Wow the multiplayer in this is awful

#11Duwstai(Topic Creator)Posted 2/3/2013 5:34:06 PM
The controls dont look nearly as slow and sluggish on PC gameplays. Do you think its just the console versions?
---
balls
#12TurboSkunkPosted 2/3/2013 7:12:40 PM
Ok let me say it differently.

I think the fan base for Farcry is split.

There are those that appreciate the game for its single player experience. Taken as is the single player is great. They could have left multi out all together and made their game even better. I would pay full price for that Farcry experience.

Plus if they released a game called say Farcry Battleground, and it was a kick ass multiplayer game, with a FULL featured map editor, i would buy that game also. There are a lot of long time fans that are baffled by Ubis decisions to not have this be the highlight of their franchise.
---
Turbo Skunk... professional custom map tester.
#13rush86Posted 2/4/2013 4:53:23 AM
Duwstai posted...
Awful sluggish controls, poor frame rate, poor hit detection, and absolutely TERRIBLE lag.

No wonder no one plays this crap. Its completely broken and unplayable.

People talk crap about CoD, but even it destroys this. Even the newer CoDs with all the lag and lag comp garbage.

Single player is still fantastic but ugh. They should have just left this out rather than besmirch the name of Far Cry with this crap.

IMO


Umm na dude i had none of those problems amd had alit of fun. Maybe ur internet is slow or something
#14xESRPosted 2/4/2013 5:39:51 AM
TurboSkunk posted...
Ok let me say it differently.

I think the fan base for Farcry is split.

There are those that appreciate the game for its single player experience. Taken as is the single player is great. They could have left multi out all together and made their game even better. I would pay full price for that Farcry experience.

Plus if they released a game called say Farcry Battleground, and it was a kick ass multiplayer game, with a FULL featured map editor, i would buy that game also. There are a lot of long time fans that are baffled by Ubis decisions to not have this be the highlight of their franchise.

It's not worth selling a new PS3 game for $30, they would have to sell It for $60 and the Multiplayer would most likely be a DLC for $10~20, so It would be more expensive to split the game into 2. There is NOTHING stopping them from putting full feature map editor as DLC or even as on Disc on FC3 as there is still a lot of disc space.

In short, there is NO reason to split the game into 2, It wouldn't benefit anyone, It doesn't make sense.

rush86 posted...
Duwstai posted...
Awful sluggish controls, poor frame rate, poor hit detection, and absolutely TERRIBLE lag.

No wonder no one plays this crap. Its completely broken and unplayable.

People talk crap about CoD, but even it destroys this. Even the newer CoDs with all the lag and lag comp garbage.

Single player is still fantastic but ugh. They should have just left this out rather than besmirch the name of Far Cry with this crap.

IMO


Umm na dude i had none of those problems amd had alit of fun. Maybe ur internet is slow or something

Have to agree with rush. I barely have any lag, the controls are weird but you get used to It, frame rate isn't much of an issue, the hit detection is a bit annoying, but even so, If you're good It won't matter much because everyone have poor hit detection.
#153CDEDPosted 2/4/2013 6:00:14 AM
EduardoESR posted...
It's not worth selling a new PS3 game for $30, they would have to sell It for $60 and the Multiplayer would most likely be a DLC for $10~20, so It would be more expensive to split the game into 2. There is NOTHING stopping them from putting full feature map editor as DLC or even as on Disc on FC3 as there is still a lot of disc space.

In short, there is NO reason to split the game into 2, It wouldn't benefit anyone, It doesn't make sense.



bollocks. dev time is the limiting factor when making any game. two crews being able to focus on each aspect would eliminate this issue.

so what if they have to sell them both for $60 i'd pay $60 for a solid single player far cry and there are many who'd pay as much for a decent multiplayer (they already pay that much for COD which is bad and about 90% multiplayer)

if they were to release the SP game 6 months or so before the MP game cost would be less of an issue too. the graphics and physics engines will already have been built for the SP game so that will reduce the time and cost greatly.

finally Sega didn't go bankrupt until years after sega GT was released in 2002. in fact it was a series of bad sonic games that killed them. so your argument is well and truly invalid.
---
Resident GFAQS Toyota fanboi/ Drift Master
http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8429/7816538416_df717aec0a_b.jpg http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rHdriIl7VNw
#16xESRPosted 2/4/2013 8:45:49 AM
3CDED posted...
EduardoESR posted...
It's not worth selling a new PS3 game for $30, they would have to sell It for $60 and the Multiplayer would most likely be a DLC for $10~20, so It would be more expensive to split the game into 2. There is NOTHING stopping them from putting full feature map editor as DLC or even as on Disc on FC3 as there is still a lot of disc space.

In short, there is NO reason to split the game into 2, It wouldn't benefit anyone, It doesn't make sense.



bollocks. dev time is the limiting factor when making any game. two crews being able to focus on each aspect would eliminate this issue.

so what if they have to sell them both for $60 i'd pay $60 for a solid single player far cry and there are many who'd pay as much for a decent multiplayer (they already pay that much for COD which is bad and about 90% multiplayer)

if they were to release the SP game 6 months or so before the MP game cost would be less of an issue too. the graphics and physics engines will already have been built for the SP game so that will reduce the time and cost greatly.

finally Sega didn't go bankrupt until years after sega GT was released in 2002. in fact it was a series of bad sonic games that killed them. so your argument is well and truly invalid.

