Far Cry source code has leaked online

erek

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Dec 19, 2005
Messages
11,170
Dang, someone's got access to the direct torrent link or what?

"It's unclear if the code includes any subsequent patches – although the .34 part of the 1.34 title certainly suggests so – and some commenters who've presumably downloaded and run the code believe the code is "not complete, but close".

"From my educated guess, this is some source tree leak for the PC version of the game to add support for the Ubisoft game launcher / DRM," posits one commenter on the archive.org website.

"It does contain some .exes but no Xbox code and no game assets. The code that is there doesn't compile without 332 errors (I could have the dev env setup wrong too). So, I think you could get some debug PC version of this game running if you put in the effort and learnt the code base."

ICYMI, Netflix's exuberant animated Far Cry adaptation, Captain Laserhawk: A Blood Dragon Remix, recently received its first trailer.

Captain Laserhawk: A Blood Dragon Remix comes from series creator and writer Adi Shankar - who helped bring Netflix's acclaimed Castlevania adaptation to life - and is described as a "love letter from the 90s"."

1688422564727.png

Source: https://www.eurogamer.net/far-crys-entire-source-code-has-leaked-online
 
I discovered the Far Cry series late. Played the first one maybe 4 years ago. I found it borderline unplayable.

It's a not quite linear, but mostly linear shooter, with cringe worthy voice acting and plot.

Back when it dropped I bet it's biggest claim to fame were the graphics, but over a decade later they weren't anything to write home about.

Back then I didn't know that the Far Cry series were independent of each other, so I forced myself through it just to be able to play the sequels and understand the plot. Turned out I didn't have to do that.

Far Cry 2 was brilliant though. Despite being only slightly newer it felt timeless and like a more modern game.
 
I discovered the Far Cry series late. Played the first one maybe 4 years ago. I found it borderline unplayable.

It's a not quite linear, but mostly linear shooter, with cringe worthy voice acting and plot.

Back when it dropped I bet it's biggest claim to fame were the graphics, but over a decade later they weren't anything to write home about.

Back then I didn't know that the Far Cry series were independent of each other, so I forced myself through it just to be able to play the sequels and understand the plot. Turned out I didn't have to do that.

Far Cry 2 was brilliant though. Despite being only slightly newer it felt timeless and like a more modern game.

Far Cry was good for its time. Technically it looked good, with lots of vegetation which wasn't that common back then. The maps were fairly large and open for the time and gave you enough freedom to have different approaches or routes. It wasn't that linear, but it wasn't an open world game either. This is actually the best mix for shooter games, IMO. The NPCs themselves were a bit smarter than what you saw in a lot of previous games. Actually, they might be a bit better than in some of the more recent Far Cry games. I recall watching some videos a few years back showing how they worked and they could do more dynamic actions which was impressive for a game from that time.

Far Cry 2 had a lot of nice details that was removed from more recent games. Ammo cook offs, NPCs being wounded, more detailed NPC conversations, NPCs dragging wounded to safety, more destruction by driving over vegetation, tree/branch destruction and more. Under rated game.
 
FC1 was an incredible game for its time...the draw distance was particularly impressive...which reminds me, I need to pick up Far Cry during the current Steam sale for $2.99...I have the physical disc version but I'm not sure the serial number redeems on Ubisoft Connect or Steam
 
Crysis is basically the spiritual successor to the first Far Cry.

I did enjoy FC1, it was one of the best looking games around at the time, pushed my 9800 Pro to its limits. Didn't like the direction Ubisoft took the franchise - FC2 and onward are very different games. FC1 and Crysis, are IMO, some of the best FPS offerings on PC. Sadly the Crysis franchise after the first entry kind of got dumbed down when Crytek started catering to consoles.
 
Crysis is basically the spiritual successor to the first Far Cry.

I did enjoy FC1, it was one of the best looking games around at the time, pushed my 9800 Pro to its limits. Didn't like the direction Ubisoft took the franchise - FC2 and onward are very different games. FC1 and Crysis, are IMO, some of the best FPS offerings on PC. Sadly the Crysis franchise after the first entry kind of got dumbed down when Crytek started catering to consoles.
Crysis 3 was much better in terms of not feeling like a console port than Crysis 2 was. It was just too way short, whole game was maybe 6-7 hours.
 
The original Far Cry is an interesting game but I never could be bothering finishing it for some reason. I guess the mutant monkeys and the fact I kept trying to play on highest difficulty while being bad at the game. Actually I'm pretty sure I lost my saves too at some point...

Was technically impressive with decent AI for the humans, so it was definitely a great shooter for the most part. I tried to replay it recently but lack of ironsight alone feels wrong to me nowadays. And well I replayed the first few levels so many times I can't really be bothered anymore!

A proper coop version would be cool though.
 
Crysis 3 was much better in terms of not feeling like a console port than Crysis 2 was. It was just too way short, whole game was maybe 6-7 hours.
Am I the only one who liked Crysis 2 on the pc, with the high res texture pack? Looked great, ran great, fun shooting and suit abilities, etc. No aimlessly wandering an open world.
 
Am I the only one who liked Crysis 2 on the pc, with the high res texture pack? Looked great, ran great, fun shooting and suit abilities, etc. No aimlessly wandering an open world.
Oh I did too, even bought the remastered version when it came out last year. I was only responding in the context of the dumbing down for consoles statement.

My only disappointment with Crysis 2 & 3 was how less open world they were, but it was understandable given the location in which the games took place. Even Crysis 1 which I have probably played through 50 times, was a bit less open world than Far Cry.

I do have very high hopes for Crysis 4.
 
Far cry sticks out to me as the first dense jungle vegetation I could destroy and the ai to have actually succeeded in flanking me in a game. The monkey crap at the end was frustrating and felt dumb.
 
I discovered the Far Cry series late. Played the first one maybe 4 years ago. I found it borderline unplayable.

It's a not quite linear, but mostly linear shooter, with cringe worthy voice acting and plot.

Back when it dropped I bet it's biggest claim to fame were the graphics, but over a decade later they weren't anything to write home about.

Back then I didn't know that the Far Cry series were independent of each other, so I forced myself through it just to be able to play the sequels and understand the plot. Turned out I didn't have to do that.

Far Cry 2 was brilliant though. Despite being only slightly newer it felt timeless and like a more modern game.
Far Cry 1 was one of the best games of its era, both graphically and gameplay wise, specifically due to the semi open maps and relatively realistic gunplay. For 2004 the graphics were mind boggling. Far Cry was much more impressive when it came out than Crysis ever was to me.T he plot was completely nonsensical and meaningless, but it didn't matter as I loved every inch of every map of the game except for the last two, when the game suddenly turned into a doom clone.

Far Cry 2 was absolutely atrocious though, despite being newer it felt like three steps back in realism, graphics, and gameplay.
 
I do have very high hopes for Crysis 4.
Wait, what? They're making a fourth? Hmm, this could either be all sorts of awesome and win, or it's going to be a shit sandwich on arrival. Which is beyond my ability to foresee.
 
I was a huge fan of Far Cry 3 tbh. I never finished 1 and 2 was terrible imo.
 
I discovered the Far Cry series late. Played the first one maybe 4 years ago. I found it borderline unplayable.

It's a not quite linear, but mostly linear shooter, with cringe worthy voice acting and plot.

Back when it dropped I bet it's biggest claim to fame were the graphics, but over a decade later they weren't anything to write home about.
Far Cry was groundbreaking, for it's time. The visuals, scale, vegetation, water, etc. Many FPS games before it trapped you indoors with dim lighting and linear worlds. It was the father to Crysis, which was released 3 years later.

You're not going to appreciate an older game the same as when it first launched. Especially a FPS. That would be like picking up Doom now and thinking, "What is this crap? People played this?" We sure did, because those games were awesome at the time.
 
Far Cry 2 was absolutely atrocious though, despite being newer it felt like three steps back in realism, graphics, and gameplay.

