Far Cry

[NJspeed]

First off, there is one game I must give notable attention to, FAR CRY! CryTek's early work was a little too new wave for my tastes, but when FAR CRY came out, I think CryTek really came into their own, commercially and artistically. The whole game has a clear, crisp sound, and a new sheen of consummate professionalism that really gives the missions a big boost. CryTek has been compared to Valve, but I think CryTek has a far more bitter, cynical sense of humor.

Now you must be wondering, is FAR CRY for PC better than the new FAR CRY INSTINCTS for X-Box?

Yes it is! Years ago, UbiSoft released CryTek's "Beast Hunter", their first and most accomplished PC game at that time. Although I think their undisputed masterpiece is FAR CRY, a game so catchy, most people probably don't listen to the games ultimate message. But they should, because it's not just about the pleasures of conformity, and the importance of trends, it's also a personal statement about our world itself.

I've been a big UbiSoft fan ever since the release of their 1999 PC game, "Rainbow 6". Before that, I really didn't understand any of their work. Too artsy, too intellectual. It was on "Rainbow 6" where the third person presence became more apparent, and I still think "Splinter Cell" was PS2’s undisputed masterpiece. It's an epic meditation on intangibility. At the same time, it deepens and enriches the meaning of the preceding "Rainbow 6". Listen to the brilliant ensemble playing of Banks, Collins and Rutherford. You can practically hear every nuance of every instrument. In terms of atmospherical craftsmanship, the sheer story telling, this game hits a new peak of professionalism. Take the situation of the Brazilian terrorists. In this part, UbiSoft addresses the problems of abusive political authority. The story telling is as positive and affirmative as anything I've seen in gaming. Now, with the upcoming release of FAR CRY INSTINCTS, CryTek and UbiSoft seem to be more commercial, and therefore more satisfying, in a narrower way. Especially games like "Prince of Persia" and "Splinter Cell". But I also think CryTek works best within the confines of the UbiSoft group than as a solo artist, and I stress the word artist.

 

[DeusExMachina]

Far Cry's plot was presented horribly. And the voice acting was hilariously cheesy.

Sure the graphics and gameplay were nice, but I need substance =\

 

[Asknoone]

Far Cry's plot was presented horribly. And the voice acting was hilariously cheesy.

Sure the graphics and gameplay were nice, but I need substance =\

Word...

 

[KagePrototype]

Far Cry was never about story, it was about ridiculously tense combat. The gameplay had plenty of hidden substance; plus it was genuinely challenging and very long. Granted it wasn't a good story, but as an FPS it worked on almost every level. A game doesn't neccessarily need interesting characters and and in-depth plot to be fun; a game could have a fantastic story, but be no fun to play.

 

[donald]

Liked Far Cry, just can´t even beat the first missions on easy.

 

[Doppelgofer]

Far Cry was never about story, it was about ridiculously tense combat. The gameplay had plenty of hidden substance; plus it was genuinely challenging and very long. Granted it wasn't a good story, but as an FPS it worked on almost every level. A game doesn't neccessarily need interesting characters and and in-depth plot to be fun; a game could have a fantastic story, but be no fun to play.

pretty much how i'd put it...great GREAT gameplay. lots of fun, beautiful and challenging...how more games should be

 

[Asknoone]

Don't get me wrong, its great fun, just not brilliant.

 

[jimbo118]

Far Cry was never about story, it was about ridiculously tense combat. The gameplay had plenty of hidden substance; plus it was genuinely challenging and very long. Granted it wasn't a good story, but as an FPS it worked on almost every level. A game doesn't neccessarily need interesting characters and and in-depth plot to be fun; a game could have a fantastic story, but be no fun to play.

QFT, i like/d it a hell of alot, bloody trigens though...2 hits and your dead:rolling:

 

[Prince of China]

Far Cry is awesome!

 

[Asuka]

Far Cry was never about story, it was about ridiculously tense combat. The gameplay had plenty of hidden substance; plus it was genuinely challenging and very long. Granted it wasn't a good story, but as an FPS it worked on almost every level. A game doesn't neccessarily need interesting characters and and in-depth plot to be fun; a game could have a fantastic story, but be no fun to play.

Agreed.

 

[Lucid]

I hated the way combat felt, personally.
But I hate jungle warfare period... and this is just coming from someone who played the demo.

 

[FictiousWill]

Far Cry was bloody fantastic. And I give the developers double, nay I say triple props for producing the entire thing themselves. No "quake 1 on crack" for them.

 

[ray_MAN]

I thought it was awesome. I found the last level too hard, so I had to use that internet walkthrough. ;( I did work on a co-op map. It got into late beta testing when the full co-op mod came out, so I quit.

 

[Mith']

Great game, though it would have done just fine without trigents and Val.. It would also be nice with some non-missions critical teammates (only a few)..
And remove Jack, atleast dont have him talk... Then you have a almost perfect game!

Some plus sides: Nice graphics, nice sounds (The M4 really sounds ... powerful), pretty good AI, great gameplay, open gameplay (you can always take on enemies with atleast 2 different approaches), huge maps, alot of foilage, poorly incorporated (except the barrels of death) but good physics... etc..

 

[CyberPitz]

The second those Trigens appeared, I quit, uninstalled, and never touched it again....I dunno, something told me "WE HAVE NO NEW IDEAS!" when I saw that...

I wasn't playing for the "fun gameplay" cause I found it mediocre..just my taste I guess. Someone told me the reason to play it was teh story was the best!! So that was why I played until then..granted, it's still EARLY in the game...but the end for me

 

[DeusExMachina]

Don't get me wrong, its great fun, just not brilliant.

Exactly. When I think of a FPS that's supposed to blow my mind and beat the crap out of Doom 3 and HL2 (before they were out anyways), I want good graphics, good gameplay, and good story. That's all I ask. Or at least be like the original HL and make it seem like a fight for survival. Good graphics, good gameplay...weak story. Its just my opinion of course, I mostly play games with decent-above average stories unless they're multiplayer games. Perhaps if there's ever a sequel they'll be sure to work on the story more and hire BETTER voice actors. Jesus H. Christ, those voice overs were horrible. I don't care if they were going for a chessy action voice, its retarded.

Other than that, its enjoyable for a few go arounds. Trigens are so stupid though, that bothered me a lot. And those assholes with the shields at the end wtf was up with them taking rocket missiles and not dying?

Its too bad the Far Cry mod community never got up, the CryTek engine is a damn fine one.

 

[Sparta]

Yeah the voices were terrible.

the first few levels of Far Cry were good but it was pretty much a one trick for the most part. Hide in jungle, creep around, shoot stuff. Rebellion was a great level, but i just find the game boring as every single battle can only be solved one way, by creeping around and shooting.

And the trigens just made the game needlessly hard. I mean with games like Halo and Ninja Gaiden, they are challenging and really rewarding on harder difficulties. But Far Cry on the harder difficulties is just made all the more frustrating by the omniscent A.I and save system. Not to mention you can also go through the whole game using the same tactic over and over and over and over again. Hide in bushes, lure A.I with rocks, trick A.I with rocks, shoot them in the back of the head. It works on most scenarios with the exception of the last few levels.

I must say i am kinda interested in Far Cry Instincts though, as its Far Cry re-invisioned, except without as much crappiness. Could be interesting, but it'll most likely be ****ing impossible on the Xbox thanks to the turning circle.

 

[Asknoone]

I'm still struggling to get my far cry mod out

 

[JNightshade]

oh dear lord. I am forever a slave to the sheer gameplay perfection that is Far Cry. That game took me several months to beat (I was totally unaccustomed to the difficulty level- before that, the only PC FPS I'd owned was Halo) but those months were pure bliss. And, although newer games have better graphics, I still find Far Cry to be the prettiest. I mean, god, those environments are like paintings... of AWESOMENESS!
(I am praying to my Far Cry shrine as I type this)

 

[Sparta]

oh dear lord. I am forever a slave to the sheer gameplay perfection that is Far Cry. That game took me several months to beat (I was totally unaccustomed to the difficulty level- before that, the only PC FPS I'd owned was Halo) but those months were pure bliss. And, although newer games have better graphics, I still find Far Cry to be the prettiest. I mean, god, those environments are like paintings... of AWESOMENESS!
(I am praying to my Far Cry shrine as I type this)

Wow, no offense but you seriously haven't seen what other games are capable if you think Far Cry is the prettiest.

 

[DeusExMachina]

The only game that has better graphics is Doom 3 really.

 

[Frank]

I remember when I played FarCry I kept thinking:
When the hell is this going to end!
Not that it was bad, no I enjoyed every single soldier I blasted off boats, suspension bridge whatever - but it was ****ing long and every game should be like this! I LOVED IT!

 

[Fuse Kazuki]

I never wanted to get FarCry because I knew it'd suck. I just had a feeling that it would. After reading all of this I dont even want to get it now. Especially with those trigens..

 

[Frank]

I never wanted to get FarCry because I knew it'd suck. I just had a feeling that it would. After reading all of this I dont even want to get it now. Especially with those trigens..

Don't play the game for the story - play it for the awesome graphics, great gameplay and constant blowing stuff up!!

 

[Cole]

Frank...that Great Gameplay part...
I bought farcry...wanting to see how good it was. It was kinda fun.
I mean yeah shooting people far far far away..was nice..but I mean overall.. I got bored pretty quick in the game.
When I play a FPS, if it tries to have a story...then im gonna play it with the story in mind. Farcry tries to have a story.

I'm not saying it was bad, I mean i've played much worse but.. It has solid loading times, nice graphics,... decent physics, could see real far...but the gameplay just....got boring to quick for me.

 

[duffers20]

I thought that it was quite fun, once I got used to the style of combat etc. I thought that it was actually quite hard, I started to play on normal, then moved onto teh next one up and it was challanging. The end was pretty tough, have to say, but the actual ending was so poor, your sitting there expecting something really cool for the ending, but its all over in like 1 min, and your like, is that it? If they spent more time on teh ending and some of the gameplay, then they would have an incredible game.

 

[KagePrototype]

I never wanted to get FarCry because I knew it'd suck. I just had a feeling that it would. After reading all of this I dont even want to get it now. Especially with those trigens..

At least download the demo, jesus.

 

[Atomi]

I just installed Far Cry again last night after reading this thread. I think Far Cry is great entertainment with all the shooting. The plot sucks, but WHO CARES! There are other games for good plots. This game has great environments, good sounds (the cheesy voice acting is a bit dull but doesn't matter) and good graphics. The only thing I don't like is that I tried beginning a new game on realistic and the enemies were kind of superhuman. I expected it to be a little like Deus Ex on realistic where you'd be really vulnerable and so would your enemies too. In Far Cry, the AI spots you trough 50m of dense foliage and jungle . That's why I prefer playing on medium which offers some challenge, fun and action not so easily disrupted by dying and loading. The trigens, or whatever the ugly bastards were, were also somewhat annoying. The basic trigen enemy is the little dude with very elastic claws. I mean, they reach like 3 meters in front of where the claws actually end. I like the game.

 

[Warbie]

Truly excellent in places, tragically dull and cliched in others.

Had the game remained consistenly good throughout it would have been the best shooter of this generation (imo, of course) As it stands Far Cry is a very mixed bag.

7/10

 

[Lucid]

I'm assuming Farcry is a love it or hate it type game?

And I've heard that the multiplayer sucks, is this true?

 

[PvtRyan]

I played the demo when it came out and was rather unimpressed. But people said the demo was a bad representation of the game. Okay, fair enough. Bought the actual game some time ago and still utterly unimpressed. Had a lot more potential.

 

[Prince of China]

I'm assuming Farcry is a love it or hate it type game?

And I've heard that the multiplayer sucks, is this true?

The multiplayer isn't anything special. Play it for the singleplayer portion, it's awesome. The singleplayer is very challenging and makes you think. You'll have to treat it as a stealth game.

 

[wilka91]

awesome game, but just not as good as HL2

 

[FictiousWill]

You're just inviting flames there buddy. You may enjoy HL2 more, but don't knock the underlying technology. Far Cry is a far more technologically advanced game. The engine and capabilities are original works of art, not the jumbled pile of quake hacks that source is. Unless you are fully capable of writing your own game engine, you have no place spouting off which game is not as "good". Do you wish to rephrase your post?

