"<a href=""https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lFZIzxIpCRk&amp;t=5m15s"">5:15</a> - <b>takes deep breath</b> ok", here I go.<br><br>To play the devil's advocate a bit, I have played games where it felt like they did a great job of setting the stage to make a fantastic boom of a point, and you're playing the game waiting for it, wondering when the shit is going to go down, and then it never happens. It's a pretty big let down. I understand where Polygon's reviewer is coming from. It seems like he saw all of these clearly politically charged stereotypes and references to hot political topics and kept wondering to himself, "when is the game going to capitalize on all this?" Now it does happen sometimes where things like this try to leave an artistic non-answer, sort of like the ending to Inception that drove everyone mad. I also believe that Ubisoft wanted to instill this sort of artistic non-answer by putting the player into the body of the infamous "silent protagonist" that CoD is so famous for. <br><br>That said, I fucking hate the silent protagonist approach. I cannot think of a single game where it has added any depth to the experience. The game that launched this series out of obscurity was Far Cry 3, and that took us through a crazy ride you had basically no player agency over, but still gave us a living breathing character to fill the shoes of. Much better than silence, they used a real character to take control away from you in the most insane moments to make you feel like you were also going insane. I tend to agree with this quote from waypoint: "'Far Cry 5' doesn't have a hero. It has a blank slate that lets its hateful enemies have the last word." This is not a political or a "SJW" complaint, this is a legitimate flaw with the game, and is actually the direct result of the makers being too scared to make a statement, not the opposite as you're suggesting.<br><br>TLDR: It is not lack of a POLITICAL statement the reviewer is missing, it the lack of ANY statement in a game that had so damn much of it to offer. I don't really think the Polygon reviewer is asking for an "anti-conservative" or "anti-trump" or "anti-2nd-ammendment" message here. I think all he's asking for closure. <br><br>If you read this far, discuss.