Far Cry 3 Confirmed

[danosaurus]

Mmmmm, hopefully FC3 will be on the new CryEngine. Hawt. Can't wait to put my PC through the paces!

I guarantee that by the time that engine comes out, your computer will be light years out of date.

Yes and no, the PC I just built back in January, while not the top top of the line, it's pretty damn close. The only game I currently can run at completely max settings is GTAIV (And only texture detail as it requires buttloads of GPU RAM). The purpose was, to make a machine so badass, that even 6-8 months down the road, there're really only 2 upgrades I can make.

Swap out the 4g DDR3 @ 1600MHZ for 2000MHZ+
Add a second GTX260 Core 216

Best part is, both of those upgrades, by themselves would increase performance quite readily, and at this point, are also relatively cheap.

I hate to burst your bubble, but 6-8 months down the track is probably a little too early to be expecting properly developed games on the 3rd CryEngine, I'm guesstimating late 2010 or early 2011 before CryEngine becomes prevalent and games start utilising it's full potential. Your machine will be 2 years old by then. Don't forget that this engine is reportedly (according to the devs) going to be viable for use in next-gen consoles as well.
That's not to say your CPU wont run games on CE3 sweetly, it just wont be as mind-blowing without that 48x Anti-aliasing and Multi-threaded face-melting physics.

 

[BlindChance]

destroying a supply of malaria medication!?!?! WHAT!?

That mission was the point, in a nutshell. The whole concept of Far Cry 2 was to strip away the logic and sense, piece by piece, until by the end of it you're actively working against your own interests.

As the Jackal says, "Violence is a disease." Violence is nonsensical. Violence is brutal. It isn't heroic. It isn't ever justified. And it spreads without check.

Far Cry 2 got that.

I'm nervous about Far Cry 3 because I can't see how they'll recapture that lightning. Far Cry 2 was so damned intelligent.

 

[danosaurus]

I hate to burst your bubble, but 6-8 months down the track is probably a little too early to be expecting properly developed games on the 3rd CryEngine, I'm guesstimating late 2010 or early 2011 before CryEngine becomes prevalent and games start utilising it's full potential. Your machine will be 2 years old by then. Don't forget that this engine is reportedly (according to the devs) going to be viable for use in next-gen consoles as well.
That's not to say your CPU wont run games on CE3 sweetly, it just wont be as mind-blowing without that 48x Anti-aliasing and Multi-threaded face-melting physics.

Again, yes and no, not many games currently available actually utilize the hardware in PC's fully either. Only just recently have developers even bothered with offloading to 2nd, 3rd and 4th processors, due to lack of widespread usage. Given the majority of PC's now, do sport duals and quads, yeah, they're starting to employ that tactic. Additionally, quite a few games still lack multiple GPU support. So, yeah, while in 2010 there will be plenty of more advanced hardware, my PC's still going to be melting the proverbial face, as developers continue to refine/advance their engines to span all available hardware.

As for games on CE3, well, any other I'd say you're absolutely right. But, they could also have had access to it for some time. It's not like the Far Cry and Crytek devs have never collaberated before. Either way, I'm sure FC3 will be pretty sweet, loved the first 2.

You're right, devs have had early CE3 access but they'd still be limiting a lot of its potential simply because it's too high-end to be market-friendly. Sure they can produce those amazing tech-demos that I've seen footage of and it IS remarkable but nonetheless, they're just demos. I'm sure their current projects aren't nearly as incredible (for the meantime at least).

I'm hoping FC3 is good. I absolutely loved the first one (except for that ridiculous last level) but a lot of FarCry 2 rubbed me the wrong way. I didn't mind the long travelling sequences for most missions, as making my way through the tundra was challenging and tense but really, I think the whole re-spawning enemies feature destroyed a lot of the immersion for me. Actually I'm pretty sure that was my only gripe with it, if it weren't for that it would've been one of my favourite releases of the year ^_^

 

[TOGSolid]

destroying a supply of malaria medication!?!?! WHAT!?

That mission was the point, in a nutshell. The whole concept of Far Cry 2 was to strip away the logic and sense, piece by piece, until by the end of it you're actively working against your own interests.

