Far Cry Vengeance for Wii get a 4.0 from IGN [Archive]

t3kl3r

12-14-2006, 07:25 PM

A new review (http://wii.ign.com/articles/751/751136p1.html) for Far Cry has been posted on IGN: (http://wii.ign.com/)

The presentation – everything from the dozens of graphics shortcomings to the sometimes broken AI logic – is just too sloppy and too rushed in this quick-and-dirty Wii incarnation of the classic franchise. A fundamentally solid shooter is hiding somewhere underneath, but good luck finding it between the blurry textures and the sluggish framerate. (And as an aside, don't trust the pictures on the back of the Far Cry Vengeance box -- the game looks nothing like them.)

Ubisoft is a very talented development studio – one of the best in the world. Far Cry Vengeance does not represent even half of the company's potential. I can only imagine that the franchise's originator, Crytek Studios, is looking at this port and laughing… or maybe crying.

I'm a Nintendo fan. I'm really excited about the Wii's potential. But what the hell is this?

If companies keep coming out with crappy looking games, the Wii is going to have an even harder time convincing people that graphics aren't the only thing that matters.

Edit: They'll push people's tollerance for lower quality graphics too far. People will be so distracted by terrible graphics that they won't be able to settle in and enjoy the unique gameplay elements. Even though Wii isn't capabable of PS3 or Xbox360 graphics, it should still be able to make things pretty enough to keep people from retching.

And now even games known for their great graphics are being beaten with an ugly stick before making their way to the Wii.

KidCactus

12-15-2006, 03:58 AM

The link to the review doesn't work.

Edit: Or is it because it sends me to the IGN UK...?

ascl

12-15-2006, 04:01 AM

This is the review link:
http://wii.ign.com/articles/751/751136p1.html

Chameleo

12-15-2006, 04:14 AM

poooh on ubisoft for rushing so many games to the launch. they could've just released 1 a month and doubled their quality....

looks like a cheap cash grab to me.

Zawath

12-15-2006, 04:17 AM

It's just weird that a quality studio like Ubisoft is making such crap. First Red Steel and now this.

Yellowman

12-15-2006, 04:17 AM

Ubisoft for god's sake its very simply. Update Red Steel with Far Cry controls to create a game with reasonable visuals without a horrendous control scheme. And while you're at it make the voice acting Japanese with English subtitles (Works for Jap films, why not games about Japan). Ok, so replacing all the audio for the game would be a BIG update but the other point stands.

Chameleo

12-15-2006, 04:17 AM

It's just weird that a quality studio like Ubisoft is making such crap. First Red Steel and now this.

give red steel a chance - its actually pretty fun. so is rayman. can't speak for anything else though.

Grimgrock

12-15-2006, 04:29 AM

The reason why most of these 3rd party first-generation titles aren't doing well is because they are ports. IIRC, the same thing happened with the 360 last year. You had what amounted to ports of games that were hardly any different than their Xbox parentage. Add the tacked on new control scheme and that makes it worse. I'd give it about 6 months and you'll see some true innovation from the 3rd party titles. At least, that's what I hope. I don't want to have bought a system for Nintendo's big 3 franchises (Mario, Zelda, and Metroid) only.

Gorvi

12-15-2006, 04:46 AM

I can't say I didn't see this coming. If you've listend to any of IGN's podcasts they've been bagging on this game for it's graphics since they first saw it running. Here's the important part of the review :
Gameplay
A fundamentally fun shooter and most of the new Wii controls feel great. But not all the control additions are welcomed and the title is glitchy.
The game may not look amazing, but at least it should still be fun to play and controls better than what I've heard of Red Steel. No online multiplayer is a given as it's been stated no games will have that until next year on the Wii. I'd say it still looks like it's worth a rental at the very least for Wii owners that haven't played Farcry.

Vandenh

12-15-2006, 04:51 AM

To be honest I expect the Wii to have a whole bunch of really bad games and a bunch of really good ones (that use the remote in a cool way) and not a lot in between. It is gonna be utter shit or really fun on the Wii.

Kamalot

12-15-2006, 04:55 AM

Booooo to terrible ports!

I agree with Vandenh. We will see a lot of half-ass stuff on Wii, just because people don't know what the hell to do with it yet. Anyone remember some of the early 3rd party DS games? Ugh.

