If it isn't clear because my Youtube account has a different name: This is my video. Far Cry 5 (FC5) is a game that has haunted me for a long time. 8 years ago, while sitting in a boring lecture...
If it isn't clear because my Youtube account has a different name: This is my video.
Far Cry 5 (FC5) is a game that has haunted me for a long time. 8 years ago, while sitting in a boring lecture and reeling from having recently played it for the first time, I wrote a rant here on Tildes about this game that flowed easily from my finger tips, even if it may be tough to read and so specific it sparked no discussion. No harm done, really. Some time later during Covid, I found myself in one of those late night online discussions and somehow we ventured into the topic of this game and I began ranting with such vigor that it took me about 40 minutes to finish. A friend in the discussion literally left their chair, went to the toilet, grabbed a drink and returned 10 minutes later and I didn't even notice and was still going.
I'm now out of university, my life is quite different, and it's been 10 years since I've played it for the first time. Indirectly, FC5 is one of the reasons I try to engage with media on a deeper level now, simply because of abysmally dogshit the story is. I've begun learning the complicated skill of video editing, and have found essay writing and editing to be a fulfilling hobby. I'm not looking to turn it into a job, because I am not interested in having Google and Youtube's recommendation algorithm become my new masters. To be this is purely my own creative expression, and while I strive to improve with every video, I don't want to make them differently to have broader appeal. If they change, it's because I want to. This is my stuff, and I'm proud of it.
In a way, despite it's absolutely terrible messaging, FC5 is responsible for that. Maybe I would've found my way towards this hobby without it too, but I think it would've been much later. Either way, I owe a strange thanks to this piece of art, no matter how despicable its message might be.
FC5 lost me forever at the second "suddenly these guys, who you've been slaughtering by the hundreds, overpower you and capture you because we need to show you this cutscene" event. I think there...
FC5 lost me forever at the second "suddenly these guys, who you've been slaughtering by the hundreds, overpower you and capture you because we need to show you this cutscene" event. I think there are a couple more after that.
I didn't watch the video, I just wanted to say that FC5 is one of the few Far Cry games I've actually finished. If the writing in FC5 was dogshit, the writing in FC: New Dawn is raw sewage. And...
I didn't watch the video, I just wanted to say that FC5 is one of the few Far Cry games I've actually finished. If the writing in FC5 was dogshit, the writing in FC: New Dawn is raw sewage. And then FC6 I played for several hours and realized I wasn't actually having any fun, just going through the motions, so I uninstalled it and never looked back.
I have attempted both of them but didn't make it very far. In fact I think I have at least played some of every FC game. Primal is the only other one I finished, and I did enjoy that one although...
I have attempted both of them but didn't make it very far. In fact I think I have at least played some of every FC game. Primal is the only other one I finished, and I did enjoy that one although I remember nothing about it at all.
I've never played FC6, but apparently, even though the writers are different, they follow the same sort of theme, because you defeat the dictator and nothing really changes. FC5 really does feel...
I've never played FC6, but apparently, even though the writers are different, they follow the same sort of theme, because you defeat the dictator and nothing really changes.
FC5 really does feel like either writers wanted to creat the worst "gotcha!" moment of all time or they were done working on the series and wanted to burn it to the ground.
All of Ubisofts "main" games are series that comes across as "lab grown fun". And Far Cry best illustrates that. I remember in the before times of 2005 where Far Cry 1 was more of a linear...
All of Ubisofts "main" games are series that comes across as "lab grown fun". And Far Cry best illustrates that.
I remember in the before times of 2005 where Far Cry 1 was more of a linear immersive sim that was pretty fun... until it got weird and then it lost me with the mutants and the volcano. Interesting ideas that didn't stick the landing.
I like that Far Cry 2 went into a more gritty and realistic direction. Some interesting systems with the gun quality, malaria and messy map. I think it was actually held back by the open world and could have benefited from more focus on the interesting elements and less long, pointless drives.
Far Cry 3, like the first, was interesting for the first half and then just felt pointless. I think this was the game that really started to lean into the Assasins creed tropes and it got very boring after the good villian dies and you have to do it again. Blood dragon was a blast though.
And from there, it's all games I dropped after a few hours.
