Farcry 2 vs Farcry 5 Shocking downgrade.

[Mr Puggsly]

taus90 said:

Mr Puggsly said:

I see FC2 as an interesting experiment that ultimately led to the more enjoyable 3 and 4. I haven't spent much time with FC:Primal, but even that appears to have interesting ideas we've seen in other Ubisoft games.

I wouldn't say FC3 stripped everything else, because FC3 did create a more free world to explore. I bet a lot more effort went into designing the worlds and activities in all titles after FC2. I'm not sure why they pulled back on foliage details and destruction, but it certainly didn't make a better game.

Its possible FC5 could even improve some aspects via patches, but I kinda doubt that will. Either way, this video doesn't cover why we play modern FC games and what makes them better. It just shows FC2 was a technically impressive game.

of course not FC5 is far superior game.. but my point is, that in end was the trade off for prettier graphics worth it? Personally for me i would have preferred less graphical polish and more environment interaction, it just adds an extra layer of immersion, and i m kind of a guy who would venture off course to explore the world. 

But I think its the norm, and it would have been idiotic of ubisoft from a business point of view to not make prettier looking games.. coz thats what makes the first impression 

I'm not sure if the environment interaction had to be pulled back for any reason other than more programming work. I don't think it would be intensive on GPU, maybe more so on CPU and memory? I couldn't tell you.

I feel better graphics is more important than the minor environment interaction. I mean the average person will spend more time appreciating polished graphics over interactive trees and foliage. Pretty graphics and focus on gameplay matters more.