I have to say, I rented Red Steel after seeing some reviews totally hate on it. Red Steel is a little glitchy (twitchy ragdoll physics) but ultimately a good game and very satisfying. I'm enjoying my rental time with it immensely. Thank goodness for rental services (Gamefly).

mister_slim

12-15-2006, 05:14 AM

Does IGN use a lot of miscellaneous freelancers for their reviews? They tend to be very erratic and unpredictable.

Gorvi

12-15-2006, 05:17 AM

Does IGN use a lot of miscellaneous freelancers for their reviews? They tend to be very erratic and unpredictable.

Nah, that guy's a regular.

ldi222

12-15-2006, 05:17 AM

The wii hype machine has hit the hard brick wall of reality. That wii mote is a gimmick and for the life of me I dont understand dropping 250 bucks for another gamecube.

Vandenh

12-15-2006, 05:20 AM

BTW Eurogamer also trashed the Wii version of Tony Hawk today. 5/10. Ouch

Jenga

12-15-2006, 05:25 AM

The wii hype machine has hit the hard brick wall of reality. That wii mote is a gimmick and for the life of me I dont understand dropping 250 bucks for another gamecube.
Just like no one bought the DS and its flimsy gimmick, no one is going to buy the Wii...wait.

ECM

12-15-2006, 05:28 AM

I've said it a thousand times: year one on Wii will be like year one on DS, insofar as software quality goes. You're going to have to wait (outside of Nintendo's titles) till next holiday for games that haven't been shoveled over from PS2 (or PSP/Xbox/Cube etc.) to be the exception and not the rule.

Gorvi

12-15-2006, 05:29 AM

Just like no one bought the DS and its flimsy gimmick, no one is going to buy the Wii...wait.

Well, if you look, most devs still don't do DS games that actually take advantage of the system. Nintendo puts out the bulk of the games that are actually worth owning on the DS. People will buy the DS and the Wii for what Nintendo puts out, but some of these 3rd party devs really need to get their acts together because if it weren't for Nintendo's games, the DS and Wii would be a gimmick.

Phanto

12-15-2006, 05:37 AM

The only games looking good in terms of graphics are their first party tittle: Metroid, Zelda, Mario e.c.t

torrefaction

12-15-2006, 06:53 AM

The link to the review is busted.

morose

12-15-2006, 06:57 AM

Kamalot

12-15-2006, 07:09 AM

For me, eventually owning the Wii will be worth it for the first party stuff. I've got my 360 for the whiz bang 3rd party graphics games. FarCry was an especially bad choice for a port though. That series has always been known for it's stunning graphics and reactive AI. Both of which are going to be clock cycle intensive... not the Wii's forte by any stretch of the imagination.
My only experience with Far Cry was the 360 demo, which had neither stunning graphics or reactive AI. It also had terrible controls. I remember it having about a half-second delay between turning and having your character turn.

It sucked. Glad to know the team is consistent.

Kelegacy

12-15-2006, 07:11 AM

Wii is a novelty.

Kamalot

12-15-2006, 07:23 AM

Wii is a novelty.
Yes, it is.

Novelty is the quality of being new. Although it may be said to have an objective dimension (e.g. a new style of art coming into being, such as abstract or impressionism) it essentially exists in the subjective perceptions of individuals. That is, for something to be "new", there must be a being to experience it as such. (http://www.google.com/url?sa=X&start=3&oi=define&q=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Novelty&usg=__JRk72W2bZm0NZCVdYWh0zWA-rqc=)The DS, when it was first introduced, was also a novelty. At one point, web browsers and mice were novelty items as well.

I welcome novelty in the gaming sector.

Kelegacy

12-15-2006, 07:31 AM

Yes, it is.

The DS, when it was first introduced, was also a novelty. At one point, web browsers and mice were novelty items as well.

I welcome novelty in the gaming sector.
I'm not slamming it, I am just making the comment to irk the ones who will take it as an insult...like you. :) I'm sorta taking a page from Zeal, having fun with people who are prone to take offense.

But, I do think the Wii is a novelty. We'll just have to see whether or not the novelty wears off. The Virtual Boy was a novel idea, too...but fell flat on it's ass.

The Wii looks to do nothing of the sort, but Vandehn makes a great point--that there will probably be shitty games or great games, with very few in between. It's all about how you implement the new controller. We know the system doesn't have graphical horsepower, so it must rely on it's new controller to give new experiences. Otherwise, what's the point of spending 250 dollars on a system that improves only marginally, tech-wise, over the last console?

