I know what he means though, like Crysis, it receives a lot of second hand hate despite being generally well received. People who haven't even played it like to harp on it for looking good. Apparently having good graphics turns a game into a tech demo.

^^ See, there's a good example of what I'm talking about :)

I didn't mean to imply that you hadn't played it, but I don't see what's wrong with talking about Crysis. It's the real sequel to Far Cry, after all. All I meant is that your post is a perfect example of the unfair criticism that both of these games receive. I mean really--linear? And then you compare it to a game from a different genre? Give me a break.

There's nothing revolutionary about a giant sandbox FPS? Show me someone else who had done anything remotely simular prior to Far Cry. What's really funny is that Ubi shows a few little features that may not even dramatically improve upon the gameplay of FC2 and people go crazy--OMG a compass--OMG you can set grass on fire!And I still believe it receives a lot of hate because it's a major exclusive on the platform, and likewise, FC2 is receiving most of its love based on the merits of being a multiplatform title alone. People who stick to a single platform that isn't the PC are excited about having a potential "Crysis killer." That's about it.

Well, I haven't played Crysis at all but I did finish Far Cry on the PC. It was one of the main reasons (along with Doom 3, Hitman: Contracts and Half Life 2) that I upgraded my PC. I get that the hate gets to be a nuisance, and I totally get how frustrating it is when things get slammed by default because it's the hip thing to do. It's way too often that a general mindset is created and other people just jump on it.

Thing is though that I found Far Cry to pretty much just be big for the sake of being big. I guess this is generally what people refer to when they throw words like tech demo around. It never really capitalised enough on its own hugeness, and the whole "approach situations differently" was SO not delivered on *at all*. The problem, the way I see it, is that Crytek just aren't very good at making games. They took an established gameplay formula and just created the technology to support a rediculously huge room to stick it in.

Now, the reason I think Far Cry Instincts was a more accomplished game even with its castrated engine was that it took the philosophy that was supposed to fuel PC Far Cry and simply applied it in a more controlled environment. In instincts you actually could approach something entirely differently each time you respawned, because it was essentially a first person Splinter Cell that didn't make you feel bad as soon as you started firing a gun.

Whether this is something you (whomever is reading this) agree on is a little bit beside the point, because what I wanted to arrive at was this: Here are consoles (because PC always could) that enable a game world even bigger than that of Far Cry PC, and it is in the hands of people who actually know how to make compelling *games* no matter the scale. That's what makes this exciting. At least to me.

There is a lot of tension here because there's clearly some rivalry between console favourites Ubi Montreal and PC troopers Crytek.. but... really. Whatever.

Oh and out of the supposed tech demos, I enjoyed Doom 3 far more. Now there's a game unworthy of all the flak it's getting, and that was the lower rated game! Size matters eh?

On a somewhat related note I'm known to prefer a more functional, focused experience as opposed to big and sloppy. I prefer Mafia to the PS2 era GTAs aswell. Maybe that's what messed up FCPC for me.

Okay, not so much real sequel as spiritual successor.. which TH to ED is.. not.Ubi is a gaming sweatshop too, but at least Montreal is one of their more capable factories. Their studios are certainly capable of making some very fine games, but their work in this genre (and to a lesser extent, third person shooters) leaves a lot to be desired. They basically destroyed Rainbow Six and Ghost Recon.

Love the newer sequels, or hate them (for me, it's the latter), it's hard to deny that they're completely different franchises now.

I absolutely agree that they're different franchises, but I wouldn't say they're bad games. It's unfortunate that they put those names on those games though, and that's starting to become true of more and more games as they inexplicably change focus completely. Fallout, Shadowrun, Mechwaaaaaassault.

I haAAaeeEEEeEyyyted GRAW so I dunno why I'm defending that. It wasn't even Montreal. Hm! :)

But really, there's no denying that I had an ABSOLUTE BLAST already with Rainbow Six 3 co-op on the Xbox, and I thought Vegas was brilliant too. They could've called those games anything for all I care though so yeah.

You're insane if you think that Far Cry and Crysis don't have loads more in common than Too Human and Eternal Darkness. And no, it's not just a case of being in the same genre.So you don't think that most (note: most, not all) of the anti-Crysis rhetoric you hear comes from gamers that prefer console platforms? I'm pretty certain you're wrong. Most people expected Crysis to fall short in gameplay, and many people think that it actually exceeded those expectations.No, just most of us. It's not so simple as looks alone. You can gain a lot of perspective from watching Far Cry 2 presentations. It looks good, don't get me wrong, I just don't have extremely high expectations for Ubisoft when it comes to this genre, and I don't believe they've shown anything that's so remarkable that it's bound to change that opinion. I'll have to play it myself ultimately.

Exactly. Silly.Not particularly hyped.. but I'm not uninterested either. This is exactly my type of game. There are two things that could make this game stand out: a compelling campaign and impressive AI, neither which we've really seen put to the test. Immersion is great, but as a gameplay experience it will only take you so far.

The game is impressive, but it needs to be fun too. I'm not saying it won't be, I'm just approaching with more caution than the pack, it seems. "Oooh! FIRE!"--that's not going to do it for me.

And if anything, I stand to be wowed more than most, since I don't particularly think Ubisoft is the most capable FPS developer. Rainbow and Ghost Recon have both fallen quite far. Vegas is a pretty capable game (just not very.. Rainbow) though, and I love their Splinter Cell games, so maybe Montreal has what it takes.