Is anyone else concerned about Far Cry 4's villain? (LGBT issue + mild spoilers)

Status
Not open for further replies.
No. Here's what I am concerned about though.

I posted it in the Ubisoft thread but it got buried, or people don't give a hoot about Ubisoft:


Just watched the Far Cry 4 intro on the Ubisoft conference.

Noticed the main villain looks a lot less Patrick Stewart and now looks somehow Asian.
Compare that to the initial revealed materials..

Far-Cry-4-Gets-Leaked-Story-Details-About-Protagonist-Villain.jpg


far-cry-4-guy-640x357.png
FarCryVillians-Thumb_medium.jpg


I think they changed his features after the controversy.
They made him younger looking, or just more Asian looking.

I like the twisted, power hungry Swede look, more than the whiny teen look.

Damn it, internet. You just had to go there.
 
Concern worth noting and putting on the backburner until the game is experienced first-hand.

I'd suggest not trying to pull sexual preference from visual representations and wait for a fact to come of it, such as the villain actually trying to seduce the protagonist or some other dude. It seems a bit offensive to make assumptions like that.

Game looks pretty great. Villain too. Looking forward to it very much.
 
For all you know, the protag is gay and the villain is a fashion obsessed psychopath with a wife and kids.

We need to stop looking for things to be upset about and reserve judgement until there is actually content to judge.

I'm not saying the villain is definitely gay. I'm saying that a possibly gay villain who is a despicable person, in an industry with very few admirable gay heroes and supporting characters to provide balance*, may not be the smartest choice in helping the immature gaming community warm up to the idea of gay people being a normal, common occurrence in video games. Fighting a unnoticeably straight male villain character is a non-issue compared to asking gamers to beat up and kill a gay man (assuming that's the case in FC4).

*I wouldn't even be posting in this thread if an abundance of normal gay people in video game plots were the norm in video games today.

Yeah, and the trivialization of those fears is also concerning.

It's not necessarily about how one particular gay character in one game is played as a stereotype, but how that plays into the aggregate.

I would caution this thread to avoid the strawman of the PC police -- nothing in the OP would lead one to believe that he was offended. Instead, he was raising concerns about the portrayal of gay men in videogames, and how Far Cry 4 could play into that. That's a valid concern, and it's not wise to shrug off the fears that minorities have of their portrayal in media with a "get over it."

Personally, I'm sick of the effeminate, gay-coded villain in male-skewing media in contrast to the study hero. It was old in Skyfall and Tron 2, and it'd be old if that's how it played out here.

Well said. I feel like a lot of the posters in this thread are 10 steps behind the conversation the rest of us are having. No guys, no one is fucking say that the guy "wears pink so he's gay and he's a bad guy and that's not a nice thing to do!"
 
For my part, I see less trivialization and more warnings at caution in this particular thread. There is so little information to go on, we don't know this character's entire role in the story or even his orientation. It's just too early to be concerned, and indicates oversensitivity to my eyes. Even if he does turn out to be gay and a villain, is that really such a problem if he's a well-written and meaningful addition to the story? Far Cry 3 had great villains, and I expect Far Cry 4 will as well.

I would also like to mention that it is a little bit ironic that the OP assumes this character is gay because of stereotyping. I suppose it's only natural to be on your guard about such things when you see them and they're often harmful, but flamboyance in villains who are never indicated to be homosexual isn't new at all, and this guy isn't even playing it particularly flamboyant yet beyond his appearance.

Eh, I don't really see that in this thread -- I see less of a concern that this villain could join the pantheon of gay-coded villains and what that means and instead of telling the OP he's being ridiculous. And I don't think it really matters if he's gay or not -- like many Disney villains through the years, they're coded in an effeminate way to contrast with their studly hero. It's not a new phenomena.
 
**SPOILER FOR THE LAST OF US BELOW**

A point in the OP was interesting to me. I don't find Ellie likeable at all. In fact, I cannot stand the brat. Just looking at her generates annoyance. Nothing to do with being gay; I despised her from the minute she showed up in The Last of Us, long before we knew her sexual preference. This is important to me for a few reasons.

1) It is possible to form an opinion on someone irrespective of their sexual preference. Indeed, this is how it should be.

2) Nobody is universally liked. Nobody is likeable as an objective trait. Likeable is a subjective judgment call by another.

3) If someone is not considered likeable and they are LBGT, that shouldn't be a reason for trying to dismiss the fact. As an addendum to this and #1, it's entirely plausible that their sexuality has nothing to do with it.

Anyway, in terms of FC4, I just don't see it. I saw a slightly unhinged villain with some unique by stylish fashion sense, but nothing screamed gay, stereotypical or otherwise. And the irony here also is that, from the trailer, I found him quite likeable and charming. As someone else said, he reminded me a bit of Heath Ledger's Joker.

I have no interest in the game and don't even really like Ubisoft as a company, so I'm not being contrary or defensive out of needing to make the game sacred. And without trying to seem dismissive of the claims of the OP, this seems, like many things in media, to be reading into things a little too much and seeing something that isn't there. A bit of a storm in a teacup, really.
 
I wouldn't take anything the OP says seriously.

everything she has said, is based on assumptions, ignorance and stereotypes. I wouldn't put it past this poster to make stuff up to fit her argument.
Yep, totally making that up.

I think it says a hell of a lot about you to think the worst of someone you disagree with and not take the time to Google for yourself before being an asshole and insinuate they made it up.
 
I am a member of the pachyderm community and I found this game's portrayal of my fellow pachyderms to be abhorrent! We are not all mindless beasts that aggro and rampage over the first NPC to fire at us, and we certainly aren't meant to be "weaponized"! Absolutely sickening!
 
We already had this thread. The consensus was it was a terrible idea to assume the guy is gay because he's dressed in purple.

Yeah, I haven't even consider in my deepest thoughts, that he might be a gay. This is just overreaction. Purple is the color of royalty. His hand on that man with grenade just shows he is just influential. Seeking sexual context in everything is just absurd.
 
Eh, I don't really see that in this thread -- I see less of a concern that this villain could join the pantheon of gay-coded villains and what that means and instead of telling the OP he's being ridiculous. And I don't think it really matters if he's gay or not -- like many Disney villains through the years, they're coded in an effeminate way to contrast with their studly hero. It's not a new phenomena.

YEah, people saying "We don't know if he's gay yet" are probably unaware of the history of this and what it has shoved down a couple decades of young men/women's gullets.
 
No. Here's what I am concerned about though.

I posted it in the Ubisoft thread but it got buried, or people don't give a hoot about Ubisoft:

I don't see it. Both images look fairly asian, you're always going to get slight differences between the cover art and in-game footage anyway. Why not un-pimp him to deal with the LGBT criticisms as well while they were at it?
 
I am a member of the pachyderm community and I found this game's portrayal of my fellow pachyderms to be abhorrent! We are not all mindless beasts that aggro and rampage over the first NPC to fire at us, and we certainly aren't meant to be "weaponized"! Absolutely sickening!

Deal with it, Dumbo
GET MY BAGS

well done, buddy! :D

On the other hand, though...
Yeah, I haven't even consider in my deepest thoughts, that he might be a gay. This is just overreaction.

What
 
Are you serious? What the fuck? People are sick.

Welcome to the real world. While you view it as sick, someone views the fact that we'll laugh as we mow down pedestrians with a car in GTA as sick. And someone else views the fact that kids discuss K/D spread in video games as sick. We are all racist, sexist, everything wrong with being human. Every single one of us. It's not a mindset, it's just part of how society is. That's not disgusting. Acting that out in games is not disgusting. Acting that out in real life is disgusting. You cannot hurt pixels. Don't imply you're somehow "better" than others because you're appalled by what they do for fun in video games. There are war vets that are disgusted by our love of Call of Duty, just like there are war vets that love it just like us.

Not that you implied that, I'm not saying that, this is more of a broad general statement of the "us vs. them" mindset that we see far too often in gaming. It's "us vs. us." Not "us vs. them."
 
No. Here's what I am concerned about though.

I posted it in the Ubisoft thread but it got buried, or people don't give a hoot about Ubisoft:

Yeah, no. Not only would they no have enough time to go in and change the character's look between the reveal and now but also, the character looks exactly the same.
 
Hell, even in Watch Dogs, where the NPCs are just mindless polygons that wander about, there were videos and reports of people seeking out and killing minorities just for the hell of it.
To be fair this kind of behavior goes back at least as long ago as GTAIII. I had a friend who liked to hunt down prostitutes and beat them to death with a baseball bat.
 
You can't have it both ways. If you want better LGBT representation in games, then that means having gay heroes and villians.

It's a problem with stereotypes, not the fact that the villain is gay. It's cause the villain is a stereotypical gay guy (assumed).
 
I don't even see the character as gay. He's a bit flamboyant, yes, but I see it as signs of arrogance, desire to stand out, and probably just a weird fashion sense rather than sexual preference.
 
Games like Manhunt didn't make the average gamer take to the streets and brutally murder people. Why assume Farcry 4's antagonist will make the average gamer hate gays? As a community we seem fairly dead-set that games don't inspire negativity (like when a pundit blames games for a mass shooting), yet we do a complete 180 when it's convenient for us. It's not a game's fault when an isolated loon can't differentiate between fiction and reality.
 
Dude, spoilers. Come on.

While I have a hard time seeing someone's sexual preference as a spoiler, I've put a warning above it. Can't really make the post any different or it would be 60% hidden.

Also, if that is really a spoiler, as in knowing it know will affect your enjoyment of the DLC or that someone's sexual preference should be this shocking revelation rather than an interesting footnote, then it's sort of really just highlighting the real problem.
 

Aren't some gay people in real life stereotypically gay?
I ask that as a rhetorical question, because the answer is yes, as I've met a few people through school who are stereotypically gay.

they might give off the "wrong" misconception that "All of _Insert category of people_ act like _insert stereotype that you don't like being associated with_"

I'm sorry, but if he's stereotypically gay, that's just the way he is. It might be that the developers don't know any other way of writing a gay character, but it might also be that his design was a conscious choice. I thought the new villain is awesome, as did friends of mine. We don't auto-assume anything about gay people.
 
I think it's legitamate to worry about the creators of far cry 3 handling any kind of subject matter well. I loved that game but the way it handled race/rape/homosexuality was terribly gross.
 
Welcome to the real world. While you view it as sick, someone views the fact that we'll laugh as we mow down pedestrians with a car in GTA as sick. And someone else views the fact that kids discuss K/D spread in video games as sick. We are all racist, sexist, everything wrong with being human. Every single one of us. It's not a mindset, it's just part of how society is. That's not disgusting. Acting that out in games is not disgusting. Acting that out in real life is disgusting. You cannot hurt pixels. Don't imply you're somehow "better" than others because you're appalled by what they do for fun in video games. There are war vets that are disgusted by our love of Call of Duty, just like there are war vets that love it just like us.

Not that you implied that, I'm not saying that, this is more of a broad general statement of the "us vs. them" mindset that we see far too often in gaming. It's "us vs. us." Not "us vs. them."

No, speak for yourself with this bullshit post. When I see the filth that some gamers type and say, there is a very clear "them" that I want and take no part in, and the people who are open and accepting of others are definitely a better bunch. Being offended by Call of Duty is nothing like having open animosity/hatred towards gays, women and and ethnic minorities. The latter actually has real world consequences toward how people get treated, the most obvious examples being the slurs some people have to hear in online games or the death threats received online or in the mail when being critical of any aspect of the gaming industry.
 
It's a problem with stereotypes, not the fact that the villain is gay. It's cause the villain is a stereotypical gay guy (assumed).

Stereotypical in what way? Sense of fashion? Give the guy a different haircut and clothes then play the intro trailer again to people and let's see how many people consider him stereotypically gay.

While I have a hard time seeing someone's sexual preference as a spoiler, I've put a warning above it. Can't really make the post any different or it would be 60% hidden.

Also, if that is really a spoiler, as in knowing it know will affect your enjoyment of the DLC or that someone's sexual preference should be this shocking revelation rather than an interesting footnote, then it's sort of really just highlighting the real problem.

It completely changes whatever impressions people would have had with Ellie and Riley's relationship. It's a spoiler, and if you consider it a spoiler you need to hide everything instead of just putting a warning message at the top, people can easily skim read the spoilery bits.
 
I think it would be interesting to have a gay villain. just because a character is homosexual doesn't mean he can't be evil.
 
No. Here's what I am concerned about though.

I posted it in the Ubisoft thread but it got buried, or people don't give a hoot about Ubisoft:

One is a concept art and another is a ingame 3D model, it's almost impossible to make those things look similar. I honestly doubt Ubi changed anything due to that ridiculous controversy.
 
Welcome to the real world. While you view it as sick, someone views the fact that we'll laugh as we mow down pedestrians with a car in GTA as sick. And someone else views the fact that kids discuss K/D spread in video games as sick. We are all racist, sexist, everything wrong with being human. Every single one of us. It's not a mindset, it's just part of how society is. That's not disgusting. Acting that out in games is not disgusting. Acting that out in real life is disgusting. You cannot hurt pixels. Don't imply you're somehow "better" than others because you're appalled by what they do for fun in video games. There are war vets that are disgusted by our love of Call of Duty, just like there are war vets that love it just like us.

Not that you implied that, I'm not saying that, this is more of a broad general statement of the "us vs. them" mindset that we see far too often in gaming. It's "us vs. us." Not "us vs. them."

What I wanted to say is I think profiling people with the intention of murdering them in a video game sounds like if the person doing that is trying to relieve himself, as in "it's a real shame I can't do that in real life but thank god for this game".

Hear me out, I do agree with you that we're all animals and other people might feel offended as well by what I do in video games (killing people and other stuff), but it's just not the same as hunting down black people or gay people.

I'm just saying that if I ever feel like running down people in GTA, I'm not gonna target a specific group of them based on ethnicities or sexual orientation.
 
I understand your concern but I disagree with your point of view.

I actually think that having only good gay people is a bit hypocritical and way easier than having a bad one.

I think we should see this as a progress actually: some years ago, Ubi would never have dared put an obviously gay character as the bad guy... too scared of the backlash.

Don't you think it may show that mentalities are changing...in a good way?

And your analogy with good white men and bad black man does not really work imo. Unless you fall into stereotypes, you can't know which character is straight or gay. You presume that when sexuality is not mentioned, they are straight... but you might be wrong: just like in real life. Whereas colored people can't be mistaken with white ones...

And also, I think women are quite often sexually agressed by men in videogames, why not a gay guy agressing another man? I don't think it's a problem.

Of course homophobic assholes will find a way of making bad jokes or being offensive... so what? Those guys will ALWAYS find reasons to express their hate. We should not create thinking of them, otherwise nothing will ever change..
 
Yes. But too many people on GAF will claim that any attention paid to gross bias issues is POLITICAL CORRECTNESS GONE MAD and that real equality means it's okay to shoot a gay dude in the head at the end of the game.

They have a point.

Being straight/gay/bi/trans/a woman isn't really important or worth caring about. It's only an issue when attention is drawn to it specifically to say "look how different we're being by allowing this person the privilege of being treated equal!." Just fuckin treat them equal already.

Right now FC4 villain seems pretty cool to me.
 
First it's like we want more gay characters. Now it's why is he gay? Just made your mind up LGTB community.
 
I think the reaction is a tad overblown.

Not ONCE did the question of sexuality cross my mind as I watched him appear in the trailer and take over with his charisma.

Perhaps one could make an argument that his purple clothes (royalty), undercut, and bombastic manner may be construed (even here, I feel like it's a stretch) as "stereotypical" of the negative portrayals that we can absolutely do without.

From his mannerisms, to his voice, to his demeanor, I never got the impression that he was anything but dangerous and psychopathic. Can we even say... "cool" (though I don't condone murder, obviously >.>)?

If this man is indeed homosexual, then I think it's a good step in the right direction in terms of their portrayal as opposed to the stupid and offensive shite you see in Japanese anime.
 
No. I think oddly enough by having the antagonist *possibly* be gay, it means that the character will be featured in a way that makes him a more well rounded, more fully developed character than just a one-off NPC or even a relatively bland main character (like in FC3). The solution to combatting homophobia isn't restricting the ways in which gay characters can be depicted, but rather in making sure that in whatever role they play (good, bad, hero, villain) they are defined by more than just their sexuality.

The villain in FC3 (not the final villain, but the one on the cover) was considered one of the more interesting, memorable and "cool" characters in the game. If they do the same thing with this character (again, who may or may not be gay), I think it could actually end up being a good thing. Idiots may confuse his evil goals with his sexuality, but those morons will have a bias anyway. If he's written well, the rest of us may easily end up seeing his homosexuality as just another one of the several characteristics that define this interesting character.

A million this. Those with predisposed bias and prejudice are going to have it regardless. They are not the majority. Most of us cringe when reading youtube comments, stand for equal treatment for all and have a general "live and let live" attitude.

As for stereotypes, they drive me bonkers. I'm a 6'4" white dude and if you ever had the misfortune of seeing me on a dance floor you'd stab your eyes out. When I watch In Living Color reruns and they show the token white guy acting like a fool while dancing I laugh my ass off. Why? Because that's me! Don't ever pass me the ball in basketball, either. My childhood friend Tre is AAfrican-American. His mom made (rip martha) THE best fried chicken i have ever had. I used to beg my mom to let me eat dinner at his house growing up. Is that a stereotype for African-Americans? I'm glad she liked chicken because it was the bomb.

I have gay friends that I ask to help dress me when I have interviews. Is that bigoty? They dress way better than I ever could so I value their opinions.

I think people just need to stop being overly sensitive and realize that most of us just associate certain attributes to certain races and genders not out of hatred or contempt but because some of them are just true. Not every time but sometimes.
 
he looks exactly the same

His eyes are much larger in the gameplay version, and he seems to have lost weight.

There's enough difference to wonder. Sure I get that it's CG and it's not going to be perfectly represented, but the first one has Patrick Stewart genes, and the gameplay one doesn't.


They look like two different people to me, honestly, whether it was changed or not.

a8b24d0f79c0a60a0e8ccfe78cdb3ceeace02778.jpg


FarCryVillians-Thumb_medium.jpg
 
No, speak for yourself with this bullshit post. When I see the filth that some gamers type and say, there is a very clear "them" that I want and take no part in, and the people who are open and accepting of others are definitely a better bunch. Being offended by Call of Duty is nothing like having open animosity/hatred towards gays, women and and ethnic minorities. The latter actually has real world consequences toward how people get treated, the most obvious examples being the slurs some people have to hear in online games or the death threats received online or in the mail when being critical of any aspect of the gaming industry.

That them is not a "gamers" type. That is a "people" type. There are people out there who truly believe non-whites are inferior. There are people out there who honestly feel that women are inferior. And killing minorities in video games in no way means they have an open animosity or hatred of them. People will hear those no matter what they're doing. In high school, there was a teacher who was fired for sleeping with a student. Both were female. Guess what, when this one dude was angry at her, he lashed out at that. That hurts someone. That has a real world consequence. That is an action that has repercussions.

Running over pedestrians in GTA or killing children in Skyrim or hunting down prostitutes in GTA, or minorities in Watch Dogs does not. It does not make the people who commit these acts any more devious or inherently racist/sexist/whatever-ist than the rest of us. It makes them bored.

What I wanted to say is I think profiling people with the intention of murdering them in a video game sounds like if the person doing that is trying to relieve himself, as in "it's a real shame I can't do that in real life but thank god for this game".

Hear me out, I do agree with you that we're all animals and other people might feel offended as well by what I do in video games (killing people and other stuff), but it's just not the same as hunting down black people or gay people.

I'm just saying that if I ever feel like running down people in GTA, I'm not gonna target a specific group of them based on ethnicities or sexual orientation.

Oh, for sure I think it's messed up that there are people who will do it just for that reason. I know people who wouldn't play San Andreas because CJ was black. I think that's incredibly messed up.

But I'm also not gonna sit here and tell you that I haven't played a large amount of San Andreas hunting down white dudes and kicking their corpses until they disappeared while saying blatantly anti-white things. Then again, I'm white so maybe that's just me hating myself? I dunno.

Regardless, everyone is inherently racist/sexist. It's how life is. As long as you don't treat people differently based on their gender/sexual preference/race/whatever then it doesn't matter if you're "afraid to walk on the same side of the road as the tattooed hooded guy" racist or "this is the south during the 1800s" racist. It's how you present yourself when it matters. IMO, anyway.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom