Index ⇒ General Topics ⇒ Far Cry=Revolution to the FPS Genre???

Thoughts on life, the universe and everything else not covered in other categories.

Moderator: LW Moderator

Postby stealth01 » Sat Jun 26, 2004 1:25 pm

:hi: Hello,
I was wondering what you guys think of the game Far Cry.
Ive seen plenty of stuff around the internet with people seeing Far Cry as revolutionary to the FPS genre like when Half-Life came out for the PC.
I have Far Cry and do play it alot and to me its a fantastic FPS but when the term revolutionary comes i think what does a game have to have to be called a revolution to the FPS genre.
Is it the graphics, physics, gameplay, story or something else????!?!

To me Far Cry is a one of a kind FPS and i do think its a revolution to the FPS genre but what does a game have to have, to be called revolutionary?:unsure:

got myself confused :lol:
stealth01
Newbie
 
Posts: 1
Joined: Sat Jun 26, 2004 12:42 pm
Thanks: 0
Thanked: 0 time in 0 post

Postby Marcus » Sat Jun 26, 2004 4:11 pm

I really like the game, that's for sure... Revolutionary... Yeah, I've seen that term used before with this game, but I don't really agree... It doesn't offer anything really new. Everything in the game is above average, and the graphics are definetely groundbreaking... But revolutionary? Nah.. Doom, and Duke Nukem.. Those games were revolutionary.. The FPS industry is growing like mad, but because there's a new game on the shelves every week, the improvements are small, and steady.. Maybe if we stop making FPS for about a year or two, and then release something new.. Yeah, then we'll have something revolutionary... Great.. Now I'm confused too. :P

EDIT: Hm.. maybe the graphics WERE revolutionary... Isn't really my forte, so I don't know all the specifics, but I've never seen a game with so much eye for detail and atmosphere, graphic-wise.. :)

Not to say that Farcry isn't special.. I'm still amazed by how the way the water looks and the panoramas...

Hm.. Maybe Serious Sam was revolutionary.. I've never seen such large terrains filled with so much baddies, without ANY decrease in frame rate whatsoever.. And not only the scenery was HUGE, but some of the enemies too..
<a href='http://sol.as.arizona.edu/~dave/digital/images/finger.jpg' target='_blank'>Click here for a picture of someone's finger</a>
User avatar
Marcus
Member
 
Posts: 25
Joined: Fri Jun 25, 2004 5:50 pm
Location: The centre of attention
Thanks: 0
Thanked: 0 time in 0 post

Postby dead-meat » Sat Jun 26, 2004 4:39 pm

Hm... I think the graphics and physics may be revolutionary but the rest of the game sucks hard!
It's different from all other games... badly different... If it wouldn't have nice graphics I'd hate the complete thing!
dead-meat
Super Member
 
Posts: 1529
Joined: Fri Jun 18, 2004 1:20 pm
Thanks: 0
Thanked: 3 times in 3 posts

Postby InsaneFury » Sat Jun 26, 2004 5:20 pm

I found it a bit boring at times, quite repetitive. The physics engine was nice, but I'd have exploited it some more in the game, like being able to crush people under falling debris etc. That wasn't really implemented a lot.

It looks very nice and the weapons are nice. But take away that, and one has yet another FPS, with a military situation gone bad, and some mutating peeps. Like we didn't see that before...

Revolutionary shooters... Let's see. I think Blood 3D and Eradicator would fit that category. Blood for the nice amount of gore plus the nice weapons and cool one-liners. Eradicator would have a prize for smart weapons and a -pretty basic- player class setup. Duke 3D was revolutionary though, being able to interact with the environment is something I'd like to see in more games.



User avatar
InsaneFury
3DSL Moderator
 
Posts: 1268
Joined: Sat Jun 05, 2004 7:14 pm
Thanks: 49
Thanked: 27 times in 17 posts

Postby Sandon » Sun Jun 27, 2004 12:17 pm

I had not the time to play far cry a lot, so I can't say a lot to gameplay. Graphics are nice (and maybe a bit revolutinary, because you can do much with the graphics engine, a lot of modes (not resolution), and it works on highend pc and "smaller" ones). I think I know no game, where you can so much with the graphic.
The term revolution for the hole game is to big, parts of it maybe. I think a revolution is to bring a new "thing" out of an old. Not something complete new, thats impossible. But if a game designer is able to merge older things to something, that we can call a new kind of gameplay, this is a revolution. I think for most of us think diffrent about revolutionary games. For me "System Shock" was one, "Half Life" managed to shock the player with a lot of good made scripts (a lot more than other games at that time).
A graphic revolution is nothing new. Better hardware is able to bring things to our monitors, that we not seen before in such a quality. I think this is normal. The first unreal engine was impressive, but every one or two years, a game come with some new graphic features. So, like I wrote before, the graphic engine of far cry for me is primarily a revolution because of its ability to bring good results to most pc's out there.