As the Jackal says, "Violence is a disease." Violence is nonsensical. Violence is brutal. It isn't heroic. It isn't ever justified. And it spreads without check.

Far Cry 2 got that.

I'm nervous about Far Cry 3 because I can't see how they'll recapture that lightning. Far Cry 2 was so damned intelligent.

I'm sorry, but there are much, much, MUCH better ways to go about relaying that message rather than plot point after plot point where you just sit there raging at how badly written the whole deal is. The big problem is that it's a first person shooter where you're in control the whole time, which means it has the whole immersion thing going for it. It's ridiculously jarring when you're forced to suffer through a badly scripted plot where you're totally out of control with what's going on. Why was that ending forced upon us, why werent we given the option to just

Spoiler

shoot the god damned Jackal, go home, and collect our reward?

You can't attempt a plot like what you're suggesting and at the same time keep it in first person the whole time. If they had some out of perspective cutscenes from time to time that'd have been ok and it would have presented it as "oh ok, this is what is going through this character's head" and then we get to have our fun. Instead it's kept first person which, much like Half-Life 2 means you are that character. I didn't feel 'swept up in the violence,' I just felt like I was being dragged through a crap story filled with horribly written plot arcs.

Spoiler

Seriously, what kind of moron mercenary goes back to work for the same fucking twits that just betrayed him?

Far Cry 2 could have kept a similiar mission structure if the game had just been presented slightly differently. As it stands, the game is just offensively stupid.

 

[BlindChance]

No, utterly the reverse.

Going outside his head would have killed it. It would have given the player relief. Release. Let them say, "It's not me, it's him!"

Why was that ending forced upon us, why werent we given the option to just

Spoiler

shoot the god damned Jackal, go home, and collect our reward?

Now, that I'll agree with. I was a bit depressed that the game didn't have the guts to include an ending wherein

Spoiler

you steal the diamonds, walk out of there, let millions of refugees die, and grin as you do it

. There needed to be an ending in which the disease wins, the violence overcomes. For whatever reason, they chose not to include that ending, and it is to the game's detriment. I do not, at all, claim Far Cry 2 is perfect. I merely claim it was excellent.

You can't attempt a plot like what you're suggesting and at the same time keep it in first person the whole time. If they had some out of perspective cutscenes from time to time that'd have been ok and it would have presented it as "oh ok, this is what is going through this character's head" and then we get to have our fun. Instead it's kept first person which, much like Half-Life 2 means you are that character. I didn't feel 'swept up in the violence,' I just felt like I was being dragged through a crap story filled with horribly written plot arcs.

I feel like you've played the game but missed every subtext it has. You go through the game listening to the Jackal's tapes, going through similar experiences, making the same choices. You listen to the horrifying plans of the 'buddies', of which you can be any one.

This wasn't a game designed to be happy. It wasn't one designed to make you feel good, or justified in any way. It's more akin to Silent Hill than Halo. (And actually, it's more like Shadow of the Colossus than either. SotC had almost exactly the same message, just told in a different way.) It's meant to horrify you, to make you question why you choose to do any of this. It's meant to make you stop as you realise you butchered a guard post for no reason, when you could have as easily snuck around it. To make you empathise with the jeeps that shoot you without even checking first, because by the end you're choosing the same behavior.

And it worked, staggeringly well. It's one of the few games I've encountered to tell the message with its mechanics, not its narrative. The dialogue is a distraction. The cut scenes are just trying to point you in the right direction. It's all there in the shooting, running and driving. The point is all there.

 

[TOGSolid]

Except that nothing about this game got even close to "horrifying me."

The game fell completely flat at trying to relay any sort of message. I never did buddy missions because they were a waste of time and frankly, as a mercenary character, had no reason to do them since I wasn't getting paid (a job worth doing, is a job worth getting paid for). Which just ties into my point that you're completely missing. The presentation SUCKED. You arrive at the beginning of the game under the assumption that you're a mercenary, doing jobs for money (in this case diamonds). Now already the game is in trouble because people are going to be playing this game (key word here, games really should avoid trying to be art because of problems exactly like this one) under the assumption that they are playing as a merc. This means an assumption of free will. Already the game has itself in trouble because of this. The aformentioned problem of "why do the buddy missions if I'm not being paid" crops here. Stacking a lack of narrative on top of all of this really didn't help itself.
Now the game started well, a fact I think most everyone will agree with even if the respawns were kind of annoying. The missions made sense, and the plot clipped along nicely. It wasn't until act 2 that everything went to shit. Being forced to work with the same people who just betrayed us with no line of reasoning? Being forced to sit through the Jackal's diatribe rather than just shooting the son of a *****? Once again, presentation is the entire problem with this game. The journal entries the character writes are hardly indicative of a person who's falling out of touch with humanity, etc. etc. He seemed pretty clear and down to business, which can only bring us to the alternative explanation of "the guy in Far Cry 2 is a moron." Good for you if you felt some great hipster emotional message from the game I guess, but I have to ask, why are you really the only one arguing this while everyone else just thinks the plot was a piece of shit?

And for the record, Halo is garbage and Silent Hill was about as psychologically jarring as watching butter melt. I still need to get around to playing SotC.

 

[BlindChance]

You are so right. I'm the only person in here defending it (apart from coldalarm, KaiRai, 05rutterb, The Rockerfly, ColdStorage, Chicago Ted, Mornelithe and Bright_Raven) so I must be wrong. It's like when Roger Ebert was one of the few people who defended 2001 when it came out, and nowadays we look back and wonder what the hell he was thinking.

OK, cheap shots done with, let's get to the substance of it.

The issue of free choice is a fair one, and I've heard some really good arguments against the game on those grounds. (One suggested it's similar to the contemptible logic of Funny Games: If you walk out, you pass the test. Searched for the link, but couldn't find it.) And I'm definitely open to the idea that some way to bail out of the mess could have been interesting. But overall, it's a construct similar to other FPSs, which indeed serves the point quite well. Is anything you do in Far Cry 2 really that different to anything you do in any other FPS? Are you ever more justified in it? (This is where it's very similar to SotC, which was a similar indictment of videogame violence.)

key word here, games really should avoid trying to be art because of problems exactly like this one.

More than anything, this may be our sticking point. I adored Far Cry 2 because it was one of the few games, I felt, making an honest attempt at being art, instead of hokum like the reprehensible Modern Warfare 2 or Farenheit which make big arty pretenses that they can't back up.

 

[BlindChance]

(FWIW, I consider this to be an excellent refutation of Far Cry 2's quality. It clearly comprehends the points Far Cry 2 attempted, but argues how they fail. Some of it is similar to what TOGSolid is arguing. http://www.destructoid.com/heart-of-dimness-half-baked-nihilism-in-far-cry-2-127279.phtml )

 

[-Drifter-]

Spoiler

Except that nothing about this game got even close to "horrifying me."

The game fell completely flat at trying to relay any sort of message. I never did buddy missions because they were a waste of time and frankly, as a mercenary character, had no reason to do them since I wasn't getting paid (a job worth doing, is a job worth getting paid for). Which just ties into my point that you're completely missing. The presentation SUCKED. You arrive at the beginning of the game under the assumption that you're a mercenary, doing jobs for money (in this case diamonds). Now already the game is in trouble because people are going to be playing this game (key word here, games really should avoid trying to be art because of problems exactly like this one) under the assumption that they are playing as a merc. This means an assumption of free will. Already the game has itself in trouble because of this. The aformentioned problem of "why do the buddy missions if I'm not being paid" crops here. Stacking a lack of narrative on top of all of this really didn't help itself.
Now the game started well, a fact I think most everyone will agree with even if the respawns were kind of annoying. The missions made sense, and the plot clipped along nicely. It wasn't until act 2 that everything went to shit. Being forced to work with the same people who just betrayed us with no line of reasoning? Being forced to sit through the Jackal's diatribe rather than just shooting the son of a *****? Once again, presentation is the entire problem with this game. The journal entries the character writes are hardly indicative of a person who's falling out of touch with humanity, etc. etc. He seemed pretty clear and down to business, which can only bring us to the alternative explanation of "the guy in Far Cry 2 is a moron." Good for you if you felt some great hipster emotional message from the game I guess, but I have to ask, why are you really the only one arguing this while everyone else just thinks the plot was a piece of shit?

