Sections

Far Cry 3 to blur the lines between hero and villain

Wednesday, 25th July 2012 02:57 GMT By Brenna Hillier

Far Cry 3 will forefront the tense dissonance between typical gaming narratives – goodies versus baddies – and the reprehensible behaviour required by gameplay.

Speaking to CVG, producer Dan Hay denied main character Jason will turn out to be antagonist Vaas all along – alá Fight Club – but said the player will come to see the parallels.

“When you start to look at Vaas and other characters, and you start to see similarities between them and what you’re doing, that’s when the inner conflict starts,” he said.

“The conflict starts when the island has exacted its pound of flesh from you. You see it when you start getting those tattoos, which tell a bunch of stories about what you’ve seen and how you’ve played the game. And you look at them and start to see more similarities between the person or people that you hate, than the person you were at the beginning.”

Far Cry 3 hits PC, PlayStation 3 and Xbox 360 in November.

Latest

15 Comments

  1. marijnlems

    Well, Spec Ops: The Line has set a high bar for this sort of narrative tension, but if any game series can clear it, it’s probably Far Cry. I love the fact that two shooters with a more complicated moral view are coming out in the same year.

    #1 2 years ago
  2. JimFear-666

    im glad to see that jason isnt vaas cause after seeing the E3 demo, thats what i tought.

    #2 2 years ago
  3. absolutezero

    It might be just me but Far Cry 2 already did this.

    No one stuck with it long enough to actually find that out though so I guess its fine to use this to sell the next one.

    #3 2 years ago
  4. YoungZer0

    @1: Exactly my thought. I honestly don’t expect Far Cry 3 to beat Spec Ops: The Line when it comes to that. But i’ll try to keep my mind open about it.

    #4 2 years ago
  5. DSB

    Honestly I think Evil Genius did a better job than Far Cry 2. The complete lack of any kind of logical approach just killed it for me.

    But even if Far Cry 2 was refreshing the first time, why would you want to repeat it?

    #5 2 years ago
  6. marijnlems

    @5 (and also @3): Using the same theme in a story hardly means it’s going to be the exact same thing. And watching the trailers it’s obvious that FC3 is taking a completely different approach from its predecessor.

    #6 2 years ago
  7. absolutezero

    I agree completely but it really feels as if they are trying to sweep everything that made Far Cry 2 special under the carpet and pretend it never happened. Like the third game is the first of the series to explore this idea when it was actually one of the natural things that emmerged from simply playing the second.

    #7 2 years ago
  8. farcry3releasedate

    Vaas really is a unique character. Without Vaas the game would be nothing IMHO. Just another open-world shooter ready to be put on the shelves of gamers. But with Vaas, the game comes alive. It stands out from the rest of the crowd!

    Far Cry 3 Release Date

    #8 2 years ago
  9. YoungZer0

    @7: Well, for me FarCry 2 failed.

    Granted, i didn’t pay too much attention to the dialogs, but at the end, when the game told me: You’re the bad guy. And i was like; “really, how?”

    I’ve been killing bad guys left and right, there was no line for me.

    The game never made that statement through the gameplay, or the cutscenes. I never felt anything.

    #9 2 years ago
  10. DSB

    Really? I didn’t like Far Cry 2 either, but that was actually because it was totally obvious how big of a hypocrite the protagonist was right from the beginning.

    Just another ruthless mercenary killing whoever he’s told to kill, without any consideration for the consequences or whether it actually serves his purpose.

    It just felt fundamentally dumb and irrational to me.

    #10 2 years ago
  11. YoungZer0

    @10: I never felt really responsible for what i did. Even though the game is a fps, i never felt like i was the person playing.

    Whatever you did, the game never really changed, go to a, kill people, go to b, kill people. All you do is kill people.

    To me the protagonist’s action wasn’t the driving force of the story. What he did had little impact on the story.

    I never cared for any consequences because there never were any.

    Everything was just too disconnected.

    I think that might have worked if the games protagonist had a face and a voice. So we might actually understand why we’re picking those missions at random. But that never happened, the protagonist is just a blunt instrument.

    That is why Spec Ops the Line works so well, i think. And that’s why FarCry 3 might work better, because Jason (“JASOOONN!!!”) actually has a voice, he comments on what’s happening around him. He cares, so will I.

    #11 2 years ago
  12. absolutezero

    I guess its a straight up failing of the game that no one ever paid attention to what was happening and what you were doing.

    Theres points like when you attempt to hi-jack a plane to carry out a mission, only that plane was going to be used to evacuate civilians from the area. It gets shot down. Everyone you begin to rely on and even start to like, the partners you pick up over the course of the game all start to be revealed as being utter bastards. They saved you countless times but at no point does the game outright go “Jesus man look what we did, you made me kill someone!” like Spec Ops does.

    Its somewhat subtle in the details. Far Cry is the prime Marmite game and even Hocking will admit its more or less broken in a miriad of places, that mod that recently came out has fixed alot of its problems and even upped the realistic aspects that have been completely removed from 3.

    #12 2 years ago
  13. YoungZer0

    @12: Oh, i remember that, yeah, i never understood where they were going with this betrayal. For me it made the buddy system useless. If anything it just proves my point that nothing you do really matters.

    The moment i knew they were going to betray me, i stopped caring for all of them. If they died on a mission, i wouldn’t care, one less enemy to kill. It actually encouraged me to kill them beforehand.

    I never relied on the buddy-system. The PC Version had a quickload function, which – if you think about it – destroys the importance of the buddy system. Why would i rely on my buddies and watch the annoying rescue cutscene when i don’t have to?

    You say subtle, i say fail.

    #13 2 years ago
  14. absolutezero

    So it was the games problem that you knew the buddies were going to betray you before they actually do so?

    Thats just like saying the white phosphorus sequence is dimished because you already knew what was going to happen in it.

    Horses for courses.

    #14 2 years ago
  15. YoungZer0

    @14: Nope, it’s the games problem that the poor narrative had no impact on the gameplay or the gamers themselves.

    And no, i don’t see how that would be same thing. The White Phosphorus scene was important for the games narrative. The game wouldn’t have the same conclusion if that scene never happened. Not only that, but that’s not the only scene that has an impact on the player.

    What exactly would’ve changed if the betrayal scene in FarCry 2 never happened? Nothing. The scene came at the end of the game and it didn’t impact your character or the narrative. You already had to say goodbye to first half of your mercs. Wherever you helped them, or the people in the church didn’t matter either. They die anyway. So saying goodbye to the second half wasn’t that big of a deal.

    As i said before, the gameplay and the narrative are too disconnected. I had no emotional bond to the mercs either, because they barely had a personality.

    #15 2 years ago

Comments are now closed on this article.