A Far Cry 3 PC versus console comparison video. When all is said and done are the differences that large when in the thick of it. The question is asked are consoles hampering PC game development of multiplatform games?
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.
If you’re new to this long-running franchise, we’ve got you covered.
I recently tried 3 for the first time but the frame rate was a turnoff.
I liked 5 and 6 though.
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.
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
Ummmm 3 than stop.
Okay maybe two as well. But yeah probably 3 and then move on.
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.
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.
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.
TheGamer Writes "Far Cry 3 is a time capsule of what game design was like in the early '00s"
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?
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.
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
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
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
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
"Far Cry 3 is a time capsule of what game design was like in the early '00s"
>Came out in 2012
Okay then
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.
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.
I assume its the PC footage being shown 1st and the 2nd time around its the Xbox360? If so maybe put that in the article sometime.
well, best looking games of this generation are console exclusives. Far Cry 3 on max is nice but nothing special, same with Crysis
people wants good graphics, not a good resolution. that´s why console games like Halo 4, Journey won almost every graphics award in 2012
It's the developers choice whether or not they let the Console version hold the PC version back. In this case yes it is held back. In Battlefield 3's case. Nope
Again Piroh, it's not about how something looks. It's everything else that is being held back too. Skyrim would have open cities where it developed for PC's. And alot of other features which comes along with the benefits of that. The Draw distance would be much better too. Look at Modded versions of Skyrim and compare them to consoles. Now imagine if the devs themselves didn't restrict themselves to the consoles limits.
Ai, Scale, Physics engine ~ Just some of the major things that Hardware affects besides visuals. Take a look at the last of Us. Do you know how that gets around having a good physics engine? It has Contextual Animations put in, lots and lots of them. Again, it looks amazing because of cutting corners, these corners cannot be cut in other games unless you want them all to be Uncharted clones/hardware wise.
The last of Us is alot like Uncharted, but it simply has different gameplay mechanics. It cuts the same corners as Uncharted though to make it look great. It does not need to waste resources on other things because the developers purposely limited themselves from it. But other games do need it, or at least they should. Drive a car in far cry 3 and tell me it wouldn't have benefited from a better physics engine.
Assets for multiplat games are always developed with the lowest common denominator in mind, then handed off to each respective team to be programmed into something the platform can run using dev kits. That's why, for many PC versions of major releases, there are no noticeable differences besides an increase in resolution. Some developers tack on DX11 features onto their titles (Max Payne 3, Far Cry 3), but because they're not engine-native, they are inefficient and require tons of raw power to enjoy at max settings.
Some developers have bucked this trend recently - Battlefield 3 immediately comes to mind, and also the upcoming Crysis 3 - by building their games to perform on the latest hardware and then whittling away what's needed in order to get the game to run smooth on consoles, which results in a better overall experience for everyone.
That's the big issue here games are always developed for the most popular platform and for the last 6 years that has been the Xbox 360. Sure there have been exceptions to this but those are few and far between.
As with everything game development is all about maximum potential profit and as such 99% of all games are developed for consoles its nothing to do with consoles holding back games its about games developer wanting maximum finicial reward for their work.