New Far Cry 2 Trailer

[Spawndemon]

Ubisoft has released a brand new trailer today for their upcoming FPS Far Cry 2. This new trailer shows off in game footage as well as gives information about the game straight from the developers. Check it out below courtesy of Game Trailers:

[I am RKO]

Re: New Far Cry 2 Trailer

This isn't Farcry, just like Superman IV wasn't a superman.

Same name, different game.

[Micster]

Re: New Far Cry 2 Trailer

I've heard about this sort of freedom too often in other games that never did seem to deliver. We'll have to wait and see.

[Polka]

Re: New Far Cry 2 Trailer

Flamethrower....

[FPS[SONIC]]

Re: New Far Cry 2 Trailer

While it looks awesome, as in the same way Crysis does, I'm skeptical about the game play.

[Chris_Redfield]

Re: New Far Cry 2 Trailer

While it looks awesome, as in the same way Crysis does, I'm skeptical about the game play.

If its anything like Crysis, its going to be great.

You run with a jeep and approach your target, which is an African village, typical huts built of crap. You take out your binos and count up 27 guys.

What do you do?

-Choice A
-Choice B
-Choice C

Et cetera...

They dont make games like these anymore. And Id take anything over a corridor shooter which basically spawns and throws hundreds of men into your face unless you cross a line 3 feet in front of you and stop the scripted sequence. Yes, thats how shallow COD4 was.

Now, lets get on with the program.

Ive got several questions, why is Ubisuck involved with this and where is Crytek? Could someone check out the earlier Far Cry 2 videos and confirm my observation, that were dealing with an altered game here?

[I am RKO]

Re: New Far Cry 2 Trailer

Yes, it's that shallow that over 1.5 million units were purchased in November. You seem to complain, about Call of Duty 4's being linear or as you called it Shallow and not leaving much room for improvising. Okay, granted, all the missions pan out the same way based on whatever tactic you use, but you can use cover and conserve your ammo to get to your objective slower or you can run and gun to get it done quickly.

I can't see how Crysis is any different really, or any game even the open worlds of GTA. Singleplayer's purpose is to tell a story. To tell the story you need cutscenes. For the cutscenes to make sense, you need players to go to certain points at certain times and for certain events to happen. I can't see the problem. I played Singleplayer three times, and found very different experiences each time. I saw new ways of doing the same objectives and i think Infinity Ward did an amazing job.

You can't compare a close quarters FPS like Call of Duty, with an open area FPS like Crysis or on a larger scale Battlefield. They have to work differently.

But, i refuse to accept Farcry 2 as the sequel to Farcry. Because there is no continuity and there is a completely different engine and on top of that it's made by Ubisoft and not Crytek.

[The_Eliminator]

Re: New Far Cry 2 Trailer

Yea i agree with RKO, its a different game with no follow on story behind it. It looks awesome but games always do in the trailers.

[Chris_Redfield]

Re: New Far Cry 2 Trailer

Yes, it's that shallow that over 1.5 million units were purchased in November.

Sales dont mean anything when were talking about game quality. Examples- Rainbow Six Vegas, Resident Evil 4, Ghost Recon Advanced Warfighter. All great names, but if you actually push the ON button, they are utter pieces of crap, some quality wise, others story wise. COD4 is a shallow shooter, like vast majority of shooters out there. I happen to love and adore shallow corridor shooters, hence me keeping games like FEAR in high regard. But what you see in FEAR and you dont see in COD4, is that the scripted sequences and events are cleverly hidden, so the game plays out naturally, and obviously. COD4 strongest points were dialogue, characters and very talented musical crew, which basically mean that its your average Michael Bay-esque videogame. Those of us who appreciate a little brain muscle effort, see the scripted events through, and just dont appreciate the way too linear gameplay. For example, in the Chernobyel sequence ending showdown, you could have scripted the character to do stuff for 5 minutes, and you would have ended up killing every soldier and every dog with a headshot. Near the sequence where you blow up the high voltage electricity mast, theres a (and its not the only one) sequence where the enemies flow ends abruptly as soon as you cross a little yard. Unless you cross the yard, the enemies will keep on coming... coming... coming... coming. Similar spot is also evident when you have to take care of 2 tanks at the missile silo sequence. They just keep on coming, coming, coming.

And COD4 isnt even a corridor shooter, so these scripts should be visible much less.

As a comparision, if you count the total number of the Replica troops throughout the main game and its two expansion packs, you get an exact confirmation to a hint in the dialogue at the beginning of the first game-

"... are you crazy? What are we supposed to do against a thousand super soldiers?!"

You seem to complain, about Call of Duty 4's being linear or as you called it Shallow and not leaving much room for improvising.

Improvisation is a great asset, but not for every game. COD4 could have lived well enough without impro, and it does, except that if you have a game with obvious scripts, and only one way to end those scripts, or else you keep on fighting the endless reinforcement wave, the game is shallow. I happen to love games that are shallow, I just dont like people bringing COD4 as an example of superb SP experience, when the game doesnt have any replay value and is as naked as Pamela Anderson. Think of it this way, it was funny watching the untextured pick-axes in Half Life 2 Episode 2, but its not fun to play a game which doodads and scripts are as visible as StarCrafts.

Okay, granted, all the missions pan out the same way based on whatever tactic you use, but you can use cover and conserve your ammo to get to your objective slower or you can run and gun to get it done quickly.

You dont have to conserve ammo in COD4, and staying in cover means you wont trigger the scripts. Its very obvious in the game, that you need to keep on pushing and moving most of the time. Its not like, for example, in Rainbow Six Vegas, when you check a room with a snake cam, and you see 15 people in defensive positions, and you know, that if you want to go through, you can either kill the 15 people, or find an alternative path. In COD4, you reach one of these areas, and you will have to kill not 15, but XXXXXX ammount of people and you still advance and stop the onslaught only if you reach that red oil barrel. There are sequences like these in the whole game. In other cases, every soldier is in the position hes always been in, so theres no talk of AI, theres only scripts. And yes, it makes the game a cinematic experience, but it also makes it a shallow game. It represents the absolute end of the spectrum, whereas ideally, a great game is always somewhere with a touch of everything.

I can't see how Crysis is any different really, or any game even the open worlds of GTA. Singleplayer's purpose is to tell a story.

No its not. If you want a story, read a book. Single player purpose is to provide single player, offline gaming experience. Youll see that most console players despise online game modes, but they embrace the fun from gameplay from offline modes.

GTA is a sandbox game, if you cant see how its different from COD4, then sorry... theres a problem. Crysis is a fairly linear FPS game when it comes to storytelling and story development. But what makes it different (not better, different), is that it gives you an option to do whatever you want, if youre in an engagement. There are a few scripted sequences a´la "kill all aliens to advance", but in most cases, you can avoid obvious scipts, you can avoid engagements, traps, et cetera, or go and rush in full guns blazing.

Its a type of game mostly uncharted, and it requires tremendous ammount of work to make it work.

If you want to see how to make a working corridor shooter, see Vegas (even though game is a pisspoor showcase of quality and moral values regarding fanbase).

To tell the story you need cutscenes.

No you dont. See Resident Evil, Silent Hill, STALKER, Oblivion, et cetera. All great games and three of them, two being franchises, have their storylines panning out more through diaries and files, newspaper articles and even off-game content which developers throw in, like "Weskers Report 2" for Resident Evil universe.

For the cutscenes to make sense, you need players to go to certain points at certain times and for certain events to happen. I can't see the problem.

Then check out what Ive written in this post. You need doodads and scripts to advance the game. The quality comes from making said scripts and doodads invisible, something youll never notice. COD4 is naked. You dont see a problem? I dont either, its either like or dont. But the fact is a fact, if the scripts are so easy to spot, that you see the whole technical aspect of the game (the horrible part, lines of codes and whatnot, proverbially speaking), its not done well. In COD4s case, its obviously done to keep the gameplays pace up. Its a means to an end. But it makes the game shallow.

I played Singleplayer three times, and found very different experiences each time. I saw new ways of doing the same objectives and i think Infinity Ward did an amazing job.

You did? I checked the walkthroughs later, and I found that I did exactly the way the NGWs BeerBaron did. Besides, I dont believe you. COD4 "objectives" are mostly scripted in a way where you do everything exactly the same way. You cant advance unless you flip the three C4 detonators, and so forth.

You can't compare a close quarters FPS like Call of Duty, with an open area FPS like Crysis or on a larger scale Battlefield. They have to work differently.

Actually, I can. Those who say they cant, admit their own inadequacies.

[The_Eliminator]

Re: New Far Cry 2 Trailer

I agree with Chris at the fact you dont need cut scenes in a game. Look at Bioshock, Half Life, all great games without cut scenes.

[Chris_Redfield]

Re: New Far Cry 2 Trailer

I agree with Chris at the fact you dont need cut scenes in a game. Look at Bioshock, Half Life, all great games without cut scenes.

Im a dumbas5. My favourite PC game and I didnt even remember about its lack of cutscenes. :laugh:

[I am RKO]

Re: New Far Cry 2 Trailer

Sales dont mean anything when were talking about game quality.

Well, they do, because they reflect a game's quality. If the gaming public like the game in the majority, that will mean more sales. If they hate it in the majority, that will mean less sales. The key thing to remember here is, People will buy the games they like, but they'll also try new games, that they hear good things about.

COD4 strongest points were dialogue, characters and very talented musical crew, which basically mean that its your average Michael Bay-esque videogame.

Those are very important factors in a singleplayer. The Characters tell the story, the dialogue is told by the characters and the way the dialogue is spoken as well was the music, is key to setting the tone of the story. Whether it's sad or action packed or whatever.

Those of us who appreciate a little brain muscle effort, see the scripted events through, and just dont appreciate the way too linear gameplay.

Whats intelligent about a mission in Crysis? I know, I'll drive the other way instead of the way it's obviously hinting i should go, so the exact same thing could happen. If a game isn't linear enough, you go all around a map, thinking WTF is the next part of the mission, then consoles get broken. I'd much prefer to be told, you have to go somewhere, How you get there is up to you, but then have the game still limit it, so you can't wander off in the completely wrong direction. Thats Call of Duty 4. You can approach from different angles, whether from a vantage point or prone.

And COD4 isnt even a corridor shooter, so these scripts should be visible much less.

I assume by corridor, you mean close quarters combat? Because Call of Duty in most cases, involves combat within a fairly small space, in comparison to say.. again, Crysis. Which takes everything, and basically makes it more spaced out, and then they can call that open gameplay.

No its not. If you want a story, read a book. Single player purpose is to provide single player, offline gaming experience.

I disagree. Most singleplayers are there to tell the story of the game, and the multiplayer is to keep you playing by taking elements of the singleplayer and allowing more people. Crysis, was the aliens have landed and been found by koreans. COD4 had the USMC/SAS tackle the Ultranationalists from nuking the US. MOHA, That had a story too, a real story, till they added that Flaktower.

GTA is a sandbox game, if you cant see how its different from COD4, then sorry... theres a problem.

I meant in terms of the singleplayer. Yes, the open world in GTA makes it more free, but that freedom is also determined by the story and where your at in the story. For example, you cannot access Alderney, until you've completed a good portion of the game. Singleplayer, is layers around a core story. The Developers of games, say.. here's the story, and they wrap all the rest around the story, to create the full game. Imagine a gaming solar system, the story is the sun.

You did? I checked the walkthroughs later, and I found that I did exactly the way the NGWs BeerBaron did. Besides, I dont believe you. COD4 "objectives" are mostly scripted in a way where you do everything exactly the same way. You cant advance unless you flip the three C4 detonators, and so forth.

I didnt mean so in-depth in terms of difference, but little things. Like instead of heading through the middle, i decided to flank the left, and you may encounter enemies that you'd never encounter if you went through the middle or you may encounter the same enemies but from a different angle, and they present a new challenge. The objectives may stay the same but the way you reach them, is up to you and in that respect, the game isn't as linear as past CODs.

I've actually forgot what this thread was about.

[The_Eliminator]

Re: New Far Cry 2 Trailer

Im a dumbas5. My favourite PC game and I didnt even remember about its lack of cutscenes. :laugh:

Its what makes half life brilliant, you dont have fancy cut scenes explaining everything, its all about YOU and what you see and hear.

[Chris_Redfield]

Re: New Far Cry 2 Trailer

Well, they do, because they reflect a game's quality.

Wrong, they dont.

Have you played Rainbow Six Vegas on PC? GRAW1 on PC? Have you played Resident Evil 4? How about Battlefield 2?

In other aspect, have you played ETQW on PC? And COD4 on PC? (lolzorz)

Rainbow Six Vegas is by far the buggiest piece of crap in MP youd ever see, and it is ridiculously unoptimised. It has wonderful working elements like a good story, great dialogue, awesome gameplay and fantastic AI. Yet its a broken product. It sold millions. GRAW has broken AI, which often makes the game unplayable. It sold millions. Resident Evil 4 has an awful story, yet great quality, no bugs. Didnt sell sh!t on PC. ETQW is by far the most polished and perfect MP game in 10 years, upon its release, it had no bugs. I dont think it even broke the 1M sales record. And finally, COD4, perfect MP, hyped SP, and Id be surprised if it broke the 1M tally on PC.

What does this inconsistency tell you? It tells me that sales dont mean quality, it tells me that sales = publicity and a certain feature to wh0re on.

If the gaming public like the game in the majority, that will mean more sales.

We all liked BF2, and we all can agree that its littered with countless of bugs, and that the word "quality" does not describe it. Unless you need Websters to find out what the word "quality" really means.

