nicked on 19/11/2015 at 07:43
I remember thinking at the time that Far Cry 3 felt like a step backwards graphically, but I couldn't tell whether it actually was, or was just more generic art direction or just cognitive bias based on the fact that the environment was more familiar from FC1.
faetal on 19/11/2015 at 10:26
Wow, Infamous SS looks like a TPP Sim City 4.
icemann on 19/11/2015 at 14:05
Far Cry 2 is definitely the better of the 2 graphically when compared to 3. Just watch the comparison videos.
Sulphur on 19/11/2015 at 18:07
FC3 definitely had a lot of whizz-bang graphical effects going on, but it also had some pretty generic art direction that sums up to 'tropical island'. FC2's setting is darkest Africa, where you have deserted afternoon bus stations with wind rushing in the boughs of the trees around, and white heat baking off of rippled expanses of sand. It's the same land where hills rear into the distance beyond rocky outcrops, and the moon is a baleful circle of light pushing through the dark canopy of a forest.
That's the sort of meaningful difference good art direction can make; FC3 is a good-looking game, but it's good-looking in a very bland way.
faetal on 19/11/2015 at 20:42
Far Cry 2 felt like a place. Far Cry 3 felt like a bunch of map markers with scenery sculpted around them.
