The Stanley Parable Maker Promises to Change "Racist" Image

[lacktheknack]

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.

This. The entire crux of the joke is the massive dichotomy of action in exactly the same situation.

Changing the immolation to a different coloured child wrecks the joke.

Of course, they could fix this by using a "CENSORED" box or by turning Steven black.

 

[Frozengale]

What's this!? A BLACK KID!

WE HAVE TO GET RID OF THAT IMMEDIATELY!

IT WOULD BE RACIST TO HAVE A BLACK KID!!

 

[Kyogissun]

Ahahahahahaha.

I've really got nothing else, I find these implications just absolutely hysterical. I don't mind the change, I don't believe the joke will lose its punch and if anything, I'm hoping it'll mean that the joke will be even darker and more twisted.

I mean, TSP's genius lies in its fairly non-offensive sense of humor and cleverness, but some of the darker humor in it REALLY shines through to me.

 

[Elf Defiler Korgan]

In a few minutes, it could be tasteful.

 

[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.