If the guy on the cover wasn't meant to be white they screwed that up, he looks whiter than me and I'm as honky as it gets. My first thought upon seeing a clearly villainous effeminate man in a pink suit was to go "Another evil gay man? Great."
Jimquisition: The FarCry Racism Adventure
- Thread starter Jimothy Sterling
- Start date
You must be newly exposed to the mouthbreathing shitstorm churning hivemind of SJW's. Welcome to the internet.AlwaysPractical said:
Even that won't save them. If they don't attach a PDF with a story recap to their screenshot, as well as a huge fucking red arrow over the guy's face disclaiming that "NOT THE PLAYER. BAD GUY. PLEASE PLEASE CAN WE KEEP THE COVER, WE LIKE IT, OR IS IT TOO INSENSITIVE?", then apparently they failed to provide "context". I feel sorry for them a little bit.grimner said:
I think it's already been said, but I'm sure Ubisoft kept quiet to get some buzz going, since all they had to show was a cover and a pre-order deal. Whether this worked out to their advantage is another matter.grimner said:
The thing is, does a developer/publisher need to come out with a statement everytime something extremely obvious is taken the wrong way? Games are taken the wrong way by many mainstream news outlets all the time - Do they need to send out a clarification then too?
I already find that Assassin's Creed disclaimer pretty silly, but is this something that needs to be implemented in every game that features human characters, for fear of offending anyone who might take something out of context?
Well, no. Because when you take something extremely obvious the wrong way, then you are either fucking retarded (not an uncommon thing among SJW's) or you're misrepresenting it on purpose. Even if you ask for context, the thing is that a dev/publisher does not owe it to you. They owe you nothing. They will present and advertise their game by slowly releasing information about it over time, because that's what keeps people thinking about it and that works. If you brew a shitstorm when you lack information, contrary to what Jim claims in the video, no, it is not their fault for not providing it. It's your fault for brewing a shitstorm when you... you know... lack information. A bit too obvious? Yes, one would think.Casual Shinji said:
The Internet Knights like to scream racism every time someone white looks like they MIGHT be 'oppressing' a not-white.
It's the whole Zimmerman vs Trayvon thing.
Zimmerman was half-white and half-brown.
But all anyone in the media and Twitter could do was call him a kiddie killing kracker.
Because, you know, mentioning that Trayvon wasn't a saint anymore than Zimmerman is racist.
And, only white people shoot black people.
It's the whole Zimmerman vs Trayvon thing.
Zimmerman was half-white and half-brown.
But all anyone in the media and Twitter could do was call him a kiddie killing kracker.
Because, you know, mentioning that Trayvon wasn't a saint anymore than Zimmerman is racist.
And, only white people shoot black people.
Not gana lie...ANYONE who thought that this box cover PROMOTED racism believes that Ubisoft wants to PROMOTE racism. And anyone who believes that is a giant, massive, complete, total idiot moron dumb-face. Anyone who actually believes that this box cover PROMOTED racism should have their internet privileges revoked for forever and always. They are a toxic pollutant that is ruining everything beautiful about the internet.
And if you didn't think the box cover was PROMOTING racism, but instead DEPICTING racism, and you STILL got upset, you're almost as bad as the last group of people. No internets for you for forever either, but I won't call you dumb. Just a sensitive douche.
EDIT: I should probably just put a little disclaimer down here. I am not specifically calling anyone out as either a moron or a douche. Just putting it out there, in general. And if you needed this disclaimer to understand that...well...I got bad news for you.
And if you didn't think the box cover was PROMOTING racism, but instead DEPICTING racism, and you STILL got upset, you're almost as bad as the last group of people. No internets for you for forever either, but I won't call you dumb. Just a sensitive douche.
EDIT: I should probably just put a little disclaimer down here. I am not specifically calling anyone out as either a moron or a douche. Just putting it out there, in general. And if you needed this disclaimer to understand that...well...I got bad news for you.
It's honestly getting to the point where you can't even have a story with human characters in it anymore. You can't have a character of any ethnicity (be it black, Asian, or whatever) without people going over the character with a fine-tooth comb to find every reason why the story writers are racist, and you can't just not include them for the sake of not having the story get bogged-down in needless racial politics, because then you're being racist for NOT having characters of different ethnicities.
What are we gonna have to do? Make every character in every video game, movie, comic book, etc into furries? Oh, but then we'll be hearing about how there isn't enough equine representation, or "Of course the canine character growls anytime he gets upset, because clearly ALL dogs are like that", and "Gee, the villain is a cat, who saw that one coming from a mile away?".
Can we just accept that there's a difference between racism and telling a story that portrays racist characters? Of course, that was a rhetorical question, because otherwise Jim wouldn't have needed to make this video.
What are we gonna have to do? Make every character in every video game, movie, comic book, etc into furries? Oh, but then we'll be hearing about how there isn't enough equine representation, or "Of course the canine character growls anytime he gets upset, because clearly ALL dogs are like that", and "Gee, the villain is a cat, who saw that one coming from a mile away?".
Can we just accept that there's a difference between racism and telling a story that portrays racist characters? Of course, that was a rhetorical question, because otherwise Jim wouldn't have needed to make this video.
I agree.Ronack said:
It is like after over a decade of people going on how the original design pokemon Jynx was a racist depiction of blacks evidence is presented that Jynx may in fact based on a Japanese mythological beast called Yama-uba (the mountain Crone).
In Noh Theater Yama-uba is depicted by an actor in what amounts to "blackface" and in one story challenges a pilgrim to Buddha to dance for her but it is Yama-uba herself that dances to the end of the play. Also Yama-uba is said to freeze her victims with a kiss. Furthermore, Oh My Goddess!, (1988) which is heavily based on Norse mythology has Urd and her mother Hild both dark skinned and that manga series predates Jynx by nearly 8 years.
The danger of jumping on the racism bandwagon in this day and age is that unlike when the whole Jynx controversy thing reached critical mass the counter points can quickly be presented and those making the racism claim risk getting egg on their face and being taken less seriously the next time something potentially racist pops up. It is akin to the ridiculous situation that EVERY appearance of the Swastika is a reference to Nazis. Eventually the gaming-internet community is going to have enough and the backlash is not going to be pretty.
Resident Evil 5 was racial insensitive but not racist and the fact some people cannot understand the difference is the issue.
I wonder if hypersensitivity is ever going to be listed as a disease and pandemic gets proclaimed.
Anyway, my guess is that Ubisoft did all this on purpose for marketing. Yes, the game will get a bad rep but there is whole 6 months to explain themselves and in the meantime all the talk will hold the spotlight on the game. it's a win-win situation for them.
That said, cover might be racist. I doubt it's racist but rather sadist boss and prisoner depiction. But even if it was, so what. In CoD games, for example, at least some of them, you fight people who dared to fight back after your side took over their country. Is that really any better than white rich guy fucking up some Nepalese (that guy actually looks nothing like locals in that area) for his own sadistic pleasure? Even if he's players avatar? To tell the truth, I don't really have the problem with either, I'm just pointing out some double standards.
I would play white racist, black racist, native american racist, Chinese racist, Indian racist, Maori racist and even martian racist. I would play them even if they specifically targeted my race, gender and nationality. Hell, I played one game like that. Did it made me uncomfortable? Yea. But it was still a good game, and it really made me rethink some issues.
Now, I don't have a problem with criticizing someone's work or people over their works if same issue crops up again and again and again. However I am against hive-mind thinking, double standards, calls for censorship and hyper sensitivity. Think before you post, think for yourself and most of all, think about what others feel and what they might think and mean by certain messages and images. It's all too easy to see what you want to see rather than what really is.
And this is one more place to repeat my motto on this subject
"You have right to be offended but you do not have right not to be offended"
Anyway, my guess is that Ubisoft did all this on purpose for marketing. Yes, the game will get a bad rep but there is whole 6 months to explain themselves and in the meantime all the talk will hold the spotlight on the game. it's a win-win situation for them.
That said, cover might be racist. I doubt it's racist but rather sadist boss and prisoner depiction. But even if it was, so what. In CoD games, for example, at least some of them, you fight people who dared to fight back after your side took over their country. Is that really any better than white rich guy fucking up some Nepalese (that guy actually looks nothing like locals in that area) for his own sadistic pleasure? Even if he's players avatar? To tell the truth, I don't really have the problem with either, I'm just pointing out some double standards.
I would play white racist, black racist, native american racist, Chinese racist, Indian racist, Maori racist and even martian racist. I would play them even if they specifically targeted my race, gender and nationality. Hell, I played one game like that. Did it made me uncomfortable? Yea. But it was still a good game, and it really made me rethink some issues.
Now, I don't have a problem with criticizing someone's work or people over their works if same issue crops up again and again and again. However I am against hive-mind thinking, double standards, calls for censorship and hyper sensitivity. Think before you post, think for yourself and most of all, think about what others feel and what they might think and mean by certain messages and images. It's all too easy to see what you want to see rather than what really is.
And this is one more place to repeat my motto on this subject
"You have right to be offended but you do not have right not to be offended"
I thought the comparability of the pink-suited chap to Julian Assange [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julian_Assange] was conspicuous. Some artist may have simply been inspired. Maybe he was going for Karl from Die Hard and Assange is the more recent platinum-blonde Euro-dude in common culture. On the other hand, without further information it's easy to assume that Ubisoft was making a statement about a controversial figure in contemporary world affairs.
A greater fear for me is that the similarity between the FC4 box and the FC3 box art (vivid colors, a prominently featured villain oppressing a victim) belies a comparable similarity between FC4 and FC3, the production values of which were dubious at best. The fact that it was a well received game despite their design choices (especially those that contrast to FC2) bring me to fear that they're going to essentially deliver more of the same. That would mean more of:
~ Massive QTE use
~ Dissatisfying boss fights / boss conclusions (A knife kill was too kind for Buck. He needed an anthill or a gibbet)
~ Dissonance between game-play and story. e.g. Jason vacillates unevenly between clinging to his civilized sensibilities and going savage.
~ Inconsistent use of themes, e.g. drugs have perception-altering effects only when plot requires, and not when, say using all those practical crafted herbal concoctions.
~ Terrible secondary dialog (e.g. mook and ally barks), especially compared to those in FC2 which were really good.
~ Uneven world building compared to FC2. The island was gorgeous and fun to explore. The weather only featured rain and clear, compared to the highly dynamic system of FC2 (including pre-dawn mists, galestorms and hard afternoon sun).
~ extra-diegetic map, crafting, et. al. which disrupted the music flow and made for a very broken game experience, again in contrast to FC2 in which the map was a stack of papers viewed diegetically.
So frankly, I hope FC4 is as different from FC3 as FC3 was to FC2 (and FC2 was to FC).
238U[footnote]As of this posting I have not received a US National Security Letter or any classified gag order from an agent of the United States.
This post does not contain an encrypted secret message
Monday, May 26, 2014 12:26:57 PM
locust sign lane pottery diver bingle invention cocktail[/footnote]
A greater fear for me is that the similarity between the FC4 box and the FC3 box art (vivid colors, a prominently featured villain oppressing a victim) belies a comparable similarity between FC4 and FC3, the production values of which were dubious at best. The fact that it was a well received game despite their design choices (especially those that contrast to FC2) bring me to fear that they're going to essentially deliver more of the same. That would mean more of:
~ Massive QTE use
~ Dissatisfying boss fights / boss conclusions (A knife kill was too kind for Buck. He needed an anthill or a gibbet)
~ Dissonance between game-play and story. e.g. Jason vacillates unevenly between clinging to his civilized sensibilities and going savage.
~ Inconsistent use of themes, e.g. drugs have perception-altering effects only when plot requires, and not when, say using all those practical crafted herbal concoctions.
~ Terrible secondary dialog (e.g. mook and ally barks), especially compared to those in FC2 which were really good.
~ Uneven world building compared to FC2. The island was gorgeous and fun to explore. The weather only featured rain and clear, compared to the highly dynamic system of FC2 (including pre-dawn mists, galestorms and hard afternoon sun).
~ extra-diegetic map, crafting, et. al. which disrupted the music flow and made for a very broken game experience, again in contrast to FC2 in which the map was a stack of papers viewed diegetically.
So frankly, I hope FC4 is as different from FC3 as FC3 was to FC2 (and FC2 was to FC).
238U[footnote]As of this posting I have not received a US National Security Letter or any classified gag order from an agent of the United States.
This post does not contain an encrypted secret message
Monday, May 26, 2014 12:26:57 PM
locust sign lane pottery diver bingle invention cocktail[/footnote]
Yes...I feel Far Cry 4's box art invokes somewhat of a disturbing imagery. I am not talking about "white man subjugating a darker man". I feel that the villain being depicted with multiple arms is somewhat similar to multiple Hindu Gods. Considering the history of this game and Ubisoft's gross misrepresentation of the culture of Pacific Islanders in the previous installment, I worry that they might make FC4 offensive to my culture.
I loved FC3 and would not like the series to be spoiled because of some dumb, myopic fool, who decided to make a culturally insensitive game. I can't call the game outright racist though coz as Jim puts it....We don't have the complete story.
I loved FC3 and would not like the series to be spoiled because of some dumb, myopic fool, who decided to make a culturally insensitive game. I can't call the game outright racist though coz as Jim puts it....We don't have the complete story.
i dont agree, i think its people's fault for jumping to conclusions and honestly it kind of makes the americans look racist, i live in a country where racism has pretty much never existed in any way, and when i saw the picture i saw what was probably the villian of the game, putting his hand over what was probably one of his subordinates in a condescending manner, i could draw all manner of assumptions from the pic, "i bet hes an egotistical douche", "looking at that suit he probably lives like a king while his subordinates are the ones getting their hands dirty", etc. at no point i thought "dis is racist yo", because in my mind the race of the characters had no significance
Really? Really?
There were really people who thought that the blond man in the pink suit with his hand possessively on a Himalayan dude's head was the main character? As though we are anywhere near the point of having a male player character in a big budget game with anything resembling a sexual orientation other than 100% straight (and yes, I am presuming here that the appearance of a blond guy in a fabulous pink suit with his hand on another man's head is that of a gay man. I don't think that's much of a stretch).
This doesn't by that token make the game's politics good. I'd actually go ahead and call a bit of homophobia for almost certainly making the villain a gay man and having that be his most obvious 'villain' quirk. And it's sweet that people thought that in the current political landscape this guy could be the main character. But he's not. He's very, very clearly not, and Ubisoft didn't have to go out of its way to explain this fact because the world really is that homophobic a place where this medium is concerned.
That being said, the fact that the villian is a racist does not trouble me. Racism is not a good thing, and depicting villains as doing not-good things can actually send a positive message in certain circumstances.
There were really people who thought that the blond man in the pink suit with his hand possessively on a Himalayan dude's head was the main character? As though we are anywhere near the point of having a male player character in a big budget game with anything resembling a sexual orientation other than 100% straight (and yes, I am presuming here that the appearance of a blond guy in a fabulous pink suit with his hand on another man's head is that of a gay man. I don't think that's much of a stretch).
This doesn't by that token make the game's politics good. I'd actually go ahead and call a bit of homophobia for almost certainly making the villain a gay man and having that be his most obvious 'villain' quirk. And it's sweet that people thought that in the current political landscape this guy could be the main character. But he's not. He's very, very clearly not, and Ubisoft didn't have to go out of its way to explain this fact because the world really is that homophobic a place where this medium is concerned.
That being said, the fact that the villian is a racist does not trouble me. Racism is not a good thing, and depicting villains as doing not-good things can actually send a positive message in certain circumstances.
"If you put something out there without a framing device, people will frame it for themselves". Nos shit, Jimmy, that's how visual stationary art works!