I believe that all work should be held accountable to it's "lesser" contributions, which makes me wonder why Ubisoft would intentionally sabotage themselves by including this garbage alongside their filet mignon. It's ridiculous that people still think this way, that a game needs that extra "content" in order to compete for commercial success. It's like putting together a portfolio. You're not going to include anything mediocre just to pad the rest of your work, since it's not only the content that matters, but your ability to exercise discriminating taste. Not every game needs an entree, and it certainly doesn't help if it does more to cast doubt on the design choices overall.

Anyway, I know I'm leading the question, but holy shit is this a train wreck! It's unfortunate too, since it does bring down the value of what is otherwise a technical achievement and a fun game overall. I hope they can chalk this up to experience, but I have a feeling this is a trend that won't be bucked any time soon.

Torrible, not terrible.

Also, I don't know. I saw a video on YouTube and it looks decent.

It would be a shame to see that map editor go to waste.

Look, what was shipped might not be so great but if a community really builds around that map editor then it could become something really special. Far Cry 2 had something like that, its map editor was almost as insane bonkers.

@believer258: I agree with that entirely, but to include the competitive multiplayer and co-op, it just seems so unfocussed and divergent to what the game actually does well. It would have been a far better use of resources to just enhance and make it easier for the community to create and upload maps and scenarios for others to try out. The co-op is just a blatant "left 4 dead" ripoff, which feels completely out of place. I just want Ubisoft Mon to focus on the content that does stand out, and make that better. Forget all this other junk, it's unnecessary.

@believer258: I agree with that entirely, but to include the competitive multiplayer and co-op, it just seems so unfocussed and divergent to what the game actually does well. It would have been a far better use of resources to just enhance and make it easier for the community to create and upload maps and scenarios for others to try out. The co-op is just a blatant "left 4 dead" ripoff, which feels completely out of place. I just want Ubisoft Mon to focus on the content that does stand out, and make that better. Forget all this other junk, it's unnecessary.

Also, late night posting on an iPhone. Watch out, I might spew unintentional bullshit and/or stupidity.

@studnoth1n: Its a multiplayer with progression. It works its functional and in no way "bad" its just clearly not the focus of what everyone is buying the game for. The map editor for the multiplayer is absolutely insane. So honestly its a shame that it won't be put to better use because people could make some crazy crazy stuff.

It's been my experience that the Far Cry games always have amazing map editors with mediocre multiplayer gameplay. I don't know that this one differs, but it doesn't look that interesting.

I didn't realize there was a base assumption that the multiplayer was 'terrible' such that we can only rate the mode from 'terrible' to 'worse then terrible'.

Far Cry 3 wasn't developed by one small team. Or even one studio. While the argument could be made that the multiplayer component is unnecessary, it's doubtful the single player campaign would have been any different without it.

It's functional, but not really what you're going to FC3 for.

@believer258 said:

@studnoth1n

@believer258: I agree with that entirely, but to include the competitive multiplayer and co-op, it just seems so unfocussed and divergent to what the game actually does well. It would have been a far better use of resources to just enhance and make it easier for the community to create and upload maps and scenarios for others to try out. The co-op is just a blatant "left 4 dead" ripoff, which feels completely out of place. I just want Ubisoft Mon to focus on the content that does stand out, and make that better. Forget all this other junk, it's unnecessary.

But if they only focused on the good stuff, then doesn't that mean they would have to cut out the story which, according to the Bombcast, isn't so great?

If I understand you correctly, that's exactly what I mean. All video game stories are disposable as far as I'm concerned, so that's hardly a point I'd leverage against anything else in the game. If the game suffers because of the story, or how it was forcefully implemented, that's inexcusable. Regardless, it's completely unnecessary to incorporate these high concept ideas and storylines to drive the action forward, specifically in a video game where the "action" itself does that with or without a storyline. Throw in some good voice work and witty dialogue if you want, but there's no need to obsess over plotting and the like. And furthermore, why even assume the "Far Cry" franchise needs a story to begin with. Narratively, does anyone know what the series is about? As far as I'm concerned, the "story" has always served as a MacGuffin, a blatant excuse to play around with the latest technology in an sandbox format.

Just stick with painting the landscape, not everyone is a Picasso.

It's a little disappointing that some are missing the point, especially considering the portfolio analogy, which I thought was more than sufficient as an illustration. Regardless, I just have to accept that I'm the only who actually wants a patch to remove content from a game. And not for censorship, but because I think it's a waste for anyone to publish anything short of their absolute best work. I guess it's one of those philosophical differences that some people either get or don't, but either way, it's self-defeating for me to concede the point because most people think the game is "fine" as is.

Haven't tried the competitive stuff yet but the co-op is fine. If the map editor is as good as people say then im sure it will atleast develop a small following on the pc anyways. The gunplay in this game is great and i see no reason why it would change in mp. Its just most people who are into that already play COD, BF, or CS.

You can't seem to browse available games anymore like in Far Cry 2 so I have no interest in the multiplayer. I don't see a community being built around the map editor because the only way to play on those maps with other people seems to be hitting a "quick play" type option rather than being able to go down a list and select what you want to play

@studnoth1n: The multiplayer looks ok, I am playing in the xbox 360 so i dont know how good will be in the ps3 and the pc. The framerate is very slow, there are some cases where the AI stays in place for some time. My main issues is the network connection, I am still trying to play the 4th episode of the co-op; for some reason the network does not let me through and instead send me back and my team to replay the other episodes. Hopefully they will send a patch soon.

I've been playing coop on the PC and its glitchy as hell. Game crashed my computer once and I had three game breaking glitches where I had to drop out of my game. Also the leveling is broken most of my guns have not been leveling even though I'm getting the awards in during the mission. My saved loadouts have disappeared twice. You can see that the B team was working here. My campaign experience has been really smooth playing on max settings but the MP is near broken. The coop doesn't even have a basic lobby where I can choose the game difficulty and level I want to play, only the randomly chosen host can choose, wtf?

The SP really was good...that's still blowing me away. I was suspicious and despondent. Now I feel the sun shines again.

I don't play MP..maybe try someday.

Again, this idea to slap on a shoddy MP component suggests poor decision making all around and a lack of faith in the campaign, and therefor, compromises my trust in the developer. I'd prefer them to just patch out all the MP stuff, if only to spare anyone else. No one needs to be subjected to these inferior, crappy features, which inevitably contradicts what is otherwise a very well done campaign. The one redeeming quality being the map editor, however even that is still pretty janky and in need of repair.

@studnoth1n said:

Again, this idea to slap on a shoddy MP component suggests poor decision making all around and a lack of faith in the campaign, and therefor, compromises my trust in the developer. I'd prefer them to just patch out all the MP stuff, if only to spare anyone else. No one needs to be subjected to these inferior, crappy features, which inevitably contradicts what is otherwise a very well done campaign. The one redeeming quality being the map editor, however even that is still pretty janky and in need of repair.

You keep saying the same things but there are other people in the thread who thought the MP was fine, if not exceptional. Just because you didn't like it doesn't mean that other people don't, or that it should be patched out, or that if it hadn't been developed the SP would have been better- as another user pointed out, the MP was handled by a completely different studio, so it's not like dev time/resources were lost creating the mode.

Plus I just don't see your point. Even if we were to agree that the MP was shitty, its existence doesn't make the SP any worse. Don't like it? Don't play it. It's not like knowing that there's a terrible MP mode is going to suddenly ruin the single player mode for anyone.

Not at all it's a good MP mode, people seem to critisize games too easily these days if it isn't amazing it's terrible.

@joshthebear said:

It's functional, but not really what you're going to FC3 for.

@JasonR86 said:

I didn't realize there was a base assumption that the multiplayer was 'terrible' such that we can only rate the mode from 'terrible' to 'worse then terrible'.

Internet.

What they need is a "Predator" mode like from the Far Cry games before Far Cry 2.

@DystopiaX: NOBODY thought the multiplayer was exceptional.

@studnoth1n: I'm confused. Are you saying the multiplayer is bad, or are you saying you think the idea of including competative multiplayer in Far Cry 3 is offensive? Because it sounds like you are talking about the ideology of including Multiplayer rather than actually talking at all about the mechanics of the multiplayer? And why does anyone have to think it's exceptional for it to be worth it's while? As long as it's ok and there's people who enjoy it, what does it matter to you?

Ideologically, I do agree that a token Multiplayer component is not good, but based on everything I've seen, Ubisoft has put a significant amount of resources into making Far Cry 3's multiplayer good, unlike typical "token multiplayer modes" that many older games have had. If anything, it's unfortunate that it's released so close to Call of Duty and Halo that the market might be a bit saturated for it.

Anyway, more games need co-op. Co-op is always welcome and always possible to defend, because there are people like me and my friends who will play pretty much anything with a decent co-op mode [on PC].

As for the story, I kind of feel like Far Cry is taking a page out of Final Fantasy for how to handle sequels. Each story takes place in a different "world", has a different story and characters. They are only tied together by a core set of ideas and mechanics. Thankfully, with CryTek away from developing Far Cry, we don't have to put up with those horrible supernatural elements.

@studnoth1n said:

Again, this idea to slap on a shoddy MP component suggests poor decision making all around and a lack of faith in the campaign

Or, it could just mean that to be considered in the modern FPS market, you need to say multiplayer on the back of the box to sell copies.

Nahhhh, you're probably right. They like spending extra money on content so they can see no return on it. I'm sure you're right. What do marketing teams know?

I don't know what frustrates me more,your stupidity or your pretentiousness.

@studnoth1n said:

... I'm the only one who actually wants a patch to remove content from a game.

fuck.

@studnoth1n said:

It's a little disappointing that some are missing the point, especially considering the portfolio analogy, which I thought was more than sufficient as an illustration. Regardless, I just have to accept that I'm the only who actually wants a patch to remove content from a game. And not for censorship, but because I think it's a waste for anyone to publish anything short of their absolute best work. I guess it's one of those philosophical differences that some people either get or don't, but either way, it's self-defeating for me to concede the point because most people think the game is "fine" as is.

Seriously?

Just because someone disagrees with your point it doesn't mean they don't understand it or are missing the point. And to patch out the MP of a product because one person who uses shitty analogies thinks it ain't that great even though it effects the campaign ZERO percent is outrageous.

Pull your head out of your arse.

Train wreck? Have you even played the multiplayer?

It´s a totally competent MP mode with a few really cool modes in there, the weapons feel good, people die when they should and you have some pretty insane possibilities from the map editor. Does FarCry 3 need any more modes? Hell no. But they are sure welcome to add stuff if they want to. The map editor alone is so cool, you can spend hours designing little islands. Could it be better? Yeah. Does it make the game worse? No way, it adds extra value for those who want a CoD like multiplayer.

Honestly, there are people on the internet who just want to make everything look bad. Get over it, FarCry 3 is mainstream and it is GOOD.

It's not terrible so much as it is just disappointing. 
It's very similar to CoD, and while that isn't inherently a bad thing, and it does actually feel pretty good, I just feel like it could have been so much more.  

The fact that they have this pretty complex map editor with so much stuff in it gives it so much potential, but it just feels wasted when you can't have any vehicles, manually placed weapons, animals or other AI if you want to publish it online for people to play. 
Seeing as the base shooting and movement feels pretty good, if they had only put in a mode that allowed more freedom for custom maps, or even allowed custom modes which would have been even better, it could have been so much more.  

