Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Welcome to rpgcodex.net, a site dedicated to discussing computer based role-playing games in a free and open fashion. We're less strict than other forums, but please refer to the rules.
"This message is awaiting moderator approval": All new users must pass through our moderation queue before they will be able to post normally. Until your account has "passed" your posts will only be visible to yourself (and moderators) until they are approved. Give us a week to get around to approving / deleting / ignoring your mundane opinion on crap before hassling us about it. Once you have passed the moderation period (think of it as a test), you will be able to post normally, just like all the other retards.
You will play as Not commies against Not Fulgencio Batista? What is next? You will have Not Fidel as a latin american Not Gendalf saving the Not commie guerrillas? Man, Ubisoft are really running out of places to do their "Made by multiethinic, multi religious, multi race team of white canadian progressives" safe spaces worlds. This is so safe that I wouldnt be surprised if Disney made a park ride about it with the name "Revolution TM", dont forget to buy your not Che Guevara shirt.
What the fuck did you people expect...a company making a game with a real stance? And if they did go 'Viva la revoluccion fuck this immoral Capitalist American-propped Pig' it'll be twenty, thirty pages of you all bashing that, too, or did you expect this game to go 'topple a communist dictatorship, about time!!!!'
"Dictators bad but the rebels will also be bad pawns of bad people" - this will be the second time the series has done it, as we saw in 4. Didn't matter if Ajay killed every damn Drug-infused pawn of Pagan Min the Rebel leaders go on to be fuckwits because oh he can't just mow them down either. 2 just says 'war is bad and so are bloodthirsty idiotic warmongers'. 3 says 'wow being a violent prick is bad'. So on and so on. They're stances, sure, but safe, nearly apolitical stances, aesop level shit.
Uh...Ajay could mow them down. After you found whoever you sided with post-game you could shoot them. Sure, no cutscenes happen after shooting them, but what do you expect?
probably the same people who would have complained michele amatore didn't deserve a monument because he wasn't italian.
protip: it wasn't fascists, they actually celebrated him and his monument. speaks volume.
Also fuck "LatinX' it's not going to catch on stop trying to making it catch on. I remember there was a time when even "Latin-" whatever was controversial.
This is an idiotic trend brought up by white people. Hispanics don't give a fuck if someone is "latinx," when, in fact, the language only has masculine and feminine pronouns. You're either a chico or chica. Simple as that.
Re: the Casting: who the fuck caresss. You know who moved to Latin America? A shitload of Italians. Bam done. Fucking 60% of Argentina or whatever is partially Italian within the last hundred and fifty years.
can confirm, half of our slang are just italian words thrown randomly into spanish that morphed through the years into another word. In some cases. Some didn't change at all.
and I wouldn't have it any other way
but yeah "latinx" is pretty moronic when the whole language is based upon gender pronoums. How are you even supposed to say "che wxchx querés ir a tomar unx birritx? vamos con lxs pibxs."? It sounds like shit.
Honestly there's already a psuedo-Neuter prefix we can have if we """"""""""""need""""" to have a neuter Spanish language:
The Latini, -i. Go back to the Latin roots and just smack -I on everything as it's a plural; a neuter plural, innit? Los, Las, Lis, (Lys)? I just cooked that up in a minute and that due to my passing knowledge of the Latin language (thanks, Middle School Latin class) and ethnography. Not that any change is gonna happen across any of the Hispanosphere or Lusosphere nations and definitely not the Francosphere.
The fuck is 'x'? anyway. In my English it's just 'Z' - Xenomorph, Xenocide, Xenon - all comes out as 'Zenomorph', 'Zenocide', 'Zenon' - is it supposed to be 'ks'? Latin-eks? Latin-zs?
You're right, that'd work - but it'd still sound like shit. Just slightly less so than trying to cramp an X in everything. People here actually change the vocals to I when trying to mock someone, sort of like tYpIng LiKe ThIsS
Also fuck "LatinX' it's not going to catch on stop trying to making it catch on. I remember there was a time when even "Latin-" whatever was controversial.
This is an idiotic trend brought up by white people. Hispanics don't give a fuck if someone is "latinx," when, in fact, the language only has masculine and feminine pronouns. You're either a chico or chica. Simple as that.
Re: the Casting: who the fuck caresss. You know who moved to Latin America? A shitload of Italians. Bam done. Fucking 60% of Argentina or whatever is partially Italian within the last hundred and fifty years.
can confirm, half of our slang are just italian words thrown randomly into spanish that morphed through the years into another word. In some cases. Some didn't change at all.
and I wouldn't have it any other way
but yeah "latinx" is pretty moronic when the whole language is based upon gender pronoums. How are you even supposed to say "che wxchx querés ir a tomar unx birritx? vamos con lxs pibxs."? It sounds like shit.
Honestly there's already a psuedo-Neuter prefix we can have if we """"""""""""need""""" to have a neuter Spanish language:
The Latini, -i. Go back to the Latin roots and just smack -I on everything as it's a plural; a neuter plural, innit? Los, Las, Lis, (Lys)? I just cooked that up in a minute and that due to my passing knowledge of the Latin language (thanks, Middle School Latin class) and ethnography. Not that any change is gonna happen across any of the Hispanosphere or Lusosphere nations and definitely not the Francosphere.
The fuck is 'x'? anyway. In my English it's just 'Z' - Xenomorph, Xenocide, Xenon - all comes out as 'Zenomorph', 'Zenocide', 'Zenon' - is it supposed to be 'ks'? Latin-eks? Latin-zs?
That's reasonable if anyone actually cared about this instead of being a obnoxious dick to people. Although I see a problem. It still sounds off. Is it going to be Latin-aye or Latin-ee? Lat-ee-knee?
I dont want politics on videogames as most video game developers dont have the mental equipment necessary to be able to discuss politics without being preachy morons, I just dont see the point of this, it is like Ubisoft want the cake and eat it too, hinting political controversy and then going on lame storytelling to avoid being cancelled by the twitter morons. This has a really bad impact on the quality of the storytelling and world building for absolute no gain.
I like political elements in stories. I'd even somewhat agree with liberal arts majors that "every story is political" to at least a very small degree. However what I fucking hate is obvious agendas, which is the actual problem in most modern media writing.
I have to say though, Ubisoft are better than most. It's the absence of "hey look at these dumb Trump voters!!!" that pissed off the San Francisco types with Far Cry 5. If the end result of this is a Far Cry 2 style "humans are generally shitty and all sides suck" then I'm firmly behind that philosophy. I really doubt they're going to make a "Che was a hero!!!" game. More likely it takes elements of the shitty aspects of all real world sides to create a relatively generic story about authoritarians being bad, which again I can get behind.
Also fuck "LatinX' it's not going to catch on stop trying to making it catch on. I remember there was a time when even "Latin-" whatever was controversial.
This is an idiotic trend brought up by white people. Hispanics don't give a fuck if someone is "latinx," when, in fact, the language only has masculine and feminine pronouns. You're either a chico or chica. Simple as that.
Re: the Casting: who the fuck caresss. You know who moved to Latin America? A shitload of Italians. Bam done. Fucking 60% of Argentina or whatever is partially Italian within the last hundred and fifty years.
can confirm, half of our slang are just italian words thrown randomly into spanish that morphed through the years into another word. In some cases. Some didn't change at all.
and I wouldn't have it any other way
but yeah "latinx" is pretty moronic when the whole language is based upon gender pronoums. How are you even supposed to say "che wxchx querés ir a tomar unx birritx? vamos con lxs pibxs."? It sounds like shit.
Honestly there's already a psuedo-Neuter prefix we can have if we """"""""""""need""""" to have a neuter Spanish language:
The Latini, -i. Go back to the Latin roots and just smack -I on everything as it's a plural; a neuter plural, innit? Los, Las, Lis, (Lys)? I just cooked that up in a minute and that due to my passing knowledge of the Latin language (thanks, Middle School Latin class) and ethnography. Not that any change is gonna happen across any of the Hispanosphere or Lusosphere nations and definitely not the Francosphere.
The fuck is 'x'? anyway. In my English it's just 'Z' - Xenomorph, Xenocide, Xenon - all comes out as 'Zenomorph', 'Zenocide', 'Zenon' - is it supposed to be 'ks'? Latin-eks? Latin-zs?
That's reasonable if anyone actually cared about this instead of being a obnoxious dick to people. Although I see a problem. It still sounds off. Is it going to be Latin-aye or Latin-ee? Lat-ee-knee?
Its Latin-ee according to my brief look at Wikipedia. (either the i in grid or the i in machine, depending on the length) Well, I still say it sounds stupid, but I think I'll use it whenever someone insists on using Latin-X. Now that I think of it, that sounds like a name a X-Men writer would come up with. Latin-X, the mutant whose superpower is throwing fireballs, because Latinos are spicy mofos.
I suspect they will gloss over both the dictator and the player character's ideologcal agenda, so you can imagine being a freedom fighter struggling against a commie dictator, or a socialist revolutionary fighting a capitalist tyrant, and neither will contradict the plot.
I dunno, one thing Far Cry games have as a consistent theme is that both sides are terrible in some way. Anyone going in expecting to be the noble freedom fighter will get shit on hard. Although I haven't touched 5 yet, that could have changed up the formula.
No you're fighting some semi-Monarchical Caudillo family dictator who has no obvious political leanings of any note, other than 'Yara must be strong and the people are just short-sighted but if we're strong we'll lead them right' for the fifth time. Oh so sorry to burst your bubble.
I dunno, one thing Far Cry games have as a consistent theme is that both sides are terrible in some way. Anyone going in expecting to be the noble freedom fighter will get shit on hard. Although I haven't touched 5 yet, that could have changed up the formula.
Bets that one Rebel leader is some drug-gang lord taking advantage of the situation and another is some Christian Conservative Big-Tent guy (or gal) who'll turn back the clock on Yaran(?) society.
I have to say though, Ubisoft are better than most. It's the absence of "hey look at these dumb Trump voters!!!" that pissed off the San Francisco types with Far Cry 5. If the end result of this is a Far Cry 2 style "humans are generally shitty and all sides suck" then I'm firmly behind that philosophy.
I feel like FC4 didn't get enough praise for its narrative design. Beyond Min who was simply a narcissistic guy who didn't really care about being a dictator as much as he did about enjoying himself, the two rebel faction leaders are quite impartial representations of a radical traditionalist on one hand and a progressive revolutionary on the other. And the player can empathize to a certain extent with all three of them since they all have their idealistic side (or simply charm in Min's case) despite the fact that they also are portrayed as either doing or ordering acts that range from morally questionable to outright immoral.
I guess that many people felt that it was too much of a reskin of FC3 as to warrant too much praise, but I think that it surpassed its predecessor in every way. FC3 has Vass going for it, but that's about it. And while he was a well designed, iconic sort of character, I think that people value him too much since he became a meme of sorts.
I have to say though, Ubisoft are better than most. It's the absence of "hey look at these dumb Trump voters!!!" that pissed off the San Francisco types with Far Cry 5. If the end result of this is a Far Cry 2 style "humans are generally shitty and all sides suck" then I'm firmly behind that philosophy.
I feel like FC4 didn't get enough praise for its narrative design. Beyond Min who was simply a narcissistic guy who didn't really care about being a dictator as much as he did about enjoying himself, the two rebel faction leaders are quite impartial representations of a radical traditionalist on one hand and a progressive revolutionary on the other. And the player can empathize to a certain extent with all three of them since they all have their idealistic side (or simply charm in Min's case) despite the fact that they also are portrayed as either doing or ordering acts that range from morally questionable to outright immoral.
I guess that many people felt that it was too much of a reskin of FC3 as to warrant too much praise, but I think that it surpassed its predecessor in every way. FC3 has Vass going for it, but that's about it. And while he was a well designed, iconic sort of character, I think that people value him too much since he became a meme of sorts.
FC4's story gets better at a distance and in retrospect, but I don't like how it interfaces with gameplay. I think it really makes it feel "bad" to play, and 5 goes even more in that direction where the whole thing is pointless beyond belief. I replayed it recently and I do respect some of the little details in it, but it still leaves me cold as an overall experience, and it was enough to tell me 5 is not for me, and probably FC games going forward are not either as they continue this style.
At the end of the day being kicked in the balls is just not something I enjoy, but I guess I'll respect someone who does enjoy that kind of ending. I feel it needs to be made clear that this is not so much about dark storytelling as it is how agency is presented to the player, though. For example, that Dubai game where you go slowly insane arguably has a much darker storyline than any Far Cry game, but the way it is presented provides you lots of agency. I think the best example of that is how even the ending, which in a Far Cry game would be "haha you lose, everything sucks, don't you feel bad for playing?"... that's not the end. You get to go out of the city, knowing you're a horrible person, and start gunning down the "good guys" trying to stop you, well aware of what you are now. It's a way to give the player agency, while cementing the message of the game regardless.
That's why, although I get that some people don't like the story, I think 3 is by far the better game. You have real agency in the ending.
that Dubai game where you go slowly insane arguably has a much darker storyline than any Far Cry game, but the way it is presented provides you lots of agency.
Spec Ops the Line? Man, I hate that game so much because a) The gameplay is horrible. b)The main character gets crazier and crazier with the same profundity of chaos corrupting a Space Marine, it makes zero sense and is just chaos magic, Far Cry 3 is actually better at this as the game tricks you with power by going on the insane route mirroing the path that Vaas took and it actually offers agency as you actually has the option of not doing that, Spec Ops is "darker" but it isnt better. c) Spec Ops also has this bad habit of "See this horrible thing we FORCED you to do", understand now why your character will become crazy? They complely mistaken the gaming medium with the cinema medium and the story of their game fallen on its face, it is a bad videogame running a mediocre ripoff of a better story.
I think the Far Cry 4 main plot doesnt try to induce you to madness but to drive a point on how sometimes all choices are futile and lead nowhere good, they are successful at that. The weak part of the story isnt the theme of it but that it is a fairly impersonal story with you barely interacting with any of the characters and just traveling from Ubisoft errand to Ubisoft errand, you interact with Vaas much more and he works as a good antagonist with him being an evil mirror of you with the game offering the option of you taking his place (even if you are tricked in the end), so people remembers him better.
Pagan Min is very charming but doesnt represent a powerful antagonistic force being aloof for the most part and even kinda bored as if he was playing a game with you where he knew what you would do and he doesnt give much of a fuck.
My point is that if you're gonna have a dark story, that doesn't preclude giving the player some feeling of agency or personal investment, even if it's artificial. Far Cry games with 4 onwards seem to delight in making you feel zero agency.
I actually think FC3's ending, while better than 4 and 5 by a long mile, could be improved somewhat. The "join the tribals" option shouldn't end in the player's death--if anything, that you've gone that far and chosen that means Jason is by that point a seasoned killer and if anything should be the one killing Citra. He definitely wouldn't be caught by surprise. But the fact they even offered the choice gives you some agency.
Also with regards to FC4's story, it's even worse than "everything is a bad choice", because there is a good choice: just going with Min in the beginning. That ethos is there in 5 too where the best ending is the beginning easter egg. I get the feeling that the French faggots at Ubisoft think it's so clever and edgy to make the message that the only way to help people is to not do anything at all, but it just leaves me thinking: Okay, your message is that your games are pointless and we shouldn't play them, why should I give you money then?
I feel like FC4 didn't get enough praise for its narrative design. Beyond Min who was simply a narcissistic guy who didn't really care about being a dictator as much as he did about enjoying himself, the two rebel faction leaders are quite impartial representations of a radical traditionalist on one hand and a progressive revolutionary on the other. And the player can empathize to a certain extent with all three of them since they all have their idealistic side (or simply charm in Min's case) despite the fact that they also are portrayed as either doing or ordering acts that range from morally questionable to outright immoral.
I think the end problem with 4 is that whenever you manage to find the one you didn't kill and decide to kill them, nothing happens. If you're gonna give the player the ability to see the consequences of their actions, let them see all the consequences of their actions.
Spec Ops the Line? Man, I hate that game so much because a) The gameplay is horrible. b)The main character gets crazier and crazier with the same profundity of chaos corrupting a Space Marine, it makes zero sense and is just chaos magic, Far Cry 3 is actually better at this as the game tricks you with power by going on the insane route mirroing the path that Vaas took and it actually offers agency as you actually has the option of not doing that, Spec Ops is "darker" but it isnt better. c) Spec Ops also has this bad habit of "See this horrible thing we FORCED you to do", understand now why your character will become crazy? They complely mistaken the gaming medium with the cinema medium and the story of their game fallen on its face, it is a bad videogame running a mediocre ripoff of a better story.
While both narratives fall apart a bit should you replay them, FC3 is loads better. This is tying into c, Spec Ops forces you to do horrible things, but none of the things Far Cry 3 forces you to do are actually outright bad until the end. The character's path mirrors the player's. Not to mention the subtle implication that some funny drug is in the water in FC3.
I actually think FC3's ending, while better than 4 and 5 by a long mile, could be improved somewhat. The "join the tribals" option shouldn't end in the player's death--if anything, that you've gone that far and chosen that means Jason is by that point a seasoned killer and if anything should be the one killing Citra. He definitely wouldn't be caught by surprise. But the fact they even offered the choice gives you some agency.
Also with regards to FC4's story, it's even worse than "everything is a bad choice", because there is a good choice: just going with Min in the beginning. That ethos is there in 5 too where the best ending is the beginning easter egg. I get the feeling that the French faggots at Ubisoft think it's so clever and edgy to make the message that the only way to help people is to not do anything at all, but it just leaves me thinking: Okay, your message is that your games are pointless and we shouldn't play them, why should I give you money then?
FC4's story gets better at a distance and in retrospect, but I don't like how it interfaces with gameplay. I think it really makes it feel "bad" to play, and 5 goes even more in that direction where the whole thing is pointless beyond belief. I replayed it recently and I do respect some of the little details in it, but it still leaves me cold as an overall experience, and it was enough to tell me 5 is not for me, and probably FC games going forward are not either as they continue this style.
FC4 problem was the protagonist really didnt had any agency, the story "forgot" about him. At least FC3 your main objective was find your friends and family and leave even if that fucked up because he was already willing to stay until the end were they force him a choice by going to a extreme ... maybe it was to make sure he didnt decided later to leave and so this was to really make him stay but then there is that retard ending if you stay.
In short, the protagonist should have a reason to be there and not just be there because its a game that leads me to ...
For example, that Dubai game where you go slowly insane arguably has a much darker storyline than any Far Cry game, but the way it is presented provides you lots of agency. I think the best example of that is how even the ending, which in a Far Cry game would be "haha you lose, everything sucks, don't you feel bad for playing?"... that's not the end. You get to go out of the city, knowing you're a horrible person, and start gunning down the "good guys" trying to stop you, well aware of what you are now. It's a way to give the player agency, while cementing the message of the game regardless.
Spec Ops:The Line works on a meta level as you do those things because its a game, people playing the game expect some kind of payoff at the end but there isnt one and the game story is directed to the player and not the protagonist that sure, just breaks and blames everything on a dead man but at the same time the game lies to the player by showing the protagonist self-delusions as if they were true with very few, if any, hints that we were seeing or hearing was a lie.
Since its a linear game, of course the progression is very laid down as Far Cry is a Ubisoft® Open World™ game so things arent linear and there is no rush to complete certain objectives, unlike Dead Rising that was Open World but was times, you had to manage time as Far Cry you really dont.
But in the end it comes down to they not knowing how to write character motivations, their Open World™ is simply a sandbox but they dont even embrace it like Just Cause or Mercenaries did because they have to be Oh So Serious that leads to the story being one thing and gameplay being another.
FC4's story gets better at a distance and in retrospect, but I don't like how it interfaces with gameplay. I think it really makes it feel "bad" to play, and 5 goes even more in that direction where the whole thing is pointless beyond belief. I replayed it recently and I do respect some of the little details in it, but it still leaves me cold as an overall experience, and it was enough to tell me 5 is not for me, and probably FC games going forward are not either as they continue this style.
FC4 problem was the protagonist really didnt had any agency, the story "forgot" about him. At least FC3 your main objective was find your friends and family and leave even if that fucked up because he was already willing to stay until the end were they force him a choice by going to a extreme ... maybe it was to make sure he didnt decided later to leave and so this was to really make him stay but then there is that retard ending if you stay.
I disagree that he had any more agency than the protagonist of FC4. The endings of FC3 boil down to choosing between the social conditioning with which you've already arrived on the island (saving your girlfriend and going back leaving you as a broken, traumatized individual) or embracing the subsequent conditioning which the island imprinted upon you (as it had done to Vaas before) and serving the role of ceremonial sacrifice for which you were groomed. I wouldn't really call that as having agency any more than choosing between Amita and Sabal in FC4. At least in the latter case you get to pick between two different ideological outlooks (which also mirror the FC3 dilemma of choosing between your own culture by endorsing Amita who plans on modernizing the country or that of Kyrat which Sabal aims to restore). Not to mention that the protagonist himself traces his ethnicity back to Kyrat ergo the choice also being one of either acknowledging your ethnic culture or remaining an uprooted individual whose sole reason for being there is that of granting your mother's wish of having her ashes returned there and put alongside those of her daughter.
Before the end segment he already said to one of his friends that he was going to stay behind, FC3 story is saving his friends ... the ending is a unnecessary railroad into a binary choice when he already made the choice and only takes the "right" choice because for no reason he have to kill his friends in order for him to already maintain his decision, if they left things along he would remain as nothing made him change from his "stay" decision that he had made.
Agency means action, in FC3 Jason had to take action because of circumstances leading to having to do so ... FC4 Ajay have no reason to get involved at all, this is why the reasonable ending is just stay at the table because as bad Pagan might be, everyone else is as bad but there is no actual reason for him to be involved and that is the biggest problem that the story have in the end, reasoning and basically you achieve all that you have set by simply not being involved.
And that is what matters, what is your purpose behind your actions ... Jason had then as Ajay just go along and this is why Vaas and Pagan are remembered and even Jason is as Ajay is just "the player avatar" as he completes tasks for no other reason beyond being told to.
FC4 Ajay have no reason to get involved at all, this is why the reasonable ending is just stay at the table because as bad Pagan might be, everyone else is as bad but there is no actual reason for him to be involved and that is the biggest problem that the story have in the end, reasoning and basically you achieve all that you have set by simply not being involved.
True, but the possibility to stay with Min gives the mirror choice of going with the Golden Path the character of agency as well. Ajay can either stay with Min and that's the end of it or he could go explore (for whichever reason, although the most reasonable one to infer is of him getting spooked by Min's behavior and the sounds of torture coming from down below) and thus inadvertently end up being forced to escape with Sabal and thus end up with the Golden Path. And from that point onward, overthrowing Min serves as a prerequisite for the Golden Path to guide you to Lakshmana's remains.
