Has Biehn: Far Cry 3 – Blood Dragon Out May 1st

I still can’t quite believe that Far Cry 3: Blood Dragon exists but as of this weekend, the standalone title not only has a release date, it also has Michael Biehn’s voice. Actually, the Xbox Marketplace listing which reveals the May 1st release date doesn’t specify ‘voice’, it says ‘a VHS era vision of a nuclear future, where cyborgs, blood dragons, mutants, and Michael Biehn collide’. Is it possible that the man in possession of the only true Reese’s Pieces has been transformed into binary code and inserted into the game? We’ll find out soon enough.

With this and Hotline Miami, the eighties are going to get a reputation for being colourfully crazed. I demand representation of the other decade – the one that The Smiths gloomed their way through.

Via Eurogamer.


  1. lizzardborn says:

    Any chance to make the outbrain go away with a donation? Or at least the external links.

    • MuscleHorse says:

      You mean you don’t want to read ‘I’m a Geek and I Like to Wear Heels’?

      On topic, yussss. Add Vice City to that list of 80’s ultra-violence-a-thons (though it is a teensy bit older than the others). The period lends itself very well to gaming for one reason or another.

      • Thermal Ions says:

        And of course the irony, given the weekend’s post, being that one of the links is to an article on actors who have worn prosthetic make-up. I’m sure it’s pure coincidence that the ad company chose to use an image of Mystique (from X-Men) in all her blue skin with strategically placed texturing glory, instead of say Robyn William’s Mrs Doubtfire.

    • Alien426 says:

      Maybe with a donation to RIP (http://rip.mozdev.org)…?

      • jonnyherbert says:

        I’d pay good money to get the external links hidden. Ugh.

      • lizzardborn says:

        i don’t want to screw RPS out of their revenue and income so ad blockers are out of the question. But because the RPS comments are one of the few worth reading seeing the outbrain crap above them is annoying. So if they can be hidden for a logged users that donate a few bucks a month is fine with me. Gaming ads are fine, but I don’t give a fuck if “Bar Raffaeli is a treat to the image of israel”.

        • Branthog says:

          Between the off-putting way RPS has treated their audience recently, the chest-beating, and the gross nature of these advertisements, I’m entirely fine with employing adblocking in this particular instance. Like John says “deal with it”.

          • Llewyn says:

            It’s obviously not that off-putting.

          • Toberoth_Syn says:

            “the off-putting way RPS has treated their audience recently”

            What are you talking about?

          • DickSocrates says:

            So you’re happy to keep coming here, reading their content and not contributing anything to their income? Why don’t you just eff off if you don’t like it instead of being a hypocrite?

          • Branthog says:

            How am I a hypocrite anymore than I am if I don’t pay for a subscription? I visit lots of sites that I don’t give money to. Then there are some that I do. My point is merely that just as the the RPS staff have so insistently repeated with regard to everything (and dismissing a lot of their readers in fairly crude ways and negatively labeling them) by saying “it’s our site – deal with it”. That’s great. And in that vein, it’s my browser – so deal with it.

            If you want to see ads about four ways you can please your man in bed or how Katy Perry looks in her new bikini, that’s fine with me – but I choose not to. It’s vapid and repulsive and the true hypocrite is anyone who barrels on for several pages about a tired topic we’ve all beat to death a thousand times and then doesn’t immediately terminate an advertising relationship for trafficking in exactly that thing that they so fervently railed against.

            The issue isn’t “how dare you block the ads, you horrible horrible man!”. It’s “put your money where your righteous preaching mouths are and get rid of that advertising partnership as soon as you realize those ads are popping up”.

            Otherwise, all I see is RPS drawing in a frothing-moth crowd with a bunch of dramatic overly-debated drivel (yes, I support women that isn’t the point) and then profiting off of that by driving traffic to advertisements presumably demonstrating exactly the thing they’re “never shutting up about”.

          • Llewyn says:

            If RPS’ approach offends you the appropriate response is to stop reading, not to block adverts. If you’re happy to continue reading then it clearly isn’t offending you that much.

            Edit: Have just seen your response to Jim below, which I have more sympathy for.

          • deadly.by.design says:

            Considering I live in the U.S. and am more conservative than most of gaming culture, I kind of expect to find things I disagree with on a UK gaming news site. So, whatever. I’m not surprised or offended, and see no reason to have delicate sensibilities in this respect.

            It’s still worth reading for the editorial quality and quirky humor, and even the progressive high-horsing is easier to stomach than the usual gamer site alternatives. At least RPS will say that most of the stuff marketed at “gamers” is crap. I’d have to say I enjoy RPS more than any other sites since Homelanfed shut down and Fargo left Gamespy years ago.

    • Chalky says:

      I’ve disabled my adblock on this site to support them, but I agree that this part of the advertising is particularly obnoxious. I’ve been considering putting together a stylish script to hide it so I’ll update this post with a link to it if I get round to it today. *edit* here you go: link to userstyles.org

      The addon itself is here and it’ll let you customise the CSS of a site to change how elements appear, including hiding them:

      link to addons.mozilla.org

      Hopefully this sort of post isn’t against the rules, I’m trying my best to support RPS by enabling advertising here.

      • basilisk says:

        It’s not particularly difficult:
        .outbrain {display: none;}
        (tested on Opera’s built-in user CSS system)

        Note: I’m a subscriber, so I don’t feel that bad about blocking these things, but if you aren’t, you probably should.

        • Chalky says:

          Thanks :)

          On the subject of subscribing, I’ve considered it and I’d be happy to make a one off donation for a premium account without advertising, but I can’t really justify paying monthly for something like that.

          RPS should consider a $15 donation to buy a premium account or something.

          • Jim Rossignol says:

            I’m looking at the subscriber thing at the moment. Might take me a little while to come up with the optimal solution.

          • Fox89 says:

            Woah, you can subscribe to RPS!? I’ll do that when I get home from work. I’ve been coming here for ages and just didn’t see it. I don’t really visit the forums or anything, I just read the articles and check out the comments. So I didn’t even look at the ‘All our stuff’ links (which I have now checked out after reading about subs).

            Jim, is it possible to put a ‘Subscribe to RPS link’ on article that only non-subs can see? Maybe not a big in your face button, just a link near the ‘next article’ stuff or tags would be useful for folks like me. I literally had no idea subscriptions was even a thing and had something mentioned it on articles I would have signed up sooner.

          • Jim Rossignol says:

            It’s important to point out that the subscription doesn’t do anything other than allowing you to support the site right now. That’s what I want to fix this year.

          • VelvetFistIronGlove says:

            Jim: when you review the subscriptions, please consider offering several tiers, or at least a pay-what-you-want-above-a-minimum.

          • Jim Rossignol says:

            It will probably be tiered. But nothing is concrete yet.

          • Branthog says:

            I’m rather fond of the idea of having a tip-jar associated with each article that tracks the articles a tip is provided from. I think that would be a terrific way to reward articles that you think are exceptional or unique as well as rewarding the author of it in a meaningful way.

            On the other hand, perhaps that would potentially reduce the quality by rewarding click-bait and troll-bait. No longer writing about something for a legitimate reason or a true personal interest in it, but hopping on the week’s popular hot-button topic and choosing whatever angle will drum up the most response or pander to the greatest echo-chamber funding.

            At any rate, I don’t know that I would chip into a subscription, but I’d throw in a buck or two just because — while RPS and its authors often manage to kind of make me grind my teeth and want to remove the feed — they also occasionally do something really great. I also support any site’s attempt to offer a way for people to help fund their endeavor. Anything that takes the loyalty away from advertisers and aims it back at the readers is worthwhile, if you ask me (and you didn’t).

          • Moorkh says:

            I’ve been a subscriber for about 5 years, now. Used to be that I got a mail from you guys once in a while, pointing me toward an exclusive goodie or just some behind-the-scenes info from RPS. Lately, nothing.
            Less ads would be really nice for us.

          • Ninja Foodstuff says:

            @Moorkh I actually was meaning to login to my paypal account to check if I’d accidentally cancelled mine.

          • The Random One says:

            I love Brainthog’s idea of associating one-time donation with articles. It’s the Like button you have to pay for! Then at the end of the month each writer gets 25% of what people donated to their article in pennies and are locked into a cage.

      • Barberetti says:

        Thanks for that. Works a treat.

      • Moorkh says:

        Thank you very much! :) This has been grating on me for some days now, and now it’s gone, just like that. Happy times ahead!

    • Jim Rossignol says:

      Mail me with any objectionable Outbrain links: jim@rockpapershotgun.com

      It’ll take some time to filter out the crappy sites.

      The decision to use Outbrain was a tricky one, but I am hoping it will generate some extra revenue. I’d really like to be able to hire another writer this year.

      • VelvetFistIronGlove says:

        TL;DR: the Outbrain links are shit and that sadly rubs off on RPS.

        These are the links I saw when posting this:

        MORE FROM RPS:

        • This Man Is Not A Space Marine
        • Pirate Bay Goes Legal: What Now For PC Games?
        • The Sunday Papers
        • Far Cry 3: Blood Dragon Is Totally Bonkers, An Actual Thing [OK, that one *is* related]
        • MMO Kidnapping


        • The U.S. Military Can’t Ignore the Deep Future (World Politics Review)
        • 10 Historical lies that Hollywood made us all believe (E-How)
        • Adult Jokes in Cartoons (You Did Not Get As a Kid) – POPHANGOVER (PopHangover)
        • Teen Sexting: Dangers, Legality And The Gender Gap (redOrbit)
        • ‘Cotton Club Parade’ Will March Onto Broadway (The New York Times)

        I probably wouldn’t call any of those objectionable, but they are all quite useless. There’s little to no correlation with the topic (even in the selection of other RPS articles); and there seems to be a very low quality bar. Consequently, they make RPS seem lower in quality.

        They are also not clearly marked as promoted links (only the little [?] link mentions that), so there’s an implication of endorsement by RPS.

        • Zekiel says:

          For some reason I always seem to get the (More on RPS) link for “Forever Young, The Tragedy Of Bloodlines” which doesn’t seem relevant to any of the articles I’m reading at the moment.

          I too hate the new Outbrain advertising. I too won’t use an adblocker. And I understand RPS needs to pay the bills. I’ll put up with them and they won’t stop me reading RPS, but they are annoying so I’d love it if you were able to find an alternative.

          • Branthog says:

            At the moment, I’m seeing a picture of a woman from her groun up to her shoulders that says “Heidi Klum glitters in very revealing plunging gold dress at Elton John’s Oscars!”, a close up of Katy Perry that says “5 things you didn’t know about Katy Perry’s Costumes” and one about must-see indie films in March that has 3 almost naked (I think they’re wearing bras?) women. Another a picture of a chick from the groin to the heck, wearing a skimpy top and a thong that says “check out photos of olympic hurdler, Michelle Jenneke in SI Swimsuit 2013”, and another that shows Britney spears and says she “flashes her bare bottom at son’s soccer game”.

            That’s some classy shit, right there.

            What’s even more vapid is the actual content of the sites they all link to — and none of them are video game related sites (holy shit, does that mean there is an issue with sexism in society and not just video games and the video game industry?!).

          • Hahaha says:

            So the normal gossip rag crap……. ie hello

      • whatisvalis says:

        It’s just trash, pretty ugly decision to use these types of links.

        RPS has made a great stand against sexism and discrimination, and now every time I get to the end of a story I’m guaranteed to see at least one link to a professional women in her underwear.

