Senior Member
With only 3 "Bad" endings, minimal variety in weapons and very linear/sameish missions i am struggling to find a reason to complete a second playthrough. I really hope the DLC's will bring something new to this monotonous game or i have just wasted £70 on pre-ordering the gold edition of this game.
Member
Yeah .....look my biggest issue is with the weapons , I am fan, and those will tell you I don't mind spamming off my love for ubi especially in the Tom Clancy department and far cry is one of my biggest loves as a gamer and whilst I (as a fan) am happy with where this entry sits I really do think after the hours clocked up the weapons on offer are really what let's it down by "a nose". Multiplie versions of the same thing and alot that could have been.....but aren't, at best there should have been every single weapon from FC4 as a minimum and then the new editions, no vector jeez I'd just love an mp7. If there was to be an admission I think this is the area that UBI really needs to remedy -
(Hi...Sofajockey)
Senior Member
Some games have branching storylines giving multiple playthroughs.
Others have multiplayer elements and loot collection to while away the hours.
Far Cry 5 hardly has an unknown formula. Given the game's size and multiplayer components, I'd say this Far Cry has more play value than most. Do I want to rush into another playthrough immediately? Probably not (though I will at some point)
It's a matter of personal opinion whether something is a waste of money, but I don't think Ubisoft can be criticised for making the game too small...
Junior Member
Member
Senior Member
You don't state what you consider is valuable for repeating the play through?
If you are talking new ground to cover then a game like borderlands where you can get lost is an absolutely huge world is for you (i have not played it but my buddy has 1000's of hours into it and that is his commentary).
My first run through on FC 3 took me about 33 hours and i did not find 1/4 of the relics, etc. just completed every mission and took every fort, etc.
But...I considered that I had what seemed like 1000 hours into that game and I would do the initial game to get what i needed gun wise and skins wise to upgrade my skills without doing the forts and missions and then do a save at that point. After that I would restart a new game from that save point and avoid all the routine boring gathering of stuff and redo all the missions and forts and each time I took a fort there were 4 sides to attack it from, there were stealthy (no guns) runs, sniper only runs, explosives runs ect. the variations were tons of fun. I also liked and played coop and to lesser extent PVP multi-player.
I haven't finished FC5 yet and have only finished John's area and my thoughts on FC5 are this:
1) the worst thing for me is that I like to get what i need to feel gunned up and skilled up prior to doing missions and this game doesn't seem to allow for that and seems to be a more pay to win type because while you may be able to farm animals for $$$ and buy most of the guns you need, you have a hard time acquiring the skill points necessary to do simple things like 9 perks to get a third weapon slot, WTF? There is no journal that explains how to get the things you want. In FC3 they had a journal you could read about the characters, and plants, etc. A guide would be good.
If you only have a pistol and a bow you are trouble if you let it get out of control where you will need a LMG or Assault rifle at minimum. how can you go around and get those perk points easily? its hard and while I could get 1/2 the skills in FC3 and FC4 before even 1/4 of the way through the game FC5 doesn't seem like its going to be that easy?.
Member
Junior Member
A little late to the party, but for what its worth: Far Cry 5... I don't know. It feels like it should be the best in the franchise, but it left me totally uninspired. They recently released an update with a Game+ feature. Normally I would be ecstatic for something like this, like for example for Ghost Recon, man that would be sick. For FC5, when I just read it I was like, oh yes, that's grea... oh hang on, that means I have to play that bloody game again?
I just didn't like the campaign at all. I don't think I'll ever play it again. Its too weird, annoying, irritating, and ultimately very unsatisfying... unlike FC2, 3 and 4. I played 2 and 3 for years, repeating the campaign several times, and often just jumping in and blowing stuff up with my own mods. Admittedly FC4's story was also a bit weird, but it somehow still interested me. FC5 is the one FC I just don't like at all. I haven't even 'completed' it actually. I got to the final invite from Joseph, I was already annoyed at the game, but then I found out about the endings, I pretty much stopped playing entirely... which is a shame because it should actually be the best FC ever with all the new features, sounds, environment, weapons, etc. In fact since then I've actually played FC 3 and 4 a few times.
What would make FC5 replayable? If I could break out of Jacob's annoying missions for example (deny him the satisfaction), stop getting randomly kidnapped, entirely ignore Faith or just chain her to a chair and make her listen to Dimmu Borgir for a week, where the Koreans get their bombs returned to them before they all land on Montana (three bombs on Montana? of all places?) and maybe have the pleasure of sticking an Eden's Gate staff up Joseph's butt while I use him for target practice with a throwing shovel. VERY unsatisfying game. In Ghost Recon at least someone killed El Sueno.
Anyway, its just a game. Life goes on, eh?
Senior Member
I guess it's just cause I live here so to me it's common knowledge, but it's always funny to see people confused as to why MT was nuked in the game. Montana is home to a portion of our country's nuclear armaments. If NK were looking to go to war with the US, nuking MT in a pre-emptive attack as a means of asset denial makes perfect sense as a means to delay or prevent retaliatory attacks.
