Discussion YMMV / FarCry6

I think that Unintentionally Sympathetic applies to Clara because plunging the nation into decades of Civil War and free elections not being possible is actually something that is a lot darker to viewers than being "realism." Which is what I think was the argument that it was meant to be "realistic" but makes her look like a monster.

I am curious what Alternate Character Interpretation you would put for Dani, though. What are you objecting to, specifically?

As for Draco in Leather Pants, I think BOTH It and Strawman Has a Point would apply.

Looking back on the History of the page I am aware that you are the one who posted those tropes, so I would honestly rather get at least one more additional opinion on them. As for my reasons; In regards to the Alternate Character Interpretation entry I just felt like it ended up going back and forth. To be fair, that might ultimately be the fault of the game’s writing which, if this entry is any indication, doesn’t let us come to a definitive conclusion on Dani’s opinion on the revolution. Though, like I previously said, this was the one I was having second thoughts about removing.

In regards to Draco in Leather Pants, I felt like it would need to explain why Anton being woobified, or his flaws being downplayed by the fans is a disservice to his character, or an incorrect interpretation of what the game is trying to tell us about him. E.g. he may have a tragic past and the methods he takes to restore Yara’s prosperity may be understandable and arguably necessary (to a certain extent), but that doesn’t excuse the fact that he’s a brutal dictator who’s responsible for the deaths of countless civilians, abuses his son, and has no issue basically enslaving the people of Yara in a manner similar to the way in which he was essentially enslaved by his father’s enemies as an adolescent. A Draco in Leather Pants entry on Anton should, in my opinion, be like the one Pagan Min has on the Far Cry 4 YMMV change; one that acknowledges his redeeming qualities and mitigating factors, but also acknowledges the things that make him the villain of the game, and an undeniably evil person in-universe.

As for the Unintentionally Unsympathetic entry: the entry honestly make it sound like things were guaranteed to get better for Yara once the “bad guys” were defeated and the “good guys” won, but Clara means to make sure that won’t happen. That’s not what I got from that moment in game. As Clara says, Yara is stuck in a “cycle of tyranny and revolution”. Deposing Anton and his subordinates won’t just make everything better. There will still be issues plaguing Yara, and with as many guerilla groups as there are in the country, some are guaranteed to eventually come to blows with each other due to differences in ideologies and beliefs. They end up working together not because they like each other but because they have a common enemy they can unify against. Once he’s gone, who’s to say they’ll stay united.

Keep in mind that Anton didn’t force his way into power; he was elected into power because he made promises to restore Yara to it’s former glory; and yet his policies and actions ultimately proved to be too controversial and monstrous among the masses that many people ended up calling for his head. Also keep in mind how Far Cry 4 ended; Amita and Sabal ultimately become just as bad (if not arguably worse) than Pagan and, if it were up to the player, Ajay would then likely divert his attention to fighting the Golden Path. Things wouldn’t be guaranteed to magically get better for Kyrat once he did so. The point is there no Golden Ending where everyone in Yara is happy; and, from what I see, Clara knows and accepts this. And keep in mind that Clara makes this deduction before Dani manages to get Libertad to work with the Legends, La Moral, the Monteros and Maximas Mantanzas (based on their mutual respect and admiration of Dani) and before it becomes possible to “negotiate” with Castillo (which, keep in mind, involves a borderline delusional Anton holding Clara at gunpoint and presenting Dani with an ultimatum to work for him or else he will kill Clara).

As previously mentioned, though, I’d rather get the opinion of someone other than myself or the person who made the edits in regards to their validity. I’m admittedly not great at these sort of edits myself, so that’s I’d prefer someone else look at them in case I’m jumping the gun.

I understand. I was just giving my reasoning. I am interested in other people's perspectives as well.

I wasn’t trying to say you were being unreasonable or your opinions weren’t valid (I apologise if it came off that way). I just personally disagreed with some of the points you made or, at the very least (especially in regards to the Draco in Leather Pants edit) how you structured them.

Also, in regards to the Alternate Character Interpretation entry, I personally felt like Dani was a bit like Ajay (or, at the very least, more like him than Jason). Unlike Jason, who goes full on Blood Knight, both Dani and Ajay seem to resign themselves to their situation, but there are subtle hints throughout both games that the two of them are enjoying what they’re doing more than they’re letting on. It’s just Dani’s more emotive and arguably well-rounded character than Ajay (who is The Stoic and debatably a Vanilla Protagoninst all things considered).

