The Stanley Parable Maker Promises to Change "Racist" Image

[Andy Chalk]

The Stanley Parable Maker Promises to Change "Racist" Image

The creator of The Stanley Parable says an in-game image that players have found offensive will be changed.

Deep within the bowels of The Stanley Parable exists an in-game instructional video entitled "Choice." You can watch it yourself on YouTube [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q40Mtm4w4RM&feature=player_detailpage#t=190], starting at around the 3:30 mark, but the short version is that it talks about the power of choice and how it can be used for both good or ill, using as an example a "hypothetical real person named Steven," rendered in pencil-style as a very white guy in a shirt and tie.

"He could spend years helping improve the quality of life for citizens of impoverished third-world nations," the narrator states overtop an image of Steven lighting a cigarette for a small, smiling, dark-skinned boy. "Or he could systematically set fire to every orphan living in a 30-kilometer radius of his house."

That second statement is accompanied by an image of Steven holding a gas can in one hand while he sets the same boy, who seems to still be smiling, on fire. That didn't go over well with player Oliver Campbell, not because a child was being immolated, but because he felt it was racist. He contacted Stanley Parable creator Davey Wreden with his concerns, and Wreden agreed to update the sequence.

Wreden told Polygon that he received two complaints from people who claimed the images made them "significantly uncomfortable," which he said caught him off-guard because he thought they were "too cartoony to identify as problematic." Nonetheless, he thinks the segment can be changed without too much trouble and added, "If a person would feel less comfortable showing the game to their children then I've got no problem helping fix that!"

"It took a bit of explanation, but [Wreden] did understand the nature of my complaint, and I offered ways of fixing this without destroying the joke or a prohibitively expensive additional amount of work," Campbell said in a separate email. "He explained that he didn't quite understand, but was more than willing to listen, and that it's very hard for a creative to figure out which player requests to pay attention to."

Wreden said he hopes to have the sequence changed "in the coming weeks."

Source: Polygon [http://www.polygon.com/2013/10/23/5022434/the-stanley-parable-update-in-the-works-to-remove-offensive-images]


Permalink

 

[Doopliss64]

I'm not sure the joke will work with a white kid. Or without the immolation. I just can't see a way to change the joke without lessening its effectiveness.

 

[Clive Howlitzer]

No one has a sense of humor anymore. Everyone has such thin skin. Lets turn eeeveerything into a racist issue.

 

[Muspelheim]

Oh, no, such a horrible transgression of free speech! The artistic integrity is ruined! Ruined!

Surely, he must have been forced to take the decision to change it, no doubt by a feminist death squad.

 

[AzrealMaximillion]

The thing is, if this picture were on 9Gag whoever it is that's complaining would have called this picture hilarious. Who is honestly offended by this picture? And explain to me why?

 

[Johnson McGee]

I'm sure the actual starving third-world children appreciate the dedication to political correctness.

 

[The Real Sandman]

Must this be so difficult to understand?

It is called a joke.

 

[RicoADF]

To change it would destroy the point of the image, might as well just take it out then. Thank you PC for another pointless destruction of art. Can we choose not to get the stupid update?

 

[Eternal_Lament]

I'm still trying to figure out what exactly was offensive about it. It would help if we actually knew what aspect that Campbell and the other person found offensive, because right now it sounds more like someone being hypersensitive. I think the other thing that gets to me is that were this an issue in which Wreden got several complaints about, I could see him consider the possibility of changing the image. Only two people complaining? I'm not sure I would do the same thing if I were in his position.

 

[Ed130 The Vanguard]

I'm thinking they should pull a South Park and stick something worse in.

Oddly enough the racist imagery rather suits the situation, as giving cigarettes as aid is a rather 50's 'credit to his race' style of thinking and in-line with the art style.

 

[Ferisar]

But... Isn't that the joke?

I don't...

Really understand. But Maybe someone will elaborate clearly.

I feel like the context goes away the second the skin color does, and the humor just goes away. It's not funny because it's a racist joke, it's funny because it's pretty much satire.

CAPTCHA: like the dickens

...

Yes captcha, just like the dickens.

 

[Chimichanga]

Because it was a BLACK child being immolated by a WHITE man! I don't care about context or humor, THAT'S RACIST!

I understand that it's usually jerkbags who go on to talk about "Hurr durr da victermized white man!" usually after screaming about the evils of "political correctness", but this comes across as nothing else but a knee-jerk reaction by a complete pussy.

My question is, would the pussy in question have cried to Wreden if it were a BLACK man lighting a WHITE child on fire?

Without context, I would actually agree with the pussy. Due to the historical luggage of anglo-african relations it should be offensive. But that's the magic of CONTEXT, children - in the game the joke was that "steven" could either be sympathetic and help the destitute and impoverished or add to their list of problems. "Third world orphan" could have been replaced with "The homeless" or "a puppy" and still get the point across. It was not reliant on race, "3rd world orphan" is just another stock character in an entire reserve of common and often-used caricatures of people who are pitiable and in need (i.e. the homeless, injured puppies and kittens, wounded war veterans, street urchins (a la "Tiny Tim"), etc.).

I mean, it would be like suing your parents for saying "I bet there's starving children in Ethiopia who would have eaten your vegetables!". Because when most people think of "starving children in third-world countries" they do NOT think of bone-thin ethiopians or bloated, sickly children dying from malaria in a god-forsaken sub-saharan wasteland. Of course not. Not with our political-correctness blinders, that is!

I'm not for "LOL, 'MURKA LAND 'ER DA THREE AND WE KIN SAY ANY FUKKIN SHIT WE WANT CUZ DA FIRZT AMENDERMENT! THERE IS NO RULZE!", although I do enjoy and appreciate the first amendment, but I hate the implied dishonesty that underlies many of these "THAT'S RACIST!" outcries.

 

[zombiejoe]

Rabble rabble rabble, I am offended that that they're going to remove it.

Spoiler

I know in the end its's the creators choice, but it still peeves me off that the image has to be changed simply because the child is black

 

[immortalfrieza]

You know what's the most racist thing about this? If that kid was white everybody would have taken the joke for what it was and not given a damn, but because he's not, that's somehow a problem.

 

[zombiejoe]

Wait, oh wow, I just had an amazing thought.

Guys, the guys who made this game our known to subvert expectations. I mean look at the game the made.

What if this is a set up for another joke? Like he's going to replace the white guy with a white guy dressed as the KKK or something like that? Or maybe he's going to throw a big "censored" block on their.

Spoiler

please let me be right

 

[Ferisar]

Oh noes, two hole people were offended out of the thousands that played it, hurry to fix it so TWO FUCKING PEOPLE will feel comfortable.

Well I was planning on buying this game when I got my paycheck but I think I will try to support devs who arent pathetic.

How to over-react on the internet I don't think that one small change to a game to dampen potential backlash is world-ending. A bit peeve-inducing, sure, but uh... I don't know.