Far Cry 4 Preorder Screen Leaks Story Details

| 20 May 2014 15:28
Far Cry 350

A Far Cry 4 preorder screen that briefly appeared on Uplay revealed that players will take on the role of a Nepalese expatriate caught up in a civil war against an oppressive dictator.

The Far Cry 4 cover revealed last week was rather bland to my eye, but it stirred up no small amount of controversy over what some people saw as blatant racism. At the very least, I don't think anyone could reasonably say that the bleached-blonde guy in the blistering purple suit isn't in an obvious position of power over the local kneeling at his feet with a grenade cupped in his hands. But to what end?

Based on a Far Cry 4 preorder screen that popped up on Uplay before being quickly taken offline, that guy is the bad guy, and it's your job to take him down. "Hidden in the majestic Himalayas lies Kyrat, a country steeped in tradition and violence," the game description stated. "You are Ajay Ghale. Traveling to Kyrat to fulfill your mother's dying wish, you find yourself caught up in a civil war to overthrow the oppressive regime of dictator Pagan Min."

Okay, it's not the most detailed plot synopsis of all time, but it's something. It also bears noting, as NowGamer pointed out, that Ajay Ghale could be a reference to Gaje Ghale, a Gurkha who won the Victoria Cross in 1943 for leading a successful charge against an entrenched Japanese position in Myanmar. Ghale served with the Gurkhas from 1936 to 1964 and died in 2000 at the age of 81.

As noted, the Uplay preorder screen is gone, but it can still be seen thanks to a screen capture posted on Noelshack. Far Cry 4 is currently scheduled to come out on November 18 for the Xbox 360, Xbox One, PlayStation 3, PlayStation 4 and PC.

Source: AllGamesBeta

Post Comment

You must be logged in to post. Log In

lupus_amens:
I want another crazy German guy.

Aw, I don't wanna feel sad AGAIN.

King Whurdler:

Arnoxthe1:
Snip

It absolutely has a love affair with destruction and general mayhem

Just as every other FPS game has a love affair with destruction and general mayhem. It seems only proper that Far Cry 3 has it as well.

And that's another thing too. It's not exactly trying to discourage you from playing FPS games. It's just making fun of these tropes in a subtle way.

I wonder if this new protagonist will just be an asian Jason brody.(as in dude-bro as heck)

weirdee:
I hope that certifiably insane American spy is back in this game, because he was a hoot and a half.

I want another crazy German guy.

VoidOfOne:
Are we sure this isn't another prequel to Star Trek, or perhaps another rendition of a Shakespeare play? The flamboyant man strongly resembles, in my eye, Sir Patrick Stewart.

Heck, maybe it's an X-Men side story... In any case, these games never struck me, but the art is interesting at the least.

Sir Patrick Stewart with hair! My god I can't believe I didn't see that. You are absolutely right sir - have 5 internets.

I hope that certifiably insane American spy is back in this game, because he was a hoot and a half.

saltyanon:

King Whurdler:

I still have this nasty feeling in my gut that Pagan Min is going to be an offensively stereotypical gay man though.

Why? Because he wears pink? Because of the haircut? Surely you can't be this judgmental and sexist!

I'm not jumping to any serious conclusions, I'm just going off what I see. If you asked someone to put together a 'gay man' costume, just about everything you see there would be on the list. And, the stereotypes still exist, and are still exploited.

Also, Ubisoft scripts tend to suck ass, so I'm not entirely confident.

King Whurdler:

I still have this nasty feeling in my gut that Pagan Min is going to be an offensively stereotypical gay man though.

Why? Because he wears pink? Because of the haircut? Surely you can't be this judgmental and sexist!

OMG So Awesome!

Preorder now for extra content!

...... Really? I mean, really?

King Whurdler:

zombiejoe:
Snip

When a game makes destruction and killing noticeably fun, when I get points, that net experience, that give me access to new abilities meant to make killing even more fun, when a games actually instructs me with its mechanics that a certain kind of killing is preferable to another kind of killing, only to then double back on it and tell me everything I've been doing is somehow wrong, even though if it wasn't for these fun actions, everything I know and love would be crushed, it's being hypocritical. It's not being intelligent or 'satirical,' just hypocritical. It is very much a 'having your cake and eating it too' thing.

And there's a lot more going on in 'Spec Ops: The Line' beyond that one white phosphorous scene that may or may not work.

And I think that the fact that all the things you do are meant to be fun is part of the point. You're having fun doing all of this. So is Jason. The thing is, you're just playing a video game, it's fine that you're having fun. Jason is supposed to be doing this for real. And the idea is that it's wrong for Jason to be treating everything that he's doing like it is a game that will last forever.

The game isn't even saying that fighting these people is wrong, it certainly isn't. It's the fact that he let's it all get to his head. He goes to save his friends, but then starts thinking that he should just abandon them so he can be the big hero forever, which in reality is impossible. The ending where he fully commits to staying reinforces the fact that he had created a hero fantasy for himself.

Arnoxthe1:
Snip

I say the same thing to you as I say to him. If Far Cry 3 is a satire of killing in games and FPS tropes, it's a bad one. It absolutely has a love affair with destruction and general mayhem, so I don't accept it telling me that those things are somehow bad.

zombiejoe:
Snip

When a game makes destruction and killing noticeably fun, when I get points, that net experience, that give me access to new abilities meant to make killing even more fun, when a games actually instructs me with its mechanics that a certain kind of killing is preferable to another kind of killing, only to then double back on it and tell me everything I've been doing is somehow wrong, even though if it wasn't for these fun actions, everything I know and love would be crushed, it's being hypocritical. It's not being intelligent or 'satirical,' just hypocritical. It is very much a 'having your cake and eating it too' thing.

And there's a lot more going on in 'Spec Ops: The Line' beyond that one white phosphorous scene that may or may not work.

King Whurdler:
Really? Please explain, because all I see is a game that was almost completely unaware of the fact that it plays out like straight-forward adventure story with the unfortunate subtext of a white guy just showing up an becoming almost instantly better at everything the native brown people have been doing for centuries. Even going to the point where they end up genuinely deifying him.

And if the game didn't make it explicitly clear that killing, is in fact, winning, I'd buy that. I mean, come on dude, the game even goes as far PREFERRING a certain kind of mass slaughter.

Again, you need to elaborate. All we really get is a couple of throw away bits of people being sad. And, it's not like the shift in Jason's personality is portrayed as a wholly villainous thing. I look at it, and just see a guy adapting to a new way of life.

What, are you talking about the VERY LAST scene in the game that only happens if you choose a certain ending, and plays like a straight-forward expression of culture? Because, I don't think a game is very good satire if it's entirely possible to be literally unexposed to the whole point of the satire.

No, I don't think it did. But, if it did... it was laughably inept.

Far Cry 3 wasn't so much a serious look at killing in games so much as it was a satire/analysis of FPS games in general. And I think that's the real point zombiejoe is failing to get across for whatever reason.

As to Far Cry 4, yep. I knew it. Knew it was going to be somewhere pretty darn cold. However, I was thinking much more along the lines of Russia than Nepal. I guess Nepal could work too though. My bro also swears up and down that Ubisoft could never reach the awesomeness of S.T.A.L.K.E.R. in terms of doing an FPS in Russia anyway.

King Whurdler:

zombiejoe:

1. The game is completely aware of how it plays out. Why do you think that during the final mission, the vision of Jason's girlfriend tells him that he's not a hero just because he runs around putting on tattoos? And then go on to criticize the fantasy world that he has built for himself.

Again, that's at the very end of the game, and it comes after a swath of murder so large, Stalin would blush. Directly moralizing to the camera in a preachy monologue does not a good satire make, and I'll remind you that if it wasn't for those tattoos, Jason wouldn't have been able to save his friends or have any hope of getting home period.

zombiejoe:
2. Yes, killing IS winning in this video game. The player feels like they are winning when they kill people. And so does Jason. But in reality, that is a horrible mindset to have. When Jason says that killing feels like winning, it is meant to show how creepy that actually is. Once again, the player and Jason are meant to be going through the same mental journey.

Except, killing is mandatory. There is literally no other way to succeed in that game beyond murdering every motherfucker you see. If a non-violent option was possible, or if Jason really did just go on a random killing spree for shits and giggles (and he NEVER does), then I would believe the game actually thinks killing is bad.

zombiejoe:
3. But the new way of life Jason is adapting to is not portrayed to be good thing.

Really? Because all of my accomplishments in the game would disagree with that.

zombiejoe:
After saving his girlfriend, he doesn't try comforting her, he just laughs and says "wow, that was awesome!" He, of course, is talking about killing people. The shift in personality is clearly made out to be villainous. There's a scene where, to continue his quest, he needs to torture his own little brother. Granted, he did so to keep cover, but if this is part of his transformation into a warrior, it is clearly not meant to show that it is a good thing.

The first one was a set piece moment that we had seen in many trailers, and was obviously meant to be fun and intense. It doesn't become deep just because of few throwaway lines of dialogue, and again, it was a mandatory action. The second is also a mandatory action that, if it wasn't done, would have resulted in far worse consequences for the Brody brothers. In fact, if I remember correctly, Jason is incredibly sorry he has to torture his little brother. He doesn't feel good about it at all as far as I can recall. You know the other thing the scenes have in common, beyond being necessary actions? Right after you finish them, it's back to business as usual. 'Okay, we're done with the obligatory emotional moment, now go back to killing things for points so you can level up.' You're claiming it's contrast, when it's actually a contradiction. These are not movies where the narrative is the only real essential thing, these are video games where mechanics can say just as much about a games message as the writing can.

zombiejoe:
4. It's obvious that Citra is manipulating the player the whole game. She constantly tells you that your friends are weak, to ignore them and go kill her enemies instead. But it is presented in such a way as to make Jason feel like he's a big strong hero man, when in reality he was always a tool.

Actually, it's not that obvious. If it was, we wouldn't be having this conversation. And, if Jason does feel like a hero, it's because he pretty much is. AGAIN, HIS PATH OF DESTRUCTION IS A MANDATORY THING THAT MUST BE DONE! There are no alternatives to extreme violence presented, EVER. If Jason didn't kill Hoyt and his men, they never would have gotten off the island, and in the end he decides he actually likes the warrior lifestyle. And, to be honest, I can't say I blame him. After all, the game has been taking every opportunity to make it look as awesome as possible.

zombiejoe:
5. And yes, I do think it had something to say. I think it was saying that the "white hero fantasy" is just that, a fantasy. I think it was saying that the hero fantasy we make in video games is unrealistic and possibly damaging. I think that it was attempting to combine the standard FPS one man killing machine style with its more human story to create contrast.

Except the human story directly contradicts literally everything I've been conditioned to think. It's like telling me to eat a cake, only to call me a 'fat-ass' as soon as I take a bite.

zombiejoe:
But hey, opinions.

Yep. Opinions. Far Cry 3 is just another game that wants to tell me violence is bad, but doesn't actually have the balls to do it.

Man, does anyone else think it's funny that, at this point, a genuinely pacifist video game would be considered transgressive?

Honestly, I think what our argument here is mostly fringing on is the "mandatory" aspect of it all. I personally believe that just because you have to do something in the game, that doesn't meant that it negates the fact that it is bad thing. You, on the other hand, believe that by forcing the player to go through these events, it negates whatever possible messages there could be, and turns things into "throwaway moments."

If anything, this is similar to the big debate on Spec Ops: The Line, and how it makes the player feel bad for something it forced them to do.

But personally, I think that its less about calling the player a fat ass for eating the cake, and more so saying that while the cake is enjoyable, it can also be bad for you. Doing morally questionable things and having those actions questioned narratively is not the same as the game punishing the player themselves for playing through it.

zombiejoe:

1. The game is completely aware of how it plays out. Why do you think that during the final mission, the vision of Jason's girlfriend tells him that he's not a hero just because he runs around putting on tattoos? And then go on to criticize the fantasy world that he has built for himself.

Again, that's at the very end of the game, and it comes after a swath of murder so large, Stalin would blush. Directly moralizing to the camera in a preachy monologue does not a good satire make, and I'll remind you that if it wasn't for those tattoos, Jason wouldn't have been able to save his friends or have any hope of getting home period.

zombiejoe:
2. Yes, killing IS winning in this video game. The player feels like they are winning when they kill people. And so does Jason. But in reality, that is a horrible mindset to have. When Jason says that killing feels like winning, it is meant to show how creepy that actually is. Once again, the player and Jason are meant to be going through the same mental journey.

Except, killing is mandatory. There is literally no other way to succeed in that game beyond murdering every motherfucker you see. If a non-violent option was possible, or if Jason really did just go on a random killing spree for shits and giggles (and he NEVER does), then I would believe the game actually thinks killing is bad.

zombiejoe:
3. But the new way of life Jason is adapting to is not portrayed to be good thing.

Really? Because all of my accomplishments in the game would disagree with that.

zombiejoe:
After saving his girlfriend, he doesn't try comforting her, he just laughs and says "wow, that was awesome!" He, of course, is talking about killing people. The shift in personality is clearly made out to be villainous. There's a scene where, to continue his quest, he needs to torture his own little brother. Granted, he did so to keep cover, but if this is part of his transformation into a warrior, it is clearly not meant to show that it is a good thing.

The first one was a set piece moment that we had seen in many trailers, and was obviously meant to be fun and intense. It doesn't become deep just because of few throwaway lines of dialogue, and again, it was a mandatory action. The second is also a mandatory action that, if it wasn't done, would have resulted in far worse consequences for the Brody brothers. In fact, if I remember correctly, Jason is incredibly sorry he has to torture his little brother. He doesn't feel good about it at all as far as I can recall. You know the other thing the scenes have in common, beyond being necessary actions? Right after you finish them, it's back to business as usual. 'Okay, we're done with the obligatory emotional moment, now go back to killing things for points so you can level up.' You're claiming it's contrast, when it's actually a contradiction. These are not movies where the narrative is the only real essential thing, these are video games where mechanics can say just as much about a games message as the writing can.

zombiejoe:
4. It's obvious that Citra is manipulating the player the whole game. She constantly tells you that your friends are weak, to ignore them and go kill her enemies instead. But it is presented in such a way as to make Jason feel like he's a big strong hero man, when in reality he was always a tool.

Actually, it's not that obvious. If it was, we wouldn't be having this conversation. And, if Jason does feel like a hero, it's because he pretty much is. AGAIN, HIS PATH OF DESTRUCTION IS A MANDATORY THING THAT MUST BE DONE! There are no alternatives to extreme violence presented, EVER. If Jason didn't kill Hoyt and his men, they never would have gotten off the island, and in the end he decides he actually likes the warrior lifestyle. And, to be honest, I can't say I blame him. After all, the game has been taking every opportunity to make it look as awesome as possible.

zombiejoe:
5. And yes, I do think it had something to say. I think it was saying that the "white hero fantasy" is just that, a fantasy. I think it was saying that the hero fantasy we make in video games is unrealistic and possibly damaging. I think that it was attempting to combine the standard FPS one man killing machine style with its more human story to create contrast.

Except the human story directly contradicts literally everything I've been conditioned to think. It's like telling me to eat a cake, only to call me a 'fat-ass' as soon as I take a bite.

zombiejoe:
But hey, opinions.

Yep. Opinions. Far Cry 3 is just another game that wants to tell me violence is bad, but doesn't actually have the balls to do it.

Man, does anyone else think it's funny that, at this point, a genuinely pacifist video game would be considered transgressive?

otakon17:

teh_Canape:

King Whurdler:
Considering the indirect racism of Far Cry 3's set-up, and just how god-damn often we play as Americans in these kinds of games, I'd say this is a welcome change.

I still have this nasty feeling in my gut that Pagan Min is going to be an offensively stereotypical gay man though.

idk man, he strikes me as more the type that is disgustingly powerful and is flamboyant about it
like, that russian dude in alpha protocol

oh well, I guess we'll have to wait and see

FUCK MAN! I thought of Brayko too when I saw him.

OT: Who cares, it's Far Cry. The strength of the game isn't in the story, it's in the open-world and the expanse and choice of how you go about murdering every bastard that so much as LOOKS at you wrong in it.

plot twist: FarCry 4 is actually a murder mystery
you set off, along with the dude in the suit, on a quest to find out if video killed the radio star

fezgod:
Hopefully the villain featured on the cover is just as interesting (and terrifying) as Vaas. And if he is, I hope he doesn't get killed off halfway through the game in favor of a less interesting villain.

Granted, Hoyt was still a scary motherfucker in his own way.

The Himalayan environment has gotten me pretty excited too. Imagine the gameplay possibilities in a mountainous region - scaling a mountain to reach an enemy base, hang-gliding with nothing below you but a thousand foot drop. I can't wait.
Also, we should definitely get a kukri in this game, if the main character is actually a reference to a famous gurkha.

I wonder if the main character will be a local or a foreigner to Kyrat, my money is on foreigner since that's how FarCry protagonists usually are. I actually want the main character to be an American; how many games let you play as a non-white American?

From the sounds of things, he seems to be the son of a former native. So yeah, he has ties to these people through his mother... I don't know what that counts for though to be honest. As long as there are upgrades, lots of guns to choose from and multiple ways to clear the enemy out like wheat before the scythe I'm game.

King Whurdler:

zombiejoe:
I'm sorry, but I just have to say this. There was an actual point behind Far Cry 3's choice of a white character in a foreign land, and it was not for the sake of "white hero" or "white chosen one." The game even calls out that idea.

Really? Please explain, because all I see is a game that was almost completely unaware of the fact that it plays out like straight-forward adventure story with the unfortunate subtext of a white guy just showing up an becoming almost instantly better at everything the native brown people have been doing for centuries. Even going to the point where they end up genuinely deifying him.

zombiejoe:
The game makes it pretty clear that Jason becoming a "hero" is in fact a very bad thing. Jason's mental state deteriorates the more he embraces this idea that he's a chosen hero, and this is shown multiple times through the game (ex. Jason saying that "killing feels like winning", Jason cheering with joy after killing a bunch of people and almost dying

And if the game didn't make it explicitly clear that killing, is in fact, winning, I'd buy that. I mean, come on dude, the game even goes as far PREFERRING a certain kind of mass slaughter.

zombiejoe:
(completely ignoring the mental state of his loved ones)

Again, you need to elaborate. All we really get is a couple of throw away bits of people being sad. And, it's not like the shift in Jason's personality is portrayed as a wholly villainous thing. I look at it, and just see a guy adapting to a new way of life.

zombiejoe:
Jason becomes so obsessed with the Rambo Hero Save The Natives mentality, that he's unable to realize that he is just being used by the natives, and that they don't really want him to stay as their chosen one.

What, are you talking about the VERY LAST scene in the game that only happens if you choose a certain ending, and plays like a straight-forward expression of culture? Because, I don't think a game is very good satire if it's entirely possible to be literally unexposed to the whole point of the satire.

zombiejoe:
Come on people, a game actually has something to say that involves race, and people just assume that the game must be racist because a white guy is saving people who aren't white.

No, I don't think it did. But, if it did... it was laughably inept.

1. The game is completely aware of how it plays out. Why do you think that during the final mission, the vision of Jason's girlfriend tells him that he's not a hero just because he runs around putting on tattoos? And then go on to criticize the fantasy world that he has built for himself.

2. Yes, killing IS winning in this video game. The player feels like they are winning when they kill people. And so does Jason. But in reality, that is a horrible mindset to have. When Jason says that killing feels like winning, it is meant to show how creepy that actually is. Once again, the player and Jason are meant to be going through the same mental journey.

3. But the new way of life Jason is adapting to is not portrayed to be good thing. After saving his girlfriend, he doesn't try comforting her, he just laughs and says "wow, that was awesome!" He, of course, is talking about killing people. The shift in personality is clearly made out to be villainous. There's a scene where, to continue his quest, he needs to torture his own little brother. Granted, he did so to keep cover, but if this is part of his transformation into a warrior, it is clearly not meant to show that it is a good thing.

4. It's obvious that Citra is manipulating the player the whole game. She constantly tells you that your friends are weak, to ignore them and go kill her enemies instead. But it is presented in such a way as to make Jason feel like he's a big strong hero man, when in reality he was always a tool.

5. And yes, I do think it had something to say. I think it was saying that the "white hero fantasy" is just that, a fantasy. I think it was saying that the hero fantasy we make in video games is unrealistic and possibly damaging. I think that it was attempting to combine the standard FPS one man killing machine style with its more human story to create contrast.

But hey, opinions.

teh_Canape:

King Whurdler:
Considering the indirect racism of Far Cry 3's set-up, and just how god-damn often we play as Americans in these kinds of games, I'd say this is a welcome change.

I still have this nasty feeling in my gut that Pagan Min is going to be an offensively stereotypical gay man though.

idk man, he strikes me as more the type that is disgustingly powerful and is flamboyant about it
like, that russian dude in alpha protocol

oh well, I guess we'll have to wait and see

FUCK MAN! I thought of Brayko too when I saw him.

OT: Who cares, it's Far Cry. The strength of the game isn't in the story, it's in the open-world and the expanse and choice of how you go about murdering every bastard that so much as LOOKS at you wrong in it.

Hopefully the villain featured on the cover is just as interesting (and terrifying) as Vaas. And if he is, I hope he doesn't get killed off halfway through the game in favor of a less interesting villain.

Granted, Hoyt was still a scary motherfucker in his own way.

The Himalayan environment has gotten me pretty excited too. Imagine the gameplay possibilities in a mountainous region - scaling a mountain to reach an enemy base, hang-gliding with nothing below you but a thousand foot drop. I can't wait.
Also, we should definitely get a kukri in this game, if the main character is actually a reference to a famous gurkha.

I wonder if the main character will be a local or a foreigner to Kyrat, my money is on foreigner since that's how FarCry protagonists usually are. I actually want the main character to be an American; how many games let you play as a non-white American?

Continue reading 35 comments on the forums.
Recommended Games
Maestia
categories: 3d, fantasy
Clan Lord
categories: 2d, fantasy
NosTale
categories: 2d, fantasy