[video]https://youtu.be/WKDhuFliFB8[/video]
Great watch, speaks a lot about AAA gaming in general not just Far Cry Primal. SBH is always good at highlighting those links.
Edit: I said on rather than of and you can't edit titles :suicide: I guess it works either way, but still.
Sounds like it's exactly what I expected it to be. Unique premise betrayed by Ubisoft's generic and safe gameplay.
That fucking Owl scene.
I still cannot believe that this is a full $60 iteration of the Farcry series.
Glad I waited for reviewers to get their claws into it first- was considering getting this day one.
I thought Primal was pretty fun until the Ubisoft formula fatigue started to set in. It would be a much better game without all of the useless filler.
[QUOTE=Thlis;49863329]I still cannot believe that this is a full $60 iteration of the Farcry series.[/QUOTE]
Like bunny said, it probably was a smaller project blown up to be a full release, and it really shows. Very, very dissapointing (as a lot of ubisoft games are)
Like, it's not even that this is a bad game (though also not the greatest) if you put it on its own, it's just that there is a fatigue that has built up from the Far Cry games.
What kind of fucking idiot makes a game based around melee combat and [I]doesn't put in a block button? [/I]
Like, seriously?
[QUOTE=dustyjo;49871053]What kind of fucking idiot makes a game based around melee combat and [I]doesn't put in a block button? [/I]
Like, seriously?[/QUOTE]
Well, considering you obviously have your personal uav and augmented reality there, it's probably not the biggest problem of the game. Like, of course it's a bad idea to get rid of hud at all in a sandbox game, but they could at least make it a bit more original.
But i think the main problem is, that the very idea of making a sandbox game set up in prehistoric times just cuts off tonns of fun possibilities the previous far cry games had (like helicopters or weapon unlocking and tuning, which was probably one of the main features that compelled me to move forward and open new areas in far cry 3-4). You could act like some crazy maniac throwing molotovs around or take a sniper rifle and play hide and seek with the enemies, but it's apparently not an option in the game where the bow with no scope at all is the most advanced weapon available.
I mean, i think the more cool features you have in games like far cry as it is now, the more fun you get, so just setting it up in some near future and combining all those hi-tech devices from, for example, advanced warfare with the open world concept could have resulted in way more interesting and variative gameplay.
this game was another case of head-canoning the game based on the initial announcement, then suddenly seeing it's out and being like "shit they couldn't have made what I thought that fast"
Isn't this pretty much the norm after the Assassin's Creed started with all this nonsense? It's like they took a look at what makes games addicting and decided choke you with it. I simply can't enjoy games that make side quests or side objectives into finishing a chore list.
It's like Middle-earth: Shadow of Mordor and Mad Max, I do not understand why everyone was so giddy about those games.
[media]https://youtu.be/6AV9W2ZdmjU?t=11m26s[/media]
I know the video doesn't illustrate my point about the chore list, but it does show you are running around from point a to point b with no challenge.
That's a fucking stupid video. He's gone to the edge on a camp at a low level area using the best shit in the game and complaining that it's too easy. Shadow of Mordor isn't a particularly hard game but it's easy to make a game look bad when you specifically set out to do so.
[QUOTE=dustyjo;49871053]What kind of fucking idiot makes a game based around melee combat and [I]doesn't put in a block button? [/I]
Like, seriously?[/QUOTE]
What kind of idiot makes a game based around melee combat and still keeps the movement system balanced around strafing in gunfights rather than dodging dashes or aforementioned blocking? Unless it's in there and he didn't know about them, and I doubt that given what other things I've seen, your only methods of avoiding shit are awkwardly shuffling in a strafe around them as you poke/whack something to death or sprinting away to get some room to fire another projectile off.
It kind of makes sense in the context of the world, yet simultaneously doesn't make sense by any sort of logical modern game design. That shit's just flatout cumbersome for this title.
should've maybe considered lifting some ideas from condemned: criminal origins' first person melee combat.
[QUOTE=Janus Vesta;49873452]That's a fucking stupid video. He's gone to the edge on a camp at a low level area using the best shit in the game and complaining that it's too easy. Shadow of Mordor isn't a particularly hard game but it's easy to make a game look bad when you specifically set out to do so.[/QUOTE]
Even with the best shit in the game, nobody should be effortlessly flipping around and chopping up loads enemies just by mashing three buttons and not even looking at the screen. If he went into that encounter with just the starting gear and abilities, the biggest difference would be that it would just take longer.
[QUOTE=Janus Vesta;49873452]That's a fucking stupid video. He's gone to the edge on a camp at a low level area using the best shit in the game and complaining that it's too easy. Shadow of Mordor isn't a particularly hard game but it's easy to make a game look bad when you specifically set out to do so.[/QUOTE]
There is something magical about watching people purposefully fuck up and break the rules of a game just to claim the game's shit.
[media]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RULv6HbgEjY[/media]
Just a word of warning, that guy's a self-absorbed moron.
[QUOTE=Ganerumo;49873665]There is something magical about watching people purposefully fuck up and break the rules of a game just to claim the game's shit.
[media]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RULv6HbgEjY[/media]
Just a word of warning, that guy's a self-absorbed moron.[/QUOTE]
if anything this shows codblops single player was poorly put together with nothing but trigger zones and some logic timers. cod consistently tries to give you a story and character driven single player and failing every year, with absolutely no trust in the player doing what they need to do to advance the plot... instead of being what it should be: the player doing cool shooty bang bang stuff and slaughtering everyone from point A to B. i mean look at 7:00. it's a reverse escort mission. that's shit.
[QUOTE=TheJoey;49873704]if anything this shows codblops single player was poorly put together with nothing but trigger zones and some logic timers. cod consistently tries to give you a story and character driven single player and failing every year, with absolutely no trust in the player doing what they need to do to advance the plot... instead of being what it should be: the player doing cool shooty bang bang stuff and slaughtering everyone from point A to B. i mean look at 7:00. it's a reverse escort mission. that's shit.[/QUOTE]
Kind of important to point out that this is the first level of the game and he's obviously playing on easy.
I can also play E1M1 on easy without ever shooting a bullet. I could do that with any old PC game despite his claims that they are so ~special~.
[QUOTE=Ganerumo;49873743]Kind of important to point out that this is the first level of the game and he's obviously playing on easy.[/QUOTE]
uhh ok
so there's a point where he walks around an area with an npc that refuses to advance because he skipped a trigger or something, and once he walks backwards to the point the game wants him to be, an enemy spawns where the player had previously been JUST so the npc can shoot the enemy in the head, and finally move forward. meaning that npc may as well not have had any AI programmed, and it's possible that it doesn't. an enemy popped out from the ground like a rabbit in a hat, as if he had been hiding all along (he wasn't, so once again no AI required for this one either) with a "SHOOT THIS" target programmed on his head that tells the npc to fire his gun at the enemy, killing the enemy. once the enemy is dead the game says "ok npc you may walk now and unlock all of the doors for the player ahead"
there is literally no amount of easy mode that can change what has happened here. i've broken that down for anyone that hasn't created a map with npcs and setpieces so you can better understand that difficulty mode plays absolutely no part in segments like these (and there are many).
i don't really understand what you defending COD's single player, which is notoriously shallow, has to do with how bad far cry primal is.
[QUOTE=Ganerumo;49873665]There is something magical about watching people purposefully fuck up and break the rules of a game just to claim the game's shit.
[media]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RULv6HbgEjY[/media]
Just a word of warning, that guy's a self-absorbed moron.[/QUOTE]
He has a point though? If you make a game where your toolset consists solely of shooting people, and you make your game so scripted and hand-holding that shooting people becomes obsolete, you've made a badly designed game.
Games as systems of rules should be robust enough that they [I]shouldn't[/I] be this easy to break.
tbh I'm actually amazed people continue to think anything from ubisoft is going to be anything less than shit
they are the factory job equivalent of game studios. That's literally all they do, process code into cheaply knitted games.
[editline]5th March 2016[/editline]
I mean, far cry 3 was great, but I don't expect anything to be grand from ubisoft
at absolute best their games are forgetable and forgivable. If that.
[editline]5th March 2016[/editline]
though, blood dragon was actually excellent
if they focused on smaller games, and less of them, they'd actually be amazing
[QUOTE=Hamaflavian;49873773]He has a point though? If you make a game where your toolset consists solely of shooting people, and you make your game so scripted and hand-holding that shooting people becomes obsolete, you've made a badly designed game.
Games as systems of rules should be robust enough that they [I]shouldn't[/I] be this easy to break.[/QUOTE]
The AI shooting at each other isn't scripted hand holding. It takes an arbitrary amount of time for them to kill each other because they're mostly here for decor, and they happen to actually damage each other every so often - since your teammates cannot die (something that makes sense in a linear experience where said teammates have an importance on the story, especially when the game doesn't have any form of mechanics involving controlling or healing your squadmates), it means the enemy is bound to eventually die.
The game doesn't have a scripted failsafe that dictates that, past a certain point, enemies will drop dead and let the player continue. This guy had to purposefully turn around and leave the gunfights to wait for the AI to resolve it for them. Doom has a similar feature - when an enemy gets accidentally shot by one of its allies, they'll turn around and shoot them back, starting some infighting which can lead to some enemies dying without you having to fire a bullet. You don't see anyone making a video about how if you wait for three minutes in the starting room you can get enemies to kill each other as part of an AI quirk.
Finally, the guy would have had the exact same complaints if the game did the opposite, and the AI could not damage each other, effectively forcing the player to shoot. He's looking for a way to shit on the game and on console gaming for some obscure reason, he'd come up with literally anything that would make his point valid.
I mean sure, the COD solo campaigns are nothing to write home about because they're quite linear and basically just give you a big flashy experience for a few hours to introduce you to mechanics used in multiplayer, but the guy's complaints make no fucking sense and he basically just fabricates shit to whine about. It's all the more stupid that he complains about all of this on the introductory level, and flat out ignores the parts where you [I]have[/I] to shoot people because these parts somehow don't adhere to his arbitrary set of rules as to what constitutes a gameplay segment.
Far Cry and Just Cause are two game series that I've never really been interested in, because I can't figure out what the hell they're about. Running around and having fun are things I can get from other games while also knowing why I'm doing it.
[QUOTE=Penultimate;49873877]Far Cry and Just Cause are two game series that I've never really been interested in, because I can't figure out what the hell they're about. Running around and having fun are things I can get from other games while also knowing why I'm doing it.[/QUOTE]
Just Cause is a game where you're an action here liberating an island from a brutal dictator by exploding your way through hordes of armies and it's solid and simple. You liberate a base or town so that the rebellion takes over
far cry 3+ actually has the same concept, it just focus's on land rather than air combat, and its a lot more stealth based, crafting based, and first person based.
[editline]5th March 2016[/editline]
[QUOTE=Ganerumo;49873743]Kind of important to point out that this is the first level of the game and he's obviously playing on easy.
I can also play E1M1 on easy without ever shooting a bullet. I could do that with any old PC game despite his claims that they are so ~special~.[/QUOTE]
Call of Duty's AI literally is that shit. The dude isn't breaking the game in any way at all, he's just standing around as the NPC's play the game for him.
every NPC is made to do 1 thing and 1 thing alone
duck and shoot
this absolutely shouldn't be the case for a game that is made in an era where titles like Fear and metal gear solid exist, where the AI moves around and communicates at least a little bit.
He's really shittty for blaming consoles but he isn't wrong in that CoD's single-player is absolute trash. (I do want to get back into the multiplayer though personally, that was solid)
[editline]5th March 2016[/editline]
I'm also not sure what doom has to do with anything, that was made 22 years ago. The game should basically have finished highschool and gotten a job by now. It having that problem is no surprise.
Doom also couldn't have had ANY form of advanced AI. Computers were not that powerful at the time.
Having powerful AI in a linear cinematic game should be the least of your worries, honestly. It's just not that important, because the game isn't designed around that. It's designed around being an entertaining shooting gallery.
COD's SP campaign isn't about deep tactical decisions or attacking locations with your own tactics and from angles you chose. It's about being a footsoldier who's following other footsoldiers into battle.
It's absolutely fucking stupid to complain that COD, of all games, should have better AI when better AI would not benefit the game in any shape or form. If you're not interested in the kind of gameplay COD has to offer, go play one of the dozens of other games that offer exactly what you want. He doesn't even make valid points as to why the campaign is bad, he just purposefully breaks it and claims it's shit. Same deal as that Shadow of Mordor video where the guy purposefully picks the easiest possible fight and then complains it's too easy.
