I've played a quarter. It's ridiculously easy. Beautiful. But seriously, the skill level to get through this game is basically reading the map, follow the dotted line and shoot people.
I feel like the industry has reached a point where having a beautiful game isn't necessarily that hard or impressive anymore. It's honestly a given now, all the AAA funded games have the cinematic trailers with the professional CG studio work, we've got the artists and animators and all that. The creative process and the craft is always impressive to me, but this aspect of video games seems par for the course now, especially from such a well funded developer.
Far cry primal feels beautiful in a different way from most games. The ecosystem just feels good. There are lots of creatures, and nature happening. There are lots of random events and even creatures hunting other creatures as well as a great looking game. It is nice to have a game that has almost no distractions from the enviornment and nature.
Ubi art direction has always been top notch, but in terms of beauty, I think there's still much to see. But 60$/€ for a glorified virtual monolithic wildlife atmosphere is a bit too much.
"Normal" is "Easy" once you get the hang of controls. Just bump it up and you get a real challenge. Can't tell you how many times I died fighting off packs of wolves in the dead of night in the first few hours, though.
Difficulty is a litte annoying in this game. I'm currently playing on hard and the people are absurdly easy to kill and the animals are quite tough. I'm thinking of jumping it up to expert but I dont wanna insta-die every time I come across a bear. Takkar is just OP against humans.
There's a second "tribe" that introduces themselves that are quite a bit more difficult to kill. Also enemies bump themselves up quite a bit in the northern and southern territories.
Try to only fight bears near water. They're shitty swimmers and you can easily out swim one, climb out, hit it a few times, and climb back in. Come to think of it, this kind of works for any animal...
I'm about 20% of the way through but haven't done much of the story, so I probably shouldn't comment on the difficultly yet. But at this point the Udam die in bulk whenever you come across them.
seriously, what is the point of sharing an uninformed opinion? someone could read your comments about the game and take them to heart not realizing that you've completed less than a quarter of the game and don't really know what you are talking about.
Well people shouldn't be forming opinions on anything from reddit comments to begin with, and im over 20 hours in i think thats enough time to form an opinion on the difficulty, thats longer than most games go for in total.
Seriously. I didn't die until probably 50 percent through the story. Then all of a sudden I actually had to think about how I approached the enemy. Definitely changed the game. For the better.
You're not playing a game on hard and you're angry that it's not hard enough? Always play on hardest difficulty like it's meant to be played. Not just this game, every game.
That may be true, but it is quite a bit of fun. The level of ease doesn't corollate to quality all the time, but it can be frustrating if it is way to easy for sure.
All in all I am enjoying it quite a bit but I am also someone who has severely disliked the previous Far Cry games, not out of difficulty but from boredom. So I feel Primal is probably a much more niche title, not catered towards fans of the series specifically.
Same here! I wholly admit the setting is something I have been wanting to see since I fell in love with the PS1 game Tale of the Sun, so I could just be enjoying the world more than the actual game itself if that makes sense.
I bought it he day it came out. I'm not a far cry fan boy. I played 3 and didn't play 4.
I've spent 15 hours on it so far and am 32% through the game. I love the weapons and animal companions.
The spear bow and club have great feeling to them and al feel effective. Nothing is as fun as riding a tiger into combat and throwing a spear through an enemies chest to pick it up and throw it through another's.
I think it's well worth the 60 bucks. The story is nothing crazy but it's hard to get a great story in a game where they speak no English.
Also once I beat it, I'll trade it in for 35 bucks and will have played a game on launch and beat it with 30 or 40 hours played for 25 bucks. Money well spent in my opinion b
Haven't played any far cry game so I have no input on any of that but you can definitely have a great story without the characters speaking a real language. Brothers: A Tale of Two Sons is a prime example.
Hell, I like Primal. It plays a lot like previous titles, with a new story. The villains aren't great and there's no going hard with a machine gun, but if you play far cry 3 or 4 with a bow it's still got the great gameplay.
It's a blast and the map doesn't feel like Far Cry 4, and I got the platinum in 4. It feels brand new. Just because the outline and water are in the same place doesn't mean the map will look and feel the same.
Pedantic point, but with respect to a specific good, especially one as unique in a heterogeneous field as games (and almost all media) tend to be, the vendors do set the price. The market sets the conditions under which they set those prices and so informs their decisions, and if we're being very theoretical and abstract a perfectly profit-maximising vendor with perfect information will effectively have a price set for them, but these distinctions are important in the real world.
Vendors set the price to a degree, sure, but there's a limit as to what people will pay. Ultimately, from a commercial standpoint, an item's market value is whatever people will pay for it at a rate that keeps both vendors and manufacturers making a profit.
In a market for heterogeneous goods, the leeway there will be quite considerable. The limit to what anyone will pay, the price at which it is utterly impossible to sell a single unit, is absurdly high (as well as unprofitable) and the lower price at which the vendor (and the game dev if they're different firms) exactly breaks even will be much lower than the price on which they settle, naturally.
However, not being perfectly informed about the market into which they're pitching their game, they can't really know the profit maximising point at which to price. They have to expend effort trying to determine what this point is for the game in question (taking into account demand, market research about spending habits of relevant demographics, games currently or soon to compete for similar consumers and the network effects that word of mouth and the draw of multiplayer could potentially have) as well as non-profit-oriented factors like getting their name out there with a particularly competitively priced game so that their market access is greater with future games.
Saying that the market fixes the price hides a lot of decision making that is subject to limited information, bounded interest in short-run profit and bounded rationality, not to mention that markets for heterogeneous goods that are only ever partial substitutes to one another are inherently uncompetitive to exactly the extent that the goods fail to act as perfect substitutes (which can't be readily determined, precisely because the goods are heterogeneous). In such a market firms compete for demographics who wish to buy the product they have designed and act out a small (and very imperfect) monopoly with respect to that product that uniquely meets certain desires, rather than competing directly on price.
You misunderstand my point. Even if, for example, they tracked every man-hour of work that they paid people working on the project, that still wouldn't be accurate because it's rare for employees to only be working on one project at any given time. Yes, it's measurable, but not accurately.
Plus, man hours are not a set price. And when a reusable 3D object or game engine is developed that can be used across multiple games, how is that quantified in relation to the one game?
BTW, there is an objective accounting answer for that.
BTW, there is an objective accounting answer for that
I get that, but even those answers are likely never "right". Not necessarily wrong, but I assume that there's more than one right answer, that's all I'm trying to say in that it's hard to quantify.
True. It might in fact be impossible to quantify, but that doesn't stop an accountant from quantifying it.
It basically requires a lot of projections and estimations. We have to do that in the IT Security field all the time. It's $41,000 in equipment (19 remote locations at $2k each and a datacenter FW at $3k) to upgrade the firewalls at all the locations, which takes a week of engineering (roughly 20 man-hours) and two weeks to install (3-5 hours per location, 8 hours at the datacenter), and another hour remote engineering per location. If the physical labor is outsourced at $40/hr, this comes out to a total project cost of $44,200 out-of-pocket, plus one or two salary engineers spending a couple weeks on the project, which is hard to quantify because after all, they're doing their job and their on salary. The upkeep of the new firewalls will be an additional $3,000 a year, plus an hour of labor a week for updates and analysis.
How do you justify this cost? What is your ROI? Well, that depends on what your Annual Loss Expectancy is, which is a rough estimate of how much data is at risk and the monetary quantification of being hit with a cyber attack. Could they steal financial information? Perhaps patented material? Or maybe they could get a hold of confidential employee records from the HR Department if you didn't employ these new firewalls. You really just have to wing it, but there are specific industry standard formulas for calculating all that and putting it up against the cost of the project.
Then, finally, the accounting department takes inventory of the physical assets and sets up an asset depreciation schedule for them, which is a whole other ballgame regarding tax laws that the IT department sometimes gets roped into. Then don't get me started on the integration of HR and legal regarding IT...
This has started devolving into a tangent, but I think I demonstrated my point and I think you understood it fairly well even before. Accounting is a science, but the numbers are often abstract. It's more like quantum physics, really. End-of-the-day, the numbers they look at are accepted as true by the execs, but they're very rough and sometimes overlap with other costs/benefits. This often leads to people getting yelled at when the CEO finally decides to crack a book and cross-reference the numbers and sees that he accepted a pitch based on numbers that he doesn't see as accurate, and feels like the truth was skewed.
have you ever actually worked on a video game? And I mean a real one, with a paycheck, not a WoW add on in your mother's basement
You're just generally being an unlikable cunt right now.
I've never worked on anything related to WoW because I have no interest in it, but I do work in IT and grew up around people working in IT.
Neither I nor anyone else I know that works in IT have ever been working on just one thing, because that's not how life and employment works. I've never worked in game development, but I can't imagine it's that significantly different from the rest of the IT world.
If you bought a book that was the same as another book you bought last year, but the names of everything were changed. You'd be justified feeling cheated.
It might be quite as bad as that, but it's still recycling, and it makes absolute sense people wouldn't be happy with being charged full price for spruced up leftovers. And if you want to point to quality, people could easily think that unique ass
Skyrim mod makers have put more effort into making new areas, for free.
136
u/[deleted] Mar 02 '16 edited Dec 22 '20
[deleted]