and co-op, but it lacked on designing maps for multiplayer.Originally Posted by WildCassowary Go to original post