Far Cry 2 is technically leaps and bounds more realistic than any of the games after it. FC2 gets bad rap because if the almost instant respawn on checkpoints and IMO, it was VERY long. Graphically is was amazing, the stuff they had in this game that they removed from future ones or made it worse. it graphically still kind of holds up today. Its departure from FC1 probably didn't help it at the time either.
 
Far Cry 2 is technically leaps and bounds more realistic than any of the games after it. FC2 gets bad rap because if the almost instant respawn on checkpoints and IMO, it was VERY long. Graphically is was amazing, the stuff they had in this game that they removed from future ones or made it worse. it graphically still kind of holds up today. Its departure from FC1 probably didn't help it at the time either.

I thought Far Cry 2 was brilliant. It was such a relief after playing FC1.

FC1 felt old fashioned, like something from the 90's.

FC2 may have only been 4 years newer but it felt a decade more modern, in a good way.
 
Far Cry 1 was great for its time... until the aliens showed up. If they did a remaster, I'd buy it.
 
Am I the only one who liked Crysis 2 on the pc, with the high res texture pack? Looked great, ran great, fun shooting and suit abilities, etc. No aimlessly wandering an open world.
After playing each game multiple times, I like Crysis 2 the most out of the series. I find the environments the most mesmerizing and fun to run around in, and the combat the most fun.

Crysis 1's soldier AI is terrible, and its suit power drains too quickly, robbing its combat of the chance to be very fun and engaging, IMO. If you make a loud noise like with a grenade, all the soldiers will go to that point.

I think Crysis 2 remastered looks worse than the original, though. It has some better textures, but the more drab colour palette and lighting takes away a lot of the environment's appeal and what makes me enjoy the original version.

Crysis 1 remastered had the opposite problem, and the original looks better because the remaster it so over-saturated and vibrant-looking that it's almost nauseating. Seems that CryTek reacted to criticism from C1R (which could've used a very minor vibrance enhancement) the wrong way, and decided to swing the pendulum the opposite way for C2, which didn't need a change to its colour palette. C1R also removed the end-game VTOL level, for whatever reason. It creates issues in the original release, crashing the game unless something is done just for that level (I forget what). But if they could fix that issue, I'd rather have it in the game.

The only remastered Crysis I'd rather play over the original is Crysis 3.



 
Last edited:
Maybe I'll finally play it.

It's be worth it, if you can click with the gameplay. I think it's the only game of its kind that I've played. It's not a run-and-gun game, enemy bullets can drop you in a second from full health.

Concealing in bushes, using sound to lure creatures, binoc tagging, using distance, and always going for headshots (chest shots are just wasted ammo on a lot of enemies), are basically mandatory. Put the auto-shotgun to good use on imp-monkeys in close-quarter indoors.

I think the outdoor levels are the best, but some can be brutally hard later on in the game. There's one vehicle sequence in the game that's nearly impossible on higher difficulties because it needs to be performed flawlessly, not missing a shot due to limited rocket ammo (the only way to do that is from having premonition from already having played the sequence many times) and killing just about everything before being shot at, while the vehicle and enemy movement makes it hard to aim. That's the worst spot in the game.

The easy way to deal with it is to use a map exploit and kill most of the enemies in the sequence before entering the vehicle.

 
Last edited:
It's be worth it, if you can click with the gameplay. I think it's the only game of its kind that I've played. It's not a run-and-gun game, enemy bullets can drop you in a second from full health.

Concealing in bushes, using sound to lure creatures, using distance, and always going for headshots (chest shots are just wasted ammo on a lot of enemies), are basically mandatory. Put the auto-shotgun to good use on imp-monkeys in close-quarter indoors.

I think the outdoor levels are the best, but some can be brutally hard later on in the game. There's a vehicle sequence in the game that's nearly impossible on higher difficulties because needs to be performed flawlessly, not missing a shot and killing just about everything before being shot at, while the vehicle is janking your aim around. That's the worst spot in the game.
Thanks for the heads up. More prefer a run and gun game. Sneaky isn't for me.
 
I thought Far Cry 2 was brilliant. It was such a relief after playing FC1.

FC1 felt old fashioned, like something from the 90's.

FC2 may have only been 4 years newer but it felt a decade more modern, in a good way.
I am the opposite. I loved FC1, well at least until the Trigen showed up. It dropped off a cliff after that, same with Crysis and the aliens. Far Cry 2 was not fun. Sure it had a open world but it was boring to me and the respawns just killed it for me. I did really like Far Cry 3 though.
 
Far Cry 2 was absolutely atrocious though, despite being newer it felt like three steps back in realism, graphics, and gameplay.

Maybe in some ways, but Far Cry 2 had so many small details and little things. It was quite amazing and the opposite of modern Ubisoft games when it comes to attention to detail.

Example:


Yes the story wasn't so good and the respawning enemies would get annoying. But aside from that I found it to be fairly fun, I played through it twice.

This has become common throughout almost all of Ubisoft's games, not just Far Cry. And it is becoming more common in games in general. Larger worlds, longer play times, but more empty, less details, bad pacing, and sterile worlds/mechanics. Ubisoft is simply the most noticeable.
 
I thought Far Cry 2 was brilliant. It was such a relief after playing FC1.

FC1 felt old fashioned, like something from the 90's.

FC2 may have only been 4 years newer but it felt a decade more modern, in a good way.
I mean close, Far Cry was 2004, and it was made mostly to show off Crytek's game engine. FC2 was when Ubisoft bought the rights to the game and was able to throw more money into development including making the map super big, comparatively speaking, amongst other game changes.

That said nostalgia does not come with DLSS upscaling so old games like this don't tend to age too well.
 
I wish Far Cry 1 would get a remake. One of my favorite games. Remaking old games (when done right) can bring in big $$$, just look at Doom.
 
I wish Far Cry 1 would get a remake. One of my favorite games. Remaking old games (when done right) can bring in big $$$, just look at Doom.
Well, if Doom added jumping, then perhaps we will get a remake with new abilities, or even microtransactions and NFT cosmetics.
 
Maybe in some ways, but Far Cry 2 had so many small details and little things. It was quite amazing and the opposite of modern Ubisoft games when it comes to attention to detail.
That just means Ubisoft devs have gotten lazier. While it is a shame despite it's flaws even FC5 was a far more enjoyable game to me than FC2.
Yes the story wasn't so good and the respawning enemies would get annoying. But aside from that I found it to be fairly fun, I played through it twice.
I got instantly fed up with the respawning bullet sponge enemies and despite the map being open the game made sure it was impossible to enter settlements anywhere but where they wanted you to enter.
The point of an open world should be that you can do anything, attack from anywhere by any means. I had much more freedom in Far Cry 1 than in Far Cry 2.
This has become common throughout almost all of Ubisoft's games, not just Far Cry. And it is becoming more common in games in general. Larger worlds, longer play times, but more empty, less details, bad pacing, and sterile worlds/mechanics. Ubisoft is simply the most noticeable.
I don't think that's true at all. FC6, AC Odyssey, and Valhallla all had amazing amount of detail in their worlds. I absolutely loved Odyssey, great acting, great locations, interesting side quests, interesting characters, I was fully invested in the story. Less so in FC6 and Valhalla, but the world itself was good in those too. Not to mention one of my favorite shooters of all time Ghost Recon Wildlands which to me so far is the peak of the non-hand holding gameplay of do what you want just get the job done, which I first saw in FC1 in its more open maps. Unfortunately I'm not interested in the next AC game as I think it is an absolutely stupid idea to make the last game's villain the next one's only playable character.
 
