I really need to play 4. But the Storage Memory is too BIG. My download speeds can take about a day to finish.Johnny Novgorod said:What about the gyrocopters in Far Cry 4?Samtemdo8 said:As in FLYING VEHICLES:Squilookle said:
Not Glinding Temporary Devices.
FarCry imo is the only good one of the "Ubisoft Open World games"
- Thread starter Samtemdo8_v1legacy
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I was almost with you, til you threw in Primal. The game where they decided to take the literal worst bits of gameplay and throw them front and center so you could enjoy awful melee and horrible AI companions full stop.
Far Cry mostly benefits from not being popped out yearly (until Primal, go figure). It always feels like they've had a bit more time to refine it, and possibly a bit more freedom to be goofy or ever so slightly mature from being the flagship like Ass Creed.
Of the other 3 of the "Ubisoft Open World Games", Watch_Dogs 1 suffers from being a Driver sequel that somehow got reformatted and hyped into a new franchise. Watch Dogs 2 actually gets a bit of its own identity and feels a bit more like the style Far Cry was developed with, willing to indulge in camp, wearing influences from silly movies like Hackers in much the same way Far Cry often seems to be a riff on B-movie action films.
Ghost Recon I'm guessing is a dull lifeless slab (though the gameplay itself is well done enough, not enough to hold up 80 hours of it or however much it is, granted) because Tom Clancy must be serious business.
AC : Origins would be a much better game if it was maybe half the size. There's bits of inspiration in it, but not enough to fill out the whole thing. Again, the non-yearly benefits them, but it gets undercut by the need to have the flagship be ever bigger, despite not having the ideas to fill it.
Far Cry mostly benefits from not being popped out yearly (until Primal, go figure). It always feels like they've had a bit more time to refine it, and possibly a bit more freedom to be goofy or ever so slightly mature from being the flagship like Ass Creed.
Of the other 3 of the "Ubisoft Open World Games", Watch_Dogs 1 suffers from being a Driver sequel that somehow got reformatted and hyped into a new franchise. Watch Dogs 2 actually gets a bit of its own identity and feels a bit more like the style Far Cry was developed with, willing to indulge in camp, wearing influences from silly movies like Hackers in much the same way Far Cry often seems to be a riff on B-movie action films.
Ghost Recon I'm guessing is a dull lifeless slab (though the gameplay itself is well done enough, not enough to hold up 80 hours of it or however much it is, granted) because Tom Clancy must be serious business.
AC : Origins would be a much better game if it was maybe half the size. There's bits of inspiration in it, but not enough to fill out the whole thing. Again, the non-yearly benefits them, but it gets undercut by the need to have the flagship be ever bigger, despite not having the ideas to fill it.
No I was thinking of the newest Ghost Recon game which complete deviates from its roots.Seth Carter said:
Ghost Recon was supposed to be a essentially the more wide open battlefield version of Rainbow Six, a Tactical Squad based Shooter, now the newest game is this:
The last good Ghost Recon game was Ghost Recon 2 for the original Xbox. Heck same with Rainbow Six, the last good one was 3: Raven Shield.
That is something I will conceed, Ubisoft games are not BAD. And if anything at least they try to make Single Player experiances where as the only thing exicting from EA is the next yearly big Multiplayer shooter from DICE and even than their Star Wars Battlefront games failed to impress.Saelune said:
Sometimes I wonder how DICE haven't gone the way of the dodo like some many Compaines EA bought out.
Ehhhhhhhhhhhhhh ehhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh eh
3 was great, Blood Dragon was more of the same but neon, 4 was more of the same but in the mountains, and Primal (I never played that one) seemed like more of the same but with spears instead of AKs.
It was fun to start off with, but then it kind of got stuck in the same rut as AC2, AC:B and AC:R where they were just iterating, instead of innovating - building off the same base game, but with minor tweaks.
Primal seemed like the most divergent one, but also one that a lot of people straight up didn't like.
Maybe 5 does something cool and unique, but so far it seems like more of the same but with more urban environments and vehicle variety.
Call me cynical.
3 was great, Blood Dragon was more of the same but neon, 4 was more of the same but in the mountains, and Primal (I never played that one) seemed like more of the same but with spears instead of AKs.
It was fun to start off with, but then it kind of got stuck in the same rut as AC2, AC:B and AC:R where they were just iterating, instead of innovating - building off the same base game, but with minor tweaks.
Primal seemed like the most divergent one, but also one that a lot of people straight up didn't like.
Maybe 5 does something cool and unique, but so far it seems like more of the same but with more urban environments and vehicle variety.
Call me cynical.
Ubisoft games something that most open world games don't. You are given a task and a set of tools and you are to take everyone out silently. In Watch Dogs, you electronically manipulate the environment to take out the enemy without alerting the rest. In Far Cry, take downs, bows and animals are your tools. Wildlands requires teamwork, spotting and planning. You don't do that in Witcher, Skyrim, Just Cause or GTA. It's not better, it's just a different feel.
Multiplayer in Watch Dogs feel unique too. Remotely manipulating cars and other devices to give false leads to your opponent is pretty cool
Multiplayer in Watch Dogs feel unique too. Remotely manipulating cars and other devices to give false leads to your opponent is pretty cool
Far Cry 3 was great even though they killed off arguably the best video game villain ever halfway through the game in a QTE sequence that doesn't make any sense.
Far Cry 4 was more of the same, it was good but the protagonist was pretty much a mute with no character development and while Pagan Min was a good villain he wasn't nearly as good as Vaas.
Far Cry 4 was more of the same, it was good but the protagonist was pretty much a mute with no character development and while Pagan Min was a good villain he wasn't nearly as good as Vaas.
I STILL have yet to play Far Cry 4 because the console fov is like replacing your eyeballs with binoculars, and the PC version has that god damn stuttering regardless of the potential fixes I've applied to it online.
I'm hoping the co-op campaign in Far Cry 5 turns out well though, and Ubi finally learned not to ship a game with so many issues at launch.
I'm hoping the co-op campaign in Far Cry 5 turns out well though, and Ubi finally learned not to ship a game with so many issues at launch.
It WAS good, but they're slowly driving it into the ground. Far Cry 4 was good, but it kind of had a bit of "second verse, same as the first" going on in regards to 3.
So, out of curiosity, did you play Black Flag? I didn't see it on the list but that's the last one a majority of people will admit to liking(for good reason).Saelune said:
I've got a soft spot for "the Ubisoft game." I like the gameplay of the modern ones (Far Cry/Watch Dogs) rather than the period ones (Primal, AC) but that's kind of offset by the more interesting setting of the period pieces. And I have a tendency to forge my own canon as opposed to paying attention to the story, so the very poor writing choices that Ubisoft usually features really don't bother me that much. FarCry is nearly the worst written franchise of the bunch, but I agree I probably like it the most.
I really only have one problem with FarCry, specifically 3 and 4. One of my favorite things is taking strongholds. I love planning assaults, sneaking around, setting up traps... and having to change on the fly when things go wrong. That's some of the best stuff in the game. However, the result of taking territory is pacifying the surrounding area... and that takes out any challenge the game has. Random encounters stop happening and long drives become slogs through boring empty space where nothing interesting does or will happen. So the reward for the part of the game that is the most fun... is turning the rest of the game super boring.
I really only have one problem with FarCry, specifically 3 and 4. One of my favorite things is taking strongholds. I love planning assaults, sneaking around, setting up traps... and having to change on the fly when things go wrong. That's some of the best stuff in the game. However, the result of taking territory is pacifying the surrounding area... and that takes out any challenge the game has. Random encounters stop happening and long drives become slogs through boring empty space where nothing interesting does or will happen. So the reward for the part of the game that is the most fun... is turning the rest of the game super boring.
The way i see It is most potentially wasted franchise i have ever seen
Far cry 1: Amazing game until second half, trigens came in. worst enemies of all time and ruined the entire game. thus making second half so bad that it even overshadow the good of first half. luckily crytek improve greatly on Crysis 1 and become one of the GOAT FPS.
Far cry 2: Poor mans Stalker. great idea. terrible execution. basically just maleria simulator with driving and driving.
Far cry 3: Show us Vaas as Next best thing as Villain. only end up secondary villain for first half and thus ruined the experience. plus too many long unskippable cutscene.
Far cry 4: FC3 copy and paste. lazy design
Far cry primal: again FC3 copy and paste but by removing guns and give stone and arrows.
Far cry 1: Amazing game until second half, trigens came in. worst enemies of all time and ruined the entire game. thus making second half so bad that it even overshadow the good of first half. luckily crytek improve greatly on Crysis 1 and become one of the GOAT FPS.
Far cry 2: Poor mans Stalker. great idea. terrible execution. basically just maleria simulator with driving and driving.
Far cry 3: Show us Vaas as Next best thing as Villain. only end up secondary villain for first half and thus ruined the experience. plus too many long unskippable cutscene.
Far cry 4: FC3 copy and paste. lazy design
Far cry primal: again FC3 copy and paste but by removing guns and give stone and arrows.
That was done because you could not capture enemy holds in FarCry 2 and even after wiping them out at one time, they respawn later on which makes driving in FarCry 2 a constant danger.Kyrian007 said:
The best comprimise is once you capture a stronghold it pacifies the area, but after a period of time it becomes under siege from enemies.
You are giving a time limit to make your way back to the stronghold to defend it, but if its too late its taken and you have to retake it for yourself agian.
I've always wondered if that was the intent, but I've never lost territory. Even if I completely ignore the attack on the outpost or stronghold I've never had the enemy ever retake territory. I've explicitly ignored attacks on outposts, and even purposefully triggered the attack by returning to the outpost, waiting for the attack to begin, then legging it... nothing. I don't think its actually possible to lose already conquered territory, I can't do it even when I'm trying to lose territory.Samtemdo8 said: