Far Cry 3: Blood Dragon

DoomUK said:

I can't recall a railshooter or driving segment in a FPS which contributed positively to the game. Whenever I see one of those levels I always think the designers must have ran out of interesting ideas, and resorted to using "filler" to increase the sheer content for some reason. That's not to say incorporating aspects of different genres into your game can't ever work - a foolish proposition that's easily dismissed - but it's certainly an example of how genre-mashing isn't always a good idea.

I'd agree on turret segments, but I have to say that some of the most fun I had in Far Cry 3 was while driving around the island. The more rugged terrain together with the physics made for some great moments. The biggest problem with genre-mashing tends to be that some parts are simply poorly done, not that the mash-up itself is somehow inherently flawed.

Jodwin said:

I'd agree on turret segments, but I have to say that some of the most fun I had in Far Cry 3 was while driving around the island. The more rugged terrain together with the physics made for some great moments. The biggest problem with genre-mashing tends to be that some parts are simply poorly done, not that the mash-up itself is somehow inherently flawed.

I don't want to move the goalposts around, but I think sandbox shooters are an exception. Particularly ones set in environments where you'd expect there to be some form of transport available.

What I'm talking about is the contrived, stupidly long-winded hovercraft and buggy levels in HL2, for instance. As much as I otherwise loved HL2, this was the game's low point(s). They could have at least made the buggy behave more like an actual car, considering Source's then-impressive physics system.

While the story is the only thing that keeps me playing Bioshock infinite, as the game otherwise is pretty awful. I contest the idea that story is important to games. The games I play to see the story I just churn through feeling mostly dissatisfied and quickly forget them after completing them never to look back. Games with game play on the other hand I play and I play for years to come. I come back to them over and over to revisit the game play. Story games like Bioshock works as a distraction for a weekend or two. But games like Quake Live, or X-com which really got no story to speak of at all. I just keep coming back for more.

DoomUK said:

What I'm talking about is the contrived, stupidly long-winded hovercraft and buggy levels in HL2, for instance. As much as I otherwise loved HL2, this was the game's low point(s). They could have at least made the buggy behave more like an actual car, considering Source's then-impressive physics system.

I totally agree with this, but I'd like to point out that they did make note of it in Episode 2 with the new car, which handled so much better.

kristus said:

But games like Quake Live, or X-com which really got no story to speak of at all.

Not so much with Quake live, but the mechanics in X-Com allow you to more or less craft your own story by allowing you to fuck up, and having said fucking up hurt, but not necessarily make things unwinnable. Having a grizzled veteran of dozens of drops fall during a mission gone south, leaving you genuinely wondering if you can turn things around is pretty good drama fuel and can lead to some good yarns over the water cooler (particularly if you're like me and have named your troops after friends of yours).

You can do that. But I don't really care about that stuff. Closest I came to any of that was that I nicknamed my medic "Rezzo" so it would be easier for me to spot him in the field. Damn thing died in the next mission though.

Only reason I care about loosing guys is because it's bad for me to do so. Especially if they are of high rank, since then they got a lot of extra abilities that can be crusial for me in a tight situation.

A reskinned Far Cry 3, nothing that special to me..

Far Cry 3: Fast Edition

Jodwin said:

Far Cry 3: Fast Edition

There's no fall damage either.

Something wonderful is happening :D

Played it for an hour or so today on PS3 - good times. The shotgun in particular is very fun to use.

Only complaints so far are that the audio options appear to be non-existent (I wanted to turn the sfx up and the music and voices down, apparently this cannot be done) and the neon fog glow gets tiresome on the eyes after a while.

I have played the game for a few hours and its awesome. Easily much better then the actual Far Cry 3.

Its actually a bit like Doom because of how fast you can run. Its actually a perfectly possible strategy to just run and gun while almost never taking cover because you can run so fast that enemies have a hard time hitting you.

Also, runing towards cars and then jumping over them while shooting the driver with your shotgun as you do is fucking awesome.

