Comments on: Far Cry 2: What I’d Like

By: Fatalism in Leboa-Sako and Bowa-Seko | Five Players

Fatalism in Leboa-Sako and Bowa-Seko | Five Players — Thu, 23 Sep 2010 07:35:43 +0000

[...] launch was very nicely covered and illustrated by PC Gamer’s Tom Francis in a trilogy of posts to which Clint Hocking himself responded with some explanations for the more radical design [...]

By: Pentadact

Pentadact — Tue, 28 Oct 2008 18:00:19 +0000

They happen automatically when you stab someone who's dying on the floor. A single special stab - where they haven't seen you or you're very close, and you do one big slash - always leaves them dying on the floor. A non-special 1-2 swipe tends to kill them outright, though.

By: Dave

Dave — Tue, 28 Oct 2008 17:58:15 +0000

Anyone reached the 'Ending' yet? Uuuurgh. Not exactly satisfying.

By: Roadrunner

Roadrunner — Tue, 28 Oct 2008 17:37:02 +0000

I had installation problems and being ubisoft the answer is "Go fuck yourself." However, after managing to fix it, I played. I liked how I died but one of my buddies appeared from nowhere to kick some scrotum with me.

I think i'll fire up TF2 now, to brush off all the realism :D
Also, i've killed a few guys with the machete, but how do you do those finishing moves which you've done above?

By: Pentadact

Pentadact — Tue, 28 Oct 2008 08:08:38 +0000

Well, Far Cry 2 isn't Far Cry either, and there is no 'franchise' beyond the name. The only thing they have in common is an emphasis on being able to choose how to approach fights in a large open area, which my changes don't alter. But yes, Sam, I do want a different game. Doc, the first Far Cry didn't involve talking to anyone, but the second does. I'm not proposing any more talking, just giving it a purpose and spreading it out.

By: usualroutine

usualroutine — Mon, 27 Oct 2008 22:18:54 +0000

Wow. Your game sounds simply awesome. I mean, I would pay full - double, in fact - price for that. Sight unseen. Being some kind of cold, methodical killer, or a homicidal maniac, just you, Jackal, and the rest of the world. That means a shitload of replayability. That's actually a perfect idea - just not a Far Cry idea. Although, who needs Far Cry when you've got your awesome game?

By: RC-1290'Dreadnought'

RC-1290'Dreadnought' — Mon, 27 Oct 2008 21:31:38 +0000

In other words: release the full set of tools and code and let the community fix it(the only way I don't have to re-spend â‚¬45, hehehe).

By: J-Man

J-Man — Mon, 27 Oct 2008 20:46:17 +0000

Just bought it, and I'm gonna play it tomorrow. Does anyone know if it works with dual monitors?

By: Sam

Sam — Mon, 27 Oct 2008 20:01:04 +0000

I haven't read the other comments so someone may have brought this up but it sounds like you want a different game. I think their intention was to have a sandbox where you could have as many interesting skirmishes as you want. It's not trying to be a believeable world, otherwise there would be civilians. They're basically saying "Here's a world full of enemies, you know where their camps are, you can buys lots of different weapons, we've shown you the mechanics, have fun" I'm not saying your suggestions wouldn't make a good game, but it wouldn't be Far Cry.

By: DoctorDisaster

DoctorDisaster — Mon, 27 Oct 2008 18:25:12 +0000

First let me say I haven't played this game or Far Cry 1. Thus I am talking through my ass when I say: the franchise seems a little too Rambo-tastic, thematically speaking, for the kind of cerebral gameplay you're suggesting. Nonetheless, that's the impression I get -- and, really, the reason I haven't played either installment. But I should go on to say that your suggestions are exactly the sort of thing I'm praying to see in Deus Ex 3. (Note that I'm praying, not expecting.) An open-ended objective system like that, coupled with a storyline that responds to your style of play, rather than your dialogue choices (think Fable II or, more obscurely, Iji), would bring back the sense of immersion and consequence that made the original Deus Ex such a great experience.

By: Chris Evans

Chris Evans — Mon, 27 Oct 2008 17:34:30 +0000

I think that the points you raised at the beginning (in bold) are the most relevant to how to improve Far Cry, those are the things which in my mind keep this from being a game on the level of Half-Life, instead it falls just below that. If I were to use a % scale FC2 would get something in the high 80s compared to the mid 90s for Half-Life.

The second more detailed set of suggestions/points you raise are interesting, they would certainly make for a great game, but they wouldn't transfer easily over into what we currently have as FC2. If FC2 had been built up differently with some of the latter point you raised, then it would be magnificent.

By: Itrade

Itrade — Mon, 27 Oct 2008 17:24:14 +0000

So hang on, is it weird that I actually ended up liking some of the buddies? Michelle seemed okay to me, she's the one who asked me to kill some drug dealers and another mission that I've forgot, and Singh was also a pretty cool dude. I never really got to know Marty and Hakim too well, but it was always nice when they saved my hide and meeting them in the safehouse later was never annoying or anything like that. The only buddy I can say that I really dislike is the Chinese guy, because he's a jerk douche. And maybe Frank, because I spent the whole game trying to find him and when, almost two acts later, I find and rescue him, he starts swearing and never stops.

By: peterd102

peterd102 — Mon, 27 Oct 2008 17:16:52 +0000

Good idea, how about also being able to attack one area to lure troops from another base allowing you to attack another with less resitance. Getting your buddies to do that for you would be a nice idea as well.

By: Chris Livingston

Chris Livingston — Mon, 27 Oct 2008 15:38:25 +0000

Another idea might be to not have every guard post staffed every time. If you have thirty guard posts, but only twenty could be staffed at any time, it means sometimes you'd run into heavy opposition on a road, other times less, occasionally none. It would probably also encourage scouting: if you don't know for sure that there will be enemies at the next post, you might be more inclined to slow down and check rather than blasting through.

It would also let players learn the guards schedules. After some observation, they could learn that certain posts are never guarded at certain times, or discover when guards leave one post to staff another. Gives a lot more motivation to slowing down and scouting ahead, and learning about the world you're playing in.

By: peterd102

peterd102 — Mon, 27 Oct 2008 13:19:28 +0000

Rather than clutter this up, ive blogged about my own greivances with buddies here: http://peterd102.wor... ...c-freinds/

By: This is not innuendo!

This is not innuendo! — Mon, 27 Oct 2008 09:03:04 +0000

Sorry to barge in, but does it irritate anyone else when the player character in an FPS doesn't seem to be putting any effort into gripping his weapon? Far Cry Guy appears to have this problem - the machete looks like it's going to slip from his hands. See also the knife in Counter-Strike. Hacking someone to death just isn't as satisfying when you look like you're flailing the knife about, to and fro.

And in the game.

By: Pentadact

Pentadact — Mon, 27 Oct 2008 00:55:02 +0000

The point of the Invincibles is that your concern for the victims doesn't hinge on whether you like them or not, they're the sole objective - there's nothing else in the game but saving hostages. Lemmings doesn't try to establish a personal connection with each individual critter through character development, it just says "Here are some morons. Save 20." I'm not interested in trying to coax a modicum of affection or concern out of the player the way Valve have with Alyx, because it's really hard and even when you do it phenomenally well, a chunk of gamers will always refer to her as "the annoying bitch". I'd rather make the victims the only goal, so you're automatically caring about them for gameplay reasons, then any emotional response from the more human demographic towards the notion of preserving human life is a bonus. Ladders and AI are irrelevant - you'd never have to escort them anywhere, because that's not hero's work. You just have to eliminate the threat before they're killed.

By: Graham

Graham — Mon, 27 Oct 2008 00:16:52 +0000

I know there are fairly key differences between FarCry 2 and The Invincibles, but it at least attempts to do something new within the same areas.

The problem I always had with the hostage idea was that I'm not sure I'd actually care if they died. Most hostages in games are insufferable, and even if they were to possess functioning AI and the ability to climb ladders, I don't know that this is enough.

The buddies in FarCry 2 are horrible people, but you spend enough time with them to get to know them a little. It's doesn't feel like a failure because, as you rightly point out, they're free agents for whom you're not responsible. But when they die, it feels like a person has died.

A nameless hostage wouldn't feel like a generic representative of human life to me. It would feel like a generic NPC, of which I've encountered thousands.

Still hating FarCry 2 for all the reasons you specify. But also loving it for lots of others.

By: peterd102

peterd102 — Sun, 26 Oct 2008 19:05:40 +0000

I often think that most games are puzzle games - you have a problem, solve it. Some games require deduction, others shooting people in the face.

By: Chijts

Chijts — Sun, 26 Oct 2008 19:02:01 +0000

It looks to me like at first he's talking about what additions/subtractions could be made to the FC2, and then goes further using the game as a basis for what an ideal shooter would be for him.

Just because a game is labelled as "shooter" does that mean it has to be non-stop action all the time with continually respawning enemies, or can it drift off into subjects requiring more thought?