Far Cry 4

[johnny_zoo]

No it could be better.

 

First person shooters are dated genres. They should have an option where you could at least choose from third or first. That would be the smart thing to do. But as usual the woman thinks it's all about her.

[Mista J]

No. This is a unique FPS and it should stay that way.

[Vercetti42]

First person shooters are dated genres.

 

Elaborate.

 

 

They should have an option where you could at least choose from third or first. That would be the smart thing to do.

 

No it won't:

 

1) It would ruin the purpose and uniqueness of the series.

 

2) It won't work anyways. FC has a lot of shooting in it and also has weapon customization and stuff which would look weird in Third Person view.

Edited May 17, 2014 by Vercetti42

[*MURDOC*]

No it could be better.

 

First person shooters are dated genres. They should have an option where you could at least choose from third or first. That would be the smart thing to do. But as usual the woman thinks it's all about her.

 

"You're talking a lot, but you're not saying anything."

 

[KBG]

Now its officially announced by Ubisoft! 18 Nov'14

[sivispacem]

First person shooters are dated genres.

Explain? I mean, I get the fact that you don't like them, but they're pretty much the most popular genre of game across most of the world. How are they any more "dated" than third-person shooters?

 

Personally I find third-person shooters tend to be clunky and imprecise. But I don't go calling for every TPS to incorporate a first-person element to make gunplay better. Partially because I'm aware of how much work would be required to do it, and partially because it's a bit stupid.

[*MURDOC*]

I don't think some people understand the amount of work it takes to make these games.

 

"They should make it first person and have the option for third person."

 

That's literally like 10 times as much work, what with character animations, collision detection, camera systems and everything else that goes into it.

Edited May 17, 2014 by *MURDOC*

[El Dildo]

Murdoc, Sivis.

please.

 

stop introducing logic into the discussion.

if we all started listening to reason we wouldn't have anything to bitch about and bitching accounts for at least 3/4 of GTAForums gross economic output.

[KBG]

Yeah. Everyone have their own unique opinion about the game. But personally, I liked Far Cry 3. Especially Vaas' quote "Did I ever tell you the definition of Insanity?"

[johnny_zoo]

 

First person shooters are dated genres.

Explain? I mean, I get the fact that you don't like them, but they're pretty much the most popular genre of game across most of the world. How are they any more "dated" than third-person shooters?

 

Personally I find third-person shooters tend to be clunky and imprecise. But I don't go calling for every TPS to incorporate a first-person element to make gunplay better. Partially because I'm aware of how much work would be required to do it, and partially because it's a bit stupid.

 

Errr, OK guys I kinda just woke up and posted to increase post count. I wanted to express my hate for a genre/game which I forgot existed until I saw Far Cry 4 was coming out via this thread. So I just typed words and letters.

 

Although I did hate FPS's until Far Cry 3 so I am a fan of this game.

 

Look I just felt a TPS would be better because of a more versatile field of view and camera movement. Ive never made a game before so I didn't know it requires all that work.

 

Ive learnt a lesson never post after just waking up.

[FullMetal]

Advocate of the devil and unpopular opinion here:

 

I loved the living hell out of Far Cry 3 and pretty much overdid the experience (playing it pretty much for 2 weeks straight... every day a 5 ish (or even more I dare to admit) hours.

BUT: the game had alot of lacking to make it a true and worthwhile 'open world' experience. Gameplaywise it was solid... but nothing really spectacular or innovating. They had alot of different things... but not fleshed out enough.

 

Crafting could've been done alot better/more challenging. Also more things to be crafted in my opinion. Weaponhandling felt allright... but they should've gone alot further with it (especially in a 'open world'). Not to mention the attachement system (they always try alot of different attachements' yet all these games stick with rather limited customisation options that offer up to no difference in weapon builds).

 

In short: the game was really enjoyable but had no lasting (replay) value. I sincerely hope they improve upon it a damn lot because that might make this a insta buy for me. (altho, even after that I might realise it could have the same problems as Far Cry 3).

[Cosmic Gypsy]

One of the things i hated about Far Cry 3, you were never more than a minute away from a road, i mean you're supposed to be on some island with plenty of wilderness and country side but the map is just so small and crammed in, there really isn't any true wilderness area's, which to me was disappointing. On Far Cry 2 the map was huge, i remember if i wasn't careful playing that game i could end up miles away from the nearest road or piece of civilization.

I also wish they focused on survival. Killing animals not only to craft but to cook and eat, making a camp site, etc.

[Wayne Daniels]

I don't think some people understand the amount of work it takes to make these games.

 

"They should make it first person and have the option for third person."

 

That's literally like 10 times as much work, what with character animations, collision detection, camera systems and everything else that goes into it.

Firstly I think Far Cry should stay first person, it's what has made it unique.

But for argument sake it can be done and done well. Take Skyrim for example. I was surprised how well done it was compared to the last game. I use both for different situations.

[sivispacem]

It doesn't work that well in Skyrim. The third person is clunky for movement and the first person doesn't have enough fluidity to make combat really rewarding. That was actually my biggest gripe with the game- and New Vegas too.

[iNero]

Combine Ghost Recons Third Person with Far Cry 3s first person and you got 2 decent perspectives.

Although it will never happen in Far Cry.Which I dont mind since I would play it in first person anyways. Gives you better immersion imo.

[Bonnano]

[johnny_zoo]

I also wish they focused on survival. Killing animals not only to craft but to cook and eat, making a camp site, etc.

 

Camp site? This is not BEAR GRYLLS. May as well just go out to the wilderness in real life mate.

[Mista J]

This is a game about survival. It makes sense to have something like that in there.

Edited May 17, 2014 by DarthShinobi

[iNero]

This is a game about survival. It makes sense to have something like that in there

 

This. Far Cry lacked depth in that Open World setting. You dont have to make it too realistic, but they already showd realistic approaches with the fall damage. YOu lost a lot of health even when falling from relatively low heights.

Or healing by using bandages and so on.

[Mista J]

I used to drop on purpose so I can see Jason pop his thumb back into place.

[iNero]

Although I have to say, that I dont want the gun jamming from FC2 again. It was so annoying...

[Creed Bratton]

This is a game about survival. It makes sense to have something like that in there.

From a gameplay perspective it wouldn't make sense. The island isn't uninhabited and untouched by civilization. There are camps and villages everywhere. There are vehicles and friendlies everywhere. Hunting for food and setting up camps wouldn't add anything to the game aside from frustration. The entire game would have to be redesigned in order to implement those features in a way that would make sense. Think of Metal Gear Solid 3. In that game survival elements made sense because the entire jungle was hostile. There were no friendly places. Just you against the enemies and the environment. Now, I'd like to see a Far Cry game like that, but the elements that you suggest wouldn't work in Far Cry 3. It would have to be a completely different game.

 

Also, a game about survival isn't the same thing as a survival game.

Edited May 17, 2014 by The Yokel

[iNero]

 

This is a game about survival. It makes sense to have something like that in there.

From a gameplay perspective it wouldn't make sense. The island isn't uninhabited and untouched by civilization. There are camps and villages everywhere. There are vehicles and friendlies everywhere. Hunting for food and setting up camps wouldn't add anything to the game aside from frustration. The entire game would have to be redesigned in order to implement those features in a way that would make sense. Think of Metal Gear Solid 3. In that game survival elements made sense because the entire jungle was hostile. There were no friendly places. Just you against the enemies and the environment. Now, I'd like to see a Far Cry game like that, but the elements that you suggest wouldn't work in Far Cry 3. It would have to be a completely different game.

 

 

You saw any supermarkets on that island?

You have hunting in the game. You even get meat to sell, so why not giving the option to cook it and use it instead of crafting syringes?!

Same for the camps. You get new camps by taking outposts. Why not giving the option to make your own? I mean, they even have a Map Editor. Cant be that hard to implement.

Edited May 17, 2014 by iNero

[Creed Bratton]

You saw any supermarkets on that island?

You have hunting in the game. You even get meat to sell, so why not giving the option to cook it and use it instead of crafting syringes?!

Same for the camps. You get new camps by taking outposts. Why not giving the option to make your own? I mean, they even have a Map Editor. Cant be that hard to implement.

There's no point. It doesn't add anything. Even the "survival" elements that are there were poorly implemented. So poorly in fact, that I can't help but wonder if Far Cry 3 was imagined as a survival game at first, and then their focus shifted sometime during the development to appeal to a wider audience.

Edited May 17, 2014 by The Yokel

[iNero]

 

You saw any supermarkets on that island?

You have hunting in the game. You even get meat to sell, so why not giving the option to cook it and use it instead of crafting syringes?!

Same for the camps. You get new camps by taking outposts. Why not giving the option to make your own? I mean, they even have a Map Editor. Cant be that hard to implement.

There's no point. It doesn't add anything. Even the "survival" elements that are there were poorly implemented. So poorly in fact, that I can't help but wonder if Far Cry 3 was imagined as a survival game at first, and then their focus shifted sometime during the development to appeal to a wider audience.

 

 

Then I can also say that Poker and knife throwing doesnt add anything...

They are in for the player to have fun. Thats what games are about. Adding realism of building is something many players have fun with.

Besides that. Cooking to get food which can be used to heal does add a lot.

There is a reason why many games ( especially survival games ) are adding it.

And now saying that the survival was "poor" in FC3 has nothing to do with Far Cry 4.

[Creed Bratton]

Then I can also say that Poker and knife throwing doesnt add anything...

 

They are in for the player to have fun. Thats what games are about. Adding realism of building is something many players have fun with.

Besides that. Cooking to get food which can be used to heal does add a lot.

There is a reason why many games ( especially survival games ) are adding it.

And now saying that the survival was "poor" in FC3 has nothing to do with Far Cry 4.

Poker and knife throwing are mini-games. They are entirely optional. What they add or don't add is entirely subjective. Optional survival elements don't make sense. It's not a survival game if you can choose to ignore survival elements. And I doubt that Far Cry 4 will be a survival game. I'd like it to be, but I doubt it. I wanted Far Cry 3 to be a survival game as well. And I'd rather have a good shooter than some weird, terrible survival-shooter hybrid that doesn't make any sense.

Edited May 17, 2014 by The Yokel

[darthYENIK]

I agree. There was a lack of interesting side missions. But the ones that were there were fairly fun. Especially the Trial of the Rakyat missions.

 

I'd prefer some interesting and deeper missions with stories.

[TheMcSame]

 

First person shooters are dated genres.

 

Elaborate.

 

 

They should have an option where you could at least choose from third or first. That would be the smart thing to do.

 

 

 

It won't work anyways.

FC has a lot of shooting in it

also has weapon customization and stuff which would look weird in Third Person view.

 

Why wouldn't it work?

Fallout has a lot of shooting in it and third person worked...

Fallout NV also has weapon customization and (stuff?... what stuff?) and it looks perfectly fine in third person...

 

If a company like Bethesda can do it then I'm sure a huge company like Ubisoft that has 74 billion different divisions with more people working for them then there is people in China (Okay I'm going slightly over the top there but you get the point) would have no problem doing this.

[Corndawg93]

I hope there are yetis in this game

[sivispacem]

Why wouldn't it work?

Fallout has a lot of shooting in it and third person worked...

Not brilliantly. Don't get me wrong, it was better than F3 but it wasn't even close to games like Far Cry 3 in terms of the fluidity of gunplay.

 

The third person element adds to an RPG because they're all about how many different ways you can play the game. It doesn't do much for a game that's primarily a shooter, albeit an open-world one. I can't be the only person who thinks that, on the whole, third person lack a great deal of the rewarding precision you get in FPS.

 

Also, about the roads- I don't find the idea of lots of dirt tracks to be unbelievable. I mean, the islands are inhabited by a civilian population who have lots of vehicles. There are hundreds of well armed pirates and mercenaries with their own vehicles too. And there are huge stretches of the mountainous areas- up to about 1500m wide in some places- that are completely inaccessible by vehicle.