 

[Cole]

not the jumbled pile of quake hacks that source is.

Which makes no sense..
Source only uses minimum code from HL(which is mm from Q1).

Thus it is not a pile of quake hacks..and considering so much was rewrote in the HL1 engine...pretty much none from Q1.
.....

 

[Sparta]

The only game that has better graphics is Doom 3 really.

Nah Chronicles of Riddick has better graphics then both Far Cry and Doom 3. Better art direction then both games and its just as pretty as Doom 3. Not to mention it plays much better then both games.

You're just inviting flames there buddy. You may enjoy HL2 more, but don't knock the underlying technology. Far Cry is a far more technologically advanced game. The engine and capabilities are original works of art, not the jumbled pile of quake hacks that source is. Unless you are fully capable of writing your own game engine, you have no place spouting off which game is not as "good". Do you wish to rephrase your post?

I think he just meant he enjoy's HL2 more?

 

[FictiousWill]

Yeah, I'm sure that's what he meant. I'm just allaying any engine capability confusion. Hell, pretty much all I play are source-based games, but I will sing the praises of more elegantly coded engines for as long as I have breath. Unreal platform, CryEngine, Doom3 and others.


In reply to Minerel:
Most of Source's "features" are hacks. Displacement surfaces, 3d skyboxes, etc are all workarounds to squeeze more out of age-old quake-style bsp architecture. It's not necessarily bad, it's just crude and limiting.

 

[Sparta]

But does that really matter when the engine can pull out stuff that looks just as good, if not better, then other engines like Doom 3 and the CryEngine?

 

[FictiousWill]

It looks good, sure - but the fact that it's all jury-rigged must grate on you somewhere. Source is the rapid development tool of game engines. Other engines like Doom3, Unreal and CryEngine are designed from the ground up to offer the widest feature set possible. You want to make a huge island forest with bsp architecture sitting on top? CryEngine says no problem. Unreal can handle it fine, it supports a similar heightmap/bsp combination system too. Doom3 is a bit of an odd one out here, it's really just quake3 with fancy lighting.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that developers can better spend their time thinking about what they want to create, rather than think about how they can hack the source engine to get the closest approximation to their goal. The source engine looks great, sure, but the internal limitations of the engine cripple it when developers think outside the box.

Take the Halo engine for example. The whole 'silent cartographer' level is one huge model. The interiors are separate, with a clever indoor-outdoor transition system. Want to climb on top of the island and walk over to the other side? You can, if you can pile up enough crap and hop up there.

This sort of thing would never be possible in the source engine because the engine is restricted to small-scale bsp architecture and displacement hacks to simulate distance terrain. Sightlines and square edges abound, and levels must be broken into small segments. Skyboxes must be built on a tiny scale and overlayed using a rendering hack to allow decent compile times and view distances.

Want to rip out bsp from Unreal or FarCry? Sure. The engines are truly modular, allowing multiple ways to display and interact with geometry. I guarantee UE3 is very light on bsp. Want to rip it out of source? That's unthinkable, the engine is at it's core a bsp engine, and a bsp engine it will remain. All the source 'features' are built on the premise that at the core is a bsp tree or architecture, and if you rip out the core, the branches are useless. Why have a 3dskybox hack designed for reducing bsp views if you stop using bsp? That's not modularity, that's called hacked-in feature dependency, and while it will work fine for the time being, the system will crumble eventually.

It won't happen to source, source works fine for current-gen games, but developers are well aware of the engine's limits. They know what they want technically can be done using source, but they don't want to go through the heartache of hacking in features they want when they could go with a truly modular all in one development suite like the unreal engine.

Source is very pretty, but it's a case of too little, too late. Source would have rocked our socks off in 2002, and it's great for HL2 and similar relatively small-environment fps games. The future lies elsewhere and valve's dreams of licensing source up the wazoo like quake3 arena was were not meant to be.

 

[Sparta]

I'm pretty sure that with engines like CryEngine, UE3 and Doom3 that they were aiming to build engines that can be used in other games. I'm fairly sure that i remember hearing somewhere that Source was built around Half-Life 2 and not specifically for the market.