Jimquisition: The FarCry Racism Adventure

[Adeptus Aspartem]

Definitly helps to stop racism if everyone tries to find it under ever rocks.

It's the south park episode all over again. Once you stop seeing the "white man", the "black man", the "yellow man" and the "pink man with yellow stripes" and they just become these men, you're at the right spot.

I always find out about these "controversies" on the internet, because i just never see the issue.

Meh wahtever. The internet behaved like a rampaging hoard of baboons. News at 11.

 

[Something Amyss]

When Jim ended with "I'm not racist" I was expecting him to follow up with a "but...." Does that make me racist?

It just means you have pattern recognition.

The cover was clearly depicting evil/corrupt dude sitting carelessly on a throne while oppressing a native/henchman.

You're not using "clearly" right. It's evidently not clear, nor can you blame people for being confused in an industry where sociopathy and heroism are often intertwined. Just because your assumption is proven correct doesn't mean it's clear he was evil.

I suspect that Ubisoft's delayed explanation regarding the context of the boxart was intentional. Word of mouth is a great way to get free exposure, and controversy is just another form of that. You know what they say: there's no such thing as bad publicity.

It's also a great way to get your bottom line hurt and people fired.

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".

I doubt it. There's still utility in "racial" descriptions. It wouldn't even be an issue if "race" wasn't historically used to mistreat other people. And while we might get to the point where it loses its relevance, it won't be in the foreseeable future, because it's still a raw enough nerve.

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.

Uhhh....Yes? And that's kind of the point? That's basically an argument for "people are still thinking about racism because racism is still a relevant topic."

Exactly.

Places like Kotaku

What does "places like Kotaku" even mean? It seems to describe just about all of gaming journalism, so why are they singled out so readily?

 

[Saltyk]

I hadn't even seen the cover before this video. Then, Jim showed the cover. And frankly, I didn't see it.

I can see how others would, but I didn't see it as racist. I just saw a guy trying to look gracious and above his followers. Sort of like a cult leader. Sure, he was paler than the other man. But, that was it.

I could see how some could jump to racism, but why is that a bad thing? Why can't games portray racism? It's only okay for games to portray zombies, dragons, and soldiers? For that matter, if you fight against people who are native to an area that the game takes place in, why is that racist? I never full got the Resident Evil 5 was racist argument. Now, there was that one village, that was sort of bad, but black people in Africa is not racist (hence why I said why I never "fully" got). Only having white people in Africa, would have honestly been more racist.

That all having been said, all Ubisoft had to say was, "Here's our new cover art featuring the game's villain and one of his minions." Problem solved.

 

[Neferius]

All human beings are born with an ingrained predisposition towards hatred and discrimination based on meaningless and inconsequential details.
It is an evolutionary consequence of having no natural predators except ourselves, and for having developed for thousands of years within limited and heavily inbred communities also known as "tribes".
Getting along as a diverse cosmopolitan society is what actually requires conditioning and education.
Yes, you read that right, babies are born racist. [http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/04/racist-babies-nine-month-olds-bias-faces_n_1477937.html]

bottom-line is: being Evil is Easy.

 

[Zontar]

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

Given how "not all men" has been a thing on the internet since 2001, I think it's safe to say that this was made after.

Though it is funny to see people complain about the term, then in the same breath claim that Tumblr doesn't represent feminism.

 

[lord.jeff]

I'll forgive the box art if the main character isn't some random white guy suddenly becoming the worlds greatest killer and up showing all the locals who should be a lot better then him at fighting.

 

[Steve2911]

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

Given how "not all men" has been a thing on the internet since 2001, I think it's safe to say that this was made after.

Obviously, but it was topical this weekend.

And it's not the term people 'complain' about. The problem is that some people's first reactions upon hearing about a mysoginistic killing spree is to point out to everyone that they're not like that. Because the most important thing in the world to these people is how they're percieved while others mourn and promote a positive message.

 

[gridsleep]

First I've seen of it. It doesn't look racist to me. It looks like a gay Patrick Stewart contemplating sodomizing a poor person. It's class conscious if anything.

