Top
170°

Ubisoft Recycling Far Cry 4′s Map In Primal Is Fine

Pixelgate writes:

''Far Cry: Primal has been received fairly well. It’s not rare for someone to mention how ‘fresh’ it feels, but suddenly it has become public enemy number one, at least in video game circles.''

Read Full Story >>
pixelgate.co.uk
Oculus Quest Giveaway! Click Here to Enter
The story is too old to be commented.
GreetingsfromCanada1380d ago

Eh, it's reported Far Cry 5 has been in development before Primal even released. I wouldn't be surprised if they just made Primal so they wouldn't have to layoff workers until other projects hit large scale production.

PixelGateUk1380d ago

I think it's more the idea of making a decent bit of cash without developing a new game from scratch more than keeping staff busy. I just don't get why people are mad over the recycling of the map. It's not like they just threw some animals in there and went 'tah dah, new game £40 please'

xPhearR3dx1380d ago

Yeah but one of the biggest, most appealing aspects of open world games is the map. If you copy and paste it from the previous title, along with all the same gameplay elements, features etc. people who dropped $60 bucks might feel a little upset. If GTA V was set in the same Liberty City map just in a different time period, people would be upset.

This article is mostly pointing out reused assets. That's not the problem. I honestly don't think anyone cares if Ubisoft used the same tree from Far Cry 3 and made it brown. The game already feels all too familiar (which can be good or bad depending on if your burnt out on 3's gameplay yet) but on top of that it's the same map/layout? C'mon.

PixelGateUk1380d ago

@xPhearR3dx

Game's been out for a week and a bit, no one said poop until it was pointed out. That's what i found both hilarious and bizarre

starrman19851380d ago

I've no problem with companies recycling assets to be honest, but the least they could do in these circumstances is sell them at a less inflated price. Primal is 12gb on the download, could almost be an arcade game! I managed to get it cheap, I'm enjoying it too, but it brings hardly anything to the table it's just a rehash of the last two games!

crazychris41241380d ago

How is it fine if its the same map, similar features, some new ones and they charge $60?? Should have been an expansion like Blood Dragon if they are going to use the same map. Should be no more than $20.

Author then has a video of Cod Ghosts recycling assets from MW2. It was the worst COD game in the series and had development issues, you just countered your argument. Also does anyone remember the backlash for Crackdown 2 when it was the same map with a couple new features and they charged $60?? People were in uproar because they felt robbed.

Whats new in this game to justify $60?? More animals, basic weapons, new factions, no co-op, no MP, and a new campaign. Thats Blood Dragon with a prehistoric theme.

Well we have our 1st nominee for worst gaming company of 2016 ladies and gentleman. Cant wait to see how they gimped The Division.

PixelGateUk1380d ago (Edited 1380d ago )

''Author then has a video of Cod Ghosts recycling assets from MW2. It was the worst COD game in the series and had development issues, you just countered your argument''

how? That makes no sense what so ever. the video was included to show one other example, how the hell is that a 'counter'?

Crackdown 2 wasn't very good.

'Whats new in this game to justify $60?? More animals, basic weapons'' Basic weapons? in a game set during primitive times, while colour me shocked and slap me with a fish.

Blood Dragon was short, Primal is not. Come on dude, least make some solid points.

''Well we have our 1st nominee for worst gaming company of 2016 ladies and gentleman. Cant wait to see how they gimped The Division.''

I'm sensing you've already made your mind up to be fair dude. Not sure what The Division really has to do with asset recycling mind.

crazychris41241380d ago (Edited 1380d ago )

I put 13 hours into Blood Dragon, thats great for $15 DLC, according to howlongtobeat the story and some extras for primal is 22.5 hours. For the sake of argument lets say it takes you 25 hours to complete the game. Is double the play time worth 4x the price?? Not in my book.

What I meant with Ubisoft gimping The Division is they probably did something to cut out content of a promising game like locking off other parts of the city. Just have to wait until the game is released to find out.

Crackdown 2 wasnt very good because they didnt add enough to justify $60. It was more of the same, it was glorified DLC just like Primal.

