Jimquisition: The FarCry Racism Adventure

[Therumancer]

Are you kidding me? Racist? People don't seem to even know the fucking meaning anymore.

If the picture was of many white men dominating many ethnically different men I could totally understand, but one "white" man dominating one ethnically different man could be entirely circumstantial and therefore not racist. Racism is the belief that you are inherently better than someone else due to yours or his race. I don't see that at all in this picture.

Well, to be fair that is present. The game is set in Tibet, and Tibet has been pretty much under China's thumb for a long time now, which has been a major source of contention even before China's more recent belligerence. The Chinese are also highly racist and see themselves as better than everyone else, both whites (Westerners) and other lesser races of Asians. They have in a lot of respects become similar to what Japan was when it exploited them. The game is apparently set in Tibet (or heavily involves it) from what I read, so having some racist Chinese guy oppressing the Tibetan people isn't unrealistic or out of hand, it's pretty much what's going on over there. What's more one of the reasons why I make fun of liberals is that this is one of the cases where those with heavy left wing sentiments have been screaming that China needs to be kicked out of Tibet, and ranting about the plight of the Tibetan people. It's ironic that when someone tackles this issue it's immediately attacked by the same people that it should be appealing to. A traditionally western Far Cry protagonist going into Tibet to violently liberate it from China is pretty much left wing power fantasy at it's finest (and one which probably appeals to both major American political viewpoints to an extent). What we're seeing here is liberal political attack culture taken to an extreme, no thought, someone points a finger, they all mindlessly rally like a zombie horde while trying to seem intelligent and well informed by it. This is an example of where it went wrong. Not a popular point on these forums I'd imagine, but it's pretty much what happened here as I explained earlier.

As I also pointed out in my last, long, post, the whole "racism" angle here that carries over from "Far Cry 3" was kind of a joke to begin with. It's another example where you had a lot of left wingers pretty much rally to claim a game was racist, when really all it did was present people in an isolated third world environment, as being from an isolated third world environment. Anything for a platform and a fight. It's kind of ridiculous when you complain about a third world pirate being a bad person, or the way the people are portrayed, when people with the same political/moral affiliations as those complaining go on at length about the plight of the third world and how wreched things are down there, in need of both more peacekeeping forces to deal with the pirates and warlords, food and medicine to deal with malnutrition and medical conditions that have long, term, degenerative effects, and of course educational facilities. It would be racist to say these people are inherently like that on some fundamental genetic, level, but I haven't seen much making that kind of statement in a long time. Honestly, you go to the third world and objectively you probably are better than the overwhelming number of people you run into, not because of inherent genetics, but because of opportunities. Your probably smarter due to not having grapped with malnutrition and vitamin shortages that can apparently effect such things as you develop, your likely in far better health with the benefits of having been in good health for your entire life (even if fat and out of shape otherwise), and of course you likely have at least some education. Of course one of those same people given the same opportunities would be the same as you, which is why a lot of left wingers are so insistant about bringing those opportunities to these areas of the world, but that doesn't change what the conditions are and what it would be like to go there, nor that it's a very violent and barbaric place due to the harsh environment and thus someplace where lawless violence, perfect for action fantasy, can potentially happen.

The criticism springboards off of "Far Cry 3" and it's controversy which was also pretty much wrong. What's more when I finally got a chance to play the game, I will say that the first thing it does is subvert the whole "white action dude" trope, since the dude with all the military experience that kind of goes "meh, I'll handle this" doesn't last past the intro sequence, you instead start out as a goober who is truly out of his depth. Pretty much the opposite of what everyone was saying.

-

As far as Jim's other points though, yeah I think video game marketing could be better, and they shoot themselves in the foot by keeping everything close to their chest. This is to say nothing of all the exploitive DLC practices and other things I agree with him 100% on. That said, this is a bad place to draw the line because your dealing with a whole lot of politically fueled human stupidity, the picture isn't what people are saying it is, with what information was released about setting, and actual examination of it as opposed to simply jumping on the bandwagon, should be enough to deal with the problem. The thing is that Ubisoft's need for positive press kind of prevents them from being rather insulting towards those making the criticisms.

