Jimquisition: The FarCry Racism Adventure

[Jodan]

so just because he's wearing a suit and the other fellow is in fatigues and dirty one is white and one is not. how do we know they are not the same ethnicity. by talking about this dumb people are merely renforcing the ideas that they are rallying against. way to go guys you are actually making this worse.

 

[MarsProbe]

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.

I'd say that's probably true as well, at least far as the end result was concerned. Whether they intended this cover to deliberately provoke a reaction or not, they got people talking about their unreleased game of which they had released nothing more than some potential box art and a brief description of the games setting. That's a whole lot of publicity for relatively little effort. So no, I wouldn't say Ubisoft are in any way to blame for all the controversy - it's likely something they at least hoped, if not planned for.

The blame, if to be placed anywhere, should be with those people who can't stop their knees jerking around long enough for them to actually stop and think for a minute before launching their latest crusade against some perceived controversy that in a world without (or before) the internet would continue to exist only inside their head.

 

[Snooder]

I am absolutely flabbergasted that anyone could look at the dude in the pink suit and think he's white. Like really, do you not know how asian people look? Pro-tip, white people don't have epicanthic folds.

He's clearly either a Yakuza or Hong Kong Triad style gangster with bleached hair. Although the lack of any visible tattoos inclines me to think he's a Triad member. Or, possibly even a native of the region attempting to ape the mannerisms of the more sophisticated and flamboyant gangsters from the city.

 

[themilo504]

I hate to say this but I?m more on ubisoft?s side, I agree that ubisoft should have provided more context, on the other hand It?s not the 1900?s so I think it?s really obvious that pink suit guy is the villain.

 

[Canadamus Prime]

You can bet Ubisoft is soaking up all the publicity their getting off this controversy.

 

[xaszatm]

At the end of the day, I'm glad this became a controversy. I'm glad people are willing to get up in arms about little shit like this, so that when a company really fucks up they'll be called out on it.

And, yeah, I can kind of see where people are coming from. That said, I agree with what Jim said that it's important to determine whether the art is racist, or merely depicting racism. Unfortunately, Ubisoft chose not to clarify, and so here we are.

The problem with this people getting up in arms about "little shit like this" is that the fuel of this anger can go away. The anger itself can simper down or people start to ignore the screaming. I know there is an official for this phenomenon but the easiest comparison is the "Boy who cried Wolf." Even if we are discussing something that's semi-controversial, many people stop paying attention after the first time.

OT: This was a controversy? Could we have a controversy on something that ACTUALLY matters?

 

[StriderShinryu]

As others have said, the only real blame Ubisoft should be facing is that they didn't come out and explain the obvious a little sooner than they did. That they had to actually explain the obvious, on the other hand is absolutely not their fault. I mean, seriously, who in their right mind would have looked at that cover art and said that Mr. Pink Suit is the hero of the game?

 

[LazyAza]

Cover didn't seem racist to me and I thought it was pretty obvious the guy on it was the bad guy. Swear we live in an era of kneejerk reaction to everything now.

Yeah ubi effed up by not giving context but people need to just stop thinking everything is always way worse than it actually is before having actual evidence.

 

[gamegod25]

Heh I'm surprised the controversy was about racism and not about portraying homosexuals as evil.

Personally I never got any racism vibe from the pics, or if I did it didn't really stand out because it seemed obvious that the guy was a villain so of course he would be doing bad shit. And no it wasn't because he was wearing a pink suit or is gay alright.

I don't see how just depicting something like racism, slavery, etc. is the same as promoting it. If you read something positive from those pics, well, maybe you are the one who needs to work out some personal issues.

 

[Lieju]

Never heard of this controversy before now.

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.

Well, what is 'white' depends on the person doing the classification.

I'm native Finnish, and we consider ourselves white, but several gatekeepers of whiteness have informed me I look too Mongoloid to hang out in their white clubhouse.

 

[geier]

I'd rather say Ubisoft is the victim in all of this, because stupid people are becoming a lot louder. Instead of just addressing the fact that they didn't add a framing device, they immediately steamrolled the company with bullshit, hatred and social justice warrioring. Does Ubisoft hold blame for what happened? Sure. All of it? No. Most of it? No. Half of it? No. A quarter? Eeeeeh, sure. We live in a world where the idiot masses are becoming increasingly vocal, and we can't expect everyone, or companies, to take in to account just how stupid people can get.

I'm nearly 100% on your side. But i thing 95% of the fault lie by the stupid people who cry about everything. I mean, look at the guy on the box art! Could that be a hero in a shooter?

 

[Aardvaarkman]

Wait, so that guy with the white skin isn't white? What colour is he supposed to be? I guess the artists must be pretty bad to get the colour shading so wrong!

Anyway, I'm not sure how "he's not white" is supposed to be a defence against anything, if there is actually anything to be defended against.

 

[tzimize]

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.

Yep. This "issue" is beyond stupid.

Also, the most important thing in the show was said towards the end. Political correctness is something we DO NOT NEED in art. And there is a difference between depicting racism and promoting racism. I thought American History X was a fantastic movie. It has a nazi on its cover. Does that mean its promoting racism? Come on people! DONT BE SO BRAINDEAD!

 

[synobal]

I don't see what the big deal is, Imperialism is nothing new. Also who says we shouldn't be able to explore themes of racism in video games?

 

[mrdude2010]

I suppose I understand people who are upset about it, but I thought it was fairly obvious it was a symbolic portrayal of oppression going on in the game rather than condoning that same oppression in real life.

 

[Aardvaarkman]

I have a pet hypothesis about this. You might be aware of how, throughout some parts of history, particularly post-1500, a lot of people basically tried to make themselves to appear as white as they can to gain credibility from rich, white people from foreign nations so they can also join the club and gain money, power, and esteem?

Well, Far Cry 2 as somewhat aware of race, and Far Cry 3 was supposedly a parody involving race that just played out quite poorly, so I think that they might be going for this idea with this new villain. Notice how he's surrounded by lower-quality military weapons, and trying to emulate the appearance of a European with money with an outfit that makes him really stand out as compared to most anything else you'd see anybody wear in Nepal.

Interesting theory.

This could have actually led to an interesting discussion if it wasn't for the rampant stupidity and over-reaction. Who is a "white person" anyway? The word only describes colour. Would an albino African person be white?

"Black" doesn't refer to one particular racial group. Samoans and Australian Aborigines, for example, describe themselves as black - so it's not just an African descriptor. And Asians probably have the most variance in skin colour - ranging from lily-white through to dark black. Is there anything wrong with a pale-skinned Asian calling themselves white, or a dark-skinned Asian calling themselves black? I would think not.

I would have thought that the enlightened thing would be to realise that race is a very minor genetic component, and who we are is far more influenced by our culture and upbringing than what our colour of skin happens to be.