Leaker Suggest Oppenheimer Star Cillian Murphy Will Play Far Cry 7's Villain | MMORPG.com

System · April 22

Leaker Suggest Oppenheimer Star Cillian Murphy Will Play Far Cry 7's Villain | MMORPG.com

J0nathan, a leaker with a reliable track record when it comes to Assassin's Creed rumors has shared a new rumor on Twitter/X, suggesting that Far Cry 7 may be announced soon and will star Oppenheimer lead and Best Actor Oscar Winner, Cillian Murphy.

Read the full story here

Neoyoshi · April 22

Scot · April 22

"Last year, Insider Gaming published a Far Cry 7 report that suggested the game would feature a time limit element where players would need to race against the clock to save their family from a “cult-like organization” before time runs out."

"Against the clock" and the freedom of open world do not go together; could this be suggestive of there being less to do, so players have to be steered to locations were there is more to do? It could just be a new gimmick to the old formula, at least that's my hope. Have to say if it is I would just play the game my way, sorry family.

Sovrath · April 22

Scot said:

"Last year, Insider Gaming published a Far Cry 7 report that suggested the game would feature a time limit element where players would need to race against the clock to save their family from a “cult-like organization” before time runs out."

"Against the clock" and the freedom of open world do not go together; could this be suggestive of there being less to do, so players have to be steered to locations were there is more to do? It could just be a new gimmick to the old formula, at least that's my hope. Have to say if it is I would just play the game my way, sorry family.

I don't agree. Dragon's Dogma 2 even has quests that "time out" because you dally.

So does Baldur's Gate 3. What happens is that there is some sort of outcome if you don't move your butt.

I whole heartily agree with this.

It was a problem in Oblivion as well as Skyrim. There are these world shattering events but no worries, they'll wait on you while you decorate your house.

Save world first, then buy a living room set!

Terazon · April 22

Great news. Good series. I have enjoyed all of them

Celcius · April 22

Already debunked

Scot · April 22

Sovrath said:

Scot said:

"Last year, Insider Gaming published a Far Cry 7 report that suggested the game would feature a time limit element where players would need to race against the clock to save their family from a “cult-like organization” before time runs out."

"Against the clock" and the freedom of open world do not go together; could this be suggestive of there being less to do, so players have to be steered to locations were there is more to do? It could just be a new gimmick to the old formula, at least that's my hope. Have to say if it is I would just play the game my way, sorry family.

I don't agree. Dragon's Dogma 2 even has quests that "time out" because you dally.

So does Baldur's Gate 3. What happens is that there is some sort of outcome if you don't move your butt.

I whole heartily agree with this.

It was a problem in Oblivion as well as Skyrim. There are these world shattering events but no worries, they'll wait on you while you decorate your house.

Save world first, then buy a living room set!

But, but, my battle suit needs a respray!

I can see how this could be used to add drama, maybe that's the idea; though it may be debunked if Celcius is right. For me we get that sort of drama in the more linear adventure games out there, do we need a timer in every game, I think not. But I always champion a studio trying something new, so if this does go ahead it may be good gameplay.

Sovrath · April 22

Scot said:

Sovrath said:

Scot said:

"Last year, Insider Gaming published a Far Cry 7 report that suggested the game would feature a time limit element where players would need to race against the clock to save their family from a “cult-like organization” before time runs out."

"Against the clock" and the freedom of open world do not go together; could this be suggestive of there being less to do, so players have to be steered to locations were there is more to do? It could just be a new gimmick to the old formula, at least that's my hope. Have to say if it is I would just play the game my way, sorry family.

I don't agree. Dragon's Dogma 2 even has quests that "time out" because you dally.

So does Baldur's Gate 3. What happens is that there is some sort of outcome if you don't move your butt.

I whole heartily agree with this.

It was a problem in Oblivion as well as Skyrim. There are these world shattering events but no worries, they'll wait on you while you decorate your house.

Save world first, then buy a living room set!

But, but, my battle suit needs a respray!

I can see how this could be used to add drama, maybe that's the idea; though it may be debunked if Celcius is right. For me we get that sort of drama in the more linear adventure games out there, do we need a timer in every game, I think not. But I always champion a studio trying something new, so if this does go ahead it may be good gameplay.

I don’t know about “every “ game but it seems silly to give the player a quest/ task and try to impart upon them the urgency of it all only for the player to show up a week later in game time to find everyone waiting on them.

Darth Vader: “Oh you’re here? Ok let’s do this …”

ValdemarJ · April 22

Sovrath said:

Scot said:

Sovrath said:

Scot said:

"Last year, Insider Gaming published a Far Cry 7 report that suggested the game would feature a time limit element where players would need to race against the clock to save their family from a “cult-like organization” before time runs out."

"Against the clock" and the freedom of open world do not go together; could this be suggestive of there being less to do, so players have to be steered to locations were there is more to do? It could just be a new gimmick to the old formula, at least that's my hope. Have to say if it is I would just play the game my way, sorry family.

I don't agree. Dragon's Dogma 2 even has quests that "time out" because you dally.

So does Baldur's Gate 3. What happens is that there is some sort of outcome if you don't move your butt.

I whole heartily agree with this.

It was a problem in Oblivion as well as Skyrim. There are these world shattering events but no worries, they'll wait on you while you decorate your house.

Save world first, then buy a living room set!

But, but, my battle suit needs a respray!

I can see how this could be used to add drama, maybe that's the idea; though it may be debunked if Celcius is right. For me we get that sort of drama in the more linear adventure games out there, do we need a timer in every game, I think not. But I always champion a studio trying something new, so if this does go ahead it may be good gameplay.

