BF2S Forums [Far Cry 2] Official Thread

I was just messing with the editor
the story can get fustrating at times becasue of the driving

the multi is pretty good (not cod4 good) but is well balanced

some ps3 mag gave it 74%
thats 1% less that BIA

that is an outrage

henno13 wrote:

that is an outrage

Agreed, how could they think it was that good?

SamTheMan:D wrote:

mp sucks


and whats with all the moaning about driving?

you dont have to drive that far

Yeh it's okay, and the controls are fine imo, they could  be a bit faster though ^^

^charging handle is on the wong side!!!111!! what n00b devs

Played the game for 5 mins tbh the GFX I was hoping was gonna be there with Crysis I was so so wrong and cant get the bloody thing to run full screen im stuck in window mode :S

First impressions are not good....

xRBLx wrote:

Nope gonna take this back tomorrow I think as the sound is messed up too, left and right are to sharp.
Its got one more chance on XP and thats it!

Will Farcry 2 rise to the gauntlet of xRBLx's standards?

FIND OUT IN TOMORROW'S EPISODE!!!!

It's not meant to be on the same level graphically or tech-wise as Crysis, no... Farcry 2 is made for PC and console- therefore it's more considerate towards lower-end systems and spares a bit on the graphic department. Crysis was a great benchmark for DX10, Core2Duo and top-end graphics cards, but game-wise it was terrible for anyone that couldn't enjoy the eye-candy. I think the developers of Farcry 2 were trying to avoid this scenario by making a game that was visually great... within reason.

If it's generally playing up, run it in DX9 mode. DX10 doesn't even run particularly well on my machine at 40-50fps, it just 'feels' unresponsive and there are a few engine/visual bugs. Also do all the usual troubleshooting and make sure your graphics drivers are up to date and so on. The game actually is decent so long as you're not looking for a Crysis-meets-Africa experience. Farcry has its own style and, in my opinion at least, the visuals and lighting that the engine does use are more than spectacular. The Dunia engine in general seems very respectable, great quality with no big impacts on framerate or performance. Also love the new environment-interaction, stuff that Crysis didn't even have.

Miggle wrote:

henno13 wrote:

that is an outrage

Agreed, how could they think it was that good?

gtfo

SamTheMan:D wrote:

mp sucks

yeah i heard the pc mp was fucked up
the console mp i think works well

Last edited by henno13 (2008-10-26 03:30:22)

Sydney wrote:

Anyone else having problems with vista? In XP it took 20 seconds to load, then it would just load as I go, never having to pause and stop for anything, but in vista, every 2-5 minutes I have to load for 20-40 seconds, plus quick saving will take around a minute, instead of 5 seconds, WTF?

And that's 64-bit vista, same settings as XP, DX9, vs 32-bit XP.

No problems here.

Zimmer wrote:

Sydney wrote:

Anyone else having problems with vista? In XP it took 20 seconds to load, then it would just load as I go, never having to pause and stop for anything, but in vista, every 2-5 minutes I have to load for 20-40 seconds, plus quick saving will take around a minute, instead of 5 seconds, WTF?

And that's 64-bit vista, same settings as XP, DX9, vs 32-bit XP.

No problems here.

Epic memory leak?

You basically just shouldn't talk about your personal affluence on a gaming Forum with a diverse community, some people are going to laugh at your idea of 'wealth' and others are going to envy it. Plus, it just seems all the more facetious when the topic of wealth comes up around you, because you're in fact talking about your parent's wealth- of which you have contributed nothing. Probably better for everyone to shush on the 'My daddy has a better car than your daddy' argument, doesn't really mix well with games.

OmniDeath wrote:

Other than propagating fire... what is there? At least in Crysis you could pick up objects other than weapons... (reminisces about beating the KPA with sticks)

I read somewhere that the Dunia engine has some of the most complex foliage-destruction and environment reaction in any game. Plus, the world is completely open (not like in Crysis where a huge performance-degrading rendered backdrop equalled 'open', even though it was untraversable terrain)- so technically when you destroy something or alter the state of something, it has some impact (note: keyword 'some', I realize it resets and reloads after a certain amount of time, but that's besides the point- it's still damn immersive).

Steam Store wrote:

The DUNIA engine's RealTree technology also delivers the most realistic nature deterioration system ever.

It does work too, I mean Crysis had the basics of destructible trees and foliage that brushed past you- but Farcry 2 does seem to go one part further. OK so you can't pick up random twigs or wildlife-- but honestly what was the real benefit and value of that? I much rather prefer the awesomeness of destroying a small outpost, blowing up a jeep and then watching the ensuing inferno take out much of the surrounding savannah. And do you ever notice how leaves and small branches fall off nearby trees/bushes after an explosion? Small details like that save the game from being instantly alienated because it "doesn't match up to Crysis".

Actually, from what I can see... not much is actually destructible on Farc Cry 2.

Even the shitty corregated iron shacks can't be destroyed. I find that a hellish annoyance.

Uzique wrote:

if it wasn't for the fundamental shortcomings in the game's combat (i.e. being too unwieldy and non-responsive).

When I was in the first scene in the jeep I ran the game maxed out and the movement/aiming did seem to lag a bit. Then I changed my settings so I got a minimum of 30FPS at all times even in intense combat and it seems just as responsive as any other FPS.