[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.

The idea that following orders is not a defense is bullsh*t. Humans are hard-wired to obey authority. This is what we do, and it has been demonstrated over and over and over again. People follow orders. If someone is in authority and appears to take the blame for the outcome of an action, they can get their subordinates to do almost anything. And that's without the Nazi Germany approach of 'obey orders or we will kill you and your whole family'.

There are very few of us, no matter what we tell ourselves, that wouldn't have gone along with the Nazis once they had taken power. We naturally obey to begin with, and when the choice is 'obey or everyone you love dies', compliance is extremely high. This doesn't mean they're bad people and deserve to be punished.

You've got to go after the people who crafted the orders, not the ones who followed them.

Look at how few American soldiers have refused orders to commit what were clearly war crimes. And all they were risking was their careers.

So when segregationists or abusive cults or the like say "I was just following God's orders", that's cool? Because "human nature"?

It seems to me the counter-argument is that our urge to follow orders should be less than our morality. Plenty of people, including Nazis, defied the Nazi regime, many of them to the death, and yet there was resistance all through their time. How does that fall into your understanding?

There's a reason the Nazis tried hard to hide the fact that they were killing Jews. That's because they knew the population in general did not sign up for that...

People are not automata, and "just following orders" is not mutually exclusive with "willing and enthusiastic participation". And where do you start assigning responsibility? The people who gave orders also received orders, so can you blame anyone except the person at the very top?

Werner Willikens wrote:

Everyone who has the opportunity to observe it knows that the Führer can hardly dictate from above everything which he intends to realise sooner or later. On the contrary, up till now everyone with a post in the new Germany has worked best when he has, so to speak, worked towards the Führer. Very often and in many spheres it has been the case—in previous years as well—that individuals have simply waited for orders and instructions. Unfortunately, the same will be true in the future; but in fact it is the duty of everybody to try to work towards the Führer along the lines he would wish. Anyone who makes mistakes will notice it soon enough. But anyone who really works towards the Führer along his lines and towards his goal will certainly both now and in the future one day have the finest reward in the form of the sudden legal confirmation of his work​.

That's how you get genocide.

So when segregationists or abusive cults or the like say "I was just following God's orders", that's cool? Because "human nature"?

That's different, because that's a fictional authority. You can't point to anyone that explicitly told them to do something, and you definitely can't point at anyone who could have hurt them if they failed to comply.

So, say, the leaders of Scientology? No excuse. But the rank and file? With the kinds of restrictions they live under, and the ridiculous power that that cult has over them.... no, I probably wouldn't be comfortable with blaming them for following orders.

Again, look at the US military. Those are some of the finest-trained people we have, one of the best armies that's ever existed. Yet, orders for war crimes are almost always followed. When the general(s) said to drop phosphorus on Fallujah, that happened, and it happened on a large scale.

By the individual criminal idea, every one of those soldiers should be up on charges; a huge chunk of the US military should be in prison. From my standpoint, it's the officers that should be, and any politician that signed off on that plan.

Malor wrote:
So when segregationists or abusive cults or the like say "I was just following God's orders", that's cool? Because "human nature"?

That's different, because that's a fictional authority. You can't point to anyone that explicitly told them to do something, and you definitely can't point at anyone who could have hurt them if they failed to comply.

So, say, the leaders of Scientology? No excuse. But the rank and file? With the kinds of restrictions they live under, and the ridiculous power that that cult has over them.... no, I probably wouldn't be comfortable with blaming them for following orders.

Again, look at the US military. Those are some of the finest-trained people we have, one of the best armies that's ever existed. Yet, orders for war crimes are almost always followed. When the general(s) said to drop phosphorus on Fallujah, that happened, and it happened on a large scale.

By the individual criminal idea, every one of those soldiers should be up on charges; a huge chunk of the US military should be in prison. From my standpoint, it's the officers that should be, and any politician that signed off on that plan.

Your blatant ignorance of how a military functions, let alone the US military functions, never ceases to amaze.

Your blatant ignorance of how a military functions, let alone the US military functions, never ceases to amaze.

Only if you redefine 'war crimes' to no longer include things like deliberately shooting at first responders and deliberately using using white phosphorus as a weapon against civilians. And then we pull unbelievable bullsh*t like redefining 'terrorist' to be any male killed in a drone strike, and then expect them to prove that they were innocent. While dead.

But no, there's no war crimes! It would be stupid and ignorant to say that.

We have done things like that all throughout our history. We're more ethical than we once were, but soldiers follow orders.

Those phosphorus rounds didn't fire themselves. I don't blame the grunts for pulling the triggers, but I certainly do blame the officers that gave them those orders.

Our armed forces are better than most. But war crimes still happen. There's just nobody else strong enough to hold us accountable for them.

Oh, and note that our lovely and wonderful armed services are committing acts of torture, specific acts like waterboarding, for which we executed Japanese POW's during WW2.

But no, when we do them, that's not a war crime! Even though the orders came directly from the office of the President.

If there's an ignorant one here, I don't think it's me.

Well, this thread has gone off the rails in a spectacular fashion.

I blame Obama.

I'm hoping for this to be on the soundtrack.

This conversation had gone full rant mode, which means there's no discussion happening anymore. Get back on topic and/or start a new thread. I'll be deleting further off topic posts.

