Posts made by tcarlisle2012
To be fair, there are a number of games that either the game, or the DRM, have issues if e-cores are enabled. I ma not saying Ubisoft has not responsibility here, but it isn't just a Ubisoft thing.
Also worth noting, some feel that disabling e-cores actually improves game performance.
If there is any truth to that, then I'd say this is an Intel issue and is a big fail. 99% of high performance rigs that are built are built for gaming. If games don't launch, or performance is lower even if games launch and run fine, then what is the point of e-cores?
Everyone wants to save power and lower the carbon footprint of gaming, but losing performance and introducing compatibility issues? Who is going to sign up for that? That is not good design at all.
Some motherboard makers have at least released a tool that allows toggling e-cores, so you don't have to reboot and fiddle with bios each time.
Its hard to say without knowing what platform, and hence what controls you use. A video would be really helpful.
I use a controller, and the left trigger brings the bow up to aim. I am guessing by your description, that works? You use the other trigger (right trigger) to pullback the bow, hold it, and then release. Because bows have to be drawn back. Are you doing that?
if so, then I am out of ideas. If you don't have arrows, it won't shoot. But you say you have 9.
Like I said, a video would help.
Maybe the rogue-like game model isn't so bad, or you get used to it, or you learn how to capitalize on its strengths and avoid its weaknesses.... or because I liked Pagan as a villain and FC4 the best. In any event, I am enjoying the world, the gameplay, and the story thus far.
The game mode really stinks at first, when your character is very weak. This is not a game mode to rush through. It is a bit grindy because you run around killing and collecting points and you end up doing content more than once, because the point payout is huge.
But building points is how you build power, both for your character and your weapons, and going into the mask missions prematurely is risky. If you like very hard gameplay, then build your character minimally. If you want a more "easy" experience, build your character and your favorite weapons to the max.
Far Cry games aren't for everyone, but before I address the AI point.... once again, I have opened the game and went through the entire options and I am unable to find an option that turns on/off the red tagging of enemies. What can be found, under accessibility is "Enemy Outlines", but this is not enemy red tagging. What it specifically says this for is this:
"When enabled, outlines enemies with a yellow color to increase visibility."
The default setting is "off", and this is a setting that makes every NPC appear with a yellow outline. There is no setting to be found, at least not on PC, that turns on/off enemy red tagging.
The reason, I expect, is because red tagging is a core component of Far Cry play and the games entire balance and tuning is done with that feature in mind.
B...b...b...but it was working fine until an update!
What I think happened, is that the timing of the update happened to coincide with how far in the game most people were, and coincidentally people obtained weapon upgrades and/or amigo animals that greatly increase the detection and tagging of enemies.
Regarding AI, FC is not a game that is intended for only non-stealth, run and gun play. The majority of FC fanatics play stealth more than non-stealth. Yes, there are missions in the game that require non-stealth. I get it. Never really looked closely, but I bet those missions are balanced differently and AI is quicker to detect and react.
Every stealth game has enemies that are basically blind. I've played many games over many years, and I have to say the Far Cry team have done a very good job accommodating both play styles. But you will see forum traffic blasting this game for having "horrible stealth" because enemy detection is too high. So to "fix" that, guess what it requires? Yeah, tilting the game further towards the stealth playstyle.
Then there are posts like this, which is basically pushing for the opposite -- tilt the game more towards the run n gun style.
Like I said, Far Cry games aren't for everyone. Its not an FPS shooter. Its a stealth/action game that happens to be in first-person design (most of the time, lol).
People expecting this game to be like, say Doom, are going to be very disappointed.
Interestingly, this post makes me recall Assassin's Creed Syndicate and why I ended up quitting that game. Its because I eventually figured out that all you had to do was sprint and assassinate each enemy. Because its a stealth game, the detection time was so low that you could literally sprint up close from the front, and still get the "assassinate" prompt.
Hence why games that followed introduced mechanics where detection was much quicker when you are in view directly in front, and why some people don't like the stealth in this game.
Regarding google searches and youtube videos.... yeah, no thanks. I don't doubt you can find youtube videos that show the poor AI you are complaining about. Not saying they are faked, but how rare are those instances that get picked up by streamers? When I play this game, I don't see ridiculous AI that stands and does nothing when you are there.
Probably a glitch caught on stream. Yeah, I am sure the game has glitches -- still.
The point is, I judge a game by how it plays, not by how it appears by streamers. You know those streamers tend to be biased right, and they also like to distort truth in order to gain clicks and followers. Everyone likes to hate on the big bad game studio, right?
Clearly, this is a mostly subjective matter. I would also suggest that ones opinion of a games quality when judging games in the past and stack ranking, it is about a lot more than just the quality of the games. I personally think FC4 was best. But, it also happens to be the first FC game I ever bought or played. So I was experiencing the Far Cry experience for the first time. I played FC3 after FC4.
In addition, I was in a much better place professionally, and family-wise back then. Little did I know at the time, I was at the pinnacle of my life in several aspects. Its hard to not think that doesn't have an effect on how I rate these games.
In terms of cultures and world types, I just really prefer the imaginary world of Kyrat better than FC5's Montana or FC6's Cuba.
I really wanted to love FC5, and I guess I did, but not like FC4. I am sure if I had never played FC4, and if I picked it up today and played it, I probably wouldn't hold it in such high esteem.
I learned on day one that the ghosts at night seem to have been ramped up. Maybe I just need to build my character a bit more, but playing at night resulted in a wipe for me. It seemed like in the Vass DLC, the additional waves were not triggered so easily and it seems there was more time between the waves. I had no problem farming points by simply playing during in-game night time.
Not so much with the DLC.
But last night, here is what I did..... I was in lakeside safe house. It might work in others, but I tried it in mountain safe house and it didn't work as well. Maybe it is something about lakeside.
I would stand near the door, and shoot an enemy. Then open the door and go inside and wait and watch the hud. 3 or 4 waves will come, the ghosts will slam into the safe house and die... and that will trigger more for about 3 or 4 waves. When there are no more waves coming, step out and walk around the safe house to collect all your points.
Lather, rinse, & repeat.
Yeah, its a bit cheesy, and maybe they don't intend for the game to work in this way? Or maybe they do. But for me, the ghosts are high risk of wipe and the payout isn't high enough to justify that. One ghost hit and you wipe, early in the game.
So rather than just going into a safe house once night time hits and then taking a break to wait until day, well, you might as well trigger the ghosts to slam into the safehouse and then take your break.
This doesn't farm an insane amount, but it got me about 1200 to 1500.
If it were me, I'd perform stress and stability tests to really put the hardware through loads and ensure it is stable. Running Windows and playing games is not enough -- when a high performance compute system is built, whether for gaming or development or 3d work, or scientific, etc. it should be pushed to its highest workloads and proven stable at those loads. But unfortunately, what usually happens after the build is Windows is loaded and I played a game or two, so it must be good.
I like to stress GPU and CPU concurrently and then CPU and memory using Prime95. Furmark and cpu-z at the same time, with Prime95 in stress test blend mode, and setting the amount of memory to about 80 percent of the amount of physical RAM. Because the OS also needs memory and if OS + applications want more than 100% memory the OS will start swapping virtual memory -- and this is not what you want.
I would be willing to bet that if the OP stability tests, it will uncover stability issues at loads.
But, if I lose that bet, then it is probably drivers or middleware. RGB lighting systems are often the culprit. Headsets and/or audio systems that do a lot of post processing of audio, etc.
And I lost count the number of times that weird issues get solved by using DDU in safe mode to remove GPU drivers, then reboot and load the newest.
Of course, this being a rig built on latest gen CPU and GPU, that also comes into play. Unfortunately, running the latest does tend to cause one to hit issues.
