Mad Max AKA Shadow of Mordor AKA Assassin's Creed AKA Far Cry

[Blanky]

I just started playing Far Cry 4 again--sorry, I mean Mad Max. It's not bad. You make your way through an open world game just like in Shadow of Mordor, doing missions on the side if you want, or ignoring them and sticking to campaign. Meanwhile, you have strongholds that you can take, you have fast-travel things that you need to enable (similar to the towers in Shadow of mordor or in AC or the towers in Far cry).

All of these games are basically re-skins of each other. Mad Max even has, when you're near a stronghold, red circles show up a couple seconds prior to mortar blasts, just like in AC IV with naval combat.

I know games have always overlapped a lot, but this particular game is so formulaic it almost seems to break copyright!

 

[Lil Frier]

IDK, it seems you're wanting to pick a few sweeping generalizations and call everything the same. I've admittedly nor played Far Cry, Mad Max, or an Assassin's Creed since AC2 (touched Black Flag for about 30 minutes and got bored), but I played the heck out of Mordor. It's definitely inspired heavily by the Arkham games, but I'll also ask--do any of those other games have A.I. anything like Mordor's Nemesis system?

This just reads as "there are too many open-world action RPGs. They're all the same because stuff is there!" What are the open-world action RPGs that are vastly different from these, and where do they honestly play like each other? Isn't Far Cry primarily a FPS? I would think it closer to Dying Light than Shadow of Mordor.

 

[Blanky]

IDK, it seems you're wanting to pick a few sweeping generalizations and call everything the same. I've admittedly nor played Far Cry, Mad Max, or an Assassin's Creed since AC2 (touched Black Flag for about 30 minutes and got bored), but I played the heck out of Mordor. It's definitely inspired heavily by the Arkham games, but I'll also ask--do any of those other games have A.I. anything like Mordor's Nemesis system?

This just reads as "there are too many open-world action RPGs. They're all the same because stuff is there!" What are the open-world action RPGs that are vastly different from these, and where do they honestly play like each other? Isn't Far Cry primarily a FPS? I would think it closer to Dying Light than Shadow of Mordor.

Mordor's nemesis system was a really neat feature.

Even though far cry is an FPS it has the very same world management system as these other games, though; large maps broken into sub-chunks, and you gain territory/influence by gradually cutting them out, including strongholds and all this.

They are still fun even if just re-skins

 

[darkswordsman17]

It took you just now to notice that? Plus, considering those are games on their 4th or 5th iteration, a movie based game, and then a popular IP based game, and its not surprising.

At least they're copying enjoyable things. But it highlights why modern AAA gaming is so costly, its developing the art assets that takes all the time and most of the cost. And they're massive lack of willingness to try something really new. That's good and bad. Having similar game mechanics makes focusing on immersing in the world easier for gamers, but it also does feel stifling in that you do start to feel like you're playing the same games.

Just wait for the next versions where they ripoff the randomly generated open world stuff from some of these other games (No Man's Sky, and all the survival based games).

Oh and come on, you totally ignored Batman!

 

[bystander36]

Which Far Cry are you talking about, the original Far Cry is nothing like the others. Anyways, it's called a sand box game. It's a genre, one many people like. If you don't like Sand box games, don't buy them. Just like many like FPS, others like RPGs, many people like sand box games.

 

[Sulaco]

Yeah, it's pretty obvious how similar all of these games are becoming to each other.

I just recently finished a playthrough of Shadow of Mordor. My first thought was (and subsequently echoed by my brother when he came into the room and watched me play a few minutes),


"So...it's...basically Shadow of Arkham Creed?"


I thought that was fairly apt.

Mind you I enjoyed the game. A lot. But the "Oh gee whiz!" factor that hit me when first playing Akrham Asylum and Arkham City is quickly wearing off, and that means that these games now are being carried more by their IPs than by innovative gameplay. As cool as SoM's "nemesis" system was, I wouldn't have put much time into it had it not been for the LotR license. If it was "generic action game 14" with the same gameplay, I don't think it would have captivated me much at all frankly.

 

[TheSlamma]

Which Far Cry are you talking about, the original Far Cry is nothing like the others. Anyways, it's called a sand box game. It's a genre, one many people like. If you don't like Sand box games, don't buy them. Just like many like FPS, others like RPGs, many people like sand box games.

Here is my problem, I think I would like Sandbox games a lot more if they could start being done right. The repetition and my actions should have noticeable affect on the environment is what really needs to change in these games.

 

[Dankk]

OP has a fair point, but it's worth mentioning that all of the games being mentioned here are from just two publishers, WB Games and Ubisoft, who have definitely been pushing the generic open-world formula lately (WB Games only recently, Ubisoft for a bit longer).

There do exist open-world games that are more interesting and unique than this... but you won't see one from either of those two companies.

 

[Soundmanred]

R-Type AKA Gradius AKA Lifeforce
Double Dragon AKA TMNT AKA The Simpsons AKA X-Men
I could go on all day.

 

[Blanky]

Mind you I enjoyed the game. A lot. But the "Oh gee whiz!" factor that hit me when first playing Akrham Asylum and Arkham City is quickly wearing off, and that means that these games now are being carried more by their IPs than by innovative gameplay. As cool as SoM's "nemesis" system was, I wouldn't have put much time into it had it not been for the LotR license. If it was "generic action game 14" with the same gameplay, I don't think it would have captivated me much at all frankly.

This is why I had the new AC in hand but just put it back. Just very derivative. I've not paid attention to the just cause 3 game much but JC2 was fantastic and 3 comes out soon. I hope it's not another "conquer chunks of territory within a large map and then take on various bases and increase influence" type blah blah.

I'm enjoying mad max relatively, I guess I give it an 8/10, although tonight I realized unequivocally that the AI has rubber banding and I consider this basically an unforgivable sin.

 

[Rakehellion]

R-Type AKA Gradius AKA Lifeforce
Double Dragon AKA TMNT AKA The Simpsons AKA X-Men
I could go on all day.

Those have little in common except the genre. That's like comparing God of War to Ninja Gaiden.

 

[Rakehellion]

Didn't really like the formulaic combat in Arkham City and hate that everyone is copying it. Didn't really care for Shadow of Mordor and I skipped the rest of the Arkham and Assassin's Creed games. Ironically I did like the original elements like the nemesis system.

 

[Subyman]

There is a bit more to it, but I generally agree that a few game play mechanics have gotten way out of hand. I liked Shadows of Mordor but don't care for Batman or AC. Far Cry can't hold my interest either. I think Far Cry may be too vague for my tastes.

 

[Blanky]

Didn't really like the formulaic combat in Arkham City and hate that everyone is copying it. Didn't really care for Shadow of Mordor and I skipped the rest of the Arkham and Assassin's Creed games. Ironically I did like the original elements like the nemesis system.

I dislike the batman genre entirely so I haven't played the games, but the combat in mad max against bosses looks like this:

1) Fight off wave of low-end guys, now you're a bit weaker
2) Fight off wave of low-end guys, now you're a bit weaker
3) Fight off wave of low-end guys, now you're a bit weaker
4) Fight boss, who also will send a wave of low-end guys at the same time. Fighting boss involves 10 minutes of rolling and getting a very weak strike in every 15-45 seconds. Boss will probably taunt you about how you're not tough enough to take him on (despite the fact he has 20 damn friends helping him out)

ALL of these games have boring extra challenges, too. GTA (and probably others) have been doing this literally for at least a decade, like in Mad Max there are races throughout the map, all should be skipped. I'm playing Dyling LIght now, which is overall quite a solid game in fact (despite also having "towers", aka safe zones you need to free) and it has "challenges" built in at map points. I avoid on principle as they are just filler.

 

[futurefields]

Could say the same thing about the metroids, zeldas, marios, halos, cods, battlefields, fighting games, sports games, platformers, shooters, etc...

 

[Rakehellion]

Could say the same thing about the metroids, zeldas, marios, halos, cods, battlefields, fighting games, sports games, platformers, shooters, etc...

Actually, you couldn't because they're completely different genres with different objectives, so you should say something constructive instead.