Far Cry Primal is best Far Cry. Tragically, still a Far Cry game.

[sXeth]

I was sitting on the fence with this one, having played (and hated due to the horrible melee system) the Shangri-La quest in Far Cry 4.

And well, it looks like I erred on the side of caution correctly in guessing it would have the same horrible melee combat.

 

[stroopwafel]

I guess I will wait for the "black Sheep" of Far Cry Series which ALL the heroes/villains of Far Cry games Fight in a Mortal Kombat like game.

A Far Cry game about an office trip gone bad that has the underpaid French hipster developer against an army of angry Ubisoft executives demanding higher sales would probably be rad. The map could be stuffed with collectibles like the corporate checklists for game features.

 

[Flammablezeus]

Eh, Far Cry 2 is the only one I've really enjoyed and I REALLY enjoy it. I just can't get past how HUD-tastic, formulaic and easy the follow-ups were.

 

[Trunkage]

Wow...not even the ability to block, and shooting with arrows being more effective than making one of your animal companions attack it? I thought I might finally buy a far cry game again after all these years. (I bought far cry 1 only) Mostly because of the prehistoric age and primitive combat. I love both of those. But if the combat is so incredibly basic...meh. =x For me, Skyrim-level combat is a bare minimum. As in, being able to block and doing different combat animations depending on what direction you're moving. But if they don't even have the ability to block, I'll pass...

And about the 'it's just another far cry game' thing. That seems to be the trend for a few years now. AAA companies find their 'style' that made their game popular, then stick with their style for all or at least most future games. Bethesda did it with Fallout and Elder Scrolls, Bioware did it with Dragon Age and Mass Effect, Ubisoft did it with Far Cry and Assassin's Creed, etc.

That's not to say I like the trend. Games become incredibly repetitive and boring that way. And I wish more companies actually tried to innovate. Take CDProjekt RED for instance. They haven't released that many (well known) games yet. But their Witcher series tried to improve with each iteration at least. Witcher 1 was fairly complicated, clunky, trying to show a mature world, and with a rather laborious combat system. Witcher 2 greatly improved on the clunkiness and combat, tried making the story and characters far more important, and was less difficult to get into. Then Witcher 3 improved the combat yet again, added investigation (though the witcher senses made it too easy), added semi-open world while keeping a mostly linear story, added the best horse riding I've seen so far in a game, and properly streamlined and changed the skill/equipment system. (properly as in, not dumbed down but more accessible.) Each game improved on, and was better than the last. Other big companies should learn from them and take some small risks by trying something a little different every now and then.

I find this funny. Many of those franchises regularly get criticized for changing too much. Like Mass Effects story line. I remember you could upgrade your gun skills and you definitely shot with more precision in ME1. Or people still being cranky that Fallout is now an FPS and has no RPG elements. Dragon Age went for a more person story in DA2, which I applaud try, even though it was terribly done. What about the skill tree in Elder Scrolls?

Also... they haven't changed? What? Compare all the skills trees in Mass Effect, or the way the game looked or the guns work, the heavy weapons or the cover systems flowed. ME3's skill tree added some much diversity in play styles compared to ME2.Far Cry 3 and 4 are the only ones that are similar. Far Cry 1 and 2 are very different - the cover system, any melee combat, the way you earn weapon, the silly towers that are now in any Ubi game

 

[sanquin]

I find this funny. Many of those franchises regularly get criticized for changing too much. Like Mass Effects story line. I remember you could upgrade your gun skills and you definitely shot with more precision in ME1. Or people still being cranky that Fallout is now an FPS and has no RPG elements. Dragon Age went for a more person story in DA2, which I applaud try, even though it was terribly done. What about the skill tree in Elder Scrolls?

Also... they haven't changed? What? Compare all the skills trees in Mass Effect, or the way the game looked or the guns work, the heavy weapons or the cover systems flowed. ME3's skill tree added some much diversity in play styles compared to ME2.Far Cry 3 and 4 are the only ones that are similar. Far Cry 1 and 2 are very different - the cover system, any melee combat, the way you earn weapon, the silly towers that are now in any Ubi game

Often when a series changes, it detracts from the previous instalment. DA2 and Skyrim are dumbed down compared to their predecessor. And the problem that people had with DA2 was how small everything had become and how much was reused. Like the dungeons. Personally, I liked DA2's combat system over 1. And I do agree that the combat in ME3 was far more polished than in 1 and even 2. But they still dumbed down the skill tree immensely. I actually like the new fallout. Maybe because I never played 1 or 2. I like that it's more FPS focused, though the skill trees are a bit boring, it mostly consisting of 'X thing is a little bit better now'.

As to what you're reacting to specifically. I was making a point about the style of their games, not details that got changed. You can always tell what is a ubisoft, bethesda, bioware, etc game. Simply because of the overall style. Bethesda game? Expect a detailed, open world with lots of shallow things to do. Also expect that special bethesda brand of bugs. A bioware game? Expect that special style of 'romance options/plots' they always do, expect that same dialogue wheel they always use, and you can bet that the story is pretty linear, only giving some illusion of choice. A ubisoft game? Expect radio towers or some variation of it, a map filled with icons/busywork, and a -lot- of fathering animal skins/plants/whatever. These are just a few examples, but I hope you get what I mean. A company creates a style in a game, the game becomes popular, so they decide to use that style from then on out.

 

[sageoftruth]

Personally, I really love the game. It explores an interesting setting, utilizes a pretty good gameplay system, and just lacks in a few things like combat animation reactions to melee weapons. I've played all of the far cry games, but I found 3 and above to be superior to the first two. Maybe it's because I played crysis before the first far cry, but it just felt meh to me. 2 showed an early version of what would be perfected in 3, and is a pretty good immersion simulator. But it put too much importance on the realism to me.

I don't see why the series has to reinvent the formula every time a new game comes out. 3 was awesome, it let us explore a tropical environment with a heart of darkness esque story. Blood dragon reeked of the eighties and was just fun as hell. 4 explored the true stories that exist in civil war struggles, showing that not everything is as plain as it may seem, along with a wonderful india esque setting. Primal puts forth the Stone Age setting which isn't explored as often as it could be, along with a more savage gameplay type.

It's not the next silent hill 2, doom, mario 64, etc. But it is a fantastic game and the series is certainly in a better place than assassins creed, which has been rotting since unity.

The only reason I'd like them to reinvent themselves is because I'm already tired of the Far Cry formula. Power to you if the Far Cry formula still feels fresh for you, but I find just about all Ubisoft games to be rather check-listy, and even the thrill of taking an enemy base gets stale after doing it 30+ times. If the areas did more to distinguish themselves from each other, and felt less like removing yet another red smear from my map, then I'd happily cheer for more of the same in a coming sequel, but for me, the Far Cry formula wears out its welcome before the game is even over.

 

[Morti]

It's getting a bit uncanny how that keeps happening, -- how Ubisoft takes something from one of their previous games and makes an entire game based around just that.
It happened with AC: Black Flag too. "People really liked the ship combat sequences from AC3? I know! Let's make an entire game based around that!"

Actually, Black Flag was pretty good, so I guess the plan works some of the time. But it's still a bit weird how often this pattern is happening.

If you're doing the incremental style of development like Ubisoft, it's actually a pretty good idea.

Have an idea for a new, but risky mechanic? Test it in one segment of one game to see how it's recieved without risking blowing a whole game on it.

 

[Trunkage]

Often when a series changes, it detracts from the previous instalment. DA2 and Skyrim are dumbed down compared to their predecessor. And the problem that people had with DA2 was how small everything had become and how much was reused. Like the dungeons. Personally, I liked DA2's combat system over 1. And I do agree that the combat in ME3 was far more polished than in 1 and even 2. But they still dumbed down the skill tree immensely. I actually like the new fallout. Maybe because I never played 1 or 2. I like that it's more FPS focused, though the skill trees are a bit boring, it mostly consisting of 'X thing is a little bit better now'.

As to what you're reacting to specifically. I was making a point about the style of their games, not details that got changed. You can always tell what is a ubisoft, bethesda, bioware, etc game. Simply because of the overall style. Bethesda game? Expect a detailed, open world with lots of shallow things to do. Also expect that special bethesda brand of bugs. A bioware game? Expect that special style of 'romance options/plots' they always do, expect that same dialogue wheel they always use, and you can bet that the story is pretty linear, only giving some illusion of choice. A ubisoft game? Expect radio towers or some variation of it, a map filled with icons/busywork, and a -lot- of fathering animal skins/plants/whatever. These are just a few examples, but I hope you get what I mean. A company creates a style in a game, the game becomes popular, so they decide to use that style from then on out.

Did you play Daggerfall? because Morrowind was way more "dumbed down" to Daggerfall than Skyrim ever was to Morrowind (with Oblivion in the middle as well). There might have been a line they crossed but from all the discussions I have had, the line is very different for everyone. For example, does a RPG have to look like a spreadsheet or are they allowed to try Skyrim's skill system. Or Fallout 4.

I remember what people said about the dumbing down of Daggerfall. I remember the reduction of choices, the reduction of failing in guilds (especially for me), huge reductions in skills, reduction in enemy types, in difficult, in randomness. And most importantly in size. Morrowind was such a tiny island compared to all the states in Daggerfall.

As to brand styles. I don't know what you can really do about that. Its like whenever you change the style of ITunes. Some people change, some people get cranky. Innovation costs you customers, and it may not be matched by those you get by doing the change. Unfortunately, 12 million units of Fallout 4 in a couple of weeks state that they are doing the right thing and meeting the needs of a lot of people