And for the record, Halo is garbage and Silent Hill was about as psychologically jarring as watching butter melt. I still need to get around to playing SotC.

I'll save you some time: You won't like it.

Really, I hate when people state their opinion like it's a fact.

 

[Rancid0ffspring]

SNIP

Honestly I wasn't a big fan of the game! BUT I do respect your view of it.

 

[Slayer_2]

No. NO! NOOOOO!!!!!!

Crap, I hated FC2. What a disappointment. I hope they release an SDK, or at least make sure the guns don't act like air-softs.

 

[BlindChance]

SNIP

Honestly I wasn't a big fan of the game! BUT I do respect your view of it.

Thanks! I'd like to note here that TOGSolid has a really strong point when he brings up the issue of free choice in the game. It becomes incredibly obvious near the end of the game; I can think of at least two points where I damn well should have been able to shoot the Jackal. (One which would have counted as tragic farce, and the other as shocking nihilism.) The game has some serious issues with it.

As that Destructoid review noted, "

Though Far Cry 2 frequently approaches issues of moral ambiguity and player ethics in a multitude of interesting ways, it does not fully engage these ideas in such a way that the game effectively and unquestionably forces the player to explore their own personal, virtual Heart of Darkness. It deserves a great deal of credit for even attempting to convey such controversial ideas through gameplay, but in the end, it is a failure. A beautiful, clever, courageous failure."

While I argue it was more successful than that, I can't deny there's a lot of truth in that paragraph. Far Cry 2 could have afforded to be more brutal, more ruthless in its message. Part of why it didn't was marketing, another part was development time limitations I'm sure, and maybe some of it was a failure of nerve. But it made an attempt that it's taken other games (Modern Warfare 2, lookin' at you) haven't made half as well.

 

[samsonguy920]

didn't really like FC2, but then again i didn't really like any of the games crytek made.

but an interesting setting could make me want to give them another try, how about northern Europe, i cant think of any game set in northern Europe that didn't involve Nazis.

Could set it in the Cold War, Berlin, getting quests to smuggle agents across the border, deal with KGB and East German Secret Police, though not sure how well Far Cry would fit in an urban setting...but like Far Cry has a real focus to it anyway. Where's the original protagonist?

 

[BlindChance]

Could set it in the Cold War, Berlin, getting quests to smuggle agents across the border, deal with KGB and East German Secret Police, though not sure how well Far Cry would fit in an urban setting...but like Far Cry has a real focus to it anyway. Where's the original protagonist?

Far Cry isn't about a protagonist. It's about exotic locales, open-world gameplay and literary inspirations to stories. I admit, I'm wondering where it can go too. What classics have been set in Antarctica? Maybe South America could be the next setting.

 

[MrSnugglesworth]

FC2 was great the first time.



After that its a bore fest.


I hope they fix the god damn Enemies that notice you from a mile away thing.

 

[Fire Daemon]

Far Cry 2 had it's flaws but it was an original experience and with a little bit more courage from the devs could have had an epic story that would have made it stand above games such as Bioshock and Portal. It was nearly there but just fell short, just. Friendly AI would also be good, so would a little less falcon eyed and tough as bricks enemies.

I'm a bit disappointed that it'll be in Africa again. The scenery was pretty but we've seen it before and I worry that it might play a little bit too similar to Far Cry 2 but I'm looking forward to it.

 

[MR T3D]

i enjoyed playing far cry 2, but the ending was just annoying to me that i lost any choice.
i felt like i was being a relatively good guy throughout, which only made me madder at what io HAVE to do at the ending.
IF ti wern't for that thing, I'd be much more likely to play it a second time through.

Spoiler: spoiler

the jackal could make noble sacrifice, doing the dam bit, and i just bribe guards and live with refugees rather than FUCKING KILL MYSELF.

i was enjoying it during the playthrough, balancing act between buddies and the greater good. was interesting to say the least.
and fire is pretty sweet.
though, if i suprise a guy, it would have been cool if they didn't shoot until i did sometimes, to reflect my own reluctance to shoot em all.

in the end, i must say i RESPECT the game, but I'm not entirely sure if i LIKE it.