So, I am back at my desk at MAXIMUM FORCE (kinda), and after halfassedly stirring controversy by being a jerk last week, I feel somewhat grateful to have sidestepped the furor about the "racist RE5 trailer." It's actually the second wave of furor, following the first one largely prompted by Bonnie Ruberg's Village Voice piece. Now revived, it seems, by N'Gai Croal of Newsweek's recent comments on the imagery, which you can find in detail at MTV Multiplayer.I know I'm late to the party, but I did want to weigh in on this. Now, let me preface everything by saying that gamers, as an audience, are used to having our medium attacked in unfair, black-and-white terms (no pun intended). For example, while everyone will concede that making the industry more friendly to women -- both as development professionals and game consumers -- is important, I think it's a stretch to call gaming "sexist." But that's exactly what happens a lot of the time, whenever the mainstream media finds a sexy picture of Taki or something. Even I, a fervent game fan to say the least, sometimes wonder if certain titles aren't little more than cheap, meatheaded violence, and whether such things aren't so good for us -- but again, a stretch from saying games are "obscenely violent."
Criticism of the industry is most often sensationalized, coming from the mainstream media, and ignorant enough to threaten the future role of games in our culture. Because of this pattern, it's easy to understand why we've grown sensitive to criticism of games in any measure. But following Croal's opinion on Multiplayer, the unequivocal condemnation from at least a chunk of the audience was so alarming that Kotaku Managing Editor Brian Crecente was prompted to comment on the negativity and incivility of the response on his site.
The large majority of angry responses I read on Kotaku over the end of last week were angry because of the idea that if the RE5 trailer is "racist," a game with all-white zombies would be "racist" too. Many of these commenters said that because they consider all human beings to be equal, they had no issue with the trailer as favoring one race at the expense of another.
I'm not sure why so many people assumed Croal was saying "Resident Evil 5 is racist." Certainly if any person fully equipped of his vision were to look at a black man and a white man standing side by side, that person would say, "these two people are of different races." Differentiation does not equate to discrimination; to recognize that some ethnic groups have adjacent social and cultural histories that others do not is not "racist."
Even the word "discrimination" is misleading, as that word simply means to tell the differences between one thing and another. Racism attacks differences; tolerance embraces them. The idea that tolerance means we're all utterly the same is fallacious; progress means to value equally the unique experiences of different cultures or ethnic groups.
It's best to read his opinion in his own words, but Croal's basic crux was that there is a painful social and a historical context associated with the imagery of Resident Evil 5. He was surprised that such a large number of people claimed they could view the controversial trailer without making that association.
Is it possible that some portion of the gaming audience is of an age that they did not experience the same concerns about cultural sensitivity that older gamers did growing up? I wonder -- do they really not see a problem, or are they so inaugurated to the defense of gaming that they refuse to see it?
So do I think the trailer is "racist?" No. As many of the angry commenters pointed out, whether the game is in Haiti or Africa, the population of those areas is in reality, in large majority, black. It would have been odd to throw bunches of white people or Japanese people or Italians or something in there just for the sake of diversity, true.
I think, though, we have an opportunity here to explore the power of games to prompt thought and discussion on humanity. This unsettling portrayal of this ethnic people as savage, frightening and "other" does indeed have roots in the history of civilization. And while we endeavor on a daily basis to value all of humanity and to dispel with unconscious prejudices, for a good many of the population, fear of those not like oneself is still a reality, even when they're not imminently aware of it.
Again, I do not think the trailer is inherently discriminatory, racist or wrong. But I find it deeply uncomfortable to watch. Do I, perhaps, have unresolved issues about people and cultures much different than mine? If I chose to accept the reality of the history behind these images, what obligations would it create for me in the present? These are hard questions to answer -- and I love that a video game trailer is asking them of me.
I'd love if we could use the context of RE5 to explore and discuss our reactions to certain things and how they do or don't translate to our real life awareness and behavior. Atrocious things have happened in human history; every noble nation has had its shameful moments, and religion could be said to have done as much evil as good. Croal is correct that we cannot pretend these things haven't happened -- but what matters is the context in which we employ the information, and what we do with how we respond to it.
The true ignorance, to me, would lie in overlooking the implications, the context of the imagery. Those who love and defend video games should be praised for their zeal, but they should not be allowed to be blind. Resident Evil is not a historical documentary; it's a fiction for the purpose of creating fear. But that doesn't make the methods it uses to create fear irrelevant; moreover, I think we should want our games to display certain realities of our experiences rather than invent worlds, invent cultures, to distance us from the things that truly unsettle us.
(For the record, I don't really identify with a single ethnicity or another; I'm a mixed bag, as far as heritage goes. My dad's half black, which makes me a quarter and subjects me to lots of "what are you?" Dad is black enough, though -- as black as "black presidential candidate" Barack Obama -- that he had maybe some additional challenges getting opportunities when he was young in that era and entering the workforce; people used to tell him, "You speak really well." Nonetheless, I don't have a particular agenda here; I'm not coming at this from the perspective of a black person, but neither am I someone who's had no experience with diversity.)
[Note: I know regular SVGLers don't need to be told this, but I'll say it anyway -- race is a charged topic, but let's keep discussion civil.]
60 comments:
As I commented on Multiplayer's post on the subject, I think the perception of racism, specially against black people, is a matter seen from very different angles depending on the country you live in.
That's not to say people in Japan, for instance, shouldn't be aware that this happens in the US, but they have a totally different vision, as a culture, on racism per se (and that's an awful word to use).
So yeah, I think it's a pretty bigger deal in countries like the United States, and such reaction to the RE5 trailer is the expected on that context.
But I do agree that, being racist or not, the trailer brings up very interesting cultural questions that everyone should be asking themselves. And that no, the trailer isn't racist.
But Chris' arms' muscles are just WTF.
Like most people, I read the abridged comments from N'gai and disagreed.
Then I read the full article ... and disagreed further.
I'm from South Africa, a place so beautiful and so scarred, with arguably the most institutionalised racism in the world (Apartheid). Even though I'm white, I think I'm qualified still to comment on racist issues (or lack thereof).
His general tenet was that RE5 used racist imagery. I'll agree with him if this was the first Resident Evil and no other information was available on the game.
Happily, this is not the case. He misses the irony when he says that he's astounded that some people "literally can't see" the racist iconography (his words) in the RE5 trailer - he himself cannot see that Resident Evil has a long and mildly in-depth plotline that spans multiple regions in the globe, with multiple enemies.
His real point, and I stand to be corrected, is that a white man shooting a bunch of black people is inherently racist. It is, when you're still boiling things down to black vs. white.
There MUST come a point when we ALL look past colour of skin to see the person within. In Resident Evil, it's protagonist vs. ... well, Evil. Evil is personified in many forms in real-life, yet we don't (hopefully) say, oh - a black guy is coming up to me, I'm going to get mugged, nor do we say, oh - there goes a white businessman going to steal more money from my company's pension funds.
Why are we still doing this in video games? I do appreciate that black history has been fraught with inequality, mistreatment on an epic scale, and systematic oppression. But we must, at some time, move on. I'm still pleased to call N'gai my brother, but I hope he's able to see past skin colour - it's hard, but as long as everyone tries, we'll eventually get a world where everyone just hates Jack Thompson (and I really mean dislike, not hate ;) )
Steve
P.S. Captain Pedantic alert!
The word is "furore" with an extra "e", Leigh :)
Oh, and I should also make it clear to those who only come out to RL once in a while, South Africa is no longer officially racist. That's not to say that the spectre of racism is completely gone, but it's a lot better now.
Go visit! But keep your wits about you :)
When he opens up the interview with "Clearly no one black worked on this game" it sets a tone. N'gai is a smart person, and I've always enjoyed his writing, so he has to know that it's a game being developed in Japan where there really isn't a large population of black people. As a culture, does anyone in Japan truly care about colonial history?
He talks about putting pressure on Capcom at the end of the article, but will the actual developers feel any of it? Capcom of America is going to get the brunt of it, but besides localization, I doubt they have any input on the game's content.
Should we as Americans be sensitive to the issue, I don't know maybe. But how can we honestly expect a completely different culture that didn't experience the same history to be aware of ours.
Where was all this controversy when RE4 came out and the people being shot at were Latinos?
I'm Latino by the way and was not offended at RE4's story, I took it for what it was(just a game)and the setting called for Latinos to be in that region.
Come on people lighten up.
So what now? Should Capcom just replace Chris with a black person?
would that make the shooting of other fictional black people okay? Sheesh.
Later Taterz
DC
Steve,
I really appreciate your comment. I think that perhaps some of these concerns are unique to the conscience of the United States, or at least, concerns us in a unique way. I also like the idea of looking beyond race relations to the larger story in the game.
And, given that I am American, "furor" is correct:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/furor
Careful! I was born spelling perfectly and haven't made a mistake since. :)
"That's not to say people in Japan, for instance, shouldn't be aware that this happens in the US, but they have a totally different vision, as a culture, on racism per se (and that's an awful word to use)."
See I really really honestly don't understand comments like this. I watched this documentary on HBO about the atomic bomb droppings on Nagasaki and Hiroshima. The interviewer went around I believe Tokyo interviewing people ranging from teens to people in their late twenties asking what happened in 1945 and they didn't know. So again, if they don't know/care about their own history how would they know ours?
@theremedy
Well they have a different vision of racism, and japanese can be royal-class assholes in some cases. I'm not defending this, I'm just stating a fact.
What's wrong with that?
I have to agree with jones m. and say that Chris' arms are seriously WTF.
But on a more serious note, Mr. Croal has a point when he suggests that the imagery in the trailer have their own power and history. There are many ways of portraying antagonists, but the combination of images that is seen in the trailer harkens back to a darker time for America. And it's different from the portrayal of Spaniards in RE4 (who aren't really a racial minority in the States, and should be viewed as different from Latinos).
Leigh, you and N'Gai both comment on the Africans as being "other", and it bears mentioning that this trailer makes no mention of Africans who are not "other" (like Luis was in RE4).
Of course, we are all criticizing this game based on ONE trailer. And Capcom's RE trailers haven't always resembled the final game. I remember the first trailer to RE4 that made it look like Leon was going to be a vampire or something and wondering what happened to that game when I was playing the final version.
Oh and I'm a Filipino-American if that has any bearing on what I've said.
Now if I may be a grammar nazi for a second: despite it's common usage, "different than" is commonly regarded as wrong. It's considered somewhat acceptable in America if the object of comparison is expressed by a full clause: "The campus is different than it was 20 years ago".
Leigh, your example should be "Do I, perhaps, have unresolved issues about people and cultures much different FROM mine" (not than). I'm sorry to bring this up, and I know that my writings are filled with their own share of grammatical errors, particularily regarding the use of parentheses and commas, but I am always annoyed by this particular foible of American writers, journalists and bloggers.
Croal's basic crux was that there is a painful social and a historical context associated with the imagery of Resident Evil 5. He was surprised that such a large number of people claimed they could view the controversial trailer without making that association.
Ok, I've seen so much reporting and commentary on this and I've yet to see the trailer or Croal's comments, and this bit (which most sane discussions point out--that Croal did not accuse racism, just history of the imagery) is where I get stuck trying to follow.
Commentators have described the contents of the trailer, so I have some idea of what the imagery of the trailer is, and it doesn't sound familiar to me. What exactly is the historical context of that imagery? I saw one place mention that the imagery is similar to that of white supremacy, but I've never been exposed to much white supremecist imagery... and I assume most people haven't either. (I saw Birth of a Nation mentioned at one point--unclear if it was actually meant as an example of this--but I don't think anyone outside film geeks have seen that either.)
Maybe there are old movies with few white men dealing with savage primitives in Africa, but, again, I'm not sure how many people would have been exposed to this.
Maybe I'm misunderstanding the claim being advanced about the issue (and maybe if I just watched the various things being discussed it would be clearer, but there's only so much time in the world, and internet video falls to the bottom of the pile).
Although I bristled at Bonnie Ruberg's initial response to the RE5 trailer as reactionary, I think the trailer does bring up issues about a lot of people's ability to seriously think about the issues of race and its historical implications. Many of the responses were/are of the simple and vehement white middle class race 'shouldn't matter' variety. Its hard to parse whether this is simply coming from younger gamers not directly confronted by a less culturally sensitive era like Leigh suggested or gamers unwilling to confront the fact that one of their most sacred franchises could step across such a threshold.
Either way in a sense both sides of the coin deny history. The trailer doesn't give context for place or purpose and that is why the imagery is provocative. There is a musclely white guy shooting stereotypically garbed black villagers. Without context the imagery is racist. Much as Croal suggested with how 'Black Hawk Down' was shot, it forces the dark-skinned people into the shadow of "otherness" without another side of it represented in the narrative. To deny that a white man walking around shooting 'mindless' black people isn't at least begging for context is to deny the last 600 years of history.
