#1 Edited by BeachThunder (13143 posts) -

I've been listening to the Far Cry 2 Soundtrack, which got me thinking about the game. A lot of people hate it -- with a passion. Personally, I really loved the game; however, I would say my love for the game mostly stems from thoroughly enjoying exploring the vast, and incredibly beautiful, African landscapes.

This brings me to my question - do you consider yourself a 'content tourist'? Meaning, do you often derive more enjoyment from exploring environments/being immersed in a game's fiction than being skillful/mastering a game's mechanics. Are you likely to look past certain gameplay issues, if ultimately the game offers a unique/interesting/etc... experience?

Bonus: Far Cry 2 Theme song:

#2 Posted by whyareyoucrouchingspock (1018 posts) -

I like what you mentioned with excellent gameplay to go with it. It's why I prefer Stalker to Far Cry 2.

#3 Posted by cannonballBAM (659 posts) -

I haven't heard the term "Content Tourist" before.

But sure, its why my achievement score is full of Japanese games like Asuras Wrath and Yakuza. Even European games like Amy and anything by Starbreeze, I just enjoy a different take on storytelling while focusing on different game elements.

I didn't really care for Far Cry 2 since Crytek hadn't made it, but I have heard of alot of people enjoying it while using the PermaDeath method. More power to you buddy, enjoy.

#4 Posted by Guided_By_Tigers (8020 posts) -

No I prefer sneaking around places.

#5 Posted by Brodehouse (10513 posts) -

It's rare when I enjoy wandering a world in video games. Because as pretty as places are, once I've been there for a while I want more interactivity. Scaling cliffs and crossing rivers in Skyrim is fun and enriches the setting the first dozen times you do it, after that it's just polygons and code in your way. Amalur is a good example; I'm sure that game is full of tons of different environments and cities and vistas, but everything about it seemed obviously mechanical that I just stopped. MMOs have the same problem with their settings.

I think I would put... San Andreas, Cyrodill, the original Azeroth... the only big open world environments that got me hooked on the land more than the narrative or gameplay. I would love to do a flyby tour of old Azeroth and see all the strange places I went and the places I never saw.

The problem with the big sparse environments is that as pretty as they may be, there's nothing to do with them. They're designed to be looked at and crossed, not necessarily interacted with. I prefer dense and full of stuff than wide and spread too thin. The Normandy as opposed to a space city.

Now that I think about it, most linear games are not based on building a 'place' but a 'moment'. Hrmm...

#6 Posted by Video_Game_King (36566 posts) -

No, not really.

#7 Posted by Jrad (638 posts) -

Yeah, I guess so. Interesting that you bring up FC2, though -- that game was unplayable for me. Blowing through the same checkpoints with respawning enemies any time I wanted to go anywhere was awful. There's not even a mod to fix it!

#8 Posted by JeanLuc (3795 posts) -

Well I really liked Far Cry 2 so I guess yes.

#9 Posted by yinstarrunner (1255 posts) -
#10 Posted by AhmadMetallic (19303 posts) -

I'd be a content tourist in Far Cry 2 land, regardless of the mechanics, if the world itself ALLOWED ME TO ENJOY IT and didn't spit out or respawn angry-as-all-fuck tangos who tried to exterminate me.

#11 Posted by pyromagnestir (4384 posts) -

Well if you put it that way then yes. Skill with the controller is never my favorite thing about games because I don't have much (its why I don't like multiplayer because that is the sole focus much of the time). So I don't really care about being good at a game and am there more to see the story and universe the designers created and have some fun along the way.

#12 Posted by Amukasa (56 posts) -

Yes....I am not sure why more games dont have interesting enviroments. So many games enviroments are so balnd and uninspired. This was the only reason I really like Bio-Shock. The enviroments were great and the powers seemed cool but the combat was so boring to me.

#13 Posted by Little_Socrates (5834 posts) -

I can't think of a game where I "put up" with weak mechanics to play in a great world; sometimes the mechanics aren't the draw (Deadly Premonition is the game that immediately comes to mind) but I've never actively disliked a game's mechanics and then proceeded to finish it.

But do I sometimes get more excitement out of the narrative and aesthetic in a game than its gameplay? Often! But that's largely because we haven't had that many new gameplay ideas in the last few years.

#14 Posted by believer258 (12808 posts) -

It depends on the game. I'm still playing Skyrim because I really like the world and exploring. I can understand why that aspect of it might turn people off, and I certainly can't play those sorts of games all the time, but I do like playing that and finding new things to see and do.

@Amukasa said:

Yes....I am not sure why more games dont have interesting enviroments. So many games enviroments are so balnd and uninspired. This was the only reason I really like Bio-Shock. The enviroments were great and the powers seemed cool but the combat was so boring to me.

You certainly have the right to your opinion, but just how is that possible? I thought combat was one of Bioshock's strongest points, right below story and setting. It's the level design and objectives that I mainly had a problem with.

#15 Posted by themangalist (1853 posts) -

I love being immersed into worlds...Yet so few games actually try to do so. Bethesda games obviously, but Vampire the Masquerade, stalker, and Mass Effect are also a few games that get my imagination running free and wild.

#16 Posted by mandude (2670 posts) -

It's what I do in both games and life.

#17 Posted by I_smell (4212 posts) -

Even when I'm playing a game that's pretty fun to play, a boring world can really bum me out, Rage.

#18 Posted by Brodehouse (10513 posts) -
@believer258 I also don't like most of the gameplay around BioShock's combat. It had a lot of potential, they definitely made the effort to giving you options and variety. Feel is super subjective but there was clearly something off about BioShock's pure shooting. A little swimmy here, a little clumsy there. Great concept, average execution.

Anyways, not the point.

Going back to land that feels purely mechanical, the Mako sections of ME1. As cool as it was to travel around and look at the skyboxes, everything else was so blatantly mechanical as to be meaningless. The first mountain range you scale feels like a design choice, the second mountain and everything after is just an annoying obstacle to the part you want. It only exists to force you to get over it. The Overlord DLC for ME2 did a lot to fix that, the area you were in felt like it had things for you to see, and was fun to travel through instead of an arduous climb up stupid polygons.
#19 Posted by DoctorWelch (2817 posts) -

No, gameplay is basically everything. Great gameplay will overcome mediocre art, story, or experience, and mediocre gameplay will overshadow great art, story, or experience most of the time. This obviously isn't true for every game, but I find this is true for most games, at least for myself. Also, I just don't think most games are at the point yet where the experience is meaningful if you disregard gameplay. The closest thing I have played to a game that actually combines all the elements in the game to convey a really strong experience that wouldn't be the same if you took any one part out is Journey. In fact, I wrote a blog about my experience with that game and why I thought Journey was truly amazing. Another obvious choice is a game like Bioshock, where the gameplay is basically a device to move you through the story and give you a unique experience. I do really enjoy these games, but I would much rather play something like Dark Souls where the gameplay is basically what drives that game. That's pretty much why I love video games, because I love unique gameplay experiences that challenge or change they way I look at playing a game. I love sitting down to play a game and realizing I need to learn a whole new set of concepts to experience something totally unique.

#20 Posted by upwarDBound (658 posts) -

Exploring a game world is a big part of why I play many games and yes I can overlook some flawed game mechanics if that world is compelling and interesting enough to explore.

Fun fact. I also enjoyed Far Cry 2 despite some incredibly annoying aspects in it.

#21 Posted by egg (1619 posts) -

I very much enjoyed Test Drive Unlimited. Even the PSP version. So yes.

#22 Posted by TheCreamFilling (1230 posts) -

I believe I am.

#23 Posted by Jimbo (10210 posts) -

I wouldn't say it's what I'm there for exactly (I wouldn't bother playing the game if that's all there was to it), but it is a big part of why I liked Far Cry 2 so much.  The same is true for Assassin's Creed, Red Dead Redemption, Skyrim etc.

#24 Edited by Hizang (9359 posts) -

I used to enjoy aimlessly exploring in video games a whole lot, I would swing around Spider-Man 2 just for fun and run rampage in GTA games and wander around in Oblivion. But now I much prefer a goal, even in games like MineCraft I'm not just walking around, I have a goal all of the time. I recently played through GTAIV and I don't think I ever went on a kill marathon, the whole game was just me doing a mission, getting in a cab, doing a mission, getting in a cab. Heck I didn't even drive anywhere in GTAIV, all cab.

#25 Posted by S0ndor (2718 posts) -

Guild Wars is probably the only game, other than GTA:SA perhaps, that managed to truly draw me into its world. The Guild Wars 2 beta weekend had the same effect on me.

Also, I fucking despise Far Cry 2 for its checkpoints and respawning enemies.

#26 Posted by BBQBram (2385 posts) -

Totally, but if the gameplay is engaging as well that's a real winner in my book.