As we’ve already reported, Far Cry 5 looks and runs incredibly well on the PC platform. However, it appears that the game’s physics have been severely downscaled compared to Far Cry 2; a game that was released ten years ago on platforms that should – theoretically – be less powerful than current-gen systems.
YouTube’s ‘Crowbcat’ has shared a comparison video and right from the start we can see that the fire effects look actually better in Far Cry 2. In Far Cry 2, both the grass and the tree leaves get burned whereas in Far Cry 5 everything all assets remain the same.
In Far Cry 5, only the tall grass is bendable. In Far Cry 2, however, players can bend lots of bushes. Not only that, but players can also cut the trees by shooting at them, something that is not happening at all in Far Cry 5. Far Cry 2 feels more like a better version of Crysis – regarding physics – whereas Far Cry 5 feels less interactive. Explosions from grenades are not that wow-ish, players can’t destroy wooden shacks. Moreover, while driving, you can bend bushes and completely cut them if you are driving fast in Far Cry 2. In Far Cry 5, all bushes are completely destroyed as soon as your car touches them.
Environmental destruction is also limited in Far Cry 5. Players can’t destroy lights like they did in Far Cry 2 and its grass behaves almost similarly to NVIDIA’s Turf Effects. Yeap, while NVIDIA is offering a nice effect, a similar effect was achieved in Far Cry 2 without requiring such a library.
God rays are also more pronounced in Far Cry 2, though this could be a simple artistic choice and nothing more. The cloud technology, on the other hand, is way better in Far Cry 2 (though we should note that there are some cloud shadows in Far Cry 5 that are not present in Far Cry 2). Cars also get dirtier in Far Cry 2 the longer you drive them.
Now this does not mean that visually Far Cry 2 looks better. Far Cry 5 has way richer environments, better textures, more detailed characters and more. However, it does appear that Far Cry 2 is more advanced in some areas than Far Cry 5. I mean seriously, there is no excuse for the cloud dowgrade. Or should I say it pays more attention to smaller details. Ironically, both of these games use the Dunia Engine (though Far Cry 5 uses a newer version of it that should, theoretically, be able to offer more advanced features than those in Far Cry 2).
John is the founder and Editor in Chief at DSOGaming. He is a PC gaming fan and highly supports the modding and indie communities. Before creating DSOGaming, John worked on numerous gaming websites. While he is a die-hard PC gamer, his gaming roots can be found on consoles. John loved – and still does – the 16-bit consoles, and considers SNES to be one of the best consoles. Still, the PC platform won him over consoles. That was mainly due to 3DFX and its iconic dedicated 3D accelerator graphics card, Voodoo 2. John has also written a higher degree thesis on the “The Evolution of PC graphics cards.”
Contact: Email
Despite being repetetive Far Cry 2 it’s imho still best game out of series. Whole open gameplay structure is simillar to immersive sims like Deus Ex.
If only Ubisoft released a patch fixing those pitiful outpost mechanics…
There is a mod that make outpost less anoying, by removing powerful AR and shotgun from their weaponary.
I’d just want the enemies to stop spawning in the areas around the captured outposts.
They cant be fixed, enemies spawn along with the levels. The engine streams new areas as you get to them.
Far Cry 5 feels like a soul-less game. The story and narrative is utter rubbish, and while the world looks realistic-ish, The way the villians whisk you away randomly in such a contrived manner shows the amount of effort they put in. I prefer the vibrant alive world of FC4.
Ofc. FC2 has better physics, the foliage doesn’t react to players in FC5 and that to me is the biggest downgrade.
I think the story falls flat in many ways in Far Cry 5, but the way they developed and built the world and the atmosphere they created with all of Dan Romer’s music REALLY drew me into the game. I have always enjoyed Far Cry games and was disappointed with 5’s previews because it looked identical, but actually playing it is a whole different story. It’s kept me very immersed and entertained. Other than the story not living up to the atmosphere they build, I have no complaints. I don’t see much of a difference in effect on gameplay with the so-called “physics” downgrades. This game looks fantastic and to every reluctant Ubisoft fan’s surprise, runs just as great.
I like that it has the far cry primal style of “go anywhere you want” and you can unlock every perk, also dogfights, but other than that its meh.
Blame consoles and their weak CPUs.
Far Cry 2 was on a console with an even weaker CPU though.
Last Gen the GPU was the bottleneck on consoles (especially the PS3), this gen the CPU is the bottleneck. The performance difference between last gen CPUs and current gen CPUs in consoles is pretty low while the performance difference between last gen GPUs and current gen GPUs was high and now even higher with PS4 Pro and Xbox One X.
I was reading that the PS3 CPU might even be stronger then what’s in the PS4 but obviously hardware to use
With that username you should know!
LOL 🙂
You’re comparing CELL to x86. Apples and oranges. Although the sam eprogramming languages are used, the difference is how the engine interacts with the hardware and the parallel nature of CELL uArch vs pretty much any x86 uArch are vastly different.
PS5 is supposed to use x86 again, and this time the rumor mill has started with Zen+Semi-CustomNavi Unit. Zen > Jaguar.
Hoping it’s zen and not something like a weaker core they really need to do a balanced approach.
I’ll get beat on for saying this but IMHO graphics only matter so much i would rather see more detail in animations more advanced AI and more immersive and believable worlds
Even IBM’s Power8, which CELL is derived from, is a decent uArch when sized appropriately. x86 is simply more generalized, which can affect performance negatively (albeit the consoles issues is that they’re simply very weak due to low TDP requirements which may be “fixed” with Zen uArch). The main benefit of x86 in consoles is utilizing low level API’s and “easy” Porting to PC.
I’m usually a mechanics > graphics however graphics can have a huge impact in games like fast paced, and even more slow paced sim style shooters. Easier to pick out targets, or even harder for the sake of camo and the like. Its become ever more important as time has progressed, just as long as graphics aren’t blown up to tank FPS. Animations, Advanced AI and immersive worlds I agree with.
That and this gen being lead by the mobile model and MTXs bringing billions in profits, the poor starving publishers. R&D has inched its way along this gen vs all other gens because no need when money pours in from the idiots anyways.
Indeed. It speaks volumes for this console generation that PS4 has been so often mocked for its great number of ‘remastered’ PS2 and PS3 games – many of which still run at the same pitiful 30fps frame-rate. As for Microsoft’s folly, then seemingly the most lauded feature of Xbone by its fanboys (excluding Kinect 2.0 which they now like to forget ever happened) has been Xbox 360 backward compatibility.
what is an MTX?
Precisely. Remember the candid words of an Ubisoft senior producer back in 2014 when discussing the current-gen consoles,
“Technically we’re CPU-bound. The GPUs are really powerful, obviously the graphics look pretty good, but it’s the CPU [that] has to process the AI, the number of NPCs we have on screen, all these systems running in parallel.
We were quickly bottlenecked by that and it was a bit frustrating, because we thought that this was going to be a tenfold improvement over everything AI-wise, and we realised it was going to be pretty hard.
It’s not the number of polygons that affect the framerate. We could be running at 100fps if it was just graphics, but because of AI, we’re still limited to 30 frames per second.”
What AI? Half-Life has an incredibly advanced AI that even looks futuristic compared to controller-centric shooters.
He was talking in the aftermath of Assassin’s Creed: Unity running so abysmally on consoles even with it running at sub-1080p, lowered video settings and a 30fps cap. Ubisoft subsequently scaled back on the ambition of the franchise’s subsequent games insofar as CPU-dependent features were concerned. Perhaps the most obvious instance to note having been the massive reduction in the number of on-screen NPCs.
a 1998 game has a more complex AI than modern shooters. I highly doubt the modern CPUs can cause bottlenecks when handling enemies behaviour, because they are very simple (just cover and shoot)
That’ll be why most corridor shooters and the simplest racing games on console target 60fps while games that are more demanding on the dire mobile-oriented CPU, e.g. open world games, are pretty much all capped to 30fps.
Also remember that the cheap design of these consoles necessitates them sharing bandwidth between CPU and GPU. Sony and Microsoft would appear to believe that console gamers are more interested in hardware pushing shiny graphics than anything else. They ever messed that up too because some corridor shooters, e.g. CoD and Battlefield, don’t even manage 1080p on Xbone.
And yet the ironic thing is the GTX 1070 can beat the XB1X with less memory bandwidth and a not so wider memory bus. I wonder how much memory bandwidth the XB1X GPU can actually use, because it simply can’t use that full 326Gb/s when the GTX 1070 is beating it or even matching it. We alos know that 1080p is more CPU bound so that’s the reason the consoles struggle to do 60fps.
How is that ironic? Of course the 1070 can.
Because the xbots are claiming the memory bandwidth is more than a GTX 1080, yet can’t beat a GTX 1070 in 4K, plus they forget the GTX 1080 has GDDR5X memory and both have a 256bit bus.
Not the behaviour, no. But the number of NPCs can seriously drag you down, naturally. Keep in mind they are all taking in the player’s movements and calculating paths all the time.
It’s easier to blame something you can think of about one individual game while seemingly forgetting that every other game of real ambition on these CPU-crippled consoles these past +4 years has been similarly challenged. At least you’ve been more imaginative that the usual recourse of the wilfully blind console fanboy: ‘Lazy devs!’.
oh, so that explains the way the GTA IV still better than the GTA V in some cases, like cops AI and enviroment physics.
I don’t remember much about GTA IV, sorry. Was its AI and other CPU-dependent aspects in some cases more advanced than GTA V, then? The heists in GTA V would require some CPU power to execute, for example.
You’re welcome. I was once a console-only gamer myself several years ago so do have an appreciation of both sides of the fence, so to speak. I realised in early 2012, i.e. well over a year before PS4 and Xbone launched, that both consoles would likely be extremely limited so I made the switch to PC as my primary gaming platform while also buying a Wii U so to play Nintendo’s great games.
