Far Cry 5 has some bugs. Most are hilarious because they involve the physics engine. That is what makes the game so charming in spots. Some bugs interfere with game play, but Restart From Last Checkpoint is your magical fix. Stuck in an object? You can Fast Travel and that solves it.

The 2 hands thing happens when you futz with your FOV and screen draw settings on PC.

The game is a blast. Companions are great and have things to say. Game play is great, and, I can't believe I am going to say this, but the fishing mini game is fun.

Totally worth the money I spent on it.

I never got sold on motion control. It just has never been precise enough to feel like anything more than a gimmick to me. Maybe just confirmation bias, but everything I tried on Wii just felt really weird, clunky, and plasticky. I'll admit that I haven't really tried much of anything since then (and Wii is really old news by now).

Anyway, all the demos here looked cool for their 3D immersion, but my old bias against motion control kind of put a bit of an unfavorable spin on everything -- at least to me. Fine, small-scale motor skills are just going to be really hard to simulate with two wand-like things, even when they have multiple degrees of freedom and seemingly pretty solid accuracy.

...But, I'll admit that the archery mini-game looked like a really fun adaptation of that that wouldn't necessarily require *extremely* accurate fine control. Moving out of gimmick territory and into "ok, that could actually be extremely entertaining".

Yeah, the movie's barrel multikill part of the river race took away from the believability of the story, until it went so far that it became it's own little fictional mini-game, so I believed it again, but then it took THAT too far so I AGAIN entered into more disbelief.

At this point it's pretty likely it's a development build running on PC, too early to tell if it's really been optimised well for current gen consoles.

Anyway, I'm glad they're focussing explicitly on mechanics. I've always found GTA games to be full of superflous 'gameplay' I wouldn't ever spend time on. Perhaps I'm part of the cynical bunch that doesn't buy the immersion angle.

If more mini-games this time around are actual fun diversions then great. If the gun mechanics are tightened up, maybe it'll play as a better 3rd person shooter in it's own right.

Otherwise, I worry they're just bloating out the feature pool like they've done in each successive sequel.

They forgot a stupid cover system, ridiculously over-pronounced head-bob, video glitches and artifacts purposefully designed into the opening logos and cinematics, and an NPC character constantly talking at you even in the scary parts and the middle of fire-fights. Don't forget quick-time events and pointless mini-games that you have to revisit eight million times to progress through the game you actually intended to play.

This game is just too short. Especially if you just ignore most or all the of the mini games and side quests.

>> ^Payback:

Fucked over, reworked Gizmondo?


It's not THAT bad of an idea. This Xperia dingus is PSP Go and Android compatible, though I don't know if it has the entire PSP Go library. Sony already has a huge library of mobile games that the average cellphone gamer hasn't played. This might let Sony print some extra money without needing to make any games specifically for the device. In the future they even plan to have NGP/Experia/PSPGO/PS3 compatible play station mini games. Seems like a sensible strategy against Nintendo and Apple.

Absolutely retarded. Yeah, nothing wrong with a sexually themed game, but you can tell all of those mini games are aboslute bullshit in that they don't actually work as shown. The controllers don't sense really in the ways they show them trying to. Pretty ridiculous, and participants would quickly work out that what they are doing has very little baring on what the game is doing.

Oh, and the original youtube ad from ubisoft would probably be a better pick as all those 'enter parental' code boxes are then clickable and take you to lame endings.

Fable 3 was my last chance for Peter M. He fucked me with B&W, and he fucked me with the first two fables... always over-promising and under-delivering. And like an abusive relationship, I bought into the hype and let him fuck me again, but I swear this is the LAST TIME. NO MORE.

What pissed me off the most about the sudden change at the end of Fable 3 is that it was symptomatic of very bad setup and story telling. Quest after quest, I was told to do one thing, but in reality the game expected me to do something else.

The best example of this was the quest early on where the game told me that I needed to go and buy a disguise. The in game "GPS" kept leading me back to a pie making mini-game and whenever I went to the store where the disguise was, it just wasn't an option to buy... at no point in this frustrating moment did it tell me that I didn't have enough money for the disguise, or that the pie game would give me said money. Instead it just FORCED me to do the damned pie game because basically there wasn't anything else I could do.

My problem with this is that my frustration could have VERY easily been quelled by one of two things: 1. A price on the fucking disguise or 2. Just something in the quest log itself to TELL me that I didn't have the money necessary and that I needed to go off and do mini-games till I had the funds.

This was basically my experience all the way through. The game wants to fake being a sandbox when in reality it has a VERY clear path it wants you to take, sometimes absurdly so and with little logic to it.

Mind you, I was patient enough to sludge through most of the game after I caught on that I just should not expect logic or ask questions. That was until the end. Yatzee hit the nail on the head, the arbitrary nature of the way the end creeps up on you is pretty much game-breaking. The ideals situation would have been one where I was given the opportunity to KNOW that I would be required to grind out 6mil coin BEFORE the stupid 1 year timer with it's absolutely horrible good/evil choices bullshit came up.

Peter M. must be fucking Frederich Nietzsche because clearly he's gone beyond good and evil with his understanding of what those words mean. I don't think I've ever been as pissed off at a game's concept of good/evil ever.

Fuck you Molyneux. You are the M. Night Shamaylan of the gaming world. Populous was your Six Sense and you've basically shit on us ever since. I vow never to buy another one of your games. (not that he's reading this, but it just feels good to make that assertion)

>> ^dag:

I'm sorry wait - are you saying that Windows changed a paradigm by inventing a GUI?
I would argue that Apple - yes, has invented a paradigm changing GUI - (again). Flicking to scroll around a capacitive touchscreen all seems very passe in perfect 20/20 hindsight - but so-called smart phones weren't doing it before the iPhone. Have a look at a Nokia or Windows Mobile phone from that era- and it's pretty clear. static icons, optimised for a stylus or control pad, nothing harnessing the power of your finger. The Android phones are very good- I might get one some day - but they owe a debt of innovation to Apple for blazing the trail.
I'm sure that getting a game distributed through EA or Steam would be great, and they may have better terms than Apple - but I'd argue that single hacker working in his basement to make something cool has a very slim chance in brokering a deal with EA or Valve. The App store is making a lot of these single programmers very rich - and I think that's a good, disruptive thing.
>> ^EDD:
>> ^dag:
Apple has once again changed the paradigm of how we use computers.
Apple has empowered a whole generation of "little guy" developers to make good money from the app ecosystem - wresting power from the established game behemoths like EA.

"Changed the paradigm"? What are you smoking, mate? They might have changed the paradigm if they invented the touch screen (they didn't). They might have changed the paradigm if they invented a new, ultra-popular activity that we use computers for, like twitter or facebook or e-mail (they didn't). They might have changed the paradigm if they invented the mouse or a GUI like Windows (they didn't). They might have changed the paradigm if they invented MS Office or at least an equal alternative to at least one of its products (they haven't). But a simple rework on an ages-old tablet device which is only becoming popular now because of the brand and the drop in price which they can take very little, if any, credit for? Puhh-lease.
And as for your second argument - try and compare Apple terms for iPhone devs to EA Partners terms or Valve's Steam terms. You'll find that there are few publishers with shittier deals for game and software devs than Apple. And by the way - moving into the social mini-game market isn't exactly "wresting power" from publishers of AAA console and PC publishers like EA.


Whatchu talkin' 'bout Willis? Hahaha...see what I did there? I said that thing Gary Coleman used to say and now he's dead. Just as dead as the horse you guys are kicking...

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

I'm sorry wait - are you saying that Windows changed a paradigm by inventing a GUI?

I would argue that Apple - yes, has invented a paradigm changing GUI - (again). Flicking to scroll around a capacitive touchscreen all seems very passe in perfect 20/20 hindsight - but so-called smart phones weren't doing it before the iPhone. Have a look at a Nokia or Windows Mobile phone from that era- and it's pretty clear. static icons, optimised for a stylus or control pad, nothing harnessing the power of your finger. The Android phones are very good- I might get one some day - but they owe a debt of innovation to Apple for blazing the trail.

I'm sure that getting a game distributed through EA or Steam would be great, and they may have better terms than Apple - but I'd argue that single hacker working in his basement to make something cool has a very slim chance in brokering a deal with EA or Valve. The App store is making a lot of these single programmers very rich - and I think that's a good, disruptive thing.

>> ^EDD:

>> ^dag:
Apple has once again changed the paradigm of how we use computers.
Apple has empowered a whole generation of "little guy" developers to make good money from the app ecosystem - wresting power from the established game behemoths like EA.

"Changed the paradigm"? What are you smoking, mate? They might have changed the paradigm if they invented the touch screen (they didn't). They might have changed the paradigm if they invented a new, ultra-popular activity that we use computers for, like twitter or facebook or e-mail (they didn't). They might have changed the paradigm if they invented the mouse or a GUI like Windows (they didn't). They might have changed the paradigm if they invented MS Office or at least an equal alternative to at least one of its products (they haven't). But a simple rework on an ages-old tablet device which is only becoming popular now because of the brand and the drop in price which they can take very little, if any, credit for? Puhh-lease.
And as for your second argument - try and compare Apple terms for iPhone devs to EA Partners terms or Valve's Steam terms. You'll find that there are few publishers with shittier deals for game and software devs than Apple. And by the way - moving into the social mini-game market isn't exactly "wresting power" from publishers of AAA console and PC publishers like EA.

It's on!
>> ^EDD:

>> ^dag:
Apple has once again changed the paradigm of how we use computers.
Apple has empowered a whole generation of "little guy" developers to make good money from the app ecosystem - wresting power from the established game behemoths like EA.

"Changed the paradigm"? What are you smoking, mate? They might have changed the paradigm if they invented the touch screen (they didn't). They might have changed the paradigm if they invented a new, ultra-popular activity that we use computers for, like twitter or facebook or e-mail (they didn't). They might have changed the paradigm if they invented the mouse or a GUI like Windows (they didn't). They might have changed the paradigm if they invented MS Office or at least an equal alternative to at least one of its products (they haven't). But a simple rework on an ages-old tablet device which is only becoming popular now because of the brand and the drop in price which they can take very little, if any, credit for? Puhh-lease.
And as for your second argument - try and compare Apple terms for iPhone devs to EA Partners terms or Valve's Steam terms. You'll find that there are few publishers with shittier deals for game and software devs than Apple. And by the way - moving into the social mini-game market isn't exactly "wresting power" from publishers of AAA console and PC publishers like EA.

>> ^dag:

Apple has once again changed the paradigm of how we use computers.

Apple has empowered a whole generation of "little guy" developers to make good money from the app ecosystem - wresting power from the established game behemoths like EA.


"Changed the paradigm"? What are you smoking, mate? They might have changed the paradigm if they invented the touch screen (they didn't). They might have changed the paradigm if they invented a new, ultra-popular activity that we use computers for, like twitter or facebook or e-mail (they didn't). They might have changed the paradigm if they invented the mouse or a GUI like Windows (they didn't). They might have changed the paradigm if they invented MS Office or at least an equal alternative to at least one of its products (they haven't). But a simple rework on an ages-old tablet device which is only becoming popular now because of the brand and the drop in price which they can take very little, if any, credit for? Puhh-lease.

And as for your second argument - try and compare Apple terms for iPhone devs to EA Partners terms or Valve's Steam terms. You'll find that there are few publishers with shittier deals for game and software devs than Apple. And by the way - moving into the social mini-game market isn't exactly "wresting power" from publishers of AAA console and PC publishers like EA.

End of the round if you lose, you run around with your hands flailing around in the 3rd person unable to use your guns. Basically a quick mini game of hide and seek where the winning team hunts down the survivors from the round with all their hits being 100% critical hits. In this case the engineer class built a teleporter entrance and teleported out just in time to evade the critical rocket heading towards him. He already had the teleporter exit built elsewhere as you can see.

It really reminds me of the drinking mini-game from GTA4. This is very impressive technology. The code must be ridiculously complex.

I vote best.