I've always respected the Far Cry series for being the mold breakers in an otherwise stale genre of FPSs. Both Far Cry 2 and 3 were polished, unique, and astoundingly smart, rich with metaphor and deeper philosophies that can go totally unnoticed by a casual gamer but provide limitless delight to someone looking for something deeper in their games.
That said, I have a dark suspicion that Far Cry might devolve into just another flashy shooter with nothing important to say. The marketing is out of control, and while I recognize the need for advertising, the hype machine for this game feels so shallow and disappointingly steeped in consumerism. I'm so sick of pre-order bonuses and pointless downloadable content packs for unique weapons or skins or "EXCLUSIVE MISSIONS". I sincerely don't understand why people still go crazy over that sort of thing, it's borderline insulting to consumer intelligence and makes what could have been a fun, memorable, sophisticated piece of interactive art just another shallow product we throw money at so we can shoot dudes in the face for ten to twenty hours in a virtual world.
And not just that, but the sudden push for multiplayer. Why does Far Cry need multiplayer? This reminds me of when Skyrim came out and people acted like the lack of multiplayer was a detriment. Skyrim is a single player game. It was designed as a solo fantasy role playing experience. Not to mention the lore for that game doesn't make any sense with multiplayer. I love multiplayer games, but I despise how every single game made today has to have some multiplayer mode crammed into it, as if solo experiences were somehow less valid. I would actually argue that they are more valid in many cases, almost all of my most profound moments in gaming were from solo experiences, and if there was any multiplayer it was either unique and interestingly cooperative like Portal 2 or very subtle and emotional like in Journey.
I guess my conclusion is that while I still hope the best for Far Cry 4, I am disheartened that basically all of the hype seems to be focussing on the aspects that shouldn't matter. I want more intriguing trailers and fewer videos that just showcase how awesome the guns and graphics are. I want interviews with the devs talking about how they tried to craft deep, meaningful layers into both the story and mechanics, like they did with the previous game. Granted that article was a post-launch defense against critics who missed the point, but I really respected what that game did once you saw it from the right angles.
I'm rambling, but mainly I just want Far Cry 4 to be awesome and I don't want to see it become just another bloated, meaningless AAA game.
Oh god... did you really just say FC shouldn't have MP? Please just go away. You clearly have NO idea what us FC MP fans have gone through. I respect the amazing SP but us FC MP fans are 2nd rate citizens around here. Ubisoft hates us and so do most SP only fans it seems. So go ahead and talk about the SP part of the game all you want. That's fine. But PLEASE stop telling them to get rid of MP!!
Also, arguing that FC3s story was somehow deep or meaningful is also pretty crazy. Just because they TRIED to make it deep and add layers doesn't mean they succeeded. The story if far from the worst I've ever played. I'd actually say it's very mediocre. But just because they try to make a point doesn't mean they succeeded in doing so. This story is pure candy and fails at any attempt at depth.
You must be new to Far Cry. Far Cry thrived on multiplayer because of the map editor. The map editor is the reason why Far Cry is unique, and you can literally download infinite amount of user made maps... for free. Once I purchased Far Cry Instincts on the original Xbox during its release, there is so much replay value because of the map editor. Each map is a fresh, new experience.Originally Posted by klanktastic Go to original post
Okay, perhaps I was misguided in my attempt to express myself. I think it's more the general trend of all AAA having some multiplayer forced into it whether it should be or not, I didn't mean to start a fight about whether or not far cry should get rid of multiplayer. As to whether the single player succeeded in its attempt at depth is at least partially a subjective debate, but I think even if they fail to impress you the mere fact that they attempted something more intelligent is a huge step in a good direction. I was just trying to express that I'm worried they just kind of gave up in favor of spectacle and cheap thrills. As I tried to explain, I am still excited for the game and admit that maybe my fears are unfounded, I was just trying to open a discussion to see if anyone else picked up on the same things I did.
Yeah yeah people like you said games like Condemned Bloodshot were worse for adding tacked on Multiplayer. And yet Crime Scene was the best multiplayer offering I've played on consoles.
Skyrim could have been better with a MP who knows. The single player was what 5 hours long? Glitch/bug infested gameplay and repetitive mission structures that would make Assasins Creed look like Half-Life. And god the writing in that game was something I would have written when I was in middle school. Far Cry has been a great franchise for MP and mods and customs. I hope it continues and FC3 was just a "down but not out" moment.
