FarCry 5 is getting fairly postive reviews

[Gethsemani_v1legacy]

The particular highlight I've heard was that reloading your helicopter is $1000 (ingame, not sure what the exchange for the real money is) bucks a pop. Which comes up as a prompt to do mid-combat, which is literally something an EA exec joked(?) about doing as a microtransaction tactic, in the moment paid reloads.

Yeah, I've encountered it a grand total of once (not that much of a flier in game) and even then I did not need those bombs or rockets to win, as the machine guns on the aircraft pack enough punch to get you through. I can see how it is worrying, but I also don't think it is an especially bad or nasty idea, since it is done with dollars and not Silver (the paid for currency), which means that you can't slam down real money for the insta-reload, at best you can use in-game money and then make up for it by using silver to purchase that weapon skin you were gonna use the cash on.

Comparisons to GTA are actually kind of worrying. GTA Online was bad for having its economy crippled to sell microtransactions (super-inflated ammo costs and poorly rewarded activities for instance, even before vanity cars or pay-to-win esque military vehicles/abilities).

For clarity, I am referring to the single player content of GTA V, not GTA:O. GTA V also had you swimming in ammo and free guns, but if you wanted some of the cooler toys or wanted to kit them out, you had to budget for it in the first third of the game. Not so much after that, unless you wanted to buy every aircraft and car in the game.

 

[Poetic Nova]

After hearing how bad the microtransactions are getting in this game, the little interest I had went down the drain.
I'll be buying Far Cry 4 for cheap one of these days. I remember having fun with that one.

 

[EternallyBored]

So my experience so far is that the economy isn't overly punishing, but it does expect you to have a gradual unlocking. Currently it feels a lot like the first 1/3rd of GTA V, where you have to actually consider what to buy and what to skimp on for now.

The particular highlight I've heard was that reloading your helicopter is $1000 (ingame, not sure what the exchange for the real money is) bucks a pop. Which comes up as a prompt to do mid-combat, which is literally something an EA exec joked(?) about doing as a microtransaction tactic, in the moment paid reloads.

Comparisons to GTA are actually kind of worrying. GTA Online was bad for having its economy crippled to sell microtransactions (super-inflated ammo costs and poorly rewarded activities for instance, even before vanity cars or pay-to-win esque military vehicles/abilities).

Stepping away from the microtransaction stuff. The co-ops 2 player only, which is kind of meh (the game does support 4 player somewhere in it, but not the co-op). Hunting/Fishing being primary activities are basically demerits for me (Far Cry's hunting and animal life has always been ludicrously badly implemented, and Fishing is just a busy work activity in any game I've ever run into it in)

I would imagine its because there really aren't any helipads in the game and not any real way to get more ammo or easily find another armed helicopter/plane. It also sidesteps the effective but really immersion breaking tactic of just wasting all your ammo then fast traveling back to a store and just grabbing another free helicopter as once you buy one you can spawn them over and over again.

Like Geth said though, there is literally nothing in the game that can stand up to the regular machine guns. $1000 is also not a lot of money when you are far enough in the game to actually be using armed helicopters or planes with any regularity. I'm sitting on $20000 just from an hour of dicking around with the fishing and hunting. You also get the paid for currency, silver bars, from outposts and exploring the map, so even that can be obtained pretty easily.

It suffers the Ubisoft, which is almost the opposite of GTA Online, issue of having micro-transactions being so completely unnecessary that it seems stupid that they exist in the first place. It's nice that basically anyone can unlock all the weapons and weapon skins with very little grinding, but it makes the microtransactions look more like they were added just because every AAA needs microtransactions.

 

[stroopwafel]

It suffers the Ubisoft, which is almost the opposite of GTA Online, issue of having micro-transactions being so completely unnecessary that it seems stupid that they exist in the first place. It's nice that basically anyone can unlock all the weapons and weapon skins with very little grinding, but it makes the microtransactions look more like they were added just because every AAA needs microtransactions.

Yeah, I see it more as these 'time savers' for people who want to cheat themselves out of the experience by skipping all the side content and rush straight to the ending.

 

[Samtemdo8_v1legacy]

So my experience so far is that the economy isn't overly punishing, but it does expect you to have a gradual unlocking. Currently it feels a lot like the first 1/3rd of GTA V, where you have to actually consider what to buy and what to skimp on for now.

The particular highlight I've heard was that reloading your helicopter is $1000 (ingame, not sure what the exchange for the real money is) bucks a pop. Which comes up as a prompt to do mid-combat, which is literally something an EA exec joked(?) about doing as a microtransaction tactic, in the moment paid reloads.

It's a 1000 game dollars, not microtransaction dollars, which is about 4 bear skins worth of money.
Which seems pretty fair with how overpowered planes and helicopters are in this game.

Isn' that the point regarding Planes and Helicopters being overpowered?

Those vehicles did more damage in wars than anything infantry has done.

And I am getting lots of misinformation and mixed messages regarding Microtransactions because I thought all of it was for cosmetics?

 

[aegix drakan_v1legacy]

If you pick a gun up in the open world you unlock it for future use, even if you drop it immediately afterwards without firing a shot. This allowed me to unlock the RPG quite literally five minutes after the tutorial segment ended, as I picked one up from a cargo truck.

Having played a few hours so far, I can say that the economy is not as bullshit as it first seems. The difference from previous Far Cry games is that the main source of your income are side quests, most notably the Prepper Stashes. A Prepper Stash generally awards around 1k, with other side quests ranging from 0 to 900 dollars in payout (from what I've seen, mostly coming down in the 400-900 range) so far. You can't buy everything you like at once, but the progression of money is steady enough that you will be able to afford a new gun or a few customizations after doing a few quests. And all the heavy weapons (RPG, Machine guns, Flamethrower) are found in such abundance that the only reason to buy them is because you want them RIGHT NOW and not an hour or so into the game when you first encounter enemies with them.

So my experience so far is that the economy isn't overly punishing, but it does expect you to have a gradual unlocking. Currently it feels a lot like the first 1/3rd of GTA V, where you have to actually consider what to buy and what to skimp on for now.

Oh, that's considerably better, then.

Still going to wait on it for a bit, until I've finished Nier, though.

 

[Smithnikov_v1legacy]

Looks like a future purchase so far. Shame the AAA price tag is too much to justify for me.

 

[sXeth]

So my experience so far is that the economy isn't overly punishing, but it does expect you to have a gradual unlocking. Currently it feels a lot like the first 1/3rd of GTA V, where you have to actually consider what to buy and what to skimp on for now.

The particular highlight I've heard was that reloading your helicopter is $1000 (ingame, not sure what the exchange for the real money is) bucks a pop. Which comes up as a prompt to do mid-combat, which is literally something an EA exec joked(?) about doing as a microtransaction tactic, in the moment paid reloads.

It's a 1000 game dollars, not microtransaction dollars, which is about 4 bear skins worth of money.
Which seems pretty fair with how overpowered planes and helicopters are in this game.

Isn' that the point regarding Planes and Helicopters being overpowered?

Those vehicles did more damage in wars than anything infantry has done.

And I am getting lots of misinformation and mixed messages regarding Microtransactions because I thought all of it was for cosmetics?

Everything that you buy in the game (guns, vehicles, cosmetic stuff, gun mods, etc) has two prices. You either buy it with the ingame currency (to which the primary method to get reasonable seems to be hunting animals for skins based on every comment I've seen anywhere) or Silver Bars, which is the obfuscation* currency you buy with real money (or get a handful of times over the course of the game).

This is essentially how AC : Origins worked as well. Though that didn't bother separating the currency, there were just drachmas you could earn ingame or buy outright with real money. As of now, everything can be bought with either. But having the two separate currencies to start with, along with the whole needing to connect to the online store just to browse an ingame merchant (which makes me wonder if the games even playable offline, but even that unnecessary wait time is annoying) would imply that the game intends to have microtransaction specific items in the future, or they were rather hastily switched out.



*"Obfuscation Currency" being my own label for the practice of calling your microtransaction money literally anything so long as you don't call it dollars or an actual currency in order to distract people from realizing what they're actually spending. The first one I recall offhand being Microsoft Points for Xbox Live.

 

[FakeSympathy]

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

 

[Johnny Novgorod]

Future purchase for sure. Even if it's just Far Cry 3 6.0 I like that game enough.

 

[thepyrethatburns]

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

Meh. Polygon's critic is pissed that the game doesn't cater to his political views. (You want a serious discussion about gun violence in a Far Cry game? Is this the first time you've played a Far Cry game, Ben?) It happens all the time when a writer who is reduced to writing reviews about video games or movies made for Tweens decides that they just have to make it about their personal politics.

 

[Squilookle]

Hicktown USA is about the last place on Earth I'd ever want to visit in a videogame, shooter or otherwise. When Far Cry goes back to the road less travelled, exotic places around the world you don't see in every other franchises, then I'll be back on board.

This one though? Not interested.

 

[Gethsemani_v1legacy]

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

Eurogamer shared much the same criticism. My distinct impression from both reviews was that they badly wanted Far Cry 5 to be a scathing inspection of current US politics and felt the game didn't take it far enough. Which is kind of weird, because that criticism was nowhere to be found in Far Cry 2, 3 or 4, all being games set in places, or proxies of real places, that has serious issues that the game touched up on. When you are shooting militias fighting a civil war in an unnamed country in Africa it is apparently just a cool backdrop, but when the same militias are fighting a civil war in the USA, you suddenly need a serious exploration of contemporary US politics.

As much as I am a SJW and want my games to be political, I don't quite understand the position. Marketing played up the main story of FC 5 (and it is garbage so far, with few hopes of improving), but it never really touched on the political angle and Far Cry games since Far Cry 2 have been pieces about how violence is cyclical, bad and corrupts those who use it. So why did these reviewers suddenly expect FC 5 to be a solemn introspection on the fallacies of US politics, when the series so far has been anything but that?

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

I dunno. 6.5/10 seems alright for "shit story, good gameplay, another open world game" to me.

Then again, I don't think 6.5/10 is bad, just that it's not setting the world on fire. Maybe I'm weird, I dunno.

 

[Samtemdo8_v1legacy]

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?

 

[B-Cell_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.