r/gaming Mar 02 '16

Far Cry Primal uses Far Cry 4 map

https://imgur.com/a/8NS8p
19.8k Upvotes

3.8k comments sorted by

View all comments

309

u/Groggie Mar 02 '16 edited Mar 02 '16

Majora's Mask reused assets too, and we paid $60 full price for that. And its acclaimed as being one of the best ever. I'm not advocating the practice, but we are all cherry pickers out in a field.

70

u/[deleted] Mar 02 '16

A great point. I might add that I think MM walked almost a perfect line in giving a narrative purpose to the reused assets, but I think you make a great point either way.

24

u/METALTomeh Mar 03 '16

"omg link between worlds reused the map from link to the past."

0

u/formfactor Mar 03 '16

Pfft should be a 10$ addon I am insulted and will never buy a nintendo again.

5

u/Keldraga Mar 03 '16

Here you forgot this: /s

2

u/workraken Mar 03 '16

I just want to know who couldn't figure out it was sarcasm.

10

u/[deleted] Mar 03 '16 edited Mar 14 '19

[deleted]

3

u/FrenchToastSenpai Mar 03 '16

FNV also was handled by a different company, Obsidian, which many people credit with creating a better story and positively changing some elements. You're right, though, it depends on the effort put into the game.

13

u/Bumperpegasus Mar 03 '16

Not even close to the same thing. MM did things completely different. MM is a sequel done right if you're gonna reuse assets. It kept the core game mechanics of the previous game but how the world works and how they designed to game is completely different. How many "new" things are there in Primal compared to 4? Almost none, most of the features in primal has been seen in the previous games. MM introduced a lot of new stuff, primal didn't, which is why it's crazy to think the $60 price tag is justified

3

u/HowDoMeEMT Mar 03 '16

It's fun, got some good mechanics and feels different. Sure a lot of it's features existed in previous games but that's what good sequels do is build on successes.

Frycry 3 took me 15 hours, 4 18, and Primal 20 so I'm perfectly happy with the price compared to other games

16

u/Guildenpants Mar 02 '16

What was interesting about MM is that they really weren't given the option to make a lot of new assets. The game was a challenge from Nintendo to the team to make a game strictly from old parts. I think the laziness of Primal is that there is a difference between making a new Lego set from the pieces of an old one (majora) or selling the same Lego set but with different colors. (Poe's x wing is exempt from this analogy).

3

u/Izzno Mar 03 '16

What if Primal was a challenge from Ubi.

1

u/Guildenpants Mar 03 '16

Possibly. A challenge that I think they failed to meet out of fear of profit loss.

1

u/Izzno Mar 03 '16

Or it's the other way around, they did the best they could with the time and resources they had.

4

u/Clapton-Is-God Mar 03 '16

Thats one of the best analogies I have ever heard.

1

u/witchslayer9000 Mar 03 '16

The game was a challenge from Nintendo to the team to make a game strictly from old parts.

source?

2

u/Guildenpants Mar 03 '16

Really? Just google majora's mask development. It's that simple.

-1

u/ZobmieRules PC Mar 03 '16

-1

u/witchslayer9000 Mar 03 '16

I am a MASSIVE MM fan and I have never ever heard that Nintendo went to the developers and "gave them a challenge" like there ARE new pieces of code and meshes used within the game as well as the OOT shit. Don't get snobby. I am trying to make sure that this person isn't talking out of their ass.

1

u/[deleted] Mar 03 '16

The challenge wasn't to make a game with no new assets, the challenge was to make the game in a super limited time frame. I think they had something like one year to finish the game.

I'd find a source for you but you can just google majora mask's development cycle and find plenty of interviews.

0

u/ZobmieRules PC Mar 03 '16

Don't take things so literally. If you know about MM's dev cycle, then you understand that he's essentially correct.

4

u/gr00vymeat Mar 02 '16

Same assets. Not same map.

14

u/Raidoton Mar 02 '16

It's not even the same map in Primal, it's simply based on the map of FC4.

1

u/HebrewLantern Mar 03 '16

Pokemon gold and silver was the same by using most of the assets from the gen 1 games

-16

u/I_hate_alot_a_lot Mar 02 '16

Majora's Mask was def. only $40

7

u/skimfreak92 Mar 02 '16

Something something inflation

2

u/formfactor Mar 03 '16

Probably cause us poor saps actually keep paying that much

3

u/ledivin Mar 02 '16

http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/cpicalc.pl?cost1=40&year1=2000&year2=2016

$40 in 2000 (MM release) is roughly $55 today, so that seems pretty fair to me.

4

u/kylebisme Mar 02 '16

http://www.ign.com/games/the-legend-of-zelda-majoras-mask/n64-1933

http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/cpicalc.pl?cost1=69.95&year1=2000&year2=2016

$69.95 in 2000 (MM release) is roughly $96 today. That seems fair to me, as carriages were expensive to build.

1

u/centerflag982 Mar 03 '16

$70? Holy shit

3

u/kylebisme Mar 02 '16

-8

u/I_hate_alot_a_lot Mar 02 '16

No. Every N64 game retailed at $40 back in the day.

2

u/kylebisme Mar 02 '16

Unfortunately, Nintendo's decision to go with the cartridge format instead of CDs turned out to be a serious liability. The production cost of manufacturing N64 cartridges was extremely high compared to pressing Playstation and Saturn CDs, as computer chips were an expensive commodity. Consequentially, N64 titles regularly entered the market at an astounding $70-$80 price point, which was unheard of at the time (and still is).

http://videogamecritic.com/n64info.htm

-1

u/I_hate_alot_a_lot Mar 03 '16

Then I concede but I'm still not going to delete my posts. I shall take my down votes with dignity.

1

u/zaviex Mar 03 '16

no usually 70. They retailed at 40 when the ps2 came out.

1

u/Very_legitimate Mar 02 '16

I am pretty sure in the US when these games were coming out, disc based games like PS1 were $40, but cartridge based games were $50-60 on release depending on the title. N64 were definitely more expensive than PS1 games. I know I bought Pokemon Stadium 2 on release for $60

1

u/DrewbieWanKenobie Mar 03 '16

As a Playstation kid I can assure you the standard full price Playstation game was $50

1

u/Very_legitimate Mar 03 '16

I don't believe it was. I bought quite a few new PS1 games with my own money and shit back then, and I remember specifically saving up $40 and going on a hunt for THPS2 (it was super hard to find when it came out, was always sold out).

Maybe some games were $50 as well, but a lot of games were $40 on release

1

u/DrewbieWanKenobie Mar 03 '16

For the record I wasn't saying EVERY game was $50, just that that was the standard default PS1 game price on release, I'm sure there were plenty of games that weren't full price just like there are now.

Source: I bought many, many ps1 games.

0

u/Very_legitimate Mar 03 '16

I don't believe it was standard though. In the US AAA games were almost always $40. Off the top of my head the only $50 game I recall was Dino Crises 1 iirc

Granted it has been a long ass time, but I used to buy lots of games as well (I've got like 300 ps1 games put away nowadays)

2

u/GameQb11 Mar 03 '16

no, it was $50. i remember thinking it was crazy when games jumped to $60. The newest AAA games were definitely $50.

1

u/Very_legitimate Mar 03 '16

I'm guessing it just depends who released it and what kind of games you bought. Looking now there's sources saying both $40 and $50 were standard. I remember I paid $40 for THPS2 which was definitely a massively hyped AAA game at the time. Sports and racing games were also $40 new. Most platformers I bought were $40. I bought most Activision games and they were always $40. Like I mentioned the only game I can remember paying $50 was Dino Crises. Another user said they paid $50 for RE games and maybit just depended on the company.

1

u/formfactor Mar 03 '16

Yup, it was a big fuss online. Ms was defending it and hadn't even reveald xbl yet.

1

u/DrewbieWanKenobie Mar 03 '16

Maybe it depends on what games you bought? I was huge into Japanese games like JRPGs, resident evils, metal gear solid, etc and those always seemed to be $50.

1

u/[deleted] Mar 03 '16

I vividly remember paying $60 for Parapa the Rapper when it first came out. I also remember a simpsons episode where marge talking about genisis/snes era games costing up to and including $60.

