The Stanley Parable Maker Promises to Change "Racist" Image

[CBanana]

Well, it's a simple fact that we're not living in that perfect world where there's full racial equality. Sometimes, people simply have to take a step back and try and see how media looks from a different perspective because it might be doing more harm than was intended.

 

[Spiridion]

I'm... confused. When I first saw it I figured it was satirizing the idealized version of the 50's many people have that tends to steadfastly ignore the gross conformity and casual sexism/racism of that decade. "Father knows best," and all that. It's basically another clue-in that something's not right here. At this point the narrator is asking you to engage in an odd sort of double-think, i.e. you should exercise your free will, but only if you exercise it in the way he wants. On the surface the image is helping to extol the benefits of choosing to conform, but in a way that leaves a bad taste in your mouth.

So... yeah. I'm not a person of color so I don't want to marginalize an experience of oppression I can't relate to... but I just didn't find this to be inappropriate considering how much this game messes with ideas and expectations.

 

[Xan Krieger]

Remember, if you're going to set a kid's head on fire you better make sure that kid is the same race as you or it could be offensive. It's worse to be racist than a guy who sets a kid's head on fire.

 

[Abomination]

Not enough black characters in video games.

It's racist to put a black person in a video game.

Heads I win, tails you lose.

 

[teamcharlie]

Basic rule for bringing about political change: you do not get rid of racism by preventing people from talking about race.

 

[EyeReaper]

I haven't played the game, it's on my hitlist, but I'm under the status ailment of "dirt-poor" right now, but... I'm really not seeing how this is racist, at least not from what I read on the article. Makes you wonder if it would've been called "sexist" if it was a girl getting burned instead.

 

[Arakasi]

Oh god damn it, not again.
I'm just going to not download any updates for the game. Nothing in the narration referred to the child's race, I assumed it was just supposed to be an image of 'some 3rd world kid', not a racist statement. Although the stereotypical 50's white person might indicate towards the parody of 50's values which did include racism. So what I'm really saying is it's either a parody of the views, and therefore okay, or just a representation of a 3rd world child, and therefore okay.

 

[jp201]

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.

Over-racting would be demanding a refund. Deciding to spend my money on people I respect more is hardly an over-reaction. Not quite sure how not giving my money to people who fall over themselves to appease two people is over reacting...

Also changing part of the game becuase two people are whiny idiots is a bit of an over-reaction as well.

Yes because when he says "he thinks the segment can be changed without too much trouble" obviously means they are falling over themselves to appease two people. They clearly discussed it in a civil matter and they felt like some changes should be made without losing the point of it, that means there a bunch of whiny idiots right? You might be over-reacting here a bit.

I'm starting to think people don't read the article and/or the source and just see the title "The Stanley Parable Maker Promises to Change "Racist" Image" and have to get angry about what is a non issue.

My reaction when I saw it was not of racism but apparently there are those who felt there was something there and I don't speak for people of a certain race nor should anyone but there were people who felt like there was something wrong and neither you nor I have the right to tell them how they should feel.

Now if and when they make the change and the meaning becomes lost then yes I feel then that there is a right to complain.

 

[Arawn]

Like all things it's all perspective and opinion. So people don't feel offended or uncomfortable, others do. There's nothing you can do or say that someone, somewhere won't disagree with. I've played through the game and found that portion of the video humorous. Not because I like to see people burning, but the absurdity of the situation. I took it as a joke not as advocating the act. It was a joke, but not all jokes carry over well. That aside I'm surprised how easily the creator complied with the request. You'd figure they might be reluctant to change or alter their final product. They could indeed stand up and wave the "free speech" or "it's art" card, but instead is quite reasonable. But to be fair it's a reasonable request. It's nice to see sensible people at work.

 

[BoogieManFL]

How is it racist? You can't really gather it was racially motivated just from that can you? But if the kid was white it would have been okay, I imagine.

People really are stupid with all their idiotic assumptions.

 

[BarbaricGoose]

Facebook, or The Escapist's iffy implementation thereof, kept eating this post, so I'll just post it here.

It's not "Political correctness gone mad," it's two guys who wrote him and asked him to change it. I think the joke's hilarious.

It's stupid that they were offended by something that's so obviously a play on 40s and 50s racism. I mean, in the first picture, he's giving the kid a cigarette. And then, you know, setting him on fire. That's child abuse, and, like, mega child abuse. But hey, they asked him to change it, and he did. They didn't demand anything, they just asked. You could write him and ask him to change it back if you wanted to.

I know that labeling shit like this as "Political correctness gone mad" is the trendy, hipster thing to do right now, but this ain't that. Two people were offended by something (Stupidly IMO), so they asked that it be changed. They didn't lobby for any laws to be enacted, they didn't speak for anyone but themselves, they didn't threaten him, and they helped him come up with ideas--for better or worse.

It was his decision to change it, and he did so based on the emails of only two people. He obviously agreed with them. If they tried to bully him into changing it I might be more inclined to agree with the "PC gone mad" angle, but NOTHING suggests that they did that.

And let me say again, I do think that the change was stupid. I find the joke quite funny, but the fact is, they convinced him to change it. Not through threats, but words.

 

[wulf3n]

Wait...

That didn't go over well with player Oliver Campbell, not because a child was being immolated, but because he felt it was racist.

If a person would feel less comfortable showing the game to their children then I've got no problem helping fix that!

Am I reading this right?

Wreden and/or campbell would be more comfortable showing an image a small child being set on fire to their own children,if the child is not black?


... Really!

edit: Correction that's "more comfortable showing an image a small orphan being set on fire"

So there we have it. Oliver Campbell promotes setting orphans on fire.

 

[Keiichi Morisato]

Now imagine the backslash if he was putting a puppy on fire.

I wonder, would it be racist if the adult dude was black? Or would it make things worse? How about a Klingon kid?

replacing disgruntled black guy with PETA would be the only change, well that and the fact that the creator of the game would have just disregarded it. who takes PETA seriously anymore?

 

[Keiichi Morisato]

How is it racist? You can't really gather it was racially motivated just from that can you? But if the kid was white it would have been okay, I imagine.

People really are stupid with all their idiotic assumptions.

it's ok in our society to beat up on white people, but black people it's racist. it has to deal with something called political correctness. in the end though violence against anyone is violence, no matter the race and i wish people would focus on that instead. i also would wish people would focus on context than content. for example people hate Meiu and Luke from Tales of the Abyss and some have stopped playing entirely because of that fact, without understanding the Meiu is supposed to sound high pitched and annoying, and Luke is supposed to be douche bag for the first 24 hours of the game.

 

[Yopaz]

Now imagine the backslash if he was putting a puppy on fire.

I wonder, would it be racist if the adult dude was black? Or would it make things worse? How about a Klingon kid?

Making the white man black and the kid white would also be considered racist because it would go along the lines of demonizing black people. Look, a black man lightning a kid on fire! This is what black people do! So there's no way to win this one.

How is it racist? You can't really gather it was racially motivated just from that can you? But if the kid was white it would have been okay, I imagine.

People really are stupid with all their idiotic assumptions.

Well, it is racist because it shows violence one race does to another (not the definition of racism!). The thing is that it's intended to be satire of days past. Back in the day when racism was accepted as the norm and no-one batted an eye when we used racist language to describe African Americans or gave them qualities such as savage or unintelligent. So if we're going to satirize that it's going to be racist, but it might show how horrible that mindset is rather than support it or be offensive.

Now in order to avoid stepping on someone's toes the best thing is to ignore the past rather than learn from it. If something is unpleasant we should ignore it. Kinda like that burning sensation when I take a leak. It's better to pretend it's not there. [footnote]Yeah, I am being sarcastic[/footnote]

 

[wulf3n]

He can do what he wants with his art.

Is it still his art once it has been sold?

If I bought a painting and the artist took it back without my consent and started making alterations to it I'd be pretty upset.

 

[wulf3n]

By that logic any game dev that releases a patch is corrupting his art.

In a sense yes. They are.

Digital media operates with a different ruleset from physical media, if for no other reason than because of it's ephemeral nature. You technically haven't owned a game you've purchased for PC since . . . what, the late 90s? That's what EULAs are all about.

Depends on what Country you live in. Not all aspects of EULA's are binding everywhere.

And even if that wasn't the case, a painting sold to you is still not your work or your vision; the artist painted it, and if he sees something in it that does not fit with his vision he has every right to be dissatisfied and want to change it. The work is not a complete work until the artist deems it so, because he's the one whose actually doing all the work.

The artist can want to change it all they want's but they have no right to change the copy I own.

Take George Lucas and the Special Editions. He can re-release the Star Wars Saga with all the little changes he wants until the cows come home. But He can't legally take away the copies I own and add those changes in.

 

[MrCalavera_v1legacy]

How about including this(at the very bottom) option in every future game:

Spoiler

[/spoiler]
Thus everyone would be happy.

 

[Arakasi]

He can do what he wants with his art. It's still upsetting, though.

Not after I bought it he can't. If this is patched in and not simply applied to new copies I'll be pissed.
It's like George Lucas slipping into your house and replacing your videos of the original Star Wars Trilogy with the updated edition.

 

[MarcellusMagnus]

Let this be a lesson to you, Internet: if you want something changed, the key point is claiming to be offended (preferably on behalf of minorities or women).

When thousands of people were ranting and raving pages long about the ending of Mass Effect 3, the complaints were about the game's failings as an interactive story: "inconsistent with the rest of the trilogy", "doesn't provide closure", "makes the player's prior decisions irrelevant". In response, the gaming media came down on them with universal scorn and ridicule, calling them "entitled whiny babies" and claiming that if Bioware changed their supposed artistic decision, the credibility of the entire medium would be RUINED FOREVER. Bioware itself clammed up for months, and only after it was impossible to ignore the crowd did it announce a DLC that would paint over the most glaring problems.

With The Stanley Parable, a single person tweeted about the perceived racism of a joke, and the developer was immediately willing to listen and change the game. (To be fair, a small or one-man team is always easier to communicate with and persuade than a large company.) The gaming media seems to have no problem with this, and if commenters bring up the issue of artistic expression, they'll likely be characterized as "just a bunch of racists".

(I should probably note that I haven't played either game myself, I'm just fascinated by the way these discussions go.)