PC Aficionado: "Far Cry 5 will be departing from the rest of the series in a lot of ways, not the least of which is ditching mini-maps and towers. According to the writer of the game, Drew Holmes, that’s to keep players on their toes."
Towers were annoying. Thank god.
They were fun with far cry 3 but started getting annoying as the series progressed
I liked them only in the Far Cry series, it gave a sort of feeling that you were behind enemy lines, with the mini-map obscured, you had to watch your every move until you've completed the tower. Plus, it had light puzzles that were kinda fun. I hated them in Assassins Creed and Watch Dogs though.
I wished they removed them from every other UBI game....... Far crys were at least puzzles in a sense.
They have for all their games going forward
After assassins creed you mean right cause they already have been confirmed.
How were towers annoying? I can understanding someone saying that's not enough in terms of objective gameplay but people glad that it's taken away? Doesn't make sense to me.
Because Ubisoft took it and added it to a bunch of their other games, like in the assassin creed series. It became a "copy and paste" game design. I find them annoying myself, once youve done one youve done them all. Theres far more creative ways of expanding a maps view
Like what? What's a creative way to open up the map view? You found it annoying because climbing the towers felt same-ish? Lol ok then.. not bored, annoyed. "Goddamn copy and paste game design". I dunno, I never found them annoying. It took a few seconds and you got a cool birds eye view of the area. I agree that towers can't be the core of your gameplay but it's just a little distraction. I think the people who are calling it annoying are nitpicking.
"What's a creative way to open up the map view? " Omg, the human mind ran out of ideas? Looks like games now till the day we die will only have towers to open up the maps!
Tell me one then.
How about just plain old exploring for a creative and fun way of opening up the map. You forgot that one, didn't you?
I didn't mind them. They were a great place to snipe enemies.
@korn Nah, I like actually exploring the map to open up the map. I didn't forget anything, your hostility is misplaced. That other guys sarcasm is pointless, it wasn't amusing and it didn't answer the question. Seeing how irritable some are I can see why they get annoyed by something as simple as towers. I'm not the one annoyed with towers, I was curious as to what the "annoyed" ones would want it replaced with. I would be fine with exploring model like the standard Starcraft fog of war. It's not "creative" though lol, it's been around longer than the towers lol. The towers are fine though, it's not an "insult to human creativity" like some would jokingly suggest in an unfunny way.
@opinionated Too lazy
That's how. You said it your self. EXPLORE the map to open it up. Rushing straight to obvious high points where you'll map literally everything isn't exploring. The concept actually makes sense (find a high point and use it to make note of whatever landmakrs are visible) but Ubisoft abused it constantly and instead of just marking landmarks is marks *everything* so there is no need to explore at all, just rush from one landmark to the next "unlocking" everything.
@princess I acknowledged that exploring is a good way. They were calling the towers old and uncreative, I was asking for an example of a creative way. Exploring is even older and more uncreative than the towers lol. Primal did that if not mistaken, the basic fog of war stuff. I have no problem with it but the argument was for new and creative, I was curious as to what they meant and I haven't gotten an example yet. So you found towers annoying because it marked all of the quests for you? That makes more sense then anything said so far but I still think it's nitpicky.
I like exploring but I don't like having to go to a tiny little ass crack spot on the map just in case there's a sidequest there or something so in that sense I liked the towers because at least I knew I wasn't missing anything and the game wasn't wasting my time
The only reason to have an open world is to actually *do* something with it. That can mean something like GTA or Saints Row where you get the spontaneous cop chases and gang fights you couldn't get in another type of game, or it can mean something like Morrowind where you're following written directions looking for specific landmarks trying to navigate the world. Having absolutely everything marked on the map because you climbed a tower *is* a waste of time. At that point the "open world" may as well just be a menu that lets you pick the mission you want to play. "Climb a tower and see literally everything there is to offer in this area so you can pick" isn't doing anything with the world that can't be done some other way, so it serves no purpose. Granted some games with those stupid towers actually have gameplay that wouldn't work properly outside an open world, but that's not typically what Ubisoft does.
I should have added "boring" to it. There are ways, like opening sections via quests, merchant maps, ect. Instead they made a design where u can rush to point x to reveal all other important points and ignore every other place. It doesnt really encpurage exploration IMO, because most know that there is nothing to see or gain from those other locations. Horizon had towers, yet the map had tons of locations still hidden with quests and such Zelda had towers to, however u used them to place markers if you saw something in the distance that may interest you.
Let me add to this. Ubisoft started towers with assassin creed and it kept getting added throughout their other games (far cry, watch dogs, etc) The problem to me is that they havent done much else with them since other than keep them the same. You play assassin creed and you know what they do in watch dogs or far cry. They can expand upon them past their core use if im honest . And yes they are boring, to do the exact same thing on a different portion of the map gets repetitive and very boring
No, not really. See, if you want exploring to be rewarding you have to specifically and intentionally design a map that's fun to explore. You need very carefully placed landmarks that catch the players attention so they can use them to navigate, but at the same time don't feel contrived. You need to implement tools suitied to your game that aid in exploration (for example, the ability to leave chalk markings on trees or walls telling you where you've been and possibly what's nearby.) You need to find a way to tell the player what they're looking for without big obvious quest markets or glowing trails.You can even layer mechanics on top of that, for example rain washing away said chalk markings or patrolling NPCs noticing them and setting up ambushes so the player has to find clever places to put them or they're only a temporary aid to learning the map and not a permanent solution. Ubisoft has done precisely none of this. Their towers are lazy, stupid shortcuts that suck all the fun out of navigating a big open world. At that point it's just a glorified menu screen for selecting missions, and a boring waste of time. The creativity isn't in *what* you're doing, it's in how. How the exploring works. Firewatches map and compass. The souls series fake walls. Skyrims marks on most of the doorways that tell you if a particular house thought to be worth stealing from or if they work with the guild. Morrowinds huge centeral mountain that's almost always visible as a landmark. The last of us, for example, is *very* good at hiding how linear all of the levels are by using camera tricks and framing to push players in certain directions and make them feel like it's their own idea. It's *very* creative, and they've only gotten better at it over the years. That doesn't work in open worlds, but hopefully you see the point.
There's a balance with them. I think like Shadow of Mordor has effective towers. There's a few to add challenge, but not so many that it becomes obnoxious.
The page is unreadable for me, as in the towers that would unlock more of the map? I think it's wise that they move away from the traditional series mechanics. I don't know about anyone else but I played a lot of FC2 and by about the halfway point of FC3 I was bored of the gameplay. I bought FC4 but the new setting didn't mask the same old same old mechanics. It needs a shake up.
Probably use the same technique in Wildlands for scoping the area.
Shit, I'm starting to get excited about this game!
I was really just excited with the setting. Taking it away from the tribal aspect should be interesting.
Can't wait to play this in co-op
Best design choice I've heard from Ubisoft in years.
I against mini-maps myself.... It's not like I carry full maps of around in real life...... I can also tell you that uber/lyft/taxi drivers that are new and completely reliant on mini-maps are the worse compared to there counterpart drivers who know the area (because the have explored the area/been there/ live there)...... Yes there was a time in Video game history where Hardware was limited and Developers had to copy and past textures and objects so environments, dungeons, hallways, and the objects in them where all the same it was easy to get confused and lost especially if the design was maze like on top of the copy and paste textures and objects. But Now there really is no excuse...... I'm actually more interested in developers improving the details and diversity of the environments in a game verses the Next MEGA-K pixels.... So Kudos for Far Cry Team to explore where developer should be already heading a way to make the environments seem less cut and past and diverse enough that I don't have to rely on a constant Mini-Map in the corner of the screen...... Still good to have some Map of some kind available.... Also in the video game world, a lot of games give humans an amazing human radar like ability to go with that mini-map /s ... (not realistic and not very fun but of course that's just one's opinion)
Fuck it. I still like Far Cry 2 style. That game got into my soul, spiritually.
Far Cry Primal didn't have towers either..
If the game is a few blocks then this works fine. I don't live in Montana nor am I a mountain man or wilderness guy. I don't like survival elements in my Far Cry cereal. I hope this is optional cause the map sizes are huge, I can't depend on artists getting it right and making landmarks that will sizzle in my brain. I want at least a general sense of direction. This is NOT the kind of thing that is a throwaway statement this is actually pivotal information that should have been revealed right up front. It's like buying a car and getting told as you wait for your new car, their aren't any brakes on it. We thought wed try something new. This comes off as disingenuous.
N4G is a community of gamers posting and discussing the latest game news. It’s part of NewsBoiler, a network of social news sites covering today’s pop culture.