Far Cry 5

It's not just main quests that autocomplete though. There's a bunch of side quests in John's region that do as well. Not sure about Faith's; either there's a lot less or I just got better at spotting which ones needed to be a priority. Jacob's, who knows... the resistance cap is so low that I couldn't even unlock all the quests let alone check to see which ones look time-sensitive. I just hit 10k by completing the two Eli main quests and immediately fast traveled the fuck out of the region.

Last I heard the bug where most people can't do anything post-game still exists too. Not sure if it's just PS4 or all platforms but I don't see anything in the newest patch notes to indicate that it's been fixed yet.

Was there a patch or something? Gamefly finally delivered and people here were talking about sniper rifles being useless due to it alerting everyone in a 5 mile radius. I haven't had anywhere close to that response. Even before I put a suppressor on mine I've been able to clear out stuff without much of an issue at all. I even blew up a silo with a few guys in visual range and they didn't notice

Go to an outpost and snipe one of their dudes on a roof from 125m or less and watch what happens. The patches changed nothing, the whole place still comes running to where you took the shot from, often to the point of actually turning on the alarms in the process. I have noticed that I can shoot people from ~150m and not be detected. And more importantly, as long as they don't actually turn on the alarms you can still kill everyone in the outpost with them running around hunting you, and as long as they never actually see you it will count as an undetected capture.

That said, the bigger the gun the less a suppressor helps so technically it's not unrealistic. I've cleared a couple outposts using only a suppressed SMG (and some help from Jess and Peaches) and nobody heard a thing and you only have to worry about them seeing bodies. Suppressed ARs produce somewhat more noise and shotguns, LMGs, and snipers are pretty loud. Note that the AR-CL sniper seems to have the same noise as the AR-C rifle; it's only the .308* and .50 that really get everyone's attention. So if that's the sniper rifle you're using, you won't see the extreme reaction that people complain about. The actual dumb part of it though is that the suppressors don't require subsonic ammo so that using the stock muzzle brake would result in better muzzle velocity and penetration as well as less recoil.

* - Word of advice, the .308 and .45-70 guns are all shit, don't even bother buying them. Best guns by far are the M-60 (so OP it's almost like cheating), the semi-auto .50 sniper, and the RAT4 guided rocket launcher, along with a good silenced 1911/SMG-11/A-99 sidearm.

Utnayan said:

I have to watch more of this guy's stuff.

Click to expand...

I watch all his shit now after the Zelda video he did. He can be funny as fuck.

jooka said:

You can just sniper the alarms before you aggro anyone with the MBP suppressed from far enough away and get the undetected bonus every time

Click to expand...

I do that when it's convenient but most of the time you'd have to approach the outpost from two opposite sides to be able to hit both/all three alarms. They seem to either trigger the alarm after the first shot or not at all, so it takes less time to reload checkpoint if you want the $1000 (or just don't want to have to spend time killing the reinforcements too). So long as they don't actually hit the alarm or see you, you always get the undetected bonus anyway.

Vorph said:

Go to an outpost and snipe one of their dudes on a roof from 125m or less and watch what happens. The patches changed nothing, the whole place still comes running to where you took the shot from, often to the point of actually turning on the alarms in the process. I have noticed that I can shoot people from ~150m and not be detected. And more importantly, as long as they don't actually turn on the alarms you can still kill everyone in the outpost with them running around hunting you, and as long as they never actually see you it will count as an undetected capture.

That said, the bigger the gun the less a suppressor helps so technically it's not unrealistic. I've cleared a couple outposts using only a suppressed SMG (and some help from Jess and Peaches) and nobody heard a thing and you only have to worry about them seeing bodies. Suppressed ARs produce somewhat more noise and shotguns, LMGs, and snipers are pretty loud. Note that the AR-CL sniper seems to have the same noise as the AR-C rifle; it's only the .308* and .50 that really get everyone's attention. So if that's the sniper rifle you're using, you won't see the extreme reaction that people complain about. The actual dumb part of it though is that the suppressors don't require subsonic ammo so that using the stock muzzle brake would result in better muzzle velocity and penetration as well as less recoil.