Hopefully we'll get some good source ports in the future that can fix some of the fundamental problems the game has.
FC1 was an incredible game for its time...the draw distance was particularly impressive...which reminds me, I need to pick up Far Cry during the current Steam sale for $2.99...I have the physical disc version but I'm not sure the serial number redeems on Ubisoft Connect or Steam
Be aware that the digital versions of the first game has the last patch released, which completely breaks the single player game. AI can see and shoot you through walls. You need to install the AMD 64-bit patch to fix the game. I think the GOG version comes with the AMD patch already installed, which would make their version the best on the market (just like Crysis).
The original Far Cry is an interesting game but I never could be bothering finishing it for some reason. I guess the mutant monkeys and the fact I kept trying to play on highest difficulty while being bad at the game. Actually I'm pretty sure I lost my saves too at some point...

Was technically impressive with decent AI for the humans, so it was definitely a great shooter for the most part. I tried to replay it recently but lack of ironsight alone feels wrong to me nowadays. And well I replayed the first few levels so many times I can't really be bothered anymore!

A proper coop version would be cool though.
FC1 is an absolute nightmare on the hardest difficulty. I am pretty sure it is impossible to beat the game on it. People who have made it to the end know what I'm talking about (the sprint to the bottom of the mountain). I think the game is more fun on easy, to be honest, but it's manageable on normal. And it's not the human enemies I'm talking about. They are actually pretty fun to fight against on hard.

https://hardforum.com/threads/crysis-4.2017194/
Far Cry 1 was the only one that wasn't complete dogshit.

The sequels felt like FPS games for people who don't like FPS games.
FC1 was good in the first half. It was dogshit in the second half. All that fun, emergent gameplay you're introduced to at the start gets completely thrown out the window when the mutants start showing up. It turns into Serious Sam, only without the fun factor.
 
Well, if Doom added jumping, then perhaps we will get a remake with new abilities, or even microtransactions and NFT cosmetics.
Reminds me of the days where in games like GTA water = instadeath, then one day they said "yanno what maybe characters can swim"
 
That just means Ubisoft devs have gotten lazier.

Exactly my point. Kind of disappointing to see.

While it is a shame despite it's flaws even FC5 was a far more enjoyable game to me than FC2.

I think 3 is the best of the modern iterations of the game. 4 was solid, but 5 went down hill. 6 was better but it has gotten stale at this point. Comparing 2 and 5 is tough, IMO. 2 had a more interactive world, but lesser developed main story missions.

I got instantly fed up with the respawning bullet sponge enemies and despite the map being open the game made sure it was impossible to enter settlements anywhere but where they wanted you to enter.
The point of an open world should be that you can do anything, attack from anywhere by any means. I had much more freedom in Far Cry 1 than in Far Cry 2.

There were often a number of ways to approach an area, or you could use certain weapons to change things up. Mortars, flame thrower, or shootings an ammo box to create a cook off. Far Cry 3 did a good job of taking that and expanding it. The outposts in 3 were often designed around a few key game mechanics like letting an animal out of its cage, or using under water take downs. In recent games the outposts got so lazily designed that you couldn't use most of these things. In FC6 a lot of them are just regular road blocks without being designed for any of the unique gameplay mechanics. Which again, is Ubisoft just getting more lazy.

AC Odyssey, and Valhallla all had amazing amount of detail in their worlds. I absolutely loved Odyssey, great acting, great locations, interesting side quests, interesting characters, I was fully invested in the story.

I think they have detailed art and massive worlds, but everything else isn't that well done. NPC interactions are poor/static. Random NPCs seldom have FC2 style conversations among themselves. The character animations were not good for modern games. Most the characters in those games were so dry and forgettable and blend together. In Far Cry 6 they weren't as bland, but they were very jarring and outright annoying.

I'm looking forward to AC Mirage because it looks like a return to defined gameplay. I am hoping it has a structured story and less generic bandit set ups. But the trailers showing off the recycled animations where the character doesn't move like an assassin is a bit worrying. I suppose we will see if Ubisoft has it in them to create something different from the current Far Cry / "Ghost Recon" / Assasin's Creed / Watch Dogs formula, or if all the talent that made games like Splinter Cell and the older Assassin's Creed is long gone.
 
