-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Far Cry 4's villain is not gay.
- Thread starter sjay1994
- Start date
InsaneTiger
Member
Too bad people stereotype colors these days. Pink, purple, yellow; they're just colors nothing more or less.
Delusibeta
Banned
And lo, the whole drama was entirely people jumping to totally wrong conclusions. Next time, only get out your torches and pitchforks when the information is released and known and not one second beforehand, otherwise you get a bunch of people looking very, very silly.
scoobidoo112
Member
No, no, no. You people are all wrong.
This guy
ensured me that the villain is gay and a horrible, demeaning stereotype.
And he's bisexual, so he can tell by appearance alone.
This guy
And he's bisexual, so he can tell by appearance alone.
SketchTheArtist
Member
Well, there's the fact that the game's written by a gay man which should immediately discredit any sort of homophobia attacks that were made around that pink suit. But whatever, that's just a detail.
Phrozenflame500
Member
This whole thing reminds me of Transistor, where
were gay/bisexual and I thought it did a pretty damn good portrayal of gay people by showing it as essentially as healthy or unhealthy as heterosexuality is.
Also I was also kinda perplexed why people thought the Far Cry 4 villain was supposed to be gay, he struck me as more Joker-esque than anything.
three out of the four villains
Also I was also kinda perplexed why people thought the Far Cry 4 villain was supposed to be gay, he struck me as more Joker-esque than anything.
Yeah, and? Dude answers to people and can still fuck up. The number of times that minorities have written horribly offensive content about their own kind cannot be understated. See: Tyler Perry, Eva Longoria. The number of minorities who arent self-aware and perpetuate and go along with prejudices of their own kind also cannot be denied.
But whatever, it's just reality. Let's beat up on a few people on GAF for being the least bit concerned.
Wow, what discrimination-free utopia do you live in? Please tell those LGBT people in Russia who are being jailed for "promoting" homosexuality and converting children that they have nothing to worry about. Or those politicians in the US like Rick Perry who equate homosexuality to a disease that can be cured that they didn't get the memo (no, really, please do). And who is this "we" that you think you're speaking for - all straight gamers out there, who've never uttered a homophobic epithet on XBox Live or held an offensive thought about a gay person? Mind telling me where you're all living?
Just because you apparently live in some bastion of equal rights and fair representation doesn't mean everyone else does. And I don't think this game is only being marketed in discrimination-free countries, or to mature enlightened individuals. Honestly, it's only too easy to imagine some 12-year old boy who regularly yells "fa**ot" at his competitors getting a kick out of "shooting the qu**r".
As others have mentioned, there's a decades-long history of these sorts of representations in other media such as films - the villain who's coded as effeminate, gay or transgender who the hero valiantly erases in the end. Hell, not just villains, but the "sissy" guy who's a coward, or the "sassy" gay man who gives advice with a snap of his fingers. They never explicitly say "I like men", but they don't need to, because our culture supplies all the information we need to "know" who they are.
It's outdated and offensive - so when one of these representations appears to pop up again in 2014 (whether intentionally or not), people are entitled to voice their concerns and call creators out for an explanation. And the response shouldn't be to accuse those critics of "jumping to conclusions" because they don't live in the same perfect world you do where "everything's already fine for LGBT people, so if you imply this stereotyped character is gay that means YOU'RE the one stereotyping!"
SketchTheArtist
Member
Concerned about what? Seriously. It was a cover with ZERO context and some people made up their mind about it. Being concerned with context and facts is one thing, but shaping the truth to what you want and then creating false controversy, like Kotaku, is another.
Don't you remember Kotaku's story about Blood Dragon being homophobic?
Crying wolf, etc.
You know what isn't reality? Video games.
Whenever I'm riding around on an elephant shotgunning fools, or flying above an island with a wingsuit, the last thing I tend to think about is the sexual orientation of the bad guy. I separate social issues from video games because I see games as works of pure fantasy; make believe, silly, nonsensical but enjoyable entertainment to be consumed. They are not reflections of the real world, just a heavily distorted parody of it.
Cyberdemon, Blinky The Ghost, Pagan Min. They're all the same to me. Just another clump of pixels I'll turn red or outwit. Nothing more.
