FC5 has its own attention to details that FC2 doesn't have, this comparison doesn't mean FC5 has nothing to show. The crowbcat video in question isn't like 'GTAV sucks compared to IV' it's about how FC2 holds up in like for like situations to FC5.

DF gives that difference some additional context. It is less of a commentary on FC5 sucking and more showing the different philosophy between the games by pointing out what FC2 focused on over FC5. Heck they probably could have had things like the exploding ammo crates at no performance penalty, but decided not to one way or another. The rest, all this anger against crowbcat or what have you is all projection and assumption onto a fairly straightforward video.įC5 still could have targeted and done the same kinds of things as FC2 all while being bigger, badder, and prettier than FC2 but didn't. It simply talks about why it is that FC2 focused on simulation and how FC5 chooses to spend its resources.

There is literally nothing in the DF video that makes that crowbcat video dumb. It's simply showing a comparison between FC2 and FC5 in terms like for like small scale detail. That video that has all the FC5 fans feeling defensive? Nowhere is it implying that FC2 had bigger areas, more complex AI, better lighting, framerate, etc. FC2 wasn't a wide corridor game because it had those physics, it was like that because it was pushing those physics on what is now ancient hardware and toolsets.Ĭonsider both the platforms it was designed around and its time in history: It was a very open game. Here's the thing, are you talking about actually differences in where each game chose to spend its resources in the effects department (in this case CPU/physics based eye candy versus GPU driven eye candy) or are you talking about design advancements made possible by years of hardware and toolset advancements.īecause if anything the Digital Foundry video dramatically undersells the importance of software and toolset advancements over the last decade.

Far cry 2 sweetfx