When PS4 and Xbone duly arrived they were even more underwhelming than I’d been expecting. Sony had gone from being a console hardware manufacturer using capable and innovative bespoke custom chips in the PlayStation consoles to that of buying little more than mid-range off the shelf PC components from AMD. To have a mobile-oriented CPU is a PlayStation console after what they’d done previously was an embarrassment, imo.
If PC gaming was still the un-user-friendly experience it was prior to Windows 7 and the unifying force that is Steam then I don’t doubt that consoles would still be seen as king by many gamers. While consoles have seemingly gone backwards and have embraced some of the perceived negatives of the PC experience without many of the positives then they’re slipping further behind day by day. That Sony released a mid-gen new PS4 and were quite open about the fact they did so due to how obsolete PS4 appeared relative to PC was a significant moment, imo.
It’ll be interesting to note the direction Sony (and Microsoft) take with PS5 and Nextbox. I saw it mentioned elsewhere that there’s been a huge shift during this console generation towards console gamers buying games from digital storefronts (PSN/XBL) instead of from bricks and mortar stores. Both companies have both spent huge amounts of money on cloud gaming infrastructure and Sony already has PlayStation Now on PC so it wouldn’t surprise me if the form factor of future consoles becomes that of digital set-top boxes where games are streamed a la OnLive and PS Now. With global internet infrastructure not being ready for that quite yet then I suspect PS5 will be another traditional console with further online integration while PS6 will herald the shift to something different like the aforementioned set-top boxes.
Am i the only one who thinks far cry 5 ai is a downgrade?
Clearly not! View that video for starters.
We have been saying this since 2013 but console fanboys didnt listen. They thought “the power of the cloud” and “8gb vram” will beat pcs.
Yea no thats factually incorrect. AI does not affect framerate, period. There’s literally no possible way it could affect framerate.
You’re saying that Ubisoft’s senior producer was factually incorrect? So a game featuring extremely complex AI that places a real strain on CPU resources cannot in any way harm frame-rate, in your opinion? Including on these current-gen consoles with their unified architecture and consequent bandwidth contention issues.
Please stop man, you don’t know anything.
I could say blame lazy devs.
You could and you did!
I want my physics pack now!
I wouldnt really blame consoles, i blame the fact that devs nowdays are lazy, they constantly use tricks like this to cut turns and make shortcuts. Far cry 2 was a game that really cared about the little details, there is one he forgot to put in the video, rockets dont explode if you fire them at your feet. I think the problem is nowdays everything is streamlined as far as production goes. They just fart games out without putting any effort into them. When watchdogs came out, it did not even future any dirt sprites when you shoot the ground.
Take a look at max payne 3. No destruction, no damage particles when you shoot the walls, simplistic bullet trails, no slow mo gun sounds. Its pathetic compared to max payne 1.
man, of course, i wish and hope the ps5 will, as sony did with all consoles, have its bandwidth multiplied by 10, so we can go from a 1.7 to 17 tfops (ps4) to 4.2 to 42tflops (ps4pro)
if we can have like 20 tflops, it will roughly be 5 times a ps4pro.
since th first Playstation, they always x10 the flops. why should it be different this time around ?
ok ok, on pc, at 4k with max texture quality and AA, it must look absolutely sumptuous.
but when i grab an helicopter, on my ps4 pro, and take off, and there are all those trees and shadows, great textures, etc, or when I’m inside a building, with tons of 3d objects, or I’m fighting against 10 guys, with a ton of action at once, and the AA is working so well, that there is ZERO aliasing, everything looks crisp, not really that far from photo realism, i have to say bravo.
just look at a house/warehouse interior, on far cry 5… and then, just remember how fallout 4 interiors used to look like : yeah, it’s like watching a dvd screener… and then, watching the 4k version.
of course, graphics will always LOOK better, it’s normal. if the planet is still rotating, in 20 years, just imagine how games will look like, with hardware probably 1000 times more powerful than todays computers/components. the day they can replace silicium, copper, etc, by some new nano materials , etc, we’re going to look at our ssds, titans, ddr5s, 28 cores cpus, etc etc.. and we’re going to laugh..laugh….
what i predict : a ps5 console, for 2020-21, as a ‘cheap’ 8k video player, with 4k60fps gaming upscalled to 8k. with the first 8k tvs already for sale, it’s a matter of 2-3 years before people start buying them, the next big thing. the ps4 pro can do 4k checkerboard, the x1x can do 4k with some limitations, no way sony will release another ‘can also do 4k’ console. it will have to do more than that. and that is ‘8k’ video.
so yeah, far cry could look much better… but what we already get, on our consoles, is pretty amazing.
That’s not how math works. Especially not in computing.
Developer laziness I guess. We’ve come a long way in CPU and GPU performance from FC2. Gamers are using more RAM as well. FC5 should be superior to FC2. I’m not sure if we can even blame this on consoles. Back in 2008 console gamers were running Xbox 360s and PS3s. They weren’t as powerful as Xbox One and PS4 today.
Console GPUs are much better but CPUs are pretty much the same, hence better graphics but same or worse physics.
Nah, even in IPC only processors have gotten a lot faster than 10 years ago. And don’t forget that DRAM frequency is 3-4x faster now, which has a pretty big effect on CPU performance.
I don’t know very much about consoles but I will say if that is true then it’s truly pitiful. There was 8 years in between the Xbox 360 and the Xbox One and 7 years in between the PS3 and PS4. CPUs made large advances in performance during that time. MS and Sony must have really gone cheap on their hardware.
” I’m not sure if we can even blame this on consoles.”
I dunno, Dark Souls 3 even got a shadows downgrade compared to vanilla DS2. Chasing higher textures and level of graphical details ends hurting the game in the attention to detail aspect.
Far Cry 2 can be considered the best in the series in many ways. It’s the closet to a sim style game by far (vs arcade style), and that obviously carried over to its tech. It’s biggest fault by far is you need to use DX10 to get some of the more advanced graphical features, which is well known for crashing constantly in several titles that use it.
It’s optional, there was no DX11 back then, and the game still looks good on DX9
Oh, I don’t blame Ubisoft for it, but Microsoft for creating such an abysmal API.
There is no advanced DX10 visuals in FC2 dude. It just runs better in DX10 than in DX9.
https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/e24317d1742bc9ba2198c355abc4ef02591ff971c32d9ba6c25d2bb96222d505.jpg
It’s really sad really, the more we get better graphics thanks to hardware brute force, we lose in attention to detail. Many such cases, but what about Far Cry 3, 4 and Primal? Thy probably got downgraded in these areas as well…
Same thing also happened with GTA 4 and 5, too.
Same thing also happened to Dark Souls 2 and 3, you gain some, you lose some
far cry 2 was the first game made by ubisoft teams after crytek went to make crysis, which like far cry 2 was ahead of its time, back then they were pushing what can be done with the graphics, now they still follow the consoles lead.
FC2 was a revolution for gaming physics. The world was very bare though. I guess they’d rather fill the world w things to do and focus on gameplay rather than realism. Not a bad choice as ppl still hate on FC2 even though I Ioved it. Most ppls favorite is 3…So if u look at the big picture it sounds like they focused on the right things.
These features should have been there already, it’s the same engine, quest design have nothing to do with physics, bullet ballistics or attention to detail in general. They should have gonne the Arkham series route, give the basic to consoles and advanced features to PC.
Far Cry 2 has aged well in the eyes of many, so it’s not exactly hated like it was back in the day. People still write about Far Cry 2, 10 years later. A game like Far Cry 3 stopped being talked about a year after release.
Far Cry 3 gets brought up all the time…
by who?
Many people
>Crowbcat
Im more annoyed by the built in wall hacks they keep putting in shooters nowadays.
rpg like features are to blame
http://www.quickmeme.com/img/d8/d887e1bd90e9459879a78ee3b6f6e9030ace8c1bc80aac3ab67fd510c55fe045.jpg
1 and 2 paragraph is not the point of the post (totally agree with you on the 2 one tho). I still remember all the whining about FC2, because of the wasted potential. Could be really great, ended up being just good.
Perhaps standards will be so low with Far Cry 8 that some people will harken back to Far Cry 5 as representing the halcyon days of Ubisoft!
Far Cry 5 is yet another Far Cry 3 rehash, yawn
Ohh Ubisoft 🙂
No sh Sherlock! and you noticed this now? FC5 is just a FC3 reskin. It has the very same downsides FC3 and FC4 had when compared to FC2.
And i doubt it’s the engine fault. It’s lazy Ubisoft at work. Trying to save even more money! best example : FC5 has less weapons!
Obviously the dumb majority does not even care about such features, so that is why Ubisoft gets away with it ever since Far Cry 3! More and more companies do not give a sh*** anymore about graphical features.
its a far cry 4 reskin with ideas from primal. Lets be precise. Also yes ubisoft is lazy.
FC has awesome healing animations but not really needed, they’re way too lengthy. Worse thing about FC2 was the retarded malaria system. One of the reasons I never completed the game. FC4 is still by far the most stunning and better performing of the franchise. Weapon jamming was awesome in FC2 also, just got old really fast and became annoying.
I agree the game is better with a mod that reduces the malaria attacks, though I still like the element.
Jamming gets eliminated the more you upgrade weapons, to the point most weapons degrade really slowly and the gold AKs degrade slow AF.
Tire defect also missing…
FAR CRY 1 > FAR CRY 2 > FAR CRY 3 > FAR CRY 4 > FAR CRY 5
A pattern emerges……
I’d vote 2 > 1 > Blood Dragon > 4 > 3 = 5.
Play a stealthy 2 on infamous, with no heals or saves other than at the safe house. 1 was also fantastic for the immersion. The rest have been playable cartoon characters, except 3 and 5 lack the fun.
