Far Cry 2: Lose A Buddy, Lose Content [Sep 05, 2008, 9:44 pm ET] – Share – Viewing Comments
Videogaming247 reports an interesting tidbit about Far Cry 2 they picked up
at the Games convention. Apparently when one of the game's NPC "buddy"
characters meets an untimely demise, the game content associated with that
character dies as well. They quote Patrick Redding, the narrative head on the
shooter follow-up: "That’s the price you pay for having buddies. When I unlock a
buddy like that and then use him, either by getting involved in one of his
missions… or by allowing him to come and rescue me, there’s always a risk that
he could be killed. If he’s killed, he’s gone forever and the content associated
with that character is no long available to me. So for example, any side quests
that he’d be able to give me are no longer available."
And now you are saying it's "not a big deal" for these kinds of features to be in FC2.
So it's either a big deal, or not a big deal...you contradict yourself.
No, I don't contradict myself. As I stated before, NPC death and its repercussions are largely a moot point because, in the context of FC2, you can just load your last save and make sure he doesn't die. That's not a meaningful choice. It's not something you have to think about. When your buddy dies, you reload. Problem solved.
An actual meaningful choice is that you choose to play as one of these NPCs from the start of the game. In doing so, you potentially alter the storyline and you will never receive the sidequests from the NPC you are playing. This is a choice with long-term consequences and it is a choice that the player must make. To me, this is a much more interesting and thoughtful mechanic than "If an NPC dies, he can't give you sidequests."
And then most likely complain that they didn't have the choices and consequences, and if you found out they were once in the game, then you'd harp on that as being dumbed down for cross-platform development.
Wrong again. FC2 isn't an RPG. FC1 wasn't an RPG. The developers have never claimed FC2 as an RPG or an RPG/shooter hybrid. I'm not expecting the game to be an RPG/shooter hybrid so I'm not expecting meaningful choice and consequence.
Conversely, Bioshock was originally supposed to be an RPG/shooter hybrid in the vein of SS2. The developers stated as much, so this wasn't an unreasonable or unfounded expectation on my behalf. Then Ken Levine started throwing around the words "meaningful choice" in all the interviews, demos, etc. Again, this reinforced my expectations of meaningful choice. Needless to say, Bioshock did not have meaningful choice. Is this really so difficult for you to understand?
Date
Subject
Author
Copyright © 1996-2025 Stephen Heaslip. All rights reserved.
All trademarks are properties of their respective owners.
Privacy Policy. Manage Cookie Settings.
News CGI copyright © 1999-2025 James "furn" Furness & Blue's News. All rights reserved.
Chatbear v1.5.0/blue++: Page generated 12 July 2025, 11:53.