Indie Dev Removing Racially Charged Gag From Game After Complaints
201 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Stents*;42637151]How is a historical link in any way important?[/QUOTE]
It is important in the sense that the real-world act of burning a child was significant, horrific, and absolutely not an image that you would want to associate a spoken joke with.
That's not to say that an offensive joke can't be funny (they can be!), but every joke has its boundaries. For the sake of the joke, it is better to [i]suggest[/i] it than to actually [i]depict[/i] it.
idk what you're talking about
[editline]24th October 2013[/editline]
that's 3nonetwo's thing lol
[QUOTE=Vedicardi;42637075]this is the part where you research the concept of white privilege (sorry)[/QUOTE]
I really don't think that anyone who hasn't already bought it will ever buy the concept that they shouldn't comment on something (or should only comment in a certain way) because they, as a certain race, don't have the right perspective.
If someone doesn't stomach it the first time they see it they're not going to suddenly agree if they're told to research it a second time.
Like to be absolutely clear I don't actually care about the change made in the game. I dispute whether campbell, at the time of writing, actually got the joke, but I really don't care what the creator of the game wants to do with it.
But telling someone to read up on white privilege as if the phrase hasn't been on the internet enough in the past year or so isn't going to get anyone anywhere.
[QUOTE=Vedicardi;42637249]idk what you're talking about
[editline]24th October 2013[/editline]
that's 3nonetwo's thing lol[/QUOTE]
I thought you were talking about my comments about Jesse Washington, now I see you weren't
I think I'll take the original instructional video's advice for this thread now that I think about it.
My goodness. Is it Nine Twenty already?
I'm supposed to be having a back sack and crack.
[QUOTE=Reshy;42634084][IMG]http://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/images/BabyEating.jpg[/IMG]
Is this any better?[/QUOTE]
No racism. Its cool.
[QUOTE=froztshock;42637262]I really don't think that anyone who hasn't already bought it will ever buy the concept that they shouldn't comment on something (or should only comment in a certain way) because they, as a certain race, don't have the right perspective.
If someone doesn't stomach it the first time they see it they're not going to suddenly agree if they're told to research it a second time.
Like to be absolutely clear I don't actually care about the change made in the game. I dispute whether campbell, at the time of writing, actually got the joke, but I really don't care what the creator of the game wants to do with it.
But telling someone to read up on white privilege as if the phrase hasn't been on the internet enough in the past year or so isn't going to get anyone anywhere.[/QUOTE]
at least i can say i tried lol
[QUOTE=3noneTwo;42636643]The complaint [I]wasn't[/I] that the scene was racist. It was that the spoken dialogue (orphan) and the accompanying visual gag (impoverished black child) didn't match up, and the scene ultimately depicted a black child burning (which does have historical connections - Campbell recognized it was unintentional). Unfortunately, the combination of the spoken joke and visual gag delivered a mixed message. Campbell was sure that it wasn't [I]intended[/I] to be racist, but his initial reaction was that he [I]perceived[/I] it as such. That's the experience he had, and he raised his concerns with Wreden as a result - Not to ask him to [I]remove[/I] the joke (despite what he initially said on twitter, [URL="http://www.polygon.com/2013/10/23/5022434/the-stanley-parable-update-in-the-works-to-remove-offensive-images#192806399"][explained here][/URL]), but to provide suggestions on how to [I]correct[/I] it. Campbell's concerns are absolutely valid.
For reference, his comments from Polygon:
[url]http://www.polygon.com/2013/10/23/5022434/the-stanley-parable-update-in-the-works-to-remove-offensive-images#192769863[/url]
[url]http://www.polygon.com/2013/10/23/5022434/the-stanley-parable-update-in-the-works-to-remove-offensive-images#192800341[/url]
[url]http://www.polygon.com/2013/10/23/5022434/the-stanley-parable-update-in-the-works-to-remove-offensive-images#192770495[/url][/QUOTE]
I don't know about anyone else, but I thought the giving of the cigarette to the child was a pretty obvious parody to the attitudes toward smoking during the times the joke itself was a parody of.
[QUOTE=Mingebox;42637642]I don't know about anyone else, but I thought the giving of the cigarette to the child was a pretty obvious parody to the attitudes toward smoking during the times the joke itself was a parody of.[/QUOTE]
I personally agree with you about the cigarette — It fits the time period of the PSA, and contrasts well against the spoken line. But I do think Campbell's suggestion would have just as much visual impact without being overtly dark. We don't know for sure if Wreden is going to follow it to the letter either (I suspect not), but then it really is just a suggestion.
[QUOTE=MaikkiBoi;42629885]VIDEO GAMES MUST CATER TO MY NEEDS[/QUOTE]
Isn't this also what the people complaining about it being removed are doing though
any time the issue of the offensiveness of media comes up I see more offense taken toward people getting offended than I ever saw taken toward to the media in the first place
[QUOTE=Zeke129;42637793]Isn't this also what the people complaining about it being removed are doing though
any time the issue of the offensiveness of media comes up I see more offense taken toward people getting offended than I ever saw taken toward to the media in the first place[/QUOTE]
I haven't seen that many people in this thread disagree with "He's the developer he can change it if he want's".
[QUOTE=Stents*;42638001]I haven't seen that many people in this thread disagree with "He's the developer he can change it if he want's".[/QUOTE]
its more a matter of being annoyed that people brought it up so critically to begin with
is this whole thing really worth getting so worked up? we don't have a say in the dev's decisions, however the scene wasn't racist so I think it's pretty dumb to have 5 pages of arguing
A lot of people seem to be confused as to what Campbell's reasoning is here; this little excerpt sums things up pretty nicely, I feel.
[quote]I have no problem answering honest questions. My problem was multi-fold:
1. The images did not match up with what was being said in the dialogue.
2. The joke says that he is “helping” them (convincing a child to get hooked on cigarettes, which cause cancer), or burning down orphanages (instead, it shows him lighting one black child on fire).
When I spoke to Davey, I expressed that these things don’t match up and that the kind of message it gets across is “either help minorities by killing them with cancer, or light them on fire.” The joke itself is actually very funny, but the execution of this joke is where it ran ashore.
So we discussed back and forth and obviously redoing dialogue would be cost and time prohibitive. Ultimately I suggested the following:
1. Change the first image to reflect Steven ACTUALLY helping the minority (with say food or water, and this is a minimal edit to the existing image).
2. Change the second image to reflect what was actually said in the dialogue, and show Steven heading towards an orphanage with the gas can and lighter, but not actually showing it getting burned down.
We agreed that this wouldn’t be nearly as difficult and he was really cool about it.[/quote]
It looks like he didn't actually [I]get [/I]the black humor behind it, and he's actually just blatantly incorrect on his first point. It'll kind of dull the joke a bit if he goes through with these suggestions.
I suppose it doesn't really matter seeing as it's just one joke that has nothing to do with the point the game's making, and it's his game, not mine- but it still irks me.
You know, one of these days I want to see someone complain about being offended by something and the people responsible for it just turn around and say, "Yes, and...?"
that'd sure show them haha!!!
[QUOTE=3noneTwo;42636643]The complaint [I]wasn't[/I] that the scene was racist. [B]It was that the spoken dialogue (orphan) and the accompanying visual gag (impoverished black child) didn't match up[/B], and the scene ultimately depicted a black child burning (which does have historical connections - Campbell recognized it was unintentional). Unfortunately, the combination of the spoken joke and visual gag delivered a mixed message. Campbell was sure that it wasn't [I]intended[/I] to be racist, but his initial reaction was that he [I]perceived[/I] it as such. That's the experience he had, and he raised his concerns with Wreden as a result - Not to ask him to [I]remove[/I] the joke (despite what he initially said on twitter, [URL="http://www.polygon.com/2013/10/23/5022434/the-stanley-parable-update-in-the-works-to-remove-offensive-images#192806399"][explained here][/URL]), but to provide suggestions on how to [I]correct[/I] it. Campbell's concerns are absolutely valid.
For reference, his comments from Polygon:
[url]http://www.polygon.com/2013/10/23/5022434/the-stanley-parable-update-in-the-works-to-remove-offensive-images#192769863[/url]
[url]http://www.polygon.com/2013/10/23/5022434/the-stanley-parable-update-in-the-works-to-remove-offensive-images#192800341[/url]
[url]http://www.polygon.com/2013/10/23/5022434/the-stanley-parable-update-in-the-works-to-remove-offensive-images#192770495[/url][/QUOTE]
But there was no discrepancy between these?
The choices the man gets is "helping an impoverished third world country" or "burning every orphan within 30km of his home" (paraphrased), it wouldn't match up if he for some reason changed the kid between the choices because that would completely miss the point of the joke - both choices leading to the exact same thing
[QUOTE=Vedicardi;42637075]this is the part where you research the concept of white privilege (sorry)[/QUOTE]
what's with the recent surge of tumblr quality whiteknighting
[QUOTE=Simplemac3;42638378]A lot of people seem to be confused as to what Campbell's reasoning is here; this little excerpt sums things up pretty nicely, I feel.
It looks like he didn't actually [I]get [/I]the black humor behind it, and he's actually just blatantly incorrect on his first point. It'll kind of dull the joke a bit if he goes through with these suggestions.[/QUOTE]
That quote shows that campbell has absolutely no idea what he's talking about and probably wasn't paying attention during the joke, instead trying to stir controversy. I frankly don't believe he even tried to get the joke.
The joke is supposed to be that he [I]isn't[/I] helping them in both of the choices. There was no "specific orphanage" to burn down, or "minority" to help. Changing the subject the man is dealing with to two different children/minorities/anything completely breaks the point of the joke.
[QUOTE=Simplemac3;42638378]I suppose it doesn't really matter seeing as it's just one joke that has nothing to do with the point the game's making, and it's his game, not mine- but it still irks me.[/QUOTE]
It's actually perfectly decriptive of the ending you're getting, the "your choices don't matter you'll end up the same way anyway" as anything you do after you get the instruction video will always end the same way
It irks me, because the joke was perfectly delivered - there's no way to really change it without changing the dialogue that won't break the original point of the joke
[editline]i[/editline]
I'm never trying to automerge again it fucks up every time
[QUOTE=Irespawnoften;42638722]You know, one of these days I want to see someone complain about being offended by something and the people responsible for it just turn around and say, "Yes, and...?"[/QUOTE]
So basically every television sitcom with stereotypical minorities, gay people, or women (and yes, men as well) since the 80s?
Or AAA games? Or Hollywood movies?
You know, it's a [i]good thing[/i] that indie gaming is basically the one place where these discussions are happening and the developers are actually responsive to it. Mature adults notice when they've upset someone and strive to stop doing it, especially when it requires basically no effort on their part. This isn't censorship, and it doesn't mean that controversial issues aren't being tackled. In fact, it means [i]the opposite of this[/i] when there's a healthy, free exchange of ideas and beliefs. By saying that people's opinions should be dismissed just because they're offended by something, you're the one advocating for censorship.
[QUOTE=Zeke129;42639126]So basically every television sitcom with stereotypical minorities, gay people, or women (and yes, men as well) since the 80s?
Or AAA games? Or Hollywood movies?
You know, it's a [i]good thing[/i] that indie gaming is basically the one place where these discussions are happening and the developers are actually responsive to it. Mature adults notice when they've upset someone and strive to stop doing it, especially when it requires basically no effort on their part. This isn't censorship, and it doesn't mean that controversial issues aren't being tackled. In fact, it means [i]the opposite of this[/i] when there's a healthy, free exchange of ideas and beliefs. By saying that people's opinions should be dismissed just because they're offended by something, you're the one advocating for censorship.[/QUOTE]
if you're offended, don't buy it. it's as simple as that. you shouldn't have to change or omit content you've worked hard on because one person who's looking for something to be offended about is throwing a fit.
[QUOTE=butre;42639143]if you're offended, don't buy it. it's as simple as that. you shouldn't have to change or omit content you've worked hard on because one person who's looking for something to be offended about is throwing a fit.[/QUOTE]
This is something you wouldn't have known about until you've already bought it so that's a ridiculous argument in this case.
You're also not accurately representing what happened - nobody [b]had[/b] to change or omit content. The developer chose to. He could have ignored this person and nothing would have changed, but like I said, he's obviously a mature adult and decided to consider what the person was saying.
[QUOTE=butre;42639143]if you're offended, don't buy it. it's as simple as that. you shouldn't have to change or omit content you've worked hard on because one person who's looking for something to be offended about is throwing a fit.[/QUOTE]
how does anyone actually believe this
[QUOTE=Zeke129;42639146]This is something you wouldn't have known about until you've already bought it so that's a ridiculous argument in this case.
You're also not accurately representing what happened - nobody [b]had[/b] to change or omit content. The developer chose to. He could have ignored this person and nothing would have changed, but like I said, he's obviously a mature adult and decided to consider what the person was saying.[/QUOTE]
I didn't exactly go out of my way to make it clear, but I wasn't tackling this instance in particular so much as I was the last line in your post.
[QUOTE=butre;42639143]if you're offended, don't buy it. it's as simple as that.[/QUOTE]
What kind of argument is this, even?
You can't get offended by something until you actually... see it...?
[editline]25th October 2013[/editline]
Or are you saying you should buy absolutely nothing ever?
[QUOTE=MaxOfS2D;42639176]What kind of argument is this, even?
You can't get offended by something until you actually... see it...?
[editline]25th October 2013[/editline]
Or are you saying you should buy absolutely nothing ever?[/QUOTE]
or maybe wait until the offensive stuff hits the news because it always does since everyone wants to be an "activist"
[QUOTE=butre;42639185]or maybe wait until the offensive stuff hits the news because it always does since everyone wants to be an "activist"[/QUOTE]
Not everyone has the same idea of what's offensive though.
So in a nutshell, Campbell's accusations are a little bit ridiculous, but listening to his suggestions doesn't really hurt since it's not a very important part of the game in the first place.
It's still silly, though.
Apparently the developer's going to change it to the guy ABOUT to set the kid on fire, so i would chill the fuck out about this, he seems to know what he's doing and nothing will be removed.
I mean sure, it's so minor and unnecessary, but it got people talking about the game, didn't it ?
[QUOTE=Deep;42639338]Apparently the developer's going to change it to the guy ABOUT to set the kid on fire, so i would chill the fuck out about this, he seems to know what he's doing and nothing will be removed.[/QUOTE]
If the issue is with the kid being black, i can't see how that'll change anything
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.