Different groups work on different parts of the game, the odds are, the guys who did the Single Player aren't exacly the ones responsible for multiplayer Either way, Multiplayer recycles pretty much everything the single player has to offer, probably didn't take them much time to make It and wouldn't take much time for that team to release updates to make multiplayer better, releasing 2 separate games for that makes no sense. Selling them both for $60 is just as stupid, you'd be paying $60 just for the online? It has recycled pretty much everything from single player, It's not worth full price. Also, Separating the games into two wouldn't make any difference, It's probably the same group that will work on It.

People pay CoD for the multiplayer because well... It's CoD. FC3 is famous for It's single player, not Multi. Either way, CoD peeps pay $60 for Story Mode + Multiplayer.

SEGA went bankrupt, the end. Sure, they went bankrupt years after sega GT was released, still bankrupt = bankrupt, It's just not that smart to use them to support your ideas. Also, they've been failing since 98s with Dream Cast, they've went bankrupt for a series of things and not just bad sonic games.
#17Duwstai(Topic Creator)Posted 2/4/2013 1:43:53 PM
From: EduardoESR | #014
rush86 posted...
Duwstai posted...
Awful sluggish controls, poor frame rate, poor hit detection, and absolutely TERRIBLE lag.

No wonder no one plays this crap. Its completely broken and unplayable.

People talk crap about CoD, but even it destroys this. Even the newer CoDs with all the lag and lag comp garbage.

Single player is still fantastic but ugh. They should have just left this out rather than besmirch the name of Far Cry with this crap.

IMO


Umm na dude i had none of those problems amd had alit of fun. Maybe ur internet is slow or something

Have to agree with rush. I barely have any lag, the controls are weird but you get used to It, frame rate isn't much of an issue, the hit detection is a bit annoying, but even so, If you're good It won't matter much because everyone have poor hit detection.

http://www.speedtest.net/result/2486167089.png

Not my connection

And the controls are awful. Extremely sluggish, lots of input lag. An average game also has ~300 ping when I measured it (which is awful). That is bad lag. Though it could be because hosts are far off because no one is playing thanks to the awful controls.
---
balls
#18XboxGuy1537Posted 2/4/2013 9:57:03 PM
Single Player Portion: Jaw-dropping, amazing, well designed and a lot of effort put into it you can tell.

Map Editor: One of the best map editors in console history apart from Trials Evolution and Halo Forge Mode.

Co-op mode: Decent, but really poorly and quickly slapped together. Enemies are over-powered and level design is copy and paste.

Multiplayer - Horrid. Lag, graphics compressed down way too much, no team work, even worse than CoD, and you can tell this was a quickie project the team probably winged for some increases in sales.
#19rush86Posted 2/5/2013 12:03:54 AM
Duwstai posted...
From: EduardoESR | #014
rush86 posted...
Duwstai posted...
Awful sluggish controls, poor frame rate, poor hit detection, and absolutely TERRIBLE lag.

No wonder no one plays this crap. Its completely broken and unplayable.

People talk crap about CoD, but even it destroys this. Even the newer CoDs with all the lag and lag comp garbage.

Single player is still fantastic but ugh. They should have just left this out rather than besmirch the name of Far Cry with this crap.

IMO


Umm na dude i had none of those problems amd had alit of fun. Maybe ur internet is slow or something

Have to agree with rush. I barely have any lag, the controls are weird but you get used to It, frame rate isn't much of an issue, the hit detection is a bit annoying, but even so, If you're good It won't matter much because everyone have poor hit detection.

http://www.speedtest.net/result/2486167089.png

Not my connection

And the controls are awful. Extremely sluggish, lots of input lag. An average game also has ~300 ping when I measured it (which is awful). That is bad lag. Though it could be because hosts are far off because no one is playing thanks to the awful controls.


u just have bad luck or something is wrong. Cause i always play the controls are just fine and so is the gameplay
#203CDEDPosted 2/5/2013 2:54:34 AM
EduardoESR posted...

Different groups work on different parts of the game, the odds are, the guys who did the Single Player aren't exacly the ones responsible for multiplayer Either way, Multiplayer recycles pretty much everything the single player has to offer, probably didn't take them much time to make It and wouldn't take much time for that team to release updates to make multiplayer better, releasing 2 separate games for that makes no sense. Selling them both for $60 is just as stupid, you'd be paying $60 just for the online? It has recycled pretty much everything from single player, It's not worth full price. Also, Separating the games into two wouldn't make any difference, It's probably the same group that will work on It.

People pay CoD for the multiplayer because well... It's CoD. FC3 is famous for It's single player, not Multi. Either way, CoD peeps pay $60 for Story Mode + Multiplayer.

SEGA went bankrupt, the end. Sure, they went bankrupt years after sega GT was released, still bankrupt = bankrupt, It's just not that smart to use them to support your ideas. Also, they've been failing since 98s with Dream Cast, they've went bankrupt for a series of things and not just bad sonic games.


they'd be able to do far more with the online to make it worth $60 a really indepth map editor, a proper coop mode and decent versus mode with maybe even more than 16 players. (tbh players is more a hardware limitation but you can hope)

yes FC is famous for single player but thats becuase its built its reputation as a single player gameby being a good one. if they were to make a good multiplayer game then maybe it'd stand a chance of building its up its reputation.

Sega were practically kept alive by Sega GT so again your bankrupt argument is irrelevant

you might as well have said the 1965 pontiac GTO is a bad business decision because pontiac went bankrupt in 2009
---
Resident GFAQS Toyota fanboi/ Drift Master
http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8429/7816538416_df717aec0a_b.jpg http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rHdriIl7VNw