I’ve got to ask, what makes you still play Far Cry? I played 2, 3, and 4, but 4 was an exact copy of 3 (with slightly changed graphics). 5 was clearly also the exact same, and every one since 3 has been. It’s not a bad concept of a game, but following a formula doesn’t make an interesting experience. I’ve already played it.
My biggest issue though is this formula was successful enough that every game they make started following it. They made Watchdogs, which was a cool idea of a game, but it was literally just the same thing but in a city. Assassin’s Creed more recently slightly shifted away with Origins, but not enough and personally I still think they’re bland games.
For me, I’ll take an indie that is trying to do something new and interesting than anything Ubisoft, or generally AAA, is doing where there’s no passion and they’re just trying to use a formula to maximize profit.
Maybe because it’s a stable, predictable experience. People do appreciate it too. I’ve seen players with thousands of hours in Skyrim and I myself liked some games to sink 800-1000 hours even in non-competitive non-MMOs. FC is a FIFA of actions and it seems they are yet to kill it, so they have a returning playerbase who just like that genre of sandboxy shooters.
4 took place in a completely different sort of environment, with a whole different story, with an online co-op mode for the entire story that 3 didn’t have. There are also smaller mechanical differences, but I mean Ubisoft does run formulaic franchises, so maybe it’s not enough of a difference to please somebody who’s just not as interested in the open world FPS setup from the ground up, but saying it was “an exact copy of 3 with slightly changed graphics” is such a biased and reductive take that it gives the impression that you’ve already made up your mind before you asked the question and that nuance isn’t something you’re looking for.
I suppose the answer is, that premise is interesting enough to some that they didn’t require as much of a drastic change to still play more, it’s more core to what they might enjoy, whereas Far Cry for you is more tertiarily enjoyable and you’d need more differences between them (such as from 2 to 3) to try a new installment, compared to a core fan that likes whats already there and wants minor improvements and tweaks to the formula to freshen up the experience they already fundementally enjoy and want more of. To that fan a drastic change in setting and scenery with some mechanical changes to increase immersion and mix it up would be enough.
It hurts my soul so much that EA have the Need for Speed series. They are dumb and idiotic, but they are my dumb and idiotic and I have to guve money to EA…
Automatic refund for me. The one exception is far cry games make you sign into ubisoft. But i love far cry too much to skip them.
I’ve got to ask, what makes you still play Far Cry? I played 2, 3, and 4, but 4 was an exact copy of 3 (with slightly changed graphics). 5 was clearly also the exact same, and every one since 3 has been. It’s not a bad concept of a game, but following a formula doesn’t make an interesting experience. I’ve already played it.
My biggest issue though is this formula was successful enough that every game they make started following it. They made Watchdogs, which was a cool idea of a game, but it was literally just the same thing but in a city. Assassin’s Creed more recently slightly shifted away with Origins, but not enough and personally I still think they’re bland games.
For me, I’ll take an indie that is trying to do something new and interesting than anything Ubisoft, or generally AAA, is doing where there’s no passion and they’re just trying to use a formula to maximize profit.
Maybe because it’s a stable, predictable experience. People do appreciate it too. I’ve seen players with thousands of hours in Skyrim and I myself liked some games to sink 800-1000 hours even in non-competitive non-MMOs. FC is a FIFA of actions and it seems they are yet to kill it, so they have a returning playerbase who just like that genre of sandboxy shooters.
4 took place in a completely different sort of environment, with a whole different story, with an online co-op mode for the entire story that 3 didn’t have. There are also smaller mechanical differences, but I mean Ubisoft does run formulaic franchises, so maybe it’s not enough of a difference to please somebody who’s just not as interested in the open world FPS setup from the ground up, but saying it was “an exact copy of 3 with slightly changed graphics” is such a biased and reductive take that it gives the impression that you’ve already made up your mind before you asked the question and that nuance isn’t something you’re looking for.
I suppose the answer is, that premise is interesting enough to some that they didn’t require as much of a drastic change to still play more, it’s more core to what they might enjoy, whereas Far Cry for you is more tertiarily enjoyable and you’d need more differences between them (such as from 2 to 3) to try a new installment, compared to a core fan that likes whats already there and wants minor improvements and tweaks to the formula to freshen up the experience they already fundementally enjoy and want more of. To that fan a drastic change in setting and scenery with some mechanical changes to increase immersion and mix it up would be enough.
I like the guns and the action style of the games. Plus 6 had Giancarlo Esposito as the bad guy.
It hurts my soul so much that EA have the Need for Speed series. They are dumb and idiotic, but they are my dumb and idiotic and I have to guve money to EA…