[tabacco]

Just curious, has anyone played Far Cry yet? I just pcked this game up, and I'm really impressed. Above all else, it has some of the best graphics I've seen, and the people who wrote the engine put in some nice touches. For example, I can run into a store room and push a crate around, until it bumps into a shelving unit, which falls over and spills its contents across the room. Then if I run over a cardboard box that fell, I get a nice cardboard crunching noise. Not a huge deal, really, but it's got a lot of that kind of nice atmospheric touches. Oh, and the actual gameplay is pretty cool too

[Zygomaticus]

I have only played the demo so far, but I've seen enough to share your sentiment. The game is quite the piece of computer-art.

It has a strange level of realism that gives me a thrill whenever I play. Somewhat like the first time I played Call of Duty, which I consider quite a compliment.

Far Cry is so much more real-feeling, though.

[jjacob]

Yes I can safely say this is a big step forward in first person shooters. Well any game that will utilize this engine ofcourse. The gameplay is superb, and there's much variety in missions. The freedom of movement is like how I would want it in an adventure game; absolute. There is already a thread though: Far Cry

[Phantom]

I don't like the game much, and I don't like the graphics either. Might be that my computer is too slow to run it at decent speed (1024x768, 32 bit, all details on low), but I've seen TONS of games that look a lot better. Actually almost all games that come out nowadays look better than how I play Far Cry.

So the only thing left to judge the game on is its gameplay, but unfortunatley the gameplay isn't anything special either. The AI isn't as impressive as they say. I can still stand in a doorway and shoot all the bad guys as they enter the room, one after another. You can still drive with your buggy up to a guy and hit him while he saw you coming from miles away. The gameplay and level design overall seems uninspired and unoriginal. Objective-based shooters suck anyway.


To be honest, I might be a bit too hard on the game. But I've just recently replayed Half-Life single-player, and Far Cry doesn't even come close to Half-Life in any way except for the graphics. Every level in HL is so brilliantly crafted (okay, save a few exceptions) that Far Cry just looks like a piece of crap now.

[Phantom]

Originally Posted by jjacob

Yes I can safely say this is a big step forward in first person shooters.[/URL]

How can you say this game is a big step forward if it doesn't even come close to a 6-year old game? The only way forward in first person shooters is to beat the atmosphere, originality and variety of Half-Life and this game certainly doesn't do that.

[remixor]

Marek and I played the game on a big-screen TV at GDC, and we were both extremely impressed. It most definitely looks better than almost any other game I've played; it's one of those rare games that really makes me seriously consider buying a new PC that can actually run stuff like this (fingers crossed for this summer...). The developers have succeeded in creating a very lifelike and gorgeously detailed environment. The gameplay seems pretty solid too, although from the amount I got to play I can't comment on the story or characters (though I suspect those take a back seat to the visuals and gameplay).


Phantom: you're obviously not experiencing the game as it was meant to be played, so I'd reserve judgments until you have access to a more powerful machine. It's not JUST the graphics, it's the overall immersiveness that the game presents when run on a top-notch system; the graphics are a part of that.

[tabacco]

It's also refreshing to play an FPS that doesn't take place is a space station or dank sewer or some other place with gloomy dark lighting

[Zygomaticus]

Originally Posted by tabacco

It's also refreshing to play an FPS that doesn't take place is a space station or dank sewer or some other place with gloomy dark lighting

Or the battlefields of France and Germany.

But strangely, the WWII atmosphere in an FPS is always more fun for me...

[Crunchy in milk]

From Ubisoft's latest xbox press release
The number one shooter’s paradise is coming to consoles in 2004



Ubisoft’s award-winning Montreal Studio is currently producing Far Cry Instincts, console versions based on the recently released, tropical PC shooter. The console versions will be an entirely new game built from the ground up using the most advanced technology Far Cry fans have come to expect.

They're also releasing a new rainbow six (black arrow).

[jjacob]

Originally Posted by Phantom

How can you say this game is a big step forward if it doesn't even come close to a 6-year old game? The only way forward in first person shooters is to beat the atmosphere, originality and variety of Half-Life and this game certainly doesn't do that.

I said this with future games in mind. Look all I meant was that it would be nice to have future FPS that don't have any spacial boundaries. Obviously freedom of movement was the 'primary aspect' of the game, and they succeeded very nicely, implementing even delta-flyers to achieve this. I have never played anything so scary as half-life, but this game had its moments as well. I cannot agree with you on the graphics though, atleast on my computer they looked INSANELY BEAUTIFUL, but hey that's just my opinion. Look be assured, the Half-life 2 beta looks so much better and it's a beta, especially after I saw the gameplay movie and knew how to play the levels, it had much more to offer, and didn't solely focus on having vast maps. The buggy map is awesome insane action, and yet the prison map is way more atmospericly scary in a confined sort of way. Far Cry had a go at this concept and didn't completely succeed but managed quite nicely IMO.

edit: typo