Greetings Sandon

P.S.: Sorry for the poor english :rolleyes:
User avatar
Sandon
3DSL Admin
 
Posts: 137
Joined: Fri Jun 04, 2004 5:46 pm
Thanks: 3
Thanked: 0 time in 0 post

Postby freakboy » Mon Jun 28, 2004 2:14 am

>>>I found it a bit boring at times, quite repetitive.

NO WAY !!! almost everytime i played the same level
each time it was different, none of the 3d game i have played
before offered such a variety of subplots.

>>>It looks very nice and the weapons are nice. But take away that, and one >>has yet another FPS

all fps look feel sound the same, though also a bit different.

>>Revolutionary shooters... Let's see. I think Blood 3D and Eradicator would fit >>that category. Blood for the nice amount of gore plus the nice weapons and >>cool one-liners. Eradicator would have a prize for smart weapons and a ->>pretty basic- player class setup.

nice weapons in far cry = not revolution, nice weapons in blood=revolution?

>>>Blood for the nice amount of gore

allmost all games have something, so farcry definetely has something better than other games, but its not a revolution?
plus i dont think that blodd or eradicator brought so many challenges to other game companies as farcry did.
User avatar
freakboy
Super Member
 
Posts: 955
Joined: Wed Jun 16, 2004 9:03 am
Thanks: 0
Thanked: 1 time in 1 post

Postby InsaneFury » Mon Jun 28, 2004 7:50 am

@ the boring stuff:
True, I could play the jungle levels over and over again, it was fun. But when looking at the overall picture, the game levels only fell in several categories: there were jungle, and 'indoor tech science/laboratory' segments. That way, every 'level' kinda felt basically the same for me, either open and green or closed and dark. Also, one did most of the work by oneself, there were no real interesting plot developments and I don't really recall any humour in the game. That's what made it a tad bit boring for me at times. ;)

@ the all fps look/feel/sound the same:
This is true, whenever a game breaks this rule however, I consider it a revolution to the FPS genre. :)

@ the weapons:
Blood has a great diversity of weapons, plus several neat alternate fire modes. Sure, there's your average shotgun, but the rest of the weapons were quite inventive. Who'd think of using a flare gun, a gas can, a tesla thingie, not to mention the life leech and the voodoo doll. The weapons in Far Cry were of course more realistic, but IMO they just served the purpose of killing period. (The weapons in) Blood served the purpose of killing stuff violently.

@ the gore:
In Blood, one can put people on fire, even kick away severed heads. In Far Cry, I couldn't even gib an enemy, no matter how hard I shot a rocket at it. That just doesn't feel right...;)

Mind you that I consider it a revolution when an FPS comes and does something completely innovating and different. If this innovating thing is 'borrowed' from an earlier shooter, I don't think it's innovative, as it was done before. Yet, if people add good stuff from previous shooters to one package, I'd say that game would be revolutionary,



User avatar
InsaneFury
3DSL Moderator
 
Posts: 1268
Joined: Sat Jun 05, 2004 7:14 pm
Thanks: 49
Thanked: 27 times in 17 posts

Postby ILoVeScaryFun » Mon Jun 28, 2004 10:04 am

couldn't be stuffed reading what u said farcry rocks
if you don't agree
=kiss arse face or whatever=

:up:
Oh and DOWN with bill gates
User avatar
ILoVeScaryFun
Super Member
 
Posts: 244
Joined: Sat Jun 19, 2004 11:31 pm
Location: ...not a gutter
Thanks: 0
Thanked: 0 time in 0 post

Postby InsaneFury » Mon Jun 28, 2004 10:18 am

I'm not saying FarCry doesn't rock. All I'm saying is that it isn't revolutionary ;)



User avatar
InsaneFury
3DSL Moderator
 
Posts: 1268
Joined: Sat Jun 05, 2004 7:14 pm
Thanks: 49
Thanked: 27 times in 17 posts

Postby ViDER » Mon Jun 28, 2004 2:38 pm

WTF?! :blink: Boring..? Neva', did you guys tried to play this game at hard,
with full graphics, and sound detaile on ?
I guess not, The ai in this game is great, I'd even say better then in Thief 3 DS
or Splinter Cell, the AI acttualy think twice before opening a door, they think
twice before gettin' in to a closed room with u in the midle of it full and loaded
with Heavy MACHAINGUN or Rocket launcher, he'd try to shot u from a near
window or trow the door, or eventually to trow a granade trow that window (in case
ther is a window in the room).

I have to say that I haven't played a such good game in lon' time...
(well, apart DoA. :P )

Not to mention that this game supports a large veriety of video cards, wich
increasses the audiance rate segnifeclly higher then any other new PC game
Thief 3/Deus Ex need the Pixel Shader crap to run while F.C. supports even
GeForce 1!! and still can run niclley (if tweaked right), no, this game is good.
THE PISSED AT "NOOBS COMMUNITEY" DUDE!:x
ViDER
Member
 
Posts: 25
Joined: Mon Jun 28, 2004 12:45 pm
Thanks: 0
Thanked: 0 time in 0 post

Postby 3DShootMaster » Mon Jun 28, 2004 5:52 pm

None FPS can come close to Rise of the Triad :P

Just kiddin' :D

Far Cry belongs to the Top 20 All-Time thats a fact, but a Revolution?? Far Cry didn't did what Half-Life did, what Wolfenstein 3D did, what Quake did & what Doom did.

A new Revolution can break trough with something realy news:

Wolfenstein 3D - First one who opens the Classic Shooters genre... (Hovertank & Catacombs were EGA)

DOOM - First one Real 3D: you can go Forward/Back, Left/Right and as 1st of any you can go Up/Down

Quake - Say goodby to the Sprites..!! 2 or more rooms above eachother btw.

Half-LIfe - Opens the new Online-Multiplayer technology (Aliens Online wasn't that succes)

You can call them the big 4 if you see.. So what does Far Cry got what others don't have? If there is something tell me..

Greetz,

3DSM
User avatar
3DShootMaster
Super Member
 
Posts: 484
Joined: Sat Jun 19, 2004 8:13 am
Location: The Netherlands
Thanks: 0
Thanked: 0 time in 0 post

Postby ViDER » Tue Jun 29, 2004 8:39 am

hm, "Quake 1" did have MODS as well as "UNREAL" had mods, won't u agree?
What did "Half Life" had that other games didn' have by that time..? nothin'!
yes. I say NOTHIN'! the only thing that made it so c3wl, is it's wide range
mod support, appart this, I can't say mutch, well the SP story was wicked, yes
but Didn' "Jedi Knight: Dark Forces 2 / Resident Evil" had a wicked story line
too? , ok it had an improved AI, but I can't say that it was sooo improved...

The only thing that makes a game good is it's SP story and MP experiance.
I did had only the SP experiance from that game, as much 4 MP, I couldn'
experiance it as it was too expensive for me (by that time, back in '98).
and even if now it's so cheap, i won't spend my money on it, I better wait 4
the seconde sequall, Half-Life 2, wich is goin' to be(I hope so) good.

I had a pirret ver. of UNREAL and after 2 years I bought it, u know why?
Because it didn' use a CD-Key to play online, and that's why I bought it
2 years l8er, as I experianced the MP in that game and had fun of it, from
the pirret version before buyin' it. (Same with NOLF 1/2 that I have, as well
other games)

I think that System Shock 1 and Thief 1 where a real revolution (at least 4 me),
I plaied the demo of the first Thief 1 for over an year, before buyin' the full
game, It had a cool story, and it introduced a new genre in to the 3D Shooters
world, Action Stealth FPS/3DS, and that is revolutionery, as 4 System Shock 1
it introduced a new genre of RPG Action, in to the corrent games industrie by
that time, 1994. and If I remember, Cyclonce had a small revolution in it too,
it had an mouse aiming methode, wich I personally didn' saw before it.
THE PISSED AT "NOOBS COMMUNITEY" DUDE!:x
ViDER
Member
 
Posts: 25
Joined: Mon Jun 28, 2004 12:45 pm
Thanks: 0
Thanked: 0 time in 0 post

Postby Marcus » Sat Jul 17, 2004 4:20 pm

Anyone remember a game called "Chasm: The Rift"? It came out the same time as Quake, and was completely overshadowed by it.. But if you look at model animation, it was way ahead of its time.. Maybe not a revolution, but it should've been noticed, I believe.

=\

Well. That didn't really add anything to this conversation :D
<a href='http://sol.as.arizona.edu/~dave/digital/images/finger.jpg' target='_blank'>Click here for a picture of someone's finger</a>
User avatar
Marcus
Member
 
Posts: 25
Joined: Fri Jun 25, 2004 5:50 pm
Location: The centre of attention
Thanks: 0
Thanked: 0 time in 0 post


Return to General Topics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 13 guests