Far Cry 3 is a video game. That's the
start, end, and sum of all of its issues.
Source |
This is a very odd game, looking back.
It's been almost 5 years since it released and it continues to be a
very present game. People look back on it fondly in a lot of ways,
and in many areas I do have to agree with them. The actual gameplay
is very good, particularly once the wingsuit is relinquished to the
player. It gives a lot of choice to the player in the gameplay, and
is a nice mix between keeping things at a good pace while also giving
the player a lot of freedom.
I'm not here to talk about the
gameplay, however. It works, it is good, etc. etc. That's beside the
point. The far more interesting bit, and where I think it fails, is
in the, well everything else. This is a game that quite honestly
falls flat when it comes to everything but the gameplay. It tries to
have a complex story deconstructing the gameplay and murder key to
the game. In doing so, however, it fails to use this in anything but
the script, and as a result comes out limp and toothless.
Except for Vaas actually he's a very good villain who really does do an effective job of communicating conflicting themes and overall pulls things together very nicely with some great voicework and brilliant monologues seriously he's like a character dropped in from a different much better writer
Except for Vaas actually he's a very good villain who really does do an effective job of communicating conflicting themes and overall pulls things together very nicely with some great voicework and brilliant monologues seriously he's like a character dropped in from a different much better writer
cough
See, here's the
thing about Far Cry 3: it's ostensibly about deconstructing the
violence in the game and how it erodes the main character's morality
and sanity. Not exactly a bad idea for a game. You have to remember,
back in 2012 things were pretty different. The violent AAA game was
still being played pretty straight and the landscape for success was
a lot more limited in publisher's eyes. We've gotten quite a few
games going after that nowadays, but back then this was still a fairly
new concept when applied to a big game.
The story is... well it's OK. I don't
think the writers did a phenomenal job of it, but the core of the
script is fine and for the most part I think they had a pretty solid
thing going. It does tend to stumble sometimes, but I think for the
most part they had a very basic idea going that could have been
fleshed out very well. And like I said, whoever wrote Vaas definitely
deserved a pay raise. Of course, it also stumbles sometimes, mainly
whoever decided Vass should have been replaced with Hoyt should have
been fired. But by and large,
when I talk about Far Cry 3's story being bad, I am not talking about
the writing.
People absolutely
love throwing around the term ludonarrative, I've done it before
even. I do really like this term, however, because it gives a
vocalization to the idea of story and gameplay working together. It's
really cool to see a game doing this right! It's also really
interesting when it, erm, all falls apart.
It is quite obvious
in retrospect that the game designers and story writers were not
working so closely. Separately, they're fine as ideas and even mostly
in execution in game. Neither works so well when combined, however.
Far Cry 3, in what I think was likely some accident of
miscommunication, tries to have its cake and eat it too. This is
kinda tricky to explain, but let's take a look at 3 different parts
of the game and I hope this'll become clearer.
Going forward I'm
going to assume you've played the game or at least know the story, as
it'd take too much time to explain otherwise.
In the
Beginning
Far Cry 3 has a pretty effective story opening, I think, and hell, I think the gameplay for the most part helps out here. It's a tad out of your control, but that generally works to its advantage and you are for the most part in the same shoes as Jason. Out of control, confused, and maybe a wee bit scared. It works, it's not genius, but it's a pretty effective opening and makes the tone of this game known to you from square one.
Far Cry 3 has a pretty effective story opening, I think, and hell, I think the gameplay for the most part helps out here. It's a tad out of your control, but that generally works to its advantage and you are for the most part in the same shoes as Jason. Out of control, confused, and maybe a wee bit scared. It works, it's not genius, but it's a pretty effective opening and makes the tone of this game known to you from square one.
And then you get in control of Jason, and the illusion just all falls
apart.
See, here's the thing. Jason will act and talk like a scared kid in
the opening portions of the game, which makes sense. However, it
doesn't gel with the gameplay at all. You handle a machete in the same
way at the start and end. Your gun accuracy? Always perfect. You'll
run through combat just as flawlessly the first time as you do at the
end.
The issue here is that this is not at all what's happening in the
story. Ostensibly, Jason is terrified, has no idea what the hell he's
doing, and barely even knows how to shoot a gun in a firefight. And
then you get plunked into a firefight and none of that holds true.
The story, in this part of the game at least, is so totally and
completely undercut every single time you're in control. I understand
that sometimes liberties must be taken, but when the basic acts of
moving and shooting are contradicting your story, you may want a
second pass at it.
The
transition
It's certainly a good idea for a character arc to have Jason slowly enjoy and relish in the violence. It had never seriously been explored in a high profile game before and seeing as games tend to revolve around violence, it's a great fit too.
It's certainly a good idea for a character arc to have Jason slowly enjoy and relish in the violence. It had never seriously been explored in a high profile game before and seeing as games tend to revolve around violence, it's a great fit too.
It was not to last in quality beyond and idea, however. The opening
is a little worrying, and those worries just sort of continue and
develop throughout the game. The entire game is just... so... static.
Nothing ever changes. There is no progression in the gameplay besides
the skills you unlock.
While I can perhaps see the intent to have your skills reflect your
state of mind as a killing machine, it just doesn't work. How exactly
does learning how to cook grenades or getting more health help show
the player how Jason is? For that matter, why would an upgrade system
work at all in this game?
I'm serious. This game should not have had a skill upgrade system if
it was seriously committed to making the gameplay and story work
together. The entire purpose of the game's story is that violence
without thinking can be easily stumbled into, and any old person
could slip into that darkness. That entire point does not gel with
letting the player make specific choices on how to progress your
killing excellence.
Maybe the idea was that you're somehow complicit in progressing this?
It's done really, really badly if that was the intent. The game
presents a story of out of control instincts and then hands you a
handy menu in which to progress. It just makes no sense. Imagine, if
you will, a game where your upgrades are gained by doing specific
things. Maybe you learn a new, vicious way to kill from a mission.
Maybe after you've killed enough with a grenade you unlock new ways
to use it.A menu is just so... direct and against the entire flow.
Jason progresses as a character in one part of the game. He
progresses as an unlock tree in the next. Does it really have to be
this way?
All for what?
Let's be real here; Far Cry 3 fumbles the ending, as it does with
everything else. There are 2 endings that you can get by making the
choice at the end of the game to kill your friends or not. If you
kill them, you get a very, um, let's be delicate and say badly
written ending. That's not the point here, seeing as we're looking at
the gameplay vs. Story. The point is the other ending, where you just
leave the island.
Why does this ending even exist? To fulfill some idea that video games
need choice? This screams executive interference, and it just goes
against literally everything the story has been building up to this
point. Everything is building up to Jason killing his friends. It's
obvious. The entire point of the game has been how violence corrupts
and takes over one's morality. To give the player the option to say,
"no", and go against every single point in the story is
just... wrong. End of story. The player should not have had a choice
here.
And that's pretty much Far Cry 3's story in a nutshell. OK, but
brought low by it's inability to reconcile the gameplay and story.
It's clear to me that everyone involved were concerned with making a
fun game first, and a story second. While that may be all that is
needed, it's disappointing that this is a sequel to a game that got
this dynamic so, so right.
But more on that next time. Thanks for
reading!
No comments:
Post a Comment