don't be the repetative boredom-fest tghat FC2 was!!!!
In a few simple beats Far Cry 3's accidental hero, Jason Brody, goes from being nervy, spoilt rich kid to John Rambo, as his extreme sports holiday takes a turn for the worse. It’s a forgivably quick process for plot development purposes, if an abrupt one, but made palatable by the use of subtle tricks skilfully employed to pull …
Since Eurogamer. Got to play the demo there and I just wasn't impressed. The controls weren't mapped correctly (got stuck trying to open a door because it kept telling me to press the wrong buttons) which is forgivable for a demo.
What wasn't though was the texture quality. From far away things looked amazing, up close? Not so much, some of the ladders reminded meof playing HL2 the textures were such low quality, it was just awful. Really put me off the game.
"This is the reason I do not play betas any more. In the end I found most of them spoil the actual finished game."
I have never played a beta for pretty much the same reason. Playing a half-finished game might appeal to some people, but why it should, is something that escapes me entirely. Possibly some people feel that there is some degree of prestige attached to it.
There will likely be strict caveats on the press against publishing their own screenshots. It's probable a PR dept somewhere sends out a number of 'approved' screenshots for reviewers.
Anyone know if Ubisoft are still doing that atrocious 'constant net connection required to play' mince? I fancy getting this for PC, but I'll probably abort to PS3 if they're going to shut me down if my internet breaks.
Most of Ubisoft's recent games (and older ones that have been patched) just require a net connection to activate it and then you can make it available for off-line use. It's more like Steam now.
Mind you, I bought From Dust in a Steam sale and wasn't actually able to activate it, since their bloody servers went down that weekend. I guess they must have been surprised that more than two people wanted to login on the same Saturday.
Come on. It's an FPS - do you really need to know what that's like to play? Run around, shoot stuff, ride on vehicles. Par for the course. I know that - what I want to know is whether the environment all this happens in and the storyline behind it are things I'll enjoy FPS-ing in.
By the sounds of it, no this is not one for me. I'll stick to sci-fi shooters, thanks.
To be fair when reviewed on console, it's difficult to get your own decent screenshots. Most official websites have an images section and that's often where shots are sourced, hence their duplication on other sites. If images are sent by PRs, they tend to be the same as those anyway.
We usually take our own screenshots for PC games, though.
From the bottom of P2 of the review:
"Hunting game animals also leads to further expansion of Jason’s armoury as their hide is harvested to fashion larger wallets, backpacks and arrow quivers, like some cut-down version of Monster Hunter. Plants can be similarly harvested for healing and empowering drugs, while the game also sports some of the coolest drug trip sequences as Dr. Earnhardt helps you expand your horizons."
A real life that includes posting on a review of a video game to say simply that you don't play video games any more?
There's nothing wrong with being a gamer. It's the biggest entertainment industry in the world as it stands. Games are played by more people and paid for by more people than any film, CD, whatever. You've missed on on a lot of fun sir.
quote: "As soon as I could drive, I traded my snes for girls and real life."
I think you got done. Most of my game playing friends are married, with multiple kids, and hold down high-paying jobs. Overall they are very satisfied with their quality of life.
Methinks you should've kept gaming :)
Don't worry, son. Once you actually grow up, you might just become your own person and meet a woman who you genuinely like and who likes the genuine you.
I did. I have a wonderful fiancee who gives me my gaming time, and we still enjoy dinner, dancing and each other's company....and despite what the cliches will tell you, you can be a gamer and still have a beautiful, intelligent and charming partner - mine is a qualified nurse, beautician and fitness instructor.
The OBVIOUS issue being that the screenshots are not from the reviewers experience of playing the game but while they are being used as such, they have been specifically chosen by the publisher. This instantly degrades the credibility of the review somewhat in my opinion.
Also, the fact that the reviewer seems to think this is ok degrades it further as it indicates they are more interested in doing what the publisher wants than offering an un-biased and honest opinion to the reader. Which is the whole point of a review.
If I wanted to read what Ubisoft wants me to think about the game I'd go to the Ubisoft website.
Sorry but it is what it is. The Register is increasingly not the place to come to for independent opinion. I fully understand that the business of The Register is advertising, but it comes to a time when you have to ask what's the point of reading their content?
I don't play computer games any more. I'm quite happy to admit I get addicted to them too easy... and then life passes me by. So I just tend not to pick them up any more. Haven't really played anything for about 10 years now and I don't intend to start now - besides which I'm sure I'd be rubbish now.
That said I find it incredible sitting on the sidelines and watching the graphics improve and what people take for granted now. Promo shots or whatever this looks really awesome. You have to give it to the artists and everyone else involved in this industry for continually pushing the boundaries
Stunning graphics but I shan't be touching it after the game-breaking bugs I encountered in Far Cry 2 made it impossible to complete. I spent an epic amount of time hitting 44% before it irrevocably broke, 20+ hours replaying and or trying to work around the bugs but was eventually defeated by that same bugged story quest. In some ways I was lucky as I heard many people encountered a game killing bug once they had fought their way to 88%.
Approximately 2 years ago the Far Cry 2 forum was little more than complaints about these bugs and the only official post I ever saw was "Good news, we are making Far Cry 3!!"
"Because lots of people like single player mode and don't use co-op or multiplayer?" -- I too like a good single player campaign, but, once completed on the most difficult setting, why would I continue to play the game? The uncharted series suffered because of this, as did Just Cause 2 (which has a community MP mod being currently developed). Frankly, I am totally bored of shooting at dumb AI controlled Bots and prefer going up against real players with cunning tactics, it improves my gameplay rather than forcing me to play the "take cover, pop up, shoot, take cover, pop up, shoot" method over and over again until the campaign is complete.
FPS games that offer diverse MP modes, tend to have more lasting appeal, even if they are just pumping out a rehash of last years game.
One of the most promising games that I have seen recently was Battlefield 3. The campaign was awful, with poor actors and a terrible plot, the interrogation scenario as a story telling device felt like a copy of Black Ops. On the upside, the Multiplayer mode was clearly the focus of DICEs resources. It pushed the boundaries in terms of map size and having all manner of user controlled vehicles, whilst still allowing regular combat on foot. BF3 was really let down (for me) by the crippling input lag :(
"As engrossing, fulfilling and varied a sandbox..." It's NOT a sandbox, it's called an "open world" game. Why doesn't anyone in the IT industry, especially even game reviewers, understand this?
A sandbox mode, or a sandbox mod, or a sandbox game (like some Lego games) let you actually design the environment yourself just to fool around in. This is based on a metaphor of children playing at real life in a sandbox (sand pit).
An "open world" game, like Far Cry 3, is designed to place as few restrictions as possible on the options for gameplay and adventure.
And the definitive proof :) ....
Starting to get annoyed an people trying to play FPS games on consoles. They just suck. Especially considering the console hardware is nearly 10 years old now. Even the game developers are getting annoyed at that.
PC version. Thats your demographic here anyway! Better graphics, easier to play, and much easier to review & create screenshots etc.
Yawn, I have both a Games PC and a console, the console is better for FPS mostly due to the lack of a keyboard. Yes I have a PS3 type gamepad for my PC.
I played FC1 and FC2 on the PC and the graphics were 'as good' as the console version as far as I could see. The same goes for Just Cause 2.
Far Cry 2 was such a piece of sh(t that I've been vastly turned off to the idea of Far Cry 3 since it's announcement. It's only the pleasant memories of the original Far Cry that even garnered my interest.
I'd love to know the reviewers opinions of Far Cry 2 so I have a comparison to Far Cry 3. If he thought it was good, then I know to avoid this game.
I kinda forgot it was out and with the holiday season up so close I kinda figured what the heck. Thanks for the review; IMO it summed up the game pretty nicely. And I also like how some points are also picked up on other reviews while you lot also picked up some specifics..
The only thing I hope for is that this game doesn't fall into the "level up trap"; Assasins Creed Brotherhood is a very good example of that "flaw" (well, not really a flaw but....). In AC-B you need to destroy Borgia towers. But the fun part is that you can start doing that really soon in the game, at a point where some of the stronger enemies aren't yet introduced. I guess the designers meant for you to follow the tutorial (-like) missions, but if you started exploring instead you could unlock a lot of stuff. When I entered the first dungeon of the sons of Romulus I had already destroyed all but 3 or 4 Borgia towers.
And when the stronger enemies eventually appeared I had already massed a nice group of assassins to meet them :-)
But, can't wait to give this a spin tomorrow evening. I really liked FC2, even with the repetitive scenes, because of what it allowed you to do. And it seems they kept a lot of the good parts (charge in guns blazing or fight from the shadows) and added lots of better graphics and AI.
Well, in this case I think its an honest review; but you're right. There's always a catch. My take is simple; when you first play a game its easy to get overwhelmed; so much new stuff, so much beauty, so much diversity (in comparison to the previous version) and so you're left a little bit in awe.
Then you start working on your review because well; modern reviews need to get released as soon as possible. Not after the reviewer got, say, a week or so to really dive into the game and get a full impression of it. Gotta beat or at least keep up with the competition...
Its the main reason why I think a lot reviewers suck by definition; they review stuff as soon as its out, but then never take the time to pick it up again later and do, say, a "Game xxx revisited" to look at it once more but this time after a longer period. For example a month or two. Enough time to have also experienced the bad stuff.
But that's what user reviews are for; IMO they're always better than commercial funded ones,
This post has been deleted by its author
Is that most reviewers didn't spot a rather nasty bug in the game wrt. the somewhat lineair missions. When you accept a mission you need to get to the mission area. But if you happen to come across your opponents outside that area (or if you lure them there by sniping some of the cronies) then you're out of luck since your mission is almost certain likely to fail, even if you met all criteria (like stabbing your target): You were supposed to enter the mission area first and only /then/ start killing people.
Sorry, but that's such a major flaw that I can't believe no reviewer picked this up. I came across this only 3 - 4 hours in the game, and I'm not even a die hard gamer.
But apart from that; FC3 is a very cool and awesome shooter. I LOVE how you can run into all sorts of problems. Like, for example, you're ready to "storm" a base after doing remote scouting and all of a sudden find a huge tiger standing a few meters away from you. "uh oh". And by the time you killed it you can be sure that you alerted the entire base of your presence :-)
Awesome game, but a little bit too much hyped for my liking.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2021