I admittedly also read what you had posted in the discussion in the wrong way. When writing my response I assumed you hadn’t acknowledged that you were the one who made the edits, when it is clear, on a second look, that you actually did.

My apologises if I came off as a bit too harsher than necessary.

I think that's worth an Alternate Character Interpretation entry for Dani there and you might want to highlight the difference there. I think you should write it up and make the Ajay comparison.

How about this for Castillo and Clara Garcia?

Unintentionally Sympathetic: Anton Castillo's plan to modernize Yara is something that is depicted as being utterly ruthless and making use of forced labor and extreme brutality. However, the sheer amount of poverty on display in the country as well as the fact that it is coming out of a 50 year blockade means some fans think Strawmans Got A Point. It doesn't help that the drug that he's marketing to fix the economy is a cancer cure and will save millions of lives.

Unintentionally Unsympathetic: Clara Garcia and Libertad are depicted as plucky revolutions out to overthrow a heinous dictator. However, their attacks on the vivero trade is destroying the country's only economic resource as well as depriving people of medicine. Clara also states that she doesn't believe overthrowing the government will lead to peace but decades of civil war. This might all be justified but she finds out Castillo is sick a third of the way through the game and won't live much longer but still plans to assassinate him.

I'm actually going to be busy for a while and, like I said, I'm not great at writing up these kind of things.

Additionally, all we know about the effectiveness of viviro is that it managed to keep Anton's cancer at bay for thirteen years. Even then, he might have just been lucky. We don't know for certain if viviro truly does work as a cancer cure wide-scale. Even if Anton's claims are true, I still don't think that this is enough to mark Anton as Unintentionally Sympathetic. Like I said, it's Villain Has a Point and/or Strawman Has a Point at best. He's still a bastard even if he ultimately is a Neccessarily Evil antagonist trying to restore a broken country. The game takes the time to explain why Anton was elected into power (by many of the people who are now fighting against him) so it clearly acknowledges the benefits of Anton's promises, and what he plans to do, but this ultimately doesn't subtract from all the wrong that he and his subordinates (more them, if I'm being honest) have committed (which, now that I think of it, might render a Strawman Has a Point example moot).

Admittedly, yes, the rebels arguably do more harm to Yara than they do good (though, when you remember the Golden Path, that may be the point the developers were trying to get across), but that doesn't they aren't technically what they claim to be. While criticising them destroying the viviro trade is valid (even if it is just to weaken Anton's grip on Yara, at least from what I remember), I still don't see why you believe Clara stating what I personally think is the obvious, makes her Unintentionally Unsympathetic, nor why the revelation that Castillo was sick would open the door for negotiations (we don't even find out what Anton's illness is until he takes Clara hostage). Anton was clearly not going to stop until the guerrillas were all destroyed and even if he did die someone else in his inner circle would take over. That would either be Diego, who is too young to rule a country and considered to be just another Anton or Gabriel Castillo in the making by many of Dani's allies (a fact that Dani, and therefore arguably the plot, takes issue with), or control over the country would go to one of Anton's subordinates who, if what they see from Jose, Benitez, Reyes and Mc Kay is any indication, are worse than him, and would definitely not be willing to make peace with the guerrillas or anyone they considered "Fake Yarans".

Since we seem to be at a bit of a disagreement, I would like to request you explain your Unintentionally Sympathetic and Unintentionally Unsympathetic posts, and what made you come to those conclusions, in further detail.

Plus, even though it arguably doesn't go anywhere, Espada does say that Clara is basically a "Castillo without a dick", so it's not like the game doesn't acknowledge the moral ambiguity of Clara's character. Maybe just leave the discussion about Clara's character (and maybe also Anton's character) to Alternate Character Interpretation, giving that we appear to have different opinions on the two of them.

Oh definitely.

Even if true, if it's worded that vaguely, it doesn't seem like it would be disqualifying. "Speak to" doesn't necessarily mean... anything. You can have a husband and daughters and still be a Complete Monster. You can speak to someone and not love or even like them. Without a specific citation, and without that citation being more strongly worded, I think it's safe to stay.

Yes, I think she's portrayed as someone who executes children for liking Clara Garcia's social media posts and is the most overtly horrifying. CM very much applies.