I think this choice is too hidden to create an entirely separate plotline like that, and there's no way given the scope of the current game that essentially doubling the story would have been physically possible for Ubisoft.
I've read that some wished this "choice" led to an alternate game universe that allowed you to side with Min and his cause for the duration of the game. Granted, this is just an Easter Egg and the main plot has plenty of death and destruction and will force you to despise Min soon enough, but I think it was good to set the game up this way. Here, Far Cry 4 is playing with the tropes of its own genre by offering an entirely different pathway toward "victory" that requires no killing at all. As you get more power, you seem to lose more of your sanity, and by the end you're wondering if Jason Brody really did any of the things you've seen, or if it's been some sort of fantastical fever dream. Far Cry 3 examined the very video-gamey concept of a white frat bro coming to an island and becoming a badass, immortal, freedom fighter. With its last two installments specifically, Far Cry seems to be going a bit meta with its storytelling, and it's rather brilliant. I can't even think of another game to compare it to, that's how few games even hint at a possible way forward without a copious amount of bloodshed required. Do you want to KILL or SPARE this person? Do you want to join the RED or BLUE faction? And so on.īut here? By simply taking a character at their word, you get to act out a peaceful resolution in what's an otherwise excessively violent game. We're all used to games either A) forcing us on the rails for the duration or B) setting up a story in a very obvious series of player choices that affect the future outcome.
0 kommentar(er)
