Far Cry versus Doom3

[Ksaltotun]

Both games are well-known to many gamers. Which one you find better and why?
I vote for Far Cry. My arguments:
1. Graphics in Far Cry better than that in Doom3.
2. Gameplay is more captivating, intriguing despite the plot is not a new one. Far Cry is more a FPS than Doom3. In Doom3 you rarely can meet more than 5 enemies in one room.
3. Gameplay is more manifold. Playing Far Cry one will visit tropical islands, ocean shores, secret laboratories, barracks etc. In Doom3 you see laboratories and hell only.
What do you think?

[Bruenor]

On to your points.

1) Doom III has a slight edge overall but they are two different engines. Far Cry is best at rendering large outdoor environments, and Doom III indoor environments. When indoors, the Far Cry engine looks significantly "worse" than Doom III.

2) Far Cry is more of a FPS than Doom III???? OK, whatever. It's First Person Shooter, both are viewed in first person and (GASP!!!) you shoot. They are different styles but they are both first person shooters. You obviously like one style over the other, but you "point" is meaningless.

3) See above, different styles of games. Doom III has always been about demons and hell, Far Cry isn't. So you like one style over another, good for you. That alone doesn't make one game better than the other.

[Ksaltotun]

1. When indoors, the Far Cry engine looks significantly "worse" than Doom III.
Why so? Look at Archive or Cooler levels of Far Cry. The same indoor environments, but I didn't find it worse than Doom3. Look at the walls. Textures on walls in Far Cry are better than in Doom3. This advantage of Doom3 in indoor environments is a prejudice no more. Dim light(in Doom3 you can see either nothing or the next door and rarely anything else) does not allow you to see the quality of graphics. Try playing with r_gamma 2, and use good flashlight - then you'll see.
2. both are viewed in first person and (GASP!!!) you shoot.
Correct but FPS implies more enemies and action. Doom3 offers you to walk in the dark and shoot at 2 enemies when you see nothing. It is more a horror game than FPS.
3. Doom III has always been about demons and hell
Correct once again but it doesn't mean that you must always "travel" from one laboratory to another to see the same dreary environment around you. I think different environments is an advantage of Far Cry.

[Bruenor]

Correct but FPS implies more enemies and action. Doom3 offers you to walk in the dark and shoot at 2 enemies when you see nothing. It is more a horror game than FPS.

Wrong, First Person Shooter implies you are engaged in shooting from a first person perspective. The sub-genre implies what kind of game you are going to play, and as stated before Doom III and Far Cry are different so you are trying to compare apples and oranges and present this unfair comparison as fact.

By your meaning, then I guess Serious Sam and Painkiller (heck, even Postal 2 and Will Rock) are far more "true" first person shooters than either Far Cry or Doom III.

Is that what you are trying to say?

I thought the graphics in Far Cry were a little flat indoors while Doom III was far more dynamic. We'll have to agree to disagree. The real test for the Doom III engine is when someone is going to make a game using outdoor environments. Maybe the sequel to Return to Castle Wolfenstein (lord knows Quake IV will be indoors too).

So your saying that you don't like the setting of Doom III and you liked the setting of Far Cry. Good for you, you formed an opinion, have a cookie.

I on the other hand loved both games and refuse to fall into the whole Far Cry vs Doom III fanbois crap, just like I'll refuse to get pulled into the inevitable Far Cry vs Doom III vs Half-Life 2 fanbois crap that is already going around.

[pigwalk_arg]

Hmm.... I believe they´re both good at what they´re trying to accomplish, which are totally opposite ends of the spectrum. Far Cry feels alot more open, free-er, more options on how to do things, taking enemies out from afar, outdoors, vehicles. Dom 3 goes for a more claustrophobic feel, less enemies but having them jump out at you, you´re supposed to feel "trapped" unlike FC.

Can´t really compare them too much, they´re pretty much apples n oranges.

-pig

[Jagndeke]

I bought both games and enjoyed playing both games for what they are. I'm glad they are different in so many ways otherwise it would've been somewhat boring playing through Doom 3 after finishing Far Cry if there weren't so many unique differences.

I'm also looking forward to HL2 (hopefully soon) since I anticipate another unique FPS experience compared to both FC and D3. The unique differences in gameplay and environment between all 3 games will mean a higher replay value in all 3 games once the mod community starts kicking out some good stuff. And that's good for all of us. :wink: :shades:

[Rob]

Morrowind is done in the first person and if you go with a bow, you are technically shooting in the first person, but I would never classify Morrowind a FPS but an RPG.

To me, Quake 3, Counter Strike and Unreal Tournament are FPS.
Doom 3 would be a horror game in the FPS style.

Never played Far Cry so I could not comment fully, but from my impression it too would be a FPS.

[Gaim Mastr]

I've been playing Far Cry with maxed settings and have been loving it so far. Crawling through the jungle with multiple options of approach and travel are great. I've had my fill of being forced down a single, narrow path through map after map in games like MoH:AA, RtCW and NOLF. All FPS games.

I recall passing on the Die Hard: Nakatomi Plaza game due to being forced to play by running through narrow corridors. I'm hoping that the days of narrow paths through FPS games are coming to an end.

However, I've had Doom 3 on my shelf for a couple of weeks now. I'll probably install it and check it out later this week or weekend.

My only complaint so far is...

fanbois

Were you trying to say "fanboys" ??

Good gravy, man. What's next ??

"teh qwik browne foxe jumpped ovur teh lazee dawg."

