Respawning enemies

[Iggy Wolf]

So let me get this straight, people complained about respawning outposts in Far Cry 2, and Far Cry 3 addresses that, but then people complained about the outposts NOT respawning enemies?

You know, maybe people have a point when they say gamers are selfish, entitled, and never satisfied/happy. A lack of friendly AI (apart from buddies) in Far Cry 2 was a fair complaint and they addressed that in Far Cry 3. But if people constantly need something to shoot, then the option is always there now, no?

I mean, you aren't technically meant to keep playing after the epilogue, and I can't imagine someone wasting their time taking over the same outposts on the first island instead of moving along with the story. I mean, you always have mods if outposts aren't enough.

This isn't a complaint in anyway mind you, just an observation and how people expect something to be changed without sacrificing something else. If you play for fun and like shooting people, then you can't exactly complain about respawning enemies. I suppose it was only annoying in Far Cry 2 because there were so many outposts along one's route to a mission.

[Zombits]

Well its a war of attrition in FC 2,3,4, primal. You don't expect NPC's to respawn 2 minutes after you cleared a checkpoint, with all the work done right ? so it makes sense.

FC2 was a great classic but i prefer the idea of calling reinforcements with a delay like it was done from FC3 +

[thirdkeeper]

The thing is:... - that a huge plethora of options could easily be made available with carefull planning.

Look at Skyrim - From the console you can do almost anything. Control not only the hud but
the weather - time of day - speed up or slow down day length ( to extremes ! ) - summon any
object or ai player shrink or grow any object or player from 1/4 to 4X normal size and a whole
lot more right from the console.

- This isn't hard to plan for in developement, it's easy, and most developers have access to all
that stuf for testing and disable it for release. - It's always more difficult to modify those options
into the game after the fact.

The developers need to understand that at very LOW costs they could easily make their products much more popular just by making these options available- and it should say on the box:

" => NOW with even more *Options* and *Features* ! <= "

I'd pay just a couple of dollars extra to play the game my way. If they'd just do the easy thing

they'd have tons more money for developement and we'd ALL be satisfied..

<except for the punk complainers of course... they'll always be griping about something.>



Thanks for the feed..


- T K -

[Iggy Wolf]

I know. I actually read that a lot of people said that respawning enemies in themselves wasn't the problem. It was how FAST they respawned afterwards. You'd expect, especially since the game has a day/night cycle, to give a certain time limit for how long an outpost stays clear before it becomes active again.

And I guess they could have done that, but then they could have also programmed friendly AI as well instead of using the "you're on a secret mission" excuse. Especially since Far Cry 3 at least DID give us friendly AI.

[thirdkeeper]

They create such amazingly detailed worlds - and FC3 has the best freedom of movement than
any game I've ever played - I'm willing to forgive alot - especially the minor details - I'm VERY grateful for what they Do produce..

[thirdkeeper]

About - 'Why would you stay on the island and clear out the same outposts?'

It's about creating in a way your own personal play environment- by determining where
the action will take place and where you want to set up safe areas.

- You've done all the work to get the tools to survive and cleared the islands why not stay
and make them your own playground?

I've reset my outposts a bunch of times clearing and leaving different ones active each time.

Creating different hot spots and safe spots - gives the gameplay a different atmosphere
each time. When I start getting bored I just clear the remaining and reset again.

- It's F'n great..

I didn't enjoy the game nearly as much until I finished it and could plan my missions my way.

I learned how to 'ghost' nearly every outpost. (sneak in disable all alarms and stealth all the
guards - or silent take-down all but one)

You see - in FC 3 the story missions are something to just get out of the way so that you
can really play the game the way you really want to.

Just wish the game had some object permanance so you could keep certain vehicles
in different places.

Thanks for the feed ! : )


- T K -

[thirdkeeper]

Originally posted by Zombit:

Well its a war of attrition in FC 2,3,4, primal. You don't expect NPC's to respawn 2 minutes after you cleared a checkpoint, with all the work done right ? so it makes sense.

FC2 was a great classic but i prefer the idea of calling reinforcements with a delay like it was done from FC3 +

I MUCH prefer the whole presentation of FC2. Fewer cut scenes (which just interrupt gameplay) and no damned menu juggling required! - it's the worst part of FC3 and beyond. Always having
to STOP playing the game to do stupid maintenance..

- WHOSE F'n bright idea was THAT?? -

end of gripe -


- T K -

[Upggrade]

Enemies respawning in 2 was fine, except they did it the second you turned your back.

While we're on it, I ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ loved the map system in 2. In most games you spend 85 percent of the time staring at the bottom corner of your screen, missing the gorgeous game going on around you. 2 made you pay attention to it. And making you pull out a physical map instead of yanking you completely out of the game to look at one, safe and sound in a menu? Awesome, simply awesome. The immersion in 2 really was incredible. ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ shame it's about the only game to ever handle the map like that.

[Iggy Wolf]

True. I always thought Far Cry 2 was more realistic in that sense. A map should be, well, a PHYSICAL map. I sure as hell don't pull one out of my ass in real life. Yeah, I get that in the newer games, it was you looking at your cell phone's GPS map but honestly, they could have made it more realistic in that regard. With regards to the checkpoints, they keep me busy. After all, ain't much use in all the fun toys that we get to play with if we can't use them.

My favorite is the IED just because it's one of the few games to ACTUALLY use an improved explosive as opposed to a satchel charge. Shame Far Cry 3 took that route. Plus, FC2 might be the only Far Cry game to use a vegetation and fire system based on physics and wind direction. You practically CAN'T avoid being a pyromaniac in this game.

[Zombits]

Just the simplicity of game, music , great immersion ... FC2 was my fav game for long , until multiplayer wasn't supported anymore...

[Nick930]

Originally posted by thirdkeeper:

The developers need to understand that at very LOW costs they could easily make their products much more popular just by making these options available- and it should say on the box:

And people like you need to realize developers aren't stupid. They do this on purpose and for one reason:

Money.

Developers don't want to make a perfect game, they want to make money. And by making several imperfect games, you end up earning more in the long-run. Why make an amazing game with tons of options for users to modify it when you can just sell several slightly modified games to people?

Why the f*** else do you think Battlefield no longer offers mod support? Why allow users to create their own maps? DICE can make their own maps, package it up and sell it for as much as the full game.


Why make a Far Cry game that's infinitely moddable? Gee.. maybe so a consumer doesn't make a mod that puts dinosaurs into the game so Ubisoft can save that idea for themselves and sell it to us as a full game.

[Slightly_Twisted]

Originally posted by Upggrade:

Enemies respawning in 2 was fine, except they did it the second you turned your back.

While we're on it, I ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ loved the map system in 2. In most games you spend 85 percent of the time staring at the bottom corner of your screen, missing the gorgeous game going on around you. 2 made you pay attention to it. And making you pull out a physical map instead of yanking you completely out of the game to look at one, safe and sound in a menu? Awesome, simply awesome. The immersion in 2 really was incredible. ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ shame it's about the only game to ever handle the map like that.

A bit late to the conversation but I just want to add that Far Cry 2 was not only the first in the series I played but one of my favorites. Far Cry 3 was excelent with the gunplay, but with 2 I find that simple things stuck with me more in how much they impressed me. I like outposts being smaller more plentiful targets, the AI being much more clever, and never having to use a menu besides saving and buying guns. I liked the guns degrading over time if only to add a new dynamic to the old, tired shooter genre (just like in crysis where you could change weapon attachments on the fly). The physical map is by far my favorite, and they had a similar thing in Metal Gear Solid 5, if a bit too complicated.

The game had some interesting ideas that needed to be improved upon, not simply removed entirely, and to tie this back into the main topic I believe the respawning enemies were one such mechanic. The outposts in 2 have a totally different feel than in 3, 3.5, 3.75...(insert laugh track here) mainly because they served no purpose to the player beyond an obstacle or a restock, which isn't good no matter how realistic it is to have people eventually wander back to them. But in 3 the number of outposts were reduced and made into much larger events which I personally think hampered the game. The outposts feel much more like an all-or-nothing task with, despite each one being different, made the approach of each outpost feel kinda the same. In 2 with the lesser danger from outposts it felt as though you can approach them easier and with a little more freedom.

I can see why they thought it a good idea to remove the enemies constantly coming back to the outposts in 3 because a) story wise you are working with a faction rather than a lone mercenary so they would be held, and b) with the outposts feeling like such large events it would be a pain to have to return to ones you've already taken to take them again. They tried to return the mechanic in 4 but rather than improving on it they just added different rules to it, which ended up making it feel exactly like the latter issue i just explaned last sentence.

[thirdkeeper]

Originally posted by Nick:

And people like you need to realize developers aren't stupid. They do this on purpose and for one reason:

Money.

Developers don't want to make a perfect game, they want to make money. And by making several imperfect games, you end up earning more in the long-run. Why make an amazing game with tons of options for users to modify it when you can just sell several slightly modified games to people?

Why the f*** else do you think Battlefield no longer offers mod support? Why allow users to create their own maps? DICE can make their own maps, package it up and sell it for as much as the full game.


