28 ms·

This is a vague comment. What about Far Cry 2 made it especially "immersing", to you? What was the part that made it feel like "reality"? For me i found Far Cr

This is a vague comment. What about Far Cry 2 made it especially "immersing", to you? What was the part that made it feel like "reality"? For me i found Far Cry 2 spectacular, probably the best first-person shooter of all time, because it constantly makes you feel like shit about the fact you are playing a mass-murderer. That felt confronting and "real" to me. Another game that does this is Spec Ops: The Line, although that is a much more tightly-plotted "interactive movie" type game where you are funneled along certain paths to advance the story. Another very bleak and depressing shooter is Metro 2033. It is horrendously difficult. You will never have enough ammo. Your gas mask will always break. I never finished it because it made me feel too miserable every time i played. Unlike Far Cry 2 you are forced down corridors, so there is no respite. You can't just go out in the jungle and watch the sunset for a while. If you are looking more for "open world" games where you can wander around on a big map and do your own thing, there are dozens of those. Personally i am not a fan so i can't give a specific recommendation, but you could check out any of the other Far Cry games, the Assassin's Creed games, Grand Theft Auto 3 and later, Fallout 3 and later, Red Dead Redemption, Stalker series, Metal Gear Solid 5 and probably the other ones too, etc. If you are more interested by the sickness and vulnerability aspect, there is a whole class of games called "survival games" that don't give you a storyline, they just set up random environments that you have to walk around and survive in. I imagine the better ones are similar to those times in Far Cry 2 where you crawl on your belly through the mud and the elephant grass desperately trying to make your way to the doctor who will refill your meds before you die of malaria. It really depends what you are looking for from a computer game. Personally, i get Far Cry 2 feelings mostly from games that don't follow shooter mechanics - walking sims, art games and adventures... but those genres are frequently likened to "interactive movies", so i think it depends a lot on your taste.

