🛈 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
    xMiiSTY's Avatar Community Manager
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    2,499
    Originally Posted by DAS_VIDEO Go to original post
    But multiplayer has screwed up gaming forever. Now devs have to concentrate on providing a social outlet for misfits, instead of making single player gaming as interesting and immersive as they possibly can.
    -__________-
    Share this post

  2. #12
    tominatorx2010's Avatar Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Belgium
    Posts
    319
    I don't understand why he is putting people in different camps. Sure there are people that only want to play the game for its singleplayer and there are people who are only interested in playing the multiplayer, but what about the people who like to play both?

    Usually I'm more of a singleplayer guy but I also like to play some multiplayer from time to time. When I buy a new game, I play the singleplayer first (I even did this with Battlefield 4) and after I played through the singleplayer, I will start playing the multiplayer (when there is one).

    Far Cry 2 is a perfect example, I played through the campaign twice and I spent a lot of time playing in multiplayer (it still is one of my favourite games). I wanted to do the same thing with Far Cry 3 but I only played through the singleplayer once (it wasn't as immersive as Far Cry 2 + the setting was not as interesting) and the multiplayer...... well....... I prefer not to talk about that one ever again......
    Share this post

  3. #13
    GUN_SABOTUR's Avatar Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    UK, England
    Posts
    883
    Originally Posted by tominatorx2010 Go to original post
    I don't understand why he is putting people in different camps. Sure there are people that only want to play the game for its singleplayer and there are people who are only interested in playing the multiplayer, but what about the people who like to play both?

    Usually I'm more of a singleplayer guy but I also like to play some multiplayer from time to time. When I buy a new game, I play the singleplayer first (I even did this with Battlefield 4) and after I played through the singleplayer, I will start playing the multiplayer (when there is one).

    Far Cry 2 is a perfect example, I played through the campaign twice and I spent a lot of time playing in multiplayer (it still is one of my favourite games). I wanted to do the same thing with Far Cry 3 but I only played through the singleplayer once (it wasn't as immersive as Far Cry 2 + the setting was not as interesting) and the multiplayer...... well....... I prefer not to talk about that one ever again......
    I've just completed FC3 SP on Master Difficulty, like yesterday. It was pretty fun going back after a year or so to re-do the story. If only there was more DLC SP missions etc that had followed the main story I would have bought them. But yes, once you've done the story a few times, the MP /co-op is what you are left with.
    Share this post

  4. #14
    Far_Cry2_Fan's Avatar Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    The much Malaigned USA
    Posts
    372
    He has a point, look at the crappy COD. The entire "single player" part of the game is so short, it's nothing but a training phase for the "real" game, multiplayer.

    I don't care to compete against players, even if they are "friends getting together for fun", there are far better ways to interact with people.

    I want the game to be "thick" enough (enough substance) that I can plan on weeks of entertainment in a couple hour slices, and be edgy enough that I save, walk away and plan my strategy to beat the GAME.

    Sad to see no one (that I saw) mentioned the save system. I run a PC, I want to be able to save like a PC, FC2 was perfect in that regard, but of course they killed it because it was too much work to add a real save system to what is, sadly, a console port. I wish they'd reverse the development, build for PC then add console restrictions as an after build exercise.

    I have zero interest in multiplayer, and if the layout and gameplay for single player is restricted in any way (lack of creativity, depth of immersion) then the wrong choice was made in my opinion, just make two entirely separate games, and give the multiplayer folks their training element like COD does.
    Share this post

  5. #15
    No he does not have a point. People play their games in different ways. Who are you to decide how someone should play their game? Honestly Ubisoft have set themselves up PERFECTLY but refuse to take advantage of it. All they have to do MP wise is build the editor and make decent net code. Then they can give us map makers a month or so of early access and we'll make sure the game launches with plenty of maps for release. They don't have to worry about testing and building maps at all. That way they could put a lot more effort into SP.
    Share this post

  6. #16
    Originally Posted by Far_Cry2_Fan Go to original post
    He has a point, look at the crappy COD. The entire "single player" part of the game is so short, it's nothing but a training phase for the "real" game, multiplayer.

    I don't care to compete against players, even if they are "friends getting together for fun", there are far better ways to interact with people.

    I want the game to be "thick" enough (enough substance) that I can plan on weeks of entertainment in a couple hour slices, and be edgy enough that I save, walk away and plan my strategy to beat the GAME.

    Sad to see no one (that I saw) mentioned the save system. I run a PC, I want to be able to save like a PC, FC2 was perfect in that regard, but of course they killed it because it was too much work to add a real save system to what is, sadly, a console port. I wish they'd reverse the development, build for PC then add console restrictions as an after build exercise.

    I have zero interest in multiplayer, and if the layout and gameplay for single player is restricted in any way (lack of creativity, depth of immersion) then the wrong choice was made in my opinion, just make two entirely separate games, and give the multiplayer folks their training element like COD does.
    Well said Far_Cry2_Fan. You have summed up my position exactly. MP is fine (and of no interest to me), but if Ubisoft is going to keep my money, they need to produce an engaging, story-based SP game. Which I think they have done, but we will see in November.

    And a non-console-based save system for PC users would be good too.
    Share this post

  7. #17
    Martythemerc's Avatar Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    452
    Originally Posted by Far_Cry2_Fan Go to original post
    He has a point, look at the crappy COD. The entire "single player" part of the game is so short, it's nothing but a training phase for the "real" game, multiplayer.

    I don't care to compete against players, even if they are "friends getting together for fun", there are far better ways to interact with people.

    I want the game to be "thick" enough (enough substance) that I can plan on weeks of entertainment in a couple hour slices, and be edgy enough that I save, walk away and plan my strategy to beat the GAME.

    Sad to see no one (that I saw) mentioned the save system. I run a PC, I want to be able to save like a PC, FC2 was perfect in that regard, but of course they killed it because it was too much work to add a real save system to what is, sadly, a console port. I wish they'd reverse the development, build for PC then add console restrictions as an after build exercise.

    I have zero interest in multiplayer, and if the layout and gameplay for single player is restricted in any way (lack of creativity, depth of immersion) then the wrong choice was made in my opinion, just make two entirely separate games, and give the multiplayer folks their training element like COD does.
    Another voice of reason I've tried to convey for a number of years. Why not make a double disc set, one for MP, and another for SP? I was very disappointed when FC3 came out - there was nothing immersive or intelligent about it like FC2 was. It was arcady and cartoonish - the kind of flashy bling people seem to want now, with no self-planning or thought, other than run and gun while having your hand held. I still play FC2, differently each time - single player only, and still get an anxious adrenaline rush plotting my moves, using the environment as my weapon of stealth ( yes, it's there if you could figure it out) immersively sinking my head into the game. No one wants realism anymore - all they want is POINTS, and the lowest common denominator is easy to make and sell, instead of intelligence and planning. I'm not holding my breath on FC4 - I'll wait and see if it's not FC3.5. I long for FC2 - type of realism that Clint Hocking was good for.
    Share this post

  8. #18
    GUN_SABOTUR's Avatar Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    UK, England
    Posts
    883
    I agree that FC2 was a game beyond its time.

    And I think thats a good enough reason to forget how the MP was done in FC3 and simply return to the way it was in FC2. Its a no-brainer.
    Share this post

  9. #19
    Originally Posted by DAS_VIDEO Go to original post
    First, I know multiplayer has a huge following, and I'm not here to argue you shouldn't be able to have your sole human interaction done via a computer game whilst sitting in mum's basement. I understand the clans, it can be a lot of fun using every waking moment (when the rest of us are out working) to practice so your clan can smash others to bits, something you'd never be able to do in real life. I get it.

    But multiplayer has screwed up gaming forever. Now devs have to concentrate on providing a social outlet for misfits, instead of making single player gaming as interesting and immersive as they possibly can.

    But the largest market is what drives game design, and the hurricane force whining from those not getting enough social attention leads the developers to believe the multiplayer market is bigger than it really is.

    Couple that with the ever increasing need to upgrade PCs (especially video cards of course), and you end up poisoning the PC segment to the point where it makes little sense trying to keep up.

    I'm supposed to spend $500 or more for a video card for adequate performance, only to play a game that is a straight port from kiddie consoles, and gameplay restricted for single users because the devs feel the whining multiplayers represent the real market share?

    Far Cry was an exceptional game for its time. Far Cry 2 was phenomenal, the best yet. Far Cry 3 was quite good considering all of the console port junk allowed to ruin as much immersion as possible, but at least it turned off the multiplayer crowd, leaving me to hope more time will be spent on a fully immersive Far Cry 4.

    My litmus test for Far Cry 4 is simple. If the game includes the wall hacks "tagging" that the kiddie console crowd loved, I'll take that as Ubi's admission that PC gaming is a simple by product, and no, I won't be falling for "PC only graphics enhancements" if its still nothing more than a kiddie console port.

    Flame suit on, but the flamers ought to know, I understand you multiplayer types very, very well.
    You sir are great! Why do people want every game to be MP? Some are storyline based and built for SP only! FC series is about SP & MP in it is just a bonus! I want a mind blowing SP experience I think UBI's should create 2 different Farcry's from FC5, SP for us and MP for others. Cuz I really don't care about MP & especially conhole gamers, who just press the button when it displays press the button to jump now!!! DUMB ***S!!!
    Share this post

  10. #20
    StrayDog_RR's Avatar Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Italy
    Posts
    3,089
    Originally Posted by Prince_Of_Persia Go to original post
    MP in it is just a bonus!
    Share this post