What's up with this game and huge invisible forcefields around objects, the amount of times I see a clear path from my gun to the target and then fire only to have fired into object that stretched its invisible aura half a meter around it...this is infuriating!

And you can't shoot through huge gaping holes on cars, fences(for example you can't shoot through huge space on railings on towers in NCRCF), windows etc.

This is definitely the worst aspect of the game, it is extremely primitive, things like this existed in games made before year 2000.

Why is this so? Why isn't pixel a pixel like in Crysis?

To sum it up, it's the engine. It's not really made for shooters.

The current version of Gamebryo thats been used is starting to get old and creaky now and while the sort of problems you talk about were never really an issue in Oblivion, in Fallout 3 and New Vegas the primitive nature of the collision boxes is pretty evident when you use your guns.

Fortunately, future games will use the new creation engine which hopefully will be designed to allow smaller and better defined collision boxes.

That's sad, we won't see a game like this in a decade, if ever. Why didn't they use the engine of Far Cry 2?

You know, I wouldn't have complained if they used Dunia. FarCry 2 was a bad game (for me) but only in storyline and setting. The gameplay was actually really good, down to the gun degradation and occasional jamming.

As for the OP, I've had that happen to me a few times, but when it has, it has normally meant that the guy behind that forcefield stops bothering me so I move on. It's never been someone that I -had- to kill.

Several reasons.

1) Bethesda devs are/were far more familiar with the Gamebryo engine and what it can do and it's limits. By using a slightly upgraded version of Gamebryo, they cut down dev time between Oblivion and Fallout 3 and keeping the engine allowed Obsidian to focus on other elements when making New Vegas.

2)Switching to a new engine can increase development time immensly (ie: Look at Duke Nukem Forever, they changed engines everytime a new one came out and it's currently 12 years late)

3)Using someone else's engine can cost a lot of money. I've heard plenty of tales and stories about larger companies charging immense fees for another company to use their engine.

4) The Far Cry 2 engine is good at wide open spaces and combat, but on the other hand, apart from a single town and scattered collections of huts, it's reletively empty. It may not have been capable of the heavily detailed ruins of DC for example, even with the separate cells they used with Gamebryo. It may also not be up to the job of handling the heavy script use that Fallout 3 and New Vegas used.

I do remember sniping enemies trough wrecked cars in FC2, i wish 3 and NV had that collision detection. Anyway, here's a (hopefully) helpful hint: Put your crosshairs over the enemy, if it truns red you can hit him.

Loved the FPS action in FC2, it was very well done and the open world was pretty cool too. Unfortunately, it was a shooter looking for a plot and an interesting story... too bad it never found one.

Heh, would have been nice too if the dozens of roadblocks all over the place would've respawned once a day, instead of every 10 minutes... dang that was tiresome having to kill them over and over and over just to drive anywhere and back....

Absolutely. I feel the storyline FC2 used was somewhat cliched at times - the old tale returns of an exotic location, guerrilla factions vying for control, and a mysterious antagonist. Immediately brings back memories of relatively average cookie-cutter games such as Mercenaries and Just Cause.

I want so much for FC3 to be somewhat similar in gameplay but with a radical overhaul in every other area.