Unfortunate for Ubisoft that Far Cry 3: Blood Dragon’s creator Dean Evans walked out on them just a couple of weeks ago!
Blood Dragon was just a meme game (and not a very funny one) why people seem to jerk over this game so much is beyond me…
If you’re not a fan of 80’s sh*t then most jokes will go over your head.
As I read your comment just now, Let’s Go All The Way by Sly Fox and then Sledgehammer by Peter Gabriel played on the radio. Cool… or Hot, as we might have said in the ’80s!
The game is basically a Naked gun style parody movie, only with more lame jokes. I would like a game that captures the soul of a real 80’s movie like Conan or Bloodsport, but without the lame parody sheit!
Gameplay needed work but the 80s theme was awesome.
2 over 3?
3 was the best in the franchise. To the point Ubisoft deluded themselves into copy pasting 3’s formula.
The gameplay side of far cry 3 was trash though. Very scripted missions, you cant play the way you want, QTEs too many cutscenes annoying character. Very few sidemssions, too much money and skill points, so everything is given to you right away, well apart from the fact that you cant unlock perks without advancing through the main campaign.
So no.
far cry> far cry 2> far cry instincts & predator far cry 4>blood dragon>far cry 5>primal>far cry 3
NO
Far cry 4> far cry 3
Fc3 was too scripted with too linear campaign and missions with an annoying character that doesnt STFU and very few sidequests.
It also featured dynamic weather effects. FC5 is very fun to play, but it’s immersion factor can’t compete with FC2.
Doing quality stuff takes time, AAA gaming nowadays is about recycling assets and stuff, put it in a new game and charge 60$.
Didn’t remember all this, wow.
Let’s not oversimplify this. FC5 also has a lot of things that FC2 does not.
FC2 had terrible sight prediction and enemies that could see through forest as the sight calculations were simplified. FC5 has aerial physics and combat via vehicles.
FC5 has a LOT more enemies and NPCs on the ground at any given time. FC5 has much more complex geometry. FC5 has multiple companions. All these things tape CPU resources. For everything you lost from FC2, you gain at least one thing on FC5.
It’s a balance. You can’t fit it all.
considering how hardware improves over time, i think we should be able to fit this all into such big game, it’s not like they don’t have the resources. Seems to me they’re more focused on pleasing everyone on every platform in the same way and quantity, instead of exploiting every resources each individual platform has…But who am i kidding, it’s been like that for more than a decade…
Well, part of the problem is yes, CPUs have improved greatly. However, console CPUs have really not improved, hardly at all, over last gen. The GPUs did, but not the CPUs.
Yeah my argument was based on pc hardware, sorry i didn’t specify that, but yeah i wish we could have once again games made on pc first, and downscaled on console later, at least most of them.
Parity I guess plays a role in that. tbh if I was a console gamer I wouldn’t expect my $400 or $500 console to offer what a $1,000 PC can offer. It’s only reasonable to expect a better experience when you are willing to pay twice as much. I paid even more than that. My last build was $1,300 and that was without buying a graphics card. I had a 980 Ti already.
100% Fair. I’d do the same.
” FC5 has aerial physics ”
Trust me it doesnt
“FC5 has a LOT more enemies and NPCs on the ground at any given time”
and they are all rednecks with pathetic guns. By that logic play wildllands or just cause 3. They are well armed.
“FC5 has much more complex geometry.”
Ehmmm well, again wildlands.
“FC5 has multiple companions.”
Fc2 had the most and most unique.
1. Planes can’t move without physics.
2. What does character design have anything to do with CPU usage?
3. Wildlands has very, very simple physics.
4. When did FC2 do anything unique with NPCs?
Good article that demonstrates the mental decline in gamers.
That’s funny considering how hated I remember it being back when it was released. Plenty of people saying they were just using the name even though it wasn’t really related to the original, technical complaints, people hating gameplay mechanics like the weapons degrading etc.
A game generally “hated” by the community and journalists, is my best game.
Driv3r is the best driving game out there for me. Fallout 3 is far superior to Fallout New Vegas for me. Farcry 2 is better than Farcry 3/4 in all ways possible. Oblivion just trambles all over Skyrim in every way possible. Oh, I can continue and 98% of people will be triggered.
I like triggerings. Please continue.
“Fallout 3 is far superior to Fallout New Vegas for me.”
Thats impossible
See, I triggered someone. New Vegas is abysmal in the open-world exploration department, though it excels in the story-telling department. I can state the various reasons for that, but it will be off-topic. Let’s just say I’m one of the very very few people that played FO3 way before FONV and I saw the differences clearer than others did.
The only things I hated were the ridiculous respawn rate of enemies (they instantly respawn based on distance, without timers) and the fact that they could see through foliage, those two details, although small, had a huge impact on the overall game, making it immensely annoying to me. I also remember the enemies being a bit too bullet spongy or that they didn’t react strongly enough to getting shot.
Stealth in fc2 is broken. But yeah the enemy spawning is tied to the engine, it reloads part of the map as you explore. Bullet sponing is an issue if you fire in bursts. Not in full auto, Also if you gonna go for a headshot fire one shot to the head, dont spray and pray or you miss. There is a realism mod outhere.
Yeah I’m remembering that as well. I got frustrated with the stealth, so one of the first things I did in the game was to save up diamonds to buy the expensive camo suit, but it made pretty much no difference once I finally got it.
*running around ith Dragunov and MAC 10* What bullet sponges?
I had fond memories of Far Cry 2, but after coming back to replay it I realized those memories can’t be trusted. Non stop respawning enemies and extremely tedious and long traveling made my 2nd playthrough experience atrocious.
The respawns are because the engine reloads those parts of the map, the only game this doesnt happen is bethesda’s games that they save your interactions in that area.
Back in the day on gamespot forums i was telling people that facry 2 has advanced ballistic physics, eg bullet penetration depending the caliber and if you fire a rocket at the ground it will spin uncontrollably instead of exploding. I was laughed at. I told them “but the detail, the rag dolls the burning trees the destruction. They didnt get it, well now they do.
The only thing that sucked about FC2 was that you couldn’t permanently liberate an outpost. The dudes would come back within minutes while you were checking the place out.
Far Cry 2 was the best far cry Ubicrap ever made
so much detail and PHYSICS
felt almost like a Crytech game (pre-EA acquisition)
ever since Far Cry 3, the series is going down in a very consolized fashion
It really does feel like a Crytek game, in ways both good and bad.
its really pathetic what this industry has become, shining graphics with 0 interactivity are worthless, i prefer a non “realistic” wall, fully destructible and with physics than a shining 4k photo realistic wall that not even a nuclear bomb can scratch.
Yeah all the way through playing and enjoying Far Cry 5 I was thinking wow it’s missing all these older features, not.
Honestly Ubisoft put out one of their best games that is really well optimised for the PC yet still people find something to moan about because it’s a Ubisoft game.
You could level these criticisms at pretty much any modern game GTA IV vs GTA V springs to mind.
For me it has gone from a good shooter to a casual shooter.
Typical Ubisoft. Put more resources on graphiccs than gameplay, physics etc.
Classic Ubisoft…Thanks for stripping away everything that made these games immersive and interactive. Far Cry 5 feels so static its like walking through a painting.
So? There’s a lot more to do in FC5. They’re different games. Honestly, I don’t know why I come here sometimes. People on Reddit are right, it’s a sh*thole.
FC2’s MALARIA, and even weapon jamming gave me some of the best ‘OH SH**’ moments in gaming. 5 is just a cartoon without the fun.
That’s consoles for you. You add one thing, you must remove some other thing. There are no graphics settings so there is no leeway.
They shoudn’t obsess so much over graphics tbh. Early xbox 360 games like Stranglehold used to have a lot of attention to detail, but when they polish the graphics so much, they end up taking away cool features
Yeah, CrowbCat videos are like that. I recommend watching the Dead Rising one, makes you REALLY appreciate gaming standards before 2009 and forward.
I was gonna get all excited to get it out and play again, but remembered Far Cry 2 also featured 10 foot high hillsides along the roads which you could not climb or drive up and over, so you were forced to stay on the roads and fight the patrols and checkpoints…one of the reasons I always hated that game.
Far Cry 5 is a title I’ll eventually get. However the minimum requirements being DX9.0c is very troubling.
Sure you are not mistaking it for FC2?
SYSTEM REQUIREMENTS
MINIMUM:
Requires a 64-bit processor and operating system
OS: Windows 7 SP1, Windows 8.1, Windows 10 (64-bit versions only)
Processor: Intel Core i5-2400 @ 3.1 GHz or AMD FX-6300 @ 3.5 GHz or equivalent
Memory: 8 GB RAM
Graphics: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 670 or AMD R9 270 (2GB VRAM with Shader Model 5.0 or better)
DirectX: Version 9.0c
Network: Broadband Internet connection
Storage: 40 GB available space
RECOMMENDED:
Requires a 64-bit processor and operating system
OS: Windows 7 SP1, Windows 8.1, Windows 10 (64-bit versions only)
Processor: Intel Core i7-4770 @ 3.4 GHz or AMD Ryzen 5 1600 @ 3.2 GHz or equivalent
Memory: 8 GB RAM
Graphics: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970 or AMD R9 290X (4GB VRAM with Shader Model 5.0 or better)
DirectX: Version 9.0c
Network: Broadband Internet connection
Storage: 40 GB available space
Taken from the steam store page. Far cry 2 used some functionality from Dx10.1 however it was also largely 9.0c
Interesting, if the game can accomodate a large range of customization (like Stalker with it’s Directx8,9,10 and 11 renders) that would be a good thing no? but this is probably a mistake since the game needs an 64bit OS and those are only DX11 and forward
Yes and no. The benefit is from ubisofts point of view of having a wider range of hardware support as features from later versions of direct x can be backported to older. However this can also miss out on many other features that require hardware and driver support. Having native support from the engine to the hardware and driver suites enables the hardware and software to require less work to provide the various functions with out having to provide software duct tape to keep it all intact. Also don’t forget that even windows xp had a x64 variant, and that had as low as DX 7 IIRC. I don’t foresee them dropping support to the earlier DX compatible hardware until they begin using Low Level API’s, which will likely be another 2-4 years out. To digress for a second, thanks to things like 16-bit floating point for some of the more intensive simulations of Far Cry 5 is probably what is saving this title, at least when focusing on raw performance.
Dont forget it has no stutter too john. unlike your analysis you forget to mention all the hitches the game has
FC2 was during the Crysis days, it was like competition to Crysis tech but more optimised, now devs have no reason to put all those details in along with the port CPUs of the consoles that can’t handle heavy AI simulation and physics in modern games because they’re so GPU bound. FC5 looks nice, good attention to detail on the textures and general detail of the world, photogrametry, all about resolution and graphics because the consoles are GPU bound.
The video actually makes me want to go play FC2 again, never completed it as well, technically one of the best games of it’s time along with Crysis.
That sounds like BS.
I mean, PS3 has a 3.2 GHz 8 core CPU (6 for gaming, 1 core reserved for the OS and 1 pointless core to improves yields) while the X360 has a 3.2 GHz, 3 core CPU with hyperthreading, so 6 threads.
So 3.2 GHz, 6 core vs 3.2 GHz, 3 core with hypertreading.
I doubt the difference is that high (like seriously, PS3 has a CPU three times faster? Nah), even if it is from GDC.
The CPU has to do more draw calls(due to games being more complex) and is a bottleneck. There is not much more power for complex AI and physics simulation, that’s why their games don’t have them, even the physics in Assassins creed are half FPS and like said above the cloth simluation had to be put on the GPU for consoles.
I agree with the switch to stuff on the GPU. I just don’t think the CPU of the PS3 was that faster. Certainly I don’t think it’s faster than the one in the base X1 or PS4.
Not saying the PS3 CPU is faster than the PS4’s, you have to take into account the GPU since a more powerful GPU and CPU bottleneck means it’s waiting on the CPU, PS3/360 didn’t so they can do more AI and physics. Basically the PS4/XB1’s CPU doesn’t have enough spare for the more complex AI and physics calculations.
Cell is not a typical CPU and yeah the cell is way more powerful if used properly in fact Sony wasn’t even going to put a traditional GPU inside the PS3 it was going to push the graphics using SPU’s.
Anyways everyone knows that the cell processor was extremely hard to fully utilize i believe only a few dev’s(naughty dog) actually did it which is why in most titles the PS3 had worse performance compared to the 360.
” I thought amd releasing high clocked cpus with a ton of cores but getting easily beat by intel quad cores helped people realize this.”
Yeah, no.
AMD’s FX 8350 easily thrown down with Intel’s 2700K in multithreaded tasks. If games were as optimized for all resources on PC as they are on PC, aside from heat back then, the FX 8350 would’ve been as fast and much cheaper to use and Intel. Even more, when you are GPU bound, the CPU matters much less.
lmao, no it doesn’t. In what universe did you get this from?
The 360 had a 500 mhz PowerPC processor and it wasn’t even multicore.
Dude, what?
It had 3 cores 2 threads so it could execute 6 threads at one time and all 3 cores where running at 3.2Ghz, so yes it was very good for it’s time.
I always liked the fire in FC2 and sadly it’s never really made it’s way into any other games.
Damn. Huge difference.. its not even like GTA 4 VS GTA 5. Really freaking big. Wow.
ps2 games like Metal Gear 2 used to have a lot of attention to detail, but with limited hardware (and no desire to improve on the PC version) they need to make sacrifices of features
New games, some eye candy stuff on the surface, call it a new game with the same terrible design, children will buy it and call it fun.
I liked far cry 2 i had many flaws but it was very immersive.
Glad to see my favorite youtube guy having some outlet coverage. Thanks John & team.
Developers used to be more ambitious. Now they lack motivation. They’re just going through the motions.
Yeah especially ubisoft, they make games like they produce them out of a factory line, its an automated process, they got a guy for the towers another for the races, its so lazy.
It’s called corporate, we helped them grow onto those proportions as a customers. It’s all our fault.
It was held back by securom though, jesus christ, i had to run it one one cpu core or i got bluescreens the moment the gog version came out i bought it in a heartbeat.
Also yeah best fc2, but it needs the mission variety of fc4.
Weapon jamming is not an issue if you buy guns. The compass is what separates it from the casual stuff, this is why fc5 doesnt have a minimap. To make it more immersive. Far cry 2 doesnt have a good stealth system and its repetitive i will give you that. Also needs a fast travel other than buses. But far cry 5 has pathetic ai and its overall too easy. Atleast you dont make as much money and skill points as you did in 3, in 3 it was ridiculous how fast you could get everything done.
and this is why I don’t support UBIsoft games.
Far Cry 5 doesn’t even look good.
It’s 95% DOF, Chromatic Aberration, HDR, Bloom, and other stupid post processing effects. Even the textures that you think look good at first end up looking meh on closer inspection, like the mud that looked like it used parallax mapping and normal mapping but just actually looked dumb once you stopped and looked at it.
I have yet to see a single impressive thing in Dunia engine. It’s just more of the same – post processing and camera work used to make the graphics look better than they are.
Far Cry 5 doesn’t even look good.
It’s 95% DOF, Chromatic Aberration, HDR, Bloom, and other stupid post processing effects. Even the textures that you think look good at first end up looking meh on closer inspection, like the mud that looked like it used parallax mapping and normal mapping but just actually looked dumb once you stopped and looked at it.
I have yet to see a single impressive thing in Dunia engine. It’s just more of the same – post processing and camera work used to make the graphics look better than they are.
On the other hand, within literally 5 minutes of finishing the intro to the game, I had already run over 3 deer and as soon as I got out of my van, it skyrocketed along with all the deer nearby, did a million flips and landed on the other side of the road on its side.
Combine the broken physics with the broken guns and this game is silly. Like shooting anything, any animal, including a bison or bear right in the face with a .50 cal and it doesn’t die. Sorry, but no.
And the sniping is definitely broken as sh.
It’s still a fun game but good god was this made in 1999? Even SoF and IGI were less broken.
From what I saw (bits and pieces of the first 5 minutes) this video showed better, more in depth character animations, but not better physics.
One word: Gameworks!
FarCry 2 was using gameworks, PhysX and all the rest.
FarCry 5 wasnt
That the difference.
More physics simulations did not equal more fun, though. There’s a lot of rose-tinted glasses wearing around Far Cry 2 these days and it’s honestly a little baffling.
Far Cry 2 was derided at release for the things that people are praising now, it’s ridiculous.
Sure, Far Cry 2 features trees that break apart more realistically, but none of the NPCs actually used that to their advantage because they weren’t “aware” that it was even a thing. The player could use it to their advantage but it was rarely ever the actual solution to a problem in the game. It’s a set of details that sure are nice to observe but serve no real purpose in the game. It’s wasteful to expend resources (time and work to make it and processing power to run it) on elements that are not absolutely critical to the desired outcome of the game.
And people have been hating on the Far Cry 5 fire propagation system like it’s worse off than in Far Cry 2 but nobody acknowledges that Far Cry 2 grass is dry, trees are dry, the game takes place in a desert like the Serengeti during a dry season whereas Far Cry 5 takes place in a coniferous forest and the grasslands are lush and green, not withered and dry–ready to be burned. They are different settings that are likely to burn very differently.
Far Cry 5 wildlife actually has behavior whereas the Far Cry 2 wildlife feature virtually no behavior other than exist and mill around, then die with a single shot to any part of the body.
I’m not saying that Far Cry 2 sucked or that Far Cry 5 is totally a better game in every possible aspect.
But there’s been so much heaping of praise at Far Cry 2 as if it were always regarded that well. And people are so quick to cherry-pick only the parts of Far Cry 2 that were good while simultaneously forgetting or forgiving everything it does that makes it an un-fun game to actually play.
All of these examples in a vacuum are one thing but look at which of these two games is actually fun to play and which is an exercise in being dragged through the dirt then tell me that Far Cry 2 is the superior entry in the series. There’s a good reason why the Far Cry 2 formula–such as it is–has not been replicated ad nauseam. It’s not actually fun to play.
And I love me a good sim. I’ll play the hell out of ARMA 3, Elite Dangerous, hell, even Rust has a place in my heart. My point is that these nitpicks are not constructive criticism of the Far Cry 5 because they barely served any purpose in Far Cry 2. More physics, just like more and better graphics, doesn’t instantaneously make a game better. Careful, thoughtful, design of the world and game make it stand apart.
They made Far Cry 2 and took in the myriad negative feedback they received from the press and the community and they turned around and made games that are fun to play. A game should first and foremost be fun to play and everything should come secondary to that. I’d say that Far Cry 5 hits this mark pretty well but it’s no bulls-eye.
All this jabber about what technical features might be missing in the transition from Far Cry 2 to 5–which, by the way, how come this crap didn’t happen when Far Cry 3 or 4 came out?–and yet I see little to not chatter about how the game is at its worst when it’s on rails–proof that its more open-air approach to design is its best feature–or that the story and dialogue are generally not even daytime-TV-quality–kudos to the motion capture/voice actors who did their best to bring the characters to life despite the script and direction. Or how about we talk about how the story itself is riddled with squandered opportunities to actually say something about radical religion other than, “that bad”. Far Cry 5 is nothing if not a great example of how the best stories that come from games are never the ones that are written for our consumption but are borne of our active engagement with the world being presented to us.
how is it being held back by consoles and not laziness of devs ? there are far better looking games with much better physics on console, look at modern warfare 2019 and tell me u cant make quality product on both pc and console