        • Jim Rossignol says:

          No, not guaranteed. Particularly if you help us filter out the troublesome domains, as I requested.

          Still, much easier to just gripe, eh?

          • Branthog says:

            But *you’re* the ones on a crusade against sexism. I guess you guys just want to blog about it, but not do any actual work when it comes down to the real thing, instead offloading the job to your readers (that you — John, at least — seem to detest)?

          • Jim Rossignol says:


            Obviously I am blocking these links. But I can’t see all pages it displays, can I?

            Asking for people to help does not equal offloading.

            Still, it’s providing me enormous amusement watching you folks scrabble around trying to prove we are hypocrites based on the content of external advertising.

          • FuriKuri says:

            While I 100% applaud and support RPS’s stance and recent articles, I still have to ask…

            Why have you started using a third party advertising engine which is implicitly supporting the sexist attitude(s) you have recently taken such a firm stance against?

            Well obviously the answer is ‘money’ but frankly that’s just not good enough. It is irrelevant that you are deleting ‘bad’ links (and I doubt this will work anyway in both a practical and long term sense given what the internet is). It is even irrelevant if these links are put there based on reader’s browsing habits. The harsh fact of the matter is that such links shouldn’t be shown regardless of input from either yourselves or your readers.

            Ditch it or change it to a provider that doesn’t profit from such actions. Maybe there are no alternatives. Maybe you’ll have to live without the money and give up on the idea of hiring an extra writer (which would be a shame – and not without the obvious consequence of affecting my enjoyment of the site). But such principled stances are never without sacrifice.

            Anything else just smacks of ‘do as we say, not as we do’. I can understand you wanting to brush off the obvious troll calls of ‘hypocrites!’ but there is bitter truth in it.

            Do the right thing. Even if it is, in a very real sense, worse for both you and your readers.

          • Snargelfargen says:

            Jim already said he wanted to hire another writer.

            Edit: Just noticed that you mention that after all the moralizing. Odd that you only mention ‘money’ as a sticking point then. It makes the rest of your argument look like it’s being made in bad faith. I’m sure you didn’t intend to frame the situation in as negative a manner as possible in order to discredit RPS.

          • Jim Rossignol says:

            “It is irrelevant that you are deleting ‘bad’ links”

            Why is that irrelevant? It means we don’t get money from the sites hawking shit, and we do get money from the ones with acceptable content.

            Which is how advertising works?

          • Baines says:

            It does look a bit hypocritical that RPS stands behind a certain writer’s blind and deaf crusade against sexism, a crusade in his case so rabid that it arguably does more harm to his cause than good, but RPS wants readers to police their new ads for objectionable content.

            Of the five “More from the Web”, none are game related at all. Four are using images of women to sell their links. Two are arguably objectionable content, with a third being borderline. (The fourth is just “safely” misleading. From my experience, most of these types of ad blocks are both misleading in image and text. As such, if you have several images to choose from, you throw in one of the pictures of women, even if it is a conservative picture.)

          • Snargelfargen says:

            “It does look a bit hypocritical that RPS stands behind a certain writer’s blind and deaf crusade against sexism, a crusade in his case so rabid that it arguably does more harm to his cause than good, but RPS wants readers to police their new ads for objectionable content.”

            Ignoring your distorted description of Walker, can you explain exactly how encouraging the site’s readership to participate in moderating offensive content is hypocritical?

          • FuriKuri says:

            Why is that irrelevant? It means we don’t get money from the sites hawking shit, and we do get money from the ones with acceptable content.

            Which is how advertising works?

            And the intermediary that ties it all together – good and bad, gets a cut. Which is, also, how advertising works?

            What you’re doing is something like… There’s a game expo and some booths have booth babes. But it’s ok, RPS won’t go to the bad booths. But is it just the booths that are the problem or the expo that allows it all in the first place?

            I read and agreed with the metaphor Walker used in his article regarding the conveyor belt. I just feel that removing bad links as and when is a bit too much ‘standing in place’ rather than making any real strides in the opposite direction.

