All comments

I like it, but it would have been better if they had put all of these video in to one ...

As in a 15 minutes long video weighing 1 GB? I'm not sure *I* would have liked it ;)

i'd love to see a 24 hour sped up day/night cycle :)

but these are good... it looks like a good game
but it will be spoilt by lag on the consoles

When you rest in the game it seems you see outside the hut & time moves fast.

The game is running very nicely on 360 at least, constant 30fps. Amazing that TWO PEOPLE were able to port over the complete game with no sacrifices. I expect the biggest differences will be better LOD & of course image quality on PC.

This is what a FPS should look like. Must have!

(Didn't like the swimming part though - looked rushed)

there is a difference, the foliage reacts properly and is actually pushed aside on the pc version, console foliage just ruffles and you glitch through it, still looks ok like that tho

i'm saving my pennies to get some Farcry 2 action.

Not bad, looking impressive indeed! Though it's visually and technically still a far cry (sorry bout that, just couldn't resist) from Crysis on a high PC, it's looking great nonetheless.

Might be a rental, even if it's purely for the visuals and mood. I'm not too sure it's a game I'd enjoy for longer than a few hours.

The foliage reacts in both, I haven't seen any difference in the foliage simulation, but there may be some differences. I don't see what you mean by 'glitching' through something,

There is a difference. I believe the footage shown here is from the Console versions. I think that because of the handling of the camera. It's already known that the PC version will have enhanced physics. I don't know if that is noticable on the foliage though. But it's the best looking game on consoles to date. Comes very close to Crysis quality.

My thoughts exactly.

Hats off to Ubisoft. Just when it looked as if current gen consoles were reaching a plateau, Ubi come up trumps with this. Easily some of the best shadowing and lighting I've seen in a game this gen. You thought COD 4 looked nice, but this is a level above that again.

It really is incredible what the modern day GPU's can produce. Vast, sprawling landscapes that seem to go on and on. The level design in this game seems so perfectly organic and natural, producing some brilliant ambiance and atmosphere. The trip in the boat down the river for example. So quiet and calm. Gives you a sense of being there if the place were real, which is a huge aspect of what makes an FPS a good one. Immersion. Speaking of which, I love how the guns in the game seem to look and perform, and how they sound. They've got a real visceral feel to them which is also very important. All in all, FC2 is checking all the right boxes for all the things that are essential in making a great FPS game. One to look out for, for sure, and for once, just for the single-player experience.

Anyone know if it will be co-op?

See, but Call of Duty is fun.. and these videos are boring.

I wish they would release a damn demo. I hate having to gamble on a total unknown, based purely on flashy graphics, buzzwords, and potentially reviews. These are not the essentials for creating a great first person shooter. Ubisoft is checking off all of the right boxes to insure that they're creating a nice looking game. I have yet to see something you could even call level design, anyhow, what I see is are pretty set pieces.

Show me the fun. Show me the action.

Again, it cracks me up that people call PC gamers the graphics whores. It seems so hypocritical to be hyped for this, when everyone wanted to bash Crysis for supposedly being a tech demo. As it turns out, Crysis (and Warhead) are actually good games.. and this.. is still a total unknown. But the hype, that's here for sure!

Completely different type of FPS. Far Cry was all about decision making and exploration. COD had one mode of gameplay and that was intensity, and in your face combat, which for some got boring. If it's your cup of tea, great; but some people find all the sneaking about with having the option to go stealth, or run-and-gun more to their liking. It's certainly not boring.

As for the level design, well, there's really none, and that's the thing. You aren't confined to a linear rout. It's like you're just thrust into a naturalistic huge and open virtual world to fend for yourself. Like I say, a different experience to your usual FPS. People who loved Oblivion for the sheer scope of the world will obviously love this, but for different reasons obviously.

When I saw these videos up on Gametrailers the camera movement really looked like a mouse to me, plus on the console versions instead of the hand on the screen to interact you usually get the hand with a little controller button (so you know what button to press, on the PC this would be user defined). I'd have to watch these vids again to be sure.

I hear the PC physics will be stuff like blowing up gates and such (heard it from here).

I don't think it really compares to Crysis, but Crysis doesn't even run very well on the highest end PCs, a lot of times when people post Crysis 'screenshots' they'll be downscaled shots people took that rendered at around 1-2FPS as well. So basically Far Cry 2 is a really great looking game, but it doesn't reach into impractical levels of technology for today's games.

COD4 SP is anything but fun. The constant respawns are truly horrible and really kills the pacing and in effect the game for me. There are some cool moments in there and the great diversity of environments really is one of a kind these days, but there's just no satisfaction in killing one enemy and getting that enemy respawn in tenfold...again and again.

I'd definitely prefer FC2 SP over COD4 SP anytime. COD4 MP is pure genius though.

<--- ahhh...16 more days!!!

I know they're different sorts of FPS, but there's nothing particularly compelling about what I see in FC2. You're the one that brought up Call of Duty, not me. I'm just pointing out the obvious: while different, COD4 is actually a fun game.. and this.. doesn't look very fun so far.

I don't see one fun thing outlined in any of the Far Cry 2 demonstrations. They do, indeed, look awfully boring. People are hyped up on "immersion" and not gameplay. Immersion will only get you so far. First person shooters, are, after all.. shooters. If your satisfied simply by being immersed in the environment, then you might as well be playing a roll playing game. There has to be more to it than that, and so far, I don't think it looks very promising.

Show me some shooting fun, I've yet to see any in Far Cry 2. Every fire fight lacks energy and looks so damn uninspired. All of those potentially awesome gameplay components aren't particularly original either, considering you can achieve them all in Crysis/Warhead.

I'm not saying this game won't be good. I'm just not so easily convinced. It sure does seem to me that the basic reaction to Far Cry 2 is something like... OMG you can set the grass on fire! GOTY! ;)

@Ichi: Looks like a gamepad to me. I also think you're wrong about the system requirements. This game isn't going to run better than Crysis does @ high, which many, many PC's can run just fine. Very high/Ultra is still out of the reach of most consumer PC's.. but it was designed for an enthusiast market. The performance in most FC2 videos is also actually quite poor.

@Jato: I hear ya, but.. if it's really a problem, that's why COD includes different difficulty levels. I don't play COD for single player either, really.. but I still enjoy the franchise. The next single player FPS campaigns I'm seriously looking forward to playing (Aside from Crysis/Warcry.. my gaming rig is gettin an overhaul this week) are STALKER Clear Sky and and Project Origin. I'm bummed that the latter got delayed :(

It depends on what you like. Personally I think COD4 SP is not fun on harder difficulties but too short on normal & easy. COD4 is extremely linear, Far Cry 2 is extremely non-linear (really there's very little other FPS games that even compare, based upon what we've seen to the non-linear gameplay of FC2). Some people like a streamlined experience, some like to explore.

You're completely wrong about Crysis/Warhead having this kind of gameplay Grift... Fires don't propagate in those games, those games are linear (similar to Halo's linearity)...

If this games runs worse than Crysis on high on PCs I think that's probably bad coding. Are you saying a 360 could run Crysis on very high? Because I don't really think so.

Dumbing down the difficulty doesn't help I'm affraid. It's just that it feels like you're mopping the floor with the water running (-direct translation of a Dutch saying, not sure if it makes sense in English- ;P). The only way to get past this is to get just enough kills to be able to move forward and get past those "spawn hotspots", and to me there's just no satisfaction in that. I really hate that kind of gameplay.

I much prefer the "clean out the area and then move on" approach. Enables you to kind of manipulate the pacing and doesn't "rush" you through the game. I suppose it comes down to personal preference, but I just can't stick the "COD4 SP approach".

I think people expecting this to be less linear than Crysis or the original Far Cry are in for a surprise. And no, I don't think that the 360 could play Crysis on very high--I also don't think this game looks as good as Crysis on very high and I don't think that the console version of FC2 will run on its highest settings on the 360 either. I simply said that many newer gaming rigs are perfectly capable of playing Crysis on high.

I suspect it won't have brilliant performance on the PC on its highest settings, and its real world requirements won't look much different than what you see in Crysis. The performance we see in demonstration for Far Cry 2 isn't exactly smooth.

Crysis isn't simular to Halo's linearity at all. Halo funnels you through set pieces, blocking the world in front of you off with invisible walls and other barriers. It gives you alternative routes and modes of transportation, but Crysis goes well beyond that. It also represent simular gameplay, in terms of switching between stealth and outright action. It also has an awesome power suit component where the gameplay changes at a whim based on the flick of a mouse decision.

So fires don't propagate.. but that's exactly what I'm talking about when I say that people are hyped for this game for all the wrong reasons. So grass burns.. so enemies won't travel through fire. Big deal.

All the evidence suggests this will be less linear than Crysis or Far Cry. Those games just had levels that were very open, but even within the levels there were paths (in that you couldn't just climb the mountains and skip everything).

