Results 1 to 5 of 5
  1. #1

    Far Cry 4: Everything in Moderation

    I've just finished my second playthrough of the Far Cry 4 campaign, and had some thoughts about the choice presented during the Golden Path missions. The reason I've played through twice is so that I could speak to the differences in outcome for each choice. In my playthroughs, I chose Amita's option for every choice in the first playthrough and Sabal's option for every choice in the second playthrough. Obviously, this will require spoiling large parts of the campaign, so consider yourself warned.
    If I were required to boil down the differences between Amita's and Sabal's choices, I'd say that Amita is the progressive view and Sabal is the conservative view. Amita looks toward the future with sometimes reckless disregard for how things are and Sabal focuses on the past with little regard for how things are changing around him.

  2. #2
    The choices themselves are almost always difficult ones. Do you take over the opium farm to fund the Golden Path (Amita's path) or do you burn the opium farm to the ground because drugs are bad mmm'kay (Sabal's path)? It's not readily apparent which choice means a better outcome, which definitely added to my enjoyment. There's nothing worse than the black and white "choices" in a game like Infamous.
    The one thing I was surprised about when playing through a second time was how the tone shifted. When choosing Amita's path, I always had a tinge of regret for not choosing Sabal's path. In the earlier example, regarding whether to burn the opium fields, I felt bad after overhearing a conversation between NPCs about how drug abuse was ravaging their community. I figured out later that this was an intentional choice by Ubisoft. Upon playing through Sabal's path, I felt similarly bad after hearing repeatedly that I was "pleasing my (dead) father" (who seemed like he might not have been the best dude). They wantyou to feel manipulated. They want you to regret your choice.

  3. #3
    In the end of each storyline, you see the results of making a one-sided choice. If you go all-in with Amita, you end up seeing the recruitment of child soldiers to fight with the Golden Path. That outcome-driven mentality taken to it's logical conclusion. If you go all-in with Sabal, you see the execution of those who sided with Amita. The future-ignorant mentality taken to it's logical conclusion. It's really a statement on moderation, and makes me want to run through a third time choosing a middle path. I'm a political moderate in general, which makes me wonder why I played through two times in such an unreasonable fashion. I guess my only excuse is "because video games".

  4. #4
    This whole experience makes me wonder if Ubisoft expected people to play through this game more than once. It really changes how you feel about your choices more generally. Perhaps I played through "the wrong way" and that I should've gone with my gut when making choices. I guess the only way to know for sure is to give it another go...






  5. #5
    On my play through I sided with both Anita and Sabal, played the middle of the road mostly. I did blow up the temple though, then I let Sabal live. At the end when I saw what Anita was doing then looked up what Sabal would have done if I sided with him I began to think that maybe just maybe Pagan was the best of the three, especially when I found out why Pagan was the way he was and how f’ed up the main characters dad was. In the end though Kyrat never had a chance at peace.



Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •