1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Farcry 3!

Discussion in 'Games, Gaming & Game-demos' started by Strikerx80, Jun 7, 2011.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Burnt_Ram

    Burnt_Ram Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    5,926
    Likes Received:
    0
    GPU:
    Zotac GTX 1050 Ti
    coop is ok, not as good as single player. it's MP thats terrible! SLi setups crash it at the end of a round. i have to set the profile to "single gpu" and turn settings down to "high" to keep it from crashing and hold 60 fps vsynced.
     
  2. Elder III

    Elder III Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    3,550
    Likes Received:
    173
    GPU:
    Both Red and Green
    Other than TF2 I don't play MultiPlayer, but I have played a fair bit of FC3 Co-Op and it's fun. The performance is just fine, the same as in the SP part of the game for me. It has 6 Missions, of decent, but varying lengths - with several checkpoints in each mission. You can customize ~25 loadouts, but you will need to play to get most of the weapons and gear unlocked. The order that things unlock and some of the restrictions of the loadout options are frustrating, particularly when compared to the SP campaign's 90% pure freedom of choice. It's also much more linear, 100% linear in fact, but hopefully some modder will make it more free roaming at some point. :)

    The enemies are tougher than in SP too... a headshot is still an instant kill, but they seemingly can take twice as many body shots... which is ok if you're playing with 3-4 people. Overall it's fun and enjoyable to do the entire campaign several times if you're with friends and want to unlock more gear, but it's not worth buying the game solely for the Co-Op.
     
  3. -Tj-

    -Tj- Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    16,266
    Likes Received:
    1,408
    GPU:
    Zotac GTX980Ti OC
    For ~ £150 you can get this OC beast, they have 10 in stock

    http://www. overclockers .co.uk/showproduct.php?prodid=MB-345-GI&groupid=701&catid=5&subcat=1692

    *remove spaces*


    Gigabyte official page
    http://www.gigabyte.com/products/product-page.aspx?pid=3870#ov

    (it supports sata3 as well usb3)
     
  4. Donny_uk

    Donny_uk Member

    Messages:
    43
    Likes Received:
    0
    GPU:
    EVGA GTX680 Classi 4095Mb
    Thanks Tj, I actually found that board yesterday after a few days looking for the Asus Sabertooth and Rampage III's. The only ones I found were from seemingly shady e-bay sellers based in Hong Kong, no original CD's, boxes etc.

    I'll get that board next month or so. Maybe before that if they start selling out.

    Do you think I could hit 4Ghz? Or even use my RAM @ 1600? (Apparently the i7 920 only supports 1066mhz, would overclocking allow for that memory clock?)

    My CPU has been in use since Q2 2008, so I'm quite afraid of pushing it too hard but I've just acquired a H80 to cool it so who knows. :)

    Thanks.
     

  5. -Tj-

    -Tj- Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    16,266
    Likes Received:
    1,408
    GPU:
    Zotac GTX980Ti OC

    Yeah if you never OC'ed then it should be fine, I think ~ 3.7 - 3.8ghz for sure, maybe even 4.0ghz with some good OC guide and yes higher memory can be used. :)
    For example my 5year quad yorkfiled can be OC'ed to the same freq. as before, because i never OC'ed it to the max.


    Imo that H80 will be enough, although buy 2 extra 12cm fans some with good air presure (Noctua F 12s, etc), those stock corsair are a little nosiy.
     
    Last edited: Jan 2, 2013
  6. Donny_uk

    Donny_uk Member

    Messages:
    43
    Likes Received:
    0
    GPU:
    EVGA GTX680 Classi 4095Mb
    I have a storm trooper chasis with a huge 200mm up top and two 120mm in front, plus corsair's radiator fans in the back. They're noisy as hell in performance mode, I will change them as soon as I can.
     
  7. scrapser

    scrapser Master Guru

    Messages:
    588
    Likes Received:
    7
    GPU:
    EVGA GTX 1080 SC
    I finished FC3 and will not bother with it again. The game was a huge disappointment for me. I know that sounds incredible to some folks but from what I have read at various websites, it appears FC3 was designed specifically to overcome what people didn't like about FC2. But for people like me who enjoyed FC2, the game also gets low marks.

    The difference it seems is with the game design and how you interact with it. I call this the immersion effect. I guess for some people, immersion means being impressed by pretty, scenic vistas or having great distances available in-game. FC3 is supposed to be 10X larger than FC2 according to an article I read interviewing the developers. And for some reason, it was very important for the series to go back to being a tropical island. I played both (FC1 and 2) and enjoyed both in terms of the scenery. What's the big deal? FC3 could have been in some place entirely different than the previous two, so long as it was a well designed and engaging game.

    For me, immersion is feeling like I'm in a game...not playing a game. FC2 has no HUD except for 2 icons in the bottom right screen. Other icons can appear but quickly disappear. You have a map to work with that you must open and look at...not a constant GPS radar scanner that shows you where everything is located without having to look for it.

