StarDestroyer.Net BBS

You know, I could swear it was 2006. I imagined I lived in a world where mod teams, composed of amateurs and working for nothing, could make interesting and imaginative games.

Then I played that silly Sin thing. It's like 1998 all over again. I know HL2 was pretty lame in the 'zero path flexibility' way, but Sin has COLOUR CODED BADGUYS. They send vans full of guys armed with pistols to stop you. You can break glass and shoot locks... SOMETIMES. The pistol is super-powerful and super-accurate. There is always exactly one way to go, and you have exactly zero input into the story.

The original was a pretty terrible game, but it least it had helicopter bits with big machineguns. The new game is a typical 'run through a bad fanfilm' experience. Where's the market for this? Sure, I'm looking for a change from the glut of WW2 FPSs... but not a retro, we-learned-nothing-from-the-90s game. My rating? Worse than FEAR. At least FEAR tried to be interesting - this game seems like a deliberate attempt to use all the retarded FPS cliches in the shortest time.

PS, chain link fences with doors, which have been padlocked? Not a convincing edge-of-map barrier. Sorry, every game since 2003.

That is a point. I want to know why more people haven't tried to emulate Far Cry.

"Here's your mission objective, it's about 10 kilometers that way. Have fun."

And the best part of Farcry was the start, before the stupid FPS-lameness plot started. Cruise through the jungle, shoot mercenaries, swim round bits you're not supposed to as a shortcut... that was neat. Then we got 'zomg teh monstars' and it went downhill (everyone and his dog using rocket launchers = teh crap). It was very different to the usual 'corridor' map design - it even had buildings with vaguely sensible floorplans!

Stark wrote:And the best part of Farcry was the start, before the stupid FPS-lameness plot started. Cruise through the jungle, shoot mercenaries, swim round bits you're not supposed to as a shortcut... that was neat. Then we got 'zomg teh monstars' and it went downhill (everyone and his dog using rocket launchers = teh crap). It was very different to the usual 'corridor' map design - it even had buildings with vaguely sensible floorplans!

The moment the fucktard monsters appeared in Far Cry, I stopped playing. I never finished that game.

Same here, I couldn't stand the "ZOMG! MUTANTS ARE T3H ROXXORZ!" shit. I loved carefully stalking through the weeds, hunting humans... But the moment you are up against mutants who have "auto-detect=1" then the game lost all its appeal.

The only mutant level that was ANY good was the one that was like a pseudo-Jurassic Park with the walkways and things in the treetops. Just had a nice vibe.

Yeah, I never finished it either. And Ando has a point - that first level, with the containment buildings etc, was neat. Later, when it was clear they were just taking FPS standards like 'the sewer level' etc, it was stupid.

The start was so cool! That bit where you go up the hill to flush the guys out of the bunker? That was neat.

Vympel wrote:

Stark wrote:And the best part of Farcry was the start, before the stupid FPS-lameness plot started. Cruise through the jungle, shoot mercenaries, swim round bits you're not supposed to as a shortcut... that was neat. Then we got 'zomg teh monstars' and it went downhill (everyone and his dog using rocket launchers = teh crap). It was very different to the usual 'corridor' map design - it even had buildings with vaguely sensible floorplans!

The moment the fucktard monsters appeared in Far Cry, I stopped playing. I never finished that game.

Too bad, there are some nice mutant free levels later in the game. Also the mutant heavy rebellion level has a very nice open feel to it. You can make your way around on foot, truck or by air and if you like sniping, take some shots up to 2/3 of a km.