The terrible writing in Far Cry 3 was... deliberate?

[BAITness]

After beating the game (and honestly several times before that) I was thinking something I heard other gamers say many times before: Far Cry 3's writing sucks. It is in your face awful, to the point where I was constantly being taken out of the experience and wondering if anybody actually played through the game before releasing it.



*******SPOILERS*******










Whether it is the ridiculous scenes where you kill Vaas, Hoyt, and Buck in dreamlike sequences, or the absurd part where Jason has sex with Citra in front of a bunch of warriors and promises to lead them to glory, or the silly premise that this rich kid got a tattoo and now is a superhero, or even just the endlessly repetetive idle chatter of all the npcs, it feels like no thought or effort was put into the writing at all. The game just throws cliche after cliche seemingly hoping something sticks.

It turns out this may not have been completely accidental, though. According to this http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2012-12-18-far-cry-3s-writer-argues-critics-largely-missed-the-point-of-the-game the writing is deliberately awful, and we are supposed to realize that the version of events we see as Jason is not accurate. He says that players that did not beat the game (or did not pick to side with Citra) may not realize that the game is mocking all of the cliches it threw around for the rest of the game. The writer says that we should have been clued in by the Alice in Wonderland quotes, which it turns out were not at all meant to make you feel like Jason was on a descent into madness.

Personally I do not think this idea holds up. The idea of Jason as an unreliable narrator requires him to be telling the player the story - but he doesn't, you see it for yourself in his shoes. Perhaps if the game made it clear that he was telling the story, and that it all already happened, this idea would hold up a bit better. I still do not think it would do well, though, as the game does not act like satire at any point. It picks up the very heavy topics of murdering, slavery, and rape, and fumbles them all immediately. Despite what the writer says, the game still feels like it is just written poorly, not written too brilliantly for players to understand.

What do you think? Did you realize the game's story was supposed to be satirical? If so, what clued you in?

[Rafael Freeman]

The writing is awesome and one of the best things about Far Cry 3. Spoilers below.

It really helps if you are familiar with Heart of Darkness or the movie Apocalypse Now (which was inspired by Heart of Darkness). The game is basically a postmodern version of Heart of Darkness with a an ironic wink at action movies. That last observation should answer part of your question. Sometimes the writing is deliberately 'bad' in the sense that it mimics certain cliches.

Other points of reference: Blue Velvet and Once Upon a Time in America.

The protagonist suffers from white hero syndrome and is essentially the embodiment of a power fantasy (not unlike people who play video-games).

The whole idea of a weak privileged white young man who, through some impromptu training becomes the savior of dark-skinned people is mixed with the idea that if we look long enough in the abyss, the abyss will start looking back.

For variations of the theme look at the Rocky and Rambo movies.

The story is a deconstruction of common themes in video-games and action movies.

The idea that a former weakling would defeat experienced killers is obviously ridiculous. That is why these killings happen in dream sequences.

The idea that the protagonist is somehow a savior and is romantically pursued by a mysterious princess is also ridiculous. The protagonist will either give in to being evil, lose his soul and die because he was never relevant to begin with, or he will keep his soul and lose his sanity since he was delusional from the start.

Whether or not Jason is an unreliable narrator isn't really relevant. The whole narration is unreliable. It's a fantasy that turns into a nightmare.

Maybe the whole story is a drug induced dream. Maybe parts of the story are real and other parts are the fantasy of a man who is being imprisoned. Or maybe Jason is insane and everything is a delusion. The whole point is that we don't know.

My one point of criticism is that Far Cry 3 is a mainstream game and most mainstream gamers won't get the story. But I do believe that most people who won't get it, will still be able to enjoy the game.

[BAITness]

Originally posted by rafaelherschel:

The writing is awesome and one of the best things about Far Cry 3. Spoilers below.

It really helps if you are familiar with Heart of Darkness or the movie Apocalypse Now (which was inspired by Heart of Darkness). The game is basically a postmodern version of Heart of Darkness with a an ironic wink at action movies. That last observation should answer part of your question. Sometimes the writing is deliberately 'bad' in the sense that it mimics certain cliches.

Other points of reference: Blue Velvet and Once Upon a Time in America.

The protagonist suffers from white hero syndrome and is essentially the embodiment of a power fantasy (not unlike people who play video-games).

The whole idea of a weak privileged white young man who, through some impromptu training becomes the savior of dark-skinned people is mixed with the idea that if we look long enough in the abyss, the abyss will start looking back.

For variations of the theme look at the Rocky and Rambo movies.

The story is a deconstruction of common themes in video-games and action movies.

The idea that a former weakling would defeat experienced killers is obviously ridiculous. That is why these killings happen in dream sequences.

The idea that the protagonist is somehow a savior and is romantically pursued by a mysterious princess is also ridiculous. The protagonist will either give in to being evil, lose his soul and die because he was never relevant to begin with, or he will keep his soul and lose his sanity since he was delusional from the start.

Whether or not Jason is an unreliable narrator isn't really relevant. The whole narration is unreliable. It's a fantasy that turns into a nightmare.

Maybe the whole story is a drug induced dream. Maybe parts of the story are real and other parts are the fantasy of a man who is being imprisoned. Or maybe Jason is insane and everything is a delusion. The whole point is that we don't know.

My one point of criticism is that Far Cry 3 is a mainstream game and most mainstream gamers won't get the story. But I do believe that most people who won't get it, will still be able to enjoy the game.

I am very familiar with Heart of Darkness, Spec Ops the Line does the same thing - it just does it better. While I loved the story in Spec Ops the Line, it shows you at the end the difference between what your character sees and reality - I think this game could have really benefited from such a scene. I think to fiddle at all with this kind of reality vs perception plotline, you need to also have the reality included.

[Rafael Freeman]

Originally posted by BAITness:

Originally posted by rafaelherschel:

The writing is awesome and one of the best things about Far Cry 3. Spoilers below.

It really helps if you are familiar with Heart of Darkness or the movie Apocalypse Now (which was inspired by Heart of Darkness). The game is basically a postmodern version of Heart of Darkness with a an ironic wink at action movies. That last observation should answer part of your question. Sometimes the writing is deliberately 'bad' in the sense that it mimics certain cliches.

Other points of reference: Blue Velvet and Once Upon a Time in America.

The protagonist suffers from white hero syndrome and is essentially the embodiment of a power fantasy (not unlike people who play video-games).

The whole idea of a weak privileged white young man who, through some impromptu training becomes the savior of dark-skinned people is mixed with the idea that if we look long enough in the abyss, the abyss will start looking back.

For variations of the theme look at the Rocky and Rambo movies.

The story is a deconstruction of common themes in video-games and action movies.

The idea that a former weakling would defeat experienced killers is obviously ridiculous. That is why these killings happen in dream sequences.

The idea that the protagonist is somehow a savior and is romantically pursued by a mysterious princess is also ridiculous. The protagonist will either give in to being evil, lose his soul and die because he was never relevant to begin with, or he will keep his soul and lose his sanity since he was delusional from the start.

Whether or not Jason is an unreliable narrator isn't really relevant. The whole narration is unreliable. It's a fantasy that turns into a nightmare.

Maybe the whole story is a drug induced dream. Maybe parts of the story are real and other parts are the fantasy of a man who is being imprisoned. Or maybe Jason is insane and everything is a delusion. The whole point is that we don't know.

My one point of criticism is that Far Cry 3 is a mainstream game and most mainstream gamers won't get the story. But I do believe that most people who won't get it, will still be able to enjoy the game.

I am very familiar with Heart of Darkness, Spec Ops the Line does the same thing - it just does it better. While I loved the story in Spec Ops the Line, it shows you at the end the difference between what your character sees and reality - I think this game could have really benefited from such a scene. I think to fiddle at all with this kind of reality vs perception plotline, you need to also have the reality included.

I wouldn't have liked that. For me the point is that there is no reality in certain works of art.

Sometimes it works, like in Rashomon. But Rashomon made it clear from the beginning that there are conflicting stories. Quite literally.

In movies like Blue Velvet and Lost Highway I like the fact that there is no all-knowing narrator who explains what 'reality' is. After all, there is no absolute reality in a work of fiction.

[Category Theory]

I too now understand where the writers were trying to go with the story, but I don't think they did it very well. Part of the danger of trying to mock or ironically use the tropes of first-person shooters (or many other games) is that if you don't do it really well nobody can tell you're being ironic rather than just writing yet another game that uses those tropes. So that didn't help here. But worse, there appears to be no real meaning or point that the writers were trying to get across. You're not actually Being Ironic Ha Ha unless you have a point beyond just "being ironic;" it's something that I think you can use only if you've already got something else there that serves as the real substance of the story. In this case, yes, I know it was supposed to be Jason living in what's essentially a fantasy world, but how does that differ from any other shooter?

Compare it to Just Cause 3 where the writing, albeit much less sophisticated, works because the game is an over-the-top version of exactly what it purports to be: "have fun flying all over the place and make big boom." That actually comes across as more satirical than Far Cry 3.

I don't understand the continual comparisons with Heart of Darkness (which comparison, by the way, I don't think the writers themselves actually made). FC3 is not at all the same story, though you could possibly argue that it touches on a couple of the secondary themes from Heart of Darkness.

In Heart of Darkness nobody is descending into fantasy: you have a reliable, sane and civilised* narrator who tracks down and gives a reliable view of another person also from a civilised culture; that person entered into an uncivilised world and, by civilised standards, appears to have gone insane, since that's what the cultural standards under comparison would say about someone who descends from civilisation into barbarity. But the point is, is he really insane? Or is our "civilisation" just a thin veneer over what we humans really are? And how does this play out in things like 19th-century European imperialism?

*Note: "Civilised" here really should be in quotes; I'm not trying to make a cultural value judgement in this description of the story (though those sorts of value judgements are indeed part of what the story is about). But putting it in quotes with every use got tiresome to read very quickly.

The story from Heart of Darkness has been used in video games before, but that's Far Cry 2 and Spec Ops: The Line, not this game.

[Rafael Freeman]

Originally posted by Category Theory:

I too now understand where the writers were trying to go with the story, but I don't think they did it very well. Part of the danger of trying to mock or ironically use the tropes of first-person shooters (or many other games) is that if you don't do it really well nobody can tell you're being ironic rather than just writing yet another game that uses those tropes. So that didn't help here. But worse, there appears to be no real meaning or point that the writers were trying to get across. You're not actually Being Ironic Ha Ha unless you have a point beyond just "being ironic;" it's something that I think you can use only if you've already got something else there that serves as the real substance of the story. In this case, yes, I know it was supposed to be Jason living in what's essentially a fantasy world, but how does that differ from any other shooter? Compare it to Just Cause 3 where the writing, albeit much less sophisticated, works because the game is an over-the-top version of exactly what it purports to be: "have fun flying all over the place and make big boom."

I don't understand the continual comparisons with Heart of Darkness (which comparison, by the way, I don't think the writers themselves actually made). FC3 is not at all the same story, though you could possibly argue that it touches on a couple of the secondary themes from Heart of Darkness.

In Heart of Darkness nobody is descending into fantasy: you have a reliable, sane and civilised* narrator who tracks down and gives a reliable view of another person also from a civilised culture; that person entered into an uncivilised world and, by civilised standards, appears to have gone insane, since that's what the cultural standards under comparison would say about someone who descends from civilisation into barbarity. But the point is, is he really insane? Or is our "civilisation" just a thin veneer over what we humans really are? And how does this play out in things like 19th-century European imperialism?

*Note: "Civilised" here really should be in quotes; I'm not trying to make a cultural value judgement in this description of the story (though those sorts of value judgements are indeed part of what the story is about). But putting it in quotes with every use got tiresome to read very quickly.

The story from Heart of Darkness has been used in video games before, but that's Far Cry 2 and Spec Ops: The Line, not this game.

The writers are indeed quite serious. Far Cry 3 is not a parody. It's not trying to be ironic, it's not a cynic: 'look at us being clever'. It does have some fun with common action tropes, and personally I enjoyed those jokes.

Heart of Darkness is not a parody and I'm not saying that the writers tried to remake Heart of Darkness.

But the book and the game share common themes. Interestingly, Heart of Darkness itself is also largely misunderstood.

The central theme in Far Cry 3 is that we tend to see other cultures as mystical, threatening and strange, but that we carry the things that we fear inside ourselves.

That is why I also mentioned Blue Velvet. Another work of art that was widely misunderstood at the time of it's release.

Now I should stress that I don't believe in literal interpretations, so anything below isn't an absolute truth, it's just an explanation of how I experienced the game.

Rather than concentrating on saving his friends, Jason focuses on hunting and proving his manhood by partaking in 'trials'. The superficial explanation is that he needs to do this in order to prepare himself, but it's really the Great White Hunter syndrome with some Rocky Balboa delusions mixed in.

He should focus on survival an helping his friends, but instead he is on this weird power trip. Notice how he doesn't try to contact the mainland even tough the island is riddled with radio towers.

His enemies are not just his enemies, they are manifestations of his own insecurities. They emasculate Jason (Buck even rapes his friend) and the fact that Jason needs a mythical phallic object to kill them, in what is essentially a dream, is telling.

His girlfriend is strong and supportive. And it's clear that Jason has been something of a disappointment to her. Jason pursues the 'princess' by trying to prove that he is a great warrior instead of showing his girlfriend that he can be responsible and supportive.

In line with the other works that I mentioned, Far Cry 3 has as a central theme that we create our own reality and that the darkness in ourselves becomes the world we live in.

The island is in a sense a manifestation of the combined wishes and insecurities of Jason.

[Category Theory]

Your interpretation makes a lot of sense and I like it, but I don't think it came across very well in the game's writing. Perhaps part of the reason was I had difficulty taking Jason seriously at all; he seemed basically a whiny little brat.

[Rafael Freeman]

Originally posted by Category Theory:

Your interpretation makes a lot of sense and I like it, but I don't think it came across very well in the game's writing. Perhaps part of the reason was I had difficulty taking Jason seriously at all; he seemed basically a whiny little brat.

That is sort of the point, but I get your criticism. The game is a First Person Shooter and it takes a long time for the story to play out.

At first I was kind of annoyed with Dennis, it took me a while to realize that he is essentially a loser and that he deliberately is depicted as an ineffective oddball. And that didn't make him less annoying.

With Jason it was a bit more clear for me, but it was an adjustment to hear him whining all the time.

In the end the story really worked for me, in part because I took my time and didn't rush through the main quest. I did a lot of exploring and that allowed me to get used to Jason and gave the story the time to play out.

But there is a mismatch between what is a Triple A action game with mainstream appeal and a story that's very 'arty'. Jason is an unsymphatetic anti-hero and we were stuck with him throughout the game.

It's the same thing with Bioshock Infinite, that game would have worked better as an RPG or as an Adventure I think.

[Category Theory]

I don't think that the mismatch is between it being an FPS and an "arty" story. Both Far Cry 2 and Spec Ops were basic mainstream shooters as well, but the story was better in both. (Admittedly, FC2 had less overall "amount" of story, if that makes any sense.)

BTW, I put a lot of time into FC3 in my first playthrough as well, probably about 40 hours, as I both play slowly and tend to do a lot of side missions during the course of the main campaign, rather than saving them for after.

But Jason being an annoying little whiner is I think a large part of the writing not being very good. The aim of taking him and the player together "down the rabbit hole" into this white saviour world is fine, but Jason just isn't believable as that person, particularly with his constant focus on saving his friends which, in his tone, does not come across as the excuse it should be given what the story is supposed to be. I have to say, I never saw any conflict in him at all about whether what he was doing was right or whether he really was doing what he overtly claimed to be doing.

Dennis I didn't find as annoying, though he seemed a bit cardboard, more there just to give you a tutorial than as someone Jason's character was properly interacting with. Dr. Earnhardt was perhaps the least annoying character, but didn't play much of a role. The villains were not bad, but don't hold a candle to Pagan Min from Far Cry 4.

[Sirius]

Originally posted by Category Theory:

But Jason being an annoying little whiner is I think a large part of the writing not being very good. The aim of taking him and the player together "down the rabbit hole" into this white saviour world is fine, but Jason just isn't believable as that person, particularly with his constant focus on saving his friends which, in his tone, does not come across as the excuse it should be given what the story is supposed to be. I have to say, I never saw any conflict in him at all about whether what he was doing was right or whether he really was doing what he overtly claimed to be doing.

No? What does he do the moment there are no more friends to save (as he thinks, because they tell him the last one is dead)?

He proclaims that he will stay. He has no reason to. Revenge, ok, maybe. But really?
He IS delusional. It was never really about his friends and family.
He just doesn't really want the fantasy to end.

He is depicted from the start as an action junkie. A good for nothing little white priviledged boy who does nothing but skydiving and other "extreme" activities. (read his bio in the files)

Now he is dropped in the middle of a nightmare (remember the extreme whining at the beginning, or the scene where he kills the first pirate, totaly shaken up and terrified?)

But he likes it. because it's just the next level of his "addiction". If you skydive long and often enough, it looses the thrill. It becomes just mechanics to such a person.

Killing someone is a rush, for bad or worse - I know this because I worked at a butcher for a while when I was in my youth. I felt like a murderer, complete with shaking hands and almost puking from the adrenaline rush after my first kill (it was a pig). It never really went away, even after more of the same. it got a bit less debilitating, but it was always there.
I dropped the work shortly after because I'm not that guy who can enjoy that line of work. Others could, and that was another reason to leave there. Weird people, most butchers.

Now imagine that when you kill a person.

He merely uses the excuse of "saving his friends" so he can justify killing people. Surprisingly bad people, so that makes it even more ok. He is on a cause for an oppressed people, too, so that's even better (the saviour fantasy).

When his friends are all saved (to his knowledge) he looks for excuses to remain.
Oh noes, his little brother died too. Oh well, time for a vengeance trip, right?

Everything points to him being actually an indiot who is after his own thrill satisfaction, grabbing every excuse to do it because he thinks it makes it all justified.

Of course he isn't believable - he is none of those grand things.

That's also why he is so "dreamy" about killing the main bad guys - Buck, Vaas, Hoyt.
He constructs perfectly valid reasons to hate these people (which may or may not be actually true, no idea if those are influenced by his actual experience with them).
He fantasizes about murdering people who deserve to die from most moral viewpoints.

The general pirate population, well, they are obviously bad people, but do they actually deserve to die? Aren't they just victims of circumstances? Like, they very likely didn't have much of a choice other than to become a pirate. yes they are rapists and overall a-holes, but that comes with the territory. If it's that or be killed, most (weakminded) people will choose to live.

So he just kills them by the dozen without much fantasy, simply because they are in the way.
Unlike Buck (a rapist who screws boys against their will because *fun*), Vaas (insane murderous maniac, seems to love to be cruel) and Hoyt (the root of all greedy evil, basically)

So he moves on to killing mercenaries, people who are simply "evil" because they kill for money. They are mostly mercenaries out of their own free will.
So it's ok again to murder them.

The addiction grows and grows and STILL he constructs "good" reasons for what he does.

That's also why he seems like a twisted mirror version of Vaas both on the main menu loading screen and in those drug-induced vision sequences.

The ONLY difference between Vaas and Jason at this point is that Jason still holds on to a delusion of reason and righteousness, which is just that - a delusion. He loves murdering people, he just isn't quite ready to admit the fact (as addicts do)

Further evidence are the thinly veiled "hints" people are dropping.
Concern about the weird tattoos and how he has all those weapons and how all that's happening will influence him, and the way he shrugs that off. The way he insists on going on "saving" because he will obviously have to kill lots more. The way he even sides with a motherloving CIA man, which gives even more legitimacy to his killings.
The way he explains how he's doing what he wants for the first time in his life.

No sane person actually LIKES running through the jungle murdering people.
It's a bit like the difference between Rambo: First Blood and Rambo II.
In the first movie, he is just this guy that's sick of killing and he does NOT enjoy defending himself - he just wants to survive. The second movie is already totally braindead, with badly constructed reasons to go off again, Rambo lost all his legitimacy in that one in my mind. First movie actually had a message of sorts, and the character was believable. Second move, BAM just pure action for the most part, with tacked-on reasoning.

That's Jason, basically - he may have had a good reason at the beginning, but he drowns more and more in the joy of killing.

That's my interpretion, at least.

Sorry, that got more long-winded than I planned to. Apologies.

[Rafael Freeman]

This is one of the reasons I like the game so much. It's brave decision to go with an unsympathetic, delusional protagonist and to suggest that the story is a combination of the desires and anxieties of a madman.

Again, I hate literal interpretations, but for all we know Jason Brody is a schizophrenic who is lost in his own fantasy and the island doesn't exist. My view is that the world of the game is self-contained and that there is no objective truth, only an emotional truth.

[Rafael Freeman]

Originally posted by Category Theory:

I don't think that the mismatch is between it being an FPS and an "arty" story. Both Far Cry 2 and Spec Ops were basic mainstream shooters as well, but the story was better in both. (Admittedly, FC2 had less overall "amount" of story, if that makes any sense.)

BTW, I put a lot of time into FC3 in my first playthrough as well, probably about 40 hours, as I both play slowly and tend to do a lot of side missions during the course of the main campaign, rather than saving them for after.

But Jason being an annoying little whiner is I think a large part of the writing not being very good. The aim of taking him and the player together "down the rabbit hole" into this white saviour world is fine, but Jason just isn't believable as that person, particularly with his constant focus on saving his friends which, in his tone, does not come across as the excuse it should be given what the story is supposed to be. I have to say, I never saw any conflict in him at all about whether what he was doing was right or whether he really was doing what he overtly claimed to be doing.

Dennis I didn't find as annoying, though he seemed a bit cardboard, more there just to give you a tutorial than as someone Jason's character was properly interacting with. Dr. Earnhardt was perhaps the least annoying character, but didn't play much of a role. The villains were not bad, but don't hold a candle to Pagan Min from Far Cry 4.

That is where our opinions differ. I don't expect Jason to be a believable character.

And I don't expect him to be conflicted about what he is doing. He likes killing people. He likes the power fantasy. He is immersed in his own delusion, trying to fight his insecurities.

In my interpretation, Jason has already gone down the rabbit hole. He has never been a good guy. Or a strong person. Or sane.

The whole story of rescuing an attractive women (his girlfriend, although maybe she's not his girlfriend, who knows) is a classic delusion for schizophrenics who are obsessed with a person.

Saving his friends and his family isn't his goal, his goal is self-glorification.

He doesn't want to save people, he wants to be a hero. Or more precisely, he wants to be what he perceives to be a hero.

In the same way, I don't view the villains as traditional villains, I view them as manifestations of Jason's mind.

It's a bit like Fight Club, where you realize at the end of the story that whatever happened, happened before you thought it happened.

In this case Jason Brody is like Travis Bickle in Taxi Driver.

It's funny, I once showed Taxi Driver to a bunch of people and they kept expecting Travis Bickle to be a conventional hero. But that is the power of the movie.

[Sirius]

On the other hand, if we take the coop portion to be a part of it all, those characters are somewhat believeable (in a Hollywood action movie sort of way), and the island does exist.

With the pirates and all. Even Hoyt is mentioned. Also, the "six months earlier" part.

But yeah, probably just a tacked-on gimmick with absolutely no relevance to the main plot.

Also, good on you for shortening what I said in a much more managable and easy to read manner ;)

I agree, is what I'm saying, only much more long-winded.

[Rafael Freeman]

Originally posted by |x|SiriuS|x|:

On the other hand, if we take the coop portion to be a part of it all, those characters are somewhat believeable (in a Hollywood action movie sort of way), and the island does exist.

With the pirates and all. Even Hoyt is mentioned. Also, the "six months earlier" part.

But yeah, probably just a tacked-on gimmick with absolutely no relevance to the main plot.

Also, good on you for shortening what I said in a much more managable and easy to read manner ;)

I agree, is what I'm saying, only much more long-winded.

My 'explanation' is a bit on the nose though. Certain games, movies or books don't have a definite interpretation.

Fiction by definition means that the story isn't real, but we are conditioned to try to find the 'real' narrative.

I like stories that break conventions and don't have an answer that clarifies everything.

But I do think it's obvious that Jason never was the 'good' guy.

[Zombits]

Sincerely never played this for its ''story'' or hoping it would win a novel award in litterature, or any actor winning performance trophies, that i dont give much of a s**t.

What made the game enjoyable is the stealth possibility, fun gameplay, XP building, perks, weapons, basically playing the game.

I find it funny and ''disturbing'' that people analyse this game and story like it was a movie in Canne Festival or a long awaited book from a known novelist.

The game was made to sell to players about 16-40 years old on average, using sex, violence, drugs, like any bad action movie. Exept its only a game lol

[Racuch Zawodowiec]

I think they tried too hard to make this game believable in plot terms and references to alice in wonderland. They didn't succeed so they made a lie about how it was planned all along.