Far Cry 5's villains were thinly-veiled white American chuds/fascists.
Far Cry 6's villains are thinly-veiled brown "totally-not-Cuban you guys" leftists/communists.
Far Cry 5's villains were thinly-veiled white American chuds/fascists.
Far Cry 6's villains are thinly-veiled brown "totally-not-Cuban you guys" leftists/communists.
Really dumb both sides-ing? in a FAR CRY GAME???? :shocked-pikachu:
I still resent them for what they did with 4. You have one leader trying to advance women's rights in her country and stop people having child brides, and the other who wants to bring back religious fundamentalism, keep the pedo shit, and sell off a young girl to be a god. Of course, the first one is actually evil and corrupt and turns out to be the exact same as the tyrant she's replacing. I mean, i get it from a game design point of view - they both had to be kind of shitty options, but jesus christ you could at least give her some bad takes instead of just basically saying "anyone who fights for social change is a murderous, power hungry bastard". The same shit happened even worse in bioshock infinite and i'm sure a load of other big money games, they love that shit.
Bioshock was even more insulting because it felt the writers took the assignment seriously, like I wouldn't be all that surprised if Ken Levine actually read A People's History of the United States, like it sets up a fairly convincing portrait of a violently racist and unequal nation with a legacy of settler colonialism, but then just shits the bed in the second half to make some idiotic point about cycles of violence.
Yeah, I played 4 because I was interested in 5, and the way they made both as a bad choice I was like then what's the point of playing the game, then reading they also flacidly handled 5 I lost most interest.