FarCry 5 is getting fairly postive reviews

[Neurotic Void Melody]

Will eventually get this. Once have managed to afford living properly and am not in anti-money. And all the dlc's out. Hopefully there's still the variety of colourful characters to meet and befriend along the way

 

[Samtemdo8_v1legacy]

it doesn't take a genious to read what the guy is saying, nor the things he meant but sanitised/didn't put into words

"Irrelevant to what the review said here's what I'm saying he's saying solely so I can get mad at it" isn't the strongest argument. I get that it's from polygon and polygon is the anti gamer devil but you gotta watch your heart man, this isn't healthy.

The review is right. The story is toothless and tonally incoherant. Attemtping to portray the Seeds as real life villains one moment, only to backtrack and make them cartoon villains with super powers the next. They couldn't even have it be a realistic cult, because the far majority of the members you fight are brainwashed and mind controlled. Not by real life methods mind you, but by magic flowers and music boxes.

Nothing in that review is wrong. The story is weak and deserves criticism. You just don't like it's source. I'm sure you'll read some reddit review that regurgitates the same points a week from now and will agree with it. ?\_(&#12484_/?

The author clearly appears to have wanted Far Cry to get serious and deep all of the sudden because hey, we?re in America now so you better make a pro-lefty ?suitable? political statement when given the chance. What?s sad is the developers made a point of saying they actually visited and spoke with several Montana residents to get a feel for what they?re ?really like? before putting them in the game. Because again, yes I?m sure wacko troped up neocon-ish cults and halfwits represent a soundly rational sampling of the state?s inhabitants. They also stated the game wasn?t about slinging mud at Trump or his supporters, but it sounds like that still found its way in there as well, unsurprisingly.

But that?s all beside the point, as I?m really not surprised at the lack of integrity of Ubisoft as a publisher or developer anymore, regardless of politics. The point was this piece wasn?t a ?game review? in the slightest. If it was really an honest attempt at a review he might have been bothered to talk about-what is it we?re after here...oh yes gameplay given that it?s, well, a game. Instead he rambles on and on about the failed attempt to turn the game into a modern political statement. It was agenda-fishing hack journalism at best.

 

[EternallyBored]

Is it safe for you guys to spoil the story now because I wanna know what's at stake or if the villain is even equal to that of Vaas?

In my opinion? Not even close, they try to do 4 crazy Vaas like characters but none of them get enough characterization or play off each other very well, they are all just isolated in their region and maybe have 1 conversation with the Father before you inevitably kill them.

The game also kind of pussies out of giving the cult any real weight because it all comes down to drugs and other spoiler things, rather than brainwashing it treads too far into outright magical mind control in a way that makes me think Ubisoft doesn?t know how drugs, brainwashing, or cults work. The cult also captures you way too much and too easily instead of a story mission where you get captured you?ll just be wandering around and get a message that the cult is after you and you?ll get swarmed by an infinite number of enemies with magical drug bullets that knock you out with one shot. That type of thing happens multiple times per region, to the point that it makes you question why the cult is letting you destroy their stuff when they can apparently instantly track you down and hit you with magic knock out bullets or psychic hallucination drugs any time they want.

As for stakes, it?s all contained within the county, we don?t really get anything about the outside world until the end:

Spoiler

where the cult seems to win either way, of the two main endings you either end up trying to escape the county with the other resistance characters and someone turns on the radio that?s playing the magic cult mind control music, so it ends looking like you get mind controlled as your trying to escape. The other ending involves a nuke going off as the cult leader is defeated, so either the cult was right about the end of the world, or the leader had a nuke hidden away and the place you have been trying to save gets destroyed.

 

[aegix drakan_v1legacy]

Of course it's getting positive reviews. It's as safe as a shooter can be. I'm not interested. I want better movement, better gunplay and more interesting progression in my shooters.

Soo...Warframe, I guess?

RPG shit isn't what I meant by progression. Progression could be the way you explore, the linearity and the new enemies that appear. Ubisoft's open world mission formula, stats and upgrade trees aren't that appealing to me.

I was thinking more the fact that Warframe has ridiculously mobile movement than I was thinking about progression, but fair enough.

 

[CaitSeith]

snip

"Ubisoft wanted the evocative art of these religious references for the marketing of Far Cry 5; but the game itself does nothing with them."

It sounds like another case of unmet expectations.

