Jimquisition: The FarCry Racism Adventure

[Deathfish15]

Anyone find that this is very coincidental to come up in video games just as the whole Clippers thing is happening with the NBA. When did it become the 1950's again?

 

[Steve2911]

Was that ending an incredibly subtle and delicate swipe at the #notallmen idiots? Or was it filmed before that shit happened?

 

[Zealous]

Wouldn´t saying "Thank Allah/Budda/Shiva", at the end of the video have put even more emphasis on the fact, that you are absolutely not racist ?

Are you implying that people can only practice religions based on their racial heritage? That's pretty racist man.
/s

OT: Yeah, Ubisoft are idiots for not just quashing the people screaming racism asap, but there shouldn't have been anyone screaming racism in he first place. These knee jerk reactions just really piss me off.

I'd also like to point out that even if the suited character was a racist white man dominating a Asian man because he thought said Asian man was inferior to him, that doesn't make the game racist. That makes the character racist. Depiction and avocation are two entirely different things and I really wish keyboard warriors would grasp this concept.

 

[ron1n]

Never understood how anyone could take a single image with zero context that is FICTIONAL and cry racist.

Been said a lot lately, but it's getting to the state where the more people cry racism, the more they're just proving it's still something people are obsessing over.

I mean, say the image was turned around and it's a himalayan local in the seat with a white guy on his knees. Wouldn't be surprised if they claimed that was racist too for making it look like all non-white people are terrorists or some such nonsense.

Also can't help but think Ubi is only emphasizing the bad guy so much since it worked so well for Farcry 3 with Vaas. What's the bet they'll release a trailer next with the not-actually-white guy spouting off some suitably cool and gritty dialogue.

 

[JoJo]

That was seen as a white man and a local? I just saw a pompous villain and his goon. Their ethnicities are vague and kinda muddy, so I didn't really have any assumptions. It wasn't until I saw this video that I was aware of the controversy nor the context of it.

Same, if anything I thought people might complain about the campiness of the villain and possible gay-codedness, not the ethnicities. People will seem to look for hidden meanings and 'subtext' in anything, apparently.

Unrelated but I can't honestly see how the villain in the pink suit isn't white though, he looks exactly like a muscular Scandinavian. Maybe they're using that crazy definition where a tiny smidgen of non-European blood makes you non-white for some reason. At a stroke he could be half-Asian I guess.

 

[Epic_Bubble]

Anyone else get the feeling that Jim was just a few short sentences of saying some of his best friends aren't racist either?

 

[shiajun]

I wonder if we ever reach the point where people look at a box art like FC4's and only see two humans instead of a "white human" and a "slightly darker skinned human".

That was pretty much my impressions of the artwork when I saw it; Two people, one guy looking flashy and pompous. They barely even look like they have differently-colored skin, if you ask me.

I feel like the internet is far too eager to jump on these nontroversies. Was it stupid of Ubisoft to present the art with no context and then proceed to not give any context? Sure. But I personally think it's stupider that people saw the art and immediately jumped to racism.

And, for my money, I've been decrying basically all of these nontroversies. DRM, pre-orders, used games, Mass Effect 3, Anita Sarkeesian, I honestly believe that they're all blown far out of proportion by the internet, because the internet rarely keeps to civil debate about any of them. It always ends up being an internet slapfight about who can scream "You're stupid and wrong!" the loudest for the longest until the other person gives up and walks away (or one of them gets banned). And I'm just tired of it. I'm disappointed by the state of the games industry right now too, guys, but to be perfectly frank? I'm more disappointed by the state of the gaming communities I see.

EDIT: Though, on the subject of 'secrecy', I would have to say that I agree Ubisoft (and any other publisher caught in a similar situation) are entirely to blame. I generally avoid information related to games I'm looking forward to; I don't watch trailers, I don't read previews. I'll watch gameplay videos and read a few reviews once the game is released just to see if it's a dud or not, but otherwise I don't go out of my way to actually find information. Even still, I absolutely despise the fact that publishers treat video games like they're the deepest, darkest scientific finds of the millenium, and that people can actually lose their jobs because some small fact was leaked three days before the publisher deigned it ready (entire games leaking is another problem entirely). Lack of transparency is, to my mind, not a healthy thing for the industry to embrace as wholeheartedly as it has.

Hear, hear man. I don't know why people are increasingly prone to calling out "racism" at anything and everything. It seems absolutely like looking for something to scream about and draw attention. Gaming forums have become ugly places, even ones heavily supervised like here at the Escapist. There's no place to discuss interesting ideas or subjects because there's always someone who hasn't had their rage that day and needs somewhere to raise a storm. In my opinion (and it really is just an opinion, so evidence whatsoever) that the whole "politically correct" culture has gone so far that it doesn't allow issues to melt away. By having to verbally tiptoe around using correct terms (like, you can't call someone who is blind "blind", that person is "visually impaired") the issue at hand is not allowed to become norm. People have to be always on alert unless they want to get sued or something.

Anyway, I'd let Ubisoft more or less of the hook this time.

 

[Undomesticated Equine]

I do not even know what to say. Apart from that another pointless stupid controversy about absolutely irrelevant thing as game box art. These people are sure making difference.

 

[ex275w]

I am astounded some people jumped to the same conclusion. Still the only effect this thing will have is higher sales because I am guessing the great majority of the people hearing this news don't think the cover is racist, kind of how Dragon's Crown promoted itself through that Kotaku "piece". It's more important than ever to have news that can't be twisted into negative publicity, especially since people will jump to the conclusion that the game is an abomination the first chance they get. For example the rumors of Dark Souls 2 having an easy mode or being made for casual players or being like Skyrim, which were completely false.

This is where companies need to step in and clarify things. Ideally Far Cry 4 should have been revealed at E3 to provide proper context for the images, but Ubisoft did fuck up there.

 

[otakon17]

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.

Same here, it was simple enough to figure out. Damn alarmists.

 

[Eve Charm]

The funny thing is I've only really just seen the Limited edition cover until now. When I heard farcry 4 cover controversy and only seeing the picture of the white guy prim and proper looking in a pink suit surrounded by guns obviously most likely the bad guy after the cover of Farcry 3... I just thought everyone was upset about the villainizing of an homosexually male again. Hmm must have watched to much matpat.

 

[Arslan Aladeen]

I just sorta thought back to Far Cry 3's box art and just thought the main guy was the villain and that the guy he's dominating is possibly the player character. Given the depiction of pink suit looking like an asshole (one with style perhaps) I feel like I would have figured him being the villain even without knowing the previous games box art.

 

[Makabriel]

Yeah, I was going to come in here and debate how people seem to find controversy wherever they look, and that you'd have to be looking for a racial undertone on purpose to find it... but it seems the posts before me handled that just fine.

 

[lukesparow]

I wish people would just wisen up.
They need to stop pointing their finger at every single thing they see.

 

[vid87]

A little off topic, but did anyone else find it hard to pay attention to Jim because of the cutscene with the player almost drowning? It was intense enough that I lost focus.

 

[Something Amyss]

When I first saw the box art, I assumed he was the villain. Black, white, or any other colour, an asshole is an asshole. This doesn't preclude the concept that he's a hero, but absolute dickishness is more commonly lauded in villains rather than heroes.

However, I am puzzled by the "he's not white" thing. The blond haired guy with fair skin and vague but European looking features isn't white? Maybe it's just my eyes, but I needed to blow up the picture and kinda squint to see anything that didn't look "white" about his face. I'm just saying, I can totally understand why people might assume he's white.

As far as games making us feel uncomfortable, I think there's an issue with that in the commercial market. People--at least,a large chunk of people--want power fantasy and they want a character that they can imprint on and that's hard when the character does despicable things. It is/was a complaint against the Saints Row series, that in a game about a power-mad sociopath with an arsenal that would give the Punisher wood, "you" were forced to kill civilians and do bad things.

It's hard to make despicable player characters in this environment, and people were likely worried they'd have to imprint on some racist sack of crap. In order to truly get to that "experience," we need to redefine gaming (At lewast mainstream gaming) as a whole. But then, would there be a market outside of the blockbuster crowd?

 

[hermes]

But, if Ubisoft doesn't say "the full story" (something we knew, and somehow find desirable for a first reveal) and some people jump to the conclusion that "the full story" is a racist one, doesn't that say more about those people that filled the blanks with their own bias than about Ubisoft?

I thought the cover was not racist because, in the lines of FarCry 3, it showed the villain in full cartooney villanry. At no point did they clarify that that was the bad guy and he is somewhat deranged, but I thought it was pretty obvious due to the situation.

 

[ex275w]

Part of the problem is there is a sub-set of people and sites who go out of their way to create these kinds of controversies. Places like Kotaku thrive on this kind of half-heard nonsense and many people seem all too eager to latch onto the next 'controversy' and wave some banners around without really thinking it through. The community also needs to learn that depicting controversial things is not automatically 'racist', just as the games industry needs to learn that if you are going to depict controversial things then it needs to be done with context and tact. It would be people like calling "12 years a slave" 'A racist movie'. It depicts racist actions yes but it does so in service of it's laudable goals.

It seems like everything is labeled sexist or racist by some people online. Like i said, i think this was largely due to a group of people who go looking for any kind of controversy online. I don't think a lot of those social justice warrior types know how to separate actual racism or sexism out anymore. It's banded about so often they get their hackles up over anything and everything.

Lastly i think that fact is making some people numb. It's the cry wolf effect, if you keep shouting everything is racist or sexist them you are just going to get tuned out. If you try and mobilize people over incredibly minor issues they are not going to want to associate with you when something worthy does happen. It cheapens the debate when people who just like controversy or want to look morally superior kick up dust over very little.

This attitude is what pushes me from most online communities, communities like /v/ will jump at any new information to hate the game because it could potentially cater to casuals and X type of person they hate. More Tumblr-type Social Justice sites will jump the first chance they gate to denounce the game as the white, hetero, cis men oppressing everyone. If you're excited by the game you get called naive sheeple, if you aren't excited you are a entitled manbaby. All this fight because of an announcement, just wait until the game comes out and you you have all the evidence to support your side.