Far Cry 2 ditches old scheme and takes S.T.A.L.K.E.R. approach
It seems Ubisoft has learned its lesson. The French publisher made a research on what made Far Cry cool, and discovered that it was the realistic parts at the beginning of the game (i.e. when you were raiding military camps and using all sorts of strategy to survive) that consumers liked most.
And what’s not to like about it? The enemy soldiers’ AI is eerily good, and the open-ended approach to this tropical paradise made the experience very fresh compared to other linear shooters that came out that year (*cough Doom 3 *cough* Half-Life 2 cough*).
According to CVG, Far Cry 2 is following in the footsteps of S.T.A.L.K.E.R., meaning that the sequel is set in a huge expanse of land that you can freely wander. There will be two “fully-open worlds that are five kilometers on a side, with the second world unlocking roughly one-third of the way through the game.”
If you do the math, Far Cry gives you 50 square kilometers of land that you can go through anytime.
There’s just one problem: S.T.A.L.K.E.R. can be awfully boring when you’re running though a seemingly-endless stretch of land. What’s more, the Ukrainian shooter doesn’t have controllable vehicles that could help with the tedium presented by travel. Your only hope is using third-party mods.
I just hope that all this talk about open-ended gameplay in Far Cry 2 would actually translate into something fun.
Here’s another question—if the sequel would have no Trigens, no mutants, or any of the Dr. Moreau-esque stuff associated with Far Cry, then why would the game be called Far Cry 2 since there’s nothing to associate it to the original? The “Far Cry” title is important because the weird experiments are labeled “Project Far Cry” in the first place.
It’s like saying the next Bond film won’t feature a British spy and espionage gadgets.
Your thoughts?
7 opinions for Far Cry 2 ditches old scheme and takes S.T.A.L.K.E.R. approach
Alex
Aug 1, 2007 at 8:36 pm
FarCry without feral strength?
…ugh.
The original FarCry was amazing without the feral abilities, sure. But that’s now going on, what…three years ago? FarCry isn’t FarCry without feral abilities, simple as that.
I refuse to believe that FarCry2 is doing away with the feral powers. Especially if they’re expanding the explorable land mass.
Oh, and regarding…
“It’s like saying the next Bond film won’t feature a British spy and espionage gadgets.”
Casino Royale kicked ass and we both know it!
Here, though, I don’t think Jack Carver’s got the skills like Daniel Craig’s Bond. There was a lot of improv in FarCry, but that was more from the players themselves, and not Jack. Craig, on the other hand, every time he picked up a cell phone was magic. I didn’t think the text messaging was going to work, but holy hell it was brilliant!
Soo….yeah.
FarCry with feral powers or bust.
Mike
Aug 2, 2007 at 3:48 am
You hit the nail on the head, Alex.
As regards that Casino Royale bit, while he didn’t have the crazy gadgets from years past. Bond has always been British.
“It’s like saying the next Bond film won’t feature a British spy and espionage gadgets.”
Notice that I used the conjunction “and” between “British spy” and “espionage gadgets.” I meant that these two elements are both included in Bond films (except for the early ones, but I digress). Removing both elements would make a supposed Bond flick as otherwise.
Have you ever seen a Spanish Bond? Or Chinese? I share these sentiments in Far Cry 2 because the “Far Cry” isn’t there.
I want my Trigens, dammit.
b5media - A b5media look on the latest in Video Games
Aug 2, 2007 at 6:02 am
[…] is furious at something. This time, it’s Far Cry 2. Apparently, the sequel to the 2004 shooter is ditching all its mutant themes, and is taking a more “realistic” stance in the next installment. Nothing […]
Alex
Aug 2, 2007 at 7:43 am
A Spanish or Chinese Bond. That would be hilarious. I’d pay to go see it.
At the risk of sounding like a geeky film student, what I think is important to keep in mind regarding the Bond franchise, though, is that Casino Royale was the exact reboot the series needed. GoldenEye was arguably Brosnan’s best Bond flick. It was much darker than the campy Roger Moore/Tim Dalton movies, and it finally brought things back to the Cold War.
And then Bond movies got campy again. Teri Hatcher is Lois Lane. Not a Bond girl. TWINE was garbage (though Garbage’s theme for it was one of the best Bond themes in decades).
Up until Casino Royale, the traditional expectation of James Bond was that British Gadget Man, though I think that expectation largely is a distortion due to the suspect quality in later Bond films.
People had become so used to later Connery, Roger Moore or Timothy Dalton crooning, then firing out a super-strength piton from their belts that most believed that’s what Bond was: a superagent with all sorts of nifty gadgets.
But if you look at Dr. No, Bond was more a bad-ass who knew how to use nifty gadgets, but whose strength was more situational improvisation.
That’s what Casino Royale is. A bad-ass whose strength is situational improvisation.
So how does this relate?
The James Bond series desperately needed a re-focus.
The FarCry series doesn’t yet. They still have a lot of room to explore and refine the abilities and how they could be used within the game.
Mike
Aug 3, 2007 at 3:39 am
This Far Cry series won’t need a refocus, at least not until it makes a gazillion sequels like Bond. :P
I’ve read just one Bond book by Fleming, so I can’t really say which Bond is the right Bond, but let me say this: how can a minority in a movie franchise become the real Bond and its greater majority become the distorted one?
Sounds like the other way around to me.
Alex
Aug 3, 2007 at 6:28 am
Good question. It’s actually pretty easy to answer.
If you were to look at the entire Bond movie franchise, there are films and scenes here and there where Bond just doesn’t give a shit about cracking stupid jokes, crooning, or acting like a buffoon. He’s cold, hard, and focused. Dr. No was a nice example of that, as were most of early Connery and portions of GoldenEye. The rest, though–the majority–was Roger Moore campy, Tim Dalton driftwood, or TWINE with Denise Richards as Dr. Christmas Jones.
In the majority of the franchise, Bond was a joke. But in those few hints of darkness, that’s where we really got a feel for what this character was…how he was originally written in Fleming’s novels, because in Fleming’s novels, Bond is…almost mean.
Far Cry 2 video combines intro and developer commentary
May 18, 2008 at 9:52 am
[…] Montreal’s creation is shaping up to be something like S.T.A.L.K.E.R., which featured a sprawling gaming environment that the player can freely roam. The original Far […]
Have an opinion? Leave a comment: