Can we blame Ando for Far Cry 3

[Vendetta]

I disagree, and I indicated why I disagreed. What works for being a criminal in a metropolis doesn't work for a game like Just Cause 2. Sense of accomplishment matters, as does the feeling - however artificial - that you're actually effecting change in the open world - which depends on genre. In the same fashion I'd say that Saints Row 2's wars against the gangs, who are eventually all wiped out, makes sense. How else is the player to feel they've accomplished something in terms of building up their criminal empire? The gang bosses have got to die.

Except of course in SR2 when you've wiped out the other gangs there's still interactive content in the open world, because there are still police to mess with. Hence it uses its open world far better than FC3 does.

But to take an example that's closer to FC3, The Saboteur has a vast amount of non respawning shit for the player to blow up, giving you a sense that you are sweeping the map clean of white dots having an effect on the state of the gameworld, but even when you have blown all of them up the remaining number of nazis is non-zero, there are still patrols and checkpoints, you can still fuck with them and get in a tank and have a huge openworld fight, because the openworld interactivity hasn't gone away because you swept up all the white dots.

And there was completely no need for that to happen in FC3, there could be any amount of pirates spawning not at outposts, taking an outpost could give you a small safe zone in hostile territory, but there could still be something to do when you weren't in your small safe zone.

And you haven't addressed the fact that the progression structures and how they interact with the open world actually are the same. There are a very limited number of progression options presented to the player at any one time, no matter the scope of the world. That's what I mean about them being structurally the same. If you look at open world games you'll find that they basically all fit the two structures I outlined, no matter their setting and genre.

[Stark]

Since you've just responded to me explaining why fast travel isn't inherently bad by saying 'fast travel is good', I'm not really sure how I'm supposed to engage with you further. You're either ignoring what people are saying or unable to understand it. The only way it could get funnier is if I could find those pre-launch interviews where the developers literally said 'people didn't like weapon degradation and checkpoints so we removed them'.

How does the idea of ignorantly condemning one game based on an hour of play coexist in your mind with the refusal to let anyone condemn another game? I know the answer is 'because I like this one and don't like that other one', but I want to hear you say it.

[Stark]

Vendetta, maybe the Burnout Paradise example would be clearer for him. In some open-world games, the open world is just a big main menu you walk around to choose your mission. In others, the world contains content you can engage in parallel.

[Vympel]

Except of course in SR2 when you've wiped out the other gangs there's still interactive content in the open world, because there are still police to mess with. Hence it uses its open world far better than FC3 does.

But to take an example that's closer to FC3, The Saboteur has a vast amount of non respawning shit for the player to blow up, giving you a sense that you are sweeping the map clean of white dots having an effect on the state of the gameworld, but even when you have blown all of them up the remaining number of nazis is non-zero, there are still patrols and checkpoints, you can still fuck with them and get in a tank and have a huge openworld fight, because the openworld interactivity hasn't gone away because you swept up all the white dots.

And there was completely no need for that to happen in FC3, there could be any amount of pirates spawning not at outposts, taking an outpost could give you a small safe zone in hostile territory, but there could still be something to do when you weren't in your small safe zone.

Nothing you've said here isn't something I haven't inherently agreed with already. I've stated many times now that FC3 would've benefited from more enemies - like forces being sent to retake outposts etc.

And you haven't addressed the fact that the progression structures and how they interact with the open world actually are the same. There are a very limited number of progression options presented to the player at any one time, no matter the scope of the world. That's what I mean about them being structurally the same. If you look at open world games you'll find that they basically all fit the two structures I outlined, no matter their setting and genre.

I haven't addressed it because its not at all relevant to what I'm saying. What I primarily take issue with is how deterimental the change from FC2's awfulness is to FC3's overall experience.

Since you've just responded to me explaining why fast travel isn't inherently bad by saying 'fast travel is good', I'm not really sure how I'm supposed to engage with you further.

Learning to read English would be a start, since "fast travel is good" is a gross oversimplification and I explained why it was. But hey, this is a forum and people can read what I said, so your lazy escape doesn't count for much

. The only way it could get funnier is if I could find those pre-launch interviews where the developers literally said 'people didn't like weapon degradation and checkpoints so we removed them'.

I find it interesting how you didn't include 'people didn't like the plot so we changed it' in that paragraph, which is the aspect of your "waaah people who complained about FC2 are responsible for FC3" that I actually took issue with. I wonder why - oh that's right, because your statement was fucking stupid, you were incapable of backing it up, and this is yet another lazy escape by you.

How does the idea of ignorantly condemning one game based on an hour of play coexist in your mind with the refusal to let anyone condemn another game? I know the answer is 'because I like this one and don't like that other one', but I want to hear you say it.

This just in, arguing the merits of a game is a "refusal to let anyone condemn another game". You're a real fighter for freedom, aren't you?

But to your first sentence, its pretty pathetic that you think its supposedly "ignorant" to condemn a rubbish game after an hour or so of play. "Hey mang, just slog through for four hours, its sheer brilliance will soon make itself known!"

[Vendetta]

Nothing you've said here isn't something I haven't inherently agreed with already. I've stated many times now that FC3 would've benefited from more enemies - like forces being sent to retake outposts etc.

The position you're arguing against is that an openworld progression structure which removes all interactive content from the openworld is worse than a simplistic respawn system because of how it interacts with the openworld structure. We are trying to show how important it is for an open world game to not do exactly the thing that Far Cry 3 does, because the very thing that people find fun about open world games is that they have consistent interactivity, and an openworld that empties as you interact by definition does not have that.

FC2's respawning was bad because of technical implementation reasons (if the checkpoints just respawned on a timer not when you left the cell literally no-one would care), FC3's lack of respawning is broken at a fundamental design level.

Almost nothing is worse than an openworld game that devolves to the point of emptiness as the player interacts with it (the only thing worse is one that is empty to begin with and actively penalises the player for trying to interact with it. So L.A. Noire).

[Vympel]

The position you're arguing against is that an openworld progression structure which removes all interactive content from the openworld is worse than a simplistic respawn system because of how it interacts with the openworld structure. We are trying to show how important it is for an open world game to not do exactly the thing that Far Cry 3 does, because the very thing that people find fun about open world games is that they have consistent interactivity, and an openworld that empties as you interact by definition does not have that.

FC2's respawning was bad because of technical implementation reasons (if the checkpoints just respawned on a timer not when you left the cell literally no-one would care), FC3's lack of respawning is broken at a fundamental design level.

Almost nothing is worse than an openworld game that devolves to the point of emptiness as the player interacts with it (the only thing worse is one that is empty to begin with and actively penalises the player for trying to interact with it. So L.A. Noire).

Again, I disagree. I don't think there's any utility to proceeding from the basis that "this is an open world game therefore it should be like this", as if there are objective rules for what an open world should be like. I personally don't find the lack of respawning enemies that bad. I could've used a little less safety after clearing an outpost area, but there's nothing fundamentally "broken" about it. FC2's respawning was bad because it was a constant obstruction to player movement (whether by having to stop and fight or circumvent the checkpoints, the outcome remains the same) and therefore a source of unending tedium, combined with advertising that the player was making no progress at all.

And I'm not purely concerned with FC2's broken respawn system, because its not the only problem FC2's world had. In addition to all its obtuse mechanics seemingly designed to obstruct the player and waste as much of his/her time as possible, FC2 has the opposite problem of FC3 - what's the point of having a big open world when you're so constantly getting harassed by enemies that exploring anything is just a massive pain in the ass? Its not actually an objective fact that people like constantly having to stop and fight shit (or escape cops, or whatever) in open world games. Its a preference. As I said, some players prefer to clear an area, have it relatively safe, and move on, until they finish the game. Its not "fundamentally broken design", you just don't agree with the choice to emphasize player safety and accomplishment over more combat.

[Mr Bean]

I'll add onto something Vympel mentioned about Farcry 2 that seems left out, the outposts not only always had enemies who respawned, but enemies who would chase you with near godlike accuracy and their hatred of you was such that factional differences would be ignored as several times I had UFL and APR jeeps happily side by side chasing me across the map. You think a jeep full of Nationalists would not chase some guy into the isolationist zone full of it's own well armed checkpoints. And the map was such that driving cross country to avoid checkpoints ranged from "big detours to dodge" to "impossible to avoid". Which would not be so bad if not again they never give up the chase.

Correct me if I'm wrong at the start of Farcry 2 to the end of Farcry 2 if explored both open worlds nothing of significance changes, you leave no lasting impact on the open world at all, not even bodies.

In my own Farcry 3 game, I've reached the second island, the entire map is free of enemy outposts and I've unlocked all the upgrades and... I've got I think five or six story missions to go. It's nice to have an impact but it is bloody annoying that the fierce Rakyat warriors do... exactly dick during the entire game. They never helped me except when I could steal their jeeps but considering it took more time to say get out that it did to murder the entire crew I still like the Pirates more. Seriously the only thing they have going for them is they don't shoot at me, but neither does the PMC troops once you nick a uniform.

And there was this one time one of the PMC guy's failed to get out of the jeep turret when I commandeered it and he saved me from a Tiger so I have to say I like the PMC faction the best.

[Ford Prefect]

Again, I disagree. I don't think there's any utility to proceeding from the basis that "this is an open world game therefore it should be like this", as if there are objective rules for what an open world should be like.

So why is the game even open world if the fact that it's open world doesn't actually feed into any interactivity past a certain point?

[Vympel]

So why is the game even open world if the fact that it's open world doesn't actually feed into any interactivity past a certain point?

You answered your own question. "Past a certain point" implicitly concedes that it does feed into plenty of interactivity prior to that point. Which point is practically the end of the game so it doesn't really matter that much IMO.

In my own Farcry 3 game, I've reached the second island, the entire map is free of enemy outposts and I've unlocked all the upgrades and... I've got I think five or six story missions to go. It's nice to have an impact

That's my view as well. Unless you're some sort of OCD who compulsively clears all the outposts before doing any of the story missions or side quests (some of which are unlocked by clearing the outposts of course) - even though that's largely pointless since the game blocks your tatoo progression with story missions - you get plenty of mileage out of the occupied outpost territories in the course of play. A reduced enemy presence would've been better than no enemy presence (save for a few random encounters and firefights between Rakyat warriors and pirates/PMC) though.

but it is bloody annoying that the fierce Rakyat warriors do... exactly dick during the entire game. They never helped me except when I could steal their jeeps but considering it took more time to say get out that it did to murder the entire crew I still like the Pirates more. Seriously the only thing they have going for them is they don't shoot at me, but neither does the PMC troops once you nick a uniform.

And there was this one time one of the PMC guy's failed to get out of the jeep turret when I commandeered it and he saved me from a Tiger so I have to say I like the PMC faction the best.

The warriors are pretty rubbish, the only time I've found they really assist you is during the wanted dead missions, multiple times they've driven up and got in a gunfight with the guys guarding the one I'm supposed to kill.

[Mr Bean]

The warriors are pretty rubbish, the only time I've found they really assist you is during the wanted dead missions, multiple times they've driven up and got in a gunfight with the guys guarding the one I'm supposed to kill.

I've never been so lucky, every time I've run a wanted dead mission I've hung back spotted everything then snuck in and quick timed my way through the entire group using rocks and timing to kill them all without firing a shot.

See your rocks are magical, as long as you've not been fully spotted they always react to them and look towards the sound long enough to get behind them and stab. The only problem are heavies until you can upgrade your stab. But some of those kill all missions I've gotten them all in one glorious chain of leap stabbing two, then chaining into a third then moving into position to take advantage of the rest running to check on the bodies. Each one of those wanted dead missions takes two minutes tops. That unless you do what a body of mine does which is just run in guns blazing and face stab the officer for 50 second missions.