tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3967694277763110629.post4621162896668140756..comments2024-03-28T07:16:05.720-07:00Comments on Experience Points: Lions and Jackals: The Politics of Far Cry 2 (pt.2)Jorge Alborhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04857765716032886965noreply@blogger.comBlogger10125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3967694277763110629.post-26544782216155176862010-05-26T17:21:16.705-07:002010-05-26T17:21:16.705-07:00Interesting post. I actually came across it lookin...Interesting post. I actually came across it looking for information on a sequel.<br /><br />With regard to civilians. It's a video game. The decision not to include them in civil game play has more to do with designing an interesting video game than completing the story. Throughout the game, civilians are referenced and interacted with (the "underground" characters), but just not seen during live combat. I see this simply as part of the design process, not part of the story.<br /><br />My main observation is about The Jackel. I had assumed he was undergoing some transformation as the game progressed. At first, he declares that he decides who lives and who does. Over time, his tapes become more introspective and toward the end of the game, he is overwhelmed by guilt or at least an imperative to end the killing. At least that was my interpretation. I thought his decision to sell arms below market price was confusing, but I don't necessarily interpret it as a strategy he has to end the conflict. He seems more like he has a moral awakening as he goes, but has no exit strategy from who he has become.<br /><br />On the soldiers motivations. At times you overhear them saying things like, "I wish I never got out of bed" and "why am I here?". Throughout the game, you see propaganda urging civilians to take sides and leaders even condemning the "cowards" who refuse to fight. You get the feeling that soldiers aren't motivated by anything other than self-preservation, like gang members who join gangs only to avoid violence at the hands of other gangs.<br /><br />The fact that the soldiers are really just civilians with guns goes a long way in explaining their incompetence.<br /><br />Anyway, just my thoughts. ;)Kennoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3967694277763110629.post-54842136304489485472009-06-22T14:24:33.839-07:002009-06-22T14:24:33.839-07:00Well damn, a number of much more articulate people...Well damn, a number of much more articulate people delved into some of the points I made in my other comment. This post brought up a host of other thoughts as well though.<br /><br />For Jorge:<br /><br />I completely agree with you in hoping the gaming industry can push the envelope on addressing and examining social issues. I think it goes a long way to establishing video games as "art" (a relative and loosely defined term to be sure) and it's going to take continued brave moves by publishers to put it out there. I would really like to see a game that really pulls it all together in its examination, or at the least, really opens up an issue, rather than a cursory examination or interaction with the problem. <br /><br />Can't wait to come home and give this game a crack myself.CitizenWillhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16252607783736010732noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3967694277763110629.post-7728832508667266252009-06-18T21:26:51.808-07:002009-06-18T21:26:51.808-07:00@ Helen
Thanks for stopping by. Its great to get ...@ Helen<br /><br />Thanks for stopping by. Its great to get those outside the "hardcore" gaming community involved in the discussion. I especially like people who focus in conflict resolution! (What school do you attend, if you don't mind my asking?)<br /><br />As for your questions: I don't believe there is much interaction with wider implications in games in general. Sometimes its not so problematic, other times its troublesome. For example, something like the Civilization series incorporates assumptions in the rules about how the political world works. Same goes for games not specifically political in nature. (There are, of course, games with no such concerns). Which is why I like writing about them so much. :)<br /><br />To be fair to FC2, they do have a black playable character, though he is Haitian, not African. The outsider element is important to the story as I see. That doesn't negate your point however. Its also interesting to not that though there are female mercenaries in the game, none are playable.<br /><br />I would also suggest RE5 is just as overt as FC2 if not more. The difference is that the first relies on images akin to ethnic stereotypes while the latter relies more on political stereotypes. Though again, neither is free of either tactic.<br /><br />As for the outsider, I would forgive FC2 the outsider trope because its partly the story they are trying to tell. That is to say, how outside actors are still intimately involved in foreign conflicts are not somehow sin-free. That being said, there is a dearth of native perspectives. <br /><br />So yes, the industry at large is lacking multiple perspectives that could better portray conflicts, Africa, and other political situations. But there is less of a clear answer as for progress. I wouldn't say just making an African character is an authoritative perspective. After all, how much does a mother in Lesotho share with a Muslim child in Somalia and a ex-combatant in Sierre Leone? <br /><br />I do absolutely believe the games industry can address these concerns. In fact, I think Far Cry 2 makes leaps in bounds in just bringing up a conflict situation in which you are not some magical hero. Trust me, its a big step forward. There are absolutely those in the games for change movement that will advance your concerns. As for the mainstream, I think gamers are increasingly open to the idea of non-normative compelling narratives. Its just a matter of time and effort.<br /><br />Sorry myself for the long response, but your comment warranted it. Feel free to email me if you have anything else.Jorge Alborhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09002928643693332446noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3967694277763110629.post-11435340949568655132009-06-18T19:32:04.128-07:002009-06-18T19:32:04.128-07:00This is a really interesting article. I'm curr...This is a really interesting article. I'm currently writing my phd in international relations (conflict resolution), and my boyfriend linked me to this article as he has had several rants at me about FC2 and the political implications of the game. So I preface this by saying I haven't played but I have both watched him play and spoken to him about it. <br /><br />I have two comments, both of which feed off what other people have said already. <br /><br />The first of which is to do with the image of Africa portrayed by the game. While this blog and us as commentors might ciritcally reflect on the implications, do you think there is a wider reflection on the implications? By being uncritical of the environment your white, male, macho character finds himself in you are perpetuating a colonial stereotype of Africa, which although not as overt as in games like Resident evil 5, don't challenge the status quo. Do you think games <i>should</i> challenge this? <br /><br />Which makes me ask my second question/point. Which is, why is it unacceptable to play as an African, or to have an 'every-day' life carry on? Other posters have spoken about the implications of civilians and I think Chris is very right when he observes that perhaps hte inclusion of civilians would further dehumanise the population. <br /><br />As long as you play the 'outsider looking in' you are going to have these cultural issues with games. it is more than a perpetuation of stereotypes, its a continuation of colonial understandings of African that disallow an 'african' perspective because it is implicitly bound in our colonial understandings of the continent as 'inferior'. Therefore, despite these kind of conversations which are important and meaningful, the gaming industry at large, and games like FC2 gratuitously feed on the stereotype and a) embeds it further and b) proposes no solution (which was said in the article). Do you think the industry can step outside this and contribute, or challenge these criticisms?<br /><br />Sorry for such a long comment. I really enjoyed reading the two parts. ThanksHelennoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3967694277763110629.post-16685088760284729822009-06-15T21:39:53.997-07:002009-06-15T21:39:53.997-07:00@ Clint
Thanks for stopping by! I'm glad you ...@ Clint<br /><br />Thanks for stopping by! I'm glad you enjoyed the post, particularly its late appearance amongst so many other thoughts on Far Cry 2.<br /><br />Technical reasons aside, which is completely understandable, you are absolutely in a pickle with civilians. The tendency for civilians to become background noise for the less scrupulous player is rampant. I've been playing Prototype lately, and if Far Cry 2 has similar interaction with civilians I would have been aghast.<br /><br />I feel for you. Aside from creating npc civilians which the player cannot interact with, I can see a proper depiction of civilians that isn't rife with its own problems. Even if a cut scene were to depict the repercussions the conflict, it would never hold the same weight as in-game interaction. I'm not so sure it would give agency to civilians regardless. I have no delusions that the task is easy.<br /><br />As for future games? Well, I'm patient. In the mean time, keep up the good work.Jorge Alborhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04857765716032886965noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3967694277763110629.post-16034132906981417562009-06-14T09:25:20.443-07:002009-06-14T09:25:20.443-07:00Interesting posts. Thanks very much.
I only want ...Interesting posts. Thanks very much.<br /><br />I only want to talk about the civilian issue briefly.<br /><br />First, please keep in mind that '3 civilians in a room' when you went to get malaria medicine was originally intended to be dozens of civilians with whom you could talk and interact with in a weapon secure area, where you would be able to bond and empathisize and not open fire. That was unfortunately scaled back for technical reasons. That would not address your point, I don't think, but it is the difference between what we wanted and what you got.<br /><br />Now - I am not convinced the game would be more meaningful with civilians. I think the presence of civilians might have lead to numerous distractions that would have dehumanized the population even further than does their absence. As in GTA or Crackdown... civilians would potentially become nothing more than 'background noise'. A bunch of civilians running around on fire while the player laughs would not increase his empathy, and I think that is more probably the way it would have turned out instead of what I imagine you would like: civilians caught in the crossfire, adding depth and complexity to the gameplay the same way fire or malaria does. Having a family trapped in the middle of the road when you are in a random gun battle with 3 guys at a checkpoint could in theory have added tremendous impact - but in practice I think the player would not have cared at all - they just would have been more 'AI without guns'. Think about how civilians intruding on a street gun battle in GTA feels. Do you (does anyone) feel the horrid repercussions of a public gunfight when this happens? No. Civilians in these games are completely dehumanized.<br /><br />Anyway it is certain that we could not have succeeded in delivering what you hope for WITHOUT civilians - I just suspect that what we would have delivered WITH them would not succeed at delivering what you want either - but for different reason (and that their presence might have seriously undermined the things you DID take from the game because comical civilian slaughter and generalized flaming mayhem would have trivialized any bond we could possibly have built).<br /><br />Finally. Putting unarmed and helpless civilians in a game this intimately violent - and then being able to burn them to death with a flamethrower - literally means your game is banned almost worldwide and the places where it is not, it is AO-rated and basically not for sale in most locations. In otherwords - the kind of deep exploration you are asking us to permit is not permitted in the current socioeconomic climate of games. I think it's unfortunate, but the reality is, *we're not there yet*. You can watch a movie like Hotel Rwanda, because hundreds of millions of people go see movies and that one can be made predictably profitable under a specific business model that is well understood. If 1 in 10k movie goers see it, it can make back the money required to produce it. Games do not have the bredth of audience. If 1 in 10k gamers play a game it is a massive failure financially. This makes making such a game impossible.