Jimquisition: The FarCry Racism Adventure

[mecegirl]

Some of these "SJW" types actually believe that any depiction of such a thing, like racism, is itself unacceptable. Some believe because no matter how you frame the racism, it'll be promoting it, some because they think that 99% of depictions are actually more harmful than helpful, some think that only certain people can speak on a matter - take Suey Park/#CancelColbert as an example. She thinks its unaccpetable, not necessarily for that joke to be made, but for a person who is white to do so. There's other various reasons as to why, but those spring to mind as some of the most prominent ones. I generally strongly disagree with all of these reactions, but I think its important nonetheless to understand where some people are coming from when they call it "racist".

Additionally, there probably should be a word used to describe something as having carrying a lot of baggage regarding race and being generally insensitive, but thats another discussion entirely, only tangentially related because then the accusation of something being like that becomes significantly less loaded.

It probably has something to do with this concept.
http://www.ted.com/talks/chimamanda_adichie_the_danger_of_a_single_story

When a category of people are generally depicted in one way it does effect the way people view that category of people. So for example, if Black men are usually depicted as dangerous thugs(a negative and racist stereotype of Black men), individuals who have little to no actual experience with Black men will assume that to be true.

In the case of this game, and the depiction of people from other nations, we really don't have that wide a range of depictions in the States. And each one that mirrors the image of a downtrodden/ oppressed/ warmongering foreigner can reinforce the idea that that is all people from those nations are.

 

[Kayweg]

I'm only today catching up to this story after having heard about it during the last few days.
Before today i hadn't seen the FC 4 box art, i also haven't followed FC 4 and don't know what the story is about.
So my approach was this....sit back, relax, be unbiased and note what honestly is your first impression.
It went something like this:

-Western capital fighting proxy war for influence/ressources in 3rd world country. (my immediate first thought when seeing
the box art)
-Shady middle-man with an awful taste in clothing acting as puppet master. (similar to Vaas in FC 3 minus the clothing
taste)
-geographical setting: looks like Himalayans.
-That hand patronizingly resting on the head of that kneeling warrior ? Gosh, hope i get to play as him and put some
bullets into that pink suit...and preferbly not in some rubbish QTE like in Far Cry 3.

Imo opinion it's like Jim said, there's a difference between promoting and depicting racism. And the box art sure does the latter, but at no point did i feel that it was promoting racism.
If anything, it uses the depiction of racism to promote a commercial product (in this case a computer game).
If THAT is acceptable is another question, a question worth a discussion all by itself.
Nobody get me wrong now, i detest racism and discrimination, but the box art of FC 4 did not rub me the wrong way in that regard.

 

[PirateRose]

When I first looked at the cover of Far Cry 4, I thought, great, another metrosexual bad guy. There are too many effeminate bad guy men and it's a homophobic social concept.

I also thought, it's pretty clear they are going for a some kind of imperialistic theme. So I eased of the idea that it's racist, but knowing what they did with Far Cry 3, I'm not keeping my hopes up it'll be too intelligent. Heart of Darkness gets nailed with the accusation of being racist all the time, but if people would actually read the book they would realize all the African people are sane and innocent while the white, European people are absolutely bonkers and evil. I mean the book started a push in many European countries against slavery.

However, Spec Ops: The Line already pulled off the Heart of Darkness bit really well. Ubisoft has a bar to meet, and again, I'm not keeping my hopes up.

That guy on the cover looks like Anderson Cooper but I'm half expecting him to have a Dutch accent. If he's not white, he's either half white or the artist made him an idealized east Asian. Which is white looking.

At worst, he's a east Asian guy so consumed in his appearance, he's undergone plastic surgery to try to look more white.

 

[PlasmaCow]

Frankly just the idea that Ubisoft, probably THE most globally international set of studios, would promote racism is just laughably stupid.

 

[Fappy]

I gonna have to absolve Ubisoft of all the blame here.

The cover was clearly depicting evil/corrupt dude sitting carelessly on a throne while oppressing a native/henchman. They're apparently to blame for not spelling it out, which says more about the times we live in. Where unless we're given "the full story" our minds automatically conclude that it must be advocating racism.

I usually take every opportunity given to me to jump down Ubisoft's throat, but I completely agreed. People apparently fail at context clues.

OT: The satire at the end there was beautiful.

Thank God for you, not-racist Jim.

 

[SlothDeVidya]

Yeah, nooooo.

When you make horrific accusations based on practically no information at all, that is not the fault of the person or company whom you are accusing, making these kinds of accusations on grounds THIS shaky is entirely the fault of those that make said accusations, seeing how they knew for a fact that they didn't have complete information, or really any information at all, yet chose to cry wolf anyway.

