230°

Face-Off: Far Cry 3

EG:On a technical level, Far Cry 3 gave us some cause for concern at an early preview event in October, where we saw some nasty glitches, an abundance of full-screen tearing and even outright freezes on the 360 code we had to play with. This was all in the face of what appeared to be a broad and beautiful open-world FPS - a rare beast in the ongoing climate of the grim and grey - with an intriguing focus on territoriality and survival during a pirate take-over. The promise was there, but somewhat eclipsed by a clearly unoptimised build.

Read Full Story >>
eurogamer.net
PersonMan4156d ago

PC wins!

Seriously though... the console version struggles to keep a decent framerate and tears 99% of the time. That would make me sick.

Soylent_Green4156d ago

It's a little annoying at first but I've started to adjust to it. Really need next gen consoles, the compromises being made on some recent releases are really starting show.

SnotyTheRocket4156d ago

Yeah, I've played all the Assassin's Creed games up to 3. I've gotten used to screen tearing..... AC3 has no tearing though.

WetN00dle694156d ago

I dont know so far those two issues are hardly noticeable on the 360. The version is not perfect no doubt BUT its not ugly like many people are calming it to be.

BuLLDoG9094156d ago

In a little over 4 hours play time on ps3, i havnt had ANY screen tearing.. at all, im surprised..
Im playing it at its native 720p and not forcing it to upscaled 1080p though..

onandonandon4156d ago

My Ps3 version doesn't tear AT ALL!, A lot of youtube footage of all 3 platforms tears 99% of the time but that's down to upload quality not the game!

lategamer4156d ago

No offense, but I would trust Digital Foundry over you. There experts and have the proper equipment to show and record things like this.

Maybe you just don't notice it? I never notice tearing in video games.

Ju4156d ago

Seriously? These guys point out that the 360 is in the lead when if you are not completely blind you can see in their own comparison videos that the 360 tears more and the pop ins are far worse. Really? Eurogamer needs to throw in the PC once in a while to just distract from the consoles since there is no clear victor for consoles. No surprise there. They piss me off. But getting used to that lately. BTW: Not sure why the 360 tearing is more pronounced. Maybe the PS3 tears in other areas or something (eg in edge region instead of mid screen). But it's quite visible. Yes, the 360 has the higher frame rate and higher res with the trade for tear and pop ins (but that's probably the 6GB install on the PS3). Anyway, it's subjective anyway, but you can clearly not say the 360 is in the lead here. Eurogame, my ass.

PhantomT14124156d ago

The only framerate drops I noticed was during cutscenes so for now, I'm fine with it (only bought X360 version to play split-screen coop though; as soon as it gets cheaper on steam, I'll download it for PC).

sourav934156d ago

I've clocked in around 15+ hours of Far Cry 3 on the PS3, and though there are definitely some frame drops, especially during cut scenes, for around 98% of GAMEPLAY, the game is more than playable. I know that it's nowhere close to that of PC, and I don't think anyone was expecting it to be. But for what it did end up being on consoles; 6 and 7 year old machines, for the graphics shown, the performance is brilliant.
Here's hoping that with next gen, this gap between PC and consoles will be slightly smaller.

+ Show (4) more repliesLast reply 4156d ago
WayneKerr4156d ago

360 wins again out of the consoles

7 years on and still kicking sony ass at 0.75 of the price.

PersonMan4156d ago

Really? You talk as if the 360 version is perfect. It's just as crappy as the PS3 version. If you took off your Microsoft Goggles™, you'd see.

CGI-Quality4156d ago

Why even waste your time quoting him? Just look at the post history and bubbles (or lack thereof) to know that it's not worth the effort.

Soylent_Green4156d ago (Edited 4156d ago )

I got this on 360, but what exactly has it won? Seriously when the hell is all this sony vs microsoft nonsense going to end. Imagine if this crap went on in the film industry. "Warner Brothers , still kicking Disney's ass at 0.75 of the film length." Shudder!

Snookies124156d ago

Lol, trolling is fun isn't it? No, it's not. It just makes people look idiotic.