            Apologies if you think I’m being overly critical, I can’t put my argument any more succinctly. If you truly think that I’m (factually) wrong perhaps be a bit more transparent and fully explain with how this new mechanism works because I’m evidently not the only person with the misconception.

            Thank you for the response and articles at any rate.

        • Blackseraph says:

          I am fairly certain those links are based on your browser history.

          So complaining about it, is well bit silly.

          Or am I wrong?

          • Jim Rossignol says:

            Yes, they are based on browser history.

            But I won’t judge…

          • FuriKuri says:

            I checked this out at work – a place where I’ve pretty much just got RPS, slashdot and a multitude of c#/asp.net sites bookmarked and where I’m fairly certain I haven’t browsed anything inappropriate (apart from some, *cough* filthy PHP references *cough* and the odd lolcat) and I still got a scantily clad lady.

            Sometimes ‘history’ can be just your IP address or geographic location. Then again, that RPS bookmark does betray that I’m a gamer, which means I’m probably male, age 18-30 and very interested in scantily clad ladies (coz that’s what all gamers are, right?).

      • Ninja Foodstuff says:

        Certainly it’s your business Jim, but why not use an “opt-in” system such as Project Wonderful instead of this one? Absolutely none of the links I’ve seen here fit in well with the calibre of the main article.

        Personally I find it offputting and if it was my first time here I’d be less inclined to come back. That said, I’m sure you’ve weighed everything up and made a judgement call.

        • Jim Rossignol says:

          We may do that.

          Like anything else we do on here, it has to be explored to figure out if it’s any use. Even the slightest change we make on the site is greeted with a fair amount of noise, so you will have to excuse me for wanting to see how this pans out, rather than making any kind of judgement after a couple of days.

    • Eclipse says:

      Just use adblock for your browser, if you want to help I believe you can select what to hide and whatnot per page basis? but it could be tricky to set up.

      I’d pay for an ad-free premium account, I mean, I’d gladly pay a bit more than the normal subscriber thing

  2. N'Al says:

    Michael Biehn.

    • int says:

      Gotta love Michael Biehn! I wish I knew why Cameron stopped giving him movie roles.

      • StashAugustine says:

        Supposedly he was slated to play Quaritch in Avatar, but got cut because pairing him with Sigourney Weaver would remind everyone of Aliens. Although I might have enjoyed that movie a lot more by imagining that they they went through a messy divorce and the entire movie is just the fault of Quaritch and whatever the scientist’s name is having a personal feud.

  3. kregg says:

    I like everything about this:

    The fact that it is a standalone title and not a tacked on DLC with extra weapons and skins
    The fact that it is based heavily in the 80s
    Michael Biehn + the Terminator inspired soundtrack
    The website. I could spend hours on that website
    It reminds me of Saints Row the Third, but less sillier where it doesn’t need to be silly

    Very excited.

    • Ernesto25 says:

      We used to call this an “expansion pack” back in the day

      • Thermal Ions says:

        Except an expansion pack usually had something to do with the underlying game. But this … who would know – it could be a retro styled top down shooter bearing absolutely no relationship to FC3 or even using the underlying engine.

  4. P.Funk says:

    I think a GTA version of a British 1980s would be a radical change in what we usually associate with that era in the New World. Imagine it against the backdrop of all sorts of crazy stuff. Hung over punk bands, Thatcher this and Thatcher that. A war for some meaningless rock far away.

    In general a British GTA has been required for some time hasn’t it. Doubt we’ll ever see it though. Battle of Britain is about as British as most gaming marketing surveys are likely to suggest Americans can identify with in the mainstream.

    • Premium User Badge

      Adam Smith says:

      True – there was the London 1961 mission pack for the original, although I never played it so can’t really comment on how very british it was.

      Bully is the closest we’ll get, probably, even though it isn’t set in britain!