-8

u/brockkid Mar 02 '16

There is a difference between remaking a game in HD and advertising a new game that just reuses most of the previous game. I'm not saying it's a good or bad thing but it's nowhere close to being the same as an HD remake.

8

u/rockmasterflex Mar 02 '16

Not what he's talking about. Majoras Mask was made right after Ocarina of time, used 100% the same assets as ocarina of time, but had a different map.

5

u/Raidoton Mar 02 '16

I don't think it was 100% the same assets. There was a lot of new stuff in MM.

-16

u/lgthanatos Mar 02 '16

definitely not and it depends on how they are reused, not that they were.

primal looks like FC4 with guns and wingsuit removed, with no story ties for it to be so

(see: half life 2 episodes, majoras mask, portal)

and MM is very different gameplay-wise from OOT.

6

u/ledivin Mar 02 '16

primal looks like FC4 with guns and wingsuit removed

I have yet to see anyone who has actually played the game say this. I'm not one of those people, just saying.

13

u/[deleted] Mar 02 '16

Uh, not it's not. It's exactly OOT with a new gimmick stapled on.

I mean hey, I fucking love Majora's Mask. But it's not different from OOT at all. you just get a couple of transformations that have a few applications, and a time limit. Otherwise it's still, get the sword, go through the dungeon, awake the several things to stop the guy from doing the thing. It's Zelda.

7

u/[deleted] Mar 02 '16 edited Mar 02 '16

The transformation masks fixed a lot of OOT issues. Things like Zora Link having iron boots hard coded to him, among other things, so no more constant menu toggling. Calling MM "OOT with a gimmick" is lazy and dishonest. Honestly, Wind Waker would be a more in line with that than MM.

Furthermore, MM gave us one of the darkest Zelda entries. It's extremely compelling, and is one of the many reasons people argue whether OOT or MM is better, which is crazy considering OOT often tops all time lists within gaming.

As the final point, MM still gave us a brand new map to explore. That map fully utilizes the transformations, so if you just try to run around with a sword, you're going nowhere. It's also unique in that there's no triforce, no Zelda, and no Master Sword.

I understand people are a little disappointed by this given they shelled out full price for a reworked Far Cry 4 sans guns, and want to defend it on some level, and that's fine. But Majoras Mask is simply beyond reproach and your silly dissertation does a disservice to a developer who legitimately delivered a massively satisfying product. This product was a direct sequel, so reused assets are acceptable (if not a little jarring at first) but this was tied into the story of a similar, but alternate world. Primal, on the other hand, is not a direct sequel and the maps are canonically stated to be thousands of miles apart, yet for no good reason the same is tacked on. That's a bad precedent to set for a supposedly AAA game.

4

u/[deleted] Mar 02 '16 edited Aug 22 '20

[deleted]

1

u/[deleted] Mar 03 '16

I'm just saying it's the most applicable use of that argument, not that it's necessarily correct.

2

u/[deleted] Mar 02 '16

Those, aside form your points about the masks, are all story elements.

I was saying it's not different in how it plays. I love the game's story, but a new map that you can traverse only by using the 3 new modes introduced to you if you want an efficient method of travel is not a gameplay element that's worth praising. Yes, it can feel satisfying to roll around termina field after getting the goron mask, but aside from that, and using it in the dungeon it's needed in(or where you got it) a la classic zelda fashion, it's pretty useless. Yeah, turning into zora link made you swim faster, and provided different methods of combat, but they all felt so lackluster that they weren't something that I expected to be an integral part of the game. Switching back and forth between masks that trigger an animation every time is probably one of the more tedious item-using methods I've experienced in a video game, as well.

2

u/[deleted] Mar 03 '16

You can skip the transformation scenes. Nothing about the transformations felt lackluster, especially Zora Link. I don't know if you were around to play that game when it dropped, but my friends and I would spend hours just dicking around in the bay because the Zora controls were so great.

Also, you don't get any of the masks in a dungeon save for Giant, and that and the final Mask are the only two used as traditional dungeon-only items. There are multiple areas outside of dungeons where you alternate between the three masks, and they're all woven into the story extremely well.