Stop with the fanboy comments people. Microsoft couldn't care less about you. Sony and Nintendo couldn't care less either. We're just consumers, stop thinking that you somehow need to defend a company just because you bought something of theirs. You're a sales number to them, nothing more, nothing less.

chukamachine4156d ago

Image quality bears mention too: both console releases are tightly paired in their approach to multi-sampling native 720p outputs, and the only eye-catching difference is the dithered shadows on Sony's platform around globally illuminated areas.
As if to compensate here, we see superior texture filtering on PS3 and slightly less evidence of triangle culling after fast-travelling around the archipelago. It's a close call in many respects, but the shadow issue sticks out even without the other formats to compare it to, leading us to give the 360 a nod here as well.

Less culling and better filtering, and they still give it to the 360, even though in farcry 2, 360's shadows are dithered/.

Bias much. Eurogamer

Ju4156d ago (Edited 4156d ago )

Thank you. I have the exact same feeling. Really...

And not only that. Less visible tearing, and less pop ins as well. But still, the 360 wins. Why even bother?

+ Show (2) more repliesLast reply 4156d ago
NYC_Gamer4156d ago

This is why next gen consoles are needed.The current hardware is pushed to the max and struggles with software that's being released lately.

PersonMan4156d ago

I disagree. They could have made the engine better. Assassin's Creed 3 looks great, doesn't tear at all, and goes all the way up to 60fps is some areas. Console games can still look and perform great. It's all about how much time and money the developer wants to spend polishing it. It's not necessarily the console that is lacking, it's the software.

Sony has shown us how good console games can look. I won't list them because you probably know what I would say.

Shaman4156d ago

Assassins Creed 3 CAN go up to 40fps, but those are VERY rare instances when there is nothing to render on screen. The reason why it goes up to 40 is because frame rate is uncapped (unlike 99% of games). If other games had uncapped frame rate (meaning not locked at 30fps even if it can go higher) than you would see alot of games going in 40s.

The fact that AC3 drops to 20s when there is alot of NPCs on screen tells different story though, and its not comparable to other games (especially exclusives) and especially not those that are linear corridor shooters or hack and slash games with fixed camera.

Ju4156d ago

AC3 environments are far less dynamic and it has no dynamic lighting engine like this game has.

Norrison4156d ago

AC3 looks bad on console and it goes all the way down to 15 fps in boston.

Psychotica4156d ago

My eyes must be going bad because I didn't really see that much difference between the PS3 vs PC comparison. I have pre ordered the PC version so I am really hoping it will look good.

RuperttheBear4156d ago (Edited 4156d ago )

There may be some problems with your eyes, no offence. Really, I'm not trying to offend you, but the framerate to me looked terrible in comparison to the pc version. And the textures are much better on pc as well.

This is to be expected, it's a seriously good looking game, and I've had to notch quite a few options down from their default settings to get a steady 60 fps.

It's an amazing game though, I've been playing it all day. I wouldn't be surprised if this got a load of GOTY awards, it really deserves it.

Psychotica4156d ago

No offense taken. You are lucky to be playing it, I have to wait until Tuesday. Enjoy..

pr0digyZA4155d ago

Thats what you call video compression makes them seem more equal than they are, you really need to see 1080p footage from both I would say. But from the video there was framerate issues, some screen tearing, anti-aliasing and what looks like a totally different shadow filter on PS3.

Show all comments (53)
70°

Our Favorite Villains in Gaming - Roundtable

There have been plenty of great villains in video games over the years. Now it's time for the VGU crew to name a few of their favorites.

90°

Which Far Cry Should I Start With? - A Beginner's Guide 2023

If you’re new to this long-running franchise, we’ve got you covered.

Read Full Story >>
gameluster.com
masterfox401d ago

Farcry 3 and literally thats it! lol

GamingSinceForever400d ago (Edited 400d ago )

I recently tried 3 for the first time but the frame rate was a turnoff.

I liked 5 and 6 though.

banger88399d ago

If you have a Series X or S, the Xbox 360 version runs at 60 fps with fps boost. It's a shame the remaster doesn't.

isarai401d ago

2 and 3, pretty much the only ones i really enjoyed. 1 was amazing for the time but aged quite poorly. 4 has the elephant gun, all i can praise from any entry after 3 lol

cooperdnizzle400d ago

Ummmm 3 than stop.

Okay maybe two as well. But yeah probably 3 and then move on.

JEECE400d ago (Edited 400d ago )

Far Cry 2. People constantly rant about games now being too easy, holding your hand, having too many unnecessary RPG-lite leveling features, etc. People specifically complain about open world games being too focused on tons of collectibles and "checkmarks" that just waste time.

Far Cry 2 is an answer to all of those complaints. It was made by Ubisoft before they fell into all the traps discussed above (and before they started inserting towers into their games to defog the map). It has respawning enemies, weapons that degrade, and the collectible diamonds are very useful in the game (which you find in a similar way to the way you find shrines in BOTW with a radar system). The map you have is an in game item you pull out while playing, not a pause menu that is unnecessarily detailed. Also the enemy AI and physics are much better than later entries in the series.

It has a mixed reputation because people at the time said it was too hard, the weapon degradation was annoying, and then respawning enemies were annoying. FC2 came out in 2008, so this was before games like Dark Souls and BOTW had come out and made it cool to like these types of features.

XbladeTeddy399d ago

Far Cry 2, the one with the AI that find you through walls and trees, can one shot you from a mile away and have 100% accuracy? That was frustrating not fun because cheap AI.

JEECE399d ago (Edited 399d ago )

Uhh, I mean, it isn't one of these games where once the enemies have detected you they will magically forget you exist because you walked behind a wall or went into a bush. And yeah the AI isn't stormtrooper level accuracy. Again, these are positives, not negatives to me.

To be fair, I'm really directing this at the people most critical of "Modern Ubisoft" or "Modern Open World" design elements. Like the type of people who fawned all over Elden Ring because it had a clean UI because they are so burnt out by the "checkbox" type of open world design.

If you like those types of games, then a later FC game like 3 and especially 4-5 would be more your style.

Show all comments (11)
120°

Far Cry 3 Is One Of The Most Important Games Of Our Time

TheGamer Writes "Far Cry 3 is a time capsule of what game design was like in the early '00s"

Read Full Story >>
thegamer.com
Knushwood Butt484d ago

Beat it twice; once on PS3, and once a couple of months ago on PS5.

Doesn't Far Cry 2 have some of the things they are talking about here? Diamond hunting, healing, malaria medication?

shinoff2183483d ago (Edited 483d ago )

I believe 2 did. I highly doubt it was the only game like that though. I imagine the writer isn't old enough to have played part 2 but I also feel it wasn't the first game to introduce stuff like that

They bring up mass effect 2. I felt mass effect 1 was better. It just seem cut down. The citadel was a joke in part 2 compared to 1. How do you cut back on that.

Profchaos483d ago

Having just replayed the entire me trilogy yeah I think 1 was my favourite I think 2 had better cover and shooting mechanics but everything else in 1 was better

jznrpg483d ago (Edited 483d ago )

Mass Effect 1 was the best . It played like an RPG . The other games were more shooter and lost the feel the first game had unfortunately

gurp483d ago (Edited 483d ago )

I played it on PC when it came out, might play it again some time
Far Cry 3 is the best of the series, it was ahead of it's time

Palitera483d ago

It seems the blogger didn’t even play RDR1 if he thinks FC3 brought these elements to the AAA table. Tiktokers always have a new surprise. Smh

Sgt_Slaughter483d ago

"Far Cry 3 is a time capsule of what game design was like in the early '00s"

>Came out in 2012

Okay then

BrainSyphoned483d ago

If we are going to talk early 2000's game design how about start in the year 2000 with games that are a far cry better than something released 12 years later.
"Chrono Cross, Baldur's Gate II, Diablo II, Dragon Quest VII, Final Fantasy IX, The Legend of Zelda: Majora's Mask, and Tony Hawk's Pro Skater 2, along with new intellectual properties such as Deus Ex, Jet Set Radio, Perfect Dark, The Sims and Vagrant Story."
The article names things Ubisoft has shoved into games to dumb them down and then claims we should rush off to play it. Maybe instead look back at it as the death of originality from Ubisoft and gaming in general.

glennhkboy483d ago

Far Cry 3 & Assassin's Creed VI: Black Flag are 2 of the very best games from Ubisoft. All Ubisoft games since then are all just copying these 2 games.

ChubbyBlade483d ago

This isn’t an early 2000s game…you’re about a decade to early on that one.

Show all comments (13)