And at the end of the day, when legitimate social justice causes end up ridiculed and de-legitimized because the public (rightly) starts getting fucking tired of a million Chicken Littles crying that the sky is falling at every slightest opportunity, that will NOT be the fault of the general public, it will be the fault of those who chose to abuse these serious accusations for personal gratification and attention grabbing.

The fact that Ubisoft may or may not have held back information for a bad reason (Keeping in mind that there is no evidence to support such a conclusion), that does not excuse anyone for jumping the gun.
Hell even if the actual game itself turns out to be racist as FUCK, making accusations at this point would still be inexcusable.

 

[OurGloriousLeader]

Man people really struggling with this concept? So many denials of racial aspects, that any accusation of racism has merit, hur-dur video games don't matter *plays 50 hours a week of games*. There was a clear racial/caste them in the image, and though it may not be what people assumed it was, denying any such theme is similarly silly. Stuff like "can't we just see 2 guys not their skin colour", "people don't even know what racism is" etc is just meaningless attempts at not talking about the issue - precisely what Jim said not to do in the video. Maybe if some of you would listen to these 'social warriors' rather than shouting them down you'd learn a thing or two - even if you do ultimately still disagree with them.

 

[90sgamer]

Jim, you are correct -- as usual -- that the purveyor of information is ultimately the one responsible for making sure that information is presented clearly. Any subsequent misunderstanding ultimately lies on the shoulders of the purveyor.

However, I recall you using the word "blame," or a similar word with similar implications, in this episode as if there was some kind of wrong committed by Ubisoft. Those with twisted panties, hurt feelings, and agitated senses of righteous indignation had to literally go out of their way to feel victimized/bothered, or, otherwise offended. They had to invent facts not present in the image to come to their [wrong] conclusions.

Facts they had to invent include but may not be limited to:
1. The man in the center of the image is inherently and genetically superior to the man under his dominion.
2. That his rise to power was the result of his inherent genetic superiority.

Racism cannot be detected at a glance because the definition of racism requires one to know something about the belief and intent of the person dong the action/statement. I wish you would acknowledge that, while everyone is entitled to their opinion, they are not entitled to others taking their opinion seriously. Also, being offended does not make a person entitled to anything, least of all, recognition of the legitimacy of their complaint.

 

[Thanatos2k]

It's pretty great that Ubisoft has distracted everyone with this stupid racism argument, so in the smokescreen people wouldn't see some of the actual outrageous things that they've done with Farcry 4, like ALREADY ANNOUNCING DLC.

What's outrageous about that?

DLC announced at this point should not exist. Any DLC they're announcing now should be in the damn game at launch, included in the price of the game. DLC announced at this point is content confirmed that was cut out of the regular game.

It's really a new low. The excuse of "DLC is what we work on after we're done with the game" isn't even being used anymore. They just shamelessly cut content and sell it back.

Why not? If they've already had an idea about a side adventure that wouldn't fit or would be considered extraneous to thr main narrative, why would they include it in the main release? Do you think that if they continue to have ideas to add into the game they should continually delay the final release? As far as i'm concerned, if the main release works as a whole on its own merits, they can sell or announce DLC for it whenever they want, it only becomes an issue if it truly affects the core product.

It doesn't matter if it's a side adventure or not - ALL CONTENT created before the game goes gold should be in the game at the price being charged. Period. Full stop.

Let's look back at a game I'm sure most people have played - Final Fantasy 7. There's a lot of stuff in that game that isn't in the "main narrative." There's 2 party members you don't even have to meet. There's the Golden Saucer which has nothing to do with the main game. There's Fort Condor. All of this stuff could be removed from the game entirely without it affecting the "main narrative."

And you're seriously suggesting you'd have been ok if that stuff had been cut out of the game and sold as DLC? Recruit Yuffie! Only $8! Vincent's sidestory! Only $8! Unlock minigames in the Golden Saucer and get access to amazing prizes! $15! Preorder the game and enjoy battles at Fort Condor!

Disgusting, but some people have accepted garbage like this, usually younger gamers who simply don't know any better. Stop accepting it.

 

[andago]

It's pretty great that Ubisoft has distracted everyone with this stupid racism argument, so in the smokescreen people wouldn't see some of the actual outrageous things that they've done with Farcry 4, like ALREADY ANNOUNCING DLC.

What's outrageous about that?

...

... ...

It doesn't matter if it's a side adventure or not - ALL CONTENT created before the game goes gold should be in the game at the price being charged. Period. Full stop.

