The Stanley Parable Maker Promises to Change "Racist" Image

[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.)

 

[Ipsen]

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.

Nah, you over reacted. You retract your 'respect' for a developer you were planning to support (and many others happily have done so before you), all over a move you knee-jerk don't agree with. Not to mention that it's over perceived 'political correctness', not the real, quite nuanced issue at hand.

All is fine, should you simply not value your 'respect', though.

In a few minutes, it could be tasteful.

Is it bad that I thought this was a horrible thing to say at first, then hilarious 4 seconds later?

 

[nickpy]

Welp, I just set my copy of Stanley Parable to NOT automatically update.

I genuinely do not believe this is racist: if anything, it's a satire of casual 50s racism in the US which points out the utter absurdity of the whole concept. How is that a bad thing? In any case, This is the experience that the author originally intended, so I shall preserve it for myself. Though I believe that the developer probably thinks they are doing the right thing in altering it, I think it would have been better for them to explain the point of the image because the people who complained clearly missed it... Ah, the beauty of context.

 

[Ipsen]

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.)

Or maybe because many more thousands of people have been affected by real, second-class-citizen racism than the integrity of the Mass Effect 3 ending?

Seriously, how does this fly over so many heads in these forums? It's getting a tad disturbing now.

 

[Grabehn]

To be honest I've never understood the fixation of some people with "racist" stuff, I didn't like this therefore you must change/fix the situation. Why? are some people that mentally weak that they cannot make the connection between the material and the setting?

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

Spoiler

[/spoiler]
Thus everyone would be happy.[/QUOTE] Can I set it all the way up and make a LP afterwards? The comments would be hilarious.

 

[Bug MuIdoon]

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

Spoiler

[/spoiler]
Thus everyone would be happy.[/QUOTE]

I think I've seen that avatar before....

OT: I'm hoping it gets changed for something that makes changes questionable.

 

[MarcellusMagnus]

Or maybe because many more thousands of people have been affected by real, second-class-citizen racism than the integrity of the Mass Effect 3 ending?

Well, it's a good thing I'm not arguing against that then! I'm drawing a comparison between People Reacting To Game A and People Reacting To Game B, not between People Reacting To Game A and People Affected By Social Injustice X.

 

[GoaThief]

But no, let's close our eyes and ears, pretend the problem doesn't exist, hold on to the laughable notion that art is objectively above this kind of serious criticism and scream 'POLITIKAL CORRECTNESS' if anyone says otherwise! YAY!

FUCK!

It's satire, the majority of the humour stems from the unspoken statement regarding the exact same thing you just mentioned. Without it the joke is virtually nothing except moderate random humour.