[Discussion] Far Cry 5 - You got Politics in my Game/You got Game in my Politics

So it looks like the next Far Cry game is going to be in the US and feature a religious cult as the bad guys; a cult that treads a bit closer to real-world Christian/White Supremacist groups than some people like.

I don't want to force all discussion of the game here, but we don't want the discussion of the game itself to turn into an argument about real world politics. So... let's keep that here.

So... Far Cry 5. Yeah, the moment I realized it involved a heavily-armed, religious cult set in the US I knew it would be hard to talk about it. And the main thread is already getting out of control.

Far Cry 2/3/4? Sure, it's easy to go to Africa/the Pacific/the Himalayas and gun down the designated evil groups there as an American mercenary/dude-bro/immigrant. The antagonists don't look or act like us. It's easy to attack the "other".

But Far Cry 5? These people look like us. Maybe we even agree with some of what they seem to be representing. And by portraying them as the "bad guys" makes us uncomfortable. Is the game calling me "evil" for maybe thinking they have a point?

So yeah, there's going to be a lot of furor over this one. And Fox News hasn't even heard about it yet...

No, you were supposed to feel evil when you were gunning down brown folk too.

The fact that you're only asking this question now is the point.

Jonman wrote:

No, you were supposed to feel evil when you were gunning down brown folk too.

The fact that you're only asking this question now is the point.

I agree. I was trying to frame that first post to indicate why this particular game is going to provoke so much discussion but didn't really say it that way; I was trying to say something to start a discussion.

Instead of editing, I'll just add this.

I suspect that most gamers *don't* feel bad about gunning down "brown people", simply because most *Americans* (well, USAns, sorry for lumping you in with us Canada and Mexico) don't care about "brown people".

I can prove that today. Look through any social media stream. Count the number of people who a week ago were expressing horror, outrage, "thoughts and prayers" and so on over the Manchester bombing last week.

Now count the number you can find on the Kabul bombing today. I suspect that number is 0.

Everyone got upset over Manchester because England is "like us". No one cares about Kabul because they aren't.

And that's why we're going to see such outrage over this game.

Or the Baghdad bombing? Or the Phillipines fighting?

Having grown up in a "god and guns" apocalyptic church cult, I am very interested to see how this is portrayed in-game.

Given that white people have committed some of the most atrocious acts in human history I'm all for making them the sole antagonist in all forms of media and entertainment. I mean its all about historical accuracy right?

I look forward to Far Cry 6 where you play a Native American trying to survive during the Manifest Destiny westward expansion.

Followed by Far Cry 7 where you play an escaped slave trying to reach the North since the South was concerned about States Rights.

I suspect that most gamers *don't* feel bad about gunning down "brown people", simply because most *Americans* (well, USAns, sorry for lumping you in with us Canada and Mexico) don't care about "brown people".

Well, when I'm immersed in a game, I typically will take a nonviolent approach if it's offered as a reasonable option. (ie, you don't have to bend the game engine in Herculean ways.) But I almost never feel bad about shooting people in video games, for two main reasons: A) they're almost always shooting first, and B) they're not actually people.

The only combat-oriented game I remember playing, offhand, that actually inspired any sense of ethical dilemma was in The Last of Us, and it was only a dilemma afterward. The doctors and nurses were committing a terrible crime, and I shot them without hesitation or even a shred of remorse, but I felt bad later when I learned that I didn't have to kill them all. After having just come through about fifty armed guys (yeah, it's a game) and then having one of the doctors attack, the option of not shooting all three didn't even register. That bothered me some, and has made me wonder how many real-life innocents get killed from simple acts of reflex like that.

But I don't think FC5 would bother me any. I probably won't buy it, but if nothing else, I was a mass-murderer of Good Guys in the 90s, playing Counterstrike., More pixelated blood on my hands isn't likely to be an issue. If there's a Rubicon for video game violence, I crossed it a long, long time ago.

I can't help but feel that this is the logical end-point of the ratcheting up of cartoon-level swivel-eyed evil that is Far Cry Big Bads.

Like someone at Ubisoft is continually surprised at how little furore there is with each game, so they're upping the ante with each time.

Far Cry 2: "Let's do Heart of Darkness: The Game."
Far Cry 3: "Huh, no-one seemed to get it. Let's make the baddie an insane light-skinned dude. People will relate then."
Far Cry 4: "Huh, no-one seemed to get it. Let's make the baddie a *rich* insane light skinned dude."
Far Cry 5: "f*ck it, just make them white Americans."

I can only assume that Far Cry 6 will feature a bad guy with the player's own face mapped onto them.

I really don't know this would be an issue. Besides the specific culture what makes it any different than shooting your way through skyscrapers in Bond, Deus Ex, or Rainbow Six?

edit: I forget to mention Rockstar with GTA and Red Dead.

I think the Far Cry series actually gets less credit than it deserves, at least for the last two game in the IP.

Far Cry 4:
1. You are actually also of the ethnic group of the people you're shooting. It's hard to tell that in the selfie Pagan Min takes with you, but yeah.

2. You royally f*ck up that country... or return it to the status quo. Seriously, your two endings are either replacing a totalitarian drug state with a different totalitarian drug state (including children pressed into working the poppy fields) OR you turn the country into a totalitarian theocracy, including the murder of many of your former comrades for their questioning the wisdom of one of your leaders.

This goes hard down the road of "All rebels are secretly closeted autocrats/aristocrats."

3. You take the wrong side as far as your mom is concerned. While she's dead and she never explicitly tells us this, it's clear your dad was apparently aiming for ending 2 from the point above, and she... well... if you haven't read your father's journals, maybe do that. Well, maybe it's just me, but I would nooooooot be on his side in the real world.

Far Cry 5:
Ummm, you're the brown people fighting the white people and taking over land in Europe.

Malor wrote:

Well, when I'm immersed in a game, I typically will take a nonviolent approach if it's offered as a reasonable option. (ie, you don't have to bend the game engine in Herculean ways.) But I almost never feel bad about shooting people in video games, for two main reasons: A) they're almost always shooting first, and B) they're not actually people.

The only combat-oriented game I remember playing, offhand, that actually inspired any sense of ethical dilemma was in The Last of Us, and it was only a dilemma afterward. The doctors and nurses were committing a terrible crime, and I shot them without hesitation or even a shred of remorse, but I felt bad later when I learned that I didn't have to kill them all. After having just come through about fifty armed guys (yeah, it's a game) and then having one of the doctors attack, the option of not shooting all three didn't even register. That bothered me some, and has made me wonder how many real-life innocents get killed from simple acts of reflex like that.

Upon learning Deus Ex's twist, I stopped the game I was playing and replayed the intro levels using only non-fatal means.

I think there will be little chance we'll confuse Far Cry 5's bad guys with stereotypical rural white Americans. Some of their foot soldiers maybe, because they apparently recruit people by kidnapping and brainwashing/torturing them into joining them. Power via religious fanaticism is what drives them, not economic uncertainty/racism.

EvilDead wrote:

I really don't know this would be an issue. Besides the specific culture what makes it any different than shooting your way through skyscrapers in Bond, Deus Ex, or Rainbow Six?

The game's premise will just hit too close for comfort for some people.

Especially because the core idea of the game--a heavily armed religious cult--is something that's already happened in America. The game is basically combining Waco with that North Dakota town that white supremacists tried to take over a few years ago and throwing in a side of Malheur Wildlife Refuge with sovereign citizen/anti-government militia groups.

All of those things are steeped in guns, religion, and (mostly) right-wing politics. And all of those groups are organized, hypersensitive to any perceived slight, and have a massive bullhorn.

OG_slinger wrote:

All of those things are steeped in guns, religion, and (mostly) right-wing politics. And all of those groups are organized, hypersensitive to any perceived slight, and have a massive bullhorn.

What do you think Ubi's play here is? It's a tough sell to suggest that they're unaware of the imminent controversy.

Free PR? A hearty f*ck-you to the far right? Liberal Quebecois developers sneering over of the border?

I guess I just don't see it as a big controversy. This has been played out in many movies and doesn't seem to be a big deal. Is it because it's a video game? It might offend a few people but that's not going to hurt Ubisofts sales.

Jonman wrote:

What do you think Ubi's play here is? It's a tough sell to suggest that they're unaware of the imminent controversy.

Free PR? A hearty f*ck-you to the far right? Liberal Quebecois developers sneering over of the border?

Don't know.

Perhaps it's something as simple as the go-to baddies--drug dealers, terrorists, Nazis, rogue Eastern European/Russian dudes--have been done to death in other games.

If they really meant it as a hearty f*ck-you to the far right then the only playable characters would be LGBT women who were also minorities.

I have played zero Far Cry games but would buy that in a heartbeat.

EvilDead wrote:

I guess I just don't see it as a big controversy. This has been played out in many movies and doesn't seem to be a big deal. Is it because it's a video game? It might offend a few people but that's not going to hurt Ubisofts sales.

Yeah this is my take as well, and really there have been tons of games where you gun down white dudes, it's kind of a non issue to me. I mean GTA5 continues to sell well and you can massacre hundreds of cops, this seems pretty tame by comparison.

Jonman wrote:

I can only assume that Far Cry 6 will feature a bad guy with the player's own face mapped onto them.

That actually sounds pretty entertaining. I'd play it.

OG_slinger wrote:
Jonman wrote:

What do you think Ubi's play here is? It's a tough sell to suggest that they're unaware of the imminent controversy.

Free PR? A hearty f*ck-you to the far right? Liberal Quebecois developers sneering over of the border?

Don't know.

Perhaps it's something as simple as the go-to baddies--drug dealers, terrorists, Nazis, rogue Eastern European/Russian dudes--have been done to death in other games.

If they really meant it as a hearty f*ck-you to the far right then the only playable characters would be LGBT women who were also minorities.

Your gender and sex will be player determined, so, you could actually play exactly that.

Honestly, as someone with mental health challenges one of my big problems with Far Cry 3 was a villain who did evil stuff cause he's krazzy. I know it's not the same as problematic portrayals of race but it is an issue. I hope the devs are more sensitive to that this time around.

The other somewhat fair criticism I'm hearing is that the idea of a religious cult taking over wild swathes of Montana seems a little far fetched. It will be interesting to see how they explain this.

My response to that is that it is no more far fetched than your typical horror or action movie (starring The Rock of course). I wouldn't exactly put the Far Cry plots & writing on a level above those.

Interesting point, which Ubisoft talked about during their press reveal event, it's really not that bizarre an event. They talked with some folks who study cult formation and their progression/evolution to help guide their creation of their own cult in game.

Cult moves into area.

Property values drop.

Cult buys up more land for cheap.

Cult suddenly has a large piece of land on which to build and entrench.

Property values drop more.

Cult buys up more land for even cheaper.

It's basically what happened in the town of Leith, North Dakota.

A white supremacist moved in and began buying up city lots with the ultimate goal of having other racists join him and then, acting together, take over the government by simply voting their guys into power.

Had the moron simply bided his time the plan might of worked. But he had to take to "patrolling" the town with loaded firearms and, ultimately, got busted for menacing.

He tried to repeat his plan in another town and got shut down when the city bought and tore down the property he was interested in.

OG_slinger wrote:

Had the moron simply bided his time the plan might of worked. But he had to take to "patrolling" the town with loaded firearms and, ultimately, got busted for menacing.

Wait. This is a crime? Cause I hear about people doing this in rural Alabama* periodically. They're basically walking down the street in camo with an AR-15 or something equivalent slung on their back, just looking for an excuse to shoot someone. Really triggers my patients' PTSD.

*And, for that matter, the Atlanta airport.

Yeah, I've seen people walking through the local mall carrying rifles over their shoulder. Not often, but not so rare that I'm surprised by it anymore.

IMAGE(http://www.motherjones.com/files/inside-chipotle630.jpg)

IMAGE(http://www.rhinoden.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/Starnuts.jpg)

IMAGE(http://s.wsj.net/public/resources/images/BN-DB129_openca_P_20140602173557.jpg)

gewy wrote:

Wait. This is a crime? Cause I hear about people doing this in rural Alabama* periodically. They're basically walking down the street in camo with an AR-15 or something equivalent slung on their back, just looking for an excuse to shoot someone. Really triggers my patients' PTSD.

*And, for that matter, the Atlanta airport.

He got busted for terrorizing and menacing his neighbors. I assume that means more than simply walking around with a weapon.

gewy wrote:
OG_slinger wrote:

Had the moron simply bided his time the plan might of worked. But he had to take to "patrolling" the town with loaded firearms and, ultimately, got busted for menacing.

Wait. This is a crime? Cause I hear about people doing this in rural Alabama* periodically. They're basically walking down the street in camo with an AR-15 or something equivalent slung on their back, just looking for an excuse to shoot someone. Really triggers my patients' PTSD.

*And, for that matter, the Atlanta airport.

It can be, but only when the local police aren't sympathetic to the people doing the menacing.

Is it just me or does the head cult dude look like Martin Czokas' character on Into The Badlands?

Rat Boy wrote:

Is it just me or does the head cult dude look like Martin Czokas' character on Into The Badlands?

Why, Raht Boah, Ah do believe you are correct.

He plays that character so awesomely over-the-top. I really like that show.