Why make a Far Cry game that's infinitely moddable? Gee.. maybe so a consumer doesn't make a mod that puts dinosaurs into the game so Ubisoft can save that idea for themselves and sell it to us as a full game.

Well, if Skyrim can do it without losing out mebby they should be the example for other devs.

- T K -

P. S. I'm very grateful for this subject being brought up !

[thirdkeeper]

Originally posted by Twisted_omeN:

A bit late to the conversation but I just want to add that Far Cry 2 was not only the first in the series I played but one of my favorites. Far Cry 3 was excelent with the gunplay, but with 2 I find that simple things stuck with me more in how much they impressed me. I like outposts being smaller more plentiful targets, the AI being much more clever, and never having to use a menu besides saving and buying guns. I liked the guns degrading over time if only to add a new dynamic to the old, tired shooter genre (just like in crysis where you could change weapon attachments on the fly). The physical map is by far my favorite, and they had a similar thing in Metal Gear Solid 5, if a bit too complicated.

'Keyora'

Well. Even the supplies menu was on the shop computer - so you never paused out of the
game to use it. - Completely realistic.

I loved being able to read the map while driving!

It's one of the only games where you can play through the ENTIRE game IN that world
without EVER having to leave it.

Originally posted by Twisted_omeN:

The game had some interesting ideas that needed to be improved upon, not simply removed entirely, and to tie this back into the main topic I believe the respawning enemies were one such mechanic. The outposts in 2 have a totally different feel than in 3, 3.5, 3.75...(insert laugh track here) mainly because they served no purpose to the player beyond an obstacle or a restock, which isn't good no matter how realistic it is to have people eventually wander back to them. But in 3 the number of outposts were reduced and made into much larger events which I personally think hampered the game. The outposts feel much more like an all-or-nothing task with, despite each one being different, made the approach of each outpost feel kinda the same. In 2 with the lesser danger from outposts it felt as though you can approach them easier and with a little more freedom.

I can see why they thought it a good idea to remove the enemies constantly coming back to the outposts in 3 because a) story wise you are working with a faction rather than a lone mercenary so they would be held, and b) with the outposts feeling like such large events it would be a pain to have to return to ones you've already taken to take them again. They tried to return the mechanic in 4 but rather than improving on it they just added different rules to it, which ended up making it feel exactly like the latter issue i just explaned last sentence.

Well in two they weren't as large or as fortified, many that you could barrel right through at
speed without taking much damage - if any. They were more like roadblock / checkpoints
with the main objectives serving the role of the 'outposts' in F C 3.

I do think it's important for the player to feel like he's making some kind of progress and
having a lasting affect on the environment.

In most games I've always tried to clear a level and then wander around and explore
without having to deal with constant conflict interruptions. I always called it 'winning'
the level. - It makes sense in F C 3 that since you are fighting for a 'side' that that side
would move in to populate what you've cleared out. - You have essentially 'won' that
territory - and that's a reasonable and well deserved reward for making the effort and
being successful.

- And I love having cleared areas. - There are many like myself who like to take little
vacations from the action from time to time without leaving the game. - Ubi even wisely
included a 'vacation feature' "fishing" in Far Cry 5. - In Mafia III I took three months off
devoted purely to boating exploration, I actually had a fantastic time - learned alot of
really helpful intel that helped emmensely planning later missions.. and when I finially
decided to rejoin the action it was with a renewed enthusiasm for the game.


(Mid-Game and especially Post-Game F C 3):

I have five different 'Tracks' for racing in the FC3 map. Just time trials, racing against my
best ttime - (facilitated by the handy 'stopwatch' and 'odometer' that's built into the stats
menu.) - Have had a great time picking and trying out new courses. - I would like more
vehicles.. - but that's just one of many 'vacation passtimes' that a trouble free map allows.

I'm working now on wingsuit routes and objectives. I e: Finding a route where you can
glide for 20 seconds or more at just 5' off the ground, and attempting to reach the top
of every high structure (besides radio towers) in the game. - All that would be a pain
or impossible in hostile areas.

I've had a fantastic time playing around in threat free zones. - It also gives you a bit
more of a sense of what Rook Island life could be like in peace time.

' It was beautiful once, it will be again '

Every time I hear that I think 'It is NOW, stupid.'

and when I hear 'Citra promised!' - I say 'Citra's dead, thank god..'
(and you know who done it, too.)-((Prob a subject for a whole other thread))

The outposts and their respective territories are different enough that selecting which to
clear and which to leave becomes a creative endeavour not a destructive one.

Would be nice to be able to reset individual outposts like in 4, but 3 is quite managable
to clear all remaining before resetting. For me it's a much richer environment than in 4.


Thanks very much for your well considered commentary -> +


'Donkey-Day'

- T K -