#1 Posted by stryker1121 (1583 posts) -

Looking for some open-world madness for my next game (360). Both of these titles look fun and seem to have the right amount of crazy to satisfy my gaming needs. Which one to play first? I've read some not-so-kind things about FC3's performance on consoles, but I can live w/ a bit of glitching if the gameplay is good. Then again, I like the look of SD's combat system and the whole HK aesthetic is appealing. What say you, GB community?

#2 Posted by ajamafalous (12147 posts) -

Well, Sleeping Dogs is my GOTY, and, like you said, FC3 is less than stellar on consoles.

#3 Posted by gaminghooligan (1479 posts) -

If it's console, go Sleeping Dogs for now. Played it on 360 with no problems.

#4 Edited by SomeDeliCook (2341 posts) -

I've been playing Far Cry 3 on Xbox and the framerate 'issue' is barely noticeable to me unless I'm looking for it. Its not unplayable or anything. I honestly don't know why people bitch about it so much, its not like Quake 4 on Xbox or Skyrim's stutter glitch on PS3
I'd hold off on Sleeping Dogs and wait until there's a GOTY type edition. That's what I'm personally doing because I don't see Far Cry 3 getting very much singleplayer content and Sleeping Dogs already has quite a few stuff.

#5 Edited by AgentDanger (31 posts) -

I would strongly suggest you get Sleeping Dogs if you are going for the console version - the game is very fun and runs well.

Far Cry 3, on the other hand, is running horribly on consoles (I have first hand experience with the PS3 version, 360 has a very similar performance profile). The framerate is practically constantly sub-30, taking camps and shooting enemies is unnecessarily hard due to the low-fps induced latency. This really hampers enjoyment of the world and gameplay, I really regret buying the game due to the very noticeable technical issues.

There's also some question on whether FC3 is actually that great a game, on his blog Matthew Rorie has consolidated some criticism that you may want to take into account: http://matthewrorie.tumblr.com/post/37204855276/far-cry-3-and-the-curse-of-the-almost-great-game

#6 Posted by believer258 (12184 posts) -

Don't ask me to choose. For the love of God, don't ask me to pick between the two!

I say you should just sell your soul and get both. The only reason you should avoid Far Cry 3 is if the framerate issues really bother you and, apparently, they're pretty bad. Actually, I'd say that you should only plan on getting the console version of FC3 is if you don't plan on owning a gaming PC sometime in the next year.

#7 Posted by Andorski (5365 posts) -

Sleeping Dogs has a better main story mission arc whereas Far Cry 3 has better side missions and open world. So what do you want? A directed experience that you can go from A to B to C or an open experience that you can explore through?

#8 Posted by FancySoapsMan (5818 posts) -

yeah, don't listen to the people who say Far Cry isn't good on consoles.

if you're used to playing on the Ps3 or 360 then you'll probably enjoy it. The graphics are gorgeous, the framerate is good, and so far I haven't seen any glitches or bugs.

#9 Posted by Demoskinos (15139 posts) -

Um... Sleeping Dogs. I just simply liked the world and characters better. I've seen jungle open world before I haven't been to a true representation of a big asian city before.

#10 Posted by snakeitachi (135 posts) -

Sleeping dog's is amazing get it on console. Get far cry 3 on pc, i have it myself on pc and it preforms much better then the console versions and looks breath taking on the pc in full 1080p.

#11 Posted by Bourbon_Warrior (4523 posts) -

far cry 3 is pretty great but you could probably get sleeping dogs quite cheap now.

#12 Edited by AgentDanger (31 posts) -

@FancySoapsMan said:

yeah, don't listen to the people who say Far Cry isn't good on consoles.

if you're used to playing on the Ps3 or 360 then you'll probably enjoy it. The graphics are gorgeous, the framerate is good, and so far I haven't seen any glitches or bugs.

If you don't notice the very low fps in FC3 on consoles, this pretty much means that you are very insensitive to performance issues - Far Cry 3 borders on being unplayable at times, the enjoyment of experiencing the game in general is greatly reduced by the horrible framerate.

Being used to playing games on consoles most certainly doesn't mean he/she won't notice the fact that the framerate is in tatters most of the time

#13 Posted by captain_clayman (3328 posts) -

That's tough...they're both extremely badass. Honestly sleeping dogs i'd say pick it up just because it's cheaper.

#14 Posted by ShadowConqueror (3085 posts) -

Should I play this one crazy game where I shoot people or this other crazy game where I shoot people.

Sleepy Dogs.

#15 Posted by Shirogane (3581 posts) -

Both of the console versions of those games are about as bad as each other compared to the PC version. Maybe less so for Sleeping Dogs than FarCry 3. However, that doesn't mean either of them is bad, they're just not as good as they are on PC. Personally i liked Sleeping Dogs more than FarCry 3, there's also the fact that it's probably a lot cheaper right now cause it's been out a while.

#16 Posted by MegaLombax (425 posts) -

Far Cry 3. Honestly, the framerate issues aren't that big of a deal. It doesn't border on being unplayable, at least to me (I'm on the 360). Its quite noticeable, however, during in game cutscenes.

I'm actually playing both Far Cry 3 and Sleeping Dogs, but at the moment, I'm spending more time on Far Cry 3. I find Far Cry 3's world immersive, the gunplay is solid, the stealth element is implemented quite well and it's got one of gaming's more memorable villains. Not saying that Sleeping Dogs isn't a good game though.

#17 Posted by AgentDanger (31 posts) -

@Shirogane said:

Both of the console versions of those games are about as bad as each other compared to the PC version. Maybe less so for Sleeping Dogs than FarCry 3. However, that doesn't mean either of them is bad, they're just not as good as they are on PC. Personally i liked Sleeping Dogs more than FarCry 3, there's also the fact that it's probably a lot cheaper right now cause it's been out a while.

Sleeping Dogs is great on consoles, while FC3 is heavily choppy which renders the core gameplay (shooting and exploring) very tedious.

#18 Posted by Shirogane (3581 posts) -

@AgentDanger said:

@Shirogane said:

Both of the console versions of those games are about as bad as each other compared to the PC version. Maybe less so for Sleeping Dogs than FarCry 3. However, that doesn't mean either of them is bad, they're just not as good as they are on PC. Personally i liked Sleeping Dogs more than FarCry 3, there's also the fact that it's probably a lot cheaper right now cause it's been out a while.

Sleeping Dogs is great on consoles, while FC3 is heavily choppy which renders the core gameplay (shooting and exploring) very tedious.

Huh, it's that big of a difference? I guess i just havn't seen enough of the console version.

Sleeping Dogs though...i guess it's just the High Res Texure pack and a few other technical stuff that doeasn't really make that much of a difference gameplay wise, but from just looking you can see a a huge difference.

#19 Posted by SomeDeliCook (2341 posts) -
@AgentDanger said:

@Shirogane said:

Both of the console versions of those games are about as bad as each other compared to the PC version. Maybe less so for Sleeping Dogs than FarCry 3. However, that doesn't mean either of them is bad, they're just not as good as they are on PC. Personally i liked Sleeping Dogs more than FarCry 3, there's also the fact that it's probably a lot cheaper right now cause it's been out a while.

Sleeping Dogs is great on consoles, while FC3 is heavily choppy which renders the core gameplay (shooting and exploring) very tedious.

Really? Its not 'heavily choppy' nor does it affect the gameplay. Its not unplayable, so I really don't get why everyone complains about it so much. Makes me think it has something to do with the quicklook and the bombcast's opinion
#20 Posted by AgentDanger (31 posts) -

@SomeDeliCook said:

Really? Its not 'heavily choppy' nor does it affect the gameplay. Its not unplayable, so I really don't get why everyone complains about it so much. Makes me think it has something to do with the quicklook and the bombcast's opinion

The games performance is objectively very bad (just read the EuroGamer DigitalFoundry article on the subject) and that heavily influences gameplay: Especially aiming is very tedious and becomes much harder with such low framerates. That just doesn't make for an enjoyable experience.

The GB crew rightfully complained about it on the Bombcast, Quick Look and TNT: This game performs well below par for console multi-platform games.

#21 Posted by FancySoapsMan (5818 posts) -

@AgentDanger said:

@FancySoapsMan said:

yeah, don't listen to the people who say Far Cry isn't good on consoles.

if you're used to playing on the Ps3 or 360 then you'll probably enjoy it. The graphics are gorgeous, the framerate is good, and so far I haven't seen any glitches or bugs.

If you don't notice the very low fps in FC3 on consoles, this pretty much means that you are very insensitive to performance issues - Far Cry 3 borders on being unplayable at times, the enjoyment of experiencing the game in general is greatly reduced by the horrible framerate.

Being used to playing games on consoles most certainly doesn't mean he/she won't notice the fact that the framerate is in tatters most of the time

I guess your version must be really messed up then.

For me the game is far from unplayable. In fact, one of my only (small) complaints is that it's not really that hard, and I'm playing on the highest difficulty.

#22 Posted by suikoden352 (425 posts) -

sleeping dogs for sure. solid game play, great characters and character development, solid john woo style story, and a very near authentic open world that you can just roam around doing whatever you want really. you can say some of the same for far cry 3, but the characters that are real solid get squandered and the story takes a plunge about half way through. pick sleeping dogs and get the wacky dlc that is for it as well if you have the extra cash.

#23 Posted by Little_Socrates (5715 posts) -

Far Cry 3 is a significantly better game than Sleeping Dogs, even if Far Cry 3 is in many ways a profound disappointment. Sleeping Dogs is fine, but I can't remark on anything other than its setting to describe it as "special," especially for the star-studded genre, and it's got notable frustrations throughout.

#24 Posted by Shaunage (729 posts) -

Far Cry 3 is the better game, but they're both good. Keep in mind I played both games on PC.

#25 Posted by iGooner7 (136 posts) -

Tough question, I enjoyed them both!

#26 Posted by billyhoush (1194 posts) -

I haven't finished Far Cry 3 yet but I absolutely loved Sleeping Dogs. I have both on PS3.

#27 Edited by Rafaelfc (1457 posts) -

Having finished Far Cry 3 yesterday (and gotten an S-Rank in it along the way) I can confidently say that on the 360 the frame rate issue is definitely there, but it's FAR from unplayable, it is VERY playable, actually the game is PRETTY DAMN GOOD.

Yeah, it gets choppy here and there, but on the 30+ hours I put into it, just one moment actually verged on being terrible and that lasted all of 30 seconds (the turret sequence when you escape with german dude). And yeah, reading numbers and spread sheets on it, of course it's not technically perfect, but still the frame rate is constant enough that you adjust and just roll with it (unless you are that dude who gets headaches from sub 60 fps in which case, how do you go to the movies like, ever?)

But the final conclusion is OF COURSE if you can play it on the PC go for that. It is significantly better (if you have a good enough computer) than the console versions. Just don't let PC fanboys fool you, the xbox version is totally playable and enjoyable in it's own right.

Sleeping Dogs on the other hand is great on the 360, the resolution is lower, but still it looks great and performance is solid throughout.

I'd say go for Sleeping Dogs first, it has a better story, waaay better characters a very cool open city to explore and one of the weirdest and coolest DLCs i've played this year (Nightmare in North Point).

#28 Posted by Hizang (8532 posts) -

Far Cry 3 runs fine on PS3, I have not noticed anything. Still, I recommend Sleeping Dogs because its just a better game.

#29 Posted by djou (878 posts) -

I played Sleeping Dogs on PS3 and FC3 on a PC so I can't speak to the technical hitches for the Xbox, but it terms of fun I've had a lot better time with Far Cry. The shooter mechanics are awesome, tight and responsive. The arsenal is a lot of fun to use and you can wreck havoc. However, the story is not so great--nonsensical, bro-heavy. Sleeping Dogs has a great story, imo better than GTA4. The cutscenes, voice acting, and mission setups were way more entertaining.

One thing to consider is what type of game you want to play in the open world, a shooter or driving gaming. There's not much gunplay in SD and what there is is not very distinctive. FC has pretty awful driving, squirrelly cars that drive only in the first person and skid when the hit dirt. Both of these are probably design decisions but detract from the fun. I got a platinum for SD so I thought that game was super fun and underrated, but there is a ton of content for FC, mutliplayer, and a map editor. You can easily sink 60+ hours playing all the content.

#30 Posted by IrrelevantJohn (1092 posts) -

I'd go with sleepy dogs because i found it a lot more fun but you cant go wrong with Far Cry 3 either.

#31 Posted by warxsnake (2650 posts) -

  

#32 Posted by Cold_Wolven (2295 posts) -

Sleeping Dogs first then when you get the chance Far Cry 3. It's a shame that you can only choose to play on console because both of these games are great looking on the PC and you can use a controller for both.

#33 Posted by Yummylee (22539 posts) -

I haven't played the 360 version, but I at least want to chip in that the PS3 version of Far Cry 3 is fucked. The framerate is just so bad it actually gives me eye strain. I'm a console gamer as well, so it's not like I've been spoiled by 60fps on PCs or anything, either. It's just really choppy and stands out all the more with the bright colours and the first-person perspective. A total waste of money since it's downright unplayable for me.

Again speaking for the PS3 version, though the differences between the two these days are usually so minimal anyway, but Sleeping Dogs' console version is perfectly fine. Still looks and runs surprisingly well.

Wait, this thread's almost a day old so, I take it you've made your purchase by now?

#34 Posted by stryker1121 (1583 posts) -

@Yummylee said:

I haven't played the 360 version, but I at least want to chip in that the PS3 version of Far Cry 3 is fucked. The framerate is just so bad it actually gives me eye strain. I'm a console gamer as well, so it's not like I've been spoiled by 60fps on PCs or anything, either. It's just really choppy and stands out all the more with the bright colours and the first-person perspective. A total waste of money since it's downright unplayable for me.

Again speaking for the PS3 version, though the differences between the two these days are usually so minimal anyway, but Sleeping Dogs' console version is perfectly fine. Still looks and runs surprisingly well.

Wait, this thread's almost a day old so, I take it you've made your purchase by now?

Oh no, I haven't bought anything yet. I'm probably going to give FC3 a rent first to see how it runs on my 360. SD looks fun, too, but FC3 is more my type of open-world game. If it runs well, i'll buy it.

#35 Posted by Gooddoggy (414 posts) -

Sleeping Dogs is great - one of the best games I've played this year. Far Cry 3 hasn't really grabbed me, from what I've played so far.

#36 Edited by project343 (2838 posts) -

I am not understanding the rabid love for Sleepy Dogs. It just seems like a solid GTA game with some pretty okay additions (somewhat janky parkour, really kinetic melee combat). I am somewhere just passed the pretty predictable wedding event, for reference.

#37 Posted by believer258 (12184 posts) -

@project343 said:

I am not understanding the rabid love for Sleepy Dogs. It just seems like a solid GTA game with some pretty okay additions (somewhat janky parkour, really kinetic melee combat). I am somewhere just passed the pretty predictable wedding event, for reference.

I understand why you'd say that. Sleeping Dogs doesn't do any single thing that hasn't been done before, and it's not the best at anything that it does. But, you can take any single element of that game, from the combat to the driving to the shooting to the story, and say "Hey, this isn't quite the best but it's done very well". The whole thing is pretty well-done and it all fits together quite well, even if it is a bit predictable at times.

Plus, I've seen a fair amount of posts praising the game's attention to detail and how it shows some work as far as culture in Hong Kong goes, and there aren't a ton of games out there that really make an effort to understand another's culture, except in the case of Rockstar but they're often satirizing and making fun of American culture, not representing it well.

#38 Posted by PhantomGardener (470 posts) -

I enjoyed Sleeping Dogs a lot more then Far Cry 3. So yeah, Sleeping Dogs.

#39 Posted by Korwin (3025 posts) -

Sleeping Dogs is a better game regardless of platform (and it's PC version is damn good), so get that.

#40 Posted by Kyelb22 (294 posts) -

Although I enjoyed Far Cry 3 a good deal, Sleepy Dawgs is an amazing game; better story, for consistant tone, better characters. It's my goty, so I'd recommend that.

#41 Posted by TorMasturba (1089 posts) -

Why wasn't this a poll... Ah well, so far while I have enjoyed Far cry 3 I don't think it's upto SD.

#42 Posted by Grillbar (1904 posts) -

if your planning on playing both then start with farcry 3 its shorter and really easy to pick up and drop again.

but if you have to choose between the two. i would answer by asking what do you prefer Gta or Farcry 2 with less bullshit

#43 Posted by AssInAss (2743 posts) -

If you don't care about framerates, you've got this to look forward to in Far Cry 3:

#44 Posted by UitDeToekomst (743 posts) -

I enjoyed both of them quite a bit, but enjoyed Sleeping Dogs more. I would chalk that up at least partially to the fact that I tend to prefer 3rd person perspective over 1st person by an exceedingly large margin. If that could be a deciding factor for you, keep that in mind.

#45 Posted by RawknRo11a (568 posts) -

Both Great games that I actually played back-to-back oddly enough. (finished Sleeping Dogs the day before Far Cry 3 came out)

Depends on what your looking for though. They both are a blast to play and while alot of people seem to be having all these horrible frame-rate issues with far cry 3 I feel like much of it is a bit exaggerated. The game does't run at 60fps on my 360 but it seems to stay around 30 unless things get crazy it might drop a tiny bit.

I know it looks amazing on the PC and all but with my graphics card (GeForce 560Ti) it would probably only run around 30fps anyways.

As for sleeping dogs, hell of a third person action game with a ton of fun stuff to do.

#46 Posted by JoelTGM (5596 posts) -

That's a really tough choice. If you want more story go with Sleeping Dogs, and if you want more open world stuff go for Far Cry 3. At some point you gotta play both of them though.

#47 Posted by tourgen (4542 posts) -

I liked Far Cry 3 better but they're both really good. Sleeping Dogs is probably a pretty good deal right now.

#48 Edited by Turbyne (98 posts) -

I'm starting to believe the Xbox 360 version of Far Cry 3 is a fucking powerpoint slideshow with an mp3 file backing it. It's kinda playable, but it is awful. The GB crew had a point, I didn't believe it to the extent Brad complained, but you better bet I do after playing it for my self.

Enjoy the game people, but considering this okay is foolish.