Quantcast
Next Far Cry teased, announce at The Game Awards, post-apocalyptic setting

Forums - Gaming Discussion - Next Far Cry teased, announce at The Game Awards, post-apocalyptic setting

I feel like Ubisoft not wanting to be bought by vivendi essentially just made them super greedy, even though realistically they were probably always going to go down this route. Like really, Far Cry bi-annual now? This sucks (and yes, I know it started with 4, just saying).

Around the Network
Wyrdness said:

Is this legit?

That's one of the better video game covers I've seen in the past few years. 



AngryLittleAlchemist said:
I feel like Ubisoft not wanting to be bought by vivendi essentially just made them super greedy, even though realistically they were probably always going to go down this route. Like really, Far Cry bi-annual now? This sucks (and yes, I know it started with 4, just saying).

It's their 2nd bestselling series after AC, makes sense for both AC and Far Cry to be bi-annual now imo. I can't really call that greedy personally, when there are tons of yearly series like CoD, the various sports games, and Ubisoft's own Just Dance franchise. 



shikamaru317 said:
AngryLittleAlchemist said:
I feel like Ubisoft not wanting to be bought by vivendi essentially just made them super greedy, even though realistically they were probably always going to go down this route. Like really, Far Cry bi-annual now? This sucks (and yes, I know it started with 4, just saying).

It's their 2nd bestselling series after AC, makes sense for both AC and Far Cry to be bi-annual now imo. I can't really call that greedy personally, when there are tons of yearly series like CoD, the various sports games, and Ubisoft's own Just Dance franchise. 

>talks about a company releasing things on a tiring schedule because of the financial gain behind it

>"I can't really call that greedy personally"

Ok, but I can  

Fair enough 



shikamaru317 said:

Really sad that after 5 years of waiting, we still aren't getting Blood Dragon 2, after Michael Biehn teased a sequel. Even worse is that we're getting a post-apocalyptic game, an over-saturated setting. Out of all of the good options on the latest official Far Cry setting survey, this was the one they chose to do next?

  • A Far Cry game in remote Alaska about surviving extreme wilderness
  • A Far Cry game in a futuristic, sci-fi setting on another planet
  • A Far Cry game set in the Vietnam war during the 1960s
  • A Far Cry game set in the cocaine trafficking jungles of Peru
  • A Far Cry game where you can fight against or join vampires
  • A Far Cry game in the Spaghetti Western style set in the late 19th century Americas
  • A Far Cry game that is set during a zombie outbreak
  • Blood Dragon 2: A sequel to Blood Dragon with more Rex Power Colt
  • A Far Cry game set in a Mad Max style post-apocalyptic world
  • A Far Cry game in the present day on a Jurassic Park style island of dinosaurs
  • A Far Cry game based on the world of Shangri-La from Far Cry
I will still play it because I like Far Cry, but this is quite disappointing. 

It's an interesting setting for a farcry game, but I still don't understand why they don't do a Jurassic park setting. It's perfect for a farcry title

 

Stranded on an island with dinasours and machine guns. It's perfect. It would be the most awesome farcry game. And they can go all out with the types of dinosaurs. Seriously riding a t-rex into an enemy outpost with a machine gun is the best sounding thing ever for a farcry game. And if they actually add a good story and vilian then wow. It would be amazing



Around the Network
AngryLittleAlchemist said:
shikamaru317 said:

It's their 2nd bestselling series after AC, makes sense for both AC and Far Cry to be bi-annual now imo. I can't really call that greedy personally, when there are tons of yearly series like CoD, the various sports games, and Ubisoft's own Just Dance franchise. 

>talks about a company releasing things on a tiring schedule because of the financial gain behind it

>"I can't really call that greedy personally"

Ok, but I can  

Fair enough 

Tiring to who exactly? The gamers, the developers? I doubt it's tiring to the developers, something you have to realize about Ubisoft is that they don't have a single set in stone AC team or a single set in stone Far Cry team, their teams are extremely fluid, ever fluctuating, and usually their games are the combined efforts of multiple teams working together. Far Cry New Dawn was probably already in development a year or more before Far Cry 5 released, under a different team. This release schedule should be no more grueling to the developers than the average for AAA development. As for the gamers, well that is subjective like many things. I personally don't find 2 years between releases within a series to be tiring in the slightest. In fact, I wish that more of my favorite series had a release every 2 years, or at most, every 3 years. I absolutely loathe long waits between games within a series. Bethesda is the worst about that, it's looking there will be more than a 10 year gap between TES 5 and TES 6, the wait is killing me.



shikamaru317 said:
AngryLittleAlchemist said:

>talks about a company releasing things on a tiring schedule because of the financial gain behind it

>"I can't really call that greedy personally"

Ok, but I can  

Fair enough 

Tiring to who exactly? The gamers, the developers? I doubt it's tiring to the developers, something you have to realize about Ubisoft is that they don't have a single set in stone AC team or a single set in stone Far Cry team, their teams are extremely fluid, ever fluctuating, and usually their games are the combined efforts of multiple teams working together. Far Cry New Dawn was probably already in development a year or more before Far Cry 5 released, under a different team. This release schedule should be no more grueling to the developers than the average for AAA development. As for the gamers, well that is subjective like many things. I personally don't find 2 years between releases within a series to be tiring in the slightest. In fact, I wish that more of my favorite series had a release every 2 years, or at most, every 3 years. I absolutely loathe long waits between games within a series. Bethesda is the worst about that, it's looking there will be more than a 10 year gap between TES 5 and TES 6, the wait is killing me.

