![]() You're just left with a sense of disillusionment, guilt and a bad taste in your mouth. Apart from progression and in game collectables, you gain nothing for beating the game. The Far Cry 5 story is literally a Zero Sum game. The truth of the matter is that "There Is No Good Ending". Far Cry has usually been about visiting some exotic locales, and I find it rather likely that at least some of these were not annihilated.Įven if everything has been nuked, they can still make a post-apocalyptic game. Why are we convinced it's the end of the world? We know that some places were nuked but we don't know that the whole world was. That does beg the question, though, that if the resist ending is canon, does that mean that far cry 5 is the end of the far cry series, chronologically? Or, will they go and make a Fallout: Hope County? because. Of all the messages Far Cry 5 could have had, I was very surprised that it doesn't at all seem to condemn cults but rather has the message that they should just be left to do whatever they want, no matter how many people are left to suffer. The fact that it leads to all this trouble is just the result of the writers forcing you into a completely unrealistic situation where a handful of feds try to arrest the leader of a clearly militarized cult in their home base. Not doing your damn job while a dangerous cult is kidnapping, killing and torturing people is probably the worst choice you could make. 引用自 Jus Joj:Doing nothing to get the good ending to the game has been something that far cry 4 did, and it actually gives you two chances to do it in this game, once in the beginning, and once in the end.They are terrible endings here, by the way, I refuse to call them good endings (though the writers seems to think you should "leave well enough alone"). Is there any source for Ubisoft stating that the resist endiing is the canon ending? I've only found stuff of them saying that the resist ending was heavily forshadowed in the game. I'm still saying that montana would not have been nuked has the decomisoned nuclear facilities had not exploded (aka you blowing up the cult there) while at the same time a nuke(s) went off in Russia. If you didn't arrest him you could supposedly come back with enough force to actually take the whole group at once (aka the national guard)Īs for the nukes. It's not the nukes I have a problem with in the ending, its the fact that Joesph gets stuck with you in the bunker, if they had let us at least have the option to kill Joesph, I would have been fine with the ending (although I would have liked the deputies to survive).įinally, how did that change anything if you don't arrest him, maybe it pushes the nukes off a few years, but he would have eventually found an excuse to do the same thing he did in the game, so you don't actually avoid anything.Įdit: That is something else though, Joesph couldn't control the nukes, so how did he know the EXACT moment they would hit, as is obvious in the cutscene? That was a huge fail on the logic of the ending. The true ending is the resist ending, the devs confirmed that is the canon ending.Īlso, no, you don't. You just get a better understanding of why it is the Good ending. You don't get the true ending by playing the game. No the only way to apreciate "why" the true ending is by playing through the game and seeing what resisting brings about because of your actions.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |