Thought/Process: More on Resident Evil 5 and Uncomfortable Echoes

Comments

• 
  smurkas

  3/22/2009 7:15:09 PM

  Having read the whole thread I find myself pretty much agreeing with the.skunkape and RyanKyo. However, I am actually willing to make a suggestion about what they could have changed.
  
  They could have made Sheva Alomar a "real" black person instead of going for the suntan brown. To me this stinks of pandering to a white demographic and being fearful about us (white people) not being able to identify with a truly black protagnonist.
  
  This is the same phenomenon as with Assassins creed where everyone else is doing their best impression of a person from the middle east speaking English while Altair comes off as all american.
  
  I personally think that they would have made her black if it wasn't for the thing I mentioned and I also find that kind of racist. And even if it's not racist it's still kind of demeaning thinking that we can't identify with protagonists of different race.
  
  So that's a simple change which I think could have done alot for the game.

  Reply »
• 
  bigjonno

  3/22/2009 5:57:44 PM

  I have to admit, if I'd not read anything about it on the 'net, I don't think I'd have seen anything racist in RE5 (or at least what I've seen/played of it.) I don't think I've ever been racist myself and if I shoot a black zombie it's because it's a zombie, not because it's black.
  
  Having followed the debate quite closely, I can certainly see how people could feel uncomfortable. It does have some pretty prevocative imagery, if viewed in that context. The prevailing viewpoint seems to be that Capcom should have had a stronger contrast between black people and black zombies.
  
  I do worry that we are wandering a little close to "one rule for oppressed minorities and one rule for everyone else." Should recent history (with a large dose of collective guilt) mean that Africans, Jews, Native Americans etc receive special treatment to ensure that games containing them as antagonists aren't racist?
  
  If the answer is yes, then isn't that racist in itself? Shouldn't any negative stereotyping of a particular group be considered equally prejudiced and unacceptable? (For example, should I be offended that Star Wars largely depicts English people as the leaders and supporters of an evil, fascist Empire?) How long will it be before we can truly put historical atrocities and socially accepted racism behind us so that this kind of thing becomes a non-issue?

  Reply »
• 
  wreckless

  3/20/2009 8:24:16 PM

  a few stereotypes, which isn't at all common in entertainment(hah!), is a far cry from being racist

  Reply »
• 

  Bawk!
  Bawk!

  RyanKuo

  3/20/2009 11:50:41 AM

  I'm all for talking about the creative issues at stake. I think it's the most interesting discussion that can be had on the subject. I'd just rather not think of it as coming up with ways for a game not to be offensive. (Actually, I'm interested in how RE5 might have offended - in an illuminating way, like Fallout 3 - in this setting, without making it racial.)

  Reply »
• 
  MSUSteve

  3/20/2009 9:17:10 AM

  @the.skunkape: Damn man! Pick up the Penny Saver already! What must the neighbors think?
  
  I'm not looking for any magic bullet "solution" to what's upsetting people in RE5. I'm just interested to hear what thoughtful people might have done if faced with making a game set in Africa that necessarily features the native population as antagonists, and moreover, as inhuman antagonists. It's entirely fair to say, "Hell, that's Capcom's job, not mine," but then it seems to me there's not much more to be said on the subject. As Ryan pointed out, that's fine, because it contributes to an overall reaction that Capcom and others can take into account and react to in the future. But it sort of cuts off further discussion after everyone either says he/she was offended (or not) and why.
  
  @Aazoa: I'm not trying to diminish your opinion, but I'd encourage you to read through the comments in this comment thread as well as the comment thread tied to Scott Jones' review. Your point of view has been brought up and discussed quite a few times. In fact, I think I started off with a similar tack in Evan's first "Uncomfortable Echoes" piece, so check that comment thread to see what others said to me.
  
  

  Reply »
• 
  the.skunkape

  3/19/2009 10:50:54 PM

  @RyanKuo:
  
  I think MSUSteve is right. I didn't give any real specific details about how to make the game less offensive. I agree that's a little unfair to Capcom; I have criticism but nothing constructive. Unfortunately, I don't know what to tell them.
  
  If I had a simple guide to what is offensive and what is close to the line but artfully executed, I'd have Michael Richards, John Rocker, and Trent Lott camping out in my driveway paying me for expert advice. As of this minute, the only thing in my driveway is a two-month-old Penny Saver.

  Reply »
• 
  GusMastrapa

  3/19/2009 6:03:48 PM

  @Aazoa:
  
  I hate to be the correctness police, but you do realize that the term "Jap" is largely considered to be offensive -- a racial slur.
  
  

  Reply »
• 
  Aazoa

  3/19/2009 12:09:28 PM

  all i have to say is that everyone in RE4 was white,so would it have made sense to you if everyone got up in arms about the skin color of the "zombies" in that game.If killing whites only in a game is ok i believe it should be ok to have people of any race,creed,or color in a game....feel sorry for shooting japs in any world war 2 game?how about germans?

  Reply »
• 

  Bawk!
  Bawk!

  RyanKuo

  3/19/2009 11:52:06 AM

  @MSUSteve:
  
  I like to put a little more faith in the creators. I think they know they could've done things differently. I doubt the RE5 interpretations they're getting won't somehow influence at least their thinking in the next one. It's more important that they take the reception into account, and address it from the ground up, rather than to be given top-down alternatives without fully understanding and internalizing why the game provokes. Sorry for making this super-abstract.

  Reply »
• 
  MSUSteve

  3/19/2009 11:09:52 AM

  @RyanKuo: It doesn't seem quite fair to me to take Capcom to task without offering anything in the way of alternatives to what they did. I'm not saying one can't simply be offended, but then the discussion sort of just ends. We can all pile on about how this or that aspect is messed up, which is worthwhile for sure, but then we just have a list of messed up stuff. If we posit some ideas as to how it could've been better, it seems to me like the discussion moves forward a bit.
  
  

  Reply »
• 

  Bawk!
  Bawk!

  RyanKuo

  3/19/2009 10:37:35 AM

  @MSUSteve:
  
  I didn't mean to get too concrete with that list. I just wanted to point out, the hard and inelegant way, that how the game ended up was not a deterministic result of the formula "Africa + zombies = RE5". There could have been other ways to do it.
  
  But I'm with skunkape in thinking it's ultimately wrong to formulate alternative solutions for something someone else made. It's the critic's role to critique what's there, and the creator's role to wonder what could have been. I wonder whether they are doing just that... Maybe not, given all the polite, basically uncritical RE5 reviews out there.

  Reply »
• 
  MSUSteve

  3/19/2009 9:06:18 AM

  @the.skunkape: I wasn't really trying to suggest punitive measures against Capcom or any restriction on its ability to freely express whatever it wants. I was going for what would've made the game better for you personally. I think Ryan has a great list going of ways that Capcom could've avoided a lot of the criticism it's getting, but I'm not advocating it be introduced as a bill in Congress. I accept that many people view a lot of things in RE5 as disturbing for being evocative of racist imagery. I just like to see how everyone would've personally approached making it "acceptable" for their own sensibilities.
  
  

  Reply »
• 
  the.skunkape

  3/18/2009 7:25:56 PM

  @MSUSteve:
  
  I'm loathe to give that kind of direction. Going back to the analogy about my son, I honestly instruct him about right and wrong. I tell him why people feel the way they do about certain words and phrases. Beyond that, I have to depend on his innate decency as a human to behave accordingly. It sounds a little idealistic, but the alternative results in punitive measures over an innocent mistake.
  
  Likewise, I'm the kind of guy that still holds a grudge against Al and Tipper Gore because they fought so hard to censor music in the 80's as fundamental members of the PMRC. I resent the fact that America's rating industry can say that a movie is only rated R with scenes of untold carnage (Saving Private Ryan), but if you show two people actually involved in intercourse, it's rated X. Basically, I'm allowed to see something I should never do, but I should avoid watching something I actually work really hard and *want* to do.
  
  Likewise, video games are about solving puzzles, and throwing obscene amounts of ordnance at imaginary enemies. We have a rating system that accepts violent games and consumers enjoy them. My opinion is that it's the press' responsibility to honestly call a company on its mistakes and then leave them alone. Otherwise, we find ourselves regulating the creation of art.
  
  I'm in no position to tell the developers at Capcom how to make videogames. Even if I knew how to do it, I'd refrain on the grounds that I don't believe in dictating what is and is not acceptable in art.
  
  The same reason I believe terrorists should be allowed to have recruiting web sites and that the KKK should be allowed to demonstrate. I hate what they stand for, but I hate the idea of becoming the enemy while fighting them even more.
  
  So, just like my son. I don't want him to grow up to be a racist. I tell him what I believe to be right and wrong. But I have no control over what he does with those lessons and where life leads him.

  Reply »
• 
  MSUSteve

  3/18/2009 11:12:57 AM

  @the.skunkape: That's one of the best summations I've read on this subject. Really excellent. I'm interested to hear what you think Capcom should've done to effectively address this. In your example your son can apologize and correct his future behavior, but can't take what he said back. Similarly, Capcom is left with the same options now that RE5 is out. But let's say Capcom wanted to be responsive to people's feelings on this matter prior to release of RE5, at some point where it was possible to make significant changes. What should they have done? Should they have, as Evan suggests, showed Kijuju and its residents before the zombie outbreak reduced them all to zombies? Should Capcom have simply recognized how loaded images of blacks depicted as subhuman monsters would be and simply abandoned Africa as a location for the game? I'd love to hear your thoughts.
  
  

  Reply »
• 
  GusMastrapa

  3/17/2009 11:51:06 PM

  @the.skunkape:
  
  *slow clap*

  Reply »
• 
  the.skunkape

  3/17/2009 9:57:20 PM

  Here's how I see it. People are sensitive about portraying Africans, or Jews in racially insensitive ways because we have used very similar tactics in the past to dehumanize and excuse the atrocities against these groups. Calling stereotypically characterized sprites zombies doesn't excuse it. Perpetuating the stereotype image, and then labeling it with a codename for "not human" actually makes it more offensive.
  
  We get away with doing this with images of Nazis because they were the perpetrators of these crimes. Sure we're playing to a double-standard, but the Nazis played to a double-standard, too so it "feels OK". We get sensitive about Africans, Jews, Native Americans and other groups because they have historically suffered these atrocities. You can't just attach labels like zombie, vampire, or sub-human to images straight out of Nazi propaganda and then expect people to exorcise 500 years of systematic cultural assassination.
  
  Hitler equated Jews to vampires to dehumanize them. Americans equated African slaves to a subspecies of human similar to apes to justify their mistreatment of them. The Aryan Brotherhood and the KKK use these same tactics today.
  
  I don't believe for a minute that the game developers have an insidious, hidden, racist agenda. I honestly believe it was a stupid mistake. But, if my kids innocently said something racist about a member of an ethnic group he'd never met before, I'd correct him and tell him why and how he just messed up. I want my kids to know why certain acts are offensive and understand the history. My kid might mean no harm, but it doesn't make the deed any less offensive. The same goes for RE5. If you play with questionable imagery and characterization, expect people to call you on it and explain why you messed up. You can't just call them "zombies" and expect everyone to say "Oh yeah. My bad. It's totally OK to portray characters in witch doctor outfits now because they're 'zombies'".

  Reply »
• 
  michal

  3/17/2009 8:14:43 PM

  I think the fact that people are taking the time to discuss this, and much more eloquently than I am capable of, is awesome.
  
  Let's take the Jewish Zombies a step further, as a parallel to the tribal savages section in RE5 say there is a section where you are forced to lock the Jewish Zombies in a room and gas them. This sort of thing isn't at all uncommon in games and while I can't point to any particular game that has employed this off the top of my head I do remember games employing this mechanic.
  
