Far Cry vs. COD

[fsstrike]

My friend belives that COD is better than Far Cry, and I completely disagree. In my opinion, Far Cry has better graphics, sound, and gameplay. To me, Far Cry is on a much higher level than COD and it just cannot compare. What do you guys think?

 

[Turkish]

Far Cry has better graphics, sounds, etc.

But Call of Duty was way more fun IMO.

 

[Czar]

COD has better gameplay but it left a bitter taste because its way too short, so I was a bit disapointed with cod

Farcry deliverd, awsome game in all aspects

 

[Gibson12345]

CoD was just a better game. Graphics aren't everything. When I hopped off the boat in Stalingrad saw it get blown to bits a second later, with "deaf" effect and blurred vision... that's the reason I play games, not to look out over the water and say, "ohhh, purty."

 

[BlueWeasel]

I've only played the FC demo at this point, and I doubt I'll buy the full game anytime soon.

I still haven't finished the single-player campaign of COD, but only because multiplayer is where I spend all my free time. The SP campaign is still awesome and alone worth the $40 I paid.

 

[Qu1cK]

lol rob looks like some of theese guys agree with me, anyways every1 has their opinion and i respect that, and mine is cod is better

 

[zodder]

I dig both.

 

[dpm]

They were both damn good, but for SP CoD edges it.
Sure, it was scripted, but it was scripted so damn well. I'm almost tempted to reinstall it to play through again, but that would take time away from BF:Vietnam

 

[b4u]

Uhm ... what about MP? How is FarCry compared to COD? Better? Worse?

Is there any sort of punkbuster? What about style of game? Is it more like COD, ET, ... ?

 

[43st]

Two seperate games. CoD leads you around with scripted events, no thinking needed... just shoot. FC lets you choose the path, more thinking required, less shooting.

Some people love choosing, others love shooting... One is not "better" per say... just different.

 

[skace]

Originally posted by: Thera
Two seperate games. CoD leads you around with scripted events, no thinking needed... just shoot. FC lets you choose the path, more thinking required, less shooting.

Some people love choosing, others love shooting... One is not "better" per say... just different.

Yea, FC has so many paths to choose from and requires so much thinking. *cough*. Both are straight up shooters. Can you honestly say that the 'choices' in FC made the game? Are we talking Baldurs Gate style choices here or choices like "Do I get out and shoot him in the head, or just run him over?"....

 

[igowerf]

If Far Cry has you battle weird mutant monsters.... then CoD is the winner. The scripted events in CoD are great. It's like playing a movie.

 

[Sunner]

Well, at least someone agrees with you fsstrike.
That would be me

I tried CoD, played for about 5-10 minutes, got extremely bored, and haven't tried it since.

 

[0roo0roo]

cod for gameplay/voice acting by far.

 

[TechJunkie95242]

Originally posted by: b4u
Uhm ... what about MP? How is FarCry compared to COD? Better? Worse?

Is there any sort of punkbuster? What about style of game? Is it more like COD, ET, ... ?

-------------------------
Machine: Sinclair ZX Spectrum @ 3.5Mhz Processor: Z80A 3.5Mhz
Memory: 16kb basic ROM, 48k RAM Graphics: 256x192 resolution, 8 colours
Drives: Timex Sinclair 2020 + 2 Cassette Decks (both with hole on case to fine-tune the head)
Game Periferals: Kempston Joystick Printer: Timex Sinclair 2040 Thermal Printer

Are you going to try to play Doom3 on that rig?
LMAO!
jk dood

 

[dpm]

Originally posted by: skace

Originally posted by: Thera Two seperate games. CoD leads you around with scripted events, no thinking needed... just shoot. FC lets you choose the path, more thinking required, less shooting. Some people love choosing, others love shooting... One is not "better" per say... just different.

Yea, FC has so many paths to choose from and requires so much thinking. *cough*. Both are straight up shooters. Can you honestly say that the 'choices' in FC made the game? Are we talking Baldurs Gate style choices here or choices like "Do I get out and shoot him in the head, or just run him over?"....

Well, its not like theres a lot to work out, but Far cry lets you explore - generally you'll find two ways to approach anything, if you look for them. Its great in that it lets you stalk people and the like, but at the end of the day, you still have to trigger each scripted event in turn.

I still think its one of the best games of the year - the atmospherics were great, and the trigents (sp?) were genuinely scary at times... hearing them roar from somewhere round the corner, and then 2 leaping at you as you backpedal and blast away with the shotgun... or the mercs leapfrogging each other, and sneaking up behind you... it was a great game.

But CoD was just better. Normally I can't stand totally scripted games - i've never been able to play more than 5minutes of any of the Medal of honor rubbish, but somehow Cod didn't feel as if you were just running down one long corridor, as Cod did. Anyway, the variety and intensity of the missions definitely made it the best FPS for years - the first level at stalingrad, the bridge level etc...

 

[peter584]

Far Cry....... COD was great for the day it took me to beat it

 

[43st]

Originally posted by: skace

Originally posted by: Thera
Two seperate games. CoD leads you around with scripted events, no thinking needed... just shoot. FC lets you choose the path, more thinking required, less shooting.

Some people love choosing, others love shooting... One is not "better" per say... just different.

Yea, FC has so many paths to choose from and requires so much thinking. *cough*. Both are straight up shooters. Can you honestly say that the 'choices' in FC made the game? Are we talking Baldurs Gate style choices here or choices like "Do I get out and shoot him in the head, or just run him over?"....

Certainly more choices than CoD. How many different ai routines can you get walking down a hallway? The entire CoD game was a "hallway"... all with identical hide behind box, lean and fire ai. At least FC isn't one long hallway with insanely simplistic ai.

CoD was very "gamey" for me. Figure out the script, move to the next script, etc, etc. None of the interactions are believable because they're all little math puzzles (ai will shot 3 shots then wait 2 seconds, etc.). It was intersting as a semi-interactive movie type thing... but it wasn't much of a game.

Different strokes for different folks. I'd take H&D2 (or FC) anyday over CoD, but that's just me.

 

[datalink7]

I liked both, but the nod goes to Farcry mostly on account that it took me only one weekend to beat COD.

 

[jim1976]

Originally posted by: skace

Originally posted by: Thera
Two seperate games. CoD leads you around with scripted events, no thinking needed... just shoot. FC lets you choose the path, more thinking required, less shooting.

Some people love choosing, others love shooting... One is not "better" per say... just different.

Yea, FC has so many paths to choose from and requires so much thinking. *cough*. Both are straight up shooters. Can you honestly say that the 'choices' in FC made the game? Are we talking Baldurs Gate style choices here or choices like "Do I get out and shoot him in the head, or just run him over?"....

It's not so wise to compare a FPS game with a RPG. It's like comparing apples and oranges. Baldurs Gate series are brilliant, but that's not the subject here. (Though I preffered Fallout )
Between Far Cry and COD, of course FC has greater variety of pathways, and requires more thinking IMO.
WTF? It has enormous maps and locations to visit in the game.
I play it at the realistic level, and let me tell you you need much more thinking in that level rather than shooting.
One single mistake and you're off. You have to watch every step and path you take and make strategic movements.
This does not mean that I don't adore COD(especially MP), which is not comparable(far superior) to FC's MP, but FC is generally better IMO.

 

[skace]

My point was that FC isn't Open Ended. There isn't 5 good ways to solve any problem. There are just a bunch of different guns that you can kill the target with. Same as any other game. SURE you can explore the island and swim in the water. And when you are done swimming around in the water, you can go back and do the main objective.

It is like saying Quake was open ended because you could run around rocket jumping. In the end you still have to kill the bad guys.

RPGs not a fair comparison for open ended? Fine, then I'll use Deus Ex. A game where you were able to pick your choices and had multiple endings. Deus Ex 2 had a similar theme but I liked Deus Ex 1 better. The fact that Far Cry allows you to run around a large island does not make it open ended. You still have 1 objective, you still have only a very limited few methods of completing that objective. So to say you can't compare CoD and FC because FC is open ended is the stupidest thing I've ever heard.

To continue this, give me one good example where you chose a seperate path in FC that allowed you to experience something in the game that someone who chose another path did not. And how common was this scenario.

 

[deadseasquirrel]

Originally posted by: skace
To continue this, give me one good example where you chose a seperate path in FC that allowed you to experience something in the game that someone who chose another path did not. And how common was this scenario.

I haven't exactly been following this thread, and I don't want to speak for the person you were having this discussion with, but I think that the difference in opinion merely lies in the nomenclature being used-- namely "open-ended".

I don't think that anyone means that Far Cry is open-ended in the sense that you can just walk around and do anything you want like a MMORPG. Yes, there are clear-cut objectives, just like Call of Duty. "Destroy the bunker" or "Defend X position".

I think that the difference lies in FC's ability to allow mulitple WAYS to achieve that objective. I remember playing COD and, like has been mentioned, going down a hallway, having 2 enemies appear, take cover, and start shooting. Past these, there are yet more enemies in another room that you need to get by. All of these stand in the way of your linear path to the objective (i.e. "get out of the palace and to your next objective").

To take FC's example, let's use the Fort level. Your objective is to plant explosives and destory that fort at the top of the hill. Yes, your linear objective is clear and you cannot deter from it. However, you start in a small raft and have at least 4 different paths to reach that fort. I've made it up to that fort without firing a single shot before (then all hell broke loose inside and those enemies I snuck by now joined in as well).

Another example would be the Carrier mission where your objective was to get into a raft and get the heck outta Dodge. That's clearcut enough. Well, there are obstacles in the way-- a chopper that begins firing at you instantly, a merc on a mounted machine gun waiting to mow you down, and about 7 other mercs on foot guarding that raft. I have read SEVERAL different ways players have got into that raft. Some meticulously taking out every single enemy, some rushing through as quick as possible while taking fire and then jumping into the raft, and some (like me) mistakenly fell into the water thinking that they would need to reload only to find that they could then shoot the chains that held the raft in place several stories above, and watch it float down to you in the water (bypassing all of the enemies except the chopper).

Again, I don't think it's about open-endedness... but more about a non linear PHYSICAL path to walk down. I find myself replaying and looking for more alternate ways to get from Point A to Point B. In COD, this can't be done.

FWIW, I love both games.

 

[jim1976]

Originally posted by: skace
My point was that FC isn't Open Ended. There isn't 5 good ways to solve any problem. There are just a bunch of different guns that you can kill the target with. Same as any other game. SURE you can explore the island and swim in the water. And when you are done swimming around in the water, you can go back and do the main objective.

It is like saying Quake was open ended because you could run around rocket jumping. In the end you still have to kill the bad guys.

RPGs not a fair comparison for open ended? Fine, then I'll use Deus Ex. A game where you were able to pick your choices and had multiple endings. Deus Ex 2 had a similar theme but I liked Deus Ex 1 better. The fact that Far Cry allows you to run around a large island does not make it open ended. You still have 1 objective, you still have only a very limited few methods of completing that objective. So to say you can't compare CoD and FC because FC is open ended is the stupidest thing I've ever heard.

To continue this, give me one good example where you chose a seperate path in FC that allowed you to experience something in the game that someone who chose another path did not. And how common was this scenario.

First of all I didn't say you can't compare FC with COD. I said you can't compare FPS with RPGs.

Both RPGs and FPSs have their advantages and disadvantages.
RPGs have more creative and strategic nature while FPS have more instant action. That's the purpose of categorizing games, as many things in life otherwise everything would be so monotonous.

Anyway DX was one of the greatest games of all times, since it tried to combine FPS action with RPG elements. That made it so special. I myself though prefer games that are what they meant to be. A FPS is a FPS and a RPG is a RPG.
You might not find so attractive FPS as I understand, but that's just your opinion.

To come to your final question, FC is not only about exploring the big maps and enjoying the water, it's also about the AI that it has. Every time you start a checkpoint again, you experience different defensive and attacking methods by the enemy.
Also it has different ways and roadmaps of approaching that objective
It might have a single objective and a single end, but that's it, it's whether you like it or not.
Half Life had a single end, didn't you admire the gaming experience of it?

 

[skace]

Ok I can agree with you there. But for something to be open ended in any sense, you have to gain a new experience from different paths chosen. If I tell you that I reached the fort by going through the forrest and you went further along the coast, neither of our experiences were all that much different. I may have shot 1 more fiend than you, you may not have shot any guys but the only difference is how many people you killed. Thats all that it comes down to. It is an FPS in the surest sense of the word. It is a game about shooting the bad guys. You are never going to go "Ok lets see if I can bribe this guy" or maybe steal a uniform like in Hitman. It always comes back down to shoot to kill. That is my point. And since that is my point, there is no reason you cannot compare CoD and FC. Both are FPS in the truest sense.

You guys are arguing open ended in a sense of how the map was made or how you survived a certain encounter. Every game could be argued open ended in that manner. How did you get past the 3 guys in duke nukem 3d? I used a bunch of pipe bombs. No way, you used trip lasers? Wow. I went down hallway a, you went down hallway b? Wow. I can make an island map in any FPS game that will allow you to get to a fort in 2 different manners.

 

[skace]

I liked Half Life, I liked FC and I liked Deus Ex. The point isn't that I don't like FPS games. my point is with this quote:

Two seperate games. CoD leads you around with scripted events, no thinking needed... just shoot. FC lets you choose the path, more thinking required, less shooting.

Some people love choosing, others love shooting... One is not "better" per say... just different.

He was saying you cannot compare one to the other because FC has choices and paths. If someone said you can't compare HL to CoD because half life lets you save a scientist then I would disagree with them also. All of these games are very easily compareable.