Let's look back at a game I'm sure most people have played - Final Fantasy 7. There's a lot of stuff in that game that isn't in the "main narrative." There's 2 party members you don't even have to meet. There's the Golden Saucer which has nothing to do with the main game. There's Fort Condor. All of this stuff could be removed from the game entirely without it affecting the "main narrative."

And you're seriously suggesting you'd have been ok if that stuff had been cut out of the game and sold as DLC? Recruit Yuffie! Only $8! Vincent's sidestory! Only $8! Unlock minigames in the Golden Saucer and get access to amazing prizes! $15! Preorder the game and enjoy battles at Fort Condor!

Disgusting, but some people have accepted garbage like this, usually younger gamers who simply don't know any better. Stop accepting it.

Even if the comtent is incomplete?

Alternatively, imagine if all of the content and ideas that didn't make the final version of Final Fantasy 7 were then developed and released seperately as DLC. Could be pretty fun.

By 'main narrative' I was generalising to refer to any given game experience as a whole, side quests and all. I doubt that every creative idea come up with during the development process makes it to the final product, a lot of content could be considered as extraneous and dropped to make a better experience as having all the things included in a game doesn't necessarily make it a better experience. Editing is a valid process, and you could argue DLC is a way of releasing content that fell in editing at a later date, where including it in the product at day one would have been detrimental to the experience.

For example, i think if i tried to play one of the borderlands game with all of the DLC from day one, i doubt i would make it through, whereas I enjoyed all of the core content from day 1, and have then been able enjoy the DLCs by their own merit.

 

[Thanatos2k]

Alternatively, imagine if all of the content and ideas that didn't make the final version of Final Fantasy 7 were then developed and released seperately as DLC. Could be pretty fun.

You're describing the fluffy ideal DLC that Jim claims he believes in, but that never happened in reality. That's NOT what's happening. The ideas from the cutting room floor are not being resurrected as DLC - stuff is being REMOVED beforehand and parceled aside to the DLC bucket.

Additionally such content that was cut from the final version of FF7 was likely cut from the final game for a reason. Not everything is a good idea or works in the game.

By 'main narrative' I was generalising to refer to any given game experience as a whole, side quests and all

And how do you tell? Again, if the stuff I listed above were not in the first released version of FF7, would you notice they were missing? No, you wouldn't. Same principle here - saying this stuff isn't part of the main narrative is nonsense - if it was released in the complete game it'd be part of the experience.

Editing is a valid process, and you could argue DLC is a way of releasing content that fell in editing at a later date, where including it in the product at day one would have been detrimental to the experience.

If it was detrimental then, it's going to be detrimental later.

For example, i think if i tried to play one of the borderlands game with all of the DLC from day one, i doubt i would make it through, whereas I enjoyed all of the core content from day 1, and have then been able enjoy the DLCs by their own merit.

Because the Borderlands DLC is obnoxiously numerous. Imagine if they spent their time making a new game instead of all that DLC, they'd be done by now.

 

[andago]

Alternatively, imagine if all of the content and ideas that didn't make the final version of Final Fantasy 7 were then developed and released seperately as DLC. Could be pretty fun.

You're describing the fluffy ideal DLC that Jim claims he believes in, but that never happened in reality. That's NOT what's happening. The ideas from the cutting room floor are not being resurrected as DLC - stuff is being REMOVED beforehand and parceled aside to the DLC bucket.

Additionally such content that was cut from the final version of FF7 was likely cut from the final game for a reason. Not everything is a good idea or works in the game.

By 'main narrative' I was generalising to refer to any given game experience as a whole, side quests and all

And how do you tell? Again, if the stuff I listed above were not in the first released version of FF7, would you notice they were missing? No, you wouldn't. Same principle here - saying this stuff isn't part of the main narrative is nonsense - if it was released in the complete game it'd be part of the experience.

Editing is a valid process, and you could argue DLC is a way of releasing content that fell in editing at a later date, where including it in the product at day one would have been detrimental to the experience.

If it was detrimental then, it's going to be detrimental later.

For example, i think if i tried to play one of the borderlands game with all of the DLC from day one, i doubt i would make it through, whereas I enjoyed all of the core content from day 1, and have then been able enjoy the DLCs by their own merit.

Because the Borderlands DLC is obnoxiously numerous. Imagine if they spent their time making a new game instead of all that DLC, they'd be done by now.

All this is kind of my point. There is no way to tell, so I'm not sure how you can be so convinced they are cutting things from their main release for the pure motive of selling them later as DLC, as opposed to the more benign reasons I was suggesting.