Far Cry 4 had an annoying environment to traverse and forgettable plot/villain.
I think Far Cry 5 would have played much better if they leaned into supernatural elements and made it a horror game. It was clear that they wanted to do social commentary. But corporate safe commentary that did nothing.
Far Cry 6... Not going to lie, I saw gameplay and a few reviews and didn't feel a thing. This was on the back of AC Valhalla, Watchdogs Legion and The Division 2 all falling flat next to Ghost of Tsushima, Death Stranding and Sekiro. Ubisoft managed to hit the lowest possible point of customer sentiment, complete indifference.
And I had to ask myself, when did I ever enjoy Ubisoft games. I loved the original Prince of Persia trilogy and was very excited about the reboot. Played the entire AC2 saga with my siblings and Black Flag really hit on something special. Beyond Good and Evil was an interesting adventure. Might and Magic strategy games was cool in concept but never seemed to update. Dark Messiah is still my favorite physics game. Anno 1701 and 2070 were cool semi-narrative city builders that paved the way for games like Frostpunk and Ixion. Still love Splinter Cell being the dollar store Solid Snake and the Tom Clancy Universe had some real bright spots before it was all Siege, all the time. South Park Stick of Truth was incredible, even if the second fell short. Trackmania was a lot of fun but the whole Live Service thing killed some of the magic. My favorite "lost" game, Blazing Angles 2 was developed by Ubisoft. The hand drawn Rayman games are gorgeous with incredible soundtracks.
Ubisoft really had a ton going on for a long time. A robust portfolio where a lot of small wins covered big losses and big wins covered small losses. I can't think of anything after 2015 that had me genuinely excited. The same year Vevendi tried to buy them out.
I really want to know who informed Ubisofts strategy after that. It wasn't a perfect company before with all the toxic leadership and institutional bloat. But they had a diverse strategy that allowed them to hit multiple niches and offset risk. Then they adopted the universal big media strategy of putting every egg in a few big name IP baskets and expect the market to reward them with exponential returns.
This was the same sort of resource consolidation that hit every big media company from Disney to Netflix to even YouTube. Over invest in the biggest name or latest trend and expect the market to respond with exponential returns. I'm very curious if this was a natural convergence of ideas or if there was a third party consultanting house driving this narrative across the industry. This was also around the time Embracer started paying top dollar for IP rights and just before platform services like GamePass were offering massive payouts to be on their services. Was the plan to artificially drive up IP value and expect a business client or subscription charges to foot the bill?
This is because across like 10 to 15 years of gaming becoming a really big market, analysists detected a pattern in the way games succeed, and that was fairly simple: middle of the road...
Then they adopted the universal big media strategy of putting every egg in a few big name IP baskets and expect the market to reward them with exponential returns.
This is because across like 10 to 15 years of gaming becoming a really big market, analysists detected a pattern in the way games succeed, and that was fairly simple: middle of the road "mid-budget" or "AA" games never became huge successes. Huge successes either came from indie developers that created something truly unique (which these companies didn't own) or huge AAA games like Call of Duty or GTA. So from the perspective of a publisher, who's going to pay these developers for 5 years anyway, you can run the numbers: given the previous performance of AA games across the market, is it better have them make 2 or 3 smaller games, or spend 5 years on one huge game? You are spending the cash either way, because game development budget is just salary, so there is functionally no difference to those holding the money.
This was the same sort of resource consolidation that hit every big media company from Disney to Netflix to even YouTube.
For streaming the effect was similar, but for a different reason. Streaming completely transformed the television industry. Royalties became functionally worthless, which were the backbone of old movie and tv projects. You used to be able to star in a movie for a shit payday because it used to bring you in money every time a television station showed it. This is no longer the case on streaming services, so actors are asking for bigger salaries upfront, which balloons the budget and killed the mid-size movie.
Now, Ubisoft pulled in a similar direction, but they added a weird company theme to it, where there was creative office full of old french dudes in Paris where every creative director pitching a game had to go and convince them that this game is worth funding. This creative office also oversaw specific gameplay decisions which is why for a while every Ubisoft game from Assassin's Creed over Far Cry to Ghost Recon turned into an RPG (probably also because an RPG makes the mictrotransaction easier to sell).