Jim has a few good points in here, and honestly I'm not a big fan of Ubisoft, but you shouldn't be picking on a company, even one that messed up, when it's not doing anything wrong. That kind of thing (constant attacks for any reason) backfires by making it harder to be taken seriously when there is a REAL issue.

 

[RobfromtheGulag]

I don't know if people are willfully forgetting, never heard about, or are indeed remembering when Far Cry 3's story was criticized and the developers retorted with "It's a satire of other action games". Except it really didn't seem that way, it seemed like grasping at straws after people take shots at your game.
Good to see that once again smoke and mirrors are being used to promote a game. Let me don my hipster hat for a moment here and ask why they can't just promote the game as an FPS in a lush beautiful area, as they did with Far Cry 1. Graphics sold that game, graphics and setting, and it's spawned this franchise. These controversial pantomimes of depth in storytelling go nowhere for me; given a chance I'd skip all their cut-scenes (a non existent feature until mods).
Vaas was pretty cool though. A shame he kept going for the Dr. Evil style executions.

 

[Aardvaarkman]

You keep saying "This is not my argument stop putting words into my mouth" as you keep backing off of more and more of your arguments. Which is okay, you're entitled to change your opinion or argument at any time, but then:

When did I back off my arguments? I keep saying that, because you keep putting words in my mouth.

I did defend it. What more am I supposed to do? You don't like the product, don't buy it. You are not owed perfect choices exactly to your liking by the industry. I'm not sure why that needs any more defending.

And then I have to ask why you don't think this mindset is harmful to the industry. The problem that consumers (this includes you) can fix is complacency, you can not buy their product and still be wary/distrustful of the company for the future.

Am I supposed to prove a negative? The industry seems to be doing just fine. If you claim that this is harmful to the industry, then you need to provide the evidence of that.

Really I don't see why you pull the consumer entitlement card on an issue where the consumers can completely alter the course of the industry. Opinion of the industry has and always will be driven by the consumers.

So, what's the problem? Consumers are buying what they buy, and the industry is adjusting to that. Just because you don't like it, doesn't mean that it needs to be corrected.

For example, I don't like "freemium" games - but enough people buy them to make it a viable business model. Am I supposed to rant about people playing these games I don't like? It's their choice.

 

[Aardvaarkman]

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.

Why?

DLC announced at this point is content confirmed that was cut out of the regular game.

What proof do you have of that?

If they were going to do the exact same thing, but didn't announce it until after the game's release, would that be OK? Surely informing you up-front about it is providing the consumer with more information than keeping it secret until afterwards?

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.

How do you know that the content would have been included in the original game if it weren't for DLC?

 

[Aardvaarkman]

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.

Why?

That seems like a very strong disincentive to create more content.

 

[Arcane Azmadi]

Ubisoft aren't anything like the most malevolent or greedy publisher out there, like EA or Activision, but they always strike me as one of the dumbest. Seriously, their blunders aren't motivated by greed so much as outright IDIOCY.

 

[Sotanaht]

People seem to not understand what racism is. Racism is the discrimination against a person BECAUSE of their race, not just against a person who just happens to be a different race. Motivation is key. Context is key.

Let me paint a very black and white picture for you. I'm white, if I were to randomly walk up and punch some black guy, that would not necessarily be an act of racism, just violent sociopathy. If I did it BECAUSE he was black though, THEN it would be racism. If you were to look at a picture of this act you would have absolutely no way of knowing that though.

You cannot look at a cover and claim racism based on the context given. All you can see is the action, not the motivation behind the action. You need context for that.

I do want to ask one question though, why the fuck does it matter? You see a, lets just go with "evil", act, what difference does it make if that act was racially motivated? If you think that somehow makes the act worse, I think you might have some racist tendencies that need addressing yourself.

On the other hand, if you want to claim that the developers or publishers themselves are racist, you can do so regardless of whether or not what is portrayed is actually racism. That all depends on their particular reasons for using the races they choose to use, but then that would be even more difficult to know.

 

[Batou667]

"Hysterical lefty internet pundits find something to be scandalised about" is scarcely news, is it?

In fact, isn't 90% of Jim Sterling's "thing" to find an overblown clickbaity topic, spell out the opposing positions, say what a splendid thing it is that issues X, Y and Z are getting talked about, and then wrap up by appealing to the middle ground? I'm on to you, Sterling.

As for the actual "controversial" image - it'd take some special kind of mental gymnastics or very bad faith indeed to assume that Ubisoft were intending to endorse racism. Does the guy in the suit look in any way cool, or heroic, or aspirational, beyond the very shallow trappings of being well-dressed and and having weapons? Is the Nepalese guy being subjugated made to look like a figure of fun, or deserving of his subordinate position? No, on both counts, and you'd have to be severely lacking in basic empathy to think otherwise.

Far Cry 4 is a game that will presumably, like the last few installments, be an 18-rated (Mature) game. Perhaps, correspondingly, you ought to be a grown-up before being allowed to voice half-formed and reactionary opinions on the game?

 

[Thanatos2k]

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.

I'd prefer that when a game comes out there is one version of the game available at one price that contains all content in that game. Anything else is reprehensible. Collector's editions that include things that are not part of the game like soundtracks, dev videos, knick knacks and the like are fine.

I'd prefer that post release content is free, like it used to be, or packaged into an expansion that contains significant amounts of content for a fair price.

 

[andago]

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.

I'd prefer that when a game comes out there is one version of the game available at one price that contains all content in that game. Anything else is reprehensible. Collector's editions that include things that are not part of the game like soundtracks, dev videos, knick knacks and the like are fine.

I'd prefer that post release content is free, like it used to be, or packaged into an expansion that contains significant amounts of content for a fair price.

I think you're using quite strong words for something far from clear, and that you state is your preference. I have no problem with them giving the choice to people that want to support the game before release with inconsequential items such as the gun packs as mentioned from Deus Ex: HR, or the additional weapons that were included in Dark Souls 2 preorders. You're right, if, like in the case of Thief, it is as if whole sections of the game are seemingly excised from the release version, but mostly and in the case of Far Cry 4 this doesn't seem to be true.

Álso, game expansions do exist 'like they used to be', most recently from the same publisher you are complaining about now in the form of Blood Dragon for Far Cry 3, or in other places such as The Brigmore Witches for Dishonored, a lot of the Borderlands DLCs, Dragon's Dogma's Dark Arisen, Fallout New Vegas' DLCs, and so on. Post release content is also sometimes released free, such as FTL's Advanced Edition and both the Witcher's Enhanced Edition.

In fact I struggle to remember when free post release content used to be more prevalent than it is now, but maybe that's just my memory.

 

[Thanatos2k]

I think you're using quite strong words for something far from clear, and that you state is your preference.

What's unclear about it? I think it's a pretty clear and simple demand - one that was the most successful model in gaming for decades.

Álso, game expansions do exist 'like they used to be', most recently from the same publisher you are complaining about now in the form of Blood Dragon for Far Cry 3, or in other places such as The Brigmore Witches for Dishonored, a lot of the Borderlands DLCs, Dragon's Dogma's Dark Arisen, Fallout New Vegas' DLCs, and so on.

Rarely. Blood Dragon is almost an entirely new game and was written pretty much rogue by the developers. Look up the story of its development - Ubisoft sure as hell didn't ask them to make it. For every Dark Arisen, Capcom releases three Street Fighter 4 Screw-You-Give-Us-Money Editions.

Post release content is also sometimes released free, such as FTL's Advanced Edition and both the Witcher's Enhanced Edition.

And this is the rarest of all. Only a few select major companies do this anymore, and they're not coincidentally some of the best in the business, namely CDPR and Valve. FTL had to be Kickstarted, so I can see them giving back for the massive success, given they didn't start from a position of greed like most publishers.

 

[andago]

I think you're using quite strong words for something far from clear, and that you state is your preference.

What's unclear about it? I think it's a pretty clear and simple demand - one that was the most successful model in gaming for decades.

Álso, game expansions do exist 'like they used to be', most recently from the same publisher you are complaining about now in the form of Blood Dragon for Far Cry 3, or in other places such as The Brigmore Witches for Dishonored, a lot of the Borderlands DLCs, Dragon's Dogma's Dark Arisen, Fallout New Vegas' DLCs, and so on.

Rarely. Blood Dragon is almost an entirely new game and was written pretty much rogue by the developers. Look up the story of its development - Ubisoft sure as hell didn't ask them to make it. For every Dark Arisen, Capcom releases three Street Fighter 4 Screw-You-Give-Us-Money Editions.

Post release content is also sometimes released free, such as FTL's Advanced Edition and both the Witcher's Enhanced Edition.

And this is the rarest of all. Only a few select major companies do this anymore, and they're not coincidentally some of the best in the business, namely CDPR and Valve. FTL had to be Kickstarted, so I can see them giving back for the massive success, given they didn't start from a position of greed like most publishers.

... and now there are newer business models that seem to be even more successful for some companies and which going by purchasing power most people don't have a problem with.

I'm still not sure about this, you seem to be referring to a time when huge expansions and free updates were more common than they are these days, and while there were indeed games that recieved big expansion packs (because it would have been ruinous to multiple smaller physical content upgrades in a time before digital distribution), as a lot of games in fact still do now, I don't remember there ever being a huge amount of free post release content.

There are a lot of things different now than as used to be in the gaming market, and the idea that it should remain static and constant seems a bit myopic.

Back to the original point argument there seems to be two different points. The first was that a developer had an idea that couldn't make the main game for whatever reason, so would be developed and then released at a later date as standalone content, an example being how Borderlands and its sequel release DLC. The second is a developer creating an incentive other than a price cut for people that want to support the game pre-release by preordering.

I don't see how either of these is outrageous. The first is a way to add on large content that wouldn't fit well into the main release at a later date and helps renew people's interest in the game and not negatively affecting the ownership or enjoyment of the core product. The second is a way of getting people to buy the game early where otherwise they might not have, and again doesn't affect your enjoyment of the product if you choose not to buy into it.

Neither of these business practices seems outrageous or reprehensible to me. The specific examples of where it does become slightly dodgy I have also given, such as when a developer actively withholds content from the release that is noticeably missing from the core experience, perhaps content that the game needs for consistent pacing or whatever other reason reason. You seem to be suggesting however, that this last point is the case almost 100 percent of the time whereas in my experience these cases are heavily in the minority.

 

[timeformime]

To say this picture is racist is kind of silly. Sure, you could see it as racial imagery. You might also see it from a classist or nationalist (Western/Eastern) point of view. He looks like he could be a power-hungry, rich Asian villain in a fancy suit who dyed his hair, spat on his Buddhist ancestry and community, and embraced grenades, AK-47's, and RPG-7's instead. Throw in Tibet's storied relationship with Communist China, and you can toss even more assumptions and inferences at this picture.

I think it's a great cover personally because it's provocative on a few different levels - it's not just a white guy grimacing with a gun in his hand.

 

[VondeVon]

I was confused by the use of the word 'racism' at all. Is it even about race? Is racism a familiar word that is leapt to when we see anything slightly or potentially disturbing? There's no shorthand term for 'smarmy flamboyant human patronisingly touching another human he probably intends to kill or enslave' so we scream 'that's racist' instead?

Where does the rebuttal 'he's not white' come into it? Like racism is something that can only involve white people?
Is it a reference to historical practices (and if so, it's not like 'white people' had the corner on slavery or mistreating other races, not to mention the host of 'white people' who have no history of it at all) ?

I feel like I'm missing something, or everyone else is seeing something that isn't there.

 

[Namehere]

Well better late then never - my post that is.

Ubisoft obviously wanted this controversy. This game isn't just being talked about on the Escapist and other game oriented web sites and media organizations, it's made a broader splash. And most gaming companies these days seem to be in concurrence with the idea that: "All publicity is good publicity."

That said; a prejudice is a prejudice. Blind is blind. To blindly leap at something and proclaim racism with out any real context or evidence one way or another is just bad for everyone. Its starting to look a lot like 'the boy who cried wolf' out there. And frankly such allegations are very damaging to individuals if not major companies. With that said it's an easy defense to claim that you aren't, when in fact you are, racist, merely because of the lynch mob mentality. It's important to remember that for every innocent person we accuse and convict - in public opinion at least - one or more people legitimately holding backward and hurtful views gets away with it. They even build up followings of people who think or are willing to argue that all claims of racism/sexism - you name it - are fraudulent.

If a matter is serious, and I for one think that racism and it's impact on society are quiet serious, it merits serious investigation, not serious lynching. After all, one investigates a murder before a trial, then has a trial. One doesn't just grab the nearest person, perhaps the person who found the body and notified police, and just lynch them. If this matter is to be taken as a serious issue in our society, it must be investigated accordingly, and we must learn to temper our impulses lest they overwhelm our reason.

Of course its always sad when people fall into media controversy traps. And it begs the question of whether or not impulse has overwhelmed the reasoning of many, that they should so eagerly jump to give Ubisoft publicity and damage a very serious cause doing it. This whole thing was tragically predictable, and that alone merits serious consideration and attention.

Oh, and while I don't agree with Jim entirely on this; thank god for Jim!

 

[Thanatos2k]

I think you're using quite strong words for something far from clear, and that you state is your preference.

What's unclear about it? I think it's a pretty clear and simple demand - one that was the most successful model in gaming for decades.

Álso, game expansions do exist 'like they used to be', most recently from the same publisher you are complaining about now in the form of Blood Dragon for Far Cry 3, or in other places such as The Brigmore Witches for Dishonored, a lot of the Borderlands DLCs, Dragon's Dogma's Dark Arisen, Fallout New Vegas' DLCs, and so on.

Rarely. Blood Dragon is almost an entirely new game and was written pretty much rogue by the developers. Look up the story of its development - Ubisoft sure as hell didn't ask them to make it. For every Dark Arisen, Capcom releases three Street Fighter 4 Screw-You-Give-Us-Money Editions.

Post release content is also sometimes released free, such as FTL's Advanced Edition and both the Witcher's Enhanced Edition.

And this is the rarest of all. Only a few select major companies do this anymore, and they're not coincidentally some of the best in the business, namely CDPR and Valve. FTL had to be Kickstarted, so I can see them giving back for the massive success, given they didn't start from a position of greed like most publishers.

... and now there are newer business models that seem to be even more successful for some companies and which going by purchasing power most people don't have a problem with.

I'm still not sure about this, you seem to be referring to a time when huge expansions and free updates were more common than they are these days, and while there were indeed games that recieved big expansion packs (because it would have been ruinous to multiple smaller physical content upgrades in a time before digital distribution), as a lot of games in fact still do now, I don't remember there ever being a huge amount of free post release content.

There are a lot of things different now than as used to be in the gaming market, and the idea that it should remain static and constant seems a bit myopic.

Back to the original point argument there seems to be two different points. The first was that a developer had an idea that couldn't make the main game for whatever reason, so would be developed and then released at a later date as standalone content, an example being how Borderlands and its sequel release DLC. The second is a developer creating an incentive other than a price cut for people that want to support the game pre-release by preordering.

I don't see how either of these is outrageous. The first is a way to add on large content that wouldn't fit well into the main release at a later date and helps renew people's interest in the game and not negatively affecting the ownership or enjoyment of the core product. The second is a way of getting people to buy the game early where otherwise they might not have, and again doesn't affect your enjoyment of the product if you choose not to buy into it.

Neither of these business practices seems outrageous or reprehensible to me. The specific examples of where it does become slightly dodgy I have also given, such as when a developer actively withholds content from the release that is noticeably missing from the core experience, perhaps content that the game needs for consistent pacing or whatever other reason reason. You seem to be suggesting however, that this last point is the case almost 100 percent of the time whereas in my experience these cases are heavily in the minority.

It's the case nearly 100% of the time now. DLC is planned, coded up, and tested long before the game goes gold. All work that should have been making the main release of the game better.

Why do we need to "renew people's interest in the game"? You know how they used to renew interest in the game? By making and releasing their next game.

And it does negatively impact the ownership and enjoyment of the core product because now you don't have the complete game, especially if you buy the game later. Ditto with Day One DLC and preorder idiocy - you are being slapped in the face and told buying the game at full price isn't good enough - you need to pay more. Laughably sometimes it's IMPOSSIBLE to get the full game now because you can't buy your game at Best Buy and Gamestop at the same time, or Playstation and Xbox versions at the same time, so their exclusive DLC is locked out.

It's all because companies are too cowardly to raise the price of games. Judging by inflation over the years games should really be $70 new now, but instead of charging that they have to extract their extra money in increasingly sleazy ways.

Charge $70 for the FULL game, and I'll buy it. Charge $60 and then $15 and then $15 and I won't buy anything, except maybe 10 months later when it's all bundled together and half off. You just lost money because of your greed.

And by "newer business models that are more successful" I truly hope you aren't referring to free-to-play, a business model used by drug dealers in real life. Success is not equivalent to being beneficial.

 

[HjelsYells]

You know what? Good for UbiSoft for not saying anything.

If something I'd released caused this much furore over nothing, I'd sit on it a few days too. Just to see how far it went.

 

[wAriot]

I didn't really mind everyone crying "racist", since I was 99% sure they were wrong, and I understood it was just a kneejerk reaction.
What really pissed me off is the people who complained that "they are villanizing gays, yet again".
Because he's wearing pink.
Because, obviously, only gays can wear pink.
Fucking seriously.

 

[Therumancer]

I didn't really mind everyone crying "racist", since I was 99% sure they were wrong, and I understood it was just a kneejerk reaction.
What really pissed me off is the people who complained that "they are villanizing gays, yet again".
Because he's wearing pink.
Because, obviously, only gays can wear pink.
Fucking seriously.

Well, that's one of the problems with a political movement adopting specific things as "their sign". Pink and purple in the US are the signature colors of the gay rights movement, something which they themselves encourage members to wear, and use to color code signs, ribbons, and even clothing during public rallies and such. Ditto for taking songs like "We Are The Champions" as an anthem, which means it becomes associated with them.

That said, outside of the US where such movements are big and taken more seriously the usual conventions don't apply. That kind of flashy suit tends to be associated with the criminal element in Asia, typically when someone is trying to be obvious, without breaking the law, to act as a "face" or whatever. Someone like a fence, arms dealer, or fixer for a Tong or The Triad might dress that way, and it's how the movies portray the stereotype. I sort of "got it" almost immediately since he does very much look like a bad guy from a Hong Kong action movie.

To be honest though, anyone in the US at least who associated his suit with being gay was NOT entirely out of line, because the gay rights movement itself has encouraged that reaction.

It should also be noted that if a game is set back during the 1980s this changes as well, for a while pastel suits, including pink ones, were considered quite fashionable for men. While I don't remember Crockett or Tubbs wearing pink suits paticularly, fans of "Miami Vice" might remember pastel suits being fairly common on both ends of the legal equasion in that show because it was "hip" around that time, and that was the "hip" cop show of it's day.

Another exception of course might be someone working for a casino. While not practiced where I worked (but discussed) a floor person, that is someone who works as a supervisor or management for the slot department, or perhaps the hosting department, might very well wear a garish blazer or suit in a color like pink, international safety orange, sequins, etc... specifically to catch the eye on the floor so people can find them or will take notice, the idea being to stick out. If you saw a guy walking around a casino floor wearing a pink suit, while you could be wrong, there is a good chance he works for the casino, and is probably at least a supervisor for some department that routinely works with the public and people might be looking for. Of course that has pros and cons, since it actually encourages people to rush the guys sticking out like this, which can be a headache for the employee in question who might prefer to remain more discrete and make themselves and their specific job known when there is a problem or inquiry passed up to them from the bottom... which tends to be less stressful.

The point is your right, there are a lot of reasons he COULD be wearing that (and it's probably the foreign crime connection) but in the US at least your dealing with a trained reaction... both to the suit, and the haircut.

While I wouldn't be surprised if some HK movie did it at some point, the jokes do almost write themselves here. It would actually kind of be amusing to have a movie where some very serious gangsters get off a plane from Hong Kong to do something in the US, and then be mistakenly steered towards a gay pride parade or something, due to people assuming they are intentionally flamboyant homosexuals there to represent and show the colors given their probable reaction and the whole "Machismo" aspect of Asian gang culture. I suppose that would take the right kind of movie since as a joke it's hardly PC.