FarCry 5 is getting fairly postive reviews

[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.

 

[Canadamus Prime]

As much fun as it would be to utterly destroy an extremist American cult there's no way I'm paying $80 for the privilege.
Also fuck season passes and fuck microtransactions.
Basically I'm boycotting AAA games.

 

[RonHiler]

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.

How so, exactly? Given that you can completely ignore microtransactions entirely, and can still buy those items, how is this affecting your enjoyment of the game?

 

[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.

How so, exactly? Given that you can completely ignore microtransactions entirely, and can still buy those items, how is this affecting your enjoyment of the game?

Because the game's design and general balance will be built around encouraging me to do so. Examples for this being Diablo 3 at launch (what with the real-money auction-house) or Dead Space 3.

I've not played this particular game but I can probably guess how it plays out: Yes, I can get that objectively superior gun or item that expands my inventory slots by spending hours grinding 200 whatevers or I can simply open up my wallet and get it now. Devs will make things just a little extra time-consuming or a little less enjoyable to grind just to encourage you, the player, to pay a little bit extra.

 

[RonHiler]

Because the game's design and general balance will be built around encouraging me to do so. Examples for this being Diablo 3 at launch (what with the real-money auction-house) or Dead Space 3.

I've not played this particular game but I can probably guess how it plays out: Yes, I can get that objectively superior gun or item that expands my inventory slots by spending hours grinding 200 whatevers or I can simply open up my wallet and get it now. Devs will make things just a little extra time-consuming or a little less enjoyable to grind just to encourage you, the player, to pay a little bit extra.

Except you're wrong
1) Every single item that can be purchased for real money (in addition to in-game money) is simply a reskin of items that exist as non-premium items (exactly the same stats, just a different look). They are entirely cosmetic. There is nothing balanced around those cosmetic items.
2) I've played something like 8 or 10 hours total, maybe as much as 15. I currently have around $10K (more than enough to buy any single item in the game, including the premium items, which run around $2-3K). And I've bought quite a bit of stuff already (including a couple cars and a helicopter, some of the more spendy items). There is no "200 hour grind". Unless you think playing the game itself is a grind, that's a different argument.

You're jumping to conclusions, probably based on the BS a lot of people have posted in this thread, and what they (AAA publishers in general, Ubisoft in particular) have done in the past. Understandable. But I'm telling you, the micro-transactions in this game are completely ignorable and they won't change the experience a whit.

Honestly, I don't know why they bothered to put them in. Anyone that spends real world money on the items in this game is a fool, IMO.

It's fine if you don't like the game. Not everyone likes every game, and that's cool. But don't blame the micro-transactions. They are changing nothing about the gameplay. Period.

 

[TheFinish]

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.

How so, exactly? Given that you can completely ignore microtransactions entirely, and can still buy those items, how is this affecting your enjoyment of the game?

Because the game's design and general balance will be built around encouraging me to do so. Examples for this being Diablo 3 at launch (what with the real-money auction-house) or Dead Space 3.

I've not played this particular game but I can probably guess how it plays out: Yes, I can get that objectively superior gun or item that expands my inventory slots by spending hours grinding 200 whatevers or I can simply open up my wallet and get it now. Devs will make things just a little extra time-consuming or a little less enjoyable to grind just to encourage you, the player, to pay a little bit extra.

And you'd be guessing entirely wrong. I've beaten the game, and there's no grind. You unlock stuff by just liberating zones (which you're doing anyway) and by doing side missions. You can't actually use Silver Bars (the premium currency) to get better weapons, except for like, 4, only one of which is actually powerful, none of which are unique except for their paintjob. For nearly every other weapon, you have to play the game, because you can't buy them (with cash or bars) until you get enough Resistance Points by playing the game.

Other than that, Silver Bars can only be used for outfits and skins. And everything you can buy with them, you can buy with in-game cash. Cash you'll be swimming in by the end game if you just explore, hunt and fish a bit.

There's bad things with the game: the out-of-left-field ending, the pitiful weapon variety, the unbalanced vehicles. But the premium currency? The poster above me is right: I've no idea why they put them in at all.

 

[jademunky]

Because the game's design and general balance will be built around encouraging me to do so. Examples for this being Diablo 3 at launch (what with the real-money auction-house) or Dead Space 3.

I've not played this particular game but I can probably guess how it plays out: Yes, I can get that objectively superior gun or item that expands my inventory slots by spending hours grinding 200 whatevers or I can simply open up my wallet and get it now. Devs will make things just a little extra time-consuming or a little less enjoyable to grind just to encourage you, the player, to pay a little bit extra.

Except you're wrong
1) Every single item that can be purchased for real money (in addition to in-game money) is simply a reskin of items that exist as non-premium items (exactly the same stats, just a different look). They are entirely cosmetic. There is nothing balanced around those cosmetic items.
2) I've played something like 8 or 10 hours total, maybe as much as 15. I currently have around $10K (more than enough to buy any single item in the game, including the premium items, which run around $2-3K). And I've bought quite a bit of stuff already (including a couple cars and a helicopter, some of the more spendy items). There is no "200 hour grind". Unless you think playing the game itself is a grind, that's a different argument.

You're jumping to conclusions, probably based on the BS a lot of people have posted in this thread, and what they (AAA publishers in general, Ubisoft in particular) have done in the past. Understandable. But I'm telling you, the micro-transactions in this game are completely ignorable and they won't change the experience a whit.

Honestly, I don't know why they bothered to put them in. Anyone that spends real world money on the items in this game is a fool, IMO.

It's fine if you don't like the game. Not everyone likes every game, and that's cool. But don't blame the micro-transactions. They are changing nothing about the gameplay. Period.

I see. Alright, fair enough, I have judged Ubisoft too harshly. They do seem a far better bunch than EA or Activision.

As to why they even bothered to include them at all (which TheFinish also mentioned), it has been argued by some people that it allows a tiny amount of very-rich people to subsidize gaming for the rest of us. This is then passed off as an explaination for why the industry was oh-so-gracious in never raising the base price of the games.

 

[RonHiler]

I see. Alright, fair enough, I have judged Ubisoft too harshly. They do seem a far better bunch than EA or Activision.

As to why they even bothered to include them at all (which TheFinish also mentioned), it has been argued by some people that it allows a tiny amount of very-rich people to subsidize gaming for the rest of us. This is then passed off as an explaination for why the industry was oh-so-gracious in never raising the base price of the games.

As good an explanation as any I honestly don't know. Maybe they just thought they needed them because every other game has them?

I do agree with you, badly done micro-transactions can ruin an otherwise good game. Any game that balances around forced micro-transaction items goes directly on my no-play list.

 

[Canadamus Prime]

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).

Doesn't change anything. They still put microtransactions in the game so they can still take those microtrnasactions and shove them someplace unpleasant.

 

[sXeth]

It's fine if you don't like the game. Not everyone likes every game, and that's cool. But don't blame the micro-transactions. They are changing nothing about the gameplay. Period.

There's the potential "Yet" attached to that statement. Or an "Anymore" thats similarly feasible.

They went out of their way to add a system for buying the stuff with real money, so out of their way as to embed an online store page into a offline (for many) campaign mode.

So either there was a backpedal, note that they hastily threw out the "Only cosmetics" line, which has been the quick standard fallback post-Battlefront 2, even though that's blatantly an actual lie in this case.

Or there's the future case. Which is hypothetical, but Ubisoft has been dabbling in that for awhile now. Anytime they open their mouth to investors, or in business interviews outside their games, they are constantly banging on about wanting games as long-running service platforms. They added microtransactions onto Ghost Recon post-release already, and Rainbow Six (or tried, I've heard some of that one got walked back to). There's reason to be skeptical of the game, when they've already shown a trend towards messing with this stuff post-release, and the framework literally is already there in the game.

 

[RonHiler]

It's fine if you don't like the game. Not everyone likes every game, and that's cool. But don't blame the micro-transactions. They are changing nothing about the gameplay. Period.

There's the potential "Yet" attached to that statement. Or an "Anymore" thats similarly feasible.

Okay...yes. There's the potential they could patch in something that breaks the balance. True of any game, micro-transactions or not. Does that mean you are going to stop playing games because of what "might" happen? I'm really not sure I see what your point is here.

So either there was a backpedal, note that they hastily threw out the "Only cosmetics" line, which has been the quick standard fallback post-Battlefront 2, even though that's blatantly an actual lie in this case.

What's the blatant lie? I don't see it.

 

[sXeth]

It's fine if you don't like the game. Not everyone likes every game, and that's cool. But don't blame the micro-transactions. They are changing nothing about the gameplay. Period.

There's the potential "Yet" attached to that statement. Or an "Anymore" thats similarly feasible.

Okay...yes. There's the potential they could patch in something that breaks the balance. True of any game, micro-transactions or not. Does that mean you are going to stop playing games because of what "might" happen? I'm really not sure I see what your point is here.

So either there was a backpedal, note that they hastily threw out the "Only cosmetics" line, which has been the quick standard fallback post-Battlefront 2, even though that's blatantly an actual lie in this case.

What's the blatant lie? I don't see it.

"Cosmetics only". You can probably even find the thread on it down the page here a bit. It was kind of obvious, since they added on a comment about xp boosters or something immediately.

Yes, any game could hypothetically be patched to do whatever. But not every game comes from a developer who's stated intent (over and over) to do so, actually done so with their other games, and not every game already has the framework to do so embedded in its default version. There's even contrast to other Ubisoft games. AC : Origins and Child of Light both had similar inconsequential micro-transactions, but they didn't have a second currency set up, or the store page embedded into the regular gameplay.