Far Cry 6 and Far Cry series

I've only played 2, 3, and 4, but I'd say "not really."

In FC2, it's hard to really identify a villain. The player-character is a mostly amoral merc-for-hire who has no problem working for both sides of a bloody civil war and can kill unarmed people without any negative consequences. The conflict is also being manipulated by this shady character called the Jackal, who, IIRC, eventually reveals that he's purposely causing the situation to escalate so that the most violent people on both sides as well as the mercs-for-hire wipe each other out. There aren't many sympathetic characters aside from the few civilians and aid workers you encounter.

In FC3, not at all, though the game is sort of playing with and undermining the whole stereotype of the "action hero" through a mix of legitimate psychodrama and over-the-top satire. However, there's nothing sympathetic about the villains - they're thieves, murderers, and slave-traders. One of them is batshit crazy enough to be entertaining, but he's only "right" in the sense that he accurately predicts that the player-character risks losing his grip psychologically by doing what he's doing.

In FC4, the ending is sort of a "meet the new boss, same as the old boss" deal. The would-be king is terrible, but so are either of the people who can take over from him, at least to a degree. The protagonist's psyche and morality aren't really addressed in the way they were in 2 and 3.

Oh come on! I love how the discussions here go. It goes to show how little reflection is going on around games over all. That's why I really love Ubi for choosing the USA setting for FC5.

Finally, it turns the premise on itself. It's brilliant!
What? You guys didn't complain that tropical islands are not full of nothing but violent killers, evil voodoo cults and drug smugglers? Or do you think FC2 was a valid depiction of Africa and it's real problems? How about the Himalaya, don't think that was a completely over-the-top fucked up setting?

FC5 does exactly the same thing they have always done, it takes a near real location (I assure you, there Montana is not going to look exactly like the real one either) and messes it up and introduces a bogus over the top idea for why it gets to be the latest playground for your massively violent sandbox. There is absolutely no difference whatsoever, just instead of the real tragedies in those more exotic locations (like the drug smuggling cartels in the south pacific or the civil wars in African countries) they now take an American crisis like Waco and play it completely over the top.

But now, as it is set in a fictional USA, people start crying that it's oh so unrealistic. That doesn't make you critical now, it makes you blind to what these kinds of action games (and not just Far Cry but throw in your CoDs and whatnot) have done for the last 20 years anyway, just somewhere else.

Go on Ubisoft, make this as messed up as you possibly can, please!


Oh, just by the way, found this, it's pretty hillerious:
www.change.org/p/ubisoft-cancel-far-cry-5

And how many banana republics have you actually been to to make that judgement? (I know, questions like these are rhetorical on the internet)
Anyway, I'd argue no, FC's over the top violence and "everyone is out to kill you casually" makes little sense in any of the settings they chose so far. So why not use an American one for a change?
Don't need much story for that. Cult claims a huge piece of land and declares secession from the United States or something, sends armed goons to secure their new "borders", US law enforcement is held at a temporary standstill while internally chaos ensues. As I said, take Waco, throw in a couple of other cliches, play it completely over the top and the setting will be just as "valid" as in any other game of the series. There is no more or less realism needed here.
I think that's exactly the beauty of it. It goes to show how ridiculous games always are and always have been.

That, we can agree on. I also hope they'll have some new gameplay mechanics to offer this time. Got to give it to them though, despite the fact that the gameplay got stale long ago, the scenarios they come up with are always fresh and unexpected.

So basically this iteration is what would happen if the Branch Davidians weren't contained in Waco and instead escaped to Montana.

I don't know about you guys but I really like this set up, but then again I always had a morbid fascination with Cults and Militias.

Also, does it seem like the stars on their flags look like something from the Church of Scientology?

Mediocre-ish FPS with good level design and "conquer the compound" gameplay in open world...kind of jack of all trades, master of none. Can be load of fun, but always feel like there's something missing to get real recognition ( though that's Ubisoft in nutshell).
Really what is best for you depends on the setting. Primal/Blood Dragon is my favorite.

If you're looking to play Far Cry 3 (which I recommend), look at Ziggy's Mod on the nexus; really opens up the game and makes it much more enjoyable (if harder in some spots).

I've been playing Far Cry 3, it's fun.



Getting myself 'warmed up' for 5.

Far Cry 3 is probably the best FC. The problem with 4 (and I don't know about Primal) is that is more of the same, as a matter of fact it's like an expansion. It doesn't feel like a new game, they even recycled guns and shit from 3.
5 kinda interests me, but only because It's been a while, and the last "shooter" game I played (I'm still playing actually) was Wolfenstein 2. Being honest, it looks like more of the same for the second time, I hope it has something that catches my attention. Probably gonna spend a few days watching it on Twitch to get a better impression.

My decision on whether or not to play FC5 may depend heavily on whether or not there are any eagles in it.

Those had to be one of the most annoying and repetitive video game enemies ever. I could barely walk or drive from one location to another in FC4 without hearing, "Help, that eagle is attacking!" And I know Far Cry isn't the place to go for realism, but since when do eagles randomly dive out of the air and kill humans?

I don't really get it either, other than a perceived need to throw in more action and opportunities to gain XP. The new Fallout games, The Witcher 3, and ME:A all have randomly hostile wildlife too. And in the case of Fallout, I have to wonder how these mutated wild animals managed to evolve in close proximity to (often armed) humans if every encounter turns into a fight to the death. At least some of them ought to run away or just ignore humans altogether.