I like how this thread was all "Hey, this looks like it might tackle some real-world issues!" and the E3 trailer showed that, well, it's a Far Cry game.

I think it's going to have as much to say about modern day American political issues as Far Cry 2 did about the the corrupt governments of poor, non-industrialized countries. Which is to say, little to nothing.

But you'll be able to fly a plane and drop bombs, and have a doggy companion and all sorts of zany stuff will happen. It'll probably be a fun game! But i'll be shocked if the villains aren't cartoon characters.

bnpederson wrote:

I like how this thread was all "Hey, this looks like it might tackle some real-world issues!" and the E3 trailer showed that, well, it's a Far Cry game.

I think it's going to have as much to say about modern day American political issues as Far Cry 2 did about the the corrupt governments of poor, non-industrialized countries. Which is to say, little to nothing.

But you'll be able to fly a plane and drop bombs, and have a doggy companion and all sorts of zany stuff will happen. It'll probably be a fun game! But i'll be shocked if the villains aren't cartoon characters.

Polygon had a limited hands-on playthrough that seems to confirm your perspective.

After the disgusting jingoism of GR:Wildlands, I don't expect that Ubi will get much correct here in terms of having something meaningful to say about rural poverty, fundamentalist religion, and white terrorism... but I can run over the bad men with a combine.

And in the end, isn't that what this is all about?

bnpederson wrote:

I like how this thread was all "Hey, this looks like it might tackle some real-world issues!" and the E3 trailer showed that, well, it's a Far Cry game.

I think it's going to have as much to say about modern day American political issues as Far Cry 2 did about the the corrupt governments of poor, non-industrialized countries. Which is to say, little to nothing.

But you'll be able to fly a plane and drop bombs, and have a doggy companion and all sorts of zany stuff will happen. It'll probably be a fun game! But i'll be shocked if the villains aren't cartoon characters.

Instead of malaria you have a treatable disease like whooping cough that runs rampant among the anti-vax religious community.
It really means something maaaaannn.

bnpederson wrote:

I like how this thread was all "Hey, this looks like it might tackle some real-world issues!" and the E3 trailer showed that, well, it's a Far Cry game.

I think it's going to have as much to say about modern day American political issues as Far Cry 2 did about the the corrupt governments of poor, non-industrialized countries. Which is to say, little to nothing.

But you'll be able to fly a plane and drop bombs, and have a doggy companion and all sorts of zany stuff will happen. It'll probably be a fun game! But i'll be shocked if the villains aren't cartoon characters.

I dunno, I think 4 actually did a pretty good job of showing the nature of rebellions/civil wars with the added twist of potentially finding out that your mom would likely be very disappointed in what you ended up doing. No matter what, the situation still ends up looking pretty sh*tty, no matter how lofty your ideals were throughout the game.

Like, yeah, it's not like Leto II talking about rebellions and how they end, but it's decent enough on its own. I didn't expect to see anything else from E3 because they're just trying to build hype. Their earlier commentary on the work they were doing to understand how these kinds of organizations rise up, gain power and land and resources and how they recruit (both with volunteers and kidnapping, coercion, etc...), and how they wanted you to feel within that area under that level of pressure... I dunno, that to me speaks to them actually trying to create something, even if it's not fully narrative based.

I mean, half the stuff on how your allies in 4 going to very dark place (religious killings, child slavery (which, say what you will about Pagan Min, that wasn't happening with HIS rule), etc...) doesn't fully materialize until post final missions.

bnpederson wrote:

I like how this thread was all "Hey, this looks like it might tackle some real-world issues!" and the E3 trailer showed that, well, it's a Far Cry game.

The fact that they would make that game, in that setting, and explicitly shy away from any seemingly real-world issues is also political. It may be unsurprising, but there was definitely a considered decision there and this nevertheless makes a statement.

Tyops wrote:
bnpederson wrote:

I like how this thread was all "Hey, this looks like it might tackle some real-world issues!" and the E3 trailer showed that, well, it's a Far Cry game.

The fact that they would make that game, in that setting, and explicitly shy away from any seemingly real-world issues is also political. It may be unsurprising, but there was definitely a considered decision there and this nevertheless makes a statement.

It's a weird political stance, too. It's almost a "No, this is just a normal thing that happens."

Tyops wrote:
bnpederson wrote:

I like how this thread was all "Hey, this looks like it might tackle some real-world issues!" and the E3 trailer showed that, well, it's a Far Cry game.

The fact that they would make that game, in that setting, and explicitly shy away from any seemingly real-world issues is also political. It may be unsurprising, but there was definitely a considered decision there and this nevertheless makes a statement.

There was actually an interesting article up recently on Polygon talking about a dev for Detroit: Beyond Human who seemed to be trying to strattle a line in marketing alone. The game itself is clearly going to touch on some themes of what makes someone human... but then later says it's not political/philosophical at all for other audiences.

Amusingly, for GG's targets, he seems to be pushing the angle of "it will talk about civil rights, social justice, etc..." while for those outlets that GG tends to favor, pushing more just the decision aspects and not so much the thematic elements of the narrative.

I'm kind of wondering if Ubisoft is doing the same thing here. Their reveal event pre-E3 certainly spoke to a narrative that will be pushing some controversial buttons... then their E3 show is just gameplay out the wazoo with no mention of the story.