This doesn't look as good as Crysis on very high, but it SHOULD run WAY better on PCs than Crysis. My PC can run Crysis on high, but it runs like crap. Even a 4870 (based on what I've seen) gets nasty stutters in Warhead on MEDIUM. This game shouldn't have that kind of problem, even on 360.

The performance I've seen out of FC2 running on 360 I'd call extremely smooth, what videos of the game have you seen? It really depends on what the highest settings include, but I've not seen a big difference in the image quality of the 360 version and any other videos of the game so far.

Halo will use barriers while Crysis uses the environment (steep hills mostly), also it doesn't let you just boat around levels because you'll get fired upon by ultra powerful weapons. Crysis doesn't go 'well beyond' alternate routes, they both work basically the same way... Crysis lets you be much more stealthy with the cloaking than Far Cry 2 seems it will let you do.

People are hyped for the game for a lot of reasons. I don't see why you should downplay any innovations the game provides...

the game LOOKs great, but take away scripted events (which you kinda have to in open world games since you can approach any given situation from any angle and with whatever weapon or playstyle) and it all becomes a little boring looking. kinda like mercs. its fun enough, but every firefight just feels the same. and i think thats what will happen with this too. it'll be a great rental tho.

I think that's a bit harsh.. from what I've seen, the 4870 runs Crysis on a high/very high mix quite well (high everything + very high shaders--in Anand's benchmarks at least). Backed by a powerful enough CPU, I don't think that the 4870 should have too much trouble keeping up with Warhead. I'll know soon enough, I'm getting one next week.

And that's all keeping in mind that Crysis, for whatever reason, is far better optimized for nvidia hardware.

I'm talking about these videos. The framerate in these videos is pretty appalling, so I'm not sure why everyone assumes that this will perform better than Crysis. This is often dropping well below 30 FPS and I do not call that "very smooth." About as well as Crysis runs @ high on a modern gaming rig. That's not exactly mind blowing performance.

I'm not really sure what evidence there is to suggest that this game is any less linear than Far Cry or Crysis. Do you expect to jump through the jungle and arrive at the final destination/conflict in Far Cry 2? Give me a break.. there will still be some order to the events of the game.. even if there's not, it doesn't necessarily make it better or innovative.

I'm not downplaying innovation. I'm downplaying what look like gimmicks. I could be wrong, I think the game has potential to be great, but I'm not so easily convinced. There's been nothing demonstrated so far that's terribly mind blowing. A cool map, some burning grass, and some awesome graphics and people are ready to board the hype train.

I mean, for fuck sake, what is wrong with simply coming out saying that the game looks brilliant simply because it does with having to argue the point why it does because someone else thinks it doesn't for daft reasons. It is what it is, and that's an excellent looking FPS that is taking a break from all the rest of the mediocre crap that's being pumped out at the moment. I really don't get this "scripted" bollocks either that people use as a stick to beat something down with. Of course it's scripted. Everything in gameing is fucking scripted. It's not like we're any closer to AI that is completely dynamic and can think for itself. Until the day that happens, events and enemies in games will always be coded to act and follow specific algorithms. Seriously, some people do expect FAR too much from games this gen.

scripted events are typically non exsitant in these types of games...yes AI etc are scripted. but im talking scripted events in the same way cod or half life 2 does it. because the game cant know how you will approach any given situation due to its non-linearity (something a linear game like cod4 DOES know) it's hard to create a scripted event. and no scripted events = a very dull game imo. becasue, as i said, all firefights end up feeling the same.

linear games can push you where the game want you to go and see what it wants you to see. games like far cry 2 cant.

Because it doesn't look all that much more engaging that the supposedly mediocre looking crap that you're complaining about. That's why. What's wrong with coming out and saying that the game looks sorta boring, anyway? Do alternative opinions really offend you that much.. for fuck sake?

Warhead is getting rave reviews.. is that mediocre crap too? How about Hell's Highway.. is that, the same 'ole shit? STALKER Clear Sky? There's plenty of adventurous FPS on the horizon that do things differently in ways that look.. ya know.. actually fun.

And I'm just playing devil's advocate here. Don't take my criticism the wrong way. I'm sure the game could be great. I just think that by in large, people are excited about this game for all the wrong reasons. If it weren't so damn pretty, people wouldn't care.

If you love this game for the same reasons you love Oblivion, then there's something wrong, really. This game won't have the same value in exploration as Oblivion, and FPS are meant, at least on some level, to include a component of action. Take that away, and you might as well just play Fallout 3.

Stealthy gameplay and exploration are fine components to include in an FPS, but it has to also include an engaging enemy, and engaging combat. I've yet to see too much evidence of either in Far Cry 2.