  It's hard to argue that something like that would not be culturally loaded. If you were not aware that Jews were gassed during the holocaust then you wouldn't even notice, but if you were it might (and I would argue should) make you intensely uncomfortable.
  
  That's not to say such things should not be in games, but one would hope that they could be treated in a more culturally sensitive way and provide some sort of social commentary beyond simply being cliched and stereotypical stages.
  
  Sorry for the stream of consciousness style rambling but that's just the way I roll.

  Reply »
• 
  GusMastrapa

  3/17/2009 6:52:44 PM

  @RyanKuo:
  
  Yeah, the zombie myth has its roots there. See Serpent and the Rainbow based on the book of the same name by ethnobiologist Wade Davis for a Hollywood/horror interpretation of the issue's scientific background. I'm working on a story that will explore some of these early instances in literature and film.

  Reply »
• 

  Bawk!
  Bawk!

  RyanKuo

  3/17/2009 6:27:52 PM

  I was intrigued to learn that the first ever zombie film was about a Haitian plantation owner who has a local witch doctor turn people into zombies using voodoo magic.
  
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Zombie_(film)

  Reply »
• 
  lupenprole

  3/17/2009 3:15:01 PM

  Yeah, I think the problem isn't that we don't know they are zombies. We know.
  
  We also know this is a game, and someone put these images in there on purpose. So if you're referencing Africa, and you're using images that call to mind colonial occupation and the subsequent violence, then you better get out ahead of the curve and make us know that you understand that.
  
  It's a little suprising that Capcom didn't forsee this, but I think it's in part due to them being an Asian company as I referenced earlier.

  Reply »
• 

  Bawk!
  Bawk!

  RyanKuo

  3/17/2009 3:04:00 PM

  @Skrattybones:
  
  That's a good question. Here are some possibilities.
  
  1. Make it so the person before the snake plant head comes out is just a regular person, and the plant head popping out is when they start acting like a zombie and trying to kill you.
  
  2. Since that's not Resident Evil style at all, make the "zombies" not simply look like almost-barely-human-but-still-basically-bad-humans. Distort their faces/bodies beyond recognizability, maybe. Or have them move in a distinctly inhuman way that suggests their bodies actually are being controlled by a sentient virus, the real enemy (see: Dead Space).
  
  3. But since almost-human is how zombies are generally drawn, a) Pepper the game with enough images of real-human-not-zombie-humans that contrast directly with the zombie-humans, so that when you shoot the black savage zombie, it's somehow impossible for your mind to bleed over into thinking you're also shooting a black savage. Or, since that's highly unlikely,
  
  b) As Gus alluded to over in the RE5 review thread, play up the exploitation angle. Put some camp or irony or signifiers of self-awareness (ie, "We the game developers KNOW it looks and feels like you're putting down black savages and here is what it might say about you and your relationship to black people").
  
  I don't know that there's an easy answer, short of turning the zombies into tentacled aliens, which would be running away from the subject anyway. But that doesn't mean that there isn't a problem.

  Reply »
• 
  Skrattybones

  3/17/2009 2:21:34 PM

  @RyanKuo:
  
  Well, if the crazy snake plant crap popping out of their necks and stuff isn't enough, what would you suggest they might have done to better portray these people as zombies?

  Reply »
• 
  lupenprole

  3/17/2009 2:20:18 PM

  "Why are we stepping back, when it's a zombie game involving zombies?"
  
  Well, because it's also a zombie game set partially in Africa involving Africans and using images that touch on culturally sensitive topics. Ignoring that is either morally suspect willful ignorance, or just good-old fashioned ignorance.
  
  Seriously, if you have even a cursory knowledge of the history of Africa, particularly post-colonial Africa, those images should make you shudder. I'm not saying they should be out of bounds, but they are going to cause comment.

  Reply »
• 

  Bawk!
  Bawk!

  RyanKuo

  3/17/2009 2:17:12 PM

  @Skrattybones:
  
  I can't help but imagine Comic Book Guy speaking that post out loud.
  