Kamalot

12-15-2006, 07:43 AM

I'm not slamming it, I am just making the comment to irk the ones who will take it as an insult...like you. :) I'm sorta taking a page from Zeal, having fun with people who are prone to take offense.

But, I do think the Wii is a novelty. We'll just have to see whether or not the novelty wears off. The Virtual Boy was a novel idea, too...but fell flat on it's ass.

The Wii looks to do nothing of the sort, but Vandehn makes a great point--that there will probably be shitty games or great games, with very few in between. It's all about how you implement the new controller. We know the system doesn't have graphical horsepower, so it must rely on it's new controller to give new experiences. Otherwise, what's the point of spending 250 dollars on a system that improves only marginally, tech-wise, over the last console?
Oh, perhaps I didn't explain myself clearly. I agree with you. The Wii is a novel system, on many levels.

Edit: Oh, I see, you meant it as an insult. :eek:

Headcase

12-15-2006, 08:00 AM

The wii hype machine has hit the hard brick wall of reality. That wii mote is a gimmick and for the life of me I dont understand dropping 250 bucks for another gamecube.

Shoot some arrows in Zelda or play "Bunnies don't sleep well" In Rayman and then say the same thing. If you do, well, the Wii's not for you, fair enough.

Looks like the Wii is following the success of the DS too closely, right down to the limited set of launch games (not that every single console ever made didn't have a limited set of launch games, but still).

ddbrown30

12-15-2006, 08:05 AM

If companies keep coming out with crappy looking games, the Wii is going to have an even harder time convincing people that graphics aren't the only thing that matters.

This makes absolutely no sense.

Ajguy

12-15-2006, 08:23 AM

I just don't understand how a game that looked pretty darn good on the Xbox can't look good on the Wii, which should be at least as powerful if not more powerful than the Xbox.

Kamalot

12-15-2006, 08:28 AM

I just don't understand how a game that looked pretty darn good on the Xbox can't look good on the Wii, which should be at least as powerful if not more powerful than the Xbox.
Could be sloppy developers?

I seem to remember some cross-platform games coming from PS2 to GameCube / Xbox and looking worse than their PS2 versions. They were obviously crappy ports though.

Wonka

12-15-2006, 08:50 AM

I just don't understand how a game that looked pretty darn good on the Xbox can't look good on the Wii, which should be at least as powerful if not more powerful than the Xbox.

The screens look to be missing the pixel shader effects that were present on the Xbox version. The review clearly agrees with this observation. But I don't know how the GPU in the Wii actually stacks up since I have never seen the specs posted anywhere. I would tend to assume that it has the capabilities of an Xbox at least... But does it? Where are the final specs for the Wii?

Why can't I find them anywhere???

absolut taco

12-15-2006, 09:37 AM

The screens look to be missing the pixel shader effects that were present on the Xbox version. The review clearly agrees with this observation. But I don't know how the GPU in the Wii actually stacks up since I have never seen the specs posted anywhere. I would tend to assume that it has the capabilities of an Xbox at least... But does it? Where are the final specs for the Wii?

Why can't I find them anywhere???
Wasn't the Cube almost as good as the Xbox? Maybe the code that has to analyze the wiimote position is eating processor power...

RMan

12-15-2006, 12:38 PM

Maybe the code that has to analyze the wiimote position is eating processor power...
Well, while I have no insider information on such a thing, um, no, it's not that. You should check out one of the videos, it looks pretty crappy through and through (their promo videos didn't look bad, but that's likely because they can cut and paste the good stuff). It really does look amateur, in almost every respect (even in one short video the repetitive sounds were getting on my nerves). I agree with others here, it's kinda sad that Ubisoft released something like that, it seems they just feel that with few shooters (and games, really) on the system they can get away with murder, but this is the first title that I’ve seen from them that looks like they just didn’t care much, and that’s hard to forgive (easy to forgive a developer for trying something, and failing, but not this).

Nessus

12-15-2006, 03:28 PM

The wii hype machine has hit the hard brick wall of reality. That wii mote is a gimmick and for the life of me I dont understand dropping 250 bucks for another gamecube.

Have you even played it (Wii)?

Wii Sports (multiplayer) is the most fun I've had with a video game in years. Period. (I own all 3 last gen consoles and plan on picking up a 360 for myself when they have a price drop).

And more fun than anything I've played on 360 so far.

Also, because one shoddy port that anyone could see coming from a mile away gets the review it deserves the entire premise is flawed?

I don't understand what people like you want.

You seem to want Nintendo to make a third redundant really expensive high-end console with fancy graphics that does the exact same thing the other two are already doing, just so you can rag on it for 5 years for not having good third party support.

Wouldn't you rather the 3 consoles be diversified somewhat? Who needs 3 systems with almost the exact same library of games because third parties simply can't afford to not make multiplatform games?

Wouldn't you rather someone take a chance (whether or not they are successful) than do the exact same thing except prettier?

DesignerKid

12-15-2006, 03:34 PM

It's true that the best DS games are published by Nintendo but not necessarily made by Nintendo (Star Fox, Elite Beat Agents and Clubhouse Games). They have done an excellent job aligning themselves with incredibly competent developers and obviously have a lot of input on the games they do publish which results in both higher quantity and quality.

In addition to the Nintendo published titles there are 3rd party gems out there as including Phoenix Wright, Trauma Center, Age of Empires and both Castlevanias to name a few.

I'll be perfectly happy if they can keep the same momentum up with the Wii.

torrefaction

12-15-2006, 04:10 PM

This news article sucks tremendously, because the link is still busted.

divinechaos

12-15-2006, 04:55 PM

Ubi has made shit games for Nintendo systems since the GC. I haven't played rayman Wii yet, but Ubi DS, GC and Wii games have sucked so far. They should just focus on the 360 and PC, I say.

dr_wily

12-15-2006, 07:11 PM

i applaud them not allowing this crap to pass and ranking appropriatlely

lets face it, aside from zelda all the titles look like ass. n64 ass.

I played that offroad game at eb, and even on a small screen it was terrible

Just played cod3 for the wii at a friends place and holy hell goldeneye looked better.

ridiculous, especially considering there were some GORGEOUS games for the gc like fzero, re4, viewtiful, symphonia, metroid.

inexcusable for a system with supposedly double the power.

blackzc

12-16-2006, 03:02 AM

i like chair

Zeal

12-16-2006, 03:15 AM

Kamalot

12-16-2006, 03:37 AM

I have been saying all along that the Wii is graphically weaker than the Gamecube and I stand by it.

How can Wii play GameCube games if it is graphically weaker than GameCube?

Zeal

12-16-2006, 03:50 AM

Because it's basically the same chipset with additional effects. I played Zelda on Wii and Cube and it's the same game.

Kamalot

12-16-2006, 11:31 AM

Because it's basically the same chipset with additional effects. I played Zelda on Wii and Cube and it's the same game.
So, if it is the same chipset with more effects added, how can it be weaker then GameCube?

I don' t know if you get it, but in order for Wii to play GameCube games, it must be AT LEAST as powerful as a GameCube, not less powerful.

:rolleyes:

Busted_Astromech

12-16-2006, 04:32 PM

I have been saying all along that the Wii is graphically weaker than the Gamecube and I stand by it. You cannot fit a faster chipset into such a small case without adequate cooling. As for Wii being more powerful than Xbox, keep dreaming. The proof is in the pudding.

I haven't seen anything on Wii that can compete graphically with games for the original Xbox.

Yes, I have a Wii.
Yes, but you're insane.

We have the clock speeds. It's essentially a faster GameCube with more RAM. Period. My guess is that Nintendo didn't nail down the final specs until late in the game and so told developers to develop for the GameCube specs because (as Nintendo says), it's not worth it. Whether that's a good idea or not is debatable but it's clear that Nintendo is perfectly happy with GameCube level graphics. They only upped it to give developers a little more breathing room.

And the reviewer seems to confirm what I feared, that the graphics chip doesn't have added functionality. So while it may be faster than the Xbox, it still won't do shader effects. Lame, but, oh well. At least bloom lighting does a lot for a game.

Zeal

12-16-2006, 04:43 PM

Oh, I guess that's why everything on the system looks like ass.

CPUs:

XboxCPU: 733 MHz Intel Mobile Celeron (Micro PGA2)
WiiCPU: PowerPC based "Broadway" 729 MHz

GPUs:

XboxGPU: 233 MHz custom chip developed by Microsoft and NVIDIA code named NV2A
WiiGPU: ATI "Hollywood" GPU, clocked at 243 MHz.

A slower CPU, GPU without DX8 level shaders and a non-unified memory architecture. Talk about embarassing.

Need I state that the Xbox came out in 2001.

blackzc

12-16-2006, 06:38 PM

Oh, I guess that's why everything on the system looks like ass.

CPUs:

Xbox
Wii

GPUs:

Xbox
Wii

A slower CPU, GPU without DX8 level shaders and a non-unified memory architecture. Talk about embarassing.

Need I state that the Xbox came out in 2001.

Yeah kinda, but this cheap hardware and making a profiting is what saves nintendo when they are not on top, ALL the other guys go out of business and nintendo stays in there.

If me paying more for 5 year old shit keeps nintendo in the console business and away from 3rd party, im all for it. Mario Metriod,Zelda,POKEMON!!!, and just about all the nintendo IPs are to good to just give away becuase of some graphics war, F that. Im pretty sure both sony and MS know its gotten out of hand. Thats why they touting the 10 year crap.

And beisdes, this is the first time ever nintendo has been underpowered. They will have a major head start for the Super Wii.

Snarboo

12-16-2006, 07:07 PM

A slower CPU, GPU without DX8 level shaders and a non-unified memory architecture. Talk about embarassing. Slower by like what, 4 MHz? Leik teh oh my gods, teh Wii is b0rk3d! The Gamecube was able to hold it's own against the XBox last generation with games like Resident Evil 4. I don't doubt the Wii, which is slightly faster, will still produce quality visuals. The lack of shaders is disappointing, no doubt about that, but good developers know how to fake that kind of stuff anyway. And they already have. Need I remind you that one of the most stunning games of all time, Shadow of the Colossus, was released on the PS2?

Off the subject, but 90% of the rendering technology we see in games today, such as bump mapping, was patented in the 70's. Shaders are just implementations of those routines in hardware.

Far Cry: Vengeance is not an indication of the Wii's power. It's just a sloppy, rushed port by Ubi. No more, no less.

Pumped'Up

12-16-2006, 11:21 PM

poor graphics and 480p at best...and the Wii novelty is obviously starting to wear off rather quickly, unfortunately.

blackzc

12-17-2006, 02:50 AM

poor graphics and 480p at best...and the Wii novelty is obviously starting to wear off rather quickly, unfortunately.

Do you have a HDTV? have you seen the Wii in 480p (at best). its really not bad at all. There is plenty of depth and the colors are great. Hell the PS2 is pretty as hell on my sammy LCD in 480p, IMO the PS3 and 360 are riding the coattails of HDTV, the PS2 and Wii both look great.

Point= don't buy this 720/1080p bullshit, if you have a quality tv the Wii will look great.

Wonka

12-17-2006, 10:51 AM

Yeah kinda, but this cheap hardware and making a profiting is what saves nintendo when they are not on top, ALL the other guys go out of business and nintendo stays in there.

If me paying more for 5 year old shit keeps nintendo in the console business and away from 3rd party, im all for it. Mario Metriod,Zelda,POKEMON!!!, and just about all the nintendo IPs are to good to just give away becuase of some graphics war, F that. Im pretty sure both sony and MS know its gotten out of hand. Thats why they touting the 10 year crap.

And beisdes, this is the first time ever nintendo has been underpowered. They will have a major head start for the Super Wii.

Will you still feel this way if the utter lack of competitive features (things like a lack of shaders and memory) forces Nintendo to release the "Super-Wii" in 3 years from now instead of 5? I don't say this as some kind of jab at Nintendo, but because I fear that the economics of the situation could easily portend this. The Wii looks passable now, and I agree with them that without HD resolutions they could easily have survived for a full generation with nobody caring. But no shaders is a MUCH more serious oversight. In 2-3 years their games are going to look very dated because of this.

Pumped'Up

12-17-2006, 11:15 AM

Do you have a HDTV? have you seen the Wii in 480p (at best). its really not bad at all. There is plenty of depth and the colors are great. Hell the PS2 is pretty as hell on my sammy LCD in 480p, IMO the PS3 and 360 are riding the coattails of HDTV, the PS2 and Wii both look great.

Point= don't buy this 720/1080p bullshit, if you have a quality tv the Wii will look great.
For 2D graphics, I agree with you 100%. Unfortunately, 3D graphics is where it's at (although I'm a huge fan of 2D games) and the Wii/GC is incapable of doing anything that looks remotely next gen. I just hope that there will be a HUGE number of, not just some, amazing games for the Wii as this is all that Nintendo has to rely on to be competitive for the next 4-5 years. Games themselves are 100% of the fun, meaning the controller interface is virtually meaningless.