Story intentionally wants you to pick PeaceKeepers and punishes for it.

[yai200439]

Pre-ordered this and played it the moment it came out. Felt so betrayed by the faction ending that I did not even bother to write anything. After years they said they made some changes to the game and played again. But still I felt just like the title, it makes PK appealing and then f-you for it.

In Bazaar, before you make your story dividing decision, is there any reason not to HATE the survivors?
Their leader, Carl, deeply mistrust on any organization as "relics of the old-world" and has this weird anarchic freedom. Yet he had shown he is very indecisive.
Sophie, who, above all the people made Barney the enforcer.
I'm not even going to talk about Barney.

Top of it all, the situation itself is not objective. You can easily understand the pressure PKs are having with the murder of their commander. Survivors claim they have nothing to do with the murder, Emphasis on the word "claim", they do not show any proof nor explanation to support this claim. And they refuse PKs investigating their turf. If they are confident about their innocence then why would they refuse the investigation?

Survivors, and Hakon,say PKs are self-righteous and authoritarian. However, when doing all the side mission relating the PKs, you will not find ANY PKs doing so. The ONLY thing you'll find going through the territory is PKs actually HELPING wounded survivors.

As story immersed player, I choose PKs for above reason and got a Bazaar razing ending. To add salt to the wounds everyone is blaming Aiden for it.


And then you get to the VNC tower, You meet Frank, a generic grumpy, once famous alcohol-addict a-hole. After doing his very best to insult Aidon all the way to the top of VNC, he suddenly became nice and ask you to give the controls to him so he can "give people hope."
He did not say anything else. He did not say he would use this station to spread news of danger, aid etc and help people, he did no say anything about any specific. He would just, give, them, hope. Those very vague, nothing specific words.

Jack on the otherhand, summed up his plan well, and he also promised Aiden he would use this upgraded intel to help him find his sister.


After siding with the PK, when the missile was launched, Aiden pulls out his walkie to call, not Jack, but Frank. This part of the story is the most baffling and improbable to me. Jack, who has the control of every speaker in the city, who deeply trusts Aiden after the VNC tower, is the most probable people to call. However Aidon call Frank, still piss-drunk, have no resource to warn the people, and not had a word after the VNC.

It's like the devs were shoving "Oh, you side with the PK, bad boy and here is your punishemnt" to my face. And the ending is total ♥♥♥♥♥♥.

I initially thought there would be pros and cons in everyfactions, just like Fallout 4, but all the ending is bad except the Survivor ones.

[Anthreris]

I agree on getting blindsided by the Peace Keeper's, only character dialogue and siding with the Bazaar paints a negative picture of the peacekeeper's prior to the final hours of the story.
Most of the Survivor commentary on the PK's isn't backed with evidence except for a few cases, and thus could be considered akin to gossip, or hearsay.

In my first playthrough I liked the PK's but sided with the Bazaar survivor's only because I thought the PK's weren't protecting the survivor's or rescuing Carl. Which was stupid because Carl would have been a PK asset to keep the survivors in line, and had they rescued him the PK's would have been viewed more favorably by the Bazaar.
There should have been a way to get Aitor to assist through some sort of neutral story path.

To be fair siding with the PK's puts a bad taste in your mouth at the very end of the game, while siding with the Survivor's puts a bad taste in your mouth for the duration of the game until the ending.

[halbermensch999]

I think Lawan works partly as a someone who says that the PKs are alright, but don't side with them too often, they're not for the people.

[Kodiak412]

What happens if you split up the territories. Give 4 to PK and the rest to the survivors?

[Nomercy^]

How dare a game be made where your decisions actually matter to how it ends. Even worse how awful they make the decisions of who to work with a gray area where it makes the decisions more difficult. They should make the game where all decisions are painfully obvious with no real impact on the happy "Disney" ending so it it is like most other games. Now that would a much more interesting game to play right?
The game has issues for sure, however this is the one part I think they got right to make it more immersive. You can split your alliance to a point and still end up with a decent ending. Early on the story tries to keep you neutral then makes it harder and harder to stay that way, which is what I believe they intended.

[halbermensch999]

Originally posted by Kodiak412:

What happens if you split up the territories. Give 4 to PK and the rest to the survivors?

You have to make end game decisions anyway. I usually take a bit of both because I want some upgrades from both so to speak.

[yai200439]

Originally posted by Nomercy^:

How dare a game be made where your decisions actually matter to how it ends. Even worse how awful they make the decisions of who to work with a gray area where it makes the decisions more difficult. They should make the game where all decisions are painfully obvious with no real impact on the happy "Disney" ending so it it is like most other games. Now that would a much more interesting game to play right?
The game has issues for sure, however this is the one part I think they got right to make it more immersive. You can split your alliance to a point and still end up with a decent ending. Early on the story tries to keep you neutral then makes it harder and harder to stay that way, which is what I believe they intended.

Like I said, the game intentionally makes you feel negative about survivors. I mean lets be honest, before the first major choice, the one where you either go to Aitor or go to Sophie, is there ANYTHING likable about survivors or their claim? And when you give the watertower to PK then you became the sole reason for the civil war, and everybody blames you for it, whatever neutral thing you did.

[StopItStepBro]

I don't even understand why they made a factions system because outside of some story elements and the obvious faction system, the PK and regular survivors intermingle and coexist pretty peacefully, in fact, the whole PK-Survivor war seems incredibly forced.

[Warlord]

There is a reoccurring theme throughout the game and that is don't trust what people tell you. If you bother to explore you'll find information on whether you should trust certain characters. The game does mislead you but it's up to you whether you fall for it.

[Otleaz]

I sided with the PK's and killed survivors any time I saw them in the open world.

Why would I side with the ones that literally tried to lynch me?

[yai200439]

Originally posted by Otleaz:

I sided with the PK's and killed survivors any time I saw them in the open world.

Why would I side with the ones that literally tried to lynch me?

My point exactly. Plus their idealistic anarchic freedom and equality seems far-fatched at best and pure zombie-♥♥♥♥ at most.

[SOUS CHEF HELLDAVE]

Originally posted by yai200439:

Originally posted by Otleaz:

I sided with the PK's and killed survivors any time I saw them in the open world.

Why would I side with the ones that literally tried to lynch me?

My point exactly. Plus their idealistic anarchic freedom and equality seems far-fatched at best and pure zombie-♥♥♥♥ at most.

Havent beaten it, I read your post but tried not to internalize details, but this game is 100% asking you where your political ideals are between two extremes. Or at least that's the intent here, you either side with the people parading as socialists/communists (who arent really and the entire group is made up of individuals) or you side with the authoritarians (who have a sense of duty to some greater group but love that group more than they like anyone else).

There's plus and minus to both, but a lot of this is going to come down to how you personally break down the situation plus what you think of other people, or at least that's what I get from it.

I'm not super far in but Aiden is a horrible character, I think that's a rough thing here. There's a lot reminding me of Nate/Nora from FO4 sometimes when you're going down quest lines

[yai200439]

Originally posted by Warlord:

There is a reoccurring theme throughout the game and that is don't trust what people tell you. If you bother to explore you'll find information on whether you should trust certain characters. The game does mislead you but it's up to you whether you fall for it.

If you ever bother to read my post, you'll know I did all the side quest and gone through every place to check whether the claims are true.
As you seem all to well informed, could you tell me where I can find that PK is authoritarian before choosing the first story dividing path, where you have to choose between going to Aitor or Sophie?

[yai200439]

Originally posted by BLM The Social Justice Warrior:

Originally posted by yai200439:

I'm not super far in but Aiden is a horrible character, I think that's a rough thing here. There's a lot reminding me of Nate/Nora from FO4 sometimes when you're going down quest lines

Aiden is very generic main character. His past story or sister Mia reminds me of Pagan Min's words from Far Cry 4 "Just an excuse to do whatever I want."
But it's the story itself that I hate about this game the most.
Yes, the faction can be divide into two extreme, freedom or security, each represented by PK and Survivor. I would not mind if the story was objective like FO4 where every faction has it's bright and dark side. But it is quite clear to see dev favoring survivors over PKs.
But even putting a side that fact it is how the story is represented that is sickening. Like I said, the devs intentionally made PKs favorable, all the character you meet, PKs are way better than Survivors.
And you cannot find anything bad about the PKs until it is too late to reverse your decision. If the devs had replaced that random encounters of PKs tending the wounded, and grumpy, Bazaar women to harassing her with interrogation, it would have been way better.

[LunarisRuin]

Personally the moment I met the PK's I hated them. Never liked them. Sided with the survivors from the get go. The only tried to lynch you because you're literally a stranger that came out of no where, with no biomarker, about to change.

PK's on the other hand just want to accuse you of murder and drag you into their mess despite you having no affiliation with them or anyone really during that point of the story. You just want to bugger off and go to the center, but no. Then what's her face, the sergeant b***h, I wanted to punch her teeth in so badly the first time I met her. I hate the PK a lot, surprised anybody likes them.

[yai200439]

Originally posted by LunarisRuin:

Personally the moment I met the PK's I hated them. Never liked them. Sided with the survivors from the get go. The only tried to lynch you because you're literally a stranger that came out of no where, with no biomarker, about to change.

PK's on the other hand just want to accuse you of murder and drag you into their mess despite you having no affiliation with them or anyone really during that point of the story. You just want to bugger off and go to the center, but no. Then what's her face, the sergeant b***h, I wanted to punch her teeth in so badly the first time I met her. I hate the PK a lot, surprised anybody likes them.

So, you liked Barney, and egoist moron, and Sophie, pretending to be a leader while could not control his little brother, and hated PKs because they looked at you in a mean way when you were caught while trying to sneak through their guarded area because their leader was assassinated, but hey I won't judge.