  "They aren't zombies. They're Majini, and they're infected with type 2 Las Plagas."

  Reply »
• 
  Skrattybones

  3/17/2009 2:13:26 PM

  @RyanKuo:
  
  Except I'm pretty sure if a normal black person gets shot, a crazy zombie snake plant thing doesn't pop out of their neck. Steeping back a step when we're talking about a zombie game is sort of a redundant argument. Why are we stepping back, when it's a zombie game involving zombies?

  Reply »
• 

  Bawk!
  Bawk!

  RyanKuo

  3/17/2009 1:32:00 PM

  @Necronner:
  
  You guys are letting geekdom cloud the point. Yes, if you've studied the Zombie Survival Guide and 'understand' the physiological, psychological, and ontological changes that a human being undergoes when it becomes infected by a deadly zombie virus, you 'know' that the human being is not literally a human being. It is a dumb, animal-like creature with human form. All it wants to do is kill you. You need to kill it. Or you will die.
  
  If you just take a step back and look at what is shown to you in the game, it's black-skinned savages who want to kill you. The things that we think about zombies are also things that have been thought about black people. (Replace "black men" with "zombie" in this article: http://abagond.wordpress.com/2008/04/23/the-black-brute-stereotype/)
  
  What is being argued is that there could have been a way to show black people turning into zombies that didn't happen to use the same images that have been used to show why black people are dumb, animal-like creatures with human form that only want to kill/rape you. Or, given that they were going to look the way they look, there might have been a more sophisticated layer of commentary. (Maybe there is one. I don't know. If only the bulk of the debate could go in THAT direction instead of "Is this racist circle y/n?") I don't know if I can spell it out any more clearly than that.
  
  Putting a different name on an image does not change what the image looks like.

  Reply »
• 
  jerryku

  3/17/2009 1:30:50 PM

  btw, I don't think RE5 is a racist game. It's an amazing game and my favorite action game of all time. But I can understand how some people will feel uncomfortable with what's going on in the game, considering the history of America's culture wars. Just a few months ago, a white cop shot an unarmed, handcuffed black kid in the head a few miles away from my house, killing him (it's on Youtube). Years before, a largely white New York police force pumped the black male Amadou Diallo with something like 40 bullets because they thought he was carrying a gun (he was holding a wallet). The Republican Party has publicly stated that they believe blacks are less admirable than other groups, such as Asians. Black crime rates are much higher than other groups in the nation, and how a largely white society and their police officers responds to this issue is an explosive topic to say the least. This game's imagery is going to touch upon all those political issues. For some it will be too disturbing to just brush aside. For someone like me, who is not black, and who's life experiences are far removed from the realities that many black people face, it's obviously a lot easier to brush aside.

  Reply »
• 
  jerryku

  3/17/2009 1:30:39 PM

  @Skrattybones:
  
  "If a game was set in a concentration camp and you were mowing down Jewish zombies that would be pretty offensive, but then you still have the argument that it may not be racist as they're zombies. If they weren't zombies, it would be incredibly racist."
  
  That argument would exist, but it would also be seen as incredibly simple minded. Let's say I make a game that features two factions: the "(Not) Whites" and the "(Not) Blacks". In the game, you play on the side of the (Not) Whites and are tasked with the total eradication of the (Not) Blacks through any means. The (Not) Blacks are portrayed as stupid, animalistic, criminals who rape (Not) White women, and are a lazy bunch of bastards who burden social welfare systems. They must all be exterminated. The (Not) Blacks feature the appearance of real world blacks, but they're named the "(Not) Blacks". So the game isn't racist, right? Of course not. It would be silly to make such an argument.
  
  

  Reply »
• 
  lupenprole

  3/17/2009 1:26:11 PM

  Nice piece.
  
  I think part of what's going on is that Asian developers probably aren't as sensitive to the issues involved. I sort of equate this with a scenario in which an American developer makes a game in which Japanese soldiers have to kill Chinese zombies in Northern China. It could certainly be justified within a story setting, but it would cause a huge uproar probably throughout the pacific rim, and it would probably be with good reason.
  
  I haven't played the full game, but even the images in the beginning of the demo made me uncomfortable, just because they seemed to fall right into the worst stereotypes of Africa.

  Reply »
• 
  Necronner

  3/17/2009 12:59:24 PM

  @RyanKuo:
  
  Now correct me if Im wrong aren't they being portrayed as ZOMBIES? I personally dont think of a well mannered and peacefull thing when I think of a zombie, I think of something that wants to kill you and will do anything to do it. Now if there are non infected acting like savages that are black, then yes they are being portrayed poorly.

  Reply »
• 

  Bawk!
  Bawk!

  RyanKuo

  3/17/2009 11:53:41 AM

  @Skrattybones:
  
  As michal said earlier, "I don't think it's so much the fact that they're black people, but the way they are portrayed."

  Reply »
• 
  Skrattybones

  3/17/2009 11:51:07 AM

  @jerryku:
  
  Maybe I'm missing the point entirely. Is RE5 supposed to be racist because it's black people, or is there more to it? I mean, it would be an entirely different story if part of the gameplay reflected something like slavery on top of the shooting. As it stands, the game is set in Africa, so what are you gonna do? Pretend it isn't populated by African people?
  
  As to the Nazi/Jewish thing -- people see it as OK to shoot waves of Nazis, be they zombies or not, because the Nazis as a collective did terrible things, but also they mostly don't exist anymore. The idea of a Nazi has moved past the point of them being people -- when you shoot a Nazi, you aren't shooting a German or anything, you're mowing down an idea, a terrible concept.
  
  If a game was set in a concentration camp and you were mowing down Jewish zombies that would be pretty offensive, but then you still have the argument that it may not be racist as they're zombies. If they weren't zombies, it would be incredibly racist.
  
  If a game like RE5 was set in a Jewish populated area, I stand by the idea that just because the inhabitants (in the context of the game) were Jewish that it wouldn't be racist, as now they're zombies.
  
  I mean, if people as a whole decide RE5 is racist because of the setting and the enemies, what's next? You could never have a game set anywhere that wasn't white people, since nobody seems to have issue with it when they're the enemy.

  Reply »
• 
  jerryku

  3/17/2009 11:34:51 AM

  @Skrattybones:
  
  Re: Jewish zombies. In COD5 there is a "Nazi zombies" mode, where you shoot unending waves of well.. Nazi zombies. Each zombie is apparently dressed up in Nazi party uniforms, with Nazi swastika armbands on them. Now imagine if there was a mode introduced called "WW2 Jewish concentration camp zombie mode." Instead of Nazi party uniforms, they have concentration camp clothing, with yellow Star of Davids on their arms.
  
  If you think about it, neither mode would be offensive to anyone if you we adapt the "they're zombies, you should shoot them.. and you're in WW2 europe, so it makes sense there are Nazi guard and Jewish prisoner zombies" line of thinking that some people are espousing. But once we put in some common sense, it's obvious that the Nazi Zombie mode is a "fun" way to exterminate Nazis in an alternative way. Rightly or wrongly, in 2009 the bulk of the human race thinks it's perfectly acceptable to kill Nazis, be they living or undead ones.
  
  Meanwhile, the "kill Jewish prisoner zombie" mode would be extremely offensive to most of the human race, and many would wonder if the developers of such a mode harbored Neo-Nazi beliefs. Why? Because of the Holocaust, obviously.
  
  It's not too hard to take this example and then apply its framework to the discussion of RE5. You can also apply it to hundreds of other video games to see what you conclude. What you'll find is that different groups of people, whether they fall on political, religious, ethnic, sexual orientation lines.. are obviously being treated more favorably than others. Some groups are OK to massacre, some groups are not. Some groups are cool, more "American", while others are deemed more foreign, less desirable.
  
  

  Reply »
• 

  Bawk!
  Bawk!

  RyanKuo

  3/17/2009 11:00:25 AM

  This quote from Totilo's review: "['RE5'] doesn't trade in stereotype or caricature but in cliché."
  
  I doubt you can draw a clear line between stereotype and cliche. The silent assumption among the anti-(in Sterling's charming words) "anti-racist folks," whose arguments boil down to "but LOL what do you expect zombies in LOL Africa to look like," is that these essentialist depictions of Africans are 'good' or 'close' enough. Where some see harmful stereotypes, others shrug their shoulders and see standard Hollywood archetypes.
  
  How do you depict a specific, actual (I know it's a "fictional" country, but come on) place and people in a fully global medium? Takeuchi's team did field research, but by all accounts didn't give a particularly balanced picture.
  
  It's an interesting quandary that I think is being questioned more, with this game, because your ability to interact (and violently) with it gives you pause - while the imagery in a film or novel might have just passed you by.
  
  The_Skipper is totally right to point out that the even broader question about videogames is: Why are so many of them, especially as the visual technology becomes more powerful, based on shooting people in the head? I'd argue that shooting for fun is a holdover from very early, very basic game mechanics, starting with (for example) Galaga, which - as the depictions of violence become ever more literal and believable as vicarious experiences - is now being shown to be an unconscious expression of our buried violent impulses, tamed by society (now channeled into this parallel, virtual world).
  
  But that's for next time. (cue Reading Rainbow music)

  Reply »
• 
  jerryku

  3/17/2009 10:57:04 AM

  @Necronner:
  
  The headmask/spear throwers are not from Kijuju. They first appear out in some marshland huts. The game also places a lot of them inside an ancient, buried city. The game gives their tribe a name, but I forgot what.
  
  

  Reply »
• 
  Necronner

  3/17/2009 10:43:36 AM

  One thing I see is a lot of people complaining that they put the zombies back into the ancestrial headdresses and such, now what Im wondering is that are you in the town of Kijuju and this happens, or have you left that area and continued on, because there ARE still tribes out there that act like that. Now if this is taking place in Kijuju then yes, I can see making them revert to that would be wrong, but if your taking on a tribe that was turned into zombies, I dont really see a problem with them having headresses on and such.

  Reply »
• 
  The_Skipper

  3/17/2009 9:27:34 AM

  In reading through all the debate, one thing is clear to me - this game makes some people uncomfortable no matter how you try to justify it. What seems to be missing from some of this analysis is that this game (and others like it) is based on killing other human beings - blow their heads off, hack them apart, fill them with lead. That we justify them as infected seems to make us feel better. Maybe the problem here goes deeper than just race although I think that Evan's article makes some great points about this game in particular.
  
  Anyway, I like shooter games but I think the lines blur when you start killing people of any race.
  
  

  Reply »
• 
  Skrattybones

  3/17/2009 9:02:04 AM

  @michal:
  
  I can see where you're coming from, but as an average person I know next to nothing about the continent of Africa. What I do know is a course's worth of history about the Apartheid regime and a few documentaries of traditional African tribes -- which I think is kind of the point.
  
  It didn't strike me as particularly noteworthy because as far as I was concerned (at the time) they're portraying the image of Africa that I know from school and National Geographic, and expect a large percentage of people know like I do -- except zombies.
  
  What would it matter if we had Jewish zombies? The keyword there isn't Jewish, it's zombies. Zombies are zombies and as far as a Resident Evil game goes they need to be downed.

  Reply »
• 
  michal

  3/17/2009 6:41:33 AM

  Skrattybones,
  
  I don't think it's so much the fact that they're black people, but the way they are portrayed, ESPECIALLY in what I've seen (though not played) of the section where they're wearing traditional dress and using spears and shields.
  
  This does in fact remind me of a recent BBC documentary I saw where rich white people with colour video cameras would force people to dance around in traditional dress in the first half of this century even though that was not at all a daily occurrence.
  
  What if we had Jewish zombies? Would they still just be "Zombies"? Or would recent history make it an uncomfortable experience to shoot them? Personally I think it would.

  Reply »
• 
  Skrattybones

  3/17/2009 5:32:28 AM

  I'm bothered by something. More than whether or not RE5 is racist, more than whether or not it isn't, I am bothered by the fact that before I had caught wind of this massive controversy over the game the thought that it may or may not be racist never even occurred to me.
  
  Why this bothers me is because I'm not sure if it's because of how I was raised, or ignorance of the subject matter -- I hope to believe it's the former, not the latter.
  
  Am I so withdrawn from the world's problems and ideals that when I heard that about RE4 I didn't connect it with butchering Spaniards, but simply butchering zombies, or when I heard about/saw trailers for RE5 that I didn't connect it with anything remotely racial, but simply thought that now we would be gunning down zombies in a different locale?
  
  Do so few people look at a series like Resident Evil and simply go with the thought process of "we're gonna be shooting zombies" instead of "well, they're zombies, but they're black people!"
  
  I haven't played RE5 yet. I might not play RE5 due to budget restrictions. If there are instances in the game where the enemies coming at you are simply black people that aren't zombies, then feel free to call me an idiot or ignorant or whatever fits, but when I look at games like RE4 and RE5 I'm not seeing "Spaniards" or "Africans", I'm seeing "Zombies", and a zombie is a zombie, regardless of skin color or locale on the globe.

  Reply »
• 

  Bawk!
  Bawk!

  EvanNarcisse

  3/17/2009 2:41:22 AM

  @unangbangkay:
  
  Thanks for reading and commenting.
  
  I think humanization always beefs up an offering because it increases the tragedy. I think even the "put the poor buggers out of their misery" emotional response you cite is one informed by subtexts of race and class.
  
  I agree that tonally RE5 isn't much different than previous games, but it's messed up that part of the mortar used to bind it all together is poisoned.
  

  Reply »
• 
  unangbangkay

  3/17/2009 12:22:40 AM

  Great piece, Evan. It's just so disappointing at times that whenever anyone sees "race" and "Resident Evil 5", or for that matter "race" and "game", people pop up with copy-pasted counter-arguments and dismissals, most often calling for those who ARE concerned to shut the hell up, because it's just a game.
  
  I can't blame them, actually. Developers would (and sometimes should) make games, not statements.
  
  Like many who are in their right minds, I don't think RE5 is racist or intends to be that way. I don't even think that Capcom SHOULD have felt it necessary to include scenes that established context and worked to "humanize" the players' enemies more.
  
  The residents of Kijuju have been turned into zombies, their humanity robbed from them in totality. Rather than feel differently about Africans, I actually feel pity, for these people are no longer such, and the only thing I can do for them is to put them out of their misery.
  
  The true tragedy here, even farther than the sensitivity and history of the imagery that was used by Capcom, likely unintentionally, was employed in such a cheap, exploitative manner. Capcom had a golden opportunity to BE MORE than a thrilling zombie-shooting experience, and it squandered that opportunity, settling for a "they're just zombies" angle. RE5 may not be a lesser GAME for that (I think it's great to play), but it definitely not a product of culture. Not a good one, at any rate.
  
  It's not as if the series has ever aimed for more. I won't hold that lack of initiative against them. Games, not statements, after all. But isn't it still disappointing to see games that just didn't bother?
  
  If we ever expect games to be more than the sum of their mechanics, we, and developers, need to be aware of the cultural contexts in which games exist, and be able to use those subtexts effectively, and especially talk about them.
  
  Games don't NEED to be any more than games, but if we want more, we should be willing to call for more.

  Reply »
• 

  Bawk!
  Bawk!

  CG-Prophet

  3/16/2009 10:39:48 PM

  Evan, good thoughtful piece. I get what you're saying. As I played through the opener, looking at all these Africans I couldn't tell whether they were infected or not.
  
  The game throws you right into the mix without any lead-up to whatever events are already unfolding. If the beginning had that context - that sense that a normal life was once a possibility in this town - then maybe I wouldn't agree with you.

  Reply »

Want a new look on the discussion?
» Take It to the Forums

Leave a Comment