But, of course RE has its own history and imediately to me the Caribbean (where I thought it took place before the developer announced it was in Africa) or Africa was the perfect place to build a new game given that zombies are part of some of the myths and religions in various regions of both places. And as an RE gamer would know there will likely be some broader narrative and context (albeit a convoluted one), so some people decrying it as racist are in a way denying the history of the franchise. But really N'gai went out of his way to not call the game racist or say that Capcom shouldn't make a game with African zombies just that the trailer definitely has some historically loaded imagery. And the denial of that by a large swath of gamers to me is very worrying.
steveuk's response that we simply move past the colour of skin rings true as complete solution to many priviledged white people of today and indeed, in sentiment, is a sincere hope for the future. However, to achieve this ideal you can't deny what has gone before and just cease talking about the issues and consequences history has placed on us all to reach that place where skin colour truly won't matter in the context it still does today.
"Where was all this controversy when RE4 came out and the people being shot at were Latinos?
I'm Latino by the way and was not offended at RE4's story, I took it for what it was(just a game)and the setting called for Latinos to be in that region."
Because Resident Evil 4 had no Latinos - they were Spaniards as it was set in Spain. Further, the reason no outrage was caused is because there is no tense relationship between "whites" and Spaniards - or even Latinos, to an extent - as compared to blacks.
Saying that you took it for what it was - "just a game" - is ironic. I say this not specifically towards you, but towards others who use the same argument. One moment a gamer wants their medium to be treated as art and yet at another moment, when it can cause some controversy, it is lowered to the status of "just a game". Well, which is it? Again, this is no attack on you, just an interesting tidbit I've always kept in my head.
I understand N'gai's beliefs that there is an image associated with a white man shooting black men. There is no possible way for the history of the United State to be forgotten; indeed, it shouldn't. The issue at hand is that the connection is not made by the game but by our own prejudices and beliefs. It's an outside connection that generates discussion, which is always good. But it shouldn't detract from the game, nor should it place blame on the game or its developers.
Personally, I felt nothing that the characters in the trailer were black. I just took them as the characters in this specific game - maybe if it were a game commenting on racial issues, then thoughts would have flickered but it isn't. It's Resident Evil. It's not trying to comment on the social injustices to be found in the world. Or maybe it is and I'm not analyzing it thoroughly.
Still, I find all of this discussion of racism to be absurd. Again, yes, there is an association with whites and blacks but I don't believe we have to allow it to exist, at least in regards to what sparked the discussion: Resident Evil.
While I understand that the imagery in this trailer is racially charged and has a history, I think it's silly to imply that it's racist, or that it should be changed.
What were white zombies, are now black zombies. There's nothing further to read from that. I'll admit that it'll be somewhat of a concern if it turns out all the zombies are black, the bad guys black, and the good guys all white. THAT would be something to discuss, but so far in this trailer... well, it's just a trailer.
So what if it has a frightening racial history? The only reason you would want to bring that up is if you disliked it or wanted it to be changed, and I think either are silly because, in my opinion, it is more racist to imply that something should be changed because you can infer "racial undertones", because it implies "you can't put x combination of y people with z people in this fashion." Now, THAT is racist.
J.A: "One moment a gamer wants their medium to be treated as art and yet at another moment, when it can cause some controversy, it is lowered to the status of "just a game". Well, which is it?"
This is something I often think of myself. As I pointed out, in our love of games and our eagerness to defend it, I think some of us are still too willing to let it be whatever's convenient to the argument.
Leetdood -- I wasn't implying the game should be changed or that the game was wrong. The point is that some people will have reactions to those images and other people won't, and that we can use that to help think about our own attitudes. The most important thing I'm getting at here is that sometimes games can make us uncomfortable -- without it being the game's fault, and that's a really interesting thing to me, the potential there.
Leigh -- I wasn't implying/saying that you were, just that it seems to be the reaction of some people in general.
But yeah, it's interesting that issues can be created from media even when it's not contained in the media itself, but in society.
On the subject of RE4 and its zombies... I, as a compatriot to said zombies, think I can shed a bit of light on the matter.
When RE4 came out in Spain, two not-so-minor bits of the game's presentation somewhat spoiled the experience for us:
- the zombies, even though they were born and raised in Spain, spoke the wrong kind of Spanish. As in "why does everybody in La Mancha speak with a Mexican accent?". It's as if you set a game in Mexico and every character you met spoke like a Spaniard: not realistic, and it ruins the inmersion.
- the game's currency is the peseta... which used to be our currency until January the 1st of 2002, when it was substituted by the euro. Seeing a game with prices in pesetas was another kick in the groin for the inmersion.
And I'm leaving out all the stuff about having a huge lake in the middle of Castille, which sounds so ridiculous I can't wait to see it.
The bottom line is, some of us felt somewhat slighted. As in "these guys didn't even bother checking the facts about our country! They've made us look like the average Spaniard stereotype in the US!".
Now back on topic, the first trailer for RE5 reminded me of Black Hawk Down, but I was conscious that those black people were either zombies or future victims of whatever virus Cacom pulls out of its collective sleeve. Maybe a bit too conscious to notice that, after all, it looked unpleasantly like the stereotypical portrayal of blacks in white supremacist pamphlets.
Or maybe N'Gai Croal is reading too much into it, and so am I. In any case, I pray the game doesn't end up crossing that line. I hope whoever is writing the script doesn't make such a horrible mistake.
It's not about the skin color of the locals. It's about the fact that the locals are already beaten down, shuffle along like zombies, there's no eye contact, no trace of humanity there. The Heroic White Man(tm) walks through them like they don't exist, then they start turning into zombies (an almost imperceptible change from the way they're shown before), and he murders them all.
That's the problem.
As N'Gai pointed out, if those were Jews being portrayed there, people would scream "NAZI", because they were being dehumanized. Change the skin color to black, and all a closeted racist can see is that they're black, not the propaganda-film dehumanization.
If there were women and children acting normally, people interacting with the HWM(tm), and the T-virus change was visible, that'd be an entirely different trailer; it's still a touchy idea to have a HWM(tm) show up and save everyone, but it wouldn't necessarily be racist. Maybe the actual game shows that. The trailer sure doesn't.
@Mark Hughes: Just one question.
Have you ever been to Africa?
If the answer is no, then your comment is null and void, which I suspect is the case.
I'm actually from Africa, you see, and the demeanor of the villagers is quite typical in the setting - did you expect them to be wearing suits and discussing the writings of Marcel Proust?
Ok, that was two questions. My bad. As for the actual demeanor, well, Africans ... we just tend to get on with stuff. That may appear to you to be beaten down and dejected, but hey! Looks can be deceiving. Also, they are poor, third-world citizens who may not even have plumbing - what is there to be ecstatic about?
@Leigh: I thought you might use that loophole - therefore I should have checked my own facts. Mea culpa :)
I'll throw out a fancy phrase from my schoolin': interpretative frameworks. Depending on which tools we bring to the trailer, we get different interpretations.
