Far Cry 3

I will preface this by saying that I am one of the few that seems to have given Far Cry 2 enough of a chance to figure out why that game was great. It is probably one of my favorite games ever made for the way it didn't lead the player by the hand, let you play your own way, rewarded players for slow, careful approaches, and introduced unique dynamic story components that allowed players to make their own experience by presenting them with a series of dynamic mechanics (the buddies) instead of a series of set-pieces, QTE's and cut scenes. Suffice to say, I don't consider Far Cry 3 a bad game, but rather a bad sequel to an ambitious, but flawed title that has really been overlooked in the years since its release. I will be focusing on the flaws of the game, because no one else bothers to. Its strengths have been covered generously and perhaps excessively at this point.

On a fundamental level, Far Cry 3 is an attempt by Ubisoft to remove every single element of the previous game that wouldn't appeal to the widest possible audience and replace it with mechanics lifted blatantly from other games and, quite often, executed much worse. The most immediately obvious example being the towers that you have to climb (complete with the terrible, scripted pseudo-platforming that seems to be required in all AAA action games now) to reveal sections of the map. Only, instead of setting it on fire, you rip open a breaker, and instead of jumping into a bail of hay, you use a zip-line. Not only is it a shallow and repetitive way to add "content" to the game, but Assassin's Creed did it better already. And that is what prevents this game from being deserving of any Game of the Year awards. It is a prettied up Frankenstein monster of game mechanics that contribute nothing to the cohesiveness and immersiveness of the world (2 things that FC2 focused on that were entirely abandoned here), thrown together for the sake of commercial appeal. And, judging by the widespread excessive praise for this title, it has clearly worked. If anything has been proven this generation, it's that GTA3 style sandboxes full of pointless diversions, repetitive side missions, and collectibles is the quickest way to everyone cover up a game's flaws in favor of the fact that you can wander around between linear missions.

The game clearly tries to appeal to the very large audience of the Elder Scrolls games, but with very little regard to sense, balance, immersion, or pacing. The hunting system, that is so frequently lauded, essentially boils down to a fetch quest involving going to the location on your map that is marked with the right kind of animal among the ludicrous variety of animals that would not actually live in this environment, getting a certain number of "skins" so that you can make an arbitrary item that makes playing the game a bit less of a pain in the ass. Want to carry more than 2 grand at a time? Worry not, spoiled rich kid with no access to anything like a bank account, you must simply get 4 skins of an animal that is not a pig because that's how getting a bigger wallet works! It's a contrived, gimmicky excuse to pat the player on the head for doing something worthless. Then there's the skill system, which is effectively just a list of "special moves" that they took away from the player to justify this progression and some health upgrades. In the context of the (poor) narrative, it would seem to be a justified by the progression of Jason (who is a self-centered douche) from a spoiled wussy rich prick into the ultimate personification of Rambo by the end (because power trips are cool). Unfortunately, they refused to use any of their mechanics to meaningfully reinforced this growth, because the average player doesn't like to feel weak. The only thing really holding you back at the beginning of the game is your health, not Jason's lack of skill. He has impeccable aim and seems to have absolutely no problem casually jamming a machete into a pirate's neck after the initial opening sequence. In the very first relatively unscripted encounter in the game, I was more than capable of taking out the base with the skill and efficiency of an experienced, trained killer. Is the fact that they won't let me take down enemies from above supposed to make me feel somehow weak? No. It just feels like a contrived excuse to give me that option later. And this is compounded by the fact that the previously mentioned hunting system is in no way grounded in your fight for survival. There is no vital need to be filled by poaching these animals. It is simply a matter of convenience. Specifically, the developers inconvenienced you at the beginning and you have to kill some goats to fix that problem (i.e. carrying more than one weapon). Another example of the developer taking away things the player SHOULD have so they can turn them into a progression system later. Which is, in my opinion, the worst kind of "RPG-lite" implementation.

And then there's the story. If the interviews with the writer are any indication, it is a poor, trope-ridden story being justified as a satire of poor, trope-ridden game stories, or it's just a poor satire of those stories. Either way, it is not very well done. The game presents you as a spoiled, rich, white kid stranded on an island with some family and friends. While I agree that this story had a lot of potential at the beginning, I think my opinion of when it went downhill may differ from many. It started getting worse after the first missions. Here's why. As I said, at the beginning of the game the developers seem to be setting the player up for an interesting, desperate, and potentially brutal fight for survival. A city kid thrown in the jungle and forced to learn how to survive or die. They seemed to want the player to reflect on the wanton violence and destruction they cause throughout the game, if characters and even Jason's sole redeeming dialogue in one of the endings is any indication, but they never present it as such. In a game like Spec Ops: The Line, combat is presented as necessary, but still evil. In this game, blowing up a couple dozen cars with a grenade launcher from the back of a jeep is described in-game as "awesome." Don't mistake me, I have nothing in particular against violence in games, but if you're going to try to make a thoughtful critique, you can't just throw it in a couple of times throughout a standard, mindless, action game. Every single thing they present in this game as something unique and in-depth is only really presented as such, when the execution is almost invariably shallow, standard, "gamey" shit. They make a point of patting the player on the head for every minor accomplishment and then at the end, they expect you to feel bad for enjoying it. And this happens in the story, the mechanics, and the level design. On the plus side, the VA for Vass, however poorly implemented the character may have been in the overall story arc, was excellent and certainly a highlight in the course of the game.

Finally, there is the overworld map: a hyperactive mess, stuffed to the brim with loot chests that add literally nothing of worth the game except to create middle point between the player and spendable currency, a few boring and repetitive side activities that cover the map in nearly endless repetition, some relics to collect for no apparent reason, and the most stripped down, pitiful "quests" I have ever seen. It comes off as an attempt to meld the overused formula Rockstar that was innovative over ten years ago, with a much, much less interesting version of Bethesda's formula (complete with some of the saddest dungeon design I have ever seen). Like most open world games, it makes a point of emphasizing all that you can do, but aside from the base capturing, which empties the map of enemies because they ran in the opposite direction of each and every complaint every leveled at the previous title, it's mostly filler put in place so that players don't get bored during their 30 second drive from the excessive number of fast travel points to their objective. Unlike a game like Deus Ex, the content they packed into this world has no context and contributes nothing to the interest of the world itself, but serves simply to fill this big sandbox with cheap toys. It retains many of the dynamic elements of the previous game's combat encounters, but provides only 1 (well, 34) place where the player can actually utilize it, as the story missions are linear to the point that you can get mission failure for something as simple as diving into the water instead of going through their poor excuse for a stealth level. And, as we all know, the key to stealth is magical distraction rocks! The only real variety that is added in the course of the game are your usual "heavies" that do too much damage and make no sense. A 50 caliber round is the only thing that can get through that mask? No, that would remove their head and a good piece of their upper body with it, but I suppose that makes sense given the brick wall that is the edge of weapon range in this game. These elements are decent fun for a while, but get tired an repetitive far before the game reaches its conclusion.

Far Cry 3 is by no means a bad game as it stands, but it accomplishes so much less than it could have or has gotten credit for. It is graphically appealing (though, I didn't bother to get it on PC), the controls are generally responsive, the level design is generally pretty good, the weapons generally felt good and effective, enemies were not bullet sponges, and they paid some good attention to make traversal in vehicles and on foot pretty enjoyable. I mostly enjoyed playing thorogh this game once, but it is not a unique experience, aside from the dynamic wildlife that seems to have been arbitrarily selected from several entirely different places in the world. It is not generation defining. It did not do anything new. It is a game that provides simple, stupid fun on a surface level and entirely falls short of its potential for thought-provoking dynamic experience that doesn't pander to the player on a near constant basis. When games like Dishonored and XCOM have presented hardcore, intelligent game design that remains accessible to wide audiences as well, it's hard for me to hold this game up as anything more than a decently fun, derivative sandbox title and a disappointing sequel to Far Cry 2. It's a prime example of why the medium needs to evolve past its open world roots in Rock Star.