Talk:Far Cry 5/Archive 1

Archive 1

Covering the controversy from the game's announcement?

There's enough opinion pieces that came out from just the announcement of the game that may warrant inclusion (including this apparently fake change.org petition to have Ubisoft cancel the game that some outlets have fallen for). However, per RECENTISM, might this be far too soon since almost nothing is known beyond what Ubi has said. I wouldn't hesitate to include this if we were a month or so from release and much more detail was known, but some were still critical of the story direction. But right now these could be taken as knee-jerk reaactions. --MASEM (t) 21:40, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

There is precedent for this. Bioshock Infinite took a lot of heat for its depictions of religious fundamentalism and institutional racism in both its contemporary and historical contexts. Even if this is as far as the criticism goes, there is sufficient media coverage to warrant inclusion, particularly as a lot of them discuss video gaming as social commentary and a composition being a product of its times. Just as Metal Gear Solid V: The Phantom Pain became a platform for a wider discussion about representations of women in video gaming, a lot of these early editorials are treating Far Cry 5 as a platform to discuss populism, separatism and fundamentalism. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 21:28, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

I agree, but I just want to make sure that we're not over-analyzing the situation here with as little known about the story and themes at this point. If that controversy continues as have more indepth knowledge of the themes and narrative in time, then we can then get into more detail. I think we can describe that it did hit a tone, particularly with the current political climate, but should hold off deep coverage for right now. --MASEM (t) 21:38, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

I think we have plenty on the themes already—the article quotes Dan Hay on what inspired the story and what he wanted to address. This isn't like Quiet in MGSV, where decisions by Kojima unintentionally undercut the character, but rather a conscious and deliberate attempt to address certain ideas, and both Hay and Ubisoft have been up-front about it since the announcement. I agree that we don't want to get carried away, so think that what I added to the article is enough for now—and if that's as far as it goes in covering the issue, then so be it. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 21:50, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

I think there's a bit more we can add, though I'm tracing it down right now, that Ubisoft has been careful in managing the promo of the game, due to the timing with the election and all; I think it's necessary to make readers aware about the timing of this. --MASEM (t) 22:18, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Not being American myself, I'll leave that coverage to the discretion of other editors. But it is worth noting (and indeed the article addresses it) that Hay conceived of the basic story in 2014 as a response to the rise of populism. We'll have to be careful not to overplay the development and the announcement coinciding with the election. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 22:27, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Agreed; the articles I'm seeing clearly note that Ubisoft had this route in mind as early as 2014, and no way could have predicted this so it suggested they are trending carefully. But there are articles like [1] that explain why this game may be controversial. I'm not 100% sure on the direction yet here. --MASEM (t) 22:30, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

We should just wait and see for the time being. If Ubisoft respond (and since it's Ubisoft, I doubt they will), then we can include that, but in the absence of anything new—like a news publication supporting the petition—we shouldn't add any further content. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 08:32, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

I did add a brief section that shows the media is aware this has the potential for controversy, and that they certainly do not think Ubisoft is making a politic statement with this, which sets the stage then for the petition. --MASEM (t) 16:01, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

@Masem — I would argue that it is overtly political, and that Ubisoft could not ignore or avoid that. A political act is any act that attempts to transfer power between people or groups. If Far Cry 5 was written as a response to the emergence of separatism, popularism, and the burgeoning far right political scene, then I don't think that this can be anything but political. As a narrative genre, it's clearly a contemporary dystopian Western, depicting the rise of an extreme fundamentalist religious body as the ultimate manifestation of current socio-political trends, and positioning it on the physical frontier of Montana and the ideological frontier of radical grassroots political activism.

Besides, Ubisoft have form in this area. Far Cry 4 was a critical examination of the nature of tyranny and our understanding of it; Pagan Min was evil, but it was an evil born out of his complex and sympathetic psychology rather than a latent, innate evil that defined him from birth, and Ajay was arguably just as bad in "murdering [his] way up the mountain". Despite priding ourselves on our opposition to tyranny, we failed to recognise it in ourselves and happily committed acts of tyranny a thousand times over in the name of an objective that was never fully realised. Likewise, Ghost Recon Wildlands is a condemnation of US foreign policy and the culture of intervening for popular causes; El Sueño and Santa Blanca are substitutes for ISIL—both practice a violent, pseudo-religious ideology and prey upon a vulnerable population—and the game questions what the world will look like thirty years after we "won" the war and left the region to its own devices without support because we expect Western values to fill the void we create, even when those values are not completely compatible with the local culture and its values.

Ubisoft have a history of making politically-charged games, and since the medium enables an audience to directly participate in events (rather than merely observe them, as is the case with a film), video gaming is an ideal platform for a dicussion about the relationship between fundamentalism, separatism and populism. But since I'm not a gaming journalist, I guess that point is moot until I can find a source to support it. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 03:56, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Oh, I meant that yes, Ubisoft is tackling a political statement as in their previous games, but from the sources, since games take years to make, the journalists do not likely believe that Ubi's intent was to make a game commenting on today's political environment that only came about in the last year. All the Far Cry games have had a bit of political controversy , but this coincidentally is at a awkward time. --MASEM (t) 04:24, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

@Masem — I see you've added a suggested source to this page. What's the gist of it? It's the BBC, and their mobile site isn't great. I might be able to work it in to the article. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 08:50, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

That the game's announcement stirred controversy but that per Hay it wasn't meant to be anything specific, just exploring the idea of what could happen with some of the themes taken to certain extremes, but still not trying to connect to any current events. --MASEM (t) 13:25, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

@Masem — got it, thanks. Could you please double-check the reference details? I'm missing the author, date of publication, and I'm not sure about the title. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 21:38, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 March 2018

Request to add Giant Bomb's Far Cry 5 review to this page, as below: Lukebudworth (talk) 19:26, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. — IVORK _Discuss 21:27, 27 March 2018 (UTC)