Posted 22.03.2020 by admin

How To Far Cry 3 For Mac

Pretty cool looking. What do you guys think? Anyone else know of any worth-while graphic mods for this game? SystemsGO Ew no. He sucked all the damn colour out of the game:? Looks too much like BF3 or something that way.

That doesn't look good and ruins the whole vibe of a tropical island, yet all the comments say it's amazing. I don't get it. QUOTE='SystemsGO' Pretty cool looking. What do you guys think? Anyone else know of any worth-while graphic mods for this game?

Seanmcloughlin Ew no. He sucked all the damn colour out of the game:? Looks too much like BF3 or something that way. What I have realised with mods is that when someone creates anything different to the original people automatically assume it looks better even if they don't really think so. It's like they just say it cos they equate mods with great visuals. That doesn't look good and ruins the whole vibe of a tropical island, yet all the comments say it's amazing.

I don't get it. I agree, just thought I'd share it and see what else anyone has found.

I know there is a tiny texture mod out there somewhere, but I'll wait for something bigger if my rig could even handle it in the first place. I don't think there will ever be another game with the modability of the original Crysis with all of it's textures, TOD's, etc. However, I do that that if there were to be such a game that Far Cry 3 seems like it should be it. The setting seems almost identical, and perfect. I don't have Far Cry 3 yet, but am getting it for Christmas.

QUOTE='seanmcloughlin' QUOTE='SystemsGO' Pretty cool looking. What do you guys think? Anyone else know of any worth-while graphic mods for this game? SystemsGO Ew no. He sucked all the damn colour out of the game:? Looks too much like BF3 or something that way.

What I have realised with mods is that when someone creates anything different to the original people automatically assume it looks better even if they don't really think so. It's like they just say it cos they equate mods with great visuals. That doesn't look good and ruins the whole vibe of a tropical island, yet all the comments say it's amazing. I don't get it.

I agree, just thought I'd share it and see what else anyone has found. I know there is a tiny texture mod out there somewhere, but I'll wait for something bigger if my rig could even handle it in the first place. I don't think there will ever be another game with the modability of the original Crysis with all of it's textures, TOD's, etc. However, I do that that if there were to be such a game that Far Cry 3 seems like it should be it. The setting seems almost identical, and perfect. I don't have Far Cry 3 yet, but am getting it for Christmas. I can't wait until some proper mods show up.

The game has great modding potential. Why'd he call it real island? This is a real island, his 2dark island ain't real. I've seen the texture mod and it looks quite alright, I quite believe Ubisoft made a beautiful world tho. Colors are cool.

8-Bitterness Thats a real island taken with a bad camera. The green is way oversaturated in that photo. This is better: But I get your point, the mod creator got rid of all the color in FC3. Which is the wrong approach.

The question is: What really does need improving and can berealistically done? FC3 looks amazing out of the box.

QUOTE='8-Bitterness' Why'd he call it real island? This is a real island, his 2dark island ain't real.

I've seen the texture mod and it looks quite alright, I quite believe Ubisoft made a beautiful world tho. Colors are cool. Ben-Buja Thats a real island taken with a bad camera. The green is way oversaturated in that photo. This is better: But I get your point, the mod creator got rid of all the color in FC3.

Which is the wrong approach. The question is: What really does need improving and can berealistically done? FC3 looks amazing out of the box. The DOF needs to go in the distance first. It's a nice effect but not realistic.

But when I removed it with a Hex edit the performance dropped a lot. What I have realised with mods is that when someone creates anything different to the original people automatically assume it looks better even if they don't really think so. It's like they just say it cos they equate mods with great visuals. That doesn't look good and ruins the whole vibe of a tropical island, yet all the comments say it's amazing. I don't get it.

Seanmcloughlin Ding Ding Ding. This is probably the most intelligent post I've ever read on these forums.

I TOTALLY agree. Just because its a mod doesn't mean it looks better than the vanilla game, or doesn't mean that it makes the game better in any way. I find this a lot with Skyrim, especially most of the ENB profiles out there.

Most of them look ridiculous to me, there is no way you can play like that with completely crushed blacks and blown out whites and ridiculous colors. I feel the same way about the FXAA post process injector, it makes the game look considerably worse than vanilla (unless you disable most of the crap in the injector). Also some of the 'realistic' lighting mods that crush dark areas and make it impossible to see.how is that fun? Just because something is modded doesn't necessarily mean its better. I'm in tune to the modding communities for games and dabble in it, but to be perfectly honest 95% of the time I still revert back to the vanilla game because I feel its the best representation of the game. With Skyrim, I only run mods that actually enhance the game, like the Quality World Map mod and Immersive Armours. Call me crazy, but I think vanilla Skyrim looks great in terms of lighting and graphics.

I also find almost every post process injector to be trash. Its like people want their games to look like an LCD TV on 'Vivid' or 'Dynamic' torch mode. QUOTE='seanmcloughlin' What I have realised with mods is that when someone creates anything different to the original people automatically assume it looks better even if they don't really think so. It's like they just say it cos they equate mods with great visuals. That doesn't look good and ruins the whole vibe of a tropical island, yet all the comments say it's amazing. I don't get it.

Lockjaw333 Ding Ding Ding. This is probably the most intelligent post I've ever read on these forums. I TOTALLY agree. Just because its a mod doesn't mean it looks better than the vanilla game, or doesn't mean that it makes the game better in any way. I find this a lot with Skyrim, especially most of the ENB profiles out there.

With Skyrim, I only run mods that actually enhance the game, like the Quality World Map mod and Immersive Armours. Call me crazy, but I think vanilla Skyrim looks great in terms of lighting and graphics. I also find almost every post process injector to be trash. Its like people want their games to look like an LCD TV on 'Vivid' or 'Dynamic' torch mode. Just adding about the ENB thing.

What I don't understand is that people complain about X game has too much Bloom and they hate DoF. Next thread you see those same people complaining about the games BLoom/DoF, they have ENB installed with even more bloom and DoF that completely ruin the visuals of the game. QUOTE='lockjaw333' QUOTE='seanmcloughlin' What I have realised with mods is that when someone creates anything different to the original people automatically assume it looks better even if they don't really think so.

It's like they just say it cos they equate mods with great visuals. That doesn't look good and ruins the whole vibe of a tropical island, yet all the comments say it's amazing. I don't get it. Trastamad03 Ding Ding Ding. This is probably the most intelligent post I've ever read on these forums. I TOTALLY agree.

Just because its a mod doesn't mean it looks better than the vanilla game, or doesn't mean that it makes the game better in any way. I find this a lot with Skyrim, especially most of the ENB profiles out there. Most of them look ridiculous to me, there is no way you can play like that with completely crushed blacks and blown out whites and ridiculous colors. I feel the same way about the FXAA post process injector, it makes the game look considerably worse than vanilla (unless you disable most of the crap in the injector). Also some of the 'realistic' lighting mods that crush dark areas and make it impossible to see.how is that fun? Just because something is modded doesn't necessarily mean its better.

I'm in tune to the modding communities for games and dabble in it, but to be perfectly honest 95% of the time I still revert back to the vanilla game because I feel its the best representation of the game. With Skyrim, I only run mods that actually enhance the game, like the Quality World Map mod and Immersive Armours. Call me crazy, but I think vanilla Skyrim looks great in terms of lighting and graphics. I also find almost every post process injector to be trash. Its like people want their games to look like an LCD TV on 'Vivid' or 'Dynamic' torch mode. Just adding about the ENB thing. What I don't understand is that people complain about X game has too much Bloom and they hate DoF.

Next thread you see those same people complaining about the games BLoom/DoF, they have ENB installed with even more bloom and DoF that completely ruin the visuals of the game. That's why I don't use ENB. Vanilla Skyrim all the way lol.

QUOTE='GamingVengeance'I can't even imagine what it'd look like modded to hell and back ShimmerMan It wouldn't look much different as the games already full of Post processing effects such as Ambient Occlusion and Depth of Field. What can be done with FC3 is texture re-working and parallax mapping but I doubt the game will ever match modded Crysis, A textures mod would make a world of difference. The only thing that looks sort of off is the palm trees, just their overall look doesn't look quite right, but besides that its a fantastic looking game. QUOTE='8-Bitterness' Why'd he call it real island? This is a real island, his 2dark island ain't real. I've seen the texture mod and it looks quite alright, I quite believe Ubisoft made a beautiful world tho.

Colors are cool. Ben-Buja Thats a real island taken with a bad camera. The green is way oversaturated in that photo. This is better: But I get your point, the mod creator got rid of all the color in FC3.

Which is the wrong approach. The question is: What really does need improving and can berealistically done? FC3 looks amazing out of the box. Better foliage (the foliage in the game isn't very high quality looking) - Better lighting (the game's default lighting on max settings looks whack, and looks more hyper-real than real-life) - Add more things to the environments to make them more dynamic (because as is, they're relatively static), try making buildings and trees destructible to some degree - Add better water (game's default water is decent, but there are many older games with better water) That's just off the top of my head. And I think that the game could totally benefit from a color-rebalancing, as the game's current color palette looks very cartoonish. It just doesn't need to be completely desaturated. Far Cry 3 will never match Crysis in the foliage department especially with the latter being modded.

But, at least Far Cry 3 still manages to look pleasing enough and it's more consistent in looks overall. In Crysis, the foliage and lighting looks nice.

But, go into a village and the contrasts in quality are noticable when you go inside a building/shack. Almost every single Crysis video showcasing its graphics never show the inside if a shack. Can't the mods do something about the shack interiors? QUOTE='R4gn4r0k' QUOTE='JigglyWiggly'crysis JigglyWiggly thats debatable no it's not lol farcry3 could never look like this even with mods.

Cryengine 2 is superior Crysis is still king. Start up Crysis, turn those graphics all the way up. Even on Vanilla, it's a thing of beauty. I don't think, till this day, I've seen a game so close to photo-realism in certain scenes. Most video games these days mask low-res textures and lack of detail with post-processing effects and blur. Oh, and that dreaded FXAA certainly helps with that.

There's so much going on in Crysis on a technical level that video games these days can't match up to. 2007 was a different time.

Nowadays, video games are even more limited with the console's hardware. Games like Hitman, Far Cry 3, Max Payne should look and run EVEN better, but they don't. It would take too many resources to build the PC version from ground up, with a small trade-off for the publisher and developer to make money from it. The closest game to Crysis is Metro 2033. This isn't to discredit great-looking games like Max Payne 3, Assassin's Creed 3, Sleeping Dogs, Batman Arkham City, or even Mass Effect 3. Hell, The Witcher 2 used DX9 and still managed to pull off astounding visuals.

I'm just saying that there hasn't been a game that looked amazing and pushed graphics boundaries in a while. Nowadays, when people get an SLi/Crossfire setup, it's because they want to play video games on a 1440p 30' inch monitor setup (using that as an example), or for Eyefinity, Surround monitors. Not because they were trying to run a game in crossfire/sli configuration for a game on a 1080p monitor (Crysis). QUOTE='R4gn4r0k' QUOTE='JigglyWiggly'crysis JigglyWiggly thats debatable no it's not lol farcry3 could never look like this even with mods. Cryengine 2 is superior I'm talking vanilla here. Whats the use in comparing a game that has come out last month to a game that has had 5 years of modding? Also, some crysis mods are breathtaking.

Not that one you showed though. It could be youtube compression, it could be the overdone bloom. Probably both. Oh and with debatable I meant that Far Cry and crysis (unmodded) are pretty damn close.

Some parts look better in crysis, some look better inFar Cry 3. As Jun said the shacks look laughable in crysis.

We can have this whole debate on which one looks better and why but I'm not interested in arguing details. I think they both look amazing and are a pretty close to eachother. Also yeah Metro is an amazing looking game too. R4gn4r0k Yup:) I can definitely agree with you on that. All of these games look great and they are incredibly fun too.

QUOTE='JigglyWiggly' QUOTE='R4gn4r0k' thats debatable Elann2008 no it's not lol farcry3 could never look like this even with mods. Cryengine 2 is superior Crysis is still king. Start up Crysis, turn those graphics all the way up. Even on Vanilla, it's a thing of beauty. I don't think, till this day, I've seen a game so close to photo-realism in certain scenes. Most video games these days mask low-res textures and lack of detail with post-processing effects and blur.

Oh, and that dreaded FXAA certainly helps with that. There's so much going on in Crysis on a technical level that video games these days can't match up to. 2007 was a different time.

The closest game to Crysis is Metro 2033. This isn't to discredit great-looking games like Max Payne 3, Assassin's Creed 3, Sleeping Dogs, Batman Arkham City, or even Mass Effect 3. Hell, The Witcher 2 used DX9 and still managed to pull off astounding visuals. I'm just saying that there hasn't been a game that looked amazing and pushed graphics boundaries in a while. Nowadays, when people get an SLi/Crossfire setup, it's because they want to play video games on a 1440p 30' inch monitor setup (using that as an example), or for Eyefinity, Surround monitors. Not because they were trying to run a game in crossfire/sli configuration for a game on a 1080p monitor (Crysis). It's funny you say that since Crysis has a ton of crappy textures even maxed out.

QUOTE='JigglyWiggly' QUOTE='R4gn4r0k' thats debatable mitu123 no it's not lol farcry3 could never look like this even with mods. Cryengine 2 is superior Why are you using a modded map that isn't even in the vanilla game?

Even on Vanilla, it's a thing of beauty. I don't think, till this day, I've seen a game so close to photo-realism in certain scenes. Most video games these days mask low-res textures and lack of detail with post-processing effects and blur.

Oh, and that dreaded FXAA certainly helps with that. There's so much going on in Crysis on a technical level that video games these days can't match up to. 2007 was a different time. Nowadays, video games are even more limited with the console's hardware. Games like Hitman, Far Cry 3, Max Payne should look and run EVEN better, but they don't. It would take too many resources to build the PC version from ground up, with a small trade-off for the publisher and developer to make money from it.

How To Use Machete Far Cry 3

Not because they were trying to run a game in crossfire/sli configuration for a game on a 1080p monitor (Crysis). It's funny you say that since Crysis has a ton of crappy textures even maxed out.

I knew someone was going to say that. Crysis has some low-res textures, but in places you wouldn't tell your cat to go into.

People knit-pick that small minor flaw. I've seen it countless times on these forums where people post that one rock texture. I bet you could find many of those in Far Cry 3 as well.

Even then, Crysis is 5 years old and it still looks amazing. QUOTE='mitu123' QUOTE='JigglyWiggly' no it's not lol farcry3 could never look like this even with mods. Cryengine 2 is superior JigglyWiggly Why are you using a modded map that isn't even in the vanilla game? Because crysis can look amazing they didn't do that because it runs like crap FC3's art style is too cartoony for it to look photorealistic.

Not that there is anything wrong with cartoony graphics, I prefer them. It's just that for photorealisticness Crysis is much better.

I mentioned this before. I don't think there should be a debate between Crysis and Far Cry 3. Far Cry 3 already takes itself out of the equation because Ubisoft went more with the visual art style approach.

You can obviously tell if you ever played Far Cry 3. QUOTE='mitu123' QUOTE='JigglyWiggly' no it's not lol farcry3 could never look like this even with mods. Cryengine 2 is superior JigglyWiggly Why are you using a modded map that isn't even in the vanilla game?

Because crysis can look amazing they didn't do that because it runs like crap FC3's art style is too cartoony for it to look photorealistic. Not that there is anything wrong with cartoony graphics, I prefer them. It's just that for photorealisticness Crysis is much better. It would be a lot more impressive if it were a mission from the vanilla game, custom maps may impress graphically but without putting those graphics in a mission it just proves that the game isn't capable of those graphics in a mission unless someone has it so all those missions have those graphics, it's like making awesome graphics for an old game that isn't even in the old game since it can't be seen in anything you originally played of that game if you know what I mean. I knew someone was going to say that.

Crysis has some low-res textures, but in places you wouldn't tell your cat to go into. People knit-pick that small minor flaw. I've seen it countless times on these forums where people post that one rock texture. I bet you could find many of those in Far Cry 3 as well.

Even then, Crysis is 5 years old and it still looks amazing. Elann2008 A lot of the low-res textures in crysis are in the villages with shacks and other structures. They're not isolated areas where most gamers never travel over. A lot of the objectives in Contact, Recovery, Relic, Assault, Onslaught, Awakening, etc take place on those areas. QUOTE='JigglyWiggly'QUOTE='mitu123' Why are you using a modded map that isn't even in the vanilla game? Elann2008 because crysis can look amazing they didn't do that because it runs like crap FC3's art style is too cartoony for it to look photorealistic. Not that there is anything wrong with cartoony graphics, I prefer them.

It's just that for photorealisticness Crysis is much better. I mentioned this before. I don't think there should be a debate between Crysis and Far Cry 3.

Far Cry 3 already takes itself out of the equation because Ubisoft went more with the visual art style approach. You can obviously tell if you ever played Far Cry 3. I have both Far Cry 3 and Crysis (plus Warhead and Crysis 2) installed. These aren't the stuff of graphics kings.

I'll give some background. I'd like to do some gaming but don't have a lot of money for a console or a whole new computer. So I decided to put VMWare Fusion 6 on my late 2012 Macbook Pro. For the VMWare I decided to use Windows 7 64bit, got it from a buddy. Today I downloaded Far Cry 3 from UPlay and I did this thinking the game work. At first attempt to launch there were plenty of updates to install.

After all of that the game looked like it might launch, but would get stuck on a black screen and just sit there. Knowing that sometimes issues can be resolved by a simple uninstall and re-install I gave that a go. Same issue persists. Does anyone know of a decent fix? Is there a way to get the game working on my Macbook Pro or am I just SOL?

- Late 2012 Macbook Pro, OS Mavericks VMWare Fusion 6, up-to-date, to run Windows 7 64-bit. I'll give some background. I'd like to do some gaming but don't have a lot of money for a console or a whole new computer. So I decided to put VMWare Fusion 6 on my late 2012 Macbook Pro. For the VMWare I decided to use Windows 7 64bit, got it from a buddy.

Today I downloaded Far Cry 3 from UPlay and I did this thinking the game work. At first attempt to launch there were plenty of updates to install. After all of that the game looked like it might launch, but would get stuck on a black screen and just sit there.

Knowing that sometimes issues can be resolved by a simple uninstall and re-install I gave that a go. Same issue persists. Does anyone know of a decent fix? Is there a way to get the game working on my Macbook Pro or am I just SOL? - Late 2012 Macbook Pro, OS Mavericks VMWare Fusion 6, up-to-date, to run Windows 7 64-bit.

I would suggest the OP uses Boot Camp, and then links Fusion 6 to use that install. That way you get the convenience of running both OSes simultaneously, and when you want to play demanding games, you can boot into native Windows. That said, in the past when I have tried this, I have run into licensing problems with Windows, as it doesn't like running native and virtualised on one licence, even if it is on the same damn hardware. And I'm not buying two copies of Windows just to do that.

I don't know if that problem has been fixed yet. Keep Calm and Use Boot Camp As others have already stated, Boot Camp runs Windows directly on the hardware, while virtualization means the host OS and the virtual software are both consuming resources along with the guest OS, AND the drivers for Windows are for virtual devices and not for the hardware directly. I had a 2011 iMac and ran Far Cry 3 with medium-high settings very well in boot camp. Just trust the community on this one and go with boot camp.

The game will play. If you want to get adventurous then you can setup boot camp for gaming, but also configure VirtualBox to access the boot camp partition/installation if you need to do Office or something else non-intensive in Windows. I ran this on a 2010 MBP for a while. You'll have to do some googling to get the steps on how to set that up, but it's possible. But just store that for later. For now, delete the virtual installation and go with Boot Camp.

As far as getting the game to run in general, I'm not sure there. It's easy to find negative reports on the internet for just about anything, and it's always going to be disproportionately skewed towards the negative, because most people get online to post gripes, not to post 'this worked great for me.' I've installed Far Cry 3 multiple times now, across 3 different machines (21.5' 2011 iMac, then a 27' 2011 iMac, and now a custom built PC) in Windows 7, Windows 8, and Windows 8.1, and have not ever had any issue with it running and working. Just make sure you update all your drivers after installing Windows - don't just roll with the default Microsoft drivers for your video card, etc. Go get the NVidia or AMD drivers.

I know on my iMac's with the Radeon card that was a bit difficult - had to find a Catalyst version that would install, because it's a mobile chipset and AMD was being stupid about it - but YMMV. It's possible, and it's necessary to achieve maximum performance from your machine. So I did what many of you suggested and installed Windows via Bootcamp. So far the game is working great, though as noted the settings aren't optimal. This time around I decided to try out Windows 8.1, and now there are two new problems. In Windows my screen is very dim, even when its turned all the way up.

And my track pad isn't functioning as normal. Any ideas on a fix?

Though i will admit that this isn't a problem since whenever I use Windows I do so with an external monitor and mouse/keyboard. Those work just fine and are better for the gaming any way. So I did what many of you suggested and installed Windows via Bootcamp.

So far the game is working great, though as noted the settings aren't optimal. This time around I decided to try out Windows 8.1, and now there are two new problems.

In Windows my screen is very dim, even when its turned all the way up. And my track pad isn't functioning as normal. Any ideas on a fix? Though i will admit that this isn't a problem since whenever I use Windows I do so with an external monitor and mouse/keyboard.

Those work just fine and are better for the gaming any way. I have tried both and Parallels is much faster for gaming than VMWare. I used to be a VMWare fan after an early Parallels version killed a Mac lol (Apple replaced it free of charge ) I can play Far Cry 3 in Parallels fine using DX medium settings on a 2006 Mac Pro. I can also play Far Cry 3 on DX11 maxed out if I boot into windows but honestly it doesn't bother me its such a good game it still rocks using parallels I remember trying VMWare and it was all glitchy with FC3 I use a secondary 750GB WD Caviar HD for windows and it can boot in bootcamp or be used by parallels or vmware by choosing use bootcamp drive Quad 2.66, 6870 1GB Go create an account at parallels and sign up for the beta in the settings and they may send u a test version u can try.

I have tried both and Parallels is much faster for gaming than VMWare. I used to be a VMWare fan after an early Parallels version killed a Mac lol (Apple replaced it free of charge ) I can play Far Cry 3 in Parallels fine using DX medium settings on a 2006 Mac Pro. I can also play Far Cry 3 on DX11 maxed out if I boot into windows but honestly it doesn't bother me its such a good game it still rocks using parallels I remember trying VMWare and it was all glitchy with FC3 I use a secondary 750GB WD Caviar HD for windows and it can boot in bootcamp or be used by parallels or vmware by choosing use bootcamp drive Quad 2.66, 6870 1GB Go create an account at parallels and sign up for the beta in the settings and they may send u a test version u can try.