<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Portchyboy:
Enjoy fiddling about with your nanosuit ;>
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>
It's only a guess, but if Crytek has done it correctly, you should be able to complete the campaign without using the nanosuit at all. Many available choices and options is a fundamental key to replayability.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Chrono47:
Laugh all you want, but Montreal did a better job on the plot than Crytek did. Granted Crytek did a better job with the gameplay, but I'd rather have an interesting story to go with my jungle island hopping experience instead of just mindlessly killing trijins (which you obviously enjoy doing).
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>
I agree that MTL pushed the story a little bit farther. Was it a good story? Well, honestly, it was a B movie story like the original. A more developed B movie, but still a B movie nevertheless. I really don't mind about the B movie style of the story. Personally, I found that the Xbox version was MUCH MORE childish than the PC version, but I don't care about that too.
What I care about is gameplay and what makes a franchise unique. I think that the distinctive feature of the original Far Cry (on PC) was its high degree of replayability and open gameplay, allowed by the large and non-linear levels as well as the solid enemy AI. Many people would say that the incredible graphics of sunny beaches was the distinctive feature of Far Cry, but I think it was only secondary.
Would you say that FCI kept the characteristics of Crytek's game? I don't think so. The levels were linear and scripted to death (typical on-rail shooter) and the AI was abysmal. The corridor-like linearity of this game made it not replayable: you play it once and only once. It was short, barely 8 hours of play. When you compare it to Far Cry who had 30 or 40 hours of play the first time through... And Far Cry has 5 levels of difficulty while FCI has only one - this is still something that contributes to raise (lower) the degree of replayability.
Seriously, FCI has nothing of the original Far Cry. Some people could argue that the Xbox couldn't technically allow for large and complex maps like the original version. Well, in such a case, a respectable developer would choose TO NOT adapt the game on platforms that distort and degrade the unique features of the franchise. Obviously, UBI did not bother with that. They were even happy enough to dumb down the whole thing for the below average John Dow.
Now about the trigens. Would I have preferred the game without them? Yes. Why? Because my preferred style of game above any other is the ''tactical shooter''. I don't like mindless shooters, I like realism, problem solving and tactical approaches. I like being offered many choices in how fulfilling an objective. Typical example from Rainbow Six: How am I going to breach into this room, kill all the 4 tangos in less than 1 second and save the hostages. Of course, the trigens didn't help Far Cry to be ''realistic'', but at least, you had to use tactics and problem solving skills to finish the campaign. And you were given many choices in doing so. Was it perfect? No, but it wasn't that bad for a company's first game, don't you think?
I could go on and on trying to justify how Far Cry was good and how MTL sucked with the console versions. But ultimately, the best way I can summarize the whole experience is the ''fun'' factor. Did I have fun playing Far Cry? Heck YES! Did I have fun playing FCI? NO! Everything was annoying, from the stupid AI to the incompetent voice acting to the dynamic music you can't even shut down because you are playing on a cr-appy console and devs think console players aren't intelligent enough to set up options (right or wrong). Every time I played FCI, I felt like this game was designed for ******s. But I had to complete the campaign because I wanted to get my own opinion.
And I won't even talk about the Wii version, the amazing Far Cry Vengeance ( IGN (http://wii.ign.com/articles/751/751136p1.html), Gamespot (http://www.gamespot.com/wii/action/farcry/review.html), Gamespy (http://wii.gamespy.com/wii/far-cry/761861p1.html) )... That really was the nail in the coffin of this franchise, thanks to UBI Montreal.
Oh, and finally, did the original PC game got an expansion pack? No! You'd think such a terrific game with such an amazing potential would have deserved AT LEAST one expansion pack, but more appropriately two? No! But the lame FCI got its expansion pack... What a **** publisher!
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Chrono47:
If that's the case, then why are you even posting on this board. If you love Crytek so much then go over to the EA boards and speak your love.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Because the premises and concepts of this game look so promising, it's hard not to keep an eye on it even if I know UBI will screw it up. It's too bad that this publisher/developer is so pathetic.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Chrono47:
Also if Montreal sucks so bad, then why have they been successful with series like Splinter Cell and Rainbow Six? I'm just curious that's all.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Generally, different franchises = different dev teams.
Montreal Studio has many dev teams. I can think of at least 4 of them:
1) Prince of Persia/Assasin's Creed,
2) Splinter Cell (OSC, CT, ConViction),
3) Rainbow Six (RvS, RS3, Vegas),
4) Far Cry (console versions, FC2).
Of course, there are some people who cross over from one team to the other, but more generally, most people remain assigned to their original franchise.
If we take the franchises above, 1) and 2) are fairly competent. Unfortunately, 3) and 4) are just two bunches of losers. Both teams have completely destroyed the essence of the original franchises that were created by other talented and innovative developers (Red Storm Entertainment and Crytek respectively).
You mentioned the success of R6, well, let's talk about that.
The original titles from RSE were real tactical shooters with incredibly huge replayability (Rainbow Six, Rogue Spear, Ghost Recon). Mission planning, non-linear maps, multiple entry points, multiple fireteams, switching souls, numerous SP and MP game modes, map editor, etc - were some of the ingredients that made the R6 franchise truly unique. The problems started when UBI had the bad idea to buy RSE. Though MTL did manage to make an iteration that respected the spirit of the franchise (Raven Shield), the following titles were designed with the console kiddies and the casual gamers in mind (RS3 on Xbox, R6 Lockdown, R6 Vegas) and were all dumbed down FPS' for the lowest common denominator.
Look at R6 Vegas. All the elements that made this franchise totally unique are gone.
Mission planning? GONE!
Non-linear maps in SP? GONE!
Multiple entry points? GONE!
Multiple fireteams? GONE!
Switching souls? GONE!
Map editor? GONE!
Numerous SP and MP game modes? GONE!
About this last point (game modes), R6 used to have four (4) single player game modes called Terrorist Hunt, Mission, Hostage Rescue and Lone Wolf. Guess what happened... Of all these game modes, only terro hunt remains. Good bye replayability! But wait, that's not the best! This terro hunt is only a lone wolf in disguise since you are alone - you don't have AI teammates with you! So not only UBI has completely stripped down the franchise, but they do false advertisement about it...
And the single player campaign is absolutely ridiculous. The plot is absolute non-sense. Tom Clancy would cry if only he cared. You have only two teammates with you (that you can't control like in original titles) and you have to fight about 500 paramilitary terrorists all the way to the end. And the game is totally linear and scripted like Half-Life. And there is countless annoying and unimaginative scripted ambushes were you are attacked by huge waves of tangos while you have to protect a device and you have only one teammate to help you because the other one is hacking the so-called device. What a realistic and fair tactical shooter...
Like with FCI, I forced myself to complete this POS only because I wanted to have an honest opinion about it. What a pain in the *** it was! And you accuse me to enjoy just mindlessly killing trigens... LOL!
Of course, Rainbow Six Vegas had good reviews in the press, but don't forget the CONSOLE crowd is still amazed by HALO, while PC players have stopped wonders about Duke Nukem 3D and Quake a long time ago...
That brings me to this observation: If what you mean by a ''successful'' franchise is indeed a ''commercially successful'' franchise, then you are right, R6 Vegas and FCI have been very successful. It's normal; they are CONSOLE games designed for MALE kiddies with an IQ barely above the ambient temperature in Alaska. Those people don't want to patch a game, update their drivers, install a new graphics card or re-flash their BIOS. Heck, there is no way they could achieve these things. All they can do is put the disk in the DVD-ROM drive and wait for the game to load. Those people don't want to think, analyse a tactical situation and solve problems. Nope! They just want to start the game and shoot everyone and everything in sight. Those people are a huge market, MUCH BIGGER than the population of smart people who want games that require tactics, thinking and problem solving - more generally - people who want games that do not insult their intelligence. That explains why games like GOW, HALO, FCI or R6 Vegas are ''commercially'' successful, but that doesn't mean they are clever, innovative, or interesting games. It's even quite the opposite; all these games are more of the same, with no truly distinctive elements that could help discriminate one from the other.
And btw, in all this discussion, I have not even mentioned the fact that the kiddie games of UBI are not even finished at release. UBI is part of this trend of releasing games in FUBAR state and waiting after sells to finance the countless patches that follow. R6 Vegas (PC) and Silent Hunter 4 were games that were not even properly functioning months after the release. Silent Hunter 3 was patched and modded by the community to be playable and respective of History.
I could go on and on, but you should see the point. The fundamental problem of UBI is that this arrogant corporation is PUBLICLY OWNED, that is, all that cares to them is profits for their stockholders. That means dumbed down products for the mass market, unfinished games released to meet the deadlines of the fiscal year, reduced development time and cost to make sure that stockholders have a fast return on their investments (ROI), high amount of low quality releases, etc. This is to contrast to the PRIVATELY OWNED game companies that only care about the quality of their products because they are only concerned about the satisfaction of their customers. These private companies release a low amount of games, but those games are QUALITY games, and they are released ''when it's done''.
You can compare the game industry to the restaurant industry. There are those who serve fine gastronomy, like Crytek, Blizzard, Bethesda, Valve, Monolith, BioWare, etc. And there is the fast-food industry, Ubisoft being the prime example. You play FCI or R6 Vegas like you eat a Big Mac; you order (or pre-order), you pay, you eat, you get sick, you vomit, you complain without success, you leave, and you come back the next day to eat the same <span class="ev_code_RED">*deleted*</span>. Tell me what you eat and I'll tell you who you are...
I think even the lowest common denominator starts to realize that UBI doesn't care at all about all its customer base, most notably the PC one. Take a look at this thread (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/4091020922/m/1901054745/).
I'm okay with the fast-food industry. I don't eat <span class="ev_code_RED">*deleted*</span> like Big Macs but as long as I can eat healthy food, I'm fine with people who like McDonalds. On the other hand, the fast-food gaming industry doesn't work that way unfortunately. Childish franchises like Rayman Raving Rabbids or Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles are perfect for Ubisoft. But serious, prestigious, or promising franchises like Rainbow Six, Ghost Recon, Silent Hunter, or Far Cry - should be left to talented developers and private companies who can push these games to their full potential. Those developers who can bring these franchises forward and make them still more unique, original, feature-rich and spicy. Not the other way around, like ''just another mindless shooter''.
Please do not circumvent the language filter