 

[ex275w]

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

Given how "not all men" has been a thing on the internet since 2001, I think it's safe to say that this was made after.

Though it is funny to see people complain about the term, then in the same breath claim that Tumblr doesn't represent feminism.

Both "not all men" and "not all feminists are like that" are constantly used in a mocking sense at pretty much the same rate.

 

[Casual Shinji]

The cover was clearly depicting evil/corrupt dude sitting carelessly on a throne while oppressing a native/henchman.

You're not using "clearly" right. It's evidently not clear, nor can you blame people for being confused in an industry where sociopathy and heroism are often intertwined. Just because your assumption is proven correct doesn't mean it's clear he was evil.

No, there's isn't a mathematical equation that proves he's clearly evil, but the common sense is slapping one in the face with a mackerel. Even with all the sociopathy in games, I can't see how anyone could be confused over this cover unless they've been living under a rock for the past 10 years.

I might've seen this get blown out of proportion by Fox News, but to see games websites make such a fuss over this..? Games websites who I am very sure are aware this is a sequel to Far Cry 3?

 

[MB202]

So... wait, the pink suit guy isn't white according to Ubisoft? He looks pretty damn white to me.

 

[Zontar]

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

Given how "not all men" has been a thing on the internet since 2001, I think it's safe to say that this was made after.

Obviously, but it was topical this weekend.

And it's not the term people 'complain' about. The problem is that some people's first reactions upon hearing about a mysoginistic killing spree is to point out to everyone that they're not like that. Because the most important thing in the world to these people is how they're percieved while others mourn and promote a positive message.

You have a point, though what I want to know (which I don't remember anyone else asking) is how someone in his mental state got their hands on a gun, or how he was so close to being caught before it all happened, but still got threw the cracks.

But hindsight is 20/20, and unfortunately that isn't going to change any time soon.

 

[Pyrian]

...how someone in his mental state got their hands on a gun...

I believe the term currently in vogue is 'Murica.

 

[Sir Thomas Sean Connery]

Eeeeeeehhhm, I have mixed feelings about your mixed feelings.

On one hand, yes, the secrecy of the games industry is ludicrous and needs to stop. In addition, the pre-order pushing is also stupid.

In this case, however, I can see how Ubisoft wouldn't even conceive that it would be taken the wrong way. When I and many others first saw the box art, we saw the villain instantly. It's just that simple. The guy on the cover is the bad guy. If it was that obvious to a certain sect of people, it's reasonable to figure Ubisoft would think it was equally obvious.

If anything, the fact that so many people instantly assumed he was the villain is a pretty damn good sign for society. When an audience sees an image and the man dominating another human is assumed to be the villain, we're moving in the right direction.

Now look, there are discussions to be had about racism in games, as with everything else. Absolutely. But this is exactly the kind of thing that strips the legitimacy from the race discussions that really do need to happen.
People acting on first reaction without thinking critically or waiting for context are stupid and cause this problem. It was the exact same situation when Suey Park made reasonable people look like morons because she failed to do even a cursory wikipedia search of The Colbert Report before leaping to conclusions and then screaming those conclusions from rooftops and social media. She, along with the people behind this controversy, represented people wanting to discuss race and they represented them in the poorest possible fashion.

 

[Rad Party God]

Aw, and here I was, expecting Jim to talk about Ubisoft's latest fuckup with Watch Dogs, but I guess this other fuckup will suffice.

I personally didn't see anything racist about the cover, but I guess I'm being too naive to no think about it.

 

[AlwaysPractical]

Who the fuck thought that guy was the player character? Are you just plain high? A player character never smirks on the cover art, not even Nathan Dranke, the smirkiest character in video games. Everybody knows only bad people smirk on cover art.

My reaction to the artwork: it looks really good. They know what made Fart Cry 3 stand out story-wise was the excellent portrayal and characterisation of Vaas. This guy has the same air of danger and insanity that Vaas had, so the artwork perfectly showed me what made me excited about FC4. Cannot blame Ubisoft here, they were just banking on their audience having an IQ above 80, but that apparently wasn't the case.