I agree entirely with N'Gai about how the villagers are made into the 'other' well before they become zombies. I also noticed that Chris isn't just any random white guy; in particular, I noticed that near-fetish shots of his chest and arm muscles. I can watch the trailer without flinching, but I do wonder who let this slip out and what they thought about it.
This isn't the only interpretation: I like the idea that the 'otherness' developed in the early part of the trailer is part of the tension: it telegraphs that something is wrong before all hell really breaks loose. Maybe, just maybe, playing the role of the white man is meant to disquiet and disturb the player. But if we can't see the racist interpretation, if we deny it even exists, then we shouldn't be surprised when the game is released and it becomes a larger issue.
While I agree that the trailer is not inherently racist per se, I don't understand how people can deny that it's possible to read the trailer "text" as Croal did. Much like watching a film, the RE5 trailer can be read in different ways, and one of those ways is to see themes of dominance, power, and racial inequality. I think these themes are as obvious as a slap in the face, but not everyone thinks so. Perhaps as Leigh says, some people just don't see the problem because they've never seen the problem. Ultimately, I think ignoring issues of race (as well as gender, sexuality, class, etc.) in games is the worst thing we can do.
Unfortunately, N'gai has a point. The trailer is disturbing, in part because it uses an impoverished town populated by downtrodden black citizens as a setting to invoke fear. This plays on socially cultivated archetypes that only hinder the decline of racial prejudices.
But keep in mind that it is a trailer for a game about shooting zombies. With this game premise, should we expect it to be appropriate in any way?
Is there something deeper and perhaps more disturbing beneath this discussion? Are we, as gamers, trying to act distinguished by debating issues of racism in the portrayal of poor black villagers as evil zombies, while being entirely mute on the violent mechanics underlying the entire game?
If the violent gameplay was absent from the trailer, would cries of racism be heard? Or is it only in this context of aggression that the socially charged images smack of racism?
Since killing is the primary goal and mechanic of many modern video games, I'm not sure video games can really promote mature consideration of serious human topics, such as the historical connection between primitive black culture and evil. Having said that, I would like to see someone try. And RE5 could do that. Maybe that was partially the intent of the trailer. I doubt it, and I expect the only theme the game does develop is the old standby, "zombies are bad". If so, the trailer and the game will enforce the local news view that video games are corrupting our minds.
But I still hope its a darn good game that makes me weewee in my pants like earlier versions.
I'm really pleased with the points being offered and the opinions being shared here.
I also wanted to add, as N'Gai did, that it's true that we haven't been given a context for the trailer. And I do suspect that Capcom will rely more on the idea of zombies and viruses, as it always has, to create the fear primarily - probably even with cultural context of traditional superstition, like voodoo or fetishes and whatnot, as others have suggested.
And I also agree that the bottom line here is not the imagery per se, but the way we are (or are not) receiving it. Can peoples that are different from you be frightening when those differences are exaggerated, or at least put at the forefront, as they are here? Is that fear a valid part of the human experience, even if it's a dark side of it? And is it appropriate to experiment with that in a video game, especially given such loaded material?
Those are the questions that I think we're dealing with here. Personally, my answer to all of the above is a cautious yes - but they're very, very tough questions.
Here's hoping, though, that the real scare factor will keep on being good old T-Virus cells.
Oh, yeah - I also have to agree with the commenter who pointed out the alarming volume of people who distilled N'Gai's commentary into "RE5 is racist," when that is not nearly what he said. Scary.
We're getting "MAXIMUM FORCE" when we were expecting "MAXIMUM RISKY."
What?
I don't think there's much I can add about the content of the trailer that hasn't already been said.
The reactions of the commentators, though, are interesting. And I think I know why they reacted the way they did.
. . .
I've played plenty of RPGs. In those games, I have fought goblins on numerous occasions. I've encountered them roaming the countryside, killed them, then traced them back to their caves. Then I descended into their homes and methodically explored each room, killing every goblin I encountered and taking for myself anything they had of value. After I finished I'd check over my map and make sure I didn't miss any rooms; if I did, I'd enter them so I could kill any goblins survivors. Partially in case they had anything valuable on them, but mostly just to kill them. For the experience.
The fact that my Neutral Good Elven Wizard would rank among the very worst of war criminals if he was grinding his mobs in the real world doesn't bother me. Why not? Because goblins aren't people.
Neither are robots. Or aliens. Or zombies. Or bandits or terrorists.
Come to think of it, none of the people I kill in video games are people. They're obstacles. Games train us to think that way, since we're never given a choice NOT to kill the goblins - a lack of dialog options and Auto Attack scripts see to that.
And because since no one likes to perform repetitive acts that they find distasteful, games present enemies as obstacles without making a point of forcing the player to question his actions. Because if there's no alternative provided in the game (like in the case of an FPS), then if the game manages to convince the player that he's doing something wrong, his only alternative is to stop playing the game. Which is the last thing a designer wants.
And since gamers aren't encouraged to think twice about committing effective genocide, they definitely aren't being encouraged to look at the historical and social reasons behind their in-game actions. Especially the ones they don't have control over.
And racism is a touchy enough subject that the implication that someone might be racist is enough to draw out an immediate denial. Maybe that's not exactly what was being said, but people want to make sure that everyone knows that THEY aren't racist. You know, just in case anyone would have thought it. You can provoke the same reaction by obliquely questioning someone's sexuality.
So, in conclusion:
- Games, by their structure, encourage the elimination of obstacles, and require obstacles to be eliminated to progress.
- Consequentially, we don't think enough about the people we're killing in games to pick up on the presence of undertones.
- None of us wants to be racist.
I too find it alarming how many commenters seem to be (almost willfully) ignorant of the fact that N'Gai did not condemn RE5 as being racist. His issues were with the trailer, and Capcom's (probably unintentional) lack of sensitivity in its use of certain imagery in said trailer.
Also, while gamers are quick to point out that anyone who watches this trailer should automatically contextualize it within the Resident Evil universe, that's just not necessarily going to be the case. It my be true that the majority of gamers are aware of Resident Evil and its T-Virus-infected antagonists, but some--including parents of gamers, who may watch this trailer before deciding whether or not to buy the game for their kids--are not. Without prior knowledge of context, the imagery in the trailer can easily be perceived as racist. That's not the same thing as saying that it IS racist, or that the entire game is racist.
The argument that this is a game developed by a Japanese company, who don't have the same awareness of our history of racism, is specious. Capcom is an international game developer. They have offices in the U.S., and a U.S. marketing branch. While it may be fair to state that RE5's development team were unaware of any issues that might arise concerning race, the same can't be said for the American marketing executives who would have had to approve the trailer for domestic distribution. They probably should have known better, and that's essentially what N'Gai Croal was saying.
noc--"none of us wants to be racist"? If by "us", you mean the gaming community as a whole, then you clearly haven't played COD4 online, or any other online FPS for that matter. I'd say quite a few of "us" take a distinct pleasure in being racist. I'd like to think that those people make up a (sadly) vocal minority, but there's still too many of them out there.
Very true.
But I'm working on the assumption that the "I can't see how this trailer I enjoyed for a game I'm going to like is racist at all" set of commenters is mutually exclusive to the "Thank god there's finally a game that lets me shoot lots of black people" crowd.
If we lived in a properly Orwellian world, I'd be able to check. Hmm.
That's what I figured, noc. I was just using your post as an excuse to point out the racism that does indeed exist within the gaming community. Which makes it even more vital that gamers be open to discussing the topic of racism in videogames, rather than having knee-jerk reactions to anything we perceive as a threat to our hobby.
They're definitely part of the problem. But, I think, in a different way then we think they are.
Because in a way, hearing racist swearing over voice chat is comforting . . . it's easy to say "Whatever I am, I'm definitely not them."
And once I know that I'm not a "racist" because I've never spouted slur-filled obscenities at someone after one too many headshots, there's no pressure for me to continue with self-examination. Because we've got these thriving example of the opposite extreme so close, sticking ourselves with the same label we apply to them seems ludicrous.
And so we miss out on the subtle things, the little behavioral relics from a generation ago that don't quite jive with our intellectual position, but that aren't "bad" enough to "count."
. . .
I suppose it's obvious by now that I'm completely with Mr. Croal on this one. But yeah. [/soapbox]
I've never really seen racism before, I've heard about it, but for me it somehow takes on an element of fiction wherein a racist person would be likened to a psychopath from some slasher movie.
With few exceptions I think racism is a thing of the past and is best left in the past. Anyone bringing that sort of pain back to the present is a malevolent bastard, regardless of their race.
But as I said earlier, I really don't have any qualification for talking about the subject do I? So maybe I should just avoid this topic altogether and let other people argue about it.
@kyle g
Well it would actually be damn fine if everyone just forgot about racism and it ceased to exist from the planet.
Which I can't see happening anytime soon for lots of reasons.
Just today we had a member of the House of Representatives call Obama a boy. The fact that you like to pretend racism doesn't exist doesn't make it so.
@kyle g
You've never seen racism before? Do you live on an island, populated entirely by a race of beige people? Did you grow up in Willy Wonka's chocolate factory? Do you read newspapers? Do you watch television? Have you never overheard another person make a derogatory racial remark, aimed at another person?
Come on, dude! Seriously?
You know what? I give up.
@noc
I hate to have to correct a like-minded individual such as yourself, but since spelling and grammar correction seems to be a motif of this particular thread, I'd just like to point out that the word is "jibe" not "jive" in the context of your sentence. Please carry on with being right about everything else. :)
No, I live in Washington (state), populated admittedly by mostly white people where I live. I mean yes I've seen it on TV, but I've seen lots of insane stuff on TV... they tend to report the very worst and most sensational. I've also never seen anyone in a gang, or know anyone who's been involved with drugs. Do I just associate with better people?
I see different social problems. Poverty, single parent families taking care of kids, You know... dealing with real life and, on a bad day, death.
That's why I don't think I'm the best person to talk to about those sorts of problems. I've never heard anyone (regardless of race) mentioning those sorts of problems in anything more down to earth than talking about how crazy the OJ Simpson trial was.
And I think that's a problem.
Because, Kyle, our culture DOES have all of these funny little things in it - little images, modes of thought, and rationalizations - that have their roots in what was arguably a different time. But its all stuff that you don't realize you do, or think, until someone with a different perspective on things points them out to you.
A slightly off topic example:
Up until a couple of years ago, when something went particularly wrong in my vicinity, my stock response would be "Dude. Wicked gay." The first bit because I was a teenager, the second because I lived near Boston. The third, well, I didn't think anything of it.
Until I talked to someone who was. Someone who pointed out that, you know, casually throwing out their sexual orientation as a expletive might seem a little bit bigoty. (Bigotly?)
And that, even among otherwise friendly and supportive people, it gets very offputting if everyone does it. Without even thinking. Because, even if it's not intentional, the phrase carries a good helping of implied bigotry. We as a culture haven't quite conquered homophobia yet, but I like to think that MY little corner of it has . . . until I look at the clock, realize that I missed the bus home by half an hour, and go, "Wow. Gaaay."
And the corresponding knee-jerk reaction in this case is "It's not meant like that." "It's just something people say." "Its meaning has become divorced from its origins."
"It's spelled with an 'h.'"
...
Again, we both live in a culture that's got all these artifacts in it. They're ways that we think and things that we do without paying too much attention. And they may not be the sort of things that we'd want to keep doing, once we realize what they are.
So as a white heterosexual male who grew up in middle-class American suburbia, I may not have a very good perspective on the effect of race on society as a whole. But I've got a front-row seat in respect to my own thoughts and behaviors.
When I first saw the trailer, or read an article detailing where the series was going. I wasn't surprised at all. Its something that's made a series like this challenging, and worth keeping up with.
But on the topic about "why this?" In the recent interview video, the team director divulged on why its taking place in a rural area. What's more formal is how close to home videogames have become lately. With a series like GTA leaving markers behind, RE? didn't see that coming.
On the thoughts of racial discrimination? Um, none here. "The beginning of life" is what this rural area, losing its energy to. Honestly RE5 is more of a formal note towards global warming & a "what if" if Umbrella went elsewhere.
I feel that the team behind RE5 is only trying to take their series another step higher. Not just in storytelling, but showing how we as humans are taking advantage of so much more. Whereas other genre's take everything for granted, RE is a bit more towards survival and learning about how to overcome obstacles (not create them).
Food for thought: Being part of something, is worth more than nothing. But standing out from your peers is a neat gem.
Everybody else said the meaningful stuff already, and personally I find myself in the "didn't find it racists but can understand how it could be interpreted as having taht kind of imagery."
I'll just say that, once Capcom releases the inevitable trailer where Chris finds allies in the local population (who would be, yes, black), the whole issue will be smoothed over.
and yet there will still be no version on the Wii!!!
Ok noc, you've got me there. I've seen and heard examples like that too... but I never believe that anyone really means that. I assume people have good intentions until proven otherwise.
