Welcome to discussions

Quick Suggestions

  • trioxin245
    27 posts

    "My point being is that you should let other people judge for themselves. Let them form their own opinion. Let them experience the game how they want to experience it. Just because you dislike something doesn't mean you should state it as fact and it is a requirement that everyone must be warned."

    OK Stalin. Keep drinking the kool-aid. You are not a believer in free speech, admittedly. Too late, me and my OGs have already been all over warning people. Haven't stopped that tradition since 1994. We see a bad game, give a factual review, and warn people. This is important when people release bad games and are stingy/non-existent on refunds. There was a time when you could rent a game for $2 to $4 and then decide to buy it, but that's over. There was a time of Shareware, where you could buy a PC demo for $5 to $10 bucks and even have that applied as a discount if you bought the whole game. Those days are over. Now greedy companies are releasing unfinished or just backwards games with polished video and photos hoping to cash in and most don't offer refunds. Ever more the reason to review and advise against bad games. The reviews and advisement will continue, Stalin.

  • Madhawk80
    122 posts

    @cgeist762 It's pretty sad to see the perk system and the ammo system completely gone, now we have gear based stats. The soundtrack is also pretty damn annoying.

  • KrayZee_
    77 posts

    @cgeist762 Wow. Using the words 'kool-aid' and 'free speech' about video games and name calling someone you don't know 'Stalin'. Yeah, I lived through the 90s. When I play games, I would actually encourage people to play especially if there's some form of multiplayer. According to you, somehow I'm Stalin as if I'm using censorship against you. Yeah, apparently letting people make their own decisions and choices, form their own opinion and allow them to experience the games first hand is not free speech and is considered censorship to you. Something is telling me you're middle aged and yet you respond to me like an immature child. I would tell you to grow up, but it looks like you're way beyond that point. Fast forward to 2021, not 1994 (Or 1984, since you love to name call people 'Stalin'). You have some really asinine logic there.

    Far Cry 6 is not unfinished, it definitely looks finished to me. The only thing Far Cry 6 is missing is the Arcade from Far Cry 5 and the map editor the series had since the beginning.


  • Mortilla_
    96 posts

    @krayzee_ I'm certain that the various teams over at Ubisoft have worked their butt off creating these games and they have access to the best talent in the market. I'm not alluding to anything else -- see, what I fail to comprehend is how Far Cry 6 is the best they got - to assume so is honestly ludicrous to me. No, it's very clear to me what they're doing.

    Look, I don't want to repeat myself but let me do so for the last time: they invented this formula and they've spammed out games like there's no tomorrow and people are sick and tired of the same old game. Yes, even if they included tanks in this game or whatever it is you think is redeemable behavior, a lot of people just do not see it that way and many reviewers are uttering these same sentiments as well. Ubisoft can do ANYTHING - yet here we are.

    Please, do not compare a Rockstar title to whatever it is Ubisoft is trying to do. The amount of depth & detail you can find in a rockstar title is truly unprecedented, which puts it in its own league -- this, by the way, is only achievable by giving it time - as in development time, which costs money. Yes, I think money is the core issue here. This is a business venture (duh, right?) and a really effective one (meaning intentional, right?) on that.

    In the end, you do make an important point: we vote with our wallets and I've done so since the first Splinter Cell game lol. Nevertheless, I think this copy-paste job should be called out for what it is and maybe -- just maybe, it will result in Ubisoft daring to try something new.

    God willing! 🐷

  • Eliterobban
    7 posts
    This post is deleted!
  • Agent_Stormy
    17 posts
    @mortilla_
    "just maybe, it will result in Ubisoft daring to try something new."

    You mean like Ghost recon frontline lol?

    They have one goal sell you AAA priced games and then bloat it with utter [censored] to sell you the solution on there stupid store.

  • KrayZee_
    77 posts

    @mortilla_ I'm comparing to Rockstar Games because aren't gamers being very hypocritical? People complained Ubisoft 'recycling' Far Cry 5's world for Far Cry New Dawn, despite that it makes sense in the given context of the story. Rockstar Games already remade New York 5 times, Los Angeles 5 times and Red Dead Redemption II uses Red Dead Redemption 1's map. Red Dead Redemption 1 is an empty world to me. You talk about shady business practice, but why don't you pay attention to shark cards and gold bars? So it's bad if Ubisoft does it, but it's totally OK when Rockstar does it? Isn't there hypocrisy behind that? Haven't you seen how overly expensive cars and properties are in GTA Online? Like it requires heavy amount of time consuming grinding, hundreds or thousands of real world US dollars, or money glitches to purchase them. What about GTA V coming out in three different console generations where GTA 6 skipped a whole generation? There's a possibility GTA 6 might skip the Xbox Series X and PlayStation 5 generation. When I bought GTA San Andreas, I personally thought the game is underwhelming at the time. The sound effects and animations could have been better and they seem to copy Splinter Cell with night vision goggles with stealth sections. When you compare GTA San Andreas to Half Life 2, Far Cry 1, Halo 2, Doom 3 and other games at the time, GTA San Andreas seems to be outdated. Why do Rockstar Games on consoles have strong aim assist and the free aiming has been implemented poorly, including GTA V and Red Dead Redemption II? How come they have overworked employees spending so much of their time creating Red Dead Redemption II, but they can't seem to get the aiming right? I personally thought the mission structure in GTA Online are too similar to each other. Because I played GTA Online a lot, I felt exhausted for simply working hard to earn enough cash to buy everything I want. If Red Dead Online is anything like this but with horses, I didn't really give RDO a chance. People complained buggy launches, but as I repeat again, Red Dead Redemption 1 was infested with bugs at launch. GTA Online is simply unplayable at launch, but people are so easy to forgive Rockstar Games for this. Yet the same people whine and complain about how other games are glitchy?

    I played all of the Splinter Cell games, and wouldn't you also think Pandora Tomorrow, Chaos Theory and Double Agent are all 'copy-paste jobs' to the first Splinter Cell? After all, the differences between Far Cry 5 and Far Cry 6 is pretty significant enough, but wouldn't the first 4 Splinter Cell games (as well as different versions of the same name in different consoles) be extremely similar to one another? I think Splinter Cell Blacklist is a great game that is able to differentiate itself from its predecessor Conviction, but to you it may seem like a copy-paste job. Isn't GTA San Andreas and Vice City a copy paste of GTA 3? Wouldn't Red Dead Redemption be Grand Theft Auto with horses? Your logic has to apply for everything else, you can't just point out the elephant in the room and then avoid consistency with your own statements.

  • Mortilla_
    96 posts
    @mortilla_ I'm comparing to Rockstar Games because aren't gamers being very hypocritical? People complained Ubisoft 'recycling' Far Cry 5's world for Far Cry New Dawn, despite that it makes sense in the given context of the story. Rockstar Games already remade New York 5 times, Los Angeles 5 times and Red Dead Redemption II uses Red Dead Redemption 1's map.


    That's not entirely accurate now, is it? The vast majority of the single-player campaign (in RDR II) does in fact take place in new areas -- in fact, it doesn't even utilize the older map/area until the epilogue and that is barely scraping the surface, which is weird, but let's digress!
    I feel a strong sense of dishonesty on your part and I'm not sure why this is. You keep mentioning Rockstar reusing maps (which again, is not entirely accurate) -- but these games are generations apart; meaning that with each iteration, it's vastly different.

    You talk about shady business practice, but why don't you pay attention to shark cards and gold bars? So it's bad if Ubisoft does it, but it's totally OK when Rockstar does it? Isn't there hypocrisy behind that? Haven't you seen how overly expensive cars and properties are in GTA Online?


    I've literally said that there are huge problems within this industry, not just with Ubisoft. I've paid very close attention to the development of Rockstar games and where it's going ever since GTA online and suffice it to say: it's very discouraging.

    Why do Rockstar Games on consoles have strong aim assist and the free aiming has been implemented poorly, including GTA V and Red Dead Redemption II?


    That's the rockstar experience, I guess? I get the feeling that you're trying to poke holes into the Rockstar franchise -- how their games are designed or whatever, but honestly you're just nitpicking at this point. They are miles ahead of their competitors in terms of world-building & attention to detail - which is only made possible because of Rockstar's long development cycles.

    I can do exactly the same thing you're doing, you do realize that, right? By poking holes in some aspects of Far Cry or Assassin's Creed -- but that is not the point here. I've frequently said that there are issues WITHIN this industry and that we, as consumers, are oftentimes treated like garbage. Yes, I'm that same person you've been responding to for the past 2-3 days... Like, what is with the disconnect here? I changed my avatar -- is that throwing you off?

    I played all of the Splinter Cell games, and wouldn't you also think Pandora Tomorrow, Chaos Theory and Double Agent are all 'copy-paste jobs' to the first Splinter Cell? 


    Not exactly. It was a continuation of Sam Fisher's story, which was superb from start-to-finish IMO. What you see with Assassin's Creed and Far Cry are just new stories, rebranded and released -- and that is the entire point. There is no end to it.

    see: Ubi: We could do 35 Assassin's Creeds • Eurogamer.net

    Believe me, they will. 🐷

    -edit- Also this:

    Isn't GTA San Andreas and Vice City a copy paste of GTA 3? Wouldn't Red Dead Redemption be Grand Theft Auto with horses? Your logic has to apply for everything else, you can't just point out the elephant in the room and then avoid consistency with your own statements.


    The proof is in the pudding so to speak. There is no need to resort to "logic", or whatever debate lord tactic you're alluding to.

    All you have to do is ask yourself these questions and try to answer them honestly.

    If you genuinely believe that Red Dead Redemption is Grand Theft Horse, then, well... You're missing the whole point. To answer your question: No. All of these games are vastly different from one another in the smaller details, story, world-building, and the overall evolution of the franchise: each game literally pushes the envelope further and creates a new standard.

    This is very different from what we see with Assassin's Creed or Far Cry -- where it's literally the same game, with minor tweaks here & there.



  • Mortilla_
    96 posts

    @krayzee_ Look.

    Enough with the comparisons here -- or the "whataboutism", if that's your jam. :]

    Far Cry 6 is just another Far Cry game -- with a different skin. I'm not saying it's a bad game at all, I enjoy it for what it is -- I truly do.

    But take a second and imagine the potential here? What could have been?

    It's been good chatting with you.

  • KrayZee_
    77 posts

    @mortilla_ I knew you were going to use the nitpicky argument. Rockstar's long development cycles is recent thing, whereas it's a different story in the 2000s. Far Cry, while ignoring spinoffs, would have a new game for 4 years apart. From Far Cry 1 to Far Cry 2 to Far Cry 3, and Far Cry 4 to Far Cry 5. I'm bringing up Rockstar Games because gamers nowadays are using them as the standard and keep bringing them up in their arguments. Long development cycles should not be a requirement. I understand that yearly release games could be a problem, but 3 to 4 years should be long enough. As for we the consumers being treated as garbage, I brought up the point that the game developers at Rockstar Games are overworked and exhausted after working on Red Dead Redemption II. No one is pointing a gun at your head when you are purchasing things anything video game related, so no gamers are not treated like garbage. I know Red Dead Redemption II has new areas the first game didn't have, but the old region is still there just without Mexico. It wouldn't make sense if every video game franchise require 8 years of development with overworked staff. Far Cry 1 and 2 had literally pushed the envelope on graphics and so did Far Cry 3 for gameplay.

    Assassin's Creed from 2007 to 2013 continues the same protagonist Desmond Miles until he died in 2012, and Abstergo is still using his DNA to learn about Edward Kenway for Black Flag. The protagonist for Black Flag, Rogue, Unity and Syndicate is 'you'. They had a completely different protagonist for the recent Assassin's Creed entries with Layla Hassan. In 2006 and 2007, Ubisoft conducted a poll about Far Cry. Apparently people didn't really like Jack Carver or fighting trigens and mutants in the original games, so they gave us a selection of mute protagonists in Far Cry 2 and focused only on human enemies. If Crytek and Ubisoft made Jack Carver a likable protagonist, then he would've came back for every Far Cry game. Instead they continue Far Cry by giving us a different protagonist for every new Far Cry game. Ever since Ubisoft and the gaming community were impressed over Michael Mando's performance as Vaas, they kept the tradition of establishing recognizable villains. You already know this.

    I don't genuinely believe Red Dead Redemption is Grand Theft Horse, other people did back in 2010. Assassin's Creed is not the same as Far Cry with minor tweaks here and there. We don't see attack helicopters, rocket launchers, snipers, World War 2 tanks, and humvees in Assassin's Creed. There may be some mechanics that are similar like takedowns, skill trees and such, but the games are already distinctively different. We don't climb high points in any Far Cry game outside of Far Cry 3, 4 and Primal to reveal the map. Assassin's Creed and Far Cry are in completely different genres, it is literally not the same game. It may feel similar due to them being part of the Ubisoft open world formula, but they are not exactly the same game. People could use the same argument for GTA and Red Dead where you just lock on auto aim and shoot, rinse and repeat. All of the Gears of War games are all cover based third person shooters using the same weapons and gameplay, and it wouldn't be Gears of War if it's suddenly different. If Far Cry doesn't play like Far Cry, people would complain. If Far Cry plays like another Far Cry game, people like you would complain. Which is it going to be? The latest 3 entries in Assassin's Creed don't even play like the ones from 2007 to 2015. They completely changed Assassin's Creed and the original fans of the older games are upset with how the new entries are structured, including me. People complained that Assassin's Creed are too similar, so they had to make this change in 2017. Now people are complaining about the new games are too different. So what should do they do? Keeping the same formula to upset people? Or should they change the game to upset other people? Origins, Odyssey and Valhalla are not exactly the same as the older ones. They're different and you know this.



  • Mortilla_
    96 posts
    No one is pointing a gun at your head when you are purchasing things anything video game related, so no gamers are not treated like garbage


    @krayzee_ I would like to respond to this ^ because this is just fundamentally false and wrong on so many levels. As a business owner, you will want to treat your customers in ways that will keep them coming back and spend more money. That's business 101, right? Your point is above and beyond strange to me and it seems like you're trying really hard to protect *something* -- this is my interpretation of it because now I have to tell you how a business operates as if you're a child.

    The customer, or rather, the culture dictates what is deemed acceptable behavior or not. Lying and just being misleading is universally frowned upon and that is why we see stuff like this:



    Believe it or not, gamers are customers that spend money on a product. Yes, the majority of us might exist in the first world (you've made this point in the past), but that is absolutely irrelevant here.

    As for the prior topic, let's just agree to disagree, because we're not going anywhere.


  • KrayZee_
    77 posts

    @mortilla_ I know how the business works. As much hate Cyberpunk 2077 is getting, I don't disagree with people's unsatisfactory. Like I said, I actually learn how to appreciate games and I actually enjoyed playing Cyberpunk 2077 despite the bugs. I didn't watch every single Cyberpunk 2077 trailer and I surely did not go along with the overhype train with extremely high unrealistic expectations. While yes there are faults in games such as Cyberpunk 2077, I did appreciate how beautiful Night City looks like and I did like the details and characters in the game. I surely did not like Halo 5's misleading ads that revolves around the big fight between Master Chief and Agent Locke. I was actually disappointed in Halo 5 due to the lackluster story, but I don't rip it apart like review bombers do. Review bombers often mislead gamers like us and actually bring up nitpicky arguments or irrelevant discussions that shouldn't be taken seriously. Look at The Last of Us Part II, the graphics are great, the gameplay is great, but the majority of hate the game is receiving is playing as Abby and how the story went. That and the possibility of homophobia. Why should so much hate focus on Abby and why is it that gamers sent death threats to Naughty Dog, the voice actors, voice actresses and face models? Do you honestly think sending death threats is OKAY? Of course you should treat your customers right, but the customer is always right argument will fall flat once they start sending death threats, absurd review bombs when they never even played the game, and endless trolling. If I want to listen to someone's criticism, I don't have time for profanity filled rants that serve no purpose other than venting their frustrations against the game developers. You know what's also unacceptable? People who complete short games, leave a review, and get a full refund on steam. You can't always hold the companies responsible for literally everything. As soon as someone starts pirating games and the game developers strongly oppose this, then these gamers don't deserve an opinion since they illegally downloaded the games for free. Ubisoft surely didn't lie anything to me about Far Cry 6, and I can see what they delivered.

    Have you even bothered reading review bombs? You honestly think it's OKAY to review bomb? You can tell someone is lying in their review if you yourself played the game. You could also tell that these same people likely spent less than 1 to 2 hours playing the game. Shouldn't they at least spend more time playing the game and learn how it plays? I would rather pay attention to an opinion if they're willing to invest their time elaborating their experiences with the games they play. Low to zero effort reviews or misleading reviews do not deserve to be recognized. There's a reason why Metacritic would be deleting thousands of negative reviews recently. No, it is not censorship. The content of said reviews is so lackluster that it can't be taken seriously.

    The majority of us do not exist in the first world countries. There's about 1.3 billion people who live in India and 1.4 billion people in China. If you actually encounter a gamer from India, chances are they are wealthy. Chinese gamers living in China have to deal with banned games and censorship. Australians also have to deal with this. You're saying gamers are treated like garbage, and you emphasized on the word garbage. If gamers are truly treated like garbage, then you should start comparing to any group of people who are suffering. It is not absolutely irrelevant if you honestly think gamers are being treated like 'garbage'. If you didn't use the word 'garbage', I wouldn't be comparing gamers to oppressed people living in extreme poverty. There's no genocide against gamers here. So no, gamers are not treated like garbage. Stop using the word 'garbage' so loosely. Ubisoft is not scamming us. Like I said, you have the choice to vote with your wallet. People who live in countries that have an oppressive government don't have the freedom of choice nor do they have the freedom of speech to speak out against the government. If gamers are allowed to voice their opinion, they are nowhere being treated like garbage.

  • Mortilla_
    96 posts

    @krayzee_ I agree with everything you said.

    From gamers going crazy with death threats - to review bombing for no apparent reason, I'm totally with you on this. However, I am not seeing the connection you're making with me using the word "garbage" and oppressed people lol. It's literally a synonym for [censored], which I think is censored on here, so. You're overreading it in this regard, mate.

    Let's just end it here, no need to continue on with these tantrums. 🐷

    Have a good day.

  • KrayZee_
    77 posts

    @mortilla_ If you really wanted to end the discussion, you wouldn't be insinuating by using passive aggressive words like tantrum. You're asking for more arguments.

  • Mortilla_
    96 posts

    @krayzee_ Yes, we've been on a few tantrums in this thread - these types of discussions are usually a two-way street.

    So, that includes me, mister. 🐷

    I'm not trying to bait, I've just lost interest in this discussion to be quite frank.

  • boriyako
    3 posts

    I sincerely regret pre-buying this game. I have played and enjoyed every far cry game published thus far. This game is ridiculously easy - only 2 difficulty modes. They have obviously "rushed" this game. 1 shot headshots, enemies who only "see" you from 1 foot away, special forces? oh PLEASE 1 headshot each and the're finito, road blocks? 3 enemies and an alarm = 4 shots and done etc.etc.etc. I will NEVER pre-buy from them again - rather wait until I read the reviews. HUGELY disappointed - a waste of £90

  • likeapresident
    20 posts

    lol he played just 2 hours.

    So many gamers today don't have the mental capacity to actually play through a game but are quick to jump online and complain like a bunch of hyenas.

  • flybyme
    156 posts

    I never trust other persons view on anything whether it is games, software and music etc. If I believed everyone's bad reviews of anything most of the things that I own I wouldn't have purchased. I have over 140 Hrs in FC 6 I finished the main game at 100 Hrs and are now doing all the side missions and picking up the FND Cache's the Libertad Crates and those Criptograma Chests things. I have downloaded and printed out a map showing where they all are but you still have to find the 2 keys to open them. There are 15 in total. Anyway I'm thoroughly enjoying the game

Suggested Topics