:p:

[OldsterHolster]

Heh, heh. I was wondering about "fanbois," too. I pretty much agree with all the responses. I think Ksaltotun should have limited his question to "Which one gave you the most gaming pleasure?" I absolutely loved Far Cry, and I played through it, twice. I'm only up to the Monorail level in Doom 3, so a final evaluation is still a ways off; but I'm liking it a lot, too.

I'll admit, I'm pretty easy; and I usually find something to enjoy in every shooter I play. Finding faults or shortcomings will always deteriorate into arguments over personal preferences, and comparing games is tricky. Let's wait six months, and then compare our memories of the pleasure we got from them.

Far Cry was wonderful, no doubt. Sometimes I'd take the day off and just go hang-gliding, or swimming; and I immersed every time I loaded it up. Likewise, Doom 3 sends chills up and down my spine, makes me jump, and has me looking over my sholder and turning on lights. Heh, heh. That's pretty "immersed," too. (Or maybe "sucked-in.") Anyway, like everyone is saying, they're both excellent games, only different; and variety is the spice, right? In my mind, an effective soldier can persevere in all campaigns; and bitchin' doesn't really accomplish much. I've already got my island patch, and I'm determined to get my Mars and Hell stripe, soon. Heh, heh. A real veteran just handles it all as it comes. Shoot straight, everyone, and; when we get old, we can sit around the bar and bitch about how little stamina we had on the islands, or how dark it was on Mars. Meanwhile, let's just enjoy what we do. Edward.

[Mike_pi_phi]

The comment about a game which has both first person perspective and shooting involved and classifying this as a "First Person Shooter" is erroneous. First Person Shooter's are a genre not a perspective,i would even classify Max Payne 2 as a FPS, bacause it contains the 'realistic'( ok bullet time ) to game play; where you basically run and gun in a linear fashion.

[Fzoulcmbyl]

Speaking of Far Cry,...I just saw this Mod, over at Slowplanet.....


This is a Co-op modification for Far Cry, allowing you to team up with your friends for an tropical island fragfest.


Mod (http://www.fileplanet.com/files/140000/144433.shtml)

Edit:... Gamershell has a little more info...

"FarCryHQ is hosting a co-op mod for Far Cry allowing to play all single-player missions with up to 3 players."

Gamers Mod (http://www.gamershell.com/download_6720.shtml)


http://www2.fileplanet.com/images/140000/144433ss_sm.jpg


I haven't heard anything on this, but if it really works...that would be awesome!


Fzoul

[SupaTroopa]

Hmm, sounds good (Mod for Far Cry).

I would say, as far as this thread goes, I'd prefer FC if I had to choose, a bit of an underappreciated game if you ask me.

[Ksaltotun]

I'd prefer FC if I had to choose, a bit of an underappreciated game
Far Cry is a bit underestimated just as Doom3 is a bit overestimated.

[wildwildwest301]

i dont know, gamers love farcry and talk about it all the time, but big news groups dont for some reason. they are kind of like opposites in that regard.

[Ojnod]

I agree with wild west. I liked farcry better but I didn't think doom is bad. Farcry doesn't get the attention it deserves.

[Cronus]

Doom3 has better lighting. Far Cry looks pretty, and has amazing outdoor views, but Doom3 looks real in a way FC just doesn't.

[wildwildwest301]

Doom3 has better lighting.
You must have meant no lighting. Im sorry, but thats not real at all. Most places I go throughout my day, I can actually see where I am or what is coming at me. Thats rediculous, it has better "darking" thats what Id call it.

[Ojnod]

You must have meant no lighting. Im sorry, but thats not real at all. Most places I go throughout my day, I can actually see where I am or what is coming at me. Thats rediculous, it has better "darking" thats what Id call it.

No offense but I am curious, do you have your monitor properly calibrated? I have played a fair amount of the game (haven't had time to finish it) and it isn't really THAT dark. If you have your brightness, contrast, colors, etc. set properly, there should not be a problem. I have only had to use the flashlight a handful of times after I got used to the style of the game, and no I didn't crank the gamma up.

[wildwildwest301]

my monitor is properly configured, but it is still dark, thats the point of the game man, i would contest highly that lowlight/dark situations are realistic.

[Gaim Mastr]

I've finally finished Far Cry and in an uber short review I'd say.... friggin' Game of the Year material for certain !! :yes:

Related to Donjo's last post... My $550 monitor seems to be overly dark by default. In most games on default setting I get to dark spots that are so dark I can't see squat. In Jedi Knight 2: JO I moved the gamma slider quite a bit before I could see the "6" required for good visuals.

I have no doubt that I'll have to adjust it considerably higher for Doom 3 once I install it.

Right now I'm going through Clive Barker's Undying. With the hair raising on my neck I'm learning to love scary games. They give me a thrill that I've not sensed since the old days of first watching horror movies; and I absolutely LOVE it !!

:scared2:

[Cronus]

Well better than FC lighting by a long way anyway.

You should see the spotlights from the boss in hell on the walls. It's lovely. And freaky,

[3v01v3]

Both games are well-known to many gamers. Which one you find better and why?
I vote for Far Cry. My arguments:
1. Graphics in Far Cry better than that in Doom3.
2. Gameplay is more captivating, intriguing despite the plot is not a new one. Far Cry is more a FPS than Doom3. In Doom3 you rarely can meet more than 5 enemies in one room.
3. Gameplay is more manifold. Playing Far Cry one will visit tropical islands, ocean shores, secret laboratories, barracks etc. In Doom3 you see laboratories and hell only.
What do you think?

i pretty much agree with everything except for the fact that the doom engine is a small step up, graphic wise.