      • MuscleHorse says:

        It was actually surprisingly solid – all the sound effects were overhauled, not just the graphics. The music was pretty special too, but that’s a given with GTA. I think it’s missing from any online store because of LEGAL issues.

        I would love a British GTA set during the 70’s, with a city that’s a mix of London, Manchester and Edinburgh. With Michael Caine voicing the lead. Don’t you throw those bloody spears at me.

        • FurryLippedSquid says:

          It’s free from R*.

          link to rockstargames.com

          • MuscleHorse says:

            Hurr. Thanks!

          • bit_crusherrr says:

            That’s just a mission pack for GTA London that requires the original game isn’t it?

          • Jason Moyer says:

            Nah, the GTA London expansion packs just require the original GTA.

        • P.Funk says:

          You’re right. I’d love to see me a GTA thats basically inspired by Life on Mars with the grotty crazy Manchester as the backdrop.

          I could live with a modern London GTA though thats basically a Guy Richie movie. In many respects Snatch is like a film version of what every GTA game tries to be anyway isn’t it. Getting away from London would be hard probably. So far it seems R* has been reluctant to repeat the San Andreas thing and have multiple cities. It would be nice to see one completely in Manchester, though I think the way they’re making them these days they’d probably just end up doing one as a really in depth scaling of London the same way GTA 4 did New York.

          So… I guess it comes down to which you fancy more. Life on Mars or Snatch? I don’t think the 60s is actually viable. Its too obvious for them.

      • Melliflue says:

        Adam, why aren’t your comments red? You’re on the “about” page and you’ve been writing a while, yet your comments are not red, unlike Jim, John, Alec, and even Kieron (I think Nathan isn’t red either, and I don’t know about Quinns).

        • tigerfort says:

          It could be organisational inefficiency, since the four people who get pink comments are the original four contributors, but it could also be to do with the fact that those four (Jim, Alec, John and Kieron) are also the four founders and owners of RPS.

    • Spacewalk says:

      I’d like to see a good one set in London, both of the ones set in the sixties were a bit poo.

    • Branthog says:

      I’m down for almost any variation of GTA that puts me in a new place, with new people, and new situations outside of “typical character in big US city with predictable everything”. Don’t get me wrong – I enjoy those – but games are an opportunity to let me explore places that are much harder to get to and spend time in. So let’s actually do it. :)

  5. Kobest says:

    Any word about the actual gameplay though? What is it going to be like? Sure, the style and setting got me very interested, but is it Far Cry 3 lite or something??

    • P.Funk says:

      Don’t you get it? All this 1980’s hype and styling is meant to mislead you as to what the game is about.

      Think of the Delorean. You’re not really buying the car, you’re buying the image. Same with this game.

    • Zogtee says:

      A wild guess, but I imagine you get to shoot a bunch of people.

  6. LeMonde says:

    “I demand representation of the other decade – the one that The Smiths gloomed their way through.”

    Far Cry 3: The Iron Lady Strikes Again?

    A game where the arch-villain triumphs and there’s never any prospect of a happy ending.
    Mass unemployment, the decimation of the NHS, the Miners’ Strike, Brixton riots etc.

    It’s a miracle The Smiths weren’t more gloomy!

  7. Shadowcat says:

    /me loads cyborgs, blood dragons, mutants, and Michael Biehn into the LHC.

    I don’t know what will happen, but I hope all the equipment is working because I think we’re only going to get one shot at this.

  8. iucounu says:

    I… I still don’t know what this is. What IS this? Far Cry 3 was excellent, so if they are indeed making some kind of bonkers cyberpunk shooter in the same engine… is that what they’re doing? Help!

  9. deadly.by.design says:

    ¡Que Biehn!

  10. Papageno says:

    This could be some seriously awesome cheese. Can’t wait to see some reviews.

  11. completelyridiculous says:

    The PC version has leaked, watching someone stream live right now. Ubisoft’s servers are apparently borked enough to allow the game to be downloaded while in offline mode.