Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[timferius]

I'm not really bashing, you just have more control with your whole hand than with your thumb. It's much easier to move a mouse percisly, than to flick a thumbstick percisly, and you're quicker at it too. We're used to using our whole hand to do things, so we've naturally trained the percision in to it, the thumb is usually just a grasper.
At least that's my view of it, you may well be better with the thumbstick. I imagine some people would take to it much easier than others, maybe my thumbs are just slow.

There is definitely a generation of gamers who were raised on thumbsticks. Those who's first console was anything after the PS1. The PS1 was my first console, and while I do enjoy playing games on my PC and have a pretty sweet gaming rig for doing just that, I will always prefer controllers. Though I personally am a unique case; I suffer from hypermobility which makes it hard to move my entire hand accurately. However, my thumbs are no problem. I've been playing with controllers so long and so much that my thumbs are actually longer than most people, and I will beat you under the table in a thumb war

True enough, and I have to agree that, like anything, there's a large degree of personal preference thrown in.
Oddly, my favourite console FPS still has to be Goldeneye, in which you aimed with those bloody c-buttons. God that was the controller design from hell, but still a wonderful console.

[Haschel]

True enough, and I have to agree that, like anything, there's a large degree of personal preference thrown in.
Oddly, my favourite console FPS still has to be Goldeneye, in which you aimed with those bloody c-buttons. God that was the controller design from hell, but still a wonderful console.

Yeah, it does have a lot to do with personal preference. Apologies for implying you were bashing consoles, I just get irked when I feel people tote PCs as some globally superior gaming platform, as a person that invests time and money pretty equally in both. Both have good points and bad, and to much differing degrees even between specific games.

[Cthulhu]

I think the biggest problem with consoles right now is they're turning into PCs.  It used to be PCs and consoles had their own niches.  Hardcore gamers played PC.  It was a lot more complex but you had more to do, online play, internet in general, you could do your work on it.  Consoles were simple.  There wasn't any internet, but there weren't patches, or hardware compatibility issues, or anything like that.  You put in the CD and played.

Now there's patches, hardware, fucking installations, bugs, social networking, premium features, everything that made consoles good compared to PCs is going away.

As for controllers vs. kbam, it depends on the game for me.  Most FPS games I use the mouse.  Most other games I use an XBox controller though.  For some reason kbam feels more immersive, and if it's an immersive game I might use kbam.

------------

Oh wait, Far Cry 3!  I got it yesterday.  Campaign's good so far, I like the characters and it's more...  personal? than Far Cry 2.  The original had a little bit of this, but Far Cry 3 especially, it's really easy to see yourself in the character's shoes, at least early on.  He's just a kid forced into some seriously crazy shit, although he adapts a little better than I would, what with his sickass magic tattoos.

Multiplayer is also pretty cool.  In a lot of ways it's just Call of Duty, but then again there's a reason millions of people play Call of Duty.

On one hand I like the decoding, just the addition of a loot system so things aren't 100% unlocked as you go, but the time aspect seems arbitrarily tacked on to be annoying.

[cartmann]

My one gripe with this game is - 'Unlock radio towers and capture outposts to make your character amazing and get free weapons!!!', so once you've done all that, there's nothing left to bloody do. I wish there was an option to just reset all outposts or something.

[Bdthemag]

Eh, been playing this game for a bit and it's okay. Gunplay doesn't really feel that satisfying, and it's definitely way too easy. I had the game on the hardest difficulty, and rarely had problems with dying. The crafting system feels very tacked on, and extremely boring. The story is pretty forgettable too, the only interesting characters being Vaas (Who has a pretty damn good voice-actor by the way.) and a few you meet later in the plot.

I don't really know how to feel about this game, I mean I enjoyed it to an extent but I still felt pretty disappointed. I was excited to see how Ubisoft handled how the character turned from just an average joe to a cold-blooded killer, but really all they did was have him mention how he hasn't killed anyone before and then turn him into a complete rambo-badass around an hour in.

Oddly enough, I liked Far Cry 2 a lot better than this game. Far Cry 2 felt like it had a much better atmosphere, and even if the story was mediocre you could definitely get immersed in the war-torn african environment, and I miss the jamming mechanic which would add more urgency and danger to a firefight.

[cartmann]

I reckon just 2 things could be done to farcry 2 to make it the best game it can be:
Make stealth work
Make bullets actually hurt enemies (cmon, half a damn AK magazine and you're sitting down shooting me still???)

Probably already been done on pc, but eh consoles

[Xotes]

I reckon just 2 things could be done to farcry 2 to make it the best game it can be:
Make stealth work
Make bullets actually hurt enemies (cmon, half a damn AK magazine and you're sitting down shooting me still???)

Probably already been done on pc, but eh consoles

You forgot adding an option to fast travel whenever and wherever you want. I like the game, but damn if taking ten minutes to get everywhere isn't a pain in the ass.

[Cthulhu]

I get easily distracted while traveling but I don't want universal fast travel.

What do people think about the humiliation mechanic at the end of the game?  I think it's...  I dunno.  On one hand there's not all that many options and most of them are kind of slapstick, but at the same time I can see why.  It's one thing to shoot a guy who's shooting at you, but executions and shit would probably be taking it a little too far for some people. 

But mercy is a little interesting.  It kind of feels like the whole "If you actively smile despite your mood, it'll make you feel better" thing.  The act of clicking mercy and watching your guy behave with decency toward the enemy somehow makes you feel a little less angry and competitive about the whole thing.  It's relaxing.  I'll still punish a guy if he needs it though.  If he's the host and lag-killing everybody, or he's been an asshole, or he spammed explosive arrows, I'll punish.

[Silfurdreki]

I find the multiplayer surprisingly fun, I feel like the guns and gunplay is actually a lot better in it than the single player, for some reason. The multiplayer has some neat game modes as well, like the one where you need to light two enemy oil dumps on fire and then call in an air strike to win the game. The punish/mercy thing at the end is a bit amusing as well.

I don't know if I like the decoding mechanic, though, it feels kinda off. The rewards from it (the weapon mods) can be really powerful, so getting lucky and getting a good mod for a weapon you like can give a large boost, I think.

The one thing that almost ruins the whole thing is the no dedicated server nature of the multiplayer. Seriously, didn't companies learn this lesson? Peer-to-peer multiplayer is a fucking disgrace. People lag around immensely unless the host (who you cannot even determine who is, to my knowledge) has a top-tier internet connection and is geographically close to everyone else. It's not even possible to see your ping to the host in the game, so it's impossible to know if you are lagging or someone else is. Network-performance wise, this is probably the worst FPS multiplayer experience I've ever had outside temporary problems on my own end, which is a sshame, since the underlying game is actually quite fun.

[GreatJustice]

I like how you can be planning an ambush or a raid on an outpost and then suddenly friendly guys or animals can show up and ruin the defenders' day.

On the other hand, it has the impression of being just tossed in and not implemented quite right. To get a gang of friendlies to come with me on raids, I have to wait for a bunch to come by in a car and commandeer it, as opposed to being able to pick em up or tell them to follow me in a convoy. Plus, they don't level and only use AK47s, so they get cut down easily quite quickly.

Also, the way the encounters between the groups occur make it feel less like "These guys are planning to engage in battle for some greater purpose/to weaken the enemy" and more "These guys were going on a stroll across the island and spotted some other guys going on a stroll across the island and decided to attack them just cause. Also, a tiger was walking past and decided to join in".

Thank god for mods.

[jester]

Watching an enemy patrol get wiped by cassowaries is hilarious though.

  Be nice if there were at least some enemies in the areas you have cleared.  Game never really has the feeling of danger farcry2 did.  No matter where you were there was always a fair chance that some nutters in a datsun would come and try to light you up.

  And yeah, the 'everybody gets an ak' thing is just annoying.

[GreatJustice]

Watching an enemy patrol get wiped by cassowaries is hilarious though.

  Be nice if there were at least some enemies in the areas you have cleared.  Game never really has the feeling of danger farcry2 did.  No matter where you were there was always a fair chance that some nutters in a datsun would come and try to light you up.

  And yeah, the 'everybody gets an ak' thing is just annoying.

I dunno. On one hand, Far Cry 3 is annoying in that there isn't much to do once the enemy camps are beaten and you're reduced to "professional hunter" with a bit of "mechanic" for those random NPCs that break their cars. On the other, I recall Far Cry 2 being far worse in that you would clear out the exact same goddamn camp over and over with no sense of achievement after a point.

The first time I cleared out an FC2 outpost, I felt like a badass for having taken it over single handedly, as there were many ways to go about it. However, the enemy factions are totally identical, there is no sense of a "war" whatsoever, and after a point it felt like a grind because my actions had no lasting impact on the world. Despite the boatloads of nice touches in the maps, the beautiful graphics/set piece locations, and good combat, it felt like a monotonous grind about 4/5ths of the way through the first map. Drive around, get attacked by dumbasses on jeeps, attack outpost, restock ammo/weapons, do stupid Malaria mission, do modestly entertaining main storyline mission, do very entertaining arms dealer mission, rinse and repeat.

I can think of a great example of how annoying this felt, too. So I was driving along the savannah when suddenly I saw a big goddamn castle. I figured, "Hey, that's pretty cool, I'd like a nice little castle hideout", so I strolled up the mountain to discover a bunch of snipers, soldiers, etc. They were well entrenched and tough to take out, but I eventually succeeded. But there was nothing to do, so I left. Then they all respawned, making the entire venture pointless.

Really, there has to be a middle ground between "Your actions are insignificant outside of the main storyline and the game would rather you go away so it can admire the daily routines of the AI" and "You single handedly wipe out all of the bad guys, promptly making yourself obsolete and your allies look utterly incompetent".

[Sensei]

To be honest, I thought Far Cry 2 was a load of ass, moreso than most people. It seems like I can't get to any mission without running out of ammo fighting wads of bad guys. Just the shear amount of bad guys everywhere makes getting to any objective -and then back- a chore. It wouldn't be so bad if you could have multiple missions at once, if there were more bus stops or fast travel options, if camps stayed dead for more than five minutes, or you could drive past any camp without them destroying your car/boat, or you could befriend a faction. In fact I really liked how in Mercenaries, you could make friends or foes of different factions, and they'd fight eachother, and they may or may not attack you on the street depending on your standing with them. Depending on who you were enemies with, getting around in certain places could be a real issue, but you could befriend factions if and when you needed to.

Oh yeah, and Far Cry 1 was really fun. It's not remotely similar to Far Cry 2 at all though. I would technically classify it as a linear shooter, just you got a lot of space to approach your objective and they set up lots of possible routes. It worked really well, actually. I sure could go for a real far cry sequel.

[jester]

I played farcry2 through a couple of times (loved it) and ended up getting the hang of it fairly well.  You can actually just hammer through most checkpoints in a car if you drive fairly well.  I also had a surprising amount of success as a stealthy guy with a flamethrower.  Ill admit the respawns where waaay too fast, but it felt like a country totally gone to shit should have imo.  Everybody was out to get you and you constantly had to be on the lookout no matter where you were, there also was a working stealth mechanic in there, but without indicators it was almost impossible to get a handle on.

[Mullet Master]

Well, this is interesting. I was really, really excited about getting this game, but after playing it a few hours, I'm feeling very much let down.

Farcry 3 has almost been universally praised, but I don't really understand why. The only thing I can think of is that the reviewers haven't played Saboteur , Assassin's Creed, Just Cause, or Red Dead Redemption because they all have nearly identical gameplay. Am I the only person that feels this way? It's an open world shooter, with pseudo-RPG elements. Just like dozens of other games.

There's just nothing that feels genuine. The jungle environment is nothing new at this point, but the scenery and voice acting are basically identical to Dead Island. There's been a dozen dozen occasons where I've been driving around and said "Wait, is this Dead Island? No, the leaves are very, very glossy. It must be FarCry"
 
The only extremely novel way this game treats things is the somewhat take on health and healing.

The stealth system is very, very good compared to similar games. You can actually remain hidden in bushes/leaves without any problem - it's no MGS3 but it's very predictable which is a giant boon to anyone choosing to use stealth.

Overall, if I were someone who doesn't have it, I would not buy it a full price.It's still a very fun but not very unique game.