Don't really know too much about the game, apart from what they showed at E3. I like how the plot is shaping up, and what they've done with the main antagonist. Seems like they're trying to tap into the same sort of themes they did with Far Cry 2. Also like the return to the jungle setting and the fact that stealth is viable. Not sure I like what looks to be a cover system, and there's always the chance that they'll make it into yet another cinematic linear shooter (the E3 footage looks pretty scripted, but then again it seems to be taken from the beginning of the game). But I also heard that they said something about the world being even bigger than the one in FC2, so it might be another open world shooter (and as one of the few people who loved FC2, I would welcome that).


E3 footage (probably not the best quality, but it's the first one I found)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uc_arVX3G6s

So what are your thoughts on the game, from what we know thus far?


EDIT: naw... on second thought, there's no reason a cover system would be bad. As long as it isn't the Killzone 2/Gears style of cover system.

I am pretty optimistic. Altough I will miss Africa :(

There hasn't been any hope for anything Ubisoft has done for more than 2 years now. The only exception was RUSE and that was only because they were already signed up for Steamworks with that game.

Far Cry 2 would have been one of my all time favourite FPS if it wasn't such an enemy-spewing clusterfuck the whole time. When you want less shooting in an FPS you know it's going very wrong somewhere. Still a good game though.

Edit: after looking at some gameplay footage, you can forget the idea of facing any kind of challenge in this game.

People always cite the enemy spawning in FC2 as a big issue, but I honestly never had trouble with it in the slightest. I wouldn't have ever even imagined that it was a problem if I didn't hear so many others complaining about it.

About FC3... what makes it look like it will be too easy? Granted, the E3 footage didn't look like anything particularly intense, but I just assumed that's 'cause it was the beginning of the game.

Yeah, that ruined a potentially awesome game for me. It was ridiculous, really. One only had to turn a corner before the whole outpost was perfectly rebuilt and repopulated with enemies. Not even a countdown timer before resetting the cell?!

Ugh, you think you are special or something.

Well, some people require lots of skill and practice to be able to press E three times in ten seconds.

/s

On a personal note, no, thank you. Don't care what happens with the game, won't be buying it even for $1.

I've seen some gameplay footage where the player is shot a ridiculous amount of times and not inconvenienced by it in the slightest. Now sure, all that red screen bollocks doesn't really work for me. But even that's surely better than no traditional or regenerative health system? That, and by the time you finished off one Jeep's worth of enemies, two more had joined the fray. It was actually the kind of game where you didn't really want a lot of combat all the time. I would normally say "I" instead of "you" but it's clearly a universally held opinion. Even the devs admit it was a mistake.

It looked really good in what I saw before I left. Far Cry 2 was a little meh but mostly for little things like shitty mouse control and too many respawning enemies. I doubt they will make those mistakes again.

FC2 had respawning enemies, AND these guys had t-shirts that could take half a clip and have their owner still combat-ready. I'm playing that DRM-free FC2 right now, and buses plus traveling on foot with no fire contact beat the FPS part of the game every time. And that's while I'm in full stealth gear with camo and silent guns, but sadly all those militia bastards have implants which immediately inform the entire base that their owner was shot through the head.

Great gesture system. Just great gesture system!

Looks as dumb as real humans now!

The sad thing is that when the game works it's brilliant, those moments are just few and far between.

I know I'm completely in the minority about this, but the complaints people have about FC2 (which are numerous and ridiculously varied, and sometimes opposing) always seem a little...I dunno... petty. Especially considering the sort of crap that everyone let the original get away with (not that FC1 is a bad game, but it's not exactly frustration free). I suppose I can see the respawning enemies being irritating...although as I said, I never even noticed them, much less took issue with them. But complaining about the Malaria mechanic? The somewhat-longer-than-normal drive times? The fact that enemies have a little more health than "realistic" FPS foes usually do (which actually makes more sense than the usual "everyone but you dies in a single bullet" mentality that most modern shooters adopt)? The fact that everyone and anyone in the game will attack you even if it doesn't exactly make sense story-wise (which is admittedly silly, but hardly gets in the way of the gameplay)? The fact that the story goes from weak to ridiculously silly over the course of the game? I'm not going to blame anyone if these things do bug you enough to keep you from enjoying the game, but to me they seem like really minor problems compared with the amount of stuff FC2 does well: The evocative atmosphere and beautiful locale, the unique sense of brutality and hot discomfort that permeates everything, the fantastic feel of weapons and their various effects (I maintain that Far Cry 2 has the best weapon sounds of any FPS I've played this generation. WORLDS better than the "snappity snappity airsoft gun" sounds from CoD and its followers. Also, the explosions are amazing.), the mature psychological themes (relative to other FPSs, of course. I'm not saying FC2 is high art :P), and the multitude of fun ways to approach combat (the flamethrower alone offers nearly unlimited potential for sadistic joy).

Basically, I agree that when the game works, it's brilliant. And I also agree that there are some facets of it that are underdeveloped or poorly done. But in my experience with it, the brilliant times were the norm rather than the exception.

EDIT: and just to be clear, I'm not blaming anyone for not liking the game. I just find it really hard to understand how the flaws people cite would ruin the game for them (but then again, it's a rare game that can alienate me enough that I actually dislike it). Yeah, the stealth could be a little touchy. I didn't think it was really to that extent, though. I found it perfectly viable to take out several guys without being noticed (although it wasn't always easy), and it was also possible for them to lose track of you if you pulled the old Far Cry 1 "run back into the jungle and hide" trick. Admittedly, though, the stealth camo really should have had a more noticeable effect. And stealth wasn't nearly as fluidly integrated into the experience as it was in the original, or in Crysis.

It looks to me like...
Far Cry 3 is a Far Cry from its predecessors.

buh dum tish!

well, at least it's back in the jungle...?

I dunno :P

Well they're not petty if they keep you from really enjoying the game, which they did.