All I was trying to say about the multiplayer is that it seems like every game has to have it tacked on now. As far as Far Cry specifically, I'm glad so many people found enjoyment there. I was talking primarily about the single player campaign which obviously had a lot of effort put into being something more than just "fun", something that explored interesting and sophisticated ideas through narrative and mechanics. Some people don't dig that, they just want solid multiplayer gameplay and that's fine. I personally just have trouble finding any sort of intellectual stimulation in these multiplayer modes, they're a blast and I'm not saying I don't like multiplayer games, I'm just saying I would like to see more single player campaigns trying to have more depth and see game companies tout that a bit more proudly. Marketing for games almost always boast about the amazing multiplayer features, or how many hours of side content there is. But there are plenty of people who would like to see games evolve beyond that. I personally felt the Far Cry games did an excellent job of taking some interesting steps towards that evolution, I didn't mean to ruffle the feathers of all the gamers who only care about multiplayer. I just think games could offer a lot more than just digital playgrounds for people to shoot at each other in.
Again, for the record, not against multiplayer games. I Don't know why I can't say "not all games need multiplayer" without people responding as if I just suggested we abolish all multiplayer games. I admit it was shortsighted of me to say Far Cry doesn't need multiplayer, but it seems like single player games get the shaft a lot. Every time a solid single player experience comes out, people complain there's no multiplayer even when it doesn't make sense for there to be any. I'm making an internal bet right now that people will read that statement and completely ignore the logic and claim I'm trying to further oppress the multiplayer gamers, despite basically every modern game being multiplayer, but honestly all I was trying to say from the start is "Far Cry has always had awesome experiences, I hope they don't stop and become another bloated AAA mess".
You don't seem to understand. There are games that do not need competitive multiplayer, like Batman, Tomb Raider, BioShock, and Resident Evil. I get that, and I agree. The single player is already fantastic as it is for Far Cry 4, and they have already put a lot of effort into it. The thing is, specifically when Far Cry Instincts was released 9 years ago, it featured a map editor on the original Xbox. I don't see that you ever bothered to mention about the map editor. The single player story, however, was short and linear at the time.
For each sequel Far Cry had delivered, there is always holding the game back when compared to the original on the original Xbox. Far Cry 2 is released on the Xbox 360 in 2008, with the brand new Dunia engine they had showcased for an open world, immersive single player. The main criticisms for Far Cry 2's multiplayer is the lack of weapon placement, reduced placed vehicle limit, and the mediocre class based system.
Despite these criticisms, it was far more successful than Far Cry 3's multiplayer. Far Cry 3's multiplayer was heavily criticized for the lack of vehicles, lack of weapon placement, lack of AI placement (since its a new feature in the editor), forced matchmaking, no custom private lobbies, ripping off Call of Duty style multiplayer with kill streaks, etc. The map editor improved for Far Cry 3, yes, but Ubisoft Massive decided to limit the map editor's potential. The single player for Far Cry 3 is fine, they improved many criticized aspects of Far Cry 2's single player. Ubisoft understood that failure of Far Cry 3's multiplayer, but instead of going on the right track of what the community wanted, they added a new breed of multiplayer where the traditional Far Cry players didn't ask for in Far Cry 4 in the first place.
Instead of the traditional 16 players with Deathmatch, Team Deathmatch, Capture the Flag, and so on, we receive a 5 vs 5 asymmetrical round based multiplayer that I believe no one had asked for. I am glad that vehicles have returned, and many new features are found in the multiplayer, but the style goes against the traditional multiplayer featured 9 years ago. The map editor is what kept Far Cry's multiplayer strong since 2005 on consoles. What other game out there has a full-fledged first person shooter map editor featured for multiplayer on consoles? There's the TimeSplitters franchise and Pariah. Halo does not necessarily count since its more of an object editor for existing maps rather than building one from scratch. However those games stayed behind before the era of Xbox 360 and the PlayStation 3. Now we have modern games featuring priced downloadable content maps that are first $5, that now go part of the $50 season pass. It's ridiculous, and there are so many untapped potential for Far Cry 3's multiplayer that remain untapped because of the entire new direction for Far Cry 4's multiplayer.
OMG! Someone posted a DIFFERENT opinion from yours! They must be SILENCED! With lots of CAPITALIZED words.Originally Posted by usmovers_02 Go to original post
Well said Krazy ........... I Approve this message Ha! Ha!Originally Posted by KrAzY1337 Go to original post
I highly doubt there will be many issues or complaints regarding the SP component of the game, however, the MP component seems to have been somewhat of an experiment in testing radical ideas in multiplayer theory. For anyone who wants to complain about the reasons why FarCry shouldn't even have multiplayer, the option is there to NOT play it. Don't complain about the MP side of the game if it offends you so much, just don't bother with it then. But don't tell us who enjoy it that we should just play COD like a bunch of 8 year old kids. The same things that appeal to you about FarCry also appeal to us, but in different ways. With the editor we can create our own paradise in hell, and share with others. It's all about being a far cry different than every other MP game on the market!