The issue is ultimately that the Far Cry series became a game about the protagonist being a one-man army defeating evil despots that has a really strange fetish for telling the player that this doesn't solve any problems. FC5 is just the most extreme variant of this plot, because the world literally ends if you try to save the day. Like literally. Nuclear war means the world is done and we might get intelligent cockroaches in a couple million years.
So I have tons of thoughts on this game, and so feel this is the best place to share. I agree with your general premise that the game has a ton of potential, but also just falls completely flat,...
So I have tons of thoughts on this game, and so feel this is the best place to share. I agree with your general premise that the game has a ton of potential, but also just falls completely flat, and the story takes some of that blame.
It is worth first talking about my initial experience with this game. Before playing Far Cry 5, I had played 3&4 several times each. I took a university class back in the fall of 2019 called Bible and Pop Culture (my degree was a Bachelor of Theology, specifically Christian Theology). The class took a critical approach of how the Bible has been used in various pieces of media and for the final project each person in the class picked a piece of media of their own choice and did a presentation and paper. I was considering finally getting around to doing Far Cry 5, as it was on my steam wishlist for a year or two at this point. However, looking at system requirements, my computer was barely able to play it so I did my second choice instead, Bioshock Infinite (which I never finished before at that point). So I wrote an academic paper dissecting the theological doctrine of Bioshock Infinite (it is steampunk mormonism).
About a year ago I finally picked up Far Cry 5, and started playing through it. Throughout my playthrough I was looking at it through the lens of that class, and comparing it to Bioshock Infinite. I very quickly learned that the game lacked much for substance, and was very grateful for my choice in the class. I could very quickly tell that they were using the cult background but were trying to also not offend (compared to Infinite, which had a since deleted scene that lead to a developer quitting, and numerous steam refunds on release). So, despite the weakness of the overall story and setting I continued through like you, enjoying the gameplay and scenery while ignoring the weak story. Then the ending came, and it is such a weak ending that leaves you feeling dissatisfied. I would probably overlook the weakness of the general story, if it felt like the ending did something. Especially when you factor in that the final battle is you reviving all your old teammates, and you don't really get to do any fighting since the teammates you revive overpower the ones you have not switched over yet. The final confrontation with Joseph is both poor from a narrative and gameplay perspective, and it leaves you frustrated at the game (even more frustrating than the long unskippable credits of FC3).
I do disagree with your general stance that the gameplay is a polished experience, as I do find there are two major weakpoints.
Weapon selection is quite poor. Previous games would prevent certain attachments for certain weapons or limit the amount of attachments. This made the signature weapons interesting, as it normally allowed attachment combinations that you couldn't get on the normal gun. However, allowing all attachments for all guns made it so that there was less tradeoffs on guns, and also less gun progression. Also, half the guns you could buy was a slight aesthetic tweak of other guns, with almost no stat change.
Resistance Points are so poorly weighted. Especially with the forced encounters, it felt like you were doing the final boss fight for a region when only having completed a third of the region.
Edit: I forgot to mention that your point about Faith being an unwilling participant and not the first of her name is something that was a bit more developed than you mentioned. However, I do agree that they did not explore that concept enough. If you spend more time in her region (which is hard due to how fast resistance points accumulate), other NPCs leave the bread trail that Faith had been replaced at least once before. I do agree that it would have been more interesting if they really explored that concept, but like a lot of things in this game they do not commit to anything (except for a bad ending, they really committed to that).
You lucked out immensely by picking Bioshock Infinite over Far Cry 5. FC5 is honestly just not that interesting to explore from a theological perspective. Sure, the villains are Christian...
You lucked out immensely by picking Bioshock Infinite over Far Cry 5. FC5 is honestly just not that interesting to explore from a theological perspective. Sure, the villains are Christian nationalists, which are very in right now in the USA, but the corporate climate inside Ubisoft watered their depiction down so hard, they barely make sense. One of the notable songs composed by the cult is literally about how the world is gonna end and you're gonna need your gun and don't let the government take away your guns, and conversely one of the lines of the main antagonist in the game in the ending is "When are you going to realize that not every problem can be solved with a bullet?"
It's a travesty of a narrative, but the game (and tbh, it seems like Far Cry 6 as well), are much more interesting to view through a lens of critiquing libertarianism, because that is what those games promote. FC5 punches you in the face again and again and again about how you just shouldn't intervene. That's where the real meat in the narrative is, and that's what needs to get deconstructed.
The guns probably got slimmed down in an effort to simplify the game, and I didn't mind the selection that was given. They're there to support different playstyles, but they are not interesting on their own. Which goes for nearly every aspect of FC5. What makes the gameplay interesting to me is that the open world is a genuine playground for you.
If you view it from the region being fully complete the resistance points can be poorly weighted, but from a timing perspective, it makes way more sense. They're clearly balanced with the overall progression in mind rather than neatly clearing out nearly everything in a region.
I never encountered a single NPC saying that Faith was not the first, it was always a reveal in Joseph's post-boss reaction, but I believe you that there were lines in the game and some sort of telegraphing. But it fits with my overall impression that out of the 3 areas, John's received the most attention, then Jacob's and then Faith's. Her area just seemed very rushed.
I agree that by chance I ended up making the better choice. There is just so much to discuss with Infinite. I remember during that playthrough taking notes of every scripture referenced and then...
You lucked out immensely by picking Bioshock Infinite over Far Cry 5. FC5 is honestly just not that interesting to explore from a theological perspective. Sure, the villains are Christian nationalists, which are very in right now in the USA, but the corporate climate inside Ubisoft watered their depiction down so hard, they barely make sense.
I agree that by chance I ended up making the better choice. There is just so much to discuss with Infinite. I remember during that playthrough taking notes of every scripture referenced and then doing a comparison of where they are referencing the most (if I recall correctly, there is limited references to the Gospels and lots of Old Testament references, but this was also a bit over six years ago when I wrote that paper). Infinite has such a robust baptism theology (and one that is orthodox), and all the major story beats are linked to a baptism. In comparison, FC5 does not really explore the cult's theology. If I were to have picked that game, I probably would have done a lot of work with comparing the cult to cold war era theology and also the Christian right in the states (reminder that this would have been in 2019, and also from a Canadian perspective).
FC5 punches you in the face again and again and again about how you just shouldn't intervene. That's where the real meat in the narrative is, and that's what needs to get deconstructed.
Yeah, I had not really thought about that aspect of the game, but after watching your analysis it is a very concerning narrative that the story proposes. It works in FC4 as you stated, but not in FC5. I think also FC4 made it more morally ambiguous as Pagan is a flawed leader, but neither Anita or Sabal is blameless either (my first playthrough I found myself flip flopping between those two). Whereas in FC5, the cult is clearly bad, and you want to help everyone.
The guns probably got slimmed down in an effort to simplify the game, and I didn't mind the selection that was given. They're there to support different playstyles, but they are not interesting on their own. Which goes for nearly every aspect of FC5. What makes the gameplay interesting to me is that the open world is a genuine playground for you.
I do agree that the guns support different playstyles, but I just wanted more variety than what they were given. The guns were just enough that I wanted more, and the game failed to deliver. I guess you could say that about FC5 in general "just enough that that I wanted more and failed to deliver that."
If you view it from the region being fully complete the resistance points can be poorly weighted, but from a timing perspective, it makes way more sense. They're clearly balanced with the overall progression in mind rather than neatly clearing out nearly everything in a region.
I don't view myself as a true completionist, but maybe I do weigh to far into that direction to not appreciate the pacing they went for. However, I felt in my first playthrough that there was always more to do (more outposts to liberate) that I never got around to before beating the region, and my motivation after defeating the region was gone.
I never encountered a single NPC saying that Faith was not the first, it was always a reveal in Joseph's post-boss reaction, but I believe you that there were lines in the game and some sort of telegraphing. But it fits with my overall impression that out of the 3 areas, John's received the most attention, then Jacob's and then Faith's. Her area just seemed very rushed.
I never really analyzed which region felt got the most attention, but I do agree that John's felt the most full. I think it has more prepper stashes as well. Aesthetically I just did not enjoy Henbane River that much, but I do feel that narratively it has the most going for it. I feel like John and Jacob were just plainly evil, whereas there was somewhere to go with Faith.
It's because Bioshock Infinite is a much more competently made game not watered down by Ubislop's corporate interests of appealing to the widest market possible. Of course the publisher 2K is just...
I agree that by chance I ended up making the better choice. There is just so much to discuss with Infinite. I remember during that playthrough taking notes of every scripture referenced and then doing a comparison of where they are referencing the most (if I recall correctly, there is limited references to the Gospels and lots of Old Testament references, but this was also a bit over six years ago when I wrote that paper). Infinite has such a robust baptism theology (and one that is orthodox), and all the major story beats are linked to a baptism.
It's because Bioshock Infinite is a much more competently made game not watered down by Ubislop's corporate interests of appealing to the widest market possible. Of course the publisher 2K is just as much a corporation, but it's obvious that they were hands off about the writing process and what the game means.
The only message that FC5 has is the one that slipped through on accident while they were busy not trying to offend anyone. The implicit libertarian one I made the whole video about.
I think the best comparison between the two games is FC5 is like a Michael Bay movie, whereas Bioshock Infinite is like a Christopher Nolan movie. Both are going to have fast paced action scenes,...
I think the best comparison between the two games is FC5 is like a Michael Bay movie, whereas Bioshock Infinite is like a Christopher Nolan movie. Both are going to have fast paced action scenes, but one will have substance behind it. Nolan appreciates the artistry behind film making, and it feels as if there is similar respect to the artistry of video games behind Infinite.
I did enjoy 3 and 4 quite a bit. I wanted to enjoy 2, but gods almighty, those road checkpoints were aggressively anti-fun. Few games I've played were so relentlessly self-sabotaging.
I did enjoy 3 and 4 quite a bit. I wanted to enjoy 2, but gods almighty, those road checkpoints were aggressively anti-fun. Few games I've played were so relentlessly self-sabotaging.
Having malaria in 2 also wasn't much of a good time. Having to race back for the pills or whatever was the opposite of fun. I adore 3 and 4 equally though. I never liked the first and I don't have...
Having malaria in 2 also wasn't much of a good time. Having to race back for the pills or whatever was the opposite of fun. I adore 3 and 4 equally though. I never liked the first and I don't have any newer consoles or a PC good enough to run 5 and on. From the sound of things it's probably good that I don't.
If it isn't clear because my Youtube account has a different name: This is my video.
Far Cry 5 (FC5) is a game that has haunted me for a long time. 8 years ago, while sitting in a boring lecture and reeling from having recently played it for the first time, I wrote a rant here on Tildes about this game that flowed easily from my finger tips, even if it may be tough to read and so specific it sparked no discussion. No harm done, really. Some time later during Covid, I found myself in one of those late night online discussions and somehow we ventured into the topic of this game and I began ranting with such vigor that it took me about 40 minutes to finish. A friend in the discussion literally left their chair, went to the toilet, grabbed a drink and returned 10 minutes later and I didn't even notice and was still going.
I'm now out of university, my life is quite different, and it's been 10 years since I've played it for the first time. Indirectly, FC5 is one of the reasons I try to engage with media on a deeper level now, simply because of abysmally dogshit the story is. I've begun learning the complicated skill of video editing, and have found essay writing and editing to be a fulfilling hobby. I'm not looking to turn it into a job, because I am not interested in having Google and Youtube's recommendation algorithm become my new masters. To be this is purely my own creative expression, and while I strive to improve with every video, I don't want to make them differently to have broader appeal. If they change, it's because I want to. This is my stuff, and I'm proud of it.
In a way, despite it's absolutely terrible messaging, FC5 is responsible for that. Maybe I would've found my way towards this hobby without it too, but I think it would've been much later. Either way, I owe a strange thanks to this piece of art, no matter how despicable its message might be.
Thank you for watching.
FC5 lost me forever at the second "suddenly these guys, who you've been slaughtering by the hundreds, overpower you and capture you because we need to show you this cutscene" event. I think there are a couple more after that.
There is like 3 or 4 of those for every region. It's so dumb
I didn't watch the video, I just wanted to say that FC5 is one of the few Far Cry games I've actually finished. If the writing in FC5 was dogshit, the writing in FC: New Dawn is raw sewage. And then FC6 I played for several hours and realized I wasn't actually having any fun, just going through the motions, so I uninstalled it and never looked back.
Try Far Cry 3 or 4, those are the best in the series
I have attempted both of them but didn't make it very far. In fact I think I have at least played some of every FC game. Primal is the only other one I finished, and I did enjoy that one although I remember nothing about it at all.
I've never played FC6, but apparently, even though the writers are different, they follow the same sort of theme, because you defeat the dictator and nothing really changes.
FC5 really does feel like either writers wanted to creat the worst "gotcha!" moment of all time or they were done working on the series and wanted to burn it to the ground.
All of Ubisofts "main" games are series that comes across as "lab grown fun". And Far Cry best illustrates that.
I remember in the before times of 2005 where Far Cry 1 was more of a linear immersive sim that was pretty fun... until it got weird and then it lost me with the mutants and the volcano. Interesting ideas that didn't stick the landing.
I like that Far Cry 2 went into a more gritty and realistic direction. Some interesting systems with the gun quality, malaria and messy map. I think it was actually held back by the open world and could have benefited from more focus on the interesting elements and less long, pointless drives.
Far Cry 3, like the first, was interesting for the first half and then just felt pointless. I think this was the game that really started to lean into the Assasins creed tropes and it got very boring after the good villian dies and you have to do it again. Blood dragon was a blast though.
And from there, it's all games I dropped after a few hours.
Far Cry 4 had an annoying environment to traverse and forgettable plot/villain.
I think Far Cry 5 would have played much better if they leaned into supernatural elements and made it a horror game. It was clear that they wanted to do social commentary. But corporate safe commentary that did nothing.
Far Cry 6... Not going to lie, I saw gameplay and a few reviews and didn't feel a thing. This was on the back of AC Valhalla, Watchdogs Legion and The Division 2 all falling flat next to Ghost of Tsushima, Death Stranding and Sekiro. Ubisoft managed to hit the lowest possible point of customer sentiment, complete indifference.
And I had to ask myself, when did I ever enjoy Ubisoft games. I loved the original Prince of Persia trilogy and was very excited about the reboot. Played the entire AC2 saga with my siblings and Black Flag really hit on something special. Beyond Good and Evil was an interesting adventure. Might and Magic strategy games was cool in concept but never seemed to update. Dark Messiah is still my favorite physics game. Anno 1701 and 2070 were cool semi-narrative city builders that paved the way for games like Frostpunk and Ixion. Still love Splinter Cell being the dollar store Solid Snake and the Tom Clancy Universe had some real bright spots before it was all Siege, all the time. South Park Stick of Truth was incredible, even if the second fell short. Trackmania was a lot of fun but the whole Live Service thing killed some of the magic. My favorite "lost" game, Blazing Angles 2 was developed by Ubisoft. The hand drawn Rayman games are gorgeous with incredible soundtracks.
Ubisoft really had a ton going on for a long time. A robust portfolio where a lot of small wins covered big losses and big wins covered small losses. I can't think of anything after 2015 that had me genuinely excited. The same year Vevendi tried to buy them out.
I really want to know who informed Ubisofts strategy after that. It wasn't a perfect company before with all the toxic leadership and institutional bloat. But they had a diverse strategy that allowed them to hit multiple niches and offset risk. Then they adopted the universal big media strategy of putting every egg in a few big name IP baskets and expect the market to reward them with exponential returns.
This was the same sort of resource consolidation that hit every big media company from Disney to Netflix to even YouTube. Over invest in the biggest name or latest trend and expect the market to respond with exponential returns. I'm very curious if this was a natural convergence of ideas or if there was a third party consultanting house driving this narrative across the industry. This was also around the time Embracer started paying top dollar for IP rights and just before platform services like GamePass were offering massive payouts to be on their services. Was the plan to artificially drive up IP value and expect a business client or subscription charges to foot the bill?
This is because across like 10 to 15 years of gaming becoming a really big market, analysists detected a pattern in the way games succeed, and that was fairly simple: middle of the road "mid-budget" or "AA" games never became huge successes. Huge successes either came from indie developers that created something truly unique (which these companies didn't own) or huge AAA games like Call of Duty or GTA. So from the perspective of a publisher, who's going to pay these developers for 5 years anyway, you can run the numbers: given the previous performance of AA games across the market, is it better have them make 2 or 3 smaller games, or spend 5 years on one huge game? You are spending the cash either way, because game development budget is just salary, so there is functionally no difference to those holding the money.
For streaming the effect was similar, but for a different reason. Streaming completely transformed the television industry. Royalties became functionally worthless, which were the backbone of old movie and tv projects. You used to be able to star in a movie for a shit payday because it used to bring you in money every time a television station showed it. This is no longer the case on streaming services, so actors are asking for bigger salaries upfront, which balloons the budget and killed the mid-size movie.
Now, Ubisoft pulled in a similar direction, but they added a weird company theme to it, where there was creative office full of old french dudes in Paris where every creative director pitching a game had to go and convince them that this game is worth funding. This creative office also oversaw specific gameplay decisions which is why for a while every Ubisoft game from Assassin's Creed over Far Cry to Ghost Recon turned into an RPG (probably also because an RPG makes the mictrotransaction easier to sell).
The issue is ultimately that the Far Cry series became a game about the protagonist being a one-man army defeating evil despots that has a really strange fetish for telling the player that this doesn't solve any problems. FC5 is just the most extreme variant of this plot, because the world literally ends if you try to save the day. Like literally. Nuclear war means the world is done and we might get intelligent cockroaches in a couple million years.
So I have tons of thoughts on this game, and so feel this is the best place to share. I agree with your general premise that the game has a ton of potential, but also just falls completely flat, and the story takes some of that blame.
It is worth first talking about my initial experience with this game. Before playing Far Cry 5, I had played 3&4 several times each. I took a university class back in the fall of 2019 called Bible and Pop Culture (my degree was a Bachelor of Theology, specifically Christian Theology). The class took a critical approach of how the Bible has been used in various pieces of media and for the final project each person in the class picked a piece of media of their own choice and did a presentation and paper. I was considering finally getting around to doing Far Cry 5, as it was on my steam wishlist for a year or two at this point. However, looking at system requirements, my computer was barely able to play it so I did my second choice instead, Bioshock Infinite (which I never finished before at that point). So I wrote an academic paper dissecting the theological doctrine of Bioshock Infinite (it is steampunk mormonism).
About a year ago I finally picked up Far Cry 5, and started playing through it. Throughout my playthrough I was looking at it through the lens of that class, and comparing it to Bioshock Infinite. I very quickly learned that the game lacked much for substance, and was very grateful for my choice in the class. I could very quickly tell that they were using the cult background but were trying to also not offend (compared to Infinite, which had a since deleted scene that lead to a developer quitting, and numerous steam refunds on release). So, despite the weakness of the overall story and setting I continued through like you, enjoying the gameplay and scenery while ignoring the weak story. Then the ending came, and it is such a weak ending that leaves you feeling dissatisfied. I would probably overlook the weakness of the general story, if it felt like the ending did something. Especially when you factor in that the final battle is you reviving all your old teammates, and you don't really get to do any fighting since the teammates you revive overpower the ones you have not switched over yet. The final confrontation with Joseph is both poor from a narrative and gameplay perspective, and it leaves you frustrated at the game (even more frustrating than the long unskippable credits of FC3).
I do disagree with your general stance that the gameplay is a polished experience, as I do find there are two major weakpoints.
Edit: I forgot to mention that your point about Faith being an unwilling participant and not the first of her name is something that was a bit more developed than you mentioned. However, I do agree that they did not explore that concept enough. If you spend more time in her region (which is hard due to how fast resistance points accumulate), other NPCs leave the bread trail that Faith had been replaced at least once before. I do agree that it would have been more interesting if they really explored that concept, but like a lot of things in this game they do not commit to anything (except for a bad ending, they really committed to that).
You lucked out immensely by picking Bioshock Infinite over Far Cry 5. FC5 is honestly just not that interesting to explore from a theological perspective. Sure, the villains are Christian nationalists, which are very in right now in the USA, but the corporate climate inside Ubisoft watered their depiction down so hard, they barely make sense. One of the notable songs composed by the cult is literally about how the world is gonna end and you're gonna need your gun and don't let the government take away your guns, and conversely one of the lines of the main antagonist in the game in the ending is "When are you going to realize that not every problem can be solved with a bullet?"
It's a travesty of a narrative, but the game (and tbh, it seems like Far Cry 6 as well), are much more interesting to view through a lens of critiquing libertarianism, because that is what those games promote. FC5 punches you in the face again and again and again about how you just shouldn't intervene. That's where the real meat in the narrative is, and that's what needs to get deconstructed.
The guns probably got slimmed down in an effort to simplify the game, and I didn't mind the selection that was given. They're there to support different playstyles, but they are not interesting on their own. Which goes for nearly every aspect of FC5. What makes the gameplay interesting to me is that the open world is a genuine playground for you.
If you view it from the region being fully complete the resistance points can be poorly weighted, but from a timing perspective, it makes way more sense. They're clearly balanced with the overall progression in mind rather than neatly clearing out nearly everything in a region.
I never encountered a single NPC saying that Faith was not the first, it was always a reveal in Joseph's post-boss reaction, but I believe you that there were lines in the game and some sort of telegraphing. But it fits with my overall impression that out of the 3 areas, John's received the most attention, then Jacob's and then Faith's. Her area just seemed very rushed.
I agree that by chance I ended up making the better choice. There is just so much to discuss with Infinite. I remember during that playthrough taking notes of every scripture referenced and then doing a comparison of where they are referencing the most (if I recall correctly, there is limited references to the Gospels and lots of Old Testament references, but this was also a bit over six years ago when I wrote that paper). Infinite has such a robust baptism theology (and one that is orthodox), and all the major story beats are linked to a baptism. In comparison, FC5 does not really explore the cult's theology. If I were to have picked that game, I probably would have done a lot of work with comparing the cult to cold war era theology and also the Christian right in the states (reminder that this would have been in 2019, and also from a Canadian perspective).
Yeah, I had not really thought about that aspect of the game, but after watching your analysis it is a very concerning narrative that the story proposes. It works in FC4 as you stated, but not in FC5. I think also FC4 made it more morally ambiguous as Pagan is a flawed leader, but neither Anita or Sabal is blameless either (my first playthrough I found myself flip flopping between those two). Whereas in FC5, the cult is clearly bad, and you want to help everyone.
I do agree that the guns support different playstyles, but I just wanted more variety than what they were given. The guns were just enough that I wanted more, and the game failed to deliver. I guess you could say that about FC5 in general "just enough that that I wanted more and failed to deliver that."
I don't view myself as a true completionist, but maybe I do weigh to far into that direction to not appreciate the pacing they went for. However, I felt in my first playthrough that there was always more to do (more outposts to liberate) that I never got around to before beating the region, and my motivation after defeating the region was gone.
I never really analyzed which region felt got the most attention, but I do agree that John's felt the most full. I think it has more prepper stashes as well. Aesthetically I just did not enjoy Henbane River that much, but I do feel that narratively it has the most going for it. I feel like John and Jacob were just plainly evil, whereas there was somewhere to go with Faith.
It's because Bioshock Infinite is a much more competently made game not watered down by Ubislop's corporate interests of appealing to the widest market possible. Of course the publisher 2K is just as much a corporation, but it's obvious that they were hands off about the writing process and what the game means.
The only message that FC5 has is the one that slipped through on accident while they were busy not trying to offend anyone. The implicit libertarian one I made the whole video about.
I think the best comparison between the two games is FC5 is like a Michael Bay movie, whereas Bioshock Infinite is like a Christopher Nolan movie. Both are going to have fast paced action scenes, but one will have substance behind it. Nolan appreciates the artistry behind film making, and it feels as if there is similar respect to the artistry of video games behind Infinite.
I did enjoy 3 and 4 quite a bit. I wanted to enjoy 2, but gods almighty, those road checkpoints were aggressively anti-fun. Few games I've played were so relentlessly self-sabotaging.
Having malaria in 2 also wasn't much of a good time. Having to race back for the pills or whatever was the opposite of fun. I adore 3 and 4 equally though. I never liked the first and I don't have any newer consoles or a PC good enough to run 5 and on. From the sound of things it's probably good that I don't.