Those are very important factors in a singleplayer. The Characters tell the story, the dialogue is told by the characters and the way the dialogue is spoken as well was the music, is key to setting the tone of the story. Whether it's sad or action packed or whatever.

Yet, these arent what made COD4 sell, they were the saving grace of inadequacies in other aspects.

Whats intelligent about a mission in Crysis?

Nothing? Do you measure intellect by the storytelling, or the gameplay and the challenges in the gameplay? You obviously havent played mindbogglingly challenging games story wise. A hint- Hideo.... Hiiideeeeooooo....

The reasons why Crysis makes your brain cells work better, is that every engagement is a puzzle, and provides you with a set of choices. In COD4, the choice is simple. Push forward. In Crysis, if you manage to screw up, youll find yourself running away from genuine hunting parties. COD4 is all about shooting. Not a bad thing. But not overly challenging either.

I hope I was more clear.

I know, I'll drive the other way instead of the way it's obviously hinting i should go, so the exact same thing could happen.

You suck at sarcasm. Sarcasm is supposed to be smart and witty. Not completely out of the context and wrong.

I'd much prefer to be told, you have to go somewhere, How you get there is up to you, but then have the game still limit it, so you can't wander off in the completely wrong direction. Thats Call of Duty 4. You can approach from different angles, whether from a vantage point or prone.

Except that I havent even begun to be saying which game is better. The simple truth is that Crysis does better at its field, than COD4 does at its own.

And no, you can not approach a problem in COD4 from different angles. Proof? How many positions can you choose from, when youre sniping the Russian fella in the Chernobyl mission? All missions pan out like that. What you can choose from, is barrel A and barrel B for cover. Bog mission is the ultimate proof of scripted gameplay. You should be more observant.

I assume by corridor, you mean close quarters combat? Because Call of Duty in most cases, involves combat within a fairly small space, in comparison to say.. again, Crysis. Which takes everything, and basically makes it more spaced out, and then they can call that open gameplay.

Open gameplay isnt about great spaces. Open gameplay is about having multiple choices to solve a problem. In COD4, the solution to the problems are scripted (you dont want to argue with me on this one). And its not wrong. Its the nature of a corridor shooter. Youre always moving straight ahead, in a set path, set direction and set sequence. GTA, Crysis, some others (like many RPGs) play out in an "open" fashion. I was wrong actually, COD4 is a 100% corridor shooter. Its the kind of shooter you mostly see game magazines bash FPS games for.

I disagree. Most singleplayers are there to tell the story of the game, and the multiplayer is to keep you playing by taking elements of the singleplayer and allowing more people.

You want to stick to that answer? Try games like F1, Gran Turismo, FIFA... (dont tell me Im not being fair).

Single player games are there to entertain offline. The games with a story just do it with a story.

Crysis, was the aliens have landed and been found by koreans.

No. Wrong. Crysis was all about pretty graphics, innovative gameplay elements, excellent physics. If youve played SP videogames, youd know how shallow Crysis story is.

COD4 had the USMC/SAS tackle the Ultranationalists from nuking the US.

No. Wrong. COD4 was all about providing a base for a new multiplayer platform, a modern day combat game. If youve read Tom Clancy novels, youd laugh at COD4 story.

I meant in terms of the singleplayer. Yes, the open world in GTA makes it more free, but that freedom is also determined by the story and where your at in the story.

You seem to misunderstand what the term "open gameplay" means. Its all about the choices you can make in a game. Obviously, if the game is story driven, you have to do certain things to advance. However, what makes GTA an OPEN game, and what doesnt make COD4 into one, is that you can always choose whatever the hell you want to do in GTA, and you cant do the same in COD4, because you just wont flip the switch and all you get is either a GAME OVER sign... or an endless volley of enemies, so you need to press forward.

Ones a corridor shooter, ones an open gameplay representative. Neither is wrong, just that GTA does its job a hell of a lot better.

For example, you cannot access Alderney, until you've completed a good portion of the game.

You dont have to access Alderney, if you dont want to. You dont have to kill the NK troops, if you dont want to. You need to kill the Russkyes, no matter what you think.

I didnt mean so in-depth in terms of difference, but little things. Like instead of heading through the middle, i decided to flank the left, and you may encounter enemies that you'd never encounter if you went through the middle or you may encounter the same enemies but from a different angle, and they present a new challenge. The objectives may stay the same but the way you reach them, is up to you and in that respect, the game isn't as linear as past CODs.

:laugh:

Considering that most COD4 engagements take place in a <1ha area, the "flanking route" is basically crossing the street 10 metres right side. No. That doesnt make it an open game.

[Eagle101]

Re: New Far Cry 2 Trailer

I dont get it, so Crytek is not making FC2 now its Ubisoft :S