Far Cry 5

[Tpek]

This took me by complete surprise.

http://store.steampowered.com/app/552520/Far_Cry_5/

It seems that if in the previous games you went to remote tropical islands to fight animals, crazed natives and mad bandits,
this time you'll be going to Montana to fight religious rednecks :P

[JudgeDredd]

The way Ubisoft are going - with Far Cry 3 and 4, The Division and Ghost Recon:Wildlands, I'd be a fool not to pick this up. Their games seem to be like crack for gamers.

[jamus34]

I will give them credit for having the cojones to use a modern, real work location whose situation is sensitive to a number of people in this country.

[Jarhead0331]

I will give them credit for having the cojones to use a modern, real work location whose situation is sensitive to a number of people in this country.

Unless they use overplayed stereotypes. Then it will just be offensive.

[bbmike]

I will give them credit for having the cojones to use a modern, real work location whose situation is sensitive to a number of people in this country.

Unless they use overplayed stereotypes. Then it will just be offensive.

Nah, it's cool these days to target one specific group.

[Jarhead0331]

I will give them credit for having the cojones to use a modern, real work location whose situation is sensitive to a number of people in this country.

Unless they use overplayed stereotypes. Then it will just be offensive.

Nah, it's cool these days to target one specific group.

Of course. I meant offensive to white, Christian, conservative males. RPS is going to love this game! I heard they already have their WOT ready and they have rated it as the best game not made yet.

[Apocalypse 31]

The way Ubisoft are going - with Far Cry 3 and 4, The Division and Ghost Recon:Wildlands, I'd be a fool not to pick this up. Their games seem to be like crack for gamers.

The Division and Ghost Recon Wildlands made me sick of the Ubisoft open-world game model. It's just a big letdown, in the form of a beautifully crafted but soulless game.

• Beautiful, large, but lifeless open worlds
• A lack of depth to their content
• No endgame

1. What is the point of having a large, beautifully crafted open world environment when the game rarely takes advantage of it?

They do this in almost every game - but I only started to notice it with The Division; there was just no point in exploring large chunks of the map. There's no mission there, no incentive or benefit of traveling there. This also frustrated me during Ghost Recon Wildlands, where we had a beautiful map that had such diversity in terrain, only to see lame computer-generated areas of civilians and sparse enemy.


2. Content: "Mile Wide, Inch Deep"

Tons of content, but almost zero depth in any of it. GR:W had almost 30 boss missions (lots of content, right!?) where each mission was almost exactly the same. Clear an area of bad guys, capture person X, kill person X, secure intelligence item Y. Sometimes you have to be stealthy, other times you get to have fun (and awful stealth mechanics, where the entire world knows your 10-digit grid location the second you fart)

It felt like a 4-year old child had scattered the same, boring missions across the map.

3. No Endgame

This is a mixture of #1 & #2, but I feel like Ubisoft puts zero effort into getting the player to play their games twice. I would play GR:W for the rest of eternity if there were randomly generated missions in the end game (I'd probably even play the boring repetitive ones). I'd probably still be playing The Division is there was an endgame.

USE THE DAMN MAP! It's so large!


Edit:

#4 - AWFUL DLC
Enough with the clown camouflage and nonsensical branches off the game. Why do we have a Civil War weapons pack for GR:W? Why does anyone care about a DLC where you can race monster trucks? Talk about missing the mark.

[jamus34]

I will give them credit for having the cojones to use a modern, real work location whose situation is sensitive to a number of people in this country.

Unless they use overplayed stereotypes. Then it will just be offensive.

In their defense both FC3 & FC4 antagonists were pretty heavy caricatures. In all honesty the stereotyping they did with the protagonist in FC3 bothered me more (whiny, entitled, white boy) that anything else.

Of course I doubt they build in the depth of character and complexity that the situation they are trying to replicate involves. I'll leave at that to try to avoid derailing this into a personal opinion commentary on the state of US politics.

[JudgeDredd]

The way Ubisoft are going - with Far Cry 3 and 4, The Division and Ghost Recon:Wildlands, I'd be a fool not to pick this up. Their games seem to be like crack for gamers.

The Division and Ghost Recon Wildlands made me sick of the Ubisoft open-world game model. It's just a big letdown, in the form of a beautifully crafted but soulless game.

