Alright FarCry 5, you have completely sold me.

[4Aces]

I think that easier said then done. What do you evolve Farcry 3 into? It already had lots. (In fact, I'd say they need to trim some things but that would be a step backwards now).

Ways to improve FC5 (just off the cuff, I am sure there are many more):

Parkour

Increased mods for customization, not just for weapons, but armor, and vehicles

Expansion of plant recipes so it is not just boiled down to R/G/B, and makes stategy and map exploration more meaningful

Crafting loot from enemy bodies instead of useless items that are just cash in disguise

Static containers to store loot in, not magic vending machines that can spew endless amounts of weapons and ammo, removing all strategy. Keep stores that can sell ammo rare, making you plan or at least hunt enemies with stealth to reload in enemy territory

A return to using scent or meat to lure predators (not herbivores) into attacking instead of granting the powers of Dr. Dolittle to the player

Minigames that are (all) integrated in a meaningful way, instead of just tossing some XP and money, while usually ripping the player out of immersion (racing w/ fireworks through enemy held territory, or waiting for the cult to kill your dog while you fish)

Increased destructibility of environments

Branching choices in story, also ties into upgrades/receipes to increase replayability

Story choices that matter

 

[Phoenixmgs_v1legacy]

Stand-alone DLC is lazy due to lack of integration and no effect on the primary game.

Are these DLCs confirmed as standalone? Because I have no interest in FarCry 5 but these DLCs look over-the-top and a ton of fun like how Blood Dragon (which is standalone) was so much more fun than FarCry 3. I will totally buy these DLCs if I don't need the main game.

They're actually trying really hard to make this into an appealing product. I have no idea what happened with Ubisoft but I'm starting to like it. First they made Assassin's Creed Origins which was pretty fuckin' phenomenal and now this? Though some people would say that Watch Dogs 2 is also one of the better ones, but I wouldn't know.

I don't really get why Ubisoft is so hated. Out of the big 3 (EA, Activision, Ubisoft), Ubisoft is easily the best publisher with regards to game quality and even treating customers (even though they ain't good there but it's not exactly a high bar). Ubisoft is notorious for not supporting their game post-launch but they do normally launch more polished than lots of similar open world games. I always thought Ubisoft: The Game's open worlds were better than anything Rockstar has ever put out. The problem is every Ubisoft game is so similar, it becomes so stale so fast. It's similar to Arkham combat where I like the combat system but when every game with melee combat copied it, Arkham combat became something I hated.

 

[4Aces]

Stand-alone DLC is lazy due to lack of integration and no effect on the primary game.

Are these DLCs confirmed as standalone?

Most people think that at least the 'Nam and Mars DLC are so similar to what Blood Dragon was to FC3, it seems likely they are stand alones. It would mean more money for Ubi in the long run.

 

[Squilookle]

Tell you what- if hours of darkness can be bought as a standalone completely seperate from FC5 just as blood dragon was for 3, then I'll consider it.

Still not touching FC5 with a ten foot pole though...

 

[Captain Marvelous_v1legacy]

I'm just waiting for the shit storm from the MAGA-tards.

MAGA-Tards?

Interestingly, I read a Gamespot article about the game leaving them a tad confused (And apparently uncomfortable). On the surface it looks like it's a game about shooting down straw men conservatives. But then there's an ally npc that actually is a conservative straw man. Complains about "Obama loving Libtards" and everything. The cult is also racially inclusive.

On topic: I was going to avoid FC5, but this, along with there apparently being a character creator, have sold me. Pending what feels like inevitable lootbox announcement of course.

 

[Saelune]

I'm just waiting for the shit storm from the MAGA-tards.

MAGA-Tards?

Interestingly, I read a Gamespot article about the game leaving them a tad confused (And apparently uncomfortable). On the surface it looks like it's a game about shooting down straw men conservatives. But then there's an ally npc that actually is a conservative straw man. Complains about "Obama loving Libtards" and everything. The cult is also racially inclusive.

On topic: I was going to avoid FC5, but this, along with there apparently being a character creator, have sold me. Pending what feels like inevitable lootbox announcement of course.

Who knows? Far Cry 4, the 'bad guy' was the least bad. The sister was 20x more evil than Pagan Min, the brother was a religious anti-progressive nut.

 

[Whitbane]

Apparently the online co-op is implemented really bad. Only saves the host progress so the second player gets left behind and gets no credit for any of the story missions in their own game.