Given the facts at hand, the only thing we're arguing about is motive, something noone except an employee of ubisoft can informedly comment about. I am of the view that given my previous enjoyment of ubisoft games as a whole, and that in my opinion they are not ones for stinting on content (if anything, the opposite). You are of the view that they are putting their bottom line before any creative concerns.

This is something we will only ever be able to speculate about, but seeing as there is a possibly inoffensive explanation to such DLC, i can't see the reason behind immediately labelling it outrageous, similar to how it would be odd to immediately label it editing at its best.

As an afterthought, it kind of depends on whether you see DLC as part of the core experience, or as optional added content. Something can be detrimental to the original release for the sole reason that it interrupts the flow of the experience, but can be in its own right enjoyable and so better released separately to be enjoyed by its own merits and just to compliment the original version.

 

[Thanatos2k]

All this is kind of my point. There is no way to tell, so I'm not sure how you can be so convinced they are cutting things from their main release for the pure motive of selling them later as DLC, as opposed to the more benign reasons I was suggesting.

Because the game isn't even close to being out, so WE KNOW they have cut content and parceled it to be sold back to us as DLC. WE KNOW it should have been in the game to begin with. WE KNOW they have their whole DLC nonsense schedule planned out before they're even done developing the damn game!

As an afterthought, it kind of depends on whether you see DLC as part of the core experience, or as optional added content.

Everything made before the game goes gold is part of the core experience.

 

[zombiejoe]

While I do believe that Ubisoft opened itself up to some negative results from Far Cry 4's announcement (seeing as how it just appeared out of the blue and simply focused on pre-orders, as if we already knew about the game), I still think that the outcry against it was a little too far fetched. Of course we should be free to discuss issues of racism or other material that pops up in games, but a lot of those against the box art based their views on pretty stereotypical claims ("the guy has white skin and is oppressing a darker skinned person, so not only is the guy white and being racist, but the game is promoting racism." Or "he's wearing a pink suit and is in a certain pose, so he must be gay and the game must be homophobic.").
I'd love to talk about the topics that the game might be covering, but why must a game be bigoted simply because a character might be a certain way, an obviously evil person at that?



And I've said it before, but I'll say it again.

I believe Far Cry 3 handled its themes, and supposed "white guy saves the tribes" trope, very well. The game's not perfect, but narratively the game is not promoting racist ideas.

 

[andago]

All this is kind of my point. There is no way to tell, so I'm not sure how you can be so convinced they are cutting things from their main release for the pure motive of selling them later as DLC, as opposed to the more benign reasons I was suggesting.

Because the game isn't even close to being out, so WE KNOW they have cut content and parceled it to be sold back to us as DLC. WE KNOW it should have been in the game to begin with. WE KNOW they have their whole DLC nonsense schedule planned out before they're even done developing the damn game!

As an afterthought, it kind of depends on whether you see DLC as part of the core experience, or as optional added content.

Everything made before the game goes gold is part of the core experience.

But I don't see as to how you can 'know' that. Well okay, obviously they have cut content because every creative product has to have an editing process. What we don't 'know'is what you're claiming, that they have deliberately done it solely to sell it at a later date. What if one of the creative team came up with a concept or some art they considered cool which was decided didn't fit within the core experience of the game, but which could work as standalone content released seperately from the main game, so as not to release a product with disjointed content or pacing?

This is tantamount to saying that all the content they create in the production of a game should be included whether or not they think it fits in the game, and whether or not it's even complete.

 

[Ygrez]

And yet the Far Cry 3 cover art had a latino guy holding a gun to a white guy's head who was mostly buried in the sand with blood on his face... and no one complained about that.

 

[Thanatos2k]

All this is kind of my point. There is no way to tell, so I'm not sure how you can be so convinced they are cutting things from their main release for the pure motive of selling them later as DLC, as opposed to the more benign reasons I was suggesting.

Because the game isn't even close to being out, so WE KNOW they have cut content and parceled it to be sold back to us as DLC. WE KNOW it should have been in the game to begin with. WE KNOW they have their whole DLC nonsense schedule planned out before they're even done developing the damn game!

As an afterthought, it kind of depends on whether you see DLC as part of the core experience, or as optional added content.

Everything made before the game goes gold is part of the core experience.

But I don't see as to how you can 'know' that. Well okay, obviously they have cut content because every creative product has to have an editing process. What we don't 'know'is what you're claiming, that they have deliberately done it solely to sell it at a later date. What if one of the creative team came up with a concept or some art they considered cool which was decided didn't fit within the core experience of the game, but which could work as standalone content released seperately from the main game, so as not to release a product with disjointed content or pacing?

At this point in time what other explanation is there? Seriously. The game is still IN DEVELOPMENT. Nothing is "cut" until the game comes out without it.

If the content has truly been "edited out" of the main game, then WHY ARE THEY WORKING ON IT NOW, instead of after they finish the main game? The content clearly has the same priority as that of the full game, so it should be part of the full game!

DLC isn't created in a vacuum. The people working the game need to implement the framework for it, and do extensive testing of it. For all intents and purposes of their development cycle - it's part of the main game.

This is tantamount to saying that all the content they create in the production of a game should be included whether or not they think it fits in the game, and whether or not it's even complete.

If they don't think it fits in the game they would not be offering it at all. If it ruins the pacing of the game, why include it as a preorder bonus in the PS3 version exclusively at Best Buy? Go on, explain that one.

 

[andago]

All this is kind of my point. There is no way to tell, so I'm not sure how you can be so convinced they are cutting things from their main release for the pure motive of selling them later as DLC, as opposed to the more benign reasons I was suggesting.

Because the game isn't even close to being out, so WE KNOW they have cut content and parceled it to be sold back to us as DLC. WE KNOW it should have been in the game to begin with. WE KNOW they have their whole DLC nonsense schedule planned out before they're even done developing the damn game!

As an afterthought, it kind of depends on whether you see DLC as part of the core experience, or as optional added content.

Everything made before the game goes gold is part of the core experience.

But I don't see as to how you can 'know' that. Well okay, obviously they have cut content because every creative product has to have an editing process. What we don't 'know'is what you're claiming, that they have deliberately done it solely to sell it at a later date. What if one of the creative team came up with a concept or some art they considered cool which was decided didn't fit within the core experience of the game, but which could work as standalone content released seperately from the main game, so as not to release a product with disjointed content or pacing?

At this point in time what other explanation is there? Seriously. The game is still IN DEVELOPMENT. Nothing is "cut" until the game comes out without it.

If the content has truly been "edited out" of the main game, then WHY ARE THEY WORKING ON IT NOW, instead of after they finish the main game? The content clearly has the same priority as that of the full game, so it should be part of the full game!

DLC isn't created in a vacuum. The people working the game need to implement the framework for it, and do extensive testing of it. For all intents and purposes of their development cycle - it's part of the main game.

This is tantamount to saying that all the content they create in the production of a game should be included whether or not they think it fits in the game, and whether or not it's even complete.

If they don't think it fits in the game they would not be offering it at all. If it ruins the pacing of the game, why include it as a preorder bonus in the PS3 version exclusively at Best Buy? Go on, explain that one.

Why does it matter when they work on it? If the release game turns out to be unpolished or have parts that seem rushed or unfinished, then yes you could argue they should have been focusing on the core release. How do you know it has the same priority?

I have to admit by your original statement I didn't know we were arguing about day one DLC, just DLC that began its creative process before the main release, that you described earlier as outrageous I believe. With regards to this particular example, I imagine they are just creating something that will encourage people to preorder the game and that they will make optionally available to everyone else after release. Again, if it feels like the content included as the preorder / DLC bonus is noticeably missing from the main product then you might have an argument, but usually this amounts to a weapon that imbalances the early game (vis a vis Deus Ex: Human Revolution), or a couple of extra missions that generally for me feel tacked on and poorly integrated, rather than cut out.

Would you prefer that they kept these things as preorder bonuses, and never made them generally available? Again, this argument would be stronger if a company had content solely as paid DLC, and not available free of charge for reserving a copy.

Obviously there are exceptions, the new Thief's preorder bonus mission I would actually argue should have been part of the main game, but again, to be honest, I could have had the extra content for no extra cost. The obvious trade off here is extra cost versus risk of early adoption.

Either way, this doesn't seem to reflect what you were originally talking about which was developers working on ideas they have for standalone content before the game is released, as opposed to gameplay add-ons reserved for pre-order.

 

[Lightknight]

I don't think it's their responsibility to explain everything. They just also need to not care if people get it wrong. Personally, i think anyone who read into it and made wild assumptions that the guy was doing what he was doing because he was racist or something (like you're racist if you go to war with people who have a different skin tone) is the one who made a mistake. Not defending the company or anything, I haven't played any Far Cry game besides blood dragon. But it's simply not their fault that people are crying wolf over a picture of a dog.

 

[Hellfireboy]

I put more of the blame on those who went out there vomiting out accusations based on little to no information. The world now has too many people who hold passionately defended positions that are based on nothing more than conjecture and assumptions and you shouldn't be giving them a pass like this.