I just couldn't take it anymore.
I was about 15 hours into Far Cry 3, and the next mission involved sitting down to play a game of poker with the game's main villian, Hoyt.
It was sure to lead to an intense prison breakout of his heavily armed fortress, which would have been a lot of fun, but it didn't matter.
I just couldn't handle another 7 minute monologue about the nature of good and evil, or the true nature of fear or whatever I would surely be forced to watch.
Far Cry 3 is a good game. It's one of my recent favorite games, but enough was enough.
The Good Moments
After about 6 hours into the game, I felt like I had really gotten into a groove. I had earned the ability to carry 4 different weapons at once, had mastered the game's convoluted inventory system, and felt I understood the ins and outs of what would, and what wouldn't get an enemy's attention.
It's at this point, when I would slowly stalk upon an enemy compound, use my binocs to tag enemies (giving me the ability to see their silohettes through walls), fire off a few sniper rounds at the sharpshooters, and then improvise my way through the compound's takeover.
These compound invasions weren't part of the main story, but were my favorite parts of the game. I played on hard mode, with a standard loadout of assault rifle, sniper rifle, shotgun, grenade launcher, C4, grenades, and molotovs. I typically would use all of these in the dismantling of a compound. It was great.
Much of the story missions were a lot of fun too. I particularly liked one near the end when I had to guard various sites from waves of enemies, as my NPC partner uploaded data or diffused bombs or something.
The Bad Moments
Unfortunately, inbetween the story missions, most of which you must complete in order to access certain items or reach certain locations, are the 'cinematic' segments. Here's where the boredom begins.
The problem isn't the acting (which is damn good for a videogame) or the lines themselves (nothing too cheesy), it's the writing structure.
Since you play the (mostly) silent protagonist, and the game never leaves the 1st person perspective, 99% of these moments are one character talking at you. It's just monologue after monologue.
Vaas talks at you about the nature of insanity. Citra talks at you about the definition of a true warrior. Hoyt talks at you about keeping his people in line through fear. Your girlfriend talks about how killing thousands of people is changing you.
None of these are particularly interesting, nor nearly as deep as the game would like them to be. This isn't Appocalypse Now nor Blade Runner. My mind never approached being blown.
They say that conflict is the nature of drama. Good writers try to inject conflict between characters into every scene. This is difficult when 99% of your scenes involve only a single character talking, but it's not impossible.
Think about when Yoda is explaining to Luke the nature of the force, in Empire Strikes Back. This is basically a monologue, but it's presented as more of an argument, with Luke complaining that he's not strong enough, and Yoda arguing that the force comes from within.
In Far Cry 3, there's hardly any conflict in the cinematics, and as such, very little drama. It would be like watching the scene where Morpheus explains the nature of the Matrix to Neo, over and over, minus the awesome visuals.
Actually, it's alot like The Matrix: Reloaded.
Conclusion
So that's why I stopped playing Far Cry 3. I just couldn't take watching another boring, unskippable, monlogue.
As fun as the story missions often were (about 70% success rate in my opinion), it just wasn't worth it.
Though I will never finish the main story campaign, I did sieze all of the game's 30+ compounds, and played for at least 15 hours. So definitely a worthy purchase.
Maybe Ubisoft will release a patch that will get rid of the arbitrary upgrade locks. Then new players could skip the story mode entirely.
|
Half hour later you are greeted by the boring and very humorous Connor. I put it down for a while but I plan on getting back into it.
I can honestly say that Cut Scenes have never been a reason to stop playing a game for me. I love a good story (one of the reasons God of War is one of my favorites), but the game play to me is the meat and potoatoes.
Conversely I have never kept playing a bad game because the story and cut scenes were top notch. :)
So I agree, partially.
1. The map screen breaks immersion - the hand-held map device in Far Cry 2 was far superior.
2. The QTE knife fight was annoying - it was silly to spring a new mechanic on you so late on.
3. The luminous plants and their presence on the scanner undermined their discovery.
4. The treasure chests and their presence on the scanner undermined their discovery.
5. The prompts for climbing ledges should only appear when looking up at them.
6. Far too many steps to get into the game from the main menu, just Continue!
7. Cut-scenes needed pause, rewind and skip.
8. The inventory was a little slow to access.
9. Quit should Autosave for me.
10. Not enough Vaas.
However, it remains my recommendation for Game of the Year.
2. I don't recall the QTE knife fighting, maybe I always kept a distance though or stealth killed.
3. I think they did that in the event that you were in combat and you needed some herbs on the quick. Also not putting these items on the map may have slowed things down a bit more. You still had to look for certain colors though. Wasn't like there was always a rainbow of herbs on the map.
4. Putting the treasures on the map was optional via the maps you could buy from the vendor. I liked that they did this, even with the treasures on the map it wasn't easy to find them all.
6. Agreed but you are nit picking, I have more issues with the Multiplayer / CoOp User Interface and the sub-par party system.
7. If that feature was included I may have taken advantage of it, but honestly it wasn't that much of a deal breaker.
8. YES! Also when you sorted it seemed to do it in a random matter that made little to no sense. Why a bear pelt would take as much inventory space as a green herb is a little odd too. After upgrades though the inventory was manageable.
9. I never noticed that but yes Quit should save.
10. Agreed, Vaas was a strong villain. :)
I never finished it but that game had serious ambition. There was like 8 characters with their own story and you could play each character. They really needed better quick travel in that game.
First mission was to take an outpost. so I crouched up to it behind the bushes, not even reloading to minimize sound. Next thing - I guess I entered their 'AI radius' - they opened fire, all sniping through the bushes as if they had X-ray telescopes. Given the enemies in farcry could not see through folliage I wondered where AI development was going after ten years. Reinventing the same wheel and breaking it I guess.
great game though!
Not saying that completely fixes the story, I just think you guys are being a tad harsh, you need to chill and go burn down some more marijuana plants! :)
I never said there wasn't good justification for the protagonist being a man of few words.
It just doesn't make for particularly engaging cinematics.
Some types of games can get away with a silent main character. If there are other characters to pick up the slack or if the game doesn't have a lot of cinematics, then it works fine.
Shepard from ME is a character that got on board quickly with because Bioware made it easy to make him say stuff that I could imagine myself saying. It's not an easy thing to do but when the extra work is put into a game the results stand out among the rest.
I guess you guys didn't read very carefully. I mentioned two types of games that games get away with a silent main character: if there are other characters to pick up the slack, or simply a game without a heavy emphasis of cinematics.
Dragon Age has other characters that pick up the slack, Journey is a game without cinematics. That's why silent characters work for both games (although I don't like either of those games, but for different reasons.) Silent characters are only a big problem when you don't have any NPC's who accompany you and talk for you, *and* when the game tries to put a heavy emphasis on cinematics. Then you end up like this game, where a bunch of NPC's just monologue at you. Another game that has a big problem with this is The Secret World.
- That can be a recipe for soap opera melodrama. Good writers will inject intelligent interplay between the characters in a scene. If each interlocutor has has an interesting perspective then this gives rise to a conflict. It is being able to create credible alternative perspectives that make for the better writer. Weak writers will use one side to reflect the writer's opinion, and the others, if they exist at all are straw puppets. There is nothing wrong with monologue, providing the writer has something intelligent or creative to say that has not been written better before. Most the scriptwriters in this world do not qualify.
That said, the card game with Hoyt is like 7 minutes of dialogue away from the end credits roll. Which is worth getting to, because if you thought 7 minutes of dialogue was bad, you won't believe how agonizing it is to watch 77 minutes of credits roll.
This is really a symptom of commercial video games, with the action constrained by a linear terminating narrative even if it is set in an Open World. An emergent narrative driven by the machinations of multiple AI dramatis personae (whose motivations can only be inferred indirectly from the behaviour of their disposable henchmen) could allow itself to be shaped by an underlying theme (so that you didn't get one particular pre-scripted story, but a series of dramatically-coherent events) and embroil the player in NPC relationships for the purpose of dragging them into just-in time orchestrated set-pieces that were triggered if suitable generic characters and contexts were in confluence.
It is then easy to imagine a future "GTA" in which the Open World doesn't merely simulate day and night, weather, pedestrians, traffic, police, trains, boats, planes and squawking seagulls, but Japanese Yakusa, Russian Bratva, Jamaican Yardie, Italian Mafia, Chinese Triad, and Irish Cops are all simulated organisations that can be (infiltrated) joined whose large-scale patterns of behaviour are directed by an initially unreachable, heavily protected, effectively "off-stage" smart AI boss. So, whilst the henchmen and average street cops may not dazzle you with their powers of deduction, it is only through the reports of their observations of your actions that their boss can react to your strategy to control the city.
The same approach could apply to the Rakyat, Pirates, and Privateers in "Far Cry 3" with Citra, Vaas and Hoyt defining the objectives for their forces in the manner of a computer opponent in an RTS which Brody then attempted to thwart from the perspective of a FPS.
This all interests me greatly as I have been working on an MMORTSFPSRPG called "Universe". However progress on this has been slow as I have had to find ways to boost my productivity by designing my own tools written in my own multi-paradigm programming language. Anyone looking for a Space Opera in which you can land your craft on a planet and get out and walk around a city, should probably wait for "Elite: Dangerous" (due in eighteen months), or chase down a copy of Paul Woakes excellent "Damocles" (Mercenary III) for the Atari ST.
Are we suggesting that giving game developers credit at the end of games is too boring and we should do away with the tradition? :)
I don't know if I agree with your assessment that removing the story from Far Cry 3 would have improved the game. For one the story helped drive the marketing. Vaas was the first introduction to Far Cry 3 and for good reason, even though he loves to hear himself talk the character is immediately engaging.
If you have no story there is no need for Vaas. Without Vaas I think Far Cry 3 looses a great deal of what makes it special.
Now I would be all for a Newgame+ or Post Game thing where the outposts would get over run again. Removing the story and turning this game into an open world Arcade game doesn't seem like a good use of all the resources that went into creating the world.
That being said Far Cry 3 does everything else so well I think it is easy to forgive this issue.
EDIT: Also these articles with people levying their rants are becoming all too common. So what if you stopped playing Far Cry 3? Are you looking to develop a group therapy session for people who stopped playing Far Cry 3? (I am being sarcastic and absurd on purpose). I understand you feel your opinion on this matter is important, as an individual, I am just not moved all that much by these types of writings.
I don't know if it is fair to compare a story to a game that was created in a few years to the Star Wars Saga which had been in development for a good decade. As a gamer I have high expectations for my entertainment, but I really think you are splitting hairs. You admitted the game mechanics were fun, how that fun was not enough for you to be a little patient with some sub-par cut scenes I think says more about YOU and less about the GAME.
I'm explaining why I decided to stop playing a game.
As a game developer, I know that you can never have enough feedback. Hopefully my article just might reach a game developer out there and lead to a better game.
1. The inventory/menu system is annoying. Separating this into 2 points:
1.1 The inventory fills up way too fast way too early, and I don't agree with having max-size wallets. It's really cumbersome to have to craft to save up to buy something. It makes sense in real life, but I don't want to play real life. If I want to save up for an hour to buy a sniper rifle, let me.
1.2 The menu UI was really annoying. So much back and forth. Better UI design could have made this a much better experience. It's not atypical for me to go into crafting, figure out that I need animal X, go to the map to find animal x, forget what animal x looks like (why aren't animal names on the map instead of just pictures?) and go back to crafting again. Too many levels of UI/too many button presses to get me to what I want to do. There's also a ridiculous amount of superfluous content in the menus that's way too easy to get lost in. Accidentally hit escape when you meet someone new and you're stuck 3 layers deep in a far cry encyclopedia.
2. The story is odd. The basic motivation is save friends->gtfo the island. Why would I be wasting days hunting/gathering? I like the mechanic, but the story demands urgency, and the gameplay promotes having very little urgency.
3. I cannot find a menu with keybindings. I forgot how to throw rocks at one point early on and I had to wait for a stealth mission to figure out how to throw rocks again.
Mostly I just think the UI is clunky. That's by far my biggest problem with it. I find it super aggravating when people take a "good enough" attitude to guis. If it weren't a menu intensive game it would be easy to ignore, but so much of the game drives you into the menu system, so make the menu system good!
Why can I only see what weapons I'm carrying when I'm at the store?
Why does it say that I 'own' a weapon when it's not in my inventory and I can't equip it?
How the hell do I use my non-healing shots?
Why do I have to go through the crafting UI every time I want to use an explosive arrow?
How do I know how much air I have left before I drown?
Eventually I figured most of this stuff out, but it left me very confused in the beginning.