Why was far cry 1 the only good game in the series?

that's the only one I never played. Never interested me.
But I liked 2 and 3.

I wish they just did another spin-off based around those feral powers, it felt great

because it had levels with thought-out design instead of open world where you need to drive tk a destination for 8 minutes before you get to play the game

youtube.com/watch?v=FCeEvQ68jY8
how the fuck is this possible

Attached: 13523456345.jpg (350x322, 56K)

3 had some serious edge, though I did like the knock off joker antagonist, and I definitely had some schadenfreude with the stupid rich white kids suffering. It was also before the ubisoft open world forumla was overplayed and the open world was a blast to mess around in.

2 was atmospheric as hell and I had some long nights with a nice headset just driving around, if it had wildlife like 3 did i probably would've said it's better.

>I wish they just did another spin-off based around those feral powers, it felt great
They already did.

Attached: yougottajump.webm (640x360, 2.91M)

and i thought blood dragon was ugly holy shit

I wanted to try New Dawn but the RPG-lite mechanics put me off, is it actually good?

Crysis

>2 that high
....

>it's an alien level

Attached: 20180506_231152.png (654x676, 512K)

>and i thought blood dragon was ugly holy shit
It's not ugly at all, though.

Attached: Far Cry® New Dawn2019-2-18-15-16-35.jpg (1920x1080, 642K)

>1 had such broken retarded A.I. it was nigh unplayable, but it provided for a girthy challenge.
Getting one-shotted across the fucking map was so much fun. The game is utter trash in terms of gameplay. Even the "open world" aspect is so overblown, at most you'll have two branching paths to your objective.

>Getting one-shotted across the fucking map was so much fun.
This didn't really happen under normal circumstances, and to be honest, it's bizarre how people expect AI in FPS games to be blind at long distances. If you can see the AI, it should be able to see you when alerted to your presence. Far Cry 1's draw distance is 1.2 kilometers, so logically the AI should be able to shoot at you from 1.2 kilometers away, although it's typically capped to a few hundred meters at most.
>The game is utter trash in terms of gameplay.
It had a very STALKER-esque approach to combat where you had to think fast and use all the tools available. The AI was tough and smart.
>Even the "open world" aspect is so overblown, at most you'll have two branching paths to your objective.
Far Cry wasn't supposed to be open world. It's a sandbox game, which is very different.

I don't disagree, but it looked so much better than other games at the time. It was pretty much a tech demo like crysis, except crysis was playable.
It's still kind of a badge of honor, wrestling with that broken A.I. and finishing the game after many tears.

If you liked Far Cry 5, New Dawn is literally the standalone expansion sequel, with superpowers and a progression curve and weapon upgrade system that tries to fix the "can complete the entire game using the start pistol" design trait of every Far Cry between 2 and 5.

It's a fun game. I really enjoyed it. I kinda prefer FC5 thematically and narratively and perhaps even musically, but as far as expansions go, New Dawn was dope. If it had been included with Far Cry 5 as a second act of the story it wouldn't have copped a fraction of the shit it did.

Not the guy you replied to but the enemy detection was absurd, and trying to stealth through it was always a coin flip. Entering firefights was also almost always suicide.

This is very good, maybe even better than 2

Attached: primal.jpg (286x176, 10K)

>This didn't really happen under normal circumstances, and to be honest, it's bizarre how people expect AI in FPS games to be blind at long distances. If you can see the AI, it should be able to see you when alerted to your presence. Far Cry 1's draw distance is 1.2 kilometers, so logically the AI should be able to shoot at you from 1.2 kilometers away, although it's typically capped to a few hundred meters at most.
It happened to me dozens of times on normal. You'd go over the crest of a hill and just die instantly then have to crawl so you could see a few pixels of their head and pray to fuck you still had a sniper rifle.

>Far Cry 1's draw distance is 1.2 kilometers, so logically the AI should be able to shoot at you from 1.2 kilometers away

True, but they should barely be able to hit you from this distance and certainly shouldn't be reliably one-shotting you from that far within a few seconds. The reaction times and accuracy were completely fucked.

>It had a very STALKER-esque approach to combat where you had to think fast and use all the tools available. The AI was tough and smart.
lol, the AI had no intelligence whatsoever. That's why they leaned so hard on the aim-botting style gameplay. And what fucking tools? It was just the standard FPS fare of weapons. There was a clear hierarchy of weapons with the sniper rifle and P90 at the top and the MP5 and knife at the bottom.

>It's a sandbox game, which is very different.
It's a "sandbox" with a linear progression of levels where you're railroaded about. There's almost no choice in it. People just meme this from old articles because they haven't played the game in a decade. I finished it this year.

>Not the guy you replied to but the enemy detection was absurd, and trying to stealth through it was always a coin flip.
That's because Far Cry 1's AI isn't blind and deaf. They can see you, and they can hear you. You simply cannot stealth your way past the AI. They will see you crouch walking past, because they're not blind.
>Entering firefights was also almost always suicide.
Direct engagement was suicide, yes. And this is where the game's tactical/military shooter roots are evident. It's in the same vein as Rainbow 6. You can be absolutely massacred by a single person with an assault rifle. Your only option is to be very careful. Very strategic. And very lucky. It's a completely different breed of game to Ubisoft's Far Cry games.

Aww yeah. Loved this game. The missions got a bit samey and the gameplay wasn't great but I just never got tired of the fantastic world they built. All the little details and environments. My favourite thing is just grabbing a couple of spears, turning off all the UI and just exploring, hunting for a rare animal.

Only shame was that they didn't implement a proper weather system. Sitting in a cave by the campfire watching the wind and rain outside would have been comfy as fuck.

>You simply cannot stealth your way past the AI.
Which was literally a selling point of the game.
>Your only option is to be very careful. Very strategic. And very lucky
Aka camp behind a tree and unload a whole magazine into their face. Rinse and repeat.
There's no room for tactics when assaulting a base with only one access point.

>lol, the AI had no intelligence whatsoever.
Untrue. Far Cry 1 has a very complex squad behavioral system. Leader, Cover, Rear, Scout, and Sniper. Plus some special classes like SWAT. When placed into groups, they act as a unit, and their abilities are further enhanced if they have a Leader AI in the squad to coordinate them. Rears fall back and follow the squad with pistols. They tend to deploy smoke grenades when alerted to bring reinforcements via helicopter. Scouts push ahead with P90s. Covers flank to the left and right with M4s.
>That's why they leaned so hard on the aim-botting style gameplay.
There's nothing aim-botting about Far Cry's AI. In fact, it's designed to deliberately miss you initially, especially snipers. It grows more accurate over time.
>And what fucking tools?
Weapons, grenades, your environment. Since you die pretty much immediately if they get a bead on you, combat encounters were frantic and often involved running around like mad trying not to get shot.
>It's a "sandbox" with a linear progression of levels where you're railroaded about.
This is intentional. It's the polar opposite of the watered down "go anywhere" approach to a sandbox employed by Ubisoft. The idea is that by constraining the player, you have some control over pacing and encounter design. Far Cry 1 has actual level design. Far Cry 2 onwards doesn't. You're fed a string of sandboxes that you can tackle freely. The leeway varies from mission to mission. In Fort, for example, you can approach the top of the island from either side. In Boat, you can go anywhere.

>1 had such broken retarded A.I. it was nigh unplayable, but it provided for a girthy challenge.
How? If you played on very hardest the chain gunners were bullshit, otherwise the AI was quite good and reasonable, especially for its time.

>Untrue. Far Cry 1 has a very complex squad behavioral system. Leader, Cover, Rear, Scout, and Sniper. Plus some special classes like SWAT. When placed into groups, they act as a unit, and their abilities are further enhanced if they have a Leader AI in the squad to coordinate them. Rears fall back and follow the squad with pistols. They tend to deploy smoke grenades when alerted to bring reinforcements via helicopter. Scouts push ahead with P90s. Covers flank to the left and right with M4s.
This is literally all made up and is the weakest bait ever.

So, did you ever finish it? I wonder how someone who actually bothered finishing the game could think the AI was quite good. Probably groupthink or "experiencing" games through youtube.

It's actually a case where the 3mb limit of webms here is becoming a hindrance for showing off just how fucking detailed some games are when 90% of the texture detail is just lost in the bitrate/resolution.

