Current Events > Far Cry 5 is fun but they fucked up the weapon selection

(+) Yeah! (+)

The fact they removed so many weapons is pretty bad, but the fact they try to artificially pad the list with useless reskins that should have been paintjob modifications is even worse.

I almost think it's a weird microtransactions ploy but cash is pretty plentiful so I don't understand why they thought this was a good idea.
---

Is it actually different this time or is it just Far Cry 3 but with a worse plot again?
---

It's a Far Cry game
---

You say that but 1, 2 and 3 were different.

Well 1 and 2 were different. Then 3 was 2 done well

4, Blood Dragon and Primal where just 3 done badly
---

UnfairRepresent posted...

You say that but 1, 2 and 3 were different.

Well 1 and 2 were different. Then 3 was 2 done well

4, Blood Dragon and Primal where just 3 done badly

4 was better than 3 in every fucking way tho
---

50Blessings posted...

UnfairRepresent posted...

You say that but 1, 2 and 3 were different.

Well 1 and 2 were different. Then 3 was 2 done well

4, Blood Dragon and Primal where just 3 done badly

4 was better than 3 in every fucking way tho

Ew no. 4 was abysmal
---

I'll never uJ03can posted...

50Blessings posted...

UnfairRepresent posted...

You say that but 1, 2 and 3 were different.

Well 1 and 2 were different. Then 3 was 2 done well

4, Blood Dragon and Primal where just 3 done badly

4 was better than 3 in every fucking way tho

Ew no. 4 was abysmal

I'll never understand CEs weird taste in Far Cry
---

50Blessings posted...

4 was better than 3 in every fucking way tho

If you say so

The exception of the Helicopter things it was inferior in every way IMO. Especially plot and characters.

Far Cry 3 actually had character arcs and depth.
---

Yeah they made so many UI and quality of life changes in 4 that made it better than 3
---

I liked Pagan Min more than 3's villains, but Vaas was still great. I like Ajay a little more than Jason, but I don't like the Golden Path people and liked 3's allies more.

Liked both worlds.

UnfairRepresent posted...

50Blessings posted...

4 was better than 3 in every fucking way tho

If you say so

The exception of the Helicopter things it was inferior in every way IMO. Especially plot and characters.

Far Cry 3 actually had character arcs and depth.

Characters and story aren't really that important. Far Cry 4 had better outposts and better weapons. That's enough for me to consider it the better game.
---

Far Cry 3 doesn't have vehicle shooting, guns for hire, barely any elevation, you don't get the wing suit til near the end of the game

And lmfao at it having a better story and characters. It had Vaas who's probably the most overrated villain in games of the past decade.

And even then lmfao at playing far cry for story.
---

GeneralKenobi85 posted...

Characters and story aren't really that important.

I think this is where people who prefer Far Cry 2,4 and Primal are going to stand out most.

I completely disagree. I think story, epecially narrative. Is vitally important to a game, especially one with long boring cut-scenes and set-pieces.

If story isn't that important then why did we have to sit through those long boring bits where we play as that ancestor bloke leaping around like an idiot?

The drug trips in 3 were way better. And the annoying spoiled white bread nobody slowly becoming a badass survivor by drugging himself to the eyeballs and going on killing sprees until he lost his sense of identity is way more interesting as a protaganist than "This guy's mom's dead and he's here to rest her ashes but there's a civil war and for some reason he's caught in the middle between 2 incredibly 2 diensional parts of the reisstance! Which does he pick!?" which is just.... well kinda nothing.

GeneralKenobi85 posted...

Far Cry 4 had better outposts and better weapons.

If you say so.

I couldn't tell the difference apart from the fact 4 was much much easier.
---

UnfairRepresent posted...

GeneralKenobi85 posted...

Characters and story aren't really that important.

I think this is where people who prefer Far Cry 2,4 and Primal are going to stand out most.

I completely disagree. I think story, epecially narrative. Is vitally important to a game, especially one with long boring cut-scenes and set-pieces.

If story isn't that important then why did we have to sit through those long boring bits where we play as that ancestor bloke leaping around like an idiot?

The drug trips in 3 were way better. And the annoying spoiled white bread nobody slowly becoming a badass survivor by drugging himself to the eyeballs and going on killing sprees until he lost his sense of identity is way more interesting as a protaganist than "This guy's mom's dead and he's here to rest her ashes but there's a civil war and for some reason he's caught in the middle between 2 incredibly 2 diensional parts of the reisstance! Which does he pick!?" which is just.... well kinda nothing.

GeneralKenobi85 posted...

Far Cry 4 had better outposts and better weapons.

If you say so.

I couldn't tell the difference apart from the fact 4 was much much easier.

I mean I do agree with you that the story is better. As are the characters. And the drug trips too. But gameplay trumps all, so if a sequel is worse in less important areas, it doesn't particularly bother me. I wouldn't really say Far Cry 4 is significantly better anyway. Just beats out 3 by a little bit.
---

I like the LMGs and shotguns, so it's ok by me
---

Whats the census on Primal? I liked it, but I get the feeling it was generally disliked. It was a very unique and different game, but i understand it got old quick

UnfairRepresent posted...

Far Cry 3 actually had character arcs and depth.

lol
---

XXHornDogXX posted...

Whats the census on Primal? I liked it, but I get the feeling it was generally disliked. It was a very unique and different game, but i understand it got old quick

I liked it but normal mode is too easy because you could get the strongest animals like 4 hours in. And I was so pissed they added the new difficulties and survival mode without adding extra slave slots that I stopped playing it
---

50Blessings posted...

UnfairRepresent posted...

You say that but 1, 2 and 3 were different.

Well 1 and 2 were different. Then 3 was 2 done well

4, Blood Dragon and Primal where just 3 done badly

4 was better than 3 in every fucking way tho

I agree

Also I'm playing 2 right now and it's quite different from 3
---

Just here to say Blood Dragon was sick, screw the earlier post saying it wasn't.
---

XXHornDogXX posted...

Whats the census on Primal? I liked it, but I get the feeling it was generally disliked. It was a very unique and different game, but i understand it got old quick

I thought it was interesting in the sense that it was an unconventional setting for a FPS. There wasn't much to the story, but watching your village grow as you move forward makes progression feel pretty good, being a beastmaster rocks, and really my main complaint is that they went way overboard with the amount of hostile wildlife you encounter. It's worth playing
---

HBKick18 posted...

Just here to say Blood Dragon was sick, screw the earlier post saying it wasn't.

But it didn't have a so cal Douchebag become a super soldier cause of mumbo jumbo tho
---

HBKick18 posted...

Just here to say Blood Dragon was sick, screw the earlier post saying it wasn't.

It was easily my least favorite game in the series
---

50Blessings posted...

UnfairRepresent posted...

You say that but 1, 2 and 3 were different.

Well 1 and 2 were different. Then 3 was 2 done well

4, Blood Dragon and Primal where just 3 done badly

4 was better than 3 in every fucking way tho

The Shangri-La parts are utter trash
---