MW2 asset in Ghosts is a 5 minute section in a crappy game that had development issues. This is way worse.

All Im saying is this should have been a $20 expansion. Full priced game means full priced effort. Not copying the entire map from the previous game, tweaking features, adding a couple new ones with a fresh coat of paint. We call that an expansion.

PixelGateUk1380d ago (Edited 1380d ago )

Value by quantity is subjective. This argument has been covered in nearly every Super hot review posted on N4G last week.

25 hours is a pretty hefty amount these days, even more so in world with 5 hour campaigns with nothing to offer outside of it.

As for The Division, that remains to be seen. Review copies aren't gaining early access, so 'true' reviews won't be out for at least a week or so after release.

Ghost's also had fake PC specs, which is much more questionable than this. but now we're playing 'Which company is less ethical than the other top trumps' :P

Actually they called that total conversion mods *shout out to all those brave souls who turned Half Life into 50-odd other games like They Hunger*

Honestly at this point, Far Cry has been the same thing over and over. 4 is far too similar to 3, yet people still lapped it up. Far Cry 1 and it's 'spin-offs' had the same deal. The only stand outs are Far Cry 2 and Blood Dragon (both of which i've already talked about at length, heck i even made a post about Blood Dragon 2 over Primal)

crazychris41241380d ago (Edited 1380d ago )

Only Far Cry I bought was Blood Dragon, 3 was a bonus for buying a GPU. Didnt buy 4 because I knew it was more of the same and Im not going to buy Primal because its way too much of the same. Ubisoft knew what they were doing the whole time but they kept the truth from their fans. What would you think would happen if they came out a month before release and said they reused the map? People would demand a price cut, pre orders would be cancelled and they would be forced to slash the price by as much as 75%

-Foxtrot1380d ago

No it's really not

It should have been an expansion like Blood Dragon or a new IP

Fez1380d ago

I wasn't following this game and thought it was an expansion to 4. Feels like there wasn't enough time since 4 released to make a full fledged title.

DarkOcelet1380d ago

I understand when you say its fine because of how different it feels and looks.

But my problem with Ubisoft was never with their world. It was with their repetitive side quests, extremely weak story and boring protagonists and characters.

Ubisoft always makes awesome worlds but how they fill them is what sucks.

PixelGateUk1380d ago

For sure, i've mentioned this previously when Fallout 4 came out.

Ubisoft has almost became its own genre with how similar they form their games. It's almost like they back themselves into a corner

DarkOcelet1380d ago

Unfortunately they put themselves in a corner too deep that and they will never get out of it unless they start to change things.

If Vivendi really bought Ubisoft, i will not be sad at all.

Maybe things will change at Ubisoft after the acquisition.

PixelGateUk1380d ago

Rainbow: siege was a step in the right direction, The Division might prove to be another. I can't really blame Ubisoft for sticking to what sells. When they try different things they don't really too well ZombiU and Rayman for example.

Granted ZombiU was a launch title for a system that went through a fairly slow launch window...and some years after that

DarkOcelet1380d ago

While Rainbow Siege might have been a step in the right direction in terms of gameplay, its still missing way too much content and add to that, i believe its the first game in the R6 series not to have a campaign. And add insult to injury is that it has a stupid season pass when its launch content sucks.

The game should have been 30$ at launch with a 30$ season pass. That was the only way i was gonna buy it.

But right now, i am gonna wait until the Complete Edition is 30 bucks or less. Usually that happens in a year.

And about The Division, the game looks interesting but if it has the same repetitive structure of every other Ubisoft game, then it will be an easy pass.

SolidGear31380d ago

Should've stuck with Patriots instead of that rip off Siege.

PixelGateUk1380d ago

Honesty the season pass is totally skiable, i've stuck in over 100 hours, the only extras the season pass gets is 1 week early access to new operators, few gun skins and extra challenges.

DarkOcelet1380d ago

Then that Season Pass could have been easily scrapped. Its pointless tbh when it add so little for so much.

FPS games should all go the style of Halo 5. No season pass, just free content with a game that has tons of content from the beginning.

Show all comments (33)
The story is too old to be commented.