I've been eyeing it, because it's priced pretty reasonably for such an interesting looking game. In terms of gaming hours per dollar value, how does it stack up to the other Far Cries?

schwerpunk said:

In terms of gaming hours per dollar value, how does it stack up to the other Far Cries?

Looking at Far Cry 3, I cleared all the outposts but did maybe a quarter of actual side quests and it took me 22 hours to finish (according to Steam). I'm so far four hours into Blood Dragon, with half the outposts taken, all side quests (that I have available) done and two story missions done. I'd guess it'll be 8-10 hours when I'm done. So in terms of bang for buck, Blood Dragon should serve you better (unless you get Far Cry 3 on sale).

In terms of quality though? The gameplay is definitely better in Blood Dragon, mostly due to three things: Faster speed, the blood dragons themselves and better level design. Where as Far Cry 3 was just an open island with some shanty towns scattered around, Blood Dragon has actual fortified locations with multiple entry points that give you lots of options for capturing the outposts. Even the more linear dungeons in the story missions are fairly well put together with occasional cool set pieces (usually involving blood dragons). All in all, which game you'd like more really depends on what you want from your FPS shooter. I'd consider Far Cry 3 a better experience so far, but Blood Dragon is definitely the superior shooter.

Just finished the game and it was very fun.

There is one big problem I have with it though, and this is the same problem I had with Far Cry 3: Once you finish the game you don't have the option to replay the game again with all of your weapons and upgrades at a higher difficulty level.

You can still go back to the open world, but by the time I had finished the game I only had 1 outpost left to take over and had done most of the side missions, so what's the point?

Far Cry 3 patched in an option to reset all the outposts in the menu, so hopefully Blood Dragon will follow suit (no idea why it's not in the game right off the bat, seeing as it otherwise comply understands everything that made Far Cry 3 fun). It's not quite New Game+ but it's rad that it's there.

Also, just a reminder, there is no fall damage and you start the game with death from above.

Captain Red said:

Far Cry 3 patched in an option to reset all the outposts in the menu, so hopefully Blood Dragon will follow suit (no idea why it's not in the game right off the bat, seeing as it otherwise comply understands everything that made Far Cry 3 fun). It's not quite New Game+ but it's rad that it's there.

Also, just a reminder, there is no fall damage and you start the game with death from above.

Only retaking the outposts sounds very boring.

The outposts are basically just a fun extra. A distraction from the main story missions. While fun, they are basically just the same "kill everything inside the base" mission copy/pasted over and over.

Getting to repaly the whole game with all of your fancy stuff would be sweet, but outposts missions aren't good enough that I would be willing to contine playing just to replay the outpost missions again and again.

Shaviro said:

Hmm well.
I thoroughly enjoyed Bioshock Infinite. The first 30 minutes were amazing. Then action happened and the game started declining in quality. Then Elizabeth entered the game and it was awesome again. Some time passed and it degraded into a stupid action game. The combat grew more and more annoying throughout the game as enemies become increasingly bulletspongy. The story grabbed me and unfolded wonderfully. So what made me finish the game? Well. The combat left me wanting to quit, but I stuck around for the story.

And after having thought about this for some time, it's not at all unlike the other shooters I've played in recent years.

Let's take Far Cry 3 here. The action was somewhat better than Inifite, but the story was nowhere near as interesting. Why did I finish the game? Because hunting down random animals, turning on radio towers and performing similar missions around the island was fun? Nah. That was a fucking chore. I wanted to see how the story progressed.

Crysis 3? The action was dull, the story was trash. I finished it because I wanted to see just how bad it would get. It got bad.

This happens when I'm playing almost all "new" shooters. The action quickly gets dull or annoying. I stick around to see how it unfolds. This rings true for Crysis 3, 2, Far Cry 3, Rage, Singularity, Wolfenstein 2009, Bulletstorm, Doom3 BFG Lost Missions. I could go on.

