skeletone's forum posts

  • 12 results
  • 1
  • 2
Avatar image for skeletone
skeletone

12

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#2 skeletone
Member since 2016 • 12 Posts

for the record i'm no fan of 3 as i said in my earlier post although it was much better than 2.

what you don't seem to realise whilst you're sat on your high horse patronising us "casual" gamers is that all these "solutions" you cite didn't escape us. you're not some gaming guru who noticed these things whilst the rest of us plebs sat there scratching our heads like a bunch of simpletons wishing there were more tutorials and hand holding. we know how to deal with enemies who drive cars. use the turrets. lob some grenades at their car. stop and engage them in a gun fight and pick them off when they get out the vehicle. it's hardly rocket science despite how much you want to pat yourself on the back because you "got it."

the point is that the feature of the game that initiates this kind of thing is not FUN. why, when i leave any village, does EVERY single person or vehicle i encounter, including my allies ffs, chase me down to the death? maybe that makes sense to you because you seem to have an uncanny knack of justifying some god awful gameplay decisions as realistic but to the rest of us it was f*cking annoying when it happened time after time after time after time after.... it's simply not fun.

just like the fact that you would clear out a guard post only for it to fully respawn minutes later. "everything in far cry 2 makes sense" you say. no it doesn't. those things make no sense whatsoever. that weapons can last just a matter of minutes before they jam and become useless makes no sense in a game in which weapon shops are spread out so widely. sure have them degrade, but so quickly? why? is it realistic? maybe it is, i'm no guerrilla mercenary. but is it fun? no of course it's not. it's excruciating. like so many things from the game. no stealth, no prone, eagle eyed enemies who spot you from miles away, bullet sponge enemies who can take several rounds to the head before they drop. all don't make sense. all are not fun.

of course there is NO way you could notice these things. i know. that's the problem. you're a patronising egotist who's great at excusing shit game design because, through your twisted logic, you justify it as realism. if only us casual gamers were as hardcore as you then maybe we too could focus less on having fun and more on the important things like pseudo realism.

and you say that if your vehicle is destroyed, then you have to walk, its simple logic... brilliant, thanks for that insight. the point you're missing, once again, is it's not FUN. i don't care if it's realistic, walking for miles to my objective is not fun. just like the malaria thing. the point is it makes little sense for ubisoft to include this kind of "realism" in the game when instead they could have focused on much more important core gameplay mechanics, which they got badly wrong, in my and many others' opinion. if you find all these things fun then you're one of very few people with a tolerance for boredom that goes well beyond us casual gamers who can only aspire to be as magnanimous and hardcore as you

Yea, ok. It wasn't fun for you. But for me, 3 was so boring but 2 I could enjoy. And this it true.

I enjoyed because it was realistic? no. Because it was a very long campaign and always kept me in fight. That's why. So respawning enemies was good for me. I'm not delighted in having friendships with AIs. I'm not having fun when I see AIs shooting each other. Some times it is hilarious though, not every time I want to see. It is only ME who plays the game. So I wanna fight. On my own. I play games because I wanna play, I wanna control characters then fight with AIs, I play for gameplay not for cut scenes or characters. Sometimes they are impressed but, I think these "other than gameplay" stuff just too much these days. In my opinion.

I said "make sense" that meant for gameplay. Not about background of its story. Car crushed, so you walk, or you attack an outpost then steal their car, in far cry 2, each time you have to choose, manage risks, your health/ammo and reach save points to save your progress. When you finished a mission, go back to a store then change your weapons, or buy new ones with diamonds you got, then go get a mission again. This, whole things are 1 track. you do this track over and over then reach the end. or reach another map. this is the gameplay of far cry 2. which you may think boring, but it was something for me.

Far cry 3, cars don't make sense because there is a fast travel that takes you every single location. Money don't make sense because of radio towers. I know there are special weapons that can be purchased with a lot of money. So I can take money in this game as optional stuff. I know. So may be I couldn't say "make no sense". But in far cry 2, money, car, everything is for beating enemies, for make game progress. It was very solid choice. That's why I liked it. And disliked 3. I wanna feel thrill man. 3 was very easy, like every option is an easy mode. whiny girly protagonist dealt everything for no reason. Yes, I personally hate this protagonist, may be that's why I hate this game like crazy.

Avatar image for skeletone
skeletone

12

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#3 skeletone
Member since 2016 • 12 Posts

@Macutchi said:

illness is a bonus mission? it's not at all, it's an ever present part of the game. if you went to africa would you expect to get malaria? was it a fun experience for you having to constantly manage injecting yourself with medication? no it wasn't. it was a huge pain in the arse.

and you can't understand why people hate walking but want to play open world games? if a game is so poorly designed that if your vehicle gets destroyed you've no choice but to walk for miles which takes tens of minutes game time to get to your next location, then that's poor game design. it might be realistic if it genuinely happened to you in the african outback but in a game context it's not fun. like a lot of things in far cry 2 for that matter

edit:

@soul_starter said:

I understand why it happens and it's suppose to show a more realistic take on travel and survival but it's an FPS, more time and effort should have been made on improving gun play rather than on all that stuff.

exactly

I know 2 wasn't perfect. But I don't agree if you think 3 was better as a fps. effort should have been made on gun shooting? You're saying like defending fc3 and say this? Look at 3, cut an enemy's body from his behind and make noises, but nobody notices you. And more easy add ons you can get from exp like cut enemies 2 or more at once, or make quick time events to deal with them easily somehow. Are these really fps elements you think?

You're saying like you expect fun elements from a war game? sure. I expect more survival adventure stuff. Not cartoony weird ways like 3's.

About destroyed vehicle. You really didn't realize that makes sense? If you're vehicle destroyed, you have to walk. very simple logic. I know I say 2 wasn't perfect. If you're on a vehicle you can't shoot. but there are other ways you can deal with enemies who drive cars. shoot the big gun that attached on your vehicle, or stop your vehicle, take cover behind a rock or a tree, enemy car will stop, so you can deal with them easily. I know there are very few people who noticed these strategies. may be this game was lack of training for casual gamers.

One more thing. I don't think you have to walk that long like you said. Like I said, you can take a risk to get a vehicle from enemy outposts. Or you can do hitchhike. Wait until a enemy car passes near you. If the enemy went away, you can shoot a gun to let him know you're there. Of course there is NO way you could notice these strategies. I know. That's the problem.

I hope game developers try to add more training or tutorial or tips to make people good in the future. I can't enjoy games like 3 like these people do. casual gamers don't know how to deal with AIs and that's the problem. Nobody noticed but 3 was just a game that has so many many options that just only make easy ways. no strategic. no make sense. just easy shit.

Avatar image for skeletone
skeletone

12

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#4 skeletone
Member since 2016 • 12 Posts

@soul_starter said:

FC2 is also a good but it has some bugs which can detract from the overall experience and the whole idea of degrading weaponry becomes problematic when you just wana shoot stuff up. BUT it did introduce the awesome fire mechanic which is even better in FC 3.

No. You don't understand. Why your weapons get weaken because you suppose to spend diamonds to buy weapons. You got a weapon which is very strong like one that used in late game, then you can use it like you own it? No. Doesn't make sense, Like radio towers in Far cry 3. In that game, spending money is almost worthless. But in Far cry 2, every part of the game makes sense. Even the parts of illness and long walking that people whine about. Illness is just a bonus mission, it's not optional it forces you to do but, make sense because of in Africa. long walking is making sense too. You either choose facing a danger to get supply, or taking a bit of time to avoid fights. Seriously, hate walking, but wanna play an open world game? I don't get what these people think.

In far cry 3, the mini map indicates everything. treasures, and even enemies. You drive through almost plane fields, looking at the mini map, stop the vehicle, gather the treasures. But they prepared a high budget but you suppose to look at the tiny little map almost always? Doesn't make sense. You can turn off the mini map but now when you wanna know where you are, game poses. They downgraded map. 2's was much better.

Every part of FC3 doesn't make sense But people loved it because of the cartoon like characters, dramatic cut scenes, talking emotional protagonist, easy game play like stealth stuff and the mini map, many easy mode add-ons which are called "leveling". If you just wanna beat enemies, worth it but like me, an old school gamer, 3 was just a nightmare. It's all my opinion but 3 was just CHILDISH CHEAP BOREDOM for me.

Sorry for a long text. I quoted yours but I'm not pointing only you. I just can't stand how 3 was stupid but beloved. But I understand this is modern game's age and people just love beating games without strategies or challenges. Even there's a game of mashing buttons to win people would love it if the elements other than gameplay look neat I can say.

Avatar image for skeletone
skeletone

12

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#5 skeletone
Member since 2016 • 12 Posts

I think true "gamers" are gone. People who call themselves "gamers" are just young people who hangout with friends in the internet. They know nothing about games, they can't accept difficult challenges, they love silly games like far cry 3, but they play games because graphics are realistic and characters move like movies.

Avatar image for skeletone
skeletone

12

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#6 skeletone
Member since 2016 • 12 Posts

I think FC3 and 4 were much more repititive. each time you can reach a destination very quickly. Every place is very plain and looks same. Some random things happen like animals or mini missions, cut scenes or "the trip of minds" things like that. I felt only devs trying to show me differences, it's very superficial. But it's not the game itself.

Talk about the mini map of 3 and 4. That's cheap right? What's the point of seaching treasures with the minimap that shows exact points of them? It's like "doing a game" but not "playing a game". So cheap. But things like this everywhere these days.

Anyway, If you willing to beat FC2 quickly or easily, this game would hit you really hard. It's very long and almost everything opposes you. I think that's why some people really hate this game. A nightmare for modern gamers.

Avatar image for skeletone
skeletone

12

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#7  Edited By skeletone
Member since 2016 • 12 Posts

When I was a kid, I played several games with a pc of mac 90' but I don't remeber the zelda-like game's name.

It was like Zelda. The very first one of the series.

When you start the game, you're in a forest. Drink puddle to gain your life. First you go north, to encount several enemies. They are very strange looking, they are red, and I think they supposed to be smoke? If you get hit by an enemy, you damaged and game makes weird sound effect.

If you go left from there, it is a deadend but you can see a moving tree that was blocking the entrance of a cave.

Avatar image for skeletone
skeletone

12

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#8 skeletone
Member since 2016 • 12 Posts

If you're an old school gamer, liking seeking dungeons and mazes and dealing with enemies who are trying to kill you harder, definitely 1 and 2.

If you're a modern gamer like prefer to watch crazy characters talking and making weird hand gestures in cut scenes, crazy stories, like games like grinding exp and making easy ways by unlocking moves, fast travel anytime..

I mean, IF you like to experience a story more than playing a "game", definitely 3 and 4. Or may be primal.

1 and 2 are my thing. About graphics, the beat one is 4. But I think best one in ps3/360 was 2. 3 was kinda cheap.

Avatar image for skeletone
skeletone

12

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#9 skeletone
Member since 2016 • 12 Posts

I finally beat it. I was keep losing because I was using an ice element attack against an enemy with ice resistance. phew

Avatar image for skeletone
skeletone

12

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#10 skeletone
Member since 2016 • 12 Posts

I'm stuck at a portal near a champ in hinterland. I can't beat little demons who use frost magic and jump higher. I have dispel, but that's not enough to beat them easily. I have to ask that is this game grinding to win? I hated dragon age origins combat but this apparently does not have enough strategic settings as origins had, game speed is fine, but strategic elements worse than that?

Is this grinding to win? Characters who don't have enough level have 0 % chance to beat strong enemies? Or Am I missing a point? Please say I'm missing something. I don't like to live with people who rate the game like 9/10 because of the graphics and stories.

  • 12 results
  • 1
  • 2