So I’m listening back to my recording of the chat I had with Crytek’s Cevat Yerli, and there’s a bit that’s all creaking chairs and cleared throats. We’ve talked Warface, free to play and the saving of Vigil. I’ve been impressed by the clarity of vision of a man who talks about the future as if it’s already happened. Now there’s time for one more question, and I’m flipping through my notebook, looking for something I scribbled on the plane.
“Ah,” I said. “Mmm. I wanted to ask you what you thought of Far Cry 3”.
“I haven’t played it a lot,” said Yerli. “But I think Far Cry 3 was a game that has done justice to the fact that…”
He started again.
“They went back to Far Cry 1 and they improved that again, so that’s the right thing to do. Far Cry 2 was kind of like the whole wrong direction in my opinion. I liked Far Cry 2, the game wasn’t bad, but it wasn’t Far Cry. People knew what Far Cry was – Far Cry 2 was very different.”
By contrast, when Yerli plays Far Cry 3, he’s reminded of the original game. Although he’d prefer the story to have been a little more “b-movie” – a tad funnier and a bit less “freaky”.
“We did it intentionally with Far Cry, over the top,” he said. “The guy in a hawaiian shirt going to rescue this girl. It was a simple story, but more tongue in cheek. And in Far Cry 3 I think that that part was too serious, and too freaky for my tastes. But in general I think it’s a great game, the team has done a great job, you know.”
But naturally, I said, Yerli and his Frankfurt team would have done differently.
“Oh, we would have done a very different style,” Yerli replied. “True to Far Cry 1, but very different. But it’s, you know. It’s Ubisoft.”
“It’s their creative take, and I appreciate that.”