To be honest I don't think Infinite's action is all that much worse than most other shooters. It's just a lot more noticeable when everything else in the game has so much thought put into it. As for action, well, I think the novelty of almost any game wears off after a while. Sure I'll still play Doom from time to time, but it's not something I'll do for hours on end. I see it as a casual game like having a game of freecell. I'm not really invested in the game, but I'm killing time in an enjoyable fashion.

Personally I'm at a point where I'd like more out of a *new* game than simply pointing at enemies and clicking. I want world and context. That of course doesn't mean I don't think action should evolve (and hopefully evolve beyond the stupid two weapon/regen crap), but I think it's more of a composition issue than it is "story vs. gameplay" which is, in my eyes, a stupid debate.

*EDITED NOTE*
The action in the Black Mesa mod didn't annoy me. For one it's much better implemented, but the game also has a much better balance between its action and narrative. Neither conflicts or contradicts with each other.

I'm not sure how I feel about Biosock Infinite.

The first hour of the game is fucking amazing. I really love they way they introduce the game, story and especially the world which I view to be quite hard.

Over the last years I've noticed that introducing a game (especially a new franchise) is very hard to do. Let's take Dragon Age: Origins for instance. In the human warrior intro, you are put in a boring castle full of boring people.BORING. Because of this, my first impressions of the game were quite bad and only after I tried the game for the third time did I really enjoy it. The game only got interesting after about 30-45 minutes, when Morrigan and Alistair are introduced. Now some of you might say that 40 minutes is not a long time but when you are trying to make a first impression, every minute counts.

In Bioshock, I especially like the initial presentation of the game. It was wondrous, beautiful, incredibly original yet even in the heavenly intro, you still get the feeling that something is not quite right but the feeling is very subtle (just as it should be).Rarely have I seen anything like this. However, after about 3 hours, the quality of the game is gradually worse. The guns are boring, the upgrades are especially boring and you fight the same enemies over and over and worst of all, you are limited to only 2 guns. The gameplay is a Far Cry(lol) from the masterpiece that is System Shock 2 which I consider to be superior in many ways to BioShock. The experience gradually goes from amazing to good (most of the game) and the rest is OK. Also, although I really liked the introduction of Elizabeth, I could never really connect with her. Maybe it's because she viewed me as a crook and wanted to get away from me ASAP.

Another example of great introduction is of course E1M1. It's simple yet highly effective and more to it than meets the eye (just like the game!). What exactly makes it so good? Up until then, players had never seen anything like it, every room in Wolfenstein was basically a square with some doodads maybe. The first room of the game showcases the game's new features very subtly and in a highly effective manner. The first thing you see is the increased texture count and quality, then you see the height variation and then a window. All of these were highly innovative back in the day yet Romero introduced them in a clean and efficient manner (unlike some modern devs)

Oh, and I get what you're saying about uninteresting action in those games but how did RAGE have uninteresting combat? If anything, it had some of the best combat mechanics of 2011 and they had Battlefield 3 to compete with. The guns sounded great, they looked great, the feedback was great, the alternative ammos were great (pop rockets and fat mommas FTW!).

It also had lots of little things that made the game better.The introduction sequences when you pick up a new weapon, how changing ammo types subtly changed how weapons looked and sounded, how they took this even further with the Nailgun, how great it sounds and looks when you see sparks flying from authority soldiers.You can really see how hard they tried to give the weapons personality and why wouldn't they? Guns are often the only things that give an FPS character personality. RAGE had a great deal of problems but the combat was the best thing it did.

I can't believe they put actual Rocky IV music by Vince DiCola in there. Now I'm going to feel all hipster-like when the public at large revels in its epicness.

I am disappointed by the general lack of boss fights though. I guess that's all part of the budgeting and price point. Overall, I give it a 7/10. Feels like a shorter, novelty Just Cause 2 with a lot more 80's in it.

Just finished the storyline.

Holy fuck that Killstar rampage was amazing. 10/10

Just finished it there withh all but 1 xbox achivement left (kill 25 blood dragons). Gotta say if it didbn't have the story missions, I'd say it's midly fun, as the outposts and collections can start to get a bit boring (as previously mentioned) but the story, setting, music and humour, another story.