I think 3 is the best of the modern iterations of the game. 4 was solid, but 5 went down hill. 6 was better but it has gotten stale at this point. Comparing 2 and 5 is tough, IMO. 2 had a more interactive world, but lesser developed main story missions.
I don't recall 2 as much since it was so long ago, I do recall it was quite tedious though going back and forth and all the unlocked "camps" got retaken and shit like that. Maybe FC2 with the mechanics of the later games would make it a bit better. But each one added on the next, 3 adding the crafting system (could be annoying) also "quicktime" events which I wasn't happy with, 4 was largely the same as 3 except less crafting and I want to say they added a "buddy" that could team up with you, 5 was fine except the way it forced the story forward on you (also "losing" at the end was a bummer), ND (aka 5pt2) I liked the weapon crafting that went on it, and 6 I believe is the first one that really ditches the whole super natural aspect which the other games really have a main story element of except for the smokey black panther pet you can get. That said I say bring on stale because I like the way it's made, just give me different stories/settings and I'll be happy.
 
  • Like
Reactions: M76
like this
There were often a number of ways to approach an area, or you could use certain weapons to change things up. Mortars, flame thrower, or shootings an ammo box to create a cook off. Far Cry 3 did a good job of taking that and expanding it. The outposts in 3 were often designed around a few key game mechanics like letting an animal out of its cage, or using under water take downs. In recent games the outposts got so lazily designed that you couldn't use most of these things. In FC6 a lot of them are just regular road blocks without being designed for any of the unique gameplay mechanics. Which again, is Ubisoft just getting more lazy.
I think it is an improvement when a map is not built around the game mechanics. It is immersion breaking to me when certain things are only put there or arranged in a way to allow some game mechanics. The map should be realistic first and foremost. Opportunities to use game mechanics shouldn't be obvious, but blend in seamlessly. So when you actually find opportunities to use them it feels like an achievement and not something you were obviously meant to do.
FC1 is an absolute nightmare on the hardest difficulty. I am pretty sure it is impossible to beat the game on it. People who have made it to the end know what I'm talking about (the sprint to the bottom of the mountain). I think the game is more fun on easy, to be honest, but it's manageable on normal. And it's not the human enemies I'm talking about. They are actually pretty fun to fight against on hard.
I almost did it, only had to lower the difficulty on the last map. But I have to say the map where you get dropped off without weapons is one of the most thrilling and scary experiences on hard and I loved it. Most people hate the "monkeys" but I think it fits the game very well and gives a good horror aspect. On easy they may be bland but on hard they are scary. Unlike the aliens in crysis that change up the game so much that it becomes unrecognizable. I love the early bits of crysis when you are fighting soldiers, but absolutely hated the second half. Crysis warhead does a much better job at making the aliens more interesting and enjoyable to fight and it strikes a better balance and has a better story too.
 
I think it is an improvement when a map is not built around the game mechanics. It is immersion breaking to me when certain things are only put there or arranged in a way to allow some game mechanics. The map should be realistic first and foremost. Opportunities to use game mechanics shouldn't be obvious, but blend in seamlessly. So when you actually find opportunities to use them it feels like an achievement and not something you were obviously meant to do.

The problem with more recent Ubisoft games is it isn't practical to use much of the new abilities you get. Which makes them almost pointless. FC6 is again a good example with the outposts. Your options are killing things from the air if you have a helicopter, or driving up and shooting everyone which ends the activity in around 45 seconds. I think I completed some outposts in around 20 seconds. Comparing that to FC3, there were outposts near the water where you could tell that an under water insertion and stealth approach was an option. FC5/6 also had odd situations where there were over watch points but had map props obscuring the area. FC5 had some of the same mechanics like take downs from below, but I only had an opportunity to use it 1-2 times in the entire game because the map/mission set ups seldom allowed for the opportunity.

The same thing was a problem in AC Odyssey. Some cool abilities that were impractical to use 99% of the time. The end result was essentially button mashing because it gave better results.
 
Back
Top