Ubisoft Montreal associate producer Phil Fournier explains why realistic ballistics are a new and important part of Far Cry 5.
Sounds like a great change can't wait.
Sounds interesting. Definitely looking forward to checking out this game.
Sounds good. Tempted to pre-order this but i just don't need any new games!
I always need new games! Even if I don't touch them for a month or two after getting them. Hell I still haven't opened middle earth shadow of war I got on black Friday. Plus many others I have only put in an hour or two on. Sorry for the reply, but I found your comment odd. On topic. This new Farcry looks like a game id have to use some vacatio time on.
Oh, no worries. I appreciate the reply. I just meant that, I want new games but I don't need them :-)
I have games I haven’t touched since 2 Black Fridays ago. Still working on getting to them myself. Ah kids.
I get inundated with games because I know I can save ten bucks by pre-ordering a game on Amazon. The alternative is waiting and often-times having non-buyers-remorse reading everyone state how great the game is, then having to pay full price—or wait MONTHS for the price to drop [Battlefield 1, Horizon Zero Dawn]...
No one really needs new games.:) My backlog is immense right now, but lots of games I'm getting soon.:)
After watching several videos I also thought the explosions seem more realistic and exciting.
“We wanted to make it more realistic” Because this game looks like the peak of video game realism.
Who said it’s claiming to be? GRID is more reaslictic than Mario cart. It’s not black and white, there are shades. “More” realistic than the previous games, not “more realistic than anything that come before”.
Honestly, the combat has always been great but it's cool that they're updating things a bit so it doesn't feel exactly the same again.
Ubisoft tends to be pretty great at the whole peak-of-generational-realism, thing. I remember being floored how great Far Cry 3 looked. Still holds up nicely.
Pretty sure implementing more realistic gun behavior puts it head and shoulders above around 90% of the market, as is. They aren't aiming for true "realism". They just want more realistic elements present within the game. I, personally, feel it is a great inclusion.
Now if they would just fix the doom weapon view...
The Doom weapon view is a term used to describe FPS titles in general. Your weapon constantly sticks in from the right side of the screen in an unrealistic manner. If you actually saw someone running around with their weapon like that you would laugh. In the Doom weapon view, modes that allow ADS (Aim Down the Sights), the barrel of the weapon remains stationary while the butt of the weapon shifts from right to left and you aim down the sights. Also completely unrealistic. That is exactly opposite of the manner in which things work. Instead it is the butt of the weapon that remains stationary against your shoulder and the barrel pivots up from low ready to engagement posture. This reverse choice was made a long time ago so you could constantly see your cool weapon on the screen. Its absurd and time this practice went away. Look at this: John Sonedecker was a main artist for the original Ghost Recon and Rainbow 6 titles. Much more realistic: https://www.youtube.com/wat...
Ah, thanks! I thought you were suggesting they make Far Cry 3rd person instead but I wasn't sure. I can agree with what you're saying about realism specifically when it comes to the animations, but the Doom-style approach fits better with a one man army, run and gun style of gaming like Far Cry IMO. In these types of games the protagonist usually fires from the hip like Rambo which is something real soldiers seldom, if ever, do.
I understand the principals of what you're saying, and don't disagree that current FPS weapon views don't seem realistic. However, wouldn't the butt of a rifle move in relation to the shoulders shifting back and forth? Not that you would notice this while moving as you don't typically watch your shoulders or what's sitting on it while moving. I would think the most realistic viewpoint would not really see the rifle in focus unless you were aiming, in which case, because of how you focus any weapon, you aren't really looking at what's close, but rather, what you're actually aiming at.
Stoked for this.
Interesting. How did this not come out until now lol? That’s why it’s good to have reviewers and bloggers that understand game mechanics.
If the game is good, the game is good. You can't compare one game to another and say this game is bad because this other game has that.
I just mean properly identifying mechanics. That is a major change in my opinion and this is the first time I have seen it reported. i admit that I haven’t read every article but I have read and watched a lot of coverage. Have people playing the previews just not noticed it until now? Im curious to see how dramatic it is because I like sniping in far cry games and bullet drop, leading or wind speed were never a factor. It was more COD opposed to battlefield in terms of mechanics, do you know what I mean?
That is a good point, I wonder (which you are too) and I hope not, that media websites (most of them) just completely didn't notice it or didn't play with a sniper rifle. I get what you were trying to say before, my apologies. If we are going to honest with one another, how many times have we been to a video game website to watch one of their employees/reviewers play a game to only be not great at it? I have seen some footage of IGN playing and I just don't get that their job is to be good at what they do and they can't even kill AI.
As an avid gun collector and shooter, I haven't run into one video game that even comes close to capturing whats it like to fire a firearm. Its great they are adding bullet drop, but I highly doubt it will be any different from most FPS
Because shooting a real weapon is much harder (I think) than shooting one in a video game. Also, realistic doesn't always mean better.
Upvote for your last sentence. Realistic can take all the fun out of something. Also, realistic does not mean added randomness. If the results of a shot are "unpredictable", then the shooter did not take all the relevant factors into account properly. Shooting a good rifle is no more difficult IRL than in a game. In fact, I think it's easier, because you're in the shooting environment, in 3D, and with all your senses. The better a rifle is, the dumber it is. No mind of its own at all. It shoots where you point it, and nowhere else, once you learn how to do it right.
Outside of long range rifles, most games don't bother with such things, because a bullet doesn't drop that much in close range. It makes more sense to do something like this with pistols where you try to shoot enemies from a distance, but even most rifles used in games are powerful enough to not drop much with the distances used in video games. For general gaming purposes, just the randomness of if the bullet travels true is usually sufficient. On the opposite end of the spectrum, the notion that a shotgun is only really effective at close range is vastly misrepresented in games. Of course, the notion that anyone shot is likely to continue walking, much less be effective in combat isn't really realistic either. Pain of having a bullet entering a body would incapacitate most people, or at least make it so they would be much more frantic in their actions. But this wouldn't be that much fun most of the time....particularly if the player's avatar is the one being shot.
I personally never shot a gun, let alone held a gun. I HAVE shot soooo many different weapons in video games lol.
Interesting, I wonder if weapon jam and degration return to far cry along with healing using needles and herbs like Far Cry 2 🎅
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.