Far Cry 2 has better physics than Far Cry 5, and is 10 years old

[JPB]

 

[sandorski]

Interesting comparison.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

Eeesh, that's some pretty severe interaction regression. There was a lot about FC2 that drove me up the wall but the physics were fantastic. That just looks... sad.

 

[EXCellR8]

Only watched about 5 minutes of it. Definitely interesting... and somewhat disheartening

...except FC2 wasn't much fun

 

[DAPUNISHER]

Digital Foundry has thrown their 2 cents in on the subject -

I am having difficulty with their explanation. I agree with those stating it is a step backwards. Immersion requires many elements to be effective, and destructible environments and somewhat realistic physics help with that. Claiming performance would tank by having them present is a tough sell too. They did it on weaker hardware so why not now? It has a budget version to milk profits from the console kiddies feel to it imo.

I am always willing to be educated, so if you have a compelling argument for why it is a good thing, bring it.

 

[EXCellR8]

Was FC2 the Dunia engine or the CryEngine? I don't remember...

 

[Rifter]

Well thats that, had some interest but now i have no interest in a game going a decade+ backwards in physics. Thats just sad really.

And that reply is total BS. It would tank performance??? yeah right you managed it 10 years ago on much worse hardware, hell one core of current systems is more powerful than the whole system of 10 years ago and most people today have alot of CPU headroom compared to 10 years ago. Total BS reply.

 

[Zenoth]

Was FC2 the Dunia engine or the CryEngine? I don't remember...

Dunia.

The Dunia engine has been used in all the FarCry games since #2. It's based on CryEngine but was significantly modified. I don't know if the Dunia engine received many updates since then though (although of course I would assume it has, over the years, especially with changing industry standards), but I can imagine that FC5 has to be running on the 'latest' version of it. Now when it comes to FarCry 2... well, it wasn't very good, but it had some aspects that were well done. I liked its environments (mostly, although at some point it does become visually repetitive), its atmosphere, the graphics in general were pretty good (especially back then, but still hold its ground well to this day in my opinion) and indeed the physics were well done.

However, the gameplay quickly became a chore for me, with respawning bandits in all camps after a (way too) short period, constant coming back road patrols, generally-idiotic A.I. (which of course persisted throughout the entire series, FC5 being no exception whatsoever), the heavy reliance of vehicles for quick traveling, and the absolute worst offender being the malaria 'attacks' which was unberable to endure after the first couple of times; which they could have simply just shown to us in cut scenes to make the player understand that the protagonist may have his days counted and needs to act "quickly", figuratively speaking for the sake of story-telling. Instead, they thought that implementing the disease into actual 'sudden attacks' that blurs vision, require action to temporarily medicate AND can actually kill you if you don't do the steps to get rid of it momentarily was a good idea. To me, it made zero sense in an actual gameplay "mechanic". That would be like playing a typical 2D Mario Brothers platformer with Mario suddenly sometimes having paralysis attacks, forcing you to stop, consume some items, wait until the screen gets back to normal and Mario can jump again to proceed, otherwise you die right there on the spot. It was completely unnecessary and could have stayed a story-based, scripted thing that happened only during crucial character progression-related moments on a few occasions during the main missions.

Anyway, for me FarCry stopped being interesting at #3 (which I simply couldn't finish, I stopped at the point where you meet the exotic girl for the first time, right after that I stopped; never played it again and I don't miss it one bit), and I actually preferred the spin-off Blood Dragon (which has a fantastic Terminator meets Tron 1980s sci-fi styled Soundtrack).

 

[aigomorla]

laiming performance would tank by having them present is a tough sell too.

nah there bsing us, or trying to feed us bs excuses.

On a PC there would be no bottleneck, however on a console its a whole other story.
That is why they got rid of them, because they dont want to make 2 entirely different versions of the game.
Its easier to make one, and then port the other with simple ports here and there.

This is why console ports urk me.
Very few games will be optimized for PC, because its more financially sound to console port everything and multi platform sale it.

Also UBISoft... Sigh... UBISOFT lies so much, and cuts so many corners, i gave up on them in general after they tore apart the division, rainbow six, and watchdogs.

 

[Stg-Flame]

Only watched about 5 minutes of it. Definitely interesting... and somewhat disheartening

...except FC2 wasn't much fun

See, I thought FC2 was a blast until I found out there was another area. Then it just got repetitive since you got the best weapons within a short time frame from the start just by doing the side-quests. I don't think I ever finished it.

 

[BSim500]

Of course decent physics had to be scrapped. Those CPU cycles were required for multi-layered Denuvo + VMProtect... (Digital Foundry's "explanation" vid is also missing the "sponsored by Ubisoft" logo).

 

[KB]

They want to claim they added all these new features in Far Cry 6 so they took them all away in 5.

 

[Midwayman]

Also UBISoft... Sigh... UBISOFT lies so much, and cuts so many corners, i gave up on them in general after they tore apart the division, rainbow six, and watchdogs.

I think long and hard about purchasing any UBI title anymore. I feel like all their open world type games are pretty much reskins. The performance and graphics are usually sub par. Feel like I got burned by the division and rainbow six. Frycry has become tedious to play. And thats on top of all the bugs and lies.

 

[EXCellR8]

I think R6: Siege is actually pretty popular... haven't played it myself though.

The hardware argument is definitely bull, especially when you consider that half-gig cards in 2008 could run FC2 fine at 1920x1200, respectively, in DX9 or DX10. DX11 is certainly more demanding but I don't see anything that couldn't have been reworked or optimized as to allow for better visual or physics effects. Considering the API is nearly a decade old now Ubi certainly could have done more with it but I'm sure development was rushed like all AAA games are nowadays and they sacrificed a lot of finite detail things that most gamer's won't pick up on.

Having said that though, I still think FC5 is a good title.

 

[WhiteNoise]

Game is fun though. Playing with a buddy is a blast.

 

[William Gaatjes]

Farcry 2 has some really nice physics. No way that that cannot be duplicated today.
I never liked the farcry games except for the original, boring stories since Nr 2.

 

[Stuka87]

I really enjoyed FC3. But FC4 was a direct clone of FC3 in a different place. Right down to some of the exact same missions. FC5 looks very meh. Their excuses for lacking all the stuff that previous FC's have had is laughable (But not surprising).

 

[Anubis]

im gonna file this under "I" for irrelevant

 

[DAPUNISHER]

im gonna file this under "I" for irrelevant

Watch the thread crapping, this is not the social forums.

 

[Triloby]

Still can't help but think the video paints an incomplete picture of the differences between FC2 and FC5.

Yes, FC2 had a much more interactive environment than FC5. However, the game as a whole just wasn't all that fun to play. There's only so many times you can get sick from malaria until it becomes frustrating and un-fun to deal with. Plus, a good chunk of FC2 had a brown and drab look which got old really quickly. At least, in FC5, that game's environment looks lush and beautiful despite the cutbacks.

Also, Ubisoft tells a lot of bullshit about how such interactive environments can't be done on modern consoles. If Nintendo can push out Zelda: Breath of the Wild with similar (if not better) physics and interactive environments on both the Switch and Wii U, Ubisoft could easily accomplish much more than that with Far Cry. I don't buy that "technical limitation" nonsense anymore, even on the base PS4 and Xbox One.

 

[Regs]

Why am I climbing radio towers again?

 

[ericlp]

That is very cool, and I too, was kinda shooting at street lamps, and finding that things that got destroyed or did blow up, was pretty repetitive. I was using a 50 caliber machine gun to try to get the dead human tied up off a sign, but no matter what I did, it was obviously an immovable object. I even threw molotov cocktails without any effect of burning ... I think, that this is MORE of a port issue.... Since, FC2 was never meant to port over to other gaming platforms. I believe they took the minimum memory in a gaming console, and worked on the physics from there.... Just on the pc side they cranked up the graphics more. Kinda sad really, since the whole idea behind the PC is pushing the envelope. FC2, had 1GB graphics cards, today with a 1080 ti running at 13GB, there just really is no excuse other than write a game for PC and another one for gaming platforms.

Obviously, the gaming engine can only be as good as the weakest (compatible) machine it's designed to run on.

 

[hoorah]

Im trying to remember if I played FC2 on a 4850 or a 7850 GPU. I remember it could just barely handle it at 1680x1050, I got something like 25-45 fps.I played until the first 'reset' where you rescue one of your NPCs and then didn't finish the game. It might be fun to go back and replay.

I played FC4 and will soon play FC5 because I got both games for free with an SSD purchase. FC4 was fun, but somewhat repetitive. Never played 3.

 

[ericlp]

IMO, FC3 was the best of em all. The good news here is, steam always seems to have it on sale for 10 bucks or so. So, keep an eye out for it, and pick it up for cheap.