[QUOTE=Ganerumo;49873958]Having powerful AI in a linear cinematic game should be the least of your worries, honestly. It's just not that important, because the game isn't designed around that. It's designed around being an entertaining shooting gallery.
COD's SP campaign isn't about deep tactical decisions or attacking locations with your own tactics and from angles you chose. It's about being a footsoldier who's following other footsoldiers into battle.
It's absolutely fucking stupid to complain that COD, of all games, should have better AI when better AI would not benefit the game in any shape or form. If you're not interested in the kind of gameplay COD has to offer, go play one of the dozens of other games that offer exactly what you want.[/QUOTE]
of course, but when the game doesn't even do SHOOTING GALLERY right, it's kind of a problem :v:
I'll be the first to admit the multiplayer is boss as shit, but the singleplayer is even more scripted than a shooting gallery
hell, just cause 3's shooting gallery ai is even better than [URL="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ciF09u8XS8Q"]CoD's[/URL].
[video=youtube;srFuZ67EGF4]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=srFuZ67EGF4[/video]
I'd rather play Just Cause 3 gallery mode than CoD singleplayer mode.
it also doesn't help that even just cause 2 and 3's enemy AI itself is better, when the game is hellbent on the idea of purposefully mindless enemies.
But it [I]does the shooting gallery right[/I]. The guy just proceeded to turn around, hide in a corner, get lucky every time he got shot at, and pretend he was never attacked or in danger at any point, despite being close to dying more than once.
And again, this is the only level in the game where you can actually pull this shit off. Any other point in the game would either not progress if you don't personally open fire, or you'd just get killed before your buddies could clean the enemies out for you, because unlike the opening level, you'd rarely only face two or three people at a time.
Also the AI in JC2 and JC3 is fucking mindbogglingly stupid, where did you get the idea they were smart ? They just run around and occasionally take potshots at you, waiting to get slaughtered.
[editline]5th March 2016[/editline]
If you want example of linear games that fail to provide a linear experience, look at the order 1886 or minecraft story mode. [I]These[/I] are games that can't even keep the player on track.
[QUOTE=Ganerumo;49874016]But it [I]does the shooting gallery right[/I]. The guy just proceeded to turn around, hide in a corner, get lucky every time he got shot at, and pretend he was never attacked or in danger at any point, despite being close to dying more than once.
And again, this is the only level in the game where you can actually pull this shit off. Any other point in the game would either not progress if you don't personally open fire, or you'd just get killed before your buddies could clean the enemies out for you, because unlike the opening level, you'd rarely only face two or three people at a time.[/QUOTE]
[video=youtube;z-B4cONnyGw]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z-B4cONnyGw[/video]
he beat the entire game doing this
[video=youtube;H5sqU5RMfaE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H5sqU5RMfaE[/video]
keep telling me that please, the AI in call of duty presents 0 challenge to anyone that isn't actively running into the enemies line of fire
[QUOTE=Ganerumo;49874016]Also the AI in JC2 and JC3 is fucking mindbogglingly stupid, where did you get the idea they were smart ? They just run around and occasionally take potshots at you, waiting to get slaughtered.[/QUOTE]
The thing about JC2/3, is the AI actually shoots you and communicates with eachother
they aren't smart, but they're still a LOT better than cod's
[QUOTE=Ganerumo;49874016]If you want example of linear games that fail to provide a linear experience, look at the order 1886 or minecraft story mode. [I]These[/I] are games that can't even keep the player on track.[/QUOTE]
Minecraft story mode is a childrens game and the order 1886 was made by mentally challanged apes so you have me there
That's not Black Ops though ? I was talking about Black Ops.
Besides, managing to spend an entire game without killing anyone remains impressive, more than enraging. Using it as a proof that a game is broken is dumb. Is the Legend of Zelda for NES broken because you can beat it solely with bombs and never use the sword ?
Also Story Mode is literally broken. If you fail prompts, it'll do nothing, and sometimes lock you in unwinnable positions where you can just walk back and forth.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