As it stands now, though, it feels like a very CoD-like game with some good-looking environments, some neat guns, and a pretty cool kill-cam.

I don't feel like making another thread so I'll just ask here.

When they say "TA-TOW" they are referring to the tattoo correct? If not how is this spelled?

@NecroMongo: I have no problem with someone disagreeing with me, but I felt I hadn't communicated the point since it appeared some were disagreeing with me based on a misconception. I'm sure they'd still disagree regardless. Either way, whether or not people can find anything redeeming in the multiplayer, it still plays like garbage. Again, it's just a waste to include anything less than developer's best work. Unfortunately, with people blindly defending middling efforts, I doubt anything will ever change, and certainly not for the better. And if it's pretentious to think taste is kind of important, I'll gladly take the charge.

Also, if developers and publishers want to keep on with this pandering "kitchen sink" approach, then it's only fair that they be evaluated accordingly and consistently, and points deducted for half-assed attempts.

@thabigred said:

I don't feel like making another thread so I'll just ask here.

When they say "TA-TOW" they are referring to the tattoo correct? If not how is this spelled?

You are looking for "tatau" - see wikipedia (possibly NSFW?) for more information, or at least a part of what's most likely inspired the use of the word.

It's just uninspired tacked on MP for the sake of MP, because modern video gaming.

Last time I played it MP was in Beta and I experienced a lot of server issues but thats beta and this is retail so I can't comment properly on whether or not that has been addressed. My frustration with MP is less technical and more to do with scope and game play. I guess my problem is it doesn't feel necessary and personally I found it a tad boring. I think MP should be a tad throwaway and more fun orientated, but Farcry 3 MP isn't, its just kinda lackluster not bad, not good just meh. My opinion of a good throwaway multiplayer is Bioshock 2 it was fun didn't take itself too seriously didn't try and be COD or battlefield just a fun little mode to go nuts in.

@studnoth1n said:

@DystopiaX: NOBODY thought the multiplayer was exceptional.

Read closely. I said "if not exceptional" not "is exceptional".

Plus that's completely tangential to what I was saying and in no way addresses my response to your "issues" at all.

Not terrible, so mch as (in a word) 'ehhh'. It's just not something that you haven't played before or can find in a better produced and more cared for way somewhere else.

I like multiplayer in games, it gives me more to do. The singleplayer is awesome... and after I beat that, I have a lot more to do co-op/multiplayer wise. No way am I going to complain about that. The best part is that they implemented some awesome ideas. Those awesome ideas keep me playing.

I don't get why people are happy when multiplayer is removed from games. Sure, I could buy Bioshock Infinite, beat it in 15 hours.... then what? I'm better off waiting untill a $20 sale, seeing I won't be missing out on a multiplayer community.

Multiplayer is just enjoyable in general, especially if its in a game with a unique theme.

@DystopiaX: I could be wrong , but it was my understanding that the wording "if not" in a phrase implies "and perhaps even." So, if this is the case why wouldn't I think you're at least implying the MP is exceptional? How's that for being tangential? Also, I checked out the MP again, just to see if I'm overlooking something and possibly blowing this way out of proportion. Nope, it's still shit.

it's decent, the only problem playing the PC version is that there's only like 400 people playing multiplayer.

@studnoth1n said:

@DystopiaX: I could be wrong since I'm not a grammar hound, but it was my understanding that the wording "if not" in a phrase implies "and perhaps even," so if this is the case, why wouldn't I think you're at least implying the MP is exceptional? How's that for being tangential? Also, I checked it out again to see if I'm overlooking something and possibly blowing this way out of proportion. Nope, it's still shit.

That's your opinion, which you can keep repeating again and again, but there are people in this thread and in other threads and communities who talk about it being decent/fun. Just because YOU don't like it doesn't mean it should have been cut from the game. And your "having MP just made the SP worse" argument is still dumb.

Put about 2 hours into it last night. I still don't see what the problem is, other than the lack of people/some laggy people ruining it for everyone.

It's not like it's worse than the other big shooters that has been released in November. Bit less polished than Call of Duty, but what do you expect? They've had almost a dozen iterations to learn from.

ps: saying "it's still shit" is not describing what's wrong with it. It's fine that you don't like it, but ... uh, why? If you care enough to make a thread, mabe describe what makes it bad? :P

@studnoth1n said:

Again, this idea to slap on a shoddy MP component suggests poor decision making all around and a lack of faith in the campaign, and therefor, compromises my trust in the developer. I'd prefer them to just patch out all the MP stuff, if only to spare anyone else. No one needs to be subjected to these inferior, crappy features, which inevitably contradicts what is otherwise a very well done campaign. The one redeeming quality being the map editor, however even that is still pretty janky and in need of repair.

dude, your assumption-making skills are awesome

In the main menu, don't go below "Singleplayer" 
Problem solved

I didn't see the GB guys complain about the existence of the multiplayer. It looked alright from the TNT. I don't play any multiplayer stuff. Maybe they should patch it out of every game cause I don't play it? It uses my disc space, man! People think its fine. You feel personally offended. Deal with it.

@DystopiaX: Well you're right, it is my opinion, but it's also informed by experience, sight and sound. And the reason I keep saying the same thing over is because what I'm experiencing with the multiplayer never seems to change.

Aaaand since I'm not interested in other people's lethargic attitude about it being "fine," I keep steamrolling my point. What's not to get? Besides, what the fuck is wrong with having a high standard and encouraging growth in one's work? I might have been provocative with the topic title, but still, I think throwing blatant gimmicks into a product weakens the overall quality, and certainly says little about the care entrusted in that particular IP considering there's NOTHING the publishers are unwilling to prostitute themselves for an easy money grab. I'm sure most of you could give a shit, and trust me, you've made that very clear, but my intention is not to sway your opinion, specifically. You're already lost, so it'd be a wasted effort anyway.

And obviously I don't really want them to patch out the multiplayer (Although I will admit, it's been fun listening to some of you take that literally). However, now it might actually be pretty funny if they did. One can only hope.

@Mnemoidian: Well I haven't played those other games, so maybe it only seems disproportionate. Also, just because one game is worse than another game, does not necessarily mean there is nothing wrong with that particular game. There's a greater amount of nuance to these questions (and discussions) than most people are willing to admit, but the problem is convincing people of that. I sure as hell haven't figured it out.

@studnoth1n said:

@Mnemoidian: Well I haven't played those other games, so maybe it only seems disproportionate. Also, just because one game is worse the another doesn't mean there's nothing wrong with that other game. There's greater amount of nuance to these problems, and discussion, than most people are willing to give credit.

You still haven't (as far as I can tell) mentioned a single detail about the multiplayer that is so horrible that it's ruining the value of the product for you. I agree that throwaway multiplayer components aren't a good thing, but I don't think this is a throwaway component.

And I didn't say the other shooters released in November are bad.

*shrug* Carry on raging, I guess?

@Mnemoidian: The point of the topic, which I should have clarified, isn't necessarily to point out the things the MP does poorly. Actually, I would say that is a "passable" multiplayer, but to me, that middling, blatant pandering to trends is worse, than say a game that just turns out bad, or even broken. In those cases, it's usually so obvious you don't need a conversation, but here I honestly thought it would be an opportunity to talk about games that perpetuate this stupid bullshit rather than standing on the convictions of their unique design choices. Maybe that's a little hoighty-toighty, but it is what I believe to be the missing piece in most conversations around here.

Besides, there are more than enough boring, superficial topics to choose from, why do I have to add to that growing pile? And if it seems like "raging," it's only because of the stifling attitude around here, and the impression I get is that there's little room for opposing, or even divergent views.

Guys. Land sharks.