The One and Done
Member
Your sexuality defines you
Sarcasm
FlyingSaucer
Banned
This. That kind of issues is too serious and too important to be left at unreasonable people. McCarthyism, playing terror tactics with cynically made-up cases is not a good way to rally people's good faith.
Bring it up if you want, but don't be surprised if you get a strong reaction from Chinese customers.
Spazznid
Member
Does that mean we can't bring it up, though?
We made tons of games about WWII and Germany doesn't raise a fit.
No, no, no. You people are all wrong.
This guyensured me that the villain is gay and a horrible, demeaning stereotype.
And he's bisexual, so he can tell by appearance alone.
The voice of a generation. Which generation?
All of 'em.
So if a publisher came out with a game where the entire point was to strip, mutilate and murder naked women or racial minorities, you'd be fine with it and wouldn't think it's misogynistic or racist, because it's "just a video game". Also, anyone who had a problem with it and criticized it would be "overreacting" because they don't understand "it's not reality!"
Well I agree it's not reality - but the difference here is that if that stuff happened in real life, you'd go to jail; because it's "fantasy" the game just gets called out and criticized for being horribly offensive.
Sorry, just because it's a video game (or a movie, or a book, or a song) doesn't mean it gets to portray all sorts of negative behaviors and attitudes or employ offensive language and imagery and get away with no criticism.
Tinfoilhatsron
Banned
Right Ubisoft sure showed us. The only mob mentality I saw was the backlash against the original person. No they aren't sending a message because no one learned anything on both sides. It's either a mistake on Ubisoft's part or contreversy to stir up sales and attention.
Edit:
Your posts are golden. I mean that they are seriously well thought out and awesome. I enjoyed reading them.
That doesn't seem like fun to me. It seems like its just going for the shock factor and little more. Where is the gameplay in just stripping a woman and mutilating the body? If thats the focus of the game, I'd pass. And not because I find it offensive, but because I play games to have fun.
Spazznid
Member
That's true, but it's a decision the developer has to make, not anybody else.
Tinfoilhatsron
Banned
So you don't find it offensive so it's a-ok? Not sure I get your arguement here.
EdibleKnife
Member
Would you chide people who did find this hypothetical game offensive though? Surely you must know that a game like that will definitely offend?
meanspartan
Member
Colrful suits mean gay. Ask any pimp.
Exactly. In the demo the guy never displayed anything that could interpreted as gay stereotype. And even if he was gay, why not wait until you see the product, maybe it would actually be a good representation. Instead it's an outrage over freaking nothing.
SketchTheArtist
Member
Some people are not putting enough good fate on consumers. If it's blatant exploitism, people sniff it out immediately and it just disappears.
Remember those?
I'd look at it like I looked at The Human Centipede - not a fun time, but not something I'd ever want to change just to suit me.
Surface of Me
I'm not an NPC. And neither are we.
Is something not allowed to exist if it offends?
SketchTheArtist
Member
breakfuss
Member
WAT? You know this for sure or is this like people saying the Frozen princess was gay?
Evil Monkey DTT
Banned
I like how this is like the third thread asking if the villain of farcry 4 is offensive or not and we don't even know a thing about the character you actually play as!
We know some stuff. His name is Ajay Ghale, he was born in the Himalayas but grew up in the U.S., and here's a photo:
Why does it have to be naked women?
There is a game called Madworld, where the objective is to mutilate and murder your enemies in horrifying ways. Those enemies are possibly white males, not sure because the artstyle is black + white (no pun intended) with lots of red.
Do you have a problem with that existing game as well? If you don't, then why would you have a problem with a game where females are also featured as "the enemies" in the same style? Hell, imagine that there is an option to change the player character to white, hispanic, black and even choose gender. Female slaughtering females? Why not? Female slaughtering lots of males doesn't seem to be a problem, just look at the new Tomb Raider. So I guess the problem is a male player character against female enemies. Or maybe even female player character against female enemies is an issue?
There is also a game called "Manhunt" made by Rockstar. Where the objective is like that as well. Enemies are primarily white males, including a few (?) black males, not sure exactly anymore, I played that game years ago. Same question.
At least afaik there are no female enemies in those 2 games at all.
I just have to look at all sorts of current videogames and it seems that it's totally acceptable to murder males of all colors left + right in absolutely horrifying ways. Some prefer all sorts of foreigners (e.g. Uncharted series). If you look at it from a realistic perspective, then all those games should be offensive as well. Isn't all of that misandrist?
The actual issue should be: Why is "murdering" and "mutilating" human beings being considered to be "mature" and "enjoyable" in a virtual reality.
I don't know, has anyone called for this game to be banned or pulled off the shelves? People have just raised an issue and hopefully communicated to Ubisoft that they think their particular depiction of a minority character is bordering on stereotype. Lord knows Ubisoft is getting plenty of messages these days about its treatment of female characters.
Is Ubisoft going to cancel or censor games because they don't include women or have unflattering portrayals of minorities? No, but maybe all the PR / marketing noise and feedback they get from their customers will lead their teams to take some time to think about how they treat diversity in future games. And maybe they'll make improvements based on the feedback they receive.
Or, you know, they could tell their critics to screw off, which is their right as a business. But at least they've been made aware of an issue that many people care about personally because it's been brought to their attention, rather than everyone staying silent because "it's just a video game" and "it's not important" - you know, as opposed to all the other critical world-changing things we complain about and demand they fix in future games, like sub-60 fps framerates, slowdowns and screen-tearing.
Handsome Jack was what? Where did they hint that (was it in a dlc?).
Where has it been confirmed that Jeffrey Yohalem is writing Far Cry 4? I know he did 3, but I figure he would have been busy writing Child of Light during the production of Far Cry 4 and I can't find his name attached to the project anywhere.
licktheenvelope
Member
Then we get another 20 threads about how the developers are pansies for only making protagonists straight, white males (and in Hollywood these days all villains are also pretty much white males).
Dr Amazon MD
Member
I don't think it has, actually I believe Ubi said it wasn't Yohalem but haven't revealed who the actual writer is. (please correct me if I'm wrong)
Good, the promise of a new writer gives me hope that the story and characters can pull me through the generic, formulaic Ubisoft open-world gameplay, where Far Cry 3 failed spectacularly.
Nothing1016
Member
Well this sure is a mess. I never thought the villain was gay just crazy, but I can understand how people might have had suspicion on his sexual orientation. Now to the degree of outcry seems a bit overboard, as they should've waited for facts and more info.
It's never outrightly stated, but it is heavily implied
Asher and Grant Kendrell were homosexual and married, not least because they shared the same name but due to dialogue and the way they are described in the Function() bios
On top of this,
Sybil Reisz was either homosexual or bisexual and was infatuated with Red. The entire reason Red and her partner were attacked was due to the Camerata wanting to cultivate Red's abilities (to sing, give hope to people, etc.). However, Sybil lied about Red's partner being there, hoping that he would be taken out of the picture and Red would only want to love Sybil as he'd be no more.
She waited for Red at the stage where she was attacked, but in doing so was taken over by the Process (hence why she is 98% processed by the time you reach her)
Death Penalty
Member
I'm glad this nonsense has been put to rest. I'm all for being sensitive to people from all walks of life and all predilections, but this was a truly ridiculous farce. It's one thing to stand up for those who need stood up for, it's another to make a "controversy" out of thin air and flimsy pretenses for the sake of this pervasive oversensitivity that seems to plague everything these days. There was nothing to go on to make this outrage, and the only thing that bothers me is that this will probably do nothing to halt or even slow the next explosion over shadows that might be gay or racist or sexist.
This medium needs more diversity, more representation, yes. But I just wish that there were more reasonable responses to that need. This is the wrong direction to go, and it's harmful from my point of view. I take comfort in how reasonable many of the responses to this were, that I saw. A really large number of people said that it was too early to say anything about the villain, and I find that to be a relief.
This medium needs more diversity, more representation, yes. But I just wish that there were more reasonable responses to that need. This is the wrong direction to go, and it's harmful from my point of view. I take comfort in how reasonable many of the responses to this were, that I saw. A really large number of people said that it was too early to say anything about the villain, and I find that to be a relief.
The issue is that this has been a trope since the days where homosexuality was considered a mental illness by the government. The SillyVillain thing has made way for metrosexual hedonist villains who invariably get killed or beaten by the hetero manlyman hero.
I'm part of the LGBT community, and it doesn't bug me that much, although I can see why someone would be concerned about the potential for casual homophobia.
hodayathink
Member
Leon's not gay. The whole reason he was so indebted to the guy he was working for was because of a woman.
Similar threads
- Locked