Far Cry 3: Blood Dragon

It appears to be a going to/coming out of a scoped view. Probably after causing that explosion by shooting what I can only imagine was a red barrel.

Share this post


Link to post

maybe that big ol' explosion is from that gun. You don't know it's an assault rifle, that could be what a rocket launcher looks like in the space year 2007.

Share this post


Link to post

True enough, 2007 is a brave new world of endless possibilities, a mere 8 years from hoverboards, Mr. Fusion power generators, and self-tying Nikes.

Share this post


Link to post

Those two screenshots look pretty badass.

Share this post


Link to post

The PC version was leaked somehow and there are videos out there that you can watch. It's an island open world game like its predecessor. Starts out with a Predator style helicopter intro, followed by a hilarious lampshade of video game tutorials. And the best first person reload animations you'll ever see.

Share this post


Link to post

The healing animations are a treat, too. Welding your cyborg arm, using a grip exerciser in your human hand...

Share this post


Link to post
GeckoYamori said:

The PC version was leaked somehow and there are videos out there that you can watch.

I watched one.

The best thing about it is the 2D cutscenes. I hate to be a stick-in-the-mud, but besides those it doesn't seem all that different to any other contemporary FPS, with its "Protect Lieutenant Brown while he hacks the mainframe" mission objective and the "Press Y to heal" messages on the screen.

I know it's too early to draw conclusions, but I was hoping for something which didn't subscribe to oversimplified modern shooter tropes, in the spirit of the faux-retro theme which harks back to an age when games of a similar sort weren't so dumbed-down. Interesting gimmicks like the cyborg arm don't redeem it, when the core gameplay seems so dull and uninteresting.

It seems like the gaming equivalent of an 80's/early 90's action movie reboot. Getting Michael Biehn involved doesn't even save it.

Share this post


Link to post

+1 DoomUK. The initial concept got me interested, but videos make it look like just your standard modern FPS with a paint job.

It's probably going to be well received because people will see it as cleverly ironic and random, but it just seems like there's a missed opportunity here.

Share this post


Link to post

If you have played FarCry 3, you will realise after watching the videos that it is essentially FarCry3 re-skinned, which is not really a bad thing.

Share this post


Link to post

Far Cry 3 was one of the few modern shooters that surprised me with a solid foundation behind the cinematic AAA facade. Can't really say the same for other games like Bioshock Infinite.

Share this post


Link to post

Ah yeah. You don't play Bioshock for the shooting mechanics, though I am annoyed that instead of sticking with what was pretty much Quake 2 with magic powers and lite RPG elements in the first Bioshock they decided to switch to Halo with magic powers and even lighter RPG elements in Bioshock infinite.

Share this post


Link to post

Don't mean to turn this into a Bioshock thread, but:-

Captain Red said:

they decided to switch to Halo with magic powers and even lighter RPG elements in Bioshock infinite.

I grew a little tired of Vanessa (or whatever her name is) following me around, and I also got bored of the "lighter and softer" atmosphere compared to the eeriness of Bioshock 1/2, but I've no idea what you're talking about here. It plays just like the original did, with different plasmids and weapons. The RPG elements are no more or less prominent than the first's.

Share this post


Link to post

A FPS you're not supposed to play for combat mechanics seems kind of counter-intuitive.

Share this post


Link to post

Well it's not like there's a lot of news for blood dragon outside of what's been posted, so until something else rolls around...

DoomUK said:

[...] but I've no idea what you're talking about here. It plays just like the original did, with different plasmids and weapons. The RPG elements are no more or less prominent than the first's.

You didn't notice the two weapon limit and recharging shield? They also dropped the (admittedly overpowered) gene splicing character customization from the first game and boiled it down to "you can upgrade health, shield or 'mana'". I guess there's also that wired clothing system that gives you cretin traits, but it's not as robust as the splicing machines from the first two games.

GeckoYamori said:

A FPS you're not supposed to play for combat mechanics seems kind of counter-intuitive.

It kind of is yeah.

Part of me wants to call it a bad game, but I sat down and finished the whole damn thing in one sitting, and will almost certainly do it again in the near future.

Old Campster did a review on it that covers most of what's worth saying about it:

Share this post


Link to post

AHHAHAHA! no sooner have I posted my silly derail then it pops up on steam and with an awesome trailer:

Share this post


Link to post
Captain Red said:

You didn't notice the two weapon limit and recharging shield?

Oh right, that. Yes, they're fucktarded things to put in a game. No quarrels there. But I wouldn't say anything you've listed changes the way the game feels. For a modern FPS, it's not a bad game at all.

EDIT: That trailer is absolutely magnificent.

Share this post


Link to post

And everything in that trailer is still more credible than that magic tatau nonsense.

Share this post


Link to post

That trailer is slammin'. I mean totally bitchin'. It's da bomb.

Share this post


Link to post

There's actually been plenty of debate among forums and youtube personalities on how hollow Infinite feels behind its ambitious scope in storytelling, and I'm glad that's happening. I pretty much feared it would turn out this way from the start as I've been jaded over the whole "spectacle over gameplay" trend for years ago, but at least I was wrong about people just eating it up like usual (aside from the typical press response).

It's not like I had my mind made up from the start and wanted it to be bad. I wrote off Far Cry 3 based on what they initially showed as well, but it turned out to have some real substance to it. I have this suspicion that they had a lot more in mind for Infinite as a game, but it evidently had some troubled development and I think whatever they planned was likely sacrificed for the sake of a finished product.

Share this post


Link to post
Enjay said:

That trailer is slammin'. I mean totally bitchin'. It's da bomb.


Rad, perhaps?

Share this post


Link to post

if you hold down the melee button you can flip off your enemies brutal doom style.

I don't know what is real anymore.

Share this post


Link to post

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.

Share this post


Link to post
SandGator said:

Rad, perhaps?

Totally rad! :D

Share this post


Link to post
Shaviro said:

"story vs. gameplay"

I'll never contend that a well-thought-out story and characterisation in a FPS/3rdPS can't be beneficial to the gameplay. The Mass Effect series wouldn't be quite the same if they consisted of random sequences of shooting aliens and nothing else. But I think an action game with very minimal story and expository sequences can be more engaging and immersive than one which is trying to be an interactive movie, or is trying to be multiple genres of game. In other words, I WILL contend that it isn't necessarily necessary.

Doom and Half-Life are two good examples of this. The action in both games is driven by the lack of story, and the slow unraveling of mystery. Both games are essentially about a guy who finds himself abandoned in a demon/alien-infested world, within which he must find a means of escape. Neither requires any more complexity than that to be enjoyable. HL has a bit more going on than Doom, of course, with the NPC chatter to listen to, the introduction of a hostile third faction (the military), and the whole mystery of G-Man as he ominously watches Gordon's progress. But a direct novelisation of either game - with no attempt to flesh the story out - would fit on a pamphlet.

Of course, regardless of the amount of content there's a right way and a wrong way to convey an (action) game's story to the player without it interfering with the action itself. Precisely how this is done depends on what's happening and what needs to be told to them. HL did this in a very natural and unobtrusive way. But if either Doom or HL were bogged down with expository cutscenes, or simply more exposition at all, it would ruin the whole experience in my opinion. Less is more.

Share this post


Link to post
DoomUK said:

But I think an action game with very minimal story and expository sequences can be more engaging and immersive than one which is trying to be an interactive movie, or is trying to be multiple genres of game.


Well sure. It *can* be, but it goes both ways. The same is true about the opposite. Well done > poorly done. As for genres, fuck them. Games aren't better because they are confined within a narrow artificial box. It's like when people list what Doom4 should be and they have 1 billion things that "aren't doom", leaving them with a carbon copy of Doom1.

Doom and Half-Life are two good examples of this. The action in both games is driven by the lack of story, and the slow unraveling of mystery. Both games are essentially about a guy who finds himself abandoned in a demon/alien-infested world, within which he must find a means of escape. Neither requires any more complexity than that to be enjoyable.


Like I wrote in my latest post, I found Black Mesa to have an excellent composition of narrative and action. That doesn't mean you can't turn up the narrative, as long as you adjust everything else accordingly so you avoid contractions.

Of course, regardless of the amount of content there's a right way and a wrong way to convey an (action) game's story to the player without it interfering with the action itself. Precisely how this is done depends on what's happening and what needs to be told to them. HL did this in a very natural and unobtrusive way. But if either Doom or HL were bogged down with expository cutscenes, or simply more exposition at all, it would ruin the whole experience in my opinion. Less is more.


Well. HL had expository cutscenes, however they were integrated into the game. The trainride of course (some find that obtrusive. I found it brilliant), but then you have stuff like the gman conversing with a scientist. People going about their business. Systems breaking, people talking about "it" being a mistake. Foreshadowing. All non-obtrusive.

That doesn't mean you can't have a game with cutscenes that's still engaging and immersive without ruining the action. I find Dark Forces 2: Jedi Knight to be an excellent example of this.

Share this post


Link to post

I respect the idea of eschewing realism in favour of LASERs and explosions, but the action depicted in the Far Cry 3 trailer doesn't grab me as entertaining. I'm more excited about the totally rad title screen than anything else. And I don't have to buy the game to enjoy the title screen. :/

Still, I'm keeping an open mind, and I hope it does well, because I would like modern shooters to get out of their military-realism slump.

Share this post


Link to post
Shaviro said:

It *can* be, but it goes both ways. The same is true about the opposite. Well done > poorly done.

What constitutes "well done" is what's of interest here, and what generally works best. We can always use the "It depends" argument, but I honestly think certain types of games don't require a sophisticated story to be immersive.

Bioshock (1) is another good example. Certainly a more story-driven game than Doom or HL, but it's premise is pretty simple (not simple-minded), and it never intrudes on the player. The game isn't without its faults, or even moments where you're forced to stand and listen to expository dialogue for what seems like an eternity. But for the most part, mystery and exploration drive the player forward and it works beautifully thanks to this.

Shaviro said:

As for genres, fuck them. Games aren't better because they are confined within a narrow artificial box. It's like when people list what Doom4 should be and they have 1 billion things that "aren't doom", leaving them with a carbon copy of Doom1.

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.

Shaviro said:

HL had expository cutscenes, however they were integrated into the game.

When I think of cutscenes, I think of the camera leaving the player's POV and focusing on something else. Or at least, pausing the action to focus on something. Doom 3 had them, among a wealth of other games that are too many to list. It's a different technique to integrating all of the storytelling into the player's perspective without interrupting anything, which is what constitutes the "Half-Life method".

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now