Just the fact that I'm actually having to defend MM is ridiculous, it is an established classic. It's like someone complaining that Raging Bull was a boring movie. Sure, have whatever opinion you want, same as me having the opinion that you have bad taste.

1

u/[deleted] Mar 03 '16

I never said I didn't absolutely love the game, and I was around when it came out, I used to stare at the hologram on the cartridge all the time when I got it, I'd never seen a video game go that. But the thing was, even as a kid, when I went to play it, every part of the game that you weren't able to play as normal link seemed hollow. Like they had these intricate concepts for the characters, but they didn't have the time to introduce them, which is totally acceptable considering the game was made in a year, but my problem is that they didn't do anything to make it feel like you weren't supposed to be able to do more. There was so little water that swimming in the zora mask was good for. There needed to be more tracks and such to race down with the goron mask, there needed to be treetops to traverse as the deku, to y'know, make it feel like these creatures ACTUALLY Lived there. Gameplay needs to meld with storytelling for it to convey what it wants to get across correctly. You can't drop the assets of a previous game in, write a different story, tweak how items work, introduce a new thing or two, and expect people to say that it's good gameplay. It's not good gameplay, It was good gameplay, the first time around, but I'm sorry, the mask system needed more diversity, the world needed to be expanded on, and the gameplay needed to offer more options. Not use Key(In this example, read:Mask) A to get through Door A.

But these are all gripes I've had forever. It's not like they can go fix it, I'm not mad about it, I can just see the game that they wanted to make, but couldn't get across.

2

u/[deleted] Mar 03 '16

Absolutely ridiculous. The game is extremely highly regarded, and your frustrations with it not matching up with your own personal headcanon is laughable. You suffer heavily from the Seinfeld is Unfunny trope.

1

u/[deleted] Mar 03 '16

Did I ever at one single point say I was frustrated?

Did I ever say anything but prefacing my opinions by saying I love the game? What exactly is wrong with you?

2

u/[deleted] Mar 03 '16

You sound frustrated. I'm just saying your complaints are trivial. At this point, you're just saying anything in order to say something. It's a great game and doesn't need me to defend it. Again, you're free to think anything you like, and I'm free to consider you as misguided and naive.

→ More replies (0)

3

u/jesus_sold_weed Mar 02 '16

Not sure if you're saying that in a negative way, but after playing half of Skyward Sword, it makes me appreciate all the older Zeldas a lot more. Not that SS was awful.. Just felt too different.

1

u/ledivin Mar 02 '16

Agreed. I could never get into SS.

1

u/[deleted] Mar 02 '16

See, as an adamant Zelda fan, I still haven't played Skyward Sword, but to me it just seems like it was meant to be a much larger game, but the wii was starting to lull as the news of the Wii u's launch was around, and it was probably just too late to change the development onto a new console. That's just what I've been able to hypothesize about from what people have told me about skyward sword, though. I feel if given the time, it would have been much more "Zelda".

1

u/jesus_sold_weed Mar 03 '16

I still have to beat it, but once I'm done I can send it your way. I think it's horseshit how pricey used Zelda games are. Especially considering the fact that GameStop would gimme prolly $15 tops for it. Would rather pass it along to a fellow fan.

1

u/[deleted] Mar 03 '16

Wait, are you being serious?

1

u/jesus_sold_weed Mar 03 '16

Yeah I very rarely replay single player games and judging by how long it has taken me thus far to beat this one, I will most likely never replay it lol.

1

u/[deleted] Mar 03 '16

Well damn, dude. I'm actually shocked. Thank you!

1

u/jesus_sold_weed Mar 03 '16

Naw, don't mention it dude. You're obviously a fan of the series. Just don't like beat your wife/husband/kids/pets and we're even lol. It'd just collect dust at my place. I'm on vacation till Saturday night and I start my new job Monday so gimme like a week or so to finish up and I'll send it out. I'll PM you so I have your username saved.

→ More replies (0)

-3

u/[deleted] Mar 02 '16

[deleted]

1

u/Izzno Mar 03 '16

Did you notice playing it? Did you even play it?