Just Cause 4

Discussion in 'PC Games' started by elvis, Jun 12, 2018.

  1. walker_2003

    walker_2003 Member

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2003
    Messages:
    11,828
    Location:
    Canberra
    Consensus seems to be, bad story, bad graphics in parts, poorly executed conquest mode, repetitive missions, but good crazy fun.
     
  2. ni9ht_5ta1k3r

    ni9ht_5ta1k3r Member

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2006
    Messages:
    34,493
    Location:
    地球・オーストラリア・シドニー
    OK, so hold out for a sale - got it!
     
    Goose1981 likes this.
  3. Goose1981

    Goose1981 Member

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2004
    Messages:
    19,350
    Location:
    Perth
    Yeah, wait for a sale would be the best bet. :thumbup:

    I don't regret buying it (Just Cause has always been a 'physics fk around' title for me), but if you're looking for something more i'd say wait till you can get it cheaper.
     
  4. Foliage

    Foliage Member

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2002
    Messages:
    32,081
    Location:
    Sleepwithyourdadelaide
    If you liked 3, definitely buy it. Imo it is better than 3 in quite a few ways, but worse in some.
     
  5. ni9ht_5ta1k3r

    ni9ht_5ta1k3r Member

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2006
    Messages:
    34,493
    Location:
    地球・オーストラリア・シドニー
    I don't have JC3 so it's a wait for me.
     
  6. Foliage

    Foliage Member

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2002
    Messages:
    32,081
    Location:
    Sleepwithyourdadelaide
    The mindless destruction is definitely more fun. Eg I can just drive into enemy territory with a tank and blow things up for 30 minutes at a time without getting bored. The missions are definitely less "blow all the red things up" and a little more challenging. I found JC3 quite easy, this definitely is more difficult, eg no more infinite missiles for the choppers.

    I'd probably give it a 7/10 and a very similar score to JC3.

    edit: I have just finished Ghost Recon and Hit Man 2. Both of those games have better storylines (ghost recon only just) and much more rewarding missions, however this is just simply more fun to play.
     
  7. roamin

    roamin Member

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2002
    Messages:
    2,748
    Location:
    melb / Crimebourne
    thought id go back to see what the reviews on steam are for this game. its at 33% and mostly negative.
    im guessing its not going all that great for the JC devs, at this rate im guessing there wont be a JC 5.

    another series to bite the dust maybe. what is it this year and games becoming an absolute flop.
    JC4, FO76, RDR2 online aint looking too crash hot atm either. big brands by big companies just getting it wrong.
     
  8. OP
    OP
    elvis

    elvis Old school old fool

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2001
    Messages:
    39,773
    Location:
    Brisbane
    All three of the games you've mentioned have made huge profits. For all the angry comments on the Internet, in corporate boardrooms they're considered a success.

    I think there's a pretty big disconnect between the two far ends of this spectrum - the clueless corporate fat cats who don't see the art or fun in any of this, and the vocal minority of angry gamers who want enormous, polished games that cater to their niche. Stuck in the middle are the devs, of course, who cop the blame from both angles because they couldn't meet the demands with the resources at their disposal.

    I still don't know what the solution to all of this is. But the fact remains that as long as these things make money, they'll keep getting pumped out. I'm more familiar with the movie industry than gaming, but they share the same sins. So many people go on and on about films being poorly made, pushing simplistic plots or having terrible effects, and yet the profits roll in because people buy movie tickets, so they're considered a success and worthy of inevitable sequels regardless of the valid criticisms.

    Honestly, your only voice and vote here is your money. Spend it *at all*, even on sale, and it's considered a success by the bean counters. Buying a game and leaving a negative review is meaningless, as no big executive gives a shit (they're not on Steam, they're not on Reddit, they're not reading the reviews and angry feedback). The little studios? Sure. But the big studios have people running them who don't enjoy or even play games at all. It's all just cold, emotionless business to them.

    We love to laugh at angry "can I speak to the manager?" types, totally ineffective at making real change outside of just being annoying. We make memes about them. But that's us, writing angry reviews on Steam. We're that person.

    I can't see any of this changing any time soon. Ever year it's the same lamentation from gamers, and the same lack of care from the bigger companies. But we keep spending, and they keep doing what they do. So we're all part of the problem.
     
    Last edited: Dec 16, 2018
  9. roamin

    roamin Member

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2002
    Messages:
    2,748
    Location:
    melb / Crimebourne
    i think this is whats hit the nail on the head, games were made by gamers, in some ways still are but there now controlled by the greedy and dont get to do what they want and how they want to as its all about getting it out now and getting the money now.

    i hope when these games get there next release people will learn from this mistake these companies make and stop pre ordering and actually wait to see if its worth it. thats the only way the industry will change, will it happen though? i dont think so, people are too quick to throw money at excitement now days even if its not exciting, too late you already fed them your money.
     
  10. OP
    OP
    elvis

    elvis Old school old fool

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2001
    Messages:
    39,773
    Location:
    Brisbane
    To be fair, you just simply don't get a game like GTA5 or RDR2 (which I know isn't the topic, but it's just an example of big scale gaming) without "big business".

    It takes *years* to make big games. During that time, you're not making money. In business you have a thing called your "burn rate" - the amount of money you spend just doing business. That's wages (including training, HR, payroll, sick leave, etc), computers, software licensing, rent on your building, services (electricity, water, internet), cleaners, refilling the coffee machine - everything. Consider some of these games take thousands of people being paid - what, $75K or more each? Start doing the maths on what it costs, and it gets real scary real quick how much cash you're tearing through just to take the chance of making some money at the end.

    How do you pay for these people if you're not shipping software? How do you pay for these people if your creative ideas aren't finished, and you realise a game needs 6 more months to be released without bugs? Where do you draw the line and say "fuck it, we need to release this, or we're all on the street"? And that happens quite a lot - companies go bankrupt before they even have a chance to get the game out for release, or games get cancelled because there's just no hope of getting there.

    I *love* the fantasy of "games made by gamers". Just like I love the fantasy of films made by film buffs. But the reality is we had that - it was called the "bedroom coding scene", and the games that came out of it scaled to this level. I love retro, and I love indie, but if games get made without big business backing them, we're all playing "Super Meat Boy" and "Super Hot", and nothing more complex or pretty than that. Great games, but they aren't GTA or RDR.

    If creativity is warm, business is cold. And sometimes you need that cold, harsh reality to get creative stuff paid for and out the door. I agree it sucks, but if anyone disagrees I invite them to make their own studio and punch out better games. And I hope you don't want a partner, children, social life or sunlight for the next 40 years, because that's the price you'll pay to have someone yell at you on the Steam forums that your best just simply isn't good enough.
     
    Last edited: Dec 16, 2018
  11. roamin

    roamin Member

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2002
    Messages:
    2,748
    Location:
    melb / Crimebourne
    i dont disagree with anything your saying there.

    some of the big companies are not so bad off when making new games, ie: rockstar has gta pumping money into 1 hand to help feed the other hand of red deads development process. not all companies have that opportunity though.

    its interesting because its seems to be at a prime time of companies being demanded to make quality but pushing out games quickly to regain a cash flow. will be interesting to see what the gaming scene is in another 10-15 years from now with how the business aspect deals with gaming aspect, will more games become free to play, i dont play fortnite but from the stories around the net they seem to be making a pretty penny from there "free" game. will be an interesting time.
     
  12. OP
    OP
    elvis

    elvis Old school old fool

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2001
    Messages:
    39,773
    Location:
    Brisbane
    True, but I think everyone is afraid of being another Atari. King of the hill to dirt broke in a few short years.

    Sega were the same. Shenmue was supposed to be a 15 part epic, but the desire to make "the perfect game" saw it extended and extended until Sega blew all their cash. A few bad decisions one after the other, and they're a shadow of their former selves.

    Or Daikatana. The creative genius behind Doom who wanted to make an artist-driven game, constantly chasing engine upgrades to be the biggest, best and sexiest game. In the end they ran out of cash, their staff bailed, and all their dreams were dashed, forcing them to release a stinker.

    Or how about Duke Nukem Forever?

    History is littered with tales of games and companies that shot for perfection, and burned out hard. If you run a games company and see yourself heading that way, what do you do? When do you draw the line and release what you have, even if it's not done?

    Agreed. I hope more indie and mid sized games devs appearing, and I hope gamers are willing to accept shorter and smaller scope games to allow the industry to find balance.
     
    Last edited: Dec 17, 2018
  13. Foliage

    Foliage Member

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2002
    Messages:
    32,081
    Location:
    Sleepwithyourdadelaide
    https://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/just-cause-4

    metacritic gives it a 71/100

    I'd say a pretty fair score as well. On par with the original, more fun in some ways worse in others.

    One thing that I personally found funny, is you don't actually need to blow shit up to pass missions now. You can just do the bare minimum, in JC3 you literally had to blow every red object up. I actually miss the last bit.

    I gotta say that hijacking a tank and just doing a mindless destruction run behind enemy lines is probably the most fun you can have in the game, it just never seems to get old seeing a tiny bike/car explode like it has 200kg of C4 in the boot.
     
    Last edited: Dec 17, 2018
  14. Sledge

    Sledge Member

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2002
    Messages:
    7,969
    Location:
    Adelaide
    And i haven't even started playing the first one yet...
    [​IMG]
     
  15. power

    power Member

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2002
    Messages:
    61,541
    Location:
    brisbane
    skip 1, play 2 - stop there.
     
    elvis likes this.

Share This Page

Advertisement: