Far Cry 3 coming by end of 2010 ?

[Arglebargle]

I'll give Far Cry 3 a shot probably, but only once it hits a low price point. After careful perusal of the reviews.

The bean counters should really consider this more seriously, releasing games with major issues (and especially if they don't fix them promptly) can become an ongoing anchor. When I get burned by a company, their next releases quite often go from 'pick up immediately' to 'I'll wait til it's under $20'. And the more they screw up, the smaller that under number becomes.

 

[shortylickens]

I'll give Far Cry 3 a shot probably, but only once it hits a low price point. After careful perusal of the reviews.

The bean counters should really consider this more seriously, releasing games with major issues (and especially if they don't fix them promptly) can become an ongoing anchor. When I get burned by a company, their next releases quite often go from 'pick up immediately' to 'I'll wait til it's under $20'. And the more they screw up, the smaller that under number becomes.

No, because the console morons will buy a million-60 dollar copies on opening day. Its pretty obvious Far Cry 2 was made specifically for the consoles and they were just doing us a favor by releasing a port.

 

[GullyFoyle]

The graphics and the engine looked very nice. It was the UI, story, and idiot spawning that made me regret my $5 purchase. Ran across an interview with the head guy in charge of the project, and apparantly he was told by his QA people that there was a problem with the spawning, but it 'came too late' in the project, so they just couldn't delay to fix it. Not even in patches either. Bozo company.

The Avatar game uses the same engine, and in the demo for that the world looked very good indeed.

I never spent so much time stopping to take screenshots as I did in FC2. I loved the graphics and settings. F'ing beautiful!

I was never so cheezed about the respawing enemies, but then again, I never quite finished the single player game, either.

What killed the game to me was the multiplayer deficiencies. Bad design choices which were never addressed. If the matches were ranked (which everyone loves, right?), you couldn't join a match in progress. Sit in a lobby waiting until the host thought there were enough players, then half of the losing team quits in the first few minutes. Then back to the lobby to wait again.
It took months until people figured out how to string one round to the next without dropping to a lobby in between (in unranked matches). Also, no dedicated servers.

This game is how I learned that Ubisoft blows.

 

[EvilComputer92]

The game sucked. Crysis blew it out of the water.

What idiot at Ubisoft thought respawning enemies was a good idea.

 

[skace]

I really enjoyed the second one, and I thought the graphics were better than those in Crysis. The game had far less shader aliasing and looked far more pleasant as a result. Also overall texture quality was much better.

Crysis had much better graphics. FC2 was very on-rails even though some things looked nice about it. I did have fun creating the gem maps for FC2 it was basically a big where's waldo and oddly the only part of the game I enjoyed.