Your thoughts on Far Cry 3?

Anyone else started playing this game?

I have and I must say that I got a lot more then I expected. This game is fantastic.

I was never a fan of the first Far Cry, and I hated the second one. But this one is just fantastic. You have this whole huge island to explore and shitloads of things to do.

I think the cynicalbrit did a great job at explaining why the game is good so I will just post his video about it:

Have you played the game or are you considering getting it?

What are your thoughts on the game in general also?

Discuss.

The general consensus is that it's good and consequently I plan to buy it at some point.

The tropical environments are reminiscent of Far Cry (1), which I like. It's a pity it has nothing to do with the original game though. In my opinion it was one of the best, if not the greatest FPS of the 2000's. Perhaps the incredible jump in technology that the game exhibited at the time had a little influence on it's appeal, but it was nevertheless a great game even once the visual novelty had worn off.

Also, Far Cry (1) had a nice combination of spooky interior levels and spacious, vista-filled exterior levels. From all the screenshots and footage I've seen, FC3 seems to be another sandbox game that's exclusively based outdoors. But I may be mistaken on that.

DoomUK said:

Also, Far Cry (1) had a nice combination of spooky interior levels and spacious, vista-filled exterior levels. From all the screenshots and footage I've seen, FC3 seems to be another sandbox game that's exclusively based outdoors. But I may be mistaken on that.

Most of the game appears to take place outdoors, but there are still some areas that take place in indoor areas as well. Such as caves, and sometimes buildings.

The original is one of my favorite games ever.

Managed to get through the first half of the second game, then I had enough of it. Boring and repetitive.

Definitely going to check this one out.

I'm not so sure what to think of it. The gameplay is pretty good but gets boring after a while. The side missions are not particularly interesting and while the games gives the impression that it gives you tons of stuff to do, it's really just more of the same. The story is really good though, it feels very realistic.

Another thing people keep praising is the graphics but they are not as stellar as you might think and the game is very poorly optimized. The game got me thinking how sad it is that Crysis 1 still has the best graphics ever in any video game... and it's a FIVE year old game, which shows the sorry state the industry is in. Here's hoping Id Software come up with something jaw-dropping again.

DooM_RO said:

the game is very poorly optimized.

Oh, really?

http://www.dsogaming.com/pc-performance-analyses/far-cry-3-is-the-most-optimized-pc-game-of-2012-pc-performance-analysis/

Game runs great on my PC at very high setting. And while I have a good PC its not a super computer.

DooM_RO said:

The game got me thinking how sad it is that Crysis 1 still has the best graphics ever in any video game... and it's a FIVE year old game

And do you remember how many people could actually play the game at the highest setting when the game was new at the time? I do: Next to fucking nobody.

hardcore_gamer said:

Oh, really?

http://www.dsogaming.com/pc-performance-analyses/far-cry-3-is-the-most-optimized-pc-game-of-2012-pc-performance-analysis/

Game runs great on my PC at very high setting. And while I have a good PC its not a super computer.




And do you remember how many people could actually play the game at the highest setting when the game was new at the time? I do: Next to fucking nobody.

Crysis 1 looks better and runs better on my high end PC.

DooM_RO said:

Crysis 1 still has the best graphics ever in any video game

I can't agree with this.

Highest level of fidelity, maybe. But to me Crysis and Crysis 2 have always been a case of "wasted potential". I find games like Mirror's Edge, Skyrim and the Mass Effect series more attractive to look at because they're interesting to look at, even if they're lacking the sheer technical prowess of what's afforded by CryEngine. There's got to be an abundance of amazing things you could do with the technology behind the Crysis games, if it was left in the hands of some artists with some imagination.

With Bethesda's idea of what visual fidelity is (apparently, every single artist involved in Skyrim has some unknown eye disease causing their vision to brighten or darken instantly and significantly when they look up and down), I shudder to think what might happen if they licensed the CryEngine. Don't get me started on that absurd filter whitewashing everything. Makes you wonder why they even bothered putting colors in, all that work in textures, environment, etc. gone to waste.

Thankfully, either thing is easily fixable and doing so makes Skyrim looks gorgeous. Still... This game isn't an isolated case lately, and seeing "realistic" features done wrong so many times makes me appreciate Crysis all the more for doing it right. There is beauty in a decent simulation, even if it's not necessarily as captivating as a fictional setting.

Phml said:

This game isn't an isolated case lately, and seeing "realistic" features done wrong so many times makes me appreciate Crysis all the more for doing it right. There is beauty in a decent simulation, even if it's not necessarily as captivating as a fictional setting.

There's no more of a subjective question than "What makes good art?"

But if you theoretically judge good graphics by how well they simulate the majesty of the world we live in, then you might as well look at high-end CAD software, which has been producing lifelike environments longer than games have and even Crysis has a long way to go before it comes anywhere close to matching it (the "uncanny valley" phenomena that haunts flawlessly accurate rendering notwithstanding). Again, I'd rather have a game that transposes me into a world which is interesting to look at, regardless of it's realism or unrealism, than beautifully accurate but boring environments that were once a novelty but now we've already seen in games hundreds of times.

DoomUK said:

I can't agree with this.

Highest level of fidelity, maybe. But to me Crysis and Crysis 2 have always been a case of "wasted potential". I find games like Mirror's Edge, Skyrim and the Mass Effect series more attractive to look at because they're interesting to look at, even if they're lacking the sheer technical prowess of what's afforded by CryEngine. There's got to be an abundance of amazing things you could do with the technology behind the Crysis games, if it was left in the hands of some artists with some imagination.

Hmm, I partially agree, Mass Effect, Deus Ex HR, Doom 3 and the new Xcom game(which is looks like ME3 although I really like that) all look amazing at but for me at least, graphical fidelity is also very important and I also think that the original Crysis is more interesting than you think, but that's just me.

I find the gameplay in FC3 to be pretty boring too. It's much too easy to get new weapons and after clearing 25 boring outposts and skinning pretty much every animal, I kinda get a feeling of how limited it actually is. Just because it's nonlinear and open world doesn't mean it's necessarily good. I mean it is fun (for a while) but I don't think it deserves all the praise it gets. I find this an indicator for how bored people are of modern linear shooters. Do you hear me Id? I hope you're taking notes!

DooM_RO said:

It's much too easy to get new weapons

I agree with this actually.

Hopefully someone will make a mod that prevents radio towers from unlocking your weapons for you for free and upps the cost for buying them.

DooM_RO said:

after clearing 25 boring outposts and skinning pretty much every animal, I kinda get a feeling of how limited it actually is.

The outposts are side missions and not the main story missions, so I think it is kind of dumb to bash the game for having "boring missions". I personally find the outposts to be a neat edition to the game.

But if you theoretically judge good graphics by how well they simulate the majesty of the world we live in, then you might as well look at high-end CAD software, which has been producing lifelike environments longer than games have and even Crysis has a long way to go before it comes anywhere close to matching it (the "uncanny valley" phenomena that haunts flawlessly accurate rendering notwithstanding).

I've never felt the uncanny valley looking at a tree or water. I think it's something restricted to human beings for the most part, perhaps animals we're familiar with.

Playing games just to look at things isn't my thing either. I mean, pushing the quoted argument further you could say there is no point to look at things in a video game as you can look at photography or painting instead.

Again, I'd rather have a game that transposes me into a world which is interesting to look at, regardless of it's realism or unrealism, than beautifully accurate but boring environments that were once a novelty but now we've already seen in games hundreds of times.

Hard to disagree with that. Of course, I would likely think of the opposite games.

Crysis' islands are places I love just running around, exploring between firefights, taking a look at the trees, the waterfalls, the ocean, the hills. Mass Effect's spaceship interiors make me think of the oh-so-many identical spaceship interiors I've seen (I'd guess there is more to the games than that, but I'm not a big fan of space opera and grew bored of the first game within two hours while in an elevator, so didn't see much of it). Skyrim's outdoors just feel like stepping foot in Oblivion and Fallout 3 again - don't get me wrong, a much better looking Oblivion/Fallout3, but I can't unsee the similarities. Mirror's Edge blent together in my mind as a forgettable succession of generic city environments, the visuals were only interesting in their relation to the gameplay (which, again, is not a bad thing, but definitely not a game environment I want to stop and look at).

I'm having a lot of fun with FarCry 3, it's a good game. And when you get to the second island, you get a wing suit!

DoomUK said:

There's got to be an abundance of amazing things you could do with the technology behind the Crysis games, if it was left in the hands of some artists with some imagination.

IDK, Crysis 1 has some pretty breathtaking art direction, like the first reveal of the island when the sun comes up, or the frozen waves. In fact, the whole "ice world" is pretty amazing.

Even things like the military equipment aren't modeled straight off real life equivalents ala dudebro FPSes.

Crysis 2 also does an excellent job of making a believable future NYC.

The game itself suffered a lot from some odd decisions (mainly EA forcing them to release the game – particularly the PC version – before it was complete), but C3 seems to be on the right track.

I Had a ball with Far Cry 3. A bit on the easy side mostly (though the second island does get hectic at times) but finding new an interesting ways to attack out posts (luring carnivorous animals with rocks, just using the knife exclusively, using the flair gun exclusively, going full Rambo with explosive arrows and LMGs, strapping C4 to a jeep and bailing out as it barrels toward a cluster of pirates complaining about the clap) was worth every cent I spent on it.

Would also like to point out that this game probably has the best driving physics of any FPS I've played. Cars handle like rally cars and are actually fun to drive.

Haven't played it. It looks great, like Fallout 3. I'm looking forward to playing it in a few years when it's on sale for 5 bucks.

It's not really like Fallout3, different genre of game. If anything it is a first-person Red Dead Redemption, but better.