I never even got the chance to know why everyone was upset.

As long as the game is good and isn't super insensitive for no other reason than pure shock value, I honestly couldn't care less. That was a promo image, like it or not it did what promo images are supposed to do. There is no such thing as bad publicity in a situation like this.

I really don't think there has been some big uprising of people crying foul over the promotional art. In reality I think there's been a very, very small number of people getting a disproportionate amount of exposure.

Gordan Ramsey.

All aboard the unfounded conclusion train!

I saw that same box art for Limited Edition on the same day that the other one was released. Don't care. It's just box art. As long as they aren't changing the story of the game because of sensitive people, I'm okay with it.

Bad guys are bad. I had a lot of fun killing slave owners in AC4. I was never offended that they were showing slaves and plantations (I'm a black dude). Fucked up stuff happens, and I think it's important that games be able to show them if we want to be considered a legit form of entertainment along with TV, movies, and books. Images should make you uncomfortable sometimes, but I think it's silly to draw conclusions based off one piece of art from a game we know nothing about. There was some fuuuuuucked up stuff in MGS Ground Zeroes that didn't get half the attention that this did. That required paying attention and understanding the context, not just crying over a drawing.

I don't know... all of this stuff is weird. I have no problems with bad guys being bad. I saw the FC4 cover as pretty fucked, but not racist. I see two Asian dudes. One is obviously the villain. Even if the two guys were different races, I wouldn't see it as racist box art. Was there this much outrage over the FC3 box art, where the darker guy has the white guy in an arguably worse position (with two probably-dead guys in the background)? If something upsets you, let people know. If you're getting upset over video game box art, however... I don't know... choose your battles, I guess. At the very least, see what the game is about and put some context behind it before you waste energy being upset.

@mb: Is there some way you might be able to change the misleading title of this post?

The OP and others misunderstood that they changed the cover, when this has always been the cover. It came out the same day as the promo image. Some gamers assumed that the widely-circulated promo image was the cover and are now upset over a misunderstanding. More people should not be misled by this silliness.

@truthtellah: I can change it, I just don't feel like coming up with a better one. I'm all ears though.

@mb: Far Cry 4 box art hasn't changed

@mb: Possibly something like, "Opinions on Far Cry 4 box art?" could work.

Anyway, as far as the actual box art goes I'm a little bit disappointed that the box art is just sort of bland. As someone said earlier in the thread it's a lot better from a compositional stand point than the promotional image, it's more balanced, symmetrical, and less cluttered. So sure based on the principles of design it's better, but it's not very evocative. The promotional image was a bit of a mess but it was bold, and provoked an emotional response. Even the sneering expression on the villain's face gave some insight into his character.

@mb: There isn't really a dedicated thread for this topic, so I would change the headline to something general like "Far Cry 4 Box Art/Promo Image Discussion". Then maybe put a disclaimer in the OP saying what the original title was and why it was changed.

I don't like his suit. I don't care if he's the bad guy and I'm not supposed to like anything about him - why should I buy a game with a guy in a bad suit on the cover?

It may be better if someone wanted to start a new topic and I'll just close this one instead of completely rewriting it.

That's really unfortunate. I prefer the promotional image, but it's not like I had any real interest in this game to begin with.

I always thought they were both Asian, but whatever. It's always the color of skin that gets Americans upset.

Regardless on whether or not people are correct to deem the image offensive, Ubisoft did a poor job reacting to the outcry. If they ever want people to take the Far Cry games more seriously, they need to be better at how they release information.

Now villains can't be white racists? I really don't understand how having an evil foreign guy getting attacked by the native population and then torturing said soldier really solicits racial implications. No one knows anything based on the cover other than the villain really belongs in an 80s action film.

That sounds like a reasonable solution. It seems like this specific thread was poisoned from the start by ironically hasty assumptions.

I personally think it's a topic that's a bit too young to have a meaningful discussion, as so much of it is based on initial reactions and assumptions, but if people want to just talk impressions or hopes for the new game, I'm sure they can make a better thread for that.

Whether it was changed or not, the fact that a stink was even raised to begin with was a load of nonsense. That's games journalism though.

The new one just looks really awkward.

The old one at least had an interesting dynamic with the one guy holding the grenade and the bad guy holding the grenade pin on his fingertip.

Anyways if I based my purchasing decisions solely on box art I 'd go with the old one. But since I'll probably be going digital it matters not at all to me.

The camp / glitzy Saints Row angle is pretty played out either way.

Would you consider people complaining about the made-up cover change also part of "games journalism". It seems like any time people are upset about something some gamers disagree with, they blame "games journalism" or some other random buzzword, but when people are upset about something they agree with, it's treated as the genuine voice of gamers.

Perhaps some gamers are just different from other gamers and not everything has to be blamed on some shadowy Other. It's okay if different gamers are bothered by and express concerns about different things, and it is natural that we might not always share or understand everyone's concerns. That we may share different concerns or lack understanding is no reason to dismiss the concerns of others.

People nowadays look for anything to get offended by.

Why is this thread title still not changed? Or better yet, why isn't this thread locked?

It´s official: People suck.

'Controversies' like this one only bring the point home even more.

I think the real problem here is that they're bringing back that terrible DLC character from 3.

Anyway, having the villain on the boxart is stupid. So this box art still sucks.

I really did not see the problem in the first place cover art is next to meaning less other that attention grabbing. Besides the last time i bought a game based on cover art was... never I looked at the back before buying anything.

All I care about is if the guy holding the grenade knows that he can just throw it, like, far away and not get blown up...he just seem really upset, and I think someone should tell him. If anything, the guy in the awful suit might wan't to cool it with the whole douchey "hand-on-head" thing...the dude's holding a live grenade, you might wanna give him the pin back or, you know, run like fuck.

I'm kind of glad they changed it, but only because the previous design looked cluttered to me

@sharkethic: Also, just look at that suit!

I would fully support a thread simply discussing how terrible that suit is and whether the game will include more of such horrors. More so than the apparent racism and cruelty, I am deeply disturbed by his grave crimes against fashion.

@truthtellah: That suit is awesome. If I could wear a suit like that I totally would.

I don't want to talk about this whole bullshitstorm Far Cry 4 generated so far, but I have to say, the other image was better. It made the self appointed king aspect more apparent, I think.

this is the most confusing thread

You are a monster.

Summary: Some people thought a promo image was the box art of the game, and once they saw the real cover, they thought Ubisoft had "changed" the box art due to some people not liking the promo image.

If you're confused why the thread still exists despite being based off a misunderstanding, I think it's probably because it's the weekend, and things are a bit more laid back.

@truthtellah: thanks for clarifying cause I was able to get none of that from actually reading it

You get on that, and I'll start a thread about his haircut.

@truthtellah: Don't be hatin'

Hey, if he was one of the crew from Saints Row 4, I might be able to forgive it, but as an evil Himalayan slave-holder, he hasn't yet projected enough awesomeness to make up for such ghastly attire.

Man, I cannot WAIT for covers of dudes staring at you to fall completely out of favor forever. It's such hot garbage.

I don't care about any box art. As long as they don't censor the game I'm fine.

Wow, yep. Just as some people predicted.

Some people predicted that some gamers would misunderstand and get angry that a change happened to the box art when no change actually happened?

@dan_citi: you want them looking disinterestly to the side like a Faith+1 cover?

frankly i quite dig the past couple Far Cry covers, something iconic about them.

Or that some people (Ubi's marketing team) predicted that one of the potential covers could be controversial and by being neutral with having more than one potential cover they opted for the less controversial one after seeing the Internet throw another hissy-fit

@colourful_hippie: I don't think so because they were showing this cover before anyone was even raising a stink about the promo art.

So do we blame the consumer/hobbyist for not double checking their facts by going to the publisher's official site? Or do we blame the staff of videogame sites that consistently insist that they're professional, ethical, trustworthy, and the place to get the "real deal" on videogames?

What the hell are you talking about?