Profile of Pounder

FarCry 3 really worth to buy??

I purchased Far Cry 3 a while back and got totally sucked into it. I don't usually buy games close to their release, and honestly I hardly game at all these days. But I've been getting back into it and after watching the first 10 to 15 minutes of an FC3 LP, I decided to fork over some dollars. It probably helped that the game was on sale at the time too.

I feel like I completely got my money's worth. It's what Far Cry 2 should've been. Not perfect, but a much better step in the right direction. It's a good mix of FPS-RPG play with a fairly unique and interesting story behind it.

RPG-wise, it's quite a bit of fun to upgrade your gear so you can hold more ammo, rockets, med-syringes, etc. The "side quests" are a bit repetitive, but they don't detract from the overall game and aren't really necessary to do. It's a little too black-and-white sometimes - for example (and Rogers pointed this out to me), when you clear a hostile base in order for your side to use it as a base, and you to use it as a save location/quick travel point, the enemies that otherwise patrol and drive around the area are suddenly absent. You can basically expect no jeep ambushes while running around that particular area anymore.

I didn't care about this too much because I thought it was a very annoying problem in FC2 where you'd be driving around and suddenly be lit up buy a recently spawned tactical full of bad guys. It felt, to me, that your actions had little to no impact in the virtual world, whereas in FC3 the lack of hostile encounters around a friendly base feels like you actually had an impact. But, like I said, it's a bit too black-and-white and sort of feels like the devs went just a little too far to correct the issue from FC2. That being said, it didn't take much away from the game for me at all.

Gameplay-wise, it's surprisingly varied. There are these "signature" weapons if you're the type that loves having an unfair/OP advantage over the computer. I like it every now and then, especially when I get completely owned while trying to take a base from the pirates or mercs. But you can simply use the weapons you earn, customize them a bit and go to town. You can do everything from equipping a rocket launcher, a grenade launcher, a .50 caliber sniper rifle and a Desert Eagle/.44 Magnum revolver and just announce to the world that you're laying waste to their shit... or you can grab a bow, a silenced pistol, a silenced MP5, and even a silenced .50 cal sniper rifle (which can, admittedly, be immersive breaking for some), and be mister stealth. Take out their alarm boxes, knife bitches and drag them away, snipe the dudes in the watchtower before they get a bead on you, and arrow Mister Suspicious creeping around your body-dump site.

All in all, it's highly enjoyable and definitely re-playable. The story and characters are interesting and unique in the current gaming industry and it was, for me, very immersive.

That being said, I'm currently playing Civilization V from time to time. It's very fun if you're into long strategies, but the payoff is very time consuming for larger games.

Also jamming Dead Space as I bought it on sale a while back and it's pretty good so far, especially for $5.

Thank you for the kind words everybody.

And thanks Jenni for bringing that to our attention. I knew I forgot to mention something last week. We may have just over-compensated a bit when we were having mic/recording troubles a few months ago.

We'll also be posting all new shows on our Tweetr and FaceBewk pages.

I'm not particularly fond of the idea. Personally, it just bothers me on a (I suppose) historical accuracy perspective. Guess what? That's on me. I don't have to play mirror matches if I don't want to.

Anyone who wants COH2 to be a serious competitive RTS should support mirror matches.

This point exactly. No matter how "dumb" or off it feels, mirror matches will hypothetically allow more diverse gameplay and therefore more diverse games. Because of this, it should draw more players and/or spectators. Keeping in mind that CoH2 is a game.

Regardless of how realistic a mirror match is, the gameplay will be different than a regular Axis versus Allies match. Taking the names/labels of the factions out of it, from a purely game playing perspective, it allows for more choices, varied matchups, different strategies, etc. Overall it appears to me that mirror matches would have a net benefit for gameplay.

Rogers and I discussed this issue a few days back and almost unanimously agreed that mirror matches in competitive play was something we didn't want to see. However, after a very different and challenging game we played later on, I began to rethink my conclusion completely, eventually coming to a different view altogether.

So those more inclined towards "historical accuracy" are free to play that way, and those who want to play a game in mixed/mirrored match are also free to play as they want.

I had a potential solution to the problem of filtering mirror matches on ladder for some players, but I don't think this is the time to get into "what if" scenarios. I believe it's possible to implement mirror matches without 'hurting' the overall feel of the game.

I can see the potential for a decrease in a competitive feel, one reason being it could feel more "free for all" and less one side versus the opposite side. Who knows, but I'd be interested in finding out.

I have an erect-tion! TMI? Give me kisses.

Jump back to quoted post24 Nov 2012, 22:23 PMRogers

Tanks at least from the alpha we played were more powerful but still soft-counterable by infantry and light vehicles if used properly. However you will not see blobs of infantry chasing off 3 tanks anymore.

why not?

Mainly because they will get ripped to pieces. Tanks destroy infantry. Not just with the main guns (which have considerably improved accuracy over CoH1 tanks), but the coaxial machine guns are also extremely deadly against infantry units. A couple of burps of the ol' MG-34 and two squad members would be no more. Wait another 15-30 seconds and the squad has disappeared.

During the alpha skirmish demo, if you wanted to take out a tank, it was a combined arms battle. You'd've better brought a tank of your own. If you didn't have one, you'd better hope the infantry squad(s) you had could dodge and move around quickly enough to keep sight-lines on the tank for your AT gun.

Tanks don't need to run away from "shreck blobs." Shrecks seemed to need to be fairly close to the tank to guarantee a hit, which would essentially guarantee a couple members of the squad biting dust (unless the tank was otherwise distracted). And by "fairly close" I'm talking 10-20 meters or so, well within sight and firing range of the tank. Schrecks are definitely more supplemental in CoH2, as opposed to an armor deterrent or a full-on anti-ever-armor brigade. They need support, cover, and if possible, the element of surprise.

AT guns are extremely effective because of their range and their ability to use the environment to their advantage, such as using a wall, building or tree(s) as a "blind-spot." However, they can't just end a tank on their own in a 1-on-1 match-up. Nothing will do that besides another tank. They are machines to be feared and revered. Expensive as hell, difficult to maneuver and vulnerable to a variety of combined counters.

Did you notice anything different about their line of sight btw ?

Different to what? CoH1 or other units in the game?

Relative to CoH1, every unit's sight-lines are different. It's no longer an all-encompassing radius, unhindered by the environment. Wind direction, snowfall, trees, walls, bushes, all of it would reduce the LoS for units.

Relative to other units, tanks had a fairly smaller radius* than infantry or lighter vehicles. Regardless, tanks are just as susceptible to ColdTech as any infantry unit. Driving into a snow bank blows as suddenly you lose speed and effectively become a sitting duck for an AT gun lying in wait, knowing you were going to try and flank and fail because you didn't realize the snow was there. You decide to press on because you don't meet any initial resistance, and you drive further into the snow bank hoping to catch your enemy unawares... too far. Halfway in, an AT gun opens up on your left-side armor, and before you can reverse the hell out of there, you're scrapped.

*I could be very, very wrong, but I thought I remembered someone from the Relic or THQ team saying that we could pop the commander out of the cupola and increase the sight-range of the tank at the risk of the commander's life. I never saw or tried this and therefore could be remembering something completely different. Can anyone confirm or negate this? I'm so unsure that I could've just dreamed it up in my sleep.

I think these points are more or less a given and I feel relic has them bolted down with their true light of sight approach and the reduction of hand held AT (Russians have molotows, though...)

Yes, tanks are very scary. I lost 3 squads of varying quality quite quickly to a Panzer IV as my T-70 and T-34/76 took their sweet, fuckin' time crossing the frozen fuckin' river.

The Russians do have the PTRS-41 (or PTRD-41, can't remember which one is in-game) anti-tank rifle as an infantry upgrade as well.