This looks really awesome, I'm excited to see how it's going to grow with its time in early access. I usually don't play EA games until they are done but I will be keeping an eye on this for sure.
@timberbarrackk: Jeff clearly states in his review that his problems with the game go beyond the story. He explains how his problems with story permeate most other aspects of the game. (the shallowness in the progression, weapon variety, the game pay loop in general etc.) I wouldnt say you're dissmissing the review but you are definetly dissmissing parts of it if you boil down Jeffs negatives to "he didnt like the story" and thats it.
Here is the reveal of Far Cry 5. This is the only time they ever made it seem like there might be an important, meaningful message in the game. However, that comes directly before a bunch of footage expressing that "nah, this is just the same Far Cry you know but in America." The same message that continued to flow out of the marketing since then. The presenter went out and marketed the game strongly in a few minutes to get your attention, only to walk it back almost immediately, with the company continually walking it back so you understood what you were getting into. I think Ubisoft was actually trying to keep you from having incorrect expectations.
And yet here we are... with the game getting poorly reviewed specifically based on expectations. Did Ubisoft want to stay inoffensive? Maybe the game was done being written 3 years ago? Maybe they saw what Wolfenstein did and said "if you want that experience, go play that game" because they knew they couldn't compete. I don't know but it's not like I was ever playing Far Cry for any deep message.
It really makes me wonder how folks would feel if this game came out and the militia incident of 2014 hadn't occurred or if all this current-day neo-nazi bullshit wasn't happening.
Mind you, I'm not trying to defend the game or Ubisoft. I just think expectations were too high when it was revealed and even despite Ubisoft trying to walk them back, people were too stubborn to notice and now we have a 3-star game instead of a 4-star game.
The game is set in America in a purple (but consistently red) state and all the imagery that was in the preview footage of the villains were quite literally wrapped in a American flags, with Christian religious undertones and references to Nazis. Ubisoft set the expectations themselves and regardless of how many times they tried to walk it back the potential is still built into the very nature of the game's setting.
No game is reviewed in a vacuum, everything that comes out is weighed against its expectations. Whether those expectations are set by the marketing, the games previous entries or its games by the same developer etc. Far Cry is not an anomaly in this regard.
Besides any of that blaming people for how they chose to interpret Ubi's marketing material seems silly to me. I would be surprised if there aren't a bunch of people that worked on this game that knew exactly what they were walking into and feel remise that they couldn't create the game they wanted to do to some kind of corporate influence. But that's pure speculation obviously.
Prey not even being mentioned during the "Best World" discussion is a goddamn tragic oversight. Not saying it should or would've won but to not even be mentioned!?!
fatalbanana's comments