It was defeating and depressing enough that I stopped playing Far Cry 5 only 1/3rd into the game and let a friend borrow it just to get it out of my fucking sight. Then I looked it up on Reddit to see how people were handling it. I picked up Far Cry 5 because it looked insanely fun and I thought "there's no way it could be a worse ending than the last Far Cry" and committed to staying away from spoilers.Īnd then that article dropped explaining why so many players were furious with Far Cry 5's ending (I think it was Polygon?). I didn't believe him, I looked it up and yeah, they're both fucking awful. I stopped playing Far Cry 4 towards the end when a friend warned me that both endings would piss me off. Either give the player a real choice to make or just write an ending that makes narrative sense without being excessively edgy and bleak. Removing towers isn't the change that I'm talking about. Ubisoft, please buck the trend and do something different here. The bad ending is pretty bad but the "good" ending is the most nihilistic and defeating ending ever experienced in a game, understandably leaving many players with a feeling of wasted time/energy/investment. Once again, the game gives you a choice, resulting in a "good" ending or a "bad" ending. Instead we get more drug trips, weird characters, animal pets (which are a cool idea) and another awful ending. Far Cry 5 seemed like it might try something new by setting the game in the United States and using a dogmatic religious cult as the main villains.but the villains feel like a missed opportunity, the narrative doesn't match the marketing and the crazy deep-south religious-right villains are nowhere to be found. Fun world to explore with a great intro sequence and a super fun villain.who mostly vanishes into the background to make way for far less interesting henchman and an increasingly contrived war that you have pick sides in. Michael Biehn was inspired casting, the dragons were scary and the game was fun as hell.īut then Far Cry 4 happened and repeated the same narrative issues that Far Cry 3 had. Blood Dragon came out as an incredible DLC whose origins were in a joke and a one-off experiment but were expanded into a neon post-80's synthwave future that lived in a stylized satire of Aliens, Terminator and Predator. The rest of my experience was so good that these narrative flaws didn't take away from all the fun I had. The most likable character in the game suddenly turns heel with only last minute foreshadowing and the endings both feel pretty contrived and pointlessly edgy. The best villain is offed halfway through the game (I know the behind the scenes of why, I get it) and is replaced with a really boring villain and a last minute villain, neither of which feel as imposing or threatening. Look, I know that Far Cry 3 wasn't perfect, especially from a narrative perspective. The brilliant talent of Michael Mando as Vaas, the premise of douchey bro-dudes having their lives torn apart by thinking they could wrecklessly party on a tropical island, the sound design, the colorful locale and that insane moment with the Damian Marley/Skrillex song. I lost myself in the island, I wanted to play in every corner, fight every dangerous animal, take every enemy base camp, harvest every plant. I fucking loved that game so much that it hurts. With the rumors of a new Far Cry game on the horizon, it's hard not to reminisce about the absolutely euphoric, drug-like addiction that I felt playing Far Cry 3.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |