Can we blame Ando for Far Cry 3

[Vendetta]

Maybe some people are capable of divorcing the fact that a product is presenting them with massively racist and/or sexist themes from the tasks the product is asking them to perform?

Maybe this says things about those people that they wouldn't want made public.

[Vendetta]

Maybe I wasn't clear: I'm not interested in the plot discussion. And I wasn't interested in any of these plot discussions, because like most people who play video games I already know that most video game plots are stupid. Some exceptions exist, but the Far Cry franchise was never one of them.

PS. videogame plots are stupid because stupid people buy them anyway even if the plot is stupid (and racist and sexist).

[Zinegata]

Maybe I wasn't clear: I'm not interested in the plot discussion. And I wasn't interested in any of these plot discussions, because like most people who play video games I already know that most video game plots are stupid. Some exceptions exist, but the Far Cry franchise was never one of them.

PS. videogame plots are stupid because stupid people buy them anyway even if the plot is stupid (and racist and sexist).

As a final courtesy:

Again, seriously, what part of "I'm not interested in the plot discussion" do people not get?

I operate on the presumption that most video game plots are bad. Trying to elaborate how excruciatingly bad the plot is for a franchise I never really cared for very much holds little interest for me. I wanted information on the gameplay, because Far Cry came up on a slow month. Aaron provided it, and thus his was the most useful review for me. That was it.

If the plot really bothers you that much and you feel you need to prevent "stupid video game plots because stupid people buy them", then go to the Far Cry 3 forums and accuse the developers of being racist and offensive to their face (I did it with ME3). Or start a petition. Or call your congressman.

Arguing with me and thinking it will somehow represent a victory in the name of "less stupid videogame plots" or "outing closet racists" is very, very silly; especially when I disagree with your premise. Stupid (and racist / sexist) plots have existed way before video games, and I don't really think you can change the existence of stupid plots; only avoid them (in the case of movies, tv, etc, where the plot is central) or ignore them (in the case of video games, where you don't really need plot to enjoy Battle City).

[Vendetta]

So you're willing to support a massively racist product because you simply don't care about racism?

Does this make you a racist?

Answer: Yes, actually it does, by rewarding racist media with financial success you are directly contributing to the production of more racist media, because you send a clear financial message to creators that you are willing to accept or openly supportive of their racist agenda.

Telling creators that they are massively racist has no impact on them, if they cared they wouldn't have written that story in the first place, the thing they care about is when they stop making money because they are racist, so not buying the product, and discussing its negative (racist) qualities in contexts where people are likely to be making purchasing decisions, is exactly the thing to do about it.

[Zinegata]

So you're willing to support a massively racist product because you simply don't care about racism?

Does this make you a racist?

Answer: Yes, actually it does, by rewarding racist media with financial success you are directly contributing to the production of more racist media, because you send a clear financial message to creators that you are willing to accept or openly supportive of their racist agenda.

Oh yes, the "closet racist" silliness. It's getting really tiresome that some people here need to sublimate their fantasies on me instead of confronting the actual racists in their real lives.

Tell me: Who made you the ultimate judge of what is a "massively racist" product again?

What if I someone starts a petition calling for the boycott of say, World of Tanks because it's "massively racist" since it allows you to play tanks used by the evil German Nazis to oppress millions of people in WW2? Should you stop playing WoT then and flog yourself for being a closet racist?

Your entire above statement is nothing more than delusions conflating your own self-importance. Again: I don't care about the present racism discussion. Why? I've already outlined many of the reasons, high among them being the fact that I find gameplay more paramount than plot. But because it seems to have escaped your notice, let me repeat it again:

Aaron already convinced me not to buy the game based on the gameplay merits alone.

So, again, why should I bother myself with your "stupid plot discussions", when I already decided not to buy the game?. Oh yes, I should bother because you called me a racist and other silly names. How intelligent and mature.

And to make it clear, no, I would not buy a game that I find racist and offensive, or one that is racist and offensive to people I trust. Vendetta is not one of them; I don't know him.

Telling creators that they are massively racist has no impact on them

Have you ever tried? Have you ever had the courage to go on their turf, actively court humiliation and flaming from the "fanboys", and make public your "proof" of racism to an actual wide audience instead of your six friends in this forum?

I know I've tried. Did it work? Probably not; but I certainly got more people to agree with me than you ever will.

But nah, it's more fun to pick on me; even though doing that does absolutely nothing to change the gaming public. And it does nothing to change my mind, other than to put you in the "silly" list.

[Vendetta]

Oh yes, the "closet racist" silliness. It's getting really tiresome that some people here need to sublimate their fantasies on me instead of confronting the actual racists in their real lives.

This is nothing to do with you being a "closet racist", this is about you realising that your purchasing decisions implicitly support racist messages in media, whether that's happening because you're just a dumbass who doesn't stop to think about the iimplications of your purchasing decisions or because you are secretly supportive of the theme a game like Far Cry 3 portrays doesn't make a difference, ignorance allows racism to thrive far more than malice does.

What if I someone starts a petition calling for the boycott of say, World of Tanks because it's "massively racist" since it allows you to play tanks used by the evil German Nazis to oppress millions of people in WW2? Should you stop playing WoT then and flog yourself for being a closet racist?

Then we would call them dumbasses, because there is no narrative content in World of Tanks to convey any kind of racist theme, and this would thus be a total false equivalence.

So, again, why should I bother myself with your "stupid plot discussions", when I already decided not to buy the game?. Oh yes, I should bother because you called me a racist and other silly names. How intelligent and mature.

The fact that you think the narrative, when present, can be divorced from the rest of the product when making a purchasing decision means that you are a dumbass, we're calling you out on being a dumbass. Far Cry 3 could be literally the most engaging mans shooting game ever and you still shouldn't buy it because of the racist theme of the narrative, but if you ignore the plot as a consideration you are implicitly saying that you will support racism if it's fun enough.

Have you ever tried? Have you ever had the courage to go on their turf, actively court humiliation and flaming from the "fanboys", and make public your "proof" of racism to an actual wide audience instead of your six friends in this forum?

It's cute that you think these people engage with the people on their own forums. And in this case we can see what the effect of pointing out the massive racism was on the writer, he shrugged it off in a published interview.

[Zinegata]

So, somebody call me when Vendetta finally realizes that he's an utter dumbass for wanting me to give a crap about the plot when I already decided not to buy the game based on gameplay merits.

Or when Vendetta finally realizes that he's a dumbass who's butthurt because I refuse to consider him an authority on what's "racist". Because only a dumbass would think that you should trust strangers on the Internet who hurl insults at you and make childish arguments!

Or maybe call me when Vendetta finally realizes I'm the guy who went to the Bioware forums, and started a thread that called out ME3's ending for being racist and offensive. Which, much to my surprise, hit over 1,000 posts and got linked as a reference by a few other forums to explain the reason why ME3's ending sucked so badly; and thus reached a wider audience than this useless little spat ever would.

But nah, I doubt all this. Because Vendetta is so smart. So smart he doubled down on his idiocy by claiming "Zine is buying based on gameplay even with the plot is racist!", while failing to realize that most gamers (including me) do in fact look at the gameplay first (because it's a fucking game), and then make a further determination based on the plot review whether or not to buy it (taking into consideration that plot evaluations are subjective, and some don't even want to look at them because of the possibility of spoilers; which is how I got suckered with ME3).

[Vendetta]

So, somebody call me when Vendetta finally realizes that he's an utter dumbass for wanting me to give a crap about the plot when I already decided not to buy the game based on gameplay merits.

When Aaron explained it to you in small words, yeah. Given that the entire thread has repeated discussions about why the gameplay is bad, but you didn't seem to read and/or understand those....

Or maybe call me when Vendetta finally realizes I'm the guy who went to the Bioware forums, and started a thread that called out ME3's ending for being racist and offensive. Which, much to my surprise, hit over 1,000 posts and got linked as a reference by a few other forums to explain the reason why ME3's ending sucked so badly; and thus reached a wider audience than this useless little spat ever would.

Wow, you said the Mass Effect 3 ending sucked? You really stood apart from the crowd on that one buddy... I don't want to prick your Internet Self Importance here, but there were a hell of a lot of threads on the Bioware forums about how terrible the ending to Mass Effect 3 were. This does not make you a Hero of the Internet, braving the developers on their home turf (hint: developers at larger software houses literally never read their forums, they have special people to do that)

But nah, I doubt all this. Because Vendetta is so smart. So smart he doubled down on his idiocy by claiming "Zine is buying based on gameplay even with the plot is racist!", while failing to realize that most gamers (including me) do in fact look at the gameplay first (because it's a fucking game)

Sure, you're far from alone in being a dumbass who will buy racist product without thinking about it. I mean it's not like the largest entertainment product of the year is all about how mexicans are out to get the US or anything. You might not have done so in this case, but the implication of your argument is that if Far Cry 3 had been a really good mans shooting game you would have bought it in spite of its story, because you make your primary purchasing decision without even considering.

and then make a further determination based on the plot review whether or not to buy it (taking into consideration that plot evaluations are subjective, and some don't even want to look at them because of the possibility of spoilers; which is how I got suckered with ME3).

Y'see, people use the defence that story is "subjective" when they actually mean "I am too lazy to perform critical analysis", because some stories actually are objectively bad. You might have a subjectively positive reaction to them, and you might be bad at critical examination which allows you to recognise and compensate for that, but that doesn't mean that all plot evaluations are subjective, only useless ones.

And if you assume in advance that the story is going to be stupid, why do you care about spoilers?

[Tolya]

If you honestly don't see what's wrong with a game that is fundamentally designed to become less interesting as you go on, I don't think it's worth trying to explain it. It is wholly predictable and thus there is no excuse whatever (beyond trolling fat people).

I said the outpost mechanic in itself is repetitive and boring after 3-4 same camps. It is thus irrelevant if the realization of a boring mechanic leads to more boredom. At least for me. I usually stop doing boring things until they reward me with even more boredom.

Yeah, that is bad design, but I think it's less important than the boring repetitive outpost capture.

[Cykeisme]

One of my favourite games of all time is Red Faction Guerrilla, which I enjoyed immensely because it's an open-world game with (in my opinion) awesome combat gameplay with interesting missions and the trademark mutability of buildings. Of course, it had good enough plot (for a video game) that motivates me as a player, and felt great about causing billions of dollars damage and thousands of enemy casualties to the enemy faction.

So, since Far Cry 3 is an open-world game, that caught my attention; there is a possibility I might enjoy it, too.
I had two reasons not to buy the game already (that were covered at length).. the stupid outpost area-depopulation mechanic with sudden unexplained re-population during story missions, and the overtly white-supremacist overtones in the plot.
I need to state that in no way did I ignore anything Stark or anyone else mentioned; they described the parts of the game that suck donkey balls, and described them in detail.
What I wanted to know if there was anything positive anyone had to say about the game, or at least a summarized assessment of the game that also took into consideration any positives it may have. Aaron's "one-line review" was helpful in that regard.


On another note, Zine, do you have a link to the thread about ME3 you mentioned? Sounds like it'll be an interesting read haha

[Battlehymn Republic]

Here's a rather "overthinking it" type article that's an apologia for Far Cry 3's depictions, in the vein of New Games Journalism. I'll bold a few bits.

In everyday life we are surrounded by horrifying sights…We all know perfectly well that such things are ugly, not only in the moral but in the physical sense, and we know this because they arouse our disgust, fear and repulsion. Marginal as the voice of art may be, it attempted to remind us that…there is something implacably and sadly malign about this world.
- Umberto Eco, On Ugliness

The first thing that struck me about Far Cry 3 is how much I dislike Jason Brody, the character whose skin I am forced to wear during my time on the Rook Islands. He is a professional tourist whose life revolves around thrill seeking and excessive drinking, the perfect archetype of the rich, white, directionless mook. He is empty of ambition, a waste of potential with an asinine haircut.

In Far Cry 2, the player isn’t forced into a particular character. Rather, you can choose from a roster of characters of various ethnicities and backgrounds. I chose Paul Ferenc, a Hungarian-born Israeli national who made his way in the world as a smuggler and ironmonger. Like everyone else in that game’s war-torn African nation, Ferenc was there for little more than blood and money.

Beyond his biographical sketch at the character selection screen, Ferenc (or any other character you choose) is a cipher, but you at least know he is a man of action – you know that he chose to be an amoral mercenary. Brody, on the other hand, literally falls into Far Cry 3 by skydiving onto the wrong island. After a few hours of play, I am fairly sure the only choice he’s ever made was to live his life as a willfully clueless shithead. I would much rather be a man who makes bad choices than one who makes no choices at all.

After a series of set pieces in which Jason escapes the clutches of the psychotic pirate Vaas (whose menacing homicidal potential is on full display in the game’s cover art), you meet Dennis, a former marine who decides to help Brody save his friends and guide him, by way of mystical mumbo jumbo, into fulfilling his potential as a warrior. Dennis also happens to be black, a Liberian expatriate, and, for some critics, his appearance is the start of a downward spiral into problematic stereotypes. For them, he is a Magical Negro at the front of an army of Noble Savages, encouraging a White Savior to deliver them all from their troubles.

The problem here is that Dennis is obviously just as insane as Vaas, only in a less murder-everyone-violently way. He isn’t magical; he is a spreader of delusions – a tired cliche turned inside out and unsettling by the mania that infects the islands of Far Cry 3. Because Brody is an idiot or because he is reeling from psychological trauma, he buys in. He lets himself believe. From that moment, his entire journey on the island is a fever dream, replete with sorcerous tattoos and firearm vending machines.

That there is something terribly wrong with Jason’s fundamental perceptions is immediately apparent. Dennis explains that to become a true warrior, Jason must master the island by hunting its animals and exploiting its plant life. This is the only guidance Jason gets before getting shoved into the jungle, and it shows – despite the fact that the game clearly calls for Jason to skin his prey, the animation shows Jason removing the viscera and dropping the gory mess into his rucksack. As for the plants, he mixes them according to color for injection via syringe. These are not the actions of a clear mind.

The very first thing you see as Far Cry 3 loads up is a butterfly made of guns, a mirror image reminiscent of a Rorschach inkblot. This image of a beautiful and harmless insect formed out of the implements of violence is the first sign that what lies beyond is completely open to interpretation.

Brody’s long hallucination is populated with stiff, unfortunate stereotypes because that is how he sees the world. To dismiss that as a poor or insensitive choice on the part of the developers is to unfairly simplify it. Our job as players is to try to reconcile the dissonance within the game. Why do all the friendly NPCs have the same character model? Why do all the pirates have the same voice? Why is it so much easier to kill another human being than it is to kill a tiger?

Far Cry 3 is a game about games, and about gamers – the same way Naked Lunch is a novel about writing novels, and about writers. It is a mirror, a Rorschach test, allowing multiple interpretations about violence, racism, madness, trauma and a whole host of other unpleasant topics.

And if this philosophically hostile yet incredibly playable game was designed with the intent to simply pander to the impulses of our lizard brain, or made for some mythical every-bro gamer, then that is something we need to confront as well.

Last week, a very real mentally unstable man threw another man in front of an oncoming Manhattan subway train. A photographer from the New York Post captured a picture of the victim staggering to his feet and trying to climb back onto the platform seconds before the impact and his terrible death. In the ensuing uproar over whether it was right for the photograph to be taken or for the Post to have run it on the front page, the real story was forgotten – people took refuge in their outrage.

I am glad I saw that photograph because it is so awful a thing to see. It is a reminder of just how ugly people can be to each other, how horrible and unforgiving the world is. It forces you to appreciate how precarious life can be and just how much work we have to do to just not be overwhelmed by the rising tide of shit. It isn’t a good heart and a philanthropic spirit that drives us to try and change the world for the better, it is being exposed to suffering and madness and pain.

I would rather not see photographs like that, of course. I would much rather get my dose of darkness filtered through art and the written word and games like Far Cry 3 – flawed and pale in comparison to reality though they may be. Andre Serrano, the photographer behind the controversial piece “Piss Christ” once said, “I don’t see anything wrong with provocative art and… I look forward to the day when I can make work that will even disturb me.” So should we all.

The interpretation is being way too generous to Yohalem and co., yet could somewhat justify the dumbness of Far Cry 3. It's really reaching. But it is an amusing way of looking at how unbelievable the game's portrayals are.

[Ford Prefect]

it's a regurgitation of the things Yohalem mentioned in his interview. It was unconvincing then, and is unconvincing now. If it was true then the game would be really interesting and cutting commentary on how white people frame themselves, but the game itself just doesn't match up.

[weemadando]

The fact that the game can literally end with the "strong" native character being fucking thrilled that you've pumped her full of master race juice kind of undermines anything that comes before.

There are those moments in the game where you think "wow, are they actually going to go somewhere with what just happened?" and then they never fucking do. Unless it's to be more fucking racist. Because they don't fucking shy away from that at all.

[Alkaloid]

Man, remember when these games were about fighting a PMC for the right to shoot mutant demon monkeys, and the right to fight mutant demon monkeys for the right to not die. How was that the least dumb plot in a series of games?

[Aaron MkII]

I've never played FC1 but that sounds pretty damn dumb compared to the plot of 2.

[DaveJB]

The original Far Cry was really more the ideological precursor to Crysis than Far Cry 2, which was handled by a different development team after Crytek split away from Ubisoft. And yeah, FC1's plot was pretty abysmal even for the time, but from what I remember there wasn't really a massive focus on the storyline, and the gameplay generally made up for it.

[Battlehymn Republic]

FC1 was just a typical action adventure with sci-fi trappings. It had no pretensions.

[xthetenth]

FC2 was awesome and FC3 is uncomfortable at the very least because FC2 drags you through the filth and makes you part of the problem but it doesn't just make a few oblique references, it's aware that you're part of the problem and makes you own up to how in trying to help you propagated everything wrong with the situation and dragged it to new lows. FC3 does none of that, it's too busy being clever and trying to be subtle in a plot that's supposed to be about a guys massive hollywood fueled disconnect from reality. Why isn't it played like what you see through the player character and what is actually happening (and therefore everyone else is seeing) aren't actually the same thing?

FC2 did a very similar plot to FC3's intended one, but it catered to the player's assumptions, played everything straight for a while and then turned them on their head and showed you how bad you've made stuff while trying to help. FC3 just plays to assumptions and cliche and doesn't make a serious effort to confront the player with what's going on even at the end. It's not exaggerated enough to be obviously satire and doesn't do anything other than a few very subtle clues that are honestly the sort of thing that gets overlooked all the time. Subtlety and satire don't go well together, the point of satire is dragging people along like it's a serious work of the sort, and then take it to the point of unavoidable dissonance and keep acting as if you're playing it straight to show how the path it's following is ridiculous. There's nothing I've seen even FC3 apologists bring up that causes unavoidable dissonance.

[Stark]

The best part is the adherence to pre-judgements that these examples highlight. FC2 (and ME3) were immediately identified as bad, and thus people aren't required to contort themselves to justify their shortcomings and indeed can safely appear edgy and cogent by saying mean things about them.

If something is initially identified as good, on the other hand, it seems that that position must be defended. FC3 reviewed extremely well and early buzz didn't even mention these elements at all (bribery or incompetence etc etc), so they can be depreciated in favour of the incomplete statements of authorities.

Perhaps this is the explanation for the otherwise bizarre situation where xyz game will be lambasted up and down for its appalling story, and yet another game with a terrible story will simply result in a lot of fey smuglords saying 'who even cares I just want to shoot mans'.

I think the psychology of the online groupthink is fascinating.

[CaptHawkeye]

Combine that with all the outings over the past few years of guys and websites getting paid to give good reviews and you start to see a really nasty truth. The industry is dominated by a minority that has control of the means of communication. You're either in, or you're out.

[Stark]

It also means awareness and favour towards a title is how closely matched to its life-cycle: whatever people say at launch will be the narrative for at very least several weeks (long enough to make or kill the game) and afterward, when it is no longer in the spotlight, it may be that people can honestly assess it. The initial response (sometimes even the pre-launch response) becomes the dividing line that you must be on one side of. Like an unpopular game? You're an idiot. Dislike a popular game? You're an idiot.

If this sort of Launch Preview Blinkers effect makes sense, it probably explains all the nerd-hip games that explode with hype when 'discovered' and then vanish overnight as well. When you're sharing in a great joke and playing along with dozens of famous blogs, even the worst game can be good and an average game becomes a work of art. Once that's gone, however, you get day four of FTL's lifetime.

So I think the effect is more driven by the speed of communication and the breadth of sources people rely on for 'gaming news' (ie paid advertising) than IGN's review scores or whatever. The end result is the same, of course; critical evaluation is depreciated.

[CaptHawkeye]

Yeah, that's the biggest thing. Gaming reviews are just an extension of publisher's advertising circles. The worst thing about them is that they work. Because while guys like you and me can sit here acknowledging the problem, I run across average consumers talking all the time about games they should or should not buy because of a review score they Googled.

Then they pick up a game from a bargain bin years later that they were "told" to steer clear of and they think it's awesome and ask why a sequel will never get made etc etc.

[Vendetta]

I think that part of the problem is that videogames reviewers are basically fatnerds who struck it lucky and get access to the development of the game (in a heavily stage managed setting), so that they get invested in it as fanboys before it's even out (and we all know what fatnerds are like when it comes to critically assessing something they're personally invested in).

I wouldn't be surprised if there's a strong correlation between the amount of preview coverage a game has in development and the healthiness of its review scores in a given publication.

[Stark]

Yeah, many reviewers are Super Beta Testers. Remember that time Yahtzee got flown out to the Valve offices? I wonder why his tone changed! :V

As an example I remember Brink getting heaps of preview coverage, and it actually had previews saying THE SQUAD AI IS SO GOOD I DIDN'T KNOW THEY WEREN'T REAL PEOPLE. Two days later the review came out and said 'squad AI totally worthless, avoid this game'. From server populations the game sold well but the tail dropped extremely quickly and the game was basically dead a week in.

[CaptHawkeye]

It seems their are certain limits in how extreme the quality variation of a title can be before journalistic integrity does actually kick in. Or Bethesda is just bad at bribing websites?

Publishers probably just pick and choose what titles they want to have "sure" sales on. Bethesda probably looked at Brink before it was released, realized it was shit, and abandoned it to be skewered by the reviews. Publishers don't seem to have the finances to prop up every title they'd like to make big sales on. What matters are big name brands. So they put all their eggs in one basket.