Also I think I said 'I don't know any racist people' or meant to say that if I didn't. I now know that I was wrong. I was talking about this whole thing over the phone with my friend Kendra she's black, so I figured she would know more about it than me. Turns out she's racist and doesn't find anything wrong with that. Now that gets me confused.
I always figured that black people were more in tune with it than white because it's part of their heritage. But I also worry that you find what you look for, and by looking for racism, or anything bad really, you'll create your own gardens of it.
Again, I may be way off base, Kendra even went to far as to say I was sheltered. Ok, that's valid. But is that a bad thing? Can't we be happy that at least one corner of the world racism is a non issue?
Noc, you said 'I think that's a problem', I'm not sure I understand you there. What it sounds like to me is you're saying 'you don't see it, and that's a problem, here let me show you' (and you did a good job of showing me btw that forces me to expand upon my initial statement and consider the implications underlying my experiences). But to me, I think that not having had any racist experiences is a good thing.
take a wild hypothetical example: You're with some friends and the topic comes up of losing a loved one. You've never lost a family member or anyone close so you mention that. You're friends call you sheltered.
Sheltered... like that's so bad? It carries that weight doesn't it? You're inferior for not having lost a loved one, lets go kill your dad. That will make you a better stronger person.
I for one am happy for every person out there who's never had to lose anyone close to them.
As I understood your statement that's pretty much what you said, and by extension you would have been arguing for a world with more racism in it. But assuming the best about you I'll assume I was dead wrong on my analysis and you meant something else entirely.
I think now I've muddied the water to the point where I cant drink out of it. Maybe I need some sleep.
Anyways, take care and try not to get too worked up over any of this. Just assume people have good fuzzy souls :)
Noc- I'm also from Boston originally, and I used to say "wicked gay" all the time too, about anything I thought was stupid, unfair, weak, lame, whatever. Of course I'm not homophobic, and for a while I thought that it was OK to say it because I didn't mean it "that way" and "it's just a word."
Took me a while to realize how classless and inappropriate I sounded. Had to train myself to stop it. Goes to show that nothing can really be divorced from its context, no matter what you think you do (or don't) mean by it.
And different things will always mean diferent things to different people. I currently live in a predominantly black low-income neighborhood where on the street, people routinely, in friendly greeting or normal discussion, call each other "nigger." They might have found a new context for the word, but I sure as hell am not going to try calling anyone that around here! Nor do I want to - while some of my neighbors seem to have found a way to be comfortable with that word, I have not.
Both cases in point: who's saying or doing something, who's seeing or hearing it, and the reason behind the communication all make a difference, whether or not that's fair. Context, context, context - that seems to be the main issue with the trailer.
And yeah, dudes, what's with all the grammar/spelling nitpicking in this thread? Is it easier to scrutinize the text itself when what's being said is a bit difficult?
...I am also fairly sure that noc's use of "jive" is actually correct, though I'm on my mobile and can't check.
Finally, thank you to all for making this the most luminous and respectful discussion on the RE5 trailer on the entire Internet. :)
I am glad that the images have provided the opportunity for introspection and academic debate for the well educated minority. However, by seeking out the negative interpretation, Croal is only perpetuating the idea of victimization, which is both culturally damaging to the african american community, and plainly obnoxious.
I also appreciate that you raise context as an important factor in this debate. I feel a great deal of criticism of Croal's response comes from the perception that he is taking the material out of context. To state the obvious again: the trailer does not provide 'evidence' that non-zombified african americans are the enemy, any more than previous Res games have for other cultures. It is not set in an era of american slavery, where black slaves are put down for being 'dangerous'; the protagonist is not betrayed by an black character; no caucasian woman is shown being raped in an alley by gang members, and there is no flora resembling cotton. The entire presentation seems devoid of context (or intent) to make it (the game) a topic of debate, without input from the greater, and largely unrepresented cultural issue.
And this is where I draw my greatest criticism: that grievances over ethnic history feel forced into the limelight. Perhaps not without reason (we can all agree that their academic discussion is healthy for the culture), but not without a cost to the presenter's credibility when the context is wrong.
Perhaps I am simply the wrong audience. I personally find the conversation largely detestable. While I am white (ethnically German), my family has no history of owning slaves. Furthermore, my family has a history of being enslaved (slave soldiers to the English, used to subdue the Welsh, Scots, and later the Irish). While I do not in anyway expect people to know that, I do find the "white people don't know about slavery" rhetoric arrogant and inflammatory.
I mean if this point of discussion is truly okay: should I (as an ethnic German) be free to complain about endless cookie-cutter Nazis being mowed down in a WW2 game?
OK, a note from a South African, living in South Africa (steveuk seems to infer a state of living in the UK... am I wrong?) 'dealing' with 'racism' on a day to day basis, as related to the RE5 trailer.
Racism exists. Racism will exist in 100 years time. I talk to perfectly nice people that have no pretenses of having strong feelings one way or the other... but THEN, once they think you're comfortable with them and they can 'trust' you, out come the racist comments in a deluge not unlike the fountains of bullets found in Ikaruga (I have to keep this game-related, somehow), as though this is all they think about.
As long as those people have children, racism will exist. The only racist people I *know* (or those that have a racist 'slant') have parents who are 'Raging Racists' (wow, great name for a game...). Just yesterday I was in a (long) queue (at what would be the equivalent of the DMV in the US) and an Indian guy (pointing it out) and myself got to talking about the nonsense we have to go through to get anything done at this DMV-like place and his passed experiences with similar institutions. We were talking for a full half-hour when, suddenly, the racism started. I neither agreed nor disagreed (this guy had whipped himself into a frenzy, I was standing right next-to him and the line was still V. long) just making a grating sound at the back of my throat to indicate I had heard what he had said, not even nodding.
This guy probably has children and he will teach his ideals to his children, simply through his actions and words, not even by telling them 'This is how you should think'.
Racism exists and it will exist for a long, long time to come. It exists in the dark corners and under the table, but it exists (like a Pinky demon).
Another reality is that 'colonialism sucked the big one'. It caused completely irreparable damage to Africa; I'm speaking about African colonialism specifically - I understand the whole of North America is basically the result of colonialism and, last time I checked, you guys are doing OK in the realms of world leading 'stuff' - like video games!
Africa is hurting badly as a direct result of colonialism. South Africa is hurting badly as a direct result of Apartheid. To fix the future, we need to look at the past. We need to acknowledge what went wrong and then focus on the future, but we can't forget the past and pretend like it never happened.