• Beautiful, large, but lifeless open worlds
• A lack of depth to their content
• No endgame

1. What is the point of having a large, beautifully crafted open world environment when the game rarely takes advantage of it?

They do this in almost every game - but I only started to notice it with The Division; there was just no point in exploring large chunks of the map. There's no mission there, no incentive or benefit of traveling there. This also frustrated me during Ghost Recon Wildlands, where we had a beautiful map that had such diversity in terrain, only to see lame computer-generated areas of civilians and sparse enemy.


2. Content: "Mile Wide, Inch Deep"

Tons of content, but almost zero depth in any of it. GR:W had almost 30 boss missions (lots of content, right!?) where each mission was almost exactly the same. Clear an area of bad guys, capture person X, kill person X, secure intelligence item Y. Sometimes you have to be stealthy, other times you get to have fun (and awful stealth mechanics, where the entire world knows your 10-digit grid location the second you fart)

It felt like a 4-year old child had scattered the same, boring missions across the map.

3. No Endgame

This is a mixture of #1 & #2, but I feel like Ubisoft puts zero effort into getting the player to play their games twice. I would play GR:W for the rest of eternity if there were randomly generated missions in the end game (I'd probably even play the boring repetitive ones). I'd probably still be playing The Division is there was an endgame.

USE THE DAMN MAP! It's so large!


Edit:

#4 - AWFUL DLC
Enough with the clown camouflage and nonsensical branches off the game. Why do we have a Civil War weapons pack for GR:W? Why does anyone care about a DLC where you can race monster trucks? Talk about missing the mark.

I agree they are samey. Very samey. And I've said as much here.

But for some reason, I keep getting pulled back in.

GR:W especially is my fire up and play game. Apart from the odd Alien:Isolation game, it's probably exclusively all I've played and there are now 290 hours in game. That's not all me. My daughter has been playing it a lot too but it's probably 50/50 in terms of time. She actually completed it and started again because I pointed out to her how much she was missing (kit wise) by not doing side missions.

[Gusington]

I have never played a Far Cry title - Primal was the most interesting looking one to me until they announced this one. I am interested in this one because of the setting.

[JasonPratt]

As a (basically) rural Christian, I understand the cult group as being anti-Christian borrowing Christian flavor for effect. Like the Space Marines in WH40K. ;) Christians and non-Christians can agree that they ought to be stopped.

Also, if the FC devs back through FC2 follow suit (the original team of FC1 having gone off to do the Crysis series among other things), the writing will be lots of grey on gray morality and no one will escape being tarred. Which is original sin, so that's fine.  O0

So no outrage from me. I'm looking forward to the scenery and gameplay as usual, especially the key addition of flyable planes (although I have to think that "grasshoppers" would be more handy). Since we've got a long way to go until Q?2018, I suspect I'll even dust off my uncompleted Yeti campaign from FC4.

[JudgeDredd]

I have never played a Far Cry title - Primal was the most interesting looking one to me until they announced this one. I am interested in this one because of the setting.

Far Cry 3 was superb. Great story, great gameplay start to finish. 4 was a reskin

[jomni]

Disagree with lifeless comment on Wildlands.  There's a lot of civilians, llamas and alpacas around. 

Agree that that the enemy and the missions are always in the same points of interest (except for convoys).  Wish they were random too. But there are several random patrols that may put you off once in a while.  The DLC is cheesy.

I started enjoying Wildlands once I bumped up the difficulty.  Normal difficulty is really quite boring and I wouldn't recommend it to anyone.  Once you increase enemy presence and their spotting skills, things get really hot.

[SirAndrewD]

I absolutely loved Far Cry 3.  The story was tight, and I was super brought in by the dumb, millennial protagonist losing his grasp on reality and descending into hardcore PTSD and violent madness as a consequence of his gamey killing spree.  It's really a subject and consideration that most games tend to ignore.  Character development is really something deeply missing in the video game narrative, and Far Cry 3 had it in spades.

I didn't connect with Far Cry 4's story at all.  Just couldn't get interested in the odd politics of a small Himalayan police state.   The strange Hindu supernatural subplot was also pretty well lost on me.  The mechanics just felt like Far Cry 3 all over again, just less compelling. 

That said, I'm on board with this one.  The close to home setting, customization and vehicles look very solid.  I think the story will connect more too   I'm getting a day one vibe.

[Arctic Blast]

I really enjoyed the past couple of Far Cry titles, so I'm in on this one.