Anti-player..... it's a thing. This thread is a good example.
"I don't care for this game style and hoped the 2nd DLC wouldn't be literally the same game with a different map and characters"
"It's YOUR FAULT FOR BUYING IT!"
"Umm, here is the screen shot from what the Ubisoft store page said"
"HERE is a blog by someone on IGN site...."
"Umm, you are right, I should read all blogs that exist before I buy a game?"
I think I made the point. LOL.
Once again, the Ubisoft creative teams have done a great job. FC4 was my favorite FC game and a big reason for that was the world design. I was happy to see they didn't go completely dark with this DLC as they did Vaas' world.
But I would have preferred this one not be rogue-like, and frankly from a production perspective I can't see investing that much in the creative team's time to make this world, and not make the core gameplay a little different and bring something unique to the table.
And yes, I think it is fair to be critical of the way the DLC's were sold. Because one way to say it is to say "each world will be a representation of the villains mind", and another way to say it is "we only had budget for the creative team and no budget for gameplay development, so we re-skinned DLC 1 to make DLC 2..... and probably 3. "
How many people would buy it if they chose that working? The marketingspeak version sells better since it is just vague enough that Ubisoft can say they described it correctly, without saying how they cut costs and maximized profits.
I take no pleasure in criticizing these DLC's. I wanted to love them. In my view, Ubisoft has produced some of the best DLC's of all time -- right up there with Witcher 3's expansions. The afterworld DLC for AC Origins comes to mind. For me, the Vietnam DLC from FC5 comes to mind. If it weren't for the Vietnam DLC, I'd gave felt ripped off on the FC5 DLCs.
But not everyone loved that Vietnam DLC. Because it went back to the Far Cry formula for the gameplay..... though they added a really, really cool dimension -- the stealth buffs. But there were a lot of people that completed that DLC in under an hour, and felt it was no big deal.
Much like swallowing a filet mignon whole like you would a Big Mac and then saying "didn't taste any better to me".
Just because you can run to the final battle, doesn't mean you should. LOL.
I was not a hater of the Vaas DLC's game mechanics, but I did not like it enough to play it more than once. Thus, I am disappointed to see the Mind Control DLC is the same game and mechanics, with a different map and characters. But the core of the game is the same, e.g., overall goal is to find 3 things, when you die you restart, mirror and armory upgrades, kill NPC's to build up points to buy upgrades, etc.
I was really hoping the game would be something new in terms of mechanics. I mean, I will play through it myself and feel it is somewhat worth the time. But there will be many that feel, legitimately, that the game takes too much time and under-delivers.
I was hoping that the DLC's for FC6 would have varying core game mechanics like FC5's DLC's did. I especially liked the Vietnam DLC, and hope the final DLC for FC6 will be a similar slam dunk.
I think what is happening here is what I had happen. This game throws some hard bosses at you long before your character is built up with power. And if memory serves, one of those early difficult battles is actually impossible unless you parry. The only way you can damage the enemy, is after a parry.
When I was at that point, I had a character with an axe in one hand, and a shield in the other, and as hard as I tired, it didn't seem parry was possible with the shield. Maybe it would have been if I had the axe in the non-dominant (left) hand, but I had a shield there. As soon as I shed the shield and replaced it with another axe, things started working much better.
It won't be too long before the stamina issues stops becoming a serious barrier, because as you get ability points you can assign them, and you will always want to make it a priority to choose something that increases stamina or duration.
Also, the gear can be upgraded, etc.
Once I discovered all these things, it wasn't long before the game became too easy.
This game, like the others before it, the combat breaks down to "dodge towards the enemy so you end up behind, attack... attack..... dodge towards enemy.... attack.... attack.... lather, rinse, & repeat.
That is especially the case when fighting one bearing a shield, or the pole dudes that will use their poles to block frontal attacks.
@ajahang Yes, I think the same kind of happened to me. The story stops at a point and doesn't continue until you go back to Randvi and pick another region to pledge, etc.
For me, the issue was that sometimes when you walk up to Randvi, you don't always get the prompt to interact with her. So I presumed I had done as much as I needed to through her map.
Well, it turns out I was far from done.
But that misunderstanding really wasted some time. I was just stuck, not leveled high enough to do the DLC's (though I did anyways), and not leveled enough to do all the order members, etc.
Yes, heat can and does cause CTDs. Its easy enough to rule it out though. Install hwinfo, run it in "sensor mode" and put all the component temperatures on the graphs. Play the game and review the graphs.
If CPU or GPU do not level off near but under their designed max temp, then that would be a system heat management issue.
Also, crashes can come from the power supply not providing good stable power, so it is worth putting the power supply voltages also on the hwinfo graphs.
I usually recommend to do resource on one's power supply make/model and "stability" and see how prevalent issues are. You'd be surprised to know that not all pricey power supplies are any good. I use only EVGA power supplies and have never had an issue rooted in the power supply not being able to hack it.
Yeah, these challenges are designed to really make the completionists heads explode. I know that is important to many, but I've never 100%'ed any AC game. I especially won't be trying to 100% this one. The game is just too big, too repetitive, etc.
To be fair, I loved Odyssey and Origins, and they were a little too big too. But in my view, just trying to "finish" the story feels more like a job than a game. Much more than the last two.
For me, I do rank Odyssey over Valhalla, but I rank Origins over Odyssey also. But that might just be my own bias at play, because I have always been a much deeper fan of Egyptian history than Greek mythology. But I really, really was blown away by Origins DLC with the kings in the afterlife. Yeah, it was more of a button masher than a stealth game at that point, but those were some challenging boss battles, and the art and world design was just next level stuff, on par with The Witcher 3 expansion where you end up in that fairytale land.
So far, there just hasn't been anything about Valhalla that sticks out as being jaw dropping. Perhaps as I continue to play it, I am hoping it is coming? But will it? Time will tell I suppose.
I would rate Odyssey's story and voice acting above Valhalla.
About the only thing I can say Valhalla does better, is at being long and a huge map. But the repetitiveness of it just turns it into a big grind.
You've done a nice job of narrowing this down to steps to reproduce, and finding work arounds. It should be enough to go to development and have them understand and quickly duplicate. Nonetheless, someone will probably stroll by with the "can you attach a video" response.
@animuslover not sure why this thread is even still going on because it has more attacks on the person than it has discussion of the ideas.
As best I can gather from a quick skim, the issue that prompted the thread wasn't the cost -- or that it was not included in bundles. Rather, it is because the "live service" game experience has been technically flawed?
Not sure what "live service" means from the OP, but I don't see this game as a live service game. Ubisoft has announced the next AC will be a live service game, so that gives me the impression they don't view this one as live service either.
I suppose the issues in the mind of the OP are bugs/glitches and instability? I have not experienced these issues so much. I have had the game crash to desktop maybe 3 times total, and each time when I re-launched it was right where it crashed out. While that is not desirable, that isn't unplayable or even severely impacting.
From the forums, I gather many have serious stability issues, and I think that is rooted in the decision to run bleeding edge hardware. Though it shouldn't be the case, it almost always is the case that those running the latest CPU and GPU generations tend to experience a lot more issues. That is just a fact of technology lifecycle management.
It can take a few patch cycles to get those issues ironed out -- and often one is dependent upon the game maker AND a hardware maker to collaborate to solve issues.
Apparently this game had -- maybe even still has -- severe issues with the latest Intel CPU. One would think that a game maker would either procure the latest tech for their own development and testing, or at least enlist private early testers with such hardware. Apparently they don't do that.
Or, they fear if they did, they would end up with a product that only runs stable on that latest gen hardware. Or, they knew there could or would be compatibility issues but also knew it couldn't be addressed on the release timeline. I am guessing the latter.