Gamespot GC '07: Far Cry 2 First Look

[davidhye]

http://www.gamespot.com/pc/action/farcry2/news.html?sid=6177348
Some interesting quotes from the preview:

...Montreal studio has been working on the game in secret for over two years now, and even though it's still weeks away from even entering alpha stage
...Far Cry 2 is the closest game we've seen yet to a true "open world,"
you can roam around the entire game without ever seeing a loading screen
You can even take out one of those warlords, and his number-two guy will simply become the new warlord. But it will be up to you whether you take missions from or against those two factions, ally yourself with them, try to take them down, or play them both against the middle
The game will even populate its world with the other selectable characters you didn't choose, and they'll act as agents who are also working in Africa, whom you can befriend and count on in a tight spot
Heck, we saw a grassy field catch fire from an exploded fuel canister, and the fire actually began to spread in a particular direction simply because the wind was blowing it that way.
Again, you'll be able to roam around that entire world while it streams from the hard drive, without ever seeing a loading screen.
...you'll never find the exact same situation in the same place twice. In every mission, you'll have to hit the ground running and decide what to do on the fly.
Again, Hocking said this behavior wasn't at all scripted; instead, the AI had identified the truck as the best means of pursuing and attacking the player, and their route wasn't at all set, either.
There will be a single first-aid hotkey that will contextually activate the right interaction, such as beating flames off of your sleeve or slapping a bandage on a large cut.We thought it was a little over-the-top when the player managed to dig a slug out of his thigh with a knife during the thick of a firefight...
The demo we saw was running on what was described as a high-end dual-core system with a GeForce 8800
The final specs next spring, however, will be more modest; a fast single-core CPU and a high-end DirectX 9 card will purportedly do the job. The team is weighing the value of adding DirectX 10 features; it's likely those with DX10 support will enjoy a combination of improved performance and some slight visual upgrades.
...it ships early next year.

There are also some new screens but they are not really new anymore...
http://www.gamespot.com/pc/action/farcry2/images.html?tag=tabs;images
^^ doesn't the 3rd image reminds you of Little Big Planet? :P

also an interview which pretty much says everything in the preview (except the actual mission plot)
http://www.gamespot.com/video/942192/6177476/far-cry-2-interview-1

I have to say Far Cry 2 gonna OWN any shooter out there - kinda reminds me of STALKER but i hope they gonna release the finished version of the game (unlike STALKER)

[Portchyboy]

Nice interview, and a good insight into what sort of spec machines will be needed to play it!
Hopefully this demo that has been shown will be on our screens shortly!

[Six_Gun]

Well this sounds more encouraging than the last interview I read where they were saying they'd try to make it single core playable, but weren't sure if they could. I'm not going to get my hopes up just yet though.

With vast terrain and no levels to load, it's going to take exremely good scripting and optimization to pull it off. Just Cause is an example of "procedural rendering" whereby you have vast terrain and no levels. The terrain stream loads on the fly but stutter and lag build up, so exiting to desktop frequently is necessary, then the process repeats. This happens in JC even with high end hardware.

I'm not saying Ubi is going to make the same mistake, some speculate JC is poorly scripted and optimized and may have memory leaks. I don't recall seeing ANY game do a good job of rendering on the fly with such graphic and AI detail though, so it's hard to believe it can be done with such low system spec.

I want to upgrade my P4 HyperThreading 3Ghz, X800XT 256MB, 1GB RAM system with an XFX 7950GT 512MG AGP and another 1 GB RAM to play the games that are coming out that don't support shader 2. I often wonder though if my single core CPU will be somewhat of a bottleneck making it not worthwhile.

If this game plays as described though, I think it will eat STALKER for breakfast and say "Who's next"?, especially if it can be done on single core without stutter. I just hope a 3Ghz single core is fast enough.

[TJCracker]

AMD 3200 XP CPU(single core 32 bit), 1 Gig of Ram, 7600GT AGP, and windows XP...

How about it kimi? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/shady.gif Will I be able to run this game or am I gonna have to sink $1000 into my PC...to run a $50 game?

just wondering...

www.fearthebestclan.com (http://www.fearthebestclan.com)

[Six_Gun]

From what the interview says at the end, the CPU may actually not be the problem as much as the video card. They're saying fast single core and high end DX9 card. The 7600 is more like mid level.

For around $300 or less though you could get a faster AGP card and double the RAM and use that until you can afford a better build. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

[Vals_Evil_Twin]

Does your system lag Six_Gun? (http://www.systemrequirementslab.com/referrer/srl)

Indicators are probably a guide only.
I tested it on Bioshock and looks like it will play on XP, 3.2G P4, x1950PRO and 2GB RAM.
Cheerin' http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/clap.gif

[Six_Gun]

Originally posted by Vals_Evil_Twin:
Does your system lag Six_Gun? (http://www.systemrequirementslab.com/referrer/srl)

Indicators are probably a guide only.
I tested it on Bioshock and looks like it will play on XP, 3.2G P4, x1950PRO and 2GB RAM.
Cheerin' http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/clap.gif I'm well aware of that site as most avid gamers are, and when you say does my system lag, you are not really being specific. I detailed everything I'm concerned about above. Whether my current rig were to play Far Cry 2 without lag or not, which is doubtfull, I would still make the above mentioned upgrade to be shader 3 compliant, as Bioshock and Airborne require it. As mentioned my main concern is my 3GHz single core CPU. Many of these new games are more appropriate for dual core or fast single core. There are plenty faster single cores than mine, including yours. Good for you, but a cause to be concerned for me. Sometimes all it takes is 200Mhz less speed on a single core to cause noticable problems on dual core optimized games if you're barely above the minimum spec.

I am pleased though with what I'm hearing about Airborne playing on single cores only slightly faster than mine with video cards very close in speed to the upgrade one mentioned using pretty good settings. Apparently most of Airborne's lag (as some have mentioned) comes while dropping in at mission start, as if the parachute deployment acts as a sort of level loading on the fly. Lag, however, is releavant to the res used, visual quality desired, and whether videos are made of the gameplay. Lag is always a never ending debate, as it is so much dependant on personal preferences and intended use.

The way I look at it, it's not whether you can get playable frame rates in a game, but whether you can get them at good enough visual quality to actually enjoy the game enough without thinking you should have waitied to afford the build you want before buying the it. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

[kimi_]

Originally posted by TJCracker:
AMD 3200 XP CPU(single core 32 bit), 1 Gig of Ram, 7600GT AGP, and windows XP...

How about it kimi? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/shady.gif Will I be able to run this game or am I gonna have to sink $1000 into my PC...to run a $50 game?

just wondering...

www.fearthebestclan.com (http://www.fearthebestclan.com)

Without answering a specific question about a specific system, perhaps this, from the Q&A at PAX, will help you determine until we officially release requirements...note that this is what Joystiq reported this is what Clint Hocking said at PAX.


What will users without DX10/Vista be missing out on?

There will be a high-end Vista version for those people (billionaires). The min-spec will be a "very powerful" single core machine. Recommended machine is a dual-core with a graphics card. Demo was on a dual-core XPS with an 8800 at 25fps at 1600 unoptimized.

[R1ZN0]

Originally posted by TJCracker:
AMD 3200 XP CPU(single core 32 bit), 1 Gig of Ram, 7600GT AGP, and windows XP...

How about it kimi? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/shady.gif Will I be able to run this game or am I gonna have to sink $1000 into my PC...to run a $50 game?

just wondering...

www.fearthebestclan.com (http://www.fearthebestclan.com)

This thought process is funny as hell... a $1000 machine can play $50 dollar games the way they are meant to be played at that time. If people were to assume that they would never have to buy another 1000. machine every 2 years or so, then games would never get any better looking or complex. We would all still be playing comodore 64 which was close to that price when it came out.. So yeah if you wait to upgrade for FC2 then you will be buying a $1000 machine for a 50 buck game.

[Vals_Evil_Twin]

Our C64 cost $500 in 1984 (I think) and a copy of Epyx's Jumpman was $50. What would that be in today's $$s ?? Heaps!
It's taken me until now to get a vid card that plays FarCry to its potential. But it was still great on low quality settings at the time. Amazing, in fact.
I suppose it will be another two years before I can afford a system that plays FC2, Clear Skies, White Gold, Bioshock in all their glory. But I'm optimistic they will still look pretty good.

BTW what was that about monitors affecting lag Six_Gun, B4 your edit, it looked interesting lolol.

[TJCracker]

@Six_Gun... thanks for the info.. I will consider a Videocard upgrade and maybe some more RAM to try and eek out a little more mileage from my aging system. ($300-$400 beats $1000)

@Kimi... thank you for responding.

@Rizno... I got a wife, kids, a mortgage and bills...I have to laugh at the notion that I would dump $1000 bucks into my pc every 2 years just to play the latest and greatest games at max settings.

Is the game "playable" with a moderate system? That was basically the question... if the answer is "no" then so be it. If Ubi wants to produce games that the line share of people cant run for a few years... then that is up to them... FC missed being the blockbuster it could have because of the same type of rational.

[CuZtds_Lst_Stnd]

FC missed being the blockbuster it could have because of the same type of rational.
Fair point, but isnt that also part of the reason why people are still playing it 3 years later?

[Portchyboy]

Originally posted by CuZtds_Lst_Stnd:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">FC missed being the blockbuster it could have because of the same type of rational.
Fair point, but isnt that also part of the reason why people are still playing it 3 years later? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sure ppl are still playing it, but not many.
Farcry was never a popular game as far as the gaming community was concearned, down to purely the netcode.
I speak to a tonne of people who own a copy of farcry, but who spent little time online with it because of the poor multiplayer design. They never got to experience the brilliance of assault because they couldnt even get mp working. And if they could get mp working they were too frustrated with constant lag, poor fps and dire hit detection to consider playing the game anymore.

This is where I hope fc2 will learn from their mistakes. Sure the SP game sounds immense from what iv heard and the graphics look amazing. I just hope they dont forget to apply the same care and consideration for the mp side, which is what will get the game famous. Not so many people buy a game for its single player these days (im sure not one of them) its all about the multiplayer side of it. If the multiplayer is rubbish, word will quickly get around, and sales will drop like a rock off mount everest!

[TJCracker]

Fair point, but isnt that also part of the reason why people are still playing it 3 years later?


Yes, I agree to a point... In my case I owned the game for over a year before I was able to upgrade my computer enough to actually play it with acceptable framerates that didnt induce migraines and motion sickness. LOL http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

(yes I did have at least minimum specs when I bought it... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif)

I still play FC now due to the massive fun of MP, as Portchyboy points out, and also due to the huge amount of MODS and custom maps that the community has gifted the FC loyals. Thanks folks!

[R1ZN0]

Originally posted by TJCracker:
@Six_Gun... thanks for the info.. I will consider a Videocard upgrade and maybe some more RAM to try and eek out a little more mileage from my aging system. ($300-$400 beats $1000)

@Kimi... thank you for responding.

@Rizno... I got a wife, kids, a mortgage and bills...I have to laugh at the notion that I would dump $1000 bucks into my pc every 2 years just to play the latest and greatest games at max settings.

Is the game "playable" with a moderate system? That was basically the question... if the answer is "no" then so be it. If Ubi wants to produce games that the line share of people cant run for a few years... then that is up to them... FC missed being the blockbuster it could have because of the same type of rational.

Thats all well and good... but if you join the "why does this game need 1000 dollar system club" then my reply would also be to you.

[TJCracker]

@Rizno... ya, I guess it kinda sounded that way huh? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/1072.gif

Well no one like a winer... maybe a little modest upgrading will solve my problem eh?

no worries...


www.fearthebestclan.com (http://www.fearthebestclan.com) http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/icon_twisted.gif

[Vals_Evil_Twin]

Originally posted by TJCracker:

I still play FC now due to the massive fun of MP, as Portchyboy points out, and also due to the huge amount of MODS and custom maps that the community has gifted the FC loyals. Thanks folks!

I'm still playing the maps and MODS too but on SP, I know that's important to a lot of people..
There's going to be a huge range between minimum system requirements and ideal, but if FC1 is any indication, we'll still be playing FC2 in three years on new fully capable machines.

[dominator79]

Originally posted by TJCracker:
AMD 3200 XP CPU(single core 32 bit), 1 Gig of Ram, 7600GT AGP, and windows XP...

How about it kimi? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/shady.gif Will I be able to run this game or am I gonna have to sink $1000 into my PC...to run a $50 game?

just wondering...
well i totally agree thats why i want almost all the computer games on consoles with same features (battlefield 2 http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif ), i do have the computer for that but am i really going to spend a couple hundreds just because i didn't have the requirements, of course i am, jk, but really after that i just put the game on an under requirement computer. Until i realized 360 can play computer games.