Far Cry 2 Release Date Moved Up Big Time; Collector's Edition Detailed

[Serio]

Originally Posted by Flodgy

Regardless, fact is, you cannot provide any credible piece of evidence to support your claim, your own opinions and views completely distort what you think is possible within the game itself due to past experiences you have (ie. Oblivion)

Oblivion was a poorly optimised piece of crap when it came to an open world. Why Bethesda didn't scrap it and create something ground up is beyond me. Oh wait? They want money. This is an entirely different ballgame, maybe not in the monetary sense, but Ubisoft Montreal is aiming to create something far more ambitious than anything Oblivion ever claimed to be, whether they live up to this or not, we shall see. So far however, the feedback is positive and things seem to be working out.



Read that, 50km2. Argument is done.

Look at Ubisoft Montreals past games. Splinter Cell Double Agent, the Rainbow Six Vegas series, and Assassins Creed were all terribly optimized. What does FarCry 2 have that other games can't do?

"your own opinions and views completely distort what you think is possible within the game itself"

Look who's talking? Yes, it has a nice set of animations, and has a more dynamic enviroment, but i can't see anything else. And Oblivion is 41km2 according to a few google searches. Ubisoft Montreal just haven't been lucky with their recent games. Rainbow Six Vegas 2 received pretty bad reviews because of it's gameplay and the lack of new features. Same with Assassin's Creed.

But we'll see how it ends out. I won't be getting it on release date as Fable 2 is also released there, though.

I forgot to add though; I don't really care about the size of the game. A game could have repeating enviroments and be 100km2, but have great gameplay. Another game could have unique enviroments, but also terrible gameplay. I just hope they manage to balance it between.

[Flodgy]

Look at Ubisoft Montreals past games. Splinter Cell Double Agent, the Rainbow Six Vegas series, and Assassins Creed were all terribly optimized. What does FarCry 2 have that other games can't do?

Double Agent was a crap game overall. Don't really know why it was created too be honest. The Vegas series.. I don't know about poorly optimised as my rig which was built back in 2003, could run the game on medium settings smoothly at 1280x1024. Vegas 1 more or less laid the foundation, then Vegas 2 refined and corrected any issues the first game had. While many call this a lack in quality. It was a sequel. Expecting anything different from the first title is stupid.

"your own opinions and views completely distort what you think is possible within the game itself"

Look who's talking? Yes, it has a nice set of animations, and has a more dynamic enviroment, but i can't see anything else. And Oblivion is 41km2 according to a few google searches. Ubisoft Montreal just haven't been lucky with their recent games. Rainbow Six Vegas 2 received pretty bad reviews because of it's gameplay and the lack of new features. Same with Assassin's Creed.

This is essentially the same concept as when researching history. You can choose and omit your sources at will, but at the end of the day, if you are selective of what you use, the truth isn't given to the most objective extent.

You can't see anything else? What needs to be pointed out? While we can't comment on it's success simply because the game isn't out yet, I keep getting the impression you're judging it merely on what you want too see. It has multiple endings, faction wars, meaningful decisions to be made by the player, many new realistic features not seen or utilised in FPS games (the use of the map, weather impacting the way the battle unfolds ie. fire, weapon degradation, and so on).

Let's also take a look at the standings for their games on Metacritic:
Rainbow Six: Vegas An 89 on the X360, 86 on PS3, and 85 on PC.
Rainbow Six: Vegas 2 An 81 on the X360, 82 on PS3, and 78 on PC.
Assassin's Creed: Within 1 point on all 3 platforms. Resting at 80.

Now, I don't know what reviews you're reading, but the culmination of all of them point towards a pretty decent score don't they? That. Is why your opinions are distorting how you feel about the game. You appear to have a clear dislike for Ubisoft Montreal, yet facts and figures speak otherwise.

But we'll see how it ends out. I won't be getting it on release date as Fable 2 is also released there, though.

I forgot to add though; I don't really care about the size of the game. A game could have repeating enviroments and be 100km2, but have great gameplay. Another game could have unique enviroments, but also terrible gameplay. I just hope they manage to balance it between.

We will see.

Got a question however, if you didn't care about the size of the environment, why did you bring it up in the first place? It was your reason for stating the game was 'degraded' after all.

I may come across aggressive, and I'm sorry for that. I've been neg repped to hell already for what I've said, but when you come into a thread and post claims with no credible evidence and state your views as if they are fact, well, expect hell to rain down.

[~Merrick]

Well.. As he said, no source called, BS. I have searched several sources and can't come up with anything on the 50-15km issues. Oblivion was too advanced for the consoles, it pushed the resources. Welcome to the PC players world. You get pissed about it when the pc players say " god damn it, what the hell do i need to play this, time to upgrade. Consolers are stuck.

By the way , how were those three games Terribly optimized? I played Acreed on the ps3 and it played fine.

[Giz]

Originally Posted by Serio

I'm going to bet when it's released, no one will buy it because it's another Crysis.

That's a pretty daft comparison. What are the similarities, other than the fact that it's a first person shooter?

It's like the 'every other MMO is a WoW clone' and people make that comparison simply because WoW was one of the first MMO's to do things right. So now all other MMO's are being compared to it even when there are next to no comparisons between the two. It's ridiculous.

[Serio]

Originally Posted by Giz

That's a pretty daft comparison. What are the similarities, other than the fact that it's a first person shooter?

It's like the 'every other MMO is a WoW clone' and people make that comparison simply because WoW was one of the first MMO's to do things right. So now all other MMO's are being compared to it even when there are next to no comparisons between the two. It's ridiculous.

Let me see. They both use a future-generation engine, they both have destructible enviroments, they both focus alot on physics.

[Metall_pingwin]

Originally Posted by Flodgy

You appear to have a clear dislike for Ubisoft Montreal, yet facts and figures speak otherwise.

:\

Think about that one. :]

What does FarCry 2 have that other games can't do?

I'm going to answer that question by paraphrasing you and another question.
Your main beef with the game as it is now, is that it has been reduced from 50-15 kilometers square. Which I'm not certain, but think has been already disproved in this thread. So that only leaves us with your second opinion about the game:

I'm still going to get it because it looks alot, graphically and gameplay, Crysis. It has everything Crysis did, but also everything it didn't.

Well now, that is something. Apparently Far Cry 2 has everything Crysis didn't have. And unless the game was terribly lacking in your opinion, which I doubt, seeing as you spent over 100 hours on it, that's not a bad result.

That's a pretty daft comparison. What are the similarities, other than the fact that it's a first person shooter?

It's like the 'every other MMO is a WoW clone' and people make that comparison simply because WoW was one of the first MMO's to do things right. So now all other MMO's are being compared to it even when there are next to no comparisons between the two. It's ridiculous.

I absolutely agree. And really, this works especially well with FPS games. There is constant recycling of "run and shoot" in those games, with few other major gameplay elements. What (supposedly) makes each one of them worth playing and exciting is nicer graphics, bigger booms, better guns, better enemies, better physics, new storyline. All of this is provided by Far Cry 2 in relation to Crysis, so there is really little reason to complain.

Let me see. They both use a future-generation engine, they both have destructible enviroments, they both focus alot on physics.

As do Mercenaries 2. Is that game a clone of Crysis? Hardly. In fact, it's almost absurd that you consider games too alike because of technical reasons, Portal and Garry's mod run on the same game engine, are focused on physics, and lack destructible environments.

[Giz]

Let me see. They both use a future-generation engine, they both have destructible enviroments, they both focus alot on physics.

• Destructible Environments.
• Future Generation Engine (or perhaps, just 'new' engine).
• Physical properties.

So any game that has the above is a direct comparison to Crysis? This is what you're saying?

We're almost in the year 2009, I'd hope that all future games have some kind of new engine, destructible environments (depending on the game) and focus on physics in their games. But that doesn't mean they should be compared to other games that focus on, or have, the same things in their game. Those are some, technical, properties but that's just an advancement in technology, not games trying to compare with one another. And we've seen such things in games long before Crysis came along.

[Serio]

Originally Posted by Giz

• Destructible Environments.
• Future Generation Engine (or perhaps, just 'new' engine).
• Physical properties.

So any game that has the above is a direct comparison to Crysis? This is what you're saying?

We're almost in the year 2009, I'd hope that all future games have some kind of new engine, destructible environments (depending on the game) and focus on physics in their games. But that doesn't mean they should be compared to other games that focus on, or have, the same things in their game. Those are some, technical, properties but that's just an advancement in technology, not games trying to compare with one another. And we've seen such things in games long before Crysis came along.

Right, why didn't... say... Doom 3 allow you to shoot a hole in the floor and jump down? Or Call of Duty 4?

[Giz]

Originally Posted by Serio

Right, why didn't... say... Doom 3 allow you to shoot a hole in the floor and jump down? Or Call of Duty 4?

I don't know, I wasn't apart of the development team for either of those games.

I guess we could compare Crysis to Red Faction (2001), if you're going to base it on a technical stand point. I remember that game having some destructible elements, like blowing holes in the walls and doors. So perhaps people won't buy Crysis because it's just another Red Faction.

[bud389]

Whats up with saying its like crysis? This game takes place in africa and crysis took place on an island near Korea. When i see the main character using super power boosts and stuff, then i think i'll call it a crysis clone.