Those are literally the AI classes from Far Cry. AI given the same group number behave as a squad, and this includes being instantly alerted if one is alerted, which was a bit cheap. For example, if you give 3 AI entities the same group number, and then tell one to drive a car, they'll all get into the car. If you tell one of them to patrol along a route, they'll fall into formation based on their class. Cover AI is heavily based around flanking. The AI naturally seeks cover AI points in the environment. They move from cover to cover, and this typically simulates flanking. The SWAT enemies are the blue guys who sometimes carry shields. They're basically the indoor AI type and have a strong focus on hiding behind pillars. They're an absolute pain in the opening sequence of Volcano. The SWAT ones don't really coordinate in groups.

>And very lucky.
If you were depending on luck while playing FC1, you were playing it wrong.

It's the only one not made by Ubisoft.

Blood Dragon is the only good game in the series
don't >> me

>If you can see the AI, it should be able to see you when alerted to your presence.
Why do so few games do this?
This is what I expect to happen when I play FPS/TPS games that are open world or have large outdoor areas, but nope, they can only see a few feet in front of them.

Yeah I first got it a couple months after release, zoomzoom and have beaten it several times. The big mutants could be cheesed easily admittedly, but that applied to basically all large enemies from any FPS of that year and earlier.

You do realize that scopes/binocs reflect light right? The way to sneak in Far Cry is to keep a strong distance, only peak with a scope for brief moments, and seek out alternate routes rather than trying to just crouch through noisy shrubbery the whole way.

>Why do so few games do this?
Because it turns out that audiences really don't like it. Far Cry 1 was controversial even back in 2004. When you play a modern open world game and you wonder why the AI just ignores you when you're standing 200 meters away clearly armed to the teeth and sprinting in circles, it's because audiences expect AI to pretend they're not there. The stealth genre took a lot of liberties with plausibility, and most modern open world games followed suit.

Those people mocking Mafia 3 because the AI had no peripheral vision come to mind. The game was designed like that on purpose.

Attached: Splinter cell.jpg (676x648, 154K)

Because then they'd have to actually implement stealth elements into their game so the level is actually playable. Otherwise they'll have to build retarded structures or design the map around always taking some covered back-entrance where guards aren't covering.

I love that copypasta.

I like the sound of that though.
Not for everyone however.

>Far Cry 1 was controversial even back in 2004.
Eh not really, it was universally acclaimed, a surprise hit from a brand new company, and it also satiated a lot of people that were still waiting for HL2. It also aged a hell of a lot better than Doom 3.

>Far Cry isn't playable when enemies are alerted
Holy shit I had no idea that kids were so bad at basic shooters these days

We're talking if AI used common sense for distance sight, vs FC1's love of just alerting an entire fucking base the second you fart in any general direction. Least the devs had the foresight to auto-checkpoint the game (which only ever fucked me once in my original playthrough when it was new) so you couldn't save-scum. Just have to try different approaches each time, or go guns blazing.

I snuck around for most of my playthrough and they never went on alert except when I shot at them (obviously).

Because you're generally fighting 1vMany and if the enemy are anywhere close to your capabilities you're getting shat on

I like a good challenge

Why shouldn't the entire base be alerted? iirc there are even sirens that sound if you let them, at least for some bases. Far Cry is best thought of as an ambush shooter; it's not a game where you charge ahead guns-blazing, because you'll probably get your ass sniped. It's also not a game where you go full 47 and try to pick off guards one by one, because guards generally cover each other and are fast to fire off a shot, alerting people. When you approach a base, you size it up from multiple directions, determine the most dangerous enemies (i.e. snipers plus guys that can hop into turrets), and the weakest spots (fuel tanks, cover, etc). Then you strike as quickly and accurately as possible.

Also, pay attention to the radar. The visual effect showing the sound radius of your gun is actually quite accurate in general. Compared to, say, Hitman 2: Silent Assassin a couple years earlier where enemies tend to have psychic links, Far Cry is actually pretty fair. But you have to understand the limitations of your character and the abilities of the enemy.

All this is telling me is that the majority of '''''gamers''''' are filthy casuals and don't like challenges.
Something I already knew.

>was about 15yo when FC1 was released
>amazed with those graphics and how big the map felt
>at the time, my old ass K6-II couldn't even play more complex things than emulators like Meka or KGEN98
>mfw tech evolved so much that an entry level cpu with integrated graphics can max out games like this without sweating nowadays

Attached: 1530136375862.jpg (480x542, 42K)