Ubisoft begins work on Far Cry 3

Far Cry 2 isn’t even out yet, but Ubisoft has wasted no time starting work on a sequel. Ubisoft’s Patrick Redding told videogaming247 the Ubisoft Montreal studio is at the “preliminary stages” of development on the “next game” in the Far Cry series.

Like Far Cry 2 but unlike Crytek’s original, the third game in the series will take place in Africa. Redding explained, “For us Africa still has a huge amount of promise . . . There are still things we want to do with the African setting, and I think it’s safe to say we’ll continue to explore it.” He added that, although the Far Cry 2 engine could handle gameplay set in a South-American forest, sticking with the Africa locale will “save time.”

Now, Far Cry fans have two games to look forward to. Based on what we heard in March, Far Cry 2 is coming out some time this fall for the PC, Xbox 360, and PlayStation 3. The game has reasonably tame system requirements and will reportedly feature varied, open-ended gameplay. (Thanks to Shacknews for the tip.)

Comments closed
    • fpsduck
    • 11 years ago

    I like Far Cry but still never played Crysis yet.

    Hope Far Cry sequels should be as kick ass as the original.

    • Krogoth
    • 11 years ago

    Hurry, for more mediocre FPS that are nothing more then overglorfied tech demos.

    • danny e.
    • 11 years ago

    Crysis II would be more attractive to me. I’ll probably give Far Cry 2 a spin.. but I doubt I’ll enjoy it as much as I did Crysis. Crysis Warhead is a for-sure-buy for me.. while Far Cry 2 is a maybe.

    Crysis II in 2011 will ROCK. but naturally everyone will whine about how their computer can run it even though it will virtualize the entire world aka google earth style except 3D .. style and will be indistinguisable from real life when played through high-rez goggles.

    • herothezero
    • 11 years ago

    I hope the low system requirements aren’t indicative of weak AI…

    • Cyco-Dude
    • 11 years ago

    ugh…”open-ended gameplay”. did no one learn anything after invisible war?

      • ludi
      • 11 years ago

      I never got around to playing Invisible War, but I did like Deus Ex. Interjecting a multi-path RPG element into an FPS, while keeping the RPG menu system seamlessly integrated into the item scrolling menu, was a stroke of genius.

    • asdsa
    • 11 years ago

    For crying out loud (I just had to say it :).

      • aleckermit
      • 11 years ago

      O ho ho!

      That’s a knee slapper 😮

        • asdsa
        • 11 years ago

        Well I hope you broke your knee slapping it.

    • sweatshopking
    • 11 years ago

    farcry 2 is looking to be the game crysis should have been, but never was.

      • ecalmosthuman
      • 11 years ago

      Oh here we go with the Crysis flaming. Crysis is what it is. It’s a good action game with great graphics and fun game play. It’s surprising to me that anyone expected anything more after Far Cry. The only people that should be let-down by Crysis are the people who had naive expectations of a developer on their 2nd real game (not including that dinosaur-what-have-you game). Far Cry was a great game for the time it was released, but let’s be honest, Crysis is just about exactly what people should have expected as a follow up.

      Far Cry 2 is looking fantastic.

        • Usacomp2k3
        • 11 years ago

        Except Crysis sucked performance-wise.

          • brunascle
          • 11 years ago

          what did you expect?

          it has some of the greatest visuals ever seen in a video game, and yet people are shocked when their mediocre systems cant handle it at high settings. we knew long before it was released it was not going to be a game for your grandma’s PC.

          if you have a system that can handle it, it’s an amazing game. which is exactly why is was so well received by critics.
          §[<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crysis#Reception<]§

            • Usacomp2k3
            • 11 years ago

            Except even the highest end systems can’t really play it fluidly.

            • Joerdgs
            • 11 years ago

            No-one would be bitching if the devs had just disabled the whole ultra-high option in the first place. Crysis is a great game, and perfectly playable with a decent system.

            • BenBasson
            • 11 years ago

            It’s playable at “high” at 1920×1200 on an 8800GTX, and smoother at lower resolutions. If you can’t run it maxed out, I have no sympathy, I’ve rarely been able to do that with any game. Get over it already. It’s better looking than most games on “high”. Anything more is a bonus.

            • DrDillyBar
            • 11 years ago

            That wouldn’t have been such a bad reality if most review sites didn’t just Arbitrarily put the game into HIGH mode for testing. The fact that preset quality settings fail to run well on absolutely any computer that was released since the game came out and that have been released since is completely they’re fault.

            • BenBasson
            • 11 years ago

            Preset quality settings are universally poor. On the plus side, I think Crysis is one of the few games that didn’t default to a 1024×768 resolution when I started it up, throwing my windows all over the place.

            • swaaye
            • 11 years ago

            That’s exactly how I played it. 8800GTX at 1920×1200. It runs quite well most of the time, but the snow levels and endgame pounded it but good. It is the only game that pushes my card that hard and the only game that looks as good as it does.

            A few questions to ask oneself: How many new games in the past did folks run at 1680×1050 or 1920×1200 on their “state of the art” cards? How many games had destructible environments like this? Such comprehensive environment simulation? Physical properties of objects? AI as interesting? And, of course, how many games had such large, complex and beautiful open areas? Only a few come to mind and none of them are as impressive as Crysis.

            • no51
            • 11 years ago

            Adding to your argument; According to the steam user survey (http://www.steampowered.com/status/survey.html) the majority of gamers sampled used a resolution between 1024 and 1280. Why are people complaining that they can’t run it on resolutions they don’t have? OGM I CANT RUN IT AT VHIGH 1920 LOLOLOL IT SUX!!!1one. 2% of the people surveyed had resolutions of 1920.

            • cegras
            • 11 years ago

            a) Steam’s survey doesn’t represent the total gamer population. Not by a long shot.

            b) The people that HAVE higher resolution monitors complain they can’t play at those resolutions .. obviously? It’s the 2% that frequent forums and tech places like these.

            Assumptions and lack of common sense like that make my blood BOIIIIIL.

            j/k.

            • Meadows
            • 11 years ago

            Detailed and open environments would be considered a bonus only if you weren’t virtually led in a tube throughout maps over the entire course of the 5-10 hour single player campaign. There wasn’t much of a point in designing 79% of that island since nobody is ever urged to go explore at all. Waste of human resources, waste of development time, waste of money and waste of computer power.

            • swaaye
            • 11 years ago

            Yeah it could’ve definitely been more open. But then you get the people who can’t handle open games and have brain overloads, “nice step by step structure plz! tell me what to do where to go” they say.

            I thought the first half of Crysis was much better than almost all of the other shooters out there. I certainly like it a lot more than the other uber popular games, such as CoD, Halo and HL2. To each his own eh.

            • swaaye
            • 11 years ago

            Maybe that actually says something about the perceived power of today’s hardware? Look beyond the hype from NV and ATI. Not many people seem to look at it this way, and the hardware vendors definitely do not want you to.

            NVIDIA actually went over to Crytek to assist with optimization. They even hyped that little fact. So I have a feeling that the engine is doing its thing rather well.

            • aleckermit
            • 11 years ago

            to #4

            THE POINT OF GAMES IS TO BE ABLE TO PLAY THEM.

            It doesn’t matter how much technology you stuff into a game, if only a select few can enjoy it, then what’s the point?

      • swaaye
      • 11 years ago

      It just makes loads of sense to say something like that about a game that no one has ever even played. Screenshots and videos tell all, huh?

      I saw a video of Far Cry 2 “tree regeneration.” Blow a tree up and it grows back! Does that sound like a valuable feature to invest time developing for a shooter? I kinda stared at that and blinked for a bit. So I’m going to definitely go for a “wait and see” on just what these people have tried to put together.

        • notuptome2004
        • 11 years ago

        umm that was a Technology demo that is all a time laps video showing their engine can regrow stuff over time but that was a time laps video sped up anyways it is not a feature of the game but a design feature of the engine it self it is not lie your gonna shoot down a tree and see it just rise right back up. what you will see and this is only if you sit and stare for 9 months at that dead tree is that it may grow back over time.

        you stupid people make me sick when your shown a Tech demo of something that was said in the video is just to show off the engine and how it works and assume that something like that is in fact a game feature in the game itself . it be ridicules for them to instantly re grown a tree after ya blow it up

          • Meadows
          • 11 years ago

          If you can’t punctuate, don’t damn type anything at all.
          Few things disgust me more than angry pepper seeds like you who pour forth their vengeance without doing as much as pressing the period key every now and then. Makes my eyes bleed.

          • swaaye
          • 11 years ago

          YOUR RITE I IS DUM!

          So you really think that vegetation should grow back in a shooter engine and that it is a feature worthy of perhaps months of man hours to get working? There is limited development time on projects, you know. Feature creep and aspects that add nothing to gameplay that should never have even been considered. Bugs that could’ve been fixed instead, gameplay elements that ought to have been more thoroughly fleshed out….

          We’ll see how wonderful this game is when it can be played by people not making money off of it. After all, Ubisoft has such an awesome track record, right?

            • Meadows
            • 11 years ago

            Better track record than Whinetek. They’d blame everything under the Sun just to assure daddy EA that their slow useless code wasn’t at fault.

      • Kaleid
      • 11 years ago

      Disagree. The AI seems to be even worse.

        • Meadows
        • 11 years ago

        Come now, it would be extremely hard to write an even worse AI than what Crysis had. I still have nightmares about it – sure, aliens were done almost justifiably, but every single human target in the game was as stupid as all hell, and the true difficulty in the game lay in enemy numbers, a handicapped special suit and perfect AI aiming skills. That’s not challenging, but rather simply frustrating.

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This