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?
Following a series of repetitive games, a formulaic approach, and a disappointing last entry, the Far Cry series has been run into the ground.
The trouble with most criticisms of this franchise is that they insist Far Cry 3 was the best game, but the things they claim to hate about the franchise are all the elements that 3 introduced.
Couldn't agree with you more! I've always thought that, my personal favourite is two, the whole atmosphere, mystery, adrenaline, my vehicle steaming up because I've crashed too many times trying to escape and then getting in a shootout, having to pull a bullet out my arm while fire rages and bullets fly, can't beat it
Yep, 2 is my favorite by far as well, and one of my favorite singleplayer games of all time. It was probably one of the last games Ubisoft made before they started homogenizing their franchises to be open world collect-a-thons with unnecessary RPG mechanics tacked on. I enjoyed 3 for what it was, but it was clearly an attempt to make the franchise appeal to a mass audience (which, in fairness, was successful).
That's not the issue. If Far Cry 3 never existed and they just made another 5 or 6 games that were increasingly generic copies of Far Cry 2 instead, would that make FC2 the real problem?
No. It's the lack of creativity and effort that followed that's the real issue.
And there are things that are genuinely different about FC3. Simple example - the story was easily the best. Best main villain by far too but it also has strong themes and wasn't afraid to explore controversial topics. The sequels are much blander.
Comparing the fun and creativity of Blood Dragon to the DLC in the sequels ... also says a lot about how Ubisoft fell off.
Yeah like even Far Cry 4 was decent, not as great as FC3 but they still gave us an interesting story, setting and villain. Pagan Min's random calls to Ajay were pretty funny.
They just got lazier and lazier, pumping them out while making it a little more streamlined each time. I mean Jesus, they gave us a silent protagonist with FC5 which really hurt the main story and are obsessed with pleasing everyone by trying to do two characters, male and female rather than just settling on one to tell the best story they can.
I started FC6 and yes the game works fine but I just wssnt Fun. Do many Ubi games are huge playgrounds but feel empty and doesn't give the feeling of a world which is lived in
I have found that the more recent FC games work better as what I call "background games." Basically what I mean is it's nice to have an active save in one of them going for those times you have 45 minutes to play games and just want to have fun and don't want to get bogged down playing a game online or starting a new game and spending all your time into an annoying tutorial. Like I haven't touched FC4 in years but I know if I had 30 minutes to an hour to play I could hop in and easily be back in the swing of things and attack an outpost and have a good time.
I think a lot of people use big RPGs like Skyrim or Cyberpunk in a similar way.
Yes because FC3 executed those aspects better. Every game since FC3 has just been Frankensteined off the bones of FC3 with half the effort.
Ubisoft gets a lot of hate for their content filling of maps. Personally I enjoy the mechanic when i play an open world game I like revealing hte entire map and doing all the side mission stuff before i go into main missions. Far Cry and the RPG AC maps where a joy to play.
Far Cry 2 was soo unique ... it was ahead of its time and is often misunderstood (thank you Clint Hocking, can't wait for his next game Assassins Creed Hexe)
(yes, FC2 was a departure from from FC1, so in strictest sense, Crysis 1 & 3 are the truer successors)
Yep. Unfortunately there has been so little since then that has scratched the same itch. Really the closest thing has been BOTW, which uses a lot of similar systems (though ironically FC2 came out before Ubisoft put the Assassin's Creed towers in Far Cry, while BOTW had Ubi towers). Obviously it isn't a shooter though. I keep hoping that that some indie dev will put an FC2-esque game out on Steam, but so far I've been left wanting.
I actually enjoyed Far Cry 5 and New Dawn. Far Cry 6 was a joke. It was a step backwards in every way. That was probably the worst Far Cry I have ever played.
Far Cry 3, an open-world masterpiece that redefined the series. Gameplay and storyline makes it a timeless classic that still inspires today.
It's gotta be Far Cry 2 for me, the feeling of that game I'm still yet to find again, just everything about it, I'd kill for a remaster, I'd even be happy with just a bump in resolution and frame rate, occasionally go back to it, think I'm gunna have to do just that now 😂
A remaster of Far Cry 2 would be amazing, especially with the mods that fixed the broken stealth system and the dumb checkpoint respawns. Include those fixes and it would be a huge upgrade over the original.
Enemies respawn in Far Cry 2? Terrible! It's a broken system! Make me a one-man army who can inexplicably hold an entire region!
Enemies respawn in Dark Souls and Zelda? Brilliant! So much more hardcore! Glad the devs took risks!
The problem isn't them respawning. It's that they respawned after just 5 minutes. Like you'd still be in the area looking for diamonds, loot, exploring, etc, and the enemies would just respawn with you there.
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.
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.