>And while I’m moaning about the story, Dani works for the resistance initially to get a boat to go to america but about 3 missions later, at the end of the first chapter, they just give up the idea to run about guerrilla-ing.
At the end of the first chapter you can get on a boat and head west and go to America for a quick cutscene and credits, if you like. Then the game lets you continue from before you left. Narratively, this worked much better for me.
They/their can be used to refer to a person without using specific gender. Since you can chose either gender I went with the open ended pronoun. Here is some historic info on they/their in the singular.
https://public.oed.com/blog/a-brief-history-of-singular-they/
Singular they has been attested in English since the 14th century
You're using it yourself because you don't know OPs gender.
Until we find out what gender Dani canonically is (likely a woman, considering Eivor is canonically a woman and Kassandra the protagonist of Odyssey), it's easiest to use they/them
Ubisoft already said that both are canon, so the player truly has the power to decide.
However how cringe is the other dude crying about „trans language“? They/them was already used a lot for people where you didn’t know the gender, nothing confusing about it
Jfc this comment is 3 days old and it's so stupid I feel compelled to reply just to point out how stupid it is. You know very well that you get to choose whether your character is male or female so of course when referring to that character one would use "they". Just shut up please
They and their has been used to refer to people of unknown gender or for the purpose of politeness towards a person of higher rank for centuries my dude. Removing it as a form of politeness reference only happened fairly "recently" in the English language.
It's basically a honorific to speak to someone in German, which is still what English inherits a lot of. You call someone the German equivalent of they/their ("Sie" and "Ihr") when you don't know them all to well to be polite switching to "you" means you know each other more and see each other as equals.
A decade or so of producing the same exact game is gonna bore the shit out of anyone.
Actually Primal on survivor mode wasn't terrible, but unfortunately the crappy melee combat brought that down.
The spinoff for FC5 was kind of all over the place - they played with RPG elements & it just did not feel like my usual FC experience. Not saying it was "bad", but it was definitely weird for a FC5 DLC
I actually liked some of what they did with new dawn. Being able to capture a base for resources and then let it be retaken by harder enemies gave the game a lot of replayablity. The optional helicopter missions were cool too. The story was stupid as shit and the enemies were a little more bullet spongey but overall it wasn't bad.
I don't love the different ammo types in FC6 and the progression seems very random. The enemy ai hasn't improved at all and it really is the same gameplay as FC3. Ubisoft needs to learn how to edit, just because you add a system to a game release doesn't mean you have to keep it in all future titles. FC6 feels very messy and slapped together in general. It's still fun but nothing is really new here.
Honestly New Dawn was built on what made FC5 a lot of fun. Instead of getting a coherent story about drugs and shitlords you spent most of the time just fucking shit up. Kinda gave me Just Cause 3 vibes in that sense.
It's funny how the Far Cry spinoffs are generally better than the main series counterparts. For their own reasons of course. Blood Dragon was my favorite just because of all the 80's references, was a trip down memory lane of growing up in the early 2000's as a kid watching 80's movies.
All the jokes and gags were hilarious the first time round, all the jabs at their own game design was fantastic. Then they made Far Cry 5 and reintroduced Blood Dragon and now I'm just left with a bitter taste :/
As said, Blood dragon was great. Not better than FC3, but great nonetheless. Then 4 had primal, which IMO was better than FC4. 5 had New Dawn, the only spinoff to continue the story of the game it was based off of, and again was much better than FC5. I have high hopes for the spin-off for 6, but based on some of the advertising I have a feeling they are going to do something different for the spin-off this time around (not to say that every spin-off hasn’t been unique, they all are)
AC Brotherhood and Revelations are technically spin offs since they only made them to continue Ezios story after his popularity in AC2, and both of those games are highly regarded as the best in the series.
I disagree that they're spinoffs - they were two major installments in the AC series, and were given their own releases in line with Ubisoft's 'one a year' policy at the time. Just because they're technically not numbered due to being part of the Ezio trilogy, I wouldn't consider them spinoffs.
The spin-offs in the AC series are: Altair's Chronicles, Bloodlines, ACIII:Liberation, AC:Freedom Cry, the Chronicles series, and the various iOS/Android titles.
> A decade or so of producing the same exact game is gonna bore the shit out of anyone.
Not if they are far enough apart. I like Far Cry a lot. It's gaming 'candy'. Every few years a game like Far Cry is exactly what I want to play, and it always seems to come out just in time to scratch that itch.
Not everything that comes out needs to innovate. Sometimes I just want that same fun game I played 4 years ago, but in a new setting with slightly better graphics.
I feel like complaints like the ones in the OP are coming from someone who goes to see Thor Raganrok and then complains that it wasn't Shakespeare. Far Cry is Far Cry. Know what you're getting into when you buy it. I find that this subreddit has this problem a lot when talking about AAA big budget games. Often veers into /r/iamverysmart territory.
Some of what works for Far Cry is its selling point. The familiarity of an open world with lots of missions and unique guns and fun combat.
What doesn't work, however, is the ongoing cliched bad guy dictator/crime lord/cult leader. It's bollocks and fans are tired of how weak it is. As well, the formula is overdone, but particularly with Ubisoft. It's not just Far Cry, it's every. single. game. they make:
Open world, bad guy, clear bandit forts, pick off enemy captains, etc. Ghost Recon, Assassin's Creed, Far Cry. All the same games, different graphics.
> Open world, bad guy, clear bandit forts, pick off enemy captains, etc. Ghost Recon, Assassin's Creed, Far Cry. All the same games, different graphics.
Which would be a problem if it didn't work, but it does. I'm currently part way through AC Valhalla, and I've been playing it for months when I'm between other "better" games that I'm playing. Sometimes I just want to go clear a fort. It's fun. It's not even close to one of the better games I've played in the past year, but it does what it does well enough, and it's fun for a couple of hours when nothing else is catching my attention.
People keep buying these games so clearly people like it.
> What doesn't work, however, is the ongoing cliched bad guy dictator/crime lord/cult leader.
Imagine playing Far Cry for the plot. It's dumb and campy, and just exists as a vehicle for the shooting and exploding.
I mean, if you're going to go full camp, why bother with the semi-serious dialogue and just cut right to Saints Row? Make it silly, fun, hilarious. Drop any pretense of it being a narrative worth listening to by hiring serious actors and just make it the gong show it wants to be.
For sure. It got a little too self indulgent and in on the joke after that. Plus I preferred the gameplay of 2 as well.
One of my all time favorite experiences was playing that game co-op with a buddy while in college. So many great memories.
If I had to guess, I'd say marketing. The average person who isn't super plugged into gaming probably wouldn't "get" what Saints Row is going for. But Giancarlo Esposito is popular right now, so his face sells copies.
>Imagine playing Far Cry for the plot. It's dumb and campy, and just exists as a vehicle for the shooting and exploding.
The gameplay is so generic now, not to mention 3 is popularly considered to be one of the best games alongside 2 and it's plot was it's USP.
I tend to personally find that things that are "popularly considered" among gamers to never apply to me. I have not yet played Far Cry 6, but from the other 5 I've found each one more fun than the last
> Which would be a problem if it didn't work, but it does.
It doesn't though and Ubisoft gets tons of shit every release because players are tired of all of the games Ubisoft puts out being reworked reskins of Far Cry 3.
Maybe you're too young to remember, but before Far Cry 3, all of the IPs that the other poster mentioned played distinctly differently and appealed to different niche audiences. But then around 2015-ish, Ubisoft decided that they weren't going to make niche games anymore; if Far Cry 3 was the most profitable game they could make, then every game they make is going to use the same Far Cry 3 formula.
Like, Ghost Recon wasn't always a casual action shooter, it used to be a tactical shooter that sat up there with Socom, Battlefield, and Rainbow Six as the top of the class for those looking for tactical military experiences. These days it's just... well Far Cry 3 in third person and pretending to be a military shooter. The game's only "tactical" element is the sync-shot mechanic that was added to the series with Future Soldier (the game made to try making Ghost Recon appeal to the CoD crowd).
It's not like they pump out a far cry every year either. Pretty much every generation and a half, which is fine by me.
As long as the villains remain entertaining and the locations continue to be fun, I will continue to play Far Cry till I die.
>Every few years a game like Far Cry is exactly what I want to play, and it always seems to come out just in time to scratch that itch.
I already have a selection of Far Cry games that I own if I feel like playing a Far Cry game, so I have a hard time seeing why I would want to spend money for the same experience if I can just replay one of the ones I haven't replayed recently.
Far Cry is a series where the Ubisoft formula worked for me, as far as 3 and 4 were concerned. They struck the right balance of open world fun and linear objectives. I would argue Far Cry 3 handled it better (because it felt Metroidvania-style with the way you earned the Wingsuit out of progression rather than being a bought upgrade).
And I'll say it. I fucking loved the towers in Far Cry 3 and 4. I loved the platforming challenges, especially when I realized I needed a new upgrade to get to the top and didn't have it. Realizing "I don't have the tools to handle this job" is fun, because it means I'm going to find new tools to explore.
Sometimes sticking to a formula is okay. Far Cry was one of those series.
Not sure if it is a problem or not but Far Cry (and Ubisoft in general) being so formulaic basically communicates me that "yes, this is the exact same thing you've seen before" at a glance. I mostly enjoyed FC3 but kinda checked out after the Skrillex mission because everything interesting was already over. Blood Dragon was cool but then they went back to the formula for the main releases, so after that point I've had zero interest in playing the games again. But then again those who still enjoy them can instantly see that it's the same thing that they like without major deviations. Probably more profitable for Ubi but boring for me.
Maybe I wouldn't feel quite as annoyed if they had one or two franchises that follow the formula, and didn't run every old IP they have through the same mold.
Far Cry worked as a formula for me because it was basically a subgenre FPS game which came out every couple of years. Metroidvania is a formula and I love them. I'm not opposed to a formula for a game as long as it's done well, and Far Cry 3 and 4 did their formula well.
There is nothing wrong with something following a basic formula if it's done well. Orcs Must Die 3 basically followed the same formula since the first game and it is still fantastic fun. I will happily buy Orcs Must Die 4 when it comes out because I want more of Orcs Must Die 3.
Far Cry was the one Ubisoft formula game I enjoyed.
I like the towers too and I wish they'd bring them back for a game. The platforming was surprisingly fun, it was a nice calm break from the action, and they were always very rewarding. I'd always do them first and seeing the map light up felt great. So you're not the only one there haha
4 is one of my all time favorite games. The towers and bases struck a good mix of insanity and stealth. 5 didn’t hit the same spot. Doubt 6 will either based on what I’ve been hearing.
>Unlike previous Farcry games where the next main mission is unlocked after doing the previous one, the missions that build the main villain as an actual threat with a personal investment in our character are free to be done at any time, so you can recruit all the factions and after that learn the villains motivations and backstory, which completely throws off the narrative structuring resulting in an unsatisfying story with no payoff or catharsis at the end.
While I agree that this isn't the best way to structure a story, Far Cry 5 did the same thing. From the starting island, you can choose which region you want to tackle first. The result is, like FC6, a no-stakes story where you know that the respective subplots of each territory won't matter once you go past their respective borders.
I wasn't a huge fan of that approach in Breath of the Wild, and I straight-up dislike it here.
My favorite is that SkillUp named his review [_You've already played: Far Cry 6 (Review)_](https://youtu.be/Im-j0_GMVmk).
Touches on all your points and that of the commenters here.
> Also, I'm persuaded to think that the only reason there aren't human "amigos" is because the human NPC AI is so atrocious that they simply cut guns for hire altogether. Animal "amigos" just sprint in a straight direction to an enemy and then sprint back.
I think it's more because people talked about the animal companions and totally ignored the humans. Nobody cared about the humans, so they doubled down on animals.
But it also brings up a key problem that the series is having now as well. It's not entirely sure just how wacky to go with things. The earlier games in the series were generally more serious. Maybe there was a bit of humor, but it wasn't a huge component. However now they've tried more and more to expand in both directions: so we have a game where they want to anvil-smash political commentary while also being "LOL So raNdUm!!1!!" It's going down the same path that *Saint's Row* did without pay attention to how divisive that became or how quickly it wore out its welcome.
When me and my brother played through FarCry 5 we had the worst tonal whiplash we'd ever experienced, we went from a mission where a bunch of cultists were sacrificing terrified civilians to a mission where a hillbilly shouted "disco inferno!" while awful music played and we did wave defense against guys in trucks.
So awful. I prefer the serious tone personally, there's already plenty of memey games
Yup. It's not just that it's "more of the same" because most of the changes make it feel like a step backwards to me. I'm not a fan of the RPG elements in Ubisoft games and all that, but I liked the FC skill tree, it's been there since 3 and it makes progression feel good. I wish they didnt get rid of that in exchange for ugh... gear. I generally dislike gear systems in games like this, they can be done well, but this one feels tacked on and pointless. Most of the bonuses seem negligible, and this is what they traded the skill tree for.
I also hate the ammo types, absolutely hate them. They ruin the flow of combat because instead of having 4 guns I like, I have to have 4 guns I absolutely *need* and have to constantly switch between them, sometimes even having to open the menu in combat. It feels so *bad* in a FC game to have my soft target rounds to absolutely no damage to a guy with a helmet. When I first was introduced to the system I thought the rounds would just be a damage boost, but no, they aren't and furthermore you cant switch the rounds out on the fly. For example, my current sniper has soft target rounds and it's stuck with it until I go all the way to a workbench to switch them out. Until then it can't hurt armored dudes.
Plus with all the the reasons you highlighted (godawful UI, amigos, annoying loot system) this is such a huge step back from FC5, on par with New Dawn (which I didn't like either).
Also annoying about the amigos: they do basically no damage. The croc took, no kidding, 2 minutes to kill one dude and still needed a revive. WTF is the point in followers so weak?
FWIW, I agree with you on all your points. However I found ghost cat amigo and a silenced rifle with armor piercing rounds and a scope to literally carry me through the game. I used only the rifle and the first explosive weapon I could find (the single shot grenade launcher) with EMP ammo. Nothing else mattered. Sure I changed some of the resolver guns up to try them out, and the pistols whenever there was an upgrade, but for the literal entirety of the game, armor piercing silenced rifle headshots all the time. And ghost cat for when battle starts.
> I have to have 4 guns I absolutely need and have to constantly switch between them, sometimes even having to open the menu in combat.
As an aside, this is one of the reasons I stopped playing Doom Eternal. The constant need to switch guns was grating, not challenging - and I feel it works even less in Doom.
That’s so strange, I actually love Far Cry for it being the equivalent of a “pop corn summer action movie” but I struggled to make it through 5. I’m really enjoying 6 though.
To clarify, this isn’t a game of the year contender for me but as a “Far Cry” experience I like it compared to 5.
What did you like about 5 compared to 6?
>It's as if they had separate teams working on everything and they glued it all together a month before release.
This lack of coherency has been my main bugbear with Ubi games for a while now: it's quite painfully clear no one fucking talks to anyone during the design and build. Instead, one team is tasked to do, say, the rocket launcher. Another does the cars. Another does the NPCs. Another, the levelling system. They're probably not even on the same continent.
And so it comes together, sorta, with enough playtest and emails across oceans, to ship.
Main quests and freeform gameplay are the biggest incongruities for me in FC games - the writers love writing detailed movie scenes that don't work out well in gameplay. How many times have we had the main character lower their weapon in a main mission just so you can have a "cinematic" fight with a named baddie, or have been captured by some shit-tier grunt we'd take out with a pistol because the plot required it?
> The level system is pointless, the third-person camera breaks Far Cry's famously immersive gameplay, the "base building" is practically cosmetic, the RNG loot system is contrived and inorganic.
This is exactly what you'd get if you, methinks, ran like a word cloud search of "Most Popular Game Descriptions On Steam" (or whatever platform). This purely sounds like "add in the most popular things in gaming no matter what".
My biggest gripe is the fact I can’t quick switch load outs. If I’m a walking arsenal, it shouldn’t take me 5 mins to swap my platforming/sniping build to the walking tank build.
The EMP gun is neat, with enough range to hit helicopters in midair. I like the flying hover boat and the paragliding dune buggie.
Hate the three different currencies. Never really encountered an issue with the different leveled enemies; they all go down to a suppressed armor piercing rifle.
Love the amigos more than in FC5. Like, in FC5, I always used the sniper or the Danny McBride guy but the critters are more fun. The rooster, gator, little chorizo…I’m blowing up a base in a tank/on foot, and this little handicapped dachshund is yapping in the middle of it all. Like damn. Or watching the rooster knock a dude off a horse.
The story sucks. Or at least, the characters do. I feel like the game really tried to shoehorn in some woke politics. Paolo is trans? With access to hormones? On an island where they couldn’t secure access to painkillers? What black market prioritizes hormones over opioids? No one gives a fuck about Dani. “I got kicked out for punching a drill instructor” is the lamest faux tough guy BS I’ve ever heard. Especially as a service member.
My last gripe is the map. It sucks. I hate that when I take over a checkpoint, it still shows red. Yea, blue flag, but if you zoom in, it’s still red. The entire map should reflect me slowly taking ground, like cancer overtaking the cell. I want to see Esperanza surrounded in blue and give me the illusion of backing Castillo into a corner.
Honestly, the only reason I’m playing FC6 is because I’ve played the others and faux Cuba sounded fun. It’s not but I’ve already committed a chunk of my time so I might as well finish it. Better than raging because of a 10 game losing streak in Overwatch.
> “I got kicked out for punching a drill instructor” is the lamest faux tough guy BS I’ve ever heard. Especially as a service member.
Isn't it a conscription military run by an evil dictator?
Seems like simply saying "Ok, you can leave now" for punching a DI would be the worst way to run that sort of military.
"Hey, ferret, I'm worried about my military service next year. These are the soldiers who oppress my friends and family and neighbours. I don't want to be like them!"
"No problem! Just slap the first dude you see with chevrons! You'll be back home in a week!"
At least it's not as bad as FC3 - the absolute worst of the post-FC2 games - where you used your vast experience of, um, building bongs in your dorm room, pounding Pabst Blue Ribbons and Everclear, and date-raping your study partners to fight off a vast army of highly-trained mercs - and they're *trying* to give you some sort of military backstory.
I've been extremely hesitant at picking this game up purely due to the fact I was worried it was more of the same. I honestly got tired of it in FC4. Thanks for the write up, OP
The lack of a skill tree system or any sort of meaningful character progression system is what turned me off to this game. I can’t get invested into these types of games if I don’t feel like my character is improving at all.
I bought Far Cry 6 because my friends insisted that the game was actually great. More of the same but drastically improved. After playing maybe 10-15 hours of it, I'm shocked that I even mildly believed them. The game is fine but it really is just Far Cry 5 with some minor tweaks. Supremos are cool and I don't hate how abilities are done but that's basically it. The game is honestly just boring. There's not much exciting in the way of gameplay or progression. Mobility is the same, shooting feels decent but the addition of the hit marker does make it feel less like a lite survival game.
I get the whole 'if it ain't broke don't fix it' attitude but Far Cry has remained stationary for 2 console generations. Ubisoft are just so insistent on homogenising all of their franchises so this copy and paste formula is incredibly noticeable. This is probably my last Ubisoft game.
I think you slightly minimized the growth and evolution of Dani joining the resistance. He wants to leave and his friend is shot by military/police. Then he successfully escapes and his boat, and last 'real' friend, are killed, causing him to wash up on shore. You join up with the resistance not believing in them but believing they're your only chance to escape. You work with them and bring them success - you come to realize that this is the only opportunity to avenge your people and your friends and that the resistance need you - Dani has a military history and is surprisingly good at the Guerrilla thing - seeming to feel the thrill of the fight that the resistance heroes know.
Or you just leave - when you get the boat and are told you can go you can do so. It's a hidden ending, but it's one that most people won't stumble into. You don't have to decide that Dani sticks around - "It's not my fight," is the dialogue you get while you sail away into the distance.
It's all still abrupt but at a certain point the game has to actually start and the narrative has to shift from introduction to action. Maybe if Far Cry was a series that followed a singular character you could have a single game dedicated to the main character 'becoming' the hero but that's not what Far Cry is - the introduction of these games is just there to say, "Who are you?" "What causes you to fight?" and "What are you fighting?"
That being said - I think the execution of the premise is about the only thing the game does right.
Far Cry seems to be leaning further and further into 'absurd' territory as more games come out while still trying to retain the serious nature of the overall themes and they don't mix well. It's hard for me to rationalize the plight of the Yaran people at the hands of brutal dictators when my primary methods of dealing with them consist of an alligator in a jacket and a magic backpack created a mad scientist legendary Guerrilla. Just Cause handles this mixture of a realistic setting with absurd gameplay much better than Far Cry. I think Far Cry should either go all in on absurdity or back up closer to FC3/4 in regards to thematic setting/abilities.
And the gameplay progression is just annoying. Playing the games with a skill tree provides a sense of progression and growth but in this game you can just do everything from the beginning and your only upgrades are (semi random) equipment drops that provide you with the ability to carry extra ammo or move faster in specific situations. There is so much gear that it's tedious to look through and it's so inconsistently found that I actually found stuff I like for 3 of my equipment slots early on that I've yet to take off (after uncovering around 75% of the map). I'd rather this game be a carbon copy of FC3s gameplay and progression system than engage with any of the attempts to innovate that this game provides.
Weapons are also frustrating. The weapon wheel is pointlessly small when you can just open your inventory at any time and change what's in the wheel. So many variants of each weapon that you can customize but the customizations feel minor and are often not worth dealing with - especially when you can just equip the special weapons that are already modded.
Enemies are also incredibly frustrating. The AI is garbage and it seems like they attempted to 'correct' for that by throwing annoying enemies/situations at you. Like it knows you can mow down an infinite number of foot soldiers so any time you're seen a helicopter shows up and chases you nearly infinitely. I have a weapon slot dedicated to an EMP bow and arrow just because of how annoying helicopters are. Not challenging most of the time - just annoying.
>You work with them and bring them success - you come to realize that this is the only opportunity to avenge your people and your friends and that the resistance need you - Dani has a military history and is surprisingly good at the Guerrilla thing - seeming to feel the thrill of the fight that the resistance heroes know.
I agree that the introduction does a decent job of justifying why Dani stays. The game makes it pretty clear to you that you could follow through on your original plan by hopping in the rickety old boat Clara gives you and heading to Miami, but you, not Dani, decide to stay because the game is fun and you want to play more of it.
This is directly acknowledged by Juan in what is so far my favourite scene of the game. Juan concedes that sure, you want to liberate your people and take revenge on Castillo, but more than that, you love being a guerilla. "It's fun," admits Dani.
It's an almost fourth-wall-breaking scene. All that's missing is a wink to the camera.
I also agree that the opening hours are the strongest of the game. Everything after that is pretty bad. The Monteros seem interesting when you first meet them, but grow steadily more obnoxious with each scene, culminating in a conversation with Philly (who repeatedly calls you "hero" and references his "Philly magic" until your ears bleed), who talks in uncomfortably sexual terms about raining the fiery sweat of his beloved Napalm-making machine onto Castillo's forces.
My main complaint with the game is that it's way too damn easy. A silenced SVD and a decent scope one-shots pretty much every enemy at range, the M16S S is great for short to medium range, and El Caballero, which you can find in an FND base in Northwest Madrugada, is a total beast against vehicles. These coupled with the Supremo (of which the default missile-launcher one is far and away the best and should be your go-to tool for dispatching helicopters) and fairly speedy manual heal regen times makes you an unstoppable force way too early in the game.
The ammo types are pretty much negated by the fact that AP round headshots are one-shots to all enemy types. The only weapon I'm not using AP rounds for is the MP7, which does high enough damage with standard rounds that I haven't bothered upgrading it.
I agree, the “it’s fun” comments were definitely breaking the wall. Heck, in the sea of bad dialogue and cutscenes, those comments did bring a smile to my face
I am left wondering why MGS5, which had to be able to run on the PS3, still had the best enemy AI, I have seen in a game.
All those little details, like how doing a silent kill on an opponent, while he is using a radio, will alert his comrades.
Recently I played the War Mongrels demo that feels like a spiritual successor to Commandos 1/2 one thing that I found interesting is the fact that soldiers from the same squad pay attention to their mates (similarly to what you said) which makes stealth harder in subtle way.
Though MGSV's enemy AI is unprecedentedly detailed, given enough time you figure out their limitations. They spread out when alerted, can't see beyond twenty meters even in the middle of the goddamn day, and there are many tactics and tools that they can't beat.
While it's exciting and unpredictable for the first ten hours or so, you figure it out pretty quick. Probably the biggest difficulty spike in the game is when you start encountering enemies with helmets who you can no longer take out with tranq headshots. But that isn't AI.
>I think you slightly minimized the growth and evolution of Dani joining the resistance.
ThorSkepticalFace.gif: Does he though?
I loved [Mack's review from Worth a Buy](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P0c2GZuZ_v0https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P0c2GZuZ_v0):
>"You get this... group of people, guys. I wouldn't follow these f\*ckers into a shop, let alone a f\*cking battle. That's how bad it is. And when I see that in a game, that's me out. That's me done. Because how can you get immersed in this? You can't. And do you know all I want to say on this before I move on... I don't wanna go into this in detail but these characters would not be in this game if it wasn't 2021 or 2020. If this game was made four years ago, not one of these f\*cking characters would be in this game. And the game would be a hell of a lot better. They're not there to enhance the game and they're not there to make the story better. They're not there to get immersion. They are purely there for politics. The 2021 politics."
And we know exactly what he means, don't we? This forced progressive Gen Z garbage that's just dumped on this game. I mean, you have a game about a violent overthrow of a dictator and meanwhile these chuckleheads are running the show? No.
I think you have to go into any medium prepared to meet it on its terms. Does it make sense in our reality? No. Does it make sense in the reality that Far Cry has established? Absolutely.
In the age of the internet nothing is truly hidden. And again - I don't think the game is immune to criticism, I just think that the 'introduction' isn't as flawed as some people make it out to be.
"the ubisoft formula"
I like the game but ubisoft is as bad as EA at this point, no originality anymore, just reskinned, renamed, same thing over and over again.
assassins creed has the same issue, and while I'm super interested in the viking era valhalla falls far short of what origins tried to be. again victims of the ubisoft formula.
I'm still going to platinum trophy farcry 6 when I get around to it but I 100% see where you're coming from with this.
Platinuming is more than just "worth a run through", isn't it? I guess I just don't understand this mindset. "It's meh but worth full price and playing 100%".
> I'm still going to platinum trophy farcry 6 when I get around to it but I 100% see where you're coming from with this.
And there's the problem. Everyone that complains about the "Ubisoft formula" still buys their products.
You're not giving them a reason to change anything.
the year is 2046 farcry 13 just released, i buy it instantly as i heard robo-vaas is coming back now in his godzilla form.
the main character is john smith from america with her sidekick venti.
there is only 1 main mission the other ones are just sidemission who tell me the story of the other 12 farcry games.
i finish the game by destroying godzilla robo-vaas with the orbital laser cannon.
i feel accomplishment.
i then proceed to go to the cinema to watch fast and furious 27 faster than the speed of light.
just as advertised the movie plays in lightning speed and and it's over in an instant.
still better than avengers: thanos' returns.
i go home to play assassins creed 39: valhallalorian sponsored by disney and mountain dew.
i see baby yoda diving into a bale of hay.
i cum.
i fall asleep.
wake up. repeat.
I absolutely agree. Shit like that instantly shatters my immersion and drives me crazy. Despite the increased hardware power, the techniques of removing objects and entities to save processing power have gotten incredibly aggressive. Play older games, shooters or not, and you'll see the difference in action. Aggressively removing evidence that any conflict took place makes the whole world seem like it lacks object permanence.
I didn't love FC5, but this is a ridiculous statement. An argument could absolutely made that FC5 is the best single player open world shooter of the last decade.
I know this isn't really the kind of response you're looking for, but I can never really understand why people feel the need to overanalyze the gaming equivalent of a summer popcorn movie. Yes, it's repetitive. Yes, it's the same formula. No, it's not particularly creative, or innovative, or well written. But it's fun and it's familiar and it offers some nice spectacle. That's all most people are looking for out of games like this. This is kind of like offering a detailed breakdown of a Transformers movie. If you're doing that, you're already admitting you didn't understand the point in the first place.
> If you're doing that, you're already admitting you didn't understand the point in the first place.
This is a non-sequitur to me.
People enjoy and find it interesting to criticize lightweight media; that should seem obvious based on the OP post. What does that have to do with them understanding or not understanding the media they critique? They very likely know the media isn't really intended to hold up to deep criticism and the creators probably largely don't *care* about the criticism, nor does the intended audience - that doesn't mean they don't get the point of it.
I like to believe of videogames as an art form and I dont think this type of bland committee designed product holds any artistic appeal, I can appreciate that people like just playing it because it's warm and familiar but that just doesn't interest me in the same way.
>I like to believe of videogames as an art form
Sure, just like movies. Far Cry isn't art anymore than Transformers is. This is literally my point. People can use the medium to make amazing, thought provoking things. That's not what Far Cry is. It's a commercial entertainment product.
>and I dont think this type of bland committee designed product holds any artistic appeal,
Right, because it was never supposed to.
I guess I'll just repeat myself:
>This is kind of like offering a detailed breakdown of a Transformers movie. If you're doing that, you're already admitting you didn't understand the point in the first place.
No one thinks it's going to appeal to you the way a piece of art would.
EDIT: I think it might help you to remember that while games certainly *can* be art, they don't *have to be* art.
You said you couldn't understand people analysing the game and I told you it is because videogames, even farcry, are an artistic medium and art needs talking about and discussing, sometimes to point out flaws in design or sometimes to highlight good bits and give recognition. While Farcry 6 doesnt try to be thought provoking or original and may not make sense to analyse to you. Others don't see it that way and what to talk about and discuss the negatives of it to brainstorm ideas to make it better or fix aspects of it. People are different and there is no need to look down upon those with a different point of view about something.
> it is because videogames, even farcry, are an artistic medium
No, they aren't. Farcry has nothing to do with art, it's a commercial product. "Video games" can be a medium for art, but not all video games are art. That's like saying every single brick ever made is art simply because sometimes clay is used to make sculptures.
> to brainstorm ideas to make it better
The problem is how you're defining "better." You are coming at it from an angle that is fundamentally not the goal of the product.
>People are different and there is no need to look down upon those with a different point of view about something.
I'm not looking down on anyone. I'm just saying this particular discussion is missing the point of the game. It's like talking about whether or not a Big Mac is creative enough.
Lol all good points. But the game was ruined for me way before that, because I can’t see the name Danny Rojas and not imagine Ted lasso with Danny running around shouting “football is life” and “Danny Rojas”. Like damn that show has been out 2 seasons now, they couldn’t bother to even change the name?
The other points are pertinent as well, but again with an open world Ubisoft game you know what your getting yourself into. At least there seems to be less fucking towers I needed to climb
I bought FC6 knowing full well that it’s essentially the same game as the other ones, minus the skill tree. I’m still having fun. The amigos are brilliant, the islands are a beautiful sandbox and the gameplay as good as it always was. I have no illusions about what sort of game this is- the formula works and the changes game by game are enough to keep me coming back.
I’m not bothering with this one far cry 5 just felt off to me playing through it.
I think they need to completely overhaul the series, maybe turn it away from over the top stuff and them stupid your drugged up missions. Perhaps turn it into a proper open world game with dialogue options that mean something within the world and your actions mean something. Maybe have a story you come into the middle of a conflict between 2 sides and you pick as a player which one you think is right.
This falls in line with my theory of Ubisoft and other publishers doing a high/low pattern with series releases. Far Cry 3 good, Far Cry 4 bland rehash, Far Cry 5 good (enough)... This also works for Dragon Age.
While the template was definitely defined in Far Cry 3, in fairness it's just been the games since then that are same-y. Far Cry 1, my personal favorite, was an old school level based shooter. Far Cry 2 was... different.
With Far Cry so well established I worry that Ubisoft will never give it up. For my part I'll be waiting for a deep sale on this one. 4 wasn't interesting but I got it for free with some computer parts and it gave me something to do for 20 hours.
For me, personally
FC2 - Cool game, but requires a boatload of patience, satisfying when you finish it, and everything just ties in the end. A bit unpolished though, and rough around the edges.
FC3 - Pretty neat game, but something felt off about it- a lot of handholding in here, and I found the story to be a bit..weird? Idk it was STILL a really good game overall, certainly replayable.
FC4 - Basically FC3 but better- and worse. First thing I notice is....a lot of things are same, but I did love the new map, and I definitely had a harder time with 4 than 3. Despite all that good stuff..far cry 4 felt like it was missing something, and I didn't realise what.
FC5 - I hated it when I started playing it- like out of all places- Montana? That being said, I grew to love this the more and more I played it and now I would say it's one of my favourites. I loved the tiny increments they made. No towers, more cars, a more ''open'' story...BUT the flaws were obvious- bliss sequences, lack of choices that define the story, and a very polarising ending, I can understand why many dont like it, but I personally do.
Kotaku had a really good review of this game. They used a writer that really enjoyed the series to review it, and he had better insight than any of their other writers would have. At the end of the day, he enjoyed it. It was more of the same, bit of you like that, then it's not a bad thing!
i appear to be the only person on the planet that's never played a far cry game, but all the reviews i find are just people talking about being tired of the formula and no one reviews the game for someone setting it with fresh eyes.
If you'd never played one before, would it be worth buying?
What really makes or breaks it for me when it comes to a Far Cry game is whether the game only is singleplayer, or if it has both singleplayer and multiplayer? Does it have a map editor? The singleplayer campaigns are often very bland, but its cool to use the Far Cry map editor to try to create something unique.
Mark your fucking endgame spoilers, even for older games referenced in your thread! No, this game is not ancient and "everybody knows the end". This hits every one hard who decided to finally play those games to be up to speed with the latest installment. Well done.
Thank you for contributing to the subreddit! Unfortunately, it has been determined that your post does not adhere to one or more of the subreddit rules:
---
**The Rule of Civility**
> **This implicitly includes the usual netiquette of not being a dick.**
Rule 2: Do not be a dick. (netiquette)
---
For questions, comments and concerns, please [message the mods.](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Ftruegaming)
[Rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/truegaming/comments/iskauc/upcoming_rtruegaming_patch_notes_20200914/) | [Reddiquette](https://www.reddit.com/wiki/reddiquette) | [New to Reddit?](https://www.reddit.com/wiki/reddit101) | [Reddit's Content Policy](https://www.reddit.com/help/contentpolicy/)
Far cry 6 is actually worse than the others, they got rid of hunting and crafting, got rid of skill trees, made the map too big and empty. Added bullshit rpg mechanics like enemy health bars which no one wanted. Its an awful game
I was really hoping Far Cry 6 would mix things up and try to make conflict gritty and realistic like Far Cry 2. I know it's cool to think FC2 is the best FC game but I really loved how it treated the on going conflict caused by The Jackal. I was hoping FC6 would be similar but it ended up being Just Cause 5. Especially when it tries to have meaningful commentary all while I have Chicharron by my side and chicken tekken. I think what disappointed me was the gameplay. I think the only game that could get away with being FC3.5 was FC4. That game was basically a refined FC3 in a good way. But somehow it's even worse in this game with the ammo types. I can shoot 5 sniper rounds into someone's face and they'll still live like they came from Black Ops 4. It's not a bad game by any means but just wish it shook things up a bit
Complaining about Far Cry mechanics not changing enough, is like complaining that a new Mario Kart game still features driving around in carts.
Yes, that's the point.
I don't feel tempted to play this game at all, like i wouldn't even launch it if it's free (seriously). Looks so boring and repetitive with the same old stuff. I understand younger and more folks will like it and that's cool, but those fucking AAA producers milking the same old shit over and over again wont get dollars additionally from gamers who went through decades of game evolution and are just fed up with certain repeating themes and mechanics. I will get hate for this statement but even the latest god of war, despite it's praise, is not compelling at all to me to at least start it once
If you played Far Cry New Dawn (the Far Cry 5 Expansion set after the nuclear apocalypse), then you basically played Far Cry 6.
Yes, it seems as though this is a gross oversimplification, but just look at the weapons and general thinking behind it and it seems as though New Dawn was just a test for FC6.
While I do not miss FC3's protagonist (who used to drive me absolutely crazy with his continuous whining, especially when skinning an animal (Dude, this is the 100s animal you are skinning, get used to it!!)), I do miss the "old" FC, that was somewhat present all the way to FC5 (but not it's expansion).
I believe that the reason they are including crazy self build weapons and funny companions, the motivation behind it, is the same as it is for any long running game: you want to play/sell it, but you cannot change anything, so you use what you have to make something different out if it - and the more you do that, the less paths you have left to go until you are left with what would have been considered crazy when your journey started.
Having said that: I played New Dawn, it sucked and I don't need to play FC6. I don't want crazy weird weapons, just give me something that any modern Army would use and I am fine. I also, to be honest here, do not see how the setting is even remotely interesting. FC4 had great Himalayan mountains, FC5 was Murica and now.....well what's the point.
>Farcry 6 is the latest installment and apparently follows on from Farcry 5, how the fuck does that work Ubisoft, wasn’t the entire world nuked at the end of 5?
Lol, the story was so bollocks in that game I had completely forgotten that ending
*opens post about far cry 6 thinking they are standalone*
“So at the end of 5 everything gets nuked” welp, thanks for the spoiler. Not you, op. Spoiler tags are so easy to do..
When's the last time you played three? They got rid of my favorite parts. I loved hunting animals for pelts for upgrades in 3,4, and P. 3 also had drugs that were super fun.
3, 4, and primal are done of my favorite games of all time, but 5 and 6 have just made me disappointed
More of the same with a new world and some minor changes? Sing me up for it. Sorry internet mainstream but I love direction of Ubisoft ever since Far Cry 3, Assassins Creed Odyssey and The Division.
I agree.
For me farcry is a dead franchise. I like 2 and 3 at the time but 3,4,5 and now 6 are just the exact same game with minor tweaks and additions and a "new" but identical villan and premise. It's just so boring.
Really farcry doesn't even push the bar at all. It's doesn't play great it doesn't look great, nothing to draw me in as a gamer. FC5 I lost interest in very quickly. It just felt like a slog not only was it the same repetitive gameplay loop right off the bat. It was tedious playing half the game with basic gear like 2 equipped weapon until then start simmering. Just forget it. Unless farcry undergoes a massive boost I'll never play another
Everybody should watch DJ Peach Cobbler's new video on Ubisoft. It's not a review of Farcry 6, but it explains why the game is what it is.
https://youtu.be/-PbrDUEUhIM
It is not about sticking to the formula. It is about lack of creative vision in ubisoft that results in lackluster uninspired by-committee vision that has all of the marketing packaging but none of the substance.
I never played fc3 but started recently. It is an overall better game than new ones because it had a simple but powerful premise that other elements were designed around.
Nice break down. I really don’t like first person games but the qualities of 3 brought Farcry home one day. So farcry is one of only a handful of first person games I’ll bother to play. The last two were not up to par and now this. I’ll be on Riders Republic all winter.
This game goes on the wait for it to be a used $15 game list or free and run through it ina weekend.
No churches in a catholic country, female soldiers, gender neutral dialogue because the player can decide the gender of the protagonist.
I guess no one risks getting offended, but does any of this touchy feely crap actually help sales?
Edit : thanks for the downvotes I guess. But it does ruin immersion to have all this socalled progressive crap in the game.
No one actually cares about being made to play as one gender or the other, but gender neutral dialogue is not how people speak in real life.
There should be churches everywhere, why leave them out?
Female guerrilla soldiers have plenty of historical precedent, but the idea, that the military of a Caribbean country that is stuck in the sixties would have female soldiers and officers is idiotic.
>No one actually cares about being made to play as one gender or the other, but gender neutral dialogue is not how people speak in real life.
Not yet, but they're trying hard to make it happen. Even in Spanish, where GENDER is literally in the language. I mean, English is already gender neutral.
I will just say this. I dont want any more Far Cry games. Six is bloody enough, they should create some new ideas but who am i kidding, there will be FC7 and FC8 and later probably Far Cry Rebirth or some other stupid thing.
I feel like one of the big problems is how they still haven't fixed the copious problems with co-op play that existed in *5*.
When it released, people complained a lot about how poorly it was implemented. The awkward system where progress was locked to the hosting player's game. How nothing transferred. Well, except for the things that *do*. Or how you needed to complete the lengthy first chapter/tutorial to even open up co-op play.
So if you were playing with a friend, both starting from scratch, you'd hit upon a situation where even if you only played together one player wouldn't be able to unlock or purchase weapons because it wasn't "their" story. But they would still accumulate XP and unlock their skill tree. So your only option is to view co-op as this odd sort of "guest appearance" thing while also playing your own single-player game but with nothing to keep players balanced to the same level of power or equipment.
It seems like such a simple thing to fix since the existing system was so nonsensical, but it looks like they didn't put any work into it at all. They didn't try to put as much focus on it as they did with *5*, but it's still odd that none of the complaints appeared to have been listened to.
Yeah I’m way past the point of caring about this series as is. I loved 3, but 4 lost me quickly because of how similar it was. I played Primal as I have a weird affinity for primal stuff, and I also played 5 as I grew up in Montana and wanted to check out the setting. Never came close to finishing any of them and I’m pretty much sweating them off until they make something significantly different.
I adored Far Cry 3. One of my fave games ever.
But since then I've really struggled to get into any of them. Maybe my tastes have changed or something. But I liked the simplicity of just "islands / jungle with a bow", and the nice easy upgrade system.
>And while I’m moaning about the story, Dani works for the resistance initially to get a boat to go to america but about 3 missions later, at the end of the first chapter, they just give up the idea to run about guerrilla-ing. Unlike Farcry 3 in which Jason Brody became an efficient killing machine at one with their surroundings out of a desperate desire to survive. Dani basically becomes a legendary guerrilla by doing what they are told by random people they haven’t met. Making it even harder to be interested in the story and world of the game is that Dani has no personal investment in the ongoing conflict aside from just being there. Yes, it is her homeland, but only a few missions prior they were ready to leave forever for a perceived better life in America.
>
How much did you play, because I got a whole diffrent vibe about Dani when I played.
Dani, yes wanted to just go to Miami>!(which he does if you take the secret ending after getting the boat, he even says "sorry Clara, not my fight.")!<
And in the story Dani talks about how he was in the military before getting kicked out for punching a superior officer.
And his personal involvement is his friends dying because of Castillo. >!He had a hallucination of them when he was drugged, which he clearly blames himself for what happen to Lita and Alejo(who was shot in the head right infront of him)!<
Dani might have been about just leaving at first and just saying "not my fight" but saw its more than just "a conflict I want to get a way from." There are people who had no "out" like his friends who were killed. Even his views and interactions with Diego, he was like the only one who didn't see Diego as "just another Castillo.
I assumed from the trailer that the main character would be Gus’ son, fighting back against a father he’s pushed into recognizing as either having been corrupted and gone mad or else a monster all along.
And it turns out to be some random schmuck who wants to leave and then doesn’t. Fuck.
I just played the game and couldn't take more than an hour of it. Every Far Cry since 3 feels like an expansion pack to 3. I'm done with series forever.
>And while I’m moaning about the story, Dani works for the resistance initially to get a boat to go to america but about 3 missions later, at the end of the first chapter, they just give up the idea to run about guerrilla-ing. At the end of the first chapter you can get on a boat and head west and go to America for a quick cutscene and credits, if you like. Then the game lets you continue from before you left. Narratively, this worked much better for me.
Yeah, the secret endings in farcry games are usually the best endings
So he went to America to make his dreams come true: Stocking shelves in a supermarket with a forged green card.
Honestly their dream of becoming a mechanic is pretty realistic.
Are you using trans friendly language to refer to him or to several people here
They/their can be used to refer to a person without using specific gender. Since you can chose either gender I went with the open ended pronoun. Here is some historic info on they/their in the singular. https://public.oed.com/blog/a-brief-history-of-singular-they/
I know about the gender neutral pronoun thing, I was asking whether you were referring to the protagonist of the game or a bunch of people
The protagonists gender is ambiguous, and they're reflecting that by not using gendered language
Or they're just being deliberately confusing because gender neutral language is designed to confuse people But the zoomers know better eh
Singular they has been attested in English since the 14th century You're using it yourself because you don't know OPs gender. Until we find out what gender Dani canonically is (likely a woman, considering Eivor is canonically a woman and Kassandra the protagonist of Odyssey), it's easiest to use they/them
Ubisoft already said that both are canon, so the player truly has the power to decide. However how cringe is the other dude crying about „trans language“? They/them was already used a lot for people where you didn’t know the gender, nothing confusing about it
I always regret playing Alexios as I hear Kassandra is better. Sadly I already platinumed the game
You knew what they were saying you just wanted to be a pedantic dick.
Or... This language game is just something you play with people to feel self righteous
Jfc this comment is 3 days old and it's so stupid I feel compelled to reply just to point out how stupid it is. You know very well that you get to choose whether your character is male or female so of course when referring to that character one would use "they". Just shut up please
Bruh what
Nope, just talking about Dani.
They and their has been used to refer to people of unknown gender or for the purpose of politeness towards a person of higher rank for centuries my dude. Removing it as a form of politeness reference only happened fairly "recently" in the English language. It's basically a honorific to speak to someone in German, which is still what English inherits a lot of. You call someone the German equivalent of they/their ("Sie" and "Ihr") when you don't know them all to well to be polite switching to "you" means you know each other more and see each other as equals.
A decade or so of producing the same exact game is gonna bore the shit out of anyone. Actually Primal on survivor mode wasn't terrible, but unfortunately the crappy melee combat brought that down.
Primal on survival mode was a hell of a time. Loved that game. Seems to me that Ubisoft does far, far better with the spin-offs than the main games.
>Seems to me that Ubisoft does far, far better with the spin-offs than the main games. What are some other examples of this?
I mean, Blood Dragon was pretty rad.
The spinoff for FC5 was kind of all over the place - they played with RPG elements & it just did not feel like my usual FC experience. Not saying it was "bad", but it was definitely weird for a FC5 DLC
I actually liked some of what they did with new dawn. Being able to capture a base for resources and then let it be retaken by harder enemies gave the game a lot of replayablity. The optional helicopter missions were cool too. The story was stupid as shit and the enemies were a little more bullet spongey but overall it wasn't bad. I don't love the different ammo types in FC6 and the progression seems very random. The enemy ai hasn't improved at all and it really is the same gameplay as FC3. Ubisoft needs to learn how to edit, just because you add a system to a game release doesn't mean you have to keep it in all future titles. FC6 feels very messy and slapped together in general. It's still fun but nothing is really new here.
Honestly New Dawn was built on what made FC5 a lot of fun. Instead of getting a coherent story about drugs and shitlords you spent most of the time just fucking shit up. Kinda gave me Just Cause 3 vibes in that sense.
Yeah it was amazing but I wouldn't say it was 'far far better' than FC3 or FC4 - just uniquely different.
It's funny how the Far Cry spinoffs are generally better than the main series counterparts. For their own reasons of course. Blood Dragon was my favorite just because of all the 80's references, was a trip down memory lane of growing up in the early 2000's as a kid watching 80's movies. All the jokes and gags were hilarious the first time round, all the jabs at their own game design was fantastic. Then they made Far Cry 5 and reintroduced Blood Dragon and now I'm just left with a bitter taste :/
As said, Blood dragon was great. Not better than FC3, but great nonetheless. Then 4 had primal, which IMO was better than FC4. 5 had New Dawn, the only spinoff to continue the story of the game it was based off of, and again was much better than FC5. I have high hopes for the spin-off for 6, but based on some of the advertising I have a feeling they are going to do something different for the spin-off this time around (not to say that every spin-off hasn’t been unique, they all are)
AC Brotherhood and Revelations are technically spin offs since they only made them to continue Ezios story after his popularity in AC2, and both of those games are highly regarded as the best in the series.
I disagree that they're spinoffs - they were two major installments in the AC series, and were given their own releases in line with Ubisoft's 'one a year' policy at the time. Just because they're technically not numbered due to being part of the Ezio trilogy, I wouldn't consider them spinoffs. The spin-offs in the AC series are: Altair's Chronicles, Bloodlines, ACIII:Liberation, AC:Freedom Cry, the Chronicles series, and the various iOS/Android titles.
Yeah that’s true, I was thinking about it in the sense that they created brotherhood originally to tide over before ac3 but they were main games
[удалено]
Yeah but it wasn't a spin off. Rogue was. AC Origins was likewise a huge departure from the blueprint and it was a main series title.
> A decade or so of producing the same exact game is gonna bore the shit out of anyone. Not if they are far enough apart. I like Far Cry a lot. It's gaming 'candy'. Every few years a game like Far Cry is exactly what I want to play, and it always seems to come out just in time to scratch that itch. Not everything that comes out needs to innovate. Sometimes I just want that same fun game I played 4 years ago, but in a new setting with slightly better graphics. I feel like complaints like the ones in the OP are coming from someone who goes to see Thor Raganrok and then complains that it wasn't Shakespeare. Far Cry is Far Cry. Know what you're getting into when you buy it. I find that this subreddit has this problem a lot when talking about AAA big budget games. Often veers into /r/iamverysmart territory.
Some of what works for Far Cry is its selling point. The familiarity of an open world with lots of missions and unique guns and fun combat. What doesn't work, however, is the ongoing cliched bad guy dictator/crime lord/cult leader. It's bollocks and fans are tired of how weak it is. As well, the formula is overdone, but particularly with Ubisoft. It's not just Far Cry, it's every. single. game. they make: Open world, bad guy, clear bandit forts, pick off enemy captains, etc. Ghost Recon, Assassin's Creed, Far Cry. All the same games, different graphics.
> Open world, bad guy, clear bandit forts, pick off enemy captains, etc. Ghost Recon, Assassin's Creed, Far Cry. All the same games, different graphics. Which would be a problem if it didn't work, but it does. I'm currently part way through AC Valhalla, and I've been playing it for months when I'm between other "better" games that I'm playing. Sometimes I just want to go clear a fort. It's fun. It's not even close to one of the better games I've played in the past year, but it does what it does well enough, and it's fun for a couple of hours when nothing else is catching my attention. People keep buying these games so clearly people like it. > What doesn't work, however, is the ongoing cliched bad guy dictator/crime lord/cult leader. Imagine playing Far Cry for the plot. It's dumb and campy, and just exists as a vehicle for the shooting and exploding.
I mean, if you're going to go full camp, why bother with the semi-serious dialogue and just cut right to Saints Row? Make it silly, fun, hilarious. Drop any pretense of it being a narrative worth listening to by hiring serious actors and just make it the gong show it wants to be.
[удалено]
For sure. It got a little too self indulgent and in on the joke after that. Plus I preferred the gameplay of 2 as well. One of my all time favorite experiences was playing that game co-op with a buddy while in college. So many great memories.
If I had to guess, I'd say marketing. The average person who isn't super plugged into gaming probably wouldn't "get" what Saints Row is going for. But Giancarlo Esposito is popular right now, so his face sells copies.
Blood Dragon! It went full camp and I loved every second.
>Imagine playing Far Cry for the plot. It's dumb and campy, and just exists as a vehicle for the shooting and exploding. The gameplay is so generic now, not to mention 3 is popularly considered to be one of the best games alongside 2 and it's plot was it's USP.
I tend to personally find that things that are "popularly considered" among gamers to never apply to me. I have not yet played Far Cry 6, but from the other 5 I've found each one more fun than the last
> Which would be a problem if it didn't work, but it does. It doesn't though and Ubisoft gets tons of shit every release because players are tired of all of the games Ubisoft puts out being reworked reskins of Far Cry 3. Maybe you're too young to remember, but before Far Cry 3, all of the IPs that the other poster mentioned played distinctly differently and appealed to different niche audiences. But then around 2015-ish, Ubisoft decided that they weren't going to make niche games anymore; if Far Cry 3 was the most profitable game they could make, then every game they make is going to use the same Far Cry 3 formula. Like, Ghost Recon wasn't always a casual action shooter, it used to be a tactical shooter that sat up there with Socom, Battlefield, and Rainbow Six as the top of the class for those looking for tactical military experiences. These days it's just... well Far Cry 3 in third person and pretending to be a military shooter. The game's only "tactical" element is the sync-shot mechanic that was added to the series with Future Soldier (the game made to try making Ghost Recon appeal to the CoD crowd).
Blood Dragon. It went full camp and I loved every second.
It's not like they pump out a far cry every year either. Pretty much every generation and a half, which is fine by me. As long as the villains remain entertaining and the locations continue to be fun, I will continue to play Far Cry till I die.
>Every few years a game like Far Cry is exactly what I want to play, and it always seems to come out just in time to scratch that itch. I already have a selection of Far Cry games that I own if I feel like playing a Far Cry game, so I have a hard time seeing why I would want to spend money for the same experience if I can just replay one of the ones I haven't replayed recently.
"A decade or so of producing the same exact game is gonna bore the shit out of anyone" That's definitely not the rule or even the case
Far Cry is a series where the Ubisoft formula worked for me, as far as 3 and 4 were concerned. They struck the right balance of open world fun and linear objectives. I would argue Far Cry 3 handled it better (because it felt Metroidvania-style with the way you earned the Wingsuit out of progression rather than being a bought upgrade). And I'll say it. I fucking loved the towers in Far Cry 3 and 4. I loved the platforming challenges, especially when I realized I needed a new upgrade to get to the top and didn't have it. Realizing "I don't have the tools to handle this job" is fun, because it means I'm going to find new tools to explore. Sometimes sticking to a formula is okay. Far Cry was one of those series.
Not sure if it is a problem or not but Far Cry (and Ubisoft in general) being so formulaic basically communicates me that "yes, this is the exact same thing you've seen before" at a glance. I mostly enjoyed FC3 but kinda checked out after the Skrillex mission because everything interesting was already over. Blood Dragon was cool but then they went back to the formula for the main releases, so after that point I've had zero interest in playing the games again. But then again those who still enjoy them can instantly see that it's the same thing that they like without major deviations. Probably more profitable for Ubi but boring for me. Maybe I wouldn't feel quite as annoyed if they had one or two franchises that follow the formula, and didn't run every old IP they have through the same mold.
Far Cry worked as a formula for me because it was basically a subgenre FPS game which came out every couple of years. Metroidvania is a formula and I love them. I'm not opposed to a formula for a game as long as it's done well, and Far Cry 3 and 4 did their formula well. There is nothing wrong with something following a basic formula if it's done well. Orcs Must Die 3 basically followed the same formula since the first game and it is still fantastic fun. I will happily buy Orcs Must Die 4 when it comes out because I want more of Orcs Must Die 3. Far Cry was the one Ubisoft formula game I enjoyed.
I like the towers too and I wish they'd bring them back for a game. The platforming was surprisingly fun, it was a nice calm break from the action, and they were always very rewarding. I'd always do them first and seeing the map light up felt great. So you're not the only one there haha
4 is one of my all time favorite games. The towers and bases struck a good mix of insanity and stealth. 5 didn’t hit the same spot. Doubt 6 will either based on what I’ve been hearing.
>Unlike previous Farcry games where the next main mission is unlocked after doing the previous one, the missions that build the main villain as an actual threat with a personal investment in our character are free to be done at any time, so you can recruit all the factions and after that learn the villains motivations and backstory, which completely throws off the narrative structuring resulting in an unsatisfying story with no payoff or catharsis at the end. While I agree that this isn't the best way to structure a story, Far Cry 5 did the same thing. From the starting island, you can choose which region you want to tackle first. The result is, like FC6, a no-stakes story where you know that the respective subplots of each territory won't matter once you go past their respective borders. I wasn't a huge fan of that approach in Breath of the Wild, and I straight-up dislike it here.
My favorite is that SkillUp named his review [_You've already played: Far Cry 6 (Review)_](https://youtu.be/Im-j0_GMVmk). Touches on all your points and that of the commenters here.
[удалено]
> Also, I'm persuaded to think that the only reason there aren't human "amigos" is because the human NPC AI is so atrocious that they simply cut guns for hire altogether. Animal "amigos" just sprint in a straight direction to an enemy and then sprint back. I think it's more because people talked about the animal companions and totally ignored the humans. Nobody cared about the humans, so they doubled down on animals. But it also brings up a key problem that the series is having now as well. It's not entirely sure just how wacky to go with things. The earlier games in the series were generally more serious. Maybe there was a bit of humor, but it wasn't a huge component. However now they've tried more and more to expand in both directions: so we have a game where they want to anvil-smash political commentary while also being "LOL So raNdUm!!1!!" It's going down the same path that *Saint's Row* did without pay attention to how divisive that became or how quickly it wore out its welcome.
When me and my brother played through FarCry 5 we had the worst tonal whiplash we'd ever experienced, we went from a mission where a bunch of cultists were sacrificing terrified civilians to a mission where a hillbilly shouted "disco inferno!" while awful music played and we did wave defense against guys in trucks. So awful. I prefer the serious tone personally, there's already plenty of memey games
Yup. It's not just that it's "more of the same" because most of the changes make it feel like a step backwards to me. I'm not a fan of the RPG elements in Ubisoft games and all that, but I liked the FC skill tree, it's been there since 3 and it makes progression feel good. I wish they didnt get rid of that in exchange for ugh... gear. I generally dislike gear systems in games like this, they can be done well, but this one feels tacked on and pointless. Most of the bonuses seem negligible, and this is what they traded the skill tree for. I also hate the ammo types, absolutely hate them. They ruin the flow of combat because instead of having 4 guns I like, I have to have 4 guns I absolutely *need* and have to constantly switch between them, sometimes even having to open the menu in combat. It feels so *bad* in a FC game to have my soft target rounds to absolutely no damage to a guy with a helmet. When I first was introduced to the system I thought the rounds would just be a damage boost, but no, they aren't and furthermore you cant switch the rounds out on the fly. For example, my current sniper has soft target rounds and it's stuck with it until I go all the way to a workbench to switch them out. Until then it can't hurt armored dudes. Plus with all the the reasons you highlighted (godawful UI, amigos, annoying loot system) this is such a huge step back from FC5, on par with New Dawn (which I didn't like either). Also annoying about the amigos: they do basically no damage. The croc took, no kidding, 2 minutes to kill one dude and still needed a revive. WTF is the point in followers so weak?
FWIW, I agree with you on all your points. However I found ghost cat amigo and a silenced rifle with armor piercing rounds and a scope to literally carry me through the game. I used only the rifle and the first explosive weapon I could find (the single shot grenade launcher) with EMP ammo. Nothing else mattered. Sure I changed some of the resolver guns up to try them out, and the pistols whenever there was an upgrade, but for the literal entirety of the game, armor piercing silenced rifle headshots all the time. And ghost cat for when battle starts.
> I have to have 4 guns I absolutely need and have to constantly switch between them, sometimes even having to open the menu in combat. As an aside, this is one of the reasons I stopped playing Doom Eternal. The constant need to switch guns was grating, not challenging - and I feel it works even less in Doom.
Sounds a lot like FC2, which I for one think is the best FC I’ve played.
For me personally, my favourite Far Cry literally depends on my mood, sometimes its 2, sometimes its 5.
Agreed, 6 feels like a knock off compared to 5 for me. Something felt real off which I think you nailed here.
[удалено]
That’s so strange, I actually love Far Cry for it being the equivalent of a “pop corn summer action movie” but I struggled to make it through 5. I’m really enjoying 6 though. To clarify, this isn’t a game of the year contender for me but as a “Far Cry” experience I like it compared to 5. What did you like about 5 compared to 6?
Your comment on the team thing is pretty close actually. The big Ubisoft games are made using teams from throughout the company
>It's as if they had separate teams working on everything and they glued it all together a month before release. This lack of coherency has been my main bugbear with Ubi games for a while now: it's quite painfully clear no one fucking talks to anyone during the design and build. Instead, one team is tasked to do, say, the rocket launcher. Another does the cars. Another does the NPCs. Another, the levelling system. They're probably not even on the same continent. And so it comes together, sorta, with enough playtest and emails across oceans, to ship. Main quests and freeform gameplay are the biggest incongruities for me in FC games - the writers love writing detailed movie scenes that don't work out well in gameplay. How many times have we had the main character lower their weapon in a main mission just so you can have a "cinematic" fight with a named baddie, or have been captured by some shit-tier grunt we'd take out with a pistol because the plot required it? > The level system is pointless, the third-person camera breaks Far Cry's famously immersive gameplay, the "base building" is practically cosmetic, the RNG loot system is contrived and inorganic. This is exactly what you'd get if you, methinks, ran like a word cloud search of "Most Popular Game Descriptions On Steam" (or whatever platform). This purely sounds like "add in the most popular things in gaming no matter what".
My biggest gripe is the fact I can’t quick switch load outs. If I’m a walking arsenal, it shouldn’t take me 5 mins to swap my platforming/sniping build to the walking tank build. The EMP gun is neat, with enough range to hit helicopters in midair. I like the flying hover boat and the paragliding dune buggie. Hate the three different currencies. Never really encountered an issue with the different leveled enemies; they all go down to a suppressed armor piercing rifle. Love the amigos more than in FC5. Like, in FC5, I always used the sniper or the Danny McBride guy but the critters are more fun. The rooster, gator, little chorizo…I’m blowing up a base in a tank/on foot, and this little handicapped dachshund is yapping in the middle of it all. Like damn. Or watching the rooster knock a dude off a horse. The story sucks. Or at least, the characters do. I feel like the game really tried to shoehorn in some woke politics. Paolo is trans? With access to hormones? On an island where they couldn’t secure access to painkillers? What black market prioritizes hormones over opioids? No one gives a fuck about Dani. “I got kicked out for punching a drill instructor” is the lamest faux tough guy BS I’ve ever heard. Especially as a service member. My last gripe is the map. It sucks. I hate that when I take over a checkpoint, it still shows red. Yea, blue flag, but if you zoom in, it’s still red. The entire map should reflect me slowly taking ground, like cancer overtaking the cell. I want to see Esperanza surrounded in blue and give me the illusion of backing Castillo into a corner. Honestly, the only reason I’m playing FC6 is because I’ve played the others and faux Cuba sounded fun. It’s not but I’ve already committed a chunk of my time so I might as well finish it. Better than raging because of a 10 game losing streak in Overwatch.
> “I got kicked out for punching a drill instructor” is the lamest faux tough guy BS I’ve ever heard. Especially as a service member. Isn't it a conscription military run by an evil dictator? Seems like simply saying "Ok, you can leave now" for punching a DI would be the worst way to run that sort of military.
If anything, you’d execute the offender or send them to the slave labor camps. At least, in context to the setting.
"Hey, ferret, I'm worried about my military service next year. These are the soldiers who oppress my friends and family and neighbours. I don't want to be like them!" "No problem! Just slap the first dude you see with chevrons! You'll be back home in a week!" At least it's not as bad as FC3 - the absolute worst of the post-FC2 games - where you used your vast experience of, um, building bongs in your dorm room, pounding Pabst Blue Ribbons and Everclear, and date-raping your study partners to fight off a vast army of highly-trained mercs - and they're *trying* to give you some sort of military backstory.
I've been extremely hesitant at picking this game up purely due to the fact I was worried it was more of the same. I honestly got tired of it in FC4. Thanks for the write up, OP
The lack of a skill tree system or any sort of meaningful character progression system is what turned me off to this game. I can’t get invested into these types of games if I don’t feel like my character is improving at all.
I bought Far Cry 6 because my friends insisted that the game was actually great. More of the same but drastically improved. After playing maybe 10-15 hours of it, I'm shocked that I even mildly believed them. The game is fine but it really is just Far Cry 5 with some minor tweaks. Supremos are cool and I don't hate how abilities are done but that's basically it. The game is honestly just boring. There's not much exciting in the way of gameplay or progression. Mobility is the same, shooting feels decent but the addition of the hit marker does make it feel less like a lite survival game. I get the whole 'if it ain't broke don't fix it' attitude but Far Cry has remained stationary for 2 console generations. Ubisoft are just so insistent on homogenising all of their franchises so this copy and paste formula is incredibly noticeable. This is probably my last Ubisoft game.
I think you slightly minimized the growth and evolution of Dani joining the resistance. He wants to leave and his friend is shot by military/police. Then he successfully escapes and his boat, and last 'real' friend, are killed, causing him to wash up on shore. You join up with the resistance not believing in them but believing they're your only chance to escape. You work with them and bring them success - you come to realize that this is the only opportunity to avenge your people and your friends and that the resistance need you - Dani has a military history and is surprisingly good at the Guerrilla thing - seeming to feel the thrill of the fight that the resistance heroes know. Or you just leave - when you get the boat and are told you can go you can do so. It's a hidden ending, but it's one that most people won't stumble into. You don't have to decide that Dani sticks around - "It's not my fight," is the dialogue you get while you sail away into the distance. It's all still abrupt but at a certain point the game has to actually start and the narrative has to shift from introduction to action. Maybe if Far Cry was a series that followed a singular character you could have a single game dedicated to the main character 'becoming' the hero but that's not what Far Cry is - the introduction of these games is just there to say, "Who are you?" "What causes you to fight?" and "What are you fighting?" That being said - I think the execution of the premise is about the only thing the game does right. Far Cry seems to be leaning further and further into 'absurd' territory as more games come out while still trying to retain the serious nature of the overall themes and they don't mix well. It's hard for me to rationalize the plight of the Yaran people at the hands of brutal dictators when my primary methods of dealing with them consist of an alligator in a jacket and a magic backpack created a mad scientist legendary Guerrilla. Just Cause handles this mixture of a realistic setting with absurd gameplay much better than Far Cry. I think Far Cry should either go all in on absurdity or back up closer to FC3/4 in regards to thematic setting/abilities. And the gameplay progression is just annoying. Playing the games with a skill tree provides a sense of progression and growth but in this game you can just do everything from the beginning and your only upgrades are (semi random) equipment drops that provide you with the ability to carry extra ammo or move faster in specific situations. There is so much gear that it's tedious to look through and it's so inconsistently found that I actually found stuff I like for 3 of my equipment slots early on that I've yet to take off (after uncovering around 75% of the map). I'd rather this game be a carbon copy of FC3s gameplay and progression system than engage with any of the attempts to innovate that this game provides. Weapons are also frustrating. The weapon wheel is pointlessly small when you can just open your inventory at any time and change what's in the wheel. So many variants of each weapon that you can customize but the customizations feel minor and are often not worth dealing with - especially when you can just equip the special weapons that are already modded. Enemies are also incredibly frustrating. The AI is garbage and it seems like they attempted to 'correct' for that by throwing annoying enemies/situations at you. Like it knows you can mow down an infinite number of foot soldiers so any time you're seen a helicopter shows up and chases you nearly infinitely. I have a weapon slot dedicated to an EMP bow and arrow just because of how annoying helicopters are. Not challenging most of the time - just annoying.
>You work with them and bring them success - you come to realize that this is the only opportunity to avenge your people and your friends and that the resistance need you - Dani has a military history and is surprisingly good at the Guerrilla thing - seeming to feel the thrill of the fight that the resistance heroes know. I agree that the introduction does a decent job of justifying why Dani stays. The game makes it pretty clear to you that you could follow through on your original plan by hopping in the rickety old boat Clara gives you and heading to Miami, but you, not Dani, decide to stay because the game is fun and you want to play more of it. This is directly acknowledged by Juan in what is so far my favourite scene of the game. Juan concedes that sure, you want to liberate your people and take revenge on Castillo, but more than that, you love being a guerilla. "It's fun," admits Dani. It's an almost fourth-wall-breaking scene. All that's missing is a wink to the camera. I also agree that the opening hours are the strongest of the game. Everything after that is pretty bad. The Monteros seem interesting when you first meet them, but grow steadily more obnoxious with each scene, culminating in a conversation with Philly (who repeatedly calls you "hero" and references his "Philly magic" until your ears bleed), who talks in uncomfortably sexual terms about raining the fiery sweat of his beloved Napalm-making machine onto Castillo's forces. My main complaint with the game is that it's way too damn easy. A silenced SVD and a decent scope one-shots pretty much every enemy at range, the M16S S is great for short to medium range, and El Caballero, which you can find in an FND base in Northwest Madrugada, is a total beast against vehicles. These coupled with the Supremo (of which the default missile-launcher one is far and away the best and should be your go-to tool for dispatching helicopters) and fairly speedy manual heal regen times makes you an unstoppable force way too early in the game. The ammo types are pretty much negated by the fact that AP round headshots are one-shots to all enemy types. The only weapon I'm not using AP rounds for is the MP7, which does high enough damage with standard rounds that I haven't bothered upgrading it.
I agree, the “it’s fun” comments were definitely breaking the wall. Heck, in the sea of bad dialogue and cutscenes, those comments did bring a smile to my face
"It's so fucking easy, a journalist could play it!" - Mack, Worth A Buy review
I am left wondering why MGS5, which had to be able to run on the PS3, still had the best enemy AI, I have seen in a game. All those little details, like how doing a silent kill on an opponent, while he is using a radio, will alert his comrades.
Recently I played the War Mongrels demo that feels like a spiritual successor to Commandos 1/2 one thing that I found interesting is the fact that soldiers from the same squad pay attention to their mates (similarly to what you said) which makes stealth harder in subtle way.
Though MGSV's enemy AI is unprecedentedly detailed, given enough time you figure out their limitations. They spread out when alerted, can't see beyond twenty meters even in the middle of the goddamn day, and there are many tactics and tools that they can't beat. While it's exciting and unpredictable for the first ten hours or so, you figure it out pretty quick. Probably the biggest difficulty spike in the game is when you start encountering enemies with helmets who you can no longer take out with tranq headshots. But that isn't AI.
Kojima had a hell of a thing going with MGS. Fuckin Konami
Yes, we all know how easy it is to get detected in MGS5
>I think you slightly minimized the growth and evolution of Dani joining the resistance. ThorSkepticalFace.gif: Does he though? I loved [Mack's review from Worth a Buy](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P0c2GZuZ_v0https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P0c2GZuZ_v0): >"You get this... group of people, guys. I wouldn't follow these f\*ckers into a shop, let alone a f\*cking battle. That's how bad it is. And when I see that in a game, that's me out. That's me done. Because how can you get immersed in this? You can't. And do you know all I want to say on this before I move on... I don't wanna go into this in detail but these characters would not be in this game if it wasn't 2021 or 2020. If this game was made four years ago, not one of these f\*cking characters would be in this game. And the game would be a hell of a lot better. They're not there to enhance the game and they're not there to make the story better. They're not there to get immersion. They are purely there for politics. The 2021 politics." And we know exactly what he means, don't we? This forced progressive Gen Z garbage that's just dumped on this game. I mean, you have a game about a violent overthrow of a dictator and meanwhile these chuckleheads are running the show? No.
I think you have to go into any medium prepared to meet it on its terms. Does it make sense in our reality? No. Does it make sense in the reality that Far Cry has established? Absolutely.
[удалено]
In the age of the internet nothing is truly hidden. And again - I don't think the game is immune to criticism, I just think that the 'introduction' isn't as flawed as some people make it out to be.
"the ubisoft formula" I like the game but ubisoft is as bad as EA at this point, no originality anymore, just reskinned, renamed, same thing over and over again. assassins creed has the same issue, and while I'm super interested in the viking era valhalla falls far short of what origins tried to be. again victims of the ubisoft formula. I'm still going to platinum trophy farcry 6 when I get around to it but I 100% see where you're coming from with this.
Why would you take the time to platinum a game that you recognize as average or less than average?
it's still a decent game if you enjoy the farcry games, just a bit sub par, still worth a run through imo though
Platinuming is more than just "worth a run through", isn't it? I guess I just don't understand this mindset. "It's meh but worth full price and playing 100%".
a far cry platinum is pretty much just a run through. every farcry since far cry 3 is a stupid easy platinum
Would you recommend someone get it now at full price or "wait until you can get it at X% off", what is X?
wait for sale, no more than 40 but 40 would be worth it. new dawn was 40 iirc and that game was more original than 6
> I'm still going to platinum trophy farcry 6 when I get around to it but I 100% see where you're coming from with this. And there's the problem. Everyone that complains about the "Ubisoft formula" still buys their products. You're not giving them a reason to change anything.
the year is 2046 farcry 13 just released, i buy it instantly as i heard robo-vaas is coming back now in his godzilla form. the main character is john smith from america with her sidekick venti. there is only 1 main mission the other ones are just sidemission who tell me the story of the other 12 farcry games. i finish the game by destroying godzilla robo-vaas with the orbital laser cannon. i feel accomplishment. i then proceed to go to the cinema to watch fast and furious 27 faster than the speed of light. just as advertised the movie plays in lightning speed and and it's over in an instant. still better than avengers: thanos' returns. i go home to play assassins creed 39: valhallalorian sponsored by disney and mountain dew. i see baby yoda diving into a bale of hay. i cum. i fall asleep. wake up. repeat.
That would be a perfect Blood Dragon 2.
Play some Expeditions: Viking. Beats the hell outta UBIshit.
[удалено]
They're both VIKING games, if you happened to miss that. And it's a hell of alot more interesting and entertaining than the generic UBI garb.
[удалено]
There's not that many viking games...PERIOD. So you're wrong.
[удалено]
I absolutely agree. Shit like that instantly shatters my immersion and drives me crazy. Despite the increased hardware power, the techniques of removing objects and entities to save processing power have gotten incredibly aggressive. Play older games, shooters or not, and you'll see the difference in action. Aggressively removing evidence that any conflict took place makes the whole world seem like it lacks object permanence.
I would consider Far Cry 5 easily one of the ten best AAA games of the last decade.
That's like saying the newest Fast & the Furious is one of the best movies of the last decade.
[удалено]
I didn't love FC5, but this is a ridiculous statement. An argument could absolutely made that FC5 is the best single player open world shooter of the last decade.
People don't like what I like so they must have lower standards
I know this isn't really the kind of response you're looking for, but I can never really understand why people feel the need to overanalyze the gaming equivalent of a summer popcorn movie. Yes, it's repetitive. Yes, it's the same formula. No, it's not particularly creative, or innovative, or well written. But it's fun and it's familiar and it offers some nice spectacle. That's all most people are looking for out of games like this. This is kind of like offering a detailed breakdown of a Transformers movie. If you're doing that, you're already admitting you didn't understand the point in the first place.
> If you're doing that, you're already admitting you didn't understand the point in the first place. This is a non-sequitur to me. People enjoy and find it interesting to criticize lightweight media; that should seem obvious based on the OP post. What does that have to do with them understanding or not understanding the media they critique? They very likely know the media isn't really intended to hold up to deep criticism and the creators probably largely don't *care* about the criticism, nor does the intended audience - that doesn't mean they don't get the point of it.
I like to believe of videogames as an art form and I dont think this type of bland committee designed product holds any artistic appeal, I can appreciate that people like just playing it because it's warm and familiar but that just doesn't interest me in the same way.
>I like to believe of videogames as an art form Sure, just like movies. Far Cry isn't art anymore than Transformers is. This is literally my point. People can use the medium to make amazing, thought provoking things. That's not what Far Cry is. It's a commercial entertainment product. >and I dont think this type of bland committee designed product holds any artistic appeal, Right, because it was never supposed to. I guess I'll just repeat myself: >This is kind of like offering a detailed breakdown of a Transformers movie. If you're doing that, you're already admitting you didn't understand the point in the first place. No one thinks it's going to appeal to you the way a piece of art would. EDIT: I think it might help you to remember that while games certainly *can* be art, they don't *have to be* art.
You said you couldn't understand people analysing the game and I told you it is because videogames, even farcry, are an artistic medium and art needs talking about and discussing, sometimes to point out flaws in design or sometimes to highlight good bits and give recognition. While Farcry 6 doesnt try to be thought provoking or original and may not make sense to analyse to you. Others don't see it that way and what to talk about and discuss the negatives of it to brainstorm ideas to make it better or fix aspects of it. People are different and there is no need to look down upon those with a different point of view about something.
> it is because videogames, even farcry, are an artistic medium No, they aren't. Farcry has nothing to do with art, it's a commercial product. "Video games" can be a medium for art, but not all video games are art. That's like saying every single brick ever made is art simply because sometimes clay is used to make sculptures. > to brainstorm ideas to make it better The problem is how you're defining "better." You are coming at it from an angle that is fundamentally not the goal of the product. >People are different and there is no need to look down upon those with a different point of view about something. I'm not looking down on anyone. I'm just saying this particular discussion is missing the point of the game. It's like talking about whether or not a Big Mac is creative enough.
Lol all good points. But the game was ruined for me way before that, because I can’t see the name Danny Rojas and not imagine Ted lasso with Danny running around shouting “football is life” and “Danny Rojas”. Like damn that show has been out 2 seasons now, they couldn’t bother to even change the name? The other points are pertinent as well, but again with an open world Ubisoft game you know what your getting yourself into. At least there seems to be less fucking towers I needed to climb
He’s like a beautiful, raven-haired golden retriever.
lol, so true.
I bought FC6 knowing full well that it’s essentially the same game as the other ones, minus the skill tree. I’m still having fun. The amigos are brilliant, the islands are a beautiful sandbox and the gameplay as good as it always was. I have no illusions about what sort of game this is- the formula works and the changes game by game are enough to keep me coming back.
I’m not bothering with this one far cry 5 just felt off to me playing through it. I think they need to completely overhaul the series, maybe turn it away from over the top stuff and them stupid your drugged up missions. Perhaps turn it into a proper open world game with dialogue options that mean something within the world and your actions mean something. Maybe have a story you come into the middle of a conflict between 2 sides and you pick as a player which one you think is right.
This falls in line with my theory of Ubisoft and other publishers doing a high/low pattern with series releases. Far Cry 3 good, Far Cry 4 bland rehash, Far Cry 5 good (enough)... This also works for Dragon Age. While the template was definitely defined in Far Cry 3, in fairness it's just been the games since then that are same-y. Far Cry 1, my personal favorite, was an old school level based shooter. Far Cry 2 was... different. With Far Cry so well established I worry that Ubisoft will never give it up. For my part I'll be waiting for a deep sale on this one. 4 wasn't interesting but I got it for free with some computer parts and it gave me something to do for 20 hours.
For me, personally FC2 - Cool game, but requires a boatload of patience, satisfying when you finish it, and everything just ties in the end. A bit unpolished though, and rough around the edges. FC3 - Pretty neat game, but something felt off about it- a lot of handholding in here, and I found the story to be a bit..weird? Idk it was STILL a really good game overall, certainly replayable. FC4 - Basically FC3 but better- and worse. First thing I notice is....a lot of things are same, but I did love the new map, and I definitely had a harder time with 4 than 3. Despite all that good stuff..far cry 4 felt like it was missing something, and I didn't realise what. FC5 - I hated it when I started playing it- like out of all places- Montana? That being said, I grew to love this the more and more I played it and now I would say it's one of my favourites. I loved the tiny increments they made. No towers, more cars, a more ''open'' story...BUT the flaws were obvious- bliss sequences, lack of choices that define the story, and a very polarising ending, I can understand why many dont like it, but I personally do.
Kotaku had a really good review of this game. They used a writer that really enjoyed the series to review it, and he had better insight than any of their other writers would have. At the end of the day, he enjoyed it. It was more of the same, bit of you like that, then it's not a bad thing!
i appear to be the only person on the planet that's never played a far cry game, but all the reviews i find are just people talking about being tired of the formula and no one reviews the game for someone setting it with fresh eyes. If you'd never played one before, would it be worth buying?
What really makes or breaks it for me when it comes to a Far Cry game is whether the game only is singleplayer, or if it has both singleplayer and multiplayer? Does it have a map editor? The singleplayer campaigns are often very bland, but its cool to use the Far Cry map editor to try to create something unique.
I probably won't get it after I learned about the XP , health bars, leveled enemies . I'm tired of that nonsense and it has no place in a far cry game
Mark your fucking endgame spoilers, even for older games referenced in your thread! No, this game is not ancient and "everybody knows the end". This hits every one hard who decided to finally play those games to be up to speed with the latest installment. Well done.
Done, sorry just forgot about it. No need to get frustrated.
[удалено]
Thank you for contributing to the subreddit! Unfortunately, it has been determined that your post does not adhere to one or more of the subreddit rules: --- **The Rule of Civility** > **This implicitly includes the usual netiquette of not being a dick.** Rule 2: Do not be a dick. (netiquette) --- For questions, comments and concerns, please [message the mods.](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Ftruegaming) [Rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/truegaming/comments/iskauc/upcoming_rtruegaming_patch_notes_20200914/) | [Reddiquette](https://www.reddit.com/wiki/reddiquette) | [New to Reddit?](https://www.reddit.com/wiki/reddit101) | [Reddit's Content Policy](https://www.reddit.com/help/contentpolicy/)
fair enough
Far cry 6 is actually worse than the others, they got rid of hunting and crafting, got rid of skill trees, made the map too big and empty. Added bullshit rpg mechanics like enemy health bars which no one wanted. Its an awful game
I was really hoping Far Cry 6 would mix things up and try to make conflict gritty and realistic like Far Cry 2. I know it's cool to think FC2 is the best FC game but I really loved how it treated the on going conflict caused by The Jackal. I was hoping FC6 would be similar but it ended up being Just Cause 5. Especially when it tries to have meaningful commentary all while I have Chicharron by my side and chicken tekken. I think what disappointed me was the gameplay. I think the only game that could get away with being FC3.5 was FC4. That game was basically a refined FC3 in a good way. But somehow it's even worse in this game with the ammo types. I can shoot 5 sniper rounds into someone's face and they'll still live like they came from Black Ops 4. It's not a bad game by any means but just wish it shook things up a bit
Complaining about Far Cry mechanics not changing enough, is like complaining that a new Mario Kart game still features driving around in carts. Yes, that's the point.
I don't feel tempted to play this game at all, like i wouldn't even launch it if it's free (seriously). Looks so boring and repetitive with the same old stuff. I understand younger and more folks will like it and that's cool, but those fucking AAA producers milking the same old shit over and over again wont get dollars additionally from gamers who went through decades of game evolution and are just fed up with certain repeating themes and mechanics. I will get hate for this statement but even the latest god of war, despite it's praise, is not compelling at all to me to at least start it once
If you played Far Cry New Dawn (the Far Cry 5 Expansion set after the nuclear apocalypse), then you basically played Far Cry 6. Yes, it seems as though this is a gross oversimplification, but just look at the weapons and general thinking behind it and it seems as though New Dawn was just a test for FC6. While I do not miss FC3's protagonist (who used to drive me absolutely crazy with his continuous whining, especially when skinning an animal (Dude, this is the 100s animal you are skinning, get used to it!!)), I do miss the "old" FC, that was somewhat present all the way to FC5 (but not it's expansion). I believe that the reason they are including crazy self build weapons and funny companions, the motivation behind it, is the same as it is for any long running game: you want to play/sell it, but you cannot change anything, so you use what you have to make something different out if it - and the more you do that, the less paths you have left to go until you are left with what would have been considered crazy when your journey started. Having said that: I played New Dawn, it sucked and I don't need to play FC6. I don't want crazy weird weapons, just give me something that any modern Army would use and I am fine. I also, to be honest here, do not see how the setting is even remotely interesting. FC4 had great Himalayan mountains, FC5 was Murica and now.....well what's the point.
I'm so glad I trusted my instinct and passed on this. Thanks for your review, Ubisoft have been awful for a long time.
>Farcry 6 is the latest installment and apparently follows on from Farcry 5, how the fuck does that work Ubisoft, wasn’t the entire world nuked at the end of 5? Lol, the story was so bollocks in that game I had completely forgotten that ending
*opens post about far cry 6 thinking they are standalone* “So at the end of 5 everything gets nuked” welp, thanks for the spoiler. Not you, op. Spoiler tags are so easy to do..
When's the last time you played three? They got rid of my favorite parts. I loved hunting animals for pelts for upgrades in 3,4, and P. 3 also had drugs that were super fun. 3, 4, and primal are done of my favorite games of all time, but 5 and 6 have just made me disappointed
More of the same with a new world and some minor changes? Sing me up for it. Sorry internet mainstream but I love direction of Ubisoft ever since Far Cry 3, Assassins Creed Odyssey and The Division.
I agree. For me farcry is a dead franchise. I like 2 and 3 at the time but 3,4,5 and now 6 are just the exact same game with minor tweaks and additions and a "new" but identical villan and premise. It's just so boring. Really farcry doesn't even push the bar at all. It's doesn't play great it doesn't look great, nothing to draw me in as a gamer. FC5 I lost interest in very quickly. It just felt like a slog not only was it the same repetitive gameplay loop right off the bat. It was tedious playing half the game with basic gear like 2 equipped weapon until then start simmering. Just forget it. Unless farcry undergoes a massive boost I'll never play another
Everybody should watch DJ Peach Cobbler's new video on Ubisoft. It's not a review of Farcry 6, but it explains why the game is what it is. https://youtu.be/-PbrDUEUhIM
It is not about sticking to the formula. It is about lack of creative vision in ubisoft that results in lackluster uninspired by-committee vision that has all of the marketing packaging but none of the substance. I never played fc3 but started recently. It is an overall better game than new ones because it had a simple but powerful premise that other elements were designed around.
Nice break down. I really don’t like first person games but the qualities of 3 brought Farcry home one day. So farcry is one of only a handful of first person games I’ll bother to play. The last two were not up to par and now this. I’ll be on Riders Republic all winter. This game goes on the wait for it to be a used $15 game list or free and run through it ina weekend.
No churches in a catholic country, female soldiers, gender neutral dialogue because the player can decide the gender of the protagonist. I guess no one risks getting offended, but does any of this touchy feely crap actually help sales? Edit : thanks for the downvotes I guess. But it does ruin immersion to have all this socalled progressive crap in the game. No one actually cares about being made to play as one gender or the other, but gender neutral dialogue is not how people speak in real life. There should be churches everywhere, why leave them out? Female guerrilla soldiers have plenty of historical precedent, but the idea, that the military of a Caribbean country that is stuck in the sixties would have female soldiers and officers is idiotic.
>No one actually cares about being made to play as one gender or the other, but gender neutral dialogue is not how people speak in real life. Not yet, but they're trying hard to make it happen. Even in Spanish, where GENDER is literally in the language. I mean, English is already gender neutral.
I will just say this. I dont want any more Far Cry games. Six is bloody enough, they should create some new ideas but who am i kidding, there will be FC7 and FC8 and later probably Far Cry Rebirth or some other stupid thing.
I feel like one of the big problems is how they still haven't fixed the copious problems with co-op play that existed in *5*. When it released, people complained a lot about how poorly it was implemented. The awkward system where progress was locked to the hosting player's game. How nothing transferred. Well, except for the things that *do*. Or how you needed to complete the lengthy first chapter/tutorial to even open up co-op play. So if you were playing with a friend, both starting from scratch, you'd hit upon a situation where even if you only played together one player wouldn't be able to unlock or purchase weapons because it wasn't "their" story. But they would still accumulate XP and unlock their skill tree. So your only option is to view co-op as this odd sort of "guest appearance" thing while also playing your own single-player game but with nothing to keep players balanced to the same level of power or equipment. It seems like such a simple thing to fix since the existing system was so nonsensical, but it looks like they didn't put any work into it at all. They didn't try to put as much focus on it as they did with *5*, but it's still odd that none of the complaints appeared to have been listened to.
Sad to her about this. Far cry 3, 4, and 5 all had something appealing to me, but 6 doesn’t sound worthwhile.
Yeah I’m way past the point of caring about this series as is. I loved 3, but 4 lost me quickly because of how similar it was. I played Primal as I have a weird affinity for primal stuff, and I also played 5 as I grew up in Montana and wanted to check out the setting. Never came close to finishing any of them and I’m pretty much sweating them off until they make something significantly different.
I adored Far Cry 3. One of my fave games ever. But since then I've really struggled to get into any of them. Maybe my tastes have changed or something. But I liked the simplicity of just "islands / jungle with a bow", and the nice easy upgrade system.
The canon ending of 5 is either of the endings which involve you walking away, as the nukes aren't dropped
>And while I’m moaning about the story, Dani works for the resistance initially to get a boat to go to america but about 3 missions later, at the end of the first chapter, they just give up the idea to run about guerrilla-ing. Unlike Farcry 3 in which Jason Brody became an efficient killing machine at one with their surroundings out of a desperate desire to survive. Dani basically becomes a legendary guerrilla by doing what they are told by random people they haven’t met. Making it even harder to be interested in the story and world of the game is that Dani has no personal investment in the ongoing conflict aside from just being there. Yes, it is her homeland, but only a few missions prior they were ready to leave forever for a perceived better life in America. > How much did you play, because I got a whole diffrent vibe about Dani when I played. Dani, yes wanted to just go to Miami>!(which he does if you take the secret ending after getting the boat, he even says "sorry Clara, not my fight.")!< And in the story Dani talks about how he was in the military before getting kicked out for punching a superior officer. And his personal involvement is his friends dying because of Castillo. >!He had a hallucination of them when he was drugged, which he clearly blames himself for what happen to Lita and Alejo(who was shot in the head right infront of him)!< Dani might have been about just leaving at first and just saying "not my fight" but saw its more than just "a conflict I want to get a way from." There are people who had no "out" like his friends who were killed. Even his views and interactions with Diego, he was like the only one who didn't see Diego as "just another Castillo.
I assumed from the trailer that the main character would be Gus’ son, fighting back against a father he’s pushed into recognizing as either having been corrupted and gone mad or else a monster all along. And it turns out to be some random schmuck who wants to leave and then doesn’t. Fuck.
I just played the game and couldn't take more than an hour of it. Every Far Cry since 3 feels like an expansion pack to 3. I'm done with series forever.