<br /><br />I guess what I am saying is that, in 20 years, there may well be a place for the game you are asking for if we continue to expand our audience at the rate we doing so today. I really look forward to that day, because I may then be liberated to make the kinds of games you're suggesting.<br /><br />Sadly - it's a chicken-egg problem in the sense that it's not about which comes the first: the audience for a wide range of games or the games that appeal to a wide audience... they come together by slowly constructing that audience - by making games that surprise new people with what they can do and make current players ask for more from the next wave of games.<br /><br />I wish I could make it happen faster, but I'm doing all I can. :)Clinthttp://www.clicknothing.typepad.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3967694277763110629.post-41874992437951627452009-06-12T12:42:30.199-07:002009-06-12T12:42:30.199-07:00@mink
Although it may be a flawed or simplistic p...@mink<br /><br />Although it may be a flawed or simplistic portrayal, I agree that Far Cry 2 would have lost something had it not been set in Africa. <br /><br />Setting the game in Africa can definitely be a cheap way to cash in on the history of exoticizing and exploiting non-Eurocentric cultures, but it also automatically primes those of us who like delving into analysis. <br /><br />I think dealing with complex issues like race, gender, colonialism, etc. feels safer or more abstract in a fantasy setting. For example, Star Trek was a groundbreaking moment in TV in terms of progressive social ideals, but would it have even been let on the air if it wasn't sci-fi set in some distant land known as the "future?" I would argue no.<br /><br />Perhaps setting the game in Africa was an aggressive, if not subtle, decision meant to spur people towards analysis?<br /><br />@l.b.<br /><br />Excellent points. I wonder how the game could be modified to take civilians in to consideration? Every conflict in the game is resolved by blowing things up or killing people.<br /><br />In some ways, I felt like one of the civilians when playing Far Cry 2: I was almost never safe, people would open fire on me randomly and unexpectedly, I didn't know who to trust, etc.Scott Justerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11775296635863850847noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3967694277763110629.post-25194325161936277682009-06-11T22:05:27.428-07:002009-06-11T22:05:27.428-07:00@ Mink
Firstly, great question. I understand the ...@ Mink<br /><br />Firstly, great question. I understand the desire to set the game in a place that is environmentally unique, something western gamers are not familiar. Understandable, though I don't think they do enough with the environment to warrant that decision exclusively.<br /><br />Secondly, you're right. In terms of the politics motivating the Jackal and the slice of political reality the game presents, very little would actually change. It may not have resounded as well with Achebe's racism claims, but everything else would stand.<br /><br />@ L.B.<br /><br />Very well put. I wonder how the Far Cry 2 world would look through the eyes of your glorified hero. Though I would say your actions, or at least the goal you eventually achieve with the Jackal, is portrayed as heroic. During conclusion, it reads many civilians survived thanks to the work of the Underground. But I think you get a clear message that the real hero in the game is you the player. Not that helping refugees flee is bad, but its a strange tone tagged along with the rest of the games anarchic tone.Jorge Alborhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04857765716032886965noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3967694277763110629.post-24293813238439471672009-06-10T14:11:13.668-07:002009-06-10T14:11:13.668-07:00It's funny, I muttered something similar durin...It's funny, I muttered something similar during the RE5 debacle, Far Cry 2's depiction of Africa is much more dangerous because the stereotypes it employs are still actively used daily. <br /><br />I love that you go into the Achebe essay, it needs doing. Even the counter-arguments to Achebe's arguments applied to the game would the exact same. Conrad's book was a brutal critique of colonial idealism about how civilized everyone in these countries was. Although the natives receive a few nods of sympathy, they're mostly ignored or background noise while Conrad depicts a bunch of whites behaving like maniacs. FC 2, for me, seemed to be interested in having the player realize they are a psychotic murderer instead of some glorified hero. It's a critique of the modern FPS.<br /><br />The problem with either defense is that you're still ignoring the very people all the fighting revolves around and depicting them in the same demeaning manner.Kirk Battlehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16612840105075834275noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3967694277763110629.post-28147384430636005802009-06-09T08:57:44.625-07:002009-06-09T08:57:44.625-07:00Interesting engagement with racism, violence, and ...Interesting engagement with racism, violence, and politics in a videogame. I am wondering, something I often wonder about when it comes to many videogames, why didn't they just set the game in an unnamed, "imaginary" place that we couldn't easily associate with "Africa"? I would think this would have made the game less problematic in terms of race and politics (or at least certainly with the Western world's colonial, orientalist/racist lens), but probably would not have changed your critique on violence (or would it have- would the rabid, violence without origins be acceptable to you in a more fantastical setting?). <br /> What are your thoughts on this: would you have preferred the game to take place in an unidentifiable place or do you think its major problems have nothing to do with this? What would Far Cry 2 have lost if it was set somewhere else?minknoreply@blogger.com