So you're questioning my opinion but then say it's subjective later? Or are you genuinely asking whether i mean to the developers or gamers? Because obviously I am talking about many gamers including myself. Not all of them of course. I'm glad you enjoy this model, seriously, have fun then! 



AngryLittleAlchemist said:
shikamaru317 said:

Tiring to who exactly? The gamers, the developers? I doubt it's tiring to the developers, something you have to realize about Ubisoft is that they don't have a single set in stone AC team or a single set in stone Far Cry team, their teams are extremely fluid, ever fluctuating, and usually their games are the combined efforts of multiple teams working together. Far Cry New Dawn was probably already in development a year or more before Far Cry 5 released, under a different team. This release schedule should be no more grueling to the developers than the average for AAA development. As for the gamers, well that is subjective like many things. I personally don't find 2 years between releases within a series to be tiring in the slightest. In fact, I wish that more of my favorite series had a release every 2 years, or at most, every 3 years. I absolutely loathe long waits between games within a series. Bethesda is the worst about that, it's looking there will be more than a 10 year gap between TES 5 and TES 6, the wait is killing me.

So you're questioning my opinion but then say it's subjective later? Or are you genuinely asking whether i mean to the developers or gamers? Because obviously I am talking about many gamers including myself. Not all of them of course. I'm glad you enjoy this model, seriously, have fun then! 

The latter, I was legit wondering if you meant tiring to the gamers or the developers. 

There is nothing saying that Far Cry fans absolutely have to play every game in the series. For those that do find the schedule tiring like yourself, you could always skip the spinoff entries like Primal and New Dawn and only play the numbered main entries, that will give you a 3-4 year gap between Far Cry games instead of a 1.5-2 year gap. Or you could just play the Far Cry games that interest you the most and skip the ones that don't interest you as much. I personally do this with CoD, skipping the Treyarch developed CoD titles and playing the Infinity Ward and Sledgehammer CoD titles. 

My original point, as someone who likes shorter release schedules, is simply that I get kind of annoyed whenever I see someone asking a developer/publisher to drop a short cycle just because they personally don't like it. Those who don't like short cycles can always skip entries within a series, but those like myself who prefer short cycles are screwed when a publisher/developer chooses to go with a long cycle like Elder Scrolls, there is nothing we can do to speed up the wait between titles.



As long as the games are good I don't care how long or little developers spend on them. A longer development time doesn't necessarily equate to a better product. There are plenty of examples of games that should have been the second coming of gaming Jesus for how long they took but just ended up being good. Then there are other games that just took a few years and blew minds. There are some franchises that I just get sick of and others I can't get enough of. The Far Cry games never did it for me. Didn't care much for their settings. However, a post-apocalyptic setting? Certainly not some new idea but more appealing to me than running through a jungle from modern drug dealers.

shikamaru317 said: 

My original point, as someone who likes shorter release schedules, is simply that I get kind of annoyed whenever I see someone asking a developer/publisher to drop a short cycle just because they personally don't like it. Those who don't like short cycles can always skip entries within a series, but those like myself who prefer short cycles are screwed when a publisher/developer chooses to go with a long cycle like Elder Scrolls, there is nothing we can do to speed up the wait between titles.

That's kind of a circular argument though, is it not? You're basically saying that you don't like it when people mention their opinion, because it's contradictory to other people's opinions, but the opposite would also be true, so then no one would be able to voice their opinion. You're just saying one side specifically needs to be quiet. 

Both the idea of shortening and lengthening release schedules have valid arguments behind them, so only mentioning one valid argument for smaller release schedules ("you can skip them and a lot of people would prefer to have more than less") is just trying to make the situation look one-sided from the perspective of it's always better to have more. Whereas I was merely stating my opinion early, not arguing it. Like for example, who actually wants game development to get longer for no net return? That would just be the difference between holding back titles arbitrarily and not doing so. I think just about everyone who asks for longer development wants them for the sake of new innovations. So that's an argument for longer development times. In the case of a publisher as big as Ubisoft with as many development teams as they have, there are as many arguments for a longer development time as there are against. Which is why I'm just mentioning my preference. 

Edit: And of course, I'm not talking about the "quality" necessarily of this game. Just Ubisoft's overall release schedule. For all I know this might be the Far Cry game to make me interested in them again. 

Last edited by AngryLittleAlchemist - on 06 December 2018