hoorayimhelping 7y ago
>For me i found Far Cry 2 spectacular, probably the best first-person shooter of all time, because it constantly makes you feel like shit about the fact you are playing a mass-murderer. That felt confronting and "real" to me. I hate when games do this. Far Cry 2 and 3 were really bad about it, as well as Bioshock. The game puts you in a situation where you have to react a certain way to play the inherently limited game world that was designed by a person, and the designers think they're like crazy insightful for pointing out that your character is killing hundreds of people. It's so tautological and annoying. "Oh my god, you just played this game the way we designed it and now your character is a mass murderer, how can you live with yourself?!" Eye roll.
- lacker 7y ago
  I imagine that is also how real mass murderers feel, that life forced them into it somehow. You are always free to stop playing the game.
- alisonatwork 7y ago
  I tried to play Bioshock and gave up after about an hour because i found all the mindless zombies running out to kill me kind of tedious. The story (if there was one) didn't capture me at all. Far Cry 2 was a totally different kind of game. Far Cry 2 wasn't leading the player on some voyage of self-discovery. There is no epic storyline. It is clear from the very beginning that you are a foreign mercenary coming into a war-torn country to kill people for money. You are a scumbag from the jump, and you continue to be a scumbag throughout the entire game. If you don't want to play that game, you don't have to play it. The thing i like about Far Cry 2 is that it never tries to shoehorn in some kind of redemption arc. It never tries to justify the violence. You take money from both sides. You double-cross everybody. Just like other first-person shooters, you kill pretty much everyone you meet. But unlike other first-person shooters, there is no implication that the people you are killing are "baddies". You are just a killer. The end. I don't think the designers are sitting around feeling smug about it. That's just the game. I thought it was a good one.
  - baud147258 7y ago
    There's some kind of redemption arc during the ending sequence of Far Cry 2. But that's it and I agree with you.
- leetcrew 7y ago
  it's not "deep" or "thought provoking", but it's a breath of fresh air from the usual fps cognitive dissonance of being a hero who runs around massacring thousands of people. honestly I don't think FC2 even tries to make you feel bad; it just doesn't bother to shove some ham-fisted justification of your violence into the plot. it's nihilistic. spec ops: the line is a game that actually tries to make you feel bad about what you're doing. here's a collection of some of the loading screen "tips": https://www.reddit.com/r/Frisson/comments/2596hq/text_spec_ops_the_line_loading_screens_spoilers/ https://www.reddit.com/r/Frisson/comments/2596hq/text_spec_o...
richardjdare 7y ago
The Dishonored series is very good at evoking an unsettling moral environment. When the game starts you are a straight-up hero, fighting to clear your name and restore a "responsible" monarchy that has been overthrown by a dictator. As you make your way around the game world you start to connect the dots and realise what a horrific place Dunwall is. Arrogant untouchable aristocrats preside over a plague-ridden hell of inequality, exploitation, animal cruelty and human experimentation, alongside a fanatical religious police whose godless faith seems to be based only on fear of the unknown. And that was the state of affairs before the dictator took over. Apart from the plague, that is the world you are trying to restore. The characters you play have their own moral conflicts within the world, but are still creatures of that society, place and time. I find it fascinating how Dishonored drops you into this familiar yet uncanny world where people think very differently from us. This worldbuilding, along with the wonderful art direction, stealth gameplay and masterful level design make the Dishonored series my favourite games of the past 20 years. Get the whole series, and make sure you get the DLC for the first game :)
- bitL 7y ago
  I can't force myself to finish Dishonored 2; compared to 1 I just found it too "unatmospheric" and couldn't care less about the plotline (meh). Does it get better? Steam forum is full of people complaining about it being boring.
  - richardjdare 7y ago
    While I prefer the atmosphere of the first game, Dishonored 2 has some of the best level design and environment architecture I've ever seen. Have you been to Jindosh's clockwork mansion, or paid a visit to Aramis Stilton? I loved those levels. Also I really wanted to know what happened to Daud, so I scoured the whole game looking for clues about him. :) Then again, I am a huge Dishonored fanboy. There aren't many games that make me feel like that these days, so I embrace it.
- shantly 7y ago
  IMO both games are best played at max difficulty with most of the HUD junk turned off, and no save-scumming. You're a friggin' superhero, and even at top difficulty the only thing keeping you from shredding your way through the levels (past perhaps the first one) is whatever sense of ethics you bring to the game. Max difficulty just means if you screw up, people die. Not you, probably. But other people. That's an uncommon experience in games, where you have enough power to accomplish goals while keeping kills low and it doesn't require a ton of trial & error and "gamey" playing to do it (think, the Thief series or something like Deus Ex at the higher difficulties) so it all feels relatively natural. But there's real challenge and tension in trying to get through when a miss-step means killing that guy you're trying to avoid. Your goals are well enough motivated and important enough that it's not plainly unjustified to fight your way through, and these folks are trying to kill you, but they're also people with their own lives, and you've got some serious great power / great responsibility things going on. It's an interesting & fun perspective.
Kovah 7y ago
I really like it when games try to keep their world as realistic as possible. One of the main things Far Cry tried to achieve. The fires, small but important animations like getting in and out of a car (like described in the article), and so on. This could also be applied to sci-fi titles, like Metro. Metro indeed is one of the few good examples. Despite the weird setting with all those monsters, it's very realistic. Ammo, gas mask, you mentioned it. When talking about immersing games, I think you have to clearly separate between those that have an immersing story (great setting, exciting story,..) and those that are immersing in the setting and environment itself. I think the latter is what actual is talked about in the article. Assassins Creed has a great story, but I never really felt very connected to the character. Same for Fallout 3 and 4, although the whole game is built around your very character. Fallout Nev Vegas, on the other hand, had a very complex environment where making a false decision could lead to a complete different ending of the story. About the point of survival games: I can't remember one game of this genre that was truly immersive, because all lacked some particular part; be it being close to reality, be it about vulnerability or emotions. SCUM is pretty good in this, but is far from being a title worth pushing into the same line as Far Cry 2 or Metro. But, in the end, it's all about personal opinion and preferences. Like hoorayimhelping said, he doesn't like being pushing into the evil mass-murderer role. I for my part like this very much and the challenge of trying to find the most "civil" way to reach your goals is kind of immersing, even if the title is a shooter. Good example here is Call of Duty Modern Warfare 2, the scene at the airport where you had to kill hundreds of civilians [1]. I played the mission both with the part of the civilian killing, and without, but here was no difference. The environment didn't punish you for either killing or sparing people. In my opinion a very interesting conversation. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controversies_surrounding_Call_of_Duty:_Modern_Warfare_2 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controversies_surrounding_Call...
- baud147258 7y ago
  > the scene at the airport where you had to kill hundreds of civilians You didn't _had_ to kill civilians. You can just follow the others and not fire a shot, until the firefights later in that mission.

hoorayimhelping 7y ago

>For me i found Far Cry 2 spectacular, probably the best first-person shooter of all time, because it constantly makes you feel like shit about the fact you are playing a mass-murderer. That felt confronting and "real" to me. I hate when games do this. Far Cry 2 and 3 were really bad about it, as well as Bioshock. The game puts you in a situation where you have to react a certain way to play the inherently limited game world that was designed by a person, and the designers think they're like crazy insightful for pointing out that your character is killing hundreds of people. It's so tautological and annoying. "Oh my god, you just played this game the way we designed it and now your character is a mass murderer, how can you live with yourself?!" Eye roll.

lacker 7y ago
I imagine that is also how real mass murderers feel, that life forced them into it somehow. You are always free to stop playing the game.
alisonatwork 7y ago
I tried to play Bioshock and gave up after about an hour because i found all the mindless zombies running out to kill me kind of tedious. The story (if there was one) didn't capture me at all. Far Cry 2 was a totally different kind of game. Far Cry 2 wasn't leading the player on some voyage of self-discovery. There is no epic storyline. It is clear from the very beginning that you are a foreign mercenary coming into a war-torn country to kill people for money. You are a scumbag from the jump, and you continue to be a scumbag throughout the entire game. If you don't want to play that game, you don't have to play it. The thing i like about Far Cry 2 is that it never tries to shoehorn in some kind of redemption arc. It never tries to justify the violence. You take money from both sides. You double-cross everybody. Just like other first-person shooters, you kill pretty much everyone you meet. But unlike other first-person shooters, there is no implication that the people you are killing are "baddies". You are just a killer. The end. I don't think the designers are sitting around feeling smug about it. That's just the game. I thought it was a good one.
- baud147258 7y ago
  There's some kind of redemption arc during the ending sequence of Far Cry 2. But that's it and I agree with you.
leetcrew 7y ago
it's not "deep" or "thought provoking", but it's a breath of fresh air from the usual fps cognitive dissonance of being a hero who runs around massacring thousands of people. honestly I don't think FC2 even tries to make you feel bad; it just doesn't bother to shove some ham-fisted justification of your violence into the plot. it's nihilistic. spec ops: the line is a game that actually tries to make you feel bad about what you're doing. here's a collection of some of the loading screen "tips": https://www.reddit.com/r/Frisson/comments/2596hq/text_spec_ops_the_line_loading_screens_spoilers/ https://www.reddit.com/r/Frisson/comments/2596hq/text_spec_o...

richardjdare 7y ago

The Dishonored series is very good at evoking an unsettling moral environment. When the game starts you are a straight-up hero, fighting to clear your name and restore a "responsible" monarchy that has been overthrown by a dictator. As you make your way around the game world you start to connect the dots and realise what a horrific place Dunwall is. Arrogant untouchable aristocrats preside over a plague-ridden hell of inequality, exploitation, animal cruelty and human experimentation, alongside a fanatical religious police whose godless faith seems to be based only on fear of the unknown. And that was the state of affairs before the dictator took over. Apart from the plague, that is the world you are trying to restore. The characters you play have their own moral conflicts within the world, but are still creatures of that society, place and time. I find it fascinating how Dishonored drops you into this familiar yet uncanny world where people think very differently from us. This worldbuilding, along with the wonderful art direction, stealth gameplay and masterful level design make the Dishonored series my favourite games of the past 20 years. Get the whole series, and make sure you get the DLC for the first game :)

bitL 7y ago
I can't force myself to finish Dishonored 2; compared to 1 I just found it too "unatmospheric" and couldn't care less about the plotline (meh). Does it get better? Steam forum is full of people complaining about it being boring.
- richardjdare 7y ago
  While I prefer the atmosphere of the first game, Dishonored 2 has some of the best level design and environment architecture I've ever seen. Have you been to Jindosh's clockwork mansion, or paid a visit to Aramis Stilton? I loved those levels. Also I really wanted to know what happened to Daud, so I scoured the whole game looking for clues about him. :) Then again, I am a huge Dishonored fanboy. There aren't many games that make me feel like that these days, so I embrace it.
shantly 7y ago
IMO both games are best played at max difficulty with most of the HUD junk turned off, and no save-scumming. You're a friggin' superhero, and even at top difficulty the only thing keeping you from shredding your way through the levels (past perhaps the first one) is whatever sense of ethics you bring to the game. Max difficulty just means if you screw up, people die. Not you, probably. But other people. That's an uncommon experience in games, where you have enough power to accomplish goals while keeping kills low and it doesn't require a ton of trial & error and "gamey" playing to do it (think, the Thief series or something like Deus Ex at the higher difficulties) so it all feels relatively natural. But there's real challenge and tension in trying to get through when a miss-step means killing that guy you're trying to avoid. Your goals are well enough motivated and important enough that it's not plainly unjustified to fight your way through, and these folks are trying to kill you, but they're also people with their own lives, and you've got some serious great power / great responsibility things going on. It's an interesting & fun perspective.

Kovah 7y ago

I really like it when games try to keep their world as realistic as possible. One of the main things Far Cry tried to achieve. The fires, small but important animations like getting in and out of a car (like described in the article), and so on. This could also be applied to sci-fi titles, like Metro. Metro indeed is one of the few good examples. Despite the weird setting with all those monsters, it's very realistic. Ammo, gas mask, you mentioned it. When talking about immersing games, I think you have to clearly separate between those that have an immersing story (great setting, exciting story,..) and those that are immersing in the setting and environment itself. I think the latter is what actual is talked about in the article. Assassins Creed has a great story, but I never really felt very connected to the character. Same for Fallout 3 and 4, although the whole game is built around your very character. Fallout Nev Vegas, on the other hand, had a very complex environment where making a false decision could lead to a complete different ending of the story. About the point of survival games: I can't remember one game of this genre that was truly immersive, because all lacked some particular part; be it being close to reality, be it about vulnerability or emotions. SCUM is pretty good in this, but is far from being a title worth pushing into the same line as Far Cry 2 or Metro. But, in the end, it's all about personal opinion and preferences. Like hoorayimhelping said, he doesn't like being pushing into the evil mass-murderer role. I for my part like this very much and the challenge of trying to find the most "civil" way to reach your goals is kind of immersing, even if the title is a shooter. Good example here is Call of Duty Modern Warfare 2, the scene at the airport where you had to kill hundreds of civilians [1]. I played the mission both with the part of the civilian killing, and without, but here was no difference. The environment didn't punish you for either killing or sparing people. In my opinion a very interesting conversation. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controversies_surrounding_Call_of_Duty:_Modern_Warfare_2 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controversies_surrounding_Call...

baud147258 7y ago
> the scene at the airport where you had to kill hundreds of civilians You didn't _had_ to kill civilians. You can just follow the others and not fire a shot, until the firefights later in that mission.