I don’t know about “every “ game but it seems silly to give the player a quest/ task and try to impart upon them the urgency of it all only for the player to show up a week later in game time to find everyone waiting on them.

Darth Vader: “Oh you’re here? Ok let’s do this …”

Haha, right. The Vader example is great. This is basically every Bethesda quest ever. Hurry, doom is imminent, except you have all the time in the world to do anything and everything else but that urgent scenario. It's probably one of my biggest criticisms with how they build their games. I like the occasional quest that has some urgency and consequence of choice.

Edit: I think Zachary Quinto would make a good Far Cry villain voice actor. I think he was great in Heroes in the role of Sylar and did an excellent job as Spock in the Star Trek movies.

Scot · April 23

Sovrath said:

Scot said:

Sovrath said:

Scot said:

"Last year, Insider Gaming published a Far Cry 7 report that suggested the game would feature a time limit element where players would need to race against the clock to save their family from a “cult-like organization” before time runs out."

"Against the clock" and the freedom of open world do not go together; could this be suggestive of there being less to do, so players have to be steered to locations were there is more to do? It could just be a new gimmick to the old formula, at least that's my hope. Have to say if it is I would just play the game my way, sorry family.

I don't agree. Dragon's Dogma 2 even has quests that "time out" because you dally.

So does Baldur's Gate 3. What happens is that there is some sort of outcome if you don't move your butt.

I whole heartily agree with this.

It was a problem in Oblivion as well as Skyrim. There are these world shattering events but no worries, they'll wait on you while you decorate your house.

Save world first, then buy a living room set!

But, but, my battle suit needs a respray!

I can see how this could be used to add drama, maybe that's the idea; though it may be debunked if Celcius is right. For me we get that sort of drama in the more linear adventure games out there, do we need a timer in every game, I think not. But I always champion a studio trying something new, so if this does go ahead it may be good gameplay.

I don’t know about “every “ game but it seems silly to give the player a quest/ task and try to impart upon them the urgency of it all only for the player to show up a week later in game time to find everyone waiting on them.

Darth Vader: “Oh you’re here? Ok let’s do this …”

The problem is that a player may feel unprepared or forced, which could sit ill with the rest of the game, but like the rest of you I found that narratively the set up was very odd. Thinking or Fary Cry now, that has a tendency of pulling you away into story sequences which you can be unprepared for, I never minded that but did look at guides so I was ready, if I had not it would have been irritating.

Never had any issues with the Divinity games, can't remember being herded onwards that much so I guess ay least there it did not bother me overly.

I think this classic design came about because by the end of the "main quest" you need to be a lot tougher/higher level (what ever) than you were at the start. That means that once you have finished the main quest the side quests will be walkovers. Indeed the side quests are being used to give the XP/powers etc that you need to finish the main quest.

But Elder Scrolls uses a npc leveling up system, if you have that I don't see that as a reason for the "essential quest" being delayed. So yes, I would like to try this approach as long as the side quests get leveled up to your level.

kitarad · April 23

I can never play any game blind that has time constraints for things to be done. I will need a guide and follow it closely for fear that I will botch something up. Yeap in the process ruin it for myself. All surprise is forsaken.

Scot · April 23

kitarad said:

I can never play any game blind that has time constraints for things to be done. I will need a guide and follow it closely for fear that I will botch something up. Yeap in the process ruin it for myself. All surprise is forsaken.

Well that's why I primarily use a guide for Farcry, not exactly difficult games, but the guides have a section that says "go here or do this and you will get diverted to do xyz". But still love the series mind you.

Sovrath · April 23

I imagine that one way to handle the player “ not being prepared is to have certain encounters or events only trigger when they have attained a suitable level as well as a certain measure of gear.

Morrowind had something like that where you might want to move to the next segment of a quest but would be told your not ready.

[Deleted User] · April 23

The user and all related content has been deleted.

Scot · April 23

tzervo said:

I can see the argument of "urgent" quests with unlimited time to complete them being immersion breaking, but also leaving the player free to chill or play as they want. There have been periods where I wanted either one or the other mode. It's a design trade-off and I think both approaches earn their keep.

I think the deciding factor here may be what do fans expect? Thats a shame, as it is the perfect reason AND excuse for studios to do nothing new. Thing is we don't have millions riding on these decisions, once you have the formula why risk it?

[Deleted User] · April 23

The user and all related content has been deleted.

Scot · April 23

tzervo said:

Scot said:

tzervo said:

I can see the argument of "urgent" quests with unlimited time to complete them being immersion breaking, but also leaving the player free to chill or play as they want. There have been periods where I wanted either one or the other mode. It's a design trade-off and I think both approaches earn their keep.

I think the deciding factor here may be what do fans expect? Thats a shame, as it is the perfect reason AND excuse for studios to do nothing new. Thing is we don't have millions riding on these decisions, once you have the formula why risk it?

What formula? My understanding is that both designs have huge successes behind them. So both can be successful, there's just people that prefer one or the other, or (like me) don't mind either, depending on the mood.

I guess fans are relevant in existing franchises like in this case though...

Yes, its the formula as the fans see it, if you are making a new game you can risk experimenting more.

Howdy, Stranger!

Leaker Suggest Oppenheimer Star Cillian Murphy Will Play Far Cry 7's Villain | MMORPG.com

Comments

Howdy, Stranger!

Quick Links

Leaker Suggest Oppenheimer Star Cillian Murphy Will Play Far Cry 7's Villain | MMORPG.com

Comments