Far Cry 2

Originally Posted by Sir Markus
I just don't think this is a very good PC game.

Ah - … now I see what you meant. The graphics fidelity and 'quality' might be better, but what they are rendering is bland and crappy. Agreed.

Originally Posted by Sir Markus
But actually, this game DOES look 2008; for consoles. In terms of overall graphic quality, the original Farcry is far better and it's not even close in my opinion. And don't get me started on the quirks present courtesy of multi-platform development. I just don't think this is a very good PC game.

I agree 100%, I hated FarCry 2 within 3-4 hours of installing it. It feels like a console shooter through and through. It has none of the atmosphere that made FarCry so good when it was released.

I also like how you mentioned Dead Space in your original post. I agree that is a title that definitely proves games don't have to stink just because they may have been developed for consoles first. Once I got used to the quirky controls, I loved every tension filled minute of that game.

JDR13: I agree Dead Space was outstanding; it was one of those rare games where when it ended, I didn't know what to try next because nothing seemed interesting after that experience. Farcry 2 isn't the worst game ever made, but I don't think it deserves the ratings it has received. It's fun, just kind of ugly and repetitive; I'm going to finish it though, and if it gets significantly better between now and the endgame, I'll own up to it.

I have lost faith in review scores … even more than usual - because the text supports the hyperbolic scoring … but it is all crap.

Now I have to disagree somewhat. Visually, Far Cry 2 is one of those stunners that sometimes made me stop up playing and just enjoy the virtual sunrise/sundown. That's how beautiful the game is. I cannot come up with a long list of games that looks better. Atmospherically it does lack something though. I played the game right after S.T.A.L.K.E.R Clear Sky which beats Far Cry 2 out of the water when it comes to atmosphere. The problem might be the lack of sound effects. FC2 doesn't sound like Africa, or at least how I believe Africa would sound, instead the audio is mostly music, car engines, explosions, gunshots and african obscenities. Also FC2 miss the flashlight, which is kinda odd, and it have no dangerous wildlife.

Controls and gameplay is equal to many other recent shooters. I remember no trace of consolization that disturbed me, the FPS controls felt natural for a PC shooter. The scenarios and what you had to do wasn't that unique either, it's what I would expect from a modern PC sandbox game.

The game just happens to be really boring. The greatest issue is that it takes longer to go from mission to mission, than actually completing the mission. You will spend maybe 90% of your time on the road, going from point A to point B, only to quickly wrap up your task only to be on your way to point C. While doing so, except to run into respawning guardposts all the time, and they are most likely going to follow you in a carchase, kill your car and then you have to take theirs and then go on, until you reach the next guardpost, repeat. This is fun the first few times, but after 5-10% of the game you are starting to wonder if there's a mod to remove them so you can just enjoy the game. Kinda like those annoying birds in Morrowind that offered little more than an ongoing nuisance.

FC2 did push me into making the "Free-roaming, either empty or broken" thread. FC2 to me belongs to the 1st group. The engine is pretty much rock solid in my book, it's just an empty experience.

Originally Posted by JemyM
Controls and gameplay is equal to many other recent shooters. I remember no trace of consolization that disturbed me, the FPS controls felt natural for a PC shooter. The scenarios and what you had to do wasn't that unique either, it's what I would expect from a modern PC sandbox game.

No offense, but your expectations must be a lot lower than mine.

No trace of consolization? How about the ridiculously stupid and unrealistic way new weapons were purchased?

Lets go to a shack with nobody inside, just a computer sitting on a table. Low and behold we can buy guns from this computer by feeding it diamonds! Then the guns just magically appear in another shack next door. Not just any guns mind you, but guns that respawn infinitely!

Originally Posted by JDR13
No trace of consolization? How about the ridiculously stupid and unrealistic way new weapons were purchased?
Lets go to a shack with nobody inside, just a computer sitting on a table. Low and behold we can buy guns from this computer by feeding it diamonds! Then the guns just magically appear in another shack next door. Not just any guns mind you, but guns that respawn infinitely!

This have nothing to do with consoles, and it's a gamedesign I find similar to many famous and celebrated PC games. If you are going down the road of demanding shops in games making sense, there's no return.

Common cliché's:
* People will ask you for your help, then force you to buy the equipment you need.
* Shopowners pop up in all sorts of places, including the wilderness, in the middle of warzones etc, and still offer a huge selection even if there's not a single person in sight beyond your party and they have no wagon nearby. In Diablo the town consisted of like 3 people, yet the shop carried a huge selection of magic supreme weapons.
* You buy directly from vendor machines that just hand over armor and weapons like they were candybars, like in Dead Space.
* Shop owners have infinite gold and will without hesitation buy all your crap. In games like Diablo you even threw the money on the ground in front of the shop owner to pick up when you needed it. In others you carried tons of money without encumberance.
* Some games uses townportals to make it easier to sell loot. These portals open up a direct portal between a dangerous dungeon and the middle of the town center, luckly monsters never follow through the portal.
* Other games skipped that entirely and instead allow you to carry your vendor with you (like Zin Bu in Jade Empire).

Having said all that, shops is a gameplay component and gameplay is usually better when it's fun than when it try to match "realism".

Originally Posted by JemyM
it's a gamedesign I find similar to many famous and celebrated PC games. If you are going down the road of demanding shops in games making sense, there's no return.

No….it's not. I know this because I've played just about all of them. That is why FarCry 2 irked me so badly. All of your comparisons were games that took place in a Sci-Fi or fantasy world, FC2 was supposed to simulate a "real" world.

Originally Posted by JemyM
Having said all that, shops is a gameplay component and gameplay is usually better when it's fun than when it try to match "realism".

Why not just try to do both? FC2's system certainly wouldn't have been less "fun" if a little realism had been implemented.

Originally Posted by JDR13
No….it's not. I know this because I've played just about all of them. That is why FarCry 2 irked me so badly. All of your comparisons were games that took place in a Sci-Fi or fantasy world, FC2 was supposed to simulate a "real" world.

I heard that argument before and I will never buy it. A sci-fi/fantasy setting tweak specific aspects of reality. Once those specific aspects have been agreed on, the rest must still make sense. That means that an ordinary human without magic or hightech equipment cannot suddenly fly or breathe fire just because they are placed in a fantasy setting. That also doesn't mean you can tweak the rules of business and merchants because there's orcs and elves. Good writers can usually exploit specific features of the unique setting and still make things feel natural.

But games bend rules to make a better game. Games that tries to follow the "realism zeal" often fails.

Having said that, non-scifi/fantasy games for PC aren't common. I think Jagged Alliance 2 have several of the pequliarities that I pointed out above.

Originally Posted by JDR13
Why not just try to do both? FC2's system certainly wouldn't have been less "fun" if a little realism had been implemented.

I would say that the attempt to introduce too much realism is one of the major reasons it's less fun than it could have been.

Originally Posted by JemyM
A sci-fi/fantasy setting tweak specific aspects of reality.

Thank you.

Originally Posted by JemyM
I would say that the attempt to introduce too much realism is one of the major reasons it's less fun than it could have been.

Are we talking about the same game now? FC2 is hardly realistic at all.

Originally Posted by JDR13
Thank you.

Are you quotemining to avoid the point?

Originally Posted by JDR13
Are we talking about the same game now? FC2 is hardly realistic at all.

"FC2 was supposed to simulate a "real" world."

Your words, not mine.

Originally Posted by JemyM
Are you quotemining to avoid the point?

Nope, just thanking you for strengthening my own.

Originally Posted by JemyM
"FC2 was supposed to simulate a "real" world."

Your words, not mine.

What don't you understand there?

Originally Posted by JDR13
Nope, just thanking you for strengthening my own.

I pointed out exactly where your original argument was flawed.

Originally Posted by JDR13
What don't you understand there?

Your entire argument is that FC2 was supposed to be realistic so it was less ok for FC2 shops to make sense than a game like Diablo or Dead Space.

Originally Posted by JemyM
I pointed out exactly where your original argument was flawed.

No…you didn't.

You seem to have a hard time getting this, so I'll try to spell it out for you. FarCry 2 was supposed to be a sandbox fps shooter set in a "realistic" Africa. It is far from realistic. From the lack of random wildlife, to the rapidly respawning mercenaries, to the guns that jam just because an NPC else used it first, etc, etc, etc….. I could go on, but why bother?

Originally Posted by JemyM
Your entire argument is that FC2 was supposed to be realistic so it was less ok for FC2 shops to make sense than a game like Diablo or Dead Space.

Again, what don't you understand? If a game is advertised as being realistic, then it makes sense that it shouldn't take the same liberties as something in a science fiction or fantasy fiction setting.

Originally Posted by JDR13
You seem to have a hard time getting this, so I'll try to spell it out for you. FarCry 2 was supposed to be a sandbox fps shooter set in a "realistic" Africa. It is far from realistic. From the lack of random wildlife, to the rapidly respawning mercenaries, to the guns that jam just because an NPC else used it first, etc, etc, etc….. I could go on, but why bother?
Again, what don't you understand? If a game is advertised as being realistic, then it makes sense that it shouldn't take the same liberties as something in a science fiction or fantasy fiction setting.

Realistic means that the game have no hightech equipment, no orcs, no aliens, no mutants, no magic. Most designers avoid to fall in the trap of trying to make gameplay mechanics realistic as well. Realistic gameplay is ok when it adds to the entertainment, but not when it blocks the game from being fun. FC2 isn't a simulator and doesn't try to be one either.

Okay, now roll sanity.

No evidence of consolization? How about the 'save spots' that make absolutely no sense in the PC version, since those users can 'save anywhere.' And I don't care what anybody says, the graphics in the PC only FarCry were generally better, I didn't get permanently stuck while trying to jump over a branch or a 1 foot tall rock either. Part of me wonders if the folks that made 2 ever played 1. It's not a bad game, it just isn't close to the 88/100 rating on metacritic.com. (FWIW, the fan rating on that same website is 5.5/10).

It seems that JemyM has raised the bar for 'rampant consolization' significantly

Resident Evil 4 had no mouse support and was initially released without shadows. That's a bad case. The shadows was eventually added in a patch. The game had more problems. I believe there were no quit button, you had to use ALT+F4. I believe that all in-game buttons were shown as PS2 buttons rather than keyboard buttons.



That's consolization to me. Save spots, pffft. You're soft.

'Save spots' never existed until idiot box consoles appeared. As a gamer that's played games on computers since before the Atari 800, I really don't appreciate having the 'standards' of console gaming rammed down my throat, thank you very much. Whoever thought that 'save spots' should be standard in gaming should be taken out back and hacked to pieces with a poisoned +4 Battle Axe.