* - Word of advice, the .308 and .45-70 guns are all shit, don't even bother buying them. Best guns by far are the M-60 (so OP it's almost like cheating), the semi-auto .50 sniper, and the RAT4 guided rocket launcher, along with a good silenced 1911/SMG-11/A-99 sidearm.

Click to expand...

why don't you like the 45-70? i use it as my sniper and as long as i'm not out in the open or close enough to piss on, they don't notice me.

honestly though, is there something i'm missing? because it just sort of feels like outside the heavy weapons, the starter weapons are basically the best to use

Vorph said:

Go to an outpost and snipe one of their dudes on a roof from 125m or less and watch what happens. The patches changed nothing, the whole place still comes running to where you took the shot from, often to the point of actually turning on the alarms in the process. I have noticed that I can shoot people from ~150m and not be detected. And more importantly, as long as they don't actually turn on the alarms you can still kill everyone in the outpost with them running around hunting you, and as long as they never actually see you it will count as an undetected capture.

That said, the bigger the gun the less a suppressor helps so technically it's not unrealistic. I've cleared a couple outposts using only a suppressed SMG (and some help from Jess and Peaches) and nobody heard a thing and you only have to worry about them seeing bodies. Suppressed ARs produce somewhat more noise and shotguns, LMGs, and snipers are pretty loud. Note that the AR-CL sniper seems to have the same noise as the AR-C rifle; it's only the .308* and .50 that really get everyone's attention. So if that's the sniper rifle you're using, you won't see the extreme reaction that people complain about. The actual dumb part of it though is that the suppressors don't require subsonic ammo so that using the stock muzzle brake would result in better muzzle velocity and penetration as well as less recoil.

* - Word of advice, the .308 and .45-70 guns are all shit, don't even bother buying them. Best guns by far are the M-60 (so OP it's almost like cheating), the semi-auto .50 sniper, and the RAT4 guided rocket launcher, along with a good silenced 1911/SMG-11/A-99 sidearm.

Click to expand...

Yeah I find myself almost exclusively using the M-60. It's super accurate, destroys people in 1-2 shots, and can blow up planes/helicopters/large animals/whatever pretty quickly. Only other thing I use is sniper for things super far away and are stationary

j00t said:

why don't you like the 45-70? i use it as my sniper and as long as i'm not out in the open or close enough to piss on, they don't notice me.

honestly though, is there something i'm missing? because it just sort of feels like outside the heavy weapons, the starter weapons are basically the best to use

Click to expand...

There's simply no reason to use a lever- or bolt-action gun. They do vastly less damage over time due to their fire rate, and the .45-70 actually seems to be only doing the same damage as the .308
MS16 per shot because they both take multiple body hits to kill most things, while the SA-50 can kill almost anything in one shot even if you miss the head.

Also, the .45-70 is in the rifle category and not a sniper like the .50 which means you can't use the best scope on it. If I was going to use a rifle the only one worth using is the AK-47 or AK-M (they're identical statwise) but I don't bother since their only real advantage is how common the ammo is. Ammo really isn't a big deal anyway, and the M-60 puts everything else to shame. It seems to have ridiculously high penetration because even the armored enemies die to a very short burst (3, maybe 4 bullets if none hit the head?) from it. You can carry 600 rounds so who cares if it doesn't drop that often?

Just want to give you guys a heads up, If you are Trophy hunting for the Arcade lvl 20 achievement, be careful. I've lost my rank twice now after having gotten up to Rank 12-13. Looks like the only way to avoid it is to do it all in one sitting or don't turn off the game/console.

Really interested in this game. I haven't played the other Far Cry games more than about an hour. I have all of them though besides the original. They are on my backlog, just haven't put them before other games. I'm not huge on open world games, but I really like the Montana setting as I live in the midwest. I also really like all the butthurt this game is causing the SJW's. Makes me want to support Ubi with my money. The fact that they are willing to make a game they want to make and not bend to the will of the whiners. So my question is, is this game fun and worth the money? Or should I play 2-4 first and then pick up 5 when it goes down in price?

Stave said:

Really interested in this game. I haven't played the other Far Cry games more than about an hour. I have all of them though besides the original. They are on my backlog, just haven't put them before other games. I'm not huge on open world games, but I really like the Montana setting as I live in the midwest. I also really like all the butthurt this game is causing the SJW's. Makes me want to support Ubi with my money. The fact that they are willing to make a game they want to make and not bend to the will of the whiners. So my question is, is this game fun and worth the money? Or should I play 2-4 first and then pick up 5 when it goes down in price?

Click to expand...

If you only played other FC games for no more than an hour and a primary reason you are contemplating getting it is you like the fact that this is causing butthurt to SJWs (which I don't agree with and if anything it offends people on both sides of the ideological spectrum), I would skip.

yeah if anything FC5 is more a game that tries to piss nobody off like most Ubisoft games. I never heard of SJWs being mad at it (i know, they are mad at everything) but I'm sure there are a bunch of right wing people also mad at the game for the way it makes rednecks look like retards. Every time the game shows one char with a crazy view ("guns are better than sex!") it immediately side steps the whole thing by having a character next to that person say the exact opposite thing, its totally a design-by-committee kind of game.

Every far cry game is completely seperate from the other and you don't need to play any to play a different one. FC1 and 2 are one set of games ("real"istic) and FC3-5, Primal, and Blood Dragon are a different kind (more whacky). FC5 is probably the best far cry, maybe FC3 is a little more interesting/focused. Nice thing is if you get FC5 + season pass on console you will get a free digital copy of FC3 in a bit over a month. On the other hand its a Ubisoft game, in 2-3 months this game will be like 60% off. If you play mostly on PC I don't think they are remastering FC3 on it, since it'll be pretty much the same game.

I don't think there is really any immediate need to play this game asap, its not bad but its not the pinnacle of gaming or anything and it gets pretty repetitive pretty fast. If you just fly through the main campaign though you can be done in 20-30 hours which isn't too bad. If you start working on doing every side quest and prepper stash etc it'll take 2-4x that time.

SJWs hate it because it's not the Trump-supporter murder-simulator they were all hoping for.

The more I play of it the lower my final score for it goes. The bugs get harder to ignore, the lack of variety in weapons is inexcusable when Ghost Recon exists, the AI really is abysmal, the forced story/capture stuff is just awful design (as is the retarded amount of quests that autocomplete if you aren't a mindreader who does everything in the exact order it was designed), and the story itself is pretty dumb once you get closer to the end. I haven't finished it yet because I'm losing interest fast, but people say that as bad as that other stuff is the actual endings are the worst part of all. Need to wrap it up tonight and ship it back so I can be sure to get Yakuza 6 and GoW next week though. It's still not a bad game and I had quite a bit of fun with it overall, but I'm very glad I only rented it. Probably around a 7.5 now, with a likely drop to 7.0 or a little less if the ending really is as terrible as everyone says.

spronk said:

yeah if anything FC5 is more a game that tries to piss nobody off like most Ubisoft games. I never heard of SJWs being mad at it (i know, they are mad at everything) but I'm sure there are a bunch of right wing people also mad at the game for the way it makes rednecks look like retards. Every time the game shows one char with a crazy view ("guns are better than sex!") it immediately side steps the whole thing by having a character next to that person say the exact opposite thing, its totally a design-by-committee kind of game.

Every far cry game is completely seperate from the other and you don't need to play any to play a different one. FC1 and 2 are one set of games ("real"istic) and FC3-5, Primal, and Blood Dragon are a different kind (more whacky). FC5 is probably the best far cry, maybe FC3 is a little more interesting/focused. Nice thing is if you get FC5 + season pass on console you will get a free digital copy of FC3 in a bit over a month. On the other hand its a Ubisoft game, in 2-3 months this game will be like 60% off. If you play mostly on PC I don't think they are remastering FC3 on it, since it'll be pretty much the same game.

I don't think there is really any immediate need to play this game asap, its not bad but its not the pinnacle of gaming or anything and it gets pretty repetitive pretty fast. If you just fly through the main campaign though you can be done in 20-30 hours which isn't too bad. If you start working on doing every side quest and prepper stash etc it'll take 2-4x that time.

Click to expand...

I'll probably wait for a sale then. I think one of my biggest problems with these types of games, is how long they are and how much stuff there is to do. I like FPS's with about an 8-12 hour tight campaign. But I get in a game like this, and then I feel like I HAVE to do all this side stuff or I'll be missing out on a lot of content. It drives the completionist in me nuts. So then I put the main story on hold to do all these side quests, which usually burns me out and I put the game down and never come back. Happens to me in all of these types of games, Assassin's Creeds, Skyrim, Fallout, Witcher 3, Watch Dogs, etc. I think part of what intrigues me so far on the stuff I've watched of this game, is it seems more story-led or focused, rather than just a ton of collecting bear asses, but that could also just be the videos focusing on the story content, not the filler. Maybe the side-quests are main story quality, I dunno. When games have side-quests with actual storylines, I can handle them much better. Like Destiny 2, FFXV, Witcher 3, and those types of side-quests are a lot more tolerable.

As far as the whole SJW stuff, if you just search youtube for Far Cry 5 SJW, there's a lot of videos making fun of the SJW criticism against this game, and the videos the SJW's made are about 90% disliked. From what I've watched, it seems most "conservative" people think the game is funny and laugh at the parody of it all. But it looks like there are a lot of SJW's though that are offended or bothered by the setting and people, and the fact that you have to side with some of the rednecks. One of them apparently says "Obama loving libtards" and some took offense to that. Ubi could have played it safe, and made all the rednecks the bad guys or left some of that stuff out, but they didn't, and I appreciate that. To me, controversy and pushing boundries in games is fun. Just look at GTA. That's part of why this game appeals to me, it doesn't leave out possibly offensive things (due to today's politics) just for the sake of not offending people. I want games to continue to be like this, which is why I want to support that. Make a fun game how you want, even if it offends people. Puritans wanted to shut down GTA back in the day, and SJW Puritans want to censor everything offensive (to them) now days. Fuck em.

Here is one good example of how Gamespot had issue with it. Their original video got destroyed on in their comments and like ratio.

the gist of the SJW hate comes from an understanding that doesn't actually exist in gaming. SJW's somewhere got the impression that everything is a political statement. and since this game ISN'T a political statement, they are confused. the people you ally yourself with aren't right or left wing. they are 2 dimensional characters with little to no backstory. they aren't SUPPOSED to have a backstory. they are there as a means to an end to give you map markers or sell you guns. that's basically it.

now... some people might want more CHARACTER in this game, and i might agree with that. but not to be political, just to flesh out the LIFE of the countryside. the SJW community wants it to be political so they can either vilify it or tentpole it. one of the dudes from gamespot was like, i made my character black and then i talked to that guy who says "obama loving libtards" and it made me uncomfortable.

...

WHY did that make you uncomfortable? because a character in a video game had a different opinion than you and wasn't the antagonist of the story? or because you crafted a scenario in your head to garner offense? i mean, what ANY character says or does is completely identical regardless of your race or gender. but whatevs.

the game itself is enjoyable for what it is. the farcry series has ALWAYS had morally ambiguous heroes and villians, that's part of it's charm. i wouldn't say that farcry 5 isn't trying to offend anyone, i'd say that the purpose is to try to keep both sides morally grey so that the player can decipher what to do with that. unfortunately, you can only tell that story so many times before you run out of different ways to tell it.

Punko said:

the vehicle controls in this game are terrible

Click to expand...

You mean planes and choppers? Go into settings and change them to 'classic' instead of 'shooter'.