 

[aegix drakan_v1legacy]

I read the Polygon review. I took away that his main complaint was that the game has all these current, hot topic social and political themes and tosses them by the wayside in order to be goofy and not actually step on anyone's toes

Which is a shame, because plenty of people in comment sections everywhere are screaming bloody murder about their toes. "Ermagerd, more libtards ruining a good game by forcing politics into games!" Ermagerd, they took potshots at trump over the wall by making a joke about a wall on Canada!" "Ermagerd I'm not buying this because all it does it mock conservatives and I'm not ok with that!" "Ermagerd this is an attack on christianity by equating it with a cult!" etc etc etc.

Soo...I think it's safe to say that any attempt to sidestep actual political discourse for fear of offending anyone failed spectacularly.

 

[Aiddon_v1legacy]

Pretty much. The problem with Far Cry 5 is that it chickens out when it comes to indicting the cult properly despite it trying to delve deeper into the sociopolitical issues going on. It's the same problem Assassin's Creed ran into in that it's trying to do this "both sides, moral complexity" bs, but just ends up looking milquetoast, spineless, directionless, and lightweight as a result. Contrast this with Wolfenstein II wherein it went full-in with the "fuck white supremacy" angle and came off better as a result.

 

[Gethsemani_v1legacy]

snip

"Ubisoft wanted the evocative art of these religious references for the marketing of Far Cry 5; but the game itself does nothing with them."

It sounds like another case of unmet expectations.

Yeah and I totally get that facet of the criticism. Far Cry 5's main story and its' sloppy execution is my main complaint with the game so far. What I don't get is the more general tone that suggests that the game is somehow failing for not delivering introspection on current US politics.

 

[Chewster]

I'm thinking about this one. It looks fun enough, and who doesn't like killing cultists? The Inquisitor in me approves. Not a huge fan of season passes, even if some of the DLC campaigns look fun, and super not a big fan of the apparent grind. Enemies drop like $5-8 of in-game currency, and a new gun is like $7000+ to get, unless you spring for microtransactions.

Still, if its on sale in a few months, and they patch in a better economy, I'll probably get this one.

See, even if this is implemented well, the fact that there is even the option to pay real money just to unlock content that is already in the game and paid for just rubs me hard the wrong way. Give us a challenge to unlock new content, sure, that's what games are about but why the fuck do you need more of our bread, you selfish fucks? We know the AAA industry sucks the bag already, it's only a matter of time before they just remove the in game currency altogether and force us to buy "UbiPoints" or some such garbage. No. Fuck off.

I already got burned on Street Fighter V, I'll be damned if I buy another game like this again. Reading about it after purchase (stupid move), people seem fine with fight money but it's just a fucking drag to have to grind just to unlock classic characters like Blanka and Guile by playing Survival when they could have made some interesting challenges instead.

I hope this bullshit comes back to bite these stupid companies straight in the ass. Hard pass on this for me.

 

[KingsGambit_v1legacy]

It's the same as any other "The Ubisoft Game". If you enjoy The Ubisoft Game, this is the game for you. It has a map full of "content", only with a twist...you don't have to climb towers in this version of The Ubisoft Game. Perks, RPG elements unlocked by doing 10 of and killing 10 of Y, strongholds to takeover, that's the game. This is a new version of The Ubisoft Game and recommended for fans of previous versions.

 

[Rangaman]

I was gonna post this as a standalone discussion, but fuck it;

So apparently Polygon game 6.5 out of 10 because the game isn't "political" enough. They are salty because it doesn't tackle gun control or other controversies within America. Here's the article: https://www.polygon.com/2018/3/26/17164878/far-cry-5-review-ps4-pc-xbox-one

Well, if it sets the stage to tackle or satirize those issues and then doesn't...yeah, that's a missed opportunity right there, and worth docking a few points. From what I've heard, the game is basically too afraid of offending people and turning away customers, so it does nothing interesting or controversial with its characters. And that, my friend, is bad writing. I know you want to get people's Polygon hate-boners going, but that's just weak and defending shitty practices.

OT: Good to hear it turned out alright. Ubisoft have been churning out far too many mediocre sandbox games over the last few years. Now if they bring back Rayman and Prince of Persia, shelve Assassin's Creed and stop churning out sequels annually, godammit, they will be redeemed in my eyes.

I might play it. At some point in the future, when I have money and time. University, much as I'm liking it so far, is expensive as hell.

 

[jademunky]

It......looks like an ubisoft game.

Not bad or anything, just, gah microtransactions and season passes and it would have to drop down to under $10 (with ALL the DLC) for me to ever consider.

 

[jademunky]

What I don't get is the more general tone that suggests that the game is somehow failing for not delivering introspection on current US politics.

This, to me is the far greater sin.

There does not seem to be anything gameplaywise that would grab my attention and earn my $60. A major developer taking a genuine stand on a contemporary political issue might.

 

[Samtemdo8_v1legacy]

Of course it's getting positive reviews. It's as safe as a shooter can be. I'm not interested. I want better movement, better gunplay and more interesting progression in my shooters.

The Metro Exodus will be best FPS this year and that could be one of the best of all time.

I played the first for about an hour. It stunk. Way too scripted, with the typical Call of Duty 4 gameplay of waiting for the NPC to catch up and open the door for you. The action was boring.

Exodus is more open ended. more like Stalker

otherwise first 2 Metro games are some of the best linear story driven FPS i have ever played. almost as good as Half life imo. they have innovative gasmask feature that distinct from COD. you just played for one hour. play it more. they are fairly long and varied games.

Metro 2033 and Last Light were fun for a while but the encounters were too similar and unimpressive. The standoff shooting sequence near the end of the first was an exception, but most of the game?s creatures aren?t fun to fight. They movement like cardboard with four joints, and the humans aren?t much better.

Attention to detail is important for shooters since the gameplay itself is so basic. Gas mask started out interesting but got annoyingly overused. The games look amazing still to this day but they really need to work on animations, gun physics, destructibility, etc. for me to play any more of them. STALKER got away with it because it was exceptionally better in other ways, but there is no shortage of more technically impressive linear shooters these days.

 

[saramedina5655]

Use several hours of your spare time to acquire extra $1000 on your paypal account each week... Get more details on following site>>>

.......... ht tp://Help80.com

 

[sXeth]

OT: Good to hear it turned out alright. Ubisoft have been churning out far too many mediocre sandbox games over the last few years. Now if they bring back Rayman and Prince of Persia, shelve Assassin's Creed and stop churning out sequels annually, godammit, they will be redeemed in my eyes.

I might play it. At some point in the future, when I have money and time. University, much as I'm liking it so far, is expensive as hell.

I don't think they've had an annual sequel for a few years now. Other then Just Dance (probably)

EDIT With some background checking while my lunch cooks:

Just Dance releases yearly.
Far Cry 5 > Far Cry 4 = 4 years (If you count Primal, its still 2)
AC : Origins > AC : Syndicate = 2 Years
Ghost Recon Wildlands > Phantoms = 3 Years
South Park FBW > South Park SoT = 3 years
Watch_Dogs 2 > Watch_Dogs = 2 Years
Grow Up > Grow Home = 1 Year (but I'd be surprised if folks were even including this as a Ubisoft game)
Rainbow Six Siege > Patriots = 4 Years

 

[Phoenixmgs_v1legacy]

I love how transparent the gaslighting is with the "oh no, I'm critizing it because it's not taking a stand on contemporary politics is, that's valid rigth?".

See, it's blatant, that the people who type this soft phrase, implicitly believe, that were the game 'political', it would present it in a manner that panders to their sensibilites. Meaning, that while a variant of that neutral sentence is being written, contextually, the sentence itself is used to soft push a specific political stance. Resulting in both the argument and the arguer to be disingenous.

In this case, when people type the light, not really objectionable statement mentioned in the first paragraph, they really mean, that they wish the game actually commited to being whatever degree of anti-trump/republican/conservative/yaddayadda they feel is acceptable. They were denied this petty satisfaction, so they lambast the game. The Polygon article is blatantly sour grapes over this, the writer can barely contain it. (Yeah, I'm sure he would have been chipper if the game turned out to be critical of his political stance.)

It's your standard display of dishonest muck racking, that has existed since forever. And it should be respected about as much as that phrase implies.

I would give lip service to the less savvy/jaded people, who can be swayed by the superficial argument. Conned really, since these people are genuinely convinced by the face value logic of the critism. Sadly, it's basis and intent is not what they think it is. There's examples of both of these types in this thread.

Familiar suspects, with very open positions in the past taking the soft stance for some reason, despite not being soft in their beliefs. And people who seem to be swayed by the edge of the smart sounding argument.

Sad part is that most don't recognise this. It's not like this is the first time this type of situation is on display. It's pretty standard MO, really.

I haven't played the game but from a review I watched the game is pretty political on the, I guess, low-brow side with lots of jokes at the expense of Trump and the current situation. So the game is definitely political at times. I don't think it's an invalid criticism to make that the game should've tackled the subject with more substance. It's basically the same thing as a critic saying they didn't like a character's arc and thought it should've tackled the character's issues (say mental illness) in a more substantive manner. Or say the movie Get Out just bringing up race for only joke purposes and not exploring the issue beyond that. There's really no wrong way to criticize a piece of art, either it resonates with you or it doesn't and eloquently expressing the underlining reasons behind it is what makes a good critic IMO (not the end score given, but respecting and understanding the critic's take on it). There's LOTS to criticize in gaming with regards to characters, stories, themes, and writing in general because writing in the medium is quite shit. Game journalism/criticism is pretty bad overall so the Polygon review/article is probably a bad piece but their criticism is probably legit but poorly written/argued. I'm personally not going to play FarCry 5 because it's Ubisoft: The Game and I've played that game already so even if the game's storytelling were a stroke of genius, I'd probably just watch it on Youtube instead of playing it.

 

[RonHiler]

Seeing quite a lot of misinformation in this thread. If you don't like the genre or the studio, that's cool. But maybe don't make up false reasons for your dislike. Just say "not my thing" and move on. About half the posts in this thread are either so misleading with their information it almost has to be deliberate spin, or are just flat out false.

To set the record straight about the micro-transactions. Yes, they are there. No, you don't have to use them. You can get everything in the game (even the premium items) without spending any extra real world dollars, and without excessive in-game grinding (in-game money, contrary to what some are saying, is plentiful in the game). Further, those items which are for sale for silver bars are just reskins of other items you get for in-game money, so they are very much cosmetic (and, to reiterate, can also be bought with in-game money as well, you don't need to spend real money to buy them).

The store menus come up within less than a second on my system. In fact, they are so fast I didn't even know it was connecting to a server at all, it's about as fast as I would expect a menu to appear in any game (maybe half a second or so). This also feels like a made-up complaint to justify a pre-existing bias.

Personally, I'm having a blast with it. More fun than any other FC game I've played (I've played most, but not all, and have never finished one [my attention span is too short]. This one, though, feels like a game I will finish, as I'm many hours in and there are no signs of fatigue yet, having too much fun). That's just me though. YMMV.

I get it, people don't like Ubisoft. Or they don't like open world first person shooters. Good enough. I don't like those Tell-Tale style episodic story games, they're not my thing. But I'm not going to make up fake reasons I don't play Walking Dead or whatever.

 

[Zykon TheLich_v1legacy]

Well, I decided to give it a go, so here's dome incoherent rambling from someone who's never played a Far Cry Game before, who is 12 hours in, according to steam.

I now understand what people mean by "Ubisoft game". Wide open world, lots of pretty much the same thing to do over and over, nothing I've seen so far feels particularly memorable. It feels like a cross between GTA and an FPS, and as a a Fallout fan I was hoping it might have a bit of that mixed in as well, but it really doesn't.

The little bits of story content so far have actually been quite decent, the escape part at the start was good, probably my favourite part of the game (didn't like the vehicle section though), even if I generally don't like the sudden incongruous way you're railroaded into them: see Eternally Bored's post http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/jump/9.1048759.24223309

I was kind of hoping for it to be a bit more stealth/survival and a bit less shooty shooty. The rate at which enemies pop up make it feel just a bit off. Where the fuck do all these guys come from? Feels a bit jarring in a gameworld that is supposed to be set in the real world. I get it is a bit goofy at times but still, it feels like France in 1940 being overrun by the Nazi warmachine, not bumfuck nowhere being terrorised by Jeb and Cleetus. Which is probably what they were going for, but it just doesn't ring true to me.

MICROTRANSACTIONS!!!! OH NOES....really haven't found it to be an issue. You get in game cash, buy upgrades to weapons at what I'd consider to be a reasonable rate. I've never felt like it was shoved into my face.

Overall...so far it's OK, reasonably entertaining and I'll play more of it, but it hasn't really set my world aflame, I won't be buying any other Ubisoft games off the back of it.

 

[jademunky]

To set the record straight about the micro-transactions. Yes, they are there. No, you don't have to use them. You can get everything in the game (even the premium items) without spending any extra real world dollars, and without excessive in-game grinding (in-game money, contrary to what some are saying, is plentiful in the game). Further, those items which are for sale for silver bars are just reskins of other items you get for in-game money, so they are very much cosmetic (and, to reiterate, can also be bought with in-game money as well, you don't need to spend real money to buy them).

Sorry but why does this count as a "fake" reason for disliking something? It certainly affects how the dev's designed the game and impacts my enjoyment of it.