[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.

Anyone have similar stats like these. It seems half the market for Far Cry games is in Europe. There was a time when games were squarely aimed at the US market. For example, every WW2 game focused on American actions to the expense of every other actor. Which was fine as it was commercial reality. And this wasn't just games and it was the simple reality of which was the largest market and how best to serve that market.

Now, if Far Cry is selling in greater numbers in Europe this seems like a perfectly sensible move from Ubisoft. What I'd like to see in Far Cry 6 is it set in South Tyrone during the height of Troubles. Everyone is a white European and everyone is less than ideal. Get the player to really struggle with his is morals in that one.

I think it's a mark of how much worse the US's divide has gotten when this seems to be causing a lot of controversy, and Bioshock Infinite's examination of "antebellum South in the Clouds" didn't cause anyone to bat an eye. Or was their controversy there that I missed?

Yonder wrote:

I think it's a mark of how much worse the US's divide has gotten when this seems to be causing a lot of controversy, and Bioshock Infinite's examination of "antebellum South in the Clouds" didn't cause anyone to bat an eye. Or was their controversy there that I missed?

I suspect that's fueled, at least in part, by "old racism" versus "modern racism".

I mean, you and I know that both times are racist as hell, but plenty of folks are willing to concede (or used to be) that the country was a bit racist back then, but now we've had a black president and sh*t, how racist could the country REAAAAAAAAALLY be? *eyeroll*

I thought Bioware's take on libertarianism and old school racism was pretty openly satirical... Could that have made a difference in perception?

Bioshock Infinite draws parallels and makes allusions, where Far Cry 5 *is* a straight-up representation.

It's easy to miss the associations in Bioshock of you're not looking for them or are historically illiterate (easy to do if you're not American, so don't have a working knowledge of American history). Not so much with Far Cry.

Huh... Okay. I guess I can see that. I'm something of a history buff, so I saw it differently, I suspect.

I mean, by the same token, the game basically starts its time in Columbia with you either helping assault an interracial couple or assaulting those who would hurt them.

There are certainly some subtle parts, but there are some pretty blatant bits too.

I guess it's good that they are taking on these topics.

Robear wrote:

I thought Bioware's take on libertarianism and old school racism was pretty openly satirical... Could that have made a difference in perception?

Keep in mind that some of Bioware's art assets for Columbia were unintentionally adopted by Tea Partiers and American nationalists. Our satire is their lived reality.

I would say that many of the few die-hard Trumpists left I known (before going full-blown denial whackadoo) were extremely rigid and concrete thinkers. Nuance and ambiguity were difficult to see even when they were so inclined.

The reason they are going to be upset by a project like FC5 is because it speaks literally about how and where they live and is about them.

I should probably buy a copy, then, on general principles. Confusion to the enemy!

Irrational Games, not BioWare.

BioShock infinite was also pretty big on false equivalency, where the repressed minority turned out to be as cruel as the previous oppressors. If that doesn't speak to white fears in our society, I don't know what does.

There's like, a 98% chance of that happening in every revolution though. Revolutions really don't have great track record. If you bottle up a people for long enough that they turn to violence than by definition you have angered a lot of people up enough to be violent, and you've created a segment of people where the more violent people are being listened to, not the people arguing for restraint.

Yonder wrote:

There's like, a 98% chance of that happening in every revolution though. Revolutions really don't have great track record. If you bottle up a people for long enough that they turn to violence than by definition you have angered a lot of people up enough to be violent, and you've created a segment of people where the more violent people are being listened to, not the people arguing for restraint.

The God Emperor Leto II tried to warn us.

Yeah, violent revolutions are almost always a bad idea. Sometimes they work out well, obviously, but there's more the exception than the rule.

Even a relatively peaceful revolution is no guarantee of a good outcome. Look at the disaster that was the Arab Spring.

After seeing the latest videos, I noticed an awful lot of black henchmen for a cult that would almost certainly be white supremacist in reality, not to mention in a state with .4% of the population being black. Yay, diversity?

Renji wrote:

After seeing the latest videos, I noticed an awful lot of black henchmen for a cult that would almost certainly be white supremacist in reality, not to mention in a state with .4% of the population being black. Yay, diversity?

Their members are mostly people they've kidnapped and brainwashed, not "economically anxious" people drawn to their message, which itself is about the us vs them of religious extremism, not the us vs them of racists.

Looks like this might also be happening with Wolfenstein, of all things.

Stengah wrote:
Renji wrote:

After seeing the latest videos, I noticed an awful lot of black henchmen for a cult that would almost certainly be white supremacist in reality, not to mention in a state with .4% of the population being black. Yay, diversity?

Their members are mostly people they've kidnapped and brainwashed, not "economically anxious" people drawn to their message, which itself is about the us vs them of religious extremism, not the us vs them of racists.

It's based in Montana, which as Renji pointed out is virtually all white. There's like 4,000 black people in the entire state.

So unless the cult is driving hundreds of miles to specifically kidnap the very few black people living in Montana then virtually all the baddies should be white.

Besides that in America crazy religious cults are really a white people's game, especially when Dear Leader is running things from a base out in the middle of the sticks.

Robear wrote:

I should probably buy a copy, then, on general principles. Confusion to the enemy!

Don't forget to pre-order from Gamestop!
IMAGE(http://www.gamestop.com/gs/images/bonus/FarCry5_Doomsday_bonusLG.jpg)

The "heat-changing cult mug" offered for pre-ordering a different edition seems downright disappointing by comparison.

For those wondering: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Menacing

And for what it's worth, through my time spent with fundamentalists, a fair number of them see race equality as Biblical ("Biblical" being their highest term for ethical certainty). They just have messed up ideas of what that means, and can't begin to see their own privilege. There's also plenty of "scientific" racism floating around, mixed with Christianese so they come off as paternalistic supporters of "natural affinities" and other nonsense.

I guess that's just to say that religious separatists are probably going to be racist, but they might not necessarily be aware of their racism.

The fact that we've only seen black characters either on our side or working as henchmen, but not part of the inner circle makes me thing you're spot on there, word.

Wordsmythe wrote:

I guess that's just to say that religious separatists are probably going to be racist, but they might not necessarily be aware of their racism.

"The fact that a person acted pursuant to order of his Government or of a superior does not relieve him from responsibility under international law, provided a moral choice was in fact possible to him."

I don't see that it will be any different when they believe God is telling them to do something.

"The fact that a person acted pursuant to order of his Government or of a superior does not relieve him from responsibility under international law, provided a moral choice was in fact possible to him."

This idea, I believe, was one of the enduring great injustices arising from WW2.

Malor wrote:
"The fact that a person acted pursuant to order of his Government or of a superior does not relieve him from responsibility under international law, provided a moral choice was in fact possible to him."

This idea, I believe, was one of the enduring great injustices arising from WW2.

Are you saying that the idea that people shoving Jews into ovens can and should be prosecuted is a great injustice?

Malor wrote:
"The fact that a person acted pursuant to order of his Government or of a superior does not relieve him from responsibility under international law, provided a moral choice was in fact possible to him."

This idea, I believe, was one of the enduring great injustices arising from WW2.

Er....

I'm not sure that's what Malor meant to say... Is it?

It sure reads as a defense of Eichmann, but maybe it's just poor phrasing? Please?

The problem is that the liberals never convinced conservatives that genocide is wrong. They just forced their viewpoint through the courts.

Malor? Did you go full-on Authoritarian on us? Or what?

Yonder wrote:

The problem is that the liberals never convinced conservatives that genocide is wrong. They just forced their viewpoint through the courts.

Oh snap.