Taking these long-winded statements into account;
Watching the RE5 trailer made me uneasy. There's just something weird about watching a video (yes, I said it) of a guy (skin colour notwithstanding, seriously) being attacked by 'savages'. Even if they made the main character black, it wouldn't change anything for me. Portraying black people as savages is rather irksome for me. They should have focussed (more?) on the changing from normal person to zombie (I'm using that term as the most familiar) so that it would make sense that that was why they had become 'savage-like'. They did kind of show a normal day in the village and then that guy changing, but there was no focus on them being obscenely zombie-like. They still looked pretty normal while they were advancing towards Chris (no blood streaming from their eyes or overtly strange walking/actions). They seemed to be walking with intent and traditional weapons.
They've done their research. I've seen places *just* like the one portrayed in the trailer. That made it even more unreal - like, I've been there, those same buildings, made of the same materials and of the make-shift construction. They know what a modern traditional village looks like (I think they confirmed it's set in Africa). So, I'm irked more by the fact that this place is 'real' with 'real' people, living in a 'real' set of circumstances. I think Croal hit it when he narrowed the problem down to colonial history.
The trailer (and game) is not racist, but it rather continues a stereotype that is best left alone. I would prefer that the zombie versions of the enemies were more overtly changed.
I would *love* a part in the game where Chris is led, by the hand, by a small black girl/boy down some winding paths, in-between the buildings, to reach safety (not the other way around, ala Ico). That would be amazing. To show humanity amongst these 'savages' (zombies) is where the game will redeem itself.
There will no-doubt be 'normal' (black) people to converse with and even aid you in your quest, but the trailer is a bit of a bad showing and, like I said, should have focussed on a few things a bit more. While I doubt there will be much of a reaction here in South Africa (...) this is not the last we hear about this issue and I think we should all educate ourselves a bit more and ask questions, as the trailer did, of ourselves. Why is this an issue or not an issue, to you? Is it because you aren't informed about the history behind such images, or because you profess to not see 'colour' and that's as far as it goes for you?
When I watch the trailer, how do I feel? Why?
When I play the game, how will I feel about shooting black people that are represented at a time where realism in games is being realised?
How do I feel about shooting people, in general, in a video game ?
And yes, Gavin, you should feel free to complain about games with Nazis killing. Most games don't go far enough to draw the distinction between a 'normal' German and a Nazi German and then a Nazi German who isn't a blood-thirsty zealot, another stereotype best left alone. Nazi Germany was a whole other world, let alone state or ideology and educating yourself (not you, Gavin) about the history of the time period would put everything into context.
Thanks for reading.
I checked, and he's right.
"Jive" is the dance, the music, and the BS-ing.
"Jibe" is the coincision (?) and that thing you can do with a sailboat where the boom swings across at full speed and takes someone's head off.
I got knocked off the side that way once. True story.
@SteveUK
I read your comment about Africans in villages and how the scene in the trailer is pretty indicative of what the villages are like and I was compelled to reply.
I have to disagree with that statement. I am a Nigerian living in Nigeria, and my hometown is a village that has areas that are pretty much like that depicted in the trailer, and I have to say that the scene that Mark Hughes described (children playing in the streets, men and women going about their business etc.)is more the reality of my own experience with villages in Africa (not just my own might I add, and not just in Nigeria). They do not need to be 'in suits and discussing Proust' to be made more human.
I agree with everyone that said that the problem with the trailer is that the black people depicted in it are already 'dangerous-looking'. It portrays black people the way a lot of media depicts us - poor, wretched, dangerous, and sub-human.
Of course I do not believe that Capcom decided to make a racist trailer or game, BUT the trailer does come off as insensitive and in the worst case a scene based on ill-informed impressions of the location. (I am sure Haiti doesn't only have scary black people left in it).
I am very happy that N'Gai made his post and brought the issue to the attention of a wider audience (even though most people seem to be too blinkered to see beyond their own interpretation of his meaning) and I hope that other videogame companies will be moved by this to analyse the role that minorities can play in their games beyond the stereotypical.
I have a confession to make though, if I hadn't read N'Gai's post before seeing that particular trailer, I probably would have only had a vague feeling of discomfort from watching the trailer instead of full-blown awareness of what is in it because I was too busy looking at Chris' biceps and wondering whether all that T-virus exposure resulted in him becoming one of the Chou Aniki brothers :-x.
@Oliver: Full disclosure - I'm a South African / Englishman living in the UK at the moment. I was born in Africa, and I'm proud to say it's in my blood.
You do bring up some good points, and I especially like the one of the little girl guiding Chris the Meathead to safety. Unfortunately, Resident Evil is set in an environment of constant menace and general lack of hope.
Nobody seems to have considered that perhaps Capcom *wants* you to feel revolted for having to kill these poor wretched creatures? I know I'm playing Devil's Advocate here, but what if I'm right?
As for racists and racism, well, I'm afraid we're all racists at heart. It's a natural impulse to distrust strangers, and even more so with those of a different "tribe" (cavemen style). What makes us civilised is that we're able to override these natural impulses and treat others the same as we'd like to be treated.
Well, most of us, hopefully.
@Yegwa: I was exaggerating my argument to make it more persuasive - of course discussing Proust is not a condition of being human (although it is a pre-requisite of being an elitist snob ;) )
You raise some good arguments, but you have to give Capcom a break here - lots of games, movies, and books are based on impressions of places that are inaccurate - that's why it's called fiction!
So Capcom got it wrong, and it's mildly- to highly offensive to some. They're breaking new ground here! When's the last time you played a game set in Africa (that wasn't a crappy hunting sim)?
I personally would like to see more games featuring black people - eventually it'll just become "people", and we, as a people, move a step forward to being colourblind.
BUT. How many other game developers are now going to see the reactions to the RE trailer and decide that it's better to be safe than sorry, and keep their games vanilla white?
You said it steveuk. Now that the accusation of racially charged imagery has been raised, developers, probably to appease publishers, will whitewash all games. This is especially upsetting because the imagery in this trailer, as the fellow (or fellowina) from Nigeria mentioned, may be close to a realistic portrayal of certain locations.
Since N'gai is a prominent figure in the world of games media, are his comments unnecessarily setting this game up for trouble? And other games? Is there really a cat in the bag that has been let out, or did N'gai craft one, and now everyone will see the illusion? I'm starting to feel that his comments were perhaps irresponsible.
To be fair, I'm focusing on N'gai because he is a well respected and widely read figure in the games media. Others have made comments similiar to those voiced by N'gai, but Croal's words carry a ton of weight, and thereby have the potential to do more damage. Nothing personal, N'gai's reporting is fantastic. But he and others claim that Capcom should be careful and more responsible. I'm starting to feel that in this case the games media might want to seriously think about the effect that their personal interpretations of certain imagery may have on the gaming industry.
@Yegwa: Right. I haven't been to Africa, but have been to Mexico and throughout the Caribbean. The people there are often desperately poor... But they still behave like people anywhere.
SteveUK's background explains his distorted view, though. Being raised as a massa in S.A. clearly left him broken, and his views are null and void.
Ah! And the first ball of mud is slung on the . . . fourty-eighth comment!
An Internet Record, maybe?
I'm entirely on N'Gai with this one, alas. Capcom really should have known what reactions the trailer would get.
Tom Chick over at Qt3 made the best comparison for me - Bioshock. They knew that the killing a girl would cause problems, so was really careful to contextualise it. If they'd have released a trailer with just a bloke hunting down and killing a girl with the word BIOSHOCK over it, they'd have been slaughtered. They knew that, so didn't.
KG
@Mark Hughes
S.A is a different environment from Nigeria to be fair, and is a country I haven't been to personally, but maybe the reality of Steve's existence - in terms of the attitudes of poor black people there - really would be more antagonistic to a solitary white male packing heat and a muscle top :-) (my girlfirend argues it would be anywhere in the world irrespective of race!).
It is quite possible that the videogame industry would look at the reaction to the trailer as a sign that setting things in places like Africa would be more trouble than it was worth.
BUT, I do feel that even if they do that, it is better that they do and not continue to make silly decisions when they set out to make a game in any of these sensitive real world locations. Steve mentioned that it was progress that they were at least setting something in Africa that wasn't some sort of hunting sim, and I agree with that actually, I am sure that the trailer is not going to be indicative of the actual content of RE5. But at the same time, I do not want Africa to become the new fad amongst game developers looking for an easy 'exotic location' to set their games in and enforce negative stereotypes about regions that too few people have real-world knowledge of already. I really hated Black Hawk Down for example which just played on the 'black savage' stereotype in order to enhance the feeling of danger and tension. The film was entertaining, but left a bad taste in the mouth.
What I hope N'Gai's and others articles cause is for game developers to see games as a tool to inform and even educate! (Fiction does not always have to be inaccurate) and not just a tool for escapism and fantasy.
Nothing wrong with getting cursed by a babalawo - Yoruba witch doctor - in a game set in Lagos, Nigeria while portraying the realities of the city as a thriving and vibrant if cluttered and overcrowded metropolis (instead of in a jungle or bush environment).
Sorry for the long spiel, I intended to be short and pithy, then the post ran away from me!
Alright, continuing with the devil's advocate thingy, because I was disturbed by the trailer, though it really had little to do with race. What more context do we need? As far as I understand the trailer, poor sad innocent folk live in a village. Things start to get creepy, sure, the natives are black, but painting the characters white would have the same creepy effect. Then, the natives become zombies and the protagonist kills them. Before they are zombies, he doesn't kill them, or see them in any bad light. After they are zombies, he kills them. To repeat, paint the natives white and it changes little, except that nobody will see any improperly contextualized imagery.
Alright, I'm gonna go watch the trailer again before I make any more comments. maybe its brilliant marketing on Capcom's part.
OK, watched the trailer again, and yes, if you do not have prior knowledge of RE games, or perhaps games in general, you lack the context to see this trailer without potentially being disturbed by the racial imagery. It is also a little unclear that the natives being shot by the protagonist are actually zombies.
Hmmm ... some good points - especially the one that viewed without context, the trailer (and therefore the game) can be construed as racist, BUT ...
How many times have we, as gamers, gotten extremely ... irked ... that people judge the games we play by Chinese whispers and first impressions - aren't the detractors of the game doing the exact same thing as our good friend Jack Thompson?
@Mark Hughes: So, basically, you're unable to rebut my points, so you take a pop at my country? Nice one, you racist, you :)
JOKING!!!
An intriguing question would be - what if Capcom decides to deal with racism & (post)colonialism head on?
Having recently seen the film "The Constant Gardener", the idea of a large corporation intentionally doing its medical dirty work in a third world country is distressingly plausible... and can certainly be dealt with through a whit protagonist without much controversy, though "The Last King of Scotland" was criticized for using a white protagonist.
If the action we saw was simply prefaced by the notion that Umbrella was taking advantage of poor people to run its experiments we would look at the presented scenario rather differently with no change to the presentation or structure of the game or trailer - just in how we read it.
Such critiques are not uncommon in Japanese anime, if not their games. It is interesting to notice at some of the social commentary buried under "Ghost in the Shell" and other works.
Certainly in this time of gross corporate abuses, the idea that companies would willfully harm the poor for their own benefit is a legitimate thematic perspective... doubly so by placing the scenario in Africa or Haiti.
Can the RE5 trailer be read as racist or racially insensitive? Certainly. Is it useful to do so? Perhaps.
Clearly, the series has had a consistent anti-corporate theme and a healthy disrespect for governments and authority - something it shares with most computer games (and, perhaps, another reason games are a target of governments of late).
Right -- that's what I'm totally hoping too, that the disturbing context will actually be put to good use.
Welcome to the party. Ooh, maybe you'll get death threats, too :).
In un-RE5 related news, congrats on being a Kotaku-ite. As an ex-Joystiq-ite, I think this means we have to have turf wars, West Side Story style. Dance!
@ oliver
I honestly don't think a complaint would matter. No more than attempting to break converse with the average racists that propagate my current neighborhood. People are either on the ball and educated, or not and I haven't seen much evidence that they can change after middle school...
I've been debating about commenting on this article for sometime.
I don't intend to come out of left field with the "as a black man" speech. Nor do I want to speak for entire people, who, in part, may disagree with what I am about to say. So, I'm not going to.
Instead, I will say this: Thank you so much for sharing your thoughts about this subject. I feel as though your voice in the matter is probably the most reasonable and, most importantly, empathetic.
The lack of understanding regarding basic racial sensitive alarmed me (although a session on XBL can attest to that) because, to me, the images in RE5's trailer were just so blatant.
I do understand it's hard to look "outside the box in" it doesn't take a huge leap of prospective to see how the trailer could be seen as offensive.
Apparently, I'm in the minority in that concern. Pun intended... shamelessly.
Again, thank you for your words. They mean alot to me.
- Ian Riley
I have read a lot of comments in various places about this story, and a lot of the comments come off as if they are being left by serious racists. I think some of them are terrified that this game, which gives them the opportunity to indulge in a racist fantasy of extermination, may somehow be delayed be the controversy. Do they know who DW Griffith is? Any idea of the history of representation? Of course not. That is why it is being repeated.
However, when people with half a fucking brain come along and call bullshit, don't get your underwear in a knot. Just be a happy American racist having fun doing racist American shit, and let the rest of us point, laugh, write, and play more interesting games.
Post a Comment