    In FC2 you must earn money (diamonds) to buy weapons and upgrades. In FC3 you don't have to earn anything...the money is just laying around everywhere you go and the weapons become free very quickly anyway so why bother.

    I'm still amazed there are so many people who didn't like the respawning checkpoints in FC2. It's a COMBAT game! That's like complaining about waves and waves of ducks flying over your hide when you go duck hunting! Is it realistic? Well, the game has time accelerated so what's to say they got there quickly because of the quick time passage. And besides, you don't necessarily have to backtrack so quickly and face them again.

    The thing that really ticked me off in FC3 was the stupid "follow-the-dots" and screen prompts plus cutscenes that replace the user's abilility to actually be involved in the action. Silent takedowns and boss levels are all scripted movies that you keep moving through by pressing the appropriate key when prompted. I used to do this as a kid playing "Simon Says". Big challenge there. Playing FC3 is like playing through a tutorial that never ends.

    Also, what everyone hails as being the best features of the game have nothing to do with playing it in the context of the story. You can spend dozens of hours running around sucking up money and loot you will never need, collecting artifacts that give you nothing in terms of experience...upgrades...or anything to do with the story, and as you take over outposts, that portion of the map is wiped clean of enemies so eventually you have nothing left to do but wander around picking up junk and trying to figure out how to unload it all somewhere. It's as if the point of this game is to just run around on a visually pretty island and do hobbies...maybe they should have included a metal detector as a weapon option to go along with flower arrangement and leathercraft.

    Anyway, after reading many reviews and user comments I have concluded that the average gamer today is not interested in being challenged to learn and develop gaming skills. That's what turned them off to FC2 mainly. It was too much work. You actually had to DO things in that game that mattered to the game play. And the realism of being a mercenary was very well designed and implemented. My only complaint in FC2 was that there was not more wildlife to deal with that seemed to be addressed in FC3 but I could do without the hunting crap. Just knowing there might be crocs in a river or some wild cat just behind some bushes would have been enough.

    FC2 had the sweet spot in so many ways. FC3 eviscerated all that was good in FC2. Oh, and it's also a console port so you are left with the usual crap that does to a game as well (no ability to save the game when you want for example).
     
    Last edited: Jan 2, 2013
  8. Kaleid

    Kaleid Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    2,347
    Likes Received:
    133
    GPU:
    rx480 8GB
    The respawning made it seem like the game suffered from alzheimers. And the respawns happened too quick, perhaps it was just decided by the distance?

    FC3 has its problems but at least stealth works and the AI is vastly improved.

    It doesn't however manage to create a wow feeling that FC1 did. The graphics are mediocre.
     
  9. gridiron whirlw

    gridiron whirlw Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    3,864
    Likes Received:
    37
    GPU:
    GTX 570 SLI
    For me, FarCry 3 blows FarCry 2 out of the water, not even close.
     
  10. scrapser

    scrapser Master Guru

    Messages:
    588
    Likes Received:
    7
    GPU:
    EVGA GTX 1080 SC
    Care to give some comparitive examples?
     

  11. IPlayNaked

    IPlayNaked Banned

    Messages:
    6,559
    Likes Received:
    0
    GPU:
    XFire 7950 1200/1850
    The graphics...Are mediocre.

    What is wrong with you?
     
  12. scrapser

    scrapser Master Guru

    Messages:
    588
    Likes Received:
    7
    GPU:
    EVGA GTX 1080 SC
    Yes...distance is the trigger...not time (I tested it long ago). But think about what's happening. Why would you fight through a checkpoint and then turn around? I think the developers assumed a player would be on the way to some point beyond the checkpoint and keep going...maybe encounter several on the way to the mission goal. By the time you were on your way back, enough time would have elapsed so the checkpoint could have been restored by the faction that owned it. That's at least how I dealt with it in my mind.

    FC3 has the stealth feature but it's totally automated. All you have to do is get close enough to trigger the online prompt to press "F" and then you get to watch a movie. FC2 leaves you fully in control right up to the strike. You even get to choose for yourself which part of the body to hit (knife or gun).

    I never saw any problems with the AI in FC2. In fact, I thought the behavior was rather immersive. Example: Drive through a checkpoint Rambo style. If you don't get killed and the truck is not seriously damaged, you hot tail it out of there and some of the mercs jump in their trucks and chase you.

    If your truck can survive long enough, you can lead them to a good spot to bail and take cover. Then you have all sorts of options (escape, hide until they give up looking for you, engage in hand to hand, sneak around them and steal one of their trucks, block the road with your disabled truck before you bail and hopefully it will catch fire and explode taking some of them out with it...etc.).

    Often I would just hide behind the nearest tree and when they came to a stop, take out the gunner with a gun, then sneak around the truck crouched and get the driver. I would usually lose some health doing this but it worked most of the time.

    I also like the things they would say. If a body was found taken out by stealth you might hear, "Damn, he got the new guy!" Another would respond, "TJ, his name was TJ." Or when they are looking for you, "Where are you sweetheart? Come on I got a present for ya."

    Getting a single enemy to chase you in a vehicle made for some hilarious demolition derby or maybe knocking the other guy off a bridge as you both tried to cross it. These are some of the things I enjoyed in FC2.
     
  13. gridiron whirlw

    gridiron whirlw Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    3,864
    Likes Received:
    37
    GPU:
    GTX 570 SLI
    I could not stand the idiotic respawning in FarCry 2...I go down the road 100 yards, turn around and come back and guess what...there they are already.

    Also hated looking for the diamonds.

    For a large open ended area, there was virtually no wild life to speak of.

    Also, the brown look got the best of me after awhile, I know that it was just the location that the game took place, but it got the best of me , despite the good graphics and game engine.

    To be honest....the respawning killed the game for me very early and no matter how many times I go back to it....it just does not work for me, sorry.

    I am enjoying the heck out of FarCry 3...despite some of the consolitis.
     
  14. scrapser

    scrapser Master Guru

    Messages:
    588
    Likes Received:
    7
    GPU:
    EVGA GTX 1080 SC
    Cool graphics are not what makes a great game. If all I wanted was pretty graphics I can watch the Travel Channel in HD.

    What's wrong with me? I've been playing computer games since before desktops were invented so I guess I have a perspective based on experience...lots of it.
     
  15. scrapser

    scrapser Master Guru

    Messages:
    588
    Likes Received:
    7
    GPU:
    EVGA GTX 1080 SC
    I can understand all that you state. Read above for how I dealt with the respawning. I actually worked with the game to minimize it and make it plausible. I also enjoyed seeing if I could just barrel through some of them on my way back to the main town or Mike's Bar for the next mission. It created some very interesting chases.
     

  16. scrapser

    scrapser Master Guru

    Messages:
    588
    Likes Received:
    7
    GPU:
    EVGA GTX 1080 SC
    I should add the only thing that really bugged me about FC2 was how the enemy or your buddies would suddenly start levitating into the air or hop up and down erratically. But that was a program bug...not a game design shortcoming.

    There was lots of room for improvement in FC2 but what worked should not have been replaced with simpler design solutions (screen prompt based play, cutscenes for takedowns and boss levels (also driven solely by screen prompts), scripted missions like the Depot where it's utter chaos and what you end up doing is just pure reaction with no time for thought).

    I wanted FC3 to be built on what was achieved in realism with FC2. They could have done much of it. I think a lot of what's in FC3 in terms of interaction is because it's a console port.
     
    Last edited: Jan 3, 2013
  17. Kaleid

    Kaleid Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    2,347
    Likes Received:
    133
    GPU:
    rx480 8GB
    FC1 was revolutionary. In the first level when the player goes inside their is a dynamic light with physics attached. Shooting it would result into the light moving very convincingly. FC1 pushed PC hardware for many years, but FC3 is released on aged consoles and thus bring nothing new into the game. Crysis 1 still looks better (although it has more pop-ups), it's vegetation is more dynamic as are buildings which can be destroyed into many pieces. That's convincing and immersive.

    FC3 feels...old. Dead, low poly. The sunlight is never really even that bright to give the feel of the heat. It's a console game. The caves are horrible, boring and none of the vegetation seems to be real. It doesn't feel like I'm in a jungle. But, the animals and the AI are generally very well done so I still like FC3 more than FC2.
     
    Last edited: Jan 3, 2013
  18. scrapser

    scrapser Master Guru

    Messages:
    588
    Likes Received:
    7
    GPU:
    EVGA GTX 1080 SC
    FC2 had much more detail in the weather, too. Not a big deal but it was a nice touch just the same. I stopped once on a clear day and watched a little wispy cloud move across the sky, changing shape just like real clouds do if you watch closely enough.

    I got FC2 bundled with a graphics card. I played it and then bought FC1 because I was so impressed. FC1 for me was a lot more like playing some of the early FPS games only it was spread out over several islands. So my entry into this series was FC2. I enjoyed FC1 and would play it again (I've played it twice so far). FC3 is just boring overkill. Much of the available activity has nothing to do with combat or the story.
     
  19. Kaleid

    Kaleid Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    2,347
    Likes Received:
    133
    GPU:
    rx480 8GB
    Yes FC2 was better in some parts. But I'm one of those who absolutely hates the respawn system as I mentioned, and as it is now I don't remember any of the missions. I find that even the car chases were ridiculous, since when I drove as fast as I can through a roadblock somehow the AI are fast enough to jump into their cars and get after me. It's not likely.

    FC1 can still look great:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WuYEYZblGS0
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u7sh44ltD1c indoors, jump to 6:50. There's nothing in FC3 that has a good indoor lighting as a 2004 game.

    Seems to me that the ambient sounds in FC1 were a bit more immersive than FC2/3 too.
     
  20. IPlayNaked

    IPlayNaked Banned

    Messages:
    6,559
    Likes Received:
    0
    GPU:
    XFire 7950 1200/1850
    At no point did I quote or reference you.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page