Story Mode Controversy --REDUX

khzmusik

khzmusik

Hunter
Dead Smarty said:
@khzmusik tried to do that and it turned very bad very soon to a level you as moderator should remember. Don't try to trick me to going down that rabithole again please.
Click to expand...

The controversy was not about "shoehorning" a story into the existing game. (I never had a problem with that.) It was with the story itself.

For those who don't know, this is the story (as exists in the current game files - hopefully it will change later).

The "bad guys" are led by a corrupt, rich, murderous, untrustworthy "Casino Indian" Native American named "Duke Cassadore." His underlings, the Cassadores, are ignoble savages. (They may or not be the bandits in the game, that is uncertain.)

The "good guys" are let by a naive but noble, impoverished, White settler named either Noah Wright or Noah White. He is leader of the White River settlements.

Also, "Whiteriver" is a real town in Arizona, where 7D2D takes place, and it is basically the capitol city of the White River Apache tribe. So either Noah took the town from Native Americans, or TFP literally whitewashed the real-life town. (Take your pick.)

The traders who sympathize with the Duke and the Native Americans are Rekt and Hugh. The traders who sympathize with Noah and the White people are Jen and Joel. Bob does not sympathize with either.

The story is that you, the player, will choose between the Duke and Joel.

That is the entire story of this game, at least as far as can be determined from the game files. There is no satire, no self-awareness, no notion that this scenario is unrealistic, nothing like that.

Much of this is still in the unreleased "story mode" assets of the game. But much of it is not.

The portrait of a Native American in the game? That is the Duke. The portrait of the while guy with a beard and round glasses? That is Noah Wright/White. The blood-red flag with a stone arrow on it and a big "A" symbol? That "A" stands for "Apache", and it is the Duke's flag.

There is at least one POI where the inhabitants are strung up and murdered. The "strung up and murdered humans" assets in the game were introduced with this POI. This POI also has the Duke flag hanging over it, strongly implying (if not outright stating) that the Duke murdered the people in this POI.

Now, I want to make something very, very clear. I do think the story is racist. But I do not think this means The Fun Pimps are racist, on either the conscious or subconscious level. And I absolutely do not think that they intended this story to be racist.

Example: The "casino Indian" trope was hardly invented by TFP. It has been around for a couple decades now (at least). But it is an entirely false trope. Individual Native Americans cannot own casinos - only tribal governments can; profit from casinos must go to social welfare programs, not individuals; tribal casinos have never been hotbeds for organized crime; tribal casinos are required to make compacts with state governments (meaning any riches Native casinos make must also make the "White" state governments rich); and all of this is micromanaged by the U.S. federal government.

The "casino Indian" trope was not created by TFP, but it is a negative stereotype which is accepted by most people (who probably do not even know it is a stereotype), and it is used exactly as TFP is using it: to present Native Americans as corrupt, greedy, criminal, and antagonistic to White people.

There are an infinite number of reasons that a non-racist could create this story. My personal guess is that they like old Westerns, and also like Fallout, so a game that managed to integrate the casino from Fallout with the "cowboys and injuns" stories from old Westerns would appeal to them. But that is just a guess.

EDIT: If anyone is going to reply to this, please do not do any of these things:
  • Involve politics.
  • Assume the person you are conversing with is racist.
  • Assume the person you are conversing with is accusing you of racism.
I have no power to implement any rules about these things, but I assure you the forum mods do, and will.

Also, I fully expect this post to be moved to an off-topic post. That is a good idea.
 
Last edited:
I think it is more racist to avoid using native americans as certain characters based on their national and racial origins. I would agree with you if the setting was modern day America. But this is a post apocalyptic setting in which all societal norms and structures have been upended. Tribes control casinos in our world but after the zombies take over and the nukes drop, the same isn't necessarily true. The Whiteriver of the game is almost certainly not the same as the Whiteriver of rl Arizona. In the game world it is entirely plausible the original Whiteriver was destroyed and the new settlement is a rebuilt community that took the same name. There just is no 1:1 comparisone between the game's setting and current day real life America and that, in my opinion, is a key determination of whether the story works without being racist.

"Longmire" as a show probably needed to carefully walk the line of how a tribe uses a casino because it was set in our world in Wyoming and was used as a platform to address white/native american issues that are presumably common in the state of Wyoming. The Jacob Nighthorse character was depicted as being "in charge" of the casino, despite being one member of a tribal council of elders, and there was corruption depicted in association with his administration of the casino. Walt was the white sheriff who was Jacob's direct adversary. I'd be interested to hear your assessment of that show and what they got wrong or right. That show seems to hit every single point that you bring up AND it is meant to be an accurate representation of our current world and not a fictional near future dystopia.

Finally, as an aside, I don't think that Noah is being set up as the good guy to the Duke's bad guy. I think they are both going to be grey and ruthless in their own ways and you as a player will choose a side but not a good vs evil side.
 
Last edited:
Until we see the actual story, there isn't much we can really discuss about whether or not it's any good. Anything in the files has been there a long time and isn't necessarily even close to being what we will get in the final product.

However, since the discussion seems primarily about Native Americans, let me start be saying that I have Native American blood and have family who is half and even full Native American. So I think my opinions on this are at least somewhat more valid than someone who just thinks they need to "protect" Native Americans.

Let's start with the "protection" part. Native Americans are perfectly capable of protecting themselves. They are perfectly capable of stating whether or not they feel something is inappropriate or if it's fine. We have seen a lot of people with no Native American background trying to change things over the past years in order to "protect" Native Americans... without ever asking Native Americans what they thought. And in many of those cases, the general Native American response has been to wonder why anyone who isn't Native American cares about it and that it didn't bother them in the first place. My view, with my background, is to let Native Americans decide what offends them or doesn't offend them instead of taking offense for them. If they feel that the story is offensive, then others can take sides in that discussion.

As far as the story itself as it currently stands, which as I said is likely to be very different once the final story is added, it isn't really that big of a deal, even with my background. So let's get into the reason I think that. First, the little bit of information we've heard from the devs (it's very little, so may or may not indicate the final story) is neither faction is "good" or "bad". Both leaders will do whatever it takes to increase their power, making both of them very similar in their level of morality. If murdering the enemy will improve things for their faction, both seem willing to do so. In short, it's basically two powerful gangs who are fighting for control of the area. As such, there isn't any portrayal of Native Americans as being the bad guys to the "white" good guys. Not unless you personally feel that Noah's faction is good for some reason that likely won't be part of the story and would just be your own personal bias.

Regarding casinos, it is factual that Native Americans own a LOT of casinos around the country. Using that in the game isn't a negative stereotype. It is simply fact. Owning a casino does not make someone corrupt or greedy, even if that may often be the case. But showing someone as being that way when owning a casino is also not something that portrays all Native Americans as that. Every race has both good and bad people. If they were to portray a white person as bad (or even evil) and any other race as the good side, is that racist? No. It just means that specific person was bad. If that is true with the white person as the bad guy, then it is equally true for any other race. It doesn't become racist unless you are directly trying to make the race as a whole fit that portrayal or are using certain stereotypes in an obviously intentional portrayal of negativity towards the race, which from what has been posted in the OP, I don't see that being the case.

Even with stereotypes being used, if they are based on fact, they are not necessarily racist. If a company makes a game based during the early days of the US and it depicts slavery, that wouldn't make the game racist. That doesn't mean that company would condone slavery just because they depicted a factual part of our history. In the same way, if someone makes a game based in the time period of Nazi Germany and they depict Nazis and even if they depict the horrific treatment and killing of the Jews, if it is based on facts and is clearly not intended to portray Nazis as being acceptable or Jews as being inferior in some way beyond just having the individual characters holding those opinions so they fit the time period, that wouldn't make the game racist. That being said, yes... such portrays, even based on facts, need to be done with consideration for how they might affect those with a background tied to those events. One option (not the only one) is to make the story focus on a character who is opposing such things, showing that those actions were wrong even though you see those actions being performed in the game. In the case of this game, we aren't even close to such "dangerous" waters and can easily depict both sides as equally gray in morality and each trying for control and that keeps it from being racist at all.

As a final comment, hiding from the past or pretending it never happened, is not a good way to grow as a people. Horrible things were done in the past by pretty much every race (probably all of them, but I am not going to look it up to find out). Some are very well known - slavery, the Holocaust, etc.). Some are known mostly only in the region where it happened. Some things happened recently, and some things happened thousands of years ago. But none of that really matters. For us to grow and not make those same bad choices, we need to accept that they did happen in the past and use that knowledge to avoid getting into similar situations in the future. History should never been hidden or "washed clean" just so people don't have to face the fact that things did happen in the past. For example, if books were removed from schools that discuss historical slavery, that wouldn't fix racism. All it would do is hide how racism impacted people historically, which leads to people not understanding how bad things were at that time. I'm not saying things aren't bad now for some people, but hiding from the past doesn't help anyone. It is important to accept the past, both good any bad, and to learn from it. Even stereotypes are historical in some way. They may be completely off the wall, but there's going to be some truth in them that led to them becoming stereotypes in the first place. Understanding why they became stereotypes and learning from that can only improve things today and in the future. It is only when you are using such things to negatively impact others when it becomes bad. Depicting them in a way that isn't intended to negatively impact others is not usually going to be a bad thing.
 
khzmusik said:
Now, I want to make something very, very clear. I do think the story is racist. But I do not think this means The Fun Pimps are racist, on either the conscious or subconscious level. And I absolutely do not think that they intended this story to be racist.
Click to expand...
So are you suggesting it's ok if it were flipped? The Natives were the story heroes and the "white" people were the villains? Isn't that also racist? It's a game. I think you are reading too much into things. Evil has no color.

I feel like this is an ideological problem of the OP rather than an actual issue. Bigotry of low expectations is holding a certain class of individuals to a lower standard than others often disguised as compassion.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top