After the ****-show endings of FarCry5? You gotta earn the trust back!
Printable View
After the ****-show endings of FarCry5? You gotta earn the trust back!
I've played them all, so I know how it goes. I can cope with a lot of things, my fragility isn't in question.
Ubisoft managed to earn a place in the worst ever game endings list, very near the top;
I'm not alone in calling BS on the lazy ending of the game.
If you're going to invest time into the storyline, there has to be a reason to play, with a defined winning strategy.
The three FarCry 5's endings smacked of Ghostbuster Rebooted thinking, that we need to teach you how to think, that worked out for Sony as well as Farcry 5 did for Ubisoft.
Just one of the editorials:
If you choose to walk away, things go a little differently. You leave with the sheriff and your fellow deputies but your other allies are still under Joseph's influence. The sheriff then vows to call in the National Guard to help clean up the mess then turns on the radio which plays the song "Only You". Earlier in the game, you were conditioned to go into an uncontrollable rampage whenever you hear that song but ultimately, it's left ambiguous as to whether or not you killed everyone in the car after hearing it.
Once again, this doesn't entirely work. There are a lot of plot holes as nothing is explained regarding how the allies were infected with Bliss and how they managed to capture the sheriff and the deputies. That being said, it is pretty clear that there is something else going on. The developers are obviously trying to say something about player choice and the decisions we are expected to make within video games. One choice early on resulted in hundreds of people being killed and threw all of Hope County into absolute chaos. You are given a decision where your character can either walk away and leave well enough alone or try and solve everything with bullets yet again resulting in more death, chaos, and destruction. Even if you choose to walk away from Joseph, the consequences of your actions stick with you in an unexpected way. The whole thing is fairly clever and a lot smarter than most gamers give it credit for.
The problem is; it doesn't really work as the issues with these endings are threefold. As I said, it doesn't provide anything that even remotely resembles a satisfying narrative conclusion and the other 2 issues have to deal with the game's style, tone, and gameplay. The first issue with the ending appears in Joseph's impassioned speech. He shouts at the deputy about how not everything can be solved with bullets and shooting and actually pleads with you not to fight. You then seem to be rewarded for going the pacifist route and are punished for fighting. The issue is that this all comes after 20+ hours of constantly fighting within gun battles and mass destruction that Far Cry 5 revels in all the while rewarding you with new gear to more effectively destroy your enemies with. Then suddenly, it wants you to be a pacifist and leave well enough alone, ultimately resulting in a message that comes off as utterly hypocritical.
The other issue is the choice factor. Joseph says that you caused all of this by actually choosing to arrest him and thus triggering the events of the rest of the game. The issue with this is that he is constantly going on about your choices in a game that doesn't really give you any. Sure, you get an option every now and then but for the most part, the narrative is very linear. Certain characters have to die in order for the plot to progress and there aren't any branching options based on your decisions. There is also no way to actually come up with a peaceful solution with any of the supporting villains. In other words, it's an ending that literally brow beats you for your decisions while only giving you maybe 3 meaningful choices along the way that affect very little. Something about this just feels wrong.
I personnally loved Far Cry endings since 3, with a particular liking for the "Only you" ending in 5. I hope they keep it this way. I guess that having you specifically play FC6 is not one of Ubi's goals, just saying, as your whole post sounds very self centered.
It's hardly lazy.
You just didn't like it. :cool:
It's also hard to know how Ubi can 'win your trust back' without you playing FC6.
But after FC5 you seem to be wanting the trust to be earned before you play?
So how would that work?
I'm struggling with the logic of your OP. :confused:
I wasn't a big fan of the FC5 endings, however, they gave us FC new dawn and that game in many ways one-upped FC5 if you can get past the premise. Gun play, replayability, all very polished and a step up from fc5.
But truth be told, if FC6 had an ending like the 1st Star Wars film (original 1st film) I would not complain. I need some happy endings right now....
https://s9.gifyu.com/images/js7.jpg
Better ending is hard to imagine.....
Not that I'm exactly over the moon about the way the game ends, but killing or arresting Joseph Seed and everything working out aces would've been about the most bland and predictable ending to the game imaginable and I'll take the nuke ending over something as poorly conceived as that any day.
I completely agree, the ending was an absolute mess. So disappointing. The "villain" was also so boring after Vaas & Pagan.
I've never bought FC games at launch, usually get them 2 years later. Got plenty of other games to play and when the time comes I'll get the FC6 GOTY or whatever with all the DLC.
It's not even lazy if there's a lot of foreshadowing in the story and they spent the time simulating nuclear explosions with trees on fire falling down. If it's lazy, the sky would remain blue and the story is anticlimactic.
As for the whole trust thing, why on earth do they need his trust, let alone earn it?
I will tell you why.
The player is under no way obligated to buy any game.
The developer makes a game, makes promises that it will be enjoyable, advertises the game saying please buy our game with your money and is under obligation to provide what it promises.
The player is under no obligation and is effectively the employer of the development company when he or she buys the game since the player is paying the developers wages/salary. No players buying equals no salary for developers.
Therefore the onus or burden of trust is on the company making the game. Like a chef making a meal for his customer, he tries to make it perfect for the customer, not perfect for himself, because the chef is the servant of the customer.
If Ubisoft were vineyard owners then they have a responsibility to the community to produce good wine. Otherwise they would be out of business.
So Ubisoft, if you are reading this, bear good fruits because alot of people are counting on you. They trust that you will provide for them a good game in their eyes.
UMM WHAT ? no a dev does not make any promise that you will like the ending of a title . far cry 5 had a crazy ending . yes but maybe you missed the point of the story the lead writer was going for ???
https://gamervw.com/2018/05/27/the-h...-of-far-cry-5/
\
also it did not end with the Father going out and dying .. sorry but he was part of the Story for the sequel of FAR CRY 5.... = FAR CRY NEW DAWN
so that game would make no sense if you Killed him in the end of FAR CRY 5 //would it ?
and yea i was glad to see Mr Greg Byrk return in that game as the FATHER ..it was the first time any story connected to a previous FAR CRY game ..so big deal , they took a chance on a plot and you hated it .. who cares .. i liked it , as i enjoyed his portrayal of creepiness he brought to FAR CRY 5.
but everyone has their own idea of a good actor i guess .. i enjoyed it , and think they took a shot at trying to connect a follow up game, to continue the story of FAR CRY 5 .
to me it did not ruin either game ...