Far Cry 2: Lose A Buddy, Lose Content

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."
View : : :
83.
 
Re: RE: Great Idea
Sep 11, 2008, 01:43
83.
Re: RE: Great Idea Sep 11, 2008, 01:43
Sep 11, 2008, 01:43
 
You see no value in purchasing games so how would your opinion ever have traction for someone who does?

You seem to conveniently forget that I do buy the games I like. Of course, whether or not you believe me is a whole other matter but that isn't really my concern.

You can setup a shitty little third party server but you can't clone the WoW experience - relatively stable server platforms, millions of players and so on.

I think the MMO experience is inherently shitty regardless of server, so this is a moot point for me.

Who are you to judge what their intent and goals were when designing the game?

Um, I'm the consumer. For an example of developers compromising their artistic integrity, refer to the Bioshock postmortem on Gamasutra. They state very clearly that they drastically changed the game in order to appeal to a greater market. Similarly, why do you think so many former PC developers have jumped ship to console? Why do you think so many PC franchises have become console franchises? Why do you think R6 turned from a realistic, tactical shooter into an arcadey console shooter? Why do you think Bioware focuses on console action RPGs rather than traditional cRPGs, despite their Black Isle heritage? Why do you think Deus Ex 2 was designed (and dumbed down) for the Xbox instead of the PC, where it's core fanbase was? Why do you think FO3 is Oblivion With Guns instead of a turn-based cRPG? Why do you think we will never, ever see a game like Planescape: Torment again?

Honestly, if you can't see how business interests compromise artistic integrity, you must be blind.

The Witcher has the most basic, dumbed down combat I've ever seen in an RPG and several of those games are console ports.

It's a good thing RPGs aren't focused on combat, huh? The most important part of any RPG is meaningful choice and consequence. The Witcher has that in spades.

As for the console ports, they were all platformers, a genre that works well on consoles. If a game's genre isn't best suited to the PC, I don't care if it's a port. Conversely, if a game is best suited to the PC, like shooters, strategy games or RPGs, I sure as hell don't want it to be a console port.

We won't even mention the bug ridden mess that was STALKER where users had to downgrade patch revisions just to avoid crashes and design mods to overcome basic gameplay flaws.

Oh yes, STALKER had many flaws. However, despite all that, the game had great atmosphere. Keep in mind that I mentioned that I praised these games. That doesn't mean they were flawless. It just means that the good far outweighed the bad.

Practice what you preach, though I suspect you didn't buy any of those either so it doesn't matter I guess.

I do. I've bought all the games I mentioned except for The Witcher. I'm waiting for the Expanded Edition, which I'll buy at full price despite the fact that I already possess and have beaten the game.

This comment was edited on Sep 11, 01:48.
Avatar 20715
Date
Subject
Author
1.
Sep 5, 2008Sep 5 2008
21.
Sep 6, 2008Sep 6 2008
22.
Sep 6, 2008Sep 6 2008
24.
Sep 6, 2008Sep 6 2008
25.
Sep 6, 2008Sep 6 2008
26.
Sep 6, 2008Sep 6 2008
27.
Sep 6, 2008Sep 6 2008
28.
Sep 6, 2008Sep 6 2008
29.
Sep 6, 2008Sep 6 2008
32.
Sep 6, 2008Sep 6 2008
33.
Sep 6, 2008Sep 6 2008
34.
Sep 6, 2008Sep 6 2008
2.
Sep 5, 2008Sep 5 2008
16.
Sep 6, 2008Sep 6 2008
37.
Sep 6, 2008Sep 6 2008
3.
Sep 5, 2008Sep 5 2008
4.
Sep 5, 2008Sep 5 2008
5.
Sep 5, 2008Sep 5 2008
7.
Sep 5, 2008Sep 5 2008
12.
Sep 5, 2008Sep 5 2008
42.
Sep 6, 2008Sep 6 2008
43.
Sep 6, 2008Sep 6 2008
46.
Sep 7, 2008Sep 7 2008
45.
Sep 7, 2008Sep 7 2008
47.
Sep 7, 2008Sep 7 2008
49.
Sep 7, 2008Sep 7 2008
51.
Sep 7, 2008Sep 7 2008
52.
Sep 7, 2008Sep 7 2008
54.
Sep 7, 2008Sep 7 2008
55.
Sep 7, 2008Sep 7 2008
       Re: RE: Great Idea
56.
Sep 7, 2008Sep 7 2008
        Re: RE: Great Idea
57.
Sep 7, 2008Sep 7 2008
         Re: RE: Great Idea
58.
Sep 8, 2008Sep 8 2008
          Re: RE: Great Idea
60.
Sep 8, 2008Sep 8 2008
           Re: RE: Great Idea
61.
Sep 8, 2008Sep 8 2008
            Re: RE: Great Idea
62.
Sep 9, 2008Sep 9 2008
            Re: RE: Great Idea
63.
Sep 9, 2008Sep 9 2008
             Re: RE: Great Idea
64.
Sep 9, 2008Sep 9 2008
              Re: RE: Great Idea
65.
Sep 9, 2008Sep 9 2008
               Re: RE: Great Idea
66.
Sep 9, 2008Sep 9 2008
                Re: RE: Great Idea
68.
Sep 10, 2008Sep 10 2008
                 Re: RE: Great Idea
69.
Sep 10, 2008Sep 10 2008
                  Re: RE: Great Idea
70.
Sep 10, 2008Sep 10 2008
                   Re: RE: Great Idea
71.
Sep 10, 2008Sep 10 2008
                    Re: RE: Great Idea
72.
Sep 10, 2008Sep 10 2008
                     Re: RE: Great Idea
74.
Sep 10, 2008Sep 10 2008
                      Re: RE: Great Idea
80.
Sep 10, 2008Sep 10 2008
                      Re: RE: Great Idea
73.
Sep 10, 2008Sep 10 2008
                     Re: RE: Great Idea
78.
Sep 10, 2008Sep 10 2008
                      Re: RE: Great Idea
79.
Sep 10, 2008Sep 10 2008
                       Re: RE: Great Idea
81.
Sep 10, 2008Sep 10 2008
                        Re: RE: Great Idea
82.
Sep 10, 2008Sep 10 2008
                         Re: RE: Great Idea
75.
Sep 10, 2008Sep 10 2008
                     Re: RE: Great Idea
76.
Sep 10, 2008Sep 10 2008
                      Re: RE: Great Idea
77.
Sep 10, 2008Sep 10 2008
                      Re: RE: Great Idea
 83.
Sep 11, 2008Sep 11 2008
                      Re: RE: Great Idea
67.
Sep 9, 2008Sep 9 2008
              Re: RE: Great Idea
59.
Sep 8, 2008Sep 8 2008
48.
Sep 7, 2008Sep 7 2008
8.
Sep 5, 2008Sep 5 2008
10.
Sep 5, 2008Sep 5 2008
9.
Sep 5, 2008Sep 5 2008
11.
Sep 5, 2008Sep 5 2008
13.
Sep 5, 2008Sep 5 2008
14.
Sep 5, 2008Sep 5 2008
15.
Sep 6, 2008Sep 6 2008
17.
Sep 6, 2008Sep 6 2008
18.
Sep 6, 2008Sep 6 2008
20.
Sep 6, 2008Sep 6 2008
19.
Sep 6, 2008Sep 6 2008
23.
Sep 6, 2008Sep 6 2008
30.
Sep 6, 2008Sep 6 2008
31.
Sep 6, 2008Sep 6 2008
35.
Sep 6, 2008Sep 6 2008
36.
Sep 6, 2008Sep 6 2008
38.
Sep 6, 2008Sep 6 2008
39.
Sep 6, 2008Sep 6 2008
40.
Sep 6, 2008Sep 6 2008
41.
Sep 6, 2008Sep 6 2008
44.
Sep 7, 2008Sep 7 2008
53.
Sep 7, 2008Sep 7 2008
50.
Sep 7, 2008Sep 7 2008