Upon seeing the title of this article, perhaps you gawked at it thinking games like "Hatred" or even "Hotline Miami" are far ballsier on the ball scale. However, I think you and I have two different definitions of the term ‘ballsy.’ You see, games like "Hatred" are all shock value; intended to offend viewers with their ultra-violent content. I wouldn’t necessarily say that the game was ballsy because "Hatred" was nothing more than a mere indie game with developers that had nothing to gain or lose from making it. But in the case with Ubisoft, it is a far different story.
"Far Cry Primal" may be one of, if not, the ballsiest video game of 2016 as far as AAA game studios are involved. In a time where specific norms are geared more toward the modern, Ubisoft defied these rules by taking the setting of their latest "Far Cry" game all the way back to the prehistoric age. No vehicles, no guns and certainly no jetpacks. Your arsenal consists of only sticks, rocks and bones! And despite not having a modern setting, the developers made this game work in a fun and intuitive way. So you may be wondering: how is this ballsy?
"Far Cry Primal" is ballsy because it’s a caveman video game made by a AAA video game studio in the year 2016. Things like this don’t happen often. For a comparison, it’s the same as a big time movie production company taking a chance on making an arthouse film. This video game is among some of the first to finally steer away from a modern setting and experiment with new ideas.
As most people wouldn’t understand, making mainstream video games is no walk in a park. There’s a lot of business involved with the whole cycle. Publishers want their games pushed out of the door with a minimal budget and rake in two or three times the amount in profits. With that being said, that also means big publishers push developers toward ‘safer’ options rather than ’bold’ ones. Bold decisions can mean the difference between huge success and ultimate failure whereas safe options typically always mean decent success. Game franchises such as "Call of Duty" and "Battlefield" stuck with the modern warfare setting for nearly a decade before finally venturing off into near-futuristic settings because it was safe and made serious cash.
To reiterate, this is why the caveman setting for "Far Cry Primal" was so ballsy because it was a bold decision. It went against the norms of modern warfare unlike previous additions to the franchise such as "Far Cry 3" and "Far Cry 4." Though it is important to note that developer Ubisoft has already done this once to the franchise with the inclusion of "Far Cry 3: Blood Dragon," a futuristic add-on game that was a parody of 1980’s-style action movies.
Does this mean you need to make a caveman game to be ballsy? Or a sci-fi game? A game about pop-tarts? Not necessarily. All it takes is to just try something new rather than rehashing the same old. Even if whatever you try is received with mixed reviews, much like in the case of "Call of Duty: Advanced Warfare," you can only be applauded for having the gumption to try to add something new to the table. I’ve even heard recent rumors that the next installment in the "Battlefield" franchise is going to take place in World War I. If that turns out to be true, then I have high hopes for the future of gaming.
So what is the lesson that could be learned from all of this? To any main stream video game developers that read this; I implore you to be bolder with your creative decisions. Don’t be afraid to delve into new and fresh ideas. I obviously know it’s not as simple as just deciding to do something different, but look at studios like Ubisoft. They continue to try new things and have relatively been met with nothing but success. Even though "Far Cry Primal" could’ve been way better with a co-op option, I still find it amazing that I’m enjoying this type of game so much in 2016. Bold may not always be safe but some of the greatest movies and video games ever made have been the result of a bold decision. Go big or go home!
