Figured I'd send you an ask instead of tacking onto an already quite long post while the tag for said posts is going thru Something(tm)- I like reading your analysis, but it also touches upon smth that was discussed when I was in college (studied film/animation) that they unfortunately didn't go into too much, but: there's multiple ways to analyze a narrative, 1) in the meta sense, where you treat characters as the narrative tools they are and delve into how they fulfull their narrative purpose, or 2) in-narrative (i'd call it diegetic but to most ppl that's just a music term), where you analyze characters like they're people with motivations etc. etc., which I feel like is the more common way that shows, movies, etc. are discussed online. I personally greatly enjoy reading about both, which is why I don't mind these rambles of yours, but it might make it easier for you/all of us to distinguish these two ways of approaching FC3, because I agree, it can get messy/complicated, and depending on which method you use, you're probably going to get wildly different outcomes on whether the standard Symmetry theory makes sense or not

Oh trust me I'm very familiar with the diegesis question (I got my Master's in English). and yeah tbh there is, a simplicity in splitting the uprights on those two modes of reading. There's definitely plenty of texts where I do prefer to engage with one over the other. Into the Woods, for instance, I read non-diagetically: its a story ABOUT fairy tale logic and it does a disservice to the text to react to actions of characters like they're real people. On the other hand, I read A Song of Ice and Fire almost entirely diagetically. Non-diagetic readings of ASOIAF can be compelling to me (there's a really good essay I found on the Others as perpetual warfare), but ultimately what I find the most interesting about that series are the complicated interpersonal tensions. It doesn't do me any good to really think about what these characters represent on a meta level because how they interact with themselves and each other as people is what's interesting to me.

With Far Cry though, that "mess" I refer to in all honesty is what makes the series so interesting to me. There's this constant underlying tension between what these characters represent within their meta narratives versus who they are within their own worlds. Its not just that they're different, but in the case of Citra and Vaas they can even be completely contradictory roles that, like you said, provoke completely opposing reactions from their audiences when looked at in isolation. That's not a negative so far as I'm concerned, its part of why I keep returning to this knot to untangle it and part of why I keep picking at a proper essay outline. Because I think there's something this series tries to say, and each game since 3 is a different attempt to get that meaning across, each with its own unique strengths and weaknesses. Part of my interest as a media crit guy is unpacking what works and what doesn't (from my perspective, for all that's worth lol)

That's not to say I don't enjoy other kinds of content. I have OCs for the far cry universe, I have fic concepts that are entirely about the interpersonal, I enjoy fanart and a whole variety of means of engagement. In the end you really kind of do have to pick and choose how you want to enjoy certain aspects. But the is the one that tends to linger the most with me and that keeps bringing me back here is just staring at this strange and contradictory piece of media and trying to see where one thread joins into the next.