Link here for the latest news from Gamespot.

https://www.gamespot.com/articles/we-chat-about-far-cry-5-and-it-has-us-confused/1100-6457128/

Probably wait for a few reviews before checking this out. Especially after Primal and the fact they ripped the map straight from Far Cry 4.

 

[stroopwafel]

Game already sold me when I saw the first gameplay footage. Very smooth shooting mechanics, beautiful graphics, more vehicles to fly/drive etc. FC5 just look like an improvement in every way of a franchise I already love. It's also already been quite a few years since the last 'proper' Far Cry so I'm itching for a new game.

 

[Kyrian007]

Really the premise sold me. I get to shoot compound-living, survivalist gun-nut, ignorant inbred religious fundamentalists... sign me up. I grew up in an area that HAS people like that. In 2000 I worked for the U.S. Census as a leave-update taker and literally was held at gunpoint by assholes like this and had to wait through a sermon about how "the Constitution that we all (meaning me and my government masters I guess) don't follow anymore says I can't take their guns." Meaning I had to explain that no one was after their guns. I was simply to leave the census package there for them to fill out and mail in (which if they did would mean no one would be coming back until the next census.) Also since they were so fond of the Constitution I explained that in order for the Government to have the correct data to provide the correct number of Representatives to our district... the Constitution ITSELF demands that a census be conducted every 10 years. I really gave those idiots something to think about... something that they don't do well or often, but it was enough to get them to comply so I could leave un-shot. (although I wasn't that worried, people that attached to their guns are fundamentally insecure and cowards to a man... or woman.)

Virtually getting some back for that incident is more than enough to sell me on FC5.

 

[sXeth]

I don't really get why Ubisoft is so hated. Out of the big 3 (EA, Activision, Ubisoft), Ubisoft is easily the best publisher with regards to game quality and even treating customers (even though they ain't good there but it's not exactly a high bar). Ubisoft is notorious for not supporting their game post-launch but they do normally launch more polished than lots of similar open world games. I always thought Ubisoft: The Game's open worlds were better than anything Rockstar has ever put out. The problem is every Ubisoft game is so similar, it becomes so stale so fast. It's similar to Arkham combat where I like the combat system but when every game with melee combat copied it, Arkham combat became something I hated.

I wonder how the hell TakeTwo isn't included in the axis of evil or whatever, myself.

Ubisoft was going well for awhile, but they've recently dove back headfirst into shenanigans with their presented info at investor conferences describing how they want to make "Service Platforms" instead of Games. And the mess with Rainbow Six : Siege where they added loot boxes (post Battlefront no less) while also *increasing* the price of the game that's been out over a year. I don't have any big gripe with their games (other then most are well too big for the amount of creativity they seem to have, so they're spread *thin* over that), but they're current stated goals and actual actions kill any optimism that this won't be plagued by some obtrusive monetization junk.

 

[Trunkage]

I think that easier said then done. What do you evolve Farcry 3 into? It already had lots. (In fact, I'd say they need to trim some things but that would be a step backwards now).

Ways to improve FC5 (just off the cuff, I am sure there are many more):

Parkour

Increased mods for customization, not just for weapons, but armor, and vehicles

Expansion of plant recipes so it is not just boiled down to R/G/B, and makes stategy and map exploration more meaningful

Crafting loot from enemy bodies instead of useless items that are just cash in disguise

Static containers to store loot in, not magic vending machines that can spew endless amounts of weapons and ammo, removing all strategy. Keep stores that can sell ammo rare, making you plan or at least hunt enemies with stealth to reload in enemy territory

A return to using scent or meat to lure predators (not herbivores) into attacking instead of granting the powers of Dr. Dolittle to the player

Minigames that are (all) integrated in a meaningful way, instead of just tossing some XP and money, while usually ripping the player out of immersion (racing w/ fireworks through enemy held territory, or waiting for the cult to kill your dog while you fish)

Increased destructibility of environments

Branching choices in story, also ties into upgrades/receipes to increase replayability

Story choices that matter

Some of these sound like something in Primal. I never played it and I cant comment on that.

Me personally, REDUCING crafting would be a better way to go. Parkour? It a jungle/mountain (or something similar). There isn't much to parkour off.

Getting rid of all minigames would be great for me, including silly things like the drug comas of Far Cry 4. OR the part that lead to Primal. That was the most boring part of FC4.

Good luck with the story elements. Games dont do that. The Witcher 2 was the closest its ever got and, in the end, it didnt really matter.

But I'm in for destrucible environments, as long as it didnt take too many resources from actually creating the game

EDIT: Far Cry 4 had you picking two different people with different objectives for the same mission. Sometimes it wouldn't matter too much. Sometimes the whole mission was way different from each perspective. I think more of the latter would be good.

 

[Phoenixmgs_v1legacy]

I don't really get why Ubisoft is so hated. Out of the big 3 (EA, Activision, Ubisoft), Ubisoft is easily the best publisher with regards to game quality and even treating customers (even though they ain't good there but it's not exactly a high bar). Ubisoft is notorious for not supporting their game post-launch but they do normally launch more polished than lots of similar open world games. I always thought Ubisoft: The Game's open worlds were better than anything Rockstar has ever put out. The problem is every Ubisoft game is so similar, it becomes so stale so fast. It's similar to Arkham combat where I like the combat system but when every game with melee combat copied it, Arkham combat became something I hated.

I wonder how the hell TakeTwo isn't included in the axis of evil or whatever, myself.

Ubisoft was going well for awhile, but they've recently dove back headfirst into shenanigans with their presented info at investor conferences describing how they want to make "Service Platforms" instead of Games. And the mess with Rainbow Six : Siege where they added loot boxes (post Battlefront no less) while also *increasing* the price of the game that's been out over a year. I don't have any big gripe with their games (other then most are well too big for the amount of creativity they seem to have, so they're spread *thin* over that), but they're current stated goals and actual actions kill any optimism that this won't be plagued by some obtrusive monetization junk.

I guess because TakeTwo just isn't as big and they don't release nearly as many games; Rockstar makes like 2 games a gen basically. Of course, they have that bullshit NBA 2K virtual currency along with just recently Rockstar's online modes like GTA Online that rack in the money via the SharkCards. The other companies are much more consistently in the public eye I guess.

I don't care about what is said in conferences, I base any publisher/dev off what they actually release vs investor/executive/PR talk. And I've played and enjoyed more Ubi games over the last 2 gens than what EA and Activision have released combined as I feel Ubi games (outside of AssCreed) are spread a bit thicker than most of the competition (at least with regards to open world games). And if Ubi's games become worse and aren't worth playing, I won't buy or play them like with EA and Activision. I've literally bought as many Arkane games (3 Dishonoreds and Prey) as I have bought EA and Activision games (only 4 over the last 2 gens). There's plenty of other quality games to play if another publisher goes in the shitter.

As long as you can still buy character/operatives in Siege like you always could, the loot boxes are then just a faster and paid way to get them, I don't have a problem with that. Now if you have to buy loot boxes to hopefully get the character you want and can't buy them with earned points, then that's a problem. I thought Ubi went back on that decision to remove the "standard edition" but yeah, that's not a positive for them either way.

 

[sXeth]

I guess because TakeTwo just isn't as big and they don't release nearly as many games; Rockstar makes like 2 games a gen basically. Of course, they have that bullshit NBA 2K virtual currency along with just recently Rockstar's online modes like GTA Online that rack in the money via the SharkCards. The other companies are much more consistently in the public eye I guess.

I don't care about what is said in conferences, I base any publisher/dev off what they actually release vs investor/executive/PR talk. And I've played and enjoyed more Ubi games over the last 2 gens than what EA and Activision have released combined as I feel Ubi games (outside of AssCreed) are spread a bit thicker than most of the competition (at least with regards to open world games). And if Ubi's games become worse and aren't worth playing, I won't buy or play them like with EA and Activision. I've literally bought as many Arkane games (3 Dishonoreds and Prey) as I have bought EA and Activision games (only 4 over the last 2 gens). There's plenty of other quality games to play if another publisher goes in the shitter.

As long as you can still buy character/operatives in Siege like you always could, the loot boxes are then just a faster and paid way to get them, I don't have a problem with that. Now if you have to buy loot boxes to hopefully get the character you want and can't buy them with earned points, then that's a problem. I thought Ubi went back on that decision to remove the "standard edition" but yeah, that's not a positive for them either way.

TakeTwo seems to be more of a case of people don't link up the properties, because of extensive use of substudio names. GTA Online (and soon to add RDR Online in the same format). All the 2k Sports titles have had the same system tossed into them (and were already DLC spews and barely justified lazy sequels). Xcom's had its share of detractors between a buggy release, and the "Here's the game. Now here's the actual complete game a year or two later" style of release. Civilization's been criticized for its DLC practices. Evolve was EVolve, the poster child of how to overmonetize a game into extinction. Battleborn didn't manage to get off the ground, but would've given Battlefront 2 a run for its money if anyone actually played it. There was the 200 dollar "10th Anniversary remaster of Bioshock just last year, only a year after the full AAA priced remaster. They even get the distinction of shoving Duke Nukem Forever out the door in its half finished state.


As to Ubi, I wouldn't give them a great general track record of late. Origins was a fresher take on AC, but not a shining star for what it was, and you feel the focus just drop off as you got into sidequests or anything. Wildlands was an empty void only bolstered by somewhat engaging co-op play. Watch_Dogs 2 injected some personality after cardboard hero Aiden Pearce, but completely fell on its face in terms of any actual mission design (and had the same weird side-event only co-op style from Far Cry 4, except somehow with even less to do). For Honor was a flaming train wreck they somehow produced out of a generally interesting idea (I mean, games are literally copying some of the basic gameplay elements, but everything outside that just was a litany of bizarrely bad ideas and execution).

 

[Phoenixmgs_v1legacy]

TakeTwo seems to be more of a case of people don't link up the properties, because of extensive use of substudio names. GTA Online (and soon to add RDR Online in the same format). All the 2k Sports titles have had the same system tossed into them (and were already DLC spews and barely justified lazy sequels). Xcom's had its share of detractors between a buggy release, and the "Here's the game. Now here's the actual complete game a year or two later" style of release. Civilization's been criticized for its DLC practices. Evolve was EVolve, the poster child of how to overmonetize a game into extinction. Battleborn didn't manage to get off the ground, but would've given Battlefront 2 a run for its money if anyone actually played it. There was the 200 dollar "10th Anniversary remaster of Bioshock just last year, only a year after the full AAA priced remaster. They even get the distinction of shoving Duke Nukem Forever out the door in its half finished state.


As to Ubi, I wouldn't give them a great general track record of late. Origins was a fresher take on AC, but not a shining star for what it was, and you feel the focus just drop off as you got into sidequests or anything. Wildlands was an empty void only bolstered by somewhat engaging co-op play. Watch_Dogs 2 injected some personality after cardboard hero Aiden Pearce, but completely fell on its face in terms of any actual mission design (and had the same weird side-event only co-op style from Far Cry 4, except somehow with even less to do). For Honor was a flaming train wreck they somehow produced out of a generally interesting idea (I mean, games are literally copying some of the basic gameplay elements, but everything outside that just was a litany of bizarrely bad ideas and execution).

That's true, people see TakeTwo's games more as whoever developed them (Rockstar, Gearbox, etc.) than the publishers' games. I'm guessing that may have to do with TakeTwo probably not owning the devs but making contracts with them so you don't really have games that feel like a TakeTwo game like you do Ubisoft games. Battleborn is awesome and probably the most hours I've spent in online multiplayer this gen. Then, they went and made my favorite character, Mellka, sorta useless and I don't think they ever fixed her so I haven't played it in at least a year. I played the betas of Battleborn and Overwatch and found Battleborn so much better.

I don't think Ubisoft is great or anything just better than the other big publishers for the most part. I'd much rather play a Watch Dogs or FarCry over a GTA or Middle-earth game or whatever. Even then I played FarCry 3, Blood Dragon, and Watch Dogs sorta close together and that burnt me out on the formula, since then as I haven't played one since Watch Dogs. And I played the betas of Wildlands and The Division and quit them in an hour, they were just basically Checklist: The Game. That 2.5/10 Destructoid review of Wildlands was completely merited, I found it definitely below average (5/10). These hopefully standalone DLCs look like a lot of fun because I really couldn't care less about FarCry 5. When was the last time EA or Activision just let their devs make something as unadulterated fun as these DLCs or a Blood Dragon? I guess that would be BulletStorm, that was an awesome game, and that makes not 4 but 5 EA/Activision games that I've played in 2 gens. I totally forgot EA published BulletStorm, it's much more fun than EA allows their games to be. I watched Super Bunnyhop's video on For Honor, it seems like the core battle system is really good and really skill-based, but the rest of the game built around it not so much.