I'm a 90s kid (born 89) but saw some 80s movies so I may not be the best person to appreciate the game, but even some small stuff like music cues which were so appropriate for 80s movies, and some pure randomness of the story, which would make the experiance bad if we didn't know it's suppose to parody 80s movies, but because we do, it's a great touch. Last mission is a blast. Ain't going to be game of the year but DLC of the year?

Maybe Ubi should do a DLC based on early 90s shooters like Doom and Duke 3D. Far Cry 3D: Return to Dark Hell?

Far Cry 3 mechanics + vibrant color use + 80s cheese and pop culture = this game.

You say that like it's a bad thing.

While it is Far Cry 3 mechanics, the lack of fall damage and doom like running speeds have me playing Blood Dragon completely differently.

Most of my garrison attacks in vanilla Far Cry 3 where basically me sneaking in and stabbfying/plonking pirates and privateers with my bow. Going all out with big loud guns and explosives, while fun, wasn't particularly efficient and had this habit of getting me dead on the later garrisons when I got surrounded.

In Blood Dragon on the other hand had me jumping into a garrison like a deranged monkey on to some Darth punk rejects' head before ninja staring another jerk and tearing shit up with a retardly oversize chain gun. The stealth still works, and is handy when you want to turn of the shields and let a Blood Dragon do the job for you or on hostage rescue, but it's no longer the 'right' way to play.

I don't mind the fall damage in games, it wasn't long until games had it after Doom, but yeah lack of it does help.

Two things from the original Far Cry I wish they'd bring back is alt fire modes and explosion damagable terrain.

It apperently sold a lot better then they thought it would so it looks like we're getting a sequel.

I'm not sure how I feel about that. One the one had it'd probably the most out and out fun I've had in a game in ages, but it's pretty much the perfect package as it is. Drawing it out to a full length game might spread tings a bit thin, or where out it's welcome.

Captain Red said:

It apperently sold a lot better then they thought it would so it looks like we're getting a sequel.

I'm not sure how I feel about that. One the one had it'd probably the most out and out fun I've had in a game in ages, but it's pretty much the perfect package as it is. Drawing it out to a full length game might spread tings a bit thin, or where out it's welcome.

I'd say if they take their time with the potential sequel, it could turn out awesome. Or, rather, a prequel could be pretty cool. The biggest worry I have is that they'd try to rush it out rather than waiting for the market to be ready for an other blastfest. Nonetheless, Blood Dragon selling well should send a very, very positive signal to the rest of the industry. Cheaper, shorter triple-A quality games with outlandish themes is something we need more of.

DooM_RO said:

Oh, and I get what you're saying about uninteresting action in those games but how did RAGE have uninteresting combat? If anything, it had some of the best combat mechanics of 2011 and they had Battlefield 3 to compete with. The guns sounded great, they looked great, the feedback was great, the alternative ammos were great (pop rockets and fat mommas FTW!).

The combat by itself was fine. And by that I mean the simple action/reaction mechanics. The problem was that it was so poorly Integrated. RAGE is like 3 different games. Driving around in the wasteland, running around in the safe houses and then the shooting galleries or arenas. The action rarely had much of anything to do with progressing in the game. You went to a shooting arena (often circular), fought some enemies and went back to the wasteland. It's just way too detached from everything else in the game and when you're done fighting in the arenas, the game goes into whatever mode and nothing you did had much of an impact on the world. The basic action was good yes, but when it feels like you're loading up a different game for the shooting parts it just got dull for me.

It's like if a movie has wonderfully written dialog that flows off the screen like candy, but it does nothing to forward the plot of the movie then it's ultimately pointless. In RAGE I'm fighting a boss because it's there, not because there are any actal implications on the plot or progression of the game. I love the space battles in the original star wars movies. They contain characters I care about and they're filled to the brim with motivation, background and consequence. The opening space battle in episode 3 is nicely made and all, but I just don't give much of a crap about robots vs. clones in random battle #33.